|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 20, 2013 16:44:17 GMT -5
Quote by richbaileyswifesue: She does have a lot of patience in doing morning shows like this, I have to say. She's right about these singing competition shows on TV, which do indeed unnecessarily pit singers against one another and seem to bring out the worst in some of them (like wanna-be Mariah Careys, etc., etc.). And about being "legendary"...well, I don't think Linda's ever seen herself that way (that's up to her peers to decide), which is a good thing in a pop music world that somehow thinks that Miley Cyrus is a "legend" for "Twerking." Go figure. I guess that the worst thing about those singing competition shows is that as you suggest they have some sort of shallow ideal that they aim for. The plastic barbie doll who sings twenty different notes for every syllable like Mariah or the one who sings power ballads as loud as possible from start to finish like Celine and strikes a pose like Freddy Mercury as though she's just conducted the definitive version of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Or the young guy who manages to do a pirouette without ending up on the lap of someone in the first row and who's on the basis of that proclaimed to be the new Michael Jackson. We have these sort of 'talent shows' over here in this part of the world as well, and I don't think that what I have just described differs that much from what you guys get over in the US. Problem is that real talent only very rarely (if ever) comes out of these shows because real talent is different and original, and those things aren't allowed on those type of shows who go for the status quo no matter what. Miley Cyrus is entirely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Any random girl who's willing to make a spectacle of herself can do what she does.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 17, 2013 17:38:32 GMT -5
I think it's high time for another one of those greatest hits/best of albums. I know that there are already plenty of those, but a new one would sell pretty well I think with all the talk about the book and parkinsons. I know that probably sounds a bit in bad taste, but it's all about taking opportunities when they present themselves. Once people have a hits album some of them are likely to explore her work further. But the time to do this is NOW because the attention she's currently getting won't last forever.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 17, 2013 17:24:03 GMT -5
Great interview. You would never guess that she was already struggling with the early stages of parkinsons on those last two albums.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 16, 2013 12:48:35 GMT -5
The first photo with the big flower in her hair (1 of 3) she is such a beautiful lady!!!! The most beautiful woman ever for me. I still remember when in the mid-70's when I was only 15 or 16 years old I heard her for the first time on the radio. They played "You're no Good" and I became a fan in those three minutes. So I immediately went to the record shop and told the salesperson, "give me the album of that Linda Something with You're no Good" on it." Unfortunately they didn't have "Heart Like a Wheel" and so I had to settle for "Prisoner in Disguise" (also a goodie as it turned out). but when I looked at the back of the cover I was like, "WOW!!! You've got to be kidding! She can sing like this and she looks like THAT as well??? And I've never really changed my opinion that Linda was the most beautiful woman in, well, in whatever you care to mention. Those eyes alone were enough to make me melt.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 16, 2013 12:34:57 GMT -5
Well, if Linda had said that this would be a standard autobiography as in "this is the story of my life" mr.Fisher would have a point. But I think that Linda had made it clear that she hadn't the intention to write such a book. It's a musical memoir.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 14, 2013 15:09:46 GMT -5
youtube has the easiest link to the interview. Linda's immigration remark was not edited out of context. She meant what she said and she said what she meant. Thank g-d she doesn't pander to some false standard of what she should "stick to". Xenophobic, anti-immigration rants are all over the tube. I am glad Linda does not back-down --she has such a beautiful mind. Absolutely. She's a beautiful soul, not just a great singer. And she has a very quick mind and can effortlessly translate her thoughts into words without needing much time to think about it. She does as usual very well in this interview, but it's much too short to discuss anything with any real depth. Still, I'm happy to see that all things considered Linda seems to be doing reasonably well. Let's hope it will stay that way for a very, very long time.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 12, 2013 11:52:57 GMT -5
Recalls the story from the Chicago Tribune many years back that falsely stated that Linda had married a doctor. A pity that she didn't. He probably would have recognized the symptoms of her Parkinsons much sooner.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 8, 2013 19:26:31 GMT -5
Quote by charlotte re. Linda's reaction to Taylor Swift: It should be said that Linda has felt the way she does about the state of contemporary country music for at least a decade now, and understandably so. In an interview she gave for Country Music Magazine (now defunct) back in February 2003, she was even more blunt, calling it "mall crawler music." I'm afraid a lot of it is awful, at least in terms of what makes it on the radio. As for Linda being too kind to T-Swift, I think it may have to do, at least in part, with not wanting to sound so intolerant of a generation at least three eras removed from hers in general, and its main singer (or what passes for one, anyway) in particular. She knows also, of course, that the favorite artists she mentions are all in the Americana genre, well removed from the Taylor Swifts and Carrie Underwoods of the Nashville mainstream. I do wish (and hope) she would be a little more open to other things in the pop music realm, because they are out there. I'd make an effort to turn her on (if Emmy hasn't done so yet) to Tift Merritt, and also Caitlin Rose. But that's just kiddie music, ain't it? Bashing those type of artists is like bashing Sesame Street. But I think that if Linda REALLY thought Swift was awful that she would say so (if asked).
