|
Post by toom on May 7, 2009 19:39:24 GMT
Louisiana Red talked about some of the blues legends playing like the devil after drinking hooch (illegal booze) - I wish I could remember who he mentioned. Do you play better blues after a little booze? I know I do. Improvisations, bluesy riffs, some really good stuff. Just can't play it again the next time Very frustrating. Didn't work the last time I played in public, but at home ... yeah.
Anyway, enough chatting -on with the booze blues!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by frank64f on May 7, 2009 19:56:15 GMT
ANYTHING sounds better to me after a little booze! ;D Frank
|
|
|
Post by Gerry C on May 8, 2009 14:56:56 GMT
I always used to think I played better after a couple of snorts - until someone recorded me at a pub gig where someone else was driving so I didn't have to stay sober. I was terrible (even worse than usual!) My time was all over the place, my voice was frequently off-key, instruments ever-so-slightly out of tune. Worst of all, I thought I'd done a really good gig...
These days I NEVER drink alcohol when I'm playing in public, and not just because 99 times out of 100 I'm driving. It may sound a bit prissy but even for a free-entry pub gig I think people have given me their time and the landlord/lady has booked me and paid me to do a show. So they deserve the best I can give and I can't do that if I've been drinking. Hell, I can hardly play some of the stuff I do when I'm stone cold sober!!
I've always been puzzled by the attitude of some musicians (especially but not only in the blues and folk fields) that you have to drink - or be drugged to your eyeballs - to put on a good show. It might work for some people but it doesn't work for me and, sad to say, it does affect the quality of people's performance (stop sniggering at the back!). A few years ago I was involved with a band who were friends of my son. I'd loan them bits of gear, drive members around etc. In rehearsal they were terrific: hard-working, focused, the whole nine yards. When they had a gig at a good local venue they started drinking at about six o'clock because they were nervous. They didn't have a lot, but they were also drinking during the show and by the middle of their second set... (See paragraph 1 above). They never got another booking at that room.
Muddy Waters is reputed to have said that members of his band should "turn up for work on time, well-dressed and sober". Come to think of it, how many jobs are there where it's thought OK to turn up a bit the worse for wear and get even worse in the course of your working day/night? (OK, apart from journalism! ;D) I'm just asking the question, not casting aspersions at anyone, and I know it's "only entertainment" but, for me, professional musicians should not set themselves lower standards in this regard than other professions. Would you be happy if your dentist had had a couple of snorts before he set to work on your root canal? Or a car mechanic who was fixing your brakes after four pints at lunchtime? Or your kids' teacher who's been to the pub at lunchtime?
Now when I'm at home, a nice drop of Montepulciano or Gaillac can make me think I'm a blend of Knopfler, Clapton and Django... ;D ;D ;D
Cheerily,
Gerry C
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on May 8, 2009 15:19:23 GMT
Louisiana Red was talking about Lightning Hopkins drinking various concoctions of illegal alcohol to enable him to play & do his stuff.
I think all of these 'safety nets' (alcohol & other drugs) in most cases, are used by performers in a ritualistic & habitual way. A little nip of this or a toke of that to relax and focus the mind can be good, but not if it affects the music or the performance in a negative way.
I cannot play accurately when I have been drinking alcohol, so I never drink when I am doing concerts.
Shine On Michael.
|
|
|
Post by andys on May 8, 2009 20:05:16 GMT
I'm the same.
Alcohol (or any stimulants) should be only ever used as an inspiration, not a crutch. I reckon that I sound better when Ive been drinking, but I dont play better!!
Here's me. Its Friday night. I have a good meal inside of me, plus a few snifters. I may well play a guitar later. I might come up with a new tune. maybe I'll record it. If it sounds good, sober, in the morning, I may go further with it. But to play it live, or record it gain, I would be straight and sober.
I'm the same as Michael. At one time I used to gig with a few pints inside me. But beyond the Pogues that doesnt cut it. If someone is paying you to play and paying to see you play, you are working. Have a few sherbets afterwards, but you dont drink and work IMO.
The difference is in inspiration. If you are inspired to write a song/tune under any influence its fair game. That has been true thru the centuries. But to perform it to a paying audience is a differnt matter. In fact I woukd guess that even the most excessive bands (Stones, to name but one) who wrote music under various chemical influences, still needed to be pretty straight to perform it night after night for hours on end.
Just IMHO of course.
I'm off now to get another beer. And play my guitar!
|
|
|
Post by snakestretcher on May 9, 2009 0:39:10 GMT
I'll happily play while nursing a scotch or two at home but never in public-and definitely not when someone is paying you to do the best job you can do. After the gig is another matter entirely
|
|
|
Post by toom on May 9, 2009 19:31:47 GMT
I was talking about composing/improvising rather than playing in public. Notice I said "a little booze", not 10 pints. I don't drink lunchtimes as I deal with the public, and like to be in control. I don't drink when I cycle-tour, I don't like it. I don't drink that often generally.
However - as John Fahey said -
"It wasn't really that weird from a harmonic, rhythmic standpoint (his music). It would just touch on these deeper, darker emotions. I wouldn't call myself a great guitar player but I'm an awfully deep one. I play best when my conscious is altered. Sometimes, I make so-called mistakes but it's a lot more fun than playing this standard three-minute song over and over again."
That sums up how I feel about playing. You don't need to drink/take drugs to play, but sometimes if you do, you can be more creative. People alter their state of consciousness whenever they play, moving from the beta state into an alpha state, creative state, with or without alcohol/other drugs.
Just listen to Fahey playing Steamboat Gwine Round Da Bend and you can see he's experiencing the sounds from an altered state of consciousness. From the soul.
|
|
|
Post by toom on May 10, 2009 18:09:00 GMT
or this crazy piece
|
|
|
Post by maxxengland on May 11, 2009 20:43:06 GMT
I was recorded a long time ago in a friend's living room late at night when we had both drunk much relaxant; the technical quality of playing wasn't too much worse that normal, but with the brakes off, the emotional quality of the music was better. Now I can open up without the milk of amnesia, so I don't want to go down that route, but I do understand that some will use it. It's not a healthy or long term option, but I see it's uses.
One physiological point to make is that under the influence of adrenaline, the blood supply to your extremities is reduced, so reducing sensitivity and dexterity and for that reason alone, I sometimes have one whisky before I get up on a stage or at an open mic, as alcohol opens the capillaries back up. Beyond that, I wait until after, then do the job properly if I have a mind to.
|
|