|
Post by Dianna on May 22, 2013 18:34:31 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with a blunt fast talking NY personality nor do I find it offensive..Remember I'm the only Stern Fan onboard lol....
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 22, 2013 18:43:31 GMT -5
Quote by ronstadtfanaz:
Again, though, it all goes back to perceptions. As fans, we may know and believe that the way Chris Mundy handled himself/herself in that interview was as something of a prick, but somebody who isn't probably won't, and will probably think that it's Linda herself who is being a prick here. Linda had to have known a little bit into that interview that Mundy was asking her questions of the "Gotcha!" variety that were guaranteed to raise her ire and cause her to bite, and I think she fell into that trap.
I have no doubt that jasonk73, should he be lucky enough to get the chance, would get a good interview, and get Linda to open up and expound on all things musical, which I would have thought was the whole point of interviewing her in the first place. But I have the feeling that this no longer worked at Rolling Stone by the time of that interview.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on May 22, 2013 20:51:47 GMT -5
I remember that mike douglass clip form 71'.. even then she was kind of making fun of rock music. lol
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 23, 2013 3:51:13 GMT -5
I remember that article too, Slide.. My first thought was.. WTH? That doesn't sound like something Linda would say.. and okay refined.. maybe that comment was taken out of context as well .. with that, didn't our Linda grow up in the desert.. on a ranch? I'm not gonna say she's full of it because, I don't think she meant harm by it.. and yes, Linda is a class act IMO.. True you don't need to be wealthy or have an ivy league education to be refined and she has mentioned her humble beginnings with the stone poneys. Sometimes she says the most bizzare stuff, without thinking, it seems. lol It's possible her comments could've been taken out of context in the Goldmine article, but I've never known Goldmine to have an ax to grind against any performer and they're a pretty fair magazine, so any out of context statement would've been unintentional. Linda has made some comments over the years that I've read - some in Rolling Stone and in other magazines, which also had an uppity/snobbish/divaish type feel to them. All those comments could well have been taken out of context as well, yet one would think she would've watched what she was saying as she no doubt knew how all too easily taken out of context remarks can come back to haunt a performer, and sometimes hurt or destroy their careers in the process. But, I also thought I'd read at one time that Linda and her manager Peter Asher had to okay any interviews for publication before they were published. Just to make sure there were no inflammatory comments as a result of being taken out of context. I would assume if they met with Linda's and Peter's approval, the interviews didn't have any gotcha moments in them. Or maybe they did have some "Oh sh*t! That's not what I said!" moments in them, and that was something on Linda's mind at the time of the Mundy interview, so she was a lot leery about the interview and maybe somewhat hostile going in out of fear it was going to be a hatchet job because it was Rolling Stone.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 23, 2013 3:53:27 GMT -5
I remember that mike douglass clip form 71'.. even then she was kind of making fun of rock music. lol Not to mention putting down her own music.
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 23, 2013 9:08:51 GMT -5
I think there has always been an unwritten rule for celebrities, a variation on the Miranda rule, that anything you say at some point can (and likely will) come back to haunt you and be used to smear you in the court of public opinion. A lot of them fall into this trap without realizing what it can do. This goes for Linda as well, especially insofar as the 1990s go (IMHO).
At the same time, though, again if we can go by the most recent interview, her appearance at Grace Cathedral where she answered a lot of questions about her music, she seems to have come to terms with what she did in the 70s in a more thoughtful, even philosophical way. It just may be that she realizes that whatever "nuttiness" her being in the music business caused, she has left a great legacy of music behind, and inspired several generations of like-minded womenfolk.
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on May 23, 2013 11:52:03 GMT -5
Oh sorry, I was looking for the youtube comments thread. "I remember that mike douglass clip form 71'.. even then she was kind of making fun of rock music. lol" Simply stunning she is here.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 23, 2013 16:21:06 GMT -5
I think there has always been an unwritten rule for celebrities, a variation on the Miranda rule, that anything you say at some point can (and likely will) come back to haunt you and be used to smear you in the court of public opinion. A lot of them fall into this trap without realizing what it can do. This goes for Linda as well, especially insofar as the 1990s go (IMHO).
