IMHO Bonnie Raitt’s best work was done during a period of her career when she was drinking alot and doing drugs on a regular basis. She “cleaned up her act” and more power to her, but she lost me as a fan.
At least she gave you something to talk about.
Okay, that was bad.
I think a lot of artists, musicians in particular, are at their creative peaks anyway from their late teens to maybe their mid thirties regardless of drug use. It’s hard to say how much one is responsible for the other.
The lis is endless. How come nobody has mentioned Mozart and Shakespeare? Or countless rock bands - Rolling Stones (late 60s/early 70s), Led Zeppelin, etc?
Pun intended?
This topic has turned into a boring list of artists who’ve been known or rumored to do drugs. That list could go on for 100 pages, and I could stil find one or two to ask why no one has mentioned. Not one is evidence that the work of those artists was “enhanced” by drugs.
I suppose that’s the point though - how can we possibly know for a fact that their creativity was actually better while under the influence? All we can do is say x was known/suspected to have been under the influence of y and the work they produced during that time was z. Perhaps we could then compare that work z with later or ealier works while NOT under the influence of y.
However, it can usually be expected that an artists’ work follows a sort of bell curve, where it improves over time, reaches a peak, and then declines or is no longer relevant. That may or may nor happen with or without the use of y or under the use of y for a specific period along the curve.
So, it would have to be that we’d need an in-depth analysis of a cross section of artists to compare their periods of drug usage with periods of sobriety, as well as comparing the different types of drugs used and the net effect if any on their work at the time.
But then there are dozens of other factors. Artists are generally emotionally strung, so crises in their lives would also have an effect - like when Mozart’s father died and he then composed his darkest opera.
So, due to the complex nature of such a topic, I’m not sure exactly what, if anything, is up for debate.
Or, if such a thing has been undertaken already, a simple cite would do.
Not that it matters, but he’s said otherwise in the past (see last paragraph), but that reference on certain drugs “increasing remote connections which otherwise would remain inactivated” is very interesting indeed.
I’d suggest that, as others have said here, the experience of other states of mind might well factor in the element of “seeing the world a different way” necessary to genuine innovation. However, at the time, the motor and cerebral functions necessary to produce a high quality finished product are affected to their detriment. No matter what state of mind I’m in, it is pretty much always the sober musician who I find more musically interesting, say.
I could find you thousands of DeadHeads who think the work of the Grateful Dead is definitely enhanced by drugs. 
Seriously though, if you think about all the artists who either died, had their careers destroyed, or were interrupted for a significant amount of time due to drug problems, I think the idea that there’s a lot of positive drug use in art would dry up. I’m trying to find the exact quote, but Miles Davis said that he needed drugs when he wasn’t playing - never when he was onstage making music. So there’s one major 20th century artist and drug user (heroin) who didn’t think it helped.
Not that I’m suggesting there is, but this is selection bias. Artists are public figures. A public figure with issues equals tabloid space. A public figure with things under control, isn’t. In a govt-enforced prohibition regime, a tabloid is hardly likely to print: “Rocker X loves his weekly dose of Smack.”. The White House Office of NAtional Drug Policy has paid television drama/show producers to insert anti-drug messages in their programs. The media isn’t exactly an impartial, legally & socially agnostic filter.
I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this. I’m not talking about people who are tabloid fodder now. When I made that post I was thinking of Charlie Parker. The careers of Coltrane, Miles Davis and Joe Pass were handicapped by heroin. Eric Clapton missed a couple of years around what would’ve been his peak because of heroin. I mentioned the Grateful Dead in jest earlier, and we know why Jerry Garcia is dead. I do think more artists were hurt or killed by drugs than the few who we’ve decided were helped by drugs.
How? You either read in a paper/book or saw on TV about these artists and their problems (unless you happen to know them personally). In other words, their drug use is public because a)the use became problematic b)they’re public figures (if my neighbour’s cousin’s friend lost his job due to being caught for smoking rock, it wouldn’t be on the news). Now, your statement was “I think the idea that there’s a lot of positive drug use in art would dry up.” You can’t assess this as true because you’ve to round up all the artists who didn’t have problematic drug use in column 1, against those who did in column 2. It’s easy to locate people for column 2. Someone tried to get into rehab, tabloids print it or on TV. Someone ODs, tabloids print it or on TV…etc But if someone smokes pot, doesn’t get arrested, doesn’t go to rehab, and, in general, isn’t adversely affected, how would you find out? Like I said earlier, media isn’t neutral and is not in the habit of advertising: “Rocker X is a well-adjusted speed user.”. That’s the selection bias.
Hence the words “I THINK.” In fact I nearly put in a sentence about nobody really having a list of who did drugs.
I wish I could count how many first-person feature articles just mentioned a musician smoking pot casually. Likewise in a biography you can read about it even if it’s not a crisis. I do at least see what you’re getting at. And looking at it, I should’ve said “harder drugs,” because that’s what I was thinking.
The thread we’re in plainly encourages people to speculate, since I don’t think you could prove “positive” drug use either. So granting more clearly that it’s my opinion, I think more musicians experience negative than positive drug use. Look at this thread and I think even the artists credited with positive drug use are pretty iffy. I think the sampling we have bears out what I said.
One of my acquaintances said that she did much better writing when she was on heroin than when sober. I read some of the work she said she did while she was on drugs, and it was pretty good; it wasn’t great literature, but it wasn’t nonsensical and it had a pretty good plot.
On the other hand, when she wasn’t using opiates, she suffered from major depression and couldn’t bring herself to write anything at all. So it’s not that drug use improved her writing, it just improved her mood enough to allow her to write at all. I wonder if that is often the case, and if regular antidepressants would work better for people like her, who try to ease depression by self-medicating with opioids or alcohol or stimulants or whatever.
It sounds like it should.
“The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs!” - Bill Hicks
Citation please? And how the hell could Paul know what John was thinking when he wrote the song?
Just to be clear, the song refers to LSD. Logically, so should its title. But Lennon seems to have an escape valve there.
Again, not that it matters, but Paul says there that the song was inspired by LSD. That snopes page I linked to earlier shows the actual painting by Julian Lennon of his friend Lucy O’Donnell in the sky with some colourful diamond shapes, and Paul states explicitly that this is whee the title of the song came from, by sheer coincidence.
Did anybody mention Nirvana?
No. In what way would that count as positive?