|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 19, 2013 14:36:13 GMT -5
lefsetz.com/wordpress/No doubt fellow musicians ,already in ,if they voted cast a ballot for Linda because of her history and musical chops. Critics and fans who still get off on Smoke on the Water are what they are . . . Most headlines and broadcasts have Linda, Nirvava and Kiss in the headline. Read Bob Lefstz from Rhino a wise, unpretentious analyst of pop/rock music who gets it just right and he certainly gets our gal. Funny how many want her to show up and give Wenner and Marsh the middle finger. Well, Bob Lefstz may not agree, but for me Kiss getting in IS controversial and Patti Smith getting in was a no-brainer. As for Linda - I've said it several times before, but if Linda had died after Simple Dreams from a drug overdose she would have gotten in much sooner because that is supposed to be a rock'n'roll thing to do. But she's in now, so it's ok.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 19, 2013 12:05:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure as to whether Dusty knew she would be inducted. The stories I read about her induction never made it clear whether she knew or died before she was honored. Not that it it would've mattered much to her if she did as she was dying at the time. I've read three or four books about her, was subscribed to her fan magazine for years and a member of her fan forum - trust me, she knew.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 19, 2013 11:18:23 GMT -5
My two cents: for induction ceremony Emmylou and Neil Young. At least Dusty Springfield was notified of her induction just before she died (or so I have read), so she knew she had made it.And is it just me or is KISS getting the lion's share of press over their induction? I've seen several stories in the news about this year's crop of inductees, and every one of them emphasizes that KISS has been eligible for X-many years, yet fail to mention that Linda has been eligible -- and snubbed -- longer than KISS, nor that she's the only female inductee. That's right, and she was delighted because she considered it important. But this was of course at a time when only tier one greats got in.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2013 13:54:21 GMT -5
If health permits I would like Linda to be there. Not as a courtesy to Jann Wenner or Rolling Stone, but out of appreciation to the people who voted for her and for her fans who have waited for that day for so long. I must be one of the few Linda fans who doesn't mind that Jann Wenner doesn't like Linda. No artist is liked by everyone and he has the right to his opinion, even though it's the wrong one, just like the rest of us. It only becomes a problem if and when he somehow tries to rig the vote, like I'm told he did one time with the Dave Clark Five. If you ask 600 people you have to accept the outcome, even if you don't like it. I think the problem most people have with Jann Wenner (myself included) is that he has set himself as a kingmaker of who is or isn't rock, or who is and isn't worthy of being nominated and inducted into the R&RHoF. There's a big difference between one's personal tastes and judging a band's or artist's worthiness of being nominated and inducted into a hall for their artistry and influence. Wenner is the face of the R&RHoF but he was only one of many architects who contributed to its existence. There were others, including record company executives like Ahmet Ertegun. Criteria was established which should've precluded and excluded one's personal taste or judgement but Wenner acted like the R&RHoF was his own personal hall and that gave him the power to approve or disapprove artists and bands he doesn't like. But, Wenner is only one vote, so for him to be able to block an artist, he has to have a bloc of like minded voters with the same likes and dislikes. I couldn't figure Wenner's objection to the DC5 but he's supposed to be judging on their merits based on the hall's criteria, not his personal dislike. But, he thinks his personal likes and dislikes should take precedence over the criterial and that's what's galling. It's almost impossible to keep personal taste out of it though. Even the most basic question - "Is he or she any good" will inevitably be answered according to ones personal taste, and it's on the basis of that answer that artists get in or don't get in. Even on secondary questions like influence different, but not necessarily unreasonable people will come up with a different answer. For example like the little discussion we had about the influence of Patti Smith a few days ago. Wenner has a right to his opinion, as long as he keeps in mind that his opinion is only one of 600 and as long as he doesn't try to manipulate the vote. But leaving aside all that, there's really no way to make people completely (or even partly) happy with a HOF. Everyone (including me) has and will always have something to complain about. It's like with all those list things - best songs, best albums, best artists, best composers, best actors, best actresses, best movies, best no matter whats - I've never seen one where even a tiny minority says, "I agree, that's how I would have ranked them as well."
