Stevie only writing ONE song in 18 months?
 

From the time we have all read that statement, I have found it hard to believe. Going back, and looking at past news articles, I have found this one, that i'm sure we all remember. http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html.../28/105209.php. This statement in the article is the thing that really caught my eye...and one more thing, the article was published in late July of this year, 4 months ago.

Like many albums released in the summer of 2001, “Trouble in Shangri-La” got lost in the madness that was the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Nicks said she is unsure if she’ll release another solo record.
“I really don’t know what to do,” she said. “I’m totally writing. I could go into the studio tomorrow and start a solo record. I think I get better as a writer every day because I work on it constantly. So it’s not like I couldn’t do it, but ...”

So if she is "totally writing" why is she saying that she has only written 1 song in the past eighteen months? It just doesn't make any sense to me. :shrug:

I think the one song in 18 months is accurate. Both Stevie and Lori have addressed more solo albums....the writing is on the wall. The above quote about her "totally writing" is probably partially honest, because she writes in her journals everyday. Stevie toured this summer to fulfill a touring obligation, IMHO...her dad was dying, does anyone really believe she did it because she wanted to? If she had plans to put out an album, she would tour to promote that when it was complete.

No sense to me either?:shrug:

You know what I think....
I think she should take a minute or two..
and write her juicy autobiography...


:nod:

Ciao!
Ash
x

I absolutely agree. She just means the initial, journal stuff when she's
talking about "totally writing" - it's just an expression, she doesn't
mean the final product.
Believe me or don't believe me, but I was told that the second half of
the tour was extremely difficult for Stevie and yes, she wanted
to quit and probably would have, and just bought the rest of the contract
out, but her Dad - of course - talked her in to continuing.
Maybe her Mom and Don a little too, I dunno.
Anyway I really respect that she continued under such difficult
circumstances and that she put all that she could in to the remaining
performances. Reportedly she went immediately from the after-party of
the last concert to Phoenix to be with her Dad. I guess he died four days
after the last show.

I think I might buy that..:lol:

I think she was likely referring to a complete song, rather than just lyrics here and there that she always writes. What I basically got out of what she's saying is she has written a complete song lyrics/music the whole thing in that long.

I was wondering if the seeming turnabout from her prior statement (that she was "totally writing" and could go "into the studio tomorrow") and her most recent comment that she's only written one song in 18 months, could have anything to do with her contractual obligations with Warner Bros and perhaps a desire to shop her songs elsewhere.

I'm not meaning to assume anything here... I'm just speculating that if someone is eyeing a way to buy out their contract, they might want to downplay any plans for future recording.

According to Ghost Tracker (who always claims to have inside info)when I asked this identical question on another thread, Stevie was indeed trying to throw off Warners so she could get out of her contract.In this case I hope you are both right because I think she still has something to say in her music .For someone who always talks about how she gave up so much for her music it is difficult for me to understand why she would stop recording new songs just because radio might not play them.I could understand her stopping if she meant to retire but her touring and other appearances indicate that this is far from the case.

Absolutely. I've gotten some indications from some stuff I found out on
the net that there might be some ****e going on behind-the-scenes,
involving not just Stevie, but Don Henley, Elton John, and some others.
Stevie isn't the only one who hasn't come out with new material in some
time - in fact, it's a semi-widespread thing. Carly Simon just came out
with a new album - of "oldies but goodies," I believe - nothing new.
She's claiming "writer's block" also.
Never, never mess with the Queen of Rock.

I don't have any "inside info" - I've just read some articles, that's all.
You'd be surprised what's available on Nicksfix if you search around a
little. I've also talked to someone who's talked to Someone, once or twice,
which I do admit is not exactly a reliable source of information.

Maybe I blinked, but what's up with all of this talk about Stevie wanting out of her Warners contract? It isn't like every label in the world is knocking her door down. I know Warners hasn't exactly been the best promoter of her material... but then again, no artist in Stevie's age bracket has been given the big promotional treatment on any label. She should be thankful that she's with a major label, a prestigious one at that. I mean, where would she go... Def Jam? :eek:

I think maybe Stevie kinda has this "blind faith" thing goin',
that all of this "business stuff" will just work itself out.
Hey, it always has in the past!
I still claim she's not as wealthy as some people think - I mean,
she's not in Madonna's territory that way - but she has enough
capital, credit, and connections to be able to form her own small
record company. (I think maybe her answer to "she doesn't know
how to run a company" would be "YEAH so - how much does one of
those MANAGER thingies cost? I'll take one of THOSE TOO!" :lol: )
Remember she actually part-owned Modern Records "Back in the Day" -
so it's not as if it's beyond her, financially.
So in my opinion, if she were to tell Warner Bros. to f. off,
it wouldn't exactly be a major crisis in her career. Not that I'm saying
she would; for all I know she's the bestest buddies in the whole world
with them.
By the way, I'm curious - when's the last time Don Henley came out
with a new album?
"Writer's Block?" Please. She had whole filing cabinets full of songs
all the way back in 1983. Plus the journals.

