Rolling Stone Magazine Album Reviews

[foxyluva]

I can't believe how much this magazine dogs on Stevie, its ridiculous. I mean, they somewhat have some points, but they completely don't like anything about her music style at all. I mean, they gave WH 2 stars out of 5 for goodness sake - same as SA :eek:

Read their reviews of her albums here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/stevienicks/reviews

[JazmenFlowers]

I can't believe how much this magazine dogs on Stevie, its ridiculous. I mean, they somewhat have some points, but they completely don't like anything about her music style at all. I mean, they gave WH 2 stars out of 5 for goodness sake - same as SA :eek:

Read their reviews of her albums here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/stevienicks/reviews
I've learned not to really care. I think a lot of it is, as Stevie admits, her airy fairy princess image. They don't take her seriously. That's a shame because she is a great songwriter and performer with a distinct style that can't ever be duplicated.

I love Barbra Streisand's character's response to reviews in A Star Is Born: "I don't know 'cause I never read 'em"

[DavidMn]

I've learned not to really care. I think a lot of it is, as Stevie admits, her airy fairy princess image. They don't take her seriously. That's a shame because she is a great songwriter and performer with a distinct style that can't ever be duplicated.

I love Barbra Streisand's character's response to reviews in A Star Is Born: "I don't know 'cause I never read 'em"Exactly! I know what I like and what makes me happy, and I absolutely couldnt give a shit less if anyone else likes the same stuff I do or not.:)

[SpyNote]

I wouldn't say Stevie has the most impressive catalog of solo albums. She's been inconsistent vocally and lyrically since Wild Heart. But RS's main objections are pretty absurd. They usually give up on her albums when song meanings aren't totally spelled out. So, of course, with Stevie, you're not going to get the whole story. They really slammed Wild Heart and Mirror for this reason. I think the only album that they were complimentary towards throughout was TISL.

[DavidMn]

I wouldn't say Stevie has the most impressive catalog of solo albums. She's been inconsistent vocally and lyrically since Wild Heart. But RS's main objections are pretty absurd. They usually give up on her albums when song meanings aren't totally spelled out. So, of course, with Stevie, you're not going to get the whole story. They really slammed Wild Heart and Mirror for this reason. I think the only album that they were complimentary towards throughout was TISL.Well, you certainly know what youre talking about with how big a fan you are.:nod:

[amber]

It's weird that they said Some Become Strangers and Imperial Hotel are the high points of RAL. I would've thought they would've bagged Imperial Hotel so hard.
That particular review seemed to like things more organic with Stevie, not so much synth.

I like this phrase, though: "Stevie's distinctive growl can attach a hook to some pretty slippery sentiments." which I totally agree with. :laugh:


"In "Stand Back," she sings, "No one knows/How I feel/What I say/Unless you read between my lines." Well, whose fault is that?"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[amber]

I thought this paragraph was insightful, but irritating: It lays forth the whole problem of people who don't "go with Stevie". I kind of agree about how she needs eeriness in the music.

"It's simple to mug a mystic, and Nicks' voyages into the ozone do make her an easy target. But mysticism doesn't obviate the need for clarity, rigor, structure. In fact, it makes them all the more important, so that those of us who look askance at crystal visions can partake along with the true believers. And if her lyrics are going to have the open-ended quality they have here, Nicks needs eerie, on-the-edge music to complement them (the snaky grace of "Gold Dust Woman" comes to mind). Hers is a heady muse, and one hopes The Wild Heart will just be a brief slipup. Too bad no one told her early on, but as she sings in "Nightbird," "Sometimes I am surrounded by too much love." (RS 399)

You know, these reviewers aren't chicks. I think a chick reviewer would have a more balanced perspective, especially on her lyrics. I mean, these guys don't get it at all. Total misinterpretation of some of them.

This is the second review by separate people that said the same thing about Tom Petty comparing to Stevie: "Unfortunately, there's more reality in those three lines, which Nicks didn't write, than in all of her misty, cosmic-erotic musings put together."

The Wild Heart review said the same thing about a lyric in "I Will Run to You".
Dang.

[David]

"It's simple to mug a mystic, and Nicks' voyages into the ozone do make her an easy target. But mysticism doesn't obviate the need for clarity, rigor, structure. In fact, it makes them all the more important, so that those of us who look askance at crystal visions can partake along with the true believers. And if her lyrics are going to have the open-ended quality they have here, Nicks needs eerie, on-the-edge music to complement them (the snaky grace of "Gold Dust Woman" comes to mind). Hers is a heady muse, and one hopes The Wild Heart will just be a brief slipup. Too bad no one told her early on, but as she sings in "Nightbird," "Sometimes I am surrounded by too much love." (RS 399)

You know, these reviewers aren't chicks. I think a chick reviewer would have a more balanced perspective, especially on her lyrics.What does "balanced" mean?

There were certainly a number of women rock critics over the years who disliked Stevie for the same reasons that their men counterparts did: Connie Johnson, Kristine McKenna, Sylvie Simmons, etc. I was arguing this earlier with Strand, I think, about whether there's any chauvinism in critical attitudes toward Stevie. I never saw chauvinism (at least along male-female lines) in the widespread critical dismissal of Stevie's songwriting & albums.

I also wanted to say that I don't think a magazine "talks" with a single overriding voice or opinion, especially a magazine like Rolling Stone, which used to have a large staff of very independently minded writers. Some of them had very few positive things to say about Stevie (Steve Pond, Christopher Connelly) while others thought she was a more interesting performer & songwriter than she was often given credit for (Stephen Holden, Ben Fong-Torres, Parke Puterbaugh) & others seemed split down the middle (Dave DiMartino).

The cool thing (I guess not cool for Stevie fans but definitely cool for Mac fans in general) was that virtually all the writers at Rolling Stone in the 1970s & '80s were varyingly keen on Fleetwood Mac, especially compared with most of the AOR superbands of Fleetwood Mac's generation: the Eagles, Billy Joel, Aerosmith, etc., most of whom generally got negative writeups. Mac was a critical darling in those days at Rolling Stone & elsewhere; it was usually only Stevie who took a periodic drubbing--but, again, I maintain for perfectly valid aesthetic reasons rather than chauvinistic axes for grinding.

Still, there were critics of the rank of the RS staff in other publications who thought highly of Stevie as a singer/songwriter: Robert Hilburn & Dennis Hunt of the Los Angeles Times, Ken Tucker of the Philadelphia Enquirer, & John Rockwell of the New York Times.

[Johnny Stew]

But mysticism doesn't obviate the need for clarity, rigor, structure.Clarity, rigor, structure. Sounds like what they teach in boot-camp.
My opinion... and it's just that -- my opinion... is that rock music shouldn't be too rigidly structured or over-analyzed. I'll take Stevie's more visceral approach any day.

[catinthedark]

you know what? i love stevie. i will love stevie til the day i die. but i can honestly say i do not love everything she has ever produced, and i do not believe that everything she has ever produced deserves five stars. i appreciate a good critic, a fair critic. if everyone was just always heapin' love on her, i'd be suspicious.

[foxyluva]

you know what? i love stevie. i will love stevie til the day i die. but i can honestly say i do not love everything she has ever produced, and i do not believe that everything she has ever produced deserves five stars. i appreciate a good critic, a fair critic. if everyone was just always heapin' love on her, i'd be suspicious.

Yes well, Rollingstone does not really have anything nice to say about her as an artist at all. I do not love everything Stevie has done either - but their are many more pluses than minuses. I think allmusic.com has given very fair and realistic reviews to Stevie's music - you can find their ratings/reviews here:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE57916DD4DA57020E5DC084DCEB353EA1DCC42B48D116E444FC0933E50940F64EE4BE9DDD2B4E577B479A9B3 2BAE5B0FD9C9E9469CA1&uid=CAW010604051710&sql=11:4gjyeay04x87~T2

[David]

Yes well, Rollingstone does not really have anything nice to say about her as an artist at all.Not completely true. See Steve Pond's review in Rolling Stone of the band's Hollywood Bowl gig back in Sept. 1980, in particular his remarks about Stevie's performance of "Landslide":

"During Landslide, Nicks was riveting ... stripped of all her dying-swan poses & fairie-queen pretensions, she sang of growing older in a husky, cracked, uncertain voice that was far more honest & moving than anything else she did."

(I'm trying to quote from memory, so a word or two might not be accurate)

[DavidMn]

Not completely true. See Steve Pond's review in Rolling Stone of the band's Hollywood Bowl gig back in Sept. 1980, in particular his remarks about Stevie's performance of "Landslide":

"During Landslide, Nicks was riveting ... stripped of all her dying-swan poses & fairie-queen pretensions, she sang of growing older in a husky, cracked, uncertain voice that was far more honest & moving than anything else she did."

