Drugs ruined rock n roll?


PDA

View Full Version : Drugs ruined rock n roll?


luv_led_zep
01-26-2006, 09:58 AM
Well drugs inspired some fantastic rock songs but they also harmed and in some cases killed rockstars.....So did drugs make or break rock n roll?

MuRph83
01-26-2006, 10:04 AM
I would say it both broke and made it, but moreso made it. I think it is safe to say that without them, a lot of great classic rock that we know today would not have been created, but as well, many of those great artists would probalby still be alive.
so yea, there are two sides to it, hard to answer really

Infinite-Reason
01-26-2006, 10:05 AM
Well drugs didnt kill rock and roll. They didnt force the artists to use them.

skydogzoso1986
01-26-2006, 10:21 AM
drugs were part of classic rock so it definitely didn't...

luv_led_zep
01-26-2006, 10:28 AM
Im really talking about the music, not the whole of rock n roll in its self...majority of classic rock songs were written while the artists were not on drugs, im not saying it didnt inspire lots like Jimi Hendrix's "purple haze" for example. Rock definately could have survived without drugs....well had a good chance

Liam Alan
01-26-2006, 10:58 AM
Well drugs didnt kill rock and roll. They didnt force the artists to use them.

Exactly, Being an idiot killed people not drugs. If that is the case we need to ban flying. Because helicopters and planes killed musicians too.

Look at Keith Richards. He isn't dead.

SoulStripper7
01-26-2006, 01:31 PM
^^Well, he looks dead anyway. He's like a re-animated corpse, IMO.

But I think that drugs, however much I dislike the use of them, influenced rock n roll positively. Sometimes. Great songs have come out of drug use. But great songs have also come out of NOT using them. So its hard to say.

jayr123guitar
01-26-2006, 01:42 PM
Neither.

BrainDamage
01-26-2006, 02:31 PM
Look at Keith Richards. He isn't dead. you sure about that?

:p:

But I think that drugs, however much I dislike the use of them, influenced rock n roll positively. Sometimes. Great songs have come out of drug use. But great songs have also come out of NOT using them. So its hard to say. I agree.

Evil Kid 93
01-26-2006, 04:49 PM
But I think that drugs, however much I dislike the use of them, influenced rock n roll positively. Sometimes. Great songs have come out of drug use. But great songs have also come out of NOT using them. So its hard to say.

That's exactly what I think, too. I mean, just look at Jimi Hendrix; half the stuff he wrote probably wouldn't have been so insane without drugs, and yet drugs also killed him...kinda a double-edged sword right there.

November_Rain88
01-26-2006, 04:56 PM
I saw the Stones live a few months ago, and I swear they propped Keith Richards' corpse up, and had a puppeteer control his undead ass.

Maet
01-26-2006, 05:59 PM
Drugs made it. Abusing drugs broke it. Simplist way to put things.

Punk Rocker
01-26-2006, 07:45 PM
Drugs sort of made the music and killed the musicians and then you have ppl like Ozzy Osbourne who are like undead freaks.

Iluvpowerchords
01-26-2006, 07:50 PM
Drugs didn't do shit for music.

Music didn't do shit for drugs.

However, musician's did a shitload of drugs :)

thembones16
01-26-2006, 07:54 PM
drugs are a beautiful disaster,they gave us songs by layne staley like down in a hole and then ended his life

Maet
01-26-2006, 08:51 PM
Must I? Lol!

It amazes me how he's managed to survive his indulgence in drink and drugs and still be able to perform. Same thing with Ozzy. Of course, others (Bolin, Hendrix, Morrison, et al) weren't quite so fortunate. :(

btw -- I read an interview with Richards in the Nov. '05 issue of Guitar World where he said that Woodie might not be able to make their last tour due to his "severe crack addiction." Was he able to?

FYI, The worlds top doctors placed Keef's ETD (estimated time of death if you don't watch 'Dead Like Me') sometme in 1996. He's literally cheating death every single day of his life.

Maet
01-26-2006, 09:21 PM
It was a factoid on a Much More Music show called 'Uncovered' where they discussed the effects of drugs on music, musicians and their lifestyles. I really don't know much more than that.

Liam Alan
01-26-2006, 11:00 PM
^^Well, he looks dead anyway. He's like a re-animated corpse, IMO.

you sure about that?

:p:

Must I? Lol!

I was actually waiting for all of those. :D

Surprised I only got 3. Hhehe

Still Life
01-27-2006, 07:05 AM
I don't think it made or killed the music that was rock and roll. Musicians may have all (or a good 90% of them) done drugs, but they were also famous people, so you knew about it. Ordinary people did/do them too you know. They are just a part of life for some people, and aren't for others.

I do not think they affected classic rock positively or negatively, they just affected it. If those people didn't do drugs, the music would have been different, but probably still just as good.

billzeebub
01-27-2006, 08:36 AM
I think rock would be a lot different if drugs weren't about. The Beatles for example, completely middle of the road before they were introduced into drugs and then wen't on to make groundbreaking experimental music.

Drugs take ye on an adventure within yourself and if an artist thinks that they can translate that adventure through music well i'm all for it.


Drugs didn't do shit for music.

Music didn't do shit for drugs.

However, musician's did a shitload of drugs :)

I'd disagree with the first 2 lines but no-one could argue about the third. I think music does quite a lot for drugs, just look at the amount of clubs with hard dance music with the majority of people chomping at the bit on e's. Also, Spiritualized made an album called "Taking drugs to make music to take drugs to".

BrainDamage
01-27-2006, 05:22 PM
FYI, The worlds top doctors placed Keef's ETD (estimated time of death if you don't watch 'Dead Like Me') sometme in 1996. He's literally cheating death every single day of his life. :haha :haha that's great.

tHewHiteHendrix
01-27-2006, 07:50 PM
sex, DRUGS, and rock n roll. they were all hand in hand, and took some good lives but ultimately MADE rock n roll.

gibsonsg2006
01-27-2006, 08:37 PM
i think tht the use of drugs could have inspired some great songs in the classic rock era. most musicians will tell you that when they have that buzz they write some of their most loved songs. of course, drugs didnt exactly help Axl Rose's career. :D

coolfrood2005
02-22-2006, 06:28 AM
No. Without dugs, much of which we consider as "classic rock" would't exist. Anyway, look at Aerosmith- during drugs, great. When they went clean they SUCKED. I rest my case.

Mispeled
02-22-2006, 10:45 AM
Hendrix didn't die because of drug overdose, it's all just a cover-up.

Dirk Gently
02-22-2006, 10:50 AM
Look at it this way...when a rockstar that dies in their prime of drugs, we don't have to watch them go through a decline or whither into obscurity. For example, it would've been great for Michael Jordan's legend if he had just dropped dead right after hitting the game winner over Utah in the NBA Finals. We wouldn't have had to watch him in his mediocrity with the Wizards. Think about Eric Clapton. Has he really made any important music since the 80s? Or B.B. King. Yeah, it's cool that an 80 year old still tours, but his voice is weak and his guitar playing hasn't evolved at all in the last...40 years? What's tragic, though, is when musicians die before their prime, like Jeff Buckley, who only released one album before he drowned (not caused by drugs or alcohol, though).

Buzz Saw
02-22-2006, 11:58 AM
These men were great before they used drugs, drugs just propelled them into a certain direction of music. Drugs did not enhance their brain or their song writing technique, just gave them something to wirte about. So know Drugs Did Not make or brake Rock music.

seljer
02-22-2006, 12:01 PM
Hendrix didn't die because of drug overdose, it's all just a cover-up.

didn't he suffocate on his own vomit?

mercedesisbenz
02-22-2006, 05:01 PM
Look at Keith Richards. He isn't dead.

Every one of the rolling stones is dead. They just attach strings to them for all thier live concerts and get a few puppeteers.

blues_rocker
02-22-2006, 05:07 PM
didn't he suffocate on his own vomit?

Yup but I think he vomited because of the drugs.

Liam Alan
02-22-2006, 05:08 PM
didn't he suffocate on his own vomit?

Yep, Hendrix didn't overdose. He had an allegic reaction to pharmacutical sleeping pills, vomitted and drowned. It is in the autopsy report in London.

