|
|
Post by musicaamator on Feb 13, 2013 21:57:04 GMT -5
It's bad enough that the Rock n' Roll Hall of Shame doesn't recognize the achievements of Ms. Ronstadt, but I was shocked to find out she does not even have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I thought for sure that was a no-brainer in her having one, but to my dismay, she does not.
The criteria to get one are:
1. Have a record of professional achievement within the nominated field.
2. Have worked in the entertainment industry for a minimum of five years.
3. Have made contributions to the community, typically through charitable activities.
Which I believe she meets. But she also must be nominated--thus I am surprised this has not been done. Or has it and she did not agree to it?
Roseanne gets one but not Linda? Pretty soon Kim Kardashian will get one before the Lovely Linda, I bet too.
Just venting because Linda gets no respect especially when her accolades/achievements speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 13, 2013 22:24:52 GMT -5
I think Linda would probably have to want it herself, and I don't think she has ever been that starved for attention. She'd certainly be deserving of it, and I think the place for it would be on Vine Street near the Capitol Records building, where she recorded her earliest albums, along with her 1974 country-rock masterpiece Heart Like A Wheel. But again, she'd have to want it.
Recently, in an interview he did with a radio station (in Chicago, I think), Peter Asher did say that Linda doesn't mind not being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is not the same as saying she wouldn't want the honor, should it ever come while she's still alive. It seems that, judging by what she said about her 70s career last Sunday, the door may have been open to such an honor, which I think she would accept with the same kind of modesty that has been a hallmark of her career. It's up to the RRHOF to call, and hopefully some of her close friends and peers in the music business to make the case (IMHO).
|
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Feb 13, 2013 22:37:35 GMT -5
Anyone can get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It's
really just a formality after you pay the $$$ required.
Linda doesn't need the star to validate her career, but she
should be in the Hall of Fame. No doubt!
|
|
|
|
Post by revin2go on Feb 13, 2013 23:45:23 GMT -5
I'm personally hoping for a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. That would surpass both the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Don't you agree?
...and what's this Party Girl crap under my moniker? I'm a guy and can certainly prove it! haha
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 13, 2013 23:45:34 GMT -5
Anyone can get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It's really just a formality after you pay the $$$ required. Linda doesn't need the star to validate her career, but she should be in the Hall of Fame. No doubt! Quite right. I recall fans of the Three Stooges were responsible for getting their star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Something like spending $3500 at the time. Only sad part was that Moe, Shemp and Curly Howard and Larry Fine were long dead and I know Joe Besser was there to accept the honor on behalf of himself and the other Stooges. I think Curly Joe DeRita may have been there as well - think he was still living at the time. Linda doesn't need a star or to be inducted into the R&RHoF to validate her career, but such honors would matter a great deal to her fans. She made her mark, so a star on the walk of fame or an R&RHoF induction would be an official recognition of her musical accomplishments. (And speaking of the Three Stooges and the R&RHoF, I'd support their being in the hall. When other adults in the 1950s were putting rock and roll music down, they acknowledged the genre with references to rock and roll and embraced it. I think they even mentioned Elvis in one of their comedy shorts. I also believe Larry Fine and early 60s rock singer Brian Hyland are cousins. Of course, Hyland probably has no chance of getting in the hall either and his music - which was considered rock at the time, is now considered pop. But, as others have mentioned, the joke that is the R&RHoF now has several acts inducted that in no way can be considered rock and roll, and hundreds of acts who are or were rockers, and who have yet to be inducted and unlikely to be inducted because of personal biases against those artists, even though they are well qualified for admission.) |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Feb 14, 2013 11:02:11 GMT -5
I am not so sure Linda would want a star or even care about it.
Sealed With A Kiss Bryan Hyland? That was one of my older siblings 45s that I listened to as a kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 11:34:38 GMT -5
I find it kind of reassuring that Linda could doubtless care less about this nonsense.. or the Rock Hall of Shame either... I try to have as healthy a perspective as she does..
