If they weren't on drugs?

So many great albums of a certain era were made in a haze. By the Stones and others, like the Beatles.

Exile..
LIB
Sticky Fingers

Sgt Pepper

Would they be as good? I wonder...
Note that I am not personally advocating drug use.

probably not

I suppose so too.
So what's that mean?

.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-28 03:42 by Bingo.

I think it was just really hard to make those albums, so it helped them carry on through it. but also, they backed off of LSD and found a lot of focus to do beggars banquet.

I'm assuming that their drug of choice was pot?
In large quantities?

edit
and coke, of course



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-28 02:45 by schillid.

In those days, they werent drugs....they were breakfast...so if you are asking if they skipped breakfast, and went right to lunch, then no, they wouldnt have done those records....

JR

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm assuming that their drug of choice was pot?
> In large quantities?
>
> edit
> and coke, of course


i cant say for sure of course but thats what Im under the impression of. and I think Keith was on smack.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-28 02:49 by ryanpow.

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In those days, they werent drugs....they were
> breakfast...so if you are asking if they skipped
> breakfast, and went right to lunch, then no, they
> wouldnt have done those records....
>
> JR


I suppose they smoked the same thing for lunch as they had for breakfast.

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they weren't on drugs?
>
> So many great albums of a certain era were made in
> a haze. By the Stones and others, like the
> Beatles.
>
> Exile..
> LIB
> Sticky Fingers


Then again, theres always 'Dirty Work' to blow that theory out of the water...

There's no guarantee
that being wasted will yield a great album.

That's funny I actually thought about starting a thread along these lines. Espicially after Bonds broke the HR record. Just to point how muscians,probably need performance inhancing drugs........No,not really. It was probably a combination of the drugs being able to bring out their own crativity. Of course that only last's so long. I doubt if they were doing any serious drugs when they recorded ABB. But back in the 60's and 70's I'm sure it helped the creative process.

Coke,H,and Thai Sticks,were the main ingredients that made Beggar's,Sticky Fingers and Exile such great albums,later when Heroin took over Keith we had lousy albums (mostly) like GHS,and IORR,IMHO.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Re: Without Drugs... Would The Stones Greatest Albums Compare?

For the band or the listener?

"No Anchovies, Please"

Both.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

ROPENI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Coke,H,and Thai Sticks,were the main ingredients
> that made Beggar's,Sticky Fingers and Exile such
> great albums,later when Heroin took over Keith we
> had lousy albums (mostly) like GHS,and IORR,IMHO.


And when Keith stopped using he had a major role in two of the weakest albums in The Stones' canon - Emotional Rescue and Dirty Work.

Me favorizing GHS aside,
I dont think one can connect the drug use
and the album qualities so easily.

Imho they did run out off good song material about 1972.
Till then, they had written the most astonishing
songs in rock and pop history between 1964 and 1972.

I hate to admit it but Bowie did one of his best works - Station to Station - in such a state he can't even remember making it. ("I know it was recorded in LA cos Earl Slick told me so.")

Definitely the Stones most creative period coincided with a lot of drug use. We will never know if they would have produced the same work during the same period without drugs - it's quite possible but equally even the most anti-drugs person should concede that they can, in the right circumstances, add to the creative process. One things for sure though - long term abuse is never good news.

Whatever is going on, in, out and around their lives at the time will have an influence.

ROPENI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Coke,H,and Thai Sticks,were the main ingredients
> that made Beggar's,Sticky Fingers and Exile such
> great albums,later when Heroin took over Keith we
> had lousy albums (mostly) like GHS,and IORR,IMHO.


If only I could write a lousy album like IORR or GHS

IMO, those are strong Stones albums

Well it was the whole TIme periode too...
like, no album from now a days... can compare to the 60s or 70s.

[[FEAR; BUILDS WALLS.]]

The music would sound the same.

Doing drugs back then was just part of the scene. It was accepted as a normal part of the day to day living process. Got a joint? Great share it with a friend. Didn't really matter what time of day it was. Same with other chemicals. It hurt some people more than others. Some can take it and some don't manage very well, but that's life isn't it? While taking lots of drugs and drinking heavily isn't part of a healthy lifestyle this how many lived in those years. I think the Stones and other bands flourished in these times due to that lifestyle. Sadly, there too many that didn't and their talents are greatly missed....Brian to name one especially relevant here.

It's hard to say, really. Actually, as crazy as it sounds, I don't think drug use had the adverse effect on the Stones' music that it did other artists. In the studio, at least. I'm reminded of a quote from Steven Tyler, and why he can't listen to any of the old Aerosmith albums anymore: "All I can hear are the drugs!". Well, boo hoo...nobody put a gun to your head and MADE you guys do all that blow and smack, did it? Sorry, doesn't wash (personally I can't stand their post-rehab stuff). I've heard Keith make smart assed comments about how he can barely remember recording "Exile", but I think that's a put on. Take a good listen to the "Layla" album...THOSE guys put away more coke and smack during the making of that LP to make "EOMS" look like it was recorded in rehab!

Personally, I think booze had more of a negative effect on the Stones' music than drugs did. Think about it. It also irks me when people call the "GHS"- "BNB" era 'heroin music'. Sure, addiction was getting a grip on Keef, but those albums just sound typically complacent mid-seventies to me, not soaked in heroin. Unless EVERYBODY between '73 and '75 was doing smack, which I doubt. I always say, compare the effect heroin had on Keith Richards to the effect it had on Jimmy Page: Keith will come out on top no matter what.

So, the short answer? I think they would have made those albums even if they were stone cold sober. You can't say that for every band, and particularly The Beatles...

Don't forget, I believe it was the late Bill Hicks who said:

"People talk about the negative effects of drugs on rock music...folks, if that's the case, then you better go home right now, take out all those great old records and BURN 'EM! 'Cos the people who made all that great music? They were REAL F---IN' HIGH ON DRUGS!!!!"

Impossible way of putting things.
Would the music be the same without 'Nam or Nixon?