generally speaking, I agree with most of what both of u are saying (lezama/unique) except for one part:



This statement is true and untrue at the same time. It depends on the nature of one's creative process.

For example, is true inspiration planned or is it a random spontaneous event?

Some might argue that if you "plan" to be inspired by something, then it's not truly inspiration at all but a calculated series of events. And a calculated series of events with relation to the creation of music and art for the purpose of making a sale is called marketing 101.

The truth is, all people who create 'call upon' something as their source, whether it be a marketing plan or bitter feelings for a girlfriend that dumped them, or a trip on the yellow submarine.

Its not a matter of one method being more effective than another, its a matter of personal choice, a choice that some people make and some people don't.

C'est la ve

lezama said:

i'm saying drugs can help the creative process. i'm not saying that drugs can help create music that's necessarily better, although all the artists i mentioned created music thats generally and critically regarded as better after taking drugs. whilst zappas music may be creative, it's pretty unlistenable for the majority of people. his first dozen or so albums are an interesting listen, but i don't find myself returning to play them again very often. it's like drugs can help creative people in the same way that say steroids and sports drugs can help sportsmen. the drugs on their own aren't going to create an artist or sportsman, but they can help acheive certain aims, legal or not

but as you suggest, long term continued drug use probably isn't very good for anyone. again, most of the artists i mentioned had periods of drug use and stopped, and some went on to long careers with a drug free existance, only the music wasn't as exciting, and of course not all drugs can help the creative process, different drugs have different effects

I said it a long time ago. Drugs do NOTHING for a PERSON but Make them ESCAPE,POOR and with MEDICAL ISSUES/TROUBLE WITh THE LAW.

pgw1973 said:

Nope, the rumour was that he took ecstasy after recording the black album and that is when he decided to pull the release and he then recorded and released Lovesexy instead (check out the Alphabet St rap for a pretty good description of the effects of the drug)

Prince has clearly never done a lot of drugs though, I'd agree.

Oh, and I'm 37 and was around then too - that rumour isn't new.
[Edited 2/25/09 7:29am]
[Edited 2/25/09 7:29am]

anyone who thinks Prince never did drugs ,does too many drugs
[Edited 3/4/09 12:43pm]

missjay23 said:

LOVE HIGH...

Check out the performance that I was talking about on youtube with Prince, MichealJackson, and James brown that I was talking about in the thread that I started(the one that the moderator decided was unworthy "nonsense" and put a lock on)

Drugs are being debated as a factor in his performance

eros said:

Yeah, by nitwits. He may have imbibed drink but some of you act like he took acid and shit

shaking my head

iceblue07 said:

Based on this statement, I think I would've preferred that he'd taken some drugs during the making of good portions of his last 3 albums.

I think people are being unfairly harsh for the question being posed - it's well-known, and heavily admitted, that many artists had great spates of creativity during their heavy drug-use period. This doesn't mean there's a rule that drugs = creativity, but it also doesn't mean that drugs DON'T equal creativity. Personally, it would never work for me, but it's still an intriguing question. It's not like Prince had an innocent past.

darmstro said:

Answer this question: Have you ever heard the song Beautiful Strange or seen the movie Purple Rain?

I new a huge Prince fan with connections back in the day who told me a story about how he was able to go back stage at a Prince concert in the Purple Rain days and how there was this really weird receiving room where Prince sat in a thrown where there was dark lighting, smoke machine--the whole 9, and everyone in the room was doing coke and smoking weed. I don't remember him saying Prince specifically but I do remember that Prince was supposedly so against drugs, acording to the info that he put out there, that he didn't allow it of anyone that worked with/for him. This guy was a Prince FANATIC so I don't believe that he would ever say anything that wasn't true against His Royal Badness. He also told me that Wendy and Lisa were in the corner making out and this was long before common knowledge of their relationship.

I believe Susan.

eros said:

REALLY shaking my head. Prince on a throne in a receiving room where folks are doing weed and coke. Okayyyy.

Its a known thing he was against drugs and anyone doing so usually did it on the sly out of his knowledge as much as possible but that story you just wrote coming from "a fan with connections"

Log off man.

ThreadBare said:

Me too. And she stated knowledge of a single ecstasy trip and experimentation time frame.

Others are makign it seem like he was a chronic drug user or even more then a casual user.

Come on now.

xlr8r said:

whatever---

that story is sooo easy to believe considering how weird and eccentric Prince used to be in the day.
The thrown is the most believable part of the scenario.
[Edited 3/11/09 21:58pm]

eros said:

http://prince.org/msg/7/300534

xlr8r said:

No they don't! If you look back, its the usual tirade from the anti-drug camp who refuse to entertain the fact that Prince has ever tried an illicit substance and vehemently state this, whilst those that see that there is a chance Prince has tried a thing or two calmly suggest that its not beyond the realms of possibility and that he's obviously not an addict with a problem.

The ecstasy story is not only well documented, but Prince admits the story himself in AnnaStesia (also well documented and plain to see). Yes, those who say Prince has not admitted it can find it where Prince puts most of his personal output....in his music. Yes, he generally has an anti-drug stance but, it seems, he's not had the best experiences with drugs, so that is logical. That's his personal choice and take and no-one could argue with that.

