"The New Linda Ronstadt Documentary Proves Just How Underrated She Is"

Pat Boone

 

There is no correlation between great singing and the ability to compose that I am aware of. (Besides Bob Dylan...LOL)

I prefer "yummy"....but we agree.

 

You've seriously never heard the term "litigated" used in a figurative sense? You need to get out more.

In fact, I just heard it used in this way on a cable news show within the last half hour.

 

You're No Good – #51 pop, #5 R&B (Betty Everett – also a hit in the UK for The Swingin' Blue Jeans)

When Will I Be Loved – #8 pop (The Everly Brothers)

It Doesn't Matter Any More – #13 pop (Buddy Holly)

Heat Wave – #4 pop, #1 R&B (Martha and the Vandellas)

Tracks of My Tears – #16 pop, #2 R&B (The Miracles)

That'll Be the Day – #1 pop, #2 R&B (The Crickets/Buddy Holly)

Blue Bayou – #29 pop [B-side] (Roy Orbison)

Tumbling Dice – #7 pop (The Rolling Stones)

Back in the U.S.A. – #37 pop, #16 R&B (Chuck Berry)

Ooo Baby Baby – #16 pop, #4 R&B (The Miracles)

Just One Look – #10 pop, #3 R&B (Doris Troy)

Hurts So Bad – #10 pop, #3 R&B (Little Anthony and the Imperials)

I Can't Let Go – #42 pop (The Hollies)

I Knew You When – #14 pop (Billy Joe Royal)


By the way, "their top billboard chart topping months at #1" is irrelevant. It's not whether they were more successful than Ronstadt's versions, it's simply that they proved themselves to be hit material, often with more than one audience.

And just to further head you off at the pass, any song that made the Billboard Top 40 charts, even those in the lower reaches, received airplay on AM radio in the 1960s and would be familiar to those who listened during that era. Some just on the other side of it did too (e.g. The Hollies song).

 

I don't have access to pre-1955 charts, so I can't be specific. But I've acknowledged that earlier in his career, Sinatra recorded some "standards" — as many performers did in those days, often simultaneously. In those days, individual performers really didn't "own" the songs they did in the way they came to later.

Still, I'm pretty confident in saying that Sinatra built his reputation strongly on songs that were ones he recorded for the first time, rather than his versions of songs that were previously successful by other artists.

I do know that the overwhelming majority of his hits from 1955 forward were songs that he was the first to record and make popular — some of them in movies or TV shows he was associated with.

In fact, I'm having a hard time identifying any Sinatra songs from this era that were significant hits for others before he recorded them. I'd welcome any help to do so.

 

Was it the Epix Laurel Canyon documentary you watched? I laughed at what Steve Martin said about dating her for two weeks only to then be asked by her if he often dates girls without trying to sleep with them.
Back to the thread. Fantastic singer and interpreter of songs. I would not say she is under rated but it is true that her music is not played much and I suspect sales of her songs and albums have fallen off. Same with Janis Joplin. They are both lauded by critics and their fan base but not appreciated as much by younger folks.

 

Nice try.

At most, I can identify 9 songs that Boone recorded cover versions of — and some of them were only R&B hits, not pop ones. There are 14 on my Ronstadt list above.

In any case, "mass stardom" may be one thing, but critical regard is another. You can't begin to put Boone in the same category as Ronstadt. You'll find almost no one who will say anything favorable about him today in terms of the quality of his records or his "artistry."

 

The list of cover songs that Linda Ronstadt performed and charted with successfully, proves to me one thing:
By choosing and selecting to perform these songs, she challenged herself by taking a high standard of quality and was determined to elevate it even higher.

When a song has a “proven record”, i.e. previous chart success, there’s a substantially greater and more visible chance that the cover could fail.
This never occurred with any of her covers.

It should also be noted that Linda Ronstadt did not cover these songs in a safe and conservative manner - they weren’t rotely recorded note for note, nor as soundalikes.

Many other artists have tried to cover a previous hit record. However, by some miscalculation, bad vocals, odd arrangement, strange instrumentation, poor production, etc, is a head scratching miss, it fails miserably, is sadly best forgotten.
So, covering a hit single IS NOT a Formula For Success.

To bring something new and refreshing when covering a previous hit song, itself requires creativity, musical inventiveness, sound artistic judgement, a sense of daring, and a great ear for good music.

In collaboration with her musical collaborators such as Andrew Gold, Kenny Edwards, and Peter Asher, Linda Ronstadt succeeded on numerous musical levels with her recordings.

 

You tell us Pitchfork.

 

We'll have to disagree on this. I believe these songs were selected because of their hit potential (and I'm sure because she liked many of them too). I doubt that even Linda would say "I 'elevated' those songs and made better records than Martha and the Vandellas, The Miracles or The Stones ever did."

