was Revolver messed up by drugs?

This is not anithing against Paul, in the sense "john shined on rubber soul, paul on revolver", well...i don't see any of paul's revolver songs as psychedelic
im talking about john's songs

i'm only sleeping-pretty sure he wrote it on drugs, but nevertheless was able to come up with God -like strong emotions (I know i'm contradicting myself, cant escape it at times)

she said she said-this is the problem-VERY weird, strange song, it IS fantactic in his own way, different etc, but is it pherhabs messed up, in the sense it doesn't have as strong emotions as, say Girl.

and your bird can sing-this is the one keeping revolver ALIVE, for me, I always had an aversion towards revolver, it's right in the middle of my list, if we count mmt, only pre-help!, white, and ys are lower. But this song doesn't seem to me to be MESSED UP by drugs (i'm not saying that drugs can INCREASE one's creative power, I'm saying they can also ruin it), it's very lively, full of life, 2nd on my list in that sense, Dire Strait's Walk of life being 1st. I adore it.

dr. Robert- great song, but is it comparable to his songs on Rubber soul?

tomorrow never knows-it's insane, in a good way, yes, but i like more NORMAL, and more HUMAN emotion, like Norwegian wood, or You've got to hide your love away

I hope that this will turn into a philosophicl debate, if there'll be any replies!

i am not that big a fan of tomorrow never knows

it is too self consciously trippy in my opinion

sexy sadie and i want you (she' so heavy) are much more trippy (and better songs too)

because they don't try so hard to be

i agree

There really was no break in recording between Rubber Soul and Revolver, which is why George said he didn't know which songs were on which album. He did recall recording them as being a very pleasant experience.

John's songs on both are great - I don't think his work was "messed up" by drugs - one might say some were enhanced or experimental both lyrically and musicall, and that he went to hitherto unchartered places in his songs. How about "She Said She Said"?

John didn't lose his ability to write tender hearted songs - look at "Julia" - nothing "trippy" or psychedelic about that. He was more poetic than Paul, as in "Across the Universe" . Paul is for the most part firmly rooted in Pop - John was not.

I think John was on LSD by this point, using it as an escape from his depression and for what he thought was something that'll help him find 'the next big thing'.

It's a difficult one. If you say the drugs enhanced thw album by bringing in unique creativity then it sounds like you're condoning it. But then again there's nothing on the album that sounds like it was ruined by drugs.

Originally Posted by Beatle Corinne

There really was no break in recording between Rubber Soul and Revolver, which is why George said he didn't know which songs were on which album. He did recall recording them as being a very pleasant experience.

John's songs on both are great - I don't think his work was "messed up" by drugs - one might say some were enhanced or experimental both lyrically and musicall, and that he went to hitherto unchartered places in his songs. How about "She Said She Said"?

John didn't lose his ability to write tender hearted songs - look at "Julia" - nothing "trippy" or psychedelic about that. He was more poetic than Paul, as in "Across the Universe" . Paul is for the most part firmly rooted in Pop - John was not.

I see your point, but i cant shake the feeling that somehow many johns songs b4 and after revolver were somehow healthier than she said...across the universe, dont let me down, many of them, really. Revolver seems to be particulary "drugged up"

Originally Posted by Harbidge

I think John was on LSD by this point, using it as an escape from his depression and for what he thought was something that'll help him find 'the next big thing'.

It's a difficult one. If you say the drugs enhanced thw album by bringing in unique creativity then it sounds like you're condoning it. But then again there's nothing on the album that sounds like it was ruined by drugs.

Revolver is definetively unique, their most unique, imo.

I think Revolver is a fantastic album and whatever was used to influence it's sound has certainly not (in my opinion) gone anywhere near creating a mess.

Revolver may not have been messed up by drugs, but Sgt. Pepper certainly was.

In my opinion this whole drug issue is way way overrated.

Sure...during a certain period the Beatles were (also) taking drugs. So what?

Apart from a couple of lyrics I do not see where it has that big influence. They did a lot of things which were new in the music world. Many were in the creative side like adding certain instruments and using things which were not even instruments and like cutting tapes and putting them back together and like playing things backwards.

But..is that all down on their drug taking? Do you in any song here them like being stoned?

I believe especially for the Beatles they have been able to work on the recorded songs in a profesional way.

I have no knowledge of rows from for instance George Martin...the boss... being angry at them for being in the studio messed up by drugs.

And as for the album Revolver; sure..it may appear that because of the different sound that one will say "Oh yes but Tomorrow Never Knows sounds the way it sounds because of drugs". To me that is just overreacted. Yes I know they themselves told later how they were influenced...but then again..this is mid sexties... half the world was taking drugs... but there are quite some examples from musicians who were very bad off. Have we ever seen any of the Beatles in such a state?

I find the whole drug thing way overreacted. Yes it has had influence on certain songs, absolutely, but what I believe is that the new things they brought in to music are too often referred to as influenced by drugs.

And again, especially Revolver is not such an album, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

In my opinion this whole drug issue is way way overrated.

Sure...during a certain period the Beatles were (also) taking drugs. So what?

