This will be short because I'm mostly interested in your thoughts. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame does not keep drug users out of the Hall. It doesn't really care one way or the other. Drug use and music have gone together for longer than than I've been alive (39 years today). The best bands have been ones that are known to have used drugs, sometimes large quantities of them. You don't often hear about the musician who is anti-drugs. It's less frequent than 10 years ago in baseball and a hell of a lot less frequent than today in baseball.
I imagine one such argument against this analogy is that there are a finite number of jobs in MLB, but I don't really buy this. People have a finite amount of money they're willing to spend on music and if the better bands are all doping, that leaves less money for the non-dopers. They're left to either beg for food or get a job outside of music.
What are your thoughts? Why do we celebrate The Beatles, but not Barry Bonds? Why do so many love The Grateful Dead, but not Sammy Sosa? Why is it that we consider Pink Floyd among the all-time greats, but refuse to honor baseball players in the same way? Would we think less of Pink Floyd's music if they were known to lie? Why do so few care that Bob Dylan may be a plagiarist and so many care that Roger Clemens is almost certainly a liar?
Is baseball the same kind of entertainment that music is? People spend money on music and couldn't care less if the musician was sober or slowly killing himself with heroin. When I was in college it was funny that The Beatles experimented with LSD and began putting out better music. It would have been unthinkable to listen to Pink Floyd if they were sober when recording their music.
Comments
I’m actually not so sure that the set of people who think that Pink Floyd is one of the greatest bands ever and the set of people who think Barry Bonds should not be in the HOF has much overlap.
joshQuote Reply
I think for me the difference is that baseball has rules. Players agreed to adhere to certain rules, and it’s the breaking of said rules–and perhaps even more so the incredulous denial of breaking said rules (looking at YOU, Big Mac)–that rubs me the wrong way. On the other hand, rules are pretty much an anathema to rock ‘n’ roll. If anything, rock was created by breaking the rules (including the rules of intellectual property law).
TheBeverlyBrewmasterQuote Reply
@ TheBeverlyBrewmaster:
I can get behind this, but it brings up another question. Why should the players who did break the rules be punished above and beyond what the rules allow them to be? What about the players who were using when it there was no banned substance agreement?
The rules are the rules and any player that is caught cheating now should pay the penalty. After that, well, they paid the penalty. If the penalty at some point includes banning from the Hall of Fame, well, that’s the rule.
dmick89Quote Reply
Rules, but also competition. Musicians aren’t competing with anyone – at least not in a way that is meaningful for the consumer. So the whole comparison is unfortunately kinda pointless..
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I think that the thing that I find most frustrating about the people who are crusading against the likes of Bonds, Clemens or even people they just think used like Bagwell is that they are completely ignoring the vast history of cheating in baseball. We have people glorifying a bygone era that never seems to have actually existed.
As far as the question posed, I think it might be worth noting that the jobs being taken away from non drug users doesn’t strike me as a gigantic deal, as society is filled with opportunities for non drug users to better themselves. I want the people using drugs working in entertainment, because who really cares what people who are in entertainment are doing? For me, that includes sports and bringing it back to baseball, if people decided that drug use was the best way to get ahead, and they either didn’t think of the long term consequences or are okay with them, I can’t see that its my place to give a shit. The lying bugs me more than the using, but ultimately that doesn’t even bug me all that much, because I completely understand the impulse.
koboldekoboldQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Just because we don’t see events like Led Zeppelin vs. Pink Floyd doesn’t mean that musicians aren’t competing.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ koboldekobold:
Yeah, baseball has been filled with cheating and much of it of the variety that people laugh at.
I’d even go further than you and say that the non-users have been affected very little overall by those who did use. It’s not like the minor leagues were filled with guys that would have been starters had players not been using. Not to mention, it’s not like drugs were the only way in which cheating may have affected non-cheaters. And non-cheaters in sports is like non-competitive.
dmick89Quote Reply
TheBeverlyBrewmaster wrote:
I’d say plagiarism in rock and roll is arguably analogous to using PEDs in baseball. However, saying that creating rock and roll involved breaking the rules of intellectual property law ignores hundreds of years of the folk tradition. Exactly, who, was Chuck Berry stealing from, and was that not person drawing on their own “influences”? It’s a very gray area.