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2013 11:33:48 GMT -5
Certainly her book coming out this year had to help in getting her in. It reminded a lot of dormant fans just how special she is. It's a travesty that Rolling Stone took so long to do this and it kind of sickens me seeing how they are now fawning all over her. Good grief, what a bunch of phonies they are! Linda was very gracious in her reply about not coming - I don't think she'd come even if she felt well and could sing. Soooo ironic that THIS is the FIRST year the ceremony is open to the public! My first choice to represent her? Emmylou, hands down. Poetic and sweet. Is it being televised? Think Linda will watch? ;-) If health permits I would like Linda to be there. Not as a courtesy to Jann Wenner or Rolling Stone, but out of appreciation to the people who voted for her and for her fans who have waited for that day for so long. I must be one of the few Linda fans who doesn't mind that Jann Wenner doesn't like Linda. No artist is liked by everyone and he has the right to his opinion, even though it's the wrong one, just like the rest of us. It only becomes a problem if and when he somehow tries to rig the vote, like I'm told he did one time with the Dave Clark Five. If you ask 600 people you have to accept the outcome, even if you don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2013 11:08:18 GMT -5
I have been fortunate to get her autograph in person, and that does not look like her signature... Maybe she's just another girl named Linda Ronstadt and she's taking advantage of it. If my name was Frank Sinatra or Mick Jagger I would perhaps consider doing the same. I mean, what could they do about it? It wouldn't be as though I'm lying. My favorite ebay seller is still the guy who sold air guitars.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2013 11:03:26 GMT -5
Yeah, Sheryl would get the nod from me as well.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2013 8:13:11 GMT -5
Well, the thing is that if someone should be in there but isn't it's easy to right that wrong. But once you put someone in there that shouldn't be in there it's a wrong that can't be corrected because once the're in the're in forever. I think a band like Kiss getting in devalues the HOF as a whole, because it lowers the bar. You only need to be as good as the worst inductee to have a chance of getting in. All that is quite true yet musical tastes vary from individual to individual, and those whose cup of tea is Kiss might have the same reaction about Linda as you have about Kiss devaluing the hall as a whole. Very few agree on any artist being worthy of being inducted and many more argue against those who have been inducted or will be inducted. As always, the crux of their argument is their favorite artist(s) is (are) worthy of induction and all others are unworthy slobs who are intentionally keeping their favorites out by being inducted instead. Not realizing it's not the artists but the hall and their personal preferences and prejudices. Much as I may dislike some artists or question their merits for inclusion, it's not a wrong and it shouldn't be corrected just because I don't like them or question their credentials. They matter to someone. I don't like Kiss but then it could be worse. There are some still around who think Pat Boone is worthy of being nominated and inducted, despite the fact Boone really can't lay claim on any of the criteria for induction. The hall won't really have gone down the tubes until he's been inducted. (One might say the same about Yoko Ono.) Kiss (like Nirvana) has a loud fan base and I suppose many of their supporters would say the same about us Linda fans, but they championed their heroes just as we championed our Linda. And what we fans think should matter because it's our money the hall needs to continue to stay in business. Wenner and company may dislike Linda and others but they like our dollars. Voting against Linda (or most others) really was (and) them voting against their own pocketbooks. All quite true of course, and music or any other art form is just a matter of opinion because there can't be any objective criteria - or a set of criteria that IS objective for me might be a load of bollocks to you and vice versa. It's not like a sports HOF where whoever crossed the finish line first, made the most homeruns or touchedowns or knocked the other guy out for ten seconds is objectively the best, or one of the best and there can't be much of an argument about it. My comments concerning the HOF or anything else concerning music are just my personal opinion. In my own mind I am right, but I know that a Kiss fan is also convinced that he is right, and neither one of us is able to prove the other guy wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 18, 2013 4:28:19 GMT -5
