Artists who recorded her music include: The Fifth Dimension, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Three Dog Night, Barbra Streisand, Diana Ross, Peggy Lipton, Sandra Bernhard, Wayne Shorter, Rickie Lee Jones, Morrissey, Holly Cole, Roseanne Cash, Thelma Houston . . . (Labelle recorded the album GONNA TAKE A MIRACLE with Laura. She and Patti Labelle were friends.)
People who cite her as an influence include Joni Mitchell, Bette Midler, Todd Rundgren, Melissa Manchester, Alice Cooper, Tori Amos, Elton John, Elvis Costello, Kate Bush and the late Donna Summer.
Sony has the rights to her music. When it was Columbia Records, they'd purchased the rights to her first album and reissued it. Every studio album that followed was on Columbia.
THE ESSENTIAL LAURA NYRO album was a gift that someone sent me (thank you, ____) because they know I love Laura.
I do not love THE ESSENTIAL LAURA NYRO.
I would have chosen other tracks, absolutely. But what ticked me off about the 34 tracks was the inclusion of live versions of "And When I Die" and "Save The Country."
The closest Laura ever had to a real press tour after her semi-retirement in the early 70s was when she was promoting her live album LAURA: LIVE AT THE BOTTOM LINE and touring behind it. She even got a write up in MUSICIAN magazine where the writer actually understood her art.
That live album is wonderful.
But if you're going to include it, include the new songs. Now Columbia didn't see fit to release it. Laura had to take that to another label. But they now have the rights? Okay, then you put "The Japanese Restaurant" on the ESSENTIAL album.
That's a wonderful song and it was written when she did the live album. It was never on a studio album. That's what you need on ESSENTIAL.
Laura never got her due in life. She wasn't even inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame until after she had died.
Michele Kort? She wrote a hideous book about Laura. It was awful. It was tacky and it was trite and she had no understanding or interest in Laura's music.
That really pissed off C.I. which is why she began leaking things while Michele was alive (she could continue to leak if she chose to) about how Michele 'wrote' the book. She largely didn't. She farmed out research and she never gave credit to unpaid researchers or acknowledged them. The few things of value -- because they were unique to the book -- came about because of unpaid researchers.
C.I. had refused to speak with Michele for the book (C.I. knew Laura) and that was based on a gut feeling. Her gut was right. Michele had an agenda which had nothing to do with Laura's art or her legacy.
Laura deserves a real book about her art. Maybe her son could write a memoir? As it stands, there's just Michele Kort's awful book.
There's also THE ESSENTIAL LAURA NYRO which does such an awful job of selecting from Laura's work.
Laura was an album artist. She really explored the format. My personal favorite would be CHRISTMAS AND THE BEADS OF SWEAT (which is not a Christmas album, just FYI) and I would beg you to check out "Beads of Sweat" from that album. After that?
Hmm.
Here's how I'd rank Laura's studio albums.
1) CHRISTMAS AND THE BEADS OF SWEAT.
2) ELI AND THE THIRTEENTH CONFESSION.
3) MOTHER'S SPIRITUAL.
4) LAURA: LIVE AT THE BOTTOM LINE.*
5) NEW YORK TENDABERRY
6) SPREAD YOUR WINGS AND FLY: LIVE AT THE FILLMORE EAST MAY 20, 1971.*
7) THE FIRST SONGS (also known as MORE THAN A NEW DISCOVERY, it's original release title).
8) SMILE.
9) NESTED.
10) WALK THE DOG & LIGHT THE LIGHT.
11) GONNA TAKE A MIRACLE.
12) SEASONS OF LIGHTS . . . LAURA NYRO IN CONCERT.*
13) LIVE! THE LOOM'S DESIRE.*
14) ANGEL IN THE DARK.
15) LIVE FROM MOUNTAIN STAGE.*
I went ahead and ranked all 15 of the albums by Laura I'm aware of. "*" indicates it's a live album.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Wednesday, June 19, 2019. ExxonMobil gets attacked in Iraq, Tulsi
Gabbard calls out war on Iran but other elected Dems, presented with a
huge gift, don't appear to grasp what's taking place.
