Is it okay to listen to music about drugs?

[this x everglow]

ex. cypress hill : hits from the bong


im completely sxe but i love that song.


is there anything bad here.

[xsecx]

ex. cypress hill : hits from the bong


im completely sxe but i love that song.


is there anything bad here.

not really, but I'd have to wonder why you'd love a song glorifying drug use.

[this x everglow]

its has nothing to do with the lyrics, i just like the music.

[xsecx]

its has nothing to do with the lyrics, i just like the music.

I've heard the same thing about people who are not racist, but listen to skrewdriver. It didn't make sense when they said it either.

[mouseman004]

I've heard the same thing about people who are not racist, but listen to skrewdriver. It didn't make sense when they said it either.

For alot of people music is all about entertainment and not at all about meaning. I am sure that not everybody who listened to Ice T's song Cop Killer actually wanted to kill a cop.

[xsecx]

For alot of people music is all about entertainment and not at all about meaning. I am sure that not everybody who listened to Ice T's song Cop Killer actually wanted to kill a cop.

no, but you should agree with it on some level, since it's essentially a protest song. It wouldn't make much sense to be a cop and like the song, for instance. Just like it doesn't make sense to be vocally against drug and be really into songs glorifying drug use. Or vocally anti racist, and really into songs about hating minorities.

[Meteor]

If I like a song glorifying drug use, I just change the lyrics *grin*


For example: The Ramones - Now I wanna sniff some glue

Original text:
Now I wanna sniff some glue,
now I wanna've something to do.
All kids wanna sniff some glue,
all kids wanna've something to do.

I sing instead of that:
I don't wanna sniff some glue,
I've more vital things to do.
Some kids wanna sniff some glue,
some kids are real stupid fools.

Or "Die Toten Hosen - Kein Alkohol ist auch keine Lösung" (No Alcohol is also not a solution)
I listen to this band since ages, so I see no reason to stop it.

Instead of
"Kein Alkohol ist auch keine Lösung
Es würde gehn, doch es geht nicht gut"
(No Alcohol is also not a solution
It would be possible, but it doesn't really work)

I say
"Kein Alkohol ist auch eine Lösung,
verzichte drauf, und es geht mir gut"
(No Alcohol is also a solution,
I don't drink and I'm alright)



(please don't take this to serious ;) it's more fun than seriousness)

[Slober]

To me the message and the world view of the band is very important, but it doesn't restrict me from listening to something. But, then again I would never listen to Skrewdriver, while Cypress Hill is ok. I don't think I'm so much against drugs in general, it's just something that I myself don't care for, while I think racism in general is not acceptable, so maybe that's the reason why I think listening to Cypress Hill is ok, and Skrewdriver is not.

[librawitch02]

I like get stoned by hinder but only because it's super catchy and I feel like dancing whenever I hear it. I obviously don't want to get stoned but does it really matter if you listen to it?

[strombollii]

i personally don't see anything wrong with listening to non-sxe music,
i listen to blood for blood/ramallah all the time.
as well as black flag and DK

[asiankaos]

You can't limit yourself to only edge music. Blood for Blood is one of my Favorite bands. And then that is also like saying non edge kids can't like minor threat have heart etc... Of course they can. You can listen to whatever you want just as long as you are smart enough to understand what they aare saying and relize it is or isn't for you. Or if what they are saying is bullshit or not. Everybody is capable of thinking for themselves.

[hxcsxe]

i dont see a problem with it to be honest your listening to it for the sound not for the conets, you just gotta seperated the movement with the sound,

[xsecx]

i dont see a problem with it to be honest your listening to it for the sound not for the conets, you just gotta seperated the movement with the sound,

why would you listen to something that you didn't agree with? Why would an atheist listen to gospel?

[hxcsxe]

why would you listen to something that you didn't agree with? Why would an atheist listen to gospel?


unlike some im not a preacher i listen to what i want,
i love drink but i gave it up,
my fav band of all time are pantera who are a bunch of piss heads but iv made my choice. music is music and a scene is a scene

[xsecx]

unlike some im not a preacher i listen to what i want,
i love drink but i gave it up,
my fav band of all time are pantera who are a bunch of piss heads but iv made my choice. music is music and a scene is a scene

uh. ok? That didn't actually answer the questions I asked you?

