Justifying The Music Industry's Downfall With Stevie Nicks

[RockALittle250]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

Don't you get it? People are mad at Stevie. Her attitude is entitled rock star. I hate the article too, but there is an underlying anger of opportunities lost when it comes to Stevie.

Yes, i understand that people are mad at Stevie. My point is Stevie has the right to express her views and opinions about the world, the music industry, computers, or whatever, without being ripped apart for having those opinions.

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

Yes, but i started that thread because that reviewer was not reviewing the product...they gave the DVD 1 out of 5 stars, not because of the content, but because they think Stevie's eyes are strange, and because they were questioning her sexuality. That reviewer should have given a review based on the actual DVD, and left those opinions out of it.

I think constructive criticism is great, but most of the criticism that comes her way is not constructive. It is redundant and sometimes based on character assassinations, or what we think we know about her. So what if she doesn't like computers...if she doesn't utilize technology for her own good then that is her deal, but we shouldn't be judging her based on things like that. That's her personal opinion, and if she feels technology is ruining the music business, she has the right to state her piece without being ridiculed for being old and out of touch.

I understand the review really didn't have anything to do with the product, but you'll only find ones like that if you are sitting there reading the reviews to find ones you like and ones you don't. What's the point of that, especially if you are prone to get upset when you do come across negative ones? My point is that it never matters to me what other people think of things I like, whether it be a movie, a restaurant, or in this case a performer.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

Yes, i understand that people are mad at Stevie. My point is Stevie has the right to express her views and opinions about the world, the music industry, computers, or whatever, without being ripped apart for having those opinions.

Depends on the opinion I guess. I think Stevie is right in a way, but I can also see why she is wrong. The internet would be the perfect realm for Stevie. People on the internet love fantasy.

[RockALittle250]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I understand the review really didn't have anything to do with the product, but you'll only find ones like that if you are sitting there reading the reviews to find ones you like and ones you don't. What's the point of that, especially if you are prone to get upset when you do come across negative ones? My point is that it never matters to me what other people think of things I like, whether it be a movie, a restaurant, or in this case a performer.

I just happened to be reading some of them and came across that one and was pretty disgusted. I wanted to share that on here because i thought others would also find it ridiculous and that's part of what this forum is about...sharing.

I don't mean to come off so defensively, but it seems that i'm getting attacked from all sides because i told people that there is too much negativity around here. But in posting that, i contributed to that negativity as well. Thanks for opening my eyes to that, because looking back, i did add to something that i'm trying to curtail.

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

No offense to anyone, but what does "relevant" mean when it comes to music? Do your songs have to reach a certain age group to be considered relevant? Are only artists who are currently recording new material, relevant? (Even Yanni?) Are dead artists irrelevant because they stopped recording? Can an irrelevant artist still have songs that are relevant?

What defines "relevant"?

I'm guessing in this context it's commercially relevant? Maybe artistically relevant. I think maybe "Whom defines relevance" would be a better question!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

Don't you get it? People are mad at Stevie. Her attitude is entitled rock star. I hate the article too, but there is an underlying anger of opportunities lost when it comes to Stevie.

Disappointed, I can understand. But mad? Is it really rational to be mad at an artist for not living up to your expectations? I want new music from Stevie as badly as anyone does, but I have to accept the fact that she's not currently recording -- just as I would have had to accept it if she had completely retired.

She's had her downtime (as many artists do), but she seems to be coming around. For the first time in six years, she finally seems inspired again by the idea of recording new material. That's something to look forward to.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Disappointed, I can understand. But mad? Is it really rational to be mad at an artist for not living up to your expectations? I want new music from Stevie as badly as anyone does, but I have to accept the fact that she's not currently recording -- just as I would have had to accept it if she had completely retired.

She's had her downtime (as many artists do), but she seems to be coming around. For the first time in six years, she finally seems inspired again by the idea of recording new material. That's something to look forward to.

No it's not rational, but when you buy 4 or 5 copies of an album to support and artist and you promote that artist to all your friends and get nothing back, it tends to piss one off.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

No it's not rational, but when you buy 4 or 5 copies of an album to support and artist and you promote that artist to all your friends and get nothing back, it tends to piss one off.

That's your problem, not hers.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by LukeA

That's your problem, not hers.

no, it's one reason why her fan base has shrunk and their has been no THE DANCE to save her

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

no, it's one reason why her fan base has shrunk and their has been no THE DANCE to save her

I was referring to your proclaimed frustration ("get nothing back"), not her lack of activity.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by LukeA

I was referring to your proclaimed frustration ("get nothing back"), not her lack of activity.

read the posts and reviews, there is a lot of proclaimed frustration

[Moz]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits, Timespace, the Chain Box Set, Enchanted Box Set, The Dance (mostly old songs),The VERY Best of Fleetwood Mac, Crystal Visions, Live in Boston, Live in Chicago....

Does this make her RELEVANT?

The Dance made her "relevant".

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by Moz

The Dance made her "relevant".

hmmm, that is a good question. I think yes in a way. It made people pay attention to Landslide and Silver Springs, it boosted intrest in her and the band

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I forgot to add that I find it ironic that Mr. Firecloud's bright idea for Stevie to be the "talk of the town" again, is that she should re-record "Landslide," as well as a couple of covers or collaborations. I guess he didn't glance at the 'Soundstage Sessions' track-listing. Or does it not count because it wasn't a digital-only EP?

^^^...because it wasn't FREE.

Yes, the guy who wrote this (article?) is as bad a writer as Kim Stoltz

His advice is bogus.

Stevie shouldn't embrace the internet, she should transform it. Her concerns are valid about the social impact of the internet. In terms of the music business, I'm no expert. Offering a free EP (basically of tracks from the soundstage sessions) is no way to transform the internet -- so the writer of this article is a fool even on the level that he claims expertise. He just comes off as a guy who doesn't want to pay for his music -- no wonder he's so defensive.

Today's music scene is the opposite of vibrant and dynamic.

The death of the rock star may or may not be accurate (?) but it's not an improvement.

[Gypsycat999]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

It was a negative article, but he makes a valid point in my opinion. One day she's railing against downloads, the next she's talking about possibly releasing a few songs on Itunes instead of a new album---or giving IPODS to soldiers.

I think with "downloading" Stevie spoke about things you don't pay for. Although she doesn't like the internet she should be alright that people download music after they payed for it. So why shouldn't she put stuff on itunes?

And about relevant...to me it's totally irrelevant if someone sells a lot or is very famous. Stevie's relevant for me because I love her music and I don't care if no one else likes her (just say "if", don't wanna say no one of you likes her). Hell, yes I'd LOVE her to release new stuff but I don't stop loving her or her music because there's nothing new. That doesn't change the old stuff. So I think it's still worth supporting her and tell my friends about her.

But the most important point it's normal and good that people have different attitudes about something and so let's go on disagreeing .