And Another Article (With possible FM tour mention)

[TheBlueLamp]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=70104

Nicks says she is in top shape vocally
Wednesday Nov 2 18:12 AEST

Bewitching singer Stevie Nicks says her voice is better than it has ever been despite years of living the hard rock lifestyle.

And she has teased fans with the promise that Fleetwood Mac will tour Australia again in 2007 - which will be three years after the 2004 tour which ended a 20-year on-stage hiatus for the band.

Nicks, who is a reformed cocaine addict, was in Melbourne this week to promote a solo Australian tour for February.

She has spoken openly about her years of excess, drinking too much and taking too many drugs, as lead singer of Fleetwood Mac.

But with those days behind her, she says her stage performances are much better now.

"I think I am a way better singer than I was 15 or 20 years ago because I work with my voice every day and I take care of it," Nicks told AAP from Melbourne.

"I study voice so that I don't have any more bad vocal nights.

"When you study and you exercise your voice and you do 45 minutes before you go on stage, it is a pretty committed thing where you don't have any bad nights. You sing pretty darn good every single night.

"And that is such a worry lifted off your mind."

Nicks was flown out to Australia this week by tour promoter Andrew McManus to announce the 2006 "Gold Dust" shows.

Her focus this week has been to attend various Melbourne Cup functions and she even has a race named after her at Flemington this coming weekend.

"The race on Saturday is named after me and I get to present the cup which is like a big gold record thing," she said.

"When you come to the races, wherever they are, it is like an amazing sub-culture of people. That love of the horses really spurs it all on."

Nicks' upcoming solo tour will include performances with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and some dates will feature Australian singer John Farnham as a special guest.

The tour will begin at Melbourne's Rod Laver Arena on February 18 before the singer performs dates in Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, Perth and Christchurch in New Zealand.

Fleetwood Mac is best known for its multiple-platinum album Rumours, while the song Don't Stop became a Bill Clinton campaign anthem.

The band also had hits with songs like Dreams, Rhiannon and Gypsy - all written by Nicks - as well as Go Your Own Way, Little Lies and Seven Wonders.

Nicks will sing all those songs plus others on the tour.

"I am very proud of this," Nicks said.

"It is a really magnificent show and I am really just so delighted to bring it back to Australia because I love it here."

On Wednesday, Nicks revealed Fleetwood Mac would likely return to Australia for another tour, following from the reunion tour - which was minus Christine McVie - in 2004.

"Probably the Mac will go back on tour in 2007," she said.

"We have set it up so that when we are touring, we are coming here (to Australia). Every time we are here, it is easier to come back."

[tynan88]

Yay!!!!!! I am glad to see Stevie but I missed out on Mac last year, and I would really like to see them.

[Janis_no1]

COMING BAK IN 2007!!!! :shocked:

WOO FRIKEN HOO!

Yippee... :blob1: :blob2:

And whats this crap with "was in melbourne" ??? Was was was??? she's still here doofus!! stupid journo's..... why do THEY get to do the interviews....

[Jyqm]

Bewitching singer Stevie Nicks says her voice is better than it has ever been despite years of living the hard rock lifestyle.

I guess the important thing is that she believes that.

And she has teased fans with the promise that Fleetwood Mac will tour Australia again in 2007

Unless they pull out a bunch of really great rarities, if they don't have a new album and new songs to promote for this 2007 tour, I think I will be completely uninterested.

"It is a really magnificent show and I am really just so delighted to bring it back to Australia because I love it here."

As much as I have bitched and will continue to bitch about Stevie's setlists and ticket prices, I do think it's nice that she's bringing this tour to Australia. It's always good when American performers remember that they have supportive fans elsewhere around the world who would love to see a concert.

[SortaSavageLike]

I can't wait to hear her interpretation of Go Your Own Way.

It's called "How Still My Love". :rolleyes:

[GypsyBoy87]

The band also had hits with songs like Dreams, Rhiannon and Gypsy - all written by Nicks - as well as Go Your Own Way, Little Lies and Seven Wonders.

Nicks will sing all those songs plus others on the tour.

[dissention]

Bewitching singer Stevie Nicks says her voice is better than it has ever been despite years of living the hard rock lifestyle.


It gets harder and harder to take her seriously.

[chiliD]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=70104
Fleetwood Mac is best known for its multiple-platinum album Rumours, while the song Don't Stop became a Bill Clinton campaign anthem.

The band also had hits with songs like Dreams, Rhiannon and Gypsy - all written by Nicks - as well as Go Your Own Way, Little Lies and Seven Wonders.

Nicks will sing all those songs plus others on the tour.


Yep, I'm really interested in hearing her own versions of "Go Your Own Way", "Little Lies" & "Don't Stop".

[LiquidBlue5000]

The band also had hits with songs like Dreams, Rhiannon and Gypsy - all written by Nicks - as well as Go Your Own Way, Little Lies and Seven Wonders.

Nicks will sing all those songs plus others on the tour.



Seven Wonders, eh?

Little Lies, eh?

[ELIUD]

It gets harder and harder to take her seriously.

She really does come across as dillusional when she implies her voice SOUNDS better than it ever has, but she probably means it's better now because she is able to maintain it's strength night after night.

But yeah, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes when it comes to her making that statement.

[DavidMn]

"The band also had hits with songs like Dreams, Rhiannon and Gypsy - all written by Nicks - as well as Go Your Own Way, Little Lies and Seven Wonders. Nicks will sing all those songs plus others on the tour." I can't wait to hear her interpretation of Go Your Own Way.I was thinking the same thing...:)

[LiquidBlue5000]

She really does come across as dillusional when she implies her voice SOUNDS better than it ever has, but she probably means it's better now because she is able to maintain it's strength night after night.

But yeah, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes when it comes to her making that statement.

Well, she said:

"I think I am a way better singer than I was 15 or 20 years ago because I work with my voice every day and I take care of it," Nicks told AAP from Melbourne.

15 years ago was Behind The mask/Timespace era.. and yes, she does sing better now than she did then.. 20 years ago was RAL, and the same thing applies, imo..

if she had said 25 years ago, then yes, she would be dillusional ;)

[ELIUD]

Yeah, you're right. I tend to think she sounded better back then when she recorded but not on stage. She's better consistently on stage today but even twenty years ago she had more range as a singer.

