Stevie Nicks Disappointed With Sales Of Her Latest Album

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

despite her age and decidedly stocky figure,

You are too much.

I can easily find pictures of Stevie's leg above her ankle, but that reminds me of this tour. Sometimes in pictures, particularly in the opening night photos, it looks like Stevie is wearing stockings the way the light hits her tights. So, it gives the impression that she's showing her legs when she's not. It looks like skin in the picture, but it was really a black tight.

Michele

[bluefox4000]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I find the comparisons between Stevie and Tina Turner to be beyond absurd. The biggest and most obvious distinction: Stevie is an artist and Tina is a singer. Big difference. Of course Tina is an exceptionally gifted entertainer with a big, unique voice. And she has recorded some great songs (written/produced by some of the most successful writers/producers in the business). But Tina is a singer who entertains for the sake of entertainment, which is a means to her ultimate objective of making a lot of money. Her entire post-1980 career was managed accordingly. Tina was a chameleon who adapted herself in whatever means necessary to be commercially successful. If they needed a rock song, an R&B song or a torchy power ballad, all they had to do was reach into the Rolodex and find someone to crank out a song to fit the genre. In terms of trading on her sexuality, it seems that Tina, despite her age and decidedly stocky figure, would shoehorn herself into the most skimpy outfits to garner the most attention- all, again, in the interest of increasing her appeal to mass audiences. She would sing any song, wear any outfit or dance any dance that would be considered "marketable." And Buddah knows all of those efforts paid off handsomely in terms of commercial success- she hit the road and shimmied and shook her way around the world on marathon tours. But at the end of the day, one has to wonder who Tina Turner really was as a person beneath the teased wigs, pounds of pancake makeup and patent leather miniskirts. It is quite telling that, now that Tina has truly, truly retired from show business and all of the show business machinery, that she is finally revealing her true self through her current spiritually-related pursuits. If she insisted on doing spiritual music during the early 1980s, she would not have become the superstar that sold out football stadiums around Europe.

On the complete other end of the spectrum, Stevie is an artist who ascended to mainstream stardom despite her idiosyncracies. Nobody told Stevie what to sing (except for the Timespace songs). Nobody told her what to wear. Nobody told her how to incorporate verb tense and voice in her lyrics (we see what happened when Lindsey tried!). If Stevie received external help (e.g., Tom Petty, Dave Stewart, Michael Campbell), she was the one to ask for it. She decides when/where/how her albums are made and she determines her own setlists and album tracking. Unlike Tina, Stevie's music is a direct (but opaque) reflection of herself and corresponds to her own life experiences. Although Stevie has certainly enjoyed all the spoils that come with fame and stardom, and she clearly enjoys her wealth, she still does projects on her own terms, despite the commercial ramifications. At the height of her fame, she still took the time to work on "lesser" obscure projects to help out friends (e.g., Sandy Stewart, Walter Egan, Robbie Patton, etc.). She could have easily shifted stylistic direction to fit with the times, but she stuck with her guns and demonstrated that she could be "sexy" on her own terms without resorting to crass displays of overt sexuality, e.g., fishnet stockings, hooker heels, miniskirts, etc. Indeed, to this day, I think anybody would be hard pressed to find pictures of Stevie with her bare legs revealed above the ankles, let alone a bikini. In fact, one could argue that she is perhaps the most covered up "sex symbol" in history. She followed her own muse, the commercial gods be da**ed.

Your over the top devotion to stevie is quite scary.

Mick

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I find the comparisons between Stevie and Tina Turner to be beyond absurd. The biggest and most obvious distinction: Stevie is an artist and Tina is a singer. Big difference. Of course Tina is an exceptionally gifted entertainer with a big, unique voice. And she has recorded some great songs (written/produced by some of the most successful writers/producers in the business). But Tina is a singer who entertains for the sake of entertainment, which is a means to her ultimate objective of making a lot of money. Her entire post-1980 career was managed accordingly. Tina was a chameleon who adapted herself in whatever means necessary to be commercially successful. If they needed a rock song, an R&B song or a torchy power ballad, all they had to do was reach into the Rolodex and find someone to crank out a song to fit the genre. In terms of trading on her sexuality, it seems that Tina, despite her age and decidedly stocky figure, would shoehorn herself into the most skimpy outfits to garner the most attention- all, again, in the interest of increasing her appeal to mass audiences. She would sing any song, wear any outfit or dance any dance that would be considered "marketable." And Buddah knows all of those efforts paid off handsomely in terms of commercial success- she hit the road and shimmied and shook her way around the world on marathon tours. But at the end of the day, one has to wonder who Tina Turner really was as a person beneath the teased wigs, pounds of pancake makeup and patent leather miniskirts. It is quite telling that, now that Tina has truly, truly retired from show business and all of the show business machinery, that she is finally revealing her true self through her current spiritually-related pursuits. If she insisted on doing spiritual music during the early 1980s, she would not have become the superstar that sold out football stadiums around Europe.

On the complete other end of the spectrum, Stevie is an artist who ascended to mainstream stardom despite her idiosyncracies. Nobody told Stevie what to sing (except for the Timespace songs). Nobody told her what to wear. Nobody told her how to incorporate verb tense and voice in her lyrics (we see what happened when Lindsey tried!). If Stevie received external help (e.g., Tom Petty, Dave Stewart, Michael Campbell), she was the one to ask for it. She decides when/where/how her albums are made and she determines her own setlists and album tracking. Unlike Tina, Stevie's music is a direct (but opaque) reflection of herself and corresponds to her own life experiences. Although Stevie has certainly enjoyed all the spoils that come with fame and stardom, and she clearly enjoys her wealth, she still does projects on her own terms, despite the commercial ramifications. At the height of her fame, she still took the time to work on "lesser" obscure projects to help out friends (e.g., Sandy Stewart, Walter Egan, Robbie Patton, etc.). She could have easily shifted stylistic direction to fit with the times, but she stuck with her guns and demonstrated that she could be "sexy" on her own terms without resorting to crass displays of overt sexuality, e.g., fishnet stockings, hooker heels, miniskirts, etc. Indeed, to this day, I think anybody would be hard pressed to find pictures of Stevie with her bare legs revealed above the ankles, let alone a bikini. In fact, one could argue that she is perhaps the most covered up "sex symbol" in history. She followed her own muse, the commercial gods be da**ed.

As people, I agree, they are quite different. Their careers are not all that different - it can all be summed up in three words - singers who tour. On tour, artistry is irrelevant - booking shows, showing up and performing, these are all that matter. I think that's all the comparisons are about. Two American artists, one with tremendous European success because she worked for it, and another with minimal European success because she's kind of flaky about showing up and being on time. Your post is all about persona, and not the work.

[bethelblues]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

As people, I agree, they are quite different. Their careers are not all that different - it can all be summed up in three words - singers who tour. On tour, artistry is irrelevant - booking shows, showing up and performing, these are all that matter. I think that's all the comparisons are about. Two American artists, one with tremendous European success because she worked for it, and another with minimal European success because she's kind of flaky about showing up and being on time. Your post is all about persona, and not the work.

I tried to get at that in my earlier post, saying that Tina was never a songwriter and that definitely counts against her in some ways. I was trying to focus on career similarities, as I think they do exist, especially the move from rock to adult contemporary. But to say Tina's not an artist is a little extreme. That train of thought would also include other great vocalists like Whitney Houston, for instance. I tend to draw the distinction at songwriter rather than artist. One thing, it's amazing that Tina Turner's voice didn't really deteriorate over her 50 years in the public eye the same way many other singers' voices have. Rolling Stone Magazine called her the second greatest female voice in music history after Aretha Franklin--and that being said, Aretha was never someone who had a huge following and huge audiences. On the road one's artistry may be irrelevant...or perhaps to say it more appropriately, it shows in the package of the show. Tina, for instance, was involved in every aspect of her stage show, she picked the setlist, she picked the moves, she knew everything and more importantly she knew what she wanted...and that's been captured on documentaries and for the features on What's Love Got To Do With It with Angela Bassett. Also, she never had a "decidedly stocky figure" unless you count the last tour when she was 70 years old; Stevie's weight has fluctuated too, but that should be a mute point. There are songs in Tina Turner's catalogue that reveal who she was as a person, though she didn't write them, and she had the unique ability to interpret them and translate that in her live performances. That said, I do agree, Stevie is hands down the superior artist. And also, in an industry in which so many singers claim to be songwriters (Beyonce, being just one example, pays to have her name on every song even though she had no creative involvement and has been called out by her past producers), Stevie stands as one of the few superior and genuine singer-songwriters.

[Macfanforever]

Sorry this might not make since But. What I seen for years since I first turn on the radio which was probably before Stevie hit the airwaves with FM is the buying public is most young kids and teens which but records as I call them.I sound like Stevie on saying records.

The public and radio was always age discriminate artists since music started.I might be wrong but that what I see happening here with the older artists of any gender.

I would be pissed off too If my music does not get played or sell.
I will look on the bright side I will be happy if all my fans have a copy of my works.

Most of the record buying public is the younger age groups.Us fans of Stevie's that are older hang on to our favorite artists and support them as long as we can by buying their latest CD/DVD buying concert tix buying tees and other merch at the show.


If you look at it this way.Back when my parents were listening to Tony Bennett ,Frank Sinatra ,Dean Martin and big band music was playing allover the radio until the mid to late 1950's when rock and roll first hit the airwaves.


At that time the kids were enjoying rock tunes and their parents were getting annoyed because their favorite artists are fading away as years go by as everybodies getting older and time moves on with newer music genders come and go.

As we come up to today.Stevie's got 300.000 fans that got her CD.


I love Tina.She had a great comeback in the 1980's.

Cher had a similar comeback in the late 1990's.

Barbra Streisand popped out at times too.I love her voice .

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by Dex

While we've established that Stevie herself isn't actually really disappointed with IYD's sales, it's clear in this thread that a lot of fans really are, and continue to be puzzled by it. I find that very interesting. Stevie's made a transition from pop megastar to cult singer-songwriter, and I think, because she pulls in a huge nostalgia-seeking audience as a live act, that's a fact that's not always easy to see. There's a huge discrepancy between the crowds she draws as a live act and the albums she sells, because those nostalgia-seeking audience members just aren't interested in new material from her. The fact is, she has a core fanbase that loves her work, but outside of that, her new material just isn't going to create all that much buzz no matter what. We can pick apart whatever flaws in her career we like, but essentially she isn't ever going to be able to get it "right" in terms of hitting a commercial sweet-spot. She just isn't an artist with a broad appeal anymore. I think that's just fine.

But doesn't this end up being true of every artist once they reach a certain age or a certain point in their career? I mean, is there anyone bigger than Paul McCartney or his former band? Not really. But how many people know he released an album last year? And how many people want to hear something from that album when they see him in concert? Most of the thousands of people at his shows want Hey Jude and Yesterday the same way people at Stevie shows want Landslide and Rhiannon.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by Dex

Have Stevie's album covers ever been all that great, though? Trouble in Shangri-La and Crystal Visions are the only ones I can think of that I particularly like, and even they're kind of "eh". She just seems to settle on a cover that seems passably marketable, even though they never really match the album's contents very well.

While we've established that Stevie herself isn't actually really disappointed with IYD's sales, it's clear in this thread that a lot of fans really are, and continue to be puzzled by it. I find that very interesting. Stevie's made a transition from pop megastar to cult singer-songwriter, and I think, because she pulls in a huge nostalgia-seeking audience as a live act, that's a fact that's not always easy to see. There's a huge discrepancy between the crowds she draws as a live act and the albums she sells, because those nostalgia-seeking audience members just aren't interested in new material from her. The fact is, she has a core fanbase that loves her work, but outside of that, her new material just isn't going to create all that much buzz no matter what. We can pick apart whatever flaws in her career we like, but essentially she isn't ever going to be able to get it "right" in terms of hitting a commercial sweet-spot. She just isn't an artist with a broad appeal anymore. I think that's just fine.

