'I'm quitting this corrupt cesspool'

Why Joni Mitchell has had it with the music business
----------------------------------------------------
Dave Simpson
Thursday November 21, 2002
The Guardian


Joni Mitchell has often been called "the greatest ever female singer-songwriter", although she has been known to object to the use of the word "female". Many of her hits, including Big Yellow Taxi and Woodstock, are legendary; her albums, such as The Hissing of Summer Lawns, classics. After 35 years in the business, the original woman with a guitar is one of few artists on a par with Bob Dylan. She has inspired Madonna, Prince, and virtually every female singer-songwriter.

Which makes it all the more surprising that she has decided to walk away. Talking in the December issue of America's W magazine, Mitchell insists that her new album, Travelogue, will be her last. Calling the music industry a "corrupt cesspool", the Canadian rages that: "I'm quitting because the business made itself so repugnant to me. Record companies are not looking for talent. They're looking for a look and a willingness to cooperate."

The singer Kathryn Williams, one of several generations inspired by Mitchell, is distraught: "She made me want to be a singer-songwriter. When she turns around and says she's had enough, it's so disheartening for everyone else." Mitchell's raging against the machine is nothing new. As Karen O'Brien, author of Stars and Light, a biography of the singer, explains, Mitchell has threatened to quit before. This time, however, there's a difference. Following the W article, Mitchell stopped doing interviews. "That's a worrying sign," says the biographer. "Her songs are her babies and she always promotes them. So she could actually mean it."

The singer's ire seems to have been provoked by a spat with her last label, Reprise. According to sources close to the singer, the company was reluctant to release Travelogue. Irked, Mitchell took it to Nonesuch, an artist-friendly label which, ironically, is backed by Warner, the conglomerate that owns Reprise. The company won't comment on the situation, but the row seems to have been the final straw in a three-decade-long battle between the music business and one of its greatest talents.

Emerging from the hippy/folk scene in the 1960s, Mitchell was initially offered what she called "slave labour deals". However, as the value of her songwriting ability dawned on executives, her manager Elliot Roberts negotiated a landmark contract with Reprise (she has recorded for other labels in between). Though unknown at the time, Mitchell was given total artistic control.

"She got the same deal with Asylum and Geffen," says O'Brien. "She's never even had a producer foisted on her - she always went into the studio without a producer. She's always had a lot more autonomy than any other artist."

Despite this autonomy, Mitchell has long felt not just uncomfortable with the industry, but with her position within it. "For Joni it was always about creative control," says O'Brien. "But at some point it will always come down to the bottom line. Even when she was on David Geffen's label, money fractured their friendship. At some point some MD is going to say, 'When did we actually make some money out of Joni Mitchell? Oh, I remember, 1974.' I despise that attitude, but that's how they work."

Mitchell has become expensive to have around. For Travelogue, she re-recorded old songs with the London Symphony Orchestra, Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock. Although they are friends of Mitchell's and may have given her a preferential rate, none of this would have come cheap.

Furthermore, Mitchell's sales have never matched her influence and critical standing. Early in her career, she decided that pop hits were ephemeral, and set out to explore other avenues, as with her 1979 jazz album, Mingus. And it won't have delighted Reprise that Travelogue includes none of her hits.

But just how much value does a label put on the creativity and credibility of a 20th-century giant like Mitchell? Until recently, the big labels wanted to keep artists such as Leonard Cohen, Van Morrison and Bob Dylan because, while they might not enjoy the sales of the latest pop phenomenon, having them around was good for respectability and clout.

But times are changing. Execs have realised that if they have the back catalogue, they don't need the ageing artist. Warner's recent dropping of Rod Stewart was just as significant as EMI's reported £80m deal for Robbie Williams.

In one of her last new songs, Lead Balloon, Mitchell describes meeting a corporate executive and opens with the words: "Kiss my arse!" She then talks specifically about running away from the music biz and the "whiny white kids on the radio", and "formula music, girly guile genuine junk food for juveniles".

