NPR logo Music News You Can Use?

Music News You Can Use?

Last night I watched a documentary called Amazing Journey: The Story of The Who. It's not a great film, by any means, but it does feature fascinating interviews with the two surviving original members, Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey. The men are interviewed separately; a fact could not be made more conspicuous. Most of the questions pit the two men against one another, each showcasing his bitterness, rivalry, and disenchantment toward the other. At one point, Townshend says that he, John Entwistle, and Keith Moon are geniuses, while Daltrey is merely a singer. And regarding the famous stutter in "My Generation," Townshend — denying Daltrey even fleeting or partial credit — lets viewers know that he had performed it that way on the demo. Daltrey, for the record, does not quite remember it that way.

Daltrey is widely considered the weakest member of The Who — his peak in the band was his embodiment of Tommy — and Townshend is fairly justifiably an egomaniac in many a fan's mind. So, maybe it was the Townshend/Daltrey tension, along with the disparity among all four members that made The Who spectacular. The Who's music was a monster, and I don't expect it to have been the product of delicate harmony behind the scenes. In other words, it might not have been the same band had its members all gotten along.

Even though tensions and clashing egos are storied throughout music — from sibling rivalry a la The Kinks to Fleetwood Mac-style ex-lovers' spats — there's only so much information that I need to help build the drama or to fill out the story of an album.

Yet it was not the he-said/he-said aspect of the film, or even The Who's members themselves, that I thought about the next day. Rather, it was whether all of the excess information I now have about the The Who changes or affects my feelings toward the music. I don't think it does. Nor have the music biographies I have read distanced me from the artists I love. But I think that all of the background chatter matters less with bands I have listened to for years, whose music I discovered free from accompanying dialog, conjecture, or gossip.

I don't always want to be inundated with the minutiae about a band these days. Perhaps my intolerance is greater because we have access to more information about not just music, but everything. Music is one part of my life where I don't need to know each and every detail. You know, how some bass player broke a finger, spent the night in a hospital, hooked up with an actress who was also in the hospital being treated for pinkeye, showed up at the Sasquatch Festival drunk, and then did an exclusive interview talking about how he's going to start thinking about working on a new album.

There's no doubt that I love the depth and detail that technology has offered to fandom, but is there certain, maybe frivolous, information about a band that you'd rather not know? Or, if you love an artist, is all of it relevant? And does it ever influence the way you hear the music, for better or worse?



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

I'm not immune to gossip, but it's pretty irrelevant to my feeling for the music. I do feel as if when I take the extra step that turns me from typical listener to hardcore fan, I have a greater need for there to be something "real" about the artist, whatever "real" means. Bruce Springsteen is a very rich man, but I've never lost the sense that he's "real." I never knew what y'all in S-K were like offstage, outside of the semi-connect when I interviewed Cadallaca for Punk Planet, but I always assumed you were "real." The Who? Keith Moon is my favorite drummer of all time, but I'm sure I wouldn't have wanted to know him in "real life." Some bands need to fight, I guess, some don't.

Sent by Steven | 11:56 AM | 7-21-2008

I totally understand what you mean, and I completely agree. At least I did until I saw the documentary on Joy Division. I just saw it over the weekend in fact and I must admit it was very compelling. Even with so much focus on their music, I am still amazed by how they conjured up that sound. No matter how many times they talk about their influences, to me they just sounded like nobody before them. Also, I thought that it was interesting to see a band that doesn't really talk much, speak about Ian and how they continued after his death. I just thought it was really well done.

Sent by Jen | 12:09 PM | 7-21-2008

Based on everything I've ever read about Lou Reed, the man is a son of a bitch. Does that affect my love for the Velvet Underground or anything Lou Reed did solo? Absolutely not. Reading music biographies to me is like reading the biography of a favorite writer. I know it's considered a fallacy to look into a writer's life to find what his or her inspirations might have been, but I think it's unavoidable. You write what you know. What you know is what you see every day. Sometimes it takes a real son of a bitch to write good music.

Although the sex stories about Led Zeppelin in "Please Kill Me" have me pretty weirded out with Robert Plant and Jimmy Page.

Sent by Nick L. | 12:12 PM | 7-21-2008

Being a musician myself I have always been interested in what inspired someone or how a personal event or reaction to a public one was the driving force behind the lyrics. However, the majority of the time it turns out to be a bummer for me. To read about how someone was literally fueled by drugs and alcohol during their peak always leaves me wondering if they would have had the energy or obsessive focus without the addictions. If they survive, their too old to prove it by the time they cleanup. Eric Clapton is a good example and Elton's candle burned out decades ago.

