THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Cernunnos on 06 Jun 2006, 07:17
-
Being both an artist and music lover, I have noticed a really odd phenomenon. While some artists did drugs, it seems like most rock musicians do. and while i don't know about the forefront of avant garde today, it does seem like Primus, Mr. bungle and the like seem to be very drug- driven, while those who are part of the visual art avant garde are far less likely to be on, say, LSD. for most art people, we seem to draw the line at Marijuana. at least the ones i know. but that's neither here nor there, since i am referring to drug uses that informs the making of art, not just casual drug use. the recent art movements that i am aware of are based on formal explorations, social issues/politics... that kind of thing. however, ever since the beginning of rock and roll, drugs have been an integral part of inspiring music. whereas, the famous artists, with the exclusion of the pop artists(more or less) did not use them for that. for instance, while elvis was on painkillers, jackson pollock and rothko preferred alcohol as their drug of choice. am i right here? is there really a difference between the way visual artists and audio artists alter their states of consciousness, or am i just crazy?
-
Firstoff, I'd like to mention: Mike Patton and his little Mr. Bungle actually don't do drugs. Crazy, huh? Primus though. I'm not commenting.
And I'm just going to answer this with a little statement: Some people do drugs. Some of these people happen to be artists, musicians, accountants, programmers, truck drivers, etc. Some of them use different drugs than others. Some don't use drugs at all.
Also, on avant garde: Usually you can tell when some artist is on drugs if you're familiar with the stuff; just sort of a natural thing. Some avant garde guys are, some aren't. Same with regular rock, art, whatever.
-
well put. maybe i am crazy then. edited: i guess it just seems like musicians use them more than visual artists. is this a misconception? at the very least they tend to use different ones. but yeah. i really appreciate those artists who don't use drugs at all(Zappa, etc.).
-
Some people need drugs to enhance their artistry, some don't. Some people use them entirely separately without it being related to their music in any way, some people's music is harmed by them using drugs separately.
Personally, I find I've got no (decent) songs out of alcohol, but I've got better ones from a lack of it.
However, I think that if anything, visual artistry would benefit more from drugs because you could paint the visions you got on LSD. However, at the same time, I think visual artistry has much more of a requirement for having creativity in the first place and not NEEDING drugs to be able to paint something great, for example.
-
Some artists use drugs to explore parts of their mind and psyche so they would be able to express themselfs better through art. Altough, some artists take drugs for entirly wrong reasons and destroy everything they create (40's-50's Bebop artists come to mind. Where it was "acceptable" to be a junky. Although most of them were clean during recordings) . You have to understand that diffarent people react diffarent to drugs (MJ included). So, while one artist benifits from the occasional use of a certin drug, it might be devastating for another artist.
-
I believe Gustav Ejstes said the latest Dungen album was fueled by not much more than locking himself in the studio with a bunch of booze and weed.
-
I know that nobody here has made this argument yet, but I get upset when people say things like "drugs are a creative copout; if you were truly creative, you wouldn't need them to have ideas." First of all, that sort of argument operates under the assumption that the artist has no ideas without drugs, which is ridiculous. Secondly, it doesn't take into account the fact that chemical states in the brain are constantly being altered through natural processes, so really, there is no such thing as a single, easily definable "sober" mental state. So really, taking drugs is just a way to have a different experience, and without experience and perception, there would be no artistic ideas in the first place. It's as if you banned religious fervor from the realm of things that are allowed to be inspiring just because its too powerful. Thirdly, it's art, not an Olympic competition. "Oh no, Steve Vai was using anabolic steroids to enhance his tap-sweeps! Disqualified!"
-
wow. this is awesome. everyone has intelligent things to say. it's nice to find a forum like this one.
it is indeed not a competition in which drugs are cheating. they seem to be par for the course for many. to each his own, i say
-
for most art people, we seem to draw the line at Marijuana.
don't be so sure, as a art student i can say that mant artist use drugs but not all do them for inspiration. i enjoy cannabis but when i smoke and paint my work becomes less focused on any real human experience.
i and many of my artist friends have tryed things other than Mj. it really depends on the persons own personal wants or feelings about drugs.
-
well put. maybe i am crazy then. edited: i guess it just seems like musicians use them more than visual artists. is this a misconception? at the very least they tend to use different ones. but yeah. i really appreciate those artists who don't use drugs at all(Zappa, etc.).
i see this as a misconception because visual artist are rarely in the spotlight like a musician would be. so as such any drug use would be far less apparent.
-
well put. i should say, the artists i know have tried other things, but really just stick to the cannabis and alcohol. and don't really use them for inspiration. maybe to make the art theyr'e looking at more interesting, though. and i know alot of artists. being in art school does that. this is not to say that artists don't use drugs to inspire their work, because obviously some do. it just seems like they do it alot less. and as for exposure, you may be right. we visual artists don't really get as much media coverage when we go into rehab.
-
Yeah, my experience with people on drugs personally is that they're dull, boring, hazy, lazy fuckers.
-
Unless the drug is alcohol. Then, if they're my roomies from Cali, they turn into a three ring circus of entertainment.
Artists can do whatever drugs they want. Just as long as it doesn't kill them. I'm still pissed that Mitch Hedberg was dumb enough to go over the line.
-
Some people just do better on drugs. Ewigkeit's albums, for example, are becoming steadily more pedestrian since Mr. Fog stopped using drugs (heavily), though, to be fair, pedestrian Ewigkeit still sounds like total tripped out shit, and I don't think the paranoia will EVER go away.