JackWhite1988
02-22-2006, 06:19 PM
I don't think drugs ruined music as much as it ruined the MUSICIANS that took them.

Ozzy, Keith Richards, Keith Moon, Morrison, Hendrix...there are some other nuts that are still around but are so roasted that they might as well be dead.

The 80's metal scene is an example of the excess that comes with being a rock star...and ultimately they all fizzled out because the party no longer was fun and people started dying one by one.

Kurt Cobain, Layne Staley...the list goes on. So no, drugs didn't ruin the music...it ruined the musicians.

OMGIZZLEZ
02-22-2006, 08:07 PM
^^ i agree.

Mispeled
02-22-2006, 09:16 PM
Yep, Hendrix didn't overdose. He had an allegic reaction to pharmacutical sleeping pills, vomitted and drowned. It is in the autopsy report in London.
Huh, never knew that, I'd assumed he'd vomited because of something related to drug use as well.

Sounds even more like a coverup. :p:

Bonfire_This
02-23-2006, 07:02 AM
Drugs Are Rock 'n' Roll You C U N T

jase_connor
02-23-2006, 12:26 PM
i read a great interview with eric clapton a while back and he put it really well IMO. he said that the decadent lifestyle of musicians in the late 60's/early 70's (ie: heavy drug use of guys like hendrix, cream, zeppelin, the beatles, the stones, the doors etc.) led to them not taking any responsibility over what they were doing.

at first it opened all these doors for experimentation and innovation but after a while the musicians got lost in a world of drugs and stopped making great music any more. brian jones is a perfect example of that: great on the stones early stuff, but lost his way when the drugs took over. clapton went on to say that it was because of this that punk emerged as a sort of rebellion against that whole lifestyle and that it was such a stripped down, raw form of music as a protest against all the over the top, drug fueled music of the 60's. so yeah i think that classic rock from the 60's/70's was born from drugs but also ruined by drugs.

hope that made sense...

FireMoon
02-23-2006, 12:39 PM
Hendrix died of choking on his own vomit ,primarliy ,cos the medic placed him on his back in the ambulance he was in a comatose state at the time, but still alive, after suffering an adverse reaction to sleeping pills.

hendrixrocks4
03-04-2006, 10:47 PM
[FONT=Courier New]i think in many ways drugs ruined rock...i am a huge hendrix :angel: fan and all people see in hendrix is that he did drugs. He wasnt just a drug man not until he got his record deals did he even start using them. also many drugs were forced opun him. so in that way it did but i didnt entirly ruin rock it was the way they were used by the rock star

Gabuydachk
03-05-2006, 11:08 AM
both

jeff666
03-08-2006, 09:39 PM
drugs made rock and roll.
one example of that is aerosmith. when they were doing drugs they were a good band but now they dont do drugs and the suck.

keefo
03-08-2006, 10:40 PM
Every one of the rolling stones is dead. They just attach strings to them for all thier live concerts and get a few puppeteers.


Idiot.................Have you ever seen the stones live, cause I did in 2002 and the were f*ckin incredible, in fact I don?t even know why I?m dignifying such a ridiculous statement with a response but I feel like I should

blazenwo
03-09-2006, 12:03 AM
on the flipside, if you think about it, if it wasn't for syd barrets drug abuse and mental breakdown we wouldn't have had all those great Pink Floyd albums post barret (pretty much everything besides Piper and some tracks from the other early albums). Wish You Were Here was a great album, and even though Pink Floyd is considered "stoner music" Roger Waters and Gilmour weren't druggies (at least not rock star type druggies).

Drugs are a variable thing, they can induce good music (Morrison/Doors) but they eventually lead to a dead end and a short career. That said, I think the whole sex, drugs, and rock and roll image is only applicable to a minority of rock bands when you consider all the great musicians out there that didn't really partake in that stuff.

==Get=Fighted==
03-09-2006, 12:09 AM
Okay, heres how to solve this debate. Weed: makes the music a little trippier, if thats what the listener is in to, then weed helped make rock and roll. Vise-versa. However, when you get into the real drugs (weed is not a drug), thats when people start dying, and the music gets much more drawl. My opinion. You can hate it, but if you do, give me your side at least. This is an interesting topic, i like seeing what people have to say about this.

Mr_Hyde
03-09-2006, 04:54 AM
drugs made rock n roll foo!

009
03-09-2006, 07:57 AM
They killed Keith Moon the ultimate rock star! So yes they have ruined Rock 'n' roll!

jayr123guitar
03-09-2006, 09:03 AM
heres what ruined rock and roll

http://www.80sxchange.com/80s_photos/albums/userpics/013.jpg

Toast&Bananas
03-09-2006, 09:07 AM
^Excatly.

Drugs made it cooler.

Mr_Hyde
03-09-2006, 09:27 AM
did you know...i think it was john lennon.....coudlnt remember writing any of his best songs! because he was so high! therefore without those drugs...we wouldnt of come up with the tunes. im sure this is the case with looooads of artrists.

DraketheFake
03-09-2006, 10:15 AM
yeah i think aerosmith cant remember recording there first three albums. i would say drugs made it without a doubt. people die off creatively after a while anyway and just fade off, much more dramatic to burn out in a wave of vomit choking spasms and suicide etc.

Jarrett Moore
04-04-2006, 11:16 PM
Im really talking about the music, not the whole of rock n roll in its self...majority of classic rock songs were written while the artists were not on drugs, im not saying it didnt inspire lots like Jimi Hendrix's "purple haze" for example. Rock definately could have survived without drugs....well had a good chance


Purple haze was inspired by a dream Jimi had. Although it sounds like a drug influenced song it wasn't. around when he made that up he wasn't really into many drugs. pretty sure it was just like a little weed maybe.



that changed though.

wannabe jesus
04-05-2006, 07:55 AM
Drugs made rock n' roll
But killed some of the artists when it got out of hand

Rock1986
04-05-2006, 03:00 PM
Well Sabbath pretty much went down hill after they started using drugs. Look at their early albums compared to their later ones.

Also I'd have to say that Iron Maiden is a great example of what happens when you don't do drugs. They still sound great even though they are getting older, whereas a lot of other older musicians have trouble even getting on stage because of excessive drug use.

jayr123guitar
04-06-2006, 09:35 AM
Commercialism and large money hungry corporations killed rock and roll. But who said rock and roll is dead anyway???? Drugs have nothing to do with it, do some and you'll see for yourself.

Iruleeverything
04-07-2006, 12:40 AM
drugs made rock and roll.
one example of that is aerosmith. when they were doing drugs they were a good band but now they dont do drugs and the suck.


hhhmmm and how about bands that didn't do drugs, how about PINK FLOYD, I'm not sure who's more famous though, probably the one with the number 1 album of all time (according to some charts), and the amazing thing is they didn't use drugs much at all.

progger2112
04-07-2006, 06:27 PM
Wrong to assume that drugs were the catylist for the more experimental Beatle music. Those guys are/were mega-talented, and there was a natural progression in their music. They knew it was time to move on from Yeah Yeah Yeah. I'm sure there may have been times when somebody was too loaded to play well, think clearly enough to write, etc, and there may have been times that they were stoned, and something great came to them. But I wouldn't credit the drug. I give them all credit for controlling the drugs, and not letting the drugs control them. I know people from all walks of life who have let drugs or alcohol take too much control of their lives. I know of a fellow that won the lottery, 22 mill as I remember. He started a helicopter company that was doing great, but drank himself to death after having the money for about 5 yrs. Did the money cause him to drink himself to death? Nope, he drank heavily before he won the lottery. But the poor guy couldn't get loose of it, not even to enjoy the wonderful life all that money could have provided.

Like many, SRV said that he always thought he played better when he had a few drinks....until he got sober. He then realized how much better he played when he could think clearly, and his motor skills weren't impared. I have a friend that swears he needs a few drinks before going on stage. But then he has admitted that the reason he needs the drinks is to overcome a bit of stagefright. I've heard him play straight, and after a few drinks. He plays better straight.

EVH seems to be slowly drinking himself to death. I'm sure it hasn't improved his playing or writing skills.

