Street Angel Revisited

[jwd]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Columbia State (SC), STATE-RECORD CO. , June 10, 1994

Section: WEEKEND

STEVIE NICKS RETURNS TO TOP FORM IN STUDIO ALBUM


HOWARD COHEN, Knight-Ridder Newspapers

''Understanding me is not an easy thing to do,'' sings Stevie Nicks in ''Blue Denim,'' the vibrant lead track from '' Street Angel '' (Modern/Atlantic 4-stars) her first studio album in five years.

No kidding.

Interpreting Nicks' confessional, sometimes mystical, lyrics has often been a formidable task -- both in her solo work and her days with Fleetwood Mac. So it's a relief to find Nicks sticking to a common theme on ''Street Angel'' -- love. And plenty of it.

There's ''Kick It,'' the set's most infectious track, a spry, harmonious number with an uplifting sing-along chorus. And ''Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind,'' the first single, is another charmer, thanks to Nicks' relaxed vocals and its seizing and chipper pop-rock nature.

But the CD's standout is its title track, a haunting ballad that ranks among the songwriter's finest moments on record. ''Street Angel'' tells of a homeless woman who must choose between the love of a wealthy man and her family on the streets. The exquisite melody and detailed harmony by David Crosby lend the tune a grace you don't often find in today's pop market.

Nicks' only misstep here is an unnecessary and overly reverent cover of Bob Dylan's ''Just Like a Woman'' (with the man himself playing harmonica behind her Dylan-aping vocals).

''Street Angel'' is Nicks' most consistently tuneful solo set to date. Moreover, it equals her first two -- and previous best -- LPs, ''Bella Donna'' and ''The Wild Heart.'' (Three cuts -- ''Greta,'' an ode to screen legend Greta Garbo, and the country songs ''Destiny'' and ''Rose Garden'' -- predate 1981's ''Bella Donna'' and find a fitting home here.)

With ample guitars erupting all over ''Street Angel,'' Nicks finds her wings as a rocker and reminds us why we fell in love with her when first she spun her tale of a Welsh witch named ''Rhiannon'' 19 long years ago.

This guy needs to listen to this record again. Either that or he needs to have his hearing checked. The only other possibility is that he was paid a lot of money to write those things. Amazing.

[David]

Originally Posted by jwd

This guy needs to listen to this record again. Either that or he needs to have his hearing checked. The only other possibility is that he was paid a lot of money to write those things. Amazing.

I don't think so, Joe. Howard Cohen has always considered himself somewhat of a fan of Nicks & of Mac in general. His views of STREET ANGEL pretty much match my own. I like that album the most of all her solo albums.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by David

I don't think so, Joe. Howard Cohen has always considered himself somewhat of a fan of Nicks & of Mac in general. His views of STREET ANGEL pretty much match my own. I like that album the most of all her solo albums.

Maybe that's why he was lenient on Stevie when he reviewed this record. He wanted to see her spread her wings and fly again so to speak. So that may be it. There might be a little bias in his review. Clearly you and he are in the minority in how most people, critics and fans alike, feel about this record. I consider myself a very big fan of Stevie and FM and think SA is her worst. To each his/her own. David, how are you on this fine Sunday?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

I don't think so, Joe. Howard Cohen has always considered himself somewhat of a fan of Nicks & of Mac in general. His views of STREET ANGEL pretty much match my own. I like that album the most of all her solo albums.

I think the critics were kind to her. I like the record for the most part, though it was clear to me at the time something had changed in her life, and IMO for the worse. Her voice was, however, splendid on the record compared to the last two IMO.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think the critics were kind to her. I like the record for the most part, though it was clear to me at the time something had changed in her life, and IMO for the worse. Her voice was, however, splendid on the record compared to the last two IMO.

Not this one. He ripped her to shreds. If anyone is given credit for anything good about the record, it's certainly not given to Stevie. It hurts my everything.

