Apologies Marley and others in this thread. My typing is slower than my posting and Marley correctly called me out.
Plus I was getting offensive to other posters.
“Did she ever even write a song” is a fair question if offered honestly, as many pop singers don’t write their own stuff. It’s the sort of thing that, rightly or wrongly, will affect her legacy.
Of course, if it’s simply meant dismissively, it’s not really appropriate for this thread.
This is a good example of the way apologies should be written.
I get what you’re saying about writing, but I think people don’t give true singers enough credit and I used to do the same. Then I thought about it and realized that TRUE singers who have talent without needing autotune are working with an instrument just like a guitarist or a drummer.
They have to do things to preserve their voices, warm up, take vocal lessons and practice just like anyone else with an instrument. I don’t think Amy Winehouse should be looked upon (as an artist) any less than any other musician who doesn’t write their own music.
Except that she did write her own songs. She won an Ivor Novello Award for songwriting.
I believe it was I who originally asked that. And I asked it respectfully and in earnest.
Amy Winehouse gets no radio play on any stations I, or my kids, listen to in Canada. Lady Gaga is a megastar on the other hand. It was a legitimate question.
I was just clarifying someone else’s apologia that looked very much like a misconception.
Thank you – lots of musicians don’t write their own material, or don’t get hits on their on stuff. It’s a totally different skill, IMO, than interpreting.
I was thinking about working up a little homage to her music (especially off “Back to Black”) that I could keep playing without sounding too weepy and obviously tribute-like, just like I did when Dennis Hopper died. She’s up there in my estimation with DH, in that I care enough to want to do something nice to make people feel nice about her nice music. Shame it took her death to bring her around to my consciousness again.
Leaffan:
Lady Gaga’s songs contain a high-energy rhythm that is fantastic for radio airplay. It’s the kind of thing you can dance to, the kind of thing that has you drumming along with it on the steering wheel of your car.
I’m not a fan of Amy Winehouse’s music, but I’m very willing to accept that others see some appeal in her. But from what I’ve heard of her music, her songs seem to be very low-toned and low-energy. Lethargic might be a decent word to describe it. I’m sure it’s talented stuff to the right people, but it’s not necessarily great radio.
Missing the point I think. She wasn’t a model but just for the record … http://www.musicrooms.net/showbiz/23080-amy-winehouse-gets-new-hobby.html
This piece by Russell Brand is touching:
Yeah, I used to look down on singers who didn’t write their own material too. Then I realised - no-one criticises opera singers for not writing the operas, or actors for not writing the plays. They’re respected for how they interpret and show-case someone else’s material.
I thought Russell Brand’s article was the only one which showed a real understanding of addiction - hardly surprising as he’s in recovery himself. The first paragraph, about waiting for the phone call which will inevitably come, and how as frustrating as it is, it is a phone call you can’t make, you can only receive it, rang very true to me, and thanks to my personal history, made me very sad.
Oh, how bizarre/fascinating! The only music I’ve heard by Amy Winehouse, prior to her death, has been the upbeat, dancy, 1960s flavoured songs. So interesting that the way music channels worked out what we’ve heard has been totally opposite. Since she did, I’ve heard her cover version of “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow” which is indeed a very slow, languishing rendition.
But she used to. That’s what happens when you ignore your music for a big bag of heroin. The radio world forgets about you.
Her songs were great, but how many other two-hit wonders from 1997 still get a lot of radio play?
Minor nitpick on my part in relation to the op ed piece by Russell Brand…
I got as fas the first sentence and stopped. The reason? He referred to the “Disease of addiction”.
It’s my view that addiction is not a disease. To be fair, it is inarguably, in some cases, a chemical dependancy in which hundreds of thousands of certain molecular receptors within the brain are demanding to be fed. Opiate addiction is a particularly egregious example. And in other cases, it is a chemical addiction which stimulates the the non uptake of certain internal molecular compounds. Cocaine addiction due to dopamine saturation is another egregious example.
In all cases, addiction can be remedied by cold turkey. The law of addiction is very simple - if you administer a chemical substance to a person who is addicted to that substance, just two things will happen; you will reignite the addiction to that substance, and you will reignite the pain of withdrawal.
In my view, and yours might vary and hey, that’s cool, but in my view a disease is a viral, bacterial, or cancerous DNA mutation which cannot be remedied by cold turkey.
Your opinions and your mileage might vary, but for mine, referring to addiction as a disease is a copout - because there is an implicit inference that stopping cold turkey will not help - and that, in my view, is where the bullshit starts and the science stops.
Suggestion is she died from causes related to cold turkey.
Anyway, this is a very nice, and brief, piece about the younger her:
http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2011/07/amy-winehouse-and-nyjo-photos-and.html “ullomynameisAmyWinehousethat’saJewishname” 
Gawd bless yer, girl.
Boo Boo Foo, how do you feel about depression? Last I checked it’s not viral, bacterial, or cancerously mutated.
BooB oo Foo’s opinion is also not supported by science. As addiction research and mental health research is progressing the medical community is developing a better understanding of the pathological compulsion that makes some people prone to addiction.
Boo seems to think the disease is only because “withdrawl sucks”, but that is only physical dependence. What he is failing to acknowledge is the genetic predisposition some people have to psychological dependence — which is the reason they get physically addicted in the first place. Basically, it’s the same type of mechanism related to gambling addictions, cutting, and hoarding — compulsions that have no physically addictive properties and can’t be remedied by cold turkey.
A significant contributing factor to Winehouse’s addiction is that she was bipolar (refused treatment and medication) and there is a very strong link between bipolar disorder and substance abuse. Until more recently it’s been primarily believed to be linked to “self-medicating” but given that bipolar disorder and OCD are often co-morbid, there is newer speculation that there may be more to it than that.
Oh, I know that. I was checking to see if she does.
@Boo Boo Foo, there are addictions where going cold turkey can kill you. Alcohol, for instance.
@Leaffan, not every artist speaks to every person. The first Amy Winehouse song I heard was “You Know That I’m No Good.” It grabbed me from the first–the voice, the words (the ones I understood the first time I heard it). It’s great, the story of a woman who’s in love with one guy but can’t stay away from other guys, and it’s tearing her up. But she can’t stop. It’s also, without any bad words, one of the most sexually explicit songs I’ve heard on a mainstream station (for instance, this station would play “Rehab” but it wouldn’t have played “Mr. Jones”). I thought it was genius songwriting and executed perfectly. This is not to say that everybody who heard it would think the same.
I guess diabetes isn’t a “disease” either.