|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 20, 2011 22:35:33 GMT -5
Ah yes the annual snub of Linda by Jan Wenner's fan club... 1) What value does it have? There are so many awards these days 2)If such a Hall of Fame doesn't acknowledge Linda's contribution on a number of levels...what good is it? You can name almost any femaile singer on the planet to list their influences and guess whose name comes up? So it is more a pox on them than her! 3) This all goes back to the days when Wenner began a war with her ..so this is his punishment 4) Don't worry. Linda could care less. She wasn't out there for awards and she presonally didn't keep the ones she got. So having a badge from Jan Wenner's silly Hall of Fame wouldn't mean anything to her. Rich PS...Merry Xmas to all...I haven't chimed in for a while and I hope all is well with everyone 1) I'm with you on this but there are a lot of people who would like to see Linda (and others) nominated and inducted. I'm not sure why it would matter other than as a form of respect. I'm not sure how many people would make a trek to Cincinnatti to see any of the hall exhibits. They have inducted some of my favorites but not all of my favorite artists and bands. And given the Wenner bloc's hostility towards many of those acts, I have no desire to part with my money for their benefit. 2) True, a lot of female performers have acknowledged Linda as being influential in their own musical careers. But, I haven't seen that many male performers acknowledge her as in influence, whether that performer was a solo artist or in a band. Maybe if more guys were willing to cite Linda as an ainfluence, maybe it would be harder for the Jann Wenner Fan Club to ignore her? 3) I've long suggested the idea of an alternate rock and roll hall of fame with no restrictions on who could or couldn't be nominated and inducted. I'd like to see it just to tick the Wenner crowd off and be able to rub their snobbishness in their faces and maybe put them out of business in the process. I don't know what happened between Linda and Wenner but I've never been a fan of Wenner because of his snobbish, arrogant attitude towards the artists. I guess he felt that because he promoted them in his rag, they owed him for that patronage. Maybe he thought some got a little uppity after they got famous, but maybe didn't see that his own uppityness was worse and to make things worse, he wasn't really a likable person. 4) Hooray for Linda! All the hall does in ignoring artists like Linda is destroy their own credibility. Linda meets all of the criteria for nomination and induction but to pass on her but then give a nod to other artists who came after her and whose artistic qualifications were questionable, you have to think the brains of the hall nominating committee members were fried long ago.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 20, 2011 22:58:08 GMT -5
I think it is safe to say that the Eagles owe a lot of their existence to her, and Don Henley said as much way back in 1975, when he said that Linda had a good heart, and was never selfish enough to hold anybody back. And all of the musicians she has ever worked with would say the very same thing (though it is a shame that Kenny Edwards and Andrew Gold are no longer alive to do that). It's just that for obvious reasons those most influenced by Linda are those of her gender--all four generations worth, primarily in the roots-rock world where folk, country, and rock intersect.
Incidentally, we don't think Jann Wenner is the only one keeping her out. It has been a known fact for a very long time among us Linda Ronstadt fans that Dave Marsh, the notorious East Coast snob critic and unapologetic Bruce Springsteen enabler who sits on the nominating committee, has virtually never had a good word to say about Linda or her albums. We have basically labeled this man Public Enemy No. 1.
Some of the antipathy Linda feels towards Wenner has to do with that semi-notorious cover shoot that Annie Leibowitz did of Linda for a December 1976 cover of Rolling Stone; and some more of it may have to do with Linda's excursions into opera, the Great American Songbook, and her Mexican-American musical heritage (their January 1988 review of Canciones De Mi Padre is borderline racist). There was also her sojourn to South Africa in 1983, going against the UN boycott of that nation for its apartheid policies. That said, they did give good reviews to Winter Light, Feels Like Home and, especially. We Ran, in the 1990s. But I don't think it really ever healed whatever rift had opened up between Linda and Wenner.
It's all childish, petty, stupid s*** on Jann Wenner's part as far as I'm concerned. Linda may have done some "politically incorrect" things to offend Wenner's sensibilities, but that is no reason whatsoever to engage in half-a**ed historical revisionism. He and his increasingly and tragically obsolete RRHOF need to induct the Queen Of Country Rock and give her the honor she has earned.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 21, 2011 0:15:48 GMT -5
Very sad that those influenced by Linda are mostly women and that the hall ignores her influence on four generations of female artists. I don't know what Dave Marsh's problem is with Linda either, but he was an Elvis fan who trashed nearly all of the people who wrote songs for Elvis as hacks, save for Leiber and Stoller, Pomus and Shuman, Otis Blackwell. Granted, some of Elvis's songwriters deserved to be labelled hacks; every song one particular songwriter (music, no lyrics) "wrote" for Elvis seemed to consist of a melody that was in the public domain. And the royalties back in those days were a measly two cents split 50/50 between the writers and publishers. However, the royalties for using a tune that was in the public domain was only abou 20% of that two cents, and I guess that songwriter didn't mind losing out a lot of royalty money. I often wondered how his lyricist partner felt about losing his part of the income? But, it wasn't fair to label all of Elvis's songwriters as hacks. Many did come up with original melodies but I guess Marsh just didn't like them because the songs weren't rock and roll enough for him.
