Music & Drugs: Does it affect creativity?

[Jack Zodiac]

All these stupid commercials with non weed smokers talking about how there friends who smoke weed miss out on life. . .BULLSHIT!

And then there was the whole "Spoken Word/Slam Poetry" campaign a few years back, with a bunch of Def Poetry Jam wannabes talking about how they'll never smoke weed, and how their friends who did smoke weed never became the artful poets they were meant to be. Which is all bullshit, because such subcultures are where you'll find an abundance of weed smokers!! Hell, most of those pseudo-bohemian deadlock 'n headwrap wearin' fools probably devoted whole poems to their love of the herb!

Yeah, those were the ads that pissed me off the most. What was arguably one of the greatest periods of time in America for new, creative, and imaginative music? The Sixties and Seventies. And ninety-nine point nine percent of those folk were at least smoking pot.

[IamtheRock3]

Yeah, those were the ads that pissed me off the most. What was arguably one of the greatest periods of time in America for new, creative, and imaginative music? The Sixties and Seventies. And ninety-nine point nine percent of those folk were at least smoking pot.



yes but to be fair

How many great artist have we lost to drugs

one might say "Well those drugs made them great"

Dont know If I agree with those people

[Jack Zodiac]

Who are you arguing with?

Argue? I was replying to Nerv's comment about how alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, but still legal.


yes but to be fair

How many great artist have we lost to drugs

one might say "Well those drugs made them great"

Dont know If I agree with those people

Yeah, heroin. Coke. Booze, too. But not pot. No one in history has ever "overdosed" on marijuana.

[kmeyers]

yes but to be fair

How many great artist have we lost to drugs

one might say "Well those drugs made them great"

Dont know If I agree with those people

Your assumptions are ridiculous. Was it the artist, the person, or the drug.

They were creative first, second, third, drugs are a distant, unrelated factor, for most people.

[Phil Clark]

yes but to be fair

How many great artist have we lost to drugs

one might say "Well those drugs made them great"

Dont know If I agree with those people

Drugs have never made anyone great. Look at Aerosmith. They got onto drugs and their careers fell apart. Then Run DMC remade "Walk This Way" and used Tyler and Perry on the record and in the video. Then the band saw there was still interest in their music, cleaned up their acts, and BAM!!! Superstars again.

Drugs destroy peoples lives. Getting clean and staying clean is the only way to success.

[TheLazy]

Drugs have never made anyone great. Look at Aerosmith. They got onto drugs and their careers fell apart. Then Run DMC remade "Walk This Way" and used Tyler and Perry on the record and in the video. Then the band saw there was still interest in their music, cleaned up their acts, and BAM!!! Superstars again.

Drugs destroy peoples lives. Getting clean and staying clean is the only way to success.

Slash wrote 'Appitie for destruction' off of his face 24-7. Sure, people can write stuff clean, but do you really think Hendrix would have been as adventurous as to write All Along the Watchtower had he not been on the reefer?

Okay, he may have, but I dont personally believe he would have. It's the same reason why people go to Nightclubs to have sex, albiet not in the club, because altering ones mind, however slightly, breaks down inabitions. This makes people more willing to try new things. Look at Darkside of the Moon, acid trip if ever there was one.

:)

[DWEarhart]

I'd hate to say it, but

Metallica: Drunk = awesome

Metallica: Sober = SUCKS BIG ONES.

[The Zapper]

I can't believe people actually claim that drugs hurt an artists (any kind) work. It's just laughable.

[Dreadstar]

...do you really think Hendrix would have been as adventurous as to write All Along the Watchtower had he not been on the reefer?


Would someone else like to break it to him, or should I?

[Black Atom]

I can't believe people actually claim that drugs hurt an artists (any kind) work. It's just laughable.

Without this degenerating into the moral/ethical issue of drug use, it's just as laughable to claim the opposite or infer that drugs make someone more talented.

There are different drugs, different people and different habits. Some people who regularly use marijuana are quite successful, and some have never been off the couch since the first time they tried it.

