When I See You Again Appreciation Post!

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by face of glass
Lindsey may think so but would it necessarily prevent him from inserting shades of other emotions into them? Would he treat them as “sacred” and leave them untouched? Listening to the demos of “Thrown Down” and “Not Make Believe”; I think he wouldn’t.

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."

You’re right in that I can’t prove he wanted to mock Stevie’s lyrics deliberately. That’s the impression I got, however, and it was weird at first to hear such a choice in a song like that. Even you, as you said on your board, got that impression at first but obviously you didn’t want to cling to it. It’s impossible to say objectively whether there’s a sarcastic tone used or not as the interpretations would vary depending on the listener. For me it is one though.

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.

For the record: I agree with Dissention’s take on “Illume” completely, especially “of it's constraint of being about only one persons feelings”. That’s a flaw in Stevie’s writing occasionally; for the uninitiated it can come off as pieces of a personal world that might seem far too esoteric at first. Her producers capable of wrapping these pieces up into something that the casual listeners can also find appealing, they’re capable of colouring Stevie’s images into something more attractive. Especially Lindsey. He’s not afraid of bringing in these “alternate views”, through his own voice or his production.

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."

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.

So, is he mocking Stevie then, like many kids in the schoolyard used to mock something someone was saying with a funny voice? Nah, not that blatantly. If he shares Stevie’s grief, it’s not necessarily Stevie and her emotions that he’s mocking, he could be poking at himself for his own reaction.

If Stevie wrote “Illume” directly after the events and didn’t do any editing on it, then it is natural that she wouldn’t be capable of taking on a point of view other than her own. However, it was different when LB received the song way after the tragedy and obviously worked on it for a long period of time. He could already take some distance to it, he could ruminate on the topic instead of being completely crushed by emotions. In short, he wanted to reflect on other possible interpretations of the tragedy, not just the Nicksian grief. For “Illume” is a very one-sided song; Stevie has only inserted grief in there (which she subtly varies, though). But since Lindsey has started to act as a sonic painter of sorts; someone who doesn’t just spurt a single emotion on the canvas but uses several intersecting ones at the same time, then it’s understandable for him to put something like that in “Illume” too.

The MEANING is not SUPPOSED to be his, Gauis. It's Stevie's. I guess that's the fundamental difference in our views. You feel Lindsey would have no problem rendering her song more "acceptable" to the masses without her permission. 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.

It is there in his own songs, along with this self-ridicule; “Come” is basically a parody of male aggression (which I’m sure is not unfamiliar to him) which he crosses with the verses that sound like the confessions of an obsessive lunatic, “Family Man” is LB laughing at his disability to write a good lyric (up to that point, at least) through the various voice manipulation while setting the tune to harmless ‘80s backing music. So, if he can do this with his own songs, why can’t he do it with Stevie’s too?

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!

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?

For me saying that “Illume” is just a “simple” song about sadness/grief after LB’s treatment is the same as saying that “Say Goodbye” is just Lindsey waxing nostalgic after a love affair. There’s so much more other things that he adds into these songs.

See above. "Say Goodbye" is a LINDSEY song.

The problem that people are having with my suggestion is probably that someone who mocks a serious song about a tragedy seems like a cruel person. That someone would have the guts to make an open joke about a tragedy. I don’t think there is that obvious a joke in the song; otherwise I wouldn’t be alone in my position. It is a subtle joke, not something that seems to underestimate the lyric. It’s just something that deflates the imagery a bit; it’s not the history of the world Stevie is talking about in there, it’s her own story.

EXACTLY. It's her own story. If Lindsey wanted to convey something different, he would've written his OWN song about it.

Is the using of those voices humorous? For me it is partially; although it’s humour that’s born out of the unlikelihood of something like that happening in a song that’s supposed to be full of sadness. It doesn’t make me laugh directly or anything like that. It serves as a necessary reminder to the mourner; life isn’t all centred around you and there’s people who just won’t care for what you feel. You’re just a drop in an ocean. It’s an intellectual thing, of course, something that one can only come up with after the tragedy, but no less valid an expression than anything Stevie is doing.

