Well me being an artist, its something to do with the stage!
when your performing for somebody and you feel the energy of the audience
it certainly gets you extremely high, and you become addicted to it
Drugs promote the same kind of high

We are deppressive creatures...
Famous artist even more
cause now they have to worry about the business aspect of making music
so you get deppressed
but you long for that high you felt on that stage
you where just playing!

its like a state of nirvana
you wanna be in it forever

rainman1985 said:

I'm sure everyone does that, including you.

rainman1985 said:

Sounds like famous last words to me.

raiman195 said:

Great, we gotta curb the effect of one drug with that of of another. Nice.

rainman1985

And having fun is all some kids want. Popping a pill to get there is just lazy in my opinion.

Dewrede said:

Yeah, I do. I just don't abuse it.
Beer is known to have several vitamins and minerals.
Wine is good for the cardiovascular system when used in moderation.
What real benefits does coke have to your physical health?

Probably none
But i just don't think it's as bad as
you put it out to be when used every now and then
Nor does it automatically make you an addict
[Edited 4/25/05 9:51am]

for me, the best way not to start a habit is NOT PICK IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE!

BELIEVE ME...i've seen too much to not know better.

Depends on the person
I tried everything except for heroin
But i usually only drink alcohol and smoke

rainman1985 said:

You can't match one performer for the next. You have to ask "what heights would this particular artist have reached if they were sober".

The "weak escape", My dad said that. I believed him. I've since seen it to be true. It's not that I see those as weak because life has so much crap and so many pressures and in certain lifestyles there's stuff floating around like candy. They're like: "The skittles or the coke? After a while I guess they get tired of skittles."

But I definitely see the one that deals with all of lifes crap sober as the stronger one. It's harder to confront than to escape.

Also, what starts out as fun can soon become function. When you need something just to function, that's bad.

Lastly, When Parker died he was 34 but the coroner thought he was near 60. Drugs will do that to you. You can always tell someone that has abused some sort of substance for a little too long. And there's no undoing that. If common sense doesn't kick in, maybe vanity will.

access
+ opportunity
+ poor/no judgement skills
+ poor/no family support system

= drug abuse


we hear more about the musicians/singers who have done/do this because they are (well) known for their music, but there are more "regular people" who get caught up in this same trap.. but you seldom hear about them in the media.


this is why I have never even taken a "toke" of a joint.
I am sure I would get hooked, & I'd have been doing crack or heroin or pcp full-time & I'd very likely be dead by now.

this is 1 thing I've always respected about Prince - he had enough COMMON SENSE to stay away from that stuff. to take it a step further - I got into Prince when I was 12 years old (1980), & I conciously stayed away from drugs because I read that he did too.

You're dealing with a job that effectively has no security (if you're lucky and get signed, your album might not even be released); what you do musically is an extension of you personally (or at least it should be) so any criticism will be wounding (unless you're devoid of any sensitivity).
You're also indulging yourself as for most people, your job would be a hobby. If you're hedonistic in nature, it's only natural that you would be more prone to drinking/taking drugs.
Most musicians/singers are shy. Drink/drugs is an easy way of appearing more outgoing and confident. Again, this shyness can go hand in hand with stage fright; again, drink/drugs can help alleviate this.
Most creative people also have a hard time dealing with the times when there's not much going on work-wise; this can lead to self-doubt, which may cause one to hit the sauce/have a toke/whatever...
On the negative side...
That was a joke...
Drink/drugs can definitely help when it comes to writing songs, in terms of making you more open to ideas that you may not entertain otherwise. Of course, by the next morning, you're as likely to realise that they weren't so good. It won't turn a poor writer into a great writer (something Pete Doherty of the Libertines/Babyshambles seems blissfully unaware of). When a musician/singer's defining characteristic is their habit, it's safe to say that they're in trouble. Hello Courtney Love...
This may sound awful, but all of the above is a bit hard to understand unless you are a singer/musician yourself. All of the good and great ones I've ever known fall into the bracket above; there is a very thin line between being self-critical (which is a good thing) and self-doubt (which is detrimental and self-perpetuating). I have no easy answer to any of the above, as I am guilty as the next man in all of the above.
Having been involved in the industry for a while, I have heard some alleged tales of the Purple One in this area. Believe what you will, but I'd find it hard to believe that there hasn't been some element of truth in what I've been told. Drugs are endemic within the industry; for God's sake, it is commonplace for young acts on a gruelling schedule to be given the odd "livener" to keep them going by their manager or record company representative! I understand that this is how Jimi Hendrix got into the whole scene, having spoken to the sadly now deceased Charlie Watkins of WEM Music who supplied Jimi with his PA gear in the UK.
I'm glad to say that most people catch themselves on; it is genuinely sad to see extremely talented people falling by the wayside creatively because of the above. Sly, can you hear me?

anon said:

Not everyone who uses drugs are trying to "numb the pain of their everyday life". Plus certain drugs can give what is simply impossible through sobriety. Hallucinogens are the best example, nothing compares. It's definately not for every week though. I embrace what 'drugs' can do for me but I don't overestimate them either, so far it's working out swimingly.

I think a lot of musicians/artists believe the bullshit notion that because they are creative individuals, they are almost obliged to take drugs or drink too much. Just like the artist who leaves a spouse or loved one "because they had to choose between love and their art" they are deluding themselves.

Yes drugs are responsible for many great works of art, music, and writing over the past several hundred years, but I think a lot of it had to do with the artist's ability to create rather than "oh it was the smack that made Charlie Parker so great."

Add to that the fact that as an artist (especially musicians) you can pretty much show up to "work" drunk or high and no one thinks anything of it! They almost encourage you to do it!

