Tony's Hazy Concert Memories
 

Tony's a blogger who posts his hazy memories (although they don't seem so hazy to me) of rock concerts. He saw Fleetwood Mac at the Fresno show in 2003, & tells you all about it. It's a lengthy read, but it ultimately arrives where it needs to be. Tony obviously doesn't share our fanaticism, but I found after reading his blog that he might have been watching the concert through my own eyes, so truthful (& funny) did his take seem.

Beware -- those of you who get depressed or pissed by a guy who doesn't adore Fleetwood Mac the way you do. This blog would be rough going for you. I just wanted to share the link because I thought it was the best stuff I had read about the Mac in several years.

http://tonyremembers.blogspot.com/ar...s_archive.html

Remember that medical researchers have recently found even more evidence that laughter slows your pulse & expands the circumference of your arteries.

Yeah... So laugh damit!

I thought it was a great read... honestly funny!

Thanks for posting that, I got quite a few good laughs from it!! I'll admit I have thought some of the same stuff this guy did, and I LOVE Fleetwood Mac. IMO he was right on the money in much of what he said.

-Lis

:lol: :lol: :lol: So that loooong read was worthwhile after all! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Some of it was really funny. Some of it not so much.
Some of it was spot-on. Some of it I didn't agree with at all.
Definitely an interesting read overall.

But how did I know that he was going to mention Stevie's weight (and not the weight of any of the male members of the band)?
Oh, I know how... because not a single soul seems capable of reviewing a Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks concert without filling more space than they need to, talking about how Stevie fills more space than she used to.

I'm not humourless, but I've about as much tolerance for comments regarding her waistline as others have for hearing "Dreams" for the millionth time.
Been done to death for well over a decade now, ya know?

Omit the weight mentions, and it's an insightful review. With them, it's merely pedestrian.

Johnny, it's been mentioned a 1000 times. That's the price you pay when you're a sex symbol. You will FOREVER be judged by your former self.

Dad gummit
 

And is that fair?

A woman wants to look sexy and feel sexy, and to wear clothes that flatter her body... that means she should be humiliated and laughed at forevermore if she should happen to gain weight later on? Because she dared ever look sexy in the first place?

Sounds like the same logic that dictates that a woman who dresses provocatively is "asking for it." :rolleyes:

I totally agree, and with your first post in this thread. I just started posting here after lurking for several years, but I've always enjoyed your posts. :nod:


In regards to the review- I do have a sense of humour. If I didn't I probably would have stopped reading this board a long time ago. It's just that the constant Stevie bashing, especially where her weight is concerned isn't funny and it gets old. IMHO

But Brian, look at Chris. She was never really known for much beyond her talent, and place in FM. And you RARELY read anything about her not aging gracefully. Only about her music.
It's not Stevie's fault that she was once a hottie, and THAT became a media focus........but how now (brown cow) is the media NOT going to focus on the fact that she no longer has that card to play?
If Madonna gained 40 lbs, you'd hear exactly the same thing about her.

Christine is lucky in that she hasn't made the fatal mistake of gaining a noticeable amount of weight. Despite the fact that she was never noted by the media for her great beauty (and, IMO, she IS a great beauty), I'm sure they'd still have something to say if she were overweight now.

I'm not naive, so I realize that (unfortunately) it's going to be commented on if a once slim woman suddenly gains a considerable amount of weight -- but what I'm trying to say is that Stevie hasn't been that "waif-like sex symbol" in two decades. So why does it still need to be mentioned?

Or is it that reviewers feel they need to warn potential concert-goers that they're not going to be seeing the 115lb., 28 year old Stevie Nicks up on stage?
As if it's such a letdown that a woman no longer looks, in 2005, like she did in 1975 or 1985.

Well, what DOES she do as well as she did then? Hmmmm, lessee......(and I'm trying to be honest, not mean)....
She was the hottest looking chick in Rock.......she sang with her ALL(doing her best Janis that she could muster), she danced and performed like a mad woman. Face it, either she did it TOO well back then, or she's lame in comparison now. One, or the other. Okay, maybe both. She set her own bar too high.

And I'm not trying to toot my Chris horn here, but she sings BETTER than she did 30 years ago. Who else can make THAT claim? And you know what? Even though she sounds even better now, she knew when it was time to call the road quits. She's one smart lady.

It was never the dancing or twirling or running around the stage or tambourine bashing that impressed me... it was the way Stevie, with that oddball voice, could hold an audience in the palm of her hand, even when she was standing completely still.

So, for me, she's far from lame compared to "the good ol' days."
In fact, the "manic Stevie" was fun in its time, and I miss that version on occasion, but I prefer the mature Earth Mother version of today.

When I want to watch Stevie in concert, I reach for 'The Dance' or 'Live In Boston' or something from the 'Enchanted' tour (I don't have much in the way of 'Shangri-La' bootleg videos), when I could just as easily reach for any number of other bootleg concerts I have from the '70s and '80s.

Either way, I don't see what that has to do with her weight, or why her weight has to be a topic of conversation in all reviews.
Tony stated that she sounded pretty great for the most part, and he didn't seem to have a problem with the way she avoided some of the notes in various songs... in fact he seemed sufficiently pleased by the way she used her lower register.

So rag on the dress, rag on the Herman Munster shoes, rag on her mobility issues (which WE know were caused by a hip injury and fatigue from menopause, but even "diehards" seemed pretty unforgiving of that, so I can't expect a casual fan to be any more forgiving)... but no woman needs to be referred to as a "fat little Java."
Whether she used to be a sex symbol or not. :shrug:

Christine DOES sound better than she did 30 years ago. Without a doubt.

But aside from a few moments/songs here and there, I tend to think Stevie does, too. Which, of course, is totally subjective.

That's really sweet, Kimberly... thank you. :xoxo:

Welcome to the Ledge! (belatedly! :o) :wavey:

That's fine for you, Brian, but I don't think you represent the masses. Do you? Really?

I can think of NO other singer who has had to change their game SO dramatically. She's apples and oranges. How do ya like dem apples? :lol:

Fat little Java? DAMMIT, I missed that part!!! :rolleyes: :lol:

Christine DOES sound better than she did 30 years ago. Without a doubt.
Thank you. I don't know why "I'm" thanking you, but I am. :woohoo:

Shudder. :lol: :lol: :lol: :shrug: :xoxo: