Ronstadt, Simple Dreams and Revealing Every Woman's Secret.

[tonygent]

Article. Wish someone could transcribe it and put it up. "Ronstadt is asserting her equality with her male contemporaries at the same time that's she affirming the strength of a women's musical tradition" I think this alone qualifies her for the Rock Hall of Fame. Not to mention a little more appreciation and love from the western world musical power structure. 

 news.google.com/newspapers?id=-gBOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=94sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6130,2878714&dq=ronstadt&hl=en

[Deleted]

Thanks for posting.. a very intriguing article that I remember now... for those who have trouble with the link:

tinyurl.com/mma9gls

[erik]

The terrible thing is that they still use these same cockamamie excuses for not giving her her props for her contributions to either pop or rock music. And of course these critics are often paid to spread these half-truths or blatant lies about people they resent. As Upton Sinclair once said: "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it."

[Deleted]

nice quote, Erik!

[Richard W]

You got that right, Erik (and Upton!).

What's most interesting to me about this article, besides the rare fact that the author was willing to admit a change of mind about her opinions, is that it clearly demonstrates how much music criticism -- and criticism of Linda in particular -- is motivated and based more on political and/or personal ideology than what is in the grooves. Once the author here let those preconceptions and biases drop, she heard the voice and all it conveys.

Although I still argue that Linda's interpretation of "Sail Away" is far and away from "helplessly literal." I think she gives the song a dimension that Newman's own lacked. Indeed, Newman's voice carries such natural irony and sarcasm that he'd be hard pressed to interpret the song the way Linda does, that is by making the song sound so alluring and beautiful; it is, after all, a song about enticing slaves aboard ship with horrifyingly false promises and imagery. Like I've said before, were you to hear Newman sing that song, you would turn tail and run for your life. Linda, on the other hand, makes it all sound so entrancing and promising. Now there's irony for you.

[sliderocker]

Jun 6, 2013 9:43:47 GMT -5 Richard W said:

You got that right, Erik (and Upton!).

What's most interesting to me about this article, besides the rare fact that the author was willing to admit a change of mind about her opinions, is that it clearly demonstrates how much music criticism -- and criticism of Linda in particular -- is motivated and based more on political and/or personal ideology than what is in the grooves. Once the author here let those preconceptions and biases drop, she heard the voice and all it conveys.

Although I still argue that Linda's interpretation of "Sail Away" is far and away from "helplessly literal." I think she gives the song a dimension that Newman's own lacked. Indeed, Newman's voice carries such natural irony and sarcasm that he'd be hard pressed to interpret the song the way Linda does, that is by making the song sound so alluring and beautiful; it is, after all, a song about enticing slaves aboard ship with horrifyingly false promises and imagery. Like I've said before, were you to hear Newman sing that song, you would turn tail and run for your life. Linda, on the other hand, makes it all sound so entrancing and promising. Now there's irony for you.

Rock critics got locked into the idea that not only did all rock artists have to write their own songs but they had to play on the songs. never mind the fact that many of the acts they held in the highest esteem either didn't write all of their own songs or didn't write their own songs and either didn't play on all of their own songs or didn't play at all. Certain critics - and even certain musicians - didn't consider someone playing the tambourine - a percussion instrument - to be playing a musical instrument. The criticism was always a bogus argument because there was never any negative criticism about the majority of the Motown artists not writing their own songs or playing a musical instrument, yet the same critics extended the term rock and roll to include the Motown artist. Rock critics were in essence guilty of reverse racism in that white artists were held to a higher standard that they had to write and play that black artists were never held to.

I also suspect that critics had the idea that anyone who could sing could also write songs but for the artists who did write songs, it was an art that came easy for some and difficult for others. Linda fell into the difficult category. She basically wrote all of Try Me Again, giving Andrew Gold half the writing credit because he came up with something in the bridge that someone felt entitled him to half the writing credit. (I'm not sure it was Linda because in an interview in the 90s, she commented on Andrew having half of the writing credit, and she seemed to be puzzled as to why. That suggested it was someone else's idea and not hers, necessarily.) So, Linda could write a song if she sat down and put her mind to it but it must've been a difficult process for her.

[Richard W]

Like I've said -- but maybe not recently -- actors aren't required to write their own parts, so why should singers be required to write their own songs? Acting and writing, just like singing and writing, are two separate arts.

Occasionally someone comes along that can do both, but what if a singer can't write? Are they supposed to remain silent?

It's a stupid, specious requirement for legitimacy.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Rock critics got locked into the idea that not only did all rock artists have to write their own songs but they had to play on the songs. never mind the fact that many of the acts they held in the highest esteem either didn't write all of their own songs or didn't write their own songs and either didn't play on all of their own songs or didn't play at all. Certain critics - and even certain musicians - didn't consider someone playing the tambourine - a percussion instrument - to be playing a musical instrument. The criticism was always a bogus argument because there was never any negative criticism about the majority of the Motown artists not writing their own songs or playing a musical instrument, yet the same critics extended the term rock and roll to include the Motown artist. Rock critics were in essence guilty of reverse racism in that white artists were held to a higher standard that they had to write and play that black artists were never held to.

I think it had a lot to with the emergence of Dylan and Lennon/McCartney, and all the singer/songwriter types that followed in their wake. I agree, however, it was a bogus argument, especially when one considers that even a few of the Beatles recordings included covers of the Isley Brothers' "Twist And Shout" and the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman", and Dylan himself covered various traditional folk ballads and tons of Woody Guthrie before finding his own songwriting muse. As for Motown, I will always maintain that the critics' slamming of Linda for venturing into the Motown songbook (all of three times!) was something of an apology for previous white theft of black music, which basically amounted, as you say, to reverse racism. But nobody would ever dare make any public criticism of Whitney Houston (a black artist) covering "I Will Always Love You" by Dolly Parton (a white artist, and a country one at that) for fear of being labelled a racist.

I do think it might have made it easier on Linda, given her folk/country background, if she played acoustic guitar on her records and onstage more than she had; it might have helped to give her some inspiration, and she was certainly competent enough at it (witness her holding her own with Bernie Leadon on "It Doesn't Matter Anymore" from that 1974 Don Kirshner's Rock Concert she did with the Eagles). But so much of the pressure that critics have put on Linda over the years often goes well beyond the pale, and many of the people she has worked with, as well as her peers, would, I think, second that viewpoint.

[eddiejinnj]

to my knowledge, she knew about the writing credit for Andrew. she did say he minimally helped her with the music but she gave him credit (to me very linda as she is not a hogger of the limelight) as it was the thing to do in her mind. she did say the words were all her. eddiejinnj

[Richard W]

I recall Gold clarifying the writing credit by saying that he merely "helped her with the bridge."

[sliderocker]

Jun 6, 2013 18:06:14 GMT -5 erik said:

I think it had a lot to with the emergence of Dylan and Lennon/McCartney, and all the singer/songwriter types that followed in their wake. I agree, however, it was a bogus argument, especially when one considers that even a few of the Beatles recordings included covers of the Isley Brothers' "Twist And Shout" and the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman", and Dylan himself covered various traditional folk ballads and tons of Woody Guthrie before finding his own songwriting muse. As for Motown, I will always maintain that the critics' slamming of Linda for venturing into the Motown songbook (all of three times!) was something of an apology for previous white theft of black music, which basically amounted, as you say, to reverse racism. But nobody would ever dare make any public criticism of Whitney Houston (a black artist) covering "I Will Always Love You" by Dolly Parton (a white artist, and a country one at that) for fear of being labelled a racist.

I do think it might have made it easier on Linda, given her folk/country background, if she played acoustic guitar on her records and onstage more than she had; it might have helped to give her some inspiration, and she was certainly competent enough at it (witness her holding her own with Bernie Leadon on "It Doesn't Matter Anymore" from that 1974 Don Kirshner's Rock Concert she did with the Eagles). But so much of the pressure that critics have put on Linda over the years often goes well beyond the pale, and many of the people she has worked with, as well as her peers, would, I think, second that viewpoint.

I think the Beatles and Dylan mostly writing their own songs contributed to the pressure from critics for other artists to write their own songs. Not to mention the fact the same critics also applied the pressure for rock bands to play on their own recordings rather than rely on groups of session musicians like the musicians who made up the Wrecking Crew. Of course, the thing was, rock music had always had a number of artists who wrote their own songs and had their own bands that played on the songs, so why did it become such a big deal when the Beatles came along? The truth of the matter was that even after the Beatles and Dylan came along and supposedly changed all the rules with regards to songwriting, the number of artists who didn't write their own songs or wrote or cowrote not a very large number of their songs probably still made up a majority. Bands or solo artists who wrote their own songs was something that would become a gradual thing but judging by the nasty barbs critics hurled, artists were damned if they relied on outside songwriters for material and damned if they wrote their own songs.

