Drugs and Music

klaus flouride

I was reading about the 'straight-edge' punk movement of the late 80's. Part of their ethos was that they hated tripped out hippies, and to that end they abstained from Alcohol and Drugs- convinced that it was drugs that were causing so much of the social deprivation which exists in America (Henry Rollins was a strong advocate of this movement, altough other members of Black Flag drank alcohol and smoked cannabis). Perhaps this was one of the most rebellious movements of recent times.

Heres 5 questions you may like to ask yourself;

Do Drugs make musicians better at what they do?

Would you find an artist more interesting if you knew they did or did not take drugs?

Why are so many young people not interested in abstaining from Drugs (does music have something to do with this)?

Do you think certain musicians have become more popular as a result of their widely publicised drug habits?

Do you think that musicians have a responsibility towards their younger fans not to take drugs or is it the case that their drug use is nobody's business but their own?

John

klaus flouride wrote:

I was reading about the 'straight-edge' punk movement of the late 80's. Part of their ethos was that they hated tripped out hippies, and to that end they abstained from Alcohol and Drugs- convinced that it was drugs that were causing so much of the social deprivation which exists in America (Henry Rollins was a strong advocate of this movement, altough other members of Black Flag drank alcohol and smoked cannabis). Perhaps this was one of the most rebellious movements of recent times.

AFAIK Rollins used to do a lot of acid.

Heres 5 questions you may like to ask yourself;

Do Drugs make musicians better at what they do?

They work well with some people and work less well with others. Would Hawkwind be a quarter as good as they were without hallucinogenics or would Nick Cave have had as much vivid imagery in his lyrics were it not for the heroin?

Would you find an artist more interesting if you knew they did or did not take drugs?

It's immaterial to the music. Much like what food they eat, what drinks they drink and what clothes they wear.

Why are so many young people not interested in abstaining from Drugs (does music have something to do with this)?

Because young people tend to take bigger risks whether it be drugs, dangerous sports, bad driving or not studying all the prescribed poets for the leaving cert. It's just a fact of life and the way the psychology of young people is.

Do you think certain musicians have become more popular as a result of their widely publicised drug habits?

Possibly. Most no but when the press make a big deal of a mediocre artist because of his drug habit, things are wrong with how the press work, not the musician.

Do you think that musicians have a responsibility towards their younger fans not to take drugs or is it the case that their drug use is nobody's business but their own?

They have no responsibility to anyone as regards their private life. Once it gets to the point where it affects gigs in terms of cancellations, ****ty performances or excessive indulgent album releases (cocaine take a bow for making artists think a turd is a lump of gold!), then it's the responsibility of them and their loved ones to help them.

Rigsby

You have raised some interesting questions here. Some I'd like to comment on are :

Drugs making musicians better: I would n't think so. Charlie Parker seemed to be the exception in that drugs did n't seem to effect his playing (though they did kill him at a very young age). Contemporaries of his took drugs in the hope it would make them play as good as him. They fell by the wayside both musically and physically.

Question 3: IMO drugs are too much embedded in society today for it to be effected by whether musicians or bands take them. Besides, bandslike Westlife ect have a clean healthy image and still the problem remains.

Question 5: While it is always good for a famous rock star to show good example to younger people I dont think it has much effect for the reasons given for Q3.

Wertz

Most singers or artists who did end up being "better" due to substance usage (and the list is short), ultimately ended up dying by that sword...
You could never say that the drugs or drink made them better at what they did for the simple fact that you rarely if ever heard them when they weren't influenced, but the fact that their music lives on decades later shows that they must have had that special quality. Whther or not that was increased by substance usage is a point of debate...

DerekD Goldfish

The New Puritan movement in england in the early 80's had relativly simmilar beleifs.

I like a lot of artists who do drugs
I dont like them more because they did drugs
Drugs did make some artists the way they are with both positive and nagative effects.

I couldnt give a crap what an artist does/doesnt do as long as I like the music.
I wouldnt listin/not litin to a band becase they do/dont do drugs

klaus flouride

I like listening to dance music, even when i'm sober- but there are those who put the dance music scene of the late 80s and 90s down to the prevelation of ecstacy during this time. I think this is unjust, there was alot of great music that came out of that scene, and I find it hard to believe that the D.J.s and bands who came out of that scene were always off their face, it takes alot of hard work to be successful in any type of music scene- you cant do it if you're constantly high.