[hxcsxe]

uh. ok? That didn't actually answer the questions I asked you?

whats to answer, i listen to music for the sound and i listen to hardcore for the sound and the movment, if i listened to hardcore dance dont make me a pill head does it

[xsecx]

whats to answer, i listen to music for the sound and i listen to hardcore for the sound and the movment, if i listened to hardcore dance dont make me a pill head does it

why would you listen to something that preaches something you're against? You don't really strike me as someone who actually spends much time thinking about things though, so the entire concept is probably lost on you.

[SgtD]

this is a very interesting topic. while i'm with Dusty, i like to listen to muprhy's law, but when i listen to some hip-hop songs about smokin it up, i get annoyed with it fast, and skip to the next track.

[PROPER JERK]

I listen to hip-hop and it doesn't bother me too much about the lyrical content, a song that is specifically about getting high wouldn't be great.

[xsecx]

I listen to hip-hop and it doesn't bother me too much about the lyrical content, a song that is specifically about getting high wouldn't be great.

yeah. I'm not talking about the occasional reference. I'm talking about shit like gin and juice or pretty much anything by cypress hill.

[XBILLYX]

i had this music proffesor that never lisened to the words of music she hated lyrics they just ruin songs. i lisen to alot of irish music and they sing alot about drinking and i find i end up pissed at the world by the time the song is over. so why do i do it? no fucking clue i must like being pissed off.

[rodrigo]

i had this music proffesor that never lisened to the words of music she hated lyrics they just ruin songs. i lisen to alot of irish music and they sing alot about drinking and i find i end up pissed at the world by the time the song is over. so why do i do it? no fucking clue i must like being pissed off.
crappy teacher.

[PROPER JERK]

Was just thinking about this topic when listening to Taxi by Harry Chapin this morning, song is about getting stoned but still is amazing.

[D1988]

crappy teacher.

It looks like we need a punkrock teacher in here.

[XbriX]

It would make sense for a person to believe in the words behind the artist. That way you have a connection and understanding with their message and their music.

[xJoeyNormalx]

why would you listen to something that preaches something you're against?

Many possible reasons. Obviously, music where I agree with the lyrics, and where they're intelligently put, is what I tend to enjoy the most, but there are a lot of reasons why people may choose to listen to music which they disagree with.

The first is that it is possible to disagree with a view and still respect it or find it interesting. This doesn't really apply with Cypress Hill, and most music advocating drug and alcohol use (though I suppose it could apply for some of the more introspective songs written by people based on their experiences while high...not my thing though). Obvious examples are some hardcore lyrics. Bands like the Cro Mags or Blood For Blood...I disagree completely with a lot of their lyrics, but I can see that they come from a completely different background to me, and, given the context, can respect (or, at the very least, tolerate) the lyrics I don't agree with.

The second is that people's beliefs may develop over time, but they may still wish to listen to music for old times' sake or whatever. I used to be a fan of Cypress Hill, almost ten years ago. Didn't care either way about drug use, back then. Didn't smoke, didn't take drugs, did drink. Now, obviously, my views are very different. However, occasionally, I'll still listen to what I listened to then, for nostalgia, especially if around old friends (almost all of which have completely different musical tastes to me now).

The third is that some lyrics are so damn disagreeable that I can't take them seriously. Blood For Blood's "So Common, So Cheap" is one example. A lot of cheesy militant vegan/Edge stuff borders on this. Some Slapshot is obvious. Pitboss 2000, PC Deathsquad, Anal Cunt...that sort of stuff is beyond obvious. There, the lyrics can actually add to my enjoyment, because they are so damn ridiculous, or banal, or stupid, that they're hilarious. People can listen to music because it's funny (Cypress Hill is probably a good example too; a lot of their stuff is absolutely fucking ridiculous!).

The final reason I can think of is just that it might be damn good music. An atheist might like gospel because the music is sufficiently amazing that they can put the lyrics aside and focus on the music just as...music. Although hardcore has always been heavily about the message and the lyrics, that's not how all people - even all hardcore kids - appreciate all music. Sometimes, it's just about the music itself. I mean, I think that Integrity and Ringworm have absurd lyrics, but I love their music for its sound.