Also, why do you differentiate between alcohol and other drugs? Just because alcohol is more normal or socially acceptable doesn't make it not a drug. There's also a cultural aspect: music is more intricately linked to the drug culture, like pop art, whereas traditional and conceptual art has more...pretension? Still, many great artists and poets have been alcoholics, or opium addicts. Many more have simply been terribly mentally unstable. Lovecraft couldn't have written without his nightmares any more than Coleridge could have written without his opium. Everyone has different sources of inspiration, and different reasons to take drugs: some people don't relate their use of drugs or alcohol to their work, others make it integral. Some experimental musicians, writers and artists have deliberately used drugs as a means of pushing the boundaries of art (Coil's album 'Loves Secret Domain', apparently produced within one ritualised LSD trip, instantly comes to mind.) Other creative persons have created great works of art, literature or music about drugs (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas anyone?).
I think you're creating a false dichotomy anyway. Also, I am a dull, boring lazy fucker, and I don't do (many) drugs.
-
Fear and Loathing really is pretty much my favorite book ever.
-
Some people just do better on drugs. Ewigkeit's albums, for example, are becoming steadily more pedestrian since Mr. Fog stopped using drugs (heavily), though, to be fair, pedestrian Ewigkeit still sounds like total tripped out shit, and I don't think the paranoia will EVER go away.
Also, why do you differentiate between alcohol and other drugs? Just because alcohol is more normal or socially acceptable doesn't make it not a drug. There's also a cultural aspect: music is more intricately linked to the drug culture, like pop art, whereas traditional and conceptual art has more...pretension? Still, many great artists and poets have been alcoholics, or opium addicts. Many more have simply been terribly mentally unstable. Lovecraft couldn't have written without his nightmares any more than Coleridge could have written without his opium. Everyone has different sources of inspiration, and different reasons to take drugs: some people don't relate their use of drugs or alcohol to their work, others make it integral. Some experimental musicians, writers and artists have deliberately used drugs as a means of pushing the boundaries of art (Coil's album 'Loves Secret Domain', apparently produced within one ritualised LSD trip, instantly comes to mind.) Other creative persons have created great works of art, literature or music about drugs (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas anyone?).
I think you're creating a false dichotomy anyway. Also, I am a dull, boring lazy fucker, and I don't do (many) drugs.
I don't differentiate. I called alcohol a drug. But trust me, I've been around stoners and I've been around those same stoners when drunk. They turn into the "I love you, man!" guy when drunk. They turn into lazy asses when they're stoned. I'm sure there's some other drug that has the same effect as alcohol on them but they don't do anything other than pot and alcohol and even then in moderation.
-
Fear and Loathing really is pretty much my favorite book ever.
It is a fine book indeed. My copy has some fucking wicked Steadman illustrations.
-
Yeah, I have the steadman illustrations in mine, too. That man can draw some twisted shit.
-
seriously...it dependson the person. more of my non-art friends are more into drugs than my art friends and about half of everyone is involved with alcohol. personally, the only things i do are occasionally smoke cigarettes and maybe have a drink. but seriously...that's it. i hate drugs and won't ever do them. i'd rather get inspiration from thinks like life and dreams and things i see or read. i have yet to meet someone totally dependent on substances for inspiration.
the only think i noticed is that if you're involved in any form of art, i.e. visual, aural, or literature, you probably smoke or have smoked some form of tobacco at least once in your life.
and i think the reason you hear more about musicians doing drugs is because they are more in the spotlight in terms of publicity. music is a mass art form, whereas most visual art is not, so people tend to know more about musicians than they do artists.
-
With personal experience I’ve found that drugs don’t help in the creative process at all, quite the opposite actually. I’ve gone to a few band practices and such while stoned and made a complete ass of myself. I’d forget entire parts of songs, or look at the chords written out for me and take a second to remember where a certain note is. As far a writing material goes, you can forget that as well. If I had written something while stoned, I would listen to the scratch recording the next night and realize it either sounds like shit, or I ripped it off someone else.
This is just personal experience of course and I can’t speak for other musicians out there, but I just thought I’d share my $0.02 with you all considering the topic.
Also keep in mind that this is all just pot (I’ve actually found to my surprise that I’m a quite competent player while slightly drunk and always drink a little before shows to ease my nerves). I’ve forced myself to stop doing anything “heavier” than pot because of some very pour life choices in my past.
-
i did not mean that alcohol was not a drug; it most certainly is one, and a powerful one at that. i guess i differentiate because it has an entirely different, yet related effect on creative output than most psychadelic drugs, opiates, etc. sorry to confuse.
on a sidenote, did i spell psychadelic right?
-
I was something of a druggie some years back, and during that time I partook in a notable quantity and variety of drugs, nothing record breaking, but still notable. At some point I noticed that drugs began to lose their euphoric effects on me, at a certain point I had to stop smoking pot because I would begin to feel terrible physically and mentally. I have also noticed that my ability to play music while high is drastically reduced, this wasn't always the case, but now I pretty much play sober or don't play. On the other hand, I would say that my creative approach is very informed by the time I spent using drugs, because a lot of the experiences I had were so powerful that they permanently affected my outlook in certain areas.
-
I'm currently on what I'm fairly certain will be the tail end of a highly psychedelic phase of my life (I averaged about one mushroom or LSD trip per month between January 2005 and April 2006, but nowadays I'm a bit less interested) and I frankly feel like a much more mentally and creatively active person for it. But I didn't use the drugs for direct inspiration. I'm barely up to amateur level when it comes to making music and my dubious talent at visual arts is even less practiced, so the results of any drug-inspired creative expression would reflect this. But I've found that the psychedelic state (which, after the amount of tripping I've done, I can easily and consciously approach if I smoke good weed) doesn't give me ideas directly as much as it allows me to more clearly express ideas that I can't really fully think through in a sober state.
