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 20:10:38 -0500 (EST) |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
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...
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'?
bob
Pure Pop Records <info@purepop.com.au> 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the pub with unpublished stories of Keef and Lennon and Zep and Moon "back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.