|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 12, 2013 18:37:00 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. I think that Madonna is a pr genius. But her artistic talent is rather limited in my opinion. In what are called her concerts half (or more) of it is playback while in the bits that she's doing live she's constantly out of tune. She's made some good records (and many mediocre ones imo), but just how much of that is because of her as opposed to the people she's working with, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 12, 2013 23:23:48 GMT -5
I think there are some who have an artistic talent who set out to be a "star." or to be famous. The singing comes later, as in Madonna's case and even Gwen Sefani has been quoted to say.. she didn't know she could sing until she was 16!! What???!!!! I compare that to Linda.. who at 4 yrs old or very young knew she was a singer or identified herself as one. As per her book, Simple Dreams, she didn't set out to be famous. I think that's part of what separates them.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlotte on Oct 13, 2013 10:53:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Morse on Oct 13, 2013 11:40:27 GMT -5
Nice review. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 13, 2013 12:30:05 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna:
Linda herself also pointed that out in the book--we all have our musical heroes (Linda's was Lola Beltran; and Linda has been a hero to tons of other aspiring female singers), but we delegate too much of the singing to "professionals", and we should try for ourselves, even if we only do it in the shower or while washing dishes. We shouldn't be thinking of being onstage in front of even ten or twenty people, let alone ten to twenty thousand.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Oct 13, 2013 14:02:16 GMT -5
jhar26 put it well re: Madonna being a pr genius. that she is. what she hasn't given to her fans is a large catalog. what has Madonna done like 11 albums or so (not counting compilations) since 1982? eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 13, 2013 14:42:34 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna: Linda herself also pointed that out in the book--we all have our musical heroes (Linda's was Lola Beltran; and Linda has been a hero to tons of other aspiring female singers), but we delegate too much of the singing to "professionals", and we should try for ourselves, even if we only do it in the shower or while washing dishes. We shouldn't be thinking of being onstage in front of even ten or twenty people, let alone ten to twenty thousand. well, if you're gonna dream.. why not dream big? Didn't Linda wrote even at a young age she envisioned the type of stage she would perform on, and the curtain on the stage? lol I just meant, Linda knew at a very young age what her calling was, that she was to sing...many people I'm sure heard that same calling too and did their own singing at home, church, school, the car or wherever, but for whatever reasons. shyness ect, not driven.. were not lucky enough to earn a nice little living doing it. meanwhile others who sought out stardom and fame didn't even know they could sing until they were older. I find that very odd, especially for somebody who is a superstar.... You can't just learn how to sing at 17 or 20 or much less discover it, especially an artistic persona who tends to be a ham. you think they're not singing around the house?. .. you can learn to be better but this is something you are born with and discover at a very young age .. like Linda.. Since I know the 2 ladies I previously mentioned can carry a tune and can sing pretty good (although not in the Linda category) I just wonder if their passion was more in performing/show business or arts and not so much with singing. Just odd. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 13, 2013 19:28:25 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna:
Linda did have her ideas and notions (all of them legitimate, in my opinion) of what kind of stage she would perform on, etc.; and of course she had no way of knowing how far beyond those dreams her career would take her. I think it also behooves us to keep in mind that, from the very start of her career, Linda herself was naturally quite shy onstage, plagued by stage fright. And yet she went up there and just sang her heart out, getting lost in the song and getting the audience lost in the song with her. The ironic thing is that Linda's natural shyness was one of the things that endeared her to so many fans and her fellow female peers. There was never any artifice: no smoke bombs; no lasers; no pyrotechnics; no pole dancing; no "twerking." It was just Linda out there, giving the most heartfelt performances, whether it was straight rock and roll, C&W, R&B, jazz, Mexican rancheras, Americana/folk, or anything else she set her mind and voice to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 13, 2013 20:45:39 GMT -5
I think the 1 piece of advise Linda has given to others and probably helped her a lot in the early part of her career was to get out there and network with others who have the same dream/skills as she did.. hang with them and if they're better than you, learn all you can from them... From what I've read from her book, she was very driven and works well with others. Aside Linda's shyness, I think somebody like Madonna had or has the same kind of business/learning smarts but went about it a different way .. while Linda was more of a team player and chose to make friends and work with those who's work she admired or felt threatened by (Emmy) I think other performers (madonna) went about it very aggressively, total opposite of Linda, in that she used people in a bad and selfish way to get what she wanted. I could be wrong but I doubt it.. lol
Anyway, I think that's what I respect most about Linda in terms of starting her career and how she was driven.
