Stevie Q&A In March 5th Rolling Stone

EveryHour · #1 02-18-2009, 05:57 PM

Stevie is featured for the Q&A in the March 5th issue of Rolling Stone (Taylor Swift cover) on Page 28. No new photo, though they used that really nice recent one of her in the black buttonup jacket and white hat. The featured quote from her is: "Little girls think it's necessary to put all their business on MySpace and Facebook.....I'm all about mystery."

The magazine also claims on Page 10 that Austin Scaggs (the interviewer) wrote a piece for the online Smoking Section regarding more details of the interview, but I'm not seeing it posted there yet:

www.rollingstone.com/smokingsection

kennation · #2 02-18-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EveryHour

Stevie is featured for the Q&A in the March 5th issue of Rolling Stone (Taylor Swift cover) on Page 28. No new photo, though they used that really nice recent one of her in the black buttonup jacket and white hat. The featured quote from her is: "Little girls think it's necessary to put all their business on MySpace and Facebook.....I'm all about mystery."

BOLD WORDS, Ms. Nicks- BOLD WORDS. My friend keeps saying to me, "What kind of trouble would Stevie be in if she were living in today's world? With internet, phone cameras, and sneaky photographers???" I have no answer for that. She may have been in all kinds of craziness... Who knows? Anyway... is the Q&A featured on their website?

GypsyGirl15 · #3 02-18-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EveryHour

Stevie is featured for the Q&A in the March 5th issue of Rolling Stone (Taylor Swift cover) on Page 28. No new photo, though they used that really nice recent one of her in the black buttonup jacket and white hat. The featured quote from her is: "Little girls think it's necessary to put all their business on MySpace and Facebook.....I'm all about mystery."

Thanks for the heads up.

How long has the magazine been in the stores?
Is it the same picture they used for the "Songwriter" magazine cover?

BombaySapphire3 · #4 02-18-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennation

BOLD WORDS, Ms. Nicks- BOLD WORDS. My friend keeps saying to me, "What kind of trouble would Stevie be in if she were living in today's world? With internet, phone cameras, and sneaky photographers???" I have no answer for that. She may have been in all kinds of craziness... Who knows? Anyway... is the Q&A featured on their website?

In today's world there would be no Stevie Nicks as she was in her glory years.She is of a time when you could still have some mystery and her mystique depended on that .She arrived near the end of that time .Imagine if the likes of Greta Garbo tried to be a film star today with the image she had in the 1920 and 1930s ..it would never work.

kennation · #5 02-18-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

In today's world there would be no Stevie Nicks as she was in her glory years.She is of a time when you could still have some mystery and her mystique depended on that .She arrived near the end of that time .Imagine if the likes of Greta Garbo tried to be a film star today with the image she had in the 1920 and 1930s ..it would never work.

No no- I mean, if they had all of the technologies then, as they do now... She would have all sorts of trouble. She would be the Amy Winehouse of that generation. Her business would be EVERYWHERE...

BombaySapphire3 · #6 02-18-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennation

No no- I mean, if they had all of the technologies then, as they do now... She would have all sorts of trouble. She would be the Amy Winehouse of that generation. Her business would be EVERYWHERE...

I knew exactly what you meant..That is why I said there would be no mysterious Stevie Nicks today as she had been back in the day..It would be too easy for all her business to be spilled in the mass media like it is now.We fans did have a very good inkling then that she was very hedonistic ..it just did not come out in the media at least until she went into Betty Ford but that was late 1986.Also I believe at least the late 1970 were still a more innocent time .If La Nicks turned up today with her witchy image she'd be harder pressed to have the type of career she had then IMHO.As for Winehouse she went off the deep end after one hit album. it took La Nicks over a decade to get near that point.

EveryHour · #7 02-18-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsyGirl15

Thanks for the heads up.

How long has the magazine been in the stores?

It's not yet. I have a subscription.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsyGirl15

Is it the same picture they used for the "Songwriter" magazine cover?

Yes, that's the one.

sleepless child · #8 02-18-2009, 07:59 PM

So I wonder what she thinks of her Niece Jessica being on Myspace?

HejiraNYC · #9 02-18-2009, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I knew exactly what you meant..That is why I said there would be no mysterious Stevie Nicks today as she had been back in the day..It would be too easy for all her business to be spilled in the mass media like it is now.We fans did have a very good inkling then that she was very hedonistic ..it just did not come out in the media at least until she went into Betty Ford but that was late 1986.Also I believe at least the late 1970 were still a more innocent time .If La Nicks turned up today with her witchy image she'd be harder pressed to have the type of career she had then IMHO.As for Winehouse she went off the deep end after one hit album. it took La Nicks over a decade to get near that point.

I have to agree with you about the 1970s being a more innocent time. We've gone from a culture that truly idolized celebrities (then) to a culture that tries to scandalize and mock celebrities (now). If a young Stevie appeared on the scene today wearing lace doilies, curtain sheers, legwarmers and platform boots (or anything that wasn't trendy or hip) she would be ridiculed savagely instead of being held up as a fashion icon. It was easier to suspend reality back in the day, when it was still cool for rock stars to wear spandex, capes and goofy hats- it was theatrical, kitschy and fun. Now everyone takes themselves so seriously for fear that they would be mocked or, heaven forbid, accused of being gay or, at the very least, irrelevant.

kennation · #10 02-19-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I have to agree with you about the 1970s being a more innocent time. We've gone from a culture that truly idolized celebrities (then) to a culture that tries to scandalize and mock celebrities (now). If a young Stevie appeared on the scene today wearing lace doilies, curtain sheers, legwarmers and platform boots (or anything that wasn't trendy or hip) she would be ridiculed savagely instead of being held up as a fashion icon. It was easier to suspend reality back in the day, when it was still cool for rock stars to wear spandex, capes and goofy hats- it was theatrical, kitschy and fun. Now everyone takes themselves so seriously for fear that they would be mocked or, heaven forbid, accused of being gay or, at the very least, irrelevant.

