do you think any member of u2 has ever been using any hard drugs

[u2wedge]

I do hope this is just sarcasm and not stupidity.

And which "best music made by addicts" are you referring to? Are any of them still alive?

there's some truth to what he says. Drugs have always been used as a way to escape into other worlds and to expand one's view of their own space. Jim Morrison, Jerry Garcia, Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin, Kurt Cobain, James Brown, George Harrison, John Lennon, the list goes on. You're right, they're not alive, but imagine the musical landscape if they never existed. And by all accounts they've all been involved with hard drugs and that definitely changes perspective and affects the creative process.

I don't endorse hard core drug use, but there is no arguing that hallucinagenic and other drugs don't affect the creative process in some amazing ways. Anyone who's tripped will tell you that they'll never look at the world the same way again.

 

[U2girl]

Edge and mushrooms, Adam and marijuana (alcohol and cigarettes/cigars if you want to count those as drugs).
I remember Edge saying they tried playing "under the influence" on stage once in the early years, but it was such a disaster they vowed not to do it again.

 

[U2girl]

Ever hear of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? That is a song about LSD.

I read an interview where Lennon said the song was based on his little son Julian's drawing, not LSD.

 

[J_NP]

there's some truth to what he says. Drugs have always been used as a way to escape into other worlds and to expand one's view of their own space. Jim Morrison, Jerry Garcia, Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin, Kurt Cobain, James Brown, George Harrison, John Lennon, the list goes on. You're right, they're not alive, but imagine the musical landscape if they never existed. And by all accounts they've all been involved with hard drugs and that definitely changes perspective and affects the creative process.

I don't endorse hard core drug use, but there is no arguing that hallucinagenic and other drugs don't affect the creative process in some amazing ways. Anyone who's tripped will tell you that they'll never look at the world the same way again.

This is just like muscle/doping drugs , in A short-time they have a good effect , but they end up fuckin u badly , really badly ..... It's just now worth it , THe real magic , just like someone buildin his body 'honestly' , Is an artist to do their magics without extra " inspiration ", Which I see as u2's case

 

[Chile]

Of all the people listed, the drugs didn't make them creative (or even more creative), didn't make their output any better, and certainly did nothing to help them on personal levels.

Some creative people who tune into drugs do so in the mistaken belief that they make life better, and they then rationalize the use through the false claim that the drugs help them think about things differently.

The opposite is true.

Drugs can be used to escape the emotional and physical demands inherent in the creative process, regardless of art form. The period where the artist needs to conceptualize something new is not helped with drug use, but it can make the process seem a lighter burden.

The irony is that the creative process is done to think about things differently and arrive at a new solution. So, if an artist uses them toward the same end, the creativity suffers.

If u2 used drugs (hard or soft) it had nothing to do with being creative and likely more to do with getting away from being creative.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

no. u2 have never done anything wrong

 

[u2wedge]

Of all the people listed, the drugs didn't make them creative (or even more creative), didn't make their output any better, and certainly did nothing to help them on personal levels.

Some creative people who tune into drugs do so in the mistaken belief that they make life better, and they then rationalize the use through the false claim that the drugs help them think about things differently.

The opposite is true.

Drugs can be used to escape the emotional and physical demands inherent in the creative process, regardless of art form. The period where the artist needs to conceptualize something new is not helped with drug use, but it can make the process seem a lighter burden.

The irony is that the creative process is done to think about things differently and arrive at a new solution. So, if an artist uses them toward the same end, the creativity suffers.

If u2 used drugs (hard or soft) it had nothing to do with being creative and likely more to do with getting away from being creative.

you can google multiple articles on any of the people that I listed where they say themselves of how drugs affected their creativity.

There are certainly situations where drugs negatively impact the creative process by crippling the ability to think, however there are just as many examples where drug use has expanded the artist's mind and allowed them to create things that they never could have thought of 'sober'. Of course the long term impact is that drugs DO tend to shorten user's lives, and therefore the creative process might also be shortened, but that does not mean that the creative process is necessarily diminished by drug use.

Your blanket statement that drugs implicitly and negatively impact the creative process is blind to history.

 

[u2trinity]

I know Bono said in a interview that he had experimented with
drugs , but didn't want to say what he tried because he didn't
want others to to do these drugs just because he tried them .
I can't remember what he said this on , but I'm sure someone
here will know where Bono stated this comment ?

 

[Utoo]

I know Bono said in a interview that he had experimented with
drugs , but didn't want to say what he tried because he didn't
want others to to do these drugs just because he tried them .
I can't remember what he said this on , but I'm sure someone
here will know where Bono stated this comment ?

I remember that, too. I don't think the article was that long ago. Was it in the Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas book?

 

[IanIinTheSky]

I remember Bono in the conversations book wouldn't comment on it because it would be a lose-lose situation. If he did try drugs that would be a story, and if he didn't try drugs that would be a story.

 

[Galeongirl]

I know Bono said in a interview that he had experimented with
drugs , but didn't want to say what he tried because he didn't
want others to to do these drugs just because he tried them .
I can't remember what he said this on , but I'm sure someone
here will know where Bono stated this comment ?

the rolling stone interview he did

 

[Dr. Lemonseed]

I've always thought McPhisto was coked up in ZooTV Sydney. For those in doubt, rewatch it. His eyes look different, and he's rubbing his nose a good bit, or at least ALMOST rubbing his nose then remembering he shouldn't do that. But w/e, I'm sure they've done a lot. They're weathered.

 

[cdisantis83]

The issue of musicians on drugs is an interesting one. It seems as though casual usage of hard drugs, if there is such a thing, can enhance creativity, but when it devolves into addiction, things tend to fall apart very quickly. The best example of this that I can think of is the Rolling Stones. Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Sticky Fingers, three absolute classics, are laden with drug references. When Keith became addicted, however, the output sank to the likes of Undercover and Dirty Work (I understand that there were other issues there, but the drugs seem to be the primary culprit). Similar instances occurred with Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page, and we all know what happened with Hendrix, Morrison, and Syd Barrett.

 

[coolian2]

I've always thought McPhisto was coked up in ZooTV Sydney. For those in doubt, rewatch it. His eyes look different, and he's rubbing his nose a good bit, or at least ALMOST rubbing his nose then remembering he shouldn't do that. But w/e, I'm sure they've done a lot. They're weathered.

But Macphisto isn't a member of U2

 

[junkydog]

i would suggest that if they have done hard drugs, then they would have the sense to never do them anywhere near the public, including on stage..

 

[rihannsu]

I've always thought McPhisto was coked up in ZooTV Sydney. For those in doubt, rewatch it. His eyes look different, and he's rubbing his nose a good bit, or at least ALMOST rubbing his nose then remembering he shouldn't do that. But w/e, I'm sure they've done a lot. They're weathered.

In Sydney Bono was performing with a badly sprained ankle. He may have had some pain killers but not enough because they were filming. Bono get's high on adrenaline on stage. He always looks like he's tripping when he comes off stage. You can see this clearly in videos from all through the band's career and he and the band have talked about it repeatedly in interviews. He has also stated that he thinks most performers get into drugs trying to recapture that feeling they get on stage.

Dana

 

[Rachel D.]

In Sydney Bono was performing with a badly sprained ankle. He may have had some pain killers but not enough because they were filming. Bono get's high on adrenaline on stage. He always looks like he's tripping when he comes off stage. You can see this clearly in videos from all through the band's career and he and the band have talked about it repeatedly in interviews. He has also stated that he thinks most performers get into drugs trying to recapture that feeling they get on stage.

Dana

This is true. He's said that he gets high on adrenaline while on stage and that's why he used to do reckless things like climbing onto scaffolding even though he's scared of heights.

But, as others have said, I'm sure that the guys have tried drugs at one time or another, but they obviously didn't go very far with it or they would be royally screwed up by now. They seem to be of sound mind as far as I can tell. However, after reading U2 by U2, I really don't see Larry trying drugs at any point. And I doubt any of the guys used heroine after what they said about it in the book and how they watched their friends destroy themselves with it.

 

[Val]

Of all the people listed, the drugs didn't make them creative (or even more creative), didn't make their output any better, and certainly did nothing to help them on personal levels.

Some creative people who tune into drugs do so in the mistaken belief that they make life better, and they then rationalize the use through the false claim that the drugs help them think about things differently.

The opposite is true.

Drugs can be used to escape the emotional and physical demands inherent in the creative process, regardless of art form. The period where the artist needs to conceptualize something new is not helped with drug use, but it can make the process seem a lighter burden.

The irony is that the creative process is done to think about things differently and arrive at a new solution. So, if an artist uses them toward the same end, the creativity suffers.

If u2 used drugs (hard or soft) it had nothing to do with being creative and likely more to do with getting away from being creative.