The other bummer is to hear how there was so much in-fighting or lack of dedication that some albums I thought were great may have been a toss off for the band who later broke up. It leaves me feeling kind of cheated and sometimes wondering if the album is really as good as I remembered it.

I just have to tell myself that maybe they weren't high in the studio-only when I saw them live. Or that there really were moments of clarity, cohesion and friendship during the recording. Ok, maybe that one's a stretch.

Sent by Shawn | 12:19 PM | 7-21-2008

When I come across an artist/band's music for the first time, and I find myself attracted to it, I try for as long as possible to consciously avoid learning anything about them. I don't want to spoil the infatuation. And it almost always gets spoiled, eventually, as it does in other quadrants of life.
A music lover can only withstand so many heartbreaks in so short a time, yanno?

Still, genuinely great music can usually stand on its own, even if an asshat performed or wrote it. Johnny Lydon, eg. Richard Strauss, too.

Sent by M-Argo | 12:44 PM | 7-21-2008

PS: Nick L., when I was casting about for examples, Lou Reed would have been the perfect examplar of bastards-whose music-I-still-love. Nice pick.

Sent by M-argo | 12:47 PM | 7-21-2008

I think you have to separate art from artist. When you realize something you become obsessed by was made by a total asshole its had to still love that creation. Ray Davies even said he wished he could as good as Waterloo Sunset. Townsend after all wasn't even a mod until management created The High Numbers look fit for that scene. Pete sure as hell adopted the image 100%. Later he followed the granny takes a trip psychadelic look when that became the rage - total biter as a person for sure. Keeping this all in mind I would rather listen to Les Fluer De Lys do their version of Circles- but I can always see for miles and miles and miles and miles.

Sent by david | 12:47 PM | 7-21-2008

PS: Nick L., when I was casting about for examples, Lou Reed would have been the perfect examplar of bastards-whose music-I-still-love. Nice pick.

Sent by M-argo | 12:47 PM | 7-21-2008

Although I agree that too much information is not always a good thing, I really enjoyed reading "Please Kill Me" edited by Legs McNeil. There's something about vicariously entering into a time when my favorite music was made and hearing the "true" stories of the artists that made it. It inspires me and makes me feel capable of brilliance myself.

Sent by Leilani | 1:21 PM | 7-21-2008

I've always felt that finding out too much about a musician or a band is most often a bad thing. Bold statement, I know, but allow me to clarify.

The problem with knowing too much about a band or particular musician is that sooner or later they cross the line from musician or band you enjoy and are into, to celebrity status. The function of the celebrity in America, a country that has always payed enormous attention to (and paid a lot of money for) its entertainment, is to create surrogate friends for the masses who simply will never know anyone so glamorous or debaucherous. Put another way, celebrities provide entertainment both on and off the screen/stage for those who's lives would otherwise (due to myriad reasons) would be that much more boring.

I do highly recommend and thoroughly enjoy finding out more about a musician or band when it is relevant to their music/career. Joy Division was mentioned in a prior post, and is a great example of what I mean. Learning about Ian Curtis's inner demons, medical problems, and anxieties very much enhances your experience listening to them. Learning about Glenn Danzig's ego and desire to move into darker territory helps explain the quick and tragic downfall of the Misfits. But I certainly don't need to know which member of Good Charlotte is dating Paris Hilton, or just how much coke went up Steve Tyler's nose from 1975-1985. It's just perverse distraction. Any thoughts?


Sent by Ryan | 1:55 PM | 7-21-2008

Sometimes biographical information enhances the music, other times it detracts.

I can say with certainty that after reading Last Train To Memphis and Careless Love, I've come to appreciate Elvis Presley's music even more. Knowing the historical context for Elvis's music, particularly the Memphis stuff from the 60s, makes for a more powerful listening experience. Same goes for the Beach Boys. Their biography is just so strange, that it adds to the music and, at least for me, makes it more enjoyable.

One major example of where it detracts is The Clash. That band worked best when there was an air of mystery to them. Learning that Joe Strummer was a bit of a monster makes me like--and listen to--them considerably less.

