He'd probably look like Cliff Richard (71 years young yesterday): [www.dailymail.co.uk]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-15 13:48 by Sleepy City.

And he would probably be as boring as Cliff as well. Drugs sparked Keifs inner creative depths...it had its price, but what a glorious gift to his fans... But alas like many deals with the demons that plague men, he paid a price. Questionable morals, physical and mental decay, and a higher tab than just sticking to martinis.

...you honestly believe "drugs sparked Keifs inner creative depths"?....wow you drank toe cool aid and then some.

Yeah, it did. As with most the drug taking in the sixties. It sparked some incredible music. They agree as well. Many a time drugs are mentioned as a catalyst for creativity. Drink some cool aid dude and loosen up your belt. You might even enjoy it baby.

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, it did. As with most the drug taking in the sixties. It sparked some incredible music. They agree as well. Many a time drugs are mentioned as a catalyst for creativity. Drink some cool aid dude and loosen up your belt. You might even enjoy it baby.

Overall it the positive & negative effects of drugs on music have probably cancelled each other out. It was drugs that brought in the age of spending months in the studio to make one mediocre album.

Keith himself admitted that the drugs impacted negatively on his creativity and performance, as well as the band (duh). But it's not like he really had a choice. He has serious addiction issues.

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, it did. As with most the drug taking in the sixties. It sparked some incredible music. They agree as well. Many a time drugs are mentioned as a catalyst for creativity. Drink some cool aid dude and loosen up your belt. You might even enjoy it baby.

well it's obvious you haven't done the right drugs 'cause then you'd know that that's all you want to do...is do more drugs.....they were creative without the drugs, they just used the drugs as an excuse for a louche bohemian lifestyle that fit the time...if it really sparked creativity Mick and Keith would still be doing them.

Brian was taking the most drugs in the late 60s, & Brian became the least creative.

"Boring" Cliff Richard with his drug-free lifestyle has continued having number one hits decades after The Rolling Stones (& indeed Paul McCartney).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-15 17:58 by Sleepy City.

like this but with a prominent skull ring?

Yeah you may not like drugs and think that no. one hits equate to success. Drugs never the less fueled a lot of creativity during a great part of the sixties and seventies. Yes, of course at a cost. But, also some incredible music, style, and broadening of the boundaries ... Yeah, lots of casualties as well...but some thrilling effects as well. Keith of course was also trying to escape his fame and insecurities by building a wall with drugs as the mortar. Jeez and none of the stones were tea totalers when it came to pot, and booze.... I guess I would take my stones stoned over them being a clean living group of Pat Boons churning out white bread pop that challenged nothing more than someone's hearing aid...

Quote
whitem8
Yeah you may not like drugs and think that no. one hits equate to success. Drugs never the less fueled a lot of creativity during a great part of the sixties and seventies. Yes, of course at a cost. But, also some incredible music, style, and broadening of the boundaries ... Yeah, lots of casualties as well...but some thrilling effects as well. Keith of course was also trying to escape his fame and insecurities by building a wall with drugs as the mortar. Jeez and none of the stones were tea totalers when it came to pot, and booze.... I guess I would take my stones stoned over them being a clean living group of Pat Boons churning out white bread pop that challenged nothing more than someone's hearing aid...

Pretty simplistic analysis...the gist of what you're saying, is that without drugs the Stones would be Pat Boone.

That is a ridiculous conclusion.

lighten up. I am trying to be funny, but also serious in saying that while drugs had their negatives, they also propelled many bands of the sixties and seventies to create some pretty stirring music.

Quote
whitem8
lighten up. I am trying to be funny, but also serious in saying that while drugs had their negatives, they also propelled many bands of the sixties and seventies to create some pretty stirring music.

Many drug addicts use the "creativity" excuse to justify their habits. Far better for their egos than just admitting that they're basically losers...

Drugs may have influenced the odd lyric here & there (for better or worse), but I'm sure Keith / Hendrix / Page & all the rest could've come up with the same riffs without drugs. Chuck & Bo did OK without them.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
whitem8
lighten up. I am trying to be funny, but also serious in saying that while drugs had their negatives, they also propelled many bands of the sixties and seventies to create some pretty stirring music.