Likewise, critics made a big deal about artists who didn't play on their records - especially with the Monkees but in the aftermath of the Beatles, there were still a large number of bands that relied on session musicians to record the music. It wasn't that the musicians in the band lacked the talent or the time to make the music. It was just the way things were done at the time. But, the irrationalism of the critics demanding the rock bands play on their recording never extended to singers who played an instrument, or a duo or trio of singer who likewise could play an instrument. Nor was it ever extended to a Motown act. Of course, there was some justification in criticism of rock bands not playing on their recordings. It didn't make a lot of sense to sign a band and then let a group of session musicians make the music. But, at the same time, the pressure was on the artists from the record companies to be extremely successful and as for some of the playing of the musicians in the bands, well, some could barely play. It was little wonder many of the records were still made with session players.

With regard to Linda playing her acoustic guitar more on stage, pity she didn't do that and also didn't play guitar on her recordings. But, I kind of got doubts she would've won the critics over if she had done just that, or if she had written more of her own songs. Critics are a nasty lot and there was no guarantee an artist playing and/or writing on their recordings and in concert would win the critics's favor. Look at singer Johnny Rivers, who played guitar (and piano, if I'm not mistaken), produced himself and others, and who wrote some of his own songs. If one was to judge Rivers by the critical barbs thrown at him, he was nothing but a cover artist, never doing anything original. He did a few Motown covers, which got him critcized even though he cowrote one of his hits ("Poor Side of Town." One suspects he could've written all of his own material and the critics would still have knocked him for his trouble. It was a no-win situation for him and many other artists, and I always suspect the reasons had more to do with a critic's personal tastes than with the work at hand.

[erik]

Quote by slidercoker re. Johnny Rivers and other (largely) non-songwriting artists:

One suspects he could've written all of his own material and the critics would still have knocked him for his trouble. It was a no-win situation for him and many other artists, and I always suspect the reasons had more to do with a critic's personal tastes than with the work at hand.

I think this is some of what Don Henley was mentioning in that London press conference where he denounced the RRHOF's "sanctimonious and calcified" notions about what is and isn't rock and roll vis-a-vis Linda still not being inducted. The thing that critics just got hung up on, I believe, is the notion that everyone had to be a Dylan or a Lennon/McCartney-type, and write their own material, in order to be "artistic" in their eyes. I really think that's horses*** to be honest, but that's in no way a put down of the art of songwriting, which I don't think came any easier even to those that did it on a regular basis than to someone like Linda, who may not have really felt sufficiently inspired to do it more often.

And even now, most songs are largely written by committee, not by actual songwriters per se--a product, I think, of the American Idol/The Voice/X Factor culture we're sadly immersed in today.

[sliderocker]

Jun 7, 2013 17:38:14 GMT -5 erik said:

I think this is some of what Don Henley was mentioning in that London press conference where he denounced the RRHOF's "sanctimonious and calcified" notions about what is and isn't rock and roll vis-a-vis Linda still not being inducted. The thing that critics just got hung up on, I believe, is the notion that everyone had to be a Dylan or a Lennon/McCartney-type, and write their own material, in order to be "artistic" in their eyes. I really think that's horses*** to be honest, but that's in no way a put down of the art of songwriting, which I don't think came any easier even to those that did it on a regular basis than to someone like Linda, who may not have really felt sufficiently inspired to do it more often.

And even now, most songs are largely written by committee, not by actual songwriters per se--a product, I think, of the American Idol/The Voice/X Factor culture we're sadly immersed in today.

When it comes to Linda and songwriting, I think that she could've written and should've written songs for her albums, regardless of the potential for the songs to be hits. I'm not sure what the planning was that went into her recording sessions, whether she came to the studio with an idea of the songs she wanted to record or if her various managers and the record companies had demos for her to listen to for consideration of recording. Linda's albums might have been helped along by having original or fresher material written by others, rather than an overreliance on old songs that had already been covered numerous times by others. Of course, when she moved over to Asylum, she covered a lot more recent material although the public was unlikely to have been familiar with the songs because the original versions by the original artists (usually the songwriter) were not known for their recordings. If she had tried her hand more at writing, it probably would've been better for her at the start to have written with others, and become more comfortable in the songwriting process. With Linda, I'm not sure if her not writing songs was a case of where she was not sufficiently inspired to do so, or maybe not encouraged in that area. She did a lot of things right in her recording career but it would've been interesting to have seen what she could've done as a songwriter if she had been more willing to try her hand at that.

[tonygent]

"The lyrics she sings is actually less important than the songs total emotion" - writes this female rock critic.  This quote says it all. 

Listen "critics' supposedly slamming Linda for venturing into the Motown songbook weren't Smokey Robinson! a black male who WROTE Linda's Ooh Baby Baby and Tracks of My Tears. and loves Linda and offered nothing but praise.............................Who slammed Linda for singing his songs? ELVIS COSTELLO! 

If you want to slam anybody into why Linda's wasn't given the respect or due, slam the Elvis Costello and Robert ChristAGAU'S of the world. The rock handlers, peddlers and deal makers who came to define what rock in roll was and WHO it was. Without getting into the whole rock and rock and race, but some started it here, What happened to the rock perspective is that it turned into a baby boomer primarily white, read European, cultural attitude. And every one else was "granted" into the fold. As Sliderocker wrote. "same critics extended the term rock and roll to include the Motown artist" ............................ So Ronstadt singing Motown songs isn't rock in roll?

I for one think: Hip Hop, Punk, Motown to Black Sabbath is all rock in roll. There is no "granting or extension" the rock underpinnings are all equal and there. 


Marketing rock....Listen Linda, since the beginning of her career, brilliantly brilliantly understood how rock in roll was marketed, to young girls,...(read Beatles, Elvis, Eagles, and even Madonna etc appealed to little girls) Look at Justin Bieber handlers....And she hated that and why she couldn't break through....until she broke through because she wasn't threatening to those girls...and the baby boomer men thought she was hot. 

Then she crossed the tracks over to big band and hispanic music and then she replaced the young white girl fans for - old white girls and crossed the tracks again to appeal to  black brown, white and even gay audiences. Everyone.  

By the end of the 1992, Linda Ronstadt was rich didn't HAVE TO SELL HER SEXUALITY and appealed to EVERYONE. love. Maybe some of these "critics" didn't like that? 

Listen Linda might not be in the rock in roll hall of fame, but she did come out of her rock experience a hell of a lot wealthier than many women in the hall of fame. So basically it's a question of ECONOMICS, JEALOUSY AND PLACE....for some of these MEN, maybe they're jealous and the least they can do, is GRANT those artist who didn't economically surpass them and knew their place,  as they say, a piece of remembrance. Here's a question? If there were more female,or black or hispanic rock critics or a diverse rock "fame" handlers would Ronstadt be in the hall of fame already?   As for "reverse racism" heres what Wanda Sykes has to say 

Back to why we're here and why I posted this. Not to get into resentfulness of her primarily male fans of her rock in roll days. Using her  to slam Whitney, Motown. Then her fans will be acting as bad as those Rolling Stone critics of  Canciones de me Padre (remember Rolling Stones ignorant review.."She looked like an El Chorito waitress?) Linda does not need these type of fans or critics. There's a reason so many people love Linda Ronstadt. Her appeal to everyone is a big one. Everyone. Every music. Emotional appeal,like the quote above. 

[sliderocker]

Listen "critics' supposedly slamming Linda for venturing into the Motown songbook weren't Smokey Robinson! a black male who WROTE Linda's Ooh Baby Baby and Tracks of My Tears. and loves Linda and offered nothing but praise.............................Who slammed Linda for singing his songs? ELVIS COSTELLO! 

If you want to slam anybody into why Linda's wasn't given the respect or due, slam the Elvis Costello and Robert ChristAGAU'S of the world. The rock handlers, peddlers and deal makers who came to define what rock in roll was and WHO it was. Without getting into the whole rock and rock and race, but some started it here, What happened to the rock perspective is that it turned into a baby boomer primarily white, read European, cultural attitude. And every one else was "granted" into the fold. As Sliderocker wrote. "same critics extended the term rock and roll to include the Motown artist" ............................ So Ronstadt singing Motown songs isn't rock in roll?

Those same critics who praise everything that has ever come out of Motown as a work of art are the same critics who nailed Linda for the very few Motown covers she did. There is a double standard and hypocrisy in play with these critics, which is what I dislike. When Ray Charles covered country tunes, the critics hailed him as a genius. There have been numerous white artists who have covered Motown, some pretty good, some not as well as Linda but the critics's attitude is the Motown music is not supposed to be touched by white artists. My question has always been who the f**k made these a**holes the arbiters of who could and who could not sing these songs, regardless of whether they originated with Motown or elsewhere?

I for one think: Hip Hop, Punk, Motown to Black Sabbath is all rock in roll. There is no "granting or extension" the rock underpinnings are all equal and there. 

It's all rock and roll to me, and it's not. Motown artists back in the 60s referred to themselves as soul singers or R&B singers. I can't recall of any who referred to themselves as rock performers, maybe pop performers as a lot of Motown veered closer to pop than to rock. But, I think those of us who came up in the 60s and who bought the records that made up the Top 40 tended to be all inclusive of a record that was in the Top 40 (or Top 100). If it was a Motown 45 or an Otis Redding or a Ray Charles or Aretha, it was a rock and roll record. If it was a record with a definite country sound, like Linda or John Denver or Rick Nelson, it was a rock and roll record. But, by the same measure, the records that were truly rock records were never considered soul or R&B or country by the people who listened to those genres. Rock was inclusive but granted, there are people around today who think rock is only rock if it's the hard rock or heavy metal variety. Everyone has different tastes and what's rock and roll to me or to you may not be the same to another person. I like a lot of Motown but there's a lot I don't like. I like a lot of rock and roll and country too, and there's just as much I don't like in either of those genres.


Marketing rock....Listen Linda, since the beginning of her career, brilliantly brilliantly understood how rock in roll was marketed, to young girls,...(read Beatles, Elvis, Eagles, and even Madonna etc appealed to little girls) Look at Justin Bieber handlers....And she hated that and why she couldn't break through....until she broke through because she wasn't threatening to those girls...and the baby boomer men thought she was hot. 

Linda broke through in part I think because of moving away from the more hard country sound she had on her earlier recordings. I think her perception with the public was that she was a rock singer and not a country singer. She got more airplay on rock radio than what she ever got on country radio with her country recordings, and I think that was confusing for the public. I think that those who liked mostly rock liked what they heard but were perhaps too scared off by the thought that Linda's whole album might be nothing but totally country. Rock radio didn't play any deep album cuts on Linda to give a different impression. Country radio likewise didn't play album cuts on her either, which could've helped along sales with the country audiences. But, once she embraced her rock roots, that was all it took to send her into an extremely high orbit that made her the most successful female rock performer.

As for rock recordings being marketed to young girls because of the reaction the girls gave the performers, guys were all the more ever so serious when it came to rock. They didn't go all crazy over a hot looking female singer or at least they didn't give that impression publicly. Privately might have been another matter. A lot of them wanted to be the rockers because they wanted that attention. But, truth is when it came to marketing female rock performers, there wasn't a lot of them. And while there was a few, part of their problem was they weren't signed to the major labels that had the bucks to throw around but to cheap a** labels that didn't have the money to properly promote a record. When you're a small fish in a pond of whales, and your budget for promoting a record amounts to five cents versus the big label being able to spend $100 promoting a record, that record company might have been lucky if one record out of a hundred made it into the Top 40.

Then she crossed the tracks over to big band and hispanic music and then she replaced the young white girl fans for - old white girls and crossed the tracks again to appeal to  black brown, white and even gay audiences. Everyone.  

I don't think she replaced anyone. I see it as her audience grew with her and she acquired some new fans along the way. Most artists lose their original fandom as they grow older and don't gain new, younger fans. A music fan in their teens or early 20s might cringe at the thought of listening to an artist who's in their 40s or 50s, although there's always a handful of young people who don't care how old the artist is. If they hear something they like by an artist, the artist's age doesn't matter. Pity there's not more like that, and pity it doesn't go the other way too: why can't an older person like a younger artist?


By the end of the 1992, Linda Ronstadt was rich didn't HAVE TO SELL HER SEXUALITY and appealed to EVERYONE. love. Maybe some of these "critics" didn't like that? 

