Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's possible to be horrified about what happened in Norway and be sad about Amy Winehouse. I cannot understand why people need to compare the two. Hr music touched so many people and I can honestly say this is he first time I have ever been moved to tears by a celebrity death.


If one young life is steered away from heroin and crack because of this, then some good will come out of it.


Once you start using heroin, your life expectancy reduces to about 7 years.


RT @billybragg: It's not age that Hendrix, Jones, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common - it's drug abuse, sadly

I think it's the magnitude of something like Norway which stops many people from commenting - what can you say? It's either 1000 pages of "thoughts with you all" type sentiment or lot's of misguided/plain wrong conjecture


Whereas music is universal and personal at the same time. Many of the relatives affected by events in Norway will use music as part of their way of getting through this. And it's that relationship with music which means so many people have something to say about Winehouse


There isn't anything good to say about her death. It surely can't be shocking tho? Anyone who has seen her try and perform in the last few years knew it could either go one of two ways?

To be honest, I never really got what all the fuss was about with her music. Yes she was talented, but unfortunately all she did was pave the way for the likes if Duffy and Paloma Faith.


I'm basically with Rosie on this. It's tragic, especially for her old man, but it's not really any surprise, and it pales in to absolute insignificance when compared to other things going on in London, let alone the rest of the world.

I agree with every single word Ratty.


ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's possible to be horrified about what happened

> in Norway and be sad about Amy Winehouse. I cannot

> understand why people need to compare the two. Hr

> music touched so many people and I can honestly

> say this is he first time I have ever been moved

> to tears by a celebrity death.

>

> If one young life is steered away from heroin and

> crack because of this, then some good will come

> out of it.

>

> Once you start using heroin, your life expectancy

> reduces to about 7 years.

>

> RT @billybragg: It's not age that Hendrix, Jones,

> Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common -

> it's drug abuse, sadly



To all those disrespecting the death of ONE seriously talented girl in light of the MASS death going on in other parts of the world- it is tragic when ANY life is lost in an untimely way, no matter the number. No one has the right to dictate how death and feelings of loss should take priority in other people's hearts. If you can't be respectful, shut the f*ck up. All of these deaths are total tragedies, and trying to work out which is worse doesn't make you more humane, it just distracts from the true scale of what has happened.


It also boils down to the fact that as a society, we have evolved to accept that the sole purpose for anyone in the mainstream entertainment spotlight is to be judged and exploited, and then thrown away in the bin. What ASTOUNDS me is that some of this shit-talking is coming from actors and other artists who i am sure would envy the success of someone like Amy Winehouse......... need i say more.

Sorry you think that, but I said right away that it is tragic, I just don't think the fact she was a talented and famous musician makes it any more tragic than any other death.


I don't agree with all the waste of talent talk, as it suggests to me that if she wasn't talented, it wouldn't be such a shame.


The real tragic thing is that she ever came across heroin in the first place. The aspect that I find sad, is that she knew what a mess she was, and she couldn't escape it.

That is not to say it was her fault for not being able to overcome them. It is society's fault. She was clearly extremely unhappy and I think probably would have turned to drink and drugs whether famous or not. It's just a shame she didn't get better care, support and help from everyone around her. We fail addicts- and if she couldn't get out from them then what hope have other addicts got. It's so easy to judge addicts just as many seem to be doing here. Unless you've ever known one though I doubt you'ld all be so self righteous.

Hmmm. I suspect a large number of people on here have direct experience of addicts.


It's also fair to say (without commenting on AW in particular) that there are some personalities that are destructive with or without drugs. And it isn't really society failing them. I can't imagine any society which has such safety nets that no addict can fail

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That is not to say it was her fault for not being

> able to overcome them. It is society's fault. She

> was clearly extremely unhappy and I think probably

> would have turned to drink and drugs whether

> famous or not. It's just a shame she didn't get

> better care, support and help from everyone around

> her. We fail addicts- and if she couldn't get out

> from them then what hope have other addicts got.

> It's so easy to judge addicts just as many seem to

> be doing here.


Unless you've ever known one though

> I doubt you'ld all be so self righteous.


What an extremely judgmental posting full of your own assumptions - particularly the last sentence. What insight and knowledge do you possess on whether anyone else on here knows addicts or not.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry you think that, but I said right away that

> it is tragic, I just don't think the fact she was

> a talented and famous musician makes it any more

> tragic than any other death.

>

> I don't agree with all the waste of talent talk,

> as it suggests to me that if she wasn't talented,

> it wouldn't be such a shame.




Are you looking for an argument on the lukewarm grave of someone deceeased ?

>

> The real tragic thing is that she ever came across

> heroin in the first place. The aspect that I find

> sad, is that she knew what a mess she was, and she

> couldn't escape it.

I think people are judging her here from what they've written and comparing it to the Norway tragedies. If you're not then fine but don't blame me for me coming to that conclusion when some of you have been very tastless in all of this.


Yes me as part of this society is to blame Alan Medic, as are you. I do agree StaferJack that 'I can't imagine any society which has such safety nets that no addict can fail'. However this was a celeb in the spotlight. She shouldn't have fell through that net. What is it saying for other addicts? what hope have they got?


But from all of this whingeing about why she's getting so much coverage there are actually some good debates to come from this.

I was the one to bring up Norway, but I didn't compare her death to the Norway massacres - I was merely wondering why her death provoked more comment.


I think Strafer answered part of the question, and perhaps the other part is that she lived her life in the tabloids, so people felt like they knew her more than they knew any of the people they're not lamenting. And for some, I accept that her music will have touched them.


However I've known addicts who have died: they weren't prodigious singing talents and they were mourned rather less by people who had never met them than Amy Winehouse. But still, there were some people, who never knew or liked them, who turned up at the funerals, death glory hunters if you will, being seen to give a shit in death in a way they never did in life, and it fucked me right off.


I smell a little of that in some of the comments I've been reading on the social interweb.



Edited to add - Ah, I have just looked at the Norway thread and see that perhaps it wasn't just me getting zeban's dander up. But zeban, you're missing a crucial point that katienumbers summed up nicely.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...