(I'm trying to quote from memory, so a word or two might not be accurate)God I wish I couldve been at that show.

[cliffdweller]

Wow, what starts out as a positive review of Bella Donna ends on a very sour note. If R.S. was this strict with her most critically acclaimed album, I'm sure the reviews just keep getting worse (could only access reviews for B.D. and S.A. for some reason) from there.

Why do critics not see what I see and hear what I hear? :laugh: I know it sounds stupid but it's like when I read these reviews (er, okay one review) it's like we're (me and the critic) listening to two totally different albums. So Stevie writes personal lyrics about her life and relationships, who doesn't? What singer/songwriter out there doesn't write personal lyrics? These reviewers act like she is the first and only self-absorbed artist out there who writes cryptic lyrics (of course she's not going to give away places and names you silly R.S. critic!) about her own experiences. Why do they dog her so much for this? I think people, critics, whatever, have a pre-conceived notion about Stevie and just let the things come out in her music that they WANT to hear or are looking for because they already have an opinion of her as a beautiful, spoiled, princess who was forever sheltered in a hugely popular and successful band. I don't know, is she/was she as self-indulgent as people say she was/is? Have I really become so blind and unobjective where Stevie's concerned that I don't or can't see what others see? And how have I made such a strong connection to her music? I really don't know! I just have, how does that happen? And why is the sky blue? :laugh:

[amber]

Wow, what starts out as a positive review of Bella Donna ends on a very sour note. If R.S. was this strict with her most critically acclaimed album, I'm sure the reviews just keep getting worse (could only access reviews for B.D. and S.A. for some reason) from there.

Why do critics not see what I see and hear what I hear? :laugh: I know it sounds stupid but it's like when I read these reviews (er, okay one review) it's like we're (me and the critic) listening to two totally different albums. So Stevie writes personal lyrics about her life and relationships, who doesn't? What singer/songwriter out there doesn't write personal lyrics? These reviewers act like she is the first and only self-absorbed artist out there who writes cryptic lyrics (of course she's not going to give away places and names you silly R.S. critic!) about her own experiences. Why do they dog her so much for this? I think people, critics, whatever, have a pre-conceived notion about Stevie and just let the things come out in her music that they WANT to hear or are looking for because they already have an opinion of her as a beautiful, spoiled, princess who was forever sheltered in a hugely popular and successful band. I don't know, is she/was she as self-indulgent as people say she was/is? Have I really become so blind and unobjective where Stevie's concerned that I don't or can't see what others see? And how have I made such a strong connection to her music? I really don't know! I just have, how does that happen? And why is the sky blue? :laugh:

THat's what I'm talkin bout! What I meant by their misinterpretations, it's like we're listening to different albums. Sing it!

[David]

THat's what I'm talkin bout! What I meant by their misinterpretations, it's like we're listening to different albums. Sing it!
Don't get frustrated by it, guys. It's all in your perspective. Remember that a critic is NOT providing some sort of Platonic or eternal "Truth" with a capital T. The critic is giving you his truth with a lowercase T--what he perceives in it & thinks about it. His perception might match your own, but very often it won't. The usefulness of a critic is not in his view correlating with yours but in his ability to say something interesting about what he sees or hears--& perhaps to make you see something in it that you overlooked.

I've always found it confusing that ledgies pay lip service to the importance of the variety of opinions around here & then they grow violent over a critic's negative review of an album they love. Either you want to hear varying opinions from EVERYONE or you don't. But if you say you do, I'm going to assume you do.

Criticism is opinion in an organized piece of writing, along with the careful consideration of that opinion. It has practically nothing to do with objectivity or universal fact. (The idea that there is objectivity in the judgment of art is a complete myth. However, this does not necessarily mean that all our opinions about art are equally valuable. That facile, wrongheaded conclusion is often propounded.) The proof of criticism's distance from objectivity--& it happens all the time--is that Critic X will hate something & be able to describe why he hates it, & Critic Y will love that same thing & be able to describe why he loves it. That's exactly what we do (at our best) here at the Ledge. We are a macrocosm of critical voices!!!! :blob2: :blob2: :] :blob1: :blob1: :blob2:

[diamondsnake]

Wait, isn't Rolling Stone the magazine which dubbed Stevie "The Queen of Rock"? That's got to mean something!

[David]

Wait, isn't Rolling Stone the magazine which dubbed Stevie "The Queen of Rock"? That's got to mean something!A headline on a cover (or an inside story) is really just a come-on.

The important thing is that Stevie fans finally had a wonderfully written & photographed cover story on their idol.

[foxyluva]

Not completely true. See Steve Pond's review in Rolling Stone of the band's Hollywood Bowl gig back in Sept. 1980, in particular his remarks about Stevie's performance of "Landslide":

"During Landslide, Nicks was riveting ... stripped of all her dying-swan poses & fairie-queen pretensions, she sang of growing older in a husky, cracked, uncertain voice that was far more honest & moving than anything else she did."

(I'm trying to quote from memory, so a word or two might not be accurate)

I was talking strictly about the album reviews on the website.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

They seemed to think ok of TISL atleast :
-----

from Rolling Stone, Issue 871, June 21, 2001
Stevie Nicks
Trouble in Shangri-La
REPRISE

Nicks' best solo work in years

Stripped to the bare essentials, Stevie Nicks' music is just Nicks' articulate rasp and her 14 million romantic emotions; when it's rocking just right, there's nothing else like it, giving robust rock form to her seemingly untamable impressions. And on Trouble in Shangri-La, it's rocking as right as it has since the mid-Eighties, when producer Jimmy Iovine helped Nicks craft two consecutive solo masterstrokes of big-time guitars, tunes and rhythms. On Shangri-La, she works comfortably with everyone from Sheryl Crow to the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines. Producer John Shanks shows a perfect understanding of what makes Nicks Nicks on thrillers like "Planets of the Universe" and the sensational title track. And when, working with Rick Nowels on "I Miss You," she sings, "I have so many questions/About love and about pain/About strained relationships," Nicks delivers some of her best work since she first barked out the words "white-winged dove." -- James Hunter

[amber]

I hardly grew violent about the review, David. And I think people with different opinions than mine suck, whether it's here at the ledge or a rolling stone review. :laugh:
The fact that TISL, my least favorite album, got a good review is...uh...lame.
:p :D

[David]

I hardly grew violent about the review, David.Yes yes yes yes yes......but what do you think about my conception of aesthetic criticism?????? do you stand with me or against me? do you agree or disagree? in whole or in part? which part? amber rhymes with tambor, which is in indonesia.:mad: :thumbsup: :eek: :shocked: :] :nod: :sorry: :sorry: :shrug:

[Nicks Fan]

I may be in the minority but I think TISL is her best work to date as a solo artist. It is not a perfect album but then none of her albums are perfect. I just think as a whole this album just shines. I find alot of her earlier albums have some great songs but alot of clunkers.

1. Bella Donna - Kind of woman, Highwaymen,Think About it. They just do not cut it for me.

2. Wild Heart- Sable on blonde, Nothing Ever Changes, Nightbird. I think I will pass

3. Rock a Little - Virtually everything on it with the exception of I Can't Wait, Talk To Me and Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for you is forgettable fluff

3. Other Side of the Mirror- Too Kinds of Love, Whole Lotta Trouble,Ghosts, Not very good

4. Street Angel - Besides Blue Denim,and Maybe Love, the album sucks

[DavidMn]

I may be in the minority but I think TISL is her best work to date as a solo artist. It is not a perfect album but then none of her albums are perfect. I just think as a whole this album just shines. I find alot of her earlier albums have some great songs but alot of clunkers.

1. Bella Donna - Kind of woman, Highwaymen,Think About it. They just do not cut it for me.

2. Wild Heart- Sable on blonde, Nothing Ever Changes, Nightbird. I think I will pass

3. Rock a Little - Virtually everything on it with the exception of I Can't Wait, Talk To Me and Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for you is forgettable fluff

3. Other Side of the Mirror- Too Kinds of Love, Whole Lotta Trouble,Ghosts, Not very good

4. Street Angel - Besides Blue Denim,and Maybe Love, the album sucksI will respectfully disagree with you on Kind of woman. That's my favorite solo song of hers.

[foxyluva]

I may be in the minority but I think TISL is her best work to date as a solo artist. It is not a perfect album but then none of her albums are perfect. I just think as a whole this album just shines. I find alot of her earlier albums have some great songs but alot of clunkers.