It's hard to say if it was a sympathy vote or not. It was the first time she was nominated, so it's impossible to say if she would have gotten in earlier if those 600 had a chance to vote for her earlier. Most important thing is that she's in, no matter what the reason may be. Having said that, I think that each year the HOF becomes less prestigious, and will continue to become less prestigious as they ever more scrape the barrel and bend over backwards for commercial reasons. If you compare the lists of inductees of the early years with those of more recent years it's clear that it's going downhill fast. They find it harder to induct equally as many artists from the late 80's and 90's as they did from the 50's, 60's and 70's which is why they are turning back the clock and inducting artists they overlooked first time round. Not necessarily a bad thing, but they can't keep doing that forever. Eventually they will have to focus on more recent decades. It's not that there haven't been any HOF worthy artists in the last thirty years or so, but I fear that they will much rather induct, say, the Spice Girls than PJ Harvey because more people would watch the induction ceremony/concert on television. In other words, Rolling Stone may have started out as a counter culture magazine in the late 60's, but they have sold out and are now very much part of the establishment that they once rebelled against. The hippies of old are the suits of today.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 17, 2013 15:12:24 GMT -5
Despite what I said yesterday, now that she's in I find that I DO care. It made my day. I'm still amazed that Kiss is in as well though. And fellow hard rock band Deep Purple who are ten times more important and better than Kiss DIDN'T make it. Better tunes, better riffs, (much) better instrumentalists and at least two true classic albums of the genre, but the HOF considers a bunch of cartoon characters better. Deep Purple is another of those acts that should've been in, long before Kiss, long before Nirvana, and many, many others. Definitely before any rap acts! It's surprising Kiss made the cut because they were never a favorite with the critics or with Rolling Stone, or at least that's the impression given. Personally, I think the hall should have a rule or be required to give any act from the 50s through the 70s more consideration and preference over any act from the 80s who meets the requirement. Time is not on the side of any of the artists, especially those who debuted in the 50s and 60s. I'm relieved that Linda will finally get her due but still think it was only because of her health issues and like to think the hall members felt some sort of guilt at having slighted her. But, I still believe they would've gone right on slighting her if her health had been good. So, they righted one of their wrongs but how many other chances will they get on righting their other wrongs? Or will they wait until it's too late? Well, the thing is that if someone should be in there but isn't it's easy to right that wrong. But once you put someone in there that shouldn't be in there it's a wrong that can't be corrected because once the're in the're in forever. I think a band like Kiss getting in devalues the HOF as a whole, because it lowers the bar. You only need to be as good as the worst inductee to have a chance of getting in.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 17, 2013 13:36:07 GMT -5
I just read this is the last day for voting. I am not sure if that is just for the fans or all voting. At this moment she is behind Nirvana, Yes, Kiss, and one other band. Kiss just won the fans vote. I don't know...keeping the faith. Like we have been discussing, it really does not matter one way or the other. What a great Christmas present it would be for us. I was putting together a good image of her being inducted without her going herself, and now I am starting to doubt. Fingers are crossed. I can't imagine that Kiss will get in. If they do I no longer care if Linda gets in as well because then the HOF will have become well and truly a joke. Rap artists I can take. Even though I hate the genre myself I accept that it may just be a matter of me being to old for it and "not getting it." But even though (leaving aside a select few names) I'm not a major hard rock and/or heavy metal fan either there definitely are more worthy hard rock bands out there than this bunch of clowns (sorry fans). Despite what I said yesterday, now that she's in I find that I DO care. It made my day. I'm still amazed that Kiss is in as well though. And fellow hard rock band Deep Purple who are ten times more important and better than Kiss DIDN'T make it. Better tunes, better riffs, (much) better instrumentalists and at least two true classic albums of the genre, but the HOF considers a bunch of cartoon characters better.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 17, 2013 0:27:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 16, 2013 14:31:09 GMT -5
I just read this is the last day for voting. I am not sure if that is just for the fans or all voting. At this moment she is behind Nirvana, Yes, Kiss, and one other band. Kiss just won the fans vote. I don't know...keeping the faith. Like we have been discussing, it really does not matter one way or the other. What a great Christmas present it would be for us. I was putting together a good image of her being inducted without her going herself, and now I am starting to doubt. Fingers are crossed. I can't imagine that Kiss will get in. If they do I no longer care if Linda gets in as well because then the HOF will have become well and truly a joke. Rap artists I can take. Even though I hate the genre myself I accept that it may just be a matter of me being to old for it and "not getting it." But even though (leaving aside a select few names) I'm not a major hard rock and/or heavy metal fan either there definitely are more worthy hard rock bands out there than this bunch of clowns (sorry fans).
