Producer for a new album

[Villavic]

Jimmy Iovine produce BD and TWH, but during the recording of Rock A Little, Stevie's cocaine addiction started affecting her performance and Jimmy began to lose interest in helping her. He walked out before the album was finished (according to the Penguin and STevie's BTM).

During the BTM he talked very good about Stevie. Wouldn't be great if he produce another Stevie album? (if she had plans for a future solo album).

[ShangriLaTroubl]

No doubt, in my mind, he was her best solo producer...but I dont think he's doing much producing anymore, he's very wrapped up in Interscope Records--and Eminem....but it would be a dream come true

Chris

[darklinensuit]

No doubt, in my mind, he was her best solo producer...but I dont think he's doing much producing anymore, he's very wrapped up in Interscope Records--and Eminem....but it would be a dream come true

Chris

I agree, as long as he doesn't persuade Stevie to let Eminem sing on something like Stop Gragging My Heart Around or Bombay Sapphires.

- Jake

[Livia]

I agree, as long as he doesn't persuade Stevie to let Eminem sing on something like Stop Gragging My Heart Around or Bombay Sapphires.

- Jake

"Gragging?" LOL I love Jimmy's work too - and that would be awesome if he'd produce more of Stevie's stuff...but, I also LOVE what John Shanks did for her on TISL. :nod:

[Bryan]

I think Sheryl Crow should produce the next one. Probably not possible though,with her schedule and all.

[skcin]

How about Liddy Buck producing her next solo album? THAT I would love to hear.


Paula

[face of glass]

How about Liddy Buck producing her next solo album? THAT I would love to hear.
If he did that then it would be a Buckingham Nicks album; I can't imagine Lindsey not playing the guitar and not singing on nearly every track. That's the way he's been working with her since the beginning.

But then again, I guess some would prefer a Buckingham Nicks album with only Stevie's songs. ;)

[cliffdweller]

I think Sheryl Crow should produce the next one.

Me too! :nod:

[trackaghost]

I'll post again, what I posted in the "Will Stevie Ever Make Another Solo Album" thread.

My ultimate dream would be for her to work with Jimmy Iovine again, but since he's busy running a record label these days, I realise that ain't gonna happen.

And I've said this before but I'm gonna say it again! I'd love her to work with someone like Rick Rubin, who did such amazing work with Johnny Cash and Tom Petty (and the Chili Peppers for that matter), who in some ways is similar to Iovine. I would just like to see a back to basics approach on her next solo outing. Not too much production, just the sound of a live band and the voice, or even just a guitar and a voice. While I'm in fantasy land I'd love her to work with someone like Jack White as well, who did a truly amazing job on the new Loretta Lynn album. Again a stripped down approach Or wait Jim O'Rourke... wow so many cool options but not likely to happen unfortunately. I think the Rick Rubin one could though.

And remember Billy Corgan was keen to work with her? I think she should explore that too!

I'm not sure about Sheryl Crow though, sometimes I think she suffers from the same thing Stevie does, that fear of being not being commercial enough. When Sheryl appeared to forget about that on The Globe Sessions, she had fewer hits but the best album of her career.

[ryan8472]

How about Liddy Buck producing her next solo album? THAT I would love to hear.


Paula

Exactly :wavey:

[trackaghost]

Hmmm, if Lindsey produced it, it would just be a Fleetwood Mac record without the Lindsey tracks. I'd like it to sound different to a Mac album personally.

[Johnny Stew]

Jimmy Iovine would be my producer of choice, but since that's highly unlikely to happen, then I'd be perfectly happy with Stevie working with John Shanks again.
I think Shanks did a terrific job of staying true to the "essence of Stevie" (for lack of a better term), but added just the right amount of fresh touches.

Don Was, who produced "Somebody Stand By Me" and "Lay Down Your Arms," might also be a good choice.

I enjoyed Sheryl Crow's work on 'Shangri-La,' and the two 'Practical Magic' tracks, and if Stevie ever re-records "Belle Fleur," Crow should definitely be at the helm... but I wouldn't necessarily want to see Sheryl produce the entire album.

[Villavic]

Hmmm, if Lindsey produced it, it would just be a Fleetwood Mac record without the Lindsey tracks. I'd like it to sound different to a Mac album personally.

Like Richard Dashut producing her sole next album, too, it would sound like a mac record.

But I would love to hear it, anyway!!!!

[Kelly]

I love what John Shanks did with Planets and FFG but something about TISL seems overproduced to me. I prefer a more simple approach to her songs, ala Bella Donna. Lyrically TISL is my favorite album though.

I think LB could do an excellent job with her next solo album but that would probably be the end of any future Mac music. That is one part of Stevie's life that I think LB better stay out of! He could perhaps produce a track or two, play guitar a bit and even sing with her on one or two songs but any more than that, I fear big problemos. IMO, Liddy is her best producer, by far. Jimmy Iovine comes in second.

[jwd]

Count me in as a John Shanks fan. I'd love it if he did all of Stevie's next solo record. I love his work with Vertical Horizon as well. Count me out as wanting Lindsey to produce her next record. Save that for the next FM project. If anyone overproduces, it's gotta be Lindsey. And when it comes to overproducing, I don't think that that is necessarily the best approach to take with Stevie's music.

[amber]

I'm not sure about Sheryl Crow though, sometimes I think she suffers from the same thing Stevie does, that fear of being not being commercial enough. When Sheryl appeared to forget about that on The Globe Sessions, she had fewer hits but the best album of her career.

Me, too, I want Buck to do it. There is more space and dynamics and harmony when he does, I think stevie is at her best when other people provide these things as a foil to her. Otherwise it's too all-the-same, all-the-same-ALL-the-same-thing...hehehe
Amber

[blinker12]

I love what John Shanks did with Planets and FFG but something about TISL seems overproduced to me. I prefer a more simple approach to her songs, ala Bella Donna.

I agree. Whoever produces next time, she should take the same approach she did with Bella Donna: get a band together, rehearse the songs with them, THEN cut the record.

[estranged4life]

out on a limb and say Dann Huff (Producer of Keith Urban's "Golden Road" & Megadeth's "Risk").

His production's always have a great live band sound and he is very conservative and never over-produces a release unlike others. I would say Rick Rubin too, But as of late I have grown tired of his productions...

Another producer I would throw in from left field is Richard Marx (Producer of Emerson Drive's new release "What If"), I think he would be great for Stevie.

[shane]

I love all the producers but overall I have to say that I am a John Shanks fan...he knew what to do with songs that Sheryl did not...his songs shined on TISL and I would love to see what he could do with an entire CD....also I must say I loved Pierre Marchands work on Love Is and this would be another interesting avenue to pursue...I think we would have a very softer sort of cd from him but I think it would be amazing....

[darklinensuit]

I agree. Whoever produces next time, she should take the same approach she did with Bella Donna: get a band together, rehearse the songs with them, THEN cut the record.

Makes sense.

- Jake

[EveryHour]

My pick is Jack White. No, I'm not kidding. I'm ready to hear something really stripped down from Stevie. He needs to work some "Loretta Lynn magic" on Stevie!!! :nod: :nod: :nod:

[dissention]

My pick is Jack White. No, I'm not kidding. I'm ready to hear something really stripped down from Stevie. He needs to work some "Loretta Lynn magic" on Stevie!!! :nod: :nod: :nod:

Good choice! :wavey:

Personally, I'd like to hear a Tom Petty produced album. But that's just me. ;)

[dissention]

I love all the producers but overall I have to say that I am a John Shanks fan...he knew what to do with songs that Sheryl did not...his songs shined on TISL and I would love to see what he could do with an entire CD....also I must say I loved Pierre Marchands work on Love Is and this would be another interesting avenue to pursue...I think we would have a very softer sort of cd from him but I think it would be amazing....

Shanks isn't bad, but I think Sheryl and Stevie just clicked in a way that Stevie and her producer hadn't since Iovine. And I totally despised Marchand's production on Love Is. :laugh: It doesn't get any more maudlin than that, folks.

[dissention]

Me, too, I want Buck to do it. There is more space and dynamics and harmony when he does, I think stevie is at her best when other people provide these things as a foil to her. Otherwise it's too all-the-same, all-the-same-ALL-the-same-thing...hehehe
Amber

I think Lindsey would literally go insane producing a Stevie album. ;) I really don't think he was ever a big fan of her solo work, so working on it would be a bit of a handicap. :laugh: Being the perfectionist that he is, I don't think he and Stevie would get on too good when it came to the music and the direction of it. Plus, he wouldn't have his own music to tinker with and cool off with on the side like a Mac project would allow. He'd be doing Stevie 24/7 and the man would flip a turkey.

[dissention]

Count me out as wanting Lindsey to produce her next record. Save that for the next FM project. If anyone overproduces, it's gotta be Lindsey. And when it comes to overproducing, I don't think that that is necessarily the best approach to take with Stevie's music.

:shocked: Lindsey can never be accused of using a small amount of production, but the overproduction of the things he touches are his signatures, IMO. Everyhting he does is overproduced, but I think all of it elevates the songs to another level and you discover new things upon further listenings. The production is just as important as the lyrics and the music. The problem I have with solo Stevie is that everything is overproduced and slick, but there's really no meat to any of it after you listen to it once or twice. I'm not saying that she doesn't have a lot of gems out there on her solo albums, but there's not a single song out there that reaches the level of complexity that one of her Lindsey-produced songs has. There's no quirkiness or much depth to the production on her solo work.

[amber]

:shocked: Lindsey can never be accused of using a small amount of production, but the overproduction of the things he touches are his signatures, IMO. Everyhting he does is overproduced, but I think all of it elevates the songs to another level and you discover new things upon further listenings. The production is just as important as the lyrics and the music. The problem I have with solo Stevie is that everything is overproduced and slick, but there's really no meat to any of it after you listen to it once or twice. I'm not saying that she doesn't have a lot of gems out there on her solo albums, but there's not a single song out there that reaches the level of complexity that one of her Lindsey-produced songs has. There's no quirkiness or much depth to the production on her solo work.

Also i think that while Lindsey is known for overproducing, there has been songs where he's been quite spare and framed Stevie's work quite thoughtfully and beautifully - I think he overproduces way more on his own stuff or their joint stuff or christine's stuff. JMO. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Don Was, who produced "Somebody Stand By Me" and "Lay Down Your Arms," might also be a good choice.

I don't know, a lot of his newer stuff is crap. :laugh: Ever since Cher came out with "Believe," he jumped on that dance fad and has produced some REALLY horrendous stuff. I love Bette Midler, but he really cheapened her album in 2000. Plastic production, if you ask me.

[dissention]

Also i think that while Lindsey is known for overproducing, there has been songs where he's been quite spare and framed Stevie's work quite thoughtfully and beautifully - I think he overproduces way more on his own stuff or their joint stuff or christine's stuff. JMO. :rolleyes:

Well, I subscribe to the belief that he's the one true person who can really understand Stevie's material and not only work it out, but blow it out of the park. There have been very few cases where I haven't liked what he did to Stevie's stuff. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about her solo producers.

Bring on Tom Petty, dammit. That would be a classic album!

[snwriter]

I disagree about the Lindsey factor. I know some of Stevie's solo stuff is not produced that wonderfully, but I think that's true of Lindsey's stuff as well. He overproduces himself and that's one of the reasons his stuff sells nothing and is relegated to bargain bins. He is talented enough to simplify things, as Stevie did on Leather and Lace, Has Anyone Ever Written, I Will Run to You, Rose Garden, etc. Many of his FM-produced songs for Stevie and Christine are gems but he's messed up a few too, like the "new" Smile at You, a case in point. And the whole OOTC album, which has great songs, would have hit home for more listeners without all that pseudo-Beach Boys heavy production stuff. I think they're both better with each other. But I don't think Stevie's stuff lacks meat. She just has made more recordings than Lindsey because he takes too much damned time and often ends up overproducing.
One of Stevie's best-produced tracks ever is "Bombay Sapphires," which she produced herself!

[amber]

Well, I subscribe to the belief that he's the one true person who can really understand Stevie's material and not only work it out, but blow it out of the park. There have been very few cases where I haven't liked what he did to Stevie's stuff. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about her solo producers.

Bring on Tom Petty, dammit. That would be a classic album!

YESSSSS!!!! but my favorite part about them is the harmonies that ensue, my god best harmony ever Insider, and i'm not sure Stevie's voice could be as nimble and beautiful w/him now - or am I full of s**t??? who's heard them sing together lately?
Amber

[amber]

I think Lindsey would literally go insane producing a Stevie album. ;) I really don't think he was ever a big fan of her solo work, so working on it would be a bit of a handicap. :laugh: Being the perfectionist that he is, I don't think he and Stevie would get on too good when it came to the music and the direction of it. Plus, he wouldn't have his own music to tinker with and cool off with on the side like a Mac project would allow. He'd be doing Stevie 24/7 and the man would flip a turkey.

Omigosh, I didn't even think of that - now that would be a Destiny Rules tape, if you know what i mean!! it would be like:
part 1: Lindsey yells at Stevie
part 2: Stevie yells at Lindsey
part 3: Stevie and her personal assitant lock themselves in Lindsey's bathroom
part 4: Stevie and the knife
part 5: Lindsey and the hammer
part 6: Stevie and Lindsey "disagree" over who is the biggest f***wad-a**hole!
part 7: Lindsey suggest several places for Stevie to put her ideas
part 8: Stevie and Sheryl make a "midnight visit" to Lindsey's recording equipment
part 9: Lindsey introduces Stevie to his lawyers

please add more if you feel the funny bone strike!
Amber

[Johnny Stew]

I think Lindsey would literally go insane producing a Stevie album. ;) I really don't think he was ever a big fan of her solo work, so working on it would be a bit of a handicap. :laugh: Being the perfectionist that he is, I don't think he and Stevie would get on too good when it came to the music and the direction of it. Plus, he wouldn't have his own music to tinker with and cool off with on the side like a Mac project would allow. He'd be doing Stevie 24/7 and the man would flip a turkey.

Hmm, I don't know about that. After all, for 'Say You Will,' Stevie's tracks were pretty much all they concentrated on for several months.
It was only after her tracks were completed, that they "opened up" Lindsey's tracks, and began adding her backing vocals, etc.

So, basically Lindsey was working on only Stevie's songs 24/7 for who knows how long. And (at least) 10 of them at that... which is just a few tracks shy of a solo album anyway. :)

Still, I think if Lindsey and Stevie were to do something outside of Fleetwood Mac, it should be another Buckingham Nicks album.
A few guest appearances on each other's outside projects are fine and dandy, but I'd rather see their solo albums remain largely solo. :)

[face of glass]

I know some of Stevie's solo stuff is not produced that wonderfully, but I think that's true of Lindsey's stuff as well. He overproduces himself and that's one of the reasons his stuff sells nothing and is relegated to bargain bins.
That's your preference speaking out there and I'm sure many listeners would disagree on that. Is there any kind of rule that states that overproduced music is unlistenable and devoid of mass appeal? How come Law And Order wasn't a bigger success then? Oh, don't tell me, because some of that is underproduced and kooky?
You wanna know why I think he doesn't sell any more than he does. Because he's between new wave and classic rock. Between the dirt and the polish. Between the quirky and the traditional. Both sides are equally accessible but not everyone is willing to go to accept both.
He is talented enough to simplify things, as Stevie did on Leather and Lace, Has Anyone Ever Written, I Will Run to You, Rose Garden, etc.
Isn't "Goodbye Baby" simple enough for you?
And the whole OOTC album, which has great songs, would have hit home for more listeners without all that pseudo-Beach Boys heavy production stuff.
How different is the production on Tango In The Night from the production on OOTC? TITN hit home well enough, didn't it?
I think they're both better with each other. But I don't think Stevie's stuff lacks meat. She just has made more recordings than Lindsey because he takes too much damned time and often ends up overproducing.
She made more recordings in the '80s because she was willing to let her solo band do a lot of the work. But lo and behold, it seems that Stevie's more interested in "overproduction" and long labour over an album now. Gift Of Screws and TISL were both begun at the same time and both took about the same time to finish. You may claim that Stevie did Enchanted in between but Lindsey had his family, you know.
One of Stevie's best-produced tracks ever is "Bombay Sapphires," which she produced herself!
A credit which is at best questionable. How come there isn't more production work of hers where she has the only credit?

[dissention]

I disagree about the Lindsey factor. I know some of Stevie's solo stuff is not produced that wonderfully, but I think that's true of Lindsey's stuff as well. He overproduces himself and that's one of the reasons his stuff sells nothing and is relegated to bargain bins. He is talented enough to simplify things, as Stevie did on Leather and Lace, Has Anyone Ever Written, I Will Run to You, Rose Garden, etc. Many of his FM-produced songs for Stevie and Christine are gems but he's messed up a few too, like the "new" Smile at You, a case in point. And the whole OOTC album, which has great songs, would have hit home for more listeners without all that pseudo-Beach Boys heavy production stuff. I think they're both better with each other. But I don't think Stevie's stuff lacks meat. She just has made more recordings than Lindsey because he takes too much damned time and often ends up overproducing.
One of Stevie's best-produced tracks ever is "Bombay Sapphires," which she produced herself!

That assessment couldn't be more off base. ;)

Lindsey's solo material doesn't sell well for many reasons, overproduction being the least of them. OOTC didn't do so hot because it was released when grunge and rap were the flavors of the month. Fleetwood Mac and its counterparts were not "cool" back then, either. Another reason for why it didn't sell well was because he ahd been out of the public eye for five years and it had been seven since his last solo album.

His previous efforts sold minimally because they were just weird, experimental albums that fans of mainstream pop rock were not going to like. His 80s stuff was no more overproduced than any other album by any other artist, including Stevie's "Rock A Little" (the epitome of overproduction, IMO) and the Mac's "Tango In the Night." If you found "Law and Order" and "Go Insane" to be more overproduced than those two albums, I have some cotton swabs for your ears. :laugh:

Stevie's solo music does lack meat. I'm not knocking the lyrics or her singing because both are dead-on most of the time. But the music itself and the production leaves a lot to be desired sometimes. If you want to compare the "Mirror" album or the "Street Angel" album to one of Lindsey's, both of those albums would be blown out of the water when it came to production/music. Lindsey infuses lots of subtle elements to his music that only emerge with repeated listenings, whereas Stevie's music is as blah and mainstream as possible. You know, you could get Carole King to play the music to HAEWAFY and she could nail it on her first try just as good as it is on the album. But try getting another musician to play one of Lindsey's solo tunes and chances are most of the quirks and subtleties that made the song what it is would be missing. There's nothing really distinct about the Stevie's solo music, probably due to the fact that she concentrates on the emotions, lyrics, and performance of the song more than anything. And that is what draws me to her solo music.

In the end, overproduction means nothing when it comes to what the masses buy. If it mattered, La Nicks would be in the bargain bin right next to Lindsey, singing about "The Nightmare" and talking "to her famous friend last night."

As for Smile At You, it's a helluva lot better than the old demos, IMO. While they are quite good and I like listening to them, I can't say they're favorites because I'm not exactly wowed by someone screaming lyrics instead of singing. The SYW version of it just shows how creative Lindsey is as an arranger and producer. But, then again, Stevie herself could've worked on it over the years and changed it herself. ;)

PS: I like Bombay Sapphires a lot, but it's far from being one of her best produced solo tracks. Far from it. :wavey:

[dissention]

You may claim that Stevie did Enchanted in between but Lindsey had his family, you know.

Digging out old pictures and picking some of my least favorite album tracks to include on a boxed set does not an album make. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Digging out old pictures and picking some of my least favorite album tracks to include on a boxed set does not an album make. ;)

True enough... but she did tour during that time-period, whereas Lindsey did not. ;)

[face of glass]

True enough... but she did tour during that time-period, whereas Lindsey did not. ;)
Which is what I was aware of but did Stevie change any diapers during that time-period? (Oh, the thought of it! ;))

[dissention]

Which is what I was aware of but did Stevie change any diapers during that time-period? (Oh, the thought of it! ;))

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[face of glass]

And since this thread is related to another thread where Johnny Stew gave his answer to another of my rants I'll answer to it here (because I was too lazy to do it earlier), just to confuse the matters further. ;)

And again, I really disagree with the notion that Stevie's studio albums are lackluster because the "studio musicians are only there to back her."
Stevie is not a musician, and has never purported to be. She's a singer/songwriter.
The production should always be there to enhance her songs... not to overpower them.
Stevie's performance is rarely (and I might almost say never) lackluster. But the musicianship that surrounds them on her solo work does come off as such.
Ideologically your statement is understandable and from a business point of view it might be that even more. ;) But I'm going to claim that certain areas of Stevie Nicks only come out when she is with the band and especially with Lindsey Buckingham. And I think that is because he is allowed certain liberties with Stevie's songs that other producers are not. And I daresay that she is at her most vulnerable and at her bravest when she is with Buckingham (and I've seen even you stating something similar to this) and that is possibly due to the special quality of their relationship. Maybe this sounds like SNL shipper talk but they have an irreplaceable connection between them at least musically. Buckingham actually seems to be willing to understand some of the emotions that Stevie is going through (witness his crying to "Illume", for instance) and is not afraid of conveying that through music. We all know how some of Stevie's vocal performances change from the demo to the final take and that is very probably because of the music that has been laid down there for her. Now if there is someone willing to go with Stevie all the way to her deepest emotions then she most likely puts herself into it totally. It isn't something you necessarily always do alone, it's something you can do with someone who understands you. No wonder she sometimes thinks that it can get so lonely when she's doing a solo act. Her most vulnerable material is on Tusk and that is also because of the music surrounding it. She's never going to put something like "Illume" on a solo album and "Goodbye Baby" as of now is far more vulnerable to me than "Love Is" will ever be. Even "When I See You Again" fits this pattern, now doesn't it? ;)
So that's why I think that Stevie benefits from being in a group, that her message is more underlined within Fleetwood Mac. When she is a solo artist, that's when her personality goes through a filter, IMO.
One can always claim that as a solo act she can release more material but I've never heard such huge difference in it. I think she is a very non-diverse artist and that's why she has to use subtlety. But at that point the argument starts to approaching fan-talk; very few other people will hear that in the music, they will most likely say it's boring instead.
Ok, she didn't have the room to put on a "Beauty And The Beast" or "The Nightmare" on a Fleetwood Mac album and that's why I think the first three solo albums allowed her to be somewhat more excessive than she could be with FM. And that was important, and that was great. But that I will further expand upon a couple of paragraphs later.

What was I trying to say here? I was trying to say that whenever someone is giving their all in a performance, be it instruments or vocals, it's bound to affect the other musicians too. And so it goes with Stevie's performance. She is at her most extreme with Fleetwood Mac and therefore I do not see her solo career being a vital alternative to FM. It feels somewhat more bland to me.

But when I started buying all of the albums in '86, I most definitely could hear a difference between Stevie's solo work and her music with Fleetwood Mac.

[...]

Stevie's solo stuff, to me, was a little more "rock and roll"... in that it was a little more "out there" and eccentric, and a little less perfect.

While Fleetwood Mac's stuff sounded glossier, more refined, and more "perfect"... more homogenized overall.
I'm not going to debate over Fleetwood Mac sounding more homogenized and less eccentric than Stevie's solo material. I have always found more eccentricity in Lindsey's genre (and audience) hopping than in works of many other artists.
Like I said, you can make a valid (though I still have my gripes) point of that with Bella Donna, TWH and RAL, the Stevie solo albums that you had the access to in 1986.
But from The Other Side Of The Mirror onwards she's been clinging on to the same homogenous sound that you're speaking of when you're referring to Lindsey-produced Fleetwood Mac albums.
How much eccentricity is there in those albums? Surely there's no self-indulgence of the days of yore, or at least there isn't for me.
They're not diverse (Stevie solo never is) and they sound homogenous so where's the big difference?
I'm far from being the only fan who can hear the similarity between Lindsey's and John Shanks' work. Not to mention the near-sterilization of her voice on TISL, possibly thanks to Chris Lord-Alge.
They're albums I still like but they feel weaker and they feel less emotionally involved.
Should I go through some specific fan training so that my ears would hear the difference? ;)

[Johnny Stew]

As far as albums "lacking meat" and being "overproduced," etc., it's all entirely up to the listener's tastes.

I played "Come" and "Murrow" for my brother (the latter of which is in my Top 5 All-Time Favorite Lindsey Buckingham songs), and he turned up his nose and said they were both "overproduced."
Perhaps they are to some degree, but to my ears, they're two of Lindsey's most straightfoward rockers. In decades.

Some people also feel that 'Tango,' and 'Go Insane' and 'Rock A Little' are all over-produced, but to my ears, they sound terrific.

The ironic thing is, if they were produced in a more sparse way, we'd have a whole faction of people saying they were substandard and run-of-the-mill.
Further cementing the age-old adage, that you can never please everyone.

For me, personally, the lyrics & vocals are what draw me in first... the music and production is always going to be secondary.
I mean, as much as I love Lindsey's albums for how different and brilliantly produced they are, and as much as those albums have a place in my heart, the songs themselves (outside of a couple) don't really tug at my heart-strings or incite the feelings of emotional investment that I find in Stevie's albums.

Which I guess is why it doesn't bother me if Stevie doesn't exactly forge new ground with her albums.
The music and production are not "bad," and they never have been... they're just not terribly innovative. But I'm more than willing to give up innovation for the emotion I find.

Of course, there are fans who find emotion in far more of Lindsey's songs than I do... but I think that most of them would admit that they react more to the instrumentation and production, than they do to the lyrics or vocals.
And as long as the music is reaching you somehow, then I think it's an awesome thing.

I've always said that I prefer to focus on what makes Lindsey, Lindsey, and Stevie, Stevie... rather than trying to compare the two, or wish that one would be more like the other.

When I put on one of Lindsey's albums, I'm assured that I will be blown away by all of the nuances and sonic surprises that this man is able to accomplish in his studio all by himself; and when I put on one of Stevie's albums, I'm assured that I will be blown away by how deeply I find myself immersed in her experiences and life lessons, and how captivating her "weird little voice" is. :)

[face of glass]

Ok, I'm pretty much with you on that last post of yours Johnny. It's stuff that I've sometimes tried to dress up in words myself too. :thumbsup:

[Johnny Stew]

Stevie's performance is rarely (and I might almost say never) lackluster. But the musicianship that surrounds them on her solo work does come off as such.
Ideologically your statement is understandable and from a business point of view it might be that even more. ;) But I'm going to claim that certain areas of Stevie Nicks only come out when she is with the band and especially with Lindsey Buckingham. And I think that is because he is allowed certain liberties with Stevie's songs that other producers are not. And I daresay that she is at her most vulnerable and at her bravest when she is with Buckingham (and I've seen even you stating something similar to this) and that is possibly due to the special quality of their relationship. Maybe this sounds like SNL shipper talk but they have an irreplaceable connection between them at least musically.

So that's why I think that Stevie benefits from being in a group, that her message is more underlined within Fleetwood Mac. When she is a solo artist, that's when her personality goes through a filter, IMO.

What was I trying to say here? I was trying to say that whenever someone is giving their all in a performance, be it instruments or vocals, it's bound to affect the other musicians too. And so it goes with Stevie's performance. She is at her most extreme with Fleetwood Mac and therefore I do not see her solo career being a vital alternative to FM. It feels somewhat more bland to me.

You'll never hear me saying that Lindsey's influence doesn't bring forth from Stevie something really incredible.
I wholeheartedly agree that their chemistry lends itself to a completely different level of musical expression... for both of them. :)

However, I do still believe that there are yet other areas of Stevie's personality, that do not come across with Lindsey & Fleetwood Mac, the way they do in her solo music.

I really can't think of a decent analogy... but for me, it's sort of like having steak prepared two different ways. It's still steak, and it's still delicious... but both styles of preparation bring out something so different in it, making it hard to say one style is "better" than the other.

Anyway, maybe Stevie feels a little more comfortable taking risks within Fleetwood Mac, because she has that safety net. But I think she also likes the fact that she can be a bit more eccentric (lyrically, not musically) in her solo career.

