|
Post by musicaamator on Feb 6, 2013 15:30:54 GMT -5
Seeing that picture of Nikki Minaj in the one thread, plus Beyonce's so-called performance during the Super Bowl halftime (which I did not care to watch) got me thinking:
If Linda's career started during this time instead of the late 60's/70's, do you think she would be as successful? Would she give Swift, Adele, Pink etc. a run for their money/audience?
In my bias, she runs circles around these "singers" of today anyhow and she didn't have to use sex blatantly. Her's was a subtle sexiness--and this was during the pre-video age! But with music industry these days being as it is, would her career survive today if she was just starting out?
What do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 15:34:50 GMT -5
In her heyday, Linda would have been untouchable.... if Linda were starting out today, I honestly don't think she would be as successful.. it is the public taste (or lack of same) that has changed, not Linda's talent of course. BTW I do think Adele is highly talented.. although I find her material a little bland and shallow (I would like to see her expand her writing beyond the usual male - female blah blah blah.. Taylor Swift I have less hope for...
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 6, 2013 16:02:26 GMT -5
I agree with everything Robert said, and would also add the record business today isn't the same business it was when Linda started out and later when she achieved her greatest success. When Linda started out (with the Stone Poneys), record companies wanted two or three new albums per year. Even during her solo years, the expectation was one new album per year. Look at how the business is run today: an artist records and releases a new album, and then waits two or three years (or longer) to record and release the next album. Some of the artists have gotten into the idea that they are artistes, that every song they do is a work of art which requires a lot of time to get it right.
Linda came along at the right time. She had a big hit with "Different Drum" (which likely wouldn't have been a hit if she, Bob and Kenny had insisted on going with their more folksy bluegrass version), struggled to come up with a follow up hit - which would be "Long, Long Time," and then struggle yet some more until the one-two punch of "Don't Cry Now" and "Heart Like a Wheel." Capitol kept her signed to their label even though the hits were few and far between and hit albums were practically nonexistent until "Heart." That wouldn't happen today. Record companies are quick ro drop the option on an artist if they don't get a hit right off and their album tanks. Linda's success took some time to happen but it did happen. And her musical success allowed her to be more musically adventurous, moving out from the country and rock music of her early career intio the big band and Mexican recordings she did. The only thing I disagree with her about is her dismissing her earlier successes. Without the early success, she probably would never have gotten the chance to do the big band and Mexican recordings. Without any kind of success, she probably would've been recording on some grade-Z vanity record label, recording and releasing singles and rare albums that few would've heard. She really needs to appreciate the musical freedom her successes of the 60s and 70s gave her, and stop putting that music down.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Feb 6, 2013 16:41:28 GMT -5
That's a good and interesting question, Music.. I think we've talked about this before. How a young Linda just starting out in today's music business would present herself as an artist. We've talked about her culture and influences as far as music would of course be different in this day and age.. and I agree with robert too.. she would also have to appeal to the kids of today like she did back then.. but she would have that understanding and interest of what is current like she did back then. I don't see her as a lady ga ga type artist.. lol because she would have to be a completely different person ha. I think Linda would be just as successful as she was back then, it's just her approach whether it be country music, indie, pop.. and I almost want to assume her level of popularity and style now would be more like a kelly clarkson .. if I had to compare that's the closest in today's market and who Linda's fanbase would most likely be..
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 6, 2013 17:56:33 GMT -5
I think Linda woud've been herself in any era in which she would've made her debut, but had she made her debut in the present time and was just 19-21 years of age (same as her ages in the Stone Poneys era), I think there could've been some differences. The Arizona she grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s wouldn't have been the same Arizona in the 1990s and 2000s. She could've grown up in the same poisonous environment that produced Jan Brewer and the thugs of the Republican party, and what if she had been influenced by that kind of environment? Who would've been her musical influecnes? Elvis and Buddy Holly would've been long dead had she been born in the late 80s or early 90s. Buddy Holly is largely forgotten on oldies radio and Elvis, who had close to 150 Top 100 hits in his lifetime is reduced to just five or six hits. But, would Linda's musical diet have included Elvis or Buddy or any of the artists from the past, or would her musical heroes today have been the artists and bands who are this year's flavor of the year but totally forgotten next year? In the kind of entertainment environment we have today, I could see Linda breaking through and achieving success but then possibly being forgotten as quickly as many of the other artists and bands have been forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Feb 6, 2013 18:06:21 GMT -5
Slide I've not heard of anyone except annie lennox or pink if you want more current who she has said kind things about.. I know she has used beyonce as an example of talent and beauty.. (you''d have to have to survive in today's music) Since she def would not fit in with the nashville attitude.. so I don't see her full force there.. maybe a cross over here and there. I doubt Linda could ever be jan brewer type or be influenced .. isn't her family kind of split politically anyway.. I think people are born into their beliefs .. it's part of their souls which you cannot change.. influence plays a part but in the end you are who you are. lol
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Feb 6, 2013 19:30:14 GMT -5
I think Linda would have adapted and found a way to succeed. Or maybe she would have gone the opera path. Hard to say. She is a risk taker so I think she would have been fine no matter the time period.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 6, 2013 20:06:39 GMT -5
I think Robert is right on this point; from about 1975 to 1990, when it came right down to the business of singing and nothing else, Linda was unassailable. Everyone knew that she was largely about substance; whatever image she had, it was not something she copied.
These days, my guess is that, if she were doing now what we knew she was doing back in the early 1970s, she'd probably fall into the Americana field, since her approach to country music was always well to the left of what Nashville was (and even more today is) doing. She could have had a steady career in that arena, comparable to someone like Lucinda Williams (IMHO).
Mainstream success would be much tougher, however, because I fear that Linda would have to have a lot of flash and gloss, or she might have had to win a season on either The Voice or American Idol. And I have to agree with Robert about Taylor Swift: For whatever reason, the older she gets, the less mature her songs become, and the more irritating her voice is.
That said, I do think it is important to remember what Linda's actual career wrought: four generations of country (mainstream and alternative/Americana) and roots-rock female artists, from Emmy to Nicolette Larson; Trisha Yearwood; Sheryl Crow; Lucinda; Martina McBride; Patty Loveless; Tish Hinojosa; Tift Merritt; and many more.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 6, 2013 20:18:12 GMT -5
Slide I've not heard of anyone except annie lennox or pink if you want more current who she has said kind things about.. I know she has used beyonce as an example of talent and beauty.. (you''d have to have to survive in today's music) Since she def would not fit in with the nashville attitude.. so I don't see her full force there.. maybe a cross over here and there.
It's possible yet I still believe if Linda had been born in 1991 rather than 1946, she could've been a different personality and had different values all way around, including having different tastes in music. What she found objectionable about Nashville in 1969-70, she might not feel the same way today if she was 23 years old and wanting to be a country singer. That's what makes the what if? question such an intriguing question. The possibilities are endless. You can apply the question to Linda's musical career in the 60s and 70s and later as much as you can apply the idea to if she was just getting her start today.
I doubt Linda could ever be jan brewer type or be influenced .. isn't her family kind of split politically anyway.. I think people are born into their beliefs .. it's part of their souls which you cannot change.. influence plays a part but in the end you are who you are. lol
I couldn't see Linda being a Jan Brewer-type Republican or being influenced that way, as I very much agree with the idea that our beliefs are born with us when we are born. Both of my parents were conservative types - though both were Democrats - but I've always been a liberal. Even as a kid, I was a liberal. Still, I think some of the outside world influences us and can change our beliefs to some degree. I've always believed in fair play and that means not running rough shod over those I don't agree with or ramming stuff down their throats they don't like, But, that belief also works both ways and from my perspective, conservative types couldn't care less about what those who don't agree with them think. I'm noy sure there is a solution to that kind of mindset.
