The Beatles


Posted on




stones-624-1381341116What has made the invasion of musical artists from the United Kingdom so special?  Why is their influence so widespread? Is this influence still felt today? And why are some of these groups (i.e. the Rolling Stones) are still going strong some 50 years later?

The British music invasion of the early Sixties is a hazy memory to most of us who are old enough to remember it at all. For many of us, it’s the kind of memory that makes us smile and remember a time when things were less complicated… when we shared with each other the pure joy and energy

The British Invasion was a phenomenon that occurred in the mid-1960s when rock and pop music acts from the Unitedthe-beatles-pic-pa-703378395 Kingdom, as well as other aspects of British culture, became popular in the United States, and significant to the rising “counterculture” on both sides of the Atlantic. Pop and rock groups such as The Beatles, The Dave Clark Five, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Herman’s Hermits and The Who were at the forefront of the invasion.

The rebellious tone and image of US rock and roll and blues musicians became popular with British youth in the late 1950s. While early commercial attempts to replicate American rock and roll mostly failed, the trad jazz–inspired skiffle craze, with its ‘do it yourself’ attitude, was the starting point of several British Billboard singles.

Young British groups started to combine various British and American styles, in different parts of the U.K., such as a movement in Liverpool during 1962 in what became known as Merseybeat, hence the “beat boom”. There were some observers that noted that US teenagers were growing tired of singles-oriented pop acts like Fabian. Bands with a Mod aesthetic became the most popular, but bands able to balance both (e.g., The Beatles) were successful.

It’s hard to imagine the invasion taking place without the Beatles. Many of the bands swept along on the Fab Four’s coattails to the top of the American charts possessed no more talent than the bland teen idols they had displaced. The Beatles, however, were another matter. Three of members–the songwriting team of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and, to a lesser extent, lead guitarist George Harrison–were capable of producing first-rate material. After a brief period of covering American R & B, pop, and country standards, the group went on to compose a long string of rock classics, many of which are likely to be performed for generations to come. The band members were also all excellent musicians, thanks in large part to years spent performing in small clubs in England and Germany. Lennon and McCartney both were superb vocalists, capable of putting across rave-up rockers and introspective ballads in an equally convincing manner.

Love_Me_DoDespite the band’s ability–so easy to assess in retrospect– success in the U.S. might easily have eluded them had not conditions proved ripe for receptiveness on the part of the American public. The Beatles, under the skilled management of Brian Epstein, had attempted a number of times in 1963 to secure a hit record on the American charts. Songs like “Love Me Do,” “From Me to You,” “Please Please Me,” and “She Loves You”–all hits in the U.K.–had gone nowhere when released by various labels in the states   By late 1963, however, the nation was caught up in communal sense of mourning, brought on by the assassination of popular President John F. Kennedy. The Beatles–with their cheeky wit, and catchy, upbeat pop songs–proved to be the perfect anecdote America’s collective depression. In addition, the mop-top hairstyle exhibited by the band members garnered considerable attention. As had been the case with Elvis Presley’s heavily greased DA hairstyle of the mid-1950s, the Beatles look engendered considered controversy on the part of the adult establishment when it first assaulted thesullivan public consciousness. It provided instant credibility with America’s youth, who were always in search of culture symbols to both collectively identify with and flaunt in the face of authority figures as an act of rebellion.  On February 9th, they appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, Nielson Ratings estimated that 45 percent of US television viewers that night saw their appearance. It is ironic that the biggest moment in the history of popular music was first experienced in the US as a television event.” The Ed Sullivan Show had for some time been a “comfortable hearth-and-slippers experience.” Not many of the 73 million viewers watching in February 1964 would fully understand what impact the band they were watching would have.

hermans hermitsfotoOver the next several years groups like Peter & Gordon, The Animals, Manfred Man, Petula Clark, Herman’s Hermits, The Rolling Stones, Lulu, Dusty Springfield, The Dave Clark Five and others, would have one or more number one singles in the US. Other Invasion acts included Van Morrison and Them, The Searchers, Chad & Jeremy, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Tom Jones, The Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin, The Spencer Davis Group, Small Faces and numerous others. And some had achieved a measure of success on the American charts. The Kinks,music_the_animals although considered part of the Invasion, initially failed to capitalize on their success in the US after their first three hits reached the Hot 100’s top 10. Perhaps of even greater importance, countless other British youths were inspired to become musicians, resulting in a steady stream of talent which has remained undiminished to the present day.

