|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 19, 2015 4:23:05 GMT -5
Before Emmylou Harris is considered for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I think Linda Ronstadt should be inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Emmylou, as a country insider, is already a member, even though Linda was a pioneer in country-rock before Emmylou, and in fact helped establish Emmylou in the industry more than anyone (even Gram Parsons). Someone needs to put the push through for Linda to be inducted into the CMHoF-- perhaps that someone could be Ms. Harris. In my opinion what is now "the rock'n'roll HOF" should instead be "the popular music HOF." There wouldn't be any nonsensical debate about what is and what isn't rock'n'roll enough. Each year they would only have to consider one thing - "what are the six (or whatever number they want to use) most important and/or best artists that still haven't been inducted?" - period. It would open up things for extremely important artists that now aren't even considered. And it would be a great quality control tool as well because now they put in five or six to meet their usual quota, even though some may be borderline or even not deserving at all. They would have no such problems if there are twice as many (or more) artists to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2015 3:04:43 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: Well for starters, they really ought to start looking again for more womenfolk: Stevie Nicks (solo work); Pat Benatar; the Bangles; and the Go-Go's, for starters. This year, they only even considered Janet Jackson (no induction), and I would suspect the only reason they even considered her is because of her family's name. That's really not nearly enough. Jackson's family name probably helped, but having said that, if Madonna is inducted at least considering JJ is not so strange. JJ is the better lip-syncher, the better dancer of the two and she's hotter, and those are the three things that really matter in this "genre." As for the others, they have as good a chance as anyone of getting in eventually because it all seems pretty random to me. Stevie Nicks should definitely get in. Her most recent album really impressed me. Much better than you would expect from someone at this stage of her career. As for country - why no Willie Nelson, Emmylou Harris, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, Patsy Cline, Loretta Lynn? Not rock'n'roll enough is a bogus argument to me. Half, if not more, of the inductees are not rock'n'roll either.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2015 2:41:09 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: In the case of Deep Purple, I know everybody's making hay about them being inducted because of "The Riff" ("Smoke On The Water"). But that alone would never have been enough to justify the induction; and fortunately, they had more great moments than any other hard rock outfit already in the Hall, save for Led Zeppelin. "Hush" was their first US hit, in the late summer of 1968; and their multi-disc album Concerto For Rock Group And Orchestra, released here in the U.S. in October 1969, remains one of the greatest progressive rock albums in history (IMHO). I'm not much of a guitarist, but I figured out that riff practically without any trouble. And if I could figure it out, so could anyone else. But, I'm not about to quibble over Deep Purple getting in. They're deserving. I'm not much of a fan of Chicago but they're deserving too, as is Steve Miller and Cheap Trick. I don't really know the N.W.A.'s music but I don't begrudge anyone who's made it, for whatever reason. None of the acts campaigned to be inducted and while I may still have an argument with the hall, that argument doesn't extend to the artists. They're in, and congratulations to the newest inductees. Now, about our other fan favorites... Well, guitar riffs don't have to be complicated. They need to be earworms. Ritchie Blackmore (DEP's guitarist) is an incredible player though. For me personally the importance of the HOF gets more and more diluted with each year that goes by. When I hear that such and such got into the HOF I'm not the least bit impressed because everyone can get into the HOF, so there's nothing that should impress me. Having said that, this is not an embarrassing group of inductees, but it's not an exciting one either.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 17, 2015 14:05:50 GMT -5
Cool that Deep Purple got in. I'm indifferent about the others.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 8, 2015 7:35:50 GMT -5
I remember seeing that program at the time. After Linda had finished the song someone from the audience ran up to her to give her some flowers. There was sheer terror on Linda's face.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 6, 2015 14:33:39 GMT -5
She's simply the most beautiful girl ever. She didn't just create art, she was art herself.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 5, 2015 18:28:20 GMT -5
