RMR

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the Beatles played up their drug use and drug image in the 1967?

Everyone knows that the Beatles were dabbling in drugs, and Lennon was definitely doing more than just dabbling, but I don’t think they were quite as immersed in the drug scene as some of the other bands releasing albums in 1967, which is fine. It’s not a contest to see who could do the most drugs, but I think that The Beatles wanted to convey the image that they were more into the drug scene than they actually were, and I consider that a flaw. I don’t think it’s a flaw because I am for or against drugs, I think it’s a flaw because The Beatles were pretending to be something that they weren’t.

As evidence of this, just look at what they were wearing. For “Sgt. Pepper’s,” they were wearing neon, day-glow band uniforms, and it got worse for the "Magical Mystery Tour," where they donned stuffed animal costumes. To me, they just looked ridiculous.

Plus, if you compare their image to the other bands of 1967, they just look even more absurd. The other bands from that era wouldn't be caught dead in bright, neon band uniforms or stuffed animal costumes. Can you imagine the Doors wearing stuffed animal costumes... not even in the realm of possibility.

My point here is simple. The music on “Sgt. Pepper’s” and "TMMT" is phenomenal (and easily two of the greatest albums of all time), but they should have scaled back the whole “look at us, we’re on drugs” thing. If you’re going to dabble with drugs, fine. If it improves your music, even better, but dress and act like rock stars, not circus clowns. If they were really that drugged out, they would have been passing out on stage along with Jim Morrison, Grace Slick, and Jimi Hendrix, not making cartoon movies for kids.

__________________
RMR
My music reivew site: RMR Music Reviews

eraser.time206

The reason the Beatles appealed to so many people is because they hit so many demographics.

The liberals? Check. The conservatives? Check. The hippies? Check. The horny little teenage girls? Check. The rebels? Check.

If they went on stage all drugged up their audience would suffer. If they were too childish their audience would suffer.

There's a reason why Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band sold so many albums. Everyone could listen to it.

Always remember....

__________________
Before I go on, let me warn you that I talk dirty, and that I will say things you will neither enjoy nor agree with. You shouldn't feel threatened, though, because I am a mere buffoon, and you are all philosophers.

Chives

So the issue is that their psychedelic image doesn't match up with who they really were at the time? That's a not an easy call to make. I mean, they did do drugs and they did include drug references in their music/imply drug use with their psychedelic clothing, album art, and films. So at what point does this become an act for the Beatles to cash in on the hippie/drug using trend or whatever? I just don't see it.

Or am I missing the point?

__________________
[My last.fm] [My Tumblr]

killcreek

john lennon def did alot of acid

skaltezon

.

Do you think they were pretending to use any particular drugs? or do you think they wanted to convey the impression that they were loaded all the time on whatever they could get?


How their artwork compared to that of other bands in 1967 is irrelevant if your complaint is that the Beatles were trying to mislead people about their drug usage. On its face, it appears they were different because they were innovators. However, they weren't the only band using psychedelic artwork in 1967:

.
Beatles (1967) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Rolling Stones (1967)


I don't think you've established the “look at us, we’re on drugs” premise, or that the Beatles looked and acted like circus clowns in everyday life. Their success enabled them to set standards instead of having to follow someone else's. I'll agree that the Mystery Tour imagery wasn't their best visual work, but I'm not offended by it.

When did Grace Slick pass out on stage?

Regardless of who publicly exhibited symptoms of narcotics use, do you think the Beatles were pretending to be that sort of drug user but mistakenly thought that making cartoon movies for kids would be more convincing than passing out on stage?



.

__________________

Unknown Soldier

As far as I know Jim Morrison never did heroin, he was an acid, pills and cocaine man. Jimi Hendrix was really just into LSD and pills and I`ve read varying accounts saying that he did heroin and others saying he never did it because of his hatred of needles. Grace Slick was known for doing LSD but I`ve never heard of here passing out on stage.

As far as the Beatles go, they were never seriously into drugs (It was mostly Lennon anyway) like some of the above and I`d call them dabblers because it was the cool thing to do at the time, rather than being serious users.

skaltezon

.

Me neither.



I think I'm right about Morrison. In the book, Jim and I - Friends Until Death: Alain Ronay's account of Jim's passing Morrison's friend Pamela Courson is quoted as saying --

Evidence of regular use of a narcotic supports an inference of addiction, if not conclusively.

As for Hendrix, I heard the heroin story so long ago I can't remember where I got it. In Tony Brown's Hendrix: The Final Days, Hendrix' friend Monika Dannemann says he overdosed on her sleeping pills. There's yet another account that says his manager Mike Jeffery murdered him using sleeping pills.

But this is getting too far afield. My point is that it's implausible for the Beatles to have wanted a reputation lumping them together with narcotic-using musicians who passed out on stage, as RMR suggests.

.
The point at issue is whether they were pretending to be bigger drug users than they were. Isn't that like someone pretending to be a bigger idiot than he is? Also, I don't see the evidence for it.

.

__________________

Unknown Soldier

I agree the Beatles shouldn`t be lumped in with some of the serious drug users of that era. Jim pretty much took anything in any quantity at any time, so I suppose he would`ve tried it, but the point was, that he wasn`t known for taking heroin and favoured other drugs far more, so I don`t think its fair to say heroin killed him.

The Hendrix opinion though is far more hazy, as I`ve read a lot about him and heroin, but also claims from many close to him that he hated needles and for this use could never inject, but he could have taken it in some other form.

RMR

First, I do want to make the point that I really like the Beatles, so I want clarify that I'm not knocking their music, but I don't think anyone chimed in that I was anyway... so that doesn't really matter.

If you cut away all the fat in my original post (and maybe there was too much fat), I guess the question that I'm asking is this:

Was the Beatles drug image played up too far to match the drug image of the music scene in 1967, and was the their image on their record covers a play to send the message, "hey were on drugs just like everyone else"? That's really the root of my question.

We have to take in account that the Beatles had stopped touring at this point (so I guess they couldn't have been passing out on stage, like I mentioned in my original post), so the public's only conception of them was how they were presented to us on album covers and such.

I know the Beatles did drugs. I'm not questioning that or judging it. It just seems like they played on the image of being drug users more than the other bands of the era. I wasn't around in '67, but looking back on it now as an objective viewer of these band's images, it just appears like they playing on that image more.

PS-- this question came about as I was listening to "SPLHCB" and "TMMT" and looking at the cover images, and I just thought to myself. These guys look ridiculous. Where as the band images of Hendrix, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, and Cream looked much more serious at the time.

__________________
RMR
My music reivew site: RMR Music Reviews

skaltezon

That's what I thought you were saying (except the 'like everyone else' part). But your impression that they looked ridiculous or not enough like other groups doesn't necessarily suggest that they wanted to be seen more like drug users. I don't know what 'the drug image of the music scene in 1967' means. Do you have a clear idea of what sort of drug use they may have wanted to be associated with and why that may have seemed attractive to the entire group?



.

__________________