It was the famous atheist Bertrand Russell who pointed out to Paul McCartney early on that the Beatles needed to bring more attention to the Vietnam war protests and Paul promptly went back to the group and reported Russell’s advice. We will take a closer look at some of Russell’s views and break them down and also take a look at how the Beatles embraced his anti-war message.
The Beatles Rooftop concert
Published on Apr 12, 2015
____
_____________
BEATLES Live at Hollywood Bowl 1964
_______
The Beatles – Let It Be (Video Oficial)
__
___________
The Beatles-Hello Goodbye (Remastered)
Published on May 13, 2013
was written by Paul Mccartney but accredited Lennon/McCartney
___________________________
Paul McCartney personally visited with the British Philosopher Bertrand Russell who only lived a few feet away in London and the result was the beginning of the Beatles’ anti-war position.
________
Probably the greatest debate in the philosophy field was a debate between Fredrick Copleston and Bertrand Russell and here is the link to the audio clip, and transcript.
___________
How Bertrand Russell Turned The Beatles Against the Vietnam War
in History, Music, Philosophy| March 10th, 2012 2 Comments
Paul McCartney on Bertrand Russell
Published on Aug 23, 2010
Paul McCartney on meeting Bertrand Russell and the Beatles becoming anti-war.
___________________________________________
The Beatles were so much a part of the youth movement that blossomed in the 1960s that it’s amusing to think that one of the main issues that energized the movement–peace–came to the Beatles through a 92-year-old man.
As Paul McCartney explains in this clip from a January 14, 2009 interview on The View, it happened when he decided to pay a visit to philosopher Bertrand Russell. A co-founder of analytic philosophy, Russell had been a life-long social and political activist. During World War I, he was not allowed to travel freely in Britain due to his anti-war views. He lost his fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was eventually jailed for six months for supposedly interfering with British Foreign Policy. After World War II, Russell lobbied strenuously for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In the 1960s, he opposed the Vietnam War.
After the Beatles became big in 1963 and 1964, McCartney began taking advantage of his celebrity status by calling on people he admired. In an interview with Barry Miles for the book Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, McCartney describes his meeting with Russell:
Somehow I got his number and called him up. I figured him as a good speaker, I’d seen him on television, I’d read various bits and pieces and was very impressed by his dignity and the clarity of this thinking, so when I got a chance I went down and met him. Bertrand Russell lived in Chelsea in one of those little terrace houses, I think it was Flood Street. He had the archetypal American assistant who seemed always to be at everyone’s door that you wanted to meet. I sat round waiting, then went in and had a great little talk with him. Nothing earth-shattering. He just clued me in to the fact that Vietnam was a very bad war, it was an imperialist war and American vested interests were really all it was all about. It was a bad war and we should be against it. That was all. It was pretty good from the mouth of the great philosopher. “Slip it to me, Bert.”
McCartney reported his experience to the other members of the Beatles, and it was John Lennon who really took the anti-war message and ran with it. For a reminder of those days, watch the video below of Lennon and Yoko Ono at their “Bed-In” for peace in 1969:
John Lennon & Yoko Ono: Give Peace A Chance
Uploaded on Sep 22, 2007
__________________
The Beatles were looking for lasting satisfaction in their lives and their journey took them down many of the same paths that other young people of the 1960’s were taking. No wonder in the video THE AGE OF NON-REASON Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.”
How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)
_______
Francis Schaeffer noted in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? in the chapter The Breakdown in Philosophy and Science:
In his lecture at Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one final value. It was the same one with which English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was left. For Wald and Russell and for many other modern thinkers, the final value is the biological continuity of the human race. If this is the only final value, one is left wondering why this then has importance.
Now having traveled from the pride of man in the High Renaissance and the Enlightenment down to the present despair, we can understand where modern people are. They have no place for a personal God. But equally they have no place for man as man, or for love, or for freedom, or for significance. This brings a crucial problem. Beginning only from man himself, people affirm that man is only a machine. But those who hold this position cannot live like machines! If they could, there would have been no tensions in their intellectual position or in their lives. But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must “leap upstairs” against their reason and try to find something which gives meaning to life, even though to do so they have to deny their reason.
