[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]Oh Shi[COLOR=White]t[/COLOR]


I was thinking about this earlier today: which came first, the drugs or the music?[/QUOTE]

one can't exist without the other ;)

The drugs, definitely the drugs.

Truth

Well, the Beatles were pretty boring until they started smoking weed, and they pretty much started it all

Do you think the music would be as good without the drugs? I don't

I think that drugs do have an effect on the music, but it is often overrated. It has more of an effect on the lyrics, but though the music may sound like they where stoned, it took more focus than what it looks like to make it.

They were creative people to begin with, but I think the weed just shook things up a little bit.

good point, but the lyrics make the song better, so basically drugs make music better.

Drugs made Eric Clapton better at guitar ;). Before the drugs, pretty good. After, freakin awesome.

edit: or possibly practise. Prolly that.

[QUOTE=robo2448]good point, but the lyrics make the song better, so basically drugs make music better.[/QUOTE]

Drugs don't make music better. Maybe for the listener, but there are so many bands out there that take loads of drugs and make HORRIBLE music.

[QUOTE=ArrestThisMan]Drugs don't make music better. Maybe for the listener, but there are so many bands out there that take loads of drugs and make HORRIBLE music.[/QUOTE]

Excellent point

Could it be said that LSD is the steroid of the music world in the 60's

What really pisses me off is when people listen to albums like [I]Dark Side of the Moon[/I], or [I]The Velvet Underground & Nico[/I], [I]Sgt.Peppers[/I],ect. that have an experimental and relaxed feel, and they just put them off as drug induced albums that just took no focus.

that's dumb. How could anybody say that those albums didn't have focus? It took some brilliant druggies to write those. 90% of the people I know that do drugs couldn't write a half decent song if their lives depended on it.

[QUOTE=White_heat]What really pisses me off is when people listen to albums like [I]Dark Side of the Moon[/I], or [I]The Velvet Underground & Nico[/I], [I]Sgt.Peppers[/I],ect. that have an experimental and relaxed feel, and they just put them off as drug induced albums that just took no focus.[/QUOTE]

You said it, man.

Just because an album is enjoyable when on drugs doesn't mean it didn't take talent to make.

What about when the music is influenced by drugs? Perfect stoner song :p. Like Pink Floyd. When they had Sid Barrett many off their songs were very drug influenced and even many of their later songs like Another Brick in the Wall. Really drugs can either make a great artist, destroy a great artist, or both.

[QUOTE=m30wc0w]Really drugs can either make a great artist, destroy a great artist, or both.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

They aren't something you can use to automatically write good songs.

[QUOTE=rock not roll]Drugs made Eric Clapton better at guitar ;). Before the drugs, pretty good. After, freakin awesome.

edit: or possibly practise. Prolly that.[/QUOTE]

Prolly practise ;) .

I have no problem with drugs being used occasionally to aid the songwriting process. But if:

A) You become completely dependent on them, or
B) You can't actually write a song [I]without[/I] them,

That's a problem.

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]Excellent point

Could it be said that LSD is the steroid of the music world in the 60's[/QUOTE]

No, because LSD does not help you sing better melodies, play better solos, etc.

It may provide one with an topic to write about, but usually the lyrics come out quite chessy.

I'm sure at least half the lyrics people think were about drug experiences were not.

The Beatles did drugs before they started smoking pot. They just did crappy drugs like alcohol and pills.

I'm not sure what to say....at one point of time I assumed taking drugs made you a better musician, but I don't write any better while I'm high. I prefer to write all my music while I'm sober. Although good ideas sometimes come while I'm high. And I can always tell what will be a good song or not (in my opinion mainly), if it sounds cool when I'm high.

Most people think of better riffs or lyrics while high. I've never played guitar while high, didn't really feel like playing guitar but... it possibly is. Like Badmoon said once before, Casey Jones was written before the Grateful Dead even did cocaine.

[QUOTE]Most people think of better riffs or lyrics while high[/QUOTE]

Maybe lyrics, but I highly doubt better riffs. I could hardly play guitar sometimes when I'm high.

[QUOTE]Like Badmoon said once before, Casey Jones was written before the Grateful Dead even did cocaine.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, and it isn't like cocaine plays a large role in that song; it isn't even about cocaine.

I can't do anything having to do with music when im high, even if i just smoke a bit of pot. I don't think great music can be made while high, at least thats my case.

You definitely have to be a good songwriter/talented musician first. Most drugs just help you bring out emotions that you have inside, or certain thoughts.

Off the drug topic, I saw this video....it was a collection of Who gigs from '65 to '89. Never really seen much of live Who, but this.....was fricken awesome. Finally have their career in perspective, and my favorite time frame is probably 1969 to 1973.

So yeah....I'm completly sober, except for a sip of some beer and breathing the outside air where some people were smoking pot. w00t!

So anyways my mall was having a record sale (which i've been waiting for since last year) so i went on a little classic rock splurge..

albums purchased:

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers-**** the Torpedos
John Cougar-American Fool
Rush-A Farewell to Kings
Jethro Tull-Benefit
The Eagles-The Eagles
Supertramp-Crisis? What Crisis?

Woulda gotten more too if i was made of money.

Nice picks.

What I want as of Now:

Buena Vista Social Club DVD
Jimmy Cliff - Wonderful World, Beautiful People
Ry Cooder - Paradise and Lunch

There was a Jeff Beck album there too, and i wanted to buy it because of how much i've heard about him around here, but i finally decided to pass on it. Not sure if that was a mistake or not.

[QUOTE=B0nz0]ok ok, i admit it, i'm a classic rock nut. i love led zeppelin, the beatles, the who, eric clapton, the doors, and so on. most of the bands i listen to broke up years before i was born. at 17, nearly every song on my playlist is older than me. but is it just my imagination, or is classic rock experiencing sort of a revival. i am running into an increasing number of classic rock fans my age. at my school (an all boys high school), the school newspaper took a poll of everyone's favorite genre and band. led zeppeling got 5th and the beatles got 6th, behind that rap crap. classic rock made up a large percent of ppls favorite genre. is this just by me, or are other ppl noticing this too?


This is the thread for general classic rock discussion.[/QUOTE]


Yeah there some awesome bands mate but I would also have to add David Bowie and Queen two fantastic acts also!

P.S. R.I.P. Freddie Mercury \m/

bump. Try not to quote the first page, participate in the discussion going on now.

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]Excellent point

Could it be said that LSD is the steroid of the music world in the 60's[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking the same I mean the acid revolution was going on when "Classic Rock" was in full swing. My favorite type of music was HUGELY influenced by LSD too and I think the greatest music is inspired by the works of acid.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]No, because LSD does not help you sing better melodies, play better solos, etc.

It may provide one with an topic to write about, but usually the lyrics come out quite chessy.

I'm sure at least half the lyrics people think were about drug experiences were not.[/QUOTE]
This is coming from the biggest Dead Head in the forum^ :lol:

It's the inspiration they draw from drug that makes good music.

Edit: If it weren't for LSD you wouldn't have Jerry Garcia to praise and you probably wouldn't have any Jam Bands to listin to because Jam Rock wouldn't exsist.