The Beatles - Harbingers of the Aquarian Age?

by Ray Grasse

While I was in college during the 1970s, I had a debate one afternoon with a fellow student about popular culture—in particular, the Beatles. My friend was an unabashed elitist, a true believer in the superiority of classical music and art to anything currently offered up by pop culture. When the subject turned to rock music, specifically the Beatles, he literally turned up his nose and suggested they offered nothing of lasting value to culture.

“100 years from now,” he said, “they’ll be completely forgotten.”

I politely disagreed. My sense then was that they’ll still be listened to long into the future, not much different from how people still listen to the compositions of George Gershwin, Cole Porter, or for that matter standards like “Greensleeves” or even “Ave Maria.” 

Several decades have passed since that discussion, and I feel even more strongly in my opinion about that than before, and that’s for several reasons. 

For one, the Beatles were actually involved in the cultural revolutions of the late 20th century on several fronts, which gave their work an importance beyond simply the purely aesthetic. Their influence extended to the realms of politics, media, cinema, fashion, religion, even mind-altering drugs. Taken together, it would be hard to overestimate how far-reaching their impact has been on global culture—an influence that continues to ripple on up through our own time.

But what I’d like to suggest here goes a bit further than that, in that the Beatles may well hold an archetypal significance relating the unfolding zeitgeist of the next two millennia. Far-fetched? Maybe. But consider this simple question: 

What accounts for the extraordinary popularity of the Beatles?

Sure, there were obvious musical talents at work there, along with considerable charm, humor and personality. But whenever a major cultural phenomenon comes along and grabs the entire world by the throat, like the Beatles did, there is usually a deeper reason involved, as though deeper archetypal chords are being struck in the collective unconscious.

With that in mind, I’ve come to believe that the Beatles had the impact they’ve had because of how closely they resonated to the impulses of the emerging Aquarian Age. In various ways, they were the virtual spearheads of trends specifically related to that global transformation. We’ll look here at a few examples of what I mean. 

The Uranus/Pluto Conjunction of the 1960s

 But first, it’s important to realize that the period during which the Beatles became popular, the 1960s, was characterized by a number of powerful astrological influences—in particular, the epic Uranus/Pluto conjunction which colored that entire decade (and which hadn’t happened since the mid-1800s). Technically, that aspect became exact in 1965 and 1966, so it’s not a coincidence that those two years were essentially the epicenter of the Beatle’s most extraordinary work: Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966) and, following close behind, Sgt. Pepper (1967). (This was also the period that Bob Dylan came out with his most critically acclaimed albums—Bringing it All Back Home, Highway 61, and Blonde on Blonde. Clearly, the Beatles weren’t the only ones tapping into the powerhouse planetary energies of the time!)

As I’ve remarked elsewhere,1 I’ve come to regard major planetary configurations like this that occur on the cusp between Great Ages as being like “cosmic triggers” in a way, serving to activate and illustrate the transition from an older epoch to a newer, dramatically different one. They are, as it were, the “micro-triggers” taking place within the larger “macro-stages” of the Great Ages. In this case, the significance of the aspect is due partly to the role played by Uranus—the planet believed by most modern astrologers to rule (or co-rule) Aquarius. Even without Uranus, though, I feel that any major planetary configuration on the cusp between Great Ages can serve as just such a cosmic trigger, helping to usher in the energies of a new era. The upshot is, the cultural manifestations of the mid-60s can be seen as foreshadowing what lies ahead for us, in both constructive and destructive ways.

With that said, let’s look now at some of those trends which the Beatles reflected, and how they can be related to the archetypal currents of the Aquarian mythos. 

The Power of the Group 

At the most basic level, we need to look first at the fact that their primary impact was, first and foremost, as a group—a band of friends. That’s obviously Aquarian. But at its most constructive, Aquarius isn’t about just any “group”; note how all four of the Beatles were distinct individuals. By comparison, can you name any one of the musicians who backed up Elvis? Or Sinatra? Or Duke Ellington? But virtually everyone knows the names John, Paul, George and Ringo. While Aquarian group consciousness does have its darker side, in representing a sort of faceless “mob” consciousness, at its most creative it represents the power of community, of group activism, of individuals working together in harmony. In the process it shows us what each of us can do “with a little help from our friends.” 

Let me explain that a bit further. I’ve written frequently about the importance of jazz as a key symbol for the higher potentialities of Aquarian group consciousness. 2 Whereas the Gregorian choir of the earlier Piscean Age required that singers surrender their individualities for the sake of a higher ideal, a typical jazz band encourages personal creativity and individuality within the context of the group. That’s a uniquely different, and very Aquarian, form of collective. Nor is it just in jazz or music where we find that archetypal dynamic in play. Besides being the essential dynamic of democracy, the same essential symbolism underlies the story of The Wizard of Oz, where four distinctly different creatures pool their energies to band together on a great quest. Unlike the classic mythic quests of ancient times, like the search for the Holy Grail or the Golden Fleece, each member of L. Frank Baum’s group is searching for something distinctly different, and yet despite that fact they’re able to work together harmoniously. 

I’d suggest that this same dynamic applies to the Beatles. Their music may not have been strictly “jazz” (although they tinkered with it in songs like “I’m Only Sleeping”), but their unique contributions to the group definitely involved a jazz-like merging of personal creativity with group activity, in ways very different from the anonymous Gregorian choirs of old. 

From the Bottom Up 

It’s also important to note that the Beatles represented a distinctly populist, grass-roots effort. These weren’t upper crust, “trust-fund” kids, let alone descendants of royal bloodlines; all four hailed from working class families. That’s Aquarian as well, with this zodiacal sign’s “we the people” democratic emphasis holding forth from the other end of the zodiac from more monarchal and kingly Leo. 

As such, the Beatles came to represent what might be called the triumph of the average person. Aquarius represents the influence of common men and women acting together, whether for good or ill, whether for mob rule or for group activism and creativity. In more ancient times, “success” and “fame” were largely the privilege of royalty, the ultra-rich, or of religious dignitaries. But we’re entering an age that, largely thanks to the internet and media, anyone can become famous for at least 15 minutes, as Warhol put it. The Beatles gave hope to young people around the world that even those from modest backgrounds and means could rise into positions of wealth, influence, and fame. That’s a relatively new phenomenon in global society, and hints at one of the manifestations of what Aquarius is introducing into our world. 

Apostles of Freedom

But there was something even deeper involved with the Beatles’ lingering impact, and that has to do with freedom. With their long hair, irreverent attitudes and unconventional lifestyles, as depicted in films like A Hard Days Night and Help!, there was something about their lives that spoke to young people about a different attitude towards life, one of attitude of rebellion, self-expression and creative possibility. It’s worth noting that when they first hit the big-time, all four were wearing corporate-style black suits—“uniformity” in the most literal sense of the word—only later abandoning those uniforms in favor of more personalized outfits. As such, they were a microcosm of was happening throughout the culture at the time, as society itself was leaning moving away from corporate uniformity towards more individualized forms of self-expression.

Indeed, that spirit of freedom and rebellion had some surprising social consequences around the world. I hinted earlier at the political influence of the Beatles. Aside from their public and musical statements on such matters (“Give Peace a Chance,” Revolution,” etc.), it’s become clear over the intervening decades just how big a role the Beatles played in fomenting social change in various countries. 

For instance, there is a growing number of historians and social commentators who now attribute the break-up of the Soviet Union and old school communism (a distinctly Piscean Age movement) in no small part to Western pop culture, in particular the Beatles. They were embodiments of a new spirit of freedom for young people that reflected itself not just in musical and artistic ways but in attitudes towards life and politics. "Beatlemania washed away the foundations of Soviet society," explained Mikhail Safonov at the Institute of Russian History. The Russian rock musician Sasha Lipnitsky added, "The Beatles brought us the idea of democracy. For many of us, it was the first hole in the iron curtain." 3 While it’s probably true the wave of change in the U.S.S.R. triggered by the Beatles would have happened without them, it likely wouldn’t have happened nearly as soon, nor quite as colorfully.

From Religion to Secularism

On another front, the shift from Pisces to Aquarius signifies the transition from a religious era to a more secular one. It’s not that Aquarius is anti-religion, simply that it doesn’t demand unquestioning fealty to a specific religion, religious leader, or ideology; it’s more decentralized and kaleidoscopic than that. By contrast, Pisces—like its sibling sign, Sagittarius—is inextricably religious and ideological. (If Aquarius is “dogmatic” or “ideological” about anything, it would more likely be science or technology.) 

This stand-off between worldviews came to a head in 1965—exactly during the peak of the Uranus/Pluto alignment— when John Lennon made the controversial statement, “We’re more popular than Jesus” during a press conference. It set of a firestorm of reaction from conservative Christians everywhere, causing religious devotees to destroy their Beatles records and gather in protest. Lennon didn’t mean to suggest they were better than Jesus, he was simply commenting on a social reality. Because the fact is, fans of The Beatles actually did shower a degree of near-religious devotion on the band in ways previously reserved for spiritual figures or movements. That was exactly Lennon’s point. The times they were a-changin’, and doing so in ways that reflected a shift from the religious values of the Piscean era to the more secular ones of the Aquarian one. (Something was definitely in the air throughout that time; several months after Lennon’s statement, for instance, the editors of Time magazine famously stirred up controversy when they printed the words “Is God Dead?” on their front cover.) 

