AMY WINEHORSE IS DA BAST
- Thread starter Phill_Most
- Start date
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."
.jpg)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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's band trumps.
In the area of Goats Head Soup, though I'd grudgingly go as far as some of the stuff on Some Girls.
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.
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.
Otis Redding would disagree.
