|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 29, 2013 16:40:41 GMT -5
Q & A With Linda Ronstadt
James Sullivan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Published 4:00 am, Sunday, June 21, 1998
Several tracks on Linda Ronstadt's new album "We Ran," due this Tuesday, reach back to her earliest days as a folk-rocker on the budding Los Angeles scene. She's joined on the new album by Tom Petty's Heartbreakers, former Eagle Bernie Leadon and, on tracks such as John Hiatt's "When We Ran" and Bob Dylan's "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues," legendary rock producer Glyn Johns.
Once one of the country's hottest pop stars, Ronstadt, 52, has pursued a dizzying range of styles in recent years, including opera, traditional Mexican music and the popular standard. Though she recently sold her home in Pacific Heights and moved her two adopted children back to her hometown of Tucson, Ariz., she maintains a second residence in San Francisco.
Q: Please clear this up: Your first band, the Stone Poneys -- what was with the spelling of Poneys?
A: You know, I'm a real good speller, and I had a pony, and I never even noticed that. Must have been the record company.
Q: Is there such a thing as the so-called California sound?
A: Yeah! Back in the days when music used to be regional, you didn't hear the same kind of music on the radio in California as you did in New Jersey or New York.
Q: What made the sound distinct?
A: The Byrds were what brought me to California, because I was a folk-music person. I heard them singing (Pete Seeger's) "Turn, Turn, Turn" and "The Bells of Rhymney" and I thought, "Gee, 12-string guitar amplified, and Chris Hillman," who we knew as a bluegrass player. I loved country music, and at that point country music was still considered hopelessly unhip. When I met Gram Parsons and Bernie Leadon, they were like closet country music lovers. We would get together and play these country songs, and it eventually worked its way into our material.
Q: Did Parsons lead the way?
A: We all sort of did it at once. I can remember my manager at the time saying, "Ecchh. It's too country for rock, and too rock for country. It's too corny." My feelings were hurt, but it was too much a part of who I was. Gram introduced me to Emmy (Emmylou Harris), and Emmy was a folk-music person who had never listened to country music. As soon as I heard Emmy singing, I kind of moved over (laughs). Now we do it together, and that's the best thing.
Q: Another "Trio" record (with Dolly Parton)?
A: No. We've just been doing things together over the years. We don't know whether it'll come out, or when. At this part of my career I can afford to say, "I will only spend time and energy on the things that I absolutely have to do or they'll keep me up at night."
Q: You've been doing that for 15 years now.
A: But now I don't even feel like I have to perform (laughs). The thing I've been obsessed with for years is glass music. On my last two records I used a lot of it, but I did such a job of layering it up that it sounds like synthesizers. Now I've been asked to produce a (glass) record by a classical label. Mozart, of course, wrote a ton of music for glass.
Q: Was "Winter Light" (1994) the first album where you used glass?
A: Yes. My memory is that I was with Van Dyke Parks and Lowell George when I first heard it -- but my memory is so bad! I remember it thrilling me to the center of my being. It might have been on a (film) scoring stage. This would've been, you know, 1971. We'd get up about 10 o'clock and we'd just start exploring. We'd go around to everybody's recording studio and we'd just hang out.
Q: That sounds like what Brian Wilson was up to, exploring unusual sounds for their own sake.
A: Yeah. We were very eclectic. It was just a great time. But when the shows moved out of the club level, we stopped seeing each other. Who wants to go to the coliseums? The sound is so bad. It changed the nature of the music profoundly, because subtlety does not prevail in a coliseum. I sang with Placido Domingo one time in a place like that, and I was so disappointed. The orchestra was just a roar. The only performance I've done this year was at a 750-seat hall (in Tucson), and I loved it.
Q: Did you move to Tucson for family reasons?
A: I think it was because I was spending a lot of time in Tucson with my family, and when I woke up in the morning, I heard the same birds that I heard as a child. It's really as basic as that. I felt like the tornado had blown me back to Kansas -- this long, treacherous journey, and I made it home safe.
Q: How do you stay connected with people you played with 20 years ago?
A: Bernie Leadon and I were neighbors in Topanga Canyon. It was a completely intimate friendship, like brother and sister. He was playing in my band, and I introduced him to Glenn Frey, and then we introduced Glenn to Don Henley. My manager introduced all of us to Randy Meisner, and that's how we formed the Eagles.
Q: Was it exhilarating as your star was rising to watch those guys take off as well?
A: We didn't think about that. We really thought, you know, "Can this drummer play a good shuffle?" We really didn't think about being stars. I've made a lot of attempts to play the music of my heart and failed. Even the stuff that was successful was often to me not a success artistically.
Q: In which cases did both things work?
A: The whole Mexican adventure, and the Nelson Riddle adventure. But in terms of my singing on the Nelson Riddle projects, those were all works-in-progress. (The recording of) "What's New" was literally the first time I ever sang it with accompaniment. I know how to phrase it so much better now. But that was my chance to get at that deeper, richer vein of pop music, which has finally been understood and written about rather extensively with the passing of Frank Sinatra. This was the American Century, and the most unique and largest contribution it gave to the world was the popular song. We didn't give 'em great sculpture in this century, or great painting. But we gave the world the popular song.
Q: Does a song like "You're No Good" fit into that?
A: Absolutely not. That's a throwaway song. I'm sure the person who wrote it had the best intentions, but you can't compare that to a song by Gershwin. And you can't compare a song like "When Will I Be Loved" to a song by Rodgers and Hart.
Q: How familiar with the Heartbreakers were you?
A: I was very intimidated by them, and I was blown away at how sweet they are. Of course, I always go to their concerts. I saw them at the Fillmore. It was one of the best shows I've ever seen. But I don't stay out past 7:30 at night. I sat there in all that smoke.
Q: There's no smoking anymore at the Fillmore.
A: I felt like a diseased lung. I had to wash my hair for three days.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 30, 2013 14:04:23 GMT -5
Q: Does a song like "You're No Good" fit into that? A: Absolutely not. That's a throwaway song. I'm sure the person who wrote it had the best intentions, but you can't compare that to a song by Gershwin. And you can't compare a song like "When Will I Be Loved" to a song by Rodgers and Hart. This is an attitude I hope Linda has moved away from as she's gotten older. Her comments border on being divaish and extremely pretentious, and she came across as taking herself way too seriously. As for saying one can't compare You're No Good to a song by Gershwin (which should be Gershwins as George's brother Ira usually penned the lyrics to George's melodies), I recall an interview by Ira Gershwin (given shortly before his death) who said his brother George would've been excited by rock and roll and would've been writing in that genre had he been living. Likewise, her saying you can't compare When Will I Be Loved to a song by Rodgers and Hart could be taken as musical snobbery were it not for the fact that the person making the statement is someone who had a hit with the song. The Rodgers and Hart songs, like the songs by the Gershwin brothers, are from a different time. There was nothing wrong with Linda covering the Gershwins or Rodgers and Hart or any of the other Tin Pan Alley songwriters, but rock and roll was no less a valid art form. And Linda shouldn't be so dismissive of that art form when it made her extremely wealthy. Would it be possible that one of the reasons she has been overlooked for nomination to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is because of comments like the above? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 14:10:46 GMT -5
Well, perhaps Linda's disdain for her rock recordings hurt her HOF chances (which bothers her not at all, I'm sure). However, a Diva attitude would be 'yes, my work was great art'.. IMO anyway. I actually consider Linda more of an 'anti-diva.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 30, 2013 14:21:47 GMT -5
yeah, I don't get the diva tude either. if anything she is polar opposite and is never self congratulating.. I do agree with slide though that rock n roll is what made Linda a very wealthy woman and I'm sensing a biting the hand moment. lol. I'm happy Linda did rock and country rock because it allowed her to to other things, she seems to prefer. I think she liked those songs when she did them.. she just "gew up musically."
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 30, 2013 15:31:42 GMT -5
Well, perhaps Linda's disdain for her rock recordings hurt her HOF chances (which bothers her not at all, I'm sure). However, a Diva attitude would be 'yes, my work was great art'.. IMO anyway. I actually consider Linda more of an 'anti-diva.' I was thinking that maybe I was using the wrong wording in describing the comments by Linda, so I looked it up on Websters Online Dictionaru. And it gives the following definition for diva: One entry found for diva. Main Entry: di·va Pronunciation: d-v Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural divas or di·ve /-v/ Etymology: from Italian diva "goddess," from Latin diva (same meaning) 1 a : PRIMA DONNA 1 b : PRIMA DONNA 2 2 : a usually glamorous and successful female performer or celebrity <a fashion diva>; especially : a popular female singer <pop divas> Nothing about a female artist's performances, so maybe it wasn't the right wording to describe Linda's comment. But, what word would be the right word in describing her disdain and contempt for the rock music she (at that time) considered beneath her talents? I had always thought divaish behavior could go different ways, including being contemptuous of different musical forms. It didn't necessarily have to mean "Everything I do is great." I've heard diva used to describe certain performers (like Diana Ross) and it had absolutely nothing to do with the music. More like an air of superiority, I think, but maybe biting the hand that made you wealthy doesn't qualify or shouldn't qualify as being divaish behavior. But, it's still a negative attitude I wish Linda hadn't had at the time. Hopefully, she doesn't have that attitude now but has gratitude for what the music gave her. Had she been singing the American songbooks of the 1920-50s in the 1970s and not one note of rock and country, the mention of her name today might've raised a quizzical look on the faces of many people. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 30, 2013 15:55:35 GMT -5
yeah, I don't get the diva tude either. if anything she is polar opposite and is never self congratulating.. I do agree with slide though that rock n roll is what made Linda a very wealthy woman and I'm sensing a biting the hand moment. lol. I'm happy Linda did rock and country rock because it allowed her to to other things, she seems to prefer. I think she liked those songs when she did them.. she just "gew up musically." I don't understand Linda distancing herself from rock either, as she is almost alone, when it came to her musical peers. Other rock artists tried their hands at something different yet none ever saw the need to distance themselves from the rock genre or put it down or apologize for what they did in the past. That's your history and if it was successful, I think one's attitude should be one of gratitude rather than contempt and thinking the music is beneath one's talents. An artist with a negative attitude about their music gives the critics all the ammunition they need to be dismissive of that artist. Linda may have been dismissive on much of her music in the past but that music is probably responsible for 95% of her worldwide album sales, a total which exceeds 100 million. Hopefully, she's not that way now. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Apr 30, 2013 16:28:07 GMT -5
Several of Linda's comments from this interview can be taken out of context and gain emphasis when other comments are left out.
