Talk:Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

References in Other Songs

The words 'Lucy in the Sky' can be heard in the Pink Floyd song 'Let There Be More Light' and there are a few other references I can't think of at the moment. This should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.7.183 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason

During a recent tribute to John Lennon, they replayed footage of him being interviewed on what looked like David Letterman. One day young Jullian Lennon brought home a picture he drew. John says it was called "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" He really liked the name and managed to come up with the later, based on the title.

Just a minor note: John Lennon was killed in 1980; Late Night with David Letterman premiered in 1982.

What came up later was that the title was misconstrued as a drug reference. Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds. LSD.

Of course John said it was a complete suprise to him, and he would up looking at all the rest of his song list. It was a random thing, that people thought he intentionally made. Of course people still believe it today, though it's still a popular myth.

I have heard many who have found a way to believe both the painting story and the LSD story. They claim that while John could have got the name Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds from Julian's painting's name, Julian could have got the name from John and his friends using a codename for LSD to keep Julian from knowing what they were doing. With that in mind, the two stories do not exlude each other. Kainaw 01:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i have heard that to and i have also heard that it was inspired by a woman that they bought lsd from but i have no idea with is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.220.26 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we have several competing influences, all of which most likely played a part in the final product. While the title was probably taken from the painting, the imagery of the song itself was certainly inspired by LSD, as well as by the writings of Lewis Carroll. The song is simply imagery of a surreal, magical world - imagery to which the painting, the drug and the writings of Carroll probably all contributed.

In order to improve this article and make it straightforward, I think we have to deal with the fact that the song and its title aren't the same thing. Paul has said that the song was inspired by LSD. This is pretty clearly true (most everything The Beatles were creating at this point was colored, to some extent, by their LSD experiences). This should be noted, and the controversy regarding whether or not the TITLE is a reference to LSD (which is, I think, the only real controversy) should be dealt with in a separate section, noting that many people have suggested the link, but that The Beatles have consistently denied that the title was meant to be a hidden message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.134.30 (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to point out that Paul said the "song was inspired by LSD." That would have been true for every single song they made during that time, which all four Beatles have acknowledged multiple times over, but only so far as that LSD changes the way you think and perceive the world/ universe. In addition, Lennon once said that "All of the changes on [that album] were in retrospect. I wasn't sitting around thinking 'I've had acid now, so *tinkle* *tinkle*.'" Regarding the title, he swore that he had no idea the first letters spelled LSD until months after the album came out, thus the question of intentional LSD reference per code words needs no repeated addressing. Also of note, perhaps that Ringo was there as well when Julian brought his drawing home from school, and his and John's versions of the story were identical

also of (minor) note, regarding your point about what Paul is said to have said..without the context, I have no idea if this would be applicable, but Paul was the one whose statements were always being taken out of context by the media &c...for whatever reason, maybe because he gave answers to questions more freely or something, but the media always ran to town over things he had said, and LSD was one of the things that they had the biggest field day with. Even some Baroness in the House of Lords made a to do about it, how she was "utterly horrified" over the state of the young generation

Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerene trees and marmalade skies... cellophane flowers of yellow and green towering over your head..." And it's NOT inspired by controlled chemical substances? Right... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhythm

Lucy in the Sky "...is notable for being the first rock song to contain two different metres or beats." This is blatantly false. "She Said She Said," an earlier Beatles song, switches meters as well. And there's got to be other examples. I'm deleting it.

She Said She Said has one beat and changes up only at the conclusion, not during any other parts of teh song. and from the Wikipedia page states it only uses three notes. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds was noted at the time as being the first rock song to have two different tempos written intentionally into the song (as opposed to a medley of songs each with a different beat)baronvon

look at "We Can Work It Out" by the Beatles. In there, you definitely have 2 different metres (look at the bridge...). so, i also consider this sentence as being false. 87.122.158.132 10:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summaries, I do regard this as a plausible claim -- but merely being plausible falls short of what is required to make the assertion here in WP. It would be good, for starters, to have at least a citation for where it "was noted at the time", although even that, of course, falls short of proof of the assertion. In all honesty, I'm not sure that it is even possible to actually prove this claim. But at the very least, we should have something that approaches credible verification. Cgingold 00:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found an even EARLIER Beatles song with different meters. A Taste of Honey, off of Please Please Me, their first album.

Reason for changes....

Paul admitted the true nature of Lucy in the Sky...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5121163

• I never heard that Lennon denied the song had drug imagery, only that the title was not related to the drug LSD at all. Nothing McCartney says denies that.

Could you sign your posts, please?

• Lennon denied the song had anything to do with drugs. Anyone familiar with the Beatles knew it was a fib but he plainly decided his life would be easier if he flatly avoided confrontation about it. McCartney waited almost forty years to finally say it was "obvious". The coincidence of Julian's drawing and its title is a bit startling but any alert artist's life is replete with exploitable coincidences ripe for the picking and in 1967 a song with that acronym and those lyrics could only be about one thing. Besides, to wildly speculate only to show how much we don't know, Julian could have "subliminally picked up" on the acronym and the psychedelics swirling around him, and Lennon could have rationalized the creative craftwork he put into the finished song, along with the innocent source of the inspiration to write it, enough to think something along the lines of, "it's about surreal imagry or whatever and the initials'll be a giggle but it's really about seeing things differently, surreality and melodies and wordplay, not fookin' drugs..." Wyss 13:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Full 1980 Playboy interview. AvB ÷ talk 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If John knew that by denying this song had got anything to do with LSD, his life would be easier; then why would he at the same time be so open about 'I am the Walrus' being written on LSD-trips? Both statements are in the Playboy interview.--84.208.240.143 (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

The link about Lucy Richardson's article is broken. Did someone type it wrong? I will delete it. - Gabriel Quinteiro (I'm not registered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.142.23 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Australopithecus afarensis

