First For Music News

In The NME Office - Behind the scenes at NME -  Behind the scenes at NME

By Luke Lewis

Posted on 20/10/09 at 03:33:00 pm

They're calling it the "Michael Jackson clause" – but it's got nothing to do with suspiciously generous out-of-court settlements with tweenage boys. According to The Guardian, a coalition of managers and label bosses are working to hammer out a legal clause that will enable labels to 'suspend' – ie stop paying – any artist who gets too whacked out on drugs to do his/her job.

On a cold economic level, this makes sense. You imagine such an insurance scheme might look attractive to, say, Island executives, who are probably wondering how many more years Amy Winehouse is going to spend slurring show tunes in St. Lucia, or having unnecessary boob jobs, or singing inaudible backing vocals for her goddaughter on Strictly Come Dancing, as opposed to actually, you know, recording the albums that her contract requires.

continued...

Artistically, though, the Jacko Loophole – as I've decided to call it – is deeply flawed, for one glaring reason: artists have often made their best music while mashed out of their gourd. From Bob Dylan to Iggy Pop, songwriters frequently hit the sharpest creative form of their careers when they're hurtling headlong into a druggy abyss (caveat: this rule only holds true for the genuinely talented - a terrifying descent into addiction and squalor would do little for the songwriting of, say, Taio Cruz).

Without drugs, there'd be no 'Screamadelica', no 'Ladies And Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space', no 'Revolver', and no 'Be Here Now' (so it's not all bad). History shows us that a debilitating narcotic haze is no barrier to recording spectacular music. Fleetwood Mac burned through so much coke while recording 'Rumours', drummer Mick Fleetwood wanted to credit his dealer on the liner notes – and would've done, had said dealer not been executed before the album came out. And yet it's an utterly, unarguably fantastic record.

Meanwhile, Bowie's 'Station To Station' derives at least some of its mesmeric, zombie-eyed power from the fact Bowie wrote it – according to legend - while barricaded into an Egyptian mummy-strewn LA house, surviving on a diet of cocaine, milk and peppers, convinced that witches were trying to steal his semen (by weird coincidence, that's exactly how the new Editors album came together too).

Besides which, drug-addled musicians are funny. We all love hearing the tale of how Keith Richards flushed his stash down the studio toilet because he heard the police were at the door (turns out it was Sting and Stewart Copeland), or the time a booze-blasted Ozzy Osbourne pissed ants all over the Alamo, or something.

Rock stars do these things because they know they can get away with them, and a record company rep isn't going to pop round with a clipboard and a calculator and say, "I'm sorry, Mr Presley, you appear to have spent the last eight hours scarfing Dexedrine, filling a swimming pool with thousands of lightbulbs, and then laboriously shooting those lightbulbs with a revolver – we're going to have to invoice you for the lost productivity."

Plus, from a post-YouTube point of view, if it weren't for musicians' goggle-eyed appetite for oblivion, we wouldn't now be able to waste our lunch hours watching Sly Stone mumble psychedelic gibberish on the Dick Cavat show, or James Brown grinning like a maniac, or an acid-wrecked Jamie Reynolds playing blissed-out air bass at the Brit Awards.

So please, record label execs, don't break a butterfly on a wheel. Allow your musicians to fulfil their manifest destiny by scoffing their own weight in stimulants, experiencing a soul-sucking comedown, moping for a bit, and then penning a vaguely shoegazey album about it. We'll leave it to Brian Wilson to supply the last word. “There are a myriad of drug songs on the pop-music market today,” he told the Melody Maker in 1966. “I don’t know which they are, though.”

40 comments

Add comment

 
 
Jim Valentine [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 16:07
Assume you're taking the piss with this article based on the final paragraph - but if you're not then seriously... why the fuck should I have to pay £35 for a ticket to a concert where some wasted dickhead manages about two minutes on stage? Fuck 'em, if they can't play they don't get paid... at least I don't have to pay for their music anymore.
Tickets There [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 16:11
Think the point is, all those bands who made their best music on drugs...still managed to make music. The new ones aren’t. The Beatles, The Stones, Floyd, Zeppelin,..etc all managed to keep releasing albums no matter how 'binned' they were. Doubt record companies will give a damn if their artists take drugs are not as long as they deliver the albums and sales.
[Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 16:15
For most musicians, it's all about Sex, Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll. If you take the drugs out, there's no rock... or sex.
[Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 16:16
For most musicians, it's all about Sex, Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll. If you take the drugs out, there's no rock... or sex.
[Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 16:16
For most musicians, it's all about Sex, Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll. If you take the drugs out, there's no rock... or sex.
Constant Supply [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 18:13
Great blog man, now i must finally check out "Rumours".
Sixx Seven [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 18:16
The old adage "musicians make their best music while high" is so hackneyed. This is the 21st century, and we have to pay $100 to see someone play and we know much more about addiction than we used to. Allowing an artist to perform while they are addicted is not fair to them, either. I saw Kurt Cobain perform while zonked out of his mind. Would you call him talented? I would. The show SUCKED because he was high, and everyone knew it. There goes your 1970's sex drugs and rock and roll theory. Wake up to the new style.
Distorted Violin [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 18:20
Bugger the sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. It's all about driving a combine harvester, innit!
General Jaruzelski [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 18:21
Yeah!!! Great idea! The Mail and Ann Widdecombe will do this. Hopefully, Pete Doherty will never be able to make any money and release another record!!! That said, you weill take away some of the greatest songwriters and musicians.
Sandwell [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 22:05
Steven Drozd of flaming lips made "the soft bulliten" while on heroin. Surely then because of this record companes should be giving their artists drugs rather than stopping them taking them.
MyShout09 [Visitor] //October 20 2009 at 22:24
Correct me if I'm wrong, but musicians make cash when they sell singles/albums/downloads/play gigs. What right has a record company to take that money the musicians made with THEIR talent? Cheeky bastards! And fuck the whining fans. I can't believe the petty, spiteful people that infect our planet. The "If I can't have it, you can't have it either!" mentality of people. If people want to do drugs, it's none of your fucking business. I am fundamentally opposed in the strongest possible terms to ALL laws that protect people from themelves!
Toonfan [Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 11:37
The world would be a worse place if Be Here Now was never released. Most underrated album of all time. It's not Oasis' fault if you haven't got the attention span to listen to it
[Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 12:24
I have to question to logic of stating that someone on drugs is inherently more creative than someone who isn't, since it ignores a) that they had to shoot up to be creative in the first place; and b) they might have been just as creative had they not taken the drugs. This idea that drugs create good music is an old, mostly American (where marijuana use was and still remains particularly contentious), marketing line that sells music to teenage "rebels" in order to make them more conformist and affluent in their spending power. Nothing more.
Luke Lewis [Member] //October 21 2009 at 12:28
You're right, of course. In most cases drug-taking leads to very bad music. I was exaggerating the benefits for 'comic' effect.
[Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 14:07
there'd be no musicians left
Josef Frost [Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 14:14
Luke, you should know from experience that a great deal of the Oasis-quaffing simpletons who comment on here do not appreciate such nuances. Anyway, this is not exclusive to music. Some of the greatest writers, poets, artists, playwrites, politicians, thinkers and inventors of all time have created their best work while at the mercy of drugs and/or alcohol. It is completely subjective and depends on the individual's ability to handle their vices whilst drawing inspiration from them.
nieves [Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 18:01
lo importante seria desenmascarar de una vez a esos buitres de las compañias discograficas que no cuidan a sus artistas y los dejan morir enfermos y adictos con tal de sacarles hasta el ultimo jugo. HIpocritas. ellos son los primeros en empujarlos a la adiccion para explortar su talento y continuar con el nefasto slogan. sex, drug n rock que se llevo a tantos queridos artistas y padres de familia. -
egbertynew [Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 23:21
york offset studies public
Just a Yankee who got here via Google search [Visitor] //October 21 2009 at 23:58
"They're calling it the "Michael Jackson clause" – but it's got nothing to do with suspiciously generous out-of-court settlements with tweenage boys." Yet, you fail to mention how the family gladly ate up the settlement as opposed to not resting until they succeeded in putting him in jail, as any real parent whose child was genuinely harmed would. Anyway, a genuinely talented and deeply creative artist will create a masterpiece whether they're sober or drugged up, whether they're sane or insane, whether they're healthy as a horse or on their death bed, whether they're joyful or depressed. It truly varies on the person in question. Just because David Bowie created his best work while being high as a kite, doesn't mean that every artist will achieve that result by following in his footsteps. In fact, it may have the very opposite effect on certain people (Amy Winehouse being the perfect example). It's not the drugs that create the art, it's the talent and the genius, that is so infallible that not even drugs and alcohol can mute it. If David Bowie was a tee-totaller, he would've still made genius albums that all of us would cherish several decades later. I can just as easily name you great albums created by people who do or did not have substance abuse issues at the time, I mean you mentioned Michael Jackson, you can't deny Thriller through Dangerous were great, he wasn't on that stuff yet, and people mention Pink Floyd and David Bowie, what about Queen? They didn't make their albums while snorting, smoking and injecting everything into their bodies. I could go on, but you get my point. Goes to show that it all comes down to talent and imagination, if you haven't got either, no amount of drugs will help you obtain them.
max [Visitor] //October 22 2009 at 01:41
sounds like a nice idea, but an awful lot of artists would have to be dropped, i mean they either take drugs or they don't, you can't kick one artist off your label but keep another because maybe their habit is less serious. Then all you've got left are bands like Coldplay. I'm not saying artists on drugs are better/more interesting than otnes who are not, it just seems to have turned out that way.
mc punk [Visitor] //October 22 2009 at 10:49
Minor Threat made some great music, and they stayed clear of drugs.
Matt [Visitor] //October 22 2009 at 13:30
All we would be left with is Coldplay and Keane bedwetter music. It is subjective but it is all about talent, some can only write bedwetter music regardless of the drugs and others make great music with and without. Amy Winehouse is shit, no amount of drugs or giving up drugs will change that.
R [Visitor] //October 22 2009 at 16:17
Actually, only Coldplay. The Keane singer is on quite friendly terms with alcohol abuse. And even in Coldplay, only Chris Martin is known to abstain - not sure about the other guys.
Grrwxffz [Visitor] //October 23 2009 at 01:43
I know, reading this from thousands of miles away, she's actually a lovely person. ,
Grrwxffz [Visitor] //October 23 2009 at 01:44
I know, reading this from thousands of miles away, she's actually a lovely person. ,
Peter T [Visitor] //October 24 2009 at 12:53
i think the labels should develop a better understanding of drug abuse. To kick drop an act because of drugs is insensitive and so is ignoring the problem because they think it might help the music. A ton of musicians have died from drugs and our knowledge of it has increased. We know that some people will become extremely addicted while others might lose interest quickly. The fact that it's illegal isn't going to stop anyone especially not musicians with recording contracts. There's usually something else about the person that leads to the addiction. It's different for every person.
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:18
drugs-sex-rock n'roll no drugs-no sex-no rock n' roll
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:21
all artist take drugs,those who dont just copy paste druggies work.i no drugs was enformed no product would be enformed aswell economicaly-this is stupid in all ways
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:22
these new puritans would b with what ur left m8
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:23
the establishment is trying to take over its own self.its eaten everything outside and is trying to eat itself and selfdestruckt!!!amen!!!A
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:24
im really curious as to see if these messages have been moderated? :P
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:27
[ [ |\| m|||m MAN im high and this took me about 5 seconds its a midle finger to the MAN u!see,if i wasnt high i never would have done this!point proven i believe!
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:28
im on to u mister luke!
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:41
sorry m8 just read the article.:P just post first 2 comms please> and a reply to say we r cool,told u im high dude,im trying to chech out if u guys at the nme r to stuck up to read and respond to comments on your articles!
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:42
plus ive been dying to say this luke,im your father!!!! hahahah no no im not im just a guy from greece,but i had to do that
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:45
this has been a weirdly big monologue,im begining to freak out!there nothing good on the stupid internet anymore!
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:50
to the first comment dont deminify music to the 35 pounds u paid for a live!jeesh!
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:51
ffs im still here!!!!
johnniegreece [Visitor] //October 25 2009 at 17:52
love my weed!!!!
[Visitor] //October 26 2009 at 21:39
lool

Leave a comment:

 
 

Note: HTML tags are not allowed
 

<< Previous post: 10 Tracks You Have To Hear This Week - Burial, Comanechi, Memory Tapes

Next post: What Would You Ask Imogen Heap? >>

Free weekly music news, videos and MP3s in your inbox: