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.
Venting - LS can't handle playing in a bar that serves shots.
- Thread starter lat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bar gig drunk singer
Once you are an alcoholic, you are ALWAYS an alcoholic.
^^^
yeah..um NO...not true. I was an alcoholic back about 15 years ago, drank every day mostly beer but it hardly matters what your drinking. I lived for it..Every day after work I would head to the bar sit there from 4 til about 2 am..drinking partying whatever. In that time I racked up 3 DWIs and ended up going to prison..luckily thank god I didn't kill anyone, or cause any accidents..but that was just luck. I met a guy in prison that was there for vehicular manslaughter..In NY that is when you are drunk driving and you kill someone. He asked me how much time I got and I told him 3 years...he said ahh that's nothing. so I asked him how much time did he get?...13 years..I said holy crap..he told me, murph, the time is nothing..I have to live with what I did the rest of my life...every day I have to get up and face the fact that I killed someone and ruined the lives of their family and friends and everyone else around them..that is unforgivable..I thought about that and realized the only difference between me and him was luck...that easily could have been me..
So, before I went to prison I did rehab, and then in prison I did another rehab program..got out and did the whole 12 step thing...blah blah blah...I reject the notion that once you are an alcoholic you are always one, because of two things..1) if you do that you are denigrating yourself for life..its a negative and certainly if you want to move on you need to put the past behind you..2) I quit drinking and have never went back to the old billy murphy that drank every day and lived in misery as a result..I don't even like bars anymore and only go to them to play music...
I still drink 2-3 beers while playing, but thats it...I never go past that..I never have it at home, I don't go out to drink or anything like that...I consider myself not an alcoholic anymore and I will never be one again.. NEVER...
Not everyone is the same, maybe I'm lucky I could step away from that life..I honestly don't know what it is that changed or how...it just happened..time I guess...
there is a book called rational recovery and it talks about not calling yourself an alcoholic anymore once you have stopped...it made a lot of sense and in my case was absolutely true
^^^
yeah..um NO...not true. I was an alcoholic back about 15 years ago, drank every day mostly beer but it hardly matters what your drinking. I lived for it..Every day after work I would head to the bar sit there from 4 til about 2 am..drinking partying whatever. In that time I racked up 3 DWIs and ended up going to prison..luckily thank god I didn't kill anyone, or cause any accidents..but that was just luck. I met a guy in prison that was there for vehicular manslaughter..In NY that is when you are drunk driving and you kill someone. He asked me how much time I got and I told him 3 years...he said ahh that's nothing. so I asked him how much time did he get?...13 years..I said holy crap..he told me, murph, the time is nothing..I have to live with what I did the rest of my life...every day I have to get up and face the fact that I killed someone and ruined the lives of their family and friends and everyone else around them..that is unforgivable..I thought about that and realized the only difference between me and him was luck...that easily could have been me..
So, before I went to prison I did rehab, and then in prison I did another rehab program..got out and did the whole 12 step thing...blah blah blah...I reject the notion that once you are an alcoholic you are always one, because of two things..1) if you do that you are denigrating yourself for life..its a negative and certainly if you want to move on you need to put the past behind you..2) I quit drinking and have never went back to the old billy murphy that drank every day and lived in misery as a result..I don't even like bars anymore and only go to them to play music...
I still drink 2-3 beers while playing, but thats it...I never go past that..I never have it at home, I don't go out to drink or anything like that...I consider myself not an alcoholic anymore and I will never be one again.. NEVER...
Not everyone is the same, maybe I'm lucky I could step away from that life..I honestly don't know what it is that changed or how...it just happened..time I guess...
there is a book called rational recovery and it talks about not calling yourself an alcoholic anymore once you have stopped...it made a lot of sense and in my case was absolutely true
The going with percentages over individuals thing is pretty sad. Let's say that you're right that 95% of people who get drunk once will continue to do so. They won't change. They're alcoholics.
How does that explain you preemptively treating the remaing 5% as if they're the same?
Like I said, I don't drink. I also don't believe in broad brush condemnations.
Thanks for ducking my simple question. I fully expected it.
Fourth sentence. Comes after the third one.
Congratulations, seriously.
You are the exception, not the rule.
Come to your own conclusions on why the rest don't follow your example.
Congratulations! You made the most difficult decision possible and made it work, and thereby made the world a better place.
This is why I don't consider alcoholism a disease - one cannot get, say, cancer or tuberculosis and then beat it with education and force of will.
You don't leave room for "mistakes".
You actually thought that being a grown up was tied to age. I know some extremely immature/petty seniors... and ages below that too. If that's what you're hanging this on, it's predictable by all means. But it doesn't make it true.
Everyone you've ever known has jack to do with this. Because individuals. It's clear you're not going to see that. The fact that you don't seem to know anyone who's ever gotten drunk but isn't an alcoholic may be true. IME people who aren't used to heavy drinking can have it sneak up on them on the rare occassion that they do.
