Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Number 1, I think this whole thing with Britney Spears is a bunch of {censored}e.. Going to the looney bin leaving, going back, dating a paparazzi douche, doing all that dumb {censored}e publically. I believe she is just trying to stay in the eye of the public so she doesn't get forgotten. Her music will fade I believe. And to be honest, Spears should count her bleesings she is good looking because other than that she has nothing to offer except being pretty. Amy Winehouse is a talent in my op. I don't like r and b or that sissy dance pop {censored}e but I did buy Back to Black and I dug it very much. And it is a shame that she has this addiction but ya know maybe if the media and press put as much of an effort into helping her get off of drugs as they do exploiting her disease and making fun of her she would have a better chance of being clean. I know there are a lot of Amy Winehouse fans within this thread, but I feel that the certain people in the media intended on exploiting her from the start. Basically they just waited until she'd drop the ball and proceeded to throw stones from there. Read some of the Rolling Stone issues from the past 6-9 months. They praised her and now their attitudes have completely changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ides of March Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I hear ya, it's too bad that Rolling Stone can be such a bunch of bastards and exploit someone they praised previously. And to be honest I don't put any stock into what Rolling Stone says or thinks is good music anymore. Winehouse needs help and she does have a good number of people involved in her life that should be helping her instead of riding her coattails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 People can say what they will about Brittney; I won't comment on her talent or lack of it. But clearly, she has become mentally ill. I doubt that it is calculated in any way. It would not surprise me to find out she has severe bipolar disorder. Some people have fragile psyches, and combining that with super stardom, a 70,000 dollar a month allowance, constantly being scrutinized and watching your career go from being a viable pop star to a tabloid joke has to take a toll. The entertainment business has had a lot of these people-Billie Holliday, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, George Reeves, etc. At some point, something in them just snaps. No matter what anyone thinks of her as an entertainment figure, I can't help but feeling bad for her as a person. Watching someone's descent into madness before your eyes with 24/7 news coverage isn't ever pretty, and no one deserves it, IMO. I can't help but think the constant media hounding of this poor schlep has accelerated her decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I hear ya, it's too bad that Rolling Stone can be such a bunch of bastards and exploit someone they praised previously. And to be honest I don't put any stock into what Rolling Stone says or thinks is good music anymore. Winehouse needs help and she does have a good number of people involved in her life that should be helping her instead of riding her coattails. When I read those Amy Winehouse and Britney Spears horror stories that have been pumped up by Rolling Stone and the rest of the media, I can't take them seriously either. Which leads to my current and strong tactic when dealing with the media. Treat them like mushrooms. Leave em in the dark and feed em {censored} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ides of March Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 When I read those Amy Winehouse and Britney Spears horror stories that have been pumped up by Rolling Stone and the rest of the media, I can't take them seriously either. Which leads to my current and strong tactic when dealing with the media. Treat them like mushrooms. Leave em in the dark and feed em {censored} Ok.. ya know what you are totally correct and I agree 100%. I would love to see one of these celebrities just make a whole bunch of {censored}e up and make the paparazzi look like the {censored}ing clownshoes they really are. Either that or stop doing stupid {censored}e when you know camera's are around. don't they have certain clubs that wouldn't let anyone harrass the celebrities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NewTruth Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Ok.. ya know what you are totally correct and I agree 100%. I would love to see one of these celebrities just make a whole bunch of {censored}e up and make the paparazzi look like the {censored}ing clownshoes they really are. Either that or stop doing stupid {censored}e when you know camera's are around. don't they have certain clubs that wouldn't let anyone harrass the celebrities? Not in the First World economies, I think that's why Mel Gibson went to some Pacific island to get seriously drunk. Because he thought no Paparazzi would looks for him there. Unfortunately for him, there was a photographer who snapped a shot of him as he was stumbling around the bar with a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tbone666 Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 It's really sad... I don't understand where anyone can find humor in what's going on with her. (or with Britney, for that matter) I don't even see it as a "such a shame for someone so talented" thing... it's a shame for ANYONE to end up in such a state. is winehouse not the british britney? seriously....not talent-wise mind you, but pop-culture-scandal-wise. can't take it anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mickeydean Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 is winehouse not the british britney? seriously....not talent-wise mind you, but pop-culture-scandal-wise. can't take it anymore... no amy winehouse is the accelerated jimi hendrix career.. enjoy the genius while it lasts. i don't care if it was the producer or the band or the