Post by: ryan656 on January 17, 2007, 06:59:35 PM
Just from reading both forums you can tell the people here are more experienced and "professional" with their work. I thought it would be interesting to compare answers.
The main questions were:
So does smoking weed -
a) Make you a better musician/producer/engineer
b) Make you think you are a better musician/producer/engineer
c) Make you a worse musician/producer/engineer
d) Different for everyone
e) All the above
Post by: Version on January 17, 2007, 07:06:37 PM
more about drugs in the studio:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/357/2574/1 1690/#msg_2574
Post by: jetbase on January 17, 2007, 07:16:23 PM
| Version wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 11:06 |
It's a foolish to think that any external substance is going to make you a better engineer. If that's what you think, it's kind of sad. |
That's just what I was thinking. I don't smoke weed, but I am generally wary of substances which alter your senses when you are making critical decisions. I even stay away from alcohol when pulling sounds or mixing.
Post by: leonardo valvassori on January 17, 2007, 07:42:50 PM
Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown.
lol.
god bless 'im.
Post by: maxdimario on January 17, 2007, 07:54:48 PM
I wouldn't trust an engineer who is visibly under the influence because of technical reasons.
Post by: Barish on January 17, 2007, 07:55:35 PM
I think that the notion that one needs doping in order to achieve something that he/she normally can't is rather sad.
It's like surrendering to a weakness in order to be superior (???).
Oxymoron to me.
B.
Post by: compasspnt on January 17, 2007, 08:17:18 PM
No drug, including pot, is helpful in any way.
I am totally against them.
Of course, I don't even drink, and if I could make the laws, no one else would, either.
So maybe I'm biased.
Post by: RSettee on January 17, 2007, 08:23:10 PM
| Barish wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 18:55 |
C in my case, and whether I am more (or less) experienced and "professional" than some is irrelevant. I think that the notion that one needs doping in order to achieve something that he/she normally can't is rather sad. It's like surrendering to a weakness in order to be superior (???). Oxymoron to me. B. |
Yep, I totally agree. I might have an occasional beer here or there when I work on my stuff, but to be wasted or extremely high? I mean, I think that the mix changes enough due to one's day to day mood or external factors as it is, let alone not remembering why or how you did what. See, when I used to get high, I used to know why I did things, but I think that it's the "how" aspect that intrigues people to smoke the plant and then end up with this creative outburst that they otherwise can't duplicate when sober.
Also, bands that do it before rehearsals or recording--extremely bad idea. I took a toke once did before we did a demo, and the mix turned out horrible, we all agreed that it was good at the time, though. My drummer had started to open up the sound board while I was tracking guitar, and I still don't have an explanation for that, haha. We all laughed about it, but really, it was kinda stupid.
I also left another band because before every rehearsal, they'd have to get high to "create", and then they'd come to the next rehearsal and forget what we did! If this is what they have to do in order to be good, I guess that every pothead out there seeks out the "high" aspect in creativity that I get from sobriety. Like I say, i'm totally for a beer here or there, but getting massively high or drunk before you do anything musically is just totally unprofessional, to me. Even when it's a "for fun" scenario, it's just totally inappropriate to do.
The worst part though--alot of dopehead musicians (and dopeheads in general) feel the need to articulate or preface/ bookend everything that they say with, "man was I so high" or whatever. Mind you, i've known alot of intelligent people that have used drugs, but I could much rather do without the constant, "whoa I was so high" or "man was that a big joint" or whatever. Especially when they're around someone like me who no longer "uses", and it really comes across as unintelligent. Been there, done it, dropped alot of friends because their life revolved around getting high when I wanted to change and not use anymore. You quickly realize that all you had in common was the stupid "getting high" stories as being the pinnacle in one's life or whatever.
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 17, 2007, 08:25:36 PM
Then again, if this happens often one should question why you're doing it and how things could be different.
I don't touch drugs, life is weird enough as it is. I am very fond of beer and some assorted liqours however.
Whenever I drink heaps of alcohol I tend to record myself singing foul words. In German.
It's actually become somewhat of an underground following.
As for everything else I do in the studio, I pass on stimulants and such.
Except for coffee. (Waiting for someone in Bahamas to comment any moment now)
Ps. If you do Reggae, dub or minimalistic electronica, please ignore this message and carry on as usual.
Post by: Barish on January 17, 2007, 08:32:21 PM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 01:25 |
As for everything else I do in the studio, I pass on stimulants and such. Except for coffee. (Waiting for someone in Bahamas to comment any moment now) |
Hey, serve a coffee to Terry one afternoon and see for yourself how sobering experience it is.
Been there, done that too.
And if I had the chance, I'd do it again.
And again.
And again.
B.
Post by: Todd Loomis on January 17, 2007, 08:50:00 PM
Now, I'm straight edge - no caffiene, no nicotine, alcohol, etc., vegetarian - going vegan again soon (hopefully almost entirely raw).
I prefer "real" things... even if they're just "real" fantasies, or "real" emotions.
If I'm going to pay an engineer to work with me, I would seriously prefer they be sober - and really "good", and enthusiastic, and generally full of good energy - while sober.
Who wants to take the taxi if the driver is wasted?
Post by: CHANCE on January 17, 2007, 09:14:22 PM
Post by: organica on January 17, 2007, 10:04:00 PM
& I don't smoke anything else either
I'd hate to be flying an HD3 + rig or whatever and be intoxicated
that would really suck for me personally ....... it just wouldn't happen
the only exceptions ( sort of ) would be if I don't have a client and I'm doing something fairly mindless in the evening , I may have a drink or two ...( but that's at my home studio ) or if it's a low key remote recording at a nightclub ( but not much )
Post by: Curve Dominant on January 17, 2007, 10:19:44 PM
"No recording while stoned. Don't smoke the day of a session. Bring the herb if you want, but we won't take one puff until after all the day's work is done. Then, we'll get high and listen back to what we recorded."
I'm not big on the herb myself, but I'll puff a tad with the client after hours if they want to hang for a bit. It gives us a chance to 'talk deep" about the project, and listen to the tracks with "detached ears."
One local rockstar singer dude I recorded not long ago, is a serious pothead. On the first vocal sessiion, he came in stoned, and the results were rather lame. I pointed this out to him, and laid down my rule: record sober from now on. He did, and we made a dynomite album, and he still thanks me for that.
Post by: thedoc on January 17, 2007, 10:24:56 PM
Post by: compasspnt on January 17, 2007, 10:34:43 PM
| Barish wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 20:32 | ||
Hey, serve a coffee to Terry one afternoon and see for yourself how sobering experience it is. Been there, done that too.. |
Ummm...
That was green tea, my friend.
Even if it was from Starbucks.
Post by: Ross Hogarth on January 17, 2007, 10:44:30 PM
i think some of them are super super talented
actually a couple of them are downright scary good
now whether their weed smoking contributes to their genius or not is highly questionable
i just think that they like it and have grown into wanting it
i think weed is as mentally addictive as any drug
i know for myself clarity is everything
looking back on my drug DAZE days, i think did some damn good work, in spite of myself
but
in learning my boundaries and myself
i find i like the results with open ears so to speak
i realize looking back that
every time i smoked or did a line of blow
my ears would close down
so taking away any patronizing judgements, my ears plain would shut down
so i now realize that i was over compensating for whatever was happening
on a creative level, i think when one finds that being high is not as great as being into what is really real, i think at that point in life some wonderful realizations happen and
things tend to change drastically as far as lifestyle
but going back to my original statement
i think certain people have a constitution that allows them to function while on whatever the drug of choice might be
it is not for me to judge, i just know what works for me
Post by: compasspnt on January 17, 2007, 10:47:45 PM
Even better perhaps?
Shoe salesmen?
Post by: Bill Mueller on January 17, 2007, 10:54:13 PM
Just leave it alone.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: maxim on January 17, 2007, 11:30:04 PM
"So does smoking weed -
a) Make you a better musician/producer/engineer"
no, that's talent and skills
"b) Make you think you are a better musician/producer/engineer"
no, that's alcohol and cocaine
"c) Make you a worse musician/producer/engineer"
no, that's alcohol and heroin
"d) Different for everyone"
what isn't?
"e) All the above"
only if you want it to
as a doctor/musician/smoker, my opinion is that marijuana increases the "anxiety", and, therefore, alertness to detail
this may account for the ability to spot the otherwise obscured faults within a system
however, the flipside to attention to detail is the lack of overall perspective
imo, that gets lost under the influence
Post by: gatino on January 17, 2007, 11:31:42 PM
Noel Gallagher said some words to that effect and i suspect he's right.
Post by: maxim on January 17, 2007, 11:32:01 PM
"Drugs can only bring negative results in life and in music"
as someone who makes a living from prescribing drugs, i must disagree
appropriate medication is the key
Post by: maxim on January 17, 2007, 11:35:18 PM
just one great trip is all it took to clear some of brain's illusions
Post by: thedoc on January 17, 2007, 11:38:21 PM
With respect, I think you missed my point.
Post by: maxim on January 17, 2007, 11:48:43 PM
Post by: thedoc on January 17, 2007, 11:55:42 PM
Post by: jetbase on January 17, 2007, 11:57:00 PM
| maxim wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 15:48 |
with respect, a blanket statement like that is what makes kids turn off good advice |
Wasn't Doc's context obvious in this thread?
Post by: maxim on January 17, 2007, 11:58:33 PM
"now whether their weed smoking contributes to their genius or not is highly questionable"
what do they think?
i'd like to ask terry what proportion of the artists going through his studio smoke marijuana on a regular basis and how many do it when playing music
Post by: wwittman on January 18, 2007, 12:00:26 AM
I don't think that on the whole it ever has a positive effect*, but I also don't think it often has a negative effect.
when it DOES have a negative effect it's in the area of concentration - I've certainly seem things fall apart because someone decides to go of on a fool's errand of some sort.
Sort of the musical 'munchies'.
*the asterisk is because I DO think some people perform (or write) better when they're RELAXED.
And if it takes a drink or a smoke to relax, well that CAN make for a more productive flow.
I've seen both.
but again, on the WHOLE, I think that drugs (of which alcohol is only one more; I make no artificial distinction) only make you see things differently.
Not better OR worse.
ps I know some FANTASTIC musicians who almost never record without a little alteration, and I also know some fantastic tee-totalers.
I think it's equally unfair to suggest that either would be better going the "other way".
Post by: maxim on January 18, 2007, 12:01:50 AM
"Wasn't Doc's context obvious in this thread?"
can you delineate the difference between prozac and ecstacy?
Post by: wwittman on January 18, 2007, 12:06:22 AM
Do you really want me to?
One is used recreationally to make one feel "better", or at least different, and to lower inhibitions while giving one a sense of euphoria.
the other (when it works, which is about 35% of the time) helps people with clinical depression not feel like they want to kill themselves.
It's not euphoric and has zero potential for 'recreational' value.
there's really not much connection between the two other than that I suppose ANY drug (including alcohol) can be used in an attempt to "self-medicate" a genuine mental illness.
Post by: jetbase on January 18, 2007, 12:07:48 AM
| maxim wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 16:01 |
glenn wrote: "Wasn't Doc's context obvious in this thread?" can you delineate the difference between prozac and ecstacy? |
No, I don't know much about either. What does it have to do with this thread?
Post by: Version on January 18, 2007, 12:15:08 AM
| Quote: |
Ps. If you do Reggae, dub or minimalistic electronica, please ignore this message and carry on as usual. |
All three. dead sober.
About the only drug going on is adrenaline and maybe the euphoria of a good meal or residue from a good orgasm. there i said it.
Post by: maxim on January 18, 2007, 12:15:13 AM
"ANY drug (including alcohol) can be used in an attempt to "self-medicate"
spot on!
sometimes, one doesn't need a doctor to prescribe themselves a 'drug'
and, sometimes, the prescription is correct
whilst i wouldn't advise anyone to do it, i have to accept that all 'drugs' have a psychotropic effect, which may be beneficial in some situations
Post by: zakco on January 18, 2007, 12:23:06 AM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 17:25 |
I don't touch drugs, life is weird enough as it is. I am very fond of beer and some assorted liqours however. |
A little OT...but since when is alcohol not a drug?