Not sure why this would be true. As some have pointed out, at least a good percentage of listeners in the 1970s had never heard the original versions. The single-buying audience then was still substantially a young one, and they might not have been listening to the radio when the originals charted.

In any case, the point is that a good song is a good song. As long as you don't do serious damage to it, there's a good chance it can be a hit again with a new audience.

Again, we disagree.

I actually will give credit to those who did the backing for the first three songs on my list above. The arrangement on "You're No Good" is excellent (thanks, I understand it, entirely to Andrew Gold). "When Will I Be Loved" actually is quite different from how The Everly Brothers approached it, and a worthy take.

And in particular, "It Doesn't Matter Any More" gets to the heart of the song Paul Anka wrote, and is, I will readily concede, much better than the way Buddy Holly's version came out (which sounds like the soundtrack of a bad 50s sitcom!). In fact, the concert performance I found on YouTube of Linda performing this song with little more than her own acoustic guitar backing was really quite good.

(ETA: I'm trying to be fair here. The "It's So Easy" arrangement was pretty good too, and also different from Holly's original. And his was never a hit, though it was certainly known to Holly fans.)

But after that — sorry, but no. The originals are far superior on every level, and IMHO Linda brought nothing "new or refreshing" (and certainly nothing better) to any of them.

 

I agree with you that you are entitled to your opinion.

Yes, “a good song is a good song.”

However, a cover of a good song is not a sure hit record.
For some reason, you truly believe that.
You believe it’s a simple “path to mass stardom”, thus the reason why Linda Ronstadt had many hit singles.

However, music history has many covers of “good songs”, even great songs - that pale and fail in comparison.
Such a musical miscalculation could derail a young career.

Most, if not all, of Linda Ronstadt’s covers shine under their own spotlights, deservedly so, and that also reflects upon her unique musical talents.

 

Not at all, and I never said such a thing. But I believe that your chances for a repeat hit improve if you choose a song that has already proven to be very popular. And of course, success is not guaranteed.

The point I keep coming back to, which no one seems to want to hear, is that nobody in the history of rock music returned to the well of previous hits as many times as Linda Ronstadt did. Nobody. She did this over and over again, with only rare interruptions between singles for songs from another source.

Any other star you can name that is on her level of renown did it either with original songs, or at the very least primarily with songs that were unknown until he/she/they recorded them.

I've been careful to praise Linda's many good qualities, and give her credit (as I did above and have in earlier posts) when she and the people around her hit the mark. I'm glad to agree that she had a lot of good album cuts, for example. But it was those hit singles that enabled her to record those albums — and also gave her the freedom to move into other genres that were less commercial.

But I just don't see how the above facts can be ignored when evaluating Ronstadt's career as a whole.

 

Isn't Linda just a bit of a throwback to the song stylists of the 40's and 50's like Rosemary Clooney or Peggy Lee or (insert name here)? They sang whatever the great American song book of the day was and they all took turns singing the same songs. She does cover a lot of hits and for me, it's the least interesting part of her music, but it does seem to be part of a long pop tradition.

 

looking at that list, im not that into it (aside from hurt so bad and tumbling) i think most of my fave tracks are the deeper ones, Hasten Down the wind.; Someone to Lay Down Beside Me etc I think she better reworking some lesser known material than covering the hits (imo)

 

great minds think alike!

 

And, I believe that your chances for a repeat hit can be negatively impacted, if you choose a song that has already proven to be very popular, because many of the listeners and critics have a known and proven standard that they will inevitably compare the cover to.
So, the high level of quality must be met, if not substantively exceeded.
And of course, yes, success is not guaranteed...

 

That was the one, I got a kick out of that Steve Martin comment too. There is another Laurel Canyon documentary out hosted by Jakob Dylan I may watch it next.

I guess the death of physical media and decline of radio’s influence have lessened her visibility (perhaps I should say her audibility). Maybe the documentary will get her music some exposure to new younger fans.

The singer songwriter trend somehow diminished the status of the vocalist/song interpreters in the eyes of rock audiences. That is too bad because great singers possess an important gift, just like virtuoso instrumentalists that don’t compose, they make great music.

If the singer can interpret the music and lyrics in a way that connects with an audience that is magic. Not to mention the writer can get some big checks and more interest in their work.

 

I just like to put in a hard days work...go home...get a drink...and take myself and my dog out onto the front deck and enjoy listening to her sing great songs.

 

MikeM, why does Linda having success with covers bother you? If you don't like her music, we'll all respect that. But I just don't get saying that her music is diminished by that fact. If this was the only reason for her popularity, there would be lots of other people doing the same thing, until that strategy had been beaten to death. That it's unique to her indicates that she is a great interpreter of songs.

 

That's a pretty charitable way of looking at things. A different way of looking at it is that other artists had more integrity than to do that. That she stands alone in this matter says something to me, and I don't find it says something positive.

