vitriol said:

Mindflux said:

I just love how you pointed out that only "idiots" would be interested in Prince's drug consumption and then immediately announce your own interest in the same issue

When, where or how did I 'announce my interest' in the same issue?

I just take for granted Prince must have done some substances, but that is not my (or anybody's business). I added he should have done more because it's plain to see drugs 'have composed' many musical masterpieces. That's all.

"In my opinion, Prince has not done ENOUGH drugs, he should've done more"

That is you announcing your interest in Prince's drug consumption - you think he should have taken more. You can't accuse people of being idiots for being interested in Prince's drug consumption, only to express the same thing you have lambasted!

I agree that drugs have certainly helped inspire music (and many forms of art), but they dont make someone "better" or improve musicianship of anything like that. I don't think Prince should have taken more, he should take what's right for him. I don't care whether he has done drugs or not (and there is some evidence that he has) - its not absolutely necessary for an artist to be a regular drug-taker. And sometimes, you only need the one experience for the "door to be opened" and, hence, get the inspiration of that moment and translate it in to music.

You know, bands like the Beatles and Pink Floyd made incredible music that was certainly influenced by drug experiences, but then Frank Zappa also made mind-blowing music without taking any illegal drugs at all. I don't think Frank should have taken more drugs, I don't think Prince should have and I don't think the Beatles etc should have taken less. I feel people should be allowed to do what they feel is necessary.

Mindflux said:

laurarichardson said:

Well by all accounts the only Stone that was really strung out was Keith. The Stones are a band with other members who can pick up the fucking slack. P is a one man operation. If he goes off on a bender he does not have permenent band members to pick up the slack.

I think you need to stop advocating drug use and think about all the performers who are not longer around because of drugs.

Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

And why don't we think about all the great music that has been made by drug-takers? 95% of albums on your regular Top 100 albums ever are by people who took drugs - it is no coincidence. And far from advocating drug-taking, its up to the individual to decide what to do with their life and not for others to judge, particularly those who have no idea what they are talking about. If you haven't taken drugs, then you can't seriously comment on it. You can tell easily those that haven't, because they live in the propoganda-led world where everyone who takes drugs is an ass, a demon incapable of any form of control and unknowingly wrecking their life. The reality is much different. Not everyone who drinks alcohol has a problem with it or becomes dependent. Same with drugs, you don't instantly become an addict or necessarily endanger yourselves or others just because you indulge in a substance every now and again.

Some here just have no balance or perspective.

So, you think only a person who is involved in drugs (even occassionaly) is therefore the only one who can have a balanced perspective on it? That's like saying that only people with Down Syndrome have the capability of diagnosing whether they have it or not.

Really, I disagree to let a druguser (or alcohol user) be the judgement of his/her own addictive stat. No active alcoholist would say he's addicted.

Alcohol and drugs are physical addictive substances in nature.

So, if you take it, you'r body (that's includes your brains) gets addicted.

Inherent to addiction is the denial of being addicted. Which is understandable.

If you would admit it to yourself, you need to make a decision:

will I allow my live to be ruled by my addiction or

will I live my life in freedom and not have my behaviour orchestred by my craving?

If you choose to be addicted, that's fine. Just don't deny it. If you want to free yourself from your addiction: respect to you, it takes a brave person to make that decision.

I don't agree with you on 'just a few deaths due to drugs' that's just "a little collateral damage for the greater good: great music".

I think that one person dying and having been suffering from drugs is too many. I don't think lightly about life. Janis Joplin is one too many.

And you'r reasoning that the great music in the top 100 can only be attributed to the druguse of the performers. Therefore we should appreciate their drug abuse.

If your figures would be true, I see a different connection between being in the top 100 chart and using drugs. There are many great performers and mucisans. A few of them have the managing skills, luck and right time going for them and become famous. Others, we will never hear of.

Those few who become famous have to deal with the pressure of constant scrutinizing, judgement, adorement and obsessing by their audiance. Their fame will attract a certain selection of people who are especially interested in the glitter and glamour, not in the wellbeing of the artist. Drugs can be a quick fix for these. So, these top 100 artists self medicate with drugs. These talented people were already capable of making great music before they did drugs. Probably they would have made even greater music if they would not have been on drugs.

You attribute their accomplishments to drugs. I think they have great talent and taking drugs is a waist of that talent.

Just compare how the Keith looks with how P looks. I prefer the healthy and well kept P. He looks great at 52. The man can't have done that many drugs, he would have never looked that great and sounded that good as he does right now.

If you want to be addicted, you'r right. That is your choice. Whether any addiction is a matter of free choice is up for discussion. Just don't deny it. And don't promote drugs with your malreasoning and cause-and-effect thinking errors.

dJJ said:

Mindflux said:

Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

And why don't we think about all the great music that has been made by drug-takers? 95% of albums on your regular Top 100 albums ever are by people who took drugs - it is no coincidence. And far from advocating drug-taking, its up to the individual to decide what to do with their life and not for others to judge, particularly those who have no idea what they are talking about. If you haven't taken drugs, then you can't seriously comment on it. You can tell easily those that haven't, because they live in the propoganda-led world where everyone who takes drugs is an ass, a demon incapable of any form of control and unknowingly wrecking their life. The reality is much different. Not everyone who drinks alcohol has a problem with it or becomes dependent. Same with drugs, you don't instantly become an addict or necessarily endanger yourselves or others just because you indulge in a substance every now and again.

Some here just have no balance or perspective.

So, you think only a person who is involved in drugs (even occassionaly) is therefore the only one who can have a balanced perspective on it? That's like saying that only people with Down Syndrome have the capability of diagnosing whether they have it or not.

Really, I disagree to let a druguser (or alcohol user) be the judgement of his/her own addictive stat. No active alcoholist would say he's addicted.

Alcohol and drugs are physical addictive substances in nature.

So, if you take it, you'r body (that's includes your brains) gets addicted.

Inherent to addiction is the denial of being addicted. Which is understandable.

If you would admit it to yourself, you need to make a decision:

will I allow my live to be ruled by my addiction or

will I live my life in freedom and not have my behaviour orchestred by my craving?

If you choose to be addicted, that's fine. Just don't deny it. If you want to free yourself from your addiction: respect to you, it takes a brave person to make that decision.

I don't agree with you on 'just a few deaths due to drugs' that's just "a little collateral damage for the greater good: great music".

I think that one person dying and having been suffering from drugs is too many. I don't think lightly about life. Janis Joplin is one too many.

And you'r reasoning that the great music in the top 100 can only be attributed to the druguse of the performers. Therefore we should appreciate their drug abuse.

If your figures would be true, I see a different connection between being in the top 100 chart and using drugs. There are many great performers and mucisans. A few of them have the managing skills, luck and right time going for them and become famous. Others, we will never hear of.

Those few who become famous have to deal with the pressure of constant scrutinizing, judgement, adorement and obsessing by their audiance. Their fame will attract a certain selection of people who are especially interested in the glitter and glamour, not in the wellbeing of the artist. Drugs can be a quick fix for these. So, these top 100 artists self medicate with drugs. These talented people were already capable of making great music before they did drugs. Probably they would have made even greater music if they would not have been on drugs.

You attribute their accomplishments to drugs. I think they have great talent and taking drugs is a waist of that talent.

Just compare how the Keith looks with how P looks. I prefer the healthy and well kept P. He looks great at 52. The man can't have done that many drugs, he would have never looked that great and sounded that good as he does right now.

If you want to be addicted, you'r right. That is your choice. Whether any addiction is a matter of free choice is up for discussion. Just don't deny it. And don't promote drugs with your malreasoning and cause-and-effect thinking errors.

First of all, you are twisting my words to prove your bias, which is not right.

I can only assume from your post that you have never taken drugs and are actually quite anti-drugs - you are possibly even a substance-abuse counsellor from the way you write.

My point about "balance and perspective" was not about an individual being able to asess their state of addiction. It WAS about the fact that most here demonise drugs (as you have) and make them out to be the be all and end all. This is simply not the case. Many people take drugs with no problems at all. Some people take drugs and fall ill or become addicted to an extent where they lose their money etc etc But the MAJORITY of people manage just fine. Its the same with people who drink. And I made that point quite clearly.

Is someone addicted when they don't crave the substance, but occasionally indulge? I think not. I'm certainly addicted to cigarettes. I find it hard not to smoke tobacco during the day - and I'm fine with that. It doesn't "control my life", I can afford to do it and I am aware of the potential health risks. However, it is my choice and if I choose to give up, then I will. With every other substance I have tried (including alcohol), I can take it or leave it - I never crave to have a drink. I never crave cocaine. I can go to a party and have some if I want, but I then don't crave for the next hit and might not have any for months and months. Is that an addiction? Without doubt, it is not.

Addiction is where you find yourself uncontrollably having to do something. You are forced to take it, because you cannot stand to be without it, physically or mentally. I can safely say I am not addicted to anything other than tobacco. I have taken various drugs for over 20 years now - have never had any health issues, no cravings, never lost a job, never been on benefits, run my own company and record label, produce my own music, tour regularly, never stolen from anyone or hurt anyone.....are you getting the picture? The lack of balance and perspective I was referring to is this idiotic idea that drugs only lead to one place and that is the destruction of the self and others - that is the unbalanced view and it stinks.

I also didn't say that drug casualties are an acceptable by-product of taking drugs to achieve great music - that is ludicrous and you have a real talent for putting your words in to someone else's mouth!

You think that one person dying from drugs is too many. Fine. You think that one person dying from being run over is too many? Should we ban cars? Do you think one person dying from eating peanuts is too many? Should we ban peanuts? You think one person dying from horse-riding is too many? Shall we ban horse-riding?! Do you see the ridiculousness of your argument? EVERYTHING we do in life carries one form of risk or another. You can die from doing the most innocuous of things - that is just life and you have to accept there are risks and accidents along the way. But life is to be lived, not cocooned in some apparently safe-haven where nothing can touch us.

What I did say is that is just so happens that most of the best music has been made by drug-takers. I didn't say it improved their talent. I didn't say only great music can come from people who take drugs. I CLEARLY said that Frank Zappa made some of the best music going and he didn't take drugs. However, you cannot deny that the majority of what most people consider to be the best music was made by people who had taken drugs. They already had the talent, but drugs can give people certain insights that aren't possible without that particular intoxication. LSD is fantastic for particular insight in to music - you haven't tried it, so you won't know what I am talking about. But all those great musicians knew and their experience coloured and influenced their music. Their natural talent allowed them to convey that experience through music - NOT the drug itself. Without the talent, they wouldn't be able to make the music in the first place.Someone doesn't take LSD (or whatever) and suddenly become capable of making music. However, a skilled musician who takes LSD will be able to convey that experience through their talent. It is a massive difference to your naive suggestion.

So, you can make music without drugs, that is clear. You will make a different kind of music if you have had drug experiences. Same as you'll make a different kind of music if you have suffered a broken heart. Or lost someone. Or had unbelievably good luck. ALL experiences influence what you create and all drugs are are a different kind of experience. Therefore, you can't say (as much as your anti-drug rhetoric compels you to) that those artists would have made better music. They would have made "different" music. And, if it were the case that "better" music is made by people who are "straight" then why do all the lists of best music contain 90% artists who are known to take drugs. As I said, it is no coincidence.

I haven't promoted or condoned drugs, I have always said it was a personal choice. I would recommend that you stop putting out biased, mis-information - that's far more dangerous than someone being open and honest who talks from direct experience.

Oh no.... you guys got the folder burning. It'll never end!

Mindflux said:

laurarichardson said:

Well by all accounts the only Stone that was really strung out was Keith. The Stones are a band with other members who can pick up the fucking slack. P is a one man operation. If he goes off on a bender he does not have permenent band members to pick up the slack.

I think you need to stop advocating drug use and think about all the performers who are not longer around because of drugs.

Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

And why don't we think about all the great music that has been made by drug-takers? 95% of albums on your regular Top 100 albums ever are by people who took drugs - it is no coincidence. And far from advocating drug-taking, its up to the individual to decide what to do with their life and not for others to judge, particularly those who have no idea what they are talking about. If you haven't taken drugs, then you can't seriously comment on it. You can tell easily those that haven't, because they live in the propoganda-led world where everyone who takes drugs is an ass, a demon incapable of any form of control and unknowingly wrecking their life. The reality is much different. Not everyone who drinks alcohol has a problem with it or becomes dependent. Same with drugs, you don't instantly become an addict or necessarily endanger yourselves or others just because you indulge in a substance every now and again.

Some here just have no balance or perspective.

"Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)"

--------------------

I know that Keith was not the only Stone that was messed up on drugs. My point was he had a whole band to support him and carrying on with the music. Prince is not in that situation.

Did David Bowie not have to have heart surgery a little while ago. Could it be from years of coke

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

use and did he not stop back in the 80s.

---------

"Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc)."

Jimi died from a mix of drugs and alcohol and alcohol is a drug.

Jon Bonham- alcohol is a drug.

Frankie Lymon- herion

Tommy Bolin- deep purple

Tim buckly

that dude from the Pretenders

Shannon Hoon - Blind Melon

Rick James - Heart Attack by long term drug use

Robbie Mcintosh from AWB

Tommy Debarge - Swith Aids/herion addict

Keith Moon -

The Dude from Smashing Pumkins

dude from Sublime

Gram Parsons

Elvis Presley

David Ruffin

Hillel Slovak -RHCP

Sid Vicious

There are lots that probaly died from drug related complications or are now so trashed that can barely function like Sly Stone.

As far as the rest of your nosense some people can have a drink or two and not become an alcoholic. Loads of people cannot have a shot of cocaine without going off their rockers since the drug is that powerful. In the African-American community we have lost a generation to crack use that has given me all the balance I need on the subject of drugs and if you think the music we have out now is so great due to drugs than you need to put down your pipe because most music today sucks and it is probaly due to drugs

hey now .. this is a PRINCE site after all .. the "dude" from smashing pumpkins was Jonathan Melvoin .. Wendy and Susannahs brother. He also played on PARADE (a prince record for all you non prince listeners posting)

and lets not forget the biggest hollywood phamacutical murder of them all .... MJ

i kinda think prince has some alchohal issues more so than any harder drugs .. and probably some prescription pills too .. i think it took hold when he changed to the artist

Camille introduced him to drugs

And so what?

Who hasn't done drugs?

I have, everyday I do actually: coffee, chocolate, sugar coated cookies, sweetners, all kind of sweet and white powders.................!!!

The best ever: several doses of pheromone when I make love and I've got an orgasm!!

purplecam said:

dandeeland said:

He needs to dabble in them again now. Maybe then he can make some music worth listening too.

So what you are saying is that if Prince took any drugs and ultimately risking his life, he should have continued to mess up his health and body just to make "better music" to make you and your life better. Do I have that right? If so, that is some fucked up shit for anyone to wish for anyone. Some of you in here are really scraping the barrel, for real.

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

dawnboy999 said:

While I don't know what his situation is now this what I heard from my younger sister. While Prince lived in Toronto when he was married to Manny a close friend of my sister was a player in the music scene here and would frequent Princes parties on Torontos mansion row which is known as the Bridal Path.When my sister asked him what it was like having conversations with Prince he responded that it was impossible to speak with him cause he was always on cocaine.You can take that how you like but there is a lot of video evidence through the years that would support my sisters freind story. Personally I don't think it's a big deal he is a rock star after all but a lot of Prince fans like to idealize him and refuse to beleive otherwise.

Such bs, people love running their mouth talking about shit they "know" for sure but don't have an ounce of evidence to back it up. Prince is a celeb, if he were on drugs, somebody would have released pics by now. Just like all the other rumors about him. Where is the evidence? It pops up on everybody else, but not P? BS!

there was a woman i worked with who was walked in on snorting coke in the bathroom. who knows what he's doing in the bathroom or a shower stall.

TrevorAyer said:

hey now .. this is a PRINCE site after all .. the "dude" from smashing pumpkins was Jonathan Melvoin .. Wendy and Susannahs brother. He also played on PARADE (a prince record for all you non prince listeners posting)

and lets not forget the biggest hollywood phamacutical murder of them all .... MJ

i kinda think prince has some alchohal issues more so than any harder drugs .. and probably some prescription pills too .. i think it took hold when he changed to the artist

I have said for years sometimes he looks drunk in some photos and people in his circles have talked about his drinking and even P mentioned once when talkiing about how Larry G helped him with his alcohol issues but no one on this board will hear such a thing. P must be coke head

There's video proof? Start posting the "evidence".

She's going with the assumption he was doing coke by how he was talking to her.

Drugs do different things to different people. Some people are unaffected by it because they built up a tolerance for it.

There are some people who are pretty high profile that are masters of keeping their habits discreet and don't draw attention.

But people who talk about being non-drug, usually fall victim to perscription abuse and get overmedicated.

Mindflux said:

Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

And why don't we think about all the great music that has been made by drug-takers? 95% of albums on your regular Top 100 albums ever are by people who took drugs - it is no coincidence. And far from advocating drug-taking, its up to the individual to decide what to do with their life and not for others to judge, particularly those who have no idea what they are talking about. If you haven't taken drugs, then you can't seriously comment on it. You can tell easily those that haven't, because they live in the propoganda-led world where everyone who takes drugs is an ass, a demon incapable of any form of control and unknowingly wrecking their life. The reality is much different. Not everyone who drinks alcohol has a problem with it or becomes dependent. Same with drugs, you don't instantly become an addict or necessarily endanger yourselves or others just because you indulge in a substance every now and again.

Some here just have no balance or perspective.

Mindflux said:

dJJ said:

So, you think only a person who is involved in drugs (even occassionaly) is therefore the only one who can have a balanced perspective on it? That's like saying that only people with Down Syndrome have the capability of diagnosing whether they have it or not.

Really, I disagree to let a druguser (or alcohol user) be the judgement of his/her own addictive stat. No active alcoholist would say he's addicted.

Alcohol and drugs are physical addictive substances in nature.

So, if you take it, you'r body (that's includes your brains) gets addicted.

Inherent to addiction is the denial of being addicted. Which is understandable.

If you would admit it to yourself, you need to make a decision:

will I allow my live to be ruled by my addiction or

will I live my life in freedom and not have my behaviour orchestred by my craving?

If you choose to be addicted, that's fine. Just don't deny it. If you want to free yourself from your addiction: respect to you, it takes a brave person to make that decision.

I don't agree with you on 'just a few deaths due to drugs' that's just "a little collateral damage for the greater good: great music".

I think that one person dying and having been suffering from drugs is too many. I don't think lightly about life. Janis Joplin is one too many.

And you'r reasoning that the great music in the top 100 can only be attributed to the druguse of the performers. Therefore we should appreciate their drug abuse.

If your figures would be true, I see a different connection between being in the top 100 chart and using drugs. There are many great performers and mucisans. A few of them have the managing skills, luck and right time going for them and become famous. Others, we will never hear of.

Those few who become famous have to deal with the pressure of constant scrutinizing, judgement, adorement and obsessing by their audiance. Their fame will attract a certain selection of people who are especially interested in the glitter and glamour, not in the wellbeing of the artist. Drugs can be a quick fix for these. So, these top 100 artists self medicate with drugs. These talented people were already capable of making great music before they did drugs. Probably they would have made even greater music if they would not have been on drugs.

You attribute their accomplishments to drugs. I think they have great talent and taking drugs is a waist of that talent.

Just compare how the Keith looks with how P looks. I prefer the healthy and well kept P. He looks great at 52. The man can't have done that many drugs, he would have never looked that great and sounded that good as he does right now.

If you want to be addicted, you'r right. That is your choice. Whether any addiction is a matter of free choice is up for discussion. Just don't deny it. And don't promote drugs with your malreasoning and cause-and-effect thinking errors.

First of all, you are twisting my words to prove your bias, which is not right.

I can only assume from your post that you have never taken drugs and are actually quite anti-drugs - you are possibly even a substance-abuse counsellor from the way you write.

My point about "balance and perspective" was not about an individual being able to asess their state of addiction. It WAS about the fact that most here demonise drugs (as you have) and make them out to be the be all and end all. This is simply not the case. Many people take drugs with no problems at all. Some people take drugs and fall ill or become addicted to an extent where they lose their money etc etc But the MAJORITY of people manage just fine. Its the same with people who drink. And I made that point quite clearly.

Is someone addicted when they don't crave the substance, but occasionally indulge? I think not. I'm certainly addicted to cigarettes. I find it hard not to smoke tobacco during the day - and I'm fine with that. It doesn't "control my life", I can afford to do it and I am aware of the potential health risks. However, it is my choice and if I choose to give up, then I will. With every other substance I have tried (including alcohol), I can take it or leave it - I never crave to have a drink. I never crave cocaine. I can go to a party and have some if I want, but I then don't crave for the next hit and might not have any for months and months. Is that an addiction? Without doubt, it is not.

Addiction is where you find yourself uncontrollably having to do something. You are forced to take it, because you cannot stand to be without it, physically or mentally. I can safely say I am not addicted to anything other than tobacco. I have taken various drugs for over 20 years now - have never had any health issues, no cravings, never lost a job, never been on benefits, run my own company and record label, produce my own music, tour regularly, never stolen from anyone or hurt anyone.....are you getting the picture? The lack of balance and perspective I was referring to is this idiotic idea that drugs only lead to one place and that is the destruction of the self and others - that is the unbalanced view and it stinks.

I also didn't say that drug casualties are an acceptable by-product of taking drugs to achieve great music - that is ludicrous and you have a real talent for putting your words in to someone else's mouth!

You think that one person dying from drugs is too many. Fine. You think that one person dying from being run over is too many? Should we ban cars? Do you think one person dying from eating peanuts is too many? Should we ban peanuts? You think one person dying from horse-riding is too many? Shall we ban horse-riding?! Do you see the ridiculousness of your argument? EVERYTHING we do in life carries one form of risk or another. You can die from doing the most innocuous of things - that is just life and you have to accept there are risks and accidents along the way. But life is to be lived, not cocooned in some apparently safe-haven where nothing can touch us.

What I did say is that is just so happens that most of the best music has been made by drug-takers. I didn't say it improved their talent. I didn't say only great music can come from people who take drugs. I CLEARLY said that Frank Zappa made some of the best music going and he didn't take drugs. However, you cannot deny that the majority of what most people consider to be the best music was made by people who had taken drugs. They already had the talent, but drugs can give people certain insights that aren't possible without that particular intoxication. LSD is fantastic for particular insight in to music - you haven't tried it, so you won't know what I am talking about. But all those great musicians knew and their experience coloured and influenced their music. Their natural talent allowed them to convey that experience through music - NOT the drug itself. Without the talent, they wouldn't be able to make the music in the first place.Someone doesn't take LSD (or whatever) and suddenly become capable of making music. However, a skilled musician who takes LSD will be able to convey that experience through their talent. It is a massive difference to your naive suggestion.

So, you can make music without drugs, that is clear. You will make a different kind of music if you have had drug experiences. Same as you'll make a different kind of music if you have suffered a broken heart. Or lost someone. Or had unbelievably good luck. ALL experiences influence what you create and all drugs are are a different kind of experience. Therefore, you can't say (as much as your anti-drug rhetoric compels you to) that those artists would have made better music. They would have made "different" music. And, if it were the case that "better" music is made by people who are "straight" then why do all the lists of best music contain 90% artists who are known to take drugs. As I said, it is no coincidence.

I haven't promoted or condoned drugs, I have always said it was a personal choice. I would recommend that you stop putting out biased, mis-information - that's far more dangerous than someone being open and honest who talks from direct experience.

once again...

Just read my post on page two. He let Tony M record and tour with him. If that is not proof that he did drugs, then I am the Valentine's Bunny. And no, you can't get none of my chocolate eggs.

purplemookiebut said:

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Such bs, people love running their mouth talking about shit they "know" for sure but don't have an ounce of evidence to back it up. Prince is a celeb, if he were on drugs, somebody would have released pics by now. Just like all the other rumors about him. Where is the evidence? It pops up on everybody else, but not P? BS!

there was a woman i worked with who was walked in on snorting coke in the bathroom. who knows what he's doing in the bathroom or a shower stall.

Just like that woman was walked in on doing drugs, P could have been too. Lets not forget Prince is a big time celeb and has been for over 25 years. Its just weird people have all these "facts" about him but nothing to back it up. I don't buy it. There are people out there that solely survive to ruin celebs life and gather dirt on them. P would be no exception... One thing my sister and I laugh about is the fact that Prince doesn't have that famous mug shot..yet. Could it be he really is perfect? Sorry, not buying Prince did street drugs. With Prince being so tiny, caffeine is probably enough to get him going.

still wondering what a Prince song written on an LSD trip would sound like....

Seriously, obviously he has done some drugs (93-95 anyone???? I mean look at the pics for god's sake!), who cares anyway and it would be hypocritical to judge him for it...

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

purplemookiebut said:

there was a woman i worked with who was walked in on snorting coke in the bathroom. who knows what he's doing in the bathroom or a shower stall.

Just like that woman was walked in on doing drugs, P could have been too. Lets not forget Prince is a big time celeb and has been for over 25 years. Its just weird people have all these "facts" about him but nothing to back it up. I don't buy it. There are people out there that solely survive to ruin celebs life and gather dirt on them. P would be no exception... One thing my sister and I laugh about is the fact that Prince doesn't have that famous mug shot..yet. Could it be he really is perfect? Sorry, not buying Prince did street drugs. With Prince being so tiny, caffeine is probably enough to get him going.

well that too many headache pills mixed with wine and er trip is documented.

who cares. he's not jesus

laurarichardson said:

Mindflux said:

Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

And why don't we think about all the great music that has been made by drug-takers? 95% of albums on your regular Top 100 albums ever are by people who took drugs - it is no coincidence. And far from advocating drug-taking, its up to the individual to decide what to do with their life and not for others to judge, particularly those who have no idea what they are talking about. If you haven't taken drugs, then you can't seriously comment on it. You can tell easily those that haven't, because they live in the propoganda-led world where everyone who takes drugs is an ass, a demon incapable of any form of control and unknowingly wrecking their life. The reality is much different. Not everyone who drinks alcohol has a problem with it or becomes dependent. Same with drugs, you don't instantly become an addict or necessarily endanger yourselves or others just because you indulge in a substance every now and again.

Some here just have no balance or perspective.

"Sorry Laura, but that's not strictly true - Keith just had the largest reputation for it because he was the "monster" drug taker, that's all. The rest of the band were all "experienced" with drugs, just not on Keith's level. And, as one of the biggest known drug-takers in the industry, he's still here and still playing (oh, a bit like David Bowie, and Paul Macartney and so on)"

--------------------

I know that Keith was not the only Stone that was messed up on drugs. My point was he had a whole band to support him and carrying on with the music. Prince is not in that situation.

Did David Bowie not have to have heart surgery a little while ago. Could it be from years of coke

Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc).

use and did he not stop back in the 80s.

---------

"Can you tell us about "all the performers" we've lost due to drugs? (Janis Joplin springs to mind) Its certainly not as many as you and others might think and becomes almost insignificant when compared to the list of people we've lost through alcohol. (Jimi Hendrix, Jon Bonham, Jim Morrison etc etc)."

Jimi died from a mix of drugs and alcohol and alcohol is a drug.

Jon Bonham- alcohol is a drug.

Frankie Lymon- herion

Tommy Bolin- deep purple

Tim buckly

that dude from the Pretenders

Shannon Hoon - Blind Melon

Rick James - Heart Attack by long term drug use

Robbie Mcintosh from AWB

Tommy Debarge - Swith Aids/herion addict

Keith Moon -

The Dude from Smashing Pumkins

dude from Sublime

Gram Parsons

Elvis Presley

David Ruffin

Hillel Slovak -RHCP

Sid Vicious

There are lots that probaly died from drug related complications or are now so trashed that can barely function like Sly Stone.

As far as the rest of your nosense some people can have a drink or two and not become an alcoholic. Loads of people cannot have a shot of cocaine without going off their rockers since the drug is that powerful. In the African-American community we have lost a generation to crack use that has given me all the balance I need on the subject of drugs and if you think the music we have out now is so great due to drugs than you need to put down your pipe because most music today sucks and it is probaly due to drugs

Unfortunately, you're shooting from the hip rather than writing a balanced retort.

You've misunderstood everything I've already cleared up "good music being die to drugs" etc, so you're really not worth the retort on this occasion. Your bias and prejudice cloud your judgement.

dawnboy999 said:

While I don't know what his situation is now this what I heard from my younger sister. While Prince lived in Toronto when he was married to Manny a close friend of my sister was a player in the music scene here and would frequent Princes parties on Torontos mansion row which is known as the Bridal Path.When my sister asked him what it was like having conversations with Prince he responded that it was impossible to speak with him cause he was always on cocaine.You can take that how you like but there is a lot of video evidence through the years that would support my sisters freind story. Personally I don't think it's a big deal he is a rock star after all but a lot of Prince fans like to idealize him and refuse to beleive otherwise.

1/ Cocoine doesn't make people unable to have conversations, it's basically just a "supercoffee", so this sounds like a report from someone who doesn't know shit about drugs. Cocaine isn't LSD (its effect is actually much below alcohol's effects when it comes to having conversations).

2/ Even is Prince was taking cocaine, he's so much into maintaining his reputation as a non-drug-taking-person that he certainly wouldn't take coke at parties in front of people who could tell what they saw to the next tabloïd.

So IMO this is either a lie or maybe this dude was so shocked by Prince's somewhat cryptic ways of talking that he decided that coke was the reason behind P's behaviour.

Find me a close associate, just ONE, either a musician or engineer or even an ex-girlfriend who says that Prince is/was on drugs and i'll believe it. 'Til then I'm quite certain that Prince is drug-free.

And I'm not one of these "OhmyGodPrinceistooperfecthewouldn'tdothatbecausedrugsareevil" persons. I took quite a lot of drugs in my life and i'm fine with that. i just stick to acknowledged facts.

listening to this cd and this song just came on and made me think of this thread

this cd is epic

vitriol said:

^Agreed.

Only idiots could be interested to know whether Prince did drugs or not or could consider that an issue.

In my opinion, Prince has not done ENOUGH drugs, he should've done more.

Now I'd like to know how is it impossible to maintain a conversation with someone on coke, which is the drug which makes you friendlier and looses your tongue like no other.

But, most of all, close this!!

[Edited 2/14/11 5:27am]

I don't want to steal this thread, but coke does not make you friendlier. It gets you wired and makes most people a complete asshole - as opposed to the incomplete asshole they were before they snorted it. Not to mention, most guys can't keep it up on coke. How friendly is that?

I think weed would fit your description more aptly.

XNY said:

vitriol said:

^Agreed.

Only idiots could be interested to know whether Prince did drugs or not or could consider that an issue.

In my opinion, Prince has not done ENOUGH drugs, he should've done more.

Now I'd like to know how is it impossible to maintain a conversation with someone on coke, which is the drug which makes you friendlier and looses your tongue like no other.

But, most of all, close this!!

[Edited 2/14/11 5:27am]

I don't want to steal this thread, but coke does not make you friendlier. It gets you wired and makes most people a complete asshole - as opposed to the incomplete asshole they were before they snorted it. Not to mention, most guys can't keep it up on coke. How friendly is that?