Ushering in the New Global Culture 

Finally, it’s important to mention the role the Beatles played in drawing together social and artistic influences from around the world towards the emergence of a global culture. They weren’t the first to incorporate foreign musical elements from other traditions into their own; nor were they the first to travel to the Far East in search of mystic wisdom. Yet their enormous fame led them to have a far greater impact in these ways than anyone else had before. Suddenly, musicians from distant lands began appearing on musical stages across Europe and the U.S., while Western musicians were returning the favor by touring in far-off countries and incorporating previously exotic elements into their own recordings. In terms of the Beatles, that cultural cross-pollination was underscored by John Lennon’s marriage to Japanese-born (and Aquarian) Yoko Ono. In fact, the Beatles synthesized elements from many musical tributaries, including folk, blues, rock, classical, jazz, pop, Motown, experimental, even “heavy” metal—all of which is Aquarian in spirit, since this sign is less concerned with monolithic styles or genres than with a more inclusive or “kaleidoscopic” integration of perspectives. 

In the process, the Beatles became a worldwide media phenomenon—itself a modern development—joining audiences from countries and their citizens beyond just Great Britain and the U.S.. I remember as a child watching their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964, a broadcast that garnered 23 million viewers; that was followed by their appearance in 1967 performing “All You Need Is Love” for a live satellite telecast that reached an astonishing 350 million viewers around the world. In some ways, that telecast was reminiscent of the first Moon landing in the way it united the masses in the same moment of time for a singular event. Here, too, there was a dissolving of local boundaries in service of a world culture, along with a uniting of minds into a much larger “group consciousness.”

“And in the end…”

These, then, are a few of the more obvious ways the Beatles embodied themes intrinsic to the emerging Aquarius mythos. While this has all been a largely positive development, I believe, there are always two sides to everything, so besides their impact on creativity and global culture we should at least consider the potential “darker” side to their influence and symbolism—however inadvertent and unintended that may have been. Let’s look at a couple examples of that.

While the Beatles ostensibly represented non-conformity, they influenced millions of people to be, act, and look just like them, in ways that were, ironically, extremely conformist. In its own way, this led to a kind of “hive-mind” situation, which is one of the real dangers of Aquarian society, especially a media-connected one. 

As world-famous celebrities, they also represented the pitfalls of the Aquarius/Leo epoch in terms of the extraordinary lack of privacy they experienced, with the eyes of the world scrutinizing their every move and statement. That’s gradually been happening to all of us, as we find ourselves plugged into a worldwide electronic web, exposed to the prying eyes of countless unseen prying eyes. 

But despite problems like these, I think it’s clear the Beatles represented the more harmonious potentials of Aquarian group consciousness. In the end, the Beatles weren’t simply a product of the 60s but of the ages—the Great Ages, specifically. Even for those who may not like their music, it’s still possible to speculate that, centuries from now, the 1960s will be studied by scholars and historians, just as we now do with the Roaring 20s, fin de siècle 1890s, or even the Renaissance. If so, the Beatles will be at the forefront of those studies, emblematic of a tectonic social change that will likely be reverberating long after they left the stage to pursue their own life-paths. 

Notes: 
1. See chapter 3 of my book Signs of the Times: Unlocking the Symbolic Language of World Events (Hampton Roads, 2002).
2. See chapters 2 and 8 of Signs of the Times. In fact, Aquarius represents the dynamic tension between the group and the individual, rather than just one side or the other. With that in mind, I’d suggest that whereas the Beatles represented the more “group”-oriented side of this emerging Aquarian trend, Bob Dylan, from the other side of the Atlantic, represented the more individualistic face of this Aquarian consciousness. (There was even a curious mirror-like symmetry between their careers and joint evolutions as performers. For example, just as the four Beatles started becoming more individualistic and going their own ways during the mid-60s, Dylan started moving away from solo performances to working more with groups. Likewise, exactly as the Beatles began going more acoustic on records like “Yesterday” and albums like “Rubber Soul,” Dylan was shifting from acoustic to an increasingly electrified approach (epitomized in his controversial performance at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965).
3. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/apr/20/beatles-soviet-union-first-rip-iron-curtain

About the author:
Ray Grasse is author of seven books, including StarGates, An Infinity of Gods, The Waking Dream, and Under a Sacred Sky. He has been associate editor of The Mountain Astrologer for over 20 years. His websites are  www.raygrasse.com and www.raygrassephotography.com

Image sources:
Mug shots taken from Kennedy airport 1964 photo: United Press International, photographer unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Beatles in 1963: ingen uppgift, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Press conference Minnesota, August 1965: Minnesota Historical Society, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Memorial in Almaty, Kazakhstan: Ken and Nyetta, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 © Ray Grasse 2021