Why should we determine the importance of historical events in popular music? Whats important to one fan of an artist is completely different to the views from a fan of another artist.
Its not just what makes the papers , magazines and tv that matters to fans. News about artists is broadcasted in many a way in todays world, mostly because ‘stars’ and their ‘goings on’ are more important to the general public than they have ever been before. people like to look up to artists or in most cases now look down on their drug abuse or outrageous behavior and bring back the reality that we are all the same and can all go through the same tough times.
Music is the most favoured thing in alot of peoples lives today. Ipods and mp3 players are something that a vast majority of people carry around with them religiously and would feel empty without. Its only human that people are interested in what their favorite artist looks like, where they come from and their general background. This however has lead to artists lives being intruded and covered across various news feeds and social networks more than ever before. General public forget that there are infact 2 sides to an artist. The side that we see when we they are on tour and their natural human side. When they are on stage they are a musician. when they are not on stage they are classed as a celebrity whether they like it or not. Quote taken straight from the second line of wikipedia when the well known name ‘Amy Winehouse’ is searched -
‘Winehouse is best known for her powerful contralto vocals, substance abuse and mental health issues’
On a website such as Wikipedia its their job to write a biography on famous people. They have to include stories from each persona. The person they are writing about is a celebrity and they are a celebrity for a reason. It’s wikipedia’s job to tell everyone who they are and how they got there. After reading the article on Amy it would seem that in some instances the fact that she has been caught smoking crack and been wandering round high in public in just her bra outweigh the better points about her career. Having then come across a ‘Talk’ page that gets raised if people aren’t happy with the way something is written it would seem my points were correct about this article -
‘This article covers Winehouse being photographed bloody and bruised, high, wandering in public in a bra, drug overdoses, being recorded smoking crack; it covers her health issues, her brushes with the law, in fact, every thing that has occurred over last year and a half. That the article doesn't denigrate or make judgments or pronouncements about her attests to its neutrality, not a bias.’
Straight away in this article the writer makes reference to Amy’s ‘downfalls’ making this a more noticeable point to begin with. If someone had heard a song by Amy on the radio and decided they wanted to know more about her as an artist they would be immediately switched off by the statement ‘ best known for substance abuse and mental health issues’ this leaving an even bigger dent in a ruined fan base when the fact she had drug issues could have been kept as a minor point and concluded with the fact that that piece of news happened quite a while ago and she’s doing alot better and back in the studio recording her third album. But there’s also the argument that people need to know everything about her with it being a biography about a famous person. It would be bias of wikipedia to not mention the troubled aspects of her life aswell as her achievements in the music industry.
There’s more news about artists going downhill than the fact their album may have been at number one for a matter of weeks because its what the public are eager to hear about. Writers are always looking for negative points to make about musicians as it gains kudos for them, the public love to gossip about others that are in...