The whole argument about whether drugs make you more creative or not is ludicrous and moot (and is also NOT what Unique was saying, which was mostly on point, despite what others implied) - its different things for different people. Drugs don't make people creative, they only alter and colour the productivity and experience.....positively or not. They affect the process, they are not the process....just an influence. And drugs are no more or less important in influencing creativity than everyday experience. Drug-affected or not, its the people and who they are that is critical.

However, its also ludicrous and a direct contradiction that Lezama suggests that people who were famous and on drugs may have been more creative without. You cannot in one sentence say that drugs don't make you more creative and in another say that you would be more creative without them. And Unique mentioned some of the most legendary and pioneering names in music there - are you really conceited enough to suggest that all those mavericks and geniuses were, in fact, not reaching their full potential??!! lol And, for some of those artists, drugs were harmful to them and their careers, to others drugs weren't a hinderence at all - what can't be denied is the greatness of their music.

People get so sanctimonious over drug use when, in fact, you don't talk from experience and are primarily affected by the media hype and government propoganda. There are many more people who take drugs and handle it (don't get in to debt, don't steal, have a job, pay taxes) than who don't - its just you get fed all the bad stuff. Just like most people are able to drink alcohol without becoming an alcoholic. And, just like millions of people every day have a normal, happy day, where nothing bad happened and all was well. But that's not what you hear on the news, is it? You just hear the bad that happened, the murders, the rapes, the wars - hardly ever a positive story and certainly never a positive story about drugs!
[Edited 3/11/09 21:22pm]

Mindflux said:

Oh so the ones who say he tried drugs are calm but those who day he didnt arent?

Bias much?

And I never said that he never took drugs, I said he isnt a chronic or even a casual user.

I aint tryna read all that other junk you wrote but I'm sure it was of the same bs rhetoric

xlr8r said:

Sure, but I apologize that I don't quite understand to what exactly you're referring to...

lezama said:

Please, please support that outrageous statement! In fact, let me make it easier for you - instead of a 10:1 ratio, how about 5:1? Here are the top 20 albums of all time, according to Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time)

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles
2. Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys

3. Revolver, The Beatles

4. Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan

5. Rubber Soul, The Beatles

6. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye

7. Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones

8. London Calling, The Clash

9. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan

10. The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Beatles

11. The Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley

12. Kind of Blue, Miles Davis

13. Velvet Underground and Nico, The Velvet Underground

14. Abbey Road, The Beatles

15. Are You Experienced?, The Jimi Hendrix Experience

16. Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan

17. Nevermind, Nirvana

18. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen

19. Astral Weeks, Van Morrison

20. Thriller, Michael Jackson

(note how 17 of the top 20 are produced by known drug users) Please now provide those 100 straight gems!
[Edited 3/11/09 21:50pm]

darmstro said:

Ok. Beautiful Strange and that part in PR where he played the girl crying backwards? He does not need drugs to create certain types of music. One of the examples is one of the past and one fairly recent that shows he still has it to do that type of music with no drug intake.

mystifying1 said:

xlr8r said:

Ok.... but how do you know that drugs weren't involved in either case?

I am by no means claiming there were, and don't even suspect as much, but aren't you just randomly making claims that there weren't?

Personally, I wish I could use the drug excuse to explain some of the really, really horrible music he's made over the years! I mean, c'mon, who out there wouldn't feel better to think that "Jughead" was just because of a really, really bad high?!

darmstro said:

Ok, then the rest is just contrarian bullshit on your part. But your "If A then B " crap lends itself to .....disappointing.

Is there no one out there anymore who.....
[Edited 3/11/09 22:01pm]

xlr8r said:

Not at all - yours is the "contrarian bullshit" - you quote 2 examples that you cannot possibly support with evidence, as though they are fact. Someone calls you on that and reinforces the fact that they would not make a claim either way, because they can't support either stance with evidence - all darmstro did was prove that you are incorrect in making your claim.

Mindflux said:

actually only bruce springstein and van morrison on that list are believed to be non drug users as they have stated so and haven't mentioned using drugs. all the rest are known to have abused drugs illegally at some time. if you enter the artists names into google and type drugs afterwards you can usually find the details. elvis and michael jackson are well documented to have abused prescription drugs for example

anybody wanna joint?

xlr8r said:

-----
Some of the people that worked on the PR tour have said the whole crew was on drugs and once P found out at the end of the tour he got rid of the whole crew.
So if P was sitting on some chair watching he was probaly deciding who he was going to fire.

laurarichardson said:

For sure - P has worked with many musicians/crew who are/were known to use drugs and, with the music industry being so rife with narcotics, he would have been surrounded by it from the very beginning and could have easily assumed that anyone he worked with used in some context. This, perhaps, he tolerated - it would be remiss to try and control someone's personal life. However, if you work with him professionally and the drugs got in the way, you can bet your ass would be fired!

Heck, look how long he's worked with Morris!

unique said:

Fair play - I was certain of the 17 at the time, so that's what I put. Still, a high percentage (pun intended lol)

It gets even more interesting when you look at the top 200 - it looks more like the ratio is 10:1 of great albums being made by drug-influenced musicians, rather than the opposite suggested by Lezama (which is probably the reason for the lack of rebuke!)