I'm the chairman of the BORED.

There is an autobiography of some old rock star sitting on our kitchen table.
Behind the cover is a photo of the guy snorting cocaine or something, followed by a brief description of the book.
A journey of his past.
Bad behaviour. Check.
Bad relationship. Check.
Drug use. Check.
It ticks all boxes, and so much so that it's almost cliche and nothing seems refreshing.

That's why I don't like rock stars' biographies.
Because those bad behaviours in their past have to be included, yep, and have to be included in the summary, too.
The summaries of this kind of books are so similar that sometimes they make it hard for me to identify the star the book is about.

Maybe it's inevitable, because people in the same industry tend to share some sort of behavioral or thinking patterns. Like musicians, writers, painters, actors all have their styles.
Even if your style is very unique, your uniqueness is more often than not, one-dimensional so that after a while it gets harder to keep your success consistent.

Things that were initially radical and/or unique gradually become the norm, so you'll create something more radical and shocking, then someone else will do something even more shocking than you in order to win more publicity.That's part of the reasons I don't buy magazines anymore.
Just flipping through the pages while queuing at supermarket registers is enough to get the picture. There's no story worth reading.

There are few who never pop up in the magazines yet maintain their long carriers, and have successful private lives and their lives intrigue me more than over-exposed celebs.

We audiences are hard to please. We're fickle and get bored very quickly.
A new artist comes and goes in a short space of time, and often I don't even remember their names.
I'm sorry and it's sad.