I think with the critics, it had less to do with her sexuality and more to do with her musical choices. Rock critics wanted her to stay in that genre (or the country or country-rock genres) and stay away from the Spanish-sung albums and the 1940s standards.

Listen Linda might not be in the rock in roll hall of fame, but she did come out of her rock experience a hell of a lot wealthier than many women in the hall of fame. So basically it's a question of ECONOMICS, JEALOUSY AND PLACE....for some of these MEN, maybe they're jealous and the least they can do, is GRANT those artist who didn't economically surpass them and knew their place,  as they say, a piece of remembrance. Here's a question? If there were more female,or black or hispanic rock critics or a diverse rock "fame" handlers would Ronstadt be in the hall of fame already?   As for "reverse racism" heres what Wanda Sykes has to say 

Again, with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I don't think it has to do with Linda's wealth so much as it's a group of people - critics - who decide who is or isn't rock and roll. My guess would be the rock hall has many members who are either female and/or black. I'm less sure as to whether there are any Hispanics. But as to all of the hall members being critics, um, no. There's a good number of them who are record label executives, and I think the hall extends voting privileges to the artists they have inducted. The living ones, that is.


Back to why we're here and why I posted this. Not to get into resentfulness of her primarily male fans of her rock in roll days. Using her  to slam Whitney, Motown. Then her fans will be acting as bad as those Rolling Stone critics of  Canciones de me Padre (remember Rolling Stones ignorant review.."She looked like an El Chorito waitress?) Linda does not need these type of fans or critics. There's a reason so many people love Linda Ronstadt. Her appeal to everyone is a big one. Everyone. Every music. Emotional appeal,like the quote above. 


I'm not using Linda to slam Motown or anyone. As mentioned, I like a lot of Motown but not everything that came out of Motown was a work of art. Not everything can be a work of art. If everything was a work of art, how would you know it was? What could you compare it to to say that it was? Sometimes, a piece of sh*t is just that but some still try to make that piece of sh*t into a work of art. It's subjective. But, I think one can like a song and admit there are some songs that are greater and some that are lesser than the one they are listening to. As for the artists, well, we all have our musical preferences which can include disliking certain artists and bands. And a lot of that dislike can happen as a result of a critic overfawning and overpraising a certain artist or the critics not giving an artist their due. We feel for our artists when we feel they have been unfairly slighted. Linda has been eligible for the joke that is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame since 1992. Twenty-one years. It ridiculous that the Eagles, for whom she was the prime catalyst in the putting together of, should have been in there before she way. Same for Jackson Browne or James Taylor.

As for racism and the induction of Motown artists, well, there is that but many of those who argue about Motown artists also gripe about Madonna, Donna Summer, ABBA, the Bee Gees, even Elvis - anyone that they feel doesn't meet their narrow definition of who is or isn't rock and roll. But, when it does come to those charged with nominating the artists for the hall, those members do seem to have their favorites. Being a Motown artist does seem to give an edge to that artist over someone who's not. And I don't see that as racism just because someone brings it up as a question as to whether or not they're rock and roll. Again, it's subjective. What's rock and roll to you may not be rock and roll to someone else.

The one question I have is whether the artist in question meets the hall's criteria for admission? That criteria including among other things that 25 years must have passed since the artist's first record, that they must've been influential with other artists, and must've made valid contributions to the art. The criteria has never included writing songs or how many records an artist sold. Linda meets all of the requirements and then some, yet she's not in. Why?

[Dianna]

as far as the rolling stone review for canciones (el torrito waitress) was stupid, the second I read his comment (flitting from one musical style to another. i.e fake new wave) I knew this guy had an agenda and had already formed an opinion with a closed mind.. Prior to Canciones, I doubt this "David Browne." person was a fan of mexican music or knew much about it.. anybody can research the musicians Linda played with on the record.. doesn't make one an expert.

[erik]

Quote by Dianna re. Rolling Stone review of Canciones De Mi Padre:

as far as the rolling stone review for canciones (el torrito waitress) was stupid, the second I read his comment (flitting from one musical style to another. i.e fake new wave) I knew this guy had an agenda and had already formed an opinion with a closed mind.. Prior to Canciones, I doubt this "David Browne." person was a fan of mexican music or knew much about it.. anybody can research the musicians Linda played with on the record.. doesn't make one an expert.

