Alcohol and playing

octatonic

thegummy said:

gringopig said:

imalrightjack said:

I definitely play looser with a drink. But I think that’s down to Dutch courage. And I’m not saying better. 

I think learning to be actually confident in your own skin and be yourself is hugely important but, obviously, no so easy. If you do cultivate this ability, you will do what you can do, not just a version of you which is letting go and being more relaxed but quite likely less accurate.

Try smoking weed (CBD only, UK-legal stuff, of course) instead, that’s a whole other discussion! For jazz or something very improvised, I’d say it’s a good thing, up until a point!

Smoke weed and you are immediately in a late night Bob Dylan rehearsal for 'Self Portrait'. No joke. Stick to CBD as it does absolutely nothing except empty your wallet.

Don't know that Dylan reference but when you look at all the classic songs and albums made while the artist was smoking weed, there's no serious argument that it will restrict one's ability to make music.

Those days are gone though- you certainly wouldn't last long in any professional setting if you were stoned or drunk.

It also depends on what sort of music you are making.
Technical death metal requires a different level of physicality to 4 chord singer/songwriter stuff.

thegummy

octatonic said:

thegummy said:

gringopig said:

imalrightjack said:

I definitely play looser with a drink. But I think that’s down to Dutch courage. And I’m not saying better. 

I think learning to be actually confident in your own skin and be yourself is hugely important but, obviously, no so easy. If you do cultivate this ability, you will do what you can do, not just a version of you which is letting go and being more relaxed but quite likely less accurate.

Try smoking weed (CBD only, UK-legal stuff, of course) instead, that’s a whole other discussion! For jazz or something very improvised, I’d say it’s a good thing, up until a point!

Smoke weed and you are immediately in a late night Bob Dylan rehearsal for 'Self Portrait'. No joke. Stick to CBD as it does absolutely nothing except empty your wallet.

Don't know that Dylan reference but when you look at all the classic songs and albums made while the artist was smoking weed, there's no serious argument that it will restrict one's ability to make music.

Those days are gone though- you certainly wouldn't last long in any professional setting if you were stoned or drunk.

It also depends on what sort of music you are making.
Technical death metal requires a different level of physicality to 4 chord singer/songwriter stuff.

What's changed from the 70s til now that means they did fine then but not now?

Are you saying today's artists don't smoke weed anymore while recording or playing a gig?

LuttiS

Both me best and worst gigs have involved alcohol. One of my old bands was at a venue just having a drink since we weren't meant to be playing that night, we were all rather pissed.. band on the bill were a no show and the venue owner knowing we were there asked us to fill in.. was an amazingly fun gig on borrowed gear with no prep. Video confirmed later that we weren't totally shit, and everyone seemed to be having a good time.
 
Another time, drummer turned up shit faced and played the same drum beat for ever single song. Didn't even pause between songs... We adapted but it wasn't a great gig. 

We used to have a core set list of songs we could play in any state. Knew them so well we couldn't fuck them up without supreme effort..

When regularly gigging I'd have one drink before so I could be a bit silly on stage and another drink during the gig. Never any more, often less as I was the only person who could drive... 

One thing I've learnt... Drummers are a liability..

JerkMoans

LuttiS said:

... played the same drum beat for ever single song. 

You are Paul McCartney and I claim £5  

gringopig

.

gringopig

.

JerkMoans

gringopig said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Narvah_Cy80

Don't listen. They are all on reefer and it's a miracle they remembered how to turn on the tape recorder.

gringopig

.

LastMantra

Just think how much snoop dogg could have achieved! 

thegummy

gringopig said:

Don't listen. They are all on reefer and it's a miracle they remembered how to turn on the tape recorder.

and this:

All stoned and so slow and lacking in energy it almost stops, grinding on and scraping painfully on. It might have lasted days - no-one could tell.

And if I posted a link to all the great recordings done by people on weed it would overload the server so it's senseless to draw your conclusion just because you've heard a couple of bad examples.

Danny1969

thegummy said:

gringopig said:

Don't listen. They are all on reefer and it's a miracle they remembered how to turn on the tape recorder.

and this:

All stoned and so slow and lacking in energy it almost stops, grinding on and scraping painfully on. It might have lasted days - no-one could tell.

And if I posted a link to all the great recordings done by people on weed it would overload the server so it's senseless to draw your conclusion just because you've heard a couple of bad examples.

Absolutely ...... I would go as far to say on the whole weed has had a positive impact on writing and studio creativity. When I started out smoking weed in the control room was the done thing ... the first half digital studio I recorded in was run by a total puff head who skinned up at 10am and didn't stop smoking gear till he closed around 10pm. You could hardly see the gear through the smoke

In my own studio smoking was banned but people could and often did get right on it at 10am in the morning .... .I remember a really cool American blues guy necking about 5 stella's before he got in the live room and had another 5 or 6 while he was in there. Most bands enjoyed a beer while mixing, as did I. There were quite a few control room parties too ... good times  

ICBM

“When [George Martin] was doing his TV program on Pepper he asked me, ‘Do you know what caused Pepper?’ I said, ‘In one word, George, drugs. Pot.’ And George said, ‘No, no. But you weren’t on it all the time.’ ‘Yes, we were.’ Sgt. Pepper was a drug album.” - Paul McCartney

gringopig

.

octatonic

thegummy said:

octatonic said:

thegummy said:

gringopig said:

imalrightjack said:

I definitely play looser with a drink. But I think that’s down to Dutch courage. And I’m not saying better. 

I think learning to be actually confident in your own skin and be yourself is hugely important but, obviously, no so easy. If you do cultivate this ability, you will do what you can do, not just a version of you which is letting go and being more relaxed but quite likely less accurate.

Try smoking weed (CBD only, UK-legal stuff, of course) instead, that’s a whole other discussion! For jazz or something very improvised, I’d say it’s a good thing, up until a point!

Smoke weed and you are immediately in a late night Bob Dylan rehearsal for 'Self Portrait'. No joke. Stick to CBD as it does absolutely nothing except empty your wallet.

Don't know that Dylan reference but when you look at all the classic songs and albums made while the artist was smoking weed, there's no serious argument that it will restrict one's ability to make music.

Those days are gone though- you certainly wouldn't last long in any professional setting if you were stoned or drunk.

It also depends on what sort of music you are making.
Technical death metal requires a different level of physicality to 4 chord singer/songwriter stuff.

What's changed from the 70s til now that means they did fine then but not now?

Are you saying today's artists don't smoke weed anymore while recording or playing a gig?

I'm not saying that at all.
But what I would class as "working professional" musicians- people in function bands, session players for established artists etc- they don't get to do any of that. After the gig, sure, but not during.

What happened?
Music got more complex, more people are doing it, music has more of an industry around it, more competition.

As to 'they did fine'- sure, but a load of people OD'ed or suicided too.

ICBM

gringopig said:

Think of all the musicians and songwriters who got waylaid by drugs and alcohol. Distraction then decline. All the dreams turned sour by chemicals and lives poisoned.

Certainly true, but that doesn’t mean that drugs and alcohol haven’t also helped inspire creative genius which has produced great art and made the world a more interesting place. The two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

thegummy

Seems to be that old chestnut of taking everything under the umbrella of "drugs" and treating it as if it's all the same.

No one ever ODed or threw their life away by being addicted to weed.

Surely no one has actually believed that for decades.

octatonic

thegummy said:

Seems to be that old chestnut of taking everything under the umbrella of "drugs" and treating it as if it's all the same.

No one ever ODed or threw their life away by being addicted to weed.

Surely no one has actually believed that for decades.

I'm not saying they were.
You brought up weed.
This thread started in a discussion about alcohol.
I only made the point that working pro musicians can't be high or drunk on stage.

My personal opinion is weed is less harmful, certainly less than alcohol.
I don't think it improves creativity though, certainly not the habitual use of it.

thegummy

octatonic said:

thegummy said:

Seems to be that old chestnut of taking everything under the umbrella of "drugs" and treating it as if it's all the same.

No one ever ODed or threw their life away by being addicted to weed.

Surely no one has actually believed that for decades.

I'm not saying they were.
You brought up weed.
This thread started in a discussion about alcohol.
I only made the point that working pro musicians can't be high or drunk on stage.

My personal opinion is weed is less harmful, certainly less than alcohol.
I don't think it improves creativity though, certainly not the habitual use of it.

What are either of those based on though?

I mean, with wedding bands I wouldn't be surprised if they were less likely to smoke weed than other musicians purely because the type of person who would want to set up a small business booking weddings to cover the classic hits (and usually are older people) are just the type who are less likely to smoke weed whereas the type of person who does smoke weed is more likely to want to be an original artist where they can express their creativity.

Wedding bands are hardly the pinnacle of music though, very far from it. I don't know why you think that no top level session players smoke weed. Why is it you think that? How would it make sense that named artists can smoke weed and still play very well but if they're a hired session player they wouldn't be able to?

And why do you think that weed doesn't improve creativity? Is that based on you smoking it and not feeling your creativity was enhanced? So many of the greatest musicians of all time have expressed that they do believe it does.

Do you think more great albums were made by people who were completely sober at the time than were made by people who were smoking weed or on other drugs at the time?

octatonic

thegummy said:

octatonic said:

thegummy said:

Seems to be that old chestnut of taking everything under the umbrella of "drugs" and treating it as if it's all the same.

No one ever ODed or threw their life away by being addicted to weed.

Surely no one has actually believed that for decades.

I'm not saying they were.
You brought up weed.
This thread started in a discussion about alcohol.
I only made the point that working pro musicians can't be high or drunk on stage.

My personal opinion is weed is less harmful, certainly less than alcohol.
I don't think it improves creativity though, certainly not the habitual use of it.

What are either of those based on though?

I mean, with wedding bands I wouldn't be surprised if they were less likely to smoke weed than other musicians purely because the type of person who would want to set up a small business booking weddings to cover the classic hits (and usually are older people) are just the type who are less likely to smoke weed whereas the type of person who does smoke weed is more likely to want to be an original artist where they can express their creativity.

Wedding bands are hardly the pinnacle of music though, very far from it. I don't know why you think that no top level session players smoke weed. Why is it you think that? How would it make sense that named artists can smoke weed and still play very well but if they're a hired session player they wouldn't be able to?

And why do you think that weed doesn't improve creativity? Is that based on you smoking it and not feeling your creativity was enhanced? So many of the greatest musicians of all time have expressed that they do believe it does.

Do you think more great albums were made by people who were completely sober at the time than were made by people who were smoking weed or on other drugs at the time?

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say no top session players smoke weed, I said that doing so on stage will get you fired.

Loads of musicians use substances and drink, like the rest of society.
It happens after the gig, in almost all cases.

But being a professional musician now is not like being a professional musician in the 60's and 70's.
Very few musicians now can get away with being drunk or stoned whilst performing.
I know this because I've worked in the industry since the early 90's and I've seen how things have changed.

thegummy

octatonic said:

thegummy said:

octatonic said:

thegummy said:

Seems to be that old chestnut of taking everything under the umbrella of "drugs" and treating it as if it's all the same.

No one ever ODed or threw their life away by being addicted to weed.

Surely no one has actually believed that for decades.

I'm not saying they were.
You brought up weed.
This thread started in a discussion about alcohol.
I only made the point that working pro musicians can't be high or drunk on stage.

My personal opinion is weed is less harmful, certainly less than alcohol.
I don't think it improves creativity though, certainly not the habitual use of it.

What are either of those based on though?

I mean, with wedding bands I wouldn't be surprised if they were less likely to smoke weed than other musicians purely because the type of person who would want to set up a small business booking weddings to cover the classic hits (and usually are older people) are just the type who are less likely to smoke weed whereas the type of person who does smoke weed is more likely to want to be an original artist where they can express their creativity.

Wedding bands are hardly the pinnacle of music though, very far from it. I don't know why you think that no top level session players smoke weed. Why is it you think that? How would it make sense that named artists can smoke weed and still play very well but if they're a hired session player they wouldn't be able to?

And why do you think that weed doesn't improve creativity? Is that based on you smoking it and not feeling your creativity was enhanced? So many of the greatest musicians of all time have expressed that they do believe it does.

Do you think more great albums were made by people who were completely sober at the time than were made by people who were smoking weed or on other drugs at the time?

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say no top session players smoke weed, I said that doing so on stage will get you fired.

Loads of musicians use substances and drink, like the rest of society.
It happens after the gig, in almost all cases.

But being a professional musician now is not like being a professional musician in the 60's and 70's.
Very few musicians now can get away with being drunk or stoned whilst performing.
I know this because I've worked in the industry since the early 90's and I've seen how things have changed.

If it's just based on your own experience then who are you working with? I mean what kinds of people, what level, what age etc.?

If you don't want to say that's understandable but do you not think what you see happening is a very tiny sample size compared to all professional musicians in the world?

You probably wouldn't know whether most people you played alongside were stoned or not anyway, most people who smoke regularly don't act like a film character who's meant to be stoned, they just look and act normal.

It's not like I'm saying that there are tons of musicians secretly playing stoned despite none admitting it - tons of musicians admit it openly! That's why I'm so puzzled you're claiming this, it's not a secret.

What about the creativity enhancing aspect - why do you not believe it enhances creativity when sooooo many people - including some all-time greats - feel that it does?

Have you smoked weed to any decent level? I suppose it can affect different people differently but I can't imagine anyone smoking it and not immediately understanding the enhanced creativity thing.

Just to clarify - I'm not saying weed enhances the performance ability (just the creative) but I am saying that it doesn't detract from it and certainly not to the point where the person is no longer able to play properly. I don't agree that it's more difficult to play music now either unless you're referring to some niche genres that focus on virtuosity.