Do drugs make musicians more creative?

070512_hendrix.jpg

Do drugs fuel creativity? Is an addled mind essential to making great music? Does sobriety cause creative impotence? What if Jimi Hendrix had suddenly decided to enter a twelve-step program? Would Are You Experienced? have sucked? To answer these nagging questions, you have to take a look at rock's red-eyed history and examine both the music made under the dizzy spell of artificial chemistry and the sober work that followed.

See also:
- The Jimi Hendrix Experience's Are You Experienced turns 45
- Elvis meets Nixon to fight drugs
- After Whitney died, pundits got out the soapboxes in record time

"It's absurd to think that because some famous rock stars were drug addicts that doing drugs has anything to do with being a musician," counters Chris Adolf, frontman of Denver's Bad Weather California, who believes one thing has nothing to do with the other. "But you do run into that kind of attitude sometimes where people think that being 'really fucked up' is being 'rock and roll.' To me that seems -- for lack of a better word -- kind of poseur-ish. I feel like it's a bit of a fantasy that musicians need drugs to be creative. There are plenty of musicians that I know personally that have been a driving force in music who are basically straight. You gotta be able to leave your head without drugs."

Judging from the eye-rolling and mild disgust that greeted the tragic images of the late Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty (both of whom were far more famous for taking drugs than for making music under their spell), Adolf isn't alone in balking at rock's reputation for intoxication. Just the same, that doesn't change the fact that, more often than not, when musicians become teetotalers, the resulting music is usually a pile of donkey dung.

Take Bob Dylan, for instance. While he certainly delivered a handful of decent records after ending his (practically) sleepless eighteen months on Dexedrine and cannabis in the mid-'60s, those were rare gems in an ocean of useless tunes. Frankly, he never really duplicated the frenetic magic of Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde.

"I used to stay up for days doing loads of coke, drinking anything," said Noel Gallagher of Oasis in 2000 during his band's Behind The Music episode. "Because that's what you do, innit? I have divine right as a rock star to be like that. You don't want kids coming backstage and you're sitting there drinking mineral water. What would they think? You gotta be lying in the corner, halfway into a coma with a bottle of Jack Daniel's."

While the producers of Behind The Music would have you believe that Oasis improved once sober with Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (since the talent/fame/addiction/sobriety arc seems to be the only narrative they know), I think we can all agree that that album is a total piece of crap -- as are all the others that weren't made during their three-year-orgy of booze and blow. Donovan, Jeff Tweedy, Lou Reed, Ween, Aerosmith -- there's no shortage of former addicts who lost their muse when they got clean.

"Sure, but that just comes with being an addict in general," Adolf allows, but then adds, "Once you've formed a dependency on something, it's hard to adjust to life without it. That isn't specific to musicians."

Fair enough. But you can also argue that an addled mind seems much more instrumental to making music, an often emotionally driven medium, than it is to, say, standup comedy, which can be a more cerebral medium. This would certainly explain why there are so many comics like Russell Brand, Marc Maron and Chris Hardwick, who really only became creative powerhouses after deciding to get straight.

Look, no musician needs to get fucked up in order to write a decent song (despite a generation of jazz musicians who got into heroin expecting to find the secret to Charlie Parker's wild sound). To argue otherwise would be like saying a musician can't write a good song without the most expensive, top-of-the-line guitar. Fact is, there are countless musicians who have had no need for drugs. Frank Zappa was famously sober. Belle & Sebastian's Stuart Murdoch doesn't imbibe. Neither do Morrissey, Gene Simmons, Jonathan Richman or Ian Mackaye. What's more, staying routinely blitzed certainly didn't help once-great icons like Elvis, the Who, John Lennon or Metallica retain their creative cool.

So perhaps a more central question to the issue of whether sobriety zaps creativity or not: How do drugs influence music? If heroin reduces the excitability of your brain's neurons and marijuana causes them to dance the jitterbug, can a similar contrast be found in the different music made under different drugs?

"Every drug has a nature," Joe Strummer said, commenting on Clash drummer Topper Headon's smack habit in the documentary Westway to the World. "In the jazz days, the saxophone players would be addicted to heroin. And that suited horn playing, because you can float over the music. But it doesn't suit drumming, which is like hammering a nail into the floor. The beat's gotta be there."

With John Lennon, if you notice, there is a substantial correlation between the drugs he was on and the sounds he subsequently produced. From his Teddy Boy phase through "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," speed was often on the menu, which can be heard in the tempo and volume of "Twist and Shout" and "Dizzy Miss Lizzy." Once Dylan introduced him to grass, the romantic tranquility of "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away," "Norwegian Wood" and "I'm Only Sleeping" followed.

With acid, an introspective existentialism entered the picture, which can be heard in the tone of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day in the Life." With heroin in 1968, he gave us more cooled-out, mid-tempo songs with a slight undercurrent of anxiety: "Yer Blues," "I'm So Tired" and "Across the Universe." (And then he got sober and happy and wrote "Beautiful Boy," etc.)

Forget Lennon for a moment, though. Can you think of a truly depressing album made on cocaine (and don't say Rumours; I'm not talking about that type of depressing). Or how about most sad songs -- those were written by people on booze (Bright Eyes' "Hit the Switch," Lou Reed's "Perfect Day," Harry Nilsson's "Without Her"). There are certainly sad people on coke, but there's definitely something about the two drugs that leads to different types of music.


My Voice Nation Help
14 comments
Ben Deco
Ben Deco

@karl, please see Grateful Dead, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, James Taylor, and so on and so forth. Clearly drugs had zero impact on their creativity.

Bret Egan
Bret Egan

Some of the greatest hits of the 70's were written and performed under the influence of heroin.

Karl Chwe
Karl Chwe

I am not anti-drug by any means, but I am 100% positive that drugs taken recreationally do not fuel creativity. Drugs taken clinically (and some recreational drugs, like LSD or ketamine, may turn out to be useful clinically) do support creativity, in the sense that they help you function better (and if they don't, you shouldn't be taking them.) But creative work is work. I am surprised this is still a question.

Rachel Kiriakos
Rachel Kiriakos

Well, both, but oftentimes creative genius comes at a price. Worth it? Depends on who you ask...

Jacob Miller
Jacob Miller

It set him behind and many other musicians behind as well. Creativity doesn't come from drugs and alcohol, but the discipline and practice. Jimi played a lot and might have been better. But with anything with addiction, the user has to adjust their lifestyle and mindset in order to find that creative zone.

Kyle Stych
Kyle Stych

All except the dead ones. But maybe it just stopped them before they started making crap. Like if we could have avoided "Uptown Girl" and stopped with "Pressure."

Tj Weitzel
Tj Weitzel

"FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced thedouble-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago." True?

Stephanie Alessandra
Stephanie Alessandra

Drugs make people more creative! Of course! Are they needed no, Some people can tap that inner crazy and express it just fine without drugs. Have they taken the lives of some of our musical heroes. yes. Drugs should never be necescary to a true artist, but man I can tell you while on oxy-contin in the hospital after my accident..... I wish I could explain the things I saw and couldn't stop seeing in my head. It would never make any kind of sense.

Jenn McCrorey
Jenn McCrorey

I know more than a few people who should read this, unfortunately. Consensus seems to be among the sober that drugs are not needed, and among those who use, that they are somehow brilliant, which they are absolutely not. I subscribe to drugs NOT being needed, personally.

jmpmk2
jmpmk2

@Ben Deco Clearly, none of these acts were comprised by prodigious music talents and once-in-a-lifetime songwriters, with or without drugs, right?

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Denver Event Tickets
Loading...