#1
Who's worse: In-Laws or Band-members? I'm fortunate, actually, in that I luckily have cool In-Laws...but you get my point. Check out this article for the lowdown on your musical family-away-from-home: Your Band-mates.

Post any Q's or comm's here.


-6SV
#2
Man are you going to participate in the forum or just advertise all day long?

Quote by emad
jthm_guitarist
Warned for trolling!


Quote by metal4eva_22
Didn't you say that you had a stuffed fox that you would occasionally fuck?

Quote by Axelfox
It's not a fox,it's a wolf.
#3
Hmmm..... from the "user title" under his name, it appears he'll be doing neither for a while.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#4
Nonetheless... it is a decent article.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#5
Quote by 6SV
Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for drug use. Musicians, we have to take it upon ourselves to rid ourselves of the drug-user / "stoner" stereotype. And I mean ALL musicians, whether you are in a conservatory, a bar band, a jazz orchestra, or a klezmer group. Heroin didn't make Charlie Parker or Miles Davis any better than their natural talent. Nor did it 'improve' Jimi Hendrix's playing. Nor did it make Keith Richards a better rhythm player. And Classical players, just in case you think you're off the hook, I knew some members of a well-known string quartet at a prominent conservatory who went to "raves" on a regular basis.


What are these "raves" he speaks of? Are they the places we can get the pukka-e's for the party people and boogie 'til dawn?
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
#6
Quote by Damascus
What are these "raves" he speaks of? Are they the places we can get the pukka-e's for the party people and boogie 'til dawn?

lol.

i'd also be curious to find out how he found out that drug use did not in any way aid jimi hendrix's musical creation process (i guess the same could be posed for the beatles, cream, janis joplin, led zeppelin, pink floyd, etc etc).

OP, what was your experimental design and what complex analysis led to your conclusions?

(because it sounds like you're just making shit up and are attempting to espouse it as truth)
#7
He can't answer you for a while. Sure, there are things to pick at, but for the most part, I thought it was a decent article.

In my experience, drugs and alcohol do not make people more creative or better players. It gives them the illusion - but only from their own perspective - that they are more creative and better players.

He can't prove that drugs made them any less creative any more than you can prove it made them any more creative.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#8
Quote by axemanchris
He can't answer you for a while. Sure, there are things to pick at, but for the most part, I thought it was a decent article.

In my experience, drugs and alcohol do not make people more creative or better players. It gives them the illusion - but only from their own perspective - that they are more creative and better players.

He can't prove that drugs made them any less creative any more than you can prove it made them any more creative.

CT


Still seems a little off that "stoners" (or weed users) are associated with heroin addicts and pill poppers. It's kinda like associating drinking with being white trash.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#9
Quote by axemanchris
He can't answer you for a while. Sure, there are things to pick at, but for the most part, I thought it was a decent article.

In my experience, drugs and alcohol do not make people more creative or better players. It gives them the illusion - but only from their own perspective - that they are more creative and better players.

He can't prove that drugs made them any less creative any more than you can prove it made them any more creative.

CT

In my experience, psychedelics enhance creativity (not skill) tremendously. Record a jam session with your band for 4 hours while sober week in and week out, if you want to break out of a rut or hear something VASTLY different from what you usually play have your band take a bunch of mushrooms and record it.

Note that I'm not claiming that they do enhance creativty, but in my experience they have. The OP, on the other hand, stated that they do not (as in, it's not his opinion, or his experience that they do not, it's a fact that they don't) which is something completely different.

I think pink floyd and the beatles (etc) would have created fantastic music regardless of their drug use, but would pf have made the dark side of the moon, would the beatles have made sgt pepper's? It's possible, but i highly doubt it.

Why is there so much irrational dislike of sometimes using mind-altering substances for inspiration? If you write a super sad song after the love of your life leaves you, is that song somehow worse because it's based on an experience than if someone just made it up out of thin air and didn't base the sadness off some experience?

some drugs out there are powerfully mind-altering and can provide life changing experiences, and can form the basis, inspiration, and ideas for some amazing music.

I don't see anything wrong with that. (obviously there's a massive difference between someone taking shrooms 1-2 times a year and writing music about it vs a heroin junkie shooting up every day, don't strawman my argument to seem like i'm talking about the pros of the latter).
#10
Quote by -TM-
In my experience, psychedelics enhance creativity (not skill) tremendously. Record a jam session with your band for 4 hours while sober week in and week out, if you want to break out of a rut or hear something VASTLY different from what you usually play have your band take a bunch of mushrooms and record it.