[The Zapper]

The point I was trying to make is that artists have been doing drugs sense the beginning of time. It doesn't matter if it's paintings, sculpting, poetry, or music. The fact remains that a huge number of these artists created their art while on one form of mind-altering substance or another.

[I Must Break U]

I can't believe people actually claim that drugs hurt an artists (any kind) work. It's just laughable.

Yeah Ray charles actually stated that thought he didn't condone the use of drugs, he wrote some of his greatest songs while he was on drugs!

[SnowTrooper]

Most musicians make songs that they will be remembered for while on drugs. Like I Must Break U said, Ray Charles is one, Johnny Cash is another, im pretty sure that atleast 75% of 70's and 80's rock bands were on drugs at the time of their greatest hits.

[TheLazy]

Would someone else like to break it to him, or should I?

oops. Just clicked there. Fine, voodoo child then (checks wikipedia) yeah, Voodoo child.:rolleyes: :D

:)

[Jack Zodiac]

oops. Just clicked there. Fine, voodoo child then (checks wikipedia) yeah, Voodoo child.:rolleyes: :D

:)

Spanish Castle Magic. He was fried, no doubt, when he wrote that one.

Oddly enough, when Dylan wrote All Along the Watchtower, he was recovering from a bike accident and reading The Bible. So, he was probably off the junk at the time.

[IamtheRock3]

dont think they needed drugs

just the lifestyle creates a drug atomosphere


Ray didnt start while on drugs. Plus we lost a lot due to drugs, they could made more classic hits, and died before thier time becuase of the drugs

[howyadoin]

So, where'd this spin off from?

[Conn Seanery]

Anti-Drug Ads thread on TV/Film.

[howyadoin]

Anti-Drug Ads thread on TV/Film.Thanks, I'll go check it out.

[the film freak]

I think Frank Zappa never did drugs. He smoked a lot and drank coffee but that's it. Captain Beefheart claims he never did drugs but I heard that was a lie. Brian Eno says he rarely did drugs.

[howyadoin]

I think Frank Zappa never did drugs. He smoked a lot and drank coffee but that's it. Captain Beefheart claims he never did drugs but I heard that was a lie. Brian Eno says he rarely did drugs.Jimi Hendrix? Never did drugs.

The Chili Peppers, the Ramones, the New York Dolls? No drugs there, no sir.

Tom Petty? Please. That guy's a total straight arrow.

[rick]

I think that it is pretty easy to believe that the talent was there sober or stoned in these guys, but it was the drugs in many cases that led them off into tangents of experimentation.

Sure the Beatles were great, but it was only after discovering drugs that we got stuff like Magical Mystery Tour or Sgt Pepper.

Hell, the vast majority of popular music recorded between 1967 until 1972 was recorded by people on drugs.

Even Miles Davis made his very best albums on Heroin.

Honestly, I am not recommending that everyone rush out and buy a horn and some horse, but it is really hard to deny the in your face reality that drugs just might help the creative impulse find different directions to explore.

[Aggie]

Honestly, I am not recommending that everyone rush out and buy a horn and some horse, but it is really hard to deny the in your face reality that drugs just might help the creative impulse find different directions to explore.

rick, i love reading your posts, i usually find gems like this...but also i like the way you give things perspective...and i totally agree...but, ultimately it's pretty much the same thing that undid them too...and that's pretty much the rub isn't it??

[howyadoin]

rick, i love reading your posts, i usually find gems like this...but also i like the way you give things perspective...and i totally agree...but, ultimately it's pretty much the same thing that undid them too...and that's pretty much the rub isn't it??Well again, that depends on the particular drug in question.

[Sparkle Motion's Rising Force]

I can't believe people actually claim that drugs hurt an artists (any kind) work. It's just laughable.

Sure drugs can hurt an artist's work-- They can make the artist too f---d up to perform. Bottom line, drugs affect judgement, and judgement is required for creative work. Nothing laughable about that.