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 15, 2013 19:45:52 GMT -5
Neil Young might be a good choice. He has "rock'n'roll credibility", he loves Linda and he would do a decent job on her tunes (not all of them, but she has enough hits to choose from).
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 15, 2013 13:36:52 GMT -5
I AGREE THAT EMMY AND TRISHA SHOULD BE THE ONES INDUCTING HER. CAN 2 PEOPLE DO THAT? EDDIEJIINJ Two people can induct an artist but as for who would it be doing the inducting, I could see Emmy doing it because she is well known in the rock circles. Trisha is a harder call as although she's greatly influenced by Linda, she's not exactly known as a rock performer or within the rock circles. My guess is that it could be Don Henley and Glenn Frey or maybe Jackson Browne or James Taylor. Maybe even Brain Wilson. But, I think Trisha would be a good choice although the odds of that happening probably would be very high. Perhaps they should let Patti Smith induct her. Seriousy, it makes no difference to me if Emmy, Trisha or for all I care Johnny Rotten inducts her as long as she gets in there.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 14, 2013 15:12:57 GMT -5
When was Patti Smith inducted? I remember her being nominated...that should have told me if she was nominated then she was inducted. Rolling Stone raved about her always and still do. Glad to know she has been inducted. She is not for everyone, I myself like her. I bought all of her releases since the "comeback" album released in the late 80's DREAM OF LIFE. The music that came before I heard on my brothers turntable. 2007. Yes, I like her as well. I don't have all of her albums, but I have most of them. From her Wikipedia page as an answer to sliderocker and Erik's question about who she has influenced: Smith has been a great source of inspiration for Michael Stipe of R.E.M. Listening to her album Horses when he was 15 made a huge impact on him; he said later, "I decided then that I was going to start a band." In 1998, Stipe published a collection of photos called Two Times Intro: On the Road with Patti Smith. Stipe sings backing vocals on Smith's songs "Last Call" and "Glitter in Their Eyes." Patti also sings background vocals on R.E.M.'s songs "E-Bow the Letter" and "Blue". The Australian alternative rock band, The Go-Betweens dedicated a track (When She Sang About Angels) off their 2000 album, The Friends of Rachel Worth, to Smith's long time influence. In 2004, Shirley Manson of Garbage spoke of Smith's influence on her in Rolling Stone's issue "The Immortals: 100 Greatest Artists of All Time", in which Patti Smith was counted number 47. The Smiths members Morrissey and Johnny Marr shared an appreciation for Smith's Horses, and reveal that their song "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" is a reworking of one of the album's tracks, "Kimberly". In 2004, Sonic Youth released an album called Hidros 3 (to Patti Smith). U2 also cites Patti Smith as an influence. In 2005 Scottish singer-songwriter KT Tunstall released the single "Suddenly I See" as a tribute of sorts to Patti Smith. Canadian actress Ellen Page frequently mentions Smith as one of her idols and has done various photo shoots replicating famous Smith photos. In 1978 and 1979, Gilda Radner portrayed a character called Candy Slice on Saturday Night Live based on Smith. Alternative rock singer-songwriter Courtney Love of Hole heavily credited Smith as being a huge influence on her; Love received Smith's album Horses in juvenile hall as a teenager, and "realized that you could do something that was completely subversive that didn't involve violence [or] felonies. I stopped making trouble," said Love. "I stopped."[61] Hole's classic track "Violet" features the lyrics "And the sky was all violet / I want it again, but violent, more violent", alluding to lyrics from Smith's "Kimberly". Love later stated that she considered "Rock n Roll Nigger" the greatest rock song of all time. American pop-dance singer Madonna has also named Smith as one of her biggest influences. The influence of Smith's music is featured in two award-winning young adult novels by Meagan Brothers, Debbie Harry Sings in French and especially Supergirl Mixtapes.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 14, 2013 4:49:25 GMT -5
There are a lot of artists who say they're in the business for the right reasons - the music - but all too often, they forget that business is a business, and that business is in the business to make money. They can't afford to sign an artist who says, "Well, I don't give a damn about getting a hit. I want to make the music I want to make, even if no one buys it." That's all well and good but a singer-musician shouldn't expect a major label to sign them and pay for the music which pleases no one but themselves. One has to have a huge ego to expect a record company to do that. The production costs associated with recording enough songs for an album and then the manufacturing costs for albums and singles make it impractical for it to be only about the music. And for an artist to say, "Well, I sold four thousand copies, that's good enough for me," the question would be did they sell enough to cover the recording, manufacturing and distribution costs? If they used a cheap recording studio, maybe, but four thousand copies wouldn't generate enough money to cover the manufacturing and distribution costs. Such an album would be seriously in the red. Well, you probably are right from a business perspective. But as a music fan I don't care about how much money the suits with the big cigars make. They did exploit artists all over the place in the 50's and 60's and they have cheated on us as well. Just look at how cheap cd's all of a sudden are since the market collapsed. They nevertheless still make a profit because otherwise they wouldn't keep them in print. So how much money did they make when cd's were two or three times as expensive as they are now? Besides, Patti Smith has been with a major label for all of her career, so I'm sure that she always sells enough copies for them to make a profit. And she's not a top 40 but a catalogue artist. People are still buying copies of Horses and Easter more than 35 years after they were released. So in the long run they probably make more money from her records than from some instant one hit wonder who's huge today and forgotten six months later.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 14, 2013 4:16:06 GMT -5
Quote by mikekoecher: At this point, if she is inducted, I don't think it would matter either way, because she wouldn't be able to sing onstage even if she did show up. And after all, the Sex Pistols are in, and they made a public display about not showing up, on terms that were appropriate to their image. Linda may do the same for herself. If Linda is inducted I would like her to be there as a sign of appreciation towards those that voted for her. If her health doesn't allow her to be there she can maybe do one of those video message things like they usually do for those "who couldn't be there." She's not in it for the awards, but as she admits it nevertheless feels nice to be appreciated, so it would be a good thing if she at least had a word of thanks towards her peers and her fans who campaigned for her for years to get in there - even if she has to fake it a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 12, 2013 16:16:21 GMT -5
I wasn't going to say anything about her looks even though she wasn't and isn't very attractive, which I think is a critical key in a performer having a long term career. The entertainment industry places a high premium on looks although looks doesn't equate to talent. Look at Susan Boyle, no great beauty but she has a great singing voice. She's not everyone's cup of tea - she's not my cup of tea, but it would've been criminal if her talent had somehow been missed. With regard to world followings, I'm always leery on any claim on certain acts. The biggest names, you can find evidence to support that claim but it's more difficult to find corroborating evidence for the lightweights. Yes, the entertainment industry places a high premium on good looks, but I don't think that someone like Patti Smith cares much about the industry. Whether she's great, good, mediocre or poor is a matter of opinion, but I think she's in it for 'the right reasons.' Not for the fame or the money but for the expression and the art of it. So that's at least one thing she has in common with the very different Linda Ronstadt. As for 'worldwide following' - as I said, I don't think she's hugely popular anywhere. But I bet that in every region where they listen to rock she has a following - a minor following, but a following nonetheless. And what's wrong with that? Don't missunderstand me - I don't have a problem with huge commercial success. Whenever someone I really like has a millionseller I'm happy for them. But if they don't I don't start thinking "maybe I was wrong about him or her." Hence my previous comment of "I don't care if she sells 4000 or 40 million albums." It is what it is. I don't start liking an artist or a record more OR less depending on how many copies are sold. I never really thought of punk or new wave as a genre unto themselves, just another generation of rockers, although on some of the new wavers, many of them were as old as the established musicians they complained about. Blondie was considered new wave and the took on some punk affectations, but Deborah Harry was older than Linda. Blondie was well liked by Rolling Stone until they achieved success, and Rolling Stone shaved off a few years on Harry's age to help put over the band with their readers. I thought