Why Whitney Died

The media have no bleepin' clue how to cover the death of Whitney Houston. That's because she was slowly dying for years and many in the press simply averted their eyes.

It was ultra-disturbing that a beautiful woman blessed with an extraordinary singing voice chose a self-destructive path in full view of the world. I mean, here is a person who signed a $100 million recording contract, actually sold 170 million albums and commanded high six figures to deliver a 90-minute concert. Houston was a genuine international star, and yet she often was seen in public disheveled and confused, her substance addiction apparent. The media simply did not know what to say.

We live in a time in which addiction is categorized as a disease, and to do what Nancy Reagan once did and urge people to reject narcotics is considered uncool. How many young performers do we see doing public service announcements warning children to avoid intoxication? Right now, I can't think of one.

The national media pride themselves on being non-judgmental unless you are against abortion. Then you are dismissed as "anti-woman" or as a religious zealot. But in the arena of personal behavior, there's an excuse for just about every nonviolent activity and bad decision.

There is no question that some of us have a history of addiction in our families. There are folks who can use drugs casually and avoid dependence, but they are the exception. Once a person decides to dabble in cocaine, or opiates such as heroin and OxyContin, they are putting themselves at grave risk. And they know it. There are legions of famous people who wound up dead just like Houston. From Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson, the signposts are impossible to miss. No matter how rich and powerful you are, drugs can and will destroy you.

The current medical marijuana ruse is a great example of a society walking away from a responsible position. Ask any drug rehab counselor, and he or she will tell you that pot often leads a person to harder drug use and is mentally addictive itself. Yes, most people can function while stoned. But the more you alter your mind the more your perspective on life changes. Believe me, I know people who get stoned or drunk every day. They become incredibly desensitized to those around them.

On the kid front, the situation is dire. Once a child enters the world of intoxication, their childhood is gone. Presto, they are jaded. That's how dangerous drugs and alcohol are to immature minds. Society has an obligation to protect its children, not to tacitly accept or embrace mind-altering agents such as marijuana.

Houston, however, was an adult who made a decision to embrace the drug life. Reports say she tried to rehabilitate herself a few times, but you know how that goes. Once a person enters the hell of addiction, there is no easy way out.

And that's how the Whitney Houston story should be covered. As a cautionary tale. Another life vanquished by substance abuse.

Here is from Wikipedia

The Star Spangled Banner Whitney Houston Song

-- snip --

Lip-sync controversy

In the days following Houston's performance of the national anthem at Super Bowl XXV, a controversy arose when it was reported that she lip-synched to her own pre-recorded version of the song by media such as the New York Post, USA Today and St. Petersburg Times. Larry Estrin, the Super Bowl engineer, told USA Today that TV viewers actually heard the studio version, "plus her live voice, plus the audience reaction," and added that "She sang the melody and words the same way (as the studio version), but she sang her heart out."[68] St. Petersburg Times, in its February 2, 1991 article of the Florida Orchestra, wrote that "Both Houston and the orchestra recorded the music before the game.[...] Some people have speculated that Houston lip-synced the National Anthem at the game."[69] On February 4, 1991, Mary Jo Melone of the same newspaper, in her article of Houston's Super Bowl performance, clearly stated that "It was the Memorex. The singing and music you heard were prerecorded."[70] Bob Best, an NFL pre-game entertainment official told USA Today that the NFL chose the recorded version because "we felt there were too many risks to do it live." USA Today reported that it is customary to use pre-recorded versions of the anthem at games, adding that in the past such stars as Diana Ross, Barry Manilow and Neil Diamond have sung to their pre-recorded versions of "The Star Spangled Banner."[68] Best, in an interview with the New York Post, also said that what was played was "protection copy"―it's so-called to protect against the singer's last minute inability to sing―Houston recorded several days before the game at an L.A. studio.[71] Kathryn Holm McManus, former executive director of the orchestra, in an interview with St. Petersburg Times in 2001, reaffirmed that, saying "At the game, everyone was playing, and Whitney was singing, but there were no live microphones. Everyone was lip-synching or finger-synching."[2]

During this controversy, Ms. Houston's personal publicist, Regins Brown said that "Our understanding is Whitney sang live into a live microphone." Brown added that the song was recorded in a studio several days before the Super Bowl, which has always been the National Football League (NFL) policy, stating "NFL policy is that when they have a performer singing the national anthem for live TV, they request the performer record what they call a protection copy, just in case the singer has laryngitis, the day of the Super Bowl."[68] Dan Klores, a spokesman for Houston, explained "This is not a Milli Vanilli thing. she sang live, but the microphone was turned off. It was a technical decision, partially based on the noise factor. This is standard procedure at these events."[72] According to Jet magazine, similarly, several music industry officials including Estrin emphasized that "this issue is not a case of Milli Vanilli, because the bottom line is―it was Ms. Houston's voice and she was singing."[68]

It actually make sense to me and people need to stop bashing her for "lip syncing" the song

AFN can do as it likes. They never asked my opinion, and likely wouldn't care if it were offered. BFD.

That aside:

1) As a solo performance for, let us say, close of the broadcast on a radio station ... I don't like it. I don't care for the "personal touches"; the odd trills and unpredictable phrasing. Neither Whitney, nor Jose, nor any other performer "owns" OUR National Anthem. Get over yourselves.

2) As a "crowd" performance for, let us say, the opening of a sporting event ... I consider it abominable. The personal touches and attempt to "own" the song explicitly shut we the people out of singing OUR National Anthem. That's grossly inappropriate and arrogant.

3) Back in the early 1990s, I attended a Pavarotti concert in DC. It was opened with OUR National Anthem ... I'm not sure if President George HW Bush's presence had anything to to with that. LP specifically invited us to join in singing it, and we did. The house ROCKED. That, FRiends, is how OUR National Anthem should be sung in public. Jose, and Whitney, and all their imitators miss the point. Luciano Pavarotti (a foreigner) got it.

And that's pretty much all I have to say about that. I don't expect most folks to agree with me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.