But either way, it's why I value her solo career as much as I value her work with Fleetwood Mac, and why I'd hate to see her ever entirely give up that solo career. One way or the other, I come away from it feeling satisfied. :)

[Johnny Stew]

(By the way... if I continue making food analogies, someone please drag me to Jenny Craig!) :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I agree I too would LOVE a scaled down Stevie album..I wouldnt mind having her play piano on 1 or two songs

Chris

[EveryHour]

I already suggested that (check my earlier post) so you're not alone.
She needs someone completely unlike her, to get that cool contrast/conflict going.

Oops! Sorry I missed that, trackaghost! Nice to know there's others who "get" this suggestion!

I, too, would keel over if Stevie played guitar or keys on an album!!! (Although her original demo guitar was left in the mix on Whole Lotta Trouble, right?)

Stevie--we don't care that you may not have the world's greatest technical ability...we want to hear ya!!!:) (Just in case any associates are lurking, as we suspect!;))

[snwriter]

To answer those who have been picking apart my post on this subject, there are many listeners who feel that Lindsey overproduces his stuff to the point of making it unlistenable. Though I don't agree, I feel he is his own worst enemy, and I still believe (IMO) that there's more to OOTC not selling than it being released in the grunge era. It's still in bargain bins today and we're way beyond grunge now.

And the stuff about Lindsey changing diapers is way off base. There are plenty of artists who have families and find time to release an album every two years. It's not fair to compare Stevie's release schedule to his because he has kids. And like someone else said, she toured for "Enchanted," while Lindsey was largely out of the public eye. In fact, though I greatly enjoy Lindsey's music, I will say (IMO) that if it wasn't for the two latest FM reunions, he would be largely unknown by most of the record-buying public (again because of his years between albums) whereas Stevie would still enjoy superstar status.

[dissention]

To answer those who have been picking apart my post on this subject

That's the name of the game around here. :laugh:

there are many listeners who feel that Lindsey overproduces his stuff to the point of making it unlistenable. Though I don't agree, I feel he is his own worst enemy, and I still believe (IMO) that there's more to OOTC not selling than it being released in the grunge era. It's still in bargain bins today and we're way beyond grunge now.

First off, the album is no longer in print and hasn't been in print since it flopped in '92. Those copies that you supposedly see in the "bargain bins" are leftovers. Personally, I've never seen a single copy in any bargain bins, but who knows. However, I don't understand your point about it still being in baragain bins. Are they supposed to fly out of those bins nowadays and land back on the charts? Not even Stevie's old solo albums do that. ;)

Secondly, refer to my post again, I gave a multitude of reasons for it not selling well.

And the stuff about Lindsey changing diapers is way off base. There are plenty of artists who have families and find time to release an album every two years. It's not fair to compare Stevie's release schedule to his because he has kids. And like someone else said, she toured for "Enchanted," while Lindsey was largely out of the public eye. In fact, though I greatly enjoy Lindsey's music, I will say (IMO) that if it wasn't for the two latest FM reunions, he would be largely unknown by most of the record-buying public (again because of his years between albums) whereas Stevie would still enjoy superstar status.

What do release schedules have to do with anything? Stevie released a boxed set with nothing new that sold to her die-hard fans and went on a tour that didn't do so hot. :shrug: Again, what does this have to with the quality of music?

If it wasn't for The Dance, Stevie would be just as ignored as Lindsey. Case in point, the Street Angel debacle. ;) Her career was in shambles until the five fireflies reunited, like it or not. Do you honestly think that she'd be selling tons of albums without the reunion? I think not. TISL itself hasn't even been certified platinum and sank like a stone after the first week.

Food for thought.

[snwriter]

Yeah, Stevie's career was on a downward trend, but she was in no danger of being forgotten. She would always have strong sales for her tours and her albums would still send around 400,000. I bring up these points because some listers say things such as Stevie's solo stuff is not good or lacks meat as if it were a fact, when it is not. There are many people who disagree, and so I point to her popularity and her sales figures as proof. I see just as many weak spots in Lindsey's solo stuff as hers and I relisten to hers much more than his. Just as so many people on this forum defend Lindsey and attack Stevie, I feel she must be defended as well when the overall quality of her work is ridiculed.

[dissention]

Yeah, Stevie's career was on a downward trend, but she was in no danger of being forgotten. She would always have strong sales for her tours and her albums would still send around 400,000. I bring up these points because some listers say things such as Stevie's solo stuff is not good or lacks meat as if it were a fact, when it is not. There are many people who disagree, and so I point to her popularity and her sales figures as proof. I see just as many weak spots in Lindsey's solo stuff as hers and I relisten to hers much more than his. Just as so many people on this forum defend Lindsey and attack Stevie, I feel she must be defended as well when the overall quality of her work is ridiculed.

Check out her tour data for the Street Angel tour, it was her worst ever (and the Timespace and Mirror tours were bombs, too, albeit to a lesser degree).

Street Angel the album took years to finally be certified as a gold album, too. It's been out for ten years and still hasn't been certified platinum, either.

I have no problem with you "defending" Stevie by using facts and figures, just make sure those facts and figures are correct. The ones you posted are not. :)

[dissention]

I feel she must be defended as well when the overall quality of her work is ridiculed.

But, as you said yourself, we all have different tastes. :shrug:

Just because someone says they don't like something Stevie released for some reason (for example, my saying I don't like some of the production on her solo work), it does not mean that they are ridiculing the overall quality of her work. You can quote me, I stated very clearly that while I dislike a lot fo the production, I'm still drawn to it because of her performance and her lyrics.

[darklinensuit]

If it wasn't for The Dance, Stevie would be just as ignored as Lindsey.

I disagree. Before the reunion several artists were starting to sing her praises, and I imagine that this would have happened for Lindsey as well. The Dance raised their profiles tremendously, but I don't think think "ignored" is the right word here.

- Jake

[dissention]

I disagree. Before the reunion several artists were starting to sing her praises, and I imagine that this would have happened for Lindsey as well. The Dance raised their profiles tremendously, but I don't think think "ignored" is the right word here.

- Jake

I do. :wavey:

[snwriter]

What's wrong with Street Angel only going gold? Most artists FM's age are perfectly happy with a gold album. Again, you're accusing me of posting misleading information when you fail to realize that many longstanding artists, including Lindsey and Christine, would kill for a gold album.

As far as her tours being bombs: If it were true that 3 Stevie tours in a row were bombs, then she would be playing clubs or smaller venues by now, not amphitheaters as she continues to do as a solo act. She even played Madison Square Garden for TISL.

[Johnny Stew]

I do. :wavey:

Well, of course you do... you always look at the most negative side of everything, silly! :p :xoxo:

[dissention]

What's wrong with Street Angel only going gold? Most artists FM's age are perfectly happy with a gold album. Again, you're accusing me of posting misleading information when you fail to realize that many longstanding artists, including Lindsey and Christine, would kill for a gold album.

As far as her tours being bombs: If it were true that 3 Stevie tours in a row were bombs, then she would be playing clubs or smaller venues by now, not amphitheaters as she continues to do as a solo act. She even played Madison Square Garden for TISL.

As I posted previously, it wasn't certified gold until years after its release. ;) It was not a success by any means, my friend. Aren't you curious as to why her only contributions from '94-'97 were soundtrack songs? Her career was int he toilet. People had grown tired of the schtick and the music was pretty dumpy.

If you don't want to take my word on the tours being '89-'94 tours being bombed, go look them up for yourself. Some of the venues weren't even filled to 30% capacity.

As I said before, Stevie needed the Fleetwood Mac reunion if she was going to have some semblance of a career. It was a success beyond anyones expectations and put her and the rest of the band on the map again. Then she enlisted lots of hot contemporary artists for a new solo album and it did well. No one is taking that away from her. But, what you did was take comments I made about her solo career int he mid-nineties and applied them as if I was talking about her career nowadays. So why bring up TISL?

[snwriter]

Whatever, dissention (appropriately named!).

[amber]

Whatever, dissention (appropriately named!).
ahh, the always pithy and effective "Whatever" argument. A favorite of mine, too. :lol:

[jwd]

TISL would have happened with or without The Dance, and it would have been just as good. Sure, The Dance kicked the band back into the spotlight and made everyone love them again. Stevie's inability to connect with the masses from the late 80s to the early 90s came mainly from her battles with inner demons, not because she wasn't artistically viable. Although even some would argue that even then she was still "kicking ass". Stevie forgotten?, I don't think so. Actually I'm looking for her to be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame real soon.

I'm a Fleetwood Mac fan and a Stevie Nicks fan. I'm not against Lindsey producing her on a FM record. But when she goes solo I'd like other producers to bring out different dimensions or try other approaches to her music. I mean unless you like to hear little spaceship noises or distorted vocals on her tracks all the time, I think we can give Linds a rest. :lol: Sorry, the last comment was a stretch, but I couldn't resisit the dig!!! :)


:wavey:

[dissention]

TISL would have happened with or without The Dance, and it would have been just as good. Sure, The Dance kicked the band back into the spotlight and made everyone love them again. Stevie's inability to connect with the masses from the late 80s to the early 90s came mainly from her battles with inner demons, not because she wasn't artistically viable. Although even some would argue that even then she was still "kicking ass". Stevie forgotten?, I don't think so. Actually I'm looking for her to be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame real soon.

But that's the thing, she wasn't artistically viable. I'm a fan of the Mirror album, so you won't see me knock it, but as soon as she went on the road to promote it, she had lost it. Her musical contributions were very poor after that album; she wrote one out of three songs on her best-of album. She had lost her creativity so much by the time SA rolled around that it didn't even resemble a Stevie Nicks album. Also, there was a great shift from her being cool to her being considered a has-been, and that's what she was considered in the early to mid-nineties. There was also a shift in the tone of her music. She had gone from a hot rocker babe who sang empowering songs to an older woman (still gorgeous, of course) singing "poor me" songs.

Now, I agree that TISL would have happened with or without the Mac reunion, but if she hadn't reuinted with the Mac, it would have had less exposure than Street Angel did. Heck, who knows if she would have even gotten a record deal without that reunion. She would have been forgotten by the masses and that's exactly what happened in '94 and up until the reunion. Without that reunion, her career would not have improved.

As for her kicking ass in '94, hell, even Stevie disagrees with you there. :lol:

[snwriter]

It's completely false that she was out of it artistically at the beginning of the '90s. Sure, she wasn't at her peak, but EVERY artist, even all the superstars, have their low points in veteran careers. Did you see any of those tours. She was great on the Street Angel and Timespace tours. And on the Mirror tour she did explore artistically, even though she looked tired. She sang Alice and Juliet, two very etheral songs and put them across very well. And the shows I saw, she nearly sold out. As far as SA not being a Stevie album--ridiculous. It's not my favorite, but Rose Garden, Destiny, Blue Denim, and Kick It kick ass--not bad for a career low album. Stevie disses it so much 'cause she had a huge blowout with original producer Glyn Johns and because the singles stiffed! You could repeat it over and over again Dissension, but there is no way Stevie would ever have been forgotten. She produced too many classics --YES EVEN AS A SOLO ACT -- that she would have had a good shot at making the R&R Hall of Fame-- something that will definitely happen now! Name any other female rocker who has sustained so much success over such a long career. Yeah, there were naysayers, as there always have been with Stevie, who make fun of her twirling and shawls, etc, and her weight gain at the tame was mocked, but she always had her supporters and she WAS NEVER ARTISTICALLY INVALID. You're talking about only two years where she didn't produce anything and even then she wrote the killer song Twisted and sang the hell out of Sheryl Crow's Somebody Stand By Me, one of her best vocals ever.

[dissention]

It's completely false that she was out of it artistically at the beginning of the '90s. Sure, she wasn't at her peak, but EVERY artist, even all the superstars, have their low points in veteran careers. Did you see any of those tours. She was great on the Street Angel and Timespace tours. And on the Mirror tour she did explore artistically, even though she looked tired. She sang Alice and Juliet, two very etheral songs and put them across very well. And the shows I saw, she nearly sold out.

I didn't know that singing new songs onstage could be equated with exploring artistically. :laugh:

The fact is that most of the songs she released from '91-'96 were not written by her. Her art is songwriting and if she had to resort to recording someone else's work, she was not artistically valid.

She was fantastic on the Street Angel tour, though. Not so much on the Timespace tour, her voice was shot and she was as lethargic as ever.

Again, don't take my word for it that her latter tours were bombs, look up the tour data for yourself.

As far as SA not being a Stevie album--ridiculous. It's not my favorite, but Rose Garden, Destiny, Blue Denim, and Kick It kick ass--not bad for a career low album. Stevie disses it so much 'cause she had a huge blowout with original producer Glyn Johns and because the singles stiffed!

And you know this for a fact? No, you don't. She's said on numerous occasions that the reason she dislikes the album so much is because she wasn't there artistically.

You can name songs that "kick ass," but I don't think they do. She wrote Rose Garden almost thirty years earlier, Destiny twenty years earlier and it certainly is not one of her best songs, Blue Denim is alright but it suffers from some lackluster vocals, and Kick It is pure crap, IMO. Tastes vary from person to person, but those are mine and I'm sticking to them. Compare those crappy songs to even her stuff from RAL and the difference in quality is enormous.

You could repeat it over and over again Dissension, but there is no way Stevie would ever have been forgotten. She produced too many classics --YES EVEN AS A SOLO ACT -- that she would have had a good shot at making the R&R Hall of Fame-- something that will definitely happen now! Name any other female rocker who has sustained so much success over such a long career. Yeah, there were naysayers, as there always have been with Stevie, who make fun of her twirling and shawls, etc, and her weight gain at the tame was mocked, but she always had her supporters and she WAS NEVER ARTISTICALLY INVALID. You're talking about only two years where she didn't produce anything and even then she wrote the killer song Twisted and sang the hell out of Sheryl Crow's Somebody Stand By Me, one of her best vocals ever.

I never said that her classic songs would be forgotten, don't put words in my mouth. I said that as a viable solo artist, she would have been forgotten, and she would have, especially after the Street Angel debacle.

Name more female rockers who have sustained so much success over a long career?

-Tina Turner
-Cher
-Patti Labelle
-Debbie Harry

Should I name more?

I've never mocked Stevie's weight, her shawls, her stage antics, or anything about Stevie. That has no bearing in this thread. However, even Stevie has admitted that she wrote nothing memorable for years and she didn't. But some people just won't recognize a bad song when they hear one. I'm not talking about two years, I talking more like seven. :wavey:

[EveryHour]

Just my 2 cents on the snwriter/dissention war;).....

Sure, Stevie may have been in a bit of "a slump" as a writer from '91 to '95, but to say that period is "artistically invalid" is assanine. And the "slump" was not without reason...battling Klonopin addiction and exploded breast implants could've killed her. Even Stevie may not look back fondly on those years (what she can remember :( ), but all of the songs from that period still have meaning to me. I do know a bad song when I hear it, and Stevie's worst is still fathoms better than any of those. I stand by that statement even though I'm aware I could never be fully objective with Stevie because she's always pulling on my heartstrings no matter what. But I would never want to change that. I'm happy listening to music from an emotional point of view as opposed to technical. And if part of the total package of Stevie's talent is that she has the ability to stir this up in people, so be it. It comes back, again, to the probability of Stevie being (humanly) unable to listen to the songs at face value without associating them with how sick she felt at the time or her struggles with the industry and producers. There were some outstanding vocal performances (no matter what you think of Bitch, that vocal is awesome! And I couldn't disagree with you more, dissention, about the Blue Denim vocal...), and she didn't record those songs for TimeSpace because she wanted to. As for Street Angel, it was nothing new for Stevie to pull old songs for an album...she loves to do that. I hardly think she was hurting to fill up the album since it has 13 tracks. I love Street Angel (and, as you mentioned dissention, that tour= :]), though I could be swayed if I ever came to know Stevie's original artistic vision for the album. (Though I do think Jane should have been on some sort of benefit album so people wouldn't have to wonder why she was singing about a chimpanzee, and been replaced with Inspiration. But that's another thread.....;).) I understand also, dissention, that part of your thread was simply presenting facts, but I simply don't care what the numbers are. She never would have ceased to mean the world to her true fans, and to argue whether or not The Dance was the sole reason for her career revival is kind of a big "what if" that is uninteresting to me personally. It could never be proven, so why waste your time? What I am sure of is that a lot of fans are grateful for The Dance or they may have never known of FM or Stevie!

dissention~Though snwriter did specifically mention you in her post, I don't think he/she necessarily meant the entire thing to be geared at you (in reference to you telling her to not put words in your mouth). Some things you said just triggered him/her to go off on a tangent, just as I have here:) I think it's obvious that I, for one, am not as well-spoken as you...and that's when passion takes over! I think my keyboard is smokin'!.

:wavey:

[darklinensuit]

But some people just won't recognize a bad song when they hear one.

Family Man, Greta, etc. :cool: :lol:

- Jake

[amber]

Family Man, Greta, etc. :cool: :lol:

- Jake
Greta grew on me. I had to get her lanced. (to preclude your joke)
Amber

[EveryHour]

Family Man, Greta, etc. :cool: :lol:

- Jake

I don't think these are the greatest songs ever written, but I still like them. I guess some people can make that seperation and others can't.

But that's what makes us all so unique and speshul.....;)

:)

[EveryHour]

Greta grew on me. I had to get her lanced. (to preclude your joke)
Amber

:laugh:

"Another lady, another time
Another heartbroken state of mind
Alone in her chamber she dreams of her home

Outside!
She's got a movie star view....."
:nod:

[darklinensuit]

I don't think these are the greatest songs ever written, but I still like them. I guess some people can make that seperation and others can't.

But that's what makes us all so unique and speshul.....;)

:)

Actually, I don't hate them (just making a point to our friend). I just think they're about the weakest songs these folks have released. (For Stevie, Alice and Affairs Of The Heart are worse than Greta, IMO, and I know this is an unusual opinion in addition to "speshul."

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

:laugh:

"Another lady, another time
Another heartbroken state of mind
Alone in her chamber she dreams of her home

Outside!
She's got a movie star view....."
:nod:

When the album came out my then-girlfriend thought the movie star line was hilarious.

- Jake

[EveryHour]

Actually, I don't hate them (just making a point to our friend). I just think they're about the weakest songs these folks have released. (For Stevie, Alice and Affairs Of The Heart are worse than Greta, IMO, and I know this is an unusual opinion in addition to "speshul."

- Jake

:laugh:

Exactly.
:angel:

[EveryHour]

When the album came out my then-girlfriend thought the movie star line was hilarious.

- Jake

(...and you promptly broke up with her for poking fun, right?!;))

I love the way she sings that line!

[snwriter]

Dear Dissention:

I don't think it's career suicide for an artist to record other people's songs, everyone does from time to time. Also, Stevie recorded MANY of her own songs during this period also.

I love Debbie Harry more than most people, but she had years where she was inactive musically and turned mostly to acting and she NEVER has toured as much as Stevie.

Tina Turner is a great performer but she has never written a song in her life. Patti Labelle is not a rocker, she and Stevie inhabit totally different worlds of entertainment.

Comparing Cher, foremost a personality and certainly not a rocker, is like comparing apples to oranges. Her shows are not rock shows.

Stevie can only bow to Joni Mitchell (who she has acknowledged) and who is THE original female singer/songwriter, but even JOni never did rock shows--it's always been either her and her guitar or her with a "jazzy" ensemble.

And Janis Joplin--who had a very short career and who didn't write many songs.

Stevie has always and still does rock more than any woman and more than most men, despite a few years of semi-mediocrity. Give the woman a break.

[darklinensuit]

(...and you promptly broke up with her for poking fun, right?!;))

I love the way she sings that line!

If it were a song I loved, I would have. ;)
Hey, I broke up with someone less than two weeks ago over spending money on the Houston show. (She thought it was a "waste" but still expected to go. B'bye. :wavey: )

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Dear Dissention:

I don't think it's career suicide for an artist to record other people's songs, everyone does from time to time. Also, Stevie recorded MANY of her own songs during this period also.

I love Debbie Harry more than most people, but she had years where she was inactive musically and turned mostly to acting and she NEVER has toured as much as Stevie.

Tina Turner is a great performer but she has never written a song in her life. Patti Labelle is not a rocker, she and Stevie inhabit totally different worlds of entertainment.

Comparing Cher, foremost a personality and certainly not a rocker, is like comparing apples to oranges. Her shows are not rock shows.

Stevie can only bow to Joni Mitchell (who she has acknowledged) and who is THE original female singer/songwriter, but even JOni never did rock shows--it's always been either her and her guitar or her with a "jazzy" ensemble.

And Janis Joplin--who had a very short career and who didn't write many songs.

Stevie has always and still does rock more than any woman and more than most men, despite a few years of semi-mediocrity. Give the woman a break.

I'll add that while I love Janis especially, Stevie's music covers a wider variety of great sounds than any of these women's, IMO. And the facts that she writes and has an ear for choosing some great songs by others are a testament to her talent. Again, JMO. :wavey:

- Jake

- Jake

[EveryHour]

If it were a song I loved, I would have. ;)
Hey, I broke up with someone less than two weeks ago over spending money on the Houston show. (She thought it was a "waste" but still expected to go. B'bye. :wavey: )

- Jake

:laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

Now that's my kinda man!

I love it! :thumbsup:

[Bella Figura]

Personally, I really enjoy Stevie's solo outings and you'll find me much more often listening to a Stevie Nicks album then a FM album. what does production really mean anyway...an albums sound is based on a variety of factors such as place, time, where the artists head is at, where the producers head is at and the bridge between them. So production ends up being a very subjective thing...and I like the production on most of Stevie's albums except TOSOTM but despite the "sound", it's still one of my favorite albums.

as for Stevie's relevance to the rock and roll community, even prior to the Dance, Enchanted, TISL, Behind the Music, the upswing in tour attendance for Enchanted and TISL...Stevie's industry image was already being turned around by references made by some young hot musicians at the time which include Sheryl Crow, Courtney Love and Billy Corgan. both Courtney and Bill covered Stevie's FM tunes prior to her "comeback". and yes, the Dance did quite successfully bring Stevie back to the stardom elevation she had previously enjoyed. it was a smart move for her careerwise, after all she is one of the few solo artists with a concurrent successful band career as well.

and there is nothing wrong with a comeback, Cher has been doing it for years...Tina is on hiatus (or has she retired?), Patti has not had a record on the charts in decades but still packs them in (Stevie may not chart high any longer but Sorcerer was on the charts and POTU was #1 on the Dance Charts for a week...not bad for a hasbeen and let's mention Dixie Chick's Landslide and Beyonce's Bootylicious) and Debbie Harry, god bless her, keeps rocking on but her career has very much pararalled Stevie's with it's highs and lows. and let's not forget Pat Benatar, Heart and Chrissie Hynde who also keep going despite the "hasbeen, she's finished" moniker and thanks to a new generation of female (and the male too!!) artists who acknowledge a debt of gratitude to these pioneers of women's rock...and thanks to us longtime fans (the fans who stuck it out during the klonopin years, Street Angel, Sometimes it's a Bitch, bad concerts, the twinkie years and even in those years were able to love her songs) who do not forget how much Stevie's music means to our lives, she continues to enjoy renewed and deserved success...

will she or her music make it into history, perhaps at most as a mention or footnote but frankly I don't care because I won't be around, I can only enjoy her music now (especially the stuff that won't ever have commercial success, it's like having a special secret that no one else gets except us Ledgies)...and speaking of musical history, two of the biggest comebacks of the hasbeen were Elvis and his 68/69?? television special and John Lennon with Double Fantasy after a five year hiatus.

wow, this is the most I've written in months :laugh:

[dissention]

Family Man, Greta, etc. :cool: :lol:

- Jake

I love Greta. :xoxo:

Family Man has terrible lyrics and the distorted vocals are a bit much (can we say Popeye?), but the music rocks.

[dissention]

Just my 2 cents on the snwriter/dissention war ;).....

Sure, Stevie may have been in a bit of "a slump" as a writer from '91 to '95, but to say that period is "artistically invalid" is assanine.

Just as you think my opinion about her artistic worth during those years is assinine, I think the opinions about her still having released great material during those years is assinine. It cuts both ways, that's why they're opinions. I love Stevie just as much as you guys, but I just recognize what I see as crap from someone who could have done much better.

And the "slump" was not without reason...battling Klonopin addiction and exploded breast implants could've killed her. Even Stevie may not look back fondly on those years (what she can remember :( ), but all of the songs from that period still have meaning to me. I do know a bad song when I hear it, and Stevie's worst is still fathoms better than any of those. I stand by that statement even though I'm aware I could never be fully objective with Stevie because she's always pulling on my heartstrings no matter what. But I would never want to change that.

That's understandable, but it doesn't negate the fact that I think her output during those years was pure shit. :laugh: I became a Nicks fan because of songs like Sable On Blonde and Storms and Gold Dust Woman. Surely you can understand my dismay at her nineties output, it doesn't hold a candle to her other stuff. What were once thoughtful and emotionally stirring lyrics became cliched and ridiculous, and more than half of the songs she recorded during this time weren't even written from her pen. I just do not understand why some (not necessarily you) can't understand why I think those nineties songs are garbage. It may be Stevie Nicks singing them, but it isn't Stevie Nicks to me.

Just as those songs pull at your heartstrings, they don't pull at mine because I don't hear the emotion in her lyrics, or even her voice. When I put on a Stevie Nicks song, I do it because I feel as if she's speaking my language and there is a person out there who I feel writes songs for me. That wasn't there at that time. She was at a time where her life, in general, was in a bad state and she recorded a lot of that music in the same state of mind; it wasn't as satisfying as it was back in the day because all of her creativity was sapped. That, in turn, sapped her enthusiasm and high spirits and we were given a lot of lackluster songs that reflected her own disappointment with her music.

I'm happy listening to music from an emotional point of view as opposed to technical. And if part of the total package of Stevie's talent is that she has the ability to stir this up in people, so be it. It comes back, again, to the probability of Stevie being (humanly) unable to listen to the songs at face value without associating them with how sick she felt at the time or her struggles with the industry and producers. There were some outstanding vocal performances (no matter what you think of Bitch, that vocal is awesome! And I couldn't disagree with you more, dissention, about the Blue Denim vocal...), and she didn't record those songs for TimeSpace because she wanted to.

That's exactly my point: I listen to her songs from an emotional point of view and those songs did nothing to stir my emotions, with the exception that I felt bad for her because the quality of her stuff was so disappointing.

As for the vocals, she had some great ones, but for every great one, there was a stinker like "Kick It."

When it comes to Timespace, she could've added more new songs to satisfy herself. but she didn't, probably because she didn't have anything worthwhile.

As for Street Angel, it was nothing new for Stevie to pull old songs for an album...she loves to do that. I hardly think she was hurting to fill up the album since it has 13 tracks. I love Street Angel (and, as you mentioned dissention, that tour= :]), though I could be swayed if I ever came to know Stevie's original artistic vision for the album. (Though I do think Jane should have been on some sort of benefit album so people wouldn't have to wonder why she was singing about a chimpanzee, and been replaced with Inspiration. But that's another thread.....;).) I understand also, dissention, that part of your thread was simply presenting facts, but I simply don't care what the numbers are. She never would have ceased to mean the world to her true fans, and to argue whether or not The Dance was the sole reason for her career revival is kind of a big "what if" that is uninteresting to me personally. It could never be proven, so why waste your time? What I am sure of is that a lot of fans are grateful for The Dance or they may have never known of FM or Stevie!

No, it's nothing new for Stevie to resurrect a couple of old songs, but almost all of the songs she wrote and used for Street Angel were old songs; the rest were written by other songwriters. Surely it stands to reason that someone can come away form that album thinking she was most definitely not at in a creative period.

As I've said before numerous times, her and her songs would not be forgotten by people, especially us fans, she just would not have been a viable or bankable solo artist. We can call it a "what if" situation, but other saying that she would have bounced back without The Dance are using the same "what if" arguments.

Just my thoughts. :wavey:

[dissention]

I don't think it's career suicide for an artist to record other people's songs, everyone does from time to time. Also, Stevie recorded MANY of her own songs during this period also.

No, it's career suicide to record bad music. ;) From '91-'96, more than half of what she recorded was not her own material. :wavey:

I love Debbie Harry more than most people, but she had years where she was inactive musically and turned mostly to acting and she NEVER has toured as much as Stevie.

