The Beatles

[Nargle]

Am I the only one that's kind of offended when whenever there's a deep song by the Beatles, everyone always said "Man, they must have been sooo high!!"

Yeah, I know they did drugs and some of their songs were more then likely inspired by them. But seriously, is it impossible to be creative or philosophical without being baked? There are a lot of songs I've heard by them where I can actually pick out a lot of symbolism and such. Like the Yellow Submarine. But apparently the drugs get all the credit.

I've never done drugs in my life, and I think my artwork can get creative. So it's possible. By saying the Beatles couldn't think of anything without being high is like saying they're not actually artistic in any way, they're just lucky that their disoriented drug-induced babbling turned into some neat lyrics. That's a pretty cruel insult.

[hillbilly guy]

drugs dont make the mind you are still you inside and what you say is you drugs are more or less just something to open the flood gates, some of the things you say make sence but alot of it dont

[Nargle]

But I honestly don't think you need drugs to "open the flood gates." It's certainly possible to express your creativity without the use of drugs. If you're already creative, then drugs aren't going to make you more creative.

[Aden]

Maybe if they had taken a lot of drugs, they would have made better music.

/Flame on.

[Nargle]

But they did take a lot of drugs.

[Magikian]

I am honestly waiting for WolfBone to write a wall of text about this.

But yeah, by what I hear, weed = creativity. And most songs inspired by drugs are more liked than ridiculed, that I have noticed.

[Nargle]

I am honestly waiting for WolfBone to write a wall of text about this.

But yeah, by what I hear, weed = creativity. And most songs inspired by drugs are more liked than ridiculed, that I have noticed.

I've known a lot of people who do weed, and the large majority of them produced not a lot more then a big ol' dent in their couch.

So I don't think weed is synonymous with creativity. Maybe there creative people that do weed, but I don't think they really relate to each other much.

BTW, not bashing potheads. Just going off of personal experience.

[Magikian]

Oh, I didn't say that ALL potheads are creative, I just said I heard it helps.

[Nargle]

Honestly, I thought it made you unmotivated, which would seem like it would make you not have the desire to get up and create something.

[Prowler]

well I dont want to interupt your discussion but I have to due to experience, not knowledge. I have done alot of drugs, and all i can say about the subject being discussed is that weed doesnt always help creativity, but it can help bring around some ideas you may otherwise never have had, good or bad(my theory about this is because if your a pothead u smoke to "relax", and when the mind is relaxed it can see what it wants more clearly) as for other drugs, i dont know all of what the beatles did but LSD is a whole new world compared to weed. I never did it regularily but If I ever had done it when not at a show, I dont think i would have been able to sit down and create something beautiful(never did it not at a show tho) and I could give some my personal experience/insight into some other drugs too but i dont think its necessary.
BTW I dont do any drugs anymore incase anybody cares

[Aden]

But they did take a lot of drugs.

Maybe they should have taken heavier drugs.

[Nargle]

Maybe they should have taken heavier drugs.

Well, I'm not an expert on drug heaviness, so I can't help you there.

[kurreltheraven]

Am I the only one that's kind of offended when whenever there's a deep song by the Beatles, everyone always said "Man, they must have been sooo high!!"

The Beatles already had years of songwriting experience behind them before they got stuck into drugs though.

I think maybe people wish it was the drugs because their respective mediocrity complexes can't fathom anyone deliberately being a musical genius.

[emptyF]

the beatles are overrated, pure and simple. they're good, just not as good as everyone says they are. and yes, they smoked a lot of reefer and did their fair share of acid, but it really didn't matter, they were good songwriters with or without that influence.

[virus]

the beatles are overrated, pure and simple. they're good, just not as good as everyone says they are. and yes, they smoked a lot of reefer and did their fair share of acid, but it really didn't matter, they were good songwriters with or without that influence.


Your kidding me right? Music as we know it wouldn't exist without their upcoming.

[Defender]

The Beatles did a lot of neat stuff with studio production that was fantastic and ahead of its time. Since they were around, a lot more musically adventurous musicians have come around, so I don't think the Beatles should be put on a pedestal for being "first" and supposedly causing all other music since then or whatever. I mean, people don't think Latin is the best language ever simply because it was an early precursor to English or other languages, do they?

[Nargle]

By the by, I'm not trying to say the Beatles is the best band in the world. It's pretty neat, and I enjoy a lot of their songs. They're not my absolute favorite, though.

