Amy Winehouse

[Edward]

Someone predicted it 3 years ago.

And that's the tragedy: everyone saw it coming, but how many of them genuinely tried to prevent it?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't know her music or anything about her other than what I read -- but I agree with those commentators who've pointed out that the modern media culture has as much responsibility for her death as she herself does. A drunk, drugged-out star makes far more compelling copy and a far more exciting image to sell than a sober, serious-minded one any day of the week. and the media and music-business parasites who surrounded her and no doubt helped egg her on have her blood on their hands. Until we, as a society, reject the idea of glamorizing and romanticizing the tortured-artist image to sell music and concert tickets, there are going to be plenty of other talented young kids who'll follow in her footsteps.

And yes, there were plenty of Golden Era artists who threw their lives down a bar drain. "Bixing" isn't a new concept, but nowadays people seem to *expect* it. If you aren't badly messed up, you aren't a legitimate artist. If you're happy and well-adjusted and take your work seriously, you're a commercial hack.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

If you're happy and well-adjusted and take your work seriously, you're [perceived as] a commercial hack.

Case in point: Celine Dion (although she does well enough).

 

[Feraud]

"Bixing" isn't a new concept, but nowadays people seem to *expect* it. If you aren't badly messed up, you aren't a legitimate artist. If you're happy and well-adjusted and take your work seriously, you're a commercial hack.

Sad but true. The Hip-Hop genre also suffers from industry pushing the gangsta image to the detriment of the artists.

 

[Edward]

I don't know her music or anything about her other than what I read -- but I agree with those commentators who've pointed out that the modern media culture has as much responsibility for her death as she herself does. A drunk, drugged-out star makes far more compelling copy and a far more exciting image to sell than a sober, serious-minded one any day of the week. and the media and music-business parasites who surrounded her and no doubt helped egg her on have her blood on their hands. Until we, as a society, reject the idea of glamorizing and romanticizing the tortured-artist image to sell music and concert tickets, there are going to be plenty of other talented young kids who'll follow in her footsteps.

And yes, there were plenty of Golden Era artists who threw their lives down a bar drain. "Bixing" isn't a new concept, but nowadays people seem to *expect* it. If you aren't badly messed up, you aren't a legitimate artist. If you're happy and well-adjusted and take your work seriously, you're a commercial hack.

Unfortunately, Lizzie, this does indeed seem to be the case. The big difference is that whereas back in the day the artists / record labels and even, often AFAIK, a compliant press would go out of their way to hush these things up, now they're all over it as a publicity machine. The people who buy all the papers and read the stories so they can tut tut at another dead junkie are al too often the same people that complained about "media exploitation" of Diana Windsor, while buying all the photospreads, magaizines and souvenir plates they could find.

I remember even the hip NME editorial staff being unsettled a few years ago when Pete Doherty* was voted top of the "cool list" of the year by the readership. All credit to them, the NME ran an editorial piece in which they pointed out all the reasons why this was not a desirable state of affairs.




*A sometime acquaintance of Amy Winehouse; they shared a mutual interest in narcotics and alcohol, and had similar tabloid notoriety; difference was he was a clear case of Emperor's New Clothes, while she was a genuine talent.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And the industry and the media keeps selling that image because people keep buying it. The audiences themselves who buy into these images also have blood on their hands, I think. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and how many more dead young talents will we need before people wise up about it? We can certainly blame the Daily Mirror for such a state of affairs, but people might also take a look in their *own* mirror.

 

[MissChloeCorville]

Funny, when she was alive, everyone,made fun of her. And of course now that shes dead shes some "amazing" talent. I guess that s the way it goes, you have to be dead to be somebody amd have people respect you.

 

[hatophile]

It seems that folks enjoy seeing the downfall of those with fame and fortune, ie, "they're like us poor regular slobs after all". All you have to do is look at the supermarket tabloids to see stories of celebrity divorces, fights, alcohol, drug use and rehab failures. It must somehow be programmed into our baser nature to want to see degradation of these famous people.
In the long run, the lesson is: money and fame can't buy health and happiness, and in fact, can lead to ruin just as easily.

 

[Edward]

And the industry and the media keeps selling that image because people keep buying it. The audiences themselves who buy into these images also have blood on their hands, I think. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and how many more dead young talents will we need before people wise up about it? We can certainly blame the Daily Mirror for such a state of affairs, but people might also take a look in their *own* mirror.

Bingo.

Funny, when she was alive, everyone,made fun of her. And of course now that shes dead shes some "amazing" talent. I guess that s the way it goes, you have to be dead to be somebody amd have people respect you.

Yip, it's Diana Windsor syndrome all over again. You probably wouldn't have seen The Sun on the day after her accident, with it's headline "Queen of Hearts", but it was everywhere over here. Of course, virtually nobody saw the original Sun front page for that day (which was printed and ready to go out): "Diana the leech", an attack story on her for being on her third (broadly taxpayer funded) holiday in a month). The best comment on the whole thing - and by extrapolation all such scenarios was in Private Eye, which published a satirical editorial, apologising for "anything derogatory we may have said over the years about the late Diana, Princess of Wales. In the light of last Sunday's tragic events we have now realised that she was, in fact, the most saintly person who ever lived, and we would like to express our deepest hypocrisy to all our readers".
As Meyer Wolfsheim once said, "Let us learn to show friendship for a man when he is alive and not after he is dead." Amy Winehouse reminds me a lot of Gatsby in some ways.

 

[Chas]

For the life of me I cannot understand what is wrong with people that they think it's alright to sit in smug, self-righteous judgment about those who suffer from the debilitating disease of addiction.

Would you blame a person for dieing of cancer? Of course not!

Addiction is not a disease. It's a medical condition, but it is not a disease. There is no single causative agent. Cancer is a disease. Lupus is a disease. Diabetes is a disease.

There is no identified gene, virus or whatever with addiction.

There are innumerable cases of people walking away from addiction- albeit with some slips and struggles. Nobody walks away from pancreatic cancer. It is 100% fatal. Addiction is not even in the same room as something like that. When one calls addiction a 'disease' they essentially give the addict a pass- and excusing them from responsibility for their own life; which does not help them in the long run.

Funny, when she was alive, everyone,made fun of her. And of course now that shes dead shes some "amazing" talent. I guess that s the way it goes, you have to be dead to be somebody amd have people respect you.

Yeah, I always wondered about that too.

I always thought that she was talented and all that- I just wasn't into her thing. The vast crowd of vocalists these days are a pretty sorry bunch when it comes to ability. There's not a single one among them who would be making the kind of money or holding the same status if they were working in the same era as Nat King Cole or Billie Holiday. They'd all be rated as the second-class acts that they are.

 

[Tomasso]

If you aren't badly messed up, you aren't a legitimate artist. If you're happy and well-adjusted and take your work seriously, you're a commercial hack.

When Alicia Keys' theme song for the Bond film Quantum of Solace was chosen over Amy's she said, "I guess they are going for clean-cut and boring".

Alicia Keys was born and raised in Hell's Kitchen by a single mother. She said: "I had to decide if I was going to do the right thing or the wrong thing, take drugs or not take drugs, or end up getting in the wrong scenario".

 

[Atticus Finch]

Addiction is not a disease. It's a medical condition, but it is not a disease. There is no single causative agent. Cancer is a disease. Lupus is a disease. Diabetes is a disease.

There is no identified gene, virus or whatever with addiction.

...When one calls addiction a 'disease' they essentially give the addict a pass- and excusing them from responsibility for their own life; which does not help them in the long run.

I totally agree with you. I’ve listened while addicts excused their criminal behavior with this argument way too many times. But in all fairness to those who refer to addiction as a "disease"….I think they are more likening it to mental illness than to physical illness such as cancer or lupus.

AF

 

[Chas]

This clip will interest anyone with more than a passing interest in addiction. Brilliant stuff, really.

[video=youtube;EREriwV71mA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EREriwV71mA[/video]

 

[Guttersnipe]

Addiction is not a disease. It's a medical condition, but it is not a disease. There is no single causative agent. Cancer is a disease. Lupus is a disease. Diabetes is a disease.

There is no identified gene, virus or whatever with addiction.

