Ann & Nancy Couldn't Match Stevie's Intake

[elle]

Originally Posted by WildHearted

All titles come from somewhere. Someone first started calling Michael Jackson the king of pop, it wasn't bestowed upon him

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

And that someone was Michael Jackson .

yes, it was a genius advertising and i couldn't believe how people just accepted the title he gave himself and went with it at the time... and now majority apparently even don't remember where it came from.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by elle

yes, it was a genius advertising and i couldn't believe how people just accepted the title he gave himself and went with it at the time... and now majority apparently even don't remember where it came from.

At the time, when the press releases came out, they scoffed quite a bit, but by the time he died they were calling him that without irony and, as you said, without memory of its derivation.


Michele

[michelej1]

Oh and I'm reminded that I wanted to go back in time and make sure the parents of the guy who first used the phrase "visionary" to refer to a particular rapscallion had never met, because that marketing was getting to be a little much. When it was placed on CD stickers glaring up at me out of the record bin, I'd had rather enough.

Michele

[QueenStevie]

Ann and Nancy Wilson would rather be catty to Stevie than respect her privacy! Stevie, THANK YOU FOR BOYCOTTING THOSE CATTY WILSON SISTERS BY SAYING THAT THEY WON'T BE A VIGNETTE IN YOUR BOOK! More musicians should follow suit with their own boycotting of Ann and Nancy Wilson!

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

Ann and Nancy Wilson would rather be catty to Stevie than respect her privacy! Stevie, THANK YOU FOR BOYCOTTING THOSE CATTY WILSON SISTERS BY SAYING THAT THEY WON'T BE A VIGNETTE IN YOUR BOOK! More musicians should follow suit with their own boycotting of Ann and Nancy Wilson!

Umm, I'm pretty sure Stevie isn't boycotting The Wilson Sisters. She just preferred they hadn't mentioned her in their book. And what they mentioned wasn't that earth-shattering. They did coke and partied in the 80's with Stevie. Big whoop. Didn't we all know that Stevie did coke in the 80's? I see this as no new revelation. However, Stevie may have a point in that they weren't best friends. Why are the Wilsons mentioning her at all? It's name-dropping. They mention many people they brushed up against in their career. That is not really all that impressive. I like Stevie's idea of her biography only mentioning the magical moments because those are the only moments that really matter. Who cares if you met John Mellencamp for five minutes and he was a dick? And again, I am a huge fan of The Wilsons, but I don't agree with all the choices they made in this book.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Why are the Wilsons mentioning her at all? It's name-dropping. They mention many people they brushed up against in their career.

Sure and the more people you mention, the more music fans you make aware of your book. I may not care anything about Heart, but if I am Rolling Stones fan, I probably check out all rock books just to see if there's any news about Jagger in them. There's a small chance I might even buy it. I bought Anne Heche's book because of the Lindsey stuff and I wouldn't even have known about it otherwise. So, you cram in as much as you can.

Even in that Playboy interview I found myself wondering if Mick's George Harrison discussion was strategic. Listen, I KNOW he was friends with him and was even quasi related to him. I just hadn't heard Mick talk about George that much in the past (Clapton yes, but not George Harrison) and wondered if he did it so that more people would talk about his interview.

They name drop to generate buzz and they make it salacious when they can. I don't think it's any big deal, but I can definitely see why Stevie wouldn't like it.

Michele

[Sanne2]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

Ann and Nancy Wilson would rather be catty to Stevie than respect her privacy! Stevie, THANK YOU FOR BOYCOTTING THOSE CATTY WILSON SISTERS BY SAYING THAT THEY WON'T BE A VIGNETTE IN YOUR BOOK! More musicians should follow suit with their own boycotting of Ann and Nancy Wilson!

Wow, I think you're seriously overreacting. Stevie isn't boycotting them, she simply commented that she didn't like them using her name in their book, fair enough. Sure, it's not very classy from the Wilsons, but if they wanna name a bunch of people in their book that they've dealt with in their career, than they have every right to do so.

[michelej1]

From an interview with Ann Wilson from a Nuvo interview by Katherine Coplen July 27, 2013

http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/hea...nt?oid=2642027

Of course, that didn't exactly stop the partying. Ann - who has been upfront about her struggles with addiction - wrote of a night of excess with Stevie Nicks, who didn't take kindly to the name-check.

"Stevie Nicks turned out to be pretty grumpy about our party night together," Ann says. "We just put it in there because it wasn't anything, really. It was just a pretty typical party night in the '80s that rockers would have. But she was pretty sensitive, so perhaps we should have spared her."

