|
THE news
this weekend that
Amy Winehouse would not, in all likelihood, be
recording the theme song for the upcoming James Bond
film was disappointing in that it again turned the focus
away from the British singer’s music and onto her
personal life.
This
Associated Press story quotes Winehouse producer
Mark Ronson as stating that the soul revivalist is “not
ready” to record any music, a comment that seems to have
been disputed by Winehouse’s press team. Other stories
claim to quote an unnamed Winehouse rep as saying
the reason Winehouse won’t record the theme for
Quantum of Solace is a result of artistic
differences.
An
official statement from Winehouse’s US rep implies that
Winehouse and Ronson couldn’t agree on the song. “Mark
had presented a track to Amy, but she had other ideas
about the direction it should take. She’s always made
her own decisions about her music. Needless to say, this
is part of the process between artist and producer and
we’re sure they will continue to make great music
together.”
But
regardless of the reason, it is indeed a shame that
Winehouse’s career continues to play out in the
tabloids. Getting a healthy Winehouse back in the studio
could potentially quiet the tales of drug abuse and
police run-ins that dominate headlines about her.
Nevertheless, the Grammy darling, no matter your take on
her music, was still the wrong choice for Quantum of
Solace.
While
tapping Winehouse could be seen as a risk, she was
actually a risk-free, obvious choice, her music steeped
so much in the soul of the ’60s and ’70s that Winehouse
can sometimes look as if she’s playing a part. To
compare her with a former Bond songstress, Winehouse is
Shirley Bassey with a rebel’s streak. It’s hard to
imagine Winehouse crafting anything that didn’t sound a
bit like a rip on Bassey’s own
“Diamonds are Forever.” In fact, much of Winehouse’s
2007 album Back to Black does.
So
there’s no doubt that Winehouse could have crafted a
perfectly acceptable Bond theme, as any of the songs on
Back to Black would have fit in comfortably with
the jazzy Bond songs of the ’70s. They’re dapper and
sexy and attempt to exploit a sort of vintage coolness,
and that’s the problem.
Check
her 2008 Grammy appearance. Stripped of all the
drama as to whether she would appear, Winehouse and her
black cocktail dress could be dropped 20 to 30 years in
the past and no one would be the wiser. Indeed, the song
“You Know I’m No Good” comes complete with a
reference to former Bond man Roger Moore.
But
2006’s Bond film Casino Royale marked a change in
direction for the series. It was a Bond less concerned
with the kind of retro charm that Winehouse is steeped
in. Although some here in the office would argue that
Casino Royale saw 007 copping a few moves from Jason
Bourne, it was nevertheless a sleeker, tougher, more
modern Bond, and one less concerned with where the films
had already gone (Casino Royale essentially
restarts the Bond myth).
A
Winehouse song opening the new Bond film would be a step
backward for the new Daniel Craig Bond flicks, a nod to
a period when the Bond films where championing Bassey,
Louis Armstrong and Carly Simon, among others.
Winehouse’s music essentially celebrates playing a game
of dressup, and a case could be made that it easily fits
within the constraints of the Bond formula—the formula
of the pre-Casino Royale Bond films.
Casino
Royale,
we hope, began a new Bond trend—redefining the series so
it’s one that’s less concerned with tradition.*
*Note:
That doesn’t mean allowing a
Madonna to pander to
now-outdated pop trends.
A better
alternative:
The best
choice for the job, while still staying on a soul-music
tip, would be
Gnarls Barkley, who could bring an appropriate sense
of outlandish grandeur to the tune. Through its two
albums, the electro-soul duo has shown an ability to add
orchestral flourishes and modern accessories without
sounding indebted to an era or obsessed with the latest
sounds. |
