And Another Article (With possible FM tour mention)

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by David

I'm immune to ageism, or aging? Neither one, actually. Considerations of ageism have no place in any artistic response, as far as I'm concerned. What is presented up there on stage or screen is -- for better or worse -- fodder for my response. I've always believed that & acted on it. I am in perfect accord with the critic John Simon on that point. People who tell me "Give Stevie a break, she's 57" are susceptible to a touching (because profoundly human) but deleterious (because profoundly uncritical) fallacy -- a fallacy that I would characterize as existential because these people confuse Stevie's music with life: being so involved in living Stevie's persona that they cannot properly evaluate it -- hence they often defend Stevie as if she were their most beloved friend or a fragile, sensitive fairytale soul whose life is in danger from brutal ex-lovers & prickly fans. I venture to add that Stevie is used as a surrogate for life by many people, which is why they can't stand to hear public figure Stevie described as fat or old when they themselves have undoubtedly described other public figures that same way (as we all have).

The sensitivities one normally shows people in mannerly ways are not germane to aesthetic judgments.

How demagogic of you David. Your "they do this and that because... " judgements sound very nihilistic to me.

Romy

[dissention]

Originally Posted by LeighB04

In my opinion, longer stays in smaller venues should be where she's headed. Vegas proved that she is more comfortable with that kind of situation now. It's less tiring, and let's face it, very few performers over the age of 50 can rock like they used to (Tina Turner, Cher, Mick Jagger - hard to think of that many more).....

Lindsey Buckingham, Bette Midler, David Bowie, Blondie, Heart, The Who, etc. There are a great number who can still rock out like they used to.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by dissention

Lindsey Buckingham, Bette Midler, David Bowie, Blondie, Heart, The Who, etc. There are a great number who can still rock out like they used to.

Patti Smith also comes to mind, I think she's over 50 by now.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by David

Why what?

My "why," was questioning the reason that listless performances from 1978 were more enjoyable than energetic performances from 2005.

Originally Posted by David

See, the thing about being young & sexy is that you can give a listless performance & still your young, sexy charisma carries you along.

I'm immune to ageism, or aging? Neither one, actually. Considerations of ageism have no place in any artistic response, as far as I'm concerned.

People who tell me "Give Stevie a break, she's 57" are susceptible to a touching (because profoundly human) but deleterious (because profoundly uncritical) fallacy -- a fallacy that I would characterize as existential because these people confuse Stevie's music with life(.)

I venture to add that Stevie is used as a surrogate for life by many people, which is why they can't stand to hear public figure Stevie described as fat or old when they themselves have undoubtedly described other public figures that same way (as we all have).

The sensitivities one normally shows people in mannerly ways are not germane to aesthetic judgments.

I brought up ageism, because you stated that her youth and beauty carried her in the '70s, even if the performances weren't particularly passionate or animated. And you stated that, conversely, energetic contemporary performances don't hold your interest the same way that "lifeless" performances had in the '70s.
So I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Am I to surmise that if the Stevie Nicks that just came off the road a few months ago, was 27 years old, then those performances would have been interesting to you... but that, with her being 57 years old, even an energetic performance can't move you the way the lifeless performances from a much younger Stevie had?

If that's the case, then is there anything Ms. Nicks could do, other than taking the stage coked out of her gourd and babling incoherently through each and every song, that could live up to the days when she was youthful and sexy?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Patti Smith also comes to mind, I think she's over 50 by now.

Most definitely. She can still kick your ass right where you sit with that voice alone.

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

If that's the case, then is there anything Ms. Nicks could do, other than taking the stage coked out of her gourd and babling incoherently through each and every song, that could live up to the days when she was youthful and sexy?

I know this isn't directed to me, but I have come to my OWN conclusion that the passionate Stevie I loved back when was all a result of drugs. I haven't seen her as emotionally charged since RAL. That doesn't mean I don't love her, I absolutely do. I wouldn't want Stevie to be on drugs. I'm grateful that she is still out doing her thing. But Stevie, the *performer* was more intense and exciting when she was on drugs. My opinion only, of course.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

Lindsey Buckingham, Bette Midler, David Bowie, Blondie, Heart, The Who, etc. There are a great number who can still rock out like they used to.

In my opinion, Stevie's energy levels these days are generally equal to her performances from '75 through '79.
As I said, I watch footage from those tours and, aside from her performances of "Rhiannon," I don't see a Stevie Nicks who's any more animated or passionate than the Stevie Nicks of today.

Also as I said, everyone always seems to come back to the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours as the gauge for comparing her energy levels and commitment levels on more recent tours, and I simply feel that those are innacurate comparisons... because those were performances born out of cocaine addiction and manic behaviour.

