Rolling Stone Magazine Album Reviews

[foxyluva]

I can't believe how much this magazine dogs on Stevie, its ridiculous. I mean, they somewhat have some points, but they completely don't like anything about her music style at all. I mean, they gave WH 2 stars out of 5 for goodness sake - same as SA

Read their reviews of her albums here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/stevienicks/reviews

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by foxyluva

I can't believe how much this magazine dogs on Stevie, its ridiculous. I mean, they somewhat have some points, but they completely don't like anything about her music style at all. I mean, they gave WH 2 stars out of 5 for goodness sake - same as SA

Read their reviews of her albums here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/stevienicks/reviews

I've learned not to really care. I think a lot of it is, as Stevie admits, her airy fairy princess image. They don't take her seriously. That's a shame because she is a great songwriter and performer with a distinct style that can't ever be duplicated.

I love Barbra Streisand's character's response to reviews in A Star Is Born: "I don't know 'cause I never read 'em"

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

I've learned not to really care. I think a lot of it is, as Stevie admits, her airy fairy princess image. They don't take her seriously. That's a shame because she is a great songwriter and performer with a distinct style that can't ever be duplicated.

I love Barbra Streisand's character's response to reviews in A Star Is Born: "I don't know 'cause I never read 'em"

Exactly! I know what I like and what makes me happy, and I absolutely couldnt give a **** less if anyone else likes the same stuff I do or not.

[SpyNote]

I wouldn't say Stevie has the most impressive catalog of solo albums. She's been inconsistent vocally and lyrically since Wild Heart. But RS's main objections are pretty absurd. They usually give up on her albums when song meanings aren't totally spelled out. So, of course, with Stevie, you're not going to get the whole story. They really slammed Wild Heart and Mirror for this reason. I think the only album that they were complimentary towards throughout was TISL.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

I wouldn't say Stevie has the most impressive catalog of solo albums. She's been inconsistent vocally and lyrically since Wild Heart. But RS's main objections are pretty absurd. They usually give up on her albums when song meanings aren't totally spelled out. So, of course, with Stevie, you're not going to get the whole story. They really slammed Wild Heart and Mirror for this reason. I think the only album that they were complimentary towards throughout was TISL.

Well, you certainly know what youre talking about with how big a fan you are.

[amber]

It's weird that they said Some Become Strangers and Imperial Hotel are the high points of RAL. I would've thought they would've bagged Imperial Hotel so hard.
That particular review seemed to like things more organic with Stevie, not so much synth.

I like this phrase, though: "Stevie's distinctive growl can attach a hook to some pretty slippery sentiments." which I totally agree with.


"In "Stand Back," she sings, "No one knows/How I feel/What I say/Unless you read between my lines." Well, whose fault is that?"

[amber]

I thought this paragraph was insightful, but irritating: It lays forth the whole problem of people who don't "go with Stevie". I kind of agree about how she needs eeriness in the music.

"It's simple to mug a mystic, and Nicks' voyages into the ozone do make her an easy target. But mysticism doesn't obviate the need for clarity, rigor, structure. In fact, it makes them all the more important, so that those of us who look askance at crystal visions can partake along with the true believers. And if her lyrics are going to have the open-ended quality they have here, Nicks needs eerie, on-the-edge music to complement them (the snaky grace of "Gold Dust Woman" comes to mind). Hers is a heady muse, and one hopes The Wild Heart will just be a brief slipup. Too bad no one told her early on, but as she sings in "Nightbird," "Sometimes I am surrounded by too much love." (RS 399)

You know, these reviewers aren't chicks. I think a chick reviewer would have a more balanced perspective, especially on her lyrics. I mean, these guys don't get it at all. Total misinterpretation of some of them.

This is the second review by separate people that said the same thing about Tom Petty comparing to Stevie: "Unfortunately, there's more reality in those three lines, which Nicks didn't write, than in all of her misty, cosmic-erotic musings put together."

The Wild Heart review said the same thing about a lyric in "I Will Run to You".
Dang.

[David]

Originally Posted by amber

"It's simple to mug a mystic, and Nicks' voyages into the ozone do make her an easy target. But mysticism doesn't obviate the need for clarity, rigor, structure. In fact, it makes them all the more important, so that those of us who look askance at crystal visions can partake along with the true believers. And if her lyrics are going to have the open-ended quality they have here, Nicks needs eerie, on-the-edge music to complement them (the snaky grace of "Gold Dust Woman" comes to mind). Hers is a heady muse, and one hopes The Wild Heart will just be a brief slipup. Too bad no one told her early on, but as she sings in "Nightbird," "Sometimes I am surrounded by too much love." (RS 399)

You know, these reviewers aren't chicks. I think a chick reviewer would have a more balanced perspective, especially on her lyrics.

What does "balanced" mean?

There were certainly a number of women rock critics over the years who disliked Stevie for the same reasons that their men counterparts did: Connie Johnson, Kristine McKenna, Sylvie Simmons, etc. I was arguing this earlier with Strand, I think, about whether there's any chauvinism in critical attitudes toward Stevie. I never saw chauvinism (at least along male-female lines) in the widespread critical dismissal of Stevie's songwriting & albums.

I also wanted to say that I don't think a magazine "talks" with a single overriding voice or opinion, especially a magazine like Rolling Stone, which used to have a large staff of very independently minded writers. Some of them had very few positive things to say about Stevie (Steve Pond, Christopher Connelly) while others thought she was a more interesting performer & songwriter than she was often given credit for (Stephen Holden, Ben Fong-Torres, Parke Puterbaugh) & others seemed split down the middle (Dave DiMartino).

