Page 2 of 3
#41
Quote by slap-a-bass
When somebody says they can get ****ed up and make music, it's because theyve trained themselves to be forced to do it.

it's generally because they're full of shit and are so full of shit that they're oblivious to the awful reality that is their playing

420 haha smoke weed live free drugs are cool everyone let's do drugs and be inspired because that's how music happens #YOLO
#42
Quote by :-D
....[ ]....let's do drugs and be inspired because that's how music happens #YOLO
However cavalier and condescending you choose to be toward that, it's exactly what happened during the 60's and 70's. Do you suppose the Rolling Stones all have D.A.R.E. tags on their Rolls?


Artists were spokesmen for the counterculture, the voices of the counter culture, and lived as part of the counterculture. It was pretty hard not to be blocked up most of the time. Ostensibly, the music got cleaned up in the studio.

The fact remains, a great many of those stoners of old are still huge stars, and/or have retired to castles, while this generation of sanctimonious asses runs on about how it can't be done high, and getting nowhere in the process.
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 15, 2013,
#43
i'll make a better post tomorrow when i'm awake, but for now i'll simply point out that the fact that there are a lot of people (referencing an entire generation is less than accurate) saying that drugs don't equal fabulous music doesn't immediately make them "sanctimonious asses"

to employ similar hyperbole, there's a generation of people who have been and are still under the impression that neil young's a fabulous guitar player. does this mean that everyone alive during the 60's and 70's is so hopelessly wrecked from drugs they've wandered around as vegetables for 40-50 years in a comatose state that rendered their ears useless?

probably not. different times, different general attitudes.
#44
zappa hated drugs
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.
#46
If it helps it helps if not...not. Why is this subject being stretched so hard?

Some people I have seen playing, I thought by myself, drink a beer or something, ur nervosity shows, and sounds not much different then being drunk.

I've played gigs being tired, sick, and having negative thoughts about rent or w/e, which also influence my playing.

A recording doesn't lie, people do.

This means even yourself. You know how many people who are 100% sober think they play well, but play shit?

Being drunk impairs you, but drinking a beer or smoking some weed or not is just 1 of the 100 variables that make or break your playing.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at May 15, 2013,
#47
Quote by 20Tigers
What a shame


could you imagine 200 motels if he wasn't sober? jesus christ, i don't think i could handle that
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.
#48
Quote by :-D
i'll make a better post tomorrow when i'm awake, but for now i'll simply point out that the fact that there are a lot of people (referencing an entire generation is less than accurate) saying that drugs don't equal fabulous music doesn't immediately make them "sanctimonious asses"
One of the most disturbing / entertaining things about UG, is making a generalization, and letting the feedback wash over you. People just don't tolerate dogma well. TBH the hip era had its stoners and not, but some of the doped up guys did succeed wildy
Quote by :-D
to employ similar hyperbole, there's a generation of people who have been and are still under the impression that neil young's a fabulous guitar player.
I an actually able to tolerate his guitar playing more so than the effeminate caterwauling he tries to pass off as singing. But for me, Neil Young is a baby that can stand to be thrown out with the bathwater.
Quote by :-D
does this mean that everyone alive during the 60's and 70's is so hopelessly wrecked from drugs they've wandered around as vegetables for 40-50 years in a comatose state that rendered their ears useless?

probably not. different times, different general attitudes.
David Crosby, (recipient of as liver transplant) said, "the only thing we were wrong about was the recreational drug use", of the hip generation's overall social outlook....

There were quite a few stoned guitarists who didn't receive credit for being as listenable as they were, Jerry Gracia (*) and Paul Kantner come to mind.

Alex Lifeson of "Rush" stated in GP magazine, our show is complicated to the point where we can't go and do it successfully impaired in any way". (loose quote).

John MacLaughlin certainly had the chops, but didn't interest me,. The Eagles were simpler but did, and goodness knows, a few of them had run ins with intoxicants.

So, to sum it up, you become a "sanctimonious ass" when you preach too devoutly, on either side of the issue. That's a generalization intended to be taken with a grain of self appraisal, and if the "shoe doesn't fit", you're probably better off ignoring it.

