|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 16, 2013 8:44:28 GMT -5
As I've said in the past, I've always believed that if you leave it up to the public it's worse than the critics. The fact that Kiss is going to win this thing only confirms that believe. All we as fans can do is vote for Linda and give her some sort of platform so that she's at least in the top 5-7.
I don't really understand how this thing works. The public gets a vote, but there is also still that 600 member panel of critics and inductees. So do the public and critics + inductees votes count for 50% each or what?
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 16, 2013 7:03:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 16, 2013 5:26:19 GMT -5
What a joke. But predictable I guess.
How many are inducted each year? Deep Purple, Nirvana, Yes, N.W.A. and perhaps Cat Stevens are likely to get the most votes imo. Kiss may get a lot of fan support, but they have never been critics favorites, and I have never really regarded them as anything more than a circus act myself. Linda has only an outside chance to make it imo, although she obviously should get in.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 16, 2013 5:10:13 GMT -5
A real shame that she too is out of the game now because of health problems--though, like with Linda, she is at a point in her life where she has nothing left to prove to anyone, especially not the critics. "Both Sides Now"; "Ladies Of The Canyon"; "River"; "Help Me"; "Big Yellow Taxi", etc., etc.--we will sure never see anything like that in today's music. The corporate cosmology of our time point-blank wouldn't allow another Joni Mitchell to escape from Indie-Land (IMHO). Probably not. The music industry has always been ruled by suits , and most of them not very honorable suits at that. But at least a lot of them were suits who loved music as well as dollars and euros. But I doubt that many of todays suits have ever even heard a Joni Mitchell album. And those that have probably think that it wouldn't make them enough money because you can't jump up and down to it. In reality though the fact is that if they would get behind a Joni or Linda-like talent they COULD make lots of money over an extended period of time. The potential record buying public isn't exclusively made up of 14 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 13, 2013 12:14:54 GMT -5
Another great who will probably never sing again because of health issues. A lenghty and interesting interview with Joni Mitchell....
|
|
|
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 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 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 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 jhar26 on Oct 8, 2013 14:40:40 GMT -5
I think she is trying more to emphasize that is was mostly due to the sound quality of arenas and that her catalog at the time was more rock (though none of her shows including the Mad Love tour was exclusively rock). she did mention recently "desperado" being very well-written by Henley and how she had a crush on smokey robinson and how good he is. she should embrace that she did rock which might get her in the hof though she doesn't care(based on reasons I previously mentioned) but that it did not DEFINE her. so when she says it doesn't define her, she should qualify it as such. I think to some degree she is doing that more. eddiejinnj Regarding "Desperado," she said she didn't do a good job of singing the song, that the Eagles who did it originally did it better, although Don Henley thought Linda did the song far better than what they ever did with the song. I like both versions but Linda's version gets more of a nod from me. As for Linda being a singer who sang rock and rock and that genre not defining her, I have to wonder does the same rule apply to all the other genres she has sung in? Given all the genres she has sung in, I have to say rock didn't define her, but I'd also have to say neither did the big band or Mexican or country recordings. She was adept with all of them and when she did songs in whatever genre, she owned the genre and should embrace all of the genres she has sung in as she has nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to apologize for. I think it's her versatility that defines her. If it's any one thing in particular it's probably the "Americana"//country rock stuff. She would probably like it to be the traditional pop/jazz standards material, but she didn't do enough of that. After the Nelson Riddle trilogy it took until "Hummin' to Myself" until she got back to that genre wheras she has done the country rock/Americana/roots music thing her entire career.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 7, 2013 1:58:51 GMT -5
^^^ Well, I once read an interview with Captain Beefheart who was I suppose a rock artist himself, albeit an avant-garde rock artist, but he said that the entire contemporary pop and rock rock genre is basically just an insult to women. That's no doubt an exaggeration, but considering how men look upon their female colleagues and how women are portrayed (and allow themselves to be portrayed) in videos and such there's too much to it to simply brush it aside as nonsense I think. Even the "equality for all" attitude that on the surface prevailed in the 60's and 70's had something a bit hypocritical about it. Most of that was rather "equality for half" - the male half. Women just needed to be available and keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 4, 2013 23:17:04 GMT -5
I’d never been around that kind of heavy drinking and seeing someone like Jim Morrison – who had such a personality – change when he drank was very frightening to me. It was scary to witness when someone seems one way and then they turn into someone else. I was very young and it frightened me.I am glad she finally explained this as it makes a lot of sense. If you have ever had friends or family who were alcoholic you know what she is talking about. After one drink not only can their personality change but their face changes, the brow may thicken or darken, the eyes become deepset and you have a new person to deal with. I know that oh so well! Imagine this as one of your parents. A very revealing interview indeed. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? There is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk, and Jim Morrison is a classic example of such behaviour. So yea, Linda had every right to be fearful of that cat because who knew what he would have done in that state. Glad she was able to decipher that right away.As a result of reading many such stories about the guy over the years I've never really liked Morrison as a person. I do however disagree with Linda when she says that the doors would have been even better with a different singer. Jim Morrison was just about the best possible vocalist for the Doors. But GREAT interview. It's just a pity that she always has to be her own most eager critic however. Who needs Jan Wenner when she herself says that her vocals on hits like "Different Drum", "Long Long Time", "Desperado" or "You're no Good" weren't really that good or that it took her until "Pirates" before she learned how to sing. That basically means that on all those 70's albums she didn't know what she was doing. Her modesty is part of her charm, but really Linda, take it from us: You were good!!!