None of the nullifies her success in the past thirty years. I thought the question was what female rock stars had sustained a career as well as Stevie? As for the touring, she's toured a helluva lot. Even when she had no Blondie album to promote. :shrug: Her current tour has been going on for over a year.

Tina Turner is a great performer but she has never written a song in her life.

You must not be a Tina fan because you'd know that statement is patently false.

Patti Labelle is not a rocker, she and Stevie inhabit totally different worlds of entertainment.

They do? Both sing and record music. :shrug:

Comparing Cher, foremost a personality and certainly not a rocker, is like comparing apples to oranges. Her shows are not rock shows.

Cher is a personality? You're losing the argument. And if her shows aren't rock shows, I don't know what are.

[dissention]

I'll add that while I love Janis especially, Stevie's music covers a wider variety of great sounds than any of these women's, IMO. And the facts that she writes and has an ear for choosing some great songs by others are a testament to her talent. Again, JMO. :wavey:

- Jake

Those may be your opinions, but they're aren't mine. :laugh:

To say that Stevie's music covers a wider range than Debbie Harry's is absurd. Or Tina Turner.

And I thinks he has a lousy ear for recording other peoples music:

-Too Far From Texas
-Everyday
-Love's A Hard Game To Play
-Docklands
-Unconditional Love
-Maybe Love

Just my thoughts, though. :wavey:

[snwriter]

I cannot debate this anymore if you truly believe that Cher is a rocker in the same sense as Stevie. Oh, and how many songs has Tina Turner written?

[dissention]

I cannot debate this anymore if you truly believe that Cher is a rocker in the same sense as Stevie. Oh, and how many songs has Tina Turner written?

Stevie hasn't rocked in years (probably since SA). Old age is settling in and she sings more ballads than anything these days. That's not to say she isn't still fantastic, she just chooses to sing the slower songs.

As for hom many songs Tina has written, plenty. ;)

[darklinensuit]

Those may be your opinions, but they're aren't mine. :laugh:

To say that Stevie's music covers a wider range than Debbie Harry's is absurd. Or Tina Turner.

And I thinks he has a lousy ear for recording other peoples music:

-Too Far From Texas
-Everyday
-Love's A Hard Game To Play
-Docklands
-Unconditional Love
-Maybe Love

Just my thoughts, though. :wavey:

Patently absurd? I'll admit to not knowing much of Debbie's music, but I can compare Stevie's to Tina's. No way does Tina's music tap into as many genres as Stevie's. Neither does Janis's. Or Joni's.

- Jake

[amber]

Patently absurd? I'll admit to not knowing much of Debbie's music, but I can compare Stevie's to Tina's. No way does Tina's music tap into as many genres as Stevie's. Neither does Janis's. Or Joni's.

- Jake

Yeah, but Debbie's reallly does. She/they have done everything, I swear. She/they are incredibly versatile and lyrically they/she astonishes me often.
Amber

[dissention]

Patently absurd? I'll admit to not knowing much of Debbie's music, but I can compare Stevie's to Tina's. No way does Tina's music tap into as many genres as Stevie's. Neither does Janis's. Or Joni's.

- Jake

I don't think Janis or Joni did/do, but Tina dances miles around Stevie when it comes to different styles and genres. She's done hard blues, dance, rock, country, you name it.

Note: this does not mean I think Tina is better than Stevie.

[strandinthewind]

Stevie hasn't rocked in years (probably since SA). Old age is settling in and she sings more ballads than anything these days. That's not to say she isn't still fantastic, she just chooses to sing the slower songs.

As for hom many songs Tina has written, plenty. ;)

FOUL - The Enchanted Tour ROCKED. I agree, however, she, understandably at 53, slowed it down a little for TISL :shrug:

I do agree that Cher is a rocker. She is very glam about it, but she rocks. I mean although I did not realy care for them KISS rocked and they certainly were similarly glam - Same this for Bowie (although I LOVE Bowie). So, the glam factor of Cher should not count against her IMO. Her music is rock and roll pure and simple. I do not think, however, Cher has ever rocked as hard as La Nicks. But, she still rocks nenetheless.

Tina Turner possibly is the greatest of the greats, in which Stevie certainly is included, IMO. She does not wear out - she wears you out. What an amazing woman. And, she still wears her heels at 60 unlike SOMEBODY we know and love :p ;) :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

FOUL - The Enchanted Tour ROCKED. I agree, however, she, understandably at 53, slowed it down a little for TISL :shrug:

The tour itself rocked because it was great hearing those songs and her voice was top notch, but you can't deny that she opted out of doing most of the rock songs.

I do agree that Cher is a rocker. She is very glam about it, but she rocks. I mean although I did not realy care for them KISS rocked and they certainly were similarly glam - Same this for Bowie (although I LOVE Bowie). So, the glam factor of Cher should not count against her IMO. Her music is rock and roll pure and simple. I do not think, however, Cher has ever rocked as hard as La Nicks. But, she still rocks nenetheless.

I have a video from a concert of hers in '89, after Heart of Stone was released, and she ROCKED just as ahrd as Stevie. She did a few KISS songs, some Bruce, most of the tracks from HOS, I was blown away. I went to two of her farewell shows and the enrgy of those concerts blew me away.

Tina Turner possibly is the greatest of the greats, in which Stevie certainly is included, IMO. She does not wear out - she wears you out. What an amazing woman. And, she still wears her heels at 60 unlike SOMEBODY we know and love :p ;) :laugh: :laugh:

:nod: :nod: :nod: to everyhting you just said. But don't forget Bette Midler. That woman is just as equal to Ms. Turner when it comes to energy and wearing the audience out. :thumbsup:

[amber]

:nod: :nod: :nod: to everyhting you just said. But don't forget Bette Midler. That woman is just as equal to Ms. Turner when it comes to energy and wearing the audience out. :thumbsup:

Hmmnnn, they're both Sag. Hmmnn....uh, do you LIKE Bette Midler? Just curious.
Amber

[dissention]

Hmmnnn, they're both Sag. Hmmnn....uh, do you LIKE Bette Midler? Just curious.
Amber

I LOVE Bette Midler, she's my favorite after Stevie, Lindsey, and the Mac. ;) :wavey:

[Bella Figura]

some of Stevie's appeal comes from her fragility and the fact she has been a survivor in spite of it...Cher, Bette and even Tina all have strong energetic personalities and adversity has made them stronger and their stage personnas reflect this...

but adversity has made Stevie more attainable, and yes, kinder, softer, sweeter and it is this fragility which comes through in her performances both past and present. and her perfomances and music show us that despite pain and suffering, the weak and fragile side of human nature survives and perhaps even triumphs. and because it's in all of us, that makes Stevie perhaps the bravest performer since she is able to express her vulnerability without making us pity her. She makes us empathize with her and the songs she sings...

[strandinthewind]

Well, I consider EO17 to be by itself a harder rocker than just about anything else in the world and since Cher did not and does not sing it . . . . :laugh: But, I totally agree Cher is one of the rockinest women out there - I LOVE her!!!!!!!!!!

Here are the set lists (courtesy of the nicksfix (THANK YOU JOHN!!!!!!) ) - Other than the different songs added and dropped for the records, they are not that wildly different. When I referred to TISL rocking a little less, I mean the tone was more Mother Eather than Hellraising Rock and Roll Mama :cool: :laugh:

Bella Donna Tour - 1981
Gold Dust Woman
Think About It
Outside the Rain
Dreams
Angel
After the Glitter Fades
Gold And Braid
I Need to Know
Sara
Bella Donna
Blue Lamp
Leather and Lace
How Still My Love
Stop Dragging My Heart Around
Edge of Seventeen
Rhiannon (slow, piano only version)
Rhiannon (Full Rock Version)
_____________________________________________________________

The Wild Heart Tour - 1983
Gold Dust Woman
Outside the Rain
Dreams
I Need to Know
Sara
If Anyone Falls
Leather and Lace
Stand Back
Beauty and the Beast
Gypsy
How Still My Love
Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Edge of Seventeen
Rhiannon (piano and rock versions)
Notes: In New York @ Radio City Music Hall special guest Tom Petty -- added the song "I Will Run to You." This song was performed between "How Still My Love" and "Stop Draggin'..".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock a Little Tour - 1986
During the first week or week and a half of the tour:

Gold Dust Woman
Outside the Rain
Dreams
Talk to Me
I Need to Know
No Spoken Word
Sara
Beauty and the Beast
I Can't Wait
Leather and Lace
Stand Back
Stop Draggin'
Edge of Seventeen
Rhiannon (both versions)
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You
By a week or so later..(4/22/86) "Sara" was dropped; however "I Can't Wait" still remained between "Beauty and the Beast" and "Leather and Lace". Sometime in the next 2 or 3 weeks (by mid-to-late May "I Can't Wait" and "Leather and Lace" were switched...)
Still later in the tour...by sometime before middle of June 86 "Gold Dust Woman" had been dropped completely from the set list.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Other Side of the Mirror Tour - 1989
(October 1989)

Outside the Rain
Dreams
Rooms on Fire
Gold Dust Woman
Stand Back
Alice
No Spoken Word
How Still My Love
Beauty and the Beast
Whole Lotta Trouble
Two Kinds of Love
Edge of Seventeen
Rhiannon
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You
In the Canada leg of the Tour (summer 1989), two other songs were performed: "Talk to Me" and "Juliet"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timespace Tour - 1991
Outside the Rain
Dreams
I Need to Know
Talk to Me
Beauty and the Beast
Stop Draggin'
Rooms on Fire
IF Anyone Falls
(Drum solo) -- Stand Back
Whole Lotta Trouble
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You
Edge of Seventeen
Rhiannon (rock version only)
Landslide


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Street Angel Tour - 1994
Early Tour -- East Coast, Chicago, etc.

Outside the Rain
Dreams
Docklands
Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind
Rhiannon
Stand Back
Destiny
Gold Dust Woman
(band intros.)
Talk to Me
Blue Denim
Edge of Seventeen
I Need To Know (encore)
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything For You (encore)
Greek Theatre: (California)
Outside the Rain
Dreams
Rooms on Fire
Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind
Rhiannon
Stand Back
Destiny
Gold Dust Woman
(band intros.)
Talk to Me
Blue Denim
Edge of Seventeen
I Need To Know (encore)
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything For You (encore)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enchanted Tour - 1998


Outside The Rain
Dreams
Enchanted
Gold Dust Woman
Gold and Braid
Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
After The Glitter Fades
Garbo
Rose Garden
Sleeping Angel
Stand Back
Rhiannon
(Band Intros)
Whole Lotta Trouble
Landslide
Twisted
Edge of Seventeen
I Need to Know (encore)
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You (encore)
Notes: "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around" was dropped from the set on the later shows. "Leather and Lace" was added in Phoenix with Don Henley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trouble In Shangri-La Tour - 2001
Opening Night Set List (with Sheryl Crow):


Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Enchanted
Outside the Rain
Dreams
Gold Dust Woman
Sorcerer
My Favorite Mistake
Everyday
Rhiannon
Stand Back
Planets of the Universe
Everyday Is A Winding Road
Too Far From Texas
Bombay Sapphires
Fall From Grace
Edge of Seventeen
(Encore)
I Need to Know
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything For You

[dissention]

Enchanted Tour - 1998

Outside The Rain
Dreams
Enchanted
Gold Dust Woman
Gold and Braid
Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
After The Glitter Fades
Garbo
Rose Garden
Sleeping Angel
Stand Back
Rhiannon
(Band Intros)
Whole Lotta Trouble
Landslide
Twisted
Edge of Seventeen
I Need to Know (encore)
Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You (encore)
Notes: "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around" was dropped from the set on the later shows. "Leather and Lace" was added in Phoenix with Don Henley.


Out of those songs, I only consider five of those to be true rockers (I was glad SDMHA was dropped after Atlanta, it didn't sound good on that tour).

Nonetheless, it still stands as one of my favorite tours. It's tied with SA. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

What were once thoughtful and emotionally stirring lyrics became cliched and ridiculous, and more than half of the songs she recorded during this time weren't even written from her pen. I just do not understand why some (not necessarily you) can't understand why I think those nineties songs are garbage. It may be Stevie Nicks singing them, but it isn't Stevie Nicks to me.

I have to say that I am a little confused in regards to the statement that, "more than half of the songs she recorded during this time weren't even written from her pen."
You repeated that statement in a second post too... "From '91-'96, more than half of what she recorded was not her own material."

How do you come up with that figure? From 1991-1996, the songs she recorded that were written by other songwriters were:
"Sometimes It's A Bitch"
"Love's A Hard Game To Play"
"Docklands"
"Unconditional Love"
"Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind"
"Just Like A Woman"
"God's Garden"
"Inspiration"
"Somebody Stand By Me"
"Free Fallin'"

10 songs. Out of 22.
Admittedly I'm not the greatest when it comes to mathematics, but I'm pretty sure that's less than half. Even if just slightly.
But it's certainly not "more than" half. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

You must not be a Tina fan because you'd know that statement is patently false.

Yes, it is incorrect to say that Tina has never written a song in her life.
Because, in a career that has spanned five decades, she's written two ("Nutbush City Limits" & "Tina's Wish"). ;)

I have to admit that as much as I love Tina, Cher & Bette, I really don't put them in the same category with Stevie, because those women have largely built their success on recording other people's material.

In the late '80s, especially, Tina & Cher relied heavily on folks like Diane Warren & Desmond Child, who were noted "hit-makers," for their material.
And even today, Cher & Tina focus mostly on recording songs with club-play potential.

Outside of recording songs by Jon Bon Jovi & Brett Michaels (who, ironically, were on the downslide of their popularity when Atlantic pushed Stevie to record their songs), and other than recording the couple Tom Petty songs, Stevie has usually covered material by songwriters most people wouldn't know of. Or who weren't exactly known for their hit-making potential.

Even Heart... who I love... Ann & Nancy had a hand in writing only two songs ("Never" & "There's The Girl"), out of all their '80s and early '90s singles.

On the flip-side, only two of Stevie's singles were written by other songwriters, prior to 1990 (and only three in the decade+ since then).

So I think considering Stevie was still largely writing and releasing her own material, and not that of noted hit songwriters, I think her success and longevity as a female pop/rock artist is pretty spectacular, and damn-near incomparable.

[snwriter]

You guys may think Cher rocks like Stevie, which I definitely don't agree with, but Stevie does not favor ballads. She's still rocking on the current tour with "Rhiannon," "Stand Back," "Gold Dust Woman," and "Say You Will." The albums has rockers like "Smile at You," "Running Through the Garden," "Destiny Rules," and "Everybody Finds Out." Stevie doesn't do shlocky pop like Cher, Midler, Patti Labelle, etc. Blondie DOES have a HUGE variety of styles, and Debbie comes closest to Stevie as a rocker. But you can't knock Stevie's "lean" years without acknowledging that Debbie had a few of her own.

And TISL rocked with "Bombay Sapphires," "Fall From Grace," "Sorcerer," "Planets," etc. Stevie is far from finished rocking.

As far as Tina, she may do all those styles, but they ain't her songs. She has more energy in concert but her tours are spaced much more apart than Stevie/FM and she is essentially retired now.

Oh, and when Bowie was the glam Ziggy Stardust, he rocked heavier than any of these women, most definitely heavier than Cher's pop/rock.

[Johnny Stew]

Now, I agree that TISL would have happened with or without the Mac reunion, but if she hadn't reuinted with the Mac, it would have had less exposure than Street Angel did. Heck, who knows if she would have even gotten a record deal without that reunion. She would have been forgotten by the masses and that's exactly what happened in '94 and up until the reunion. Without that reunion, her career would not have improved.

Not to sound like I'm picking on you, dissention, but I also want to make a clarification here.

Stevie's deal with Warner/Reprise was signed in late 1996 (she bought out the rest of her Modern/Atlantic contract with the promise of a boxed-set, so she could sign with Warner)... prior to 'The Dance.'

So obviously someone felt that Stevie wasn't a washed-up has-been, and had potential to continue selling albums even before 'The Dance' was a done-deal. :)

[trackaghost]

I have to say I am totally dismayed and amazed Stevie is being compared to Cher and Tina et al.
I have nothing against those singers but someone please help me out, they have nothing in common. The fact that Stevie is a singer/songwriter makes a huge difference to me. I can't imagine Stevie doing a dance album in order to sell more records and appeal to the "kids" either. Fine for Cher, she's a pop act, an entertainer but Stevie's appeal is entirely different. I would rather compare her to Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger even (all men I know, but that's where Stevie stands for me, with the rock stars)
I can't help feeling a bit disturbed...

[snwriter]

Trackaghost,

If you read my post #95, you can see I agree with you 100%!!!!!!!! :blob2:

[darklinensuit]

Trackaghost,

If you read my post #95, you can see I agree with you 100%!!!!!!!! :blob2:

Ditto.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

I have to say I am totally dismayed and amazed Stevie is being compared to Cher and Tina et al.
I have nothing against those singers but someone please help me out, they have nothing in common. The fact that Stevie is a singer/songwriter makes a huge difference to me. I can't imagine Stevie doing a dance album in order to sell more records and appeal to the "kids" either. Fine for Cher, she's a pop act, an entertainer but Stevie's appeal is entirely different. I would rather compare her to Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger even (all men I know, but that's where Stevie stands for me, with the rock stars)
I can't help feeling a bit disturbed...

I think the comparison comes from the fact that they're all middle-aged women in the contemporary music market.
But I agree that Stevie has very little in common with Cher & Tina (or even Bette).
I see Stevie's female peers as being Pat Benatar, Ann & Nancy Wilson, Chrissie Hynde and Debbie Harry.

[trackaghost]

You guys may think Cher rocks like Stevie, which I definitely don't agree with, but Stevie does not favor ballads. She's still rocking on the current tour with "Rhiannon," "Stand Back," "Gold Dust Woman," and "Say You Will." The albums has rockers like "Smile at You," "Running Through the Garden," "Destiny Rules," and "Everybody Finds Out." Stevie doesn't do shlocky pop like Cher, Midler, Patti Labelle, etc. Blondie DOES have a HUGE variety of styles, and Debbie comes closest to Stevie as a rocker. But you can't knock Stevie's "lean" years without acknowledging that Debbie had a few of her own.

And TISL rocked with "Bombay Sapphires," "Fall From Grace," "Sorcerer," "Planets," etc. Stevie is far from finished rocking.

As far as Tina, she may do all those styles, but they ain't her songs. She has more energy in concert but her tours are spaced much more apart than Stevie/FM and she is essentially retired now.

Oh, and when Bowie was the glam Ziggy Stardust, he rocked heavier than any of these women, most definitely heavier than Cher's pop/rock.

I agree with this. When Stevie started her solo career, she wanted to be a "rocker".

I admit Stevie has had her lean years, hell I remember being hugely disappointed when Street Angel came out. I thought she had lost it (in restropect its not that terrible, but certainly didn't fit in with the sound of the early 90s) but I also believe some of that is not her fault. Many artists experience a dive in popularity as they get older and are considered to be no longer relevent. It happened to Neil Young, it happened to Bowie, it happened to Debbie Harry, it's happened to lots of artists. Sure Stevie's output and her appearance didn't help (just because people love to criticise anyone who puts on weight - they've let themselves go :rolleyes: ) but rock and roll is more often than not, considered to be a young person's game, appealing to young people (something which is kinda shifting these days). Stevie would have fallen out of vogue even if her albums had been great IMO.
The fact is Stevie rode those bad times and is STILL HERE. That's what matters and shows her worth. A lesser artist wouldn't still be packing in the crowds and releasing decent selling albums. When an artist manages to survive bad/lean times, they become a rock survivor and a legend. And Stevie is both those things.

[snwriter]

Johnnystew wrote:

I see Stevie's female peers as being Pat Benatar, Ann & Nancy Wilson, Chrissie Hynde and Debbie Harry.


I agree with this. IMO, Debbie comes closest to matching Stevie's successes. Pat has really not measured up in any way to her hitmaking heyday, and the most of her own stuff she ever wrote was 50%. The Wilsons had years of mostly Dianne Warren-style pop stuff, though they have re-emerged strongly recently. Chrissie is a great talent, but some of her recent albums have really been lacking and she has even resorted to opening for others--something Stevie thank God has never had to do. And, again, their lean years have been many more than Stevie's and they have all been judged 'hasbeens' (unfair) at one time or another.

[trackaghost]

She definitely has a lot in common with Debbie. :nod:

[dissention]

I have to say that I am a little confused in regards to the statement that, "more than half of the songs she recorded during this time weren't even written from her pen."
You repeated that statement in a second post too... "From '91-'96, more than half of what she recorded was not her own material."

How do you come up with that figure? From 1991-1996, the songs she recorded that were written by other songwriters were:
"Sometimes It's A Bitch"
"Love's A Hard Game To Play"
"Docklands"
"Unconditional Love"
"Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind"
"Just Like A Woman"
"God's Garden"
"Inspiration"
"Somebody Stand By Me"
"Free Fallin'"

10 songs. Out of 22.
Admittedly I'm not the greatest when it comes to mathematics, but I'm pretty sure that's less than half. Even if just slightly.
But it's certainly not "more than" half. ;)

I stand corrected. But it still doesn't make her contributions or her artistic viability any better in my eyes. :wavey:

[dissention]

I have to say I am totally dismayed and amazed Stevie is being compared to Cher and Tina et al.
I have nothing against those singers but someone please help me out, they have nothing in common. The fact that Stevie is a singer/songwriter makes a huge difference to me. I can't imagine Stevie doing a dance album in order to sell more records and appeal to the "kids" either. Fine for Cher, she's a pop act, an entertainer but Stevie's appeal is entirely different. I would rather compare her to Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger even (all men I know, but that's where Stevie stands for me, with the rock stars)
I can't help feeling a bit disturbed...

If you and others didn't spin it, you wouldn't be disturbed. :laugh:

No one is comparing their music at all. It's the comparison between middle-aged women who are still very successful in their chosen profession tha tis being made. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

I stand corrected. But it still doesn't make her contributions or her artistic viability any better in my eyes. :wavey:

Fair enough... although I still firmly believe that Stevie's "slump" wasn't nearly as dreadful as it's made out to be.
I also feel that any discussions of her diminished popularity during that time-period, should always take into account that none of the artists who were huge in the '70s and '80s were having any major success in the early-to-mid-'90s. Outside of Tom Petty & Aerosmith.

[dissention]

The fact is Stevie rode those bad times and is STILL HERE. That's what matters and shows her worth. A lesser artist wouldn't still be packing in the crowds and releasing decent selling albums. When an artist manages to survive bad/lean times, they become a rock survivor and a legend. And Stevie is both those things.

Exactly, I agree with that 100%, Sharon.

Unfortunately, it seems that unless someone thinks everything Stevie's recorded is a work of art, they're judged as being against Stevie, one of those types who "mock" her, or someone who despises her music. I mean, it gets a bit ridiculous at times how people react towards someones opinion on Stevie with such animosity and sarcasm.

From now on I will profess my undying love to all things Stevie, to hell with anyone who finds her singing about laundromats ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Fair enough... although I still firmly believe that Stevie's "slump" wasn't nearly as dreadful as it's made out to be.

And that's your right, as is mine to say that I don't like most of her stuff from the nineties. But you can't possibly say that you're very objective about it. :laugh: :wavey: j/k

[snwriter]

Dissention:

I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! that "Docklands" was a dumb choice for Stevie to record. But with her vocals on it, it ain't all that bad. It could have been worse, she could have sung a Dianne Warren song and sounded like Aerosmith did on "I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing"! Hell, then maybe she would have had her first #1 since "Dreams"! But, I'll take "Docklands."

Seriously, I admit Stevie has a few clunkers, like much of "1000 Days," "Two Kinds of Love," etc. I don't even like that much a song that she likes, "Whole Lotta Trouble." I can see her flops, I just see much less than you.

[trackaghost]

I'll never deny Stevie has recorded some stinkers. There are some good things about Street Angel but Docklands ain't one of them. Plus her voice sounds so lifeless. To me it's worth owning but it is definitely her worst hour. Oh and Timespace. Love's A Hard Game To Play is shameful. It all helped to make her seriously uncool for a while.
I think it's fair to say she was experiencing hard times in her life back then and it was reflected in the quality of the music. But the fact she can still write amazing songs like Destiny Rules and Illume now, shows that her talent is still in tact and she was just going through a rough patch. :)

[dissention]

Dissention:

I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! that "Docklands" was a dumb choice for Stevie to record. But with her vocals on it, it ain't all that bad. It could have been worse, she could have sung a Dianne Warren song and sounded like Aerosmith did on "I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing"! Hell, then maybe she would have had her first #1 since "Dreams"! But, I'll take "Docklands."

Sorry, I hate both. :lol:

Seriously, I admit Stevie has a few clunkers, like much of "1000 Days," "Two Kinds of Love," etc. I don't even like that much a song that she likes, "Whole Lotta Trouble." I can see her flops, I just see much less than you.

The misconception around here is that people believe I hate most of Stevie's stuff. That's not the case. I've even admitted to liking a few Street Angel songs and I've totally warmed up to most of RAL. I love the Mirror album and a lot of people see that as her worst. But the truth is, I simply don't like most of Street Angel or the "me" songs. That's it. :wavey:

[snwriter]

Dissention:

Why not change your image of Stevie from the "Hold Me" video to the cover of "Street Angel"! :xoxo:

[dissention]

I think it's fair to say she was experiencing hard times in her life back then and it was reflected in the quality of the music.

Now everyone will quote you and nod their heads in agreement with what I've been saying all along, only coming from you. :rolleyes: :laugh: :xoxo:

[dissention]

Dissention:

Why not change your image of Stevie from the "Hold Me" video to the cover of "Street Angel"! :xoxo:

:eek: I can only gag once a day, you know. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Now everyone will quote you and nod their heads in agreement with what I've been saying all along, only coming from you. :rolleyes: :laugh: :xoxo:

Yea, but it was said in a nicer way. Lord I love ya honey, but when you use words like garbage, awful, horrible, etc. when referring to any member of FM, you gotta know it is gonna raise some blood pressures :D I am not saying what you are saying is wrong or that you are not calling it as you see it; I am just saying it is the manner it is said. Then again, I think Doclands is the biggest peice of junk ever to come out of goatwoman :eek: - so I am just as guilty of it too :shrug: :) :nod: :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

And that's your right, as is mine to say that I don't like most of her stuff from the nineties. But you can't possibly say that you're very objective about it. :laugh: :wavey: j/k

I may not be 100% objective (although I still think that by the very definition, a "fan" can never be wholly objective anyway... even when they try to profess that they are), and I admit that I cringe at lines about laundromats and chimpanzees, too.
But I still do not agree that it was all as bad as many people like to make it out to be. And certainly none of it is reason enough to write off an entire time-period.

This is not a dig at you, dissention, but sometimes I think folks tend to seize onto the "less than stellar" stuff, and make a big issue out of it, in order to prove to someone, somewhere, that they're above being an "average fan."

I also don't think that folks who DO like Stevie's late-'80s and '90s material are incapable of being objective.
After all, they're able to discern between music they do like and music they don't, and that requires objectivity.

And finally, I don't believe that the typical Nicks fan feels that every other Nicks fan has to love EVERY song, or they're somehow less than a fan... maybe it comes off that way, but I think some of them just object to the notion that her music during that time-period was "utter crap" and "completely worthless," being presented as if it's a fact that they're incapable of grasping or admitting.

[Johnny Stew]

Now everyone will quote you (trackaghost) and nod their heads in agreement with what I've been saying all along, only coming from you. :rolleyes: :laugh: :xoxo:

Well, I've always said that it's all in how one says something. ;) :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Out of those songs, I only consider five of those to be true rockers (I was glad SDMHA was dropped after Atlanta, it didn't sound good on that tour).

