Would the media care?

[rick]

Hope the moderators are all right with this. Under the Music Forum, under the topic of "Streisand: Release Me," I was responding to something RonstadtFanAZ had said, and then Erik replied to me. It deals with the issue of whether the media would care if Linda Ronstadt ever performed again.....

Oct 24, 2012 17:25:07 GMT -5 erik said:

Quote by rick re. Barbra Streisand + Linda:

As for "retiring," that is a bit of a canard. In late 1999, she gave an interview in which, as we all do, she was speaking out loud, and said something like, "maybe perhaps I am moving toward retirement." And then the media (Rob, are you familiar with how the media sometimes blows things out of proportion and context) turned that into something definitive. Every time she goes out she wonders if she will want to do it again. It's hard work. She is performing something like 24-26 songs over three hours. But, she says, she gets drawn back. I wish Linda would be so inclined, too.

Babs often seems to be much more fired up by the idea of performing than Linda does, not that I think she's a stage ham or someone starving for attention (like Madonna or Lady Gaga), and the press eats it up. The sad thing, though, is that I just don't think the media would care if Linda never appears in public again for whatever reason.

I think that a lot of is dependent on Linda. Linda uses her celebrity when she chooses -- to host "Il Postino" on PBS, to narrate "Peter and the Wolf" with the San Francisco Symphony, to go on CNN and discuss Arizona's backwards immigration policy, etc. I think Linda does not want to "play the game" that she once was so good at. When Streisand had this new CD "Release Me" coming out, she did a full hour on Katie Couric's show, but she was able to negotiate that two segments be about women's heart health, something that Streisand is passionate about because of her own late mother's health issues. She is trying to bring awareness. I am hoping that when Linda's memoirs are published that "60 Minutes" and other shows will have her own. I would imagine that the publicity department for her book publishing company will have it in her contract that she must do a certain amount of press/publicity to promote the book. I think that Linda -- and, of course, it is up to her -- hasn't seemed to want to put in the time to promote projects. What did she do to promote her boxed set? the Christmas album? She went on the "overtime" portion of "Real Time With Bill Maher" when she and Ann released "Adieu False Heart."
The other side of this is that when I tell most people that I am a Linda Ronstadt fan -- and this sticks in my craw -- they seem to think I am stuck in some 1970s' time warp. And I want to tell them they are the clueless ones if they are not hip to the wonderful music that Linda was putting out in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. It's their loss. But, sadly, that is how a lot of people think.

[erik]

While I do think a lot of this is predicated on how much Linda does to promote or shine a light on whatever it is she's doing, I do think the media itself, and consequently the public, is to blame too, for not only focusing far too much on the cult of celebrity, but also for zeroing in on those who only like to get face time on TV for sensationalistic and bone-headed reasons that haven't a thing to do with their professions. Linda, even at the height of her fame in the late 70s, never played that kind of game, and she certainly hasn't done it lately.

Unfortunately, the way so much of the media (not necessarily all, mind you) is, you don't get attention unless you're controversial or make a horse's a** of yourself. That's what I meant when I said that the media might not care all that much about what Linda's done, though they made much (and keep doing so) of her 2004 Dust-Up In The Desert. I truly hope I'm wrong about them when her memoir comes out.

[the Scribe]

Linda is not the type to care what irrelevant and self-important people (in the corporate media) think and she is the antithesis of self-important herself. She has found her niche, her safe zone and deserves to live her life and share her voice as she chooses. That being said it is nice that some of the media, especially Hispanic media seek her views on immigration and Human Rights which is a position she has earned and it's so much more important than navigating the shallows of celebrity.

