Originally posted by Sam The ShamI'm adding that to my "the clarinet should not be used to make music" collection 🙂
What kind of drugs would it take to make this sound good:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eFMjztFBSzM&feature=related
I'm betting a lethal overdose would be required
Originally posted by shavixmirThe drugs don't work was about the lead singer's dad, who died of cancer. Hardly LSD or coke.
The old "legalisation" versus "Criminalisation" has been debated to hangover, so let's look at it from a different point of view.
The title should read: Do people using various drugs create better art than people who don't use drugs?
Which is obviously too long for a proper title.
Let me use modern music as an example.
Nearly every great album w ...[text shortened]... a case for allowing artists to use drugs, because they're then generally better?
The problem is quality and moderation. As much as I like Pink Floyd, their earliest stuff, when Syd was trippin' on some really bad stuff in Spain, gave us Lucifer Sam, Corporal Clegg, and Jugband Blues--not exactly classics. Then along comes Dark Side of the Moon and, bang--they are now "artistes". Iron Butterfly's singer was so stoned he couldn't read the title song of the album that made them famous--and let's be real--InSAGaddaDaVida is CRAP! So, no, I don't think drugs makes one a better musician or artist, unless the talent is there to begin with. Then...MAYbe ;-)
Originally posted by PinkFloyd'Dark side of the moon' is only at 50% unless played through true
The problem is quality and moderation. As much as I like Pink Floyd, their earliest stuff, when Syd was trippin' on some really bad stuff in Spain, gave us Lucifer Sam, Corporal Clegg, and Jugband Blues--not exactly classics. Then along comes Dark Side of the Moon and, bang--they are now "artistes". Iron Butterfly's singer was so stoned he couldn't read ...[text shortened]... a better musician or artist, unless the talent is there to begin with. Then...MAYbe ;-)
quadraphonic.
Originally posted by shavixmirHey Shavvy one,
The old "legalisation" versus "Criminalisation" has been debated to hangover, so let's look at it from a different point of view.
The title should read: Do people using various drugs create better art than people who don't use drugs?
Which is obviously too long for a proper title.
Let me use modern music as an example.
Nearly every great album w ...[text shortened]... a case for allowing artists to use drugs, because they're then generally better?
I don't think that there is any doubt that the process of creation and art are the sole domain of intoxication. Very few people ever create anything when they are not high in one fashion or another. I am paraphrasing Mark Twain here...
"Ninety nine percent of all great literature owes it's existence to Whiskey and Bourbon. The other ten percent comes from liars."
The secret is in being driven for accomplishment enough to overcome the self-destruction that comes from defeat at the hand of the intoxicant, whether it is booze or drugs.
Very few "famous" people would have a career in music without drugs. It isn't natural to get up in front of thousands of people and rip off all that amazing stuff. Any good drunk knows that being really gone brings a confidence that is super-human. THAT is what powered Hendrix. But it also killed him.
Still on the wagon... and not feeling at all creative..
svw
...[text shortened]...By this logic, we might think about forcing potential artists into poverty too. Muddy Waters would've sucked if he had been born rich.
What do you all think?
And do you think that considering the very obvious conclusions, that there is a case for allowing artists to use drugs, because they're then generally better?[/b]
Originally posted by shavixmir.My apologies in advance for the marathon post.
The title should read: Do people using various drugs create better art than people who don't use drugs?
And do you think that considering the very obvious conclusions, that there is a case for allowing artists to use drugs, because they're then generally better?[/b]
I think one can take examples from the 1800s as well.
Hector Berlioz was an opium-user. His most famous work "Symphonie Fantastique" is a 5-movement piece depicting different visions during an opium high first performed in 1830. His operas "The Damnation of Faust" and "Les Troyens" were considered very "far out" when written.
Edgar Allen Poe was a drug addict. Read anything he wrote and one can see the influence. (I just finished "The Black Cat" this morning and have decided that is one of his more disturbed writings.) The composer Robert Schumann was a user and died in an insane asylum. Both these men, however, had fairly short lives and suffered mental illness and depression.
With that said it is important to note that these artists and many others who may have experimented during the century (opium was commonly prescribed by doctors at that time) were very well educated in their field of study. While their drug use may have let their guard down there was talent present in the first place.
It is important to note that several other famous composers of that century were not reported to be using. Anton Dvorak, Gustav Mahler, Bruckner, Jean Sibelius, Edvard Grieg and several others. I don't believe these men's art to be any less superior than those mentioned above.
While I don't discount the art of people on drugs, I do not believe this makes it inherently better. I believe Jimi Hendrix was a gifted musician who studied guitar seriously enough to play at an amazing level even when using. I enjoy all great art regardless of the artist's drug use status, but do not condone that use. Charlie Parker was a wonderful jazz saxophonist who used and died young. Dizzie Gillespie was an amazing jazz trumpet player who did not. I do not believe the urban legend that Jimi said Phil Keaggy was a better guitar player, but even so, Phil is an amazing guitarist whose career has spanned 35+ years and he's so versatile he can play any style and make it sound like his own. Phil does not use.
If one looks at all the artists listed who used the majority died at a young age when they still had much to offer. If you ask me, while these people contributed great works of art, they robbed us of potentially greater art by destroying themselves through their drug use.
I think it by now should be obvious I do not think there is a case for allowing artists to use drugs. I feel they are not necessarily better. While musicians and artists may find "inspiration" from their drug use, it is entirely probable these people would still be able to make great works of art without the drugs as their training leads them. People who use are going to use at any cost, so if they feel they need to use to produce art, they will find a way. I think making an exception to artists opens up a whole can of worms as to what governments define as "art" and "artists" and in the end drugs become legal for everyone.
As far as confidence goes, if one needs to be drunk or high to overcome stage fright, then it is my opinion that person lacks confidence in his/her abilities and needs to practice.
Originally posted by shavixmirAll I know is that when artists sober up and get fit and get into the zone using meditation techniques, its never the same again and usually their art suffers. Maybe its impossible to tell because we are also witnessing the aging of star talent and sometimes the perception of their talent going off the boil has more to do with our familiarity with their style and back catalogue. The fact is that if anything the great rock legends who died young through overdose or misadventure are also to some extent legends because they died young due to lifestyle excesses.
Do people using various drugs create better art than people who don't use drugs?
We could probably never know if they had held on to themselves and survived the supernova rush of their fame if greats such as Jimmy (now possibly sober) would be able to create guitar genius at an even greater level than what we have to remember him by.
All I know is that bands like Aerosmith produced hits like "Sweet Emotion' and 'Walk this Way' fueled to the max absolutely smashed. When they were faced with the choice of sobering up or dying, they did and the music never quite had the same zing again.
You can pick a top ten list of musicians who were huge in the 60's and 70's who produced a string of memorable hits who on standing back from the brink and sobering up never produced another memorable tune.
You can argue that it wasnt the drugs but their hunger to succeed that made the difference, but I do think the drugs gave them an edge to sit in a pocket and distill their angst and rage about it in a way that being sober would never have given them. Thats my 2 cents.