However, that should be distinguished from what Led Zeppelin did–they actually took Willie Dixon’s songs and claimed they wrote them, creating one of the best debut albums in rock history (to this day). Everyone knows they stole his songs, and the voters for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame certainly knew this when they inducted them.
And you know what? Led Zeppelin I kicks ass, the band rocked, and they should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame despite their misdeeds. When you look at their career in totality, and the cultural norms surrounding intellectual property in music at the time, it’s very hard to argue they should be automatically disqualified from that recognition.
And in my view, it’s the exactly the same with Barry Bonds.
The difference is the only people arguing Led Zeppelin shouldn’t be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are nineteen-year-old college students obsessed with the Delta blues, and grown men who should know better are maintaining an absolutist position on PEDs.
BenQuote Reply
koboldekobold wrote:
The problem with this logic is that not everyone who goes into entertainment (be it sports or music) end up being successful. The problems with being complacent with drugs in sports is that young people can get a hold of steroids too. Then they fuck up their bodies, lower their life expectancy, and then in all likelihood, never get close to making a living off of sports. The same might go for music too but you hear less about that. To me the problem with steroids has always been that these drugs are actually quite harmful and glorifying their use as a society is dangerous. I don’t really give a crap about the sanctity of the Hall or punishing players who cheat. If some of these guys came out and admitted what they did was wrong and dangerous and was a mistake to try, I think I would be more open to acknowledging their accomplishments in the Hall.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Indeed, I think all successful musicians are very competitive – they wouldn’t find success (artistically or commercially) otherwise. But competition (which requires a level playing field) doesn’t enter into the audience’s enjoyment of music, whereas it is essential in baseball.
Since there’s no competition, there’s no stats either. People might argue who the better guitarist is, but it doesn’t really matter. Indeed, because music is all about using our lying ears, some of us prefer music made by “objectively” bad musicians, or even non-musicians.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Suburban kid wrote:
This may explain why Michael Bolton still gets to make music.
I wonder who the Yuniesky Betancourt of the music world is…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Also, whereas there is a general consensus (rightly or wrongly) that PEDs improve your baseball powers, I don’t think that’s true of drugs and music. I would argue most people don’t think drugs improve the work of musicians. I would also argue that drugs only occasionally have a neutral or positive effect. Most of the time, I would argue, they would have a negative effect.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
If you look at it another way…drug use and questionable lifestyles are frowned upon by “normal” society so you can make a different analogy that despite those questionable lifestyles, the musicians elected to the HOF are still productive and influential. In following, the players elected to the baseball HOF are productive and influential despite being racist, gamblers, spitballers, etc etc. The only difference is that while drugs in music may have a multitude of effects on the composers/artists (seriously, the lyrics to “I Am The Walrus” make no sense), the drugs in baseball are meant to achieve a single goal, which is to get stronger.
At that point you can make another leap, which is: most musicians had access to the same types of drugs, yet only some of them will achieve the type of immortal success that has their music stand the test of time (a la the Beatles). Most ballplayers had access to steroids and other PEDs, yet not all of them were Barry Bonds. That has to count for something, right?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I guess what I’m saying is…sure, they might be a bunch of scumbag racist drug addicts or whatever, but if their music sounds good and influences the next generation of musicians, isn’t that what you really care about with the HOF?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Ya I’d agree that there is a great deal of survivor bias here. We don’t know about the thousands of bands that were high all the time and really sucked but we know about the ones that were high all the time and were great so we tend to equate highness with greatness wrongly. The same mistake is probably true in baseball. Young people see all the wildly successful users get millions of dollars but don’t see the thousands of users who did nothing and just massively messed up their health for nothing at all.
AndrewQuote Reply
Is this guy serious? http://illuminatiwatchdog.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-2001-film-hannibal-hollywoods-911.html?m=1
dmick89Quote Reply
This guy is my favorite blogger of all time http://illuminatiwatchdog.blogspot.com/2013/11/major-league-baseball-chicago-cubs-and.html?m=1
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
dying laughing
LukasQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Since you posted it here, that must also be your blog. THERE ARE NO COINCEDENCES
BerseliusQuote Reply
Did the Beatles White album come out after they were frequently stoned? I can’t stand the White album. Yuck.
