Mind altering drugs have been used for thousands of years in many different culutres for many different reasons. In general, drugs are used to seperate your mind from its normal functions, which in turn allows you to "see" yourself and your surroundings in a new light. The ability to seperate yoursef from yourself can create new ideas and allow you to see things differently than you do in your normal everyday life. Can this be done without drugs, yes, but it is much easier with drugs than without.

I think that the aformentioned musicians were great musicians without drugs, meaning that they did practice their craft, and study and were able to perform well, but I also think that the drugs that they took helped them to see things that others couldn't see. This extra "sight" allowed them to create things that others could not see and made them legends.

Oooh, gotta disagree, bub. If it were that easy, then anybody who wanted to sound like Bird could just start doing heroin. Or so countless numbers of talented musicians in the '40s and '50s thought. There are lotsa cats who have reached similar levels who drank or didn't drink, who got high or didn't get high, who dropped acid or didn't drop acid; the thing that they all had in common was an intensity of focus and the ability to disregard everything else in the pursuit of the goal of that focus.

Ed,

You aren't disagreeing with me. I said that the aforementioned musicians were great musicians because of their drive to be so. Their work ethic and focus surely played a huge part in their success. My point is that the drugs allowed for different levels of thinking that may or may not have enhanced their ability to create. Does everyone who uses drugs become a great musician? no. So there are other aspects about them that contribute to the greatness. These great musicians had many intangile qualities that we will probably never fully understand.

Russ

Unfortunately the "extra light" allowed them to also destroy themselves and the future art that they would have created, Who can know what would have been achieved had they lived? Was the result worth the loss? I'm not opposed to drug experimentation or recreational use but that tolerence dosen't include a destructive addiction, be it heroin, alcohol or tobacco, or when it may affect others. .

Life is hard enough when you're straight; why add another variable that complicates the equation?

You are right Brad, the drugs did kill them, and that is unfortunate. So the question is, were the actions worth the consequences? Well, what if these musicians never tried drugs and they never broke down the barriers in their mind that allowed them to be true greats? Or what if the drugs didn't really help them to become better musicians and it was all a waste and they would have been just as geat sober? Either way is a what if, so all we can do is try and take what we can from the past and try and use it in the future. Good and bad.

I'm confused-
IMO, Bird, Trane, Jaco, et al were all great in spite of the drugs/booze. Are we disagreeing on that? Or is there the belief the drugs helped them break down some kinda "barrier" in order to achieve their "greatness"?

The best excuse to lay off drugs(still)-
Lennon's drug induced infatuation with Yoko.

Jim,

I do not have enough information about these artists to formulate an opinion on whether or not drugs played a part in their greatness. My logical mind says that the sum of your experiences make you who you are. These musicians took drugs which influenced who they were. Whether that influence helped or hindered their talent as musicians I do not know and I think that most discussion of this point is hearsay.

And yes, they should make anti drug ads that say, "This is Lennon. This is Lennon on drugs." And in the second picture have him standing next to Yoko.

Russ

Well not quite "just hearsay" RUSS me bucko. Both Bird and Trane were quite vocal in interviews etc about their struggle with addiction (not to mention Art Pepper, Stan Getz, Dexter; cats who made it into MY lifetime and would talk about it). Additionally, I don't count as hearsay (and neither would a court of law) "testimony" from people Bird knew and to whom he spoke about most aspects of his life.
I'm certainly NOT saying that you are not entitled to your own opinion, but as you say yourself, you came into this discussion with 1. that opinion already formed and 2. little knowledge of the people being discussed. As someone mentioned earlier, drug use is fairly widespread across the social strata (especially in this country), having a stock broker who does dope or one who doesn't can't really tell you a thing about how they are coping either with life or their gig.

Ed,

I am sorry that I didn't make myself clearer when I mentioned hearsay. I was talking about my own opinions not those of witnesses to the facts. As far as the rest of your post, I am afriad I don't understand the point that you are trying to make. I think that we agree on the subject at hand. That these extremely talented individuals were so because of their drive to be profecient musicians and that with or without drugs they would have been so. So to that we agree.
The only other point that I was trying to make is that drugs change your perceptions about things whether you like it or not, so although these musicians were great regardless of their history with drugs, the drugs are apart of their personal experiences that make them who they are. Therefore drugs had an affect on their playing, just like the death of a loved one would have an affect on their playing because both are experiences that they had.

Drugs don't make them great, but they do make them who they are.

Russell

In my reading about their lives Coltrane's drug use was short lived and he was quite ashamed of it. Parker had already started the studya and musical journey of his life and used drugs as a crutch to deal with the pains of everyday life. Jaco was Mr. Clean and was great until he started using drugs that brought on his emotional problems that lead to, no one calling him to play.. Hendrix was already on his musical quest before he was seduced by the drugs that eventually killed him. I don't get how drugs helped any of these people but instead deprived them and us of even greater achievments.

Kudos to Mike Stern for getting his life back together-
From a Miles bio(or autobiography)-
Miles fired Stern from his band because "...most guys got high; Mike STAYED high".

Really, if you're unfamiliar with some of these guys' backgrounds/lives, make an effort to read a biography ot two. There's some good ones out there...the Miles' autobiography is informative(touches on Bird, 'Trane, & Hendrix!) & hilarious(Miles has such a way with words)!

A difference of perception can make all the difference. How many people do you know that can play their instruments like a mother, but coudln't write their own music if it jumped up and bit them in the ass?

I would suggest that drugs do help a person break free of his/her normal thought constraints; they might think up something new, per se. But if they have no proficiency on their instrument to begin with, then they won't be busting out the stuff in their head.

Got it?

-=M

ps. How come a thread like this gets to stay up, while a few months ago a similar one was censored? "Kids shouldn't be reading about this stuff." Remember, Chris?

The way you worded that reminded me of Tool. That's how they write most of their music, through altered states of consciousness. They use self induced out-of-body experiences. Many of their songs are actually about this. I'm pretty sure they have used drugs, but nowhere near the amount some of these other bands do.