More recently, she had a widely reported pop at Madonna: "She has knocked the importance of talent out of the arena," sniped Mitchell. "She's made a lot of money and become the biggest star in the world by hiring the right people." "Joni's been quite unforgiving," admits O'Brien. "But then again, she'll rail against these 'women in rock' features and then appear in the next one in Rolling Stone. So there is that ambivalence." Similarly, while Mitchell berates Madonna and others' use of sexual imagery, she once appeared on the inner sleeve of The Hissing of Summer Lawns in a bikini. Her justification: "But I swim every day."

"She's a very strong person and very sensitive," says Rob Dickins, her former chairman at Warner. "That's a great combination and a terrible one. There is an argument that she's done such a fine body of work, why should she put herself through a system geared to 15-year-olds? But if you have the creativity within you, it's very hard to stop it."

It is possible that Mitchell's pronouncement is a Machiavellian way of drawing attention to Travelogue, but this seems unlikely. Dickins is particularly surprised at the timing: "Nonesuch is not a corporate label, and I would think that her experience there might be pleasurable enough for her to continue."

In a recent interview in Rolling Stone, Mitchell was quoted as saying: "I'll be glad if the industry goes down the crapper." It's just possible that this final act of artistic defiance is her way of getting one hand on the flush.

Whatever, the words of her biggest ever single suddenly seem resonant:"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

· Travelogue is released on Monday by Nonesuch. Shadows and Light: Joni Mitchell, The Definitive Biography, by Karen O'Brien, is published by Virgin, price £7.99.

Way too bitter. It'd be one thing if she was bitter only with the industry, but she's also gotta take potshots at not only the musical talents different from hers, but even at the people who appreciate her. She even can't appreciate bein' called one of the greatest female songwriters in the world because she's too busy bein' a friggin' feminist.

To hell with her. I like and listen to her music, but I think she's an arrogant person who now finds it easy to bite the hands that gave her whatever she has today. I understand and agree with many of her beefs, but imo her attitude sucks.

Again . . . this obviously means she won't take the "useful idiot" route of scapegoating "piracy" for her not-exactly-superstar record sales, as Brittle Sneers -- er, Britney Spears, for instance, has.

Why shouldn't she be bitter? I'd be bitter too? That's why use people come here, because we're bitter, fed up, upset with how things are being run, what it's doing to everyone.

And who cares if she takes a shot at Madonna? Who ever said that a person has to like every person that they inspire?

I don't call this arrogance, I call it being yourself. She's being honest, are you telling me that you don't like honesty?

I love honesty. I think her honesty is arrogant. What has Madonna ever done to her? Can she not make her point without singling out select people who perhaps have never so much as looked in her direction?

Here's a person who's worked hard to get more than most people have. Do I fault her for that? She's has more money in her left pocket from this corrupt industy than I'll ever see in my lifetime. Do I resent her for that? No. What I resent is someone who can benefit from the ever-so-lucky fruits of their labors, then all of a sudden command some press by lambasting the establishments that helped her get there. Not one of her albums from her prime contains any anti-recording-industry songs. Where was she then when "Court And Spark" or "The Hissing Of Summer Lawns" were topping the sales charts in the 70's, helping to make her the money she now lives comfortably on???

Please, I may be bitter were I in her shoes, but I'd certainly know how to show credit where due. She owes her entire success to the RIAA and its corrupt practices, while she walks thru life thinkin' that she's on the same level with Bob Dylan. She's not. I'm just bein' honest, and sumpm tells me not enuff people are honest enuff with her.

So wait, people now aren't aloud to give examples of what they do and do not like? Funny how when someone that's famous does it, it's automatically singling someone out.

It's very simple, Madonna doesn't need to have done anything to her, ever, and Joni still has the right to not like her, or her music. Are you now telling me that I should not like Fred Durst or the rest of Limp Bizkit because they have technically never done anything to me? That's a bunch of crap.

Hindsight is 20/20. Why do you think she's moved from label to label so much? When most artists signed to labels back then, they didn't know they were getting ripped off. Most artists still don't know that today, though I'm sure more are aware of it. You would bite the hand that fed you too if you were sick of it and it's practices. You also have to remember that people change over time.

Of course people are allowed to say what they like and don't like. That's exactly what I'm doing. ...And she singled out Madonna. Yes, she singled her out. It's immaterial whether Joni's famous or not.

Your second paragraph is thoroughly specious. You're right, she has the right to not like her. She also has the right to say so in public. And _I_ have the right to say how I think she's immature and shortsighted for doing so. And you have the right to disagree with me. See how it works? ...I'm asserting that Joni simply could've found less offensive and condescending ways to make her point. ...And we don't know Fred Durst. All we know is his music and what we read in the press. Besides, not liking them and calling them talentless are 2 separate things.

I'll concede to your final paragraph.

Call it what you want, Madonna is just one the examples. I wonder if you would still have said the same thing if Joni would have replaced Britney Spears with Madonna.

I still don't see how it's immature to say how you don't like someone for their practices. Besides, less offensive is not always better, as that seems to be what you're implying.

She's right to slag Madonna, let's face it, Madonna might have ambition and good business sense and she is a hot piece of ass but she is a mediocre singer and a fairly bland songwriter.
Her talents are not musical yet yhey've made her one of the richest people in the music world.
While Joni succeded on raw talent alone,(as she is not now nor was she ever very attractive),Madonna succeded by marketing her own sluttish sex appeal.
Madonna's success is the reason why we have to endure Brittany and her innumerable clones.

Milla's right when he says that Joni mitchel is not on the same level as Dylan, she's a few steps higher.
If you take away Dylan's lyrics, what you're left with is generic folk music. Joni's astonishing talents as a lyricist and composer set her apart from any of her folk contemporaries, and hey, she can paint too!

That being said, she hasn't done anything since "Shadows&Light" that has captivated my interest and a lot of her 80's music really sucks, but that probably has more to do with the 80's era production style that made everything sound fake and plastic.

"I wonder if you would still have said the same thing if Joni would have replaced Britney Spears with Madonna." Yes I would have. I've been bitchin' for years about people takin' names like hers to use as examples of "crappy music." Who the hell is _anyone_ to say what good and what's bad? My point was that no example was necessary to make her point. Why do people feel it necessary to elevate themselves at the expanse of others? Makes no sense to me, no matter who the example is.

Joni doesn't like Madonna's practices. Why does she hafta slam Madonna as well for her talent? Why does she hafta slam _anyone_? THat's what's immature. I see nothing wrong with slamming the practices.

You may be inferring that I mean less offensive is better, but that's hardly what I'm implying. When one's making a point, however, it would seem to me that they'd wish to offend the least amount of people as possible, so that the point wouldn't be lost on them.

And shoshidge, I'm gonna completely ignore what I see as that nonsense you posted there. ...other than, of course, write this sentence telling you that I'm ignoring it. heh

To address that, anyone who enjoyed eminem ken kaniff from the marshall mathers should be in a "special place". Go take a listen, if you're strong enough... haunting memories... *calls back therapist*

"slamming" as you so call it, is not necessarily immature.

You can say the least offensive thing possible and someone would still be offended by it. People just need a more open mind.

Also, whoever said that Joni was trying to elevate herself over madonna? She might have been doing that, but she have also been using as an example of how prostitution is big in the music industry.

Wow, you managed to make a hypocritical statement, milla. You said that we have no right to really deem what's good and what's not, yet someone says they think joni is better than bob dylan and you called it nonsense.

"'slamming' as you so call it, is not necessarily immature." Says whom? I think it is, which is all I said. You think it's not, but state it as fact. Oh well, I'll stand by my opinion.

"You can say the least offensive thing possible and someone would still be offended by it. People just need a more open mind." This is true, but how is it germane? Joni, as the intelligent professional person that she is, should with all her experience know how to choose her words. After all, she's got the lyrical talent of Bob Dylan. She did say what she said with the utmost tact and class. And that's my opinion, whether we agree or not.

