Drugs and the musician

[lowregisterhead]

Just an idle thought, prompted at least in part by Lee Sklar's assertion in Kiwi's interview with him that he's "...never had a drink or drugs..." (I don't disbelieve him, incidentally, but in the music world that's pretty exceptional, in my experience).

Suffering as I am from cabin fever/withdrawal symptoms stranded overseas over Christmas visiting the wife's relatives without a bass or a gig in sight, what constitutes real addiction? Is there such a thing as acceptable drug use, for instance if the drug is music? It could be said that being involved in music is bad for you physically and mentally on several levels: late nights, bad food, poor environment, harsh criticism and (un)warranted adulation by turns, risk of substance abuse due to all of these factors, etc.

Just because something gives you pleasure, if you suffer withdrawal when removed from it, should you therefore be trying to break the addiction altogether? Is music an addiction? Discuss.

[Bassman Steve]

It's definitely an addiction and also a religion too I reckon. I have never felt the need for either an artificial stimulant or spritual crutch and I'm certain that's because of music and Clarence Fender (probably in that order to be fair).

[ezbass]

Google definition of drug - Noun. A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

And for addiction and addicted - Noun. The fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
Adjective. 1.Physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
2.Enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity.

So according to Google (so it must surely be true ) the answer to your question about music being an addictive drug is yes.

[Happy Jack]

Being addicted to something does not automatically mean that it's bad for you. As a simpe (if somewhat extreme) example, I am addicted to both oxygen and water. I don't plan on giving up either in the near future ...

[thisnameistaken]

A drug addiction - reinforced by withdrawal symptoms - is quite a different kettle of fish to an obsessive pursuit of an activity.

I would say if you think you'd find it impossible to stop playing music, you definitely shouldn't try heroin.

[Bilbo]

Addictive behaviours are, for me, defined primarily by the investment that the individual has in them. A drug addict, in the conventional sense, has a physiological and psychological addiction in that the withdrawal of the substance, say heroin, will have effects that are both physical and psychological, the latter often being the harder to break. Cannabis is supposedly non-addictive physically but, in my experience as a Probation Officer, the psychological addiction is very real in that the user has to learn to 'cope' without it.

Music is not physically addictive but, psychologically, it can have a profound effect in that the listener or performer invests massively in it. This may be cultural (membership of a social group like mods or rockers etc) or may be status orientated (celebrity or perception of self as artist etc) but the question is always; can the 'user' cope without their 'durg of choice' and what are the consequences of the removal of the behaviour in which the user invests so much. Personally, there have been periods in my life when I have felt that denial of the opportunity to practice has created anxiety in me but I put this down to the belief that, if I wasn't practicing, I would be losing the skills I have developed. As I got older, I began to value the motor skills aspect of performing less and the creative aspects more which has created its own pressures but, in short, (too late!!) denial of the opportunity to work on 'my music' remains stressful for me.

Like Sklar, I have never drunk or done drugs (stone cold sober for 49 years so far) so comparisons with conventional substance misuse are difficult for me to make but I do believe that I have an investment in this behaviour (musiking) that can be considered to be unhealthy by those who do not share it.

[shizznit]

I have seen a lot of drug and alcohol abuse in music, but I have been very fortunate that most of the bands and artists I have worked with steer away from all of that. On my first experience working on tours when you are playing back to back dates it taught me lesson about my personal performance. I quickly learnt that I simply cannot play at all well with a hangover, so I never drink on the job...maybe one or two on a rare occasion, but never more than that. Certainly not drugs.

The main drug of choice I have witnessed is coke. The excuse I have received from other musicians that give coke a thrashing is to pep them up for a performance....usually down to being hungover from the previous evening or just general tiredness. It's a vicious circle of both afflictions.

When you are away from home for long periods you do get incredibly bored and home sick and I can understand how some musicians get sucked into drugs and booze. It's one of the ugly sides of the industry and it will always be there. I have always argued that the road manager has a responsibility to protect their musicians, but I have come across a few that are equally as bad as their band. Plus, they can't always keep their eye on them 24/7 even if they do have good intentions.

Music should be a fun experience on all levels, but its not always a party and in the times that it all seems to hard thats when folks look for something else to patch up the cracks. Artists will turn to drug and alcohol abuse for a multitude of reasons. Without having to mention any names all of us can think of countless amounts of artists over the past 40yrs that have seen their lives end prematurely to drugs and alcohol. The demands on a musician on a professional level are very high, but the body and mind are fragile things. Giving both more to deal with that they simply can't cope with is a very dangerous game to play.

