Posted by Pimped-Out-Jedi-Knight at webcacheb08a.cache.pol.co.uk on June 14, 2002 at 12:18:33:
In Reply to: I ask that question alot... posted by The Bastard on June 14, 2002 at 12:10:36:
...that shiny faced legend is still going strong, marrying one legged women half his age (perhaps) and having a whale of a time. Although I would agree that the vast majority of artists who've experimented with drugs seemed to have 'paid the price' in one way or another, but it seems like just about everyone in the public eye's messed about with LSD or some such substance. I mean, if Chad Kroeger were to start dropping acid, I doubt it'd make Nickelback anymore listenable. Mind you, if he started dispensing tabs with the records, that might improve audience reaction... now there's an idea.
Anyway... the way I see it is that back in the 60s and 70s, drugs were more than just an opportunity for release from the strains of being in the public eye, they were more deeply imbedded into social culture, so you could say it's more society that effects a musician's development. But that's just my take on it...
: Look at the beatles. I mean, their music was drastically influenced by drugs and made the better for it. They go from 'I wanna hold your hand' to 'I am the walrus'? The only connection is LSD. Same with hendrix...I mean, he had the raw talent, but I think it was expirimentation with drugs that really freed his soul. But like you said...they paid the price...