Charles Darwin pictured below:
_____
Recently I read this book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892.Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. It included this quote from Charles Darwin:
“…It is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful…”
Francis Schaeffer commented:
Here you feel Marcel Proust and the dust of death is on everything today because the dust of death is on everything tomorrow. Here you have the dilemma of Nevil Shute’s ON THE BEACH. If it is true that all we have left is biological continuity and biological complexity, which is all we have left in Darwinism here, or in many of the modern philosophies, then you can’t stand Shute’s ON THE BEACH. Maybe tomorrow at noon human life may be wiped out. Darwin already feels the tension, because if human life is going to be wiped out tomorrow, what is it worth today? Darwin can’t stand the thought of death of all men. Charlie Chaplin when he heard there was no life on Mars said, “I’m lonely.”
You think of the Swedish Opera (ANIARA) that is pictured inside a spaceship. There was a group of men and women going into outer space and they had come to another planet and the singing inside the spaceship was normal opera music. Suddenly there was a big explosion and the world had blown up and these were the last people left, the only conscious people left, and the last scene is the spaceship is off course and it will never land, but will just sail out into outer space. They say when it was shown in Stockholm the first time, the tough Swedes with all their modern mannishness, came out (after the opera was over) with hardly a word said, just complete silence.
Darwin already with his own position says he CAN’T STAND IT!! You can say, “Why can’t you stand it?” We would say to Darwin, “You were not made for this kind of thing. Man was made in the image of God. Your CAN’T- STAND- IT- NESS is screaming at you that your position is wrong. Why can’t you listen to yourself?”
You find all he is left here is biological continuity, and thus his feeling as well as his reason now is against his own theory, yet he holds it against the conclusions of his reason. Reason doesn’t make it hard to be a Christian. Darwin shows us the other way. He is holding his position against his reason.
Francis Schaeffer noted that in Darwin’s 1876 Autobiography that Darwin he is going to set forth two arguments for God in this and again you will find when he comes to the end of this that he is in tremendous tension. Darwin wrote,
“At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, …to the firm conviction of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body; but now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become COLOUR-BLIND.”
Francis Schaeffer remarked:
Now Darwin says when I look back and when I look at nature I came to the conclusion that man can not be just a fly! But now Darwin has moved from being a younger man to an older man and he has allowed his presuppositions to enter in to block his logic, these things at the end of his life he had no intellectual answer for. To block them out in favor of his theory. Remember the letter of his that said he had lost all aesthetic senses when he had got older and he had become a clod himself. Now interesting he says just the same thing, but not in relation to the arts, namely music, pictures, etc, but to nature itself. Darwin said, “But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind…” So now you see that Darwin‘s presuppositions have not only robbed him of the beauty of man’s creation in art, but now the universe. He can’t look at it now and see the beauty. The reason he can’t see the beauty is for a very, very , very simple reason: THE BEAUTY DRIVES HIM TO DISTRACTION. THIS IS WHERE MODERN MAN IS AND IT IS HELL. The art is hell because it reminds him of man and how great man is, and where does it fit in his system? It doesn’t. When he looks at nature and it’s beauty he is driven to the same distraction and so consequently you find what has built up inside him is a real death, not only the beauty of the artistic but the beauty of nature. He has no answer in his logic and he is left in tension. He dies and has become less than human because these two great things (such as any kind of art and the beauty of nature) that would make him human stand against his theory.
[From a letter dated August 11, 1918 to Miss Rinder when Bertrand Russell was 46]
It is quite true what you say, that you have never expressed yourself—but who has, that has anything to express? The things one says are all unsuccessful attempts to say something else—something that perhaps by its very nature cannot be said. I know that I have struggled all my life to say something that I never shall learn how to say. And it is the same with you. It is so with all who spend their lives in the quest of something elusive, and yet omnipresent, and at once subtle and infinite. One seeks it in music, and the sea, and sunsets; at times I have seemed very near it in crowds when I have been feeling strongly what they were feeling; one seeks it in love above all. But if one lets oneself imagine one has found it, some cruel irony is sure to come and show one that it is not really found.
The outcome is that one is a ghost, floating through the world without any real contact. Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God and to refuse to enter into any earthly communion—at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd isn’t it? I care passionately for this world, and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted—some ghost, from some extra-mundane region, seems always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand the message. But it is from listening to the ghost that one comes to feel oneself a ghost. I feel I shall find the truth on my deathbed and be surrounded by people too stupid to understand—fussing about medicines instead of searching for wisdom.
Here below is the song DUST IN THE WIND performed by the rock group KANSAS and was written by Kerry Ligren in 1978. I challenge anyone to read these words of that song given below and refute the idea that accepting naturalistic evolution with the exclusion of God must lead to the nihilistic message of the song!
DUST IN THE WIND:
I close my eyes only for a moment, and the moment’s gone
All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Now, don’t hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, and all your money won’t another minute buy
_________________________________
Kansas – Dust In The Wind
Uploaded on Nov 7, 2009
Music video by Kansas performing Dust In The Wind. (c) 2004 Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
_________________________________
Francis Schaeffer notes that Russell’s mechanistic worldview does not allow for a personal God that created us and that means there is no other conclusion other than nihilism. It seems at one point Russell did embrace nihilism when he asserted:
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; …that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Bertrand Russell
The British humanist H. J. Blackham (1903-2009) put it very plainly: “On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).
In the 1986 debate on the John Ankerberg show between Paul Kurtz (1925-2012) and Norman Geisler, Kurtz reacted to the point Blackham was making by asserting:
I think you may be quoting Blackham out of context because I’ve heard Blackham speak, and read much of what he said, but Blackham has argued continuously that life is full of meaning; that there are points. The fact that one doesn’t believe in God does not deaden the appetite or the lust for living. On the contrary; great artists and scientists and poets and writers have affirmed the opposite.
I read the book FORBIDDEN FRUIT by Paul Kurtz and I had the opportunity to correspond with him but I still reject his view that optimistic humanism can withstand the view of nihilism if one accepts there is no God. Christian philosopher R.C. Sproul put it best:
Nihilism has two traditional enemies–Theism and Naive Humanism. The theist contradicts the nihilist because the existence of God guarantees that ultimate meaning and significance of personal life and history. Naive Humanism is considered naive by the nihilist because it rhapsodizes–with no rational foundation–the dignity and significance of human life. The humanist declares that man is a cosmic accident whose origin was fortuitous and entrenched in meaningless insignificance. Yet in between the humanist mindlessly crusades for, defends, and celebrates the chimera of human dignity…Herein is the dilemma: Nihilism declares that nothing really matters ultimately…In my judgment, no philosophical treatise has ever surpassed or equaled the penetrating analysis of the ultimate question of meaning versus vanity that is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes.
________________
Francis Schaeffer noted that Solomon took a look in Ecclesiastes at the meaning of life on the basis of human life standing alone between birth and death “under the sun.” This phrase UNDER THE SUN appears over and over in Ecclesiastes. The Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term UNDER THE SUN — What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system and you are left with only this world of Time plus Chance plus matter.”
Kerry Livgren is the writer of the song “Dust in the Wind” and he said concerning that song in 1981 and then in 2006:
1981: “When I wrote “Dust in the Wind” I was writing about a yearning emptiness that I felt which millions of people identified with because the song was very popular.” 2006:“Dust In the Wind” was certainly the most well-known song, and the message was out of Ecclesiastes. I never ceased to be amazed at how the message resonates with people, from the time it came out through now. The message is true and we have to deal with it, plus the melody is memorable and very powerful. It disturbs me that there’s only part of the [Christian] story told in that song. It’s about someone yearning for some solution, but if you look at the entire body of my work, there’s a solution to the dilemma.”
Ecclesiastes reasons that chance and time have determined the past and will determine the future (9:11-13), and power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced(4:1). Is that how you see the world? Solomon’s experiment was a search for meaning to life “under the sun.” Then in last few words in Ecclesiastes he looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment.”
You can hear DAVE HOPE and Kerry Livgren’s stories from this youtube link:
(part 1 ten minutes)
__________
Kansas, circa 1973 (Phil Ehart, Kerry Livgren, Steve Walsh, Rich Williams, Robby Steinhardt, Dave Hope) (photo credit: DON HUNSTEIN)
(part 2 ten minutes)
There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.
__________
John & Yoko’s 1969 “Peace for Christmas” Concert and WAR IS OVER! Campaign
by Sabrina Boyd (@SabrinaKayaB)December 15, 2014 4:04 PM
On December 15, 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Onolaunched their global WAR IS OVER! campaign, protesting the Vietnam War.
On that day, they performed with the Plastic Ono Band at UNICEF’s “Peace for Christmas” concert in London.
Check out photos of the show on Yoko Ono’s Flickr page.
Apparently, UNICEF arranged the performance without telling the performers. John and Yoko were surprised to hear the show announced in November, but they agreed to it because UNICEF’s mission was in line with their own peace campaign.
(Ono and Lennon pose on the steps of the Apple building in London, holding one of the posters that they distributed for the WAR IS OVER! campaign. Photo by Frank Barratt/Getty Images)
Other acts included the Young Rascals, Desmond Dekker and the Aces, Blue Mink and Black Velvet, and Emperor Rosko, but the highlight was the Plastic Ono Band – Eric Clapton, Klaus Voormann, Alan White, Billy Preston, and of course, John and Yoko – and their special guests, Keith Moon, Bobby Keyes, Jim Gordon, and George Harrison.
This marked the first time that Lennon and Harrison performed together in a scheduled concert since The Beatles‘ last show in 1966.
And even that wasn’t planned. The Plastic Ono band was booked, but the day of the show, Eric Clapton showed up with most of the members of The Delaney and Bonnie Band, which included George Harrison.
Luckily, Lennon wasn’t upset by this at all. According to The Beatles Bible, he said,
“I thought it was fantastic. I was really into it. We were doing the show and George and Bonnie and Delaney, Billy Preston and all that crowd turned up.”
The performance itself was one massive supergroup jam. They played only 2 songs – “ColdTurkey” and “Don’t Worry Kyoko” – but managed to stretch them out for 25 minutes. Alan White described it as,
“…a thing where somebody would hit one chord and it was a jam.”
And Lennon described the audience’s reaction,
“A lot of the audience walked out, but the ones that stayed, they were in a trance. They just all came to the front, because it was one of the first real heavy rock shows.”
As part of the WAR IS OVER! campaign, banners were hung in 12 major cities across the world announcing, “War Is Over! If you want it. Happy Christmas from John & Yoko.”
The photo at the top is from New York. Other cities included Los Angeles, Toronto, Rome, Athens, Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Helsinki, and the banners were all written in the countries’ native languages.
Here’s a bit more about the campaign and his political activism from John Lennon himself:
Yoko Ono is still carrying on the campaign today, with a more crowdsourcing approach. Posters are available to download and print in over 100 languages on the WAR IS OVER! website, and Yoko has taken to social media to push the campaign in a modern age.
__________
Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Bono and others — “Let It Be”
Published on Apr 10, 2012
Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Bono, Bruce Springsteen, Robbie Robertson, Bonnie Raitt, Billy Joel and others perform “Let It Be” at the 1999 Hall of Fame Inductions. http://rockhall.com/inductees/paul-mc…
__________
100 Greatest Beatles Songs
September 19, 2011
By Elvis Costello
My absolute favorite albums are Rubber Soul and Revolver. On both records you can hear references to other music — R&B, Dylan, psychedelia — but it’s not done in a way that is obvious or dates the records. When you picked up Revolver, you knew it was something different. Heck, they are wearing sunglasses indoors in the picture on the back of the cover and not even looking at the camera . . . and the music was so strange and yet so vivid. If I had to pick a favorite song from those albums, it would be “And Your Bird Can Sing” . . . no, “Girl” . . . no, “For No One” . . . and so on, and so on. . . .
Their breakup album, Let It Be, contains songs both gorgeous and jagged. I suppose ambition and human frailty creeps into every group, but they delivered some incredible performances. I remember going to Leicester Square and seeing the film of Let It Be in 1970. I left with a melancholy feeling.
24
‘Happiness Is a Warm Gun’
Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
Main Writer: Lennon
Recorded: September 23-25, 1968
Released: November 25, 1968
Not released as a single
Lennon called this rapid-fire, erotically charged minisuite one of his best songs. “Oh, I love it,” he told Rolling Stone in 1970. “I think it’s a beautiful song. I like all the different things that are happening in it. . . . It seemed to run through all the different kinds of rock music.” The Beatles Anthology book includes a marked-up copy of the lyric sheet, in which Lennon outlines the three different sections that make up “Happiness”: “Dirty Old Man,” “The Junkie” and “The Gunman (Satire of ’50s R&R).”
The title was inspired by a headline in a gun magazine George Martin had showed Lennon that read Happiness is a Warm Gun — a variation on Peanuts cartoonist Charles Schulz’s 1962 bestseller Happiness Is a Warm Puppy. “I thought it was a fantastic, insane thing to say,” Lennon said. “A warm gun means that you just shot something.”
Lennon later claimed that the song “wasn’t about ‘H’ at all,” but the drug subtext is everywhere. The “Junkie” sequence from the middle of the song (“I need a fix ’cause I’m going down”) was the entirety of his original demo, recorded in May 1968. By the time the song was cut in September, Lennon had begun using heroin — ever since he and Yoko Ono had moved into a London apartment Starr had rented them in July. The “Mother Superior” in the lyrics is a reference to Ono herself, whom Lennon took to calling “Mother.”
At this point, “Happiness Is a Warm Gun in Your Hand,” as its original title ran, had expanded to its final form. A few of the surreal lines in the opening section, “Dirty Old Man,” came from a stoned conversation with Apple press officer Derek Taylor: “Ate and donated to the National Trust,” for instance, is a reference to people shitting on public land (a common problem Lennon encountered while walking in and around Liverpool), and the “velvet hand” alludes to a man who had told Taylor that wearing moleskin gloves gave him “a little bit of an unusual sensation when I’m out with my girlfriend.” The “Satire of ’50s R&R,” with its classic doo-wop chord progression, was modified from a similar passage in Lennon’s demo of “I’m So Tired.”
It took the Beatles 70 takes over two nights to master the tricky tempo shifts of “Happiness.” McCartney was particularly fond of the result, calling it one of his favorite tracks on the White Album.
Appears On: The Beatles
23
‘Abbey Road Medley’
Larry Ellis/Express/Getty Images
Writers: McCartney-Lennon
Recorded: May 6-August 18, 1969
Released: October 1, 1969
Not released as a single
The original idea was McCartney’s, but George Martin claimed that the final triumph of the Beatles’ life as a recording band — the eight-song medley dominating Side Two of Abbey Road — was at least partly his. “I wanted to get John and Paul to think more seriously about their music,” the producer said. “Paul was all for experimenting like that.” McCartney, in fact, led the first session for that extended section of the album — on May 6th, 1969, for “You Never Give Me Your Money,” his deceptively sunny indictment of the business nightmares at Apple Corps.
Lennon was a lot less interested in the medley, although he contributed some of its most eccentric parts, like the sneering “Mean Mr. Mustard” and the quick, funky put-down “Polythene Pam.” He subsequently dismissed the concept as “junk” in Rolling Stone, saying that “none of the songs had anything to do with each other, no thread at all, only the fact that we stuck them together.”
He was right in one sense. The 16-minute sequence — veering from “Money” and the luxuriant sigh of Lennon’s “Sun King” to McCartney’s heavy-soul shard “She Came in Through the Bathroom Window” and the sweet lullaby “Golden Slumbers,” and closing with McCartney’s famous prescription in “The End” (“The love you take/Is equal to the love you make”) — has no narrative connection. But the Abbey Road medley is the matured Beatles at their best: playful, gentle, acerbic, haunting and bonded by the music. Their harmonies are ravishing and complex; the guitars are confident and cutting. “We were holding it together,” McCartney said proudly. “Even though this undercurrent was going on” — a reference to the pressures and differences that had been pulling them apart since the White Album — “we still had a strong respect for each other even at the very worst points.”
The Beatles recorded the sections of the medley at various times, out of order, during the July and August 1969 sessions for Abbey Road. “Mean Mr. Mustard” dated back to early 1968. The lingering hysteria of Beatlemania cropped up in “She Came in Through the Bathroom Window,” which was inspired by an overeager fan. But the emotional heart of the suite was the financial woes that were consuming the Beatles’ energy and were on the verge of bankrupting them. Lennon was instrumental in the hiring of Allen Klein, the business manager of the Rolling Stones, to straighten out the books and the chaos at Apple Corps; McCartney wanted the band to hire Lee and John Eastman, his future father- and brother-in-law. McCartney admitted that “You Never Give Me Your Money” was “me directly lambasting Allen Klein’s attitude to us — all promises, and it never works out.”
Later, in “Golden Slumbers” and “Carry That Weight” (the former with lyrics copied from a lullaby published in 1603), McCartney returned to the theme of exhaustion. “I’m generally quite upbeat,” he said, “but at certain times things get to me so much that I just can’t be upbeat anymore, and that was one of those times. ‘Carry that weight a long time’ — like forever!”
The swapping of guitar solos in “The End” was a band brainstorm. Harrison thought a guitar break would make a good climax. Lennon suggested he, Harrison and McCartney all trade licks. McCartney said he’d go first. Coming after Starr’s first and only drum solo on a Beatles record, the scorching round-robin breaks — with Harrison in the middle and Lennon at the end — were cut live in one take, a last blast of natural brotherhood from a band only months from splitting.
“I didn’t know at the time that it was the last Beatles record that we would make,” Harrison said of Abbey Road. “But it felt as if we were reaching the end of the line.”
“Out of the ashes of all that madness,” said Starr, “that last section is one of the finest pieces we put together.”
Appears On: Abbey Road
______________________________
Artist featured today is Nicholas Monro
__________
The Kangaroos by : Nicholas Monro
Nicholas Monro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicholas Monro
Born
1936
Nationality
English
Alma mater
Chelsea School of Art
Occupation
Sculptor
Print-maker
Art teacher
Employer
Chelsea School of Art
Style
Pop art
Nicholas Monro (born London,[1] 1936[1]) is an English pop art sculptor, print-maker and art teacher.[2] He is notable for being one of the few British pop artists to work in sculpture[2] and is known for his use of fibreglass.[2]
Monro studied art at the Chelsea School of Art[2] from 1958-1961.[1] After graduating he began teaching at Swindon School of Art,[2] then returned to Chelsea School of Art in 1968.[2]
In 1969 he received an Arts Council Award[3] and was included in the exhibition Pop Art Re-Assessed at the Hayward Gallery.[3]
In the early 1970s, he had a studio at Hungerford.[4]
His work was included in the 2004 pop art retrospective “Art and the 60s: This Was Tomorrow” at Tate Britain,[1] and Birmingham Gas Hall[5] and, in the same year, “British Pop Art 1956-1972” at theGalleria Civica di Modena.[2]
Public Collections[edit]
Monro’s works are in the collections of the Berardo Collection Museum, Tate Modern and Wolverhampton Art Gallery.[2]
Key works[edit]
The repaired and repainted Statue of King Kong, at Penrith, in April 2008
Art & The 60s: This Was Tomorrow At Tate Britain
By Sara Chare | 05 July 2004
Photo: Joe Tilson (b. 1928) Transparency, the Five Senses: Taste 1969. For full caption see below.
Sara Chare pulled on her mini skirt and swung up to London for Tate Britiain’s latest exhibition all about art and the 1960s.
From the title it would be easy to think that this is just another retrospective of a golden hued bygone era. However, there is something slightly different about Art & the 60s: This Was Tomorrow.
Despite its aim to celebrate a time of great change and artistic growth there is a pervading sense of uneasiness in the art on display.
This thought provoking show will be at Tate Britain until September 26, when it will move to Birmingham’s Gas Hall.
Photo: Patrick Caulfield (b. 1936), Black and White Flower Piece, 1963. Oil on board. Courtesy of the Tate. Purchased with funds provided by the napping Fund 1991 © Patrick Caulfield. All rights reserved DACS 2004
Don’t misunderstand me, it is still showcasing the prosperous post-war years when anything seemed possible, but it is also a meditation on the underlying political and social troubles of the age.
Visually the works are very different and each as compelling as the other – there is something here to suit all tastes. The exhibition is divided into sections, each one concentrating on a different theme and, to an extent, medium.
Photo: Richard Hamilton Interior II, 1964. Oil, cellulose paint and collage on board.Courtesy of the Tate. Purchased 1967 © Richard Hamilton 2004. All rights reserved DACS
This is not an exhibition for those wishing to see works by people closely associated with the era, such as Lucien Freud. The aim instead seems to be to concentrate on the emerging artists of the time and the originality of technique and outlook that was being nurtured by the art schools in London.
New methods of making art are displayed, as are models of urban architectural projects.
There are examples of the Americanisation of British culture after the war and the growing consumerism that was celebrated by Pop Art, for example Hockney’s picture of a Typhoo tea packet.
Photography is also represented by a selection of black and white fashion images and David Bailey’s Box of Pin-ups. This was the start of a national obsession with celebrity and iconic figures and there are a number of pictures of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.
Photo: David Wedgbury, 1965. The Who (Peter ‘Pete’ Townshend; Keith Moon; Roger Daltrey; John Entwistle) Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London © The artist
Despite all this, the darker side experienced by society during this time has not been forgotten.
The space race, the fear of nuclear threat and the reality of the Vietnam War are all referred to at one point or another. Protest marches are captured on camera and weapons immortalised on canvas.
Equally interesting is the depiction of women in some of the works. The period is held as the age of sexual liberation and the true emancipation of women, and yet this belief is also questioned. There is a sense of contradiction between those pieces showing women as stronger and more in control and those questioning the reality of this new freedom.
Photo: Nicholas Monro, Martians 1965.