Some romanticize those performances as carefree and unbridled, while I can see them as careless and sloppy. And while they were certainly compelling in their time, they're not what I would still be wanting to see 22 years later.

[David]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Am I to surmise that if the Stevie Nicks that just came off the road a few months ago, was 27 years old, then those performances would have been interesting to you... but that, with her being 57 years old, even an energetic performance can't move you the way the lifeless performances from a much younger Stevie had?

That's it, in a nutshell. But remember that an "energetic performance" is a subjective response to a performance, not an objective characterization of a performance from some all-knowing place.

If that's the case, then is there anything Ms. Nicks could do, other than taking the stage coked out of her gourd and babling incoherently through each and every song, that could live up to the days when she was youthful and sexy?

There are probably some things I'd really enjoy seeing or hearing her do, if I thought a lot about it. Maybe a Peter Paul & Mary atmosphere at the Sacramento Municipal Auditorium is something I'd find a lot more suitable or compelling for Stevie Nicks nowadays, rather than the big rock shows, the nature of which seems to me so incongruous with who Stevie is at this point. I don't think her persona is complemented by the big arenas, the pretend-rock bands with their bland & impersonal players who just mimic rock & roll gestures & stances but who are really MOR or AC trudgers, the throngs of screaming fans ... none of it fits Stevie any more, in my perspective.

[David]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

In my opinion, Stevie's energy levels these days are generally equal to her performances from '75 through '79.

Well, I think that's an interesting insight, but it isn't one I find especially accurate from my perspective. Let me try to explain: there's more than merely a matter of physical movement that makes a performer animated or exciting in my eyes. It has as much to do with placement & retenue & (as I have already said) the physical line of the body in a plastic sense, set against the backdrop of space or stage. It also has to do with the pliability of the voice & all that vocal style entails: attack, dynamics, etc.

As I said, I watch footage from those tours and, aside from her performances of "Rhiannon," I don't see a Stevie Nicks who's any more animated or passionate than the Stevie Nicks of today.

See, I do see a Stevie who is more passionate because she looks & moves -- & sounds -- like my idea of a charismatic rock star.

Also as I said, everyone always seems to come back to the 'Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' tours as the gauge for comparing her energy levels and commitment levels on more recent tours, and I simply feel that those are innacurate comparisons... because those were performances born out of cocaine addiction and manic behaviour.

I've talked about how I feel about this before. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Some romanticize those performances as carefree and unbridled, while I can see them as careless and sloppy. And while they were certainly compelling in their time, they're not what I would still be wanting to see 22 years later.

From an aesthetic point of view, why would you not want to see compelling performances 22 years later? It isn't just romanticizing the past that's going on here from certain parties -- it's a fairly constant mock-moralistic disapproval of it & even a sort of dismissal of it as being "beneath" Stevie from other parties -- as if she were acting like a child & it isn't "seemly" for adults to keep acting like children.

[David]

Originally Posted by Serrart

How demagogic of you David. Your "they do this and that because... " judgements sound very nihilistic to me.

Instead of constantly putting me down, why not respond to what I say with your own views of the topic at hand? I'd like to hear what you have to say about all these Stevie topics because you're damn smart, but I always have to wade through your finger-wagging at me for some perceived infraction of behavior on my part.

If I have strong opinions, just let it ride, Romy. At my age, I'm not going to change. Just engage me in discussion -- a back & forth with our opinions can be a lot of fun to read (at least for us -- I can't speak for everyone else).

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by David

Maybe a Peter Paul & Mary atmosphere at the Sacramento Municipal Auditorium is something I'd find a lot more suitable or compelling for Stevie Nicks nowadays, rather than the big rock shows, the nature of which seems to me so incongruous with who Stevie is at this point. I don't think her persona is complemented by the big arenas, the pretend-rock bands with their bland & impersonal players who just mimic rock & roll gestures & stances but who are really MOR or AC trudgers, the throngs of screaming fans ... none of it fits Stevie any more, in my perspective.

She's stuck in a bit of a rut, I'll grant you. And most... though certainly not all... of her fans appreciate her more folksy, "softer" side, and would react quite favorably to more intimate shows with a stripped down sound.

I wouldn't presume to speak for the woman's mindset, but maybe she's doing the "big arena rock" shows while she still can, and saving those stripped-down club gigs for later.

Originally Posted by David

Well, I think that's an interesting insight, but it isn't one I find especially accurate from my perspective.

See, I do see a Stevie who is more passionate because she looks & moves -- & sounds -- like my idea of a charismatic rock star.