Originally Posted by michelej1

Richmond Times Dispatch, July 7, 1994

All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't make Stevie Nicks' latest a worthy listen. All is the operative word. On "Street Angel" (Atlantic), Nicks is championed by singers and musicians such as Bob Dylan, David Crosby, Waddy Wachtel, Bernie Leadon, Michael Campbell, Andy Fairweather Low, Benmont Tench and Roy Bittan. Stalwarts all, but they're not enough to carry inadequate lyrics and a voice that bleats as though it inhaled a dozen party balloons. Campbell is game. For those selections on which he composed the music, it is a guitar power punch reminiscent of his work with Tom Petty. When Nicks steps to the microphone and spews gibberish with unbearable vocals, all is for naught. Whether simpering or grandstanding, Nick's "Street Angel" is headed for a roast.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Let me rephrase that - for the most part, the critics were kind to her.

Remember, the male critics (there were not really any femal one to any significant degree) - HATED that she did not fit their mold.

And, when I read things like the review you posted, I just think that critic is unprofessional and more interested in his own alleged pith than providing an interesting review.

[bellagypsy79]

I have the "Street Angel" cd that is the Japan version. Inside the cd it has a pink fold out with the lyrics to the songs on the album all in Japaneze, and 2 bonus tracks...
"God's Garden", and "Inspiration". Does anyone have that version of the album? It's pretty nice to keep especially when you're a Stevie fan!

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think the critics were kind to her.

Well, some were & some weren't. That's how it always is with criticism. This critic likes your film but that critic doesn't. It isn't a matter of being kind (if a critic is a responsible critic, he presents his views honestly, irrespective of the effects those views might have on the artist). The oft-heard claim that bias or partiality has crept into a critic's review is baffling: That's exactly what criticism is -- a personal opinion expressed judiciously. There's no such animal as "impartial criticism." Every opinion is subjective -- that is, it's particular to a specific person. An opinion cannot be substantiated in a laboratory or a test tube. Nor can you derive a logical syllogism from your critical opinions that has universal validity. The opinion has to be argued, & argument is a method of suasion.

I like the record for the most part, though it was clear to me at the time something had changed in her life, and IMO for the worse. Her voice was, however, splendid on the record compared to the last two IMO.

Well, I like her singing on that album (I wouldn't call it splendid, but that's just your style of praise) & I like a lot of the songs. There's some shoddy craftsmanship in the engineering & in the design of the package in general, but that doesn't ruin for me what I like about the album (for example, the uncompressed bass in the opening of DOCKLANDS & the annoying dropouts later in the track don't affect my esteem for that song).

[jwd]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

Let me rephrase that - for the most part, the critics were kind to her.

Remember, the male critics (there were not really any femal one to any significant degree) - HATED that she did not fit their mold.

And, when I read things like the review you posted, I just think that critic is unprofessional and more interested in his own alleged pith than providing an interesting review.

Well, I can't remember what every critic said about the record. And for the most part it doesn't matter what the critics say. Bottom line is that SA tanked, BIG. Most of her fans don't like it. Stevie, doesn't even like it. Maybe because it did fail so miserably, I don't know.

Every once in awhle I like to pull that record out, when I'm in the mood for it, and give it a listen. It's not all bad. I do like "Blue Denim" and "Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind". And I've really come to love "Unconditional Love". So, to me, it has it's worthwhile moments. I do love Stevie.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by David

It isn't a matter of being kind (if a critic is a responsible critic, he presents his views honestly, irrespective of the effects those views might have on the artist). The oft-heard claim that bias or partiality has crept into a critic's review is baffling: That's exactly what criticism is -- a personal opinion expressed judiciously. There's no such animal as "impartial criticism."

I think there's some contradiction in your post David. A critic can be irresponsible, but he can't be biased? Isn't that, or couldn't that be construed as one and the same thing?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by jwd

Well, I can't remember what every critic said about the record. And for the most part it doesn't matter what the critics say. Bottom line is that SA tanked, BIG. Most of her fans don't like it. Stevie, doesn't even like it. Maybe because it did fail so miserably, I don't know.

Every once in awhle I like to pull that record out, when I'm in the mood for it, and give it a listen. It's not all bad. I do like "Blue Denim" and "Maybe Love Will Change Your Mind". And I've really come to love "Unconditional Love". So, to me, it has it's worthwhile moments. I do love Stevie.

