Mindflux said:

and three of the best beatles albums in the top 5, the ones that come just after the beatles discovered drugs, with one of the other top 5 albums being by someone who influenced the beatles drug use

So, in summary then, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that drug-influenced music is better - or, at the very least, is certainly more popular with critics.

Actually, having said that, it may be interesting to compare the best-selling albums of all time to see which of those statements is true, as the Rolling Stones list is based on artistic merit (or, the "better music") and the best-selling list is what is more popular with the record-buying public. Might have a look at that.....
[Edited 3/12/09 9:56am]

Mindflux said:

chick huntsberry was all yayed up and Prince sang in OldFriends4Sale whaty he thought about coke. Prince for the most part always seemed pretty anti drugs.

Yes he is definately on something. Maybe for that hip thats hangin on for dear life. His limp is unmistakable he should get that fixed before its too late. If you break your hip it is extremely painful and takes a long time to recover.

even if he did... so what? if i were him, i'd party like a.. well prince.

Just say no

pills and thrills and daffodils will kill

PEJ said:

as do cigarettes, alcohol, cars, guns, prescription drugs.....

punkofthemonth said:

Listen to the entire song. He talks of conversion from all of that which kept him from seeing his Creator. I believe God or a Higher Being has helped him to have natural gift of music and that he listens to his Inner Voice regardless of what the world says he should do including those in this thread. If he had not he wouldn't have been as successful.

Prince's Sarah

worhol said:

I didnt see the Avalon show but I saw the Conga Room, great show, but it did seem like he was limping.

And it was not an overly physical show. I bet he tours small clubs. I cant see him doing a big arena or a big tour.

Princey, fix yo shit!

Old, worn out topic. NEXT!

Mindflux said:

Ummm.... It might be statistically a fact that most drug users might be able to "handle it" (whatever that means), but I'm pretty positive that statistically most habitual drug users don't make the most of their lives and their potential. So whatever "positive" story their might be about certain drugs for certain people, as long as this conversation is on drugs in general you're fighting a losing argument.

And no I don't speak from media hype or government propaganda, but from experience.

Mindflux said:

I wasn't talking about what Rolling Stones classifies as their top 100. I'm talking about MUSICAL TALENT.

You want the most simple way to show you're wrongness?

List the top 50 classical composers of the 20th century, and tell me how many of them were druggies?

List all the great musicians and composers outside of the UK/US culture (one being the worlds LARGEST drug consumer in and of itself, the other not far behind in terms of percentage per population) and tell me what their greatness had to do with drugs???

Once you stop being so cultural-centric your whole drug=greatness paradigm falls straight out the window.

lezama said:

Its clearly difficult for you to understand both what has been said and the parameters of the debate! What you suggest above is an exercise in futility and entirely irrelevant - here we are talking about drugs and their influence on popular music and you now want to jump ship and start talking about 20-th century classical composers! And, strangely, you want to change tack after you've been asked to support your previous statements...hmmm...

I certainly never said that drugs=greatness, I said they influence the person and their art, whether positively or not - and drugs, to one extent or another, have been used throughout the ages, in all art forms, both by great names and not-so-greats. Yyou were the one trying to support an absolute about how drugs hinder people's real creativity, whereas some of us are able to accept that drugs were part of that person's makeup and what they did and accept it for just that.

However, if you're narrow-minded enough to think that real musical talent only exists in classical music, none of this will get through to you anyway.

lezama said:

so basically you agree that the greatest contemporary popular music from the uk/usa/canada in the last 100 years (which is what the majority of posters on this thread are referring to) was influenced by drugs?

as for your other points, i don't give two shits what classical composers do, or what they do in other countries, cuz i don't listen to that music and i have no inclination to. you will probably find the vast majority of usa/uk/europeans feel the same

so to summarise, in the context of the original posts, which weren't referring to music from other cultures or ages, nor classical music, we all agree that the greatest pop and rock music was inspired by drugs that had a creative effect on the artists

Mindflux said:

1) If something is only applicable in one type of context when what I'm responding to is the making of blanket statements about "artists" or "creative people" and "drugs" (in general) then either qualify whats being said or the statement is wrong. Generalities should be applicable to all particularities else its FALSE.

2) I never said anything about it absolutely hindering creativity. I said very clearly theres no universal positive correlation between drugs and creativity, so making a case as if that would be true for Prince or anyone is naive and drastically oversimplying the picture.

3)If I invoked non-pop music it was because the issue is drugs follows western music business in general, so trying to say something that pervades a culture as a whole is responsible for a handful of that culture reaching creative success doesn't quite hold up.
[Edited 3/15/09 20:24pm]

unique said:

"Influenced"? That doesn't mean anything. The greatest contemporary popular music from the US/UK & Canada for the past 100 years has been influenced by boxed breakfast serial, clean sanitation systems and hot & cold running water too...

My argument relates to creative genius & drugs. Only lazy weak people who want quick fixes to creative dilemmas run to drugs. The reason for invoking non-US/UK examples was to say that anything anyone could do on drugs they could do without them and those who can do things without them have a much greater leverage over that talent and over their lives. If you can only create with the use of drugs you're dependent on the drugs to be your "best" or most "creative". You may not find anything wrong with the latter, and there may not be... but from the standpoint of what you can achieve without them (with care and cultivation) its an inferior route.

lezama said:

i'll take that as a yes then

PurpleLove7 said:

And then there are Artist such as Prince who make mind blowing great music with out drugs. Drugs could do the opposite to someone with as much natural creativity...

kittylarue2 said:

ding ding ding ding!!!

All imma say is that that drugs do break down a lot of inhibitions which lead U to make decisions U wouldn't normally have made. Some bad, some good. What do they say, take the good with the bad. The main problem lies in the addictive nature of many drugs or the addiction to the release from reality they provide. The addiction leads U to overmedicating yourself allowing to to pass up any good decisions U might make, filling your life with the consequences of the many bad decisions the addiction has lead u to make.



I'd never say prince got addicted to drugs, not to say he doesn't have his addictions. Music and cmusic, and music...oh yeah...and music. He's addicted enuff to music so as not to be able to maintain personal relationships. I believe that is problematic...but hey...u take the good with the bad. But like many said here, to say he's NEVER taken drugs is naive. Remember...alcohol itself is a drug...and growing up in the side of town he grew up in, im sure he hit at least a doobie or 2...anything else is up in the air for me. But if his girlfriend had a bad drug problem...i'm sure he did a line simply to justify his disdain for it. U know...make sure u know what u're hating on. U gotta know the enemy.
[Edited 3/16/09 19:03pm]

Subject has been discussed many times

Well I preferred the herion-addled Depeche Mode to the one that started out. Undoubtedly they would have still been morose but would they have been as wrist-slashingly dark without pumping their veins first? I think not.

The whole E thing was about right for the time though. 'Cause let's face it if it'd been a few years later he'd have needed more than one 'cause they were starting to get crap then! Me and the missus used to share two (half at a time) and one wrap of whizz. Boy I used to dance my socks off. 12 hour wank later though