|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 1, 2013 10:23:09 GMT -5
Maybe even worse than the neglect is that on many of those rare times when her name is bought up, it often has to do with the weight gain (which few even bother to inquire on how it really came about), the fact that she got old (you think?), or about how what happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas. And again, I also think it has something to do with her somewhat reclusive nature and the fact that she herself hasn't done much to counter these rumors...yet, anyway. Hopefully, the memoir will go at least some way of straightening things out. As to how young journalists could be so misguided in the way they perceive Linda, it boils down, at least in part, to them either not having time to do their homework before a set deadline, or not doing their homework on Linda, period. And perhaps that's why it does us a lot more good to look to what her own peers have to say. Most of them too lament about the lack of attention towards Linda, but they know the truth and are willing to say it. We just need to look for it (IMHO). Part of it may also be that Linda has never been one to blow her own trumpet or even just to say that she's done some great work. There's being modest, but there's also being TOO modest, and Linda falls into the latter category where her own work is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 1, 2013 3:25:15 GMT -5
I HOPE it is Linda's doing that she is NOT mentioned more because if she ISN'T the reason, I fear she will soon be forgotten. These young journalists seem to have no interest or real knowledge of just how big Linda Ronstadt was, not to mention her influence on those that came after her. Well, I fear that she already IS forgotten by most 30 and under people. Those with an interest in music from "before their time" are aware of and perhaps even have an album or two by the likes of Janis Joplin, Carole King, Bonnie Raitt, Emmylou Harris, Stevie Nicks, Joni Mitchell and a few other female artists of the time, but Ronstadt's status has undeniably - and unfairly gone down ever since the mid-90's up to a point where she is now popular music's best kept secret as far as the public at large is concerned. I'm sure that young journalists know how big she was, but they for whatever reason don't rate her that highly from an artistic perspective and merely see her as a Connie Francis or Olivia Newton John type - a lightweight who just happened to have sold a lot of records. How they could be so missguided is beyond me, but that's how it is in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 9, 2013 7:41:22 GMT -5
It's impossible for anyone contemporary to get anywhere close to the sales figures of Elvis Presley or the Beatles. First of all 'nobody' buys records anymore. Second, Elvis' output was much bigger. He had a new album seemingly every couple of months plus almost as many, if not more compilation albums plus tons of singles and ep's. These days it takes years for most artists to come up with a new album and if you're a fan you only need to buy a handfull of their records and you have everything. With Elvis you can keep buying your whole life because everytime they find an alternative take of no matter what song they build a whole 'new' album around it. I'm exaggerating, but not much.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 7, 2013 19:00:43 GMT -5
I love this interview, too! Gosh, I can't believe it was 30 years ago. Linda was spot-on in voice, looks, charisma. She was just breaking into her "MILF" period as she was no longer the 60s hippie-chick or the 70s California waif. She was on fire! Other than her tiger growls and the signature time rhythm, Get Closer is just an OK song and shouldn't have been released in my opinion. The fact that they turned it into a toothpaste commercial makes it even less appealing to me. I always thought "I Knew You When" should have been the first release. Probably would have made the album sell better out of the gate. Well, I guess they could have used 'Get Closer' as a b-side instead of an a-side for a single or something, but 'The Price of Love' should have been on the album instead in my opinion. 'Lies' always sounded like an obvious choice for a first single to me. It's sorta the same type of song as 'How Do I Make You' which had been a top 10 hit. 'I Knew You When' would have been better than 'Get Closer' as well.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 4, 2013 13:19:48 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: Perhaps it shouldn't be left to the public, then. But by that same token, don't the so-called "historians" at the RRHoF have an obligation to history to look at the facts of an artist and/or group in an objective way? So many of the potential inductees, let alone the actual ones that get in, seem to have been picked out of thin air, especially over the last several years, making the whole process look like a joke at the very least, and rigged at worst. Linda just seems to be getting shunted aside year after year on the basis of a lot of flimsy and trumped-up explanations: too many non-rock excursions; doesn't write her own songs; allegedly "mangles" the songs she covers (especially R&B covers); she's a West Coast artist; her roots are in country-and-western, as opposed to rhythm-and-blues. Sorry, but those are cockamamie excuses, they are totally illegitimate. End of argument. Up until fairly recently they did ok I think. There were some great artists they for god only knows what reason ignored, but at least those that got in were almost always deserving. But in recent years there were some strange choices (even more when you consider who's not yet in there) and that devalues the whole thing in my opinion. When you overlook someone deserving you can always correct that in years to come. But you can't give someone who shouldn't be in there the boot at a later date - once the're in the're in forever. A formula that might work is: Each year the critics and historians select ten names. The public votes for the one they want in the most and the top four vote getters will be inducted. Of the remaining six the critics and historians get to select a fifth inductee. That formula should in theory at least keep popular lighweights out while the public still has a say in the process. And with the critics choosing a fifth inductee less well known but deserving acts would also have a shot at getting in.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 4, 2013 5:54:28 GMT -5
Well, any sort of HOF would be regarded as a joke by a large group of people no matter who's in there and who isn't. If it was left to the public it would be seen as a joke by those who share my opinion. If it's left to the critics it would be seen as a joke by those who share your opinion. And if we meet somewhere in the middle everyone would still object because this or that artist who happens to be a personal fave is ignored. It's a bit like with all those "best albums" , "best singers", "best movies", "greatest composers", "best actors/actresses", etc lists. I've never seen one where even a minority is of the opinion that they got it right. Not that they necessarily got it wrong, but it's art and thus any opinion is subjective (but we can try).
