Tusk Survivor - FINAL ROUND - Page 5

Sugar · #61 09-18-2004, 10:23 AM

Storms is good, but I think what's being conveyed in IKINW is more complex and interesting. IMO IKINW is more dramatic and compelling.

ontheEdgeof17 · #62 09-18-2004, 10:47 AM

For the five square win and the game!

Serrart · #63 09-18-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I agree that it's inspired and poetic, but musically compelling? Heck no. The music itself wanders aimlessly. I think the music on the album version PALES in comparison to the unmastered version with the tambo and percussion. That one is amazing.

For me Storms is one of the cases in which less is better. The lyrics and vocals are so powerful, that the music has to be like a soft glove to keep the right balance.

Romy

marc402 · #64 09-18-2004, 11:17 AM

I like storms but i like i know i'm not wrong more

HomerMcvie · #65 09-18-2004, 11:56 AM

...........................

shackin'up · #66 09-18-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

I probably prefer Storms to IKINW (I think What Makes You Think... being followed by Storms is every bit as moving as GYOW being followed by Songbird), but this is for The Ledge, What Makes You Think, Save Me A Place etc... Lindsey deserves a song winner.

shackin'up · #67 09-18-2004, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Against what you once termed something like "the most beautiful thing Stevie ever wrote" - I smell blind LB following here

So do I. Me too thinks Storms is the most beautiful thing the woman ever wrote.............BUT......

amber · #68 09-18-2004, 02:18 PM

food for thought...mmmmmm, food *drool*.
If none of you had voted, they both coulda won, then you'd all experience the pleasure that's in my head, of TWO TUSK WINNERS!!

So I say, Congratulations to IKINW and Storms - you made it, guys!!! You both win a million dollars!!!!

I love you both..

AMber

face of glass · #69 09-18-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I just do not know how people can say the following:

Every night that goes between
Yadda yadda

Quote:

which is beautifully orchestrated and sung in THAT voice (earnest, pleading, frail, strong, and so on

IS NOT HEADS AND SHOULDERS ABOVE:

Her lips were waitin'
Yadda yadda

This comparison between the two is very inappropriate in my eyes. As is the whole comparison of Lindsey Buckingham's musical paradigm to that of Stevie Nicks'. They communicate different things to us, they expose different sides (yet, in the end it's all the same) of themselves to us and that's because they wouldn't know how to do anything else. They are limited in what they do, after all, just like we are limited in that we can't always grasp what they're after in everything that they do. Or at least I can't, who knows, maybe there's someone here who likes everything either of them have done equally.

Sure, write the lyrics down and there's no argument over who appears to be more poetic and deep on the surface. I have always argued that Lindsey Buckingham's work should not be analyzed in a solely lyrical context and I will do that here too. My belief is that to understand what he is trying to do requires focusing on the arrangement itself, which means that one should not just listen to the composition, one should listen to the way he phrases what he lets out of his mouth and of course how he creates the musical network of emotions coming straight at us. Listen to the way he sings it also (or uses the VSO), he sure isn't as expressive a vocalist as Stevie but he definitely considers the way he uses his vocal chords carefully.

Now about the claim that "Storms" is more complex than "IKINW". How can one actually prove something like that? Where is the musicological analysis? You'd need one to get me convinced. Surely any piece of classical music kicks "Storms" in the rear end in complexity. When analysing rock and pop music, one should never look at the composition itself. You need to look at the rhythmical side, phrasing, syncopation, stuff like that that notation can never described accurately. You need to look at the various tone colours used because those have been used to convey a lot of emotions too, ever since someone realized that you could actually enhance instruments through electricity. And since musicologists throughout the world struggle with inventing proper terms to describe those things, it is impossible to compare the complexity of one piece of rock music to another. Or of course you can do it, but then that wouldn't be reflective of anything else than what you are like as a human being and what kind of things speak to you more than others.

Also Jason, I had to roll my eyes to this:

Quote:

...better emotion...

I mean, what the hell? Since when has this become a sports competition where you start comparing different emotions to each other? This clearly speaks of you more than it speaks of anything else. If you do not identify with the uplift of "I Know I'm Not Wrong" as much as you identify with the frailness of "Storms", then most of what I'm going to write next will probably mean nothing to you.
You find all those "earnest, pleading, frail, strong" qualities [and more] in Stevie's vocal delivery, I find those in Lindsey's arrangements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

What's so complex about it?

This is my impression of "I Know I'm Not Wrong", my idea of what ultimately makes it a complex piece of music under its superficial simplicity.
My belief is that "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is a statement of naivety, of childlike outlook to life. It gets conveyed in the vocal delivery, with that beautifully whiny "don't blame me, please be strong" refrain. There is none of the masculine swagger that its counterpoint "Not That Funny" has, instead there is something that exposes us to another side of his psyche.
Does he expose it through the lyrics only? No. He shows it to us in the way he has arranged the thing. I said in the BuckinghamNicks.net chatroom today that it is the equivalent of someone running on the grass naked. I meant every word. There is a huge sense of relief as "IKINW" closes the side three of Tusk; all the anguish that one may have felt before is let go of and I, for one, feel liberated.
Musically "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is the 1979 impression of street musicians, those who go and play to people with nothing more than an acoustic guitar, a harmonica and a bunch of shoeboxes as percussion. It is the modern interpretation of traditional three chord folk music, a homage to the times when people had fun on the streets using whatever they could lay their hands on as instruments. That's how rock and roll basically started out as in its early forms, and that's what the whole punk/new wave thing that Lindsey was influenced by was trying to get back to.
The ideological message of "I Know I'm Not Wrong" for me is to kick out all that serious artistry of the rest of the '70s at a point when rock and roll had supposedly evolved into a more sophisticated, serious form of music. It's about the rediscovery of the values that started the fascination into the genre in the first place; all that '50s primitivism and simplicity BUT not without the knowledge and the experience that Lindsey had gathered to himself at that point.
Does one need to interpret it the way I do in order to get it? No. I believe other people in this thread who have chosen "IKINW" as their winner of the survivor have their own stories to tell.
Finally Christopher, I do know that you hate it when people imply that you're so young and therefore fail to get Lindsey because "he's so artistic and all". I did not wish to say anything like that here. My experiences are different from yours, my experiences have made Lindsey Buckingham's music resonate in me in a way that they do not resonate in yours. We all will change over time, true, but we can never identify with every musical piece on the planet. One thing I'd like to tell you though: do not solely focus on Fleetwood Mac. Even if you took every person of every line-up in FM into account, they're still limited in conveying all sides of human emotions. They make the best they can out of those limitations, but even then they can't give us everything. Yeah, yeah, one preachy bastard I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

(I think What Makes You Think... being followed by Storms is every bit as moving as GYOW being followed by Songbird)

I agree here, although I find the combination of "Brown Eyes", "Never Make Me Cry" and "I Know I'm Not Wrong" the most moving combination of tracks to be found on a Fleetwood Mac album. First we have the seducing erotic call, then follows the alienation of the morning after and then there's the big relief as Lindsey closes "IKINW" with that guitar solo, a solo that has none of the usual anguish that his solos often have.

face of glass · #70 09-18-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serrart

The lyrics and vocals are so powerful, that the music has to be like a soft glove to keep the right balance.

I'd actually go as far as to say that the music is as much fragile as the delivery is, that it eventually ends up making the delivery all the more heartbreaking. That's another case of Stevie Nicks being more extreme with Fleetwood Mac than she is with her solo career.

amber · #71 09-18-2004, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by face of glass

This comparison between the two is very inappropriate in my eyes. As is the whole comparison of Lindsey Buckingham's musical paradigm to that of Stevie Nicks'. They communicate different things to us, they expose different sides (yet, in the end it's all the same) of themselves to us and that's because they wouldn't know how to do anything else. They are limited in what they do, after all, just like we are limited in that we can't always grasp what they're after in everything that they do. Or at least I can't, who knows, maybe there's someone here who likes everything either of them have done equally.

Sure, write the lyrics down and there's no argument over who appears to be more poetic and deep on the surface. I have always argued that Lindsey Buckingham's work should not be analyzed in a solely lyrical context and I will do that here too. My belief is that to understand what he is trying to do requires focusing on the arrangement itself, which means that one should not just listen to the composition, one should listen to the way he phrases what he lets out of his mouth and of course how he creates the musical network of emotions coming straight at us. Listen to the way he sings it also (or uses the VSO), he sure isn't as expressive a vocalist as Stevie but he definitely considers the way he uses his vocal chords carefully.