If it happens again it would not be the lone incident that it is. But you and many others choose to assume the worst based on guesses and bias. And act as if it's true and the future is set.
By your logic I should be in Al-Anon because of my 80's birthday celebration. I understand that it only seems silly to a handful of folks like myself.
Fascinating responses. I expected no less.
The negatives are by those of us hurt/damaged by alcoholics. I don't know the circumstance here other than what I was told. I have made excuses for that kind of drinking and it ALWAYS showed me I was an enabler and the emotional toil of someone else's problem on me was significant. Stress levels through the ceiling.
Growing up is tied to age... and some sure never make it. I left room in my response for a fact finding mission and for 1 more mistake. the OP booked the gig, and the LS crapped on his reputation.
If it was a one off and acknowledged as a mistake , go forward. He does it again, quit - drunks are boring - are hurtful. Why allow a trainwreck become part of your life?
And IME , i have never been wrong about someone's drinking. I love playing and a drunk takes all that fun away. Why on earth would anyone tolerate that.
Agree. If you can have 1-3 beers and do not get a physical craving for more you are not an alcoholic. The physical craving after having a drink is key. There really is a physical change in how the body processes/digests alcohol that normal people never get. It does not go away with education or will power or fear. Certainly a very hard drinker and partyer, made some bad decisions and had bad consequences as a result of drinking and probably had other issues, but if you can 'safely' drink now (ie dont get the physical craving after having 1) I dont think you ever qualified. Thats a good thing ! and probably why that program works for you.
In point of fact, this is not at all true. The definition of a disease does NOT require that it be curable. There are incurable diseases.
Not commenting on the rest of your post in any way, pro or con, but please don't propagate this particular bit of misinformation.
It is unique because it is the only disease I know of that has a known treatment to put the disease in remission. A treatment that is free - actually will save money - and will save the person's life. That sets it apart from so many incurable diseases if not all.
Actually there is effective medication nowadays for those who want to curb their drinking. Lots of people still believe in sky-bosses and absolutes, though. IME, not a fun bunch to have in your band.
I might be tempted to buy him shots and then wrap him in duct tape and leave him in the bar. We did that to a drummer we worked with 35 years ago. But he didn't learn from that so I doubt your singer would either. Seems like you have to decide for yourself, enough is enough. That's what worked for me.
probably why that program works for you.
^^
Its not any program, in fact I came to dislike AA. It will not keep most people from drinking..I always wondered how there is an expectation of getting well in a sea of dysfunction?..A lot of nonsense, war story telling and drama in those rooms...I think I read that the rate of success for people going to AA is about 2%
^^
Its not any program, in fact I came to dislike AA. It will not keep most people from drinking..I always wondered how there is an expectation of getting well in a sea of dysfunction?..A lot of nonsense, war story telling and drama in those rooms...I think I read that the rate of success for people going to AA is about 2%
My simple question: "So... there are no incurable diseases? Got it".
And you think you answered that when?
All of this conversation about alcoholism because some leapt to the conclusion that the LS either is one or is destined to be. Too funny.
Yup. Lots of conclusions jumped to, all based on one incident.
Scientists sure could save a lot of time if they only needed one result from an experiment.
Yup, this asbestos stuff is great...
Scientists sure could save a lot of time if they only needed one result from an experiment.
Yup, this asbestos stuff is great...
So you place All "Drunks" under one defining Umbrella. Drunks can be annoying, just like Judgemental cranks...
Well - to be fair, that's pretty much what happened. Unfortunately for those same scientists, results wouldn't stop coming, and some were . . . kinda not so great.
For the OP's situation, we actually have multiple points. They've played a number of beer & wine bars without issue; those are each a data point. I'm guessing that the OP knows whether the LS drank responsibly during those gigs. If so, he's clearly not an alcoholic; the main characteristic of alcoholics is their inability to drink responsibly. If he didn't drink, we really can't guess. But either way, the lead singer clearly made the OP miserable during that gig. Remember, the thread title is "Venting . . " If he's going to leave the band, then surely the other issues he referenced are the root cause and this one episode was made unbearable because of those issues. It's also worth saying that some people have problems with certain types of alcohol. I have a cousin who's a happy drunk on whiskey or beer - but if he's drinking gin, then he's a mean drunk. But I'm guessing (and ONLY guessing) that there was some unusual and unique factor for the LS for this particular gig rather than him successfully concealing for months that he was some raging alcoholic while playing bars. It's irritating and concerning and (I think) cause for establishing some band rules, but I certainly agree that one night is not in any way diagnostic.
Don't much care for drunks myself, but there's a huge difference between the guy who gets too drunk to do a credible job in the third set and the guy who shows up too drunk to function.
I agree. And to condemn the guy after One incident, I wonder if the OP has demons of his own that he Exorcises onto others....
I'm not sure why you are taking that personally. Perhaps you should look within yourself and ask why you felt like you needed a rebuttal.
