For many years, I have subscribed to the viewpoint that Lindsey has often been overlooked, even underrated, as a guitarist. But, really, lately it kind of becomes a pointless argument. What is "underrated" exactly? Who decides how a guitarist should be rated and against what metrics? How do you compare a Lindsey Buckingham with a Stevie Ray Vaughan with an Eddie Van Halen with a Jack White? Each has a distinctive style. Throw in Paul Simon, even. So whoever decides who should rate where on some imaginary scale is doing so either out of an inherent bias -- which we all have because we all have favorites -- or based on some popularity scale that combines factors like CD and ticket sales -- or a combination of both.
But ultimately, saying Lindsey is underrated kind of ignores the fact that the man gets a lot of exposure when he wants it. He gets accolades galore, even when he is doing a one-man show to backing tracks, which were he someone else, would probably draw strong criticism. He gets to go on the brainier shows on late-night PBS and on the View-type shows. The hosts practically melt for him. He gets feature stories in guitarist magazines. I mean, he wants exposure, he gets it.
What it comes down to is this: Lindsey has limited appeal. And that's because he is different, and as we know, that is by design. Picasso and Pollock aren't for everyone either, but they sure get critical acclaim, as does Lindsey. The exception here is Rumours, but Lindsey by himself would never have gotten than kind of popularity. He could have made an album 10 times better than Rumours and it still wouldn't have happened.
|