Pissed off Stevie interview; Can't believe I've never seen this
 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nxPRn5UKbrg

I can't believe I've never seen this before.

Even with a ridiculous giant bow in her hair, she's still menacing. I don't think anyone got out of that room alive.

"He messed with my family, and you don't mess with my family...ever."

Maybe she was just pissed off that she was made up to look like a powdered jelly donut.

I love her more than ever.

I would be mad too if someone told me that one of my songs that I put my heart and soul into, is refused to be on one of my records because it's property of a band that I am also in as well, that would really piss me off. But in someways I can understand why but in other ways yeah, it's bull sh#t. Because you wrote that song, that is a chapter of your life story and it's been taken away from you and you can't have it. That does seem unfair, but what seemed bazaar was that she did her solo stuff on the Mac stage when they toured????!!! So what difference would it make ? She even did Mac songs when she did her solo tours.... What's the difference if you take the song you recorded with your band and put it on your gr. hits album than performing Mac songs on your solo stage???? I don't get it. I would be angry too. That was an interesting interview though. I never heard her talk about that before. I guess that's why she left Mac to begin with was because of "Silver Springs". She never mentioned that before. I guess VH1 behind the music needs to do better interviews and be more in detail...:laugh::shrug:

I don't think that was a bow in her hair, that was a headband, and it was 1991, and I think her makeup and hair looked great. I love the red velvet dress. But I was focusing more on the interview and what she was saying that what she looked like. Sorry.

I'm thinking there was more going on than just the Mick/Silver Springs thing. She was heavily into her Klonopin period at this time, she was overweight, depressed, just recorded 2 new songs for her greatest hits album which weren't rocketing up the charts, and in general was feeling low. Her face is almost devoid of emotion, except bitchiness. She is exhibiting what some mental health clinicians describe as a 'flat affect'. She's pretty numb looking, sounding, and I'm pretty suprised that her organization thought this interview was a good career move for selling 'TimeSpace'. If I were doing her PR, I'd make a quick call to Modern records and ask for an emergency advance of several thousand of dollars for overtime fees for the camera and light man, and ask them to shoot it again. Really.

Not loading for me. It's not that bloody MTV Asia interview is it? Where they had her say all of that nonsensical tagline **** like, "I'm Stevie Nicks. Step out of this timespace and into MTV Asia" or whatever? :laugh:

Thanks SOOOO much for this! I don't blame Stevie at all.. as she's SOOO right about what's going on.. LOL- This was a first time for me seeing this one as well..

Wasn't this also when she was PO'd at Mick about his book?

I have no idea where this interview is from, but she's just MAD and wants her damn song back. I trying to find if there's more to this interview. She reminds me of Faye Dunaway in Supergirl.

Hi everyone :wavey:

I'm new here and since there doesn't seem to be an introduction area, I think I'll just jump right in. I saw this interview quite some time ago. Her feelings on the matter are certainly understandable, and for whatever reason, she chose to air it publicly. I'm not sure if that was a good decision, but nevertheless, she did it. Being on tranquilizers could have had something to do with that...I don't know. She often wears her feelings on her sleeve like this. I suppose it was cathartic for her to get it out.

Aside from what she was discussing, what GoldDustOrphan said made me smile, because when I first saw this video, I was startled by her appearance...not because she doesn't look good (she always looks great), but because of the huge bow or floral thing in her hair, and those gigantic earrings (I know...it was the style then, but whoa). It also looks like she's wearing a huge wig. It's all a bit much for my eye. She looks just like a child's play doll to me (or yes, a jelly donut :laugh:), but I suppose that is part of what is so intriguing about her. She's always beautiful, even in some outrageous costume. I love the dress, but could have done without the rest of it. Just a bit too gaudy for my taste. :shocked:

welcome to the ledge :wavey:

Oh, thank you so much! :)

I think she looks pretty good (minus the bow). Modern Records probably thought her anger would be enticing, worthy of a Mac drama...