According to the History Channel's special "Ape to Man," the song was playing on a tape rather than the radio. I would also doubt that a radio situated in the remote areas of Ethiopia could pick up a station that would play Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds :)

I'll make the change if nobody objects

I've unspecified it (removed any mention of a radio being involved). Wyss 04:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good- sorry, I was the one who brought up the radio/tape thing but I forgot to sign my name. --StJarvitude 07:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucy Richardson ({{contradict-section}} tag)

Under the paragraph 'Who is Lucy?' - it gave Lucy's surname as O'Donnell. And later referred to her family as the Richardsons and her as Richardson. I'm not sure what's going on there. Can someone please check?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.101 (talk • contribs) . 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are two of them, both of them at one time or another credited with being "the" Lucy. The article is definitely wrong here since it sort of mixes up both versions. References from reputable sources are hard to find on the Internet. What I did find: The story about the drawing is Ok as reported by, among others, Steven Turner in "A Hard Day's Write" (Lucy O'Donnell). The antiques etc. shop is attributed to both girls but apparently belongs in the Lucinda Richardson story, which started as a claim in the Daily Express newspaper somewhen in 1986 and was confirmed by Lucinda's sister in 2005? Lucy O'Donnell is about Julian's age, Lucinda was some 5 years older. Links: (In Dutch), Google Lucinda Harrison, Google Lucy O'Donnell. FWIW. AvB ÷ talk 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the section as contradictory. AvB ÷ talk 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Lucy O'Donnell married and took the name Richardson? I don't know for certain, but I'm just throwing that out there. HubHikari 13:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't "the" Lucy (Lucy Richardson) die? http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/lennons%20lucy%20in%20the%20sky%20dies On that article it says that she died and her family sprinkled crystals on her grave. What's the deal? --75.73.38.108 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• If I have it right, Lucy Richardson did die a few years ago, but she was not "The Lucy." Lucy O'Donnell, still living (now Mrs. Lucy Vodden), is credited by most sources as being "The" Lucy. Understand? Sir Rhosis 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation about song title

I understand the normal requirements that all information posted in Wikipedia have an associated listed source from a publication or similar. What I do not understand is why that requirement applies to speculation.

Don't the rules state that contributions based on personal observations - a plane crash for example - are legit? Why, in that case, is a personally observed speculation deleted out of hand?

Possible references to LSD, the title of Julian's drawing, or who Lucy is or was are all speculation. So what makes published speculation any more worthwhile or reliable than anything a Wikipedia contributor adds?

I myself found the recently deleted info on LSD induced visual disturbances relevant and of interest. It was clear from the text that this was just another potential link between drug references in the song. It is a shame it was removed.

Similarly the info I added a while back which was also deleted mentioned the children's song "Twinkle twinkle little star" contains the line "like a diamond in the sky". I think this is relevant because if the song is named after Julian's drawing, one does wonder how young Julian came up with such startling imagery for a title.

IMHO - both of these observations are worthwhile and should not be deleted out of hand just because other publications have never bothered to make the connection.

Milbs 23:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your observations are not reliable, their WP:NOR. (I am not picking on you; mine aren't either.) If reliable, verifiable sources make speculative claims, then we can add it as claims made by reliable sources, and cite them. If you can't cite it as other than personal knowledge, it's not supposed to be here. John Cardinal 06:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What position in the charts did "L i t S w D" reach?

In all other articles concerning a particular song there is the position listed the song reached in the charts in the U.S. and the U.K.. Why not here? (I'm talking about the Beatles version, not the one by Elton John.)

It was never released as a single in the UK - I don't know about the US Richerman 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lucyinthesky.JPG

Image:Lucyinthesky.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Elton or John

In wikipedia we normally refer to people by their surname. Hence Mr. John is referred to as Elton John or as John. In an article where John Lennon is also referred to, some of the sentences are confusing. Such as John appeared on Lennon's song. As Sir Elton John is universally referred to as Elton, much like Mr. Presley is is referred to as Elvis, would it be better to change John references to Elton or Sir Elton? --Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Written by whom?