1. Bella Donna - Kind of woman, Highwaymen,Think About it. They just do not cut it for me.

2. Wild Heart- Sable on blonde, Nothing Ever Changes, Nightbird. I think I will pass

3. Rock a Little - Virtually everything on it with the exception of I Can't Wait, Talk To Me and Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for you is forgettable fluff

3. Other Side of the Mirror- Too Kinds of Love, Whole Lotta Trouble,Ghosts, Not very good

4. Street Angel - Besides Blue Denim,and Maybe Love, the album sucks

:shocked: Ghosts is beautiful. I don't expect everyone to like it - but it speaks to me more than any other song ever sung by anybody - I can feel every emotion in those words and Stevie's delivery...

TISL is a AWESOME album - no doubt, but Bella Donna is near perfection, and so is Wild Heart (NEC & NB are friggen great :D ). For me, TISL is a close third.

SA hardly 'sucks' - the album is a little bland and not up to par with the rest of Stevie's back-cataloge, but it is alot better than many other albums I have heard :shrug:

[JazmenFlowers]

I may be in the minority but I think TISL is her best work to date as a solo artist. It is not a perfect album but then none of her albums are perfect. I just think as a whole this album just shines. I find alot of her earlier albums have some great songs but alot of clunkers.

1. Bella Donna - Kind of woman, Highwaymen,Think About it. They just do not cut it for me.

2. Wild Heart- Sable on blonde, Nothing Ever Changes, Nightbird. I think I will pass

3. Rock a Little - Virtually everything on it with the exception of I Can't Wait, Talk To Me and Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for you is forgettable fluff

3. Other Side of the Mirror- Too Kinds of Love, Whole Lotta Trouble,Ghosts, Not very good

4. Street Angel - Besides Blue Denim,and Maybe Love, the album sucks
bubedwag! say what? pfft...just pfft.

[carrie721]

bubedwag! say what? pfft...just pfft.

haha. that's pretty much what i said ... i love most of the songs listed, and i think in general people are too hard on RAL and SA (esp. SA).

and david, i totally agree with you - kind of woman is an amazing song.

[Nicks Fan]

The reason why I dislike Street Angel is because after collecting all of the other ones this was the only album I didn't own and the only songs I knew were Blue Denim and Maybe Love. When I finally bought it nothing really excited me. I just found allot of the album dull. As for Nothing Ever Changes I may be in the minority but I find the musical arrangement so bland on that song. As for RAL, alot of the music sounds dated to me like it could have only have been made in the 80's. At least with some of her other albums the songs sound like something you could see someone recording today.

Matt

[JazmenFlowers]

The reason why I dislike Street Angel is because after collecting all of the other ones this was the only album I didn't own and the only songs I knew were Blue Denim and Maybe Love. When I finally bought it nothing really excited me. I just found allot of the album dull. As for Nothing Ever Changes I may be in the minority but I find the musical arrangement so bland on that song. As for RAL, alot of the music sounds dated to me like it could have only have been made in the 80's. At least with some of her other albums the songs sound like something you could see someone recording today.

Matt
ok, let's take this point by point.

Street Angel - nothing, not even Rose Garden excited you? are you saying you liked BD and MLWCYM? if so, then I can see where you're going. if not, then I can't see how RG and the two others don't excite you...especially Blue Denim. but you are certainly entitled to feel that way. :nod:

As for Nothing Ever Changes...I have heard criticisms of this song before, butnever that the arrangement is bland. how so?

With respect to RAL, I really see you're point, but I would hope that you can at least find something to appreciate about the album without letting the 80's sound distract you; lyrics, vocals, etc. I don't think HAEWAFY sounds dated. but, I mean, what can you expect from an album made in the mid-80's?

[Nicks Fan]

What I mean is that most of the music but not all of the music on RAL is dated. The music is straight out of thr 80's. HAEWAFY is brilliant, but songs like Sister Honey, Nightmare, Aand some become Strangers are plain awful.

As for Street Angel. What I mean is that I really enjoyed Blue Denim and Maybe Love, I just find that when you listen to the other stauff on the album nothing jumps out at you and hooks you like other solo songs in her catalogue do. I mean Listen to the rain and Kick it are ok, but nothing else for me on the album is really good. I mean if I was trying to to convert someone to her music this is not the album I would pick.

Matt

[JazmenFlowers]

What I mean is that most of the music but not all of the music on RAL is dated. The music is straight out of thr 80's. HAEWAFY is brilliant, but songs like Sister Honey, Nightmare, Aand some become Strangers are plain awful.

As for Street Angel. What I mean is that I really enjoyed Blue Denim and Maybe Love, I just find that when you listen to the other stauff on the album nothing jumps out at you and hooks you like other solo songs in her catalogue do. I mean Listen to the rain and Kick it are ok, but nothing else for me on the album is really good. I mean if I was trying to to convert someone to her music this is not the album I would pick.

Matt
ok.

I freakin' love Some Become Strangers, btw.

[Jyqm]

Wow, what starts out as a positive review of Bella Donna ends on a very sour note. If R.S. was this strict with her most critically acclaimed album, I'm sure the reviews just keep getting worse (could only access reviews for B.D. and S.A. for some reason) from there.

I thought the Bella Donna review ended out pretty balanced. It's one of the best critical pieces on Stevie that I've read. Well-written, well-researched, and exceedingly fair and balanced: unafraid to point out both Stevie's strengths and weaknesses.

Why do critics not see what I see and hear what I hear? :laugh: I know it sounds stupid but it's like when I read these reviews (er, okay one review) it's like we're (me and the critic) listening to two totally different albums. So Stevie writes personal lyrics about her life and relationships, who doesn't?

Well, there are many who write about a lot more.

What singer/songwriter out there doesn't write personal lyrics? These reviewers act like she is the first and only self-absorbed artist out there who writes cryptic lyrics (of course she's not going to give away places and names you silly R.S. critic!) about her own experiences. Why do they dog her so much for this?

I think you're entirely missing the point. None of the complaints in the Bella Donna review were about the fact that Stevie's lyrics are "personal," nor does Stephen Holden want her to "give away" the names of the real-life people and places she may or may not be writing about. His problem with Stevie's lyrics is that they are oftentimes totally vague and inscrutable, seemingly imbued with meaning while not meaning anything at all. Her metaphors are rarely tied to anything pertinent or realistic, and a lot of times they aren't tied to anything at all. This reviewer doesn't have a problem with Stevie being "self-absorbed," he has a problem with her "purple blather" and airy-fairy cliches, all of her sound and lack of fury which don't seem to signify anything at all.

And when Holden writes that Stevie's lyrics create "a moonlit dream world that's virtually devoid of specific people, places and events," he's not saying that he wants her to "give away" her secrets; he's saying that her writing is meandering and vague. He's writing from an aesthetic point of view that values a writer's ability to conjure up specific situations and characters and feelings with their words. Whether or not you agree with this criticism is one thing, but that's what Holden's argument is here.

For comparison's sake, look at some of Joni Mitchell's writing (and I believe Rolling Stone absolutely loved Joni Mitchell throughout most of the 70s). This is a rather obvious example, but it still makes the point: "The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68..." I don't know who Richard is, if he's a real person or not, if Joni is writing about herself here or not, but in these ten words she's created something very specific, an entire world with all kinds of implications. Joni's eyes may be "full of moons" just like Stevie's, but Stevie has rarely written a single line filled with that much real meaning, expositional or otherwise. And I love "Bella Donna" as much as anybody, but all those images of trapeze artists and horsemen and speeding down the highway and northern stars - they're all just kind of thrown in there together and rarely connect and rarely mean anything concrete. I think the mood created by the whole (thanks in large part to the music, which Holden is pretty complimentary of in his review) is far greater than the sum of its parts, but I can certainly understand the more traditional point of view that Holden is coming from. From his standpoint, this is just bad writing.

I think people, critics, whatever, have a pre-conceived notion about Stevie and just let the things come out in her music that they WANT to hear or are looking for because they already have an opinion of her as a beautiful, spoiled, princess who was forever sheltered in a hugely popular and successful band.

Certainly everybody's got pre-conceived notions about anybody, but do you really think that's a fair thing to say about this Bella Donna review? Holden is very balanced in his critiques, and he takes the time to note the ways in which the album and her solo artist persona are very different from her music and persona in Fleetwood Mac. And he backs up nearly all of his criticisms with specific examples from Stevie's lyrics, so I wouldn't say he's only hearing what he "wants" to hear. In this instance, it might be more fair to say that you have a pre-conceived notion of what critics and non-fans are going to think about Stevie.

