chrissummerlin wrote:No one gives a shit about, or is even that familiar, with the music he makes.

You are mistaken. I'm sure this is true of the tabloid reading general public, but that hardly equates to "no one".

The venom for this man astounds me! I maintain that the reason people hate him so much is simply related to how much stupid mainstream press he receives. The tabloids have their hooks in him now; he is far beyond courting this kind of attention at this stage. It seems his greatest crime is an unfortunate preference for hard drugs - that's what he's always in court/the papers for. If you want to be consistent with this, then there are many more rock stars you should be hating equally, or more than, this wayward chap.

The reason people single out Pete Doherty for this hatred is because the press have him as their target man. By joining in with them, you support the yobbish bullying of the tabloids. You're going along with them and their paper selling whims, like foolish fashion victims.

run joe, run wrote:

chrissummerlin wrote:No one gives a shit about, or is even that familiar, with the music he makes.

You are mistaken. I'm sure this is true of the tabloid reading general public, but that hardly equates to "no one".

The venom for this man astounds me! I maintain that the reason people hate him so much is simply related to how much stupid mainstream press he receives. The tabloids have their hooks in him now; he is far beyond courting this kind of attention at this stage. It seems his greatest crime is an unfortunate preference for hard drugs - that's what he's always in court/the papers for. If you want to be consistent with this, then there are many more rock stars you should be hating equally, or more than, this wayward chap.

The reason people single out Pete Doherty for this hatred is because the press have him as their target man. By joining in with them, you support the yobbish bullying of the tabloids. You're going along with them and their paper selling whims, like foolish fashion victims.

Thats utter bullshit. I don't want to come off like a moral guardian for the nation but in the UK we're in the grip of some kind of 'instant fame' phenomenon with the whole Pop Idol thing etc etc. It's like the public craves celebrities and what they do to get that attention is irrelevant - be it sing some covers on a TV show or smoke crack in a national paper - it really isn't any different.
I remember being around at that first Libertines tour and as anyone knows who works as a promoter you get sent a load of press crap and persuasive devices to put a band on (if it's your job and you work for a 'proper' venue like my friend does). I don't think he ever heard the band till they played but he was sent so much press gumph about their drug problems and the internal soap opera of the band and this is before they had a record out!
Think about other bands and people in the public eye who have become targets for the mainstream press - Bowie, Bolan, Michael Jackson even. Using my Mum as an example - she knows the music of those people and she knows it well, they're ultimately famous for their music first and foremost and not their public falls from grace whereas PD is just famous for being a drug user and a bit of a flake.
Also, this being an international forum and all, you can see no one in the States gives a toss about the guy and much as its painful to admit it, its embarrassing to be British sometimes.

I agree the press should leave the guy alone but I think if they did the lack of attention would kill him off anyway. Babyshambles/Libertines are the perfect examples of what Steve Lamacq (bless him!) called the "3 year cycle" phenomenon - a bands shelf life is exactly how long it takes it's fans to get through university.

chrissummerlin wrote:Thats utter bullshit. I don't want to come off like a moral guardian for the nation but in the UK we're in the grip of some kind of 'instant fame' phenomenon with the whole Pop Idol thing etc etc. It's like the public craves celebrities and what they do to get that attention is irrelevant - be it sing some covers on a TV show or smoke crack in a national paper - it really isn't any different.
I remember being around at that first Libertines tour and as anyone knows who works as a promoter you get sent a load of press crap and persuasive devices to put a band on (if it's your job and you work for a 'proper' venue like my friend does). I don't think he ever heard the band till they played but he was sent so much press gumph about their drug problems and the internal soap opera of the band and this is before they had a record out!
Think about other bands and people in the public eye who have become targets for the mainstream press - Bowie, Bolan, Michael Jackson even. Using my Mum as an example - she knows the music of those people and she knows it well, they're ultimately famous for their music first and foremost and not their public falls from grace whereas PD is just famous for being a drug user and a bit of a flake.
Also, this being an international forum and all, you can see no one in the States gives a toss about the guy and much as its painful to admit it, its embarrassing to be British sometimes.

I agree the press should leave the guy alone but I think if they did the lack of attention would kill him off anyway. Babyshambles/Libertines are the perfect examples of what Steve Lamacq (bless him!) called the "3 year cycle" phenomenon - a bands shelf life is exactly how long it takes it's fans to get through university.

You probably have some thinking to do. I'll let you get on with it.

I didn't read this thread, and I don't care about pete doherty in the slightest, but this might be my favorite thread title ever.

Quote "I remember being around at that first Libertines tour and as anyone knows who works as a promoter you get sent a load of press crap and persuasive devices to put a band on (if it's your job and you work for a 'proper' venue like my friend does). I don't think he ever heard the band till they played but he was sent so much press gumph about their drug problems and the internal soap opera of the band and this is before they had a record out!"

sorry, but thats bullshit. the ''soap-opera' never began until the 2nd album was due out mate, ditto with the drug problems, that wasn't an issue or even oted to the press until again, the 2nd album, after Pete had robbed Carls flat and then admitted he was hooked on crack/smack/prozac...........

not that im calling you a liar or anything

libertine wrote:not that im calling you a liar or anything

But you did. Didn´t you?

In two of the two thousand, I walked into one of the "London Calling" nights here in Amsterdam, and I got to see a band that I thought was pretty decent. I enquired as to who this not-at-all-bad band was, and found out it was the Libertines. Having learned this, I started to wonder which of these fellars would be the infamous Pete Doherty. It appeared that he wasn´t there, because he had "fucked up".

From what you say, I now take it that an NME guy strapped him to a chair and force-fed him prozac while shooting the brown up his spotty bottom. That is horrible and I feel sorry for Pete Doherty.

But I think the Libertines can do well without him.

Well.

they are no more at the moment.

Carl and gary have started up dirty pretty things with didz from cooper temple and with antonio rossa sumfink or other.

goos things to come i hope.

babyshambles are good but are no way near the libs.

Sorry anyway. the libs without pete aren't as good and the libs without carl would be shit.

oh doherty. so many arguments. i do feel sorry for him, as he is constantly in the public eye, so any fuck ups are well-publicised.

and as such, i wanna give him the benefit of the doubt - i'd love for him to prove his worth... but then you hear about him punching his guitarist in the face on stage, pretty much out of the blue.. it's that, more than the drugs or anything else he might do, that pisses me off.

the not turning up to gigs too, leaves a pretty sour taste. i'm sure it's all very funny, in the same way that people laughed at syd barrett - but everything he's doing has been done before by other people, and to more of an extreme.

this begs the question - why is he doing what he does? for the music? in which case, why does he keep missing gigs? it just makes him out to be an excellent example of style over substance - i'm not talking fashion - but style, it seems that doing things in his way - as and when he wants - is much more important to him than music could ever be.

You guys are bickering about the Libertines.

The best way for Pete Dickerty to die?





















Now.