Herbal, pharmaceutical and alcoholic enhancement

[OldGit]

Oh and absoulutely not at wedding gigs etc .. way too much at stake.

[Dood]

Nope, same as most of you.. I'm simply not good enought to play 160bpm prog under the influence! lol

Not only that, I don't really drink anymore anyway.. and I drive to every gig so a bit NO NO.

As MacDaddy has said.. I have videos of old gigs where I thought I was on fire... but really the video should have been burned soon after the performance!!

[Alun]

A very similar stort as several above - used to drink quite a bit before going on ( was in a soul band where we played the same set for years and I was on autopilot ).

Now I don't touch anything before playing ( in fact I haven't had a drink at all for 6 1/2 months). Have never smoked and, having had to try and play in a trio with a speed taling drummer and doped guitarist, have no interest in drugs*.

Boring really

Cheers,
Alun

* Unless we're counting caffeine as a drug, in which case I have a problem

[lee4]

Despite my avatar I only ever have 1 pint before a gig.Left-handed Woodbines are a complete no-no for me(I used to indulge but all it made me was paranoid and hungry).

[ergon]

[quote name='lee4' post='107277' date='Dec 20 2007, 07:19 PM']Despite my avatar I only ever have 1 pint before a gig.Left-handed Woodbines are a complete no-no for me(I used to indulge but all it made me was paranoid and hungry).[/quote]

you're avatars pretty accurate then, after all i don't see two pints in the picture

[chris_b]

[quote name='ergon' post='107278' date='Dec 20 2007, 07:21 PM']you're avatars pretty accurate then, after all i don't see two pints in the picture[/quote]
That's cos you're sober!

[Mobius]

Not before a gig. I enjoy noodling stoned at home and I think it helps with coming up with new ideas sometimes, but I've recorded my playing on it and it's not pretty! It makes me enjoy the music more but my playing goes to hell, along with co-ordination, balance and memory.

[Deep Thought]

I find playing a gig and drinking similar to when I used to play darts. There was a definite line between playing really well and going all to hell. Sober I played crap. Up to 4 pints I got progressively better, after 4 pints my performance began to go downhill rapidly! For our first few gigs I played sober, and was not particularly happy with the way I played. Then we played a beer festival, where we were paid in beer and I didn't have to drive, so I had a couple pre-gig, deliberately not going silly, just a couple. I played considerably better, without making anywhere near as many mistakes, as I was more relaxed. Last gig we played was a Landlord's birthday, again as much as we could drink, although during the first set, as I was working at 1 o'clock the next day I stuck to Coke. During the interval I decided to take advantage of the landlord's generosity and hit the beer, and again played considerably better in the second set. I'm pretty sure it's not me just thinking I'm playing better, we're only talking a couple of pints here so I'm not exactly out of it. I've yet to get to 4 pints prior to a gig and think that best avoided!

[kneal6]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='107048' date='Dec 20 2007, 01:09 PM']I have never played with anyone that plays better after having a drink or getting stoned. They usually play a lot worse but either don't know or don't care. Sometimes the deterioration is not enough to get arsy about but I will mention it. If you do it again on my watch, you're a dick and I am highly unlikely to book you again. Simple as. You'll lose work, even if you don't know it.[/quote]

[quote name='Bill Hicks']If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL f***ing high on drugs. The Beatles were so f***ing high they let Ringo sing a few songs.[/quote]


That said, I had an (unsuccessful) audition a few months ago which I was really stoned for. Bad idea, kept making wierd faces and getting parts confused. It [i]was[/i] a reggae band though! They were all really straight, very good at reproducing the recordings note-for note but we got to their "dub version" of White Rabbit by Jefferson Airplane and it was just like the original! I was expecting them to at least have slowed it down or something, had to change mental gears in a hurry, not something that works very well when you've had a smoke. Needless to say, it all went downhill from there

I think it depends very much on what type of stuff you're playing, and also the group's collective energy. If you disapprove of your bandmates habits and you're constantly assessing their playing then you're definitely sending bad vibes their way and they'll pick up on that. Self-fulfilling prophecy. It's pretty clear that drugs (and I'm hesitant to use that word for weed since it's a plant that grows naturally all over the planet) [i]do[/i] enhance musical abilities, you just have to look at the amount of original music that's sprung from their use. Pioneers in literally every genre of music have been getting off their heads since time began, there's really no debate. It's about the collective consciousness though, if you try to play a gig in a state which is completely different to every rehearsal you've had you're going to fall on your face for sure.

Altered states are definitely a major potential tool in any musicians arsenal, but it needs to be approached with the right intent. The number of original bands who play teetotal is I think very very small. Cover bands though, it's surely better to be straight, different parts of the brain being used and all that.

Also, alcohol is designed to stop you thinking and expressing yourself freely. That's why it's legal. I'll leave it at that.

[cheddatom]

Heh, good post Kneal!

I meant to say before that I practice stoned as well, so when I get to a gig, it's no problem.

[Bilbo]

Sorry, Kneal6, but I think you, and a lot of other people, are mistaken in the belief that 'It's pretty clear that drugs do enhance musical abilities'.

Their use may create all sorts of perspective that may be used to inform the act of creativity (to use the Beatles example already mentioned, they may not have been able to write 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' lyrically without some experience of LSD) but to suggest that their use 'enhances musical ability', is, to my mind, a grave mistake and a potentially very dangerous one.

There are, as we all know, 1,000s of musicians who have had their lives ravaged by drugs and equally as many who has attributed the abilities of their idols to their drug use (Charlie Parker's influence in this area is a matter of record). Anyone who has sought to address their musical shortcomings by using drugs (or alcohol) will tell you that it is a fool's errand. Read Art Pepper's biography 'Straight Life' - he was a competent sax player [i]in spite of [/i]his drug use not because of it. He could have been so much more as a musician had he focussed his energies more contstructively. Parker was the same. He learned to play like that by woodshedding his little ass off and not by getting high. Same with Coltrane, same with Hampton Hawes, same with Paul Chambers and Jaco. The examples are myriad. Charlie Parker was a gunslinger as a sax player but he was no composer, despite his reported desire to be one. Had he focussed his energy on proper study and not getting mashed, he would probably have got there. He was a deeply disturbed and unhappy man.

Drugs (whether they grow naturally all over the planet or not) are poisons. They work by harming you. The effects of drugs are not 'enlightening', they are the early signs of the body reacting to chemicals it does not like or want (that's why people hallucinate when they are very ill). People who are ill when they have drunk too much are experiencing their body's panic and rejection of the ingested poison. You learn nothing whatsoever from the use of these substances (other than what effect they have) but you risk a whole lot (mental health problems are the very least - try gigging when you are clinically depressed - sweep picking will be the least of your worries). The only 'learning' you get from drugs is your own self talk deluding you into transferring 'cosmic relevance' to the harmful effects of the poisons you have ingested. Its a justification. You would learn far, far more by reading a book (on anything) or watching a movie. You could probably learn more just by sitting in a room full of people and listening to them. The reasons American musicians are generally technically better than UK ones is the fact that the practice ethic is routinely much greater over there. It's not because the drugs are cheaper.

The only effect that some drugs (heroin, for instance) will have on you, with extreme use, is, by eliminating all sense of guilt, shame and conscience, to make you so self-centred and psychopathic that you will completely lack the ability to recognise the effect that your behaviour has on others. You can, therefore, dedicate yourself wholeheartedly to your music without realising how much you are neglecting your relationships with your family/partner/children/friends/musician colleagues/landlord/employer etc. You would then. like Parker and Pepper, become a great musician but a lousy human being.

Your call.

Edited December 21, 2007 by bilbo230763

[bremen]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='107531' date='Dec 21 2007, 11:06 AM']Sorry, Kneal6, but I think you, and a lot of other people, are mistaken in the belief that 'It's pretty clear that drugs do enhance musical abilities'.

Their use may create all sorts of perspective that may be used to inform the act of creativity (to use the Beatles example already mentioned, they may not have been able to write 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' lyrically without some experience of LSD) but to suggest that their use 'enhances musical ability', is, to my mind, a grave mistake and a potentially very dangerous one.

There are, as we all know, 1,000s of musicians who have had their lives ravaged by drugs and equally as many who has attributed the abilities of their idols to their drug use (Charlie Parker's influence in this area is a matter of record). Anyone who has sought to address their musical shortcomings by using drugs (or alcohol) will tell you that it is a fool's errand. Read Art Pepper's biography 'Straight Life' - he was a competent sax player [i]in spite of [/i]his drug use not because of it. He could have been so much more as a musician had he focussed his energies more contstructively. Parker was the same. He learned to play like that by woodshedding his little ass off and not by getting high. Same with Coltrane, same with Hampton Hawes, same with Paul Chambers and Jaco. The examples are myriad. Charlie Parker was a gunslinger as a sax player but he was no composer, despite his reported desire to be one. Had he focussed his energy on proper study and not getting mashed, he would probably have got there. He was a deeply disturbed and unhappy man.

Drugs (whether they grow naturally all over the planet or not) are poisons. They work by harming you. The effects of drugs are not 'enlightening', they are the early signs of the body reacting to chemicals it does not like or want (that's why people hallucinate when they are very ill). People who are ill when they have drunk too much are experiencing their body's panic and rejection of the ingested poison. You learn nothing whatsoever from the use of these substances (other than what effect they have) but you risk a whole lot (mental health problems are the very least - try gigging when you are clinically depressed - sweep picking will be the least of your worries). The only 'learning' you get from drugs is your own self talk deluding you into transferring 'cosmic relevance' to the harmful effects of the poisons you have ingested. Its a justification. You would learn far, far more by reading a book (on anything) or watching a movie. You could probably learn more just by sitting in a room full of people and listening to them. The reasons American musicians are generally technically better than UK ones is the fact that the practice ethic is routinely much greater over there. It's not because the drugs are cheaper.

The only effect that some drugs (heroin, for instance) will have on you, with extreme use, is, by eliminating all sense of guilt, shame and conscience, to make you so self-centred and psychopathic that you will completely lack the ability to recognise the effect that your behaviour has on others. You can, therefore, dedicate yourself wholeheartedly to your music without realising how much you are neglecting your relationships with your family/partner/children/friends/musician colleagues/landlord/employer etc. You would then. like Parker and Pepper, become a great musician but a lousy human being.

Your call.[/quote]


Yes, heroin and alcohol f*** you up, and I take your point that most if not all great players who use(d) drugs would have been even better without the drugs. But Kneal was talking about cannabis, which has nothing in common with smack or booze. It seems to suit some brains and not others, and if you discover that it doesn't suit your brain it's generally not a problem to stop using, unlike alcohol or heroin.

[Bilbo]

Or so people think... If I had a £ for every person who told me 'its not addictive' and 'they could give it up tomorrow if they wanted to', I would have that Fodera 6-string fretless. Addiction is a complex series of behaviours which are not always linked to chemistry.

Cannabis is known to trigger a range of mental health problems in certain people. It may relax you, it may make you worry less about other things, it may help you sleep better....

but it won't, on any level whatsoever, make you a better bass player.

[Nate]

+1

[bremen]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='107541' date='Dec 21 2007, 11:24 AM']Or so people think... If I had a £ for every person who told me 'its not addictive' and 'they could give it up tomorrow if they wanted to', I would have that Fodera 6-string fretless. Addiction is a complex series of behaviours which are not always linked to chemistry.[/quote]

Certainly, but then again if I had a £ for every person who gave up without any trouble I too would have a Fodera 6 string - and I'd be able to afford frets too!

[quote]Cannabis is known to trigger a range of mental health problems in certain people. It may relax you, it may make you worry less about other things, it may help you sleep better....[/quote]

It seems to suit some brains and not others. Again, I know some people who really should give up but also plenty who seem quite happy with it.

Personally I used it for years, decided it wasn't for me, stopped. No problems, and I'm a better player now.

[quote]but it won't, on any level whatsoever, make you a better bass player.[/quote]

Agreed.

[Bilbo]

Good point, bremen. Why do fretless basses generally cost more?

[Guest TheBigBeefChief]

I can play fine up to about 7 pints - maybe even better than normal? (or perhaps it just sounds better after a few beers?).

Strangely, if I smoke crack i'm awful, but if i smoke heroin i'm actually ok and slightly more creative.

Different strokes for different folks i suppose.

[Bilbo]

Thou dost agitate the excrement....

[bremen]

[quote name='TheBigBeefChief' post='107574' date='Dec 21 2007, 12:18 PM']I can play fine up to about 7 pints - maybe even better than normal? (or perhaps it just sounds better after a few beers?).

Strangely, if I smoke crack i'm awful, but if i smoke heroin i'm actually ok and slightly more creative.

[b]Different strokes for different folks i suppose.[/b][/quote]

My point exactly! Smoke on, Beefboy!

[nick]

[attachment=4248:spki.jpg]

Edited December 21, 2007 by nick

[Ou7shined]

I have a ritual bottle of beer before playing and take another one on stage with me (half of which usually gets wasted on the first swig coz it froths over when I put it down - what is it with frothing beer and stages? Altitude?) If I'm lucky it will last me to the end of the set. I've done a couple of gigs where I'd been too tipsy and it affected my playing so I choose to limit myself until after (after parties is the place for that malarkey - especially away from home :ph34r: ) but the thing is I find that with all the running around on gig days and sound checks etc. that I sometimes forget to eat, combine that with the fact that I'm a lightweight and I can get a tad spaced on just a couple of beers - don't laugh.

[Super_Mario_Bass]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='107971' date='Dec 22 2007, 01:29 AM']I have a ritual bottle of beer before playing ...'m a lightweight and I can get a tad spaced on just a couple of beers - don't laugh. [/quote]

hehe same here

[tauzero]

I don't generally drink alcohol before going on. I don't totally exclude it, I may have a pint or two through the evening, but it does affect my playing to a certain extent. I've never had anything herbal before a gig and, even if I still smoked it, wouldn't want to.

Our singer does drink a fair bit and although it doesn't affect his voice, he's liable to screw up the arrangement of songs, so we all have to be ready to follow him. Which is all very well if you're James Brown, but not if you're doing the club circuit.

[Jase]

Well, I suppose it's down to the individual, some play straight, some play intoxicated.

I still think the straight player will come out on top.

[Beneath It All]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='107048' date='Dec 20 2007, 01:09 PM']I have never played with anyone that plays better after having a drink or getting stoned. They usually play a lot worse but either don't know or don't care. Sometimes the deterioration is not enough to get arsy about but I will mention it. If you do it again on my watch, you're a dick and I am highly unlikely to book you again. Simple as. You'll lose work, even if you don't know it.[/quote]
..Guess you've not played with many people then.