1978 Concert Review

[Gailh]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Tee Hee.

Now Homer play nicely

Gail

[SortaSavageLike]

If Arion Berger truly thinks that Gold Dust Woman is the nastiest song Stevie ever wrote, than he obviously hasn't much of her discography.

[Somajoseph]

Wasnt Stevie having problems with nodules and vocal strain by the 78 summer tour? I think that was the cause of her poor performance. I had read another review back then that mentioned she was wrapping hot towels around her throat between songs. It was a bit unfair to attack her when it wasnt something she could help at that particular time.

[David]

Originally Posted by Somajoseph

Wasnt Stevie having problems with nodules and vocal strain by the 78 summer tour? I think that was the cause of her poor performance. I had read another review back then that mentioned she was wrapping hot towels around her throat between songs. It was a bit unfair to attack her when it wasnt something she could help at that particular time.

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.

[HomerMcvie]

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.

Janis Joplin, she ain't!

[Angel69]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Janis Joplin, she ain't!

Thank God for that.

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Janis Joplin, she ain't!

For sure. At least Stevie didn't overdose and die before she turned 30. How tragic that would have been...around the time of Tusk/Bella Donna.

[amber]

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!

[David]

Originally Posted by amber

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?

I don't know why you're asking me specifically, but I think some critics did love those qualities in Stevie & some critics didn't.

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.

My opinion is that the histrionics thing--the Joplin ape**** stuff--is a red herring. I don't think that's really what some of these reviews are saying or implying. I think the criticism is that Stevie isn't demonstrating commitment or passion in her vocals at some of these shows. One doesn't necessarily need to jump around like a gymnast to demonstrate a conviction in one's vocal. Michael Stipe is a good example of that: He barely moved around at all in front of the mic but he acquired a reputation for being a passionate, riveting vocalist.

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?

Again, I think this is a red herring. Besides, you're talking about all these critics as if they were one monolithic, unvarying opinion about Stevie Nicks. But that wasn't the case. Stevie had her critical support--think of Al Aronowitz of the Washington Post, Ken Tucker of the Philadelphia Enquirer, Robert Hilburn & Dennis Hunt of the Los Angeles Times, Steve Morse of the Boston Globe, John Rockwell of the New York Times & Blair Jackson of BAM. These critics lauded Stevie in performance many times & generally thought she was a powerful songwriter & performer.

Other critics just weren't as enthusiastic about Stevie: Steve Pond of Rolling Stone, Mitch Cohen, David Gans & Christopher Hill of Record Magazine, Steve Simels of Stereo Review. Many of them thought Fleetwood Mac was a great band despite Stevie rather than because of her. I'm sure it's like that today, too. Some critics think she's great & some critics don't.

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.

Well, I think that's accurate. But that's also true of the general public as regards Stevie.

I mean, C'mon! All those things mixed together have brought some of the most sublime moments in music and performance.

I think so!

[amber]

Originally Posted by David

I don't know why you're asking me specifically, but I think some critics did love those qualities in Stevie & some critics didn't.

My opinion is that the histrionics thing--the Joplin ape**** stuff--is a red herring. I don't think that's really what some of these reviews are saying or implying. I think the criticism is that Stevie isn't demonstrating commitment or passion in her vocals at some of these shows. One doesn't necessarily need to jump around like a gymnast to demonstrate a conviction in one's vocal. Michael Stipe is a good example of that: He barely moved around at all in front of the mic but he acquired a reputation for being a passionate, riveting vocalist.

Again, I think this is a red herring. Besides, you're talking about all these critics as if they were one monolithic, unvarying opinion about Stevie Nicks. But that wasn't the case. Stevie had her critical support--think of Al Aronowitz of the Washington Post, Ken Tucker of the Philadelphia Enquirer, Robert Hilburn & Dennis Hunt of the Los Angeles Times, Steve Morse of the Boston Globe, John Rockwell of the New York Times & Blair Jackson of BAM. These critics lauded Stevie in performance many times & generally thought she was a powerful songwriter & performer.

Other critics just weren't as enthusiastic about Stevie: Steve Pond of Rolling Stone, Mitch Cohen, David Gans & Christopher Hill of Record Magazine, Steve Simels of Stereo Review. Many of them thought Fleetwood Mac was a great band despite Stevie rather than because of her. I'm sure it's like that today, too. Some critics think she's great & some critics don't.

Well, I think that's accurate. But that's also true of the general public as regards Stevie.

I think so!

I haven't read any of those good reviews of Stevie. That is where my questions were coming from. And it still seems like most reviews from then were not that great/and simplistic.
And FM being a great band in spite of her?! I agree they are a great band, but not in spite of her.
See, I don't really understand these opinions. Probably because I haven't actually seen many of Stevie's shows from then, just some.
I figured the reviews were varied, and not the monolithic thing you said - I just haven't read many of those good ones about her past performances.

I just had a flash about what you say about her commitment to her vocals. Unregardless ( ) of whether Stevie's lackluster vocals were then comparable to Christine's (I consider her fairly flatline) or not, of course they could tell that for Stevie, she was bored. Which is the pitfall of performing amazingly at some times. I mean, no one would be able to tell that much if Christine was bored. And that is in no way a diss. It's just that, if you are always the same, constant, never changing mood or performance or vocal - well - there isn't as much room to fall, is there? Not as much risk, so not as much fall or triumph.
You know the kid who gets good grades, or is good at sports - but then when they mess up, they are judged more harshly for it, whereas a constant B-C student wouldn't have the same judgements.

If you bust some serious weird sh*t out, people might want and expect that all the time. I guess it doesn't matter if someone's lack of commitment is the same as another's regular performance. Because of the individuality. But who can give that much, all the time???

Is that fair, though? Is it fair that Christine is always good, but always...less than a super dynamic stage presence...but is judged favorably, while Stevie is usually good, usually a very dynamic stage presence, usually brings delightful SUPRISE to a show, and generally takes the risks that the others won't - but sometimes is not like that and is judged unfavorably - is that fair? Sucks.
I guess so, especially if the critic judges the technical vocal performance. And, the critic can only really judge the performance they saw, I guess...


I love this band. There is so much to think about, compare, and ponder. The goodness and non-boringness of this band is at maximum.

P.S. I guess I should seek out these good reviews. I get really irritated by how journalists describe S. in such a simple, patented way - and bring up the cliches of her persona rather than the body of her work, her real feelings/personality, her songwriting, her skills, her collaberations, her harmonies, her voice - in addition to her image and persona. I'm not even a journalist and I would never describe anyone in the pat way I've so often seen her described. It's totally ridiculous. It's not true. It's shallow and simplistic. Don't make me come over there!!

P.P.S. - not a huge fan of Stipe's whiny voice, or his song subjects. Have liked him in collaberation. Notably "Fire" with Indigo Girls (tour de force, one of the top five gorgeous songs I've ever heard), and "Shiny Happy People" with B-52's, who boast three awesome vocalist themselves. "Stand" is cool, it's fun and can be deep if you think of it so. The rest I've heard is way too emo, and vocally icky.
But still see your point. I'm not saying he's not good or talented, I just don't like his music much.