Paul does drugs..

[New York City]

hi, just read this and thought i'd pass it on..


Paul McCartney Talks About Past Drug Use



LONDON - Paul McCartney says he got no thrill from heroin, but found cocaine more to his liking for a time.

"I tried heroin just the once," McCartney said in interview published Wednesday in the Daily Mirror newspaper about his drug use in decades past.

"Even then, I didn't realize I'd taken it. I was just handed something, smoked it, then found out what it was.

"It didn't do anything for me, which was lucky because I wouldn't have fancied heading down that road," the former Beatle was quoted as saying. The full interview is published this week in Uncut magazine.

McCartney's drug use has resulted in at least one brush with the law. A planned Japan tour in 1980 was derailed when the singer was arrested at Tokyo's airport for possession of marijuana and later deported.

Despite enjoying cocaine for a time, he said he eventually turned against the drug.

"I did cocaine for about a year around the time of Sgt. Pepper," he said, referring to The Beatles' 1967 album.

"Coke and maybe some grass to balance it out. I was never completely crazy with cocaine.

"I'd been introduced to it and at first it seemed OK, like anything that's new and stimulating.

"When you start working your way through it, you start thinking: 'Mmm, this is not so cool an idea,' especially when you start getting those terrible comedowns," McCartney said. He confirmed that drugs influenced some of the group's songs.

"A song like 'Got to Get You Into My Life,' that's directly about pot, although everyone missed it at the time," McCartney said.

"'Day Tripper,' that's one about acid (LSD). 'Lucy in the Sky,' that's pretty obvious. There's others that make subtle hints about drugs, but, you know, it's easy to overestimate the influence of drugs on the Beatles' music."

"Just about everyone was doing drugs in one form or another and we were no different, but the writing was too important for us to mess it up by getting off our heads all the time," McCartney added.

McCartney also acknowledged that Wings, the band he formed after The Beatles' breakup, was "pretty rough, not terribly good" when it started out.

"There was a time when The Beatles weren't very good, but we were able to be not very good in private," McCartney said.

"Wings had to do it in public and there was always the shadow of The Beatles, which didn't help."

[marmaladeskies87]

thats very interesting, i liked the beatles werent too good at first, not because i think they suck but it kinda gives me and my little band hope, because if we face it now we suck, out and out terrible, but we are learning and we will be good someday, its kinda inspirational really

[DayTripper]

yeah.. some of my friends think the beatles suck. but they don't listen to the albums, they don't bother to take the time to understand. they hear 1 song and judge it all on that.. pathetic...

[marmaladeskies87]

oh yes ive seen people judge by one not the best beatle song and say they were the most over rated band ever, and they too say they suck, its terrible, Yellow Sub. is the song all of them hear and say sucks.... grrr... its quite annoying

[mojo]

This is like a follow on from the topic, about Paul talking about drugs and song references... interesting...


"It didn't ruin the songs 24 years ago when John Lennon explained virtually track by track who wrote what," Rolling Stone deputy managing editor Joe Levy says. "It maybe took away a little of the mystique of two guys working shoulder to shoulder, singing melodies into each other's ears and bouncing lyrics off one another. Suddenly you knew that only some of the songs were written that way."

In some cases, knowing the real-world genesis of a song can even boost its appeal.

"When I found out reading George's 'I Me Mine' that the song 'Wah Wah' is not about a guitar pedal, it's about Paul giving him a headache, I liked it better," says Chris Carter, host of the weekly "Breakfast With the Beatles" radio show on Los Angeles' KLSX-FM.

"But the fact that 'Yesterday' started out as 'Scrambled Eggs' never did much for me. Sometimes the process isn't as interesting as the end result."

In Carter's view, whether new information negatively or positively affects listeners' feelings about a song is all about context.

"When I find out what one of my favorite songs is about, it all depends on how it's delivered," he says. "If you seek it out, take the time to read a book about an artist you're interested in, then you're kind of looking for it. But what happens with a lot of these things, it becomes a news item and they sensationalize it, and some fans don't like it."


Because explaining songs can be perilous, some songwriters - Bob Dylan heading the list - steadfastly refuse to discuss the sources of inspiration for individual songs, or what particular lyrics may have meant, preferring that listeners impose their own interpretations.

"I'm a technician and engineer, so as a songwriter, I like that kind of information," says singer-songwriter J.J. Cale, the composer of "After Midnight" and one of the rock era's least ambiguously drug-related songs, "Cocaine," both famously covered by Eric Clapton. "But as far as the old songs I grew up with, I have my own ideas about what those songs mean, so just as a listener, it can be unfortunate. So it's good and bad."

There's also been a debate since McCartney's interview came out over how much credence to give his comments, especially those that contradict previous explanations of such songs as "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds."

"John went to great lengths insisting that the song was not tied to LSD, that it was tied to a painting (his son) Julian made in school," Howard says. "John's explanation was very credible ... and now for Paul, in the 21st century, to tie it to LSD, it's like he's talking out of school. I found myself a bit disappointed."

And some have noted that McCartney's interview also contradicts his own words about "Got to Get You Into My Life," which he described in a 1966 interview as his tribute to Motown.

Few, however, expect that McCartney's comments will rob Beatles songs of any of their magic.

"The songs are a major part of my interior wallpaper, so it is unlikely that anything Paul says today would change my feelings about them," says Kenneth Killiany, an English lecturer at Catholic University of America in Washington.

"As far as my understanding of them, ever since I found out that 'Dr. Robert' was about their dealer, I pretty much figured that for that period, the druggiest interpretation of any song was probably the most accurate."

Rolling Stone's Levy says: "We're talking about Beatles songs here. They exert their power independent of anyone's explanation or analysis. I don't think anybody ever listened to the Beatles through the filter of any critic's interpretations, and I don't think now they'll listen through the filter of Paul's explanation. ... I think the songs are pretty safe."