4 ms·

I wonder why the industry does not single out musicians who aid their work with drugs akin to using illegal supplements by athletes. It seems like by use of sub

I wonder why the industry does not single out musicians who aid their work with drugs akin to using illegal supplements by athletes. It seems like by use of substances those musicians get competitive advantage over musicians who abstain from drugs and want to be on the right side of law. But somehow still the drug use among artists is viewed as "cool". This fascinates me that for one group such behaviour seems acceptable, but for another it's a big no-no.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
My guess would be: because the audience - the general public - doesn't care about the in-industry competition for the top spots in music popularity charts[0]. People enjoy songs in isolation - a piece may be "good", or "bad", but isn't "unfair". In most spectator sports, however, ranking of the performers is everything, and perceived fairness is paramount - so the industry does its best to equalize every possible factor except the intrinsic qualities of people and teams. -- [0] - Hell, at least for pop music, IIRC those charts are mostly manufactured anyway and have little to do with any subjective or objective qualities of the songs in question.
- varispeed 6y ago
  But wouldn't the public also enjoy seeing the athletes breaking the records beyond what is possible without any supplements? I must admit that I like music that has been done under influence as it feels more stimulating. But I wonder if there are other areas then, where such culture is acceptable? It seems like it is widely accepted that bankers or stockbrokers also give themselves a boost (you never read about stop and search around the financial districts)
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    > But wouldn't the public also enjoy seeing the athletes breaking the records beyond what is possible without any supplements? The answer seems to be an obvious no? Besides, if you simply want competitors to go faster you could just give them bicycles. Or cars.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      Going faster where the vehicle is a human body. Imagine athletes being sponsored by various pharmaceutical companies. When I read it, it actually sounds very creepy, but I'd watch a horror movie based on such scenario.
  - vokep 6y ago
    > But wouldn't the public also enjoy seeing the athletes breaking the records beyond what is possible without any supplements? Absolutely yes, I've had several discussions with people about this exact concept. The conclusion of those discussions is mostly something like "because theres probably a legal liability maze to do it without getting sued and given that, nobody has done it yet" The competition would go from just being the sport to being also who's body can handle the most before serious health complications. There would be lots of heart attacks and other medical emergencies resulting which would all point a finger to whoever created such a situation.
filoeleven 6y ago
Sport is a much more objective measure than art. The drugs that are illegal for sports are all about pushing the body further, lifting that extra 20 pounds or shaving off that half-second. Art is very subjective though, so it cannot be pinned down in the same way. And there is no clear line on how “drugs” affect art, because “drugs” is a broad category that conflates a lot of different things under a single umbrella. Would Morrissey’s music have resonated with so many if he was on anti-depressants? Or maybe he is/was, and that’s what gave him enough drive to make the music he did/does. How did Lou Reed or Kurt Cobain’s harder drug use affect their music? Did the effects come from the drug or from their lived experience while taking it? Would you consider someone who uses caffeine to have a competitive advantage? What about cocaine or amphetamines instead? It’s not as simple as pointing to steroids or amphetamines in sports (and I’m not claiming that’s trivial to do), and it is not competitive in the same way. There is an element of training to making art, but someone with all the technical training in the world can still fail to make things that captivate people, with or without drugs. Art is made from experience. Some kinds of drugs are very good at giving some kinds of experiences. I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that someone with talent and deeply-affecting life experiences can easily match someone else with talent who has had deeply-affecting drug experiences. The commonality is in the talent and the depth of experience, not the method.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  I believe you hit the nail on the spot :-) I especially like your point on anti depressants. We can also take alcohol (in whatever amount) into the equation. I know, its called "alcohol and drugs", but alcohol is simply a [regulated] drug. It doesn't fit the narrative of 'drugs are bad, mkay' though, but I believe that narrative is even on mainstream on the way out. > How did Lou Reed or Kurt Cobain’s harder drug use affect their music? As a kid I read the book "Come As You Are" about Kurt Cobain (who was kind of a music idol to me, long before I could understand English well enough to understand the texts). He had severe back troubles, supposedly stemming from his choice of going left-handed guitar player. He was both left and right-handed, supposedly (elsewhere, from what I understood, people who are both are actually left-handed but partly adapted to right-handed world). As with Philip K. Dick, I can totally imagine a writer on amphetamines. I'm a former Ritalin (Methylphenidate) user (legal with subscription). Whenever that worked, I could finally focus. Uppers help you focus for a while.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

My guess would be: because the audience - the general public - doesn't care about the in-industry competition for the top spots in music popularity charts[0]. People enjoy songs in isolation - a piece may be "good", or "bad", but isn't "unfair". In most spectator sports, however, ranking of the performers is everything, and perceived fairness is paramount - so the industry does its best to equalize every possible factor except the intrinsic qualities of people and teams. -- [0] - Hell, at least for pop music, IIRC those charts are mostly manufactured anyway and have little to do with any subjective or objective qualities of the songs in question.

varispeed 6y ago
But wouldn't the public also enjoy seeing the athletes breaking the records beyond what is possible without any supplements? I must admit that I like music that has been done under influence as it feels more stimulating. But I wonder if there are other areas then, where such culture is acceptable? It seems like it is widely accepted that bankers or stockbrokers also give themselves a boost (you never read about stop and search around the financial districts)
- stickfigure 6y ago
  > But wouldn't the public also enjoy seeing the athletes breaking the records beyond what is possible without any supplements? The answer seems to be an obvious no? Besides, if you simply want competitors to go faster you could just give them bicycles. Or cars.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    Going faster where the vehicle is a human body. Imagine athletes being sponsored by various pharmaceutical companies. When I read it, it actually sounds very creepy, but I'd watch a horror movie based on such scenario.
- vokep 6y ago
  > But wouldn't the public also enjoy seeing the athletes breaking the records beyond what is possible without any supplements? Absolutely yes, I've had several discussions with people about this exact concept. The conclusion of those discussions is mostly something like "because theres probably a legal liability maze to do it without getting sued and given that, nobody has done it yet" The competition would go from just being the sport to being also who's body can handle the most before serious health complications. There would be lots of heart attacks and other medical emergencies resulting which would all point a finger to whoever created such a situation.

filoeleven 6y ago

Sport is a much more objective measure than art. The drugs that are illegal for sports are all about pushing the body further, lifting that extra 20 pounds or shaving off that half-second. Art is very subjective though, so it cannot be pinned down in the same way. And there is no clear line on how “drugs” affect art, because “drugs” is a broad category that conflates a lot of different things under a single umbrella. Would Morrissey’s music have resonated with so many if he was on anti-depressants? Or maybe he is/was, and that’s what gave him enough drive to make the music he did/does. How did Lou Reed or Kurt Cobain’s harder drug use affect their music? Did the effects come from the drug or from their lived experience while taking it? Would you consider someone who uses caffeine to have a competitive advantage? What about cocaine or amphetamines instead? It’s not as simple as pointing to steroids or amphetamines in sports (and I’m not claiming that’s trivial to do), and it is not competitive in the same way. There is an element of training to making art, but someone with all the technical training in the world can still fail to make things that captivate people, with or without drugs. Art is made from experience. Some kinds of drugs are very good at giving some kinds of experiences. I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that someone with talent and deeply-affecting life experiences can easily match someone else with talent who has had deeply-affecting drug experiences. The commonality is in the talent and the depth of experience, not the method.

Fnoord 6y ago
I believe you hit the nail on the spot :-) I especially like your point on anti depressants. We can also take alcohol (in whatever amount) into the equation. I know, its called "alcohol and drugs", but alcohol is simply a [regulated] drug. It doesn't fit the narrative of 'drugs are bad, mkay' though, but I believe that narrative is even on mainstream on the way out. > How did Lou Reed or Kurt Cobain’s harder drug use affect their music? As a kid I read the book "Come As You Are" about Kurt Cobain (who was kind of a music idol to me, long before I could understand English well enough to understand the texts). He had severe back troubles, supposedly stemming from his choice of going left-handed guitar player. He was both left and right-handed, supposedly (elsewhere, from what I understood, people who are both are actually left-handed but partly adapted to right-handed world). As with Philip K. Dick, I can totally imagine a writer on amphetamines. I'm a former Ritalin (Methylphenidate) user (legal with subscription). Whenever that worked, I could finally focus. Uppers help you focus for a while.