The nominations for the NME awards have just been announced and, as with every other year, I am totally indifferent. The once glorious publication, formerly the home of writers with the calibre, wit and wisdom of Nick Kent, Julie Burchill and Stuart Maconie, now gives refuge to thin-tied white boys so far out of their element they struggle to even have a vague knowledge of David Bowie.
The sins of the modern day NME and it's writers are many but I'm sticking with one just now that has really rattled my pissy bone. In the catagory of Villain of the Year they have nominated Amy Winehouse. I know in the wide scheme of things that this is quite a trivial category that is not to be taken seriously, although it could be tough to take being listed with Tony Blair and George W. Bush on the chin! It would certainly kill the fizz out of being nominated for Best Solo Artist, which Winehouse quite rightly was, following a year that saw her 'Back to Black' album barely leave the top ten. Regardless of how seriously we are to take the Villain of the Year category, it does speak volumes, whether the powers that be at the NME like it or not, of the contrast in how a troubled female artist is perceived in comparison to a troubled male.
Here we have a lady whose personal problems with drugs and her posh double-barrelled jailbird husband, whose name has never been with me to escape from me, have kept her in the media glare daily for over a year now. Like many, I'm fed up reading about the lady and her problems. I adore her 'Back to Black' album, but it seems to be of little interest to the snakes of the press who, bereft of a soul to enjoy such musical stylings, focus on the murkier side of Winehouse's life. Her problems are continually being used as a stick to beat her with and the NME are now part of the Winehouse lynch-mob with this Villain of the Year nod.
I do not know Winehouse personally. She may well be an individual deserving of such an award but her reasons for being nominated are the very reasons that see her male counterparts lauded and mythologised. Winehouse gets caught smoking crack and she's a villian. Pete Doherty gets caught shooting up and he's a troubled genius and a poet. Keith Richards tells us for the 234th million time that he should be dead and we call him a legend. Gil Scott Heron gets caught with heroin and they throw his ass in jail and deny him his HIV medication - but that's another story about how selective both the system and the music press are in relation to gender, race, sympathy, mythology and condemnation.
Keith Richards has been living well off his drug excess truths, myths and legends for well over thirty years now. What is so acceptable about t-shirts of a 'wasted' Keith Richards or Sid Vicious that is so unacceptable about images of Amy Winehouse with needle marks on her feet? There are no differences between any of these images, yet we seem to not only accept it in males (if they're white) but celebrate it, and that's wrong. So perhaps the NME should be praised for taking Winehouse to task like this. It may get a message to the lady that she needs help. But did the NME, even in its pomp, ever offer the same message to Keith Richards, Sid Vicious or Kurt Cobain? No they didn't. They don't see the need to villainise white male addicts because it's 'rock n' roll, man' and 'it's better to burn out than to fade away'. Yet, like stuffy old male Cricket Club House members, they wag their self-righteous fingers at any woman who dares to step into the boys club of 'sex, drugs and rock n' roll'.
So I now feel the need to reassure all the female artists and music lovers out there. I come from a club that welcomes women. If a walk on the wild side floats your boat you're more than welcome to jump on with us. We believe you have every equal right to indulge in excess if you so please. We'll make sweet rock n' roll with you. We may even take some (non hard) drugs with you, and yes - we'll even have sex with you........if you'll have us of course!
No comments:
Post a Comment