>It would be without the Grateful Dead, which would make the world a far better >place. > >Its important to keep in mind that most of the truly original performers/ >artists >never used drugs much, because they didn't need to. The Mothers of Invention >broke up because Frank Zappa didn't take drugs, and his drug addled band >members >got paranoid. They thought he was a Narc. > >Its also important to remember that drugs are primarily recreational, and have >little to do with the act of being creative. It takes WORK to be creative.
I believe that many individuals who get addicted to drugs are predisposed towards depression. It's biochemical. Creative people are often predisposed towards depression and anxiety, and of course the drugs compound this. Creativity itself can be harzardous - for the artist there's writer's block, the internal/external pressure to come up with ideas, live up to your earlier work, the isolation it brings; prefectionism can be a curse, leading to neurotic behaviour. I know one high profile, brilliant R&B act wasted on speed because they started to take it to endure long studio hours. The same with stressed execs in the majors who work very long hours and weekends. Quite a few genuinely gifted artists are convinced they need weed to create. It's evil - the industry sets people up for it, though in the 60s/70s drugs may have been as much a cult thing. Some people can take drugs in moderation, like some people can just be occasional or social smokers. I must admit I get annoyed that people assume you can only appreciate techno if you take drugs and that's when I become mildly obnoxious and say, that's bollocks, and tell them to the best of my ability what the music is about, its history and even refer them to some artists. The whole issue is very complex. I just pray that people take care of themselves. C