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 7, 2013 21:05:20 GMT -5
Quote by jha26: Well, we can't say that Linda doesn't have fans among fans of other singers, including the fans of arguably the greatest female singer to have come from Britain during the rock era. Their comments are definitely warmly appreciated. Fans of a great singer automatically recognize another great singer when they hear one, Erik.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 7, 2013 12:12:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 6, 2013 3:39:57 GMT -5
I believe in second chances for just about everyone. Same here. Or even third, fourth, fifth or however many chances it takes to get themselves sorted out. It's different when it comes to doing harm to other of course, but when it comes to self-destructive behavior all you can hope for is that they will become less self-destructive. So I for one am happy that for example Britney Spears survived that long episode where it seemed like every day could be her last. Not that I like her the least bit as an artist, but some things are more important than music (although I really can't think of any ).
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 5, 2013 13:03:04 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26 re. Rolling Stone: True, though not during this latest issue--they just have Dylan (LOL). As pointed out, though, the RS reviewers were good to Linda for Winter Light, Feels Like Home, and We Ran during the 1990s. However, their review of Canciones De Mi Padre is still, in my opinion, the lowest blow they ever gave to Linda of anything she ever did. Yes, well, I didn't say that I thought it was/is a bad magazine. When I had a subscription it was good - interesting articles, good interviews, etc. And yes, I know that they have given Linda some good reviews. I wouldn't expect them to be positive all of the time. I probably wouldn't be either. I have no problem with a critic giving his/her honest opinion, regardless of whether it's positive or negative - it's their job after all. All I expect of them is that they are fair.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 5, 2013 7:06:46 GMT -5
Jason, Linda is not a celebrity in the current tabloid/cable news 24 hr cycle sense. She is a classic, a legendary figure that is more important to music than teenage whims in a digital age. She is taken very seriously by major writers and publications. I don't know a soul that reads People magazine except at the nail salon. I also dont know anyone with a subscription to Rolling Stone, not even my friends' kids in college. I used to have a subscription to Rolling Stone in the late 70's/early 80's. I considered it a good magazine at the time, but not really a magazine about music because more than half of it was about politics, movies and stuff that had nothing to do with music, which is why I eventually cancelled my subscription. It was also nowhere near as much cutting edge as it liked to think of itself. They often picked up on new things and trends in rock years after the fact. And these days, and for a long time now I guess, they have become what they initially were supposed to be against - a commercial magazine that will put any bimbo on it's cover as long as they think it will sell them some copies. Even though she hasn't sang the genre in what now seems like forever Linda is still a 100 times more rock'n'roll in terms of attitude and being true to herself than than that bunch of sell-outs at Rolling Stone will ever be.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 3, 2013 17:29:28 GMT -5
Magazines don't go for the most important story where the cover is concerned. They just put the person(s) on there that they think will help them sell the most copies.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 3, 2013 9:41:50 GMT -5
Well, I don't object to some of those who were more critics favorites than public's favorites getting in because some of those were indeed very good in my opinion while some of the general public's favorites were/are almost embarrassing. I wouldn't want it to be just done by a public vote because that would mean that ten years from now we'd have a HOF full of Mariah Carey and Britney Spears types. So I'm in favor of some (for lack of a better word) quality control. If that sounds like snobism I'm sorry, but that's my honest opinion. But I don't want it to be up to just a few self-appointed critics either. Perhaps it should be a combination of the two where there's a critics vote and a public vote with each counting for 50%. Induct four acts each year this way plus one act chosen exclusively by the critics to give artists that are less high profile but also very important also a chance to get in. Only problem is, who gets to decide who the nominees are? If it's the public half of it will be crap. If it's the critics they can still boycot the likes of a