[sliderocker]

I don't think the media would pay that much attention to Linda if she performed again. Not unless she released a new album and one of the songs somehow managed to be a hit. Or if she released a new album and was doing a farewell tour because of an illness, much like what Glen Campbell has been doing following the disclosure of his battle with Alzheimers. I would hate to see Linda doing a farewell tour because she had a terminal illness. I can't see the news media covering her when her memoir comes out, at least on a grand scale, if there's nothing sensational in it. Look at the recent slate of auto-bio books from Carole King, Neil Young, Carly Simon, Ann and Nancy Wilson and others. There wasn't much coverage in the news media and electronic media about their books. I only knew about Neil's book because I read about it here! The others I happened across while searching out books and recordings through Amazon on other performers I follow. Ironically, the connection to the above mentioned artists was because of seeing if there was a release date yet on Linda's book. I suspect Linda will get a lot of coverage if there is something sensational and shocking in her book but minimal coverage if it's just an average auto-biography.

[erik]

Seeing as how Simon & Schuster is the one that will be publishing her memoir, and how it is owned by the folks at CBS, there's always the possibility of her appearing on 60 Minutes for an interview about it. She had been on CBS's Sunday Morning back in December 2004 to promote Hummin' To Myself; so there's always a possibility.

But it's true that a lot of these memoirs don't have many (if any) mind-busting revelations that the die-hard fans haven't had regurgitated in the media over and over again; and unless they do, the media and, consequently, the public won't pay much attention. Linda obviously doesn't, and shouldn't, care or worry about all that. Whatever she's got to tell, I just hope she's as honest with herself in the book as she's been in her recording and live performances throughout her life.

[the Scribe]

I dunno Slide, Linda's life seems so much more interesting than the others you've mentioned. From her own family history (both sides) to her life experiences through the famous people she has dated and personally I consider Linda the focal point for the California music scene and like Peter Asher stated she was the "glue" that held them all together. Few were in a better position than she to observe from the inside everything that was going on around her in that world of music and few are so down to Earth that could write in a voice suitable for fans. I think there will be a lot of interest in her book and I hope she tops it off with a chapter on human rights for immigrants and her involvement. Her music was magic and I expect her book will also be a hit, a work of art. I just hope she has an exceptional editor that knows what they are doing so that her spirit shows through. Plus it is supposed to be a mixed media book, isn't it? For someone like me who adores her speaking voice as much as her singing voice this is a big thrill.

The first book is a difficult endeavor. I could easily see Linda becoming a writer of some sort if she could get over that hump and develop a methodology for writing.

[Richard W]

Like Sliderocker said, the (mainstream) media wouldn't care if Linda performed again -- they didn't seem to care that she retired in the first place, based on the dearth of news coverage of it, even by the entertainment media -- unless the performance/recording were on the tail of some scandal or snagged in the wake of some tragedy. Hell, most people, in and out of the media, aren't even aware that she released any albums after 1990.

In these days of on-stage barfing, breast-flashing, teenage-pandering, autotuned performers, who gives a rat's arse about a 60+ year-old woman?

Streisand is evidently the rare exception, but mainly because she's still an icon of people of a certain generation, and the fact that she very rarely performs (or performed) live, giving her few recent concert appearances the aura of an "event," a Haley's Comet-like "before-you-die"quality.

It remains to be seen how much buzz Linda's book itself will create. As for me, 2013, for that reason, can't get here fast enough.

[Deleted]

It's not called the United States of Amnesia for nothing!

[the Scribe]

Oct 26, 2012 11:18:00 GMT -5 @robertaxel said:

It's not called the United States of Amnesia for nothing!

and seemingly about to become Romnesia ..............

[erik]

Quote by robertaxel:

It's not called the United States of Amnesia for nothing!

As I think Gore Vidal once said: "No one knows anything before Monday morning. We have no history."

And in the 24/7 news cycle that we all live in (where we want to admit it or not), our attention span has been reduced to, I guess, just a miserable sixty seconds. Even less, when it comes to responsible "stars" like Linda (IMHO).

[Richard W]

I wouldn't put all the onus on the American people. Our new-next-now culture is culpable as well, a culture whose content is created and fueled by a money/ratings/"cutting-edge" culture itself.

