Re: virus: Crave that speed!

Sodom (
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 23:32:55 -0400

Wade T.Smith wrote:
> >Had they never done so, most art would not even exist.
> Interesting hypothesis. I am not about to refute it completely either.
> (Although I may turn to 'states-of-mind' from time to time.)
> However-
> Your example of musicians is also interesting, but- and here even such a
> tied-down-at-the-stake aesthetician as myself begins to twinge- where is
> the 'art' of the musician, and is there not a point at which a level of
> intoxication is detrimental? (Not that I'm a big Deadhead, but some of
> their stuff was simply gawdawful, and it coincided with their most
> drugged-up states.)
> And there are levels of achievement here as well. The performance of an
> improvisational electric rock band is not Brahms' Third, nor could Brahms
> be performed adequately by a stoned orchestra. Yes? There is no evidence
> that Brahms was an addict of anything. (And the list of composers without
> drug connections is long and withering evidence against your position.)
> But art and its creation is one of the (to me) true philosophical
> subjects.
> *****************
> Wade T. Smith
> | "There ain't nothin' you
> | shouldn't do to a god."
> |
> ******* *******

Yes all the way around. I am not saying they must be on it when they
create, just that at some point they experimented and this opened them
up to perceptions they could have achieved very few other ways. The
other ways would be through natural hallucination, meditation, sickly
delusions - pretty much a state of mind.

I have never thought the Gratefull Dead was gawdawful, this is just
subjective. An example is the ine you mentioned, I never like Brahms,
but love Bach. Can't stand Mozart, but like Beethoven.

Absolutely - there is a point where you are too messed up to perform -
absolutely, but experienced users can usually avoid such a point.