Were The Beatles better after they started taking drugs?

[Mikeisskeptical]

What, if anything, is the correlation between illicit drug use and artistic/musical creativity? It has frequently been suggested that, in particular, hallucinagenic drugs are potentially 'mind expanding'. Is there any truth to this claim and if so why are these alledged benefits to performance seldom associated with scientific/mathematical excellence? After all, isn't music really just maths?

[Colibri]

Moved from GQ to Cafe Society.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Ludovic]

I for one preferred them when they were rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal fuckin' high on drugs.

[Jack Batty]

Considering they were taking drugs as far back as their Hamburg days - before they even recorded their first record - I'll say yes, they were better after they started using drugs.

[garygnu]

Music is not "just math."

[Jack Batty]

I didn't mean that to sound snarky -- sorry if it did.

However, benzos and amphetamines aside, they started smoking pot pretty heavily right around Revolver, which for me is the turning point from teeny-bopper, lover's lament stuff to thoughtful rock and roll, so again, I vote yes. More so once they started dropping acid and came out with shit like Lucy in the Sky and Day in the Life and I am the Walrus, etc.

On the other hand, who's to say it was the drugs that made them better? They did manage to mature as people and musicians over the years, especially within the whole whirl-wind that was The Beatles.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Considering they were taking drugs as far back as their Hamburg days - before they even recorded their first record - I'll say yes, they were better after they started using drugs.

OK, that was just the title. Just picked The Beatles because I like the songs. Shouldn't have picked an example I was totally ignorant about. Lesson learned (maybe). I'm wondering if there is a more general link including for writers, visual artists etc.

[Jack Batty]

Oh, I see what you're getting at.

Well, I'm not sure. I tend to think it's more a causation/correlation thing. The type of person who would become a musician is more likely to become a person who would use drugs ... that, kind of thing. Of course, it's not just drugs, but any sort of vice, really. Did Dylan Thomas become a better writer when he became an alcoholic? Or did Dylan Thomas become an alcoholic borne from the same weird drive that made him a better writer?

[Marley23]

I prefer the Beatles' later stuff - which did come after Dylan introduced them to marijuana - but it's very easy to overstate the link between drugs and creativity. Even if we take it for granted that drugs can expand people's minds and induce greater creativity, it's also true that creativity alone does not make you good. People on drugs (including the Beatles) have produced an awful lot of godawful shit because they mistook their stoner gibberish for something profound or interesting. Drug use over the long run tends to screw up your health and addiction is not great for the creative process because of effects ranging from health problems to the fact that you may be getting high and looking for drugs more often than you are making music. Making good music also requires a lot of practice, and you might not feel like doing that if you're high all the time. Drug addiction derailed Eric Clapton's career for years and obviously nobody ever overdosed on not doing drugs, although I guess there's Pat Boone. I think most drug-addicted musicians are not taking drugs to make better music. They're taking drugs because of various personal problems, some of which also drive them to make music. Didn't Miles Davis once say that he didn't take drugs to make music - he needed drugs to get through everything else, but not when he was onstage?

So I do think the Beatles were better after they started doing psychoactive drugs (I think in Hamburg they were just doing amphetamines), but I think very little of that was because they were doing drugs. It's hard to imagine a few of their great songs without drugs and I have trouble imagining a lot of Jimi Hendrix's musical output without LSD because certainly that stuff influenced the psychedelic culture. The bottom line is this: drugs don't make music. You could give a ton of bands access to drugs and the only one that would have turned into the latter-day Beatles was the Beatles.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by garygnu

Music is not "just math."

Everything is math(s)! That's why we can express it as 1s and 0s on a laser disk. Ok ok... You're right, music isn't really 'just maths'. That was a silly thing to say, but there's definitely a significant cross-over in things like pitch, harmony, rhythm, even ambient acoustics.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The bottom line is this: drugs don't make music. You could give a ton of bands access to drugs and the only one that would have turned into the latter-day Beatles was the Beatles.

