Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
I knew you weren't a man of science, merely History, and you did great at showing me the historic record of two dudes 'claiming' to be playing on drugs one on Acid and the other on pot, bravo! But where is the Scientific method, where is the comparative data of both with and without use, where's your control and double blind study. Obviously you just read about science.
lancek4 wrote:Your implication was that one who is high thinks he is sounding good but is actually not. The study you refer to rated for precision, as if this is 'better'. It supported the agenda that drugs are bad by attacking an arena that typically glorifies the good qualities of drugs : music and art.
This is not only based a dozens of anecdotes but from personal experience.
The guitarist in my band has found cannabis useful for his creativity, but the lessons learned have to wait until he is straight before he can put it into practice. As for me playing the drums - forget it. Beer in small measures is the only thing that helps.
I have not referred to any "study".
Perhaps the 'study' is an urban myth. And indeed many cannot play while on LSD or pot, even alcohol, and so they should not . But that does not point to the drug but a failure or lack in the individual. The extension to the drug. I'd based in a defense of ones insecurity. A proclaiming of moral righteousness.
lancek4 wrote:Your implication was that one who is high thinks he is sounding good but is actually not. The study you refer to rated for precision, as if this is 'better'. It supported the agenda that drugs are bad by attacking an arena that typically glorifies the good qualities of drugs : music and art.
This is not only based a dozens of anecdotes but from personal experience.
The guitarist in my band has found cannabis useful for his creativity, but the lessons learned have to wait until he is straight before he can put it into practice. As for me playing the drums - forget it. Beer in small measures is the only thing that helps.
I have not referred to any "study".
Perhaps the 'study' is an urban myth. And indeed many cannot play while on LSD or pot, even alcohol, and so they should not . But that does not point to the drug but a failure or lack in the individual. The extension to the drug. I'd based in a defense of ones insecurity. A proclaiming of moral righteousness.
There is no doubt that in the long term drugs can open up one's consciousness and allow you to think more expansively. This is good for any creative process. But as for dropping a tab and then going on stage - no way.
lancek4 wrote:Your implication was that one who is high thinks he is sounding good but is actually not. The study you refer to rated for precision, as if this is 'better'. It supported the agenda that drugs are bad by attacking an arena that typically glorifies the good qualities of drugs : music and art.
chaz wyman wrote:
lancek4 wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:This is not only based a dozens of anecdotes but from personal experience.
The guitarist in my band has found cannabis useful for his creativity, but the lessons learned have to wait until he is straight before he can put it into practice. As for me playing the drums - forget it. Beer in small measures is the only thing that helps.
I have not referred to any "study".
Perhaps the 'study' is an urban myth. And indeed many cannot play while on LSD or pot, even alcohol, and so they should not . But that does not point to the drug but a failure or lack in the individual. The extension to the drug. I'd based in a defense of ones insecurity. A proclaiming of moral righteousness.
There is no doubt that in the long term drugs can open up one's consciousness and allow you to think more expansively. This is good for any creative process. But as for dropping a tab and then going on stage - no way.
Who do you think you are, that you can talk for everyone? "What a fool believes he sees, a wise man has the power, to reason the way." --DB--
The reason I 'know' that Jimi Hendrix did is because he and his closet friends indicated so, on a documentary, as did the narrator, it was, at least in part, about musicians that have died as a result of overdose. Don't ask what it's title is, it's been quite some time since I saw it, and don't say 'how convenient,' because it's very inconvenient, because then I could rub your nose in it! I'll be looking for it.
lancek4 wrote:Your implication was that one who is high thinks he is sounding good but is actually not. The study you refer to rated for precision, as if this is 'better'. It supported the agenda that drugs are bad by attacking an arena that typically glorifies the good qualities of drugs : music and art.
This is not only based a dozens of anecdotes but from personal experience.
The guitarist in my band has found cannabis useful for his creativity, but the lessons learned have to wait until he is straight before he can put it into practice. As for me playing the drums - forget it. Beer in small measures is the only thing that helps.
I have not referred to any "study".
Perhaps the 'study' is an urban myth. And indeed many cannot play while on LSD or pot, even alcohol, and so they should not . But that does not point to the drug but a failure or lack in the individual. The extension to the drug. I'd based in a defense of ones insecurity. A proclaiming of moral righteousness.
If I understand your meaning, exactly! Hallucinogens amplify your mental state, such that if you are doubtful..., or fearful..., or cocky..., or confident..., ----> there you go!
cw wrote:
There is no doubt that in the long term drugs can open up one's consciousness and allow you to think more expansively. This is good for any creative process. But as for dropping a tab and then going on stage - no way.
Who do you think you are, that you can talk for everyone?
.
For the same reason I can tell you that you cannot breath under water; you cannot do a full does of LSD and except to entertain on stage. LSD dilates your perception of time, this means that you cannot do rhythm. With out rhythm rock is shit.
cw wrote:
There is no doubt that in the long term drugs can open up one's consciousness and allow you to think more expansively. This is good for any creative process. But as for dropping a tab and then going on stage - no way.
Who do you think you are, that you can talk for everyone?
.
For the same reason I can tell you that you cannot breath under water; you cannot do a full does of LSD and except to entertain on stage. LSD dilates your perception of time, this means that you cannot do rhythm. With out rhythm rock is shit.
So you're saying that Albert Hofmann had trouble peddling his bicycle? As to the Water=LSD, Apples and Oranges! Ever heard of a click track? Jimi was in a band and had a great drummer and bass player. Can you say that's the function of the "rhythm section." You see, both people that I mentioned, doing LSD and playing live/during recording were not a part of the "rhythm section." They're the lead/melody section, which listens to the "rhythm section" for timing purposes during a live performance.
cw wrote:
There is no doubt that in the long term drugs can open up one's consciousness and allow you to think more expansively. This is good for any creative process. But as for dropping a tab and then going on stage - no way.
Who do you think you are, that you can talk for everyone?
.
For the same reason I can tell you that you cannot breath under water; you cannot do a full does of LSD and except to entertain on stage. LSD dilates your perception of time, this means that you cannot do rhythm. This is the most rediculous generalization I've heard. You conclusion is non sequitur your premise. Time is what allows for the development of rhythm. Just because now people have learned the method of linking together pre-developed rhythms into easily accessible quickly understood musical patterns to go along with the 'need it now, I don't have time' lives does not make your assessment of the action of LSD equate to an inability to play good music. It's is only your inability to play on LSD that informs your presumption on musical ability of everyone. With out rhythm rock is shit.
I would imagine that you concur with the 1950's record producers that a song cannot be longer than 3 minutes because people lose interest. What about heroin dial ate ing ones perception of time? Just listen to 50's jazz. Much subsequent rock took its form from them.
lancek4 wrote:I would imagine that you concur with the 1950's record producers that a song cannot be longer than 3 minutes because people lose interest.
How many examples would you like of tracks longer than 3 mins from the 1950s to disprove your theory?
What about heroin dial ate ing ones perception of time?
What about it? What has that got to do with LSD?
Just listen to 50's jazz.
Charlie Parker killed himself with H, and many others such as Chet Baker ruined their lives and careers.
lancek4 wrote:I would imagine that you concur with the 1950's record producers that a song cannot be longer than 3 minutes because people lose interest.
How many examples would you like of tracks longer than 3 mins from the 1950s to disprove your theory? maybe it was 4 minutes, but it is not a theory. I believe buddy holly was one of the first to challenge the producers.
What about heroin dial ate ing ones perception of time?
What about it? What has that got to do with LSD? they both dialate ones perception of time.
Just listen to 50's jazz.
Charlie Parker killed himself with H, and many others such as Chet Baker ruined their lives and careers. But their music and influence lives on.
Much subsequent rock took its form from them.
Not really. really. Listen to some of black sabbath jams.
The point is that to generalize the use of drugs in playing music to what is 'better' is subjective unless you attribute what is popular now to good music. I hold the ones popularity is often conversely proportionate to what is good.
Often, but not always. The best music does not need to stay at say 100 Bpm the whole song. Knowing technically how music should be played usually yields shallow uninvolved sound tracks to be cool at bars.
lancek4 wrote:I would imagine that you concur with the 1950's record producers that a song cannot be longer than 3 minutes because people lose interest.
How many examples would you like of tracks longer than 3 mins from the 1950s to disprove your theory? maybe it was 4 minutes, but it is not a theory. I believe buddy holly was one of the first to challenge the producers.
What about heroin dial ate ing ones perception of time?
What about it? What has that got to do with LSD? they both dialate ones perception of time.
Just listen to 50's jazz.
Charlie Parker killed himself with H, and many others such as Chet Baker ruined their lives and careers. But their music and influence lives on.
Much subsequent rock took its form from them.
Not really. really. Listen to some of black sabbath jams.
The point is that to generalize the use of drugs in playing music to what is 'better' is subjective unless you attribute what is popular now to good music. I hold the ones popularity is often conversely proportionate to what is good.
Often, but not always. The best music does not need to stay at say 100 Bpm the whole song. Knowing technically how music should be played usually yields shallow uninvolved sound tracks to be cool at bars.
You speak of music much like Classical or Progressive Rock that ebbs and flows, composed of varying time signatures, with crescendos and decrescendos, full of counterpoint, and hopefully thought provoking lyrics. 'Yes,' that's what I'm talking about!