Bruce Springsteen got quite a bit of promotion from Sony when his album was released earlier this year, although he does tend to be the exception more than the rule.

No one in Stevie's position needs or ought to be "thankful" for being on a major label (and what exactly is prestigious about Warner?). There are dozens of smaller or independent labels that would be more than happy to sign up an artist like Stevie, and she'd likely have much more control over her recording career, though she might have to get used to a smaller recording budget.

Inside Job, released in May of 2000, was his last one, I believe.

Warner Brothers is owned by "Time Warner Interplanetary Hippie Killers,
Incorporated," ( ;) ) a big huge Mega-Corporation worth Billions of dollars.
Not that there's any thing wrong with that -
but it doesn't actually fit with Stevie's anti-corporate image,
in a way. . . .

Yes, and Stevie's last was 2001, Lindsey's was years back, Carly Simon's
was 2000 or so.
I read in an article that there was a trial around this time frame, or shortly
after, in which Stevie, Don Henley, Elton John and a few others filed
briefs. (Their lawyers, obviously - they probably didn't have to show up
personally.) During the course of this trial, it surfaced that the record
companies - shocker of shockers - have been under-representing the
number of records sold - and thus ripping off MILLIONS of dollars from
the artists, since they're "paid" by the numbers sold, often.
So - yeah - I suspect they ripped Stevie off.
Now they're finding out what happens
when you mess with the Queen of Rock.
What are they gonna do, SUE her???
( I could easily imagine her hinting to them that that wouldn't be in their
best interests - that might actually get her slightly miffed.
A slightly miffed Stevie Nicks, of course, is not a pretty sight... )
Anyway I'm just speculatin' about all this
but it seems like a mighty odd coincidence that neither Stevie nor many
of her closest musician friends have come out with a new album since
that trial. I kind of suspect that in an informal, unorganized way, the
record companies are being "punished." I don't think anything formal
is going on - it's just that after suspecting all along that this was going
on - and then having their suspicions confirmed - no one feels
particularly motivated right now. Check out Lindsey's Official Web Site -
there's NOTHING going on there. And look at it this way - with touring
being so lucrative ANY-way - maybe the feeling is to let the new records
slide for a year or two, until the big record labels have "learned their lesson."

I'm not sure how this would be possible. Sales data for music media is compiled and released by Soundscan, a company which is independent from any record label. There's no real way for any record company to cook these numbers, since they're widely reported by other independent organizations, such as Billboard. Am I being incredibly naive and not thinking of an obvious way for record companies to underrepresent album sales to their artists?

That's certainly not very much of a punishment. Actually, I can't see why Warner would care at all. They don't make any money from new Stevie Nicks or Don Henley records. They're lucky to break even on those kinds of projects. It costs a lot of money to produce and distribute new albums from older artists, and they never sell that well, relatively. The only real profits they make from acts like Stevie and Henley are from sales of catalogue titles: older albums, greatest hits packages, box sets, etc. Those are the things that sell consistently and cost next to nothing to put together.

Beyond that, these days a record company like Warner/Reprise makes its money from the few huge blockbuster albums it happens to release each year (this year it's albums from folks like Faith Hill and Green Day and Michael Buble and pretty soon Madonna and Enya). They neither need nor really want new albums from folks like Stevie and Henley if they want to make money. The only real benefit of those new albums is that it keeps those artists in the public eye and fuels catalogue sales. And of course touring does that as well, so I doubt Warner really minds if the two of them stay out on the road indefinitely and never ask for a dreaded advance to record something new.

Well I just honestly don't know. All I do know is that if I had
been working that hard for so long, and suddenly found out that my
"employer" had been ripping me off to the tune of millions of dollars for
years, I wouldn't feel particularly motivated for a little while to make them
any more money. I really don't know what the details are, whether it's
true or not, etc. I could picture them cooking the books on actual numbers
of albums produced. So maybe that's what happened - I really don't
know. If I can find time later in the day I'll try to re-locate the story
where I saw this, but it was about a month ago that I read it.

