The Astrology of the Beach Boys

[ontor pertawst]

I think we can all agree that we should wear yellow outfits tomorrow for it's powerful energy.

[AndrewHickey]

I think we can all agree that we should wear yellow outfits tomorrow for it's powerful energy.

How dare you?! My numerologist told me tomorrow is a lilac day!

[TMinthePM]

OK - Check this out:

Jessica Murray's America in Transition   
The Sixties 2.0

by Jessica Murray on April 1, 2012

Are you familiar, dear reader, with the notorious transit that astrologers associate with the rock-and-rolling sixties? I refer to the conjunction of Uranus and Pluto in Virgo opposed to Saturn in Pisces, that peaked in 1965-66. For mad zeitgeist shifts, you can’t beat the combination of those three planets.

Astrological Symbolism for Dummies

To get its point across unmistakably, the Cosmic Encoder made it especially easy for us: the planetary formula translated exactly into the phrase that arose to describe the times. Pluto + Uranus ≠ Saturn: forces of extreme (Pluto) defiance (Uranus) countered (opposition) the dominant culture (Saturn). Voilà: the counter-culture was born.

Now, four and a half decades later, the next big milestone in the Uranus-Pluto cycle is nearing exactitude (1). I know I am not the only 60-something musing about the similarities and differences between now and the sixties.

Simple Code

Like any other war, the culture war that was the 1960s had two sides. You were either with us or agin’ us.

It was a simple matter to signal whether you were on the Uranus-Pluto team (“freaks”, we called ourselves) or the Saturn (“straight”) team. If you thought of yourself as part of the counterculture, you probably went bra-less. If you were male, you grew your hair long. The code was straightforward.

When hitchhiking, you signaled your tribe with a uniform of patched jeans, and could pretty much count on being picked up by another “long-hair.” (2) Conversely, if the truck approaching you on the highway was driven by someone with a crewcut, there was probably an American flag on the bumper, too; and you got out of the way fast so as not to get run down.

I don’t recall balking at being labeled in such a simplistic way. Obsessed (Pluto) with the concept of liberation (Uranus), I think our focus was on the marvelous new discovery that an alternative could exist to the suffocating conventionality we had assumed, as children, would be our future lot.

The Uranus-Pluto conjunction had a long tail. By late 1972 the two outer planets had moved into Libra, with their midpoint conjunct the US Saturn. The cultural polarizing they represented had by that time been thoroughly politicized, with candidates Richard Nixon and George McGovern personifying the pro-war (Saturn) and the anti-war (Uranus-Pluto) contingents.

The polarities of 1972 were so clear-cut as to seem almost a caricature.

The Country and the Cross

In the years since then, there has been a consolidation of power in the USA, as the donor-lobbyist-representative axis in Washington became entrenched. It is now the singular engine behind the American political system. The goals of a tiny empowered class have made both ruling parties far more similar than different.

This is the reality being pushed to the surface as the Cardinal Cross hammers away at the chart of the USA. This series of stressful Cardinal transits can be seen in terms of six phases:
1.In 2008, the riff began with Pluto opposing the US Sun cluster in Cancer;
2.it reached another level in 2010 when Uranus moved into Aries while Saturn was in early Libra (the “Cardinal Climax”);
3.it ramped up again in 2011 at the US Saturn Return;
4.it will become even more acute this year as Uranus and Pluto’s exact square clicks into the natal Sun-Saturn square of the USA; and
5.it will finalize when Pluto conjoins the US natal Pluto.

With transits of Uranus (revolution) and Pluto (complete breakdown and renewal) we expect the essence of a situation to be exposed. With the conjunction of the 1960s, consciousness-raising forces like civil rights and the war in Viet Nam forced the American collective to look at itself with a new level of self-honesty.

This new era’s iteration of the Uranus-Pluto cycle will compel a collective self-examination of a similar depth. This time we can expect the exposure to be about the disproportionate power wielded by those who control the material resources (Pluto in the second house).

Post-Ideological Era

This long-range astrological schema will help us maintain perspective as we move through the upcoming election season. There is a lot of media quarreling about, for example, where the various candidates stand on “social conservative” issues such as abortion and homosexuality, but these are just noisemaker issues compared to what’s really going on. The gradual coalescence of plutocratic interests in the USA have erased all but superficial distinctions between the Dems and the GOP.