Who knows? Either way, I believe her anger and think she was right to be pissed.

Stevie spent practically half a year (in 1991) talking to the press about what a rat Mick Fleetwood was.

See these pieces:

1. Boston Sunday Globe - July 14, 1991
2. Datebook - Aug. 11, 1991
3. VH1-to-1 - August 1991
4. BBC Radio 1 - September 1991
5. E! Channel - September 1991 (the video interview above)
6. Vox - February 1992

Here's part of what she said on TV & in the press:

"I said if you don't give me back my song, then I won't write two new songs for your new record. So that's where it stands right now. He won't talk to me about it."

"Right now I'm not very happy with Mick, & it's over a pretty serious thing."

"I can't believe he's stupid enough to break this band up for a song he dumped in the garbage can. I have always loved Mick, & I have always done everything I could to keep him going. It's a pretty sad way to end Fleetwood Mac. This is going to be a shock to the rest of the band when they see the stupidity of Mick's decision. It has nothing to do with all the other things we could have broken up over. I didn't even get mad at him about his book."

"I'm in the middle of a very big fight with Mick. This is all so underhanded. I called him on Friday & said, 'If I don't have that tape of Silver Springs by Monday, I'm out.' He had three days & didn't deliver."

"It's not going to happen (record with the group in the future). The story's already all over, so there's no reason for me to really go into it. It all stems down to an argument between me & Mr. Fleetwood. And that's down to the fact that he would not return to me a song that he dumped in the can 14 years ago, slapped on the back of a single & was never heard from again. I wanted to put it on Timespace because it belongs to my mom, & he said, 'Over my dead body.' And I said, 'Well, you just broke the camel's back.' So I won't be involved any more."

"I have told the world what a vile thing it was that Mick Fleetwood had done to me, who has fought like a dog for 15 years to keep this band from breaking up. I don't really know what's going through Mick's mind. He never returned a phone call, & he never felt it was his duty to sit down & write a letter to tell me why. He has always been the boss of the group. He has always made all the decisions. And he has always made them without asking anyone else. So he had no reason to do this to us -- to break up the whole band."

It's pretty obvious that Stevie had Mick killed and replaced by a robot. And Lindsey's in on it. Christine probably found out about the robot double during The Dance tour when Mick-bot started giving off sparks when she accidentally spilled her Remy Martin on him. That's why she put an ocean between them. She's watched enough of those UK Hammer Studios horror movies to know the score. Well, that's the story I'm sticking to.

while I think stevie had every right to be pissed (after all, it WAS her song...) I'm glad mick didn't give in. in 1991, Silver Springs would have never received the recognition it got in 1997. Stevie was a wreck at the time and i don't think even that song could have pulled her out.


thinks turned out exactly as they were supposed to :nod: imo of course.

Proof Stevie had Mick replaced by robot
 

The attached photo was caught on a security cam years ago when Stevie claimed she was at Betty Ford, which she wasn't. It was a perfectly executed cover story.
Most drummers have been replaced by drum machines anyway, so it's really not such a stretch.
I think my next thread is Stevie Conspiracy Theories.

Although I understand Stevie's point, I've always felt she over-reacted. Mick took the heat, but it was the record label that wouldn't give her the song. Here's the deal, she was working on her solo hits collection, at the same time Warner Bros. was working on "The Chain", one of the big selling points of the collection would be "Silver Springs", had Stevie released it on "TimeSpace" it would have taken the wind out the sail for "The Chain". Although today the song is all over the place, back in 1992 "Springs" was still a very hard song to find anywhere. The only place you could find it was the original vinyl release from 1976 and the 1988 jukebox vinyl single (backed with "Don't Stop"). Putting it on "The Chain" marked it's debut on CD. Speaking only for myself, the day I walked into the record store in 1992 and saw "The Chain" boxed set and saw that "Silver Springs" was on there, I went right over to the ATM and withdrew $85 so I could buy the set. I had long since worn out my vinyl copies of the song and couldn't wait to get it on CD.
It was the record label Stevie should have been mad at. Mick was just the middle man. In the end though history played out the way it should have. Going back to getting the boot from "Rumours" up thru 1992, the song ended up becoming legendary.

ROFLOL!!!

Well, that explains this...it was "rumoured" that Stevie allowed Lindsey exclusive engineering rights to program Mick-bot. Here Dr. Lindsey and Mr. Buckingham permits a bemused John to view his handiwork thus far...

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/phot...86258_9676.jpg

And my favorite: "Because he...does...not...know...who he's up against!" (Said with emotion breaking through the Klonopin).:cool:

- Jake

I have a very washed out vhs copy of this interview. There's a part where she's talking about Mick's book and it always makes me giggle. They ask her if she's read it and she said something like, "No... I don't have to read it. I lived it... If I read it I'd have to sit there with a big red pen circling things going 'spelled wrong... didn't happen... big lie'". :lol:

You MUST watch the 29 minute version! Thanks, Priest!
 

[QUOTE=GoldDustOrphan;740684]http://youtube.com/watch?v=nxPRn5UKbrg

I can't believe I've never seen this before.


It MUST be a Ledgie we all have to thank, but it seems many of you don't know there is a TWENTY NINE MINUTE version of this same interview, and it's fierce. Personally, i think she looks beautiful, but definitely sad, yet she also has moments of the Nicksian humor we love... and the way the interview ends abruptly is pretty fascinating, as she'd been talking for nearly half an hour. It's eye-opening to watch the whole thing- the guy who posted it (time is 28:55, so i exagerrated by 5 seconds) is named priestofnothing which i am certain is also a Ledgie's moniker-- after you watch the 29 minutes, check out his plethora of Stevie rarities, like a very long and unedited 1998 interview Stevie did with Sandra Bernhardt, i think it runs about 18 minutes. Tons of amazing stuff, i had never heard of Veoh, but here it is, and quality matches or tops YouTube- i didnt even have to install anything to watch all these amazing clips, and if PriestofNothing IS here on The Ledge, thank you, thank you- be sure to check out all the rare concert performances he has on there too- here's the unedited interview this thread is about:

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v326301s7...2481771&rank=0

Of course he is. He's a lovely person...

[QUOTE=Nikolaj;740766]

Hey and welcome to the Ledge!! :thumbsup:

No one seems concerned that Stevie has been replacing her band-mates - and possibly other musicians - with robots. Personally, I don't mind, but I don't want her to caught either.
"WAKE UP IN THE MORNING...RISE, MY CREATURE, RISE!"

i think she was more interested in the $$$ going to her mom. i don't think that would have interfered with them performing it for the dance, or the impact it would have had.

:D
u guys are hilarious...
but, gotta love Stevie. she's like a female Don Corleone when she's mad. it's hard to find someone with that kIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIND of inten-suh-tayyyy!

Thank you very much. :) I'm happy to be here.

After reading some of the comments, I have to agree that fate ultimately worked out more in her favor with Silver Springs. I just hope her mother got the money, as she had wanted.

This is a great post. What you say makes perfect sense from, at least, an industry stand point.

Another irony: She claims to be really mad at Mick, yet one of her TimeSpace songs (The Wild Heart's Beauty and the Beast) is said to be inspired by and dedicated to him...strange.

From a grammar standpoint, the line:

Two children too blind to see

is interesting because it contains all three homophones -- the adjective, the adverb, & the infinitive marker (preposition).