Ronstadt. So I don't think that there really is a perfect formula. I don't object to the artists so much as I object to the critics and the idea that what they value is more important than what the public values. The critics have always - always - slammed the public's taste in music, for making this record and artist more popular than that record and artist. But, that's a lying and dishonest con, for if the public was taken with the artists the critics liked (and many times they were), the critics would more than likely eventually dislike that artist as well. Critics prefer the artists who don't show up on the public's radar. As for not wanting the public to decide who gets in, well, here's the problem with that idea. The joke that is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is first and foremost, a business. Dedicated to the idea of making money. Money which can only come from one main source: the public. If the hall's nominating members only select the artists they like, why the hell should they expect the public to come to their mueseum, pay the admission fees and see things associated with the artists only they liked? I don't buy into your argument that if the public gets to nominate and induct the artists, that half would be crap. Crap is subjective. More of a "I don't like this artist and I think the public was wrong for voting them in." That's what it comes down to, what's crap to you or me may not be crap to someone else, and vice versa. But, I don't think the opinions of the critics should carry more weight than the public because it's the same subjectiveness: it's one person giving you his or her opinion, which can be right on the money or full of sh*t. That critic is also a member of the public. If the R&RHoF ever inducts Mariah Carey (which is likely in my estimation) or Britney Spears (unlikely), it will be because they will be voted in by the critics and music industry insiders who make up the hall. They won't be voted in the public, even though the public now gets some say. They can nominate one artist but their votes only count as one-third of a single vote, or some such nonsensical bullsh*t. That seems more of a design to insure the main voting members can override and veto the acts the public wants in, but the hall doesn't necessarily want in. Well, let me put it like this - the critics are more prejudiced than the public while the public is clueless. Ask the average guy on the street who Lou Reed is or Randy Newman and I bet that most wouldn't have the faintest idea. I don't see how a public who's interest in music doesn't go beyond Rihanna or Justin Bieber (exaggerating a bit to make my point) could vote on anything that is supposed to be of historical significance like a HOF. They can't simply because they are unfamiliar with even the most important (including popular) artists of any other era than their own. And even when it comes to their own era that knowledge is questionable in the case of 'casual' fans who make up the vast majority. Critics may get it wrong, and they often do in fact. But at least they know who's who.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 1, 2013 17:45:26 GMT -5
I think some of you guys are really paying much too much attention to that HOF. On the one hand it's "screw 'em", but on the other hand every time I'm coming here it's a topic of discussion. I don't think it's that important. Jan Wenner doesn't like her? Ok, that's one guy. Who cares? The HOF is losing more of whatever credibility it had with each year that goes by anyway. Early on it was ok in that only great artists got in there. Some were missing, but no problem. They could always put them in there later on. But each year it's getting worse and worse and ten years from now some of the deserving nominees might not even WANT to be inducted anymore because HOF-er is no longer a quality label. I think one reason people are paying too much attention to the R&RHoF is that artists like Linda matter to a great number of fans. They want to see her (and others) nominated and inducted because they want to see her honored for her work. Wenner and company established certain criteria that an artist had to meet to be eligible: such as 25 years must have passed since their first record, must have made critical contributions to the genre, must have been influential on others, and so on. Linda meets every criteria level they have established, has been eligible since 1992 but in the twenty-one years since her eligibility, has never received the first nod. Meanwhile, you have lesser artists who have been inducted who make you go "Huh?" There are some artists whose contributions to the rock genre are questionable and/or whose influence was more that they were favorites of the critics more than they were with the genreal public. What's particularly galling is that many of the people with a connection to Linda: the