A second wave of the invasion occurred featuring acts such as The Who (who went on to create the rock-opera Tommy), The Zombies and The Hollies, which were influenced by the invasion’s pop side and US rock music.

The musical style of British Invasion artists, such as the Beatles, were influenced by earlier US rock ‘n’ roll genre which had lost some popularity and appeal by the time of the Invasion. Other white British performers, particularly The Rolling Stones and The Animals, appealed more to an ‘outsider’ demographic, essentially reviving and popularizing, for young people at least, a musical genre rooted in the rhythm and blues culture, which had been largely ignored or rejected when performed by black US artists in the 1950s. Such acts were perceived by the US public as much more ‘edgy’ and even dangerous. This image marked them as separate from beat artists such as the Beatles, who had become a more acceptable, parent-friendly pop group. The Rolling Stones would become the biggest band other than The Beatles to come out of the British Invasion.   The British Invasion had a profound impact on popular music, internationalizing the production of rock and roll, establishing the British popular music industry as a viable centre of musical creativity, and opening the door for subsequent British performers to achieve international success. In America, the Invasion arguably spelled the end of instrumental surf music, pre-Motown vocal girl groups, the folk rock revival, and the teen idols that had dominated the American charts in the late 1950s and 1960s.

beach_boysBy early summer the floodgates had burst open; there seemed to be more British artists than American on the airwaves. Indeed, a considerable number of established U.S. acts–to say nothing of the more marginal recording artists–virtually disappeared from the charts in 1964 (some never to return). Only a handful of American artists continued to thrive in 1964 and beyond, most notably the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons. New homegrown talent found it necessary to incorporate elements of the Mersey-beat sound such as the trademark jangly guitars and seamless three-part vocal harmonies. The garage punk and folk rock movements were particularly influenced by English rock bands. Some American groups found it expedient to ape the British Invasion look to the extent of carefully covering up their native origins.

Probably the most positive result of the British Invasion was its role in clearing away the musical deadwood which had found a home on the American charts. With many of the long established American acts–as well as countless lesser luminaries–unable to compete with the host of often lackluster British stars, fresh stateside talent was more readily able to garner the attention of record company executive. Within a year or two of the initial British onslaught, a new wave of American musicians had already laid the groundwork for the creative renaissance in popular music during the latter half of the 1960s.

Though many of the acts associated with the invasion did not survive its end, many others would become icons of rockMoTown_PunkRawker_Motown music. The claim that British beat bands were not radically different from US groups like The Beach Boys and damaged the careers of African-American and female artists has been the subject of controversy about the Invasion, even though the Motown Sound actually increased in popularity during that time.

motown.540x242Other US groups also demonstrated a similar sound to the British Invasion artists and, in turn, highlighted how the British ‘sound’ was not in itself a wholly new or original one. Anticipating the Bay City Rollers by more than a decade, two British acts that reached the Hot 100’s top 20 gave a tip of the hat to America: The Dakotas and the Nashville Teens. The British Invasion also drew a backlash from some American bands, e.g., Paul Revere & the Raiders who dressed in Revolutionary War uniforms, and Gary Puckett & The Union Gap donned Civil War uniforms.

The British Invasion’s influence on rock music in the United States waned from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. Early 1970s exceptions were Bad-finger, The Raspberries and Sweet, who played a heavily British Invasion-influenced style deemed power pop. In 1978 two rock magazines wrote cover stories about power pop and championed the genre as a savior to both the new wave and the direct simplicity of the way rock used to be. New wave power pop not only brought back the sounds but the fashions, be it the mod style of The Jam or the skinny ties of the burgeoning Los Angeles scene.