"Also, whoever said that Joni was trying to elevate herself over madonna?" Joni did. ..."She might have been doing that, but she have also been using as an example of how prostitution is big in the music industry." I don't what this means.

Joni Mitchell is in no way of the historical status that Bob Dylan is, no matter how ya wanna cut it. I never said she was "good," "bad," "better," or "worse." My opinions of her music mean nothing here. No one's does. And quite frankly, unless you have sumpm else pertinent to offer this discussion, I'll say thank you for the debate and take my leave.

I still don't understand, you tell me not to pass opinion off as fact, yet you're doing the same thing. Yes, please do walk away from this conversation, you keep making yourself look worse.

Opinion is fact when your opinion is something you should be locked away somewhere for. Getting enjoyment out of that track on that eminem album, per say

"Joni Mitchell, The Definitive Biography, by Karen O'Brien, is published by Virgin" - Virgin as in "Virgin Books" and "Virgin Records"? ... checking ... Yup!

http://www.virginbooks.com/vp/Q4smartSite.dll/ShowBook?PID=1011&w_session=qjQLbfgm8785RP

Odd

Bob Dylan is an American cultural icon, so is Nirvana, that doesn't inherently make them superior.
They were both elevated to fame by being in the right place at the right time.

I'm willing to concede that Bob Dyaln might be a better lyricist than Joni Mitchell, although that is a very subjective thing to judge.
My point was that Joni mitchell also excelled at the instrumental aspects of music, the chord structures of some of her music have more in common with jazz than folk. She is accomplished in many different musical styles.
If you take away Dylan's lyrics, all you have is a bad singer and a mediocre guitar player, on a musical level(not lyrical), Joni can wipe the floor with him.

But don't take my word for it, Prince, Jaco Pastorious, Herbie Hancock, Charles Mingus and many other jazz luminaries have all expressed high admiration for Joni's compositions.
in fact, I can't thing of any other female composer working in the pop idiom that is nearly as inventive as Joni mitchell is/was, except maybe Kate Bush.

Maybe Joni is upset because there are so few innovative female songwriters in the business today.
Who knows how many brilliant artists there are right now answering phones and wiping tables because they don't have the tits and ass necessary to compete in the sex obsessed manifestation of pop culture that Madonna helped bring about?
but if Milla thinks that is nonsense then that's his problem

shoshidge, I appreciate your words. I may not necessarily agree with them, but I appreciate them.

kneo, you've become a boor to me. I don't like debating with boors. You like to state things without backing them up, and your last few posts have made a point of calling attention to how I appear in my arguments rather than makin' some of your own. My walkin' away has a lot more to do with disinterest in grappling with you than it does in the topic itself, believe me.

You yourself haven't backed anything up. Stop being the god damn hypocrite and just admit to being defeated.

No, I haven't backed up anything. In fact, I'm lovin' how you've backed up that statement too. ...And it's so interesting to me how the topic has gone from Joni Mitchell to me, the "god damn hypocrite." Way to debate. *end sarcasm*

See, with you, it's about winning and losing. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You wanna "win." Well, good for you; I'm glad you feel better about yourself now. I feel so defeated.

Like I say, my walkin' away has a lot more to do with disinterest in grappling with you than it does in the topic itself. Call me whatever you want from here on in your infinite wisdom, but goading me is lame and I just won't play into it here. I have work to do.

Giving up altoghether seems strange. I would like to see less big name artists just ranting and raving about how labels and execs screw artists and listeners (we all know this already),and more actually deciding to take things into their own hands. Why doesn't she just produce her own album, and promote it herself? Is she really so contracted and bound to her label that she cannot sell her own works? Excuse me for being naive, but seriously?!!

Its easier said than done. Where does an artists go to sell their own stuff, get promotion, distribution, etc? Thats what we are trying ti build at dmusic - a place for artists to "DIY".

