The Smiley Smile Message Board

Everybody knows that if Mike Love had his way, the Wilson brothers would not have been involved with drugs. Or at least not as involved as it seems like it really did not bother him that much when the creative output yielded songs like California Girls or Good Vibrations, but that is another story.

But if we took away the drugs, would the Beach Boys music been as groundbreaking, introspective and explorative? Would Brian have chosen the same lyricists for some of his music? Would Brian have taken some of the risks that he did? Would the vocals have sounded the same? Would Dennis’ music be so heartfelt, sad and personal? Or would the group have stalled during the mid-60’s?

Carl had better control over his drug use. I think his voice was amazing and he was a really nice guy who wrote some good music and took charge when the band needed him. Mike and Al have written some pretty decent lyrics but I am not sure any of this would have been enough to carry the band out of the 60s when their output was important and people were watching their every move to see what level of greatness came next.

I think both the benefits and harms of drugs on creativity tend to be exaggerated. Creative people are creative, boring people are boring. Chemicals might spur or dull this or that idea, but a drug-free Brian wasn't going to be Mike Love, or vice versa.

Work ethic and dependability might have suffered with some of the drugs. Performance certainly did at times, as we see with Carl in the Australia tour in the later 70s. But writing? I don't think it's all that big a part of the picture.

Without drugs I don't think what he did would've been as extreme. Without LSD, more specifically. But nobody really knows the full extent of their influence and what happened except Brian.

"About a year ago I had what I consider a very religious experience. I took LSD, a full dose of LSD, and later, another time, I took a smaller dose. And I learned a lot of things, like patience, understanding. I can't teach you or tell you what I learned from taking it, but I consider it a very religious experience." - Brian Wilson, 1966

"I did my dose of LSD. It shattered my mind and I came back, thank God, in I don't know how many pieces." - Brian Wilson, 1976

"I took the LSD and that just totally tore my head off. Acid was like everything I could ever be and everything I wouldn't be I came to grips with. You just come to grips with what you are and what you can do and what you can't do and you learn to face it." - Brian Wilson, mid 1970s

"Time can be spent in the studio to the point where you just get so next to it you don't know where you are with it and you just decide to chuck it for awhile." - Brian Wilson on Smile, mid 1970s

"We got stoned and we'd write little 30 second snippets. Or sometimes a minute snippet. But hardly ever more than a minute. We'd be sitting there going 'Where is this stuff?'" - Brian Wilson on Smile, 2011

It seems Mike has turned out to be rather ambivalent about the subject. In his book, he wrote something akin to (paraphrasing, because I don't want to comb through the book for the quote) "without (Brian doing) drugs, we might have had ten "Good Vibrations." On the other hand, without the drugs we might not have had one 'Good Vibrations.'"

I think definite villain. Frank Zappa never took drugs and is very innovative. I think Brian could have been musically inspired by what he heard and not by drugs. But who knows. A lot of innovative artists today, like Radiohead don't do drugs as far as I know.

I agree, definitely villains.

Some drugs just lower the treshold, and you might come up with and explore wacky new ideas more easily. But it's still coming from the creative person, not from the drugs. They're merely a tool, a shortcut. For a sensitive guy like Brian, I'd say they were ultimately a villain.

Villains overall. 

I think the whole correlation between drugs and great music is a bit of a myth. 

I'm gonna give the cop-out answer and say neither. You would not have the level of introspection on the TODAY ballads and PET SOUNDS without pot and SMILE was Twain and Disney on acid.  Without drugs, a lot of that music would have turned out differently.  On the other hand, Brian was one guy who, in retrospect, never should have touched LSD.  It's very much a double-edged sword.

I was going to say either neither or heroes and villains.

I'll look at this from a completely different perspective: don't just imagine taking away drugs from The Beach Boys, but imagine had drugs never influenced one single second of 60s music. It is a totally different scene with that in mind, and the influences and the depth/topics of 60s songwriting become very different.

The correlation between drugs and great music is no myth at all. The Beatles created some of their absolute best work after they started smoking marijuana, and specifically they started creating some of their most experimentally beautiful music after taking LSD ('Tomorrow Never Knows', 'She's Leaving Home', etc). Would the Beatles still have created great work without drugs? Absolutely. But songs like 'Day Tripper' would NEVER have been made, Bob Dylan probably would have never written or released 'Visions of Johanna' or 'Sad Eyed Lady' or 'Mr. Tambourine Man' (as we know them now) and a plethora of other songs that defined his mid-60s career without drugs. The shape of the musical landscape of the mid-60s would have been completely different and without them we would never ever have gotten Pet Sounds as we know it today.

People can write great music without drugs. But people can also write great music with drugs. And music created without drugs can be and usually is FAR different than music created without drugs.

Even had Brian never taken any drugs: Imagine a world where Rubber Soul was not influenced by drugs. Would the lyrics be the same? Would the chords be the same? Would the experimentation be the same? Would the Beatles have hesitated releasing certain songs that were too 'out there'? And in return would Brian have been as touched by that album as he was?

I'm rambling on now. But I guess the answer to the question is kinda what Andy wrote above...only I would say both heroes and villains. The drugs were truly a villain as Brian lost control of his mind (and though he was displaying signs of mental problems prior to indulging, the drugs exacerbated the problems). But they were also a hero, as without drugs I doubt we would have the depth of topics written about in the music. 'I Just Wasn't Made For These Times', 'I Know There's An Answer', and many more would never have been written...and thus perhaps Pet Sounds would either never have existed or it wouldn't be as profound as people see it today.

This may or may not be relevant to the topic at hand:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7904.0.html

I think it's unknown whether the drugs Brian Wilson took in the '60s contributed to his mental health problems. I doubt they did.
Drugs are unnecessary for creativity, biologically.  Some people find that some are helpful in decreasing inhibition and increasing breadth of thought, both of which can contribute to creative expression.

I think it also depends on the type of drugs. Marijuana obviously doesn't have the long range problems.  I think most musicians who survived have expressed regret for the amounts of drugs they did and how it affected their careers.  The recent Chicago documentary is an example.

Research heavily suggests that marijuana affects people predisposed to schizophrenia differently than those without any underlying schizophrenic issues. Research is varied but many researchers do believe that smoking marijuana can bring out the side affects of predisposed* schizophrenia...as I say, this is varied, but from what I've heard over the years pretty much any researcher will agree that anyone with underlying schizophrenic issues should not smoke marijuana.

I'm honestly not sure about the research regarding LSD and schizophrenia. But when Brian says it shattered his mind into a million pieces (and it was hard for him to collect those pieces again) I have no reason to doubt that he truly means it.

Drugs are unnecessary for creativity, absolutely. But the type of creativity and avenues you explore because of drugs vary greatly from a sober creative session. Like I said above, you can make great music without drugs, but it will be totally different music.

*edited that important word in

I think Lennon once said that the impact on drugs is overrated. If he wrote a song in a swimming pool would people say that the swimming pool wrote the song?

Personally, I agree with what the captain said.

The science is out on whether it's the chicken or the egg with marijuana or acid and psychosis or schizophrenia. There's a little evidence of drug to disease symptom acceleration, very little of drug to disease causation and there's evidence that the same genetics that cause the disease cause one to use weed or acid, explaining the correlation.
I assume Brian Wilson meant what he said. Whether it's accurate is another question.

Yes, as I said it's varied. Regardless, as I said above I think Brian heard voices in his head before he even partook in those drugs (and was definitely displaying signs of mental illness). It is certainly verified that those who already have mental problems of this kind have their symptoms worsen after smoking marijuana...and thus there's no doubt in my mind that his mental problems only worsened after partaking in these drugs (perhaps specifically marijuana).

I think the speed and LSD during smile was what really started the problems.

It is certainly not certain. As I said, the science is out.

Well somebody should let it back in!

Only kidding. I mean it'd be crazy if he'd had no mental problems already boiling up and then drugs just caused him to freak out as much as he did.

 That would be crazy. Literally. Har har.

Har har. I haven't laughed that har hard in decades.

It's a smiley smile thang! :hat

The science is out regarding the chicken and egg (i.e. does marijuana use bring about schizophrenia in people with genetic history of that mental illness?). The science is very clear (http://www.livescience.com/10700-marijuana-worsens-schizophrenia.html) that people who already show signs of mental illness of that kind should not smoke marijuana as it exacerbates the symptoms. As people on both sides (http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/24/5836762/the-link-between-weed-and-schizophrenia-is-way-more-complicated-than) of the chicken and egg argument are in agreement that people with mental illness should not smoke marijuana, and there is reasoning for that.