Do you think Bob Marley is hard done by with regards to the image that everyone has of him now?

hyn-zie

Do you think certain musicians have become more popular as a result of their widely publicised drug habits?

No its just a case of the Media looking for **** to do, take for instance Lindsey Lohan, ok she's not an artist but an actor, she's only 21, she's doing no different to what me or you are doing! i'm 24 and had my fun but i didn't go to rehab, its just because the media look to deep into their lives it's the press thats killing them, Kate Moss was snorting for years a wasn't until she was caught doing lines with Pete Doherty, stupid, Guns n' Roses ex guitarist Slash could handle him self quite well just after shooting up before he had to perform! The Media is killing britney spears, just leave the girl alone, its because there selling millions of records or selling box office hits they have to be perfect, but in the realness of it all "were only human", the media doesn't care about the celebraties they just care about headlines.

Latchy

I am not an advocat of drug use or anything , (it's all behind me ) but the Beatles LPs from Sgt Pepper up were all constructed around a haze of drug use like LSD and Marajuana . The late Syd Barrett of Pink Floyd fame ,and Peter green formaly of fleetwood mac are just two examples of talented musicians who's misuse of both was to result in an early exit from the music scene.

klaus flouride

latchyco wrote:

I am not an advocat of drug use or anything , (it's all behind me ) but the Beatles LPs from Sgt Pepper up were all constructed around a haze of drug use like LSD and Marajuana . The late Syd Barrett of Pink Floyd fame ,and Peter green formaly of fleetwood mac are just two examples of talented musicians who's misuse of both was to result in an early exit from the music scene.

Those are good examples of great talent being wasted, and everyone probably has there own favourite musical drug martyr (Cobain, Hendrix etc.). But in the whole world of rock I can only think of 3 teetotallers; Henry Rollins, Igor Cavalera (Drummer for Sepultura), and Gene Simmons (Of Kiss - and yes, I know he's a cvnt). If a band went out and urged kids to give up drugs and drink do you think anyone would listen to them?

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

If a band went out and urged kids to give up drugs and drink do you think anyone would listen to them?

Keith Richards tried this in the late 80's, early 90's. Naturally, he got laughed at, mocked and branded a hypocrite for his statements.

VR!

Latchy

Keith Richards tried this in the late 80's, early 90's. Naturally, he got laughed at, mocked and branded a hypocrite for his statements.

VR!

I read about his life in a hardback book a few yars ago , His amazing life on drugs (that would have killed an elephent ) was mind blowing stuf to read , hell while i was reading it i felt like i as tripping out and on drugs myself ......:p

ShawnRaven

latchyco wrote:

I read about his life in a hardback book a few yars ago , His amazing life on drugs (that would have killed an elephent ) was mind blowing stuf to read , hell while i was reading it i felt like i as tripping out and on drugs myself ......:p

See Fleetwood, Mick.
VR!

Latchy

See Fleetwood, Mick.
VR!

I will do VR

One has to remember (as if one does ) that exess everything ie,drugs,sex,alcohol go hand in hand with fame .3 more to add to the list of overindulgence ,Eirc Clapton ,Brian Wilson and Michael Hutchence .

ShawnRaven

Yeah, Just because people can act, sing or dance doesn't mean that they're capable of handling it. The amount of pressure involved in the entertainment industry is astronomical. Especially in the music industry where you're off to promote an album. A musician has a choice of two when they start a family, thats take them on the road, or stay behind. The former is a short term solution when there's kids and education involved, and the latter either involves slight to severe depression from not seeing them, or the relationship goes to hell. Unless there's a lot of willpower involved. Which can slowly diminish when there's drugs and alcohol involved!

Hutchence is a good example of this. People forget how big INXS were between 87-92, worldwide. Hutchence had the right idea taking a break from the band and doing a solo album. But he didn't do it soon enough. Instead after the last world tour they did (between 92-93), they recorded an album and released it mid tour, then did a whole heap of media appearances to promote a greatest hits compilation. Meanwhile Hutch's relationship with Helena Christiansen disintegrated. Their comeback album in 97 was rapidly bombing and between that and fatherhood, combine everything. Hutch really couldn't hack it all. Listen to his lyrics on that solo album. You can almost hear the dispear.

