Ableton Forum

Personally i find i get more done when i'm sober. But sometimes a nice bottle of Absinthe can help the mind travel off the beaten path

forge wrote:

D K wrote:

forge wrote: the point was about the change in their music

and george martin had everything to do with it, and didn't use drugs.
he was there the whole time, got heavily into audio experimentation, and pioneered alot of techniques. did some seriously crazy, beautiful shit.
a total head trip, all natural.

I'd be interested to know if he would of done alot of things if he didnt work with the Beatles. It was definitely a 2 way relationship. Of course Martin had a huge influence, but I'm sure he would have kept recording orchestras and scoring his own music even, but I'm not convinced he would have done alot of those things if he didnt have the Beatles pushing him to.

He certainly wouldnt have pushed the boat out as far as "I am the walrus" which was far more acid than surrealism.

definitely a two-way relationship. no denying that...funny tho, the straight guy held it together and made it all work in the end. think about other work like the benefit for mister kite....that was george martin splicing all that tape together, while the band was busy staring at the walls. i wouldn't bee too hasty to say "what if he didn't have them to push him" -that's speculation. the reality is he was more than willing to get into the studio as an instrument without the mind-altering substances...
he obviously had no problem with rock music, wanted to work with it and push musical boundaries...if not the beatles, i bet he would have worked with some other rock group(although that's speculation too).
d

So, uh, drugs had nothing to do with the change in the beatles music....

and burroughs' writing sucks.

right, right. sure.


those were two obvious examples that are hard to refute. If I wanted to continue in this direction you know damn well that i could. Everybody who isn't living under a rock realizes how much drugs have influenced culture, esp. music.


.lm.

jeskola wrote: i dont think it does, it makes YOU think you are doing somthing better.
Generally ive foudn the 2 drugs of choice in muscians and djs is coke or weed.

Coke robs you of your soul, makes you an arrogant and empty person (though it is good fun)... and when it comes to music you need to keep yer feet firmly on the ground. The last thing you want is to belive your the most important creative being on the planet when your chewing a carrrot over some drums.

Weed is a bizzare one.
Having smoked the stuff every day for years (and given up) , i have all too often seen it breed paranoia and intense self examination - wich in the long term definalty aint good. When it comes to music weeds crazy , you can spend hours on crazy little noises - Things take on whole new meanings... usually they sound terrible in the mornign.

True...
C lets you work on brilliant material without realizing it... what a waste..
And wheet let everything appear to be brilliant..But to do a release it needs to be somehow more special than the doped head illusion of what it could be...

However..there are lots of other drugs around .. i hear a a strong influence of xxx in some super coolisch productions that are around theese days for example.

hambone1 wrote: Although I'm pretty tolerant about most lifestyles, I draw the line at self-harm. I place drug and alcohol abuse in that category. It's not only harmful to the abuser, but to society in general.

Are you talking about cigarettes ? or the weapon industrie? Or Airpolution by cars? Or nuclear power stations?

I think you are mixing things up ..
People dont become abusers because they are bad for the society...
They become abusers because society is bad for them...
And its more and more people every year that suffer from society..
Thats not a good sign at all...

*Don't take this personal*

Drugs have nothing to do with it - if you're talented you're talented period

They're really good musicians who happen to use drugs.

Also, did it ever occur to people that by giving off that drug image that was the crowd they were trying to attract


"Hey they're stoners making music just like me - totally, Jimi was most def high when he recorded that." - not!

isn't one of the members of U2 in recovery from Alcoholism (they're pretty good I heard)



Lane Stayley couldn't sing for shit high - but when he got a couple days clean under his belt 'viola'


don't most of these icons die of some kind of heart failure or something - yeah I want to die from a heart attack after my record blows up - speaking off didn't Kurt shoot himself in the head (yeah real cool)


When you take the drugs away, the true spirit of that person is revealed - Lane, Kurt, Mile Davis, etc etc - their real talent showed through when you took the smack from the mac (that was a cool ryhme)

when they were on drugs they were no better than the junkies begging for change downtown


Aside from events or places where drugs are taken (raves, discotechs, clubs) what influence have they had on our culture? Hip-Hop has had more influence on our culture more than weed. Most people don't walk around town with a weed t-shirt on (maybe on capitol hill in seattle, yeah but the worlds bigger than your local Alternative neighborhood)

my 2 cents - sorry


Ad

adonis: I totally agree that talent has nothing to do with drugs. However, drugs can play a part in what direction that talent goes.


funny you should mention hip hop vs. weed. Hip hop is a genre where entire albums are made about weed. How many hip hop records can you name that don't have at least one reference to weed? I'm sorry, but not all of those people are just saying they smoke pot to panderf to an audience. Maybe some, but not all.


.lm.

leisuremuffin wrote:adonis:


funny you should mention hip hop vs. weed. Hip hop is a genre where entire albums are made about weed. How many hip hop records can you name that don't have at least one reference to weed?


.lm.

