Rockin and a Ravin

[Anonymous]

I've started this thread to move a discussion on that started in the writing thread following Etive's short story 'The Neurotic Dancer', as I think it was getting away from discussion of the writing and dominating the thread. You might want to look back there to see the start of it.
The next 3 posts are re-posts from that thread.

[Anonymous]

Etive wrote:

"What do you think I am, I don't use artificial stimulants, the music is enough to intoxicate me."



True dat.
Music can be very intoxicating.
Likewise, music can be bad in some cases.
At the few experiences I had with "raves," I thought they were so artificial.
I went to a big one in Tijuana, Mexico that one of my friends helped sponsor. They had a bus shuttling people to a location which was some sort of business building, the underground parking lot--where most of it happened. I don't do drugs for the most part, mostly a chipper with mary jane which is infrequent. Like alcohol even less. Firstly, most electronica that people danced to (at the time, early '90s, and prob. still holds true for today) SUCKS. You know the techno-- constant synthetic kick drum at a tempo better for aerobics than expressive dance. How can this be fun? The live bands are always more interesting. Or perhaps the occasional violence that breaks out at such events. So I walked around with furrowed brow. Perhaps the "What the fuck?" look on my face is too obvious? At one point a guy comes up to me and says STTE: "What's wrong, bro? You are a good-looking guy. You should be having a great time!" I smiled (I dunno if it was a real one or not). Hey there was a guy who looked just like Patrick Swayze there, shirt off and everything, and he didn't necessarily look like he was having a good time, even though some girls-- like two that I saw giggle as he walked past-- react.
Why am I writing this? I dunno. Cuz it came to mind.
Whether or not you hate the music at raves, there are some who really get into the dancing and the music. I question how much they would be into it, if they weren't high on "X" or whatever drugs they use.

Me? Yeah I agree with you, L, with the belief that music itself is intoxicating, so why would you need drugs? Can drugs have the cathartic effect that music does? One year I was at a Judas Priest/ Testament concert. I strongly like both bands. I headbanged like crazy at that one. At one point the bloke beside me asked "What are you on?" Of course I said, "Nothing," and continued to bang away. The sore neck the next day, a fair trade-off. I pity the guy if he couldn't understand how drugs are not necessary.

Exodus is going to play here next weekend. Hmmm... it's been I while since I've banged real hard. It's a long time comin' next week!

THE END

[Anonymous]

Horses for courses, Jericho. Can't speak for the music at the places you went to, but like anything it's easy enough to dismiss it if you don't get it; I'm always mystified how anyone can like Opera, less so about techno (because I like a lot of electronic music anyway). And people said and say the same thing about jazz and rock'n'roll - it's obvious that no one could LIKE that noise, they must be all drunk / on drugs. (Strangely no one says it about modern classical music, which is just as much an aquired taste).

There's that tale about Phil Spector on some chat show where the host had a go at the triteness of his lyrics, reading them out to show how 'bad' they were, and Spector quite rightly pointed out that he was 'missing the beat'.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Taste in music is subjective.
Some people don't like music period.
Now that's hard to understand!
I once had membership to one of the corporate
fitness clubs here in town. One night, they had on
techno, and this old-fart complained to the worker there,
saying, "if you don't turn this music off, I'm going to quit!"
The music was that aversive to him.
I could care less. I could block out the music if I need to.
I usually wear headphones anyway.

The drugs associated with raves to me seems
just as important, if not more important than
the music. Raves seem to be get-rich-quick kind of
businesses, making money illegally, using methods to
get around the law, using "guerilla-warfare" club tactics--
hitting quick, and then disappearing. Isn't that what raves are?
Historically at least.
It's not an "anarchistic" type of ethos that I can agree with
and think is cool. I feel the same way about tagging. Why in
the world would I need to express myself artistically by spray
painting illegible words on public property? Is there something
I don't get about that? I guess I would have to be truly poor
and oppressed to "see the light." :)

Getting back to Rock... sure there's the saying "Sex, Drugs, and
Rock N' Roll," but that's just because the adults involved
have been historically stupid idiots. Rock n' Roll isn't
restricted to adults and white people although what the
media portrays, says the contrary. Isn't it black people
who created blues and rock? Anyway, had to get that
off my chest :)

If the show is at an arena or all ages club, entire
families can come if they want. I highly doubt that
pre-teens or teens are witnessing and being involved
with drug use while under the watch of adults. (Of course,
there are probably some rare cases.) It may be
an environment where they first learn what pot smells
like, but-- God forbid-- not where they first use it.
Raves and after hours parties? Are those events for
the whole family? (I'm not saying they should be.)
Does Junior take a "tab" of X for the
first time? That's what people do at these events
is it not?
I listen to a fair shair of electronica. The genres of
techno, trance, jungle, house, etc... is just not my thing.
(If I listened to large quantities of it, I'm sure I could pick out
a few tracks that I think are good, but I'm not.)
Using drugs especially is not my thing.