I like to think that using drugs in this fashion is a good idea. It certainly has given me positive results so far ... I feel worlds more conscious of my own thinking and the processes by which I create art of any sort than I think I would without having used drugs. I think my relationship with myself and the world has become a closer one, or at least I'm now more able to notice and reverse myself when I take it down the wrong direction. But while I feel that my life has been enriched by my drug use, I don't think I can really say that I've become more creative for it. I've just become more in touch with the creativity that was already there. It comes to the same thing in the end because I think my creative output is greater now, but I think it's important for me to recognize that it's not a direct result of the drugs, and that I'm responsible for deciding to take my drug experiences in that direction.
On the visual/audio art phenomenon that's been pointed out, well, I think it's safe to say that the culture surrounding visual art is very, very different from the culture surrounding musical art. Visual artists are "supposed" to create work that reflects their surroundings (or at least I've seen a tendency towards this idea) and it's very hard to give credit to a visual artist who uses something as intensely personalized as an LSD experience to inform their work, because art critics tend to see that as a sort of pollution of the artist's vision. It's not really an acceptable idea in mainstream art nowadays that drug-enhanced art is really only enhanced through the process of bringing the artist in touch with himself, instead of being inspired by a substance that the artist is using as a creative crutch. If a visual artist wants to use hallucinogens to enhance their artwork, they can't allow too much imagery directly relating to the drugs without being discredited in the eyes of those who see drugs as crutches.
Musicians, on the other hand, are not restricted (except by the harshest of critics) to art that "reflects" anything outside of themselves. Only a minority of musicians are even thought of as being better for having expressed a statement about their surroundings. Most are lauded merely for their originality or their technique. As such, when musicians use drugs, people are more likely to see their output as originally inspired and drug-*enhanced* instead of the other way round, which is how visual artists are often seen.
This is all compounded, I think, by the idea that hallucinogens are primarily visually-stimulating drugs. This is absolutely not the case. Musicians can convey the "visions" they experience on halluciongens just as easily and purely as visual artists. One of the most intense psychedelic trips I ever took had virtually no visual component at all and I went through the majority of it without any sort of visual distortion or hallucination whatsoever. There's a lot more to hallucinogens than just seeing shit.
Yeesh. Can you tell I care about this stuff?
-
Yeah, that always bothered me. I'd come into contact with less mentally aware druggies who would just be like "I love trippin' out and seeing weird visuals." Yawn. I mean, yeah the visuals can be awesome, but if that's all you're after, you're missing out.
-
the only think i noticed is that if you're involved in any form of art, i.e. visual, aural, or literature, you probably smoke or have smoked some form of tobacco at least once in your life.
Hmm, I guess I must be the exception to the rule.
I can't say that I feel like taking drugs is "cheating" because I take ADD and anxiety meds and although they don't change my way of making art, they do give me new perspectives on the world. I wouldn't want to do [illigel] drugs no matter the reason, but that's my view and I don't hold anything against those who make different choices unless those choices cause them to do direct harm to others.
-
I notice that no one has mentioned some of the more overt stimulants like ecstacy or amphetamines. I find that while making me far more unfocused, they can produce some pretty interesting results in terms of finding it easier to express what was already there.
-
the only think i noticed is that if you're involved in any form of art, i.e. visual, aural, or literature, you probably smoke or have smoked some form of tobacco at least once in your life.
Hmm, I guess I must be the exception to the rule.
I am too. The only "drug" I actually take is caffeine (bcause coffee is pretty much my favorite drink ever). I find it just makes my guitar playing and whatnot more focused. Like a mini-ritalin or something. Because I swear I have an acute ADD but I don't care enough to actually get diagnosed.
-
Come to Australia, where anyone can be diagnosed ADHD*.
I'm also an exception to iamyourpirates observation. The actually artistic subset of the people I know who dabble in the arts tend to be far on the cleaner side. The people who just draw pretty pictures and play their favourite bands' songs are more often the other sort.
*note: I'm am in no way saying that ADHD or any other behavioural or mental disorder doesn't exist.
-
I swear I have an acute ADD but I don't care enough to actually get diagnosed.
I think that's probably the ultimate diagnosis right there.
-
I can't say that I feel like taking drugs is "cheating" because I take ADD and anxiety meds and although they don't change my way of making art, they do give me new perspectives on the world. I wouldn't want to do [illigel] drugs no matter the reason...
There's a contradiction there. One could argue that these drugs giving you "new perspectives on the world" necessarily influences the way you make art. That said, while the effect is more pronounced, many "illegal" drugs bring about fundamentally similar alterations of perspective more than anything else.
-
I can't say that I feel like taking drugs is "cheating" because I take ADD and anxiety meds and although they don't change my way of making art, they do give me new perspectives on the world. I wouldn't want to do [illigel] drugs no matter the reason...
There's a contradiction there. One could argue that these drugs giving you "new perspectives on the world" necessarily influences the way you make art. That said, while the effect is more pronounced, many "illegal" drugs bring about fundamentally similar alterations of perspective more than anything else.
I see what you're saying about the contradiction, and you really are right (I was literally half asleep when I wrote that and when I read it now I don't know what I was thinking.) Personally, I don't feel that my art has changed directly from being put on meds, but perhaps the changes that they have made in my life (like me having much more free time and being happier) have. It's hard to analyze one's own life.
-
Alot of good points in this thread, I honestly don't know how I feel about it one way or another but what did keep popping into my mind was maybe, alot of people who are the creators of audio art (and visual to a point) are more exposed to drugs, we all hear about the latest mainstream artist, or star getting busted for drug charges, and I'm sure we have all heard at least one person (Steve Tyler comes to mind for me) talk about how drugs were all around him when he started to come into his fame.
Not sure what I'm trying to say really, maybe its that alot of artists start using drugs becuase it is easy to get? Meh sounds sorta BS now but I know I had an idea in there :S
-
I may step on a few toes here, but two cents being what they are....
I get very suspicious of any type of performer or creative type who stakes their creativity on substance use and/or dependency. It seems like an out or an excuse in some senses. Again, that is only based on my own experiences and a certain reluctance in the belief that there is an outlet to plug into that lies beyond one's own creativity. It is a slippery slope that seems to be entirely transient. While in some cases, and often I think by mere chance, some interesting things can happen in the early stages of drug use and creativity, it eventually becomes in some cases a barrier to that creativity in the sense that there can often be a distinct lack of focus found in how that creativity is presented. Also, if you place your importance on the substance, how do you recapture that so called 'magic' beyond the use of those substances? This is where that dependency becomes a sort of crutch and eventually, more important than the work itself. Is that the difference between indulgence and abuse? I don't know.
Not even mentioning the side effects of course. For every Jerry Garcia there is a Hemingway. It's difficult call. I've spent two years now in art college with people who follow these lines of thinking as far as drugs go. I've seen some people produce some amazing and some horrible work and become complete basket cases in the process of following this. And that's not even trying to have a conversation about anything with these people. What I fear most is that the reputation and myth behind drugs and creativity is now more important than the reality of it. A lot like this prediliction toward this false romantic suffering that a lot of young people have in the creative community.
I'm certainly not dismissing drugs. I've done my fair share and do still occasionally, but never with a goal in mind. As I've gotten older, it has just become this idea that seems so incredibly counter-productive.
Sorry, bit of a rant.
-
Well, I think anybody that is going to become absolutely dependent on chemical alteration for their creative process is going to be prone to faulty art with or without the drugs anyway. It's going to be a function of their personality.
Drug use, like anything else in life, is an experience to be interpreted and assimilated. Drugs may garner a lot of attention because of the potency and novelty of the experience compared to many others and the general social taboo, but any experience and any personality trait may either help or hinder the creative process.
Also, I'm not sure about the Jerry Garcia-Hemingway dichotomy. I was under the impression that both are generally well-respected in their pursuits, but I don't know much about Jerry Garcia beyond common knowledge.
-
The Garcia/Hemingway comment was really meant in terms of end results. Garcia died relatively peacfully, although young whereas Hemingway shot his head off, attributed to the physical and psychological damage his lifestyle choices caused.
-
I'm also an exception to iamyourpirates observation. The actually artistic subset of the people I know who dabble in the arts tend to be far on the cleaner side. The people who just draw pretty pictures and play their favourite bands' songs are more often the other sort.
mostly my observation was based off the i'm in an art school and just about everyone smokes. i mean, i know quite a few that don't, most of my friends don't, but most of them do or have and decided they hated it. it's just something i noticed. (this includes both professors and students.) but very very few of them do drugs, excluding alcohol (but that's probably just because it's college or something).
-
Oh man. Like more than half the students at my school smoke(tobacco, mostly). it's weird. like being in France or something. And the heacy alcohol use in art students is also a wide trend.
on another note, it's also interesting to discuss the different ways artists die infamously as opposed to musicians- drinking absinthe and shooting oneself(van G- i can't spell is name, i really should remember how to spell that; he's one of my favorites) in the gut, versus overdosing on numerous psychadelics and going out in a pool of one's own vomit(Hendrix?). Or, drunk driving accident (Jackson Pollock) versus, say, coke and a sawed off (Cobain). then there are the murders. i forget which minimalist it was who supposedly pushed his wife off of a balcony... Carl Andre, Maybe? also, my memory on the particulars of the deaths of famous musicians is vague. but really, the only distinguishing factor between the two groups here is the particular substances abused, not the peculiarity of the death. also, the level of exposure resulting. perhaps there isn't as large a dichotomy as i once thought there is.
sorry. i guess i needed to ramble incoherently. did any of that make sense?
-
I think the alcoholism is a trend with any sort of students.
-
... overdosing on numerous psychadelics and going out in a pool of one's own vomit(Hendrix?).
I think I should point out that not only was Hendrix using nothing but alcohol and stimulants the night of his death, but that it would be impossible to "overdose" on psychedelics in the first place. It certainly is a bad idea to take more than a certain amount, but no psychedelic drug has physiological effects beyond their impact on your perception. You need to take something along the lines of 10,000 hits of LSD in order for it to have toxic effects, and I'm not sure how many mushrooms it would take, but it's a hell of a lot. It's virtually impossible to overdose (if "overdose" means taking enough to possibly be lethal) on any psychedelic drug without seriously trying to.
It's because of this and a wide variety of other reasons that I think the government's drug policy is downright laughable. Both heroin and LSD are often pigeonholed as "hard drugs" ... it's inarguable that heroin qualifies, but LSD is virtually the opposite of heroin in every possible way. How can it be categorized the same way, and more importantly, why are its users and purveyors punished the same way?
I won't even get into the marijuana-legalization debate, because it seems pretty clear that there shouldn't even be one. Weed is less dangerous to society than alcohol in every way that matters, yet it's somehow causing a prison overflow (mainly of black men, as part of a wider racist attitude in the American criminal justice system).
