Amy Winehouse Was More Than “Back To Black”

Whatever else Amy Winehouse may have been, regardless of how she may have lived, she was a person. According to Stephen Marche writing in Maclean’s magazine Aug 9, that doesn’t matter. In a burst of self-indulgent idiocy of truly epic proportions Mr. Marche not only pretends to know the “real” meaning of her album “Back to Black”, he insists her talent was of greater value than she was.

Among his more egregious violations is the claim that by placing deep chimes in the middle of the song “Back to Black” she “rings the bells in her own memory”. He then goes on to say the song was a “funeral elegy to herself”. He draws prescient meaning from drug references, to create the impression she knew she was going to die. He doesn’t quite accuse her of suicide, but close to it.

Even these conceits are not extreme by Maclean’s standards. Indeed, many of those who have chosen to cash in on her death have presumed to know her mind based on her public persona. I understand. That’s the type of article the public wants, and it’s their job to give it to them. No, Stephem Marche had something much more vile and insidious in store.

He quotes an interview she gave to Rolling Stone magazine in 2007. “I don’t want to be ungrateful,” she said. “I know I’m talented, but I wasn’t put here to sing. I was put here to be a wife and a mom and look after my family.” What was this loathsome hack’s response you may ask? “What self-conception could be more in error? What statement could be further from the truth?”. That is his response to this young woman’s desire for a normal life. She wanted at some level to step back from precipice at the end of the path she was on. He accuses her of throwing away her talent. Of being so talented, she had no understanding of how precious that talent was. In this there is an implied obligation to share. An objectifying vocal slavery requiring her to sing at his whim regardless of her wishes.

But it is in the final line of his article we find by far the most telling insight into his grotesque and distorted psyche.

“Sometimes 33 minutes can be worth more than 27 years.”.

If Stephen Marche truly believes that 33 minutes of music is of greater value than Amy’s life, he should be put on a pedestal in a museum. The plaque would read, “Here stands Stephen Marche. The Defining Example Of All That Is Wrong With The Cult Of Celebrity”. Nearby would be baskets of spoiled fruit and rotten eggs for patrons to throw at it.

p.s.
The premature end of Amy Winehouse’s life is truly a tragedy for her family and friends. So are the thousands of other lives lost to drugs and alcohol both literally and figuratively every year.

Cheers, Winston

Can Media Be Responsible?

I’ve been reading again. This time about the evolution of media and it’s role in society.

One of the points made by the author regarded the Rwandan genocide in 1994. They state that elements within the government used some local media to incite violence. So far, so good. The article goes on to say that Radio Mille Collines incited the violence that lead to genocide. The author then asks, “Could this happen again? Or will media take this opportunity to meet it’s obligation to inform and educate about our global interdependence?”

Excuse me, did you really say that?

This entire issue is one of diminishing of personal responsibility. First we have “elements of the government”. It’s a little vague, okay we’re still using obvious human references. The line about the radio station inciting violence, sort of, but not so much. Radio stations in my experience are buildings containing offices, studios, content and other broadcast related goodness, but not a trace of sentience. To do any high-end inciting, you need sentience, and for that you need people. People to spew information, disinformation, propaganda and just plain naked hatred. Radio Milles Collines was just a radio station. It was the people in front of the microphones who incited the violence.

Which brings us to his question about “media”. The problem of course is that media is not a discreet entity. Media is a generic descriptor so vague as to be utterly useless in this context. As a non-entity, questions of obligations become moot. The entire concept is just one more excuse for the devaluation of individual motive. If one is involved with anything which might be covered by the umbrella term media, they apparently need to start proselytizing about global interconnectedness. Right now. Not necessarily because they care about it, but because some random other has decreed an obligation.

This is manifestly (phrase breaches profanity policy for this Blog) umm, wrong. So very wrong on so many levels.

Use of media carries no inherent obligation. The content is at the sole discretion of the person creating and distributing it. If you feel that a particular message should be paramount (ie. global interconnectedness) then it’s up to you as an individual to convince other individuals to follow your lead.

In the long run, you don’t need media in any of it’s guises to incite a genocidal mob. All you need for that is people. That’s really what is at stake here. We all want to believe that it’s about the government, the radio station, the media, but not about the people. Because if it can be about the people who crafted the message that incited a genocidal rage in average Rwandans, then it is about all people. It is about us, and no one wants to admit to that part of themselves. It’s so much easier to put all that on a generic, non-entity like Media.

Cheers, Winston