Drugs may open up creativeity for an amount of time, but after that period of time is over and you find that you've pretty much lost touch with yourself, then what? I guess what it is is that back in the day with the jazz musicians and classical composers, drugs were something they did in their lives, not because they were musicians. They could already play and had already done their homework artisticly. There were the few exceptions I'm sure but in general that's how it was. Nowadays you get musicians who think they NEED to be drunk or stoned to play. I wonder if they'd feel the same way if they were toll collectors instead of musicians.

(by the way, I drink and smoke weed on occassion, and I'm not anti drug, I'm more anti the stereotype of the stupid drug addled musician)
[Edited 4/27/05 11:26am]

The majority of people are addicts, whether it's street drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, sugar, fried foods, porn...

Musicians tend to get hooked on the harder stuff because they lead alternative lifestyles to begin with. It's hard to go to your office job after a night of acid, but entertainers have much more irregular schedules with long breaks and boredom that allow them to experement more (like college students).

I personally don't drink or do drugs but I acknowledge that intoxication as a form of artistic inspiration has been around for probably a good chunk of human history. However, while I admitt that drugs CAN HELP ELICIT creativity, it's completely fallacious and stupid to say that drugs are RESPONSIBLE FOR creativity and that there aren't other and healthier ways to evoke interesting thoughts and ideas. I don't have any moralistic contempt or aversion to drugs, but I think it's unfortunate that so many people think they need drugs to feel good about themselves or to have fun or to accomplish an artistic feat and end up fucking their lives up. My choice not to use drugs is based on a desire to be as healthy as I can be and because I have faith in my ability to have fun and be creative on my own without any artificial stimulation that might be more harmful than beneficial.

rainman1985 said:

I agree. In fact the guys I know that use, do so for "creative/artistic" purposes. I see these ones as the lazier of the two.

You say "... certain drugs can give what is simply impossible through sobriety".

The reason I say this is lazy is because it seems you underestimate the power of the mind and where it can take you sober. I also think that because of the way many are raised, they have a hard time taking more natural mental journeys. It seems that it's not cool to go to strange places sober cause that just makes you "strange". But as long as it's bought on by something external then it's o.k.

I'll have a drink from time to time, but never because of stress and never to create. I've found a way to get to the place I need to be to create. It's not as easy as licking a frog or popping a pill. But I've found a way to get there. The good thing is that I have full control of my faculties when I'm there. Also I am there without delusion.

How much of your euphoria is imagined/delusion? and what incentive do you have to even try to get there sober when you've found the "easy" way? Anyway, If it's all "...working out swimmingly" for you, that's good. Everything has a price though.

Whitney Houston.....a VERY TALENTED artist, who threw her life away in the blink of an eye, and STILL hasn't gotten her shit together

b/c artists are fucking wacko... many of them anyway. Lovable but wacko...

same reason non-musicans/non-singers throw away their lives on drugs.



because they work

i didnt like the drugs, but the drugs liked me

Whether artists or not, people get addicted to drugs by attempting to dull pain caused by some traumatic happening in their early life (like no love, neglect, or loss). They often don't have healthy coping mechanisms or skills in dealing with their emotions, and heavy drug use only reinforces these weaknesses. In addition, some people have addictive personalities -- it may be genetic. Oftentimes, drug addicts are particularly sensitive and spiritual people -- qualities often found in artists as well.

In my opinion, no one needs drugs to tap their own creativity. You can draw the same material from dreams, for instance. Art itself can become like a drug and addictive, but its a silly notion that people need drugs to make art.

heartbeatocean said:

People get addicted to drugs, because drugs are physically addictive. And people use drugs because they feel good, whether they're fucked up human beings or not You don't have to be miserable or suppressing something, or coping with something to enjoy drugs. Nor do any of those things need to be true to become addicted to them.

Tessa said:

hmmm...perhaps...but I think you're more likely to become dependent on them if there's some pain you're dealing with. Addicts don't simply use because drugs are fun and make you "feel good". They're dependent on them. The question is why.

heartbeatocean said:

because their bodies become physically addicted to them.

As usual, when it comes to drugs and those who are against their usage, all drugs get lumped together, including marijuana, which has proven medical benefits for many chronically ill people. Ten states in the U.S. have legalized marijuana for medical use, and New York is considering becoming the 11th.
Also, the physically harmful effects of marijuana, when compared to say, worthless cigarettes (they don't get you high, so I never got the point) are very mild. Any doctor will tell you this.

Plus, it's fun!

Tessa said:

And their minds too.

heartbeatocean said:

I'm not knowledgable enough to make sweeping statements about drugs and the people who use them, but my hunch is that drug use among artists stems from many things...

First, I suspect that very, very artistic-minded people are disproportionately inclined toward certain dispositions than the general population -- more profound instances of uni- or bipolar mood disorders, more prevalence of other mental disorders (there is some science to support these two ideas) and, where some diagnosable clinical disorder may not be present, perhaps more of a rebellious streak. Some, then, would take drugs to medicate a mind and soul more sensitive than others (sometimes debilitatingly so) to things in the world. Others would turn to drugs simply because they're "bad boys and girls." Some would turn to drugs simply because they can be fun and/or they're what "cool" folk do . Some, I suspect, have too little confidence in their own creative capacities and turn to controlled substances with the full intent to bolster their natural perceptions, etc.

Whether these people are better with or without the drugs, I dunno. They certainly affect people's outputs differently: They helped the Beatles, IMO; but they're kicking Whitney's butt. And whether or not these people take drugs out of weakness certainly depends on the individual -- who knows what crosses these people have to bear? But an undeniable problem comes when these inidivuals develop either some physical or psychological dependence. It seldom turns out good in the end.

heartbeatocean said:

yes, but that can be (and often is) true whether they're psychologically fucked up to begin with or not.