Reflections.... the best of Stevie Nicks

[sparky]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

I'm fond of you as well my dear.

I couldn't resist.

for the record, I'm still the biggest bitch to those who dare trample on La Nicks...her setlists, her tracklists or her wardrobe.

You never trample on me. Perhaps because I am right?

Maybe you have me on ignore.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Never thought you were.

It just fascinates me that the live performances most fans hold up today as the benchmark of Stevie's career ('The Wild Heart' tour, for example) are also many of the ones that were reviewed the harshest at the time. We say she was "on fire" and "committed" and "passionate," while the critics said she was "erratic," "inconsistent" and that her voice was shot.

Meanwhile, I rarely ever read a negative review of her current concerts. They'll make comments like "Nicks has gracefully adapted the songs to suit her lower register," or "Her range isn't what it used to be, but the lower octaves carried her well through a two-hour show."
And, about "Rhiannon"... you know, that "old grey mare that ain't what she used to be ( )... the LA Daily News said, "Nicks performed her classic 'Rhiannon' flawlessly, with an understated instrumental accompaniment that accentuated her voice -- a more confident voice that has acquired a sense of urgency without sacrificing her familiar plaintive plea."

It's an intriguing dichotomy. To me, at least.

The reviews aren't negative because they aren't from people who give a ****.
Back in the day, it was all about nailing someone who was worshipped, but frequently giving subpar performances due to her relentless drug abuse.
It was truthful, but it had an agenda. It was all about tearing down an idol who, to anyone who wasn't as ripped as she was, clearly gave erratic, inconsistent, and frequently unprofessional performances. I think it is only in hindsight that many of these shows seem great - simply because the voice of those days is gone, as is the confidence, experimentation and unbridled exuberance that was clearly fueled by a voracious drug addiction.

I saw occasional performances that were all of the things you quoted me as saying. But they were far and few between. Sometimes all in the same night. And her voice was shot, from song to song. It still is.

The intriguing dichotomy in the legit press reviews is a result of the passage of time, and the sympathy she has garnered from having survived addictions and staggering career gaffes that would kill most normal human beings and would have shamed most performers out of existence. Many critics these days are regarded as taking cheap shots if they point out the obvious drawbacks in her shows. They're just shocked she's still alive. Sometimes I am too.

The legit press cuts her a lot of slack. As I human being, I cut her plenty. As a performer, I cut her very little. As bored as I frequently have been by her lately, a small part of me thinks she might actually start giving a damn again.
That part is the same relative size as the part of me that believes we will liberate Iraq and acheive peace in the middle east.

Both are amusing to watch.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by sparky

You never trample on me. Perhaps because I am right?

hmmm.

Originally Posted by sparky

Maybe you have me on ignore.

nevahhh.

[foxyluva]

Jeez, some of you are so harsh. Yeah, Stevie may not be so spontaneous as she once was, and I will be the first one to admit that back in the day, when she was good she was really good, but when she was bad, she was really bad - The Wild Heart tour performances for example I find horrible, and would take current Stevie over that any day

[sparky]

Originally Posted by foxyluva

when she was good she was really good, but when she was bad, she was really bad - The Wild Heart tour performances for example I find horrible

I, for one, actually prefer tragic and bad to boring.

To whit, I get drinks and/or pee during Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, If Anyone Falls, Leather and Lace, and a few others. Even if I spent a grand on the show and the hotel.

[foxyluva]

Originally Posted by sparky

I, for one, actually prefer tragic and bad to boring.

To whit, I get drinks and/or pee during Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, If Anyone Falls, Leather and Lace, and a few others. Even if I spent a grand on the show and the hotel.

The woman is almost 60 - what other 60 year old female singer is still screaming out a song? Just curious

[sparky]

Originally Posted by foxyluva

The woman is almost 60 - what other 60 year old female singer is still screaming out a song? Just curious

Ann Wilson screams. Pat Benatar screams. Tina Turner screamed at 60.
But, screaming isn't the point.
Giving committed compelling performances is the point.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by foxyluva

Jeez, some of you are so harsh. Yeah, Stevie may not be so spontaneous as she once was, and I will be the first one to admit that back in the day, when she was good she was really good, but when she was bad, she was really bad - The Wild Heart tour performances for example I find horrible, and would take current Stevie over that any day

Just curious ..where you actually in attendance at any of The Wild Heart shows?

