In Your Dreams

Tomorrow morning I will hold in my hand a brand-spanking-new copy of Stevie Nicks' album In Your Dreams, something that represents a year of waiting for me and so many other fans. This is the first album of all new songs that Stevie has released in ten years. Granted, a live album that came out sometime in '09 had a couple songs that Stevie had never recorded, but this is all original material - poetry for a new generation.

Sidenote: The album has been available for a week through a stream on Rolling Stone's website. I have listened to the album nearly a dozen times, so this is how I feel I'm adequately prepped for not only analyzing the following review, but for forming opinions of my own.

Now, I wouldn't say that all reviews of the album have been glowing, but they have been positive, until Slant Magazine's review that I just read earlier today. You can view the full article here. Here are some of my favorite snippets:

But In Your Dreams indulges in some of Nicks's worst tendencies as a songwriter and is slathered in chintzy, dated production values.
Funny that you say that, considering one of the first comments someone made to me was about how good the production quality of the album is. Additionally, the "chintzy" quality that you reference was actually created on purpose in order to evoke a particular feel.

Unfortunately, the poor quality of the songwriting falls primarily on Nicks's shoulders. "Moonlight (A Vampire's Dream)" was inspired by her viewing of The Twilight Saga: New Moon while on tour, and it boasts exactly the same degree of depth as Stephenie Meyer's vapid, wooden prose.
Actually, Stevie generally takes full writing credit herself, but for most of the songs on this album, it is shared. So how does this fall primarily on her shoulders? Now, Stevie has stated in interviews that the first two verses of this song were written in the mid-1970s, and that she was inspired to complete the song after viewing New Moon. Also, it can be noted that this is merely one of three songs on this album that draws inspiration from literature. I would hardly call that writing that lacks depth.

Even worse is "New Orleans," ... That the melody lifts at the end of each line overemphasizes the final word of those lines, giving the song an obnoxious, stilted cadence. It's perhaps the worst song in Nicks's entire catalogue, reducing the culture of New Orleans to Bourbon Street and vampire lore.
I take issue with a couple of things here. First of all, an obnoxious cadence? What does that even mean? And calling a song the worst song in Nicks' catalogue? How can you make that claim? Have you sifted through dozens of her rough, unfinished demos (like I and so many dozens of other fans have)? Or are you simply considering polished, completed album cuts in this "catalogue"? Additionally, I seem to recall the first few lines of the song making reference to the storm-ravaged New Orleans, and other lines referencing the French Quarter, Mardi Gras, and the city's art culture, so I wouldn't say that she's neglecting any aspect of New Orleans culture.

"Italian Summer" misses its mark almost as badly, with hollow exclamations about how the hard rain in Italy is "so romantic" and, oddly, "soulful."
This statement is particularly hilarious to me, because of the fact that this song contains one of Nicks' best vocal performances ever. And actually, "so romantic" and "soulful" are in reference to the summer in Italy, not the rain itself. You might want to listen to the narrative a little more closely.

The reserved acoustic strumming that drives "For What It's Worth" only exacerbates the song's monotonous melody, highlighting how much range and power Nicks's voice has lost in the decade since the underappreciated Trouble in Shangri-La.
I agree that TiSL is underappreciated, and of course Nicks' voice has changed since then. That was ten years ago, and the woman is in her mid-60s now. As a music critic, you should simply be thrilled that auto-tune is not required on this album, and you should be noting the fact that many of Nicks' contemporaries have stopped even attempting to release new music.

The further away I get from this review, the more furious it makes me. Naturally, everyone is entitled their own opinion, and the opinions of many are bound to differ with mine, but a 1 1/2 star rating is hardly fair to anyone. What's particularly irritating about this article to me is the fact that the reviewer keeps referencing Nicks' previous albums, specifically Trouble in Shangri-La (far from her finest work) and the Fleetwood Mac album Rumours. I've already addressed TiSL and the fact that Stevie's voice has definitely changed since that time, but I would hardly say it lost any power. In fact, since 2005, Stevie's voice has gotten considerably stronger, following a weakened period due to years of drug use. As for Rumours, it was written and recorded over 30 years ago. It's unfair to compare the voice/songwriting ability of a woman in her late 20s whose creativity was partially fueled by drugs and an incredibly public and tumultous breakup to that of a seasoned woman in her 60s who has been living a life of luxury for the last few decades. Most of Stevie's writing now comes from poetry written years ago that she is now reworking and putting her more mature perspective on. Maybe as a fan, I am biased. But, as an English major, I certainly am not. Stevie's songwriting, if it has changed at all, has only gotten technically better. She has always written her music without paying much attention to person, gender, or grammar. Her songs have always been about the flow of the words rather than the consistency of the narrative (something that, oddly, I have always struggled with in my own writing). The songs on In Your Dreams suffer less from this problem than much of her other work has. (I seem to recall what became a pretty heated discussion, during the making of Fleetwood Mac's Say You Will, with Lindsey Buckingham regarding this very issue.) Granted, I find this particular quality of her songwriting to be a plus rather than a negative, but to each his/her own.

I may not be qualified on paper to be a music critic, but considering my degree, the fact that I have taken several music history classes, and the fact that I am more familiar with Stevie Nicks' body of work than probably 95% of music critics/teachers/analysts, I would say I am more than qualified to critique this album. It's not perfect; I readily admit that. In fact, I consider "Cheaper Than Free" a low point, and way closer to that "worst song" status than "New Orleans". But as a collective work? I venture to say this is better than the critic's precious Trouble in Shangri-La, or even earlier Nicks' albums like The Other Side of the Mirror (which I love).