While she was still in thrall to the art and craft of the standards and the music of her ethnicity, she still makes it clear that rock and country are part of her.
"I loved country music..."
She continued making rock music -- indeed, this interview is in response to We Ran, a return to her country-rock roots, a record -- along with FLH -- that she didn't have to make. As she stated, she only records songs that would keep her "up nights" if she didn't. So we have to include the rock and country of these two records as proof of that.
Also, she talks about how much of a fan of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers she is, even saying that she attends their concerts when she can. Well, if you have disdain for rock and roll, you could find a less painful way to spend an evening than at a Tom Pettly concert.
If she's dismissive of a song like "You're No Good," it's dismissal is 20+ years after the fact, after recording it and singing it in however many concerts she sang it in that period of time. If she no longer likes it, it is hers, after all, to dismiss. It takes nothing from my enjoyment of that song, and I can vouch that the several times she sang it in concert she knocked it out of the park.
And vocally? YNG is a throwaway song compared to something like Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered or La Cigarra.
She's entitled to move on from her past efforts.
But even this interview is 15 years old, so I guess we'll have to wait for the memoir to find out what she feels now about her music. (But note that she even knocked her Nelson recordings, saying that she can sing them better now."
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Apr 30, 2013 17:20:39 GMT -5
She seems to be a woman of many flavors and moods, etc. You are right Richard. I really believe Linda liked most of what she recorded. Asher was the first to say that Linda is no pusharound. at the same time, especially in the beginning of a career, one sometimes has to make concessions to the record companies, promoters, etc. Linda is no exception. She has discussed wanting to do "different drum" acoustically and the record company won out on the orchestrated pop arrangement. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 30, 2013 17:59:59 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
I think another term that could be used is "artiste". It more or less means the same as what we've been discussing vis-a-vis this 1998 interview. It nevertheless still troubles me, because at least at that time, with an album like We Ran having just come out, it could have quite easily given the impression that she thought she was somehow "superior" to those who had bought her records over the years. It is one thing for her to be proud of her achievements in doing the Great American Songbook, and the Mexican music of her heritage. But it is quite another for her to decry her efforts in rock and roll in an attempt to prop herself up in those areas. You don't necessarily gain new fans that way, and you don't keep the ones you have very long. Rightly or wrongly, people can see this as snobbery and even arrogance, even if it is of a different stripe than that of a "diva."
Still, if we can judge by her Grace Cathedral interview from two months ago, Linda may very well be coming to terms with her past. I would hope that that is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 30, 2013 18:03:49 GMT -5
I think people often miss the point she is making and take it personally. Linda is speaking as a singer, singing those songs and not a Fan of a singer singing those songs. In other words, for a truy gifted singer with a voice like hers there is NO comparison when singing them. Her voice can soar when it is a song by Standards writers and Rock and Roll was not written for singers, it was written for guitars. Linda is not a guitar. If she were a guitar she wouldn't have been able to have been interviewed or even hold a microphone because guitars don't have hands. Neither can they speak.
The Mexican music also allowed her voice to become transcendental. I may have no idea what she is singing but I know I could listen to that Mexican voice all day long. There is nothing like it even amongst the greatest Mexican singers. Lola Beltran comes closest and purists criticize Linda and recommend we go to the original Mexican artists but what they don't get is those artists aren't Linda and don't have that voice that is so mesmerizing. People in the jungles of South and Central America are listening to those records. They have become the standard for Mariachi and her Frenesi is sublime!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 30, 2013 18:21:26 GMT -5
The Mexican music also allowed her voice to become transcendental. I may have no idea what she is singing but I know I could listen to that Mexican voice all day long. There is nothing like it even amongst the greatest Mexican singers. Lola Beltran comes closest and purists criticize Linda and recommend we go to the original Mexican artists but what they don't get is those artists aren't Linda and don't have that voice that is so mesmerizing. People in the jungles of South and Central America are listening to those records. They have become the standard for Mariachi and her Frenesi is sublime! Even the purists can find little wrong with her mariachi songs. a relative of mom's from mexico said this about her canciones album..." linda puts all the others to shame." (and he was an older uncle who loved the rancheras totally unbiased) I love her standards too but I can think of others in that genre who I enjoy as much and even more.. but as for mexican and country music.. nobody compares .. but I'm biased. and the word diva has been totally over used.. nowadays it doesn't mean it's orignal proper definition.. in today's terms.. spoiled drama queen = a diva |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 30, 2013 18:27:33 GMT -5
I think you'd get a certain amount of disagreement even from fans of the Great American Songbook that rock and roll is only a guitar player's medium, and not also a songwriter's. When you consider the body of work in what Lennon and McCartney, Bob Dylan, Randy Newman, Jimmy Webb, and others have created, you're talking about an enormous volume of material that keeps getting recorded and performed, and which has withstood the test of time. Is it different from Gershwin or Irvin Berlin? Absolutely. Is it on par with what they did? I think the examples I cited are proof that it is, again in a different way. This generalization of rock and roll as something that is only a medium for hot guitar players is not only a dangerously narrow stereotype, but it's also historically wrong. And I speak not just as a fan of Linda's, but someone who has read up and studied this.
