Does anyone have knowledge of what Robert has used for inspirationterms of drug use? I have found the later lyrics to be comparatively less imaginative/wierd - does anyone know hif he is using less substances?
Just something I've wondered about... I think he has used acid, LSD for the Top - which explains the lyrics!
"When work started in january of 1982, falling over on the floor was entirely in the cards, as the band's drug consumption was almost out of control" (...) that's what i've just read in the book included in the new edition of Pornography, but they don't mention specific drugs. I don't know either for the other albums but it looks like the band has found a kind of stability around it today... :roll:
It's true. Robert has always been very vague about his drug use. I know he used acid during the recording of Pornography, and probably on The Top too. Again, he was vague about this.
I remember in Ten Imaginary Years he mentioned him and Simon taking some heavy downers (quaaludes?) before the Allston '80 gig, and barely being able to stand. My friend has the book now, so I can't check the exact details.
Of course they did their fair share of drinking, but just not much in the way of specifics.
On the "Robert Smith Interviews - Vol. 2" CD, he told the interviewer that he had cut back on his "vices" a lot when she asked him if any of his songs were inspired by anything psychedelic. He also mentioned one time that he was too old to do stuff like he used to.
In the Loveline '92 interview (available on my page), there is a very interesting segment where he has a debate about drugs with Dr. Drew. It's one of the best interview bits I've heard. Robert really gets fired up on this one. It seems he knows quite a bit about the subject!
I also heard that the real reason that Boris left the band (although I cannot confirm this), is that the band agreed to all stop using drugs after the Wish tour, but Boris was caught continuing to do it behind their backs.
I'm pretty sure Robert doesn't do much now, if anything.
Robert mention about the composition of the "The Top" album that it was fueled by magic mushroom tea.
Don't know what he meant specifically but certantly some kind of drug
Quote from: rdruiz8Robert mention about the composition of the "The Top" album that it was fueled by magic mushroom tea.
Don't know what he meant specifically but certantly some kind of drug
Magic mushroom tea is just another way of taking psychedelic mushrooms. It involves boiling the mushrooms in hot water to extract the psilocybin (the drug part) so that you can drink it in a liquid rather than consuming the mushrooms whole.
Don't ask how I know this! :D
Wow, now it's clear to me why "The Top" has that unique sound, hahaha :D
Anyway it's a great album 8)
"drugs have dont good things for us.....If you don't believe go home and burn all your records, tapes and cds cause the artists who made the music that has enhanced your life are.................REAL f*cking high on drugs" - Bill Hicks
Never a truer word spoken lol............
Though it can have the opposite effect....... See oasis!
Luke x :P
Quote from: Beesley Wytchboy on August 06, 2005, 01:45:45
"drugs have dont good things for us.....If you don't believe go home and burn all your records, tapes and cds cause the artists who made the music that has enhanced your life are.................REAL f*cking high on drugs" - Bill Hicks
Never a truer word spoken lol............
Maybe I know nothing about using drugs, but I think this person expressed himself pretty well on the subject on a youtube forum for a Cure video:
-------------------
God I get so sick of people thinking you gotta be stoned to do interesting creative things. Zappa was one of the most original musical artists of all time. People swore he was an LSD crazed freak. Zappa was always very anti drug, in fact , before the Mothers made it his own band tried to get rid of him because he wouldn't drop acid with them. There is no way Smith could do what he does if he was a big drug user.
I read an interview with Smith "if it's in Rolling Stone it's just gotta be true" where he stated he had used drugs recreationally but was not a regular drug user. Straight from the weirdo's mouth. Smith's creative triumphs are the result of hard work and an unfettered imagination. Good for Bob.
one last drug comment. All of this business about drugs will make you creative goes back to the 40's when Charlie Parker - one of the great musical innovators of the last century - was a junkie who was playing alto sax like no one else had before. He was an amazing musician and other guys were shootin' up because they thought it would make 'em play like Bird (Parker). Parker died at 36 and the attending Dr thought he was in his mid-sixties. that's what drug's will do for you.
-------------------
So, is Robert still pro-drugs? I'm assuming he was during that interview in 92. What arguments did he use?