[Meteor]

It's like you'd ask
"Is it okay to listen to friends (who aren't edge and who're drinking alcohol and so on) talking favorably about drugs?"

think 'bout it ;)

[xGriffox]

i really don't think it's neccesary for people to have to justify what music they listen to or even to ask about it on a message board. If you like and enjoy the music, listen to it, it is after all YOUR choice.

[xEVASIONx]

The Doors are one of my favorite bands, anyone who knows anything about Jim Morrison knows he definitely isn't straight edge. I still find the lyrics and music beautiful.

[Lifestyle_X]

yeha, it's nice band, i have a shirt of Jim Morrison

[xcriterionmasterx]

i think what all of you failed to mention is that music is art. i listen to music to get things out of it, to hear something new, to learn something, experience something, and finally to enjoy it. it would be completely ignorant to forget decades of music because it isn't straight edge, or you don't believe in what the singer/band says. it is expression, and an artform. a beautiful one.

sorry for saying, but most straight edge bands are exactly the best, they are enjoyable and say what i feel, but they don't exactly produce great music for the most part, especially newer edge bands. but velvet underground on the other hand, who sing about drugs, and were probably on drugs when they wrote the music, is far better than all of them. it just seems flat out stupid to only listen to music if they don't do drugs, etc.

[xsecx]

i think what all of you failed to mention is that music is art. i listen to music to get things out of it, to hear something new, to learn something, experience something, and finally to enjoy it. it would be completely ignorant to forget decades of music because it isn't straight edge, or you don't believe in what the singer/band says. it is expression, and an artform. a beautiful one.

sorry for saying, but most straight edge bands are exactly the best, they are enjoyable and say what i feel, but they don't exactly produce great music for the most part, especially newer edge bands. but velvet underground on the other hand, who sing about drugs, and were probably on drugs when they wrote the music, is far better than all of them. it just seems flat out stupid to only listen to music if they don't do drugs, etc.

what makes great art is that it speaks to the individual and is relate able. Something you may consider art, someone else may not. For instance, a lot of people think the beatles were great and visionary, where I think the music they put on while on drugs is completely unlistenable garbage. Hardcore and the hardcore mindset has never been about great music and has always been about the message. If a musician is trying to put across a message, and it's against your core beliefs, how/why would you think that message is great?

[xcriterionmasterx]

what makes great art is that it speaks to the individual and is relate able. Something you may consider art, someone else may not. For instance, a lot of people think the beatles were great and visionary, where I think the music they put on while on drugs is completely unlistenable garbage. Hardcore and the hardcore mindset has never been about great music and has always been about the message. If a musician is trying to put across a message, and it's against your core beliefs, how/why would you think that message is great?
well, it can speak to you in different ways don't forget. that is what i love about music and especially movies.

they heavily influenced all the music you listened to now, and many of the musicians you like, too, the beatles i mean. maybe not directly, though. yeah, i love hardcore because of that, trust me. the message behind hardcore, and hardcore as a way of getting your message out, is great.

there doesn't have to be a message to all music. tell me the message to "let it be" by the beatles, or "all you need is love". you can pick a message out of them of loving one another, or whatever. or you can say they are just good music. i have come to realize there are other beliefs than my own.

[xsecx]

well, it can speak to you in different ways don't forget. that is what i love about music and especially movies.

they heavily influenced all the music you listened to now, and many of the musicians you like, too, the beatles i mean. maybe not directly, though. yeah, i love hardcore because of that, trust me. the message behind hardcore, and hardcore as a way of getting your message out, is great.

there doesn't have to be a message to all music. tell me the message to "let it be" by the beatles, or "all you need is love". you can pick a message out of them of loving one another, or whatever. or you can say they are just good music. i have come to realize there are other beliefs than my own.

I don't agree with that actually, I think the beatles influence has been greatly exaggerated. They were popular, but that's about it. What do you love about songs that go against your personal beliefs and actually advocate the use of drugs? The discussion isn't about drug influenced music, but actually about songs and band advocating drug use.

