Amy Winehouse

[The Real MC]

Watching her descent into destructive drug addiction has not been pleasant. It realize that it makes some people angry or dismissive. I don't have that reaction -- it just makes me sad.

 

We get upset because people get suckered into patronizing her and she uses the $$$ to support her habit.

[frogmonkey]

I think the most interesting thing about Amy Winehouse was here association with the Dap Kings and Daptone Records. Her neo-retro sound was 100% a product of this band and studio.

 

An excellent band, here they are with an excellent singer, Sharon Jones:

CLONK (Vimeo)

 

(Sorry I couldn't figure out how to embed Vimeo)

[HammondDave]

Huh. This thread got a bit weird. I don't know what makes an "artist" vs. a "hack". I also don't know why some people succumb to the horrors of drug addiction and others don't. So, I'll leave all that to those of you who are (apparently) experts.

 

I do know that I heard her first two albums before she became famous for being a knucklehead. I liked both albums a lot, and wanted to hear more.

 

Watching her descent into destructive drug addiction has not been pleasant. It realize that it makes some people angry or dismissive. I don't have that reaction -- it just makes me sad.

 

YMMV.

 

--Dave

 

 

Hack = Someone who pretends to be someone they are not....

 

In this case... a "respectable artist".

 

 

[Dave Pierce]

I think the most interesting thing about Amy Winehouse was here association with the Dap Kings and Daptone Records. Her neo-retro sound was 100% a product of this band and studio.

 

An excellent band, here they are with an excellent singer, Sharon Jones:

CLONK (Vimeo)

 

(Sorry I couldn't figure out how to embed Vimeo)

 

Thanks for posting that! I need to dig deeper into these guys, cools stuff.

 

Of course, I'm at my office right now, came in early because I have too much work to do. Time to get my ass off the KC, and get to work.

 

--Dave

 

[Adan]

As I see it, this thread began with a hypothesis, namely, that AW's popularity was due largely to curiosity about her personal life rather than her art. I wouldn't say I'm a passionate AW fan. I wouldn't go see her live. I just think the hypothesis is wrong. One rejoinder is that she attained a certain level of fame before her behavior started making headlines (e.g., before Cygnus' mom started hearing about her). Another rejoinder is that she went on to sell lots of records, win some very big awards, and became adored by millions, and that it is statistically implausible that this all happened because people were curious about her tattoos and what she put in her pipe.

 

The argument that since grammies and American Idol are both competitions, they are therefore both equally useless as measures of artistic worth is, by the way, a silly argument.

 

To the extent this thread turned into an "I like AW" v. "AW is a hack," well, who cares . . . that's a yawnfest.

 

If you feel no compassion for drug addicts, that's your choice. I find that a little sad, too.

[Cygnus64]

In any case, I am not pouncing on her. People who destroy their lives due to drugs get absolutely no sympathy from me.

 

They serve as a cautionary tale, particularly for musicians. There's a lot more than meets the eye, genetics can be a bitch.

 

I've been sober for 6 years, 11 months, 3 days. It can still be a struggle, I can never let my guard down. Of all my accomplishments in life, sobriety is the thing I am the proudest of.

[Cygnus64]

I just think the hypothesis is wrong.

I think we're dealing with two levels. There are plenty of accomplished musicians who do well, have great careers and aren't known to the "general public". I could rattle off 1000 classical people with huge careers that 1% of this forum has even possibly heard of.

 

On a similar level, I don't think I've seen Lindsay Lohan in a movie, yet I see her name in the paper pretty much weekly. The addict/f*ckup is the superstar, not the actress.

[HammondDave]

I applaud the addicts who finally find their way and become sober.

 

An interesting read is Chuck Negorn's Book "Three Dog Nightmare". Here is a guy who pissed away a career in the top pop band of the 60's and 70's due to his heroin addiction. He stole from his daughter to get a fix. He pawned his gold records to get a fix. He showed up stoned or late to concerts... to the point where his band-mates kicked him out of the band.

 

Negron when through countless rehab's... But he finally found the right one... and is now enjoying a resurrected career.

 

If Amy Winehouse finds her way, I will applaud her as well. But until then she is a waste of time. As Chuck Negron says in his book, being an enabler is the worse thing you can do for an addict. Anyone who pays money for her records or concerts, or pays attention to her is enabling her.

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMyd8kuZvc

[David Loving]

She has a horse face that rivals Sarah Jessica Parker. I think what's hot about Winehouse is her attitude. She'll either get clean or die just like the rest of them.

[Dazzathedrummer]

She has a horse face that rivals Sarah Jessica Parker. I think what's hot about Winehouse is her attitude. She'll either get clean or die just like the rest of them.

 

...why the long face?

[Meisenhower]

Personally, I like Any Winehouse for reasons I can't even explain, but I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

What I find amazing, is that a large group of musicians here, that no one has likely ever heard over (outside of their local pond), nor will they EVER be heard of on the same scale that the public knows Amy Winehouse, and can still be so belittling about her artistry, talent and personal demons.

 

How's the view from the "cheap seats," guys?

 

Winehouse had SOMETHING to get her recognized in the first place. She also was savvy enough to turn that something into a recording career (whether you like the music or not, isn't important, as there ARE enough others who do, to replace you).

 

She also has some pretty serious personal problems and she needs to address them and have people around her to get her to that end.

 

To call her a hack? That's a bit strong. Comparisons to Lady Day or Garland aren't so far fetched. I also don't remember hearing anything this harsh about Whitney Houston, who's fall from grace was MUCH farther, and never once heard her called a "hack" because of her drug use.

 

Same goes for Janis!

 

For some reason, some here just have an ax to grind against Amy Winehouse.

 

Tell you what, why don't you naysayers put up some great numbers on the charts, fill more than a few music halls, sell a couple of million records and then you may have a more credible soapbox to preach from. She just didn't trip over a recording contract and fall head first into a pool of money, did she?

 

I think she's a talented artist who is deeply troubled and I hope she gets the help she needs and comes back! If she doesn't, she'll ultimately be remembered as an "also ran" with bad behavior and I think she's better than that.

[HammondDave]

From an old interview...

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Liq9XA2lI&feature=related

[HammondDave]

Personally, I like Any Winehouse for reasons I can't even explain, but I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

What I find amazing, is that a large group of musicians here, that no one has likely ever heard over (outside of their local pond), nor will they EVER be heard of on the same scale that the public knows Amy Winehouse, and can still be so belittling about her artistry, talent and personal demons.

 

How's the view from the "cheap seats," guys?

 

Winehouse had SOMETHING to get her recognized in the first place. She also was savvy enough to turn that something into a recording career (whether you like the music or not, isn't important, as there ARE enough others who do, to replace you).

 

She also has some pretty serious personal problems and she needs to address them and have people around her to get her to that end.

 

To call her a hack? That's a bit strong. Comparisons to Lady Day or Garland aren't so far fetched. I also don't remember hearing anything this harsh about Whitney Houston, who's fall from grace was MUCH farther, and never once heard her called a "hack" because of her drug use.

 

Same goes for Janis!

 

For some reason, some here just have an ax to grind against Amy Winehouse.

 

Tell you what, why don't you naysayers put up some great numbers on the charts, fill more than a few music halls, sell a couple of million records and then you may have a more credible soapbox to preach from. She just didn't trip over a recording contract and fall head first into a pool of money, did she?

 

I think she's a talented artist who is deeply troubled and I hope she gets the help she needs and comes back! If she doesn't, she'll ultimately be remembered as an "also ran" with bad behavior and I think she's better than that.

 

You know, it all depends on what your definition of "success" is. If its selling millions of records and being able to steal money from adoring fans expecting to hear a musician who can stand up on stage, then I guess she is a "success".

[Cygnus64]

 

What I find amazing, is that a large group of musicians here, that no one has likely ever heard over (outside of their local pond), nor will they EVER be heard of on the same scale that the public knows Amy Winehouse, and can still be so belittling about her artistry, talent and personal demons.

 

How's the view from the "cheap seats," guys?

 

No offense, but that rationale is just ridiculous, especially in 2011. Ya got chicks shittin out kids and getting TV shows, housewives acting like tramps and getting TV shows, idiots singing on youtube and getting 76 gatrillion hits.

 

By your rationale, the members of the NYC Ballet are hacks, and Bristol Palin is an accomplished dancer that's clearly more talented. The Thespian world has lost one of their brightest stars, the dude from "Jackass" died, leaving us with only those Shakespearean hacks that nobody has ever heard of. Some of our finest intellects are on "Smarter than a Fifth Grader", because they make more money and have more fame than those pesky Harvard profs.

 

Winehouse may be the most talented person in the history of mankind, I have no idea and don't really care. People are entitled to opinions, and just because they haven't achieved the fame of a great arist like Tila Tequila is no reason to dismiss them.

[HammondDave]

 

How's the view from the "cheap seats," guys?

 

No offense, but that rationale is just ridiculous, especially in 2011. Ya got chicks shittin out kids and getting TV shows, housewives acting like tramps and getting TV shows, idiots singing on youtube and getting 76 gatrillion hits.

 

By your rationale, the members of the NYC Ballet are hacks, and Bristol Palin is an accomplished dancer that's clearly more talented. The Thespian world has lost one of their brightest stars, the dude from "Jackass" died, leaving us with only those Shakespearean hacks that nobody has ever heard of. Some of our finest intellects are on "Smarter than a Fifth Grader", because they make more money and have more fame than those pesky Harvard profs.

 

Winehouse may be the most talented person in the history of mankind, I have no idea and don't really care. People are entitled to opinions, and just because they haven't achieved the fame of a great arist like Tila Tequila is no reason to dismiss them.

 

 

++++++++++1

 

In addition, Judy Garland's career was much longer, and of greater artistic significance than Winehouse's. Just look at all the great jazz recordings she did. And even though she had drug issues, she could still perform. Watching Amy on stage, slurring her way through a song off-key is not my idea of an artist performing.

 

So before you include Amy Winehouse in the same league as Judy Garland, do a bit of music research into Judy's career.

[Meisenhower]

If Amy Winehouse finds her way, I will applaud her as well. But until then she is a waste of time. As Chuck Negron says in his book, being an enabler is the worse thing you can do for an addict. Anyone who pays money for her records or concerts, or pays attention to her is enabling her.

 

So by that rational, anyone who bought ANY record made by Eric Clapton during most of the 1970's was "enabling" him and he was a "total waste of time" during that period, cause he was using heroin and cocaine. I think some might disagree with you on that!

 

Hmmm, I guess Charlie Parker was a "waste of time too" while he was using, (which was pretty much his ENTIRE career). Imagine that?

 

Choices people! Some just make bad ones, but don't make their music the culprit in any of this! Personally, I'll continue to support the musical efforts of drug addicts and teatotalers alike, IF the music is to my liking!

 

 

[HammondDave]

If Amy Winehouse finds her way, I will applaud her as well. But until then she is a waste of time. As Chuck Negron says in his book, being an enabler is the worse thing you can do for an addict. Anyone who pays money for her records or concerts, or pays attention to her is enabling her.

 

So by that rational, anyone who bought ANY record made by Eric Clapton during most of the 1970's was "enabling" him and he was a "total waste of time" during that period, cause he was using heroin and cocaine. I think some might disagree with you on that!

 

Hmmm, I guess Charlie Parker was a "waste of time too" while he was using, (which was pretty much his ENTIRE career). Imagine that?

 

 

 

 

That's right. You are enabling these addicts when you buy their records (if indeed they get any money from them, as many of the classic jazz artists unfortunately did not).

 

Again, read Chuck's book. It may enlighten you on the perils and struggles of addiction...

[Meisenhower]

 

What I find amazing, is that a large group of musicians here, that no one has likely ever heard over (outside of their local pond), nor will they EVER be heard of on the same scale that the public knows Amy Winehouse, and can still be so belittling about her artistry, talent and personal demons.