Ann may have spared the Nicks story, but she certainly wouldn't un-write the whole book, which she describes as "cathartic" to pen.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by michelej1

From an interview with Ann Wilson from a Nuvo interview by Katherine Coplen July 27, 2013

http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/hea...nt?oid=2642027

Of course, that didn't exactly stop the partying. Ann - who has been upfront about her struggles with addiction - wrote of a night of excess with Stevie Nicks, who didn't take kindly to the name-check.

"Stevie Nicks turned out to be pretty grumpy about our party night together," Ann says. "We just put it in there because it wasn't anything, really. It was just a pretty typical party night in the '80s that rockers would have. But she was pretty sensitive, so perhaps we should have spared her."

Ann may have spared the Nicks story, but she certainly wouldn't un-write the whole book, which she describes as "cathartic" to pen.

I was thinking about this the other day and wondered if the air had been cleared.

[becca]

I think of Dreamboat Annie as equally important to the 1975 Fleetwood Mac album, then and now. How strange the two sides of the same coin would be scratching away about next to nothing. Magic Man, Crazy On You, Over My Head and Rhiannon were all over the radio here circa 1975-76 onward. Is Olivia Newton John going to start something with Pat Benetar next? Debbie Harry rip Joan Jett a new one?

My boyfriend (accidentally) got to see Nancy in the raw once; really hard to imagine her fitting into anything Stevie had on the hanger.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by michelej1

From an interview with Ann Wilson from a Nuvo interview by Katherine Coplen July 27, 2013

http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/hea...nt?oid=2642027

Of course, that didn't exactly stop the partying. Ann - who has been upfront about her struggles with addiction - wrote of a night of excess with Stevie Nicks, who didn't take kindly to the name-check.

"Stevie Nicks turned out to be pretty grumpy about our party night together," Ann says. "We just put it in there because it wasn't anything, really. It was just a pretty typical party night in the '80s that rockers would have. But she was pretty sensitive, so perhaps we should have spared her."

Ann may have spared the Nicks story, but she certainly wouldn't un-write the whole book, which she describes as "cathartic" to pen.

Really? I think Stevie needs to get over it. We all know she did it, there's nothing really new in the story except maybe it's a bit more detailed and specific than what she would ever have told us. She's just a real control freak over her image and she wants NOTHING out there other than what she chooses to say. She is soooooooooooooooooo lucky that this is not 1978 now, because with all the social media and paparazzi etc etc she would not get away with even a fraction of the partying and man-izing (opposite of womanizing?) she did. There'd be pics of her sloshed out of her head, smudged makeup, falling out of a car, whatever.
Love her, but really, get over it.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

man-izing (opposite of womanizing?)

Speaking of that, with Mick Jagger's birthday and the Stones' being on tour and everything, there are a lot of articles about them recently and it's mindboggling not only how many women he's been with (well he's had kids with more women than most men even sleep with) but how many of those women also slept with not one, but TWO of his bandmates. Why do people even talk about FM as a band with a lot of sex in it when they can't even compare to the Stones? Probably all 16 members of FM combined haven't done 20% of the sleeping around and changing partners that the Stones have done.

Michele

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo

I think they were just using it as an example about how crazy drug usage was in those days and how they couldn't even keep up.

That's plainly what it was --- I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a twist about it!

There was absolutely no agenda to defame Stevie, no hidden motives, and simply no revelations of anything we didn't already know.

Anecdotal information appears in biographies; it's what makes them interesting! I was excited to read about Stevie in any context.

I have a lot of respect for the Wilson sisters. Stevie should not care at all about her brief mention in their book. By making a public statement against it, she's only bringing more attention to it!

This brings to my mind the fans yearning for Stevie to write an autobiography. If she ever approached the idea, consider how white-washed, navel-gazing and boring it would be if many famous names weren't referenced, and life experiences were sanitized beyond reality. This is why some talented his is why some biographer/writer out there should tackle a book like that. Consequently, many fans who read the book will inevitably want to tackle that writer.

Most autobiographies are heavily embellished, but Stevie's would be glaringly obvious, much like her post-filmed close-ups in the Tango in the Night and Red Rocks DVDs.

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Speaking of that, with Mick Jagger's birthday and the Stones' being on tour and everything, there are a lot of articles about them recently and it's mindboggling not only how many women he's been with (well he's had kids with more women than most men even sleep with) but how many of those women also slept with not one, but TWO of his bandmates. Why do people even talk about FM as a band with a lot of sex in it when they can't even compare to the Stones? Probably all 16 members of FM combined haven't done 20% of the sleeping around and changing partners that the Stones have done.

Michele

So right on! In many ways, Fleetwood Mac, in comparison, come off a bit stuffy and conservative!

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

So right on! In many ways, Fleetwood Mac, in comparison, come off a bit stuffy and conservative!

well, maybe based on what we know............. I'm still convinced there is sooo much more REAL dirt we have no clue about.