|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 6, 2013 14:25:03 GMT -5
christopherlongshowbizguru.blogspot.com/2013/11/vintage-vinyl-pt-5-linda-ronstadt-linda.htmlAn appreciation of the "Linda Ronstadt" album ,her third solo effort and a personal favorite of many. Linda is rockin' and raw. This album features the future Eagles. We all know it well but newcomers to Linda and those revisiting her catalog should take a listen. Her voice is so powerful and gorgeous - sometimes I think the world will only fully appreciate it when she is gone. To each his own but you can keep 'em all Aretha, Barbra, Janis - there is nothing as clear and pure as Linda's singing voice. It's with that album that Linda really got going in my opinion. Those Stone Poneys albums and the first two solo albums have leaving aside the odd track here and there never really done much for me, but the self-titled album is the real thing. I wouldn't want to be without Aretha or Janis though. For me they fully deserve their status as all time greats.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 5, 2013 12:53:27 GMT -5
Well, Hildegard von Bingen was a medieval composer, so maybe Linda's interest in her can be purely artistic. Some people argue that Linda must be religious because of that Christmas album she did, but that doesn't necessarily have to be so. Not everyone who ever sang Bach's music has to be a believer - some just love the music. I have a feeling that Linda isn't really convinced one way or the other. Or that she doesn't trust the church as an institution but has a sense of spirituallity or perhaps even believe for which no "middle man" (or church) is necessary because it's between her and this higher power or God or whatever you want to call it.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 29, 2013 3:33:41 GMT -5
Quote by rob: Especially when it's implied that Linda basically stole a lot of her hits from black artists. As I've said before, it's gratuitous reverse racism. Case Closed. Especially since those black songwriters no doubt made even more money from Linda's cover versions than Linda herself. Of course early blues, rock'n'roll and soul artists were exploited and didn't get a fair shot. But it's not so much white artists that were to blame for that but the attitude of the powers that were and whites in general at the time. But if it hadn't been for white rock bands like the Rolling Stones who popularized the music from Chuck Berry and the blues in general those early blues guys wouldn't have become the legends they are now but would have been long forgotten. White America didn't know about Muddy Waters, BB King, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Buddy Guy or Sonny boy Williamson until white British bands played their music and told whites that they were great. Elvis Presley also deserves some credit. Some fruitcakes may argue that he exploited black rock'n'roll, but as the great populariser of the genre he in fact opened a lot of doors for them. And he sang it like it was supposed to be sung, not like some watered down whiter than milk soulless music like Pat Boone. If Linda "stole" from Smokey Robinson than Otis Redding also stole from Mick and Keith with his cover of "Satisfaction" and Aretha "stole" from Paul Simon with her version of "Bridge over Troubled Water." But all that is nonsense of course. What qualifies as stealing is taking a song written by someone else and presenting it as one of your own creations. There's no doubt that some whites did indeed do that, but Linda definitely wasn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 28, 2013 14:09:30 GMT -5
^^^ That readers letter from PJA is so wide off the mark and so missinformed that it has to be seen to be believed. So many people on the internet who are convinced that they got it (whatever "it" may be) absolutely right when in fact they haven't got the faintest idea what the're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 27, 2013 14:33:32 GMT -5
Yesterday I was wondering why he hasn't yet been inducted into the HOF as a solo artist. I think it's safe to say that they will take care of this in 2014 now.
Anyway, RIP Mr Reed. Your contribution to music is much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 26, 2013 14:14:46 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. Although the actual ceremony happened after her death at least Dusty knew that she would be inducted.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 26, 2013 14:07:47 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 Yes, but I agree with all that. What I mean by changing the course of musical history is radical change, like adding a new chapter. Something like James Brown introducing funk or Charlie Parker be-bop. Something like that. But of course such things happen very rarely and are very far between. But the influence argument is often the least important argument in these things imo. Every artist who's had some degree of success is influential on his or her followers. But yes, if it hadn't been for Linda a lot of songwriters and genres wouldn't have been as popular as they are.
|
|
|
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 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 jhar26 on Oct 22, 2013 16:13:53 GMT -5
Her comment about wanting to create a synthesis of country and R&B immediately brought to mind Don't Cry Now, which I've always maintained was a country-soul album. What she does with the minor R&B hit "Everybody Loves a Winner" on that album is fantastic and is illustrative of this synthesis. I've never heard anyone refer to it like that and I've never thought about it in those terms myself either, but you've got a point.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 22, 2013 12:42:12 GMT -5
I have noticed a distinct lack of negativity regarding Linda in comments sections of various websites where the RRHoF nominees are open for discussion. Sites that would seem to roll out the red carpet for flamers, such as Vulture and The Onion's A.V. Club, are not only remarkably free of nasty comments, but are actually supportive of her induction. On Vulture, for example, several commenters have said that Linda definitely should be inducted. I'd say that Linda's media blitz in support of her book has more to do with this than the revelation of her Parkinson's diagnosis. She seems to have, however inadvertently, educated people on her career, her importance to rock music, and a new appreciation of her singular gift.Yep. And she has probably won a lot of them over by her modesty, her refusal to say negative things about other artists, her intelligence and her sense of humor. In short, they not only like the artist but have also come to appreciate her for the warm and down to earth person that she is. All of which should be irrelevant when it comes to the HOF, but it definitely makes people root for her. I don't think that there are many people out there who would begrudge her being inducted - not even among those who may support other artists.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 22, 2013 9:33:47 GMT -5
Quote by MD2: This is the big question, of course; and we've done plenty of speculating on it. Some of it may stem from those provocative pictures that Annie Liebowitz (probably on Wenner's orders) took of Linda for RS's December 1976 edition which, in Linda's mind, made her look like a sexpot. And some of it had to do with the fact that, after its first ten years of existence in San Francisco, Wenner moved his "organization" to New York City in 1977, and the attitude towards anything to do with the West Coast, particularly Linda and the Eagles, turned fiercely negative. The fact that Wenner is homosexual has, in my opinion, little if anything to do with the severe falling out they might have had; and I doubt they were ever really "friends" to begin with. But Linda certainly disapproved of the way Wenner and his magazine treated female artists that he put on the covers of Rolling Stone, giving them the appearance of sex objects; and I think she is right about this, even though she did approve the use of those pics that appeared in 1976 (they are nowhere close to the kiddie-porn pics that the magazine would start going for in the 1990s). Perhaps they aren't enemies but he just thinks that she's not HOF worthy (?). No artist no matter how great is liked by everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be personal. If he would be enemies with every artist who's not in the HOF he would have a lot of enemies. The Leibowitz pictures are ok as far as I'm concerned. They are perhaps a bit risky for that time, but Linda was a beautiful gal and the're not vulgar. There's a difference between sexy and vulgar.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 19:00:39 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: A lot of times, one must try to not go to The Usual Places for this kind of stuff. Really good "young" artists are becoming fewer and farther between, but then there are those "Eureka"-type moments when one of us finds an artist that we like--as Robert, myself, and cymru56 did with respect to Tift Merritt in 2002. Over the past couple of years, I have added Nashville singer/songwriter (and extremely unabashed Linda Ronstadt fan) Caitlin Rose to my own musical mix. So there's stuff out there well worth listening out for (IMHO). You just have to keep trying to find it. Sure, I regularly check out stuff that's supposed to be good. Sometimes it's nothing special - sometimes it really is good. But that's not how it should be. In an ideal world when something is good you shouldn't have to search for it, it should be presented to you on a silver platter. But as it is it's the junk that the're trying to force down your throath while the good stuff is often ignored.