The Mosh Pit 12.14.07: Britney Spears vs. Amy Winehouse

Posted by Dan Haggerty on 12.14.2007

411’s Dan Haggerty looks at the biggest rivalry of 2007, Spears vs. Winehouse. It’s the race no one should want to win, where the winner is the loser while the real loser is not who you think it is! Plus feedback on the Hall of Fame and Germany invades Forgotten Classics in this edition of the Mosh Pit!





Greetings everyone, and welcome to Friday, time to kickback, have a drink, and chill out after a long work week. It's the final stretch of 2007, and what a year it has been. I don't know about you, but it seems like I'm busier than ever, the holiday coming way to fast for comfort. I'm not sure if I will make it to Christmas, or just end up crashing into it. Maybe having a job that works like it's more than full time, all while writing for the best damn site on the internet, all conspires to keep me on my toes.

But enough about me! We have a show to do, some music to discuss, and some videos to show, so on with it…





Tonight's Show: Britney Spears vs. Amy Winehouse


The year has seen many rivalries to make us music junkie's talk. Kanye West vs. 50 Cent was the most famous. The trash talking and posturing was enough to even make your diehard hip-hop fan get over the whole thing. Despite the rhetoric, the "conflict" itself was real. The winner of the new release sell off not only determining who was number one, but even possibly the music trends of the industry itself. Whether this happens, or the failed business minds that occupy the major labels realize this, is another matter entirely. The only point here is the fact of the two artists had, and the practical importance of, that face-off.

There are many of these "conflicts" that run through the music industry, some far more legitimate than others. What really chafes me is the fact the media loves to ignore the big conflicts while hyping the trivial ones. This usually centers on what is considered likely to get more readers in the front door. Even the West vs. 50 seemed to be more about the personalities than the musical differences that would actually drive the results.

For another example, a basically ignored conflict is Wal*Mart vs. The Major Labels. This is one of the biggest conflicts shaping the music industry but you'd be lucky to read about it anywhere. On the flip side, Tommy Lee and Kid Rock get into a scuffle at a pointless award show and its news for weeks. The first story impacts the price you pay for a CD, the music the labels push, and even the variety of music that gets circulated. The second doesn't even have a noticeable affect on the two people involved let alone you and me.

Coming in under the radar is one of the most pointless pieces of gossip and daily amusement, but could potentially end up being the most recognized conflict of the year. I am talking about Britney Spears vs. Amy Winehouse.

Yes… I'm serious. Stay with me here folks.

Both are in a race that no one should want to win, let alone any sane person should desire to even start. It's like the old ridiculous Mad Magazine board game where the winner is the first person to lose all their money and go bankrupt. It's a cage match of the lowest common denominator, and the winner will get the title of music's biggest loser.

Of course, to win the title of loser, the person in question must totally self-destruct. As amusing as the daily stories of these two ladies are, I don't think anyone actually wants to see them get hurt (or worse). In a normal conflict, or media highlighted showdown, everyone waits to see who will win. The twisted reality of the show only these two could pull off is in the fact the media will care more about who loses.

The media has a front row seat to the ultimate race of self-destruction, and they watch each spectacle more than happy to report the missteps, but never even ask the question "Why?" And there in lies the real story of this sad journey through gossip glamour. Why does the media just sit and watch the spectacle without taking a step back to do some real investigation of the circus? Have they become that detached from their own professions, where they are happy to just walk around blankly waiting to snap a quick photo, after which they mindlessly follow the two around waiting for the next opportunity?

You think it would be sad to be Britney or Amy, try being the poor sap who defines his life by waiting for these two to fuck up.

I'm not suggesting the media should be a social service and do "something" about the two singers' crash-and-burn lifestyle. It's not their job, just as it isn't their fault the two are in the mess of a life they are in. That honor belongs to the faces the ladies see in the mirror each morning.

But there is a deeper story here, and it's not being covered. Each singer has, in her own right, a different role in this story that is worth looking into. It says a lot about the women and the media covering it:

Britney Spears has been on the business end of the gossip column for some time now; from divorce, to crotch-less pictures, to poor parenting, to no regard for the law or responsibility, to blatantly pulling stupid stunts. Oh, and somewhere in all of this she has managed to ignore, and by default screw up, her singing career – Not a bad feat considering someone else writes and produces all of her music. This girl is ground zero for Entertainment Tonight; her antics probably keep numerous people employed single-handedly. But there is another side to Britney's relationship with the press, and that is the fact she courts them to the point of working her schedule around their presence. So what you have is Spears doing a lot of her stupid stuff around a press she insures is there to catch her.