Well, if Lindsey wants to do this kind of philosophizing to make sure everyone mourns more "intellectually," then I repeat that he can write his own song about it. 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. But she DOES have the right to express her OWN ideas and she DID SO. Lindsey has enough integrity to respect her right!

I don’t know. I guess I’m just a bit bothered by the fact that there’s this common opinion in our society of grief and what it should be like. These days, after an event that shocks the nation, you’re just not supposed to be showing any other emotion besides pure mourning. Anything else, even a variant of that, and then you’re a freak. For me there’s always been so much other things involved in it; cynicism, anger, depression and yes, even sarcasm. That’s what Lindsey reflects on. We may watch all these funerals and tragedies from the TV every year but even then it’s usually because of voyeurism. You never see anyone showing true “negative” emotions in public and that’s obviously because most people wouldn’t bear to watch it. LB is not afraid of recognizing these things in people though.

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?

I refuse to believe that Lindsey was “cheapening the message of the song” with those voices. He was just trying to give us a glimpse of something else. It’s easy to wrap oneself in mourning and stay in that state for a long time. These people usually dismiss humour as escapism. For me humour, the like of which is in “Illume” too, is not about pushing away one’s problems and fears. It an ability to look at yourself from a larger perspective; the fears won’t crush you then.

Again, I agree with this sentiment in general. 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.)

“Illume” may have been written as a direct response to what was happening all around Stevie but the fact that she apparently didn’t alter the message of the song when recording it with Fleetwood Mac proves that she didn’t want to express anything other than grief. Such a song, hell, even the original Stevie demo would have been an understandable release if it had been put out at the tail end of 2001. I have no reason to believe that Lindsey would have wanted to do something that would alter the atmosphere so significantly that quick. He shared her grief, as we admit. However, in time your perspectives are bound to change and you will start seeing other sides of the matter. Which is what happened to Lindsey too, and he wanted to communicate that through music and the lyrical repetition. And especially the tones he chose to use.

I hope by now you understand why I would find it impossible to believe Lindsey would superimpose his own agenda on Stevie's songs that way.

And I don’t share this view with you either. It isn’t just a case of replicating “Madonna circa 1995”, it’s such an obvious a deviation from the overall atmosphere of the song that it has to represent something else. Whether it’s the fear and confusion of all those people on that day or just “mere sarcasm”, depends on the interpreter.

Well, perhaps he isn't just trying to be "different," but he certainly isn't trying to improve Stevie's meaning somehow, because he deems it inadequate to express a true range of emotions.

In the end, Nancy, I think you sometimes underestimate Lindsey’s sonic paintings; the different feelings they can evoke and the musical quotations he makes.

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

I think those could be used as a basis for interesting song interpretations too, along with the lyrics. Of course that stuff might be more vague than whatever Stevie’s giving you to work with, but I’m sure that in many cases the results wouldn’t be that much more nebulous than what some of the reader comments at your site are.

If you want to twist Stevie's lyrics into a meaning you prefer by using some supposed "meaning" Lindsey added, that's your right. It WOULD make about as much sense as a few of the things that some people have sent me. But I for one think that going beyond the lyrics to find meaning FROM ANOTHER PERSON is totally unfair to Stevie. "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?"

Another necessary disclaimer: This is all just my humble opinion! But I guess most of you knew that already.

Yeah, I knew that already. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[dissention]

Good lord.

[HomerMcvie]

Good lord.

Amen.

[dissention]

Originally posted by HomerMcvie
Amen.

[CarneVaca]

Wish I could contribute more to this tome of a thread, but alas, I am fresh out.

[HomerMcvie]

12 full screens of text for one post does tend to wear one out, no?

[Lorraine]

ha and it still makes no sense to me



Lorraine

[dissention]

Originally posted by trackaghost
And is this the longest thread EVER?

HELL NO!

We have political threads that run over 50 pages over on the Chit Chat board!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
HELL NO!

We have political threads that run over 50 pages over on the Chit Chat board!

:

[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.

[dissention]

Originally posted by face of glass
Hey, don’t you think it’s about time someone gave me my own medicine?

Oh, of course, doll. I was just shocked at the tone of condescension; that's all.