I don't know, is she/was she as self-indulgent as people say she was/is? Have I really become so blind and unobjective where Stevie's concerned that I don't or can't see what others see? And how have I made such a strong connection to her music? I really don't know! I just have, how does that happen? And why is the sky blue? :laugh:

Of course you're unobjective. This is the realm of art and music, "objective" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Holden has his opinion, and you have yours, and each is just as subjective as the other. To this day, there are plenty of people who think that Ulysses is a pile of crap, who have been underwhelmed by the Mona Lisa, who think that Percy Shelley wasn't a very good poet. There's no accounting for taste. Never has been. Hopefully never will be.

Now, if you really "can't see what others see," if you not only disagree with Holden's opinions but can't even understand or appreciate how he formed them, then you might be a little blind, and that might be something to try and work on. (Personally, I usually feel like I have an even greater appreciation for a work of art/music/literature that I like after I read about and understand why others might not care for it or might object to it.) But still, objectivity has nothing to do with it.

[Jyqm]

They seemed to think ok of TISL atleast :

Of course they did. In 2001, Stevie was riding high on the success of The Dance and Enchanted, she had all these little baby birds chirping around her mother hen nest (Sheryl, Courtney, Natalie, Macy), she had a whole lot of young people who were newly turned on to her music, and she was dealing with a new generation of rock critics who spent the late 70s in diapers rocking out to "Dreams" rather than in ironic t-shirts rolling their eyes at her over-the-top persona and over-exposure in the media.

[cliffdweller]

This reviewer doesn't have a problem with Stevie being "self-absorbed," he has a problem with her "purple blather" and airy-fairy cliches, all of her sound and lack of fury which don't seem to signify anything at all.

Oh really? I'm glad to know that you have insight into what this reviewer was thinking when he wrote:

"Both the atmosphere and language of Bella Donna are so insular and self-enraptured that Stevie Nicks' sentiments seem as weightless as those of a pampered, pretty high-school girl."

"insular and self-entraptured" can oftentimes be loosely translated into "self-absorbed." Wouldn't you agree? And then he goes on to state that her "self-enrapturedness" contribute to her sentiments being "as weightless as those of a pampered, pretty high-school girl." What's positive about that assessment? That? is a negative criticism of Stevie's music suffering due to her self-absorbtion. Who cares right? I know I don't. I'm just here to tell you that he WAS critquing her for being self-absorbed which you refuted. Btw, I agree with the rest of your comment. I got that, so, I didn't TOTALLY miss the point of the review after all :rolleyes:.

For comparison's sake, look at some of Joni Mitchell's writing (and I believe Rolling Stone absolutely loved Joni Mitchell throughout most of the 70s). This is a rather obvious example, but it still makesthe point: "The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68..." I don't know who Richard is, if he's a real person or not, if Joni is writing about herself here or not, but in these ten words she's created something very specific, an entire world with all kinds of implications. Joni's eyes may be "full of moons" just like Stevie's, but Stevie has rarely written a single line filled with that much real meaning, expositional or otherwise.

Short answer: Stevie is not the same kind of song-writer Joni is. Wow, that was easy. Now let's compare apples and oranges...


Now, if you really "can't see what others see," if you not only disagree with Holden's opinions but can't even understand or appreciate how he formed them, then you might be a little blind, and that might be something to try and work on.
Woa, back up dear. When and how did I ever state that I don't appreciate his point of view or how he formed his opinions? I had a reaction to his review, nothing more nothing less. I never went on a verbal tirade about how idiotic this guy is or how his criticism is crap. Sounds like you're a bit defenive about this guy's writing, you must be a fan of his or something I don't know, but I never once went off on him as an invaluable critic. And of course I can see what others see. I suppose I was more or less airing my response to this guy's review in a "stream-of-conscienciousness" type of way, kind of thinking as I was writing, so it may have come across to you in a different way than was intended. Before you get so emotional over my response to the comments made in this Bella Donna review, you should really make sure that you are solid about my intent. You presume too much sometimes, or can't YOU see that?

[Jyqm]

Oh really? I'm glad to know that you have insight into what this reviewer was thinking when he wrote:

"Both the atmosphere and language of Bella Donna are so insular and self-enraptured that Stevie Nicks' sentiments seem as weightless as those of a pampered, pretty high-school girl."

"insular and self-entraptured" can oftentimes be loosely translated into "self-absorbed." Wouldn't you agree? And then he goes on to state that her "self-enrapturedness" contribute to her sentiments being "as weightless as those of a pampered, pretty high-school girl." What's positive about that assessment? That? is a negative criticism of Stevie's music suffering due to her self-absorbtion. Who cares right? I know I don't. I'm just here to tell you that he WAS critquing her for being self-absorbed which you refuted. Btw, I agree with the rest of your comment. I got that, so, I didn't TOTALLY miss the point of the review after all :rolleyes:.

Sorry, I still disagree. I think that this specific criticism has more to do with what I mentioned about Stevie's writing style than about straight-up self-absorption. I think we're just interpreting this sentence in two different ways. I read "insular and self-enraptured" and "weightless" as further describing his criticisms of Stevie's writing, specifically that it's vague and airy-fairy without much concrete or specific meaning, all wrapped up in fantasies in her head without any relation to a "real" world. Remember, even in this sentence, he's referring to the album's "atmosphere and language" - he's writing about the music and the lyrics, not Stevie's personal attitude about herself.

Short answer: Stevie is not the same kind of song-writer Joni is. Wow, that was easy. Now let's compare apples and oranges...

All right, let's see: They're both fruits. They both grow on trees. They both make for good juices. You rarely eat them dried...

Of course Joni and Stevie are different kinds of songwriters. All songwriters are different kinds of songwriters. That doesn't mean that comparisons and contrasts can't be made among them. And actually, Joni and Stevie have a number of similarities in they both come from the California folk-rock tradition, they both tend to write in a highly personal style... but yes, of course there are a lot of differences between them, which is exactly why I brought Joni up. I was simply using her as an example of the kind of writing I imagine this reviewer would take more of a shine to - Joni's writing comes a lot closer to the aesthetic values this reviewer seems to hold, particularly when it comes to tying her imagery to specific situations, characters and moods.

I know that, I don't get why this has to be pointed out :confused:. Did I ever state that he has no right to his opinion or that mine is better?

No, nor did I imply that you did. You asked, "Have I really become so unobjective... ?" I was merely pointing out that you needn't worry about feeling "unobjective," as Holden is no more objective than you or me or anyone else.

Woa, back up dear. When and how did I ever state that I don't appreciate his point of view or how he formed his opinions? I had a reaction to his review, nothing more nothing less. I never went on a verbal tirade about how idiotic this guy is or how his criticism is crap. Sounds like you're a bit defenive about this guy's writing, you must be a fan of his or something I don't know, but I never once went off on him as an invaluable critic. And of course I can see what others see. I suppose I was more or less airing my response to this guy's review in a "stream-of-conscienciousness" type of way, kind of thinking as I was writing, so it may have come across to you in a different way than was intended. Before you get so emotional over my response to the comments made in this Bella Donna review, you should really make sure that you are solid about my intent. You presume too much sometimes, or can't YOU see that?

I'm not sure why you think I was getting emotional or defensive, or where I implied that you claimed Holden was a bad critic (I don't think I'm the one making presumptions here). But you asked, rhetorically but in a seemingly sincere way, "Why can't I see what others see?" And elsewhere in your post you noted that you felt it was almost as if you and Holden were listening to two different albums. And elsewhere you said, "Am I so blind...?" All of that made it seem like you really were questioning your own ability to appreciate Holden's criticisms because you just didn't understand how he was arriving at his conclusions, or because you put on blinders when it comes to Stevie; you weren't hearing what he was hearing. I responded by saying that, one (as above), you don't have to worry about feeling "unobjective" because all criticism is inherently subjective, but two, if ("if" being the operative word here) you really feel that you can't see where Holden's criticisms are coming from, then that might be something to work on, which might even give you a deeper appreciation of why you like Stevie's music.

Again, I wasn't making any presumptions about anything that you said, although the sarcastic tone of much of your response shows that you're making a lot of presumptions about my intent or attitude. Nowhere in my post did I try to belittle you or anything like that.

(By the way, I really like "stream-of-conscientiousness," that's a great turn of phrase.)

