GameBanshee Forums

Do you think so? My impression was that Hendrix was a lot better when he wasn't on drugs, and I listened to quite a bit of his stuff back in the day. Getting your energy and imagination going full blast while having complete control of yourself--that's the contradiction that makes an effective artist.

Yeah I agree with you completly Fable.

[QUOTE=fable]Do you think so? My impression was that Hendrix was a lot better when he wasn't on drugs, and I listened to quite a bit of his stuff back in the day. Getting your energy and imagination going full blast while having complete control of yourself--that's the contradiction that makes an effective artist.[/QUOTE]

Aerosmith has gona on record as well as saying that when they where drugged up, they thought they were really cranking. But going back and listening to their own tapes of shows during that time, they found that they were actually rushing the tempo on most everything, had lost the pocket on most songs they performed, and had to spend awhile getting themselves back to sounding the way they wanted again after they sobered up.

A few other bands have had simliar problems, including cases where bands have fired members for being so drugged up constantly that they can't play as well as they once did. Some others swear the opposite, so I suppose it's all one persons opinion, but for the most part of what I've seen, drugs rarely actually make the impact on someones playing as much as it may just loosen up the individuals reservations and make them feel less tight or nervous while playing.

Most of my adolescent musical role-models were on a lot of drugs. People like Kurt Cobain, Scott Wyland, my father.

I have always wondered about the age-old question of do drugs beget musical ability and creativity or does musical ability and creativity beget fame and fortune which begets stress which begets drug use?

I'm sure it probably goes both ways and varies widely but it's a bit of a modern philosophicle question.

I am looking back on some old music from Band in school, and I remember most of the dynamic makings and what not, but one. sf is the only one I cant remember. Does any one know what it means?? i.e Tower Master, any one who was in band through out middle and High school???

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]I am looking back on some old music from Band in school, and I remember most of the dynamic makings and what not, but one. sf is the only one I cant remember. Does any one know what it means?? i.e Tower Master, any one who was in band through out middle and High school??? [/QUOTE]

It stands for sforzando, and means something like you hit the note hard and then drop back immediately, IIRC.

Man we're nerds.

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Man we're nerds. [/QUOTE]

In a thread called Wailing Hard we're discussing band instruments and dynamics notations. That doesn't strike you as a bit nerdy?

Well, it still has to do with Band instruments, I catch what your'e saying though. I always felt Nerdy being a section leader and all the things I had to do for band. I liked to, I missed qutie a lot of school, Some of the girls were hot, Thhe directors were pretty cool about half of the stupid things we did at contests.

It's not a bad thing. I think Nerdy = Good, but I just thought it was kinda funny that our idea of wiling hard is the Euphonium.

Well being Nerdy does always have advanteges.

O.k, Now I have another question, What does fr stand for? I haven't been able to find it in any books that I have for music.

Fortissimo?

Re music and drugs - I think it's obviously the case that the life and temperament of a musician lead to drug use, not the other way round. Although the number of musical geniuses to have been heroin addicts makes me think it can't be all bad.

[QUOTE=frogus23]Although the number of musical geniuses to have been heroin addicts makes me think it can't be all bad.[/QUOTE]

By that logic, the number of people who have enjoyed sex but died of syphillis would lead one to think the disease is a pretty good thing to get.

If I read 'by that logic' as 'by an unrelated logic', I'm with you.

I think it would not be an overstatement to say that half of my musical idols were heroin addicts at some point...As far as the rest of my life, and the people I respect in other areas go, junkies are a fraction of a per cent.

Moreover, unlike syphilis, heroin has had a positive effect on the ouevres of many, IMO. I know discussing musical skag-head Who's Who is boring, but consider some of the pop songs written about skag Another Girl Another Planet, White Light White Heat, Always Crashing In The Same Car, Raw Power, Marquee Moon, Heroin, China Girl, Chinese Rocks, Under The Bridge, Golden Brown etc etc etc and the countless more songs and solos written or played while on skag, I don't think that there is any evidence to say that such great music could have existed without heroin addiction...

Moreover, could Bebop or Punk as movements ever have happened if it were not for the heroin abusers' community? Those make it a good thing in some way also IMO.

Yeah drugs have done some good to stars. Just listen to third Eye by TOOL. But fr doesn't mean Fortimiso, whatever. fff or ff means one of those. I'm not sure on what fr means though. I am stummped.

If I read 'by that logic' as 'by an unrelated logic', I'm with you.

The relation lies in syphillis being considered by some in the past as a necessary risk to sex, just as addiction was a corollary to heroin use. And the end result was self-destruction.

Moreover, could Bebop or Punk as movements ever have happened if it were not for the heroin abusers' community? Those make it a good thing in some way also IMO.

I can't speak to the earlier stuff in your thread, but where it comes to bebop, and the quesiton is could the movement have happened without heroin, the answer is "hell, yes." The beboppers didn't get drugged and then discover harmonic progressions in their solos. Of the two "founders" of bebop, Gillespie did it completely without drugs. Parker did it years before he tried drugs. The books that were done by other musicians that shared sessions with Parker will tell you that he was at his best in later years when he was going cold turkey, or at a point of equilibrium--not high, but not suffering from the need. In short, the heroin did nothing but hasten his physical his physical collapse.

Drugs didn't make the musicians, and the musicians themselves were the first to candidly admit this in interviews. They didn't take heroin to play better; they took it because of the tedium of the long road trips, the empty hotel rooms when you're on tour, the string of broken relationships due to putting all your time into your craft. There isn't a decent jazz musician I know of who ever claimed they created better music when on drugs or "on the sauce." On the contrary, they lost control when they were "jazzed up," thought they did well, and made fools of themselves--sometimes losing their jobs in the process. Many went out of their way to warn up-and-coming musicians away from drugs and heavy consumption of alcohol, blowing the myth of playing better when you're high.

I can't speak to punk rock, but there isn't a decent jazz musician who maintains drug ever did their art any favors.

[QUOTE=fable]I can't speak to punk rock, but there isn't a decent jazz musician who maintains drug ever did their art any favors.[/QUOTE]
What about Ray? I watched that movie some time ago and didn't HE say something like that?

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]What about Ray? I watched that movie some time ago and didn't HE say something like that?[/QUOTE]

Ray who? What movie? And what quote? Do you mean Ray Charles? He wasn't a jazz artist, much less a bebopper, and he was one of the lucky ones whose system was especially resistant. He never used drugs on the job, and he also acknowledged he used it just for the buzz. He certainly never claimed he played better while on drugs, because he kept it completely separate from his work.