Musicians and drug use?
 

I don't advocate drug use, but I'd be lying if I said I've never consumed a certain type of plant species. As far as music, I find music so much more "enhanced" and "deeper" after smoking.

I don't mean to offend, I'm just wondering about what percentage of musicians would you say use drugs? Again, I am not suggesting a definitive correlation.

What do you base that off? Do you have any proof of the 1% that don't?

Straight edge, lul.

Ah yes

music is a drug, so 100%

Well, considering the crap they put in the water these days, I think probably EVERYONE

I take it you're from Toronto, or do you coincidentally have no idea who Holoscene is?

I don't know what "Holoscene" is, actually.

I would say 85 percent...take out certain Christian rockers and Ted Nugent and Gene Simmons and then there is the recovering addicts that play...like Aerosmith...but are we counting prescription drugs? If we are then 97 percent.

Well, I'd have to take the Bill Hicks angle on it all - most of our favorite bands wouyld probably have sucked without the drugs.... heheh

Oh, sorry. It's a local post-rock kind of group. I had never heard the name outside of them, so I thought it may have been related.

well, uh, if you want to be techinical about it, then the actual amount is 100% because, like, asprin is a drug and everyone gets headaches.

they are all hook on dope.. that's how they make great music

You're braindead.

alcohol is a drug

I miss you dude, we're both back so why aren't you on MSN anymore?

i wouldnt be suprised if it reflected a similar distribution as you see in the average population. although rock stars addicts seem a dime a dozen you have to think about the amount of other musicians there are. for every college drop out playing in an indie rock band there is a clarinet player that was in the marching band at harvard, you just never hear about them.

i'm going with mofito

they are all hook on dope

and deserve to be put to sleep

bunch of talentless guys stuck in adolescent fantasies, why don't they get a
nice white-collar job and focus on real life

What does it matter if they are/were doing drugs. It's their business. Many creative minds have dabbled in narcotics. Hawkwind have made a living off it!

One of my favorite bands of all time, The Church more than dabbled in narcotics for more than just a few years - but did their music suffer - no siree! It just kept getting better and better, until, admittedly, they started to sound a bit burnt out on Magician Among the Spirits...

this. totally this.

rock star addicts only seem to be more prominent because they draw mass media attention prior to their collapses

Depends on what you define as drugs.

Including only illegal drugs, I'd say around 70%

The other 30 being straight edge, country pop, christian rock, indie, progressive metal. My god, sober people make really sh*tty music.

I am assuming you're just completely omitting any "old school" hardcore, like SS Decontrol and the likes? That would make up for a decent amount of musicians, even though lots of them ending up "breaking edge." Still, the anti-drug bit was their driving force.

I'd like to see any jazz soloist play high.

Drugs = good for improvisation
Drugs = bad for anything in 7/8

I'm pretty that it would also mess up any live show. How many videos have you seen of hair metal singers or whatever else so drunk they can't even remember the lyrics? This is why I am against substance abuse. It's just ridiculous, and yeah jazz is too crazy to have all these coked out or whatever else people hopping around stage or in the studio.

What on earth made you think these genres were drug free? Especially indie. And Straight-Edge hardcore can be awesome.

Only jud jud.

Haha........