Couldn't agree more. As I say, I'm by no means qualified to make this assesment, I'm 28 and emphatically not a Beatles buff, but I guess that it was probably also part of a general shift in music (which they obviously contributed to disproportionately themselves). Their early stuff would I imagine have been electrifying at the time but would have seemed tame and even trite towards the end of their career. Additionally, I don't think we can neglect the fact that towards the end, they had access to some of the best musical minds in the pop world. They were surrounded by peers and mentors many of whom we would consider legends in their own right. They would have had far greater freedom to experiment and a fanbase so devoted that they had virtually no chance of alienating them. Like you say though, for me the biggest factor was that they were all experienced, knowledgable, hard-working musicians with an unusual level of inate ability. Seems pretty unlikely that they would have all found themselves in the same group, but luckily they did. I only mentioned the Beatles to illustrate the point, don't know why I'm making such an extended and probably asinine digression. Could be because I've had a few beers.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Well, I'm not sure. I tend to think it's more a causation/correlation thing. The type of person who would become a musician is more likely to become a person who would use drugs ... that, kind of thing. Of course, it's not just drugs, but any sort of vice, really. Did Dylan Thomas become a better writer when he became an alcoholic? Or did Dylan Thomas become an alcoholic borne from the same weird drive that made him a better writer?

Good points all.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

So if the Beatles weren't necessarily "better" because of (I am going to assume psychedelic drugs use) drugs, then how does one explain the transition from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Tomorrow Never Knows"?

It couldn't simply be written off to the times they were in, musical/songwriting maturation, etc. I do think there's a case to be made for certain drugs at that time, particularly LSD, that seriously influenced a bunch of musicians in that era, not just the Beatles.

Then there's heroin...which also hasn't hurt my CD collection...Stones, Guns and Roses, Nirvana, etc et al...

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The bottom line is this: drugs don't make music. You could give a ton of bands access to drugs and the only one that would have turned into the latter-day Beatles was the Beatles.

That of course is true..drugs won't turn anyone into the Beatles. But if you take a creative genius and give them drugs, it does seem to make them more creative (depending on the drug of course). I haven't read Aldous Huxley in years but the stuff he wrote on acid was fascinating. He claimed it opened up the doors of perception...which IMS is also the name of one of his books on his drug experimentation.

Of course it probably also depends on WHY you are using the drugs in the first place. If it is to escape reality or numb the pain, that may have a different impact--Huxley (like me in college) was doing it in the name of scientific research.

But back to the OP, I do tend to think their LSD use did indeed have a positive impact on their music and lyrics.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Yeah, once upon a time, against my better judgement, and on the insistance of a cherished friend, I read a biography of Pete Doherty (cover to cover, the shame). One of it's principal theses was that Pete had initially taken to smoking heroin in order to facilitate the opening of these said 'doors of perception' and so unleash his inner musical genius. So at the very least I suppose we can safely infer that it doesn't always work. (Sorry to any fans, it's all subjective)

[Mewl Dear]

They were no better after they started doing drugs.
They were very talented people who happened to do drugs.
Do you really think they would have gone nowhere without them?

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Mewl Dear

Do you really think they would have gone nowhere without them?

Who made that claim??

You have to understand that "better" is a completely subjective term. You may think their "best" song is "Love Me Do", which was written before they got into drugs.

But it's hard to imagine they would have ever written "Lucy in the Sky", "Strawberry Fields", or "A Day in the Life"** without psychadelic drugs.

**My personal favorite Beatles song and it is also ranked by Rolling Stone as their best song.

So whether or not The Beatles were "better" after they started taking drugs is a matter of taste. But I don't think anyone thinks they would have gone nowhere without them. That's just silly.

[RealityChuck]

The Beatles improved as time went on, but that had nothing to do with drugs.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

The Beatles improved as time went on, but that had nothing to do with drugs.

Citation needed.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Mikeisskeptical

Their early stuff would I imagine have been electrifying at the time but would have seemed tame and even trite towards the end of their career.

It might have, but they were together from 1962 to 1970 and a lot of things in music changed in huge ways during that time.

Additionally, I don't think we can neglect the fact that towards the end, they had access to some of the best musical minds in the pop world.

