Byrds And Drugs

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:15 am

From the New York Daily News

Musician David Crosby nabbed at Times Sq. hotel

Marijuana, gun-possession charges

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Musician David Crosby was arrested on marijuana and gun possession charges early Saturday at a Times Square hotel, police said. Crosby, 62, a two-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, had checked out of the hotel but left a piece of luggage behind, police said.

A hotel worker found the bag and went through it looking for identification, and called police after finding marijuana, a .45-caliber handgun and two knives, authorities said.

Crosby was met by police when he returned to pick up the bag, investigators said.

Crosby, a founding member of both the Byrds and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, had been performing at the B.B. King Blues Club off Times Square and at Shea Auditorium in Wayne, N.J.

In 1985 he was convicted of drug possession in Dallas and spent a year in prison before his conviction was overturned on appeal.

Calls seeking comment from Crosby's management company were not immediately returned Saturday.

Originally published on March 6, 2004

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:31 pm

The trend of the Byrd's members using drugs spans four decades. As a follow-up question to the above post. Do you think that the music of The Byrds would have been significantly different without the influence of drugs?

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:39 pm

tonewerks · Post by **tonewerks** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:05 pm

Way to go Dave! Some people never learn.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:18 am

My thoughts are that the first two Byrd albums are true classics and the remainder of their work, is less interesting and a departure from these two highly influential albums.

Certainly the content of "Eight Miles High" and "5D" appear to be inspired by drugs but the presentation of other songs that involved electronic effects and alternate tunings may also have steemed from "bending the mind" through the use of psychoactive substances.

So would we have had the same unique quality of song writing, performance and recording without drugs? I think that the answer to this is no. What was the impetus for the emphasis on heavy sustain and compression, for example?

The topic of Byrds and drugs has certainly come up on this forum before.

It is also probably a safe bet that the Byrds would have done better than two number one hits had there been greater stability in the band. That drugs compromised the cohesion of the group is documented in a number of sources, one of which can be found on the MusicWeb Enclyclopedia of Popular Music.

"Tumultuous musical experimentation, too many drugs and personality clashes meant constantly changing lineups; it was a miracle they lasted as long as they did, yet they retained their identity and influence on rock."

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:07 am

Fascinating stuff! How could the drug use not have had an effect? If not on songwriting (which would be doubtful) then at least on the seemingly fragile inter-band relationships.

diomedes · Post by **diomedes** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:44 pm

I think that drugs helped the Byrds to a certain extent. While "Turn! Turn! Turn!" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" were excellent albums, the band would lose it's zest by repeating the stuff over and over. Would "Thoughts and Words" be as good without all the looping backwards guitar tracks? Though, it did influence stuff like "Mind Gardens" as well.

When it comes to bands, drugs can either help or kill. I think for the Byrds it did a bit of both.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:59 am

When I was young I used a lot of stuff, certainly never helped me one bit in my musical career, if anything it held me back greatly. Even now I play with people on the stuff (you can't help it, unless you are really lucky) and they always seem scattered. The best musicians I play with are the straight ones, and it has always been that way for me, even when I was up in the clouds. The straight ones show up on time, remember what they are supposed to play, are more creative, have more mental and physical energy and are more professional in general. If anyone thinks drugs help are helping them with their creativity they are fooling themselves. Even if that were true to a certain extent, eventually you'll burn out, and I believe this to be true even with pot. I can't stand playing with stoned musicians, even though I have to sometimes, they just don't have that edge that you need. I can think of many great bands that broke up as a result of drugs.
I wonder what would have happened to The Beatles if Lennon hadn't been a junkie near the end? They are loads of fun to deal with.
I am certainly not a Byrds expert, but they too seemed to get very scattered as time went on. Frank Zappa was straight, his stuff was great right up until the day he died. (maybe not when they did Freakout) haha!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:41 am

Forgot to say: This is only my humble (?) haha! opinion.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:21 am

None of the bands I've been in ever consisted of substance abusers (and this is L.A.!) Even now, at the most we'll have a beer while playing (well, I won't, messes up my vocal abilities even worse than they are). For a short while, I'd have a Vodka Gimlet, straight (yum) onstage, but even the slightest bit of alcohol affects me, and I'd be forgetting things (chords, songs) with just a few sips. I'm glad my current situation doesn't involve the L.A. druggie type musicians I see right and left. As for writing, haven't tried under the influence of pot, I'll have to get back to you on this.

chingnchime · Post by **chingnchime** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:45 pm

Hi- I'm new here. I DO think drugs played a significant role in Byrds history. Had to. Eight Miles High. Are you kidding? And i don't mean just because of the title. I think it opened them up, at least lyrically, possibly musically, too. Years ago, a joint would inspire my writing, too, but i rarely use it anymore (for writing). I remember a fun 'game' in the 70s would be seeing how much smoke we could ingest and still 'maintain' on a professional level. A bit of tightrope walking. I saw a mid 70s version of the Burritos and they came on looking bedraggled and wasted, then proceeded to knock the crowd on its ***. I also think as one ages, those powers diminish. Lotsa great posts here that I'm enjoying!

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:47 pm

Some "notes"...
...writing "under influence" - yes it is possible. Some even say they cannot write without it. I doubt it. Well, at least, it never happened to me, although i tried (well, it was something pretty 'innocent' - when it's a beer/vodka/etc, it's okay, when it's p.o.t. ... is anything else needed, like writing?). Seems like "wow, it's cool, it comes out great!" The following morning, and you're sober, and you take a look at what you've written, and see now - "gee, it's rubbish!" Not necessarily, of course. That's just that "inspiration" really comes to me only the following morning...
...playing "under influence" - yes. You think you're cool, and if everybody around is in the same state as you, they think you're cool, too. And if you're really cool, this thing doesn't really matter...
This thing DOES have an influence. On one hand, it kinda gives a sence of freedom or something. Takes you outta your personal shell. On the other hand, it gives you a good chance to die young. And to remain young and "unbeatable" in the hearts of fans. Rock'n'roll, you know...

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:58 pm

If it weren't for writing while wasted, there would never have been an "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida".

chingnchime · Post by **chingnchime** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:55 am

With these other two posts in mind, i think what i was getting at is sometimes (not always)a 'refreshment' can relax one enought to where the spontanaiety matches the inspiration, and good things emerge. I never took it to the point where I wasn't using my critical eye, just enough to free me up a bit. There have been plenty of times I've written straight, gone back and looked at it the next morning, THEN trashed it, too!

bluespckr · Post by **bluespckr** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:30 pm

The drug thing, like that whole 'sixties thing, was nothing new. We all thought we were so clever back then, with long hair, wild clothes, the free love thing, sexperimentation, free form art and music ... but we really weren't. Go back to the period of the Romantics in literature, and most of those folks were wasted on laudnum, while writing some truly creative things. They were into that whole "free love" and individuality thing, as many of my own generation were. History and style tend to repeat themselves. As far as The Byrds and drugs and creativity ... I always though much of 5D was brilliant, and something of a departure from the many covers they did on their first two LPs. I still find relevance in these troubled times in their arrangement of "I Come And Stand At Every Door", and it is a song I still do at solo gigs. The Beatles wrote some incredible stuff, and I wonder if Brian Wilson was straight or stoned when he crafted what would be "Pet Sounds". Drugs had to have had an impact, both good and bad, on bands like The Byrds. Like anything else done to excess, though, sooner or later it will take you down. David Crosby apparently never figured that out, and it's truly a shame. BTW, the point about Zappa is well said, too. The man was a musical genius. I was just listening to "Aprostophe" and "Overnight Sensation" last week. Zappa might not have been everyone's cup o' tea, but his creativity, devoid of illegal substances, was unbelievable.