I remember seeing Amy Winehouse live at the Empire, Sheperds Bush. Sadly I cannot remember who I was with, a group of friends yes. Well that is indicative of my own state of mind, having broken up with my wife.
I thought she was great. I remember standing near the back, people all around holding plastic beakers of beer. A tall man turned to me - I suppose by way of conversation, but I never feel like shouting above the noise in such crowds - saying she's not so good. I took him to mean not a real musical great warranting the enthusiasm of this crowd. I remember that I didn't really agree with him. I thought she was great and tremendously enjoyable in terms of what she was doing.
I think that she always meant something to me because I saw a mixture of myself and my wife in her. Obviously, as a young woman, my wife, but as a little devil local Jewish girl hanging around Camden, also myself as a little devil. All the more so now I read that she hung around Camden Town, really, just as I had done when I was sixteen - seventeen, drugs and all.
I once heard someone say Amy Winehouse was not an attractive a female star. I was astonished. People's taste varies enormously.
The 27 Club
I am not convinced that this is just a meaningless phenomena. If she had been 26 then she would have been in the list of those who die at 26, nearly 27. OK.
But it is true that those particular people, Brian Jones, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix are all on the very edge in a particular way.
It would be interesting to discuss their music in these terms, for instance the, surely, very depressed "As Tears Go By" (Jones), I certainly don't go with, or really understand, this bi-polar thing. I think it's just another classification. But these ideas are not for now.
There are a few possibilities.
First of all we say that they take their own lives through destructive behaviour. But there is the possibility that life takes itself away from them.
There maybe a threshold of destruction beyond which life cannot offer to repair itself to the destructive person - without very extensive and careful intervention, that is. I come to this below.
There may be a measurable network effect. First a plot of allies and enemies, that is positive and negative arcs.
Then a statistical sampling of the target group against the general population.
I am suggesting that there may be, for this type of 'behaviour' (we don't exactly know what the behaviour is, must it include performing and fame, what other dimensions?) a necessary convergence on the age of 27. There would also have to be scrutiny of the broad group of vulnerable addicts (at the very least for interests sake).
Another possibility is that there is something internally developmental. To explore this possibility would mean not looking at a social network or matrix, at least not in detail. One can see that this immediately looks less promising as a line.
Allies and Enemies
As far as professional help is concerned I am very sceptical about its quality. I noticed an interview with a drug counsellor on the BBC who told us that the record label had done all that it could, it couldn't have done more. This is astonishing and wanders far into Murdoch double think territory.
First of all who was this person?
If she knew anything about the case from inside then it was entirely unethical to be offering an opinion that defended a party to whom Amy Winehouse had a contractual obligation. If not, then giving her opinion was equally unethical, this just made her the (probably unpaid) mouthpiece of the record label. Why would a drug counsellor do that? Without any real knowledge of the situation.
This is what worries me. Of course, what passes for knowledge (as opposed to mere collusion)?
Most (I say with some confidence) of these 'professionals' are the product of the professionalisation of mental care, but with very limited understanding of the subject area, that is ourselves. They just simply haven't put in the years.
My bet is that the same series of criticisms applies to The Priory as well. They are probably also too tied up with worries about professional conduct to actually make effective (professional) interventions.
What is absolutely clear is that anyone who encouraged, facilitated or allowed Amy Winehouse's last tour was her enemy. That is a lot of people, a lot of professionals, who did not intervene successfully on her behalf.
A lot of people who could not say no to the exploitation of capitalism (a financial contract in this case).
This is in very stark contrast to the list of people above, none of whom had the level of awareness in people around them about the mortal danger they were in.
There's the real tragedy.