Originally Posted by bombaysaffires (Post 1219083)

Not always. Dreams, on paper, is one of the most coherent and structurally balanced things she's ever done. Rhiannon on paper is fine, so is Landslide. (see a pattern here? Mr. Grammar Police had more influence on her stuff then). (actually, I also think she was still trying to prove herself as a songwriter then, and tried harder, before thinking she was a goddess and every word that she wrote was gold. Ask the hoteliers in Italy). (oh, and one more add-- Don Henley was just as harsh in correcting her songs as Lindsey. She describes working on L&L when going with him and playing versions for him and says he would tell her, "it's not good enough, fix it". She used to say in interviews how she strove for her work to be good enough for the Eagles. Very different mindset today).

Back to the point at hand-- Storms is totally coherent and fine on paper. Beautiful Child. Sleeping Angel. Garbo. Fall From Grace is good on paper. I could go on.

Part of it is, after she's played and rehearsed a song so many times and done so many takes in the studio, she gets bored and starts fiddling around with the lyrics and improvising things, and then suddenly words pop in that don't make as much sense. But too late, that's the take that gets used for the album.

Also, people misquote her lyrics. Sometimes she has to pause in a line for a breath or to fit with the beat of the music, and people are too stupid to understand this. For example, on Dreams she sings "listen carefully to the sound" and then pauses, then "of your loneliness..etc etc". The thought she is expressing doesn't stop at "sound" it's very clear the thought is "listen carefully to the sound of your loneliness".For some reason people get this on this song, but don't get it on other songs.

The one that drives me absolutely batsh&t crazy is Think About It because people refuse to understand this concept. On TAI, she sings "and the heart says danger" then sings "and the heart says whateverrrrrr" and the pauses for a breath, before finishing the line with "it is that you want from me, I am just one small part of forever." Sooooo many journalists clearly don't listen to the whole line, even one recently where the chick is supposedly a big Stevie fan. They just go on and and on about 'omg that's such a Stevie Nicks line where she sings 'the heart says, whatever." THAT IS NOT THE LINE people. The freaking line is "and the heart says, whatever it is that you want from me, I am just one small part of forever". She just pauses for a break. But then that doesn't fit their narrative that "omg she's such a kook and listen to her wacky lyrics!"

Listen, she's got plenty of wacky lyrics that you don't need to go making sh&t up.

"Don't hide behind your hair that way"
"Sometimes the real color of my skin, my eyes without any shadow"
"and the dream says I want you, and the dream is gone.....well at least there is a dream left"
"would you say stop for a second so that you could think for a minute I think you should think for a moment" (ok that's not how it is on the record but it is pretty hilarious how it flummoxes her in live performances)

Originally Posted by editme2 (Post 1219084)

.... Unfortunately, I think Stevie's image as an airy-fairy California witchy-woman has often undermined her intelligence as a songwriter. When she puts her mind to it and shows some discipline, this woman can write just as well, if not better, than the Freys, Henleys, and Pettys of the world.

Originally Posted by aleuzzi (Post 1219085)

Of course there are exceptions. And her earlier songs are, on the whole, far more concrete than ones written after 1978. "I Don't Wanna Know"; "Dreams"; "Crystal"; "Rhiannon" "Landslide"; "Silver Springs"; "That's Alright" "Storms"; "Leather and Lace"; "After the Glitter Fades"; "Are You Mine"; and "Beautiful Child" are well- and comparatively conventionally-constructed songs with mostly strong folk leanings.
.

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires (Post 1219093)

but this was my point-- her "coherent" songs are NOT exceptions. There are so many of them, as people have listed, that it is terribly unfair for journos and listeners to characterize her writing with a blanket statement that she is "abstract" or kooky in her lyrics. In fact so many of her songs are perfectly clear what they mean. Of course over the times of her life she will find different meanings in them for herself, as will her listeners. Landslide means something different to me now than it did when it came out, and those words mean something different to her at 68 than when she wrote them at like 26. That's perfectly natural and doesn't make her flakey.

Some of her other songs are more abstract or are not a single story but made up of pieces of different stories (for example Edge of 17). So what. So are a lot of songs.

Listen to the lyrics of many of the top male songwriters (including LB) and they aren't the most coherent either--- but Stevie makes an easy target for critics and others because of her appearance and her interviews etc.

Originally Posted by aleuzzi (Post 1219094)

After 1978, I'm hard-pressed to find more than a few examples of her lyrics that have coherent or traditional narrative and grammatical structures. That's a lot of what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires (Post 1219096)

Really?

btw, My previous comments weren't directed at you personally, it was more about the general approach of people who write newspaper and magazine articles about her. :nod:

But really, nothing after 1978? Beautiful Child, Storms, How Still My Love, Nothing Ever Changes, Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You, Doing the Best I Can, I Miss You, Love Is, Destiny Rules, everybody Finds Out, You May Be the One, New Orleans to name but a few......