As for Linda's family and their political beliefs, and the possibility some of her family members might not think the way she does politically, I wonder if any political discussions they might have had around the dinner table got heated? Same with her religious beliefs. Of course, they could politely agree to disagree and let it go at that. But, I've known a family or two where differing political-religious beliefs led to little family civil wars. Luckily, Linda's family never seems to have been like that.
|
|
|
Post by profstadt on Feb 6, 2013 20:18:57 GMT -5
Seeing that picture of Nikki Minaj in the one thread, plus Beyonce's so-called performance during the Super Bowl halftime (which I did not care to watch) got me thinking: If Linda's career started during this time instead of the late 60's/70's, do you think she would be as successful? Would she give Swift, Adele, Pink etc. a run for their money/audience? In my bias, she runs circles around these "singers" of today anyhow and she didn't have to use sex blatantly. Her's was a subtle sexiness--and this was during the pre-video age! But with music industry these days being as it is, would her career survive today if she was just starting out? What do you think? The sexiness part of Linda's personna is interesting. Though it may have appeared more "subtle" than "blatant" to many of us, it certainly wasn't just a casual aspect of her personna. Consider what she said in the following interviews: from the book Rock'n Roll Woman © 1974 by Katherine Orloff Do you try to be sexy on stage? “ Yes,I always do. That's rough too, because when I first started doing it, I thought that was what you were supposed to do. I really felt that if I was sexy enough, they'd like me no matter what. I always used that to try to compensate for everything, to make people like me. I did that all my life as a kid, too. And it was always a problem, because if you come on sexy like that, that's the response you get, you get a sexy reaction. However, it's not necessarily flattering, it's not necessarily intelligent, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the music. Very often, it's detrimental to the way people think of you.” “I've gone sort of back and forth between going on stage trying to look as glamorous as possible, and going on stage trying to just look regular. I did a year when I just wore street clothes all the time because I thought, well shit, no one's ever going to take me seriously if I go on stage in shorts and spangles and looking like a piece of cheese. But on the other hand, I really think that's part of it, too. I think that's part of the comfort.” NEW TIMES Oct. 14, 1977 LINDA RONSTADT: HER SOFT-CORE CHARMS by John Rockwell "I think women aren't put off by my sexuality because I never flirt with an audience using sex as a weapon. I flirt because it's fun. It's not a sexy thing so much as spunk and enthusiasm. I feel like the audience is involved and I'm involved. People love somebody who has spunk. They want you to be their hero, their victor. You can use sex as a threat, or you can use it like Dolly [Parton] uses it, as a celebration of your attractiveness, with nobody left out. "I love sex as much as I love music, and I think it's as hard to do," she begins- back at the oven again this time, poking nervously at her rather leaden-looking bread loaves. "I don't know how good a sex symbol I am, but I do think I'm good at being sexy. The sexual aspect of my personality has been played up a lot, and I can't say it hasn't been part of my success. But it's unfair in a way, because I don't think I look as good as my image. Sometimes I feel guilty about it, sometimes I feel embarrassed about it, sometimes I feel I have to compete with it.[emphasis added]
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Feb 6, 2013 20:30:34 GMT -5
I think Linda would have adapted and found a way to succeed. Or maybe she would have gone the opera path. Hard to say. She is a risk taker so I think she would have been fine no matter the time period. I agree she is a risk taker as proven by the nelson riddle and canciones albums.. but that camer later, after she was was established. She had to have been highly ambitious and she knew what type of music sold for that time, even tho she admitted early on that practically nobody was buying her music or else she would have auditioned for the opera or studied for it. . I'm sure as a young artist she had to make tons of compromises to get radio play and a deal going.. and I'm still not sure whether she really loved those rock/pop songs she sang back then or simply disliked the way she sang them.. It's still very confusing for me.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Feb 6, 2013 21:21:25 GMT -5
Rock Star
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Feb 6, 2013 23:03:53 GMT -5
Ha. She looks like Selena Gomez there!
|
|
|
Post by JasonKlose on Feb 9, 2013 21:25:15 GMT -5
I agree with everything Robert said, and would also add the record business today isn't the same business it was when Linda started out and later when she achieved her greatest success. When Linda started out (with the Stone Poneys), record companies wanted two or three new albums per year. Even during her solo years, the expectation was one new album per year. Look at how the business is run today: an artist records and releases a new album, and then waits two or three years (or longer) to record and release the next album. Some of the artists have gotten into the idea that they are artistes, that every song they do is a work of art which requires a lot of time to get it right. Linda came along at the right time. She had a big hit with "Different Drum" (which likely wouldn't have been a hit if she, Bob and Kenny had insisted on going with their more folksy bluegrass version), struggled to come up with a follow up hit - which would be "Long, Long Time," and then struggle yet some more until the one-two punch of "Don't Cry Now" and "Heart Like a Wheel." Capitol kept her signed to their label even though the hits were few and far between and hit albums were practically nonexistent until "Heart." That wouldn't happen today. Record companies are quick ro drop the option on an artist if they don't get a hit right off and their album tanks. Linda's success took some time to happen but it did happen. And her musical success allowed her to be more musically adventurous, moving out from the country and rock music of her early career intio the big band and Mexican recordings she did. The only thing I disagree with her about is her dismissing her earlier successes. Without the early success, she probably would never have gotten the chance to do the big band and Mexican recordings. Without any kind of success, she probably would've been recording on some grade-Z vanity record label, recording and releasing singles and rare albums that few would've heard. She really needs to appreciate the musical freedom her successes of the 60s and 70s gave her, and stop putting that music down. I totally agree with everything you said. The music business has changed drastically since Linda was in her prime, especially in the 1970s. Back then, artists were putting out albums like crazy; practically every single year and sometimes more than one. Like you said, artists today need to have hits straight out of the gate if they want to have any kind of success. With Linda it took some time, but eventually it did happen for her, and of course the rest is history. What I think happens today is that singers become the next big thing so quickly that their success eventually fades away as quickly as it comes. There is no time for them to learn and to grow artistically, musically, personally, and in so many other ways. I think Linda came at the right time and in the right place. Just like the Eagles did. Who knows? There may have never been the Eagles if not for Linda. She should have been inducted into the RRHOF with the Eagles in 1998. She was a pioneer in the country rock genre in the late '60s to early '70s, and all of her contemporaries have the highest praise for her. As for the comparison to today's so-called female singers. Linda blows them all away any day, past or present. Not even close. Just my opinion. I've been listening to her voice for a long time now, and I just think a voice like hers comes along once in a lifetime. Linda's voice is truly a gift from God. So why did Beyonce have to lip-sync the national anthem at the presidential inauguration? She said she didn't have enough time to prepare? She shouldn't have had to. Not a professional singer! Do you think Linda would have done that? I don't think so. I actually missed the National Anthem for the Super Bowl. From what I heard, Alicia Keys did a good job with it. But some told me that she really stretched it out, like they all do these days. Remember the days when the Star-Spangled Banner was actually sung, and sung the way it was written and meant to be sung? I'm sure most people on this forum have heard Linda's rendition of the National Anthem at the 1977 World Series at Dodger Stadium. For those who haven't, here it is. For those who have, it's more than worth listening to over and over again. Beautiful woman, beautiful voice! Love the Dodger jacket. Nice touch and sooooo cute!
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 9, 2013 23:11:38 GMT -5
Quote by jasonk73:
I really think the constant need of a lot of these R&B-based singers to one-up Whitney Houston or Aretha Franklin on how long they can hold the notes has really wrecked everyone's perceptions of great singers, and not just when it comes to our National Anthem either. Of course when Linda did hers in 1977, she was the most popular female singer in pop music; and while she wasn't exactly wild about doing the National Anthem, she still went out and sang it, and did so without the blatant vocal acrobatics.
As I've said, though, there are great singers who have learned from Linda's example. The media won't necessarily tell you about them, but I and others will. Robert and I have talked a blue streak about Tift Merritt; and I myself have put the good word in for a very Ronstadt-inspired "young'un" named Caitlin Rose.
Incidentally, as an aside, I deliberately turned the TV off during Beyonce's burlesque halftime show. It was like Valium to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Feb 10, 2013 0:03:45 GMT -5
I didn't or don't know her reasoning (beyonce lip sync NA) but if so, I'm getting a little tired of hearing that same old played -out excuse.".Not prepared. " Even I know the dang song by heart. she's supposed to be a professional singer.. And I'm glad people complain about it, it makes the artist look a little bit like a cheat.. Didn't Whitney start the whole trend to begin with? Pre record the NA for Superbowl? In this case for our president.. As far as Alicia keys, I didn't care for it.. it was too slow and boring.. either it's too over the top.. or too boring and subtle.. just sing the damn song in it's tradition. lol On a side note, that was one hell of a game.. damn san fran!. I even turned off all my lights in the house for good luck to the niners..
|
|
|
Post by philly on Feb 10, 2013 0:35:58 GMT -5
Quote by jasonk73: I really think the constant need of a lot of these R&B-based singers to one-up Whitney Houston or Aretha Franklin on how long they can hold the notes has really wrecked everyone's perceptions of great singers, and not just when it comes to our National Anthem either. Of course when Linda did hers in 1977, she was the most popular female singer in pop music; and while she wasn't exactly wild about doing the National Anthem, she still went out and sang it, and did so without the blatant vocal acrobatics. As I've said, though, there are great singers who have learned from Linda's example. The media won't necessarily tell you about them, but I and others will. Robert and I have talked a blue streak about Tift Merritt; and I myself have put the good word in for a very Ronstadt-inspired "young'un" named Caitlin Rose. Incidentally, as an aside, I deliberately turned the TV off during Beyonce's burlesque halftime show. It was like Valium to me. They just joked on SNL weekend update about Alicia Keys' NA lasting into the 1st or 2nd quarter of the super bowl ;D When I was a kid I never had a problem with the song and never heard anyone else having problems either...not until maybe the 80s?, when I started hearing about all these botched performances, and how hard a song it is to do, trained singers getting the lyrics out of order...maybe it's a side effect of practically everyone trying to embellish the original, overthinking it? Yeah, it's a little akward when I think about it, but it was so drilled into me, it's like the easiest song to do, about as easy as reciting the pledge.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 10, 2013 0:48:59 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna:
I guess it's their way of not making them look like a horse's a** in front of a worldwide audience; but by doing this pre-recorded stuff, they show me that they are horse's a**es anyway. Linda did it cold (and was warned by Peter Asher about the organ and the reverberations around Dodger Stadium), and went over like gangbusters. Apparently neither Beyonce nor Alicia Keys could do that.
As for the Super Bowl--I watched the game itself from start (through blackout) to riveting finish. I was hoping the 49ers would pull it off, but they fell just a tad bit short.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 10, 2013 15:28:33 GMT -5
I guess it's their way of not making them look like a horse's a** in front of a worldwide audience; but by doing this pre-recorded stuff, they show me that they are horse's a**es anyway. Linda did it cold (and was warned by Peter Asher about the organ and the reverberations around Dodger Stadium), and went over like gangbusters. Apparently neither Beyonce nor Alicia Keys could do that. I'd guess their attitude may have been that since it was going to be broadcast on tv, why not play it safe? No danger of missed notes, forgotten lyrics, just stand there and lip sync. No one will notice or really care. But, the Superbowl has become as infamous for its non-sports activity as it has for the football game. But, I have heard of performers griping about playing football stadiums with poor acoustics, so that could also be a reason why some performers choose to lip sync rather than sing live. Elvis played the Houston Astrodome in 1970 and he was not happy with the sound. I recall reading the sound just bounced all over the place and after having to deal earlier with some bigoted Houston officials who tried to keep the Sweet Inspirations out of the building - which caused Elvis to almost cancel the show (with the threat that he'd make sure the fans in Houston and the world knew the reason why), he wasn't eager to repeat the experience. Still, if you're a singer, you don't want to cheat the audience with a fake performance, especially when there is a large audience right there with you. But, certain performers these days are going to augment their shows with lip synching, additional backing vocals and/or musical backing which is pre-recorded. I recall Madonna catching some flak because her concert appearances allegedly included her lip synching because of grueling dance segments. How big of a deal was that? Not too big, I guess. She is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after all, which is headed by that arbiter of hypocritical musical honesty and integrity, Jann Wenner. If certain other artists or bands had done that, Wenner the purist would be barring them at the door, citing the lack of their musical honesty and integrity. No doubt Beyonce is an already guaranteed shoo-in for her place in the R&RHoF as a solo performer. And she'll probably be in there while Linda is still a glaring omission.