So the next logical question is "Why is that?" The next logical question would be, "Is it, indeed, more creative.... or just different?"

My take is that they lower your inhibitions or whatever else like that, allowing you to feel more free to take chances that you wouldn't otherwise take, rather than staying inside your comfortable box. You shouldn't need drugs to do that. You only medicate a problem, no?

Quote by -TM-

I think pink floyd and the beatles (etc) would have created fantastic music regardless of their drug use, but would pf have made the dark side of the moon, would the beatles have made sgt pepper's? It's possible, but i highly doubt it.


I hear ya. Hard to say, eh?

Quote by -TM-

Why is there so much irrational dislike of sometimes using mind-altering substances for inspiration?


I think it's just a reaction to all the irrational justifications from people who have developed dependencies on said drugs.

Quote by -TM-

some drugs out there are powerfully mind-altering and can provide life changing experiences, and can form the basis, inspiration, and ideas for some amazing music.


So, a philosophical question.... is a "pseudo-experience" the same as an *actual* experience? For the purposes of creativity.... perhaps.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#11
Quote by axemanchris
So the next logical question is "Why is that?" The next logical question would be, "Is it, indeed, more creative.... or just different?"

My take is that they lower your inhibitions or whatever else like that, allowing you to feel more free to take chances that you wouldn't otherwise take, rather than staying inside your comfortable box. You shouldn't need drugs to do that. You only medicate a problem, no?

That's a good question to ask, and it's an interesting one because according to dictionary.com, and my own intuitive definition of "creativity" 'just different' is = to creativity:

"the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc"

Some drugs lower your inhibitions (alcohol, and I would assume opiates and benzos, but I have never tried either of the latter so I cannot say for sure) but others work by completely shifting your perception of reality: take a traditional amazonian drink called ayahuasca for example (which contains the potent psychedelic NN,DMT and an MAOI which makes it orally active).

When this drink is consumed, you're literally launched into an alternate reality (I'm speaking from the users point of view once they've taken it), where time doesn't exist, nothing familiar to you exists there, the laws of physics are completely different, other entities and sounds exist there, you hear music but its of a completely different nature (which could implant ideas in your mind when you're back to normal), etc etc. Imagine actually experiencing narnia from the lion the witch and the wardrobe except times a million in intensity/foreigness.

BUT, I'm not saying that it's necessary to use experiences such as these as a basis for some music, I'm just saying that when used in moderation, and intelligently, with great planning etc, they CAN help talented musicians get a completely different take on their musical ideas that they would just never have tried/seen otherwise.


Quote by axemanchris


I think it's just a reaction to all the irrational justifications from people who have developed dependencies on said drugs.


I agree with this, but lumping everything into the category of "a drug" doesn't do any justice to the problem. Not all drugs are physically addictive (marijuana for the most part, and almost all psychedelics), not all drugs are mentally addictive (most psychedelics), some drugs are both (alcohol, stimulants, opiates, benzos), and some are neither (most psychedelics).

I mean, if you have a talented musician (and note that this is not me, but there are quite a few in my family) and you use mushrooms once or twice a year, and then write a bunch of songs inspired by the experience, would you call that drug dependency? Keep in mind that these people write songs based on almost all of their "intense" life experiences. It's not like they're saying "I really wish I could write a song right now, but there are no drugs left!"


Quote by axemanchris
So, a philosophical question.... is a "pseudo-experience" the same as an *actual* experience? For the purposes of creativity.... perhaps.

CT


for the purposes of creativity perhaps - is an interesting way of looking at it.

I actually wouldn't classify the experiences as "pseudo-experiences" though. All our experiences in life are mediated by neurotransmitters and chemicals, when you're happy or sad etc etc, there are chemicals partly responsible for that. Our perception of reality is VERY limited as members of homo sapiens (and all other discovered life on earth).

Our brains take in more than 11 million bits of sensory data per second from the environment, only 40 of these bits can be processed by the conscious mind, the other ~11 million are processed in the subconscious, and are used to activate previously established mental schemas which are then relayed to the conscious mind for purposes of efficiency, a drug like lsd just temporarily shuts off this filter, openning the floodgates of sensory data to flow into the conscious mind (such that you could not possibly process/interpret it all correctly - and this sends the user into a surreal space where imagination and reality intertwine).

