Mick and Stevie RULE!!!

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know - I was like SPIN SPIN SPIN I think it says alot of good things about LB that he did not walk at that point.

Do you think it might have been somewhat true, though? Lindsey said at one point, "We've kind of side-stepped the issue."

[strandinthewind]

I admit I do prefer in general LB's songs to Stevie's songs on SYW. Although if La Nicks had taken nine of her best fromt he last 10 years, the situation might be different (You didn't think I was not going to spin that did ya!!! ).

Seriously, I love LB and his body of work.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Do you think it might have been somewhat true, though? Lindsey said at one point, "We've kind of side-stepped the issue."

What might have been somewhat true (I am in a food coma after a large lunch and am not thinking clearly )

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What might have been somewhat true (I am in a food coma after a large lunch and am not thinking clearly )

That Mick had been wishy-washy with Lindsey from the get-go, parsing his words so that he APPEARED to be behind the double album, but leaving himself an out?

[CarneVaca]

Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

Me too - I mean MF had not worked in any lucrative way since The Dance. That is a long time when you spend like people say he does. I think LB may have always known the option was there to release only 12 songs, but I think he thought the band might go for releasing more. Who knows what really went down, but I think the compromise of 20 songs (18 + 2) shows this group of strong willed people can work together better as opposed to 15 years ago.

P.S. Thanks Nancy for clarifying!!!

[wildangel]

I agree Stevie does rule

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

No question. but I also think mick was very convinced it was going to be a double album for a long time.

until the dollar-argument came from his management.

[4Buck]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

Originally posted by shackin'up
No question. but I also think mick was very convinced it was going to be a double album for a long time.

until the dollar-argument came from his management.

>>I agree, totally.>>>

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by 4Buck
>>I agree, totally.>>>

O.

I'm sorry.

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You're coming around to our side!?

Oh, come to think of it, you're already on our side. After all, you like Lindsey's songs better than Stevie's on SWY.

I knew you were a good man...

Why do we have to pick sides anyway? Just because we may criticize Lindsey or Stevie sometimes doesn't mean we're against them. They're not perfect people, they make mistakes from time to time, they're human.

[face of glass]

Ok, I finally found the time to write something to this. Not that anyone cares about this right now but what the heck.

Necessary disclaimers first; this is what I think of commercialism in music.

The word “commercial” was used during the ‘50s and ‘60s but eventually came into heavy use in the ‘70s school of rock criticism, most likely because of the onslaught of bubblegum pop. In USA this meant Dave Marsh, Robert Christgau, Greil Marcus, etc. Those guys basically derided anything that was on the charts, unless it fit their conception of “authenticity”. Yet they failed to explain why they thought that The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, etc, were authentic even though those were the biggest selling artists of the ‘60s. Consequently I believe it had something to do with the disintegration of the hippie culture which led into the rock music scene breaking into several subcultures. Very few people were willing to give all of these divergent styles a proper chance. At least those three guys mentioned above didn’t.

I’ve never thought being commercial is a bad thing. It can be a very good thing. But that’s only if you try to steer away from banalities and try to do something else every once in a while. Experiment with sounds or be sincere, those are the usual two routes (and some manage to follow both of them). But do not lose the listener in the middle of all of this.

In addition, I don’t think the commercial value of something, whether it can be measured that something is more commercial than something else or not, can be measured through charts or radio play. There’s always luck/fortune/alignment of stars/”time bomb of human incompetence” that might interfere with any particular piece of work, no matter how appealing (or appalling, if you’re speaking of the charts of today ).

Accessibility, as CarneVaca put it, is a more comfortable word to be used with Lindsey (and Stevie) but I certainly would sometimes associate the two with each other, except that “commercialism” seems to have a negative slant to it, thanks to those neo-Marxist critics.

The best artists for me aren’t necessarily the ones who innovate; they’re the ones who make these innovations appealing so that the achievements do not come off as totally alienating.

I think Lindsey Buckingham is one of the best in straddling the fence between the artistic and the audience-pleasing/commercial/mainstream/accessible. He has tracks that are closer to the former, he has tracks that are closer to the latter but he also has, as Johnny Stew said, several that are right in the middle of the two extremes.

Now I’ve never thought that Lindsey has specifically needed someone to kick him in the head so that he could keep the balance between the extremes, not even with his solo albums. I do think he needs a pair of outside ears for the recordings, just like he stated that smoking pot can make you hear a piece of work from a totally different angle. We all know Richard Dashut provided just that for Lindsey (the outside ears, not the drugs. Not always!). But that’s all. And Stevie hasn’t been in that role, unless we’re discussing the double album matter.

Ok. That’s done. I’ll try to answer some individual comments here and then make my grand pretentious statement after them.

First of all I believe that Lindsey had all the rights to push for a double album. The man hadn’t seen his latest music released for ten years except for a few separate songs here and there; “On The Wrong Side”, “Bleed To Love Her” and “My Little Demon”. And this was due to Warners’ disinterest in the solo artist Lindsey Buckingham. They obviously haven’t been interested in him other than as a part of Fleetwood Mac for a long time. That’s why I can understand Lindsey being so insistent on the double cd; it was obviously a very emotional and important thing to him. They could have put out the 23 songs and thus it would have been even closer to “Lindsey Buckingham solo/Stevie Nicks produced by Lindsey Buckingham”, it wouldn’t have changed a thing in the overall shape of the album.