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 4, 2013 22:55:06 GMT -5
^^^ I've always liked MJ - weird behavior included. He had his issues, but I think he was basically a good guy and a great talent. In fact I like eccentrics as a rule. It's just a pity that in his case (or Elvis' for that matter) it turned into self-destructive behavior. But we can say the same thing about Billie, Janis, Jim, Jimi, Amy, Marilyn and countless others I'm afraid. Still, I'll always be grateful for the magic they brought into our lifes.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 4, 2013 15:01:32 GMT -5
But, Jackson may have felt intense pressure from his family since apart from Janet, if they didn't have Michael's fortune to look forward to, all they had to look forward to were "Jackson 5" royalties, and I don't think there was much there, as far as residual royalties were concerned. The J5 albums weren't widely available, just the usual compilation albums with the same group of songs, and that probably had the same amount of sales. I'm not so sure that he felt any pressure from his family. Most of the time they couldn't even get in contact with him and whenever one of them would attempt to visit him he more often than not let him/her standing at the gate and refused to let him/her in. If he had felt any pressure to which he would have been inclined to give in he could have done a Jacksons tour with his brothers or made another album with them. But he didn't, so I don't think that he felt that he owed them anything.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 4, 2013 14:40:39 GMT -5
One of the more peculiar aspects in the music business, I've always felt, is that the more successful an artist is, the more successful he/she has to continue to be. It seemed to me that this is what happened to Jackson after Thriller, which sold something on the order of 37 million copies; and for the rest of his life, he felt a lot of pressure to make an album that was just as good as (if indeed not better than) that one, which any sane person would know is simply not that easy to do (just ask Don Henley and Glenn Frey after Hotel California sold a "mere" fifteen million). And you also have to wonder if a lot of the pressure Jackson felt wasn't so much from the record label as it was from his own family, since neither of them on their own had any kind of success that remotely approached his solo work, or that of the Jackson Five as a group. "Thriller" is a good album, but personally I think that "Off the Wall" and "Bad" are of the same level. Even parts of his later albums and some of the songs with his brothers are just as good in my opinion. I think it's a combination of factors that send "Thriller" through the roof. His introduction of the moonwalk at Motown 25 which caused a big sensation. In fact, his entire segment on that show (including the Jackson5 medley with his brothers) was peak MJ. The fact that the album coincided with the rise of MTV. He took the most advantage of any artist in history of that new medium. His videos were well directed big productions that looked sensational at the time, and HE WAS a great dancer. Even (or perhaps especially) todays videos look amateurish in comparison. But you can't compete with a success like that, no matter what you do from then on. Saleswise Carole King couldn't top "Tapestry", Pink Floyd couldn't top "Dark Side of the Moon", Fleetwood Mac couldn't top "Rumours", the Eagles couldn't top "Hotel California", Springsteen couldn't top "Born in the USA" and Prince couldn't top "Purple Rain." But the difference with MJ is that none of them even attempted to top their respective mega-sellers. In fact some of them released as a follow-up an album that was totally unlike their biggest hit album as a way of showing that it was artistic gratification that they had in mind. To Michael Jackson's mind however commercial success and artistic success were the same thing which is why he continued to compete with "Thriller." Both "Bad" and "Dangerous" were 20-25 million units selling albums with countless hits on them. If it hadn't been for "Thriller" both of those albums would have been regarded as two of the most successfull albums ever, which they were of course. Even the post first pedophilia case "History" which is now sometimes regarded as a (commercial) flop was in fact a big album by anyone else's standards. And while the four million copies sold of "Invincible" was disappointing for a MJ album, it's still a lot for what must have been the worst album of his career (leaving aside perhaps some of the things he did as a kid). MJ didn't mind his weird image in the beginning. In fact, he told his inner circle that he wanted his life to be the greatest show on earth. He didn't mind being portrayed as an eccentric and concidered it part of the mythology that goes with stardom, especially pop and rock stardom. So if anything, he actually encouraged all that. It's only when it started to tuns against him and he longer was portrayed as the strange, but when all is said and done lovable and harmless eccentric but instead as an almost insane and ultimately dangerous child molester that he objected to all that. Perhaps the media treated him unfairly in his later years especially. I wasn't there, so I don't know if he was guilty of what he's been accused of or not. But even if he was innocent, he should have known that the media can turn against you at any time. He was like dr Frankenstein in that he was a genius for creating the monster, but he was also extremely naive in thinking that he could forever control what he had created.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 3, 2013 2:53:28 GMT -5