In terms of her mariachi records, one can quite easily draw the connecting line between them and the authentic country music of the Southwest that Linda also grew up on (honky-tonk; Western swing, etc.), and how it influenced Linda's way of fusing country and rock. The more direct way would be through individual songs like "Lo Siento Mi Vida" (natch!), "Blue Bayou" (both versions), "Adonde Voy", "Carmelita", and "The Dreams Of The San Joaquin."
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 30, 2013 18:57:36 GMT -5
I think you'd get a certain amount of disagreement even from fans of the Great American Songbook that rock and roll is only a guitar player's medium, and not also a songwriter's. When you consider the body of work in what Lennon and McCartney, Bob Dylan, Randy Newman, Jimmy Webb, and others have created, you're talking about an enormous volume of material that keeps getting recorded and performed, and which has withstood the test of time. Is it different from Gershwin or Irvin Berlin? Absolutely. Is it on par with what they did? I think the examples I cited are proof that it is, again in a different way. This generalization of rock and roll as something that is only a medium for hot guitar players is not only a dangerously narrow stereotype, but it's also historically wrong. And I speak not just as a fan of Linda's, but someone who has read up and studied this. In terms of her mariachi records, one can quite easily draw the connecting line between them and the authentic country music of the Southwest that Linda also grew up on (honky-tonk; Western swing, etc.), and how it influenced Linda's way of fusing country and rock. The more direct way would be through individual songs like "Lo Siento Mi Vida" (natch!), "Blue Bayou" (both versions), "Adonde Voy", "Carmelita", and "The Dreams Of The San Joaquin." I wouldn't compare the 2 either.. as per your examples given.. . Linda has said (from a singers point of view) the standards are written for singers.. which I agree with.. the last verse on FM's tumbling dice.. her screaming. as great and on key as it sounded.. that could not have been healthy on her chords.. I used to try to imitate her and I'd end up coughing. verses.. Skylark.. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Apr 30, 2013 19:13:20 GMT -5
I think people often miss the point she is making and take it personally. Linda is speaking as a singer, singing those songs and not a Fan of a singer singing those songs. In other words, for a truy gifted singer with a voice like hers there is NO comparison when singing them. Her voice can soar when it is a song by Standards writers and Rock and Roll was not written for singers, it was written for guitars. Linda is not a guitar. If she were a guitar she wouldn't have been able to have been interviewed or even hold a microphone because guitars don't have hands. Neither can they speak. The Mexican music also allowed her voice to become transcendental. I may have no idea what she is singing but I know I could listen to that Mexican voice all day long. There is nothing like it even amongst the greatest Mexican singers. Lola Beltran comes closest and purists criticize Linda and recommend we go to the original Mexican artists but what they don't get is those artists aren't Linda and don't have that voice that is so mesmerizing. People in the jungles of South and Central America are listening to those records. They have become the standard for Mariachi and her Frenesi is sublime! Exactly. "Linda is not a guitar." Priceless. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 30, 2013 20:40:21 GMT -5
I think another term that could be used is "artiste". It more or less means the same as what we've been discussing vis-a-vis this 1998 interview. It nevertheless still troubles me, because at least at that time, with an album like We Ran having just come out, it could have quite easily given the impression that she thought she was somehow "superior" to those who had bought her records over the years. It is one thing for her to be proud of her achievements in doing the Great American Songbook, and the Mexican music of her heritage. But it is quite another for her to decry her efforts in rock and roll in an attempt to prop herself up in those areas. You don't necessarily gain new fans that way, and you don't keep the ones you have very long. Rightly or wrongly, people can see this as snobbery and even arrogance, even if it is of a different stripe than that of a "diva." Still, if we can judge by her Grace Cathedral interview from two months ago, Linda may very well be coming to terms with her past. I would hope that that is the case. Artiste is probably a closer term to describe Linda in this interview, although even there, when I think of artistes, my impression of someone like that is they think everything they do is a work of art or has to be a work of art. It can't be anything substandard. And I think many artistes do come across as being a bit of a snob and arrogant. Of course, I'd be willing to bet most artistes didn't sell in the millions and their attitude was borne from low album sales and a superiority derived from an inferiority complex. With Linda, there was no need to be dismissive of her past work or to put it down. If it didn't sound good to her ears, she should put the blame on that on the stereo equipment that was available at the time, and the mixes needed to play the albums on the stereo systems. Not everyone had good high fidelity stereo systems capable of reproducing exquisite sound. Many people had cheap low fidelity stereo systems housed in a big cabinet that had small speakers. And records were mixed more for that kind of stereo systems than the expensive systems one could get some amazing sounds out of. But, even if the music just didn't mean anything to Linda anymore, because the Great American Songbook and the Mexican music meant more to her musically, that was still not a valid reason to be dismissive or to say that the Gershwins and Rodgers and Hart songbooks were better than rock and roll. For too many people at that time, the Great American Songbooks was as dead as their composers. All one had to do was look at the number of artists who recorded and released numerous G.A.S. albums. With rare exceptions (Linda, Barry Manilow, Rod Stewart), many of those albums would usually end up in the cut out bin or shipped back to the distributor to be shipped back to the record companies. It's not that the songs were ever bad so much as it was there was no market or no push from the record companies, and/or the fact the singers who recorded those albums were not in the major leagues, either as singers or as far as being on a major label. I also think there is too much of a danger in being an artist who does what someone else has done or is doing. I recall seeing a lot of country music albums in the 60s and 70s where the country singers covered the hits other country artists had. It was kind of ridiculous to see a hundred different versions of "Stand By Your Man" or "I Fall to Pieces," all within two or three years of the original's release. Such "Me too!" sameness wears thin after a while, and there were plenty M.O.R. singers who thought what the world needed were more interpretations of the songs of the Great American Songbooks. (Don't get me wrong, I love those songs, love Linda's versions, but the G.A.S singers need to find some greener pastures to raid. I don't need to hear 2000 versions of any song from any era.) |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 30, 2013 21:24:45 GMT -5
I think people often miss the point she is making and take it personally. Linda is speaking as a singer, singing those songs and not a Fan of a singer singing those songs. In other words, for a truy gifted singer with a voice like hers there is NO comparison when singing them. Her voice can soar when it is a song by Standards writers and Rock and Roll was not written for singers, it was written for guitars. Linda is not a guitar. If she were a guitar she wouldn't have been able to have been interviewed or even hold a microphone because guitars don't have hands. Neither can they speak.