While I think that's true, it's easier said than done. ..and that is indeed what we're aiming at here in many ways, jmiles makes a very good point. Music is gonna be music no matter what. Does an artist truly wanna give up creating their art? There are indeed a few big name artists who've undertaken alternate ways to market their art. Prince is a good example. We know about the big-namers probably because they have a few more bucks with which to make a success with it, but if it's possible with big-namers, then I think the options do exist for all.

Look, I was just questioning you, and you obviously couldn't answer. This says a lot about you. Disinterest? I doubt it. It's more like not being able to answer simple questions.

"Its easier said than done. Where does an artists go to sell their own stuff, get promotion, distribution, etc? Thats what we are trying ti build at dmusic - a place for artists to 'DIY'."

But Joni Mitchell is, well, Joni Mitchell. She is well known and respected enough that, I assume, people will buy her music no matter what. Not to bash dmusic - it's an excellent service for independents. But, someone as famous as Joni Mitchell does not need such promotion. Her name is enough promotion as it is. Why couldn't she just record stuff, and sell it from a website? She would easily sell enough CDs to cover costs of recording and production, particularly if there are less middle-men. I simply don't understand why more big name artists don't do this. It seems they would rather have someone else take care of their business, but then complain when it doesn't go their way. I think the day when Elton John, Don Henley, and other assorted "disgruntled" big name artists truly take over their own production, marketing, and promotion, we will really start to see changes in the biz. What are the things keeping somebody in their place from doing this? Contracts? Lack of acumen or desire?

kneo24 youre an asshole. the guy answered everything put to him but cause you dont like the answer you think he couldnt answer. I read this whole thread and there comes a point that you start demeaning him and the things he says insted of telling him why hes worng. I dont blame him for getting pissed and walking away from your sorry ass. go back to some of your other threads and see how you argue, get insulted and insult alot. this isnt the first person to lose interest in you.

I'm sorry if you didn't see this guys hypocrisy. He was telling me not to do things, yet did the same exact things he told me not to do. Last I checked, he's no better than me. If they want to have that kind of attitude, I'll give them a taste of their own medicine, and of course they can't handle it.

BTW, you can call me all sorts of names, it does nothing to me.

"He was telling me not to do things, yet did the same exact things he told me not to do" ...Name them. Again, you back nothing up. Nothing.

In case you hadn't noticed, I posted in this article to address the article, not you. When you started riding on your own ignorance, I gave up. Perhaps you think I should sit around here bickering with you when there's real work to be done around here.

Medicine: Again, you think it's about Winning and Losing. You have a thorough interest in being "right" at all expense. Doesn't even matter that during our "discussion" I conceded a whole point to you. You just walk right past it and keep on ridin'. Bleh. You bore me. Perhaps because you're a boor.

"BTW, you can call me all sorts of names, it does nothing to me." ...Let's go see your debate with mccarp. http://news.dmusic.com/article/5657 -- Let's watch mcarp make his points clearly and plainly, and let's go see you condescend to him from the word GO. Then let's see him make _one_ off-handed remark, and we'll watch you tell him to go fuck himself and call him a complete dumbass with less than half a brain. Then let's see mccarp walk away because you have no ability to debate without resorting to calling people names and demeaning them when you feel yourself falling behind in the discussion ..Oh, and let's not forget to see you tell everyone how the president of the RIAA has the mentality of an 8yo.
...Hey, whether mccarp was right or wrong, or whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant to the opinion that many people who debate with you lose interest due to your poor attitude.

Now, do you really not know how to walk away from a topic? Do you need to get the last word? 'Cause if ya do, I'll let'cha have it. Obviously, as you've stated in previous threads, you don't debate to make your point or hopefully help people to see things in a new light. You end up posting nothing but "retaliation" for bein' "insulted." Bleh.

But thanx for stirrin' my coffee these last few days. It's been a while since I've had my yarn spun in the news script.

"Joni Mitchell is in no way of the historical status that Bob Dylan is, no matter how ya wanna cut it. I never said she was "good," "bad," "better," or "worse." My opinions of her music mean nothing here. No one's does. And quite frankly, unless you have sumpm else pertinent to offer this discussion, I'll say thank you for the debate and take my leave."

"And shoshidge, I'm gonna completely ignore what I see as that nonsense you posted there. ...other than, of course, write this sentence telling you that I'm ignoring it. heh"

""'slamming' as you so call it, is not necessarily immature." Says whom? I think it is, which is all I said. You think it's not, but state it as fact. Oh well, I'll stand by my opinion."


Hmm, what were you doing in the first two paragraphs... Hmm... weren't you trying to pass your opinion off as fact?Gee, I even questioned it right after you told me not to pass my opinion off as fact, and you completely ignored it. You just walked away. I don't know how many times I have to spell things out for you.

BTW, I was mad at the fact that mccarp insulted my intelligence, not that he called me names. And look again, you can't even walk away. You just keep going, just as I do. Seems like another hypocritical statement to me. You really shouldn't bash me for things that you can't seem to do.

Well, why should allow to to continue antagonizing and callin' me a hypocite repeatedly and not at least defend myself? I'll be happy to let you have the last word, but it probably won't be right after you insult me again.

As for my comments, the first is easily provable. Go do a Google search for Joni Mitchell and see how many hits ya get. Then do one for Bob Dylan. Huge difference. Go to your local library and see how many Joni Mitchell books there are on the shelves. You probably won't find any, if one. Dylan books, however, are plentiful. Go to a record store, and ask how many more Bob Dylan albums they sell per year over Ms. Mitchell. Go read a music or rock encyclopedia, and let's see the differences in how much attention they get. On top of all that, Dylan is the primary inspiration for Mitchell ever moving to New York in the first place (in 1966) to make it in the the industry she so now hates. ....The fact that Bob Dylan is of greater historical stature is in no way my humble opinion. It is indeed fact, whether anyone in this thread happens to disagree or not.

As for my second comment you so thoughtfully posted above, it is quite obvious that when I used the phrase, "...what I see as..." it turned the entire statement into my opinion. Get a clue.

Ah, so you're trying to pass the popularity idea off... That's a riot. If you haven't noticed, popularity has jack shit to do with anything in terms of what's good and what's not. Plus, didn't you say that was all opinion based? You have to stop using that as fact.

Yes, I saw it was your opinion, but you still tried to pass it off as some sort of fact. Yes, you really should get a clue.

Plus, didn't you say you were walking away from this? Or do I have to copy and paste that too just to prove to you that you said that?

Yes. Yes it is. Popularity plays a big part in historical importance. Why do ya think George Washington is more remembered than John Adams? Do ya think he was of any less importance?? Don't be so blind. Many things contribute to historical importance, but yes, popularity is one of them. More studying, detailing, chronicling, and archiving occurs. Add to this the FACT that Dylan has influenced gads more artists than Joni Mitchell could dream of (indeed, she's always been viewed by many as a Dylan wannabe), and your whole Dylan/Mitchell argument is pointless.

"Yes, I saw it was your opinion, but you still tried to pass it off as some sort of fact." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Either it's stated as opinion or it's stated as fact. How can I pass off as fact sumpm that's, as you've concurred, stated as opinion? Wow, you're amazing.

And yes, I said I was walking away from it, but I've changed my mind. Call me a hypocrite if you like, if it makes you happy and feeling all good about yourself, but I haven't left yet. I mean, I work here, so I tend to be around a bit. As a matter of _fact_, I've been known around here for years to waste plenty of time on people like you, so that the rest of the community can see as many sides to as many issues as possible. We love the content. ...And as long as you keep givin' me sumpm to respond to, I'm gonna keep comin' back for more and more and more and more and more. So, you just keep sayin' what you say, and I'll keep sayin' what I say. Too bad we can't like each other more, especially since we both hate Hilary "fat cow" Rosen.

So that where it's at. I've got more energy for this network than you can imagine, so if you wanna keep goin' with this indefinitely, I'll be here for a lonnnnnng time. We can either discuss the topic of the thread, or we can talk about how much you dislike me, or even both if ya like, as we've been doin'. I'm up for all of it now. If that makes me a hypocrite...great.

