old article- abortions

[wolfontherun]

Originally Posted by skcin

I'm not saying that nobody cites her as an influence anymore, but to say she's inspired"many top designers" or that she's mentioned in "every fashion magazine" is a bit of a reach IMO.

And again - I agree that Stevie is more relevant than Pat Benatar (poor Pat ) but I still don't think it's realistic to think that either of them is really all that relevant currently. No matter how much I want it to be the case, I just don't think it is. People still roll their eyes when Stevie is mentioned, and people still don't know who I'm talking about when I mention her name, and people still seem surprised & say "she still tours?" when I mention the shows I've seen. She's on our radar because we're fans & we are starved for any tidbit of info about her.



No way - this is the longest discussion The Ledge has seen in months!



Good job.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth and in quotes too, I never said "every magazine" Jeesh enough already. This is my last word on the matter.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I, too, think it is rather pathetic that the prepacked star is the way music has gone in terms of relevance. But, that has been happening since the birth of Rock and Roll. The Supremes are a good example of that. I love The Supremes, but there is little depth in their music as opposed to Joni Mitchell, Dylan, etc.

So, I guess to each their own.

I think you kind of answered your own question/statement there . As long as there has been some form of popular music, there has been a bubblegum version of it. I don' think there are any fewer talented artists these days, I think there are just fewer talented artists who are famous.

Case and point, my favorite artist outside of Fleetwood Mac, Joseph Arthur. He probably has more talent in his pinky than Fleetwood Mac did with all it's 16 members. In 10 years he has released something like 200+ songs (and is said to have just as many unreleased), all of which are written by him, performed by him, produced by him, he plays like every instrument under the sun, etc. His music isn't amateurish at all either, he's every bit as polished yet envelope pushing as Fleetwood Mac. He just isn't on a major record label.

I think that's where the real problem lies: record companies have become too much an influence on what the market receives, and they are far too involved in artists works. They are not only dumbing down what's recorded, but also what reaches us. This was a huge problem in the 50s and early 60s too, so maybe it'll be cyclical, and we'll get a fresh burst of change again.

Now to stray back on topic . For what it's worth, I do believe Stevie had all those abortions. Being a gay man, I have known so many who have strayed into that drug addled lifestyle. That lifestyle makes people promiscuous, insane, and totally lacking in decent judgement. The big difference in gay men and people like Stevie is, the fact that those gay men get HIV, not pregnant obviously. I've seen it happen again and again to people I know, it's terrible and heartbreaking. Most aren't half bad people. I don't think Stevie's a horrible person either, though she may have done some horrible things. We all have. While I find that number of abortions insanely aweful, I just can't judge her for it, as much as I may want to. I guess I am just so happy after all these years that she's still around, still performing for us. I *DO* however judge her for not giving us any new material, but that's another topic yet!

[skcin]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I agree with you there. I just wonder who you (and this is not any attempt to be snide, Paula i love u.) but who you consider to be deemed as "relevant". I know you posted the literal meaning afew pages back, but any time i try to think of anyone who is, i come up with a blank. There just really seems to be a lack of any good celebs now a days.

No, ITA w/ you. I was trying to figure that out myself & come up with a different adjective. Important? Influential? Famous? Those are 3 very different things to me, and I don't know if any really means "relevant." Maybe all 3 do & it's up to you to decide which one fits your idea of relevant.

I think Spears (that f*cking pig) is relevant today to pop culture & music. Whether we like it or not, she will be remembered for a long, long time. Has she contributed to music? I suppose. Will artists come along in a few years & say they were inspired by her? Good God I hope not, but it will probably happen. But does fame itself make one relevant?

Musically relevant could mean historically important - yes, Stevie is relevant in that aspect, to the history of music. I don't think that makes her relevant today. Patty Griffin is very relevant to music currently - she's a critically acclaimed singer & songwriter who is not that well known to the general public. She's not famous, but extremely talented. Her music has been covered repeatedly by artists like Dixie Chicks, Kelly Clarkson, Emmylou Harris, Reba, Bette Midler, Martina McBride & Joan Baez to name a few. I would say she's pretty damned relevant in the music industry right now although most don't know who the hell she is.