No, it wasn't "the only reason for her popularity." However, you can't overlook the role of hit singles in determining what else an artist gets to do in his/her/their career. Hit singles lead to albums, where the artist can do other things — and I understand that she did good things on those albums. But the singles paved the way for them, whereas other artists got to do albums on the strength of hit singles that weren't remakes of established songs.

I hate to keep hammering this point home; I get how unpopular it is with the majority of those in this thread. I've said over and over again in my replies that I have respect for Linda's talent, and have praised her and many aspects of her career. I won't argue the point that she is "a great interpreter of songs" — when she's interpreting songs that aren't well-known and haven't (in most cases) been done better by the original artists. As it is, IMHO there are only four out of her 15 hit singles that were covers to which she brought something new and artistically worthwhile to those songs.

Again, there was a conscious choice made by her (and most likely her producer and record label) to go back to the well of established hit songs over and over and over again for her singles. No one has yet put forth another artist in the history of rock who did this anywhere nearly to the extent she did.

I'm not trying to talk anyone into liking Linda less; as I've said, there are many things about her that I like too. I'm just noting this as a fact and pointing it out as something that should be considered in evaluating her career as a whole. And saying that, to one extent, she rode on the backs of others to stardom in a way that no other artist ever did.

 

For you to in evaluating her career as a whole. Most of us it matters not.

 

Back in the 70s I enjoyed some of her hits a lot. Even played them in a band I was in at the time. But I also felt that she just didn’t really connect with the material as she moved from the L.A. country-influenced material to soul, New Wave, and the Stones. It felt more like product. Her looks certainly helped and she did have a great voice before her health issues hit. The trio with Dolly and Emmylou was more in her wheelhouse I thought.

 

Very true.
For any singer who attempts to cover a well known song, or a prior hit record, they are usually aware how famous, popular or even iconic the song is.

Typically there’s a high level, and standard of quality that must be matched, or even exceeded.

Otherwise, the cover is doomed to be considered a failure, a flop, or misfire.
Or just a boring waste.

Having the prior hit record as “audible proof”, many music critics and music fans have an “aural benchmark” that the cover must be favorably compared to, if not exceed.
On the surface, I guess that’s a simple task to some, perhaps it truly is, maybe to an elite few.

However, I think many musicians realize it’s a very daunting and challenging task.

 

OK. You feel Linda cheated to achieve stardom. I don't agree. Linda was probably among the rock artists with the most integrity. I have never read of anyone complaining that they were screwed by the Ronstadt organization. She didn't become an addict. She didn't leave a trail of wrecked cars, wrecked hotel rooms, and damaged people in her wake.

Most aspiring rock stars would sell their souls or even their mothers' souls to achieve stardom. Most record companies would tell them to do it and draw up the paperwork for them.

Covering hit records is as common as dirt in the record business. It is legal and it is ethical, as long as everyone is given due credit. Songwriters love covers. The more, the better.

Linda made it big on her talent, and looks, of course. It's called having the whole package. You have probably noticed that beautiful women are more common in the entertainment industry than in the population as a whole. Linda was born with a great voice and great looks and she used them well. I know I've gotten a lot of enjoyment from her music.

 

You know, I keep hoping I can walk away from this issue (as I'm quite sure most in this thread devoutly wish I would). I outlined my position several months ago in this thread, and thought I was done with it — until this post came along, and not for the first time totally missed the point of what I said. So I was drawn back in again.

Then along come posts like yours that so completely misunderstand, misinterpret and misrepresent what I've said that all I can do is shake my head.

I urge you to find any post in this thread in which I used the word "cheated" in referring to Linda Ronstadt's career. Great technique, this. Saddle me with a loaded term I never once used, then say you disagree. Now you're the good guy and I'm the bad guy. Nice.

Nor did I ever say Linda Ronstadt didn't have "integrity." More of the same technique.

You say "covering hit records is as common as dirt in the record business." OK — then I'll repeat my challenge to you (which of course you've chosen to ignore, so I'll have to do it again): name any other rock star with anything close to this unique track record:

During her span of continuous hit-making years (1975-1983), Ronstadt had 15 singles that reached the Billboard Top 40. Of these, 11 were songs that had been hits for others. (A 12th was a Buddy Holly song that had never been released as a single but was pretty well-known.) So that makes a grand total of at most 4 songs in that span that had never been a hit for another artist prior to her recording them. (In addition, while not a hit single, "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" was a popular cut on Warren Zevon's album from two years previous.)

I never said what Linda did was "illegal" or "unethical." I pointed out a simple fact about her career — she took a path to continued stardom that no other artist in the history of rock took. No one so far has disproven the truth of this last statement.

And I said I found that notable.

I have never disputed Linda's talent. I've said many complimentary things about her and much of her music in the course of these discussions. I would never tell you or anyone else you're wrong because you've got a lot of enjoyment from her work. I have too — with the exception of one major part of it.

All I've advocated for is an open-eyed and realistic assessment of her career.