Jump to content

Songs the band claimed weren't about drugs


Batman
 Share

Recommended Posts

What do you think about songs where the bands say they aren't about drugs, but they seem like they are? Songs like 'eight miles high' and 'hey jude' and 'yellow submarine?' and 'are you experienced?' Do you think that they were telling the truth in saying songs like these weren't about drugs?

I think they weren't about drugs if the band said they weren't. What would be the point of a band who obviously does a lot of drugs, and admits it (like the beatles or hendrix) to say he doesn't write songs about drugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Eight Miles High" is an awesome song. Funny. I never thought it was about drugs - always figured it was about jet-setting. Roxy Music did an awesome cover of that song in their 1980 album, Flesh + Blood.

Madonna has always proclaimed to be drug free, but some of the stuff she's come out sayin' about her life, you'd almost think you need drugs to get through it :beatnik: Her songs themselves don't push any of those messages. Sex? Yes. Drugs? No.

Oh, but here's the kicker. When I first heard Suede's "Heroine," I immediately thought it was about the drug heroin: "I'm aching to see my heroine..." Their other song, "Crackhead," was more to the point ::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about "Eight Miles High" but I don't think the labeled 'drug' Beatles songs were about drugs. Most of it is just a result late '60's/70's drug paranoia IMO.

If the band/writer of these songs says their not about drugs, then that's as far as it should go. They don't really have any reason to lie about it so who cares?

I think "Hey Jude" is directed to Julian Lennon, "Yellow Submarine" is a charming kids songs despite some so-called drug imagery and "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" where the imagery is more obvious, probably was never intended to spellout LSD.

Within the context of The Wall I think "Comfortably Numb is alot deeper then just song refering to or encouraging the use of drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pink Floyd denies claims that Dark Side of The Moon was written under the influence. In my opinion, this shouldn't even be an issue. Anyone who has heard the album would clearly be able to see that it was not drug-induced.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Pink Floyd did drugs thats not some urban legend so anything they did was drug induced. I mean Syd Barrett did so much acid they had to put him away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Pink Floyd did drugs thats not some urban legend so anything they did was drug induced. I mean Syd Barrett did so much acid they had to put him away.

Its such a good, complicated album, it couldn't have been written under the influence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be embarassed to be someone who thought DSoTM was written under the influence. Saying that is saying "I'm shallow. I don't listen to tasteful music." I'm serious. DSoTM is such a complicated album with complex multi-themes and intense playing as well as innovative progressions. I know Pink Floyd does drugs. You don't need to discount things that haven't been said, windy. Nowhere in my post did I indicate that they didn't. I'm not sure who was heavily addicted, and I'm not sure if all of them did it. We all know Roger Waters did drugs, as well as Syd Barret. That doesn't mean DSoTM is drug induced. Many of their songs were though. I mean it's quite obvious that the Syd Barret stuff is drug induced. However, your logic is flawed, because DSoTM was written after Syd Barret left (or was kicked out of) the band. Roger Waters denies a lot of things which I believe to be true. This is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm you're a young person too,
I know. That's irrealevent. I expect younger people to not understand Pink Floyd, so when you don't, it doesn't come as a big surprise, but older people should. The only reason I say this is because music today that kids listen to isn't deep. And this was. So kids are preconditioned to think out of the ordinary means drug-influenced, and not something else.
and plus I understand Floyd
Apparently not. And you prove this with your next comment:
they were sooooooooo "Under the Influence"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't listen to 'new' music, and simply because a recording artist was 'high' when they wrote something, does not make it 'not deep'

Lennon was DEFINATELY stoned at least when recording the White Album, that is documented, and people ASSUME he was during other Beatles recordings, are Beatles albums not deep or technically astounding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, listen to any Pink Floyd album. From the first one to at lest the wall and tell me it was not made under the influence of drugs such as Marijuana and LSD. This is music made under the influence and meant to be listen to under the influence.

But anyways, the album, probably NONE of their songs are ABOUT drugs. If someone has any opinions, please post. The album is about an average human going through life and going insane. Not because of drugs, but because life itself. That's how I see it anyways.

Oh, and none of them were actually addicted to any drugs. Not that I know of. And before someone mentions Syd: LSD may drive you insane, but it's not adictive (take note kids).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe did you ever see 'Meet the parents'? that reminds me of a scene from it,

Of course its about drugs, who else would call their dragon 'Puff'? ::

A lot of people think Peter, Paul & Mary's "Puff" (aka "Puff the Magic Dragon") was about drugs but PP&M vehemently deny this!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...