Psychedelic Rock partly inspired by a fairly psychedelic looking child’s drawing.
It may indeed have been a coincidence to start with. What I find implausible is that it was a coincidence that none of the Beatles noticed before putting the song out in public under that title.
I could be convinced that “Lucy, Sky, Diamonds” coincidentally happens to spell out LSD. We can never really know if the artists were having a laugh, and it’s not a super interesting question to debate.
As to whether the content and imagery of the song itself, of course it was acid-inspired. There can’t be any question about this. Consider that:
- This song was made in the acid era
- Both Revolver and Sgt. Pepper as a whole are well-understood as acid-inspired works.
- Lucy is the most acid-sounding song on an album full of acid-sounding songs
- All the Beatles were open about having taken acid, some enthusiastically so.
Given all the above, it beggers belief and fundamental common sense to supposed that an acid-drenched band in an acid-drenced era just accidentally happened to write one of the most acid-sounding songs of all time.
As far as whether the title itself is a reference to LSD, I don’t think we can say. I would point out that the Beatles admitted their LSD experience, but were often cagey about it when pressed. They strove to walk a line between pop appeal and rebellion.
And we know flat-out John Lennon was perfectly willing to lie about songs when it suited him. Take How Do You Sleep, which obviously was an anti-McCartney diss track on an album whose cover depicted one beetle screwing another beetle. Lennon apparently came to regret the bile he directed at McCartney and started saying “actually the song is about meself” and the mistakes he’s made. Lennon was not known to be particularly honest or forthcoming in general, he was never shy about bending the truth to suit himself.
So we’ve got an acid-era song, drenched in obvious acid imagery, and then we’ve got a known liar saying “it’s not about that”. You be the judge. 
I think if Julian had labelled his drawing “Janey in the Clouds with Sparkles” the song would have still been written more or less exactly as it was. The coincidence of it spelling out (sort of) LSD was a bonus, and maybe one that the Beatles enjoyed before releasing it, but no biggie.
For the Benefit of Mr. Kite is super trippy – what the heck is that about? And, there’s that whole section of Day in the Life, where things just go off the rails (and that weird section at the very end, after a minute or so of silence). I already mentioned Within You Without You as being super trippy.
I just don’t think LitSWD (doesn’t even spell out LSD in real life) is as trippy as other songs on the album. And, some songs on that album aren’t trippy at all, of course.
Whether or not the ‘LSD’ initials in the name are a coincidence seems to be the crux of the argument between the “of course it’s about LSD” Dopers and the “Lennon said it wasn’t about LSD, why would he lie?” Dopers.
Yes, it’s possible that the initials are a coincidence. And we’ll never know for sure. But I agree, the Beatles did walk a fine line between being perceived as counterculture leaders and being media darlings. McCartney in a 1968 interview backed up Lennon’s claim that the song was influenced by Alice in Wonderland and that the LSD in the name was a coincidence. Then in a 2004 interview, after the subject was no longer controversial, McCartney said it was “pretty obvious” that the song was drug-influenced.
I think you’d have to be a very innocent naif to believe the song is not about drugs at all. The poll seems to bear this out, with it currently standing at 76% saying the song is definitely, or at at least somewhat, about drugs, and only 24% saying ‘not about drugs’.
And, as for the name…
It sure does, in title case: LitSwD… ‘Lucy’, ‘Sky’ and ‘Diamonds’ are the key words, and the rest is filler connecting words. Innocent coincidence? Again, maybe, but it’s an awful big coincidence. And the ‘not about drugs’ Dopers argue-- well, there is a drawing that exists which Julian Lennon titled ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’…but what not quite yet 4 year old would come up with such a mouthful of a title? Maybe he said “hey dad, what should I name my drawing?”.
As I said, all of Sgt. Pepper’s is thoroughly acid-washed. But Lucy is the only one that’s literally talking about taking a trip through a bunch of hallucinatory multicolored fantastic scene-scapes.
Of course it’s described as a walking trip not an acid trip, but artistic references are seldom overt. We don’t need for John Lennon to lean into the microphone and say “this song is about the experience of using LSD, a psychedelic drug”. It’s quite obvious from the lyrics, the band’s style at the time, and the cultural context that the album was conceived in.
Quoting for emphasis, and also for the 2004 interview that’s new information to me.