I liked that December 1976 cover of RS that featured Linda and never knew it had been the source of a rift between Wenner and Linda. How many more RS covers was she on after that one? As I recall, it was mentioned she had been one of the cover champs for the magazine, more covers than most artists. I stopped reading RS in 1981, after it had shrunk its size and had become more like People and Us. I also found their support for P.J. O'Rourke to be somewhat bizarre, given his conservatism and their perceived counterculture left-leaning liberalism. I figured they didn't take too kindly to Linda's big band recordings (or Great American Songbook) or to the Mexican music and that it was there where they started being dismissive of her. Maybe they thought she was turning into a diva by abandoning rock and doing something different? But, they were never 100% supportive of Elvis and yet he was nominated and inducted the first year the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was in business. He also wasn't doing much in the way of rock towards the end of his life, just a tune or two per album. (Elvis had often said he wanted to do an album of rock but complained he couldn't find enough good rock songs to make up an album.)
It's as you say about Wenner, definitely some childish, petty stupid s*** on his part, but Linda isn't the only artist or band he carries a grudge against and is determined to keep out of his hall. He seems to think he is the yardstick that defines who is and who isn't rock and roll. But, I find him to be totally hyopcritical that he will induct Motown act after Motown act as rock and roll, which I guess, once could say that peripherally, they were, but were all of them influential? Likewise, I think the hall has inducted some "rock" artists I considered to be some of the most pretentious musical artists and most overrated as to their supposed influence. (I'm not one for dissing musical acts by name as I know it's just my opinion and that others would not only disagree with me, they would also diss as inconsequential the artists I like.) Linda may not consider herself rock and roll any longer but I still think of her that way, and I suspect there's a good many people who also feel that way. As for Wenner and Marsh and the rest of the snobs, they can (pardon my language) all go to hell.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 21, 2011 10:12:42 GMT -5
With respect to the December '76 cover of Rolling Stone, Linda more or less felt that the pics that Annie Leibowitz was taking of her revealed way too much in the way of sex and skin. I can see her point of view here, though in all honesty we're not talking about the kiddie porn that is Britney Spears. Whatever Wenner's problems were with Linda in later years, she was on the cover of his crazy magazine six different times between 1975 and 1980, and the subject of major stories there at least a dozen times, if not more.
Another factor is that Rolling Stone, which was based out of San Francisco beginning in 1967, moved its base of operations all the way east to New York in 1977; and save for a few of their writers, they got corrupted by what I think was a distinct East Coast bias against anything having to do with the West Coast, especially anything that came out of the Southern California music scene. Dave Marsh, especially, was extremely venomous towards Linda because she tended to cover a lot of R&B songs (especially Motown, though she only essayed the Motown songbook three times in all). The implication of his is that this white (though half-Mexican American) woman should not be covering black people's music--thus engaging in a bias that's not only historically inaccurate, but also a reverse form of racism. If that attitude is even partly at the root of the door to Cleveland being closed to Linda, then it opens up a real nasty can of worms.
Still another factor, and one that I've mentioned many times before, is that a lot of the people, including many of the few women, who have been inducted come from a musical background that is rooted in the R&B/gospel side of rock and roll, which is all well and good. But the other side of rock and roll is the country-and-western influence; and Linda's approach to rock has largely been from that side: Hank Williams; the early Elvis records; the folk music revival of the early 1960s which sparked interest in traditional country music, and led to the country-rock movement here in L.A. at the end of the 1960s. Setting aside all of Linda's other musical achievements, a disparaging attitude towards country music, which is basically the White side of rock and roll, cannot be discounted in considering why Linda has been shut out.
And fans of Heart (which narrowly lost their induction hopes this year), Pat Benatar, and Stevie Nicks (for her solo work) have been fuming themselves over the lack of recognition for their ladies, and well they should. As a fan of Linda's, I know how they feel.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 22, 2011 23:39:07 GMT -5
With respect to the December '76 cover of Rolling Stone, Linda more or less felt that the pics that Annie Leibowitz was taking of her revealed way too much in the way of sex and skin. I can see her point of view here, though in all honesty we're not talking about the kiddie porn that is Britney Spears. Whatever Wenner's problems were with Linda in later years, she was on the cover of his crazy magazine six different times between 1975 and 1980, and the subject of major stories there at least a dozen times, if not more. Another factor is that Rolling Stone, which was based out of San Francisco beginning in 1967, moved its base of operations all the way east to New York in 1977; and save for a few of their writers, they got corrupted by what I think was a distinct East Coast bias against anything having to do with the West Coast, especially anything that came out of the Southern California music scene. Dave Marsh, especially, was extremely venomous towards Linda because she tended to cover a lot of R&B songs (especially Motown, though she only essayed the Motown songbook three times in all). The implication of his is that this white (though half-Mexican American) woman should not be covering black people's music--thus engaging in a bias that's not only historically accurate, but also a reverse form of racism. If that attitude is even partly at the root of the door to Cleveland being closed to Linda, then it opens up a real nasty can of worms. Still another factor, and one that I've mentioned many times before, is that a lot of the people, including many of the few women, who have been inducted come from a musical background that is rooted in the R&B/gospel side of rock and roll, which is all well and good. But the other side of rock and roll is the country-and-western influence; and Linda's approach to rock has largely been from that side: Hank Williams; the early Elvis records; the folk music revival of the early 1960s which sparked interest in traditional country music, and