When did this Soundscan stuff start??? Maybe this happened ( IF it did ) back some years ago, before Soundscan
got established.....

I definitely agree with what you're saying about the money aspect, but I also feel that if the record companies were
more willing to advertise, produce honest-to-god videos like they used to back in the day, and put some muscle behind
other types of publicity, etc., then maybe sales would be surprisingly higher. So maybe there's a lack of motivation
on the part of the mega-corporation record companies, as well. Then again, a "mega-corporation" is more willing to
take the hit if an "older" artist's stuff doesn't sell as well as, say, Britney Spears's stuff.

"So you say I've got an ugly face?
It makes me money. . . .
And I don't know why..."

Soundscan was established back in 1990 or 1991, I believe, so it is possible that this lawsuit could refer to sales from before then. That might actually make a lot more sense, since all of those artists you mentioned were obviously selling many more albums before the 1990s.

Well, I don't know about music videos - as MTV and VH1 have moved further and further away from ever airing music videos, record companies have understandably been less willing to fork over money to produce them - but yeah, there are certainly other avenues of publicity which remain untapped for older artists. The feeling on the part of the labels, I think, is that these artists aren't going to be bringing in many or any new fans, and those who are already fans will know that there's a new album anyway, so why promote if it's not going to increase sales? Of course, there's kind of a circular logic at work there: sales don't go up if they don't promote, and they don't rpomote because sales aren't up.

Not necessarily. The mega-corporation labels are actually more likely to treat older artists who don't sell that well like crap. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that there were rumours Fleetwood Mac and a number of other older acts were simply going to be dropped entirely from Warner/Reprise's roster. Huge corporate labels release a lot of music and have a lot of overhead and a lot of people on the payroll, so they're often less tolerant of artists who don't meet sales expectations. On the other hand, the number of smaller and independent labels has gone way up in the past few years, and many of those labels are more concerned with fostering their artists' creativity and marketing to a dedicated niche audience, than they are with huge profits.

If I were Stevie, I'd much rather be a big fish in a small pond, than the other way around.
Whereas Warner Bros might greet a new album with the attitude of, "eh, we'll only move about 500,000 copies," a smaller, independent label would probably be ecstatic to do those numbers.

As a fan, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the idea of her switching to an indy. I'd largely be thrilled, of course, but I'm sure a part of me would be bummed that she was releasing albums in relative obscurity and with very little P.R. (such as Heart encountered with 'Jupiter's Darling').
Though, having said that, I think Stevie's fans have always done more to promote her music through word of mouth, than any record company ever could.

Exactly. I think her name recognition would be enough to push the sales pretty high, even on an indy label

Uhm, the story about the lawsuit is here -
http://nicksfix.com/article_reuters_jan23_2002.htm

I admit that it doesn't flat-out say that Stevie, Don Henley and the
rest were getting ripped off, but it makes me wonder.

Does anyone else remember how a few months ago she was talking again about putting out a Rhiannon album? Maybe she just pulls out that old chestnut when she doesn't really know what else to say about her future recording plans...

It strikes me as odd how few of the Australian interviewers have been asking whether and when she'll record again! That would be my first question!

Other Warner Bros artists:

Don Henley is probably mainly focused on material for an Eagles project that was already announced a few years back when their Hole In the World DVD-single was released. There are also many Joe Walsh interviews on the web which say that they currently have a policy that makes the Eagles their top priority. That might change with the moods, though.

There's a rumor that Tom Petty's last album The Last DJ wasn't particularily loved at the label because of its content of using the music industry and corporate radio in particular as a metaphor, which the labelheads probably took rather literally, so it's not yet known on which label the disc that he announced for a 2006 release will appear.