Clapton had to have tragedy after tragedy befall him before he copped on. And even recieve another proverbial kick to the gut afterwards. As for Brian Wilson, I think he just didn't know when to quit, and to a certain degree, still doesn't.

VR!

Latchy

Clapton had to have tragedy after tragedy befall him before he copped on. And even recieve another proverbial kick to the gut afterwards. As for Brian Wilson, I think he just didn't know when to quit, and to a certain degree, still doesn't.

VR!

I Think with Wilson it was the LSD that fried his brain along with vast quantitys of marjuana which incrased his paronia.Shame to think that
apart ftom the odd soujourn onto Beach boys albums (as a guest ) he never relased much until his solo album 'South american ' about 10 years ago.

Saw him in concert a few years ago and it was embarressing to see him stuck behind a keyboard and incapable of playing a note, having said that the gig itself was very good due in part to the briliant musisicians he had on stage .

His cd' live at the roxy ' in LA is a good live show .

ShawnRaven

latchyco wrote:

I Think with Wilson it was the LSD that fried his brain along with vast quantitys of marjuana which incrased his paronia.Shame to think that
apart ftom the odd soujourn onto Beach boys albums (as a guest ) he never relased much until his solo album 'South american ' about 10 years ago.
Saw him in concert a few years ago and it was embarressing to see him stuck behind a keyboard and incapable of playing a note, having said that the gig itself as very good due in part to the briliant musisicians he had on stage .

His cd' live at the roxy ' in LA is a good live show .

Might check it out, i was too scared to after seeing his performance at Live 8. That was just damnright disturbing! For me another big 90s tragedy, not so much drugs but with alcohol was Def Leppard guitarist, Steve Clark. As great as he looked and sounded on stage, he was too shy and reserved. But once he got bombed he was the life of the party. During the Adrenalize sessions the band told him to go on a six month hiatus to clean himself up. But he kept on drinking and died. Shame, because he was quite an underrated guitarist.

VR!

Latchy

Might check it out, i was too scared to after seeing his performance at Live 8. That was just damnright disturbing!

yes, remember him at the concert for the royals ,at the end staring into space as if saying to himself '' were am i ? '' who are all these people '' ?

For me another big 90s tragedy, not so much drugs but with alcohol was Def Leppard guitarist, Steve Clark. As great as he looked and sounded on stage, he was too shy and reserved. But once he got bombed he was the life of the party. During the Adrenalize sessions the band told him to go on a six month hiatus to clean himself up. But he kept on drinking and died. Shame, because he was quite an underrated guitarist.

VR!

Unbelievable the amount of casualtys in the Rock/music hall of fame ,makes one wonder indeed ......

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Hendrix did pretty alright for a guy that was tripping on Acid all of the time. It's hard to know exactly what contribution the acid made to the music though

For over-indulgence, it's hard to beat Steve Tyler and Joe Perry. Luckily they're both still alive

Nailz

klaus flouride wrote:

Do Drugs make musicians better at what they do?

Would you find an artist more interesting if you knew they did or did not take drugs?

Why are so many young people not interested in abstaining from Drugs (does music have something to do with this)?

Do you think certain musicians have become more popular as a result of their widely publicised drug habits?

Do you think that musicians have a responsibility towards their younger fans not to take drugs or is it the case that their drug use is nobody's business but their own?

Qu.1 In the 60's people worked well on drugs as they were playing, for example, one of the best albums of all time called "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by the Beatles was produced on a time when the Beatles were taking an exceptional amount of drugs. Supposedly the most frequent was Cannibis.

Qu.2 I find them to be more interesting, I can't explain why, but I'll do my best to state the point. I'm a lover of quite a large veritiy of music, and one most interesting to me on this particular subject on drugs is the Baggy/MaDchester scene. For example, the Happy Mondays wouldn't have been know if it wasn't for there excessive use of drugs, the practically introduced extisy!

Qu.3 I think younger people abstain from drug from reasons that differ to music. Younger people now begin to see what harm drugs can do to people, just for a brief moment of happyness and no pain.

