I know this post was a while ago, but the reason for not replying to 1izs comment was not that I thought it wasn't worth an answer, rather that it bothered me, made me question myself, and I have been thinking about it since. Sorry, but I was not yanking your leg, but I admit it is incredibly more complex than a blog can do justice.
First, I was not judging her. I suspect she does have a lot of demons that drive her to depths I would prefer not to know but, even if she doesn't, it is her choice what she does. I am certainly not looking to take a moral high ground. I agree that "her lifestyle seems to be causing herself and others real pain" and I hope she does get it sorted. It is one thing to destroy oneself, quite another to take others down with you (and I include smoking "normal" cigarettes in this category, if you feel that you have a right to give yourself cancer then fine, but then make sure that you don't have a family who will get wounded by your death {before I get slated for that particular thought, my father died when I was 10 because he smoked, so I think I am entitled to havean opinion}).
Yes, many fine artists have used drugs. Often not so blatantly but it isn't actually the drugs that are, in my mind, the problem in this case, it is the destructiveness of her lifestyle. I like a wee drop of whisky, I am quite content for my daughter to know that, but I wouldn't want her thinking that I needed it to get through every day. Interesting that an athlete is banned for using drugs but that to an artist it is more than simply acceptable. Is there a difference between an athlete improving his physical output and an artist improving their mental output? Why judge one and not the other if it really is so OK.
I think that awards, something that is held up high for the world to see, should have an element to them that comes above the basic requirements. Anyone who is judged to be an icon is being positioned as above the rest of us. Note I say judged, that is different to us all wandering around talking to our friends and saying how we love someones music and it is the best thing since sliced bread. By being judged, by being given awards, everything about that person is given credence.
There is an implication with 1izs comments that without drugs the only music we will get is bland. To say that 80% of credible output was fueled by drugs is incredibly damning on those not using drugs, especially from someone exposed to some excellent non-drug fueled music every year at Greenbelt. That is exactly the message that is dangerous to children. It IS possible to be creative, to have ideas, without resorting to drugs. And there is an interesting question of whether her music would be better if her mind weren't clouded.
4 comments:
I'm interested in your comparison between drug-fuelled athletics and drug-fuelled music. I suppose the difference is that drugs in athletics are purely performance enhancing whereas this is not the case in music.
I also went away and thought quite a lot after reading your post. One thing that struck me is that Any Winehouse seems to have attracted a lot more criticism for her drug abuse than a lot of male musicians - you could hold Pete Docherty up as an example but a lot of the criticism was about the effect he was having on 'poor Kate' rather than on his music. Possibly because his music wasn't that good. There were concerns about the behaviour of Oasis at their height but there was never any suggestion that they shouldn't get an award because of their drug-taking and drinking. I think this is because it's still just not acceptable for women to drink, take drugs or behave badly like men do - every photo accompanying a news article about Boozing Britain is of a girl being sick in the street.
I'd like to add that I'm not accusing you of being sexist, more reflecting on the media and wider society's opinion.
Had I been writing a blog at the time then my comments would have been made for Oasis, who I think were a terrible example to us all. And Pete DOcherty doesn't do anything well enough to get a mention. No, not sexist, it just happened this was the award at the time it was in my head.
Like I said, I wasn't saying that you were being sexist. I think that the media and wider society have different expectations of men and women in public and I think the furore around Amy Winehouse reflects that.
Just wodnering if it is sexist or realist to think that men are pigs, women aren't.
Post a Comment