Democrats in elected office? Not the brightest bunch. You get the feeling if Mr. Ed strode into Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's office, they'd ask him if he had an appointment.
They wouldn't be amazed by a talking horse, they wouldn't be interested or even notice. They'd just be, "Sir, do you have an appointment to see the Speaker?"
What's the point? Here's the point: Who is running things?
That really is the key question.
You have John Bolton and the Secretary of State agitating publicly for war with Iran. You have Donald Trump doing what exactly?
Next year, he faces re-election. Who is going to vote for him? That’s a question that the Democrats should be raising. They probably won’t. They’re not really anti-war – not the bulk of them. So they don't appear to care about a war on Iran to that factor.
But how about this: John Bolton has not been elected to any office. Mike Pompeo has not been elected to any office.
Repeatedly, Donald Trump keeps making noises that scale back on the war lust of Bolton and Pompeo.
Why?
Is Donald not the president? Is Donald not the one who should decide -- on the Executive Branch side -- whether Congress needs to be consulted about declaring war?
If he's in charge, why isn't he pulling the leash on John and Mike?
He doesn't look like he's in charge.
Who's in charge? That would be a pretty strong campaign commercial.
If it were done straight forward -- no snark, just serious concern being expressed -- it could reach even some Trump supporters.
If the man who is currently the president of the United States is not the one making the decisions, why you want him back for four more years? If he can't even control his underlings, why would anyone see him as strong or worthy?
War with Iran is not needed. It's not wanted. I pray it won't happen. But the current climate should have resulted in a Democratic response. Clearly, we can't count on them to be anti-war. This is the party that promised to end the Iraq War if we gave them one house of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms. We gave them both houses and they continued the war. In 2008, Barack Obama ran for the presidency and was elected for being opposed to the Iraq War (he really wasn't, Elaine and I were face to face with him before he was in the Senate so peddle that crap elsewhere) and he was going to bring all US troops out of Iraq. He had two terms as president. He left with US troops still in Iraq. And US troops are still in Iraq.
So it's apparently too much to hope that anyone -- even fake asses like Barbara Lee -- will call out what's going on in terms of, "We don't need another war!"
So how about they call it out based on the fact that no one watching can figure out what the hell's going on.
Democrats in elected office? Not the brightest bunch. You get the feeling if Mr. Ed strode into Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's office, they'd ask him if he had an appointment.
They wouldn't be amazed by a talking horse, they wouldn't be interested or even notice. They'd just be, "Sir, do you have an appointment to see the Speaker?"
What's the point? Here's the point: Who is running things?
That really is the key question.
You have John Bolton and the Secretary of State agitating publicly for war with Iran. You have Donald Trump doing what exactly?
Next year, he faces re-election. Who is going to vote for him? That’s a question that the Democrats should be raising. They probably won’t. They’re not really anti-war – not the bulk of them. So they don't appear to care about a war on Iran to that factor.
But how about this: John Bolton has not been elected to any office. Mike Pompeo has not been elected to any office.
Repeatedly, Donald Trump keeps making noises that scale back on the war lust of Bolton and Pompeo.
Why?
Is Donald not the president? Is Donald not the one who should decide -- on the Executive Branch side -- whether Congress needs to be consulted about declaring war?
If he's in charge, why isn't he pulling the leash on John and Mike?
He doesn't look like he's in charge.
Who's in charge? That would be a pretty strong campaign commercial.
If it were done straight forward -- no snark, just serious concern being expressed -- it could reach even some Trump supporters.
If the man who is currently the president of the United States is not the one making the decisions, why you want him back for four more years? If he can't even control his underlings, why would anyone see him as strong or worthy?