It currently states that it was written by Lennon and McCartney, but to my understanding it was written only by Lennon. When you listen to what McCartney puts out in his solo career and with wings, you can obviously tell that this song is not a macca kind of song. Chasesboys (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lennon and McCartney share legal writing credits for every song that each contributed to The Beatles' recordings, regardless of who actually wrote it. This was an agreement they made, so legally both have writing credits, and that's how Wikipedia must present it in the lead and the infobox. We can't say Lennon wrote it alone (even if he did) when legally they both have the credit. For example, "Yesterday" is most, if not all, McCartney's, but it's credited to Lennon-McCartney. Some articles about their songs give more details further down in the article about who actually did most of the writing. If you read books about The Beatles that use first-hand accounts from Lennon and McCartney, many of the songs that "sound like" a Lennon song had contributions from McCartney, and vice-versa. Lots of songs sound like Lennon songs and were mostly written by Lennon, but that doesn't mean McCartney didn't have a hand in it. The same is true for many so-called McCartney songs; Lennon often contributed. You can't just go by the sound of the song. But you may be right about this particular song. I don't recall any comments by Lennon or McCartney that McCartney actually helped write it, other than what's mentioned in the article about the two of them "trading lyric ideas". Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I already know about the Lennon/McCartney composer credit agreement they have, That is not what I am reffering to, I am talking about the first sentence where it states it was written by Lennon and McCartney. I think it should be something like written by lennon but credited to Lennon/McCartney. What does McCartney have to do with this song? Chasesboys (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, give us a reliable source that Lennon wrote it alone. We can't put it there because it "sounds like" a Lennon song. Read WP:NOR. Ward3001 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source that says it was written partially by McCartney? There must be one since it is stated in this article. Plus it is common sense that it was written only by lennon, he discovered Julian's drawing, and came up with the song himself. Give me the source that says McCartney co-wrote this song and I will leave.Chasesboys (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't sourced in this article that either of them wrote the song, except by wikilinks to other articles (which is quite proper). It is sourced in Lennon/McCartney, John Lennon, and Paul McCartney that all Beatles songs by Lennon or McCartney are credited to both (the Miles and Cross sources). This doesn't have to be repeated in every article about their music because Lennon/McCartney, John Lennon, and/or Paul McCartney is linked in every article. So officially it's always Lennon-McCartney, and you need an additional source to make a statement that Lennon alone wrote the song, per WP:V. That would also be true if someone wanted to state that McCartney wrote a song without help from Lennon. Ward3001 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward I think you are misunderstanding me, I am not talking about Lennon/McCartney writing credits here, I am talking about the first sentence. I already know that it is always going to be stated Lennon/McCartney, I am not retarded like you imply. There are a number of articles about songs that say it was written by either John Lennon alone, or McCartney alone, and still say Lennon/McCartney as the writers. That is what I am talking about, If there is no source that says McCartney helped Lennon with this song, Then I am going to change the first sentence to "Written by John Lennon, but credited to Lennon/McCartney." Since there is a number of evidence that supports that it was soley written by Lennon. Chasesboys (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding. Everything in Wikipedia must be sourced. What is your basis for saying "Written by John Lennon"? That it "sounds like" Lennon wrote it? That's not a source. That's original research; more specifically it's your opinion. Even if he did write it 100% (and he may very well have), the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You must verify with a reliable source. Otherwise, someone could come along and say it was written by McCartney and credited to Lennon-McCartney because they think it "sounds like" something McCartney would write. This is not a gray area of Wikipedia policy. It needs a source. And if you added that without a source, even if I didn't revert it, I can guarantee that someone else will. Beatles-related pages are watched by a lot of good editors. If Lennon did write it without McCartney, my guess is there's a source out there somewhere because their songs have been researched in considerable detail. If you want more opinions on this, let me suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles.

"Since there is a number of evidence that supports that it was soley written by Lennon": Please give us the sources for that.

If there are other articles about their songs that say the song was written solely by Lennon or McCartney, that needs to be sourced too. The articles I follow closely have that sourcing. And if there are weaknesses in other articles, that doesn't mean you can commit the same errors here. You can challenge the other articles if they are unsourced, but you can't add unsourced information to this or any other article.

"I am not retarded like you imply": Give me a break. I never implied that you're retarded. Quote my words in which I imply that you're retarded. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with you personalizing every discussion in which you and I are involved. If you have a problem with me, take it up on my talk page, not here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My source is the picture and his "SON" showing him the picture and saying Lucy in the sky with dimonds, jesus christ you........................ Listen, there is no source that says mccartney had anything to do with this song, yet it clearly states that lennon has. THERE IS YOUR SOURCE. YOU WARD NEED A SOURCE TO SAY MCCARTNEY CO-WROTE this song otherwise it is misleading and wrong to say written by Lennon and McCartney, Thank you. Please show a source that says McCartney co-wrote it before reverting my edit,please. Chasesboys (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There is evidence to support that McCartney contributed to the song. In Many Years from Now, McCartney says that Lennon showed him the drawing and they worked on the song together. This was during the period when they still got together regularly to work on songs. In All We Are Saying, Lennon says the idea was based on Julian's drawing, but he does not say it was all his song. Note that in responses to questions about many other songs, Lennon claims sole authorship but he didn't do that for "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." — John Cardinal (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, Chase - if John Cardinal is right, and I have no reason to doubt it, that source indicates that in fact they did both work on the song. I don't think anyone would deny - based on hearing it - that the song reflects more of Lennon's talents and influence than McCartney's, so I would like to see something in the article that references the source John brought to light, to answer the kinds of question that you raised up front. Of course the song has to be credited as Lennon/McCartney, but since it is a common belief/misapprehension that Lennon wrote this one alone, it would be a good improvement to the article to have a source that clearly states that McCartney actually did co-write. (By the way - the truth may be in fact that Lennon wrote the whole damn thing himself and Macca wasn't being honest, or had faulty memory - not that I have any reason to believe that either - but unless we found sources to contradict his assertion we can't say what we think. That's the point of verifiability vs truth, OR and synthesis. It's not always easy, I must say.) Tvoz/talk 19:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Alrgight I will leave it as it is, I still want to see a source that says exactly what McCartney actually did with this song, you know, like John Lennon actually stated what he did with Getting Better. Chasesboys (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For what McCartney "actually did", read John Cardinal's statement from "Many Years from Now": "they worked on the song together". That may be the most we'll ever know, which is the case with many of their songs. Additionally, Dowlding in Beatlesongs, who provides detailed quotes from each Beatle and their associates for every song ever recorded by The Beatles, attributes the song 80% to Lennon and 20% to McCartney (p. 165). Dowlding in fact gives Lennon more credit than McCartney on the sum total of their songwriting partnership and gives Lennon 100% credit on many songs, so he is not a biased source. But on every Lennon-McCartney song the default position is always that both of them wrote it unless there is a reliable source that states otherwise. The fact that Julian's picture was the inspiration for the song is not a source that McCartney did not help write it, only that Lennon did help write it. Ward3001 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Chaseboys)