led to the country-rock movement here in L.A. at the end of the 1960s. Setting aside all of Linda's other musical achievements, a disparaging attitude towards country music, which is basically the White side of rock and roll, cannot be discounted in considering why Linda has been shut out. And fans of Heart (which narrowly lost their induction hopes this year), Pat Benatar, and Stevie Nicks (for her solo work) have been fuming themselves over the lack of recognition for their ladies, and well they should. As a fan of Linda's, I know how they feel. I can see how Linda viewed the Annie Leibowitz-photo used for the cover and one of the photos accompanying the article as demeaning, but I also assume she knew there was a real possibility the photos could be used and that she or Peter Asher had signed a release okaying a possible release. Of course, it's also possible that didn't happen and maybe Linda thought they were going to use some other photos for the article but Wenner or his editor got a look at the more provocative photos and decided to use them instead because unfortunately for Linda, sexy photos of her likely equaled higher sales for the magazine. Dave Marsh, what a creep. His brand of criticism is the kind I've always associated with Rolling Stone that I found consistently objectionable for a long time, and which was one of the reasons I stopped reading the magazine. It's amazing that Marsh would've dared to have criticized Linda for covering R&B/Motown on her albums and releasing them as singles, because he didn't criticize Elvis but praised him when he covered R&B tunes. What was the difference between Elvis and Linda other than their sex? None, so if Marsh was slamming Linda because she was a white woman who dared to record R&B/Motown, not only is he guilty of reverse racism but he's also guilty of double standards and having a very sexist attitude. Marsh probably would've died of a heart attack if Elvis and Linda had gotten together in the 60s or 70s and recorded an album or two together. I agree with you about country's role in rock music. It's always been as important a factor as what R&B has been in rock, though I tend to emphasize and credit the western (swing) part for the early influence of rock. People have largely forgotten that western swing made up the second half of the phrase country-western, and which was how the music of that genre was referred to for a long time before someone decided just to drop western from the equation. Western swing bands had electric guitars, drums and even saxophones at a time when most country acts in the 50s and earlier times stuck to acoustic and steel guitars, acoustic bass, fiddles, and maybe a banjo or piano. But no drums. I recall reading that for a time, the Opry even had a rule against acts using drummers when appearing on their stage and radio show. I think the musicians in the western swing bands that were still around at the beginning of rock felt they had more in common with the rock and rollers than what the country musicians felt. They didn't seem to be as hostile towards the new art form, although most in country today have no trouble embracing their rock cousins. I definitely sympathesize with all the fans of the ladies of rock who would like to see them not only be nominated but inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Linda, Heart (another fave of mine), Stevie Nicks, Pat Benatar, Donna Summer, all deserve to be in the hall. But, the hall nominating members seem to limit their female nominees to artists from Motown or artists who were critical favorites. Donna Summer has been nominated several times but has been passed on by those who vote on them. It would seem that Summer has enough supporters with the nominating committee members to be on the ballot but not with the voters, either because they feel she doesn't belong in the hall or those on the nominating committee who oppose her have enough clout with the voters to persuade them to vote against her time and time again. It may be that kind of attitude that sadly helps to keep Linda and other acts (male, female or group) out.
|
|
|
Post by Brenda on Dec 23, 2011 6:18:47 GMT -5
... I mean, when you have a RRHoF member flatly stating that Linda would get in "over my dead body," well, there's not much mystery left. WHO SAID THAT?
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 23, 2011 9:54:40 GMT -5
Quote by Brenda: I think Tony may have meant Dave Marsh; if it's true that Marsh was the one who said Linda would get in over his dead body, it wouldn't surprise me. Quote by sliderocker re. Donna Summer: With Donna, I think it's the "Disco Sucks" mentality still left over from 1979. That said, and although some here may disagree with me on this one, it's all really pointless and asinine to deny induction based on bias, rather than allow it based on historical fact. Disco, like it or not (and personally, I did then, and still do now), was a big deal in the mid-to-late 1970s; and no single artist defined the genre more than Donna Summer. And before I get my head handed to me, I would point out that even with disco being the rage during that time, it was also in that period that Linda was at her greatest commercial success, doing nothing that even remotely resembled disco.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 23, 2011 21:11:04 GMT -5
Quote by Brenda: I think Tony may have meant Dave Marsh; if it's true that Marsh was the one who said Linda would get in over his dead body, it wouldn't surprise me. Nothing an asinine critic like Marsh or the self-important a--es at Rolling Stain do surprises me. For them, all that matters is what they think while the fans are too poorly educated in the ways of the rock world to understand why an artist like Springsteen is to be worshipped at every turn while an artist like Linda is to be dismissed as inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 23, 2011 22:11:07 GMT -5
With respect to the emphasis on songwriting, I think the whole thing about such self-contained artists really started in the early 1960s, first with Dylan, and then with the invasion of the Beatles, where Lennon and McCartney wrote a gargantuan amount. As a result, the songwriter became much more important than he'd ever been in the past, and the song interpreter became secondary. All the same, as much as there has been great/classic material to come out of that, there has been almost as much dreck. I would argue that Springsteen's own "Blinded By The Light" fits that latter category...and for that matter, virtually everything else on Top 40 radio these days which seems to have been written by committee.
Linda is clearly an interpreter, again not very regarded by the "elite" rock critics (Marsh, et. al), although she has written at least four songs that we are all aware of. And in large part, Linda has been applauded for her interpretations of the songs she's done, whether they were from her own inner circle, or from Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, or the Motown school.
