smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | bob <segarini@rogers.com> |
| Subject | Re: Amy Winehouse wins BEST NEW ARTIST |
| Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:09:15 -0500 (EST) |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (4.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Try not to read things into my posts that aren't there.
Like anyone else's, they just convey an opinion.
Drugs have fueled everyone from Billie Holiday to John 's Lennon and Bonham, Jim's Morrison and Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, hell...the list is endless. Some acted out most don't. The music DOES stand on it's own in most cases.
...but when the music is overshadowed by the sideshow, it becomes the ONLY thing of worth connected to that artist and sends a sad message.
Talent is no excuse to be a butthead...but that doesn't stop any of us from buying product from people that we would not want in our homes in person.
I could watch Michael Jackson dance every day...but if I saw him on my lawn, I'd turn the hose on him...ditto Winehouse. Her music is just not to my taste, but if it were and I saw her in her underwear smoking crack in my yard...I'd get the hose.
bob
"John L. Micek" <jlmicek@verizon.net> wrote:
>What I'm really trying to say, is all this acting-out just gets media
>attention, and that sells the artist and the >product. People just can't
>get enough trainwrecks...why else is television infested with 'reality
>shows'?
Actually, I could give two f**ks whether she drinks too much or not.
None of my business. I just happen to think she makes great pop singles. And
god freaking forbid if she should sell any records. What would she do then
... gasp ... make a living from her music?
That would just stink.
C'mon, Bob .. I think you're trying to have it both ways, man.
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Winehouse wins BEST NEW ARTIST
>I wasn't being 'uppity', I was merely pointing out awards and participation
>in sports, (also regarded as entertainment by the vast majority of people),
>is denied those whose lifestyles are, shall we say, 'enhanced'.
> Except for judgemental yobs and 'think of the children' bleeding-hearts,
> nobody really cares what their heroes do off the stage/playing field...
> ...but there would be a certain segment of the music biz that would have
> to make some hard choices if they wanted the little prizes that are doled
> out all year.
> Actually, it would be interesting if they had to pee in a cup to get
> their gramaphone statue, and some would probably give up the drugs to
> play...and some wouldn't.
> Hell, there wouldn't have been ANY rock records in the late '60's-'70's
> if you had to be clean to get into a studio...
> >
> bob
>
> Pure Pop Records wrote:
> Audities mailing listSo you'll be throwing out your Beatles, Byrds and
> Eagles albums along with most of the 60's and 70's albums you own because
> if
> the testers came up to those folks and asked them to fill a bottle, we
> wouldn't have much to talk about on this list.
>
> Maybe we could start on jazz.....oh wait Miles, Bird, Billie, etc,
> etc.....................
>
> Let's not get too uppity about substance abuse problems of musicians. Sure
> it's not a great example for the kiddies and it isn't a way of life that
> should be recommended, but I'm wondering how our beloved Beatles would
> have
> fared in the public eye if they were under the scrutiny of the paparazzi
> and
> 24hr entertainment news networks and internet sites. Artists up until the
> present day were pretty much protected by a nod and a wink with
> journalists.
> All the old school journos who are now editors regale their mates down at
> the pub with unpublished stories of Keef and Lennon and Zep and Moon "back
> in the day" before sending out their underlings to go and stalk Amy or go
> through Heath's rubbish bin for any juicy information.
>
> What we really should be criticising Amy of is dressing in a retro style -
> by the way someone mentioned a place to get cheap Beatle boots, can you
> e-mail me offlist. Sorry where was I? That's right, criticise the way
> she slavishly copies a past style of music - did I tell you about this new
> CD I bought? Beatlesque, Byrdsian and a little like Big Star and
> definitely
> a hint of The Zombies.
>
> Really everyone, is Amy Winehouse the worst person you could think of to
> win
> Best New Artist? I would have thought her style of music, which is 60's
> influenced, would be sort of up our alley, if not exactly the type of
> stuff
> we like, at least in the ballpark.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>> 2.2. Re: Amy Winehouse wins BEST NEW ARTIST
>> Posted by: "bob" segarini@rogers.com
>> Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:04 am (PST)
>> I don't find her anything more than another hipster diversion.
>> Truth is, our society tests athletes for drugs and strip them of their
>> awards and stop them from participating if they come up positive.
>> I wonder what would happen to Hot AC/CHR/Urban/Hip Hop catagories for
>> awards and shows if the same criteria would be put forth.
>> Winehouse, for one, would be a cocktail waitress if that were so...
>
>> bob
>
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.