I mean, in reality, how many adults are that obsessed with Taylor Swift (just to pick one example)? I know I'm not, and yet I've been subjected to three different TV shows featuring stories about her, I've heard more of her music than I ever had a desire to, and I know she has a new album out, Red, that is poised to sell a million copies in a week. Why?

Because the star-making machinery has crowned her Queen and the Queen must be worshipped -- so long as the Queen continues to sell records and to boost TV show ratings, that is. In the meantime, as much air and broadcast time is sacrificed to her as is possible.

Which, of course, doesn't leave that much time for exposure for artists far worthier (Tift?).

I suspect that, left to their own devices, most people outside Swift's demographic wouldn't give a hoot about her. However, when something is constantly awarded, accoladed, filmed, broadcast and basically shoved down the public's collective throat, eventually you have to swallow. Especially if you're not given the option of anything else to eat.

[erik]

Quote by richwar:

I suspect that, left to their own devices, most people outside Swift's demographic wouldn't give a hoot about her. However, when something is constantly awarded, accoladed, filmed, broadcast and basically shoved down the public's collective throat, eventually you have to swallow. Especially if you're not given the option of anything else to eat.

True. Unless everyone becomes, er....Swiftose Intolerant (LOL).

[sliderocker]

Seeing as how Simon & Schuster is the one that will be publishing her memoir, and how it is owned by the folks at CBS, there's always the possibility of her appearing on 60 Minutes for an interview about it. She had been on CBS's Sunday Morning back in December 2004 to promote Hummin' To Myself; so there's always a possibility.

She's also shown up from time to time on CNN, but I could see her possibly being on "60 Minutes" or "CBS This Morning" (or whatever it's called, I'm never awake at that hour) to talk about her book. I think she could possibly do some late night talk shows or syndicated talk shows to promote her book but would she do much more than that to promote her book? The talk shows and "60 Minutes" are not the be-all end-all when it comes to promoting a product and once you have done them, you've got to do something else to keep the interest up, especially if the sales aren't there or only so-so.

But it's true that a lot of these memoirs don't have many (if any) mind-busting revelations that the die-hard fans haven't had regurgitated in the media over and over again; and unless they do, the media and, consequently, the public won't pay much attention. Linda obviously doesn't, and shouldn't, care or worry about all that. Whatever she's got to tell, I just hope she's as honest with herself in the book as she's been in her recording and live performances throughout her life.

Many of the *mind busting relevations* that I've read in auto-bios were rarely that mind busting. More like a ho hum variety than the you've got to be kidding variety. The auto-bio book by Ann and Nancy Wilson is very much on the ho hum side even though there are some interesting bits here and there. After reading it, I didn't really feel like I'll want to read it again at some point. They're nice people, just the same.

Linda's book, I feel, is more likely to be a lot more interesting read given the times she has lived through. I think she could have some 'you've got to be kidding' moments in her book but I couldn't see anything being too outrageous or scandalous. I just hope she's more kindly with her music of the 60s and 70s than what she's been the past few years. It was that music after all that put her over with the public and made her wealthy in the process, even though it took a little bit of time to achieve that success and wealth.

[sliderocker]

Oct 26, 2012 9:56:45 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

I dunno Slide, Linda's life seems so much more interesting than the others you've mentioned. From her own family history (both sides) to her life experiences through the famous people she has dated and personally I consider Linda the focal point for the California music scene and like Peter Asher stated she was the "glue" that held them all together. Few were in a better position than she to observe from the inside everything that was going on around her in that world of music and few are so down to Earth that could write in a voice suitable for fans. I think there will be a lot of interest in her book and I hope she tops it off with a chapter on human rights for immigrants and her involvement. Her music was magic and I expect her book will also be a hit, a work of art. I just hope she has an exceptional editor that knows what they are doing so that her spirit shows through. Plus it is supposed to be a mixed media book, isn't it? For someone like me who adores her speaking voice as much as her singing voice this is a big thrill.

