in my humble opinion some of the best works of rock and roll were completed under heavy drug use
this is applicable to the stones and many other groups/classic lps
i am pointing out the obvious..... and to be sure it's well trodden ground but it is worth discussing

the stones heaviest drug use was from 67-80
and it does mirror their best overall output

clapton's best work was with cream/blind faith and dereck/dominoes-once he left the horse behind he started sucking and getting really bland

the first 6 van halen lps reek of cocaine and vodka

it seems when guys go to rehab and "clean up" it takes the fire out of them
of course there are exceptions aplenty-like jeff beck who is a sober guy and has always kicked ass



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-15 03:14 by nanker's phelge.

I have to wonder just how much drugs & alcohol affect an artist's creativity.

Drugs/alcohol obviously affect what you hear & see from an artist, but whether it actually brings out creativity in an artist is another thing altogether.

I am thinking most artist's best output occurs during their halcyon years, which would probably coincide with the most likely time an artist would do drugs.

Think of what the Stones & Beatles would have sounded like if they had not used psychedelics from about '67 onwards.
The Stones might have kept honing their bluesy skills while the Beatles would have become the best bubble-gum band in the world!

I've been in the presence of someone creating music on hard core highly addictive stuff and they SUCKED! There was a REALLY HUGE act when I was a kid in New York in the studio. The drummer got really drunk and was not being able to keep the beat. The rest of the band left. It was a complete waste of their time AND cost them a full days studio time that went down the drain. Can't make that statement for all acts, just that one.

I've seen too many live acts wasted that SUCKED horribly when they were in that state. This includes the Rolling Stones. High on weed is one thing, but Heroin, downers forget it, the show will be a total mess.

If you want to do the stuff, fine don't get caught. However, there's just too much evidence that the stuff burns your body up to want to do it long term. There's a thread on Mick Taylor and his drug problem. Sounds like he went in to a DOPE fog and he regrets it now as do many, many others.

CBII

i only meant in writing /creating the music

performing live on horse is something only riff can pull off aplumb

drugs can stimulate creative for a brief honeymoon window of time. then they have the opposite effect.
tommy

I think it has much to do with youth, passion; inspiration doesn't have to mean intoxication.
It wasn't good for Keith's teeth.

So this means that after you get a grammy you should be tested,
just like athletes, for having that "edge" over the competition...
hummm...

you should be tested even after you score only a half a grammy.

Grammy award that is...

Yep !!! I always shoot-up to the bathroom and knock
back two aspirin before I post a single word here on IORR .....



ROCKMAN

The only case I can think of where this is applicable is The Beatles who stated pretty clearly that their LSD use changed their music and songwriting starting around Revolver/Sgt. Peppers era. Otherwise I can't think it helps or hurts (unless your playing live as others have commented)

It´s hard to imagine John Lennon composing I`m the Walrus, Strawberry Fields or Lucy in the Sky after an evening with tea & biscuits.

It's a twisted, unforgiving relationship; I agree that for a short burst it can literally open your mind, show you new possibilities, even fuel you physically fora short bit, but then it takes over and wants it ALL. So if you are capable of remaining the stronger one in this relationship with dope, you make out well. Take what it has to give and get out. Of course hardly anyone is able to do that.

Interesting thought ,nanker's phelge.

Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll? Not anymore !
Business plan are ingredients for success nowadays.

There are artists who have confessed that the use of drugs have many times led to their inspiration . One may argue that when used in moderation they can have a positive affect on creativity.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

I think hallucinogenics should not be lumped in with addictive hard drugs. Although hard to play while high on acid, DMT, STP etc (although the Dead & Country Joe & The Fish managed well) there is no question that they can open your mind & inspire new, often innovatory directions. Pink Floyd in particular, but also most of the psychedelic groups in the UK & the US consumed at least LSD or psilocybin (shrooms) and benefitted musically. While a few took too many trips and never really returned the majority did not suffer more than the occasional bad trip & quite possibly became better people for the experience.

Q: The psychedelic music, the Pink Floyd's and also in your album, was always connected to drugs. What came first in your case?

Rick: Factually, we started during the late '60s with the psychedelic music, a period that was known as experimental as far as drugs were concerned. The Pink Floyd were in the middle of that culture, so everyone naturally assumed that we were also doing drugs. But that wasn't the case. In Syd Barrett's case it was, but not in our case. I think that music was our drug. Of course, we all did drugs here and there in social events, but I've tried only once in my life, and it was marijuana, before a show. We went onstage, I think it was in Paris in '68, and I couldn't play a single note. Actually, I did manage to play one note. It's a mistake thinking that drugs supplied Pink Floyd with the inspiration. The ones who took drugs were the ones who came to see the shows.

Q: During that period it was popular to take LSD before the show.

Rick: (lighting another Marlboro) We didn't even think of that. Personally, maybe because of the way I was educated I didn't feel a need. It's true that there are a lot of bands who do that, but it's a mythos that the Pink Floyd did drugs in shows. The most we took was half a of beer.

An Interview on the Dark Side
(1996)
By M. Kriteman

it's a mythos that the Pink Floyd did drugs in shows. The most we took was half a of beer.

Ha ha .



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Phelge; I believe ya mix up the open, hig-spirit attitude
in the common awareness of the 60s with the very drug abuse.

Psychedelics probably helped the evolution of pop music in the '60s, giving us songs and shows that otherwise wouldn't have happened. On the other hand, it also gave us freakouts and absolute non-musicianship at times.

Hard drugs in the '70s (when they became common) without a doubt hurt more than they helped. They helped create some cool lyrics (Sister Morphine or Dead Flowers, anyone?) and they created a certain artistic vibe on some records -- affecting vocals, playing, songwriting. But these effects usually made the music bland or non-existant in the long run, as heroin took over musicians' lives, @#$%&*d band member relations up, killed people, etc.

Examples are too numerous to list, but the Stones' own Goats Head Soup is a great instance of both positive and negative effects: dark and floaty atmosphere, great "junky" ballad from Keith, enhanced collaboration between Mick & Mick; worse songs, deteriorating band unity. Its follow-up feels less junked but still suffers negatively with declining songwriting, worse production, no consistency.

Hard drugs certainly inspired a lot of great "social commentary" from the likes of Curtis Mayfield, Neil Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Nils Lofgren, etc. etc.
But then again, any social problem inspires great music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-15 23:16 by LieB.

would tomorrow never knows or coming down again be created w/out use?

i agree that it is a dbl edged sword

......their artistic interpretation of what it's like to come off drugs is just that. They didn't necessarily write Coming Down Again in that particular moment because they were high. They nearly broke up the band because of their drug use. Furthermore, all drugs do is delay the creative and decision making process. That's just the truth. Beleiving you are productive while high (and I mean hard drugs) is just a myth.

Anyway, while we're on the subject what Stones album sounds best on acid?

^^^^^^^^
has to be satanic maj

"I got stoned and I missed it" (Dr. Hook - before they became very boring indeed)

I think to attribute the quality and quantity of the Stones' work during their Golden Era to their drug use at the time is a bit naive. You could argue that the quality and output would have been even greater, if they hadn't been hampered by drug use. In the Stones' case, they were very definitely hindered by the police persecution over their drug use and all the court cases against them.

There was an explosion of creativity at that time, notably in film and music, and not all of the artists were involved with drugs. To me, a lot of it was due to the presence of other high calibre artists which drew the best work from their competitors and the long period of post-war prosperity, which fostered the arts.

Two ingredients to the songwriting.
Youth and Drugs..............