Nonetheless, it still stands as one of my favorite tours. It's tied with SA. ;)

Lord Child - I know you knew I was gonna have to call you on this :laugh:

The NINE (9) clear rockers are:

Enchanted
Gold Dust Woman
Gold and Braid
Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Stand Back
Rhiannon
Whole Lotta Trouble
Edge of Seventeen
I Need to Know (encore)

The two lighter rockers, but rockers nonetheless as opposed to ballads, are:

Outside The Rain
Dreams

_______________________________________________________

In any event, I do agree with you that starting with The Dance and ignoring the lethargic TOSOTM tour, the energy level of La Nicks has lessened. I do not fault her for it. She is older and that is just life. LONG LIVE LA NICKS!!!!!!!!!

[dissention]

But I still do not agree that it was all as bad as many people like to make it out to be. And it's certainly not of it is reason enough to write off an entire time-period.

I can't get over the fact that the woman who wrote Sable On Blonde and Outside the Rain wrote Listen to the Rain and Jane. That's reason enough for me to write-off that era.

This is not a dig at you, dissention, but sometimes I think folks tend to seize onto the "less than stellar" stuff, and make a big issue out of it, in order to prove to someone, somewhere, that they're above being an "average fan."

That certianly doesn't describe me. The topic of this thread is about a producer for Stevie's next album and who we thought would do a good job. Obviously debates are going to arise over ehr past producers and their work. I am an average fan and my opinions are no better than anyone else's.

And finally, I don't believe that the typical Nicks fan feels that every other Nicks fan has to love EVERY song, or they're somehow less than a fan... maybe it comes off that way, but I think some of them just object to the notion that her music during that time-period was "utter crap" and "completely worthless," being presented as if it's a fact that they're incapable of grasping or admitting.

If they don't feel that way, they shouldn't lace their posts with it. ;) And, whethe ror not you were referring to me, everyone can check my posts in this thread and clearly see that I almost always let it be known that what I was posting was simply my opinion. :wavey:

[dissention]

Well, I've always said that it's all in how one says something. ;) :xoxo:

I'll be sure to include much fawning and over-the-top tactfulness in all of my upcoming posts. :angel:

[trackaghost]

Now everyone will quote you and nod their heads in agreement with what I've been saying all along, only coming from you. :rolleyes: :laugh: :xoxo:

That is because I am like the guru of the Ledge. :laugh:

[dissention]

Lord Child - I know you knew I was gonna have to call you on this :laugh:

The NINE (9) clear rockers are:

Enchanted
Gold Dust Woman
Gold and Braid
Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Stand Back
Rhiannon
Whole Lotta Trouble
Edge of Seventeen
I Need to Know (encore)

The two lighter rockers, but rockers nonetheless as opposed to ballads, are:

Outside The Rain
Dreams

_______________________________________________________

In any event, I do agree with you that starting with The Dance and ignoring the lethargic TOSOTM tour, the energy level of La Nicks has lessened. I do not fault her for it. She is older and that is just life. LONG LIVE LA NICKS!!!!!!!!!

An uptempo song does not equal a rocker, in my book. And Dreams onstage these days is a ballad if I've ever heard one.

[Johnny Stew]

In any event, I do agree with you that starting with The Dance and ignoring the lethargic TOSOTM tour, the energy level of La Nicks has lessened. I do not fault her for it. She is older and that is just life. LONG LIVE LA NICKS!!!!!!!!!

I've often wondered if her energy-level has truly diminished, or if it's just a matter of her being more mindful of singing as well as she can, due to her voice lessons.
So she avoids getting too out-of-breath from excessive dancing, and avoids risking pushing her voice to a place where it might crack or rasp.

[dissention]

That is because I am like the guru of the Ledge. :laugh:

And I'm the asshole cousin that nobody wants to eat dinner with on Thanksgiving. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I stand by my opinion that "Jane" is a beautifful written beautiful song. I love it. Although, I like the demo/live sounding one better. But, it can be said with truth that one man's treasure is another's toilet flushing :eek: :D :laugh:

I am, however, glad she hopefully will never work with Rupert Hine or the SA producer again. I wish she would work with Bono from U2. I am unsure if he is a prducer, but I think their stuff is just great as is he :cool:

[strandinthewind]

And I'm the asshole cousin that nobody wants to eat dinner with on Thanksgiving. :xoxo:

Well, if you are not there, who is gonna put on my bib and awaken me when I pass out in the soup :cool: :laugh: :p :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

I'll be sure to include much fawning and over-the-top tactfulness in all of my upcoming posts. :angel:

Atta-boy!

Smart-ass. :p

[trackaghost]

And I'm the asshole cousin that nobody wants to eat dinner with on Thanksgiving. :xoxo:

No, we'll eat dinner with you, but only after you admit Street Angel is a masterpiece and Docklands is your favourite song EVER! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

An uptempo song does not equal a rocker, in my book. And Dreams onstage these days is a ballad if I've ever heard one.

Clearly the heavy use of the guitar and the rolling drum licks coupled with the rolling bass lines make the first nine rockers. As for OTR and Dreams, they are not reeally ballads like Sleeping Angel, Landslide, etc. But, they are not really rockers.

Interestingly, the guitar in the bridge and other parts of Rose Garden is straight out of 1950's rock and roll. But, I would not consider the song to be a rocker :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

No, we'll eat dinner with you, but only after you admit Street Angel is a masterpiece and Docklands is your favourite song EVER! :laugh:

Better yet, we'll invite Stevie and have her serve the courses in a black chiffon apron all the while singing nothing but SA songs punctuated with Ghosts and Ooh My Love :cool: Can't you see it, the kitchen door swings open and in walks a turkey platter carrying frau Nicks belting "THE FORGOTTEN CHIMPANZEEEE!!!!!!" :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

I am, however, glad she hopefully will never work with Rupert Hine or the SA producer again.

Glynn Johns or Thom Panunzio?

I've always thought Thom might have done a great job on 'Street Angel,' if he hadn't been stuck with trying to save it from what Glynn did to it.

And no, I wouldn't be at all disappointed if Stevie never worked with Rupert Hine again. I think his production lacked warmth overall.

[Johnny Stew]

"Dreams," even these days, isn't a ballad. Not by a long-shot.

It is, and always has been, a mid-tempo track.

[snwriter]

I think "Jane" is a beautifully written song, too, when taking it into context that it was written about Jane Goodall. Besides for the chimpanzee line irking people, I think the end (at least to me) is very melodramatic and could/would have been reworked by another producer.

I gotta laugh, though, dissension, because as much as I like "Sable" and "OTR," I think lyrically they are pretty weak Stevie songs, especially when considering other Stevie songs from that period. Granted, not as lacking as "RTTG," but certainly weaker than "Destiny Rules" and "Bombay Sapphires," two "recent" songs.

[dissention]

I gotta laugh, though, dissension, because as much as I like "Sable" and "OTR," I think lyrically they are pretty weak Stevie songs, especially when considering other Stevie songs from that period. Granted, not as lacking as "RTTG," but certainly weaker than "Destiny Rules" and "Bombay Sapphires," two "recent" songs.

Oh, lord no. :eek:

Sable On Blonde and Outside the Rain are among her best, IMO. The lyrics to those songs amaze me every time I hear her sing them. :nod: One of my favorite lyrics ever (well, it might actually be my favorite) is "Love is a word and some entertain it, if you find it...you have won the game..." To put those two up against Destiny Rules and Bombay Sapphires is just foul. :xoxo:

I love those two, but some of the lyrics to BS are dreadful:

"It is green
It is aqua marine
It is colors I have never seen
I can see past you- to the white sand
It is blue
Ooh, it is not about you
It is all true"

Blech.

[dissention]

"Dreams," even these days, isn't a ballad. Not by a long-shot.

Then tell her to stop singing it as one. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

I love those two, but some of the lyrics to BS are dreadful:

"I can see past you- to the white sand"

Blech.

NO WAY.
That is one of the most eloquent lines Stevie has ever written.

[dissention]

NO WAY.
That is one of the most eloquent lines Stevie has ever written.

Yeah, that one isn't bad, I was just posting what I thought to be a very lackluster verse. I think it would be better anywhere else but in that particular verse. Great song, except for that verse, IMO.

[darklinensuit]

And I'm the asshole cousin that nobody wants to eat dinner with on Thanksgiving. :xoxo:

I thought you were the mutt we keep throwing scraps to under the table. ;) :wavey:

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

I stand by my opinion that "Jane" is a beautifful written beautiful song. I love it. Although, I like the demo/live sounding one better.


I agree. The main difference to me is the piano on the demo vs. the keyboards on the album. But I like the ending better on the album version.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

See I think he might be secretly excited by that thought.
Admit it Dissention! You know the chimpanze line gives you a thrill :laugh: :xoxo:

I picture her serenading Dissention with a chimpanzee puppet, singing "Wassamaddababay..." :thumbsup:

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

I love those two, but some of the lyrics to BS are dreadful:

"It is green
It is aqua marine
It is colors I have never seen
I can see past you- to the white sand
It is blue
Ooh, it is not about you
It is all true"

Blech.

I like these lyrics, especially with the rhythm. :nod:

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

I'll never deny Stevie has recorded some stinkers. There are some good things about Street Angel but Docklands ain't one of them. Plus her voice sounds so lifeless.

Until you hear the Docklands demo. She sounds like a zombie there.

- Jake

[diamondsnake]

But then again, I guess some would prefer a Buckingham Nicks album with only Stevie's songs. ;)

That sounds like a dream come true!

[diamondsnake]

Stevie hasn't rocked in years (probably since SA). Old age is settling in and she sings more ballads than anything these days. That's not to say she isn't still fantastic, she just chooses to sing the slower songs.

Well what is your definition of "rocking"? If Stand Back or Rhiannon on Live in Boston is not considered "rocking" I don't know what is. Just because she isn't flying off stages or smashing guitars doesn't mean she hasn't rocked in years. And the reason she sings more balads these days is because that is what makes up most of her FM catalog. There are only a few rockers (Angel, Sister of the Moon, Rhiannon, RTTG, EBFO I think that's it) from her FM records but tons from her solo records. I think Stevie will suprise you when she comes out with her next solo record and tour.

As far as Stevie's records go, she totally is rocking in her fifties! TISL, RTTG, EBFO, POTU (extended version), FFG, Smile at You, etc. These can't be classified as anything but rock songs. RTTG in my opinion is her best rocker of all time. It is so passionate and raspy. Her vocals are great!

And as far as Stevie's early 90's stuff- dissention give her a break! She was dealing with some major health issues at the time. We are lucky she survived and was able to come back and rock once more. She has reclaimed her title as the queen of rock and roll if you ask me!!! She rocks these days- God I love Stevie Nicks! :D

[diamondsnake]

"Dreams," even these days, isn't a ballad. Not by a long-shot.

It is, and always has been, a mid-tempo track.

Dreams today is perfection- I love the way she sings it these days, am I alone? It seems like everybody wants this song off the setlist!

[strandinthewind]

For everyone's edification, From http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ballad

Main Entry: bal·lad
Pronunciation: 'ba-l&d
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English balade ballade, song, from Middle French, from Old Provençal balada dance, song sung while dancing, from balar to dance, from Late Latin ballare
1 a : a narrative composition in rhythmic verse suitable for singing b : an art song accompanying a traditional ballad
2 : a simple song : AIR
3 : a popular song; especially : a slow romantic or sentimental song
- bal·lad·ic /b&-'la-dik, ba-/ adjective

Main Entry: ballad stanza
Function: noun
: a stanza consisting of four lines with the first and third lines unrhymed iambic tetrameters and the second and fourth lines rhymed iambic trimeters

[darklinensuit]

Dreams today is perfection- I love the way she sings it these days, am I alone? It seems like everybody wants this song off the setlist!

It's not my favorite live, but I'd miss it if it were out of the set list. Of course, I don't think it should be included in the special performances where Stevie performs only four songs (such as the Clinton thing).

- Jake

[face of glass]

As late as I am to this again I'd still like to correct one thing:
Street Angel the album took years to finally be certified as a gold album, too. It's been out for ten years and still hasn't been certified platinum, either.
According to this post http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=131340&postcount=1 Street Angel has sold 226,000 copies so far. The industry gold/platinum discs are based on the units that the record label ships to the retailers, not on true album sales. They are not reflective of the popularity of the album, they're reflective of the reliance that the label has on the product.
So if Street Angel's sales were boosted up because of The Dance I'm going to assume that the album didn't sell that much more than Out Of The Cradle did in the early '90s.

[face of glass]

Fair enough... although I still firmly believe that Stevie's "slump" wasn't nearly as dreadful as it's made out to be.
I also feel that any discussions of her diminished popularity during that time-period, should always take into account that none of the artists who were huge in the '70s and '80s were having any major success in the early-to-mid-'90s. Outside of Tom Petty & Aerosmith.
There was a big rock star comeback surge in the late '80s and early '90s.

The Rolling Stones began their comeback with Steel Wheels in sold-out arenas and continued in the same vein with Voodoo Lounge.
Paul McCartney did the same and has been touring with large scale success ever since.
Eric Clapton had significant hits with "Tears In Heaven" and his Unplugged album.
Likewise, Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse Of Reason and The Division Bell were successes, as were their tours, at least when compared to their previous release (The Final Cut).
Genesis were still far from being drained commercially with the whole We Can't Dance tour.
Neil Young returned from the desert of most of his '80s albums with Freedom, a notable success, and he continued that with the following albums.
AC/DC were still selling in high numbers.
Alice Cooper had converted to hair metal and was selling nearly as well as in the '70s.
Peter Gabriel's commercial peak occurred with So and Us.
Need more? :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

There was a big rock star comeback surge in the late '80s and early '90s.

The Rolling Stones began their comeback with Steel Wheels in sold-out arenas and continued in the same vein with Voodoo Lounge.
Paul McCartney did the same and has been touring with large scale success ever since.
Eric Clapton had significant hits with "Tears In Heaven" and his Unplugged album.
Likewise, Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse Of Reason and The Division Bell were successes, as were their tours, at least when compared to their previous release (The Final Cut).
Genesis were still far from being drained commercially with the whole We Can't Dance tour.
Neil Young returned from the desert of most of his '80s albums with Freedom, a notable success, and he continued that with the following albums.
AC/DC were still selling in high numbers.
Alice Cooper had converted to hair metal and was selling nearly as well as in the '70s.
Peter Gabriel's commercial peak occurred with So and Us.
Need more? :shrug:

Well, dang, I guess that also ruins my theory on why 'Out Of The Cradle' tanked. :( ;)

Really though, most of the artists you mentioned... The Stones, Clapton, McCartney, Pink Floyd... had built up quite a bit of audience nostalgia at that point. They were "Classic Rock" artists that people hadn't had a chance to see in a while, so there was a big demand by the "adult" market.

They were still definitely more of the exception than the norm.

[face of glass]

Well, dang, I guess that also ruins my theory on why 'Out Of The Cradle' tanked. :( ;)
I thought it was Fleetwood Mac as a whole who suffered a lot during that time. Any guesses on why that happened? Why didn't they immediately want to benefit from the Clinton inauguration?
They were "Classic Rock" artists that people hadn't had a chance to see in a while, so there was a big demand by the "adult" market.
And that's exactly the area to which Stevie fitted in perfectly and yet her album didn't sell in significant numbers.
Concert audiences were still big overall, obviously mainly due to the nostalgia factor. But Street Angel still didn't sell anywhere close to the sales figures of the other big names.
I wonder why that happened. After all the album is hardly any worse than her later period of solo work and it's not like we're speaking of a sound that wasn't selling at the time.
Were any of the grunge names gushing over how great an album Street Angel is? Or were they doing that for any Stevie solo album, I wonder?

[face of glass]

Let's dig up some more oldies then:
Stevie's deal with Warner/Reprise was signed in late 1996 (she bought out the rest of her Modern/Atlantic contract with the promise of a boxed-set, so she could sign with Warner)... prior to 'The Dance.'
And that was when Mo Ostin and some other guys, those guys who were more accepting of Lindsey's solo work and obviously weren't TOO worried of continuous commercial success, were still in charge of things.
Or maybe they just did have a hunch of the oncoming reunion of the Rumours line-up. ;)

There are many people who disagree, and so I point to her popularity and her sales figures as proof.
As of now Stevie Nicks isn't really anything else than an alternative Fleetwood Mac for the masses who want to witness such music live. The Enchanted tour drew in significantly smaller crowds because the Fleetwood Mac hunger had been satisfied the previous year with The Dance. TISL tour had higher attendance because Fleetwood Mac hadn't been touring for a while. Stevie has some of the band's biggest hits and a lot of public image is associated with her so it's natural that the crowds buy a Stevie Nicks album because there isn't Fleetwood Mac product available.

As I did state earlier, I don't think there is a huge difference in between the soundscapes of TISL and a Lindsey Buckingham production.

But one thing's for sure, Stevie Nicks' current writing hasn't reached the public hearts, just like it didn't happen with the previous albums.

Two of the singles that they used for marketing TISL, "POTU" and "Sorcerer", were both past songwriting from the golden '70s. And the third was written solely by John Shanks. And "Say You Will" obviously hasn't left much of a print into the public minds either. Does Stevie not rely on her recent writing enough or who makes the decisions for singles?

And the setlists of her concerts are still based mainly on old standards, material she's tried and tested before. How much of TISL will remain in the setlist for the next possible tour? Remains to be seen. Is Stevie scared of the crowd response to new songs in concerts?

Does a Stevie Nicks album sell because of its content or because of the woman's reputation? Or is it because there might be no contemporary Fleetwood Mac product around?

Whatever. One thing's for sure, Fleetwood Mac and Stevie Nicks both succeed today mainly because of nostalgia; it doesn't matter how good quality their work is when the general consensus is that they're all washed up now.

I think it sucks but the artists seem to have accepted the situation. And maybe it's just my honesty (=cynicism) that's speaking here. :)

[Johnny Stew]

I thought it was Fleetwood Mac as a whole who suffered a lot during that time. Any guesses on why that happened? Why didn't they immediately want to benefit from the Clinton inauguration?

I'm not sure I understand the question.
I've always argued that the change in musical tastes during that period of time, is a strong factor for the sluggish sales of Fleetwood Mac's, Stevie's and Lindsey's albums in that time period.
As for the Clinton-connection and benefitting from it... Stevie and Lindsey were done with Fleetwood Mac at that point in time. The Clinton gala was a one-off thing, "by order of the president." They weren't interested in benefitting from anything, because they weren't interested in being a part of Fleetwood Mac anymore.

And that's exactly the area to which Stevie fitted in perfectly and yet her album didn't sell in significant numbers.
Concert audiences were still big overall, obviously mainly due to the nostalgia factor. But Street Angel still didn't sell anywhere close to the sales figures of the other big names.
I wonder why that happened. After all the album is hardly any worse than her later period of solo work and it's not like we're speaking of a sound that wasn't selling at the time.
Were any of the grunge names gushing over how great an album Street Angel is? Or were they doing that for any Stevie solo album, I wonder?

Again, unlike McCartney and The Stones, Stevie hadn't been gone long enough for there to be a nostalgia factor. Stevie had albums and tours (solo or with Fleetwood Mac) in '86, '87, '88 (European tourdates), '89, '90, and '91.

And no, none of the grunge artists were gushing over 'Street Angel'... "Stevie Nicks" represented all of the rock excesses that the grunge artists were rebelling against (as well as the teenagers who were buying the grunge albums). Which is also why folks like Pat Benatar, Heart, Bon Jovi and Poison, were all seeing huge drop-offs in their sales.

I've said it a few times already, but I'll say it again... there were definitely exceptions, but most big-name '80s rock acts fell on hard-times in the '90s.

[trackaghost]

And that's exactly the area to which Stevie fitted in perfectly and yet her album didn't sell in significant numbers.
Concert audiences were still big overall, obviously mainly due to the nostalgia factor. But Street Angel still didn't sell anywhere close to the sales figures of the other big names.
I wonder why that happened. After all the album is hardly any worse than her later period of solo work and it's not like we're speaking of a sound that wasn't selling at the time.
Were any of the grunge names gushing over how great an album Street Angel is? Or were they doing that for any Stevie solo album, I wonder?

Another dig at me? Oh well. Courtney Love at least appeared in Spin Magazine with the cover of Bella Donna taped to her guitar, she also spoke about how much she loved that album (she listened to it while she was a stripper in Japan). There's one grunge star gushing over a Stevie solo album for you.

I remember the day I brought Street Angel home and it was significantly worse than her other albums. Maybe it doesn't sound so bad now but it certainly was a big disappointment then (still is to my ears). Plus there's the fact that Stevie had put on weight, and it did make a difference. Ask any female celebrity.

Plus was Stevie Nicks (or even AC/DC) considered a nostalgia act in the early 90s? She had a hard act to follow if she was competing with ex-Beatles, Rolling Stones and 60s guitar gods, who had paid their dues a lot longer at that point. AC/DC certainly weren't nostagia. Any metalhead worth their salt love them and Zeppelin as much as the current crop of metal bands, even now. Metal is an entirely different arena to soft rock or AOR. Kerrang would definitely do a big feature on AC/DC now, but NME wouldn't do one on the Mac!

As for Neil Young. Well, I saw him for the first time live in 1994. He was playing with Pearl Jam as a support act. NME or Melody Maker dubbed him the "Godfather Of Grunge". Kurt Cobain later quoted him in his suicide note. Stevie Nicks certainly wasn't touring with Sonic Youth at that time!! You can't compare Stevie and Neil at all. Maybe if Stevie had got on stage with Courtney things may have been different, who knows? But Neil made sure he was part of the grunge revoltion, even though his music remained the same.

(I can't comment on Genesis - the whole Phil Collins thing has baffled me for years!)

One final thing. I always thought it didn't help that she only made one promo video for Street Angel too. A video I only saw for the first time recently, so that shows you how obscure it is! I can't imagine that MTV considered putting that on heavy rotation, as they did with Rooms On Fire, for one second.

And I have to say it's horrible to me to hear people quoting sales figures and concert grosses ugh! It's so clinical and means nothing to me. I also don't think people go and see Stevie live just because they can't see Fleetwood Mac.It's something that has been suggested on this board before and I don't agree with at all. Now people are quoting it like it's a fact! Fleetwood Mac have more people at their concerts because they had one of the biggest selling albums of all time. I bet there's plenty of people who attend the Mac's concerts who don't even know the names of the people in the band (I witnessed this myself on several occasions last year at their UK concerts - "oh the other lady in the band isn't there anymore?" - these "fans" paid 80 quid for a ticket!).

I dunno, I could argue about this stuff till I'm blue in the face. I just remember that Street Angel sounded out of place at the time - old hat and average. It certainly wouldn't have been played on the radio and it didn't surprise me when it didn't sell (whereas the Rolling Stones could release an album of their bones creaking along to the rhythm and it would be a hit and their tour would sellout) I also thought OOTC sounded too polished (and still do) although Countdown was often heard on British radio, so I can't help with that one. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

The Smashing Pumkins also like Stevie and covered Landslide - the leads singer also publicly praised Stevie. Are they grunge?

[trackaghost]

I'm not sure I understand the question.
I've always argued that the change in musical tastes during that period of time, is a strong factor for the sluggish sales of Fleetwood Mac's, Stevie's and Lindsey's albums in that time period.
As for the Clinton-connection and benefitting from it... Stevie and Lindsey were done with Fleetwood Mac at that point in time. The Clinton gala was a one-off thing, "by order of the president." They weren't interested in benefitting from anything, because they weren't interested in being a part of Fleetwood Mac anymore.



Again, unlike McCartney and The Stones, Stevie hadn't been gone long enough for there to be a nostalgia factor. Stevie had albums and tours (solo or with Fleetwood Mac) in '86, '87, '88 (European tourdates), '89, '90, and '91.

And no, none of the grunge artists were gushing over 'Street Angel'... "Stevie Nicks" represented all of the rock excesses that the grunge artists were rebelling against (as well as the teenagers who were buying the grunge albums). Which is also why folks like Pat Benatar, Heart, Bon Jovi and Poison, were all seeing huge drop-offs in their sales.

I've said it a few times already, but I'll say it again... there were definitely exceptions, but most big-name '80s rock acts fell on hard-times in the '90s.

I was writing my long post at the same time!
But I was basically saying the same things. Just because Stevie might be a nostalgia act now, doesn't mean she was 10 years ago.

Stevie produced an album that simply wasn't as good as past efforts and didn't fit in with the current sound. Plus her looks at that time drew lots of criticism, therefore the album and tour didn't do so well. I don't think there's any big mystery behind it at all.

[Johnny Stew]

Two of the singles that they used for marketing TISL, "POTU" and "Sorcerer", were both past songwriting from the golden '70s.

The verses to "Planets" were brand new for 'TISL'... so it doesn't entirely count as an "old song." ;)

As of now Stevie Nicks isn't really anything else than an alternative Fleetwood Mac for the masses who want to witness such music live. The Enchanted tour drew in significantly smaller crowds because the Fleetwood Mac hunger had been satisfied the previous year with The Dance. TISL tour had higher attendance because Fleetwood Mac hadn't been touring for a while. Stevie has some of the band's biggest hits and a lot of public image is associated with her so it's natural that the crowds buy a Stevie Nicks album because there isn't Fleetwood Mac product available.

As I did state earlier, I don't think there is a huge difference in between the soundscapes of TISL and a Lindsey Buckingham production.

I disagree with the theory that Stevie as a solo act, is a surrogate for Fleetwood Mac.
Lindsey is a huge focal point in the band (even prior to this current tour), so under that line of thinking, his solo albums would be just as inclined to do well as an alternate to Fleetwood Mac.
After all, he's the guitarist and the "chief architect of the Fleetwood Mac sound." And if Stevie's solo albums just sound like the Buckingham production anyway, then why not go right to the source?

As for the songs not connecting with the public... there's no way to explain it. Who knows why that happens?
Keep in mind that if we get into the argument of songs being somehow "lesser" because they haven't struck a chord with the public, then Stevie isn't the only person at whom that charge could be levied.

Artists of their age-group and peer-group, just don't reach the masses anymore with their new material. There's a stray song or album here and there... Santana's 'Supernatural,' the Eagles' "Hole In The World"... that hits pretty big, but for the most part it just doesn't happen. And it has nothing to do with the songs being of a lesser quality.

[dissention]

The verses to "Planets" were brand new for 'TISL'... so it doesn't entirely count as an "old song." ;)

Yeah, and she stole a lot of those "new lyrics" from Poe. I guess she moved on from Oscar Wilde. ;)

[dissention]

And as far as Stevie's early 90's stuff- dissention give her a break! She was dealing with some major health issues at the time. We are lucky she survived and was able to come back and rock once more. She has reclaimed her title as the queen of rock and roll if you ask me!!! She rocks these days- God I love Stevie Nicks! :D

Sorry, if an artist releases bad music, I'm going to say so. It shouldn't be any different with La Nicks. :wavey:

[dissention]

As late as I am to this again I'd still like to correct one thing:

According to this post http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=131340&postcount=1 Street Angel has sold 226,000 copies so far. The industry gold/platinum discs are based on the units that the record label ships to the retailers, not on true album sales. They are not reflective of the popularity of the album, they're reflective of the reliance that the label has on the product.
So if Street Angel's sales were boosted up because of The Dance I'm going to assume that the album didn't sell that much more than Out Of The Cradle did in the early '90s.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So...it did worse that I had previously stated. :lol:

[dissention]

Really though, most of the artists you mentioned... The Stones, Clapton, McCartney, Pink Floyd... had built up quite a bit of audience nostalgia at that point. They were "Classic Rock" artists that people hadn't had a chance to see in a while, so there was a big demand by the "adult" market.

So...Stevie had oversaturated the market and overexposed herself so much that people had no desire to see her or buy her album (i.e. they were sick of her)? :shrug:

[dissention]

The Smashing Pumkins also like Stevie and covered Landslide - the leads singer also publicly praised Stevie. Are they grunge?

Hell no! :laugh:

[dissention]

the Eagles' "Hole In The World"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You know how much I despise that song. I'd take listening to SA 24/7 over listening to that drivel even once. :wavey:

[trackaghost]

Hell no! :laugh:

No, I think Smashing Pumpkins could be considered grunge. One of their first singles was on the Sub Pop label and they hit big while grunge was becoming popular. I always considered them a grunge act who kinda outgrew the grunge tag. They definitely were placed alongside those acts when they first came onto the scene, hell they're even on the Singles soundtrack!