[Rickypt]

Right, she is saying that her voice is better than a certain time in her career, which is totally true. It's the writer who says "better than ever"; Stevie's actual quote clarifies.

Stevie is certainly doing a ton of interviews this week! It's fun to read these articles even if many of them seem to have quite a number of errors. This one says that the 2004 FM tour ended a 20 year hiatus. You'd think these folks would do a bit of basic research before putting together a piece. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Right, she is saying that her voice is better than a certain time in her career, which is totally true. It's the writer who says "better than ever"; Stevie's actual quote clarifies.


That alright, because she's not a better singer now than she was 20 years ago, imo. Her voice had spunk and personality and a balls-to-the-wall quality to it twenty years ago that it hasn't had since. She's still flat and monotonal most of the time these days, sounds strained on a regular basis, and generally very tired. Part of that has to do with screwing her voice up so badly and part of it has to do with her finally learning to sing properly. Once she picked up a vocal coach for The Dance who taught her how to use her voice, her live performances became too reserved, now more than ever.

[strandinthewind]

That alright, because she's not a better singer now than she was 20 years ago, imo. Her voice had spunk and personality and a balls-to-the-wall quality to it twenty years ago that it hasn't had since. She's still flat and monotonal most of the time these days, sounds strained on a regular basis, and generally very tired. Part of that has to do with screwing her voice up so badly and part of it has to do with her finally learning to sing properly. Once she picked up a vocal coach for The Dance who taught her how to use her voice, her live performances became too reserved, now more than ever.

I often wonder how much her age comes into play there as well as her apparent propensity for illness. She certainly can slam the audience with a powerhouse vocal when she wants to a la B&B and R&R. She can also be far more subtle with lots of range a la Circle Dance. Those were brilliant vocals.

Yet, SDMHA, Enchanted, Rhiannon, etc. are all mostly so boring vocally.

Maybe the new material just inspires her as opposed to the standards.

[Jyqm]

Maybe the new material just inspires her as opposed to the standards.

_____(fill in the blank with what you imagine my response to this statement would be)_____

[strandinthewind]

_____(fill in the blank with what you imagine my response to this statement would be)_____

LOL - get off your a$$$ and sing the shiitte you never sing :woohoo:

[blinker12]

That alright, because she's not a better singer now than she was 20 years ago, imo. Her voice had spunk and personality and a balls-to-the-wall quality to it twenty years ago that it hasn't had since. She's still flat and monotonal most of the time these days, sounds strained on a regular basis, and generally very tired. Part of that has to do with screwing her voice up so badly and part of it has to do with her finally learning to sing properly. Once she picked up a vocal coach for The Dance who taught her how to use her voice, her live performances became too reserved, now more than ever.

I would agree if we were talking about the TISL and SYW tours, but I think she sounded truly wonderful on the Two Voices/Gold Dust tour this year. I mean, "Beauty and the Beast" alone would have been worth the price of admission, but all the songs had passion, and her pitch was pretty much always spot-on.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Maybe the new material just inspires her as opposed to the standards.


I agree with this. Case in point: the ending of Sorcerer....Now, that was some energy and great vocals! She really got into that song. She was alive. It seemed like she had to "sell it" since it was a lesser known song...and it came out wonderful....unlike Rhiannon...She knows she can half-ass it and still get a great response. It's Rhiannon...the opening note alone draws big cheers.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Once she picked up a vocal coach for The Dance who taught her how to use her voice, her live performances became too reserved, now more than ever.


Yeah. It's hard to decided whether I would like balls to the wall performances with so-so vocals...or vocals stamina and good pitch with so-so performances. :shrug:

[DashingDan]

I think she communicates a song live better than she ever did.

Back in the early 80's she was so hung up on her "songs", and her insistance to be taken seriously as a "songwriter", that she seemingly took her very strong and natural singing talents for granted (although undisciplined/trained as they were). Now I dunno about you, but it was that voice of hers that dragged me into her web when I was 9 years old listening to my sister's copy of Rumours, not her words - they came next.

[dissention]

Yeah. It's hard to decided whether I would like balls to the wall performances with so-so vocals...or vocals stamina and good pitch with so-so performances. :shrug:

I go to rock concerts so that I can be rocked & rolled, not to watch someone stand in place so that they can find perfect pitch and never ever risk the chance of actually rocking out. Give me her bleaty, high-pitched, cuts-through-you-like-a-knife vocals from the Rock A Little tour where she kicked your ass six ways to Sunday over this reserved, matronly schtick. I'm not expecting her to jump off of speakers and headbang, but do more than some twirling during Stand Back, man. Either that or revamp your show in such a way that people don't badly yearn for the crazy days of yesteryear when they see the half-assed attempts to recreate them.

[Rickypt]

Stevie's reserved stage presence would be just fine if she would pick a setlist that is built around a strong vocal performance. I'd be perfectly happy to sit down and enjoy Storms, Silver Springs, Sable On Blond, Bella Donna, etc.

[jwd]

"It is a really magnificent show and I am really just so delighted to bring it back to Australia because I love it here."

THAT it is! I'm happy for all the Aussies that get a chance to check out her Gold Dust show. She really is in top form this go- round. And backed by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra! HOW SWEET!

[David]

THAT it is! I'm happy for all the Aussies that get a chance to check out her Gold Dust show. She really is in top form this go- round. And backed by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra! HOW SWEET!But I thought you preferred the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra under the direction of George Szell? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

But I thought you preferred the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra under the direction of George Szell? :shrug:

Well, he is known for building into one of the greatest orchestras of the world in the 24 years he was there. Did you know that he could sing folk songs from memory and used to correct his mother while playing the piano :cool:

[jwd]

But I thought you preferred the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra under the direction of George Szell? :shrug:

Welllllllll, it is closer to home! :laugh:

[Ghost_Tracker]

Excuse me. {ahem!}

WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

{ahem.}

Why, YES, I believe this will be, at the least, mildly interesting
and entertaining, and I shall look forward to it.
I certainly wish them the best of luck.

[Johnny Stew]

Richard Dashut: Several reviews have been unfair in that the critics suppose too much. One article accused Stevie of being lackluster because she was [supposedly] bored with having to perform the same old songs, which isn't true.

Maybe Stevie isn't feeling well; maybe it is 100 outside and she is wearing all these clothes and she's been singing the song for three years. Maybe she can't get herself psyched up each time even if there are 80,000 people out there. Ok, so she can't do it, so what? If there is a critic out there who wants to make something of the fact that her voice isn't in the best of shape, what's the point? That's reality. Fleetwood Mac is not a group of gods.


That statement was made in 1979.
I find it interesting that, 26 years later, she's still being accused of lackluster performances and being "bored with singing the same old songs."

I also find it interesting that, when I watch old footage... for example, the Largo shows from '75 and '78, the Japanese footage from the 'Rumours' tour, the St. Louis footage from the 'Tusk' documentary... she doesn't appear to be that much more animated than she is now, by and large. And, even back then, there were really only one or two songs that she totally cut loose on and went crazy with.

Her manic behavior on the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours, seems to be the exception for her as a performer, rather than the norm... yet, for some reason, they've become the benchmark that every performance since then must live up to.

[David]

That statement was made in 1979.
I find it interesting that, 26 years later, she's still being accused of lackluster performances and being "bored with singing the same old songs."

I also find it interesting that, when I watch old footage... for example, the Largo shows from '75 and '78, the Japanese footage from the 'Rumours' tour, the St. Louis footage from the 'Tusk' documentary... she doesn't appear to be that much more animated than she is now, by and large. And, even back then, there were really only one or two songs that she totally cut loose on and went crazy with.

Her manic behavior on the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours, seems to be the exception for her as a performer, rather than the norm... yet, for some reason, they've become the benchmark that every performance since then must live up to.Youth & pulchritude, Stew. She was young & sexy, & we lapped it up.

[Kelly]

Richard Dashut: Several reviews have been unfair in that the critics suppose too much. One article accused Stevie of being lackluster because she was [supposedly] bored with having to perform the same old songs, which isn't true.

Maybe Stevie isn't feeling well; maybe it is 100 outside and she is wearing all these clothes and she's been singing the song for three years. Maybe she can't get herself psyched up each time even if there are 80,000 people out there. Ok, so she can't do it, so what? If there is a critic out there who wants to make something of the fact that her voice isn't in the best of shape, what's the point? That's reality. Fleetwood Mac is not a group of gods.


That statement was made in 1979.
I find it interesting that, 26 years later, she's still being accused of lackluster performances and being "bored with singing the same old songs."

I also find it interesting that, when I watch old footage... for example, the Largo shows from '75 and '78, the Japanese footage from the 'Rumours' tour, the St. Louis footage from the 'Tusk' documentary... she doesn't appear to be that much more animated than she is now, by and large. And, even back then, there were really only one or two songs that she totally cut loose on and went crazy with.

Her manic behavior on the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours, seems to be the exception for her as a performer, rather than the norm... yet, for some reason, they've become the benchmark that every performance since then must live up to.


I thought some of her behavior this summer seemed pretty manic, unfortunately.

Curtis..I sort of disagree that she was trying to sell Sorcerer. I think she just related to the song this summer, for whatever reason. She enjoyed it, she played lots of little games during it, charades, animated gestures, etc etc...it seems when connects emotionally with a song, she performs it better. She connected to Circle Dance, so her vocal was impassioned. She was totally feeling Sorcerer the entire summer, it started in Vegas last May and continued every night. That had to be one of the best songs each night. When she isn't feeling that connected to a song, like Rhiannon, her performance is so blah. She hardly even tries to pretend she is into it. HSML is another example...she was totally feeling that song in Vegas..she could feel the heat coming off of her. :p Total hotness. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

. . . pulchritude . . . .

Thank you for using that word :cool:

[cliffdweller]

It's Rhiannon...the opening note alone draws big cheers.

Then I guess Lindsey gets a gold star for that one :p.

[cliffdweller]

I go to rock concerts so that I can be rocked & rolled, not to watch someone stand in place so that they can find perfect pitch and never ever risk the chance of actually rocking out. Give me her bleaty, high-pitched, cuts-through-you-like-a-knife vocals from the Rock A Little tour where she kicked your ass six ways to Sunday over this reserved, matronly schtick. I'm not expecting her to jump off of speakers and headbang, but do more than some twirling during Stand Back, man. Either that or revamp your show in such a way that people don't badly yearn for the crazy days of yesteryear when they see the half-assed attempts to recreate them.

Oh my god, I am rolling with tears of laughter running down my face. I was TOTALLY picturing Stevie jumping up on monitors and headbanging...oh lord the visual is too much :laugh:. But you're totally right. I prefer the rock and/or roll to any analysis of perfect pitch :laugh: wtf is that all about anyway?!?!

Still rolling...

[jannieC]

Either that or revamp your show in such a way that people don't badly yearn for the crazy days of yesteryear when they see the half-assed attempts to recreate them.


As much as I hate to say it, I agree. For me, it seems as though Stevie is not as emotionally present now as shows from the past. I particularly noticed this during the SYW shows, but yes even on this recent tour. I don't really know how to describe it, other than I feel like she's just not "there" at times. She appears bored to me, and has for a while. This doesn't reconcile at all with her statements of her love of performing. :shrug:

[Jyqm]

Richard Dashut: Several reviews have been unfair in that the critics suppose too much. One article accused Stevie of being lackluster because she was [supposedly] bored with having to perform the same old songs, which isn't true.

Maybe Stevie isn't feeling well; maybe it is 100 outside and she is wearing all these clothes and she's been singing the song for three years. Maybe she can't get herself psyched up each time even if there are 80,000 people out there. Ok, so she can't do it, so what? If there is a critic out there who wants to make something of the fact that her voice isn't in the best of shape, what's the point? That's reality. Fleetwood Mac is not a group of gods.


That statement was made in 1979.

