Depressed Medication

Question:

Wow Brian, for once we agree : ) I think that it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. I grew up on the Canadian border, so I was able to see the differences firsthand. In addition to placing a high priority on government arts funding, they also have Canadian Content laws (CANCON), which stipulate that x% of media output must be uniquely Canadian in origin. In America, this would be decried as an interference in the free market. The odd thing is Americans picked up  the Canadian TV and radio broadcasts, and started digging Canadian music. The Barenaked Ladies were huge on the border long before they broke big in the US. Even Bands like Lowest of the Low, Kim Mitchell, and The Tragically Hip could fill arenas in Buffalo and Detroit, even though they couldn’t fill a corner bar below the Pennsylvania border. People know what they like, and like what they know. The fewer outlets that are available for art, whether it’s rock music, or a Dutch Masters exhibit, the fewer people will be exposed to it, and the less they will care when it’s gone. — John Check out www.js3jazz.com to hear my tunes and get FREE bass lessons

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just question whether it is a legitimate purpose of > government (which, in my opinion, is not the same entity as "society") > to sponsor art. > There are no absolutes as to what the proper role of government is. > Sponsoring art is a legitimate purpose of government, if we decide that it > is a legitimate purpose. > If the government were to give money to a corporation to > keep it solvent when the free market would not support it, some would > decry that as corporate welfare. > Well, you’re going to have your knee-jerk-reactionary types no matter what > you do… > Why are artists who cannot attract > patrons any different? > Because the purpose of art is not to make a profit.  The value of art is > intrinsic. > Regarding your Jaco example, I think most creative endeavors are driven > by the artist’s urge to create, not by profitability studies. > Not if you’re talking about major record labels!  Which Columbia certainly > was, in 1976. > So yes, I > believe Jaco’s solo albums would have been produced because the demand > was there. > But what John asked is, would they be produced in today’s music-business > climate?  The answer is clear — not by any major label.  Not by a long > shot. > … > The bottom line (for me) is that our contribution to the NEA through tax > dollars is not voluntary, even if you approve of the use. > I am not a fan of the NEA, the fact that my tax dollars are taken for it, or > the "art" which it sponsors.  If I had the choice, I would not contribute to > it.

Response:

I know Shambat; I am bipolar myself, and have been all my life. I don’t think there is any advantage in it though. The "high" side increases your energy and removes any inhibitions; I think people mistake that for genius. However, you pay for it on the "low" side. I agree with you about the treatment part. I put it off for years because of that reason,  until I just couldn’t cope on my own anymore. I’ve been on medication for a few years now, and I find I’m much more focused and creative now than at any other time in my life. I do miss the highs, but I sure as hell don’t miss the lows. It’s too bad Jaco didn’t give meds a chance. — John Check out www.js3jazz.com to hear my tunes and get FREE bass lessons – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I can tell you from experience that’s a crock of shit. If anything, Jaco was > successful DESPITE his mental illness, not because of it. > I believe that being bipolar increases a person’s chances of leaving > behind a unique body of creative work when he dies young. > Most bipolar people I know prefer not to be treated because they don’t > want to lose those times of productivity and clarity, even when they > know that paranoia and depression will inevitably follow. > -Donna

Response:

Thanks for the response. I certainly concede the social benefits of a healthy arts community, and as tax expenditures go I agree that the NEA constitutes a miniscule portion of the budget. We would probably agree on a number of government excesses, but oil wars and $400 hammers aren’t the (off) topic. I just question whether it is a legitimate purpose of government (which, in my opinion, is not the same entity as "society") to sponsor art. If the government were to give money to a corporation to keep it solvent when the free market would not support it, some would decry that as corporate welfare. Why are artists who cannot attract patrons any different? Regarding your Jaco example, I think most creative endeavors are driven by the artist’s urge to create, not by profitability studies. So yes, I believe Jaco’s solo albums would have been produced because the demand was there.  22 years ago or so, my band produced an album, which immediately (and mercifully) sank into obscurity. Why? Because there was no demand. Should the government have subsidized us to allow us to express ourselves? The listening public should be grateful that it did not! The bottom line (for me) is that our contribution to the NEA through tax dollars is not voluntary, even if you approve of the use. Thanks again for the discussion, Steve

Response:

    Hey John,     I’m Unipolar myself, I’d never heard of it before until I was diagnosed last year…it’s the same as Bipolar only without the "high" part.     I took meds for a while, and they helped but not for long and had weird side effects (nightmares, stuff like that)…I find that having a gig every week and some friends to go out with helps more than pills ever did.     I don’t know how having clinical depression effects ones creativity, but I think not having to deal with any of it would be far better than being so down that you need to write a song about it.     -Jonathan     www.badspatula.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I know Shambat; I am bipolar myself, and have been all my life. I don’t > think there is any advantage in it though. The "high" side increases your > energy and removes any inhibitions; I think people mistake that for genius. > However, you pay for it on the "low" side. > I agree with you about the treatment part. I put it off for years because of > that reason,  until I just couldn’t cope on my own anymore. > I’ve been on medication for a few years now, and I find I’m much more > focused and creative now than at any other time in my life. I do miss the > highs, but I sure as hell don’t miss the lows. It’s too bad Jaco didn’t give > meds a chance. > — > John > Check out www.js3jazz.com to hear my tunes and get FREE bass lessons > > I can tell you from experience that’s a crock of shit. If anything, Jaco > was > > successful DESPITE his mental illness, not because of it. > I believe that being bipolar increases a person’s chances of leaving > behind a unique body of creative work when he dies young. > Most bipolar people I know prefer not to be treated because they don’t > want to lose those times of productivity and clarity, even when they > know that paranoia and depression will inevitably follow. > -Donna

Response:

> I just question whether it is a legitimate purpose of > government (which, in my opinion, is not the same entity as "society") > to sponsor art.

There are no absolutes as to what the proper role of government is. Sponsoring art is a legitimate purpose of government, if we decide that it is a legitimate purpose. > If the government were to give money to a corporation to > keep it solvent when the free market would not support it, some would > decry that as corporate welfare.

Well, you’re going to have your knee-jerk-reactionary types no matter what you do… > Why are artists who cannot attract > patrons any different?

Because the purpose of art is not to make a profit.  The value of art is intrinsic. > Regarding your Jaco example, I think most creative endeavors are driven > by the artist’s urge to create, not by profitability studies.

Not if you’re talking about major record labels!  Which Columbia certainly was, in 1976. > So yes, I > believe Jaco’s solo albums would have been produced because the demand > was there.

But what John asked is, would they be produced in today’s music-business climate?  The answer is clear — not by any major label.  Not by a long shot. … > The bottom line (for me) is that our contribution to the NEA through tax > dollars is not voluntary, even if you approve of the use.

I am not a fan of the NEA, the fact that my tax dollars are taken for it, or the "art" which it sponsors.  If I had the choice, I would not contribute to it.

Response:

> I can tell you from experience that’s a crock of shit. If anything, Jaco was > successful DESPITE his mental illness, not because of it.

I believe that being bipolar increases a person’s chances of leaving behind a unique body of creative work when he dies young. Most bipolar people I know prefer not to be treated because they don’t want to lose those times of productivity and clarity, even when they know that paranoia and depression will inevitably follow. -Donna

Response:

Basste, that was an incredible post. Finally we can agree on something — This nascent group of rag-tag ex-food service slingers aims to please you, the listener. Check us out at: http://echofission.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> no. I don’t want to be another, because of his skill/succes/chance > i just work on me to be a better person, in all ways, little by little. I > would really like to be a genius bassist; but not a jaco, nor a wooten or > other. i’m happy to be here, in my life, and try everyday to make it better. > > — > basst