Read Between The Frets: The Philosophy of Rock Music

LSD-Impregnated Blotter Paper

It is very easy for an audience to blame artistic talent and creativity on drug use.  Almost anything that is truly creative in today’s world is blamed on the use of illegal drugs.  Is it really the drugs that cause artists to create these magnificent pieces?  Can one really say that the man or woman behind the song, painting, poem, or story was less of a factor than the chemicals active in their brain at the time?  If indeed drugs are not the cause of creativity, do they have any effect on it at all?  Opinions vary, but many believe that while drugs do not cause creativity, they can help the user to better utilize their own creativity, essentially acting as a catalyst for creativity, rather than the fuel itself.

Many artists, from Aldous Huxley to Ozzy Osbourne, believe that drugs are not the source of creativity.  While there is no doubt that drug use allows the user to see the world from a different perspective, Aldous Huxley, a strong believer in the use of LSD, believed that “Some people probably could get direct aesthetic inspiration for painting or poetry out of it.”1 Huxley openly claimed that LSD was a healthy experience.2 However Huxley also said that one would not decide, “‘I want to write a magnificent poem, and so I’m going to take [LSD].’”1 It is clear that Huxley did not believe in drug use for the sole purpose of being creative, but for the intellectual experience of seeing the world in a different way.  This could, as he said, directly influence a work of art, or simply give the user a new image of the world.  Mr. Huxley did not believe that the drug could actually improve the abilities of a writer or an artist. Rather, he seemed to feel that artists that he had seen working under the influence of LSD were rather boring and produced works that came nowhere near the experience itself.2 Even as a strong supporter of LSD and other hallucinogens, Aldous Huxley did not report any true connection between the ability to be artistically creative and the use of drugs.

While Ozzy Osbourne agrees that drugs are not necessary for creativity, he has a much different view from Huxley now that he is clean and sober.  After years of Drug and Alcohol addiction, Osbourne admits, “‘All my mistakes…I can categorically tell you are a direct result of alcohol and drugs or both.’”³ The recovering rockstar clearly does not think very highly of the state that drugs and alcohol have put him into in the past. He told Launch that “it took him a long time to realize he could write and record music while being completely clean and sober. ‘I used to get so frustrated with myself… I thought that you had to get loaded to make songs… I thought it was that was making me creative.’”⁴ As Ozzy’s 2007 album, “Black Rain” shows, he didn’t need to get “loaded” to make songs. Today Osbourne spends his time working out to avoid relapses. While Ozzy Osbourne’s battle against drugs and alcohol is admirable, and his talents clearly allow him to create music without the aid of such drugs, many still believe that they do need drugs to remain creative.

But why do so many people believe that drugs are necessary for creativity to flow?  The original belief that creativity arises from drug usage most likely became widespread during the late 60’s when popular artists of the era experimented with drugs, especially marijuana and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).  The use of such drugs seemed to be the source of creativity amongst artists such as Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin.  As the next generation’s future rock stars grew up listening to and imitating these bands, the tradition of drug usage in rock and roll was passed down.  It is easy to see how one would associate creative works of art with the “mind-opening” experiences of psychedelic drugs. As users raved about the awesome effects of drugs, while musicians made known their usage of such substances, it is natural that one would confuse the co-existence of two events with a cause-and-effect relationship.  These future rockers simply thought “Jimi Hendrix is a great guitar player” and “Jimi Hendrix drops acid.” The conclusion drawn from these facts was that “Dropping acid might help my guitar playing.”  While the logic is skewed, this scenario was not  impossible to an uninformed kid blinded by the glamour of his rock legends. Moreover, many people feel more creative when they are “high” or “tripping,” whether or not they truly are. This, combined with the illusion that famous musicians play better after using drugs, results in the conclusion that the drug caused the musician to play better.

Despite the negative effects of drugs and the fact that the music does not actually improve when the artist is under the influence of drugs, many artists still rely on a “high” to help them write and play.  The truth is that despite having no positive effect on either the musical ability or actual creativity of an artist, the use of drugs often relaxes the user into a state in which they will not reject their own creative ideas.  The illusion of expanded creativity is really just the artist allowing their full creative potential to show.  This, coupled with their new perspective on the world allows them to use their entire creative talent to produce a true work of art.  Caroline Thompson, a screenwriter-director agrees with this, stating that “going on those drug journeys… really just opened it up and made me happy… So I didn’t have the self-consciousness of being separated as a ‘brainiac’ and somehow I got over my fear of the surreality of the planet.”¹ This ability to release their fear and self-consciousness would have allowed the new global rockstars of the late 60’s and early 70’s to write a song, then stand up in front of thousands of people and play it for the first time. Without drugs, many songs may have never made it onto paper, much less onto albums and into live performances.

Drugs were an important part of the creative process for these artists and performers, but they were not the engine, they were the oil.  Without the influence of drugs the engine may not have run simply due to internal friction.  With oil present, the engine ran smoothly, allowing creativity to do its job and create true art.  It seems true that the creativity is still a process that only the brain can perform, despite the occasional need for a confidence boost from some extra chemicals.  The artist is still the essential part of a creative work of art.  The title of rock star is not open to just anyone with a sheet of blotter paper and an electric guitar.  Drugs are merely one way of extracting the art from the artist.  While the line between artistic use and abuse is a narrow one and one often crossed, many artists believe the risks to be worth their while, and use drugs as a valid catalyst for their creative process.

¹ Drugs and Creativity: http://talentdevelop.com/drugs.html

² Huxley on Drugs and Creativity: http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v10n3/10317hux.html

³ The National Enquirer: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/58260

⁴ Metal News: http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=25892