The word, "irrelevant" is used a lot when people talk about Stevie or Fleetwood Mac (In the circles in which I travel.) I don't understand that. I just don't. Honestly, I feel as though FM & SN are legends and once you are a legend then you will always be relevant. Mainly, because you are inspiring so many new people. Your music lives on- you live on. When I saw the trailer for Stevie's soundstage package I felt as though she couldn't be more relevant. Are they irrelevant?

More so- leg warmers are coming back, as is spandex, from what I am told.

I look at musicians like Tori Amos, who is insane, and Ani Difranco, who is a different breed all together and I think, "They may not be huge on the charts, but they are making music that means something-that speaks to people." That is our FM... That is our Stevie Nicks.

In my opinion, Stevie could come back today, as she did in early '75, and be accepted. If we remember it was before all the chiffon... (Reference Largo '75) So maybe she could make it. Not likely, but maybe. I think her performance skills and Lindsey's musical talents would make it- somehow.

I definitely feel they would have more staying power and success than say James Blunt. I would definitely perfer Buckingham Nicks to John Mayer!

HejiraNYC · #11 02-19-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennation

The word, "irrelevant" is used a lot when people talk about Stevie or Fleetwood Mac (In the circles in which I travel.) I don't understand that. I just don't. Honestly, I feel as though FM & SN are legends and once you are a legend then you will always be relevant. Mainly, because you are inspiring so many new people. Your music lives on- you live on. When I saw the trailer for Stevie's soundstage package I felt as though she couldn't be more relevant. Are they irrelevant?

I think Stevie voluntarily placed herself out of "relevance" back in the early 90's. I think the jumping off point for her was recording "Sometimes it's a Bitch," which she supposedly recorded under protest due to record label pressure. Ever since then I think she basically decided to do her own thing at her own pace, regardless of whatever was going on around her. Accordingly her productivity fell off a cliff!

Sure, her recording sessions with Rodney Jerkins and Dallas Austin may have hinted at a whiff or two of desperation, but ultimately she has elected to stay out of the mainstream, which I think half of her fanbase applauds and half of her fanbase derides. On the one hand, it means that Stevie maintains everything about her "Stevie-ness" that makes her unique. On the other hand, it means that she is considered as something of a relic who lives in the past ala Baby Jane Hudson. Yet the notion that she is considered to be so out-of-touch makes her that much more interesting to the hipster set in a very ironic way. I guess when you have been around as long as Stevie has, and when you are as unique as Stevie, you are bound to inspire a broad spectrum of opinions.

kennation · #12 02-19-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I think Stevie voluntarily placed herself out of "relevance" back in the early 90's. I think the jumping off point for her was recording "Sometimes it's a Bitch," which she supposedly recorded under protest due to record label pressure. Ever since then I think she basically decided to do her own thing at her own pace, regardless of whatever was going on around her. Accordingly her productivity fell off a cliff!

Sure, her recording sessions with Rodney Jerkins and Dallas Austin may have hinted at a whiff or two of desperation, but ultimately she has elected to stay out of the mainstream, which I think half of her fanbase applauds and half of her fanbase derides. On the one hand, it means that Stevie maintains everything about her "Stevie-ness" that makes her unique. On the other hand, it means that she is considered as something of a relic who lives in the past ala Baby Jane Hudson. Yet the notion that she is considered to be so out-of-touch makes her that much more interesting to the hipster set in a very ironic way. I guess when you have been around as long as Stevie has, and when you are as unique as Stevie, you are bound to inspire a broad spectrum of opinions.

RIGHT ON, but WHAT ABOUT THE LEG WARMERS??? LOL J/K

Gypsycat999 · #13 02-19-2009, 10:16 AM

I believe it's much more important to be unique and able to touch people deep in their soules than to be on the top of the charts. Number 1s are just songs everybody's listening to. I think Stevie would always do it no matter what happens around here, she would always find people she's not "irrelevant" for. And I wish it was possible to be more witchy and mystical today...Such people are much more facinating than the ones about you can find everything on the internet.

kennation · #14 02-19-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsycat999

I believe it's much more important to be unique and able to touch people deep in their soules than to be on the top of the charts. Number 1s are just songs everybody's listening to. I think Stevie would always do it no matter what happens around here, she would always find people she's not "irrelevant" for. And I wish it was possible to be more witchy and mystical today...Such people are much more facinating than the ones about you can find everything on the internet.

Now that is true! I totally agree! Totally!

Phoenix · #15 02-19-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsycat999

I believe it's much more important to be unique and able to touch people deep in their soules than to be on the top of the charts. Number 1s are just songs everybody's listening to. I think Stevie would always do it no matter what happens around here, she would always find people she's not "irrelevant" for. And I wish it was possible to be more witchy and mystical today...Such people are much more facinating than the ones about you can find everything on the internet.

I agree.
..........