Sex, drugs, and Rock n' Roll. Isn't that what it's all about? Rock n' Roll has been the picture perfect poster child for these qualities since the beginning of time. There are very few rock stars from the past to the present who haven't dabbled in one of these sins, if not all of them, at some point in their careers. So can someone please explain to me why there is such an uproar with Amy Winehouse being on drugs and winning Grammys?
Natalie Cole, who was a presenter at this year's Grammys, made it very clear that she was very unhappy over Amy Winehouse's five Grammy wins, "I think she has a great talent, but I don't agree with the Grammys giving her those nods. I think it sends the wrong message, that even in the midst of her stupor of drugs she can get nominated for all these awards." Although Cole does go on to say that she too had a drug addiction, she doesn't make any mention of the fact that she was on drugs when she won her very own Grammys.
According to Wikipedia.org, Cole was arrested for heroin possession in 1975 in Toronto, Canada. 1975 also happened to be the year that Cole won her first two Grammys, one for Best R&B Performance, Female and one for Best New Artist of The Year. Apparently her Grammy wins weren't enough to straighten her out because she continued to use drugs and alcohol for the next few years until she entered rehab in 1983.
This is why I find it so funny that Cole would have to audacity to reprimand the Grammy voters for giving Amy Winehouse five Grammy wins. The only difference between Amy Winehouse and Natalie Cole is that Winehouse got caught and Cole didn't. Cole was on drugs when she won those Grammys in 1975 and when she won another one in 1976. At least Winehouse was in rehab when she won hers.
The fact of the matter is, Amy Winehouse won those Grammys based on her phenomenal musical talent and that's it. Her personal life played no role in her nomination or her winning. She is a young, talented artist who is at the top of her career and may be having a hard time dealing with all of it (much like Ms. Cole back in the day). Like my friend Susan said, "Amy Winehouse is like a deer in headlights when you watch her live. She's uncomfortable in the spotlight and you can tell."
Regardless, if the Grammy voters are only supposed to nominate and award Grammys to those artists who are drug and alcohol free, then no one would win. I'm sure that many of the recording artists who were nominated for a Grammy this year smoked a quick joint or snorted a small line before they even went to the award ceremony. And what about all of the Grammy after parties? Do you think that these musicians were going to say no to all the free Cristal and booze that were flowing? I think not.
The Grammys, and other awards like them, are given out to recognize those artists who stand out in their field; they are not role model awards. If that were the case, all these award ceremonies would be empty. Amy Winehouse may not be the greatest role model for the youth of today, but she is certainly exceptional at her craft. Others should not be so quick to judge, especially when they have their own drug addicted skeletons hiding out in their closet.