With disco, of course, there will clearly always be the haters out there. But as someone who grew up listening to the radio in the 70s, when it wasn't unheard of to hear the Bee Gees and Donna Summer alongside Linda and the Eagles, I'm not one of those haters. I like disco as much as I like 70s rock, and I'm not ashamed of that.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 24, 2011 12:27:16 GMT -5
With respect to the emphasis on songwriting, I think the whole thing about such self-contained artists really started in the early 1960s, first with Dylan, and then with the invasion of the Beatles, where Lennon and McCartney wrote a gargantuan amount. As a result, the songwriter became much more important than he'd ever been in the past, and the song interpreter became secondary. All the same, as much as there has been great/classic material to come out of that, there has been almost as much dreck. I would argue that Springsteen's own "Blinded By The Light" fits that latter category...and for that matter, virtually everything else on Top 40 radio these days which seems to have been written by committee. Linda is clearly an interpreter, again not very regarded by the "elite" rock critics (Marsh, et. al), although she has written at least four songs that we are all aware of. And in large part, Linda has been applauded for her interpretations of the songs she's done, whether they were from her own inner circle, or from Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, or the Motown school. With disco, of course, there will clearly always be the haters out there. But as someone who grew up listening to the radio in the 70s, when it wasn't unheard of to hear the Bee Gees and Donna Summer alongside Linda and the Eagles, I'm not one of those haters. I like disco as much as I like 70s rock, and I'm not ashamed of that. The thing about bands or artists being self-contained, meaning they wrote all of their own songs or the majority of their songs largely began in the 60s, although you had artists in the 50s like Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry writing their own material. For groups, self contained in the 60s also meant they played their own instruments. The Monkees were crucified by the critics for not playing initially, and still crucified even when they did. The critics who stabbed them with their poisonous pens in typical hypocritical fashion never once criticized a group on Motown for not playing on their recordings. It was the same sort of reverse racism that reared its ugly head against Linda for covering R&B/Motown. But, many of the major acts of the 60s: the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, the Byrds, the Bee Gees, et al, didn't initially write all of their own material. They covered other songwriters on their recordings, eventually transistioning from writing most of their songs to writing all of their songs. On the covers the Bee Gees did in the 60s, practically all of the covers took place when they were teenagers living in Australia. After their first round of success, they wouldn't do anymore covers until the "Sgt. Pepper" fiasco, which they tried to get out of doing. I like some of the things Springsteen has done but he is a highly overrated (by the critics) artist. The same critics who fawned over him are probably the same critics who called Eric Clapton god because of his guitar playing. I don't think Clapton ever took the critics calling him god seriously as I seem to recall he didn't think his guitar playing warranted remarks like that, and believe he said there were guitarists better than what he was. With regard to Top 40 these days, I think the spirit of the music, whether it's pop, rock, R&B/soul or country has been gone for a long time from most artists. What's a hit today is with rare exceptions, largely forgotten tomorrow. And artists don't have long term careers, at least as far as having hit recordings. How can they when some of them take five year breaks between albums? Those artists take their artistry too seriously. But, of those who soldier on with a new album every year or every two or three years, even they struggle with keeping the hits coming and having the album sales. The record companies wouldn't be in the slump they've been in if they would just do their jobs and promote and build their artists. When they ultimately go out of business, the cause of their demise will be a self-inflicted wound. Linda is clearly an interpreter but I think she has always underrated herself as a songwriter.Anyone who could write a first attempt gem of a song like "Try Me Again" had the potential all along to write songs. But, maybe it was a potential that she didn't know she had or it wasn't encouraged by the people around her - the people with sexist attitudes who would say something to a female artist like "You're a singer. You sing! Here's your tambourine, but someone else will write the songs!" I know Linda doesn't think of herself as a songwriter but in my opinion, she is. Curiously, she once said in an interview in the 90s, that on "Try Me Again," she came up with all of the song, words and music, and that Andrew Gold contributed something to the bridge and ended up taking half of the writing credit. She seemed surprised by the fact his name was on the credits. I'm assuming that when she said Andrew contributed something to the bridge, she meant in the recording studio working on the song, but not the actual song itself. It's surprising she never disputed the writing credit for Andrew but given the millions she was raking in, she may have felt what difference would several thousand have made from the few measly pennies given to songwriters as royalties? Of course, the money issue notwithstanding, I can see why she would want people to know she wrote TMA all on her own. The song's were intensely personal and quite sad with the music just as sad. I remember when playing the "Hasten Down the Wind" album for the first time hearing TMA for the first time, that Linda sounded like one of the saddest persons around, despite her success. At the time, she explained part of the song as being about long time friends who had shunned and deserted her once she became hugely successful. I guess the friends who did that to her thought she became too important in the world for them to maintain their friendship with her, and they hurt her deeply by breaking their friendship with her. She never said who the lover was she was also referencing in the song but whatever hurt she was feeling came out in the song. I'm not 100% sure all of the hurt was exorcised from her soul but I truly felt sad and sorry for her, that people around her could hurt her like they did.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 25, 2011 12:47:52 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
I think it is a general lack of confidence in her own abilities in terms of songwriting that has caused her to largely rely on other people's material, which isn't to say that she doesn't do other people's material well. She said once back in 1976 when "Try Me Again" was released on Hasten Down The Wind that she'd "hate to add to the increasing pile of bad songs." She may be right about songs getting increasingly bad in terms of quality, especially these days, but somehow I don't think she's capable of writing such songs. If she were more secure in her own talents, she could have written more songs in collaboration with others, who were really encouraging her in this aspect.
With "Try Me Again", though she did write all the lyrics, and I think Andrew Gold mentioned that fact once, she did get help from A.G. in writing the bridge, so he got the co-writing credit, and Linda didn't dispute it. Linda has always given credit to others who have helped her, and (though it may seem very unusual) she seems to take total and complete responsibility for her rare failures.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 2, 2012 17:22:56 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: I think it is a general lack of confidence in her own abilities in terms of songwriting that has caused her to largely rely on other people's material, which isn't to say that she doesn't do other people's material well. She said once back in 1976 when "Try Me Again" was released on Hasten Down The Wind that she'd "hate to add to the increasing pile of bad songs." She may be right about songs getting increasingly bad in terms of quality, especially these days, but somehow I don't think she's capable of writing such songs. If she were more secure in her own talents, she could have written more songs in collaboration with others, who were really encouraging her in this aspect. With "Try Me Again", though she did write all the lyrics, and I think Andrew Gold mentioned that fact once, she did get help from A.G. in writing the bridge, so he got the co-writing credit, and Linda didn't dispute it. Linda has always given credit to others who have helped her, and (though it may seem very unusual) she seems to take total and complete responsibility for her rare failures. Likewise, I think Linda had a general lack of confidence in her own abilities when it came to songwriting, but I also wonder if it could've been she just wasn't all that interested in writing songs, because of the time needed to sit down and invest in writing songs? Certain songwriters could sit down and come up with a new song in under five minutes while others struggled and toil for weeks just to come up with one song. I did find it curious that on the Stone Poney's original songs, Linda only received a "writing" credit with Bob Kimmel and Kenny Edwards for the public domain tune "Wild About My Lovin'," but never on any of the orther songs written by Bob and Kenny. Strangely, Kenny's name has been removed from the songwriting credits on almost all of the SP songs, save for his own song "Back Home" and for "Evergreen, Pt.2," which is extremely odd as it's a continuation of the music for "Evergreen, Pt. 1," which is now credited to Bob Kimmel alone. Getting back to Linda's "Try Me Again" and the interview where she recalled the writing of the song, I believe she said she came up with both the lyrics and the music with help from Andrew on the bridge, but I just thought she seemed a little surprised by Andrew taking or being given half the writing credit, even though the interview was almost two decades after the song had been written and recorded. Maybe she didn't know about the deal in 1976 or if she did, maybe didn't understand why Andrew was being given half of the writing credit for helping out in the bridge? I don't think Linda had a case of sour grapes, maybe some disappointment as she seemed to be saying the song was the first song she had ever written by herself. I don't think there's anyway in the world she would've held it against Andrew because he might not even have asked to be credited for his contribution on the bridge. I'd like to think someone asked Linda about crediting Andrew before it was done, but it could've been a case of someone from Linda's music publishing company who added Andrew's name without first checking because they needed to get the song copyrighted so the song could be released on HDTW.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 2, 2012 23:24:03 GMT -5
There are two things to keep in mind about Linda. One is that she is known for collaborating with others, even when it's only her name on the finished piece. Another thing is that she is much too modest to ever be a stage ham or a truly pompous a**. As I've said, she gives her collaborators a great deal of credit, but takes total responsibility when she herself fails, which admittedly hasn't been that often in her career.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 3, 2012 22:36:16 GMT -5
There are two things to keep in mind about Linda. One is that she is known for collaborating with others, even when it's only her name on the finished piece. Another thing is that she is much too modest to ever be a stage ham or a truly pompous a**. As I've said, she gives her collaborators a great deal of credit, but takes total responsibility when she herself fails, which admittedly hasn't been that often in her career. I agree with that though I'd add she tends to underrate her own recordings too much of the time. She has no reason to feel that way as if her recordings were as bad as she believe, I don't think she would ever have sold as many albums as she sold - 30,000,000 in album sales, the figure of which is certified by the RIAA. Peter Asher has said the actual figure is more like 45,000,000 but with Linda no longer part of Elektra-Asylum, getting that record label to submit the audit books for additional certifications is unlikely, given the RIAA fee charged to audit and certify the books ain't cheap.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 3, 2012 23:38:49 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
And even 45 million sounds conservative, given that all of her albums that went Platinum actually went on to go 2- or 3-Platinum; and her Greatest Hits Volume 1 sold seven million (YIPE!!!).
