Howard Stern mentions F-Mac

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by dissention

Bigger than Stevie?!

In those pictures, yes.

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't like to really talk about the weight of either woman because I find it tacky, but c'mon. Stevie looks like she had the backside of a Mack truck blasted onto her ass.

You're so bad.

Originally Posted by dissention

Debbie is no skinny mini, but she's certainly lost a lot of weight in recent years and is looking more slimmer than Miss Nicks. A&E had an episode of Biography for her last month and from the live footage they aired, Deb can pull off wearing only bloomers onstage even at 59. Unfortunately, she only wore a tight skirt at my last concert.

I don't follow her career, so I'm not up-to-date on her looks. Those Dazzle Dancers pics look fairly recent, though. What year was that concert? Anyway, congrats to her if she's slimmed down. But would you really want to see her on stage wearing only bloomers??

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by Serrart

Sorry Heyjupiter, what kind of concert was that exactly? Just curious .

Hell if I know.

Originally Posted by Serrart

By the way, I think Stevie is a very beautiful, talented and intelligent woman with a lot of class and a great spirit , a mixture that is extremely rare at every age. In my opinion she should stop worrying so much to disappoint her fans and feel free to write, sing, eat and wear everything she likes.

Romy

I couldn't agree more.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

And someone said that Stevie needed to lose 30 pounds (!!) but in reference to Debbie, said that she'd merely "thickened up."

That would be ME who said that about the 30 pounds. It was in response to Christopher's question asking about what was making Stevie look matronly.
I haven't gotten her on a scale, but I can see that the much ballyhooed "thirty pounds" she talked about losing in The Dance era are mostly back home to roost. And as I said earlier - So What ? Being more than 5 or 10 pounds over one's ideal body weight tends to make anyone look a little dumpy. And clothes can add to the effect, as can the way one carries the weight. I knew merely mentioning the fact would rile the hell out of some people. But, Christopher asked, I answered.

That would also be me who said "thickened up" about DH. I am not a big follower of DH, but in my limited exposure to her lately, I noticed she had gained some weight. Also a fact. I think thickened up is fairly polite, no ? It's not like a said she was a fat sow. Then again, I wouldn't say that about Stevie either.

Please. I don't know exactly when the Dazzle Dancers concert happened, but she's clearly bigger than Stevie in those pictures . . . and she's not under layers of clothing. :shrug

Considering this all started out from Christopher's question, and then morphed into a comparison of the relative "hot" factor of these two women, people are bound to differ. I guess "bigger" is subjective and will differ too. It isn't about bigger though. It's about the vibe someone sends off. On the SA tour, I couldn't see WHAT the hell was going on under Stevie's smocks, but she was commanding, vibrant, and on some nights, a ball of fire. I have seen Ann Wilson kick serious butt when her butt was as big as a Mini Cooper. It's really about attitude. And the right attitude can make an audience not even notice how big your ass is. Maybe even ignore your schlumpy shoes.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

You're so bad.

I know, don't remind me.

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

I don't follow her career, so I'm not up-to-date on her looks. Those Dazzle Dancers pics look fairly recent, though. What year was that concert? Anyway, congrats to her if she's slimmed down. But would you really want to see her on stage wearing only bloomers??

That concert was a few years ago, 2000 I believe. And the A&E Biography did show her wearing only bloomers. And she pulled it off, IMO.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Considering this all started out from Christopher's question, and then morphed into a comparison of the relative "hot" factor of these two women, people are bound to differ. I guess "bigger" is subjective and will differ too. It isn't about bigger though. It's about the vibe someone sends off. On the SA tour, I couldn't see WHAT the hell was going on under Stevie's smocks, but she was commanding, vibrant, and on some nights, a ball of fire. I have seen Ann Wilson kick serious butt when her butt was as big as a Mini Cooper. It's really about attitude. And the right attitude can make an audience not even notice how big your ass is. Maybe even ignore your schlumpy shoes.

Poetry...sheer poetry.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sparky

Digital retouching isn't all that expensive, unless you are inserting CG shots, and the like. They basically do it with something like a photoshop program. It isn't cheap, but it isn't millions, no. It's gotten much more reasonable, and it's not like they got an entire hour of footage retouched. Probably 15 -18 minutes total. I'd eyeball that cost at 20k, maybe. Pocket change, even if it came out Stevie's own velvet purse.

My "millions" comment was an inflated estimate, I admit, but I know for a fact that it's still considered expensive enough that most filmmakers and studios try their absolute best to avoid it.

15-18 minutes of re-touching, at approximately 20K is one thing. But 65-85 minutes of re-touching, and you're looking at quite a large sum.