a lot of bands called themselves new wave or punk to call attention to the fact that they were not part of the group of established performers. The new wavers did have talent as did some of the punks but I thought why bother trying to label yourself? It puts the pressure on to make the music live up to some unclear standard, that it was somehow better than anything else that was out there. It could only have been that if it had outsold everything else but then, you would've become that which you claimed to despise. Of course, maybe the whole deal was they wanted to be the ones they despised.Sure. Punk was basically just "My Generation" era the Who. But I accept Punk as a genre label because when you hear the word punkrock you know what you're going to hear - very basic simplistic and usually fast paced rock by people who nine times out of ten can't play. But New Wave is to me a movement and not a genre because it covers anything from experimental rock (Television), art funk (Talking Heads), pop/rock (Blondie), singer/songwriters (Costello) and god knows what else. If the Allman Brothers had started out at CBGB's in 1976 they would probably have been called New Wave as well (probably not, but you know what I mean ) Was she ever considered new wave? The punks may have whined and complained about the old guard of rock and roll yet some of the punks did like some of the old guard rockers. Classical music, I'm not too sure about but that's not surprising about Smith liking classical music.A lot of rockers seem to like classical music. Now, if you had said Smith liked country music, that would've been freaky as I could not see her being that type, even though many rockers moved on to the country genres to try and further their careers - and usually got kicked in the face for their trouble because many in that genre still hate the rock performer.Patti Smith started out earlier than the New Wave acts, so she wasn't a New Wave act as such because New Wave didn't exist at the time. But at CBGB's the club where many of the New York New Wave acts started out (CBGB's was sorta a New Wave Troubadour so to speak) she was seen as an iconic figure who made it all possible.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 12, 2013 13:15:16 GMT -5
Being a critics darling is more of a recommendation than being the publics darling. Just look at the charts or turn on the radio and you'll hear what I mean. If we insist on limiting it to one thing her debut album "Horses" is the main reason why she was voted in, not "Because the Night." I'm a bit surprised that people use a lack of mainstream popularity as an argument for someone not to be inducted. Who cares? I don't. She would have gotten my vote regardless of whether she sold 4000 or 40 million records.. As for influence, well, she's sorta the mother of New Wave and Punk, ain't she?I quite disagree about an artist being a critic's darling is more of a recommendation than being the public's darling. True, the public sometimes misses out on a good artist despite the ravings of the critics, but all too often, there may be other reasons an artist doesn't catch on with the public, like lack of radio airplay. Or their music is inaccessible, whatever the reason, the public is just not not into that artist. And a lot of the time, the reason the public wasn't into the artist was because of the critics. A critic is nothing but a horse's a**, a pompous, self important a**hole who thinks he or she is in a position to tell you just who the hell you should or shouldn't listen to. But, people have always made their own choices about who to listen to and the critic is often just a lone voice in the wilderness. It's why the critics hate many of the artists the public did like and why they denigrate the Top 40 records as being records of the lowest common denominator. And quite honestly, for all of their protestations about the artists who make the Top 40, there's a huge difference in their recommendations and the records the public bought at the record shops. And that's the critics, those pompous, self-important horse's a** (apologies to the horses, they are noble creatures and don't deserve to have their name slandered to describe a critic), get their records free of chargem supplied by the record companies or paid for by their employer, for them to review. They're supposed to be fair and impartial as they get the same records that are in the Top 40 in addition to the records that will never catch on with the public. As for Smith being the mother of New Wave or punk, I'm not sure I'd buy into that argument as I remember the new wave/punk movement began in England around 1976 and then spread to the US a couple of years later. A lot of musicians here tagged themselves with being new wave or punk although the punk label had a very negative connotation to it. In England, some of the fans of