And yes, she often does underrate (and, to some people, disparage) her own recordings.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 4, 2012 21:24:33 GMT -5
And even 45 million sounds conservative, given that all of her albums that went Platinum actually went on to go 2- or 3-Platinum; and her Greatest Hits Volume 1 sold seven million (YIPE!!!). And yes, she often does underrate (and, to some people, disparage) her own recordings. 45 million sounds like a very conservative number, given the number of albums that were in the multiplatinum category but either never certified as such, or they were certified originally but since then, hasn't received new certifications for added sales of a million or more. Given the high cost of certifying any sales through the RIAA, it's hard to find fault with a record company. But, still...when a record company makes a claim that a certain artist has sold 100 million albums and you check the RIAA for verification and the artist is only credited for 26 million, the record company quickly loses credibility when they can't back up what they claim and expect you to take their word for it that an artist has sold what they claim the artist has sold. As for Linda underrating/disparaging her own recordings, it's a shame she does that. I read somewhere that the reason she did that was that she was listening to Frank Sinatra recordings and thought her recordings just didn't stand up to the standards of his recordings. I didn't understand her need to use Sinatra as a yardstick because it could never be a fair comparison. She's not in Sinatra's league and I don't mean that to be insulting to her or to Sinatra, for that matter. Her music stands on its own merits with Linda having no need to apologize or compare it unfavorably to the music of another artist. She's not in Sinatra's league because I think her music was several notches above Sinatra's music. Of course, that's just my opinion and I suppose the only opinion which matter to Linda on her music is Linda's. But, I truly wish she'd realize just how great her music is and that she has nothing to apologize for and everything to be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 4, 2012 21:43:04 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
Obviously, Sinatra is too big to have anyone else be compared to him; and that holds true for the two mega-acts of Linda's own generation, namely Elvis and the Beatles. I don't necessarily get her comparing/disparaging her own recordings to those of Sinatra, other than maybe she felt nervous about honing in on his territory on four of her albums of the Great American Songbook. Times change, and Linda is just way too different for any comparison to the Chairman Of The Board to stand up to close scrutiny.
I think if one wanted to draw any parallels to anything Linda did, it might be to, maybe, Patsy Cline, but with a somewhat tougher rock and roll edge garnered from Elvis' classic 1954-1960 hits. But in the end, I think Linda really was a true pioneer in the sense of being the first true female artist to reconnect rock with its C&W roots at a time (late 60s/early 70s) when many of her generation thought country music was Reactionary; Racist; and Redneck (though very little has changed there [IMHO]).
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 5, 2012 21:47:04 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: Obviously, Sinatra is too big to have anyone else be compared to him; and that holds true for the two mega-acts of Linda's own generation, namely Elvis and the Beatles. I don't necessarily get her comparing/disparaging her own recordings to those of Sinatra, other than maybe she felt nervous about honing in on his territory on four of her albums of the Great American Songbook. Times change, and Linda is just way too different for any comparison to the Chairman Of The Board to stand up to close scrutiny. I think if one wanted to draw any parallels to anything Linda did, it might be to, maybe, Patsy Cline, but with a somewhat tougher rock and roll edge garnered from Elvis' classic 1954-1960 hits. But in the end, I think Linda really was a true pioneer in the sense of being the first true female artist to reconnect rock with its C&W roots at a time (late 60s/early 70s) when many of her generation thought country music was Reactionary; Racist; and Redneck (though very little has changed there [IMHO]). Actually, I regard Elvis and the Beatles as both having been bigger than Sinatra, both having made more of a major impact on society as a whole through their music, their creativity and their personalities. There's no disputing that Sinatra was big in his own right but the ripple effect of Elvis and the Beatles is something that's still being felt today and likely will continuted to be felt for who knows how many generations to come as far as inspiring others to pick up guitars, sing and write songs. I don't see that happening with Sinatra. His sales didn't match the sales of Elvis or the Beatles, both of which are reportedly more than one billion. I don't recall the sales figure given for Sinatra but it was far less than one billion. Sinatra had a better, more diverse career overall than Elvis or the Beatles, what with the many good movies he made, but even he wasn't above starring in the occasional turkey of a movie. Linda has been favorably compared to the late Patsy Cline in the past, and I think that is a fair comparison. What was most remarkable about Linda's career was that she was able to succeed as well as she did in the rock and roll world. Many of her female contemporaries in the 60s were written off after only a single hit or two, but most of the contemporaries considered themselves to be pop performers rather than straight rock performers. Their recordings were layered with strings, horns and woodwinds and were about as far away from rock and roll as one could get. And most of those performers gave up and threw in the towel, content to work and make a living from the oldies circuit, sparing them the embarrassment of having to work a 9-5 job. Linda persevered. She wanted the success and she earned the right to be regarded as the Queen of Rock (or Country Rock) or First Lady of Rock or whatever label the fans and critics wanted to bestow upon her. She set the standard in the rock and country worlds for the female performers who wanted to be as successful as what she was, and I still don't see anyone who has come along since that time who was worthy of being passed the torch.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 5, 2012 22:53:20 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
I think it's not so much other female artists being worthy of being passed the torch as it is the sheer number of them who have named Linda as a big influence on their style and sound. Starting, I think, with Emmylou, and their mutual "gal pal" Nicolette Larson back in The Day, you can trace the lineage through Rosanne Cash; Juice Newton; Maria McKee (of Lone Justice); Trisha Yearwood; Patty Loveless; Martina McBride; Sheryl Crow; Allison Moorer; Lucinda Williams; Tish Hinojosa (whose Spanish-language ballad "Adonde Voy" Linda has covered, much to Tish's delight); Kathleen Edwards; Tift Merritt; and, most recently, Caitlin Rose. This is a line-up of female country (mainstream and Americana) and roots-rock artists that would boggle the mind, and it is a testament to why Linda is still thought of so highly among her peers (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Jan 5, 2012 23:10:47 GMT -5
I'd like to see more young- big -name -artists today add Linda to their "she was a big influence for me list." Sadly you don't see it very much if any.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 5, 2012 23:45:01 GMT -5