I do realize that because of the “marketplace reality” it was a naive idea in the end but that’s what I think Lindsey is like; he doesn’t mind the business side too much in these things, he just wants as much music out as possible. In that way he can definitely be a hippie relic.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, if LB really wanted to be the maverick he clearly wants to be and often whines (bless his heart I love him but he sure can whine ) about, he would have been one. But something in him won't let him. Personally, I think he learned his lesson with the brilliant but commerical flop OOTC - he has said that record and tour lost him a personal fortune.

I’ve never believed he’s tried to follow the path of total inaccessibility. It isn’t his thing. He loves the Beach Boys and he loves the Clash. Many see the former as commercial and the latter as more credible. I think the two bands have been experimental and commercial throughout their career, most often combining the two (listen to Pet Sounds, Smile, Love You, London Calling or Sandinista!). That’s the area Lindsey is coming from.

The Beach Boys and The Clash operated within traditional song structures. So does Lindsey. He reuses the same chord progressions and he has never felt the need to abandon them. If he wanted to do that he wouldn’t necessarily be on a major label, I agree with that.

Within Fleetwood Mac, as Les pointed out, he is the maverick. Will be debated further below.

I also find weird that you’re speaking of OOTC in that paragraph of yours. If anything, that album is seen by many as his most mainstream work up to that point. There is more “traditional-sounding” material than usual on that album because SN and CM aren’t there to give Buckingham’s left-field impulses the proper balance and he needed to provide it himself. It’s hard to see how he would have learnt his lesson from its failure when he operated within the same principle with GOS.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
If he wasn't at all concerned with being commercially viable, and with selling albums, then he'd be off on some tiny indie label somewhere.

If you’re speaking of labels that release underground music, I believe no one there would even be interested in him because of his association with Fleetwood Mac.

He hasn't taken any radical left-turns like Bowie has…

I don’t think David Bowie has been taking any radical left-turns during his career, even though he may be known as “the chameleon”.

Bowie, even during his “most cutting-edge” period of 1970-80, was essentially a populist/popularizer; after that he has interpreted the values of the mainstream for his own use (Let’s Dance = Chic, Outside = Nine Inch Nails, Earthling = Goldie). Everything he has done can be traced to an earlier innovation. The Man Who Sold The World follows the pattern of Led Zeppelin et al., Hunky Dory fits into the early ‘70s singer-songwriter mould, Ziggy Stardust jumps on the glam bandwagon as inspired by Marc Bolan, Young Americans is an attempt at white boy soul, Station To Station is an attempt at white boy funk and even his most “experimental” work, namely Low and Heroes, lean on the innovations that Brian Eno had introduced with No Pussyfooting in 1973 and heavily worked on after that.
He was never without significant help from musicians. Ziggy wouldn’t have existed without Mick Ronson, Station To Station needed a great band, Low and Heroes had Brian Eno’s contributions all over them. et cetera, et cetera.
His changes haven’t been surprising to me anyway. Even when he switched from glam to soul he made a transitional album in between (Diamond Dogs) that had elements of both. Likewise I think that the hits of Low and Heroes, “Sound And Vision” and “Beauty And The Beast” are both derivative of the material on Station To Station.

I may put Bowie in the same eccentric bag of musicians as Lindsey but DB’s never had the gall to make his albums truly diverse. There’s the Bowieish way of writing songs that never really changes, and neither do his vocals. He may be diverse when his career is viewed as a whole but inside one particular album he is not. For me it takes guts to have true diversity; that’s far braver than following the changing of the sound ideals.

I also think that with Tusk Lindsey was far braver than Bowie has ever been. Bowie was considered “an artist” from the outset, he never appealed just to the largest masses, he always received great critical acclaim during his golden period.
Lindsey Buckingham wasn’t considered “an artist” before Tusk, he was considered a mainstream hit merchant. So when that change came it surprised many. He didn’t have to change his way of writing songs, he just changed the way he recorded and arranged them. That was enough. The atmospheres of Tusk were largely unrelated to the ones Fleetwood Mac had been having before.

…and he hasn't turned his back on major labels like many other artists have.

He could do it if he was truly disappointed in the Warner Brothers. It doesn’t seem like he is though, or maybe he is but he doesn’t still have any problems with working inside the machinery. Will be discussed in the second post.

Right now I’ll just say that even The Clash, despite their rebellious anti-music industry image, were on CBS for their most experimental albums. Even those guys were interested in selling some records.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
You make some compromises... you give the record company a few of the kinds of songs they want, and then you can fill the rest of the album with the songs you want (and is it really that difficult to give the record company two or three radio-friendly songs, when that still leaves you with room for nine or ten of the songs you'd prefer?).

Warner Brothers may have seen Gift Of Screws as unappealing but it is also interesting as of how they never released it even though there were at least five appealing songs that could have appeared as singles. “Bleed To Love Her”, “Deep Dense”, “Down On Rodeo”, “Steal Your Heart Away” and “Twist Of Fate” should not be too inaccessible to anyone. I daresay they’re the closest to the stereotypical image of FM that the public has, without appearing as banal or totally non-intrusive (except for “SYHA”, and that’s just me talkin’). It just goes to show that the label was far more interested in a Fleetwood Mac album.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
IMO, ISA fits squarely with the late 60's and early to mid 70's guitar crunching bands like Led Zeppelin, Foghat, Black Sabbath, etc. Although these bands all had their own distinct sounds, they all had these long guitar oriented songs similar to ISA.

I’m not completely going to deny that. But even then Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath didn’t have any chart hits in that vein, even Sabbath’s “Paranoid” appears to me as a compromise between the heavy guitar tone and the major-mode, bubblegum-pop melody. They were mainly album bands. Granted, they did build their legacy out of songs like that but that material certainly wasn’t hit-single oriented.

For me “I’m So Afraid” doesn’t just take something from Zeppelin and Sabbath, it builds a bridge between them and the oncoming punk/new wave generation. There’s none of Ozzy Osbourne’s self-conscious pseudo-satanistic swagger or Robert Plant’s unintentional over-the-top cock-rockish self-preening (self-self-self, that’s what I’m all about too). There’s an inherent depression at the heart of “ISA”, wrapping around oneself totally. It’s depression turned inwards, a person who is willing to see himself dead rather than just toying with the imagery of death (like Ozzy/Geezer Butler did).
The music side of “I’m So Afraid” is very relative to post-punkers like Joy Division. Mick and John play things there that Peter Hook and Stephen Morris would play later on (but more amateurishly, of course). And I think the only person who has even wanted to get close to Lindsey’s obsessive weaving on the fretboard is Bernard Sumner in Joy Division’s “Shadowplay”.

(Sure, the lyrics are less subtle than whatever Ian Curtis would sing but they ain’t any less sincere or heartfelt to me).

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Thus, the term commercial. I do not for minute think it takes away from the merit of the music. But, LB seemingly does in that HE uses the term commercial in a seemingly negative way.

IMO, he uses it in relation to the band and himself sometimes being willing to play along with the public perception of FM’s music. The soft-rock sound, that is.

Originally posted by sodascouts
…(those Clash-types). (My thoughts on Lindsey's misguided need for the approval of these types is a whole 'nother issue!)

I don’t believe his willingness to be approved by those types is misguided. If you and your friends don’t appreciate The Clash then it’s your problem. Lindsey isn’t any less deserving of your attention than he is of other people with different tastes in music and different lifestyles.

There is nothing wrong with either of those despite the perjorative labelling of the latter as "selling out" or compromising oneself by SO MANY people - even some of his staunchest defenders, who seem embarrassed to admit to liking anything on Rumours better than anything on Tusk.

I will never belittle the music of Rumours but I will always spit on its sales which were totally ridiculous and unhealthy when compared to any other Fleetwood Mac album. I just don’t think that LB’s work outside of Rumours is a hair worse than those three songs that are considered his apex. It’s an over-simplified and far too popular a conception that needs to be shattered.

Originally posted by cliffdweller
He usually ends up caving in the end on most issues (because he realizes, if it's a band effort there must be compromise) so he's not quite the rebel he makes himself out to be after all.

This isn’t accurate for me. Do you think there are not compromises between the experimental and the commercial on his solo albums? He doesn’t need the rest of the band to be able to compromise on most matters. He’s a questioner, I’m sure he questions himself, some of his thoughts and his approach to music more than other people question them.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
…look at 'Behind The Mask' and 'Time.'
Granted, I know you have no love lost for either of those albums, but neither of them sound exactly like the kind of music that was selling the most albums in 1990 and 1995.

BTM and Time are the closest this band has ever gotten to the soft-rock image that they have in the minds of the many.
There is very little unusual or intrusive on these albums overall. You can make a case for “In The Back Of My Mind” or “These Strange Times” but otherwise there is none of Buckingham’s eclectic diversity and musical schizophrenia.
Even though I think the albums are good my belief is that they wouldn’t change anyone’s perception of FM when listened to as a neophyte. They wouldn’t pull in any of the underground elitist crowd even if those were suddenly given a chance to listen to the albums in fair conditions and they wouldn’t really pull in any of the rootsier crowd either, despite the presence of two such members, because of the compromises involved.

I’ve listened to some of Billy Burnette’s solo albums. The only album of those I truly like, the only one that can’t be used as inoffensive background filler is his self-titled one from 1980. That one kicks my butt and makes me appreciate him as a musician but his other stuff, even within Fleetwood Mac, doesn’t. I understand he isn’t the [only] one responsible of the experiments in “ITBOMM” anyway. Yes, I fail to hear the subtlety in his songwriting. But I don’t call him a no-good, lousy hack because of that, like some have done. And contrary to some people’s opinions, I do think he got to do what he wanted in the band.

Rick Vito gets run over by a steam-roller in terms of his own songs even though he made compromises and didn’t push his blues-oriented material on the album. He wrote two sophisticated pop songs, “Got No Home” and “Intuition”, that didn’t get on BTM because they obviously weren’t what FM wanted which is simply ridiculous when they wanted “Stand On The Rock”, an overblown, tasteless nod to the ‘80s.

That’s how those records turned out to be because there was no one to kick the members’ rear ends and to tell them that they do not need to make the records totally bound to the common conception of FM since 1975. Rick Vito could have led the band into a very blues-bound direction but there was no will to go there; the band wanted to cling on to the public perceptions that had been strengthened by TITN. Look out below.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean there really was no change other than the addition of La Nicks' vocals in the production of the final product from the original GOS stuff.

Which is another case of Warners being interested in Lindsey Buckingham material only if it is done within the context of FM. Stevie doesn’t add a thing to those songs for me and I think that’s because Lindsey didn’t have her in mind when he first formulated them.

…with the possible exception of the lyric change in Peacekeeper, which he said he did not mind.

Someone pointed out on the Legboard that the line “break their will” is actually far crueler than “only kill”. “Only kill” suggests a fast, honourable death. “Break their will” suggests long torture, both mental and physical. It’s another case of LB laughing secretly into his sleeve after supposedly following the company demands.

Originally posted by cliffdweller

I also realize that Lindsey has never been in any way shape or form an avante garde artist and I don't mean to hold him up to those standards nor would I want him to be that. Fleetwood Mac is a mainstream pop/rock group, something Lindsey knew when he joined and actually helped to maintain throughout the years, albeit somewhat grudgingly.

Lindsey Buckingham has done much more than has been expected of him.

The man was pidgeonholed with the success of Rumours and was expected by everyone to follow the formula. He didn’t, and in that way, shape and form he is an avantgarde artist. He was the only man in America in the whole genre of classic/soft/hippie rock who reacted to punk rock genuinely. And that makes him avantgarde in that context, even though he was working inside the traditional song structures and rarely resorted to pure dissonance.

So when I say he "sold out" with Mirage and Tango, I don't mean he sold out as an avante garde or maverick artist. However, I do believe in his mind, he sold out some of the principles of the kind of music he wanted to make (he's admitted to that). And in the end, it was his decision to stay in the band. Noone was forcing him to remain tethered to Fleetwood Mac, it was always his choice if he wanted to stay or leave.

I daresay that I’ve never found Mirage quite the sellout that it seems to be for many Mac fans, in spite of Lindsey’s own statements of it.

Yes, Lindsey has more “generic” material there, material that’s more directly related to the ‘50s and early ‘60s than anything he’s ever done.

So what? Law And Order has obvious nods to the past too. How different is it to put that ‘40s approach to “Bwana”, make “Love From Here Love From There” sound like those old 78s, or cover “It Was I”, “September Song” and “A Satisfied Mind” when compared to doing an early Beatles pastiche (“Can’t Go Back”), writing ‘50s ballads in “Book Of Love” or “Oh Diane” or pulling out your old three chords for “Eyes Of The World”? There is no difference in my opinion. In spite of all of the hints at past his production still makes the songs totally skewed, perverted and mutilated when compared to their origins. “Holiday Road” and “Dancing Across The USA”, released in the following year, come from the same area. It isn’t something he necessarily resented doing. It’s a road he chose to follow himself for a while. He could have been forced to put the clear “Go Your Own Way” production to “Eyes Of The World” but he didn’t do it. He undermined its potential with the “cheaper” production (and its true rocker potential came out only live).

In the end, most of them are tributes to the past but there’s such a unique take to them that there’s not much, if any, nostalgia involved.

Not to mention that the two hit singles of the album, the public side of the band’s music, “Hold Me” and “Gypsy”, have HUGE Buckingham involvement.

As for Tango: I know some Lindsey fans claim that it’s closer to Tusk II than anything the band has put out. I do not agree with that really. You can make a case for his own songs but for the rest, no way. There are far less Buckingham quirks on “Isn’t It Midnight”, “Everywhere”, “Little Lies” and “Seven Wonders” than usual. They’re the ones that correspond to the soft-rock image the most and lay the ground for following up to that on BTM. There’s been reportage of the businessmen and lawyers interfering with the band decisions at this point and I believe some of them were carefully following the sessions; the outer forces obviously wanted this album to be Rumours II.

That is the main reason (IMO) for Lindsey’s departure, not just his psychological problems or his unwillingness to tour. He spoke of the band getting more generic in that point and I don’t believe he was just speaking of BTM and Time (I may agree with his criticism but I still like both albums).

Now I finally move on to my second post and my main points.

[face of glass]

Let’s deal with SN first, shall we? I’m not going to pit them against each other in any other way than musically. I think both have gotten over the supposed “battle of wills” (or, rather, battle for getting more public attention than the other) that was discussed at the BuckinghamNicks.net board a while ago and that’s good for them. But the differences in their music can be discussed and I still try to make clear that although I criticize Stevie’s music I still enjoy it a lot overall. In fact, I should go to the Stevie forum and start that “Docklands” appreciation thread where I will be the only poster.

And I ain’t trying to win anything here. I was unwilling to participate into the thread for a while and now it’s just overflowing like in Atlantis.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think Stevie, for instance, has proven time and time again that, while remaining mindful of the fact that she needs to sell albums in order to be able to make more albums, she also has artistic integrity.
You can make commercially appealing albums, while also staying true to your artistic impulses... but it involves compromises.

I concur. I think Stevie always writes from the heart, I’ve never thought she ever tries to calculate anything she writes in advance. I think even “Say You Will” wasn’t done in order to create something specific. The problem emerges when she puts her songs into the hands of the mainstream producers.
That is when she sacrifices some of the unique performance aspects of the demos.

With her solo albums she’d be much better off if she just teamed up with a small, REAL band and let the musicians work on the songs without the studio polish. Then it would be a vital alternative to what Lindsey and Fleetwood Mac do to her, at least it wouldn’t feel secondary.

As you know Johnny I think the soundscapes of her solo albums are too much dictated by the mainstream. Of course it doesn’t matter too much what I think.

You also know how I don’t see RAL as experimental and how after that one I think her records eventually bowed entirely down to that soft-rock ideal. I don’t have huge problems with it but it’s obvious to me how she and the businesspersons have eventually decided that it’s the best road for her to take.

No, it’s not necessary for her to go nuts vocally anymore, I think she does the best she can in that area with her voice these days. “Running Through The Garden”, “Everybody Finds Out”, “Fall From Grace” and even “Long Way To Go” are flawless vocal performances for me. It’s the overall atmosphere of the music that bothers me. TOSOTM, Street Angel and TISL can essentially be used as high quality background music if you disregard Stevie’s voice completely. Lindsey isn’t there to make his surprising shifts and turns.

At this point people might pull out the subtlety argument. “Stevie doesn’t need those sonic shifts in ‘Come’ and “Murrow”, she doesn’t need the weird disturbing stuff and ‘em quirks. She’s subtle and therefore she’s far more clever and mature than Lindsey”.

Granted, no one has ever used those exact words here. But I’m once again going to pull out my age-battered argument and say that in most cases only the fans are capable of hearing the subtlety. I hear a lot of subtlety in Lindsey’s work (even in the “commercial” material) and I also hear it in Stevie’s work. But I think it’s mainly because of my fandom, because I’ve listened to this material for a long time.

It’s basically about this: is a song ear-catching when you listen to it on the radio or is a song part of the inoffensive wallpaper that we surround ourselves with every day, because it takes time to hear the subtlety if the song is bound to what’s current. This goes to both Lindsey and Stevie, to “Soul Drifter” and “Blue Denim”, to “Peacekeeper” and “Say You Will”.

I’ve said it often; I think Stevie Nicks lost the freshness of her songwriting rapidly in early ‘80s and that was because she has never changed or tried to change her way of writing songs. When we had the first debate on this at Stevie’s board Johnny said that he is glad Stevie has never tried to change it or “improve” it with musical theory (and he used Madonna as an example of what can happen). And I do agree with that in a way; I do believe she has a unique artistic insight that could possibly even disappear if she was was to train herself further in certain ways.

So the only way to make her backing tracks truly stand out for me would be to diversify the atmospheres if she is going to keep on working within the format she’s been having for her solo career. It’s the usual music business tradition that Stevie is following, write the songs and have some professional players play their routine parts to that.

To me it is bothersome to see SN do this. Her songwriting lost the wider appeal it had; no one can pull off a cover of a late period Stevie Nicks song at this point because her appeal is now largely leaning on her voice, her delivery and her lyrics. It seems like other people responsible for the business side have realized this too.

[Once again, I’m not discussing the lyrics. I think she knows how to balance the esoteric (“Welcome To The Room… Sara”) and appealing (“Say You Will”) in that area.]

The singles that were the flagships of TOSOTM and Street Angel were always written with other people with Stevie most likely only adding her lyrics. TISL, the album when she was supposed to gain her inspiration back, had three songs from the ‘70s. Nothing wrong with that but it speaks volumes to me that even though they wrapped up recent Stevie Nicks songs into the contemporary production values, they still ended up choosing “rejects” like “POTU” and “Sorcerer” for the flagships, along with songs that others had written for Stevie (“Everyday”, “Rooms On Fire”, “Blue Denim”).

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Sure, Stevie wrote "Say You Will" in the hopes that it would have broad commercial appeal, and I still really don't see anything wrong with that.

The only broad commercial appeal in that one comes from the production (which I’m sure Stevie completely approved of anyway). I can imagine the demo being the usual Nicksian drone.

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that her material on 'Tango' is a lot less commercial than Lindsey's.

I’ve never thought the two songs are awful. But I think “WTTR…S” is ideologically probably one of her worst for me. It leans completely on the performance aspect and the lyrics are so Nicks-centred that I can’t believe anyone outside the fan community would take that close to his/her heart.

“WISYA” can raise feelings that are and are not related to the song itself, I know that.

I do not see any experimentalism (like Gerald suggested) in these. It’s the same old tired bunch of chords. If there is experimentalism it’s obviously something that only diehard fans can detect. The easiest thing in this world is to grab an acoustic instrument, pick a few generic chord structures and try to be confessional. It takes skills to make that thing work. You need a song that could be appealing in another context and you need a moving delivery. Stevie only gives me the latter. (I still don’t blame Stevie entirely for the somewhat lacklustre results, Lindsey could have done more after all.) So when Stevie Nicks does work that is songwritingwise unappealing to non-fans and leans completely on the performance aspect (and has Lindsey’s production) she is “branching out” or “experimenting” or being “anti-commercial”. The biggest fans may think so, I don’t.

These are the closest she’s got to the “deep-reaching, impenetrable artistic sense” and that’s the attitude I personally hate. Thank God she’s never showed any of that in her interviews but the fact that some fans (not meaning Johnny Stew) hold these as her greatest masterpieces and bash songs like “SYW” is nothing but reflection of the mentality that “she’s too good to appeal to the masses”.