[lastnotleast]

An appreciation for music is a gift and musical talent is a gift with an obligation to share.
It is possible for music to operate as an addiction if it is out of balance to the degree it detracts from other essential components of one's life.
I suspended playing out to raise five children but, now that we are down to one, it is time to resume and I wish there was more of it.
There have also been times when there was too much of a good thing, playing 5 or 6 nights a week. It was more like work; made good money but the joy was minimal.

There is great wisdom in realising one's weaknesses and limitations while nuturing and improving upon one's talents.

(please note my polite use of The Queen's spelling)

[Lozz196]

Agree. In the early 90s I did a UK Tour, and we`d be getting to venues at 5pm, and would be on stage at 9pm. Now to someone in their mid 20s - as I was then - there wasn`t really much to do, once at the venue, aside from drink (I`ve never been into drugs). So it`s very easy to get drawn into this type of behaviour, through boredom. Now, if I`m away with my band, and being a non-drinker, I take a few books with me, but I would have scorned such behaviour when I was younger (though i may have encountered less problems later on if I`d adopted this back then).

[Dad3353]

[quote name='lastnotleast' timestamp='1356610035' post='1911570']...while [b]nuturing [/b]and improving upon one's talents.

(please note my polite use of The Queen's spelling)
[/quote]

Well done. 9/10 for effort.

(No, sorry, no malice intended. Just kidding. Nice post; thanks...)

[GreeneKing]

There are significant drugs in terms of harm caused and difficulty in doing without that don't often get a mention in the mainstream.

Sugar and refined starches being the major one.

If you say music is a drug because you find it difficult to do without then life itself must be the ultimate drug?

[redstriper]

Most of your favourite music (and art in general) was probably created by people on drugs - just a thought

[TimR]

Addiction is a compulsion to do something above your normal everyday activities that interrupts them and interferres with your ability to carry them out.

Basschat, FaceBook, exercise, music, alcohol, illegal drugs, sex, cigarettes, computer games, pizza. They're all addictive. Some people are strong characters who have highly regulated lives. To them it's easy to control the addictive nature of some of those things.

Others, who don't live lives where they havevto be somewhere at a certain time and concentrate hard for a length of time on that task are at risk of distraction and addiction to anything. Regardless of whether the thing they are addicted to is considered harmless in small quantities.

This is something the pro drugs people don't understand. Just because you do something and can control your use doesn't mean vast numbers of society in general can. Just look at alcohol.

[lowregisterhead]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1356611423' post='1911589']
Most of your favourite music (and art in general) was probably created by people on drugs - just a thought
[/quote]

Oh yes, how very true! I particularly like Bill Hicks' take on this subject... :-))

[bremen]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1356611423' post='1911589']
Most of your favourite music (and art in general) was probably created by people on drugs - just a thought
[/quote]

A troublesome thought indeed.

I was going to bang on a bit about Zappa's zero-tolerance policy to drugs in his bands, then I remembered he lived on cigarettes and coffee (referring to them as 'my food')

I gave up dope years ago and my playing got a lot better, just because the drug wasn't there to make everything sound good so I had to try a bit harder. About half my record collection also became unlistenable at this point.

Most of the bands I've been in that I really liked collapsed because of drugs one way or another.

[bremen]

[quote name='lowregisterhead' timestamp='1356616363' post='1911659']
Oh yes, how very true! I particularly like Bill Hicks' take on this subject... :-))
[/quote]


I don't take drugs any more...than the average touring funk band

[Leen2112]

I found out years ago that I can't play pissed or stoned. So when I'm playing I never bother with either. I was always amazed when I saw Steve 'Steamin' Clarke (def Leppard) slumped in a corner still playing clearly. It's not big or clever I say.

[chris_b]

As a musician drugs can either help you get by, boost you, inspire you or just keep boredom away.

All things that many players have found they need to deal with on the "road".


I’d hate to think what music we’d be listening to now if musicians in the last 60 years had never taken any drugs at all.

[arthurhenry]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1356611423' post='1911589']
Most of your favourite music (and art in general) was probably created by people on drugs - just a thought
[/quote]

Maybe the music would have been even better if they weren't on drugs - why does no one ever look at it from that point of view?