The first book is a difficult endeavor. I could easily see Linda becoming a writer of some sort if she could get over that hump and develop a methodology for writing.

For my money, she's definitely been the more interesting. She's one of the few ladies of rock from the 60s who became even bigger in the 70s and even remained popular in the 80s, slowing down only in the 90s. By comparison, very few of her peers made it out of the decade in which they debuted or they just barely made it out of the decade. It's been a disappointment that she has dismissed some of the music she has made as it was that music that made her career and wealth, and not the much later music of her career which she claimed to prefer more but for which barely got her noticed and didn't sell all that well, even though it was good.

Could she become a writer? Why not? I'd like to see her try her hand at writing fiction although she may just draw the line at writing her autobiography.

[the Scribe]

Linda's book, I feel, is more likely to be a lot more interesting read given the times she has lived through. I think she could have some 'you've got to be kidding' moments in her book but I couldn't see anything being too outrageous or scandalous. I just hope she's more kindly with her music of the 60s and 70s than what she's been the past few years. It was that music after all that put her over with the public and made her wealthy in the process, even though it took a little bit of time to achieve that success and wealth.

She was accused of "selling out" by some critics when she recorded much of her "rock" stuff but that wasn't even her best music. Maybe that is why she dismisses it so readily as she was pushed into something she didn't want to do.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

It's been a disappointment that she has dismissed some of the music she has made as it was that music that made her career and wealth, and not the much later music of her career which she claimed to prefer more but for which barely got her noticed and didn't sell all that well, even though it was good.

I too have voiced a certain dismay for the dismissal of what made her popular, but I think it has at least in part to do with having to perform in stadiums and sports arenas, which dampened her enthusiasm for rock to some extent (she's also dead right about them being godawful places to perform music of any kind, no matter how much money you can make from them).

In terms of what she did in the 90s, a lot of it was infinitely better than most of what was being put out by all the "big names" then, but I always had the feeling that she didn't make a strong enough case for it; and I don't think she nearly did enough to ingratiate enough of the 90s music audience that might have been sympathetic to her.

My occasional critiques of Linda are never meant to start flame wars, but come as the honest observations of somebody who has been a fan since 1978. I would hope Linda would be a little bit philosophical about these things, because without the influence she has had on so many great female singers, from Emmylou and Nicolette Larson to Trisha Yearwood, Sheryl Crow, Tift Merritt, and Caitlin Rose, the pop and country music worlds of today would be even worse than they actually are (IMHO).

[sliderocker]

Oct 26, 2012 17:09:25 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

She was accused of "selling out" by some critics when she recorded much of her "rock" stuff but that wasn't even her best music. Maybe that is why she dismisses it so readily as she was pushed into something she didn't want to do.

I think the critics hate it when an artist becomes successful. They revere the artist pre-fame but loathe them for the most part once they make it. Look at the overrated value the critics place on Elvis's Sun recordings; some of the critics are so dismissive of anything Elvis did at RCA because they think the Sun recordings are the holy grail of rock. Dave Marsh knocked several of the people who wrote songs for Elvis as hacks, and that was a mostly unfair thing to be saying. Likewise, before Blondie found success, great group according to the critics but after success, they could do nothing right.

Linda dismisses her rock music yet I don't think that's something she should be doing because she's agreeing with her harshest critics who are so dismissive of her and her music. Being dismissive of her music makes her look like she's validating the harshest criticisms of her critics, and a person new to her but thinking about buying her music because of hearing some of the songs on the radio could have second thoughts. "If she agrees with them, she must be terrible!" And unfortunately, those of us who value Linda and her music much more highly than her critcis don't have the audience reach that the critics have with their poisonous barbs.

While Linda may not have liked the music she was doing, no one really forced her to do it and she didn't refuse any of the royalty checks she received from the heavy album sales. She could've said at any time, "No, I want to keep singing country, not rock," but she didn't do that. Don't forget she's even dismissive of her country efforts, saying she wasn't as good at it as what Emmylou and others were. Given that she later moved into the kind music Sinatra made and the Mexican music, she may have felt more comfortable doing that kind of music but I'd be willing to bet the majority of her fans preferred would rather have her rock and country, if given the choice. I know people who don't like the Nelson Riddle stuff or the later jazz-like albums, and who would rather have had the Linda of the 70s era. Of course, that kind of person is not a die hard fan, someone who wants every recording she ever made, but they are more in the majority than the minority, unfortunately.

[sliderocker]

Oct 26, 2012 17:17:41 GMT -5 erik said:

I too have voiced a certain dismay for the dismissal of what made her popular, but I think it has at least in part to do with having to perform in stadiums and sports arenas, which dampened her enthusiasm for rock to some extent (she's also dead right about them being godawful places to perform music of any kind, no matter how much money you can make from them).

In terms of what she did in the 90s, a lot of it was infinitely better than most of what was being put out by all the "big names" then, but I always had the feeling that she didn't make a strong enough case for it; and I don't think she nearly did enough to ingratiate enough of the 90s music audience that might have been sympathetic to her.

My occasional critiques of Linda are never meant to start flame wars, but come as the honest observations of somebody who has been a fan since 1978. I would hope Linda would be a little bit philosophical about these things, because without the influence she has had on so many great female singers, from Emmylou and Nicolette Larson to Trisha Yearwood, Sheryl Crow, Tift Merritt, and Caitlin Rose, the pop and country music worlds of today would be even worse than they actually are (IMHO).

I've been a fan almost from the beginning, starting with "Different Drum" in 1967, and to be a fan for that long means she did something right to always keep me interested. I listened to other artists and groups but with some it was just one record they did I had to have or worse, I didn't care much more than listening to them on the radio. (A slight disclaimer here: when I was younger, I usually didn't have the bucks to buy every 45 I liked or every album I wanted to buy, so I became very selective about what I did buy.) When Linda turned more towards a country sound, she could easily have lost me at that point because I didn't like country. I still don't like it on a large scale - just a few here and there. But, I listened because it was Linda singing and she could almost do no wrong in my book.

Linda's criticisms about playing stadiums and sports arenas are right on yet I still think it's wrong that her enthusiasm for rock was dampened by having to play and sing in those places. It wasn't the music that caused them to be bad places to play, it was because her management booked her to play in places that could hold tens of thousands of fans, if not more. I know of other artists and bands who griped about having to play stadiums and arenas yet they never put the blame on the music for having to play them. Elvis Presley grouched big time when he played the Houston Astrodome in 1970 because it had some extremely lousy acoustics. (And also a sore point, some racist Houston officials told him to get rid of the Sweet Inspirations. That was a big mistake as Presley pointedly told the officials that not only would the Sweets not be on stage but neither would he or any other member of his band. He'd cancel the show and make sure the fans and the press knew the reason for the cancellation.)

And even though Linda changed her musical style, I still don't consider that a valid reason for her to be dismissive of the music she made earlier. It was the rock music (with some country flavorings) which brought her the fame and fortune and ultimately, the freedom to do the kind of music she did later. I know of a handful of other rock performers who were dismissive of their music yet none ever refused the royalties they made off of those recordings. They never said, "I can't take these royalties because I really don't like what I did."