One thins a celebrity would watch what they say because of the potential repercussons, but even when some make a gaffe, they go on to make further gaffes. John Lennon apologized for his "bigger than Jesus" comment, yet he was always outspoken, which I think was detrimental to his career. How much of that was Yoko's influence is unclear, as I think some of it well could've been. He always seemed to be the type of artist who felt the artist had to speak out on what he or she saw was wrong (or right) with society. And I think that got old with some, especially the types who didn't like celebrities speaking out if it didn't match their particular political-religious-world point of views. Linda kind of fanned the flames following the Vegas incident over her support of Michael Moore, but she later offered an apology and allowed she could've handled the situation better. But that's what happens in a situation like that, where a disagreement gets escalated out of anger and time allows you to cool down and see how it could've been handled differently. But, Linda was in the right in that Vegas incident and that Republican a**hole who gave her a hard time was wrong and should've been tossed hard on his keister and hauled off to jail. Linda was definitely the wronged party.
At the same time, though, again if we can go by the most recent interview, her appearance at Grace Cathedral where she answered a lot of questions about her music, she seems to have come to terms with what she did in the 70s in a more thoughtful, even philosophical way. It just may be that she realizes that whatever "nuttiness" her being in the music business caused, she has left a great legacy of music behind, and inspired several generations of like-minded womenfolk.
I think Linda's softened position on her music could have more to do with her age. I think as people get older, they either soften up more about their past and life or they become more hardened about life and their past. Also, with Linda, it might be a case of being more appreciative of what she did in the past with her singing voice because of now no longer being able to sing with the same power she once had. She has a great legacy and she was a huge influence on other female artists, though probably less so on male artists. Although, even there, I'm more inclined to say her influence was more of an indirect, almost subliminal influence than a direct influence.
Without Linda, there wouldn't have been an Eagles and all of their hits should be considered a reflection on her. Same for Jackson Browne and James Taylor, and any other artists and bands she championed by covering their music. True, Browne and Taylor (and a few others) already had careers going but her covering of their music only helped raise the awareness of her fans who may not have been fans of Browne or Taylor, but heard a song she did that was written by any of them and became fans as a result.
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 28, 2013 9:09:59 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker re. Linda's Vegas Incident:
She cooled down and offered an apology, but apparently someone of her political stripe is made to grovel in the media (witness how the Dixie Chicks seemingly had to grovel to Diane Sawyer, a former Nixon lackey, on ABC after what Natalie Maines said in London), while a right-winger (like, say, Ann Coulter) will refuse to apologize for offensive comments, saying that it's her so-called "First Amendment" right. There's a word for such s**t: HYPOCRISY.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 28, 2013 14:24:07 GMT -5
No question about any of that, yet I find it's the liberals who are always civil about things and the conservatives who will say outrageous things and then holler about their first amendment rights being violated when someone calls them on their nastiness. Coulter is an especially nasty, hypocritical b*tch who makes no apology, and her nastiness extends to her fellow Republicans who are against the goosestepping Nazi branch of the Republican party. Coulter blatantly said someone ought to shoot Meghan McCain because although Republican, like her dad, she doesn't follow the party line on every little thing. What made Coulter mad was that Meghan is in favor of some form of gun control and is liberal-minded in certain areas that the rest of the party is not. However, on the negative side of Meghan's balance sheet, she did support Mitt Romney for president. Overall though, she's more liberal than the majority of people in her party, even more of an independent than what her dad used to be. In fact, I think her dad willing to compromise his principles is what ultimately cost him the presidency. But, I think I'd rather have Linda's and Natalie's brand of civility any day than the nastiness of the Nazi Republicans who never apologize for that nastiness. I like to think people are waking up to that nastiness and that as long as the Republicans keep up with their Hitlerian ways, it's going to bite them in the a**. If the Tea party is to have any input into the Republican party or the political mainstream, they will need to become a lot more of a civil bunch. They made some inroads in 2010 yet their nastiness was especially vicious and I think they turned more people off of not only them, but also the Republican party.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 28, 2013 15:10:10 GMT -5
Linda kind of fanned the flames following the Vegas incident over her support of Michael Moore, but she later offered an apology and allowed she could've handled the situation better. But that's what happens in a situation like that, where a disagreement gets escalated out of anger and time allows you to cool down and see how it could've been handled differently.