The 1964 breakdown showed the issues existed before drugs.

Yeah, a lot of things seemed to show issues did exist. At least emotional issues. Obviously his father hitting him, and as he said in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary he'd walk around school with a hand over his chest so no one would hit him.

But it's really hard to say what actions or events had to do with mental illness and what had to do with just strong emotions. It was obvious as hell that he was a deeply insecure dude for alotta reasons: his fathers abuse, trying to live up to his fathers expectations and shake off his fathers shadow, his natural lack of macho-ness and his not so great way with girls (apparently, unless Mike was talking out of his Lovehole, but it makes sense), his need to be the best, his inner conflicted feelings of wanting things his way but his fear of offending anybody and of confrontation in general, etc. I mean we know he was mentally ill but it's hard to tell where and when that illness showed itself as opposed to being just emotional stuff.

It's so sad. He really didn't deserve it (not that anybody does).

Yeah. I know the Love and Mercy movie is exactly a movie where artistic liberties were taken. But the portrayal of his descent into mental illness seems to be quite on par with what was written in Carlin's book (which is based on eye-witness interviews). Even Van Dyke talks about the rampant drug use and Brian's increasing weirdness during that time.

His paranoia about fires starting all over LA after his fire session is a huge red flag about his mental illness....I can only imagine that the drugs played a huge part in that paranoia...I mean, would anyone here recommend that those with mental illness put a hotboxing tent in their living room?

@Aduit Child; Timothy White wrote a great book called 'The Nearest Faraway Place' and in it he traces the family lineage and I do believe talks about the history of mental illness in Brian's family. From what I recall he had a relative with manic depressive/bipolar disorder (or at least he showed obvious signs of it). And even his father showed signs of depression (after he got fired by the band he stayed in bed for a long time due to depression). So I think a family history contributed a lot to his own mental health problems, as well as his problems at home. You're absolutely right: he didn't deserve it at all.

I've never heard of this book, thanks for telling me. I'd heard about Brian's dad in the I Just Wasn't Made For These Times documentary (and a 1976 Rolling Stone article I think maybe Audree mentioned it that early). And I'd read about one of his relatives in Catch a Wave. I'll definitely get a copy.

The really sad thing about Brian is I feel that a lot of the same things that helped him when he was good hurt him badly when he wasn't. Drugs are the obvious thing, but like his own sensitivity and his childlike pure belief in things. When he felt confident and on top of himself then that sensitivity helped him write all those perfect songs. But when his illness kicked in (maybe it was cause of the illness too) he was too affected by emotion to really do anything. And that belief made him able to make something like 'Fire', which is so heavy; it sounds like an actual fire. But he couldn't see that his paranoia was unjustified because he actually believed in it all. His innocence I think kept him from realizing some of his problems when he could've used that knowledge.

It's a good read, it is tedious especially in the beginning - the focus is all on the history of California (and partially the lineage of Brian Wilson's family). But if you get through that part you are rewarded with a rich story about the Beach Boys which has a firm backdrop of California history...which in turn really makes sense of their surf/love/California music.

And I totally agree with your second paragraph; that's a perspective I never really thought of before. And with that innocence in mind (if that was the case for Brian) it makes you wonder just how scared he was about his own paranoia during that time. Right now we have so many resources we can look up in the palm of our hand: "Ok Google, my heart is racing, I have chest chest pain, extreme fear, and my hands are going numb." "Sounds like a panic attack". Whereas in Brian's day I'm sure it wasn't easy to research these issues let alone admit to anyone the full depths of what was happening to him.

You take any given 5 years of that guy's life between 1960 and 1990 and if it were any person besides Brian Wilson you'd scarcely believe any of those events happened to one person. You take the whole of those 30 years and it's a wonder he made it through alive.

So if the Beatles never did LSD, would they still have been singing "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in 1967? If Brian never did acid or pot, would he still be singing "Surfin USA"? Oh wait, he is.

It blows my mind when people complain that Brian's not seeming "100%" or that he seems lacking somehow these days. Like look what he went through! It's amazing he could make Love You in 1976, let alone be touring regularly today after Love You when he slipped into a deeper depression possibly because he had gotten help and nothing had happened and the Boys yet again said "No Brian, we don't like your music" and left him to just rot at the piano while his mind drifted even further out while he smoked like a chimney and a half and ballooned again to 300/350 lbs (however much) and then spent 10 years with Landy extremely medicated and living in a twilight zone episode where his Dad comes back in the form of some guy who's both in love with Brian (and himself) yet doesn't actually give a sh!t about what Brian wants and needs. Eugene literally took a person who already suffered from psychosis (at least someone who had it in him), and trapped him in a fantasy. That sounds like a nightmare beyond comprehension. Now Brian might not be as smart as he used to be and his childlike dependency on others might be stronger than any more useful independent emotions, but he was certainly smart enough to know what was happening to him on some level. There's no way he didn't know it. Imagine that.

So anyone expecting him to be 100% is... I don't like insulting others with words like this, but that kind of is delusional. I just hope Brian's happy. I hope he's accepted his past and present as much as he's capable of.

He was totally naive. I mean, that's what makes his work so powerful and endearing. I think Eugene Landy was vaguely right when he said Brian didn't have a sense of humor. He did in a way, but he so sincerely believed in everything. He was completely uncynical. That kind of quality is really rare in people, especially adults. He was just a kid. "A children's song.... their song is love and the children know the way..." Brian was that child. And he wanted everyone else to realize the child in themselves, and if they were older than to try to reignite that truth.

Sorry that whole long thing was kinda rambly, but I think it gets my point across somehow.

Or more importantly, would Ringo have written 'Octopus's Garden'?

Don't apologize at all! It's a great post. One thing that people forget too is that Brian is getting older, and his back isn't in the best of shape...so of course he isn't going to look 100% (and all of that on top of what you said about his history with Landy and prior abuses). The people who actually know Brian, those who spend time around him these days, say that he is usually always aware of what's going on around him....and I'm sure it's easier for him to be more quiet and vigilant in these latter years.

I can't imagine them saying anything other than that, but I believe them. That's good to hear. I think he likes being old to an extent. Now he doesn't have to do anything haha. He probably spent a lot of time 1968 on wishing he was old.

Whenever I think of Brian getting old I think of the song 'When I Grow Up To Be A Man' with the words of the outro "Won't last forever, it's kinda sad". I think Brian likes that his crazier years are behind him, but I'm sure he, like anyone else, would love to have a few more lifetimes to work on the things that he loves.

Also, to clarify my comment about Brian usually always being aware: from what I recall (I've got a terrible memory) he's usually always aware of everything going on around him...it's probably what makes him such a great producer in the booth - he is constantly aware of every note of music coming through the speakers.

It's funny, he spent probably most of his life scared sh!tless of growing up, and now that he's old he's probably pretty happy with it. That probably contradicts my last comment about how he wanted to be old, but I think it was the process of growing up that scared him. The pain is what scared him, the having to actually go through it. I'm sure he wouldn't have minded just pressing a magic button to zoom past all those years of growing up.

I'm always skeptical about what people close to Brian say to the public about his well being or whatever but I'm sure he's pretty aware. If he's still as aware as he was in the 60s then darn. Maybe the musicians just aren't working on as complicated of stuff haha.

The science is not certain. Of course if there's an uncertain likelihood, people will advise against it.
http://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/schizophrenia-and-psychoses/cannabis-and-schizophrenia-trigger-or-treatment/article/399675/
This cites several sources:
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000220

Regarding Brian Wilson's naïveté, sometimes it seems he's naive like a fox.

Villains. Period.

Emily, I really don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. ^Those are both fascinating reads btw. But these are proving what we both already agree on (as I said from the beginning: the evidence is varied on the chicken and egg argument).

My point has been that it is certain that people who already have an illness of that kind should not use marijuana...as it can exacerbate the symptoms. Even in your own citations above there were doctors (who were also adamant that marijuana use does not cause psychosis) who stated specifically that "the drug may modify the course of an already established illness." (keeping in mind that Brian was displaying signs of an already established illness prior to taking drugs). This doctor writes just prior: "Cannabis use can lead to a range of short-lived symptoms such as de-personalisation, de-realisation, a feeling of loss of control, fear of dying, irrational panic and paranoid ideas...". Another doctor says: "There have been reports of psychotic 'breakdowns' occurring with rare frequency after marijuana has been smoked, but the causal relationship is in question. The psychotic episodes are generally self-limiting and seem to occur in individuals with a history of psychiatric problems."