Such stances usually had more to do with how the song was produced than with the music although there were some musicians who were dismissive of their music in general, yet they came off looking quite pretentious when they would take such a stance. I never knew how to quite place Linda's dismissal of her music, whether she was being pretensive about it in relation to what she did later or if she truly never liked what she did in the first place, which would be unbelievable. As said, no one forced her to record those songs and she could've kept on doing what she had been doing. Would she have been as successful if she had stayed on the path she was on before taking the rock path? I'll always love Linda and her music but I'll never stop wishing for her to stop being so dismissive of the music which made her mark in music and brought her success and many, many fans, including the many artists who have cited her as an influence.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Linda's criticisms about playing stadiums and sports arenas are right on yet I still think it's wrong that her enthusiasm for rock was dampened by having to play and sing in those places. It wasn't the music that caused them to be bad places to play, it was because her management booked her to play in places that could hold tens of thousands of fans, if not more.

I think she just couldn't handle the sound quality of these places; and after the hard-won success of Pirates on Broadway, she felt she had to do better.

Just remember that this is a woman who sold out the Universal Amphitheater here in Los Angeles for twelve straight shows in late September and early October 1977, playing to capacity crowds of 5500 each time (back when the place was still an outdoor venue); indeed, she holds the all-time record for most performances there, and most sold-out shows--a record that, for that venue anyway, probably is one of the few that won't get broken...not even by Taylor Swift (LOL).

I think if they had allowed her to play more in big-enough concert venues where the sound quality can be better controlled, it probably wouldn't have affected how she felt about her multi-Platinum rock recordings. This isn't to say that she wouldn't have done the Great American Songbook or done the Mexican material at some point, but it might have given her pause (IMHO).

[djay]

"media" doesn't really work that way...particularly in the entertainment industry. In fact, a slew of well-paid professional work hard to make sure that everyone knows where Kim Kardashian is having lunch and how much skin will be on display. My understanding is that LR hasn't had used a publicist, or even had active management in some time...none of this stuff happens by accident. Although it seems counter-intuitive, if you want press coverage you typically have to go get it.

[sliderocker]

Oct 27, 2012 19:00:26 GMT -5 erik said:

Quote by sliderocker:

I think she just couldn't handle the sound quality of these places; and after the hard-won success of Pirates on Broadway, she felt she had to do better.

Just remember that this is a woman who sold out the Universal Amphitheater here in Los Angeles for twelve straight shows in late September and early October 1977, playing to capacity crowds of 5500 each time (back when the place was still an outdoor venue); indeed, she holds the all-time record for most performances there, and most sold-out shows--a record that, for that venue anyway, probably is one of the few that won't get broken...not even by Taylor Swift (LOL).

I think if they had allowed her to play more in big-enough concert venues where the sound quality can be better controlled, it probably wouldn't have affected how she felt about her multi-Platinum rock recordings. This isn't to say that she wouldn't have done the Great American Songbook or done the Mexican material at some point, but it might have given her pause (IMHO).

The recording studio was more of a controlled environment but I have to wonder if her disenchantment with rock had more to do with the criticisms of her harshest critics than with the music itself? I could see her taking the barbs of the critics to heart, especially about her covers and thinking maybe she wasn't good at it, when in fact she was and much better at it than many of the other female rock performers. Then, J. D. Souther plays her some Sinatra recordings and all of a sudden, she says "I'm never singing 'Tumbling Dice' again!" The sad part is the critics didn't like her then-new move in another direction, so it was like Linda could do nothing to ever win them over. But, the only people Linda should've been paying attention to was her fans, the people who went out and bought her recordings with their money. Critics usually got Linda's recordings directly from the record companies without ever having to pay for the privilege of listening to her singing. And some of those critics seemed to think ithey had to be nasty about an artist or an album, even when the artist and album were good - that if they overly praised the album and the artist, they somehow weren't being honest. Of course, the problem with that last statement is that the critics have always gone overboard in their praise of Bruce Springsteen and the belief that everything he has done has been a work of art rather than songs that were a mix of work of art and piece of sh*t.

