Did drugs made The Beatles what they were?

Did drugs made The Beatles what they were?

Attached: 372d6c915fb3828149b8e1b9979672f0.jpg (760x578, 64K)

Where is Ringo?

in the process of being replaced with an agent-impersonator

shit? yeah

Apparently John Lennon would keep a mortar and pestle next to his bed, grinding random pills up and licking the mixture.

For what purpose?

Staying turnt.

Why do talented people like that do so many drugs? wouldn't they be able to focus more on their art and hence produce better art if they were clean?

Some drugs can really help you with your art.
Weed for example, will make you relaxed, and gives a groovy feeling, hence stoner rock
LSD and Shrooms will let imagination take over your mind, this is were the beatles got most of their lyrics
Even hard drugs that are nothing but pain like Heroin create some good music, hence grunge.

It's actually the person, not the drug. If one is productive even when hooked it'll work nicely for him.

Also this

>Some drugs can really help you with your art
Your brain can trick yourself into thinking that, but really, no. You're probably one of those people that thinks that all "weird" music is made by someone on drugs. The truth is, some people are talented and some are not.

Doing LSD won't teach you how to write songs, but if you already know how to write songs, an LSD trip will give you new perspectives and ideas.

It's not so much that drugs helped them write songs, but rather that it gave them things to write songs and the kind of sound they were after.

It gave them things to write songs about *

doing a shit ton of upper pills in hamburg germany aka amphetamines

There are productivity drugs...

Pretty much this

their music always seemed really tight and professional. the "kuhrazy drugs lmao" reputation seems overblown

They didn't take "acid" or other incapacitating drugs while recording the songs.

They just took them either while writing songs or scrabbling ideas or recreationally, but would use those recreational to write songs while being sober.

And yes they were an awesomely tight and professional band because they had a strict "No drugs in the studio" policy. (Except for downers and uppers)

>their music always seemed really tight and professional
because of george martin

not him but hell yeah I believe in productivity drugs. for me those are all psychedelics though. and maybe an Adderall or some yay to stay awake if I need to

Would you care to elaborate on why psychedelics are productivity drugs?

because I can analyze and interconnect more things and ideas than I would without dosing.

Whenever I have something extremely serious I need to accomplish I tend to microdose or all out trip in order to explore every possible rabbit hole, etc. There's a lot more to it all of course.

Marijuana brought Rubber Soul out of a corporate hit factory boy band. Psychedelics gave us Revolver and the rest is history.

It makes you smarter in a different way

Because they were barely (if ever) high while recording. The one time John Lennon (accidentally) took acid during a session they just had to stop recording and took John to the roof to look at the stars.

Also - don't do acid in excess kids. John dosed himself with heroic amounts for almost 3 years and ended up a shell of his former self by the end. You can see it in the Let It Be film too. It's the main reason why he fell so hard for Yoko. Don't do too much acid, you'll fall in love with Yoko Ono.

they only knew george martin in 63 and their soun always seemed professional since 60

You make different art when you are using drugs.
Some would say better.

>The one time John Lennon (accidentally) took acid during a session they just had to stop recording and took John to the roof to look at the stars.

Full story?

Not that user but I remember reading about it on the beatles anthology

Life

Someone post the story of John Challenging Paul to a music duel declaring “I AM SO STONED MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL BE”

yes because they performed and rehearsed relentlessly

t. straight edge vegan fantano 'a weed cant make a music'

depends on the art tho. sure, i guess music generally sounds better when your high -- both when playing and listening. but art that touch upon personal trauma, hardship and reality can't be fully expressed without a somewhat sober mind, i believe. maybe im wrong

Drugs can present new life perspectives, psychs show you things that you cant conceive sober but the talent lies in accurately representing it in your music.

Bump

Creative liberty and an eventual ability to play their fucking instruments (not to mention the massively advanced studio toys they were given to play around with) made the beatles what they were.

>Don't do too much acid, you'll fall in love with Yoko Ono.
They should use this in anti drug campaigns

They were already successful before even smoking weed.

Bob Dylan introduced the Beatles to weed and didn't even realize it was their first time. He famously mistook the line "I can't hide" for "I get high" in the Beatle's song "I want to hold your hand".

I'm already in love with her.

Sadly she doesn't even know I exist. :(

I think the only drugs that were mandatory for them was all the speed they took in their early days. They might not have ever gotten famous had they not worked so hard and long due to the speed they were taking.
Obviously the weed, acid, and other drugs they did later influenced their sound, but they could have still made great music otherwise. And that all came after beatlemania.

this

yeah in Europe in the 50s/early 60s marijuana was scarce and everybody used speed

Correlation does not provide causation.

Experimenting with drugs is a potential activity of people more open to new activities and ideas in general.

Creative people are more likely to do drugs, drug users are not more likely to be creative

I am quite confident his addiction to heroin was a larger factor in his personal decline, which in fact rebounded near the end of his life.