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 18:14:38 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26 re. Deep Purple: In fact, one of their albums was Concerto For Group And Orchestra, one of the first collaborations between a classical orchestra (in this case, the Royal Philharmonic under Sir Malcolm Arnold) and a rock band, which sold fairly well on both sides of the Atlantic after its release in late 1969 (in fact, they toured for that very album here in America with, among other things, an appearance at the Hollywood Bowl on August 25, 1970 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic conducted by Lawrence Foster). In general, I agree that their body of work, even at the sometimes ear-splitting level their volume reached, has more than enough to warrant them being inducted. Kiss, while I think they are great showmen and have had occasional moments of outright brilliance, are really only a standard heavy-metal outfit once you strip away the glam, the pyros, and the fake blood. And in a little touch of irony, guess who has been so vocal about keeping them out of Cleveland? That's right, folks, unabashed Springsteen homer and perennial Eagles/Linda hater Dave Marsh. If Kiss fans want to b**ch about, then they ought to try talking to us (IMHO). Well, I guess that in this case I'm with Dave Marsh then (sorry ). I wouldn't object if Kiss' make-up artists would be inducted though. lol
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 16:03:26 GMT -5
Quote by charlotte: To me, it's all about these "overage boys" arguing about whose band's guitarist is fancier with his licks, or who can produce the most headache (or deafness)-inducing volume in an arena...and yes, it is laughable in the extreme. And it's also not really what rock and roll is exclusively about. Deep Purple, especially the classic line-up of Deep Purple could play circles around Kiss any day, there's no doubt about that whatsoever. They should get in. In fact I'm surprised that they aren't in already. Sure they were loud, but they were really musical as well. Their organ player Jon Lord even became a much respected classical composer in his later years.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 14:57:16 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: I think it is more of a matter of Linda being still much too self-deprecating at times. The modesty has never been a problem. And as I've said before, although she is right that rock and roll doesn't define her completely, the fact that she has also done all of the myriad styles that led to its creation in the first place--i.e. C&W, R&B, blues, gospel, folk, jazz, pop--says that she still knows quite a lot about it. And she certainly did define a certain strain of it: the California country-rock movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. It's her diversity that defines her more than any genre in particular. But IF it has to be any one thing it's as you say that California country rock movement. She did a good job with her work on the standards, but the atists that define that genre will always be the greats of the 30's, 40's and 50's. But she deserves credit for reintroducing that wonderful music to a generation that perhaps would have ignored it if it wasn't for her efforts.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 14:48:03 GMT -5
Funny thing about Joni and Rickie Lee. I always thought those two would've been considered beatniks in the 50s if they had come along at that time. During the mid 60s, I recall seeing comments about rock artists being beatniks (especially the folkies, like Simon and Garfunkel, and the Mamas and the Papas) but never a mention of Joni being a beatnik. But, I guess by then, beatnik had become passe and hippie became the new term, although it was just as often used in a derogatory way. For the current crop, I don't think they have an identifier for them. Pretenders would be a good choice as they are fake, although I wouldn't want Chrissie's Pretenders to be labelled that. Well, among the current crop I like ladies like Sheryl Crow, Lucinda Williams, Alison Krauss and (for lack of a better word) even "modernists" like Bjork and PJ Harvey. But they are not so young anymore either. Good point about beatniks vs hippies, but it all has to do as you say with the time when they made their move. In the late 70's Costello was often referred to as punk or new wave, but to me he was just a singer/songwriter who happened to release his debut album in 1977. Talking Heads and Blondie were also considered part of that movement, but you couldn't get two more different sounding bands while they at the same time both sounded as much unlike the Sex Pistols or the Ramones as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 14:28:35 GMT -5
But it's even more disrespectful to give her the raspberries behind her back! Not to mention the tossing of rotten tomatoes and even more rotten eggs. Well, to tell you the truth I'm just making conversation, but I don't really mind her or Miley for that matter. I listen to lots of music but I never listen to the radio and I don't seek them out on spotify or youtube or any of that stuff. So I rarely see or hear them and so I'm not bothered by them either because for me the're just not there in terms of what I listen to. The only problem is that they take airtime away from more deserving artists. But having said that, as far as I'm concerned popular music has been going downhill fast since the rise of MTV and at this point it's pretty much a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 14:10:00 GMT -5
