How are you different from every other ledgie?

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by Miss Vicky

Well, I can't say that in terms of Fleetwood Mac, there's really anything that makes me different from EVERY other Ledgie, but there are some things that make me different from MOST other Ledgies.

1) I LOVE Time and Behind the Mask.
2) I don't like Rumours.
3) I think the performances on Live In Boston are superior to The Dance. And I don't mean the way they sound, but more the energy of the performances.
4) I don't miss Christine. I like her, but I don't miss her.
5) I think Bekka Bramlett's voice is superior to Steve Nicks'.
6) I believe that anytime that Mick and John do an album and call it Fleetwood Mac, no matter who is fronting the group, IT IS FLEETWOOD MAC.

(on all points except #3...I think both performances are less than "Fleetwood Mac worthy". And, #4...I have to say I DID miss Christine on SYW...but, then I still miss Peter Green & Bob Welch, too, so there you have it!)

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by chiliD

it's a good thing y'all are the minority

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

it's a good thing y'all are the minority

Good GAWD, so am I.

Except I do like Time and Behind The Mask.

[Sahara]

Originally Posted by tuigirl

well...I love "Not that funny"...now that must make me unique

No, that must make you just a little bit

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

I have never once used one of those smiley emoticon things. In fact, I often think they are annoying.

[David]

Originally Posted by Miss Vicky

2) I don't like Rumours.

In your drive to be perverse & contre gré & startlingly original, you have forsaken sense & self-consistency. You like Lindsey Buckingham -- that's what you've said in the past. So we'll let that premise stand & go from there.

As has been shown & commented on by countless critics, musicians & fans, "Rumours" is the first album that Buckingham's ideas on arrangement & production first came to the fore & were actively employed -- indeed, were the very foundation -- in the building of these tracks: the mixing of layered guitars & other instruments with voices in an orchestral manner ("orchestral" here doesn't mean grand & glorious, it means with a polyphonic sense of the importance of each strand to the whole without placing primary emphasis on any one strand); arrangements that mix space & matter so that each complements the other; the Beach Boys-inspired layering of three-, four- & even five-part harmonies; the manipulation of instrumental atmosphere; the characteristic treatment of vocals as instruments; the emphasis on early-period pop structures & tempos (Buddy Holly, rockabilly, Kingston Trio, etc.); the pseudo-classicality; the impressionistic references to exotic instruments (harpsichords, balalaikas, music boxes, etc.) & to found sounds (breaking glass, animal noises, etc.); the cinematic aspects of production -- creating a mise en scene of instruments, vocals & emotional states; etc. etc. etc. -- everything we characteristically think of as BUCKINGHAM.

So how can you be such a fan of Buckingham & yet dislike (presumably all, although you didn't specify) an album on which his ideas & executions are prevalent to an extreme degree?

Do you just like his belly button or something? What is it exactly that you do like about him, & how does that not apply to his enormous contributions to "Rumours"?

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

it's a good thing y'all are the minority

When you put it that way i'm going to buy Time tomorrow.

what a pompous remark.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

When you put it that way i'm going to buy Time tomorrow.

what a pompous remark.

simmah down. if that's the way it came across, it was not my intention. my point was that if the majority of people felt that way we wouldn't have a lot of the music I love.

I have said that I've been meaning to get Time myself...

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

I have said that I've been meaning to get Time myself...

NO!!

I made a joke!

[amber]

Originally Posted by David

In your drive to be perverse & contre gré & startlingly original, you have forsaken sense & self-consistency. You like Lindsey Buckingham -- that's what you've said in the past. So we'll let that premise stand & go from there.