If you are prone to feeling paranoia and fear related to a mental illness (and have a history of psychiatric problems), taking a drug that can induce paranoia and fear is a terrible idea. Again, even in what I cited above there was a doctor who was completely against the idea that marijuana use can cause psychosis and schizophrenia - yet he advised people who already have this illness against using the drug...not because the science isn't clear yet, but he stated specifically because marijuana can give you negative side effects that are not good for one's mental well being if you already have the illness. I've no doubt, thanks in part to your links above (and only the from that sources that frown upon the idea that marijuana causes psychosis), that Brian's marijuana use only contributed to the negative state of his mentality during that time period.

In the article you linked above there is promising research that cannabidiol can be extracted from marijuana (keeping it apart from THC) and it can be used to help treat psychosis. It'll be interesting to see where that research leads.

Totally agree. To even debate this is insane .

Isn’t there also some research that suggests that taking certain drugs before the brain is fully developed (about age 25) can be a catalyst to developing/exacerbating mental illness? Or was that refuted? (I’d look it up but I’m on my work computer…)

I just know someone who suffers from depression and anxiety, has a family history of a wide range of mental illnesses, including addiction, but who didn’t begin experimenting with drugs until they were in their late 20s, and never developed a dependence, seemed to get worse, or become permanently altered by their experiences. If anything, their mood improved for an extended period of time. Likely it’s my friend’s unique combination of genetic, environmental, psychological, biological and other factors that created this experience for them.

I don’t have a problem with people using recreational drugs “responsibly” in order to help them unlock other ways of thinking or seeing things. Whatever a person creates while under the influence of, or inspired by the experience of, a drug is still theirs. To me it’s like driving down a different road that day. If you take the same road every day, you see the same stuff over and over again. Maybe it’s sunny one day and the light plays differently on that old barn you see all the time, and that’s nice. But take a different road for a change, and you suddenly you find out about that beautiful wildflower garden… so now you go and grab your camera and take a photo, or paint a picture, or write a song about it.

But what is responsible use? Some people are able to use without negative impact, while others become damaged or addicted. Drugs affect everyone differently. With so many factors at play, it seems like  it’s a crap shoot how drugs will impact any given person.
You could argue that in light of that maybe it’s best not to go down that road. But then maybe no one should ever go skydiving, either. I guess I’m divided on the subject. I wouldn’t call drugs a hero or a villain, just someone who walks the line between good and bad.

I'm sure Emily could cull some sources regarding your first question...it's something I'm not too familiar with, though I do know people directly in the line of alcohol abuse research and they believe that alcohol has a damaging effect on development - they specifically stated that they've seen evidence of the brain actually forming very differently under heavy alcohol useage as opposed to a purely sober development. But I'm sure these findings could conflict with other sources. Like Emily said, it's the chicken and the egg - you could say that people with rampant drug use are more likely to develop mental issues down the road, but it could be underlying mental issues that drive people to drugs in the first place (and those mental issues would reveal themselves at a later date regardless of drug use).

I agree with most if not all of your post (your analogy about driving down a different road is exactly how I feel about drugs and their influence on music).

I don't think pot is necessarily a villain. I have never had it myself but even many doctors have said it is safe. I was thinking more about LSD, Heroine, Cocaine, etc

Depends on how heavily one uses it. I have met people that were absolutely addicted to pot. For others, it is simply a way to relax, the way some people relax with a beer.

Exactly. A doctor will also tell you alcohol, in moderation, is safe. In addition, if you don't have the right mentality to be responsible while drinking (getting uncontrollably angry for instance) a doctor would advise you against the partaking of alcohol.

Likewise the same with marijuana. I 99% don't see it as a villain, but in Brian's case I see it as one (check my post(s) and emily's links above). Drugs are different for everyone.

As a sensitive type, I can count the number of times I've toked on the fingers of two hands.

On one occasion it went very wrong----seems the stuff was opiated. Not nice.

So I'd still say dope/pot/marijuana is a villain.

I initially agreed with you but then you started saying it's "certain". I'm saying it's not certain and that doctors recommending against it isn't evidence of certainty. I agree that it's likely and I think the doctors are recommending against because it's likely.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree. But thanks much for those links provided above...it's great to see that people are willing to challenge a generally/commonly held belief in the name of science.

