How come all Good 70's bands were stoners???

E

evapilotaz

En-Route
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
2,623
Location
Gilbert AZ. VFR All Year Baby
Display Name
Display name:
Drone airspace abuser
I started reading on some bio's on lead singers for popular 70's bands. It seems like those guys are dying off lately at at yearly age. Everyone of them were into the sex, drugs and rock N roll. Maybe not all of them. I guess that was the 70's for you.
 
Last edited:
evapilotaz said:
I started reading on some bio's on lead singers for popular 70's bands. It seems like those guys are dying off lately at at yearly age. Everyone of them where into the sex, drugs and rock N roll. I guess that was the 70's for you.
Click to expand...

I'm 67 now and the 70s is all a bit of a blur......should I be worried...:eek:
 
Yeah I'm 67 too and the 60s n 70s were a turbulent period, w/ an unpopular war, civil rights, and drug experimentation. Especially with bands under the influence of dope, drugs "freed" them to experiment musically and create some of the greatest music ever created. Especially the San Francisco scene in the 60s with bands like Jefferson Airplane and Grateful Dead and the "Summer of Love" there. Not that bands today, AND yesteryear, don't/didn't do the drugs, they do. Except for Ted Nugent, says he didn't. :rolleyes:

And by the way, isn't everyone into sex and R&R, just not the drug part maybe? :yesnod::D
 
Last edited:
evapilotaz said:
I started reading on some bio's on lead singers for popular 70's bands. It seems like those guys are dying off lately at at yearly age. Everyone of them were into the sex, drugs and rock N roll. Maybe not all of them. I guess that was the 70's for you.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just hte 70s. The same is true of bands from the 80s on through today.
 
I think it's an identity thing. I'm 63 but I got an early start and was into the drug scene by the time I was 15. That was up north. In the early seventies I move to the South and got plenty of bad vibes about my long hair and hippie ways.

So when I say "an identity thing", I mean the hippies were a counterculture. There was strong opposition to what they were, what they were doing, and what they were singing (Country Joe and the Fish was one of my favorite bands). When a group is in opposition to the majority, one way they maintain their identity and show solidarity is by reinforcing those things that make them different. Also, remember that a large part of this hippie movement was composed of middle class white folk. They did not have the cultural history of drug use and knowing how devastating it can be. It all seems like great fun.
 
It was the times man.
 
I don't think the '70's have a stranglehold on that phenomenon.
 
Me at 18. Hippie, nerd, gearhead.

attachment.php
 
Sac Arrow said:
I don't think the '70's have a stranglehold on that phenomenon.
Click to expand...

The big difference being that folks know better now as regards drugs and doing drugs is not a requisite part of being a musician. Sure, some do, eg Amy Winehouse, but they are the outliers, IMO.
 
Gerhardt said:
It wasn't just hte 70s. The same is true of bands from the 80s on through today.
Click to expand...

The few bands I've met in person have not conformed to your stereotype.

I performed with Beck once. I suppose maybe he hides it well, but he showed no sign of being a "stoner." He and his entire crew were complete class acts. The reality seems to be that musicians really care about the quality of the music, and some of the on-stage idiocy from the 70s really is unacceptable.

I perform regularly with jazz musicians, and the stereotype there is raiding the bar. Except I have yet to see anyone drink more than one beer with a performance pending. There is a wide realization that getting sloshed makes you think you're performing like a god, when the reality is rather different.

People like to joke about Spinal Tap, but reality is rather different. Few amps really do go to 11.
 
Last edited:
The worst problem is that the drugs made it into their music. Either directly as lyrics or influence on the nonsense they were singing about or their stoned performance.
70's really wasn't a good decade, lots of whiny hippie recordings resulted from it.
But still, some good artists managed to produce great music in that decade so it's still all good.
 
I think it was more cocaine/heroine/psych drugs than weed. I bet the majority of musicians now are stoners lol
 
Because they could afford the good stuff... because they mostly just hung out and jammed and attracted those types... because they wanted to open up their minds...
 
Most good artists were ether into drugs, or experimented.

Puritans typically didn't make good artists
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
because they wanted to open up their minds...
Click to expand...

Bull-****. They did it because it felt good.

It takes a certain personality to eschew the normal work world and pursue a career in music. That slants the sample right there. Then, when they made it in the 70s, they spent their time mostly traveling from city to city, playing a gig at night, and being bored as hell most of the rest of the time. They had the free time to kill, the yes-men and drug providers, and they were cooped up in hotel rooms with the same four guys, and lots of groupies that wanted to star-****.
 
mscard88 said:
. Except for Ted Nugent, says he didn't.
Click to expand...
Yea, didn't do drugs, the Amboy Dukes biggest hit was just all about drugs. But he says he didn't know that it was about drugs. Which would make him a moron if that were true, but... um... Yea, I believe him.

Oh, and here is what inadequate hearing protection does to you:
:rofl:
 
Think ne means 'Beck', a talented performer today. Plays many different instruments, very talented.
 
James331 said:
Most good artists were ether into drugs, or experimented.

Puritans typically didn't make good artists
Click to expand...

Are you an artist?

It doesn't sound like it.

The hardest stuff I see around performers during or right before a show is coffee and very occasionally a pint of beer (if the gig happens to be at a bar).

We had a drummer show up drunk just once, almost 15 years ago. We never used him again; he couldn't keep decent time like that and really screwed up.
 
Nope, well not really, but I got quite a few in the family which is one reasons why I'm not in the arts.

There is a difference between experimenting and being jacked up for work.
 
Music form the 70's / Drugs great music. That's why most music today sucks. They don't want do as many drugs.
 
MAKG1 said:
Are you an artist?

It doesn't sound like it.

The hardest stuff I see around performers during or right before a show is coffee and very occasionally a pint of beer (if the gig happens to be at a bar).

We had a drummer show up drunk just once, almost 15 years ago. We never used him again; he couldn't keep decent time like that and really screwed up.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to explain Keith Richards then.....
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yea, didn't do drugs, the Amboy Dukes biggest hit was just all about drugs. But he says he didn't know that it was about drugs. Which would make him a moron if that were true, but... um... Yea, I believe him.

Oh, and here is what inadequate hearing protection does to you:
:rofl:
Click to expand...

I saw him in the mid 70's. That is still the loudest concert I ever attended. I swear he is partly responsible for my hearing loss. (Maybe a little bit from the Zeppelin concert.)
 
Alice Cooper often remarks that his band circa 1970 did beer instead of drugs, which was different.

He became an alcoholic. Then he reformed, and he often now offers to advise addicted musicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top