"Toward the end?" They always had George Martin. What they did is inconceivable without him, and he always helped them turn their concepts into music.

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

That of course is true..drugs won't turn anyone into the Beatles. But if you take a creative genius and give them drugs, it does seem to make them more creative (depending on the drug of course).

I'm cautious about making any kind of statement that broad. Drugs may help some people become more creative in ways they can use in their art; other people may feel the creativity, but they'll end up as drug addicts who can't create much of anything because they've lost the thread. It seems kind of trite to bring up Syd Barrett in this context and maybe it oversimplifies his problems if you blame them all on drugs, but still, he comes to mind. And there's no shortage of creative people who could've made a lot more music if they hadn't either lost years to addiction or just died.

I really can't imagine The Beatles and Hendrix making the music they made without drugs. It's possible they would have made something else equally amazing, but drugs did have an influence on the course the music took. They didn't just sit around getting high and waiting for 12 great songs to write themselves, though, so it's easy to overstate that influence.

[BrainGlutton]

In Imagine, Lennon claims that he never realized until after "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was released that its initials . . . spelled anything. "And then I started looking at the initials of the titles of all my songs, and of course they didn't spell anything . . ."

Coincidence, happenstance, or Freud vindicated?

[Marley23]

I'm inclined to take Lennon at his word when he says he was not trying to be cute with the title of that song. But he never said the content had nothing to do with LSD, and I assume that's one of the more acid-influenced songs in the Beatles catalogue. Speaking of which, the Wikipedia entry for "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" has Paul McCartney offering this comment:

In a 2004 interview, Paul McCartney said that the song is about LSD, stating, "A song like 'Got to Get You Into My Life,' that's directly about pot, although everyone missed it at the time." "Day Tripper," he says, "that's one about acid. 'Lucy in the Sky,' that's pretty obvious. There's others that make subtle hints about drugs, but, you know, it's easy to overestimate the influence of drugs on the Beatles' music."

[Gatopescado]

The whole premise of this thread is a joke from a Bill Hicks stand-up routine. See post #3.

[wheresmymind]

Originally Posted by Mikeisskeptical

[...] and if so why are these alledged benefits to performance seldom associated with scientific/mathematical excellence? After all, isn't music really just maths?

I'm quite sure very little arithmetic went in to "Can't Buy Me Love." Of course you could express music mathematically, but you could also express a Dostoevsky novel, or boobs mathematically. Music (especially the kind of music The Beatles are responsible for) is a creative endeavor.

As to the first part of your question, actually drugs ARE associated with scientific excellence, to a limited degree. Many big-idea, paradigm-shifting (to use a completely overused phrase) breakthroughs are largely the result of relatively simple, creative solutions to puzzles that have stumped scientists for years. "Hey, what if the speed of light is always the same no matter how fast you're moving?"

In the field of chemistry: Francis Crick and Kary Mullis both came up with their great discoveries (the structure of DNA and the polymerase chain reaction, respectively) with the help of LSD, and according to one story the structure of benzene came to Friedrich Kekule in an opium-induced daydream involving snakes biting their own tails. These are just the famous cases you learn about in school, but anecdotally the proportion of recreational drug users among scientists and musicians I know is about the same (most of my friends are scientists).

[t-bonham@scc.net]

After they started taking drugs? What music did they make before that?

I believe they have mentioned taking drugs during their days in Hamburg, well before they became popular. And before they were playing much of their own music, instead of covers of existing rock songs.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by Gatopescado

The whole premise of this thread is a joke from a Bill Hicks stand-up routine. See post #3.

Come on. Bill Hicks didn't invent this question. It's been asked a million times. I wasn't claiming it was original.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by wheresmymind

As to the first part of your question, actually drugs ARE associated with scientific excellence, to a limited degree. Many big-idea, paradigm-shifting (to use a completely overused phrase) breakthroughs are largely the result of relatively simple, creative solutions to puzzles that have stumped scientists for years. "Hey, what if the speed of light is always the same no matter how fast you're moving?"

.