Qu.4 I believe this is quite true, for example Pete Doherty, to be blunt I don't like him. He would be just an average unknown artist if it wasn't for his grave stupidity in his drug use. One time I got up in the middle of the night, so I desided to watch TV and a repeat of Transmission was on on Channel 4 (I don't like that show either). And they had Pete Doherty on so I said I may aswell watch this to see him make an ass of himself. I watched it, and to be honest he was making an ass of himself, but what I noticed was people were looking at him like he's a god & hang on to his every mumbled and unsensible word. He also made a shambles of his song (no pun intended). How could people adore him without his drugs?!! I don't have a clue!

Qu.5 I think musicians have to set a good examples for younger people, in many cases young people start taking certain types of drugs because their favorite artists take them. Is this a bad influence?? No, this is for the artists' own personal use, it's their private life... it isn't there fault a gossip magizine found out about it. But for people like Pete Doherty that make it as public as bedamned, it's there fault and nothing to be proud of!

Latchy

How could people adore him without his drugs?!! I don't have a clue!

He is the perfcet example of what is wrong with the whole celebrity culture ,he is a newspaper editors dream (for all the wrong reasons ) He will sell newspapers and he is also an example of what is wrong with the legal system when he can continue to get away with cocking his nose at just about everybody, were his C celebrity status gets him off the hook again in court .To see that overpaid twat Johnathon 'woss' drool over him like he did on his 'show' like he was some sort of dylan thomas /bob dylan or even john lennon..... was stomach churning .Whats strange is why it took whathername so long to dump Him ,? perhaps he got a good supply of coke from somewere ?

Nailz

Everything there was perfect, until you insulted Jonathan Woss- I mean Ross... Who he interviews and what he says & does are two different things. When I seen that prick on his show and the way Ross treated him I was quite pissed off aswell, I went onto the internet to discuss this matter. Someone corrected me on my allogations that I made towards Ross, he proved his point by giving me a link. Bear with me as I can't find this link.

Apparently Ross did not choose to put him on the show, as Ross mainly chooses. Infact a BBC source finder and manager whom also works with the tabliod `The Sun`(says it all doesn't it) picked Mr. Doherty to go on his show, some thought for his artical in weekend colum. This person told Jonathan Ross what to do and what to ask. Ross told him after the show of his regrets on treating Doherty as well as he did & allowing him on the show in the first place. The writer got his story as he said everything on the interview, plus adding what Ross said after the show. What an arsehole!

JC 2K3

klaus flouride wrote:

I was reading about the 'straight-edge' punk movement of the late 80's. Part of their ethos was that they hated tripped out hippies, and to that end they abstained from Alcohol and Drugs- convinced that it was drugs that were causing so much of the social deprivation which exists in America (Henry Rollins was a strong advocate of this movement, altough other members of Black Flag drank alcohol and smoked cannabis). Perhaps this was one of the most rebellious movements of recent times.

Eh, the 80s punk movement hated hippies all right, but I don't think they were necessarily anti-drugs.(I could be very wrong here though)

And where are you getting this info that Rollins abstained from alcohol and drugs?

klaus flouride wrote:

Do Drugs make musicians better at what they do?

Depends on the drugs and the musicians in question. I personally believe that the most creative musicians who are willing to push boundaries and question conventions are naturally going to be curious about drugs and questioning of the risks involved and their legal situation.

So basically I think drug use correlates with creativity rather than causes it.

klaus flouride wrote:

Would you find an artist more interesting if you knew they did or did not take drugs?

It's about the music, man. I take it at face value. But I love reading about people's drug experiences, and sometimes such subject matter could make a song more interesting to me I guess.

klaus flouride wrote:

Why are so many young people not interested in abstaining from Drugs (does music have something to do with this)?

Because they're amazing experiences and you're only young once. And it's not just music that promotes them; it's youth culture in general.

klaus flouride wrote:

Do you think certain musicians have become more popular as a result of their widely publicised drug habits?

Well yes, but no more than for any other reason the tabloids would report on them. Any publicity is good publicity.

klaus flouride wrote:

Do you think that musicians have a responsibility towards their younger fans not to take drugs or is it the case that their drug use is nobody's business but their own?

Nobody's business but their own.

Latchy

Nailz]Everything there was perfect, until you insulted Jonathan Woss- I mean Ross... Who he interviews and what he says & does are two different things. When I seen that prick on his show and the way Ross treated him I was quite pissed off aswell, I went onto the internet to discuss this matter. Someone corrected me on my allogations that I made towards Ross, he proved his point by giving me a link. Bear with me as I can't find this link.

