im exhausted so im not going to write anything more than my first great drug album. discovered it this year when i tried mushrooms for the first time

Comets on Fire - Blue Cathedral

quote:

Originally posted by GG Allin:
im exhausted so im not going to write anything more than my first great drug album. discovered it this year when i tried mushrooms for the first time

Comets on Fire - Blue Cathedral

I still remember my first mushroom experience. My mind was blown away by Phish - You Enjoy Myself, I was looking out the window at tall grass and I could have sworn the grass was swaying to the music. Hypnotic and amazing. Definitley wouldn't have been like that if I were sober...Phish kinda sucks sober. haha.

When it comes to drugs, I think two words have been left out when "listening" to music.
Deep & Layered.

I find you can get right into the music and surround yourself with all the instruments, sounds, background vocals and effects, and even the silence within the song, and just get lost in that space for an amount of time that a song lasts.
Then, the next time you hear that song(s) you pick up on that and can now hear the things you might not have heard before. Pinpoint and isolate different spaces within the music.

Wow. Pinpoint & isolate.

Deep & layered.

quote:

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.

Well some people can do that without drugs. Letting go of inhibitions is something that you can just do without drugs, although it may be that users are more likely to be uninhibited. I dunno.

quote:

Wow. Pinpoint & isolate.

Deep & layered.

hehe - you sound a little stoned there...Again, you can train yourself to listen for all this stuff without drugs. I took an informal music comp class last fall and this was one of the main points I got out of it. Listening is as much of an art as anything else - there are good listeners and bad listeners. It takes practice. Although it could be that drugs make this easier. I could go either way. Sometimes drugs make it impossible to relate to anything in the 'straight' world (I have salvia in mind here.).

quote:

Wow. Pinpoint & isolate.

Deep & layered.

hehe - you sound a little stoned there...Again, you can train yourself to listen for all this stuff without drugs. I took an informal music comp class last fall and this was one of the main points I got out of it. Listening is as much of an art as anything else - there are good listeners and bad listeners. It takes practice. Although it could be that drugs make this easier. I could go either way. Sometimes drugs make it impossible to relate to anything in the 'straight' world (I have salvia in mind here.).[/QUOTE]

Hehee. Actually I don't do drugs anymore (very rare) But they did help me open my mind with music years back, and have helped me to listen deeper into the music and I can tell what I like and don't care for usually within a song or two of new bands/artists that I come across.
I can handle all my music sober , but do have a few favs to listen to after some beers or what-not....

quote:

3. Should record labels test/control their contracted artists for drug use?

I hate major record labels, but I think that if the company invests in an artist, they have a right to help protect the investment. Testing would help the label make sure that their artist doesn't die on them. With that said, nothing says that artists have to sign huge contracts with these companies. If they have a problem with any of the terms, including testing, they don't have to take the cash and could go it on their own. I don't think the artists' rights are being violated when they make the decision to accept the money, etc. and you are talking about testing for illegal drugs.

Okay, I am going to let the cat out of the bag here and say that I have been a recreational user of marijuana for going on seven years now. I have also had my fair share of mushroom experiences and am planning experiences for more tribal psychedelics such as Kava-Kava, Mimosa hostilis, Ayahuasca, along with a few others. In my judgement, marijuana is actually less harmful than both alchohol and tobacco and is a more enjoyable experience. After all of the research I have done, I see that tobacco has no medicinal quality while marijuana increases the growth of brain cells, aids glaucoma, gives chemo patients an appetite, assists alzheimer’s patients. The tests that found marijuana to be more harmful to the lungs than tobacco used only the unconsumed portions of the plant, not the buds, making it false.

quote:

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 i.e. something bad starts to sound good? Does it make no difference at all? Are there artists that only sound 'good' if the listener's brain is altered? Is that a copout?

Occasionally, one can gain a new ‘perspective’ under the influence but in most instances marijuana only makes good music sound better and more enjoyable by possibly allowing the listener to decipher real or unreal layers in previously listened to music. There is no music that is only good, when using cannabis. If I like something sober, I will like it when I am not.

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?

Psychedelics allow the user to tap into previously unknown areas of our subconscious brain and can most certainly help an artist’s creativity. Marijuana, on the other hand, can sometimes improve the musician’s concentration on the instrument (coming from someone who has spent a little time behind a bass) and can sometimes allow for the creation of new rhythms. With regards to positive or negative, I would say both. In some instances, drugs can make an artist extraordinarily talented while other times veterans seem to ‘burn out.’

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 on all accounts. I don’t agree with drug testing in generally when you think about the fact that marijuana stays in your urine for, on average 30 days, while cocaine (a much more harmful drug) stays in the urine for around three. Drug use has no correlation to an artist’s ability to meet a deadline, plain and simple.

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 would like to see those studies, because I disagree. Anyone who has had an experience with a psychedelic would tell you otherwise.

quote:

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.

But isn’t inspiration one of the most important ingredients in music?


I believe that many psychedelics as well as cannabis should be legal to use in America and the only thing stopping this from happening is a government based campaign based on scare tactics and lies (See “Reefer Madness”)

quote:

I hate major record labels, but I think that if the company invests in an artist, they have a right to help protect the investment. Testing would help the label make sure that their artist doesn't die on them. With that said, nothing says that artists have to sign huge contracts with these companies. If they have a problem with any of the terms, including testing, they don't have to take the cash and could go it on their own. I don't think the artists' rights are being violated when they make the decision to accept the money, etc. and you are talking about testing for illegal drugs.

In theory, your idea works, but cigarettes and alcohol are both legal and countless musicians have died due to their use. And I really doubt that the use of marijuana by a 20-something musician has anything to do with a 10 year contract with Sony.


I am sorry for the length of this.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I have also had my fair share of mushroom experiences and am planning experiences for more tribal psychedelics such as Kava-Kava, Mimosa hostilis, Ayahuasca, along with a few others.

So, Mike, when's the next time you'll be in Tampa? Haha.

Anyways, I'm going to be doing LSD for my first timw in two weeks, so I'm preparing a nice lil playlist for the experience. I'm so psyched! Any suggestions would be nice. I'm also planning on watching Alice In Wonderland to compare it to watching it when I was on shrooms, and I want to document as much of the trip as possible. We'll see how it goes.