[cliffdweller]

Sorry, I still disagree. I think that this specific criticism has more to do with what I mentioned about Stevie's writing style than about straight-up self-absorption. I think we're just interpreting this sentence in two different ways. I read "insular and self-enraptured" and "weightless" as further describing his criticisms of Stevie's writing, specifically that it's vague and airy-fairy without much concrete or specific meaning, all wrapped up in fantasies in her head without any relation to a "real" world. Remember, even in this sentence, he's referring to the album's "atmosphere and language" - he's writing about the music and the lyrics, not Stevie's personal attitude about herself.
Yes he is writing about atmosphere and language but he uses the insular and self-enraptured comments to support the reasons why he thinks she's a flimsy songwriter. I'm going by what is literally presented in the text, and hey, I'm no formalist, but sometimes I have to play one on t.v. ;)


of course there are a lot of differences between them, which is exactly why I brought Joni up. I was simply using her as an example of the kind of writing I imagine this reviewer would take more of a shine to - Joni's writing comes a lot closer to the aesthetic values this reviewer seems to hold, particularly when it comes to tying her imagery to specific situations, characters and moods.
Oh, okay, maybe I misinterpreted you. It's just that in the the context of what you were saying about the reviewer's comments about Stevie's vague, abstract lyrics it kind of sounded like you were making a value judgement there, like Joni's a better songwriter because she may talk about moons in people's eyes, but dammit, she sticks to context and makes sense :laugh:.



And elsewhere you said, "Am I so blind...?" All of that made it seem like you really were questioning your own ability to appreciate Holden's criticisms because you just didn't understand how he was arriving at his conclusions, or because you put on blinders when it comes to Stevie; you weren't hearing what he was hearing.

I wasn't questioning Holden's ability as a critic, I was, as you pointed out, questioning my own judgement where Stevie is concerned, or perhaps the things I hear and interpret when I listen to her music. Music touches us all in very different ways and Holden's article if nothing else, proves that. We don't connect to Stevie's music in the same way, and so that intrigues me. Whenever I hear opinions about her music that differ from my own I'm always interested to hear the reasoning behind it and then compare that to my own experience. I suppose it's those feelings that were conjured up by Holden's article and my post was a response to that in asking, "why don't I hear it that way?" "why does he hear primarily a, b, and c, when he listens to Belladonna, but yet I hear d, e, f, and g? :laugh:


Again, I wasn't making any presumptions about anything that you said, although the sarcastic tone of much of your response shows that you're making a lot of presumptions about my intent or attitude. Nowhere in my post did I try to belittle you or anything like that.

Well, you kind of did when you said: "Now, if you really "can't see what others see," if you not only disagree with Holden's opinions but can't even understand or appreciate how he formed them, then you might be a little blind, and that might be something to try and work on."

First of all, you made the presumption that I can't understand or appreciate Holden's argument. Both assumptions are false.
Also as far as belittling goes: "then you might be a little blind, and that might be something to try to work on." How do you THINK that might come across in the written form? It doesn't really sound like you're trying to engage me in a little game of grab-ass, does it? That sounded very condescending and arrogant. But, sorry for the sarcasm if it was indeed unfounded.

[sable]

[QUOTE=Nicks Fan]What I mean is that most of the music but not all of the music on RAL is dated. The music is straight out of thr 80's. HAEWAFY is brilliant, but songs like Sister Honey, Nightmare, Aand some become Strangers are plain awful.

woah there........i dont think people are giving ral that much of a chance, if u look through the eighties sound it is a very good album, and i love sister honey, the only song i'm not that keen on is the nightemare, i like the lyrics but its the music that i'm not keen on, other than that it's very goos :wavey:d

[Jyqm]

Yes he is writing about atmosphere and language but he uses the insular and self-enraptured comments to support the reasons why he thinks she's a flimsy songwriter. I'm going by what is literally presented in the text, and hey, I'm no formalist, but sometimes I have to play one on t.v. ;)

We're both going by the text, we're just interpreting the sentence a little differently. Mainly just that I think Holden is deliberately trying to keep focused on the music and songwriting itself without devolving into personal attacks on Stevie. He sees her songwriting as "insular and self-enraptured," but I don't think he's extending those adjectives to Stevie as a person. In other words, I don't think he's saying that Stevie herself is necessarily self-absorbed, but that her writing is very much caught up in the inner world of the self without much reference to outside reality. I think he's using a word like "self-enraptured" to mean "enraptured with the self" not "enraptured with herself."

Oh, okay, maybe I misinterpreted you. It's just that in the the context of what you were saying about the reviewer's comments about Stevie's vague, abstract lyrics it kind of sounded like you were making a value judgement there, like Joni's a better songwriter because she may talk about moons in people's eyes, but dammit, she sticks to context and makes sense :laugh:.

Well, I was making a value judgment, but in terms of the reviewer, not myself. I think that given what Holden says about what he dislikes about Stevie's songwriting, he would probably think that Joni is a much better songwriter because she adheres much more to the values he's espousing.

Well, you kind of did when you said: "Now, if you really "can't see what others see," if you not only disagree with Holden's opinions but can't even understand or appreciate how he formed them, then you might be a little blind, and that might be something to try and work on."

First of all, you made the presumption that I can't understand or appreciate Holden's argument. Both assumptions are false.
Also as far as belittling goes: "then you might be a little blind, and that might be something to try to work on." How do you THINK that might come across in the written form? It doesn't really sound like you're trying to engage me in a little game of grab-ass, does it? That sounded very condescending and arrogant. But, sorry for the sarcasm if it was indeed unfounded.

Again, as I said, "if" is the operative word there - I wasn't presuming anything, I was suggesting a possibility, and one that you raised yourself. I was responding directly to what you wrote using almost exactly your own words. You asked, "Am I really so blind and unobjective, that I can't see what others see?" or something pretty close to that. I responded by saying that you don't have to worry about being unobjective, but IF you really feel that you can't "see what others see," then perhaps you are a little blind. Of course, in this post you explained yourself a lot more and made it clear that you do see what others see and are always interested in reading different opinions, so that's all moot.

[David]

I think Stephen Holden is (or was) an excellent rock critic, one of the best in the country in the 1970s & into the 1980s. He wrote a number of insightful things about Fleetwood Mac over the years. In general, I would say he liked the band. In fact, I think those are his remarks on the back cover of the Mirage concert video box. He also reviewed "Tusk" for Rolling Stone.

I especially like his parting shot in one of his reviews of a Nicks album: "How can someone so hip also be so incredibly silly?" It's a question I've asked myself dozens of times. :nod: :thumbsup: It also used to apply to Todd Rundgren, but for vastly different reasons. By the way, Rundgren is touring with the Cars & I hear it's good!

I also want to say that the idea that Stevie's lyrics were essentially schoolgirl stuff wasn't just Stephen Holden's opinion: It was practically a running theme in much of the writing about Stevie during Fleetwood Mac's American heyday. You can find that opinion expressed -- in more or less the same words -- in Holden, Steve Pond, Sylvie Simmons & dozens of other critics. But if you want a critic who really disliked Stevie & the Mac, check out Joel Selvin from the San Francisco Chronicle during the past 25 years or so. He was ... not impressed.

finally, I want to add that I love the '80s style of all those Oberheims & Prophets on Rock a Little! :blob1: :wavey: :blob2: :shrug: :nod: :( :D

[cliffdweller]

I also want to say that the idea that Stevie's lyrics were essentially schoolgirl stuff wasn't just Stephen Holden's opinion

Oh sure, I know. Even Stevie herself has said this, essentially. She always refers to herself as a perpetual teenager especially when it comes to how she views her romantic relationships.

I'd love to read some of Selvin's reviews, I'm sure they're quite entertaining!

Edit: Okay, I just read three of Selvin's reviews: one from 1983, one from 1986, and one from the SYW tour. Save the SYW tour review, I'd say that "unimpressed" is an understatement :shocked: :laugh:.

[PenguinHead]

Clarity, rigor, structure. Sounds like what they teach in boot-camp.
My opinion... and it's just that -- my opinion... is that rock music shouldn't be too rigidly structured or over-analyzed. I'll take Stevie's more visceral approach any day.


Nicely stated. That flys with me:angel:

[Johnny Stew]

Even Stevie herself has said this, essentially. She always refers to herself as a perpetual teenager especially when it comes to how she views her romantic relationships.I know the starry-eyed way in which Stevie views life and romance drives many to distraction... and probably a few others to drink... but I've always loved that about her writing. I think critics (and many listeners) tend to only take a songwriter seriously if there is some degree of cynicism to their lyrics, and you're just not going to find that in Stevie's songs.

All of the things that others hate about Stevie's writing style, are the exact things that draw me in. Her lyrics can definitely be nebulous, but I don't need everything spelled out for me. It's the off-the-cuff emotion I relate to... much like appreciating an abstract painting.

