Comments on: Natalie Cole Blasts Amy Winehouse’s Grammy Wins

By: Christy

Christy — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:33:33 +0000

I agree with Jayne on this. Natalie could have offered some support or encouragement for Amy since she has a well known history with substance abuse. Taking the opportunity to bash her when she is making an effort to get help is petty and does ask the question is there some resentment involved.

By: Jayne

Jayne — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:08:22 +0000

Oh… and if you take the time to research Cole’s history: you might want to check out the definition of the word ‘hypocrit’.

I wonder what SHE would have thought if some 58 year old had tried to rain on her party in 1975 when she won her award (albeit a fraction of Amy’s)?

Sp sad.

By: Jayne

Jayne — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:05:46 +0000

The reality is that Amy Winehouse is easily the biggest talant of this generation. Her performance stole the show on Sunday. You either recognize that with integrity and honesty, or the Grammys become nothing more than a farcical holyer than though character judgement, with nothing to do with music.

As Cole is a has-been, obviously she would prefer the latter. Spite and jealousy are fairly ugly and sad to hear. The awards were fully merited and deserved.

You other guys commenting to the contrary: could you let me know what it’s like to be perfect? I’d love to know.

By: crazymom

crazymom — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:13:21 +0000

Catch-22 is right — I somewhat agree with Natalie, but then I kind of don’t. I guess I’m on the fence about the whole thing, because if we couldn’t give grammys to druggies, well, then Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, Curt Kobain, Eric Clapton would be grammy-less, as would countless other artists.

Of course, back then, most celebs tried to keep their drug use out of the media. Heck, John Lennon admitted to being high when he and the others accepted their MBE’s from the Queen (Lennon later sent his back). Of course back then there wasn’t YouTube and the press did seem to offer the celebs a bit of space and privacy. So if John, Paul, George and Ringo were getting high in a bathroom in Buckingham Palace, nobody knew about it until the book came out decades later.

Funny how everyone in the world *knew* Keith Richards was a junkie, but photos never ended up in the media.

I think it’s that public perception when a young star ends up using on camera (a la Kate Moss or Pete Doherty) that somehow says “I don’t care who sees me!”

Perhaps the lesson for young celebrities should be “always act like there’s a camera on you” because, unfortunately, there usually is. It may be an invasion, but it’s also reality.

By: k

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:34:27 +0000

Well, Natalie does have a point. There are far too many “stars” being rewarded for unrepentant bad behavior. And there are far too many of them throwing away their talents for a cheap thrill.

But according to Grammy rules, the music in question must be released within certain dates to be eligible. Do we pass up what is arguably a great CD to wait for Amy to get her act together? When and if? Some people would use that as incentive to straighten up, some people would use it as an excuse to give up.

And I have to wonder just how much of what Natalie said is sour grapes. She’s got a jazz CD coming out this year, maybe she wants to thin out the herd.

It’s such a Catch-22. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t. I’ve been in situations with my own kids where I look at those with more abilities, but lousier attitudes and horrible personal lives, and wonder why they are allowed to go on as they are and be rewarded.

BTW, don’t worry about your preoccupation. I have my own preoccupations, we all do. My head is spinning trying to keep up with C/oh/$, so I stick with fluff.

By: Rappy

Rappy — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:28:43 +0000

She is talented, but the timing of these awards was not appropriate.

By: D

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:20:17 +0000

I agree with you k, and I thought about that when I saw your story and was writing this, I guess I wish they would have waited until she cleaned up her act AND then rewarded her. At this point, what’s her incentive to keep up the good work, besides of course the obvious, to live a good life.

My daughter is an aspiring little singer and I just cringe when I see these people abuse their abilities and get rewarded for it. I am preaching to the choir here.

BTW, great job covering everything, I am sorry for my preoccupation. You are doing a great job k.

By: k

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:01:10 +0000

I agree in principle that we should not reward off-stage bad behavior such as drug use and such, and I’m sure the votes were in before Amy hit the rehab center that she checked into a few weeks ago. It saddens me to see famous people who continually break the law, use drugs, etc, and who are glorified by the media and fans.

But…she IS at least trying to get a handle on her addictions and shape up her life. She’s not where she needs to be, not by a long shot, but at least she’s trying. Do we only reward those who are where we think they need to be? Or do we reward effort as well? If the only awards that were given out were to those who “deserved” them, there’d be no awards ever given.

I personally have more of a problem with giving an award to Kanye West than Amy Winehouse. At least she’s trying to right her wrongs, Kanye is arrogantly unrepentant about anything he does and can’t ever be wrong.