Relevance

[tbaker3]

Maybe I'm misreading, or I'm seeing comments like this on other websites, but I am sick to death of people (especially fans) spouting off that Stevie is no longer relevant. Says who? She's relevant to me. And considering that there are those of you that check the ledge multiple times a day, she's relevant to you as well. And isn't that all that matters?

I realize that radio doesn't play her much anymore, but that has nothing to do with relevance now days, thats corporation, and I wish people would realize that. Yeah, Kesha has number one songs on the chart. But not one of those songs is profound. They are party anthems crafted by and marketed by a team of people in suits, paid to be played on the radio by those same suited people for a demographic of party hungry kids to make a profit. In 30 years will they be covered by ANYONE? Doubtful. In 20 years will there be any up and comers who site their inspiration as, "this total trainwreck slut who's chorus' went 'blahblahblah' and she couldn't really sing."?

Before people start talking about what is and what is not relevant today, I'd like for them to stop a moment, think about what IS relevant today, then ask themselves, "Is what's relevant actually good? And is that what I really want to listen to?

Stevie's mainstream relevance was EARNED. Let's not forget that...

Sorry if this sounded fragmented. So many thoughts at one time can make things sound choppy when I write them.

[Bandon]

Now tell us how you really feel. :lol:

No, but seriously..good for you. She is relevant to me too. :thumbsup:

[Jondalar]

Maybe I'm misreading, or I'm seeing comments like this on other websites, but I am sick to death of people (especially fans) spouting off that Stevie is no longer relevant. Says who? She's relevant to me. And considering that there are those of you that check the ledge multiple times a day, she's relevant to you as well. And isn't that all that matters?

I realize that radio doesn't play her much anymore, but that has nothing to do with relevance now days, thats corporation, and I wish people would realize that. Yeah, Kesha has number one songs on the chart. But not one of those songs is profound. They are party anthems crafted by and marketed by a team of people in suits, paid to be played on the radio by those same suited people for a demographic of party hungry kids to make a profit. In 30 years will they be covered by ANYONE? Doubtful. In 20 years will there be any up and comers who site their inspiration as, "this total trainwreck slut who's chorus' went 'blahblahblah' and she couldn't really sing."?

Before people start talking about what is and what is not relevant today, I'd like for them to stop a moment, think about what IS relevant today, then ask themselves, "Is what's relevant actually good? And is that what I really want to listen to?

Stevie's mainstream relevance was EARNED. Let's not forget that...

Sorry if this sounded fragmented. So many thoughts at one time can make things sound choppy when I write them.

Your right. There are soo many artist that more than borrow from the past, such as Lady Gaga, Adele, Duffy... Doesn't seem like they are that relevant. How is there music going to change things.

And Stevie has earned respect... these guys haven't yet.

[JohnL]

Im with ya bud. 95% of todays music bites the big one if you ask me anyway. I dont care who thinks what is relevant...I like what I like....and I like Stevie.

[used karma]

:confused: I feel like you're just reaffirming what some people have been saying. She's relevant to us, but to the general public? Not so much. Of course her fans love her, but how many people know that Stevie has an album coming out? How often is her new stuff played?

[On Ice]

After 36 years, Stevie's still as relevant to me as ever, and I'm getting the same kind of excitement I got when I brought Tusk home for the first spin (although it was "leaked" and I listened to it on the radio in its entirety:nod:

I think she's gonna leave a lot of smiles on faces next week. I've got my fingers crossed for just one adventure into the falsetto world.

[bluefox4000]

More then half the people I listen to are not relevant in the public eye....but don't worry, keep rocking...Screw da public:cool:

Mick

[used karma]

More then half the people I listen to are not relevant in the public eye....but don't worry, keep rocking...Screw da public:cool:

Mick
Exactly. I don't listen to music because it's popular. I listen to be it because I like it.

[markolas]

I'm not really sure what "relevant" means in this context. Then again, most of the people I listen to were dead before I was born. :lol:

[tbaker3]

:confused: I feel like you're just reaffirming what some people have been saying. She's relevant to us, but to the general public? Not so much. Of course her fans love her, but how many people know that Stevie has an album coming out? How often is her new stuff played?

That is what I'm talking about. It doesn't. Not because it's not good. But because it hasn't been manufactured for the purpous of being played. It hasn't been sung by a 20 something blonde, only to be autotuned into oblivion. What I'm saying is "Relevant" music today, isn't REALLY relevant at all. It's disposable crap.

[Artemis]

Here here! Excellent post.

My little brother is in the most annoying teenage group of all time. Anything released before they were born is "ancient" and therefore "rubbish". Example. I was listening to California Dreamin' the other day, and my brother says "Hey, that's a pretty cool song!" and then when he found out it was released in the 60s... instantly - "Blech! It's rubbish". I think the earliest song on his iTunes is TLC's Waterfalls. (Admittedly, a fantastic song)

Anyway. Before I go off on a tangent. I don't give a rat's ass if Stevie is relevant to anyone else. She's very relevant to me. Her lyrics are timeless. She was the first singer who's music I really connected with on an emotional level. I'd rather have a collection of meaningful, personal songs, than an ever-rotating collection of "relevant" songs.

[used karma]

That is what I'm talking about. It doesn't. Not because it's not good. But because it hasn't been manufactured for the purpous of being played. It hasn't been sung by a 20 something blonde, only to be autotuned into oblivion. What I'm saying is "Relevant" music today, isn't REALLY relevant at all. It's disposable crap.
But disposable or not, whats being played now, IS whats relevant.

[tbaker3]

But disposable or not, whats being played now, IS whats relevant.

Disagree.
10 characters

[used karma]

Disagree.
10 characters
I'm not sure you know what 'relevance' means. No offense.

[tabruns]

I'm not sure you know what 'relevance' means. No offense.

I'm not sure YOU do.

You are defining "relevance" purely in commercial sales terms. If something isn't a current hit, it's "not relevant". While that may be one definition it isn't by any means the only one or even the definitive one.

Relevant means having a bearing on the matter at hand. Nicks has been a huge influence on women in music, ranging from Hole to Dixie Chicks. In that context, she is relevant.

Back in 2001, at the age of 50-something, she scored a top 5 album with Trouble In Shangri-La. That certainly indicates chart-performing relevance.

Nicks has had recent #1 ("Planets of the Universe") and #2 ("Stand Back") dance hits. The dance chart can be considered much more youth-oriented than say Adult Contemporary, so again, this argues in favor of her relevance.

The one thing that you point out which I think is true is that radio tends to not play artists that are older or have been around for awhile. I agree. But that doesn't automatically make those artists "not relevant".

[Jondalar]

She lost her so called relevance in the late 80s. However, people forget how strong her songs are and what they invoke. She is around today because her music, voice and image were so powerful, that she never became irrelevant. Influence is relevance. Sorry, but the woman is 63 years and Stevie is still in the magazines and musicians are still singing her praises.

Screw radio. Lets face it. This generation dropped the ball.

[Macfanforever]

Oh todays tunes.artists from the last 15 to 20 years will be forgoten in 20 to 30 years from now.Artists from the 1920's to the 1980's will live forever.The junk now will be forgoten in 5 years.Of course some artists will shine from the current ranks.I remember at the end of Stevie's shows she always say please save the music industry.

[mikephxaz]

hey, tbaker
I'm new to The Ledge and I wanted to say thank you for expressing my thoughts....I have begun reading these threads and actually can't understand why there is so much discussin of relevance...discussing her music, her history, her uniqueness and her effects on our own lives seems like what this forum is about....the constant complaints about marketing, promotion, rod stewart(?) and etc. seems misplaced and, frankly, odd. Stevie is an amazing performer and an incredible songwriter...lets "enjoy the ride" for the next few months...she wont be putting out many more cds!:thumbsup:

[tbaker3]

I'm not sure YOU do.

You are defining "relevance" purely in commercial sales terms. If something isn't a current hit, it's "not relevant". While that may be one definition it isn't by any means the only one or even the definitive one.

Relevant means having a bearing on the matter at hand. Nicks has been a huge influence on women in music, ranging from Hole to Dixie Chicks. In that context, she is relevant.

Back in 2001, at the age of 50-something, she scored a top 5 album with Trouble In Shangri-La. That certainly indicates chart-performing relevance.

Nicks has had recent #1 ("Planets of the Universe") and #2 ("Stand Back") dance hits. The dance chart can be considered much more youth-oriented than say Adult Contemporary, so again, this argues in favor of her relevance.

The one thing that you point out which I think is true is that radio tends to not play artists that are older or have been around for awhile. I agree. But that doesn't automatically make those artists "not relevant".


my hero :thumbsup:

[used karma]

I'm not sure YOU do.

You are defining "relevance" purely in commercial sales terms. If something isn't a current hit, it's "not relevant". While that may be one definition it isn't by any means the only one or even the definitive one.

Relevant means having a bearing on the matter at hand. Nicks has been a huge influence on women in music, ranging from Hole to Dixie Chicks. In that context, she is relevant.

Back in 2001, at the age of 50-something, she scored a top 5 album with Trouble In Shangri-La. That certainly indicates chart-performing relevance.

Nicks has had recent #1 ("Planets of the Universe") and #2 ("Stand Back") dance hits. The dance chart can be considered much more youth-oriented than say Adult Contemporary, so again, this argues in favor of her relevance.

The one thing that you point out which I think is true is that radio tends to not play artists that are older or have been around for awhile. I agree. But that doesn't automatically make those artists "not relevant".
Every example you've given is about how she WAS relevant. Influencing Hole and the Dixie Chicks, a top five album in 2001. Exactly my point. What about NOW? Really, the only thing recently is the Glee episode, and it's an episode based on Rumours.

[Jondalar]

Every example you've given is about how she WAS relevant. Influencing Hole and the Dixie Chicks, a top five album in 2001. Exactly my point. What about NOW? Really, the only thing recently is the Glee episode, and it's an episode based on Rumours.

What about Florence and the Machine. They are now. So is Talor Swift and Miley Cyrus.

[tabruns]

Every example you've given is about how she WAS relevant. Influencing Hole and the Dixie Chicks, a top five album in 2001. Exactly my point. What about NOW? Really, the only thing recently is the Glee episode, and it's an episode based on Rumours.

But that kind of relevance is on-going. She did and continues to influence women in rock. The top 5 album was her most recent studio release. The #1 and #2 dance hits were some of her most recent singles. I mean, what else can you expect than this?

The *one* thing that has changed is that she used to score Top 40 hit singles and she no longer does. Neither do the Rolling Stones, but I doubt that any music critic would tell you that they are "irrelevant". Its simply a fact of life that eventually your day in the sun on Top 40 radio fades (Madonna is perilously close to her sunset as well) but that doesn't change the influence one may have had on other artists or recent chart performances in other areas like the Album or Dance charts.

[carrie721]

Definition of RELEVANCE

1
a : relation to the matter at hand
b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence
2
: the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1303876902

in order to argue someone's relevance, you must identify the matter at hand. obviously you are talking about personal relevance, while these others you're getting your panties in a wad about are talking about more broad relevance in culture. you sound pretty defensive. :shrug: there is a handful of popular artists who cite her as an influence, but she hardly has the broad, pervasive clout of, say, madonna or the artistic respect of lou reed or david bowie.

Maybe I'm misreading, or I'm seeing comments like this on other websites, but I am sick to death of people (especially fans) spouting off that Stevie is no longer relevant. Says who? She's relevant to me. And considering that there are those of you that check the ledge multiple times a day, she's relevant to you as well. And isn't that all that matters?

I realize that radio doesn't play her much anymore, but that has nothing to do with relevance now days, thats corporation, and I wish people would realize that. Yeah, Kesha has number one songs on the chart. But not one of those songs is profound. They are party anthems crafted by and marketed by a team of people in suits, paid to be played on the radio by those same suited people for a demographic of party hungry kids to make a profit. In 30 years will they be covered by ANYONE? Doubtful. In 20 years will there be any up and comers who site their inspiration as, "this total trainwreck slut who's chorus' went 'blahblahblah' and she couldn't really sing."?

Before people start talking about what is and what is not relevant today, I'd like for them to stop a moment, think about what IS relevant today, then ask themselves, "Is what's relevant actually good? And is that what I really want to listen to?

Stevie's mainstream relevance was EARNED. Let's not forget that...

Sorry if this sounded fragmented. So many thoughts at one time can make things sound choppy when I write them.

[tabruns]

Definition of RELEVANCE

1
a : relation to the matter at hand
b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence
2
: the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1303876902

in order to argue someone's relevance, you must identify the matter at hand. obviously you are talking about personal relevance, while these others you're getting your panties in a wad about are talking about more broad relevance in culture. you sound pretty defensive. :shrug: there is a handful of popular artists who cite her as an influence, but she hardly has the broad, pervasive clout of, say, madonna or the artistic respect of lou reed or david bowie.

I agree that "the matter at hand" makes a difference, and I was identifying the context. This is why used_karma considers Nicks irrelevant because she doesn't get radio play or Top 40 hits while I consider her relevant because of her influence on many artists and her performance on the Album and Dance charts. This isn't defensiveness, I simply think that used_karma's "context" isn't the only one or even the most important one. "Panties in a wad" was a rude and unnecessary comment, and employing the classic internet move of "shrugging" after you said something inflammatory is very predictable.

As for your other point, that's completely your opinion. If anything I would say that Nicks has been *more* influential than Madonna (and I admire Madonna greatly)...even Madonna went "Nicks-esque" in her "Frozen" video. That being said, the point wasn't that Nicks has been more influential just that she clearly has been and is influential, that's all.

[carrie721]

I agree that "the matter at hand" makes a difference, and I was identifying the context. This is why used_karma considers Nicks irrelevant because she doesn't get radio play or Top 40 hits while I consider her relevant because of her influence on many artists and her performance on the Album and Dance charts. This isn't defensiveness, I simply think that used_karma's "context" isn't the only one or even the most important one. "Panties in a wad" was a rude and unnecessary comment, and employing the classic internet move of "shrugging" after you said something inflammatory is very predictable.

As for your other point, that's completely your opinion. If anything I would say that Nicks has been *more* influential than Madonna (and I admire Madonna greatly)...even Madonna went "Nicks-esque" in her "Frozen" video. That being said, the point wasn't that Nicks has been more influential just that she clearly has been and is influential, that's all.

i didn't say you sounded defensive. :laugh: i was quoting & responding to the first poster. none of my comments were directed towards you.

[tbaker3]

i didn't say you sounded defensive. :laugh: i was quoting & responding to the first poster. none of my comments were directed towards you.

Ok then. They were directed towards me. And while I appeciate your opinion, your tact was off. And my boxer briefs are just fine.:nod:

[tabruns]

Ok then. They were directed towards me. And while I appeciate your opinion, your tact was off. And my boxer briefs are just fine.:nod:

*cheers for your boxer briefs* :)

[mezzoforte]

Of all of the things people say about Stevie, "irrelevant" doesn't bother me that much. Sure, I want her to be relevant to other people because she is to me--I love her and think she has a lot left to say. But even I have to admit, she's not relevant the way she used to be.
Is relevance the most important thing, though? Tusk wasn't when it came out (at least, not on the level that Rumours was). And it went on to be hugely influential! Irrelevant doesn't mean it isn't great music that will inspire new artists, just that it doesn't currently capture the zeitgeist. And let's be honest--IYD will not send 12-year-olds into joyful hysterics or be played at frat parties. That's not disparaging--it's realistic.
But does that have to be the end of the world? She's a freakin' icon--she's kind of transcended relevance.

[tbaker3]

*cheers for your boxer briefs* :)

lol. I, and my boxer briefs, thank you. And thanks, tabruns for so eloquently expressing what I was trying to convey. Relevance has a wider net than top 40. Stevie has inspired 2, almost 3 generations of singer-songwriters by now. Even when Madonna first started out, her look was an edgier Stevie laced look. Her songs live on leaving a legacy. And a legacy, in my mind = relevance.

[carrie721]

your tact was off.

you're new here.

[tbaker3]

Of all of the things people say about Stevie, "irrelevant" doesn't bother me that much. Sure, I want her to be relevant to other people because she is to me--I love her and think she has a lot left to say. But even I have to admit, she's not relevant the way she used to be.
Is relevance the most important thing, though? Tusk wasn't when it came out (at least, not on the level that Rumours was). And it went on to be hugely influential! Irrelevant doesn't mean it isn't great music that will inspire new artists, just that it doesn't currently capture the zeitgeist. And let's be honest--IYD will not send 12-year-olds into joyful hysterics or be played at frat parties. That's not disparaging--it's realistic.
But does that have to be the end of the world? She's a freakin' icon--she's kind of transcended relevance.


...like...:D

[tbaker3]

you're new here.


ummm. Your point?

[tabruns]

Of all of the things people say about Stevie, "irrelevant" doesn't bother me that much. Sure, I want her to be relevant to other people because she is to me--I love her and think she has a lot left to say. But even I have to admit, she's not relevant the way she used to be.
Is relevance the most important thing, though? Tusk wasn't when it came out (at least, not on the level that Rumours was). And it went on to be hugely influential! Irrelevant doesn't mean it isn't great music that will inspire new artists, just that it doesn't currently capture the zeitgeist. And let's be honest--IYD will not send 12-year-olds into joyful hysterics or be played at frat parties. That's not disparaging--it's realistic.
But does that have to be the end of the world? She's a freakin' icon--she's kind of transcended relevance.

Well said.

[Jondalar]

I have to say that one of my big fears is that she'll have a really great song on this album that should be a hit, but radio won't play it. Five years later some new artist will redo it almost exactly the same and it will be all over the radio.

[tabruns]

I have to say that one of my big fears is that she'll have a really great song on this album that should be a hit, but radio won't play it. Five years later some new artist will redo it almost exactly the same and it will be all over the radio.

That would actually be a good thing, wouldn't it? After all, Nicks made quite a bit of money from Dixie Chicks taking "Landslide" to the Top 10.

[tbaker3]

I have to say that one of my big fears is that she'll have a really great song on this album that should be a hit, but radio won't play it. Five years later some new artist will redo it almost exactly the same and it will be all over the radio.

I don't fear that. That's the sort of thing that keeps her legacy going. I'm all for people covering her catalog, as long as it's not Lindsey Lohan again...

[WildHearted]

Totally agree with mezzoforte.

It's one thing to say that the Backstreet Boys aren't relevant anymore - that makes total sense and the weight of what is being implied holds. But for Stevie? She's has reached iconic and legendary status at this point... so even if she's not relevant in a mainstream sense, really she always will be on the artistic side of it thanks her influence and her legacy.

[Macfanforever]

I have to say that one of my big fears is that she'll have a really great song on this album that should be a hit, but radio won't play it. Five years later some new artist will redo it almost exactly the same and it will be all over the radio.

Yes I have to agree .Stevie or any other artists from that era have a fat chance to get airplay on a top 40 station.Unless they record a rap.hip.hop..Tina Turner was lucky in the 1980's also Cher was lucky in the 1990's. they both were great.of course times were different.music was more music



I always say Stevie should record a country cd.I know she will have a #1 tune under her belt.heck with her friend Taylor.

[tabruns]

I always say Stevie should record a country cd.I know she will have a #1 tune under her belt.heck with her friend Taylor.

Maybe that is the intention with "Cheaper Than Free"?

[LikeAWillow]

I'm not sure you know what 'relevance' means. No offense.

41 posts and I love you already.

[Macfanforever]

Maybe that is the intention with "Cheaper Than Free"?

I hope so.I know that will make my day.I'm probably one of the few Ledgies that enjoys country music.we will see.I hope so.

[Heartboy]

It's one thing to say that the Backstreet Boys aren't relevant anymore

I take offense to that!:p:lol: J/K

I get what you mean!

I like the BSB, Spice Girls, N*Sync and ect but they're like a 'moment' in time for people but Stevie is F*ukin' Forever, baby! :D:cool:

[LikeAWillow]

I take offense to that!:p:lol: J/K

I get what you mean!

I like the BSB, Spice Girls, N*Sync and ect but they're like a 'moment' in time for people but Stevie is F*ukin' Forever, baby! :D:cool:

Nsync's "Girlfriend" with Nelly ushered in our current age. I don't think I need to go into the Spice Girls relevance. I'M JUST SAYIN.

[louielouie2000]

The thing is, you could argue Stevie's never really been relevant. Maybe that's why we ourselves have always loved her. She's different. She is who she is unapologetically. She doesn't change just because critics pan her. She just keeps doing what she's always done. And good for her, she's living the life SHE wants to live. Like others have pointed out, sometime in the past 10-15 years, Stevie's reached true icon status. It doesn't really matter if she's relevant now or ever has been. She's made it to the top of the mountain, and gets the last laugh.

[used karma]

41 posts and I love you already.
Well, thank you. :)

[WildHearted]

I take offense to that!:p:lol: J/K

I get what you mean!

I like the BSB, Spice Girls, N*Sync and ect but they're like a 'moment' in time for people but Stevie is F*ukin' Forever, baby! :D:cool:

I'm a 90's child so I literally grew up with all of those artists and hold them near and dear to my heart! But yeah, exactly.. they had no longevity.

[jellyman10]

The thing is, you could argue Stevie's never really been relevant.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but I hope I'm among friends....

