Artists, singers and drugs: a combination that often seems to be undivided. A lot of artists and singers confessed their use of drugs raising very important questions: “Is it fair that people who have such an enormous influence on teenagers, show them harmful, illegal behaviour?” Furthermore  “Do the drugs really help the artistic creativity and the performances on the stage or in a studio?” and “Should record labels check their artists for drugs use?”. About the first question, is undoubted that youths look up to them as idols and models, trying to imitate them and dreaming day by day to be as they are. Who, handling a guitar, didn’t ever wish to be Jimi Hendrix (photo on the right) or Slash ? Who, humming a tune, didn’t ever imagine being Robbie Williams or Leona Lewis? Who, believing to be like them, never took drugs and then started to play or sing? A simple and fine dream that turned itself in a deadly addiction! Regarding to the other questions, there are several sides in the matter. Firstly, if an artist needs drugs to be creative, he really isn’t much of an artist. Although there can be something said for drugs impacting on a particularly creative period for artists. Heroin provided Jimmy Page with some amazing music. It also sustained Keith Richards for a number of years. Cocaine and the first three Oasis records. Ecstasy and The Verve’s A Northern Soul. Even look at the influence drugs had on The Beatles. They went from She Loves You to Tomorrow Never Knows. There are numerous examples of artists being very creative on drugs. But if a band cannot create without drugs, then they aren’t much of a band. All drugs can really alter perceptions, but they don’t give any skills an artist didn’t already have. In other words, they may provide some inspiration, but they don’t make one more creative. Inspiration and creativity aren’t the same thing. If you take a creative person and an uncreative person and give them the same source of inspiration, whether it’s a hit of acid or a pretty sunset, they’re going to come up with two very different pieces of art. Secondly, it is known the record companies want to make money first and foremost. If an artist, for example, is under contract for four albums, it is in the labels best interest to keep him clean in order to ensure the contract will be fulfilled. But on the other hand, if the labels want to start drug testing bands, rock & roll as we know it would probably die. However, the labels can exert some kind of control over an artist. Drugs have become such a huge aspect of the culture of music because of what they represent. They’re seen as a victimless crime outlawed by the establishment just because they’re prudes. So, taking drugs, singing about them and showing a bad behaviour, has become a symbol for the rebellious spirit of rock & roll.

Published in January 2008 on www.clubdtv.com