the genre were known for violence, attacking other fans in the clubs and even some of the musicians. I think the new wave genre was different from the punk genre, although many of its practicioners and fans were just about the same in that they whined and complained about the established artists who dominated the charts, calling them dinosaurs and saying they needed to retire so they - the new wavers and punks - could have their rightful moment in the sun, their 15 minutes of fame. Snith became an adherent, a follower but there's no telling how long she had been kicking around, trying to get her break. Springsteen was the key to her big break but I have to think that the critics would never have noticed her and been all that entusiastic about her if it hadn't been for her Springsteen connection. Smith's music should've been able to stand on its own, independent of Springsteen and it probably did, but not enough to keep the public coming back for more. And the praise of the critics for her music probably was a nail in her musical coffin with the public because I think the public really gets tired of the critics telling them they listen to sh*t and that they should be listening to the artists they're listening to - which if they were (and they sometimes did), the critics would then hate the artists they had recommended because the public did take a fancy to them. Patti Smith only very rarely made anything close to mainstream music. That's why she never became 'popular' (as in top 40 popular). That and the fact that she was/is a very ugly woman. But let's not exaggerate. Patti Smith has a following the world over. Not a massive following, but big enough to keep going. And that's all she's really interested in anyway imo. Punk began in England in 1976, at about the same time when New Wave got going in New York with people like Blondie, the Ramones, Talking Heads, Television and so on. The 'genres' or rather the names for them overlap somewhat. But I never really considered New Wave a genre but a movement. Punk I never much cared for (except for the Clash and perhaps the Sex Pistols album), but New Wave was wonderful imo. Considereing the state of popular music since the mid-80's I would even go so far as to say that it was rock 'n' roll's last major hurrah. Patti Smith never subscribed to the punk ethic of insulting established artists though. On the contrary - although she sounded nothing like them her musical heroes were the Rolling Stones, the Who and the Doors. She also loves classical music. She adores Beethoven's string quartets, is a Wagner diehard and has a subscription to the prestigious Met opera in New York.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 12, 2013 12:36:20 GMT -5
Quote by robertaxel: I suppose that you could make a case on that, though I'd wonder who in the New Wave/Punk movement Patti did actually influence. I think sliderocker's point on this is a valid one. Well, one could argue that she created a scene, or helped create a scene without anyone who took advantage of that actually trying to copy her because she was too unique/strange/original - avant garde even. Some artists are like that. Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart for example. Linda should have gotten in the HOF before Patti, but that doesn't mean that Patti shouldn't have gotten in at all imo.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 12, 2013 0:56:19 GMT -5
Likewise, I think Smith's induction was related to her association with Springsteen, for whom the critics have always made out to be the saviour of rock and roll. Smith was just a one shot who couldn't repeat the magic independent of Springsteen and I thought that was pretty telling. And maybe in a sense bad for her because it put the unfair pressure on her to be a female Springsteen. I don't know the first artist she was an influence on. She was big with the critics but that's not nuch of a recommendation. I suppose if she had been bigger with the public, she probably wouldn't have been a critic's darling. The critics always love to champion artists the public missed and claim the artists they champion were hugely influential on other artists, but it's just the critic's word for it. They never name one artist they claim their favorite influenced. Being a critics darling is more of a recommendation than being the publics darling. Just look at the charts or turn on the radio and you'll hear what I mean. If we insist on limiting it to one thing her debut album "Horses" is the main reason why she was voted in, not "Because the Night." I'm a bit surprised that people use a lack of mainstream popularity as an argument for someone not to be inducted. Who cares? I don't. She would have gotten my vote regardless of whether she sold 4000 or 40 million records.. As for influence, well, she's sorta the mother of New Wave and Punk, ain't she?