Sent by Rick | 2:13 PM | 7-21-2008

I don't like blindly following along with most of the masses by turning musicians, especially dead ones, into having a mythical, cult-like status based on a bunch of hype. So for "understanding" Joe Strummer, I read the book _Redemption Song: The Ballad of Joe Strummer_. It definitely told me way more than I needed to know. But after reading it, I felt good about being much more "educated" about the musician, person, and bands (The Clash & Mescaleros).

Sent by David K | 2:24 PM | 7-21-2008

I stopped reading band/artist profiles in the late-nineties when I realized I REALLY didn't need to know what Jewel ate for breakfast everyday. However, this isn't true for artists whose music I absorb and deconstruct. I need to know about Elliott Smith's personal life, for example, to understand how he could sing and write about sadness and desparation so well.

Sent by Jen | 2:32 PM | 7-21-2008

Good topic. There are some bands/artists that I really wish I knew more about because it affects how their songs should be interpreted. I find that learning about the inspiration behind the songs helps me understand them on a deeper level. For example, learning about Nick Drake enhances the enjoyment of his music.

Right now I have an infatuation with a few bands, but I really don't care to know all about their lives - I just love the music. On the other hand, I would really love to sit down with the members of S-K and ask you guys about my favorite tracks. I've made up little stories in my head about what I think they mean. We all do that, right? I'm not a weirdo? And it's ridiculous because, of course, I have no idea about the real stories behind the songs!

Ultimately, I guess it's all about how long you've been into a band and how important their music is to you.

Sent by Gretchen | 4:47 PM | 7-21-2008

I don't like to know a lot about the people/drama behind the music. Sometimes even a photo can be too much. Like when I found out what Jacques Brel looked like, hearing his music just wasn't quite the same (Unfair I know, I just expected him to look more like Jacques Dutronc). I like the mystery, and to me there's just a slight voyeuristic quality to reading up on musicians' lives that doesn't appeal to me. In most cases, all I need or want to know about a musician comes through in the music.

Though, that said, personal details that directly relate to a particular song or album can be pretty interesting, and it'll often add a whole new layer of depth to the song/album that wouldn't be there otherwise (I'm thinking "Riding With Mary" by X, or really the entire Under The Big Black Sun Album, as it relates to Exene's sister's death).

Sent by nikki | 5:29 PM | 7-21-2008

The deal breaker, for me, is not if the artist is a jerk, or on drugs, or the band hates each other. It's if the artist is an idiot. When I found out Beck was a scientologist, that was the end of that.

Sent by Mike M | 6:43 PM | 7-21-2008

I second Mike M's comment. Once I find out someone's in the Xenu cult, whatever they produce becomes unbearable to me. I guess that makes me a Supressive Person. Yay for me!

Sent by pdxr | 7:13 PM | 7-21-2008

Beck was a Scientologist from a young age. I think his parents were too. But I hardly see how that is relevant to his music? Miles Davis was terrible to women but I love his music.

I like knowing how my favorite bands came together and wrote songs but I'm like that with everything. I like knowing how things work. I know watching the Minutemen documentary and reading their chapter in "Our Band Could Be Your Life" left me inspired. Those kinds of stories are great. But when it gets to arguing on the internet about someone's change of hair or a new piercings it just comes off as silly.

Sent by Ivan | 9:14 PM | 7-21-2008

Musicians - doesn't bother me, in fact, it can be quite inciteful.

Actors - i hate it and i get to a point sometimes where i can't get into a movie because of how much useless information i know about the stars of the movie.

also, info about the who affects me less than hearing all of their songs on car commercials. like most, i learned of the who on classic rock radio. i decided to get 'who's next' and imagine my surprise when 'bargain' comes on and realize that it's the jingle for a completely annoying ford truck ad. to this day i skip that song when it come up on my ipod.

Sent by Padgett | 9:15 PM | 7-21-2008

Bands with internal strife should follow Metallica's lead and get group therapy. Imagine where Husker Du would be today if they had?? j/k

Sent by JK | 12:20 AM | 7-22-2008

Some people accuse me of overly obsessing about the bands and music I like. Then I find that they can't even name the people in their so-called favourite band, or even name the albums. After I point that out to them, they keep quiet.

Sent by NC | 1:29 AM | 7-22-2008

I like music. I like movies or TV shows. I'm fine with not knowing every little detail about the people behind it. I see it as that line between fan of something and fanatic of something.

I liked reading Scar Tissue... didn't really enlighten me or change what I think about RHCP's music... same with dynamics of other bands and casts and such... on the other hand, I like some songs to the point that I'll go search for the inspiration for it... sometimes finding more reason to like that song than before.

But then there are artists' whose background gives you more insight to their music... Elliot Smith for example. I work at a teen homeless shelter and last Christmas a fundraising concert was held for it by a country singer, Jimmy Wayne. Totally not a country fan right here (or any of our kids), but his past is the same as these kids' present, and between his story between songs and what he said in some of them, suddenly we had something to connect with him on...

So I don't know. I still find much more entertainment value in reading the cover of gossip magazines and the back cover of all these musician's "autobiographies" than whats inside, and will still like or hate their music regardles...

Sent by KDK | 1:44 AM | 7-22-2008

i'm a self-confessed music fan. and i lap up everything there is to know about my favorite artists. sucker! that's me. but of course, in the end, the music is still what counts.

Sent by sue | 3:19 AM | 7-22-2008

i used to obsessively follow bands and learn everything i could about them. at this point i think id rather understand a song the way it works for me than to understand where they were coming from because of their babies, lovers, and haters.

people can be so dissapointing. music doesnt have to be. id rather it be a disembodied manifestation where you don't have to be familiar with the source to feel like you get it.

Sent by tanya | 9:40 AM | 7-22-2008

I don't think we learn that much about someone through biography, auto or otherwise, documentary, etc. We learn the motions they went through, who they did, what they saw, imbibed, destroyed. That does nothing to get at the intangibles of creation. Does nothing to get at what I really want to know, which I'm not sure someone really talented could tell me. So I agree, it's mostly just perverse distraction.

Sent by Elizabeth | 10:37 AM | 7-22-2008

That said, I'm sometimes perverse.

Sent by Elizabeth | 10:41 AM | 7-22-2008

giving this some thought i'd have to say it depends and what it depends on seems completely arbitrary. i love reading artist/music biographies and i am a big fan of the rockumentary. i like getting to know a musician in terms of where he/she comes from, what their life was like, who and what influenced them and what informs their artistic drive. i'd like to say beyond that i don't care, but i don't think that is entirely true. in some cases i like more intimate information. in some cases that intimate information may or may not turn me off. as a few have stated here, lou reed has not necessarily been the nicest human being on earth. but i love the velvet underground and i love lou reed. when i met him he was amazingly kind and nice.

i read bukowski. a lot. and i genuinely like his writing. i think he has incredible insight into humanity and i laugh out loud when i read some of his stuff. was bukowski a nice guy? no. does it affect how i feel about his writing? no. why? partially because i know his personal history and how his father beat the shit out him and how he had boils on his face and how all of his personal history created this complex and creative soul.

on the other hand, there is such thing as way too much information. when i was in college i listened to and rocked out to "live through this" and admired courtney love for her fuck you i'm me attitude and thought she was a strong role model to young women. i bought her act completely. it couldn't have been farther from the truth, her personal history and her continuous drama is exhausting and leaves me with only contempt for her and pity for her daughter. i long for the day when there is no more courtney drama! her personal tragedy, displayed for the entire world to see, has definitely changed how i feel about her and her music.

Sent by xina | 10:49 AM | 7-22-2008

On the other hand, I find the writings, interviews, and spoken word material of Henry Rollins often more interesting than the music...

Sent by -b | 11:49 AM | 7-22-2008

Carrie you post your questions always with the proviso that it has to be a band. What about those of us who think bands are 50 years old and are ready for something - anything new? How about just saying musicians. The best musicians aren't bands anymore. The safe ones - the ones that want to fit into a 50 year moldy mold are. I encourage you to reach out to the new innovative group of musicians that travel to the beat of no drum!

Sent by Tom Hendricks | 11:58 AM | 7-22-2008

I really don't want to know a lot about the bands that I love the most, even when that information is entertaining and/or interesting. But I admit that it's less about the artist than it is about me - at my advanced age (according to my kids), I just don't have the patience to deal with the contradictions. "Oh you like ________? Did you know that they support _______?" For me, that stuff just gets in the way of the music.