[xcriterionmasterx]

I don't agree with that actually, I think the beatles influence has been greatly exaggerated. They were popular, but that's about it. What do you love about songs that go against your personal beliefs and actually advocate the use of drugs? The discussion isn't about drug influenced music, but actually about songs and band advocating drug use.
they heavily influenced the ramones, the stooges, and early punk, which is definitely what influenced hardcore. they were not only popular, they changed music forever.

i love the experimenation used in them, i love the feeling i get listening to them, where they take me in my mind, since music is my drug, the quality and musicianship of many of the bands, and so much more. it is quite simple. just because you are on drugs, or write songs about drugs, doesn't mean you can't play good music. zeppelin for example. not to mention sabbath, who wrote songs like "sweet leaf" about drugs, and they heavily influenced metal and hardcore, the music you love.

[xsecx]

they heavily influenced the ramones, the stooges, and early punk, which is definitely what influenced hardcore. they were not only popular, they changed music forever.

I think you're giving them far more credit then they are due, especially none of the bands or music you listed sounds or took anything directly from them.



i love the experimenation used in them, i love the feeling i get listening to them, where they take me in my mind, since music is my drug, the quality and musicianship of many of the bands, and so much more. it is quite simple. just because you are on drugs, or write songs about drugs, doesn't mean you can't play good music. zeppelin for example. not to mention sabbath, who wrote songs like "sweet leaf" about drugs, and they heavily influenced metal and hardcore, the music you love.

You're not addressing what I'm saying though. Where do they take you in your mind? Wanting to do drugs?

[xcriterionmasterx]

I think you're giving them far more credit then they are due, especially none of the bands or music you listed sounds or took anything directly from them.



You're not addressing what I'm saying though. Where do they take you in your mind? Wanting to do drugs?
the pop hooks? if you can listen to the stooges song "1969" and say it didn't take something from the beatles, then that is nuts. not too mention the ramones listed the beach boys and beatles as influences, as i saw last week at the rock and roll hall of fame. :] but the fact we disagree with this isn't really important. do you think they at least wrote good music? since lennon is one of the greatest poets to ever live, so is paul.

what do you want me to address? they take me away from any crap that is happening in my life, which i guess you could say i use music as an escapist armform in a way, besides all the other reasons i gave for listening to it. and i have chosen never to do drugs, music, movies, "friends", nothing will make me want to change that.

[xsecx]

the pop hooks? if you can listen to the stooges song "1969" and say it didn't take something from the beatles, then that is nuts. not too mention the ramones listed the beach boys and beatles as influences, as i saw last week at the rock and roll hall of fame. :] but the fact we disagree with this isn't really important. do you think they at least wrote good music? since lennon is one of the greatest poets to ever live, so is paul.

You think the beatles created the chorus? I'm saying, you clearly have a mindset that you think they some great overall influence, and that's not a opinion I share. I think that John Lennon was an idiot, and sgt peppers was seriously one of the dumbest records ever. I also think that calling him one of the greatest poets to have ever lived is giving him far more credit than he deserves.



what do you want me to address? they take me away from any crap that is happening in my life, which i guess you could say i use music as an escapist armform in a way, besides all the other reasons i gave for listening to it. and i have chosen never to do drugs, music, movies, "friends", nothing will make me want to change that.

So you think songs that condone and advocate drug use are positive things, should be encouraged and something you think more people should do?

[straightXed]

do you think they at least wrote good music? since lennon is one of the greatest poets to ever live, so is paul.

Ok, i just want to step in here and say whilst john Lennon had a level of songwriting skill i personally wouldn't say he was the greatest poet, in fact have you ever read his poetry? Maybe its just me but that book, "in his own right" was painfully bad. Anyway what i really am astounded by is the fact you thought paul was any good, he wrote awful songs, really awful songs and frequently would ruin songs that he collaborated with john on. I know its a personal taste thing here but you do seem to be praising them very highly. I mean i actually listened to the Beatles a lot growing up and a couple of my friends are huge Beatles fans and even they seem to be of the opinion that Paul wrote more shit than good. However my mum thought Paul was great but i think that was more a teenage crush thing than anything but she's not really known for her good taste in music!!! Its great you like the Beatles but greatest poets that ever lived? A bit much i think.

[xcriterionmasterx]

You think the beatles created the chorus? I'm saying, you clearly have a mindset that you think they some great overall influence, and that's not a opinion I share. I think that John Lennon was an idiot, and sgt peppers was seriously one of the dumbest records ever. I also think that calling him one of the greatest poets to have ever lived is giving him far more credit than he deserves.



