Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/20/89)
Really-From: Matthew Tobias Diamond <md26+@andrew.cmu.edu> This is getting a little annoying. The "Pete never touches the stuff" contingent has referred to articles that he is clean, at least in recent years. The "Pete was a serious user" folks are using Lamb Lies Down on Broadway as the primary justification for their opinion. Stating that the album slows down and grinds to a meaningless halt don't prove that Gabriel became strung up and was unable to finish writing it. For starters, you're assuming that it was written sequentially, a highly dubious premise. My personal opinion is that you can't really tell whether a musician uses drugs or not solely on the basis of their work. Heck, Kate's "9th Wave" could be interpreted as a series of drug-induced flashbacks and visions (that is, if you wanted to die a slow lingering death at the hands of various Love-Hounds!). More seriously, in the past there have been drug accusations against various musicians, including Don McLean and Peter Paul & Mary. (The attacks were specifically on the songs "American Pie" and "Puff the Magic Dragon".) I am perfectly willing to believe that Peter Gabriel was in fact a user, but can't you guys cite an interview, an article, or something? I'm sure you read or heard it SOMEplace, and I'd like to know where. But it just bothers me when people cite the music as the proof. I hope I'm not coming across too strongly here; just trying to make a point. Matt Disclaimer: I am a Peter Gabriel fan. Also, the above are my opinions only; any resemblance to other persons' opinions, whether alive or dead, is purely coincidental.
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/21/89)
Really-From: John Precedo <jp@doc.ic.ac.uk> In article <sYvQkoy00WB5R3SaB5@andrew.cmu.edu> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes: >Really-From: Matthew Tobias Diamond <md26+@andrew.cmu.edu> > >This is getting a little annoying. The "Pete never touches the stuff" >contingent has referred to articles that he is clean, at least in recent years. >The "Pete was a serious user" folks are using Lamb Lies Down on Broadway >as the primary justification for their opinion... >My personal opinion is that you can't really tell whether a musician >uses drugs or not solely on the basis of their work. OK, well here's my personal opinion. Who cares if a musician uses drugs or not? If an individual wishes to kill themselves slowly by using various pharmacutical substances, then it's their funeral, right? And if their music goes down the tubes, then they are not progressing as a musician. But why should the two be judged as one subject? Unless s/he specifically says "My music is lousy because I'm permanantly stoned". But they may use drugs and still produce good music...so worry about the music, not the drugs. If I listen to a (to me) totally new piece of music, I don't care if the artist was on drugs or hanging upside down from the roof eating a pineapple as long as it SOUNDS GOOD. Me, I'm still trying to overdose on caffeine! >I hope I'm not coming across too strongly here; just trying to make a point. Don't worry about that, so is everyone else! --John ============================================================================== Dept. of Computing JANET : jp@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk Imperial College 180 Queens Gate The above are all my opinions...but if I don't care London SW7 2BZ about them, why should you? ===============================================================================