Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Presumably Weller was comparing Winehouse to Bratz dolls

There are many things you could call Amy Winehouse - but a great role model? That stretches it a bit, surely - but not for Paul Weller:

"I've been lucky enough to work with her - she is an amazing, great talent and, despite what all the papers say, she is a great role model for people and I don't think the drugs and the drink and all that make a scrap of difference really.

“I think you should judge people on their talent and on that level she's up there, a major talent."

Well, up to a point, Paul. You should judge people's talent's on their talent and - arguably - Winehouse is pretty good, although she's never done more than hint at her potential and, judging by that Mercury Awards appearance, she's content to just coast a bit at the moment.

But simply being good at something isn't grounds enough to weighing their fitness as role models, surely? Does Weller really think that Winehouse, pissing away chances and talent that others would give their frontal lobe to have a crack at, is a good role model because she can sing a bit?

And does Weller really believe that you should judge people solely on their talents rather than their values and behaviour? Because on that basis, shouldn't Thatcher have been his hero rather than his nemesis?


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

When that "behaviour" is only self-destructive and doesn't harm nobody else then yes,she should be judged for her talent only!Who are you or me or anybody to judge how she's handling herself?Personally i TRULLY believe she has some serious problems that led to all that drug use ecc,ecc but even if it was her "free" choice to go down this road,why does ANYBODY has a say about it?Does it make people feel better for their own choices when they bad-mouth hers?I really don't get it!

simon h b said...

The purchase of cocaine directly supports repressive behaviour in Columbia; the purchase of heroin funds repressive organisations and paramilitaries in Afghanstan and former Soviet Republics. The purchase of illegal drugs feeds directly into the gun crime that is ripping lives apart in modern Britain. It's all our problem.

Anonymous said...

Oh no no no no no...you cannot go there:)There are some people saying that all of these things also give a LOT of money in these countries...but apart from that let's talk then about what the purchase of diamonds supports...or what eating meat does to the animals or what driving your car does to the environment or ecc ecc ecc.You're telling me that you judge her in a negative way because SHE is the reason of all those terrible things you described?From your original post i got a clear idea that you were "judging" her in a negative way because she was "throwing away" her talent and her life...i guess i misunderstood.

simon h b said...

Oh, I also think that she's pissing her life away, and, certainly, if you think the correct response to that is to just shrug and say "go on, then, your choice love" is a little callous.

But, yes, you're right: there are lots of problems associated with lots of products - indeed, we have called artists on their support for jewellery companies and coltan-harvesting mobile phone manufacturers repeatedly over the last seven years. The difference is, though, it is possible to source legal products from conflict-free sources. If you buy cocaine, it's almost certain that it's come from a militia-controlled area of Columbia.

And if you think cocaine is a good thing for the Columbian economy, perhaps you can explain how four million internally displaced people is a positive economic good?

Paul Wells said...

sounds like you're saying the answer is to legalise them then...... (the drugs i mean, not winehouse)

simon h b said...

I'm glad that it's not a decision I have to make, but clearly the current attempts to control drug use through criminalisation isn't particularly effective.

Anonymous said...

I think this time you misunderstood what i said or probably i didn't make myself clear.Of course and i DON'T think that the response to her self-destruct behaviour is to "shrug and say go on,it's your choice"...ABSOLUTELLY NOT!I wish there was something we could do to help her or anybody else in her position for that matter...but i think that in your original post(once again:) the whole question was whether we should JUDGE her on her talent solely or we should also judge her on her "wild" behaviour and responding to that question, i said that in my opinion we have no right to judge anybody for the "wrong" choices of their personal lives.(wrong=according to us)

simon h b said...

Ah. I see.

What Weller was talking about was judging the suitability of Winehouse specifically as a role model - and if you're going to weigh up how she plays as an example to other people, then surely her lifestyle choices are key?

Anonymous said...

Well,let's say i chose to answer to what you said...i don't agree with Weller either,firstly because i don't exactly believe in having a person(in it's whole)as a role model.You can choose characteristics that you appreciate in people and be influenced by these characteristics and in that sense everybody can be a "role model"including Amy Winehouse...and then there are different role models for different people,for example maybe she is a good role model for people who want to live life wildly,or for example i've heard people say that the way she just is herself and doesn't care about other people's opinions(something i don't agree with but...that's what they say)is something that more people should do and believe me i could go on and on but don't worry i won't:)

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.