At any rate, I'm not saying it wasn't done at all. I just don't concur with the degree to which it's assumed it was done.

And I still insist that, in the video footage from local concerts shown on various TV stations throughout the US, Stevie looked even better than she did on 'The Dance.'
Same with their appearances on the Grammys and Letterman.

I highly doubt any of those were re-touched. And if they are able to re-touch a live broadcast as it's airing (the Grammys), thenI'm mighty impressed.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

My "millions" comment was an inflated estimate, I admit, but I know for a fact that it's still considered expensive enough that most filmmakers and studios try their absolute best to avoid it.

15-18 minutes of re-touching, at approximately 20K is one thing. But 65-85 minutes of re-touching, and you're looking at quite a large sum.

At any rate, I'm not saying it wasn't done at all. I just don't concur with the degree to which it's assumed it was done.

Inflated? Try ridiculous, Le Stew. If you can name a filmed concert or movie in the past ten years that has had "millions" of "extensive" retouching done to the singer or actor in order to freshen them up, I'll eat my socks. And even at an hour and a half, you still won't be paying millions.

No one said that she had an extreme amount of retouching done. I know that I said there was a lot of reotuching done on The Dance, but I certainly don't believe she had the exorbitant amount done that you seem to think I do. The majority of it was soft lenses.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sparky

Considering this all started out from Christopher's question, and then morphed into a comparison of the relative "hot" factor of these two women, people are bound to differ. I guess "bigger" is subjective and will differ too. It isn't about bigger though. It's about the vibe someone sends off. On the SA tour, I couldn't see WHAT the hell was going on under Stevie's smocks, but she was commanding, vibrant, and on some nights, a ball of fire. I have seen Ann Wilson kick serious butt when her butt was as big as a Mini Cooper. It's really about attitude. And the right attitude can make an audience not even notice how big your ass is. Maybe even ignore your schlumpy shoes.

I agree.
However... I still disagree with the opinion that Stevie isn't "sexy" anymore.

I think her demeanor and attitude ARE sexy.
The way she dresses is matronly, most definitely... but her movements are still graceful and commanding. She remains a captivating performer, even when she's not doing her little "Gold And Braid" boogie-dance, or thrashing her head up and down ala the 'Red Rocks' "Stand Back."

Her whole vibe is sexy to me.

Debbie is not someone I've ever been fond of on stage. I like her music, but she's never captivated me as a live performer.
In the early days, she just stood there, expressionless. No gestures. Nothing.

Thankfully she moves around these days, but she still seems awkward and lumbering to me. And it has nothing to do with her weight.

In photographs, she can be sexy... but on stage, she does nothing for me.

Now, Ann Wilson is a VERY different story. That woman puts out so much energy, it's mind-blowing. She moves with grace AND energy.

(Oh, and unfortunately the right attitude doesn't "make an audience not even notice how big your ass is"... otherwise so much would never have been made about Ann Wilson's weight or Stevie's in 1994. )

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by sparky

I haven't gotten her on a scale, but I can see that the much ballyhooed "thirty pounds" she talked about losing in The Dance era are mostly back home to roost. And as I said earlier - So What ? Being more than 5 or 10 pounds over one's ideal body weight tends to make anyone look a little dumpy. And clothes can add to the effect, as can the way one carries the weight. I knew merely mentioning the fact would rile the hell out of some people. But, Christopher asked, I answered.

I agree that Stevie could lose some weight, but 30 pounds? On someone her height, 10-15 pounds would make a huge difference. Wasn't she at 170 before she lost weight? There's no way she's even close to that these days, IMO.

Originally Posted by sparky

That would also be me who said "thickened up" about DH. I am not a big follower of DH, but in my limited exposure to her lately, I noticed she had gained some weight. Also a fact. I think thickened up is fairly polite, no ? It's not like a said she was a fat sow. Then again, I wouldn't say that about Stevie either.

I wasn't saying that it was rude. Yes, it's fairly polite, as comments about a woman's weight go. And I agree with the statement. I was just pointing out what I thought was a discrepancy in the way people were comparing Stevie to Debbie. That's all.

Originally Posted by sparky

It's really about attitude. And the right attitude can make an audience not even notice how big your ass is. Maybe even ignore your schlumpy shoes.

Nah, even the right attitude can't cover up the shoes. I don't know how Stevie was on the SA tour. I've only seen her in concert twice - once during the TISL tour and once during this latest tour. So, to me her attitude is fine. And she's still hot, subjectively speaking, of course.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I agree.
However... I still disagree with the opinion that Stevie isn't "sexy" anymore.

I think her demeanor and attitude ARE sexy.
The way she dresses is matronly, most definitely... but her movements are still graceful and commanding. She remains a captivating performer, even when she's not doing her little "Gold And Braid" boogie-dance, or thrashing her head up and down ala the 'Red Rocks' "Stand Back."

