The Buffett Binge - Am I The Only Sober One At The Shows?

[bumper]

yeah theres no better family environment than boobs, beer and bongs

Come on now..lets be realistic, ya got to go looking for that kind of action..even in Irvine there are plenty of tame places to hang out..avoid motorhome alley and the problem is solved

[pair8head]

schoolgirlheart, i would like to disagree with you, look at influential rock music of the past 40 years, the beatles, james brown, led zeppelin, the rolling stones, hendrix. janis joplin, eric clapton, crosby stills nash and young, the doors, aerosmith, bob dylan, the majority of these bands all used drugs as an enchancement for their song writing and recording, you think we would have sgt peppers if the beatles never took acid?

What the hell are you smoking? Just because some of the members of the bands you mentioned have had problems with drugs in the past you assume they did it as an enhancement to their song writing and recording?

Granted there was (and may still be) a lot of use of narcotics by these bands, but I can not see how you make the leap to your conclusion.

[ashaway1]

yeah thats also a good point, most of the shows i have gone to i have been in the lawn area of shows which tend to be a little wilder, i guess it also can vary from concert to concert, i just think i would think long and hard about bring kids to concerts, heck why not leave them at home and join in on the 3 b's

[LaTda]

I was at Raleigh & had several beers, enough to have fun but I stopped an hour or so before the show, had some burgers & had a great time from there on. I did see some pretty damm obnoxious people (my guess is that they were 22 or so & in college)
My wife only had 2 glasses of wine (over an 8 hour period) as she was the driver for the day. The majority of the crowd was fun, polite & older.

As far as bringing your kids to a concert i could not think of anything more irresponsible. I wasnt allowed to even go to concerts till i was 17 and in all the shows i have been to i have seen or heard or experienced something that is not suitable for kids.

Sorry your parents were overbearing dude but don't call me irresponsible-
that would be like the pot calling the kettle black at your tender age... some day you might get it but until then take my word, we had more fun being there as a family then you could ever freakin dream of.
No I wouldn't take her to say Nissan but Raleigh is very tame

Besides Mike,,,,,not that you need it but the rest of the parents have your back

Thanks & come to think of it the best behaved kids like yours & mine just happened to be there with their parents...
that says something

[ashaway1]

pair8head if you knew anything about music you would understand wher ei am coming from, if you read direct interviews from some of these artists they say used drugs to help them right music, the beatles used acid to write strawberry fields, listen to the lyircs of some of these songs its all about drugs, and sometimes its not even good things about drugs like claptons cocaine all i am saying that for better or worse because of drugs we have many of the great albums we do today, dont be so naive to think that if all rock stars were clean and sober that we would have half the good music we do today

[BilltheLizard]

I was at Raleigh & had several beers, enough to have fun but I stopped an hour or so before the show, had some burgers & had a great time from there on. I did see some pretty damm obnoxious people (my guess is that they were 22 or so & in college)
My wife only had 2 glasses of wine (over an 8 hour period) as she was the driver for the day. The majority of the crowd was fun, polite & older.

As far as bringing your kids to a concert i could not think of anything more irresponsible. I wasnt allowed to even go to concerts till i was 17 and in all the shows i have been to i have seen or heard or experienced something that is not suitable for kids.

Sorry your parents were overbearing dude but don't call me irresponsible-
that would be like the pot calling the kettle black at your tender age... some day you might get it but until then take my word, we had more fun being there as a family then you could ever freakin dream of.
No I wouldn't take her to say Nissan but Raleigh is very tame

Besides Mike,,,,,not that you need it but the rest of the parents have your back

I agree with both bumper and LaTda. I have been taking my keets going on 3 years now to see Jimmy. They love it and so do I. Why do you have to be so judgemental and quick to insult people? The majority of parents that take their keets to shows are well aware of what goes on there. I as many parents do, just avoid the obvious adult situations and explain to my keets what needs to be explained. The responsibility is my job and I don't expect anyone else to change their behavior at the show. But I do expect common courtesy.

[ph4ever]

schoolgirlheart, i would like to disagree with you, look at influential rock music of the past 40 years, the beatles, james brown, led zeppelin, the rolling stones, hendrix. janis joplin, eric clapton, crosby stills nash and young, the doors, aerosmith, bob dylan, the majority of these bands all used drugs as an enchancement for their song writing and recording, you think we would have sgt peppers if the beatles never took acid?

you are correct in the fact that all those musicians took drugs back the - KEY POINT HERE TOOK. Let's see Beatles broke up and don't play together, James Brown cleaned up and sober, Led Zeppelin hasn't played together since John Bonham died, Rolling Stones - they may partake still but I know they don't perform stoned. Hendrix - dead, Joplin - dead, Eric Clapton - performs sober, Crosby Stills Nas and Young - well we all know what happened to Crosby in Texas, The Doors - Van Morrison - dead. Aerosmith - Steven Tyler has been clean for several years now and his performance is much better now than when he was stoned.

And what you are saying regarding your perception that these bands used drugs as an enhancement to their recording and writing HOGWASH - the ability was there to begin with. At the time drug use was a very common thing in the country among young people. What the drug use did was make recording a very trying task, many of the writers faced problems with their writing because of their drug addiction and obviously several gifted musicians died because of drug addiction. How many groups now are affected and unable to perform because of a member's addiction problems. I'm sorry someone tweeking and paranoid on coke dosn't write good songs and neither does someone nodding on heroin. Yes a lot of writers are addicts and that has been the case throughout time however how much better would their material have been if they had been straight?? Plus not to mention we'd still have some of them around if they had not been addicts.