|
|
|
Post by 70smusicfan on Feb 10, 2013 16:39:41 GMT -5
Back to the original topic - I was thinking LR would have had to have her teeth fixed first if she were starting out now. I actually think she looked better with the slight imperfection before the dental work in/around the 80s (there is a Nelson Algren quote about Chicago that goes "Yet once you've come to be part of this particular patch [Chicago], you'll never love another. Like loving a woman with a broken nose, you may well find lovelier lovelies. But never a lovely so real." From Chicago: City on the Make (1951)
|
|
|
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 erik on Feb 12, 2013 10:46:14 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).
|
|
|
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 Dianna on Feb 12, 2013 11:48:22 GMT -5
After thinking about it, If she were a young artist today, I honestly do not see Linda singing country music.. it's way too (as she put it) generic now.. most of it. She might cross over.. but she's a hippie at heart, and other than opera, look at the current female artists she admires.. adele, amy, pink, duffy and alicia.. no mention of a carrie/taylor/miranda/faith... Unless she were to pioneer an americana and make it big mainstream.. like she did with country rock..
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 12, 2013 14:49:18 GMT -5
Quote by dianna: 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.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 12, 2013 15:00:38 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.
|
|
|
Post by 70smusicfan on Feb 12, 2013 15:50:42 GMT -5
I know nothing of time signatures, keys, etc. - but it seems to me today's Country is a lot more like the SoCal Country-Rock from the 70s (a lot more twangy) while today's Americana is yesterday's Country.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Feb 12, 2013 15:53:43 GMT -5
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. ha ha.. and we've heard just about every other word describing it from.., mainstream, vanilla, middle of the road to generic..I always use this word when describing poor workmanship..think I might start using the word: "shoddy" to describe music too.
|
|
|
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 sliderocker on Feb 12, 2013 17:19:43 GMT -5
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. To me, a lot of what passes for country these days is the retreaded pop music of the late 70s. A singer thinks all he or or she or they have to do is put a steel guitar and violin (fiddle) on it and presto, it's country. Ironically, their heroes are usually the Eagles and Linda or any of the other southern Cal country rockers. But, if you're going to take your lead from them, why not do it right and make your music at least approach their level? Of course, a lot of old time country these days is too country, too old to be part of the modern country, and you have country songwriters whose songs are more pop-rock songs than country songs. All of which leads me to believe country as a genre doesn't really exist anymore except maybe in small, isolated pockets. Many of the country performers of today are not from the rural areas of the US but from the metropolitan areas, so they don't really have the same musical frame that the older performers had. But, maybe another way of looking at it is that the country of the present day belongs to the performers who make the music and the audience who buys it. It's their time, just as it was once our time. The same rule applies to rock. Those of us who were in the 60s and 70s made our choices, and those who came before us didn't always agree with our musical preferences either. But, we were no different in looking down our noses at musical performers who came later than 1980 and their audiences for supporting them. I like to hope that we were (or are) more justified in our criticisms than those who criticized our musical heroes, but I have to think that that some part of the criticism is because those we liked no longer rule the airwaves like they once did. We still want our favorites to be ruling the airwaves and leading in sales. But, the baby boomer generation has placed its musical values over several generations, and those musical values may well last beyond the baby boomer generation. It's that same baby boomer generation that shapeshifted the country music of the 1950s and early 1960s into the countrypolitan sound that shaped the msuic in the mid to late 1960s and still shapes the music today.
|
|