The mass media knows how much its consumers enjoy a good fight, so we can be sure it will continue to stage electoral matches featuring two fiercely opposed teams. Indeed, conventional wisdom has it that the two parties are more polarized than ever before. But in fact their trajectory is the same. Congressional Democrats have moved to the right, and their Republican counterparts have moved even further to the right.

In this strange phase of America’s history, the struggle has become fundamentally post-ideological. The GOP has never pretended to be anything other than the party of resistance to change; but now neither do the Democrats, who no longer attempt to introduce new ideas. Long gone are the genuine social visions that used to come out of this party, like FDR’s New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.

Tea Party

Neither is the Tea Party really an ideological construct. These folks are merely the latest version of the Pissed-Off White Guy, a contingent that shows up in every phase of American history. Mostly rural, mostly Southern and Western, and mostly male, this crowd is the holder of strong cultural opinions but not much power. That is, they don’t see themselves as having much power.

Rather than shoring up the actual power—in numbers—that they do have, they focus obsessively on the classes even more disempowered than themselves, by whom they feel victimized. The Tea Partiers’ preference would be for the system to become just democratic enough to allow them to cross over from being a have-not to being a have… but no more.

Occupy Wall Street

It is Occupy Wall Street (3) that comes closest to naming the key players in the new American game. At first, the protesters fit neatly into the two-battling-teams formula that the media is so fond of: a fight between scruffy dissenters vs. the forces of law-&-order was just right for the evening news. But now that there’s no more high-profile camping and marching, no more clubbing and pepper-spraying, the TV networks have sent their reporters home.

For the corporate media to confer any meaning upon OWS outside the bounds of that standard dualistic trope would be getting too close to the truth. Any discussion, for example, of the Adbusters Magazine anti-consumerism campaign that gave the movement birth, or of the economic statistics that underlie OWS’s basic premise, would be far too dangerous call attention to. So the media is now trying to banish the movement to conceptual Siberia by not mentioning it at all.

But the perspective of OWS comes closer than any other viewpoint to describing the true state of the culture wars in the USA and the rest of the world. The Occupiers have identified the battle as being between the 1% and the other 99%, echoing the current 90-degree relationship between Pluto (plutocracy) and Uranus (democracy).

Then, Now and Upcoming

When I think back to what life was like in the late 60s and 70s, I realize that, though most of us young hot-heads didn’t know what we were doing, we knew something important was taking place. We could sense that powerful forces were disrupting the status quo. The narrow, flag-waving, Communist-fearing reality structure that we had grown up was being torn asunder.

Those old political and cultural ideologies are all but gone. Certainly the diehard voices that would resurrect them are still among us, shrill, well-financed and well-showcased by the media, but their efforts are doomed to failure. Newer and more universal values are on the ascendency, emerging painstakingly like seedlings through of the crust of the soil—visions rising up to match the urgent realities of a post-millennial world.

Alongside them are new generations being born: a whole new crop of creative Americans wired to thrive under Pluto in Capricorn, Aquarius and beyond.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Please tell me you did see the date on this?

Just in case you're not joking, the cultural shift at the turn of the last century was far greater than anything that happened in the '60's. That is completely forgotten, why? Because two world wars followed. Really, the counter culture you speak of was just the recycling of ideas which came into being in the first decade of the 20th century. Free love, communes, etc.

There are many reasons the 60's "happened". Most importantly, to have a youth revolution you need a large number of youth with a lot of time on their hands. You'd be better off thanking Hitler than any astrology, 'cos without you baby boomers, there would have been no counter culture.

[TMinthePM]

Yeah...so...?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Yeah...so...?

In fairness to TM here, the bulk of my prior post was not there before he responded. He was just replying to the date bit.

[Emdeeh]

Speaking as one of the distaff community here, this woman doesn't believe in astrology -- and never did. But I do like "Funky Pretty."

[TMinthePM]

Thank you Mr. Newcombe for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, I agree, there is a connection between the culture shifts of the turn of the century and of the 60's.

Perhaps, they are of the same current, submerging, reappearing, submerging and now reappearing.

[AndrewHickey]

Speaking as one of the distaff community here, this woman doesn't believe in astrology -- and never did. But I do like "Funky Pretty."

Two extremely sensible opinions, unlike much of the rest of this thread.

[TMinthePM]

Ah Funky Pretty - She had long brown hair, brown eyes, would share with me her poetry as I shared my music, and is as lovely at 60 as at 16.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Speaking as one of the distaff community here, this woman doesn't believe in astrology -- and never did. But I do like "Funky Pretty."

And I hope you know I meant no offense. As we established, here in UK it's cultural. I love Funky Pretty too especially Mike's line in the fade

[TMinthePM]

And so, back to the larger question -

If, taken poetically, there is this great flowing stream of, what shall I call it, influence, does it correlate to the career of the Beach Boys?

I suppose I need an astrologer to make the case.

 

[bossaroo]

the fact of the matter is that it's the weekend and there's less people using the board. which explains the repeated attack and ridicule of the OP by a small handful of members. TMinthePM said nothing disrespectful or insulting. If that's truly the way it was perceived, you have issues.

Calling astrology "utter nonsense" and proclaiming that "only women believe in such things" makes you look quite ignorant and intolerant. The funniest part is that The Beach Boys are a group who believe and rely on astrological readings more than probably any other band that I'm aware of. The Beach BOYS. No women in the band that I'm aware of. They've sung about it in multiple songs, they've used it on their album covers, and they've relied on it in their daily lives.

Astrology is one of the oldest schools of thought in existence. The fact that some people dismiss it, doesn't make it any less valid or ancient or meaningful. I'm no expert. I don't use it or understand it. But I don't call it hogwash and belittle those who study it. It would have been much easier and more respectful to just stay out of the topic if you had nothing to contribute, but you just had to poke fun at the OP and sh!t on an ancient belief system and science in the process. Do you feel better now?


There is an in-depth article in the Dec. 2000 issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine entitled Brian Wilson and the Dark Side of the California Dream which includes an astrological chart for Brian, Dennis, and Murry (no Carl for some reason) and a combined chart for Brian and Gene Landy. The article was written by a man (imagine that!) and is very well-researched. The guy knows his Beach Boys history. I'd be happy to scan and post it, if anyone is interested.

Again, if you think it's all "utter nonsense" then there are plenty of other threads to occupy your attention. No need to act like a bully on the playground. Personally, I find it fascinating and I welcome this discussion by those who are qualified to share. Oh, and I'm a guy... in case you were wondering.

The only issue I have with the original post, unless I misunderstood, is that you called John Lennon a Fire Sign when he is actually an Air Sign.

[AndrewHickey]

Astrology is one of the oldest schools of thought in existence. The fact that some people dismiss it, doesn't make it any less valid or ancient or meaningful. I'm no expert. I don't use it or understand it. But I don't call it hogwash and belittle those who study it. It would have been much easier and more respectful to just stay out of the topic if you had nothing to contribute, but you just had to poke fun at the OP and sh!t on an ancient belief system and science in the process. Do you feel better now?

Astrology isn't a science, and an idea being old has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

And I only had 'nothing to contribute' if disagreement is never a valid contribution. My first post here was to say that the kind of correlation the OP was seeing can be found almost anywhere, and proves nothing, and my third one was to engage, line by line, with one of the OP's posts. It's only when it became clear that he wasn't interested in anything anyone else had to say that I stopped trying to be polite.

Stephen's original comment was, of course wrong -- and my first comment in this thread was to disagree with him. That said, your claim that "TMinthePM said nothing disrespectful or insulting. " is simply not true. The OP's first few posts after the initial one were pretty dismissive of Stephen. He then got into personal insults with "you guys are coming across as totally spiritually barren" and "Well, this is the first I've received a hickey since high school. "

[bossaroo]

The first response was a sexist remark, which deserves to be dismissed. If you really felt disrespected by the hickey remark, you need thicker skin. It was a humorous and lighthearted reply to having one's beliefs labeled as "utter nonsense". As for the "spiritually barren" remark, it's a valid observation and opinion.

Astrology obviously doesn't fit into your belief system. Nobody ever planted their country's flag on the astral "plain", so it must not exist according to some. There's no such thing as ghosts or an afterlife. If we can't see it, it ain't real! Whatever makes you feel safe and cozy.

