I want to start a discussion on the benefits and/or drawbacks to drugs and music from the artists, the record label and the listeners perspective. Feel free to comment on any or all of them. I'm sure everyone has a different opinion, so please share yours. Share any experiences as well.

1. Does taking drugs (any illegal substance) help the listener gain any new perspective on music they listen to, therefore making them better at understanding or differentiating between good and bad music - or - does it give them a worse perspective ie something bad starts to sound good? Does it make no difference at all? Are there artists that only saound 'good' if the listener's brain is altered? Is that a copout?

2. How do drugs affect the output of a musician/artist/band? Is it a fast and cheap way to get creative? Does it have a positive or negative impact on the music?

3. Should record labels test/control their contracted artists for drug use? Think of pro-sports here. We know the record companies want to make money first and foremost. For example, artist X is under contract for 4 albums, is it in the labels best interest to keep this band clean in order to ensure the contract will be fulfilled? Do they have no say whatsoever?

I will offer my own thoughts/opinions/experiences once the discussion has been started. This should start some healthy debate. I hope.

Now this is a topic I can sink my teeth into. Drugs are a central theme to rock and roll. Drugs are a part of the natural rebellious spirit of rock and roll. As Bill Hicks said, "If you don't think drugs have done some good things, then go home a take all your tapes, all your albums, and all your cds and burn them. Because those musicians who made the music that has enriched your lives....were real fuckin' high on drugs."

To try to answer your questions:
1. I have taken drugs in my life, and I have listened to albums on drugs. So I feel that I can answer this question. Yes and no is my answer and here is why. As a fan of music, I have never thought to myself, "I can't listen to this, unless I am high." That thought doesn't come into play for me, though it might for others. I can say that certain substances seem to enhance the listening experience for some albums. But drugs are never a prerequisite to listening to music, at least for me.

2. If an artist needs drugs to be creative, they really aren't much of an artist. Although there can be something said for drugs impacting a particularly creative period for artists. Heroin provided Jimmy Page with some amazing music. It also sustained Keith Richards for a number of years Cocaine and the first three Oasis records. Ecstasy and The Verve's A Northern Soul. Even look at the influence drugs had on The Beatles. They went from She Love You to Tomorrow Never Knows. There are numerous examples of artists being very creative on drugs. But if a band cannot create without the drugs, then they aren't much of a band.

3.This is a tricky one. If the labels want to start drug testing bands, rock and roll as we know it would probably die. However, the labels can exert some kind of control over an artist. I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer here. I mean all of the pro sports leagues drug test. I am going to have to think further on this.

By the way, here is a quick rundown of some of my favorite "drug" albums:
Spiritualized-Ladies and Gentlemen we are floating in Space
Oasis-Be Here Now
The Verve-A Storm in Heaven
The Beatles-Revolver
The Rolling Stones-Exile on Main St.

Nice work Crowdiggs; that's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks. I will comment more, but I'm at work at the moment and need to get stuff done so I can go home and take (or not take) drugs and listen to music.

1. I've never taken illegal drugs. That said, I think certain music can be enhanced by drugs that increase sensory perception, like LSD. This would probably only be helpful for albums that have aural feelings and soundscapes. For example, drugs might help a Flaming Lips or MBV album, but they probably wouldn't change a Spoon album. Another instance might be music with profound lyrics - at least they might sound especially profound or revelatory while on drugs.

2. Modest Mouse and Flaming Lips have both possibly made their best albums while on drugs. I think the members of the bands are straight now - though, obviously I can't be sure. I think drugs can have a good effect on music quality, but a bad effect on other aspects of a band. They might lead to problems with labels, work ethic, jailtime, internal disputes with band members, or even death.

3. I do not think labels should drug test their artists.

1. I haven't used drugs in years, but in my experience I doubt that you'd gain much new insight on any music. Maybe if you took a lot of drugs, but for casual use, I'd say no.

2. Well, again from experience, being in a few bands, nobody does good work when they're wasted. I can play guitar fine on a couple beers, but much more than that, I really start to suck. And I don't think pot has ever helped me become more creative. Usually, it just makes me want to go sit in a corner and eat pizza. Writing Dark Side of the Moon would be the last thing on my mind.

3. No, that would be ridiculous. But then again, I don't really think drug testing is a good idea for most jobs, unless it would potentially put other people at risk (i.e. doctors or airline pilots).

3. HELL NO. That is absolutely absurd. What right does a record company have to decide how an artist treats his body? Frankly, I think it's wrong that professional athletes are tested for non-performance-enhancing drugs. What kind of bullshit is that? You've got to have a warrant to search somebody's house, but it's OK to suck their blood or piss out of them and see what they've been putting in their bodies? Like Eric said, if you're really putting other people at serious risk by taking drugs (like airplane pilots), then it's perfectly acceptable to drug test. If not, nobody's got any business invading another person's body.

1. Yes, but only occasionally a new pespective. Drugs enhance enjoyment of the music more instead of thinking about it differently. I think that enhanced pleasure from music often distracts from gaining a new perspective.

2. No, it is not a fast and cheap way to get creative. I think drugs can often silence the inner critic that prevents a lot of crap from being recorded/released. It can go either way, but I would guess that drugs more often have a negative impact on music.

3. No. I agree with RL. It's none of the label's business. Aside from the ethical issues, I think forcibly 'keeping a band clean' would be more trouble than it is worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Musicalifragilistic:

1. Does taking drugs (any illegal substance) help the listener gain any new perspective on music they listen to, therefore making them better at understanding or differentiating between good and bad music - or - does it give them a worse perspective ie something bad starts to sound good? Does it make no difference at all? Are there artists that only saound 'good' if the listener's brain is altered? Is that a copout?

Never taken any illegal drugs so I can't comment there. If I gain any new perspective on music I've already heard, it's probably because I'm either in a different mood than any other time I listened to the music in question or because I'm hearing it again after a long time.

quote:

2. How do drugs affect the output of a musician/artist/band? Is it a fast and cheap way to get creative? Does it have a positive or negative impact on the music?

I don't think drugs are a fast and cheap way to get creative as the creativity has it be there already. Positive or negative impact on the music- I think it depends on the individual(s).

quote:

3. Should record labels test/control their contracted artists for drug use? Think of pro-sports here. We know the record companies want to make money first and foremost. For example, artist X is under contract for 4 albums, is it in the labels best interest to keep this band clean in order to ensure the contract will be fulfilled? Do they have no say whatsoever?

No drug tests for artists. Major label execs, okay, but not artists.

I don't think drugs increase creativity or anything like that. In fact, studies have been done that suggest they're equally creative, but less technically talented while under the influence of marijuana.

But, drugs have become such a huge aspect of the culture of music because of what they represent. They're seen as a victimless crime outlawed by the establishment just because they're prudes. So taking drugs and singing about them has become a symbol for the rebellious spirit of rock and roll.

quote:

I don't think drugs increase creativity or anything like that. In fact, studies have been done that suggest they're equally creative, but less technically talented while under the influence of marijuana.

I don't know what study you're referring to, but I've got to believe drugs certainly do increase creativity in many people. Perhaps not everyone, but in many it does. Drugs increase sensory perceptions and in the right people it without a doubt makes them more creative. Jimi Hendrix, Keith Richards, Jerry Garcia, John Lennon, The Velvet Underground, up to recently Steven Drozd are well documented. Thousands of others quietly smoke weed, do coke, whatever.

I won't tell you it makes everyone more creative. Even though Bob Dylan is a knows pot smoker, I'm not sure he wouldn't have cranked out a similar body of work without it.

When I used to smoke pot back in college, getting high would make music like Traffic sound like it came straight from God. I'm not sure if its more of my tastes changing or the lack of a mind altering substance, but "Low Spark of High Heeled Boys" sounds like shit now.

quote:

Originally posted by Hophead:
I don't know what study you're referring to, but I've got to believe drugs certainly do increase creativity in many people. Perhaps not everyone, but in many it does. Drugs increase sensory perceptions and in the right people it without a doubt makes them more creative. Jimi Hendrix, Keith Richards, Jerry Garcia, John Lennon, The Velvet Underground, up to recently Steven Drozd are well documented. Thousands of others quietly smoke weed, do coke, whatever.

I have to say I somewhat disagree with this. All that drugs can really do is alter your perception, but they don't give you any skills you didn't already have. In other words, they may provide some inspiration, but they don't make you more creative. Inspiration and creativity aren't the same thing. If you take a creative person and an uncreative person and give them the same source of inspiration, whether it's a hit of acid or a pretty sunset, they're going to come up with two very different pieces of art.

Here's a good artlcle on the subject.

Well, drugs are "mind-altering", so obviously it will change your perspective, both on the creative and the listening end. Also, the more drugs you take, the more you develop a tolerance, which enables one to take greater amounts at a time. I've been so far gone that I thought that "Prairie Rose" by Roxy Music had 50 guitars, instead of the five which it does have. I don't really care, it sounds great with five or 50.

I don't advocate that anyone take drugs, but there are certain non-legal drugs which I will tell you aren't that bad for you. You all know how many people die from cigarettes every year though (and yes, that's a mind-altering drug; hell, even caffeine is.)

The point is that the term drugs is vague, but I will say that I'm pretty sure most of the best "modern music" has been composed and performed under the influence. Now, crazed said that he's never commited a "drug crime", but he may change his mind about music due to a "change of mood." Exactly.

Most have already been answered adequately but oh well.

1. I have taken a fair amount of hard drugs and the answer I think is yes, and no, like what was already said. It's not that it gives a new perspective but it can enhance the listening experience for some people. If a band can't make music that sounds good unless you're high then they're not much to listen to. So they can enhance the experience for some users and at some times but it's not necessary nor guaranteed to happen.

2. Drugs can effect the output of a band or artist in both positive and negative ways. What comes to my mind first is Elliott Smith. He wrote some wonderful music on heroin and also about addiction. Tori Amos wrote her best music on acid (in my opinion). Some people can though let their talent go to waste by just focussing on the drugs instead of the music. Like it was said, you shouldn't need drugs to be creative, but they can add to creative imput, but can also cause problems.

3. I don't think they do at all.

Also, some wonderful music is written about drugs and addiction. Aimee Mann's album 'Lost in Space, the Beatles, etc.

I guess for me, it's not entirely the drugs that change the perspective, but also the 'open-mindedness' that comes with someone who is willing to give drugs a try. Those same people may also try and figure out music (or give it more of a chance) that first is seemingly difficult.

I've taken my share of mind-altering drugs, and as others have said, it can change the experience of listening, but not necessarily help me to understand the music better. I never think "I need to hear this high", but at the same time, I'm pretty dissappointed when I'm at a concert and I don't have any weed to smoke. Again that could be just because it can temporarily put me in a better mood.

Brian Wilson apparently wrote California Girls in 30 minutes during his first acid trip. He said he could close his eyes and see the music and arrangements written out in his mind. He would then write down what he saw, before even playing a single note. To me, that is amazing. I can see how that sort of thing could benefit someone who is a musical genius. At the same time, if there's a band sitting around getting high or wasted in the studio just to see what comes out of it, it may not have as much of a benefit. Then again, I guess Fleetwood Mac's Rumours was done on massive amounts of coke...it's tough to say, isn't it?

As far as record labels controlling what an artist can or can't do, that is a bit much. It's a bit much in pro sports too, and it's really sad. Why can't a pro athlete enjoy a couple tokes during the offseason? They're human too, it's not performance enhancing, it's a real shame. It would be a sad day for music if record labels ever exerted that amount of control.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
3. HELL NO. That is absolutely absurd. What right does a record company have to decide how an artist treats his body?

quote:

Originally posted by crazed:
Major label execs, okay, but not artists.

I don't know if I agree with this, actually. The record label is pretty much a band's employer. I don't really see much of a difference in a label testing an artist then Motorola testing their employees, for example. If you agree with drug testing in general, I don't really see why a musical artists or band should be excluded. I think the argument for this isn't really limited to artists - if you think it would be egregious for record labels to test people, then you should also be upset about the envasion of privacy of the 150 million people in the US workforce, most of which have to take drug tests. I just don't see any reason why one set of people should be tested by their employer while an artist isn't tested by his employer.

Of course, the perception of drugs in the music industry is very different then any service industry. I can't imagine the punishment for an artists testing positive would be to "fire" them from the label.

quote:

I don't know if I agree with this, actually. The record label is pretty much a band's employer. I don't really see much of a difference in a label testing an artist then Motorola testing their employees, for example. If you agree with drug testing in general, I don't really see why a musical artists or band should be excluded. I think the argument for this isn't really limited to artists - if you think it would be egregious for record labels to test people, then you should also be upset about the envasion of privacy of the 150 million people in the US workforce, most of which have to take drug tests. I just don't see any reason why one set of people should be tested by their employer while an artist isn't tested by his employer.

Of course, the perception of drugs in the music industry is very different then any service industry. I can't imagine the punishment for an artists testing positive would be to "fire" them from the label.

Well put. Doesn't make it right but unfortunately that is how it works these days. We have (or at least had) the right to enjoy life any way we want, with the only restriction being that we don't harm anyone else in the process. Why is that changing, and why are our freedoms being taken from us? It's crazy. I guess if you want to take drugs without being bothered about it, you might as well start a band. haha

quote:

Originally posted by Musicalifragilistic:
I guess if you want to take drugs without being bothered about it, you might as well start a band. haha

Ha ha, yeah that might be the best way. As far as being able to live on your own terms, being a musician is probably one of the best outlets.

Drugs are sort of strange. In a way they have a profound impact on your life, yet you are the same person inside. The music you enjoy sober is the music you enjoy stoned. I love Animal Collective, but I especially love them when on dxm+marijuana.

Since I think some drugs, if not all, especially marijuana and lsd, should be legalized, I don't believe record labels should control the use.

(marijuana links: lung, head, neck cancer study., neurogenesis and marijuana.)

IMO, alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs around.

If they did try to control drug use of their artists, the recording industry would die in an instant. They would lose SO MANY artists. It's already dying now, which is a good thing. The RIAA is the equivalent of satan.

Artists, hopefully, will one day just send their recordings to a site like itunes, skipping the cd crap, and the artist and the site will split the money (right now the record company gets 3/4 of the money from music downloads with the rest split between the site and the artist).

Live music is going to take over. There will be way more concerts on tv. Everyone will be doing drugs if they want and everything will be great.

A pipe dream maybe.

A couple more additions to my good drug albums list:

Primal Scream-Screamadelica
The Beta Band-The 3 EP's
The Flaming Lips-The Soft Bulletin
Bill Hicks-Dangerous
Mark Lanegan-Bubblegum
Van Morrison-Astral Weeks
The Secret Machines-Now Here is Nowhere
Shack-HMS Fable
STP-Purple
Tom Waits-Mule Variations

Now when I say good "drug" albums, I mean an album whose content has been clearly influenced by certain substances, or an album that benefits from being under the influence. Of course that is not to say these albums aren't great without them.

quote:

Originally posted by Musicalifragilistic:
I want to start a discussion on the benefits and/or drawbacks to drugs and music from the artists, the record label and the listeners perspective. Feel free to comment on any or all of them. I'm sure everyone has a different opinion, so please share yours. Share any experiences as well.

1. Does taking drugs (any illegal substance) help the listener gain any new perspective on music they listen to, therefore making them better at understanding or differentiating between good and bad music - or - does it give them a worse perspective ie something bad starts to sound good? Does it make no difference at all? Are there artists that only saound 'good' if the listener's brain is altered? Is that a copout?

2. How do drugs affect the output of a musician/artist/band? Is it a fast and cheap way to get creative? Does it have a positive or negative impact on the music?

3. Should record labels test/control their contracted artists for drug use? Think of pro-sports here. We know the record companies want to make money first and foremost. For example, artist X is under contract for 4 albums, is it in the labels best interest to keep this band clean in order to ensure the contract will be fulfilled? Do they have no say whatsoever?

I will offer my own thoughts/opinions/experiences once the discussion has been started. This should start some healthy debate. I hope.

1) I've taken a lot of drugs, and sometimes drugs can help your listening experience. But sometimes they make it worse, because some drugs can make you depressed and detached. others make you more involved with the music. I tend to find some drugs can make you forget the band or the events around you and you concentrate more on the music and how he makes you feel. However great music is like that without drugs. You don't have to be high to enjoy music in that way, just it sometimes enhance sthe experience especially with artists like Depeche Mode, Prodigy, etc etc

2) Drugs have helped an awful lot of artists create good music. Why? Because it strips them of their imabitions. They can try new things, say what they really mean. And drugs can add colour and movement to your perspective of life. I could name numerous artists who create great stuff on drugs. Buta s someone said if they can't create good music without drugs than there not very good. And thsi is exactly the reason the medais constant scorn of Peter Dohertys drug use bemuses me. Hendrix, Richards, Cobain, Jim Morrison, The Verve etc etc all took their fair share of drugs and some died by it. Why is Doherty any different?

3) No. This goes back to Babyshambles. They were dropped off their record label due to Peters drug use. It's bullshit. If a band create sintrest, sells records, makes quality music. It shouldn;t matter about their personal lives and their drug habits. record companies shouldn't drop artists because they take druhs and seem to make a 'bad image'...