Don't think I'm missing the point nor am I taking it personally. Linda may be speaking what it means to her as a singer but who says rock and roll songs are not written for singers? The standards all had guitar chords to them - course, back then the songs were not written with the view of having a screaming lead or slide guitar solo, but they had a ton of orchestration, rhythm section and backing vocalists that could just as easily have drowned out the main singer. Nor were all rock songs written with the view that one should sing them in a screaming fashion. That was more of a late 60s and beyond thing when the musicians kept playing louder and louder. Even so, it didn't mean the singers had to sing the songs at a louder volume in the studio, nor did it mean the songs lacked for warmth. And many of the standards were never a challenge vocally except when one was singing them live. Linda had the benefit of singing in the recording studios. The singers who sang the songs originally usually sang them live on the radio with the orchestra, rhythm section and backing vocalists all there. They were just as loud as what any five piece rock band is or was. If Linda appeared with a full big band orchestra set up and played at full volume, she would probably have found the experience just as frustrating as singing with a five to six piece rock band.
The Mexican music also allowed her voice to become transcendental. I may have no idea what she is singing but I know I could listen to that Mexican voice all day long. There is nothing like it even amongst the greatest Mexican singers. Lola Beltran comes closest and purists criticize Linda and recommend we go to the original Mexican artists but what they don't get is those artists aren't Linda and don't have that voice that is so mesmerizing. People in the jungles of South and Central America are listening to those records. They have become the standard for Mariachi and her Frenesi is sublime!
I can listen to Linda sing anything, whether it's rock, country, standards, pop, Mexican, but when it comes to her critics, I think their main beef is that they've seen her as a cover artist. And that has somehow dampened their enthusiasm for her. Of course, one of my arguments about that has been that her various management never set up publishing companies for her, which would've served as a method of getting unpublished, unheard original songs to her, which might have shut up her critics. But, I doubt it, since she, like Elvis didn't write a lot of songs. Elvis's biggest critics slammed the songwriters who wrote for him as hacks. The critics might have done the same to people writing songs for Linda but I think Linda's critics would've knocked anything she did because she didn't write her own songs. But, who knows, even if she did, her critics would've found something to complain about. It's just their nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by JasonKlose on Apr 30, 2013 21:54:21 GMT -5
I'm going to weigh in on this too.
I'd like to know where all this criticism of Linda is coming from. We're talking about an interview that Linda did 15 years ago! And from this interview, I don't at all have the impressions that people are getting from her comments. Words like diva, snob, and arrogance, are not words I have ever associated with Linda or ever will. What happened to all the praise she was given over the past couple of months. Did people forget about the conversation with Linda at Grace Cathedral? She came across as very sweet, gracious, respectful, and down-to-earth to me.
I know Linda isn't perfect. Nobody is. But from some of the comments posted here I get the distinct feeling that Robert Christgau and Dave Marsh may have joined this discussion forum.
This is my take on Linda: Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe Linda has the disdain she does for her rock 'n' roll hits because they were almost all '50s and '60s covers; songs that the record company wanted released? She actually didn't want most of those songs released. She would do those songs for her sound checks at her concerts.
To tell you the truth, I actually like her unreleased tracks better than the hit songs. In fact, I listen to them much more often than I do songs like "You're No Good" and "Heatwave." Those songs have been overplayed. It's almost like hearing Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock and Roll" over and over. It gets to the point where you just don't want to hear it anymore. I actually prefer to hear songs like "Prisoner in Disguise," "The Tattler," "Simple Man, Simple Dream," and "White Rhythm and Blues."
Linda has said many times she doesn't like the sound of her voice. Heck, I don't like the sound of my voice either on a recording. And I think that's true with most singers and musicians. They don't listen to their own music.
Here is good example of Linda's attitude toward recording and how she thinks the audience perceives it. This is taken from Mark Bego's biography of Linda titled "It's So Easy" from 1990. This was around the time Linda was thinking about recording a Spanish album, which of course became "Canciones de Mi Padre."
