| Author |
 Topic  |
|
swimini
First Love
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
 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? |
|
|
Joe Morris
Old Love
3492 Posts |
Posted - 28/03/2008 : 00:00:57
|
Arthur had a very self destructive personality - resentful of people ripping off his schtick (like Jimi)
He had a habit of screwing people over financially
Check out the Castle published by David Housden |
 |
|
|
TJSAbass
Fourth Love
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 28/03/2008 : 21:18:08
|
| Arthur had a serious disease, there should be plenty of discussion of it if you can look back thru the postings. I can't think of the exact name, but I think it was a form of leukemia. When he started getting sick, that is what affected the touring. I have not seen anything that indicated he was back on drugs. If he was, it would probably be kept private by those close to him anyway. Rather than dig into painful subjects, why not discuss what made him great? I have few heroes personally, but Arthur Lee is definitely one of them, just for Forever Changes alone. It took some real vision to create an album so deep and enduring. I'll forgive him his weaknesses, for giving us that. |
|
|
|
ZFarrar
Fourth Love
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 29/03/2008 : 05:14:41
|
| Let's be real, I see you are a newbie but you have to deal with reality. Arthur was self-destructive like perhaps no other major talent. That's part of the gig, we all know of his stealing money from band members, and making threats. Yet he was a genius, tortured-certainly. This doesn't make him any less great. His physical health problems were very tragic and had nothing to do with the other aspects. |
|
|
|
swimini
First Love
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 29/03/2008 : 20:06:57
|
| Him, SWIMINI here. I don't see why we can't talk about Arthur's drug use. I'm aware of the huge musical progress the Beatles made, in about 3 years, as drugs opened their heads, to go from "I wanna Hold You Hand" to "Day in the Life" is an amazing shift. From booze and speed, on to pot, then acid... And then heroin and disintegration. I have friends who are in Recovery a long time, and they have managed to escape that old haywire life and its attendant mental problems. It seems that Arthur didn't achieve that. Shame. |
|
|
|
Joe Morris
Old Love
3492 Posts |
Posted - 30/03/2008 : 08:36:35
|
Back to Forever Changes. Best album ever, hands down. Why music was created. Rousing and mellow, "punk with strings!"
Coke, pot, speed - undoubtedly all the major drug groups factored into its making.
Except beer!
Unfortunately the band dissolved shortly after FC (cos of the drugs, sad to say). And that was the end of the original Love (though Arthur did carry on with Love after)
Such a strong album, I can't get over how well it holds up, how good it is, and the songs! I can't imagine anyone heard anything quite like it at the time (and still can't)
Usually you only like a few songs on an album. Even the White Album - who can listen to Revolution #9 without wanting to skip ahead
(and thats their best album!)
But Forever Changes - its like an album of "Hey Jude"s - every song is REALLY REALLY STRONG. BOTH sides, all the way thru!
I mean, WTF? |
|
|
|
jayson_valentine
Third Love
USA
72 Posts |
Posted - 30/03/2008 : 13:15:18
|
Again, I agree with you on this on: Forever Changes is the greatest album ever made.
Compare Forever Changes to Sgt. Peppers. No offense to any Beatles fans, but they didn't even have 2% of Love's genius. As Zappa observed, 'they were only in it for the money'.
Arthur Lee, on the other hand, obviously cared more about the quality of the music as opposed to his pay check. But as far as his drug use went, I for one have always thought Signed D.C. had a double meaning. Before I knew it was about Conka, I assumed D.C. meant Da Capo, which is Italian for 'the boss'.
By the way, if you look carefully on the Da Capo album, Arthur Lee is smoking a joint. Also, Love are shown smoking marijuana in the "Your Mind and We" promo video.
Signed J.V. |
Edited by - jayson_valentine on 30/03/2008 13:51:46 |
|
|
|
John9
Old Love
United Kingdom
2154 Posts |
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". |
Edited by - John9 on 30/03/2008 18:12:18 |
|
|
|
ed the bear
Fourth Love
USA
215 Posts |
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? |
Edited by - ed the bear on 31/03/2008 08:26:13 |
|
|
|
rocker
Old Love
USA
3606 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
TJSAbass
Fourth Love
USA
139 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
TJSAbass
Fourth Love
USA
139 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
rocker
Old Love
USA
3606 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
ed the bear
Fourth Love
USA
215 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
ZFarrar
Fourth Love
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 13/04/2008 : 06:17:23
|
Yeah those Beatles, way over-rated, only in it for the bucks. Damn Mersey beats.
|
|
|
|
John E
Fifth Love
United Kingdom
322 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Arthur's drug use