I mean no disrespect, but your drug of choice just happens to be both legal and socially acceptable, but easily as dangerous and destructive as many illegal ones.
As for the thread subject, I don't believe that any mind altering substance could possible improve one's quality of work. It can definitely inspire creativity (and occasionally performances) for some people (I'm not one of them), but for technical duties requiring accurate listening, concentration or mental sharpness forget it.
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 18, 2007, 12:50:55 AM
They make me break out in handcuffs.
I haven't been high in seventeen years and some change. So, I can't say what effect it had on me in the studio. However, I can say that Marijuana and LSD both really had an impact on my appreciation of music. In fact, it wasn't until I listened to it on acid that I finally understood Eric Dolphy's Out to Lunch. Also, listening to "2,000 Light Years from Home" while I was baked to a deep crisp was also a very pivotal moment. And listening to "Super Session" on acid was the seed that made me want to own a B3 since I was a teenager, not to mention that Harvey Brooks's bass playing on that really made me understand how important bass, and how it functions within a song.
However, I have a hard enough time functioning at what I would consider even 75% efficiency when I'm not stoned. I can only imagine that it would be worse. In fact, when I was fifteen, I worked a summer job at a hotel where they had an old phone system with a patchbay, and I got stoned at lunch one day. I fucked that whole thing up. If I couldn't operate a phone patch bay while stoned, imagine having to deal with one of my spaghetti nightmares that my bay can turn into on a tracking or mixing session.
Post by: RSettee on January 18, 2007, 01:46:30 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 23:50 |
I'm allergic to drugs.... They make me break out in handcuffs. I haven't been high in seventeen years and some change. So, I can't say what effect it had on me in the studio. However, I can say that Marijuana and LSD both really had an impact on my appreciation of music. In fact, it wasn't until I listened to it on acid that I finally understood Eric Dolphy's Out to Lunch. Also, listening to "2,000 Light Years from Home" while I was baked to a deep crisp was also a very pivotal moment. . |
I totally agree. I listened to alot of records on dope on the headphones, and I think I really got a good perspective. Certain things stand out, especially stuff that's buried in the background or heavily reverbed or whatever. The crazy thing is that in order to duplicate that reasoning and techniques, I have to be sober in order to realize what the hell i'm doing. I don't like "lucking" into something, so drugs are no good for reliability during a recording, but it did sorta permanently alter the way that I heard things, I think.
The reason why I stopped: apparently not everyone gets paranoid. And I had to reiterate to myself that it reacts differently with everyone's brain, and I would honestly be in a mental institution right now if I didn't stop. When that shit is happening, you better quit. I think that it might have happened too late in my case, but i've learned to not take everything too seriously. Everything became a serious deal, you know, everything was like a huge crisis, haha.
Post by: wwittman on January 18, 2007, 02:05:57 AM
Apparently, it was already known that students who studied for tests while stoned on marijuana didn't recall as much information as they did when they studied 'straight'.
but what this study tried, for the first time, was to have them study under the influence and then TAKE THE TEST equivalently under the onfluence.
and THEN, they did just as well!!
Apparently the part of the brain accessed while stoned was ONLY really accessible (at least to the same degree) when stoned.
which confirms a suspicion of mine, that when mixing stoned, it only sounds as good again when LISTENED to stoned.
and that those records we loved and always said "they must have been tripping when they made this"... they probably WERE.
Post by: wwittman on January 18, 2007, 02:07:40 AM
| Version wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 00:15 |
... About the only drug going on is adrenaline and maybe the euphoria of a good meal or residue from a good orgasm. there i said it. |
if you have residue from your orgasm I don't think I want to be in the control room with you.
or shake your hand.
Post by: Samc on January 18, 2007, 02:51:11 AM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 01:25 |
Ps. If you do Reggae, dub or minimalistic electronica, please ignore this message and carry on as usual. |
hope you ment this as a (bad) joke because ignorant comments like this are tired already.........
Fact of the matter is that a lot of the reggae musicians and almost none of the engineers that I have worked with don't even smoke.
Post by: CWHumphrey on January 18, 2007, 03:24:35 AM
| Samc wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 23:51 |
Fact of the matter is that a lot of the reggae musicians and almost none of the engineers that I have worked with don't even smoke. |
...which leads me to a funny story.
A couple months ago a got a call from a studio that I had just tracked in. The studio manager said he had a vocal session booked for reggae and the producer usually used one of the guys on staff to engineer but he was out of town. The chief engineer refused to do the session on the grounds that he didn't want to do a session where people were smoking pot. Would I like to come in and do this one day of engineering?
So, I say sure. Two journeymen reggae singers come in nobody smokes the entire session. Ha!
Cheers,
Post by: sui-city on January 18, 2007, 03:32:42 AM
It was amazing to watch how they slowed down. Every movement over the console or over the setting on a guitar pedal or keyboard was turned into "bullet-time". It was like they were being controlled by some of Jim Henson's guys, just really, really slow. It was extremely amusing.
Some of the best music i have ever heard in my life though.
| maxim wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 06:35 |
the drug that most affected my creativity in a positive fashion was psilocybin ('magic mushrooms') just one great trip is all it took to clear some of brain's illusions |
Max,
Have you read Terence McKenna's "Food of the Gods"?
Exceptionally interesting point of view with regards to human evolution and how the shroom played a huge part in the development of the modern human brain.
As far as he was concerned, the early hominids consumed mushrooms before going on a hunt, due to the improved visual acuity that the mushrooms granted. It assisted in being able to see prey in thick savannah by sharpening the constrasts in the brain.
So, someone else on this post spoke about improving the awareness of details. Seems plausible. But i do agree that maybe the connection to the overall picture is what is lost in some cases.
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 18, 2007, 05:20:01 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 03:47 |
Who knows what those creative people would be like without the stimulants? Even better perhaps? Shoe salesmen? |
"Lucy In the Sky With Size 6"
I made an experiment when I was like 14 years old. I had half a bottle of Jaegermeister and then I recorded some synth playing. I played so fast and so great. The next day I played it back and it was fast all right. Kinda like all notes bunched up together. It sounded awful.
I never questioned the fact that drugs and alcohol will only ruin good music, from that day on. (And no, I didn't drink at that early age. It was an experiment only)
Post by: p.mento on January 18, 2007, 05:37:01 AM
on the other hand: i know singers who had to drink themselves halfway to unconsciousness to get their peak performance. (never a reggae-singer though)
speaking for myself: i think you can not guide a session or coach anybody on weed. too many things going on at the same time and you do shut yourself off from other people. and you wanna be on the same spot with the singer or musician and capture their performance.
however, lot's of times when i'm performing or mixing i smoke. i enjoy it and i do think some aspects of my work benefit from this. but this has absolutely nothing to do with creativity and unless i know exactly what i want to do in the first place it's absolutely useless.
Post by: maxdimario on January 18, 2007, 05:44:00 AM
some musicians who play really well and are habitual smokers will improvise better after a puff or two.
the cognitive part of the brain receives signals, processes them and stores them based on the moment, the mood, the meaning etc..
just like practicing an instrument in a room and playing live, or practicing live and playing alone in a room. Someone who plays live for years won't give his all in a room by himself, and someone who has been learning in a quiet room by himself will forget what he was doing in the different environment of live.
if you live your life by smoking all day long, all your activities such as motor, learning, thinking etc. are affected as mentioned.. your brain will develop memories in a way that will not register under normal 'operating conditions'
Pete Townshend once said in a n interview that pot was good in some 'mind expanding' respects but eventually it will make you into a puffball..
the danger is that weed has a way of 'spacing' people out to the point that they close up in themselves and become happy with minutiae which looks interesting under the effect, without concerning themselves with the bigger (and more stressful/complex) picture..
just like maxim mentioned, some drugs can break mental illusions which can chain up people's consciousness.. which is why some cultures such as american indians use them as a mind expanding tool in 'coming of age' rituals.
when people start to smoke too regularly, the music begins to take on a comfortable blandness
of sorts..
in the end the most creative thing about weed is probably the element of mistery and DISCOVERY which comes along when people first try it.
Post by: John Ivan on January 18, 2007, 05:45:38 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 20:17 |
My answer may not be agreeable to some, but... No drug, including pot, is helpful in any way. I am totally against them. Of course, I don't even drink, and if I could make the laws, no one else would, either. So maybe I'm biased. |
As far as Law's go, I don't believe there should be any Law saying what can or can't go in my blood. If I get caught driving or something while I'm fucked up, then lock me up for a long time but, enough of this crap about what I get to eat already..
Having said that, I MIGHT have two or three Beers per year and never when I work. As for the weed? I smoked for a very long time and think people should be able to grow it and smoke it all they want..
I don't smoke it anymore though. I personally find that my brain is enough of a challenge the way it is.I like to know what's going on around me for real. Getting high on anything except Music and people is something I find useless anymore.. I've heard people say they play better when they are High on weed. Recent experience,{and past experience} shows me that this is simply NOT true, by the numbers. The sessions I engineer always go south when folks start smoking. The take count goes up and I end up keeping stuff from earlier in the day. Same for drinking although, having a beer or something has a much smaller effect. Having said that, having "A beer or 9" is a nightmare when one is trying to play. I think Alcohol is much much more dangerous than weed..
Ivan..............................
Post by: hexfix93 on January 18, 2007, 07:00:19 AM
in fact, i think drugs only work once you are great and can play great. but when trying to come up with stuff, it slows things down and takes long i find. this is just my experience.
and i used to be a drug head in my 20s. now im straight edge drug free. my music is still ok, but not as good, but i blame my age more than anything.
Post by: maxim on January 18, 2007, 07:25:00 AM
and even there, the fence isn't going to look any better, you'll just have more fun painting it
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 07:43:14 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 04:47 |
Who knows what those creative people would be like without the stimulants? Even better perhaps? |
Exactly - Thats such a good point,
Maybe Bird and Hendrix would have been that much better if they weren't wasted..
In my own experience all I can say is it was absolutely shocking how great the difference for the better was with musicians I knew who were strung out and ended up getting clean & sober..not only with their playing but their personal, social & family life as well,
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 07:49:25 AM
| p.mento wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 11:37 |
i've done lots of reggae sessions in the studio, dubplates and recording. every singer or musician that you guys also have heard of - i.e. the serious, talented and known examples - were sober! |
Thats funny - I too have recorded lots of reggae people and indeed the sessions were almost entirely drug & alcohol free..
I worked over the years with one particular singer who has even done a famous marijuana 'anthem' - I've never seen him take a puff!
A sip of cognac on sessions 'for the voice' has happened on occasion tho'
I think most people have to face the reality at a certain point that it (getting high) makes them lose their edge with critical tasks like..recording, performing etc..
Post by: ziggy on January 18, 2007, 07:54:54 AM
we recorded with him as well (i'm just guessing who you're talking about), same story here.
we played backing band for a dancehall crew who had a major hit some years ago about smoking weed and bleeding eyes, not a single puff
(some henessey, though)
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 08:05:04 AM
| ziggy wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 13:54 |
stanaho stanaho stanaho we recorded with him as well (i'm just guessing who you're talking about), same story here. |
I can neither confirm or deny!
On another note - here's an interview with Legendary reggae drummer Sly Dunbar with a bit on the wacky weed:
http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid 1=5645
Another development for the duo comes when they realize that ganja—that ever present mind altering accessory for reggae musicians—negatively affects their playing.
