|
Post by erik on Oct 9, 2013 11:58:40 GMT -5
Quote by Richard W:
I think everyone knows my opinions on that matter of critics who slam white singers (even if they're half-Mexican American) for doing R&B songs. It's reverse racism, pure and simple. But just criticize Whitney Houston's OTT take on "I Will Always Love You", and then see the hypocrisy come out.
Actually, both songs were. "Dark End" was written by Dan Penn and Chips Moman, it's just been done by many black singers. And Linda's isn't even the first "white" cover of it--anyone take a listen to the version that Gram Parsons and his Burrito Brothers did on their 1969 album The Gilded Palace Of Sin?
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Oct 9, 2013 12:14:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction, Erik.
Soooo... Black singers can cover a song by written by white guys (I'm simply following the black/white dichotomy set up by the writer of the review) and define the song as a black song, but when a white (Latina) woman sings it she somehow "smooths" the blackness out of a song written by white men to begin with?
God, this kind of PC "criticism" drives me nuts.
I still suspect, however, that Linda gets the brunt of this sort of criticism more than most because she was so closely associated with country music and all the "whiteness" that conveys, while someone like Bonnie Raitt (whom I adore) never gets smacked with the same accusation because she was associated with the blues.
And by the way, there is no such word as "mellifluity."
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 9, 2013 13:15:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction, Erik. Soooo... Black singers can cover a song by written by white guys (I'm simply following the black/white dichotomy set up by the writer of the review) and define the song as a black song, but when a white (Latina) woman sings it she somehow "smooths" the blackness out of a song written by white men to begin with? God, this kind of PC "criticism" drives me nuts. I still suspect, however, that Linda gets the brunt of this sort of criticism more than most because she was so closely associated with country music and all the "whiteness" that conveys, while someone like Bonnie Raitt (whom I adore) never gets smacked with the same accusation because she was associated with the blues. And by the way, there is no such word as "mellifluity." well for one Linda doesn't sing like Christina Aguilera or even Teena Marie, both of whom are either 1/2 latina or white. I cringed when Michael Bolton advised young singers to learn how to sing like whitney, mariah or christina... he said, they need to copy their notes.. so this style has become the standard for pop singing.. I thinks it mostly the critics like the guy who wrote the article.. afterall, Smokey Robinson, who wrote those songs Linda did, had no problem with it why should other people.. ? I personally feel it's the critics who cause all the trouble not the fans and especially not the artists or writers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 13:18:51 GMT -5
I hope no one was listening when Mr Bolton uttered that very ill advised remark...
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 9, 2013 13:30:55 GMT -5
I really don't understand how these critics say those things about Linda.. You're no good? I mean what is he saying.. white = bland.. I think Linda sings very soulful on that song .. certainly even more than Gwen Stefani (whom I love) I don't think she's ever been criticized for sounding too white. Just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 9, 2013 14:50:22 GMT -5
Quote by Richard W:
That may very well be true, I'm sorry to say; and it's a dumb-a** criticism too, because, as I've said before, rock and roll is a mixture of country music and the blues (white and black, rural and urban, alike), plus elements of a lot of other styles (including jazz). I think Bonnie herself would agree that these kinds of criticisms are quite asinine.
|
|
|
Post by charlotte on Oct 9, 2013 16:45:39 GMT -5
Foolish piece of junk. The writer does not seem to really know Linda's music, her voice or to have really read the book. Frankly with all due respect to Martha Reeves, Betty Everett etc. Linda 's live versions have more heart and soul than their versions of Heatwave and You're No Good respectively. Why bother posting these ignorant writers.?He quotes Lester Bands about Van Morrison - meanwhile Bangs said Linda was one of the finest distillations of country, rock, folk he ever witnessed. Ronstadt's voice was always, even when young, gorgeous and heartfelt. An instrument of uncommon power and beauty. Our gal's voice is not a prop in a show biz act. It is the real deal.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 9, 2013 17:59:20 GMT -5
Quote by Charlotte:
I think it all has to do with the fact that some people either still don't, or, more importantly, won't ever "get" Linda. But then, I still don't "get" the attraction of arena rock bands like U2 or Aerosmith, so.....