Of course, it could be that the reason Linda dislikes her rock era recordings has to do with the songs she chose to record. Maybe she looks back now and thinks "What was I thinking?" And maybe she thinks she made more bad choices than good choices and so she dismisses that part of her recording life as not being good at all.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

I have to wonder if her disenchantment with rock had more to do with the criticisms of her harshest critics than with the music itself? I could see her taking the barbs of the critics to heart, especially about her covers and thinking maybe she wasn't good at it, when in fact she was and much better at it than many of the other female rock performers. Then, J. D. Souther plays her some Sinatra recordings and all of a sudden, she says "I'm never singing 'Tumbling Dice' again!" The sad part is the critics didn't like her then-new move in another direction, so it was like Linda could do nothing to ever win them over. But, the only people Linda should've been paying attention to was her fans, the people who went out and bought her recordings with their money. Critics usually got Linda's recordings directly from the record companies without ever having to pay for the privilege of listening to her singing. And some of those critics seemed to think ithey had to be nasty about an artist or an album, even when the artist and album were good - that if they overly praised the album and the artist, they somehow weren't being honest. Of course, the problem with that last statement is that the critics have always gone overboard in their praise of Bruce Springsteen and the belief that everything he has done has been a work of art rather than songs that were a mix of work of art and piece of sh*t.

Of course, it could be that the reason Linda dislikes her rock era recordings has to do with the songs she chose to record. Maybe she looks back now and thinks "What was I thinking?" And maybe she thinks she made more bad choices than good choices and so she dismisses that part of her recording life as not being good at all.

It would be, I think, a catastrophic shame if it were true that Linda listened to those critics who couldn't find enough nasty things to say about her rock records, not to mention a terrible misjudgment to boot. But then she has never really been satisfied with much of what she has ever done; she always thinks she could have been better, she always strove to be perfect. And that just can't happen all the time, much as those who praise Springsteen up the wazoo (are you listening, Mr. Marsh?!) want us to believe it should. By the same token, though, if ronstadtfanaz's theory about her being "pushed" into rock music against her will was true, I don't think it would reflect well on her reputation as a feminist; it would just confirm what critics have often suspected, that she was merely a puppet in other people's hands. And that one theory, with all due respect, is one that I just don't buy.

Not that I think it is likely, but I think if I were to talk with Linda face-to-face for a few minutes, I would simply remind her what the total sum of her career, from folk-rock, through C&W, pop, hard rock, the Great American Songbook, the Mexican/Latin albums, has meant to her fans and her peers, and let her know just how much better the world really is having had her around for as long as she's lasted. I just don't think we'll ever see the likes of her again.

[the Scribe]

if ronstadtfanaz's theory about her being "pushed" into rock music against her will was true, I don't think it would reflect well on her reputation as a feminist; it would just confirm what critics have often suspected, that she was merely a puppet in other people's hands.

And Gloria Steinem was a Playboy Bunny. The list of feminists goes back hundreds of years, male and female and most of them wanted to eat so they all did things they needed to do to survive but they still spoke out. All rock stars, non-rock stars and alike were all pawns and puppets if they wanted to keep their recording contracts just like critics get paid to be assholes and come up with clever new ways of criticizing popular artists, especially the fairer sex. They may not always like what they write but they do it anyway. It's the way of the world.

[sliderocker]

It would be, I think, a catastrophic shame if it were true that Linda listened to those critics who couldn't find enough nasty things to say about her rock records, not to mention a terrible misjudgment to boot.

Catastrophic indeed, but I could see where Linda might think less of her music if she herself had second doubts about what she had recorded. And then having that doubt reinforced when the critics dissed it. But, when the recordings appearing on whatever albums went on to sell in the millions of copies, Linda (or any artist for that matter) should've considered that the true measure of whether or not her music was any good. And that she and her negative critics were totally wrong in their assessment. Bad music doesn't usually sell continuously in the millions.

But then she has never really been satisfied with much of what she has ever done; she always thinks she could have been better, she always strove to be perfect.

