Music and Surrealism
Nikolaus Maack
One of the reasons there are so few theories about "surrealist" music is
that Breton hated almost all music. There were a few pieces he enjoyed,
but overall, music was not his thing. He would get angry if anyone
suggested music could be a part of the surrealist movement.
Fortunately, Breton is dead, and the maggots long ago finished eating his
brain.
The Butthole Surfers, They Might Be Giants, Ween, Frank Zappa, and many
other bands/people have a place in surrealism. One of the arguments
against musical surrealism is the notion that a song is always the same
thing twice. That's just silly. Even if it is the same song, played
exactly the same way, twice in a row, a song can still be surreal.
"No, no! For a piece of art to be surreal it has to entirely flow from
uncontrolled mental processes!"
I disagree. I think a song can be created from surreal elements. That it
is then performed the same way, each time it is played, doesn't take away
from how the song was created. They Might Be Giants often have lyrics
that are dreamlike and contain "subconscious" elements. That, when they
play the song next week, it sounds nearly identical to the first time they
played it, doesn't take away from the surreal qualities.
I think the Butthole Surfers are especially surreal, given that a lot of
their songs are pure stream of thought nonsense. They make odd noises,
they play weird instruments, they revel in noise.
"Ten foot tall Emma Nurse stuck a needle in my arm.
Well Uncle Doc's nurse uses a needle with ungodly charm.
Walking down the hall, the dentist looms through the door.
I saw an X-ray of a girl, passing gas."
Parry mentioned Negativland. They've definitely got surreal elements. On
their "Escape From Noise" album they play all sorts of fun noise games
that question, challenge, provoke, and play. Dispepsi is a wonderful
reinvention of the cola wars. It challenges corporate control and
corporate thought. Using the tools of advertising, they break
advertising. What could be more surreal than that?
"I got fired by my boss. Pepsi.
I nailed Jesus to the cross. Pepsi.
Powdered mashed potatoes in the cupboard for three years.
Alcoholic husbands driving frantic wives to tears.
Poor old widow's house burned down. Pepsi."
Nice stuff. Maybe I'll listen to Dispepsi as I eat my breakfast.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Parry
> One of the reasons there are so few theories about "surrealist" music is
> that Breton hated almost all music. There were a few pieces he enjoyed,
> but overall, music was not his thing. He would get angry if anyone
> suggested music could be a part of the surrealist movement.
No sense in pinning the rap on Breton. The preference of silence to
music was commonplace among writers and painters even before surrealism.
Breton expressed confusion about music, and the indifference of other
surrealists was surely not the result of a dictate. Bunuel seemed to
find music irritating, and rarely used it even in his films. Man Ray
expressed open hostility towards Beethoven. Other than that, no comments
on music from the original surrealists stick in my recollection.
Presumably, music for them meant a baton-waving führer leading his
orchestra through a composer’s master plan. Radio’s popular music was
characterized by Harry Partch as “vibrating frankfurters.” The
surrealist position on music began evolving in the 1940’s, with their
exile in New York and exposure to black jazz. From the 1960’s, the
American surrealists somewhat mechanically adopted the opinion that free
jazz is the outlet for automatism in music. But the opinion was dated as
soon as it was spoke, for in the mid-60’s popular music was experiencing
an explosion of potential.
> One of the arguments
> against musical surrealism is the notion that a song is always the same
> thing twice. That's just silly. Even if it is the same song, played
> exactly the same way, twice in a row, a song can still be surreal.
As Brian Eno pointed out, one does not hear a piece of music the same
way twice. A piece of music is always the same just as a painting is
always the same.
> "No, no! For a piece of art to be surreal it has to entirely flow from
> uncontrolled mental processes!"
>
> I disagree. I think a song can be created from surreal elements. That it
> is then performed the same way, each time it is played, doesn't take away
> from how the song was created. They Might Be Giants often have lyrics
> that are dreamlike and contain "subconscious" elements. That, when they
> play the song next week, it sounds nearly identical to the first time they
> played it, doesn't take away from the surreal qualities.
In fact, I still get a charge when I hear the Kinks’ “You Really Got
Me,” which I first heard when I was around six years old.
