Worst Excesses of Sixties' Rock!

Beatles

Catcher10 wrote: Beatles

If there had not been the Beatles then we wouldn't have had this 60s classic.



Anyway, Beatles were okay, but they were no The Shaggs.

Acid alive! I'll have to think about this topic. I dig the 60s.

For me, everyone jumping on the psychedelic bandwagon was overkill. Everyone from the Four Seasons to the Monkees had some kind of psychedelic song that was played on radio. Yuk!

Edited by SteveG - June 28 2017 at 04:18

The idea that better art is created with drugs rather than without them

(plus the tiresome kneejerk cliche that if you remember the 60's you really weren't there maan etc)


Edited by ExittheLemming - June 28 2017 at 06:47

Hrychu wrote: Hmmm.. maybe the overusage of orchestras in rock?

Edited by Sean Trane - June 28 2017 at 06:56

Guldbamsen wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The idea that better art is created with drugs rather than without them (plus the tiresome kneejerk cliche that if you remember the 60's you really weren't there maan etc I think drugs spurred certain musicians on to give us some of the most wonderful music ever, but the vast majority of those were taken away from the studio (sure grass and booze has always been stables during recording sessions). Most acid drenched 'jams' and what not sound absolutely horrendous to these ears with a few noticeable exceptions. Then again some musicians were far and away "better" or the very least mlre interesting whilst under the influence. Clapton is a prime example of that imo. He has never sounded so fiery and imaginative as back when he was using. He stopped and it saved his life. Great for him. I still think he sounded better during those wild days. I think Americans often use the phrase 'taking one for the team' under the most odd of circumstances yet I am about to do the same.

Not an entirely unjustified response David but it's a pity you used Clapton as an example of being 'under the influence' inspiring what you believe is his best work, but also fueled this:



You clearly meant heroin and cocaine usage and not booze I'll grant you...(plus I really can't abide anything Clapton created ever - it's my loss and this racist rant can in no way be inferred to undermine his music)

I would posit Keith Richards as an example which does support your idea i.e. his output during the height/depths of his heroin addiction coincided with the best music the Stones ever released (Let it Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Ya Yas, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street) Once he cleaned up they became more than a bit sh*t.

The 'most wonderful music ever' (your words) was always there as you can't score talent but (maybe) there are some external agents who can facilitate it's entry to the world (chemical midwives?) Anyways, someone has to slap the baby and it might as well be me.

BTW I'm puzzled by you saying you are 'taking one for the team' by your response...who exactly do your views represent?


Edited by ExittheLemming - June 28 2017 at 08:17

Guldbamsen wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The idea that better art is created with drugs rather than without them (plus the tiresome kneejerk cliche that if you remember the 60's you really weren't there maan etc I think drugs spurred certain musicians on to give us some of the most wonderful music ever, but the vast majority of those were taken away from the studio (sure grass and booze has always been stables during recording sessions). Most acid drenched 'jams' and what not sound absolutely horrendous to these ears with a few noticeable exceptions. Then again some musicians were far and away "better" or the very least mlre interesting whilst under the influence. Clapton is a prime example of that imo. He has never sounded so fiery and imaginative as back when he was using. He stopped and it saved his life. Great for him. I still think he sounded better during those wild days.

ExittheLemming wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The idea that better art is created with drugs rather than without them (plus the tiresome kneejerk cliche that if you remember the 60's you really weren't there maan etc I think drugs spurred certain musicians on to give us some of the most wonderful music ever, but the vast majority of those were taken away from the studio (sure grass and booze has always been stables during recording sessions). Most acid drenched 'jams' and what not sound absolutely horrendous to these ears with a few noticeable exceptions. Then again some musicians were far and away "better" or the very least mlre interesting whilst under the influence. Clapton is a prime example of that imo. He has never sounded so fiery and imaginative as back when he was using. He stopped and it saved his life. Great for him. I still think he sounded better during those wild days. I think Americans often use the phrase 'taking one for the team' under the most odd of circumstances yet I am about to do the same. Not an entirely unjustified response David but it's a pity you used Clapton as an example of being 'under the influence' inspiring what you believe is his best work, but also fueled this: You clearly meant heroin and cocaine usage and not booze I'll grant you...(plus I really can't abide anything Clapton created ever - it's my loss and this racist rant can in no way be inferred to undermine his music) I would posit Keith Richards as an example which does support your idea i.e. his output during the height/depths of his heroin addiction coincided with the best music the Stones ever released (Let it Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Ya Yas, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street) Once he cleaned up they became more than a bit sh*t. The 'most wonderful music ever' (your words) was always there as you can't score talent but (maybe) there are some external agents who can facilitate it's entry to the world (chemical midwives?) Anyways, someone has to slap the baby and it might as well be me. BTW I'm puzzled by you saying you are 'taking one for the team' by your response...who exactly do your views represent?

Taking one for the team was directed at musicians willing to risk their lives to contribute music to us - the general public.
Tongue-in-cheek of course.

I agree with you though. The music is always there when we're talking musical geniuses but some times a catalyst can transform something nice to transcendental or the proverbial bee's knees.

All British Invasion bands save the Beatles and Stones. Gerry and the Pacemakers, Herman's Hermit's et al. Even the early Zombies! 

There were a lot of hinky things......  but this always seemed lame...