downbeat magazine jun 84- a linda ronstadt related editorial

[Partridge]

[Richard W]

I appreciate what the author says about "pure singers" and their importance to what songs become "enduring classics." It's a welcome counterpoint to the tired "but she doesn't write her own songs" trope that's been thrown at Linda throughout her career. As if she's only half-talented because she doesn't (with, of course, a few notable exceptions) compose, as if, because she doesn't write, she shouldn't sing, or that her singing is somehow devalued because she's not singing her own compositions.

I think it was John Rockwell (correct me if I'm wrong) who noted something of this theme in Linda's work, noting that in her "remakes*" or covers Linda was attempting to "standardize" post-standard pop songs, reinterpreting them as if they were standards.

(*Personally, I bristle at the term "remake". No one accused any of the classic standards singers of "remaking" any of those songs. Nobody accuses Bennet of "remaking", say, "Body and Soul." Instead they talk about his "interpretation" of the song and that's what I prefer to call Linda's version of "Tracks of My Tears" or "I Can't Help It.")

[erik]

As I've said any number of times, the emergence of Dylan and the Beatles in the 1960s, where they wrote the lion's share of what they recorded, bought about the snobbery in that peculiar breed of scribes known as The Rock Critic (and here I won't name names, because why name morons, right?). It's the kind of snobbery I don't agree with. By that same token, however, I felt that the writer of this article showed a bit of his own snobbery in seeming to dismiss the work of rock and roll-era songwriters who also sing their own material as just stuff they do for themselves. That kind of criticism isn't exactly fair either; nor, in my opinion, is it totally accurate. Dylan himself was totally enthused, for instance, by Elvis covering "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" in 1966, and Rick Nelson doing "She Belongs To Me" in 1969.

I don't know if I can wholly agree with the assertion that Linda's covers were attempts to "standardize" them, because I don't think that was ever Linda's modus operandi at the moment she recorded them. Whatever songs she decided to sing, whether contemporary material, Broadway/Great American Songbook-era, or 1950s/1960s pop, rock, R&B, or country, she did them out of the sheer love of the songs themselves (I think she even mentioned that it was a case of "I'd knock you down to get that song" for her). I don't think she was ever so full of herself to think that what she was doing would be around for the ages, although in retrospect, for the lion's share of the songwriters whose songs she interpreted and for the several generations of female singers she inspired, that's exactly what happened.

Could she have been a great songwriter if she had more confidence in this arena? Given that "Try Me Again" is, in my opinion, a masterpiece of the country-rock genre, to me the answer is a firm YES. At the very least, I think whatever she could have come up with would have been done with the kind of heart and intelligence that is sorely lacking in what clutters the radio these days. But even so, the fact that she wasn't much of a songwriter doesn't diminish her stature in the eyes of her fans or her peers in any way, shape, or form.

[Richard W]

Good points, Erik.

I should have clarified that it was the critic who attributed attempting to "standardize" pop/rock songs to Linda, not Linda consciously attempting to do so herself.

It's hard to dismiss all of those interpretations of previously recorded songs (hits by others or otherwise) that frequent Linda's albums, though, as little more than interpretations of good songs. Considering the depth of songwriting talent she was swimming in, there might be some elevated reason why sometimes half of her albums were composed of previously recorded songs, many of them familiar hits by others.

[Tony]

Mar 31, 2016 8:20:56 GMT -5 Richard W said:

(*Personally, I bristle at the term "remake". No one accused any of the classic standards singers of "remaking" any of those songs. Nobody accuses Bennet of "remaking", say, "Body and Soul." Instead they talk about his "interpretation" of the song and that's what I prefer to call Linda's version of "Tracks of My Tears" or "I Can't Help It.")

Interesting outlook. I have always preferred to call some of Linda's songs "remakes" because I absolutely hate hearing her songs called "cover versions."

