General catch-all music discussion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

     Speaking about his song Hurricane:

    The song was written in July 1975 after Young had just undergone an operation on his vocal chords after a cocaine-fueled night with friend. "We were all really high, fcked up. Been out partying. Wrote it sitting up at Vista Point on Skyline. Supposed to be the highest point in San Mateo County, which was appropriate. I wrote it when I couldn't sing. I was on voice rest. It was nuts - I was whistling it.

    I wrote a lot of songs when I couldn't talk.” 
    ― Neil Young

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    This is totally random, but as long as this thread has surfaced ... :)

    I've been laughing to myself the past week or so reading many columns by sports writers re: the Baseball HoF's current class of nominees, many of whom are from the PED era, whose reputations were marred, if not downright trashed for breaking bad.  

    Some of the columnists (Peter Abraham's, for one) explained succinctly how they voted, why and for whom; could not have been more forthcoming and honest.  Note: comments and responses to the column were vicious in many, if not most, cases, as apparently there are diehard fans who are in the "no tolerance" zone as it pertains to PEDs.   I also heard a pretty good POV that stated that timing is everything from that era; if a player was already performing as a "best in class" player prior to any suspicion, that's a lot different from a player whose career and skills took off and were obviously a manufactured *result* of taking PEDs.  

    Anyhow, all this to say, I contrasted this with the RnR HoF process, and the issues that accompany the nominations and inductions, and it was amusing to think about "PEDs" among rock musicians.  Heh.   If that were or had ever been an issue, the Hall would just be a museum, and wouldn't have *EVER* had an induction process.   Don't mind me, I just thought that was a funny contrast.   

    There has never been much lustre on the RnR HoF, as fans have dissed it for years.  I am not sure of this, but it seems that the Baseball HoF is not as respected as it used to be, but correct me if you know, b/c that strikes me as a cryin' shame.  

    Anyhow, sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.  Gotta love it.  :)



    LOL - Yoga - did you tap ionto some of my ld Red Sox forum comments from several years ago. I think it was after the criminally liable Mitchell report when Sox fans on site were going after Yankee fans for PED use. My comment was exactly your statement. Without music Ped's (LSD, Weed, etc.), the music scene may have been completely different in the 60's and 70's.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to jesseyeric's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    This is totally random, but as long as this thread has surfaced ... :)

    I've been laughing to myself the past week or so reading many columns by sports writers re: the Baseball HoF's current class of nominees, many of whom are from the PED era, whose reputations were marred, if not downright trashed for breaking bad.  

    Some of the columnists (Peter Abraham's, for one) explained succinctly how they voted, why and for whom; could not have been more forthcoming and honest.  Note: comments and responses to the column were vicious in many, if not most, cases, as apparently there are diehard fans who are in the "no tolerance" zone as it pertains to PEDs.   I also heard a pretty good POV that stated that timing is everything from that era; if a player was already performing as a "best in class" player prior to any suspicion, that's a lot different from a player whose career and skills took off and were obviously a manufactured *result* of taking PEDs.  

    Anyhow, all this to say, I contrasted this with the RnR HoF process, and the issues that accompany the nominations and inductions, and it was amusing to think about "PEDs" among rock musicians.  Heh.   If that were or had ever been an issue, the Hall would just be a museum, and wouldn't have *EVER* had an induction process.   Don't mind me, I just thought that was a funny contrast.   

    There has never been much lustre on the RnR HoF, as fans have dissed it for years.  I am not sure of this, but it seems that the Baseball HoF is not as respected as it used to be, but correct me if you know, b/c that strikes me as a cryin' shame.  

    Anyhow, sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.  Gotta love it.  :)

     LOL - Yoga - did you tap into some of my old Red Sox forum comments from several years ago. I think it was after the criminally liable Mitchell report when Sox fans on site were going after Yankee fans for PED use. My comment was exactly your statement. Without music Ped's (LSD, Weed, etc.), the music scene may have been completely different in the 60's and 70's. 

    Too funny.  :D   Glad you like my musings.   