The desire for everything be perfect is a particularly bad trap because perfection is often an elusive quality when it comes to art. When it comes to music, it's rarely the artist. Sometimes it can be, but it can also the producer or the arranger or the musicians playing or the songs themselves. Linda always had good taste when it came to song choices but for me, if there issues with the music, it wasn't with her vocals or the songs, it was usually the production, sometimes who played on the songs. Sometimes the production sounded badly mixed and on some of the songs, the band sounded like they never got above bar band status. But, even that could've been the result of a bad mix.

And that just can't happen all the time, much as those who praise Springsteen up the wazoo (are you listening, Mr. Marsh?!) want us to believe it should.

I can't believe Springsteen has retained so much favor with the critics and somehow manage to avoid nasty critical barbs. I sometimes wonder if that's because they have more personal access to him than other rock-pop performers? When it comes to critics, I want to read a honest review, not a nasty review with poisonous barbs and zingers or a gushy fan overfawning, neither of which make a valid judgement.

By the same token, though, if ronstadtfanaz's theory about her being "pushed" into rock music against her will was true, I don't think it would reflect well on her reputation as a feminist; it would just confirm what critics have often suspected, that she was merely a puppet in other people's hands. And that one theory, with all due respect, is one that I just don't buy.

Given that Capitol in the early 70s was keen on having Linda record "Stand By Your Man" and "Help Me Make It Through the Night," and she stood up to them and told them she wouldn't record either song, I think makes a pretty strong case that she wasn't a puppet. Her feminism notwithstanding, I could see where her manager(s) or producers could see the potential for her if she did a certain musical genre and counseling her to consider recording in that genre. I could not see Linda's relationship with a manager or producer as being one that was a Trilby-Svengali type of relationship, although I think that in the late 60s and early 70s, she may have had some insecurity because the albums she recorded and released were only fair sellers. I think she wanted success and think she realized that as much as she loved country, she was getting nowhere exclusively with that genre. Her voice was well suited for rock just as much as it was for country and for any musical genre she worked in. Rock helped establish her solo career although her country side was never shut out completely. She managed to do both and blend both far better than others who trodded a similar path. Hers never sounded forced or pretense unlike what some of her contemporaries sounded.


Not that I think it is likely, but I think if I were to talk with Linda face-to-face for a few minutes, I would simply remind her what the total sum of her career, from folk-rock, through C&W, pop, hard rock, the Great American Songbook, the Mexican/Latin albums, has meant to her fans and her peers, and let her know just how much better the world really is having had her around for as long as she's lasted. I just don't think we'll ever see the likes of her again.

I don't think we will see the likes of her again either. There may be others who will come along amd sell more than Linda ever sold but with the ever changing face of the formats music appears in, it won't be completely the same.

[Richard W]

Judi Densch on Charley Rose: "Almost everything I look at that I've done, I think I could have done it better." It's just the nature of the artist.

As for Linda and rock, she's on record as saying that rock and roll was an integral part of her early musical exposure, both on the radio and on records. Also, she's said she would never record a song she didn't connect with, which presumably includes her rock recordings.

If there were a nudge, it was probably to record more uptempo songs and less ballads.

[erik]

Quote by richwar:

If there were a nudge, it was probably to record more uptempo songs and less ballads.

This is quite possible, though I think the ballads do outnumber the uptempo ones on average.

In all good honesty, and this is strictly my opinion, I think the ballads are given their dramatic impact in part because they are interspersed with the rockers, and likewise the rock and roll numbers are given the impact by the heart and passion that she puts into them. I feel that this is what helped to keep Linda's shows interesting from start to finish; they weren't at just one tempo for an average 90-120 minute concert.

[Richard W]

Having seen Linda live a few times during her heyday, one thing I'll say: she could rock the house with a one-two slam of "You're No Good" and "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" then have the house hanging on every note of "Desperado", the audience so silent between notes you could hear a pin drop.

So, yes, the contrast and pacing of her shows with uptempo numbers and ballads was quite effective.