| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| swimini |
Posted - 27/03/2008 : 23:44:28
Hi everyone, I'm a great admirer of LOVE, and have only just found this site.
Does any one know what happened at the end of the last touring ... Did Arthur get back into drugs? Was he a junkie? Did he ever try "recovery?" What made him so difficult? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| rocker |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 14:58:36
thank you michael..I tell ya I got the creeps looking at it!..er...wanna bet the ghost of Bela Lugosi haunted Arthur and the band???????..... |
| myoungish |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 06:33:13
Heh heh. I believe I have seen that Mummy pic, rocker. You called it perfectly. And remember he's airbrushed and wearing lots of makeup! What could he possibly look like on a sunday morning, coming down? Those crevices previously unknown to man, combined with the gothic eyeliner..whew.
Michael Young |
| rocker |
Posted - 01/05/2008 : 14:04:30
michael and all..re: Keith...did you see the recent ad Keith is in where he's holding his guitar? I think I've seen them in print and in mags. I'm not sure now what the ad was for but what stood out is the way he looks. I swear he looks as if he's come out of "The Mummy", that eerie 30's film with Boris Karloff to spook us all. |
| myoungish |
Posted - 01/05/2008 : 08:28:10
Keith is an absolute reptilian freak of nature. To this day he allegedly drinks copious amounts of vodka with Sunkist, chain-smokes endlessly, and isn't adverse to the hard stuff now and again. One bio says he shot up a bunch of bad leftover heroin that had killed one of his drug buddies.
As for Arthur, the man was so profoundly complex that it's hard to even begin to speculate on the magnitude or the ebb and flow of his drug use. The last time I saw him, in SF in '04, he was obviously high (or at the very least, drunk.) He couldn't finish the show, and Rusty heroically filled in on vocals. After the show Arthur stepped off the stage and sort of sauntered-staggered-floated thru the audience, and I'll never forget his big ethereal eyes that night, and his massive pupils.
Michael Young |
| rocker |
Posted - 30/04/2008 : 14:35:44
You know it's kind of a given that 'artists' have the image of being tortured souls moreso than the person who is not an 'artist'. They're usually sen as being in some sort of conflict with themsleves,others, an institution or a way of life. I ask do problems cause the drug-taking or does the drug-taking cause and develop the problems? Why does a guy like Keef "survive" the life he lives when others are long gone? Is he just lucky or does he like other people really have a gene that says hey I'm indestructible. You can't kill me. |
| barbinberkeley |
Posted - 29/04/2008 : 04:08:46
I'm glad this thread is going on. I understand that it might seem tacky to speculate about particular people doing what many consider antisocial behavior, ie. drugs. But, I think it's valid to discuss the drugs/music connection, since so very many of our greatest musicians have been known users. Just about everybody in music that I idolize has been known for it. The environment they work in usually has alcohol available. Can you imagine how many fans would be begging their idols to let them buy them a drink? Or turn them on to something else? Not to mention music promoters, who provide drugs to insure a lively show. I read John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin told of arriving backstage for a big concert in San Francisco to find bowls of cocaine provided by Bill Graham. He said he really didn't want any right then, but "it seemed silly to refuse." Phil May of The Pretty Things said that they pretty much made SF Sorrow on cocaine. For one thing, it kept them alert night and day in the recording studio until the album was finished. I read in an interview with a musician who knew and liked Arthur very much that Arthur had no tolerance for alcohol. It reminds me of a t-shirt I've seen "Instant Asshole - Just Add Alcohol." Not meaning he was a bad person, just a bad drunk. About heroin, I'm sure some use it for fun, but I'd bet some just to escape pain, either physical or emotional. I can see someone with extreme emotions trying to put them to sleep with heroin. |
| John E |
Posted - 13/04/2008 : 11:19:04
To give an honest answer to the original question here, I believe that Arthur did get into (let's just say) old habits at the end of his last touring. He was alwas a "Pisces Fish" - swimming in two directions. It seems that in his last years he almost did a re-run of his earlier career...getting "Forever Changes" out in its new form and re-establising his greatness, resorting to destructive behaviour, then breaking up a great band and trying to form a new one. I've never heard of Arthur going into re-hab as such, but I like to believe that he did all that was within his power to work towards recovery at the end of his life. God bless him!
Love, John E |
| ZFarrar |
Posted - 13/04/2008 : 06:17:23
Yeah those Beatles, way over-rated, only in it for the bucks. Damn Mersey beats.
|
| ed the bear |
Posted - 03/04/2008 : 08:39:33
quote:
But, for some reason, I think Arthur knew in the back of his head in his last days that he was on the right track with his "renaissance" if you will. You could see it.
I second that emotion. It's my understanding that when he passed away he was getting ready to tour again. It's sad for us, but good for him, if he was on an upswing when he went. |
| rocker |
Posted - 02/04/2008 : 14:02:34
swimini..you know I guess your friends werer lucky in that they didn't "pay the price" for their drug use...many are called and some are chosen to pay. I'm probably no different than the people here who know of friends who packed it in with drugs. I had my share and knew a few who played the game and lost. Blew me away at that time when everything was "cool" and "hip". If you get down to it drugs can be a scourge and a destroyer. It's the dark side. Arthur like many others in similar situations no doubt probably had to fight that every day. But, for some reason, I think Arthur knew in the back of his head in his last days that he was on the right track with his "renaissance" if you will. You could see it. For that, I admire him. |
| TJSAbass |
Posted - 02/04/2008 : 06:34:19
One mistake, the comments by Johnny I mentioned were in the booklet from the mono/stereo reissue of the first album, where he talks about each song's origins. The Love Story notes are still worth reading, though. |
| TJSAbass |
Posted - 01/04/2008 : 23:41:39
OK, let me say by "drugs", I was thinking heroin. Not psychedelics. I am very well aware of the history of the last 40 years, thank you very much. I have been a Love fan for 20 years, and yes I have been "experienced" . I was only thinking of Arthur's close friends and family, if I were in that group I would probably find it painful to have to listen to all the stories of addiction and the erratic behavior that comes with it. The original question was asking about Arthur being "back on drugs". I guess the short answer is no, from what we have been told, Arthur was not a junkie at the end of his life. The poster evidently was unaware of Arthur's recent health problems. I would suggest reading the tour diaries linked on the homepage here, there is a good summation of what happened on the last tour. Also, Michael Stuart-Ware's book Pegasus Carousel is a must-read, it will give you the details of the 1966-1968 period. The booklet in the Rhino "Love Story" double-CD is also very interesting, many comments from Johnny. |
| rocker |
Posted - 31/03/2008 : 14:37:19
You know the talk here is arguably on two bands that, at bottom, used drugs personally and undoubtedly professionally to reach a supposed "musical" high. I think as I've gotten older I'm pretty much realistic with the drug use by not being say judgmental as to their use. Why? Because it was just one part of their lives. I mean why not put the effort in asking questions say of whether or not they beat they wives? Or ignore their kids? Or being selfish?
The interesting thing I find with the Beatles and Love is really their pure integrity in their work. There was no bs, you know? And if there was, they'd put a swift end to it. Lennon knew about the Beatle mystique but in the end he knew it was a lie and he refused to go on. And Arthur was serious in his work. I think one of the reasons we describe these two groups as great is again their unvarnished integrity and it came out all in their music. |
| ed the bear |
Posted - 31/03/2008 : 04:30:05
In the long run, I think, drugs are more destructive to creativity than otherwise. You can mention Love, the Beatles, or Hendrix, but those were all huge creative talents that would have thrived with or without the influence of psychedelic drugs. We can all name a hundred records we've heard by artists who were definitely recording "under the influence" and thought they were doing great work, but weren't. (Not me, oh no, I never sat up all night stoned playing the same chords over and over again with the fuzz-tone cranked thinking I was effing brilliant...that was the other Ed the Bear. Fortunately for posterity, he didn't have a tape recorder at the time. )
I don't know that the Beatles were in it just "for the money." From "Rubber Soul" onward, they kept going out on a creative limb and at the time it wasn't obvious that their fans would keep following them. Money-wise, the safe thing would have been to keep doing "Eight Days a Week" over and over again. "Revolution Number 9" is something we can argue about, but it sure wasn't commercial in intent.
Who can say how much more the original Love lineup might have accomplished if drugs hadn't torn them apart? |
| John9 |
Posted - 30/03/2008 : 16:01:51
'Forever Changes' as I have often stated, is my favourite album of all time. However, I do not believe that Love nor any other of the many great groups from the mid to late 60s would have been able to forge ahead with their wonderful music had it not been for the Beatles. In the early 60s the Fab Four took the engaging yet fairly straightforward rock and roll format and revitalised it with so many different musical ideas and this of course took them well beyond the established three chord progresssion. From 1963 to 1969 they continually challenged, surprised and occasionally shocked a huge and expanding audience with music that was highly original and yet continually evolving. Like Dylan they pointed the way as to how the conventional barriers in popular music might be broken down. As for 'Revolution 9', I can do no better than quote from Tony Palmer's 1968 'Observer' review from immediately prior to the release of the White Album:..... "Revolution 9 comprises sound effects, overheard gossip, backwards-tapes, janglings from the sub-conscious memories of a floundering civilisation". |
|
|
