'Rolling Stone Magazine' review of 'The Wild Heart' (July 7, 1983)

[greendaze5]

View here.

Added: 'RS' Readers' Poll 1981, with Stevie tied with Pat Benatar.

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by greendaze5

Added: 'RS' Readers' Poll 1981, with Stevie tied with Pat Benatar.

I see Quarterflash in the Best New Artists list. I loved their singles. There aren't many rock bands that include saxophone, they sounded so cool.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I see Quarterflash in the Best New Artists list. I loved their singles. There aren't many rock bands that include saxophone, they sounded so cool.

I've often thought of them over the years. They got off to a really good start, with a couple catchy singles. Then just faded away...?

[Macfan4life]

Rolling Stone really did not like The Wild Heart. They really trashed it. But it seems much of it is about her lyrics. I think they were a bit harsh but this is nothing compared to Rock A Little. Rolling Stone stated that Stevie became a parody of herself. At the end they suggested she should have taken her own advice and rock a little

[aleuzzi]

I remember not getting this review at all. I thought then (and still think) Wild Heart is damn good.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I see Quarterflash in the Best New Artists list. I loved their singles. There aren't many rock bands that include saxophone, they sounded so cool.

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

I've often thought of them over the years. They got off to a really good start, with a couple catchy singles. Then just faded away...?

Their singles were catchy, but I hated them immediately after they did an interview saying their goal was to "update Fleetwood Mac". I thought, who the f*&# are YOU nobodies to think 1) FM needs improving (at that point in time late 70s) and 2) y'all don't have a fraction of the talent of MY BELOVED BAND.

So I was glad to see them fail. Who's updating FM now muthaf*#kas?

[bombaysaffires]

They take a pointed dig at her calling her the woman "nominally responsible" for songs like I Don't Want To Know and even Edge of 17....

nominally= in name only; officially though perhaps not in reality.(Oxford Dictionary).

That's a total slam suggesting that her success is due mainly to lots of work on her raw material by far more talented musicians (Lindsey, Chris, John, Mick in FM and people like Waddy, Roy, Benmont, etc. on her solo stuff) and producers (Lindsey, Ken, Richard in the first example they give, and Jimmy in the second case)...

I am however a bit perplexed they would consider IDWTK as the best example of her good songcraft, and not something like Dreams or even GDW or Landslide....

That said, Rolling Stone in the 70s and 80s was full of chauvinist douchebags so.....not entirely surprising review.

[Nathan]

Askance
Pellucid
Inchoate

I had to look these up. Well-write article, and I agree about "too much love" and Sable on Blonde. Pretty harsh though! Also, pretty self-indulgent with all that screaming at the end. "Clarity, rigor, and structure" were never her brand to begin with.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Askance
Pellucid
Inchoate

I had to look these up. Well-write article, and I agree about "too much love" and Sable on Blonde. Pretty harsh though! Also, pretty self-indulgent with all that screaming at the end. "Clarity, rigor, and structure" were never her brand to begin with.

this is what Lindsey brought to producing and arranging her songs... making them hits.

And yes, I WOULD say that to Bob Dylan.

[Macfan4life]

While I don't agree with the review in its harshness, I do agree that Wild Heart was a big step down from Bella Donna. Clearly the magic of Bella Donna was a one time thing just like Rumours. However this album is when Nick's complete insanity began with her marrying her dead best friend's husband in the middle of it. I sense that Iovine was going for a more adult contemporary feel to boost its commercial aspect. That did not work and had the opposite effect IMHO. I have 3 complaints about the album. Many songs are drowning in background vocals. I hate Gate and Garden but when you listen to the song without all those backup vocals I can appreciate the song. While I agree Sable on Blonde is one of the better songs, its immediate background vocals in the beginning always turned me off. This is one of the reasons I like the alternative version better (sorry Mick). I remember a 1983 interview with Nicks where she claimed people told her Sable on Blonde sounded too much like Dreams and she did not care. I think the alternate version has more depth. Second complaint I have is the guitar takes a back seat compared to Bella Donna. It was the early 80s and the keyboard synth was about to take over. We got 2 hit singles that were heavy in the keyboard syth that were successful. But I think the album suffered from too much of it. That dreaded keyboard intro to Nightbird with that casio drum machine is horrible. My last complaint is the overall production of the album. The title track is nowhere near the intensity of its predecessor. The alternative version is better but she is singing too fast. The song wonders and comes to a very odd conclusion with fade out. I never cared for the basic piano parts of the song either. Its too amateur IMHO. Its still a fairly good album but could have been so much better. How All The Beautiful Worlds never made the album is a crime.
If you never heard the alternative version of Sable on Blonde
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euHCgtgppZs

Alternative of Wild Heart. Her vocal on the album is better but this version is better. I think she did a few bumps before singing this because she is shouting while singing. I wish there could have been a happy medium between them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4iC...j3uqTxYMbO4ytE