I don't think it's a question of me not getting it.
It's just not my thing. I could say that I think it's
straight-up asinine, but never do. I feel similarly
about alcohol consumption.

There was this girl that I worked with in radio that I
saw on one occasion wearing a shirt that said "Ravers Suck."
Her favorite band at the time was Portishead. I didn't even know
it at the time, but she's more like "my kind of people."
(I don't feel that strongly against raves to wear such a shirt,
but much later I did come to appreciate the music of Portishead.)

I question why rock n' roll musicians use drugs before
a performance. Just to calm the nerves?
For some reason, I don't think that's why John Bonham
like to get shit-faced. I suppose in typical 4/4 music, it doesn't
matter how altered your conscious is, it's simple meter. It's really
not that amazing that Def Leppard has a one-armed drummer.
Try putting him in Slayer or Don Caballero. Now that would be
interesting!
How I feel about music is usually (not exclusively) this: the more complex and difficult to play, the better and more interesting it is. I'm not a big jazz fan either though, which leads me to say: often times the weirder the music, the better. But that doesn't mean that I like Frank Zappa and Cronos Quartet either. Don Caballero and Zao are great examples of what I like. Most people don't even know who they are. It goes to show, music is a very diverse and subjective area.
I'll end with this: I doubt drugged out musicians would be able to perform
some of my favorite songs.

Sorry if this is offensive, if so, by all means, fire back :)

[Anonymous]

I question why rock n' roll musicians use drugs before a performance. Just to calm the nerves?"

I suppose it depends, but in one band I was in, there were two cokeheads and it was all about the rush. The rush of the drug, the rush of being on stage, the rush of the six people yelling "Shut up". One can argue if it had anything to do with the cocaine, but we sucked.

"It's really not that amazing that Def Leppard has a one-armed drummer."

He could do it; at least in the day. I saw him live before the accident and he is/was a very good drummer. Very good.

"How I feel about music is usually (not exclusively) this: the more complex and difficult to play, the better and more interesting it is."

Then you like progressive? It doesn't get any more complex or weird than King Crimson or Frank Zappa (and his progeny).

Music for me is the be all and end all. In the car, at home, at work (when I can shut the door). Almost any kind, although in certain genres I only like specific artists. There is plenty of music that can literally send a shiver down my spine.

[Anonymous]

You're alright Bill!

I like old Def Leppard a lot.
It has a lot of energy in an AC/DC kind of way.

Then they got older... "Pour some sugar on me?"

No thanks!!

I like stuff that can be considered "progressive"
I suppose I could like some King Crimson and Zappa
but I am a little younger than you, I gravitated towards
other stuff.
The "older (by 3 or 4 years) brother" music for me is Led Zep,
Black S., Hendrix, Floyd (to a lesser degree), Beatles, and
maybe missing a few...

Then there was the "older (up to 2 years older) brother" music of AC/DC, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and such...

but I found my own stuff to get into... Metallica, Testament, Exodus,
Slayer, etc... Darker, heavier, more evil, underground metal.

College radio opened me up to things I might have never discovered/ had access to by "ordinary" means (whatever that means).

Don Caballero might be like "a result of a mad genetic experiment, crossing King Crimson with Pat Metheney with Slayer." something like that.

[Bill]

"You're alright Bill!
I like old Def Leppard a lot.
"Pour some sugar on me?": No thanks!!
...music for me is Led Zep, Sabbath, Hendrix, Floyd (to a lesser degree), Beatles, and... the music of AC/DC, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and such... "

I could've written that. The staples of my youth (although I still listen to a lot of that today). (I'm joking about including the "You're alright" part).

I grew out of very little of the music I listened to 20 years ago (high school).

[zakt]

Should this not be in the Rock'nRoll forum which is looking very neglected? :(

As another oldie, I agree with Bill ( 8O ) that it's not easy to grow out of music you love as a teenager or just beyond (hope that's the implication, William). I think the last time I disposed of music voluntarily, I swapped Led Zeppelin's Presence for a Jimi Hendrix compilation. I was about 14, and it seemed like a good move at the time. It still does, but I bought Presence again a few years later.

What totally pisses me off is loking for a piece of music I know I have, and realising it has gone missing. I split with my ex-partner 6 years ago and made the fatal mistake of leaving vinyl and tapes in the house for a couple of months :( :( Every so often, a new one hits me! Shit, I bought that Joni Mitchell double tape (well, it was good in places :oops: ) when I was 19, years before I met the ex!!

