I finally understand the 60s - Page 2

lendaddy · 05-03-2009, 01:43 PM

I have no problem with people using drugs, I genuinely don't care...but to claim that dude is "lost in the music" is simply romanticizing the reality that he's just stoned out of his gourd. He could have been equally lost in an episode of the Rockford Files.

stomachmonkey · 05-03-2009, 02:01 PM

Hey now, don't be bustin on Tom.

Tom has sung toe - toe with the best of em, Janis, Aretha, Tina. His version of Burnin down the House and Princes Kiss with Art of Noise in the 80's were a lot of fun.

Turns 69 next month and he's still at it, Nov 08.

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I have no problem with people using drugs, I genuinely don't care...but to claim that dude is "lost in the music" is simply romanticizing the reality that he's just stoned out of his gourd. He could have been equally lost in an episode of the Rockford Files.

What's with your preocupation with drugs? Maybe you've never experienced the high of being "lost in the music"? Drugs aren't needed. Music can drug you...really. Well, maybe, I don't know you. A lot of musicians have always used drugs in one form or another; so what? I've never heard or read a critique of a musicians work related to its quality wherein drugs were even mentioned.

Did Cocker smoke pot, do acid, mushrooms, mescaline, hash? Wouldn't be surprised at all - many did; maybe even Tom Jones!

I'm pretty sure Lawrence Welk didn't though.

Back in the day, guys who made comments like, "to claim that dude is "lost in the music" is simply romanticizing the reality that he's just stoned out of his gourd" usually wore penny loafers and crew cuts...not that there's anything wrong with that!

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Hey now, don't be bustin on Tom.

Oh I don't be bustin' on Tom - one helluva singer!

I just think the visual juxtaposition of Tom and Joe, side by side, is pretty funny.

Seahawk · 05-03-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARISC

Joe always lef' me feelin'...

I wore out the LP...Mad Dogs & Englishmen. I was 14 and the only drug I had taken was aspirin...artists are what they are.

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I wore out the LP...Mad Dogs & Englishmen. I was 14 and the only drug I had taken was aspirin...artists are what they are.

You understand.

Dottore · 05-03-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I wore out the LP...Mad Dogs & Englishmen. I was 14 and the only drug I had taken was aspirin...artists are what they are.

Ditto. But I was 16. ;-)

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I was 14 and the only drug I had taken was aspirin...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dottore

Ditto. But I was 16. ;-)

Sunofabilfitch! I never even THOUGHT of dropping aspirin!

Dottore · 05-03-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARISC

Sunofabilfitch! I never even THOUGHT of dropping aspirin!

aspirin and coca cola did the trick...

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dottore

aspirin and coca cola did the trick...

Wow! My girlfriends back then (scores of them (heh,heh

)) used that mix as a spermicide!

Uhhhh.....never mind.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Am I mistaken that's he's high as a kite? He's lost all right but I don't think it's in the music.

Len, plenty of musicians get "lost in the music" with or without drugs. They aren't a prerequisite. People have a different way of engaging the material. For some it is internal, for others external. Just watch old videos of Clapton as opposed to Hendrix or Townsend. All of them would be lost in the music with very different "looks."

I love Joe Cocker, but I'm not sure I agree with the comment that he beats Van Morrison wrt stage presence. Watch any number of versions of Morrison doing "Caravan" and you'll see a different, but equally compelling performance.

stomachmonkey · 05-03-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

I love Joe Cocker, but I'm not sure I agree with the comment that he beats Van Morrison wrt stage presence. Watch any number of versions of Morrison doing "Caravan" and you'll see a different, but equally compelling performance.

Have seen them both live on several occasions.

Van gets stage fright, a lot, which turns him into a singing statue. He freely admits it.

Not knocking Van, I love his stuff but a live show is hit or miss.

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 04:45 PM

I always thought Lawrence Welk put on a scintillating show.

Christien · Christien's Garage

If drugs get you to that place, then have at it, IMHO. Whatever gets you there, could be music, drugs, love, cars, or a combination (well, maybe better not be drugs and cars!) if that's what it takes, go for it. Sometimes you need to throw caution to the wind to get to a special place. Nobody has ever soared to great heights by walking the line, whether that be in art, love, business, driving, you name it.

I'm sure Joe Cocker was right f*@(#d up during that performance. So what? If drugs get that kind of passion out of someone, then we should have a lot more of them around. You need to have experienced it to get it. The ticket there might not be drugs, but whatever it is, you have to take the ride.

Don't equate all drug use with crack whores, meth junkies and stoner pot heads. That's like equating all car guys as gold-chain-and-mullet Camaro drivers.

lendaddy · 05-03-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christien

Don't equate all drug use with crack whores, meth junkies and stoner pot heads. That's like equating all car guys as gold-chain-and-mullet Camaro drivers.

I'm not judging the drug use at all, have at it. I'm saying the performance was not better for it, the guy could barely form words....that's a good thing? Seriously? Having your talents lessened and reduced via chemicals creates a better performance? Is it the music or the stonage that's being celebrated? I think quite obviously the latter, which is fine but lets be honest here.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

So Len, who do you consider a good performer? And is good diction required?

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I'm not judging the drug use at all, have at it.

But it was you who brought up drugs, no?

I'm saying the performance was not better for it,

Has anyone on this thread said or implied that it was?

the guy could barely form words....

And Picasso could barely paint a recognizable picture of a woman?

that's a good thing?

It's a style thing, a signature thing, I'd say. Whether it's good or bad is purely subjective.

Seriously?

Yup.

Having your talents lessened and reduced via chemicals creates a better performance?

First, does that question reflect you, again, not judging drug use at all? Second, do you really think anyone posting here has said that "talents lessened and reduced via chemicals creates a better performance"? C'mon! That makes no sense at all!

Drugs are a whole 'nother topic and very controversial. What's pretty much accepted is that drugs (and alcohol) can "loosen" a person up. Whatever the results depend on what the loosened up person has to offer, which is usually more when loosened up as opposed to up tight. But again, the social/moral/legal propriety of using drugs is arguable, controversial and really, I think, not what the OP had in mind at all. To use the vernacular of that era, he dug what he heard.

Is it the music or the stonage that's being celebrated?

It -is - the - MUSIC. I can't imagine anyone leaving a concert of his (or any concert, for that matter) saying, "Man, he was sooo stoned! That was great!" Stonage - cool! Hadn't ever heard that word before.

I think quite obviously the latter, which is fine

C'mon, you really don't think it's fine - if that's the case, which you don't for a fact know.

but lets be honest here.

Honesty is always good. Who here do you see as not being honest? To be honest with you, you strike me as being a bit angry and up tight (again, the old vernacular). That's not meant to be a put-down, just an observation. Seriously. Do you drink at all? If so, I'd suggest getting buzzed and cranking up ol' Joe on the stare-e-oh. Mebbe your neural pathways would be altered and what moves others about the music being discussed here just might take a different path and move you too - which is NOT to say that alcohol is necessary!

..

Dottore · 05-03-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARISC

I always thought Lawrence Welk put on a scintillating show.

wunnerful, just wunnerful!

DARISC · 05-03-2009, 08:44 PM

Talk about a coincidence!

Okay.

Just got off phone w/gf when posting here and she tells me Joe Cocker's gonna be at Humphreys Concerts By The Bay in S.D. on 6/6 w/spec. guest LeRoy Bell, so I bought tickets. Great venue:

Gotta call my connection and score some Mary Jane, OOOOOH YEAH!

lendaddy · 05-04-2009, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

So Len, who do you consider a good performer? And is good diction required?

I think you're missing my point. That particular performance of that particular song was poor. The man was borderline passed out and I have heard it much better.

So when it was stated that this was one of the greatest all time performances I simply don't agree.

At some time before that show Cocker decided that getting crazy happy was more important to him than nailing his performance. Again, this is commendable?

Maybe if he had vomited on the mic and passed out it would have been the undisputed best ever?

And once again, Darisc you're barking up the wrong tree. I think most drugs should be legal and couldn't care less about his being stoned. My issue lies in the idea that that was great performance.

I think it's the nostalgia of the times that people are celebrating. In a time when kids were indulging in and justifying the drug culture it was likely a big hit to see a guy so openly baked take the national stage with zero concern for public perception or judgment.