That withered old hack is a shadow, of a shadow of his former self. He need to shut the f*ck up.
"he couldn't understand how the younger generation, knowing the dangers of drug use, could still be users."
Too busy braiding fly-fishing lures into his hair to be relevant...
I can't believe you're dissing an icon like Keith Richards in favor of Winehorse, the one-trick pony...
C'mon dude...
I don't know about one trick pony. I happen to like her album a lot. Richards on the other hand has long passed into the role of establishment tool. All that's left of him is a deeply tarnished legacy and a positively Satanic smokers cough. The Rolling Stones are a blight on the rock landscape, like a bleached skeleton stuffed with dirty money.
How exactly are the Stones a blight on the rock landscape? Is it because they've been able to outlive their contemporaries? Granted, I wouldn't go see the Stones as they are now, but no one can deny their overall contribution to the genre. I think your critique would just as easily apply to Joplin, Morrison or Hendrix if they were still around today. The fact that the Stones can still get on a stage and play music after all the damage they've put on themselves is pretty impressive. They also played music in an era that had no shortage of great acts. Not like the barren wasteland of disposable pop bullshit and watered-down soulless imitators that make up the "rock landscape" of today.
Chances are, Winehouse isn't gonna be around for much longer, so enjoy her music while you can. Personally, I don't think she's all that and I would solely attribute her grammy wins as nothing more than a lack of competition. She basically (IMO) won by default.
They're a blight because they suck, and have sucked for many, many years. If they deserve credit for remaining alive, then it should come not from music fans but the medical community. I agree with you that Morrison and Joplin would probably be playing State Fairs if they were still alive. Hendrix on the other hand...
Yes, the Stones haven't put out a good album in a long ass time. They probably should have just kept touring and not recording new material. "Exile on Main Street" was their peak, and they probably should have wrapped things up around the time that "Tattoo You" came out. However, the timelessness of their quality material speaks volumes regarding their rightful place in the "rock landscape".
C'mon dude, if Hendrix were still alive, he'd be about as coherent as Syd Barrett. Dude was popping LSD like it was cracker jacks.
Gotta say they surprised me with Some Girls. That got a lot of spins back when it came out.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
she should of dedicated her 5 grammys to the uk tabloid press.
Yeah, because everyone knows that Grammys are awarded on the basis of artistic merit. Jesus...
Well, as I understand it, that may actually be a lot truer than you might think. Look at how many technical awards are dished out at the Grammys, compared to the Brits. It seems to me that the folks responsible for deciding who wins what are given a fairly strict set of criteria by which to make their judgements. If the volume of tabloid gossip-column coverage (and not even in the US press) was the key deciding factor, then how come a jazz album gets to win Album of The Year? At least the Grammys don't give out awards to performers on the basis of them promising to show up on the night (any number of US winners at previous MOBO ceremonies), or because they threaten not to turn up unless they're given at least two awards (Robbie Williams at the Brits).
If you'd rather not consider these points, then plaese to continue bellyaching along with everyone else about how Sharon Jones has been ripped off because someone else made a record with her band which sold 3m copies and won a grip of awards, despite that person obviously having no talent or ability whatsoever.
Look - the Grammys reflect a consensus amidst a very particular set of voters that - often times - seem to fly in the face of populism, even critically-tinged populism. That voting base also tends to skew older which explains not just Hancock this year but surprising wins of late like Steely Dan back in 2001. I'm not suggesting Herbie didn't deserve to win (but I also didn't hear his album...in fact, very few people did: it only sold 40,000 copies). But when it comes to the Grammys - even more so than the Oscars in my opinion - this utter disconnect between "what voters like" vs. "what people like" + "what critics like" couldn't be more stark.
Fair enough, but how likely do you think it is that they'd give an act not just one award, but FIVE, on the basis of anything other than musical merit? I'm completely speculating as to exactly what does motivate their choices, of course, but I find it difficult to believe that the tabloid-worthiness or controversy value of an act would ever be a factor.
It amazes me that there are people up in here still hatting on Winehouse for reasons other than simple issues of taste. If that were the sole reason, it would be easy to understand. Instead, we usually get variations on the following themes;
1) She stole Sharon Jones' licks/band/shine, therefore she sucks. 2) Becky, Kaitlyn n 'em dig her, therefore she sucks 3) She's not only a drug-fucked skank, she's a drug-fucked Euroskank, therefore she sucks. 4) She's another over-marketed major-label white artist co-opting black music, therefore she sucks. 5) She does not Represent the Real, therefore she sucks
I dunno, man. I like the girl, albeit not on some ride-or-die shit, but considering how little attention's been given to her Art in recent months, I think this might be of some real benefit to her, both as an artist and a human being.
I dunno, man. I like the girl, albeit not on some ride-or-die shit, but considering how little attention's been given to her Art in recent months, I think this might be of some real benefit to her, both as an artist and a human being.
You really think she's gonna quit junk because she won five Grammies? She can easily justify her habits now that she's been rewarded with top honors for singing "no, no, no" to rehab. Had she had her nominations taken away because of her deplorably stupid behavior these last few months, maybe there'd be some real benefit to her.
And the Grammy for Most Irresponsible Rewarding of Bad Behavior in a New Artist goes to: The Grammies!
That withered old hack is a shadow, of a shadow of his former self. He need to shut the f*ck up.
"he couldn't understand how the younger generation, knowing the dangers of drug use, could still be users."
Too busy braiding fly-fishing lures into his hair to be relevant...
I can't believe you're dissing an icon like Keith Richards in favor of Winehorse, the one-trick pony...
C'mon dude...
If the "trick" is co-opting Black music, then they're both guilty.
Yes, but the Stones did a way better job at it...
Nah, when comparing the soulfulness of these two, Amy trumps.
See, the difference here lies in the fact that Winehorse is directly co-opting black music, whereas the Stones incorporated their black music influences into their OWN sound. This really isn't open for debate, is it? Kinda sad that this junkie twat is being championed so vehemently on a forum that prides itself on recognizing the difference between real music and pale imitations.
I dunno, man. I like the girl, albeit not on some ride-or-die shit, but considering how little attention's been given to her Art in recent months, I think this might be of some real benefit to her, both as an artist and a human being.
You really think she's gonna quit junk because she won five Grammies? She can easily justify her habits now that she's been rewarded with top honors for singing "no, no, no" to rehab. Had she had her nominations taken away because of her deplorably stupid behavior these last few months, maybe there'd be some real benefit to her.
And the Grammy for Most Irresponsible Rewarding of Bad Behavior in a New Artist goes to: The Grammies!
You can't blame the grammies. What else are they gonna do? Who would have won those awards if she wasn't nominated? The music machine is in serious disrepair. There ain't shit going on in music nowadays, no one sells records, new artists are one-dimensional and make totally forgettable tv commercial background music. You KNOW shit is bad when motherfuckers from American Idol and Billy ray Cyrus' kid are the biggest artists of the year.
Furthermore, if Hollywood doesn't wise up soon, their cinema empire may start to fall. Shit, you can already see some chinks in their armor now that one can basically download shit that's still in theaters from their pc.
Worst thing that the media kings did was to allow technology to get ahead of their game.
Worst thing that the media kings did was to allow technology to get ahead of their game believe that they could just make a shitty product becuase they thought they had a lock on the distribution.
I dunno, man. I like the girl, albeit not on some ride-or-die shit, but considering how little attention's been given to her Art in recent months, I think this might be of some real benefit to her, both as an artist and a human being.
You really think she's gonna quit junk because she won five Grammies? She can easily justify her habits now that she's been rewarded with top honors for singing "no, no, no" to rehab. Had she had her nominations taken away because of her deplorably stupid behavior these last few months, maybe there'd be some real benefit to her.
And the Grammy for Most Irresponsible Rewarding of Bad Behavior in a New Artist goes to: The Grammies!
You can't blame the grammies. What else are they gonna do? Who would have won those awards if she wasn't nominated? The music machine is in serious disrepair. There ain't shit going on in music nowadays, no one sells records, new artists are one-dimensional and make totally forgettable tv commercial background music. You KNOW shit is bad when motherfuckers from American Idol and Billy ray Cyrus' kid are the biggest artists of the year.
Furthermore, if Hollywood doesn't wise up soon, their cinema empire may start to fall. Shit, you can already see some chinks in their armor now that one can basically download shit that's still in theaters from their pc.
Worst thing that the media kings did was to allow technology to get ahead of their game.
It's gonna be interesting to see what happens.
Regardless of the competition (or lack thereof--see Rihanna's "Don't Stop the Music"? wtf?!) in the categories she was nominated in, she's a mess. The industry knows it, but doesn't care enough to do anything about it. "Here's the consequence of your bad behavior, Amy. If being a junkie makes for good art, keep it up while you can, kiddo. We're already looking for new talent." Amy Winehouse will be croaking her way through her own Lady in Satin before too long.
If she's squeaks out one more LP and then croaks, it will make more money for the record company than if she makes ten more albums and cleans up along the way.
Fair enough, but how likely do you think it is that they'd give an act not just one award, but FIVE, on the basis of anything other than musical merit?