Before I continue ranting I'll stop myself. But I really find the idea of legislation of thought (which is basically what the "war on drugs" is about when it comes to hallucinogens, which are not inherently damaging drugs in the way hard drugs are) to be utterly repugnant. I can't stand the fact that society simply doesn't accept someone who attempts to expand their experience with a psychedelic. It seems completely counterintuitive to me the treat such a person as a criminal.
-
Weed is illegal not because of the damage it would do to society, but the damage it would do to the pockets of the american government and the tobacco and cotton industries. Cheap hemp and homegrown weed would be everywhere, and because you can't realistically tax weed in the same way as tobacco, they just don't want to know. And because the world traditionally follows Americas lead on the illegality of substances...
In my personal view anyway, the only drugs I'd probably ban are opiates. They're just...scary.
-
There has been correlational evidence to suggest that about 1% of marijuana smokers suffer from multiple personality disorder, psychosis, bipolarity, etc..
-
Atleast you acknowledged that it's correlational. Most of the observations in this thread about drug use, art, and even the ones about suicide have been either anecdotal or correlational, and as such, only moderately worth examining.
-
That’s silly though. You could probably say the same about almost any demographic. If it was >50% it would be something worth noting, but 1% of like, hundreds of millions of people world wide; that just seems so insignificant.
-
And even if it does exist, what about alcohol and liver disease, violent crime, etc.?
Most of the bad shit that happens to people through drugs is to do with impurities in the drug or stupidity on the half of the person. Either people don't do the correct doses, or mix it with some other drug, else it's cut with something. Legalisation elminates pretty much all those problems (frees up info, ensures pure supply etc.)
-
The answear is pretty much in educating people about drugs. The problam is that the government* thinks of educating about drugs as "JESUS CHRIST KIDS DRUGS ARE BAD YOU ARE ALL GONNA DIE!", because of reasons Khar talked about a couple of posts ago.
*I was seriously going to write "THE MAN thinks about drug education as.."
-
You know what's funny though?
When I had to take DARE in grade school and they were telling us all about the boogey men drugs...they started describing all the hallucinations of LSD and everything. And apparently I was the only one in my class to react this way, but I was like "Really!?!" They actually managed to pique my interest by trying to scare me.
-
i think the biggest myth about drugs that the dare program and teachers and parents perpetuate is that someday, one of your friends is gunna offer you a joint or some x or some heroin and a full works kit. Man, you'd be lucky to be offered a cigarette or a beer. I was so disapointed nobody offered me any free, expensive mind altering pharmasuticals.
-
i have never been offered drugs. but i cought one of my friends giving aderol (sp?) to some guys she knew and i punched her ala faye, so maybe that's why.
and i agree with khar about opiates. all narcotics are scary and addictive like whoa.
-
i think the biggest myth about drugs that the dare program and teachers and parents perpetuate is that someday, one of your friends is gunna offer you a joint or some x or some heroin and a full works kit. Man, you'd be lucky to be offered a cigarette or a beer. I was so disapointed nobody offered me any free, expensive mind altering pharmasuticals.
Yes, what's the deal with that, I had to buy my fucking drugs.
-
Yeah, I've never been offered shit so far. Pretty disappointing, actually, since DARE set it up as this big fucking like, struggle against the effects of peer pressure. What the hell?
-
I had some pretty sweet times stoned off my head last night, including some quite groovy minor visual hallucinations. At one point, I was just staring at this tower on the opposite shore of the Solent, and then it suddenly started walking towards me, like some sort of giant robot, its navigations lights swimming like arms.
Then I concentrated more, and saw that it was actually Keanu Reeves.
And then he started moonwalking across the skyline on top of an oil tanker.
Then I drank some more vodka. Drugs are fun.
-
Godamnit I wish I could sig' that.
And yeah, apart from cigarettes (I had never ever touched one, nor do I intend to*), I've never been offered drugs. Even when my friends smoked a joint next to me they kept it away.
Or maybe that was because I was 15, they were 17 and 18 and feeling over protective..?
*People actually dont believe me when I say I dont smoke. Fuckers.
-
You all must've had crappy friends. I bought my fair share of drugs, but I'd say I got even more for free. Including my friend in high school whose parents had GARBAGE BAGS full of weed and would give me a handfull anytime I came over.
-
I seriously hope you asked his parents to adopt you.
-
My folks bought me up all hippy. It ain't a joint if you're not sharing. Kids these days just have no goddamn manners.
On the subject of creativity and drugs, I dunno about anything else, but I can say that I definitely make better electronic music thanks to weed. When I started out, I used to do incredibly simplistic arrangements: drums and a couple of synth-lines, maybe a few samples. Then, I got high one time and some Neuroticfish came on my MP3, and I actually listened to it properly, picking up on all the subtle variations in the drums, the multi-layered synthlines, the oscillators and static clouds and half-buried samples driving it along, and realised why everyone elses electronic music was better than mine. I'd just been picking up on the basics, and thus creating a shallow imitation of music. I'm not sure, without weed, that I would have latched on so fast to that, and actually started employing more subtlety and depth.
-
I seriously hope you asked his parents to adopt you.
:) Why buy the cow....
-
You all must've had crappy friends. I bought my fair share of drugs, but I'd say I got even more for free. Including my friend in high school whose parents had GARBAGE BAGS full of weed and would give me a handfull anytime I came over.
I haven't bought weed in ages, now I just get it for free, but I did have to buy my first. Not that it really mattered though, I don't know about any other countries, but weed is ridiculously cheap here. Buying $100 pesos (about $8.75 USD or 4.75 pounds) gets you enough for a small group for a few times.
Something which the teachers at my school (mostly british expats) are delighted to find out.
-
I generally either buy weed in bulk off a mate, or just get it off my mum.
-
Drugs are for beginners. Life is is scary/crazy/wierd/fun enough without them.
I also rarely like musicians that used drugs as part of their "creative" process.
But hey, that is my opinion.
-
Drugs are for beginners. Life is is scary/crazy/wierd/fun enough without them.
Clarify how these two sentences don't contradict eachother.
I also rarely like musicians that used drugs as part of their "creative" process.
But hey, that is my opinion.
I can't even imagine what you listen to.
-
Man, if I just stopped listening to artists who used drugs during that whole process, a good, probably, 98% of the bands I listen to are totally out.
-
Clarify how these two sentences don't contradict eachother.
I'm not sure I understand where your confusion lies, perhas I'm just a bit dense...
"Drugs are for beginners" is something I used to say a lot. I have a lot of fun with life, Ive done a lot of strange things. Life is plenty wierd for me. So whe I say "Drugs are for beginners" I'm saying that if you need drugs to have fun or be creative, you're doing something wrong. *shrug* its a personal thing.
I can't even imagine what you listen to.
I should have put more emphasis on rarely...
Honestly, I'm sure a lot of the musicians I listen to have used drugs while writing their music. Honestly? I dont want to know about it, once I find out a band used drugs to "enhance" their creative abilities I lose a lot of respect for them. It just seems like cheating to me, as though they were incapable of writing good music without drugs, then I have to ask myself: "Was it the drugs or their actual skills?" Perhaps this comes from a lack of first hand experience, I've never taken any mind altering drugs and really don't intend on it(Barring, of course, alchohol, caffeiene and nicotene.).
Also, so many of these awesome artists who use illicit substances often end up dead because of them, and thats just un-fucking-forgiveable. I get so mad when I hear about some musician I loved or respected ended up OD'ing on some shit he shouldn't have been taking in the first place. I'll always hate that bastard Mitch Hedburg for OD'ing... God damnit it if he wasn't hilarious.
Sorry, this is all anecdotal and ultra-biased opinion, I recommend you take it at face value.
-
"Drugs are for beginners" is something I used to say a lot. I have a lot of fun with life, Ive done a lot of strange things. Life is plenty wierd for me. So whe I say "Drugs are for beginners" I'm saying that if you need drugs to have fun or be creative, you're doing something wrong. *shrug* its a personal thing.
I think you're missing a few very important points here. While a great deal of anti-drug propaganda has given the majority of society a very skewed idea of what drugs do, the fact remains that anyone who can't be fun or creative without drugs will certainly offer only pale imitations of creativity with them. Drugs are best, in fact, for people like you, people who have fun with life and do strange things and feel good about the interesting things in the world. All they do is open more interesting and weird and creative things up, and someone with musical skill will only benefit from this expanded perspective if they already know how to channel their inherent creative talent into an expression of their drug-enhanced experience. To say that drawing from drug experiences to make better music is cheating is a bit like saying it's cheating to write a song about a breakup when you haven't actually broken up with anyone, or when you've watched your friend break up with their S/O but you remain with your own. It's still creative expression that comes from the artist and the artist's ideas.
Honestly, I'm sure a lot of the musicians I listen to have used drugs while writing their music. Honestly? I dont want to know about it, once I find out a band used drugs to "enhance" their creative abilities I lose a lot of respect for them. It just seems like cheating to me, as though they were incapable of writing good music without drugs, then I have to ask myself: "Was it the drugs or their actual skills?" Perhaps this comes from a lack of first hand experience, I've never taken any mind altering drugs and really don't intend on it(Barring, of course, alchohol, caffeiene and nicotene.).
First of all, I don't want to sound hostile because I realize that these remarks are coming from someone who does not, in fact, understand the nature of drug use and therefore doesn't know any better, but really, who are you to assume that using drugs to enhance creative expression is in any way indicative of an inability to express the same creativity without drugs? THe Beatles were amazing songwriters when they had never taken a hit of marijuana, and they remained amazing songwriters all the way through their phase of marijuana and LSD use. The drugs they used affected their creative output, for sure, but to label this effect as negative just because some cranky old white guys decided that taking LSD was a degenerate thing and should be criminalized would be outrageous. I'm not denying that there are musicians out there who rely on drugs to give them ideas, but I'm not defending them. I'm defending the vast majority of musicians whose competency and creative inspiration remain constant throughout both sober and mind-altered periods of expression. Bottom line is, for you to assume that drug use deteriorates a musician's creativity is premature in the highest degree and I would dispute your right to make such claims.
As for your choice of substance use, this makes me very, very sad. For one thing, all three of the substances you've mentioned are, in fact, highly addictive and harmful substances that do very little to aid anyone's life in any way that they couldn't help themselves with minus the substance. Simply because a bunch of old white men have legally sanctioned alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine use does not mean that there is any difference between them and the use of opiates, marijuana, and methamphetamines. Any serious examination of the actual physical effects of legal mind alterants vs. illegal ones will bring to light the blatant hypocrisy that remains at the center of drug laws.
Also, so many of these awesome artists who use illicit substances often end up dead because of them, and thats just un-fucking-forgiveable. I get so mad when I hear about some musician I loved or respected ended up OD'ing on some shit he shouldn't have been taking in the first place. I'll always hate that bastard Mitch Hedburg for OD'ing... God damnit it if he wasn't hilarious.
Then why are you OK with musicians who drink and smoke, but not with musicians who smoke weed and take mushrooms or LSD? Hallucinogens are literally the precise opposite of narcotics. You can't OD on them and you can't addict yourself to them. Not a single person has ever died from marijuana or LSD toxicity, and only a single report that I know of references someone who died from eating too many mushrooms (and that person also drank 21 beers during the same time frame).
My main point is, find out what you're talking about before you start forming opinions about what it means. I highly recommend that you do some research on Erowid.org or a similar website and figure out what exactly drugs do before you start deciding what you think of the people who use them.
-
*clap clap clap*
That is all I have to say on the matter.
Also, anti-drugs dude.
Smoke a joint. Just one. Share it with someone, whatever.
Do that, and then watch Reefer Madness.
Compare what the people who banned marijuana thought, as expressed through that film, to what you have just experienced.
Come to the realisation that the only reason any mind and mood altering substances are banned is because:
a) they can't be taxed (weed)
b) black people use them (cocaine)
c) gay people use them (amyl nitrate, at least in the US)
Realise that anything DARE or an equivalent scheme has ever told you about drugs is bullshit.
I mean, I smoke, and I drink coffee and booze, but man, every cigarette you are sucking The Mans cock.
I mean shit.
-
There is quite an interesting inlay in Bonnie 'Prince' Billy & Matt Sweeney - Superwolf which(as far as I can remember, I don't have the cd here) compares the western choice of legal narcotics with the Middle Eastern choice. Basically westerners use nicotine and alcohol and the Middle East use hashish, and it argues that this choice has had a significant impact on the evolution of those two "civilizations". It also toys with the idea of turning it all around to see what our society then would be like.
On topic I don't mind really, I wouldn't do it because I am far too cautious and my parents would kill me. But if it helps the musicians to make better music then by all means smoke. I read The Doors of Perception(Aldous Huxley's account on using mescaline) once and I thought the whole idea that more "harmless" drugs like mescaline could take the place of the ones legal today was great. Trouble is, people don't to want to get a mind altering illustrations of colours in everything around them, they want to get hammered. And then there is the problem with people who are not fit to use it such as people with mental illness and so on.
-
I think you're missing a few very important points here. While a great deal of anti-drug propaganda has given the majority of society a very skewed idea of what drugs do...
Oh I don't doubt it, I have absolutely no actual experience with drugs apart from what I saw my friends go through.
...the fact remains that anyone who can't be fun or creative without drugs will certainly offer only pale imitations of creativity with them. Drugs are best, in fact, for people like you....
Perhaps, but I've enver had any real interest in them... they really can't offer me anything that I want. Thus, I stay away from them.
To say that drawing from drug experiences to make better music is cheating is a bit like saying it's cheating to write a song about a breakup when you haven't actually broken up with anyone...
I disagree, to a degree... (Go go contradiction!). If someone writes a story that sounds personal and passes it off as such but, in fact, has no actual experience with the subject I consider him a fraud. This is probably influenced by the decision I made to not publish any of my own writing, its all fake. I haven't had the experiences necessary to write honestly about life. This is, again, opinion, but I really don't think people should write personal sounding things and pass it off as their own experience. Sorry, I realize this is tangental but I tihnk it can in a way relate to the original point.
First of all, I don't want to sound hostile because I realize that these remarks are coming from someone who does not, in fact, understand the nature of drug use and therefore doesn't know any better, but really, who are you to assume that using drugs to enhance creative expression is in any way indicative of an inability to express the same creativity without drugs?
You're right, I don't have any authority to make this claim. I am simply speaking my mind on the subject, you are welcome to disagree with me. Its an experience I'm not interested in.
[qoute]As for your choice of substance use, this makes me very, very sad. For one thing, all three of the substances you've mentioned are, in fact, highly addictive and harmful substances that do very little to aid anyone's life in any way that they couldn't help themselves with minus the substance.[/quote]
First, I'm not addicted to any of these. Second, I enjoy them on an occaisonal basis so as not to ruin the experience or my body. I hate cigarettes, so those are out too. Bleck, nasty. Third, everything kills you in some way, I may as well enjoy myself in a responsible manner. I don't use any of these in excess, unless you count the all-nighters I occaisonaly pull fueled by coffee or energy drinks. I really need to try some herbal alternatives.
Then why are you OK with musicians who drink and smoke, but not with musicians who smoke weed and take mushrooms or LSD?
I get upset at any artist who does something to the point it kills them. We were talking about drugs so in this context it would sound like I am talking about drug overdoses. Alchohol, drugs... whatever, kill yourself doing something stupid and I'm going to be pissed. Driving too fast... whatever.
Hallucinogens are literally the precise opposite of narcotics. You can't OD on them and you can't addict yourself to them. Not a single person has ever died from marijuana or LSD toxicity, and only a single report that I know of references someone who died from eating too many mushrooms (and that person also drank 21 beers during the same time frame).
I've heard the same thing. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, you can develop psychological dependencies on them. And even if that doesn't lead to OD'ing on whatever halucinogen it can lead to other things that will fuck up your life.
My main point is, find out what you're talking about before you start forming opinions about what it means. I highly recommend that you do some research on Erowid.org or a similar website and figure out what exactly drugs do before you start deciding what you think of the people who use them.
Well you see, its discourses like this that help teach me. Nothing better than rational discussion to learn with. I'll check out that website when I get some spare time. Cheers.