(*) Truth to tell, I can only abide one side of one Grateful Dead album, side one of "Workingman's Dead". Other than that, I think to myself, wow, great lick", then change the channel...
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 15, 2013,
#49
Re: professionalism - Let's run with one of those arguments above. The doctor who is in charge of your liver transplant comes in. He's had a couple of beers and joint or two. No matter. It calms him down and makes him work better because he deals with the stress better. A more relaxed doctor is less likely to make mistakes. How do you feel about "professionalism" now? If he/she isn't up to the task sober, then he/she is just not a good doctor. Period. IMHO.

Fact: alcohol is a depressant. It slows down reaction time, coordination, and dulls the senses. That's fine. Who needs coordination and a sense of precision hearing when you are playing a gig? Oh, yeah.... pretty well anyone does. You might think you're a better driver after a few beers, but the reality is born out in the overwhelming statistics that, basically, you're just many, many more times likely to screw up and crash the car.

And sure, people can find all the anecdotal exceptions they want. Yeah, we all know someone who spent a life time smoking a pack a day who never got cancer, either, but statistically again, it's pretty common knowledge that there is a definite correlation.

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.
Last edited by axemanchris at May 17, 2013,
#50
Quote by axemanchris
Re: professionalism - Let's run with one of those arguments above. The doctor who is in charge of your liver transplant comes in. He's had a couple of beers and joint or two. No matter. It calms him down and makes him work better because he deals with the stress better. A more relaxed doctor is less likely to make mistakes. How do you feel about "professionalism" now? If he/she isn't up to the task sober, then he/she is just not a good doctor. Period. IMHO.
Oh, really? When was the last time a band you played with, either saved someone's life, or performed brain surgery at a Saturday night cover gig in front of a room full of drunks.?

You're massively over estimating your own worth, your job description, and your contribution to society....Period.

John Lennon ironically observed, "our band is more popular than God", and practically got "stoned" to death for it. Like I said before, the stoners of the 70's are off living in castles earned, at least in part, from playing stoned. While the sanctimonious asses of UG are here concocting bizarre analogs to satisfy a need to overcompensate because of not having a stadium to play today.

Do you think a cross section of "The Dead Heads", are either qualified to sit on a medical review board, or are sober"?

The idea behind music is in large part to give release from the harsh reality of everyday life. So, if the audience is satisfied with the results, it really doesn't matter if the performance passes muster anyplace else but where, when, and with whom it happened.

Why not stick to comparing apples to apples, instead of oranges to opium poppies.


Disclaimer: No anesthetized surgery patients were harmed during the typing of this post.
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 17, 2013,
#51
Quote by axemanchris


Fact: alcohol is a depressant. It slows down reaction time, coordination, and dulls the senses.
CT


This musical advice brought to you by DARE.
#52
Quote by Captaincranky
Oh, really? When was the last time a band you played with, either saved someone's life, or performed brain surgery at a Saturday night cover gig in front of a room full of drunks.?

The idea behind music is in large part to give release from the harsh reality of everyday life. So, if the audience is satisfied with the results, it really doesn't matter if the performance passes muster anyplace else but where, when, and with whom it happened.


And people pay to receive this release from the performer. A musician isn't 'sacred', they're employed by their fans at the end of the day, it's completely disrespectful to come on after drinking or taking drugs. I would not hesitate to kick a member of my band out on the spot if they were found taking drugs or drinking before a show. If you're fine getting drunk and playing a poorly executed cover gig to a pub, go right ahead, if you want to be any kind of success in your life, you do your job and do it well.
#54
Quote by CelestialGuitar
And people pay to receive this release from the performer. A musician isn't 'sacred', they're employed by their fans at the end of the day, it's completely disrespectful to come on after drinking or taking drugs. I would not hesitate to kick a member of my band out on the spot if they were found taking drugs or drinking before a show. If you're fine getting drunk and playing a poorly executed cover gig to a pub, go right ahead, if you want to be any kind of success in your life, you do your job and do it well.
And that's your prerogative to kick a stoner out of "your" band.