I think the onstage daydreaming of the stage, curtains, audience is all legitimate IMO and part of who you are as a singer or a performer.. be it Linda or anyone else.. It's okay to want that..
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Oct 14, 2013 9:53:25 GMT -5
Thanks for this, Charlotte.
|
|
|
|
Post by MickyB on Oct 14, 2013 10:00:06 GMT -5
Boring book but love the eyes
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 14, 2013 11:56:52 GMT -5
Quote by MickyB:
It's only boring if you wanted a tell-all; in that case, you've got the wrong book.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlotte on Oct 14, 2013 14:50:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 14, 2013 16:21:50 GMT -5
Boring book but love the eyes Oh wow. I had a blast reading it. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 14, 2013 18:29:01 GMT -5
And I myself keep re-reading it, especially the opening chapter about her early years growing up in the super-heated Arizona environs, and being born during one of the state's seasonal monsoon storms. I have to believe that growing up in that harsh desert environment had a lot to do with the building of Linda's character.
|
|
|
|
Post by JasonKlose on Oct 14, 2013 18:59:12 GMT -5
Very short review, but very nice things to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by ausfan2 on Oct 14, 2013 20:44:40 GMT -5
Linda Ronstadt takes a look at music and life
October 14, 2013
"Simple Dreams" (published by Simon & Schuster, part of CBS Corporation) is an overview of her extraordinary career that has seen the Grammy-winning Ronstadt tackle a variety of musical styles: rock, pop, New Wave, opera, country, standards, jazz and Mexican folk songs. In some ways, it is all the more bittersweet given Ronstadt's recent and surprising revelation that she has Parkinson's Disease, which had forced her to retire from singing in 2009.
Unlike some other music memoirs, "Simple Dreams" isn't dishy on gossip -- other than discussing her early life growing up in the Arizona desert, and making a reference or two to her former boyfriend, Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown, Ronstadt focuses mostly on the music than the personal. Her arrival in the '70s was perfectly timed as the Southern California rock scene was gaining momentum -- one that bred such artists as the Eagles (whose members served as Ronstadt's backing band in the early part of their careers) and Jackson Browne. But it wasn't until she teamed up with producer Peter Asher that Ronstadt became of the most successful artists of that decade beginning with 1975's "Heart Like a Wheel" album. But bravely at the height of her popularity -- and at the risk of alienating her rock fans and her record company -- Ronstadt took on a role in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera "The Pirates of Penzance" in New York. And doing an even a further 180, she became one of the first stars from the rock/pop genre to perform popular standards years before it became a trend these days, not to mention recording albums of Mexican folk songs.
In one part of the book, Ronstadt writes about the essential elements of singing, which are "voice, musicianship and story. It is rare artist that has all three in abundance." She could have easily referred to herself in that category. This entertaining memoir merely reaffirms what a consummate and multidimensional artist Ronstadt was and still is -- some of today's young pop stars could only wish to have an eclectic and far-ranging career as hers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Oct 14, 2013 21:38:16 GMT -5
I am amazed that anyone, fan or reviewer, would have expected anything else other than what we got from Linda. After all, the subtitle is "a musical memoir". That tells the story, in my opinion. It is exactly what I expected, a book that chronicles Linda's musical influences beginning with her upbringing in Tuscon, and bringing the reader through her life as a musician. I have read it twice already, and am enjoying it just the way it is. If Linda wanted it to be something else, it would have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlotte on Oct 25, 2013 10:51:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 11:00:22 GMT -5
The grown up little boys reference to the Hall of Shame was perfect!