[wondergirl9847]

All of the things that others hate about Stevie's writing style, are the exact things that draw me in. Her lyrics can definitely be nebulous, but I don't need everything spelled out for me. It's the off-the-cuff emotion I relate to... much like appreciating an abstract painting.

My mom and I went to the Amon Carter Museum the other day and if you were with us, you'd get to know our personalities just by which paintings we liked and WHY we liked them. The bottom floor are Western paintings (cowboys, Native Americans, horses, the "Wild West", etc.) and mom loved seeing the various paintings. We got up to the second floor and came to more modern art. There were a couple of abstract paintings which I loved. She didn't get them. LOL The colors and shapes used were just.....me. There were also some mutual paintings we liked. :)

My windbag way of saying, I agree, JS. :laugh:

Here is one of the paintings I loved.

http://www.cartermuseum.org/images/collection/Schamberg_FigureB_1984-16.jpg

Here is one we agreed was gorgeous and I bought a bookmark of it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v159/Texaswonder/heade_hummingbirds.jpg

[amber]

ok.

I freakin' love Some Become Strangers, btw.

I love lots of RAL. Mainly I don't like HAEWAFY. But I listen to it in context,
and that is the best way. It's setting yourself up for yucky if you listen to something that is old, but listen to it in the context of today. Especially when it comes to the mid-late 80's. You have to judge RAL in your head with other 1986 gems-of-synth. :laugh:
I'd also like to add that of Stevie's solo albums, all of which I obtained last year, RAL was the most immediately accessible to me. Strange but true. And I've never been a particular fan of synth pop or anything. (this is barring the hits from various albums that are on Timespace).

[Jyqm]

I know the starry-eyed way in which Stevie views life and romance drives many to distraction... and probably a few others to drink... but I've always loved that about her writing. I think critics (and many listeners) tend to only take a songwriter seriously if there is some degree of cynicism to their lyrics, and you're just not going to find that in Stevie's songs.

That's a very good point, and definitely comes into play considering the fact that Stevie's career first took off in the late 70s and early 80s, during the height of punk and new wave, where anger and cynicism and "Bollocks to you!" became very important sentiments. In some respects, that attitude hasn't died away, and there's a lot of expectation on the part of many music critics that rock music needs to have that level of anger or cynicism in order to be good. There hasn't been all that much praise for the kind of anthemic, unabashedly joyous or innocent pop/rock music that was perhaps more prevalent in the 60s and early 70s, when "peace and love" were the big themes.

I think we might be getting to a point today, though, where joy and inocence are coming a bit more into fashion. At least I hope so. It seems like a lot more critical credence is being given these days to groups that don't have a hcip on their shoulder or an axe to grind.

All of the things that others hate about Stevie's writing style, are the exact things that draw me in. Her lyrics can definitely be nebulous, but I don't need everything spelled out for me. It's the off-the-cuff emotion I relate to... much like appreciating an abstract painting.

Again, I don't think it's that these critics want everything spelled out for them - even the Beatles wrote more than their share of obscure pop songs. I think the complaint tends to be more that they feel that Stevie's is kind of an unintentional, unstructured nebulousness, where her lyrics appear to have some kind of meaning, but really she threw a bunch of images and cliches in together that don't really have anything to do with each other. I imagine these critics appreciate a certain bit of madness, but only if there's a method in it, and their claims usually seem to be that they don't see a method in much of Stevie's writing.

(Responding to an earlier post of yours: do you really see Stevie's writing as "visceral"? She's so often up in the clouds, writing about these romantic situations and fairy landscapes. There's not usually much gut-wrenching heartbreak or stark, embodied imagery. Certainly her singing has often been really visceral on songs like "Silver Springs" or "Edge of Seventeen," but what do you see that's visceral in her writing?)

[Jyqm]

Here is one of the paintings I loved.

http://www.cartermuseum.org/images/collection/Schamberg_FigureB_1984-16.jpg

What's the title of this one, and what do you see in it? I get the feeling of a mother clutching her son.

[David]

I think the complaint tends to be more that they feel that Stevie's is kind of an unintentional, unstructured nebulousness, where her lyrics appear to have some kind of meaning, but really she threw a bunch of images and cliches in together that don't really have anything to do with each other. I imagine these critics appreciate a certain bit of madness, but only if there's a method in it, and their claims usually seem to be that they don't see a method in much of Stevie's writing.I don't either, which is why I don't include poet among her gifts. I just like the haphazard, flinkgy-fleppy quality of her cascade of incoherent images & speechways that come rolling down the hill head first with those beautifully whippy-whappy-dilly chords behind them, all topped off by her glorious vocalizing. It's a primal response. "The Nightmare" is the perfect embodiment of all that. It's so much fun to get into. ("What do you get into?")

[strandinthewind]

I don't either, which is why I don't include poet among her gifts . . . .

I disagree because Rhiannon and the related songs (The Tower, Maker of Birds, etc. ) are, to me, poetry without the music and the phrasing. I also thiong the same for GDW. I do think though that, sadly, many of her later works do not reflect that poetic style.

[David]

I disagree because Rhiannon and the related songs (The Tower, Maker of Birds, etc. ) are, to me, poetry without the music and the phrasing.that's why, strand, she will invite YOU to her house for lunch but she won't invite me!
:blob1: :wavey: :( :) :blob2: :xoxo: :sorry: :nod: :D

which brings me to my next question: We always talk about who is or is not a fan or a good fan or a bad fan, &c., but we never wonder who of us would STEVIE consider her fans. So .... do any of us here believe that Stevie herself would consider them her fans? Is my question making any sense? I have a sinus headache so my impeccable wording is peccable today.

[strandinthewind]

But, are you feeling peckish - which could be the cause of the headache :cool:

I tend to view myself as a fan of her work. I do not consider myself rabid or deluded about her stuff. I think she had a great voice, glimmers of which show to this day. Same for her writing and personage. She probably would view me as a fan, but I think she, like most artisits, keeps fans at arm's length and does not give them much thought other than when on stage and expressing gratitude at other times.

[David]

But, are you feeling peckish - which could be the cause of the headache :cool:what does 'peckish' mean?
She probably would view me as a fan, but I think she, like most artisits, keeps fans at arm's length and does not give them much thought other than when on stage and expressing gratitude at other times.What does she think of me? Actually what I really want to know is, What does she think of eliza? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :( :) :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

I think we might be getting to a point today, though, where joy and inocence are coming a bit more into fashion. At least I hope so. It seems like a lot more critical credence is being given these days to groups that don't have a hcip on their shoulder or an axe to grind.You know, I hope so, too. I've never been a very angsty person. I went through my little Nine Inch Nails period, but even when life was pretty shitty for me, I tried to find some glimmer of hope to hang onto. It's the only reason I'm still here today. Stevie's songs aren't "Sunshine, Lollipops & Rainbows"... nor would I want them to be... but there is a prevailing sense of optimism that I'm drawn to.

I think the complaint tends to be more that they feel that Stevie's is kind of an unintentional, unstructured nebulousness, where her lyrics appear to have some kind of meaning, but really she threw a bunch of images and cliches in together that don't really have anything to do with each other. I imagine these critics appreciate a certain bit of madness, but only if there's a method in it, and their claims usually seem to be that they don't see a method in much of Stevie's writing.I must be cracked (and very well could be), because I almost always see the "method to Stevie's madness." I honestly don't feel that her wording choices are anywhere near as random as they may seem at first glance.

And to finish that thought....
(Responding to an earlier post of yours: do you really see Stevie's writing as "visceral"? She's so often up in the clouds, writing about these romantic situations and fairy landscapes. There's not usually much gut-wrenching heartbreak or stark, embodied imagery. Certainly her singing has often been really visceral on songs like "Silver Springs" or "Edge of Seventeen," but what do you see that's visceral in her writing?)I feel that there are definitely a large number of genuinely gut-wrenching songs in Stevie's catalog (such as "Silver Springs," "Storms," "She Still Loves Him," "Beauty And The Beast," "When I See You Again," "Ghosts," to name just a few), though, as a whole, they're probably more heartrending than gut-wrenching.

I tend to believe that the fairy landscapes she evokes are something of a defense mechanism. She's making it all pretty and more palatable... for herself as much as for us... but underneath that, I see a woman who experiences hurt, loss, unrequited love and heartbreak to the core of her being.

Maybe I figured out how to "read between (her) lines," or maybe it's simply my perception. :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

We always talk about who is or is not a fan or a good fan or a bad fan, &c., but we never wonder who of us would STEVIE consider her fans. So .... do any of us here believe that Stevie herself would consider them her fans?I think Stevie would probably most appreciate those who enjoy her music and can relate to it, but who don't view her as some sort of infallible religious deity.

[Angel69]

Stevie's phenomenal lyrics are often vague, absolutely. But on the same token she has written a lot of great things:

Something in my heart died last night....just one more chip off an already broken heart.....

I hope you find a love..... your own designs of love.... and that's alright...

I'll follow you down till the sound of my voice will haunt you...give me just a chance....you'll never get away from the sound of the woman that loved you....was I just a fool....

Love is a word that some entertain...if you find it you have won the game...

Did she make you cry..make you break down..shatter your illusions of love...

You know me better than I know myself can you write this for me he said no you write your songs yourself...well that made me stronger ...it made me hold onto me...

I still lokk up when you walk in the room...I got the same bright eyes...now they tell the story...

How the faces of love have changed turning the pages...and I have changed oh by you, you remain ageless.

when love starts out in the darkness it doesn't do well in the light...affairs of the heart that start out in the dark usually stay with the night...

I could go on and on here but the point is Stevie may not write very matter of factly but she does write some incredible lyrics.:thumbsup:

[David]

How the faces of love have changed turning the pages...and I have changed oh by you, you remain ageless.
May I just say that this line--in tandem with the beautiful descending chord progression & poignant melody--really KICKS. ASS. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Jyqm]

You know, I hope so, too. I've never been a very angsty person. I went through my little Nine Inch Nails period, but even when life was pretty shitty for me, I tried to find some glimmer of hope to hang onto. It's the only reason I'm still here today. Stevie's songs aren't "Sunshine, Lollipops & Rainbows"... nor would I want them to be... but there is a prevailing sense of optimism that I'm drawn to.

It's a trend that's moving a bit more slowly than I anticipated, but I see it happening. You've got bands like the Arcade Fire who are just unabashedly anthemic most of the time, and then you've also got bands like Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Arctic Monkeys, etc. who may weave a bit of cynicism or sarcasm into some of their lyrics, but who are succeeding because they're making music that's fun and you can jump around to. There seem to be a lot of critics who are longing for someone to release a Great Rock Record that just plain rocks without being so serious or angsty, and there seem to be a lot of rock and roll fans who just want something that has a good and they can dance to it.

I feel that there are definitely a large number of genuinely gut-wrenching songs in Stevie's catalog (such as "Silver Springs," "Storms," "She Still Loves Him," "Beauty And The Beast," "When I See You Again," "Ghosts," to name just a few), though, as a whole, they're probably more heartrending than gut-wrenching.

Those are definitely some heart-rending songs, but I don't know that I'd really call any of them visceral. Too many hallways and mirrors and blue calm seas. Visceral's really gotta pull at you physically. Stevie always goes for the heart, but I don't think she cares too much to go for the gut. Probably better that way. I think you're right about the fairy landscapes being something of a "defense mechanism," though.

[Jyqm]

Stevie's phenomenal lyrics are often vague, absolutely. But on the same token she has written a lot of great things:

Something in my heart died last night....just one more chip off an already broken heart.....

I'll give you most of those other ones, but this? Lordy, that's an awfully mixed metaphor.

[wondergirl9847]

What's the title of this one, and what do you see in it? I get the feeling of a mother clutching her son.

Straight from the Amon Carter website:

Morton Livingston Schamberg (1881–1918)
Figure B (Geometrical Patterns)
Oil on canvas, 1913
Amon Carter Museum
Fort Worth, Texas
1984.16

I see a sad figure of a man sitting in a park.

[strandinthewind]

what does 'peckish' mean? . . . .


Main Entry: peck·ish
Pronunciation: 'pe-kish
Function: adjective
Etymology: 2peck
1 chiefly British : HUNGRY
2 : CROTCHETY

http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/peckish

As for what she thinks of you, I am sure it is with high regard :wavey:

[David]

http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/peckishHow come you don't use the American Heritage Dictionary, 1st edition (1969)? "It's the only American dictionary I can countenance," said John Simon in his book "Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy & Its Decline," published by Clarkson-Potter.
As for what she thinks of you, I am sure it is with high regard :wavey:"She loves you, she told me!"

[strandinthewind]

How come you don't use the American Heritage Dictionary, 1st edition (1969)? "It's the only American dictionary I can countenance," said John Simon in his book "Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy & Its Decline," published by Clarkson-Potter.

While that one certainly will do - I prefer hauling out my big red online dic.

"She loves you, she told me!" [/QUOTE]

Then she released you into the loving arms of Mick, who, when he can actually do so, thinks only somewhat fondly of you.

[SapphireSister]

"How can anyone so hip be so incredibly silly" Yep, that pretty much sums it up. They were tough on her but it takes a certain person to get Stevie Nicks and you guys know it. I've never expected critics to be fans of Stevie because I know it takes a certain "type" of person to understand where she is coming from.

I could give two fucks what the critics had to say although I did find a lot of it quite interesting and thought provoking regardless of whether of not I agreed with it. The one thing and the ONLY thing that matters to me about Stevie is that her music touches me in a way that no other person, place, or thing in this universe does and that's all it comes down to. There is no rhyme or reason or explanation for it, it just is! (wow, I'm sounding kind of airy fairy there myself, ehem). I welcome any criticisms/altering points of view because it will never change how her music has impacted my life and I like to hear other people's perspectives who don't seem to get it. In real life I'm quite analytical and logical so it seems a bit ironic that I am a fan of Stevie's music since so much of what she sings about makes little or no sense but that's part of my love affair with her and I think the same can be said for a lot of her fans. We're not all gypsies and street angels sitting in rooms with some lace and paper flowers on the Edge of Seventeen (but maybe somewhere out in the back of our minds we wish we were?).

Imperial Hotel the highlight of Rock a Little? Bwahahahahah

"Step-mother to an infant daughter"? At least get your facts straight.

"Stevie Nicks may have prefigured Madonna's and Prince's lace fetishes but the tart frankness of today's Top Ten market makes her seem a bit of a prude".

Hey I never thought about that the lace thing, so true! Madonna and Prince need to give her some props, for real. Oh and about being prude, I guess they missed her snorting lines in between takes of the I Can't Wait Video :laugh:.

[David]

"How can anyone so hip be so incredibly silly" Yep, that pretty much sums it up. They were tough on her but it takes a certain person to get Stevie Nicks and you guys know it. I've never expected critics to be fans of Stevie because I know it takes a certain "type" of person to understand where she is coming from.
Stevie makes me feel both moist & dry.

She's really good.

Why don't you like Imperial Hotel? That's the song that really details her tailspin.

[SapphireSister]

Stevie makes me feel both moist & dry.
Too much information but thanks for the visual!

She's really good.
And when she's good, she's very very good.

Why don't you like Imperial Hotel? That's the song that really details her tailspin.

It used to be my very least favorite song on RAL and the only one I did not like but I gave it another chance a few months back and discovered it's not as bad as I'd previously thought. The main thing I never liked about it was the music, simple as that. I normally don't like songs with that organ sound (there are exceptions however such as SDMHA) and it's very prominent in that song. Do you know the sound I'm talking about? It's an organ right? I tend not to like songs that have that which is odd because I love the synthesizer sound and they are both keyboard instruments.

I like it now alright, it has a very catchy beat but it doesn't touch me emotionally. If anything it's a fun, upbeat song but not very deep musically and not by any means the best song on the album IMO.

Tell me why you like it so much and how it "details her tailspin". I love new perspectives and I'm going to listen to it on the way home from work tonight in your honor.

[Jyqm]

I thought this article about the importance and purpose of criticism would make a good addition to this thread. David, I think you'll enjoy reading this:

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/jenkins/060420.shtml

[Johnny Stew]

I thought this article about the importance and purpose of criticism would make a good addition to this thread.Interesting article, Jyqm. Thanks for posting it.

I'd like to comment on this specific paragraph:Perhaps the best criticism... surmounts its lowly parasitic status in order to become a (nearly) self-standing work of art in its own right. Far from seeing this as an exception to the rule, we should see it as the template for criticism proper (public and personal).One of the biggest issues I have with rock critics, is that I've seen far too few genuinely thoughtful critics (I always cite our own David O. as the type of critic I respect), and far too many of the smug, "look how witty I am" variety.

One example that instantly comes to mind, is the one sentence review of 'Rock A Little' in Musician magazine, which basically said, "Yeah, rocks very little." That's that. End of story.
I'm sure anyone who dislikes Stevie, or enjoys pithy reviews, would get a kick out of it... but it told me absolutely nothing about the album. All it told me was that the critic was self-important and thought himself to be funny.