I could go on and on about how limited our perceptions of reality are (we see 0.000 000 000 000 037% of the EMR spectrum, lol)

but the point is that i think these experiences are potentially valuable, and are just as legitimate as any other experience.
Last edited by -TM- at Jun 19, 2011,
#12
fwiw, I was just poking fun at the fact that he's clearly one of these people that tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about re:drugs, but the wonky slang clearly reveals that he's tragically unhip.

EDIT:
Quote by axemanchris
My take is that they lower your inhibitions or whatever else like that, allowing you to feel more free to take chances that you wouldn't otherwise take, rather than staying inside your comfortable box. You shouldn't need drugs to do that. You only medicate a problem, no?


Would say, though, that I don't think I've ever met someone who wouldn't benefit from fewer inhibitions about one thing or the other, so I'd say that it is a problem & we all have it.
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
Last edited by Damascus at Jun 20, 2011,
#13
It's a bit hard to adopt a "zero-tolerance" attitude towards drugs in the muso world. Sure you do draw the line somewhere, those who are addicts to drugs/alcohol constantly show up late for practice, forget parts, fall apart on stage, and you have to let them go. However you'd let them go regardless of whether they're taking drug or not.

Or myself, I don't do drugs, but I like to write myself off completely every now and then. During gigs though, I don't drink at all because I'm always too afraid of being over the limit when driving home. So the two are separated.

Then you have some other musos who have a puff of a joint every now and then between sets. It doesn't seem to affect their ability to play, and they show up on time and remember the songs. Actually if you didn't know that they had that puff, you'd be none the wiser.

I'm just trying to illustrate that it's not the doing drugs itself which makes you a bad bandmate, it's the actions that go along with it. If you like getting stoned, cool. If you get stoned and forget to show up to practice, not cool.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#14
And so what it basically comes back to is, as long as you're not being a dick, it's all good; and if you are being a dick, it's not so much what specific thing you're doing/saying/using/smoking/thinking that's the problem, it's the fact that you're being a dick.

How to choose the right band members: get ones that aren't dicks.
#15


CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#16
Quote by ascend
And so what it basically comes back to is, as long as you're not being a dick, it's all good; and if you are being a dick, it's not so much what specific thing you're doing/saying/using/smoking/thinking that's the problem, it's the fact that you're being a dick.

How to choose the right band members: get ones that aren't dicks.


Well an unreliable dick more to the point, but yeah you pretty much got it. Make a test or something consisting of the one question "are you a dick?" and depending on how they go with the test you can decide whether they're in the band or not.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#17
I guess the hard thing with dicks is that the ones that are will swear they're not, and the ones that acknowledge that they might be could go either way and you still don't really know.
#18
Quote by ascend
I guess the hard thing with dicks


Yes go on.


And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#19


Beat me to it...

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#20
Quote by AlanHB

Then you have some other musos who have a puff of a joint every now and then between sets. It doesn't seem to affect their ability to play, and they show up on time and remember the songs. Actually if you didn't know that they had that puff, you'd be none the wiser.

I'm just trying to illustrate that it's not the doing drugs itself which makes you a bad bandmate, it's the actions that go along with it. If you like getting stoned, cool. If you get stoned and forget to show up to practice, not cool.


I agree entirely.

Smoking dope can be compared to drinking alcohol, although they obviously both affect you in different ways (speaking from LOTS of experience here) but my point is, people who "have a puff of a joint every now and then between sets" can be pretty much equated with people who "have a sip of their pint every now and then between sets"

You wouldn't have a problem with some sipping a bit of beer, so why have a problem with someone taking a few puffs of a joint?

To put it another way, no one is going to throw someone out of a band because they occasionaly drink alcohol. But they may if someone drinks 'lots' of alcohol, all the time, and it becomes a problem that causes whoever to not turn up to practices, ect.

Quote by ascend
I guess the hard thing with dicks is that the ones that are will swear they're not, and the ones that acknowledge that they might be could go either way and you still don't really know.


That's what probationary periods were invented for, so you can get to know them and make your own mind up whether they're dicks or not before you give them a perminant position in the band.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Jun 22, 2011,