Again, it’s the same thing we discussed last year:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew a long, long time ago
Not to belittle "Landslide," but this is why I've often said I actually prefer "When I See You Again" to "Landslide."
Just about anyone can like "Landslide"... it's reflective without being too deep, and it's simple. "When I See You Again" is very esoteric with its stark, harrowing and confessional lyrics and vocal. It's not just a pretty little song that you can sing along with... and that's what struck me most about Stevie's writing when I started to become a fan.

To which I then replied:

The fact is that I'm more likely to respect a song that appeals to a larger audience than a song that seems to reflect only the writer's inner world, a world that is inaccessible everyone else but the writer and the fans. I personally think it's more difficult to do a song that reaches a wide audience than to write something that incomprehensible and esoteric. Not that I think "When I See You Again" is like that. But I still think it's "Landslide" pt. 2, without any particular freshness in it. Hey, it's easy to follow your artistic impulses, it's difficult to make your work appealing to other people without resorting to cheap stunts (both musical and non-musical).

Originally posted by cliffdweller
Illume is a great example of Stevie branching outside her tried and true formula and producing amazing music. IMO, she should experiment more in that type of vein

The only experiments in “Illume” come from Lindsey Buckingham’s screeching guitars and goofy vocals. I daresay that the obsessive delivery that Stevie has in that track (and is unlike anything she’s been attempting before) came about only when she did the final take. And I will hold that opinion until the demo is leaked.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Also, I happen to love the Billie Holiday quality of her voice during that time-period. I loved that vulnerable, world-weary rasp, and I actually really miss it.

*joins sighing and swooning* But it disappeared pretty fast, already on the TITN tour it was gone.

I was listening because I was thoroughly captivated and amazed by the depth of this woman's songs.

Depth is something that only the fans (or those with the potential) are capable of hearing.

Leaving the question: Why is it that Lindsey can do something offbeat and wholly artistic (and, therefore, potentially unappealing to the masses), but Stevie's not allowed to, lest she be criticized for not living up to what we expect from her?

Because Stevie Nicks doesn’t experiment in her songwriting; the form does not allow for stretching out anymore.
If there’s any experimentation on her songs, it comes from elsewhere than SN. Breaking the rules isn’t possible for someone who has limited grasp of music.

And it may not seem that way by some of the people who post around here, but there are a good many people who quite enjoy the songs she released during that time-frame... I've talked to quite a few of them.

Let me hear this again; there are actually non-fans who cite “Juliet”, “Doing The Best I Can”, “Affairs Of The Heart”, “Desert Angel”, “Street Angel”, “Love Is Like A River”, etc, the only songs she wrote on her own from those years as career highlights? Wow.

(I can understand them appreciating one or two and liking the songs she didn’t write [on her own] from those years.)

Lindsey Buckingham then. At last.

Like I’ve said before, I associate Lindsey Buckingham with British pop eccentrics like Roy Wood, David Bowie and Brian Eno, or even the American Todd Rundgren. People who work like those gentlemen do need not necessarily to innovate or to break totally new ground.

Originally posted by chiliD
I hold to the notion that Lindsey really isn't "cutting edge" or "groundbreaking"...he's just recycling ideas he's had for years, plus taking OLD ideas and presenting them in semi-new ways. Nothin' wrong with that, but the perception that he's so profoundly "ahead of his time" is, to me, misleading.

I think it is misleading as well. He hasn’t been innovative, he’s taken on particular influences and created his unique artistic path through all that. And I dislike it when someone says that “he’s too good for the common listener”, especially when I think that he hasn’t been trying to set himself on a high pedestal that only the select few can reach.

But I daresay that it hasn’t been necessary for him to innovate. Fleetwood Mac in its history has not been innovating too much; the original line-up didn’t start any revolution in approach but it may have influenced the contemporaries somewhat (you can hear “Oh Well” in Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog”, for instance).

And as some of you may know, I think that no one has really innovated in the history of rock and roll for the past 20-25 years; someone may come up with a pseudo-new thing or two every once in a while but even that can be difficult to get through to a bigger audience. We’re at such a point that a lot of what people do is quotation art or a bunch of post-modernistic, vague emotions. There are lots of more layers in the music of the recent years; ironic, knowing distance, intentional attempts at pastiches and so on. Not to mention that the music scene has fragmented to the point of absurdity. No more ‘60s naivety for us, the revolution is over.

The thing that Lindsey has done, along with Messrs. Wood, Bowie, Eno and Rundgren (and a few others, such as the Beatles when they were still together), is to take a lot of the influences from different kinds of music surrounding him and turning those into a highly idiosyncratic style. The man still speaks of being influenced by The Kingston Trio, his father’s old 78s, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, The Talking Heads, Laurie Anderson, Radiohead and Bach, even though the latter might something of a stretch. He’s not taking EVERYTHING available to him but he’s taking in a lot more than is required and letting all that influence him. That’s his biggest strength and I think he still has that attitude to this day.

Originally posted by chiliD
Take "Everybody Finds Out"...it has a fresh sound to it, in some ways, but the production fits better with the mid-80's mush of Tango In The Night.

For me it sounds closer to the hyperactive helium highs of the Associates’ Sulk (but then again, now it fits your 1982 theory!).

Early on, during my extreme loathing of "Come", somebody mentioned how "Zeppelin-ish" it sounded. After seeing them play it live, I had to agree...but, Zeppelin isn't "now" or "ahead of their time"...they're yesterday's news.

Songwriting-wise it is that but I think it has other levels to it too. It has all the math-rock creep of the 1973 King Crimson or 1991 Slint, play so quietly and in such a dimension of sound that when you switch to the loud point it will hit the listener damn hard. As it does. I don’t know if Lindsey listened to these two but I can imagine the disturbance of Radiohead’s OK Computer influencing the production of the verses.

Not to mention that I think the song is a parody, an intentional over-exaggeration of obsession and male bravado, especially when you look at the lyrics. I can’t imagine Robert Plant doing that one because I think he always took himself too seriously, even when he was asking for his lemon to be squeezed.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
For instance, in 1992 I would hardly call "Soul Drifter" a commercial song. Is it accessible? Most certainly, as is all of "Out of the Cradle," at least to my ears.

I don't believe "Steal Your Heart Away" is terribly commercial, even though I have said that very thing in the past (lest someone picks up on an apparent contradiction).

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I totally think LB writes for commercial viability and did so on this record. Look at BTLH and SYHA - two classic commercial singles if I've ever hear a single. Plus, they are both brilliant IMO, even though he has said they are too commercial…

I think that while the production of “Soul Drifter”, “BTLH” and “SYHA” might be appealing to the people who Warner Brothers think is the main target group of Fleetwood Mac, I also think that Lindsey didn’t write them in order to appear commercial.

“Soul Drifter” I have always thought of being Frank Sinatra worthy, even LB himself said that it comes from the Tin Pan Alley mould of songwriting and that certainly wasn’t selling at all in 1992. “BTLH” comes from the same place, after all Lindsey said that the verses are ripped off from Dean Martin’s “Memories Are Made Of This”.

David said this once of “Steal Your Heart Away”:

Originally posted by David
I've always liked it because it has a bit of the Kingston Trio (generic folkies who played banjo well) vibe to it, & maybe even a little Beach Boys (the dipping little melody that accompanies "suddenly we hit the ground").

So I think they’re all respective, heartfelt tributes to Lindsey’s origins. And a part of his eccentric popmeister game.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
His music is essentially commercial, albeit quirky.

Consequently you have to ask yourself where these quirks come from.

My personal belief is that they come from the punk/new wave area. They’re not something that his background in “classic rock” would lead to.

Lindsey’s core songwriting may derive from the music he listened to when he was a lot younger but his production quirks come from the classic rock zone and from the Generation X sense of abandon.

This is what makes him a genuine eccentric. And I daresay that Roy Wood and Todd Rundgren have very little, if at all, punk influences in them. David Bowie and Brian Eno are closer to that, but in DB’s case it’s either to this or that direction rather than having both seemingly incompatible styles together at the same time. Eno influenced punk and new wave a lot with his work in between 1973-78 but even he went into a totally artistic direction when he started the development of ambient music on a wider scale.

Lindsey often has the classic rock influences and the punk influences visible at the same time. Sometimes the other side takes over the other but that doesn’t happen too often.

The acoustic “Big Love” has all the subtlety in the world in its fingerpicking but it’s still delivered with a passion of a punk. “Miranda” has the lightness at its heart but still plunges into a suicidal section. “Caroline” may sound smooth but there’s a sense of struggle that those lyrics (when sung) and the rhythm machines give. “Don’t Look Down” gives a sense of relaxation but then those harmonies come in and startle the listener.

It’s all over his work in the end. It’s two different audiences that he’s trying to communicate to and that’s most probably unconsciously. You’d think that if he saw anything wrong with his approach, he’d change something. But he hasn’t.

It’s not just a question of the two different audiences being unwilling to see the qualities in LB’s work, it’s also the battle between the “old world” and the post-modernistic.

Startling, shocking, quirky, distorted, these are all qualities of the post-modernism that new wave brought about. It’s not music about clear, obvious emotions anymore (like many presume the hippie music was about), it’s a vague message that he gives us through this. It’s no wonder the soft-rock/classic rock crowd won’t appreciate Lindsey’s work outside Rumours.

And it seems like some of the underground elitists are turned off by Lindsey’s reputation and his I-IV-V approach to songwriting.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I know die-hard music afficianados, with highbrow tastes, who are completely turned off by Lindsey's stuff.
Their opinion doesn't mean any more or less than our opinions, but certainly in their minds, what Lindsey has done isn't "good," if it doesn't appeal to them.

This I believe is not necessarily always just “personal taste”. It could as well be that some of them are unwilling to approach Lindsey’s work because of this dichotomy that it has. I don’t know if these guys brush off entire genres or not but they should learn not to dismiss them entirely anyway.

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
Because if you're talking just about the obsession over the production (over production, perfect production).. then... yyyyeah. Most musicians probably didn't need to stay in the studio that long for a single like that. Many weren't perfectionists and/or already so well-established they can get anything on air

I will always defend his approach for studio polish.