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 11, 2013 9:19:55 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: I wouldn't be so quick as to say that Wenner's one vote isn't a problem. Supposedly a number of years ago, when it seemed the Dave Clark Five got the required 50%+1 to get in, they were suddenly left off the list because Wenner decided the Hall of Fame needed a rap group in there. Really? Needless to say that that is.....well, I don't know what to say really. Not that I myself would ever vote for the Dave Clark Five (I consider them lightweight), but you can't accept or even introduce a certain formula because you consider it fair and then all of a sudden change the rules because you don't like the results.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 10, 2013 9:16:31 GMT -5
It is great to see Linda doing so well, but it counts as only one actual vote out of 600, I think. Still, a good sign... If it's 600 people that have a vote I see no reason why everyone always gets so excited about Jann Wenner. His is only one opinion out of 600 - no problem.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 2, 2013 13:44:50 GMT -5
I think she just titled it like that as a way of saying that she feels that country is a format that fits her. I have the album and although it can definitely be called country it's stylistically not that far removed from the classic Sheryl Crow sound. I think it's a pretty good album.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 2, 2013 5:19:39 GMT -5
I agree that it's just a problem with the sound quality. I mean she almost sounds like Janis Joplin. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not Linda. She (as always) looks like the cutest girl in history though.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Dec 2, 2013 4:40:46 GMT -5
Nice. It would also be cool to have some of those old concerts that so far have only been available on bootlegs and semi-bootlegs on dvd or bluray. Include appearances on things like the tonight show, the Johnny Cash show, that playboy thing and others, a disc of the official videos, the mariachi dvd, the what's new concert and there's enough material to make it a six or seven disc box set.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 30, 2013 7:19:56 GMT -5
Apart from what has become a fairly typical case of self-deprecation on her part (which I think might give those who are not fans the wrong idea), what struck me was that Linda said something to the effect that she would try to write a song, but someone like J.D. Souther or Jackson Browne would always write something that (in her opinion) was much better. Granted, she managed to find a lot of these great songs in her own backyard, and they fitted her to a tee, but it's a bit of a shame that she felt so intimidated by these guys that she only ever wrote a mere handful of songs, since those few were remarkably well-crafted, intelligent, and heartfelt (IMHO). Setting aside that being a songwriter and having a publishing outlet is the gift that keeps on giving (monetarily, at the very least), I don't think she could have written a bad song if she tried, especially seeing as how the people she was around in the day would have collaborated with her anytime and anywhere. At least her songwriting efforts wouldn't sound like they were written by committee, like too much of the sludge that has infected the airwaves. I think it's just a lack of self confidence. She couldn't expect herself to write something as great as Carole King or Jackson Browne when she was not even a part-time writer, but she would have gotten better at it with practice, especially when we consider how good the few things she wrote and ended up recording were. And on those old lp's there was only room for about 35 minutes of music. On todays cd's there's room for the equivalent of a double lp back then. If she had to come up with 60 or 70 minutes of music for each album in the 70's she probably would have found the room to include a few of her own tunes on them.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 29, 2013 5:07:19 GMT -5
Almost anything on Dedicated to the One I Love. I like the originals (most of them anyway), but I can't stand that album.
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Nov 14, 2013 6:55:56 GMT -5
I doubt that if someone would break her leg that she wouldn't cry and just spit in their eye though.
|
|