[foxyluva]

Originally Posted by sparky

Ann Wilson screams. Pat Benatar screams. Tina Turner screamed at 60.
But, screaming isn't the point.
Giving committed compelling performances is the point.

I will agree with you on that - but the Petty preformances had some zest, lets hope that she will only improve on that...

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by sparky

I, for one, actually prefer tragic and bad to boring.

To whit, I get drinks and/or pee during Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, If Anyone Falls, Leather and Lace, and a few others. Even if I spent a grand on the show and the hotel.

hey, if ya got it to spend, I'll take the thousand dollars and go enjoy all of those songs while you just kick back, and pee at the hotel.

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by sparky

As bored as I frequently have been by her lately, a small part of me thinks she might actually start giving a damn again.
That part is the same relative size as the part of me that believes we will liberate Iraq and acheive peace in the middle east.

Both are amusing to watch.

maybe i took that wrong but did you really mean that the turmoil and tragedy that's going on in iraq and the middle east is amusing for you to watch??

[sparky]

Originally Posted by buckymcnix

maybe i took that wrong but did you really mean that the turmoil and tragedy that's going on in iraq and the middle east is amusing for you to watch??

The stupidity of our involvement in Iraq is amusing in that it is so farcical and pointless. As is the entire history of the idiotic and pointless religious infighting in the region. Maybe I have taken you wrong, but did you think that I believe the deaths of American soldiers is amusing?

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by sparky

The stupidity of our involvement in Iraq is amusing in that it is so farcical and pointless. As is the entire history of the idiotic and pointless religious infighting in the region. Maybe I have taken you wrong, but did you think that I believe the deaths of American soldiers is amusing?

no i was asking for clarification on what you meant

there were no hidden accusations in my question . . .

all i know of you (of course) is what you present on here . . and i guess your arguments always seem so very well thought out and well executed but in this case 'amusing' just stood out to me as a strange word choice in this context . . .

it seems your point is that it is "interesting" for you to watch these two events (stevie and iraq) play-out . . . and the word "amusing" threw me . . .


i certainly agree with the statement. . . "stupidity of our involvement in iraq is farcical and pointless "


thanks for your explanation sparks

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Oops - I am on a bad computer and did not see it - then again, I may be just dingy

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Never thought you were.

It just fascinates me that the live performances most fans hold up today as the benchmark of Stevie's career ('The Wild Heart' tour, for example) are also many of the ones that were reviewed the harshest at the time. We say she was "on fire" and "committed" and "passionate," while the critics said she was "erratic," "inconsistent" and that her voice was shot.

Meanwhile, I rarely ever read a negative review of her current concerts. They'll make comments like "Nicks has gracefully adapted the songs to suit her lower register," or "Her range isn't what it used to be, but the lower octaves carried her well through a two-hour show."
And, about "Rhiannon"... you know, that "old grey mare that ain't what she used to be ( )... the LA Daily News said, "Nicks performed her classic 'Rhiannon' flawlessly, with an understated instrumental accompaniment that accentuated her voice -- a more confident voice that has acquired a sense of urgency without sacrificing her familiar plaintive plea."

It's an intriguing dichotomy. To me, at least.

Once she got clean..I think critics became nicer toward her..I also read lots of not great or kind reviews from the most recent Dreams Tour/Gold Dust Tour. calling her "outdated.".her "sandpaper vocals". With her feet on the ground now..I think they tend to be kinder. I know she has been criticized throughout her carreer as you stated..BUT..Your perspective can change when you realize..wow..that is when the energy was there and the vocals.
Stevie was always first and foremost "The Voice"...when that began to change..many people's opinions of her changed with it.