    JE, that's crazy.   I love that you came to the same conclusion when the PED issue was red hot.   Not only would the music have been different, who knows if half of it would ever have been created, written, produced?   And that goes for the album covers, too.   :)   

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    You can take the drug thing and apply it directly to the Beatles.  Without marijuana there'd be no 'Norwegian Wood' or 'Got To Get You Into My Life', among others.  Without LSD, no 'Lucy In the Sky' or 'I Am the Walrus', among others.  Without heroin, no 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' or 'Yer Blues' or Cold Turkey' etc. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    I think the issue of drugs and creativity in rock music is debateable. Kind of like the chicken and the egg debate. I think creativity is a human trait both inborn and developed. If musical talent does not exist in someone, drugs will do nothing for them. Many more people take drugs than create works of art. I don't think there is proof of a direct causal effect that drugs lead to creativity. I can concede that drugs will have an impact on the type of music created, but how do we prove that this is the cause of the creativity? 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    I think the issue of drugs and creativity in rock music is debateable. Kind of like the chicken and the egg debate. I think creativity is a human trait both inborn and developed. If musical talent does not exist in someone, drugs will do nothing for them. Many more people take drugs than create works of art. I don't think there is proof of a direct causal effect that drugs lead to creativity. I can concede that drugs will have an impact on the type of music created, but how do we prove that this is the cause of the creativity? 



    It's pretty well documented that one of marijuana's effects is to stimulate the imagination and flow of ideas.  I actually have some personal experience in this area with regard to writing.  And I know a published writer who says he gets many of his best ideas when altered.  Although he adds, and I agree with this, you have to look at what you've written when clean and sober to evaluate it. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    Music isn't just about creativity.   Don't underestimate the technical skills, and technique in general as it pertains to playing an instrument, or even singing.   There are musicians that are beasts technically, who slavishly borrow from their idols, but don't develop any deep creativity and therefore, aren't very original.   That doesn't mean, however, they aren't technical geniuses, in the cases where they are.  

    This is why there are often two ways of viewing an artist of any type (dance, literature, music, architecture, applied art, etc.): technical skill and artistic skill.    Lots of musicians are lauded for technique, but are criticized harshly for the way they fail to register or render any emotion, feeling, or creativity with their interpretations.   The vernacular for that is mailing it in, I guess.   

    Athletes didn't take PEDs for recreational purposes; they took them intentionally, and deliberately, for the sole purpose of improving their game, which I'd put along the lines of "technical" skill improvement.  :)   That's cheating, of course, in sports.   Originally, I believe most musicians took drugs recreationally, but a byproduct for some, not all, but some -- was a burst of creativity, and potentially, even an improvement in technical skill in some cases.   In any event,  I agree there are plenty of musicians that have never touched alcohol, let alone drugs, for whatever reason.   But I can't say I think better of them for that reason alone, other than the idea that they stuck to their convictions and beliefs, and put that first, in a field where there are constant temptations.   

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.



    Ok, I can go with this take. I would also say that musicians and other creative people may have more of a tendency to be attracted to taking drugs because they are creative individuals. They will do anything to help get the creative juices flowing.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    Music isn't just about creativity.   Don't underestimate the technical skills, and technique in general as it pertains to playing an instrument, or even singing.   There are musicians that are beasts technically, who slavishly borrow from their idols, but don't develop any deep creativity and therefore, aren't very original.   That doesn't mean, however, they aren't technical geniuses, in the cases where they are.  

    This is why there are often two ways of viewing an artist of any type (dance, literature, music, architecture, applied art, etc.): technical skill and artistic skill.    Lots of musicians are lauded for technique, but are criticized harshly for the way they fail to register or render any emotion, feeling, or creativity with their interpretations.   The vernacular for that is mailing it in, I guess.   

    Athletes didn't take PEDs for recreational purposes; they took them intentionally, and deliberately, for the sole purpose of improving their game, which I'd put along the lines of "technical" skill improvement.  :)   That's cheating, of course, in sports.   Originally, I believe most musicians took drugs recreationally, but a byproduct for some, not all, but some -- was a burst of creativity, and potentially, even an improvement in technical skill in some cases.   In any event,  I agree there are plenty of musicians that have never touched alcohol, let alone drugs, for whatever reason.   But I can't say I think better of them for that reason alone, other than the idea that they stuck to their convictions and beliefs, and put that first, in a field where there are constant temptations.   



    While I might concede that drugs could enhance creativity, I'm not so sure drugs would help improve technical skill. Some types of drugs may help keep you alert and focused, but practice is probably the most important factor in improving technical skill.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     While I might concede that drugs could enhance creativity, I'm not so sure drugs would help improve technical skill. Some types of drugs may help keep you alert and focused, but practice is probably the most important factor in improving technical skill. 