Sent by Jeff | 12:02 PM | 7-22-2008

I recently picked up Jim Walsh's Replacements' biography - All Over But the Shouting. I was too young to be into them in their prime but I've learned to like a few records and had always heard what a fractured, self-destructive path they traveled down so I wanted to know more. Honestly, I half expected to be annoyed with them after I finished reading. That tends to happen to me - I read about my musical heroes being jerks and it takes a little away from the music. That being said, I think I like the Replacements more after reading the book. It sheds light on what a BAND they were, similar to your Who anecdote, Carrie. Paul was the ego and most of the talent. Bob was nuts but contributed greatly to their legend (and their songs). Tommy was the energy, the positivity, and the poster boy. Chris was the...erm...drummer. All were needed. All were important. Rarely did they get along.

Yet they made great records. I needed that light shed on me to listen deeper into what they were doing - even if they wrote about boners and Johnny dying.

Sent by Jim | 12:09 PM | 7-22-2008

Most musicians/bands are like this. There is just no way to agree on much of anything. That's why the most successful bands are not a democracy. One boss, one decision maker.

Sent by Tucson Bass Player | 12:22 PM | 7-22-2008

I have stopped reading anything about Ryan Adams. Love his music (most of it), but his comments in the press and his behavior actually started to diminish my enjoyment of his music. Strangely, I'm not bothered by Lou Reed's jerkiness, which is probably worse than Ryan Adams'. I had probably placed Lou too high on the pedestal by the time I learned he wasn't a very nice person.

Sent by kM | 1:46 PM | 7-22-2008

If I admire an artist, I like to know as much as possible about their musical interests and opinions - and that's it. I could care less what they eat or who they vote for.

Sent by John McAteer | 1:57 PM | 7-22-2008

Daltrey is just a singer while the others were geniuses but they probably needed someone less talented so they could shine their lights (much like the Beatles with Ringo). As for the stutter, in "Before I Get Old", Dave Marsh's story of the Who, he says when the Mods would take their pills they would all stutter, so Roger just adopted it.

Sent by Joel | 6:01 PM | 7-22-2008

If I know someone's a prick I may still love there music but have a hard time seeing them live (well - post 80's punk spit fest anyway)

I'm more interested in what an artist has to say than what is being said about them

and for every story I guess you have to consider the source

one thing I could really live without is CRIBS

(and for all the little wonder townsend has put out there - he's never been hugh fitzcairn)

Sent by sharon | 10:39 PM | 7-22-2008

If I know someone's a prick I may still love there music but have a hard time seeing them live (well - post 80's punk spit fest anyway)

I'm more interested in what an artist has to say than what is being said about them

and for every story I guess you have to consider the source

one thing I could really live without is CRIBS

(and for all the little wonder townsend has put out there - he's never been hugh fitzcairn)

Sent by sharon | 10:40 PM | 7-22-2008

actually that all being said - you wouldn't catch me dead at a bob geldof performance - if he still does that

I guess I do fall into the trap of taking sides in the star vs star scenario

(and yes - it's their, not there)

Sent by share | 10:45 PM | 7-22-2008

I find that the personal lives of bands often do influence my opinion of them, even aurally. When I listen to a band like Fugazi I do it mostly for the music, but part of me is impressed by what they were able to achieve almost entirely independently. I think the personal lives of a band is often what separates bands I like and bands I'm a huge fan of.

I've been lucky I guess, most of my favourite bands seem like good people. I was kind of bothered by a story in a Joe Strummer biography ("Redemption Song" by Chris Salewicz) about Joe and Mick Jones crying in a Japanese hotel because a roadie couldn't score them any pot, and various stories of Joe treating people like garbage, but all in all he seemed like a good person. I don't think I could listen to the music of a real asshole unless it's absolutely fantastic, but in my opinion that's pretty unlikely.

Sent by Adam | 11:03 PM | 7-22-2008

Reading or watching biographies of bands is not all that different from reading the liner notes in records. You want to know who influenced them, who their friends are and from that, maybe you can develop a deeper relationship with the music. We've all discovered bands we love from reading the "thanks to..." in liner notes. Books like "Our Band Could Be Your Life" can take you back to those days when you first heard those tunes. Colin Meloy writing about "Let It Be" tells you so much about himself and what the music meant to him. I find it fascinating to know the who what when where of all my favorite artists. That being said, "The Dirt" is one of the most entertaining books I've ever read. It only increased my love of the Crue.

Sent by Erik Liekoski | 5:33 AM | 7-23-2008

i recently finished "black postcards," dean wareham's account of his years in luna and galaxie 500. i found it a fascinating glimpse into the life of the people on the stage (as opposed to the people in front of it). but that said, wareham seems like a likeable guy -- humorous and self-effacing and willing to lay it all out. had i been reading the memoirs of the pompous prick of the century, they wouldn't have held my attention in quite the same way. probably i'd've thrown the book on the ground and stomped on it.

Sent by laura | 12:33 PM | 7-23-2008

I got the Belle & Sebastian DVD a few years ago and afterwards I realized I didn't know anything about them before and thta was somehow better?

Sent by Charles | 12:34 PM | 7-23-2008

For some reason I'm much more interested in band dynamics than I am in an individual artist's personal narrative or whatever. Like, in "Westway To the World" where Strummer talks about living in the squats with the other guys in the Clash and making mic-stands out of broomsticks, or Roger Waters's falling out with David Gilmour, or Peter Grant literally beating Led Zeppelin's gig money out of unscrupulous promoters, or why in heck did Bryan Robertson join Motorhead and then refuse to play the band's older songs?... that stuff to me is more fascinating than Dylan playing open-mics in the Village or whatever.

The stuff I've mentioned is decidedly more analogue-era, I realize. If I hear something new and really love it I try to postpone learning about the people who created it. Like, I love Band of Horses so much that I want their music to kind of sit by itself for as long as it can, unfestooned with YouTube clips.

Sent by Liam | 8:07 PM | 7-23-2008

Feeling uncomfortable about liking a band is different from feeling discomfort in liking a band's music. I've resigned myself to the fact that a good number of superstars are terrible people that I would never wanna meet.
The point where it matters in listening to music is not dissimilar to the association problem of music in commercials, movies, or on constant jukebox rotation: It matters when we can't listen to the music without thinking of those contexts anymore.
I can and do listen to Roky Erikson or Daniel Johnston without thinking about their biographies. I cannot hear an R Kelly song without thinking of sex charges, just as I cannot listen to the Romantics without thinking about beer commercials.

Sent by Nick | 10:31 PM | 7-23-2008

I read a Dylan biography called "Down the Highway" several years ago, and it took me a few months to listen to Dylan with the same enthusiasm or "blissful ignorance" I had before. I don't remember all the details in that book, thank God, but the image it gave me of the off-stage Dylan was anything but flattering. Another example would be Peter Guralnick's second book about Elvis, chronicling his decline (from 1960 to his death). Not a pleasant read.

I'd hate to read a book or watch a documentary that strips away the mystique of a band like the Who. I don't want to know why Live at Leeds kicks so much ass or how they got the speakers to bleed for "I Can See For Miles." I would compare it to the scene in the Wizard of Oz when they're all in oz of the wizard until Dorothy pulls back the curtain - "really? that's it?"

Sent by Paul | 11:52 AM | 7-25-2008

I've been listening to Led Zepplin 3 lately, and quite frankly I find it amazing. And the fact that Robert Plant probably had sex with 1,000 women does not affect it one iota. On the contrary, if I know a band may be assholes/animals/self involved cads I just don't read about them at all. I like music trivia, but I don't let it affect my listening of an album. Unless it is specifically referencing an event in the musician's lifetime, I try and avoid back stories as much as I can. It wasn't always this way, I use to read rock star biopics/tales of bands, but all they did was make me feel like music is irrelevant in my era. Like somehow its not cool anymore, the scene has passed. And that's a real poisonous thing to feel if you want to appreciate music. So, for my own personal peace of mine, I hear music as it is, and not as the things that are around it.

Sent by Andy G | 4:52 PM | 7-26-2008

Knowing an artist is a sorry excuse for a human being doesn't make me have less love for their art. Case in point: Peter Perrett of The Only Ones. Obviously his romance with heroin didn't help the band any, but hell, it was the fuel that made his songs. The thing that worries me more is when an artist's much publicized bad habits become an influence on younger people. For instance, lots of British punks getting on smack to follow Johnny Thunders example. And I'm afraid it happened again, to a degree, with frickin' Pete Doherty. Talent doesn't come with lethal drugs (I'm not talking about psychedelic substances or recreational use), even if sometimes it can work with them (or, most often, despite them). I don't think I'm being all self-righteous here. I mean, people have every right to destroy themselves if they know what they're doing. But doing it just because they think it's cool seems downright moronic to me.

Sent by Thierry | 10:39 AM | 7-31-2008