Beatles song chosen to celebrate independence from Britain, removal of the British monarch as Malta’s monarch and “freedom from the British/kicking out the British”
You have to despair. I mean really, you have to. Not only have certain people clearly drunk the Koolaid and lost their minds and their basic common sense, but also their sense of irony – if they ever had one in the first place.
The National Festivities Committee, which would now like to be known as Il-Fondazzjoni Ċelebrazzjonijiet Nazzjonali Maltin (in Maltese, even when communicating in English, like those people who insist on saying ‘the Partit Nazzjonalista’ instead of the Nationalist Party, which is how the well-spoken speak) has chosen The Beatles song Come Together as its anthem for the celebrations.
A mighty furore has broken out: a song in English, and all that. But that’s hardly the point, is it. It is not wholly unsuitable because it is a song sung in English rather than a song sung in Maltese. It is completely inappropriate to the point of ridicule because it is an English song, which couldn’t be more English than it is, sung by the most famous English pop group of all time, whose image is still one of the most iconic and recognisable symbols of 1960s London.
The National Celebrations Foundation has chosen, as its anthem to celebrate 1. independence from Britain in 1964, 2. removal of the British monarch as Malta’s monarch (that is what Republic Day is – amazing how many people don’t know this) in 1974, and 3. ‘kicking out the British’ in 1979 a quintessentially English song, sung by a quintessentially English group, that was knocking everything else off the charts when Queen Elizabeth II was still Malta’s monarch.
Honestly, what a farce. At that level, you would expect the intellectuals who chose this song to understand the crucial nature of symbolism in events such as these.
It should have been sufficiently farcical that this same committee has chosen to play, at the celebrations of freedom from the British monarch and Britain, Brian May, whose most iconic moment, televised around the world, was playing solo atop Buckingham Palace to celebrate 50 years of rule by Queen Elizabeth II. He played not just as a committed royalist but also as a symbol of Britishness, one of Britain’s most famous exports to the world.
It looks like that part of the brain which allows individuals to assess the wider implications of a decision like this – and the confused message it sends out – was overridden by the desire of those individuals to meet Brian May personally and have a close musical encounter with him. It was their dream and they are going to use the national celebrations to live it out, however crazy the message is: ‘British guitarist, committed royalist, last seen atop Buckingham Palace celebrating 50 years of rule by QEII, to play at ‘kicking out the British’ celebrations in Malta’.
Which reminds me: have May’s people – has May himself – been told WHY he will be playing in Malta, what it is he is going to be celebrating – the day the British forces left because they didn’t renew their lease, repackaged by Mintoff and everyone else ever since as ‘kicking out the British’ and ‘freedom from Britain’?
I doubt it.
And that’s not the only point. Just like the choice of Brian May, the selection of The Beatles’ Come Together is yet another personal choice by members of the National Festivities Committee/Foundation. A liking for the music of The Beatles, unlike other music and musicians of the era which transcend time and the generations, really dates people to the 60+ mark. I don’t know why that is – perhaps because The Beatles were always the housewives’ choice on Rediffusion, popular music for people who didn’t understand or were frightened of the other music of the era.
Nobody cool, fab or hip (I use the words of the period advisedly) went wild for The Beatles in the late 1960s and early 1970s (their music continued to be played on the radio long after they disbanded). It was always women of a certain age in those horrid man-made fibre trouser-suits that used to be fashionable at the time. They would sing along to Yellow Submarine while doing the housework and the resident teenagers, listening to Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jefferson Airplane, would raise their eyes heavenwards.
Come Together expresses the sentiment of a hippie era, but for people who were at the time scared of hippies, hated their clothes, dismissed them all as drug-addicts, and didn’t like their music. It emerges from a Zeitgeist that is long, long gone. It is, so to speak, Drink the Koolaid music – and in that respect alone it makes the song entirely fitting for what is about to unfold.
But Brian May should be told.
36 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Brian May’s performance on top of Buckingham Palace was God Save the Queen. Is he going to play that here too?
This is all starting to sound like a counter protest, rather than a celebration (ahem) of historic events. Or is it really true the committee thinks, as so many say of Gensna, that’s it’s just about music and entertainment?
I’m surprised at Oliver Friggieri. Surely he, of all those on the committee, recognises the perversion of marking historic occasions without any reference to their meaning?
That is why people with self-respect should not accept these ‘token’ government appointments.
It gives Labour the satisfaction to gloat that there are professional people on the boards, to say nothing of the well-known scalps hung up to dry in their teepee, but then what can these appointees do, in reality?
The National Festivities Committee is now the Foundation for National Festivities, with the same line-up of people.