No drugs: (Nicotine and the odd beer excepted)
Frank Zappa
Angus Young
Paul Gilbert
Ian Anderson
Martin Barre
Gene Simmons
Steve Vai
Ravi Shankar
Jeff Beck
Steve Harris
Ted Nugent
Henry Rollins

Edited December 27, 2012 by arthurhenry

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356615211' post='1911639']This is something the pro drugs people don't understand. Just because you do something and can control your use doesn't mean vast numbers of society in general can. Just look at alcohol.[/quote]

I think 'Just look at alcohol' is precisely what the pro-legalisation people have done. Yes it causes problems, and it's arguably more problematic than most of the recreational drugs that are prohibited, and the prohibition puts users of those drugs in harm's way. The argument for legalisation is that it will put a big hole in the income streams of organised crime, increase the general well-being of drug users, and generally be a much cheaper and more civilised way for society to cope with those who choose to use recreational drugs. It's difficult to see any benefits of prohibition.

[quote name='shizznit' timestamp='1356609581' post='1911563']When you are away from home for long periods you do get incredibly bored and home sick and I can understand how some musicians get sucked into drugs and booze.[/quote]

To be honest when I took a lot of drugs it was mostly because I was interested in trying them, and the ones I enjoyed I was interested in trying again. It had nothing to do with other aspects of my lifestyle really - I would've done it anyway. I've known very few recreational drug users who have become a burden to society - either on the NHS or through turning to crime to fund their habits. Those people usually have bigger problems that they have not had adequate assistance with, and they turn to drugs for respite from their problems. The same way that most homeless people aren't homeless because they drink a lot. You have to get the cause and effect relationship the right way round.

[redstriper]

[quote name='arthurhenry' timestamp='1356621592' post='1911718']

No drugs: (Nicotine and the odd beer excepted)

[/quote]

Two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs on the planet - that's like saying 'No drugs (cannabis and the odd E excepted)'.

I won't bother compiling a similar list of musicians who take/took illegal drugs, because it would take forever.......

[arthurhenry]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1356622651' post='1911727']
Two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs on the planet - that's like saying 'No drugs (cannabis and the odd E excepted)'.

I won't bother compiling a similar list of musicians who take/took illegal drugs, because it would take forever.......
[/quote]
Agreed, I should have written "No illegal drugs".
The point is: would anyone suggest that Jeff Beck would be a better guitarist, or Ian Anderson a better songwriter if they abused drugs?

[chris_b]

[quote name='arthurhenry' timestamp='1356621592' post='1911718']
....Maybe the music would have been even better if they weren't on drugs - why does no one ever look at it from that point of view?....
[/quote]

So, as It never happened, what are we looking at?



[quote name='arthurhenry' timestamp='1356621592' post='1911718']
No drugs: (Nicotine and the odd beer excepted)
Frank Zappa....Henry Rollins
[/quote]

Apart from Jeff Beck, this list and the resultant music does very little for me.

And didn't Jeff drive his car into a tree on the embankment in the late 60's while under the influence of "stuff"?

[arthurhenry]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1356623287' post='1911733']
So, as It never happened, what are we looking at?
[/quote]

Just something to ponder, for no particular reason!
I suspect that the talent and creativity/imagination of the musicians had far more to do with the quality of their output than illegal drugs did.

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356622066' post='1911722']


I think 'Just look at alcohol' is precisely what the pro-legalisation people have done. Yes it causes problems, and it's arguably more problematic than most of the recreational drugs that are prohibited, and the prohibition puts users of those drugs in harm's way. The argument for legalisation is that it will put a big hole in the income streams of organised crime, increase the general well-being of drug users, and generally be a much cheaper and more civilised way for society to cope with those who choose to use recreational drugs. It's difficult to see any benefits of prohibition.

...
[/quote]

I suspect that will be down to the numbers of users you know/knew.

Practically every adult in the UK drinks. 4% are addicts, another large percentage are problem drinkers and even more are heavy drinkers.

If you license drugs (alcohol is NOT legal, it's licenced) you send a clear message that it's ok. I suspect that instead of 4% addicted to alcohol, that 4% will just be divided up. Drugs use would increase but alcohol use may decrease at the same time. You would just have less alcohol problems but more drugs problems - whether that is good or bad is another question.