    Sorry, but I feel you missed my point; additionally, I made no assertions, and am not trying to convince anyone here, so you have no need to concede (or not).     :)

    In my last post, I just wanted to backtrack to my original point which was that athletes and musicians have different issues at stake when they take a so-called PED--- and this was all in fun reference to the two Halls and their induction processes, with the PED issue having made the induction process in baseball deeply contentious.   The Rock Hall's issues are not in any way comparable (even though the issues are valid).  

    The word is enhance, not a produce.   Enhancer.   Under no circumstances is the implication that an average athlete will become a Roger Clemens from taking a PED, but that a Roger Clemens (or Roger himself ...) would become an even *more* stupendous ball player juicing up with a PED.   It's an actual scientific fact, and not debateable on any level, that anabolic steriods make muscle cells grow faster and larger, and also, that they are harmful to one's health when used unregulated and obsessively.   They serve as a supplement -- an enhancer -- to an athlete, who already has talent.   Skill has to be there in the first place.     

    Insofar as musicians are concerned, the drugs may be of a different variety, but the same is true:  they are enhancers, not producers of talent, creativity or technique, etc.    

    You seem to have an "either / or" view here.    You see this in a monochromatic light, and I don't, and I don't think Hfx does, either, if he doesn't mind my saying so.    

    In my "maybe" inference re: technical skills, your interpretation was that I meant the skills could be derived from taking drugs, and precludes the idea one has to practice.  Well, that's not what I meant, and I apologize for lack of clarity.   Again, getting back to the enhancement ... the implication is that a drug taken accompanied with a practice session or rehearsal, has the potential to increase technical skills, not the drug substituting for having to practice one's craft.   

    Drugs such as pot heighten sensory awareness;  therefore, heightening the sense of hearing and touch, for example.   It's highly possible from that standpoint, during practice, that heightening the senses would or could, put focus on technique.  I'm not asking you to "concede" or not .... becaus I'm not trying to convince you of anything.    But I certainly never meant to imply drugs preclude the need for practicing or developing on the whole.   No way.  :)

    I use the whole gestalt.  I don't see how you can discuss something like this on the basis of individual elements; my mind doesn't work that way.  I don't need closure, I don't need all the information to be filled in to be comfortable ... I am fine with the open-endedness.    Hope you are, too.   :)

    You know, I live a very healthy lifestyle.   So this is all in context of the forum and rock music history, of course.    

    But do remember, rock music back in the day was performed and created while many (not all) musicians were high as kites.   The drums, guitars, keyboards were not playing themselves ... humans were playing them.   That's all I have to say.  

    I have a nice addition to this thread, with a vastly different spin on "enhancement" ... more soon / later.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     
    You can take the drug thing and apply it directly to the Beatles.  Without marijuana there'd be no 'Norwegian Wood' or 'Got To Get You Into My Life', among others.  Without LSD, no 'Lucy In the Sky' or 'I Am the Walrus', among others.  Without heroin, no 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' or 'Yer Blues' or Cold Turkey' etc.  

     

    Sgt. Pepper's LHCB would never have been made had it not been for some mind alterations.    I saw the documentary.   :)

    That's it for me.  I have to take my vitamins now.  :D



     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In researching drugs and their effects on musicians I came across something I had never heard of before. Some classical orchestral musicians will take beta blockers to calm their nerves and help them to avoid mking mistakes during a concert. This kind of usage definitely parallels athletes use of PEDs to improve performance. But even as with athletes, these drugs serve a vey speciific purpose. We know that steroids can add strength to baseball players and help them to hit more homeruns. But I don't know if steroids can help to make them better defensively in the field.

    in regard to drugs and music, it does depend on the drug and its effects. IMO drugs do have an impact on the type and sound of music produced. Whether or not this means "enhanced", I am not sure. Does it make the music better or deeper? This is where the arts and sports part ways. A sprinter will break records more easily using PEDs. Does a musician write or play a better song while on drugs? What is the measure?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

     I agree there's been a lot of great musicians who used drugs to "enhance" their music.I also wonder how many musicians had their creativity stunted by their use of substances.I'm willing to bet there's been many who never achieved greatness because they were doing too much of the wrong types of drugs too often.And there's also been too many whose careers ended far too soon because of drugs/alcohol.A double edged sword to be sure.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    Here is a link to an interesting story about Paul McCartney and his recollections of drug use.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3769511.stm

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    Say hello to the forum's newest Pixies fan.  I bought their Doolittle album based solely on the comments about them by forum members and I love it.  Hard to believe they totally escaped my attention until now.  I can honestly say if it wasn't for this forum I probably never would have heard them.  So that's pretty cool.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Say hello to the forum's newest Pixies fan.  I bought their Doolittle album based solely on the comments about them by forum members and I love it.  Hard to believe they totally escaped my attention until now.  I can honestly say if it wasn't for this forum I probably never would have heard them.  So that's pretty cool.