Given that Conrad Murray was Jackson's physician long before AEG ever came into the picture, it boggles the mind to believe that the Jackson clan was interested in anything other than extorting money that they otherwise might have been able to extort from MJ as a possible result on the This Is It tour. Apart from MJ's two kids, I can't find one morally redeeming thing about that d***ed family whatsoever, especially not MJ's mother, or that pimp of a father that Joe Jackson is. They are, in my book, as bad as the Kardashians...and that's as bad as it gets (IMHO). The Jackson family makes for "the best" soap opera in history. They make the Ewings and that lot from Dynasty seem quite normal in comparison. If MJ's kids come out of growing up in that family anything close to normal it will be a miracle imo. Paris already attempted suicide, and that for a girl who for the rest of her life can have or do anything she wants just because of who she is. That tells us something about the environment she has to grow up in. That family (possibly except for Janet who has enough money of her own) will do anything to continue making money from MJ's popularity. Suing AEG isn't even the worst of it imo. That is, I knew they wouldn't win, but I sorta understand them having a go. But it's hard not to burst out laughing whenever one sees a teary eyed Jermaine on the telly when it's pretty obvious that he and MJ didn't get along that well when mr. Bad was still alive. Latoya for whom I've always had sorta a soft spot because she's (seemingly) so huggable is desperate for the sort of fame that her non-existent talent can't provide for her (even Britney is a genius compared to her), so she knows that she's only famous by association to MJ and you can see the dollar signs in her eyes whenever she opens her mouth. Than there were the rumours awhile back of the brothers going on tour with a hollograph of MJ. There's the books from various family members where they no doubt try to rewrite history to fit their own agenda. And worst of all, there was that MJ album of a few years ago where the vocals were not even by MJ himself, or so it was said by many a MJ "specialist" anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 1, 2013 10:37:34 GMT -5
seattletimes.com/html/books/2021897623_ronstadtsimpledreamsxml.htmlThere was a nice up date on Seattle on the Linda FB page under photos. DId anyone here attend? Our gal looked great. Would luv for someone in Portland(tmrw) or Tempe, AZ to ask about opening some vaults and releasing some unheard gems! Now is the time for a live release or something , anything would be appreciated. Do you cats think there will be some "new" releases? I would be interested in cleaned up official dvd's from concerts that have been available for years (or decades) on bootlegs and semi-bootlegs. I would also like a compilation of guest appearances on other people's albums and rarities.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 30, 2013 10:22:49 GMT -5
I do kind of wonder, though, who it was at Elektra/Asylum who told her she had to attend that RRHOF function if she ever wanted to be inducted. How about a name? On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. If she had to attend not to jeapordize her chances of being inducted herself it means that the HOF is not legitimate in which case it's irrelevant if she's in or not. All those award shows are bogus to varrying degrees anyway. Like a few years ago I heard a Belgian film maker complain that although his film was nominated for an Oscar he probably wouldn't win because he hadn't done enough "campaigning." Campaigning? What campaigning? No campaigning should be necessary if the're on the level. The only thing that it should be about is, "was this the best movie (or whatever the category is about) of the past year? Same for the grammys - probably even more so in fact. Does anyone REALLY believe that for example "The Bodyguard" was the best album of the year for whichever year it was that it won? Or did they just vote for it because it sold a lot of records? Do Toni Bennett and BB King REALLY make respectively the best traditional pop and blues albums each year or are they just the only artists on the ballot who's names voters recognize? And so on, and so on. There must be hundreds of examples like these. Therefore I can take nothing of it seriously. I think "nice" when my favres win something, but I merely shrug my shoulders when they don't.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 28, 2013 17:34:32 GMT -5
what a great interview.. I had to use Internet Explorer as Chrome would not play it... it covered all the bases, including some I had not seen before.. what a class act Tavis and Linda are... And as some said, I think part 2 was even better than part 1. Let's face it, the lady is a jewel. She's so intelligent and well spoken that I could listen to her talking 24/7. I also think that she's far too modest about her own talent and achievements, but at the same time that only makes her even more adorable.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 28, 2013 17:24:38 GMT -5
