Because I certainly can't think of any.
2007-10-14 11:49:20 · 20 answers · asked by Deke 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
Kids, this question is in no way an endorsement of drugs. Stay in school, eat your vegetables.
2007-10-14 11:57:15 · update #1
It's half and half.
You want to be drugged up when your writing the song, and then sober when you play it.
Nobody wants to pull a Keith Moon and pass out on stage, leaving the drum set to a 19 year old from the audience. On a second note, stay away from horse tranquilizers all together.
2007-10-14 13:09:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
- first of all I guess most bands were more or less 'on best behavior' when in recording studio. so this purely an academic question. I mean regardless of lifestyle, don't think there's many examples of guys goin to cut a record [or on Stage for that matter] completely blitzed -- I mean like out-&-out bombed. when performing, lot of technology there, have to know what you're doing. get stoned in your leisure-time, so (hopefully) this doesn't show up anywhere else
- to "Cat Stevens" [does Cat know you're using his name?] -- excuse-me -- what stupidity. drugs = brain-damage. & Syd Barrett: no one could bring up better example -- regardless of other problems he might have had -- ended up a vegetable half the time, legendary how he had to be spoonfed in a hospital.
- there are some like Eric Clapton who remained pretty much the same --
but just to say: don't think a question of getting better or worse -- many ended up BEING ALIVE & surviving simply from quitting Drugs &c.! -- there's a chance that guys like Eric C. and many others wouldn't be around, would have OD'ed years ago & ended up in "Big Gig in the Sky" prematurely. so better / worse -- dunno -- but if 'alive & well' & still performing -- good in itself...
2007-10-14 20:41:09 · answer #2 · answered by jay ess 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are such things?!?!?
I can thing of several going the other way but.... wow.
*edit
The only examples I can think of(and not very good ones) is some artist getting sober and remaining the same musically (John Frusciante, Duff McKagan, Slash) but I can't think of any that got better....
2007-10-14 18:53:08 · answer #3 · answered by meep meep 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blues harmonica masters Charlie Musselwhite & Rick Estrin of Little Charlie & the Nightcats
2007-10-14 19:15:44 · answer #4 · answered by Ray 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes indeed, Aerosmith was drug free all of the 90+ and they had great song during that time. Dave Grohl(from the Foo Fighters), has been sober and keeps rockin' out the hits with the Foo Fighters! Just to name 2 of my favorites.
2007-10-14 18:57:37 · answer #5 · answered by christine c 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No--it's the taboo subject in our War on Drugs culture, that creative people often like to use drugs and that it frequently makes them more creative, though it's also sometimes destructive (witness all of the overdoses and such amongst those talented artists).
2007-10-15 03:41:20 · answer #6 · answered by Steve-O 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails
Yesr Zero is the best thing he has done since The Downward Spiral
2007-10-14 20:24:11 · answer #7 · answered by Next evolutionary step... 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Beatles - By the time they put out Abbey Road they had gotten off the hard drugs and that is probably their best effort.
Aerosmith - once they got off drugs their music definately improved.
2007-10-14 21:15:39 · answer #8 · answered by Peepaw 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Beatles. Personally, I think Abbey Road is their best. I'm pretty sure they had quit drugs by that time.
2007-10-14 18:59:32 · answer #9 · answered by Chronon 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Linkin Park is a very good example. Theyve never been drunk or anything like that in the past and I dont see them being in the future.
2007-10-15 02:26:30 · answer #10 · answered by jim 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