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

While I don't agree with the review in its harshness, I do agree that Wild Heart was a big step down from Bella Donna. Clearly the magic of Bella Donna was a one time thing just like Rumours. However this album is when Nick's complete insanity began with her marrying her dead best friend's husband in the middle of it. I sense that Iovine was going for a more adult contemporary feel to boost its commercial aspect. That did not work and had the opposite effect IMHO. I have 3 complaints about the album. Many songs are drowning in background vocals. I hate Gate and Garden but when you listen to the song without all those backup vocals I can appreciate the song. While I agree Sable on Blonde is one of the better songs, its immediate background vocals in the beginning always turned me off. This is one of the reasons I like the alternative version better (sorry Mick). I remember a 1983 interview with Nicks where she claimed people told her Sable on Blonde sounded too much like Dreams and she did not care. I think the alternate version has more depth. Second complaint I have is the guitar takes a back seat compared to Bella Donna. It was the early 80s and the keyboard synth was about to take over. We got 2 hit singles that were heavy in the keyboard syth that were successful. But I think the album suffered from too much of it. That dreaded keyboard intro to Nightbird with that casio drum machine is horrible. My last complaint is the overall production of the album. The title track is nowhere near the intensity of its predecessor. The alternative version is better but she is singing too fast. The song wonders and comes to a very odd conclusion with fade out. I never cared for the basic piano parts of the song either. Its too amateur IMHO. Its still a fairly good album but could have been so much better. How All The Beautiful Worlds never made the album is a crime.
If you never heard the alternative version of Sable on Blonde
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euHCgtgppZs

Alternative of Wild Heart. Her vocal on the album is better but this version is better. I think she did a few bumps before singing this because she is shouting while singing. I wish there could have been a happy medium between them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4iC...j3uqTxYMbO4ytE

actually around this time Stevie started thinking she knew better about stuff and trying to take over directing everything. People have reported pretty consistently that she and Jimmy were fighting a lot more (it finally hit the point that he quit on the next album, RAL). I love that clip from during the making of BD where she's at a mic with Sharon and Lori on either side of her, and clearly they've been discussing vocal arrangements and he comes into the studio and he's whining (very high whiny voice) at her to stop picking apart everything he's asked them to do "like a lawyer" "Don't be a lawyer about everything" In other words, nitpicking and questioning why this? why that? why not this? every time he's trying to produce a song. Add increasing drugs, add that their personal relationship was more off than on once he bailed out of France (where he'd accompanied her straight from the end of the BD tour), and then she went out on the road (without him, and she's not known for fidelity on the road), add that she was even more famous......and it affected this album. I think the substance of this review is spot on-- her voice was majorly powerful and captivating at this point in time, but her ego f*cked it up. It was the downward slide, musically and personally that would crash and burn a few years later.

[David]

In the late Seventies, Fleetwood Mac were critics’ pets, especially at Rolling Stone. But Stevie herself never was — until she reached “rock elder” status (after Fleetwood Mac had fallen out of favor with the public). There was no way that her mass-market solo albums and tours were going to please that generation of rock writers. Stevie was a figure of squareness and a casualty of punk until well into her 40s, when a younger generation of writers began treating her like a survivor of the rock wars.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by David

In the late Seventies, Fleetwood Mac were critics’ pets, especially at Rolling Stone. But Stevie herself never was — until she reached “rock elder” status (after Fleetwood Mac had fallen out of favor with the public). There was no way that her mass-market solo albums and tours were going to please that generation of rock writers. Stevie was a figure of squareness and a casualty of punk until well into her 40s, when a younger generation of writers began treating her like a survivor of the rock wars.

when the girls who grew up admiring her became rock stars themselves and saying how much she inspired and influenced them. And when a new generation of rock journalists came along who had also grown up with her. Coz you're right, the old farts at RS never, ever liked her.

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

when the girls who grew up admiring her became rock stars themselves and saying how much she inspired and influenced them. And when a new generation of rock journalists came along who had also grown up with her. Coz you're right, the old farts at RS never, ever liked her.

I don't think it was because they were old farts. They never took her serious and viewed her of an airy fairy performer with shtick. They were probably licking their lips when Bella Donna came out but shrugged and gave it a fairly decent review. Because she was a woman that did not play an instrument that sort of dominated the fans of Fleetwood Mac made her an easy punchline. There is a little sexism mixed in there.
Does anyone have the Rolling Stone review of Fleetwood Mac (1975). Stevie spoke ill of the reviewer for calling her singing "callow."

[David]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

There is a little sexism mixed in there.

The Seventies rock press was a little sexist, yes, but that wasn’t the reason they didn’t gush over Stevie Nicks. She was a narcissist without self-awareness and they immediately saw right through her. She was dead earnest with all her mock-profound poetry and adolescent imagery, and you couldn’t expect Greil Marcus and Lester Bangs and Dave Marsh and Bob Christgau to fall for any of it. Even Stevie’s bandmates in Fleetwood Mac didn’t fall for it.

Does anyone have the Rolling Stone review of Fleetwood Mac (1975). Stevie spoke ill of the reviewer for calling her singing "callow."

Yep, she got very self-conscious about that, but her singing on that album was callow — her two lead vocals sound like a small parcel of air that her diaphragm can’t quite push all the way up and out. Her songs are super-strong on that album, but her vocals only shine on the chorus/pre-chorus of “Rhiannon.”

I think the first great vocal she provides on an album was her harmony on “Mohammed’s Radio” for Warren Zevon in 1976. I think that’s when John Rockwell at the New York Times first turned on to Stevie as a singer. He wrote an essay about the song, giving Stevie probably her first great review in a major setting. (Probably also the first time that a backup vocal track earned Stevie plaudits and not Lindsey.)