Your argument has no merit - especially to those of us raised during the sex drugs and rock and roll attitudes of the 60's and 70's and know better.

[ashaway1]

i wasnt insulting anyone i was expressing an opinion, at no point did i call out one person, i just said what i thought, and i think that it is somewhat irresponsible to expose kids to that type of environment, now age is a big factor here too, i mean there is a big difference between a 15 year old and an 8 year old

[LIPH]

At the Charlotte show last Saturday there was a girl in our row who came to the show with her father. Saturday was her 21st birthday and she said it was her 20th Buffett show. Her father started taking her to concerts when she was 4. She seemed pretty well adjusted, except for the fact that she told one of my friends she was going to law school next year.

[ph4ever]

pair8head if you knew anything about music you would understand wher ei am coming from, if you read direct interviews from some of these artists they say used drugs to help them right music, the beatles used acid to write strawberry fields, listen to the lyircs of some of these songs its all about drugs, and sometimes its not even good things about drugs like claptons cocaine all i am saying that for better or worse because of drugs we have many of the great albums we do today, dont be so naive to think that if all rock stars were clean and sober that we would have half the good music we do today

and don't be so stupid to think that all musicians are stoners either.

[ph4ever]

i wasnt insulting anyone i was expressing an opinion, at no point did i call out one person, i just said what i thought, and i think that it is somewhat irresponsible to expose kids to that type of environment, now age is a big factor here too, i mean there is a big difference between a 15 year old and an 8 year old

this coming from a 22 year old that never has had a child and hasn't been a responsible adult very long you have TONS of child rearing experience to draw from now don't you?

[bumper]

I should mention my Keet is 21 but she still a keet when pops is around. I am sure she will chime in at some point. Met another Keet besides Mike's, age 13 and she was proud of her 10 concerts to date, she looked well behaved and well aware of what went in the lot, of course she was watched closely by the alpha female.

[ashaway1]

ph4ever i agree with you on some termsand the point i make may be more opnion than anything but i feel that the albums that those bands (aerosmith, the stones, clapton, david bowie) have put out recently and since they have been sober are not nearly as good or as popular as the ones that they put out when they were under the influence. i agree there performances may be better but the new music itself isnt, i am nto saying that drug addiction is a good thing becuase it isnt, but i feel that many artists refelect that in their songs and song writing( clapton cocaine, james taylor fire and rain, the stones brown sugar) but you cant deny that many great and classic tunes came from drugs

[ashaway1]

ph4ever i like discussing topics with people and debating, i appreciate otehr points of view and i like to elaborate on my points, there is no need to personally put me down

[ph4ever]

ph4ever i agree with you on some termsand the point i make may be more opnion than anything but i feel that the albums that those bands (aerosmith, the stones, clapton, david bowie) have put out recently and since they have been sober are not nearly as good or as popular as the ones that they put out when they were under the influence. i agree there performances may be better but the new music itself isnt, i am nto saying that drug addiction is a good thing becuase it isnt, but i feel that many artists refelect that in their songs and song writing( clapton cocaine, james taylor fire and rain, the stones brown sugar) but you cant deny that many great and classic tunes came from drugs

they didn't come from drugs - period. They came from the talent of the songwriter WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE ON DRUGS

how many addicts have you been around?? It's not pretty. You almost sound like an addict in denial....

[bumper]

pair8head if you knew anything about music you would understand wher ei am coming from, if you read direct interviews from some of these artists they say used drugs to help them right music, the beatles used acid to write strawberry fields, listen to the lyircs of some of these songs its all about drugs, and sometimes its not even good things about drugs like claptons cocaine all i am saying that for better or worse because of drugs we have many of the great albums we do today, dont be so naive to think that if all rock stars were clean and sober that we would have half the good music we do today

and don't be so stupid to think that all musicians are stoners either.

Guess things have changed..I grew up in the sixties..the abnormal band was sober, if they weren't high, they sure provided the kind of mucic that led the listener down that path...if I remember correctly

[ashaway1]

look at the three songs i mentioned clapton cocaine james taylor fire and rain the stones brown sugar, none of the three would have never existed if the song writers didnt do drugs

[LIPH]

look at the three songs i mentioned clapton cocaine james taylor fire and rain the stones brown sugar, none of the three would have never existed if the song writers didnt do drugs

Eric Clapton didn't write "Cocaine", J.J. Cale did.

[ashaway1]

liph i stand corrected i never knew that actually

[ph4ever]

pair8head if you knew anything about music you would understand wher ei am coming from, if you read direct interviews from some of these artists they say used drugs to help them right music, the beatles used acid to write strawberry fields, listen to the lyircs of some of these songs its all about drugs, and sometimes its not even good things about drugs like claptons cocaine all i am saying that for better or worse because of drugs we have many of the great albums we do today, dont be so naive to think that if all rock stars were clean and sober that we would have half the good music we do today

and don't be so stupid to think that all musicians are stoners either.

Guess things have changed..I grew up in the sixties..the abnormal band was sober, if they weren't high, they sure provided the kind of mucic that led the listener down that path...if I remember correctly

You're right however that was then - remember when cocaine wasn't considered to be addictive??

If you look at the musicians back then to now those that are still performing that were around back then have, for the most part, sobered up in order to continue to perform.