Originally Posted by
Pigmy Pony
I doubt that any drug induced "creativity" would be of any value, and certainly not with the drugs commonly used these days (thinking about cocaine, or the so-called "legal highs". Rather the psychedelic drugs which became popular in the sixties, and even then, not during the trip. I imagine that anyone trying that would wake up the next day, look at the nonsense that seemed so good at the time, and hang their head in shame! Similar to someone driving a high performance car, then writing a review of the drive. They certainly wouldn't write the review WHILE driving, that would result would be at best unintelligible, and at worst fiery vehicular death!
Rather, their drug experiences changed their perception of things around them and the memory of this experience informed their creativity to some extent. Not everyone is going to like the psychedelic offerings of say, Hendrix or later Beatles, (I for one, love it) but in any case, I doubt much of it was produced WHILE they were out of it.
Beatles smoked hash in the studio while recording. Hendrix played at least a few gigs whilst on LSD. The Eagles wrote and recorded Hotel California and The Long Run whilst blitzed on coke. Steely Dan liked a smoke, Walter Becker became a heroin addict. The Doobie Brothers - clue's in the name, folks!
I'd have to argue that all of the best artists were either drunk or on drugs - or both- most of the time. When they get rich and older they clean up their acts. And then their music immediately becomes bland and prosaic.
Current Lash Up:
TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.