smokeverbs said:

Forgive the following rant but I can't see comments like this and not speak up. I'm really so f*cking sick of people worshipping drugs as though they're the origin of all creative/artistic thought in human history. Yes intoxication can and often is a form of artistic inspiration, yes drugs can help elicit creativity but the idea that drugs are the ONLY or the best form of inspiration or that they are RESPONSIBlE for creativity is just plain idiotic. It's like saying steroids are the best way to bulk up: sure using steroids will achieve the effect, but you can get there naturally and healthily without the negative side effects. Using the world around you, nature, your life experiences, the people you know, your emotions, dreams etc. etc. as inspiration is a much better route. The "natural" high is a greater high if you can get there because it doesn't result in the depletion of your brain's chemicals. People just aren't often encouraged to think imaginatively or creatively without a stimulus, and the kind of thoughts people can evoke if they were truly open-minded, are for some reason only comprehensible or acceptable to a lot of people if they came from chemicals. Sure there are tons of great artists and musicians who've used drugs, but there are many who haven't too: Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Frank Zappa, Stevie Wonder, Ian McKay to name a few. Hell, Paul McCartney, the creatively dominant member of the Beatles during their latter day "psychedelic" years, was the one who DIDN'T use acid as a form of inspiration (yes he did try it, and didn't like it), and George Harrison, despite having used drugs a lot in his life, said that going straight is the best way to go and that once again, the natural high is higher (all while admitting that he wasn't the best example of that). Charlie Parker, a heroine addict, once attempted to dissuade a friend from starting and said "you think if you shoot up like bird you can play like bird? that's not the way it works, the drugs don't help me." Ravi Shankar, who introduced Raga music to the western world, which has since become inextricably associated in pop culture with drugs and psychedelia, says that his music is supposed to be played and listened to with a clear head because it's the MUSIC that's supposed to make you high. This is not intended to be a moral condemnation of drug use or people who use drugs, rather it's a criticism of statements like "his music would've been better if he'd taken drugs". That kind of attitude is just narrow-minded and ignorant

jacktheimprovident said:

great post. I agree with all u say. Also, people say that such an artist created master works while on drugs as if it was the drugs that were responsible. Imagine what they could have achieved if they didnt pollute there minds? Maybe hendrix would have been even greater.

3121 said:

y'kno, IMO ya really shouldn't take these things as a bad thing - its like some things that u do on drugs just cant be done while sober. and some things u do while sober just cant be done while on drugs. i mean, i heard once (not sure if its true) that funkadelic recorded free ur mind and ur ass will follow while on acid. if uv heard it can u seriousy imagine a song like say...eulogy and light being recorded while sober? its like, to me that couldn't have been done while sober. just like maggot brain couldnt have been done while high (that shit woulda been on mars on somethin had it been done high). when people say this stuff regarding drugs it aint neccesarily sayin that the drugs were the COMPLETE reason that somethin turned out how it did. and it def. aint a diss to the artist. it just means that it probly helped hook that artist up with new ideas.
[Edited 8/21/05 8:07am]

I agree with everything Jack says because the mind is capable of reaching altered states of consciousness without the use of natural or synthetic chemicals. Mind altering substances are a short cut that involve harmful side effects that increase with increased usage.

The notion that drugs are a good way to enhance creativity is a myth. It's simply taking the easy way, thus it is very popular for anyone seeking instant gratification.

People self-medicate with legal and illegal substances for many reasons, so I won't attempt to judge the morality of it, however, just like anything else, the pros and cons must be weighed by the individual with respect to the potential harm that can be caused to oneself or others.

P. may have tried it, decided it wasn't worth it and found a better way.

Oliver said:

That was Susan Rogers, studio engineer, not Susannah Melvoin. Susannah was long gone by then.
[Edited 8/21/05 10:47am]

ThreadBare said:

WTF? Please stop assuming. I stated the word "consistently" because when I spoke of using drugs, a poster made mention that "hey he did use drugs at least once!". So I meant consistently to direct the question about being a constant user of drugs. And yes I realize casual mentions of some drugs in songs make a myth of use during specific times only, and how that shouldn't discount or assume that he did or didn't partake at other times. But from all reportable accounts it appears he was a non-drug user (as was his band members in th e early part of his career for the most part). It aint that deep.

DiamondGirl said:

Yeah, I know.

ThreadBare said:

Then hush up about "propoganda"

jacktheimprovident said:

-----
"Forgive the following rant but I can't see comments like this and not speak up. I'm really so f*cking sick of people worshipping drugs as though they're the origin of all creative/artistic thought in human history."

Co-Sign. I guess it has not occured to any of you that P might be dead like Rick James but I sometimes wonder if some fans would not be happy seeing something like that happen.

laurarichardson said:

yeah folks drugs do like kill.

This thread in no way condones nor disparages the use of drugs. It was a hypothetical question.

Moonwalkbjrain said:

Once again I refer to my statement that yes drugs can HELP ELICIT creativity, but they are not RESPONSIBLe for it, and that drugs aren't THE ONLY WAY to elicit it either. In regards to Funkadelic, much of their first two albums were recorded while tripping on acid yes, and it shows, but not in a good way. The title trick of free your mind.. is the sort of long-winded over-freaked, wanky crap that ruin their first two albums for me. Once they lightened up on the drug use and became more disciplined and coherent, they were making much better music ala the albums Maggot Brain and America Eats Its Young (not that they COMPLETELY sobered up, but those albums are much more clear-headed and clearly conceived than their first two). And if you want to talk about Jimi Hendrix, yes he did use LSD and other drugs, but in the studio he was always lucid and professional. Jimi always had a clear idea of every detail of his music; you can't arrange and record something like 1983 a Merman I should turn to be, without being clear headed and conscientious of every detail and nuance.

Don't know.

I never really thought about it.

DiamondGirl said:

lilgish said:

laurarichardson said:

let us not forget about those compsers who never used LSD, or X, or whatever. i ain't sayin' they didn't get down, with whatever they used 2 do, but their music was extreme for those times. so, what i'm sayin' is, maybe most ofthe time, drugs don't have anything 2 do with the funk


peace,

j