As for "Silver Springs," Stevie isn't very clear. The whole War isn't very clear. But it does point up the difference (which I have emphasized here before) between "song" & "track." I assume Stevie wanted the Fleetwood Mac track for her solo album (because she called Dennis Dunstan & asked him to "deliver the tapes"), so naturally Fleetwood refused permission. The question is, Why didn't Stevie rerecord it? She could have done so.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0230322AAAo3Rm

Once the copyright owner of a musical composition records and distributes the work to the public, or allows another to do so, anyone that wishes to record and distribute that same work may do so without permission (subject to certain limitations) by issuing the copyright owner a notice of intention to obtain a compulsory license. The cover song is subject to a compulsory mechanical license which provides the copyright owner an automatic royalty payment for every recording created and sold.

The cover artist may negotiate with the copyright owner to secure better terms than what the compulsory license affords the cover artist. However, the copyright owner cannot disallow the cover artist from reproducing and distributing that work if the cover artist is willing to pay the compulsory license.

Mick Versus Stevie versus the Volcano
 

Ladies, it was all about control. Mick didn't get a piece of the action (i.e. $$$$$) and he and the label were going to have nothing to do with it. I recall Mike Campbell being pretty pissed at Stevie with SDMHA and how it was a hit and other TP songs were not. And so the feud in the BUSINESS of making music go on and on..............................................................

Come to think of it, has Mick ever done anything if there wasn't $$ in it for him???? Mick Wine, Mick DVD , McFryer, MickEnergy drink????

[QUOTE=David;741143]From a grammar standpoint, the line:

Two children too blind to see

is interesting because it contains all three homophones -- the adjective, the adverb, & the infinitive marker (preposition).

A The question is, Why didn't Stevie rerecord it? She could have done so.

I have the distinct feeling that Stevie doesn't own the song? Its either the label or Fleetwood Mac, Inc. (of which Mick is the President and CEO). Why didn't she ask John, he has some legal rights there too? Mick may have felt it was a FM song (or the label did?) and not a Stevie Nicks song and therefore refuse to let it go? Also, and once again, there was NO $$ in Time Space for Mick.

The whole arguement thing back then always made me sort of scratch my head anyway. The whole point of 'TimeSpace' was to be a retrospective of her solo work, not of her FM contributions. Weird too, only 3 years prior in an interview promoting the green 'FM Greatest Hits' package she said "well it would be ridiculous for me to put out a Greatest Hits album, I haven't had enough hits." But, I'm digressing.

Modern wanted Timespace to sell and sell big. That's why they dragged in Bon Jovi and whatisname from Poison. So, it just seems so inconsistent that a long-buried 'cult' FM song, a b-side, would even be considered for this package. No 'Rhiannon'? No 'Dreams', which was the only #1 single for the band? No 'Gypsy' or 'Seven Wonders'? Why would she have thought that 'Silver Springs' would have made sense in 1991? She's said in interviews that her real talent (I guess, besides songwriting and singing) is sequencing albums (!). So with 'Whole Lotta Trouble', 'Love's a Hard Game to Play' and other clunkers, she was going to weave in 'Silver Springs' in there? Shudder.

Well, it all worked out in the end. She dropped the pills, made up with Mick (the 'great love of her life') came back big in '97 and got to hear a live version of 'Silver Springs' get some airplay.

I'm sort of a new fan, but still have no real good excuse for not noticing this fact before. You are totally right - SS on Timespace would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Which makes me think my theory works - that she was really mad at Mick about his book confessions because I doubt that "relationship" really happened...

The relationship between Mick and Stevie was in fact very real and did happen. As for "Silver Springs" being on "TimeSpace" as was mentioned, it would have made no sense. Stevie does own the song, well her mother owns it, but if she wanted to she could have redone it (as she did in '97). The difference between track and song was also brought up. This is a very easy thing to understand, look at the Beatles for instance. Capitol Records owns all the recorded music of the Beatles. Michael Jackson owns the copyrights to the songs. What this means is if someone wants to put a Beatles song in say a diaper commerical, they have to go thru Michael Jackson, who because he is not making any money these days will allow the advertiser to use the song. You'll note though that it's not the original Beatles version, the reason being that Capitol Records owns the recording and they don't let those out to anyone. So if Stevie wanted to use the original Mac version of "Springs" she would have to go thru the label, if she wanted to redo the song herself, she would just have to get permission to release her updated version. Being the songwriter or owner of the copyrights has it's perks because regardless if it's the recorded track or a new performance you get a cut of the profits. Ask Dolly Parton about "I Will Always Love You", she made a ton from Whitney Houston's recording of the song.