Take this kindly but c'mon. Quantity of awards doesn't, per se, explain/justify quality. All it means is that the voting body for the Grammies really liked her. That's not for nothing. It's also not everything.
And mind you: I like Amy Winehouse. I just don't think her winning a Grammy means shit about her musical merit. That's really for listeners to decide. History will be arguing this to death from here on out.
I'm completely speculating as to exactly what does motivate their choices, of course, but I find it difficult to believe that the tabloid-worthiness or controversy value of an act would ever be a factor.
More news = more awareness. It CAN be useful, but by itself, it's not enough. Otherwise, Britney would have won.
considering how little attention's been given to her Art in recent months, I think this might be of some real benefit to her, both as an artist and a human being.
I don't know about that.
The problem isn't Art or Attention. It's the fact that she has a drug problem.
Worst thing that the media kings did was to allow technology to get ahead of their game believe that they could just make a shitty product becuase they thought they had a lock on the distribution.
It's gonna be interesting to see what happens.
No matter how well a product is distributed, if it's shit... no one will pay for it. Especially if they can get the one or two "decent" trax on the album for free. Adding another nail to the coffin is the mp3 as the reigning audio format of choice. An intangible product that singlehandedly does away with music distribution and puts the power back in the hands of the artists. Funny thing is, the sudden apparent lack of said artists.
From a DIY standpoint, this is the dream scenario. However, without companies throwing money at the worthwhile artists' development, marketing and promotion, it's a steadily sinking ship. If companies don't wise up and put tastemakers and discerning music afficionados at the controls, they will undoubtedly continue to clutch at straws and fail.
That withered old hack is a shadow, of a shadow of his former self. He need to shut the f*ck up.
"he couldn't understand how the younger generation, knowing the dangers of drug use, could still be users."
Too busy braiding fly-fishing lures into his hair to be relevant...
I can't believe you're dissing an icon like Keith Richards in favor of Winehorse, the one-trick pony...
C'mon dude...
If the "trick" is co-opting Black music, then they're both guilty.
Yes, but the Stones did a way better job at it...
Nah, when comparing the soulfulness of these two, Amy trumps.
See, the difference here lies in the fact that Winehorse is directly co-opting black music, whereas the Stones incorporated their black music influences into their OWN sound. This really isn't open for debate, is it? Kinda sad that this junkie twat is being championed so vehemently on a forum that prides itself on recognizing the difference between real music and pale imitations.
Otis Redding would disagree.
As would anyone that's ever heard Muddy Waters or Howling Wolf...
That withered old hack is a shadow, of a shadow of his former self. He need to shut the f*ck up.
"he couldn't understand how the younger generation, knowing the dangers of drug use, could still be users."
Too busy braiding fly-fishing lures into his hair to be relevant...
I can't believe you're dissing an icon like Keith Richards in favor of Winehorse, the one-trick pony...
C'mon dude...
If the "trick" is co-opting Black music, then they're both guilty.
Yes, but the Stones did a way better job at it...
Nah, when comparing the soulfulness of these two, Amy trumps.
See, the difference here lies in the fact that Winehorse is directly co-opting black music, whereas the Stones incorporated their black music influences into their OWN sound. This really isn't open for debate, is it? Kinda sad that this junkie twat is being championed so vehemently on a forum that prides itself on recognizing the difference between real music and pale imitations.
im not a huge fan of her, but Ronson did an awesome job. The production is tighter than a pussy in cold winter. I can listen to it without a problem. Dude just got what it takes. I dont even think Amy would have had any recognition without Ronson's work behind. The only song im not feeling was the Marvin/Tammy cover. She fucked it up. But the rest of the LP is just so good, hating on it is like hating on your dick...
People (albeit much smaller numbers) were taking note of her pre-Ronson. Salaam Remi did a good job with Frank even though it's nowhere near as tough as Back to Black. She sounds good over a gang of producers. Bugz in the Attic produced a classic remix for "In my bed".
She was winning Black music awards in the UK for years before Ronson came along.
Comments
Same here. I only ride for 12" version of Undercover, though.
Yes, the Stones haven't put out a good album in a long ass time. They probably should have just kept touring and not recording new material. "Exile on Main Street" was their peak, and they probably should have wrapped things up around the time that "Tattoo You" came out. However, the timelessness of their quality material speaks volumes regarding their rightful place in the "rock landscape".
C'mon dude, if Hendrix were still alive, he'd be about as coherent as Syd Barrett. Dude was popping LSD like it was cracker jacks.
In the area of Goats Head Soup, though I'd grudgingly go as far as some of the stuff on Some Girls.
In the ???60s and ???70s, we had no idea coke and heroin were bad for you! Seriously!
GTFOOHWTBS[/b]
Fair enough, but how likely do you think it is that they'd give an act not just one award, but FIVE, on the basis of anything other than musical merit? I'm completely speculating as to exactly what does motivate their choices, of course, but I find it difficult to believe that the tabloid-worthiness or controversy value of an act would ever be a factor.
It amazes me that there are people up in here still hatting on Winehouse for reasons other than simple issues of taste. If that were the sole reason, it would be easy to understand. Instead, we usually get variations on the following themes;
1) She stole Sharon Jones' licks/band/shine, therefore she sucks.
2) Becky, Kaitlyn n 'em dig her, therefore she sucks
3) She's not only a drug-fucked skank, she's a drug-fucked Euroskank, therefore she sucks.
4) She's another over-marketed major-label white artist co-opting black music, therefore she sucks.
5) She does not Represent the Real, therefore she sucks
I dunno, man. I like the girl, albeit not on some ride-or-die shit, but considering how little attention's been given to her Art in recent months, I think this might be of some real benefit to her, both as an artist and a human being.
You really think she's gonna quit junk because she won five Grammies?
She can easily justify her habits now that she's been rewarded with top honors for singing "no, no, no" to rehab.
Had she had her nominations taken away because of her deplorably stupid behavior these last few months, maybe there'd be some real benefit to her.
And the Grammy for Most Irresponsible Rewarding of Bad Behavior in a New Artist goes to:
The Grammies!
Otis Redding would disagree.
amy winehouse is better than the stones.
and obama will be the next president.
You can't blame the grammies. What else are they gonna do? Who would have won those awards if she wasn't nominated? The music machine is in serious disrepair. There ain't shit going on in music nowadays, no one sells records, new artists are one-dimensional and make totally forgettable tv commercial background music. You KNOW shit is bad when motherfuckers from American Idol and Billy ray Cyrus' kid are the biggest artists of the year.
Furthermore, if Hollywood doesn't wise up soon, their cinema empire may start to fall. Shit, you can already see some chinks in their armor now that one can basically download shit that's still in theaters from their pc.
Worst thing that the media kings did was to allow technology to get ahead of their game.
It's gonna be interesting to see what happens.
And you'll seize any opportunity--no matter how completely irrelevant to the topic at hand--to mount that well-worn political soapbox of yours.
yea, thats me, always on my soap box preaching to you guys.
Regardless of the competition (or lack thereof--see Rihanna's "Don't Stop the Music"? wtf?!) in the categories she was nominated in, she's a mess. The industry knows it, but doesn't care enough to do anything about it. "Here's the consequence of your bad behavior, Amy. If being a junkie makes for good art, keep it up while you can, kiddo. We're already looking for new talent."
Amy Winehouse will be croaking her way through her own Lady in Satin before too long.
Basically...
End thread hijack...
Take this kindly but c'mon. Quantity of awards doesn't, per se, explain/justify quality. All it means is that the voting body for the Grammies really liked her. That's not for nothing. It's also not everything.
And mind you: I like Amy Winehouse. I just don't think her winning a Grammy means shit about her musical merit. That's really for listeners to decide. History will be arguing this to death from here on out.
More news = more awareness. It CAN be useful, but by itself, it's not enough. Otherwise, Britney would have won.
I don't know about that.
The problem isn't Art or Attention. It's the fact that she has a drug problem.
No matter how well a product is distributed, if it's shit... no one will pay for it. Especially if they can get the one or two "decent" trax on the album for free. Adding another nail to the coffin is the mp3 as the reigning audio format of choice. An intangible product that singlehandedly does away with music distribution and puts the power back in the hands of the artists. Funny thing is, the sudden apparent lack of said artists.
From a DIY standpoint, this is the dream scenario. However, without companies throwing money at the worthwhile artists' development, marketing and promotion, it's a steadily sinking ship. If companies don't wise up and put tastemakers and discerning music afficionados at the controls, they will undoubtedly continue to clutch at straws and fail.
As would anyone that's ever heard Muddy Waters or Howling Wolf...
LOL. Black who?
In Amy's case, maybe it worked backwards.
Hopefully she can clean up and still make great music.
saying. Let's not talk crazy.
People (albeit much smaller numbers) were taking note of her pre-Ronson. Salaam Remi did a good job with Frank even though it's nowhere near as tough as Back to Black. She sounds good over a gang of producers. Bugz in the Attic produced a classic remix for "In my bed".
She was winning Black music awards in the UK for years before Ronson came along.
Can I get a witness, Aser? Empanadamn?
my 0.02....