These days, the major labels change CEOs so often that it's getting near impossible to build up a new artist in the marketplace, because every time a new CEO comes up, it's possible that he wants to make a name for himself and halts the ambitious projects that his predecessor started, who by then has disgracefully left the company. Artists (and that's not limited to new artists) soon realize that they're not wanted any longer by the new management, but they're under some piece of contract that does not allow them to put out their music elsewhere.
(Even a producer as big as Jeff Lynne (of ELO) reportedly was in that situation after Mo Ostin and Lenny Waronker left Warner Bros. and the new management didn't like the outlines of his then planned 2nd solo album, which was aborted.)
So instead of musicians' careers, major labels these days tend to manufacture releases by celebrities. I don't know if Stevie Nicks is considered enough of a celebrity by the marketing department of her label, but Fleetwood Mac surely is, and Lindsey Buckingham probably is not, or else Gift Of Screws would probably be out already. Just because they've got Fleetwood Mac under contract, Warner Bros. does not seem to want to be their boutique label (though that would be very nice for fans and music lovers, because it would mean more music in the form of solo albums and even albums of former members maybe).

Unlike Stevie, Carly Simon knows her ****. Her and Richard Perry financed "Moonlight Serenade" by themselves and then sold it to Sony.

I wanna see Carly Simon in concert soo bad. Maybe one day.:o

She just finished her tour recently and came out with a live DVD. I tried so hard to get tickets for opening night in Boston and I couldn't. I'm still pissy about it. Her site has lots of photos from the tour and she looks amazing.

She didnt come near here unfortunately. I'm so happy for her that she has been able to oveercome her stage fright problems to the extent that she can go out there and perform. I Just love that thing she did on Martha's Vineyard back in 88. ONe of my alltime fav shows

I have that album. I love it. :nod:

It's funny too becasue I used to sort of like this guy named Jesse, adn he really fu**ed me over, so that song slways reminds me of him, and it's my favorite of all time of hers, along with Coming Around Again.

I'm still rather fond of You're So Vain. And there's a great version of it on that album. :nod:

I saw her at the Time Warner Center last month. It was great, if for no other reason than the fact that it was such a novelty to see her in concert. But it was sad to see that her voice is pretty much gone- throughout all of the years of hearing her recorded concert videos and albums, I have never heard her screech so much or hit so many bum notes. And "Let the River Run" was performed as a lame little dirge, as opposed to the big exalted production number that it should be, and it was even dropped an octave or two. And her choice of wardrobe was appalling :eek: - she kept this big, schmatta on her head the whole night and wore various boho flapper dresses, pants, painters smocks and shawls :eek: . This was a shame because it was obvious that, despite being a 60-year-old broad, she still had a striking statuesque figure under all of those layers. But amazingly, despite all of her voice problems, she managed to pull off a really wonderful rendition of "Coming Around Again" in its original key, which is probably one of her most vocally demanding tunes. But the total thrill of the night for me was when she did "Private," one of those buried treasures from "Letters Never Sent." I was pissed that she did nothing from "The Bedroom Tapes," but all was forgiven after "Private." :D

I noticed that her voice had gone to **** when she was on 20/20 last year to talk about John Forte and his mandatory minimum drug sentence. I still like it, though, and it sounds great on "Moonlight Serenade" and the new DVD (for the most part). From all the photos I've seen from the tour, she's still got an amazing figure and I'm sorry to admit that I liked the get-ups that she wore. :laugh:

That's awesome that she played "Private." "Letters Never Sent" is one of my favorites, along with "The Bedroom Tapes" and "Coming Around Again." If you don't have the new DVD, I recommend it for the acoustic set alone.

And Stevie sold most of her songs to SONY or BMI or something
and made a fortune that way. So, "HA, HA, HA, in
your FACE sucka!!!" ( lmao :laugh: )
( So admittedly, maybe she has a little more money than I figured -
I still say she ain't exactly in "Bill Gates territory," though. . . . :rolleyes: )

Trivial pursuit question - what is the ONLY song Stevie wrote and sang
that she has NEVER owned the rights to?

I'm not really clear on the extent of C.S.'s "stage fright problems" -
she played it down a lot recently, in an interview that aired on
VH-1 Classic. But I've also heard her say that performing was actually
suggested to her by a psychotherapist, as a way to help her overcome
her shyness. I think maybe now that she's a little older and has so much
experience it isn't as big of a deal for her.
Stevie gets nervous too, of course, but maybe for her it's more of
a fun, exciting, free "adrenaline high."

I have no idea... do tell! :]

^^ Well, I remember she didn't own the rights to Silver Springs, and he was an ass and wouldn't give it to her when she asked at one point. They got in a huge fight - I think it was at this point that she said she'd never play/record/perform with Mick again.

Is that the only one?

I believe she has never owned the rights
to "Beautiful Child" - and all of the money
from that goes to charity. Check out the
liner notes to "Live in Boston." :)