Quote by dianna:
It's very difficult for me to see which big name artist right now would be influenced by Linda, because of the industry's American Idol-inspired obsession with looks at the expense of sheer natural talent. And while Linda had both of those in her day, that was a time when the image was the icing on the cake, and not the whole cake itself.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 6, 2012 0:23:32 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: I think it's not so much other female artists being worthy of being passed the torch as it is the sheer number of them who have named Linda as a big influence on their style and sound. Starting, I think, with Emmylou, and their mutual "gal pal" Nicolette Larson back in The Day, you can trace the lineage through Rosanne Cash; Juice Newton; Maria McKee (of Lone Justice); Trisha Yearwood; Patty Loveless; Martina McBride; Sheryl Crow; Allison Moorer; Lucinda Williams; Tish Hinojosa (whose Spanish-language ballad "Adonde Voy" Linda has covered, much to Tish's delight); Kathleen Edwards; Tift Merritt; and, most recently, Caitlin Rose. This is a line-up of female country (mainstream and Americana) and roots-rock artists that would boggle the mind, and it is a testament to why Linda is still thought of so highly among her peers (IMHO). Linda has certainly been a big influence on other female artists but I've never seen another female artist come along who could be the next Linda Ronstadt. That's not to disparage any of those artists (including all the ones you named), just that Linda is a hard act to follow in the shadow of, and to be able to live up to the standards she set. Passing the torch to another artist is inevitable yet I don't feel that just any artist should be able to come along and decide they are the next Elvis or Linda or Beatles or whoever. I laughed when Michael Jackson self anointed himself (via Oprah Winfrey) the King of Pop and laughed when country singer Lorrie Morgan announced that just before her death, Tammy Wynette had anointed her the next Queen of Country music. Talk about BIG EGOs! It would've been one thing for either of them if it had been the fans referring to them by those titles instead of them taking it upon themselves to give themselves the titles just to inflate their already huge egos. But, the fans had nothing to do with it nor did it have anything to do with their peers or critics who liked them. It was all shameless self-promotion and both acts were totally pathetic. However, by the same measure, no one has come along to replace Elvis or the Beatles or any of the other pop/rock heavyweights of our time, and they have that staying power because they just didn't appeal to one generation, they appealed to many generations and continue to appeal to new generations. And I see part of the reason for that is us, we, the fans. Many of the fans don't want someone to come along and replace Elvis or another group to come along and replace the Beatles. We don't want someone that good to come along and make the world somehow forget our heroes. I don't think it would ever happen. Someone who wants to be the next Elvis, the next Beatles, the next Linda, etc., will have to have that timeless multigenerational appeal. There may be artists and groups who have sold or will sell multiple millions, but their appeal won't cross a generational line: their fandom will remain with the ones who put them there. And unfortunately, what's hurting the acts of the present time is there are no record companies building long term generational careers for their artists and groups. And I have to wonder, is it because the record companies are in a desperate bid to grab the next big artist of the moment? Or is it because they assessed the long term chances for an artist or group and concluded the acts aren't worth investing the money in for a long term career?
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Jan 6, 2012 0:39:10 GMT -5
Wasn't it Lennon who said, "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus?" Anyway, I don't take all that too seriously.. and it depends who's saying it and the tone (sarcasm) . I think Jackson's career spoke for itself.. and yeah, did he really need to annoint himself the king of pop? No.. He already had the fans/following to confirm it.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Jan 6, 2012 0:45:22 GMT -5
Quote by dianna: It's very difficult for me to see which big name artist right now would be influenced by Linda, because of the industry's American Idol-inspired obsession with looks at the expense of sheer natural talent. And while Linda had both of those in her day, that was a time when the image was the icing on the cake, and not the whole cake itself. That's not what I mean and we know image for the most part is what sells today. I think a lot of it is of course the age gap, so they don't know of Linda.. You have to be someone like Stevie Wonder to even be heard of by today's youth.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 6, 2012 1:45:01 GMT -5
Wasn't it Lennon who said, "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus?" Anyway, I don't take all that too seriously.. and it depends who's saying it and the tone (sarcasm) . I think Jackson's career spoke for itself.. and yeah, did he really need to annoint himself the king of pop? No.. He already had the fans/following to confirm it. True, but the thing was Michael Jackson fans didn't start saying it until Oprah Winfrey said it on her tv show as a condition of getting Jackson to be on her show. Jackson was still playing himself to be all sweet and humble and was "very honored" by Oprah annointing him "King of Pop," but it was all his doing. Not Oprah's and certainly not his fans. John Lennon distanced himself from his "bigger than Jesus" comment, which was as he said, taken out of context. The news media whipped up the "bigger than Jesus" remark into a firestorm of a story, far bigger than the Beatles or Jesus for that matter, than the story should've been. It generated a lot of publicity for the Beatles, most of it negative and there were some who made threats against the Beatles. The "bigger than Jesus" remark showed the other side of fame, those who are fanatical to the extreme in their thinking and easily prone to anger. I've seen some of the fanatical posting some nasty comments about Linda on the internet over the Michael Moore incident, and it's just totally stupid, childish behavior. Michael Jackson's self anointing himself "King of Pop" in no way compares to that but self anointing isn't genuine as it's not coming from the hearts of his fans. It suggested as though he was demanding respect, not from his fans but from the general public. That was the time when he was getting the reputation for being extremely weird and about the same time he was gfacing his first legal troubles over the child molestation. His fans could have referred to him as King of Pop and it would've been genuine. He didn't need Oprah to do that.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 6, 2012 13:10:36 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker re. Lennon's "Jesus" comments:
What I think Lennon meant to say was that he lamented the fact that the Beatles had become so big a deal that young people of the time knew them better than they did Jesus; and let's be honest, he was probably right. In England, nobody took it too terribly seriously (it barely caused a ripple there); but in the Bible Belt of America, well, as Keith Jackson would have said, "Whoa, Nelly!!"