Apparently Ross did not choose to put him on the show, as Ross mainly chooses. Infact a BBC source finder and manager whom also works with the tabliod `The Sun`(says it all doesn't it) picked Mr. Doherty to go on his show, some thought for his artical in weekend colum. This person told Jonathan Ross what to do and what to ask. Ross told him after the show of his regrets on treating Doherty as well as he did & allowing him on the show in the first place. The writer got his story as he said everything on the interview, plus adding what Ross said after the show. What an arsehole!

I suppose to be fair, Ross does have quite a lot of intresting charecters on his show and like him it's all tounge in cheek. I didn't know he is sensored in what he can and can not ask his guests (unless they specify as you say ) , i thought that was what his apppeal was, to push the boundries and touch a nerve or two a little as is his suave manner , but i suppose censorship will be high on any talk show run by the BBC ,regardless of who is hosting it.Legal reasons will also suffice with the likes of Pete Doherty around .


What really annoys me about Ross is the million £ salery he is on , i dont think he is worth it.

Nailz

Ah now look at it this way... is Pat Kenny worth his Million € salary??? No I thought not...

Latchy

As sombody said , we put more value on celebrity tv hosts than doctors and nurses and then we wonder why our health services are not up to scratch ?

Nailz

Yeah, we pay too much for our TV licence consided the amount we pay for PAYE for things we really need. Imagine the amount they have to pay for their TV licences in England!!! :eek:

Jack Sheehan

I'm afraid the best response you're going to get is 'it depends..'.
To give two sides, would Springsteen be anywhere near as good if he was getting blasted every five minutes. No.
Would the Beach Boys be as good without their beloved drugs? No.


So...yeah.....it depends.

Latchy

Yeah, we pay too much for our TV licence consided the amount we pay for PAYE for things we really need. Imagine the amount they have to pay for their TV licences in England!!!

can understand the connection between celebs and doctors/nurses , even though i was off topic a bit but tv cost of licences in uk ? lol :eek:

To give two sides, would Springsteen be anywhere near as good if he was getting blasted every five minutes. No.
Would the Beach Boys be as good without their beloved drugs? No.


So...yeah.....it depends.

Like would sgt pepper have being better without the beatles all bing stoned during that period ? , probley not and the whole concept would not have being born without the drugs so that LP and a thousend others would not have appeared ,well not in the form we know them without drug use . .
I am old enough to know that listening to certin LPS requird one to have a joint or 10 handy ,or as jimmie might say ......for the expierence ...

Would the Beach Boys be as good without their beloved drugs?

Those boys woud rather be caught without their surfboards than be seen with drugs D :eek:

Nailz

latchyco wrote:

Like would sgt pepper have being better without the beatles all bing stoned during that period ?

Hey! Stop stealing my info!

ShawnRaven

Dunno about Sgt Pepper, but i dunno how people can even listen to albums live Revolver without the use of drugs, nevermind create them!

VR!

Latchy

Hey! Stop stealing my info!

Ah i was thinking along those lines 20 years ago anyway .;)

validreasoning! Dunno about Sgt Pepper, but i dunno how people can even listen to albums live Revolver without the use of drugs, nevermind create them!

VR!

Revolver is a classic LP and was the first Beatles album to point them in a new direction away from their mop top image .It is really the apprentice to Pepper but stands out on its own for class. .Paul weller based his Jam chord structure on Tracks from Revolver (listen to Taxman then the jams Start )

After Revolver ,it was all joss sticks ,Afghan coats LSD and weed .;)

klaus flouride

Henry Rollins is quite adamant that the only time he did any drugs was when he got drunk twice at the age of 17 and ''didn't really like it'', yes its possible he's lying, but why would he? He also kicked people out of his band for using drugs and former members of black flag have also stated that although they did indulge in some drugs, rollins always remained sober.

Is it not strange that although plenty of these artists do drugs, and enjoy publicising the fact, they never campaign for their legalisation?

Latchy

Quote
klaus flouride Henry Rollins is quite adamant that the only time he did any drugs was when he got drunk twice at the age of 17 and ''didn't really like it'', yes its possible he's lying, but why would he? He also kicked people out of his band for using drugs and former members of black flag have also stated that although they did indulge in some drugs, rollins always remained sober.