[Aggie]

Sure drugs can hurt an artist's work-- They can make the artist too f---d up to perform. Bottom line, drugs affect judgement, and judgement is required for creative work. Nothing laughable about that.


that was pretty much going to be my response to howy...it's a catch-22...i can attest to the better creativity though chemical stimulous thing...but you can do that for so long before you start to lose it is some fashion or another.

[Sparkle Motion's Rising Force]

Putting creativity aside, just from a basic health perspective, sustained drug use imperils the life of the user. Ask Jimi Hendrix if he'd like to have cut a couple more records, or for that matter still be recording today.

[Shellhead]

I can't believe people actually claim that drugs hurt an artists (any kind) work. It's just laughable.

I suspect Hendrix wasn't laughing as he died. And a moment after he was dead, it was obvious that drugs had just prevented him from ever playing another note.

[howyadoin]

Putting creativity aside, just from a basic health perspective, sustained drug use imperils the life of the user. Ask Jimi Hendrix if he'd like to have cut a couple more records, or for that matter still be recording today.

I suspect Hendrix wasn't laughing as he died. And a moment after he was dead, it was obvious that drugs had just prevented him from ever playing another note.You don't suppose choking on his own vomit because of incompetent medical technicians had anything to do with it? He didn't overdose.

[TheLazy]

I suspect Hendrix wasn't laughing as he died. And a moment after he was dead, it was obvious that drugs had just prevented him from ever playing another note.

It's the curse of 27, not drugs that killed him.

27 is the unlucky age in music.

:)

[DDM]

I believe the creative personality has to exist first for the muse to inspire the artist. Drug use often interferes with the muse depending on the drug. However, any drug in excess is not good under any circumstances.

Marijuanna today is not the same type of pot used in the 60's or even the 70's; it's far stronger.

Cocaine is highly addictive.

Then there's methamphatime which is far worse than crack, cocaine's cousin.

Even LSD can be bad because it can cause people to have equally negative experiences, "acid trips," which may lead to suicide or depression.

I think musicians have a difficult time with drugs because their profession is filled with gluttony & they have no rules.

Overall, a drug free musician can make better music without drugs.

[Sparkle Motion's Rising Force]

You don't suppose choking on his own vomit because of incompetent medical technicians had anything to do with it? He didn't overdose.

Ok, then let's ask Charlie Parker if being addicted to heroin was a net positive for him, or John Coltrane (who also didn't overdose, but didn't live very long either), or Chet Baker (made it to the ripe old age of 52, looking 20 years older than that), or Paul Chambers, or Bill Evans, or any of the hundreds of casualties of addiction in the annals of great jazz players.

Let's ask Jason Rhoades, major contemporary sculptor until he died of a heart attack at age 41 if it was easy to control his use of cocaine?

Bob Thompson could have been one of the major painters of the postwar era had he not died at 26 due to an overdose.

That's aside from the pages of rock n roll history, which as we know is littered with corpses of junkies & drunks forever young. Just because not every death is technically an overdose (which, to be fair, is the most obvious sign of a drug problem, but also often times the last indicator of same) doesn't mean that drugs don't cause problems in peoples' lives.

I'm not against drug use in general, but it's foolish to gloss over the downsides and dangers inherent when ingesting any such substances, booze included.

[TheLazy]

Overall, a drug free musician can make better music without drugs.

That's a matter of personal taste. Some people make better music when clean, first example that comes to mind is John Frusciante, yet the reverse can be also said, like said earlier, Slash whilst writing the first album.

Sure drugs can diminish an artists creative output, but equally, some people whould never have thought to have tried things without the 'devils' encouragement.


Ok, then let's ask Charlie Parker if being addicted to heroin was a net positive for him, or John Coltrane (who also didn't overdose, but didn't live very long either), or Chet Baker (made it to the ripe old age of 52, looking 20 years older than that), or Paul Chambers, or Bill Evans, or any of the hundreds of casualties of addiction in the annals of great jazz players.

52 is 5 and 2, 5 + 2 = 7. Now take that 7 and the 2, and you have 27



Let's ask Jason Rhoades, major contemporary sculptor until he died of a heart attack at age 41 if it was easy to control his use of cocaine?