So you think songs that condone and advocate drug use are positive things, should be encouraged and something you think more people should do?
what made sgt. peppers dumb?

and i am not saying it is a good thing that they are promoting drugs, i am saying that i don't care as long as they produced good music, and i liked it. i mean, i obviously care, but i am straight edge for myself, and what other people do or talk about really isn't my business.


Ok, i just want to step in here and say whilst john Lennon had a level of songwriting skill i personally wouldn't say he was the greatest poet, in fact have you ever read his poetry? Maybe its just me but that book, "in his own right" was painfully bad. Anyway what i really am astounded by is the fact you thought paul was any good, he wrote awful songs, really awful songs and frequently would ruin songs that he collaborated with john on. I know its a personal taste thing here but you do seem to be praising them very highly. I mean i actually listened to the Beatles a lot growing up and a couple of my friends are huge Beatles fans and even they seem to be of the opinion that Paul wrote more shit than good. However my mum thought Paul was great but i think that was more a teenage crush thing than anything but she's not really known for her good taste in music!!! Its great you like the Beatles but greatest poets that ever lived? A bit much i think.
i don't have a clue why i said "poet". i just meant songwriter. and john and paul were always grouped together writing for the beatles. i also think dylan is one of the greatest songwriters. i have never read his (lennon's) poetry, but i know he did a lot of stuff in his life that made no sense.

paul definitely didn't do hardly any shit with the beatles. he wrote and sang some of the best songs ever made. the beatles make me the most happy of any band listening to, and have just too many great songs to deny, in my opinion. and i am never sick of listening to them. which is why they are my favorite band, and i praise them so much. although i love tons of bands/singers.

[xsecx]

what made sgt. peppers dumb?


the lyrical content was retarded and was musically twee.



and i am not saying it is a good thing that they are promoting drugs, i am saying that i don't care as long as they produced good music, and i liked it. i mean, i obviously care, but i am straight edge for myself, and what other people do or talk about really isn't my business.


so which is it? You think people should do drugs if they make good music because of it? Do you think everyone should do drugs then? When does drug and alcohol consumption matter to you? Do you think the world would be a better place without drugs and alcohol?

[xcriterionmasterx]

the lyrical content was retarded and was musically twee.



so which is it? You think people should do drugs if they make good music because of it? Do you think everyone should do drugs then? When does drug and alcohol consumption matter to you? Do you think the world would be a better place without drugs and alcohol?
EDIT: sorry, i forgot. i can do nothing to change your opinion on the album or the band, i love both. oh well. here is a site with other people's opinions on it, maybe you could sign up and review it or something. if you cared to.

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_beatles/sgt__peppers_lonely_hearts_club_band/

good music is made on drugs and off of drugs. whatever that artists chooses to do is their choice. no, everyone shouldn't do them, but it is their choice. well, obviously it matters when it is affecting me directly, other than that, i would have to go case by case.

and no, i don't think the world would be a better place, it would probably fuck up so much with money and taxes and blah blah blah. it would have been a better place if it never existed (maybe), but taking it away now seems almost impossible.

[xsecx]

good music is made on drugs and off of drugs. whatever that artists chooses to do is their choice. no, everyone shouldn't do them, but it is their choice. well, obviously it matters when it is affecting me directly, other than that, i would have to go case by case.


So the lives of those musicians and the lives of those around them don't matter, as long as they make good music? Does the drug use exist in a vacuum, where these are happy healthy people?




and no, i don't think the world would be a better place, it would probably fuck up so much with money and taxes and blah blah blah. it would have been a better place if it never existed (maybe), but taking it away now seems almost impossible.

This answer doesn't make any sense. You don't think the would would be better place without drugs and alcohol? How would that affect money and taxes?

[xcriterionmasterx]

So the lives of those musicians and the lives of those around them don't matter, as long as they make good music? Does the drug use exist in a vacuum, where these are happy healthy people?
no, they matter. but it is up to them what they do with their lives. they want to smoke and play music, so be it.





This answer doesn't make any sense. You don't think the would would be better place without drugs and alcohol? How would that affect money and taxes?
so you are talking about them never existing to begin with? that would be better. i thought you were talking about getting rid of them now.

[xsecx]

no, they matter. but it is up to them what they do with their lives. they want to smoke and play music, so be it.