Now about the claim that "Storms" is more complex than "IKINW". How can one actually prove something like that? Where is the musicological analysis? You'd need one to get me convinced. Surely any piece of classical music kicks "Storms" in the rear end in complexity. When analysing rock and pop music, one should never look at the composition itself. You need to look at the rhythmical side, phrasing, syncopation, stuff like that that notation can never described accurately. You need to look at the various tone colours used because those have been used to convey a lot of emotions too, ever since someone realized that you could actually enhance instruments through electricity. And since musicologists throughout the world struggle with inventing proper terms to describe those things, it is impossible to compare the complexity of one piece of rock music to another. Or of course you can do it, but then that wouldn't be reflective of anything else than what you are like as a human being and what kind of things speak to you more than others.

Also Jason, I had to roll my eyes to this:

I mean, what the hell? Since when has this become a sports competition where you start comparing different emotions to each other? This clearly speaks of you more than it speaks of anything else. If you do not identify with the uplift of "I Know I'm Not Wrong" as much as you identify with the frailness of "Storms", then most of what I'm going to write next will probably mean nothing to you.
You find all those "earnest, pleading, frail, strong" qualities [and more] in Stevie's vocal delivery, I find those in Lindsey's arrangements.

This is my impression of "I Know I'm Not Wrong", my idea of what ultimately makes it a complex piece of music under its superficial simplicity.
My belief is that "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is a statement of naivety, of childlike outlook to life. It gets conveyed in the vocal delivery, with that beautifully whiny "don't blame me, please be strong" refrain. There is none of the masculine swagger that its counterpoint "Not That Funny" has, instead there is something that exposes us to another side of his psyche.
Does he expose it through the lyrics only? No. He shows it to us in the way he has arranged the thing. I said in the BuckinghamNicks.net chatroom today that it is the equivalent of someone running on the grass naked. I meant every word. There is a huge sense of relief as "IKINW" closes the side three of Tusk; all the anguish that one may have felt before is let go of and I, for one, feel liberated.
Musically "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is the 1979 impression of street musicians, those who go and play to people with nothing more than an acoustic guitar, a harmonica and a bunch of shoeboxes as percussion. It is the modern interpretation of traditional three chord folk music, a homage to the times when people had fun on the streets using whatever they could lay their hands on as instruments. That's how rock and roll basically started out as in its early forms, and that's what the whole punk/new wave thing that Lindsey was influenced by was trying to get back to.
The ideological message of "I Know I'm Not Wrong" for me is to kick out all that serious artistry of the rest of the '70s at a point when rock and roll had supposedly evolved into a more sophisticated, serious form of music. It's about the rediscovery of the values that started the fascination into the genre in the first place; all that '50s primitivism and simplicity BUT not without the knowledge and the experience that Lindsey had gathered to himself at that point.
Does one need to interpret it the way I do in order to get it? No. I believe other people in this thread who have chosen "IKINW" as their winner of the survivor have their own stories to tell.
Finally Christopher, I do know that you hate it when people imply that you're so young and therefore fail to get Lindsey because "he's so artistic and all". I did not wish to say anything like that here. My experiences are different from yours, my experiences have made Lindsey Buckingham's music resonate in me in a way that they do not resonate in yours. We all will change over time, true, but we can never identify with every musical piece on the planet. One thing I'd like to tell you though: do not solely focus on Fleetwood Mac. Even if you took every person of every line-up in FM into account, they're still limited in conveying all sides of human emotions. They make the best they can out of those limitations, but even then they can't give us everything. Yeah, yeah, one preachy bastard I am.

I agree here, although I find the combination of "Brown Eyes", "Never Make Me Cry" and "I Know I'm Not Wrong" the most moving combination of tracks to be found on a Fleetwood Mac album. First we have the seducing erotic call, then follows the alienation of the morning after and then there's the big relief as Lindsey closes "IKINW" with that guitar solo, a solo that has none of the usual anguish that his solos often have.

Gaius, do you think you could talk a little more about this? I'm not sure I understand your point, And your analysis was a little incomplete.

AMber

face of glass · #72 09-18-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

Gaius, do you think you could talk a little more about this? I'm not sure I understand your point, And your analysis was a little incomplete.

AMber

Nah. It's about the sperrit, not about the intellectual ruination of other people's fun.

If you see me running across the grass naked in Oakland one day, then maybe you'll understand my point.

amber · #73 09-18-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by face of glass

Nah. It's about the sperrit, not about the intellectual ruination of other people's fun.

If you see me running across the grass naked in Oakland one day, then maybe you'll understand my point.

But you knew I was joking, right? Because your thread was so long, and it explained your point really well, and you went on and on with the (good) analysis?
Soooooooo....you coming to Oakland soon?

AMber