Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Prince and Amy Winehouse all have one thing in common other than being household names in any discussion about the music scene: they all died due to substance abuse. Cocaine, methamphetamine, morphine, fentanyl, and other lesser known intoxicants were infamously running rampant in music studios and concerts all throughout the 20th century. Often times, we take for granted the psychedelic nature of rock and roll, whether that is the loose groove of bands like the Beatles, who as time went by, clearly transformed into a byproduct of marijuana (coming from a Beatles fan), or the rowdy and wild touring of musicians like Eric Clapton, Ozzy Osbourne and James Brown. But why? Why has drug use become so engraved in our understanding of the blues and rock and roll?

 Firstly, let us truly establish the intertwined nature of these two elements. When we think of the 40s or the 50s, most of us tend to go to musicians like Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Paul Anka and Ella Fitzgerald. Their styles are classy, conservative even. Masters of parlor music, jazz, and the classical love song. Let’s not be fooled here: many of these people were alcoholics, struggling with severe addiction. The difference, however, is that it never was a part of their media image, or how they were perceived. The often manufactured sheen of opulence around these stars can be attributed to the prosperity of those times. After WW2, the world saw an economic boom, when the victors of the war claimed the spoils of their triumph, developed their industries, recovered from economic hardships that preceded the 40s, and in general flourished in the newfound peace. Thus, it makes sense that the now wealthier and prouder West would want the music to match their mood.

 The same principal can be applied to the 60s and 70s. Twenty years of change, the likes of which had never before been seen. Traditionalist values are shaken to the core, marginalized groups gain more and more freedoms, and suddenly, a total sexual liberation occurs, all resulting in a complete musical shift. The most decisive factor of this change is the influence of African-Americans on blues and jazz, both genres that definitively trace their roots to Africa. With the gradual end of segregation and the wider liberation of black people, they are suddenly free to transmit their music into mainstream circles. From the mid-50s, the first to utilize African-American inspiration is the great Elvis Presley. He was constantly attacked for “corrupting” the façade of the “white man” by playing “black” music. His rapport with the African-American community was fantastic, thus he garnered great popularity with that demographic.

 He was also one of the first to introduce drugs into music. To support his explosive lifestyle, his party habits and his cool stage presence, he became addicted to opiates, sleeping pills, even heavy tranquilizers like Valium, topped by an insatiable alcohol problem. This lifestyle was described by PBS as “the perfect prescription for an early death”.

 A band that had arguably more of an impact than Elvis when it comes to drugs in music were the Beatles. While they were familiar with substances from the early 60s, in the mid-60s, influenced by the counterculture movements of that time, they embraced marijuana as part of their songwriting process. They completely altered their image, from the traditional do-gooders with bowl cuts playing guitar in a three-button suit, to the long-haired, bearded and relaxed hippies we’re so familiar with. In fact, one could say they are responsible for the hippie label. Experts say they were also fascinated with LSD, that was still legal in the UK at that time. Many of their later songs are direct products of psychedelic substances.

 The Beatles shaped the style of an era. After their collapse, Jimi Hendrix became the forefather of an entire genre named “psychedelic rock”, whose trademark was the very influence of hallucinogenic drugs on the sound. Eric Clapton, legendary guitarist, was also infamously addicted, shaping the stereotype of partying and drug abuse during tours and popularizing songs like “Cocaine”, with the lyrics:

If you wanna hang out, you’ve got to take her out, cocaine.

If you wanna get down, down on the ground, cocaine.

She don’t lie, that dirty cocaine.

By the 70s, it was clear that music and drugs were interlinked. Practically every major star was on some sort of intoxicant, and it was visible on live performances. As the years passed and the intense changes continued in the world, psychedelics in music remained as a constant force for songwriting and performing. Needless to say, of course, this has claimed the lives of not just great artists, but of fans and ordinary people who idolized their favorite musicians and wanted to emulate them. Drug abuse, for good or for worse, characterized entire decades of human history. Even now when we think of the 70s and the 80s, we think of wild and uncontrolled lifestyles.

 However, while death has often been the price paid for reckless addiction, it is undoubtable that without psychedelic usage, R&B and rock and roll would not be anything like they are today. So, the question is this; does the art produced while under the influence cost more than the lives lost due to it?

Give us your take on the Roundtable.