The Beatles were businessmen above all, and fairly savvy ones. They knew how to signal to the counterculture while maintaining some deniability for their more oblivious, conservative listeners. And they’re far from the only ones who did that, it’s not a stretch assumption at all.
Maybe I’m getting whooshed here, but ironically, I gotta take a ‘not really about drugs’ stance with that song.To me it seems to be one of the least trippy of the Sergeant Pepper album, lyric-wise. As far as I can tell it’s no deeper than literally being about a circus / circus performer. And it’s based on a poster that exists:
I would say that She’s Leaving Home, When I’m Sixty Four, and Lovely Rita are the least trippy. Mr. Kite may be inspired by that poster, but the lyrics are still trippy. Hmm, like another song inspired by a picture…
Mr. Kite does have an extremely trippy sound, they literally hacked up some reel-to-reel tape and spliced it together randomly, reversed, etc.
I don’t find the lyrics to be trippy at all though. In context of the sound backdrop it does sound very weird, but taken in isolation it’s basically just a narration of an antique carnival-type acrobatic show.
Seconded. I just re-checked the lyrics and they sound just like a barker at an old circus show to me.
Absolutely.
We do know. Lennon said so. And Snope, etc have said that the “Lucy is about LSD is an urban legend.”
How about Lake Shore Drive then?
How much of the song is drug imagery- that we will never know. But the Drawing exists.
Ah, this again. Lennon said so. That paragon of honesty and good virtue. If you think Lennon was believable when he said LitSwD is not about LSD, fine, your opinion. We’ve been through this. I’m not trying to convince you of my opinion on the matter.
As for Snopes, I’ve long had enormous respect for their work fighting ignorance over the years, just as the Straight Dope has. But they’re not the divine source of absolute truth on everything. They mostly base their conclusion on LitSwD, as do you, on an acceptance of Lennon’s trustworthiness on the matter.
Yes, a drawing exists that a very young Julian Lennon made. And supposedly he titled it ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’, though that seems like a pretty complex title for a not yet 4 year old to come up with all by himself. But maybe he did, and the LSD initials in the title are a coincidence. Again, you’re entitled to your opinion, I to mine.
There are a lot of people who are SURE that there was an alternate ending to Big, and that they saw it. It is called the Mandela Effect. And that is their opinion.
No, Mandela Effect phenomena are different in that they are shared faulty memories which are typically not a matter of opinion, but of provable or disprovable fact. Someone insists there’s an alternate ending to Big, OK, then where is it? Someone says they just know that the Berenstain Bears children’s books used to be Berenstein Bears, but no copies with that name exist.
How much the song LitSwD was or was not inspired by LSD is really just hearsay at this point. You have a song with very trippy lyrics that just happens to have LSD in the title initials, on a clearly psychedelic-inspired album. Written during a time when LSD was very prominent in the counterculture of the time, by a man who was very much a part of that counterculture and was known to experiment with LSD. But that man, who was also known to prevaricate about the meanings and intentions of his songs and his life in general, says, “oh, it’s not about LSD, it’s inspired by my kid’s drawing and Lewis Carroll.” And you choose to believe him. That’s your opinion.
At this point I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make. You’ve said you don’t believe that the initials intentionally spell out LSD, but you’ve allowed that the song is probably not completely without any drug-inspired influence. I’ve said it is possible that the ‘LSD’ in the title is coincidental, though I remain skeptical. Why don’t we just leave it at that, hmm?
Did you also believe Elon Musk when he said that he stepped down as CEO of Twitter and appointed his dog?
I mean, he’s the owner, so that’s the final word on the matter, right?
There is not a rolly eyes emoji big enough to reply to this.
When I’m 64?
She’s Leaving Home?
A Little Help From My Friends?
Just curious, have you ever taken acid? Maybe I got some bad batches, but I never got the tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Okay, the majority of the album was trippy. As mentioned previously the Beatles took pains to include a few of what Lennon called “Paul’s grandma songs” to serve their less-rebellious fanbase.
Yeah, I mean, most acid art is like that, it’s usually not a literal representation of the LSD experience. That would be very hard to portray in an interesting way, not least because it’s often an inner state of being moreso than sensory. Of course you can paint wavy gravy, but that aspect is pretty boring when seen in isolation from the whole experience.
Acid art tends to be evocative of the overall acid experience, or something that would just be interesting to enjoy while tripping. Not a photorealistic representation.