An apology for what? I don't recall her apologizing or needing to apologize for anything. She didn't apologize but said she could have handled things with more grace but I don't know if she meant that incident specifically or "other" things like publicly calling the idiot Bush an idiot which is mild considering he is a sociopathic killer. All she did was dedicate an encore/Desperado (after the show was basically over) to a real patriot Michael Moore and "supposedly?" (if you believe hotel management) the place went wild but in seeing comments online from people there no such thing happened. They said some people walked out... well duh, it was the end of the show. Some supposedly asked for their money back. Ha...good luck on that one. Nice excuse for a cheapskate.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 28, 2013 16:11:33 GMT -5
An apology for what? I don't recall her apologizing or needing to apologize for anything. She didn't apologize but said she could have handled things with more grace but I don't know if she meant that incident specifically or "other" things like publicly calling the idiot Bush an idiot which is mild considering he is a sociopathic killer. All she did was dedicate an encore/Desperado (after the show was basically over) to a real patriot Michael Moore and "supposedly?" (if you believe hotel management) the place went wild but in seeing comments online from people there no such thing happened. They said some people walked out... well duh, it was the end of the show. Some supposedly asked for their money back. Ha...good luck on that one. Nice excuse for a cheapskate. Not an outright apology but saying the matter could've been handled differently and with more grace was a certain kind of apology. I don't think she was for a minute apologizing for her dedication of "Desperado" to Michael Moore or to the hotel or to the Republicans or Christians in her audience who were offended by her dedication. But, I think she was critiquing herself more for getting caught up in the press's willingness to blow the matter up out of proportion to what actually happened. But, I think she also wanted to reach out to others who don't agree with her because being just as hard nosed and unrepentant as what one accuses the other side of being is a no-win solution. The problem we have in politics today is it's all "Only what I want, f--k what you want!" Most liberals think it's a mostly conservative issue but really, it's on both sides and the only way it's going to change is that one dreaded word that conservatives hate to hear: compromise. But, then you have liberals who hate the word too and want only what they want, and in a land of more than 300 million, what you want, what I want, what other liberals or conservative want, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. Even when a liberal or conservative group claims a majority, there's still a group of people not taking part that makes the claim of those being the majority a lie. It's little wonder so many just want to sit it out and not take part.
|
|
|
Post by Fed up Stat on May 28, 2013 16:56:56 GMT -5
Why would a Christian be upset over Linda dedicating a song to Michael Moore? Bush was the great Satan!
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 28, 2013 17:26:43 GMT -5
Quote by Fed Up Stat:
A lot of Bush's support came from the Religious Right--as in the people who blindly follow Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and all these other tent-show Sunday morning evangelists. They always got up in arms about any "non-Christians" attacking Their Boy in any sort of way.
I think their big beef against Linda was something she said not long after, about feeling nervous about knowing whether someone of a GOP or Religious Right persuasion was in the audience, and that it could dampen her enthusiasm. She must have realized how this would inflame them.
Now, as much as I dislike the Religious Right hijacking God in America, I think Linda's quote, likely taken out of context (so what else is new?), made it seem like she was intolerant of Christianity in total, which I don't think is the case. Not every believer sides with the Religious Right by any means. Nor do I believe that everyone who sides with the Religious Right is necessarily a true believer.
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on May 28, 2013 17:34:37 GMT -5
no the Devil is Randy Newman in Faust lol. Newman is playing the Count Basie Theater in Red Bank, NJ June 14th (Flag Day). am thinking bout going. We have not had much discussion of the Faust project on here. anybody that has cool background /info on it would be great. wonder if all the vocals were recorded separately or did they have any group sessions. eddiejinnj
|
|