Her whole vibe is sexy to me.

My whole thing with Stevie is that I never really found her "sexy" to begin with, so the matronly garb hasn't done much to help. Beautiful, yes, but the vibe she gave off was never anything that I found sexy. It's too serious for me to get hot over. There have been moments where she's been quite sexy (Gold Dust Woman from the Dance, for example), but she has always come across as too demure and innocent, too doe-eyed and needy. I don't think her songs do much to help her seem any sexier; they project a very mythical aura that enrapture you so much in their messages that you don't really have enough room to think about her in a sexual way.

Sexy, to me, is playfulness, humor, and youthfulness. I think Stevie said it best in Silver Girl (bite me, I love that song) when she sang "Insane far beyond her years." I think that speaks about Stevie over the years; she was too wise and grown-up for her own good at times and, IMO, it made her seem much older than she really was. These days, even though she doesn't look 58 years of age, she projects that age in her actions, music, and appearance.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Debbie is not someone I've ever been fond of on stage. I like her music, but she's never captivated me as a live performer.
In the early days, she just stood there, expressionless. No gestures. Nothing.

I hate to disagree again, but I must. She's always been a ball of energy who leaps across the stage, I don't know what you've seen. Clumsy at times, but that was part of the ditzy blonde character she played. One of my favorite clips is from Blondie's CBGB days where they were playing "Rip Her To Shreds." I thought she was having a seizure. And then the whole bit with biting off the heads of roses and spewing the petals into the crowd; that was soooooooo sexy to me. She oozed sexuality without hardly ever showing any skin. If you went back through all the old photos, she never showed lots of cleavage or shoulder or leg. She had an innocence to her, but it was a youthful innocence, not the chaste image that Stevie has projected for thirty years.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

(Oh, and unfortunately the right attitude doesn't "make an audience not even notice how big your ass is"... otherwise so much would never have been made about Ann Wilson's weight or Stevie's in 1994. )

That was mostly the press, not the audience.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I agree.
However... I still disagree with the opinion that Stevie isn't "sexy" anymore.
I think her demeanor and attitude ARE sexy.
Her whole vibe is sexy to me.

God bless ya for it, JS. Knock yourself out. Seeing as neither of us are straight, perhaps our opinions about which women are and are not sexy are pretty useless. LOL.

In the early days, she just stood there, expressionless. No gestures. Nothing.

Actually, I loved it. She seemed to be doing a whole "Warhol-I-am-so-bored-with-this" thing. I thought it pretty rebellious and revolutionary. She may have hardly put that much thought into it though. Maybe she was just tanked up on tons of drugs.

(Oh, and unfortunately the right attitude doesn't "make an audience not even notice how big your ass is"... otherwise so much would never have been made about Ann Wilson's weight or Stevie's in 1994.

Hmm...maybe yes, maybe no. I think during the era that both of them were dissed so much, they both sometimes seemed to be extremely self conscious in their movements. Ann had herself so corseted up in the late 80's and early 90's she could scarcely move, and was so big that her movement WAS constricted. Ditto Stevie, at certain times. Ann is still no skinny minnie after losing a bunch of weight, but after about a minute when I saw her last, I was so damned caught up in her energy, I didn't think about it. But then again, I wasn't checking her out sexually either.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by sparky

Bald guys can be totally hot. Mick doesn't do anything for me, but hair does not make the man.

Eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That bald-guy look is SO mid-90's over! And for me, it was never in at all... I wouldn't necessarily say that hair makes the man, but that baldy/spitter persona thing is so nazty.

Anyways.... Yeah Stevie's fatter. I don't care whether or not she's fat, I just care whether or not she's awake onstage. I just didn't get anything from her on this last tour, with the exception of "Beautiful Child" and "Goodbye Baby"- and those two songs don't really apply.

I saw Heart live at the Greek Theatre in LA and was in the front row right in front of Ann Wilson and she really kicks ass. She's only two years younger than Stevie and the contrast between the two is amazing.

I'm sad that Stevie's an old lady and will never be like the Stevie I once knew. But, hey, everyone gets old. I just think people need to open up their eyes and admit that time has changed and not necessarily for the better.

The world won't stop turning if you say Stevie Nicks is a listless, old cow.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Actually, I loved it. She seemed to be doing a whole "Warhol-I-am-so-bored-with-this" thing. I thought it pretty rebellious and revolutionary. She may have hardly put that much thought into it though. Maybe she was just tanked up on tons of drugs.

Remember when she was on Warhol's old TV show and he signed her pink and yellow military boots, then proclaimed them "art"? Every time I want a pick-me-up, I just pop in that video.

I love that old photo of her, Warhol, Basquiat, and William Burroughs sitting on a couch together in Burroughs apartment. They all look so serious but so playful at the same time. What I wouldn't give to have been in that room with those four icons. New York royalty.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

My whole thing with Stevie is that I never really found her "sexy" to begin with, so the matronly garb hasn't done much to help. Beautiful, yes, but the vibe she gave off was never anything that I found sexy. It's too serious for me to get hot over. There have been moments where she's been quite sexy (Gold Dust Woman from the Dance, for example), but she has always come across as too demure and innocent, too doe-eyed and needy. I don't think her songs do much to help her seem any sexier; they project a very mythical aura that enrapture you so much in their messages that you don't really have enough room to think about her in a sexual way.

Sexy, to me, is playfulness, humor, and youthfulness. I think Stevie said it best in Silver Girl (bite me, I love that song) when she sang "Insane far beyond her years." I think that speaks about Stevie over the years; she was too wise and grown-up for her own good at times and, IMO, it made her seem much older than she really was. These days, even though she doesn't look 58 years of age, she projects that age in her actions, music, and appearance.



I hate to disagree again, but I must. She's always been a ball of energy who leaps across the stage, I don't know what you've seen. Clumsy at times, but that was part of the ditzy blonde character she played. One of my favorite clips is from Blondie's CBGB days where they were playing "Rip Her To Shreds." I thought she was having a seizure. And then the whole bit with biting off the heads of roses and spewing the petals into the crowd; that was soooooooo sexy to me. She oozed sexuality without hardly ever showing any skin. If you went back through all the old photos, she never showed lots of cleavage or shoulder or leg. She had an innocence to her, but it was a youthful innocence, not the chaste image that Stevie has projected for thirty years.



That was mostly the press, not the audience.

Wow, I exactly opposite disagree with you. I think Stevie is incredibly sexy, in fact i often think "how could one performer be so sexy and talented?" when i watch some of her videos. And I don't think she looks doe eyed or needy at all, I think she looks very intense and passionate. veeery intense...
And the few live performances i've seen of Debbie, she was ok, but she didn't project her performance that well (perhaps, also, she didn't have as good a cameraman as stevie always has ) even though the performance was pretty good. Also, she didn't dance or move that well on stage - some were better than others...And although Debbie is the most gorgeous woman ever, I didn't think in her live performaces or videos that she was as sexy as Stevie. Gorgeous, but not as sexy. And her eyes are more blank, they don't project as much passion and intensity as Stevie's...
IMO....
OH, and too me Stevie doesn't seem chaste at all - no matter what you think she tried to project, i'm seeing through that like clear glass on a sunny day...

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

My whole thing with Stevie is that I never really found her "sexy" to begin with, so the matronly garb hasn't done much to help. Beautiful, yes, but the vibe she gave off was never anything that I found sexy. It's too serious for me to get hot over. There have been moments where she's been quite sexy (Gold Dust Woman from the Dance, for example), but she has always come across as too demure and innocent, too doe-eyed and needy.

Sexy, to me, is playfulness, humor, and youthfulness.

One of my favorite clips is from Blondie's CBGB days where they were playing "Rip Her To Shreds." I thought she was having a seizure. And then the whole bit with biting off the heads of roses and spewing the petals into the crowd; that was soooooooo sexy to me. She oozed sexuality without hardly ever showing any skin. If you went back through all the old photos, she never showed lots of cleavage or shoulder or leg. She had an innocence to her, but it was a youthful innocence, not the chaste image that Stevie has projected for thirty years.

We most definitely have two very different ideas of "sexy."

I think true sexiness doesn't hit you over the head. It's not in-your-face or aggressive.
True sexiness is exuded by someone who's graceful and classy.

Veronica Lake was sexier than Mae West ever was.
Jaclyn Smith was sexier than Farrah Fawcett, Cheryl Ladd and Tanya Roberts combined.

A truly sexy person can melt you with a shy smile, or the way they casually run their fingers through their hair.

Truly sexy people don't know they are, and they certainly don't act as if they know they are.

I respond to humour, too, and playfulness. But I see that in Stevie as well.
Not so much when she's on-stage, but she's typically very funny in interviews, and, depending on who's interviewing her, she can be quite playful.

Biting the heads off of roses and spitting them at the audience might be bold and funny, but it's not what I'd call "sexy."

(As for my opinion of Debbie's onstage demeanor... I don't know what the footage was from. But I've seen several clips of her over the years... in one I believe she's wearing a black dress... and she just STANDS there. The music is pulsating and alive, and she's not moving an inch. I was bored looking at her. This was around 1981. )