Many drug addicts use the "creativity" excuse to justify their habits. Far better for their egos than just admitting that they're basically losers...

Drugs may have influenced the odd lyric here & there (for better or worse), but I'm sure Keith / Hendrix / Page & all the rest could've come up with the same riffs without drugs. Chuck & Bo did OK without them.

Bollocks. You simply can't have Exile on Main Street without the drugs. Rip this joint is amphetamine overload. Let it loose is comedown. happy is just riding the rails.

Quote
letitloose

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
whitem8
lighten up. I am trying to be funny, but also serious in saying that while drugs had their negatives, they also propelled many bands of the sixties and seventies to create some pretty stirring music.

Many drug addicts use the "creativity" excuse to justify their habits. Far better for their egos than just admitting that they're basically losers...

Drugs may have influenced the odd lyric here & there (for better or worse), but I'm sure Keith / Hendrix / Page & all the rest could've come up with the same riffs without drugs. Chuck & Bo did OK without them.

Bollocks. You simply can't have Exile on Main Street without the drugs. Rip this joint is amphetamine overload. Let it loose is comedown. happy is just riding the rails.

I think drugs are just an excuse. If you're talented, you are talented - with or without drugs. You might write the best lyrics in the history just by sipping darjeeling.

Quote
letitloose
Rip this joint is amphetamine overload.

Funny, it alway sounded to me like a parody of Bill Haley & The Comets' 'Rock This Joint'. Maybe they took too many amphetamines too?

They probably did. not that I care

...drugs don't make you create...you either have it or you don't...and while it's possible to be creative while high you might take a while to put it together...if ever......and if anyone has taken amphetamines you'd know that while you think you are thinking crystal clear when you first take them...and you feel on top of the world... they take over and you don't necessarily concentrate on any one particular thing at any one time, rather you end up doing 150 things badly all the time....if your strung out on heroin you're probably slurring and coming in and out.....taking a Qualuude 747 with 4 shots of bourbon will have you splayed on the floor...just like that famous Annie Lebowitz photo of Keith....I'm sure someone will advocate that he was writing Hand Of Fate while he was knocked out for 3 hours!!!......

Quote
whitem8
Yeah you may not like drugs and think that no. one hits equate to success. Drugs never the less fueled a lot of creativity during a great part of the sixties and seventies. Yes, of course at a cost. But, also some incredible music, style, and broadening of the boundaries ... Yeah, lots of casualties as well...but some thrilling effects as well. Keith of course was also trying to escape his fame and insecurities by building a wall with drugs as the mortar. Jeez and none of the stones were tea totalers when it came to pot, and booze.... I guess I would take my stones stoned over them being a clean living group of Pat Boons churning out white bread pop that challenged nothing more than someone's hearing aid...


Pretty simplistic analysis...the gist of what you're saying, is that without drugs the Stones would be Pat Boone.

That is a ridiculous conclusion




One thing I've learned....if you like someone, you have to take the whole package, not pick and choose the bits you like and condemn the rest.

You might deplore Keith, Brian, and Ronnie's drug use, but if they had been clean-living like Pat Boone, chances are you wouldn't have gotten the music the RS created. Not because the drugs were catalysts for the music, but because the drugs were part and parcel of their lives and who they were.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-15 23:55 by Bliss.

Quote
whitem8
lighten up.

Was I being 'dark'? You simply said something ridiculous...so if you were trying to be funny, in that you meant the opposite, my apologies, didn't get the joke.

Being ridiculous is the first sign of dandruff. Dandruff is the first sign of madness. Dr. Winston O' Boogie.

Very funny clip.A distinct possibility for Keith undrugged.Style of Cliff Richard and songs of Keef Richards.

That's really the definitive post in this thread!

Did Keith ever experience something that you could call a overdose? Reading hus book, he just complains about Cold turkeys and the cravings. Like that time he and Ronnie were in New York and challenged each other to do mountains of cocaine. That sounds like pure fiction.