So you condone and support their actions? You think and believe that drug use is something positive and should be encouraged and supported?




so you are talking about them never existing to begin with? that would be better. i thought you were talking about getting rid of them now.

either/or. If every non medical drug disappeared today, would the world be a better place?

[straightXed]

i don't have a clue why i said "poet". i just meant songwriter. and john and paul were always grouped together writing for the beatles. i also think dylan is one of the greatest songwriters. i have never read his (lennon's) poetry, but i know he did a lot of stuff in his life that made no sense.


They were grouped together but there is tonnes of literature and film that lets you know who wrote what. I'm not sure what you think makes a great songwriter, i'm not saying any of the people you have mentioned are talentless i just think you are attributing too much credit - greatest songwriter just seems a little much, i know these people have attained a lot of popularity but i wonder if that taints the reasoning of what makes them the greatest?




paul definitely didn't do hardly any shit with the beatles. he wrote and sang some of the best songs ever made. the beatles make me the most happy of any band listening to, and have just too many great songs to deny, in my opinion. and i am never sick of listening to them. which is why they are my favorite band, and i praise them so much. although i love tons of bands/singers.

Paul wrote a load of stuff that was incredibly crap and in my opinion he ruined certain songs which were john had began them well. Its great that you like them and great that you don't share my opinion of pauls writing ability, all i wanted to assert is that i think you may be claiming they are the best songwriters without being completely objective about it.

[xcriterionmasterx]

So you condone and support their actions? You think and believe that drug use is something positive and should be encouraged and supported?
no. i don't condone them, but i do respect that it is their actions and not mine. whether i think drug consumption is stupid or not is my opinion, other people have the right to disagree with me. i definitely don't encourage drug use. i just support the bands and the music.


either/or. If every non medical drug disappeared today, would the world be a better place?
yeah, it would definitely make it safer. although all the people addicted already to these drugs could go and do some stupid shit when they are taken away from them.


They were grouped together but there is tonnes of literature and film that lets you know who wrote what. I'm not sure what you think makes a great songwriter, i'm not saying any of the people you have mentioned are talentless i just think you are attributing too much credit - greatest songwriter just seems a little much, i know these people have attained a lot of popularity but i wonder if that taints the reasoning of what makes them the greatest?
yeah, i can normally guess anyways, after listening to countless songs who wrote what. i think i said two of the greatest songwriters or something, not the greatest. i would probably say dylan was the better writer out of the three already mentioned. some others i like being nick drake, elliott smith, EDIT: can't forget lou reed, etc.
well, i will just say that some of the beatles songs that don't get mentioned all the time, and talked about non-stop/praised, are my favorites, like the song "rocky raccoon". :] i normally don't let how popular someone is affect what i think of them.


Paul wrote a load of stuff that was incredibly crap and in my opinion he ruined certain songs which were john had began them well. Its great that you like them and great that you don't share my opinion of pauls writing ability, all i wanted to assert is that i think you may be claiming they are the best songwriters without being completely objective about it.
can you give any examples? i am not saying i doubt you, just saying some songs you hate, i might love. and yeah, if i didn't say it, i meant two of the best songwriters. and i am not basing my opinion on how popular they are or anything, just that they write some of my favorite songs, and that i think they are great. (and this includes some solo work by both artists, although i haven't heard much of paul's solo stuff yet, i know at least some of it is good.)

[SgtD]

fuck the beatles. I always thought about them as Music for my parents, but not even that's true, cos they never listened to them thank god!

you can come up with the ramones liking them, and I am fully aware that Paul used the name Paul Ramone in hotels as a disguise, that the ramones' haircut was just grew out beatles haircut (probably we could list some more admiration towards them) but they wanted to do exactly the opposite the beatles did musically. The Ramones would have definitely existed, if there was no beatles, it's like saying punk wouldn't exist if there was no John Coltrane

[xsecx]

no. i don't condone them, but i do respect that it is their actions and not mine. whether i think drug consumption is stupid or not is my opinion, other people have the right to disagree with me. i definitely don't encourage drug use. i just support the bands and the music.


but you celebrate something that is a direct result of those actions? Doesn't that seem odd to you at all? You don't encourage drug use, but you celebrate the result? Do you support all the people that died because of drug use, specifically those in bands? My point is, that the music and the art never happen in a vacuum. There is real human suffering going on a direct result of a good portion of that drug use. You can't celebrate the music in a vacuum. You have to look at what caused the creation and what effects it had on the people that lived it. I don't think you'll find many musicians that talk about their drug days fondly or how much they love their heroin or cocaine addictions.



yeah, it would definitely make it safer. although all the people addicted already to these drugs could go and do some stupid shit when they are taken away from them.

then you do care and it does matter.