Hand Sown... Home Grown - Silver Threads and Golden Needles Silk Purse - Long Long Time Linda Ronstadt - In my Reply Don't Cry Now - Desperado Heart Like A Wheel - Heart Like a Wheel Prisoner In Disguise - Prisoner in Disguise Hasten Down The Wind - Someone To Lay Down Beside Me Simple Dreams - Blue Bayou Living In The USA - All That You Dream Mad Love - How Do I Make You Get Closer - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Whats New - What's New Lush Life - Skylark For Sentimental Reasons - Little Girl Blue Trio - Telling Me Lies Canciones de mi Padre - La Charreada Cry Like A Rainstorm - I Keep it Hid Mas Canciones - El Crucifijo de Piedra Frenesi - Perfidia Winter Light - I Just Don't Know What To Do With Myself Feels Like Home - Women Cross the River Dedicated To The One I Love - Brahm's Lullaby We Ran - Dreams of the San Joaquin Trio II - Feels Like Home Western Wall - Sisters of Mercy Merry Little Christmas - River Hummin' To Myself - I'll Be Seeing You Adieu False Heart - Walk Away Renee
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 22, 2015 15:34:47 GMT -5
The mind-body connection is very powerful and Linda has been talking like that for a very long time. Makes sense to me. Linda is a lot more spiritual than she let's on imo.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 7, 2015 10:54:10 GMT -5
Watched her Royal Albert Hall concert on dvd. She's very good imo. Sings impressively without (seemingly) any effort. Good songwriter too, but the covers she did from Bonnie Raitt, the Cure and Bob Dylan were very well done as well. She's of course not much of an entertainer and she doesn't dance or even move much. She just stands (or sits) there and sings. But that's enough. Just one tiny critism perhaps - as impressive a singer as she is, it's all pretty much the same colour. Even so, 8/10.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 5, 2015 12:48:55 GMT -5
I think a lot of the negativity surrounding this album was the perception that Linda was "spinning her wheels", literally (on the cover), and creatively. I'm not going to hit back at anybody here who doesn't like the album. But I would point out that many in the music press, including Rolling Stone, who gave her a hard time over this album because she was too musically conservative then gave her an even harder time when she released the new-wave Mad Love in February 1980; in fact, many, again especially Rolling Stone, just screamed bloody f***ing murder ("How dare she get outside of her box!"). As she said in Playboy in 1980: "Well, can't worry about what the critics say." I think that the main problem the critics, and even some of Linda's fans had with Living in the USA was that it seemed to be a random group of songs whereas earlier albums had a character that was uniquely their own.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 27, 2015 13:54:17 GMT -5
I think that Adele is a good artist. In terms of her popularity she no doubt benefits from the very weak competition in the mainstream, but that's not her fault.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 11, 2015 7:03:46 GMT -5
I'd be cool with the Cars, Chaka, Steve Miller, Los Lobos and the Spinners getting in, but I've learned you just can't trust what the hall voters will do, which includes the artists from previous years. Once they're inducted, they get to vote too, and from what I've heard, have some influence on the nominating committee. Still, every year, the list somehow always seems to be a rather weak list as far as the issue of influence is concerned. I think the hall should be required to put out a list of artists their nominees have influenced. The criteria shouldn't be they influenced the critics, whose opinions are about half a penny per trillion, basically worthless (and I'm trying to insult them as best as I can), but I think that's who the artists influenced and no one else at all on some of the choices. I'd be rather surprise if Chicago gets in as I recall the rock critics were especially nasty to them at times, referring to them as corporate rockers and faceless rockers, despite the fact they were popular with many. I wasn't much of a fan but I'd like to see them get in just the same, if only to irritate the hell out of the critics. Same with Yes, although the critics' barbs was more about their music being art rock or prog rock, which was kind of funny coming from the critics as they were the ones who instigated the whole bloody worthless idea that every rock song should be a work of art. It was worthless because not every song could be a gem, and if it were possible, how could one tell without something to judge it for comparison? Rock gems were the rarities, the jewels that shined but that in no way made the lesser songs bad. The gems allowed you to appreciate the talent it took to come up with something good and even appreciate the lesser ones more, as it showed the listener just how hard it can be to be creative and have to deal with the pressure of being able to knock the ball out of the park every time. I liked the early years of the HOF. Perhaps the (roughly speaking) first 10-15 years of when it existed. Sure, there also were arguments of "why didn't he or she make it?" But the ones that got in were all great and "important." As of late it's become completely random though. Literally ANYONE has a shot. As a result I have completely lost whatever minor interest I had in the thing. Plus there are plenty of ifs and buts about the type of artists that are even eligble. The major blues guys all get in for their influence on rock'n'roll. No problem there. But how about the major country and folk acts who also had a major impact on rock'n'roll? And it also raises the question of, "what even IS rock'n'roll as defined by the HOF?" There are a lot of acts in there that nobody would consider rock'n'roll. For sure, once we move on to the present century very few of the inductees will be rock'n'roll in any shape or form. And then you have, say, Fairport Convention and Richard & Linda Thompson who are (and rightly so) real critics darlings and they ARE rock acts. But since they are folkrock and not bluesrock it's apparently the wrong kind of rock for this HOF. Plus the fact that they haven't sold millions of records, but neither did some of the other inductees. So I find all of it mystifying really. Can't make heads or tails of it.