War with Iran is not needed. It's not wanted. I pray it won't happen. But the current climate should have resulted in a Democratic response. Clearly, we can't count on them to be anti-war. This is the party that promised to end the Iraq War if we gave them one house of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms. We gave them both houses and they continued the war. In 2008, Barack Obama ran for the presidency and was elected for being opposed to the Iraq War (he really wasn't, Elaine and I were face to face with him before he was in the Senate so peddle that crap elsewhere) and he was going to bring all US troops out of Iraq. He had two terms as president. He left with US troops still in Iraq. And US troops are still in Iraq.
So it's apparently too much to hope that anyone -- even fake asses like Barbara Lee -- will call out what's going on in terms of, "We don't need another war!"
So how about they call it out based on the fact that no one watching can figure out what the hell's going on.
He was going to be smart, he was going to put America first. Now the US is edging towards war on Iran and he appears to be either pulled along or unaware of the actions of his underlings.
This is leadership?
And why isn't Nancy Pelosi on every TV program asking, "How can he be planning war on yet another country when we don't even have a Secretary of Defense?"
That is a rather big issue, a rather glaring hole.
It's as though Christmas came early for the Democrats and everyone's decided not to shake the packages under the tree or even peak a little.
These are not national secrets. These are issues out there in the public eye.
Why is no one commenting on them?
Why is no one using them to underscore the message that Donald Trump is not a leader?
US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard is raising important issues.
Here we go again! The US sending more troops to Middle East for what will be disastrous war with Iran. To prevent Trump and future presidents from waging war illegally (without Congress approval) we must sign my No More Presidential Wars Act. Join me: tulsi.to/iran10
I know both the importance of ntl security & the high cost of war. As president, I’ll improve intl relations w/ all countries & work to solve differences thru diplomacy. I see military action as the LAST resort & only w/ Congress approval, as per my No More Presidential Wars Act.
But Tulsi actually cares about these issues.
You'd think that the least even fake ass Congressional Democrats could do would be to point out that Donald looks as though he's addled or confused, as though anyone but him is leading and in what world do you allow your underlings to push for war when you still don't have a Secretary of Defense?
That should be the message. That would have a lot more effect than the nonsense of 'impeachment!' -- that ship really has sailed.
Looking at Elizabeth Warren's campaign Twitter feed, what's Dull Mommy offering over the last 24 hours? How to parent and give aways. And we've got nothing regarding a war on Iran.
War really isn't an issue that Elizabeth Warren feels comfortable addressing, is it?
That does not speak well for her should she become president.
At his campaign Twitter feed, Bernie Sanders is calling Trump dangerous and out of touch -- but somehow not connecting that the push for war on Iran by underlings while Trump appears to be repeatedly nudged towards it.
Beto O'Rourke is all over the map -- lending credence to Senator John Coryn's recent charge that Beto's not really in the race anymore.
Where are the leaders? There's Tulsi and we've noted her.
But for those Dems to chicken to object to a violent war on fake charges, can't they even notice that there's no Secretary of Defense and that Trump appears to be being strong armed into war on Iran? Because that doesn't look presidential, that doesn't scream "Leadership!"
That says he's as out of touch as Bernie maintains Donald is.
Meanwhile, in Iraq . . .
BREAKING: ExxonMobil set to evacuate staff from Basra in southern Iraq after their headquarters were struck by a rocket
#BREAKING: Rocket attack leaves two workers injured after it hit a compound housing major international oil companies in Iraq's Basra province
#BREAKING: Rocket hits foreign oil company headquarters in Iraq's Basra, two Iraqi staff wounded in explosion: police, oil officials bit.ly/2WUhP9Z
Please note, the last years have seen US troops die in Iraq -- under Barack and under Donald. And that didn't really upset the US government. But ExxonMobil threatened? That's going to upset them. The oil industry? That's going to upset them.
"Passion Play (When All The Slaves Are Free)," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her NIGHT RIDE HOME.
Magdalene is trembling
Like a washing on a line
Trembling and gleaming
Never before was a man so kind
Never so redeeming
Enter the multitudes
In Exxon blue
In radiation rose
Ecstasy
Now you tell me
Who you gonna get to do the dirty work
When all the slaves are free?
(Who're you gonna get)
The following sites updated:
