Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs? I mean, what's the benefit of doing so? Everyone knows that people strung out on drugs are not mentally capable of making the best decisions, or is able to perform as they should, so why would anyone want to work with them? If you had a business, would you go out of your way to employ drug abusers, or want them to work in your establisment?

looby said:

Prince was a drug user in later years, so why not ask the band members how they felt about working with him?

thebanishedone said:

It is a well known fact that Prince didn't want to work with Sly because of Sly Stone drug problems, yet drugs were not a problem when Prince worked with George Clinton. It's not like George was drug free during his work with Prince. So why double standards?

Can you cite sources where Prince didn't want to work with Sly because of his drug use?

looby said:

Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs? I mean, what's the benefit of doing so? Everyone knows that people strung out on drugs are not mentally capable of making the best decisions, or is able to perform as they should, so why would anyone want to work with them? If you had a business, would you go out of your way to employ drug abusers, or want them to work in your establisment?

The answer is the same as why you'd want to work with someone who doesn't have a substance use condition. There is a benefit to working with an individual who does great work.

The work ethic, work quality, and all manner of other personality, etc. characteristics of people with substance use issues vary geatly from person to person. They're all over the place, and each person is unique. Same as is true of people without substance use issues.

Two people I've known who had a huge work ethic and did great work:

a coworker who used heroin

a boss who smoked

My coworker used heroin frequently.

Others working in the office would say my boss "smoked like a chimney." We experienced this while we were working, as those were the days when most workplaces permitted smoking inside of offices/buildings.

[Edited 5/23/20 15:49pm]

Sly wasn't functional. He priortized the drugs over the music. Nobody wanted to work with Sly because of his drug abuse. They wanted to work with the talent buried inside the junkie, and you didn't get that if he wasted your time and didn't show up.

Also one difference between George Clinton and Sly Stone then was George wanted to get clean, but would change his mind. The artistry wasn't totally gone.

From what we know, Sly wasn't trying to slow down and get help, he thought he was balancing everything just fine until much later. Also with Sly, you couldn't tell if he was that messed up because of drugs or because he was eccentric and dropped out of society, and was on some other trip, and it almost didn't matter.

RJOrion said:

looby said:

Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs? I mean, what's the benefit of doing so? Everyone knows that people strung out on drugs are not mentally capable of making the best decisions, or is able to perform as they should, so why would anyone want to work with them? If you had a business, would you go out of your way to employ drug abusers, or want them to work in your establisment?

alot of musicians feel like drugs enhances their creativity and also relieves the nerves and stress that comes with performing in front of people...and cocaine and other stimulants are/were used to help entertainers stay "up" and/or "on" during grueling touring and recording schedules where sleep is hard to come by

Since when has drug use let alone drug abuse been beneficial to anyone long term, in a positive way? Sooner or later it destroys a person in one way or the other, just look at where it got Prince, not to mention the countless others that have died before him.......enhanced creativity, nerves and stress relief or not! Drug abuse and use destroys lives, and I've never heard anyone say that abusing drugs changed their lives for the better!

RJOrion said:

looby said:

Drug abuse and use destroys lives, and I've never heard anyone say that abusing drugs changed their lives for the better!

I don't think that's what they were saying. I'm not sure the point of anyone mentioning that drugs have been a tool for artists in this discussion though. That said, a lot of bands wouldn't have existed without the mind expansion phase of their lives. I don't think the Doors, Beach Boys, Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. would or could do it any other way if they could.

looby said:

Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs? I mean, what's the benefit of doing so? Everyone knows that people strung out on drugs are not mentally capable of making the best decisions, or is able to perform as they should, so why would anyone want to work with them? If you had a business, would you go out of your way to employ drug abusers, or want them to work in your establisment?

"Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs?" George Clinton was so out of his mind on crack that his bandmates had to hold him up to the microphone when he recorded "Atomic Dog." And that song has a broader cultural influence than most sober people can hope to achieve in their lives. So I guess the answer to your question is, Prince, all of Parliament Funkadelic, and about a million lesser artists who sampled that crackhead's song. Addiction doesn't make you a lesser person. Sometimes it doesn't even make you all that less functional.

Strive said:

Prince didn't really work with any outside artist until Miles Davis (who has done his own share of drugs) in '86/'87. By that time, Jesse Johnson had already one-upped Prince by having a song with Sly. After Sly worked with Jesse, it would have been difficult for Prince's ego to still work with Sly. I guess that's one of the reasons why he then got George Clinton ("He's a bigger funker than Sly!").

.

Personally, I think Prince viewed drugs as a personal choice. As long as he didn't have to join, he was ok with outsiders doing their thing. This changed later in life.

.

So.. like with most things, it was all about music and ego. Sly was done by Jesse, so Prince had George and Larry. (Larry and Sly had their own rivalries, not to mention that Larry had his own drugs related issues)

TrivialPursuit said:

Prince was a drug user in later years, so why not ask the band members how they felt about working with him?

.

udo said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Prince was a drug user in later years, so why not ask the band members how they felt about working with him?

.

And he had a NO alcohol policy at PP while he was heavily drinking red wine and port. According to Mayte.

Chastity said:

And he had a NO alcohol policy at PP while he was heavily drinking red wine and port. According to Mayte.

.

Great infos, could be the basis of another Per Nilsen book?

ForceofNature said:

Chastity said:

udo said:

.

And he had a NO alcohol policy at PP while he was heavily drinking red wine and port. According to Mayte.

That "no alcohol" policy applied to his public events because he didn't have a liquor license and liability insurance.
Also, Mayte did NOT describe him as continually "heavily drinking". Like most people, he had his occasional moments.

mtlfan said:

looby said:

Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs? I mean, what's the benefit of doing so? Everyone knows that people strung out on drugs are not mentally capable of making the best decisions, or is able to perform as they should, so why would anyone want to work with them? If you had a business, would you go out of your way to employ drug abusers, or want them to work in your establisment?

"Who in their right mind would want to work with anyone who abuses drugs?" George Clinton was so out of his mind on crack that his bandmates had to hold him up to the microphone when he recorded "Atomic Dog." And that song has a broader cultural influence than most sober people can hope to achieve in their lives. So I guess the answer to your question is, Prince, all of Parliament Funkadelic, and about a million lesser artists who sampled that crackhead's song. Addiction doesn't make you a lesser person. Sometimes it doesn't even make you all that less functional.

Of course addiction doesn't make you a lesser person, and I never said that it did. What it does do though is ruin and destroys lives. And while some may be able to function, common sense knows that you don't function as well as you would without drugs, because it affects the mind, and no one that's not in their right mind can function as normally as they would if they weren't high and their brain function altered and not working as it should. And my God, what a pretty picture of "George Clinton out of his mind on crack that his bandmates had to hold him up to the microphone when he recorded Atomic Dog"......a perfect example of what drug use does to a person, and yet you use that as an example......really?

[Edited 5/24/20 13:33pm]

Chastity said:

And he had a NO alcohol policy at PP while he was heavily drinking red wine and port. According to Mayte.

He was also an alleged vegan, but his fridge was full of Haagen-Daaz ice cream.

Remember, on April 21, 1996, Prince had a hospital visit from being overly drunk or something with alcohol, that caused a heart issue.

It was often talked about how Lisa loved her cigarettes and Heinekin after a show, or during her off time. She wasn't a chain smoker or a drunk, but she was certainly having a drink. Then there's that time Prince tried to micro-manage Wendy when she had a beer in Sheridan Wyoming. I mean, who wouldn't need a drink in Sheridan Wyoming?

And look at his bathroom products, some of which are probably not vegan, and are certainly tested on animals and/or aren't cruelty free. So - how deeply was his "nothing with a mother" stance then? How deep does someone wanna go, because his humanity far outweighed his father earth persona.

So yeah, a lot of his public mystique is quickly broken down and proven false when you simply look at the facts. Prince wasn't a liar, he was a good salesman at the whole mysterious rock star gig. But he was snackin' Tostitos and salsa like the rest of us.

So I guess what some of you are saying, or trying to avoid saying, is that Prince was a total hypocrite?

looby said:

So I guess what some of you are saying, or trying to avoid saying, is that Prince was a total hypocrite?

What I said was this, "Prince wasn't a liar, he was a good salesman at the whole mysterious rock star gig."

If you're going to boil it down to being a hypocrite, who here could take the same critique and come out perfect on the other end?

TrivialPursuit said:

looby said:

So I guess what some of you are saying, or trying to avoid saying, is that Prince was a total hypocrite?

thebanishedone said:

It is a well known fact that Prince didn't want to work with Sly because of Sly Stone drug problems,yet drugs were not a problem when Prince worked with George Clinton.It's not like George was drug free during his work with Prince.so why double standards?

Prince didn't seem to care about drug use regarding the artists he worked or wanted to work with.
And you got it mixed up with Prince and Sly Stone. Prince showed up on Sly's front door and Sly didn;t want him there at made him leave. Sly didn't want to work wth Prince because Sly didn't like him. Prince obviously didn't care much about Sly's drug use.

I don't think it's as complicated as some are making it and I don't think it has to be black or white when it comes to Prince's stance on a lot of issues, including drugs. For me it's pretty simple. Prince throughout his career tried to be eccentric at all times. That I am sure was the Rock star persona thing etc. But I clearly saw that Prince realized that he has a lot of influence on others in the public sphere and for him it weighed heavy on his heart.

No I don't pretend to know his feelings and stances on these issues. It just made sense as to how he felt after reading countless articles about him and reading his own words and watching interviews with him and what people said about him who were actually there. I guess one can surmise what someine is trying to accomplish once you completely immerse oneself in how that person operates. Things start to make sense etc.

In my humble opinion Prince drank wine and eventually used drugs for pain relief as he got older. There's a huge spectrum of drug abuse. Those that use it to get F**ked up and those that use to allow the creative juices to flow to those that use it primarily to control their private pain. In the musical world it would be far harder to find those that don't do any drugs at all. So I am sure Prince looked past what others do for themselves. One had to if you wanted to work with them at all. And someone earlier brought up Paisley Parks no alcohol policy as more of logistical thing rather than a dogma. And yeah he didn't like people smoking around him. I know plenty of people that agree with that belief.

But he also felt deeply that he should put a best face in the public's eye. And I don't blame him. He wanted others to live better and if he could have a positive effect in that way I don't blame him for that as well. He wanted to keep his vices private and separate what he did on his own time to the persona he gave the world. I find nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make him a hypocrite in the least. It makes him look like a real human being with a simple want of developing a private space for himself and his friends and a separate space for the public at large.

It doesn't have to be he's a big phony liar and it doesn't have to be he's a big hypocrite. He was just a very talented musician who shared so much with the world and he wanted to keep a small part just for himself.

[Edited 5/26/20 11:18am]