To my mind, Linda's version of "When Will I Be Loved" is so different from the original that she should have been give songwriter credit for the changes she made.

And it really burns me to hear "You're No Good" referred to as a cover of the Betty Everett song. I know the meaning of "cover" has changed over the years but originally a cover version is a performance of a song rushed to market to cover up a recently released version. Linda has never done this. In fact, the Betty Everett version of You're No Good is a cover, rushed to market just days after a release by Dee Dee Warwick.  

Likewise, I have heard Linda's version of "Heart Like a Wheel" referred to as a McGarrigle cover when her version was released a year before the McGarrigles' version.  Linda's original recording of "Faithless Love" is sometimes referred to as a cover of a J D Souther song, even though hers is the original. Does a song magically become a cover version if the songwriter records it later?  Some folks are just ignorant!

But I do see your point.  Now I don't like the term "remake" either.

[erik]

Quote by Richard W:

It's hard to dismiss all of those interpretations of previously recorded songs (hits by others or otherwise) that frequent Linda's albums, though, as little more than interpretations of good songs. Considering the depth of songwriting talent she was swimming in, there might be some elevated reason why sometimes half of her albums were composed of previously recorded songs, many of them familiar hits by others.

If there was an elevated reason for some of Linda's albums having a lot of previously recorded songs that would be familiar to audiences, then it's one we can only guess at, myself included. Again, my belief is that if it was a great song to her, then she recorded it without apology, regardless of its origins. It's why Heart Like A Wheel, for example, can be a fully-balanced album where contemporary songs from friends like J.D. Souther, Lowell George, and the McGarrigles can stand alongside "oldies" with their origins in R&B ("You're No Good"), rockabilly ("When Will I Be Loved?") or straightforward country ("I Can't Help It If I'm Still In Love With You"), and influence generations of Linda's female peers.

But one of the ways we can defend Linda's entire body of work is in the fact that, even to this day, half of the singers out there still don't write their own material, or they have to borrow from, or collaborate with, other writers. This is why, with certain exceptions, the songwriting standards of our time have slipped, in my opinion catastrophically, from where they were during Linda's time, because I don't think there's too much doubt that a lot of the writers out there are genuine hacks who are just out there to make lots of money.

[the Scribe]

Definitions are always interesting and change over time so if you are old enough your definition of cover may be quite different than the current definition. (in politics just look how the term Conservative has changed to now mean Fascist)

I found these two opinions that are similar but explain things clearly (or not lol)

1) Cover typically refers to a a new performance or recording of a previously recorded, commercially released song by someone other than the original artist or composer. The new performance or recording usually is very similar to the original (structure, progression, etc), the differences are normally in instrumentation. Some cover artists are very serious and careful about playing their covers as close as possible to the original, others inject something new, but in general both the original and the cover are very similar.

A remix (including this for completeness) is also a reinterpretation of the original song, but with more liberties. Changes in key, structure, and progression are very common. Sometimes a remixed song can be indistinguishable from the original.

In my experience, "remake" doesn't have a formal definition, even on this specific context. It can be a synonym of reinterpretation (a general term that includes cover and remix), or refer to an updated version of a song (1985 vs 2013), or as a cover synonym, from the top of my head.
As "remake" is used in general terms, it makes sense for it to refer to reinterpretations in general. As in both a remix and a cover are remakes.

In short, remake refers to redoing something, carving the song again. The details of the remake is what gives it a more specific name, like cover or remix.

2) It's a bit wishy-washy and the terms can be used interchangeably. However, I would say that in general:

• A cover usually refers to a reinterpretation. This might take the form of creating an acoustic version, a different arrangement, or even just taking the lyrics and coming up with an entirely new melody.

• A remake is an attempt at reproduction, playing the song the same way it was originally played. The re-makers might put their own twist on it or they might get very technical and try to be exacting, but ultimately it's the same style as the original.

I think though that most of the time they are not distinguished. Wikipedia says that a cover is simply one band/artist's songs being performed by another. It also gives some interesting insight into its origin:

The term "cover" goes back decades when cover version originally described a rival version of a tune recorded to compete with the recently released (original) version. The Chicago Tribune described the term in 1952: "trade jargon meaning to record a tune that looks like a potential hit on someone else's label."


I made this playlist of Linda Ronstadt Covers so people could see the differences between Linda and the original or first most popular version. I really struggled as what to call the playlist and find a decent definition so I settled on the Wikipedia version. Unfortunately as youtube is want to do the song selections I posted get deleted for whatever reason. (pain in the butt)

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUMq4sB5dsC_qz1UpUn9T3HQp7cFh7Xgr


In popular music, a cover version or cover song, or simply cover, is a new performance or recording of a previously recorded, commercially released song by someone other than the original artist or composer.

Originally, Billboard and other magazines that track the popularity of musical artists and hit tunes measured the sales success of the published tune, not just recordings of it. Later, they tracked the airplay that songs achieved, some cover versions being more successful recording(s) than the original song(s). Cover versions of well-known, well-liked tunes are often recorded by new artists to achieve initial success when their unfamiliar original material would be less likely to be successful. Before the onset of rock 'n' roll in the 1950s, songs were published and several records of a song might be brought out by singers of the day, each giving it their individual treatment.

Jimi Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower" was a bigger hit than Bob Dylan's original version
On occasion a cover becomes more popular and well known than the original, such as Santana's version in 1970 of Peter Green's and Fleetwood Mac's 1968 song "Black Magic Woman" or Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower." The Hendrix version, released six months after Dylan's original, became a Top 10 single in the UK in 1968 (US number 20) and was ranked 48th in Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. (Wikipedia)

I thought it would be interesting to compare Linda's cover version of these songs to the first released OR first hit versions. Some of the first released were not by the songwriters. In this small sampling of often live performances you can see the diverse talent that is Linda Ronstadt.

[Deleted]

Linda's TPA albums have the uniqueness of a modern singer/interpreter working with a veteran of the era the songs were written for, Nelson Riddle. Linda's respect for Riddle, and open-mindedness to take & learn from his advice, greatly benefitted all.

I can to an extent understand, Linda's dismissal of her rock performances, artistically, comparing the standards & PoP, to the music styles that came after. Linda is a craft & skill appreciator, and she was striving for the levels of those whose craft and skill she wanted to emulate, which she carried to her Canciones & Frenesi albums.

An important aspect of the singers of old, Linda's inspirations, is that people bought their records to hear their voices. That personal liking is what I have, and why I like all Linda, for her voice alone. Even songs on their own I don't particuarly care for, Linda's voice is "a spoonful of sugar" (yes, Linda as Mary Poppins was a fantasy I had) that makes that song listenable to.

Those who grumble about Linda changing genre, are more particular genre fans than anything-Linda fans. Same goes for Elvis Presley & other artists who have devotees.

[eddiejinnj]

I have similar feelings re: Linda's voice. Like many have said, Linda could sing the phonebook and make it work. I know my complete reaction to Linda's music and its importance is part sub-conscious, imo. It is just the sound she produces with her voice that has a profound effect. eddiejinnj

[erik]

Quote by heartbreaker:

Those who grumble about Linda changing genre, are more particular genre fans than anything-Linda fans. Same goes for Elvis Presley & other artists who have devotees.

That might have been the explanation in the distant past, but nowadays it isn't the only one. I think a lot of mass-marketing and a bit of brainwashing contribute to this behavior as well.

[Deleted]

Only the 180g vinyl GH volumes & "Live in Hollywood" (CD & LP) have been released in the last 5 years. Considering some tombstone sized & priced sets from other artists, its poor showing for an artist who had such a bevy of awards and a large catalogue.

The LR Box Set re-released, or better still added to, would be a good start. Linda fans are not served well.