 

How's the view from the "cheap seats," guys?

 

No offense, but that rationale is just ridiculous, especially in 2011. Ya got chicks shittin out kids and getting TV shows, housewives acting like tramps and getting TV shows, idiots singing on youtube and getting 76 gatrillion hits.

 

By your rationale, the members of the NYC Ballet are hacks, and Bristol Palin is an accomplished dancer that's clearly more talented. The Thespian world has lost one of their brightest stars, the dude from "Jackass" died, leaving us with only those Shakespearean hacks that nobody has ever heard of. Some of our finest intellects are on "Smarter than a Fifth Grader", because they make more money and have more fame than those pesky Harvard profs.

 

Winehouse may be the most talented person in the history of mankind, I have no idea and don't really care. People are entitled to opinions, and just because they haven't achieved the fame of a great arist like Tila Tequila is no reason to dismiss them.

 

No Cygnus, you are taking my post totally out of context. Read it again!

 

First, I never called ANYONE a hack, nor does my rational suggest that. It does suggest that people who's musical career will never reach above playing their local pub with their weekend band has little reason to demonize someone who, by most musician/artist standards "made it". You may not enjoy their music, but lets at least give them an A for getting there. My post was squarely directed at those HERE on this forum who are deriding Ms. Winehouse, and who will never have the chance to walk in her shoes! Hence my comment, "how's the view from the cheap seats."

 

Clearly, those I'm talking about are NOT members of the NYC Ballet or most classical orchestras, or performing thespians. Lets not confuse notoriety with success. Bristol Palin is notorious, but talented and should she be famous? Not so sure about that.

 

Same goes for virtually ALL reality television. This is an example of little or no talent being marketed, exploited and the public eats it up. Is is critically acclaimed? No. It's dreck, but people have a choice to watch or not. I choose to not watch. What is sad, is when you see someone who ONCE had a career and was famous, doing these stupid, vapid shows for a payday and they become a parody of themselves.

 

Amy Winehouse has BECOME notorious, but she still has talent and didn't get her start by being notorious, or being a reality TV star or whatever vehicle that gives someone 15 minutes, that wouldn't normally get 15 seconds.

 

I'm merely saying, give her her due and time will bear out how she does!

 

 

[HammondDave]

Sorry, but I have never desired to walk in her shoes. And I really don't think that anyone "deserves an A for getting there". It's how you get there and how you deal with "success" that defines you as a human being.

[Meisenhower]

That's right. You are enabling these addicts when you buy their records (if indeed they get any money from them, as many of the classic jazz artists unfortunately did not).

 

Again, read Chuck's book. It may enlighten you on the perils and struggles of addiction...

 

I don't think I can support a book giving advice from a former drug addled musician! Who knows what damage has been done to his ability to process thoughts! What if he falls off the wagon? Then the book sales would be enabling him to do drugs again!

 

See how ridiculous that whole thing sounds, Dave?

 

 

[HammondDave]

Except the fact is that he has not fallen off the wagon. And this book had helped numerous drug addicts, and their families deal with the horrors of addiction.

 

Just do a little research and you will discover that enabling is the worse thing you can do for a drug addict.

[CrimsonianKing]

One last thing to add : Let her be. It's not like you're the ones who wasted money on her shows, if you did, well...you knew she became a crackhead and can barely perform, you're to blame.

 

And meisenhower, i disagree. By that rational, we'd only had the right to give our opinions if we'd been there, in her shoes and that's not how the world works.

[Meisenhower]

Sorry, but I have never desired to walk in her shoes. And I really don't think that anyone "deserves an A for getting there". It's how you get there and how you deal with "success" that defines you as a human being.

 

You have to be the FIRST musician in history to have never wanted to be famous doing music, even for a second!

 

No one deserves any credit for getting to the top of the game, in the first place? Harsh, man, very harsh!

 

One of the things that defines us as human beings are our flaws and our ability to overcome! We also generally have great capacity for acceptance, but clearly some have more capacity than others in this regard!

 

Wow tough crowd!

[David Loving]

Let's all chip in and buy Amy a Big Book.

[GDP]

That's right. You are enabling these addicts when you buy their records (if indeed they get any money from them, as many of the classic jazz artists unfortunately did not)........

 

This is, of course, a false assertion. I have personally known artists, really sick and addicted ones who, through the support of loving fans have recovered.

 

The artist and their art should be viewed as distinctly separate from eachother. There is no need to feel supporting the art correlates to supporting the artists personal problems or addictions.

[Tonysounds]

Wow.reading this thread makes us all seem like trolls. Glad we can all come together to dump on a common cause. And please.the self-serving Anyone who pays money for her records or concerts, or pays attention to her is enabling her is just so much bullshit that it inspires me to ask when is anyones enjoyment of music (even that which we apparently deem beneath us) tied to any kind of responsibility to an artist/entertainer? Its not. Lets just call a spade a spade: there are those of us on this thread who dont care for Amy Winehouse or her music, and justifying it with shes a drug addict, she deserves it, its her fault is just so petty and undignified that it taints all of us. Drug and alcohol addiction are a disease like cancer and obesity, and the truth of it is some people can indulge in Peanut Butter n Bannana Sammiches, Jamesons and drugs and remain relatively unimpacted while others simply cannot. That doesnt have anything to do with liking her music, whether sober or dabbling. And honestly, Im happy for Chuck Negrons sobriety, and am sad that his former bandmates were so traumatized by his actions and fall from grace that those relationships will never be mended, but if this were 1983, and we had youtube clips of his exploding dick and crackhead behavior, would the vitriol would be just as severe or would it be tempered because you liked Three Dog Night?

 

There but for the grace of God go any one of us. Now just own your like or dislike of her music, and leave the judgment of her personal life to someone more qualified to do itsome entity with omnipotence perhaps.

 

WTF.

 

[Cygnus64]

 

 

First, I never called ANYONE a hack, nor does my rational suggest that. It does suggest that people who's musical career will never reach above playing their local pub with their weekend band has little reason to demonize someone who, by most musician/artist standards "made it". You may not enjoy their music, but lets at least give them an A for getting there. My post was squarely directed at those HERE on this forum who are deriding Ms. Winehouse, and who will never have the chance to walk in her shoes! Hence my comment, "how's the view from the cheap seats."

 

 

Sorry, but I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. More than anything else, being famous takes an overwhelming desire to be famous. Fame as a barometer for musical prowess or success is laughable to me.

 

When Keith Moon passed out in the old Who days (" Does anyone here know how to play the drums"? ), he still sounded better than messed-up Amy Winehouse. C'mon, this is her legacy:

[video:youtube]

[Cygnus64]

 

You have to be the FIRST musician in history to have never wanted to be famous doing music, even for a second!

 

I could name 500 right now.

[Meisenhower]

Except the fact is that he has not fallen off the wagon. And this book had helped numerous drug addicts, and their families deal with the horrors of addiction.

 

Just do a little research and you will discover that enabling is the worse thing you can do for a drug addict.

 

YET? Hasn't fallen off the wagon, YET! If you want to talk research, we can also talk about relapse rates, so some might say its only a matter of time before your favorite author becomes a statistic you won't be so proud of.

 

Don't assume I don't know about, or haven't had first hand experience managing an addiction related situation. You might be surprised!

 

What you call enabling, some would call "right to work". Should someone who is addicted, not be allowed gainful employment of their choice, simply because they're addicted? That is EXACTLY what you're saying by telling people not to support an artist who has a form of dependency!

 

Slippery slope there, Dave!

[Tonysounds]

You know, it all depends on what your definition of "success" is. If its selling millions of records and being able to steal money from adoring fans expecting to hear a musician who can stand up on stage, then I guess she is a "success".

 

Again, see Amy Winehouse...or Chuck Negron, or Jimi Hendrix, or Led Zeppelin or....