Anyone else look at Stevie's career in this way???

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by AnthonyMI

Post TISL.... all you hear is the droning, monotone, narrow range most the time. EXCEPT when she is REALLY into it and trying.

To me, all of TISL is that droning monotone except the two times in Sorcerer where she goes to falsetto. In Your Dreams has far more vocal range to my ears, and 24 Karat Gold, while it shows less overall range, the vocals are more Stevie than anything I've heard since The Wild Heart. But I like TISL, so I'm not knocking it.

On topic, I really see Stevie's career in three stages - pre-rehab, klonopin, post klonopin. Loosely, that would be defined as BN through RAL, then TOSOTM through Street Angel, and then everything since The Dance.

[StreetAngel86]

since i only became aware of some woman named "Stevie Nicks" circa 92/93 when she was in rehab, gonna have to say i prefer post DANCE Stevie overall.
but music wise aaaaargh pre dance

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

death because it seemed to lock her into the role of living legend, which means the end of being a vital, changing, creative force.

Considering that's she's produced two of her best solo albums (TISL and IYD) during this era, and had some excellent songs on SYW, I think this assessment is way off.

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by James89

I also find it funny when Letterman says "I think the album will be a huge success" and Stevie replies acting as though she thinks it will be too. I always thought she was unhappy with the album? Weird. Perhaps she took an instant dislike to it when it only peaked at #45!

You're forgetting that Stevie said she had to go out and try to sell the album, even though she didn't like it from the very start.

[michelej1]

[I think the interviewer's comment about Stevie is relevant to the discussion about how the perception of her work has evolved, from an interview with Liaison in The Vine by Chris Lewis, November 25, 2014]

http://www.thevine.com.au/music/inte...141125-290690/

I’d say your position at the moment might be a product of the fact you are a bit ahead of your own curve. Referencing the 80s unironically is only just becoming cool; to say you were inspired by Stevie Nicks five years ago would have been laughable, now she’s rightfully being held up as a goddess again. Just look at Haim.

HM: Well it’s the same in architecture. After art-deco came the modernists and they would have been knocking down art-deco buildings left, right and centre to build their way and then 50 years later art-deco is lauded as an amazing movement. I wish we had the same foresight for some of the buildings that we built in the late 80s and early 90s that haven’t had the luxury of time to age properly. Things like the monorail in Sydney, if that had another 20 years, everyone would love it, it captured a moment in time, but instead they destroyed it. So it’s true of all art forms, there’s this limbo you hang in before things get cemented into discourse.

M: It’s interesting how much we hate things from the previous ten years. In fashion it’s labels like Ed Hardy or Von Dutch, they get overdone and bastardised and the original ideas are cheapened and corrupted. Someone the other day was telling me that cargo pants were going to come back and I shuddered because the last thought I had was of everyone wearing them at once, but then I turned around and someone was like “Oh yeah! I’m wearing them! Check out my FUBUs!” And you know what? There was something about that, the FUBUs had been re-contextualised, I was looking at them in a completely different light.

HM: And it’s not through the lens of irony that we are seeing this. We are not out there trying to be ironic; we’re trying to be calculating and considered and measured with our re-appropriations.