So it's pretty subjective, I guess. Depends on what you mean by relevant, like I said before.

[skcin]

Originally Posted by wolfontherun

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth and in quotes too, I never said "every magazine" Jeesh enough already. This is my last word on the matter.

I'm sorry, you're right. I stand corrected. You said "all the major fashion magazines" not "every magazine." My apologies.

[Angel69]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The Supremes are a good example of that. I love The Supremes, but there is little depth in their music as opposed to Joni Mitchell, Dylan, etc.

So, I guess to each their own.

I also love The Supremes. And while they may not be as deep as Mitchell, Dylan or Stevie for that matter, they had class. Something Spears lacks.

[Angel69]

Originally Posted by Zombie

I've heard it many times that she was unhappy about having to sing "Sometimes It's a Bitch," but the stuff she says in that article about the fans not being receptive - I was too young when the song was released, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge - were fans really that upset about it?

Obviously, Stevie was upset about it - but I am curious about the fan reaction when the song was released.

I dont think fans were that upset about it. It may not be her best but she sings the **** out of it!!!!

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Zombie

Obviously, Stevie was upset about it - but I am curious about the fan reaction when the song was released.

I don't think it can be described in monolithic terms. While some didn't think it fit (just like "forgotten chimpanzee" doesn't exactly fit), some fans thought it was hot and liked the fact that it was out-of-character for her. Sometimes a difference like that translates into "fresh" for some. Well, I guess I didn't have access to much fan feedback at that time, but I just say that judging from reviews I saw when it came out. Michele

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Angel69

I . . . they had class. Something Spears lacks.

I think it was the times that constrained them. Moreover, Berry Gordy carefully crafted their image and dressed them up in beautiful clothing to make them appeal to the white market as classy as opposed to Britany Spears half naked, which was done to appeal to the current market.

But, if you look into their history, esp. Ms. Ross, it was hardly what one would term as classy The difference is there was not internet, 24 news, or stalking paparazzi then. Imagine if the press continuously showed lots of different footage of Florence Ballard fat, drunk, and passed out in public. She'd look alot like Spears

In the end, no one is perfect and if any of us were 16, sitting on $80 million, and hounded by the press, we'd be portrayed in that light as well. I mean imagine if someone followed you around 24/7 in college, edited that footage in the most unfavorable light, and then made it so everyone in the world could see it over and over again for months on end. Anyone other than a nun would look likely just as trashy as Spears Just something to think about. I mean clearly Spears went crazier than hog on a hot day, but haven't we all done that to some degree in private?

Thus, I cut her some slack.

Note - I am no huge fan of her's.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I think that's where the real problem lies: record companies have become too much an influence on what the market receives, and they are far too involved in artists works. They are not only dumbing down what's recorded, but also what reaches us. This was a huge problem in the 50s and early 60s too, so maybe it'll be cyclical, and we'll get a fresh burst of change again.

But with the internet and digital music --which have rendered singles almost meaningless-- don't the record companies have less power now than they ever have in the whole history of rock? They really can't control what the market receives like they used to. I don't think they're the reason why talent doesn't rise to the top.

Michele

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Angel69

. . . It may not be her best but she sings the **** out of it!!!!

She sure does!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I actually do not mind the song. I also think the words about triumph and pitfalls were very indicative of her life at that point. I just think the chorus (bitch -- breeze) was silly.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Angel69

I also love The Supremes. And while they may not be as deep as Mitchell, Dylan or Stevie for that matter, they had class. Something Spears lacks.

What I would say that someone like Diana Ross has that Britney doesn't is not "class" per se, but presence. You know, there are some people that command attention because they have an aura about them. The diva thing . . . this is what Diana Ross had that Florence Ballard did not. There's an air of command and glamour. And I think that is something that separates the stars of yesteryear from today's. You know, you love someone who you think is down-to-earth and you would kill to have lunch with, but you don't have awe and reverence for them (unless you're 8 years old and the star is Miley Cyrus). Those older stars had this kind of elegance and style that elevated them, regardless of talent.

