Stevie didn't release a lot of albums in the 90s/00s, but he did release quite a few good songs (as usual)

If She Breaks Your Heart


How Come, How Long:


Misrepresented People:


True To Your Heart (with 98 degrees)


Why (with Kirk Franklin)

[Edited 3/11/09 19:48pm]

I love

Each others throat
Chemical love
How come, how long (typical Babyface, but I like the message)
true to your heart (had nothing to do with writing it, still a nice enough pop song though)

Probably a few others...

i love how come how long especially the live version

I have enjoyed every album that he has put out up until, "In Squared Circle". In my opinion, every album since then has been bullshit. Give me 70's Stevie, where the melodies were pure and the words and messages were not convoluted. Favorite album by him is, SITKOL. As I have stated on the org before, this album, along with Prince's SOTT's, are masterpieces and should be required listening in every music appreciation class in the world...

I like Jungle Fever, but despise the 1995 album. It's below everyone's standards.

Many of his productions sounded very plastic, not as organic as in the 60s and 70s.

I think he seemed out of fuel. There was the occasional good song, but I thi nk he only recovered in the 00s, the songs on A Time 2 Love are his best in thrirty years.

shorttrini said:

I agree that Conversation Peace was crap, but A Time To Love is really good. Sure, it's no Talking Book, but it is a very good and consistent album.

Jungle Fever was great, as was Characters. If you give them a chance now, I think you may hear them differently.

graecophilos said:

I agree with you completely.

I think, production wise, Steve was trying to do new things with different sounds in the late 80s. He got away from real drums and started using lots of drum machines.

I was going through my video collection last night and ran across this:

Other than "These Three Words", Stevie's 90s and 00s music has pretty much sucked!

daPrettyman said:

I have them. I think the problem is in his use of technology. His 70's material sound more innovative because at the time the technology that he was using was fairly new. On his later albums, I think he relied too heavily on it and it took away from the content and texture of the music.

Well, it's not only the technology or production. The melodies are weak, too.

SW struggled like most artists that were succesful in the 60s and 70s when synthesizers and drum machines became hip in the 1980s.
Those artists (others were the Stones, McCartney, Queen, Earth Wind And Fire) either had to embrace the new sound - and piss some of heir older fans - or they would rely on real instruments .- but then they would have sounded old-fashioned. So in thoese artists's biographies the 80s fell really terrible.

But unlike the other musicians I mntioned above, SW did not really come back in the 90s. In fact, his 90s sucked even more.

But it's not just the production. MJ and Madonna were highly sucessful with drum machine songs and synths too, but they were youn and full of melodies.

But Stevie ran out of ideas. Free is one of his overlooked masterpieces - and has that awful sounds too. But it has a good melody.

It just amazes me how he so rarely releases new music, and yet has remained so famous over time (...not to mention how down to earth he is in person). What a talent!

PDogz said:

that's because he had so many hits in his youth and twens that he can afford not working anymore.
The same goes for every legend.

PDogz said:

He also remains relevant because he is constantly guest appearing on other people's music. I believe he has released SOMETHING almost every year. Even if it's nothing but playing harmonica on Raphael Saadiq's album.

I like all his music up to 1982s greatest hits package, original Musiquarium, but after that the music lost its originality. The later stuff is trend following rather than trend setting, like Prince, Wonder suffers from the same drought with album after album of contemporary sound alike music. The Same with Lionel Richie, his last great album was Back to Front, sure Don't stop the music is alright, but later stuff is dross. I will admit with Stevie Wonder I did like Part Time Lover and For Your Love (I would do anything) off Conversation piece.

Huggiebear said:

I wouldn't classify "Back To Front" as an album. It was a GH package with bonus new tracks. That's it.

I get where you are coming from on Stevie. I enjoy the later stuff. I think he was experimenting quite a bit with new instruments and sounds. It may have been "trendy", but he still managed to release some great songs.

What about his appearance on the Cosby show in early 1986, when one of them has a car accident. That was pretty 80s

'A time 2 Love' is his strongest album in years.

A shame people just want to dance rather than think, but there you go.

Huggiebear said:

That was a great episode. Especially when they make the song.

Marrk said:

I know. People amaze me when they say "A Time To Love" is weak. It is definitely a good album. Sure, it's no Talking Book or Musiquarium, but the message and the music are there. I don't get it.

daPrettyman said:

In this time of economic strife, there are those that would rather dance their troubles away rather than think about them. I can't say I blame them.

shorttrini said:

I certainly hear you, except mellow music doesn't have to predispose one toward negative thoughts, it could release some very positive ones (along with peace of mind & harmony).

Personally, stevie has always came up with amazing melodies, even past his "classic" period. A lot of the music on say "Characters" is 70's material, like "Free" and "Cryin' Through The Night". I think when he changed producers after FFF, he lost that intimate sound, adding too much to the music, and then when he lost the balance between organic instruments and electronic around In Square Circle, thats when it felt like he was following trends. I'll maintain that even if he kept drumming on his later albums, it would be held in higher regard.