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 11, 2015 6:42:52 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: Progressive rock (or "art rock") really gets a bad rap from critics because of its alleged "pretensions" and the classical influences. Admittedly, some of it is kind of on the pretentious side (personally, I find a lot of Pink Floyd to be mind-numbing after a while), but again, as so often happens with critics, they're so full of it on this point, painting an entire sub-genre with a very broad brush. It's a sham the Moody Blues were passed over again even for consideration, because if there were a progressive-rock band that belonged in there, it would be the band behind "Nights In White Satin". Pink Floyd definitely belongs in the HOF imo. Arguably more than any other prog-rockers. Some of their stuff is boring, but their best albums are exceptional imo. I don't know the Moody Blues well enough to have an informed opinion. Yes has some good tunes, but overall they don't really do it for me. King Crimson was a progrock band I really like. Jethro Tull are on the basis of their 70's stuff also worth considering. A lot of prog rock doesn't live up to it's grand ideas though, so for that reason I can't really blame "the critics" for not liking it. But (as always) - there are exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 10, 2015 6:05:44 GMT -5
Deep Purple, Chaka Khan and Los Lobos for me. Most of the others fall into that category where I wouldn't have much of an argument against them getting in, but not much reason to think that they SHOULD get in either. Overal I'm rather lukewarm about this list of nominees. But I can't be bothered really. If they put in something like the cartoon act Kiss it's a anything goes situation.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 5, 2015 8:50:49 GMT -5
Back in Linda's day it would have been hard to dance and sing holding a microphone. Most musical artists didn't do that or they let their pip like back up singers do those moves. It seems to be more of an 80s and on thing as far as I can tell. Seems to me it would be hard to coordinate truly singing and dancing at the same time without it being pre-recorded. Damien is right in that Kate Bush was the first one, although her dancing was quite different from that of the Madonna's and Britney's of the world. But you are right about the 80's. Once MTV with it's videos became the most important outlet to promote music fans expected to see videos re-enacted on stage when they would go to a concert. At least they did when it came to this type of music.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 28, 2015 9:45:53 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of Britney Spears, I enjoy all her albums and consider her the "legend" of her generation. People are quick to criticize Britney for not singing live, Janet Jackson also gets criticized for this, but these two ladies put on one hell of a show and their choreography is outstanding, particularly Janet. I'm not a fan of Madonna and would criticize her for not singing live as her chereography isn't to the standard of Janet or Britney. How can people expect someone to sing live and sound like the studio recording when they are physically dancing around the stage to the level Janet and Britney do? I saw a dvd of a Janet Jackson show. The one from Hawaii that you are perhaps familiar with. I can't deny that I enjoyed it. I liked many of the tunes, the outfits, the dancing was spectacular and Janet has lots of charisma. Only thing is, 95% of it was lyp-sinching. I can't call a show a concert if it's not. Her so-called concerts (and Britney's) are playback shows and should be reffered to as such. Or they should call them 'visual presentations' if playback show sounds to harsh. Not being mean, but that's what they are. At least Britney admits on her concert tickets that it will be a playback show. But to end on a more positive note, I'm happy for her that she got (as far as we know) her life back on track while she seemed to be going downhill fast for awhile. I like Duffy, Amy Whinehouse and Adele. I don't like, but can tolerate a tune here and there from Rihanna. I dislike Taylor Swift (not the girl but the music) and I don't know the others. But that's because I never listen to the radio or watch the type of shows where they might make an appearence. The only current big league top 40 queen of pop contestant I like (up to a point) is Beyonce. I never watch any X-factor or American Idol type of shows either.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 27, 2015 22:02:20 GMT -5
I wonder who Sheryl is talking about? No offence but she isn't the greatest singer either although I do like her style. I think the dancer singers are what Linda classifies as entertainers and not really singers even though they have records out. Compared to the type of people Sheryl is talking about Sheryl is Renée Fleming. Plus she's an excellent imitator of other people's singing voice if her imitation of the young Michael Jackson is anything to go by. And that would of course be essential for the job.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 27, 2015 15:52:01 GMT -5
