bands better on drugs... bands better clean...

Originally posted by you be pickup:
Bowie was better on drugs, as was Iggy.

on the latter - just barely. based on his performance earlier this year at the club i'd say iggy's still got it despite getting back on the wagon… i believe that some 1200 people in attendance that night will back me on this.

now the question is, are the smashing pumpkins better to see while on drugs or clean? 'CAUSE I JUST GOT TICKETS, BITCHES!!!

<averting the predictable snide remarks: "the pumpkins are best not seen at all". har. har.>

pumpkins definitely better on drugs. saw them 10 years ago and got pulled over by the coppers after the show. lucky for me i didn't get a dui or car search.

richard ashcroft/verve - better on drugs
stones - better on drugs
(agree) wilco - better on drugs
lou reed - better on drugs
eric clapton - better on drugs

honestly, i can't think of anyone who is better since climbing on the wagon.

Steve Earle is much better on the wagon. And have to disagree on Wilco.

Originally posted by joz:
pumpkins definitely better on drugs. saw them 10 years ago and got pulled over by the coppers after the show. lucky for me i didn't get a dui or car search.

richard ashcroft/verve - better on drugs
stones - better on drugs
(agree) wilco - better on drugs
lou reed - better on drugs
eric clapton - better on drugs

honestly, i can't think of anyone who is better since climbing on the wagon.

Trent Reznor, much better when he was on drugs. Just compare Downward to the new stuff.

I was thinking about NIN. If I'm not mistaken, I read an interview where Reznor said he didn't get heavily into drugs until after TDS . . . he kind of dove into the persona he created. I think NIN falls into the same category as Oasis - where 'recreational' drugs led to a burst of creativity which created a world that led to harder stuff which killed said creativity.

I think Depeche Mode also falls in that category. I think I also read that Gahan started doing smack after seeing Jane's Addition post-Violator and thinking to himself "I'm a rock star . . . I should do that." The rest (and Depeche Mode's glory days) is history.

Hey, Anyone here like The Smashing Pumpkins? We used to think that Gish (and Starla etc from the era) were products of a band on the same drug induced wavelength. But "despite all my rage I'm still just a rat in a cage" sounds like dead misguided sober poetry. I feel like Corgan sobered up and became so tedious he drove everyone else over the edge drug-wise. Just theoretical though. Billy?

Originally posted by Mobius:
I think Depeche Mode also falls in that category. I think I also read that Gahan started doing smack after seeing Jane's Addition post-Violator and thinking to himself "I'm a rock star . . . I should do that." The rest (and Depeche Mode's glory days) is history.

That's weird he would think that because Jane's Addiction has sucked since about the time 'Violator' came out, in '90 or '91.

Modest Mouse is much better sober. I saw them drunk and it was terrible.

smashing pumpkins

Originally posted by walkonby:
smashing pumpkins

I don't think the Pumpkins have ever been totally clean. They're not doing heroin, but Corgan has readily admitted using mushrooms regularly throughout the recording of Adore, and has never been a drinker. He claims an alcohol allergy.

Don't we all have allergic reactions to alcohol if we drink enough? ;)

DLR-era Van Halen was a shit-hot live act early on, and while they certainly weren't sober then, they weren't as heavy into the booze and blow as they were around Diver Down and 1984. And those '84 shows were a pale imitation to the years prior.

Originally posted by Relaxer:
DLR-era Van Halen was a shit-hot live act early on, and while they certainly weren't sober then, they weren't as heavy into the booze and blow as they were around Diver Down and 1984. And those '84 shows were a pale imitation to the years prior.

Agreed. Exhibit #1? Their set at the 1983 US Festival.

Brian

How about the Replacements? Better drunk or sober? I guess that's the ultimate toss-up.

Originally posted by bearman:
How about the Replacements? Better drunk or sober? I guess that's the ultimate toss-up.

I think the Replacements were like the Faces. Better drunk. Not even "better." They didn't EXIST unless they were drunk.

Brian

For the Replacements, the verdict on their records is a no-brainer. With Bob Stinson, they made several absolute classics that will still be listened to 50 years after their release. With Slim Dunlop, they made Westerburg solo albums.

On stage, the Bob-era band could be brilliant or they could be absolute shit. The Slim-era band was much more professional and "clean", but also not nearly as exciting. When I want to hear some live Mats, it's always the '83 Lingerie Club show or the Shit Shower Shave boot. I never listen to my Slim boots.