Still, everybody keeps missing the point, erstwhile spouting anti drug dogma. Jimi Hendrix died of an overdose. Keith Richards has probably a hundred times the bank account of any of the self righteous posters to this thread.

But for the sake of equal time. Yes, Jim Morrison absolutely took it way too far.

Heroine and booze have been the musician's constant companion for centuries. Pour us a tankard of ale and crack out the lute, will ya? Do you think decades of blues and jazz musicians were teetotalers and elected officers of their hometown PTAs?

Just answer this question, "are you better than Hendrix or Richards"? Because to hear you \preach, you sure should be. (And richer as well).
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 18, 2013,
#55
Quote by Captaincranky
John Lennon ironically observed, "our band is more popular than God", and practically got "stoned" to death for it. Like I said before, the stoners of the 70's are off living in castles earned, at least in part, from playing stoned. While the sanctimonious asses of UG are here concocting bizarre analogs to satisfy a need to overcompensate because of not having a stadium to play today.

Actually, most of the stoners of the '60s and '70s are either dead or broke.

Quote by Captaincranky
And that's your prerogative to kick a stoner out of "your" band.

Still, everybody keeps missing the point, erstwhile spouting anti drug dogma. Jimi Hendrix died of an overdose. Keith Richards has probably a hundred times the bank account of any of the self righteous posters to this thread.

But for the sake of equal time. Yes, Jim Morrison absolutely took it way too far.

Heroine and booze have been the musician's constant companion for centuries. Pour us a tankard of ale and crack out the lute, will ya? Do you think decades of blues and jazz musicians were teetotalers and elected officers of their hometown PTAs?

Just answer this question, "are you better than Hendrix or Richards"? Because to hear you \preach, you sure should be. (And richer as well).

So, your argument as to why it's ok for musicians to do drugs/alcohol before a show is that musicians have been doing drugs for generations?


Ok, how about this then? Humans have been killing each other for generations, why should it be an issue if we kill each other? Seriously, the whole "we've been doing it for decades" argument is just bad logic.
#57
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Actually, most of the stoners of the '60s and '70s are either dead or broke.
And the Rolling Stones just went on their 50th anniversary tour. Joe Walsh feels compelled to tell his audience of his triumph over alcohol. David Crosby had a liver transplant, while both Sunny Bono and John Denver were killed in ways not related to intoxicants.


Quote by crazysam23_Atax
So, your argument as to why it's ok for musicians to do drugs/alcohol before a show is that musicians have been doing drugs for generations?
Well where there's smoke, there's fire. When you come right down to it, you shouldn't be playing material live that you can't do comfortably in practice. Since that would exclude the hardest pieces you know, there should be a little leeway in faculty that you have as overhead, or that you could stand to lose without too much in the way of performance penalty.

Bob Dylan said, "but I was so much older then, I'm younger that that now. I've always taken that to mean his views were more rigid and idealistic, and that the compromises that have to be made to get by in this world, made him feel younger and less resolute. (Hey, I could have that all wrong).

TBH, I'm not arguing a musician has to do drugs or drink, or even should. I'm just getting progressively sick of listening to social outrage, indignation and the hyperbolic idealistic onslaught this thread has worked itself into a lather about.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Ok, how about this then? Humans have been killing each other for generations, why should it be an issue if we kill each other? Seriously, the whole "we've been doing it for decades" argument is just bad logic.
This is the pure, off topic, unrelated crap I'm talking about. Man wasn't made in God's image, get over it. Man is simply the most systematic, most vicious, successful predator to ever inhabit this planet. A crap species that kills for sport, and can't really allow other creatures the dignity of a peaceful natural existence.

So, death, taxes, cannibalism, and ritual human sacrifice have all played pivotal roles in many cultures through the ages. The Spanish Inquisition really happened, and wasn't officially ended until the late 1830's. The Colosseum is still standing in Rome, and there's a few smokestacks left at Auschwitz.

