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? 
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:
The whole premise of this thread is a joke from a Bill Hicks stand-up routine. See post #3.
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).
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.
Come on. Bill Hicks didn’t invent this question. It’s been asked a million times. I wasn’t claiming it was original.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Beatles were so high they had to pull Ringo down off the ceiling with a rake.
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.
[quote=“Enola_Gay, post:31, topic:621928”]
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.
“He wants to sing a song. Something about a yellow tambourine.”
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).
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.
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.
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.
**Were The Beatles better after they started taking drugs?
**
Not just no, but hell no. They really flushed themselves down the toilet with drugs.
:dubious: Waitaminnit, now, what’s all this nonsense about the Beatles taking drugs?! Those nice boys from Hard Day’s Night?! Tommydash, sir, balderrot!