Eagles, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, et al, are already in while Linda remains out. Linda should've been in long before the Eagles and Jackson were inducted. Without Linda, there might never have been an Eagles, at least not with the same line up. I'd like to see Linda nominated and inducted while she's alive, rather than see her nominated and inducted after she is gone from this world. The R&RHoF inducted Dusty Springfield after she had passed, nominated Donna Summer several times and again, inducted her after she had passed. In a sense, I feel like the powers that be at the R&RHoF take great delight in keeping certain acts out of the hall until maybe the artists have passed. I also feel the R&RHoF intentionally keeps artists out who are fan favorites, even though the fan favorite act meets the hall's criteria. Thus, the hall members who make the nominations and inductions are violating the rules they established that made artist eligible. They have no rule that says any artist who is a fan favorite is automatically excluded from consideration. The hall also has no rule that says an artist must write their own songs, though there are enough rock fanatics who seem to think that such a criteria exists and that's reason enough to exclude Linda. It doesn't occur to these idiotic fanatics that the hall has already inducted many artists and groups whose members didn't write their own songs. But, it's amazing the number of fanatics who think such a rule exists! True, it's not important in the long run. Jann Wenner and company can go screw themselves. Publicly, Linda and many other artists and bands that haven't been inducted say they are not bothered by the fact that they're not in, but how do they feel about such snubs privately? They may take such snubs more to heart than we can imagine. Well, I don't object to some of those who were more critics favorites than public's favorites getting in because some of those were indeed very good in my opinion while some of the general public's favorites were/are almost embarrassing. I wouldn't want it to be just done by a public vote because that would mean that ten years from now we'd have a HOF full of Mariah Carey and Britney Spears types. So I'm in favor of some (for lack of a better word) quality control. If that sounds like snobism I'm sorry, but that's my honest opinion. But I don't want it to be up to just a few self-appointed critics either. Perhaps it should be a combination of the two where there's a critics vote and a public vote with each counting for 50%. Induct four acts each year this way plus one act chosen exclusively by the critics to give artists that are less high profile but also very important also a chance to get in. Only problem is, who gets to decide who the nominees are? If it's the public half of it will be crap. If it's the critics they can still boycot the likes of a Ronstadt. So I don't think that there really is a perfect formula.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 1, 2013 10:11:43 GMT -5
I think some of you guys are really paying much too much attention to that HOF. On the one hand it's "screw 'em", but on the other hand every time I'm coming here it's a topic of discussion. I don't think it's that important. Jan Wenner doesn't like her? Ok, that's one guy. Who cares? The HOF is losing more of whatever credibility it had with each year that goes by anyway. Early on it was ok in that only great artists got in there. Some were missing, but no problem. They could always put them in there later on. But each year it's getting worse and worse and ten years from now some of the deserving nominees might not even WANT to be inducted anymore because HOF-er is no longer a quality label.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 29, 2013 20:52:17 GMT -5
I loved Blondies first three albums, the final one being Parallel Lines, but it was downhill after that. They may have been a punk band but most of their fans were due to their mainstream music, their disco Heart of Glass, their cover version of The Tide is High, the big movie song Call Me. And I almost forgot the atrocious Rapture. I did not know until recently that Hanging on the Telephone was also a remake. Even though I do like it better than the original. I never considered them punk. They were far too melodic to be punk. The only reason why they are even associated with the genre is that at the start they often played CBGB's where the Ramones, Richard Hell, Television and other such artists used to play. Patti Smith didn't like them at all and just considered them a mediocre pop group. Not that I agree with Patti about that. They were a GREAT pop group with a rock edge. At least for a couple of years. And in my region of the world there was a moment before they became big in the US as well when Deborah Harry had a Marilyn Monroe-like status as a sex symbol.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 28, 2013 12:41:51 GMT -5
That closing paragraph -- Jesus. Thanks for posting, opus. Yes, one of the saddest things I've read in a long time. Poor Linda. I'd love to give her a hug and tell her how much she means to us and how much affection we have for her.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 28, 2013 9:06:36 GMT -5
Nice promotional video-- I captured this still image from it: If someone would have told me back in the day that Linda and Sally Field were twin sisters I would have believed him.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 26, 2013 11:33:51 GMT -5
I'm surprised that "Hurt So Bad" is on there, let alone so high. It's good but not THAT good.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 25, 2013 15:28:37 GMT -5
Wasn't it Tony that said he wrote to Marsh asking why he didn't like Linda and he responded saying he didn't think she was a "good singer." Ha, like it is for him to decide who is and isn't good. All in all though most critics have been quite kind to Linda but it is always the few with chips on their shouldars that we remember. I hope she hasn't taken those to heart nor the imbeciles who comment stupidly on youtube. 99% of the youtubers are positive but you still get the idiots who have political axes to grind so they do it there. Speaking of Marsh deciding who is and isn't rock and roll, he actually did that in an issue of Rolling Stone. I don't recall which artists he said were rock and which artists were not, but I do recall one writer-critic taking issue with Marsh's assessments and defending the artists Marsh had critcized as not rock, saying that they were rockers, and saying he felt that some of the choices Marsh said were rock were pretentious artists who made pretentious music. But, that writer did say that it was just his opinion, just as Marsh's opinion was his opinion, but that what either of themw rote shouldn't carry that much weight with anyone. But, RS and their critics did carry a lot of weight with some, too much in fact. It's a debate over basically nothing when it comes down to it. What difference does it make whether something is rock or not? Rock is just a word to give us some vague idea about what the music sounds like but it's not a quality label. But to say at least one positive thing about Dave Marsh - a few years ago I read a book from him about the Who, and it was quite good. I think it's safe to say that the Who is one of those bands that Mr.Marsh considers rock. Not only have they done plenty of kick-ass music, they also were constantly fighting with each other, there was plenty of booze and drugs around, they trashed hotel rooms on a regular basis, and the drummer was a complete fruitcake. More than enough to qualify as rock for the likes of Dave Marsh, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 25, 2013 15:14:03 GMT -5
One of the things I've always felt in this matter is that maybe she has listened to those hyper-critics like Dave Marsh more than she has the fans or the supportive critics. Maybe she's annoyed by some of them, but I don't that critics have that sort of influence on Linda. It's a pity that she makes light of her pop/rock recordings, but I think that when she started singing things like Gilbert & Sullivan and Great American Songbook standards that it just opened up a whole new world to her. Of course she knew and liked that music already, but to actually sing it brought her love for it to a whole new level. And she was singing this stuff in theatres that were build for music and for people who were really listening. Not in sports arenas with poor accoustics and for kids who were high on dope. So she must have thought, "this is where it's at." And as is often the case when an artist goes in a completely different direction they disown their older work to make it clear that the're really serious about that new direction. But we must take this with a grain of salt because if Linda really disliked pop and rock music she wouldn't have gone back to it again and again for almost her entire career.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 25, 2013 14:47:17 GMT -5
I liked what Mike Nesmith had to say about Linda's music and about how she had made "Different Drum" eternal. In a sense, Linda and Nesmith were a lot alike as far as downplaying their musical legacy. Nesmith also used to downplay what he did in the Monkees and the Monkees music in general. He doesn't do it so much now, having reevaluated his opinion of the Monkees' music over the years. It's kind of sad that this news has brought Linda back into the spotlight but the news may respark an interest in her music. People tend to feel a certain amount of guilt when a singer dies over never having bought more of their music. That could happen with Linda, although she is still with us. On a downside about the news of Linda's battle with Parkinson's, the news has also brought out the haters in some of the comment sections on sites posting the story. I read one very nasty comment on CBS News's website where the commenter wrote about Linda being another celebrity who thought she was going to live forever but was now having to deal with her mortality. That was actually mild but there were some who just seemed jubilant over Linda's misfortune. I hope none of those people believe in heaven or hell because if either exists, heaven bound they're not. And they should watch what they say because they could eventually have health problems that are far worse than what Linda has. I believe if you wish ill of a person or cheer because they're having problems, it comes back on you much more worse. Instant karma's gonna get you, as John sang in his song. Since I started visiting the internet, which of course includes internet forums and the social media I must admit that my opinion of the human species has taken a spectacular nosedive. And that opinion wasn't all that positive to begin with. There are far more fruitcakes out there than we think.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 24, 2013 9:54:25 GMT -5
I wonder if in some way she felt compelled to mention this now with a somewhat gruelling book tour coming up? Sadly it all kind of makes sense now, when I saw her in February she didn't look very well and I thought it might be asthma from the way her speaking voice sounded. I wonder if she'll be able to get through the book tour next month...as much as I would like to see her again I personally don't want to see her on crutches or in a wheelchair, just seems far too private a situation to bring to the public. Well, there's that side of it which I understand, but on the other hand it's important that she doesn't let this thing beat her by becoming a recluse. I mean if that would make her happy I'm all for it, but somehow I don't think that it would. And it's not as though she has a sex symbol image to protect either. Everyone knows that she no longer looks like the cover of the Hasten Down the Wind album. That book tour will probabbly do her some good in fact because there will no doubt be an outpouring of love for her and plenty of words of encouragement. Although Linda strikes me as the type of person who takes such things as fan admiration with a grain of salt, it will nevertheless make her feel good to know that she's loved.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 24, 2013 3:37:18 GMT -5
Shocking. I don't know what else to say really. I was about to read an online article about tennis player Caroline Wozniacki when I saw a link to another article on the right of my screen - "Linda Ronstadt diagnosed with Parkinsons." I was like, "WHAT!?!?!?" Very sad that this has to happen to not just such a fine singer but to such a fine human being. There is no justice in the world.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jun 20, 2013 18:42:30 GMT -5
I've just listened to Natalie's album. It's more rock than country, but not THAT far removed from the Dixie Chicks sound of "Taking the Long Way" which already was pretty rock-ish. I like if anything Natalie's new album better than that Dixie Chicks album which in my opinion was very uneven in quality.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jun 2, 2013 2:27:46 GMT -5
One of those wrong headed critiques which haunts the writer as time goes by... For example, Hitchcock's 'Psycho' was almost universally panned critically upon its release.. Leaving aside the fact that the Eagles didn't play on the album I don't think they were too far of the mark when it comes to this one though. Despite a few good tracks it's one of the worst albums of Linda's career.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 1, 2013 12:56:05 GMT -5
Linda loved to sing and she liked the money but not necessarily all that came with it. She is like the Meryl Streep of the music world, basically a housewife (if that word is appropriate) that acts in her spare time. She doesn't care about the rest and basically has never been that "full" of herself. Yes, but I don't think that saying that for example Heart Like a Wheel or Hasten Down the Wind are great albums would mean that she's full of herself. It would just be an objective statement.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 1, 2013 12:47:15 GMT -5
I think the more extreme term might be "self deprecating" and maybe she is like that, to a fault. But perhaps it's better than being Madonna, who still thinks of herself as "hot stuff" after thirty years (YIPE!!!) Madonna doesn't really have a choice. She can't go stand in front of a microphone (fully dressed) and just sing. She can't really sing well enough to pull it off and besides, fans want their Madonna outrageous. But I don't want to dismiss everything she's ever done. While I dislike most of her work, there are a few albums that I found surprisingly good.
|
|