What you feel compelled to call, "bad logic", is what I've come to accept as "immutable truth". (I know, that is a big downer).

If I really felt like listening to this spiel, "I want to promote world peace, fight addiction, and uphold the ideals of the "Miss America Pageant", I'd have recorded it for later and played it back, like right about now.

Right or wrong, people get stoned, and people kill each other, in the name of God, country, for general principles, or simply because they can. It isn't logical, it just is. I think it's generally excused by calling it, "human nature".

But, none of that has much to do with how each individual performer should comport him or herself, does it?
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 19, 2013,
#58
Quote by Captaincranky
And the Rolling Stones just went on their 50th anniversary tour. Joe Walsh feels compelled to tell his audience of his triumph over alcohol. David Crosby had a liver transplant, while both Sunny Bono and John Denver were killed in ways not related to intoxicants.


And yet, it doesn't matter. Because my point still stands. Btw, all of those bands/artists have gone way downhill since the '60s and '70s. All of them are living on their laurels (or are dead, whether drugs had a thing to do with it or not). The Stones and Areosmith are pretty much the only bands that still make a living off of their music from the '70s. And none of the guys in those bands are "all right" in a medical sense.

Well where there's smoke, there's fire. When you come right down to it, you shouldn't be playing material live that you can't do comfortably in practice. Since that would exclude the hardest pieces you know, there should be a little leeway in faculty that you have as overhead, or that you could stand to lose without too much in the way of performance penalty.


I feel like this is obvious and didn't even need to be said...

Bob Dylan said, "but I was so much older then, I'm younger that that now. I've always taken that to mean his views were more rigid and idealistic, and that the compromises that have to be made to get by in this world, made him feel younger and less resolute. (Hey, I could have that all wrong).


Are you making a bad attempt at pointing to an authority?

TBH, I'm not arguing a musician has to do drugs or drink, or even should. I'm just getting progressively sick of listening to social outrage, indignation and the hyperbolic idealistic onslaught this thread has worked itself into a lather about.




This is the pure, off topic, unrelated crap I'm talking about. Man wasn't made in God's image, get over it. Man is simply the most systematic, most vicious, successful predator to ever inhabit this planet. A crap species that kills for sport, and can't really allow other creatures the dignity of a peaceful natural existence.

So, death, taxes, cannibalism, and ritual human sacrifice have all played pivotal roles in many cultures through the ages. The Spanish Inquisition really happened, and wasn't officially ended until the late 1830's. The Colosseum is still standing in Rome, and there's a few smokestacks left at Auschwitz.

What you feel compelled to call, "bad logic", is what I've come to accept as "immutable truth". (I know, that is a big downer).

If I really felt like listening to this spiel, "I want to promote world peace, fight addiction, and uphold the ideals of the "Miss America Pageant", I'd have recorded it for later and played it back, like right about now.

Right or wrong, people get stoned, and people kill each other, in the name of God, country, for general principles, or simply because they can. It isn't logical, it just is. I think it's generally excused by calling it, "human nature".

But, none of that has much to do with how each individual performer should comport him or herself, does it?
Are you just spouting off nonsense here in an attempt to "drop a knowledge bomb" on us? Because you're literally all over the place with your arguments here, and (as a result) you don't prove a damn thing. So, do come back when you can form a coherent argument. I've come to the conclusion that you missed my original point completely and figured you'd fire back in self-righteous indignation, busting out all of your limited historical examples of human atrocity in an attempt to prove that somehow you're right.

Edit:
Here's my original point, btw: just because a bunch of musicians have been doing drugs and alcohol before performances, that does NOT make it ok. You made a very bad attempt at pointing to an unnamed authority. You're trying to say that because others have done it, it's ok. Well, if the others jump off a bridge, would you follow them? No? Moving on then...

