Earlier or later writings better?

[Kelly]

I chose both equally. Stevie has grown and changed as we all do over time and that is reflected in her writing style. The day I get bored with her songs or find her writing to be crappy, I will find a new singer/songwriter to start listening to. Some of the songs on TISL and SYW are at the top of my favorite list, like the song TISL, Planets, EFO, Illume, Goodbye Baby...

As far as EFO and Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow..I cannot see how that could be possible. Stevie wrote EFO sometime around 1999 (well it was copywritten then) and that was long before Sheryl and Lance had even met. Lance was married and I am not even sure he had had his twin daughters at that point. Lance was divorced for quite awhile before he even met Sheryl so it is not like he was involved in this big love triangle with Kristen and Sheryl. I do not have a clue what or whom Stevie penned EFO about but I can't see how it could be Lance and Sheryl. It is also sort of hard for me to believe that Stevie has suddenly started writing in the first person about someone else's love experiences. The song does rock and I adore the vocal! The intensity in which she sings also give me goosebumps. The one version of the song in which LB's vocals are more pronounced is fantastic as you can hear his intensity too. He rarely gets that into her songs vocally anymore, ala Frozen Love, but in EFO and the Wall of Sound version of TD, he certainly expresses more passion than usual. (for Lindsey that is.)

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by Kelly

As far as EFO and Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow..I cannot see how that could be possible. Stevie wrote EFO sometime around 1999 (well it was copywritten then) and that was long before Sheryl and Lance had even met. Lance was married and I am not even sure he had had his twin daughters at that point. Lance was divorced for quite awhile before he even met Sheryl so it is not like he was involved in this big love triangle with Kristen and Sheryl.

Oh, okay. I thought about that later and realized that I wasn't sure when their relationship began. So, that theory is out the window now. I suppose it also sounds quite personal to be about other people.

Hillary

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by glitter_fades

I also think she's capable of more but she's too used to writing the way she does now.

Who's going to tell her otherwise? LB?

I'd back him up if he wanted to broach the subject.

Hillary

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by ryan8472

I like the new stuff, but I like the older songs more. They're so...mystical and funky, and SO Stevie.

It's funny how you say that--like the newer ones aren't really Stevie as much as the older ones are. I know everyone begs to differ.

Hillary

[GateandGarden]

Well, this is quite controversial, but no one thinks it was the drugs that allowed her to write the way she did before, and her songwriting has evolved into something different and in some ways more personal and definitely more lucid since she's been clean? No one wants to credit the illegal substances with those timeless lyrics? I can't blame y'all if you don't want to because I feel like it takes something away from Stevie, or perhaps a lot away from Stevie, but I can't help but think that this may be a drug thing, at least partially.

Hillary

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by glitter_fades

I'd settle for intelligible never mind brilliant. I'm not sure she's done brilliant yet. I said this in another thread but it bears repeating. If Stevie wants to be more literal in her songs that's fine but in that case she has to stick to literacy rules more than if she's writing with imagery or figuratively. I also don't think my expectations are unreasonable toward someone who prides herself on being a songwriter not a pop tart.

Why should she? Rules in art aren't set in stone, or we would never have had abstractism, cubism, dadaism, futurism, pop art, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Tchaikovsky Grotowsky, Brecht, Neorealism, Nouvelle Vague, Dogma 95, jazz, rap... Artists write those rules for themselves, IMO. Certainly there are common standards that are learnt and used as a basis but a creative personality tends to reinvent them continously. What I don't understand it's the "old songs are Stevie and new aren't". It's like saying that her new material doesn't correspond anymore to the preconceived image of Stevie reflected by her past works. Well, it means she's alive, right? We change everyday, every moment, why shouldn't she?
Certainly fans choose to follow an artist or not, love one period more than another, but to chain them to their past makes me think to a certain portrait in a Wilde's novel.

Romy

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I'd back him up if he wanted to broach the subject.

Hillary

I'd gladly offer my opinions to Miss Nicks, no back up needed.

[estranged4life]

for earlier...

Need I say more???

Brian "" j.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by glitter_fades

The difference today is the lack of strong imagery used to describe vague subject matter. She used poetic imagery more effectively in the early days. Today she thinks using a word in the wrong tense or making a mockery of a well known metaphor is somehow poetic if she likes the way it sounds. Rubbish. Today her songs simply sound more self-indulgent because she's lost the ability to cloak the words in vivid imagery that's as universally appealing as some of her earlier work. Some of her words still evoke stong images for fans, but these days you almost have to already be a fan to appreciate Stevie's work. She aint winning over too many new fans with what she's writing now. Let's face it. She needs to find ways to make her words sound less about herself and more about the unversal human condition. Only fans think of her songs that way anymore. She has lead an incredibly interesting life but she seems to have little or nothing important to say about life's lessons, as far as I can tell. If only she could tell me something I could learn from other than what an ordeal it is to be Stevie.