KharBevNor:
I'm actually not really against the legalization of Marijuana. I've seen sufficient data to suggest it has legitimate, as well as recreational, uses. Still, not for me. My only real problem with weed is that the majority of what people are smoking today is not 100% natural Marijuana. Instead you've got this chemically altered shit thats more powerful than any naturaly grown weed ever. I mean... shit, I don't eat vegetables that were grown with chemicals... why the fuck would I smoke something with that in it?
And yeah... Cigarettes=Evil. Fuck them.
-
What?
That sounds like more government crap, mate. Most of my weed comes from a gay librarians back garden. I've never smoked 'unnatural' weed in my life, except maybe that block of mind-numbingly hard resin my mate found in the back of his amp at band practice once. It's always really annoying when someone speaks with such authority about something they don't really know anything about.
-
Then why are you OK with musicians who drink and smoke, but not with musicians who smoke weed and take mushrooms or LSD?
I get upset at any artist who does something to the point it kills them. We were talking about drugs so in this context it would sound like I am talking about drug overdoses. Alchohol, drugs... whatever, kill yourself doing something stupid and I'm going to be pissed. Driving too fast... whatever.
You do realise that both fags and booze can kill you pretty sharpish.
-
Clarify how these two sentences don't contradict eachother.
I'm not sure I understand where your confusion lies, perhas I'm just a bit dense...
"Drugs are for beginners" is something I used to say a lot. I have a lot of fun with life, Ive done a lot of strange things. Life is plenty wierd for me. So whe I say "Drugs are for beginners" I'm saying that if you need drugs to have fun or be creative, you're doing something wrong. *shrug* its a personal thing.
Now, I'm curious as to how drugs fall outside the scope of life. What separates the neurochemical stimulus-response status of drugs from that of food, stress, love, sleep, fire, serotonin, oxygen, etc.?
-
I have absolutely no actual experience with drugs
...
You're right, I don't have any authority to make this claim.
-
KharBevNor,
Your weed sounds like it might be a bit more natural than the shit my friends would smoke. Also, some of the ex-hippies I know have confirmed this for me. They've smoked old weed and newer weed, they say there's definately a difference.
DynamiteKid,
Anything in excess will kill you. Like I said before, I enjoy this on occaisons and not all the time. Also, I DON'T SMOKE CIGARETTES. So nyah. :P
Aneurythmia,
You're right. That is a bit of a double standard. I suppose I should consider them a legitamate form of inspiration.
I think this discussion has gotten a bit off track...[/code]
-
Regarding the old-weed-vs-new-weed question, the real crux of the matter is breeding. Before the 1960s weed was just weed. Now there are designer strains of it. Weed ended up getting bred and domesticated the same way corn did ... look at what corn looks like now, compare it to wild maize from 50 thousand years ago, and you can't even recognize it. Weed hasn't been chemically altered except by a select minority of growers ... for the most part, the change in weed has been caused by selective growing and breeding that has been done with an eye towards potency. The vast majority of weed today is just as "natural" as the weed of many many years ago ... but trying to say they're the same thing is like trying to say a German shepherd is the same as a Yorkie.
Aneurhythmia makes an excellent point ... in a lot of ways, drugs are no different at all from any other form of experience. They're a shortcut, but they're as natural a shortcut to their corresponding chemical experience as sex is to the chemical experience of endorphin release (and whatever else happens during sex). Humanity has ALWAYS used drugs, same way it has always had sex and always shared experience through communication and always [insert some other universal human experience here]. In fact, an extremely good case has been made for the idea that psychedelic mushroom use in Africa was the foundation for human culture and civilization as we know it (interestingly enough, the point in history in which some archeologists believe that civilization stopped mushroom use is concordant with the Biblical myth of the expulsion from Eden, both geographically and chronologically ... and considering the shamans were probably all female, who's to say that Eve's "fruit of knowledge" wasn't actually a fungus that early religious zealots demonized in an attempt to keep people in line?)
I'm going off on a tangent again (if you want to explore the ideas I've been talking about, read "Food of the Gods" by Terrence McKenna.) I have a couple other points to address.
First off, this quote:
If someone writes a story that sounds personal and passes it off as such but, in fact, has no actual experience with the subject I consider him a fraud. This is probably influenced by the decision I made to not publish any of my own writing, its all fake. I haven't had the experiences necessary to write honestly about life. This is, again, opinion, but I really don't think people should write personal sounding things and pass it off as their own experience.
Whatever happened to inspiration? What happened to empathy, putting yourself in the shoes of another? If one needs personal experience in order to write "honestly" about life, then 99% of all fiction written in history is completely bogus and nobody should ever write anything but autobiographies. I think anyone with an appreciation for creativity can see the problem with this idea. Anything that someone feels enough to express creatively is legitimately personal regardless of whether or not it has basis in physical life experience, and I would posit that this includes drug experiences. Your writing isn't any more fake than [your favorite writer]'s.
Secondly, "I really need to try some herbal alternatives"??? How about weed, the viable "herbal alternative" to the poison of alcohol? Just pointing out the obvious. "Responsible" alcohol use isn't as responsible as similarly moderated marijuana use.
Regarding the difference between hallucinogens and hard drugs/alcohol/nicotine/anything else that addicts you to it and can kill you, well, I won't say that casualties like Roky Erickson and Syd Barrett don't happen. But there are responsible ways to use hallucinogens as well, and there are irresponsible ways of backing out of your driveway in the morning that can endanger yourself and others.
I guess my bottom line is, don't let the legal or illegal status of mind-altering substances convince you that they somehow behave on a set of different rules than the rest of human experience. Learn about them first. Forming opinions without knowing what you're talking about is a bit like ... well, what would you say to a 10-year-old whose dad was injured in a car accident and wanted to outlaw driving?