smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "mtn-high" <mtn-high@comcast.net> |
| Subject | Re: The source of Inspiration ? |
| Date | Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:58:11 -0700 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Hi Steve,
I'm sure that a lot of great music has been made by people who weren't on
drugs. Likewise..I'm sure that a lot of music that might have been made was
taken from us by those who used drugs...either in a fashion that kept them
from being functional (Brian Wilson comes to mind), or from death due to
drugs. (we all know who they were)
On the other side of the coin...I look at those who have openly professed to
have used drugs. Dylan, Lennon/McCartney, Santana, Rundgren, the
Stones,..etc... (and lots of blues/jazz artists) and see what changes took
place/before/after their usage. Drugs definitely won't give an artist
talent...and they can certainly take that talent away...but there is a sweet
spot there that many have tapped that HAS changed the course of modern music
forever.
And as far as the tortured artist effect...I feel that anyone who has a name
in the business is in no way tortured....unless you think mansions, catered
dinners and limos are toruturous... ;-)
P
----- Original Message -----
From: "stevedurben2000" <Steven.Durben@cignabehavioral.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:20 AM
Subject: The source of Inspiration ?
> Pat said..
> No, Drew...I'm never completely serious. However, I wasn't kidding
> when I
> said that I think that many of the great projects of the 60's and
> 70's were
> fueled by drug use and abuse.
>
>
> Hi Pat,
> That could be true and that's commonly thought to have truth. Another
> common held belief (which was recently mentioned on this list) is
> that the best work of artists often comes from the most screwed up
> people. Also, this could be true and clearly certainly has been true
> for some artists.
>
> I'm not really rebutting Pat here but merely commenting on something
> I've been mulling over. I have no real absolute point (moral or
> otherwise) other then I often wonder if these beliefs are true or
> not. Couldn't it be that sane, insightful, or non drugged people have
> made just as much great music at any given time? I don't know the
> answer. But, I guess I wonder why it would be that the "screwed up"
> would automatically make something better then someone who has been
> in pain, or understands it in some way and actually has something to
> say about it. Or more simply, someone who has some unique vision or
> is able to access their creative side in some way. I know
> the "tortured artist" is a common held beliefs about creating art in
> general but I wonder if we just romanticize "the tortured artist"
> beyond the real truth in it's benefit. That is, the out of his head
> pained (or drugged) artist creating greatness vs. the one with
> insight, inspiration, creativity and purpose often reflecting on ones
> pain with clarity. I'm not even suggesting this is an either or
> argument but I wonder if the "tortured and/or drugged" artist gets
> more play because it's more "sexy" to us some how.
> Also, I know the drug experimentation time of the 60's and 70's
> is really a different animal then the "tortured artist" or today's
> drug using artist. Again, I'm NOT being a moralistic here about drug
> use or anyone being troubled..I merely wonder if (and kinda think) we
> exaggerate it's artistic benefits?
>
> Any thoughts anyone?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.