[face of glass]

Originally posted by dissention
Good lord.

Hey, don’t you think it’s about time someone gave me my own medicine?

Originally posted by sodascouts
Do you think he would do so without Stevie's permission? I think not. And I do not think she would go for such an "alternative reaction."

No, I don’t think he would do anything with a Nickssong without Stevie’s approval these days. And by that I mean approval during the “arranging” of song or approval after the backing track is completed. I didn’t believe such claims in the first place when EricBliss suggested that Lindsey screwed up with the production of “WISYA” (and my reaction to that is what caused this thread to go so seriously off-tangent).

Would she go for that kind of reaction? I do get the feeling that she probably wouldn’t.

You are right that I initially got that, but I'm positive it was unintentional. I hold Lindsey in too high a regard to believe that he would intentionally do something like that. In that way, I believe it is you who are underestimating him.

If you think I suggested that LB did the whole “voice mockery” as a childish joke without Stevie’s acceptance then you’re wrong. But I guess we all agree on the fact that those voices could represent almost anything. Like I said, if it’s a joke, it’s not an obvious one. I can imagine Stevie shaking her head in disbelief at those voices first (if we presume Lindsey did them earlier). Equally I can imagine LB answering to her that they “represent the confusion and chaos of that day” or “ghosts” or whatever you have been suggesting. If he wanted to sneak in sarcasm to the track then he most likely wouldn’t have told Stevie that he was doing so. But what am I actually saying here?

If the voices were intended as sarcastic and were added without Stevie’s approval then that would suggest that LB would still have some ire towards SN, or that his relationship with her isn’t all that they’ve made us believe now. I wouldn’t want to say so though. Ok, I do believe that if someone’s a real friend to you then he/she will also shake you up once in a while when you’re all self-centred by deflating your self-importance.
But I do not wish to suggest that. Instead I do believe that Stevie approved of the voices fully. But I also believe that those voices can’t be subjugated to represent one particular, obvious thing. Lindsey very rarely hits us on the head anyway; he can be very vague. That’s what those voices are too; they’re open to all kinds of interpretations. They’ve screamed “sarcasm!” at me since day one of listening to SYW but I guess that tells more of me than of anything else.
Besides, if someone was to ask Lindsey what those voices are doing in there we probably wouldn’t get a straight answer from the man. He’s so vague in interviews too nowadays. I’m sure it’s mainly because he doesn’t want to ruin other people’s interpretations. But then again it could be because he’s too scared to discuss his songs and contributions in more detail, unlike Stevie.

While this sounds very nice, I doubt Lindsey would be so presumptuous as to take Stevie's songs and change their meaning. His production does make Stevie's material more attractive on an AESTHETIC level. He makes her MUSIC sound better. He does NOT take it upon himself to make her meaning more "broad."

Since you made a similar point later on, I’ll answer it there. But now I’d just like to say that whenever Lindsey puts on a guitar track of his on a Stevie song, it changes the meaning for me. So it changes when he puts on his vocal. So it changed when Chris sang on a Stevie song. In that way no FM track is totally about Stevie. It’s also about Fleetwood Mac. When I was speaking of these “alternate views”, I mainly meant musical contributions. I don’t think Stevie’s recent demos hint at all the potential of a song enough. That’s why I used this wording. You probably misunderstood me and thought that Lindsey is trying to “make her [lyrical] meaning more broad” in every song she’s written. I didn’t want it to be read like that.

Lindsey would be the last person to try and make a song more appealing to the masses, don't you think? Aren't we all so proud of him for his "artistic integrity" in doing his thing against the mainstream? Do we think he disregards Stevie's own right to use a song she has written to convey an emotion that perhaps everyone might not like? I find this hard to believe. It would be amazingly disrespectful to Stevie.

Again, I stated this earlier in the thread and will state it here again; Lindsey knows how to approach the mainstream but he doesn’t want appear banal. In every song he’s done since Tusk he’s always thrown in some element that might possibly alienate an audience.
Alright, everyone wouldn’t like what Stevie’s expressing in “Illume”. But this song wasn’t intended as a single. In some songs LB’s emphasis is to approach the mainstream (although with the possible “alienation” factor), with the rest he can do pretty much what he likes. If Stevie would have wanted to cash in on “Illume” she would have called in another producer or told Lindsey that he can’t do everything he wants with it. Then the song wouldn’t have the hellish guitars or goofy voices. No way do I think those goofy voices are trying to “seduce the masses”. The masses would rather listen to a song that can be more easily interpreted as being about grief (I mean “Illume” without the voices) than something that has those voices which change the mood completely for a while. Lindsey may be using a thing that was fashionable once but he’s using it in a very unlikely context.

I have too much respect for Lindsey to think that he is that arrogant, or that he believes himself to be the arbiter of what is "acceptable" for a song about 911 to convey.

I don’t believe he has the possible arrogance of the past anymore either. But there’s no way the masses would approve of the possible use of sarcasm in a song about grief.

To me, the distinction is obvious. He has the right to make a statement about whatever the hell he wants on his own songs. STEVIE HAS THAT SAME RIGHT. Lindsey's talents in production do NOT give him authority to act as her "meaning filter." Think about what you're saying here!

If that’s what I have said, that Lindsey is Stevie’s “meaning filter”, then I’ve expressed some things inadequately. I’d like to think I haven’t put things that way (although I do admit doing so with “Illume” only), although I do believe that he can change the meaning of the music. Then again, do you think the new arrangement of “Smile At You” takes away some of the power (and perhaps even meaning) of the lyric?

And I know some people who will be surprised to hear that "Family Man" is Lindsey satirizing his inability to write lyrics! The song's lyrics suck, but that seems completely unintentional to me. Or are Stevie's insipid lines in the song that started this thread also "self-ridicule"? Nah, couldn't be. Stevie is not capable of such deep thought. Let's call in Lindsey to do it for her, shall we?

That’s the only way I can explain why the lyrics of “Family Man” are poor but then again as a fan of LB I want to find a rational explanation to the weakness of some of his material. But I do think the approach in that track is basically to see how weak a lyric he can get away with by using all that voice treatment. I’ve never seen it as a song that takes itself with seriousness at all.
And to be honest, I don’t think Stevie has ever let out a weak lyric in an official release. Of course, as someone who doesn’t “get lyrics” like the native speakers of the English language do, I don’t think I’m that capable of seeing what makes a certain Stevie lyric a masterpiece and why some other piece of is supposed to be below par. But there’s no way I think the lyrics of “When I See You Again” are bad, especially when that voice is singing them. “Family Man”, on the other hand, but then again the arrangement covers most of that up.

OK. Do you want to know why I write this “pseudo-intellectual rubbish”? Because I hate to see the usual assumption of “Stevie being deeper than Lindsey”. That Stevie’s songs have more depth, that they’re more emotional and personal etc. I’m not denying her more intimate approach at all but I still think the whole assumption is selling Lindsey a bit short. Just because he doesn’t write like Stevie does and doesn’t have the same voice are some dismissing him? It’s unfair in my opinion. Sure, Lindsey’s more self-conscious. Sure, his lyrics were mainly poor in the early days. Sure, he likes the unusual dashes, large dramatic shifts. But that’s the way he expresses himself, in everything he puts into his songs. You need to take his songs as the final products with all these various streams of emotions coming in. He isn’t any less deep than Stevie is, he just achieves a different kind of depth.

Nancy, I don’t think Stevie really philosophises over her songs, or at least not as much as Lindsey does over his. She has one very powerful tool, her voice. It’s always been capable of expressing different emotions and with her getting “older and wiser” it has reached this mature point where it can present very subtle variants of those. I’ve never thought Lindsey’s voice has such potential, if it does it’s just a fraction of Stevie’s. Lindsey covers this up with his musical skills while Stevie doesn’t really need those. I don’t think either is deeper than the other, they just express different things. Together or alone.

Perhaps the reason why Stevie's song is so personal is that she doesn't believe she has the right to tell people what they should be feeling after 911.

I’ve never thought he was trying to obviously put his opinion in there for all to see. And I’ve never seen either LB or SN trying to tell people what they should feel.

I actually agree with this overall sentiment! Lindsey is not afraid to express criticism of such things IN HIS OWN SONGS. But why would he presume to hijack Stevie's to do so? How selfish would that be?

For how long a time does he “hijack” “Illume” then? 23 seconds. That’s how long those voices are in there. I don’t think that’s hijacking on a larger scale. It doesn’t affect anything Stevie’s singing in any way and it doesn’t change her message one bit; he just puts in this diversion there for a while.

But why do I feel it’s a different message that I get from the song during those 23 seconds? I think “Illume” has an approach somewhat similar to very many classic progressive rock pieces; you state a theme and later repeat it in a different context and evoking different emotions; often it can seem like they’re playing an entirely new thing altogether. In early ‘70s prog rock you usually played a particular theme with acoustic instruments and then later on it transformed into a fiery electric showcase. In this format the same theme can mean an entirely different thing when it’s played with different tone colours. “Illume” doesn’t work entirely like that, it’s a five-minute song by a band that’s supposed to be doing “pop”. Instead they use the lyrical repetition: the “what I saw on this journey” stanza gives a totally different impression when done by those goofy voices as does Stevie’s furious vocal when it repeats the chorus after that. Now if that approach suggests different things in prog, why can’t it do so here?

But I refuse to believe Lindsey would use Stevie's song as a format for conveying his own message (and, really, mocking voices wouldn't effectively convey this anyway.)

But could you give me a rational reason as to why she wouldn’t want the song to convey something else than her own viewpoint for 23 seconds? Alright, it’s likely it’s not sarcasm but it’s something else anyway. It’s something that her voice can’t convey unless it’s warped to another extreme through voice manipulation. And it’s something she approved of.

So you think I am underestimating his talent as a producer by not agreeing that he is changing Stevie's meaning for her? Whatever.

No, no and no. You can read into Stevie’s songs however you want. Single exceptions like “Illume” won’t really matter. I was speaking about Lindsey’s own songs here. About the only musical self-quotation you speculate on your site is the “Stephanie” – “Eyes Of The World” connection. How about “You And I Part 2” – “Surrender The Rain”, “Big Love” – “Destiny Rules”, “Lola (My Love)” – “The Chain”, etc.? Also, his use of altered voices always changes the mood and tone of a lyric.
Of course I’m not asking you to do this because it can be difficult. It’s harder to analyse music along with lyrics than just purely lyrics; it can often be like “dancing about architecture”, as Frank Zappa put it. Yet I think that Lindsey communicates to us as much through his music as he does through his lyrics.
And even Les, who seems to be the most vocal supporter of this theory along with me, hasn’t put anything like that on her site. And she most likely won’t.

"Stevie feels this, but we can tell from how Lindsey treated her song that he believes her feelings are inadequate. Luckily he has taken it upon himself to make her song more appropriate. Aren't we fortunate he was around to 'improve' Stevie's meaning and express what other people feel? Isn't that what music production's all about - changing the songwriter's meaning to fit the producer's agenda? Lindsey sure is a good meaning producer, isn't he?"

If that’s what you got from my post then it really must have failed to represent what I think and feel.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And so shall it be. But I won’t rehash the “sarcasm” argument anymore. It’s a very vague one anyway and if what I wrote can cause interpretations that feel extreme (to me at least), then it’s just not worth it.