Seems the most speculation on this subject comes from people with no experience with drugs. I'm 52, been playing a long time. I don't drink, my mood altering substance of choice has always been weed. But I never smoked before band practice, or going on stage. I know damned well that there is a degree of imparement if I'm stoned. I haven't let it get in the way of being successful in business. I don't get stoned before going to work, at lunch, etc. I don't get on one of the motorcycles, or take one of the hotrods out when I'm stoned. I don't let the weed get in the way of all the other good stuff life has to offer..

We can debate the effect of drugs on R&R, and much of it is supposition. We sure know that it did, in fact, kill some great people. One of my favorite bands, RUSH, has quietly admitted to some drug use. But they're quick to point out that they didn't let drugs get in the way of doing their job.

More important than the effects of drugs on the history of R&R, is their effects on you. If you're doing drugs to try to get happy, you need to find out why you're unhappy. If you do them for a bit of recreation, um, pass that doob over to me, please. Live well. Just don't let it get away from ya...

BrainDamage
04-07-2006, 11:09 PM
yeah i think aerosmith cant remember recording there first three albums. more like everything in the late 70s to early/mid 80s. I'm pretty sure they were, well...clean for first few albums, then around Draw the Line it all went to hell.

mercedesisbenz
04-07-2006, 11:15 PM
Idiot.................Have you ever seen the stones live, cause I did in 2002 and the were f*ckin incredible, in fact I don?t even know why I?m dignifying such a ridiculous statement with a response but I feel like I should

lightin up man its a f*ckin joke. If you get that offended by every rolling stones joke thats around nowadays I'm surprised you havent shot anyone yet.

zep123
04-08-2006, 12:01 AM
imo, drugs were kind of the foundation of rock'n roll. all the great artists found their creativity through drugs (not saying it's the best way, but it works). I'm not saying they did or didn't ruin rock'n roll. All i can say is that rock'n roll was great, taking out drugs would have a major affect on it. Just leave it the way it is.

curtis loew
04-08-2006, 09:25 PM
i think half the reason we think drugs were neccesary is because it was part of the rock and roll lifestyle more than anything else

lsw444
04-09-2006, 03:06 AM
Maybe those guys dying have just prevented them from becoming sad lame has-beens with no spark later on.

How do you fancy Jim Morrison doing a stint on the cabarets doing lounge versions of Doors greats? Hendrix doing a couple of pop songs with Michelle Branch? Janis Joplin and Celine Dion duetting on a night of the divas christmas special? Peter Green trundling out drab blues songs with no feel and lacking the burn of his early days?

hippy12
04-09-2006, 05:38 AM
Drugs didn't do shit for music.

well thousands of classic songs wouldn't have been written if it wasn't for drugs, so many classic rock songs are written about drugs.
Hendrix - Purple Haze
Cream - Spoonful
Eric Clapton - Cocaine
Steppenwolf - The Pusher
The Rolling Stones - Stoned

can't think of any more off the top of my head but you get the point. drugs have become part of rock 'n roll. yeah drugs killed many great musicians but they also helped create much of their music.

TheHeartbreaker
04-09-2006, 08:29 AM
^^Actually, I believe that Spoonful was written by Willie Dixon, not Cream.

Anyways, I don't think you can really say drugs ruined rock and roll. They ruined musicians (such as Syd Barret, Jerry Garcia, and they almost completely ruined Peter Green), but definetly not rock and roll as a whole.

We know now that abusing these drugs can possibly lead to serious consequences, but for the most part, everything catches up with them once they've stopped doing drugs.

However, it's been mentioned many times that without these drugs, many songs wouldn't have been written, so maybe it's good that they were there. Yet, in how they ended up ruining some peoples careers... well, there's a different argument.

Sun King
04-09-2006, 12:14 PM
no definitally not.. we wouldent have our favorite songs without them.

sirpsycho85
04-09-2006, 12:23 PM
absolutely not. they either directly inspired a lot of songs, and a lot of great songs were written by people about drugs after or during their struggles with them. it'd be great if that weren't so, but it is.

Emperor of Hell
04-09-2006, 03:08 PM
Drugs didn't do shit for music.

Music didn't do shit for drugs.