My name is Jellyman10, and I have always been slightly embarrassed about being a Stevie fan. I don't know why, but I've always felt more comfortable expressing my fandom of certain other artists, such as Joni Mitchell, Janis Joplin, Patti Smith, Debbie Harry.

But no more! In fact, Stevie kicks every one of their butts on at least one issue:
She beats Joni cuz she's still making music
She beats Janis cuz she's still alive
She beats Patti cuz she's better-dressed
And she beats Debbie cuz she's got a better plastic surgeon.

Get in!

[Heartboy]

And she beats Debbie cuz she's got a better plastic surgeon.



:eek:

I'd hide if I were you! :p

[Jondalar]

I'm ashamed to admit this, but I hope I'm among friends....

My name is Jellyman10, and I have always been slightly embarrassed about being a Stevie fan. I don't know why, but I've always felt more comfortable expressing my fandom of certain other artists, such as Joni Mitchell, Janis Joplin, Patti Smith, Debbie Harry.

But no more! In fact, Stevie kicks every one of their butts on at least one issue:
She beats Joni cuz she's still making music
She beats Janis cuz she's still alive
She beats Patti cuz she's better-dressed
And she beats Debbie cuz she's got a better plastic surgeon.

Get in!

I think she beats them all because she has a more in depth classic rock catalog. Joni's time was the early 70s. Janis bit the dust way too early. Pattie, in my opinion, had one good album. And when I listen to Blondie's greatest hits, half of their hits were cheesy. They got marks for hanging CBGB, but their hits are extremely dated and corny.

[louielouie2000]

And she beats Debbie cuz she's got a better plastic surgeon.

There's no doubt they've both had work done. They've just requested completely different results from their surgeons. Debbie clearly wants to look like she did 30 years ago, and Stevie just wants to look good for her age. The work Debbie's had done is dramatic, but still in the realm of tasteful (she's a looooong ways off from Jocelyn Wildenstein). It just makes me wonder how Stevie'd look if she went the same route as Debbie. Not that I think she needs to at all... it's just a morbid curiosity thing. :lol:

[markolas]

Irrelevant doesn't mean it isn't great music that will inspire new artists, just that it doesn't currently capture the zeitgeist.

And thank heaven for that.

There's no doubt they've both had work done. They've just requested completely different results from their surgeons. Debbie clearly wants to look like she did 30 years ago, and Stevie just wants to look good for her age. The work Debbie's had done is dramatic, but still in the realm of tasteful (she's a looooong ways off from Jocelyn Wildenstein).

Maybe not Jocelyn Wildenstein, but Debbie is definitely headed toward Joan Rivers territory if she doesn't watch it. Stevie's clearly had work done, but compared to Debbie (or even Kathy Griffin), it's nothing.

I do think she's wearing dentures, tho. :laugh:

[Spoinny]

Debbie on admitting she had plastic surgery: "You photograph better, and looks are a key part of being an entertainer, so I felt it was something I had to do. All sorts of horrific things happen in life - why make it worse by worrying about getting older? Do some charity work, or learn a new skill instead."

I doubt we'll hear Stevie saying anything like this :)

[jellyman10]

Maybe not Jocelyn Wildenstein, but Debbie is definitely headed toward Joan Rivers territory if she doesn't watch it. Stevie's clearly had work done, but compared to Debbie (or even Kathy Griffin), it's nothing.

I do think she's wearing dentures, tho. :laugh:

I agree with Louie that DH has aimed for a different result, and got it, but it doesn't really work for me. :sorry:

I agree with you, too, that SN's teeth aren't quite what they used to be, but I think it's because they've been filed or veneered. It's a pity, cuz she had lovely teeth* when she was younger.

*I'm British, which sets the bar low, but still...

[jellyman10]

Debbie on admitting she had plastic surgery: "You photograph better, and looks are a key part of being an entertainer, so I felt it was something I had to do. All sorts of horrific things happen in life - why make it worse by worrying about getting older? Do some charity work, or learn a new skill instead."

I doubt we'll hear Stevie saying anything like this :)

No, probably not - unless someone asks her right question! Not 'How do you stay looking so young?' but 'Have you had an eye lift and a neck tuck?'

Stevie's had her work done, I'm sure, for broadly the same reasons that Debbie has. But they're both propping up sexism and double standards in their own industry. The only difference might be the degree of unachievable role-modelness they're helping to perpetuate for older women.