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 3, 2013 16:30:28 GMT -5
Patti Smith has her audience, no question of that, but a critic would likely make an argument that she belongs in the R&RHoF because she made valid contributions to the genre, although to my way of thinking, proving someone made a valid contribution may be a lot harder to prove than proving influence. I don't really agree with the idea that critic's darlings are better than the public's darlings because in a sense, that's what all of the heated discussion about who is and who isn't inducted into the joke that is the R&RHoF. A good number of those who have been inducted are fan favorites but I don't think the critic's darlings should be given a one-up just because the critics happen to like them. I don't know if Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart or PJ Harvey will ever make the R&RHoF but the Osmonds and David Cassidy don't have anything to worry about on that count. The only way they'll get in if they pay for a ticket. As for Mariah, well, there's Madonna, need I say more? But, another issue never really discussed by many is the fact of how many people would visit the R&RHoF if the artists who are in there were only artists who never sold a lot of records but who the critics claimed had a lasting influence and made valid contributions? The R&RHoF is a business, first and foremost, and if the critics overloaded the place with only acts they liked, it would be out of business. So, fame and success counts, even though they tell you it doesn't. And they should listen to what the public is saying as to who they want to see in there, because it's the public's money they're wanting. And when you tell them that over your dead body will their favorite ever be nominated and/or inducted, you are committing financial suicide because the public will respond back by bypassing your business. Well, I think that a HOF that would be put together by 'the public' would be an even bigger joke (a MUCH bigger joke in fact) than the one we have now. Let's face it, 95% of the people out there are absolutely clueless when it comes to music. The public isn't made up of people like the ones on this forum for whom music is an important part of their lifes. It's made up of people who make the charts the mess that it is, call a song from six months ago an oldie and think that Mariah Carey is the greatest singer in history. They simply lack the knowledge and historical awareness to put something like that together. Critics may not be perfect (far from it), but at least they know who's who. At the mention of the name Linda Ronstadt half the public's response would be a simple, "duh?" And for the record - I never said that it's a crime to have commercial success. Lots of commercially very successful acts are/should be in the HOF and they would get my vote. I'm only saying that commercial success alone isn't enough for me. I wouldn't vote for some very successful acts if they sold even ten times the number of records they already do. I would however vote for an act like, say, Little Feat because they were excellent and that should be acknowledged. If the public don't know them, well, they SHOULD know them and if they don't, tough luck. Btw, I know that the Osmonds or David Cassidy will never get in. I only used some 'extreme examples' to get my point across more easily.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 3, 2013 15:52:01 GMT -5
This will probably make me sound like a bigot, but I think Aretha gets a pass because she happens to be black. Linda gets slammed a lot because she happens to be a white (albeit part-Mexican American) woman doing "black" R&B material, which I will always feel smacks of reverse racism. I think Linda gets slammed mostly because she often made those r&b songs sound like Californian rock or pop. That's ok because that is of course what she was, but the critics basically accuse her of sucking the blackness out of black music. Dusty Springfield - a girl whiter than Linda - never got criticized for her Motown and other soul covers because 'she sounds black' on them. What Aretha did from 1967 up to and including 1974 is so super-awesome that it hardly matter what she did before or since.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 3, 2013 8:53:16 GMT -5
But, even of the ones who are, one has to question their credentials. Patti Smith was more of a favorite with the critics than with the public, all because she cowrote "Because the Night" with the critics's darling, Bruce Springsteen. One criteria the hall has is that the artist has to have influenced some other artist, but to be honest, I can't think of one other artist Patti Smith has influenced. What else did she do beyond "Because the Night?" Well, one could argue that Patti Smith has influenced the whole New Wave movement. But influence is always hard to prove or disprove. I guess that every artist has had some influence on later artists who used to be members of his or her fanbase. But REAL influence as in having a direct impact on the history of popular music is extremely rare. You have Chuck Berry, Elvis, James Brown, Bob Dylan, the Beatles and perhaps a dozen or so others without whom we never would have heard the music of those who followed in their footsteps, but they are exceptions. As for Patti Smith only being a critics favorite, well, she has an audience although it's not a mass audience. But no problem there as far as I'm concerned. Critic's darlings are sometimes better than the public's darlings. I would rather see Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart and PJ Harvey in the HOF than The Osmonds, David Cassidy and Mariah Carey. Selling lots of records is no reason to be inducted into the HOF for me if it isn't backed up by the quality of the work. They already give gold and platinum discs for selling lots of records. As for Patti Smith, I think she deserves to be in there. She would have gotten the nod from me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 27, 2013 13:09:05 GMT -5
but all she had to do was look at her contemporaries who were still singing (and playing) rock and roll and with no apologies. Perhaps that is because they couldn't stretch their talents outside of Rock, perhaps they were not risk takers and felt comfortable staying in their little niches and were adverse to failure. Linda already had the wings she just needed to fly. Most of them write their own material. I can't imagine anyone being able to write rock or country songs one day, than compose an operetta, going from there to write jazz and traditional pop songs and writing mariachi songs inbetween all of that. Linda is blessed with a miraculous voice that allowed her to move from one thing to the other, but a songwriter can't be THAT versatile.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 26, 2013 18:12:57 GMT -5
I've kind of got my doubts Linda ever had any kind of run-in with Dave Marsh or Jann Wenner, unless it was that both men wanted dates with her and she just wasn't interested in either. Or maybe both of them held the belief that only guys could be serious rock and rollers. I've known a few male rock musicians and many of them were sexist about female singer-musicians, especially their playing capabilities. Too many had the "no woman can outplay a man on any instrument" BS going, when that clearly was not true. No, that definitely is not true. I know quite a few female classical musicians who could outplay any male rock musician in history with one hand tied behind their back. .... ....ok mr. rockmusician, your turn. Show us how superior your sex really is.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 26, 2013 4:10:04 GMT -5
I suppose that once the voice starts to go it's hard for an artist like Linda to continue since the beauty of that voice has always been the main attraction. It would be painful to hear her struggle like a Whitney Houston to reach notes that once came so effortlessly to her. It's a pity that she has to stop singing, but she has an impressive body of work that will keep us fans happy for the rest of our lifes. It's not like with a Janis Joplin or a Amy Whinehouse where if you're a fan you'll have to keep playing the same few albums over and over again. Linda has a substantial and varried back catalogue with countless goodies to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 26, 2013 3:49:20 GMT -5
I've long since forgiven Costello for his comments. Although he was never a punk rocker, his public, or a substantial portion of it, was part of the same demographic in those days and he only tried to prove his 'street credibility.' It was considered cool in those circles not to like millionaire rock stars from the California scene - or established stars of any kind, no matter where they came from or what they did really. It was just a case of Elvis trying to add to his angry young man credentials. But he and many others like him have long since realized how silly all that was. Costello has sorta appologized for his comments, members of the Clash have said that the Who was their favorite band, Johnny Rotten loves Abba and Patti Smith listens to Beethoven's string quartets and goes to the Metropolitan opera and is into Wagner these days. So all's well that ends well.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 23, 2013 15:57:44 GMT -5
Of course I don't think we can discount her physical attributes, or her sexiness. What I think is attractive about her is that she doesn't come on like a sexpot or a stripper, where it's all about sex and nothing else. You see a lot of that in many of the other female artists who have been inspired to follow in her footsteps (IMHO). That's just the result of the MTV boom in the mid-80's when what you got to see all of a sudden became more important than what you got to hear. I worked as a salesperson in a record shop at the time and I remember that customers who couldn't remember the name of an artist or song no longer hummed the tune for you but tried to explain what went on in the video instead.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 16, 2013 19:44:16 GMT -5
I just saw this clip for the first time of Linda and Leo Sayer doing Tumbling Dice: And it seems from some of the comments made (didn't read all), that half noticed Linda looking annoyed at Leo while the other half say Leo was fine. Well, I have to say that viewing it on first glance, Leo was kind of over the top and I felt bad for Linda to be next to that. But she sure did look nice! I've always considered Leo Sayer a lightweight. He's way out of his league singing Stones material or singing with Ronstadt.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 15, 2013 5:58:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 14, 2013 15:01:20 GMT -5
Here again, bear in mind the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for being nominated and inducted, even though certain hall members appear not to care one whit about the criteria for the artists or groups to be nominated or inducted. I've got serious doubts Britney Spears or the Spice Girls would ever be nominated, yet at the same time, I've got the same doubts about PJ Harvey or Los Lobos. The question of who is worthy and who's not is an argument that likely goes on in the hall as much as it goes on between fans. There are some acts in the hall that are headscratchers for me, yet I don't make their rules, I'm not on their nominating committee and I don't cast votes for the artists they nominate. They can nominate and induct who they want. They have nominated and inducted some of my favorite artists and bands but not all of my favorite artists and bands. I'd really like to those acts nominated and inducted but it's not that big of a deal, as I doubt that I will ever get to Cleveland to see a hall that should've been in Memphis. The criteria are part of the problem I think. Some are inducted even though they aren't rock and roll, others are refused entry on the basis that the're 'not rock and roll enough.' All the more reason to do away with that nonsense and just make it a popular music hall of fame.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 14, 2013 14:44:37 GMT -5
I think Rock and Roll is on the ropes and will not be around much longer. At some point the Hall will be begging to get people like Linda into it. I think a better Hall of Fame idea would be a Pop Hall of Fame. I thought early rock and roll wasn't that great except for some of the more popular stuff that made the pop charts, but even then hardcore rock was too much for me. I preferred what I call the 3rd wave or the refined 70s rock which was more "popish." I like the 60's Pop/rock acts like the Beatles and many one hit wonders. Yes, I agree with that. A popular music hall of fame has always sounded like a much more logical idea to me. A lot of those that are in now can't really be called rock and roll anyway. I don't think rock and roll will die though. It will be (and already is) just one among many other genres. But most 'modern rock' or post-punk rock really has little to do with the rock music of the 60's or 70's since it's not blues based anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 14, 2013 12:54:16 GMT -5
I find it kind of reassuring that Linda could doubtless care less about this nonsense.. or the Rock Hall of Shame either... I try to have as healthy a perspective as she does.. The suggestion that you actually have to pay to get a star on the WOF says enough about what it's worth. I'm nevertheless surprised to hear that Linda doesn't have one. The rock hall of fame, well, it's losing more of it's credibility with each year that goes by, don't it? It will be interesting to see what road they will go in the future since in recent decades (even) more so than in the 50's-70's a lot of the most interesting music hasn't been in the mainstream...If they induct, say, Britney Spears instead of PJ Harvey or the Spice Girls instead of Los Lobos the R&RHOF will only be good as a punchline to some jokes in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 13, 2013 18:01:50 GMT -5
Perhaps Linda is exaggerating a bit when she says she can not sing anymore. Perhaps it just means that she can not sing as well anymore as ten years ago, which at her age would be only natural. Having said that, it's been 2004 since she last released an album and if it had been just a slow gradual decline in vocal powers she probably would have done another album since then. I wonder why she kept it a secret for so long that her singing voice has gone.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 13, 2013 3:10:05 GMT -5
well, there are some pieces of opera I can listen to and it depends on the singer/tone. I like lighter voices or more angelic. I prefer male singers in that genre. Funny, as Maria Callas is her favorite. with the exception of Carman.. When I listen to Maria, I hear "that old lady nasal type shreiking voice." which I don't care for or can't listen to.. lol Well, to oversimplify it: One doesn't listen to Callas to hear a pretty voice but for the drama. Callas' voice sounded metallic and from about midway through her career she had an annoying vibrato on her high notes that got (much) worse as she got older. But the positives far outweigh the considerable negatives when it comes to Maria. As an actress she really was second to none. Not only in terms of onstage movement, gestures and facial expressions, but also in terms of vocal expression. She really could draw you into the character she was portraying. Having said all that, Callas is not my favorite soprano. I like her, but there are others I enjoy listening to more on most days. But I understand her uber-legendary status in opera, and I think it's deserved.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 12, 2013 16:04:56 GMT -5
Certainly not mainstream country, which, a decade ago, she swore off as having jettisoned both the traditional sounds she loved growing up in Arizona and the progressive sounds she espoused when she was actively doing it in the 70s; she has basically said it's "mall crawler music." I am of the opinion that she's right on this. Much of it is....well, "mediocre" is the nicest thing I can say about it. Mediocre is maybe being too nice about it, but I don't know what the right word would be to describe it. i don't think the word has actually been invented yet. Well, as a European I'm not exposed to it as often as you guys probably are, but most of what little I've heard just sounds like pop music to me, and not very good pop music at that. I guess they wear boots and a cowboy hat occasionally to remind everyone that they are supposed to be country. I like artists like Alison Krauss, the Dixie Chicks (where are they? ??), Steve Earle, Dwight Yoakam and such though.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 12, 2013 11:08:47 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: I'd have to agree, though as I've said, I think her approach would fall under the Americana banner since her approach to country music is well to the left of what the Nashville mainstream is about these days. To have Carrie Underwood/Taylor Swift-type success would be extremely hard to imagine, given that Linda was always more of a risk-taker than either one of those two (IMHO). Well, I suppose Linda COULD have Taylor Swift-type of commercial success if that would be her main goal. She could outsing everyone around today and she was drop dead gorgeous which today is as important as any musical talent, if not more so. But Linda also has integrity and is more interested in making good music than playing the game required for susperstar status these days and she would have no interest in selling her soul for a few top 40 hits.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 12, 2013 10:16:08 GMT -5
First we need to guess which type of music Linda would be singing if she'd be starting out today.
I think we can pretty much rule out that she would be singing the type of pop that is called r&b these days or dance/pop of the Britney, Lady GaGa or Madonna variety. Her going the more alternative direction of a PJ Harvey or a Bjork seems unlikely as well, and if she did it would have to be as a band member since these acts always do their own material. And although I like some of this music it would be a waste of Linda's talent since it's not "singers music." But we can virtually dismiss the chance that Linda would be active in any of these genres.
Linda reached a huge audience with her American songbook recordings, but she already was one of the most popular singers on the planet because of her country and rock work. Starting today from nowhere similar success seems unlikely, but she would probably be able to make her living as a singer which in this genre is these days a success in itself.
Linda has said that if she could start over again she would like to be an opera singer. It's impossible to say how good an opera singer she could have been if she had been educated and trained in the genre from a young age. Considering the respectable job she did in the few classical projects she was involved in at a later age I think she would have been good. How good and if Fleming, Netrebko, Mattila and Dessay would have gotten some serious competition from an Arizona girl is anyone's guess.
The most likely choice, and the one that would give her the best chance of success is of course country and bluegrass. Not that I think that she would have duplicated the success she had with "Heart Like a Wheel", "Simple Dreams" and many others, but I could imagine her having, say, Alison Krauss-like success today.
The chance that Linda today would be as big as she was in the 70's and 80's is virtually non-existent though. As others have said, so much of that has to do with being in the right place at the right time. But you can say the same thing about Sinatra, Armstrong, Presley, the Stones and perhaps even Bach, Mozart or Beethoven.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 12, 2013 3:23:34 GMT -5
I can't tell you how many times -- when people hear that I am a Linda Ronstadt fan -- they have this notion that I'm a walking anachronism, living in the '70s. I count myself lucky that I grew up in the 70's. In a way I feel sorry for todays 14-18 year olds. I can't imagine myself ever becoming as interested in music as I am if I were a youngster now. Not that there isn't any good music around today, but most of it isn't in the mainstream. Leaving aside a few exceptions you really have to search for it. But in the 70's (and the 60's, and even the 50's with all that amazing traditional pop and jazz) great music was everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 12, 2013 3:03:37 GMT -5
So we know Linda loves opera. Yes, she's mentionned that before. I approve. Nothing is better than great opera in my opinion. I've been a huge opera lover myself for decades by now. I've never realy 'properly' checked out Pink or Alicia Keys, but I like those three Brit girls. No surprise that Linda has great taste in music of course.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 11, 2013 15:02:21 GMT -5
She's just as good a talker as she was a singer. I could listen to her for hours. She is so intelligent, has a quick mind and is very witty. Quote of the day: "The Stone Poneys opening for the Doors was like having "Bambi" and "Deep Throat" on the same bill."
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 11, 2013 14:55:40 GMT -5
Welcome back, Gaston..good to see you, sir!! I was wondering where you guys hang out these days. Feels good to be back.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Feb 11, 2013 13:23:53 GMT -5
Quote by ronstadtfanaz: I distinctly remember how much hay was made about her weight and her looks in the months following what happened in Vegas, and how that subject keeps popping up intermittently on blogs and such. It just goes to show how ultra-shallow the mainstream media is (IMHO). Not only the mainstream media. I don't think it's just a coinsidence that "Winter Light" which is a fine album and one that had considerable commercial potential did worse than any of her pop albums since before the days of "Don't Cry Now." If Linda at the time of "Winter Light" had still looked like in the days of, say, "Hasten Down the Wind" it probably would have been a top five album with several hit singles. "Feels Like Home" and "We Ran" would have done better as well. So it's not only the media that's shallow. A considerable number of the public is exactly the same, arguably even worse.
|
|