Re: Peter Gabriel & Drugs

[John Precedo <jp@doc.ic.ac.uk>]

In article <sYvQkoy00WB5R3SaB5@andrew.cmu.edu> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes:
>Really-From: Matthew Tobias Diamond <md26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>
>This is getting a little annoying.  The "Pete never touches the stuff"
>contingent has referred to articles that he is clean, at least in recent years.
>The "Pete was a serious user" folks are using Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
>as the primary justification for their opinion...  
>My personal opinion is that you can't really tell whether a musician
>uses drugs or not solely on the basis of their work.  

OK, well here's my personal opinion. Who cares if a musician uses drugs or not?
If an individual wishes to kill themselves slowly by using various pharmacutical
substances, then it's their funeral, right? And if their music goes down the
tubes, then they are not progressing as a musician. But why should the two
be judged as one subject? Unless s/he specifically says "My music is lousy
because I'm permanantly stoned". But they may use drugs and still produce 
good music...so worry about the music, not the drugs. If I listen to a 
(to me) totally new piece of music, I don't care if the artist was on drugs
or hanging upside down from the roof eating a pineapple as long as it SOUNDS
GOOD. Me, I'm still trying to overdose on caffeine!

>I hope I'm not coming across too strongly here;  just trying to make a point.

Don't worry about that, so is everyone else!

--John

==============================================================================
Dept. of Computing		JANET : jp@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk
Imperial College
180 Queens Gate		The above are all my opinions...but if I don't care
London SW7 2BZ			about them, why should you?
===============================================================================