I am sure the Miles book is at your local library: see p311-312. Briefly, McCartney recounts the story of Julian and the picture, he makes a general statement that they worked on the song together based on Lennon's idea, and he says he suggested the lyrics "cellophane flowers" and "kaleidoscope eyes". In All We Are Saying, the book from Lennon's 1980 Rolling Stone interview, the song is mentioned many times (pp73, 88, 181-182, 185, 186). Lennon doesn't specifically address the co-writing issue. He makes no claim that the song is exclusively his, nor does he say whether or how much McCartney helped. There are many other sources where they both describe meeting regularly to work together. That lasted until late '67, early '68 or so. That supports McCartney's claim that they worked on it together, but we will never know the absolute truth. Luckily, that doesn't matter. All we have to do is cite the evidence, and let the reader interpret it. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty interesting, so what about all of the songs on sgt. pepper that say on wikipedia, written only by McCartney? I find it hard to believe that Lennon didnt work with McCartney on any of them. Like Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole? Since Sgt. Pepper was basically the last album by the Beatles that had them both working on songs together, are these two songs the only ones that didnt include Lennon? Chasesboys (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many articles give primary writing credit to one or the other, and a few give total credit to one or the other. Those articles should include evidence to support those assertions. There are a few good sources for this information: Miles, Sheff, Lewisohn, and more. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, here's the truth: Lennon came up with idea from Julian's picture, but they both contributed to the lyrics. If you really want a reference, just give me time to go downstairs and look in the books. It's very interesting reading about who came up with what line, BTW. Back soon...--andreasegde (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lennon worked with/paraphrased lines from "Wool and Water" from Through The Looking Glass, which was one of Lennon and McCartney's favourite books: "A boat, beneath a sunny sky, Lingering onward dreamily, In an evening of July"... McCartney came up with "cellophane flowers", and "newspaper taxis", and Lennon came up with “kaleidoscope eyes”. The rest is unknown. It was written, primarily, at Kenwood, St. George's Hill (Lennon's home) with both of them thinking about psychedelic ideas.--andreasegde (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've been asked for an opinion. OK, but you may not all like it. "you can obviously tell" is pure original research, and therefore discountable. Example:"Good Night" is credited to Lennon/McCartney but (although unsourced here) was apparently written by Lennon alone, but sounds to me like McCartney slush; so the "sounds like" is complete crap. I find it unbelievably irritating that with such a widely-examined, and sourced band, probably the most analysed in the history of pop and rock, should still be the subject of debate. However, here, we have to go with what reliable sources we have; and there are many of them. There is no shame for an an encyclopedia to discuss differing viewpoints between reliable commentators, as long as we adhere to our policies and guidelines, particularly the cornerstones of our very existence. Bottom line is that we should be scrupulously careful when writing here to separate our personal views from our views when writing encyclopedic articles, and if you have a problem doing that, arguably this is not the website for you; there is a Beatles wiki. It's not as well-sourced as we are, er, but also not as popular. You pays your money and you takes your choice, and "obvious" is a word that rarely belongs on Wikipedia. My motto, in general, is "source it, or lose it"; sorry, but if we are to maintain and even improve our reputation, we must justify, and with respectable sources. End of.</rant> --Rodhullandemu 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, I have a modest proposal for the Beatles Wikiproject: Each article about a Beatles song should include a section entitled "Authorship" which should discuss reliably-sourced Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr's contributions to the lyrical and musical composition, unless reliable sources agree that the work is solely with work of one author e.g as in Within You Without You. I'll take it up there if anyone thinks it worth following up. --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

An earlier entry of mine and one of andreasegde's entries above are at odds with respect to the specific lyrics suggested by McCartney. The error is mine; I looked at page 312 in Miles and in between reading it and keying my comment, I transposed things. McCartney did claim "cellophane flowers" and "newspaper taxis" as andreasegde said, and not "cellophane flowers" and "kaleidoscope eyes" as I reported earlier.

With regards to Rodhullandemu's suggestion that all articles have an "Authorship" section, I am not sure that's necessary in most cases. I think simple phrases like "written primarily by ..." are fine if supported by citations. In those cases where there is significant debate, such as "Eleanor Rigby", then a separate section makes a lot of sense.

Lastly, an editorial comment (no sources! <g>). Fans of Lennon and McCartney have divided over the years and it's a shame. For the better part of their working relationship L and M worked closely together and even when they were in the process of breaking up they bounced ideas off each other. The contributions of the other partner really helped the songs they each wrote. From a more global point of view, their partnership clearly helped to set them apart from other rock composers of the era. Each of them wrote great songs after their working relationship ended, but many people—me included—think in general the post-breakup songs suffered due to the lack of the other person's contributions. Splitting hairs over whether a song had zero input from one partner or the other does a disservice to what they accomplished as a team. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your editorial comment is very well stated, and I could not agree more. Despite a bit of bitterness through the years, each of them gave the other a tremendous amount of credit in their partnership. Each was quick to correct misconceptions such as "Lennon was good with lyrics and McCartney was good with melodies". I think we have much more important things to do here than splitting the proverbial hairs. Ward3001 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They were truly a songwriting duo, and they often "bounced ideas off" each other. To split the two into “who wrote what” is to separate two musical siblings. There may be confusion, but they were often confused themselves, which made great music. Please don’t split hairs, and accept the whole package as it was.--andreasegde (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

An IP editor has changed the authorship twice recently and I have reverted it. Before, during, and since the discussion above, the article has been stable with regards to authorship and I think any change ought to be discussed here. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Next

This was a great discussion by some very intelligent users. I dont want to be coming off as snobby or arrogant, I just wanted to know from reliable sources what McCartney contributed to this song, and you guys delivered. I am happy that someone didnt go and start a war here. On the partnership with Lennon/McCartney, I agree they were magnificent together, and in my opinion, were the greatest of all time. Now if someone can fill me in on weather or not Lennon contributed to Lovely Rita and Fixing a Hole? If its not a problem. Chasesboys (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? :)))

If you want some info on "Fixing a Hole" look at the Mal Evans article.--andreasegde (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, since you found out information on this song I would like to know weather or not McCartney did compose fixing a hole and Lovely Rita without one bit of help from lennon. Nice sarcasm :)))) Chasesboys (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... It seems like you are trying to give one of us a homework assignment. Why don't you do it yourself: go to the library and get the Miles book, the Sheff book, and maybe take a look at books about the making of Sgt. Pepper. See what they say. Did Lennon claim he helped? What did McCartney say about it? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fossil lucy in a trivia section?

