- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rock n Roll and heroin
Posted on 4/15/12 at 1:51 pm to Baloo
Posted on 4/15/12 at 1:51 pm to Baloo
quote:
I will point out that in most rock biopics, they gloss over the fact that once the rock star gets off the junk, his music starts to suck (
Clapton is an interesting example to your post. I don't exactly remember the timeline from his book, but I think he was done with Yardbirds before he got hooked. Cream and Derek and the Dominoes is when he really started, I believe.
Although he did kick heroin, he traded it for other addictions, mainly alcohol for a while.
Yet he has enjoyed success before, during and after heroin.
2
Posted on 4/15/12 at 2:39 pm to jose canseco
Double
This post was edited on 4/15/12 at 9:19 pm
Posted on 4/15/12 at 2:41 pm to jose canseco
Heroin is probably great for creativity, but being a junkie will affect performance. I have sat through many shitty performances by strung out artists, and missed several canceled shows. Not saying you can't be a junkie and be good, but at some point the product will probably begin to suffer.
Posted on 4/15/12 at 9:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Not saying you can't be a junkie and be good, but at some point the product will probably begin to suffer.
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, if you got it, you got it. Jimi, clapton, Allman Brothers, etc were known for their legendary live performances and legendary heroin use. If they never got hooked on the junk, I still see those guys crushing shows. I couldn't imagine them being any better - regardless of their buzz of choice.
Posted on 4/15/12 at 9:25 pm to jose canseco
Yeah, I know a guy who can play guitar in his sleep, but those people are the exceptions. Hendrix himself was booed at the Isle of Wight, his second to last performance. At some point the addiction ceases to be a positive. You still have to make shows, and still have to perform well, in the final stages of addiction this is difficult.
Posted on 4/15/12 at 9:28 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
At some point the addiction ceases to be a positive
Its never a positive. The drug isn't what made them good musicians. It didn't help them be more creative, they were just great artists who happened to use heroin. Their drug usage had zero positive impact on their art imo.
Posted on 4/15/12 at 10:01 pm to CottonWasKing
quote:
Its never a positive. The drug isn't what made them good musicians.
Absolutely correct.
Keith Richards' autobiography (I've been through it a couple of times) never suggests that heroin made him a better musician. In fact, I assure you, while he may regale us with tales of excess, the guy thinks heroin is poison and would never encourage its use.
I do think, on occasion, a high may open a door or send you on a tangent that results in something artistically creative, but so does a perfect sunset or great sex. And I assure you, I'm no angel when it comes to drugs (in the past . . .).
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News