Actually Stevie has admitted that she had a relationship with Mick. She even went as far as to say that he was one of the great loves of her life. Also, she has mentioned that "Sara" and "Storms" was based on their relationship.

She wouldn't even have to get permission in the United States. If you do, then that's preferable, because you can negotiate the cost with the owner, but if you can't get permission, as long as you pay the rather exorbitant standard fee, you can record the song without permission, use it for audio only, that is. If you wanted to use it in a movie or commercial or something or use it with another art form (like interpretive dance), then you'd have to get permission to synch it with something else.

Michele

That would be a rotten, tyrannical society & state if that were true. It's one of the most essential, important principles today: If you write something (song, novel, poem, &c.), you own it. You own the fruits of your thinking. You own what you create (although copyright itself expires several decades after the creator's death). I consider this fundamental right (not copyright per se) both a property right & a moral right, for the two are interconnected. (Some would say the two are essentially one.)

If you write a song you only own it if you hold the publishing rights. Paul McCartney does not own any of the Beatles songs, Michael Jackson does. So anytime someone records "Yesterday" Jackson makes money, Paul sees nothing. Most songwriters today publish the songs themselves and therefore own the songs. Stevie owns all of her songs published thru Welsh Witch music. "Silver Springs" is published thru Barbara Nicks Music, but was under Gentoo Music at the time it was written. All of the Mac songs at the time were controlled by Gentoo, at some point Stevie must have bought the song from them or was given the song.
Take Paul McCartney's advice to Michael Jackson, if you ever hear of a publishing house selling off it's inventory, buy it up. McCartney did this for Buddy Holly's songs and tried to do it with the Beatles songs, but Jackson outbid him. The two are no longer friends, go figure!

No, the songwriters still get 50%. Publisher gets half and the songwriter gets half. So, in this case Michael Jackson (or Sony might have purchased some of it from him) gets 50% and the Beatles get
50%. The difference is that Jackson gets to say whether you can put Revolution in a Nike commercial and Paul doesn't. But Paul still profits from the use.

As mentioned, Paul owns Buddy Holly's catalog and he even owns that classic song, "Over the River and Through the Woods to grandmother's house we go. The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh through white and drifted snow . . . "

You know, Sonny Bono was only in Congress a short time, but he was responsible for the copyright extension law that got passed. Michele

It's a complex cornucopia of cohesive & sometimes cunning cupidity. If I write a song -- & by writing it down somewhere I establish its existence & tangible form -- I automatically hold copyright. I am free to sell that copyright to a publishing outfit, but am free not to, as well. The Copyright Law of 1976 grants me, the song writer & establisher of tangible form for that song, copyright protection, even if I don't publish or register it.

www.answers.com/topic/copyright?cat=biz-fin

This is interesting:

"Copyright ownership and ownership of the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied are two entirely separate legal entities. Furthermore, transfer of an object and transfer of the copyright to that object are separate, independent transactions, neither of which, by itself, has any effect on the other."

Let's discuss this!

I think there was alot more to that whole feud than we'll ever know. Despite what was said, I doubt it was entirely about $$$. Stevie's mom didn't need the cash; none of them really did. I agree w the person who said it was about power. We're talking about two very big egos here. I also think there's still a smoldering passion between Stevie & Mick. Not necessarily a sexual passion but a passion of personalities. I think there's some unfinished shizz between the two that was brought to the surface regarding this song. Just MO.