I think weed would fit your description more aptly.

what??? I thought coke was commonly used to keep it up, to the point of people putting it directly in. Wasn't there a famous news blurb in the 80's about the guy who put coke up his penis and then it stayed erect for so long he developed gangrene from old blood staying put?

source (http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1993-04.html)

Doctors warn of a dangerous new method of cocaine abuse:injecting the drug directly into the urinary tract. Physicians from New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center reported the case of a 34-year-old man who suffered severe bleeding under the skin after pumping cocaine into his urethra. It led to complications that destroyed his penis, nine fingers, and parts of his legs. "They fill an eye dropper or a syringe with a cocaine solution and inject it into the penis," said Dr. Samuel Perry, a professor of clinical psychiatry.

The man had injected cocaine before intercourse in an effort to enhance sexual performance. He was admitted to the hospital because his penis had remained erect for three days, resulting in a painful inability to urinate. The medical term for a prolonged erection is "priapism." On his third day in the hospital, the man's erection suddenly subsided. Over the next 12 hours, blood leaked into the tissues of his feet, hands, genitals, back and chest. Blood coagulation caused tissues to die over large areas of the patient's body, and he was transferred to the burn unit of New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

Doctors there were forced to amputate the man's legs above the knee and all but one of his fingers to stop the spread of gangrene. The patient's penis fell off by itself. The man is currently recovering in a rehabilitation facility.

Men who inject cocaine into the penis report that it gives them a sexual high. Drug abuse treatment experts have previously reported external use of cocaine as a sexual stimulant. Cocaine powder is rubbed onto the surface of the genital organs by both men and women in an effort to halt premature ejaculation or improve sexual sensations.

"We report this case to alert clinicians to this new method of cocaine abuse and to describe its rare and previously unreported complications," the doctors concluded.

dalsh327 said:

There's video proof? Start posting the "evidence".

You already got it at home. Check out the Love4OneAnother vid from 95 - and see Prince hitting a bong !

i wanna see a pic with coke powder on his nose....bring it ppl

[Edited 2/17/11 17:01pm]

I'm sure he experimented when he was younger, but given how incredibly bland everything around Prince has been for nearly two decades now, I have a hard time believing he's doing anything harder than Strawberry Qwik.

one of my fav bands JANES ADDICTION was notorious for their drug use .. everyone liked to credit the music to the hard drugs they openly did .. turns out they wrote all their music before they got hooked and during times when they were coming down and trying to stay clean. once they got on the road they succumbed to the convenience of availability and hard wear and tear from the tour.

that said, i think its fair to say prince was more likely having addiction issues during his post PRINCE years as it is very very different and very subpar compared to his previous years.

i would say pre ARTIST prince dabbled and post PRINCE he let the alchohal and pain pills take over too much and has not recovered since. i dont think prince does H or coke tho anyone who does would surely be careful not to get caught. especially when prince is PRINCE, you know, the star, with the big money and all that. its like if justin beiber starts using u better believe if he has a brain cell left about money, he isnt gonna blow it by letting on, the music just gets worse and worse.

in fact i think its fair speculation that many of these records were done for the money and not because prince had anything new to say. this is a sign of addiction. furthermore .. as intelligent as prince is, there are so many just bad decisions he has made, you cant just watch that happen for decades and call it a fluke. its usually because of alchohal addiction that things get so wacked.

prince allways sings about booze. his records sound shallow and egotistical and not even in the realm of sexy. he has done so many records where he says the stupidist shit but it works because it comes from a pure place. lets pretend we're married, if i was ur girlfriend. i mean who gets away with that kind of poetry. its kinda silly but why did it work then but not now. when prince describes sex now he sounds like beavis and butthead or maybe joey on friends saying "if u know what i mean" after every stupid round about way of describing sex without saying it.

for someone like prince to let this stuff fly so freely and often is surely a sign that he is not writing from a pure artistic place anymore. in fact his records sound more like a singles dating sight profile these days. "i'll buy you a dress, watch chocolate, i got a lot of money" and of course he is so pathetic he has to inclued "i'll get u drunk too" ugh .. can prince pick up women the old fashion way .. put together that perfectly phrased line of poetry .. dig if u will the picture of u and i engaged in a kiss ... thats all he used to need to get women .. its just pathetic now .. if its not money and booze its some kinda religious whatever, like he's gonna try picking up church women now and entice them with his ahem spiritual intelligence .. ugh .. definately typical boozer behavior .. i love the guy but denial aint just a river in egypt.