yet people still pay bucks to see these "artists" live. But....unlike Millie Vanilli it is their actual voices on the recordings, granted tweaked, but their own. I think moreso with the dancers, like Brittney and Madonna... I can't imagine dancing around the stage like a maniac and keeping in tune at the same timeWell, don't do it then. They all have dancers with them. Let them do the dancing and concentrate on the singing yourself. You can do a bit of dancing yourself when there's an instrumental break or something. But I think that dancing is the least of problems when it comes to a girl like Britney. The girl simply can't sing - period. And the same is true of many current pop-ettes imo. I once saw an interview with Sheryl Crow in which she said that she started out in her career singing vocals on records for pop singers who couldn't really sing. She said that we would be surprised if she mentionned any names because there are many famous names amongst them. "I've had some of the biggest pop hits of the late 80's and early 90's. Problem is that nobody knows it was me." And Sheryl can't be the only one who sings instead of the pretty cutie we see in the video or the album cover. If Aretha Franklin was starting out today record companies would probably say, "Sorry, you're too fat and no teenager is going to perv over you when he would see your video. But you can sing. We have this 18 year old cutie here with big boobs and a nice butt, but she can't sing shit. So we will pay you some nice money if you will sing on the records of this cutie and we will market her as the new Whitney Houston."
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 27, 2015 14:56:44 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna: And this is one of the reasons Linda herself never did it--that, and the fact that she was always very self-conscious and shy. As dancing, it looks kind of ridiculous; and as singing, it's just the kind of thing that American Idol and The Voice encouraged too much of (IMHO). Apples and oranges. Linda's type of music is not of the type to dance to like a maniac where as the music of the likes of Britney and Madonna is so fit for dancing that many actually refer to the genre as dance. Just because Linda didn't dance doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with dancing. Michael Jackson danced AND sang live up to the early 90's. James Brown danced like a maniac. How about musicals where there is lots of dancing? There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can do it without cheating your audience out of a genuine live performance.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Sept 27, 2015 3:31:31 GMT -5
Nothing that we didn't already know. Still, it can't hurt to remind ourselves that we're being cheated left, right and centre.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 5, 2015 18:23:00 GMT -5
thanks for Tony for reminding me of Mrs. Miller's definitive version of Lover's Concerto.. then again, everything she did was definitive!.. heh.. x10
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 5, 2015 13:37:02 GMT -5
Maybe I'm in the minority but I think she had a dreadful voice.... wonderful personality and great TV star here for 20 or so years but musically a big dud I would say that she had a rather mediocre voice, but not truly dreadful. But compared to some of our current queens of pop she was almost Ella Fitzgerald. Even so, I liked her. Some good records, although of course nowhere near in Dusty's league.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Aug 3, 2015 8:46:54 GMT -5
Boy, the're really dropping like flies these days. A reminder that we too are getting old. Thank god that we still have Miley Cyrus! Anyway, RIP Cilla, and thanks for your contribution.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 27, 2015 5:42:52 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna: I think Linda is smart enough to have never caved in to pressure to go the bimbo route (snarky male chauvinist critics' comments aside); nor would she ever go into shaking her "booty" a la Nicki Minaj. As to how huge she'd be in country music today--well, I'm on the fence about that. I feel that her approach is so incredibly "old-school" (not in a demeaning way, mind you, but in a very classic fashion) that she, like Emmylou, would fit into the Americana mode more than mainstream country. And in any case, even as far back as 2003, Linda herself said that she really didn't have a whole lot of use for what country music had become by the time, calling it "mall crawler music." I don't know that her opinion has changed in the years since--and of course her outspoken liberalism might not sit well with "Them Boys" in Nashville. The last thing I would expect from Linda is that she would be a sell-out. I'm not sure what she would have done today. Perhaps she would have fallen into the as you suggest Americana or Alt-country category. Or she could have entered a conservatory and try to make it in opera, like Anna Netrebko who she much admires. Or she could have become a traditional pop or jazz singer. Or even a mariachi singer. All these would have made her a lesser star in commercial terms, but I think that singing music she believes in is much more important to Linda than selling millions of records full of drivel.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 27, 2015 5:34:14 GMT -5
Linda was right when she said that you almost can't be successful now if you're not a babe. That wouldn't have been much of a problem for Linda herself since she WAS a babe, but to be as successful now as she was back then she probably would be required to play the bimbo game, sing in a tiny bikini while hiphoppers are surrounding her around the pool rapping about her ass and how hot she is, and she would be required to keep her political opinions to herself. But less attractive women like, say, a Aretha Franklin, Janis Joplin or even Joni Mitchell would have no chance whatsoever. Not that I'm suggesting that Linda would ever even consider prostituting herself or her art to sell some records. You have to lack dignity and self-respect to play that game, and that is exactly what post-Madonna pop HAS lacked. Not that the situation on the mens side is much better. If you gave Justin Bieber a brain cell it would die of lonelyness. Aretha, Janis and Joni..? but you never know.. since their work is already done.. I couldn't speculate but you're probably right. I don't know if Linda herself would cave to that kind of pressure.. she did try out "New Wave," which at the time was the current trend so she'd probably be curious.She'd probably be a huge country singer, leading the current crop of female .. the power houses. or a cross over like Swift but a really better singer. then say something about the right and get "Dixie Chicked" lol It's hard to speculate because Linda is so Liberal in politics yet conservative when it comes to her self respect..I don't think she'd be shaking her booty or enhancing her body parts a la Nicki Minaj Well, I exaggerated a bit to make my point. They were/are so good that they would have had a career, no matter what. But I don't think that they would have been as huge now as they were back then. I think they would have fallen into the category of 'critics darlings' - artists who are much respected by those in the know, but never get enough attention from radio or television to make it big.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 25, 2015 4:42:11 GMT -5
I still blame MTV for a lot of that. They changed the game in the mid-80's and music has never recovered from it. Plus the media, and that includes of course radio and television, is now completely owned by the system (the state and a few mega-corporations) which is why there is such a lack of diversity and the trend is towards the ever more empty headed and trivial. It's also why we had 'anti-establishment' figures like Dylan and Lennon having huge careers in the past whereas now you can't even say that you don't like Bush or your career will be over (see Dixie Chicks). But when you make a "valuable" contribution to the dumbing down process you will thrive.
Linda was right when she said that you almost can't be successful now if you're not a babe. That wouldn't have been much of a problem for Linda herself since she WAS a babe, but to be as successful now as she was back then she probably would be required to play the bimbo game, sing in a tiny bikini while hiphoppers are surrounding her around the pool rapping about her ass and how hot she is, and she would be required to keep her political opinions to herself. But less attractive women like, say, a Aretha Franklin, Janis Joplin or even Joni Mitchell would have no chance whatsoever. Not that I'm suggesting that Linda would ever even consider prostituting herself or her art to sell some records. You have to lack dignity and self-respect to play that game, and that is exactly what post-Madonna pop HAS lacked. Not that the situation on the mens side is much better. If you gave Justin Bieber a brain cell it would die of lonelyness.
But to be fair, although Taylor Swift is definitely "playing the game" she comes across as a pretty likeable person (at least to me).
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 24, 2015 12:38:12 GMT -5
All this is is lots of publicity from which both girls will benefit. Besides, who even cares about something as silly as an mtv video award?
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 23, 2015 16:19:45 GMT -5
I remember that from the Scrapbook (if its accurate). JD is a dreamboat--I would cook him breakfast any day of the week. It must have been his roving eye... LOL I don't care if the dude is/was Charlie Hunnam..They better not tell me to cook them anything especially upon first meeting.. Well, I can do even better than that story. There's a guy who used to live in my neighbourhood and he was kind of a loner and never very sociable although he for some reason felt at ease with me. Anyway, he wanted a woman in his life, but he didn't really know how to go about it, just like he had no idea about how to go about anything that required some social skills. But one day he told me, "I've done it! I've got a date with this woman I've met!" Me: "Well, congrats." A few days later I saw him again and asked him how the date went. "It was a disaster!", he said. "All went well until I asked her to come home with me." Me: "What happened?" "I told her where the mop was and that she could start in the kitchen. I guess she didn't like that for some reason."
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 23, 2015 11:47:27 GMT -5
Great story.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jul 19, 2015 6:38:58 GMT -5
|
|