However, musician's did a shitload of drugs :)

I think I have to agree with you but somehow they changed their way to view things ence doing nice songs

ironmaiden26
04-11-2006, 08:27 PM
brian may didnt do drugs, look at their songs

psychodelia
04-11-2006, 08:41 PM
I don't think drugs have ruined rock. They ruined musicians, certainly, like people said.

However, if there weren't drugs in rock, then great songs would have still been written. You wouldn't complain about there being no "Cocaine" because there would be no "Cocaine" written. If you get what I mean lol. It's like, if slavery were still around in the States, tons of songs would be written about it, and there would no doubt be great ones. However, I don't think anyone wants slavery around just so people will be inspired to write songs about it. There are plenty of topics to inspire great songs.

pommegrenade
04-12-2006, 02:50 AM
Yeh!!!Guns n roses had the biggest influence

dePitt
04-19-2006, 12:17 PM
I think drugs did both, they killed it on one hand
but on the other hand they inspired it...

beau05
04-20-2006, 07:19 AM
sex, DRUGS and rock 'n' roll. need i say more

angus69
04-20-2006, 09:31 AM
YEs, they absolutly helped rock n' roll, i mean, without drugs g n' r wouldn't be nothing................................. SEX DRUGS AND ..........ROCK N' ROLL, WE'RE ON THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PatrickJR
04-20-2006, 04:38 PM
Break, in so many cases. More then make. I mean Imagine if the ones that died never did drugs, the rock and roll would be so different, and maybe even more great.

MiniMusicMasta
04-21-2006, 01:42 PM
Like so many other people have said, it wouldn't be rock without them but so many good musicians would still be alive if they didn't exist. We could still listen to Hendrix.

It sounds stupid but what band is Keith Richards in?

jase_connor
04-21-2006, 02:28 PM
Keith is in the Rolling Stones..

==Get=Fighted==
04-25-2006, 05:59 PM
Ummm, maybe Purple Haze was inspired by a dream...either way, it was a dream about weed. Purple haze is a type of weed, and Hendrix already being into bud, even just starting...that ****s not coincidence. Im sure he took one hit, said ****, passed out...and dreamt. Personally, i don't like purple haze, all about the normal purple kush, maybe some o.g. yumm...

Tony_26
04-26-2006, 02:44 AM
drugs did both

opera_jade
04-26-2006, 02:20 PM
Made it. Most of the old rock and roll songs were written while the person was on drugs and most of them are ABOUT drugs. Really, how far can you go writing songs JUST about sex?? (I'm not saying that sex didn't have anything to do with it...LOL) Now, overdoing the drugs broke the musicians, not the music.

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-08-2006, 07:56 AM
Rock 'n roll without drugs? Pfft.

Cheers,
CD

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-08-2006, 07:58 AM
Ummm, maybe Purple Haze was inspired by a dream...either way, it was a dream about weed. Purple haze is a type of weed, and Hendrix already being into bud, even just starting...that ****s not coincidence. Im sure he took one hit, said ****, passed out...and dreamt. Personally, i don't like purple haze, all about the normal purple kush, maybe some o.g. yumm...

Yumm you're an idiot.

Cheers,
CD

Emenius Sleepus
05-08-2006, 08:05 AM
drugs were responsible for half of creation of most rock'n'roll lol

cadmium_blimp
05-08-2006, 12:28 PM
Drugs are good for writin music, but they do bad things to a live show. People get sloppy when they are on drugs.

JackWhite1988
05-08-2006, 08:03 PM
This is what ruined rock & roll...
http://www.sykospark.net/emo/idiotic.gif

Drugs are good for writin music, but they do bad things to a live show. People get sloppy when they are on drugs.

