Pink Floyd: Drug addicts?
"It was true 20 or 30 years ago, this is not the case in the 90's."
Yes, it was a bodybuilder lifestyle for all
- cocololeure2 View the profile of cocololeure2
- Posted on 25 February 2009 at 18:28:44 Notify a moderator
- drug addicts
finally, according to several documentaries in magazines and on TV.
Yes, all you need to believe what.
During the Barrett period, they had to smoke a lot of camel hair.
But for the future, I think we can really talk about genius music more than influence due to drugs. (Although Wright used a lot of cocaine in the late '70s, that's one of the reasons why he was shunned by Waters )
Stop thinking that drug addict = syringe in the arm, and of course that the Pink Floyd had a penchant for that, like many at the time, but rather level LSD and other psyches, I think they were not big consumers of "hard" drugs.
I think they took drugs at the beginning what influenced the novelty of their sound and that of all the psychedelic movement. After I think they have rather become champions of the elbow I remember an interview with waters that made circles with a cigarette and who looked fart because he answered the plate all the time. with her beautiful greasy hair at 20
good to do the recording of the 7 parts of Shine On You Crazy Diamond, I do not think that his was composed before. They had to be pretty good at check-in
For me no non-drugged group could have written the Gnome .
Have you ever wondered about the question? and what they say (in every sense of the term including musical)?
It was LSD for most of these groups. Which means they did not get fixed with a syringe in their arm, at least not most of the time.
To say that one can not be able to do certain things, or to believe that some inspiration can not come without the use of drugs is completely stupid, I want to say because I see a lot of people say that.
It is obvious that a good part of their musical universe comes from drugs. Just see the imagery of their clips or the movie The Wall.
In fact, drugs and art go hand in hand. It's been like this since the beginning of time. But I agree with my VDD that this is of course not essential.
"or believe that some inspiration can not come without the use of drugs is completely stupid"
and can you explain why?
Brothel review a post from me from 2009 it's a shock
Why do I feel that virtually everyone who came here to post here has no idea what they are saying?
But what does it change?
Whether they are addicted or not, they made great music. After it's like for all artists, it's not because they are made things ^ not necessarily legal they must necessarily be null … For example question actors I love Gerard Depardieu. IRL is a big con to what we see often, but it does not bother me to love the movies in which he plays
Pink Floyd and Led Zep like, I do not like the principle of taking drugs, but I still love their music.
"and can you explain why?"
Because a clear mind and more productive than a drug-crazed mind, it makes all 16-year-olds feel like Jimi Hendrix was so good because he was taking drugs while this guy was only one wish was to get out of the drugs.
And I stay on my position, all their psyche universe. is not born because of LSD or anything, you can think of things like that without having to delve, you have to get that out of the mind.
@ FeuilleVerte2: I agree with that, but it's still a matter of degree. Something like this is not in itself, not so bad, they do what they want with their body and mental health.
I still do not agree for all the time saying "this is his life, the rest is his art", especially that one rubs on the other. I think it's a whole, and even though I've loved an artist for years, I will not be able to listen to him when he hears that he kills children for example.
It's a big stereotype, Barrett we can not deny, Wright also in the late 70s by the but the others not so much … And there's totally way to write stuff "planing" without that .. .
Yes, some of the members did not want to get out of drugs and wanted to continue taking LSD right now …
and so if groups known to be heavy users of drugs had never used drugs, would they have played or composed the same?
Of course not. I do not mean that drugs are a mandatory part of doing music, or listening to music, but it's also stupid to say that it does not have a role to play in some cases. By also knowing a bit about the history of certain groups, one quickly realizes that musical turns (for these groups) sometimes correspond to the beginning of the use of certain drugs.
It does not generalize that the use of drugs is obligatory for certain things in music, but to deny this en bloc is just as absurd (and, indeed, it is also scientific: hallucinogenic drugs act on the the nervous system…. )
VonKarma Yes, I quite agree, knowing that LSD is still an extremely powerful drug.