"Even if Yella
Makes it a-capella
I still express, yo, I don't smoke weed or a sess.
Cause its known to give a brother brain damage.
And brain damage on the mic don't manage
Nuthin'
But makin' a sucker and you equal.
Don't be another sequel..." NWA


Seems they like everything but weed. but I did see cube smoking in his Friday movie. go figure.

yep, the guy who performed that verse went on to make a record called "the chronic" entirely about weed. his name is dr. dre.

not to mention that later on, Dre wrote a song in which he claims to use ecstacy.

do some research, hommes.


.lm.

would the great dub of king tubby or lee perry exist without weed.i very much doubt it.not to everyones taste but the effects they created are still used today.im off to burn down my studio.

Man, if you've got talent, you've got talent, no smoking is gonna give u more talent.

What drugs can do is change the ways u use that talent... for better or worse, doesn't matter, and you gotta be either blind, stupid or an anti-drug extremist freak to not admit it.

If one doesn't like drugs, ok, everyone's entitled to an opinion. But trying to deny the influence of drugs in our world is just plain dumb.

D K wrote:definitely a two-way relationship. no denying that...funny tho, the straight guy held it together and made it all work in the end. think about other work like the benefit for mister kite....that was george martin splicing all that tape together, while the band was busy staring at the walls. i wouldn't bee too hasty to say "what if he didn't have them to push him" -that's speculation. the reality is he was more than willing to get into the studio as an instrument without the mind-altering substances...
he obviously had no problem with rock music, wanted to work with it and push musical boundaries...if not the beatles, i bet he would have worked with some other rock group(although that's speculation too).
d

I'm a forever Beatles fan and have read the Beatles recording session book by Mark Lewisohn. As much as it is true that Martin held the sessions together, as any producer does, the sound innovations were requested by the Beatles, and certainly coming from mind expanding drugs, and the culture of the time.
The sound innovations like the flanger (a name created by Lennon when the tape ops were manually slowing down the flanges on the tape machines) were the fruits of tape operators, not Martin.
The new ways to mike the drums, the bass, or going directly into the desk with a guitar, and so on were done by the sound engineers, not Martin.
Martin was there to bring the classical musical knowledge to self taught instrumentists, so the orchestral arrangements were his input.
Psychedelic experiments were not.
Tape splicing were done at John's request, but this thing had been done before in concrete music.
The white album which is maybe my favourite, was done mainly without Martin, because he couldn't stand the bad vibes in the studio.
Martin always stated that he thought the white album should have been a single album, oh dear, can you imagine that? He would probably taken out revolution 9, although I don't play it often, it certainly opened my mind and ears to new things

When you say they were staring at the walls while Martin was splicing tapes, if you look at their record output (if only in 67) you'll notice that they had little time to even give a quick look at walls.

Everyone involved with the Beatles recordings were requested to push boundaries, and the sound production concepts forever changed after these guys. Still you can play Strawberry Fields on an acoustic guitar, and you'll feel an acid flashback even if you never took one

Lennon started taking acid regularly in 65 at the same time as weed in fact.
The loops in Tomorrow never knows were Beatles ideas.

The inclusion of a Shakespear play in I'm the Walrus, was done live during the mix by Lennon with a live feed from radio.
In that song Martin arranged the strings, and the backing vocals which are absolute genius, but the song already had a drug feel to it.

Bottom line: Martin was a fantastic producer, but the evolution of the songwriting and the psychedelic production of some tracks were not his.

When told Martin was the 5th Beatle, Lennon infamously replied "oh yeah, and what song did he write ? "

sorrry about that boring post...

defunkt wrote:would the great dub of king tubby or lee perry exist without weed.i very much doubt it.not to everyones taste but the effects they created are still used today.im off to burn down my studio.

I have to correct you, in King Tubby Studio smoking was banned.
He was straight, and wanted sober musicians in studio.
I was surprised to read this while reading the booklet of the double CD "the roots of dub" and "dub from the roots".

Lee Perry had problems with rum also, he used to drink too much and smoke together, but King Tubby the Dub Master was straight.

thanks for correcting me.

leisuremuffin wrote:adonis: I totally agree that talent has nothing to do with drugs. However, drugs can play a part in what direction that talent goes.


funny you should mention hip hop vs. weed. Hip hop is a genre where entire albums are made about weed. How many hip hop records can you name that don't have at least one reference to weed? I'm sorry, but not all of those people are just saying they smoke pot to panderf to an audience. Maybe some, but not all.


.lm.

Well most if not all the hip hop albums pre 1992 had little to no mention of drugs or weed - not until Cypress Hill broke out and it was on from there

Artist reference to drugs became a selling point like being a gangster or a white boy (M & M) next thing you know you have a bunch of white gangster rappers running around smoking weed - sounds like music has influenced the drug world more than drugs have


You'd have to be seriously dumb to believe drugs have anything to do with anything good today - music is more of an influence on people and if artist are talking about using Extacy (Mac Dre) and smoking dope on every track people are going to assume it's just the way to be. When the labels see sex, drugs and gangsta shit sell, they sell more

So is it really the drugs or marketing that have you thinking drugs have influenced our culture as a whole? Curious

*not meant to ruffle feather - strictly discussion*

A