Yea…

Sure, she screwed the pooch at the MVA's by not practicing or even listening to her management, strictly because she is in fact a spoiled idiot. But there is a dark thread here as well – She shows up sans her underwear to a high-profile press spot; she calls ahead to schedule her appearances to coincide with press events; she strips to try on underwear in a Hustler store (obviously, she still needed underwear); she puts a picture of her flirting with a priest in her new album… And now she steals a lighter with press in tow and waves it in their face.

The girl might be an out of control idiot at times, but some of this stuff is just too contrived for my skepticism. My money is on the fact the little pop-tart thinks all press is good press, and she manufactures press through her antics. Whether it's a conscious business decision ala Madonna (But Madonna she does it a whole hell of a lot better than that), or just some internal need for attention, it is something we can only speculate about at this point - Probably a little bit of both. But the good betting money is on the fact that, either way, she is using the media as much as they use her. The media gets the story and she gets her fix. I use to consider the paparazzi nothing more than parasites that feed on their own species, but the more I read the Britney news each day, I have to ask if the relationship is symbiotic.

Maybe the reason the media doesn't look to deep into the likes of Britney is that they will see more about themselves than what they would care to admit. If you think being the poor sap that defines his life by following her around all day would stink, imagine being the poor sap realizing he is being used by her. That would really suck. I mean, your job is to be used by Britney Spears 24/7 just to get a few photos for the tabloids… Ouch. As a news reporter for 411, I've got it down pretty tight to get these stories in a matter of minutes, and trust me when I say that a Spears story doesn't require a lot of thinking/writing to deliver. Add to that the whopping minute you take to click on the story and read it. What is that between us? Five to ten minutes invested at light heartedly laughing at the poster child of getting hit with the stupid stick. That's cheap entertainment for you and me, but some poor dude lives this all day long – His job is the equivalent of having to read nothing but Britney Spears' news stories for 8 hours everyday all week long. And she is intentionally feeding him some of it.

I wonder if suicide rates are higher amongst the paparazzi.

Her competitor for "Train wreck of the year" is Amy Winehouse. Unlike the perpetual disaster that is Britney Spears, Winehouse is a late comer to the party. Her trick is in her ability to make up for lost time by completely melting down before our eyes in the last month. Sure, Amy has had her issues, but various minor drug busts and such are not that big of a deal in the world of celebrities and Rock & Roll. That crap has been going on since Elvis threw his hip at a camera. Sure, she has been busted for pot, but so was Paul McCartney 30 years ago - Big deal.

No, Amy Winehouse had something specific happen that caused the mother of all meltdowns to begin. Was it losing her husband to the hard-time cafe? Maybe we're seeing the end of a long history of severe drug abuse (that's only speculation based on various news stories by the way). Maybe there is a reason we have not heard about yet. I don't know what caused this, but something turned an actually gifted singer into a train wreck in a matter of weeks.

Amy Winehouse has gone from minor pot busts to pictures of possible hard-drug abuse, melting down on stage, canceling an entire tour, to even stumbling around at 5 AM only wearing a bra (and jeans) in public. Where Spears acts like a reckless, if clueless idiot, all while pulling an occasional publicity stunt, Amy has become an implosion that will quite frankly burn itself out quickly (for better or worse). The way the media portrays these incidents, your choices appears to be the equivalent of watching the circus vs. gapping at a car pileup on the freeway. Both serve for immediate entertainment, but only one is going to be here at the end of next year. The other will have exhausted her current course, and will either get help or burn her self right out of the spotlight.

Unlike Britney, Amy Winehouse does not seem to be aware of the media, just stumbling about in a daze doing stuff that gets caught by the never ending train of photographers who follow celebrities around. But she does know they are there. She has to. How could you not be aware of it? She either ignores them or has just become mindlessly numb to them in her current state. Which begs the question: Has she become that apathetic or detached from her surroundings? If so, then I hope she gets help fast, otherwise this could end in a real tragedy.

The reporters in the Winehouse patrol have a front row seat to this developing tragedy. They have to know the score here, how could they not? But there they watch, waiting to report the latest from camp crash and burn. If you think Winehouse has become numb to the presence of the media, they in turn must become apathetic to watching a human being self destruct. It's inevitable. How can you passively watch a human being go to hell and not lose something in the process? I certainly couldn't do it. If I saw Winehouse stumbling around in a bra looking dazed, my first thought wouldn't be "Quick – Get a picture!" it would be "Holy crap, this girl's fucked up and needs help. Call someone to come and get her, and tell them she needs a coat." In sum total, this camera guy defines his life by watching others lose theirs. But maybe that's me – If I was there, I wouldn't be able to just sit by and watch someone fall apart.

Notice a trend here, if you're the guy stuck covering Britney 24/7, you need to dumb yourself down to do the job. If you are the guy stuck covering Winehouse 24/7, you have to numb yourself to life to do the job. Either way, you lose. In a way, you become a parody of the object you follow around.

At this point, I'm sure it's obvious where I'm going with this. Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse might be in a race to win the title of the year's biggest loser, but they are not the real loser in this situation. One way or the other, Winehouse will stop making news. Either she gets help or she just burns till there is nothing left. Britney will probably carry on for a number of years until she hits a point where she has to choose to either clean up or become irrelevant and fade away. But the paparazzi will always be there, waiting for the next person's life to go to hell. They have to, it's the purpose they have given themselves.

And that is what earns the paparazzi the award in the Britney vs. Winehouse conflict, the concept of choice. Yes, one of these two women will lose for winning this race. And next year we will see new celebrities going to hell, then more the next year, and the next, and the next after that, and on into the future. While Britney and Amy are responsible for their life and the choices they have made (and are suffering the consequences for those choices), they did not make the conscious choice to end up at this point. That is a consequence of their actions (even if a smarter person would see it coming). But the guy who lives 24/7 with a camera did make the conscious choice to be were he is now. That is what makes the paparazzi the real loser. By choice they dumb themselves down for the Britney's of the world while becoming numb to life itself for the Amy's of the world.

Who will ultimately "win" in the Britney vs. Winehouse contest? That really depends on whether Amy Winehouse gets help or not. If she does, then she gets back to a semi-normal life, otherwise she will crash and burn quickly. Either way, Britney will go on being Britney for as long as she can get away with it. So the "winner" is dependant on someone getting Winehouse the help she needs. As for the loser, you can't saddle Britney with the title – Either way she gets what she wants - Attention. Winehouse isn't going to be the loser in the long run, as she either gets help or becomes a statistic. No, the real loser here is clear, for they get the big "L" no matter who the "winner" is: The paparazzi. They have a choice, and consciously choose to be who they are: Britney Spears personal bitch.





Intermission: Doro Pesch Covers "White Wedding"






And now for a word from the editors of 411…







The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame

Well, they went and announced the Hall of Fame, and I have mixed feelings. On one hand I'm glad The Ventures made it. If they didn't, what little cred the place has would have been shot. The Dave clark 5 was good, and while Mellencamp is not my thing, he is deserving. But Madonna is in while Donna Summers gets cut out?

COME ON.

Madonna might have had a greater influence on the music industry through business savvy and the ability to hype herself, but Donna Summers is more talented and paved the way for people like Madonna. Sure, Madonna sold a lot more music, but musically influenced no one. Summers has influenced a lot of people. Besides, she can actually sing.

No. I'm not letting this go. I'll continue to bitch about this until the fans take back the industry and do their own Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

I can dream.




Forgotten Classics


Time to pull a classic from the collection and give it the attention it deserves!


Accept – Balls To The Wall






The ultimate in kraut-rock, one of Germany's many sonic gifts to the world. I mean, damn, I think that country releases more quality metal per capita than any other country on the planet! But I digress, Accept as a band itself more than qualifies as a forgotten classic, and several of their albums should be highlighted here (and will with time). Only marginally successful, probably because they were to good for the radio format of the 80's, the band lives on as an influence to many steel-shooters of today's scene.

But what of Balls To The Wall? It is one of my favorites, not just because of the writing (it shares that honor with Restless and Wild) but more importantly the pure passion poured into the performance. The guy's play, no sound like they are just full of unbridled energy hell bent on keeping things from flying apart within each scorching song. Rolling drum fills, searing solos, Udo's harsh gravely chomp at the mike, and it's all several degrees removed from flying to pieces, but held rigidly together within the forged Teutonic song structure. This isn't a band playing, but a vicious animal pulling at it's leash to let loose, pissed that it must contain it's muse within the idea of the mundane world of song structures.

Beyond their years, twin leads only paralleled by Judas Priest at the time, a down and dirty bar fight waiting to happen, this may live on more in the bands they influenced, but that doesn't mean you should miss this piece of rock history. Pick it up, listen, and let loose the head banging!

Oh hell, don't take my word for it…





Accept - Balls To The Wall






Final Thoughts

It's been real. Now you be real and go listen to your favorite bands, even if the paparazzo doesn't follow your band day and night. And while you're at it, turn it up to 11. If someone tells you to turn it down, raise the fist of rock and tell then Dan said ‘Hi'.