There is a fatal disease called drug addiction. Millions of people have it, and millions seek help --many working hard enough and being blessed enough to begin successful recovery.
Many are unsuccessful.
Many people who battle drug addiction (which some prefer to call "demons") have creativity, artistic expression and the quest for beauty as their raisin d'etre. Their status and cultural prominence as celebrities has them venerated as well as awarded with financial success (That Whitney was one of the greatest singers of all time is something most folks are capable of appreciating) but that is often fleeting as the disease is unrelenting and progressively defeating. It's reported that at the time of her death Ms. Houston was not only financially bankrupt but as anyone who's traveled to their own "bottom" of addictive descent can attest, she was more than likely just as physically and spiritually depleted.
It is an insidious (and I reiterate, fatal) disease. It's cunning and baffling. Look it up. It is as clinically diagnosable as diabetes, hepatitis or cancer.
Many here and elsewhere are quick to condemn addicts on moral grounds--a sophomoric knee-jerk reflex which is utterly ignorant. There are some who are offended by an outpouring of sympathy, grief and over-appreciation of these victims as if it were the obsequious cloying of an adulatory public for a beloved artist or personality who meets an untimely end which they may consider to be self-inflicted. I recoil wincing from the professional punditry (many of whom are not only relatively mediocre non-creative performers, but suffer from addictive disorders themselves) who serve up their judgemental sanctimony with moral indictments of the victim's character to their "followers" who collectively hoist them to some perversely procured pedestal.
But we should better mind and consider that this disease discriminates even less. It doesn't discriminate at all.
With all that considered, addiction and self-destructive behavior, albeit collaterally pervasive for the family, friends and associates of the sufferer, are perhaps not as abjectly and overtly destructive as that of so many others' whom we admire, pardon and emulate while never acknowledging and accepting the simple truth that good folks oftentimes lose battles with profound diseases. Addiction is but one of those, regardless of the victim's soulful fortitude or strength of character.
~JC
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
On Chris Richard's Washington Post Grammy Review
It’s unfortunate that Chris Richards [Disjointed Grammys honor Whitney Houston] couldn't find more to appreciate positively about the evening. A live broadcast of a multiple-act performance oriented variety show will of course not have uniformly seamless transitions and as a whole, and will be technically "disjointed".
With variety, one must expect some inconsistency.
The few positive remarks he did make were framed and diluted with cynically contextualized. He cites a few “moments of clarity”, while merely relating others without comment, reserving all his writer's eloquence for stabs and snarks.
His commentary on Springsteen's opening number “We Take Care of Our Own” (“given Houston’s death, an ill-considered opening line: “America, are you alive out there?”) was just plain opportunistic and trite.
And Taylor Swift's number (which received a show-stopping standing ovation, hello...) was strong and masterfully rendered. "Sour grapes"...o.k., but that's indeed the theme of the song, man.
If Richards feels the night's show was "something to be endured ...a ceremony riddled with disjointed collaborations that spanned genres and generations for the sake of ... what, exactly?"...
and a "missed opportunity" some 25-hours after the untimely and unfortunate death of one of the music world's all-time greats, then perhaps he's the one that's missing an opportunity to consider writing about something else.
I've seen, performed at, and attended numerous Grammy telecasts, and I felt this was one of the more memorable and richly enjoyable, warts and all.
The few positive remarks he did make were framed and diluted with cynically contextualized. He cites a few “moments of clarity”, while merely relating others without comment, reserving all his writer's eloquence for stabs and snarks.
His commentary on Springsteen's opening number “We Take Care of Our Own” (“given Houston’s death, an ill-considered opening line: “America, are you alive out there?”) was just plain opportunistic and trite.
And Taylor Swift's number (which received a show-stopping standing ovation, hello...) was strong and masterfully rendered. "Sour grapes"...o.k., but that's indeed the theme of the song, man.
If Richards feels the night's show was "something to be endured ...a ceremony riddled with disjointed collaborations that spanned genres and generations for the sake of ... what, exactly?"...
and a "missed opportunity" some 25-hours after the untimely and unfortunate death of one of the music world's all-time greats, then perhaps he's the one that's missing an opportunity to consider writing about something else.
I've seen, performed at, and attended numerous Grammy telecasts, and I felt this was one of the more memorable and richly enjoyable, warts and all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)