To be fair, no publication is obligated to write a glowing review of anything Linda does; and I knew that the chances of anyone at Rolling Stone writing a review of Canciones that praised it weren't very high. But yes, even for them, this was a low blow--right down there among the worst reviews Linda ever got for anything she ever did.

[Dianna]

Yeah, anybody can write what they want.. but if you have no idea what you're writing about, in Browne's case, it would make better sense to hire a critic from the outside who has a better understanding of this type of music.. as proof and considering how well the album was received and Linda's awards .. it kind of embarrassing for this guy to go back and read his review and prediction (end up in the joke bin)

[sliderocker]

Jun 10, 2013 12:46:52 GMT -5 Dianna said:

Yeah, anybody can write what they want.. but if you have no idea what you're writing about, in Browne's case, it would make better sense to hire a critic from the outside who has a better understanding of this type of music.. as proof and considering how well the album was received and Linda's awards .. it kind of embarrassing for this guy to go back and read his review and prediction (end up in the joke bin)

I suspect that Rolling Stain's critics took their cues from the critics of the 1950s when it came to seeing what nasty barb they could come up with to zing an artist or their work. But, some critics don't seem to like the artist they are reviewing and you have to wonder why they are reviewing the artist in the first place? You don't like the artist or their work? Then you can't be objective in your assessment of that work. It's dishonest to be pretending you're being being fair but your words betray you. You don't like the artist or their work? Pass it on to someone else who may like the artist but who can write an honest review. Of course, with Rolling Stain, the number of fair critics they have on staff can probably be counted on one finger!

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2013 18:06:14 GMT -5 erik said:

Quote by sliderocker:

Rock critics got locked into the idea that not only did all rock artists have to write their own songs but they had to play on the songs. never mind the fact that many of the acts they held in the highest esteem either didn't write all of their own songs or didn't write their own songs and either didn't play on all of their own songs or didn't play at all. Certain critics - and even certain musicians - didn't consider someone playing the tambourine - a percussion instrument - to be playing a musical instrument. The criticism was always a bogus argument because there was never any negative criticism about the majority of the Motown artists not writing their own songs or playing a musical instrument, yet the same critics extended the term rock and roll to include the Motown artist. Rock critics were in essence guilty of reverse racism in that white artists were held to a higher standard that they had to write and play that black artists were never held to.

I think it had a lot to with the emergence of Dylan and Lennon/McCartney, and all the singer/songwriter types that followed in their wake. I agree, however, it was a bogus argument, especially when one considers that even a few of the Beatles recordings included covers of the Isley Brothers' "Twist And Shout" and the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman", and Dylan himself covered various traditional folk ballads and tons of Woody Guthrie before finding his own songwriting muse. As for Motown, I will always maintain that the critics' slamming of Linda for venturing into the Motown songbook (all of three times!) was something of an apology for previous white theft of black music, which basically amounted, as you say, to reverse racism. But nobody would ever dare make any public criticism of Whitney Houston (a black artist) covering "I Will Always Love You" by Dolly Parton (a white artist, and a country one at that) for fear of being labelled a racist.

I do think it might have made it easier on Linda, given her folk/country background, if she played acoustic guitar on her records and onstage more than she had; it might have helped to give her some inspiration, and she was certainly competent enough at it (witness her holding her own with Bernie Leadon on "It Doesn't Matter Anymore" from that 1974 Don Kirshner's Rock Concert she did with the Eagles). But so much of the pressure that critics have put on Linda over the years often goes well beyond the pale, and many of the people she has worked with, as well as her peers, would, I think, second that viewpoint.

When asked what advice she would give to wannabe singers, Linda has said "learn to play a musical instrument".
But about songwriting, Linda said that in the same way she would get a mechanic to fix her car, or an electrician her wiring, she left songwriting to the specialists, and concentrated on her own speciality of singing. Not all good songwriters are good singers, and vice versa. 

[PoP80]

Very true, heartbreaker. As a reminder, this is what Linda said specifically about songwriting:

“Songwriting wasn’t my gift. I think you have to cultivate a gift; you have to practice and develop craft around your gift it so that you can execute it in more convenient, efficient ways. I just didn’t wake up and say, ‘I’ve got to write a song.’ Jackson Browne wakes up and writes a song down on a napkin – that was his gift. I used to live with J.D Souther, and I would watch him write. He’s be sitting, he’d say something, and then he’s write it down. That’s craft.”