28 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSo that would be like Ray Charles, Janis Joplin, Van Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, Sly and the family Stone, those kind of people?
People should boycott musicians hooked on drugs.
Has anyone seen the film 'Untraceable'?
Ok, what has Untraceable got to do with musicians? I saw the trailer.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckHaving worked quite a bit in the music industry I can tell you that if you want to boycott musicians hooked on drugs, you're pretty much limited to Bach.
People should boycott musicians hooked on drugs.
Has anyone seen the film 'Untraceable'?
The fact of the matter is that drug use is just as prevalent amongst ordinary people, and you can pretty much be certain that there is someone you know who has a drug problem, whether you know it or not. If you haven't experienced dealing with someone who is (which I assume you haven't when you say "People should boycott musicians hooked on drugs"😉, then you could never understand the true way that addiction works and how it would be an utterly ridiculous reaction to boycott someones music for their downfalls, especially when they are so talented.
I don't know your musical taste, but as I say, if you had seen half the well known I have seen partaking in anything from a cheeky spliff to coke, ecstasy (or whatever pills they were), I think you'd realise it's pretty much guaranteed that someone whose music you listen to on a regular basis has at some point abused drugs.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by Freddie2008Dang...if we have to boycott musicians, I guess we have to go back to watching
Having worked quite a bit in the music industry I can tell you that if you want to boycott musicians hooked on drugs, you're pretty much limited to Bach.
The fact of the matter is that drug use is just as prevalent amongst ordinary people, and you can pretty much be certain that there is someone you know who has a drug problem, whether you know it or ...[text shortened]... hat someone whose music you listen to on a regular basis has at some point abused drugs.
Charlie Sheen again. Winning!!!! 😉
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitBill Hicks is a comedian, and was clearly being tongue-in-cheek with his comments. He was pointing out the fact that drugs has had a large influence on many musicians' creativity. That isn't to say that there hasn't been creative people without the influence of drugs.
Hell, who said Bob Dylan could still sing, yet he does....and someone buys his records.
Creatures of habit. Drugs are a habit. Coincidence?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2008I see no problem with that. I'm a great fan of the man's music.
Having worked quite a bit in the music industry I can tell you that if you want to boycott musicians hooked on drugs, you're pretty much limited to Bach.
However, I do believe that, like several people in this thread, and like so many people in the Anglo-Saxon world (many of them unacknowledged alcoholics by normal standards), you...
I don't know your musical taste, but as I say, if you had seen half the well known I have seen partaking in anything from a cheeky spliff to coke, ecstasy (or whatever pills they were), I think you'd realise it's pretty much guaranteed that someone whose music you listen to on a regular basis has at some point abused drugs.
...are greatly confused about the differences between "having used", "using regularly but controlledly", and "being zonkedly addicted".
Many people, and many artists, have at some point in their lives used drugs. Some people, and probably more artists, regularly use some drug or other without getting into trouble because of it. In both the previous category, the numbers go up massively if you include alcohol as a drug - which you should, really. Me, I belong to the second category for alcohol (a couple of beers of a Saturday afternoon, the average Limey would claim that I can't hold my liquor), yet I've never once had the impulse to shoot up on crack. Odd, isn't it, how propaganda isn't always right?
Amy Winehouse, by contrast, belonged to the third category, and was defiant about it. What's more, so were many of her fans. It really is not too much of a stretch to suppose that if her fan base and her closer surrouondings had come down more strongly against her willful abuse, she would have lived longer and better. Comparing such a life with that of the Beatles is missing the point rather severely, though not atypically.
Richard
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI like the way you mixed your sentences together there 😕
I see no problem with that. I'm a great fan of the man's music.
However, I do believe that, like several people in this thread, and like so many people in the Anglo-Saxon world (many of them unacknowledged alcoholics by normal standards), you...
[b]I don't know your musical taste, but as I say, if you had seen half the well known I have seen parta ...[text shortened]... Beatles is missing the point rather severely, though not atypically.
Richard