Whatever year Richard said it, he can kiss my ass. So what? What's the point? The point is that people paid good money for tickets to a concert so they could see the band put on a good performance, not so they could go home saying, "Oh well, I guess Stevie just couldn't get psyched up for this one, I mean she was wearing all those clothes." Please.

Fleetwood Mac weren't gods, but they are performers charging people to see them put on a show. If the show is in any way subpar, why should critics not point that out?

I find it interesting that, 26 years later, she's still being accused of lackluster performances and being "bored with singing the same old songs."

I find it interesting, too. You'd think she'd have gotten the hint by now. And she has to some extent, but she seems very slow on the uptake.

I didn't see Stevie's tour this year, but even just looking through this thread, it seems clear that the highlights of each concert were the songs Stevie hadn't done before (or at least hadn't done in a very long time): "Sorcerer," "Circle Dance" and "Beauty and the Beast." I don't see anybody saying, "Man, weren't her performances of 'Dreams' and 'Rhiannon' a blast! I'm so glad she played them!"

[David]

Whatever year Richard said it, he can kiss my ass.Actually, he was talking about reviews that appeard of the band's Penguin Country Summer Safari in 1978 -- reviews like the one in Rolling Stone of the band's JFK Stadium show in Philadelphia.

You can hear that bored, listless quality on recordings like Dallas Cotton Bowl July '78 on "Dreams," "Rhiannon" & "Gold Dust Woman." But I'll take 1978 bored over 2005 excited any day.

[Johnny Stew]

I find it interesting, too. You'd think she'd have gotten the hint by now. And she has to some extent, but she seems very slow on the uptake.If Stevie was accused of being "bored" with songs that she had only sung on one or two tours back then, and she's accused of being bored with those same songs now... perhaps the fault was never with Stevie's desire to perform them, but simply how they come across on stage.

I didn't see Stevie's tour this year, but even just looking through this thread, it seems clear that the highlights of each concert were the songs Stevie hadn't done beforeOf course those were the highlights for the people who have seen Stevie in concert quite a number of times.
If I had seen her perform "Rhiannon" at 12 different shows, I'd be more psyched to see her perform "Sorcerer," too. As it is, I've been to one show... in 1990... so I'd be quite thrilled to see her do "Dreams" or "Rhiannon," even if they are passé to tons of other fans. :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

You can hear that bored, listless quality on recordings like Dallas Cotton Bowl July '78 on "Dreams," "Rhiannon" & "Gold Dust Woman." But I'll take 1978 bored over 2005 excited any day.Ah, but why?
Is it really all due to the fact that she was young and sexy back then?
Surely you're immune to ageism.

[Johnny Stew]

Then I guess Lindsey gets a gold star for that one :p.Yes and no. Stevie wrote those notes... though Lindsey gets credit for translating them into a guitar part.

[Jyqm]

If Stevie was accused of being "bored" with songs that she had only sung on one or two tours back then, and she's accused of being bored with those same songs now... perhaps the fault was never with Stevie's desire to perform them, but simply how they come across on stage.

Actually, I think it's probably much more likely that Stevie was just coked out of her mind at some of those late 70s shows and had no idea whether she was giving those songs her all or not.

Of course those were the highlights for the people who have seen Stevie in concert quite a number of times.
If I had seen her perform "Rhiannon" at 12 different shows, I'd be more psyched to see her perform "Sorcerer," too. As it is, I've been to one show... in 1990... so I'd be quite thrilled to see her do "Dreams" or "Rhiannon," even if they are passé to tons of other fans. :shrug:

Well, I'm sorry you haven't been able to make it to any shows recently, and of course the expectations and highlights are always different depending on what you've seen before, but I've got to believe that at this point in her career - especially having toured five times in the past nine years - the majority of folks in the audience at any given concert are seeing her for at least the second time in recent memory.

And I'd be thrilled to see her do "Dreams" or "Rhiannon," too, as long as it was a passionate performance. I think even more than the fact that she's done those songs every single night since 1977, fans don't care for these songs anymore because Stevie herself doesn't seem to care about performing them.

But again, as always, this isn't an issue of, "She should never play any of the old warhorses ever again." But she could certainly stand to throw in more than just two or three wildcards each time out.

[David]

Ah, but why?Why what? Why was she lackluster on "Dreams" at the '78 Cotton Bowl show? Tired maybe, or bored with performing, or not in the mood.
Is it really all due to the fact that she was young and sexy back then?Is what all due? See, the thing about being young & sexy is that you can give a listless performance & still your young, sexy charisma carries you along. Maybe she's not listless any more. What I don't see in her any more -- her old charisma -- could be just a direct result of her being older & . . . well, older. So maybe she's not really lackluster.
Surely you're immune to ageism.I'm immune to ageism, or aging? Neither one, actually. Considerations of ageism have no place in any artistic response, as far as I'm concerned. What is presented up there on stage or screen is -- for better or worse -- fodder for my response. I've always believed that & acted on it. I am in perfect accord with the critic John Simon on that point. People who tell me "Give Stevie a break, she's 57" are susceptible to a touching (because profoundly human) but deleterious (because profoundly uncritical) fallacy -- a fallacy that I would characterize as existential because these people confuse Stevie's music with life: being so involved in living Stevie's persona that they cannot properly evaluate it -- hence they often defend Stevie as if she were their most beloved friend or a fragile, sensitive fairytale soul whose life is in danger from brutal ex-lovers & prickly fans. I venture to add that Stevie is used as a surrogate for life by many people, which is why they can't stand to hear public figure Stevie described as fat or old when they themselves have undoubtedly described other public figures that same way (as we all have).

The sensitivities one normally shows people in mannerly ways are not germane to aesthetic judgments.

[LeighB04]

As much as I hate to say it, I agree. For me, it seems as though Stevie is not as emotionally present now as shows from the past. I particularly noticed this during the SYW shows, but yes even on this recent tour. I don't really know how to describe it, other than I feel like she's just not "there" at times. She appears bored to me, and has for a while. This doesn't reconcile at all with her statements of her love of performing. :shrug:


Glad I'm not the only one who wishes for a little passion from Stevie every now and then. I don't expect her to go headbanging from anything, but some level of energy (other than the rehearsed kick in SB) would be welcome.
In my opinion, longer stays in smaller venues should be where she's headed. Vegas proved that she is more comfortable with that kind of situation now. It's less tiring, and let's face it, very few performers over the age of 50 can rock like they used to (Tina Turner, Cher, Mick Jagger - hard to think of that many more).....