[dissention]

No, I think Smashing Pumpkins could be considered grunge. One of their first singles was on the Sub Pop label and they hit big while grunge was becoming popular. I always considered them a grunge act who kinda outgrew the grunge tag. They definitely were placed alongside those acts when they first came onto the scene, hell they're even on the Singles soundtrack!

I don't think so. LOL I ahve their debut album and find it anything but grunge. It's not a great album, but they redeemed themselves with that massive double-album from '95. That's a masterpiece.

[trackaghost]

I'm not sure why some people are so gleeful that Street Angel wasn't a success.
I still think even if she had produced a good album back then it probably wouldn't have been successful. Look at Lindsey, he made what many people think it the best album of his career, yet that didn't set the charts on fire.
Plus we could turn that on its head: if Street Angel had been huge would that mean its a better album?
All these figures are bumming me out. They don't mean a thing to me.
You know the Velvet Underground and the Stooges hardly sold any records by comparision, doesn't make them any less great.

[trackaghost]

I don't think so. LOL I ahve their debut album and find it anything but grunge. It's not a great album, but they redeemed themselves with that massive double-album from '95. That's a masterpiece.

Well maybe you have a different definition of grunge to me. :shrug:
I'm not sure what's so bad about being considered grunge anyway.
I have all their albums too. I even bought their debut Gish back when it first came out (I think it's their best btw, even better than Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness) and followed them since then, and to me they were going for a grunge sound (once again they were on the Sub Pop label briefly!!!!).
And their first album produced by Butch Vig, who of course also produced Nirvana's Nevermind (and Sonic Youth's Dirty).

You shouldn't challenge my knowledge of grunge, dissention. I went to see just about every grunge act back in the day and was a kinda grunge groupie, lol. I even wrote a fanzine and got to interview some of my favourite acts. And I remember that the Pumpkins were given the grunge tag when they first came out.

[jwd]

dissention:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwd
TISL would have happened with or without The Dance, and it would have been just as good. Sure, The Dance kicked the band back into the spotlight and made everyone love them again. Stevie's inability to connect with the masses from the late 80s to the early 90s came mainly from her battles with inner demons, not because she wasn't artistically viable. Although even some would argue that even then she was still "kicking ass". Stevie forgotten?, I don't think so. Actually I'm looking for her to be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame real soon.

But that's the thing, she wasn't artistically viable. I'm a fan of the Mirror album, so you won't see me knock it, but as soon as she went on the road to promote it, she had lost it. Her musical contributions were very poor after that album; she wrote one out of three songs on her best-of album. She had lost her creativity so much by the time SA rolled around that it didn't even resemble a Stevie Nicks album. Also, there was a great shift from her being cool to her being considered a has-been, and that's what she was considered in the early to mid-nineties. There was also a shift in the tone of her music. She had gone from a hot rocker babe who sang empowering songs to an older woman (still gorgeous, of course) singing "poor me" songs.

Now, I agree that TISL would have happened with or without the Mac reunion, but if she hadn't reuinted with the Mac, it would have had less exposure than Street Angel did. Heck, who knows if she would have even gotten a record deal without that reunion. She would have been forgotten by the masses and that's exactly what happened in '94 and up until the reunion. Without that reunion, her career would not have improved.

As for her kicking ass in '94, hell, even Stevie disagrees with you there.

First let me say that I never said Stevie was kicking ass in that time period, I simply said some may say so. For the record I think it was the lowest point in her career. BUT, if she was no longer artistically viable, The Dance would not have been as successful as it was, Enchanted would have bombed, TISL would have flopped, and hundreds of thousands of people would not be seeing her on the current FM tour. The inner demons like Klonopin, Epstein Barr, and the mid-life crises we all have to contend with at some point, with all the physical, mental, and emotional baggage that comes with it, were the problems Stevie had to contend with. Yet, she was still able to pen some rather good songs like "Rooms On Fire" and "Blue Denim", carry on with a solo career and a band one, and have moderate success on the road. Nobody stays on the highest of highs forever. It was a struggle for Stevie during that time period, but she got through it. To say she was no longer artistically capable of making good music and connecting with people is highly inaccurate in my opinion.


We all know the music that she started to produce with the onset of TISL, and that would have sold itself to any record company. Fleetwood Mac helps Stevie, but she's NEVER needed them since the mid 70s.


I think we agree that she wasn't as chic or as loved by the masses in that time period, but I think we disagree as to the whys!

[darklinensuit]

I'm not sure why some people are so gleeful that Street Angel wasn't a success.
I still think even if she had produced a good album back then it probably wouldn't have been successful. Look at Lindsey, he made what many people think it the best album of his career, yet that didn't set the charts on fire.
Plus we could turn that on its head: if Street Angel had been huge would that mean its a better album?
All these figures are bumming me out. They don't mean a thing to me.
You know the Velvet Underground and the Stooges hardly sold any records by comparision, doesn't make them any less great.

Well said. :nod:

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, the song Twisted came out of the 1994-97 period and I think it is one of the best things she has written. I think LB certainly helped the production. In fact their duet version IMO far surpasses the already vrilliant solo version. So, to say Stevie, FM, and/or LB were not very creative during that time IMO is just not true. I think they just were burnt out and needed a break as history suggests all artists do.

Back to the topic - no one agrees with me that Bono and Stevie could kick some ass, perhaps with Iovine in there as well. He certainly has done right for both before :shrug:

[face of glass]

"Let's roll". (-Neil Young, 2001) ;)
Well, dang, I guess that also ruins my theory on why 'Out Of The Cradle' tanked.
The tanking of Out Of The Cradle, or of any Lindsey Buckingham solo product for that matter, has always been because of the general diversity contained within the album. Parts of it is material for the listeners of classic rock, parts of it is material for the listeners of new wave and punk. The album doesn't bow down to any particular target group as a whole. Some may say that it's a desperate attempt to give "something for everybody (=nothing for anyone)". I say his musical schizophrenia is a description of a chaotic mind, a person who's not afraid of dealing with possessiveness, paranoia, anger, sarcasm, violence, plain weird and depressive (qualities of punk/new wave) or the happiness, ye typical love topics, smoothness, subtlety and spiritual elevation, the uplift (qualities of the hippie-drenched classic rock). He deals with all of that and sometimes he does 'em the same time, mixes them up, shakes and stirs them. Now when he does all that it should be obvious that if a single from an album reaches the public then it won't make his album a big success. Albums that are successes in the modern world are not bound to the general '60s sense of diversity. Should someone who liked "Trouble" buy Law And Order and expect more of the same then there would be an obvious disappointment. There is always something wrong in Lindsey's solo work for those who expect him to stay in one mold all the time and if one does not accept such diversity, a thing that is not encouraged in the modern world when the trend is to package, labelize and categorize everything, then one will not ever learn to appreciate at least some of his work.
Now Stevie Nicks with her general non-diversity definitely falls into the modern target group thinking than Lindsey ever will. That's how she keeps herself in the public eye. She's always sincere in her songs but she compromises some of that by making the album tracks sound like the single material, just so that it would be smooth enough to listen to and wouldn't scare anyone away.
That's why I think Lindsey is less commercial than Stevie (and his albums have more of a lock on the artistic label [as you put it] than Stevie ever will have), less commercial than the Pixies, less commercial than Sonic Youth, less commercial than Joy Division, less commercial than Kevin Shields, less commercial than Neil Young (=the indie credo) and definitely less commercial than nearly any other classic rock act there is, while his work still remains, when you look at single songs, accessible and therefore commercial. Sharon here thinks all of his material, including the experimental pieces that seem to scare some people around here away, is commercial and I agree with that, but as a whole he's one of the last pop eccentrics in this world of ours. Not related, I know, but I had to get it out.

If you can't get your head around that paradox then I can't help it. This is what I think anyway. :)

I'm not sure I understand the question.
I've always argued that the change in musical tastes during that period of time, is a strong factor for the sluggish sales of Fleetwood Mac's, Stevie's and Lindsey's albums in that time period.
What I meant to ask here was why were Fleetwood Mac considered different than the other oldies acts of the time. Why did the adult audience go for other acts that were releasing albums and touring at the same time?
One could attribute that to the fact that Behind The Mask line-up wasn't what the public wanted. But even then the Shake The Cage tour had been a huge success and the sound of BTM isn't that far away from the sound of TITN. For Time you could always claim that the album was lacking promotion from the very beginning and you'd have a very valid point in there.

Again, unlike McCartney and The Stones, Stevie hadn't been gone long enough for there to be a nostalgia factor. Stevie had albums and tours (solo or with Fleetwood Mac) in '86, '87, '88 (European tourdates), '89, '90, and '91.
I'm interested in your suggestion that a huge success can not be called a comeback when an artist has been touring/releasing records regularly.
Bob Dylan toured and released albums often in the '80s and yet it was Oh Mercy, released in 1989, that was considered a comeback. And he did the same thing in the '90s and still it was only Love And Theft (released in 1997) that was hailed as another comeback.
What creates a nostalgia factor for an artist anyway? You can't blame one particular thing for it. IMO, The Stones were just as nostalgic on the 1981 Tattoo You tour and they hadn't been away for a long time at that point.
Personally I think that Fleetwood Mac had conformed to their nostalgic status already back in the 1982 tour.
They already performed eight songs from Rumours in the regular setlist of the tour, plus the two obligatory Nicks classics "Landslide" and "Rhiannon". The band had already settled down for the role that public had given to them on stage. They played four songs from Mirage and that was that.
And on the Shake The Cage tour FM played four songs from TITN, gave Billy and Rick a few Peter Green era tracks to do (so they wouldn't struggle with Lindsey's material) and still played seven songs from Rumours, plus other obligatory hits.
How different is that from Stevie's solo tours? As we can see from the list that Jason posted earlier in this thread, there's about four new songs that Stevie felt compelled to do on the Street Angel tour. What does that tell us? Had Stevie accepted the fact that she is a nostalgia act? She obviously notices the crowd reaction to the new material so she feels it shouldn't be played that much.
I do not think the musical climate of the early '90s was in general hostile to classic rock acts and I don't think it was hostile to Stevie either. Look at the Pollstar data for the Street Angel tour, you'll see that half of the venues were half-empty and you'll also see that a lot of the venues were more than half-full. How much does that differ from the attendance that the TOSOTM and Timespace tours had?
And no, none of the grunge artists were gushing over 'Street Angel'... "Stevie Nicks" represented all of the rock excesses that the grunge artists were rebelling against (as well as the teenagers who were buying the grunge albums). Which is also why folks like Pat Benatar, Heart, Bon Jovi and Poison, were all seeing huge drop-offs in their sales.
As Sharon just proved, the grunge artists were accepting of Stevie Nicks and weren't definitely anti-Stevie; they were more anti-Rolling Stones and anti-McCartney, I think.
Redd Kross covered "Rhiannon", Hole did "Gold Dust Woman", The Smashing Pumpkins did "Landslide" (and it goes on, Whiskeytown did "Dreams", as did Cat Power, not necessarily grunge but representative of the alternative anyway).
Sharon herself has earlier said that Stevie can and should not be connected with the likes of Pat Benatar and Kim Carnes and I personally agree with that.
In spite of SN's solo albums being close to the '80s mainstream I think that Stevie isn't generally considered to be one of these women.
She is considered among the classic rock group, among those hippie women of the '70s. Rumours itself is an album that basically was the finale of the hippie era, people who had earlier believed in peace and love emerged out of the haze with full of anger at each other. Not to mention the fact that the music, based on very '70s values, had now been packaged and categorized into "AOR", one of the first times in the history of music business when the people in charge began to think of audiences as potential target groups, as opposed to the all-endorsing spirit of the hippie era.
That's the area from which Stevie comes from, and the most lasting public images of herself she made within Fleetwood Mac in the latter half of the '70s. For many she is not the blonde of the "I Can't Wait" video, for instance.
Some of the archetypal '80s acts did suffer in the early '90s but Stevie never was an archetypal '80s act. Bella Donna, her biggest solo success, is still a very late '70s album.
Not to mention the fact that grunge was actually trying to bring back some of the '70s values, not just that of punk rock but also that of Led Zeppelin/Black Sabbath. And Stevie screaming her guts out at the tail end of "Rhiannon" fits that mode too.

[face of glass]

Another dig at me? Oh well. Courtney Love at least appeared in Spin Magazine with the cover of Bella Donna taped to her guitar, she also spoke about how much she loved that album (she listened to it while she was a stripper in Japan). There's one grunge star gushing over a Stevie solo album for you.
No Sharon, I do not mean to dig at you at all here. But since you brought it up, find me some grunge stars who gush over TOSOTM, Street Angel or even TISL. For the first three, with their drug-induced glorious excesses, you can make a case for, but how about the rest?
I remember the day I brought Street Angel home and it was significantly worse than her other albums. Maybe it doesn't sound so bad now but it certainly was a big disappointment then (still is to my ears).
I don't think it's quality-wise bad at all. It's somewhat devoid of the drama game of the other solo albums and I guess that's why some can listen to it as an alternative of sorts. And it still has some accessible songs, but most of those are co-writes and there's no knowing of who wrote a certain part of a song (except for most of the lyrics, I guess).
Plus was Stevie Nicks (or even AC/DC) considered a nostalgia act in the early 90s? She had a hard act to follow if she was competing with ex-Beatles, Rolling Stones and 60s guitar gods, who had paid their dues a lot longer at that point. AC/DC certainly weren't nostagia.
The reason why I mentioned AC/DC (or even Alice Cooper) was because Johnny was saying that "none of the artists who were huge in the '70s and '80s were having any major success in the early-to-mid-'90s. Outside of Tom Petty & Aerosmith." I'm not speaking of Stevie as a metal act; I may compare the end of "Rhiannon" to Zeppelin and Sabbath but I've never seen her as one of them (thank God!;)).
I already established on why I think Stevie has been a nostalgia act for a long time. So you think that the line between Stevie Nicks not being a nostalgia act and being a nostalgia act is three years, the gap between Street Angel and The Dance? Whatever.
But Neil made sure he was part of the grunge revoltion, even though his music remained the same.
When Freedom was released in 1989 grunge wasn't nowhere near being commercially viable.
(I can't comment on Genesis - the whole Phil Collins thing has baffled me for years!)
Go to your brother's record shelf and play "Dancing With The Moonlit Knight". Collins was a HELL of a drummer before he started resorting to drum machines.
One final thing. I always thought it didn't help that she only made one promo video for Street Angel too.
I guess some still think that Stevie herself viewed the album lackluster. When she was first promoting it the only enthusiasm she could muster up was "I quite like this album". Different from the usual phrase of "this new album is the best work I've ever done", isn't it? :)
I also don't think people go and see Stevie live just because they can't see Fleetwood Mac.
Well what do you think then, how much of the people in SN concerts are Stevie fans only?
You know the Velvet Underground and the Stooges hardly sold any records by comparision, doesn't make them any less great.
And yet that material was found by a new generation well after the fact and has been endorsed and canonised by many for a long time.

[face of glass]

Lindsey is a huge focal point in the band (even prior to this current tour), so under that line of thinking, his solo albums would be just as inclined to do well as an alternate to Fleetwood Mac.
The people do not associate Fleetwood Mac's image with Lindsey Buckingham. Stevie has the most publicly known image of the band, as we all know.
My opinion is that the band does sell less if one of the Rumours' three is missing; it's been witnessed now with Say You Will. There is something about those three people on stage together. I hope that In The Meantime sells well but I have some huge doubts about it as well.
After all, he's the guitarist and the "chief architect of the Fleetwood Mac sound." And if Stevie's solo albums just sound like the Buckingham production anyway, then why not go right to the source?
How much do the masses go for the producer anyway? Maybe they all think that "Dreams" and "Rhiannon" are all Stevie.
And like I said, if there hasn't been any new Fleetwood Mac product available for a while the few hundred thousand people will buy a Stevie Nicks album instead of buying something that they might already have.
Keep in mind that if we get into the argument of songs being somehow "lesser" because they haven't struck a chord with the public, then Stevie isn't the only person at whom that charge could be levied.
I've never stated that they are "lesser", I am stating that they can be seen as being more esoteric, less classic and thus prime bargain bin/dust-gathering material. It's a case that people might not be willing to make but it can be made and it has just as much validity as your opposing arguments.
Very little of her solo work will live on in the public minds anyway. I'd say that some of Bella Donna will, and that will happen to "Stand Back" and "Talk To Me" too, possibly.
But that's about it. And that's why I can't put Stevie amongst the greatest superstars; her public popularity is in the end very limited. Snwriter made a case for Stevie being one though, that's why I felt the need for a debate.
There's a stray song or album here and there... Santana's 'Supernatural,' the Eagles' "Hole In The World"... that hits pretty big, but for the most part it just doesn't happen.
Gone are the days of Rumours when the nearly all the material was being played on the radio constantly. Now did Fleetwood Mac (and Stevie) lose it or did the public lose it?

[face of glass]

For the record I think it was the lowest point in her career. BUT, if she was no longer artistically viable, The Dance would not have been as successful as it was, Enchanted would have bombed, TISL would have flopped, and hundreds of thousands of people would not be seeing her on the current FM tour.
The success of The Dance, TISL and SYW tours have very little to do with the material that Fleetwood Mac and Stevie release today. They are nostalgic things overall.
Fleetwood Mac helps Stevie, but she's NEVER needed them since the mid 70s.
But she obviously needs the public image that she created when she was within FM, and the nostalgic package of the songs.

Yeah, ok. Does anyone around here still think this is fun? ;)

[strandinthewind]

Well, Stevie did a bunch of radio interviews about SA when it was released. She was positive about it, called it a very personal project, etc. It was only after that did she let loose with the whole "I hated the producer, I was addicted to Klonopin schpeel" - In fact did we know she was addicted to Klonopin prior to 1997? I do not remember reading that. But, I could be mistaken :shrug:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Interestingly, the song Twisted came out of the 1994-97 period and I think it is one of the best things she has written. I think LB certainly helped the production. In fact their duet version IMO far surpasses the already vrilliant solo version. So, to say Stevie, FM, and/or LB were not very creative during that time IMO is just not true. I think they just were burnt out and needed a break as history suggests all artists do.

Agreed. It was such a beautiful song and it still gives me chills when I hear it. The duet version definately surpasses the solo version (and yes, like Jason, I too love the solo version). I still feel that he was, is, and forever will be her best producer. I don't think anyone connects with her on a musical level as he does and I don't know that anyone ever will. As much as I enjoy TISL as a collective whole, sometimes I wonder what it would have sounded like had Lindsey been a part of it other than playing guitar on I Miss You

[dissention]

I'm not sure why some people are so gleeful that Street Angel wasn't a success.
I still think even if she had produced a good album back then it probably wouldn't have been successful. Look at Lindsey, he made what many people think it the best album of his career, yet that didn't set the charts on fire.
Plus we could turn that on its head: if Street Angel had been huge would that mean its a better album?
All these figures are bumming me out. They don't mean a thing to me.
You know the Velvet Underground and the Stooges hardly sold any records by comparision, doesn't make them any less great.

It probably wouldn't have been that successful, but that doesn't change the fact that what she released was crap. And it wouldn't have been good if it was huge, case in point, RAL. And I sincerely hope you aren't comparing Stevie and the Velvet Underground. That disturbs me more than comparisons to Bette and Tina.

[dissention]

[/b]

First let me say that I never said Stevie was kicking ass in that time period, I simply said some may say so. For the record I think it was the lowest point in her career. BUT, if she was no longer artistically viable, The Dance would not have been as successful as it was, Enchanted would have bombed, TISL would have flopped, and hundreds of thousands of people would not be seeing her on the current FM tour.

Totally different times and places; we all know she got "it" back. I'm discussing how she wasn't artistically viable for most of the early nineties and mid nineties.

The inner demons like Klonopin, Epstein Barr, and the mid-life crises we all have to contend with at some point, with all the physical, mental, and emotional baggage that comes with it, were the problems Stevie had to contend with. Yet, she was still able to pen some rather good songs like "Rooms On Fire" and "Blue Denim", carry on with a solo career and a band one, and have moderate success on the road. Nobody stays on the highest of highs forever. It was a struggle for Stevie during that time period, but she got through it. To say she was no longer artistically capable of making good music and connecting with people is highly inaccurate in my opinion.

To my knowledge, she said she wrote the Mirror songs before going on Klonopin, so she wasn't taking any drugs at the time (although they could've been written when she was on coke, I don't know, she still penned some great songs then). Not a Blue Denim fan, so...:laugh: And I never said she couldn't connect with people, NEVER. That's her gift, IMO.

We all know the music that she started to produce with the onset of TISL, and that would have sold itself to any record company. Fleetwood Mac helps Stevie, but she's NEVER needed them since the mid 70s.

I'll just have to laugh and agree to disagree. :xoxo:

[dissention]

Well, Stevie did a bunch of radio interviews about SA when it was released. She was positive about it, called it a very personal project, etc. It was only after that did she let loose with the whole "I hated the producer, I was addicted to Klonopin schpeel" - In fact did we know she was addicted to Klonopin prior to 1997? I do not remember reading that. But, I could be mistaken :shrug:

She did "On the Record" the SAME year the album was released and professed her great dislike for it. I've never liked the argument from the Chiffonheads that Stevie only said she disliked it because of the poor, poor sales (not that you're saying that), it's as if they can't at least budge a little and confess that the work, even if they love it, wasn't as good as her other work.

[trackaghost]

It probably wouldn't have been that successful, but that doesn't change the fact that what she released was crap. And it wouldn't have been good if it was huge, case in point, RAL. And I sincerely hope you aren't comparing Stevie and the Velvet Underground. That disturbs me more than comparisons to Bette and Tina.

I only mentioned the Velvet Underground as an example of how sales don't necessarily reflect the quality of the music.
But I adore the Velvet Underground and Lou Reed and personally I would be thrilled if Stevie did something in that vein. I would love to compare her to them (but can't)!

[trackaghost]

No Sharon, I do not mean to dig at you at all here. But since you brought it up, find me some grunge stars who gush over TOSOTM, Street Angel or even TISL. For the first three, with their drug-induced glorious excesses, you can make a case for, but how about the rest?


Only if you find me some alternative artists who have mentioned any of Lindsey's solo albums. :)

[dissention]

I only mentioned the Velvet Underground as an example of how sales don't necessarily reflect the quality of the music.
But I adore the Velvet Underground and Lou Reed and personally I would be thrilled if Stevie did something in that vein. I would love to compare her to them (but can't)!

Too bad the poor sales reflected the poor music on Street Angel. :laugh:

[jwd]

face of glass:

Originally Posted by jwd
For the record I think it was the lowest point in her career. BUT, if she was no longer artistically viable, The Dance would not have been as successful as it was, Enchanted would have bombed, TISL would have flopped, and hundreds of thousands of people would not be seeing her on the current FM tour.

The success of The Dance, TISL and SYW tours have very little to do with the material that Fleetwood Mac and Stevie release today. They are nostalgic things overall.

Well I wasn't just referring to the Tours, but also to the music that she wrote on TISL and SYW. A lot of good stuff coming from a nostalgia act, eh? And why discredit someone's "artistic abilities" because they rely heavily on classic hits? Isn't part of being artistic based on how well you perform those songs onstage by the way they're played and sung? I hardly think that people would be shelling out over $100 a show just to see some nostalgia band doing their songs poorly.


face of glass:

Originally Posted by jwd
Fleetwood Mac helps Stevie, but she's NEVER needed them since the mid 70s.

But she obviously needs the public image that she created when she was within FM, and the nostalgic package of the songs.

When you say she needs the public image she created when she was within FM, I think the key term here is, the image she created. Fleetwood didn't create it, she did, and she certainly doesn't need to be in FM to have that image. It's hers and hers alone.

[jwd]

dissention:

Originally Posted by jwd
First let me say that I never said Stevie was kicking ass in that time period, I simply said some may say so. For the record I think it was the lowest point in her career. BUT, if she was no longer artistically viable, The Dance would not have been as successful as it was, Enchanted would have bombed, TISL would have flopped, and hundreds of thousands of people would not be seeing her on the current FM tour.

Totally different times and places; we all know she got "it" back. I'm discussing how she wasn't artistically viable for most of the early nineties and mid nineties.

But you said this earlier in the thread:

"Now, I agree that TISL would have happened with or without the Mac reunion, but if she hadn't reuinted with the Mac, it would have had less exposure than Street Angel did. Heck, who knows if she would have even gotten a record deal without that reunion. She would have been forgotten by the masses and that's exactly what happened in '94 and up until the reunion. Without that reunion, her career would not have improved."

Doesn't sound like you had too much confidence in her "getting it back". :shrug:

dissention:

Originally Posted by jwd
The inner demons like Klonopin, Epstein Barr, and the mid-life crises we all have to contend with at some point, with all the physical, mental, and emotional baggage that comes with it, were the problems Stevie had to contend with. Yet, she was still able to pen some rather good songs like "Rooms On Fire" and "Blue Denim", carry on with a solo career and a band one, and have moderate success on the road. Nobody stays on the highest of highs forever. It was a struggle for Stevie during that time period, but she got through it. To say she was no longer artistically capable of making good music and connecting with people is highly inaccurate in my opinion.

To my knowledge, she said she wrote the Mirror songs before going on Klonopin, so she wasn't taking any drugs at the time (although they could've been written when she was on coke, I don't know, she still penned some great songs then). Not a Blue Denim fan, so... And I never said she couldn't connect with people, NEVER. That's her gift, IMO.


She was on Klonopin for seven years. Shortly after she left Betty Ford in '86 or '87. Unless she wrote the songs before '87 she was on Klonopin when she wrote those songs.

Damn, I love "Blue Denim"!

But don't you think being able to connect with people has something to do with artistic viability or lack of?


dissention:

Originally Posted by jwd
We all know the music that she started to produce with the onset of TISL, and that would have sold itself to any record company. Fleetwood Mac helps Stevie, but she's NEVER needed them since the mid 70s.

I'll just have to laugh and agree to disagree.


Once again, you don't think she "had it back" enough to sell her own music without FM?! Okay, we'll just laugh together and agree to disagree. :xoxo:

[face of glass]

Only if you find me some alternative artists who have mentioned any of Lindsey's solo albums. :)
*sigh*
Well, it's come to this.
Personally I believe that the whole AOR tag to Fleetwood Mac has done some significant harm to them. While their music may have reached huge audiences because of that, it also put them in a box, a situation I've described on the previous page.
How different was their music from the stuff that was being made in the earlier '70s?
Just because the main target audience of Rumours (that was unintentional, as I believe it) was a bunch of thirtysomethings who had been through their divorces, identified with the songs and had given up on following all the latest trends of music, just because of that they're AOR? Soft-rock. How the hell do you express hurt and anger through softness?
The whole "anti-thesis of punk" thing eventually has been something of a disadvantage for the band.
Should their albums have been released in the earlier years of the '70s, then they might have the same kind of "artistic credibility" as Mr. Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, hell, even Pink Floyd have.
Alas, it didn't happen. Nothing could have changed the things at that point, not even Tusk.
You think Lindsey's mainstream because he's slick and shiny? Fine. I've never thought that being slick and shiny is something that only mainstream acts do, otherwise you wouldn't hear The Cocteau Twins or Dead Can Dance doing it. Prefab Sprout and The Blue Nile, too. How about The Smiths? Late period New Order?
But of course, if you think that only by being dirty and rugged one is alternative or is not following the beaten path then I guess that speaks of your preference of the American alternative over the British equivalent.
You like Sonic Youth, you like the Pixies. But where's the revolution in noise these days? As of now there's nothing new in it, you hear it every day when you open the window. Did Sonic Youth sell out to the early '90s mainstream, the grunge, with Dirty? I think they did. Our beloved Pixies are now out on a nostalgic tour and their albums always charted highly in the UK. So aren't they mainstream too? It isn't just a case of who sounds the most distorted, IMO.

Like I've said, Lindsey suffers commercially because he doesn't want to bow down to either side. At the same time he suffers from the label that's been stamped onto him. If the AOR listeners are supposed to be people with the typical middle class lives then I'm sure the listeners who want the "street credibility" will twirl their noses to the association. At the same time they're blocking their musical horizons.

You think Neil Young is more credible than Lindsey? I don't think so. Even when he supposedly turned his back to the mainstream with Harvest he still had a significant audience that he could rely on. Whatever followed in the '70s sold well enough. And his '80s experimental albums aren't to me anything else than Dylanish quirks. Intentional attempts to drive the audience away without any genuine interest in the music he's trying to make. Only those who want to appear unusual will name those among his best work, IMO.

Personally I'm glad that the change for Lindsey is coming surely but slowly.

When I see Marcello Carlin speaking of The Smiths or The Associates in his SYW review I can only nod my head in agreement. The same thing with his review of the Tusk reissue; Pere Ubu and Gang Of Four are mentioned. Add Talking Heads and The Clash. And I'd also add Joy Division and Wire, but also the Beach Boys, the Kingston Trio and Led Zeppelin. And many more. And I don't think that's being too unrealistic or too much under the influence of my often-mentioned fan-bias. ;)

Stevie was picked up by the grunge acts not only because even on the early days she was expressing as much Patti Smith as Janis Joplin. And she is intimate and sincere and up with Neil Young in that alley, and she lived the decadent lifestyle to boot.
It's just weird that she hasn't recognized these qualities in her music so that we could get a true alternative (pun intended) solo album from her.

But yeah, we'll meet again under this topic, I'm sure. :)

[face of glass]

Well I wasn't just referring to the Tours, but also to the music that she wrote on TISL and SYW. A lot of good stuff coming from a nostalgia act, eh?
I think it's good too. But my opinion doesn't matter a thing here, I'm just a fan after all. Does the general public think the stuff she's doing now is up to the level of the past works? Where is the proof anyway?
As of now I think her recent writings have the same level of obscurity that Lindsey's music has. "POTU" and "Sorcerer" are still old songs, no matter what deep subtleties the new verse might add to the former. ;)
I think the bargain bin status of TISL will be measured in years to come anyway, it's still too new for those. We'll see.

And why discredit someone's "artistic abilities" because they rely heavily on classic hits? Isn't part of being artistic based on how well you perform those songs onstage by the way they're played and sung?
I've rarely thought she's lackluster on stage. I've never stated that she's lost her artistic abilities in this regard. I've never thought she's lost her ability to move people, but I think the latter thing is very subjective anyway.
I've never said she's washed up, I've just said that the general public probably thinks so of her latest writings.

I think the key term here is, the image she created. Fleetwood didn't create it, she did, and she certainly doesn't need to be in FM to have that image. It's hers and hers alone.
Whereas my belief has always been that this image could never have existed without the music that the band was creating.
The way she acted, the way she dressed, the way she dramatically yelled and twirled, it all came from the way the band played and from the way the band had arranged the music.
It was the music that pushed her to the breaking point in "Rhiannon", it was the music that caused her to pull out one heck of a sexy vocal for "Dreams".

That's why I think she is in the band's shadow. While her successful solo career in the beginning of the '80s might prove otherwise, the success she's had since doesn't do it, for me at least.
The slump that was Street Angel could have destroyed her commercially successful career totally but it didn't happen, thanks to The Dance.
She was the one who initially wanted to benefit from it, she started her own solo tour very quickly after it and the attendance was lower because the public wanted to rather see all of the Rumours line-up on stage.
With the TISL tour she kept the flag flying and I applaud her for that.
I just don't think that right now she's in any better position in terms of her own material than the other members of the band. She can get it out on a large label easily but who will buy it, and more importantly, who will listen to all of it and learn to pick other favourites in addition to the singles?

Phew. :)

[dissention]

But you said this earlier in the thread: 'Now, I agree that TISL would have happened with or without the Mac reunion, but if she hadn't reuinted with the Mac, it would have had less exposure than Street Angel did. Heck, who knows if she would have even gotten a record deal without that reunion. She would have been forgotten by the masses and that's exactly what happened in '94 and up until the reunion. Without that reunion, her career would not have improved."

Doesn't sound like you had too much confidence in her "getting it back". :shrugs:

Yup, that's exactly what I said and I stand by it. You're confusing artistic viability with commercial viability. TISL would have happened (probably not with the same songs) without the reunion, I was simply saying that it would not have had the same buzz or exposure without that push back into the spotlight from The Dance.

And no, I didn't have much hope that she would get it back. But she did and that's neither here nor there. Once again, I'm discussing her art and creativity in the early nineties.

She was on Klonopin for seven years. Shortly after she left Betty Ford in '86 or '87. Unless she wrote the songs before '87 she was on Konopin when she wrote those songs.

I guess that shoots down the argument that she was lucid during the making of Tango. ;)

Whole Lotta Trouble was written in Australia in '86, Long Way To Go was written in '85, Juliet had to be written in '86 or very early '87, I suspect that Doing the Best That I Can was written before or immediately after rehab; I don't know the rest. All I know is that I read an interview or article where she said that all of the songs were written beofre the Klonopin days.

But don't you think being able to connect with people has something to do with artistic viability or lack of?[/QUOTE]

Nope. Anyone can get up onstage and sing the same songs to the same audience and still have them connect. But if they can't write songs like they used to and have to resort to releasing stuff like "Kick It" or "Docklands," they've lost a helluva lot of their artistic ability and creativity. Lord, even Stevie admits she was not creative at all during these periods and that she wrote nothing really memorable.

Again, this is all my opinion.

Once again, you don't think she "had it back" enough to sell her own music without FM?! Okay, we'll just laugh together and agree to disagree. :xoxo:

Nope. She needed that reunion tour to get her career back on track. Without it, she'd be lucky to get Street Angel's album sales.

[dissention]

"POTU" and "Sorcerer" are still old songs, no matter what deep subtleties the new verse might add to the former. ;)

Don't you mean what deep subtleties the new verse written by Poe has? ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Don't you mean what deep subtleties the new verse written by Poe has? ;)

:rolleyes: Again, there's that "glee" that comes thru, when you find a supposed chink in Stevie's armor, that you can use to nitpick and throw in people's faces. :p

From as far back as I can remember, Stevie has said that one of the ways in which she writes, is to open up a chapter from one of her favorite books, read it, and then allow it to "filter thru" her.

All artists borrow ideas from others arists in one way or another, and it's not some kind of big deal.

So in case anyone is wondering, here are Poe's verses that inspired Stevie....

From 'Serenade (http://eserver.org/books/poe/serenade.html)': "The wearied light is lying down, and earth, and stars, and sea, and sky are redolent with sleep"

From 'Dreamland (http://eserver.org/books/poe/dreamland.html)': "Mountains toppling evermore into seas without a
shore. Seas that restlessly aspire, Surging, unto skies of fire"

From 'Eulalie (http://eserver.org/books/poe/eulalie.html)': "Now doubt-- now pain come never again"


The first verse of "Planets Of The Universe":

"The bright light is lying down
The earth and the sea and the sky
Is at rest with the ocean
And the days go by
They go into the seas that have no shores
Haunted by that same closed door
Looking up at skies on fire
Leaving nothing left of us to discover"

And the second:

"No doubt, no pain, come ever again
Let there be light in this lifetime
In the cool, silent moments of the nighttime"

[Johnny Stew]

So...Stevie had oversaturated the market and overexposed herself so much that people had no desire to see her or buy her album (i.e. they were sick of her)? :shrug:

Well, I can't get enough... so she could release a new album every year and I wouldn't get tired of hearing her.
But yes, every artist is in danger of the backlash that usually follows "overexposure."

And given the fact that Stevie was visible every year, for years on end, there was no potential for some level of "nostalgia" to be built up around her. Which was the point I was making. :)

[Johnny Stew]

"Let's roll". (-Neil Young, 2001) ;)

The tanking of Out Of The Cradle, or of any Lindsey Buckingham solo product for that matter, has always been because of the general diversity contained within the album. Parts of it is material for the listeners of classic rock, parts of it is material for the listeners of new wave and punk. The album doesn't bow down to any particular target group as a whole. Some may say that it's a desperate attempt to give "something for everybody (=nothing for anyone)". I say his musical schizophrenia is a description of a chaotic mind, a person who's not afraid of dealing with possessiveness, paranoia, anger, sarcasm, violence, plain weird and depressive (qualities of punk/new wave) or the happiness, ye typical love topics, smoothness, subtlety and spiritual elevation, the uplift (qualities of the hippie-drenched classic rock). He deals with all of that and sometimes he does 'em the same time, mixes them up, shakes and stirs them. Now when he does all that it should be obvious that if a single from an album reaches the public then it won't make his album a big success. Albums that are successes in the modern world are not bound to the general '60s sense of diversity. Should someone who liked "Trouble" buy Law And Order and expect more of the same then there would be an obvious disappointment. There is always something wrong in Lindsey's solo work for those who expect him to stay in one mold all the time and if one does not accept such diversity, a thing that is not encouraged in the modern world when the trend is to package, labelize and categorize everything, then one will not ever learn to appreciate at least some of his work.

I hate that I always have to qualify my comments by saying that I love Lindsey's music, but I'll do it again... I love Lindsey's music. :D
I'm not playing for the other team here, I'm right with all of the Lindsey-lovers.

But, Gaius, isn't it also possible that it's a rose-colored view to say that Lindsey's albums didn't sell too well because of their diversity?
Take into consideration that the singles were pushed to various radio formats, where any one of them had the potential to catch on and become a big hit.
Also take into consideration how many albums sell tons of copies on the strength of one big hit single. Did anyone care if the other songs on Chumbawamba's album didn't sound like "Tubthumping"? They still bought the album.

If one or two songs catch the public's eye, then it doesn't matter if they don't sound like the rest of the album.

I think one of the things that "hurt" Lindsey, in regards to sales, was the fact that his music was too eccentric for people who prefer Top 40 music, and too "artsy" for people who prefer rock & roll (ironically, Warner Bros. originally passed on signing Stevie as a solo act, because they were afraid her albums would be too "artsy").

I think it also all seemed a little too calculated and aloof, for it to capture people's hearts.

We can say that people just don't "get it," but if I'm told that that's a cop-out answer in regards to why people don't like"When I See You Again," then it's just as much of a cop-out when it comes to Lindsey's music.

We love it... who knows (or cares) why others don't.
And the same is true of 'Street Angel'... that it didn't have huge appeal, even to some of Stevie's own fans, doesn't mean that it's "crap." I'm not saying that it lived up to her previous work... although some of her songs are a tad hard for anyone to live up to... or that it was the best thing since sliced bread. It's just that some things strike a chord with people, and some things don't, and it doesn't make the music worthless.
In fact, I think it makes it that much more special and personal for those of us that it does reach. :)

Very little of her solo work will live on in the public minds anyway. I'd say that some of Bella Donna will, and that will happen to "Stand Back" and "Talk To Me" too, possibly.
But that's about it. And that's why I can't put Stevie amongst the greatest superstars; her public popularity is in the end very limited.

I think the 1.4 million people who bought 'Timespace' are a good indication that Stevie's solo music will live on. The album didn't contain any of Stevie's Mac classics (even if she had wanted to include "Silver Springs," so it would finally be available as something other than a b-side), and she only had a very minor hit with one of the new songs ("Sometimes It's A Bitch" peaked at #56)... so the album has sold on the strength of the music it contains.

[strandinthewind]

:rolleyes: Again, there's that "glee" that comes thru, when you find a supposed chink in Stevie's armor, that you can use to nitpick and throw in people's faces. :p

From as far back as I can remember, Stevie has said that one of the ways in which she writes, is to open up a chapter from one of her favorite books, read it, and then allow it to "filter thru" her.

All artists borrow ideas from others arists in one way or another, and it's not some kind of big deal.

So in case anyone is wondering, here are Poe's verses that inspired Stevie....

From 'Serenade (http://eserver.org/books/poe/serenade.html)': "The wearied light is lying down, and earth, and stars, and sea, and sky are redolent with sleep"

From 'Dreamland (http://eserver.org/books/poe/dreamland.html)': "Mountains toppling evermore into seas without a
shore. Seas that restlessly aspire, Surging, unto skies of fire"

From 'Eulalie (http://eserver.org/books/poe/eulalie.html)': "Now doubt-- now pain come never again"


The first verse of "Planets Of The Universe":

"The bright light is lying down
The earth and the sea and the sky
Is at rest with the ocean
And the days go by
They go into the seas that have no shores
Haunted by that same closed door
Looking up at skies on fire
Leaving nothing left of us to discover"

And the second:

"No doubt, no pain, come ever again
Let there be light in this lifetime
In the cool, silent moments of the nighttime"

ITA - I mean she did not quote him and her stuff is different - BTW - Poe is a source of inspiration for lots of people, that is why he is what he is. I think ther verses are completely different in meaning, but that is just me.

IMO as for the whole "could she have made a comeback without The Dance" - no one knows for sure. If they can, then they have a crystal ball :laugh: For all we know, Stevie could have written other songs and had larger hits with them. No one can say with any certainty that would not have happened. But the point is The Dance did happen and she got a boost from that. We cannot change the facts or rewrite history. We can only speculate what would have happened without it. In other words, no one is right and no one is wrong IMO. :cool:

[dissention]

:rolleyes: Again, there's that "glee" that comes thru, when you find a supposed chink in Stevie's armor, that you can use to nitpick and throw in people's faces. :p

From as far back as I can remember, Stevie has said that one of the ways in which she writes, is to open up a chapter from one of her favorite books, read it, and then allow it to "filter thru" her.

All artists borrow ideas from others arists in one way or another, and it's not some kind of big deal.

So in case anyone is wondering, here are Poe's verses that inspired Stevie....

From 'Serenade (http://eserver.org/books/poe/serenade.html)': "The wearied light is lying down, and earth, and stars, and sea, and sky are redolent with sleep"

From 'Dreamland (http://eserver.org/books/poe/dreamland.html)': "Mountains toppling evermore into seas without a
shore. Seas that restlessly aspire, Surging, unto skies of fire"

From 'Eulalie (http://eserver.org/books/poe/eulalie.html)': "Now doubt-- now pain come never again"


The first verse of "Planets Of The Universe":

"The bright light is lying down
The earth and the sea and the sky
Is at rest with the ocean
And the days go by
They go into the seas that have no shores
Haunted by that same closed door
Looking up at skies on fire
Leaving nothing left of us to discover"

And the second:

"No doubt, no pain, come ever again
Let there be light in this lifetime
In the cool, silent moments of the nighttime"

:rolleyes: And if you don't see that as being akin to plagiarism, I'll never understand you. :lol:

I love the song, but c'mon. She took a LOT of the "new" stuff from Poe. She also took a lot of Fire Burning from Oscar Wilde, although I can't remember which work.

Bob Dylan did the same thing with his last album; he took loads of lyrics from a Japanese philosophy book. :laugh:

Again, I don't see what Stevie did as a big deal, I just pointed out the flaw in what you were trying to pass off as something she wrote. That's just false. But god forbid if Stevie is called out on something. And jsut think, this all stemmed from being asked who we'd like as producer for her next album. :laugh: I still go with Petty, BTW.

[dissention]

ITA - I mean she did not quote him and her stuff is different - BTW - Poe is a source of inspiration for lots of people, that is why he is what he is. I think ther verses are completely different in meaning, but that is just me.

Oh please. Anyone can take someone else's work and change a few words to call it their own. Regardless if the meaning is different. By that token, I could take the lyrics to one of her songs, pass it off as my own, and say I'm not plagiarizing, I'm interpreting them differently. :laugh: :xoxo:

[Johnny Stew]

:rolleyes: And if you don't see that as being akin to plagiarism, I'll never understand you. :lol:

I love the song, but c'mon. She took a LOT of the "new" stuff from Poe. She also took a lot of Fire Burning from Oscar Wilde, although I can't remember which work.

Bob Dylan did the same thing with his last album; he took loads of lyrics from a Japanese philosophy book. :laugh:

Again, I don't see what Stevie did as a big deal, I just pointed out the flaw in what you were trying to pass off as something she wrote. That's just false. But god forbid if Stevie is called out on something. And jsut think, this all stemmed from being asked who we'd like as producer for her next album. :laugh: I still go with Petty, BTW.

I wasn't trying to pass it off as something other than what it was. I simply stated that there were new verses in that song, that were not written in the '70s. So whether or not those verses were born entirely out of her own imagination, or not, they weren't written in the '70s. :)

And to say that she took "a lot" of "Fire Burning" from Oscar Wilde is innacurate.
Here are the two lines Oscar wrote, from his work "The Tragedy Of One's Own Soul," that Stevie reinterpreted for "Fire Burning":

"A huge fire was blazing."
"His eyes grew strangely bright."

She did, however, reinterpret a few other verses from that particular work, for "Freedom" (two lines), "Paper Doll" (one line), and her "Tragedy Of One's Own Soul" (one line and the title).

[strandinthewind]

Oh I love it when I get to pull out my big red dic. :cool:

From http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=plagiarizing

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun
_____________________________________________________________

While Stevie certainly was heavily influenced by Poe, I think she transforms his words into her different words and uses her words to convey her story, which is different than Poe's story. That makes the difference for me. Thus, plagiarizing is perhaps too strong of a word.

As an aside, would we all be willing to admit Poe was a producer of Stevie :laugh:

[dissention]

Oh I love it when I get to pull out my big red dic. :cool:

From http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=plagiarizing

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun


According to that, she either has to credit Poe or have her songs labeled "PLAGIARIZED." :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

According to that, she either has to credit Poe or have her songs labeled "PLAGIARIZED." :laugh:

Did you read my second post!!!! :p

She is not passing his stuff off as her own. She is taking it and rewording it to support her own idea and story. That is inspiration, not plagiarization :shrug: Annabell Lee (sp.?) is plagiarization IMO because it is not her story it is his :shrug:

[dissention]

Did you read my second post!!!! :p

She is not passing his stuff off as her own. She is taking it and rewording it to support her own idea and story. That is inspiration, not plagiarization :shrug: Annabell Lee (sp.?) is plagiarization IMO because it is not her story it is his :shrug:

I read the definition, not your interpretation of the definition. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I read the definition, not your interpretation of the definition. :laugh:

me too!!!!! Come on admit it - I got ya cornered :cool: She is not plagiarizing becuase she is using his stuff for inspiration and making up her own stories. That, according to the big red dic. is not plagiarizing :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Lindsey better start adding a Brian Wilson to the production credits of all of his releases then. :p :laugh:

Actually, he probably should add Todd Rundgren while he's at it.

[dissention]

me too!!!!! Come on admit it - I got ya cornered :cool: She is not plagiarizing becuase she is using his stuff for inspiration and making up her own stories. That, according to the big red dic. is not plagiarizing :cool:

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

She took his ideas, changed a few words, and passed it off as a La Nicks original.

[dissention]

Lindsey better start adding a Brian Wilson to the production credits of all of his releases then. :p :laugh:

Actually, he probably should add Todd Rundgren while he's at it.

I would have no problem with that. It still wouldn't change the fact that I love his msuic, and the same goes for Stevie.

[dissention]

It's been fun, boys, but my ass is pooped.

TTYL. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

She took his ideas, changed a few words, and passed it off as a La Nicks original.

No she did not do that. She is not telling the same story as Poe did. She is telling her own story. She changed the words so they convery her idea, which is sep. from Poe's story. So, she did not "steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own" they are her words and her ideas not Poe's. Was Poe talking about the Planets of the universe goining their way and not paying attention to the breakup of these two. I do not think so :laugh: It is just not within the textbook definistion of plagiarism. It does, however, indirectly borrow heavily from Poe with changed words and meanings in a few places. But that is different.

[Johnny Stew]

Annabell Lee (sp.?) is plagiarization IMO because it is not her story it is his :shrug:

"Annabel Lee" would only be considered plagiarism if it appeared on an album with the notation "written by Stevie Nicks," because it is a word-for-word copy of someone else's work.

"Lyrics by Edgar Allan Poe, Music by Stevie Nicks," would be the appropriate credit.

But to borrow someone else's line or phrase as a starting point, and then reinterpret it, isn't considered plagiarism.

If what Stevie does (and not even all that frequently, I might add) was considered plagiarism, she would have been slapped with lawsuits by the estates of Wilde and Poe years ago.

And if Phil Spector couldn't sue Eddie Money for the use of the line "be my little baby," AND having Ronnie Spector sing it, then Poe's estate couldn't sue for "skies on fire," etc.

Once again, it's all just a mountain made out of a mole-hill. :)

[darklinensuit]

"Annabel Lee" would only be considered plagiarism if it appeared on an album with the notation "written by Stevie Nicks," because it is a word-for-word copy of someone else's work.

"Lyrics by Edgar Allan Poe, Music by Stevie Nicks," would be the appropriate credit.

Exactly. This is what Loreena McKennitt has done on some of her releases.

Unless Stevie releases the song under only her name, it's not plagiarism.

- Jake

[EveryHour]

Good choice! :wavey:

Personally, I'd like to hear a Tom Petty produced album. But that's just me. ;)

Holy cow! Why did I not think of that?! 'Twould be awesome! :nod:
:)

[darklinensuit]

Holy cow! Why did I not think of that?! 'Twould be awesome! :nod:
:)

Especially if he turned her down, which might inspire a great song: "You produce your songs yourself, That made me stronger..." ;) :lol:

- Jake

[EveryHour]

The (Enchanted) tour itself rocked because it was great hearing those songs and her voice was top notch, but you can't deny that she opted out of doing most of the rock songs.





Not any more than on any one of her previous tours!

...And there were still plenty: Enchanted, Stop Draggin', Gold & Braid, Stand Back, Whole Lotta Trouble, Edge Of 17, I Need To know.

What's that...1/2 the setlist?! :nod:

[EveryHour]

I love Stevie just as much as you guys, but I just recognize what I see as crap from someone who could have done much better.

In an ideal, problem-free life, maybe so. I think she was kickin' ass considering what she, as a human being, was going through at the time. I admire that she was determined to keep going despite health battles, criticism, etc. But even Stevie Nicks is not invincible and she did eventually have to take her break from '94-'96. And I admired her for that too...to say "enough for a minute"! Up until that point, she'd never allowed herself to do that. It wasn't hard, as a fan, to understand why she needed to do that...her dedication to her fans and work ethic are unmatchable.



What were once thoughtful and emotionally stirring lyrics became cliched and ridiculous. It may be Stevie Nicks singing them, but it isn't Stevie Nicks to me.

That last sentence implies that you have an ideal of Stevie as "a star" and cannot grasp her as a human being. It was Stevie in the 90's because...who the hell else was it??!!! :laugh: That was who she was at that time, and if it doesn't move you, no one can force it down your throat. But to describe her work at that time as "cliched and rediculous" is seriously pissing me off! :sorry: :xoxo:

When I put on a Stevie Nicks song, I do it because I feel as if she's speaking my language and there is a person out there who I feel writes songs for me. That wasn't there at that time. She was at a time where her life, in general, was in a bad state and she recorded a lot of that music in the same state of mind; it wasn't as satisfying as it was back in the day because all of her creativity was sapped. That, in turn, sapped her enthusiasm and high spirits and we were given a lot of lackluster songs that reflected her own disappointment with her music.

I completely understand the "speaking my language" bit. So then how could you not hear the emotion in Stevie's voice singing, "I am trying to be strong" in Destiny? That's where she was at the time, and I am interested in hearing this album as a reflection of this because I want to experience all of her ups and downs with her. That's where Stevie has always taken us. You can tell in interviews and performances from '94 that she was on her way to becoming the very happy person that she is now, but she was tired from the implant and Klonopin recoveries. I think it was an epic time in her life.

No, it's nothing new for Stevie to resurrect a couple of old songs, but almost all of the songs she wrote and used for Street Angel were old songs; the rest were written by other songwriters. Surely it stands to reason that someone can come away form that album thinking she was most definitely not at in a creative period.

Of course, this was her least creative period. But, again, I'm interested in taking any journey with her. And it all wonderfully led to Petty snapping her out of it. Everyone has to hit a low before they can rise back up.

As I've said before numerous times, her and her songs would not be forgotten by people, especially us fans, she just would not have been a viable or bankable solo artist. We can call it a "what if" situation, but other saying that she would have bounced back without The Dance are using the same "what if" arguments.



True. But you should say "may not have been" instead of "would not have been". There's no way you could ever know/prove that. I guess I just don't give a rip if she was ever "bankable" again. I'm not necessarily saying you care, either, I know you're probably just arguing a point. But I have to admit such talk bores me to tears. I also don't really see Stevie as 'compare-able' to her "female contemporaries", even though comparing also bores me to tears;). I always felt her vibe was more trying to "keep up with the men". And though it nearly killed her on more than one occasion, I think she has 'succeeded', however she may define that. ("And only The Highwaywoman keeps up with the likes of those...")

That's understandable, but it doesn't negate the fact that I think her output during those years was pure shit. :laugh:

I can't do this anymore!!!!! :laugh:

[EveryHour]

Especially if he turned her down, which might inspire a great song: "You produce your songs yourself, That made me stronger..." ;) :lol:

- Jake

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

That last sentence implies that you have an ideal of Stevie as "a star" and cannot grasp her as a human being. It was Stevie in the 90's because...who the hell else was it??!!! :laugh: That was who she was at that time, and if it doesn't move you, no one can force it down your throat. But to describe her work at that time as "cliched and rediculous" is seriously pissing me off! :sorry: :xoxo:

You know I love ya, but tough tacos. :xoxo:

I have no ideal of Stevie being "a star," you're totally twisting my words. Here was an artist who had written AMAZING songs that I felt deeply in my soul. Now, she's singing really bad songs that, IMO, simply did not contain any of the magic that her previous work did. My ideal of her was to at least continue making music that would touch me as deeply as all of her previous stuff did. Unfortunately, she didn't. To me, it was cliched and ridiculous. She had gone from writing incredibly deep songs to recroding a lot of material she hadn't written and the ones she did were just blah. They weren't magical in any way, shape, or form. They just...were.

I understand your argument, I just don't see how you cannot understand where I'm coming from. It would be like Carole King recording a reggae album after Tapestry. Think you'd be a bit disappointed and a little unmoved? Of course you would. You'd say to yourself, Where is the artist I fell in love with?

I completely understand the "speaking my language" bit. So then how could you not hear the emotion in Stevie's voice singing, "I am trying to be strong" in Destiny? That's where she was at the time, and I am interested in hearing this album as a reflection of this because I want to experience all of her ups and downs with her. That's where Stevie has always taken us. You can tell in interviews and performances from '94 that she was on her way to becoming the very happy person that she is now, but she was tired from the implant and Klonopin recoveries. I think it was an epic time in her life.

No, I was never moved by Destiny. There are only a few select songs that had any effect on me, that wasn't one of them. Like I said, I'm glad she got through the bad stuff, but just because she was in a bad state, it does NOT mean the album can't be criticized for being bad.

Of course, this was her least creative period. But, again, I'm interested in taking any journey with her. And it all wonderfully led to Petty snapping her out of it. Everyone has to hit a low before they can rise back up.

I'm interested in taking ever journey with her, too, or else I wouldn't have bought every one of her albums, collected hundreds of bootlegs, gone to countless shows, and joined a message board to discuss her career. But again, just because I criticize one unproductive period from career, it doesn't mean I'm any less of a fan or less worthy of being one. But unfortunately , that's the mentality around here: love it all or don't speak, we'll eat you alive. My apologies, but that's not me. If I dislike something, I'm going to say so, regardless of who gets mad because I don't like what they do.