Yes - I like, if not love, some of the tracks. Then, I hear Docklands and wonder what the hell was she thinking when God's Garden was out there and, though I like it as it is, it could have re tolled fairly easily and, IMO, been a hit as that kind of power ballad was still around, though fading to be sure.

I also think the 180 pounds Nicks touring in a Nirvana era did nothing to help sales.

In the end, the record is still IMO heads above most other artists' records (they have one hit and filler) -- but it was not up to snuff for La Nicks.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yes - I like, if not love, some of the tracks. Then, I hear Docklands and wonder what the hell was she thinking when God's Garden was out there and, though I like it as it is, it could have re tolled fairly easily and, IMO, been a hit as that kind of power ballad was still around, though fading to be sure.

I also think the 180 pounds Nicks touring in a Nirvana era did nothing to help sales.

In the end, the record is still IMO heads above most other artists' records (they have one hit and filler) -- but it was not up to snuff for La Nicks.

I love "God's Garden". Just another one of those songs that were left off in place of something so inferior. "Joan Of Arc" comes to mind when thinking of TITN. Don't even get me started on "Docklands" or "Jane" or "Destiny". I cringe when I hear those songs. However, "Destiny" on the Enchanted box set sounds better to me.

Surely her weight didn't help, especially in our vain society. Everyone was looking for that super foxy vixen she used to be. Truly women, especially when it comes to singers and actresses, are held to a much higher standard than men. What a shame. Nobody cares what Bob Dylan or Mick Jagger looks like these days.

[David]

Originally Posted by jwd

I think there's some contradiction in your post David. A critic can be irresponsible, but he can't be biased? Isn't that, or couldn't that be construed as one and the same thing?

I'm not following you. Responsible criticism is honest criticism -- that is, an honest statement of a critic's opinion. (A critic who, for example, gives his wife's new play a great review but who actually despises the play is a dishonest, irresponsibile critic.)

There is no such thing as bias-free criticism. A bias is merely a preference or an inclination. The bias is in the critic's subjective opinions. Subjectivity = bias, QED.

When I say I don't like ROOMS ON FIRE, I am expressing my bias, my preference. There's no way to test that opinion so that the same results (dislike of ROOMS ON FIRE) are derived in all circumstances & among all test subjects. The acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth is the same on every continent, but opinions about ROOMS ON FIRE are as varied as the number of people who have an opinion about it. If an Indonesian scientist claims that gravity is 4.5 meters per second squared, he is incorrect. But when it comes to whether & how much you like or dislike ROOMS ON FIRE, concepts of correct & incorrect are inapplicable.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I LOVE Destiny and was thrilled when she did it live on that tour!

I like Jane as well. I think the vocal, esp. the three part harmony - is tight and Bel Canto. I also think it is moving tribue. But, people can't get past the chimpanzee line - sucks for them IMO

There used to be, I think, a video on youtube of Destiny live - but I can't find it. But, I found this one of TTM, which I think is a splendid vocal!



Ditto for MLWCYM



and - to me, she was heavier in parts of the SYW your

[jwd]

Originally Posted by David

I'm not following you. Responsible criticism is honest criticism -- that is, an honest statement of a critic's opinion. (A critic who, for example, gives his wife's new play a great review but who actually despises the play is a dishonest, irresponsibile critic.)

There is no such thing as bias-free criticism. A bias is merely a preference or an inclination. The bias is in the critic's subjective opinions. Subjectivity = bias, QED.

When I say I don't like ROOMS ON FIRE, I am expressing my bias, my preference. There's no way to test that opinion so that the same results (dislike of ROOMS ON FIRE) are derived in all circumstances & among all test subjects. The acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth is the same on every continent, but opinions about ROOMS ON FIRE are as varied as the number of people who have an opinion about it. If an Indonesian scientist claims that gravity is 4.5 meters per second squared, he is incorrect. But when it comes to whether & how much you like or dislike ROOMS ON FIRE, concepts of correct & incorrect are inapplicable.

I think we're going a little too deep here. You took the word bias and just had a field day with it, being the intellectual that you are. So, if I were to rephrase my initial statement and say that Howard Cohen was dishonest or irresponsible(based on his feelings for Stevie and FM), in his criticism of SA, instead of using the word "bias", you would "understand" or concur with that(at least in me stating MY opinion)?