When she decided that she really wanted to make an album of Mexican songs, everyone tried to talk her out of it. She had wanted to do it ever since Joan Baez recorded "Gracias a la Vida," her 1978 album of Latin American folk songs. "I told the record company I wanted to make an album all in Spanish," she recalled, " and they said, 'Joan Baez did it and it didn't sell. Can't you just do a few Spanish songs?' I really wanted to do traditional songs, but I knew that they really wouldn't fit in the middle of a bunch of American pop songs." Even her long-time producer Peter Asher tried to talk her out of it, but she was immovable in her determination. "The only negative comment I've heard is that it's not a good career move. I couldn't give two hoots about career moves at this point," she exclaimed.
"As usual," Linda continued, "I had absolutely no consideration for the audience. I mean, I never do. It's actually less selfish in a way to do it that way, because I only consider myself and I only want it to be what I think is good. I do these songs because I think they're beautiful and because I love them, and I want to hear them done correctly. And, if I please myself first and the audience seems pleased as a result of it -- I'm delighted."
I'm a writer, and I don't like to read my articles in print or online after they're published. I have received praise for my work, but I don't think I'm that good of a writer. I always think I could have done better. I'm pleased that people enjoy my articles, and it's great to hear that positive feedback. It helps build your confidence, and it also gives you the drive to keep working hard and getting better.
I don't think it's any different with Linda. She has even said as much in interviews. What she said about "not giving two hoots about career moves," sounds pretty unselfish to me. She knew she was taking a risk and that there was a possibility it could blow up in her face and ruin her career. That alone tells me that she didn't care about success, fame and money. Those things were not important to her. And I truly believe she does appreciate her fans. She was just a perfectionist when it came to her music and she wanted to put on the very best performance she could every single time. In fact I think her decision to retire was very unselfish on her part. I read an interview where she said she didn't want people to spend their money to come and see her when she couldn't sing up to her standard. She didn't want to disappoint anyone.
In that same book I cited from earlier, she also said that she never wanted to be a celebrity, to be rich. All she ever wanted to do was sing. She just happened to make a lot of money doing it. I totally understand and appreciate everything she says. I don't think that's arrogance. Like I said before, she isn't perfect. She has her faults just like everyone does. But I think it's unfair to just assume what Linda is saying or thinking. She is just very unique and special. I think that was already established a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 30, 2013 22:26:28 GMT -5
Quote by jasonk73:
I have to say that, in my past experiences on these fan forums, I have encountered a significant amount of resistance to any criticism, however valid it may be, because of the notion that if you criticize you must not really be a fan; and that is simply not the case. I think that valid points and arguments are being raised here, and I want to hear them, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. And anyway, no one has anything to worry about from Marsh and Christgau ever getting on this board--if I can help it, that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 30, 2013 23:48:39 GMT -5
One of the things I have noticed about fandom is what Erik said that's all too true: that if you criticize, you must not be a fan. As a fan of other artists and being on boards or mailing lists for them, there are fans who just don't like you saying any kind of criticism about that artist. And why? Fear of offending the artist? Laughable, as the artist may not even be aware of a fan forum board or mailing list. And even if they are aware and on a forum or mailing list, chances are they wouldn't want to let that forum or mailing list know they were members. They might be a little offended by some of the criticism if the criticism isn't valid, but what if the artist came to the conclusion the criticism was valid? If Linda has moderated her position on her recordings, could it be she's a lurker here and cares about what we think, good or bad? Would you have those who may unknowingly be playing a role in the moderating of her position shut up because it wasn't all worship and praise of Linda? Most artists care a great deal about what their fans want as it was the fans who made them wealthy. Linda may not have cared whether she was wealthy or famous because she just wanted to sing, but she could easily have made album after album that bombed time and time again, but chances are her career would've been a short lived one and no one here would be talking about her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on May 1, 2013 0:30:45 GMT -5
If Linda has moderated her position on her recordings, could it be she's a lurker here and cares about what we think, good or bad? She could be a lurker.. funny how she explained her college entrance, without graduating from high school.. lol |
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on May 1, 2013 6:26:22 GMT -5
I don't think Linda is any different from other artists I respected who have distanced themselves from the music/band/whatever that made them famous. Some examples, at least to me, that have done this are/were: Lennon dissing The Beatles, Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, Peter Gabriel of Genesis. I think they realize that the music they made during that time was impactful, but as any artist they are always more into what they done currently or different from what they were known for.
Maybe it's a sense of them expanding, growing creatively or whatever that makes them feel this way, but I hope they realize that they will always be associated with what made them great, Linda included. So that's why I feel it a bit of a downer that she said, at that time, of not digging her rock stuff.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a caveman (Phil Hartman reference)...