The genre has, over the years, continued to have a cult following with occasional periods of modest success.

Kathy Kiefer



Posted on

Schermata 2014-07-30 alle 00.54.14





What is this about?   How does eastern mysticism impact the new age movement? Or is it vice-versa?

Although atheistic humanism has been and continues to be an influential movement challenging the Christian faith at its core, in terms of sheer numbers atheism has never been able to win a large voluntary following in any society. The defunct Soviet Union and the still-Communist China are examples of nations where atheism was imposed on the people as the official state position (religion?) by ideologues for whom atheism as much a political statement as a spiritual one, if not more so.

A much more successful alternative worldview to atheism is pantheism. Whereas atheism denies that there is any God at all, pantheism holds that God is in some way the one reality in or underlying or manifested through all things. Pantheism is closely related to the concept of monism, according to which ultimately reality is one, not many. Pantheism has been understood and articulated in many different forms, the main difference being the extent to which the many different things of this world are regarded as real or as illusory.

In the United States it is clear that pantheistic thought is rising. In the survey discussed in the previous chapter, whereas only about 5 percent of Americans did not believe in God or did not know what they believed, some 12 percent of Americans professed to believe in a divine spirit or force rather than in a personal God.  Most or all of these Americans evidently hold to a pantheistic worldview rather than a theistic one. Even larger numbers of Americans accept elements of pantheistic religious or philosophical thought. For example, for some time now roughly one in four Americans has believed in reincarnation, and the number may soon be closer to one in three. Therefore it is likely that far more than 12 percent of Americans have a worldview that is more pantheistic than theistic.

Worldwide, pantheistic religions have an even stronger hold, especially in the East, where they have dominated for about 2,500 years. Hinduism, which in its early history was crudely polytheistic and which retains polytheistic elements, from about 600 BC developed a more refined pantheistic worldview in which the gods were merely high forms of the one divine reality, Brahman, of which human beings and everything else are a part. There are roughly three-quarters of a billion Hindus in the world, most of whom live in Asia, though well over a million Hindus live in North America. Buddhism, which numbers over 300 million worldwide (almost all in Asia), throughout its history has been interpreted in both atheistic and pantheistic ways. Pantheistic beliefs in the divinity of nature and in spiritual powers latent in physical things have a long history in pre-Christian pagan Europe, beliefs that have enjoyed a revival throughout the West during the past two centuries. All told, about one-fifth of the world’s population appears to adhere to a pantheistic worldview, and the number may be considerably higher.

In the United States, less than two million people are actually members of Eastern pantheistic religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. The vast majority of the roughly 25 to 35 million Americans who espouse some form of pantheistic religion are either members of Christian denominations or have no commitment to any religious institution.

On the cutting edge of the growth of pantheistic religious belief and practice in America is what is commonly known as the New Age movement. Although this label appears to date from the early 1980s, it is not so much a new phenomenon as a further development of America’s long history of fascination with pantheistic thought.   The roots of the New Age movement go back to the rise of alternative religions and philosophies in the nineteenth century. Among these were Transcendentalism, a philosophical and cultural movement associated with Ralph Waldo Emerson that emphasized idealist and intuitive thought, and the metaphysical cults, notably New Thought and Unity (a sect with origins in both Christian Science and Hindu thought). The Unity School of Christianity (and the related Unity Church) is essentially a New Age religion utilizing Christian terminology. But the nineteenth-century institution closest to a parent or grandparent of the New Age movement was Theosophy. Building on a growing interest in spiritualism (contacting departed spirits) in America, Helena P. Blavatsky founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Out of the Theosophical Society came such related movements as anthroposophy and the Ascended Masters or “I AM” groups. All of these institutions and teachings have remained to this day and have contributed to the stream of mystical, generally pantheistic religious teachings and practices that have flowed together to become the New Age movement.

After the rise of the metaphysical cults, the theosophical groups, and other precursors to the New Age in the 1870s and 1880s, the next major impetus to the New Age movement came in the countercultural occult explosion of the mid to late 1960s and the early 1970s. The increasing secularization of the West in the postwar years created a spiritual vacuum into which rushed an incredible diversity of religious movements emphasizing spiritual experience. On the Christian side, the 1960s was the decade of the outbreak of Pentecostal experiences (speaking in tongues, prophesying, healing ministries, and the like) in the mainline denominations — what became known as the charismatic movement. During the same decade, millions of Americans turned to Eastern religions to find spiritual experiences. The Beatles produced such songs as “My Sweet Lord,” a song of devotion to Krishna, a Hindu god proclaimed in the West by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), better known as the Hare Krishnas. Numerous gurus and swamis came to America teaching the message of our oneness with the divine All in a form tailored for the West: Transcendental Meditation (TM), for example, essentially involved chanting to a Hindu god, but it was packaged and promoted as a scientifically proven stress-relieving relaxation technique.

The 60s and early 70s also experienced an explosive growth of interest in the occult. The occult became a multimillion dollar market, seen for example in occult bookstores selling tarot cards and other paraphernalia as well as books, or such occult-theme films as Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Exorcist (1973).  Certain new humanistic religions utilized the demonic categories, not so much because they believed in the Devil, but as a symbol of their anti-Christian perspective. These included Satanism (appealing mainly to men) and Wicca (appealing mainly to women). The latter actually has more mystical overtones, and is closely related to neo-paganism and goddess worship. By the 1980s some feminist theologians in mainline liberal church settings began taking interest in these alternative religions because their use of feminine images of the divine served the feminist agenda of displacing masculine, supposedly patriarchal or chauvinistic ways of thinking and speaking about God.

The New Age movement is, then, an incredible diffuse and variegated phenomenon in Western society, rooted in both Asian religion and philosophy and Western European paganism. It also makes connections with Native American religion, tribal religions of Africa, and mystical traditions of medieval origin within the monotheistic religions of the West. These mystical traditions include the Kabbalah in Judaism, the Sufis in Islam, and certain Catholic mystics whose thought tended toward pantheism.     Those who are self-consciously part of the New Age movement probably number in the hundreds of thousands, but the number of Americans whose worldview is New Age or close to New Age is likely in the tens of millions. The significance of the New Age movement is less a matter of its conscious adherents as it is the fact that the movement represents the tip of the iceberg of a mega shift in Western, and especially American, society. Instead of seeing less and less of life in religious or sacred terms, the new direction is to think of all of life, and indeed all of existence, in a sacred or spiritual way. If secularization seemed to be crowding God out of the cosmos, the new sacralization represented by the New Age encourages us to equate God with the cosmos.   What the old materialistic, secular humanism and the new spiritual, religious humanism have in common is the desire to find personal fulfillment and world harmony on our own terms — with God as a source of power or wisdom, perhaps, but not as the standard of truth and values or the ruler of the world. Thus the New Age movement is part of a larger trend in Western culture seeking to find religious meaning and fulfillment apart from submission to the transcendent Creator, Judge, and Savior of biblical Christianity.

There is no one New Age religion or organization to unify the movement. Nor is there any creed or formal principles or scriptures or any other documents that could be regarded as foundational for the New Age. Because of the non-centralized and amorphous nature of the movement, generalizations about what New Agers believe or what they do are notoriously difficult. Still, there are patterns of belief and a basic worldview that can be discerned as common to most of the groups and writings that consider themselves New Age. On the other hand, some Christian publications purporting to expose New Age groups grossly overgeneralize and label groups as New Age that is anything but New Age. Try to avoid such loose use of the term New Age while keeping in mind the bewildering diversity and far-reaching influence of New Age ideas and practices.

