The question is, would said musical geniuses have created the same incredible music if they weren't High or Tripping or Strung out?

Take Syd Barrett for example.
Or the Beatles.
or Jimi Hendrix.

Did the drugs make the music?

or did they just write the music while on drugs?


Surely when on drugs, a musician would just do what a musician does. Not as if they would go out and attempt open heart surgery, in the same way a vetinarian who got high wouldn't attempt to write the world's greatest song or create a masterpiece to parallel the cistine chapel's artwork.

So, do you think that the drugs are the reason that music written is was so great,

or that said brilliant music would have been written anyway by brilliant musicians regardless?

My answer is once again, in the form of a Bill Hicks youtube video

.

I think that the red hot chili peppers and stone temple pilots finalized this arguement.

you can tell which albums were heroin albums, and which ones were rehab albums.... no question about it.

I think that the red hot chili peppers and stone temple pilots finalized this argument.

you can tell which albums were heroin albums, and which ones were rehab albums.... no question about it.

Who cares if drugs inspired it or not? All we know is that its great music.

But for the sake of discussion... I think certain albums/songs have certain appeal because of the circumstances by which they were created. I think you can tell the difference when the artist is going between extremes ex (addiction vs sobriety), (love vs heartbreak), (apathy vs empathy)

Depending on the drug user, the drugs can either lubricate the creative process or simply destroy it.

I'm going to vote that the drugs allowed to them to be more creative, and more willing to experiment, but deep down, they could of thought up the music sober, it just would of taken them more time.

I dont think the song would have been as good though. When they made the song, they were in a different state of mind. Kind of hard to say they would come up with the same exact thing in a sober state of mind.

That's an excuse.... when people believe they are under the influence, they are more willing to try something, because if it fails, then they can blame it on the fact that they were under the influence. Kinda like an external attribution.

That would be an excuse, if they used drugs as a safety net for failure.

But you gotta admit, the music would not have been the same if they weren't on drugs. No one can say if it would have been better, but their state of mind at the time played a major part in creating it.

I will say, you cannot prove it one way or the other... we don't know, nor will ever know, I say you are selling the artist short if you believe that he couldn't do it without the influence.

I believe the musical brilliance is either there or not. I think the music would have been different had they not done drugs, not necessarily better or worse. Maybe some artists would be more prolific without drugs.

Yeah thats true, brilliance is in the person, not the drugs. However, the drugs prolly gave some of their songs that extra spunk and finaz <<thats prolly not a word.

I think drugs make musicians experiment a bit more with music and inspire them to make different sounds, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it without drugs.
Also, alot of great songs were written about experiences with drugs but they weren't necessarily written while the song writer was high.