It’s not just that he’s anal retentive and a control freak. Working to get that polished sound is a part of the big game he plays with the music industry. He builds this huge, smooth sonic canvas and then puts his quirkiness there so that it won’t fit the common perception of the Rumours-FM. I’m sure he gets a huge kick from working inside the music industry and then doing his little sabotage in there behind the scenes. There’s no way anyone can use any FM album as inoffensive filler when this man is present. Love him or hate him but you can’t ignore him. And I would say the last two sentences of Stevie and her voice too.

That’s the reason why Warners have a difficult time with Lindsey Buckingham and that’s why many other labels would have it too.

These days you just have to fall into a specific target group so that you can be easily marketed, branded and put inside a box.

There’s specific groups you try to appeal to if you work inside the music industry. You don’t try to appeal to both the middle-aged classic rock listeners and the underground types; that’s what people tell you. There’s music everywhere so that it fills every damn hole, there’s format radios that only play certain kinds of music so that no one would complain or spill the coffee on the keyboard. The situation hasn’t been good for true eccentrics for a long time.

Stevie Nicks goes along with the typical music industry ballgame in spite of always writing from the heart. There’s a certain group she always tries to appeal to and with the modern production she always tries to lure in some younger people too.

Lindsey Buckingham doesn’t play this game. He still works within the eccentric values of the ‘60s and tries to make his music diverse, not only in writing but in SOUND.
He would be much better off doing this in the ‘60s but then again that would leave out his unique interpretation of punk.

So this is why I think Stevie Nicks (who I still truly love) is in the end more commercial than Lindsey Buckingham. Listening to her album is like listening to a radio station (if you disregard her performance), whereas Lindsey Buckingham still takes me up for a true emotional ride in MUSIC.

You may say to Lindsey that the times have changed and that train has gone a long time ago but I won’t. I detest it when the media gives me only the easiest possible choices and I hate the whole “be what you listen to, this is your lifestyle” thing it tries to give me from everywhere. And I love it that Lindsey doesn’t go along with it.

So I come back to the first paragraph I quoted:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, if LB really wanted to be the maverick he clearly wants to be and often whines (bless his heart I love him but he sure can whine ) about, he would have been one.

I will whine with him. I will mutter and complain and moan and protest (but not here, not always, I understand how people view that as obnoxious) until his work will start to be accepted as is by many. I think that he still doesn’t have an obvious target group for himself and just a few dozen thousand people of those who bought SYW appreciate everything in there. And I think he shouldn’t make compromises and bow to the current general thinking.

His solo work essentially presents a challenge to people.

To the hip, street credibility elitists: are you willing to see through the polished sound and the traditional songwriting? Are you willing to accept those as valid forms of expression?

To the classic rock listeners: are you willing to accept the quirks, the offbeat qualities and the obsessive personality? They have their value too, you know.

I don’t know how diverse tastes Lindsey fans have here, something tells me that many of you don't just listen to one or two things. And that’s good.

The times may still not be right for the man but one day everything will change again. And then we all will join hands in perfect harmony and all the wars will be over, including the Buckingham vs. Nicks battle and we’ll all get to heaven and…

[strandinthewind]

I do not see how anyone cannot think the lyrics of SYW (the song) are not greatness and classic SN. I mean who, other than the largest sourpusses , does not get a little happy when they hear those great, poetic (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word ) lyrics. Who doesn't flush a little when they think about a "fever dance" - who cannot relate to the "electricty of love?" I say the same thing about the song TISL - I think those lyrics are great and inspired. Ditto for Bombay Sapphires IMO. So, I think SN can still write a great song - hand down. Also, the demos in the VH1 special were very similar to the final SYW product even though LB clearly gave subtle brilliance to them, although I wish he would have kept the flute in SG.

Note: I am not saying LB cannot. In fact and to the contrary, I think his stuff on SYW is also brilliant.

Finally, this whole "I am an artist and will not compromise my work for commercialism" argument is a bunch of hooey IMO because they all want to sell records not matter what any of them say. Otherwise, why would they fo with a large label that they know will insist on that Moreover, I do not think any of them have had the missed meal cramps ( )suffering financially for their previously highly commercial and IMO brilliant art. Then again, I do not buy the argument that commercialism = crapola

My $0.02

[face of glass]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not see how anyone cannot think the lyrics of SYW (the song) are not greatness and classic SN.

Hey, I agree with that but like I said, I left the lyrics out of my part of discussion yet again.

So, I think SN can still write a great song - hand down. Also, the demos in the VH1 special were very similar to the final SYW product even though LB clearly gave subtle brilliance to them, although I wish he would have kept the flute in SG.

Put someone else to sing those and then we'll see how much attraction it has. Maybe you and DownOnRodeo ought to work together in order to convince me.

Finally, this whole "I am an artist and will not compromise my work for commercialism" argument is a bunch of hooey IMO because they all want to sell records not matter what any of them say.

Yeah, I agree. But there's different levels in that. SN has changed according to the commerical climate while Buckingham is still the eccentric '60s hippie smoking pot and fooling around in the garage with his various sounds. Maybe he's just dated.

Otherwise, why would they fo with a large label that they know will insist on that

You can be on a large label but you don't have to do everything the label says or completely give in on musical issues. Lindsey doesn't and I believe Stevie doesn't either. She just has better business sense.