I don't care if you think it's ok. Fact is, whether you like it or not, it IS unprofessional to take drugs or drink before performing in front of a crowd that paid to come see you. I don't care how many other musicians got high before a show; they acted unprofessional by doing so, even if they still could perform. Being a full-time musician and performer is a job, and one should act in a professional manner while doing said job. End of story.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 19, 2013,
#59
Quote by griffRG7321
m8 dis 1 tym me n da lads got fookin smashed m8 yer get me wuz fookin trollied off triple VKs at wethurspoons n den we get to da club n i knock bak about 5 jagerbombs n den dis burd was givin me the eye lyk n so i fookin got ma geetar out n played sum ****in sweeps n shit n she wer lyk propa luvin it n l8er on i tuk 'er bak to myn n smashed her bk doors in yer get me n den i pluggd in my strat and playd eruption at twice da normal speed wifout any mistakes u jus aint got wat it takes 2 be aswel as me wen ur drunk m8 pro tip jus dont drink if u wana play geetar 2 get birds bruv no wat im sayin?

n den dat bish txt me sayin she got da clap n i fort o well at least i got 2 clapta dem cheeks amirite?

Win. Sweeps always get em man... always... not to mention playing that eruption thing twice the speed, frikking genius. I'll try that tomorrow.

Thread related: who gives a crap if they drink or get high. The audience knows that if they're fans of the band. If its your first gig and you're completely wasted... you'll only know if it was good or bad when/if you get a call back. But who cares? When you die, they somehow give you a candlelight vigil... as though you were so important when you were alive. They'll dis every follow up album from the one that made you famous, but yeah, when you die they all become important and your lyrics somehow change peoples lives... Hypocrisy. That is the human way.

Live your life however you see fit. Make changes if you feel you need to. Forget the professionalism crap. If it gets you to perform comfortably, then so be it. We could all only dream of the day crazysam is in our audience and respecting us as musicians/people... but until that day, just do what you need to do. End of story.

Not really the end of the story. Moral high ground is for people taking 10 years to record their e.p. For the rest of the musicians/people... don't forget to live. Even if it's only for a day. Candlelight vigil... remember?
#60
Quote by crazysam23_Atax


So, your argument as to why it's ok for musicians to do drugs/alcohol before a show is that musicians have been doing drugs for generations?


Ok, how about this then? Humans have been killing each other for generations, why should it be an issue if we kill each other? Seriously, the whole "we've been doing it for decades" argument is just bad logic.
These are two unrelated topics. Musicians get stoned, humans kill other humans. In fact, it's not an issue if we kill one another. It's an issue in the US maybe. Somewhere at any given time, there are tribal purges and genocides going in Sub-Saharan Africa. Millions die, it has nothing to do with whether or not a musician decides to get stoned while he or she plays.

There's a -1 negative correlation. It's off topic

Let it go mo, you don't make any sense.

I simply don't care who is stoned when they play, and who isn't. As for the Stones or other old rockers not being medically "all right", who the hell is when they're in their seventies? You sure as hell don't know anything about being 70, do you?

In any case, the drug use generated a whole lot of the music of the 70's. Like say, "White Rabbit", and how about "Mr. Tambourine Man". It would be difficult to separate the two.

The Beatles went through a heroine phase, I pretty sure during the "White Album" period. I don't care for the white album, many people think it's one of their best. Do I not like it because they were on drugs? Maybe. Because they were on different drugs from the ones I was used to listening to them on? Maybe.

As to whether the bands of the 70's are washed up, perhaps they are. On their worst days, they're still a whole lot better than the "channel changers" like "Dead Sarah" that Jimmy Kimmel tries to pawn off on you as "music".

In any case, George Harrison died of cancer, not an overdose, which is only an occupational hazard of living as long as he did. John Lennon was shot to death. Again, not his use of drugs related.

Every psychotropic drug has a distinct state of consciousness associated with it. It that state of mind resonates from a musician to his audience who approves or is in the same state, then what? Lou Reed did a lot of smack, he had a following in that community. The "Velvet Underground" was pretty much all about heroine. Ostensibly he's doing better now. Don't know, don't care.