It is to me much to do about nothing. There are so many awards these days it devalues them to me. Rolling Stones opinion isn't any more valuable than anyone else's. And the RRHOF isn't much more than their staff voicing opinions. And I think after the obvious inductees were brought in they became more and more ridiculous. Like when they began re-awarding people. Yes, the Beatles should be in any such "Hall" but then to go on and give additional awards of their solo careers or whatever was ridiculous. Then it turned into "who wasn't" in it with the list growing every year....and then I thought to myself...well hell just put everyone in there who ever made a record for God's sake. As a fan, I don't need Jan Wenner dictating to me what to like and what not to. I would love Linda's music whether she sold a billion records or none....it ultimately matters what I like. And she doesn't need it either. If Jan Wenner and the other clowns at Rolling Stone wrote a book and appeared at stores to talk about them and sign them would they gather crowds like she did over the last month? What beautiful music did any of them make? Other than that I have no strong feelings on the subject... Rich I think the RRHOF was pretty much perfect early on. Not that everyone who should have been in there was in there, but no problem, they could always have added them later on. But in more recent times I found their choices more questionable, and while it's easy to correct a mistake of overlooking someone by putting them in later, they can't correct the mistake of putting folks in there that shouldn't be in there - once the're in the're in for good. And that for me has devalued the whole thing. A HOF is as strong as it's weakest link for me, and as Joni Mitchell once said, "it's become meaningless because they put everyone in there." And Joni didn't literally mean everyone of course, but rather that their choices are somewhat random and defy logic. And I think it will only get worse in the future because since the, say, mid-1980's much of the most interesting music is no longer part of the mainstream. In the 60's and 70's much of what was hip was also popular. But in the future Wenner or whoever is in charge at that point is going to have to make some choices: Do they induct, say, PJ Harvey who IS rock'n'roll and "critically acclaimed", but probably not a household name to the public at large. Or do they induct Britney Spears which will be good for the ratings of their ceremony and concert, but will make them the laughing stock of more "serious" (sounds pretentious, but you know what I mean) music lovers.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 27, 2013 15:49:24 GMT -5
Winter Light, by all reasonable reckoning, should at least have been a far bigger success than it was, but I think a number of things unfortunately militated against that. For one, it had been four years since Cry Like A Rainstorm; and in that time, she had released two more Spanish-language albums, both of which won Grammys but basically deflated in terms of record sales. For another, she just wasn't (in the eyes of a very shallow-thinking public) the same glamor girl she used to be any longer; and to that extent, the image of the artist had swallowed up everything else of substance, as it still largely does today. And I also think she made the mistake of doing only a bare minimum of promotion for it herself (touring mostly with the Mariachis at that time). I don't think Elektra can take all of the blame for the album's lack of sales, if it should shoulder any blame at all. MTV changed everything. Of course the change didn't happen overnight, although it came about pretty quickly and even though MTV itself hardly shows any music videos anymore itself. But MTV more than anything else is responsible for the huge shift from substance to image and the kiddiefication and pornofication of popular music. Starting from, say, 1983 or 1984 things were never the same again and popular music has never really recovered from this. A middle aged woman who's gaining weight is automatically at a disadvantage in a market place where someone like Janet Jackson shows of her boobs everytime she has a new album, Miley appears in soft-porn videos for her singles and Madonna and Britney reduce their concerts play back shows to exercises in exibitionism. For the "kids" or rather for the suits that run the music industry it doesn't matter that Linda, Emmy, Bonnie Raitt, Sheryl Crow, Alison Krauss, Patti Smith, Bjork, PJ Harvey and many others are better artists because they think that Shakira has more potential to sell records because she's a better belly dancer.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 27, 2013 13:02:15 GMT -5
GREAT interview, both parts. Linda is such a smart, funny and warm person. I feel so sorry for her that she has to go through this. And Tavis is so right about those incredible eyes. She's just a beautiful woman, both on the inside and the outside.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 26, 2013 16:07:27 GMT -5
"Upstate New York. I hear there's a lot of incest here." Linda is the greatest.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 22, 2013 14:03:14 GMT -5