I think the fossil lucy is not relevant enough for its own section with only one sentence. In my opinion, it should be moved to a seperate section titled trivia along with other triva.

If you think that's not a good idea because it would still be in a section by itself, here's a trivia tidbit that can and IMO should go with it: The prog rock band Dream Theater references Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds in their 24 minute long song,Octavarium in the section Full Circle where the word Diamond is shared with Diamond Dave.--Tangerine! (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it from it's own section to a "Reviews and legacy" section. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Personnel

This looks to be the personnel lineup for Strawberry Fields Forever (i.e., Part I and Part II, Paul playing Mellotron-he played organ in LITSWD, there's no orchestra in Lucy, etc., these are all SFF notes), does someone with the proper information (which I don't have) care to correct this? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Tim

I fixed it. Fair's fair... I entered it incorrectly in the first place. Not sure how that happened. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, that looks better, thanks! 70.91.35.27 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Tim

In the album article personnel according to Lewishon and Pollack. How in the song article the personnel is according to Ian McDonald?

According to Lewishon:

Ringo: drums George: tamboura and fuzz lead guitar Paul: bass, Lowry organ, harmony and background vocals John: double tracked lead vocals, background vocals, piano and acoustic guitar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Arrangement section it says John played the lead guitar, but in Personnel it says George. From the information here it looks like it should be George? I can cross reference with Recording the Beatles, but I expect it to agree with Lewisohn. — Jeferman (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Recording the Beatles says that George played the lead guitar (through a Leslie). It also says that George played the acoustic guitar, which contradicts what someone anonymous reported above from Lewisohn. If no one protests I will change the article to match up with Recording the Beatles. —Jeferman (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying 'Elton John version'

Just made a minor edit to that, as, upon my first read, it seemed to suggest that it was John Lennon who performed it live in 1988, which would be a neat trick, as he died 8 years previously. Hopefully, my edit clarifies that it's Elton John the article's talking about. 92.8.121.230 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying 'Alice'

It says "The imagery was Alice in the boat." in the quote attributed to Sheff's book. It would be good if 'Alice in the boat' was clarified. What Alice? What boat? Ok, books.google.com was helpful; search within the book for "Alice". Pages 142,185, 181, and 182 come up, with interesting tidbits in the first two (the Walrus in "I am the walrus" refers to the Walrus and the Carpenter poem in Alice and Wonderland, he says) and in the latter two, yes, Alice in Wonderland the fuller quote:

"The images were from Alice in Wonderland. It was Alice in the boat. She is buying an egg and it turns into Humpty-Dumpty" (p. 181) and

""The imagery was Alice in the boat. And also this image of this female who would come and save me - this secret love that was going to come one day" (page 182)

This longer quote from Sheff might be worth including in the wikipedia entry, the "female who would come and save me..one day" connection to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. that readers may find interesting. Harel (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused w/ Tina

Is that really necessary? Do we really think Glee fans might be confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.20.52 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I consolidated the hatnotes - does it look better now? GoingBatty (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Separate articles for covers

Hi, I wanted you to notice the fact that on the Spanish Wikipedia we've reached a consensus that we can create separate articles for cover versions if they meet the general policies. I think that's so useful, and even more in such famous songs like this one, wich have been covered many times, some of wich are notable enough so a separate article can be written. We avoid having multiple infoboxes, wich are there, in fact, for very different things: the "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" cover by the Flaming Lips and Miley Cyrus have a lot of differences in many senses from the Beatles songs (year, or decade, genre, performers, composers of some elements, critical reception, commercial reception, singles chronology, Wikipedia categories, etc.). Not to mention that many readers can find themselves confused by an article of the Beatles that eventually can end up talking extensively about Miley Cyrus. So, in Spanish we have the original Beatles song and the cover version. I think that it should be considered for the English edition :) --Jorge (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' LSD connection and Alice In Wonderland inspiration

I have added citations and clarification to the issue about Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and its lyrical connection to LSD. John Lennon and Paul McCartney have both repeatedly gone on record denying the connection--while simultaneously stating other of their compositions were directly inspired by LSD (notably "I Am The Walrus" and "She Said She Said"). I have also left in a reference to the single interview for Uncut magazine where McCartney makes the connection between "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" where he also tempers this answer by adding, "[I]t's easy to overestimate the influence of drugs on the Beatles' music."

I have further emphasized the song's Alice In Wonderland inspiration with cited sources and quotes by the song's authors Lennon and McCartney, both of whom have never wavered in saying that the writings of Lewis Carroll were the true inspiration behind the song, and not LSD.Mayor of awesometown (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul McCartney confirmed that Lucy in the Sky ith Diamonds was about LSD. https://www.deseret.com/2004/6/3/19832449/mccartney-talks-drugs-says-lucy-was-lsd-song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.205.10.177 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

BBC ban

I researched the possibility of the song being banned by the BBC and came up empty. In fact, several sources circumstantially confirm that it wasn't banned, and there is extant audio of a BBC Radio show from 20 May 1967 (Where It's At, hosted by Kenny Everett) where the song clearly aired in its entirety, directly contradicting this "ban" claim.

All references around the internet that this song was banned by the BBC used the unsubstantiated claim from this very Wikipedia entry as evidence. I cited four different periodicals published between May 1967 and December 1967 where BBC bans of Beatles songs are discussed. None mention "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" being banned, only "A Day In The Life."

