The False Beatles Image of 1967?
 

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.

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....

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?

john lennon def did alot of acid

.

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:

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp...lub%20Band.jpg . http://headfullofsnow.com/wp-content.../SatanicRS.jpg
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?

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/r...de_999/doh.gif

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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?

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

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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

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.

I don't see the need for drugs in music full stop. You can have good music without drugs.

they didn't wear stuffed animal costumes onstage. and their clothes were no more weird than the doors or anyone else. maybe the doors tried to look like giant stoners by jim pulling out his penis or calling himself the lizard king and reading bad poetry onstage

Keith Richards says Lennon did a lot of drugs, but he couldn't handle them. In his book, Keith describes John doing drugs with him at Redlands and ending up spending the evening with his head in the toilet bowl.