But astrology can most certainly be described as a science. It is extremely exacting with rigid rules and definitions and centuries of practice and study to back it up. It's not just some religion as it's been described in this thread.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

the fact of the matter is that it's the weekend and there's less people using the board. which explains the repeated attack and ridicule of the OP by a small handful of members. TMinthePM said nothing disrespectful or insulting. If that's truly the way it was perceived, you have issues.

Calling astrology "utter nonsense" and proclaiming that "only women believe in such things" makes you look quite ignorant and intolerant. The funniest part is that The Beach Boys are a group who believe and rely on astrological readings more than probably any other band that I'm aware of. The Beach BOYS. No women in the band that I'm aware of. They've sung about it in multiple songs, they've used it on their album covers, and they've relied on it in their daily lives.

Astrology is one of the oldest schools of thought in existence. The fact that some people dismiss it, doesn't make it any less valid or ancient or meaningful. I'm no expert. I don't use it or understand it. But I don't call it hogwash and belittle those who study it. It would have been much easier and more respectful to just stay out of the topic if you had nothing to contribute, but you just had to poke fun at the OP and sh!t on an ancient belief system and science in the process. Do you feel better now?


There is an in-depth article in the Dec. 2000 issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine entitled Brian Wilson and the Dark Side of the California Dream which includes an astrological chart for Brian, Dennis, and Murry (no Carl for some reason) and a combined chart for Brian and Gene Landy. The article was written by a man (imagine that!) and is very well-researched. The guy knows his Beach Boys history. I'd be happy to scan and post it, if anyone is interested.

Again, if you think it's all "utter nonsense" then there are plenty of other threads to occupy your attention. No need to act like a bully on the playground. Personally, I find it fascinating and I welcome this discussion by those who are qualified to share. Oh, and I'm a guy... in case you were wondering.

The only issue I have with the original post, unless I misunderstood, is that you called John Lennon a Fire Sign when he is actually an Air Sign.

Bossaroo. It did go a bit far, and I don't really think the OP deserved quite the roasting he got.  He weathered it OK though, and  I think he and I have cleared the air!

I was clear what I meant about it being mainly women who believe in this, In the UK that is true, sorry, but it is. It is a cultural thing. I knew it would be taken wrongly. Please read back on my posts. You'll see it explained.

 As for me, I've had enough of this subject. As I said, astrology is harmless, and give me that over the mainly male Abrahamic religions and it's offshoots, and the trouble they have caused throughout this world.

TMinthePM, your ideas are not for me I'm afraid. Spiritually barren, maybe, though I prefer to think of myself as scientifically enlightened,

Goodnight all

[Iron Horse-Apples]

The first response was a sexist remark, which deserves to be dismissed.

Just read back on this thread. Sorry, but here in the UK what I said was true. It is mainly women who believe in it. That's a statistic, not a sexist statement. And seeing as though it is mainly geeky men on this board, and seeing as how spirituality doesn't really come up, well......I posted what I posted.

[AndrewHickey]

The first response was a sexist remark, which deserves to be dismissed.

Yes, it was.

If you really felt disrespected by the hickey remark, you need thicker skin.

It's not up to you how I react to personal insults.

Astrology obviously doesn't fit into your belief system. Nobody ever planted their country's flag on the astral "plain", so it must not exist according to some. There's no such thing as ghosts. If we can't see it, it doesn't exist! Whatever makes you feel safe and cozy.

It's not a matter of making anyone "feel safe and cozy", it's a matter of simple fact. We know what all the physical forces are in the universe -- all physical phenomena are down to interactions between the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The strong and weak forces don't affect anything on distances larger than the atomic. The gravitational and electromagnetic forces drop off as the inverse square of distance, which has the result that any gravitational or electromagnetic effect from stars and planets at the moment of birth would be absolutely swamped by the corresponding effect from, for example, someone walking past the room in which the birth was taking place.

It's not a matter of what anyone wants to believe, it's a matter of astrology being contradicted by every single established piece of scientific knowledge.

But astrology can most certainly be described as a science. It is extremely exacting with rigid rules and definitions and centuries of practice and study to back it up. It's not a religion as some have described it in this thread.