41 is just a 4 and a 1, so 4 + 1 is 5, then you take that 5 and subtract it from 7 giving you 2, which when putting the last two numbers together in reverse order, leaves you with 27.



Bob Thompson could have been one of the major painters of the postwar era had he not died at 26 due to an overdose.


For a period there, 27 tried over stepping it's bounds



That's aside from the pages of rock n roll history, which as we know is littered with corpses of junkies & drunks forever young. Just because not every death is technically an overdose (which, to be fair, is the most obvious sign of a drug problem, but also often times the last indicator of same) doesn't mean that drugs don't cause problems in peoples' lives.

I'm not against drug use in general, but it's foolish to gloss over the downsides and dangers inherent when ingesting any such substances, booze included.

The curse of 27, like I told you.

:)

[Sparkle Motion's Rising Force]

Why bother arguing with science?

[TheLazy]

Try telling that to the catholic church.;)

:)

[howyadoin]

I'm not against drug use in general, but it's foolish to gloss over the downsides and dangers inherent when ingesting any such substances, booze included.Who's glossing over anything? I'm saying you should get your facts straight if you want people to take what you're saying seriously.

[Sparkle Motion's Rising Force]

Right, I can't be taken seriously on a general point that drugs can harm individuals, creative or otherwise, because I didn't point out that in the untimely, drug-related death of Jimi Hendrix may have had to do with the incompetence of the health-care professionals involved.

As I see it, you pointing out that his death is not specifically a case of overdose contributes to my case that you're glossing over the harm aspect in favor of "just sticking to the facts."

[the film freak]

Jimi Hendrix? Never did drugs.

The Chili Peppers, the Ramones, the New York Dolls? No drugs there, no sir.

Tom Petty? Please. That guy's a total straight arrow.

What's with the sarcasm?

[howyadoin]

Right, I can't be taken seriously on a general point that drugs can harm individuals, creative or otherwise, because I didn't point out that in the untimely, drug-related death of Jimi Hendrix may have had to do with the incompetence of the health-care professionals involved.

As I see it, you pointing out that his death is not specifically a case of overdose contributes to my case that you're glossing over the harm aspect in favor of "just sticking to the facts."He took too many sleeping pills when he was drunk, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.

Show me again how drugs had a detrimental effect on his creativity.

[howyadoin]

What's with the sarcasm?I'm not sure. I was stoned.

[the film freak]

I'm not sure. I was stoned.

Well be careful. I get emotionally fragile after a coccaine binge.

[scratchie]

Drugs have never made anyone great. Look at Aerosmith. They got onto drugs and their careers fell apart.Are you sure you want to use Aerosmith as an example? It's not like they "got into drugs and their careers fell apart"; they were on major drugs (Jerry Garcia called them "the druggiest bunch of guys I know") for their entire career, up until the point where they fell apart, but also including the time during which they recorded all of the classic material on which their reputation rests.

This isn't to be pro-drugs or anti-drugs, but just to say that if you want to argue that drugs are bad for musical creativity, Aerosmith is about the worst rock group you could possibly pick to support that argument, IMO.

[DDM]

Are you sure you want to use Aerosmith as an example? It's not like they "got into drugs and their careers fell apart"; they were on major drugs (Jerry Garcia called them "the druggiest bunch of guys I know") for their entire career, up until the point where they fell apart, but also including the time during which they recorded all of the classic material on which their reputation rests.

This isn't to be pro-drugs or anti-drugs, but just to say that if you want to argue that drugs are bad for musical creativity, Aerosmith is about the worst rock group you could possibly pick to support that argument, IMO.

How about Grace Slick's disasterous performance in Germany around 1978 with Jefferson Airplane? She was stoned & drunk. She forgot the lyrics to "White Rabbit" then insulted the audience for her bad performance? All because she was high on drugs.

Yeah, drugs are great. :rolleyes:

[scratchie]

How about Grace Slick's disasterous performance in Germany around 1978 with Jefferson Airplane? She was stoned & drunk. She forgot the lyrics to "White Rabbit" then insulted the audience for her bad performance? All because she was high on drugs.

