Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[raxo]

The thing was, in America they thought he was bragging - he wasn't. He was commenting on how Christianity in the UK was in decline and how The Beatles were more popular. In print you can put whatever emphasis you like on his words (which is exactly what happened) - I believe he was expressing incredulity, and that is the point he was trying to put across in his subsequent interviews in America, amidst all the furore.

Yeah, and then some words were replaced by others ... "bigger" and all that stuff!  :-/

[harihead]

out of context? john lennon knew exactly what he was saying. read.

I agree John Lennon knew what he was saying. The "out of context" bit is not MC's article, reproduced in full above, where it's apparent that:

It's clearly a comment being made by someone who is bored with giving interview, and bored with fame. He's not saying it to provoke, and it's not even meant to be taken literally. It's John saying 'For f***.s sake, we're only people. Don't treat us like Gods'. He's taking the p*ss.

The out of context bit is this:

Later in July, DATEbook, an American teen mag, printed only the Jesus statement and nothing else from the interview.

They didn't reveal that JL was talking about various random things and touched on his philosophy about fame, religion, etc. The press in America also repeated this quote with the headline "John Claims Beatles Bigger than Christ" (and variations thereof), which lent it a bragging flavor which John did not intend.

The truly inappropriate part is this:

The firestorm of reaction in the US was immediate. Radio stations nationwide, but particularly in the South and in the Midwest, banned the playing of Beatles records. Death threats against all of the Fab Four poured in. In Cleveland, a preacher threatened to excommunicate any member of his congregation who listened to the Beatles, and in the South, the Ku Klux Klan burned the Beatles in effigy and nailed Beatles albums to burning crosses.

Death threats. Burning crosses. People were still lynching people in the Deep South at this time in the name of Christ. These were real threats over what really is one person's throwaway view on Christianity. The reaction was completely disproportionate to the offense (that being, of course, free speech).

My Google searched turned up more on this topic here: http://www.metafilter.com/59153/The-Beatles-Bigger-than-Jesus-41-years-running

[BlueMeanie]

Death threats. Burning crosses. People were still lynching people in the Deep South at this time in the name of Christ. These were real threats over what really is one person's throwaway view on Christianity. The reaction was completely disproportionate to the offense (that being, of course, free speech).

And they still play Michael Jackson records on the radio!

[Kevin]

This an excerpt from a sermon bya Southern Minister in 2002:
         "  In America Lennon

[DarkSweetLady]

 ;DThanx Hello Goodbye! That is one of the funniest things I have ever heard! I love that movie!

[Sondra]

The thing was, in America they thought he was bragging - he wasn't. He was commenting on how Christianity in the UK was in decline and how The Beatles were more popular. In print you can put whatever emphasis you like on his words (which is exactly what happened) - I believe he was expressing incredulity, and that is the point he was trying to put across in his subsequent interviews in America, amidst all the furore.

I agree with this exactly! This is what I try to tell people whenever they bring up the 'bigger than Jesus' thing. I mean, it's so obvious that that's what he meant. He was surprised himself about how huge they were. And think of it, to them it must have seemed even bigger as they were in the middle of it. But people still insist he was being arrogant. I feel like if John was going to brag he certainly wouldn't say something like this. It's beneath him. I expect this kind of a comment from some heavy metal guy or Noel Gallagher or something. If it were intened to be arrogant. When John wanted to brag he was much more direct. Like, the Beatles are the biggest band in the world and if there is such a thing as a genius than I am one. Only he wasn't bragging as much as stating facts and you can't fault him for that. He was just a really honest guy. You ask him a question and you get an actual, honest and true answer. Although sometimes he seems to contradict himself depending on the interview. But I blame that on the whole mood changing with the wind thing. Or the fact that he evolved over the years.

On a side note, it seems like lately there is a backlash going on concerning John. For years he was thought to be a god and now it seems like that's taken its toll and he is starting to get bashed. It may be Paul's turn to get some praise for once, but I wish it didn't always have to be one or the other. Anyway, is anyone else seeing this? I mean, I've read some really nasty things about Lennon recently on some sites. It's disturbing.

[harihead]

My question is - do we actually know the extent of the Beatle bannings and burnings? Could this be a case of a few isolated incidents grabbing the headlines and being blown out of all proportion? It was, after all, a great story.

I wish I knew the answer to your question, Kevin, but I don't. I've only seen the clips with various upset fans. We do know that there was widespread reaction in the South; the church is very efficient at getting its message out to its various branches. That's what makes them such a formidable political block. We did have some ministers saying, "Now, now, calm down," but a lot of people did jump on the bandwagon.

You can find more specifics on this page: http://www.wingspan.ru/bookseng/diary/m10_1966.html

Aug 11: The Beatles arrive for the US tour. "The press and all three television networks were waiting in Chicago and talked of nothing but John's remarks about Jesus. "

During the tour, I count 3 KKK demonstrations, and one mass rally of protest at Memphis.

According to this account, after his Aug 11 apology, John continued to inflame the press by expressing support of draft dodgers in Toronto, opposition to the Viet Nam war in New York, and repeating the "blasphemous" remarks about Jesus in LA. He obviously responded to all the pressure by saying, "Sod it! I'm going to say what I think!"

On a side note, it seems like lately there is a backlash going on concerning John. For years he was thought to be a god and now it seems like that's taken its toll and he is starting to get bashed. It may be Paul's turn to get some praise for once, but I wish it didn't always have to be one or the other.

Amen to that. I don't know why it is some people feel they have to put one person down to admire another.

[Hello Goodbye]

My question is - do we actually know the extent of the Beatle bannings and burnings? Could this be a case of a few isolated incidents grabbing the headlines and being blown out of all proportion? It was, after all, a great story.

I experienced all of this as a teenager growing up in New York City.  We knew exactly what John meant, whether we read Maureen Cleave's original article or secondary reports. We understood that all four Beatles were very much surprised and affected by their unprecedented international popularity which had indeed become fanatical.  Anything they said or did had its impact as was evidenced by what happened in the Philippines.  Beatlemania was entering its next phase anyway.  The fans were maturing as well and I was one of those who experienced a renewal of my interest in the Beatles as they became more introspective and decided to stop touring.  Their music was maturing as was I.

The record-burning demonstrations were limited to certain geographic areas of the United States and incited by a few publicity-seeking disk jockeys and no doubt helped to encourage the Beatles to return to the studio and experiment more.  That left the next crop of adolescents with the developing "bubble-gum groups" while we continued to evolve with the Beatles.

The 60s was a great decade to come of age.

[Sondra]

Considering the size of this country, I'd say it was a very small percentage of American's that were actually involved in the whole banning and Beatle burning thing. I'd even narrow that down to a few counties in one or two states at best. And those were the same people who had already spent generations spewing hatred. So what was it to them to burn a few records and magazines? I supposed if Lennon had said the Beatles were in favor of lynching black men who eyed white women they'd have proclaimed him a hero.

[harihead]

I supposed if Lennon had said the Beatles were in favor of lynching black men who eyed white women they'd have proclaimed him a hero.

I'm sure you noticed some of the racist comments in some of the interviews of the time. Remember the guy (I forget what city) who said, "I'm not sure what color they are..." Idiot.

But the Beatles were anti-segregration from the get-go. They refused to do their concert in Jacksonville if the audience was segregated. This was in '65. So their anti-segregration policy did not earn them mass hatred like the Beatles "more popular than Christ" thing.

[Kevin]

Considering the size of this country, I'd say it was a very small percentage of American's that were actually involved in the whole banning and Beatle burning thing. I'd even narrow that down to a few counties in one or two states at best.  

That's interesting. Most Beatle stories give the impression that the entire south was being set aflame by a population of reactionary rednecks.
Nice to get a bit of perspective.

[BlueMeanie]

That's interesting. Most Beatle stories give the impression that the entire south was being set aflame by a population of reactionary rednecks.
Nice to get a bit of perspective.

I've often wondered about this. You know how the press like to blow everything out of proportion for it's sensationalist value. I've spoken to my aunt who lives in Cincinnati, Ohio about it, and she says as far as she can remember it only made the lead news story on the national news a couple of times, and that most of America didn't have a clue what was going on.

[Kevin]

The best figure I've found is 30 stations banned The Beatles in 1966. (not all of them rock stations )
In 1958 there were 224 (give or take) FM radio stations in the bible belt (I counted the old confederate states). There must have been as many (if not more) AM stations. The only list I could find was for 1946, and that had too many to count.
So lets say 500 total (and that's super-conservatie). So only 6% of bible belt stations had the ban. Probably more like 2-3%  The national figure must be under  1%.

[Sondra]

I'm sure most southerners are embarrassed by their reputation, but there's always those few that won't let go. And those are the ones that make the most noise.