Buckingham Nicks reissue is just the album.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by aleuzzi

I agree with you. There are loads of demos floating around out there. I have several. Would’ve been instructive, too, to hear BN demos of “Rhiannon” and “I’m So Afraid” if for no other reason than to illustrate how much these attractive, sparking-smiled folkies benefited greatly from the Brits.

My thoughts, exactly.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

I am surprised Stevie did not say she wrote it too.

Stevie arranged the vocals on Stephanie.

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Stevie arranged the vocals on Stephanie.

You've got good material Michelle
But there is room for only one insult comic around here

The vocals are fine. She could have helped with a few tambourine rattles though. I can't help hear Never Going Back Again now and then. Did Lindsey know in 1973 he was never going back again to Stephanie?

[BigAl84]

Originally Posted by aleuzzi

I totally agree. From what I’ve gathered over the years, Stevie wanted to push back on the idea but Lindsey got short-fused and impatient, so she acquiesced. If this is true, then it’s a very sad, upsetting story.

Still, it’s a very good photo—but, alas, an odd one for a duo’s debut. To the extent people still discuss it is a good sign, I guess. And it’s miles more tasteful than the Heroes cover!

Looking at the BN cover reminds me of the first Hall and Oates album on their second label, the 1975 self-titled one where they are wearing makeup. They had a high-end Italian photographer telling them they’d be immortalized with that cover. They were made notorious. But it, too, is a great photo.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be forced to make an on the spot decision as to whether or not I wanted to participate in that kind of photograph. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and reference Stevie having the photo framed on her piano for the 1997 Harpers Baazar article and accuse her of changing her tune...but I think two truths can be true and held at the same time. It can be a meaningful and beautiful photo to Stevie today, but it can also represent a really difficult moment that was uncomfortable.

I don't think the photographer or Lindsey ever intended to approach it in a creepy way or have any kind of ill intentions. I certainly wasn't there, but it sounds like it was an on the spot decision that should of been handled in a much more thoughtful way.

[soul_drifter333]

It could be that Stevie was more concerned what her parents would think when they saw the album cover. Her parents didn't seem to support her musical career. Daddy might cut off the funds.

When I saw Stevie in 83 her father introduced her. I have wondered what he thought seeing her wasted like that. He had to know. She was really wasted on that tour, but that added to the performance.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by soul_drifter333

It could be that Stevie was more concerned what her parents would think when they saw the album cover. Her parents didn't seem to support her musical career. Daddy might cut off the funds.

When I saw Stevie in 83 her father introduced her. I have wondered what he thought seeing her wasted like that. He had to know. She was really wasted on that tour, but that added to the performance.

I completely respect her not wanting to pose naked.

[Penguin Emeritus]

Originally Posted by aleuzzi

I totally agree. From what I’ve gathered over the years, Stevie wanted to push back on the idea but Lindsey got short-fused and impatient, so she acquiesced. If this is true, then it’s a very sad, upsetting story.

Still, it’s a very good photo—but, alas, an odd one for a duo’s debut. To the extent people still discuss it is a good sign, I guess. And it’s miles more tasteful than the Heroes cover! .

I always thought it was actually a really nice, eye catching cover. i mean it's not showing anything too inappropriate w stevie, and men in the 70s were all about chest hair, open shirts etc....and at the time it was marketed almost based on their looks! i have an ad-- i think from rolling stone-- in one of FM folders upstairs where it reads, 'A beautiful album, by beautiful people.' i mean, they're lucky they were physically attractive, or the cover may not have worked as well lol. but it still holds up today, i still find it an attractive cover. almost like art, as lindsey said.


--Lis

[soul_drifter333]

I respect her for not wanting to pose naked as well, but history has shown that she likes to dramatize and change the narrative to the stories she tells so it's hard to really know how to felt at the time.

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

I completely respect her not wanting to pose naked.

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by Penguin Emeritus

I always thought it was actually a really nice, eye catching cover. i mean it's not showing anything too inappropriate w stevie, and men in the 70s were all about chest hair, open shirts etc....and at the time it was marketed almost based on their looks! i have an ad-- i think from rolling stone-- in one of FM folders upstairs where it reads, 'A beautiful album, by beautiful people.' i mean, they're lucky they were physically attractive, or the cover may not have worked as well lol. but it still holds up today, i still find it an attractive cover. almost like art, as lindsey said.


--Lis

I agree. If she felt she looked bad or hated the photo she would not be on board re-releasing it. It was her parents that were not crazy about the cover. But then again they were not thrilled with her music career at that point.
She spoke in detail about the cover on the Enchanted tour when introducing After The Glitter Fades. The song is about her and Lindsey going to Hollywood and trying to make it. She called the cover "the infamous cover" and chuckled. It was the entire Buckingham/Nicks process that hurt her not so much the cover. They had a glimmer of hope being lured away from Fritz to become a duo and make the album. But as the song suggests there are good and bad times trying to make it in the business but the good times outshine the bad because of her and his love for playing and performing. Had the album been a huge success maybe no one would have ever thought anything negative about the cover. I remember her talking about shopping for a really nice blouse for the cover only to find out all of her hard money was a waste because no one could see the blouse. She spoke of the financial loss over the cover and not being exploited. But maybe her parents felt different.

[BigAl84]

I definitely agree that it's a beautiful cover and I would never put it under the category of early 70's cheesecake/pinup photography etc.

[bombaysaffires]

Did she actually pose naked though??

All I've ever heard is that they asked her to take her TOP off. I have never heard that she was asked to take EVERYTHING off. Wasn't she just topless??

She loves having sh&t to drama whine about. I am sure she was uncomfortable and would have preferred not taking her top off, especially around a photographer and maybe assistants or whatever.... but any telling of a story is embellished. I honestly doubt she was traumatized by it. I can totally imagine her feeling caught off guard and pressured to do something she wasn't comfortable with, and that's not cool.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

Did she actually pose naked though??

All I've ever heard is that they asked her to take her TOP off. I have never heard that she was asked to take EVERYTHING off. Wasn't she just topless??

She loves having sh&t to drama whine about. I am sure she was uncomfortable and would have preferred not taking her top off, especially around a photographer and maybe assistants or whatever.... but any telling of a story is embellished. I honestly doubt she was traumatized by it. I can totally imagine her feeling caught off guard and pressured to do something she wasn't comfortable with, and that's not cool.

My gawd, she, LITERALLY, has slept with more people than anyone I've ever known(and believe me, I've known some ho's). And she acts all the prude. Talk about a hypocrite.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by soul_drifter333

I respect her for not wanting to pose naked as well, but history has shown that she likes to dramatize and change the narrative to the stories she tells so it's hard to really know how to felt at the time.

Agreed. She certainly exaggerates.

I will say that the finished product may be something she likes. Great result. It doesn't show anything. But posing, taking her top off in the studio in front of people may have been the worst part, the demeaning part. Her breasts were exposed and she wasn't expecting it. If it made her feel bad, objectified, I get it.

[bwboy]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

My gawd, she, LITERALLY, has slept with more people than anyone I've ever known(and believe me, I've known some ho's). And she acts all the prude. Talk about a hypocrite.

You’re such a drama Queen. First of all, you don’t know her, even though you think you do. Second, slut shaming is so yesterday even if she has slept with more people than anyone you’ve ever known

[BigAl84]

I was hoping that after the official announcement there would be some new interviews, appearances etc. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. The PR and hype leading up to it was on point, a chefs kiss. Then....nothing.

It wouldn't be Fleetwood Mac if it wasn't yet another massive, missed opportunity. At this point, this will be ancient news by September.