|
|
<This link's target cannot be found>
|
||
<This link's target cannot be found>
|
|
|||
|
Music is my biggest passion in life. After reading this page, hopefully you'll go away with at least a little curiosity and go check out some of these artists. If I can expose one new artist to someone who's never heard of them before and they may become a new fan, then that is a dream come true for me.
First let me talk about all this file sharing (napster,kazaa, grokster, morpheus) or
whatever you wish to call it. I do not necessarily support it as I believe the artists do deserve their money for their work. On the other hand a lot of times the stuff I am looking for is not in the local record store, or is not even available on CD. What is a person to do? I mean where else are you going to find a copy of Bill Wyman's "Si Si, Je Suis en Rock Star" Certainly not down at your local Wal- Mart. As luck would have it I found it on Kazaa. If you would like more info on Kazaa then check out my cool places. Now on with the show.
Just read this on Joan Jett's official website and thought I would post it here.
Dear Rolling Stone, I tried to find some cleverly worded way to express my disgust with your "Women in Rock" issue, but what i have to say is really quite simple: You guys are completely retarded. By RS standards, Rock is no longer a style of music but a trendy costume to be whipped up by expensive stylists and slapped onto the latest pop tart barbie doll. Give a girl some tight pants and a spiky bracelet and POOF! She ROCKS! Your poor choice of cover girls and featured artists brings to mind the Sports Illustrated swimsuit editions. There is nothing necessarily wrong with the breast-baring models inside..but we all understand that they have NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTS--Which just might be offensive to women who are interested in sports or who might even be (gasp) real athletes. Yes, Britney has a talented stylist and yes, somebody gave Shakira a Guns & Roses t-shirt to wear..but they ARE NOT NOW NOR WILL THEY EVER BE ROCK. Maybe it's naive of me to expect any glimmer of rock'n'roll credibility OR respect for women from a magazine whose cover shot is regularly a naked underweight actress. The thing is , I AM a woman musician with a rock band, and as we all are I am STARVED for any little crumb of recognition that real women rockers might be thrown. So like a sucker I find myself short another five bucks ..and pissed enough to write my first letter to an editor. Avril Lavigne gets some studded accessories from Hot Topic so now she's "upholding the brazen tradition of teenage outrage"???!! Are you SERIOUS? And could someone please explain to me why people keep insisting on referring to PINK as rock? Wasn't she doing the white girl hip hop thing a minute ago? Yeah, she performed on the Aerosmith tribute show --big deal..she was on the Janet Jackson tribute show just before that--Whatever's trendy. WHO CARES. She's a Spice Girl reject...but I digress. Jewel and Mandy friggin' Moore have full page features as Rock Icons...Meanwhile Joan Jett gets one line. ONE LINE. Joan Jett & the Blackhearts, who have never stopped touring, recently did 10 days in the Middle East playing for the troops stationed in Afghanistan. In AFGHANISTAN, Joan would come onstage wearing a birkha, which she ripped off and stomped on before blazing through the purest and nastiest rock show ANYWHERE. But even in the RS WOMEN IN ROCK issue, a story like that gets ONE SENTENCE on the bottom of the last page of Random Notes. Britney's Rock credentials? Well, she butchers the song "I Love Rock'n'Roll" on her latest record, and when asked about it the genius replies "Well, I've always loved Pat Benatar." And SHE is your Rock issue cover girl?? You should be REALLY embarrassed. Sleater Kinney was the only rock group listed on the cover..and they got only half a page. Ashanti, the r&b back up singer who can't seem to do anything without "featuring Jah Rule," has two pages. What about the Donnas? The Yeah Yeah Yeahs? The Distillers? A mag like RS has the power to shine important light on groups like these--instead they are afterthoughts, and that valuable spotlight is wasted on the same overexposed pop princesses WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ROCK. In your own letter from the editor you have the hypocritical balls to say "rock radio won't touch female artists, while the pop factory keeps churning out soundalike clones, and ambitious musicians with something to say find themselves left out in the cold." The pages that follow those words are a blatant display that Rolling Stone magazine is happily working for the factory now too. If the issue had been called "Women in Music"..or maybe "Some Cute Girls with Top 10 Records out Right Now"..I would have no beef with it. Corny as it may sound, ROCK is something which is still meaningful and even sacred to some of us. Use the word "rock" in bold letters next to a picture of Britney Fucking Spears, and you're turning your whole publication into a joke...and an offensive joke at that. - Joan Jett
Amen to that !!!!
LISTS
If You want to know the top ten of a certain genre, say for example the top ten worst artists , or Top Ten desert Island albums(or CD's as they're called nowadays)
then click here to check out all kinds of lists. I realize that these lists are very subjective, and many people would think I omitted some very important artists. That's why it's my lists.
REVIEWS
Here are some album reviews, I am not a paid critic so these reviews will be more honest than the ones you will find in most major magazines. This is what inspired me to do this web site more than anything else. One major incident stands out for me. I
always relied on Rolling Stone mag for their reviews and to give me some indication
of what to expect from a new release, which I always took with a grain of salt. When
Bob Dylan's "Time out of Mind" album came out they gave it glowing reviews, 4 stars,
the best effort of his career, etc. I love Bob Dylan and have a hard time getting other
people to agree with me. Anyway with this awesome review in mind, I quickly purchased this gem, and excitedly sat down to listen to it with my undivided attention.
I listened to it, and kind of sat back after the last track faded out, and thought "Surely there is some mistake here". So I listened again, with growing disappointment.
There were several stand out tracks, most notably "To Make You Feel My Love", which
was achingly beautiful. But for the most part this album really tanked in my opinion.
It came nowhere close to his early work. Heck, "Infidels", totally blew it away. I must have tried to listen to it about 20 times, and each time it grated on me worse than the time before. So I recorded the couple of songs that were awesome, and shelved
the album, and have never had any desire to listen to it again. It was bad. I believe
someone, somewhere, was paid a tidy sum to write a favorable review.
This has happened several times, Years ago Paul McCartney came out with an
album called "Tug of War", and RS was slobbering all over itself about the second coming, and this was possibly the best album of all time, etc. etc.. This is the album
with the insipid "Ebony and Ivory". After many, many listens I found the album to be
OK, but no classic. And to this day I cannot listen to Ebony and Ivory without cringing.
So, to make a long story short, some honesty is needed. I intend to be honest
and straightforward, and I hope you find it enjoyable reading as well.
