The False Beatles Image of 1967?

Howard the Duck · 11-24-2011, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

by the colourful costumes, and dream-like imagery of their covers, I suppose he means acid

TrendRabbit · 11-24-2011, 04:12 PM

The Beatles have mass appeal. To suggest that they played up their drug use is both pointless and unnecessary. It's not as if they needed to prove anything to anyone during that time.

Lisnaholic · 11-24-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMR

...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...

Your comparison never occurred to me, but you`re right; the way the two bands presented themselves were worlds apart.

I don`t think the differences are particularly about drug use, though. I think they arise more from personality and circumstance. The Beatles had spent years at the top of the entertainment business, and under the guidance of avuncular figures like Brian Epstein and George Martin they were still, at the time of Sgt. Pepper, committed to the idea of giving the fans something exciting. Hence all the "Welcome to the Show" album art.
The Doors, lean and hungry newcomers, were exploring an altogether more sombre vein and, largely due to Jim Morrison`s personality, were much more rebellious towards the old-fashioned notions of showbiz that The Beatles still embraced. Lucky for the Doors if, as a result, they look cooler on their album sleeves today.

Also, the two bands illustrate the different ways people responded to the psychedelic revolution. You can see it in the footage of festival audiences too: some people in flamboyant costumes, some putting less effort into their appearance. It`s a pretty dodgy step, though, to say, "That guy`s more into drugs because of his clothes."

RMR · 11-25-2011, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

Your comparison never occurred to me, but you`re right; the way the two bands presented themselves were worlds apart.

I don`t think the differences are particularly about drug use, though. I think they arise more from personality and circumstance. The Beatles had spent years at the top of the entertainment business, and under the guidance of avuncular figures like Brian Epstein and George Martin they were still, at the time of Sgt. Pepper, committed to the idea of giving the fans something exciting. Hence all the "Welcome to the Show" album art.
The Doors, lean and hungry newcomers, were exploring an altogether more sombre vein and, largely due to Jim Morrison`s personality, were much more rebellious towards the old-fashioned notions of showbiz that The Beatles still embraced. Lucky for the Doors if, as a result, they look cooler on their album sleeves today."

Well, I didn't think anyone would ever agree with me on this post-- partly because I think my original post didn't convey my point very well, and Lisnaholic really just conveyed my point much more eloquently than I originally did and with better facts

; however, I do think their image during this period was based around their idea of a druggy image. The image only lasted one year, and then we get The Beatles looking normal again on the inside gate-fold of the "White Album" and the front cover of "Abbey Road."

And for the the record, my original post was just a question... I wasn't presenting it as fact. This topic would have probably have been better off as a simple poll:

Yes or No, Did the Beatles look ridiculous on the cover of their 1967 releases compared to the other band images of that year, and was their image on those record covers used to convey an image of drug use?

Jedey · 11-25-2011, 07:51 AM

The images of The Beatles in 1967 had more to do with breaking the mop top mold than drug use.

Lisnaholic · 11-25-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMR

Well, I didn't think anyone would ever agree with me on this post-- partly because I think my original post didn't convey my point very well.
And for the the record, my original post was just a question... I wasn't presenting it as fact.

Thank you for being so polite about my post, RMR; let me return the compliment by saying that your post was fine too; very interesting and it did a great job of provoking discussion.

Quote:

This topic would have probably have been better off as a simple poll:

Yes or No, Did the Beatles look ridiculous on the cover of their 1967 releases compared to the other band images of that year, and was their image on those record covers used to convey an image of drug use?

If you had put a poll, my answers would be:
Yes, now that you mentioned it, they did look pretty silly.
No, I think the drugs came first, which led them to try anything that was different. There was an attitude at the time very neatly summed up in a Syd Barrett lyric," To be extreme just to be extreme" and I think The Beatles were just following through on their inspiration, saying, "Look at what is possible with drugs, music and new ideas." If they did go OTT, they aren`t the only people to`ve made drug-induced errors of judgement !

SIRIUSB · 11-25-2011, 11:22 AM

Welcome to the Music Industry, if it sells, they're selling it.
Do you really think Ozzy is the Prince of Darkness? All the latest hype with the Satanic Hip Hop artists? They don't know diddly about occult or belong to any Orders . . . but it sells.
I once watched Jimmy Page down a fifth of Jack Daniels during a 2 hr concert and play a spectacular encore . . . lol, yeah right, the day some skinny little dude is gonna down a bottle of Jack and stand up or much less play guitar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

MoonlitSunshine · 11-25-2011, 11:40 AM

I think it's fairly true to say that The Beatles were jokers - they seem, from their music, to love a little bit (or a lot) of quirkiness, many tracks over their albums could be considered relatively off the wall (Wild Honey Pie, for example). For me, the simple act of having a few psychedelic album covers does not mean that they were trying to hype up their drug use. I don't think I've ever paired The Beatles and drugs, except when people talk about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. It's not a necessary image for them (which I think is something you're arguing); their music stands up perfectly well without it.

Basically, I agree with you in that they weren't a particularly drug fueled band, but I disagree with you in that I don't think they ever really "hyped" their association with drugs, by virtue of the fact that I don't associate them with drugs. Doing something crazy, dressing up in animal costumes... none of the things they did actually require you to be on drugs. Sure, it's easier to be crazy if you're strung up on acid, but it could easily have been their idea of a bit of fun, without any real intention of portraying themselves as hardcore drug users.

Lisnaholic · 11-25-2011, 06:15 PM

^ Absolutely, Moonlit. I wish I`d said that !

blastingas10 · 11-25-2011, 07:53 PM

I think John was the only one who really into drugs. They were into meditation and the more natural side of enlightenment as well. On their trip to India, they reportedly were meditating around 7 hours a day and not doing any drugs. George Harrison was quoted as saying that he heard so much about the San Francisco scene and all the LSD, but when he got their he realized that "they were a bunch of spotty little teenagers that were high out of their minds", and that's when he realized that LSD wasn't the way to enlightenment.

11-24-2011, 04:12 PM	#12 (permalink)
TrendRabbit Groupie Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1	Mass Appeal The Beatles have mass appeal. To suggest that they played up their drug use is both pointless and unnecessary. It's not as if they needed to prove anything to anyone during that time.

11-25-2011, 07:51 AM	#15 (permalink)
Jedey Veritas vos liberabit Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Musicapolis Posts: 477	The images of The Beatles in 1967 had more to do with breaking the mop top mold than drug use. __________________ My Tunes

11-25-2011, 11:40 AM	#18 (permalink)
MoonlitSunshine Dat's Der Bunny! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,088	I think it's fairly true to say that The Beatles were jokers - they seem, from their music, to love a little bit (or a lot) of quirkiness, many tracks over their albums could be considered relatively off the wall (Wild Honey Pie, for example). For me, the simple act of having a few psychedelic album covers does not mean that they were trying to hype up their drug use. I don't think I've ever paired The Beatles and drugs, except when people talk about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. It's not a necessary image for them (which I think is something you're arguing); their music stands up perfectly well without it. Basically, I agree with you in that they weren't a particularly drug fueled band, but I disagree with you in that I don't think they ever really "hyped" their association with drugs, by virtue of the fact that I don't associate them with drugs. Doing something crazy, dressing up in animal costumes... none of the things they did actually require you to be on drugs. Sure, it's easier to be crazy if you're strung up on acid, but it could easily have been their idea of a bit of fun, without any real intention of portraying themselves as hardcore drug users. __________________ "I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?" - Arthur Dent

11-25-2011, 06:15 PM	#19 (permalink)
Lisnaholic ...here to hear... Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: He lives on Love Street Posts: 4,444	^ Absolutely, Moonlit. I wish I`d said that !

11-25-2011, 07:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I think John was the only one who really into drugs. They were into meditation and the more natural side of enlightenment as well. On their trip to India, they reportedly were meditating around 7 hours a day and not doing any drugs. George Harrison was quoted as saying that he heard so much about the San Francisco scene and all the LSD, but when he got their he realized that "they were a bunch of spotty little teenagers that were high out of their minds", and that's when he realized that LSD wasn't the way to enlightenment.