But they were very creative and inspired a lot of people. They made a lot of excellent works of art, but it seems people want to give all the credit to the drugs. I mean.. nowadays there are plenty of bands with abstract themes and lyrics. But people don't go around saying "Yup, they were high while making this song."

I honestly think it's because they're associated with hippies, and that's the only reason. There are a LOT of musicians that do drugs, not just the hippies. But I guess it's because they're famous for their drug use. Hell, I would think some uncreative rapper droning on during a boring hip-hop song was high before I would think the Beatles were. Laffy Taffy? What!?

[Grimfang]

The Beatles are gods in the realm of music. Not only for the influence and representation of an era, but they did some amazing things musically. I'll have to dig up something that was analyzing exactly how they were groundbreaking.. not just by the music they wrote, but the techniques they used.

Also, the Beatles began their musical career before they started any kind of drug-use, so you can always throw that out. A lot of the music around today probably never would've been inspired if the Beatles hadn't have done what they did.

[emptyF]

Your kidding me right? Music as we know it wouldn't exist without their upcoming.

no, i'm absolutely serious. music as we know it wouldn't exist without black sabbath.

[Kimmerset]

Well not that I do drugs, but I'm sure doing them gives you an entirely different perspective on the world, changing the way you think about anything you do; music, writing and art included.

It is inspiration for many rising artists and probably will be for a very long time.

[M. Le Renard]

I mean.. nowadays there are plenty of bands with abstract themes and lyrics. But people don't go around saying "Yup, they were high while making this song."
Well... I'm pretty sure Modest Mouse writes a lot of their songs while high. In fact, one of their songs is simply about being high. And everyone I know who knows who Modest Mouse is also seems to believe that they use a lot of drugs for inspiration. So you might not be correct with this generalization.
That said, editing goes a long way. If you haven't read The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, maybe give it a go. You'll learn quite a bit about the hippie era, and how people might have used drugs as inspiration. Drugs may influence the direction a song (or book, or whatever) goes, for example, but rarely does the whole thing come out perfectly formed under a cloud of funky visions or whatever. I don't really know anything about the Beatles, but something tells me this is the sort of thing they used drugs for. Trip out for a couple of hours, then look over all the funny scribbles they produced in a stupor and pull out some gems about silver hammers or what have you.
I can sort of understand that, anyway. I tend to get more creative in my writing if I've had a lot of alcohol. Too much kills it, though, I would think.
But anyway, I agree that you can't say that ALL of their music was a product of drug-use. And in fact, it seems I agree with you about everything else, too. So there you go.

[C. Lupus]

I bealive that the Beatels were not on dope in the beggining. But they started it once their carrier kick off. Drugs can make yourself become very artistic, and with all their talent they just become more than awsome with pot. And no they cant have been high 24/7, or else their brains would been really slow.

[CraskWolf]

Interesting fact: According to Paul McCartney's biography (one of I suppose), Bob Dylan introduced the Beatles to pot.

Whether it's true or not, it makes for a wicked anecdote.

Also, the fact that some of the creativity of the Beatles may have been drug-fuelled doesn't take away from their amazing songwriting/creative talents. It's just that little something extra which pushed them away from songs like A Hard Days Night etc... towards Blue Jay Way, Flying, I Am The Walrus type music. The musical ground they broke in their clean-phase just set the ground work for their tripped out phase.

[Prowler]

true fact...bob dylan(a god) got the beatles into pot. it was in a hotel in NYC i beleive.

[Kano]

The Beatles are my number one favorite band of all time. I agree with you completely! I get really offended when people just brush them off as pot-heads and say that their songs are only put together from the hallucinations they experienced. I mean, sure, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds WAS based on their experiments with LSD (John Lennon said so himself, although the acronym was untrue) the majority of their songs have deep meanings =D

[Beastcub]

i am hugely creative, and i have NEVER done drugs.

i have ADD, i was told by a specialist i have a variety of ADD that results in some one who is extremely creative, is very moody, has trouble sleeping, is stubborn, and is very out going. (which made me feel so awsome...i was also glad to find out that due to my ADD i have sever mood swings and i am not just a bitch)

i don't need drugs to "open the flood gate" as mine never shuts because my brain works differently.

i understand the rant, one can be creative without drugs, and i think that the deep symbolisum in the songs you speak of would not bere there if they were stoned.

[Defender]

i have ADD, i was told by a specialist i have a variety of ADD that results in some one who is extremely creative, is very moody, has trouble sleeping, is stubborn, and is very out going.
Mania?