Ha, ever seen clips from an Aerosmith show in the early 80's? Good theory btw. But hair metal didn't ruin rock. It was the same thing as 50's rock & roll just a notch up in terms of sexuality, noise and appearance. Good time music. They did things with a guitar no man had done before. Vai, Van Halen, Rhoads, Lynch, Tipton, Demartini, Mars, Malmsteen...the list goes on. That's more than I can say for alot of lazy guitar players in the limelight nowadays. 80's rock might have had girlie looking dudes, but I'd take a girlie looking group of guys's cd anyday over an emo/punk cd where I know I won't hear more than a series of fastly strummed powerchords.

cadmium_blimp
05-08-2006, 08:32 PM
Ha, ever seen clips from an Aerosmith show in the early 80's? Good theory btw. But hair metal didn't ruin rock. It was the same thing as 50's rock & roll just a notch up in terms of sexuality, noise and appearance. Good time music. They did things with a guitar no man had done before. Vai, Van Halen, Rhoads, Lynch, Tipton, Demartini, Mars, Malmsteen...the list goes on. That's more than I can say for alot of lazy guitar players in the limelight nowadays. 80's rock might have had girlie looking dudes, but I'd take a girlie looking group of guys's cd anyday over an emo/punk cd where I know I won't hear more than a series of fastly strummed powerchords.
I'm not the only one with that theory. I got it from Josh Homme who said something along the lines of drugs being good for writing music, but not for playing music.

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-09-2006, 04:40 AM
I'm not the only one with that theory. I got it from Josh Homme who said something along the lines of drugs being good for writing music, but not for playing music.

So because it's Josh Homme, it must be right?

Cheers,
CD

lorddubton
05-09-2006, 05:02 AM
imagine if guns and roses didnt take drugs when they were making appetite 4 destruction...it would not have been a classic albums arsehole :devil:

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-09-2006, 05:04 AM
Who knows?

Cheers,
CD

cadmium_blimp
05-09-2006, 10:20 AM
So because it's Josh Homme, it must be right?

Cheers,
CD
No, I'm just saying that I'm not the only one with this idea. There is absolutely no drug out there that will make a person a better instrumentalist. A person might do crazy stuff when they are on drugs that makes a good live show, but if a person is actually there for the music, they probably won't enjoy it as much.

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-10-2006, 04:27 AM
Get stoned, play a gig and write some music, then comment.

Cheers,
CD

Fat_Kid
05-10-2006, 04:32 AM
^^ hahah agreed

cadmium_blimp
05-10-2006, 10:19 AM
Get stoned, play a gig and write some music, then comment.

Cheers,
CD
Have you ever recorded yourself while doing this? If you have, I want to hear it.

EDIT: In addition to that, I want a recording of you playing straight.

PickAttack
05-10-2006, 12:23 PM
Not really, the problem is people doing drugs that aren't musicians.

sandwich_man
05-10-2006, 04:00 PM
Purple Haze wasn't about drugs. It may appear to be about drugs, but Jimi once said that the key line is "whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me". He's comparing a woman to an acid trip, or something.

Jarrett Moore
05-10-2006, 07:52 PM
Reallly? I thought, and was pretty sure, that that song is about a dream he had.

Italy's Finest
05-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Rock stars usually live short lives due to drugs but during those short periods of time they influence millions of people so it makes up for it. Drugs fueled the fire that is rock n' roll. These pussy ass musicians need to start doing more drugs and stop smoking crack cause that doesn't inspire ****!!!

cadmium_blimp
05-10-2006, 09:31 PM
Rock stars usually live short lives due to drugs but during those short periods of time they influence millions of people so it makes up for it. Drugs fueled the fire that is rock n' roll. These pussy ass musicians need to start doing more drugs and stop smoking crack cause that doesn't inspire ****!!!
So you would rather influence a lot of people than live a long, full life? I doubt those guys that die young really know who or how many so they aren't consoled that much.

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-11-2006, 04:00 AM
Have you ever recorded yourself while doing this? If you have, I want to hear it.

EDIT: In addition to that, I want a recording of you playing straight.

Ok.

I'll make a dmusic site tonight and I'll put up abit from this weekend's gig, along with some noodling while straight.

Will I be breaking some form of UG law by posting my link in a post in this thread?

Cheers,
CD

ZoSo.Led.Zep.
05-11-2006, 04:04 AM
Rock stars usually live short lives due to drugs but during those short periods of time they influence millions of people so it makes up for it. Drugs fueled the fire that is rock n' roll. These pussy ass musicians need to start doing more drugs and stop smoking crack cause that doesn't inspire ****!!!

Another eXtremely stupid post by 'Italy's Finest'.

Cheers,
CD