As for Linda--well, granted that she had been out of the public eye for a while, but you'd have to either have been an idiot or living under a rock for the previous thirty years (or possibly both) not to know that her politics slant to the Liberal side unabashedly, and that she was never going to kowtow to the Bush crowd in a million years. If these idiots don't like hearing the painful facts of life, that's their problem. If they don't want to hear her stuff anymore, fine. But then don't b**ch about it online.
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Jan 6, 2012 18:35:57 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker re. Lennon's "Jesus" comments: What I think Lennon meant to say was that he lamented the fact that the Beatles had become so big a deal that young people of the time knew them better than they did Jesus; and let's be honest, he was probably right. In England, nobody took it too terribly seriously (it barely caused a ripple there); but in the Bible Belt of America, well, as Keith Jackson would have said, " Whoa, Nelly!!" As for Linda--well, granted that she had been out of the public eye for a while, but you'd have to either have been an idiot or living under a rock for the previous thirty years (or possibly both) not to know that her politics slant to the Liberal side unabashedly, and that she was never going to kowtow to the Bush crowd in a million years. If these idiots don't like hearing the painful facts of life, that's their problem. If they don't want to hear her stuff anymore, fine. But then don't b**ch about it online. I don't think people care so much which side of politics you support.. its like (don't ask don't tell) with celebrities.. I'm sure many knew maybe some didn't or some didn't care (I wouldn't call them idiots) it sure is strange people's reactions an when something negative is said about an issue they support.. they do care.. A L O T.... and I think like anything else people dont like .. they complain about it on the internet.. I'm guilty of it too.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 7, 2012 1:12:26 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker re. Lennon's "Jesus" comments: What I think Lennon meant to say was that he lamented the fact that the Beatles had become so big a deal that young people of the time knew them better than they did Jesus; and let's be honest, he was probably right. In England, nobody took it too terribly seriously (it barely caused a ripple there); but in the Bible Belt of America, well, as Keith Jackson would have said, " Whoa, Nelly!!" As for Linda--well, granted that she had been out of the public eye for a while, but you'd have to either have been an idiot or living under a rock for the previous thirty years (or possibly both) not to know that her politics slant to the Liberal side unabashedly, and that she was never going to kowtow to the Bush crowd in a million years. If these idiots don't like hearing the painful facts of life, that's their problem. If they don't want to hear her stuff anymore, fine. But then don't b**ch about it online. John was definitely right in his comments but the furor his comments caused underscored a problem in the US that reared its ugly head again when Linda dedicated "Desperado" to Michael Moore. That being certain people thinking if they don't like your politics or point of view on certain subjects, you just need to shut the hell up and keep your opinions to yourself. But, it's always fine for them and others who think like they do to say publicly what's on their mind. And it just drives these people crazy when the person speaking their mind is a celebrity. In their conservative paranoia, they think the liberal celebrity carries more weight with more of the people than what they do. And some celebrities probably do as the conservatives can't win over anyone with their illogical and irrational thinking. Luckily, none of these jerks have taken things to the next step by going out and physically hurting or killing a celebrity for speaking their mind. It may just be a matter of time before something like that happens though I hope it never happens.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 7, 2012 1:44:14 GMT -5
I don't think people care so much which side of politics you support.. its like (don't ask don't tell) with celebrities.. I'm sure many knew maybe some didn't or some didn't care (I wouldn't call them idiots) it sure is strange people's reactions an when something negative is said about an issue they support.. they do care.. A L O T.... and I think like anything else people dont like .. they complain about it on the internet.. I'm guilty of it too. I think the only people who aren't bothered by a celebrity speaking their mind are people whose political views are liberal and middle of the road. People who are conservative, especially extremely conservative are another matter. There's a lot of intolerance, anger and hatred coming from certain conservatives towards anyone who is a liberal. The jerk in Vegas who got his knickers up in a wad just because Linda dedicated "Desperado" to Michael Moore is a case in point. Would he have said anything if she had said, "Gee, I think George Bush has gotten a bad rap!" and dedicated "Desperado" to him instead? He probably would've been leaping from his chair, clapping and whistling his enthusiastic approval. But, Linda, being a liberal, had no right to exercise her freedom of speech on stage and dedicate "Desperado" to Michael Moore. No right except what's given her under our constitution, the same constitution that gives everyone the right to say what's on their mind. It doesn't say, "Freedom of speech for this group of people but not for that group of people because we don't like what they say."
|
|
|
Post by philly on Jan 7, 2012 2:58:43 GMT -5
You've probably heard about the controversy around Kelly Clarkson's support of Ron Paul. People pointing to his newsletters published in the 80's and 90's with allegedly racist sentiments, although Paul called the comments terrible and that they were written by someone else.
Apparently Kelly's internet sales got a bump at first, then went below normal, and might be down overall. Kelly wrote:
“Man, my eyes have been opened to so much hate tonight,” Clarkson wrote. “If y’all ever disagree with something I say, please don’t feel the need to attack me. I will listen to what you say and any articles or viewpoints you have when you say it with respect. Being hateful is not a healthy way to get people to see or hear you.” “If you don’t agree with me simply unfollow me,” she added. “It’s really that easy.”
|
|