> Parry mentioned Negativland. They've definitely got surreal elements. On
> their "Escape From Noise" album they play all sorts of fun noise games
> that question, challenge, provoke, and play. Dispepsi is a wonderful
> reinvention of the cola wars. It challenges corporate control and
> corporate thought. Using the tools of advertising, they break
> advertising. What could be more surreal than that?
Negativland are very aware of the surrealist precedent in collage
strategies (which they applied to recorded sound, of course, rather than
pictures). They use the word “detournement” to describe their method of
hijacking other people’s sounds for their own purpose.
> "I got fired by my boss. Pepsi.
> I nailed Jesus to the cross. Pepsi.
> Powdered mashed potatoes in the cupboard for three years.
> Alcoholic husbands driving frantic wives to tears.
> Poor old widow's house burned down. Pepsi."
>
> Nice stuff. Maybe I'll listen to Dispepsi as I eat my breakfast.
Advertising: “The Memo: The look, the style, the music is everything.
Lighting should be dramatic but not shadowy, the locations should be
dramatic bit not weird, clothing should be contemporary but not punk...
In other words, we can *get out of the ordinary* but we can’t *live*
there.” Negativland’s “Escape from Noise” and “Free” are highly
recommended.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Andrea Chen
> characterized by Harry Partch as “vibrating frankfurters.” The
> surrealist position on music began evolving in the 1940’s, with their
> exile in New York and exposure to black jazz.
Your dating is off. Steppenwolf (which while not officially
surrealistic does take up many of it's themes including the random
shooting) is earlier and mentions jazz. It dates well before the
forties, Jazz was a major feature in much European art from the late
twenties and is a theme in many European works including Sarte's nausea.
>From the 1960’s, the
> American surrealists somewhat mechanically adopted the opinion that free
> jazz is the outlet for automatism in music. But the opinion was dated as
> soon as it was spoke, for in the mid-60’s popular music was experiencing
> an explosion of potential.
Jazz wasn't outdated and continued to grow. For example Miles was just
hitting his stride in the sixties. However surrealism or those who
pompously defined themselves as such were more likely to be influenced
by Cage (who definitely embraced sthe surrealist fascination with
randomness) and others less popular.
Incidently your portrayal of mid sixties rock (which started to regain
the complexity of R&D) isn't consistent with your statements that drugs
have no effect on the creative process. From the mid sixties to the
early seventies the 2 definitely coevolved with drugs certainly helping
break boundaries (while often destroying their carriers.)
Hopefully Mark Shippey (of aav) will add to this discussion. I would
be interested in further comments on alien (a smbolic form often taken
by the modern unconscious) inspired music he recently listened and some
ancient Chinese music which couldn't be exprerssed in western
notations.
I realize that the later especially is unpopular in the Eurocentric
alt.surrealism where the remarks made by Brandon, Kristina, Dale and
Barrett on Taoism showed utter ignorance and contempt for the culture of
the world's oldest continuous civilization. Their failure to understand
even obvious points such as the guerilla war of Mao and Ho used basic
Taoist concepts (when the enemy advances we retreat...) was clearly a
censorship (imposed by the unconscious) because they are uncomfortable
with any ideas outside of the fifties, middle class, blue stocking
America.
Similar is their contempt for "poetry slams" which involve taking
poetry outside of the sedate reading room and to the churning crowd
(while being dominted by minorities oh HORRORS!) makes me think that
it's necessary to bring in outside forces (perhpas we should ask th aid
of the flonkers and meowrs) to clean up this grey dreary mess. Yet I
would argue that releasing symbols in flows that have energy and the
power to influence rather than safe, clever poems which make no one
scream or cry is a legitimate path for surrealism.
Quite frankly the "surrealist project" doesn't exist on this earth.
According to Barrett he has spent decades building connections with
other surrealists yet of the dozens of web sites claiming to represent
modern surrealism mentions the name of our local high authority. I
offer this as further evidence that Barrett and friends limit their
contacts to grey alien culture and a vapid imaginery space.
kristina
news:38BC2D...@earthlink.net...
Interesting how you respond to a post reagrding music and your obsession
with all of us (above mentioned little group) quickly comes into play. I'd
suggest consiely (because I can't be bothered with you quite frankly) that
your attempt is nothing more than an attention seeking one. Your lack of
insight and assumptions (this post is full of them), not to mention your
lack of understanding are really quite boring!
What are you even doing here, little miss everything-is-against-me?
Poor silly Andrea. And you are SILLY. As of this post I've killfiled you.
Even though I really don't care if you spend your time replying. Your
madness in regard to "proving how everyone is wrong" and your obsession with
Tao is quite distasteful. Don't assume you know anything about my tastes,
or knowledge... you don't know anything!
This is a fact. To think otherwise, or that you can know me intimately, or
anyone else you find so distasteful in this group is just ignorant and
arrogant. You seem to possess both qualities... I'll give you that, you
are good at those two things.
Kristina.
>
Mark Shippey
> Hopefully Mark Shippey (of aav) will add to this discussion. I would
> be interested in further comments on alien (a smbolic form often taken
> by the modern unconscious) inspired music he recently listened and some
> ancient Chinese music which couldn't be exprerssed in western
> notations.
I am not sure what I am jumping into here but what the heck.
The ancient Chinese music over many centuries was written down in
a form of Chinese "tablature". We are slowly transcribing some of this
into standard notation that can be peformed on a guitar.
The problem is that the Chinese tablature is written in ways that
allow much spontaneous interpretation by the performer, who was expected
to be a scholar in music, as well as in arts like philosoply and
calligraphy etc. Therefore, the individual writing the tablature
assumed that the skill of the performer would be such that they could
improvise with a fine technique. We are attempting to work with this
idea to prepare our book. This is becoming an extensive study because
to transcribe this music requires a profound understanding of ancient
Chinese music and philosophy. The individuals who eventually buy
this book should enjoy the same adventure.
As far as the "alien music", we are still working closely with
the young man who produces this music. He wholeheartedly believes that
this music was the result of "abductions" but it appears that this is
some kind of strange subconscious fucntions coming into his conscioius
mind that creates this music. He is far more advanced than any formal
training he has, and three University professors have worked with him
and are astounded as his skill level. Amazing music. We are preparing
a digital collection of some of the pieces which he says must be
given away at no cost becaus the "aliens" want it this way. Hmmm.
> I realize that the later especially is unpopular in the Eurocentric
> alt.surrealism where the remarks made by Brandon, Kristina, Dale and
> Barrett on Taoism showed utter ignorance and contempt for the culture of
> the world's oldest continuous civilization. Their failure to understand
> even obvious points such as the guerilla war of Mao and Ho used basic
> Taoist concepts (when the enemy advances we retreat...) was clearly a
> censorship (imposed by the unconscious) because they are uncomfortable
> with any ideas outside of the fifties, middle class, blue stocking
> America.
I have studied martial arts for decades, and the philosophy of both
the "soft" and "hard" and the inner and outer forms pervades Chinese
history and life. If these guys don't understand the philosophy behind
it all, I would be recommend that they go to a Tai Chi Master and ask
him to demonstrate "Embrace Tiger, Return To Mountain" in action. Then
they will understand. Very simple. An objective demonstration.
Parry
any. Had Kristina not responded to Andrea’s post I would have missed it.
> "Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Your dating is off. Steppenwolf (which while not officially
> > surrealistic does take up many of it's themes including the random
> > shooting) is earlier and mentions jazz. It dates well before the
> > forties, Jazz was a major feature in much European art from the late
> > twenties and is a theme in many European works including Sarte's nausea.
Noted. But this doesn’t change the basic point, that indifference to
music was not uncommon and not dictated by Breton, as was suggested.
> > >From the 1960's, the
> > > American surrealists somewhat mechanically adopted the opinion that free
> > > jazz is the outlet for automatism in music. But the opinion was dated as
> > > soon as it was spoke, for in the mid-60's popular music was experiencing
> > > an explosion of potential.
> >
> > Jazz wasn't outdated and continued to grow. For example Miles was just
> > hitting his stride in the sixties. However surrealism or those who
> > pompously defined themselves as such were more likely to be influenced
> > by Cage (who definitely embraced sthe surrealist fascination with
> > randomness) and others less popular.
I didn’t mean to suggest that jazz was out-dated, just that the
exclusion of rock music from surrealist thought was out of touch with
the times. I’ve seen little evidence as regards your comments about
Cage. While some musicians -- Henry Cow and Brian Eno, for instance --
took Cage to heart, organized surrealists leaned horizontally to jazz.
> > Incidently your portrayal of mid sixties rock (which started to regain
> > the complexity of R&D) isn't consistent with your statements that drugs
> > have no effect on the creative process. From the mid sixties to the
> > early seventies the 2 definitely coevolved with drugs certainly helping
> > break boundaries (while often destroying their carriers.)
Not inconsistent. Firstly, because I never presented my opinion on drugs
as anything more than recollection of my own experience. I’ve no
knowledge of heroin. (Or of absinthe, though that’s not so clearly
associated with musicians; I wonder if absinthe is legal in Australia?)
And, as Kristina and Leo have pointed out, the stuff that we knew as LSD
was actually who-knows-what; conceivably pure LSD has an exceptional
effect on creativity. But my experience with psychedelics leads me to
dismiss them, as explained in the other thread. Secondly, while the drug
culture and 60’s music “co-evolved” -- or, at least, their evolutions
significantly overlapped -- the causal relationship is dubious. I’ll go
into a bit more detail, possibly more detail than you care to read, but
I’ll try to be brief.
As regards 60’s music, the link between psychedelic drugs and creativity
may not be as compelling as is popularly imagined. There was in that
period a burgeoning youth culture (youth then meaning those under 30)
that coagulated in revolt against the values of their elders, who were
embroiled in political scandals and sending the kids off to fight their
imperial wars. Drugs obviously provided a potent social lubricant and
served to reinforce group solidarity. More salient I think was the taste
for revolt, which allowed the vital condition for the creative boom: a
large audience eager for the new, strange and experimental. So while
drugs have been given a lot of credit, are these claims credible? Any
more credible than later claims that TM was the skeleton key to
creativity? Did music suddenly get weird in 1967 when the musicians
started dropping tabs?
The best argument for LSD’s contribution to creativity may be the
Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper.” The argument entirely neglects the material
conditions of music production. For instance, “Sgt. Pepper” was made
possible because the Beatles had constructed the beginnings of the
modern multi-track studio, and were already understanding that in rock
music the studio is itself an instrument. And this feat was only
possible because the group were extended extraordinary time and
resources to make their music. (And such resources included the luxury
to travel the world and dabble with Eastern mysticism firsthand.)
Further, the argument overlooks the natural imaginations of the
creators. McCartney is innately a generator of melodies, Lennon was
influenced by surrealism, and Martin was an accomplished arranger. The
“Sgt. Pepper” project carried the trappings of drug use, but was not
merely a bi-product of it. The conditions and personalities involved
would surely have produced complex and ambitious work even had LSD not
come along. Again, the important role drugs was to prepare a receptive
audience which emboldened the musicians.
Beyond the Beatles, the arc of psychedelic music can be seen in ascent
before psychedelic drugs became commonplace. Chris Cutler in his book
“File Under Popular” tracks what he characterizes as the progressive
tendency in rock music -- a tendency which began to speed up with
instrumental groups like the Shadows, built with the Yardbirds and the
Who, and culminated with the likes of Pink Floyd and the Soft Machine.
This is essentially the same path as psychedelic music. The notable
features of this progressive tendency which Cutler identifies are not
increased drug usage, but rather: new sonic qualities of the guitar and
more aggressive drumming; the drive towards more improvisation, noise,
and anarchic sound; the collision of rave-up R&B with jazz and
contemporary classical; and the sharpening focus of middle class youth
revolt. Among the most notable bands from the 66-67 years, the Soft
Machine were well-versed in jazz and enamored of Alfred Jarry. Pink
Floyd’s Syd Barrett was famously associated with LSD, but he had an
obvious awareness of avant garde composers. Pink Floyd threw off sparks,
but Barrett’s songwriting was actually more natural and surreal on his
solo albums, recorded past his drug-use heyday.
To me it appears that while psychedelic drugs played a part in creating
a receptive climate for new music, to claim a causal link between drug
use and creativity in this instance is a bit of a stretch, perhaps as
weak as claiming a causal link between clinical depression and
creativity.
> > Hopefully Mark Shippey (of aav) will add to this discussion. I would
> > be interested in further comments on alien (a smbolic form often taken
> > by the modern unconscious) inspired music he recently listened and some
> > ancient Chinese music which couldn't be exprerssed in western
> > notations.
You must have been thinking faster than you type, for I have trouble
following that sentence. Aliens? Chinese? The connection may be the
eccentric singer Lucia Pamela, who apparently claimed her pink Cadillac
drove to the moon and that: “There’s lots of Asian people there -- I
don’t know why.” I haven’t heard much about alien-inspired music, though
I’m not surprised it should exist. I’m not sure what sort of discussion
you’re fishing for as regards Eastern music.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38BDB4...@zxOMITmail.com...
>For instance, "Sgt. Pepper" was made
> possible because the Beatles had constructed the beginnings of the
> modern multi-track studio, and were already understanding that in rock
> music the studio is itself an instrument.
Though it may be hard to believe, Abby Roads studio was rather famous for
its "retro" fittings: when everyone else was working with 8 tracking, the
Beatles were using 4 tracks. There are many descriptions of how George
Martin and the others were forced to reduce a four track recording to one so
that more layers could be added. It wasn't until the album Abby road (their
last) that the studio began to "catch up." The amazing thing here is how
clear that process does sound. Sgt Peppers was not made possible by the
modernity of its technology (I am sure Herman's Hermits and Gary Lewis and
the Playboys had better studios) but by the imagination and perseverence of
its creators.
>And this feat was only possible because the group were extended
>extraordinary time and resources to make their music.
And this is true.
>The "Sgt. Pepper" project carried the trappings of drug use, but was not
> merely a byi-product of it.
Drug use is only one experience among many:: undoubtedly Sgt Peppers would
have been different in some way without the use of LSD, but I think it is
impossible to say how. People have pointed to the slowing down musical
effect (tape dragging), since there is a similar effect experienced while
listening to sounds on LSD, but that effect predates the drug. Actually the
"revolutionary" character of the Beatles is apparent almost from the get-go.
The energy, wit, and willingness to experiment and "be their own men" is
there already, way before any drug use (except beer: what is the effect of
beer on modern music?)
>Pink Floyd threw off sparks, but Barrett's songwriting was actually more
>natural and surreal on his solo albums, recorded past his drug-use heyday.
But well into his "auto-drugged" aftermath? I think this natural surreality
is quite discernible on the Pink Floyd albums, but polished somwhat by the
dynamics of the group and the push for hits. I personally prefer his solo
albums, as roughhewn as they are. They seem vastly naked and almost too
sensitive - and not in the James Taylor mode either. "Dominoes" is a
beautifully depressing piece.
>
> To me it appears that while psychedelic drugs played a part in creating
> a receptive climate for new music, to claim a causal link between drug
> use and creativity in this instance is a bit of a stretch, perhaps as
> weak as claiming a causal link between clinical depression and
> creativity.
In the 60s almost every song was thought of by those who liked this sort of
thing as a sly "drug reference." One grew tired of it. "Strawberry Fields
Forever" was a big one, and I had to explain that if it were as drug trip it
was an unpleasant one in many ways. "Yellow Submarine" the same, although a
more charming summer-time children's song is hard to imagine. And on and on.
But I do think there is SOME truth to both the drug and depression link; but
it is always a multi-plex process. A depressed and unimaginative person is
still unimaginative. But often the imaginative personality needs that slight
degree of disassociation (of psychologically "removing to one's den") to
prompt creation; although this is little different than the martini that
eases a 1950's male into home-mode I suppose. And - if creativity is under
attack from an early age by the usual suspects - any protective shield might
preserve the spark. Depression or shyness - while being bothersome in their
own right - can act as buffers to painful instruction, introducing an
element of hesitance to the degrading process and thus preserving that
spark. This is how it seemed to work in my case. I often tell friends that
until I was eighteen I felt as though I were in a coma, a social coma in
which I attended to the "ways of the world" through automatic behavior while
quite protecting my "greater" self by hiding. I don't think this is
uncommon. Drugs may serve this disassociative function.
I think - eventually - the most that can be claimed for drugs' "positive"
effects on art expression, is the disassociative qualities they bring; since
poetic imagination seems to emerge best in moments of mixed
concentration/drifting, the drug might help here. At least from my personal
experience this is true. As for any lingering "forensic" evidence of this
process, I think there is little. From personal experience I see little
difference between piece "seduced" out by drugs, and one grindingly urged
out over time. And if Gary Lewis would have been given LSD every day of his
life, one doubts much of anything would have come of it creatively. Opening
the doors on an empty house only lets the dust out.
DMH
barrett john erickson
news:38BDB4...@zxOMITmail.com...
neglecting
> any. Had Kristina not responded to Andrea's post I would have
missed it.
>
> > "Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > Hopefully Mark Shippey (of aav) will add to this discussion.
I would
> > > be interested in further comments on alien (a smbolic form
often taken
> > > by the modern unconscious) inspired music he recently
listened and some
> > > ancient Chinese music which couldn't be exprerssed in
western
> > > notations.
>
> You must have been thinking faster than you type, for I have
trouble
> following that sentence.
actually, "andrea" types _much_ faster than "she's" able to think.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38BDB4...@zxOMITmail.com...
>
> > possible because the Beatles had constructed the beginnings of the
> > modern multi-track studio, and were already understanding that in rock
> > music the studio is itself an instrument.
>
> its "retro" fittings: when everyone else was working with 8 tracking, the
> Beatles were using 4 tracks. There are many descriptions of how George
> Martin and the others were forced to reduce a four track recording to one so
> that more layers could be added. It wasn't until the album Abby road (their
> last) that the studio began to "catch up." The amazing thing here is how
> clear that process does sound. Sgt Peppers was not made possible by the
> modernity of its technology (I am sure Herman's Hermits and Gary Lewis and
> the Playboys had better studios) but by the imagination and perseverence of
> its creators.
>
> >extraordinary time and resources to make their music.
>
The inquiring use of 4-track decks was what I meant by the “beginnings”
of the modern multi-track studio, and it was the luxury of their
resources which made such inquiry possible. (Such luxury including the
amount of time a band has to use a studio, of which Herman’s Hermits had
even less than normal because they were paying for a better studio!) I
didn’t give sole credit to technology for “Sgt. Pepper’s,” but related
technology to other factors, such as the Beatles’ natural talents and
active imaginations. And there’s nothing like a new toy to exercise the
imagination.
>
> >The "Sgt. Pepper" project carried the trappings of drug use, but was not
> > merely a byi-product of it.
>
> Drug use is only one experience among many:: undoubtedly Sgt Peppers would
> have been different in some way without the use of LSD, but I think it is
> impossible to say how. People have pointed to the slowing down musical
> effect (tape dragging), since there is a similar effect experienced while
> listening to sounds on LSD, but that effect predates the drug. Actually the
> "revolutionary" character of the Beatles is apparent almost from the get-go.
> The energy, wit, and willingness to experiment and "be their own men" is
> there already, way before any drug use (except beer: what is the effect of
> beer on modern music?)
Precisely. A better argument could be made that alcohol or nicotine was
the great stimulant for creativity. I wouldn’t buy that argument,
either.
> >Pink Floyd threw off sparks, but Barrett's songwriting was actually more
> >natural and surreal on his solo albums, recorded past his drug-use heyday.
>
> But well into his "auto-drugged" aftermath? I think this natural surreality
> is quite discernible on the Pink Floyd albums, but polished somwhat by the
> dynamics of the group and the push for hits. I personally prefer his solo
> albums, as roughhewn as they are. They seem vastly naked and almost too
> sensitive - and not in the James Taylor mode either. "Dominoes" is a
> beautifully depressing piece.
That’s odd, because I never found Barrett’s music depressing. I thought
“Dominoes” was a love song.
> > To me it appears that while psychedelic drugs played a part in creating
> > a receptive climate for new music, to claim a causal link between drug
> > use and creativity in this instance is a bit of a stretch, perhaps as
> > weak as claiming a causal link between clinical depression and
> > creativity.
>
> In the 60s almost every song was thought of by those who liked this sort of
> thing as a sly "drug reference." One grew tired of it. "Strawberry Fields
> Forever" was a big one, and I had to explain that if it were as drug trip it
> was an unpleasant one in many ways. "Yellow Submarine" the same, although a
> more charming summer-time children's song is hard to imagine. And on and on.
> But I do think there is SOME truth to both the drug and depression link; but
> it is always a multi-plex process. A depressed and unimaginative person is
> still unimaginative. But often the imaginative personality needs that slight
> degree of disassociation (of psychologically "removing to one's den") to
> prompt creation; although this is little different than the martini that
> eases a 1950's male into home-mode I suppose. And - if creativity is under
> attack from an early age by the usual suspects - any protective shield might
> preserve the spark. Depression or shyness - while being bothersome in their
> own right - can act as buffers to painful instruction, introducing an
> element of hesitance to the degrading process and thus preserving that
> spark. This is how it seemed to work in my case. I often tell friends that
> until I was eighteen I felt as though I were in a coma, a social coma in
> which I attended to the "ways of the world" through automatic behavior while
> quite protecting my "greater" self by hiding. I don't think this is
> uncommon. Drugs may serve this disassociative function.
No doubt you will find examples of people who convincingly claim LSD
unlocked something in them. Cartoonist Robert Crumb comes to mind. But
such cases are idiosyncratic and don’t, I think, argue strongly for the
benefits of drug use.
>
> I think - eventually - the most that can be claimed for drugs' "positive"
> effects on art expression, is the disassociative qualities they bring; since
> poetic imagination seems to emerge best in moments of mixed
> concentration/drifting, the drug might help here. At least from my personal
> experience this is true. As for any lingering "forensic" evidence of this
> process, I think there is little. From personal experience I see little
> difference between piece "seduced" out by drugs, and one grindingly urged
> out over time. And if Gary Lewis would have been given LSD every day of his
> life, one doubts much of anything would have come of it creatively. Opening
> the doors on an empty house only lets the dust out.
Gary Lewis is a long crow’s fly from what’s called the “progression” of
popular music in the 60’s -- though lately I’ve found myself drawn to
pretty much anything recorded in those middle years, as even the
lowliest records seem to carry a unique energy and intensity. Even
Herman’s Hermits managed to come out with a line like “the bottle stands
forlorn, a symbol of the dawn.”
Further discredit to the celebrated link of drugs with creativity in
60’s music is that fact that the creative engine faltered while drug use
became more prevalent. If there were a direct causal link, the creative
boom could be repeated by a newfound popularity of psychedelic drugs.
This seems laughable. History may repeat itself, but history is not
repeatable. (Hm, sounds like something you'd read on a fortune cookie.)
Leo Sgouros
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
I have done gigs high, probably 20 or 30 out of a few hundred.
I have noticed during practice sessions when playing stined sometimes it
sounds groovier than it really was, and playing back the practice tape later
is like "who the hell is THAT?"-
If you are going to play all your gigs high, then practice high.
I recommend doing them straight, as the best shows were the shows where
noone caught a buzz before.Alot of times it wasnt really necessary to, it
just happened.It was there, you partied.
As far as depending on drugs for creativity, this is a problem area.Going
out into thr wilderness to rehearse and write new material could be
conducive to a "group trip"-I did that once with one group and it turned out
pretty cool.I did it with a different group and it turned out to be a waste
of time, nothing got done.
All in all, I say leave it for your free time ifn ya wanna
PPPPPPPPPPPAAAAAAAAAAARTTEEEEEEEE
I'm too old now anyway :-)
BTW, didnt they do SGT Pep on two 4 tracks?
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> I have done gigs high, probably 20 or 30 out of a few hundred.
> I have noticed during practice sessions when playing stined sometimes it
> sounds groovier than it really was, and playing back the practice tape later
> is like "who the hell is THAT?"-
> If you are going to play all your gigs high, then practice high.
I’ve dabbled with music even though I’m singularly lacking in talent.
Worse than what you describe is being sober and playing with guys who
are stoned. You start playing a tune and the drumbeat just keeps getting
slower, and slower, and slower until you have to throw in the towel
because you just can’t play that slow.
> BTW, didnt they do SGT Pep on two 4 tracks?
Yes, bouncing it back and forth. Maybe this is where the drugs came in,
as something to keep them interested in what must have been very tedious
labour.