True, and didn't the idea of evolution by natural selection occur to Wallace (independantly of Darwin) in a severe malarial fever? Not drug use admittedly, but altered concious. I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

I believe they have mentioned taking drugs during their days in Hamburg, well before they became popular. And before they were playing much of their own music, instead of covers of existing rock songs.

They were taking drugs earlier, but the OP is asking about hallucinogenic or psychoactive drugs, not stuff that was just supposed to keep them awake and playing.

[Mikeisskeptical]

Originally Posted by wheresmymind

I'm quite sure very little arithmetic went in to "Can't Buy Me Love." Of course you could express music mathematically, but you could also express a Dostoevsky novel, or boobs mathematically. Music (especially the kind of music The Beatles are responsible for) is a creative endeavor..

OK, I admitted that it was silly to say 'music is just maths', but I do think the lines can be blurred sometimes. I'm sure that at a very high level, maths is also a creative endeavour. Chess is (rightly in my opinion) considered truly creative, even though it's just selection from a predefines set of possible moves. The staggering number of moves available make it indistinguishable from true creativity. I'd go as far as to say a good game of chess can be a work of art. I submit that most music is also selection of this type, you don't have to understand the maths behind chess or music in order to play, and I'd still say that at some level you are doing maths. Incidentally, boobs are easy to express mathematically. You just turn the calculator upside-down.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm cautious about making any kind of statement that broad. Drugs may help some people become more creative in ways they can use in their art; other people may feel the creativity, but they'll end up as drug addicts who can't create much of anything because they've lost the thread. It seems kind of trite to bring up Syd Barrett in this context and maybe it oversimplifies his problems if you blame them all on drugs, but still, he comes to mind. And there's no shortage of creative people who could've made a lot more music if they hadn't either lost years to addiction or just died.

Yes, I should have said "can". Of course, as I said, I think it also depends heavily on WHY one is taking drugs to begin with. I recall a very frank interview with George Harrison (I'll try to dig it up) where he explained how LSD use expanded his mind and allowed him to create some very complex and creative musical scores that he would otherwise not have arrived at.

Syd Barrett, on the other hand, had some serious mental health issues independent of the drugs. I will make the broad statement that mental illness + reckless, heavy lsd use= disaster.

And of course, my responses here are not any attempt to encourage some aspiring musician to take drugs to help their act. But rather an attempt to answer the OPs question honestly---that indeed I do think the heavy drugs they were in to inspired some awesome music. As you say tho, the Beatles were a rare talent, and would likely have come up with some equally awesome music without the drugs. But "A Day in the Life" would likely have not been written and it's a masterpiece imo.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In Imagine, Lennon claims that he never realized until after "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was released that its initials . . . spelled anything. "And then I started looking at the initials of the titles of all my songs, and of course they didn't spell anything . . ."

Coincidence, happenstance, or Freud vindicated?

Heh, during this same interview with George Harrison, he noted that the song lyrics were indeed referring to LSD use, but after the BBC pulled it from the radio, Lennon came up with the story about his son's drawing. Kind of obvious if you listen to the lyrics, but I'll try to find that interview.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I for one preferred them when they were rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal fuckin' high on drugs.

The Beatles were so high they had to pull Ringo down off the ceiling with a rake.

[BMalion]

Did Sinatra sing better after a couple of martinis?

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by BMalion

Did Sinatra sing better after a couple of martinis?

I have evidence that he did -- that is unless he recorded his studio stuff completely plastered.

I heard a personal recording of some jazz dude who was once hired to play at a party Sinatra was giving. Later on in the night, Sinatra himself came up and did a song with the band (presumably with a couple martinis in him at that point.)

It was.....decent. He's still pretty much my least favorite famous crooner but it was well above his usual fare. I normally don't like rough outtakes in crooners but his voice was made for it. ETA: he's sort of the Rolling Stones of jazz singing. He'd be okay to listen to at a bar when both of us are completely plastered.

[Mewl Dear]

[quote=Enola Gay;15066673]Yes, I should have said "can". Of course, as I said, I think it also depends heavily on WHY one is taking drugs to begin with. I recall a very frank interview with George Harrison (I'll try to dig it up) where he explained how LSD use expanded his mind and allowed him to create some very complex and creative musical scores that he would otherwise not have arrived at.