There are innumerable cases of people walking away from addiction- albeit with some slips and struggles. Nobody walks away from pancreatic cancer. It is 100% fatal. Addiction is not even in the same room as something like that. When one calls addiction a 'disease' they essentially give the addict a pass- and excusing them from responsibility for their own life; which does not help them in the long run.



Yeah, I always wondered about that too.

I always thought that she was talented and all that- I just wasn't into her thing. The vast crowd of vocalists these days are a pretty sorry bunch when it comes to ability. There's not a single one among them who would be making the kind of money or holding the same status if they were working in the same era as Nat King Cole or Billie Holiday. They'd all be rated as the second-class acts that they are.

I totally agree with you. I’ve listened while addicts excused their criminal behavior with this argument way too many times. But in all fairness to those who refer to addiction as a "disease"….I think they are more likening it to mental illness than to physical illness such as cancer or lupus.

AF

Both the American Psychiatric Association, since 1965, and American Medical Association, since 1966, have classified addiction as a disease.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Both the American Psychiatric Association since 1965 and American Medical Association since 1966 have classified addiction as a disease.

'Tis true. It is also true that in order for most health insurance policies to pay for treatment, the treatment has to be of a "disease".

AF

 

[Chas]

That doesn't mean that it is a disease. A disease has an underlying pathology. Addiction doesn't.

And, judging from http://www.recoverytoday.net/articles/143-dsm-v-major-changes-to-addictive-disease-classifications?format=pdf&ml=5&mlt=&tmpl=, it appears that the APA is revising that position that addiction is a disease.

That position is not concrete either; there is a lot of dissension among the academics of the medical and psychiatric professions that addiction qualifies as a disease.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Both the American Psychiatric Association, since 1965, and American Medical Association, since 1966, have classified addiction as a disease.

If its a disease then it's the only one I know of that's self-inflicted.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I highly recommend this, this, and this for a better understanding if addiction. In bullet points:

* Decades of clinical research shows a propensity for addiction is strongly linked to genetics.
* Similar to other disease in which genetic propensity plays a roll (e.g. diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), lifestyle choices also play a significant roll.

I don't mean to sound combative but, as the grandson of an MD who was a pioneer in the area of addiction medicine specialization, this is an issue very important to me.

As long as there is a stigma that addicts are somehow mentally weak, lacking in moral fiber, or otherwise somehow deficient, it will only add to the cycle of shame and self-loathing that helps to perpetuate an awful cycle.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I don't mean to sound combative but, as the grandson of an MD who was a pioneer in the area of addiction medicine specialization, this is an issue very important to me.

I don't think that you are being combative. I respect your opinion and applaud the work of your grandperson. That's the great thing about forums such as this...it is possible to disagree about the substantive issues in a discussion without being personally confrontational.

And I have to admit that I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to addiction. I believe that the reason addiction has been embraced as a disease by some (not all) in the medical profession has more to do with compensation for treatment than anything else. I also believe that the concept of addiction being a disease yields itself too well to being an excuse for all kinds of abhorrent, criminal conduct. I wish I could count the times I have heard a defense lawyer stand before a court and claim that his or her defendant was less culpable...or even not guilty...of some crime because of his defendant was addicted to drugs, or to sex, or to gambling or to whatever. It really become a tiresome tune after a while.

AF

 

[hatophile]

However it's classified, most would agree that addiction has a medical component and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, as Atticus pointed out, the condition of addiction contributes to significant criminal behaviors to obtain and or use the addictive substance. Thus, there are also legal and penal issues to be addressed along with the medical issues. This, I think, makes it difficult for many people, medical practitioners included, to have the same empathy with addicts that they have for other types of patients.

Nonetheless, it is important for any individual with a medical condition to contribute to their own care and try to take some personal responsibility for the treatment, be it taking medication, following a diet or excercise program, or attending therapy or medical appointments. Once again, however, the condition of addiction tends to be associated with a certain amount of denial and irresponsibility. Ultimately, until the question of cause can be answered with a satisfactory scientific explanation, the treatment of addiction will continue to be a major conundrum for health policy and medical practitioners.

Added:

To contribute to the complexity of addiction treatment, many addicts have associated serious psychiatric and emotional conditions.