The First Scientific Map of What It Feels Like to Be High — Including Why Music Sounds Better

The Study That Took Subjective Experience Seriously

Tart's methodology was radical for its time. Rather than bringing subjects into a laboratory and testing them on standardized tasks, he went to the users. He designed a 220-item questionnaire covering every dimension of the cannabis experience — vision, hearing, touch, taste, social interaction, sexual sensation, time perception, spatial awareness, thinking processes, memory, emotions, and even spiritual and paranormal experiences.

He recruited experienced users — people who knew what cannabis did to them and could report on it reliably. He asked them to rate how frequently they experienced each effect and at what intoxication level. The result was the first empirical map of what it actually feels like to be high.

What They Reported About Music

The auditory findings were among the most consistent in the entire survey. Tart identified three distinct categories of enhanced hearing under cannabis:

Users described music as "purer and more distinct" with more prominent rhythm. They reported hearing "new things" in familiar songs — not hallucinated sounds, but real sonic details that their sober attention had filtered out. The spatial quality of music changed: sounds seemed to come from specific locations in three-dimensional space rather than from a flat stereo field.

These experiences occurred most reliably at low to moderate intoxication levels. At higher doses, the ability to follow music could actually deteriorate — consistent with the biphasic pattern that shows up across many cannabis effects.

The Cultural Context Tart Made Scientific

The connection between cannabis and music wasn't new in 1971. It had been a defining feature of cannabis culture for at least a century.

Jazz musicians in 1920s New Orleans smoked marijuana and called it "muggles" (Louis Armstrong was a lifelong advocate). The jazz term "vipers" referred to marijuana smokers, and entire songs were written about the drug's effect on musical perception. Cab Calloway's "Reefer Man" and Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag" were mainstream hits. Mezz Mezzrow, a jazz clarinetist, wrote in his 1946 autobiography Really the Blues that marijuana made "the music come out like it was born right inside you."

Reggae built cannabis into its spiritual and artistic identity. Bob Marley was explicit: "When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself." The Rastafarian tradition considered cannabis a sacrament that opened channels to deeper experience, and music was the primary vessel.

By the 1960s, cannabis was central to the counterculture's musical revolution. The Beatles' pivot from pop to psychedelic art rock coincided with their introduction to marijuana. Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, and virtually every major rock musician of the era used cannabis, and many credited it with changing how they heard and created music.

What Tart did was take this cultural phenomenon — dismissed by the scientific establishment as drug-addled nonsense — and demonstrate that it was empirically real, consistent across users, and amenable to systematic study.

The Modern Neuroscience: What's Actually Happening

Fifty years of neuroscience since Tart's survey have revealed the mechanisms behind what his subjects described. Cannabis changes music perception through at least four distinct neural pathways:

The Paradox: Better Feeling, Dampened Reward

In 2018, a study that would have fascinated Tart revealed a genuine paradox. Freeman and colleagues used fMRI to scan cannabis users' brains while they listened to classical music under three conditions: THC-dominant cannabis, THC+CBD cannabis, and placebo.

How can music sound better while the brain regions that process musical pleasure show less activity? The researchers proposed that THC may interfere with the endocannabinoid system's reward processing — specifically by depleting anandamide, which naturally mediates musical pleasure. The subjective enhancement may come not from increased reward processing but from altered attentional processing and disrupted predictive coding — you notice more, even if the reward circuit responds less. The experience changes not because the pleasure is stronger, but because the perception is different.

Notably, cannabis containing CBD showed no differences from placebo in the fMRI data — consistent with CBD's ability to modulate THC's effects across many domains.

Charles Tart: The Scientist Who Listened

Charles T. Tart (1937-2025) spent his career studying what most scientists refused to take seriously: subjective experience. After studying electrical engineering at MIT and psychology at Duke (under J.B. Rhine's parapsychology lab), he completed his PhD at UNC Chapel Hill and postdoctoral work in hypnosis at Stanford under Ernest Hilgard.

He spent 28 years at UC Davis, where he became one of the founders of transpersonal psychology — the study of consciousness, altered states, and experiences that transcend ordinary psychological categories. His 1969 anthology Altered States of Consciousness became a standard textbook. He published over 250 articles, including lead papers in both Science and Nature.

The cannabis work was characteristic of his approach: take something dismissed by mainstream science, study it with systematic rigor, and demonstrate that subjective experience — properly measured — yields real data. His marijuana questionnaire methodology was later adapted for studying other altered states and became a model for phenomenological research in psychology.

What People Get Wrong

The most common misinterpretation is that cannabis simply makes people less critical — that music sounds "better" because your standards drop. Tart's data and modern neuroscience both argue against this. Users don't report that bad music sounds good; they report that good music reveals new layers. The change is perceptual, not evaluative. Attention shifts, filtering loosens, and prediction fails — revealing genuine sonic information that sober attention suppresses.

The other misunderstanding runs in the opposite direction: that music can't be enjoyed without cannabis once you've experienced it enhanced. After quitting weed, music can indeed sound flat for weeks as your auditory-emotional circuits recalibrate. But the enjoyment returns — the brain's natural music reward system recovers as the endocannabinoid system rebalances. It's a temporary recalibration, not a permanent loss. For anyone going through this, attending concerts sober is entirely possible and eventually just as rewarding.

A 2025 Replication — With a Twist

A comprehensive 2025 review by Darakjian and colleagues replicated Tart's questionnaire methodology with modern cannabis users and compared the results directly using statistical analysis. The core findings held: enhanced sensitivity, improved auditory discrimination, and heightened emotional responses to music remained among the most consistent cannabis effects.

But there were statistically significant divergences. Modern users reported some auditory effects at different rates than Tart's 1971 cohort — differences the researchers attributed to the dramatically higher THC concentrations in today's cannabis compared to the marijuana available in 1970. The experience of enhanced music perception appears to be modulated by dose — confirming that the relationship between cannabis and auditory perception is not linear but follows the same inverted-U curve seen across many cannabis effects.

What the researchers found

70% of experienced cannabis users reported enhanced sensitivity to subtle sound qualities 'very often' or 'usually.' Users consistently described music as purer, more distinct, with enhanced rhythm perception and greater emotional depth.

Why it matters

This was the first systematic scientific study of cannabis subjective effects, published in Nature. It established that the widely reported enhancement of music perception was empirically real, consistent across users, and amenable to scientific study — legitimizing the phenomenological investigation of altered states.

The numbers in context

150 experienced users surveyed. 220-item questionnaire. 70% reported enhanced sound sensitivity very often/usually. Three distinct auditory effects identified: enhanced sensitivity, improved auditory stream segregation, heightened emotional response.

How the study worked

Retrospective self-report questionnaire administered to 150 experienced marijuana users. Participants rated frequency of 220 specific effects across multiple intoxication levels.

Who was studied

150 experienced marijuana users (mostly young adults, university community, late 1960s California)

What this study cannot tell us

Retrospective self-report (not real-time measurement). No placebo control. Self-selected experienced users (not representative of all cannabis users). No objective auditory testing.

How to read the evidence

Preliminary — survey methodology with no objective measures, but the findings have been replicated across 50+ years and are now supported by neuroscience research (fMRI, EEG).

When this study was published

Published in 1970-1971. The findings have been replicated in a 2025 review (Darakjian et al.) using the same methodology with modern cannabis users.

The bigger picture

Tart's work established subjective experience as a valid scientific domain and demonstrated that the cannabis-music connection is empirically real. Modern neuroscience has since identified the mechanisms: THC modulates auditory cortex processing, disrupts attentional filtering, boosts dopamine reward, and disrupts predictive coding.

Questions still open

• What specific neural mechanisms produce enhanced music perception?
• Does the effect differ across musical genres?
• Is there an optimal THC dose for music enhancement?
• Why does modern fMRI show dampened reward processing when users report enhanced enjoyment?

Common questions

Read the original research

Marijuana intoxication: Common experiences

Nature, 226(5247)

Nature is one of the most prestigious multidisciplinary science journals in the world.

Citation

Tart CT. (1970). Marijuana intoxication: Common experiences. Nature, 226(5247). https://doi.org/10.1038/226701a0