As has been shown & commented on by countless critics, musicians & fans, "Rumours" is the first album that Buckingham's ideas on arrangement & production first came to the fore & were actively employed -- indeed, were the very foundation -- in the building of these tracks: the mixing of layered guitars & other instruments with voices in an orchestral manner ("orchestral" here doesn't mean grand & glorious, it means with a polyphonic sense of the importance of each strand to the whole without placing primary emphasis on any one strand); arrangements that mix space & matter so that each complements the other; the Beach Boys-inspired layering of three-, four- & even five-part harmonies; the manipulation of instrumental atmosphere; the characteristic treatment of vocals as instruments; the emphasis on early-period pop structures & tempos (Buddy Holly, rockabilly, Kingston Trio, etc.); the pseudo-classicality; the impressionistic references to exotic instruments (harpsichords, balalaikas, music boxes, etc.) & to found sounds (breaking glass, animal noises, etc.); the cinematic aspects of production -- creating a mise en scene of instruments, vocals & emotional states; etc. etc. etc. -- everything we characteristically think of as BUCKINGHAM.

So how can you be such a fan of Buckingham & yet dislike (presumably all, although you didn't specify) an album on which his ideas & executions are prevalent to an extreme degree?

Do you just like his belly button or something? What is it exactly that you do like about him, & how does that not apply to his enormous contributions to "Rumours"?

This is a brill description. I'm in love with it. Also, a good point.

Maybe she doesn't like Rumours because other people besides Lindsey are singing and even playing instruments on the songs.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

NO!!

I made a joke!

I guess I got lost in translation.

[Miss Vicky]

Originally Posted by David

Do you just like his belly button or something? What is it exactly that you do like about him, & how does that not apply to his enormous contributions to "Rumours"?

No, it's not his bellybutton, it's his left pinky nail.

What I like about Lindsey Buckingham are the things that make him unique, or at least unusual, among his peers - his style of guitar playing and the risks he takes in terms of production and the way he layers sounds. There's nothing risky about the sound of Rumours, it's pleasant but it lacks the magic that made albums like Tusk, Go Insane, Out of the Cradle, and what would have been (and maybe still will be) Gift of Screws great.

[Villavic]

I AM PERUVIAN!!
ha haa. well, if you mean differente FMnessly talking, er... I don't know. Maybe the only one who traveled more than 3000 miles JUST to see a concert??

detailing my profile:
1) I like Behind the Mask, not Time
2) I doooo like Rumours. LOVE IT!!! (sorry chilii ha haa
3) I love The Dance. Liked the reunion decade in general. Liked the Boston dvd since it's more "concert" though Stevie's voice was a bit bad
4) I DOOOOOO miss Christine. SYW is not one of my fave albums. Actually I still don't "get it" completely.
5) I don't believe that anytime that Mick and John do an album, they can call it Fleetwood Mac, a band is more than a rhythm section. It's a mixing of several things. That's why the whole Rumours lineup was greater than the sum of its members
6) And... finally.. I AM NOT CRAZY about TUSK. I like it but don't think it's the best album. Actually it's when Lindsey's sound started to be a bit monotonous

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by Villavic

5) I don't believe that anytime that Mick and John do an album, they can call it Fleetwood Mac, a band is more than a rhythm section. It's a mixing of several things.

Oh yes they can, and they have several times. Mick and John are Fleetwood Mac, the only constant members. They don't just play drums and bass - they are what makes Fleetwood Mac tick - they've proved it (on and off) over 40 years. They could do an album with Britney Spears and Rod Stewart and it'd still be Fleetwood Mac

[PsychCat]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I don't believe that anytime that Mick and John do an album, they can call it Fleetwood Mac, a band is more than a rhythm section. It's a mixing of several things. That's why the whole Rumours lineup was greater than the sum of its members

I suppose the CAN call it Fleetwood Mac but IMHO it's not really. Now if they want to do all different songs with all different people, perhaps (sounds like that Fauxwood Mac that came out in the early '70's).
But if they are going to do any material of Christine's, Lindsey's, Stevie's, or Bob's.... well then that's a different story.
I'm sure alot of Peter Green enthusiasts would say the same about Lindsey's version of "Oh Well" (which rocks, btw).

I also have to add that I totally love me some "Rumours"!!
I also like "SYW" but not as much and in a different way. I think it's some of Stevie's best stuff in a long time. Actually, I always thought it would have been cooler just to call it a Buckingham / Nicks cd as that is what it is more reminiscent of, the two of them working together.
So I guess I'm saying that if CHRISTINE is not in the band.... they can't call it Fleetwood Mac.
The preceding line was not intended to be taken seriously... kinda... sorta.