Clackamas Print
ntertainment
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
7
ace off: drug induced music
)rugs rock ... billboard charts Attention musicians: just say no
like Kimberling
Clackamas Print
The late comedian Bill Hicks once
j that if you think drugs don’t
t anything to add to
the
[Id, you should probably
all your old music
Bns away.
Like most of Hick’s sober-
routine, this comment
home to many of the
■eme assumptions we have
ed over our eyes in society,
us may never win a Nobel
ce Prize, or ever find any of
missing children advertised
milk cartons, but drugs have
more influence in western
ires rock and roll than sex
had on men’s minds.
[hough many of us can turn
noses up at the rap star
i brags about how
;h weed he smokes
ire spanking a
s bootie, or point
>ers at everyone
n punk-rock-
io butt-rockers,
of us can do it
lout becoming
ocrites. Every
lire adult may
squirm,
use I must mention this band first
lot purely for their indispensabil-
to rock and roll. Yes, the Beatles,
letimes a person can get high just
ling to “Strawberry Fields Forever,”
in even rarer cases just by sim
ply looking at the “Yellow Submarine”
cover.
Sorry, jazz musio^hasn’t saved you
from falling into this category, and nei
ther will country music. Both almost
seemed like an easy out, but unfortu
nately jazz musicians have been known
to be fond of heroin, and country music
was built on people who were too drunk
on cheap beer to play the blues without
altering the sound.
Kurt Cobain’s career revolved around
heroin abuse, cocaine was the offi
cial sponsor of every nose job
in the musical industry, and
Jim Morrison
might
have
inhaled
once. Jimmy
Hendrix grew
marijuana
fields on the
lower 40 of
his afro, Led
Zeppelin has been
dazed and confused so
long it’s not true, and Pink
Floyd’s Roger Barrett’s
nickname Syd came from his
use of LSD. The Rolling
Stones are still fee
it, Bob Dylan suppo
edly introduced the
Beatles to weed
and the King
of Pop smokes
pole.
Drugs might
not be good for
us, but they do
some
thing worthwhile. If
you .don’t
believe me, look through your album
collection.
?ar Hollywood,
David Stark
77ie Clackamas Print
Recreational substances have a long
history with music, dating back thousands
of years when people got drunk on wine
and sung songs. But just because there is
a precedent doesn’t mean that it should
be touted as a good thing. After all, as
the oft-quoted George Santayana said,
“Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to
repeat it.”
Now
I’m
not
saying that
musicians
shouldn’t
use drugs,
and I’m
not saying
the music
they
make
when on
drugs
isn’t
good,
I
just
posit
that they
shouldn-’t,
need drugs
in order to
write songs.
There is no proof whatsoever
that recreational drug use increases
creativity, concentration or anything else
that helps in the writing process. In actu
ality, due to the reality-altering affects of
most drugs, the creation process is in fact
hindered significantly.
And in fact prolonged drug use can
have a rather adverse affect on the health
and wellbeing of the artist. The Doors’
Jim Morrison, the Who’s Keith Moon, the
Sex Pistols’ Sid Vicious, Jimi Hendrix,
Janis Joplin and the Rolling Stones’ Brian
Jones are just a few of the artists who
have died of drug overdoses in just the
last 30 years.
While Paul McCartney admits that
a number of the Beatles songs were
“informed” by drugs, he also states that
“just about everyone was doing them in
one form or another. We were no differ
ent.” Later adding that “the writing was
too important for us to mess it up by get
ting off our heads all the time.”
If we take what he says as fact and
everyone at the time was using, then per
haps we should go back further in time
to examine music in a more historical
context. Let’s look at the great classical
compositions from history which had
no assistance from any sort of drug use
- Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, Sleeping
Beauty, the Nutcracker or the concertos
and symphonies of Mozart. And we
absolutely cannot overlook Beethoven’s
nine symphonies, most especially the-
Ninth.
Music that has survived for centuries,
and will most likely last millennia, came
from utterly sober individuals. Perhaps
we should consider how long modem day
music will last.
The sad truth of the matter is that if
a musician of any sort needs any kind
of reality-altering substances to claim
talent, then perhaps their skills are more
questionable then punching babies in the
face.
please stop destroying American cinema
Photo Illustration by Jeff Sorensen Clackamas Print
Ho Stalnaker
[E Editor
Pie late 1960s through the
[‘70s were the last great
P for American film. No
ft are films being made
[offer intriguing characters,
pt provoking storylines
peat drama. Sure, some
I movies have come out
[then, but you have to dig
Rh the hundreds of lack-
P Hollywood films to get
hm.
png the 1960s America
[’renaissance in film. Great
pkers were emerging out
|®e dead Hollywood stu-
I’nd creating some truly
[“ent films. “Taxi Driver,”
“Scarecrow,”
“Dog
Day
Afternoon,” “The Graduate,”
“M*A*S*H,” “2001: A Space
Odyssey,” “Midnight Cowboy,”
“Easy Rider”
and
“The
Godfather” are just some of the
many gems that came out of
this era.
So, what happened? Two
words: Steven Spielberg. Now
Spielberg has created some great
films, but his 1975 film “Jaws”
kicked off the blockbuster men
tality of Hollywood. Ever since
then we’ve seen hit movies that
may have been entertaining,
but that’s all they were. Films
such as “The Terminator,” “Star
Wars,” “Alien,” every 80s slash
er-flick, “Independence Day,”
“Armageddon,”
“Godzilla,”
and “The Island” offer only eye
candy to the American public
and not much else.
In the ‘90s, a small revolution
in independent film occurred.
The Sundance Film Festival was
bringing independent films to a
wider audience by showcasing
them in art theaters, and even
some major theaters, all over the
states. Video rental stores even
started carrying more indepen
dent films; Then, as expected,
Hollywood decided to step into
Sundance and the indie film mar
ket. Now instead of Sundance
being used to showcase films
made by real people and not by
suits, it’s used to showcase cor
porate Hollywood “neo-indie”
films. Hence the reason why
“Napoleon Dynamite” is, unfor
tunately, a household name.
Recently, Hollywood has
been churning out remade
films and television shows.
Films such as “Fun With Dick
and Jane,” “The Omen,” “The
Honeymooners,” “Bewitched,”
“The Amityville Horror,” “The
Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and
“When a Stranger Calls,” have
been plaguing the cinemas for a
few years now. Is there any orig
inal thought left in Hollywood
or have they just run out of
ideas? I guess the real question
is why Hollywood wants to sub
ject the American people to bad
remakes of bad movies.
However, the Oscars this
year (unlike recent years)
actually had some good films
nominated. By some, I mean
three. “Capote,” “Good Night,
and Good Luck” and “Crash”
(it definitely deserved the Best
Picture award) are the only ones
worth mentioning. “Brokeback
Mountain” was all the talk in
Tinseltown only because it
“broke boundaries” in romance
movies. However, it actually
didn’t. I guess Hollywood for
got about Gus van Sant’s early
films, the “taboo” romance story
“Harold and Maude” amongst
others.
So, will Hollywood ever get
its act together and start making
good films again? This doesn’t
seem likely given the fact that
the American public keeps
going to these dreadful movies
and actually likes them. Things
have gotten better in the past
two years, but don’t expect that
to last for long.
Now if I may excuse myself,
I have to go watch “Serpico”
and cry away the pain.