Oh God, NME Tries To Start Yet Another New Movement ..... SHROOMADELICA - The music movement that will 'weird up your head',

i don't know... i agree about psychedelics, etc. but what about the influence of a drug like heroin? maybe its more that the psyche of a junkie is more likely to influence their art than the junk itself? and someone experimenting with psychedelics is less likely to be making a conscious life decision as someone who chooses (jesus, i feel like a tory minister saying this) to become a junkie.

Richard Pinhas released an album earlier this year, Tranzition. An astonishing intoxicating mixture of electronics and kaleidoscope guitar sounds.
http://cuneiformrecords.com/bandshtml/pinhas.html

This is far superior to the weak radio friendly bands it labels as psychedelic.

The difference is more that heroin is physically addictive while psychedelics are only psychologically addictive. So maybe being a pscyhedelic-using hippie is a lifestyle in that you *can* wake up one day and decide you've had enough of, while being a heroin-using junkie is a *life* in that it's a far harder thing to give up once you've got into it.

Different drugs attract different personality types. Any user - either an artist but more likely a fan - is going to be drawn to the ones that tick their particular brain-chemistry/personality boxes.

Drugs in Music:

1) Jazz / heroin = Environment
2) Sixties bands: Bands who experiment with music more likely to experiment with drugs. The drugs experience informs the music. Bands who do not experiment with either, settle for a comfortable 'ballroom' existance (freddie and the dreamers worked their five hits and various well known tracks for 40 years afterwards).
3) the notion drugs = good music was born. Erroneously.
4) Anyone with a ready and plentiful supply was supposedly a musical genius. Terrible music was made.
5) Suddenly, everyone got abstemious/took other drugs/drank instead. Music more accessible, but not neccesarily better.
6) Anyone with a pocket of blow gets stoned and writes drone anthems aout their girlfriend's beautiful eyes. But does not notice girl has gone home. Then does. And writes another song about girlfriends eyes. From a photograph.
7) Now the drugs experience is well documented. You don't actually have to do them to make good music. You just have to know your shit.
8) if 6 was none?

Especially number 7. These days, people are attracted to artists who appear to be documenting the drugs they wish they were taking...

(or is it just me?)

I lost my post I just made, rats: summary was:

Noel Gallagher: Taking Drugs is the same as a cup of tea,
he never said a more true thing.
So who would write a song where dgs appear as an incidental rather than 'what the song is about' or 'what the drug is a metaphor for' or vice versa.

(The original lost posting was much better btw)

I'd have to agree here.

Just tap them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say "NO!" in a loud, commanding voice.

i'm almost 100% sure Zappa didn't take any drugs aside from nicotine and caffeine."

Beefheart has often claimed not have done so - however everyone I've ever spoken to who actually knows / knew the man tells me that this is utter bollocks.

It's slightly easier to believe that Zappa didn't because of his evidently rampant OCD - but only slightly

That is hilarious and so dead-on.

i must hear this! please!

er. um. i don't quite know what to say about this......

New drug euphemism?

... and the Lips (hi Wayne, remember the Foolkiller!) were from Norman, OK, a college town within doable gig distance. there was a midwest local tour curcuit - columbia, MO, Norman OK, Lawrence, KS, Topeka, KS, Lincoln NB and it was very cooperative, low key and close knit. Close knit enough for me to have lots of stories i won't tell you.

For as long as I can remember loads of people I know have used the term 'shit NME bands' for any of those boring, middle of the road indie rock bands that they trumpet, presumably because they're too scared not to (I give them the credit of not actually liking that pap).

I'm not being facetious, if someone I know said to me "oh, such-and-such are one of those shit NME bands..." I'd know exactly what they sound like and probably how they look and act too.

BTW a band doesn't actually have to be in NME to be a 'shit NME band', they just have to be the sort.

Recently though Kerrang! has got a lot more diverse so it's not so useful.

isn't this just a new version of "Steve Lamacq approved bands"?

Shit NME music
Shilola NME music
shoe shine nme bands
shoe shnme bands
shoegazer bands

So I bought the album (which turned out to be The Delays) and exactly three songs sound like that. And the rest of it is Doomie-bait sub-Byrdsian La's style jingle jangle. Sigh.

(If there were a style of music I could be said to hate, it would be Lame Kerrang Bands. There was an interview with the bloke what runs it in the Camden New Journal a few weeks ago, coz apparently Kerrang is run out of Camden and I wanted to stick a pencil in his eye by the end of it.)

I don't think they're the greatest anything ever, and I'd never start a movement around them, but their singer's voice is really nice. He sounds like a GURL and that is the highest compliment I can give someone.