[quote]

How would he know that? He did the drugs, he wrote the songs.
He may have written better songs without the shit.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

The Beatles were so high they had to pull Ringo down off the ceiling with a rake.

"He wants to sing a song. Something about a yellow tambourine."

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

Heh, during this same interview with George Harrison, he noted that the song lyrics were indeed referring to LSD use, but after the BBC pulled it from the radio, Lennon came up with the story about his son's drawing. Kind of obvious if you listen to the lyrics, but I'll try to find that interview.

It's never been disputed that the lyrics were LSD influenced. Doesn't make the story about the drawing false. Why would Lennon lie about that? This isn't the sort of thing he's lie about. It's also been corroborated by someone who was there (Pete Shotton).

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

So if the Beatles weren't necessarily "better" because of (I am going to assume psychedelic drugs use) drugs, then how does one explain the transition from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Tomorrow Never Knows"?

They were older, exposed to a wider range of influences, and at the point in their career where they could get away with a change in direction.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Mewl Dear

How would he know that? He did the drugs, he wrote the songs.
He may have written better songs without the shit.

I suppose he was speculating. Just like everyone in this thread is doing, including you. Unless someone produces a time machine, then goes back in time & withholds drugs from the Beatles and sees what music they produce, all anyone can do is speculate. Pretty sure that;s the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Yookeroo

It's never been disputed that the lyrics were LSD influenced. Doesn't make the story about the drawing false. Why would Lennon lie about that? This isn't the sort of thing he's lie about. It's also been corroborated by someone who was there (Pete Shotton).

Oh I don't think the story about the drawing is false at all. I've even heard Julian Lennon corroborate this experience. My understanding is that the drawing story was not offered up until the BBC banned the song due to the drug references. Also, to add to the complexity, the lyrics of "Lucy in the Sky" are attributed to Lennon & McCartney (tho it's always been my understanding that this song was mostly written by John Lennon--no cite though). But when people collaborate on artistic works, it's always possible that one will attribute the creativity of their contribution to (in this case) mind expanding drugs, and another will not. So if Paul McCartney says this song is about lsd use and John Lennon says it isn't, that doesn't mean one of them is lying.

I personally don't get the impression that John Lennon is the type of guy who would lie about anything. But he is pretty out there in general (even when sober) so his take on reality may be vastly different from the guy standing next to him. Add to that his very tongue in cheek sense of humor during interviews and the whole interpretation gets very convoluted.

[Clothahump]

Were The Beatles better after they started taking drugs?


Not just no, but hell no. They really flushed themselves down the toilet with drugs.

[BrainGlutton]

Waitaminnit, now, what's all this nonsense about the Beatles taking drugs?! Those nice boys from Hard Day's Night?! Tommydash, sir, balderrot!

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

So if the Beatles weren't necessarily "better" because of (I am going to assume psychedelic drugs use) drugs, then how does one explain the transition from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Tomorrow Never Knows

Their introduction to pot roughly marked the beginning of the transition, but I think it had more to do with the person who introduced it--Bob Dylan. Just about every serious songwriter was influenced by him. John Lennon said once that he started to feel silly as a married man writing teeny bop songs and wanted to write more seriously like Dylan. Drugs became a big part of their lives and that came out in their music, but it was Dylan who creatively led them away from She Loves You, Yeah Yeah Yeah.

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

if Paul McCartney says this song is about lsd use and John Lennon says it isn't, that doesn't mean one of them is lying.

Does John say it isn't? I've only heard him deny that the LSD initials were a coincidence and were unintentional.

[HMS Irruncible]

I'm gonna go with a guarded "yes"... ultimately the drugs marked the change from an immature pop band to a mature artistic style, but at the cost of some mediocre crappy music in the transition, and ultimately some whacked-out and broken attitudes that ultimately killed the band.

It's just a damn shame that the Billy Preston angle couldn't have gone on for a couple of years. Listen to "Don't Let Me Down." They were really on to something with that. Seriously, it's one of the best songs I know. But that wasn't directly due to drugs... more like coming back down off the drugs and setting into good but different style.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Relief

I'm gonna go with a guarded "yes"... ultimately the drugs marked the change from an immature pop band to a mature artistic style, but at the cost of some mediocre crappy music in the transition, and ultimately some whacked-out and broken attitudes that ultimately killed the band.

Ultimately the four of them grew apart. Drugs didn't do that either.

[Rhythmdvl]

Another way of looking at it.

Music, in general sounds better when stoned. Yes, people from D.A.R.E. and assorted special little snowflakes may disagree, but it's almost universally acknowledged.

There is a strong correlation between quality of output (in almost any field) and enjoyment of the activity leading to the output.

The rest is history.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Music, in general sounds better when stoned.

Yes, indeed.

When the listener is stoned.

[Rhythmdvl]

I take it you don't play an instrument. I guess wiggling fingers or flapping hands might be fun on its own, and I'm sure there are a handful of ulterior motives to play an instrument, but the joy of playing an instrument is listening to that instrument, whether by yourself or interacting with others.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Yookeroo

Does John say it isn't? I've only heard him deny that the LSD initials were a coincidence and were unintentional.

Yes. I have the complete interview transcripts (from Rolling Stone & Vanity Fair) in the Encyclopedia of the Beatles and they definitely disagree on this point. I think they both said they didn't realize that the song's initials spelled LSD until later (tho Paul says they didn't "consciously" realize it, and John says it absolutely had nothing to do with LSD, but rather a quote/drawing by his son). But Paul McCartney said that the lyrics were "of course about acid". ....whereas Lennon was pretty emphatic that they were not about acid.

Could only find snippets of the interviews online:

From songfacts.com:

Many people thought this was about drugs, since the letters "LSD" are prominent in the title, and John Lennon, who wrote it, was known to drop acid. In 1971 Lennon told Rolling Stone that he swore that he had no idea that the song's initials spelt L.S.D. He added: "I didn't even see it on the label. I didn't look at the initials.

...

The images Lennon used in the song were inspired by the imagery in the book Alice In Wonderland

And from Beatlesbible.com:

I had no idea it spelt LSD. This is the truth: my son came home with a drawing and showed me this strange-looking woman flying around. I said, 'What is it?' and he said, 'It's Lucy in the sky with diamonds,' and I thought, 'That's beautiful.' I immediately wrote a song about it.

It was Alice in the boat. She is buying an egg and it turns into Humpty Dumpty. The woman serving in the shop turns into a sheep, and the next minute they're rowing in a rowing boat somewhere - and I was visualising that. There was also the image of the female who would someday come save me - 'a girl with kaleidoscope eyes' who would come out of the sky. It's not an acid song.

John Lennon

Their stories were always diametrically opposed and I never knew quite what to make about that. But after reading a tremendous amount about them, including interviews, I drew the conclusion that neither one was lying, but they just experienced or remembered it differently. And given that they both admitted to doing thousands of acid trips, who knows what really happened and whose memory should be trusted? Either way, it's an awesome song.

[Rhythmdvl]

Thousands of trips? That would take years. I didn't think they were around post-acid long enough.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Thousands of trips? That would take years. I didn't think they were around post-acid long enough.

Quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Beatles:

Although their attempts at sobriety were short-lived, among John Lennon's reasons for his declining use of LSD was the number of bad trips he experienced, along with a gradual diminishing of his ego.

"I had many. Jesus Christ. I stopped taking it 'cause of that. I mean I just couldn't stand it. I dropped it for I don't know how long. Then I started taking it just before I met Yoko. I got a message on acid that you should destroy your ego, and I did."

I've never met anybody who's had a flashback. I've never had a flashback in my life and I took thousands of trips, and I've never met anybody who had any problem.

I took these quotes literally, but it could just be exaggeration. According to Paul McCartney, they were tripping on a daily basis (often multiple hits, multiple times per day) for years. I'm no prude and did my share of experimenting, but if what they say is actually true, it makes me kind of glad that my formative years coincided with the War on Drugs & MADD.