I actually think I understand now. It's not so much the performances she's giving these days, as it is the settings in which she's giving them. For your tastes... if I'm understanding correctly... she no longer possesses the youth and charisma to propel a big, bombastic rock concert, but in a more intimate setting, "Stevie Nicks, circa 2005" just might be able to shine and truly excel.

Originally Posted by David

From an aesthetic point of view, why would you not want to see compelling performances 22 years later?

I do find the latter day performances... at least the ones I've been lucky enough to see video or DVD footage of... to be compelling. But they're a different brand of compelling from what we were talking about.

I wouldn't "disapprove" of it if Stevie behaved a little more uninhibitedly than she typically does now... but I would be dismayed if she behaved as recklessly as she did in the mid-80s.
What I find to be compelling behaviour from a 27 or even 37 year old, isn't what I find compelling in performances from a 57 year old.

But maybe we've stumbled upon the underlying "problem"... perhaps grandiose tours no longer suit Stevie's deportment (if they ever really did), and she'd be better appreciated in a new setting.

[sparky]

A whole lot of words have been written here about Stevie's changed performance style. It struck me like an ax handle watching the Cal Jam footage posted here awhile back. Up until WH, Stevie radiated joy frequently onstage. She was just so damned happy to be there. She was in her element - her every gesture was alive. She was ON. She crackled with energy. That performer pretty much disappeared during RAL. I see the ghost of that performer occasionally, but she is pretty much gone. Stevie is a regal and powerful presence onstage. She knows what works and how to control an audience. She still has a presence. It just isn't that happy and exuberant anymore. She has become more reserved and controlled. For better or worse. I'm not really complaining. She was a robot there for awhile. I still enjoy the shows, but she is a much different presence now. It isn't the age, it isn't the weight, it isn't the clothes, it isn't the hair. It is her aura, for lack of a better word. It is what she is feeling, emanating, and projecting up there. She has calmed down and settled into it. Whatever. It happens.

[David]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I actually think I understand now. It's not so much the performances she's giving these days, as it is the settings in which she's giving them. For your tastes... if I'm understanding correctly... she no longer possesses the youth and charisma to propel a big, bombastic rock concert, but in a more intimate setting, "Stevie Nicks, circa 2005" just might be able to shine and truly excel.

Well, I think that's a reductio ad absurdum of my position, but it's certainly something to work with. Remember that Kingston Trio reunion at Magic Mountain back in 1981? A little outdoor theater at Magic Mountain, a bunch of old farts onstage? THAT'S where I see Stevie, where I could enjoy her again & really feel her love & her magic. I'm sick of her rock bands. I'm sick of the rock shtick. She doesn't do it well. She's a phony at it. I don't care whether she's singing Led Zep or not. But put her up there with NO ribbons on her mic, NO ribbons on her tambourine, a bunch of old farts playing acoustic guitars & performing folk classics (NO stand back or other ****), & that could be a great Stevie once again. by the way, the Kingston Trio reunion is FINALLY available on DVD in expanded format! Check out that picture at the top of the case. Imagine Stevie off to the side, singing some nice harmonies on "Four Strong Winds" or "Sloop John B." -- that's where she belongs. Furthermore, I think every last one of you agrees with me.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by David

Well, I think that's a reductio ad absurdum of my position, but it's certainly something to work with. Remember that Kingston Trio reunion at Magic Mountain back in 1981? A little outdoor theater at Magic Mountain, a bunch of old farts onstage? THAT'S where I see Stevie, where I could enjoy her again & really feel her love & her magic.

Stevie Nicks at Magic Mountain? She might as well play the little bandstand in the park here in my town if she really wants to go slumming.

Originally Posted by David

But put her up there with NO ribbons on her mic, NO ribbons on her tambourine, a bunch of old farts playing acoustic guitars & performing folk classics (NO stand back or other ****), & that could be a great Stevie once again.

Imagine Stevie off to the side, singing some nice harmonies on "Four Strong Winds" or "Sloop John B." -- that's where she belongs. Furthermore, I think every last one of you agrees with me.

I highly doubt that I'd get all jazzed up about Stevie singing old Pete Seeger tunes, though it certainly would be a novelty.

I suppose a "trio" scenario similar to what Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt were doing, could be an interesting proposition though.

You must forgive me, David... I'm about as resistant to major change as Stevie is. I'm of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mind, and I'm still completely enamoured with the "Stevie Nicks sound."
I'm not interested in "Stevie Nicks Sings Appalachian Hymns" or "Stevie Nicks with Nelson Riddle & His Orchestra."

I wouldn't argue with something a bit off the beaten path, but I sure wouldn't be sold if she did some latter-day career genre-switch, like so many other artists do.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I know this isn't directed to me, but I have come to my OWN conclusion that the passionate Stevie I loved back when was all a result of drugs.

On whose part, yours or hers?