The appointees can resign once it dawns on them that they have been used.
His is practically a cameo appearance.
I’m not surprised at all. Oliver Friggieri’s been Xarabankised since the late 90s, following the standard pattern with Maltese intellectuals: the more you become a household name, the more you follow the herd.
I met him at a conference recently. He’d had just gone on for thirty minutes over his allotted time, yarning about Triq Balzunetta and is-Sud tas-Sud. Which is exactly the same thing he’d said in his previous conference, and the one before that, and so on all the way to 1995 or so.
Just like Peter Serracino Inglott, his intelligence refused to challenge itself once he got a comfortable berth, and so it got stuck in a loop.
In other words, he did not choose the Beatles song – that was more likely to have been Lou Bondì’s idea – but he would have approved, because his mind was elsewhere.
Mark Anthony Falzon also has a comfortable berth now. I hope he doesn’t go the way of all Maltese intellectuals.
Comfy time for all our ‘intellectuals’. Down to the depths we go.
To make the celebration really authentic, Brian May should be greeted with an array of placards saying BRITISH GO HOME.
Brian May is also a long-standing Tory, but that’s OK because Malta’s Labour is closer to the Tories in its xenophobic, self-serving, Eurosceptic racism.
Isn’t that just like the PL? :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hedge-fund-chiefs-donate-13m-to-tory-party-in-just-12-weeks-9131143.html
I wonder if Chuck Berry is rubbing his hands.
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/lenlevy.htm
If they intend to use the original recording of Come Together, I highly doubt that the organisers managed to get the rights as The Beatles are very protective of the use of their work for commercial purposes.
Joseph Muscat will have to sell an extra few passports to cover the legal costs if The Beatles estate sues.
They can always get Renato, Mary Spiteri and the Gensna cast to cover it and why not, feature Willie Mangion.
Some other options:
John Bundy’s Pajjiz tal-Mickey Mouse
Freddie Portelli’s Viva Malta
Abba’s Money Money Money or The Winner Takes It All
‘The Beatles song Come Together as its anthem for the celebrations.’
If you want to understand human sexuality, look at people’s actual choices and the choice of song title is certainly more appropriate in the context of a mass erotic event.
But then it is. For a year now Malta is being screwed by this government.
The Beatles song, ‘Come Together’, was always ‘tongue in cheek’. As was, ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’.
Jeez, these people are so stupid.
I wouldn’t qualify them as tongue in cheek. Commercial songs are extremely codified and mirror the Zeitgeist.
What? They didn’t choose a song by Joe Demicoli? Ungrateful bastards!
They should have chosen The Beatles song “Back in the USSR”.
It would have been more appropriate.
Your doubts about Brian May not knowing the purpose of his visit are real. Back in the 90s the Labour Party had brought over Chris De Burgh to sing at one of their events at their hall in Hamrun. As soon as he learned it was a political event he declined to go on stage and never sang one note.
‘Come together’, of course, has plenty of room for double entendre – Michael Dobbs (he of the original House of Cards fame) went to town with that phrase. See from 3:45 to 4:05 of the following clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSWrTG8sBRI
Onwards to Marrakech!
Perhaps Lou Bondi’ will persuade Brian May to accompany Renato and Mary Spiteri while singing Mitna ghall-Barrani and Tema 79 from Gensna on the President’s Palace rooftop.
Bondi told Newsbook (RTK) that Maltese singers are to record The Beatles song Come Together in English and in Maltese. I hope they do that legally by acquiring the rights and paying for them, and don’t just rip it off.
These are the lyrics – I’m trying to work out why the National Festivities Committee considered them appropriate for the celebrations.
“Come Together”
Here come old flattop, he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball, he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please
He wear no shoeshine, he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger, he shoot coca-cola
He say “I know you, you know me”
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me
He bag production, he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard, he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me
(Right!
Come, oh, come, come, come.)
He roller-coaster, he got early warning
He got muddy water, he one mojo filter
He say “One and one and one is three”
Got to be good-looking cos he’s so hard to see
Come together right now over me
Oh
Come together
Yeah come together
Yeah come together
Yeah come together
Yeah come together
Yeah come together
Yeah come together
Yeah oh
Come together
Yeah come together
Jaqaw kellom xi blokka silg fil-kcina taghhom meta ghazlu did-diska?
Nothing surprising there. In 1992 Labour chose, as its election campaign song, Winds of Change – a song made famous due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Maybe this year we are celebrating becoming a colony of Henley & Partners.
I agree that the choice of ‘come together’ is incredibly bad.
However this:
“A liking for the music of The Beatles, unlike other music and musicians of the era which transcend time and the generations, really dates people to the 60+ mark”
Is completely incorrect.
[Daphne – Not at all. I speak from experience.]
I would not say that The Beatles’ music appeals uniquely to the 60+ (far from that), but their late lyrics mirror flower power and therefore unsuitable to convey a message to a contemporary audience.
Daphne: Your statement is total and absolute CRAP. I know plenty of people who weren’t even born when the Beatles broke up (myself included) who love the Beatles’ music. What planet are you writing from??
[Daphne – Don’t bother sending me a photo, Shawna, or describing your other tastes and lifestyle, because I can make a pretty accurate guess. I won’t describe the sort of people of my post-Beatles generation who clung to their music because then I’ll have yet more mortally wounded individuals queuing up to protest, in varying forms, that no, they are most definitely not ‘Kumbaya My Lord’ types feeling a bit edgy. Ah, but they were.]
“…removal of the British monarch as Malta’s monarch (that is what Republic Day is – amazing how many people don’t know this) in 1974…” I disagree. First of all, the way this sentence is written could imply that the British monarch was to be substituted by some other monarch as Malta’s monarch, presumably a Maltese one. More importantly, I think you know the difference between a monarchy and a republic. A major difference is that while the monarchy is hereditary, the Head of State of a republic, a President, is elected for a specified period of time either directly by universal suffrage or by elected representatives of the People. There are, of course, other ideological differences between a monarchy and a republic which I need not fully go into here. A monarchy, even a constitutional one, has its roots in the medieval divine right of kings and in absolutism and such a concept is an anachronism in this day and age. Or perhaps not only in this day and age – the Romans abolished the monarchy and opted for a republic; unfortunately, they later ended up with an emperor and we all know what some of their emperors were like.
In my view, states that do not have a royal family of their own look somewhat ridiculous with a head of state from another country even though, in constitutional theory, the monarch would be head of state of that country independently of the fact that he/she is also head of state of another. As a republican, I look forward to the day when such countries as Australia and Canada become republics.
Today, both the PL and the PN seem to be proud of the fact that Malta became a republic after a decade of monarchy.
[Daphne – I’m afraid the only response the bulk of your comment elicits from me is ‘oh for God’s sake’ and ‘deliver me from the literal-minded’. Yes, of course both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party are proud of the fact that Malta became a republic. They both despised the British and think of the colonial period as ‘il-hakma’, when really common sense and a proper reading of history, geography and contemporary events – ignoring political propaganda – can only lead us to the conclusion that it turned out to be our salvation from a destiny as a satellite island of Sicily with a contemporary reality about as scintillating as Pantelleria’s or Lampedusa’s, isolated through our knowledge of only Maltese or, had we been annexed by Italy as would have been 99% likely, as linguistically challenged as the Italians. The only practical advantage to becoming a republic (and it is a tremendous one) is that it allowed us to join the European Union – ironically. As you can see from the Australian and Canadian experience, not becoming a republic would have been no handicap to any form of development otherwise, and would even have been an advantage had the Labour Party got its way and kept us out of the European Union.]
I think this is a bit of a misconception.
If Malta hadn’t become a republic, and had remained a Commonwealth realm, it could still have joined the European Union, because it would have been an independent state. But we could have done even better and opted for dependency status. Gibraltar’s citizens have British passports, and are EU citizens. There.
But I’m afraid this is all an exercise in alternate history.
The problem with republics is that they invariably lead to an expansionist view, when that’s impossible, the strong indomitable leader becomes an inevitable option.
Res publica, I trust you know the meaning of your name, and that the common good can be achieved by a monarchy.
Indeed, the notion of human rights, of limitation of powers, of separation of powers, of justice and of the obligations of rulers towards their people, all arose and were codified in monarchical states. So was the idea of the social contract, which underpins much of the republican spiel.
If you think that George Abela is suited as your head of state – to whom you still defer, may I remind you – than a hereditary sovereign, born and bred in a superior class, then you and I belong to two different worlds.
And if you really believe that it is possible for anyone to become head of state or government in a republic, then you and I will disagree violently on the meaning of the word “possible”, and of “hypocrisy”. I look at reality, not at the letter of the law.
Sure, the law says I could be chosen by Parliament as Malta’s next head of state to replace George Abela. But is this really possible? We are still ruled – yes, ruled – by a cabal of men and women with extraordinary privileges, and the sop of equality before the law, and equal access rulership is the greatest lie of the last two hundred years.
Our prime minister thinks there is no one to touch him. In a monarchy, the prime minister knows that he is not the highest in the land, and that above him is the crown – not the sovereign, not a person, but the crown. Think on that before you dismiss constitutional monarchy as an anachronism.
Men must be governed. If it must be done, then I’d rather see it done by a better breed of men, born great, than by commoners who have greatness thrust upon them, or who thrust greatness upon their friends and relatives.
Your comment about The Beatles’ music dating people to the 60+ is incorrect.
The Beatles are much admired by today’s youngsters and budding rock musicians for their groundbreaking music. They are acknowledged by one and all as the most popular and most important rock group ever.
[Daphne – Not really. Only by those in their 20s who embrace the current and very temporary fad. To my generation (b. 1964), The Beatles were never anything but the housewives’ choice on 1970s PO Ghaxra and the music itself, though groundbreaking, entertaining in its time & c & c, was the hallmark choice of Tal-Muzew types who feared, hated and didn’t understand any other type of music of the era. And you know I love the music of the era and do not in any way speak from ignorance.]
To quote David Grohl drummer supreme with Nirvana and singer/guitarist with the mighty Foo Fighters, the Beatles were the reason he became a musician.
[Daphne – I wasn’t talking about people in world-renowned bands when I said that raving about The Beatles dates people to 60+. And come on, you KNOW it does.]
Hey Daph whilst admiring your politics, your take on The Fab Four needs tweaking.
Totally disagree.
Saying goes “If you remember the sixties you weren’t really there”. Well I was there in my teens and I do remember the sixties really well and The Beatles in all their resplendent glory. By the end of the decade The Fab Four were not only hip but were treated as Gods and Messiahs. Their break up in 1970 left a big void. Sure they were sonically superseded by the heavier bands such as Led Zep and Black Sabbath and the progressive rock groups of the early 70’s whose template The Beatles laid on “Sgt Pepper’s ” in 1967.
[Daphne – That’s exactly my point, Noel. Raving about The Beatles dates people precisely: teenagers in the 1960s. I am around 10 years younger. The generational shift was so disproportionately large in terms of music, fashion, trends etc that by the late 1970s, the only people my age who were into The Beatles were the sort who hung around and idolised priest-leaders and played their guitar at Christian camps while dressed like missionaries. Then there were the ‘dad’ types of the parent generation who thought it was cool to play Strawberry Fields and the ‘mum’ types, also of the parent generation, who sang Yellow Submarine to their infants. I speak from experience. I was there.]
The Beatles like their contemporaries The Stones, The Who and The Kinks were never Housewives Choice. This request programme on Rediffusion in the 60s (same goes for PO Box Ghaxra) was littered with Elvis Presley, Pat Boone and Cliff Richard, who white young middle class college (St Aloysius) boys like me hated.
[Daphne – Well, there you go, Noel. By the time I was listening to PO Box Ghaxra circa 1977 when I was 12, the Elvis Presley, Pat Boone and Cliff Richard you and your friends despised had been replaced by The Beatles and a couple of other ‘housewives’ choice’ 1960s groups who I and my contemporaries shuddered at. And the Elvis Presley you despised (though never Pat Boone and Cliff Richard) was the dangerous man of his day, the essence of hipdom in his time. The Beatles are to my generation what Elvis Presley was to yours. In fact, we place them in the same bracket in terms of what liking them says about a person. This might be considered shocking to those who experienced the excitement of The Beatles contemporaneously, but we didn’t experience that excitement. We just see the result (and I don’t mean the music).]
We were the into all the above-mentioned groups and the hippest cat around Bob Dylan. The Beatles music was never for Tal-Muzew types. I am sure the latter did not appreciate John Lennon’s “bigger than Christ” comment which raised such a furore in America’s Bible Belt.
[Daphne – Well, this is turning out to be an interesting conversation. By the age of 16 (1981) I had Bob Dylan’s entire ouevre on long-play. But there was no way I was going to be caught dead playing or even owning a Beatles LP. But that time, the music was definitely for tal-muzew types, by which I don’t necessarily mean actual tal-muzew people but village youth centre types who had absolutely no idea of anything and were really, really sheltered in the worst possible way.]
The Beatles music does not date people to 60+ . It has transcended time and all fads. It will still be around in fifty years if not more. It’s all about the songwriting.
[Daphne – Come on, Noel, it really does. You are a case in point. All the people raving about The Beatles in public in Malta are aged around 60. The Beatles just happened to coincide with their ‘coming of age’ moment and marked them, that’s all. All the ones doing so in private, ditto. None of my contemporaries are even remotely interested in The Beatles. It’s not the music of our time, and beyond that, it has no cachet. Beyond that, we actually find it irritating and the sound is childish, which is actually one of the reasons why it had such massive appeal – blasphemy, perhaps, but there you go. Children love certain Beatles songs. Ask yourself why: it’s the clear, repetitive, chanting rhythm and sound.]
Hey Daph. I speak from experience. I was there.
[Daphne – Ditto, Noel. I was there when The Beatles became the equivalent to my generation of what Elvis Presley was to your generation. Most of us still feel that way. George Harrison and John Lennon in their post-Beatles incarnations were more than fine, but The Beatles themselves? Forget it.]
You’re playing out of your league here Daphne.
One can see that you know absolutely nothing about music – stick to politics please, or maybe Duran Duran.
[Daphne – I know rather a lot about the music of that era, though I prefer to hide my light under a bushel lest it gives rise to another wave of sarcastic and bitchy comments on the lines of ‘Maaaa, now you know about music as well, know all!’ (but actually, yes, I do, when it comes to that period) and never could stand Duran Duran. Though they were really big when I was 17, I was busy listening to other stuff at the time. No, I am not playing out of my league. I stick to what I know. The fact that my range is fairly wide and eclectic is not my problem but it seems to be yours. I do not suffer from lack of insight or self-awareness. When I don’t know anything about a subject, I’m well aware of it, and also that it is generally because I don’t find it interesting, and so I don’t discuss it. If your experience of people is that they are one-dimensional, disengaged and uncurious, you should not conclude on that basis that all people are that way. They are not. In societies far more sophisticated than ours, you are EXPECTED to know a great deal about many subjects and to keep an intelligent conversation going whatever the subject happens to be. The Maltese experience is abysmal so don’t use it as your measuring-stick. It is right there at the bottom.]
I do not normally submit comments to blogs, however as you have stumbled across my passion (ie rock music) I felt a desire to contribute.
It’s all about the music and The Beatles’ music has stood the test of time. Ok I agree one might find ‘Yellow Submarine and Maxwell’s Silver Hammer ‘ irritating, but for every turd you have tens of gems like the mind-shattering ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’ or ‘A Day In The Life’. ‘Yellow Submarine’ was just a slip up or the Beatles consciously taking the mickey. The Beatles were British (a race well known for its sense of humour) raised on comedy giants like the Goons.
As to the childish sound, not at all. The Beatles were using chords described by Bob Dylan as ‘outrageous’. Yes the sound of the early songs is primitive compared to today’s pristine recordings, but the Beatles, their producer George Martin and his engineers created some of the most amazing sonic inventions on two channel and four channel mixing desks.
In the sixties, British studios were less advanced than American ones (in fact The Stones recorded a lot of their sixties stuff in the USA). By the time the heavier bands and progressive groups arrived in the late sixties/early seventies, studio technology had moved on in leaps and bounds. The arrival of Marshall amps/speaker cabinets in the late sixties changed the sound of live rock music forever.
Finally why do current music critcs writing for respected rock magazines such as Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut and Classic Rock still rave about The Beatles. Why all this hullabaloo in the USA connected to the Beatles conquest of America 50 years ago, in February, 1964?
Indeed this has been a very interesting exchange of views. I normally have this type of discussion with my fellow music aficionados, when we all sound very anal retentive.
Suggestion: Read ‘Revolution In The Head’ by the late Ian Mc’Donald. Very enlightening on The Beatles music and the sixties and listen to All Rock, a Maltese rock station on DAB+radio and streaming allrockmalta.com.
I agree with your comments re ‘Come Together’. A crass choice. A Maltese language song should have been commissioned.
Anyone can say (while actually meaning nothing!) that he/she knows rather a lot about the music of that era, and my range is fairly wide and eclectic too. Add to that the fact that my experience of people is multi-dimensional, engaged and curious.Therefore I am not concluding anything on that basis.
Having got that out of the way, my measuring stick examines what you said further up in your discussion with Noel and it is on that basis that I can conclude that you have shown little knowledge of music of that era.
This person (Noel) has explained to you, in detail, to no avail since It’s useless trying to explain to people who have no idea about a subject.
I too agree with your comments re ‘Come Together’. A Maltese language song should have been chosen.
[Daphne – I hate it when people miss the point, because the one thing you can’t accuse me of is not being extremely clear. I am not speaking about THE MUSIC PER SE but about WHAT THAT MUSIC MEANS TO AND HOW IT IS PERCEIVED BY the generation that came immediately after The Beatles – i.e. mine. And on this, unfortunately and whether you like it or not, I am by definition going to be far better informed than Noel, who is a decade my senior and belongs to The Beatles generation, and you, who are younger and motivated by personal animosity towards me rather than interest in music, as is clear from the bitchy overtones. Now please, give it a rest.]