I vote with my wallet. I buy the music I like, and don't by the music I don't. I have an abundant lack of interest in the musician's lifestyle, or what condition they were in when they made the music. I turn all the "OMG Insider" and "Access Hollywood" garbage off. I don't care about the factory, only the product. I don't care what drugs Stevie Nicks took, or who she was banging in the band. If I like her music, I buy it. If she's all hoarse from snorting coke and screaming at the end of a 6 month tour, I skip the live album. Try and get this through your head.

Now, go find a pulpit and preach to somebody else. And save all of the irrelevant, bizarre analogs for somebody that does care, or might possibly be impressed with them.

I'm a sociopath, I don't care who's high, or who dies.
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 19, 2013,
#62
Aaaaand I'm BACK AND MY GOD WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD? Settle down people. Fact of the matter is that some people can play stoned, tripping, rolling, drunk, and speeding and some of them play better that way. Some can't play that way at all. And doing that in a recording studio is the only thing I would definitely call unprofessional. On stage, maybe.

Do you go to other people's shows sober? Is it unprofessional to listen to the latest Bowie while smoking a joint?

P.S. I haven't heard the latest Bowie, so I don't know if it is conducive to marijuana smoking or not.

Lets mix it up.
#63
Quote by Captaincranky
These are two unrelated topics. Musicians get stoned, humans kill other humans. In fact, it's not an issue if we kill one another. It's an issue in the US maybe. Somewhere at any given time, there are tribal purges and genocides going in Sub-Saharan Africa. Millions die, it has nothing to do with whether or not a musician decides to get stoned while he or she plays.

You do realize that the point of bringing such a point was to point out that the whole "those guys have been doing it forever" argument is bullshit, right? I really don't know why I have to explain this...

Edit:
In fact, I pretty much spelled it all out 2 posts above your post...

Quote by MattMurph
Aaaaand I'm BACK AND MY GOD WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD? Settle down people. Fact of the matter is that some people can play stoned, tripping, rolling, drunk, and speeding and some of them play better that way. Some can't play that way at all. And doing that in a recording studio is the only thing I would definitely call unprofessional. On stage, maybe.

Do you go to other people's shows sober? Is it unprofessional to listen to the latest Bowie while smoking a joint?

P.S. I haven't heard the latest Bowie, so I don't know if it is conducive to marijuana smoking or not.

Lets mix it up.

As a fan who is at a show, your job is NOT to be entertaining others. Your sole point of being there is to be entertained. If drugs/alcohol allow you to be better entertained, then fine.
But, as an entertainer, there's higher standards. You are, for all intents and purposes, a businessman/woman who sells music. By doing drugs or alcohol beforehand, you are certainly lowering the quality of entertainment you can provide.

I don't really care if people think "weed calms nerves" or whatever, btw. Of course it does, but if you have to smoke a joint before performing...then, you need to simply man up/woman up and ignore your nerves. Stage fright is not a good excuse. If you have chronic stage fright, then maybe you shouldn't be an entertainer.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 19, 2013,
#64
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
You do realize that the point of bringing such a point was to point out that the whole "those guys have been doing it forever" argument is bullshit, right? I really don't know why I have to explain this...

Edit:
In fact, I pretty much spelled it all out 2 posts above your post...
You've only "Spelled it out" to your own satisfaction, not to mine. For me it's a question of, (in many cases), "did the music come from the drug use, or did the drug use come from the music". If you're any good at all with abstract conceptualization, you'll quickly realize that's the "chicken or the egg" conundrum revisited.


Quote by crazysam23_Atax
...[ ]....But, as an entertainer, there's higher standards. You are, for all intents and purposes, a businessman/woman who sells music. By doing drugs or alcohol beforehand, you are certainly lowering the quality of entertainment you can provide.
Again this pivots on whether or not you have enough "ability to spare", to have a beer or joint, and still satisfy the audience. I certainly hope your "salesman's approach" to the "business of music" works for you. It sounds boring and mechanical to me. That said, in the unlikely event you ever hit the big time, feel free to come back and rub my nose in it.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I don't really care if people think "weed calms nerves" or whatever, btw. Of course it does, but if you have to smoke a joint before performing...then, you need to simply man up/woman up and ignore your nerves.
I agree you should try. But here again, this pivots on my "chicken and the egg" analog.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Stage fright is not a good excuse. If you have chronic stage fright, then maybe you shouldn't be an entertainer.
This is the statement where you almost completely lose credibility. So many of the best, most accomplished, and awarded performers have described their experience with stage fright, and also have admitted they've never been able to fully conquer it.

"Stage fright", is mostly based on a fear of inadequacy of performance. As with any fear, it is a primal response, triggered by the "fight or flight" response. As with any "fight or flight" reaction, a massive release of adrenalin (*)occurs.

So, those that can conquer stage fright without help, could perhaps be loosely called or be deemed to be, "adrenalin junkies".


(*) "Adrenalin", is also marketed medicinally as "epinephrine". So make no mistake about it, it can be called a "drug of choice" for many people.


Quote by innovine
Its 'heroin', not 'heroine'.
Oh sorry. I got into the "habit" of using that spelling because of the Strawbs song, "Hero and Heroine". It's loosely based on Homer's "Iliad", with the "heroine" wearing "fleecy white"(powder):

http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/s/strawbs/hero_and_heroine_crd.htm

This is a great tune, with a shitload of fanfare in Dm. Verily, "Pomp and Unfortunate Circumstance". I know it's about Heroin< addiction, since the man who wrote it, told me so at a Strawbs concert in Ambler PA.
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 19, 2013,
#65
How many people ranting about a musician's "responsibility" to stay sober are actually experienced performers?

After 120+ performances, I'm quite comfortable playing with a beer or two, as are most other seasoned professionals. It's actually pretty normal. Frankly, if having a beer turns your fingers to jelly you should spend more time practicing, because you just plain don't know the material.

When it comes to show time, the best music comes from musicians who are in a good mood. If that means the performer has a beer, who cares? Not everyone thrives on the stone-faced, dead-serious musicianship thing. Believe it or not, there are people who comfortable and secure enough on stage that they can kick back and enjoy a beer while putting on a good show.
#66
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I don't really care if people think "weed calms nerves" or whatever, btw. Of course it does, but if you have to smoke a joint before performing...then, you need to simply man up/woman up and ignore your nerves. Stage fright is not a good excuse. If you have chronic stage fright, then maybe you shouldn't be an entertainer.

You are assuming that weed is a negative thing/will have negative effects, and that people HAVE to smoke. My point was that in my case I relax with some weed; I could play without, which is not a hassle at all, but I simply feel a little better when I'm high. Especially marijuana-use changes a lot over the years as well; I no longer get 'baked out of my mind' or lose my ability to do anything; I just feel happier, which ultimately is what I'm going for in life anyways.

Actually, my only issue here was that people act like playing on drugs makes someone a horrible performer or person, when I just say "do what works". For you, and for the people around you. If you know you're no good when you're drunk/high, don't drink or get high. But if you are perfectly able to do so and maintain a productive and social attitude, I really don't get the criticism. People who do a bad job deserve criticism, people with a different lifestyle to yours do not.

You can yell DRUGS ARE AWESOME or DRUGS ARE HORRIBLE all you want, but why not let everyone do what works for them and their audience?
Tell me who's that writin'...
Last edited by Kylianvb at May 19, 2013,
#68
Quote by VioletBoader
I use to drink Pepsi while playing guitar....

Sugar makes my fingers jumpy and my sweep pickin turns to shit
#70
Keep the American tradition alive!

Steel Reserve 2/11
Just another Sheep in the design of the Almighty Machine.


-GEAR-
Gibson 60s Les Paul Tribute (Sunburst)
1999 Ibanez RG470 (TitaniumIce-MIJ)
Jackson RR3 (Trans-Red)
Peavey 6505+
Podx3
#71
I usually drink a few before the show, one during the set. Anymore than 3-4 beers I start to play sloppy, but I can still play fo sho

Most bands ive been in frowned at you if you got too drunk before a show. A few beers is one thing, but if you can't drive you dont have any buisness being on stage.
Last edited by Peaceful Rocker at May 28, 2013,
#72
I love playing drunk, but I can only seem to remember how to play songs from the White Stripes. My friends get really tired of hearing "Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground"

Must Not Sleep.