[xcriterionmasterx]

but you celebrate something that is a direct result of those actions? Doesn't that seem odd to you at all? You don't encourage drug use, but you celebrate the result? Do you support all the people that died because of drug use, specifically those in bands? My point is, that the music and the art never happen in a vacuum. There is real human suffering going on a direct result of a good portion of that drug use. You can't celebrate the music in a vacuum. You have to look at what caused the creation and what effects it had on the people that lived it. I don't think you'll find many musicians that talk about their drug days fondly or how much they love their heroin or cocaine addictions.


then you do care and it does matter.
i think you are looking at it too much. i mean, someone can listen to a piece of music and not have a clue any drugs were taken while recording it. does that mean they are supporting drugs? i look at the art, not the artist. and i don't judge them for what they do. most people take drugs to have a good time, and most of the artists whom we are talking about took them back in the day, and many of them probably had no clue of any of the effects of them. i am not going to judge their actions or their means of making music.

i could play you a song, and you could love it, only later to find out that the whole band was on drugs at the time of the recording and that the song was actually a metaphor for drug use. now does that change what you thought of the song to begin with? i think that is a crazy way to look at something. if you enjoy it, you enjoy it.

i know directors like roman polanski, who have raped woman, and i definitely don't condone that, but that doesn't take away the fact that he has made some great films.

and yes, obviously i care. some of my best friends do drugs. but i don't have the option to get rid of them (the drugs), so because of that i have to respect what other people do. maybe the x's on my hands will get people to change their ways, but that will be up to them. not up to me to make them.

do you at least see where i am coming from? i mean, hell, my theology teacher is a huge stoner rock/jam band fan, and goes to phish shows all the time, but he has never done a drug in his life, and will never do one. he just loves the music.

[xsecx]

i think you are looking at it too much. i mean, someone can listen to a piece of music and not have a clue any drugs were taken while recording it. does that mean they are supporting drugs? i look at the art, not the artist. and i don't judge them for what they do. most people take drugs to have a good time, and most of the artists whom we are talking about took them back in the day, and many of them probably had no clue of any of the effects of them. i am not going to judge their actions or their means of making music.


and I think you're not thinking about it enough. You're only looking at the surface of something and not any deeper. You're not seeing art, you're seeing a pretty picture or a nice song. You're not understanding the individual suffering that went into it. You can't look at art without looking at the artist.



i could play you a song, and you could love it, only later to find out that the whole band was on drugs at the time of the recording and that the song was actually a metaphor for drug use. now does that change what you thought of the song to begin with? i think that is a crazy way to look at something. if you enjoy it, you enjoy it.


because you're enjoying it on a shallow level without a deep level of understanding it. You think it's crazy for people to change their opinion based on the ultimate goal of the artist, rather than a simple liking of something based on a surface understanding of the subject matter?



i know directors like roman polanski, who have raped woman, and i definitely don't condone that, but that doesn't take away the fact that he has made some great films.


but by saying he made great films and supporting him as a director, you actually are condoning his actions and directly supporting him financially.




and yes, obviously i care. some of my best friends do drugs. but i don't have the option to get rid of them (the drugs), so because of that i have to respect what other people do. maybe the x's on my hands will get people to change their ways, but that will be up to them. not up to me to make them.


It's not, but there's a difference between accepting that people will do what they want to and actively supporting and condoning that behavior. By saying that a song about drugs is a "great song" you're actually literally condoning the subject that is being talked about.



do you at least see where i am coming from? i mean, hell, my theology teacher is a huge stoner rock/jam band fan, and goes to phish shows all the time, but he has never done a drug in his life, and will never do one. he just loves the music.

not really, because I typically look at things holistically and don't really support things that are against my personal morality. I'm against drug and alcohol use, so I wouldn't provide support to anything that preaches the positives of drinking or doing drugs. It's completely inconsistent in my eyes.