trust me a whole lot of fools beleived that too...and you ain't ever heard of them.
Like I said I am pro-drugs but I am not for trying to justify it as a means to make better music.
talent lies within ones person not within a pipe
i disagree, a lot of greatest music ever was made due to artists being at a point in their lives where they were dependent on drugs, alcohol etc...
not that I should even be debating this cause I think its pretty ridiculous, but you really believe it was thier drug dependency and not their talent that allowed them to make that music?
talent it talent and certain folks have it in abundance, now if they are able to get high and still do thier thing creatively more power to them, but the drugs didn't make the music the person did. To beleive that drug dependence makes you create better music is some weird counterculture philosophy with no real basis.
Once again I don't doubt that folks can be creative on drugs, however that creativity was within them and not that pill, pipe, or syringe.
An addict is not someone I look at as creative, rather I look at them as someone who needs help. George Clinton still high as mutha but he ain't made a hit in over 20 years
trust me a whole lot of fools beleived that too...and you ain't ever heard of them.
Like I said I am pro-drugs but I am not for trying to justify it as a means to make better music.
talent lies within ones person not within a pipe
i disagree, a lot of greatest music ever was made due to artists being at a point in their lives where they were dependent on drugs, alcohol etc...
not that I should even be debating this cause I think its pretty ridiculous, but you really believe it was thier drug dependency and not their talent that allowed them to make that music?
talent it talent and certain folks have it in abundance, now if they are able to get high and still do thier thing creatively more power to them, but the drugs didn't make the music the person did. To beleive that drug dependence makes you create better music is some weird counterculture philosophy with no real basis.
Once again I don't doubt that folks can be creative on drugs, however that creativity was within them and not that pill, pipe, or syringe.
An addict is not someone I look at as creative, rather I look at them as someone who needs help. George Clinton still high as mutha but he ain't made a hit in over 20 years
i disagree, while yes the talent is there i think in a lot of cases it took whatever drugs they were using to get them to take their creativity to that next level... take Jimi Hendrix for example... playing the chitlin' circuit and shit and even back then blowing minds but once he linked up with that tab of acid and those two u.k dudes it was on and poppin'... He took it to that next level, had he not fucked around dude might've still been fucking with the chitlin circuit on some same ol' same ol'... same with Miles and Coltrane and even Bird.
trust me a whole lot of fools beleived that too...and you ain't ever heard of them.
Like I said I am pro-drugs but I am not for trying to justify it as a means to make better music.
talent lies within ones person not within a pipe
i disagree, a lot of greatest music ever was made due to artists being at a point in their lives where they were dependent on drugs, alcohol etc...
not that I should even be debating this cause I think its pretty ridiculous, but you really believe it was thier drug dependency and not their talent that allowed them to make that music?
talent it talent and certain folks have it in abundance, now if they are able to get high and still do thier thing creatively more power to them, but the drugs didn't make the music the person did. To beleive that drug dependence makes you create better music is some weird counterculture philosophy with no real basis.
Once again I don't doubt that folks can be creative on drugs, however that creativity was within them and not that pill, pipe, or syringe.
An addict is not someone I look at as creative, rather I look at them as someone who needs help. George Clinton still high as mutha but he ain't made a hit in over 20 years
i disagree, while yes the talent is there i think in a lot of cases it took whatever drugs they were using to get them to take their creativity to that next level... take Jimi Hendrix for example... playing the chitlin' circuit and shit and even back then blowing minds but once he linked up with that tab of acid and those two u.k dudes it was on and poppin'... He took it to that next level, had he not fucked around dude might've still been fucking with the chitlin circuit on some same ol' same ol'... same with Miles and Coltrane and even Bird.
late.
Man, Jimi was a young dude when he died, consequently it is quite possible that he was still developing during the time he played the chitlin circuit and even throughout the rest of his (post LSD discovery) career. Do you think it was possible that his maturing as a musician merely coincided with his drug experimentation rather than his experimentation being the cause for his maturing? I think it is pretty likely.
I really didn't mean for this to turn into some long debate over the exact relationship between drugs and creativity.
My stance on the whole issue is this: Yes, the talent and creativity that was needed to create the music/art was existent in the person seperate from the drugs. A person can also mature artistically - essentially accessing more of their own inner creativity/personality. This can surely be done sober. I tend to believe, however, that drug use and its relationship with art is important because it allows people to 'change their perspective', 'shed traditional thinking', 'expand consciously' - whatever you want to label it. It can be a very introspective and freeing experience. That is of course not universal - drugs do not equal freed minds and good art. But one can't ignore the part that drugs play in the history of art.
ps this may or may not be self reasoning for my habit. jury still out...
Experience is directly related to ones music/art. Drugs are a part of ones experience. Alot of heroin junkies made really deep, emotional music. Heroin users experience the extremes of the spectrum when it comes to highs and lows. These experiences obviously affected the music being made, as they are reflections of the artists conscious. e.g Velvet Underground, Coltrane, Miles Davis, Marvin Gaye, Jerry Garcia etc.
I'LL BE HONEST, WHETHER IT BE PRODUCING,WRITING,BREAKING, OR WHAT NOT. I GET A CERTAIN VIBE WHEN I'M HIGH AND LISTENING TO MUSIC. THE BEATS THAT I HEAR SOUNDS MORE CLEAR AND I'M MOVED AND INSPIRED TO CREATE NEW IDEAS AT THAT CERTAIN MOMENT. I DON'T NEED TO GET LIFTED TO DO SUCH THINGS BUT I'LL ADMIT, THAT MOMENT OF SPACING OUT SURE GET'S ME HUNGRY! PEACE
Comments
not that I should even be debating this cause I think its pretty ridiculous, but you really believe it was thier drug dependency and not their talent that allowed them to make that music?
talent it talent and certain folks have it in abundance, now if they are able to get high and still do thier thing creatively more power to them, but the drugs didn't make the music the person did. To beleive that drug dependence makes you create better music is some weird counterculture philosophy with no real basis.
Once again I don't doubt that folks can be creative on drugs, however that creativity was within them and not that pill, pipe, or syringe.
An addict is not someone I look at as creative, rather I look at them as someone who needs help. George Clinton still high as mutha but he ain't made a hit in over 20 years
i disagree, while yes the talent is there i think in a lot of cases it took whatever drugs they were using to get them to take their creativity to that next level... take Jimi Hendrix for example... playing the chitlin' circuit and shit and even back then blowing minds but once he linked up with that tab of acid and those two u.k dudes it was on and poppin'... He took it to that next level, had he not fucked around dude might've still been fucking with the chitlin circuit on some same ol' same ol'... same with Miles and Coltrane and even Bird.
late.
Man, Jimi was a young dude when he died, consequently it is quite possible that he was still developing during the time he played the chitlin circuit and even throughout the rest of his (post LSD discovery) career. Do you think it was possible that his maturing as a musician merely coincided with his drug experimentation rather than his experimentation being the cause for his maturing? I think it is pretty likely.
My stance on the whole issue is this: Yes, the talent and creativity that was needed to create the music/art was existent in the person seperate from the drugs. A person can also mature artistically - essentially accessing more of their own inner creativity/personality. This can surely be done sober. I tend to believe, however, that drug use and its relationship with art is important because it allows people to 'change their perspective', 'shed traditional thinking', 'expand consciously' - whatever you want to label it. It can be a very introspective and freeing experience. That is of course not universal - drugs do not equal freed minds and good art. But one can't ignore the part that drugs play in the history of art.
ps this may or may not be self reasoning for my habit. jury still out...
I'LL BE HONEST, WHETHER IT BE PRODUCING,WRITING,BREAKING, OR WHAT NOT. I GET A CERTAIN VIBE WHEN I'M HIGH AND LISTENING TO MUSIC. THE BEATS THAT I HEAR SOUNDS MORE CLEAR AND I'M MOVED AND INSPIRED TO CREATE NEW IDEAS AT THAT CERTAIN MOMENT. I DON'T NEED TO GET LIFTED TO DO SUCH THINGS BUT I'LL ADMIT, THAT MOMENT OF SPACING OUT SURE GET'S ME HUNGRY! PEACE