    Congrats, BTW.  That *is* very cool for you.   

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Say hello to the forum's newest Pixies fan.  I bought their Doolittle album based solely on the comments about them by forum members and I love it.  Hard to believe they totally escaped my attention until now.  I can honestly say if it wasn't for this forum I probably never would have heard them.  So that's pretty cool.

    Congrats, BTW.  That *is* very cool for you.   

     



    Yeah...I think the Pixies are right up my alley.  I may come across as a classic hard rock fiend, and I am, but I also love stuff like this.  Weird and inventive and tuneful.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.

     



    I think using the words Randy Bachman and "good" and tying it into never having a drink explains why Randy Bachman isn't that good. lol

     

    It's like Ted Nugent. The guy can't write a song to save his life and he's never had a drink, smoke, nothing. Yet, Nugent would mock Jerry Garcia, which is hilarious to me. 

    I am a firm believer in creative people using creative things to alter their minds a bit.  Obviously, losing your edge is another story.

     



    Just because you don't like Bachman's or Nugent's work does not mean they have not written good songs. And what about Zappa and Trower? No put downs for these two? If someone is already creative why do they need substances to alter their mind? What is gained in doing so? Be specific.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.

     



    I think using the words Randy Bachman and "good" and tying it into never having a drink explains why Randy Bachman isn't that good. lol

     

    It's like Ted Nugent. The guy can't write a song to save his life and he's never had a drink, smoke, nothing. Yet, Nugent would mock Jerry Garcia, which is hilarious to me. 

    I am a firm believer in creative people using creative things to alter their minds a bit.  Obviously, losing your edge is another story.

     

     



    Just because you don't like Bachman's or Nugent's work does not mean they have not written good songs. And what about Zappa and Trower? No put downs for these two? If someone is already creative why do they need substances to alter their mind? What is gained in doing so? Be specific.

     



    I'm going to jump in here and de-emphasize the "creativity" aspect of drug use, because I think it's misguided, at best.

    I think it's absolutely true that some creative people can still create without chemical enhancements, and yet some creatives can create with them, but that doesn't speak to why people in general take them in the first place.

    For some it's purely social, not a 'lifestyle'.  For others, it can streamline the thought process when the mind is racing.  For some, it's purely an escape from everyday pressures.  (Depends on the drug, too.  Heroin is a creative black hole, IMO, while pot is just a funny-smelling herb.)

    The point, I believe, is that creative people are still just people, and everyone needs a release, but I think it belabors the point to argue that the drugs are the direct cause of artistic brilliance.  The Beatles were doing great work before they ever got high; all drugs did was change their perspective slightly, and/or release a bit of the intense pressure of being "The Beatles".

    A worthy topic.  I often think it's funny though, how fans often project their sensibilities onto their musical heroes.  The truth is probably less dramatic as it's seen to be from the outside.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from leafswin27. Show leafswin27's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Say hello to the forum's newest Pixies fan.  I bought their Doolittle album based solely on the comments about them by forum members and I love it.  Hard to believe they totally escaped my attention until now.  I can honestly say if it wasn't for this forum I probably never would have heard them.  So that's pretty cool.

     



    Give Surfer Rosa a listen to next. I have loved the Pixies from the first time I heard Come on Pilgrim. I went to a show years ago at the club across from Fenway. Not sure what it was called then. Might have been Spit.. anyway there were three bands.. The headliner was the Sugarcubes (they were awful that night) 2nd was Peter Murphy (meh) the first band on that night was the Pixies. I barely new them but was totally blown away. Joey Santiagos guitar was incredible and the sweet voice of the great Kim Deal..I am a huge fan .... pretty influential band.. count David Bowie as one of their biggest supporters as well

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.

     



    I think using the words Randy Bachman and "good" and tying it into never having a drink explains why Randy Bachman isn't that good. lol

     

    It's like Ted Nugent. The guy can't write a song to save his life and he's never had a drink, smoke, nothing. Yet, Nugent would mock Jerry Garcia, which is hilarious to me. 

    I am a firm believer in creative people using creative things to alter their minds a bit.  Obviously, losing your edge is another story.

     

     



    Just because you don't like Bachman's or Nugent's work does not mean they have not written good songs. And what about Zappa and Trower? No put downs for these two? If someone is already creative why do they need substances to alter their mind? What is gained in doing so? Be specific.

     

     



    I'm going to jump in here and de-emphasize the "creativity" aspect of drug use, because I think it's misguided, at best.

     

    I think it's absolutely true that some creative people can still create without chemical enhancements, and yet some creatives can create with them, but that doesn't speak to why people in general take them in the first place.

    For some it's purely social, not a 'lifestyle'.  For others, it can streamline the thought process when the mind is racing.  For some, it's purely an escape from everyday pressures.  (Depends on the drug, too.  Heroin is a creative black hole, IMO, while pot is just a funny-smelling herb.)

    The point, I believe, is that creative people are still just people, and everyone needs a release, but I think it belabors the point to argue that the drugs are the direct cause of artistic brilliance.  The Beatles were doing great work before they ever got high; all drugs did was change their perspective slightly, and/or release a bit of the intense pressure of being "The Beatles".

    A worthy topic.  I often think it's funny though, how fans often project their sensibilities onto their musical heroes.  The truth is probably less dramatic as it's seen to be from the outside.

     



    I agree. I think there is evidence that drugs can impact the type of music created, but it doesn't mean that the music is more creative, just different. I don't take a position that drugs are bad, that is up to the individual. I just disagree with the assumption that the music created in conjunction with drug use is necessarily more creative. Sometimes it may be, other times not.

    The great Etta James wrote, "Some people can't work high. I can. I don't want to boast, but I may be one of those singers who has enough power to overcome the fog and filter of drugs."

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.

     



    I think using the words Randy Bachman and "good" and tying it into never having a drink explains why Randy Bachman isn't that good. lol

     

    It's like Ted Nugent. The guy can't write a song to save his life and he's never had a drink, smoke, nothing. Yet, Nugent would mock Jerry Garcia, which is hilarious to me. 

    I am a firm believer in creative people using creative things to alter their minds a bit.  Obviously, losing your edge is another story.

     

     



    Just because you don't like Bachman's or Nugent's work does not mean they have not written good songs. And what about Zappa and Trower? No put downs for these two? If someone is already creative why do they need substances to alter their mind? What is gained in doing so? Be specific.

     

     



    I'm going to jump in here and de-emphasize the "creativity" aspect of drug use, because I think it's misguided, at best.

     

    I think it's absolutely true that some creative people can still create without chemical enhancements, and yet some creatives can create with them, but that doesn't speak to why people in general take them in the first place.

    For some it's purely social, not a 'lifestyle'.  For others, it can streamline the thought process when the mind is racing.  For some, it's purely an escape from everyday pressures.  (Depends on the drug, too.  Heroin is a creative black hole, IMO, while pot is just a funny-smelling herb.)

    The point, I believe, is that creative people are still just people, and everyone needs a release, but I think it belabors the point to argue that the drugs are the direct cause of artistic brilliance.  The Beatles were doing great work before they ever got high; all drugs did was change their perspective slightly, and/or release a bit of the intense pressure of being "The Beatles".

    A worthy topic.  I often think it's funny though, how fans often project their sensibilities onto their musical heroes.  The truth is probably less dramatic as it's seen to be from the outside.

     

     



    I agree. I think there is evidence that drugs can impact the type of music created, but it doesn't mean that the music is more creative, just different. I don't take a position that drugs are bad, that is up to the individual. I just disagree with the assumption that the music created in conjunction with drug use is necessarily more creative. Sometimes it may be, other times not.

     

    The great Etta James wrote, "Some people can't work high. I can. I don't want to boast, but I may be one of those singers who has enough power to overcome the fog and filter of drugs."



    Great quote.

    Even for the Dead, who really explored the group dynamics of drug use and live improvisation, eventually understood that what works one day doesn't always work the next.  And tragically, it's a lesson that Jerry never completely learned, to our loss.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    For Pixies fan's! loudQUIETloud: A Film About the Pixies Feature Film | Not Rated | 1:25:30 | Released: 2006 "FREE" to watch on crackle.com.......Enjoy!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share