Does anyone else see the problem with Jagger making this statement and then for it to be printed?? Jagger: Drugs helped Stones write classics May 4, 2010, 3:14 PM EST WENN -- Mick Jagger has rejected the suggestion drugs had a negative impact on the Rolling Stones, insisting the band wrote some of their biggest hits while under the influence. The legendary group famously indulged in narcotics during their 1960s and '70s heyday -- particularly chief songwriters Jagger and Keith Richards. But the frontman insists the "party atmosphere" helped to inspire much of their music, particularly iconic 1972 album Exile on Main Street. Jagger tells Absolute Radio, "That was a period of time when everyone took loads of drugs, it was very fashionable, but I mean, we did a lot of hard work as well, so it was a bit of a party atmosphere, loads of visitors, you know, there was a lot of drugs floating around, but not everyone was completely out of it all the time and we did a lot of good tracks, you know."
I see nothing not true about it, whether or not it is right or wrong is debatable. It probably doesn't help to keep aspiring musicians off drugs but, let's face it, if you want to live the sex, drugs, and rock n roll lifestyle your going to do just that. If you're not smart enough to stay away from the drugs aspect and a newspaper story about Mick Jagger influences you to do drugs, well, that's your own damn fault. As for me, all I can say is Aerosmith pumped out a lot of good music, but almost none of it came after they got off heroin. GNR, Motley Crue, even SRV, they all wrote songs about their experiences with drugs, and they were damn good songs. So, the evidence is certainly there.
It's an interesting thing that most artists, across the various mediums, improve over time. They hone their skills as they age and mature. But most rock (or pop) musicians write their greatest songs before age 30. (The Stones, admittedly, are still a money-maker past 60, but not really based on any new writing that they've done.) Well, one wonders if drug use has something to do with the diminishing returns. Maybe. I also wonder if maybe it has something to do with the inherently shallow nature of pop commercial entertainment, and the fact that as the song-writers grow older and more mature, they outgrow the medium in which they work. Makin' love and breakin' hearts, it is a game for youth...
It may be true, but if so it's troubling. To whatever degree rock music is a product of mind-altering drugs, and to whatever degree its enjoyment is dependent upon them, then it is to exactly that degree that the genre is a means of escaping from reality. And that seems ominous to me: the idea that the most prosperous generations to have ever lived feel the need to escape from the world through their music, rather than to celebrate music as an expression of our highest ideals that guide us toward a life well-lived. I don't think rock music has to be seen this way, but I do think most of its listeners feel that way about it (even if they couldn't or wouldn't articulate that feeling).
well, it so happens that Exile on Main Street is my all-time favorite album. I'm mid 40's. I smoked pot once in 1980. Never used any "mind altering drugs" ever. The only thing "mind altering" is what happens to me when I listen to that album. What Mick said certainly isn't unique to the Stones, or to Rock and Roll. Suppose Miles Davis or Charlie Parker were ever "altered" when performing/recording? Meanwhile, I believe that there are some bands out there who's fans absolutely have to be blasted out of their gourds to enjoy. Think "Flaming Lips". When I hear one of their songs, I suddenly wish I was instead under general anesthesia.
Do you feel that "Ventilator Blues" is expressive of anything except the sort of escapism I mentioned earlier? And if so, what would it be?
Coelacanth, You think escapism is something unholy or bad? Why do you think so? Do you have any experience with "escaping"? Do you feel that an escape is less than honorable? Why? Are there more productive ways to deal with things? Why do you think so? What are these things and do they depend upon the circumstances? Can you go "over the line"? Who draws the line? By what "authority" do they draw the line? Is the line a matter of criminal, civil or spiritual law? If it is spiritual, why should that view of spirituality be accepted? Do you have any experiences with other, more productive (if you propose them) ways to take a vacation without paying travelocity for a plane ticket? Is it OK to escape for a few minutes or is no escape at all the only way to lead your life? What if you don't deal all that productively with negatives? Is it OK to escape for a minute to catch one's breath and then dive in and deal with things? Is this the end of humanity or civilization? Can you think of any more questiosn I should have asked? Can you answer them for me while I "escape" to my dinner preparation for the mother of my children or should I not turn my back on these burning questions because that would be a wrongful escape?
Nick, It seems that my method has touched a nerve. If so then I apologize. It has become my nature to search out the things I do not know—or that we, collectively, do not know. These forums do not interest me much if their purpose is merely to have posters state claims or opinions or propositions. I wish instead to understand which claims and opinions and propositions are true. It will always be my aim to discover the fault lines that run through these various ideas, even our most basic assumptions about the world. This project is most properly expressed, I believe, through questions. They may seem like a rhetorical strategy, but I assure you they are not. They are instead a dialectical strategy. Nevertheless, I appreciate your questions. I get that they were meant, at least partially, to be ironical, yet still I think there is much that is valuable in them. And so I will answer. And in answering, I hope you will rejoin our earlier thread, on which I think there is much left to say.
I'm just goofing. HornFans is so dead there is not much else to do. You must be really bored as well...
i didnt know this was news, i thought it was all well established fact. the greatest rock music ever written was between 1965-1975. they were all high as hell or drunk the whole time. they got sober and mellowed out after almost dying and the music sucked...hell, we got disco, then hair bands, then grunge, then over produced pop ****.
What general said. I used to play in classic rock cover bands ('65-'75 rock). Some of the guys playing would take a hit from a reefer, and some of us would have a beer handy out of sight on stage, but nobody got drunk or high because we didn't want to make mistakes. I can see these bands getting high while they were writing, but I bet they were sober when playing live and recording.
I've always thought Mick Jagger had to be high as a kite to prance about on stage as he did, like a skinny little banty rooster. And I've always thought that if someone needed drugs to be able to do their job, they probably weren't very good at it, anyway.
I can tell you from playing in a band the studio and the stage are great places to be under the influence. I've never done drugs, but I perform drunk alot.
The best rock has some fury and angst in it. Hard to sustain that forever, especially in the face of commercial success. Thats why the old dudes kinda mellow out. As for the drugs, it isnt my thing but if you arent hurting anybody else then I say go for it.
The Rolling Stones suck. Why are they being used as an example of great rock and roll music? The only lesson I learn from them is that bands that take lots of drugs make lots of boring music.
Oh, Monahorns, you are my new hero! I never understood the love for the Stones. Other than a small handful of their songs, their music bores me.
Just curious, would the op have been more comfortable had Mick credited Jesus for his creative output? I mean no other artist, ever, has ever used such a muse before, right? No opium, no absinthe, nothing.... Someone needs reality to be sanitized for their own protection, it seems.