Must Warn Others.

Gear:
Gibson Special Faded SG
Orange Tiny Terror (Combo)
MXR Carbon Copy Delay
Dunlop Crybaby Wah

3DS friend code: 3995-7035-3562
#73
I noodle while high on weed on the guitar and clarinet with some bandmates (Play in a jazz combo). It helps with creativity, but it sucks for actual technique. I usually record our jam and then play it later when sober to bang out some nice tunes.
#74
What the hell is this? Is this what is left of MT after the great mode wars ?
Quote by Hail
i'm the internet equivalent of ripping the skin off my face and strangling you with it right now


Quote by Steve Albini
Remixing is for talentless pussies who don't know how to tune a drum or point a microphone.
Last edited by Slashiepie at Oct 7, 2013,
#75
Please vote for my band in a demo competition by clicking
here, pressing the button that says "Gi din stemme" and then connecting to facebook! Thanks a lot!
#76
Each to their own I say, someone once said "If you're going to play drunk might as well practice drunk" to me and this is agreeable, but it's all up to the individual really. You've started this thread stating you can't play well even after a couple so don't bother if you want productive practice/playing.

Myself, when I used to do drugs I found speed was awesome for practice, weed was never that great and seemed to hinder my ear, nothing ever seemed in tune or I just got to picky. At the end of everything i've found sober/straight practice and playing is the best you can get. If you enjoy playing loose and half cut then do it, it's fun, but it's not a requirement.
*shrugs* I don't know...
#77
Ive never been in a band where its acceptable to play shitfaced on stage.

However, pretty much every show ive ever played, I had a good 2-3 beers in my before hand. Its just part of it honestly. Pretty much a rule of thumb you dont perform wasted, but there's a difference between tispy and wasted.
#78
Drunk don´t work for me....but a little Buzz is good!! My band now has a 2 beer maximum before gigs...had some incidents with a sloppy lead guitarist that likes the juice a little too much and I find it easier to solve onstage problems when almost sober.....logical reasoning such as "guitar makes no sound=check that it´s plugged into amp" seems to be really difficult after 5-6 beers. Unfortunately the only one who could use a few (the drummer) rarely drinks.

...if I was in a band where the jest of it wasn´t lying upon my shoulders and I only had to plug and play I could see myself going onstage a little more tipsy cause even if it lessens my skills it really boosts my "wild-side"...and lets face it a band thats OK with a great stage presence wins everytime over a great band thats basically boring too watch!!
I believe in god, jesus and the holy ghost.....or as i call them Angus, Kirk and Lemmy
#79
Quote by MattMurph
We've all heard the stories about musicians getting rocked before a gig. Jim Morrison drinking a six pack before every show, Eric Clapton recording entire albums on the floor smacked out of his mind on heroin, Jerry Garcia tripping balls on acid, etc. I'm wondering if these stories are actually true.

Basically, when I drink even two beers, I lose all ability to play guitar. I have no timing and rhythm, I can't control volume, and I can barely even feel the strings. I do have a slight lack of feeling in my left hand, from shattering two metacarpals and slicing open the other two fingers with electric hedge trimmers (22 stitches), but my right hand is also useless when I'm sheets to the wind.

Is my lack of skill after drinking simply due to the fact that alcohol destroys any and all coordination? Or, should I just play more when I've been drinking? OR, is it just a refection of my skill level, and is something that I will eventually be able to do when I get better at guitar? Perhaps it is a combo?

This thread is not about any other drugs except alcohol, unless that is OK. I don't want violate forum rules. I am also 24.

it's different when you are addicted. you get used to it and then you find it hard to play without it. i used to be like that but with *other* substances. i know clapton said there was a time when he didn't know how to function unless he had double vision. your body gets used to it and makes that the norm and sober is like being drunk or high.
#80
im fine sober or stoned or on mesc or slightly drunk. the more i drink, though, the worse i sound.