Is it not strange that although plenty of these artists do drugs, and enjoy publicising the fact, they never campaign for their legalisation?

You have to go back to the late sixties when Paul Mccartney took out a full page add in the Times requesting that pot be Legalised to answer that one. He had previously admitted (reluctantly ) that he had dropped LSD and smoked hash although of the 4 Beatles , he was the most concerned about the bands image .Elvis also demonised the beatles around the same time claiming that they were a bad influence on Americas youth ,with their long hair and drug use. (leaving aside the fact that his music wasn't charting ,he was taken all kinds of medication ,and was to let his hair grow long himself) .

slipss

klaus flouride wrote:

Heres 5 questions you may like to ask yourself;

Do Drugs make musicians better at what they do?

Would you find an artist more interesting if you knew they did or did not take drugs?

Why are so many young people not interested in abstaining from Drugs (does music have something to do with this)?

Do you think certain musicians have become more popular as a result of their widely publicised drug habits?

Do you think that musicians have a responsibility towards their younger fans not to take drugs or is it the case that their drug use is nobody's business but their own?

1. No I don't think drugs make people better musicians usually, I think years of practice make them better. Jimi Hendrix took a good bit of LSD, he also practiced guitar everyday for 19 years or so, which do you think had more of an influence on him playing Purple Haze? Having said that I do think drugs can influence certain musicians and the music they play significantly. Someone mentioned the dance scene of the eighties and nineties, clearly massively influenced by LSD and then in particular Ecstacy, and without those drugs I don't think that anyone can say the music would have been any way similar to what it was. Anyone thats listened to trance or techno both on and off ecstacy I'm sure knows this to be true.

2. No personally it wouldn't make them any more or less intersesting to me, but I'm sure it does to some people. But I think it is more about image than about the drugs themsleves, it all goes to the whole rock and roll rebel thing, taking lots of drugs, riding anythings that moves, throwing tellys out of windows, driving cars into swimming pools ect. What Irish people would describe as "he doesn't give a sh1t".

3. No I don't think music has anything to do with young people not wanting to abstain from drugs. I think it has a lot more to do with availability and boredom.

4. Yeah I'd say so, but like people have said it has more to do with the media clinging on to the subject and doing it to death resulting in the musicians getting lots and lots of publicity which usually leads ot an increase in popularity.

5. No I don't think they have a responsibility to thier younger fans not to take drugs. What someone does in their own time is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned. I don't buy into the theory that some kid is going to go out and start shooting up because someone buys them a Nirvana album for thier birthday, anymore than I believe some kid is going to save up his pocket money, book a flight to Reno, buy a handgun, and shoot someone to death for a laugh because they listened to Folsom Prison Blues once too often. If I was being cynical I would say that that whole thing stems from parents finding out their kid is a full blown junkie and not wanting to blame themselves and the crappy way they brought them up for that fact, so clearly if it isn't thier fault it has to be Pete Dohertys, or maybe Danny Boyles.

JC 2K3

klaus flouride wrote:

Is it not strange that although plenty of these artists do drugs, and enjoy publicising the fact, they never campaign for their legalisation?

Not really. Musicians are musicians, not politicians.

klaus flouride

This is unlikely but - If all the rock musicians joined together and unanimously made a statement condemning drugs and then set about trying to campaign against drug addiction, do you think there would be any serious reduction in the amount of drugs people take?

JC 2K3

Rock musicians? Siding with The Man? Never!

And tbh, if that did happen, it'd probably decrease by a small amount in the short term before a new movement of pro-drug musicians emerged promoting a new counterculture which embraced drug use.

klaus flouride

JC 2K3 wrote:

Rock musicians? Siding with The Man? Never!

And tbh, if that did happen, it'd probably decrease by a small amount in the short term before a new movement of pro-drug musicians emerged promoting a new counterculture which embraced drug use.

I agree, mainly cos its not just rockers and dance fans that do drugs. Strange how you don't get as many rock stars kicking the bucket in their prime the way it used to be.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

klaus flouride wrote:

I agree, mainly cos its not just rockers and dance fans that do drugs. Strange how you don't get as many rock stars kicking the bucket in their prime the way it used to be.

It's now fashionable to go into rehab...wimps;)

klaus flouride

Its a pity they don't have a sh1t musicians sanctuary - a kind of rehab for people who play bad music.