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Morse on Feb 14, 2013 12:10:53 GMT -5
well said Robert.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Feb 14, 2013 12:42:47 GMT -5
Who is rob the administrator? lol (I thought I knew everyone here)
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 14, 2013 12:51:09 GMT -5
I am not so sure Linda would want a star or even care about it. Sealed With A Kiss Bryan Hyland? That was one of my older siblings 45s that I listened to as a kid. Brian Hyland, the one and the same. I think he mentioned being related to Larry Fine of the Three Stooges, and I know Larry Fine mentioned it before he died in 1975. He was quite familiar with his cousin's hits and seemed very proud of him. As for whether Linda would ever want a star on the walk of fame or even care about it, probably not, but I doubt she would turn down the honor or decline to show up if it was given. As mentioned, I believe the walk of fame is one honor the fans can have a say and impact on it. I've heard of fans putting up the money for some of the stars that are the walk of fame. I don't know who does the nominating for the walk of fame, but those who are there already come various fields: actors, actresses, singers, producers, directors...I'm not sure if there are any writers but there should be. And celebrities who worked in more than one art form can be honored with separate stars for that work. Of course, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is the type of organization that would sneer at those who are on the Hollywood Walk of Fame but that kind of snobbery wouldn't invalidate it. I do wonder though if such a honor would hurt Linda's chances of getting into the rock hall? There was another hall at one time called the Vocal Group Hall of Fame, which I believe was started by the Lettermen and meant to honor groups for their vocals. I think Linda was eligible because of her work with the Stone Poneys, with Emmylou and Dolly and because of all the other artists whose works she contributed vocals to. She may have been inducted, I'm not sure. But, I recall reading that hall went out of business because few if any showed up, and visitors to the hall were fairly low. A good idea which couldn't gain any momentum. |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 14, 2013 12:54:16 GMT -5
I find it kind of reassuring that Linda could doubtless care less about this nonsense.. or the Rock Hall of Shame either... I try to have as healthy a perspective as she does.. The suggestion that you actually have to pay to get a star on the WOF says enough about what it's worth. I'm nevertheless surprised to hear that Linda doesn't have one. The rock hall of fame, well, it's losing more of it's credibility with each year that goes by, don't it? It will be interesting to see what road they will go in the future since in recent decades (even) more so than in the 50's-70's a lot of the most interesting music hasn't been in the mainstream...If they induct, say, Britney Spears instead of PJ Harvey or the Spice Girls instead of Los Lobos the R&RHOF will only be good as a punchline to some jokes in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Feb 14, 2013 13:36:09 GMT -5
I find it kind of reassuring that Linda could doubtless care less about this nonsense.. or the Rock Hall of Shame either... I try to have as healthy a perspective as she does.. The suggestion that you actually have to pay to get a star on the WOF says enough about what it's worth. I'm nevertheless surprised to hear that Linda doesn't have one. The rock hall of fame, well, it's losing more of it's credibility with each year that goes by, don't it? It will be interesting to see what road they will go in the future since in recent decades (even) more so than in the 50's-70's a lot of the most interesting music hasn't been in the mainstream...If they induct, say, Britney Spears instead of PJ Harvey or the Spice Girls instead of Los Lobos the R&RHOF will only be good as a punchline to some jokes in the future. I think Rock and Roll is on the ropes and will not be around much longer. At some point the Hall will be begging to get people like Linda into it. I think a better Hall of Fame idea would be a Pop Hall of Fame. I thought early rock and roll wasn't that great except for some of the more popular stuff that made the pop charts, but even then hardcore rock was too much for me. I preferred what I call the 3rd wave or the refined 70s rock which was more "popish." I like the 60's Pop/rock acts like the Beatles and many one hit wonders. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 14, 2013 14:12:49 GMT -5
The suggestion that you actually have to pay to get a star on the WOF says enough about what it's worth. I'm nevertheless surprised to hear that Linda doesn't have one.
Bear in mind there is quite a cost for the concrete slabs with the stars's names in them (in stars). And I don't know if it's something run by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, the local government or if it's privately run. They don't ask the celebrities for the money to install the star but I would assume most of the money comes from the Hollywood movie or tv studios or from the record labels rather than from the fans. I would also assume a bigheaded star could pay for his or her own star if they were so inclined but that would be such a hollow honor, it wouldn't be worth it.
The rock hall of fame, well, it's losing more of it's credibility with each year that goes by, don't it? It will be interesting to see what road they will go in the future since in recent decades (even) more so than in the 50's-70's a lot of the most interesting music hasn't been in the mainstream...If they induct, say, Britney Spears instead of PJ Harvey or the Spice Girls instead of Los Lobos the R&RHOF will only be good as a punchline to some jokes in the future.
Here again, bear in mind the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for being nominated and inducted, even though certain hall members appear not to care one whit about the criteria for the artists or groups to be nominated or inducted. I've got serious doubts Britney Spears or the Spice Girls would ever be nominated, yet at the same time, I've got the same doubts about PJ Harvey or Los Lobos. The question of who is worthy and who's not is an argument that likely goes on in the hall as much as it goes on between fans. There are some acts in the hall that are headscratchers for me, yet I don't make their rules, I'm not on their nominating committee and I don't cast votes for the artists they nominate. They can nominate and induct who they want. They have nominated and inducted some of my favorite artists and bands but not all of my favorite artists and bands. I'd really like to those acts nominated and inducted but it's not that big of a deal, as I doubt that I will ever get to Cleveland to see a hall that should've been in Memphis.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 14, 2013 14:44:37 GMT -5
I think Rock and Roll is on the ropes and will not be around much longer. At some point the Hall will be begging to get people like Linda into it. I think a better Hall of Fame idea would be a Pop Hall of Fame. I thought early rock and roll wasn't that great except for some of the more popular stuff that made the pop charts, but even then hardcore rock was too much for me. I preferred what I call the 3rd wave or the refined 70s rock which was more "popish." I like the 60's Pop/rock acts like the Beatles and many one hit wonders. Yes, I agree with that. A popular music hall of fame has always sounded like a much more logical idea to me. A lot of those that are in now can't really be called rock and roll anyway. I don't think rock and roll will die though. It will be (and already is) just one among many other genres. But most 'modern rock' or post-punk rock really has little to do with the rock music of the 60's or 70's since it's not blues based anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 14, 2013 15:01:20 GMT -5
Here again, bear in mind the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for being nominated and inducted, even though certain hall members appear not to care one whit about the criteria for the artists or groups to be nominated or inducted. I've got serious doubts Britney Spears or the Spice Girls would ever be nominated, yet at the same time, I've got the same doubts about PJ Harvey or Los Lobos. The question of who is worthy and who's not is an argument that likely goes on in the hall as much as it goes on between fans. There are some acts in the hall that are headscratchers for me, yet I don't make their rules, I'm not on their nominating committee and I don't cast votes for the artists they nominate. They can nominate and induct who they want. They have nominated and inducted some of my favorite artists and bands but not all of my favorite artists and bands. I'd really like to those acts nominated and inducted but it's not that big of a deal, as I doubt that I will ever get to Cleveland to see a hall that should've been in Memphis. The criteria are part of the problem I think. Some are inducted even though they aren't rock and roll, others are refused entry on the basis that the're 'not rock and roll enough.' All the more reason to do away with that nonsense and just make it a popular music hall of fame. |
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on Feb 14, 2013 15:05:50 GMT -5
...as I doubt that I will ever get to Cleveland to see a hall that should've been in Memphis.
