General Discussion

[ratchetnclank]

I don't empathise, she will of done it to herself.

[Wigster101]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

OmegaPyrate wrote:

Rest in Peace, you silly, silly girl.

---

I agree with the sentiment - but if you've ever been involved with a class A drug addict (and I suspect she was) you'd know that it is far from being as simple as silliness.

She was one of the most talented performers I've heard for many years. She clearly lived life on the edge with her pain fuelling her music, and there was perhaps an inevitability to what has happened; but what a tragic waste of human life.

---

Totally agree.

She had a brilliant, rare, voice. It's just a shame she had an addiction that couldn't be overcome.

[ProjectVRD]

I know some people say you can't rely on the government for everything, and I totally agree with that sentiment. But this was one instance where the government should have acted, not just in Amy Winehouse's time but decades before.

If a celebrity figure is known and proven to be addicted or intentionally abusing drugs, kill their fame. A business (showbiz) will never restrain from making the money of anybody, so the law should remove the people like this women from any limelight until he/she is clean and ready to resume the career. And ofcourse, it needs to be EU/US wide in it's policy.

Just think, forced out of fame and chucked into a jail/rehabilitation unit... Amy Winehouse might still be alive and performing better than she was in the last year of her life.

[AAAAAAAARRGH]

Bit drastic but would never work. You can make available a great support network, therapists and whomever to the person as well as rehab and other treatments to help them overcome their problems but the trouble is, you can't force it on them.

People have to have the desire, willpower and strength to see it through, which is not easy. Heck they may get through rehab but they come out and still have to face the same problems, same pressure and same (negative) influences other's will have over them. Some people just aren't equipped to deal with that. Throw in an intrusive media, demanding record label/commercial interests and it's just a matter of time before they relapse.

Attempting to kill their career as a result will only drive some underground, and in this day and age, many people will still gain access to their music via radio/internet piracy. Of course, that not to mention the inevitable public uproar on the governments big brother attitude, and what of those who are able to control their drug/alcohol habits?

[PatC_PSN]

---

AAAAAAAARRGH wrote:

People have to have the desire, willpower and strength to see it through, which is not easy. 

---

Indeed. It's probably the hardest thing they have ever done, or ever will do. And I've seen it.

"God, but did you ever try to turn your sick soul inside out, so that the world can watch you die?"

-- Gil Scott-Heron

[ProjectVRD]

---

AAAAAAAARRGH wrote:

Bit drastic but would never work. You can make available a great support network, therapists and whomever to the person as well as rehab and other treatments to help them overcome their problems but the trouble is, you can't force it on them.

People have to have the desire, willpower and strength to see it through, which is not easy. Heck they may get through rehab but they come out and still have to face the same problems, same pressure and same (negative) influences other's will have over them. Some people just aren't equipped to deal with that. Throw in an intrusive media, demanding record label/commercial interests and it's just a matter of time before they relapse.

Attempting to kill their career as a result will only drive some underground, and in this day and age, many people will still gain access to their music via radio/internet piracy. Of course, that not to mention the inevitable public uproar on the governments big brother attitude, and what of those who are able to control their drug/alcohol habits?

---

And yet, you don;t make money off the pirate scene and you don't get fame from it neither. And you would probably be suprised at how many people would support an initiative to not put heroin addicts on a pedastal, it would not be hard to implement because a company cannot blantantly flout the law like an average person or any celebrity can. They would have to stop producing their music, movies, taking part in their sports etc etc etc because no media/sport company would be allowed to take them on.

Never work? Ofcourse it would work, from a commercial compliance perspective. And if the person decided to not kick the habit, they will never be allowed back in to showbiz again and runs the risk of killing themselves. And when the record labels etc see that their money makers are not allowed to make more songs etc because of such a ruling, you see them back off a bit in terms of the pressure they put on their stars.

All it takes is a small group of men and women in place called parliament to run the vote and any that would vote "no" would be seen as morally inept. It literally is as easy as that and the media can nothing to stop it, they would simply have to tow the line or shut down.

[englishgolfer]

just a passing thought.... it's amazing that the death of one person can have a thread of over 30 posts, whereas a thread concerning the deaths of over 80 teenagers (plus a few victims of a bomb) only gets 15 posts. i know you can't really compare the two - i'm assuming amy winehouse has had a greater impact on our lives compared to a nation that is famous for its oil and views on whales.... but it still seems disproptionate.

still, it is very sad we've lost a great voice.

[AAAAAAAARRGH]

---

ProjectVRD wrote:

---

AAAAAAAARRGH wrote:

Bit drastic but would never work. You can make available a great support network, therapists and whomever to the person as well as rehab and other treatments to help them overcome their problems but the trouble is, you can't force it on them.

People have to have the desire, willpower and strength to see it through, which is not easy. Heck they may get through rehab but they come out and still have to face the same problems, same pressure and same (negative) influences other's will have over them. Some people just aren't equipped to deal with that. Throw in an intrusive media, demanding record label/commercial interests and it's just a matter of time before they relapse.

Attempting to kill their career as a result will only drive some underground, and in this day and age, many people will still gain access to their music via radio/internet piracy. Of course, that not to mention the inevitable public uproar on the governments big brother attitude, and what of those who are able to control their drug/alcohol habits?

---

And yet, you don;t make money off the pirate scene and you don't get fame from it neither. And you would probably be suprised at how many people would support an initiative to not put heroin addicts on a pedastal, it would not be hard to implement because a company cannot blantantly flout the law like an average person or any celebrity can. They would have to stop producing their music, movies, taking part in their sports etc etc etc because no media/sport company would be allowed to take them on.

Never work? Ofcourse it would work, from a commercial compliance perspective. And if the person decided to not kick the habit, they will never be allowed back in to showbiz again and runs the risk of killing themselves. And when the record labels etc see that their money makers are not allowed to make more songs etc because of such a ruling, you see them back off a bit in terms of the pressure they put on their stars.

All it takes is a small group of men and women in place called parliament to run the vote and any that would vote "no" would be seen as morally inept. It literally is as easy as that and the media can nothing to stop it, they would simply have to tow the line or shut down.

---

What you're suggesting is an interventionist policy that blatantly flouts just about every human rights law in existence (yes, I had to throw this in) and would not reasonably stand up in a court of law. Try to run that one by the EU Supreme Court. It's a policy which says people are incapable of living their lives and taking care of themselves and one which would have to be implemented on society as a whole, since some would argue why the disproportionate attack on celebrities.

If these musicians are driven underground, bearing in mind that they are already established in the public domain, they will still have a market and fanbase in demand. Most will tell you the money isn't in the record deals, it's in the touring. Granted, they might not be able to secure the major venues but there would still be outlets prepared to exploit the revenue potential, and with the middle man cut out (the record label) the artist controls more of the revenue.

[emw80]

---

fenian wrote:

I thought you needed to be influential and have talent to get into the 27 club. 

---

Yeah i dont think she deserves to be listed among the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain, except to say she died aged 27, buyt she is in no way shape or form as "good" as they were.

She should have just went to rehab.

[Gawge]

---

englishgolfer wrote:

just a passing thought.... it's amazing that the death of one person can have a thread of over 30 posts, whereas a thread concerning the deaths of over 80 teenagers (plus a few victims of a bomb) only gets 15 posts. i know you can't really compare the two - i'm assuming amy winehouse has had a greater impact on our lives compared to a nation that is famous for its oil and views on whales.... but it still seems disproptionate.

still, it is very sad we've lost a great voice.

---

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic".