Do drugs unleash a creative force in artists? If so, does quitting drugs then handicap you as an artist? I’ve received many questions around this topic over the past few months, and to be honest, I don’t know the best way to answer them. Luckily though, an interesting article just came along which should forward this debate in a constructive way.
Music critic Tom Hawking wrote a piece for Flavorpill titled Going Clean: Drugs and Creativity in the Lives of 10 Musicians, which compares the sober and addicted work by several prominent musicians. He puts forward a great theory “that musicians’ drug-taking coincides with the early stages of their career, and they often get clean at about the same stage they run out of ideas.”
This would gel with the idea of the “sophomore slump” which holds that many musicians never top their first album or at least disappoint fans with subsequent work because the first album that they get famous for is often the product of years of refinement of their best material – time they had available because they hadn’t yet found a record deal. Then when the record is a great hit, the record company and the fans expect the artist to churn out another album of the same quality in only a year’s time. That’s one explanation for the sophomore slump amongst others (that they get jaded, or that they try to repeat a formula, etc), and it’s not just limited to second albums – some have a few good albums, and then a marked dropoff in quality. The point is, it’s a pretty common phenomenon, which isn’t limited to artists with drug use habits.
Hawkings point suggests that maybe the pre and post sobriety periods of many musicians’ lives tend to line up with the phenomenon of the sophomore slump. Considering the natural life course of addiction (that it usually starts in young adulthood, and ends somewhere in the late twenties to early thirties for the majority of people), the theory holds even more water.
I have another theory to add to the mix. There have been a number of music stars who died during a high point of both their career and addiction – names like Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, and Jim Morrison come to mind. With these artists stories in mind, many are quick to conclude that drugs are a key tool in reaching artistic greatness. Yet these artists only had early careers – they died before we had the chance to see whether their later career work would fizzle out or not – whether a continuing drug habit would propel them to greater heights of artistry, or just result in an artistic mess – nor did we have the chance to see whether a stab at cleaning up would make them lose their luster, or whether it would unleash a newfound focus, level of productiveness, and artistry which would make their earlier work pale in comparison. There’s just no way of knowing, so it’s really unfair to conclude that drug use enhanced their work – yet, we’re left with the legacy of their work while under the influence, combined with a culture which immortalizes anyone who dies young as a legend – and this leads to the questionable conclusion that drug use makes you a better artist.
Ultimately, when you’re looking for proof one way or the other on this, I think you’ll find what you’re looking for. That is, artistic merit is a subjective issue, as evidenced by Hawking’s article and the response from readers of it. Many great works can be cited by artists who created them while they were high – and many can be cited by artists who created while they were stone cold sober. I think many people who want an excuse to continue their drug habits will tend to find the evidence which supports that goal. However, there is another trap – drug addicted artists are sensational, and their stories are highly visible – while those artists who never relied on drugs are also plentiful, their stories simply aren’t as sexy, and thus aren’t focused on by the media. Those of us who are looking for a real answer to the question of whether drugs are a reliable creative tool shouldn’t fall into the trap of ignoring the artists who took the straighter path.
Do you have any examples to share?
Don’t forget to check the original article on Flavorpill: Going Clean: Drugs and Creativity in the Lives of 10 Musicians, his reviews of various artists’ pre and post sobriety work seems to come out 50/50 – he offers evidence that it can go either way.
Huge example of a sober musician who stayed creative throughout his career–Frank Zappa. He produced over fifty albums while alive and in his latter years was (finally) getting respect for his classical music compositions that were so near to his heart. He survived and thrived decades well beyond the 60’s when he got his start, while many of his contemporaries did not.
I think U2 are an example of a band that stayed away from Hard Drugs ( they do like to Drink !) and prospered. Nick Kent a famous music jouralist (N.M.E.) and a ‘victim’ of Kieth Richards, stated in his autobiography ,how it is one of their major reasons for success , not destroying their Central Nervous system with Hard Drugs.
Many would argue that Britney Spears should not be included in the group of talented musicians mentioned in your article, but she is a great example of how substance use (i.e. addiction) derailed a promising career. Then, of course, there is Michael Jackson, arguably one of the most gifted artists in my lifetime whose obvious emotional problems, questionable behaviors and subsequent (physician endorsed) drug problems eventually led to his untimely death. One thing to consider is drug use during the 50s, 60s and early 70s was largely underground, and not generally accepted or supported by the mainstream. Today we live a much different world where many of these artists are expected to be emotionally unstable due the vast difficulties of living life famous and successful…what?!? Really? Overpayed, private physicians push dangerous drugs in much the same way the corner dealer used to 40 years ago. Feeling down, feeling up, feeling anxious or tired; your life is so hard, here, this will help. I wonder how many one-hit wonders have been completely derailed due to a quick rise to fame and fortune and unlimited access to the rockstar party scene and physician “drug dealers” on speed dial.
This is just an opinion.As much as I would like to read Tom Hawking’s article, I don’t have time right now. I have to go to an NA meeting and then I have band practice right after that. I did scan over it real quick like and I noticed that all the artists picked are famous not only for there talent but equally so for there drug and alcohol use. I will probably post more after I read it. I just have to say it’s unfair to just associate music with drugs and alcohol. Sure there are a lot of famous artists, who are known for there ‘vices’, but there are probably more who aren’t who are equally talented.Some of which we will never hear of. This is profiling plain and simple. It’s not drugs and alcohol that brings out the creative juices, it’s life. Happy, sad, high, low, messed up and sober are all experiences in life and music and art is an interpretation of an artists life. Again , this is only an opinion and I’ve been on enough boards to know someone will get pissed off by this, don’t take it personally, and if you do, write a song about it.
Yes. Steve. You pretty much summed up the point of the article. You would have saved yourself a lot of time if you’d actually read it!