[Tiarhlu]

The Beatles are my number one favorite band of all time. I agree with you completely! I get really offended when people just brush them off as pot-heads and say that their songs are only put together from the hallucinations they experienced. I mean, sure, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds WAS based on their experiments with LSD (John Lennon said so himself, although the acronym was untrue) the majority of their songs have deep meanings =D

I could have sworn I read that John said that song wasn't drug inspired. The story came from a children's book. I don't remember exactly though.

They were certainly creative before the drugs, so I too think it's silly to say that was the cause of it.

[Arryu]

I get really offended when people just brush them off as pot-heads and say that their songs are only put together from the hallucinations they experienced.


Even if they were inspired by drugs, does it mater?

The fact is they wrote great songs that changed the way the world saw music and are still considered great. Anyone who can't see past the drugs isn't worth the argument that many, many artist have done drugs in their career. And not just musicians, either, painters, writers, photographers, etc. The fact that they do drugs or not does not make the artists good or not.

[GatodeCafe]

The Beatles smoked pot for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

But who cares? The Beatles were overrated as hell.

[Kano]

Even if they were inspired by drugs, does it mater?

The fact is they wrote great songs that changed the way the world saw music and are still considered great. Anyone who can't see past the drugs isn't worth the argument that many, many artist have done drugs in their career. And not just musicians, either, painters, writers, photographers, etc. The fact that they do drugs or not does not make the artists good or not.

It doesn't, what I meant was that there are certain people who say to me "Oh, they were only good because of the drugs." in a very arrogant tone. You are right though. People who can't see past it aren't worth the argument.

[Kano]

I could have sworn I read that John said that song wasn't drug inspired. The story came from a children's book. I don't remember exactly though.

They were certainly creative before the drugs, so I too think it's silly to say that was the cause of it.

The title of the song was from a drawing I think his son did. Whether the lyrics of the song are from a children's book I'm not sure, but he did say a few of the lyrics were inspired by their acid trips c:

[emptyF]

The Beatles smoked pot for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

But who cares? The Beatles were overrated as hell.

amen brother

[Tiarhlu]

The Beatles smoked pot for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

But who cares? The Beatles were overrated as hell.

How so? Who in the 60s would you say was better? I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you think.

[Defender]

How so? Who in the 60s would you say was better? I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you think.
The 60's were a high point for jazz. Coltrane, Hancock, Jimmy Smith, Miles Davis, etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum

[GatodeCafe]

The 60's were a high point for jazz. Coltrane, Hancock, Jimmy Smith, Miles Davis, etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum

This man literally took the words right out of my mouth. It's almost like people forget that black people were making music too during the sixties.

But honestly, if you're not into jazz, the Beach Boys are probably one of the most underrated bands of all time, and I'm not talking "Kokomo" or that stupid crap. Anybody in doubt of Brian Wilson's genius ought to listen to either Pet Sounds or the bootlegs from the Smile sessions. Pure brilliance, honestly.

http://warnakeysbeachboysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/alternate-brian-wilson-presents-smile.html
^Smile bootleg

I truly think the Beatles were decent songwriters, but it's always seemed to me that they took all the things truly cutting edge/avant-garde folks were already doing, and then "commercialized", if you know what I mean. For example, all of the acid "experimentation" from stuff like the white album and Revolver was sort of ripped/inspired by other psychedelic bands at the time i.e. the 13th floor elevators, Country Joe and the Fish, etc... They took all the insanely far-out crazy shit these folks were doing, and they sort of cut it's dick off and turned it into pop music. I'm not saying it's not good, but I just think the Beatles take too much credit for too much shit. "Helter Skelter" inspired punk rock? Don't think so, look up the Monks. Now those were some motherfuckers.

[seekerwolf]

Beatles rock,still do traveling wilburys,wings,Ringo Harrison,John Lennon by himself.I'm sure they did alot of drugs,but that's missing the point,I think they achieved greater insite through the years for neglecting ignorance,and seeking whats inside.Expressing true emotion/feeling/thought through a delightful tune(that everyone feels/goes through actually I think that whole music era had that flava?(did I just write flava)))))and seeking what is known as truth.(though drugs probably clouded them,maybe,what do we know anyways, I know it's bad for health)Sorry I'm a dork.And I agree it did get commercialized,from the get go,but they broke off,John Lennon,even though Micheal Jackson owns a large portion of their music I still think they're great,althrough it seems the fate of any great(maybe not underground)musican is selling out,I guess you just get old realize you're going to die.What is left on this realm.