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/pooligan/Mr_Mackey.jpg)
i mean it.
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 02, 2008, 21:12:10
i mean it.
Oh my god you just made my day! Mmmkay? :smth040 :smth042
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 02, 2008, 21:12:10
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/pooligan/Mr_Mackey.jpg)
i mean it.
but w/o drugs some great Cure tunes might not be so great...or even exist! A Short Term Effect, one of your favorites, comes to mind.
Quote from: crowbi_wan on April 02, 2008, 21:20:17
but w/o drugs some great Cure tunes might not be so great...or even exist! A Short Term Effect, one of your favorites, comes to mind.
yes the song might be good but that doesn't mean drugs are great.
similarly, i think microwave oven was invented due to some radar technology invented for/during the world war II but the fact that i can easily cook my fast meals at work does not make WW II cool.
see what i mean? so what comes to some artists being able to produce good art while on drugs, i consider it more like a lucky coincidence or something. i like to think that these artists managed to create the art
despite the drugs, not
because of the drugs. drugs were something that played a part in their lives at that point but it's not like the artists "owe" everything to it. people glorify artists who took drugs in order to be creative, but in the end there's nothing great in it as such. so when we observe a piece of art like this, we should look at it without thinking that it's somehow "drug-related", without linking it to drugs, without thinking like it "owes" something to drugs. we shouldn't let that distract us.
so, let's just listen to mr. mackay, he knows what he's talking about - mmmmkay??
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 02, 2008, 21:40:44
so what comes to some artists being able to produce good art while on drugs, i consider it more like a lucky coincidence or something. i like to think that these artists managed to create the art despite the drugs, not because of the drugs.
Certainly the idea for a song is already the artists mind, but the end result has a lot to do with what they were experiencing while under the influence. I've tried just about everything out there and can tell you first hand that some images I saw, feelings I had, or thoughts that popped into my mind occurred only because I was tripping.
Some lucky coincidence? Nah, I don't believe that. Robert was doing a shitload of blow while recording Pornography. That album wouldn't be the same had he been sober. Hell, half the songs are about drugs! So, where would the inspiration come from?
But yes, drugs are bad...except for pot :-D
but what i mean by "lucky coincidence": i mean that he was lucky that he was able to produce such a song, while in drugs. because honestly, even if you see unbelievable/never-thought-of-before kind of things while tripping, it's not the same as being able to produce art from it. a lot of people take drugs and see things but how many manage to make art out of it? most drug-addicts are either too happy with their trippy state (so they don't feel the need to produce anything, they just want to be tripping and that's it), or they are actually too deep in all that shit so they are simply too messed up to produce anything, even if they could.
so whereas drugs maybe can guarantee tippy vibes and funny images in your head, they never guarantee that you can make something creative out of it. those trippy images don't turn into pieces of art just by themselves, but turning them into art is a completely different and completely separate process and it craves something else than just "taking drugs".
and besides, whereas drugs are often mentioned as enhacing people's creativity, they are just as often known to induce it too. there are many artists who used to be good but then got into drugs and actually lost their ability to create anything.
so that's what i mean by "lucky coincidence" - or maybe coincidence is a wrong word there. let's just say that he was lucky. he was lucky that the drugs didn't ruin him or make him lose his ability to say something through music. because honestly, he could have just as well ended up being just another of these drug-ruined wrecks out there.
that's what i mean.
about inspiration: as a musician myself i think i can say with confidence/experience that nothing is more overrated than 'inspiration'. inspiration is nothing yet. again, inspiration doesn't guarantee anything. anyone can get an ispiration but who can put it down and really turn it into something? that takes skill. and work.
Okay, I understand and actually do agree with you now. Yes, I know...it's amazing! :shock:
Drugs have inspired me to the point of trying to do something creative, yet nothing has come from it. Talent, hard work, and the want to create something are key.
Quote from: rdruiz8 on July 22, 2005, 02:35:16
Robert mention about the composition of the "The Top" album that it was fueled by magic mushroom tea.
