Natalie Cole Blasts Amy Winehouse’s Grammy Wins
I didn’t watch much of the Grammys last night, although I did catch Beyonce in an ill-fitting outfit and Tina Turner looking and sounding great, but as far as awards being handed out goes, not everyone was as pleased as Amy Winehouse was with her Grammy nominations, let alone her five wins.
Natalie Cole, singer and daughter of the late and great Nat King Cole had this to say about Amy’s recognition from the Grammys:
“”I don’t think she should have won. I think it sends a bad message to our young people who are trying to get into this business, the ones who are trying to do it right and really trying to keep themselves together. We have to stop rewarding bad behavior.”
I’m sorry. I think the girl is talented, gifted, but it’s not right for her to be able to have her cake and eat it too. She needs to get herself together.”
I mean, she could die. This isn’t something that’s cute and fun just to throw around in the press. The girl really has a problem, and I think for those of us who have been in the business long enough, we know the sacrifice it takes. This is about discipline and hard work, and you don’t get to just do your drugs and go onstage and get rewarded.”
I couldn’t agree more. In fact we had the same conversation in my house last night. Yes Amy is immensely talented and certainly under normal circumstances would deserve these nominations and recognition for her talent, but the recording industry as a whole (and the entertainment industry for that matter) needs to take a stand on all of this off-stage behavior.
Glorifying dangerous and excessive drug use sets a bad example to anyone who looks up to these young stars. As a mom, I find it reprehensible that my children are bombarded with images of
people like Amy Winehouse or Lindsay Lohan half in the bag or worse yet, ACTUALLY using illegal drugs on film.
They aren’t just irresponsible, apparently they are stupid as hell for allowing themselves to be filmed.
Hey, I am all for having a good time, but sucking off a crack pipe, dropping pills like tic tacs and then washing it down with Dewar’s isn’t fun, it’s reckless.
And Natalie should know, she’s had her brush with Dr. Feelgood.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
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.
Comment by k — February 11, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
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.
Comment by D — February 11, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
She is talented, but the timing of these awards was not appropriate.
Comment by Rappy — February 11, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
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.
Comment by k — February 11, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
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.
Comment by crazymom — February 12, 2008 @ 11:13 am
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.
Comment by Jayne — February 12, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
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.
Comment by Jayne — February 12, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
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.
Comment by Christy — February 12, 2008 @ 5:33 pm