We did not establish that Stevie really isn't disappointed with IYD's Sales. She was totally disappointed. She did more press than ever and it never sold.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

But doesn't this end up being true of every artist once they reach a certain age or a certain point in their career?

Yes, unless you've developed a reputation of not giving into those kind of casual fan expectations over the years. Like Springsteen. You may go in there wanting to hear Born in the USA but they know enough about him not to think it's a given.

Michele

[SaidSomething]

I know this leaned toward money, figures, numbers etc...

I think there is nothing wrong with making an excellent record, awesome new songs created in a totally different and unfamiliar way, great fun and excitement in the creation and the yearning to get the music to her fans....to everyone....critics, all of those critics giving her a gold star on her forehead...huge hooplah....then, blah. Did anyone hear it? I feel her pain. She is, in my opinion...telling it like it is for anyone in the business that is/was a class act...pours their everthing into something for everyone...videoes, movie, public appearances etc...I think she wants it to be heard.

And appreciated. By people like us.

She has been on a non stop tour since trouble in shangrila...actually, The Dance. Plus, making those albums....

I sing for the things money cant buy me....

I hope that when they listen they will love it too...
Stevie Nicks' own words.

Moms here...Have a Happy Mothers Day...Love You! XO

Jim

[SaidSomething]

Originally Posted by johnnystorms

not to mention, IYD is FAR from generic! it totally captures her unique mystique, while branching off into blue-sy numbers (You May Be the One) and torch songs (Italian Summer)

I play You May Be The One often...it grew on me more and more...even her title track I am into...her "cheer up charlie" song on the record. Its so different than her norm. I think of maybe 2 of her "regular norms" dont have as much depth as the rest of the album. IE Wild S and Annabel.

I love her own songs...the way she likes or invisions them.

I wonder if she ever read any of the bitch slaps from here...how would she feel? What would she say?

I used to dream that you were an angel....

Jim

[johnnystorms]

Originally Posted by bluefox4000

Your over the top devotion to stevie is quite scary.

Mick

well this is a FAN forum!

[SaidSomething]

She has helped me tremendously throughout her 40 plus year career. Her songs and her labors of love..have always kept me going. My fan devotion is as flaky as a guy that is the type that turns on one of her saddest songs to cry his heart out, as she must have cried before she wrote about the experience turned to song. Her individuality and her blatant sincerity is what i love and turn to her for. In her songs i find someone that has "been there and got through it" and i reminisce about well, i can get better too. I turn to her gritty rock and roll, often live performances, and listen to psyche myself up before I go in front of the camera. I relate to her loneliness, her yearnings for love, acceptance and devotion. I relate to her non stop quest for the need of mass adoration and mass outpouring of love from the world. I relate to...I can't stop...if i do...who will be there? Mom? Dad? My Kids? Grandchildren? I can relate to...i have worked really hard all my life...never stopping long enough to enjoy intense wealthiness in a state of royaltiness. Like a diva. I can relate to the quietness after the show is over...4am, awake...and nobody to call...or anyone that knows me, heart and soul. Where is Robin? Is she in heaven? Mom, Dad? I can relate to the difficulties of drug and alcohol dependence for remedies in life...and the life after, without the Whiskey, coke and pill Armor. I can relate to hopes, dreams and wishes for love...and to the broken heartedness of a love affair gone painfully tortuous. I am flaky that way. Some folks on here know me on a personal level...and we share the flaky thing...and in them i find a kindred spirit. I love other artists for similar reasons. God knows i know tragedy, elation, love and loneliness, lowliest, desperate mourning...to screaming heights of passion and all things great. Iggy Pops Lust For Life explains it. Sort of.

I never watched American Idol because, I cant take the poor souls that want so badly to sing...and they totally suck. I have been on auditions where i have seen this, in fear i wax like that...or auditioning after a guy that was so awesome...

Anyway, bored the other night i look to youtube to see people Katie Couric intetviewing Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin etc....so cool and unabashed....i found a new Stevie Vid of all her American Idol mentoring. I saw her mentoring the Hollie Cavanaugh...and her sharp words to make her see her potential. And Stevies tears as she listened to the little girl sing Jesus Take The Wheel, taking Stevies advise...and undoubtedly having it ring true.

She and i share scary flaky.

J

[Dex]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

We did not establish that Stevie really isn't disappointed with IYD's Sales. She was totally disappointed. She did more press than ever and it never sold.

But it was clear from the quote, when looked at it in context, that she was accepting and making peace with the changing realities of the music business and of her career. The strong reactions on this thread, I think, have much more to do with fan disappointment over their favourite artist not getting the recognition they feel she deserves, and much less to do with Stevie's feelings herself.

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

But doesn't this end up being true of every artist once they reach a certain age or a certain point in their career? I mean, is there anyone bigger than Paul McCartney or his former band? Not really. But how many people know he released an album last year? And how many people want to hear something from that album when they see him in concert? Most of the thousands of people at his shows want Hey Jude and Yesterday the same way people at Stevie shows want Landslide and Rhiannon.

Sure! Maybe not every artist, but certainly many many many, absolutely. I don't think that really changes my point, though. I didn't mean any of what I said as a criticism to Stevie, if that's how you read it. Almost all my favourite artists are cult singer-songwriters, and most of my favourite albums have probably sold a lot fewer than 300 000.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I find the comparisons between Stevie and Tina Turner to be beyond absurd. The biggest and most obvious distinction: Stevie is an artist and Tina is a singer. Big difference. Of course Tina is an exceptionally gifted entertainer with a big, unique voice. And she has recorded some great songs (written/produced by some of the most successful writers/producers in the business). But Tina is a singer who entertains for the sake of entertainment, which is a means to her ultimate objective of making a lot of money. Her entire post-1980 career was managed accordingly. Tina was a chameleon who adapted herself in whatever means necessary to be commercially successful. If they needed a rock song, an R&B song or a torchy power ballad, all they had to do was reach into the Rolodex and find someone to crank out a song to fit the genre.

And this is different from Stevie post 1980 pulling her singles from writers like Tom Petty, Chas Sanford, Rick Knowles, Sandy Stewart, Prince, and John Shanks in exactly what way? She also pulled the hottest producers at their respective times, like Jimmy Iovine, Rupert Hine, Prince, John Shanks, and Glen Friggin Ballard (hack of all hacks and she got that record company inserted fool 15 years too late) to do what? Hmmm. IDK. Maybe to make money? To entertain? For a self professed mad writer and songwriter par excellence she sure pulled in as many hitmakers as she could muster/command/afford. Thank GOD she had the good sense in the 1980s and 90s to avoid Holly Knight, Diane Warren, and Kelly/Steinberg. Let us recall that These Dreams was written for Stevie by Bernie Taupin and Martin Page because it was known in town that she was looking for songs - and she rejected it! Then it became a number one hit for Heart.

In terms of trading on her sexuality, it seems that Tina, despite her age and decidedly stocky figure, would shoehorn herself into the most skimpy outfits to garner the most attention- all, again, in the interest of increasing her appeal to mass audiences.
She would sing any song, wear any outfit or dance any dance that would be considered "marketable."

HAHAHAHAHA. Let the record so indicate that our dear Stevie has been fat since since 1983. And she never got her figure back again. She reshot the entire Stand Back video because she thought she was too fat. Not only did she perform in the 70s in little more than a spaghetti strap nightgown/danskin and platform boots, but as late as the 1981 HBO special the backlight through the chiffon essentially rendered her nude. She got a boob job as soon as she could afford one - between the white album and Rumours, just to look sexier. Please. Stevie has ALWAYS traded on her sexuality and beauty. In spades. Remember this is the woman who swore she would never go onstage again after the HOB Street Angel shows because she could no longer bear people taking about how fat she was. If one wanted to, one could correlate her decreasing album sales to her weight gain. And boy did she try to hide it. With lighting, camera angles, rotoscoping, anamorphic lenses, close ups above the waist, distant shots below. You name it. To say she did not trade on her sex appeal, and do everything in her power to mask it when it was deteriorating, is preposterous.

And talk about shoehorning! Stevie has been wearing crippling corsets since the Tango tour, and often dons wigs and shoulder pads to enhance the illusion of having a real waist. If she could get away with anything more than what she does, she would.

And Buddah knows all of those efforts paid off handsomely in terms of commercial success- she hit the road and shimmied and shook her way around the world on marathon tours. But at the end of the day, one has to wonder who Tina Turner really was as a person beneath the teased wigs, pounds of pancake makeup and patent leather miniskirts.

Who knows? And more importantly Who Cares? Who is Stevie under the weave, the re-engineered platforms, the pounds of makeup, the extremely tasteful surgery, the corsets, the uniform, the layers and layers of finery jewelry and flash? A little old homebody who likes to stay home and knit and refers to her stage clothes as Stevie Drag among her pals.

It is quite telling that, now that Tina has truly, truly retired from show business and all of the show business machinery, that she is finally revealing her true self through her current spiritually-related pursuits. If she insisted on doing spiritual music during the early 1980s, she would not have become the superstar that sold out football stadiums around Europe.

So that is her true self? Not simply the person she evolved into wanting to be? Is Christine now her true self that she has a farm and dogs and cooks all the time? Was her entire show business career a phony act simply conjured up to make a fortune? Is Stevie now her true self that she has gotten sober, removed her breast implants, and only deigns to spin during Stand Back?

On the complete other end of the spectrum, Stevie is an artist who ascended to mainstream stardom despite her idiosyncracies. Nobody told Stevie what to sing (except for the Timespace songs).

Au contraire. Everyone told her she needed a rock song on Bella Donna. Thus SDMHA.
Did she really go to Sandy during WH on her own? Why get music from an outside writer when she had all those songs? Not her sole decision. Talk To Me? Her decision as a single? I think not. Unconditional Love shot as a video and a proposed single? HA!
Everyday anything but a tit for tat single in lieu of more producer money? Not for all the chiffon in the world. She has less control than anyone knows.

Nobody told her what to wear. Nobody told her how to incorporate verb tense and voice in her lyrics (we see what happened when Lindsey tried!). If Stevie received external help (e.g., Tom Petty, Dave Stewart, Michael Campbell), she was the one to ask for it. She decides when/where/how her albums are made and she determines her own setlists and album tracking.

Mostly agreed.

Unlike Tina, Stevie's music is a direct (but opaque) reflection of herself and corresponds to her own life experiences.

Penalty. Tina and her producers have in most cases immaculately chosen songs that work with what was and is the Tina image. More than I can say for many of the outside writer songs that Stevie and her camp have chosen. Cry Wolf anyone? Docklands?
Every Rose Has Its Thorn? Ooops. I mean Loves A Hard Game to Play.

Although Stevie has certainly enjoyed all the spoils that come with fame and stardom, and she clearly enjoys her wealth, she still does projects on her own terms, despite the commercial ramifications. At the height of her fame, she still took the time to work on lesser obscure projects to help out friends (e.g., Sandy Stewart, Walter Egan, Robbie Patton, etc.).

She was bored. She had friends. People asked her for favors when she was hot and she liked to sing. Let us note that she was so zonked on Klonopin from Tango to 1994 that she could barely dress herself, let alone do anything on her so called own terms. Or even rationally consider the commercial ramifications. Thom Panunzio as a producer? A Jesse Camp duet? A Robin Zander duet? Seriously?
This all makes her a superior artist than Tina Turner in some way? Dubious.

She could have easily shifted stylistic direction to fit with the times, but she stuck with her guns and demonstrated that she could be "sexy" on her own terms without resorting to crass displays of overt sexuality, e.g., fishnet stockings, hooker heels, miniskirts, etc.

