Is there a correlation between drug use and quality rock music?

pjoasisrule

I really think drugs have to play a huge part in the decline of rock music

The Doors (one of the most popular 60's bands) vs. My Chemical Romance (one of the most popular peices of shit today)

Matt Lukin

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qm1870K22lc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tatannze-s8

Blyss

pjoasisrule wrote:

I really think drugs have to play a huge part in the decline of rock music

The Doors (one of the most popular 60's bands) vs. My Chemical Romance (one of the most popular peices of shit today)

I disagree that drugs influences the quality, i think if my chemical romance took drugs they would still sound awful, i don't know if they do or not but just saying.

I can see that for example, jimi hendrix made "different" music while he was on drugs, it was hyped up with big riffs or something but i do believe that hypothetically if he was clean he would have been just as good.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

It's not like drugs will magically turn you into a great musician or artist. Look at Leif Garrett for chrissake. You either have that creative thing in you already or you don't.

But I do think drugs can help some people reach deeper into themselves and get more in touch with that creative thing inside them.

Some people meditate, some people use drugs, some people go fishing...but they're all doing the same thing really...just getting more in touch with their subconscious.

Oh, Jimmy

Pink Floyd
Waters and Wright were regular reefer smokers and tried acid a few times, but there is a pretty wide misconception that these guys were fucked out of their gourds on drugs.

I think they're a perfect example. You can write some awesome, trippy music w/o bein stoned all the time.

I think drugs, most of the time, end up destroying egos.


PJ
Up until Binaural, Mike was into some heavy drug use. Good to see his probs are behind him.

Also, I bet Mike and Ed smoke gratuitous amounts of pot. Maybe not now, I suppose.

On TB2K I am pretty sure Mike puffs on some sort of pipe during the little backstage part, then Ed is over by him for a sec, turns around and smiles.

Then when I seen them in 03 at St Lou, Ed walked over behind all the gear cases on the stage, lit something(not a cigarette) then came back out and blew out about the biggest puff of smoke I have ever seen.

muppet

pjoasisrule wrote:

Why does Chris Cornell have to be mentioned in every thread? He isnt even that great, why not talk about him on his forum or a Soundgarden forum?

I just mentioned him in passing. I don't think he should be excluded from any musical discussion just because a couple of fangirls post 100 topics about his eyes. I think it's pretty fair to say that the man has declinded in quality ever since he got sober, which is basically what this thread is talking about. So what's your problem?

Kann

Blyss wrote:

I can see that for example, jimi hendrix made "different" music while he was on drugs, it was hyped up with big riffs or something but i do believe that hypothetically if he was clean he would have been just as good.

Not just as good, different. I agree with your point, you take a talented musician, give him drugs (but not too much or for too long) and you get great music.
I remember seeing a santana interview were he was speaking of his performance on soul sacrifice in the original woodstock. He said he took some acid some 4 hours before they went to play, but there had been a problem with other bands and less than an hour after dropping the organisers ask santana to go on stage and play now. So on stage he goes, on his high, and he says he felt his guitar neck was behaving like a snake and tried to slip out his hand, visual and audio hallucinations etc.
It's one of the best versions of that song I've heard. Drugs are bad, but sometimes they're great to hear.