MOG

Algorithm of Ms Winehouse's rehab decision after Universal Music PR operation:

Bartleby ... you forgot ... after the 3rd "NO" ... there's the new box of "Change record labels".

rich, messed up girl ...

I'm actually proud of Universal for doing this. Even though they might just be doing it to cover their own ass in case she were to overdose.

Is it bad to say that I hope she OD's? My opinion she is a waste of frickin' space.

aww thats mean... I dont want her to die, but I think she really needs to get her shit together. She has an opportunity man sober/sane people would kill for. and up to this point shes throwing it all away

Not sure she wrote "change record labels" in her "Rehab" song, Cinful.

@Shud33: She is only a waste of space because of the tabloid-like and perverse attention people tend to dole on her.

Yeah, I am harsh. I usually offend people in that aspect. But I have never been a fan of hers and I agree, she does have a chance of sobering up. So if she doesn't respect herself, why should I? (I know...I know...I am brutal! Sorry guys...)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the "they" who tried to make Amy Winehouse go to rehab were the suits at her record label, which she promptly walked away from and signed with whatever label she's signed with now, so my own guess is that the same threat will avail them little. I expect she'd have no trouble finding a new label, or putting out her own records.

And the libertarian in me emerges when the subject of drugs comes up; I think it's nobody else's business if you take them, and that the whole lot, pot to angel dust, should be decriminalized, quality-controlled, and taxed reasonably. In any case, there's an obvious, longstanding symbiosis between drugs and the creative arts, especially music, and Universal is acting like a narrow-minded, self-righteous schoolmarm.

Well, if she's under contract, she can't just leave. That's the point of the contract.

I agree with you when it comes to legalizing drugs, but mainly as it pertains to laws. As long as your doing drugs only effects you, the government should find better things to worry about. Case in point: DUI. If you kill someone, or destroy property, the gov't should nail your ass to the wall.

If your family/friends, who have a real interest in keeping you alive, because they care for you, it is indeed their duty to butt in.

As far as Universal is concerned, they aren't really making her do anything - they are simply saying if she wants to release more music, she'll have to chill out. Maybe they are concerned with her well-being, but more likely they are concerned with their bottom line. At any rate, they aren't making her do anything, other than make a choice. That's life.

Though I would never argue that drugs make music/musicians better, it's a little hypocritical of music fans do demonize Ms. Winehouse because she abuses her body with drugs, especially since she doesn't seem to be hurting anyone else. That is unless those music only listen to music made by folks who never used drugs, which isn't likely.

She wasn't supposed to record the Quantum of Solace theme either unless she stayed clean, but look at what happened there... I'm sure her label do care about her health, but it kinda seems they're making a statement like this to look "good", but whatever happens they'll keep her. What's their option? Drop her and someone else'll pick her up?

Im with shud on this. Why do we and indeed so many others keep devoting time and space(i'm doing it now) to this stupid talentless cow.

she looks like such a wreck in that pic

"Talentless"? Obviously someone hasn't heard Amy Winehouse...

I still maintain that holding her drug abuse against her, but not other musicians is awfully hypocritical.

britney was able to get back on track and winehouse can't? that's sad.

Is she? I hate to see either of them go down the toilet. Bratney, because of her kids. Amy, because of her talent. And because neither of them have really hurt anyone but themselves yet.

God, I wish Universal had threatened not to release "Baby Mama" unless Tina Fey were remotely funny...

heh Did Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon sell their souls? Because as far as I can tell, neither of them are funny, or particularly good actors, and yet both are famous and doing well.

Record labels telling artists not to do drugs? This sets a dangerous precendent, people.

Why, without the heaven-made marriage of artist and narcotic, we'd have no Dark Side of the Moon from Pink Floyd, no Revolver from The Beatles, and no Heartbreaker from Ryan Adams. And we'd have nothing at all from Cypress Hill.

This is a interesting intersection of business obligation and artistic expression. At what point exactly should a music label be concerning itself with an artist's misbehavior and taking steps to ensure they clean it up? When they wreck one car? Two? When they're physically unable to perform? When they can't string together a complete sentence, much less write another hit song? Is there any real difference between Cypress Hill's "I Wanna Get High" and Amy Winehouse's "Rehab"?

Well, yes.

In the case of a band like Cypress HIll, their drug use and purportedly decadent lifestyle are inherent to the appeal of the music. And Sony/Interscope probably wouldn't have it any other way. If B-Real gets busted again for drugs, it only adds to his rep.

But when it's the case of Amy Winehouse--someone with much higher pop music visibility who's winning Grammys left and right--Universal gets concerned. Even though Back To Black is an album constructed upon a foundation of heartbreak and subsequent intoxication. And even though Winehouse's drug use and purportedly decadent lifestyle are keeping her in the news, it seems Universal has now decided that not all publicity is good.

Are Universal's concerns noble? Do they actually care for the health and well-being of an artist in their fold?

Or are they simply motivated by the almighty dollar, simply trying to keep their soul-singing cash cow alive long enough to trot her out for another hit record?

Attack of The Fifty-Foot Skank.

Rich, AA.