Once again, you blind fool, popularity means nothing when it comes to music. Otherwise Britney Spears would be called a great musician!

Another thing. It doesn't matter if Bob Dylan influenced more people than she has. It means nothing. So what? More artists were influenced by Bob Dylan than Joni Mitchell. That is still no indication of talent. It just means more of the artists probably liked his music more.

Gee, we all know that the record labels are thieves. Not only is that a fact, it is an opinion. Plus, we can base our opinions off as fact. Not all opinions can be used as fact. Especially ones that deal with music and popularity over whose better than who. This is something that numerous people have said on here before. This is something numerous people would probably agree with me on.

You should now be able to distinguish the difference. If you still can't, there is no further reason to keep this up for the simple fact of your comprehension skills are not up to par.

I never said I didn't like you. Again, I was just questioning the hypocritical things you were saying, and you avoided them, or didn't answer in any way that provided clarity, and you still haven't. You just keep spouting off your opinions as fact. If you want to keep doing that, by all means.

"..you blind fool.." heh

"..popularity means nothing..." Nothing? Absolutely nothing? Tell that to all the Beatles fans in the world.

"Another thing. It doesn't matter if Bob Dylan influenced more people than she has. It means nothing." Says whom, you? Is that a fact??

"So what?" Sew buttons.

"More artists were influenced by Bob Dylan than Joni Mitchell. That is still no indication of talent. It just means more of the artists probably liked his music more." Again, same point repeated. Is it a FACT?

"Gee, we all know..." ALL of us? Is this A FACT???

"...that the record labels are thieves. Not only is that a fact, it is an opinion. Plus, we can base our opinions off as fact. Not all opinions can be used as fact. Especially ones that deal with music and popularity over whose better than who. This is something that numerous people have said on here before. This is something numerous people would probably agree with me on." So they agree. Does popularity mean you're right? From the above paragraph all I can see is how condescending you try to be in order to make your point.

"...for the simple fact of your comprehension skills are not up to par" Is this your opinion being stated as fact, you fucking moron?

"I never said I didn't like you" Well, I don't like you.

"Again, I was just questioning the hypocritical things you were saying, and you avoided them, or didn't answer in any way that provided clarity, and you still haven't." Yes I have, and nothing was hypocritical, imo. Innocent until proven guilty. You have yet to prove anything.

"You just keep spouting off your opinions as fact." Basically, we all do, but I more than most make a conscious effort to add as many little qualifiers as possible to my writing so that people like you can understand where I'm at. Maybe I need to add more qualifiers. Sometimes, every now and then, we get a retard who doesn't see them and knows little of how to use them in their own writing.

"If you want to keep doing that, by all means." Yup, I do. And I will.

Madonna has not made money because of her singing or songwriting talents. She made it because she has vibrancy and knows HOW to pick a good song. Plus Patrick Leonard is a GREAT producer. Is it just me or is Ms.Mitchell displaying just a SLIGHT dollup of jealousy here...

It has nothing to do with jealousy, madonna represents the tendency of the music industry to promote flash over substance.
As one of the most well admired female songwriters in pop music history, it must irk joni mitchell that someone like Madonna or brittany,(madonna jr.), can waltz in, with nothing more than a passable singing voice and some sex appeal, and rise to the top of the music industry shit heap without even writing the music or playing an instrument.

And when Madonna and her clones are too old to sell posters to horny guys and naive teenage girls, they will be forgotten, just like the many crusty, wadded up balls of kleenex under the beds of 16 year old boys who grew up thinking that's what women are all about.

Imagine if someone got hired at your workplace to do a job similar to you, what if on the strength of a flashy smile and some well tailored suits, he started getting promoted ahead of you even though he was incompetent, wouldn't that piss you off? would that be jealousy or justifiable outrage?

As an addendum to that last comment, i saw the new james bond movie last night. Madonna's theme song is probably the worst Bond theme in history, not only was it bland but its cheesy pop style was totally innappropriate for the visuals going on at the time.

Maybe she didn't pick that one herself