The cool thing (I guess not cool for Stevie fans but definitely cool for Mac fans in general) was that virtually all the writers at Rolling Stone in the 1970s & '80s were varyingly keen on Fleetwood Mac, especially compared with most of the AOR superbands of Fleetwood Mac's generation: the Eagles, Billy Joel, Aerosmith, etc., most of whom generally got negative writeups. Mac was a critical darling in those days at Rolling Stone & elsewhere; it was usually only Stevie who took a periodic drubbing--but, again, I maintain for perfectly valid aesthetic reasons rather than chauvinistic axes for grinding.

Still, there were critics of the rank of the RS staff in other publications who thought highly of Stevie as a singer/songwriter: Robert Hilburn & Dennis Hunt of the Los Angeles Times, Ken Tucker of the Philadelphia Enquirer, & John Rockwell of the New York Times.

[Johnny Stew]

But mysticism doesn't obviate the need for clarity, rigor, structure.

Clarity, rigor, structure. Sounds like what they teach in boot-camp.
My opinion... and it's just that -- my opinion... is that rock music shouldn't be too rigidly structured or over-analyzed. I'll take Stevie's more visceral approach any day.

[catinthedark]

you know what? i love stevie. i will love stevie til the day i die. but i can honestly say i do not love everything she has ever produced, and i do not believe that everything she has ever produced deserves five stars. i appreciate a good critic, a fair critic. if everyone was just always heapin' love on her, i'd be suspicious.

[foxyluva]

Originally Posted by catinthedark

you know what? i love stevie. i will love stevie til the day i die. but i can honestly say i do not love everything she has ever produced, and i do not believe that everything she has ever produced deserves five stars. i appreciate a good critic, a fair critic. if everyone was just always heapin' love on her, i'd be suspicious.

Yes well, Rollingstone does not really have anything nice to say about her as an artist at all. I do not love everything Stevie has done either - but their are many more pluses than minuses. I think allmusic.com has given very fair and realistic reviews to Stevie's music - you can find their ratings/reviews here:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...gjyeay04x87~T2

[David]

Originally Posted by foxyluva

Yes well, Rollingstone does not really have anything nice to say about her as an artist at all.

Not completely true. See Steve Pond's review in Rolling Stone of the band's Hollywood Bowl gig back in Sept. 1980, in particular his remarks about Stevie's performance of "Landslide":

"During Landslide, Nicks was riveting ... stripped of all her dying-swan poses & fairie-queen pretensions, she sang of growing older in a husky, cracked, uncertain voice that was far more honest & moving than anything else she did."

(I'm trying to quote from memory, so a word or two might not be accurate)

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by David

Not completely true. See Steve Pond's review in Rolling Stone of the band's Hollywood Bowl gig back in Sept. 1980, in particular his remarks about Stevie's performance of "Landslide":

"During Landslide, Nicks was riveting ... stripped of all her dying-swan poses & fairie-queen pretensions, she sang of growing older in a husky, cracked, uncertain voice that was far more honest & moving than anything else she did."

(I'm trying to quote from memory, so a word or two might not be accurate)

God I wish I couldve been at that show.

[cliffdweller]

Wow, what starts out as a positive review of Bella Donna ends on a very sour note. If R.S. was this strict with her most critically acclaimed album, I'm sure the reviews just keep getting worse (could only access reviews for B.D. and S.A. for some reason) from there.

Why do critics not see what I see and hear what I hear? I know it sounds stupid but it's like when I read these reviews (er, okay one review) it's like we're (me and the critic) listening to two totally different albums. So Stevie writes personal lyrics about her life and relationships, who doesn't? What singer/songwriter out there doesn't write personal lyrics? These reviewers act like she is the first and only self-absorbed artist out there who writes cryptic lyrics (of course she's not going to give away places and names you silly R.S. critic!) about her own experiences. Why do they dog her so much for this? I think people, critics, whatever, have a pre-conceived notion about Stevie and just let the things come out in her music that they WANT to hear or are looking for because they already have an opinion of her as a beautiful, spoiled, princess who was forever sheltered in a hugely popular and successful band. I don't know, is she/was she as self-indulgent as people say she was/is? Have I really become so blind and unobjective where Stevie's concerned that I don't or can't see what others see? And how have I made such a strong connection to her music? I really don't know! I just have, how does that happen? And why is the sky blue?

[amber]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Wow, what starts out as a positive review of Bella Donna ends on a very sour note. If R.S. was this strict with her most critically acclaimed album, I'm sure the reviews just keep getting worse (could only access reviews for B.D. and S.A. for some reason) from there.

Why do critics not see what I see and hear what I hear? I know it sounds stupid but it's like when I read these reviews (er, okay one review) it's like we're (me and the critic) listening to two totally different albums. So Stevie writes personal lyrics about her life and relationships, who doesn't? What singer/songwriter out there doesn't write personal lyrics? These reviewers act like she is the first and only self-absorbed artist out there who writes cryptic lyrics (of course she's not going to give away places and names you silly R.S. critic!) about her own experiences. Why do they dog her so much for this? I think people, critics, whatever, have a pre-conceived notion about Stevie and just let the things come out in her music that they WANT to hear or are looking for because they already have an opinion of her as a beautiful, spoiled, princess who was forever sheltered in a hugely popular and successful band. I don't know, is she/was she as self-indulgent as people say she was/is? Have I really become so blind and unobjective where Stevie's concerned that I don't or can't see what others see? And how have I made such a strong connection to her music? I really don't know! I just have, how does that happen? And why is the sky blue?

THat's what I'm talkin bout! What I meant by their misinterpretations, it's like we're listening to different albums. Sing it!