Magic of Beatles songs indelible?

How different might “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” sound if Mick Jagger revealed that the Rolling Stones’ classic was really about his failure to get a faulty toaster replaced under warranty? What if it were just a missing contact lens that inspired Bono to write U2’s “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”?

Paul McCartney has done something like that for Beatles fans by telling an interviewer that “Got to Get You Into My Life” is “directly about pot, ‘Day Tripper,’ that’s one about acid, and ‘Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds,’ that’s pretty obvious.”

The lengthy interview in the July issue of England’s Uncut magazine spans a variety of subjects, but what’s got music fans buzzing is McCartney’s assertion that not only were certain Beatles songs written during the Fab Four’s days of drug experimentation but also that the songs themselves refer to drug experiences.

McCartney, who turns 62 on Friday, noted: “Just about everyone was doing drugs in one form or another and we were no different, but the writing was too important for us to mess it up by getting off our heads all the time.”

Will McCartney’s comments change “Got to Get You Into My Life” for those who have long enjoyed it simply as a bouncy, horn-drenched love song?

“You like more information if you can get it, but sometimes it does shatter illusions,” says Pete Howard, publisher of the record collectors’ magazine ICE and a specialist in Beatles lore.

“The Beatles gave so many interviews, and I don’t think I ever heard the lyrics for ‘Day Tripper’ described as coming from an acid trip. So there’s that feeling of disappointment on one side of the coin. But it is the creator of the music talking.”

Others note that the bad taste left in fans’ mouths by dubious extra-musical associations, such as the licensing of the Beatles’ “Revolution” to Nike for a 1987 shoe campaign, haven’t hurt those songs in the long run.

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

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

“When I found out reading George’s ‘I Me Mine’ that the song ‘Wah Wah’ is not about a guitar pedal, it’s about Paul giving him a headache, I liked it better,” says Chris Carter, host of the weekly “Breakfast With the Beatles” radio show on KLSX-FM (97.1).

“But the fact that ‘Yesterday’ started out as ‘Scrambled Eggs’ never did much for me,” he adds. “Sometimes the process isn’t as interesting as the end result.”

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

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

Some artists don’t either. In 1998, when George Michael gave CNN an interview during which he told viewers that he was gay, he added an assurance aimed at preserving fans’ original responses to his songs: “I do want people to know that the songs that I wrote when I was with women were really about women, and the songs that I’ve written since have been fairly obvious about men.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The songs are a major part of my interior wallpaper, so it is unlikely that anything Paul says today would change my feelings about them,” says Kenneth Killiany, an English lecturer at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., who writes a blog on the Internet that often touches on the Beatles.

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

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