“When I used to play with Peter I used to smoke one spliff and thing like that,” recalls Sly later. “When you playing with Peter and you’re a youth you want to show that you’re big and everyone in Jamaica was smoking most of the time. Then, after awhile, it sort of make me feel laid back. I remember one night we did a concert with Peter and Robbie and myself had smoked a lot of herb before and when we went on stage the bass sounded like it had one string and I could hear all night this doo-doo-doo. And I remember trying to lick the cymbal and I miss the cymbal. So I listen to the playback of the concert and it wasn’t sounding that great for us, you know?”
The duo vow not to smoke before a session or concert again and by the early ’80s they’ve given it up totally. But even while they abstain Sly in particular believes that ganja smoke adds something to the studio’s sound and encourages musicians he works with to smoke if they wish.
Post by: Kendrix on January 18, 2007, 08:31:54 AM
Several groups did very short sets.
Hendrix was the closer.
He was lost in another universe and literally could not play.
It was terrible.
However, I know people that have partaken regularly of various substances and have lead very productive and stable lives.
I know other people whose lives have been ruined by same.
Same holds for food, gambling, sex, acquisition of material goods.
My conclusion. It depends on the person. Its not for me to judge. Im a bit of a libertarian on this point. I believe our resources are ineffetive in battling this- and could be applied more productively elsewhere. Legalization would take the crime and violence out of the game at several levels.
Do substances help someone produce better music? Naah.
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 08:37:01 AM
| Kendrix wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 14:31 |
Its not for me to judge. Im a bit of a libertarian on this point. I beleive our resources are ineffetive in battling this- and could be applied more productively elsewhere. Legalization would take the crime and violence out of the game at several levels. |
There is something to be said for the Dutch method of 'tolerance' and redirecting police efforts to so called hard drugs , which have a more significant impact on society..
The wacky weed is not 'legal' here like many think but exists in a kind of grey area of tolerance - lawmakers decided at a certain point it was better to have form of state control and overview of a black market as opposed to none at all..and thinking that by monitoring the 'soft' drug business people , they could easier monitor other dealings as well...which is true to a certain extent..
Of course the downside is this country is a haven for traffickers & money laundering - at least so I read in the news..
Some were so successful that they had thier own airline (allegedly smuggling & laundering proceeds) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Holland
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/12/07/dutch_air line_executives_convicted/
& other alleged underworld figures invested in an airport Niederrhein as well
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Endstra
So they can't be doing too badly!
Post by: maxdimario on January 18, 2007, 08:52:04 AM
weed has had it's influence on fantasy, the feeling of being free in oppressed society...
the act of losing your normal consciusness for a while can be liberating. This is good in a way.. especially when the local government is doing it's best to keep people in a state of fear, under control and too busy chasing the carrot to look after their own interests and wake up...
most bands that get into drugs have a short period where the drugs liberate the minds of the individuals in the band...
the keyword is liberate.
there has to be something to liberate.
so once that process has been gone through, the drugs become not so much the solution to a problem but an escape from reality.
when this happens people go inside themselves and lose it to a point.
Post by: compasspnt on January 18, 2007, 08:52:21 AM
| maxim wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 23:58 |
i'd like to ask terry what proportion of the artists going through his studio smoke marijuana on a regular basis and how many do it when playing music |
I would say very few smoke pot here in our studios. It wouldn't be on one of my sessions at all, so there may be a bit on outside rentals that I don't see.
I find the whole music recording industry much more serious and "businesslike" in these days of diminished budgets.
Post by: Kris on January 18, 2007, 09:07:01 AM
| wwittman wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 02:07 | ||
if you have residue from your orgasm I don't think I want to be in the control room with you. or shake your hand. |
I'm going with William on this one... that's just nasty!
Post by: Barish on January 18, 2007, 10:02:14 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 03:34 |
Ummm... That was green tea, my friend. Even if it was from Starbucks. |
So it was!
Sorry
I'd have a very short tenure as a tea boy.
B.
Post by: Version on January 18, 2007, 10:43:30 AM
Post by: Fibes on January 18, 2007, 11:12:27 AM
| wwittman wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 02:05 |
There was a really interesting study done a few years ago. Apparently, it was already known that students who studied for tests while stoned on marijuana didn't recall as much information as they did when they studied 'straight'. but what this study tried, for the first time, was to have them study under the influence and then TAKE THE TEST equivalently under the onfluence. and THEN, they did just as well!! Apparently the part of the brain accessed while stoned was ONLY really accessible (at least to the same degree) when stoned. |
In some ways, this is where I stand: I'm not going to tell an artist to smoke pot that doesn't and if there is one who does while performing, rehearsing etc. I'm not going to tell him not to.
Either way, if they aren't ON, I'll be sober to figure out why they are off and adjust.
Post by: RSettee on January 18, 2007, 11:18:34 AM
Thunders...speaking of drugs, now there's a guy who truly wasted his talent, so to speak. When he was on and sober, no one could touch that guy at what he did, and unfortunately, most of what we have is tenth generation live gigs of him trying to pull off the genius on "LAMF" live. I have a DVD, "In Cold Blood", where it's a complete trainwreck--he can't remember the chords, forgets lyrics, can't even keep his guitar strap on, and sings while on the floor at one point. Hey it's Thunders, but it really is kinda embarrassing and painful to watch. In that case, you really would have wished that he had a better set of friends and hangers on that didn't promote that stuff, because it affected him quite inversely. When you can't remember how to play the songs, it's time to kick the habit.
Post by: ziggy on January 18, 2007, 12:22:25 PM
Post by: Version on January 18, 2007, 01:24:18 PM
| ziggy wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 09:22 |
but then there is also exile on main st... |
This has been hinted at before...
but about 1% of humans have no boundaries and maybe these drugs just push them down a different avenue. It must be stated again, though: as genius as they were, how much more genius could they have been.
edit: another thing to take note of. Appearances can be deceiving for show. Think Babyshambles...
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 01:55:35 PM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 02:25 |
Ps. If you do Reggae, dub or minimalistic electronica, please ignore this message and carry on as usual. |
Funnily enough - King Tubby, the originator and only genius of dub, didn't partake of the Ganj and I have heard smoking was banned in his studio too...
Post by: grizzly joe on January 18, 2007, 01:59:42 PM
i don't think people should use any type of drug in general.
being a creative artist is a natural talent, and i don't think drugs should/can enhance it.
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 02:38:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine
Apparently it somehow 'resets' drug addicts to the way they were before being addicted, minus withdrawal symptoms and with some sort of spiritual journey revisiting the reasons that led them to becoming addicts...
Don't know if thats true but interesting if so..
Might not be good to have any before that lead guitar take
Post by: hexfix93 on January 18, 2007, 03:06:53 PM
but man, listening to music in a dark room on a head full of acid. nothing beats that. i haven't done it in 10 years now. but i have great memories from it. and in fact, drugs helped me love music even more. especially hallucinogens. I think weed and psychedelics is great for enhancing the listening experience. but not for creating. but i just out grew it all. i got tired of it, and it got old. and the side effects of them are completely undesirable. but no way would i trade in my acid days. acid really made me hear music in a way that was beyond the soul.
i think if you still do drugs in your 30s. well, thats lame. its time to grow up in different ways, your body doesn't recover as fast from it. and it interferes with your life. bad.
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 03:09:11 PM
Its raging away outside my window right now:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/18/europe.storm.ap/i ndex.html
Anyway - I JUST remembered an exception which was a session at Tuff Gong in Jamaica I did with a musician who had his own personal assistant / roadie there whose job was apparently to bring him in a loaded bong whenever the energy level seemed to wane - he'd disappear in a big cloud of smoke, get a big grin on his face and lay down some more overdubs ...
I have to say it DID seem to give him an energy & ideas boost....
Post by: RMoore on January 18, 2007, 03:13:22 PM
| Quote: |
thttp://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/r/quote/true/213 851/2606/itle=hexfix93 wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 21:06] i think if you still do drugs in your 30s. well, thats lame. its time to grow up in different ways, your body doesn't recover as fast from it. and it interferes with your life. bad. |
My dear old Mom once said a really perceptive thing which was she thought it made way more sense for elderly people to be potheads than for young people to be tokin' and getting all sluggish
Post by: organica on January 18, 2007, 03:22:03 PM
Post by: rankus on January 18, 2007, 07:50:35 PM
| wwittman wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 23:07 |
if you have residue from your orgasm I don't think I want to be in the control room with you. or shake your hand. |
LOL! I almost spit beer all over my doobie!
I used to smoke pot occasionaly.... I still do... but I used too as well.
But seriously: Not when I'm on the clock and I try to gently discourage musicians from doing so while tracking....
Post by: rankus on January 18, 2007, 08:00:04 PM
Well, weed can sometimes be beneficial to your career....
Alternate caption: What would a thread like this be without the maaaaaaan ... himself
Cheers
Post by: wwittman on January 18, 2007, 09:13:28 PM
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/18/526934-rockers-inau gural-act-creates-stir
Post by: John Ivan on January 18, 2007, 09:29:09 PM
{sorry}
Ivan..........................
Post by: maxim on January 18, 2007, 10:23:06 PM
the scariest quote from that article:
" "Ted Nugent is a good friend of the governor's...""
Post by: Les Ismore on January 18, 2007, 10:26:32 PM
For clients I strongly advise against it but it's their decision.
I have however seen people get inspired after a toke when all else has failed. I do advise in favour of caffiene. It's a big help to most people, but not all.
As far as psychedelic drugs go i personally believe that some of them can be powerfull allies in a persons spiritual quest. I don't believe that they should ever be used as "party drugs". They should be treated with a great amount of respect and intention and if approached the right way can change ones life. In an amazingly positive way.
Like most things in life, it depends on how you approach them. We are drugs. We only react to drugs that mimic the drugs created by our own bodies. Becoming dependant on any substance other than food, water and air is usually negative on our well being. But some people kill themselves with food. What about sugar? Is it a food or a drug? It's actually more of a drug than a food but we consume it like a food.
Work and mind altering substances are definately not a good mix IMO.
I learned that 20 years ago when I dropped acid and was engineering a session only to spend the rest of the night trying to trace down a ground hum in miles and miles of cables. It was like a science fiction movie nightmare.
Post by: danickstr on January 18, 2007, 10:54:04 PM
Post by: maxim on January 18, 2007, 10:58:22 PM
"Max,
Have you read Terence McKenna's "Food of the Gods"?"
no, but i did ingest the carlos castaneda opus when i was younger
Post by: RSettee on January 19, 2007, 01:17:19 AM
| Kendrix wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 07:31 |
In 1969 or 70 there was a Peace concert held in NYC/MSG. Several groups did very short sets. Hendrix was the closer. He was lost in another universe and literally could not play. It was terrible. |
I never heard that performance, but I wouldn't doubt it. Same thing with Syd Barrett--although he lived a long time, he did too much acid and went nuts, and I don't think that the quality of his life had been very good for arguably over 35 years. His solo recordings, if you listen to successive takes like on "Opel", they almost completely change from take to take. There's a guy who could have put out tons of great stuff, but sadly got permanently messed up.
But that being said, alot of the greatest musicians, I think, were quite unstable, and this had alot to do with drugs and instabilities (mood swings, depression, irrationality).
Post by: wwittman on January 19, 2007, 01:27:32 AM
but the moralising and judgmentalism MAKES me want to say:
what about the guys who take an enourmous amount of drugs and made amazing, life-changing records and maintain 40 yr careers?
they don't count?
you can always find an anecdote to support your preconception.
I don't think someone's choices have much to do with his work, UNLESS they reach a point where it's a PROBLEM.
not everyone's "drug" use is a drug PROBLEM.
I might say MOST people's use aren't problems for them.
Post by: RSettee on January 19, 2007, 01:48:44 AM
| wwittman wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 00:27 |
well again, I'm not SUGGESTING people take drugs EITHER... but the moralising and judgmentalism MAKES me want to say: what about the guys who take an enourmous amount of drugs and made amazing, life-changing records and maintain 40 yr careers? they don't count? |
Some artists have got better with time, but i've never liked Clapton's output in the last 37 or so years, and there's an example of a guy who probably took less drugs as he got older and put out some painfully mediocre material. I can't see why people idolize him now, yet I have to admit, when he was good, he was phenomenal. I have an old album by Martha Velez, and I always wondered who the lead guitarist was on that record (there were no credits), because it was mind blowing lead guitar work, and the fuzz sound was absolutely ripping.
When I found out it was Clapton, I admit....it was hard to admit to myself that it was as great as I thought (based on his later material), but I have to say that whatever he was on during those sessions, he certainly is not half the guitarist since he did that. It's also better than his Cream stuff, IMHO, too.
Post by: maxim on January 19, 2007, 02:12:27 AM
ryan wrote:
" he did too much acid and went nuts"
this has already been discussed, but syd barrett developed a psychotic disorder (most probably, schizophrenia, as was mentioned by roger waters (who knew him well))
it was NOT caused by acid as is oft stated (or mandies or anything else)
onset of schizophrenia is a classic example of the attempt to self-medicate with whatever chemicals are at hand
Post by: Samc on January 19, 2007, 02:14:05 AM
| wwittman wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 06:27 |
.....not everyone's "drug" use is a drug PROBLEM. I might say MOST people's use aren't problems for them. |
Or for anyone else for that matter.......
Post by: RSettee on January 19, 2007, 11:23:49 AM
| maxim wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 01:12 |
it's only a problem if it's a PROBLEM ryan wrote: " he did too much acid and went nuts" this has already been discussed, but syd barrett developed a psychotic disorder (most probably, schizophrenia, as was mentioned by roger waters (who knew him well)) it was NOT caused by acid as is oft stated (or mandies or anything else) onset of schizophrenia is a classic example of the attempt to self-medicate with whatever chemicals are at hand |
Really? Thanks for correcting that, because I always thought that it was because of the acid. But are you sure that the drugs didn't push him permanently over the edge of no return, as far as mental conditions are concerned?
Post by: Ross Hogarth on January 19, 2007, 11:47:51 AM
more often than not, it is minor, happy fun time usage
this does not mean it helps make music better or help some brilliant scientist discover a new way to put a man in space
in general, I think the heavy handed, all drugs are bad approach is as one sided as the other side saying that all drugs are good
i just know for myself that, i operate better without
i also agree that the doors of perception opened up by certain drugs at certain points in my life, were life changing
i also have friends in mental institutions suffering from schizophrenia from overdoing it
so going back to the original question
I don't think they help the record making process
I don't think the help in particular the groove or the focus of many musicians
I think they can divert many sessions into weird territory and
the few that can handle being high, all power to you
i am not here to judge and make blanket statements
I hope to prove by example and not be heavy handed
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2007, 02:09:08 PM
| wwittman wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 23:27 |
not everyone's "drug" use is a drug PROBLEM. |
Except when we have dealers and gangs shooting up our streets and everyone indiscriminately in their path.
Bullets in our children is what I'd call a PROBLEM with the drug trade / drug culture.
And then there's what is estimated at 80% of all theft is to support drug useage.
Repeatedly getting ripped off is what I call a PROBLEM.
Then there's people who think they can drive while on weed.
Getting slamed by 2000 lbs of automobile by a stoned out pot-head is what I call a PROBLEM.
Post by: Version on January 19, 2007, 02:16:26 PM
Post by: PP on January 19, 2007, 02:45:54 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2007, 03:20:33 PM
| Version wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 12:16 |
I've never heard of anyone getting in a car wreck because they were under the influence of marijuana. I have heard of people idling in front of a stop sign waiting for it to turn green, though... |
It's such a major problem here in Canada (with our popular "BC bud") that the police are trying to develop better testing methods to get these dangerous drivers off the street. Even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have shown through their statistics that they gather that the number of drug related accidents is on the rise.
Post by: Les Ismore on January 19, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
As far as pot goes I remember Stephan Grappelli regularly having a toke before his shows and this was at about 80 years old and still touring all over the world. Didn't appear to have any negative an effect on him or his music. I know of many many people who smoke pot regularly (not myself) and are healthy and extremely productive, smart, creative people and huge contributors to our society and culture.
As far as psychedelics go, as stated before I feel they should be approached with a lot of respect and intention and care. Approached properly they can change ones life. Approached incorrectly and without respect and intention they can do you harm. Sid Barrett for instance was (from what I have heard) a schizophrenic who was unaware of his condition and then took a LOT of acid. I mean a LOT.
On the other hand Ken Kesey took acid every other day or so apparently and lived a very productive creative life.
You can kill yourself with ketchup if you try hard enough.
On the discussion of BAD drugs, I would say that Crack and Crystal Meth are to my estimation evil incarnate and nothing other than a form of slavery of the worst kind. If you want to demonize drugs, choose the ones that actually deserve it.
Pot was demonized in the 30s in an attempt (very successful) to
destroy the competition to the pulp paper industry, which was hemp. The wood pulp paper patent owners paid for and produced propaganda films demonizing pot, which eventually led to its prohibition and the destruction of one of the worlds bigggest industries, hemp production.
That said I do agree with you about people who drive while under the influence of any drug.
Anyway to summarize, I feel that the war on drugs is an abysmal failure and waste of resources. I feel we should put that budget into rehabilitaion and recovery for hard drugs like crack and crystal meth, heroin etc.
As far as psychedelics go I think we should do like the Merry Pranksters and put acid mixed with DMSO (an absorbative) on the railings of Capitol Hill.
But while recording, no.
Post by: maxdimario on January 19, 2007, 04:29:06 PM
| Quote: |
I can remember seeing This Young Man Wail his Guitar at me. http://www.freewebs.com/paulkossoff/ Please click on the Video to hear him. DEAD! I can't hear him any more. And I don't think that's Alright Now. |
one of the greatest rock guitarists ever destroyed by his insecurities through drugs.
I agree that pot ages your brain...and causes memory loss.
habitual users will lose their capacity to remember permanently, eventually..
attention span also becomes a fraction of what it used to be..
I think Paul McCartney lost some of the magic once he started smoking regularly..
he did compose some great songs nevertheless... just not one every 2 months like before he started smoking..
Post by: RSettee on January 19, 2007, 04:29:24 PM
I'm not saying that people have to die young,I am, however, saying that in the case of a guy like Clapton, his stuff while he was under the influence was much better than when he wasn't. In his case, age and maybe branching out could be definite factors, as one doesn't just want to repeat themselves, but here's my other point: if you're using to become better creatively, then you're still doing something that you won't be able to recreate when you're sober and straight. That was my original point. In that case, if you become someone different when you use, and can't recreate it when you're not using, then maybe it's not such a great idea.
Post by: el duderino on January 19, 2007, 05:06:27 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 14:09 | ||
Except when we have dealers and gangs shooting up our streets and everyone indiscriminately in their path. Bullets in our children is what I'd call a PROBLEM with the drug trade / drug culture. And then there's what is estimated at 80% of all theft is to support drug useage. Repeatedly getting ripped off is what I call a PROBLEM. |
people killing people is idiotic. plenty of people commit murder who ARENT on drugs. In fact, most of these drug dealer shootings are are to eliminate competition, and that all comes down to money. If the product they sold were legal it would be dealt with in a legal manner. if the bloods could sue the crips they would, theyd make way more money that way. but its all illegal activity so there really is no legal recourse.
if people are stealing things its because they need money. thats also why people start selling drugs. the violence and crime are much more economic issues than anything else.
why do people do drugs? to feel better. whats a big cause of problems for people?.....money. sure people have other problems, but if you're wondering why kids are killing each other daily in the ghetto its pretty obvious. they're broke, feel hopeless, and dont know how they can even get a chance to better themselves. In many cases they weren't raised well because the people raising them have the same problems they do.
the best way to stop the violence and crime is to give someone a good job and help them move on to better things.
as for the comments about decreased productivity at businesses and potheads in car accidents....the same things apply to a lack of sleep, which is much more common among people of any age. so maybe employers shouldnt make people work so long (ha!)
i dont think people should drive under the influence, but i also think sleepy people shouldnt drive either.
apparently there was a study done that getting only 4 or 5 hours of sleep a night (regularly) can have the same affect as being legally drunk.
there are millions of ways to die everyday, sooner or later 1 will happen to all of us. i say enjoy your life while you have it.
Post by: PP on January 19, 2007, 05:25:32 PM
Post by: Harland on January 19, 2007, 05:26:41 PM
Harland
Post by: rankus on January 19, 2007, 05:44:27 PM
| Les Ismore wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 12:48 |
Pot was demonized in the 30s in an attempt (very successful) to destroy the competition to the pulp paper industry, which was hemp. The wood pulp paper patent owners paid for and produced propaganda films demonizing pot, which eventually led to its prohibition and the destruction of one of the worlds bigggest industries, hemp production. |
FWIW: Hemp was also a competitor to Cotton back in those days. And when the cotton gin was invented there was work going on to develop a Hemp Gin as well in order to automate the harvest of Hemp. Which would have led to the demise of the then extremely powerful Cotton Barons... who poured enormous sums of money into the campaign against "Marijuana" which was also a term coined (borrowed from the Mexicans) to further demonize the poor hemp plant....
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2007, 05:50:48 PM
| Assman wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 15:06 |
If the product they sold were legal it would be dealt with in a legal manner. if the bloods could sue the crips they would, theyd make way more money that way. |
Do you really believe that?
I don't think the bloods, crips, hells angels or any other organized (or unorganized)crime gang would start being gentlmenly if drugs were legalized to sell.
| Assman wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 15:06 |
if people are stealing things its because they need money. thats also why people start selling drugs. the violence and crime are much more economic issues than anything else. |
To restate my point, 80% of theft is to support drug habits.
The economics are that they do need money - to buy more drugs. Many deal, for quick cash because they're too lazy to do an honest job and capitolize on a human weakness.
| Assman wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 15:06 |
why do people do drugs? to feel better. they're broke, feel hopeless, and dont know how they can even get a chance to better themselves. In many cases they weren't raised well because the people raising them have the same problems they do. |
Yes. Lots of voids to fill.
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 19, 2007, 06:20:23 PM
Please don't flatter yourself just yet. I'm calling you out on this one, by removing all the empty lines! Not to mention other people's text. Let's see exactly how big a compilation of postings it really is now, shall we...
| PP wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 22:25 |
Gee Ryan, what you think? These are the posts that I've written today in the spare time I've had available. Keith: a couple of weeks ago GM unveiled a plug in Hybrid. Hearty Congratulations to GM on winning two prestigious awards at the Detroit Motor Show. This hugely important American Company vital to the economy has a great many workers and their families, dependant on its success. I wish them all well. Thank you Terry, Here?s the latest Engine. http://www.bmwworld.com/engines/12cyl.htm Scroll down to see the fantastic McLaren F1 Engine made by BMW Model S70/2. 0-60 mph time of 3.1 Seconds. As for the 3 Series, coupled to a stiff chassis concept, the drive dynamics were spirited and responsive with a well balanced power train that superseded all in its class. There is a history to the lineage of the 3 Series that continues to tell this same story of a salon car that surprises and rewards the driver with the sporty dynamics of its performance. Here are videos that explain the heritage of the 3 Series. http://www.bmwusa.com/uniquelybmw/bmw_heritage/3series_herit age Click - Watch the Video Parts 1-3. Today that lineage continues. The 3 Series Convertable. http://www.bmwusa.com/ This car uses sun reflective leather in its seats. This is another unbelievable entirely new technology. Today the latest evolution of the 3 Series shares many common components with the 5 Series and the 7 Series. There is a common thread that runs through the entire line. I have been on factory visits, and seen the 3 Series as a Body in White. I have to tell you that the quality of the body's engineering is absolutely staggering. It is superlative. BMW 3 Series Convertibles have been known for incredible top-down driving experiences for 19 years running. The new BMW 3 Series Convertible continues this tradition without any compromise. The very first Convertible based on the BMW 3 Series debuted in 1987 and was the epitome of dynamic performance and sporting elegance. As the first premium manufacturer to launch an open four-seater in this segment, the competition has now become most challenging and fierce, but the BMW 3 Series Convertible remains unique to this very day. Here are some videos that will help you to understand how the Designers - Think and Work. I believe the some of the modern technology you see, will blow your mind. http://www.bmwusa.com/uniquelybmw/Design/default Design Process - Click on Watch Video. The BMW Look - Click on Watch Video. Here are the Heads of Design, taking you round the all Cars, and explaining the Designs look. How they convey movement even when at the kerbside. http://www.bmwusa.com/uniquelybmw/Design/BMWDesignersSpeak.h tm Please Click on the Model Range you are interested in. The 3 series for Terry then - Click on Watch Video. You MUST watch Chris Bangle explaining the Design Philosophy behind the Sporty Z4. It is a something of a revelation. The driver of such a sporty vehicle expects it to sound a certain way. Microphones in the exhaust manifold feedback precisely the right sound via a fold back mechanism to give the driver a sense of the Engines Throaty Power. Yet there is refinement. Too much ROAR and he will tire and become stressed by it on a long journey. There is subtle balance to the sound engineering in this vehicle. Its powerful engine sound is there but will not distract or tire the driver. The owner of a 3 Series will require different sound enginering. He will need to hear certain aspects of the engine performance to inform him as he drives. But will require a far higher degree of road and engine noise suppression. As you go through the various classes of vehicle, a different and higher class of sound engineering is applied to each type of vehicle, to meet the varying expectations of the potential owners. Years ago, car manufacturers were happy if everything on the vehicle worked. (For many makes that was not the case). Today not only must everything work perfectly and look perfect, in terms of fit and finish, but the sound of every moving part must convey to the driver a tonality that reassures him that every part the vehicle is manufactured with is of the very highest quality. If you heard a sound in a manufacturer?s car that was harsh to the ear, you would attribute cheapness and unreliability to that part as you heard it. You would project your dissatisfaction and extend it to the internal parts of the car you cannot see and make a decision about the vehicles quality. It would be a negative appraisal. The tone and sound engineering of every part that makes a sound is carefully worked upon with parts suppliers to ensure that the parts make the right sound. If that means redesigning the part half a dozen times till they get it right that is what they will do. The sound of every moving part should always convey a reassuring sense of quality, reliability and dependability. In order to do this, whole new technologies have been developed to assess sound quality in a technically precise and objective way, but enable engineers to interpret that quality, in terms of the customer?s unconscious decisions that he will attribute about parts he cannot see. Surprisingly, one of the most important details on a car that conveys quality, or its lack, is the Car Door Handle. This is the first thing a Driver touches every single time he climbs into the car, and it is the last thing he touches every time he leaves it. It?s crucial to get details like this exactly correct from a design perspective. Here Chris Bangle tells you what it?s REALLY all about. His Passion . http://www.bmwusa.com/uniquelybmw/Innovations_at_Work.htm Please Click on ? Nothing like a BMW. This is HOW the vehicles are tested. http://www.bmwusa.com/uniquelybmw/Innovations_at_Work.htm Please Click on ? Extreme Testing. This shows among other things The Reknowned Nuremberg Test Simulator. Here's the excellent BMW Innovation Lounge. And the useful Visual Technolgy Guide. http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_highend.html Browse Around. Turn your SOUND UP! Here you can listen to the Engine Sounds of the BMW 130i / BMW Z43,0i / BMW X54.8is / BMW 650i http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_highend.html Click on Further Information. As you go through the subjects it will come up. The amazing new BMW Welt. http://www.bmw-welt.com/_common/flash/flash_en.html I hope your estimation of the car you drive, is now entirely appropriate. The latest BMW Engine range has significantly more Brake Horse Power. But also, significantly improved Fuel Economy. This also includes the MINI Range. Which sports markedly improved, vehicle dynamics, and go kart handling drive over the previous model. If you would like to experience more of the Sound Engineering that goes into the MINI. Make sure you have your Sound System switched on and Turned Up. Please Click Here. http://www.mini.co.uk/UK/index.htm For a glimpse of the Three New Models. http://www.mini.co.uk/UK/html/model_range/model_presentation .html#anchor And John Cooper Works Here. http://www.mini.co.uk/UK/html/model_range/john_cooper_works/ home.html To the Left?. Under Explore the JCW Range. Select Sound Kit. Under Select your MINI Select MINI Under Select Date of Manufacture. Select before 11/06 Underneath. Select GO To the Right? Click on?. Tuned Mini Cooper Inside. Tuned Mini Cooper Outside. And.. On The Track. John Cooper. http://www.johncooper.co.uk/JohnCooperSite/motorsport/JohnCo operMotorsport/ To view the Cooper History in F1 and beyond Click Here. http://www.johncooper.co.uk/JohnCooperSite/pages/history/his tory.asp http://www.johncooper.co.uk/JohnCooperSite/pages/history/his tory_main.asp P Let?s bring all these matters into a proper focus and make them fully relevant to the Theme of this Thread. What we?re really talking about is that many of us like to own cars that are really great fun to drive. They are not simply a way to get from A to B. But a way to enjoy getting there. There needn?t even be a B?. This we can achieve with Hydrogen Power. And all that comes out of the tailpipe is Water Vapour. Click Here. http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_highend.html On the Top ? Right Select BMW Insights. From the drop down menu - BMW Clean Energy. At the Bottom select BMW Hydrogen 7. Underneath Select PHILOSOPHY. Enjoy the Ride! The intro features a great piece of Film. P I?m glad that you enjoyed reading. The paradox is, however, that it is impossible to answer your question without imparting a mass of further information. But?.. Knowledge is Power. And Knowledge Empowers. The idea of this thread is to fill it with all the information anyone who owns a Piano is likely ever to need. If they are faced with questions regarding potentially expensive recommendations, the information herein, and explore able through the hyperlinks may prove to be a tremendously empowering knowledge indeed. I trust so. Please fell free to change them. It is merely a difference of degree. Or change frequency if you prefer that. But the salient point to consider is this. Guitars (and Fretted Instruments) are fingered, or touched by human hands. Now if you worked in an environment which involved Spraying Booths and Ovens. Just face it?. Spray Booth and Oven Knowledge is going to be a real help to you?. You would know that the human finger tip, involves all kinds of acids and chemicals in addition to perspiration, which if placed upon a surface especially prepared for painting, would result in that finger touch being visible, after the paint was cured. Special lint free gloves are therefore necessary in preparation areas to avoid this problem. Factories go to incredible lengths to avoid problems of this kind. Even wearing the wrong kind of deodorant, or using the wrong kind of hand cream, could reek absolute havoc in such an environment. When you touch a Guitar String, these residual finger acids and perspiration, are transferred to the strings, and result in their hasty demise. This is why you should always clean under and over your Guitar Strings after you have played your Guitar. To help remove them. And why Guitar String's and those of other Fretted Instruments are changed on a regular basis. They need to be. Because in a Piano, no such finger contact is involved, thus no acids and perspiration, their tremendously negative effect, is of course not transmitted at all. So the Strings as a consequence, enjoy a far longer life, free from hand contamination, particularly the acids. Can you see? Knowledge Empowers. A good quality Piano, which has been well maintained, carefully looked after and played with respect, should last a very great number of decades, Centuries even. It is necessarily strongly built, and if the advice in this thread is carefully followed, should require little attention other than regular tuning. That is the entire point of this thread. That said particularly if the advice in this thread is not followed. A great many parts will require changing, and Strings are certainly among those. Usually, an odd string here or there may break. The best thing is to keep the broken string if you remove it. You may find a friendly Piano Shop that is willing to sell you an exact replacement. On the other hand, A Shop may take the view that it is a job for a trained craftsman. Regardless, you will find it a great help to have the Make and Serial Number to give which should provide a helpful point of reference for the technician. The name on the fall board may not be name of the actual manufacturer. Look at the Gilded Harp Frame and inside the lid and extract as much information as is possible. If you buy the Piano from new, obtain this information at purchase or delivery and keep it in a folder or envelope in the Piano Stool. If you decide to try to replace the String yourself, a good Micrometer is necessary, as you need to ensure you obtain an exact diameter replacement. You can?t guess this. Towards the bottom of this post are links to trade gauge references that will provide helpful assistance in obtaining the correct gauge treble and bass strings. One advantage of owning a Piano made by a very well known manufacturer like Steinways is that the reference notations, correct gauges, and suitable replacement Strings, are well known and easily obtained worldwide. Sets are easily obtainable. If you have an obscure, rare or historically significant Piano, then you need to choose your Piano Tech only after very careful investigation. Owners of similar Pianos may have helpful advice in this regard. Research and learn before you do anything. It is possible to extend the life of a set of Piano Strings by turning them over, so that they are struck on the other side. This is an enormous task and to my mind it would be better to replace the Strings entirely. There can be manifold problems that beset one, turning strings, and expect, harmonic deadness, to occur sooner than later. Changing the Strings can give a Richer, Fuller, more Powerful Character of Sound. It may make the Piano more Lively to the Ear and Spirited. However it will necessarily alter the Tonal Characteristics of the Piano. And you won?t know if you really like the sound until you affect the change. And then you might not like what you hear. Great instruments take time to mature in Sound. Be sure it really needs doing before you embark. Here are some ways to make use of the Old Strings. To suspend heavy deco items Magicians-- To hang objects so that they look suspended in air To survey and lay out buildings Hat bands A seismograph in Hawaii Hoop dresses for dolls To cut "green" clay before firing Spring manufacturers To remove broken windshields To pull electrical and computer wire through tubes and pipes Cheese cutters Door gongs Yes. But these factors are usually best determined by the manufacturers themselves after a great deal of design work, testing and development. Not by an inexperienced novice. There will be exact replacements recommended, tonally ideal for the specific engineering of a great piano manufacturer like Steinway for instance. Using a different quality, grade, size or type of material in the string may be productive of a great many unforeseen, engineering difficulties. If you don?t like the sound of a Piano. Don?t buy it. Find one you really like the sound of. That's the one to buy. You won?t need to change its Strings if you like their sound, will you? It is not a simple task to change the Strings of a Piano and pull them up to a strain of 20 Tons. (Although certain Piano manufacturers would give tuners 20 minutes to perform this task in a high production facility). Historically piano wire was made of a single metal, such as.. Copper. Brass. Aluminum. Many modern piano wires are made from composites, however, often including.. Carbon. Sulphur. Phosphorus. Silicon. Manganese. The thickness of piano wire can range from 24 gauge, or 0.022 inches (0.5mm), to 6 gauge, or 0.192 inches (4.8mm). Here are the helpful Links.Obtaining Replacement Piano Strings. http://www.stevespianoservice.com/64-wrrep.htmhttp://www.stevespianoservice.com/wirepart.htmhttp://www.stevespianoservice.com/wirebass.htmI hope to soon post a step by step picture guide that will show how a wide variety of Major Piano Overhauls are undertaken. I trust this will be a resource of interest to many. This will involve pictures of String Changing. Finally, many dangers lie in trying to do it yourself, where the considerable tonnage involved in a set of Piano Strings are concerned. It can be hazardous as a careful read though of this thread makes very clear indeed. My firm advice is..Find a good Piano Tech.And leave the work to him.PMax: humidity can rust old strings making them imperfect.bass strings oxidise and get dirty and/or lose tightness in the windings becoming tubby in sound.Indeed this is the case. For more detail on this please read the intial post at the start of the thread.Particularly."But heat and humidity can also affect the strings, in many varying ways, and expansion, may even occur between string windings. Rust is a problem that can result in the worst cases, rusting strings with all the accompanying expense and inconvenience of replacement.You should certainly expect the Piano to play sharper than standard pitch A440 or A443 or A445 in Hot Humid conditions."And Later Here.http://dampp-chaser.com/humidityeffects_n.htmlWhere the detrimental effects of humidity and rust are pictured.PI believe these speakers were originally designed by their special R and D unit and originally intended for use in Yamaha?s earliest electronic forms of Acoustic Pianos which they wanted to develop, but was somewhat before they actually did. They may have used them in some of the very earliest models in certain regions of the world. To faithfully replicate such an incredibly natural, pure sound as a Piano, they required an extremely pure sounding, natural delivery from the sound system. Look at the speaker again. It was designed to approximate in shape, the area of a Piano?s Strings, Harp and Soundboard. It is the extremely linear function of these that it is originally designed to emulate. It is a tailor made solution for a particularly demanding instrument. The Piano has a far wider compass than any other instrument, and an ultra clean bass end. Yamaha recognised that an oblong design of speaker cabinet hung beneath their Pianos was necessary and intrinsic to the design of the instrument. That would have to carry the weight of one of their most desirable and saleable features, their high quality keyboards.But they used newly developed mathematical theories, and calculations relating to utilising the area size and shape of the actual speaker units cone, to overcome the tendency in traditional delivery systems, toward colouring and resonant frequencies. Extremely undesirable elements in a Piano I?m sure you will concur. If you think about the shape of the backs of some Tannoy?s, Kef?s, and very many other Hi-Fi speakers, you can see that these manufacturers have regularly tried to remove the colouration of the cabinet, and minimise resonant frequencies, particularly that of internal standing waves, from the speakers design, by altering the shape of the cabinet to reduce this undesirable effect.Yamaha had this idea turned right on its head, making the speaker cone asymmetrical to minimise the effect of a standing wave within the cabinet, as it moved differing amounts of air to varying degrees on either side. Rather than alter the cabinet itself (As is vogue now) which would have required extremely complex tooling for the period.The squareness one side, compensates for and creates less need of angularity on the opposite side.If you have ever seen the size and shape of such speaker?s cabinets, in Yamaha?s Pianos and Organs, they seem to be crying out to get standing waves. But they don?t get them at all. As far as I know these speakers were entirely reliable when used for the applications, for which they were originally designed. Which as I?ve written originally involved an ultra clean bass end.But ultimately, conventional round woofers and tweeters in the cabinet beneath their keyboards with additional units fitted to the top to simulate the closeness of the ear to the strings in an open topped Grand Piano were settled on as more realistic and became utilised in their Piano?s, (things got a lot more sophiticated), whilst Organs featured a far simpler arrangement, in their speaker cabinets unless an Leslie was incorporated. For advancements in their especially designed DSP Chips (Stanford University should get a round of applause here, John M. Chowning and CCRMA?s Julius O. Smith III in particular) and by Yamaha's Digital Piano Division?s R and D utilising highly complex cabinet designs, complemented the traditional speaker units, and utilised sophisticated acoustic solutions, to assist the simulation of Piano like characteristics. And has been a hall mark of Yamaha?s continuous stream of improvement in this area ever since. http://www.clavinova.co.uk/ClavPianos_V1.0.swfToday some of their better Clavinova?s even feature built in mics to simulate the effect of the Piano?s placement. iAFC ? advanced DSP technology; rear speakers and cabinet microphones combine to reproduce the nuances of an acoustic piano and the reverberation and resonance of a stage performance. It is an ongoing saga they are still trying to further improve upon.Rear mounted speakers simulate the characteristics our ears are used to bearing in mind the room soundboard placement of common Vertical Piano?s.They tried these asymmetric units, and attempted to utilise them where ever they could to get the value from the investment in tooling and production facilities. I believe the change back to conventional units was hastened after these extremely revolutionary units, proved troublesome when used in other applications, where they gained an unwanted notoriety. If you think about where you would have been most likely to find the problem of powerfully resonant frequencies, in Musical Instrument sound delivery systems of this period, it would not take long for you to think of a Bass Guitar Amp. Many of the lesser Bass Amps of this period were relatively poor in this respect compared to today?s offerings, as I recall. Unfortunately, the original, and unique design solution, the speaker cone utilised, mounted in this application, was, given the powerful Bass Guitar characteristics and heavily boosted force of bottom end EQ involved, a wholly inappropriate solution altogether. It was the wrong horse for the wrong course. And a corner was turned, within Yamaha Corporation.As Yamaha Organs were the biggest selling electronic keyboard Musical Instrument Worldwide, for them in the era in which they utilised these speaker units. It is Organs that people most readily remember them in. A number of manufacturers produced Organs with internal Leslies. I remember working with Harold Smart (a UK TV Organist) who used a Thomas Organ and the Thomas had its own internal version of the Leslie. Lowry as well. http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/keng/kenhtml/Thomas%20Organ s%20Page.htmhttp://www.harmony-music.co.uk/thomas.htm Just to help those unfamiliar with what is being discussed.The speaker was fixed inside the cabinet. A large Styrofoam wheel was hung in front of the speaker. The Styrofoam wheel rotated on an axel. Usually a belt from the axel took power from an electrical motor below. Tremolo and Celeste were the two normal settings in most Organs with a winding up and winding down period between the two spin speeds. The solid Styrofoam wheel looked quite large on all those I have seen personally, and had an internal sloping ramp area with a special sound outlet which was a sort of scoop, designed to catch the output from the excursion of the speaker?s cone, scoop it up and throw it around and out, through its circular motion. As was stated, they were mounted on a horizontal axis.PPlease leave it up?. The humour was obvious. And amusingly funny really. But the humorous point sound. These were necessarily extremely clean sounding speakers.PWell, I can certainly say with some authority that Mr. Clapton hasn?t suddenly lost all of his ability. He could sit down NOW and play all that stuff that rocks your socks, just as well as he could when he laid down those tracks originally, and with a rather better sound quality altogether I feel.He doesn?t need to do that anymore, because he?s free from a lot of things that he was into, that were greatly unhelpful to him. Thank the Lord! But make no mistake he could literally blow you away, with his blues artistry right now.But he wouldn?t have an outburst like a volcano erupting if you touched his Guitar as it stood upon its stand. And I think that?s a very much better balanced way to live.Ultimately, the way we live is a pretty important aspect to life, in particular its longevity. And with drugs, longevity is a real issue for a great many former users.I remember a former colleague in the Music Business. Dead and still a very Young Man. I can remember seeing This Young Man Wail his Guitar at me. http://www.freewebs.com/paulkossoff/Please click on the Video to hear him.DEAD!I can't hear him any more. And I don't think that's Alright Now.I remember Jimi Hendrix.DEAD!I Remember Syd Barrett.DEAD!I remember Keith Moon. DEAD!With all their talent and life before them. Dead as YOUNG MEN!And countless others, who became so messed up in their minds with drugs that they were no longer able to function with the rest of the world. Make no mistake, over time, soft or hard drugs take their toll upon the mental condition, personality and bodily health of those that use them. Even with so called Soft Drugs the potential for harm is enormous.It is a fact that Mental Health Issue?s such as Paranoia and Increased Risk of Cancer have been scientifically proven to be linked to Marijuana use. But the risks don?t stop there. Contrary to widespread knowledge, wider scientific studies are increasingly proving it to be addictive.But its not just what we commonly think of as 'drugs'.One of the finest session musicians on this side of the Atlantic was reduced to drinking Cough Medicine. What an utter waste. He could no longer function professionally. Amongst working professional musicians the over use of Alcohol is of serious concern. One of my favourite Bass player?s Jamie Jamerson, long troubled by alcoholism died of complications stemming from cirrhosis of the liver, heart failure and pneumonia.To be honest I have always been a great admirer of People like (Fill me up with coffee), Hal Blaine, Jim Osbourne, and the many great session men that were professional enough to avoid the worst of this nonsense. You see, the thing is with drugs, of any kind, is that it can weaken your body?s abilities to defend itself. You become more vulnerable and susceptible, particularly where life threatening illnesses are concerned.That certainly is the case with Marijuana use. The Professor of Pharmacology here at Oxford University found the Brains of young people who were heavy Marijuana users, had Brain Atrophy equal to that of 70-90 year olds. It is solidly the case, that the part of the Brain responsible for short term memory, the hippocampus, is severely affected.I should explain that (for some reason beyond my comprehension) I am allowed to attend all kinds of lectures, that most people would be prohibited from attending. And I go to attend talks sometimes at The Radcliffe Hospital a Centre of Excellent for Brain Research, and listen to Brain Surgeons give their lectures. I believe they know what they are talking about, and thank them for what I am sure is their extreme patience, when I ask them simple questions.Increased loss of Sex Drive and Impotency is another side effect as is a decrease in testosterone levels. In women the menstrual cycle is disturbed and premature and under weight children are common as are miscarriages.Chromosome damage has also been linked to Marijuana use. This is extremely serious affecting the unborn.Genetically, defects are hereditarily passed on via the altered character of certain genes. For recent scientific research has shown increased risks to the children of users. They are 10 Times more likely to contract leukaemia. Cancer of the Blood or Bone Marrow. And this is a so called Soft Drug?I suppose I see the need for Drug use as an inner need, a lack of inner resources, and a sign of weakness really.Amazingly, I was speaking to a young man the other day about drugs who was telling all about the use of.. Horse Tranquilisers among the youngsters. How pathetically tragic to fall to such an incredibly low place.If ever there was a sign that young people?s lives were empty, void and were crying out for something to give a sense of purpose and meaning, this surely must tell us that.In the Business world, the problem of social drug use, has become an increased expensethat gets past on to every consumer. The number of days off taken after getting high at drug sessions is an increasing difficulty and a burden for business.Regular non attendance at work means additional people have to be taken on to provide cover. This is a direct cost everyone pays for. The problem of mistakes caused by inattention is both costly and potentially dangerous to other workers. This is another cost, especially if someone is injured in an industrial setting. There's nothing 'cool' about killing your work mate, because you were high a day or two ago. But this kind of problem unfortunately has to be dealt with. What a complete disgrace to the human race. How utterly selfish.Today Major Employers have therefore become very sophisticated in their testing and monitoring of employees behaviour, and have to pay for and provide detection methods and try to provide support and help where they can.Ultimately they are in business. And drugs are a negative factor any successful business can well do without.And all this quite apart from the crime and prostitution that drug use is regularly linked to. I remember Sir George Martin long ago quite deliberately making a point that drug use has never added anything of artistic quality or value to music.He is extremely serious about this, despite his personal charm when puting forward his point, and is completely set against the idea that drug use for artistic reasons have any merit whatever.I for one believe him.I found an interview.Where Sir George Martin is discussing The Beatles and drug use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=falCPCX7_JA&mode=related& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;search=He begins. ?Well drug use is stupid.? PSo Ryan,Given the actual level of thoughtful reflection you have indicated you have applied to these deeply serious matters?For we are writing about illegal activity, that results in Death, Injury, Illness, Suffering and all manner of Crime... What do you think? Tell you what, use a Google search engine and see for yourself?Had you actually bothered to read my post BEFORE replying to it you would have discovered the no less a person than..Sir George Martin himself, states quite categorically, entirely the opposite to what you claim.For Sir George is on Video in my post saying precisely the opposite to you!I find it difficult to comprehend your maladroitness, torpidity and insouciant somnolence.But?. Either you are right.And Sir George Martin is wrong.Or Sir George Martin is right. And you are wrong.I would suggest that his depth of experience in these matters is rather more trustworthy altogether. A reasonable assumption I feel. P |
Notice any difference?
Then again, like this one wouldn't be able to read between the lines...
Sincerely,
Tomas Danko
Post by: wwittman on January 19, 2007, 06:46:01 PM
during prohibition gangs machine gunned and dynamited each other (and law enforcement and innocent bystanders) over alcohol.
that doesn't happen anymore.
the answer to the violence was making it legal and easily available (and regulated)
Post by: wwittman on January 19, 2007, 06:47:24 PM
what if George Martin thinks drugs never "added anything" to music or recording,
and Paul McCartney thinks the opposite?
who do you think is more authoritative on the subject?
but more to MY point, i don't think it matters one way or the other.
it's a personal choice, like MANY others that we don't have to agree on, or that may not be for EVERYONE.
Post by: maxim on January 19, 2007, 07:10:10 PM
don't look back...
ryan wrote:
"But are you sure that the drugs didn't push him permanently over the edge of no return, as far as mental conditions are concerned?"
and ross wrote:
"i also have friends in mental institutions suffering from schizophrenia from overdoing it"
there is NO evidence that ANY drugs cause permanent mental disorders
in a swedish army study, marijuana was linked with bringing on the onset of the first psychotic episode in a schizophrenic patient (some recent research has shown that schizophrenic brains lack cannabinoid receptors and some theorise that people are actually trying to replace the chemical)
the only drug that can bring on a psychotic episode (according to dsm 4) is speed and other amphetamines
only after long-term use (probably, through some kind of neurotransmitter depletion or receptor adjustment)
even then, it is NEVER permanent, but only lasting two or three weeks
pp wrote:
"The Professor of Pharmacology here at Oxford University found the Brains of young people who were heavy Marijuana users, had Brain Atrophy equal to that of 70-90 year olds."
can you quote the actual numbers rather than scoffable assertions (or provide the link to the research)
once we get beyond the delusions of the paranoid and the urban myths, there is, imo, a danger related to drug use among the musicians
obviously, certain people choose to use certain dangerous drugs that can even take their life, not just their souls
and not just musicians (a good friend of mine was recently found dead from an opiate overdose at the age of 40, he was a "successful" anaesthetist)
what worries me is the that the musicians and other performers can be led to believe that the drugs are RESPONSIBLE for their popularity or their creativity
artists can be very superstitious and can thus become even more reluctant to stop using the drugs/relationships/etc that actually are a PROBLEM
in my experience as a counsellor, i have NEVER seen anyone come to me trying to give up marijuana, because it's causing problems
there are only two: heroin and alcohol. FULL STOP (i'm not including nicotine, because it causes no psychic problems, unlike the other two)
if someone CAN"T give up amphetamines, it's 'coz they don't want to
ultimately, though, it goes for all the bad things one does
take responsibility for what you do, and don't listen to the bullshitters
here concludes MY sermon
Post by: maxim on January 19, 2007, 07:24:13 PM
this is what i found when i googled "brain atrophy marijuana"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15 24733
that's a 2006 study
pretty fresh
Post by: maxdimario on January 19, 2007, 07:24:20 PM
the more innovative artistic stuff is no doubt due to the weed 'experience'.
but even lennon somehow changed when he got into drugs.. I think he lost a bit of edge..
both had all the right to relax and not get worried about a hit I'm sure, but it's strange that some hits he had a decade later were actually written in the 60's and finished later..
the post beatles relaxed 'family' McCartney period music sounds as if he was just relaxing and recording any idea which he liked.. it sounds a bit like a pot-induced period.. I could be absolutely wrong.
I don't blame him really, as he'd worked enough during the 60's and perhaps just wanted to take it easy.
I will say that as a super-straight 12-year old I did not understand the vibe of the post sgt. pepper records, just as I absolutely did not get jimi hendrix and all of the 70's drug-inspired bands.. But then I also thought 'the house of the rising sun' had an eerie druggie feel, so maybe I was blowing it out of proportion..what did I know...
obviously when I did find out what it was all about, i started 'tuning in' to that music better..and i did 'get' it eventually..
I remember in high school, there was a sort of initiation which was tied to the use of drugs and it instantly linked the music (groups which had a pot feel or actually sang about it overtly) with the shared group experience of doing something alternative to the reality at hand..
so maybe a lot of bands used it as a hook as well as for legitimate creative reasons.
let us not confuse pot with real hard drugs though..
I think alcohol is more dangerous than pot concerning health..
it most certainly is much more dangerous regarding overdose and losing it there and then..
Post by: John Ivan on January 19, 2007, 07:49:43 PM
| RSettee wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 16:29 |
PP, did you take the time to type all that out, or was most of it a cut and paste? I didn't read most of it, seeing as that it was an essay, haha, but I think that I get the gist of what you're saying. I'm not saying that people have to die young,I am, however, saying that in the case of a guy like Clapton, his stuff while he was under the influence was much better than when he wasn't. In his case, age and maybe branching out could be definite factors, as one doesn't just want to repeat themselves, but here's my other point: if you're using to become better creatively, then you're still doing something that you won't be able to recreate when you're sober and straight. That was my original point. In that case, if you become someone different when you use, and can't recreate it when you're not using, then maybe it's not such a great idea. |
I must say. It's all personal opinion but I much prefer Eric Claptons' playing and writing these day's. There is certainly an amazing vibe about his early stuff and he played great then too. Having said that, I think it can be said for most everyone from that era that there was a certain "Youthful power" in everything they did. This has to do with being young and the fact that Rock and Roll was very new. I hold that it may very well have been even hipper, had they not been stoned. We'll never know for sure though will we?
There is evidence though. My personal experience is an example to me and to those who've known me for a long time.It is without a doubt true that I would NOT have grown into a better player on three instruments + voice had I continued getting high and drinking. I wouldn't have learned how to make a record. I wouldn't have a family either. Stopping the drug/drink train saved my life!! I do enjoy a well made beer here and there. This is rare and it's rarity makes it a nice treat.
Also, I know others who didn't stop this way of life. Some are just now coming apart at the seams, some are dead, and others still, Play, sing,and talk, exactly like they did many years ago when I was standing next to them in a stooper' mumbling, " shit man, we soundedided grate".... I made a choice. I NEEDED to make a choice. I want to remember my mistakes. {and my parts when I play ;-} I also don't want my kid seeing me all "hit"..
I say, our mind is an amazing gift. Why fuck it all up?
My 2 cents..
P.S. Edit; On Mr. Wittmans' point. I have little doubt that drugs changed and shaped early Rock {really ALL} music. As you say, it's a choice and I'll risk having to find depth through a different kind of mind alteration.
Ivan.....................
Post by: maxdimario on January 19, 2007, 07:51:27 PM
it HAS been proven through medicine that alcohol does create brain damage and enlargement of the blood vessels in the brain..
not to mention the liver and pancreas..
alcohol is a far more dangerous drug causing many deaths due to loss of judgement, agression etc..
weed is by far the 'healthier drug' especially when eaten..
but I still stick to the idea that if you smoke all day for years on end SOMETHING on the cognitive level will eventually happen..
the difference between alcohol and weed of course is that the tax-ability and production of alcohol is possible and is a huge industry, while marijuana can be grown on your balcony and cannot be taxed..
Post by: kitchener on January 19, 2007, 07:56:09 PM
ummmmmm,
i forgot what i was going to say....
what were we talking about?
Post by: John Ivan on January 19, 2007, 08:36:17 PM
I had not ever heard this version before. Very cool..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMEHit02wYY
Ivan.................
Post by: maxim on January 19, 2007, 09:09:17 PM
" while marijuana can be grown on your balcony and cannot be taxed.."
my favourite conspiracy theory is that the enforcement agencies are all on the take, and, therefore, unlikely, to challenge the status quo
it's all bunkum, of course
it's the post-religious hangover which prohibits humans from taking control over their lives
if i stop getting high, the terrorists have won...
Post by: RMoore on January 19, 2007, 09:52:45 PM
| maxim wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 03:09 |
my favourite conspiracy theory is that the enforcement agencies are all on the take, and, therefore, unlikely, to challenge the status quo it's all bunkum, of course |
From what I have seen in the news, there is suspicion from other police forces in Europe and N America of significant corruption in the Dutch police forces due to drug baron money..
On another note - even in liberal free dope Holland the big boys annihilate each other...there has been an organised crime war raging here which has claimed something like 30 lives of 'key figures' in the last 5-10 years..all fuelled by the drug trade..
The sad demise of John Mieremet - underworld strong man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mieremet
The sad demise of Willem Endstra - underworld banker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Endstra
The sad demise of Evert Hingst - Mob Lawyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evert_Hingst
To name just a few
And the sad demise of Europe's #1 drug baron Klaas Bruinsma, shot by his buddy , a bad cop hitman for the Yugoslavian mob, in a coked up argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaas_Bruinsma_%28drug_lord%29
Interestingly Bruinsma's gangster moll Mabel Wisse Smit ended up marrying into the Dutch Royal family..
Post by: maxim on January 19, 2007, 10:08:41 PM
strangely hypocritical state of affairs
Post by: wwittman on January 19, 2007, 11:05:37 PM
One might likely say that the 60 yr old McCartney is less edgy as a musician than the 25 yr old, but he's used marijuana all along (by most accounts)
yet one might also likely say that the 60 yr old Clapton, who gave up his younger day drug use, is ALSO less edgy than his 25 yr old self.
drugs have nothing to do with either.
Post by: maxim on January 20, 2007, 01:07:23 AM
even the most powerful of drugs can't open doors that weren't there in the first place
Post by: Ross Hogarth on January 20, 2007, 02:15:25 AM
i feel like I AM ON DRUGS ......
what a weird turn this thread has taken ....
Post by: cerberus on January 20, 2007, 05:04:10 AM
none of the bangle designs sold as well as their predecessors did. flame surfacing ain't what it used to be. did you know that the headlight covers on the coupe fiat are shaped after a lady's hindside?
jeff dinces
Post by: RMoore on January 20, 2007, 11:20:44 AM
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/57256141/Wiet-apotheek_we reldprimeur.html?p=12,1
You can get prescription marijuana there!
Post by: RSettee on January 20, 2007, 12:25:23 PM
But I would be lying if I said that it didn't now give me a sober approach to unsober record making.
As great an engineer as George Martin is--and as much as he lent to the albums' sound, production and presentation--it was the Beatles, themselves that wrote the songs, and love it or leave it, their best work was created under the influence. To be perfectly clear, AGAIN, to people that don't understand what i'm saying: I am not pro OR anti drug. But alot of the records from the 60's and 70's that are held up in extremely high regard, were created under the influence, and as good or bad as this is, that's the truth.
Anyway, i'm done with this thread, as what was once a civil discussion is taking a turn for the worse in half truths, misunderstandings, and (most likely) advice from those who haven't seen the extremely high side and the effects that it brings.
Post by: el duderino on January 20, 2007, 01:39:15 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 17:50 | ||||||
Do you really believe that? I don't think the bloods, crips, hells angels or any other organized (or unorganized)crime gang would start being gentlmenly if drugs were legalized to sell.
To restate my point, 80% of theft is to support drug habits. The economics are that they do need money - to buy more drugs. Many deal, for quick cash because they're too lazy to do an honest job and capitolize on a human weakness.
Yes. Lots of voids to fill. |
yes i do believe that if all the gangs and organized crime groups were conducting a legal business, then the problems they have with one another (or whoever for that matter) will be dealt with in a legal manner.
not sure where you're getting this 80% figure from. According to the White House Drug Policy its at 30% or 32% depending on whether you're talking about state or federal prison.
you arent understanding my point about the economics of it. If someone is stealing to buy drugs it means they have no money, that much we agree on. What im saying is, isnt it a damn good possibility (if not most likely) that the person had money problems before they started doing drugs? this may or may not have been the cause of their drug problem, if not it could certainly be considered a factor. If there's a stock broker who spends all his money on coke and becomes broke from it, the odds are that he wont steal because of what he knows and has experienced in his life. he knows he could go to jail. he knows that with some hard work he can be right back where he was making big bucks. someone coming from nothing in the ghetto doesnt have that experience and knowledge.
there are no blanket statements that work. what works for someone doesnt for others. everyone SHOULD be able to make their own choice. unfortunately because of economic situations and stigma's within society SOME people are more succeptible to "the worst that could happen".
i think im done on this thread. I just wonder why some people can't live with other people doing what THEY want to. (provided it does not affect others of course)
Post by: PookyNMR on January 20, 2007, 02:26:38 PM
| Assman wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 11:39 |
yes i do believe that if all the gangs and organized crime groups were conducting a legal business, then the problems they have with one another (or whoever for that matter) will be dealt with in a legal manner. |
Your trust in the goodness of those who obviously have no regards for anyone else but themselves far exceeds my own.
| Assman wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 11:39 |
I just wonder why some people can't live with other people doing what THEY want to. (provided it does not affect others of course) |
And that is eaxctly the crux of the matter. It DOES affect EVERYONE else in more profound ways than we realize. The costs to families, communities, cities, nations is incalculable - and I'm not even referring to economic costs.
