Album Title & Release Date!!! - Page 3

sorcerer999 · #31 01-12-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitzo

LOL to me it reads "album is being released - IN YOUR DREAMS!"

jkmaletic · #32 01-12-2011, 07:30 PM

I like it. It has multiple meanings, like a lot of her songs.

baboles · #33 01-12-2011, 07:47 PM

Maybe Stevie will talk about why she chose this particular album title and put it into perspective. I don't hate the title, but I'm definitely not in love with it.

nightbird28 · #34 01-12-2011, 08:15 PM

Isn't there a demo floating around called "in your dreams"? I vaguely remember having a demo collection called enchanted dreams and I believe it was on there.

**mylittledemon** · #35 01-12-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baboles

Maybe Stevie will talk about why she chose this particular album title and put it into perspective. I don't hate the title, but I'm definitely not in love with it.

Me neither... I prefer "For What It's Worth"... but hey, as long as the music is good I'm happy

markolas · #36 01-12-2011, 10:50 PM

It's a lame title, but so was Say You Will.

Musicman408 · #37 01-12-2011, 11:05 PM

News=Exciting
Exciting= Ethan wanting to listen to Stevie again
Ethan wanting to listen to Stevie again= Whole Lotta Trouble

Whole Lotta Trouble+Exciting= ........ well...... I don't know

BUT!!!

This really is exciting and good new to hear!

Jondalar · #38 01-13-2011, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

It's a lame title, but so was Say You Will.

I don't think the title is lame. I think the album has been described as dreamy and I think it's a pretty good title. Very stevie.

michelej1 · #39 01-13-2011, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

It's a lame title, but so was Say You Will.

But I like that it can have two meanings. The first one is weak, in your sweet dreams, la dee dah. But the second one is like, "In your dreams, over my dead body, go jump off a bridge" and I like that kind of attitude. The boasting, mocking demeanor that she can sometimes have (It's a shame that you wanted me, you didn't try . . .)

So, to the extent that "In Your Dreams" presents that side of Stevie, I like it as a title.

Michele

Jondalar · #40 01-13-2011, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

But I like that it can have two meanings. The first one is weak, in your sweet dreams, la dee dah. But the second one is like, "In your dreams, over my dead body, go jump off a bridge" and I like that kind of attitude. The boasting, mocking demeanor that she can sometimes have (It's a shame that you wanted me, you didn't try . . .)

So, to the extent that "In Your Dreams" presents that side of Stevie, I like it as a title.

Michele

Dave said before that Stevie was considering a couple of titles. I'm sure she put a lot of thought into that. She probably chose In Your Dreams.. because of its double meaning. Stevie has always been full of attitude. The title is perfect for her.

daniellaaarisen · #41 01-13-2011, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

But I like that it can have two meanings. The first one is weak, in your sweet dreams, la dee dah. But the second one is like, "In your dreams, over my dead body, go jump off a bridge" and I like that kind of attitude. The boasting, mocking demeanor that she can sometimes have (It's a shame that you wanted me, you didn't try . . .)

So, to the extent that "In Your Dreams" presents that side of Stevie, I like it as a title.

Michele

Agreed. That is exactly why I really like the title.

louielouie2000 · #42 01-13-2011, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

It's a lame title, but so was Say You Will.

It feels like such a long time since I've actually found myself defending Stevie, but here I go!

I don't think you can compare In Your Dreams to Say You Will in regards to title. Say You Will is just so literal... I think it's safe to say we all love Stevie because she's the polar opposite of literal. She's a delightfully/maddeningly out of touch, airy fairy, witchy, mystical, out there lady. That's what attracts us all to her. She's not Madonna, she doesn't reinvent herself. She is who she is, and for better or worse, she doesn't really change. I personally like the title... it's very Stevie. It's dreamy/airy fairy... but kinda snarky, too. Stevie's fantastic when she's kinda bratty and self empowered. That's what the title invokes in me.

Nikolaj · #43 01-13-2011, 04:34 AM

^ Louie, I see your point about Madonna, so only mean this conversationally, and concede that I am likely wrong, but here goes:
While I admire, I guess, her business acumen and media savvy, I really don't think Madonna has ever 'reinvented' herself once. She was always kind of skanky, but had mass appeal, and still it's about the same. Changing hair color and clothes doesn't reinvent a performer, exactly. I think she's the same as she always has been: shrewd, makes the most of her limited ability, appeals and/or panders to the gay community and makes forgettable, often subpar music. I admit some of it wasn't terrible. But her dancing ability never grew, her vocal ability didn't grow as much as her wealth allowed her to be recorded well by the best producers and engineers money can buy, and her music maybe got a little better, for a while.
But 'reinvent' herself? Her arms are more muscular, but her talent has always just been what it is, you like it, are indifferent to it, or don't like it. Her acting ability never matured, her media presentation has remained the same as it always had been, and she just wisely struck a nerve with her image that she hasn't changed an iota in all these years.
I don't dislike her, even. I do think she is an example of mediocrity polished into glossier mediocrity, but she was smart in every aspect she could be smart at. Sometimes she was loathsome and exploitive (the Britney Spears kiss- like Madonna needed more press coverage or attention, it was desperate fame mongering that made infamy ok to her, and it was ugly. Lesbians I knew thought she was despicable for 'faking it' for attention).
I loved how Stevie Nicks pointed out that Madonna was too old to be kissing a 21 year old girl or however old Brit was then. That, I think, was one comment that actually shut Madonna up for once in her life, there was nothing to say to trump SN's observation.
Mo's concert stage acts haven't changed or shown growth since the 80's, either. They always have been too backup dancer heavy, worse versions of her studio recordings, and just derivative, too stagey, too staged. She's never recorded or tried a rock song live. That would be interesting, at least.
Even early on, paying homage to Marilyn Monroe was nothing that was original or unique. Lucille Ball did it better in 1955 and without a dreadful song.
I know that Madonna entertains a lot of people, and I'm far from an authority on every move of her career, but I just don't see any reinvention at all. I guess she tried with 'Evita'.
That word- reinvention- is so misused, and I don't mean by you, Louie.
In my opinion- Meryl Streep- she reinvents herself- she's seldom the same and often is only nearly recognizable from role to role, but she has true talent and is a chameleon. Many of the stars that 'reinvention' is attributed to don't deserve that designation.
In my opinion, Madonna is still the same invention that she ever was: Madonna.

Nikolaj · #44 01-13-2011, 04:34 AM

^Terribly off topic:
I think the title Stevie has chosen is dandy and I can't wait to hear the cd!

Nikolaj · #45 01-13-2011, 04:35 AM

Will there really be a new single soon, after Ellen, maybe?
I so hope that is true!! Great start to the new year.
I'm even happy about the Rod Stewart tour, I would most especially love to hear some Stevie on 'Stay With Me'- maybe Rod's best song, probably his strongest rock song ever. Her voice could be beautiful on 'Sailing'- I hope any duets predate the late '70s Rod.
Though, there is one largely forgotten song Rod did in the 80s called 'Give Me Wings' that Stevie's rock voice could be astonishing on. The studio version of the song started out strong, then kind of ran out of steam, but SN could turn it into a scorcher, maybe.