"I Told You I Was Trouble"

Tragic but predictable, it was the timing rather than the passing of Amy Winehouse that left many shocked and bereft on Saturday 23^rd July. Discovered by her security in her own bed in Camden, it was a somewhat quiet end to a loud and lavish lifestyle that had prevailed over the preceding years of the youngster’s life. Whilst many point to Amy’s troubles with alcohol addiction, drug abuse and tabloid shenanigans as the root causes for the death, these are just the public images of a lost girl, who was described in completely different ways by family and friends.

Scandalous until the end, Winehouse first came to the public eye with release Frank in 2003. This debut was essentially a cigarette stained, alcohol smeared soul and swing record that was reminiscent of 60s finesse. Critically, the album was a smash and gained Winehouse prestigious Ivor Novello awards – a feat that was repeated several times. Widespread success came with second offering Back To Black, where controlled raspy vocals and controversial issues led to both fame and fortune. The album became the biggest selling LP of 2007 in the UK and the seventh biggest selling in the world in 2008. 

Talent then is unquestionable. More often than was fair, smearing images blocked an accurate portrayal of the life of this star and perhaps the most perceptive remark reads:

“I know Amy Winehouse very well. And she is very different to what people portray her as being. Yes, she does get out of her mind on drugs sometimes, but she is also a very clever, intelligent, witty, funny person who can hold it together. You just don't see that side.”

-Lily Allen.

If, as Ms Allen claims, we didn’t see that side of Winehouse in her personal life, it was because the soul and swing music that she clung to was her eden: outside of her musical menagerie, the troubled starlet was all but lost in a media frenzy that sabotaged and plagued a person that had lost their way. When music was no longer effective in providing an outlet for the different traumas of her life, Amy Winehouse was subjugated to addiction for peace.

Lyrically, Amy’s music is self-professed and riveting material that only foreshadows her latter strife. “I cheated myself, like I knew I would” read the words to ‘You know I’m no good’: everything the star warned herself against has come to dominate her life and yet she enjoyed it nonetheless, and she shrives herself by simply saying that “I told you I was trouble”. Elsewhere, songs such as ‘Tears Dry On Their Own’ question attachments with trivial lovers, and ‘Fuck Me Pumps’ is an ode to all those who lose themselves in the good times, just as Amy herself did. Almost too ironically she warns those who fall from grace not too upset if “like the daily news they get pressed”. It’s a rock’n’roll lifestyle that is so glamorised on the outside, yet is too addictive to leave behind. More than any other artist, her short lived career writes her own eulogy in many ways: a life riddled with problems in love, in drugs, and feeling comfortable with self.

Winehouse’s legacy certainly lives on through her music now, as her parents laid her to rest in an emotional and extremely private congregation. Whilst the media continued to heckle the event, the true trouble of the star is truly realised. However brief her active career, her contributions to the musical world cannot and should not be undermined by her inevitably self destructive path. Current giants such as Duffy, Lily Allen and Adele cite her as their influences; the last going so far as to say that Amy was the original star of the 21^st century to get people excited about British music once again. Moreover, soul music has not enjoyed such popularity, diversity and success since the 60s. Often, genius is a case of trouble. Many of the greatest artists of the 20^th century wrote their music or claimed that their music was inspired by happenings whilst locked away and under the influence of some variant illicit substance. Amy’s music is so startlingly brilliant and unique to its market then because not only did she indulge in drugs, but her entire musical life was based around such self-abuse, mingling with vibrant crowds in Camden and struggling to maintain the balanced lifestyle of her family. 

So whilst she may have said no, no, no to rehab, Amy’s genius flourished under such  circumstance and after all, we’re only saying goodbye in words.

Don’t Believe The Hype.

Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: foreign dictatorships send shudders down our spines. Looking out towards these places with limits on what it is permissible to vocalise, many question how those in power are able to defend their stance and how those who are forced into these submissive positions are able to live under such limitations. Gaging how far a country’s freedom of speech is impoverished is not a difficult task: often, one only has to look towards the medias that lie within. Normally, they will be heavily state controlled and censored by government and law. Frequently, they will portray positive images of the most controversial decisions and leaders. 