Post by: John Ivan on January 20, 2007, 03:35:34 PM
| RSettee wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 12:25 |
PP, I don't care if you're god himself, I wouldn't have taken the time to read that from anyone, let alone the lack of paragraphs and the fact that it reads as one gigantic long word. Chill out...it sounds condescending and preachy. I however on the other hand was still at least trying to consider the other side's equation, because my friend, I have been on the other side, and some of my own drug use might have permanently put me in certain perspectives that might not be beneficial to me. The drugs I have used: marijuana, oil, hash, acid, mushrooms. I've seen the effects, it gave me perspective that I never would have had had I not used, but the reason that I do not use anymore, is because like I say, when paranoia and other artifacts are entering the equation, you DO either quit or end up in a mental institution. I'm not sure if you realize that you're "preaching" to someone who's seen that side. You're not telling me anything that I haven't experienced, firsthand. But I would be lying if I said that it didn't now give me a sober approach to unsober record making. As great an engineer as George Martin is--and as much as he lent to the albums' sound, production and presentation--it was the Beatles, themselves that wrote the songs, and love it or leave it, their best work was created under the influence. To be perfectly clear, AGAIN, to people that don't understand what i'm saying: I am not pro OR anti drug. But alot of the records from the 60's and 70's that are held up in extremely high regard, were created under the influence, and as good or bad as this is, that's the truth. Anyway, i'm done with this thread, as what was once a civil discussion is taking a turn for the worse in half truths, misunderstandings, and (most likely) advice from those who haven't seen the extremely high side and the effects that it brings. |
Two things for you here.. PP was Not preaching to anyone. If you don't like what he wrote because it's to long for you then say that please. Don't say
"I wouldn't have taken the time to read that from anyone, let alone the lack of paragraphs and the fact that it reads as one gigantic long word."
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
I still don't whether you have read what he wrote. You've not made it clear at all..
Say what you want about who wrote what under what influence. You have no idea AT ALL whether they had tea or coffee the day they wrote 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' ...George Martin is a Producer. He used others to Engineer for the most part.His job was/is to do what ever he can to help the boy's bring their music into the brightest light possible, with their approval. I would say, I'll leave it up to him to decide whether drug use is generally a good idea or not regarding making those records. Also, he really did co-write most of that music.
As shown here, it can be argued, even somewhat convincingly argued that doing certain drugs while writing,playing and or producing music can bring something to the table that was not there before. In my opinion, this "something" is not automatically good for the music. Different isn't always good. I think that the negative things it does to ones Brain/body outweighs any "change" it might make in the music and therefore, for me, It's not worth doing.
One of the things that I do not like about some early rock albums is how out of tune they are, and how some of the players almost played what they intended but could not execute it on their instruments.. I spent a good part of last Summer doing shows with people who were there.These are men and women who had huge records in the late 60's and through the 70's. They will tell you , to the man/woman, that drugs was the one thing they would do differently, or not at all..I looked at my fair share of "photos of dead guys"
Call it preaching all you want, I could care less about that but the least you could do, is read through what P wrote. He has been around the block a time or two..
Ivan.......................
Post by: Joe Black on January 20, 2007, 05:26:23 PM
You get high once a day. The rest of the time your just getting stoned.
Post by: wwittman on January 20, 2007, 06:04:35 PM
| John Ivan wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 15:35 |
...l. I would say, I'll leave it up to him to decide whether drug use is generally a good idea or not regarding making those records. Also, he really did co-write most of that music. .... |
oh PLEASE.
Post by: John Ivan on January 20, 2007, 06:32:34 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 18:04 | ||
oh PLEASE. |
What!!?? He shaped a BUNCH of that stuff with counter melody , big ass arranging, edits and so on..If there has ever been a producer who can be called one of the writers, I would say he's it. By the way, This really is one of may very favorite bands of all time and I understand that John and Paul are great writers but George M had a LOT to do with how that stuff moved us. I think..
Ivan...................
Post by: wwittman on January 21, 2007, 01:20:12 AM
he didn't WRITE the songs.
and without their vision and pushing the limits all the time, it's unlikely he would have even tried most of the the things they ended up doing.
but that's neiter here nor there.
either way, his opinion of their drug use is only that.. his opinion.
The enourmously MORE creative elements there, by the hugest possible margin (we're talking about THE BEATLES here) both used drugs and apparently it didn't lessen their ability to do good work.
if they would have done BETTER without drugs, that's truly frightening to contemplate.
I don't think drugs made The Beatles... but I also don't think they hurt them.
which is my point.
Post by: John Ivan on January 21, 2007, 02:29:47 AM
As for the Drugs, it's worth pointing out that from what I can gather from reading, they were not heavy abusers of drugs.. Hey, I spent many years smoking weed. I tripped my ass off too and there is no doubt that it either allowed things into my mind that simply were not there before,or, allowed things that were there to come forward. In the end however, I have found ways to do this with my mind and soul without getting high and It nags at me that perhaps I could have gotten here without doing so much damage.. I'm in pretty good shape when I consider what I put myself through. Actually Being alive is dumb ass LUCK in my case..
I just think most people would be better off if they didn't do this to their Mind and Body. I also strongly believe that one should be able to grow and smoke what ever they please. I also think the WAR on drug's as it's being waged from a "Moral" point of view is none of the governments business. My blood is my blood and if I want to dump bad shit in my blood then, that would be my problem, until I DO SOMETHING that makes it someone else's problem, at which point you can Lock me up..
It's the same old shit, get caught with a trunk full of weed, go to prison for 15 years, Knock off a drug store with a hand gun, go to prison for 2? 5? Maybe...
Sorry for the OT post..
Ivan..........................
Post by: maxim on January 21, 2007, 02:47:17 AM
"without doing so much damage.."
how much damage from weed and tripping?
you can't exactly kill yourself with those things
the only organ that may have suffered is your lungs, but it's nothing compared to what 20 cigarettes a day can do to your alveoli
if you have stopped inhaling smoke, your cilia can regenerate (albeit at a slower rate than when you were younger)
Post by: maxdimario on January 21, 2007, 04:51:54 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 05:05 |
I think it's a fool's errand to compare a musician's work at age 25 to his work at age 60 and draw the conclusion that drugs, or changes in his drug use one way or the other, are the major reason for the differences. One might likely say that the 60 yr old McCartney is less edgy as a musician than the 25 yr old, but he's used marijuana all along (by most accounts) yet one might also likely say that the 60 yr old Clapton, who gave up his younger day drug use, is ALSO less edgy than his 25 yr old self. drugs have nothing to do with either. |
..could be.
I have met non-druggies who stopped creating after they had their peak years..
many artists did their best work under the influence..
maybe you're right.
Post by: rnicklaus on January 21, 2007, 05:49:31 PM
Post by: maxdimario on January 21, 2007, 06:07:10 PM
Post by: John Ivan on January 21, 2007, 10:59:49 PM
| maxim wrote on Sun, 21 January 2007 02:47 |
ivan wrote: "without doing so much damage.." how much damage from weed and tripping? you can't exactly kill yourself with those things the only organ that may have suffered is your lungs, but it's nothing compared to what 20 cigarettes a day can do to your alveoli if you have stopped inhaling smoke, your cilia can regenerate (albeit at a slower rate than when you were younger) |
Well, I should be clear , I was drinking, I did Blow for a while, I didn't sleep a lot, blah blah blah, we've all heard it before and so on..
I feel better, I can think, I'm a better player, writer, engineer, dad and so on..
Perhaps this is not for everyone..
Ivan....................
Post by: maxim on January 22, 2007, 01:05:39 AM
alcohol and cocaine are very different beasts to marijuana and lsd
nicotine, opiates(inc heroin, morphine and codeine) and alcohol can and will ruin your life (even if you may appear to function on the outside)
amphetamines (inc speed, cocaine, ice, ecstacy, pseudoephedrine etc) can screw you up for a while if you take them regularly, but are, relatively, harmless if used in the short term
caffeine and marijuana are used regularly by a LOT of people without any significant side-effects to long term health (other than the smoke inhalation issues mentioned earlier)
lsd, mescaline, psilocybin, ketamine and other hallucinogens are "single-use" drugs and are not "habit-forming"
Post by: RMoore on January 22, 2007, 05:14:38 AM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 20 January 2007 05:05 |
I think it's a fool's errand to compare a musician's work at age 25 to his work at age 60 and draw the conclusion that drugs, or changes in his drug use one way or the other, are the major reason for the differences. |
I think people always fail to consider far more important factors like what are the differences in concentration, focus and distraction going on when people are say over 30 as compared to people coming up with their peak ideas in their 20's..
Obviously things like work, career, family, kids, wives etc are going to be part of the equation ...
people just have less time to daydream and strum upon their guitars..
Free time for unencumbered youngsters to be able to think, work hard with no distraction, hone one's craft has more influence on the resulting creative outpourings IMO than any 'mind expanding' drugs
Post by: maxim on January 22, 2007, 05:56:38 AM
but don't give up just coz you hit 30!
when you get over the hill, there's always another hill waiting...
Post by: maxdimario on January 22, 2007, 11:29:05 AM
as you get older you tend to judge everything based on your experiences and fears and you lose the ability to experience mistery and awe like when you are younger..
I think that has a lot to do with some of the creativity going out the window.
Post by: rnicklaus on January 22, 2007, 04:38:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rXWj2TITs&eurl=
Post by: John Ivan on January 22, 2007, 05:56:36 PM
He sounds so STONED!! {sorry}
Ivan...............
Post by: rankus on January 22, 2007, 09:20:24 PM
Yes, don't smoke pot kiddies... take downers! (edit): But don't go skiing...
Post by: maxim on January 22, 2007, 11:27:55 PM
Post by: amorris on January 23, 2007, 02:43:51 PM
also, the "It makes me feel good" crap. I didnt feel anything till I sobered up. it moderates your feelings to "OK". and thats about it. surfing all day or getting laid???!!! still havent found anything close and Ive done it all. all of it. damn, only 30 years to find out my parents were right.
Post by: John Ivan on January 23, 2007, 04:51:37 PM
| maxim wrote on Mon, 22 January 2007 01:05 |
i just wish people wouldn't dump all the "drugs" in one basket (unless one goes shopping in one of those dutch "pharmacies") alcohol and cocaine are very different beasts to marijuana and lsd nicotine, opiates(inc heroin, morphine and codeine) and alcohol can and will ruin your life (even if you may appear to function on the outside) amphetamines (inc speed, cocaine, ice, ecstacy, pseudoephedrine etc) can screw you up for a while if you take them regularly, but are, relatively, harmless if used in the short term caffeine and marijuana are used regularly by a LOT of people without any significant side-effects to long term health (other than the smoke inhalation issues mentioned earlier) lsd, mescaline, psilocybin, ketamine and other hallucinogens are "single-use" drugs and are not "habit-forming" |
Well, I see what you're saying but , All drugs that change your thinking or skew reality are already in one basket in that they are a substance that was not originally in your brain and will damage it over time. There is not much doubt that smoking weed over a long period of time does bad things to the brain.Memory loss is a big deal over a long period. This is made worse if one drinks a lot, of course. As for whether one can be addicted to weed? well, I don't know about a physical addiction but everyone I know who smoked every day and then quit. had a hard time emotionally for a while. call that what you want..
Having said all that, I still say it should be legal.
Ivan......................
Ivan......................