drugs and their influence on music
kala
3,361 Posts
this is a deep topic with a lot room for a lot of speculation/discussion.
it's a fact that drugs do affect artist's output.
a few examples that spring to mind in the fine art world:
both robert crumb and ralph steadmen have noted a huge change in their styles and output after they dosed on hallucinogens
literature-kesey wrote one flew over the cuckoo's nest on government/CIA acid and has said that acid was integral to the shaping of the work itself and of course the inception of the pranksters
absinthe and -Baudelaire,rimbaud,wilde
music-
just off the top of my head
the crack/coke scene had a huge impact on the inner cities of america in the late 80's as reflected in countless tracks
drank and the whole chopped and screwed thang_______
would funkadelic been the same minus acid and weed?
nost likely mot
i'm waiting for ya ba and corcadil to get some musical action
;-)
it's a fact that drugs do affect artist's output.
a few examples that spring to mind in the fine art world:
both robert crumb and ralph steadmen have noted a huge change in their styles and output after they dosed on hallucinogens
literature-kesey wrote one flew over the cuckoo's nest on government/CIA acid and has said that acid was integral to the shaping of the work itself and of course the inception of the pranksters
absinthe and -Baudelaire,rimbaud,wilde
music-
just off the top of my head
the crack/coke scene had a huge impact on the inner cities of america in the late 80's as reflected in countless tracks
drank and the whole chopped and screwed thang_______
would funkadelic been the same minus acid and weed?
nost likely mot
i'm waiting for ya ba and corcadil to get some musical action
;-)
Comments
What would the careers have looked later in life for all the "kids" that went out too early.
I was talking to my partner about aesthetic in Art in general recently and questioned the need for torment.
Almost anyone can learn a technique whether it be poetic, visual or musical.
But is Torment and Darkness a requirement for movement?
Can someone who can't relate with that darkness appreciate its perspective?
Do you have to be jaded to make amazing art? Or is it just morbid?
So much of what we know about the musical experience
especially in the last 70 years revolves around substance abuse.
So if we are going to consider what influence it has had
is fair to wonder what influence it wouldn't have had?
I mean, outside of being too late to know the answer.
Sometimes those demons are "natural" and sometimes they are self imposed.
also, the image of the artist as tormented soul is a myth that has little bearing on reality, even though there's a handful who fit into this category.
Yes. And what an artist might consider a shallow frivolous throwaway piece could be interpereted as a deep emotional expression by the viewer, and vice versa.
I'd like to see a Top Ten list of musicians who had no personal demons be it drugs, alcohol, disability, mental illness, abuse, etc.
The feeling fades, you get it home, put it on again and wah wah waaaaaaahhhh wtf was I thinking?!? This is boring/corny/annoying as hell.
Minus the money spent and the same shit applies to dating.
Oh that whole "Art is Subjective" thing.
See, that is what I am wondering.
Is it really though?
Mozart
Beethoven
Ellington
Gil Evans
Mary Lou Williams
Frank Zappa
McCartney
Allen Toussaint
Aretha
Solomon Burke
Not a top ten list, just the first ten to pop into my head.
Yes and no.
The more you understand [the kind of] art and the artist and the artist intention, the more you can appreciate it.
Andy Warhol is a great example.
If all you have seen are pictures in magazines (or lp covers) you probably think he is a con man.
But if you see originals, in context with the times, and with what the artist was trying to say, his genius becomes clear.
But the work is still subjective, and you still may not like it even after understanding it.
Same with music. Music is not universal and an understanding of styles (and cultural exposure) increases appreciation.
Perhaps the greatest painter alive today is Chuck Close. Don't bother google imaging, his work will not impress in jpeg form. For some the initial reaction to his paintings is revulsion, giant portraits, complete with physical flaws. Up close many of them look like a series of small abstract paintings, or doodles. From a distance they look like detailed portraits.
Knowing about the artist and his intentions and process will greatly increase the viewers appreciation for the paintings.
And no, Chuck Close does not suffer from mental illness or drug abuse.
Not a problem if you never allow yourself to not be stoned.
:cool:
Mozart and Beethoven had mad personal issues dog. Like 4 of Mozarts' 6 kids died in infancy, he died in poverty, and Beethoven lost both his parents and became responsible for his siblings as a teen, then went completely deaf before composing some of his most famous work. Not sure about their drug and or alcohol intake. They should not be on a 'no personal demons' list.
I am not sure how we are defining personal demons here and whether there is a single human being without them, nevermind musicians. I think it's called the human condition.
Aretha, the daughter of a prominent preacher, had two kids between the ages of 13 and 15. She also went through some pretty rough relationships, including domestic violence. I would say she was working some shit out through her music.
Everyone on my list has lived life. They have had family that have died, they have known car accidents, suicides and violence. Some of the people on my list are African American, given how Blacks are treated in America there is no way they have no personal demons. Half of the worlds population are women, there is no where in the world where they are not repressed. So scratch any women from any list.
I was simply thinking of people who didn't suffered from addiction or crippling mental illness.
Shuggie Otis or Syd Barrett are two artist who truly suffered, and whose art, or lack there of, is the result.
This.
Also, i'm not sure what we're discussing here. If drugs influenced music making? Yes. Since humans started making it, i think.
He gives some good examples.
Country music doesn't exist without drinking, psychedelic rock doesn't exist without psychedelic drugs, and gangster rap doesn't exist without crack.
Some people who are bi-polar are extremely productive during manic periods.
Someone who has not lived life has nothing to say.
But I reject the idea that mental illness, or drugs, make a person more artistic.
I reject the idea that artist must take drugs or be mentally ill to be creative.
I have a feeling that Hendrix would not have achieved his sound without drugs, but I am sure he would have lived longer without them.
I specified being a tortured soul or having personal demons as having a (mental) illness, addiction, disability or having been abused.
This is not the same as knowing someone who died or witnessing a car accident.
In my experience many "deep" musicians used music as a way to escape this type of torture.
Their desire to escape their demons, in one way or another, allowed them to be totally immersed in their music.
Beethoven was taught by an overbearing father and as a child would practice standing at the piano in tears.
Mozart's most productive period (he died at 35) was one defined as his "personal recovery" from illness of which he died shortly thereafter.
Frank Zappa was a very sick child as (supposedly) being exposed to mustard gas and turned to music as a result.
Most good music comes from a place deep within someone, a place that can't be reached without something to drive you there.
Unfortunately many times that driver is something dark and disturbing.
Happy people make happy music and more often that not, happy music sucks.
I wouldnt sum up crack as the main driving factor behind Gangsta Rap's development.
I know what you mean, but the earliest examples arent crack epidemic dependent.
I agree.
I agree.
Im not sure it is. Isn't it over simplistic to say " if you don't like happy music you must not be happy"
Surely there is at least some common ground in which something like the Soul Strut 100 could even be compiled.
This soulstrut community has at least some level of agreement on Good Vs. Bad otherwise we wouldn't
freak the fuck out over things like Stark Reality, Boscoe or EOU.
I think there is definitely room for assholes and opinions
but I also think good art and music is at least at times inarguable especially technically.
What's overly simplistic is to say "happy music sucks".
To use the tiny soulstrut community's shared opinions as evidence for art not being subjective is to forget that soulstrut represents .0000001% of the people in the world. For something to not be subjective means that there is 100% agreement or that there are defined characteristics of quality that can be measured on an agreed upon scale.
It's like food. If someone gives me the greatest liverwurst ever made, I'll still think it's gross.
In the same way that musicians who are household names definitely do not all posses the same (or any) kind of elite skill or talent.