I can't do this anymore!!!!! :laugh:

Then I guess I got the last word. ;) :xoxo:

[face of glass]

I'm staying out of the lyrics debate. :eek:
I hate that I always have to qualify my comments by saying that I love Lindsey's music, but I'll do it again... I love Lindsey's music.
This has never been questioned by me. What reason do I have to question it anyway? But let's question another thing. Since you've stated that you're quite a fan of Messrs. Burnette and Vito, how come I've never seen you discussing their solo albums (except for the Bekka & Billy one)? ;)
But, Gaius, isn't it also possible that it's a rose-colored view to say that Lindsey's albums didn't sell too well because of their diversity?
Who here is to say that I have the access to the public conscience anyway? Or that I'm more objective than anyone else here is? :)
For me his diversity stood out from day one, long since I noticed that I've become a fan.
Should you not see it, then it speaks of your background more than mine. When I compare Lindsey to Eno, Wood or Rundgren I mean it. That's the area I come from.
Take into consideration that the singles were pushed to various radio formats, where any one of them had the potential to catch on and become a big hit.
Did anyone even try to push "Wrong" into the alternative market? How different that is from what was going on at the time?
Even then one could argue that the chaos of "Wrong" is quite a contrast to that of "Soul Drifter" or "Countdown". As is the oddball chorus of "Don't Look Down".
Did anyone care if the other songs on Chumbawamba's album didn't sound like "Tubthumping"? They still bought the album.
My understanding is that Tubthumper sold because "Tubthumping" was not available as a single, remember, this was still in a time when singles were not released just for the radio.
If one or two songs catch the public's eye, then it doesn't matter if they don't sound like the rest of the album.
"Trouble", in spite of being a top10 single, didn't lift Law And Order any further than #31 on the Billboard album chart.
Likewise, "Go Insane" charted very well and it wasn't enough make the album much of a chart success.
I think that in very rare cases people are inspired to buy an album on the basis of one song that they like. They need more hits than that; Stevie had four from Bella Donna and has nearly always had more than one heavily promoted hit from an album.
In my belief what matters the most in terms of sales is that the album itself doesn't deviate too far from the single material. Stevie's albums very rarely do that.
Personally I can imagine people being charmed by "Trouble" back in 1981 and thinking that it was especially representative of Law And Order. Then when they listen to the album and find out that nothing else sounds like it, the reputation starts spreading; Lindsey Buckingham's albums are nothing but kooky pieces of pop experiments that have no relation whatsoever to the side that he chooses to show to the public.
That's what hurt his album sales. People don't buy albums because they want the song that they can buy as a single also, they buy albums because they want more of the same.
They released "It Was I" as the second single from Law And Order and that naivete of that one has no connection at all to "Trouble".
...his music was too eccentric for people who prefer Top 40 music...
Which has been stated.
...and too "artsy" for people who prefer rock & roll
And Stevie is the queen of the party mentality, obviously. ;)
(ironically, Warner Bros. originally passed on signing Stevie as a solo act, because they were afraid her albums would be too "artsy").
Who knows, maybe they heard some of those unfinished demos and thought the image of SN alone was unmarketable.
Let's pick this apart then. You basically described the American mainstream as follows; "Top 40 music" (as in piano ballads, the romantic background wallpaper, the dance music section) and "rock & roll". That's a pretty narrow description of it but from my understanding it might actually be an accurate description of the times. So he didn't sell and why was that? Because the music had already been put into boxes, chopped into pieces, labelized and sold to the correct consumer. What room is there for the pop eccentric anyway? And he still was able to get a single or two through. It's not like the times were totally against his music, as a whole he just didn't seem to fit into anything. And he still doesn't.
I think it also all seemed a little too calculated and aloof, for it to capture people's hearts.
That is Ken Caillat's argument. "Lindsey doesn't get along with people and it comes through in his music, Stevie gets along with people and it comes through in her music", or something along those lines. I personally think they can both be as esoteric and as navel-gazing as the other so I don't think there is any difference in between the two here.
You speaking of "calculation" doesn't seem to be anything more to me than your own preference of Stevie's more "natural" style. I think Stevie calculates as well, not when she writes but when the album evolves into the finished product from the demo stages.
How does an artist capture the people's hearts anyway? I could accuse Talking Heads of being as "calculated and aloof" as Lindsey is. No one knows what the hell David Byrne is singing about but he sure didn't seem to be dealing with the commonly accepted emotions. I can't imagine anyone taking all of his lyrics to heart. And his band still sold a lot of albums in the '80s. Lindsey isn't any weirder than Byrne is. The only reason why Lindsey then didn't sell as much as the Heads did was because his label failed to see another potential audience for him.
We can say that people just don't "get it," but if I'm told that that's a cop-out answer in regards to why people don't like"When I See You Again," then it's just as much of a cop-out when it comes to Lindsey's music.
You think I've been trying to put myself above the others here? That I'm so damn intelligent because I write long posts, analyse Lindsey Buckingham's work to a ridiculous degree and therefore declare that I'm the king of the universe because I "get" this deep-reaching artistry within the pop format. Then forget it. I always cringe when I see people doing stuff like that. '"Welcome To The Room...Sara" is a deep artistic piece, "Say You Will" is pop crap.' I hate stuff like that, especially when I feel that "WTTR...S" is something that one can only identify with if there's some training done before listening to it; knowing details of Stevie's life etc. And "Say You Will" is the uplifting, life-affirming, less "deep and dark" piece, the thing that seems simpler but is not tied to such "obligatory training processes" as "WTTR...S".
I have always believed that everything Lindsey Buckingham has done is accessible, is human-like, isn't too over-the-top or egocentric. And I also believe that there's no need for anyone to undergo some heavy training in order to appreciate any of it. Neither do I believe that he's been trying to put himself on to a pedestal of sorts, a place where only the "select few" can go.
What I believe, however, is that the music listening habits of too many people are limiting their horizons and that is mainly because of the environment that the record labels have created for us. It takes some questioning attitude in order to change the radio channel into a different one (in content) and it isn't easy to escape the whole "be what you listen to" mentality. It's not just a question of opening up, it's a question of learning to accept other kinds of music, in a similar way that you learn to accept other kinds of people. I don't think this is a matter of learning to love everything a particular artist has done. You can certainly think that a part of it is good and that a part of it is crap. It's people's right. :)
And the same goes to Lindsey; you don't have to like everything he's done. But if his role as a pop eccentric (which is what I believe he is, and you can cram a LOT of stuff under the mere label of "pop") is to express himself as much as he can through his music in spite of still being limited technically, then I think he's doing it through different genres as well. And that is why some diversity in taste would help in understanding what I think Lindsey is after.
If the alternative crowd find Lindsey suspicious because of his association with Fleetwood Mac, because he's on a large label and because he likes to enjoy his luxuries, so what. The last two "accusations" I can throw at many alternative acts as well.
And the same is true of 'Street Angel'... that it didn't have huge appeal, even to some of Stevie's own fans, doesn't mean that it's "crap."
And I've never stated that the album is crap but I believe it is closer to being a fan favourite than anything else in her solo catalogue.
About "When I See You Again" then. I think the latter can be seen as a tremendously moving song because she's nearly as intimate in there as on Tusk. But just as much as the Nicksian intimacy is a draw for some, it can also be seen as tremendously off-putting. [Just a note, I'm aware that Lindsey has some pieces that can be seen equally esoteric, although I don't think they're inaccessible at all.]
I don't think any of her most genuinely intimate work, "Storms", "Rock A Little", "When I See You Again", a few moments from Street Angel or "Goodbye Baby" are ever going to leave much of a print into public minds and that's obviously because the public doesn't know how to deal with these. There's three songs in the list that I truly love but I can personally see how many would be turned off by those.
I don't think Street Angel in its entirety reaches out to such vulnerable points but I do think it's sort of a "Stevie Nicks stripped down" album; the point where she has not only toned down some of the excesses but also the drama game. And if those were huge attraction points for people who bought Stevie's albums then I understand how it is viewed as a disappointment. Most people were not willing to see Stevie stripped down of those two things that made her so attractive to them. Again, I guess that's reflective of the state her life was in at that point. And it's not a surprise that she once again went with large scale romanticism on TISL.
In fact, I think it makes it that much more special and personal for those of us that it does reach.
And then we can always dig up the age-old, tried and tested arguments of the music being only for the "special few", the "trained ones".
Hell, I'm one of them anyway, I like the album. :)

I don't wish you to take this personally Johnny and correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading in 2002 something about Street Angel helping you to get through some rough times when it came out. Now I'm not saying that everyone who likes the album has had similar experiences with it but is that why I feel some defensiveness from you when we're talking about Street Angel?
I think the 1.4 million people who bought 'Timespace' are a good indication that Stevie's solo music will live on.
Like I said, I won't ever take away from her the solo success she had in the early '80s when she was THE woman of the American mainstream before Madonna came along. And I did list some of the songs from that period, material that I, too, think will live on.
Even then I listed about five songs. Who knows what would happen if such a compilation was released today? I do not see it as anything else than an opportunity for the casual fans to have most of the favourites on one disc.
And it should be said that I wrote all this only because I do not think Stevie is a superstar anymore (the claim that Snwriter made) in any other sense than the nostalgic one. And I don't think her current material will live on the way we like it would, even though that has nothing to do with the quality of the music. Ad infinitum.

[Johnny Stew]

Since you've stated that you're quite a fan of Messrs. Burnette and Vito, how come I've never seen you discussing their solo albums (except for the Bekka & Billy one)? ;)

Because, quite honestly, I'm not as well-versed in their solo material, as I am with Lindsey's.
I think I've always said that (beyond Fleetwood Mac as an entity) Stevie is my favorite, followed by Lindsey.
So while I consider myself to be a big fan of Billy & Rick, I still don't consider myself to be as adept at discussing their music as others may be. I haven't analyzed it and poured over it and memorized every little note of it like I have with Stevie & Lindsey's material. :o

For me his diversity stood out from day one, long since I noticed that I've become a fan.
Should you not see it, then it speaks of your background more than mine.

Of course I see it, Gaius... I'd have to be deaf not to. I just sometimes think that saying his music is too diverse for people (ie: that people don't "get it," because it's "different") is being a bit elitist.
There are plenty of examples (in fact, you've already given some) of "diverse" artists, whose music seems inaccessible on the surface, but who've still enjoyed a pretty decent amount of success.

In regards to Stevie, I have always maintained that she's not for everyone.
Her voice and "fey" writing style will always prevent her from appealling to the broadest amount of people possible.
But, at the same time, I do think it's impressive how many people she DOES reach, given those things.

So, if Stevie's music can never possibly appeal to everyone, and Lindsey's music can never possibly appeal to everyone... why did one of them find more success as a solo act than the other?

Personally, I've always felt the reasons are far more complicated and intangible than the simple "because his music is too diverse" or "because of her sexy image" answers.

In my heart of hearts, I do believe a big part of it is due to the fact that more people can relate to the way Stevie chronicles her journey.
I know you don't agree with what Ken Caillat said, but I think it holds a lot of truth.
Stevie's personality tends to draw you in... she tends to give off the vibe of a great, fiesty gal, who'd sit down for a cup of tea with you and tell you her life-story.
Lindsey... up until recently... has always seemed more skittish, and off-put by the idea of having to actually talk with someone. Not that I think he's an un-friendly guy... I think it just seems that you'd have to work a lot harder to draw him out and gain his trust. He always (again, until recently) gave off the "loner" vibe.

I think when the public feels they don't know you... or wouldn't want to know you... then it harms your chances of ever having a mass level of fame.
Not that it can't still happen... it just makes it less likely to happen.

I don't wish you to take this personally Johnny and correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading in 2002 something about Street Angel helping you to get through some rough times when it came out. Now I'm not saying that everyone who likes the album has had similar experiences with it but is that why I feel some defensiveness from you when we're talking about Street Angel?

'Street Angel' definitely has a place in my heart, but I don't think I'm particularly defensive about it.
I have always readily admitted that, overall, it's not her best work. It's not even my favorite of her solo albums (that's a tie between 'The Wild Heart' and 'Trouble In Shangri-La')... it's just that I personally think it's more than just "worthless crap," deserving of scorn.

It reached me at a time when nothing else was making any difference to me. I was angry, mad, confused, scared, and I found no enjoyment in anything... so the fact that 'Street Angel' wasn't just another thing I couldn't have cared less about at that time, was a pretty big deal to me.
So yeah, even if it isn't the greatest Stevie Nicks album ever recorded, it is not... in my eyes... the least bit "worthless."

[trackaghost]

And it should be said that I wrote all this only because I do not think Stevie is a superstar anymore (the claim that Snwriter made) in any other sense than the nostalgic one. And I don't think her current material will live on the way we like it would, even though that has nothing to do with the quality of the music. Ad infinitum.

But do you think Lindsey is a superstar?

I have to say Gaius, I owned OOTC back in the early 90s, back when alternative music was the be all and end of for me, and I don't think the alternative crowd would have embraced Wrong. Now we have alt-country and indie music that sounds like rock music made in the 70s (it's all so post modern these days!), so perhaps the tide is turning, but I'm not sure that anything on that album would have appeased the NME crowd back when it was first released.

You know, I can't see Stevie and Lindsey ever being indie icons, no matter how much I love them, and no matter how much it thrills me when Ryan Adams covers Dreams or The Thorns talk about what an influence Lindsey is. But then someone like Bruce Springsteen isn't ever going to be either, but that doesn't stop him from being Damian Gough's (Badly Drawn Boy) main influence.

[TheMacAttack]

He has produced great albums from such diverse artists as the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Tom Petty, Beastie Boys, & Johnny Cash. I think he could mold a really great cohesive album from her.

[sodascouts]

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

She took his ideas, changed a few words, and passed it off as a La Nicks original.


I disagree with much of what dissention says in this thread, but as an English teacher who deals with this all the time, what Stevie did there is indeed considered plagiarism. If she had turned that in to me for a creative writing assignment, she would have gotten an F for academic dishonesty.

I just discovered another dismaying instance of her "borrowing" that actually made me change the credits for the demo on my site: Stevie plagiarizes Evangeline Walton in Three Birds (http://www.buckinghamnicks.net/sn/unreleased/threebirds.html) Of course maybe if the song had been released she would have been credited.

[strandinthewind]

That just goes to show you how teachers can differ. In undergrad (where I minored in English and, of all things, Math), if you took something and made it your own by changing the words and changing the context in which it was used, which Stevie did, it was not the P word. I think that fits the def. above.

But, as a law professor used to tell us all of the time, there is no F for plagiarism in the real world LOL.

[sodascouts]

Always-fair-and-honest-teacher-Nancy says: ;)

From the University of Indiana rules on plagiarism:

A passage is plagiarized if:

- the writer has only changed around a few words and phrases, or changed the order of the original's sentences.
- the writer has failed to cite a source for any of the ideas or facts

From the Purdue University rules on plagiarism:

A passage is plagiarized when you copy the exact words or a "unique phrase" from somewhere.

-----

With regard to POTU and Poe:

The damning unique phrase: "light is lying down." That is NOT a common image. That is NOT Stevie's brainchild. That is an original phrase created and constructed by the genius of the one and only Edgar Allan Poe and Stevie took it and did not credit him. Stevie plagiarized.

[Johnny Stew]

I disagree with much of what dissention says in this thread, but as an English teacher who deals with this all the time, what Stevie did there is indeed considered plagiarism. If she had turned that in to me for a creative writing assignment, she would have gotten an F for academic dishonesty.

I'm not trying to rush to Stevie's aid here, but again, artists borrow (even liberally) from other mediums all of the time.
Most certainly if Stevie were in college and her assignment was to write a poem, then I'm sure she would have been given a failing grade.

But in music, the "rules" seem a little more relaxed when it comes to lyrical passages borrowed from "outside" sources.
Now, if she used a melody from another song, note-for-note, then yes, that would be plagiarism.
But if you reinterpret someone else's phrase, and put it into the context of your own song, it seems to be considered something different. In other words, the use of a literary reference in contemporary music isn't really frowned upon, because they're considered separate mediums.
Which is why one can sing, "'tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all," without getting sued (Stevie, Nazareth, Nat King Cole, etc).

It's also why Stevie wondered if she could actually use the title "Rappaccini's Daughter" for "Running Through The Garden," without infringing on a copyright... but didn't seem worried that the song itself would be a problem.

[Johnny Stew]

We've gone waaaaay beyond the original point of this thread, but this is definitely an interesting conversation in its own right!

Anyway, this is a good site to view, in light of the "plagiarism" topic.... Artists For Literacy (http://www.artistsforliteracy.org/famous.html).

[sparky]

So, if Stevie's music can never possibly appeal to everyone, and Lindsey's music can never possibly appeal to everyone... why did one of them find more success as a solo act than the other?

I can't believe I am even commenting on this subject again - it will be going on long after I am dead and no on either side will ever change their minds.

Stevie's solo career was more successful for the most obvious reasons on earth. Like it or not everybody, she was the star of the band from the minute she joined. Why ? She's got "it". Charisma, star quality, call it whatever you want, she has it. She always got the most applause, the most emotional response from the fans, and above and beyond everything else, loved being in the spotlight. To quote Christine McVie, "Stevie is a show woman and she loves it." The band needed a focal point, and they found one.
Plus she was a sex symbol. And a pretty damned good songwriter. Her songs on those first three records were emotional, universal, and had just enough mystery to them to hook people in. Not so much mystery that you had to bust your ass in a library doing research to figure out what she was talking about, but enough to make people want more. Same thing she did with her sexuality. I don't think either of these things can be separated from the tenor of culture at the time either. Her career happened at the right time in history for her looks, her image, her voice, and her songwriting ( I could write a thesis on the confluence of visual, emotional, and musical streams that magically flashed together in her at the perfect point in history) . For many reasons - much of her music was accessible to many, many people.

Lindsey is a brilliant producer and musician. No doubt about it. I am not going to debate or even comment on how integral he was in being the architect of Stevie's music. Regardless, she was and always will be the bigger "star" in terms of musical history.

On purely external terms, Lindsey could have been mistaken for Jeff Lynne from ten paces away - until he cut his hair. He didn't have a compelling visual image. Good looking, yeah. Plenty. Unique and unable to go out in public after 1975 ? Doubt it. He did not cultivate an "image" the way she did. Image cannot be underestimated. He wrote some fine music, played incredible guitar, did genius producing. But his career and persona did not have the same full scale sensual wallop that Stevie's did. Her looks, voice, subject matter of songs, style of dress...it was all part and parcel of a concept that expounded upon itself and provided for a great amount interest. Is this a commentary on how shallow consumers are ? Yes and no. People want what they want. Stevie was exotic, romantic, unusual, but just normal enough to not be threatening. As Crow says, "Every women wanted to be her, every man wanted to be with her." Helps to sell a lot of solo albums.

Bingo, she has the big solo success. It's pretty basic.

I must add that his solo material was challenging. Diverse. Experimental.
PEOPLE USUALLY DON'T WANT TO WORK THAT HARD. Go Insane is a brilliant piece of work. I adore it. Most people can't sit through it - it takes too much concentration and patience to get all the levels on which it works. It is as true for "Play In The Rain" as it is for "Red Rover". Are these better or worse than any 2 random Stevie songs ? That's a matter of opinion. Are they more unusual, surprising, off the wall ? Abso-friggin-lutely. Again, most music listeners don't want to work that hard and can't be bothered to listen to a song a half dozen times to get the groove of the counter melodies, multi-layered instrumentation, and dynamics. People are too busy. Most people want something a little easier to digest.

I have very little emotional investment in who is "better" or more "talented."
However, it is just extremely plain to me why she was a bigger solo star than he was. And it isn't even very complicated. I could go on, but my flippers are sore from typing and my eyes are strained.

[Johnny Stew]

I can't believe I am even commenting on this subject again - it will be going on long after I am dead and no on either side will ever change their minds.

I have very little emotional investment in who is "better" or more "talented."
However, it is just extremely plain to me why she was a bigger solo star than he was. And it isn't even very complicated. I could go on, but my flippers are sore from typing and my eyes are strained.

I know (or at least I think) you simply used my comment as a springboard... but I just wanted to mention that that particular comment of mine was meant to be rhetorical.

I don't believe one is better or more talented than the other, in regards to Lindsey & Stevie.
She's not better because she's sold more albums and has been nominated for more awards, and he's not better because he's received the lionshare of critical praise and is an accomplished musician & producer.

Their talents are so uniquely their own, that they should never be compared with each other. There will always be people who prefer one or the other, and some who love them both (though perhaps never quite equally)... that's just the way it is.
And I agree, the "better" and "more talented" arguments are pointless and ridiculous.

[sparky]

I know (or at least I think) you simply used my comment as a springboard... but I just wanted to mention that that particular comment of mine was meant to be rhetorical.

Of course I know it was rhetorical - and my post wasn't directed at you...just the subject in general. It is a subject that never seems to die, and I guess it stuck in my craw that I read another sentence mentioning it even rhetorically. :laugh:
Could be I am just grouchy today. Just calling it like I see it, though. Probably had that post percolating in my brain for awhile.

[snwriter]

Well Face of Glass:

I hate to disagree with you, but no matter what you think, Stevie IS a superstar, and you're certainly in the minority opinion if you disagree. And her music, more than any other individual ever in FM, will stand the test of time and be remembered decades from now.

[face of glass]

Let's go again, since I now have the time. If you're tired, don't bother with the following.

As of now, I feel the need to explain what I think caused the arrival of a pop eccentric into the music scene in the first place.
The general atmosphere of the late '60s, the all-endorsing environment of the time allowed for all kinds of experiments, back then people realized that rock'n'roll/pop music/however-you-prefer-to-call-it could be an artform too, in the same sense that the established, "high-brow" artforms already were.
Just to avoid plagiarization here, the following is from Edward Macan's Rocking The Classics:
There was a general belief at that time that classical, jazz, folk, rock, and Eastern styles were all tributaries that were about to flow into a new, unified style; no less a figure than Karlheinz Stockhausen, perhaps the major avant-garde composer of his generation, spoke in terms of a universal music that was on the cusp of its emergence. Of course, such a style never did emerge; it was doomed by the fragmentation of the unified youth culture of 1966-1970 into a number of distinct subcultures. The record companies and rock journalists also contributed to the demise of this ideal with their insistence on classification and compartmentalization - the former for the purposes of targeting specific segments of the record-buying public with specific types of recorded product, the latter for ideological purposes.
In fact, the journalists and music industry executives did such a good job in creating the illusion (which later became the reality) of hardened subcategories of popular music, that it is very hard for people who encountered the music of the late 1960s and early 1970s after the fact to believe that Yes and Black Sabbath - or Pink Floyd and Paul Simon, or the Nice and Sammy Davis Jr. - could have shared a stage. Yet they did...
That was typed mechanically down here because I think that Lindsey Buckingham has, if not necessarily the same ingredients in his work, then the same ideology.
Basically Lindsey still seems to believe into an album as a unit; as something that should tell a story of sorts; not necessarily a chronological one but something that gives us various glimpses at his mind. And that's the effect I think the pop ecccentrics of the past were also going for.
This ideal was also bound to be reflected in the overall music that the artists released. The Beatles didn't manage to sell the White Album/Abbey Road/whatnot just because they were the biggest band of the time; they managed to sell them because such diversity was natural; it was commonly accepted.
I must add that his solo material was challenging. Diverse. Experimental.
PEOPLE USUALLY DON'T WANT TO WORK THAT HARD.
Yet the main point is that this is still pop music and that it can be enjoyed perfectly without liking every track on a Lindsey Buckingham album. The cocktail of emotions, the sonic paintings, do not always have to be appreciated in order to enjoy the core; the traditional songwriting. I don't think it's ever been a case of working hard with Lindsey. If you have to work hard to like a work of art (and given that you've some experience of that kind of art before) then in my mind this particular work of art is near worthless. This is all about emotions and what a person takes from a piece of music. In order to like something a piece of music shouldn't be intellectually analyzed. The analysis CAN be done when the piece is familiar but overall an artist mainly captures people through their emotions, not through their intellect, or at least that's how I prefer it.
So we move on.
I just sometimes think that saying his music is too diverse for people (ie: that people don't "get it," because it's "different") is being a bit elitist.
This isn't a question of elitism, this is a question of being (or not being) familiar with certain areas in music.
Like I said, Lindsey makes pop music and he's never placed himself to a high pedestal in his art. And his fans should not do such a thing either.
And I'd also like to add that this isn't necessarily just a matter of different genres but also of different emotions.
First impressions are the things that count and they are nearly always made through the emotions that one gets through when one listens to the music. If there are things that are unbearable to the listeners (=Lindsey's darkness, Stevie's confessionalism to the brink) then they are turned off by that, maybe even permanently.
There are plenty of examples (in fact, you've already given some) of "diverse" artists, whose music seems inaccessible on the surface, but who've still enjoyed a pretty decent amount of success.
Let's go through them one by one, point me to the ones I forgot to mention and feel free to add your own.
Roy Wood? Huge success with The Move in the late '60s/early '70s, regular big single hits in the UK. But that was at a time when it was acceptable to be diverse, and The Move's albums (where the diversity was truly shown, not on all of the singles) were still overall flops. Wood's most diverse solo work was his solo album Boulders (released in 1973) and that was a flop as well.
Brian Eno? He combined the Beach Boys, bubblegum/glam influences, the electronic experiments of Krautrock and the nascent new wave brilliantly in his work. But he never sold much of a thing and by the end of the '70s his work had pretty much lost whatever influence of classic rock it had in the first place, after which he decided to choose the ambient route.
Todd Rundgren? Definitely another pop eccentric but never much of a seller himself; only one RIAA gold disc (Something/Anything? certified three years after the album's release and even then not really reflective of the true sales).
David Bowie? The chameleon of rock, but he also could be accused for trend-hopping; he's never innovated anything, he's just a popularizer. And he never was truly diverse within one album; between albums maybe but never within one.
So as you can see, the gentlemen above have never lived with true eccentricity for a long, long time. And that's because the musical climate changed in a big way.

And even then there's one thing that sets Lindsey Buckingham apart from the gentlemen mentioned above. None of those men genuinely combined the values of punk and the values of classic rock together in their work in a way that they would equally endorse and represent both. A self-quotation here:
...possessiveness, paranoia, anger, sarcasm, violence, plain weird and depressive (qualities of punk/new wave) or the happiness, ye typical love topics, smoothness, subtlety and spiritual elevation, the uplift (qualities of the hippie-drenched classic rock...
Since those are things that he deals with then it should be obvious that people are always going to be split on Lindsey Buckingham. I mean, what does he want to do in the field of music? Shouldn't he decide already? Shouldn't he GROW UP? ;)
In general, the traditional, classic rock side and the Generation X side, the side of punk and new wave, have never been truly able to get along with each other. Very rarely there's been even attempts at merging these two and even then it has been superficial (The Rolling Stones, for instance, supposedly got all punk on us with Some Girls; it never was much of a step for them because they had a rebellious image to begin with and they just dirtied up some of the guitar tones). In Lindsey Buckingham's music you find this peace between the hippie and the punk, through the values of the eccentric pop music of the '60s.
And for Lindsey it didn't do any good when Rumours was given the AOR label, a label that was never based on anything else than on the people who listened to Fleetwood Mac in the late '70s, not on the music itself. Being the anti-thesis of punk immediately made him commercial (and therefore uncommercial in the punk world) in the eyes of the rebellious/arty youngsters.
In that world "Steal Your Heart Away" can be as off-putting as "Murrow" in the world of classic rock.

Her voice and "fey" writing style will always prevent her from appealling to the broadest amount of people possible.
But, at the same time, I do think it's impressive how many people she DOES reach, given those things.
And like I said, it's just as strong an argument as yours when I say that she DID reach people before but doesn't do it anymore, at least not through her recent songwriting.

So, if Stevie's music can never possibly appeal to everyone, and Lindsey's music can never possibly appeal to everyone... why did one of them find more success as a solo act than the other?
The songs that Stevie Nicks has as the foundation of her solo success aren't particularly revelatory of her vulnerable or her raunchier side (a case for the latter can be made with "Edge Of Seventeen" but even then the album take is tame when compared to the live versions). Even you seem to feel that Bella Donna is "watered down" when compared to her other solo albums so how much true will there is to know the real Stevie Nicks, the one who supposedly appears to us without any protective layers and with all her honesty in "When I See You Again"? Or largely without the whole romantic package in Street Angel?
You will say that it's Stevie's clever balancing in between the artsy and the commercial but then again I've never believed that Lindsey has released his most esoteric material as singles anyway. He does this balance just as well as Stevie does, IMO.
And it should be said that there's no way anyone can objectively claim that Lindsey calculates more than Stevie when he's creating music. When Stevie goes to the piano and uses the same chords she's always used she uses her training and her experience just as much as Lindsey does, so her way of expression isn't any more natural than Lindsey's. You can't measure it by witnessing who spends more time in the studio. ;)

Personally, I've always felt the reasons are far more complicated and intangible than the simple "because his music is too diverse" or "because of her sexy image" answers.
And I don't think these arguments are as simple as you seem to think they are.
Lindsey Buckingham has had enough attempts in the music industry and has still failed to establish a core audience of significant size for him. At that point one can possibly not blame the simple details nor the bad luck anymore.
I know you don't agree with what Ken Caillat said, but I think it holds a lot of truth.
Stevie's personality tends to draw you in... she tends to give off the vibe of a great, fiesty gal, who'd sit down for a cup of tea with you and tell you her life-story.
Lindsey... up until recently... has always seemed more skittish, and off-put by the idea of having to actually talk with someone. Not that I think he's an un-friendly guy... I think it just seems that you'd have to work a lot harder to draw him out and gain his trust. He always (again, until recently) gave off the "loner" vibe.

