a stevie academic essay

[tommer]

look at that! (http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol2/Iss1/essays/thompson.htm)

Changing Gender Images
in Rock and Roll: An Analysis of
the Songs and Image of Stevie Nicks

Marceline Thompson
University of Memphis
&
Carol L. Thompson
University of Arkansas at Little Rock

[golddustchic]

Wow...that was really interesting!! Thanks so much for posting that Tommer.

[sparky]

I think I may have seen that before. It is extremely well researched, and in spite of some typos, quite thought provoking.
Have to say I agree with a whole lot of it, and it explains some of my own reactions over the years. Cool.

[golden braid]

I read that essay quite a while ago. It's an interesting essay that takes an indepth look at Stevie's image and songs through the years and how people relate to them.

[dissention]

I've read it before and it is simply fabulous. :nod:

I think it's the one thing I've read that sums up Stevie, her fans, and the publics view of her.

I agree with the article 100%.

Especially when talking about the beast that is "Street Angel" and the monotonous drone that is "I Sing For the Things." Egads.

[sparky]

Originally posted by dissention

Especially when talking about the beast that is "Street Angel" and the monotonous drone that is "I Sing For the Things." Egads.

Yup. I always say that I like the angry, aggressive Stevie and this piece summed up why in a way I was never able to properly articulate. My main gripe with SA is that all of the songs were so weak - not in terms of writing but in terms of tone. I suppose it was a reflection of homegirl's emotional state, but the whole passive, sad, contemplative POV left me cold. I just could not and cannot relate. A sad song here and there is fine, but an inactive and helpless feel conveyed in any songwriter's work doesn't get me. The author of this article nailed that one. Also, the take on the whole weight issue and it's impact on her popularity was insightful and right on target, without making the issue personal. Smart researcher.

[coldplay]

I remember reading this essay some years ago and while I found it interesting, it is far too simplistic and ignores general consumer trends while attempting to convolute fans on a single appreciative level.

I have more to say on this later.

[coldplay]

Originally posted by coldplay

I have more to say on this later.

The paper argues that Stevie’s popularity can be attributed to her self-portrayal as ‘mysterious, wise, but strong’. Audiences connected with her in this way. The decline in Stevie’s popularity is attributed to changing expectations of what a female rock star should be. While Stevie continued to represent the feminine in lyric and in visual presentation – new stars fashioned themselves as strong and powerful. Therefore, audiences could no longer connect with her.

The first problem with their argument is that it implies – if Stevie had changed with the times and represented a powerful and strong female rocker…her popularity would NOT have declined. This is a ridiculous statement. All artists peak in their career and then experience a down curve in their careers.

Some artists can transcend falling into slumps by stalling a down curve. One good example would be Madonna. While she does not sell as many albums as at the height of her career she still has a huge selling potential. The single 'Music’ reflects am artist who was able to reach no.1 on the singles charts through decades. That is a monumental feat. While ‘American Life’ was a sales disaster…one cannot completely write her off.

One might argue that because Madonna is a chameleon and changes with the times and that she has been able to sustain longevity in her career. Quite the opposite. Madonna doesn’t really change with the times. Rather she tries to stay ahead of it or in command of it.

Furthermore, many artists change with the times but are not able to sustain popularity. A good example would be Rod Stewart who jumped on the disco bandwagon and then his career slumped. Interestingly, his comeback with ‘American Songbook’ is ‘outside’ contemporary expectations and finds a niche in the music industry.

The author contextualises fans through three forms of identification (ie bridging gaps between two separate people (1) Material identification where audiences identify with Stevie’s clothes and performance (2) Idealistic identification where audiences identify with Stevie’s ideals and values (3) formal indentification where audienes identify with Stevie’s performance and ritualism.

Furthermore, the author uses the term mystification to describe identification on many different levels where fans feel they know Stevie on a more personal level. It seems to me that the hardcore fans are in this category.

Again, the author argues that fans could no longer identify with Stevie because she represented an unchanging image of mysterious and wise instead of strong and powerful. However, and I suspect the authors realise the flaw, the problem here is that Stevie, did at times, represented the strong and powerful. You can see it from 'Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around' (1981) to 'Stand Back' (1983) to 'I Can’t Wait' (1986). Lyrically, Stevie was able to represent the powerful and strong yet her popularity still declined.

It is my suggestion that Stevie’s popularity declined for two other reasons. The first is because fans, who identified on one of the three levels of identify but were not mystified began to look for something different. It’s a simple law of desire. Tastes change over time irrespective of how an artist can change with the times. For me, those are the sort of fans who will be attending the SYW Tour for nostalgia reasons.

The other fans attending the SYW Tour are those that are hardcore fans and in the author’s terms….can be viewed in the mystification category. These are fans who still buy each album regardless but may appreciate the music less and less.

My second suggestion for the deline in Stevie’s popularity is because of her drug addiction and her weight gain ( the author does touch upon the aspect of weight gain). I remember when I saw Stevie on The Late Show singing ‘Blue Denim’. She looked, and even worse, sounded bad. Let’s tease this drug issue out a bit. One of the main reasons why Stevie sold less records is because each album release got worse with the final slump being ‘Street Angel’.

To sum up – I would agree to some degree that Stevie’s popularity declined because of changing expectations of what a rock and roll woman should be. However, that leads to a dangerous implication that had Stevie changed her image and lyrical style she would have remained popular. That is an absurd statement. There are many other reasons why Stevie’s popularity declined (1) because people’s tastes change and they want to hear something else (2) because Stevie’s music got worse with each album.

Finally, the author considers the reasons why Nicks has regained in popularity. One suggestion is because gender boundaries are more fluid. Another suggestion is because Nicks has been legitimized through a younger generation of stars.

I find it odd that the author does not, in some way, attribute Stevie’s increase in popularity to the fact that she sounds better. Stevie’s image and lyrical style has, for the most part, remain unchanged and yet her career has resurged. That’s one of the main problem’s with the author’s article. It does little to explain how Stevie’s constant style has kept together an army of indelible fans.

Musically speaking, we may not have been able to appreciate her through the Klonopin years but that does not mean we did not love her any less. That is to say, she never became unpopular to loyal fans….only the transient ones.


cheers
CP

p.s Any fan may now be able to re-identify with Stevie not necessarily because of her values, or musical style but perhaps because Stevie represents a survivor and/or because her music can be measured up against a timeline of a fan's own life.