Yeah, drugs are great. :rolleyes:Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't trying to be pro-drug or anti-drug? :rolleyes:

[DDM]

Are you sure you want to use Aerosmith as an example? It's not like they "got into drugs and their careers fell apart"; they were on major drugs (Jerry Garcia called them "the druggiest bunch of guys I know") for their entire career, up until the point where they fell apart, but also including the time during which they recorded all of the classic material on which their reputation rests.



But Aerosmith did fall apart because of drugs. It was not until the band made an effort to clean themselves up that their careers moved back on track by 1986 or so.

They rerecorded some older material ("Walk This Way" & "Sweet Emotion") & it became a hit in the 80's & 90's. The other classic material is new, although now it is over 20 years old at this point.

[scratchie]

But Aerosmith did fall apart because of drugs. Sure. If you want to argue that Aerosmith is a good illustration of why drugs are bad for business, you'll get no argument from me. But we were talking about creativity.


It was not until the band made an effort to clean themselves up that their careers moved back on track by 1986 or so. But Run-DMC notwithstanding, they wouldn't have had careers to come back to if they hadn't already written and recorded classics like "Dream On", "Mama Kin", "Toys in the Attic", "Same Old Song & Dance", "Back in the Saddle", "Sick as a Dog" and all the rest while they were still the druggiest bunch of guys Jerry Garcia had ever met.

[DWEarhart]

Two words:

Brian - Wilson.

[rick]

How about Grace Slick's disasterous performance in Germany around 1978 with Jefferson Airplane? She was stoned & drunk. She forgot the lyrics to "White Rabbit" then insulted the audience for her bad performance? All because she was high on drugs.

Yeah, drugs are great. :rolleyes:


They were the Jefferson Starship by that point and were certainly already on that great downward slide to pop mediocrity.

However, more to the point, you are actually making a terrible example, because it was while on drugs that Grace came up with the classic lyrics to White Rabbit in the first place.

So yes, drugs and alcohol can certainly ruin your personal life, but so far there has not been a good case made for drugs ruining talent.

[Jack Zodiac]

I think musicians have a difficult time with drugs because their profession is filled with gluttony & they have no rules.

Well, I can safely say your opinions on music and musicians are about on par with your opinions on narcotics.


Overall, a drug free musician can make better music without drugs.

A "drug free" musician can make better music than they would on drugs, sure, but a musician who experiments with drugs can make better music while experiencing them. Hendrix, The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin. All of them experimented with drugs and have, during those times, produced great works.

Now, if you're saying a "drug free" musician can make better music than a "druggie" musician... well, that's crap.

[DDM]

A "drug free" musician can make better music than they would on drugs, sure, but a musician who experiments with drugs can make better music while experiencing them. Hendrix, The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin. All of them experimented with drugs and have, during those times, produced great works.

Hendrix is dead because of drugs. Joplin & a whole slew other gifted musicians died because drugs too. Yeah, drugs are great.

Any musician that dies for his art pays too high a price. I don't care how wonderful the music is. If the musician is an addict, he can't produce good music for the long term because he will want more drugs.


Now, if you're saying a "drug free" musician can make better music than a "druggie" musician... well, that's crap.

No, it's the artist's muse. The crap is drug use in general; drugs do more harm than good. As I said previously, the musical landscape is littered with the corpses of dead musicians who died due to drug use.

[Jack Zodiac]

Hendrix is dead because of drugs. Joplin & a whole slew other gifted musicians died because drugs too. Yeah, drugs are great.

Any musician that dies for his art pays too high a price. I don't care how wonderful the music is. If the musician is an addict, he can't produce good music for the long term because he will want more drugs.

How the hell does consumption create opposition for creativity? The Rolling Stones have been making music for two hundred years (forty-something, but still, they're fuckin' old!) and you can't argue that most of them aren't or weren't habitual drug-users.


No, it's the artist's muse. The crap is drug use in general; drugs do more harm than good. As I said previously, the musical landscape is littered with the corpses of dead musicians who died due to drug use.