I think when the public feels they don't know you... or wouldn't want to know you... then it harms your chances of ever having a mass level of fame.
Not that it can't still happen... it just makes it less likely to happen.
Ken Caillat's argument might have some validity but it still doesn't seem to speak for anything else than what is his understanding of the music business. His understanding of a star seems to be pretty traditional; someone who likes getting along with people and enjoys performing throughout. I think it is his '60s countercultural values speaking in there mainly.
What he has basically failed to see is that loneliness, isolation and depressiveness have been marketable things for a long time.
Of course being more approachable overall will most likely result in more sales, if the music is directed to the right audience, but there's enough examples of the opposite tactics working nearly as well.
New Order basically refused to give out interviews at some point, rarely talked to the audience on stage, weren't willing to use their name on the covers of all their releases and they still sell a significant number of albums.
Talking Heads' David Byrne had a very impersonal approach to both his lyrics and his stage presence; he was like Lindsey's nerdiness amped to the max. And that still didn't prevent the band from selling.
This all tends to be seen taken to its extreme in the success of a band like Radiohead, where the album covers, stage presence and the overall texture of music and lyrics seem to give an impression of total alienation. And their audiences do not solely consist of angsty teens, just so you know.
So it's not like things like these are anti-commercial; in fact they're another part of the whole target group thinking.
Basically it all comes from the music; that's what the people use as the basis for their marketing strategies, that's how an artist's image is created.
Because Lindsey covers a wide range of emotions, crossing over from the different target group to another, it's understandable that there will be troubles for any marketing department in any record company with material like this.
The music may give us the impression of being self-centered and dark in tone overall, but there's plenty of people who will definitely identify with things like that. They might even view Stevie's openness as being highly suspicious.

[face of glass]

But do you think Lindsey is a superstar?
What I've written in this thread has never been about the typical Buckingham vs. Nicks battle; i.e. "he should have what she doesn't have" and vice versa.
I wrote what I wrote because I feel that Lindsey Buckingham's legacy has always been too obscure and I'm afraid it will be too obscure in the years to come. But that's what also can be said of Stevie Nicks' work in the past fifteen years.
Now we have alt-country and indie music that sounds like rock music made in the 70s (it's all so post modern these days!), so perhaps the tide is turning, but I'm not sure that anything on that album would have appeased the NME crowd back when it was first released.
A) Explain to me what is so '70s-like in "Wrong".
B) If it is so '70s-like then how come it wasn't successful in those circles when grunge was very much about bringing back some of those '70s values back into the mainstream?

[face of glass]

I hate to disagree with you...
Yes, obviously my self-esteem is dependable on the level of success that Lindsey Buckingham has and Stevie Nicks doesn't have. ;)
And her music, more than any other individual ever in FM, will stand the test of time and be remembered decades from now.
The case can be made for her early '80s material but where's the proof for the rest?

Also keep in mind that Stevie Nicks has never been much of a star outside the USA/Canada sector. Only Australia seems to have followed suit and even they dropped out of the ride with Street Angel and TISL.
Look at the chart figures in the FM Legacy and you'll see that pretty much the only bigger hit that she's had in Europe/the rest of the world is "Rooms On Fire" and even that might as well have been in the aftermath of TITN.
She's never been able to sell much copies of her solo work elsewhere; in Europe, at least, she definitely needs Fleetwood Mac in order to sell significant amounts.
In the end, the appeal of Stevie Nicks is these days even far more limited than it was in her golden days.
But then it makes the music all the more special for us, now doesn't it? ;)

[trackaghost]

A) Explain to me what is so '70s-like in "Wrong".
B) If it is so '70s-like then how come it wasn't successful in those circles when grunge was very much about bringing back some of those '70s values back into the mainstream?

I don't think Wrong sounds "70s-like", if anything it has an 80s pop sheen (which if anything was its problem) I just meant that things considered uncool back in the early 90s are now alternative, that's all.

[trackaghost]

The case can be made for her early '80s material but where's the proof for the rest?


I'm not sure why you keep labouring that point. Even if that's true at least she has written some classics. I maintain the Rolling Stones, during their long career, have only released a few great albums (Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street and Beggars Banquet), but that doesn't make their career any less important or diminish their legendary status, because those albums I mentioned really will stand the test of time.
So in Stevie's case, two (or three) out of six ain't bad by my standards.
As for Stevie not being a huge star in Europe, well Lindsey ain't either. Oh I forgot his music is too "challenging". Honestly, I really can't see what's so challenging about songs like Trouble, Slow Dancing or Countdown - they are all perfectly palatable pop songs (there's a tongue twister for you!) and really that's how most artists achieves success, by their singles and radio play and despite any experimental tangents Lindsey goes on, he's always continued to write pop songs. You can't tell me that Holiday Road wasn't a big hit because audiences didn't "get" that song!

[face of glass]

I don't think Wrong sounds "70s-like", if anything it has an 80s pop sheen (which if anything was its problem) I just meant that things considered uncool back in the early 90s are now alternative, that's all.
But you hinted at it being a relative to the '70s music.
Your reservations towards the production of Out Of The Cradle I tend to associate with your preference of the "real rhythm section" over the mechanized one (and the rhythm section on TISL sounds as "lifeless" as the one on OOTC, IMO). How come Jesus & Mary Chain were still cool at the time, in spite of using drum machines almost constantly?
I'd also like to know what in particular is so '80s-like in Lindsey's production polish. Let people speak of SYW sounding "oh so '80s" but I've never seen proper detailed discussion of this one. The statement in general is made and it hasn't been dealt with any further.
Then again, maybe we need someone with the technical understanding for this one. :o

[face of glass]

I'm not sure why you keep labouring that point.
And I'm not sure why you keep on thinking that any criticism I direct at Stevie is at same time an attempt to boost Lindsey up in that same area.
Even if that's true at least she has written some classics.
A thing I've never argued against.
I maintain the Rolling Stones, during their long career, have only released a few great albums (Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street and Beggars Banquet), but that doesn't make their career any less important or diminish their legendary status, because those albums I mentioned really will stand the test of time.
So in Stevie's case, two (or three) out of six ain't bad by my standards.
Even then the Stones have sold almost constantly and strongly.
This isn't relative of Stevie or the topic at all; I just think that The Stones have released at least eleven great studio albums (if we go by their American catalogue [the one available on cds]; England's Newest Hitmakers, Now!, "Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Flowers, Satanic Majesties', Beggar's, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Goat's Head Soup, Black And Blue and Some Girls) and that they've nearly always put out high quality product (excluding the abominable Dirty Work). Just because BB, LIB, Fingers and Exile gather all the critical praise and are more mysterious and most representative of the Stones' public image overall doesn't mean that any of their other work is of significantly lower quality.
So in Stevie's case, two (or three) out of six ain't bad by my standards.
I think it's tremendously good for SN too but then again I can't understand how you dragged the Stones into this since their sales have always been consistent. If it's not the public popularity you're talking about then what is it? Your own preference? I prefer not to talk about that one further then.
Look here, it's never been a case of quality in this debate for me. Think of SN's work however you like but right now she's clearly made her mark in the history of rock and roll and she most likely won't be adding anything to it anymore. The general consensus is; everyone in Fleetwood Mac (+ the past members) are all washed up and their current work isn't up to the past standards. No one can change that thought in a flash (and cynically speaking, no one can ever change it)
As for Stevie not being a huge star in Europe, well Lindsey ain't either.
I've never stated in this thread that I think Lindsey Buckingham is a superstar. Some people seem to think that Stevie Nicks still is one (in that her latest material would still find the public hearts as easily as it did a long time ago) and I disagree with that. I still wonder why you think that my statements go along the lines of: "if Stevie doesn't have something then Lindsey automatically has it." I do not want them to come off that way.
Oh I forgot his music is too "challenging". Honestly, I really can't see what's so challenging about songs like Trouble, Slow Dancing or Countdown - they are all perfectly palatable pop songs (there's a tongue twister for you!)...
I'm not going to rewrite my points for the nth time. Instead I'll just self-quote, a standard LB/SN trick.
Yet the main point is that this is still [i]pop music and that it can be enjoyed perfectly without liking every track on a Lindsey Buckingham album. The cocktail of emotions, the sonic paintings, do not always have to be appreciated in order to enjoy the core; the traditional songwriting. I don't think it's ever been a case of working hard with Lindsey. If you have to work hard to like a work of art (and given that you've some experience of that kind of art before) then in my mind this particular work of art is near worthless. This is all about emotions and what a person takes from a piece of music.
...despite any experimental tangents Lindsey goes on, he's always continued to write pop songs.
Lindsey has never made a case of himself being the new Stockhausen or Boulez or anyone like that.
But I also find your insistent claim (writing poppy songs equals a totally commercial songwriter/musician) off-base.
Our beloved Pixies and Sonic Youth have always written memorable, catchy material as well so it's not like they're above all that.
Make any case for Can and Amon Düül II or nearly any experimental rock act you can find if you wish but the facts remain: Can were never afraid of having short pop songs on their albums (and they even hit #1 in Germany with "Spoon", in the middle of their 'most experimental' period). And Amon Düül II always had several memorable pop songs crammed into one 20 minute track (=another thing that the early '70s endorsed).
So sure, Lindsey remains commercial and accessible but the same can be said for most of the supposedly experimental rock acts too.
Lindsey's background is that of the experimental pop of Brian Wilson (as the guy who wrote the liner notes for the new Tusk reissue admits) and of the pop eccentricity of other talented people from the late '60s and early '70s. There was a new concept established by these people: pop art (because many British musicians of the time had studied in various art schools), art that isn't in essence inaccessible and retains the form and the appeal of the rest of the pop genre while still trying to find more meaning into it all; trying to explore all the depth that a two-minute track (as opposed to an hour of "serious" classical music) can have. That already should make it clear that his work isn't inaccessible at all.
Frankly I'm still baffled as to why you think that I'm trying to maintain this image of Lindsey being the "great artist that only few are allowed to 'get'".
You can't tell me that Holiday Road wasn't a big hit because audiences didn't "get" that song!
Exceptions may exist but Lindsey has had enough attempts in the music industry in order to try to establish a significant core audience for himself and it hasn't happened. And it is because overall he just doesn't fit into any ready-made format that are available; and his wide emotional palette can not be truly appreciated in a time like ours.

[trackaghost]

But you hinted at it being a relative to the '70s music.
Your reservations towards the production of Out Of The Cradle I tend to associate with your preference of the "real rhythm section" over the mechanized one (and the rhythm section on TISL sounds as "lifeless" as the one on OOTC, IMO). How come Jesus & Mary Chain were still cool at the time, in spite of using drum machines almost constantly?


Hmmm, no that's just one of the problems. It's weird how I've never come round to that album and I've owned it since the day of release. Even the rocky stuff on OOTC sounds tame to me. I'm probably not eloquent enough to explain why that album just doesn't do it for me, but the shiny pop sound does put me off.

[trackaghost]

Even then the Stones have sold almost constantly and strongly.
This isn't relative of Stevie or the topic at all; I just think that The Stones have released at least eleven great studio albums (if we go by their American catalogue [the one available on cds]; England's Newest Hitmakers, Now!, "Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Flowers, Satanic Majesties', Beggar's, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Goat's Head Soup, Black And Blue and Some Girls) and that they've nearly always put out high quality product (excluding the abominable [IMHO] Dirty Work). Just because BB, LIB, Fingers and Exile gather all the critical praise and are more mysterious and most representative of the Stones' public image overall doesn't mean that any of their other work is of significantly lower quality.

Some of those albums I really hate. I dunno, I guess its a matter of taste but I think the Stones' recent albums haven't been very good. The recent 40 Licks album has new and old stuff together and the contrast of quality is clear to me. I guess this is all down to preference, but I truly believe in my heart people won't remember, or want to remember, their latter day work in years to come.



Our beloved Pixies and Sonic Youth have always written memorable, catchy material as well so it's not like they're above all that.

Yeah but I bet if you played Sonic Youth's version of a pop song to most people here they wouldn't consider it catchy but if you played Holiday Road to almost anyone they'd call it a pop tune.


...and his wide emotional palette can not be truly appreciated in a time like ours.

Spoken like a true fan. Time will only tell if its true though.

[face of glass]

...the shiny pop sound does put me off.
Does it bother you on TITN as well? Or SYW (which is even glossier than OOTC, dare I say, and if you think Lindsey's at the top of his game now, as you once stated, then why on earth does the gloss of SYW sound so much better than the gloss of OOTC? Because his guitar distortion is more hard-hitting in a few songs?). How come it doesn't bother you on TISL?
Ok, enough OOTC therapy. No one will learn to like an album more after sessions like these anyway.
I guess this is all down to preference, but I truly believe in my heart people won't remember, or want to remember, their latter day work in years to come.
If you still wish to compare the Stones to Stevie (which I think isn't appropriate but what the heck) then you should take into account that their period of getting material to the public hearts (as opposed to releasing new product and selling well but no new songs ever climbing to the classic status) goes from 1964-1981, whereas with Stevie a similar period was about eight years (1975-1983, with five of those in Fleetwood Mac). Even now the Stones feel compelled to play "Start Me Up" and that's because it was a huge hit and an acknowledged late period classic.
There may be a critical consensus of the Stones golden period (1968-72) but their classics have always been equally spreaded throughout their career. And that has been the case with their record sales as well. Also, there is no general public consensus of what's their best work.
And there is a consensus of Stevie's best work that both the critics and the general public uphold; Bella Donna.
Yeah but I bet if you played Sonic Youth's version of a pop song to most people here they wouldn't consider it catchy but if you played Holiday Road to almost anyone they'd call it a pop tune.
And there's a good point for me to accuse Sonic Youth of being non-diverse overall.
You make a case for the Youth? You can't make one for the Pixies. Stuff like "Here Comes Your Man" and "Havalina" (stuff that I love dearly, btw) is just as much "pop" as "Holiday Road" is.
I think "Holiday Road" is friggin' genius. Sure, it may have less layers in it than a lot of the other stuff that Lindsey has done but that's why I love it; it's Lindsey Buckingham letting his hair down completely in the middle of his serious artistic pretentiousness. My belief is that a superficially banal pop song has just as much meaning in its two minutes as any other piece of art.
Sonic Youth can never do a fun piece like "Holiday Road" because they've been busy being all angsty and artsy all the time. And that makes their material more snobbish to me (and I still love it) than whatever Lindsey has done.
Spoken like a true fan. Time will only tell if its true though.
There's no doubt that my emotions are involved in our prolonged debates as well but mostly I try to keep some of them at bay. I speak from the background I come from, nothing else.
Time will also tell whether the people of the future will listen to the recordings of the past with completely open ears and without the necessary hype (the past successes, for instance) or not. Stevie has the advantage now (even if just for a few songs) but who knows what will happen later?
But then again that's a thing we're not allowed to see; we'll be in our graves after having strangled each other in these constant debates when the true evaluation comes. ;)

[trackaghost]

Does it bother you on TITN as well? Or SYW (which is even glossier than OOTC, dare I say, and if you think Lindsey's at the top of his game now, as you once stated, then why on earth does the gloss of SYW sound so much better than the gloss of OOTC?

It does bother me on TITN. That's my least favourite Mac album. I dunno about the others, they don't sound as glossy to me :shrug:

If you still wish to compare the Stones to Stevie (which I think isn't appropriate but what the heck)

Why isn't it appropiate? Stevie isn't exactly washed up. Also it's better than me comparing them to say Busted lol! Which I could, just cos I wanna.


You make a case for the Youth? You can't make one for the Pixies. Stuff like "Here Comes Your Man" and "Havalina" (stuff that I love dearly, btw) is just as much "pop" as "Holiday Road" is.

I still can't imagine my mum listening to The Pixies ever. She might hum along to Holiday Road though, in fact in the past she has!

But then again that's a thing we're not allowed to see; we'll be in our graves after having strangled each other in these constant debates when the true evaluation comes. ;)

It's quite possible they'll both be forgotten and Busted, who I insult regularly, remain dearly loved and bring peace and harmony to the world, much like Wyld Stallions did in Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure :)

[dissention]

The recent 40 Licks album has new and old stuff together and the contrast of quality is clear to me.

I felt the same way about the Mac's "Greatest Hits." To hear something like Gypsy and Over My Head quickly followed by No Questions Asked and As Long As You Follow was and is quite jarring. That's a shocking difference in quality.

I'm still recovering.

[dissention]

Why isn't it appropiate? Stevie isn't exactly washed up. Also it's better than me comparing them to say Busted lol! Which I could, just cos I wanna.

I think you're totally missing one of the main cruxes of Gaius' argument: she certainly isn't washed up to us, but she is to the record-buying public.

[Johnny Stew]

I think you're totally missing one of the main cruxes of Gaius' argument: she certainly isn't washed up to us, but she is to the record-buying public.

I guess I have a hard time buying the "washed up" argument, when I see her on VH1's Divas Las Vegas, and she gets the biggest ovation of the night... and she gets the biggest ovation at Stormy Weather... and the Blockbuster Awards... and, so on.
Certainly Nicks fans in attendance would account for some of that applause, but not for all of it.

And I also can't imagine so many publications doing features on her when 'TISL' was released, if she were "washed up."
Sure, they weren't cover stories, but still, I don't see other "washed up" artists getting much space in dozens of publications, most of which are considered "major."

Now, if the question is whether or not her new music is relevant to the majority of the current record-buying public, then I'd definitely agree that she isn't.
The majority of teens and 20-somethings are not going to find an artist like Stevie Nicks to have a relevant point-of-view, unless they're into classic rock. And most are not.

Still, as I've said dozens of times before, I don't feel that her not having a new song that reaches a massively wide audience, means that her current music is any way of a lesser value than her earlier work.

[strandinthewind]

I agree with Johnny in that Stevie is still a VERY popular, viable, and relevant commercial artist to this day. People still like her alot - the concert sales figures and placement in the recently posted lists clearly indicate that.

I totally agree she has not had a million + seller since The Dance and may not ever had one again. But, although TISL's sales and SYW's sales were respectable - somwhere in the 700,000 vicinity in America I think. So, she is not totally washed up from that vantage point. Interestingly, POTU was a hit dance single with the help of two very hot DJ's at the time - it was still being played in the clubs over a year later, a occurence that does not normally happen in the genre. Also, Everyday received heavy rotation on Vh-1 and Sorcerer got played as well. So, yes, Stevie and the Mac are not anywhere as relevant in terms of record sales as they were in TITN and The Dance, she and they are still very relevant in every other aspect.

[darklinensuit]

I felt the same way about the Mac's "Greatest Hits." To hear something like Gypsy and Over My Head quickly followed by No Questions Asked and As Long As You Follow was and is quite jarring. That's a shocking difference in quality.

I'm still recovering.

\I think ALAYF is a very good song. I never cared much for Over My Head until Very Best Of was released.

- Jake

[trackaghost]

I think you're totally missing one of the main cruxes of Gaius' argument: she certainly isn't washed up to us, but she is to the record-buying public.

For sure she's selling less records but to say she is washed-up is a little drastic IMO. She's still the most famous member of Fleetwood Mac, and her cultural impact is far bigger than any other member (just last year she was mentioned in two films for example, while I'm not sure Lindsey can claim to have inspired any of Anna Sui's clothing lines lol).

So she may not be a superstar anymore but she's certainly, for lack of a better word, iconic. And you know Phil Collins doesn't sell so many records anymore but he can't claim to be an icon (IMO).

Plus I still think Stevie sells a lot of records (to me it's a lot, maybe not compared to her past sales - and really most albums will pale in comparison to those - but still enough to keep her firmly on the map) but then once again I will state that record sales mean little to me.

[face of glass]

I guess I have a hard time buying the "washed up" argument, when I see her on VH1's Divas Las Vegas, and she gets the biggest ovation of the night... and she gets the biggest ovation at Stormy Weather... and the Blockbuster Awards... and, so on.
Never was I speaking of her performance or her ability to still mesmerize the audience live; I was speaking of what she's been writing as of late.
And I also can't imagine so many publications doing features on her when 'TISL' was released, if she were "washed up."
Sure, they weren't cover stories, but still, I don't see other "washed up" artists getting much space in dozens of publications, most of which are considered "major."
Trouble In Shangri-La was being hyped as the big comeback so there was naturally going to be a lot promotion done, and Stevie isn't exactly the dullest interviewee around.
However, seemingly, the record still wasn't that much more of a success than what could have been expected in the aftermath of The Dance.
Still, as I've said dozens of times before, I don't feel that her not having a new song that reaches a massively wide audience, means that her current music is any way of a lesser value than her earlier work.
A thing I've stated as many times as you have. Stevie's observation in the Destiny Rules documentary of the past listeners of Fleetwood Mac having growed up, raised their families and not having the same kind of urge to buy a newly released album any more is accurate. But that's the way the history is written; the general assumption will be that eventually rock and roll just died a slow death as the audiences changed, no new innovations were brought into the game and the artists eventually rehashed their old tricks until they were just a collection of cliches and pure form over substance. That doesn't take away the possibility of someone finding a long-gone artist by digging up some old records and even becoming a fan of sorts. Even then, whatever the older generations in rock and roll have been releasing, it will most likely be the interest of archivalists only. And in that way Stevie's work (not counting her dominance in the early '80s) is in a similar position to that of Lindsey's, or nearly any other old fart's.
I agree with Johnny in that Stevie is still a VERY popular, viable, and relevant commercial artist to this day.
In the nostalgic sense, definitely.
But, although TISL's sales and SYW's sales were respectable - somwhere in the 700,000 vicinity in America I think.
TISL around 640,000, SYW something over 800,000 (I'm sure Hayley would know the exact numbers). If I were to have a crack at the sales numbers in the rest of the world then SYW would have about 600,000 buyers more and TISL would probably add about 200,000 copies to its overall sales number.
Interestingly, POTU was a hit dance single with the help of two very hot DJ's at the time - it was still being played in the clubs over a year later, a occurence that does not normally happen in the genre.
I've never thought that status has much to do with the artist(s) him/herself/themselves, the popularity in that area seems to have more to do with the remixer of the track.
Also, Everyday received heavy rotation on Vh-1 and Sorcerer got played as well.
The other (like "POTU") is an old song and the other was written by John Shanks, remember that as well. This was about CURRENT material.
So, yes, Stevie and the Mac are not anywhere as relevant in terms of record sales as they were in TITN and The Dance, she and they are still very relevant in every other aspect.
Who cares about the moderate record sales if the material doesn't reach the public hearts and doesn't touch a generation? How many of those who bought TISL listen and appreciate other stuff than what was used for promotion; how many of them are casual fans?

[face of glass]

About comparing the Stones to Stevie:
Why isn't it appropiate?
The Stones' widely successful period in the public minds is longer than Stevie's and their appeal isn't as geographically limited as Stevie's is.
For sure she's selling less records but to say she is washed-up is a little drastic IMO.
Drastic it may feel but that's what you will hear many of the young 'uns say anyway, of any old rocker. Stevie certainly isn't any more immune to that than the rest of them, and I don't think it's because young people don't give the material enough of a chance. And when the "old" people start accusing them of that as well it's obvious that a change has happened. Where it exactly did happen, though, is anyone's guess.
And you know Phil Collins doesn't sell so many records anymore but he can't claim to be an icon (IMO).
Collins has never had his image taken to same level that Stevie has taken hers; to the point where it's difficult the separate the image from the music.
And it isn't solely about record sales or image (or whatever iconic status), it's about getting the music to reach the classic status.
...but still enough to keep her firmly on the map...
At this point she could just tour around and keep herself on the map without any need to release a record to back the whole thing. The records give the tours some more promotion and that's that.

[dissention]

For sure she's selling less records but to say she is washed-up is a little drastic IMO. She's still the most famous member of Fleetwood Mac, and her cultural impact is far bigger than any other member (just last year she was mentioned in two films for example, while I'm not sure Lindsey can claim to have inspired any of Anna Sui's clothing lines lol).

So she may not be a superstar anymore but she's certainly, for lack of a better word, iconic. And you know Phil Collins doesn't sell so many records anymore but he can't claim to be an icon (IMO).

Plus I still think Stevie sells a lot of records (to me it's a lot, maybe not compared to her past sales - and really most albums will pale in comparison to those - but still enough to keep her firmly on the map) but then once again I will state that record sales mean little to me.

Hey, I don't think she's washed up in the least. As I've said many times, I thought she was in '94, but that's all over and she's back and better than ever.

Reading you and Gaius go back and forth, I simply pointed out where I thought the two of you were hitting a snag. I don't mean to speak for him becaus ehe's more than capable of speaking for himself ( :lol: ), but I think his argument was that, in his opinion, she was washed-up to the general record-buying public.

[dissention]

I guess I have a hard time buying the "washed up" argument, when I see her on VH1's Divas Las Vegas, and she gets the biggest ovation of the night... and she gets the biggest ovation at Stormy Weather... and the Blockbuster Awards... and, so on.
Certainly Nicks fans in attendance would account for some of that applause, but not for all of it.

I never said it was my opinion. ;)

As for those instances you pointed to, gimme a break. That's your perception, but that's not reality. If I remember correctly, and I'll gladly bust out my tape, at the Blockbuster Awards, the audience barely stood up to applaud her. :o And to say that Stevie herself got the biggest ovation at Divas Live is just ridiculous.

[dissention]

\I think ALAYF is a very good song. I never cared much for Over My Head until Very Best Of was released.

- Jake

I like it, too, but there can be denying, IMO, that there is a glaring difference in quality. As I've said earlier, the difference is jarring.

[dissention]

Interestingly, POTU was a hit dance single with the help of two very hot DJ's at the time

I was tarred and feathered last year when I said that. ;)

[trackaghost]

And it isn't solely about record sales or image (or whatever iconic status), it's about getting the music to reach the classic status.

Isn't that kinda unfair though? TISL is only a few years old, hardly enough time for it to reach classic status. (The word is so overused these days anyway - I remember Robbie Williams' Angel being voted a classic a few years back and thinking, "but it's only a couple of years old"!) I've already agreed that Street Angel ain't ever gonna be a classic, but there are songs off Rock A Little and TOSOTM that are still played on the radio now. Pretty good going by my standards, why isn't that good enough for you?

In terms of influence, well something like that is hard to gauge but I'm sure there's quite a few female artists out there at least that began writing songs because of Stevie.


At this point she could just tour around and keep herself on the map without any need to release a record to back the whole thing. The records give the tours some more promotion and that's that.

There's obviously a lot of truth in that, but then Fleetwood Mac could be accused of just being a nostalgia act too. And, just to bring the Rolling Stones back into the argument (who I still feel justified in mentioning), I can't imagine many people going to see one of their shows these days because they enjoyed Keys To Your Love or Stealing Your Heart, they're going because they want to hear Honky Tonk Woman or whatever.
Any older act owes a huge part of its following to the nostalgia factor.

You have to admit though Gaius there's an abnormal amount of young people on this board for a band that have been going for so long. I realise older fans might not feel inclined to check out a messageboard, but still, it cetainly shows that Stevie and Lindsey have a fair amount of young fans out there.

[dissention]

I've never thought that status has much to do with the artist(s) him/herself/themselves, the popularity in that area seems to have more to do with the remixer of the track.

Exactly. But that's a blasphemous statement around these parts, Gaius. :cool: