Orange Amps Forum

bclaire wrote:The good news on the other hand, is that Justin Bieber will be 27 in ten years....

The world could use more forward-thinking optimists like yourself !

Randy Bass wrote:I'm glad that we haven't lost any great entertainers to alcohol yet .

Nope, that just preserves them.....look at Keith Richards!

bclaire wrote:The good news on the other hand, is that Justin Bieber will be 27 in ten years....

He's only 17?! How can someone so young be so talented?

OrangePaul wrote:I think you guys on here quoting Bill Hicks need to remember it was part of his comic routine which went on to include those playing records backwards....
I mean seriously guys....no amount of drugs was ever gonna turn New Kids On The Block into someone as talented as The Beatles

I'm glad someone said it.

Drug use does not a genius make.

Those musicians whom we all admire we're geniuses well before their step into the drug world. It seems like there's some confusion assimilating drug use with a cultural revolution that happened some time ago.

No matter how much LSD-pot-booze I do, I will never be a Hendrix.... Ever. And I will strongly speculate that Hendrix would have still been Hendrix regardless of the drugs.

Case in point. Nugent.

Even though I've had my fun some time ago and don't regret those experiences, now that I'm a little older I realized I wasted some pretty big blocks of time doing that stuff. It never made me more creative or opened my mind or did anything spiritual. Not to say others haven't had different experiences but I have yet to meet someone who was completely an average Joe before drugs who was magically transformed into a super creative genius. Either you have it or you work for it. There is no magic blue pill.

Magic blue pill = Viagra?

I here it really is magic few people said it's the best thing ever!

On a more serious note tho, Elton John is gonna perform at Amy's funeral with his classic song " Candle under the spoon "

When did this thread turn into a "basement pictures thread"??? I'll get miine up soon.

And George Best is finally at peace and content in Heaven now that it has a winehouse.

Thinline_slim wrote:

OrangePaul wrote:I think you guys on here quoting Bill Hicks need to remember it was part of his comic routine which went on to include those playing records backwards....
I mean seriously guys....no amount of drugs was ever gonna turn New Kids On The Block into someone as talented as The Beatles

I'm glad someone said it.

Drug use does not a genius make.

Those musicians whom we all admire we're geniuses well before their step into the drug world. It seems like there's some confusion assimilating drug use with a cultural revolution that happened some time ago.

No matter how much LSD-pot-booze I do, I will never be a Hendrix.... Ever. And I will strongly speculate that Hendrix would have still been Hendrix regardless of the drugs.

Case in point. Nugent.

Even though I've had my fun some time ago and don't regret those experiences, now that I'm a little older I realized I wasted some pretty big blocks of time doing that stuff. It never made me more creative or opened my mind or did anything spiritual. Not to say others haven't had different experiences but I have yet to meet someone who was completely an average Joe before drugs who was magically transformed into a super creative genius. Either you have it or you work for it. There is no magic blue pill.

The trouble is, you’ve set up an argument that nobody here is actually making – you’re smoking straw, man

Nobody is saying drugs ‘make you a genius’

The facts are that drugs have been used successfully in art, music and literature for thousands of years to expand people’s creativity, change their perceptions, show them a different way of looking at the world etc – that is what Bill Hicks is saying… and it has nothing to do with your rather facile proposition that drugs make you an instant genius… of course there is no magic blue pill – and neither Bill Hicks or anyone in this thread is saying that…

Also – just because they didn’t have any positive creative or spiritual effects on you, doesn’t mean they weren’t extremely beneficial for others – your record collection, a whole bunch of literature and a HELL of a lot of art made over the centuries backs this up.

So no – it’s not as cut and dried as ‘you have it or you don’t’

For all you know Hendrix could have gone on to be the ‘third guitarist on the left’ in that trad blues band until he popped a pill and started wearing a pink feather boa…

For all you know, he could have ditched his axe and become a real estate salesman in Yonkers…

I’m sorry, but I just find the whole “drugs r bad mmmkay’ and ‘drugs did nuffin for me so they ain’t no good for anybody’ type arguments to be incredibly tedious and narrow-minded…

Furthermore, I would argue that some people aren’t all that creative, period… NO amount of drugs is going to get you there… because as you said, there’s no magic pill…

I prefer to look at drug use as seasoning the meat – you already have a great meal cooking, but add some herbs and spices and it will really bring out the flavour

I prefer seasoning my meat the old-fashioned way .

Randy Bass wrote:I prefer seasoning my meat the old-fashioned way .

you mean

leaving it out in the sun until the bacteria dies off?

Van Cleef wrote:The trouble is, you’ve set up an argument that nobody here is actually making – you’re smoking straw, man

Nobody is saying drugs ‘make you a genius’

The facts are that drugs have been used successfully in art, music and literature for thousands of years to expand people’s creativity, change their perceptions, show them a different way of looking at the world etc – that is what Bill Hicks is saying… and it has nothing to do with your rather facile proposition that drugs make you an instant genius… of course there is no magic blue pill – and neither Bill Hicks or anyone in this thread is saying that…

Also – just because they didn’t have any positive creative or spiritual effects on you, doesn’t mean they weren’t extremely beneficial for others – your record collection, a whole bunch of literature and a HELL of a lot of art made over the centuries backs this up.