It's like what George Klein said of Elvis: "If you're a fan, no explanation is necessary. If you're not, no explanation is possible."
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 10, 2013 5:33:19 GMT -5
Some critics miss the point. Linda wasn't trying to compete with those soul artists when she did those songs but looked at them from a different angle and tried to incorporate them in her regular Californian rock/Country rock sound. Besides, those songs are only a minority of her output, so even if one doesn't like her take on Heat Wave or Tracks of my Tears it's no reason to judge her career on that.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 10, 2013 8:56:03 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26:
Very true, of course. Unfortunately, a lot of these critics look for a reason, any reason, no matter how utterly minuscule, to put down Linda's entire career; and her doing Motown is perhaps the handiest "excuse" they have in their toolbox. I've always felt that she did put her own "spin" on songs, regardless of their origin, while staying true to the essential spirit of them. But I'm resigned to the fact that a lot of these so-called rock critics (I don't call them "historians", a pompous term for something like rock and roll to begin with [IMHO]) are fundamentally ignorant about what they are allegedly writing about.
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Oct 10, 2013 9:19:29 GMT -5
I give the author props for at least mentioning songs beyond the hits -- Rescue Me, Dark End of the Street, Birds (of which he did have good things to say) -- but the review still reads more like an excuse to regurgitate negative Ronstadt boilerplate than an actual critique of her book (he rated it a 6, I assume out of 10).
His closing remark about Parkinson's robbing Linda of the chance to sing songs outside her "cage" is especially silly. I mean, when you consider her entire output, what genre is left for her to sing? Rap? Delta blues? Romanian folk songs? Sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Oct 10, 2013 9:25:52 GMT -5
the reviewer just doesn't get her mostly. dark end of the street is kick butt both in her vocals and instrumentation. you can feel the guilty pleasure she brings to the song. rescue me is a great live track. the key the reviewer should have noted is that it is live and like 1971. Mobile recording was not what it is now. the effort and collaboration with the eagles members in this song overshadows imo the lack of recording/technicalities limitations of the time. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by revin2go on Oct 10, 2013 10:56:05 GMT -5
I hope no one was listening when Mr Bolton uttered that very ill advised remark... Puhleeeeease! Michael Bolton is the worst singer on the planet. He should have been advised to have never opened his mouth to sing in public. How he achieved the success he did is beyond me. A couple of good songs (Steel Bars, How Can We Be Lovers), but I cringe whenever I hear him. How could anyone seriously take singing advice from him? And how and why women swoon over him confounds me even more. It must be the Beauty and the Beast/Phantom of the Opera fantasy complex. That's the only thing that makes any sense. Ick.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2013 11:09:02 GMT -5
Very true, of course. Unfortunately, a lot of these critics look for a reason, any reason, no matter how utterly minuscule, to put down Linda's entire career; and her doing Motown is perhaps the handiest "excuse" they have in their toolbox. I've always felt that she did put her own "spin" on songs, regardless of their origin, while staying true to the essential spirit of them. But I'm resigned to the fact that a lot of these so-called rock critics (I don't call them "historians", a pompous term for something like rock and roll to begin with [IMHO]) are fundamentally ignorant about what they are allegedly writing about. With many critics, I feel Linda's greatest crime with them publicly is that she moved beyond rock and country, where they wanted her to remain within the confines of those genres. The big band stuff belonged to another generation and Linda was ouside of her musical box. Likewise, the Mexican-based recordings. It wasn't their cup of tea, it was foreign to them (in more ways than one) and it wasn't something from Linda that they wanted. Privately, Linda's greatest crim with the critics may have been ultimately being a great success with the public. Their preference would've been that Linda never caught on with the public at all and labored in obscurity. The critics praised pre-hit Blondie as a group worth hearing until they achieved success, then it was a case of "we don't like you anymore." Of course, some critics didn't like the fact that Linda did covers of certain songs and today criticize her for mostly being a cover artist. But, I still think they would've criticized her if she had written more of her own songs or if she had had music publishing companies, criticized the songwriters who wrote for her as hacks (which was Dave Marsh's opinion of the people who wrote songs for Elvis), and still criticized her for doing the songs. Basically, Linda was in a no win situation with these critics, and with her dismissal of her 70s recordings, one has to wonder how much of her own dismissal had to do with the barbs of the critics who didn't like her recordings? Curiously, she's never been dismissive of the music associated with her big band, Broadway and Mexican era career, yet those are the eras many of her harshest critics find fault with the most. If she agreed with her critics about her earlier recordings, it's surprising she didn't agree with them about that era.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2013 11:27:20 GMT -5
