Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
According to Stevie, her nodes were giving her terrible trouble in 1977 & 1978. In fact, the band had to postpone about two or three weeks' worth of dates near the start of the Rumours tour to allow her to get some treatment.
When Fleetwood Mac would come around in concert in those days, the subject of whether Stevie's voice would hold up or give out would always come up among ticket buyers.
|
So delicate, so wonderful. I bet the "real musicians" were frustrated by that. It's too bad she didn't get a good vocal coach back then. I know there were some around, it just appears she didn't get them.
I've seen reviews where she gives a normal, good performance and the reviewers still did not like her. I don't think I've ever read a past review, actually, that didn't say something like "But Christine McVie's pure alto voice redeemed blah on such songs as blah".
So, David - I'm very curious, actually - I know Christine's voice is beautiful, and Stevie's was erratic. Assuming she didn't give one of her "bad" performances that night - did critics appreciate her passion, improv, intensity, harmonies, and showmanship? It doesn't seem so to me. Was that "old hat" at the time?
It doesn't seem anyone thought she was the obvious singing force of nature that I do.
And that begs another question - If a critic says Stevie looked bored...well, Christine never came out and danced, or had any histrionics. So, then, was Stevie being reviewed as a frontgirl and therefore didn't measure up? At the same time, while Christine was staying still, playing the piani, and being note perfect, what standards was she judged on? I think she's great, a great musician, a great singer, a great voice - but showmanship, improv - that is Stevie's realm, and Christine just doesn't have the same fire and charisma.
At the time, David, did critics not care about fire and charisma? Or weird harmonies? Or super improv? Or did they just want that steady, classicly beautiful, predictable, reliable vocal that Christine delivers?
To me, Stevie bored is about the same effect as Christine most times. It's just that people expect more histrionics from Stevie. Is that fair?
My point is, I don't get the disparity in the criticism. Or...maybe I do. I think Stevie is more likely to be "off" vocally than Christine, but she is also more likely to bust out something sublimely amazing. If she sings, though, but doesn't do the histrionics, shouldn't they just judge her on her singing, like they do Christine?
It seems to me that either the critics don't appreciate her "antics" (which I call showmanship), or they don't appreciate her vocal quality. Or they don't appreciate her lyrics. Or all of that.
I mean, C'mon!
All those things mixed together have brought some of the most sublime moments in music and performance. It's like no one really saw that. Except the fans. It's like there was a box she had to fit into, which is totally against what really happened, Stevie is not one thing, one facet, one mood at all times. And it seems few critics made room for the
all that she is.
I have not read one critic who praised her harmonies. Ridiculo!