I didn’t know that Zeppelin stole the songs on their debut album. But I don’t listen to that style of music, because lyrics matter more to me than guitar riffs and drums. As someone whose career depends on intellectual property, I would absolutely not vote for them in the R&R HOF, if their main claim to fame is based on that album. But songwriters, releases, and covers from the 50s-70s seem pretty messy. Look at Carly Simon, Joni Mitchell, Willie Nelson, CSN(&Y), etc. etc. (including Dylan). Seems they were constantly involved in some way or other in the others’ music.
My college roommate worshipped Pink Floyd. I’m pretty sure the only time their music made any sense to me was when I was drunk. If he had them playing in the dorm when I was sober, I went to the study room. I was a very good student. (dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Wow. How do you find this stuff? Or maybe I should ask “why?”
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
We watched Hannibal for the first time and there’s a scene in there in which Osama bin Laden is shown on the FBI top 10. I was curious if this was an edit if the movie was released after 9/11. It was before and in my search for Hannibal movie and Osama bin Laden, I had to click on that link. Then I had to go to the home page to see what gems awaited me and sure enough, the best article of the year. That blog is awesome.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
(dying laughing).
My 7 year old girl got some new shoes for Christmas. I told her the inserts in the shoes to hold their shape reminded me of the heads of Easter Island. So we watched some David Attenborough on Easter Island via Youtube. Then some conspiracy theorist who was happy to trash the academic explanations for the demise of the population there, but who wouldn’t explain the alternate explanation. (Daughter goes to play with Littlest Pet Shop at this point.) Then to wikipedia about E.I. and other remote islands in the SE Pacific like Pitcairn. Then to stories about marooned sailors (aside from Bounty)….
I love the internet. Even if it is crap.
SVBQuote Reply
I know it has only been one season, and Tucker was forced by ownership/player personnel to play a Tampa 2 without a defensive line, but it’s difficult to imagine that he’s the guy going forward. It’s not a “fall on the sword” situation but it’s damn close.
In other news, my Chargers made the playoffs, and there’s a real chance I’ll travel to Cincinnati for the game.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
SD is legit on offense. They’ll move the ball on CIN. Unfortunately their defense is awful. The key to that game is which Andy Dalton CIN brings.
Like You CareQuote Reply
Now the mocks will start to get fun. Until the combine is over, I’ll continue to use nfldraftscout rankings. After that, I’ll start using my own big board.
1. HOU – Bridgewater. He’ll get knocked for his size and arm over the next few months, but the guy is a playmaker. Talk that he might return to school scares me, because declaring now is a no-brainer.
2. STL (via WAS) – Matthews. I still think they trade down with someone trying to get Clowney.
3. JAX – Clowney. Beast.
4. CLE – Derek Carr. This team is poised for a run at the division next year.
5. OAK – Blake Bortles. I can’t keep mocking him in the late first.
6. ATL – Anthony Barr. Dynamic pass rusher.
7. TB – Greg Robinson. This kid must declare.
8. MIN – Sammy Watkins. I think they try to move up for a QB. If not, Watkins is bpa and makes the new QBs job so easy.
9. BUF – Eric Ebron. Reminds me of a slower Vernon Davis.
10. DET – Khalil Mack. Small-school version of Barr.
14. CHI – Kony Ealy. I’m going to keep doing this.
(Using the records for now. Will update the order as teams get bounced)
21. GB – Stephon Tuitt. Pass rush and DBs are the biggest needs. This is a deep draft for DBs, so improve the front early.
22. SD – Ra’Shede Hageman. I’ll add SD since we have a fan in the house. SD has the same needs as GB and CHI, imo.
28. SF – Justin Gilbert, CB, OkSU. SF must improve its pass defense. The DC refuses to blitz frequently, so the burden falls on the secondary.
Like You CareQuote Reply
This draft will be interesting. The teams and the talent don’t really match up, so I could see a lot of trades.
Like You CareQuote Reply
I think we’ve seen the last game of Chris Conte as a Bear. Ryno, is 14 too high to take Ha-Ha?
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
As long as he’s healthy (he’s slated to play in the Sugar Bowl), I don’t think so. It’s higher than I’d take him, but the lack of safety depth increases his value.
To be fair, I thought SF was unwise to trade up for Eric Reid last year and that turned out OK.
Like You CareQuote Reply
If Detroit doesn’t fire Schwartz today, it would be the most Lions thing ever (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
Shanahan, Frazier, Chud all out already.