So no – it’s not as cut and dried as ‘you have it or you don’t’

For all you know Hendrix could have gone on to be the ‘third guitarist on the left’ in that trad blues band until he popped a pill and started wearing a pink feather boa…

For all you know, he could have ditched his axe and become a real estate salesman in Yonkers…

I’m sorry, but I just find the whole “drugs r bad mmmkay’ and ‘drugs did nuffin for me so they ain’t no good for anybody’ type arguments to be incredibly tedious and narrow-minded…

Furthermore, I would argue that some people aren’t all that creative, period… NO amount of drugs is going to get you there… because as you said, there’s no magic pill…

I prefer to look at drug use as seasoning the meat – you already have a great meal cooking, but add some herbs and spices and it will really bring out the flavour

I would like to preface this with I have very few moral objections to recreational drug use. To each their own and I cast no judgments.

But....

There has never been any empirical evidence that drugs "expand the mind and expand creativity" so you state a personal opinion as a "fact". The only "fact" that exists is that it is well documented that many artists have used drugs. What the drugs did to their perceptions and creativity is purely speculation, usually from those who really enjoy drug use. My entire point is that I don't believe you can attribute any of these peoples creativity to their drug use any more to their water consumption because there is no direct correlation.

Extremely creative people typically show signs of emotional and/or mental illness. I speculate that a lot of the drug use that went on for these people were a form of self medication. A way to turn off, not to turn on.

And your hypothetical of Jimi just being a side man and hanging up the guitar if he had not taken any drugs just shows the weight you put on drug use as a form of a creative booster and that is the problem I have. Jimi wasn't great because of drugs. Jimi was just simply great.

I knew quite a few guys in college that smoked weed pretty heavily every day and they were engineers. 2 of them would typically ace calculus tests and were some of the smartest guys in the dorms from a pure brain matter stand point. So I would like to know if you would speculate as to if the drugs made them better mathematicians?

Thinline_slim wrote:I would like to preface this with I have very few moral objections to recreational drug use. To each their own and I cast no judgments.

But....

There has never been any empirical evidence that drugs "expand the mind and expand creativity" so you state a personal opinion as a "fact". The only "fact" that exists is that it is well documented that many artists have used drugs. What the drugs did to their perceptions and creativity is purely speculation, usually from those who really enjoy drug use. My entire point is that I don't believe you can attribute any of these peoples creativity to their drug use any more to their water consumption because there is no direct correlation.

if a band, like pink floyd says 'so we started taking acid and it totally made us rethink the way we play music' then that's all the evidence you need,

end of story

Thinline_slim wrote:Extremely creative people typically show signs of emotional and/or mental illness. I speculate that a lot of the drug use that went on for these people were a form of self medication. A way to turn off, not to turn on.

bullshit - this is an oft repeated myth... what do you mean by 'extremely creative' given that creativity is at it's core - about original ideas, are you saying that all people who express truly original ideas are mentally ill? or close to it? by logical extension, you are then saying that only those people who are not capable of expressing original ideas - are normal - in that case - pass me a joint - followed by a cyanide capsule - seriously...

Thinline_slim wrote:And your hypothetical of Jimi just being a side man and hanging up the guitar if he had not taken any drugs just shows the weight you put on drug use as a form of a creative booster and that is the problem I have. Jimi wasn't great because of drugs. Jimi was just simply great.

yeah and there are just as many people who say that about the beatles... 'they were simply great - the thing is - you have no way of knowing that about Jimi - because he was already getting jiggy well before his first ever recording... i only believe it is a creative booster for those that wanted it and needed it and for those who it worked for - obviously it doesn't/didn't/won't work for some - ie: if you gave steve vai an acid trip i am sure he would still be an astoundingly boring shredder... but if you take a pop band - who are a bit bored with being pop show ponies... give them a few joints and some acid - suddenly they become interesting (talking about the beatles here in case you missed it)

Thinline_slim wrote:I knew quite a few guys in college that smoked weed pretty heavily every day and they were engineers. 2 of them would typically ace calculus tests and were some of the smartest guys in the dorms from a pure brain matter stand point. So I would like to know if you would speculate as to if the drugs made them better mathematicians?

not sure - i know and work with a bunch of programers and systems analysts and very very very smart maths guys and a number of them smoke dope because they say it helps them focus... i also know two three d computer effects guys that get flown around the world to fix effects glitches in feature films - and both of them smoke their own wght in ganja - these guys are mathematically brilliant AND creative AND they are both great musos.....

which proves my point - - the only thing worse than drug use - is people who are self-righteous about drug use...

but i will add one final point... i'm really only tlking bout psychotropic drugs... and psychedelics... which are not addictive... i am not talking about heroin and crack and meth and all that gutter stuff... which has about as much creative merit to it as reality TV or... crabcore....

I'll tell you what I honestly think about the drug/creativity debate. I used to smoke boatloads of grass and took lsd a couple times so that's the experience i'm referring to. It's like this:

If you smoke grass all the time and are a musician, you typically are glued to the couch with guitar in hand and oftem unemployed. All your friends are usually dope smokers who come over and watch counter-culture films while smoking up, playing music, and reading fringe books like "Future Shock" and the like. You have all the time in the world to explore your own mind, noodle around with melodic and harmonic ideas on the guitar, and be influenced by your company who are sometimes clinically insane but not always. That's the creative boost I had; time and the freedom to experiment with art, and wacky people.

Although, smoking weed will sometimes let you zone out and you notice that you have unconciously been playing some strange/interesting riff for the last 45 minutes straight without really realizing it.