Don't know what he meant specifically but certantly some kind of drug
mushroom tea is made of a kind of mushroom that act like xtc just it has not cafeine but u can alucinate and have very worst trips ever... XD
Quote from: crowbi_wan on April 02, 2008, 22:45:10
Okay, I understand and actually do agree with you now. Yes, I know...it's amazing! :shock:
Drugs have inspired me to the point of trying to do something creative, yet nothing has come from it. Talent, hard work, and the want to create something are key.
i guess 99% of it is work. that's the crap part that no-one ever really talks about because it's so unglorious (is that a word? :-P) and simply, so dull.
and yes, i'm actually forever amazed that 'pornography' is such an amazing album. considering everything, it could just as well be the crappiest thing they ever made and it could have been the end of the whole band. it almost should have been... and yet it wasn't! sometimes i don't get that!
Quote from: temptation-cure on April 02, 2008, 22:57:07
just it has not cafeine but u can alucinate and have very worst trips ever... XD
...ok i think i'll pass! i'll stick to my good ol' (boring) coffee...
Quote from: crowbi_wan on April 02, 2008, 22:05:37
But yes, drugs are bad...except for pot :-D
Oh don't tempt me, I'm already way too distracted by things that only exist in my head as it is...
Anyhow, if we're not finished with this subject already, I'd like to draw a parallel to this "drugs and creativity" business: there are many musicians who write some of their best songs during times of extreme hardship, like when their mother suddenly dies away in a car accident or something equally traumatic. Does that mean you should
seek out similar intense situations to put you in the right creative mood, as in, for instance, by letting your father "have a little accident"? I'm not saying musicians don't "manipulate" their surroundings in order to create more easily, but if drugs do "help", as some would say, then how far can you go without it being...cheating? Athletes, who just need a little boost to get to their goal, get busted for using performance-enhancing drugs; what about the latest MTV award winners? They're making money out of this after all...
Okay, maybe that wasn't the most sensible contribution to this discussion (japanesebaby, always spot on), but there you go. I guess we'll all end up saying "inspiration" is a very relative term.
By the way, all of this is coming from someone who's only contact with the world of drugs is through alcohol (yeah it's a drug!), which I've only tried once, a couple of years ago. Longest night of my life, hardly ever felt so disconnected to my body while giggling away like a buffoon. Always that bad the first time? Anyhow, I hate the taste, still, so I'm not forcing myself to do anything. I'd much rather spend my money on bungee-jumping or a round of paintball than something to pickle my liver in anyway. I usually hang out in crowds with other types of addictions, or I just stay sober when my friends get drunk so I can laugh at them in all sincerity...
Quote from: temptation-cure on April 02, 2008, 22:57:07
Quote from: rdruiz8 on July 22, 2005, 02:35:16
Robert mention about the composition of the "The Top" album that it was fueled by magic mushroom tea.
Don't know what he meant specifically but certantly some kind of drug
mushroom tea is made of a kind of mushroom that act like xtc just it has not cafeine but u can alucinate and have very worst trips ever... XD
I'd say it's more like acid then ecstasy. And "worst strip ever" or best trip ever? :smth048
Drugs....
Well, for what it's worth, in my experience, drugs opened my mind and during my 'druggie' days, I produced some really weird/wonderful stuff (even if I do say so myself!!! ;)).
I agree with Erik that the lyrics and even the music the band are producing of late has lost something. I often thought to myself that they must be laying off the drugs!! I'm glad I'm not alone in this thought.
When I started to listen to The Cure LP, I noted with dismay the number of repeated lines/words etc... and to me that says there is a lack of inspiration to write. Repetitive choruses are a killer in my opinion! And Wild Mood Swings??? Hmm...
I used to draw/paint and write loads during my (as I call it) 60's phase. But now as my drug use has basically stopped, so has my desire to draw/paint. I do still write, but it's lost something. Perhaps it can be attributed to maturity... but I say it's due to the lack of drugs basically!
I really believe drugs are a good thing for artists. Some of you may be horrified by this statement, and I can understand that. Drugs are dangerous for some personality types, but for the majority of people that do dabble (like myself) they come through the experience unscathed and having lived!
And in the case of Mr Smith & Co. they produced some really wonderfully original music! Mr Pink Eyes is a fantastic song, and is about Mr Smith's drug use! All those b-sides from that time period are unique... even The Glove's music is, and you can't tell me that Mr Smith and Mr Severin weren't sniffing/smoking/shooting up during the writing of Blue Sunshine!?!