The most compelling evidence comes from the following two articles. The first appeared in The Guardian on 29 December 1967, and the relevant section reads:

The BBC and British Board of Film Censors now stand openly and firmly in favour of banning programmes or films which might tempt young people to experiment with drugs. The BBC has closed its channels to two pop records this year--the Beatles's [sic] "A Day In The Life" (a track from "Sergeant Pepper") and the Game's "The Addicted Man."

The second appeared in London Magazine on 1 September 1967, and the relevant section reads:

The disc is called Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. It has thirteen songs, all--with one exception--by Lennon and McCartney; they range from the mystical 'Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds' (or L.S.D.) to the ludicrously banal 'Within You, Without You'; from the early twenties sound of the title song, to the early seventies sound of 'A Day in the Life'--the latter appropriately banned by the BBC.

Don't be thrown by the "seventies" comment; the author was trying to make plain that the song was futuristic. The article assuredly appeared in the 1 September 1967 issue of London Magazine.

I am welcome to any contemporary evidence to the contrary, but for now, I think it's safe to say that the song was never officially banned by the BBC at the time of release, and had at least one airing on the network. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like my earlier edit about the BBC ban was removed for a WP:OR violation. That's fair, so I found some sources that actually do make this claim. It is found in the book The Walrus Was Ringo: 101 Myths About the Beatles Debunked by Alan Clayson and Spencer Leigh. The claim is also made in a 2014 documentary produced by the BBC itself, Britain's Most Dangerous Songs: Listen to the Banned. The book The Oxford Handbook of Music Censorship consulted with the BBC's 1967 internal documentation and said that "this one song" in reference to "A Day in the Life" was what the BBC banned from the Sgt. Pepper album. I also found two sources--Mark Lewisohn's book The Complete Beatles Chronicle and John C. Winn's That Magic Feeling--that claim the song was played during the 20 May 1967 episode of Where It's At on the BBC, which would contadict the ban, at least as late as that date.

I left the citations in that claimed otherwise, that there was such a ban, but now they are countered (appropriately, I would say) with claims that say there was no ban. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mayor of awesometown, thanks for looking into this further. I do think we need to retain the point that the song has a reputation for having been the subject of a BBC ban, even if that statement's then countered by Clayson & Leigh etc – which is exactly what you're saying here, of course.

I often wonder whether it was a case of "Lucy in the Sky" being marked in some way, if not outright banned, by the BBC as a song to watch; perhaps it was semi-banned in that the Beeb cautioned DJs and producers about when it could be played, based on when a young audience was most likely to be listening? This idea of a possible hot list came to mind when I was reading about Spiro Agnew's campaign to have songs such as "Lucy" and "With a Little Help from My Friends" banned from US radio, starting in 1970. According to Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, the campaign was a failure. But per Peter Doggett's book Electric Shock, some broadcasters did get on board and stopped playing "With a Little Help" and even "Yellow Submarine", however briefly. So the songs weren't formally banned, but some radio programmers did respond to the attempted ban. Just wonder if the BBC similarly advised its producers but stopped short of instituting a full ban, and whether such a scenario contributed to the two opposing statements: the song was banned by the BBC vs contrary to popular beef, the song was not banned by the BBC. JG66 (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bit disappointed by the lack of reaction ... but never mind.

Mayor of awesometown: Thought it worth mentioning that, just before its release in November '67, "I Am the Walrus" was "banned" by the BBC "although no announcement was made" (Miles, Beatles Diary, p 283) or, alternatively, "remained unofficially prohibited from BBC playlists for the time being" (Winn, That Magic Feeling: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume Two, p. 138). This removal from the Beeb's playlists without an official ban or any public announcement is the sort of scenario I was referring to above – "perhaps it was semi-banned", etc. JG66 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

References

JG66, sorry, I did read your response at the time and meant to respond but then I forgot about it and haven't logged in in awhile. Sorry about that. Here's my thoughts on the subject:

It's possible there was a "semi-ban", however, I think it really needs to be put into the context of what BBC Radio's programming was at the time of the Sgt. Pepper album's release. An album track never released as a single really didn't have any hope of more than a single play on BBC Radio at the time, so the fact that "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" got played even once was about as much as any band could expect or hope for. There was no ban on say, the Kinks' Something Else album released that same year, or Cream's Disraeli Gears, but most of the tracks on those albums never got played in 1967, and any of the non-singles that did get played really didn't get played more than once.

You can check out the BBC's genome project to see just how little rock music was being played on BBC Radio in 1967. There were three BBC radio networks in May/June 1967 at the time of Sgt. Pepper's release. Here is a link to the genome entries for the BBC Home Service, here is a link to the entries for the BBC Light Programme, and here is a link to the entries for the BBC Network Three.

Of the three, only the Light Programme played any rock music at all. The Home Service was mostly news, talk shows, scripted dramas and occasional comedies, and some broadcasts of live theater. The Home Service did have a handful of music shows, but they were mostly "light music" as they called it - easy listening in the Lawrence Welk style of Big Band, orchestra, and vocal pop with orchestra backing. That type of thing. The music shows they did have were in hourlong slots broadcast once a week and included At the Circus (light music), Music At Night (classical), Jazz At Night (jazz), Music At Four (a daily show - light music), In Folk Mood (international "dance tunes", so the homegrown Beatles were out), and Desert Island Discs. Desert Island Discs is the only conceivable show where a rock song would appear, but it would be unlikely for the type of guest to appear on the show to pick "Lucy" as one of their "desert island discs" in 1967. It would be years before someone who had grown up with Sgt. Pepper would think to pick that song.

BBC Network Three, a.k.a. the Third Programme, didn't play any rock music at all. It's programming was nearly all classical and opera. It was aimed at senior citizens, not teenagers and young adults.