[Jyqm]

very few performers over the age of 50 can rock like they used to (Tina Turner, Cher, Mick Jagger - hard to think of that many more).....

Springsteen, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Paul McCartney... There's plenty of over-50 rock stars out there who still summon that energy.

[Serrart]

I'm immune to ageism, or aging? Neither one, actually. Considerations of ageism have no place in any artistic response, as far as I'm concerned. What is presented up there on stage or screen is -- for better or worse -- fodder for my response. I've always believed that & acted on it. I am in perfect accord with the critic John Simon on that point. People who tell me "Give Stevie a break, she's 57" are susceptible to a touching (because profoundly human) but deleterious (because profoundly uncritical) fallacy -- a fallacy that I would characterize as existential because these people confuse Stevie's music with life: being so involved in living Stevie's persona that they cannot properly evaluate it -- hence they often defend Stevie as if she were their most beloved friend or a fragile, sensitive fairytale soul whose life is in danger from brutal ex-lovers & prickly fans. I venture to add that Stevie is used as a surrogate for life by many people, which is why they can't stand to hear public figure Stevie described as fat or old when they themselves have undoubtedly described other public figures that same way (as we all have).

The sensitivities one normally shows people in mannerly ways are not germane to aesthetic judgments.

How demagogic of you David. Your "they do this and that because... " judgements sound very nihilistic to me.

Romy

[dissention]

In my opinion, longer stays in smaller venues should be where she's headed. Vegas proved that she is more comfortable with that kind of situation now. It's less tiring, and let's face it, very few performers over the age of 50 can rock like they used to (Tina Turner, Cher, Mick Jagger - hard to think of that many more).....

Lindsey Buckingham, Bette Midler, David Bowie, Blondie, Heart, The Who, etc. There are a great number who can still rock out like they used to.

[Rickypt]

Lindsey Buckingham, Bette Midler, David Bowie, Blondie, Heart, The Who, etc. There are a great number who can still rock out like they used to.

Patti Smith also comes to mind, I think she's over 50 by now.

[Johnny Stew]

Why what?My "why," was questioning the reason that listless performances from 1978 were more enjoyable than energetic performances from 2005.

See, the thing about being young & sexy is that you can give a listless performance & still your young, sexy charisma carries you along.

I'm immune to ageism, or aging? Neither one, actually. Considerations of ageism have no place in any artistic response, as far as I'm concerned.

People who tell me "Give Stevie a break, she's 57" are susceptible to a touching (because profoundly human) but deleterious (because profoundly uncritical) fallacy -- a fallacy that I would characterize as existential because these people confuse Stevie's music with life(.)

I venture to add that Stevie is used as a surrogate for life by many people, which is why they can't stand to hear public figure Stevie described as fat or old when they themselves have undoubtedly described other public figures that same way (as we all have).

The sensitivities one normally shows people in mannerly ways are not germane to aesthetic judgments.I brought up ageism, because you stated that her youth and beauty carried her in the '70s, even if the performances weren't particularly passionate or animated. And you stated that, conversely, energetic contemporary performances don't hold your interest the same way that "lifeless" performances had in the '70s.
So I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Am I to surmise that if the Stevie Nicks that just came off the road a few months ago, was 27 years old, then those performances would have been interesting to you... but that, with her being 57 years old, even an energetic performance can't move you the way the lifeless performances from a much younger Stevie had?

If that's the case, then is there anything Ms. Nicks could do, other than taking the stage coked out of her gourd and babling incoherently through each and every song, that could live up to the days when she was youthful and sexy?

[dissention]

Patti Smith also comes to mind, I think she's over 50 by now.

Most definitely. She can still kick your ass right where you sit with that voice alone.

[jannieC]

If that's the case, then is there anything Ms. Nicks could do, other than taking the stage coked out of her gourd and babling incoherently through each and every song, that could live up to the days when she was youthful and sexy?

I know this isn't directed to me, but I have come to my OWN conclusion that the passionate Stevie I loved back when was all a result of drugs. I haven't seen her as emotionally charged since RAL. That doesn't mean I don't love her, I absolutely do. I wouldn't want Stevie to be on drugs. I'm grateful that she is still out doing her thing. But Stevie, the *performer* was more intense and exciting when she was on drugs. My opinion only, of course.

[Johnny Stew]

Lindsey Buckingham, Bette Midler, David Bowie, Blondie, Heart, The Who, etc. There are a great number who can still rock out like they used to.In my opinion, Stevie's energy levels these days are generally equal to her performances from '75 through '79.
As I said, I watch footage from those tours and, aside from her performances of "Rhiannon," I don't see a Stevie Nicks who's any more animated or passionate than the Stevie Nicks of today.

Also as I said, everyone always seems to come back to the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours as the gauge for comparing her energy levels and commitment levels on more recent tours, and I simply feel that those are innacurate comparisons... because those were performances born out of cocaine addiction and manic behaviour.

Some romanticize those performances as carefree and unbridled, while I can see them as careless and sloppy. And while they were certainly compelling in their time, they're not what I would still be wanting to see 22 years later.

[David]

Am I to surmise that if the Stevie Nicks that just came off the road a few months ago, was 27 years old, then those performances would have been interesting to you... but that, with her being 57 years old, even an energetic performance can't move you the way the lifeless performances from a much younger Stevie had?That's it, in a nutshell. But remember that an "energetic performance" is a subjective response to a performance, not an objective characterization of a performance from some all-knowing place.
If that's the case, then is there anything Ms. Nicks could do, other than taking the stage coked out of her gourd and babling incoherently through each and every song, that could live up to the days when she was youthful and sexy?There are probably some things I'd really enjoy seeing or hearing her do, if I thought a lot about it. Maybe a Peter Paul & Mary atmosphere at the Sacramento Municipal Auditorium is something I'd find a lot more suitable or compelling for Stevie Nicks nowadays, rather than the big rock shows, the nature of which seems to me so incongruous with who Stevie is at this point. I don't think her persona is complemented by the big arenas, the pretend-rock bands with their bland & impersonal players who just mimic rock & roll gestures & stances but who are really MOR or AC trudgers, the throngs of screaming fans ... none of it fits Stevie any more, in my perspective.

[David]

In my opinion, Stevie's energy levels these days are generally equal to her performances from '75 through '79.Well, I think that's an interesting insight, but it isn't one I find especially accurate from my perspective. Let me try to explain: there's more than merely a matter of physical movement that makes a performer animated or exciting in my eyes. It has as much to do with placement & retenue & (as I have already said) the physical line of the body in a plastic sense, set against the backdrop of space or stage. It also has to do with the pliability of the voice & all that vocal style entails: attack, dynamics, etc.
As I said, I watch footage from those tours and, aside from her performances of "Rhiannon," I don't see a Stevie Nicks who's any more animated or passionate than the Stevie Nicks of today.See, I do see a Stevie who is more passionate because she looks & moves -- & sounds -- like my idea of a charismatic rock star.
Also as I said, everyone always seems to come back to the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours as the gauge for comparing her energy levels and commitment levels on more recent tours, and I simply feel that those are innacurate comparisons... because those were performances born out of cocaine addiction and manic behaviour.I've talked about how I feel about this before. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Some romanticize those performances as carefree and unbridled, while I can see them as careless and sloppy. And while they were certainly compelling in their time, they're not what I would still be wanting to see 22 years later.From an aesthetic point of view, why would you not want to see compelling performances 22 years later? It isn't just romanticizing the past that's going on here from certain parties -- it's a fairly constant mock-moralistic disapproval of it & even a sort of dismissal of it as being "beneath" Stevie from other parties -- as if she were acting like a child & it isn't "seemly" for adults to keep acting like children.

[David]

How demagogic of you David. Your "they do this and that because... " judgements sound very nihilistic to me.Instead of constantly putting me down, why not respond to what I say with your own views of the topic at hand? I'd like to hear what you have to say about all these Stevie topics because you're damn smart, but I always have to wade through your finger-wagging at me for some perceived infraction of behavior on my part.

If I have strong opinions, just let it ride, Romy. At my age, I'm not going to change. Just engage me in discussion -- a back & forth with our opinions can be a lot of fun to read (at least for us -- I can't speak for everyone else).

[Johnny Stew]

Maybe a Peter Paul & Mary atmosphere at the Sacramento Municipal Auditorium is something I'd find a lot more suitable or compelling for Stevie Nicks nowadays, rather than the big rock shows, the nature of which seems to me so incongruous with who Stevie is at this point. I don't think her persona is complemented by the big arenas, the pretend-rock bands with their bland & impersonal players who just mimic rock & roll gestures & stances but who are really MOR or AC trudgers, the throngs of screaming fans ... none of it fits Stevie any more, in my perspective.She's stuck in a bit of a rut, I'll grant you. And most... though certainly not all... of her fans appreciate her more folksy, "softer" side, and would react quite favorably to more intimate shows with a stripped down sound.

I wouldn't presume to speak for the woman's mindset, but maybe she's doing the "big arena rock" shows while she still can, and saving those stripped-down club gigs for later.

Well, I think that's an interesting insight, but it isn't one I find especially accurate from my perspective.

See, I do see a Stevie who is more passionate because she looks & moves -- & sounds -- like my idea of a charismatic rock star.I actually think I understand now. It's not so much the performances she's giving these days, as it is the settings in which she's giving them. For your tastes... if I'm understanding correctly... she no longer possesses the youth and charisma to propel a big, bombastic rock concert, but in a more intimate setting, "Stevie Nicks, circa 2005" just might be able to shine and truly excel.

From an aesthetic point of view, why would you not want to see compelling performances 22 years later?I do find the latter day performances... at least the ones I've been lucky enough to see video or DVD footage of... to be compelling. But they're a different brand of compelling from what we were talking about.

I wouldn't "disapprove" of it if Stevie behaved a little more uninhibitedly than she typically does now... but I would be dismayed if she behaved as recklessly as she did in the mid-80s.
What I find to be compelling behaviour from a 27 or even 37 year old, isn't what I find compelling in performances from a 57 year old.

But maybe we've stumbled upon the underlying "problem"... perhaps grandiose tours no longer suit Stevie's deportment (if they ever really did), and she'd be better appreciated in a new setting.

[sparky]

A whole lot of words have been written here about Stevie's changed performance style. It struck me like an ax handle watching the Cal Jam footage posted here awhile back. Up until WH, Stevie radiated joy frequently onstage. She was just so damned happy to be there. She was in her element - her every gesture was alive. She was ON. She crackled with energy. That performer pretty much disappeared during RAL. I see the ghost of that performer occasionally, but she is pretty much gone. Stevie is a regal and powerful presence onstage. She knows what works and how to control an audience. She still has a presence. It just isn't that happy and exuberant anymore. She has become more reserved and controlled. For better or worse. I'm not really complaining. She was a robot there for awhile. I still enjoy the shows, but she is a much different presence now. It isn't the age, it isn't the weight, it isn't the clothes, it isn't the hair. It is her aura, for lack of a better word. It is what she is feeling, emanating, and projecting up there. She has calmed down and settled into it. Whatever. It happens.

[David]

I actually think I understand now. It's not so much the performances she's giving these days, as it is the settings in which she's giving them. For your tastes... if I'm understanding correctly... she no longer possesses the youth and charisma to propel a big, bombastic rock concert, but in a more intimate setting, "Stevie Nicks, circa 2005" just might be able to shine and truly excel.Well, I think that's a reductio ad absurdum of my position, but it's certainly something to work with. Remember that Kingston Trio reunion at Magic Mountain back in 1981? A little outdoor theater at Magic Mountain, a bunch of old farts onstage? THAT'S where I see Stevie, where I could enjoy her again & really feel her love & her magic. I'm sick of her rock bands. I'm sick of the rock shtick. She doesn't do it well. She's a phony at it. I don't care whether she's singing Led Zep or not. But put her up there with NO ribbons on her mic, NO ribbons on her tambourine, a bunch of old farts playing acoustic guitars & performing folk classics (NO stand back or other shit), & that could be a great Stevie once again. by the way, the Kingston Trio reunion is FINALLY available on DVD in expanded format! Check out that picture at the top of the case. Imagine Stevie off to the side, singing some nice harmonies on "Four Strong Winds" or "Sloop John B." -- that's where she belongs. Furthermore, I think every last one of you agrees with me.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000094Q1K.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Johnny Stew]

Well, I think that's a reductio ad absurdum of my position, but it's certainly something to work with. Remember that Kingston Trio reunion at Magic Mountain back in 1981? A little outdoor theater at Magic Mountain, a bunch of old farts onstage? THAT'S where I see Stevie, where I could enjoy her again & really feel her love & her magic.Stevie Nicks at Magic Mountain? She might as well play the little bandstand in the park here in my town if she really wants to go slumming. :p

But put her up there with NO ribbons on her mic, NO ribbons on her tambourine, a bunch of old farts playing acoustic guitars & performing folk classics (NO stand back or other shit), & that could be a great Stevie once again.

Imagine Stevie off to the side, singing some nice harmonies on "Four Strong Winds" or "Sloop John B." -- that's where she belongs. Furthermore, I think every last one of you agrees with me.I highly doubt that I'd get all jazzed up about Stevie singing old Pete Seeger tunes, though it certainly would be a novelty.

I suppose a "trio" scenario similar to what Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt were doing, could be an interesting proposition though.

You must forgive me, David... I'm about as resistant to major change as Stevie is. I'm of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mind, and I'm still completely enamoured with the "Stevie Nicks sound."
I'm not interested in "Stevie Nicks Sings Appalachian Hymns" or "Stevie Nicks with Nelson Riddle & His Orchestra."

I wouldn't argue with something a bit off the beaten path, but I sure wouldn't be sold if she did some latter-day career genre-switch, like so many other artists do.

[Jyqm]

I know this isn't directed to me, but I have come to my OWN conclusion that the passionate Stevie I loved back when was all a result of drugs.

On whose part, yours or hers?

[dissention]

but I sure wouldn't be sold if she did some latter-day career genre-switch, like so many other artists do.

Considering she hasn't had the nerve to do such a thing, and most likely never will, you really have no way of knowing.

[Johnny Stew]

Considering she hasn't had the nerve to do such a thing, and most likely never will, you really have no way of knowing.I know I've rarely, if ever, liked it when other artists have done it... so it's a pretty good bet I wouldn't be enthused about it.
"No thanks, I'll stick with your old albums."

But I agree that it's highly unlikely Stevie will ever do a complete 180, so it's not something I'm at all worried about.

[jannieC]

On whose part, yours or hers?
HAH! Hers, I meant. And I could be wrong, but tht's just my little lame conclusion.

[cliffdweller]

There are probably some things I'd really enjoy seeing or hearing her do, if I thought a lot about it. Maybe a Peter Paul & Mary atmosphere at the Sacramento Municipal Auditorium is something I'd find a lot more suitable or compelling for Stevie Nicks nowadays, rather than the big rock shows, the nature of which seems to me so incongruous with who Stevie is at this point. I don't think her persona is complemented by the big arenas, the pretend-rock bands with their bland & impersonal players who just mimic rock & roll gestures & stances but who are really MOR or AC trudgers, the throngs of screaming fans ... none of it fits Stevie any more, in my perspective.

That's a very interesting perspective. I've often wondered what it would be like to see Stevie in a more intimate setting...I would have LOVED to have been in that Storytellers audience. The issues here though, are space and ego. I wonder if Stevie could get away with playing in a small club or venue (I mean, she still packs arenas) and moreover, I wonder if her ego could handle it. I mean, what rock star legend DOESN'T enjoy being adored by hundreds of fans all at once, especially someone as legendary as Stevie?

[Jyqm]

That's a very interesting perspective. I've often wondered what it would be like to see Stevie in a more intimate setting...I would have LOVED to have been in that Storytellers audience. The issues here though, are space and ego. I wonder if Stevie could get away with playing in a small club or venue (I mean, she still packs arenas) and moreover, I wonder if her ego could handle it. I mean, what rock star legend DOESN'T enjoy being adored by hundreds of fans all at once, especially someone as legendary as Stevie?

Does she really pack those arenas? She's mostly played amphitheaters the past few tours, hasn't she?

Anyway, I think a theater tour would be great for her, especially if it meant camping out in larger cities for more than one show. She could strip down the band a little, try for a more organic sound, tell stories in between songs - I think that kind of experience could actually get excited about performing.

The major obstacle, though, as you said, is her ego. I think she has this idea that she's still the reigning queen of rock & roll who just packs 'em in night after night and could still take over the world if she wanted to.

[cliffdweller]

Does she really pack those arenas? She's mostly played amphitheaters the past few tours, hasn't she?

Yeah, and they're still quite big, too big for an intimate kind of show. But from what I hear, Vegas was kind of smallish. I bet that was nice.

[skcin]

A whole lot of words have been written here about Stevie's changed performance style. It struck me like an ax handle watching the Cal Jam footage posted here awhile back. Up until WH, Stevie radiated joy frequently onstage. She was just so damned happy to be there. She was in her element - her every gesture was alive. She was ON. She crackled with energy. That performer pretty much disappeared during RAL. I see the ghost of that performer occasionally, but she is pretty much gone. Stevie is a regal and powerful presence onstage. She knows what works and how to control an audience. She still has a presence. It just isn't that happy and exuberant anymore. She has become more reserved and controlled. For better or worse. I'm not really complaining. She was a robot there for awhile. I still enjoy the shows, but she is a much different presence now. It isn't the age, it isn't the weight, it isn't the clothes, it isn't the hair. It is her aura, for lack of a better word. It is what she is feeling, emanating, and projecting up there. She has calmed down and settled into it. Whatever. It happens.


I couldn't agree with you more, Sparks. :angel:

On another note - I think her life in general has something to do with it - she was a wild chick in a wild time with a wild lifestyle - the tours, the fans, the drugs, the men - everything was constantly changing & things were fast & wild & crazy. Now, 20 years later, she's gone through all that & for the most part it's over.