I so agree with this. I've been around a long time...watched many artists who have said numerous times drugs help their creativity end up so f___ up they couldn't even stand let alone create. My generation has buried many. I've also had many friends who early on in their drug experiment days painted or wrote a poem or a song and continued using only to end up burnt out because of drugs. So no, I would never say drugs are good for ones creativity. No way. If Bono ever did drugs, I think it a safe bet it wasn't for any length of time. IMHO

 

[cobl04]

This is where I get bagged when I tell people U2 are my favourite band. "They're pussy" people tell me. Because they don't do drugs. Why is a band immortalised over another because they're all dead drug addicts? That said, drugs and music have meshed together for ages, and as u2wedge said, is part of history. Drugs create all the scandal for which music would be boring without. I also agree with the point about drugs and creativeness. Drugs would enhance creativeness, The Beatles are a good example. It's part of the aura of the Stones. But yes, they may not be worth it all in the end.

I read an interview where Lennon said the song was based on his little son Julian's drawing, not LSD.

I read that as well, but Paul McCartney also admits that it is about LSD, but they couldn't say it at the time.

The final thing I'll say is that I'm glad U2 haven't used drugs excessively because as a result they are still putting on mind-blowing live shows and belting out terrific tunes.

 

[thrillme]

Well they've all touched alcohol and tabacco, and though they're "legal" drugs, they can still mess you up.

 

[IanIinTheSky]

The Edge is my drug

 

[Val]

we got a few songs from the Beatles while they were experimenting with drugs. We got many songs when they werent. I wonder what the quality of music would have been like if they weren't high. Who's to say it wouldn't have been even better.
Also, drugs can cause depression and paranoia. I don't buy the Beatles broke up over Yoko theory. I'm sure moods, attitudes etc had something to do with it.

The Beatles are the masters of music, so please don't think I'm ragging on them. I just
have seen first hand that drugs suck the life out of people. So boys and girls...just say no.

Ps I'm not claiming sainthood here.

 

[Chile]

you can google multiple articles on any of the people that I listed where they say themselves of how drugs affected their creativity.

There are certainly situations where drugs negatively impact the creative process by crippling the ability to think, however there are just as many examples where drug use has expanded the artist's mind and allowed them to create things that they never could have thought of 'sober'. Of course the long term impact is that drugs DO tend to shorten user's lives, and therefore the creative process might also be shortened, but that does not mean that the creative process is necessarily diminished by drug use.

Your blanket statement that drugs implicitly and negatively impact the creative process is blind to history.

You believe a junkie when they say that the substance to which they are addicted is really something that helps them be more creative? Would you say that knowing that all addicts find ways to rationalize their drug use regardless?

I'm neither blind to history nor ignorant of facts. For thousands of years, humans have consumed some form of drug and a few have also created art. However, to say that one is dependent on the other for great composition is a value judgment not born from a basis of fact.

Furthermore, I would say the introduction of new cultural influences and improved technology affected the creative output of latter 20th century artists much in the way Japanese patterns and photography affected visual art in the latter 19th century, and much more than any consumption of a substance.

To briefly escape the creative process can make you more creative during the times you focus to be creative, sure. However, drugs still have nothing to do with being creative, being more creative, or creating at all.

Drugs can be the metaphor to a great story, lyric, or prose, but so can taking a walk, after midnight or listening to the night train. Creative people perceive the impact of both without the need of anything more than what they imagine.

added:
the creative process to which I speak is the way artists combine ideas to arrive at original and apt composition. In visual art, this can be a very tiresome experience as the most conventional ideas are discovered, and the artist moves on to the really interesting stuff through exploration of material and mark. Musicians are trained to go through the same process but with different tools.

 

[shart1780]

They're addicted to the miracle drug.

 

[coolian2]

They're addicted to the miracle drug.

It did not take four pages for a Miracle Drug joke did it?

 

[corianderstem]

It really, really did.

We're slipping, people!

 

[kimby]

I swear there was a Rolling Stone cover story back in the late 80s where Bono smokes hash during the interview.

No, no, no--I read that story--he wasn't *smoking* hash, he was *eating* hash (as in a food product made from potatoes) in a diner!

 

[corianderstem]

I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

On the chance that you are ....

How dare you reinforce the stereotype that the Irish only eat potatoes!

 

[beegee]

I don't endorse hard core drug use, but there is no arguing that hallucinagenic and other drugs don't affect the creative process in some amazing ways. Anyone who's tripped will tell you that they'll never look at the world the same way again.

i absolutely agree.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

It really, really did.

We're slipping, people!

All my faith in this board has been lost.