The Light Programme is the only network that featured any regularly-scheduled rock music in their programming. And even there, it was fairly minimal. The network featured some comedies and talk shows and other non-music shows, but it was the network most geared to pop music programming. But being just one network, they had to run the gamut of what "pop music" was. So aside from rock music, you'll find these shows on the Light Programme's listings for May/June 1967: Swingalong (Big Band music), Call It Country Style (country-and-western music), A Cellar Full of Folk (folk music), Those Were the Days ("old time and sequence dancing" with a dance orchestra), The Jazz Scene (jazz music), Music Box (big band ensembles), Music While You Work (big band ensembles), Southern Serenade (Latin American orchestra/dance music), Roundabout (Lawrence Welk-style light music), Cavalcade (featuring the BBC Concert Orchestra), A Date With the Forties (music from the 1940s), Music Through Midnight (including BBC Midland Light Orchestra, "Latin American Rhythm", and other Big Band-oriented acts), It's One O'Clock (swing orchestra music), the Ronnie Hilton Show (with the BBC Northern Dance Orchestra), Records Round the World (world music), Old Time Night (older orchestra music), Sound of Strings (classical music), and Time For a Song (with the BBC Northern Ireland Orchestra).

Here are the shows that actually played any rock music at all. This first batch only played live music, by rock and pop bands, which excluded any chance that a recording of "Lucy" could be played on them. They all aired once a week, in 60-, 90-, or 120-minute time slots: Saturday Club, Easy Beat, Monday Monday!, Parade of the Pops, and Pop North.

Here are the shows that actually played recorded rock and roll:

Midday Spin. This was a 45-minute show on weekdays that highlighted hit singles and new singles. "Lucy" wasn't a single, so it basically had no chance of showing up here.

Pick of the Pops. This was (and is) the weekly Top Twenty countdown show, which would include rock music. "Lucy" wasn't a single, and never reached the top 20, so it had absolutely no chance of showing up here.

Record Roundabout. This was an hourlong show on Saturdays that played a variety of music, that might sneak in a rock song or two, but not likely an album track. You can listen to a 1963 episode here, where you can hear them play two modern pop songs (Cilla Black/Helen Shapiro-style stuff - no real rock songs) among a dozen other songs that are a mix of Big Band, crooners, and other "light music".

Pete's Party. "Some old, some new, some chosen by you". This basically had the same format as Record Roundabout. Maybe "Lucy" had a chance as a request, but BBC policy with requests really was to try to cater to what songs that most postcards/telegrams/letters were requesting, so it would seem unlikely "Lucy" was at the top of that list, competing with so many other Beatles songs, let alone all other artists' songs. In any case, this show wasn't really geared toward rock music.

Where It's At. This weekly hour-long show was really the only show on any of the BBC networks that was solely focused on recorded rock music, as opposed to live rock music, or the hit songs in the singles charts, or a show with an eclectic array of music that might feature a token rock song or two once a week. And this is the very show that "Lucy" did appear on! The show would typically highlight a different band each week, often with interviews with band members, all broken up with songs by other artists.

Airing just once a week, there really wasn't enough airtime for a song to be played repeatedly. It was played once, and then never again. Some other band would get the airtime the following week.

This lack of contemporary rock and pop music actually gave rise to BBC competitors with the "pirate radio" stations - Radio Caroline, Radio London, and (while not technically a pirate station) Radio Luxembourg. All three were catering more toward the teenagers and playing rock music, though it was circumventing the BBC's monopoly. To put an end to it, the BBC hired a bunch of the popular deejays from the pirate radio stations, and then re-organized their radio networks, with BBC Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, and Radio 4 all going on the air on September 30, 1967.

The pirate radio stations did play album tracks from rock bands regularly, unlike the BBC. For instance, on John Peel's last broadcast with Radio London before taking his job at the BBC, he played "Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds" on August 14, 1967.

But the re-organized BBC only started phasing in some of these new, hip shows over several months, so the rock music offerings were only expanded about 6-12 months after Sgt. Pepper had been released. For instance, John Peel was hired away in mid-1967, and hosted two shows. One was a revival of Top Gear, which was a live-in-the-studio show, so again, the show wouldn't play a recording of "Lucy". His other show was Night Ride, which didn't premiere until early 1968. I have not been able to confirm it, but some online sources do say that John Peel played "Lucy" on Night Ride, which was a mix of live-in-the-studio performances together with recorded rock music. This website has some of the playlists for Night Ride but few are complete, and most are missing. None that are there include "Lucy", so it may or may not be true that John Peel played "Lucy" once he came over to the BBC.

In either case, the fact that "Lucy" was played on the BBC in May 1967 shows that it wasn't banned at that time, and the likelihood that it would get any further airtime in the coming months was pretty much zero, even without a ban. None of the other songs on Sgt. Pepper got any additional airtime, either. The only Beatles song that was getting airtime in the summer of 1967 was their new single "All You Need Is Love", occasionally on Midday Spin and weekly on Pick of the Pops until it fell off the charts. By the time of the re-organization of the BBC networks at the end of September, the Beatles were less than two months from having their second single since the release of Sgt. Pepper out ("Hello Goodbye") followed almost immediately by the new songs for the Magical Mystery Tour film, so Sgt. Pepper album tracks were old news.

As you said, there may have been a soft ban on "I Am the Walrus". But if there was one on "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds", it really didn't affect it--maybe "Lucy" missed out on one further play on BBC radio, but not much more. All the songs minus "A Day in the Life" got played on May 20, 1967, and there's really no evidence that any of them ever got played again through to the end of the year, because the only show on BBC radio that was playing rock album tracks was the show Where It's At where they all did get played. With limited airtime of one hour per week, there simply wasn't time for the show to go back and play those songs again, instead playing other artists' songs. At best, maybe the BBC re-ran the Sgt. Pepper episode of Where It's At, but they didn't really do reruns on BBC radio in those days. The next time Where It's At likely played Beatles music was in November, when they did a special for the release of Magical Mystery Tour.