To answer topic question: villains.

I wonder if there are many people turned on to the Beach Boys by the story of the rise, fall and resurrection of Brian Wilson?

An abusive father, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, a poor circle of friends and mental illness all combined to bring this musical powerhouse to his rock bottom. Yet music and talent (and a few physical influences) rescued him to the point where he has put out more solo material than the other members of the band combined. Some of it is pretty damned good music too.

Any time people overcome a substance they are lauded much more than those who never did it to begin with because it represents a longer struggle to the top.

Love and Mercy made for a beautifully emotional story - a story that nearly every Disney movie follows: Something is going along really well; something tragic happens; then the protagonist overcomes the tragedy and prevails. Many of the popular films use this formula. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Rocky, Finding Nemo...

While I would not call drugs a "hero", they may be one of the villains that allowed the hero to be resurrected, and that resurrection makes for a compelling story. That story may expose potential fans to the music to see what the hype is about.

Brian won't be remembered for the music he has made as a "solo" artist. Night after night, the Beach Boys classics are what he performs, and that's what he'll always be remembered for.

I know what you mean, but for me, the "solo" part is not important. The fact that he went from creating such a prolific body of work, to near death and back is enough.

For my birthday a while back, my wife brought me to the Red River theater in Concord, NH to see Love and Mercy. She is a casual Beach Boys fan and is very familiar with the hits but she was so touched by the story that she could not even look at Paul Giamatti without saying how much she hated him (as Dr. Landy).

Seeing Brian's life prompted quite a few questions and she now listens to some of Brian's solo stuff (she really likes One Kind of Love). Knowing what he went through when you hear some of their music makes it even more emotional.

If Brian went through everything without the bad times, what he accomplished would still be amazing. The fact that he struggled to come back from the depths of hell make it a far more compelling story.

Very true.

Good points and comments. It is impossible in 2017 to overstate how much of a shock it was to hear the announcement in 1999 that Brian Wilson would be touring and playing live. It was actually the impossible becoming reality, and I think that was as overwhelming to most in the audiences in that first run of live shows as it was to me. After they ran the short video intro, there was audio of Brian running a studio session in the 60's, and boom...then there he was on stage. It was absolutely the impossible becoming a reality. And it was credit to the man's "will" as he likes to say "I'm a Wilson!" that he was on that stage performing after nearly everyone counted him out not too long before that tour. And then there we were again in 2005 watching Smile performed live on stage.

Keep in mind, up to a certain year no one thought anything like this would ever happen or if he would even be alive and well, and that Brian would simply retire and drop off the radar. He's still going in 2017. Tell me THAT isn't inspirational on any level you can think of.

 I didn't find it as shocking as most here apparently did. Brian appeared with the Beach Boys periodically throughout the 80's. Even stepped away from his grand piano a few times circa 1985-87. What did cross my mind in 99, though, was "is he strong enough to front a show for an hour, 2 hours?" Of course, that problem was sidestepped by surrounding him with a strong team that could carry the show whether Brian was up to it or not.

Found this interview (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/sdut-brian-wilson-and-al-jardine-disucss-pet-sounds-2016jun26-htmlstory.html) interesting...

Surprised nobody's mentioned this from the Reddit AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zmbsv/i_am_brian_wilson_cofounder_of_the_beach_boys_amaa/cpk9jny/):


Seems he regards them as villains. And in his case, I definitely think they did more harm than good. Is there an alternate universe where Brian Wilson consumed drugs and it turned out alright? I'd say sure, but that's an alternate universe where so many things played out very differently.

Yes, in hindsight he realized that drugs screwed him up pretty good and he gives the advice not to do them. But it seems that at the time, he found that they served a purpose that may have enhanced his creativity as he was writing some of his best stuff at this time. As we know, too much of a good thing is almost universally bad.

Villains.


^my thoughts exactly.

Would the music have been different with or without the drugs? Sure, but to what extent we'll never know. Ultimately, drug abuse negatively affects a person's ability to live a productive and well-adjusted life. The ability to complete tasks is greatly hindered. The more I think about it, it's likely that drugs did more harm to the Beach Boys and the Beatles than any other factor. Where there's drugs, dysfunction is not far behind!