quote:Mr. Timmins promptly made it even uglier. He had Ms. Ronstadt ejected from the premises.
This behavior assumes that Ms. Ronstadt had no right to express a political opinion from the stage.
No, it means Mr. Timmins paid her to sing, not start a riot. Ms Ronstadt can praise whomever she wants and make any ridiculous statement she wants. But the Alladin does NOT have to supply her a soap box.
The First Amendment gives you the right to free speech. It does not give you the right to do it on someone elses nickle. It does not mean that others have to listen either.
People paid for a concert. Not a political rally. Ms Ronstadt pulled a bait and switch. Maybe next time instead of saying "Linda Ronstadt In Concert!" the billboard should say "Linda Ronstadt Rally for Michael Moore!"
(edit: does anyone find it odd that this story doesn't have the opinion writer's name on it?)
[ July 21, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, it just makes me reluctant to trust the article an any way, shape or form.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think fading singers will do anything to get their names in the paper. And it worked, didn't it?
These people are clowns. To make up for the Aladdin's customers displeasure, Michael Moore offered to do a free showing of the movie. It's all a game to them. The more attention you pay - even negative - the happier they are.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
PSI: The fact it's in the Jason Blair Times makes it questionable =)
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
She did this during an encore, which theoretically means that they already got the concert they were paying for. However, encores (and multiples thereof) have become standard at concerts, which admittedly irritates me a bit. I disagree with the choice made, but I do think the customers' actions were worse.
--Pop
Posted by Cowboy Poet (Member # 6724) on :
"There is no such thing as bad publicity"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"People paid for a concert. Not a political rally."
To clarify, Ronstadt made one political exhortation during an ENCORE and the audience got upset, apparently surprised that she was a liberal?
Since when -- and I'm speaking here as someone who's spent the better part of 30 years attending concerts -- do people NOT expect famously political musicians to intersperse their politics with their songs?
Sure, I might walk out of a Ted Nugent show if, as part of his encore, he burned a French flag and waved a few guns in the air -- but the behavior described here suggests that, far from Ronstadt doing anything wrong, her AUDIENCE was a bunch of spoiled, idiotic babies.
[ July 21, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I have a funny feeling that if she was speaking out in favor of Bush and got booted, The Pixiest would be screaming bloody murder about how Ronstadt deserves her right to speech.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its an editorial, so it was written by the editors unless specifically attributed.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
The newspapers here in Vegas have been all over this story. Most appear to be on the side of the Aladdin.
What they're saying is that 1) the concertgoers may have been promised a greatest-hits type show (this is up for debate) and they didn't get it; 2) Ronstadt spent a good part of the show complaining about and badmouthing the management of the Aladdin, and the city of Las Vegas itself; and 3) near the end she dedicated the song "Desperado," which a lot of the folks would otherwise have been thrilled to hear, to Michael Moore for his recent film. A near riot ensued, and the hotel kicked her out after the show. She will not be invited back.
My guess is that she will have a relatively hard time getting a show at any of the other casinos in town, either. Someone will eventually bring her back, though. That's just the nature of the business.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:does anyone find it odd that this story doesn't have the opinion writer's name on it?
Not really. I went to the trouble and went to the NY Time site. The piece is clearly labeled as an editorial. There is nothing unusual or suspicious about an unsigned editorial - none of them are signed. (edit - I see that fugu posted the same thing while I was writing this.)
And, btw, thanks Papa Moose - I think your comments were pretty on the mark, although anyone who was a fan of Ronstadt would probably also know she's prone to making political statments once in awhile. And she did wait til the end of the show...
But yeah, I try to turn it around, and wonder how I would feel if I was treated to some unexpected political posturing offensive to me while I was wanting to be entertained. I might be a little irritated, but I doubt I would ask for my money back. And I know I wouldn't throw a drink or tear a poster from the wall. My behavior is my responsibility - not someone else's.
[ July 21, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The fans were wrong to act in a physical manner (throwing or tearing). Booing or walking out would be appropriate. Asking for money back is fine; expecting to get it back is ludicrous.
Aladdin kicking her out and not inviting her back is fine, too. A celebrity makes money off their popularity, not just talent. She was attempting to use her popularity to make a political point. That makes her political point fair game for someone to consider in booking decisions.
I'll just note that this kind of tactic is distressingly common on college campuses. It used to be mainly targeted at conservative speakers; unfortunately it's now considered a legitimate tactic by elements of both sides of the spectrum.
Dagonee
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Please note that, as I said above, the political statement at the end of the show was only the "last straw." All that came before would easily have been enough for the Aladdin to ask her to leave and not to invite her back, and for the audience (especially the Las Vegas natives) to become quite upset.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I did hear the part about it NOT being the greatest hits tour many were expecting. I think...the customers behaved barbarically, and they were probably irritated BEFORE she (laughably - hysterically - pathetically) dedicated Desperado to Michael Moore.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Here are some articles from the past couple of days in the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
So, to deflate the spin on this, the issue is that Ronstadt spent a concert singing songs the fans probably didn't want to hear, insulting their home town, and disparaging the venue (not inappropriately, mind you, since the venue apparently advertised her show improperly and to the wrong audience) -- and, following a disastrous encore that roused the mouth-breathers in the back rows to anger, was blacklisted from that venue?
[ July 21, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Sounds about right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, I think it's even simpler: Singer pisses off audience. Venue doesn't like having it's audience pissed. Venue decides to not do business with singer again.
Sounds like a smart decision to me.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, the problem with that broader nutshell is that it still permits the spin that Pixiest was trying to put on it. I'm willing to use more words to make that less likely. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, you missed a point.
Singer gets name in paper, may help sell her to other venues or to sell her records.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Tom, one of the articles says that (according to the hotel) all advertisements were "provided and approved" by Rondstadt's camp. Whether or not it's true, I don't know, but I don't think it's fair to include in a "spinless" version.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Revise that, then, to say that she complained about the nature of the hotel's advertising, which did not seem to reflect the show she intended to perform.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
How much of spin is interpreting information, and how much is deciding which information to include? Your statement still seems spun to me, but it's quite possible that I misuse the term "spin" to apply to more than it actually does.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Didn't somebody else recently losee a 'spokesperson' job for something she said like that? Was it Whoopi Goldberg saying something at the Emmys?
I think a lot of it boils down to financial decisions on the part of the venue in this case (in the other thing I think it was a company).
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
[ July 21, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Didn't somebody else recently losee a 'spokesperson' job for something she said like that?"
It was Whoopi Goldberg, but not for anything she said at the Emmys. At a fundraiser on the west coast, she was one of the scheduled comics -- and apparently made three or four off-color jokes riffing on the president's last name. She was immediately dropped by two companies who had hired her to sponsor their products -- not because Bush jokes are lame, or because she was vulgar, but because their target demographic would be less likely to think of her favorably after the incident. Which is, of course, entirely within an advertiser's rights.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It was Whoopi Goldberg because she made "sexually explicit" jokes about Bush (regarding his name) at a Kerry money raising celebrity event. She didn't mind terribly much in the quotes from her.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
What spin? I was saying that she didn't have the right to free speech on someone elses nickle regardless of what point of view that was from.
Tom, *YOU* are spinning, not me.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'd say likening her dedication to a political rally is a spin.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)