Sorry for the wall of text, but that's might thoughts on the subject. If there is evidence of an actual semi-ban, then, yeah, sure, that could be added to the Wiki entry. But considering the state of rock music on BBC radio at the time, I don't think it's fair to say that without some pretty definitive proof, since none of the Sgt. Pepper album tracks, not just "Lucy", got any more than that one airing on BBC radio at the time. The BBC played very, very little rock music, and almost no rock music that wasn't a single and only an album track, unless the band was a guest on a show playing a set on a live-in-the-studio show like Saturday Club, Easy Beat, or the revived Top Gear. The Beatles played their last such "Live On the BBC" performance in 1965, so "Lucy", along with all the other Sgt. Pepper tracks, really didn't have much hope of getting additional airtime after the original Where It's At episode in May 1967. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I would note that, checking the British Library's Newspaper Archive, there don't appear to be any contemporary press reports that corroborate the idea that "Lucy" was banned in the 1960s. The closest - and earliest - is a piece in the Coventy Evening Telegraph of 4 August 1973, which claims:

"The NME Thrills team have compiled a Black List of seven banned [by the BBC] sex records... In the obscenity section they include Bob Dylan's "George Jackson" and under drugs, another Dylan hit "Rainy Day Women," along with the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky"/"A Day in the Life" and Curtis Mayfield's "Freddie's Dead.""

In contrast, there are reports in 1967 specifically documenting the banning of "A Day in the Life," with the Belfast Telegraph of 20 May quote a BBC spokesman:

"The BBC take a liberal attitude these days towards products of the record industry, and we do not easily take the decision not to use discs. We have listened to this particular song over and over again, and we have decided that as far as we are concerned it does go a little too far and could encourage a permissive attitude to drug-taking."

It does seem rather unlikely that, if "Lucy" had been banned around the same time, that it would also have been reported. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

LSD Rumours section

I removed from this section a quote from an author named Michael Hicks, because it is erroroneous. The quote read:

Upon the album's [Sgt. Pepper's...] release, Paul McCartney indirectly promoted psychedelic music by admitting that he had taken LSD and that it had illuminated his music-making."

In the interviews Hicks is referring to, McCartney never claimed that LSD had "illuminated his music-making". McCartney gave two interviews in June 1967 in regards to LSD. The first appeared in the 16 June 1967 edition of Life magazine in an article written by Thomas Thompson. The relevant section of that magazine article, with quotes from McCartney, reads in full:

Paul, 24, the unmarried Beatle, is also the only one who lives in London – the others having become suburban squires. He is swept up in London’s so-called swinging world, goes to dinner parties and discotheques, and talks about art and football. He is very much aware of the world’s troubles and has his own ideas of what it would take to straighten everything out. For example, he professes agony over the war in Vietnam, and is deeply committed to the possibilities of LSD as a universal cure-all.

"After I took it, it opened my eyes," he says. "We only use one tenth of the brain. Just think what all we could accomplish if we could only tap that hidden part! It would mean a whole new world. If the politicians would take LSD, there wouldn’t be any more war, or poverty, or famine."

On 19 June 1967, McCartney gave a second interview on the subject for the ITV Evening News. The transcript of the full interview reads as follows:

Q: "Paul, how often have you taken LSD?"
PAUL: (pause) "About four times."
Q: "And where did you get it from?"
PAUL: "Well, you know, if I was to say where I got it from, you know, I mean... it's illegal and everything... it's silly to say that, you know. So I'd rather not say that."
Q: "Don't you believe that this is a matter which you should have kept private?"
PAUL: "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. 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."
Q: "But you're a public figure and you said it in the first place and you must have known it would make the newspaper."
PAUL: "Yeah, but to say it is only to tell the truth. I'm telling the truth, you know. I don't know what everyone's so angry about."
Q: "Do you think that you have now encouraged your fans to take drugs?"
PAUL: "I don't think it'll make any difference. I don't think my fans are going to take drugs just because I did, you know. 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."
Q: "But as a public figure, surely you've got the responsibility to..."
PAUL: "No, it's you who've got the responsibility. You've got the responsibility not to spread this, now. You know, I'm quite prepared to keep it as a very personal thing if you will too. If you'll shut up about it, I will."

Neither interview says anything about McCartney's thoughts on LSD's effect on his songwriting. The Hicks claim is contradicted by both of McCartney's interviews regarding LSD from the summer of 1967, so I have removed it until further information comes to light confirming its veracity. I did retain the Hicks quote's claim that McCartney had admitted to taking LSD in interviews around the time of the release of Sgt. Pepper, but I instead used as sources the actual magazine article and television interview on which Hicks's claim is based.

This section also had a second quote from Hicks's book, which I moved toward the end of the section where it fit better. It's another unsubstantiated claim, and I am leaving it in for now, but it perhaps should be taken out until it, too, is substantiated, given the circumstances of his other claim.

I also removed from this section a quote by author James E. Perone:

"McCartney went on record as saying the drug references [in the song] were pretty obvious."

Perone is pulling from an interview McCartney gave to Uncut magazine in July 2004, which was already quoted from in the very next sentence of this section. I therefore pulled the "pretty obvious" part of the quote and put it in that sentence, citing the original Uncut article, instead of Perone's secondary citation of it. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Reggae credit on Elton John version

Re the Elton John version, I thought it might be worth mentioning in the article that the label of the single of the recording bears the credit "featuring the reggae guitars of Dr. Winston O'Boogie" (John Lennon, of course). See the label for verification. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:CD25:4456:986F:7AB5 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Flaming Lips

An IP editor has replaced the link to the YouTube video of the Flaming Lips' version with another link which results in the message "This video is unavailable". However for some reason I can't undo the change (message "the editor will now load" appears, but then it doesn't load - I've tried a few times), so would be grateful if someone else could do it - thanks. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - and the editing issue is being discussed at WP:VPT and phab:T334797. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)