The main problem with such approaches to the New Age movement is that it misunderstands the basic structure and character of the movement. While Scripture does teach that false teachers and prophets will arise, it is at least highly debatable to claim that the Bible warns us to look for all false religion to merge into a single satanic system.   The basic worldview of the New Age movement is pantheism, the belief that in some sense all of reality is ultimately One and Divine. Although the simplest definition of pantheism is that God is all and all is God, pantheism is actually understood and articulated in a variety of ways, most of which allow for some recognition or differentiation of the world and the multiplicity of things in the world. What is essential to pantheism is the idea that underlying the manyness which we perceive through our senses is a divine oneness that unifies all things and that can be accessed through religious or spiritual means.

In Eastern religion, pantheism has usually been understood in a life-negating way. The goal of religious practice in Hinduism, for example, is to escape the wheel of reincarnation which repeatedly traps our spirits in this inglorious life and to achieve freedom in perfect oneness with Brahman (God). Likewise, in Buddhism life is characterized as suffering (the first of the Four Noble Truths) and the goal of Buddhist discipline is to escape the suffering by achieving oblivion to the cares of this world. In Hinduism, and even more so in Buddhism, strict disciplines of self-denial are indispensable to the spiritual life.

By contrast, pantheism in the Western, New Age setting has been interpreted in a life-affirming way. The world is divine, the earth and its many living things are divine, and human beings themselves are divine. Every aspect of life is to be enjoyed. The difference is at its startlingly clearest in the matter of sexuality. Whereas sexual activity even in marriage is viewed in Hinduism and Buddhism as an impediment to spiritual progress, in New Age thought the divinity of all life is understood to encourage sexuality and even sexual freedom. Whereas Eastern religion endorses the same traditional morality found in Western culture (sex is for marriage only), New Agers view sex in extremely permissive ways and are almost universally supportive of the gay and lesbian “alternative lifestyle.” New Age art and literature often views God and the world in sensual, even erotic, terms.

The penetration of pantheistic thought in Western culture has been pervasive.    Despite the enormous philosophical difficulties besetting any form of pantheism — and despite its clear contradiction of the Bible — many people simply find it easier to believe pantheism than monotheism. It is not that pantheism is more rational — many pantheists themselves would insist that rationality is misleading in matters of ultimate reality — but that pantheism is more comfortable. Many of us in the West simply find it more to our liking.

There is really not much difference in the popular mind between pantheism and what more technically would be called panentheism (the belief that God is “in” all things). Panentheism recognizes God and the world as distinct concepts, but then holds that God is the spirit or soul or divine energy or mind that fills and pervades and expresses itself in the world. On this view God and the world are interdependent, needing each other to form a complete reality. Thus the standard analogy for panentheism is the idea that a human being is both a spirit (or mind) and a body, with neither doing anything without the other. God is not a personal Creator of the world, but the divine potential of the world and of each one of us. Most people in the popular culture could not clearly distinguish pantheism from panentheism, and in most contexts the difference is of little practical significance.    One of the most famous examples of pantheism in the popular culture is the religious philosophy of “the Force” in George Lucas’s Star Wars trilogy, originally released from 1977 to 1983 and re-released with enhanced sound and visual effects in early 1997. Although the Force is never called God, those who believe in it and seek to use it are said to be followers of a “religion,” and the teacher of “the ways of the Force” is a 900-year-old “Jedi Master” called Yoda who functions much as a Zen Buddhist master.

Life creates the force, makes it grow.   Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter! You must feel the Force around you — here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere — yes, even between the land and the ship.     The idea that we are really “luminous beings,” that is, beings of light, is a common New Age theme. The all-pervasive energy of the Force is evidently the same energy that powers the luminosity of our real selves. Here again a common New Age idea is suggested: not only is the cosmos God, human beings are Gods. Such language sounds contradictory from a Christian perspective (is God one or many?), but this paradox is common to Eastern philosophy and is carried enthusiastically in New Age thought. To say that all is God and that we are Gods really means the same thing in New Age thinking, because each of us is one with the All and is therefore God.

Kathy Kiefer