The same is true of the Entertainment Weekly review of 'Time,' which I have referenced on here before ("who gives a Tusk about a Fleetwood Mac album without Stevie Nicks").
Sure, it may have summed up a lot of people's feelings about that album... and I can chuckle at it (though I certainly don't agree with it)... but it told me absolutely nothing about the music contained therein.

I'm going to share one of my favorite reviews of a Stevie album. The critic's name is Robert Sheffield, but unfortunately I can't remember which magazine it was published in (hopefully someone else will recognize it). I was around 16 at the time, and back then I used to cut reviews and articles from various magazines in order to put them in a scrapbook... failing in many cases to note the publication. *slaps forehead*


Stevie Nicks
The Other Side Of The Mirror
Modern/Atlantic

The new solo LP from Fleetwood Mac siren Stevie Nicks is called The Other Side Of The Mirror, like in her "Gypsy" video a few years back. Remember, she was swishing her skirts, dancing in the mirror, and then out in the rain and then leading all these white-clad vestals through the forests of Beulah . . . videos were cool then. Yeah, maybe that mirror, and all those lyrics about white-winged doves and Welsh witches drowning in the sea of love were a bit much. But hey, Stevie's vision of adolescent desire was as vibrant and real as Billy Squier's, wasn't it? She wasn't all boring and "rock" minded. I was down with Stevie.
So this new album brings her back to the mirror--except the Other Side. Most of these songs take place in the wreckage of Stevie's old mythology. Like "Rooms On Fire," in which she tells her elfin love-twerp that she's actually known his "magic" much longer than she's known him, or "Alice," where the gypsies kick her out (presumably for not owning any pants). Then there's the beatific ballad "Ooh My Love." Stevie's sitting at the loom with her white-winged crone-muse behind "castle walls" of adolescent girl-fantasy. She's growing up, and the walls are crumbling down. And she isn't sure whether to mourn or not, because there's this guy standing outside waiting for her. Stevie spends the album in the rubble of her castle, making us guess about her reaction. She keeps her visions to herself.
What she gives to us is the music, and the buzz of her unique throat. There's nothing folkish about her tunes anymore--they churn on uplifting synth tracks like her 1983 hit "If Any Falls [sic]." She builds tension by pitting aggressively strummed one-chord riffs against each other, the way John Waite's "Missing You" or the original Velvet's "Femme Fatale" did.
On some tunes Stevie comes off as stiff, but for most of Mirror her vocals get by on their terse emotion. As her timbre gets drier, her phrasing gets only more precise--on "Alice" and "Juliet" she shifts between song and speech and hits just the note of personal fragmentation the melodies are aching to reach. Her consistently soulful brogue, while not as nimble as it used to be, earns the mythic status she's always demanded. Stevie slurs like Mrs. Butterworth or trills like the Vermont Maid, but it's always sticky stuff.

--Robert Sheffield

[Janis_no1]

I haven't read any of this thread... i just read this page and wanted to say that Stew that was a cool review.. someone certainly took the time on that one which was great!! I love to read anything or hear anything the media has to say in regards to my dear FM or SN... though if its not positive i admitedly am disappointed... guess coz i want the world to see what i see, and hear what i hear.

True i agree that Stevie's words rarely make sense to me, though i truly believe what Christine MCView said i think on the rumours interview dvd from the late 90's about how she didn't know what stevie was on about half the time, but that it didn't matter coz it sounded so good. I who have stevie threaded in my heart dont know what every lyric of most of her songs are about, yet the way she sings them to me needs no explanation...

[brisharry]

thats why she dedicated a song to you jayne :xoxo: a stevie thrad in your heart , we understand

[brisharry]

thread even

[Jyqm]

Interesting article, Jyqm. Thanks for posting it.

I'd like to comment on this specific paragraph:One of the biggest issues I have with rock critics, is that I've seen far too few genuinely thoughtful critics (I always cite our own David O. as the type of critic I respect), and far too many of the smug, "look how witty I am" variety.

One example that instantly comes to mind, is the one sentence review of 'Rock A Little' in Musician magazine, which basically said, "Yeah, rocks very little." That's that. End of story.
I'm sure anyone who dislikes Stevie, or enjoys pithy reviews, would get a kick out of it... but it told me absolutely nothing about the album. All it told me was that the critic was self-important and thought himself to be funny.

The same is true of the Entertainment Weekly review of 'Time,' which I have referenced on here before ("who gives a Tusk about a Fleetwood Mac album without Stevie Nicks").
Sure, it may have summed up a lot of people's feelings about that album... and I can chuckle at it (though I certainly don't agree with it)... but it told me absolutely nothing about the music contained therein.

Of course, when magazines want to cram as many album reviews in as they can for whatever noble reasons they may have, this is the kind of crap you get. A two- or three-sentence music review is absolutely useless to everyone, no matter what it says.

Another big problem with a lot of music criticism these days, which the author of the PopMatters article doesn't address, is that too many people (critics and readers alike) view criticism as nothing more than a consumer guide. They think that a critic's job is to tell the public whether an album is worth buying or not. Admittedly, it's a tempting view to buy into, especially when there's so much music out there and no one has time to listen to it all. We want to know which albums are worth our time. But it's this kind of attitude that tends to lead to bland, boring criticism, articles that are either adoring or snarky. Too few critics care about offering an interpretation or explication of an album, as opposed to merely saying whether they liked or not, and whether you should like it too.

Fortunately, there are a number of bastions where good criticism still exists, mostly online. PopMatters being one of those.

[David]

True i agree that Stevie's words rarely make sense to me, though i truly believe what Christine MCView said i think on the rumours interview dvd from the late 90's about how she didn't know what stevie was on about half the time, but that it didn't matter coz it sounded so good. I who have stevie threaded in my heart dont know what every lyric of most of her songs are about, yet the way she sings them to me needs no explanation...I don't think the reviewers we've been reading are criticizing stevie because they can't figure out who or what her referents are (the tenors of her metaphors, in I.A. Richards' words). I think that's a reduction of their typical position. I think what they're saying is that stevie's lyrics are poorly formed, that the personal nature of her writing in conjunction with her (in their view) crippled & crippling execution subsumes or even subverts the universality of her intent. In other words, they're making a critique of formalism insofar as she wields descriptors. They're attacking her craft, not her vision (for the most part). You can agree or disagree with them, but I don't think it's accurate to pin their position as being akin to a child watching & being confused by, say, a Tarkovsky film.

Certainly no critic of any ability would call--or has called--for complete clarity in poetic language, whether it's Stevie's songs or Mallarme's sonnets or anything else. That would be inane or insane or both.

[Janis_no1]

I don't think the reviewers we've been reading are criticizing stevie because they can't figure out who or what her referents are (the tenors of her metaphors, in I.A. Richards' words). I think that's a reduction of their typical position. I think what they're saying is that stevie's lyrics are poorly formed, that the personal nature of her writing in conjunction with her (in their view) crippled & crippling execution subsumes or even subverts the universality of her intent. In other words, they're making a critique of formalism insofar as she wields descriptors. They're attacking her craft, not her vision (for the most part). You can agree or disagree with them, but I don't think it's accurate to pin their position as being akin to a child watching & being confused by, say, a Tarkovsky film.

Certainly no critic of any ability would call--or has called--for complete clarity in poetic language, whether it's Stevie's songs or Mallarme's sonnets or anything else. That would be inane or insane or both.

david.... im sorry but there's just too many big words for a simpleton like me to understand..... :sorry: especially on a monday morning at work after a big weekend...

[Janis_no1]

thats why she dedicated a song to you jayne :xoxo: a stevie thrad in your heart , we understand

:xoxo: oh harry..... :angel:

hang on...:cool: was that a sweet comment or a funny at my expense.... coz if its a funny it'll take me another few weeks to get it

[David]

david.... im sorry but there's just too many big words for a simpleton like me to understand..... :sorry: especially on a monday morning at work after a big weekend...I'll see if I can explain it better later; I need to relax right now.

for you grammar lovers, can you spot the solecism in the sentence above?

[Janis_no1]

I'll see if I can explain it better later; I need to relax right now.

for you grammar lovers, can you spot the solecism in the sentence above?

:laugh: yes relax right now... my brain would be hurting after doing all that too!! :p

I could look 90% of it up in a dictionary but that would take me an hour! I dont even know what "solecism....thingemeebob" is either!!

[Jyqm]

I'll see if I can explain it better later; I need to relax right now.

for you grammar lovers, can you spot the solecism in the sentence above?

There's solecisms in that sentence?