Why did drugs become irrevocably married to rock ‘n’ roll?
At some point in prehistory, our ancestors found harmony between rhythm and an altered state of consciousness; the two have been irrevocably bound ever since. In the 2011 study, Hallucinogenic drugs in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, neurologist F.J. Carod-Artal revealed that peyote and other naturally hallucinogenic flora and fungi were present during ritual contexts over 5000 years ago. The use of naturally occurring drugs wasn’t confined to Mesoamerica, either; archaeological evidence shows that isolated prehistoric tribes across the globe frequently used mind-altering substances as part of social gatherings and rituals, more often than not, with musical accompaniment.
Like wine and cheese, live music slips down delightfully with a few alcoholic beverages. As those who have witnessed gospel choirs or ardent chants at football matches will attest, synchronous intonation and harmonising undulations can put the listener in a trance-like state without the requirement of chemical enhancement. However, this euphoria or emotional overload could be perceived as a gateway of sorts; combine pleasing rhythms with drugs and alcohol, and you could be on your way to what Aldous Huxley described as a “visionary experience”. Alternatively, you could end up vomiting down the front of your England jersey, apologising to three blurry yet inanimate lions.
Drugs and music strike a harmony because they both offer a mental release. After a long week at work, listening to your favourite music – whether that’s Leonard Cohen’s Songs of Love and Hate or your Ibiza Club Hits CD – can take a serious load off. With a pint in hand, this release can be magnified tenfold. On this imagined Friday night, we might decide to hit the clubs or attend a gig at a local pub. As long as such places have existed, they’ve served as a fertile environment for music careers, alcohol profits and pusher activity.
With this in mind, it was hardly a surprise that drugs became a central and controversial facet of the 1960s countercultural movement: the period when rock and roll prevailed as the first globalised music genre. The abstract work of Beat Generation writers and Expressionist artists undoubtedly held a hand on the rudder of rock music’s creative explosion in the mid-1960s, but the other meddling hand was chemical.
Whether you’re pro or anti-drug use, it’s difficult to deny that recreational substances, chiefly marijuana and psychedelics, had an incalculable impact on Western music in the 1960s. With oblique references retaining truth like giggling children, rock artists of the hippie generation sang of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Magic dragons named Puff, tempting a post-war generation from its parents’ protective arms.
Thanks to “neuronaut” Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley’s 1954 essay, The Doors of Perception – after which Jim Morrison named his rock band a decade later – among other notable centres of advocacy, LSD found its way to the tongue of Paul McCartney in the mid-1960s, not long after he and his bandmates had been introduced to marijuana by Bob Dylan.
This marked a significant milestone in 20th-century cultural development. Were parents able to trust The Beatles? Perhaps now the band had clearly lost its marbles, the members should be reassessed as bad boys, like The Rolling Stones? Beyond the humour, these were pertinent questions. Like many things in life, chasing highs bears significant risk, not just to health but to prospects and reputation in the face of the law.
On June 17th, 1967, Life Magazine ran an interview with Paul McCartney in which the Beatle admitted to occasional LSD use. While conjecture had been bubbling since the release of Revolver, Life Magazine gave the British media and public license to flip lids.
In response to the mounting hysteria, McCartney gave a televised reaction on Independent Television News two days later. In the interview, a defensive McCartney was transparent about his experimentation with LSD, revealing that he had tried it “about four times”.
The interviewer asked McCartney: “Don’t you believe that this is a matter which you should have kept private?”
“Mmm, but the thing is, I was asked a question by a newspaper, and the decision was whether to tell a lie or tell him the truth,” McCartney replied. “I decided to tell him the truth… but I really didn’t want to say anything, you know, because if I had my way, I wouldn’t have told anyone. I’m not trying to spread the word about this. But the man from the newspaper is the man from the mass medium. I’ll keep it a personal thing if he does too, you know… if he keeps it quiet. But he wanted to spread it, so it’s his responsibility, you know, for spreading it. Not mine.”
As the conversation wore on, the interviewer questioned McCartney’s transparency on the matter, claiming that it could encourage his fans to take drugs.
“I don’t think my fans are going to take drugs just because I did, you know,” McCartney continued. “But the thing is, that’s not the point anyway. I was asked whether I had or not. And from then on, the whole bit about how far it’s gonna go and how many people it’s going to encourage is up to the newspapers and up to you on television. I mean, you’re spreading this now, at this moment. This is going into all the homes in Britain. And I’d rather it didn’t. But you’re asking me the question. You want me to be honest. I’ll be honest.”
Despite flirtations with other substances, The Beatles – especially George Harrison – eventually sidelined hallucinogens to seek spiritual highs through meditation and Eastern rites. LSD could turn the world upside-down and back to front and open doors to unbound imagination, but the risks of protracted abuse were no secret, especially following the mental decline of early Pink Floyd mastermind Syd Barrett.
When considering drug use among the rich and famous, it’s important to understand that nobody’s built the same. Heroin is generally regarded as one of the most destructive and dangerous drugs due to its potent effects and highly addictive nature.
Some rock stars have found heroin to be initially agreeable, allowing a detached, dreamy, euphoric pillow on which the mind could rest in creative wonderment.
“[Heroin] freed me up. I hate talking about this because of my daughter, my family. But, for me, it was incredibly creative,” Damon Albarn of Blur and Gorillaz admitted in a 2014 interview with Q. “A combination of [heroin] and playing really simple, beautiful, repetitive shit in Africa changed me completely as a musician. I found a sense of rhythm. I somehow managed to break out of something with my voice.”
Sadly, albeit predictably, heroin began to get the better of Albarn as he realised the drug wasn’t safe and sustainable as a mental release. “I can move forward now without all the nudge nudge, wink wink innuendo I’ve had in the background for years,” Albarn said of his sobriety, describing the drug as a “cruel, cruel thing.”
“[Heroin] does turn you into a very isolated person, and ultimately anything that you are truly dependent on is not good,” he added.
On the other hand, we have musicians who never really took to heroin after an initial trial. For example, David Bowie and Paul McCartney found heroin wasn’t to their tastes but struck a rhythm in the stimulating qualities of cocaine for a term. While the marching powder may not provide a creative haven, it’s known to banish stage fright, lubricate social engagements and maintain artists’ impetus during busy touring schedules.
“The music is just an extension of me, so the question really is, What have drugs done to me? They’ve fucked me up, I think. Fucked me up nicely, and I’ve quite enjoyed seeing what it was like being fucked up,” Bowie commented on his troublesome cocaine habit in a 1976 conversation with Playboy.
Bowie would later lament his addiction following his fruitful spell of drug exile in Berlin. Reflecting on his first alter ego, as debuted in 1969’s ‘Space Oddity’, Bowie sang, “We know Major Tom’s a junkie/ Strung out in heaven’s high/ Hitting an all-time low,” in 1980’s ‘Ashes to Ashes’.
Drugs are magnetised to creative personalities and busy performers for various reasons that differ depending on the mind in question. As discussed at the beginning of the article, the marriage of mind-altering substances to music is nothing new, but the countercultural movement of the mid-20th century voiced distinctly binding vows between rock music and elicit drugs.
As a burgeoning drug culture alienated conservative parents, politicians and devout Christians, rock music became increasingly associated with hedonistic lifestyles and unruly, self-destructive behaviour. With the poles set firmly in place, musicians referencing drug abuse sought to deride prudes and politicians, encouraging new generations of music lovers to take drugs to make music to take drugs to.
Never Miss A Beat
The Far Out Beatles Newsletter
All the latest stories about The Beatles from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.