I should say here that I have a few junkie mates, and I do see how they suffer with it. But then when you get into statistics, they are in the minority and most people do survive their drug taking days. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for my mates, as they decided to continue their drug usage, and only have themselves to blame for the way their lives have turned out. No one forced them to stick the needle in.
Quote from: crowbi_wan on April 02, 2008, 23:09:18
Quote from: temptation-cure on April 02, 2008, 22:57:07
Quote from: rdruiz8 on July 22, 2005, 02:35:16
Robert mention about the composition of the "The Top" album that it was fueled by magic mushroom tea.
Don't know what he meant specifically but certantly some kind of drug
mushroom tea is made of a kind of mushroom that act like xtc just it has not cafeine but u can alucinate and have very worst trips ever... XD
I'd say it's more like acid then ecstasy. And "worst strip ever" or best trip ever? :smth048
oh pls go and buy and smelt some "coca" LOL
Quote from: ~*CherryRed*~ on April 02, 2008, 23:12:45
I really believe drugs are a good thing for artists.
i don't. i think it's a myth. or, it can be seen good for an amateur artist: it can encourage people who don't generally create that much to create something, all of a sudden. but for a professional artists, it's not good. i'm convinced of that. i know quite a lot of professional artists (through my own profession), both musicians and other, and all of them who got too much into any sort of drugs only suffered. their art and skill only went down and deteriorated in the end, i know some really sad cases. some of them became totally incapable of continuing their profession anymore. and that made them completel wrecks because their art was everything they had in life. then they lost that too. that's awful. i really don't know anyone who somehow "benefited" from taking drugs in the long run. whether it was drugs or just alcohol, the ones who used it too much were only ruined.
so really, it's just a myth. to be a professional artist and to make a living out of it is really hard, whatever the field was. i know that myself. you're always out of money and there's always so much insecurity. people glorify it because of course there's the freedom to do whatever you want and express yourself and to be free from nine to five jobs ina goddamn blessing alone - but still, it's pretty damn hard when you look at the everyday side of it. you need to worry about how you pay your rent in every damn month. and so on and s on, it just never stops, that insecurity. so it's f*cking hard unless you're in that 0.00001% percent that really hit the big time and make money. for most others, it's really hard work. and you cannot afford fooling with drugs there, looking for some 'inspiration' or something.
it's simply completely different if you're not trying to professional and you can afford to create art as a hobby, just for your own pleasure. then you can maybe say it's "good", because it can give you extra inspiration. it's should i say even almost typical that non-professional artists say they "need" drugs in order to create. but a professional artist shouldn't ever have such a need: because if he really did, he never would have become an artist in the first place!
Quote from: ~*CherryRed*~ on April 02, 2008, 23:12:45
I agree with Erik that the lyrics and even the music the band are producing of late has lost something. I often thought to myself that they must be laying off the drugs!! I'm glad I'm not alone in this thought.
What would Robert have to say to that, I wonder? It's almost like saying they're nothing without drugs. My guess is it has more to do with their youth, with all sorts of inspiring (non drug-related) things happening around them, that they made their best stuff back then. Furthermore, like I said in an earlier post, Robert has said he used drugs recreationally, not regularly, like some make it sound he did...of course that "not regularly" part is a tad open to interpretation...
Quote from: ~*CherryRed*~ on April 02, 2008, 23:12:45
I used to draw/paint and write loads during my (as I call it) 60's phase. But now as my drug use has basically stopped, so has my desire to draw/paint. I do still write, but it's lost something. Perhaps it can be attributed to maturity... but I say it's due to the lack of drugs basically!
I'm sorry but that sounds like drug-abuse in its rightful meaning, not just casual dabbling, if you're that dependent on drugs to create...
Perhaps I didn't really make my point very well...
I never meant to say that any of The Cure members are/were junkies. And that they rely on drugs to write. I have noticed a change/decline in their ability to be unique. And it would seem I'm not alone in this thought. I guess this is a contentious issue?
