|
Post by Dianna on Aug 22, 2012 12:20:40 GMT -5
I keep hearing this song on a commercial. I remember hearing this song on the radio waaaay back (my mother) I kind of like it.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 22, 2012 12:54:35 GMT -5
Yes, it was a substantial hit in the late summer of 1971, charting at #13 on the Hot 100. The "friends" backing them up on the record, incidentally, include, among others, one Ingram Cecil Connor--Gram Parsons, to the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Aug 22, 2012 15:57:55 GMT -5
I like this song, too, and like you, Dianna, it's been going through my head since hearing it on that commercial. In fact, I was humming it just a short while ago on my bike!
Bonnie Bramlett released a most excellent album in the '70s called "Lady's Choice," which featured her bluesy voice on covers of classic R&B songs. It is a great record, start to finish. It's been one of my favorite albums for years. Look for it.
She also co-wrote the classic song, "Superstar" and played Bonnie for several years on "Rosanne."
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Aug 22, 2012 21:32:19 GMT -5
Somehow I knew my fellow Ronstadt fans would like it!!! Thanks guys for the history and info!!
It's nice to hear these songs, which don't get a lot of airplay these days, or any at all.. the forgotten hits. I wish regular radio would mix these gems into their rotation.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 22, 2012 21:45:30 GMT -5
Quote by dianna:
Back in those days, especially the late 60s and 70s, of course, radio stations weren't run by corporate bean counters or focus groups; they were run by knowledgeable station managers, and the listener was actually given credit for having a mind of his/her own.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 23, 2012 12:21:33 GMT -5
Delaney and Bonnie almost got signed to the Beatles's Apple records label, and in fact their album, "Accept No Substitute" was slated for release initially on Apple. I don't know why it wasn't released - unless Apple wasn't given the publishing on any and all of the original songs. Almost every original song by an artist on was published by Apple, which was a smart move for them.
Seems like D&B had one other minor hit after NESOL and then disappeared from the musical scene, which was a pity. Their daughter, Bekka, teamed up with Billy Burnette in the 90s and they had a hit on the country charts with "Better Days," which surprisingly wasn't a hit on the pop charts - though it should've been. Bekka's singing voice very much reminds you of her mother's for its bluesiness. There are some videos on youtube of her with her mother singing together - surprising the two haven't done an album together as that would be incredible.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Aug 23, 2012 21:48:56 GMT -5
1970-1974 (especially 71 & 72) were the best years in popular music in my opinion. Thank god Linda broke out big in 1974 to make the rest of that decade more listenable. The 80's were awful for the most part. Started out good and got really bad. There was an occasional great song amongst them but mostly...yuck.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 24, 2012 1:33:07 GMT -5
1970-1974 (especially 71 & 72) were the best years in popular music in my opinion. Thank god Linda broke out big in 1974 to make the rest of that decade more listenable. The 80's were awful for the most part. Started out good and got really bad. There was an occasional great song amongst them but mostly...yuck. For me, I thought the best years in music included the much of 60s and all of the 70s, and certain performers like Elvis or the Beatles who were timeless. The 60s and 70s produced a lot of great music and great artists, the likes of which we'll never see again. I agree with you about the 80s, started out good and then? What happened? The 90s was even worse as one group's sound that was successful was immediately copied by dozens of "us too" imitators. Whatever happened to originality? I haven't listened to much since then in the pop field. I'll hear someone I'll like occasionally but I still hear a lot of musical staleness. It's pathetic!
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 24, 2012 9:18:03 GMT -5
I think it's way too easy for a lot of music critics to put the 70s down like they do, simply because there was no single musical "movement", one single artist or group that defined the decade. So many styles were imprinted on it: singer/songwriters; disco; heavy metal; country-rock; Top 40 AM pop; MOR; and so on.
What happened in the 80s was, I think, the rise of MTV and music videos, which seemingly made it necessary to visualize everything so blatantly instead of allowing the listener to use their own imaginations. Worst of all, I think the music generally became much more corporate, compartmental, and basically more insulting to one's intelligence. It really hasn't stopped since then, although in recent times there have been exceptions, mostly from fringe and indie artists.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 29, 2012 14:16:26 GMT -5
I think it's way too easy for a lot of music critics to put the 70s down like they do, simply because there was no single musical "movement", one single artist or group that defined the decade. So many styles were imprinted on it: singer/songwriters; disco; heavy metal; country-rock; Top 40 AM pop; MOR; and so on.
I think the music critics came down on the 70s like they did especially if they were part of the 60s and especially if they had an "everything Beatles" mentality. Anyone that they considered a challenge to the Beatles' superiority had to be put down, especially if the sales of an act were incredibly high. The music was all over the place in the 70s and the critics kind of played people off those differences. Disco, which was dance music, was denigrated by rock fans even though rock and dancing had been synonminous with each other.
In the 70s, rock music was supposed to make you think, still had to have a message, even though that was a holdover from the mid-to-late 60s when every pretentious group or artist who took themselves far too seriously thought their lyrics were pearls of wisdom that had to be shared with the public. Disco, imo, was never anything more serious than getting out of the house for an evening of fun. Of course, if you couldn't dance or were rather clumsy at it and easily embarassed, maybe you preferred to sit it out at home.
I had a friend, now deceased, who was a rock musician who had a different take on disco. He hated disco primarily because many of the bars replaced live bans with DJs spinning disco records. I always argued with him that disco itself wasn't to blame but the bar owners who probably thought it was cheaper to pay the mechanical licenses to BMI, ASCAP and (rarely) SESAC to pay a DJ to play music than to pay a band. A mechanical license was a yearly fee, not cheap, but cheaper than paying bands to come in and play and still have to pay the music licensing agencies for the use of the songs the bands played. Of course some of the bars didn't pay licensing fees of any kind, falsely arguing they were exempt from having to pay. Or they knew they had to pay but intentionally chose to violate the law. As I told my friend, disco got the blame but the bar owners and managers could've done the same by playing rock, country, pop, R&B/soul rather than hiring a band, and would he have held the same point of view if the playing of records in those genres had kept him from working in his chosen craft? He had to concede the point on that one but still, he disliked disco.
What happened in the 80s was, I think, the rise of MTV and music videos, which seemingly made it necessary to visualize everything so blatantly instead of allowing the listener to use their own imaginations. Worst of all, I think the music generally became much more corporate, compartmental, and basically more insulting to one's intelligence. It really hasn't stopped since then, although in recent times there have been exceptions, mostly from fringe and indie artists.
What lost me on the 80s was the music just seemed to become totally sterile, awashed in big hair bands with synthesizer overkill and loud guitars that substituted flash for skillful playing, singers who screamed out their vocals a lot. It was kind of funny about MTV as Rolling Stone complained about faceless corporate rock, where people couldn't identify the people in a band or what they even looked like. With all those music video videos floating around, especially many of the same bands RS accused of being faceless corporate rockers, one would've thought RS was just being their typical usual BS-self. They didn't like the music or the bands, it wasn't Springsteen or some band or artist they did approve of, nothing new there, yet there were some bands that while I may have known their songs, I couldn't tell you the names of the band members. Of course, the fact I didn't have those records in my collection may have had a lot to do with that. Still, I knew quite a few songs by other bands and I knew the names of the people in those bands and I didn't have their records in my collection either. But, I think the problem is that rather than being faceless corporate rockers, the problem was the bands made music that was instantly forgettable the minute it was off the charts. And I think the record companies had everything in the world to do with that - always looking out for the next big thing but being quicker to write the act off when the act didn't meet the record companies's expectations.
|
|