With all due respect, I must disagree as since I am formerly of Cleveland, it was the right choice.  But I would love to visit Memphis one day, to soak in its rhythm of blues & soul, to see the renown Sun Studios, be festive in Beale Street and of course, to visit Graceland! As for the Rock n' Roll HOF, I thought that is should be renamed the Music Hall of Fame to dissipate the controversy of certain acts being accepted in, but thought better of it. With the word "music" encompassing such a large umbrella of styles/genres, where would you draw the line? Does this then include Mozart, Strauss, Pavoratti, etc? So, I guess in some ways Rock n' Roll is the umbrella/generic term for the music style of today (if you will) and therefore will have to suffice. Although, I do like the idea of calling it the Pop HOF. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 14, 2013 16:11:46 GMT -5
With all due respect, I must disagree as since I am formerly of Cleveland, it was the right choice. Not a problem, since I know Cleveland actually was a pivotal location for rock and roll. I'm not from Memphis and thought the choice should've been Memphis, since it was where a lot of the music was made that would define rock and roll, and it was home of the blues, and an area where country and blues were mixed, the two main ingredients of rock and roll. I probably would've had more of a problem with the hall being in New York or Los Angeles or San Francisco, as although fine cities they are and no doubt would've made a good choice for the hall, they were not the places where rock and roll got its start, though they were locations where the music - for good and bad - would be subject to a further blending of the genres. But I would love to visit Memphis one day, to soak in its rhythm of blues & soul, to see the renown Sun Studios, be festive in Beale Street and of course, to visit Graceland!Memphis has always been one of my favorite cities to visit, though I've never been to Graceland, which is strange given how bif of an Elvis I am. I saw Beale Street in the 90s and think I saw the Sun Studios. though it was closed at the time (night time). I wanted to see the American Recording Studios, where Elvis amde his fabulous 1969 recordings. There's a photo of the outside of the building on the FTD-reissue of Back in Memphis; you look at that photo and think, Elvis and dozens of others recorded here? I'm assuming the photo was from the 70s but it didn't look like the place where hundreds of hit recordings were made. Looked very run down. As for the Rock n' Roll HOF, I thought that is should be renamed the Music Hall of Fame to dissipate the controversy of certain acts being accepted in, but thought better of it. With the word "music" encompassing such a large umbrella of styles/genres, where would you draw the line? Does this then include Mozart, Strauss, Pavoratti, etc?
I'd add one other criteria to the mix: was the artist or band considered a rock act at the time of their fame? As some have mentioned, there are many acts that were considered rock and roll in the 1960s that aren't considered rock now because the parameters have changed. That's malarkey! For rock or any other musical genre to remain valid in the present day, it must be fluid and must be subject to change, but that doesn't mean the past must be jettisoned because it doesn't meet the parameters of the here and now. Another sticking point for me would be if the memebrs of the hall are going to act in a snobbish manner about certain acts and their eligibility, then they need to be consistent about it. It's ludicrous to slam an act because that act was more pop than rock, yet the hall falls all over itself and fawns over every Motown act they can get in, ranting and raving about "Motown miracles" that had little or nothing to do with rock, but were closer to being good pop records by good artists. Of course, it's their hall and their rules, so they get to make the choices. But, there is inconsistency and (imo) they have nominated and inducted some of the most obnoxious and pretentious artists of our time (names withheld to protect the guilty - although more realistically, some might not agree with me about the artists I consider obnoxious and pretentious). So, I guess in some ways Rock n' Roll is the umbrella/generic term for the music style of today (if you will) and therefore will have to suffice. Although, I do like the idea of calling it the Pop HOF. I'd favor calling it the Obnoxious Jann Wenner Living Memorial Hall of Fame of Artists Liked Mainly by Wenner and His Friends. When you have the criteria that they established and then they come up with reasons to not allow that artist or group, that's making it a little too personal. Wenner and Co. need to get the thought in their heads they didn't make the music they wrote about, praised or knocked, that they might not like certain artists and bands but that not every rock fan feels the same way, and many don't have objections to the artists and bands they object to. What fans want should matter because you want them to come to your hall, want them to spend their money to pay to see exhibits and buy souvenirs (if available). It's take a lot of gall to say, "Come see the acts I liked but don't expect to see the acts you liked because I didn't like them." That's the impression I get with Wenner, and that impression existed before the hall existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by JasonKlose on Feb 14, 2013 17:52:30 GMT -5