Being "extremely exacting with rigid rules and definitions and centuries of practice and study" has *nothing* to do with whether something is a science or not (and in fact many religions fit that exactly). Something is a science if, and only if, it follows the scientific method. To quote the paper "Astronomy And Astrology" from the Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 260, 2009:

Finally, to decide whether astrology has some attributes of science, let us consider the nature of science. The scientific method is based on induction (which draws general conclusions from particular observations or experiences) and deduction (which draws specific conclusions or defines experiences or tests from a general law or knowledge). From observational facts, scientists induce a theory which aims at their interpretation. To be scientific, this theory should permit to deduce experiences and tests, and to make quantitative predictions about their results. Comparison with effective experimental results then confirms or refutes the validity of the theory. This refutability or falsifiability is
a key test of “scientificity” of the theory. Science is precisely this method, alternately inductive and deductive, plus the corpus of knowledge that constitutes its “database” (in permanent evolution). Other important characteristics include the key role of team work, communication (systematic publication after peer reviewing), search for consensus and universality (science transcends cultures and nationalities). Natural sciences have a strong mathematical background, which makes them quantitative and predictive. They have generated very efficient operational applications (modern technology).

In comparison, the astrological practice is built on a major original induction interpreting selected facts into a very (too) broad and general law (the correspondence principle relating humans to the cosmos). From that point, astrology is purely deductive. Its domain of application is very broad (from natural and political predictions to individual ones and personality characterisation), but its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsifiable (as clearly seen when comparing several interpretations of the same horoscope). The basic postulate is never questioned, except in rare works by isolated people, more subject to biases than team works (Gauquelin 1955, 1960; Benski et al. 1996). The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions
were falsifiable ... and were falsified ! Astrology does not possess any standard publication channel or procedure. Its knowledge has no universality: the various schools and cultures ignore or oppose each other, without consensus nor need for consensus. It is remarkable that the main consensual reference of western astrology remains Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, which dates from 160 BCE !
We can thus confidently conclude that astrological practice is by no means scientific.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

But astrology can most certainly be described as a science.

It cannot. Science is about forming a testable hypothesis.

[Uncomfortable Seat]

and then I was reminded of an article detailing the astrological significance of the Beatles - Fire Sign John, Air Sign Paul, Water Sign George, Earth Sign Ringo

John and Paul are both Air signs and George and Ringo are both Water signs.  It's CSNY who have that complete elemental representation.  The original Eagles were all Water signs.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

http://www.astrology.co.uk/news/astrostats.htm

There. Here in the UK more than twice the amount of women than men believe in astrology. Fact. Not sexist statement.

Anyone else who accuses me of not being liberal enough is gonna get a smack in the mouth

(I'm joking)

[TMinthePM]

Again, I had to run errands, but am back now.

Don't want to go into the New Paradigm here as would be way off topic, so will just proceed on givens.

Have taken a look at Mountain Astrologer but cannot find Brian Wilson and the Dark Side of the California Dream. Will Keep looking.

What is curious to me in all this is the reemergence of the Beach Boys in 2012, talking about how it feels like 1965.

Yeah, at least as far as the new album goes. I don't know about the wider scene tho. 65-66 were like peak renaissance time. The crash didn't come till 68.

But the astro-view holds that the current configuration of the heavens mirrors the 60's. What does mirror imply I wonder? This certainly doesn't feel like peak renaissance time - more like pre-revolutionary time.

So, they reappear as a presence in the popular psyche to what? Bow out. Bid Adieu. Recall a connection to the past?

Hmmm...

[Amazing Larry]

and then I was reminded of an article detailing the astrological significance of the Beatles - Fire Sign John, Air Sign Paul, Water Sign George, Earth Sign Ringo

John and Paul are both Air signs and George and Ringo are both Water signs.  It's CSNY who have that complete elemental representation.  The original Eagles were all Water signs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3KLL64mkI

[TMinthePM]

Oh, OK I don't have the old Beatles astro article handy. Maybe the author was referring to Cardinal Signs?

Beach Boys, being five sided (six sided?) present a more complicated stew.

Brian - Gemini - brainy but - split personality - up and down, on and off

[TMinthePM]

Link takes me to I Hate the F... Eagles.

I don't get it.