writer/singer or probably the sum of all that. it doesn't happen that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cherri Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Eva Cassidy went to number one on the charts after her death, and she didn't ever make a public joke of herself to sell albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 no amy winehouse is the accelerated jimi hendrix career..enjoy the genius while it lasts.i don't care if it was the producer or the band or the writer/singer or probably the sum of all that.it doesn't happen that often. I didnt know Hendrix was portrayed as an extremely self-destructive individual by the media at the end of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SBF3000 Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 someone should try to make her go to rehab.....what's she going to say no, no, no? lame. sorry. does she not have anyone willing to risk their relationship for the sake of her health? sad really. I don't know, I have a reasonable amount of pity for her, empathy...but there comes a time, when the # of monkeys you have to keep fed leads you in front of a camera while doing it, when you verbally state you are hopped up. She wants to die, being a junkie is NOT fun, if she was in it for that she would have a $100-200 a week cocaine habit with the occasional phsycadelic experience, some raves, and a bar stool with her ass formed in it. Do or die for this lady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 2, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 I didnt know Hendrix was portrayed as an extremely self-destructive individual by the media at the end of his career. Different time. Hendrix (and Janis and Jim Morrison) were all partying hard with the rock press. The media wouldn't dare say anything bad about them, because if they did, they wouldn't get invited to the parties and be privy to the dope and the women. Besides that, in the late 60s-early 70s, there was a naievety about drugs. They were seen by hipsters and mind expanding and freeing, and a big "screw you!" to the mainstream culture. No one really understood how dangerous and lethal that kind of behavior could be. Everyone watched Hendrix and Janis and Morrison melt down in public, missing shows, puking and falling down on stage, babbling nonsensically into the mic, etc etc. Particularly Janis and Morrison descended into madness right in front of the public, but the public, not having experienced drug-induced mental illness, mistook these binges for genius. Today, we know better. The way all three died so suddenly at a young age was a wake up call to a generation. Today, that generation is your parents and grandparents. The sad thing is, now everyone knows what this kind of lifestyle does to people, but so many people are content to sit back and watch it happen anyway. It's the same morbid curiosity that grips people standing below a building with a jumper: on the one hand afraid the guy will kill himself but at the same time, secretly hoping he'll jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue_velvet Posted February 4, 2008 Members Share Posted February 4, 2008 No junk , no soul:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Booya Tribe Posted February 4, 2008 Members Share Posted February 4, 2008 People can say what they will about Brittney; I won't comment on her talent or lack of it. But clearly, she has become mentally ill. I doubt that it is calculated in any way. It would not surprise me to find out she has severe bipolar disorder. Some people have fragile psyches, and combining that with super stardom, a 70,000 dollar a month allowance, constantly being scrutinized and watching your career go from being a viable pop star to a tabloid joke has to take a toll. The entertainment business has had a lot of these people-Billie Holliday, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, George Reeves, etc. At some point, something in them just snaps. No matter what anyone thinks of her as an entertainment figure, I can't help but feeling bad for her as a person. Watching someone's descent into madness before your eyes with 24/7 news coverage isn't ever pretty, and no one deserves it, IMO. I can't help but think the constant media hounding of this poor schlep has accelerated her decline. This is really stretching the subject of this thread... but was Brian Wilson ever followed/obsessed over by the media? I don't know when he became the way he is, or if it had anything to do with acid (or really much about his story other than watching some interviews with him from more recent times), but I was not alive at the time that all went down. Did the media pay any attention to Brian Wilson or any of that business at the time, for those of you who were around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 4, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2008 This is really stretching the subject of this thread... but was Brian Wilson ever followed/obsessed over by the media? I don't know when he became the way he is, or if it had anything to do with acid (or really much about his story other than watching some interviews with him from more recent times), but I was not alive at the time that all went down. Did the media pay any attention to Brian Wilson or any of that business at the time, for those of you who were around? Not much, that I can remember...he had nervous breakdown and became a recluse. He pretty much lived in his room (which he wrote a song about, called appropriately "In My Room") for about two years. He had a sandbox installed so he could still feel like he was at the beach. But yeah, he tweaked out pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Booya Tribe Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 Not much, that I can remember...he had nervous breakdown and became a recluse. He pretty much lived in his room (which he wrote a song about, called appropriately "In My Room") for about two years. He had a sandbox installed so he could still feel like he was at the beach. But yeah, he tweaked out pretty bad. I wonder if the lack of attention allowed him to get past it and stabilize a little bit. He is definitely still nutty if you have seen any interviews with him, but he has been able to function and live a relatively happy life... of course, there is probably no comparison otherwise between him and some of these other artists, but the fact that he locked himself up may have actually had a good effect in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mickeydean Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 I didnt know Hendrix was portrayed as an extremely self-destructive individual by the media at the end of his career. outside of the counter culture nobody even knew who jimi hendrix was until the end of his career. in 1970 when you talked about his music the most common reaction you got was "who?" he became a household name long after he died when the mainstream had a chance to catch up. everybody has long hair now. ( you know what i mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 outside of the counter culture nobody even knew who jimi hendrix was until the end of his career.in 1970 when you talked about his music the most common reaction you got was "who?"he became a household name long after he died when the mainstream had a chance to catch up. everybody has long hair now. ( you know what i mean) That's crazy. It ALWAYS works like that. This is kind of ironic and maybe a tad bit irrelevant, but I remember some of my friends from NY were pissed when Giuliani was "cleaning up NY." He cleaned up certain areas, but in reality what was happening is higher rents and gentrification destroyed the cultural implications and values attached to certain districts. I'm not from NY and maybe a true New Yorker can correct me, but a lot of those districts were built up by the counter culture. The meat packing district became hip and trendy only after poor counter culture kids gave it it's reputation. It wasn't the other way around. I feel it's the same way in art. The mainstream is very sheep-like in behavior. Artistic movements just don't happen over night. There's always something brewing and bubbling under the surface and just waiting to explode. I hear from a lot of my friends that there will never another Bob Dylan or band as great as the Beatles, but there's always someone ready and willing to step up to the occasion and take the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 This is really stretching the subject of this thread... but was Brian Wilson ever followed/obsessed over by the media? I don't know when he became the way he is, or if it had anything to do with acid (or really much about his story other than watching some interviews with him from more recent times), but I was not alive at the time that all went down. Did the media pay any attention to Brian Wilson or any of that business at the time, for those of you who were around? It was definitely before my time, but my understanding is that the tabloid press and paparazzi didn't really become prevalent until the 1980s. Before then, celebrities could live relatively private lives, and keep their weird and destructive habits a secret--the press mainly served as a PR vehicle. Once the media realized they could make a lot of money by invading the private lives of famous people and printing garbage about them, the machine was off and running. But that sort of thing didn't really exist in the '60s and '70s, at least not to the degree it does now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bdemon Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 It was definitely before my time, but my understanding is that the tabloid press and paparazzi didn't really become prevalent until the 1980s. Before then, celebrities could live relatively private lives, and keep their weird and destructive habits a secret--the press mainly served as a PR vehicle. Once the media realized they could make a lot of money by invading the private lives of famous people and printing garbage about them, the machine was off and running. But that sort of thing didn't really exist in the '60s and '70s, at least not to the degree it does now. You also had film studios up until the 50s owning the production, distribution, screening and even the actors, who were signed to these contracts. If an actress got pregnant she'd simply go on vacation. No one even knew actor Rock Hudson was gay until he'd died of AIDS. It's obvious the tabloid market has expanded greatly. Look at all the coverage Anna Nicole Smith got. An semi-known Playmate from fifteen years ago...you'd have thought royalty died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's crazy. It ALWAYS works like that. This is kind of ironic and maybe a tad bit irrelevant, but I remember some of my friends from NY were pissed when Giuliani was "cleaning up NY." He cleaned up certain areas, but in reality what was happening is higher rents and gentrification destroyed the cultural implications and values attached to certain districts. I'm not from NY and maybe a true New Yorker can correct me, but a lot of those districts were built up by the counter culture. The meat packing district became hip and trendy only after poor counter culture kids gave it it's reputation. It wasn't the other way around. I feel it's the same way in art. The mainstream is very sheep-like in behavior. Artistic movements just don't happen over night. There's always something brewing and bubbling under the surface and just waiting to explode. I hear from a lot of my friends that there will never another Bob Dylan or band as great as the Beatles, but there's always someone ready and willing to step up to the occasion and take the throne. There may very well be another Bob Dylan or Beatles out there, but what there will never be is another 1960s. A big part of the enormous cultural impact of these artists had to do with the time and place in which they came about. They were a product of their time. An artist coming up today wouldn't have the same impact those artists did. If another big cultural movement manifests, it likely won't have much to do with music. Music might be involved, but it probably won't be it's focus. The reason is that there is very little new ground to cover in music, especially rock 'n roll. We now know that nearly everything has been done, and nearly anything can be done. People are aware that there are no more limitations. Actually, if there is one profound thing happening in music right now, it's technology. You could say the internet has become the new Beatles or Bob Dylan. It certainly is controversial. And like any big cultural movement, it has it's detractors as well as it's enthusiasts. But it's forever changing how we think about music, for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Booya Tribe Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's crazy. It ALWAYS works like that. This is kind of ironic and maybe a tad bit irrelevant, but I remember some of my friends from NY were pissed when Giuliani was "cleaning up NY." He cleaned up certain areas, but in reality what was happening is higher rents and gentrification destroyed the cultural implications and values attached to certain districts. I'm not from NY and maybe a true New Yorker can correct me, but a lot of those districts were built up by the counter culture. The meat packing district became hip and trendy only after poor counter culture kids gave it it's reputation. It wasn't the other way around. I feel it's the same way in art. The mainstream is very sheep-like in behavior. Artistic movements just don't happen over night. There's always something brewing and bubbling under the surface and just waiting to explode. I hear from a lot of my friends that there will never another Bob Dylan or band as great as the Beatles, but there's always someone ready and willing to step up to the occasion and take the throne. Relating to the growth of things in the underground and their eventual emergence into mainstram culture, what is crazy to me is that I see all this "Emo" stuff around now, the fashions, the tight pants, converse, the black hair in the eyes and stuff... the weird thing about this is that it was a well established underground fashion and music style that you could find in the suburbs when I was a freshman in high school, which is 14 years ago! It somehow took this long for it to become something you can now purchase at the mall. It had come and gone, and now its "back!" For me to see that is really bizarre, it is almost "retro" but without any of the participants knowing! But what you describe about New York is something that happens in cities everywhere. Artists and musicians move in to an area of town that isn't the safest, but where space is cheap, and within 5-10 years the area is "revitalized" and they get kicked out for breaking firecodes, rent goes up, or their landlords sell their buildings as they are suddenly worth something, and the warehouses the artists and musicians were living in get converted to condos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 "There may very well be another Bob Dylan or Beatles out there, but what there will never be is another 1960s. A big part of the enormous cultural impact of these artists had to do with the time and place in which they came about. They were a product of their time. An artist coming up today wouldn't have the same impact those artists did." You may be right to an extent. It seems like one of the things that was so great about the sixties is that technology was not the same as it is now, people literally had to get off their asses in order to make a change. When you're physically involved in something it affects your emotional and spiritual outlook upon it. If you heard rumors about this crazy guy with a Jewfro playing at civil rights marches, you had to physically go to those events and watch him perform. Things are more impersonal now. But hey, at least the quality of drugs that fueled the sixties has not gone down ...except acid...maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 Most folks don't really understand how short Jimi's career was. Before he left for England he was basically unknown except to a few hipsters in The Village where he had a small band and jammed with other people. He didn't go to England until like late 1966. Are You Experienced was released in early 1967. Monterey Pop was in 1967 when he played for a large US audience the first time, and he died in 1970. So really he really only had any visibility for four years, and the early year of that was in England mostly. And in that short time he changed the rock guitar forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mickeydean Posted February 5, 2008 Members Share Posted February 5, 2008 There may very well be another Bob Dylan or Beatles out there, but what there will never be is another 1960s. A big part of the enormous cultural impact of these artists had to do with the time and place in which they came about. They were a product of their time. An artist coming up today wouldn't have the same impact those artists did.If another big cultural movement manifests, it likely won't have much to do with music. Music might be involved, but it probably won't be it's focus. The reason is that there is very little new ground to cover in music, especially rock 'n roll. We now know that nearly everything has been done, and nearly anything can be done. People are aware that there are no more limitations. Actually, if there is one profound thing happening in music right now, it's technology. You could say the internet has become the new Beatles or Bob Dylan. It certainly is controversial. And like any big cultural movement, it has it's detractors as well as it's enthusiasts. But it's forever changing how we think about music, for better or worse. excellent observation and i think right on target. i always thought it was easier to be the first beatles than the next beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.