Apart from a couple of lyrics I do not see where it has that big influence. They did a lot of things which were new in the music world. Many were in the creative side like adding certain instruments and using things which were not even instruments and like cutting tapes and putting them back together and like playing things backwards.

But..is that all down on their drug taking? Do you in any song here them like being stoned?

I believe especially for the Beatles they have been able to work on the recorded songs in a profesional way.

I have no knowledge of rows from for instance George Martin...the boss... being angry at them for being in the studio messed up by drugs.

And as for the album Revolver; sure..it may appear that because of the different sound that one will say "Oh yes but Tomorrow Never Knows sounds the way it sounds because of drugs". To me that is just overreacted. Yes I know they themselves told later how they were influenced...but then again..this is mid sexties... half the world was taking drugs... but there are quite some examples from musicians who were very bad off. Have we ever seen any of the Beatles in such a state?

I find the whole drug thing way overreacted. Yes it has had influence on certain songs, absolutely, but what I believe is that the new things they brought in to music are too often referred to as influenced by drugs.

And again, especially Revolver is not such an album, in my opinion.

Maybe it's not a drug thing at all, then, nothing to do with reality, but John's state of mind. I already said on blinks how i think even lsd and heroin, simply everything is placebo. I think that the person who wroth she said and tnk is not the same as the one who wrote please please me. But, does that matter, was it drugs, or state of mind, not changed by drugs? I think not. I'd like to answer Harb's question fully. Yes, I think there is an ill component to she said. For me, it just provoques certain very strange emotions, it feels good, no music has ever made me feel bed, but it's so insane. Tnk, too. It's not a direct, normal, healthy emotional impact as All you need is love, for instance. That's all I'm saying. So, in answer to your question, no, I don't see a connection between them being stoned and doing technical experiments in the studio. I'm talking about a changed, pherhabs even ill John, which resulted in a different songwriting of his. That's all I'm saying. His songwriting was the weirdest on Revolver. I am the walrus is obviously also weird, even weirder, imo, he wrote it during the course of 2 acid trips, but I think that's also placebo. I don't know abour rev9. Didnt yoko cowrote it?

I definately think John was in very bad states, at times. Georg said about Dental experience :"Everything in life is heaven and hell. On lsd it's the same, multiplied by 1000" By his own words, he was in hell, while on lsd. On 21st march '67, i think john accidentaly took lsd and got very sick. At one point in '68, he was in a hellish state of mind, broke down, and started to take heroin. I read he did it as an escape from all that has been going on. He said that even as a kid he used to "transcend into alpha", i think, seeing surrealistic images. I don't know his state of mind in 68-9, but I don't think his behavior was sane, nor do I think seing surrealistic images is sane.

A writer develops over the years.

Song which they wrote in their early years were meant to attract audience. So that is where the simple 5 minute writing love songs come from.

Then they all developed in life. And in writing skills.

As for John I do not agree to link some of his songs to use of drugs. There is a clear view on his personality from songs like Help which in a slow version (take for instance Tina Turner) show what it is really about. There are some of them including for instance even "Mother" years later.

I would call them emotions and feelings which a songwriter at times shows to the world in a song. Others hide it. You can see the personality differences between Paul, George and John in their writing. So the link to drugs I believe is not right.

The other thing is the change in age and in experiences from all the traveling and impressions they picked up in the world. She Said was based on an experience from John just like Tomorrow Never Knows, but why link it to drugs?

It takes away the attention of magnificant songwriting and song-producing and the various periods these guys were going through in 7 years which other people do not even reach in 25 years. Why link it to drugs? I really do not understand that.

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

A writer develops over the years.

Song which they wrote in their early years were meant to attract audience. So that is where the simple 5 minute writing love songs come from.

Then they all developed in life. And in writing skills.

As for John I do not agree to link some of his songs to use of drugs. There is a clear view on his personality from songs like Help which in a slow version (take for instance Tina Turner) show what it is really about. There are some of them including for instance even "Mother" years later.

I would call them emotions and feelings which a songwriter at times shows to the world in a song. Others hide it. You can see the personality differences between Paul, George and John in their writing. So the link to drugs I believe is not right.

The other thing is the change in age and in experiences from all the traveling and impressions they picked up in the world. She Said was based on an experience from John just like Tomorrow Never Knows, but why link it to drugs?

It takes away the attention of magnificant songwriting and song-producing and the various periods these guys were going through in 7 years which other people do not even reach in 25 years. Why link it to drugs? I really do not understand that.

I'm not likning it to drugs, but to his state of mind. I dont know if i'll ever know, but judging on she said and tnk, if it can be judged that way, there was something very strange, pherhabs even ill happening in John's soul when he was writing them.

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

It takes away the attention of magnificant songwriting and song-producing and the various periods these guys were going through in 7 years which other people do not even reach in 25 years. Why link it to drugs? I really do not understand that.

Assuming that it does take something away, which I, personally, don't agree with. Look, creative people are already on drugs, it's part of their system. It's simply that those drugs are called endorphins and are naturally released in great amounts during creative periods, while drugs such as LSD or heroine are synthesized substitutes. No drug gives the user talents that person didn't already possess. John wouldn't suddenly have become da Vinci and painted fantastic pictures because he took drugs; he was a composer so he wrote songs. So the drug may have altered John's perception of reality, or allowed him to stay awake, or something like that, but that was all it did for his creativity. The songs originated within John and nobody else, not even in the drugs. That's why they sound like John's songs and not Paul's or Mozart's or anyone else's songs but John's.

This is probably why artists in every walk of life are more prone to drug addiction than people of other professions. The natural high that comes from the endorphins becomes the usual state of mind and to feel the "rush" the artist needs more than the body can produce so turns to synthetic drugs instead. It's not new either. The poets Byron and Coleridge and the author Oscar Wilde, to name a few, took opium, the 'in' drug in their era. Should we then say that their addictions take away from the beauty of their writings? Perish the thought!

However, drugs do impair judgment and in that way the user may "mess up" a good thing. Now, back to Revolver, I don't know what and how much of the recording and/or writing was done under the influence of drugs but wouldn't be surprised if it was considerably. Does it really matter? Perhaps in the strangeness of some lyrics, as Raul has pointed out, but overall, I'd say no. The guys led hectic lives, true, and I'm sure drugs were often used to keep them going. I'm no drug user or promoter but I do see how people under certain circumstances would use them; to get through life, to survive, even to do creative work.

My conclusion hibgal is that we totally agree. Your argumentation is really good and matches with my thoughts and view on this. Miracles do happen.

Originally Posted by hibgal

Assuming that it does take something away, which I, personally, don't agree with. Look, creative people are already on drugs, it's part of their system. It's simply that those drugs are called endorphins and are naturally released in great amounts during creative periods, while drugs such as LSD or heroine are synthesized substitutes. No drug gives the user talents that person didn't already possess. John wouldn't suddenly have become da Vinci and painted fantastic pictures because he took drugs; he was a composer so he wrote songs. So the drug may have altered John's perception of reality, or allowed him to stay awake, or something like that, but that was all it did for his creativity. The songs originated within John and nobody else, not even in the drugs. That's why they sound like John's songs and not Paul's or Mozart's or anyone else's songs but John's.

This is probably why artists in every walk of life are more prone to drug addiction than people of other professions. The natural high that comes from the endorphins becomes the usual state of mind and to feel the "rush" the artist needs more than the body can produce so turns to synthetic drugs instead. It's not new either. The poets Byron and Coleridge and the author Oscar Wilde, to name a few, took opium, the 'in' drug in their era. Should we then say that their addictions take away from the beauty of their writings? Perish the thought!

However, drugs do impair judgment and in that way the user may "mess up" a good thing. Now, back to Revolver, I don't know what and how much of the recording and/or writing was done under the influence of drugs but wouldn't be surprised if it was considerably. Does it really matter? Perhaps in the strangeness of some lyrics, as Raul has pointed out, but overall, I'd say no. The guys led hectic lives, true, and I'm sure drugs were often used to keep them going. I'm no drug user or promoter but I do see how people under certain circumstances would use them; to get through life, to survive, even to do creative work.

I agree, except the strangeness i had in mind was primeraly music, not lyrics. Really, she said and tnk are so different from everything else he ever wrote, that's pherhabs one of the reasons why Revolver is so special. he has changed inside.

Originally Posted by raul

I agree, except the strangeness i had in mind was primeraly music, not lyrics. Really, she said and tnk are so different from everything else he ever wrote, that's pherhabs one of the reasons why Revolver is so special. he has changed inside.

if you hear the demos of these songs you could again conclude that what came on the album was an overall group + Martin product.... I believe.

PS you really got me there raul LMAO I thought where you said tnk it was a typo for the word think. I must remember I am reading from a scientist here

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

if you hear the demos of these songs you could again conclude that what came on the album was an overall group + Martin product.... I believe.

PS you really got me there raul LMAO I thought where you said tnk it was a typo for the word think. I must remember I am reading from a scientist here

whats the probability of me making the same typo over and over? And almost no other typo?

as for the 2 songs....will this ever end...isn't it possible that the strangeness was there in the initial music that john wrote?

Originally Posted by raul

as for the 2 songs....will this ever end...isn't it possible that the strangeness was there in the initial music that john wrote?

YES!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Harbidge

I
It's a difficult one. If you say the drugs enhanced thw album by bringing in unique creativity then it sounds like you're condoning it. But then again there's nothing on the album that sounds like it was ruined by drugs.

Oh, I'm not condoning it - But the 60's were a time of experimentation - of music and drugs. You can't go back and change history. I'm just saying that his creativity wasn't seemingly hampered - though perhaps drugs made him not as gung ho to be the leader of the group anymore.

Originally Posted by Beatle Corinne

Oh, I'm not condoning it - But the 60's were a time of experimentation - of music and drugs. You can't go back and change history. I'm just saying that his creativity wasn't seemingly hampered - though perhaps drugs made him not as gung ho to be the leader of the group anymore.

I think he was talking to me, Corinne, i could be wrong though. lets penetrate into his brain using lsd.