[PsychicWarVeteran]

Regarding Rock and Drugs:

I took a History of Rock and Roll class in college and the professor informed us that freeform jazz came as a direct result of Black jazz musicians smoking marijuana and experimenting while high as kites. He stated it as fact, with examples of famous jazz guys who were notorious pot-heads.

The Beatles were insanely influenced by the use of drugs and many would say that the drug years were their best. Who doesn't think Sgt. Pepper's is just plain awesome? As much as their manager never wanted to admit it, The Beatles used and benefitted from the drug-use.

And don't get me started on Pink Floyd. If Waters and Gilmour had never taken drugs, we wouldn't have the phenominal "Comfortably Numb."

[Bill]

"And don't get me started on Pink Floyd. If Waters and Gilmour had never taken drugs, we wouldn't have the phenominal "Comfortably Numb.""

I am sure you aware that the party line is that it is a result of watching one of their own (Syd Barrett) succumb to the temptation, and not their personal knowledge.

RIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHT. And I have an inflatable pig to sell you.

[Bill]

"As another oldie, I agree with Bill ( )"

Don't get fooled by the politics (which I don't apologize for). I rarely talk politics in "real life" (which is maybe why I am so adament here). I like nothing more than kicking back with some tunes and a couple beers trying to figure out on my acoustic guitar how Jimmy Page did that (whatever it was he did).

Huge Beatle fan (to the tune that I read studio diaries book by Mark What'shisname that put together the Anthology Series. I would have a go at almost anybody on Beatle trivia. I even like the Beatle knock-offs (Cheap Trick, Oasis, Badfinger)

[PsychicWarVeteran]

Slight Tangent - Testing Bill's Beatles Knowledge

I would have a go at almost anybody on Beatle trivia.

Okay then. Tell us, Bill, what Beatles song was written based off of a random two-word quote in a book and what were the two words?

If that one is too easy, then:

Which Beatle, when a vagrant was caught camping out on his property, invited the dirty, disheveled man in for a hot meal and conversation?

[Jules]

Hmm. I think those jazz cats were hep to the reefer a good long while before free jazz. Heroin's had a long association with jazz too - the cool school in particular, insular, contemplative, detached and definitely not dancing - I mean Miles Davis and Chet Baker are practically an advert for smack. And again that was some time before free jazz.

[Jules]

Zakt - I did think of putting this in R&R but that's really for discussing Mike's bands and collaborations, wheras we're supposed to keep the community stuff in here!!

[Omaru]

[quote="Originally Jerico"]
How I feel about music is usually (not exclusively) this: the more complex and difficult to play, the better and more interesting it is. I'll end with this: I doubt drugged out musicians would be able to perform
some of my favorite songs.
[quote]

I have similar opinions on music. I'll even sacrifice listenability for complexity and uniqueness. A lot of the stuff I listen to I have to listen to on headphones because if anyone else happens to be around they tend to get annoyed pretty quickly. Of course now I'm going deaf, but anyway... My first huge favorite band (when I was about 11 up until 20) was Rush. Some people hate them, which I understand- it even takes me an effort of will at times to look past the annoyingly piercing vocals, for example. But what I love about Rush is that I can listen to it over and over and over and never quite take in all it has to offer simply by virtue of the amazing talent of the musicians and the complexity especially of the drums.

Someone else I'm a fan of is Mike Patton (most well-known as the lead singer for the late Faith no More). Sure, he's an egocentric baby and kind of an asshole. But he has such a unique musical vision and virtuosic vocal ability I can't help but love almost everything he does. In case you haven't heard of it, Jerico, he has a band called Fantomas. It consists of Mike, bassist Trevor Dunn (Mr. Bungle), guitarist Buzz Osborne (The Melvins), and drummer Dave Lombardo from Slayer. They perform both original Mike Patton compositions and film score adaptations along with a couple of covers they do at live shows such as Al Green's 'Simply Beautiful'. But I warn you- this is some of the stuff I was talking about having to listen to on headphones so nobody tries to shoot you. So you might like it or (probably) not. It's some of my favorite stuff anyway.

Since you seem to be into the metal you might also check out Candiria, The Dillinger Escape Plan, or Cattle Decapitation.

On the subject of drug use by musicians, concertgoers, etc... I don't find that it makes any real difference to me. So they write and/or play their music while they're high. Sometimes that works. So they listen to the music while they're high. Sometimes that's fun. Necessary? Probably not. But everyone works differently and every experience has a potential for leading to unique expression thereof. I really don't see it as an issue. But one thing I will say is that all the truly genius amazing musician types that I know of who don't do drugs tend, in my opinion, to act like they're on them anyway. So maybe they're just 'lucky' enough not to need them.