Pre-Gig Buzz

[Roy Vogt]

IMHO, life as a working bassist is "interesting" enough. I don't want to add the handicap of a chemical or drug dependency to that challenge.
I'm just sayin'....YMMV

 

[debassr]

IMHO, life as a working bassist is "interesting" enough. I don't want to add the handicap of a chemical or drug dependency to that challenge.
I'm just sayin'....YMMV

My mileage completely varies. Weed is not addictive, nor am I dependent on it. I just like it.

 

[Roy Vogt]

My mileage completely varies. Weed is not addictive, nor am I dependent on it. I just like it.

That's fine-whatever gets you through the night, as Lennon would say. Just be careful if you have to fly into Singapore or Indonesia. They do not have a sense of humor about that at all....

 

[Roy Vogt]

I guess the gist of my response is that I've had many, many Pro buddies out here in the working world lose their careers, gear, marriages, and families to alcohol and drug addiction. I have a good many who aren't here any more because of it (miss ya', Alan W. , John Francis, Hiram, Lace). Whatever works for you, just be really, really careful if you find you absolutely NEED a chemical in your day to day life-that's a red flag.....

 

[Jehos]

I discovered at the last gig that one shot per set works pretty good for me. I don't typically drink at all, but this was kind of a birthday gig for me, and I had a bunch of friends show up. A shot an hour kept my BAC down while still giving me that fun loose feeling at the beginning of each set.

 

[debassr]

IMHO, alcohol is far more addictive, problematic, and worse for your health than weed. Therefore, I avoid. Glad to see that Nancy Reagan did such a good job brainwashing the public into thinking that weed ruins lives -- more for me.

 

[Roy Vogt]

IMHO, alcohol is far more addictive, problematic, and worse for your health than weed. Therefore, I avoid. Glad to see that Nancy Reagan did such a good job brainwashing the public into thinking that weed ruins lives -- more for me.

I'm a 50s-60s-70s kid, so I didn't even think about Nancy. I was just making an observation from 35 years as a professional bassist and my peer group.....

 

[higgi]

Put me down for the Cannibis & Caffeine camp too.

Works like a charm for me. I can play straight but I definitely get more compliments afterwards if I'm not.

+1

I think 1 or 2 drinks helps takes the edge off. I noticed that my pool playing increases with beer to about 4 beers then it decreases rapidly. I can run the table with 2 beers but not sober.

 

[Drucifer]

+1

I think 1 or 2 drinks helps takes the edge off. I noticed that my pool playing increases with beer to about 4 beers then it decreases rapidly. I can run the table with 2 beers but not sober.

I used to think my pool playing was better after a couple of drinks, then I got into a competitive league and discovered that I only thought I was playing better, but I was actually playing worse. It was an adjustment to play completely sober, you have to learn how to handle pressure and jitters, but you play better. The folks on this thread who have listened to board recordings agree that the same applies to bass playing. If you're just having fun playing, and how you sound is not important, then have a few drinks. If you want to play and sound better, save it until afterwards.

 

[higgi]

You either run the table or you don't, there is no thinking you are better.

I will say that some guys don't need to take the edge off, in that case sober is better.

 

[robgo]

This thread's got all heavy. We're not supposed to be talking about getting wasted, developing an addiction, or ruining your life. The OP was talking about the kind of buzz that takes the edge of your inhibition and allows you to perform more confidantly, i.e. long before what we would class as 'drunk'.

The only point I'm making is that showmanship is more important than musicianship to most audiances, so if having a drink or 2 increases your showmanship, even at the slight cost of some musicianship, then that's fine!

 

[svtb15]

When i was young early 20s i did my share of Tequila and beer. But once i started playing for money and pro i dont at all... not on stage,or before i gig.. but thats just me...

 

[higgi]

We play some corporate parties were we aren't allowed to drink at all, and I think the band plays a little better with a very mild buzz.

 

[edbass]

This thread's got all heavy. We're not supposed to be talking about getting wasted, developing an addiction, or ruining your life. The OP was talking about the kind of buzz that takes the edge of your inhibition and allows you to perform more confidantly, i.e. long before what we would class as 'drunk'.

