Scott Weiland: Is it the drugs or the man?

[Tyjenks]

I was listening to Purple this weekend while mowing the grass. Stone Temple Pilots are wonderful. They disproved everyone's claims that they were Seattle band wannabes and have consistently put out great, innovative music.

I think Weiland's vocal talents and lyrics are, obviously, the driving force behind their successes. He was, again, arrested several weeks ago for possesion or something similar after his 17th stint in rehab, shaving his head into a mohawk, and dropping every ounce of body fat in prison. This leads me to my question:

Are the drugs hampering STP's continued success or are they a contributing factor in their evolving sound?

Many greats in the music biz have taken and continue to take liberal quantities of their drug(s) of choice. Many immortalized musicians have died due to that use. I am afraid it is just a necessary evil for making music that is original.

[Dave Markell]

Many greats in the music biz have taken and continue to take liberal quantities of their drug(s) of choice. Many immortalized musicians have died due to that use. I am afraid it is just a necessary evil for making music that is original.

There have been enough substance-abusing artists in all media, not just music, for me to wonder if some of them truly did produce better work as a result of their addictions. However, I very much doubt that it's "a necessary evil for making music that is original" across the board.

Conversly, of course, one could argue that unconventional, creative people are more likely to ignore what they see as arbitrary and silly restrictions on behavior imposed on them by society. Thus, creative artists would be more likely to become drug users, but the drug use would be a consequence of, and not a contributer to, their creativity.

Any sociologists reading this care to perform the necessary studies?

[Tyjenks]

I have been seriously thinking about this for the past 2 or 3 days. Tool has a blurb from a comedian on one of their CDs who states that all the good books, records, etc. you have at home in your collection are made by people who are, "Reeeeeeeal fuckin' high on drugs." That snippet has always made me curious. I have only "smoked" a little, but I certainly did not feel more creative, just relaxed or paranoid. Copious amounts of alcohol only seem to induce vomiting, uncontrollable sobbing, or both.

I did not intend to make a broad generalization that it was a requirement for creativity. Just fostering a bit 'o debate as it seems to be present in the lives of many good musicians/artists.

Your consequence rather than contributor theory is probably closer to the truth.

[King Lupid]

Well, Ty, there are a lot more drugs out there that aren't "smoked". Try those, each one, and come back and give us your report in 1 to 2 years. I would like to see a 500 page thesis, minimum.

[Tyjenks]

Well, Ty, there are a lot more drugs out there that aren't "smoked". Try those, each one, and come back and give us your report in 1 to 2 years. I would like to see a 500 page thesis, minimum.

Believe you me, I know there are all sorts. I just have not been lucky enough to be offered enough and I am not all too interested in searching them out. Hence, my question. Maybe some of you cokeheads, ecstasy addicts, and heroin junkies could help a brotha' out. Does your haiku skill go through the roof when under the influence?

[ynohtna]

Does your haiku skill go through the roof when under the influence?
In my mind, my verse
Is lovelier than sunlight.
The sober differ.

[King Lupid]

This is only my experience, but I think that under the influence of some drugs (ecstasy and lsd or other hallucinogenics) one seems to be able to tap into a part of their brain that normally would be unreachable, or at least they don't know how to reach in a normal frame of mind. I one time painted a beautiful picture on my friend's wall after having been up on X and Meth for 5 days. I can't paint or draw to save my life, so maybe there is something to your theory.

[Dave Markell]

Does your haiku skill go through the roof when under the influence?
In my mind, my verse
Is lovelier than sunlight.
The sober differ.

That's quite good. You must be on something. :)

[Met_K]

Being sober helps you write lyrics. Being high can help you understand music, but, it more-often harms the writing process.

Psychadelia is perhaps the biggest example of this. With the Grateful Dead being the sole exception, psychadelic was all about recreating the sounds of an acid trip without actually being on acid, i.e. having a sober trip. David Gilmour and Rick Wright were the only two band members of Pink Floyd who did anything after Barrett burned out, and all they did was smoke a single joint occasionally. Almost all of The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin were drunkards when they came out; Drugs came later.

Drugs almost always come later in a band's career, as they did for Scott Weiland. Scott himself has said that almost all of his music come from two things: His estranged wife that left him during/after Tiny Music, and his growing addiction to/battle with heroin. After he went to prison, he came out and they made one of the best hard rock albums ever. But, the band's creativity has been breaking down due to internal conflicts, thoughts of side projects, et al.

If you look at the predominantly 'high' genre in music --- rap --- you'll see that drugs don't necessarily help or muse you into being a better writer. In fact, if anything, they harm your writing abilities. Being high, however, might make the music a bit more pleasurable to listen to, but certainly won't make you more creative while writing it.

Almost all of the best bands in history started out with drunks and alcoholics among their ranks, or who eventually became one or the other. As time progresses, and with more fame, the more likely it is that said band/persona will become engrossed with drugs. This can be looked at two ways. This killed The Grateful Dead; They would go up and play for four hours at a time, only to have Jerry Garcia plop over seemingly dead on his face. The Beatles, who everyone attributes their greatness and uncommercial albums to acid, really didn't have that stimulation until the really late '60's, and even then, John was the only one getting the smack connection from Yoko.

It's ridiculous to think that drugs enhance your creative skills, just as it is ridiculous to think that alcohol does. Hell, Poe was a crazy ass fuck, just like Van Gogh, and they're two of the most creative people ever.

I'm tired of people fantasizing and overblowing drugs and how they affect the mind. Tool were mocking that comedian, Tyjenks. Maynard and the rest of the band are heavily into philosophy. Lateralus is almost completely based on Jungian philosophy and the Hebrew/Jewish mythology and lore. That didn't come from drugs.

Sure, drugs and alcohol enhanced some people's writings, because as we all know Sublime as a whole couldn't write the masterpiece "40oz To Freedom" without the influence of Jager. But on the whole, no, as Dave said, they're not a requirement, and they, on the whole, do not help.

Most blues artists, who you will find are the most excellent guitar players of all, are more-often drunks than they are addicts. In fact, I would bet my soul on this, because that is how I learned to play guitar. You wanna know how you learn to play guitar? You go down to the local hole in the wall, buy the nearest black dude with a Strat a 40, and you'll be on your way to becoming the Next Big Thing (tm). I'm not lying, I'm dead fucking serious.

Learning to play guitar/drums/bass/et al. is a devotion. It's 2 to 4 hours a day of hard-ass playing a day, every day of the year. You practice scales, you practice your technique, you practice your rhythm, you emulate, you learn, you practice, you get better, and you know what? If you smoke pot 2 to 4 hours a day as well, you won't remember a god damn thing about what you just did. You won't become a better player. That is a fact. Dimebag Darrel might be the biggest potsmoker in the metal world, but he's almost the lamest, most rehashing fuck since Kirk Hammett.

Alain Jourgensen's self-destructing heroin habits completely destroyed Ministry, yet, once he got clean, they just put out their strongest album in nearly a decade.

All these points are meant to validate one thing: Drugs cannot help your creativity, nor can alcohol. The most creative people on Earth have almost always been sober. Sure, you can overdose on MDMA and it will increase certain aspects of your thought process - but that is because of the extremely large increase in serotonin that is going through your brain at the moment. If you were to take pure serotonin, your mind would react even more. It's not that the drug is unlocking or increasing anything, but it's more stable and able to work at a better and more productive rate.

Most often, MDMA users have a lack of serotonin to begin with. If they don't, they end up blowing their mind quick. Otherwise, it stabilitizes them. MDMA is the basis for most 'anti-depressants' and 'anti-anxiety' pills, at least, the serotonin affects are. It's not the drug that is unleashing the creativity, it's the one ingrediant in the drug that is scientifically proven to stabilize your mind and increase it's facilities. Some 'drugs' (i.e. medicines) are like steroids for your mind. They allow for an increase in creativity in part, but your mind has to be the one to take advantage of it.

And still, if the creativity isn't there, as I just said so that your mind can't take advantage, drugs can't help. If it's not there, there's no way to unleash, enhance, or unlock it.

[Dave Markell]

Hell, Poe was a crazy ass fuck, just like Van Gogh, and they're two of the most creative people ever.not help.

To complicate matters a bit, Poe was an alcoholic and might (it's still being argued) have been an opium user as well.

[Met_K]

Hell, Poe was a crazy ass fuck, just like Van Gogh, and they're two of the most creative people ever.not help.

To complicate matters a bit, Poe was an alcoholic and might (it's still being argued) have been an opium user as well.

Actually, he wasn't an alcoholic, but he was a heavy drunk. He did go periods without drinking, but, yes, he did prefer to get drunk than to fuck his cousin at times (ho ho!). And he used laudanum, actually, which contains opium. It's more 'psychotropic' than pure opium, which would kind of make more sense. I find it funny that the Baltimore Poet Society (or whatever it's called) still disputes whether or not he used alcohol/laudanum. So what if he did? Does that discredit him? No, he's a great poet, whether or not he uses.

If he was sober when writing, he's fucking excellent. If he wasn't, well, more power to him for getting past a handicap.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

The Beatles, who everyone attributes their greatness and uncommercial albums to acid, really didn't have that stimulation until the really late '60's, and even then, John was the only one getting the smack connection from Yoko.

The Beatles were smoking marijuana by 1965 and it shows (Rubber Soul). That's about a year and a half after they were first on the Ed Sullivan show. "Got to Get You Into My Life" (from Revolver, 1966) is about marijuana (according to Paul). "Girl" from Rubber Soul probably is, too (John's not around to answer that question, though.) Unless you think the Beatles peaked with "She Loves You" it's impossible to claim that drugs were not part of the equation.