Still can’t wrap my head around Chud getting fired. He was on his 3rd string QB, had his starting RB traded away, and no offensive weapons outside of Cameron and Josh Gordon.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
JonKneeV wrote:
At the end of every season, William Clay Ford says, “Thank God for the Browns.”
SVBQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
MockingTheDraft agrees with you on CHI and me on GB: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/12/30/5255782/2014-nfl-mock-draft-jadeveon-clowney-johnny-manziel-bridgewater
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
And he held the job for less than a year. Either he was a total idiot (which should have come up during the interview process) or they found someone they like much better and are close to hiring him.
Like You CareQuote Reply
Feel obliged to point out that if McCarthy goes for 2 and ties the game late instead of kicking the PAT, Green Bay almost certainly punts away at least one of those fourth downs.
GBTSQuote Reply
In other words, the Bears defense is so bad that it was advantageous to play from behind rather than tied.
GBTSQuote Reply
Three gripes from CHI-GB:
1. Late hit on Rodgers in the 1Q that allowed GB to get on the board with a FG. Rodgers was sacked at the 32 (I believe) and would have resulted in a 49 yard FG attempt in 15-20 mph swirling Soldier Field wind.
2. Obviously the fumble-TD.
3. Chris Conte, who had an interception literally go through his hands for a 30 yard reception and then blew his zone assignment on the last play.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
You know your defense is shit when you actively find yourself wishing they’d just let the Packers score and leave enough time to be able to exploit GB’s equally shitty run defense. If GB breaks a big play right off the bat and scores with 3:30 left or so I think CHI actually ends up with a halfway decent shot at winning the game.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
One thing that did go CHI’s way was that first Rodgers INT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHHHpW5jsjA
I know Aikman was certain Rodgers was going to Boykin in the back of the endzone, but I thought he was trying to hit Quarless when I saw it live. He had position on Conte but stopped his route.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
And the fumble that GB scored on was 100 percent on CHI’s defense. Our defense was taught to pick up the ball any time it was on the ground and run or at least hand it to the official. And that’s after the whistle blows. If there was no whistle, none of them should have stopped.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
You have to pick it up and run even if the refs blow the whistle. Incomplete passes can be overturned if there’s a clear recovery. The whistle is meaningless in 21st century NFL with its clusterfuck of replay rules. Absolutely no excuse.
To be fair, it’s equally bizarre/inexcusable how no one for Green Bay had any urgency to scoop that ball either.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Exactly.
I was really surprised that no one on the field seemed to want to finish that play.
Like You CareQuote Reply
That play yesterday is exactly how I think NFL referees should handle plays like that. It’s a 1000 times easier to overturn a fumble into an incomplete pass than vice versa. Same thing with overturning a fumble to a not-fumble. Why wouldn’t you just let it play out?
GBTSQuote Reply
Basically any time the ball hits the turf in even a moderately suspicious way, let it play out and then go to the replay without the pointless “indisputable evidence” burden of proof.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Ya, I didn’t mean it like it was the refs fault. The fault definitely goes on the players and coaches for the fumble.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
By the end of the SF/ARI game yesterday, I was wondering if I should root for SF to win or not. Rodgers was definitely rusty, but he looked more comfortable as the game went on. That defense is suspect, but they can move the ball on anyone and SF’s pass defense has worn down (just as it did last year).
Plus, it’s kind of stupid that the 12-win 49ers have to travel to Green Bay to play the 8-win Packers. Teams should be rewarded for winning their division, but isn’t a playoff spot enough of a reward?
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
I bet a CHI player picks that ball up or at least makes a tackle on Boykin if the play happened on the other sideline.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Agreed on how they should call the play. I also think that they should have ruled Alshon Jeffery’s run and catch as a TD since all scoring plays are reviewed. If they felt Alshon was down before reaching the goalline it would be overturned without needing a team to challenge. Instead the Bears thought it was too risky to challenge and felt they could score anyway, and they did.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Oh, and the reason I mocked Kony Ealy to CHI instead of Clinton-Dix: The final play of that game. Peppers lost contain and whiffed on Rodgers. If he just keeps him in the pocket, Rodgers can’t make that throw.
Also, GB got away with a major hold on that play.