This explains all of the following.....The huge hair in the RAL videos. The fishnet gloves. The fishnet stockings in the Mirage tour video...prominent when she spins at the end of SOTM and you can see her As*. The dangling boobs in the ICW video. The colored hair stripes. The merry widow corset in the Seven Wonders video with the pressed together and offered forth implant breasts. The sky high pre-post-current hooker platform boots in the Rumours/Tusk/WH till her feet gave out eras. The pouty CFM looks in ALL her photo shoots. The splayed out photoshopped waist pose on the piano on The Dance cover. The Crystal Visions Tusk outtake side boob pouty cover shot. The eerie prepubescent looking photoshop nightmare that was the IYD album cover......and the MINISKIRTS on the Tango tour.

I totally agree with you.

Indeed, to this day, I think anybody would be hard pressed to find pictures of Stevie with her bare legs revealed above the ankles, let alone a bikini. In fact, one could argue that she is perhaps the most covered up "sex symbol" in history. She followed her own muse, the commercial gods be da**ed.

We got a lotta leg from our girl through the years. There is a TISL Stand Back leg kick shot floating around where she is hoisting her withered flank up and she reveals her friggin crotch. Covered by leggings and/or leotards and let us thank the wardrobe girl for THAT favor.

One can argue till the cows come home that Tina Turner had a sexual image that was more in your face than Stevie. It was, by most definitions. Tina had a better body. Period. And was more comfortable with her sexuality. But Stevie has worked her sex appeal and beauty every bit as hard. The entire way. God bless her for it. She is/was/remains a stunning woman. She knows it. She plays it. She wrings every drop she can from it. As she should. She is no dummy.

However, to denigrate Tina Turner for being more raw, more revealing, or somehow deem her trashy or less classy than Stevie for her personal style is reductive, dismissive, and maybe even (I cannot believe I am even saying this) a little sexist. If you got it, flaunt it. Both women have it, had it and did it. They both exploited their sex vibe and beauty, as anyone in show business does. They simply did it differently.

As far as claiming one or the other as a superior artist, I call apples and oranges. One cannot fairly compare the two. And frankly, if you sat the two of them down, they would likely congratulate each other for a job well done. I think both of them did the best they could to ride the waves of their images and career trajectories as far as they could and both succeeded fantastically. If anything, Tina had better management the entire way and worked her image to a much higher pinnacle than Stevie ever did.

If there is any one thing I think everyone on this forum can all agree on it is this - post RAL Stevie has had utterly terrible management. Unforgivably bad. The missed opportunities are legion and inexplicable. Her career has not been managed since then, it has been MISmanaged. She has landed in a great place now, but OMG what could have been. A book could be written about just that subject alone.

One can say Stevie is somehow culturally more important as a writer, but God love her, and I certainly do, she only wrote a few important songs. Landslide, Rhiannon, Dreams, GDW, Edge, and arguably Stand Back. She had 10 good years as writer. Great songs? Without a doubt. Historically great. Is she Dolly Parton? Willy Nelson? Rogers, Hart, Dylan, Mitchell, Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards? No f-ing way. Nothing to sneeze at. She has made her mark. But she is not the premier songwriter of the century, as much as I love her.

Better than Tina Turner? That is a matter of taste. I think they are both legends, trailblazers, and singularly great in their own ways.

[Dex]

Sparky, that was a great post. I do have to say that I think HejiraNYC's main point about some fundamental differences between Tina and Stevie was fair, though. The heart of Stevie's recording career, as I see it, has usually been that she's written songs, she loves them, and she wants to share them with people. As you point out, she has been very compromising as an artist in the name of commercial interest, especially at certain points in her career. But I think there is still a difference between her releases and the out-and-out constructed-by-committee releases of post-70s Tina. There's nothing superior about Stevie's career or output, but there is a difference there that should be recognized. Although saying they're completely incomparable, and especially saying that Tina isn't "an artist", are huge overstatements.

And I'd like to add Gypsy and Leather and Lace to your list of culturally important Stevie songs, please (and I'd argue against the inclusion of Stand Back). I actually think, though, that most of the great songwriters you mentioned don't really have a much bigger list of songs that made a big cultural impact, and a lot of them have released some serious clunkers along with their great stuff, much like Stevie.