| December 19th, 2005 12:34 PM |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
Its of my opinion that when the Rolling Stones started to "clean up" their act. The big hits started to dry up.
Although its not actually known what drug Keith is taking thesedays. It is a well known fact that Ronnie, Mick and Charlie are all clean. Ronnie lapses at points but is predominantly clean.
I think this cleaning up process has also influenced the way the band write songs. Jaggers lyrics have gone on a hugedownward spiral and Ronnies playing has gotten beyond a joke.
Keith is surely not as wasted as he was 20 years back.
My theory is
DRUGS + ROLLING STONES = CLASSIC TUNES |
| December 19th, 2005 01:32 PM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
How does this explain Exile's lack of quality then(not my opinion), since Keith, Mick and Mick Taylor were all taking drugs at the time, LOL!!
[Edited by speedfreakjive] |
| December 19th, 2005 03:54 PM |
|
|
| J.J.Flash |
One thing about Ronnie is the fact that he's now more sober than the period between 99/2002, but his playing is way more focused than the period I have mentioned above. This is something even Josh has noticed when attending the first shows of the current tour. I personally haven't listened to a lot of bootlegs of this tour, just a few, but seems that he's really more focused.
Bless him |
| December 19th, 2005 04:05 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
He's working much harder. 1999 Wembley show, Ronnie was a disgrace! |
| December 19th, 2005 04:42 PM |
|
|
| the good |
Not that anybody asked, but I'm a psychologist who studies problem solving and creativity. The link between drug use and creative thinking has never been established, so I am skeptical of the idea that drug use was a main factor in Mick and Keith's development as songwriters. I think Keith has also said that drugs never played a central role in his creativity. Remember guys, there were plenty of great musicians, writers, and scientists in the world long before people were smoking joints and getting messed up on smack. |
| December 19th, 2005 05:13 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
the good wrote:
Remember guys, there were plenty of great musicians, writers, and scientists in the world long before people were smoking joints and getting messed up on smack.
Back then they called them mushrooms. |
| December 19th, 2005 05:18 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
If you alter your state of mind and produce things in that state, it's hard to say they didn't influence your thinking. Maybe you're arguing that exile would have been a better album had the stones been cold sober ? |
| December 19th, 2005 05:37 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
I think Bach would have had trouble working out his patterns were he too 'sedated' :-) |
| December 19th, 2005 06:36 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Back then they called them mushrooms.
LOL. There just isn't a lot of evidence that this kind of thing influences creativity. Its talked about a lot, but it rarely pans out. Take Coleridge and Kubla Khan, for example. He said that he wrote the thing all at once, without any corrections, in an opium induced mental state. The problem is that there are a lot of nearly complete drafts of the poem that are dated a couple of weeks before the alleged opium incident took place. 
But this is good news. The moral of the story is that human minds are so amazing that they don't need little bitty things like mushrooms to release their immense power. 
[Edited by the good] |
| December 19th, 2005 06:38 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
Maybe you're arguing that exile would have been a better album had the stones been cold sober ?
We'll never know.  |
| December 19th, 2005 07:58 PM |
|
|
| IzzyStradlin |
quote:
the good wrote:
Not that anybody asked, but I'm a psychologist who studies problem solving and creativity. The link between drug use and creative thinking has never been established, so I am skeptical of the idea that drug use was a main factor in Mick and Keith's development as songwriters. I think Keith has also said that drugs never played a central role in his creativity. Remember guys, there were plenty of great musicians, writers, and scientists in the world long before people were smoking joints and getting messed up on smack.
Throw your degree in the garbage then. Every act that ever was, was always better under the influence. It's not even up for debate. |
| December 19th, 2005 09:10 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
Well, some drugs do enhance performance and creativity in certain areas, of that I know very well...
Alas, the physical toll though can become too much over time. It can sometimes be rather difficult balancing one's desires with one's instinct for self-preservation.
The Stones have become, over the last decade-and-a-half far more concerned with self-preservation than their former and quite varied multiple past desires.
Has the art suffered? In so much as new "brilliant" material, yes - though ABB is a quality product - it is not close to the quality of the Stones circa 1965-1972 though. But then again, that kind of lightning usually does not strike twice.
Now entering my own mid-30's, with too many miles on the odometer, I am coming to understand, and even appreciate the Stone's desire for preservation.
May they be with us for some time.
Blessed bastards each and every one... |
| December 19th, 2005 11:04 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
IzzyStradlin wrote:
Throw your degree in the garbage then. Every act that ever was, was always better under the influence. It's not even up for debate.
Can you cite some examples? |
| December 19th, 2005 11:44 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
If you alter your state of mind and produce things in that state, it's hard to say they didn't influence your thinking. Maybe you're arguing that exile would have been a better album had the stones been cold sober ?
But to say that drug use produces greater creativity, you have to establish that someone would not be able to produce works of a certain caliber when they aren't under the influence of psychoactive substances. In fact, most great creative works were produced in a non drug induced mental state, and most creative geniuses (Edison, Einstein, Da Vinci, etc.) did not use drugs. |
| December 20th, 2005 02:20 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
Quote:
___________________________________________________________
the good wrote:
Remember guys, there were plenty of great musicians, writers, and scientists in the world long before people were smoking joints and getting messed up on smack.
___________________________________________________________
If by smack you mean only heroin and not opium (which has been used for many millenia), I suppose that is narrowly true. But in regard to cannabis, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't know about musicians, but cannabis use certainly predates anything we would call science and is older than writing itself. The Greek word "cannabis" and the English "hemp" are cognates, meaning they both derive from the same Indo-European root. Cannabis use is described in the Vedas. As for psychedelics, there are some who attribute the leap from ape-man to true human to the beneficent effect of mushrooms, ayahuasca and other botanical sacraments.
I would agree that drug use is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for creativity. And it can often lead to an unproductive habit. But many creative individuals report obtaining inspiration from psychoactive substances: Baudelaire, Balzac and Burroughs, for example, and that's just a few of the Bs. |
| December 20th, 2005 02:53 AM |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
Ronnie plays great on the 80-82 tour and he is always smacked out of his nut |
| December 20th, 2005 03:30 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
According to both Jagger and Richards, songwriting became more difficult and much slower when on hard drugs. Keith stated that he'd probably never would have written "Coming Down Again", but as a whole, he didn't consider drugs very creative.
By the way, I don't know about this tour, but last tour the Stones had a person travelling with them who provided all sorts of candy to the Stones, including to Jagger. At some shows, the guy was quite visable backatsge -he was the guy rolling the big joints for Keith.
Mathijs |
| December 20th, 2005 04:02 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
But many creative individuals report obtaining inspiration from psychoactive substances: Baudelaire, Balzac and Burroughs, for example, and that's just a few of the Bs.
Dude, people say all sorts of shit. Most of the time they don't know what they are talking about. Like the Coleridge example that I cited above.
|
| December 20th, 2005 10:39 PM |
|
|
| Surround Sister |
Writing music seems to result in more creative output
after influence. Playing is a little bit of this & a little bit of that.
Sad to say the Stones sounded far to more smokin´
between the coke rushes back in the 70s than now. |
| December 20th, 2005 11:22 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
So, the good, do you then deny that Dumas, Hugo, Balzac, Gautier and Delacroix met regularly between 1844 and 1849 at the Hotel Lauzun to consume hashish as the so-called "Club des Hachichins"? Or that Baudelaire wrote of his observations and limited experiences there in his 1860 essay, "Les Paradis Artificiels"? |
| December 20th, 2005 11:25 PM |
|
|
| Surround Sister |
Sw. author Strindberg wrote, at times, under influence of absinthe, but it also seem to have pushed him over the edge in the Blue Books, where his sanity went out the back door.
We also know Keith didnt only come out well from his drug years. |
| December 20th, 2005 11:56 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
So, the good, do you then deny that Dumas, Hugo, Balzac, Gautier and Delacroix met regularly between 1844 and 1849 at the Hotel Lauzun to consume hashish as the so-called "Club des Hachichins"? Or that Baudelaire wrote of his observations and limited experiences there in his 1860 essay, "Les Paradis Artificiels"?
No. That's not the point. The point is there is no reliable connection between drug use and enhanced creativity. |
| December 21st, 2005 12:00 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Do bongs!
Do fucking bongs!
Yes! Get fired up and do bongs like a mother! Fuck yeah!!! |
| December 21st, 2005 12:11 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
the good wrote:
In fact, most great creative works were produced in a non drug induced mental state, and most creative geniuses (Edison, Einstein, Da Vinci, etc.) did not use drugs.
i stand to be corrected but i was always of the understanding that Edison was a very enthusiastic user of cocaine
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| December 21st, 2005 12:14 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Do bongs!
Do fucking bongs!
Yes! Get fired up and do bongs like a mother! Fuck yeah!!!
and write songs and paint pictures and think up new shit!!
yeah!!
Do it!!
Now!!! |
| December 21st, 2005 12:22 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
i stand to be corrected but i was always of the understanding that Edison was a very enthusiastic user of cocaine
No, your thinking of Freud, who used cocaine briefly, but never during his most prolific years as a psychiatrist. |
| December 21st, 2005 12:34 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
the good wrote:
No, your thinking of Freud, who used cocaine briefly, but never during his most prolific years as a psychiatrist.
no not thinking of frued - ' tho i am aware that he was user as his use well documented
but i also recall reading that edison, too, was partial to it
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| December 21st, 2005 12:40 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
see the following re cocaine - edison and others
http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Erythroxylum/
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc02.htm
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/PLACOC.html
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0249379/bio |
| December 21st, 2005 12:53 AM |
|
|
| the good |
That's interesting about Edison. But I've done several case studies on him (his invention of the phonograph, the electric light, and the motion picture), and there is just no evidence that cocaine use influenced his creation of these devices. In fact, they were largely based on earlier technologies. Here is a great website on him:
http://edison.rutgers.edu/
|
| December 21st, 2005 12:59 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
C'mon, you can't invent electricity and stuff like that without being real smart. Cerebralism its called. |