Like You CareQuote Reply
http://www.nfl.com/videos/green-bay-packers/0ap2000000306525/GameDay-Packers-vs-Bears-highlights
1. Peppers takes a bad angle to Rodgers.
2. Deitrich-Smith bearhugs a DL from behind.
3. MAJOR coverage breakdown on the outside. It looks like they were in man coverage and Conte thought Cobb was going to break toward the sideline. Awful.
It won’t take much to upgrade at safety.
Like You CareQuote Reply
Schiano and Schwartz gone.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
Surprised it took that long.
Like You CareQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
[img]http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/harbaugh.gif[/img]
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Just saw the Wootton hold. God damn it.
GBTSQuote Reply
I think it’s unfortuanate that the first two times the Bears sack Aaron Rodgers ends up being a positive play for the Packers.
EdwinQuote Reply
i was under the impression that the members of pink floyd (with the exception of syd barrett) weren’t drug users.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/105.htm
http://www.cracked.com/article_20633_5-pleasant-surprises-about-famous-people-you-had-all-wrong.html
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That should have been called, but Peppers losing contain made it inconsequential.
Like You CareQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
From my recollection of the play, the GB receiver came back from his deep route to pounce on the ball and then stood around confused before running it in. So someone actually did get the ball, but he was the only one haha.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[img]http://cdn2.sbnation.com/assets/3781629/packersderpTD.gif[/img]
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
All Rodgers did was process what the GB coaches were saying more quickly.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Hmmm, I guess the only two guys who actually had concern for the ball/scoring were Rodgers and Boykin. I wonder if Rodgers would’ve scooped the ball up himself and scored if Boykin hadn’t come all the way back. Since it was ruled a fumble, that should be legal…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Didn’t Rick Wright leave due to a cocaine problem? Not sure I buy these were a bunch of sober guys after Barrett left.
dmick89Quote Reply
Ryno if you were the Bears GM, would you take a QB and if so whom/where? McCarron in the 2/3rd or Aaron Murray in 4/5th maybe?
Also, do you have a PFF sub? Someone over at BN (Bears edition) said Major Wright graded lower than Conte this year. Made me think “what if the Bears got Ha Ha in the 1st and Ahmad Dixon in the 3rd”.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
yeah these guys seem to think that the “drug-free” claim is a bunch of bullshit. i had never given it much thought due to not giving a shit one way or another but was mildly surprised when i saw that cracked article. i guess i had just kind of taken it as a given that they were doing a bunch of drugs like everyone else.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
Yes, the Bears need a QB. McCown is getting older, Cutler is overpriced and I kind of think you should draft a QB nearly every year at some point just because the position is so important.
It’s really early to guess where guys (especially QBs) will go, so I’ll tell you who I like for CHI and where I’d draft them:
If Bridgewater, Carr or Bortles are their in the first, CHI should take one. I don’t think any of them will be, but they’re worth a first, imo.
I like Boyd in the second. I still don’t see why he isn’t a first-round prospect, but it seems his value is slipping to the third. I think he’s step right in and rock that offense.
In the third round, I like Fales, Brett Smith and Jimmy Garoppolo. They’re all pretty similar and are probably the best fits for CHI in terms of upside, floor and value. This is a realistic spot for a QB, imo.
Aaron Murray in the 4th and Garrett Gilbert/Casey Pachall in the 6th would be good options too.
JonKneeV wrote:
If CHI wants to remake the defense, they’ll need to hit FA. Melton is the most important player of the off-season and I think they need to sign at least one significant upgrade at DE or S and bring in quality starters at the other position and CB.
Iff they address the DLine issues, they should consider Clinton-Dix in the first, Deone Bucannon in the second and then one of those third-round QBs.
The plan I like best for CHI is to re-sign Melton, sign TJ Ward and then draft:
1. Ealy
2. Bucannon
3. Jimmy Garoppolo
4. Aaron Colvin, CB, Okla.
Like You CareQuote Reply
Oh, and no PFF sub. Sorry.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Yeah, I don’t care one way or the other, but had always assumed the same thing. I’m still just as certain they did drugs, but maybe they weren’t as involved as I had thought. Roger Waters seems to indicate that, but then again, I’m not sure that means all that much. I guess it’s one we’ll never really know, but that’s OK because nobody should care anyway.
dmick89Quote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/tv/obstructed-view-2013-tv-non-awards-part-1-an-unexpected-journey.html
dmick89Quote Reply