Actually, what the OP said was...

My perfect drink menu:
Before going onstage:
1-2 mixed drinks, usually Jack & Coke. Followed by a beer (Beck's if available)
Onstage:
I like to nurse a beer in between songs, usually I'll go through 2 or 3 in a set.

Just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure even Bon Scott would have been drunk after that regimen.

The only point I'm making is that showmanship is more important than musicianship to most audiances, so if having a drink or 2 increases your showmanship, even at the slight cost of some musicianship, then that's fine!

I don't think that most posters are making a moral stand against alchohol or any other chemicals. I'm sure not, that would be world class level hypocrisy. My perspective is only about the work ethic (or rather the "lack of") involved with drinking during a paid job.
You can't argue that intoxicants actually improve anything, there is way too much evidence to the contrary. If you choose to play drunk it's a personal issue, not something to be condemned.
However, if you can't play sober, that's a big time warning sign IMO.
But it certainly is not "professional" behavior to play drunk.

 

[debassr]

I think it's funny how black and white things are, there's no middle ground at all. Reading this thread it seems like if someone drinks at all, they're a drunk, if someone smokes weed at all, they're an addict.

There are people out there who moderate y'know, and the spirit of this thread is centered around this theory. Know how I know this? The word "buzz" is right in the title vs. drunk, stoned, addicted, etc.

Shades of gray, folks.

 

[Steve]

Shades of gray, folks.

In regards to the OP, He just rang up a $50 bar tab.

He calls that his perfect "buzz".
I'd call that about $30 outside the grey area.

 

[RobertPaulson]

My perspective is only about the work ethic (or rather the "lack of") involved with drinking during a paid job.

I think you need to make a distinction between drinking and getting drunk. At my old (real) job at a bank, we would have a few beers at our desks every now and then in the afternoon - I don't see how that's a problem. I also don't have a problem with getting a drink over lunch on occasion. Coming to work drunk, is completely unacceptable under any circumstance in my opinion.

 

[edbass]

I think it's funny how black and white things are, there's no middle ground at all. Reading this thread it seems like if someone drinks at all, they're a drunk, if someone smokes weed at all, they're an addict.

There are people out there who moderate y'know, and the spirit of this thread is centered around this theory. Know how I know this? The word "buzz" is right in the title vs. drunk, stoned, addicted, etc.

Shades of gray, folks.

Wow, it sounds like someone has hit a nerve! Has someone in your personal life been dogging you about your weed use lately?
I just skimmed through the posts and didn't see where anyone insinuated that if someone chooses to smoke weed they are an addict.
I really don't see how the posts on this thread could be construed as an attack on partying; unless there are some underlying issues involved prejudicing someone’s objectivity.
IMO the theme is partying at a gig where you are being paid to do a job.

 

[debassr]

Wow, it sounds like someone has hit a nerve! Has someone in your personal life been dogging you about your weed use lately?
I just skimmed through the posts and didn't see where anyone insinuated that if someone chooses to smoke weed they are an addict.
I really don't see how the posts on this thread could be construed as an attack on partying; unless there are some underlying issues involved prejudicing someone’s objectivity.
IMO the theme is partying at a gig where you are being paid to do a job.

Are you Charlie Brown's teacher?

 

[edbass]

I think you need to make a distinction between drinking and getting drunk. At my old (real) job at a bank, we would have a few beers at our desks every now and then in the afternoon - I don't see how that's a problem. I also don't have a problem with getting a drink over lunch on occasion. Coming to work drunk, is completely unacceptable under any circumstance in my opinion.

If it is the company policy for the bank to allow drinking on the job, I'd say go for it!
Was that in the official company policy handbook; "a few beers at your desks every now and then in the afternoon" is fine?
I'm not sure I want a bank with that policy handling my money, but that's just me.

In all seriousness, how would you honestly answer this question:
If a simple error was made by an employee at that bank costing a customer money, the customer was the one to catch it and it got out that said employee was drinking alcohol at their desk when it happened; how long would that employee continue to remain employed at that bank?