.

I think it also has to do with what I, personally, see as Stevie becoming artistically stagnant. It seems like she just stopped growing musically and just retreads the same waters time after time. Back in the day, things were considerably different (musically, artistically, and emotionally) from album to album and I've felt that since around the early nineties to now, everything has really been the same thing over and over.

I've always gravitated more towards artists that constantly change the things they do, as if they're on an artistic quest. That's why I adore Lindsey Buckingham, David Bowie, and Debbie Harry. They never settle for just doing something adequately and they never stop growing when it comes to their art. There's a difference between growing and changing emotionally and growing and exploring your art and the means in which you express those changes and emotions.

Pop in something from Lindsey that's twenty years old and then pop in something recent and there are stunning differences. He's always been innovative, even when it comes to standard fluff; that's what makes him a genius. Bowie has done so much different stuff that it boggles the mind, same with Debbie Harry. Bowie went from concept albums like Ziggy Stardust to truly experimental albums like Low and Lodger, not to mention countless other incarnations like his plastic soul period. Debbie went from punk to pop to urban chic to avant garde jazz to standards to improvisation, etc. Did they change what made people love them? No, they simply grew as artists. They still possessed the qualities that gave them their fans and they kept them.

For Stevie, I guess she's pleased with her current artistic path. But changing things artistically won't make her lose fans. She did something truly different when it came to Illume, like it or love it. Would any of us desert her and sell her albums to a used music store if she decided to record an entire album in that vein? Would she suffer if she decided to record a jazz album? I doubt it. The voice would still be there, as would the lyrics. It's just a matter of exploring your mind for different ideas. I don't think any of us could sit here and say that this is the best Stevie could do artistically. I've always thought that she'd love to do some truly odd stuff like Lindsey, but she's afraid to do so.

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by dissention

For Stevie, I guess she's pleased with her current artistic path. But changing things artistically won't make her lose fans. She did something truly different when it came to Illume, like it or love it. Would any of us desert her and sell her albums to a used music store if she decided to record an entire album in that vein? Would she suffer if she decided to record a jazz album? I doubt it. The voice would still be there, as would the lyrics. It's just a matter of exploring your mind for different ideas. I don't think any of us could sit here and say that this is the best Stevie could do artistically. I've always thought that she'd love to do some truly odd stuff like Lindsey, but she's afraid to do so.

I'd also love a jazz album, or an album in the vein of Illume, or a coutry one produced by Jack White, or an album with Stevie featuring some monks in a collection of Gregorian choirs... anything new!

Jokes aside, I think changes are always positive for every artist, and Stevie could take so many ways right now.

Romy

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Serrart

I'd also love a jazz album, or an album in the vein of Illume, or a coutry one produced by Jack White, or an album with Stevie featuring some monks in a collection of Gregorian choirs... anything new!

Jokes aside, I think changes are always positive for every artist, and Stevie could take so many ways right now.

Romy

I'd actually love to hear her work with Jack White. It would certainly be interesting, that's for sure.

[Hawkeye]

I think both Smile At You and Illume were very experimental and new for Stevie. And I'd even call Everybody Finds Out different. Stevie tried a lot of new things on Say You Will.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I think both Smile At You and Illume were very experimental and new for Stevie. And I'd even call Everybody Finds Out different. Stevie tried a lot of new things on Say You Will.

Illume was quite different for Stevie, I've said that and you'll get no arguments from me about it. I don't see Smile At You as being "experimental," though, not in the least. As for Everybody Finds Out, as much as I like it, it screams of Rock A Little (and it doesn't help that Rick Nowels co-wrote it). Adventurous and experimental it ain't, IMO.

[GateandGarden]

I think "Smile at You" is experimental in that, to my knowledge, she had never recorded a song with lyrics so blatantly sexual and vivid as "my walls are flaming." I mean, with all of her other sexual lyrics, she can probably say, "Oh, but what I really meant was such and such." What's she gonna say for this? What else in the world can one possibly mean by "my walls are flaming"??? So, it's experimental because of that.

I was watching my Destiny Rules DVD today and one of Mick's comments made me think of this thread. He said that her material for SYW was the best material she had written in years, and probably the best since the first couple of albums she did with FM. I was thinking, First couple of albums? What?!?

Can I say:

"Storms" and "Gyspy"?

Just to name a couple

[GypsySorcerer]

Overall, I say earlier. Trouble in Shangri-La had some gems (the title track in particular) but some of the rest I've been lukewarm to. I can't stand "Illume". And I also not that crazy about "Everybody Finds Out." That "you can't have him" stuff sounds like things I said on the playground in 6th grade.