Stevie and Landslide

[daniellaaarisen]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

I'm dedicated long time big fan (circa 1975), but I don't take much stock in the stories -- especially Stevie's stories. She often doesn't speak about what inspired a song, but rather the context of where it was written, and usually in strangely vague terms. It's very perculiar and pedestrian if you compare it other (slightly more) accomplished artists. Also, being that she has a selective memory - if any memory at all - her stories/explanations change throughout the years.

I find it rather funny when people attempt a deep analysis of every word and stanza of her lyrics, as if to uncover some elaborate story. I consider her writing more impressionistic than literate. She has a very distinct talent in a limited capacity, but she's not as high-minded and sophisticated as some would like to think she is. However she has her "thing," and she's done very well with it. It's just my take.

Agreed. I think her writing is typically supported by the emotive power of her images, even when those images make little to no sense. However, I do think that she has her moments when she writes a precise, meritable metaphor or image and when does, she totally runs with it. Take 90% of "Angel" versus "Gold Dust Woman", "Trouble in Shangri-La" versus "Landslide", "Blue Lamp" versus "Beauty and the Beast". I adore all of these songs, but there's quite the difference between the styles of writing in terms of the foundation of thought.

Great post-- I love looking more closely at how she writes, especially since I'm a writer myself.