Amy Winehouse’s father-in-law is now leading a campaign to boycott Winehouse’s music until she seeks treatment for drug addiction. This is certainly an ethical dilemma but, at the risk of parroting Bill Hicks, has it not occurred to this gentleman that the drugs might actually be helping the music? While I certainly hope Ms. Winehouse conquers her demons, give me a coked out Amy Winehouse over that clean-cut assclown Justin Timberlake any day of the week. Timberlake is about as rock ‘n roll as a Pat Boone heavy metal cover. Winehouse has more soul in her left pinky.
That is the question, isn’t it, but the more I watch what’s happening to Winehouse and Fielder-Civil, the more I have Sid & Nancy in my mind.
Not to sound preachy, but wouldn’t you prefer a living Amy Winehouse making crappy (or no) music to a dead one who made some great songs before ODing in some hotel room? She’s a human being, after all, not just an artist.
Also, if you think substance abuse guarantees great art, consider Shane MacGowan of the Pogues. Booze reduced him from a great musician to a mumbling, half-comatose idiot.
That said, I think there’s little you can do to stop this kind of thing. If she wants to kill herself, nobody can stop her.
I agree. Screw her and her life. I demand the right to listen to a good album once and a while. If that means her death then so be it.
Drugs do not make you creative. That’s a myth.