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Oct 25, 2013 11:35:51 GMT -5
yeah I got to say it was too!!!!! way cool!!! eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 25, 2013 13:22:07 GMT -5
I have to say, it is a heartening thing to see all this praise for Linda's memoir that we've seen over the last two months. And yes the reviewer is right about the R&R Hall of "Shame"; they took their own sweet time at trying to be amateur proctologists, staring up their collective a**es.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 26, 2013 3:42:32 GMT -5
I have to say, it is a heartening thing to see all this praise for Linda's memoir that we've seen over the last two months. And yes the reviewer is right about the R&R Hall of "Shame"; they took their own sweet time at trying to be amateur proctologists, staring up their collective a**es. Well, I hate to play the devils advocate here, but Wenner and co have clearly created a winner with their HOF. There are discussions about the inductees, the nominees and about who should and shouldn't get in on virtually every internet forum about popular music. People care much more about it than about the grammys or any other awards shows. I watched an interview with Keith Richards on youtube the other day from 1989 and in it he said that he initially didn't give a damn about the HOF. He said that it was basically just another meaningless trophee to go with all the other statues and gold records. But after the Stones were inducted people everywhere walked up to him and said, "congratulations for being inducted into the HOF. So after awhile I figured that if it was that important to fans I was ok with it." So even though I think it's in essence pretty meaningless because I think the formula is flawed (mostly because of the "what exactly IS rock'n'roll" debate which could have been avoided by simply making it a popular music HOF) I nevertheless hope that Linda will one day be inducted. If so I hope it will be while she's still with us. Although Linda herself may not care, the knowledge that her fans care and their joy over the fact that she made it would no doubt made her feel loved. I want Linda to experience people walking up to her and saying "congrats." I still think that she only has an outside chance of getting in though. And I think it will only get more difficult as time goes by since many of the voters are other inductees. If Linda had been nominated earlier the vote from her contemporaries and other California rock/country rock artists would have weighed more heavily. But in recent years more and more post-punk/new wave, hiphop and heavy metal acts are getting in (and thus have a vote) and I think that they are less likely to vote for Linda than Joni, CSN&Y, the Eagles, Bonnie or Jackson Browne (to name just a few) would. But I could of course be entirely wrong about that. Let's hope so. |
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Oct 26, 2013 6:20:15 GMT -5
see I think she is a shoe in. I could be completely wrong and overestimate Linda's prestige amongst the current 600 voters. I just have heard so many industry people say it is a travesty that she is not in. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 26, 2013 11:21:30 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26:
Quite true, of course; they give us something to talk about, however much we may hate the way Linda and other favorites of ours have been treated by them (or maybe because of it?), because it is a permanent thing, a Lifetime Achievement Award.
Is Linda a shoo-in for this now, after having been eligible since at least 1994 and passed over until Parkinson's took her voice? I won't even begin to speculate. Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geste on Oct 26, 2013 12:03:25 GMT -5
This is the first time the voters have even had a chance to vote for Linda. If the small nominating committee does not select her, she goes nowhere. Maybe nominating committee member Dave Marsh missed a meeting and they were able to select Linda.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 26, 2013 12:53:52 GMT -5
Quite true, of course; they give us something to talk about, however much we may hate the way Linda and other favorites of ours have been treated by them (or maybe because of it?), because it is a permanent thing, a Lifetime Achievement Award. My main problem is that as I've said before, it's a (so-called) rock'n'roll HOF instead of a popular music HOF. In a popular music HOF the only things that would/should matter are "is he or she great and important enough to get in? " They wouldn't even have to take Elvis and Chuck Berry as their starting point. They could go all the way back to Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby and their contemporaries and start from there. They could include not just the great vocalists but also jazz instrumentalists like Ellington, Monk, Parker, Coltrane, etc. The great American songbook songwriters like the Gershwins, Berlin, Arlen, Porter, Kern, etc. But as it is they don't even do the rock'n'roll HOF very well. It's not awful - the majority of inductees are indeed very good. But apart from the fact that quite a few of them simply aren't rock and roll, it also leans in a very one sided way towards rock that is blues based while they leave the country and folk based rock out of it as much as possible. If I would say "Emmylou Harris" they would probably say, "nah, she's not rock, she's country rock." But that's nonsense. I can just as easily say that the Allman Brothers aren't rock (as defined by Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and so on) but blues rock. Fairport Convention or Richard & Linda Thompson, same story. GREAT rock (even Rolling Stone gave them rave reviews), but Folk Rock, and thus not the "right kind of rock." At the same time you have tons of soul, funk, pop and introspective singer/songwriters in there who are great, but they are a lot further removed from rock than some of the country and folk rockers that don't get in there because "they are not rock and roll enough." A quite absurd situation imo. But even artists that are important and "rock and roll enough" as they themselves would define it are overlooked sometimes. How come that they haven't yet inducted Lou Reed for example is a mystery to me. And Linda is someone who should get in no matter what standard they apply. If it's on commercial success alone (which I don't approve of) she should get in. If it's defined by critical approval, she should get in (she has her detractors, but who hasn't? Most critics like her). If it's the rock and roll factor - again, she should get in because she's done more rock and roll than lots of others who have been in there for ages. If it's influence, she should get in because many others that came after her claim to have been influenced by her. Besides, without her we wouldn't have had the Eagles and songwriters like Warren Zevon and Karla Bonoff wouldn't have survived without her. The McGarrigle sisters would have been a lot less well known if there was no LR. THAT's influence! It's not influence in the sense that it changed the course of musical history, but it's nonetheless real influence. |
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Oct 26, 2013 13:26:51 GMT -5
I think some of her influence has changed music/rock history. of course, she helped form or put into motion the eagles getting together. she is the voice especially female voice of the country rock movement/genre. she has introduced to the mainstream many musical artists and writers. she is given credit by Roy Orbison as regenerating his career. she and Phoebe convinced Billy Joel to put just the way you are on the stranger album. she is almost solely responsible for the surge and acceptance by the public of Mexican mariachi music as well as bringing back the great American songbook to the masses. she brought Aaron Neville and the Neville Brothers to the spotlight. I could go on and on. if that is not influence and a substantial legacy, I don't know what one is. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Oct 26, 2013 13:54:06 GMT -5
Plus, wasn't Linda the first solo female in rock to not only book but sell out stadium tours, paving the way for all others to follow?
|
|
|
|
Post by charlottex on Oct 26, 2013 13:56:46 GMT -5
An interesting take on the long overdue nomination - from a music blogger (sorry I lost the dudes name)
" I was far from the only one who suspected that the announcement of Linda Ronstadt’s Parkinson’s diagnosis might prompt the Hall to continue it’s macabre habit of noticing epic female vocalists once they have an incurable disease. As I mentioned before, at least Linda is getting off relatively easy since it’s only her voice that died, while Dusty Springfield and Donna Summer needed an actual date with the Grim Reaper in order to be deemed worthy. Then again, this is just a nomination. We’ll see how it works out in the end. For what it’s worth, Ronstadt, whose voice was the foundation stone upon which the seventies-era California Rock scene was effectively built, has been eligible since 1992. She should have been in at least fifteen years ago. A lot of people have suggested that if she ever made it out of the nominating committee she would sail to election. Now that this theory is finally being put to the test, I hope I haven’t been truly paranoid all these years in suspecting it wouldn’t be that simple. We shall see.
|
|