I couldn't have said it any better. Basically what it boils down to: the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke and a fraud. I love old rock and roll and I'm just an all around music lover. But I wouldn't spend the energy, time or money it takes to drive to Cleveland to visit that place. There are so many artists who have been snubbed: the Doobie Brothers, perhaps my all-time favorite band and a crime that they're not in there; Chicago, Hall & Oates, a number of female artists including Pat Benatar, and most importantly our Miss Linda! In my opinion, Jann Wenner can just stick it "you know where." Until Linda is inducted, I will not set foot in the RRHOF.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Kaplansky on Aug 30, 2017 3:25:45 GMT -5
I think Linda should get a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame: www.walkoffame.comUs fans should start a go fund me page to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 30, 2017 8:34:34 GMT -5
Well, the only thing is, would Linda really want it? Also, if she were in fact to get the honor and could show up, the place to put her star would ideally, in my opinion, be at this place:  |
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Aug 30, 2017 8:58:15 GMT -5
On the site, which took a long time to open for me as my computer takes time to open pages with multiple screens etc., it says that when you submit a nomination the honoree has to sign off on it and commit to being at the ceremony. A sponsor must be listed to secure payment for the star. The site discourages online fundraising and warns about giving your e-mail address out to such ventures. Not sure if Linda would sign off on it. It is a weird process to get a star. You would think that the organization would do the fund raising so that the nomination/selection process isn't influenced by who could get a sponsor and the star themselves to sign up for it. Meaning they say that fans can nominate which is true but many artists are not just that easy, Linda included, to get in touch with and take a fans nomination seriously unless they already had a sponsor which I think would not be that easy You learn something new every day!!!!! eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 30, 2017 15:44:46 GMT -5
How much does it cost initially? Is there an ongoing cost after the installation and who is responsible for that?
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Aug 30, 2017 16:14:39 GMT -5
How much does it cost initially? Is there an ongoing cost after the installation and who is responsible for that?
I recall on a trip to California in the 1970's and walking down the sidewalk without realizing I was on the walk of fame came upon a bunch of unkempt stars. At least at that time I believe it was the fans who kept the star up unless the star themselves came out (which I doubt). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 16:54:07 GMT -5
Any such honor would be welcomed by Linda's fans more than Linda herself, I imagine...
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 30, 2017 21:18:21 GMT -5
Quote by robertaxel:
I agree to a large extent, though maybe Linda could be persuaded to accept it in her own modest way. And as I said, the best place to put her star, should it ever happen, would be at or near the Capitol Records building, because it is an iconic structure, and because Linda's career basically began there in 1966.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Aug 31, 2017 7:28:08 GMT -5
So the walk goes by the Capitol Records building? I agree that if it does she should be near it. I would have thought that the building was not near the walk. eddiejinnj PS: The Walk site states it is $30k for a star on the bottom of the page when you first open link but if you click on nominate star is says it is $40k. It is a big organization and you would think they would check for the accuracy of their website. For me it looks really unprofessional considering the magnitude of the mistake (the price of the star/ceremony etc). A 10k increase is a lot imo
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest in PA on Aug 31, 2017 13:24:53 GMT -5
Linda Ronstadt would not be the least bit interested in this "Hollywood Star" - a now farcical affair. People paying for their own honor? How grotesque. She would rather walk on coals.
|
|
|
|
Post by MokyWI on Sept 1, 2017 10:51:45 GMT -5
Doubt Linda Ronstadt would have any part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasfan on Jun 25, 2018 17:10:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jun 25, 2018 18:11:23 GMT -5
Nice to know Linda is being considered...but my question is, shouldn't she be recognized on her own, and not just as part of an admittedly great Trio?
And maybe this is just presumptuous of me, but the star probably should be laid down at or close to the Capitol Records building on Vine Street, because that's where Linda started her major-league recording career back in 1966.
|
|