It's ridiculous to think that drugs enhance your creative skills, just as it is ridiculous to think that alcohol does.

I don't know if they enhance your *skills*, but they change your perception, and an artist's skills are only the tools used to make concrete his or her perception, so it's silly to claim that drugs don't have any sort of relationship to art other than to disrupt the motor coordination necessary to play a riff or use the typewriter.


You wanna know how you learn to play guitar? You go down to the local hole in the wall, buy the nearest black dude with a Strat a 40, and you'll be on your way to becoming the Next Big Thing (tm). I'm not lying, I'm dead fucking serious.

You gotta be kidding me.



The most creative people on Earth have almost always been sober.

Again, you're kidding, right? (I'd make a list starting with William Faulkner and ending with Jimi Hendrix, but I'm too drunk to type anymore).

[Tyjenks]

Met - Thanks for the lesson professor. That was actually the detailed, informative opposing musician's view I was looking for. :)

Not that it matters but, I knew Tool's use of that comedian sample was in jest, but it still made me think about the subject, dildo. I also knew they were heavily into philosophy, perckerhead. Now, I think you need to go practive that 3rd chord you have been working on. I would say you are around 2 to 4 hours short for the day, queerbait.

[Met_K]

Another thing: Drugs don't make you a better writer, but, when all is said and done, they do give you something to write about.

Anyone care to take a guess what "25 or 6 to 4" by Chicago is about? Jeff Green? I assume you'll know this one, but I might be wrong. First one to guess gets a cookie, and don't even say LSD, cos you're dead wrong. :)

[Met_K]

Now, I think you need to go practive that 3rd chord you have been working on. I would say you are around 2 to 4 hours short for the day, queerbait.

That's it, you thesaurus smoker. Steve Vai and I are on our way to come kick your ass. I'm long gone with the 3rd chord and I'm on to the Malovikian Orthodow Triad in the 6th Minor Amm. Sustained Position with a restraining blues 5th.

Uh.

Bitch?

[Met_K]

The Beatles, who everyone attributes their greatness and uncommercial albums to acid, really didn't have that stimulation until the really late '60's, and even then, John was the only one getting the smack connection from Yoko.

The Beatles were smoking marijuana by 1965 and it shows (Rubber Soul). That's about a year and a half after they were first on the Ed Sullivan show. "Got to Get You Into My Life" (from Revolver, 1966) is about marijuana (according to Paul). "Girl" from Rubber Soul probably is, too (John's not around to answer that question, though.) Unless you think the Beatles peaked with "She Loves You" it's impossible to claim that drugs were not part of the equation.

No no no! The drugs gave them experiences to write about, but the drugs didn't enhance their writing directly, i.e. it doesn't turn them from The Beatles circa 1963 to the same Beatles who wrote Let It Be. It gives them more to write about, but if you're Steven King, then smoking out won't turn you into Tolkien.


It's ridiculous to think that drugs enhance your creative skills, just as it is ridiculous to think that alcohol does.


I don't know if they enhance your *skills*, but they change your perception, and an artist's skills are only the tools used to make concrete his or her perception, so it's silly to claim that drugs don't have any sort of relationship to art other than to disrupt the motor coordination necessary to play a riff or use the typewriter.

I'm not claiming that they don't have that relationship, they do. They change perception. But they don't enhance skill. That's my entire argument, so, in essence, I agree.


You wanna know how you learn to play guitar? You go down to the local hole in the wall, buy the nearest black dude with a Strat a 40, and you'll be on your way to becoming the Next Big Thing (tm). I'm not lying, I'm dead fucking serious.


You gotta be kidding me.

Sadly, I'm not. The best guitar player I know is a cuban guy. I took his advice and did this once, and it's been the best choice I've ever made.


The most creative people on Earth have almost always been sober.


Again, you're kidding, right? (I'd make a list starting with William Faulkner and ending with Jimi Hendrix, but I'm too drunk to type anymore).

Faulkner may have been so drugged up as to make MC Hammer look like he was a simple pop-rock dealer as opposed to a coke machine, but he was still semi-conscience at the time of writing. Again, that, to me, is all that matters. So was Hendrix, as is evidenced by the fact that Purple Haze was borne out of a mini-jam on a shit-ass amp in the back of a club.

He could have been high, or he could have been sober, but he probably would have come up with that riff one way or another. Just my two cents, really, we're pretty much in agreement that it adjusts perception, and that indirectly can enhance skill because it gives you something to write about, but it doesn't make you a better writer per se.

[Brian Koontz]

Bear in mind that artists like to see themselves as different from (and of course, better than) normal people.

If normal people did drugs, artists would shun them like the plague (either that or they would use rare drugs).

Also bear in mind that creativity is about producing something that does not currently exist. Its not about NORMAL experiences in other words. So in a quest to achieve non-normal experiences...

Also bear in mind that modern music is introspective. Its said to come from the "inside" of someone... this truth is so entrenched that few people even question it, much less reject it. So according to this understanding, changing your INSIDE is the path to creating creative music.

Its the kind of 1-2-3 combo that leaves many hanging on the ropes.

[triggercut]

All I've seen in this thread are broad generalizations. Does drug use assist the creative process? For some, the answer is definitely yes. In other cases, the answer a definite "no".

Some amazing, drug-influenced records from off the top of my head:

LET IT BLEED, EXILE ON MAIN STREET--Rolling Stones
THE WHO BY NUMBERS, WHO'S NEXT, FACE DANCES--The Who
EMPTY GLASS--Pete Townshend
ON FIRE--Galaxie 500
TAKE IT FROM THE MAN--The Brian Jonestown Massacre
The first three Pavement records
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Grifters records
DUSK AT CUBIST CASTLE--The Olivia Tremor Control
SF SORROW--The Pretty Things
NEVERMIND & IN UTERO --Nirvana
BUZZ FACTORY--Screaming Trees
LOVELESS--My Bloody Valentine
ISN'T ANYTHING--My Bloody Valentine (by themselves, these two magnum opii from Kevin Shields should put to rest any dismissal that certain drug abusers are able to find a muse that otherwise wouldn't be there. "When You Wake (You're Still In A Dream)" destroys Met_K's postulate all by itself)
NEW DAY RISING, ZEN ARCADE, and FLIP YOUR WIG--Husker Du
THE LA'S --The La's
FOREVER CHANGES--Love
THERE'S A RIOT GOIN' ON--Sly & The Family Stone

That list took me all of about 3 minutes to think up. Give me more time and I could come up with a thousand fantatic records fueled by drug intoxication.

Not that every musician should. It's a scary proposition. For every Kevin Shields out there there's a hundred dippy, addled drugheads who never made it due to the fact that their drug abuse blunted (ahem) rather than sharpened their creative focus. Or, even more abundant, are guys like Shields or Love's Arthur Lee who went so far 'round the bend that their careers blazed out far too quickly.

To say either way in absolute terms is completely ludicrous and ill-informed.

[Tyjenks]

I do not own a single album that you mentioned and do not care to. So I will say those bands all suck and, with a relieved sense of finality, drugs make for shitty bands and records. :wink:

[Bub, Andrew]

You don't own Nevermind? You're saying Sly & the Family Stone, The Who, and Nirvana... suck. And you like STP? Tyjenks... tsk, tsk, Tyjenks.

[Tyjenks]

You don't own Nevermind? You're saying Sly & the Family Stone, The Who, and Nirvana... suck. And you like STP? Tyjenks... tsk, tsk, Tyjenks.

OK...ok..I was slightly exagerrating. Actually all those you named are the very ones I own or have owned. The rest suck. How's that?

[steve]

Some amazing, drug-influenced records from off the top of my head:
Or anything by Spiritualized.

"Sun so bright that I'm nearly blind
Cool cos I'm wired and I'm out of my mind
Warms as the dope running down my spine
But I don't care 'bout you and I've got nothing to do

...

Love in the middle of the afternoon
Just me, my spike in my arm and my spoon
Feel the warmth of the sun in the room
But I don't care 'bout you
And I've got nothin'"

[steve]

Or anything by Spiritualized.
But I am always curious what Jason Pierce would come up with if actually sober and not completely fucked up.

[triggercut]

Yep, knew I'd forget some, and the Spiritualized/Jason Pierce reference caught my eye.

How 'bout Jason's first band, with P. "Sonic Boom" Kember, the Spacemen 3?
Or the entire recorded output of The Velvet Underground?
Or DAYS OF WINE & ROSES by The Dream Syndicate
or EMERGENCY THIRD RAIL POWER TRIP by Rain Parade

Trust me Tyjenks. STP isn't fit to carry the broken guitar picks of any of the artists listed above ;)

[Met_K]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Pavement? Nirvana? Screqaming Treams? My Bloody Valentine? HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Christ. You indie kids are all the fucking same. Husker Du? Oh, my. Right. Okay. Thanks.

The only three bands that are classic in those lists are the Stones, The Who, and Townshend. Townshend has said that his childhood was much more of an influence in The Who and Empty Glass's writing, so you just lost two of your biggest ones. Keith Richards didn't start his heavy drug use until after Let It Bleed. Where are you coming up with this shit?

This just solidifies what I've been saying about Steve Bauman and anyone who likes indy rock of today - Get a clue. Punk was dead long before you ever knew what it was, and indy isn't going to save rock. For Christ's sake, can't you stop polluting the musical gene pool with your shit?

STP are more than worthy to carry the guitar picks of the bands listed above. Look, you bumbling elitist fuck, STP are widely recognized as the closest thing to a Led Zeppelin cover-band you can get, without the cover-band aspect. Dean DeLeo is an excellent guitarist, along with Eric Kretz Moon-esque drumming style, and it all combines for a nice experience. You can disagree all you want, but most people, especially those who have a broader scope on music all-together (unlike you and Steve, who have this odd fixation with things anti-corporate, ahem), agree.

Radiohead, for all that it's worth, are not drug-influenced in the least, yet their albums could be considered some of the most creative of the last decade. Where the hell are you people coming from? Seriously.

Go back to talking about games.

[DrCrypt]

Poe wasn't just a heavy "drunk". He was addicted to heavily wormwooded absinthe, which contributed to his death in a gutter by 40 and probably ate out a good chunk of his brain. Just to give you an idea of how addictive and dangerous absinthe is: Van Gogh apparently considered the effects of drinking household turpentine to be a good substitute for its effects when absinthe was unavailable. Absinthe is a kick - I spent an entire week melting sugar over my tongue in an absinthe bar in a Decembery Prague when I was 18.

I think this conversation, except as a way of bragging about what drugs we may all have taken, is kind of pointless. Just like there is no real corellation with insanity and genius in any way besides as a tritism in cliche coffee shop small talk, there is no real correlation between drugs and genius. Poe was a heavy absinthe drinker and half insane, but in my opinion, he wrote the greatest poem ever written in the English language. Louis Armstrong was a lifelong marijuana user. Etc. But then you have complete visionaries like Nabokov, Bulgakov, Beerbohm who don't seem to have had any discernible drug life.

The correlation between good bands and drug use and bad bands and drug use is just one of the rock music culture's paradoxical nature, I think. Tool bragged about lots of drugs because the music industry is still trying to delude everyone that they are disestablishmentarianists. This is what rock is all about, but they are trying to convince themselves and their fans that they are rebels while reaping their money and their fan-based from the locomotions of one of the most omnivorous corporate interests in modern America.

I have no doubt that these guys really like drugs, which is fine, I'm just saying most of us passed over in freshmen year giving credit to our magic jay-bones for moments of particular brilliance.

Personally, I tend to feel more creative (but don't necessarily come up with better ideas) when I've had a few beers, but often too tired to do any damn thing about it. My writing drink tends to either be tea, coffee or a slowly nursed single-malt scotch.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

Look, you bumbling elitist fuck, STP are widely recognized as the closest thing to a Led Zeppelin cover-band you can get, without the cover-band aspect.

Is that your idea of a musical compliment?

[Met_K]

Look, you bumbling elitist fuck, STP are widely recognized as the closest thing to a Led Zeppelin cover-band you can get, without the cover-band aspect.

Is that your idea of a musical compliment?

No, it's my idea of a musical comparison. When someone is saying that Nevermind is one of the greatest drug-influenced albums ever, then it kind of makes you wonder: So what? That's kind of like being the best Lenny Bruce comedian... will anyone care in ten years?

Soundgarden, STP, and Pearl Jam have long out-lived the 'legacy' of Nirvana, and will continue to. Seeing as how STP are so close to Led Zeppelin, as are Pearl Jam, that can be counted as one of the reasons. The fact that Soundgarden took the sludge of Black Sabbath and combined it with the layering of Zeppelin, it's a huge 'whoa' effect.

All Nirvana, Pavement, and the rest of the 'shoe-starers' (an actual genre) did was gripe about how life sucks, they wanna get high and have sex, and nobody loves them.

Alice in Chains and the rest of the real grunge bands already named actually had substance. Ask anyone in a record shop, a true record shop, we're talking High Fidelity style, who really was one of the earliest grunge acts, and they'll answer simply: Cheap Trick. They revolutionized the Chicago rock scene, and Chicago rock was grunge long before Nirvana ever thought about being considered 'grunge,' let alone 'alternative.'

The fact that the people here who like indy rock and alternative and everything that's counter-culture to the mainstream don't know shit about the history of it is just plain funny.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

No, it's my idea of a musical comparison. When someone is saying that Nevermind is one of the greatest drug-influenced albums ever, then it kind of makes you wonder: So what?


Whatever Kobain was under the influence of, the mainstream opinion seems to be that it's one of the greatest albums ever. (I don't really agree even though it is certainly a good record). I think it's pretty clear that Nirvana's place in music history is secured, while it's far more likely that Stone Temple Pilots will be remembered with slightly less detail than Herman's Hermits or some other peripheral sixties act.



The fact that Soundgarden took the sludge of Black Sabbath and combined it with the layering of Zeppelin, it's a huge 'whoa' effect.

Sounds like *you're* the one doing drugs here.


All Nirvana, Pavement, and the rest of the 'shoe-starers' (an actual genre) did was gripe about how life sucks, they wanna get high and have sex, and nobody loves them.

All James Joyce did was write about an alcoholic wandering around the most boring parts of Dublin for a day.


Ask anyone in a record shop, a true record shop, we're talking High Fidelity style, who really was one of the earliest grunge acts, and they'll answer simply: Cheap Trick.

If you say Cheap Trick is a grunge band then you've just stripped the word of any historical meaning. If you are using the word simply as an adjective, there was music that was much grungier than Cheap Trick in the mid-60's. (The Standells "Dirty Water", or you might have heard a song called "Louie, Louie.").


The fact that the people here who like indy rock and alternative and everything that's counter-culture to the mainstream don't know shit about the history of it is just plain funny.

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I love indy and alternative rock, and if what you've posted here is indicative of the depth of your knowledge about rock, you're the one who "don't know shit." I don't have to go to a record store to ask somebody about Cheap Trick. I've seen them live, many times, and in their prime. In fact I've gotten drunk from the same bottle of whiskey as them on one occasion, so where you get the idea that because somebody likes Husker Du or Sonic Youth or whoever that they are narrow-minded and ignorant about all other rock music, I don't know. It appears to me that *you're* the one with a narrow scope of knowledge and interest about music.

[Tyjenks]

Crypt - The point of this thread was to find out what people (not sure that includes you) think is the correlation, if any, between drugs and memorable music. So go away. Leave Tool alone.

triggercut - You are entitled to your wrong opinion of STP. :wink:

Met K - Scary how much I agree with you. Alice in Chains... :cry: Drugs admittedly ruined Staley. They could have been the best of the grungy lot, IMO.

Ignatius - Its Cobain, dammit, Cobain. It is hard to read the rest of your misguided post with any sense of objectivity after this egregious error.

[triggercut]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Pavement? Nirvana? Screqaming Treams? My Bloody Valentine? HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Christ. You indie kids are all the fucking same. Husker Du? Oh, my. Right. Okay. Thanks.

"Ad-hominem"--A Logical fallacy in which the half-educated engage in name calling to subvert an argument. (PS--this "indie kid" is probably about 10-15 years older than you are, but thanks for the backhanded compliment.)


The only three bands that are classic in those lists are the Stones, The Who, and Townshend.

That's sure gonna come as news to Arthur Lee, Sly Stone, Lou Reed, and John Cale...not to mention the Pretty Things, who's SF SORROW gave Pete Townshend the creative juice to try extending themes like "Quick One (While He's Away)" out to a full album for TOMMY...


Townshend has said that his childhood was much more of an influence in The Who and Empty Glass's writing, so you just lost two of your biggest ones.

Really? Obviously you haven't listened to any of those four albums, or read Townshend's interviews at the time in NME and MELODY MAKER. By the time THE WHO BY NUMBERS was in production, Pete was in QUADROPHENIA hangover. He was heading for his mid-30's, his band was a decade old, and he began questioning where the hell it was all headed. He gave Nik Cohn a long and soul-searching interview, since the guy who once wrote "Hope I die before I get old" was getting there. Moonie was already heading 'round the bend with drink, and Pete began to fuck with The Horse, an on-again, off-again relationship that he wouldn't shake until '83 or so. The songs on BY NUMBERS aren't influenced by *anyone's* childhood. Songs like "However Much I Booze", "Blue, Red, & Grey" and "In A Hand Or A Face" are all about Pete trying to reconcile his addictions, aging, and trying to find a way to stay relevent. WHO ARE YOU is even more self-confessional. The title song was inspired by a half-baked Townshend running into members of The Clash in a bar. Townshend's drug-soaked bluster about his band being terrible and reassurances by Mick Jones and Joe Strummer that the Who were their favorite band led to that rant that closes the album. Songs like "Love Is Coming Down", "Music Must Change", and "Guitar & Pen" further the alienation and "what am I doing here?" themes of BY NUMBERS. By the time EMPTY GLASS, his solo album, was finished, Townshend was heavily under the influence of drink and heroin. "I Am An Animal", the title track, and "Gonna Get Ya" were Pete at his most self-loathing and self-doubting. It wasn't until his CHINESE EYES solo album that he cleaned up...and proceeded to spend most of the 1980's as the irrelevent character he'd always feared he'd become.


Keith Richards didn't start his heavy drug use until after Let It Bleed. Where are you coming up with this shit?

I dunno. Maybe from "Spanish Tony" Sanchez, Keith and Brian's dealer, who gets namechecked on the bathroom wall on the deleted original album cover of BEGGAR'S BANQUET (which predated LET IT BLEED by a year), or Stanley Booth, who biographed both the band and Mr. Richard in general, based on having toured with them from 1969 onward, and who himself came down with a nasty diesel habit from hanging out with Keith. Or from MOJO magazine, who two years ago chronicled in some depth Keith's habit problems. If you're the only Stones fan who thinks "Rocks Off" (from EXILE) is about mineral formations....well, that's your bag, baby. Hell, NME, MELODY MAKER, and Rolling Stone Magazine all had Keith trying various "cures" for his addiction by STICKY FINGERS. EXILE came a full two years later.



This just solidifies what I've been saying about Steve Bauman and anyone who likes indy rock of today - Get a clue. Punk was dead long before you ever knew what it was, and indy isn't going to save rock. For Christ's sake, can't you stop polluting the musical gene pool with your shit?

What happened? Someone from Slint push you into a mud puddle and steal your milk money? Hey junior--I'm old enough to have seen The Clash and Gang Of Four live. Sell your pretense somewhere else.

Anyway, if you're done with your bluster--"indie rock" for me lived a short life--1990-ish to 1994-ish. That's about it. I'd have a hard time categorizing My Bloody Valentine (LOVELESS cost $2-3 million to record, and hit the UK top 10, and went Gold in sales), The La's (#1 hit in the UK with the Love Song To Heroin "There She Goes"...what, you thought that song was about a girl? You kids....) or Spiritualized as "indie rock. Screaming Trees? They're cut from the same cloth as Nirvana, a Seattle band that actually was interested in moving outside the confines of "grunge". Husker Du? Postpunk.


STP are more than worthy to carry the guitar picks of the bands listed above. Look, you bumbling elitist fuck, STP are widely recognized as the closest thing to a Led Zeppelin cover-band you can get, without the cover-band aspect.

You'll have to forgive me for that last fit of uncontrolled giggling. Was that supposed to be a compliment? (Not the "bumbling elitist fuck" thing; I *know* that was a compliment--I meant the "Led Zeppelin cover-band" thing...) Fantastic. Putting STP in the same category with Kashmir--A Salute To Zeppelin and and Simply Led...well, that boggles the mind.


You can disagree all you want, but most people, especially those who have a broader scope on music all-together (unlike you and Steve, who have this odd fixation with things anti-corporate, ahem), agree.

Lessee...my favorite record this year so far...Major corporate label, record's gone platinum in sales, artist with more top 10 UK charting singles than pretty much anyone still making relevent music out there (Paul Weller would be that person). Let's see...last year, favorite record...a tie for first and BOTH on major labels, and BOTH sold a gajillion copies (Wilco's YHF and Pulp's WE LOVE LIFE).

Look. You've come to some bizarre conclusion that I'm some indie rock apologist because when coming to think of some "drug-influenced" records, 15 or so of the 37 I mentioned came out on an independent label originally. Actually, if you want a fun debate, I'll spend pages and pages defending Oasis, Madonna, and Sheryl Crow for being as important and vital as anything else out there. In fact, let's put WHAT'S THE STORY MORNING GLORY on the list of great drug-influenced records; if the Gallagher Brothers self-hype can be believed, (and reputable sources like MOJO says they can) there was enough coke going up their noses by this point to knock over three elephants.


Radiohead, for all that it's worth, are not drug-influenced in the least, yet their albums could be considered some of the most creative of the last decade. Where the hell are you people coming from? Seriously.

Again, please read my post, or have someone who knows the big words read it for you. I specifically said that there's no need to be absolute about any of this. There are many great records out there that bear not a tint of drug influence. There are a few that do. Again, to say absolutely that one precludes the other is ridiculous.


Go back to talking about games.

Yes, I think you should.

(By the way, earlier you mentioned that Yoko Ono was John Lennon's "smack connection". I can only assume you meant "smack" in the way Charlie Brown and Peanuts mean it, to refer to kissing. Smack is Heroin, and there's little to no evidence John ever used, even in his "lost" period in the '70's when he caroused around Hollywood with Harry Nilsson. There is however much-documented evidence that John and Paul were both experimenting with pot by the time of RUBBER SOUL, and LSD by SGT. PEPPER. Paul became the pothead, John became the hallucinogenics freak. The pictures of John recording vocals for "The White Album" so stoned on acid that he had to do it lying down have to give that album consideration too, no?)

[triggercut]

No, it's my idea of a musical comparison. When someone is saying that Nevermind is one of the greatest drug-influenced albums ever, then it kind of makes you wonder: So what? That's kind of like being the best Lenny Bruce comedian... will anyone care in ten years?

Well hell. It's already been 12 years, and people still care. They seem to care more than they do for Pearl Jam, if CD sales are any indicator. The "elitist fuck" critics seem to care, since NEVERMIND keeps showing up near the top of lists of the ten best records of the last 25 years.


Soundgarden, STP, and Pearl Jam have long out-lived the 'legacy' of Nirvana, and will continue to. Seeing as how STP are so close to Led Zeppelin, as are Pearl Jam, that can be counted as one of the reasons. The fact that Soundgarden took the sludge of Black Sabbath and combined it with the layering of Zeppelin, it's a huge 'whoa' effect.

Yeah, there's a "whoa" effect. Like "Whoa! Can't any of these bands rise above the sum of their influences?" Okay, that was a cheap shot. Hey, if you're a fan of STP, AiC, Soundgarden, and Pearl Jam, more power to ya. I actually hate to denigrate anyone's musical tastes, and I won't here anymore since there are plenty of moments from those bands that I really enjoy. I'd wager that I dig Soundgarden especially as much as anyone. Ain't nothing wrong with any of those groups--and I'd say there were some essential albums in each group's catalogue--but I will point out that the rock and roll sun doesn't rise with Led Zep and set with STP.


All Nirvana, Pavement, and the rest of the 'shoe-starers' (an actual genre) did was gripe about how life sucks, they wanna get high and have sex, and nobody loves them.

That'd be "shoe-gazers", but who am I to correct an expert such as yourself? ;) Actually, if you can tell me which Pavement lyrics are about how much life sucks and they wanna get high, I'd love to hear that spin. Personally, I can't decipher 90% of what Steve Malkmus was sayin' anyway. (My Qt3 forum handle? Jeez. Yeah, that does cause problems. Suffice to say I got over my "Pavement is God" thing about 9 years ago; words of advice, be careful what handle you choose when you first sign onto usenet, because you're stuck with it from then on...) Heck, My Bloody Valentine's songs aren't about how they *wanna* have sex--they're about "I just had really trippy fantastic sex, wanna gobble some more of these nifty little white pills and have another go, Luv?"


Alice in Chains and the rest of the real grunge bands already named actually had substance. And substance abuse problems. Like Mark "Needle In My" Arm of Mudhoney.


Ask anyone in a record shop, a true record shop, we're talking High Fidelity style, OOOOoOooooooooh! That'd be me, record store geek at Euclid Records in St. Louis, 1993-1998! Sweet! Ask me! Ask me! (btw--rather than listen to indie rokk at Euclid, we listened to Grant Green, Chet Baker, The Ethiopians, Thin Lizzy and old Def Leppard and AC/DC far more often)
who really was one of the earliest grunge acts, and they'll answer simply: Cheap Trick. They revolutionized the Chicago rock scene, and Chicago rock was grunge long before Nirvana ever thought about being considered 'grunge,' let alone 'alternative.'

Cheap Trick? Grunge? One of my favorite bands, but other than the loud guitars thing, I'm not seeing it. Grunge bands seem to take their cues from the metal sludge of the mid-'70's and build on it. Cheap Trick's roots were far deeper than that. Didja know that Rick Neilson was a kid playing in a soul band in 1967, scheduled to be on the same bill as Otis Redding and the Bar Kays when the latter folks' plane crashed en route? Neilson and Tom Peterson were stalwarts of the Northern Illinois power pop scene (with Shoes and the Scruffs) more than adherents to grunge or punk. NOT that musicians in either of those movements wouldn't steal from Cheap Tricks bag of...tricks? Still though, if we're painting grunge with that wide a brush, then the first grunge band proper is gonna be The Sonics, from the Pacific Northwest, circa 1967-68 or so. Aren'tcha glad you asked someone from a "real record shop" now? ;)


The fact that the people here who like indy rock and alternative and everything that's counter-culture to the mainstream don't know shit about the history of it is just plain funny.

I bask in your enlightenment and yearn for more. "Shoe-starers". That's a hoot!

[Tyjenks]

I like triggercut. Lets keep him. Unless you are in DC as a part of the evil American political juggernaut. If that is the case, get the fuck outta here!

[triggercut]

I like triggercut. Lets keep him. Unless you are in DC as a part of the evil American political juggernaut. If that is the case, get the fuck outta here!

While I've frequently (and justifiably, in most cases) been accused of being a tool, I've never been a Tool Of The Man.

[gnmarsh]

somewhat unrelated, but I read that scott weiland is joining up with the leftover members of guns and roses. Anyone hear anything about this?

[Tyjenks]

somewhat unrelated, but I read that scott weiland is joining up with the leftover members of guns and roses. Anyone hear anything about this?

Lord, I hope you are wrong.

[Reeko]

I heard that, too. It was in connection with his latest posession bust. Apparently, they had finished a CD and were to begin touring soon.

[Jakub]

There have been enough substance-abusing artists in all media, not just music, for me to wonder if some of them truly did produce better work as a result of their addictions. However, I very much doubt that it's "a necessary evil for making music that is original" across the board.
I'd like to point to Christian music/entertainment as solid, incontrovertible proof that sex, drugs and (good) rock & roll indeed are undeniably tied together.

[Tyjenks]

There have been enough substance-abusing artists in all media, not just music, for me to wonder if some of them truly did produce better work as a result of their addictions. However, I very much doubt that it's "a necessary evil for making music that is original" across the board.
I'd like to point to Christian music/entertainment as solid, incontrovertible proof that sex, drugs and (good) rock & roll indeed are undeniably tied together.

What about Stryper, P.O.D., AMy Grant, and Michael W. Smith,,,oops, I just proved your point.

[Greedo]

There have been enough substance-abusing artists in all media, not just music, for me to wonder if some of them truly did produce better work as a result of their addictions. However, I very much doubt that it's "a necessary evil for making music that is original" across the board.
I'd like to point to Christian music/entertainment as solid, incontrovertible proof that sex, drugs and (good) rock & roll indeed are undeniably tied together.

What about Stryper, P.O.D., AMy Grant, and Michael W. Smith,,,oops, I just proved your point.

And let's not forget about Creed . . .

[triggercut]

...all the more reason why it was laugh-out-loud funny that purported born-again rock band Sixpence None The Richer had a hit with a cover of the La's "There She Goes" a few years back. Um, kids, "she" ain't a girl.

"...racin' through my brain
pumpin through my veins..."

When "she" calls the name of the singer (in this case, heroin addicted Lee Mavers), well, you get the analogy.

[steve]

This just solidifies what I've been saying about Steve Bauman and anyone who likes indy rock of today - Get a clue. Punk was dead long before you ever knew what it was, and indy isn't going to save rock. For Christ's sake, can't you stop polluting the musical gene pool with your shit?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you're older than I am and have seen more bands.

Let's see, I aw the Circle Jerks and Black Flag live in the early 80s, does that give me punk cred? Sure, maybe they were second generation punks; I didn't see the Clash or Sex Pistols in 77 like you clearly did, or even The Stooges in the early 70s like you obviously have.


All Nirvana, Pavement, and the rest of the 'shoe-starers' (an actual genre) did was gripe about how life sucks, they wanna get high and have sex, and nobody loves them.
As someone else noted, it's shoe-gazers, and that was generally used to describe a lot of English bands in the early 90s, not Nirvana or Pavement. Well, maybe Pavement, but I heard it mostly used about bands like My Bloody Valentine, Lush... others I can't remember because I never dug it. Maybe The Jesus and Mary Chain, who I did like.

Look, you may know more than everyone else, and I have no idea how old you are, but I lived in Los Angeles my entire life. From about 1984-1996, when I moved, I probably went to hundreds, if not thousands, of concerts. I saw everyone from Nirvana (with Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers) to The Replacements to Alice in Chains to Pavement to Screaming Trees (one of my faves) to Soundgarden to Mudhoney to Camper Van Beethoven to Echo & The Bunnymen to The Flaming Lips to Alex Chilton to Husker Du to Jane's Addiction to The Pixies to Urge Overkill to, hell, Billy Squier, the Rolling Stones, and Guns & Roses, for God's sake. You may very well know more about some of this stuff, but c'mon, you're talking to people here, if they're in their 30s, who probably lived at records stores during the 80s and 90s, who were reading the Trouser Press Record Guide and Alternative Press and CMJ and Rolling Stone and Spin, who were actually seeing all the bands people like you look back on with reverance.

I could point out every single error in your posts, but others have already done that.

Cheap Trick as proto-grunge? More like a bridge between the Beatles and metal, proto-power pop... hell, most of what was called "New Wave" owes them a debt of gratitude. As for grunge, I might throw out the Stooges, but they're sorta proto-everything. Or hell, let's pull out The Sonics, or anything on Nuggets and call that proto-grunge. The Count Five's "Psychotic Reaction." There you go.


The fact that the people here who like indy rock and alternative and everything that's counter-culture to the mainstream don't know shit about the history of it is just plain funny.
Yes, your post was rather funny.

[Tyjenks]

Not good enough steve. :wink:

[steve]

Not good enough steve. :wink:
Damn! I need to work on my "indier than thou" attitude; it was so much easier in the 80s, when I actually cared. Now, all I have is my T-shirt that says, "Your favorite band sucks." (It's available from The Onion.)

I'm curious when I developed this reputation for being anti-corporate rock or something. I made fun of met_k's obsession with some Pink Floyd DVD or CD or something, but I actually like Pink Floyd. He was just being funny obsessing over sound quality while digging garage bands in other threads.

I like bands. I could care less about labels, politics, genres, etc. Eh, whatever. I dig the new New Pornographers record on some little label, but I also dug Yankee Hotel Foxtrot or the Flaming Lips last one on various Warner labels. And Neko Case's new CD is really good, and it's like cocktail jazz/country. And she's hot; Playboy named her "hottest indie chick" or something like that.

[Tyjenks]

And Neko Case's new CD is really good, and it's like cocktail jazz/country. And she's hot; Playboy named her "hottest indie chick" or something like that.

I saw that in Playboy and she is indeed hot.

If I like the way it sounds, I like it. I do not give a rat's ass who it is. I have been fighting off an urge to get Pink's new album. She told her label to go fuck themselves for wanting her to do a second pop CD after the success of her debut. She wanted to do stuff that was a bit darker and varied. Luckily, she had the clout to do it. I have liked every single I have heard and, frankly, liked many songs off of her first CD. "Get this Party Started" kicks bootie.

Not to be confused with Pink FLoyd albums which Met sleeps with between his legs at night like a comfy feather pillow. A band that I cannot stand to listen to, sorry.

Maybe if you had registered and capitalized the "s" in steve, Met would like you. My guess is, the reason for his vitriol is even more arbitrary then that.

[Met_K]

My reason for distaste towards triggercut and Steve's choice in music is that they, more often then not, choose to glorify the new wave of independent and alternative music than they do other genres of music. The fact that triggercut's post was so full of newer, more 'indy' bands than it was classical references which are much more likely to be about drugs was just ridiculous.

Look, Steve, I'm not saying you're wrong. Like whoever the fuck you like. I could care less. But saying bands like The Whites Stripes, The Vines, et al are better than, say, Opeth, or Dimmu Borgir, et al is ridiculous. Saying that your bands are going to revolutionize music more than 'my' (see: I can't stand metal at all today, but let's just assume I do for the analogy to hold) bands is what sets me off so much. That's where I grasp the elitist attitude of you and triggercut's from.

I realize that that is probably the farthest thing from your intentions. In fact, I'm pretty sure that, all in all, you could care less who turns rock into a good thing to make again, as long as someone does. I'm sure you're as fed up with the power-pop three-chord wonder bullshit as I am. I'm ready for it to change, one way or another, too.

I just get this vibe from you, triggercut, and most all White Stripes, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and all other indy rock fans, of 'my music is the music and not yours.' I'm sure you might get this from me, as well. I like Pink Floyd. Most people equate that to me being a pot smoker, or acid head. Others say it makes me pretentious. So be it. I realize I'm probably just as guilty of being an elitist as the people I accuse of being one.

The difference, as least that I see, is that I don't claim that albums that are widely recognized in 'elitist' circles (again, think of High Fidelity) as bad are good. Nobody who works in a real record shop, or works in a real studio, or the likes, thinks that Pavement is one of the greatest bands ever, who makes some of the greatest albums ever. They may be one of the greatest bands of the last decade, yes, I agree. But ever? No.

I'm not accusing you of this, mainly triggercut.

Oh, hell, who am I kidding. I have the most forceful and angry musical opinions of anyone of this board, so maybe it's me who's got the problem. Blah.

[Met_K]

(My Qt3 forum handle? Jeez. Yeah, that does cause problems. Suffice to say I got over my "Pavement is God" thing about 9 years ago; words of advice, be careful what handle you choose when you first sign onto usenet, because you're stuck with it from then on...)

I actually don't care to argue anymore, we have more in common than I thought, especially because of this:

My usenet handle is Met_K, short for Metallikat. People jokingly nicknamed me this because I am a big Metallica fan (they're number 7 or 8 on my list), yet I slam them every chance I get. Search usenet for it and you'll find a few thousand posts in alt.rock-n-roll.metal.metallica, almost all of which are troll posts. That might be a word to the wise: Think of what I'm doing before replying to me. :)

But, as I said above, it's not what you know that annoys me, it's how you convey it. Now that I see you don't think Pavement R Teh Gawd, I'm much more able to agree with you. At first, that's what it seemed what you were conveying.

Like I said, I realize I'm probably just as elitist as you and vice versa, especially if you worked at Euclid/any record shop. And, seeing as how we're playing the 'what does you record shop know that mine doesn't?' game: Around the same era as The Sonics, the James Gang could be considered to be pioneers of grunge, as well. We're painting grunge with different pictures, though. Grunge proper could be considered to take it's cues from Sabbath, but Cobain was a punk-ethics intellectual fuck. He'd rather be assraped by Joey Ramone than Jimmy Page anyday. He hated pretentious soloing.

And while Nirvana might still be on top, I propose a question: How fondly are The Sex Pistols remembered today? Or The Ramones? Or The Misfits? It seems that people 'remember' them, but do you know any 'new' punks (i.e. ones who think that New Found Glory are punk) who wear Ramones t-shirts who actually know anything about them? I predict that to be Nirvana's ultimate glory: The band who every knows started grunge... maybe... sort of... they think... but who no one remembers what songs they did... they did that Jeremy song right... yeah that's it... ok... I think... etc. Sales can't prove anything, especially considering Pearl Jam's ten outsold Nirvana by, what, a few million copies? Also, I seem to remember Steve telling me once about how Dark Side Of The Moon sold a bajillion copies, but that doesn't make it good or memorable: His point is right, just because an album sells a million copies, doesn't mean it's going to be remembered. Look at Creed's 'Weathered.' What, 11 million copies now? I doubt anyone will remember that in 2010.

And I'm not saying that rock rises and sets with those bands --- that's the impression that I got from you, and that I get from other kids who worship the ground that indy is! I realize now that that is not what you, Steve, etc think, but it's the vibe that I get when talking to most indy rock fans. You can't deny that most indy rock fans think their music is the only music, you know that's how they think, you worked in a fucking record shop.

And shoe-gazers, shoe-starers, blah. I don't like the fucking genre, I think it's a ridiculous concept. The shoe-staring, that is. The wall-of-guitars making you deaf is really quite like what metal used to be, so I admire that in a way. At least, I admire Pavement's take on it, they do it rather well.

Oh, and to comment on Cheap Trick one more time: Cheap Trick changed the sound of Chicago rock, which is where grunge started to be borne out of way before it was in Seattle. CT combined the best elements of metal, hard rock, punk, pop, and guitar-oriented power-trio-esque music and made an art out of it, which is essentially what grunge is. You can equate Mudhoney to being alt/grunge before anyone else was in that era, but it just doesn't hold up when other bands were doing it in the early/mid 80's, long before anyone in Seattle thought of it.

And substance abuse problems are fun. No one seems to have as much substance abuse as industrial metal/rock/fuckthesestupidsubgenrecreatingassheads. Ministry practically ended because of it, Skinny Puppy did end because of it, Chris Connelly is only still making music because of Billy. Talk about one fucked up genre.

[Tyjenks]

I'm confused...Met, you do like Blink 182, Sum 41, et al.?

[Met_K]

I'm going to come behead you with a stolen Flying V for saying that.

[steve]

My reason for distaste towards triggercut and Steve's choice in music is that they, more often then not, choose to glorify the new wave of independent and alternative music than they do other genres of music.
I just own all sorts of old CDs, literally thousands, and choose to talk about new bands because, well, I'm trying to find new music. I know all the old stuff. I'm not "discovering" them any more. I already did.

And can we all agree that it's "indie," not "indy"?


But saying bands like The Whites Stripes, The Vines, et al are better than, say, Opeth, or Dimmu Borgir, et al is ridiculous. Saying that your bands are going to revolutionize music more than 'my' (see: I can't stand metal at all today, but let's just assume I do for the analogy to hold) bands is what sets me off so much. That's where I grasp the elitist attitude of you and triggercut's from.
I don't recall saying anything about The White Stripes "revolutionizing" music except, maybe, in complete jest. I think I'm totally not elitist. I like the music I like and don't really care if anyone else does. I don't care if it's on a major label or an indie. I find I like more indie stuff primarily because my tastes aren't really popular with majors (mainly guitar pop, power pop, that sort of stuff).


Grunge proper could be considered to take it's cues from Sabbath, but Cobain was a punk-ethics intellectual fuck. He'd rather be assraped by Joey Ramone than Jimmy Page anyday. He hated pretentious soloing.
There was actually a cool passage in the movie "Hype" that had a guitarist, I forget who, show how grunge basically came from metal. It's the same power chords but just moved into minor keys... bah, I can't remember exactly.


And while Nirvana might still be on top, I propose a question: How fondly are The Sex Pistols remembered today? Or The Ramones? Or The Misfits? It seems that people 'remember' them, but do you know any 'new' punks (i.e. ones who think that New Found Glory are punk) who wear Ramones t-shirts who actually know anything about them?
Well, this is a losing battle. Do you think people in the, I don't know, 90s referenced the Stones or their influences? Did they look to The Beatles or Chuck Berry? Rock n' Roll is constantly recycling, it has a short memory, most bands only know ones they grew up with, and only a few look beyond that.

[Met_K]

I just own all sorts of old CDs, literally thousands, and choose to talk about new bands because, well, I'm trying to find new music. I know all the old stuff. I'm not "discovering" them any more. I already did.

Gotcha. I hope you take most of what I say now towards you in jest; After that thread a couple ones back where I originally apologized, I've come to learn that you aren't who I thought. I just deal with kids with 'bad' (i.e.: think the White Stripes will revolutionize rock, only listen to indy, think my liking Pink Floyd/The Who/etc is the worst thing ever, etc) taste in music, and while I should know better, I sort of get riled up at people who play 'indy' rock as teh Gawdz.


And can we all agree that it's "indie," not "indy"?

But that's an extra letter to type. I'm not a fancy editor type who gets paid by the letter (I realize you don't get paid by the letter or by the word, but don't argue with my faulty logic)!


I don't recall saying anything about The White Stripes "revolutionizing" music except, maybe, in complete jest. I think I'm totally not elitist. I like the music I like and don't really care if anyone else does. I don't care if it's on a major label or an indie. I find I like more indie stuff primarily because my tastes aren't really popular with majors (mainly guitar pop, power pop, that sort of stuff).

Now I realize this. Until a couple threads ago, like I said above, I didn't.


There was actually a cool passage in the movie "Hype" that had a guitarist, I forget who, show how grunge basically came from metal. It's the same power chords but just moved into minor keys... bah, I can't remember exactly.

Kim Thayil? He's said something surprisingly similar many times before, and basically swears by the fact that metal is the biggest influence in grunge, just in minor keys, exactly. He also adds that there's a lot of classic influence in grunge, though, too. Cantrell is heavy into the blues; DeLeo likes The James Gang; Thayil was heavy into punk before discovering what blues and finger vibrato were; Billy Corgan started playing guitar because of Cheap Trick, Van Halen, Brian May; Stone Gossard cites fucking George Clinton as one of his influences, for Christ's sake.

Anyone who says that punk has the majority to do with what made grunge famous is a fucking idiot. People who say that grunge is 'metal riffs' with 'punk aggression' is a fucking idiot. Look, Marty Friedman could outplay anyone in the grunge era, and he played in one of the best metal bands ever, with some of the most aggressive guitar wizardry ever made. Whoever said that in Hype! is right. Metal's the key, not punk.


Well, this is a losing battle. Do you think people in the, I don't know, 90s referenced the Stones or their influences? Did they look to The Beatles or Chuck Berry? Rock n' Roll is constantly recycling, it has a short memory, most bands only know ones they grew up with, and only a few look beyond that.

I agree. This was directed towards triggercut, though, I just didn't make myself clear.

[mtkafka]

For awhile I was heavily into 'rock' music and all the small bands and big bands and indie or mainstream (even played rhythm guitar in a friends band!), but I just got tired of it (graduated college, got a job, played PC games again.)

Now all I say if people ask me what music I'm into,

"I'm a Beatles fan."

I literally have over a 1000 music cd's and about 300 vinyls collecting dust. And all I have on my cd player now is Beatles and the radio. I'm just too tired listening to anything else... except maybe some classical music. Thats another thing altogether....

oh yeah, drugs make you a better artist? bah, who knows... maybe?

etc

[mtkafka]

Well, this is a losing battle. Do you think people in the, I don't know, 90s referenced the Stones or their influences? Did they look to The Beatles or Chuck Berry? Rock n' Roll is constantly recycling, it has a short memory, most bands only know ones they grew up with, and only a few look beyond that.

I think alot of the better rock bands DO know there history and do recognize the greats like The Beatles and Stones (at least the nineties 'grunge' bands)... Do good rock bands now try to learn up on this 'rock' music history? Maybe I'm being naive since I dont listen to much of the new stuff like White Stripes and whatnut ...

BTW, Brian May rocked on guitar.... I also liked Mark Knopfler ALOT for some reason... especially on Moving Pictures... mmm good folksy heavy string stuff with that Bitten piano guy.

etc

[Tyjenks]

mtkafka - you might as well be fitted for a walker now. :wink:

[mtkafka]

yeh, maybe I should get some Viagra. :D

etc

[steve]

I just deal with kids with 'bad' (i.e.: think the White Stripes will revolutionize rock, only listen to indy, think my liking Pink Floyd/The Who/etc is the worst thing ever, etc) taste in music, and while I should know better, I sort of get riled up at people who play 'indy' rock as teh Gawdz.
Well, it's a wasted effort to get riled up at those people; they'll either learn or they won't. And whether they do or don't just doesn't matter.


Kim Thayil? He's said something surprisingly similar many times before, and basically swears by the fact that metal is the biggest influence in grunge, just in minor keys, exactly.
It's not Kim Thayil, it's someone from some minor band I don't think I'd ever heard of. I'll watch the movie (which, by the way, is really great and recommended for anyone that liked the Seattle scene) again some time and figure out who it is, but he had a guitar and showed how the progressions just literally reversed from punk and metal to become grunge.

I suspect that most of those bands state their influences today as being all broad, but when they were kids forming their initial bands, they were probably into whatever was big at the time. I suspect most people don't broaden their musical palette until they start to get older and more curious. I was consuming everything new until I started reading more; when Paul Westerberg would say, "Hey, I really dig the Young Fresh Fellows," I'd run out and buy a Young Fresh Fellows record. (I now have about seven Young Fresh Fellows records; great band.)

[triggercut]

Do people remember their punk forebears?

Fuck yeah they do. My best friend and former colleague is the guy that books the huge CMJ music conference in New York. Thanks to his influence, I get plenty of guest list ducats to see shows. You'd be stunned at how many bands in New York (2 of my buddies have a CD compilation coming out that they compiled called YES NEW YORK, all about the new New York rock scene, something that I mention simply to lend some credence to this view) cite groups like The Gang Of Four, The Clash, The Buzzcocks, The Jam, and Roxy Music as huge influences. The hottest buzz alternative record going right now is the New Pornographers, and their biggest influence seems to be the first two Cars albums. There's nothing more street-chic in the New York punk underground scene of 2003 than the original New York Punk scene of the mid-seventies: Blondie, Ramones, Dead Boys, Talking Heads, Richard Hell, & Television.

As for the Ramones in particular, you gotta remember that corporate America has kinda co-opted them. You hear "Blitzkrieg Bop" on TV commercials now, and I was amazed to hear "Beat On The Brat" at a hockey game a few months ago. There are young punks of a certain ilk for whom that kills the whole thing, but that's their hangup. In the wake of Joey Ramone's passing last year, the Ramones back catalog moved over 150,000 units, as they say.

As for the Sex Pistols...hell, I can remember in the early 1980's, barely 5 years after they'd called it quits, us punk kids were derisively sneering about them being "The Monkees of Punk Rock". (Of course, the Monkees were fuckin' cool, but that's another discussion.) The real heroes of that first wave of Britpunk were the Clash. Witness the outpouring of sentiment when Joe Strummer died some months back. Again, Clash records sold through the roof. Go to a punk show nowadays, and you're almost guaranteed to see a dozen ripped Clash T-Shirts. And that whole Cali pop-punk thing (think Lookout! Records and Epitaph Records) is like a musical tribute to Strummer, Simonon, and Jones.

And finally, thanks for categorizing me based on a brief top-of-my head sampling of records that I considered to be of some quality that possessed a drug influence in their creation. That's pretty fucking weak. You sound like the guy with the hangup, and you really, really oughta get over it. You're the one who actually seems to care about what record label a band comes out on, and who's playing on it, and who the target audience for that record might be. It's fun to see you project your half-informed, close-minded bias onto others, lemmetellyawhat. Again, I don't really give a shit who the artist is...if something hits me, I dig it. I'd just as soon listen to Missy Elliot or The Jurassic 5 or the new Bangles record (still only an import, but it's a fantastic disc!) as listen to anything. I think the Hanson song "Mmm-Bop" has a terrific hook to it. I'll basically give anything a chance to work on me...but the point is, if a music hits a listener in such a way that they become a passionate fan of it, who in fuck's name are you, me, or anyone else to tell that person that the music their digging sucks?

On Cheap Trick and Grunge. CT has always sorta made sure they weren't lumped into any specific Chicago scene, for starters. Their initial press that accompanied the first three albums didn't even mention their point of origin, trying instead to keep it a mystery. They actually formed in Rockford, IL, and still call that home base. While they may have influenced grunge, there's a ton of stuff in their songs that you don't find in that latter genre. Quick, name 5 grunge songs with a 3-part harmony; name the top 10 grunge songs with a major key verse/chorus/verse that switch to the minor-key for a middle 8; steve's pegged it--Cheap Trick was about taking the late-period Beatles sound and metallicizing it up a bit. If some grunge bands took their inspiration from the Trick, that's cool...but CT was definitely the Power Pop band that actually had some legs and some hits. Back in their heyday, they were in the same genre with 20/20, Dwight Twilley, The Nerves (the original Nerves, with Peter Case), The Raspberries (Cheap Trick was basically conceived to be like the Raspberries, but nowhere near as wimpy; Rick Nielsen has cited the song 'Berries song "Tonight" as a big influence on the Trick sound), and Off Broadway USA. Their direct influence was on the midwest pop scene of the late-80's early nineties, of which Material Issue (from Zion Illinois, very near Rockford) was the best-known. As for modern bands who sound to me to be the most influenced by Cheap Trick, I'd have to I hear it most in bands like Soul Asylum, post-Bob Stinson Replacements, and the Goo Goo Dolls. I ain't sayin' that there weren't grunge kids who didn't groove on CT and find influence there...but thanks to the pervasive influence and mentoring of The Melvins in the prehistoric grunge scene, your biggest grunge influences seem to be Sabbath, Zeppelin, and Bon Scott AC/DC...with maybe some of King Crimson's heavier moments considered, too.

Finally, you want some classic music created by fellows deep in the throes of drug addiction? Here ya go--replace my initial post in this thread with this list, if it makes it any more valid:

1. Ray Charles. Ray was a pothead and heroin addict from 1948-1966. All of his recordings for the fledgling Atlantic label, where Brother Ray basically laid down the blueprints for rock, soul, and funk, were recorded under the influence. That time period also accounts for all of his later essential work, including such standards as "Georgia On My Mind" and "Hit The Road Jack".

2. Pretty much 70% of the essential jazz musicians during the 1950's. Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Chet Baker, and Charlie Parker were the most famous drug addicts. Although Coltrane and Davis would clean up and make essential music both during their drug period and after, Bird and Baker never did take the cure, or at least make the cure last.

3. Bix Beiderbeke. The first great musician of the 20th Century to succumb due to illegal drugs, Bix was at one point second only to Louis Armstrong in ability and influence on the Cornet. A slave to cheap and dangerous Prohibition-era grain alcohol caused him to be pretty much soused from age 25 until his death from the stuff at age 28. According to some sources on the scene, he didn't perform or record sober during his heyday.

[King Lupid]

...racin' through my brain
pumpin through my veins..."

When "she" calls the name of the singer (in this case, heroin addicted Lee Mavers), well, you get the analogy.

Ok, I am the first person to see FBI agents in the trees and drug analogies in lyrics, but let me play the devil's advocate here: Is it not POSSIBLE that she is actually referring to love? At least, that the original lyricist was referring to love? I mean, poetry (basically what lyrics are) consistently compares love to an addiction, or the greatest power in the universe, etc., ad nauseum. So isn't it POSSIBLE that this is the case here?

That being said, I enjoyed your posts, and the ongoing thoughts on this subject from everybody.

[triggercut]

Holy shit, steve--I saw that same interview with the Mats (jeez, maybe circa 1985 or 86?) where all three members were asked to name their favorite band and said "Young Fresh Fellows". That's all I needed, too. First chord of "TV Dream" or "When The Girls Get Here", and I was hooked.

Pretty cool to see Scott MacCaughey get his due nowadays with The Minus 5, huh? Seeing them perform on Letterman was a hoot. That Scott is somehow still making great music as he enters his sixties gives a geezer like me hope.

[triggercut]

...racin' through my brain
pumpin through my veins..."

When "she" calls the name of the singer (in this case, heroin addicted Lee Mavers), well, you get the analogy.

Ok, I am the first person to see FBI agents in the trees and drug analogies in lyrics, but let me play the devil's advocate here: Is it not POSSIBLE that she is actually referring to love? At least, that the original lyricist was referring to love? I mean, poetry (basically what lyrics are) consistently compares love to an addiction, or the greatest power in the universe, etc., ad nauseum. So isn't it POSSIBLE that this is the case here?

That being said, I enjoyed your posts, and the ongoing thoughts on this subject from everybody.

King, it's definitely possible that Mr. Lee Mavers, the La's leader who wrote the song, was referring to a girl, and when confronted with the obvious heroin imagery in the song at the time, he said as much...

...but his bandmates (particularly John Power, now of the band Cast) have told a different story 10 years after the fact. Power said in a MOJO interview a couple of years ago that Mavers wrote it after trying unsuccessfully to kick the habit, and the song was an expression of his junkie joy at the returning embrace of a physically-addicting drug. Not that Power doesn't have an axe to grind--he does...but since Lee Mavers is now living a Syd Barrett existence, it's all the speculation we have.

[Tyjenks]

Yeah...so...um.... STP is rocks, huh?

[Dave Long]

My favorite "punk" band is The Dictators (http://www.thedictators.com). You all should listen to their stuff. "Handsome" Dick Manitoba is the man!

--Dave

[asspennies]

No one mentioned the Pixies yet. Total heroin band. Yet they created some of (IMO) the best rock music ever.

And it wasn't all about "adolecent love angst" either.

[steve]

Holy shit, steve--I saw that same interview with the Mats (jeez, maybe circa 1985 or 86?) where all three members were asked to name their favorite band and said "Young Fresh Fellows". That's all I needed, too. First chord of "TV Dream" or "When The Girls Get Here", and I was hooked.
"When the girls get here, we'll talk about integrated circuits and things, to show them how smart we are..." Shit, now I'm going to have to find that CD.


Pretty cool to see Scott MacCaughey get his due nowadays with The Minus 5, huh? Seeing them perform on Letterman was a hoot. That Scott is somehow still making great music as he enters his sixties gives a geezer like me hope.
He's in his sixties? You sure about that? Yowza.

He toured with REM as a second guitarist the last few years.

[triggercut]

He's in his mid-50's at least. I remember reading an interview around 1989, and he was 40-41. And I'd forgotten about him replacing ex-dB's frontman Peter Holsapple as the "fifth member" of REM. How sad is it that Holsapple, as influential and important as he is to what became "alternative music", is now working as the music department manager in a New Orleans Borders?

[Luke M]

All these points are meant to validate one thing: Drugs cannot help your creativity

I don't think that's true. Jazz artist Stan Getz once claimed in a radio interview that he (and many other musicians) took heroin to achieve an Alpha brain state that is optimal for creativity. This brain state becomes increasingly difficult to achieve with the stresses of the road and the unceasing touring that many jazz artists commit themselves to. Heroin provides a direct and consistent way to get to the Alpha brain state.

[Luke M]

Looking through this whole thread, I'm a bit surprised someone hasn't pulled out a 'STP is derivative crap' yet. Hell, that was my rallying cry during the later half of high school when I suddenly became too cool for radio rock. I mean, this whole thing seems to be converging a bit to total indie vs. mainstream war.

Not that I actually believe or condone any of what I just said. On my best days, I'll encourage anyone to enjoy whatever they love to listen to, 'cause, truly, it's just music. And it's great, and it's art, but there are other things to life. If you feel so compelled to berate others by their taste in music to meet some need in yourself, then it's time for some serious introspection.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

I was amazed to hear "Beat On The Brat" at a hockey game a few months ago.

LOL.

Wrong sport.

They oughta play that song when Sammy Sosa comes up to the plate, now, though...

[Ron Dulin]

Smack is Heroin, and there's little to no evidence John ever used, even in his "lost" period in the '70's when he caroused around Hollywood with Harry Nilsson.

There's actually film evidence - check out the deleted "limo ride" scene from DA Pennbraker's "Eat the Document" - Lennon and Dylan snorting mad rails of heroin while Dylan keeps puking out the window.

Also, there is a single piece of undeniable evidence that drugs make music better:

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drf600/f627/f62739fj2wb.jpg

The greatest rock and roll album of all time.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

name the top 10 grunge songs with a major key verse/chorus/verse that switch to the minor-key for a middle 8; steve's pegged it--Cheap Trick was about taking the late-period Beatles sound and metallicizing it up a bit.

Actually Kurt Cobain's songwriting, on the better songs, is very Beatlesque. "Lithium" for example, if you imagine a more pop interpretation of it, is a dead ringer for a McCartney mid-60's tune. In fact it's almost a loud version of "Here, There and Everywhere" if you listen closely.

I know somebody in Nirvana, and I think it was Cobain, called Cheap Trick a major influence, though I remember when I read it thinking they were just trying seperate themselves from the rest of the Seattle grunge bands they were being lumped in with. They don't sound like they're riffing on Cheap Trick to me, they sound like they're riffing on the Beatles in the same way Cheap Trick was 15 years earlier.

In any event the Beatlesque qualities found in Cobain's songwriting are what made him stand out from the grunge crowd and certainly isn't representative of grunge in general.


As for modern bands who sound to me to be the most influenced by Cheap Trick, I'd have to I hear it most in bands like Soul Asylum, post-Bob Stinson Replacements, and the Goo Goo Dolls.


Gosh, I don't hear that. I mean, the Goo Goo Dolls sound like late-era (crappy) Cheap Trick like The Flame. (Okay, they aren't quite that bad, but it's that melodramatic flare, the juicy acoustic guitars, etc.). I just can't identify the shambling, folksy, shelf-worn qualities of Paul Westerberg's voice with Cheap Trick. As far as Soul Asylum I actually listened to them just last week for the first time in years and thought they sounded pretty crappy in retrospect, like a local bar band aping somebody else's style.

If I was looking around for Cheap Trick-like sounds today I'd think maybe of Sugar, Oasis (again, though, more of a shared Beatles influence), maybe The Verve (Bittersweet Symphony's plagiarized strings remind me of Gonna Raise Hell, for example).

[triggercut]

Ig--

Rather than risk giving offense to you in your large, floppy hunting cap, I'll say that I nearly mentioned, parenthetically, that Nirvana songs didn't count in those 5, since you're pretty much dead on--Kurt (and one wonders, maybe Dave Grohl) knew their songwriting shit pretty well. There are plenty of Beatlesque, perhaps Cheap Tricky, moments in Nirvana's ouevre. Love the use of the minor eighth, the descending choruses, and and melodies that use the major chord on the I, II, III, and IV, but switch to the minor key on the V. That's right outta John and Paul 101.

As far as Cheap Trick and Soul Asylum, to my ears that couldn't be more obvious, at least at one stage of their career. HANG TIME and THE HORSE THEY RODE IN ON practically sound like CT tribute albums. Neilsen and Peterson oughta be able to sue for royalties for songs like "Grounded", "Nice Guys Don't Get Paid", "Cartoon", "Sometime To Return", "Spinnin'" and especially "Easy Street"...

[Met_K]

Music isn't art, dandylife. As if anyone needed another reason to go and argue about music, the last thing we need to do is call music art. That's ten times worse than what I do. Call music art and you'll suddenly have even more people like me trying to say your music sucks and being elitist and blah blah blah.

Okay, I'm done with this thread. Lennon did have a short-lived heroin 'addiction,' and I should've said he did more psychodelic drugs than smack, but hey, it's still all the same and that's not the reason why I'm leaving this thread. It's turning into a war of everyone's opinions vs. everyone else's opinions, and that's about the lamest thing ever.

I got what I came to this thread for.

[Luke M]

Music isn't art, dandylife.


Um...

Hmmm...

?



I got what I came to this thread for.

An ego boost?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Met_K]

Music isn't art, dandylife.


Um...

Hmmm...

?

OK, music is art, but I like to think it isn't because by calling anything art, all you do is add another realm entirely for people to argue and bitch about, and I'd like to avoid that. Just look at real 'art' --- paintings --- and how much their classification as art has damaged their reputation among normal people. Sure, we love to look at them, but most people think those who hang out in museums a lot are 'art fags' who think they're elitist.



I got what I came to this thread for.


An ego boost?

Yes.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

Trigger --

You're probably right about that Soul Asylum period. I was just listening to some older stuff (Made to be Broken era I think), which sounds a lot different. They are singing with fake country accents and stuff.

After more thought I think the band that is closest to Cheap Trick of the past 10 years or so is Chicago's own Smashing Pumpkins. They have both the hard rock credentials and un-ironic big-pop sensibility that Cheap Trick brought to the equation. They don't particularly sound like Cheap Trick but their range from "Rat in a Cage" to "Tonight, Tonight" is similar to CT's.

By the way I saw Soul Asylum play twice in bars on the Hang Time tour and they were amazing, and incredibly loud.

[Luke M]

Music isn't art, dandylife.


Um...

Hmmm...

?

OK, music is art, but I like to think it isn't because by calling anything art, all you do is add another realm entirely for people to argue and bitch about, and I'd like to avoid that. Just look at real 'art' --- paintings --- and how much their classification as art has damaged their reputation among normal people. Sure, we love to look at them, but most people think those who hang out in museums a lot are 'art fags' who think they're elitist.



You're very defensive about this whole elitist person thing. If it really bothers you, then ignore it. Who gives a fuck, you know?

Also, I think what you're calling arguing and bitching about art is actually just discussion or debate. People like to talk about it. You know, communicate and discuss intelligently without aggression.

'Normal people' don't like paintings because they find them boring. And that has everything to do with the constant pleasure stimulus bombardment of contemporary society and a general lack of appreciation for the arts, and nothing to do with 'elitist art fags' scaring people away.

Music is art just as much as the visual arts are art. That is established fact. It is not up for debate. However, many are always talking about the degrees to which some kinds of music/visual arts are art. For instance, is Limp Bizkit art? (ick!) What about bead making? Art or craft?





I got what I came to this thread for.


An ego boost?

Yes.

At least you're honest :)

[steve]

You're probably right about that Soul Asylum period. I was just listening to some older stuff (Made to be Broken era I think), which sounds a lot different. They are singing with fake country accents and stuff.
They were evolving out of their "pseudo-punk" phase, much like the Replacements and Huskter Du. They were all too tuneful for punk, or too into bands like Aerosmith and Cheap Trick.


By the way I saw Soul Asylum play twice in bars on the Hang Time tour and they were amazing, and incredibly loud.
Yeah, I've seen them a dozen times, and they're always pretty great. And loud. (Original name: Loud Fast Rules.) I had ringing ears for two days after one show on the "...Horse you Rode in On" tour.

If you want to hear the Beatles influence on Nirvana, just think of "About a Girl" on Bleach. I always thought Nirvana was a completely uninteresting noise band, but a great noisy, ragged pop band. They were a mess live, too, which I always sorta liked.

[Sander 001]

reanimate!

This was pretty classic. You get Met_K trying to be an expert on drugs, going on+on but completely void of any first hand info. What was his angle, why did he want, so badly, to convince people that drugs don't enhance creativity? Even from an academic standpoint he was debunked in a couple of sentences.
Then there was some argument about music which led to some fun quotes:
Look, you bumbling elitist fuck, STP are widely recognized as the closest thing to a Led Zeppelin cover-band you can get, without the cover-band aspectand
music isn't artI checked his profile, he hasn't been on in a couple years. Too bad.

"When you smoke herb it reveals you to yourself."
"Music and herb go together."
-Bob Marley

[GatInDaHat]

I've seen STP in concert, the guy is completely oblivious to public perception... I consider that a good thing, but a good bet that some substance is involved. Jimi Hendrix is the answer, he has never had his equal, and he is still the golden grail for the best of musicians,.

[Athryn]

I checked his profile, he hasn't been on in a couple years. Too bad.


The "Gently Touched" next to his name is the reason why.

[peacedog]

Woah, that was a hell of a necro. I heard a Nirvana song on DaveFM the other day. They remain relevant, so Met K was off his fucking rocker there. Well, in other places too.

[delirium]

I watched a bit of a STP concert that was on TV last night. They played a new-ish song, Between the Lines, and I was shocked that it was actually pretty good.

[Tyjenks]

I just saw them live last month for the first time post-VElvet Revolver. They were really good and Weiland was back to his old (or should I say much younger) self for the most part. Not running around as much, but neither am I. I think he must be on less drugs because he had a little belly pooch and he never took his shirt off.

The new stuff is alright, but none of it has the edge/bite of earlier STP. Still a great show.

Jeez: I said "queerbait" in one of those posts. What a douche-y thing to say. Maybe it was a carry over from some other joke-y thread.

[VegasRobb]

I'm just glad that he didn't die of an overdose or something along those lines. I wonder if Weiland will be a bit of a test case for the gifted prodigy who survives in spite of himself and continues creating music.

[Jeremy Johnsen]

He was on Howard Stern about a week ago. He sounded defeated, and seemed to be getting absolutely no enjoyment out of making music anymore.