Quote by DCdude re. RRHOF: It seems to me that Linda suspected her management was being blackmailed by someone in the RRHOF hierachy. In that case, I think maybe she did the right thing and told them (probably Jann Wenner in particular) to go f**k themselves. The fact alone that her manager believed that she would never get inducted if she didn't appear at this event tells us all we need to know really. It's supposed to be about artistic merrit, not about who's best at kissing Wenner's ass.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 22, 2013 10:25:09 GMT -5
Because that was the time when Linda started to struggle with her health and gained some weight. She no longer looked like the girl on the cover of the Hasten Down the Wind album. Pretty shallow, but that's how people are. That is all true.. there is also the notorious stalker who was plaguing Linda at the time, and Linda was doubtless concerned about the safety of her and her children. Then there is also the fact that the record company bungled the promotion.. Heartbeats Accelerating, Anyone who had a Heart, Oh No, not my baby , and I Just don't Know what to do with myself all could have been pop hits if properly handled. . True. I thought that IJDKWTDWM especially had #1 hit written all over it. And this coming from a big Dusty Springfield fan who thought that no other version would ever be anywhere near as good.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 22, 2013 4:12:39 GMT -5
Winter Light ..... I still do not understand how this sold so badly, it's it an outstanding album. Because that was the time when Linda started to struggle with her health and gained some weight. She no longer looked like the girl on the cover of the Hasten Down the Wind album. Pretty shallow, but that's how people are.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 21, 2013 17:50:57 GMT -5
What bugs me about a lot of fans of Fleetwood Mac, and of Stevie in particular I guess, is that they all like to make hay on the Internet about Linda's drug problems, which were quite minuscule in comparison to many of her peers in the 70s, when Their Girl was addicted to the White Stuff for a decade. I do wish they'd f***ing shut up now! As Dianna already said, people have to find something wrong with everything all of the time. Many fans, I think, tend to be somewhat fanatical or a great deal fanatical about the artists they admire. I think it's kind of ridiculous for fans of one artist to be ripping another artist for doing drugs when their favorite likewise did the same. And that also applies to some of the performers. I remember Paul McCartney knocking Elvis over his drug use, but McCartney was himself no saint when it came to drug use and his criticisms smacked of the "pot calling the kettle black" hypocrisy. He had no room to talk, nor did any of the Beatle fans who posted on the internet knocking Elvis over his drug use but acting like the Beatles never touched the stuff. With Stevie, I'm not sure why she feels she has to blame her psychiatrist for not having a family or being married, or whatever else she feels she missed out on. That's really on her. If she let someone else make the decision for her, well, it's still on her because she allowed them to. I'm not sure that it even must be considered bashing her, or any other artist who they might accuse of drug use. Back in the 60's and 70's drugs were considered the cool thing to do. The suits didn't like it, it was anti-establishment, very bohemien like "real artists" were supposed to be - the ultimate manifestation of the rock'n'roll desperado ethos. Of course fans had a far too romantic idea about all of that, but even so - if Linda had been found death in a hotel room with a needle in her arm at the time of, say, "Simple Dreams" I'm sure she would have been inducted in the HOF ages ago. For Wenner and co it would have been proof that she was "the real thing." Sounds cynical, I know. But I also think that I'm correct.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 21, 2013 13:32:08 GMT -5
Quote by ronstadtfanaz: Very true, of course, which is what so many really good female singers in the country/roots-rock/Americana sector have learned from her. The danger of so many supposed "role models" these days, especially T-Swift, is that young girls are going to glom onto them because of their public antics, and ignore the fact that they are deficient in things that really matter (in Swift's case, an extreme deficiency in the voice). I don't think that many young artists in the country roots rock field see Taylor Swift as a role model, Erik. The're more likely to follow in the footsteps (or try) of the likes of Sheryl Crow, Alison Krauss, Mary-Chapin Carpenter or those type of women. Or Linda, Bonnie Raitt or Emmy of course.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 21, 2013 13:09:29 GMT -5
I live in Belgium and I often have the feeling that I'm the only Ronstadt fan in the country. She's never in the media at all over here. But about five or six years ago now I guess I was in for a surprise. Humo, which is one of the most popular and prestigious magazines over here (comparable with Newsweek or Life I guess) did a poll amongst it's readers about who their readers regard as the best male and female artists, bands and so on. Much to my surprise Linda was number three in the best female category surrounded by as suspected the likes of Madonna, Mariah, Whitney, Tina Turner and so on. So I guess she's more popular than I had expected. We just are a very quiet fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 20, 2013 17:33:37 GMT -5
Good review, Erik.
|
|