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.
|