It's also littered with suicides, alcohol-related deaths, motorcycle accidents, and plane crashes. Your ridiculously broad view of things is making it incredibly hard to have a conversation.

[Phrozen]

So yes, drugs and alcohol can certainly ruin your personal life, but so far there has not been a good case made for drugs ruining talent.

I am sure Ozzy would be much more functional without the heavy drug and alcohol abuse. Sure, he can sing still but you can tell that his mind and body is simply degenerating.

[the film freak]

I think the talent is always there. I just think drugs and alcohol just let inhibitions disappaer. You are less self conscious and willing to trying different things when you're high.

But at the same time it can effect your work ethic, personal life and ability to function. There's a tradeoff. But there's plenty of artists who smoke the occasional joint and manage to have long successful careers.

With that said, Motley Crue has always sucked high or sober.

[TheLazy]

I think the talent is always there. I just think drugs and alcohol just let inhibitions disappaer. You are less self conscious and willing to trying different things when you're high.

But at the same time it can effect your work ethic, personal life and ability to function. There's a tradeoff. But there's plenty of artists who smoke the occasional joint and manage to have long successful careers.

With that said, Motley Crue has always sucked high or sober.

Yeah, they have to try the ultimate high - dying - for inspiration, and even then they're shite.

:)

[rick]

I think the talent is always there. I just think drugs and alcohol just let inhibitions disappaer. You are less self conscious and willing to trying different things when you're high.

But at the same time it can effect your work ethic, personal life and ability to function. There's a tradeoff. But there's plenty of artists who smoke the occasional joint and manage to have long successful careers.

With that said, Motley Crue has always sucked high or sober.


And that boys and girls, just about sums it up.

[Sanagi]

The benefit of psychoactive drugs is that they change pieces of you and, by contrast, highlight the pieces of you that persist, all of which stirs a creative mind out of stagnation.

The drawback is that when the pieces change, sometimes they don't change back.

[joe bloke]

I've always subscribed to the Hunter S. Thompson school, which goes something along the lines of " I would never advocate the use of mind-altering drugs to anybody. But they've always worked for me. " Some people, drugs work. Some people, drugs don't work. I took a lot of acid in my younger days, and where I can't say it made me a better person or a worse person, it most certainly went a long way towards making me the person I am now, and I kind of like the person I am now. I never fucked anyone over, I never tried to jump off any tall buildings, I never beat up my girlfriend or ran anyone over in my car. In fact, I laughed my arse off, I did some killer paintings, wrote some pretty good short stories, and watched a helluva lot of sunrises. In short, I had a great time. Some people just suck, whether they're on drugs or not. Some people, the drugs just add that extra little something that sets them off. Pete Townshend's always been a pretty good example of that. Pete Townshend on drugs: Tommy, Who's Next, Who By Numbers, Quadrophenia, Live at Leeds. Pete Townshend not on drugs: absolutely fuck all worth listening to in about twenty five odd years.

Sorry, what was this thread about again. . ?

[Ontir]

Yes, drugs affect music and creativity.

The question now is: Do they affect music and creativity positively or negatively?

[Reptisaurus!]

Sure. If you want to argue that Aerosmith is a good illustration of why drugs are bad for business, you'll get no argument from me. But we were talking about creativity.


And Aerosmith are a great argument about how drugs are good for creativity. Have you heard Aerosmith lately?

Of course, and I'm sure somebody's said this but we need to differentiate, there's drugs an' then there's drugs. Pot ain't gonna kill you 999 an a half time out of a thousand, at least 'till lung cancer hits. (If it does. It's still less dangerous for the average user consuming average ammounts of their substance of choice than cigarettes.) Heroin, you're probably not gonna last twenty years, an' might not make it ten.

If you're in a band that does drugs and then you stop doing drugs, you should stop making music. Please.

[howyadoin]

And Aerosmith are a great argument about how drugs are good for creativity. Have you heard Aerosmith lately?Now that's a good point. All of their stuff from the 70s was made under the (massive) influence of drugs.