Mike Campbell talks about FM in New interview

[David]

Originally Posted by BigAl84

Again, for the last time...my point was Stevie definitely benefited greatly from the Dance reunion.

My opinion is that Stevie benefited the most creatively from the reunion among the three songwriters. I don’t think Timespace or Street Angel is quite as interesting as Lindsey’s work on his third album in 1992 or the songs he made a few years later with Mick, or as lovely as the songs Chris wrote for Behind the Mask or Time. Stevie was in a bit of a creative rut in the years preceding the Mac reunion. She admitted it a dozen times, too. Don Was and others had already told her to get back to writing when she booked her 1996 shows, and you would think those scaled-back shows would be great opportunities to sing something new, but aside from “Twisted,” she did not. She and Lindsey both could use an occasional push to strike out in new directions and forge something fresh. His recent online thing was just a bunch of his classics. He took the Stevie Nicks approach: keep shoveling the tried and true at everyone.

But the arguing over “viability” — who was more “viable” — is all about commerce, not creativity. So boring! Stevie has always had the commercial edge over her bandmates. She has not always had the creative edge over them. Sometimes I think that the trajectory of her career has obstructed her growth as an artist. I do like her and I wish it were otherwise. She perhaps isn’t that sort of animal.

Consider her songs on Buckingham Nicks and then compare them with her work on Rumours or Tusk (four and six years later, respectively). Enormous growth in vision, personal voice, scope, and style! Think of how beautifully elliptical and sly her writing is on “Dreams” or how vividly she paints passion on “Sara.” Nothing on Buckingham Nicks points to such achievements. Just lovely stuff that opened up all sorts of new possibilities for her as a songwriter and singer. Now try to imagine any other four- or six-year period in which she achieved similar growth. I can’t think of anything . . . I think fame spoiled her. In a way, her “viability” undermined her work. Is her market status really something to glorify decade after decade?