I totally get that. I just asked because I have friends that are in many respects the equivilant of your guitar player, who partake.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
DRUGS & BOOZE
- Thread starter bassfrenzie
- Start date
There are tonnes of Lawyers who do pot, coke, etc., but's bad karma for a prosecutor to get caught using. (Like the way I spelled "tons" British style?)
"our lead guitarist is a Deputy District Attorney"
You mean he doesn't share the confiscated goodies with his bandmates? That's a party-foul.
You mean he doesn't share the confiscated goodies with his bandmates? That's a party-foul.
Seriously, though...
I don't care what anyone does, as long as they don't do it to me or mine.
I've gigged high, I've gigged drunk...I suck when I do, normally.
That doesn't mean that I don't drink a little during a gig, any more. I just prefer to not have a buzz while doing my job.
Any more.
And, as far as Vitamin G goes, I'm all diggety-dank-spankalank, but it don't help me none when I gig. It's fun when I write, but I've gotten to the point where I prefer to play straight when it counts.
After, though....a whole 'nuther story.
That's not to say I think that someone should do it my way. Do what you want! Knock yerself out, and if you can keep it together, and play well, then...yaaay for you! We're buddies!
However, if you play in a band I'm in, and you make me or the band sound like crap, and cost me money, I'll be the first one to lose your phone number.
That's not being insensitive or judgemental: that's Economics 101...Don't Crap In My Nest.
I see nothing wrong with getting some firewater running through my veins before getting up on stage and invoking the spirit of Satan through my Destroyer, its fookin rock n' roll baby! Heavy friggin metal man! Sure getting downright retardedly drunk is dumber as hell, and yes, those people are really stupid(maybe you haven't noticed, but there is alot of em' out there) But whatever, tell em they F*ed up the gig and make sure it won't happen next time, if it does, fix the problem however you see fit! everyones had a night that they are not too proud of(if not, what are you doing on the computer right now?!?!?!?!) But does that make a bad person? NO!! Horrible musicians? nada. Prone to bad decisions? maybe... But be it decisions about drugs/booze, or about leaving the hotel unlocked with all your gear inside while he talks to the chicks at the pool,SOBER, is not the matter, it is all in the individual. Ive met downright braindead straight edgers, and Ive met genius tweekers. Everyone has their problems, be it whatever, i only care about the ones that conflict with me and or the current situation. nuff said.
Wow... Honestly, I am no apologist for drunks or stoners. I suppose I am just not making my point effectively. I'll take one last shot and if I cannot make it clear I will assume my point is just not as sound as I thought.
In a nutshell, what I am trying to say is that the bottom line is whether or not they perform their job. HOW they go about ensuring they do what you need them to do is on them - not you. Making rules that say, "No booze or you lose" is not too different that saying, "No milk" because we've noticed that your lactose intolerant and when you drink milk before a gig, you get all phlegmy. You may suggest it - but it's on them to act. If they figure out a way to have their milk and not be phlegmy and therefore are able to do their job, how is it your business that they had their milk? Did they do their job? Were the people pleased? OK then. next gig.
I also understand that if you have a personal connection to someone, that insisting that they fix their substance abuse (out of care and concern for them as friends/family - not because you are concerned about their ability to perform as a band mate) is an "extra mile" type of step.
Personal anecdote - I was a 'hired gun' and in my first few gigs, I was not a very good hired gun. I was rusty and out of shape. There were songs that I was forgetting parts to and so on. The band leader came to me and said, "Dude, what's up with all the mistakes?" - I redoubled my practice and fixed it.
In that same band, the leader had a substance abuse problem and was in the most dysfunctional relationship known to man. During one gig he actually took a phone call mid-set and spent a good 2 minutes in a "hushed-voice" argument with his girl. There were other gigs where he'd be so wired that the songs would go twice as fast and sets were ended early so he could get back out and reload. Top this all off with an explosive personality that you could never predict - one day he "loves you, man!" the next, "You suck!"...
I only knew him as a band mate (in this case, band leader) - it was clear he had personal issues that were getting in the way of his ability to perform his job. I would have been out of line telling him anything other than, "Dude, you're making lots of mistakes." would have been over reaching my role. Telling him, "You need to stop doing drugs" or "you need to fix your relationship", albeit 'correct', is not my place to say - especially when saying so would have certainly brought forth "evil band leader".
On gigs where these behaviors were in play, I'd talk to him between sets and in a friendly way, say to him what he used to say to me, "Dude, what's up with all the mistakes?"
I figured he gave me the benefit of the doubt long ago and brought to my attention that my performance was lacking and gave me the respect to let me determine how I went about fixing my problem. In my case, it meant more practice. Had it been drinking or smoking too much, I'd have fixed that. Bottom line - he let me know I needed to do my job better - I was the one responsible for figuring out how to do that.
With him, things didn't get better. I gave notice, served out my commitment and moved on - professionally.
It seems that I am the poster child for stoner-drunk musicians, which I am not. I am advocating personal responsibility and whose job it is to figure out how one goes about getting their job done the way it needs to be done.
At the end of the gig, the question is, "did he/they do his/their job(s)?" If the answer is "Yes", then you have nothing more to say about it. If the answer is "No", then you say, "you are not doing your job - fix it or (you're fired/I quit)."
my singer gets a buzz on at practice, then he gets silly and the practice goes nowhere, but i said something to him and he noticed it and stopped getting so buzzed.we had to replace our guitarist last year, he ended up getting a heroin habit, after we kicked him out he sold me his brand new $1000 carvin stack for $200 so he could get high. he's now in jail for 5 years for stealing copper piping. he also sold the line 6 pod i loaned him. but now my singer/ rythm guitarist owns a nice carvin rig. and we have a great new lead guitarist.
I see your point tZer and it has merit, but I think for many of us "that peg doesn't fit into that hole very well"
Drug and alcohol abuse has many more social, logistical and practical implications than say, lactose intolerance. I've never met anyone who's life and music have been affected negatively in the same way by "milk abuse"
Yeah there are some who have had carreers largely under the influence. CSN is probably one of the best examples. But I would bet you lunch if they had it to do over again they would do it much differently. David Crosby in particular. Think of what they could have done sober. Scary. I just saw Graham Nash in a duet on American Idol. She carried him no question.
Now look at a player who is maybe not much more than ten years younger than Nash- say Victor Wooten. I don't think he has even peaked yet in his abilities. More talented? Maybe. Way healthier lifestyle? Oh yeah.
What a lot of us who have gone down that road did not, or do not see, is the long haul. A lot of people do not want to do the long haul with players who choose that kind of lifestyle.
JKT
JKT - well said and I still am not opposing or disagreeing with the idea that in general, drug-free is the way to be.
You hit the nail on the head with this line, "A lot of people do not want to do the long haul with players who choose that kind of lifestyle."
That's the crux of what I am saying. You have certain choices you can make with regard to your participation in a band. You also have certain reasonable expectations of others in that band. This is where I believe my 'divergence' hits it's sticking point.
I seems to me that others here feel it's within their purview to tell others HOW to go about doing what's expected. It's not enough for them to evaluate the other members based on delivery of a solid performance on par with the rest of the band. It appears they also insist that they have a say in how that person accomplishes their solid performance.
I am not debating the idea that people more than likely do "better" sober. I am also not trying to make it OK to play stoned. I am talking about where your right to make demands on another person's behavior end. In professional relationships, in my opinion, you should not be able to tell me what I should and should not do in my personal life and only evaluate me based on what I do on the job. If I am not delivering the goods, it's perfectly within your rights to fire me. If I am, you really don't have anything to say. You may not personally approve of how I go about my thing, but as long as when the lights come on and the count-in hits "go" and I do what I am there to do - put on a show, not make mistakes, live up to the same performance standards as the rest of the band, what's the problem?
You hit the nail on the head with this line, "A lot of people do not want to do the long haul with players who choose that kind of lifestyle."
That's the crux of what I am saying. You have certain choices you can make with regard to your participation in a band. You also have certain reasonable expectations of others in that band. This is where I believe my 'divergence' hits it's sticking point.
I seems to me that others here feel it's within their purview to tell others HOW to go about doing what's expected. It's not enough for them to evaluate the other members based on delivery of a solid performance on par with the rest of the band. It appears they also insist that they have a say in how that person accomplishes their solid performance.
I am not debating the idea that people more than likely do "better" sober. I am also not trying to make it OK to play stoned. I am talking about where your right to make demands on another person's behavior end. In professional relationships, in my opinion, you should not be able to tell me what I should and should not do in my personal life and only evaluate me based on what I do on the job. If I am not delivering the goods, it's perfectly within your rights to fire me. If I am, you really don't have anything to say. You may not personally approve of how I go about my thing, but as long as when the lights come on and the count-in hits "go" and I do what I am there to do - put on a show, not make mistakes, live up to the same performance standards as the rest of the band, what's the problem?
I have this hangup of staying out of the Obits, or jailtime, so it's just 1-2 beers a night, and that's IT.
Commreman
Faith, Family, Fitness, and Frets
My band is a pro situation that works a lot. Drugs and excessive booze is simply not tolerated, and will get you fired fast from this gig.
We need to remember that what we do isn't a right - it's a priviledge. As such, we need to have respect for our employers (the clubs/casinos/venues), our audience, the music, and last but not least, ourselves. Remember, music is communication. I communicate better with a clear head. I'm not trying to come off here as a teetotaler, but there is a time and place for everything (believe me - I've done more than my share in my lifetime!). Getting drunk or stoned on the job is no way for me or my band to put our best foot forward. We like getting quality gigs more than we like getting loaded, I guess.
We need to remember that what we do isn't a right - it's a priviledge. As such, we need to have respect for our employers (the clubs/casinos/venues), our audience, the music, and last but not least, ourselves. Remember, music is communication. I communicate better with a clear head. I'm not trying to come off here as a teetotaler, but there is a time and place for everything (believe me - I've done more than my share in my lifetime!). Getting drunk or stoned on the job is no way for me or my band to put our best foot forward. We like getting quality gigs more than we like getting loaded, I guess.
Taking that at face value, no problem. BUT, IMO, and more so IME, these situations just don't start out or stay that simple. And the last person to ask opinion of, or weigh-in on this is the person who is using the substance. Hence, the attitude of players like Munji, who take what is often percieved as a hard line; "yeah I'm sure you can handle your booze, dope, or whatever, and yeah at face value I should leave you alone as long as you can deliver but... I'm gonna fire you anyway 'cause I or we, don't need the inevitable problems that will most likely come sooner or later."
It often isn't what's happening now, it's what sooner or later will happen.
With half my tongue in cheek, how about your doctor? If he can hold his dope, you down with him workin on you or is it time to fire him?
JKT
Taking that at face value, no problem. BUT, IMO, and more so IME, these situations just don't start out or stay that simple. And the last person to ask opinion of, or weigh-in on this is the person who is using the substance. Hence, the attitude of players like Munji, who take what is often percieved as a hard line; "yeah I'm sure you can handle your booze, dope, or whatever, and yeah at face value I should leave you alone as long as you can deliver but... I'm gonna fire you anyway 'cause I or we, don't need the inevitable problems that will most likely come sooner or later."
It often isn't what's happening now, it's what sooner or later will happen.
With half my tongue in cheek, how about your doctor? If he can hold his dope, you down with him workin on you or is it time to fire him?
JKT
Points all taken. Yes, I was delving a bit too deeply into the philosophical pool. I do fully appreciate the reality of having substance abuse ruin a band. I also tend to project my own ethic onto others which I find time and again is a mistake. It doesn't change my rather idealistic notion that people should be judged only by their actions. Within the context of this discussion, the actions being evaluated are doing your job as a working musician in a band. I don't need to beat that horse any more - as I am rather sure most will agree - about the horse beating, that is...
As for my doctor - I don't know a thing about what he's on or not on. I do know that I've never seen him behave in any way that would make me feel he's not living up to his role as my doctor so I will continue to see him until that changes. If there is ever a reason that I felt that he was not capable of doing his job, I'd find a new doctor.
As a matter of fact, I have stopped seeing a doctor because of what I saw to be less that professional behavior. Not substance abuse, but non-doctor-like behavior, nonetheless.
In the spirit of fair play, I ask you; Should I start asking him about his drug/alcohol use/abuse if I see no evidence or reason to do so?
"Every musician, when he has reached sufficient facility, must choose whether to be an artist or a transcriptionist."
I don't know if the author of that statement meant that you need drugs or booze to be an artist or not....but I know a little bit of broken heart don't hurt.
As far as impromptu exploration of ideas goes, I play circles around my drunk/stoned band mates every time. And don't make nearly as many gaffs.
tZer; I thought you were making a point about making sweeping statements as though they were the absolute truth without qualifying them with IMO.
That's why I said "In your opinion." when you implied that getting impaired was not a bad decision but driving while impaired was.
I don't know if the author of that statement meant that you need drugs or booze to be an artist or not....but I know a little bit of broken heart don't hurt.
As far as impromptu exploration of ideas goes, I play circles around my drunk/stoned band mates every time. And don't make nearly as many gaffs.
tZer; I thought you were making a point about making sweeping statements as though they were the absolute truth without qualifying them with IMO.
That's why I said "In your opinion." when you implied that getting impaired was not a bad decision but driving while impaired was.
Just for the record Pink Floyd claims in their band bio "Saucerful O f Secrets", aside from Syd, they never did much LSD. They said their preference was drink and laughed about how everybody thought they were stoners and it seemed to be good for the band's publicity/image, so they didn't bother disclaim it. Good read. Also, you can read Mason's autobio - although I didn't think it was as good a read.
Beatles experimented with acid for about a year and decided it wasn't for them. Way to powerful to be able to function. Plus they came out to SF, USA to check out the drug scene and found the whole "drug culture" to be lame. This is why they stopped and instead became interested in Transcendental Meditation and the Maharishi and all that. They were looking for a pure , clean way to get high. Check out the Anthology DVD set. Cool story. You can see how their music changed and reflected their experimentation.
Hendrix was pretty much over his "trippin'" days as well when he died. He accidentally OD on powerful sleeping pills. He didn't realize the prescriptions were more potent in England than in the States. If you listen to some of his last songs like "Power of Soul" and "Belly Button Window" they kinda have an anti-drug message in 'em.
I hold no judgment; "just fun facts to know and share". peace
"This is why they stopped and instead became interested in Transcendental Meditation and the Maharishi and all that."
Actually, I'm working in Fairfield, Iowa, the seat of the TM movement in the US... The Beatles and Maharishi had their falling out because of their drug use. This would tell me that they weren't over it.
Also, I never meant to say that they or Pink Floyd were habitual and constant users of LSD, but that a lot of their very best music was inspired by trips they had taken. It certainly doesn't help you play any better, but it does put ideas in your head that are weird and twisted and can be executed later.
Actually, I'm working in Fairfield, Iowa, the seat of the TM movement in the US... The Beatles and Maharishi had their falling out because of their drug use. This would tell me that they weren't over it.
Also, I never meant to say that they or Pink Floyd were habitual and constant users of LSD, but that a lot of their very best music was inspired by trips they had taken. It certainly doesn't help you play any better, but it does put ideas in your head that are weird and twisted and can be executed later.
If you can afford getting loaded on a gig then great. Some controversy may be a good thing but generally how it's good for a musicianship crippling yourself with some kind of a drug?
I've seen vocalists which were somewhat drunk on occasions but it's rather an exception than a rule. I can not imagine getting myself in such state because it'd be disastrous.
Anyway getting some fun isn't bad. However you aren't calling it a gig or a rehearsal, but a party.
I've seen vocalists which were somewhat drunk on occasions but it's rather an exception than a rule. I can not imagine getting myself in such state because it'd be disastrous.
Anyway getting some fun isn't bad. However you aren't calling it a gig or a rehearsal, but a party.
I actually got what you were implying - but like the other part of the discussion, you've made an assumption based on facts not in evidence.
Choosing to become impaired doesn't automatically imply that he is unable to do his job as a member of the band. So the determination as to whether or not that was a bad decision has not be determined (based on the brief scenario that was posed). If becoming impaired resulted in the hypothetical band member's inability to do their job - then it was clearly a bad decision. But that little detail was not there, but then inserted in your assumption.
However, had he been able to perform his job with no gaffs and lived up to his role as a band member THEN decided to hop behind the wheel - where lives are at stake, his own and other people's - yes, clearly that is a bad decision. It makes no difference whatsoever if he is able to "handle it or not" - choosing to do something that can kill (getting wasted and driving) is a bad decision on it's face.
I am definitely on the unpopular end of this discussion - and I humbly admit that I understand what everyone else is saying. I agree that the reality of being a professional musician and being a boozer on the job is not a good combination in most cases.
The sweeping generalizations about how booze and drugs are ubiquitously debilitating to each and every musicians' ability to do their job acceptably is where I was trying to point out that it's more nuanced than that. Booze and drug use is not automatically a deal-breaker when it comes to being able to do one's job as a professional musician - sorry... unappealing as that may be, it's true.
If being in a band where members, in spite of putting on a perfectly fine show and doing their jobs exceptionally well but who also get good and buzzed in the process, is not for you - then there ya go. It's not for you. The "getting good and buzzed" is not the issue, it's that you don't like performing with people who get good and buzzed. If they are doing their job (the criteria to be evaluated), then it's the fact that you don't like being around them when they are good and buzzed.
If they are NOT doing their job (the criteria) then you have every right to be miffed.
I don't care how drunk or stoned anybody is unless it negatively effects the performance of the band I'm a part of.
Then it bugs me.
Then it bugs me.
The problem is that if they're really drunk or stoned, it almost always will affect them, or will very shortly down the line.