[Defender]

13th floor elevators
I am so sad that almost nobody knows about Roky Erickson anymore.

[David M. Awesome]

Wow Nargle, that post was deep. You must have been sooooo high when you wrote it.

Druggies like to make ridiculous claims like that because it's all that they have to rationalise their use of mind altering drugs into something other than just getting fucked up because they're stupid and bored and discontented with their lives.

[seekerwolf]

[quote=GatodeCafe;633777]This man literally took the words right out of my mouth. It's almost like people forget that black people were making music too during the sixties.

Isn't that where rock came from, the blues.Elvis was covering alot of those song.Btw you know they made a Beatles monopoly game.

[seekerwolf]

Off topic, but yesterday was Tom Petty's birthday.

[Sedit]

Well...heres how I understand it through both reading and actual witnessed events (so take this all with a grain of salt...I'm in no way an authority on the subject, just a curious observer).

Drugs, particularly the the more psychotropic kinds (LSD, XTC, Shrooms, Payote...anything that amkes you 'trip' moreso' than get 'high'), actually create new, and different neuro pathways in your brain. So, to put it in laymans' terms...they actually physically alter your brain! What this does, is it allows you to do things, and think of things you probably normally never would have. Extended use has actuallly even shown permanent changes in peoples personality and demeanor as well. In smaller does this may not be so bad. In larger doses however, it can be crippling (see: GG Allin, or Syd Barret). You can end up in a state of permanent psychosis.

So yes....alot of music, especially from that era simply would NOT exist without these substances. Now, I'm not saying that it made the respective artists better, or deeper....but it DID make them different than there normal states. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. humanity has been using drugs to alter there state of mind for the sake of art basically for as long as we've had recorded history, and to deny that drugs have played a part in pretty much any cultures artistic mediums is naive.

Take a couple more recent examples: Layne Staley of Alice In Chains. That band, and particularly him, we're practically obsessed with heroine. A very large portion of there music was inspired greatly by this In fact, there most successful record, 'Dirt' is practically one long ode to opium! These songs, and possibly this band in general, would never have existed without heroine. Ahhhh....but it is a double edged sword! One need only look at the circumstances of Laynes untimely death to see that. To a lesser extent, the same could be said of Kurt Cobain...though he wasnt nearly as blatant about his useage. And also, he did alot it seems, for the sake of self-medication rather than just trying to create....but his habits still spawned alot of music that may otherwise would never have existed. But again, sadly, this Damacles' Sword contributed heavily to his dying long before his time as well. In fact, he, much like P:ink Floyds' Syd Barret before him, seemed to be mentally destroyed after a point by the potent combination of drugs, and his own inner turmoil.

In fact, thats another reason I think drugs are often associated in art and music. Not always to inspire one, but often to self-medicate and run from ones own demons. Alot of history greatest artists we're also very distraught people....whether by chemical mental illness, or brought on by great life trauma. Me and an ex girlfriend once had a good discussion about this. She beleived that people who are naturally artistically inclined are generally, by nature, much more sensitive to emotions. We can feel great joy, but more often than not, we also experience long bouts of pain and depression...and we definately live in a world that fosters that! And we all know though...pain begats art! Now, some artists will turn to drugs to alleviate that sorrow. Some (myself included) prefer to NOT numb it out, but rather feed off of it.

Which brings me to another, semi-off topic point. The myth that most metal musicians are junk heads. This probably stems from the high life cocaine binges, and general hedonism, and whatnot form the 70's rock and disco scenes, which later carried over to the 80's hair band scene....which to the initiated, is metal. Fact is, most underground metal bands dont really get into heavy drugs. It's simply not a big part of the culture. There is drinking, yes, and to a somewhat lesser extent, marijauna...but not much else beyond that (there was a short-lived boom of speed/meth use primarily in the west coast scene during the mid 80's though). I think that has to do with the fact that pretty much all death, thrash, black metal, and associated genres feed off of emotions like hate, anger, isolation, depression, etc. Heavier drugs tend to dull those emotions (at least til your 'coming down'...from what I've witnessed, thats not a pretty thing at all!), and are sought out by those who want to run escape those feelings rather than embrace them. No to mention, they can slow you down some too...and you typically want to be able to play fast and precise for these styles. Stoner metal, by it's very name however....is an exception. Weed, is pretty much a necessary ingredient for that formula....but I don't consider weed a heavy drug even in the slightest.


Now, in closing of my unintentionally long winded post (I find this subject fascinating, I can't help it!), I should state that in no way, shape or form am I advocating heavy drug use. Nor am I condemning it either. I think thats a personal choice for oneself to make. If you don't need or desire it, thats cool...sobriety is it's fucked up source of inspiration. If do want to explore, than use whatever tools you see fit for yourself. All I can say on that is try to be somewhat judiscious with your use. Drugs can be a tool...but they can very easily destroy you as well. Many can and do walk that fine line. But many also become consumed by it. I've witnessed it with a few of my friends, and even lost a good friend to heroine use a few years ago....so I've seen first hand how bad it can be (which is probably a part of why, I myself never chose do go any further than occasional alcohol and weed use...and for me, thats when I'm relaxing, and trying to stress out....not to create. I prefer to write and perform sober since I need to feel my generally cynical, and depressed state of mind to create the music I write and enjoy).

I leave you all with this quote from Aleister Crowley:
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law

(and for further reading on his own thoughts and experiences regarding drugs as tools, and the fine line one walks there, read his semi-autobiographical book, "Diary Of a Drug Fiend")

[ChaseFollies]

Am I the only one that's kind of offended when whenever there's a deep song by the Beatles, everyone always said "Man, they must have been sooo high!!"

Yeah, I know they did drugs and some of their songs were more then likely inspired by them. But seriously, is it impossible to be creative or philosophical without being baked? There are a lot of songs I've heard by them where I can actually pick out a lot of symbolism and such. Like the Yellow Submarine. But apparently the drugs get all the credit.

I've never done drugs in my life, and I think my artwork can get creative. So it's possible. By saying the Beatles couldn't think of anything without being high is like saying they're not actually artistic in any way, they're just lucky that their disoriented drug-induced babbling turned into some neat lyrics. That's a pretty cruel insult.

Buh, I just finished spending a massive amount of time last night listening to The Beatles... and while i appreciate their contribution to the rock genre, I'm so not cool with the vast majority of their music.

Go ahead, take a good long listen to most of their music. 90% of it is love songs. I mean that's all well and good and I'm not bashing them for it, but, I kinda want more stuff like Elanor Rigby, Nowhere Man, Yellow Submarine, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds and so on and so forth. Their "Sociological/Societal/Philosophical contribution to the music community is... minor at best. John on the other hand, that's an entirely different story. John is THE Beatle (the one, the individual) who actually made sopciological/philosophical contributions to the rock genre in ways no other has. God rest his soul.

And in short answer to the other part of things here... Do you need to be high to be philosophical, no. No you don't, but it's a good way to expand your mind till you can push past the societal norms and funementals and look at things in a much larger picture. Drugs are not neccisary for this, meditation will accomplish the exact same task, however, drugs are much much much quicker. I'd also like to go on record as saying that despite their reputation and the era in which they became famous, The Beatles were not noted for their drug useage.

[jinxtigr]

Genius tends to lead to drugs, but it's not a rule. Genius can also lead to a hell of a lot of loneliness, isolation and suicide, so if drugs deflect that, fair enough.

Being really lazy and useless can also lead to drugs, so don't jump to too many conclusions ;)

Also, drugs are NOT a substitute for meditation or self-searching. They're a shortcut to knocking your head out of its current rut, which is a very different thing from being willing and able to think across the ruts instead of along them. Advertising drugs to do that tends to make it sound like they're the only way to knock your thinking out of ruts, and it's easy to assume that if you don't think for yourself.

Sometimes people are pretty passionate about this even when they're totally on drugs. As Primus says in concert- "THINK! It's not illegal yet!"

[Kiffa_kitmouse]

Am I the only one that's kind of offended when whenever there's a deep song by the Beatles, everyone always said "Man, they must have been sooo high!!"

Yeah, I know they did drugs and some of their songs were more then likely inspired by them. But seriously, is it impossible to be creative or philosophical without being baked?

No, it is not impossible to be creative or philosophical without being baked.
But no, I am not offended when people equate deeper Beatles songs with drug use.

Look, I wasn't there, so I don't know. But you have to admit, it does kind of make you have to stop and think, when you look at the kind of things they recorded in the early days of their career (i.e., "She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah"), and then compare it to the stuff they did once drugs came into the picture (i.e., "Revolution #9").

I'm not giving drugs all the credit. For one thing, I'm not big on drugs. For another thing, I don't care how much drugs you take, it's not going to bring out any talent that isn't already there. But did it have an effect on the kind of music they recorded? I think even they would admit that it did.