I hope no one was listening when Mr Bolton uttered that very ill advised remark... Puhleeeeease! Michael Bolton is the worst singer on the planet. He should have been advised to have never opened his mouth to sing in public. How he achieved the success he did is beyond me. A couple of good songs (Steel Bars, How Can We Be Lovers), but I cringe whenever I hear him. How could anyone seriously take singing advice from him? And how and why women swoon over him confounds me even more. It must be the Beauty and the Beast/Phantom of the Opera fantasy complex. That's the only thing that makes any sense. Ick. I think the worst thing a singer can do is oversing a song, and artists like Bolton and Whitney Houston (God rest her soul) were especially guilty of that. Every time one of their "oversung" songs came on the radio, I changed stations as I likened their singing to being like tornado/air raid warning sirens: obnoxious, harsh and unnecessary. Bolton was a strange cat in that he was a songwriter, wrote hit songs for other artists yet almost all of his own personal hits were covers of 60s hits ("To Love Somebody," "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay," "Georgia on My Mind," etc), songs that he oversang. Even the one hit he had that he wrote had already been a hit for another artist, "How Am I Supposed to Live without You" (a modest hit for the late Laura Branigan), making him a cover artist on his own version of the song. One would've thought that for a singer with the ability to write a hit song, why would you bother covering someone else's song? Of course, Aretha Franklin was capable of writing her own songs and writing a hit or two, yet she was pretty well known for covering other people's songs and having hits with them. But, that was still a strange phenomenon that makes me scratch my head and wonder about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 11:51:53 GMT -5
Michael Bolton, Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera have probably been responsible for unleashing countless dreadful singers upon the hapless airwaves.. heaven help us....
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on Oct 10, 2013 12:51:56 GMT -5
Michael Bolton, Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera have probably been responsible for unleashing countless dreadful singers upon the hapless airwaves.. heaven help us.... Agreed--especially when they put that gosh-awful "yodel" (IDK what else to call it) at the end of a sang word followed by that hand gesture that goes along with it. I'll give an exception to Mariah for she started that whole mess, but the others are so cringe worthy, I laugh when they are referred to as singers.
(I must admit though (bravely or foolishly) that I do like one Bolton song: "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You?"--only because it was used in a Saved By The Bell episode. [Hangs head in shame...])
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2013 14:08:40 GMT -5
Michael Bolton, Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera have probably been responsible for unleashing countless dreadful singers upon the hapless airwaves.. heaven help us.... Bolton, as a singer, I think, had minimal to no influence on other singers, as outside of the songs he wrote, he had a very short Top 40 career as a hitmaker. Only five or six hits and then, gone from the charts. If you mention MB in conversation with current singers and musicians trying to break into big time show business, you get a "Michael who?" from them. They don't know who he is. Pariah Carey on the other hand, like Madonna and Whitney Houston, has been around long enough to have had some damaging influence. Record companies used to tell would-be musical stars to follow their own muse rather than trying to find success with what someone else achieved success on. But, over the years, record companies seemed to have forgotten that advice by trying to sign every sound alike singer or band they could find. In the 90s, record companies tried to sign bands that sounded like Nirvana or Pearl Jam or Hootie and the Blowfish and it got to a point then where I couldn't listen to what was being played on Top 40 radio because one song sounded no different than the previous song, except when it was by a female performer. And then the female performers, led by Pariah and Whitney, were on overkill on their vocals. I guess they thought they were impressing everyone with their extremely painful vocals. They had good voices, don't get me wrong, but what would've been wrong with some restraint and less over the top vocals?
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Oct 11, 2013 7:59:43 GMT -5
compared to others long hit careers including linda, five or six hits seems minimal but there are millions of people that would love to have that. some would love to have one hit. that said, it is no commentary on Bolton himself, which I am very neutral on. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 11, 2013 9:48:39 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
In some subtle ways, the idea of trying to find the Next Big Thing has really always been on the minds of the labels; but yes, back in the day, including when Linda started in the late 1960s, there was still a desire for artists to find their own sound, something that set them apart. Above all else, in my opinion, they also allowed the artist time to do it in. In Linda's case, it took some eight years for her to find the sound that would click with audiences on a large scale, but when it happened, it was off to the races for her from that point on.
My only theory on what went so haywire in the 1990s is that, in terms of rock, so many "hip" music magazines, and not exclusively Rolling Stone either, just propped up Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or Hootie and the Blowfish to the point where every band had to sound like them (or U2 or some other arena rock outfit) to gain acceptance. And with the divas, well, I think the Adult Contemporary radio format is largely to blame not only for their mere presence on the scene, but also for the sheer volume of them. The televised vocal competition shows just made it a whole lot worse.
The thing about Linda's influence is that it is so subtle in so many ways that the media really didn't take much time to figure out how big it really was below the surface until fairly recently, and, of course, only because of the tragic circumstances that forced them to look at it more closely. And if the Paste Magazine article is any indication, they're still not there yet (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 11, 2013 13:17:09 GMT -5
compared to others long hit careers including linda, five or six hits seems minimal but there are millions of people that would love to have that. some would love to have one hit. that said, it is no commentary on Bolton himself, which I am very neutral on. eddiejinnj In the late 80s and during all of the 90s, having more than one hit in an era which was predominantly made up of one year hit wonders (popular one year, done the next year), it was all the more remarkable considering the one year hit wonders pretty much coasted on a single huge hit. Some might have had a second hit which charted but didn't do near as well as the biggest hit. I thought the record companies acted all too quick to get to the next big thing and acted even quicker in abandoning artists once they got their first hit. Bolton was lucky in that regard but he came along in the late 80s as a singer just as the record companies were shifting to the one hit strategy instead of the strategy of building an artist's career for the long term. Whether they did us a favor by that strategy, I don't know, but they certainly didn't do artists with the potential for long term success any favors.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 11, 2013 13:37:54 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
I think both artists and audiences got burned by that bizarre corporate strategy, to be honest. The labels, worried about quarterly reports, are only thinking maybe ninety days ahead, not months or years, let alone decades, though this has been true for a very long time. Not only does this result in mediocrity in terms of music, it results in mediocrity in terms of the artists themselves; and we see and hear about it anytime we turn on the radio or the TV.
Apart from maybe Madonna (and I don't think she can keep up her schtick forever), I don't think you'll ever see anyone come along whose career lasts more than maybe ten years, let alone the four and a half decades that Linda's did. The industry doesn't support long-term careers like it once did, and that's a crippling detriment, to artists, performers, and (if they could only see it for themselves) the industry itself (IMHO).
We are fortunate that Linda came along when she did, in the late 1960s. She was the right artist (even if she herself didn't know it), in the right place (L.A., at the beginning of the country-rock movement), at the right time.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 11, 2013 13:53:56 GMT -5
In some subtle ways, the idea of trying to find the Next Big Thing has really always been on the minds of the labels; but yes, back in the day, including when Linda started in the late 1960s, there was still a desire for artists to find their own sound, something that set them apart. Above all else, in my opinion, they also allowed the artist time to do it in. In Linda's case, it took some eight years for her to find the sound that would click with audiences on a large scale, but when it happened, it was off to the races for her from that point on.
Record companies have always tried to find the next big thing: I'm sure all of the record companies thought they had found the next Elvis after RCA signed Elvis to their label and he shot straight into the next solar system. But, even though they found hundreds of talented individuals, finding another Elvis proved to be impossible. It was the same process with the Beatles - record labels signed up every British-based band and American band that formed in the wake of the Beatles. And although some had longevity or were influential, the next Beatles - having the same streak of luck and sales - was just as elusive. But, for many bands, the Beatles, while an influence on them, was also a burden as music fans (especially those in the US) were a little rabid in their devotion and resentful of other acts coming along who were just as good.
My only theory on what went so haywire in the 1990s is that, in terms of rock, so many "hip" music magazines, and not exclusively Rolling Stone either, just propped up Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or Hootie and the Blowfish to the point where every band had to sound like them (or U2 or some other arena rock outfit) to gain acceptance. And with the divas, well, I think the Adult Contemporary radio format is largely to blame not only for their mere presence on the scene, but also for the sheer volume of them. The televised vocal competition shows just made it a whole lot worse.
Music magazines have always propped up certain artists yet they have that Jekyll-and-Hyde thing going where they like a singer or band for a time (usually before the artist succeeds) but then they turn on them for no apparent good reason. Or maybe they do have a good reason. It was surprising that Hootie and the Blowfish were able to get ahold in the music scene when they did, because they had more of an acoustic thing going, whereas Nirvana and Pearl Jam had that grunge rock thing going. I suppose in a way it would be like the punk rock scene emerging during the disco era. A lot of the punk rockers became mainstream rockers, which I always felt many were - they just happened to get tagged with the punk label because that was the era in which they debuted. I'm not sure how the divas came to dominate the musical scene, whether it was radio making them into stars or the public but they did get carried away. Still do.
The thing about Linda's influence is that it is so subtle in so many ways that the media really didn't take much time to figure out how big it really was below the surface until fairly recently, and, of course, only because of the tragic circumstances that forced them to look at it more closely. And if the Paste Magazine article is any indication, they're still not there yet (IMHO).
Linda's influence I think was always there but with most of that influence acknowledged in the country genre rather than the rock genre, perhaps some felt Linda wasn't that influential. Even with this latest round of publicity associated with her book and the Parkinsons, I've seen some stories where the headline reads or somewhere in the story reads "Country singer Linda Ronstadt...." One has to wonder what Linda, who has distanced herself from rock, would think of that? Not pop singer Linda Ronstadt, not rock singer Linda Ronstadt (or country-rock singer LR for that matter), but "Country singer Linda Ronstadt." Linda worked in many genres but it's her rock era that was the best known and most influential on others, including country singers, yet could the press be connecting her influence as the genre in which she sang, which was only partially true. Still, one does wish rock performers (male or female) would acknowledge her influence. Then, maybe the press would acknowledge her as being more than just being a country singer.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 11, 2013 13:59:02 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: Very true, of course. Unfortunately, a lot of these critics look for a reason, any reason, no matter how utterly minuscule, to put down Linda's entire career; and her doing Motown is perhaps the handiest "excuse" they have in their toolbox. I've always felt that she did put her own "spin" on songs, regardless of their origin, while staying true to the essential spirit of them. But I'm resigned to the fact that a lot of these so-called rock critics (I don't call them "historians", a pompous term for something like rock and roll to begin with [IMHO]) are fundamentally ignorant about what they are allegedly writing about. A few years back Mick Jagger answered whether he finds the critics important or not something like this: "Most important is that you yourself are happy with your work. Second comes the public. The critics come only third, but of course it's nicer to read a positive review than a negative one." Question: "Have you or the Stones ever read a negative review where you thought the critic was right?" MJ: "It all depends on who has written it. We just know that some critics haven't got a clue or going to write crap no matter what. But there are some who we respect and it's happened a few times when this or that one made some critical remarks and I thought to myself, you know what? He's got a point. So it all depends on where it's coming from."
|
|
|
Post by kgreen on Oct 11, 2013 22:13:58 GMT -5
Article is both poorly crafted and researched. Not badly written. The writer sounds like a 25 year old kid trying to make his mark. I give him a 4 out of 10.
|
|
|
Post by kgreen on Oct 11, 2013 22:25:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 12, 2013 3:40:00 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: I think both artists and audiences got burned by that bizarre corporate strategy, to be honest. The labels, worried about quarterly reports, are only thinking maybe ninety days ahead, not months or years, let alone decades, though this has been true for a very long time. Not only does this result in mediocrity in terms of music, it results in mediocrity in terms of the artists themselves; and we see and hear about it anytime we turn on the radio or the TV. Apart from maybe Madonna (and I don't think she can keep up her schtick forever), I don't think you'll ever see anyone come along whose career lasts more than maybe ten years, let alone the four and a half decades that Linda's did. The industry doesn't support long-term careers like it once did, and that's a crippling detriment, to artists, performers, and (if they could only see it for themselves) the industry itself (IMHO). We are fortunate that Linda came along when she did, in the late 1960s. She was the right artist (even if she herself didn't know it), in the right place (L.A., at the beginning of the country-rock movement), at the right time. There are countless current artists who's career has lasted or will last a lot longer than ten years. But they are in many cases artists that aren't part of the mainstream and don't think in terms of record sales or hits. And that's the only way to do it these days I think - just do your own thing. If you're really good you will probably have at least an audience that's substantial enough to keep you going. There will always be people out there who just love good music.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 12, 2013 11:48:11 GMT -5
I think both artists and audiences got burned by that bizarre corporate strategy, to be honest. The labels, worried about quarterly reports, are only thinking maybe ninety days ahead, not months or years, let alone decades, though this has been true for a very long time. Not only does this result in mediocrity in terms of music, it results in mediocrity in terms of the artists themselves; and we see and hear about it anytime we turn on the radio or the TV.
All of the above are reasons why the record industry is having as much trouble as they're having on sales. If they would start thinking about the music, the artists and the long term developement strategy instead of thinking how much money they're going to generate in the next 90 days, they might be in a healthier state than what they are currently. Looking for the next Elvis or Beatles or Linda...etc., instead of signing the lightweights who will bring in the short term bucks. The way the record business is run these days, there's no chance that another Elvis or Beatles or Linda will come along and take the world by storm. They could already be out there but the music industry knows it not!
Apart from maybe Madonna (and I don't think she can keep up her schtick forever), I don't think you'll ever see anyone come along whose career lasts more than maybe ten years, let alone the four and a half decades that Linda's did. The industry doesn't support long-term careers like it once did, and that's a crippling detriment, to artists, performers, and (if they could only see it for themselves) the industry itself (IMHO).
An artist will still have a career that could last ten years or more but not in the terms of being on a record label and selling in the millions on a yearly basis. Those days are pretty much over and done unless the record companies change their strategies, to go back to an artist's long term career rather than to making as much money as possible in the short term and then dropping the artist and their career once they've made the short term bucks.
We are fortunate that Linda came along when she did, in the late 1960s. She was the right artist (even if she herself didn't know it), in the right place (L.A., at the beginning of the country-rock movement), at the right time.
If Linda came up in the recording business in today's world and recorded in the same exact way she had done at the outset of her solo career, she'd probably have had one album. And having gotten no hits, no doubt she would've been dropped. Or she might have recorded on any of the small time record labels that still exist in many cities. There have been thousands of artists who recorded on such labels for decades, some of whom should've been picked up by the majors but who somehow got overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 12, 2013 17:39:31 GMT -5
Re-Madonna keeping up her schtick forever.. Well, @ 55 years old . (she's been at it for almost 30 years now) I think that pretty much classifies in show business terms as a "forever". Not to mention Cher, even longer. Because both ladies have had a very long and successful career, I wouldn't minimize it or write it off as schtick.. Even Linda herself said, not in these words.. but.. there is talent out there she doesn't care for but if they can keep it up for so long, they must be talented. I believe that. There are many artists I don't care for but I acknowledge their talent. it's just not for me.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 12, 2013 18:29:22 GMT -5
I, of course, am dreadfully old-fashioned, probably even every bit as musically ultra-conservative as previous generations, so I guess I overstated what Madonna was still doing as "schtick". I don't deny that she's talented; it's just not my kind.
I suppose Linda just emphasized, for me at least, the idea that honesty in one's art is of the utmost, and that all the bells and whistles are secondary. In our present context, though, sliderocker is right, that alone wouldn't wash, with Miley, Gaga, Spears, etc., all doing their thing, audiences eating it up, and the moral purists getting on their cases (and driving up their record sales in the process).
|
|