Sure, she's still recording & touring, but her life is more stable, she's off the coke, she's not dating as much anymore (that we know of) & in general, I don't think her life is as tumultuous (sp) & that's part of why she's more sedate on stage. She has mellowed with age. JMO.

[skcin]

Yeah, and they're still quite big, too big for an intimate kind of show. But from what I hear, Vegas was kind of smallish. I bet that was nice.


It was nice - I think it seats about 2000 people.

Diss and I (and I'm sure may others) have been saying for years that we would love it if she did a small tour of intimate venues (like Cyndi Lauper's been doing) instead of the sheds.

[David]

Diss and I (and I'm sure may others) have been saying for years that we would love it if she did a small tour of intimate venues (like Cyndi Lauper's been doing) instead of the sheds.doesn't do it for me. She needs to get out of the rock business entirely. Carlos Rios has to take a hike. Stevie shouldn't be playing any of her songs because her songs are all pop-rock songs.

I pray for the day that Stevie joins a group like Kids of the Kingdom, a vocal ensemble in coordinated polyester outfits that used to play at Tomorrowland Terrace in Disneyland.

The other thing that would be nice to see would be Peter Paul Mary & Stevie. Imagine the distilled joy she -- they -- could squeeze out of "If I Had a Hammer" or "When Day Is Done" or "Frankie & Johnny" . . . all for an audience of appreciative parents & kids.

[cliffdweller]

The other thing that would be nice to see would be Peter Paul Mary & Stevie. Imagine the distilled joy she -- they -- could squeeze out of "If I Had a Hammer" or "When Day Is Done" or "Frankie & Johnny" . . . all for an audience of appreciative parents & kids.

Um, look, no. :laugh:

[skcin]

^^^^^

Well said. :nod:

[ELIUD]

Stevie's doesn't have the confidence to put on a show for the devoted fan in mind. She's performing to satisfy the casual fan. We who attend every tour know exactly what to expect and go to each performance hoping we'll see just a glimmer of what we know is still in there. And I'm not talking twirls or those awful high kicks, but just passion and spirit in her performance. In Dallas, I saw that passion, confidence and fire when she sang "Rock and Roll". I know there are people here who say she did it better in Houston or where ever the **** they saw her do it. I still say that was the best live performance I've seen Stevie do since 1983. She radiates with new material. And if somebody could just convince her that we DON'T need Dreams and Stand Back as much as she thinks we do - there'd be plenty more of that fire and spirit every night.

And Nikolaj - a big high five for mentioning "Listen to the Rain"!
That song rocks!

[Johnny Stew]

Does she really pack those arenas? She's mostly played amphitheaters the past few tours, hasn't she?She doesn't sell them out, but she does play to an average audience of 8,660 people.

The major obstacle, though, as you said, is her ego. I think she has this idea that she's still the reigning queen of rock & roll who just packs 'em in night after night and could still take over the world if she wanted to.I don't think it's necessarily an "ego thing," as you put it, but rather "supply and demand."
If that level of demand is there (an average of well over 8,000 concert attendees is nothing to sneeze at for a 57 year old female performer who doesn't put on some kind of Cirque de Soleil extravaganza), it doesn't make sense to play little 700-seaters.

I think it's great that Stevie can still play to that many people, and I also think she should take advantage of that while she still can.
She doesn't have that many larger scale tours still left in her, so why not do it while she still can, and then focus on smaller, more intimate tours.

[DavidMn]

She doesn't sell them out, but she does play to an average audience of 8,660 people.

I don't think it's necessarily an "ego thing," as you put it, but rather "supply and demand."
If that level of demand is there (an average of well over 8,000 concert attendees is nothing to sneeze at for a 57 year old female performer who doesn't put on some kind of Cirque de Soleil extravaganza), it doesn't make sense to play little 700-seaters.

I think it's great that Stevie can still play to that many people, and I also think she should take advantage of that while she still can.
She doesn't have that many larger scale tours still left in her, so why not do it while she still can, and then focus on smaller, more intimate tours.Well stated sir.:thumbsup:

[Serrart]

Instead of constantly putting me down, why not respond to what I say with your own views of the topic at hand? I'd like to hear what you have to say about all these Stevie topics because you're damn smart, but I always have to wade through your finger-wagging at me for some perceived infraction of behavior on my part.

About this, I tend to finger waggling at you, only when in your sarcastic, calembouresque way you seem to finger waggling at many others.

If I have strong opinions, just let it ride, Romy. At my age, I'm not going to change. Just engage me in discussion -- a back & forth with our opinions can be a lot of fun to read (at least for us -- I can't speak for everyone else).

I have no problem with strong opinions, since usually I have them on some topics too, and Stevie performances are one of them. First I have to say that I didn't grow up with Stevie Nicks, and my parents either, I haven't personal or close memories linked to her performances, anything that, in a way, gives a special meaning to them on a personal side. I discovered her and FM as today's artists, and then had to go backwards.
What she was onstage from Mirage tour till Street Angel tour (excluded), leaves me for most parts drained and sad. Those performances (at least the bootlegs I've heard or seen) communicate me the same sadness that I got from every performance driven by drugs or self- destruction, where the mournful element is sometimes overwhelming. It's that kind of shadow, that Bette Midler portrayed so well in The Rose; it's the same feeling that I get watching James Dean in The Giant, Monty Clift in Suddenly Last Summer, some of last Elvis performances. Red Rocks has the shape, the sound, the image of a farewell to me.

Then there were the Klonopin years that brought her to an emotional sterility live, IMO. But magically in 1994 she came back, giving again an artistic subject to her icon. The Stevie Nicks I discovered as a performer on Street Angel, was simply a new one from the one I left on Tusk tour. As every major artist she "dies" and returns to a new life again and again, sometimes with a harmonic passage, sometimes with a traumatic one, especially for some of her fans, I guess, since everyone faces the years and the changes with different paces, and many times old photos are safe and reassuring. Personally I love what she has become and what she's been giving live from 1994 up to now, as much as I love the one from BN on Tusk Tour.

Romy