drug-oriented band?

Dydion · Post by **Dydion** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:00 pm

Gilmore said in an interview that he had been "known to smoke a little reefer every now and then," and that by and large they did not do drugs like people thought they did. Alcohol was bigger. And I THINK he even said something to the effect of what Ringo Starr said in the Beatles Anthology: (this is NOT a quote, just a paraphrase) You really can't be under the influence and produce great music. You lay something great down, you go home thinking how great it sounded, then come back the next day and realize that what you did was garbage.

D

ganaffe · Post by **ganaffe** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:37 pm

Dydion wrote:You really can't be under the influence and produce great music. You lay something great down, you go home thinking how great it sounded, then come back the next day and realize that what you did was garbage.

More great musicians are known for saying things like this, and I'm inclined to agree with them. A little reefer or alcohol can work to ease-out on your instrument, but I can't remember creating anything remotely interesting when under influence of any substance.

mooninjune · Post by **mooninjune** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:55 pm

I think the floyd did make music that was aimed at the dope/lsd user in the early days. The ufo didnt sell any alcohol as far as i'm aware but the drug seen was big there, you could say they were exploiting a market. A lot of people got into the floyd through drugs as it enhanced the affect of the drug.
Where im from dope and the floyd seem to have always been linked, like when you think of bob marley you think weed. As a common oversite of the floyd, drugs is always going to be a factor to the average joe bloggs like it or not.

nosaj · Post by **nosaj** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:10 pm

I have a friend who saw Pink Floyd at the tail end of a mid to late 70's tour (may even have been the last gig of the tour); They were apparently not very good that night, AND smoking joints passed to them from the audience (at least Gilmour did)... Look at the photos, see film/video footage, look at the black holes in their eyes and the bags underneath. Come on, you know things were going on. I'd say they were a drug band that outlasted their serious drug days; growing up and realizing they needed to make money and perhaps leave a mark on the world, even become serious. Even now there must be a little self-indulgence with good friends in private gatherings...[/u]

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:28 pm

mooninjune wrote:I think the floyd did make music that was aimed at the dope/lsd user in the early days. The ufo didnt sell any alcohol as far as i'm aware but the drug seen was big there, you could say they were exploiting a market. A lot of people got into the floyd through drugs as it enhanced the affect of the drug.
Where im from dope and the floyd seem to have always been linked, like when you think of bob marley you think weed. As a common oversite of the floyd, drugs is always going to be a factor to the average joe bloggs like it or not.

well as much as i agree with you on most parts of your opinion i must disagree with "they were only exploiting the maket" part. i read somewhere that syd was lsd freak. that must have had influence on their music. i think that some of their work from late 60'ties was made under the influence of some drugs. i may be wrong but i simply can't help feeling that even when i am listening to some of their later work. i simply have under the influence feeling and having used some of the drugs available i know what am i talking about

Post by **mosespa** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:42 pm

qjamesfloyd wrote:To quote David Gilmour "Course were not,you can trust us!!!"

He said with bloodshot eyes and a bad case of Perma-Grin.

Ivan_2068 wrote:Hey, tell me the name of any rock superstar from the late 60's who never used at least once one illegal substance and I won't believe you.

Two words:

Frank Zappa

Flame-Sky Diver · Post by **Flame-Sky Diver** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:26 pm

I would add "the great".

Jack Dempsey · Post by **Jack Dempsey** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:41 am

Me too.

Meddler · Post by **Meddler** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:00 am

and/or "Mighty"

"Friends dont let friends listen to drugs while doing Floyd"

ganaffe · Post by **ganaffe** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:33 pm

Believe it or not, but I burned my weeny sandwich today...

LuPlez22 · Post by **LuPlez22** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:37 pm

drugs.....probably....but probably not to the extent that one would think

Silenceinthestudio · Post by **Silenceinthestudio** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:03 pm

Well...

It's "common Floydian knowledge" that Waters and Mason were the drinkers throughout the early years, while Barrett, Wright...then Gilmour were the drug-users. As for whether or not Mason ever dabbled in psychedelics, I've never read anything about it, but Waters did actuall mention that he took L.S.D. once, after (some special occasion...the exact one escapes me) on the isle of Ibiza. Which he said, half-jokingly wasn't the most enjoyable experience. Wright, Barrett and Gilmour were always tripping throughout the 60's but as for when that stopped who knows? When it comes to heavier drugs, the only confirmed use was Wright's during the 80's, and Barrett's heroin stint in the early 70's. Which never really became a public issue as being a problem. I think it could've been another schizophrenic, "unreal belief" like his homosexuality thing. He wanted to be admitted to psychiatric hospital back in 71' because he "thought" he may've been gay...for like a week. The gods know he needed to be admitted for much more than just being gay!

Enough rambling though...

Guys, all of them no matter what drugs or how many drugs they've done, they ARE a drug-oriented band to the people who enjoy listening to their music on drugs (like me)...and aren't a drug-oriented band to the people who enjoy listening to their music, but have never done drugs.

The Floyd are NOTHING when it comes to a dangerous drug band, we're all really f*ckin' lucky that Syd only got involved in L.S.D. and Guinness as heavy as he did. Even though we didn't get any more music from him that we would've if he died way back then, but at least he's still alive and not another martyred heroin/cocaine abuser...and the rest of them, please... Joe Perry & Steven Tyler's BANDMATES spilled more drugs on a single Friday night than Floyd did all year.

There's only 1 reason this mark still exists on Pink Floyd's record...

they make THE BEST music to get high to.

Period.

Sorry, wharf rats...much respect
None of you have ever been forgotten

You're who we come home for.

seamusz · Post by **seamusz** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:20 pm

Silenceinthestudio wrote:Guys, all of them no matter what drugs or how many drugs they've done, they ARE a drug-oriented band to the people who enjoy listening to their music on drugs (like me)...and aren't a drug-oriented band to the people who enjoy listening to their music, but have never done drugs.

I disagree a lot.

The question is wether or not the band Pink Floyd was orientated around drugs. The answer is NO. They may have used some drugs to varying degrees and it probably had some influence on them, again in varying degrees, but it WAS NOT a focus of their music. They were focused on sound and lyrics. If a fan dopes up before listening to them to "magnify the expirience"

that has no effect on wether or not the band was orietated around drugs.

Silenceinthestudio · Post by **Silenceinthestudio** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:04 pm

Well Seamusz, I think you misunderstood where I was coming from, I'm sticking to what I think the 2 sides of the Floyd "public" feel about the question... I do this because anyone who thinks they can tell me or anyone else that they personally KNOW what drove the Floyd to make their music is well, in a world of assumption.

Hey, I love Floyd more than any other "sound-making" conglomerate on this Earth, but I'm not gonna fight for some assumption that they just happened to fall into this amazing formula of their signature drugged-out groove through experimenting with sound for the lone sake of pushing the "sonic" envelope... They knew what they were doing and knew the questions that would arise from their spacy-ness of their product. There's no need to put them on some arty "vice-free" pedestal.After UFO, there's no way that you're gonna tell me that pleasing their wacked-out "following" didn't go through their minds while making all of their follow-up records. Especially how much this subject defined them. Whatever... Maybe they didn't sit in a circle and smoke a PCP-laced bone before every recording session, just to get a "drugged" sound, but it had to be going through their mind while experimenting with their music and lyrics. Simply...they're only human beings who just happened to be poetically literary enough and CLEAN enough to know that simply writing a blues song named "Cocaine" is just being a rock & roll cornball. But sing about rolling up a joint and laying down by a riverside the way Gilmour did in Fat Old Sun?...now that's being "poetically" druggy...big deal!

Don't worry, Seamusz...
People still do claim Jim Morrison to have been just a drunk loser with no quality to his writing, but I still haven't heard widespread labeling of Floyd being a stoned band with no care for what goes down on tape. Maybe way back, but they've earned their respect early on. It's nice of you to stick up for them though. I'm sure they'd be pleased

seamusz · Post by **seamusz** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:25 pm

I understand what you are saying. I am pointing out that we are taking about what PF is orientated around. What is the center peice of Floyd's music? My point is that it is not drugs. Not by a long shot.

But you are right that drugs are a part of their music, I mean its Rock n Roll!

drug-oriented band?

drugs

Re: drugs

Re: drugs

Re: drugs