Great interview, thanks. But she's far too modest. But that aspect of her has it's charms in a world where every artist who has ever come up with a decent tune is immediately declared a genius.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 13:49:29 GMT -5
I vote early and often myself, as the old saying goes. But we must remember too that we are up against the crowds that vote for Kiss, Nirvana, NWA, etc., etc. Besides, the popular vote will only effect the actual final ballot marginally (at .16%). With the Kiss and Nirvana crowd, it's not surprising they are stuffing the ballot box in favor of their favorite acts. Based on what I've seen, I don't expect Linda to win the fan vote. The fans of Kiss and Nirvana are a pretty rabid bunch and one of those acts are likely to be the fan choice. I don't where Kiss stands with the majority of the hall's voters - given they've never been a favorite of the critics, I'll be surprised if they make the cut. I don't think the fan vote would help them at all. On the other hand, it would be very surprising if Nirvana didn't make the cut and would be interesting to see the response of their fans. I think they would all come unglued over Nirvana not being inducted, especially if Linda and other 60s-70s acts were inducted. (By the way, when was Nirvana's first record released? I keep thinking of them as being from the 90s and for them to be eligible, their first record would had to have come out in 1988, but I don't remember hearing of them until the early 90s. I still listened to radio a lot in the 80s and early 90s but thought the grunge was a 90s thing.) Nirvana's first album "Bleach" was released in '89, but they already had a few singles in '88 I believe. Acts like Kiss, Yes and Deep Purple were always going to do well in a poll like this because they can count on the support of the entire heavy metal and/or classic rock community. And those that like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam or Alice in Chains are likely to support a fellow grunge act like Nirvana. I think there's less of crossover voting coming for Linda from fanbases of the Eagles, Emmy, Bonnie and such. Or perhaps the're just less organized or not as active on internet forums - or most likely of all, they just care less about the whole concept of a HOF.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 13:33:02 GMT -5
Quote by fabtastique: Yes, and somehow, "vocal prowess", when discussed in the context of Ms. Spears, is the ultimate contradiction in terms (IMHO). Keep in mind that you're talking about the queen of pop, Erik. A little respect please. lol Seriously - we're lucky that we ain't 16 now, We had Linda, Joni, Aretha, Dusty, Janis, Patti, Emmy, Carly, Carole, Rickie Lee, Bonnie, Tina, Kate & Ana, Nicolette, Maria, Grace, Kate, Pat, Stevie and many others. The previous generation had Ella, Billie, Sarah, Peggy, June, Dinah, Rosemary, Jo, Doris, Nina, Judy, Ethel, etc. Today they have Britney, Madonna, Miley, Janet and others about whom we don't really know what they sound like for real, but as a compensation we at least know what they look like when they are out of their clothes.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 13:17:56 GMT -5
I suppose, Robert. That may be the only answer to my WTF? However, I don't find this sort of musical role playing that inherently funny. Any more than I would if Latifah donned overalls and chewed the corn pone country style. But humor, like horror, is an individual thing. This could have been funny if DP would have turned out to be a great rapper with a lot of attitude and if the lyrics had been hilarious. The sight of a country singer trying to rap isn't funny in itself if there's not that little bit extra.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 21, 2013 10:48:48 GMT -5
Well, I'm not much of a rap fan but even I can hear that DP isn't much of a rapper.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 20, 2013 14:15:37 GMT -5
Yes, Sheryl sang backup vocals for MJ on his Bad tour. But what I mean is that she sang vocals for female pop stars on their records instead of them.
I have no idea who's doing a Milli Vanilli, but nothing would surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 20, 2013 3:20:52 GMT -5
Well, she's a very pretty girl and she's willing to prostitute herself whenever the suits ask her. That's all it takes. Top 40 pop is all about the producers these days and they will take care of the rest. Besides, I remember reading a Sheryl Crow interview from a long time ago where she said that she started her career by singing vocals for pop stars, some of them very famous pop stars. She refused to mention any names but she said the public would be surprised to find out how many of these girls actually don't sing on the records with their names on it.