|
|
|
|
Post by JasonKlose on May 1, 2013 10:45:54 GMT -5
I don't think Linda is any different from other artists I respected who have distanced themselves from the music/band/whatever that made them famous. Some examples, at least to me, that have done this are/were: Lennon dissing The Beatles, Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, Peter Gabriel of Genesis. I think they realize that the music they made during that time was impactful, but as any artist they are always more into what they done currently or different from what they were known for. Maybe it's a sense of them expanding, growing creatively or whatever that makes them feel this way, but I hope they realize that they will always be associated with what made them great, Linda included. So that's why I feel it a bit of a downer that she said, at that time, of not digging her rock stuff. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a caveman (Phil Hartman reference)... You pointed out some good examples there of other artists who distanced themselves from the music and bands that gave them their first taste of success and fame. But I don't think Linda really distanced herself from rock and country-rock completely. After recording three albums of standards and then an album of Mexican music, she went back to rock/pop with "Cry Like a Rainstorm, Howl Like the Wind" in 1989. She came back to her country/folk roots with "Feels Like Home" in 1995. Then of course she did "We Ran" in 1998, which was kind of a throwback to her '70s heyday. And I'm not saying you're not a fan of someone if you criticize that person. I've done it myself, and not just with rock artists. It could be anything. It could be your favorite athletes or sports teams. Everyone's a critic when their favorite team starts losing. I guess what I'm saying is, I just didn't detect any arrogance from Linda in this interview that would warrant that much criticism. I've read other interviews with Linda where I could understand a little criticism might be justified. And I don't think she intended to upset anyone with her career choices. Maybe her omission from the RRHOF is partly her fault, and maybe she did alienate a part of her fan base as she changed musical styles so often. But I don't think it's something she did consciously. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 1, 2013 13:44:47 GMT -5
She could be a lurker.. funny how she explained her college entrance, without graduating from high school.. lol We know she gets online from time to time because she has admitted to watching videos on youtube. I also recall a mention of her going to a family member's Facebook page so she could get some family photos she didn't have. One reason I think she could be a lurker here is simply because of the curiosity factor about the fans who have stuck with her over the years, through all the changes in her musical direction. I think she would have to be curious to some degree as to what the die hard fans think, why we like her music. If she is a lurker here, things like the softening of her stance on her music and the explanation of how she went to college without graduating from high school could be clues pointing to that possibility. Of course, she probably will never admit to being a lurker but the lack of admission still wouldn't mean that she wasn't, or doesn't look in from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 1, 2013 16:21:57 GMT -5
I guess what I'm saying is, I just didn't detect any arrogance from Linda in this interview that would warrant that much criticism. I've read other interviews with Linda where I could understand a little criticism might be justified. And I don't think she intended to upset anyone with her career choices. Maybe her omission from the RRHOF is partly her fault, and maybe she did alienate a part of her fan base as she changed musical styles so often. But I don't think it's something she did consciously. The arrogance, I think, is in the belief that songs like "You're No Good" and "When Will I Be Loved" are throwaways, inferior to the songs of the Gershwin brothers and Rodgers and Hart. Linda's comments are the kind of comments older adults of the 1950s and 1960s were saying about rock and roll songs and rock and roll singers. There was that snobbery that the songs written during the 1920s through the pre-rock 1950s by the Tin Pan Alley songwriters had a sophistication to them that was missing from rock songs. The more snobbish adults also put down any song from any genre that wasn't written during the early days of Tin Pan Alley. Linda's comments were in a sense, validating the comments of the older adults who didn't like rock and roll. In the past, Linda has pretty much been dismissive of all of her rock era recordings, as opposed to just part of it. And again, there's no need to be dismissive as it's the rock era of her catalog that was responsible for her worldwide album sales being in excess of 100 million. Those sales gave her the clout and the freedom to make the Tin Pan Alley and Mexican language albums. Without the rock albums? Sure, she could've made the same TPA/Mexican albums but they could've been low budget affairs instead and not the major sellers most of them were. But, as for Linda not liking her albums and bowing into pressure from the record company, um, no. You're talking about a woman who when she was around 25 or so, told some Capitol Records A&R executives to get lost when they wanted her to record "Stand By Your Man" and "Help Me Make It Through the Night." If she couldn't be pressured by the record companies into recording songs she didn't want to do, you have to realize she chose the songs she wanted to do. No one forced her to intentionally record hits, but having an active record deal was contingent upon recording hits and continuing to record hits. Record companies couldn't afford to press millions of albums that never sold or at the very least, make back their production/manufacturing/distribution costs. Hits get a bad rap by many critics but they were for a long time, the prime mover and what helped sell the albums. And as for "that much criticism," no, i don't think there's that much at all. Just us discussing. And how many are reading? Look at the count totals. There doesn't seem to be hundreds of thousands reading what we write although it's out there on the internet. So I doubt "that much criticism" is likely having that much of an impact. Like I said, maybe Linda is a lurker/in stealth mode here and our discussions here might give reason to pause and maybe rethink her position, that maybe she has been just a little too harsh with her past musical accomplishments. She has much to be proud of and almost nothing to be ashamed of. |
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on May 1, 2013 17:22:35 GMT -5
she is an enigma when she discusses the standards/mariachis vs other songs. she has been historically very supportive and complimentary to a slew of people who wrote for her and many other artists as well. she must not realize how some of these interviews look and contradict a younger linda. life is a continuum and we all change but it is just not linda to knock others in general musically. also, one does not know how the press she was getting over the weight issue affected her. maybe some resentment came out there. just a theory. plus, it seems that in this interview and the infamous last rolling stone one she did the questions are not as spot on as others she has done. meaning the questions aren't well suited to her. who knows. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 1, 2013 19:42:48 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
I think it's debatable that Linda would have ever even contemplated doing "Stand By Your Man", not simply because of its ironclad association with Tammy Wynette, but because its message was never one that she'd believe in. And at the time, at the turn of the 1970s, she was pioneering a more fiercely independent path through her mixing of the traditional spirit of country, the integrity of folk music, and the energy of rock and roll. To her, "Stand By Your Man" was antithetical to what she wanted to do.
Now, when it comes to the hits, I think Linda realized that having at least one or two on her albums would open up the door for the listener to take in the entire album, album cuts and all; so she indulged whatever issues either Capitol or Asylum might have had, while still being able to concentrate on making the best albums she could make.
I will always feel that Linda was the first female artist in any genre whose career could be defined as much by the complete studio albums as the hit singles, if not more so. Of course, the critics did plenty of b****ing about how she interpreted contemporary material or how so many of her hits were retreads of 50s and 60s rock, R&B, and C&W classics; but, like every other artist, she was never going to be able to please them all (certainly Dave Marsh and Robert Christgau have been the biggest whiners, b****ers and moaners around, which is why many Ronstadt fans have been at Def-Con 3 with them since the 1970s).
Practically every female country (mainstream or Americana) and roots-rock female singer who has come along in Linda's wake has made albums of extremely high quality that have reflected their love of Linda's voice, her talent, and her approach to craft. And as I've said before, it's likely that Linda is coming to terms with that part of her legacy and, in her own modest way, acknowledging that she has had an impact, even if the media is asleep at the switch admitting to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Morse on May 1, 2013 19:59:33 GMT -5
I cannot even think of a comment as this interview is 15 years old....maybe Linda's book coming out will help redirect the conversation away from rehashing the same topic over and over.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 1, 2013 20:30:57 GMT -5
she is an enigma when she discusses the standards/mariachis vs other songs. she has been historically very supportive and complimentary to a slew of people who wrote for her and many other artists as well. she must not realize how some of these interviews look and contradict a younger linda. life is a continuum and we all change but it is just not linda to knock others in general musically. also, one does not know how the press she was getting over the weight issue affected her. maybe some resentment came out there. just a theory. plus, it seems that in this interview and the infamous last rolling stone one she did the questions are not as spot on as others she has done. meaning the questions aren't well suited to her. who knows. eddiejinnj I couldn't tell what was up with her in that Rolling Stone "interview." She seemed quite annoyed and maybe just a little angry. I hadn't read Rolling Stone since 1980, having had it with their double standards, so I don't know if anything they wrote anything nice about Linda during the interim. But, I did wonder if Linda just did not want to do that interview because of past interviews she did with them, or if she had been led to believe the interview was going to be part of a bigger story? And then the writer just kept trying to push into areas she didn't want to go to, like her private life. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 1, 2013 20:50:07 GMT -5
I think it's debatable that Linda would have ever even contemplated doing "Stand By Your Man", not simply because of its ironclad association with Tammy Wynette, but because its message was never one that she'd believe in. And at the time, at the turn of the 1970s, she was pioneering a more fiercely independent path through her mixing of the traditional spirit of country, the integrity of folk music, and the energy of rock and roll. To her, "Stand By Your Man" was antithetical to what she wanted to do.
I'm assuming that Capitol tried to persuade her to record Stand By Your Man and Help Me Make It Through the Night during the sessions for Linda Ronstadt. I always thought Linda might have been somewhat conservative during that time (circa 1970-71) as she really didn't give the impression in interviews from those times that she was that fiercely independent. Then again, it couldve been the reason for that was the people asking the questions never asked questions in that direction. Just fluff questions. In some of the interviews I've seen, Linda gave the interviewers openings to ask deeper, more probing questions, but they just didn't go there.
Now, when it comes to the hits, I think Linda realized that having at least one or two on her albums would open up the door for the listener to take in the entire album, album cuts and all; so she indulged whatever issues either Capitol or Asylum might have had, while still being able to concentrate on making the best albums she could make.
I thought the pressure to record hits was fairly intense in the mid-to-late 70s, because the record companies all wanted three big hits per album. But, Linda was smart enough to know what would and wouldn't be a hit, so the record company didn't really need to be telling her record this song, record that song. As it was, the record companies still had toe spend a bit of money on promoting records and if Linda's (or any other artist's) singles were not the big hits they should've been, chances are the record companies didn't give it a lot of push in the first place. Wherever a record stalled in the charts, chances are that's when the record company decided to stop pushing it. Maybe the sales weren't meeting expectations?
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 1, 2013 22:14:06 GMT -5
Where I think she may have gotten support in any attempt to resist recording "Stand By Your Man" may have been that her then-manager and producer John Boylan sensed her unease with the song and didn't force something on her that he knew wouldn't work, whether or not she was more conservative in those days. For Linda Ronstadt, she had given Capitol her own takes on older C&W classics like "I Fall To Pieces" and "Crazy Arms", along with contemporary material from friends like Jackson Browne and Neil Young. Admittedly, the album tanked commercially, but not because it was a bad album; Linda was just still a bit too far ahead of her audience.
As for Asylum, I think they knew that she was very focused on making the best albums that she could, and which would satisfy what both they and she were after. Of course they were nervous when she indulged herself with the Nelson Riddle trilogy, and then with Canciones De Mi Padre (even Linda herself later admitted they had good cause to be). In the end, though, at least up until 1991, it all worked out reasonably well.
|
|