Using drugs recreationally helps inspire work, no one can deny that, and loads of people have done/do that, thats just the reality. Of course if you use them and your not strong enough to control yourself (your usage) then your in for trouble, and should stay away from them. I personally don't touch pot anymore due to my lack of control over it. So it guess it's understanding your limitations and having strong will power or control over yourself. If you are unfortunate and can't do that, then you'll be come a junkie basically. I can't cry over it.
I wouldn't say at all I'm dependent on drugs to create something. I merely have noticed a lack of originality in the things I do these days. It is most likely older age, as I said... but then I do have to think that the lack of drug 'abuse' would also have something to do with it. It's just something I have noticed in myself. And everyone is different of course.
I understand people's reactions to drug taking, and the 'just say no' thing... but for christ's sake, you could get hit by a car tomorrow... it doesn't mean I'm never going outside again. Live life, "try everything once" is a major mantra of mine. And I'm still here to talk about it.
It's horses for courses, and I know people will disagree vehemently with me on this, so be it.
@ ~*CherryRed*~: Well no, I can't say this subject makes me feel all too comfortable, which may make me a bit biased and "defensive" about it...but I'll hear out any arguments from people who disagree with me without lashing out at them. As long as they don't lash out at me.
Yeah you could say there's been a decline in their work, most people would say it started after Wish. At the same time, it's interesting to note that a couple of people I've met, who have been to a few early Cure shows, say that the band seems much happier nowadays, and display more energy on stage. Despite Robert's, Porl's and Simon's age, they can go on for more than three hours without intermission, night after night! It seems highly unlikely that they're still doing drugs in order to make that happen, so I'll credit all that to pure will, and Rob's insistent refusal to grow up. :)
well said Poe.... Gone are the days of teenage turmoil, (some) drug taking, intense feelings, the highs and very lows of being young and having such an incredible mind as Robert has...
Now, they are older, happier, no huge problems in their lives, and are taking on tours that would kill most of us off!! I feel sad when I read things like they have lost the ability to surprise because they aren't on drugs...I'm just glad they made it through those years, fairly unscathed, and we can love them for who they are today, now....
a group of wild middle aged men having the party of their lives!!!
I find it extremely foolish and ignorant to attribute success in music and creativity with something so awful and illegal as drugs.
I don't care what you do in your free time, but I for one do not support ANY use of drugs...I view drug usage as a blight, a foolish and harmful thing to do. Not only that, but it has long term effects on the mind, and is...did I mention...ILLEGAL???
Why must I always hear such mixed messages? I turn on the TV, "Drugs kill" is what I hear in commercials and PSAs.I turn to my friend, "Drugs are awesome" is what I hear. It's a wonder I haven't picked up any drugs myself.
As a teenager with depression, I find it harder and harder to find other teenagers like me, who haven't abused substances. This, to me, makes me feel like the odd man out.
Now, to say that Robert's talent is solely BECAUSE he was on narcotics, well that's just ridiculous and immature...not to mention misleading.
It's stuff like that, hearing your favorite musicians are drug-abusers, that turn kids and teens to using drugs themselves. And that, my friends, is not cool. How cool is Kieth Richards? The guy looks like Yoda! And Ozzy Ozbourne can hardly for a sentence!
I school with children addicted to various drugs...some even dabbled in heroine! And believe me, it's no laughing matter. Nobody is cheering them on, and they certainly aren't "BOOMING" with creative genius. If anything, the drugs are making these kids sluggish, lazy, and empty-minded. And it's sad to see such brilliant kids in that state. There's nothing admirable about it.
Sorry if you disagree, don't get the impression that I am forcing on my opinions to you guys. That's not the case at all. I just find drugs as a very tabboo subject, and one that really affects me. I'm not asking anyone to change their ways...just cut the glorifying crap.
Quote from: Beesley Wytchboy on August 06, 2005, 01:45:45
"drugs have dont good things for us.....If you don't believe go home and burn all your records, tapes and cds cause the artists who made the music that has enhanced your life are.................REAL f*cking high on drugs" - Bill Hicks
The whole arguement is won by this statement alone....
Bill Hicks is the man. :smth023
Of course, its a choice, to be honest i dont see why alcohol is legal when you look at how some people react on it.
When people go too far and become addicted to things, i have limited sympathy, they know what they're doing and its a choice.
The band's talent as songwriters has nothing to do with being on drugs, but in the process of creating records The Cure have consumed a hell of a lot. The directions they've taken have often been due to their altered states of mind. You would not have gotten half the good songs and lyrics had Robert et al been totally sober.
Its a moral debate that could go on forever and ever....
Quote from: strange_day on April 03, 2008, 13:33:31
Its a moral debate that could go on forever and ever....
whether drugs are good or bad in general and whether people (artists or whoever) should use them is a moral debate, for sure. but whether drugs are seen to have either positive or negative influence/input on artists' output/creativity is not a moral debate. people can have moral - drugs themselves don't have moral. if we talk about how drugs (may) influence art, we can't make it a moral conversation. moral conversation must involve people.
and so, another good question is whether art itself has any moral? the artists certainly do... but art itself? does the possible morality/immorality of the artist somehow transform/transport into his&her art? does an immoral artist produce immoral art? or does immoral art make an originally fully moral artist suddenly immoral? or the other way round. or, if a piece of art influences someone in an immoral way, is that on the artist's moral responsibility and does the immoral "act" of his art make him immoral too - even if he didn't mean to be immoral in any way? and besides, what if we're talking about descriptive arts (like pianting), music, cinema or theatre - the concept of "moral" differs depending on what field of art we are observing. but how about music? does music have morality? maybe the lyrics do - but music itself certainly doesn't. so actually we should be talking about the morality in literature, rather than in music.
anyway, all that's another conversation i suppose.)
(i'm not entirely sure if this bill hicks means to be sarcastic or not(?). if he's really saying that i should burn my records if i don't agree that drugs are somehow "cool" because they maybe sometimes "inspired" some artists that i like? or if he's implying that artists in general are supposed to be high on drugs to even produce anything artistically?
maybe i get him all wrong but if that's what he's saying then to me he sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about. just another guy wanting to romantisize and glorify drugs and insist that drugs and art has some kind of in-built neural connection, that one can't exist without the other(?). ok maybe i get him all wrong but anyway, to me that's just a load of crap.)
My copy of Join The Dots arrived today, and I read this quote from Robert about Just Say Yes in the booklet:
"Lyrically the idea was a rallying cry for the silent 'Just say yes' majority, because I was as ever sick to death of the dismal 'Just say no' lot."
Which means, I guess, he's advocating the use of drugs...at his age? "Just say yes! Do it now!" Jesus, what's he thinking?! Is it really that black and white for him? I'd love to hear his arguments...Something more substantial(?) than "you might really love it!"
My role-model when it comes to artist's attitude to drugs will always be Zappa. As mentioned in a quote I posted earlier, he was pretty much anti-drugs, and still remained an original, legendary artist. A friend of mine just read his autobiography "The Real Frank Zappa Book", and recommends it warmly. Apparently it's hilarious. :)
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 03, 2008, 20:42:31
Quote from: strange_day on April 03, 2008, 13:33:31
Its a moral debate that could go on forever and ever....
whether drugs are good or bad in general and whether people (artists or whoever) should use them is a moral debate, for sure. but whether drugs are seen to have either positive or negative influence/input on artists' output/creativity is not a moral debate. people can have moral - drugs themselves don't have moral. if we talk about how drugs (may) influence art, we can't make it a moral conversation. moral conversation must involve people.
and so, another good question is whether art itself has any moral?
When i said that, i was meaning people discussing whether or not it is morally right for someone to use drugs. Ultimately, its a choice. Id say theres a fairly strong arguement to suggest that substance use in some cases has enhanced what The Cure has done musically AND lyrically. I agree totally with what youre saying about substance itself being irrelevant, because its the person who creates something, they will always have that talent.
To put it another way i guess its like a musician buying effects pedals to enhance their sound, of course if they dont have tunes to begin with, they will still be rubbish, its not the magic solution. But say using certain effects makes things sound cool. (Guess you could say The Cure have done that too ;))
Bill Hicks is right about what he says, he does it all in a very sarcastic provocative way, to provoke a reaction people who have mis-informed views on things and are unable to accept any other point of view, i guess hes looking at other side of it, plus he was a comedian ;)
I think Robert's attitude towards drug use in the 80's and early 90s was that of an experiment, something to take you outside of your natural train of thought just to see what happens, what angle you might take on things, what sounds, words and images you might see, that you wouldnt in a sober state. I know that during the recording of Disintegration Robert was on a lot of acid, now this has nothing to do with his ability to write those amazing songs, but you can tell it really hightened his feelings and it influnced the sound of that record a lot.
The more I look into it, it seems drugs has been pretty much an important, if not even integral, part of the creative process during most of The Cure's existence. Not many recording sessions without it, it seems, at least not during the eighties, and Robert still appears to be very pro-drugs... Shit! Is it that naive of me to be disturbed by that? Should people really turn a blind eye to the use of drugs in the intention to enhance one's performance, to reach one's goals, just when it comes to art? If they frankly, pretty much, wouldn't have been the same band, with the same special touch to a lot of their work, without drugs, and owe that much to drugs, then...what DOES that say about their talent? Perhaps this question has been answered already...Would I have asked that question if there was only alcohol involved?
I'd just like to add that no matter what, I know the songs are still the same, whatever brought them to THIS world, and I don't need drugs to enjoy them.
For me, everyone seems to be a bit to caught up in this - so what really? Everyone, well most people, have a go at using drugs... so what? Lie back and enjoy it!!! If they did drugs to get inspiration, so be it... it's a common thing. Drugs are a reality for a lot of people around the world, good or bad. And I personally think there is nothing wrong with it - if you can handle it. I've made my point on this clear, and am done with this topic now.
I do want to say quickly that if I have caused offence to anyone, I do apologise, it is not my intention to make any Cure-ite enemies!!! I believe what I do through my own life experiences... and yours will undoubtedly differ to mine.
Quote from: ~*CherryRed*~ on April 04, 2008, 11:50:11
For me, everyone seems to be a bit to caught up in this - so what really? Everyone, well most people, have a go at using drugs... so what? Lie back and enjoy it!!! If they did drugs to get inspiration, so be it... it's a common thing. Drugs are a reality for a lot of people around the world, good or bad. And I personally think there is nothing wrong with it - if you can handle it. I've made my point on this clear, and am done with this topic now.
first of all i'd like to think that noone's offended by anything. people have firm opinions and they are not shy to state them but that's a different thing.
anyway. actually i sort of agree with you about "so what if they used drugs?". the only thing that has made me say things that i've said here is that i really dislike/do disagree when people start either romantisizing drug usage in general and see it as something that's "good for artists". whether good or bad, there's nothing to romantisize there. or when people say that pronography is a great album "because of the drug influence". i just don't like mythologizing things like this.
and well, what i perhaps personally don't agree with is a too casual "lie back and enjoy!" attitude towards drugs and/or alcohol. i don't say that because i was an absolutist myself or anything. i've had my bad times/bad experiences with some of those sustances and those were not the best times in my life. and i don't know why anyone would like to experience something similar. true, there's nothing absolutely wrong in it if you can handle it - but there are simply a lot better things in life, whichever way you look at it. and it all does turn into a moral debate the moment we say "hey just enjoy, let's not care about it too much". because we can easily say that just to avoid taking the moral responsibility involved in the issue - and is that good or bad, actually?
anyway, for me it's all kind of useless territory for anyone to venture. artists CAN and MUST be able to create art without it. if they can't, there's certainly something wrong there and maybe they should consider some other profession, really. to say drugs are somehow "important" to artists is in a way the same as if you said a bus driver can't go to work unless he's drunk - ok i'm using a very extreme example there but i think you might get my point. i work with art/music myself and it always has pissed me off that people somehow tend to think that this gives me some sort of "liberty" to mess around with certian stuff more than others. it might sound funny but actually i find that a bit patronizing, almost! and that's where i usually bring forward the bus driver example. anyway.
but true, it all comes to everyone deciding themselves. it's your choice, your decision, just like everything else under the sun. but because everyone can only speak on behalf of his/her own experiences and "give advice" according to that, i guess that's why i tend to say what i say.