But it's not just Britney of course. I saw a Janet Jackson concert a few years ago. Terrific show, I have to admit. But it was all playback and thus fake. The last two tours from Michael Jackson were also playback for the most part, although for the sake of fairness I have to add that he did everything live on the Victory and Bad tours when he was at the peak of his powers. Madonna is about 50/50 I guess and in the parts that she does live she's out of tune. I really can't stand that sort of thing. It shows a lack of respect for your audience. I have more respect for someone who sounds like Yoko Ono but at least sings live for real. It will make for a bad concert, but at least it's a concert. A playback show is just cheating.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 19, 2013 4:00:19 GMT -5
I can see the Paul Butterfield Blues Band getting in although I don't know how much of an influence they were on other artists. They, like Linda, met the time qualification some two decades ago but I don't know if there was the same resistance to them that there was on Linda. I remember hearing of them but never hearing them on the radio or seeing them on tv. Ironically, they were the first band to record "Mary, Mary," which like "Different Drum," had been written by Mike Nesmith of the Monkees. Their version was released before the Monkees's version was released. And when the Monkees version was released, certain fans of the PBBB were horrified to learn the song had been written by one of the Monkees. They apparently had never been bothered enough to read the inner sleeve/back cover/label writing credits when it was featured on a PBBB album. But, when it comess to influence, I question how much of an influence an artist or band can be if they operate too far below the public radar? Even today, I still think the PBBB was more a favorite of the critics than a favorite of the public's. I have never heard one of their songs - not even their version of "Mary, Mary," - and can't think of anyone around my parts who could claim they had heard of them. The reverse is true for KISS, who were always more of a fan favorite than a favorite of the critics. But, I think their facial make-up could work against them because critics didn't get that they, like Alice Cooper and David Bowie before them and later, Marilyn Manson, was as much theater as it was music. They see the wearing of the make up as a gimmick. Nirvana, I think, is a lead-pipe cinch, more for Kurt Cobain than for their music, though they could probably point to many other acts being influenced by Nirvana in some way. Chic is a definite contender but why do I think the N.W.A. will somehow be voted in? Besides Linda, I'd like to see Deep Purple make the nod because they were among the earliest architects of heavy metal, and they were still a million times better than the hundreds of heavy metal outfits that followed in their wake and who offered more flash and dazzle than substance - guitarists who thought because they played louder than anyone else, that made them a great guitarist. East-West is the classic (or semi-classic) PBBB album. It's a good album and the title track is excellent if you like long guitar jams (I do). I don't think that they have much chance to get in the HOF though because there are many black blues artists that were more influential, and acts like the PBBB were the ones to be influenced by them in fact. But the importance of being influential is often overrated in these discussions imo. EVERYONE influences everyone else up to a degree but only a handfull of artists is truly influential in that they changed the course of musical history and/or introduced new styles or trends. In my opinion the PBBB were good, but the're not HOF material. Agreed about Deep Purple - they should get in. Together with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath they are sorta the holy trinity of hard rock and heavy metal (although to just call LZ a hard rock or heavy metal band probably doesn't do them justice). But Deep Purple's iconic guitar player Ritchie Blackmore has already said that he won't attend if they would be inducted. I don't have a major problem with Chic although I think that there are superior acts in the soul/funk field that are (even) more deserving. I know that Chic is not really soul or funk but disco, but disco is just watered down soul and funk anyway, although Chic was ok and very stylish and all that. It would make more sense to me to induct Rodgers and Edwards on the basis of their work with Chic, Sister Sledge, Diana Ross and others rather than to induct just one of their projects. I like Nirvana's "Nevermind" album ok, although I have to admit that in the all the years that it's been in my collection I've listened to it perhaps two or three times. Nevertheless, they were important and should get in. I've never been a big fan of grunge myself, but if forced to choose I'd say that "Dirt" from Alice in Chains is my favorite grunge album. Kiss are just four cartoon characters for me. I don't have much interest in the HOF even as it is now, but if they would get in whatever interest I may stll have will be gone completely. Finally, I must say that if it was up to me to put forward a list of nominees that my choices would for the most part be very different. Having said that, there's no way to do it perfectly in the eyes of everybody - or even just the majority. Every fan of no matter what act that hasn't yet been inducted or even nominated will find something to complain about. So there's really no way of getting it right unless EVERYONE gets inducted, but then it would be a completely pointless exercise.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 18, 2013 6:26:55 GMT -5
Great! Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 17, 2013 12:39:43 GMT -5
So, if we have so little influence over the final results, why does the HOF bother letting fans vote at all? Because it gets people discussing who they should vote for in the process making the HOF more popular. And it creates the illusion that the public has a say in the outcome, which of course they don't.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 16, 2013 18:31:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 16, 2013 16:50:37 GMT -5
On the about the inductees page on Linda -- the write-up is very complementary, as well it should be now that she's a nominee. However, the three selected songs they accompany the write-up with, well, two of them leave a lot to be desired if you're trying to convince people of her R&R credentials. YNG is appropriate, but the other two are Somewhere Out There and Different Drum. OK, Different Drum isn't that bad of a choice, but not what you'd describe as rockin'. If you are going to pick three, why not YNG, Tumbling Dice and How Do I Make You? Anything but Somewhere Out There for crying out loud! Agreed about Somewhere out There. To include that one is like trying to come up with an argument of why people should NOT vote for her. They might just have well have included Poor Wandering One. lol
|
|