Media influence however has deemed it a reflex to assume that our system of freedom is instantly superior to that of those elsewhere. There are obvious reasons for this stance. We need only consider China’s banning any reference to or any shows and literatures pertaining to time travel in May as a case of the over-zealous manner in which some prohibitions are applied. Can we imagine their version of Doctor Who? On a more serious note however, the Chinese government labelled this a bid to increase national identity and pride: “Time travel shows are irresponsible in not respecting history” it was announced and the officials continued to describe time travelling shows as “frivolous” and a way by which “to re-write history”. Fair enough, the Chinese ministers wish to create an air of solidarity in what China has achieved in the past half a century, becoming the quickest emerging superpower, but surely more of this present can be appreciated if other realities were speculated at the same time? Just a thought.

Last year, North Korea banned World Cup games from live screening. Instead, matches where the national team won were only broadcast after the event itself. In the case of defeat, past winning scores were shown in some way to negate the loss in the current competition. The aim was to keep moral high. Such extravagance in control however is tantamount to abuse and insulting populus’ intelligence. The country’s residents are going to notice that the World Cup trophy didn’t arrive in Korea… even if the government can conceal it’s Spanish destination.

Of course, these governments promote their version of events as helpful in their controlling the country: indeed, China’s seemingly exponential growth in the past few decades now has it a country amongst the top traders, it boasts the first fully functioning maglev, the largest metro system in the world, has hosted the Olympics and is predicted to soon be putting out more academic research than the USA (academia now being a new measure of world power). Therefore maybe there is something to be said for the tightly run state: it seems to have fostered in all the people a dedication to a way of life that brings greater benefits if they are more in routine. Disturbingly, it appears on the surface as a rehash of the American Dream. 

Elsewhere, the power of the media is something to be feared. When free speech developed in Rwanda for example through the use of the radio, RTLM was amongst the first stations to be independent of the government. Upon its launch, it was proclaimed that:

We have a radio here, even a peasant who wants to say something can come, and we will give him the floor. Then, other peasants will be able to hear what peasants think. Personally, I think what complicates things is that ordinary citizens have no forum where they can speak. Normally, for ordinary citizens to speak, they speak through elections and elections are impossible. So, in fact, ordinary citizens have been deprived of a say but RTLM is there, we will give them the floor.

(Gaspard Gahigi, RTLM, 19 March 1994)

For those less illuminated with the facts, the radio station then went on in the following months to incite genocide that saw the deaths of almost 1 million Tutsis. The station broadcast names and locations of ‘traitors’, described those to be killed as subhuman and the action of murder as nothing but work. The extent of the damage is still visible today: once the months of bloodshed were over, government controlled radio was all that was permitted: all media remains heavily monitored today lest such unspeakable horrors should be repeated. And what was the world doing whilst these tragedies unfolded? The Western media was more concerned with the death of Kurt Cobain and the OJ Simpson case. Two men overshadowed a nation.

Priority of reporting then comes into question. Through our own negligence, we allow medias to dictate our perceptions of the world and what happens. No area should be left unbroached. Recently, this concern has grown closer to home. Whilst I am concerned for family well-being, the late super-injunction scandal brings entire reams of freedom of speech and freedom of the press into question. If we are unable to pass comment on these smaller matters, how soon before there are limits in place on other things of grand importance? To ban any comment is to undermine the very foundations of the current system of democracy held in the Western hemisphere. Whilst extending the principle to more serious matters could appear somewhat dramatic and far-fetched, conceding a small amount of rights has often led to great swathes of rights being attacked.

Therefore, we need consider the role of government and its interrelation with the media in a 21^st century world. No doubt, technology has come to consume and dominate entire swaths of the planet with its ease of use and rapid transit of information. However in its misuse, there can be death, restraint and feeding ego of power heads of state. Moreover, a more broad perspective need be considered: restrictions elsewhere have contributed to shaping China and protecting Rwandans. Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: free speech in Western democracies is under attack, but is it advantageous?