I remember Cary Grant, old Archie, saying that he "became" who he was or who the world thought him to be. It was a facade that he himself eventually believed and that's what the old stars did, while the contemporary ones are just themselves. It's raw and its ordinary and it doesn't impress those of us old enough to remember the celebrities who created images of mystery and inaccessibility.

Why is Celine Dion a joke? It's not because she can't sing and it's not because she doesn't sell. To me it's because she has no style. She thinks she's some kind of french comedienne rather than a "star.' Instead of exhibiting an austere grace, she's screwing her face up and making Jerry Lewis level jokes. She has no "magic." I think many of today's celebrities have the popularity, without the magic. But, of course, TMZ-type coverage can steal the magical luster from anyone. I mean, if Harvey Levin was around back in the day, we might have found that Greta Garbo didn't wear panties either. Would she still have become a legend?

Michele

[RoseGarden]

^^^Hey Michelle!
I understand what you mean that some people eminate an attraction about them that allready commands attention even before they open their mouth.

I kind of get what your saying about Celine. Had you ever seen her movie based on her up growing. Her entire life has been recorded as if she is NOT attractive. Though she is not my favorite singer and I haven't bought her dvds , I think there are so many talented singers out there that just don't cut the publics eye as sexy.

(why else did Milli Vannilli pull their false encounter?)

Hmmm, maybe I 'll just make a new thread to see what peoples view are. Which is more important--the quality of the voice or the attractive package with a so so voice? It just kind of hurt me to bash Celione for not being so attractive. My entire life i've been called ugly ----but well never mind

[David]

Originally Posted by Zombie

I've heard it many times that she was unhappy about having to sing "Sometimes It's a Bitch," but the stuff she says in that article about the fans not being receptive - I was too young when the song was released, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge - were fans really that upset about it?

Obviously, Stevie was upset about it - but I am curious about the fan reaction when the song was released.

My reaction was "Egad." And yet ... and yet ... damned if the damned thing wasn't kinda catchy!

You found yourself -- in spite of yourself -- humming parts of that stupid song throughout your day.

The nadir of that batch of new songs, as everyone knows, was the one Poison wrote for her. My stars, was that awful.

[RoseGarden]

Originally Posted by Zombie

This is a question referring to the article that was posted, but NOT about the abortions, because I have no business commenting on what people choose to do with the contents of uteruses not my own.

I've heard it many times that she was unhappy about having to sing "Sometimes It's a Bitch," but the stuff she says in that article about the fans not being receptive - I was too young when the song was released, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge - were fans really that upset about it?

Obviously, Stevie was upset about it - but I am curious about the fan reaction when the song was released.

Hi Zombie,
I am old enough to remember when the song came out. As a fan I wasn't shocked or offended at all. By the time the song Sometimes its a Bitch came out....I had listened to AC/DC and plenty of other foul worded lyrics that BITCH didn't phase me at all just one fans opinion

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by RoseGarden

I kind of get what your saying about Celine. Had you ever seen her movie based on her up growing. Her entire life has been recorded as if she is NOT attractive. Though she is not my favorite singer and I haven't bought her dvds , I think there are so many talented singers out there that just don't cut the publics eye as sexy.

I don't think Celine, you know, just sitting there idly is unattractive at all. And I don't think "not attractive" is the exact word for her even when she's in motion. I think she's comical more than anything else. She has facial habits -- she stretches her mouth in such a way -- I think she is going for Lucille Ball. She thinks she is funny, but she really doesn't have timing or other comic skills, so I think that is why she is often a laughing stock.

Actually, when you can pull comedy off, you can be a sexy, star type, even when you're unattractive (think Mae West), because deftness has its own appeal. But Celine lacks a certain style, a certain smoothness. So, I think she's personable, but I think that is also why she is not one of those enigmatic star types, despite her talent and mega-success.

Then, there are people who are physically beautiful, but they don't have the personality, so the minute they open their mouths, any illusion you had about them disappears. I think that is what I feel about Britney more than anything else. She's attractive. I don't know if she can sing, but I do know I like many of her songs, but you hear an interview with her and it's really hard to buy into her celebrity. There's nothing ethereal there. Michele