Off: Drugs and music Was: RE: Beatles

[Joseph Brooks]

Drug use is one thing, abuse is another. I was a heavy drug user in my youth
but lost interest in it when I hit 30 or so (having children will do that to
you..).

The reason I caught on that part of the post is, I had recently had a
discussion with someone who would not or could not accept that drugs had a
large impact on the rock music of today.

Here's a good question for y'all... Would the Beatles have had the same
success without the chemically induced boost to their creativity? Would the
Grateful Dead ever have been successful as they were without LSD? (If you
don't understand that connection, I refer you to Tom Wolfe's _Electric
Kool-aid Acid Test_). Think about someone like Jimi or Jim Morrison without
the drugs.. It makes ya wonder...

Oh and alchohol IS a drug, make no mistake.

..and, never having done drugs is nothing to be ashamed of....

JB

> O.K., looks like it's confession time...


> I didn't say I had a problem with musicians that use(d) drugs - I was
> merely making the observation that the Beatles did (which when I first
> heard that was quite a revelation).
>
> You could certainly say that I USED to have a problem with drug use
> period - I was a straight-laced, Catholic-raised, geeky kid.
> Never did
> drugs.  Probably had an attitude toward people who did.
>
> Still haven't done any drugs (any illicit ones - yes, I've
> drank plenty
> of alchohol which is by many definitions a drug).  Not because of an
> attitide, just because I think at this point in my life it's passed me
> by...you know, if I didn't do 'em in college I probably never
> would...probably even regret that a little - something tells
> me I'd have
> really enjoyed pot...
>
> Actually, two things probably really made me understand that
> people who
> do or have done various drugs aren't necessarily evil (or, if
> they are,
> it probably ain't because of the drugs).  First, I had to come to the
> realization that the guys in my all-time favorite band, Blue Oyster
> Cult, have done various drugs.  To an idealistic, naive,
> straight-laced
> 18-year-old, that was quite an eye-opener.  I could either be
> judgemental of that, or say "Hey, different strokes for different
> folks..."
>
> The second thing was probably upon my research of the Beatles
> themselves, and the realization that these guys did major amounts of
> drugs - that "Sgt. Pepper" was probably done more under the effects of
> LSD than not - or at least largely influenced conceptually by it.
>
> Again, I wasn't passing judgement because I mentioned that the Beatles
> used a lot of drugs.  And I've probably shared way more than
> I needed to.
>
> Kinda makes me wonder what they put in that milkshake I had
> at McDonald's...
>
> ;-)
>
> John
>