Is Lindsey Overdoing It? - Page 3

gypsysara · #31 06-10-2003, 01:51 PM

He could be thumping the guitar with his hand. My friend who plays classical bass is also the drummer of the band, by using his hands to play both bass and drums upon his bass (obviously no symbols). Just speculation...

seteca · #32 06-10-2003, 07:13 PM

I agree with chiliD and CarneVaca, in that all the sound is coming strictly from guitars only. The song consists of MANY guitar layers, many of which have been processed, sped up, slowed down, etc etc....but I'm very sure that it is only guitars. Compared to LB I am very limited in what equipment I have at home, and yet I can produce some recordings which are ONLY mixes of electric and acoustic guitar in which you can hear drum sounds that don't actually exist. Red Rover is very rich in what LB phrased perfectly as "negative space." What some people are hearing as a "bass drum" sounds to me like a guitar track (possibly slowed down and) fed through some sort of slow tremolo effect (or equivalent).

CarneVaca · #33 06-11-2003, 08:26 AM

Getting percussive sounds out of an acoustic guitar is no great mystery. When plugged into a decent PA system I can get a nice chop when playing certain rhythms. When you manipulate guitar sounds in the studio, or even with some decent software on your computer, say Cool Edit, you can make a guitar sound like other things. Listen to "Hold Me," and you'll hear a guitar that sounds like a cello. That was no accident.

I would guess that bass drum sound is coming from him striking a bass note that through some kind of echo or tremolo, or whatever, sounds like a drum. Speeding up the tape would also produce a more percussive sound on single notes.

Let's keep in mind that Lindsey said there are no drums on "Red Rover." I don't think he would lie about that.

BlueGrass · #34 06-11-2003, 01:45 PM

Thanks guys for the info. I am hearing this song in a new light now that know it is all done with guitar.

BUT, there are parts in the song that has like a quik mini drum roll. I dunno how he would git that...lol.

Anthony · #35 06-13-2003, 11:42 AM

Man, this stew is getting pretty thick. Time to stir the kettle.
Has anyone read the article in this months issue of Rolling Stone about the live FM concert? I have. I think it sums up what most of us have been trying to say and still be polite. Check it out and let me know what you think.

RS. pg. 90

CarneVaca · #36 06-13-2003, 01:15 PM

Three words: Rolling Stone sucks.

strandinthewind · #37 06-13-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Three words: Rolling Stone sucks.

I was thinking how to say it - but . . . .

Les · #38 06-13-2003, 02:49 PM

It’s a funny topic to me, Anthony. It’s interesting to read about some of the raised eyebrows on this tour about Lindsey’s performance style…with a range of conclusions (positive and negative) drawn about what it means.... And I guess, overall, I just think a lot of people haven't seen him in a while.

Sure, it’s apparent he’s interacting more with fans from the stage, which is perhaps a direct result of his being a happier person and an enthusiastic participant in this project. On the whole though, I’m not sure Lindsey is doing anything outrageously different from what he’s done in the past.

Back in 1980, Rolling Stone reviewed the Mac’s final night on the Tusk tour. It’s interesting to read this right now amidst some of the reviews of this tour:

It was Buckingham's show at the beginning of the tour, and, if anything, he was more commanding at the end. Dressed in a ten-gallon hat, boots and a white V-neck T-shirt of Beverly Hills cowboy, he was simply spectacular onstage. He dominated the band as completely as any human being could ever dominate drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie - one of the most cohesive and potent rhythm sections in rock.

Buckingham continually battered at the constraints of arena-level rock, both in the quirky, brave songs from Tusk and in his explosive solos. A classic rock & roll spastic, he released enormous amounts of energy with a series of violent, herky-jerky antics. And when he flailed across the stage in "It's Not That Funny" or "What Makes You Think You're The One," it was not a New Wave affectation (as it occasionally seemed at the beginning of the tour); it was simply the only way he knew to exorcise a few bothersome demons.

Steve Pond loved this performance when he reviewed it. The current RS reviewer who saw the recent NJ show and seemed to see some similar things didn’t love it. Lindsey himself seems to be performing with much of the same abandon he did back then and it’s just left up to each person in the audience to take from it what they will.

Personally, I think those going to the shows to see Fleetwood Mac perform are seeing what this incarnation of Fleetwood Mac (with and without Christine) has always been – a band of individuals with vastly different personalities and styles that rub up against each other – creating friction and warmth. The edges are smoother on the albums, but I think the albums present that intriguing mixture as well.

Johnny Stew · #39 06-13-2003, 02:56 PM

I love that last paragraph, Les!
I hope you don't mind if I steal it for my signature.

Anthony · #40 06-13-2003, 05:57 PM

Good point Les. Lindsey's playing is phenominal. "I'm so afraid" is listed as my favorite FM song in my profile. His depth of emotion in his playing shines even brighter on stage rather than the studio. The albums from the '70's sounded great, but even better live, on stage due to Lindsey's artistic freedom found mainly in front of a live audience. I'm sure that was one of the reasons why he pursued a solo career. He rocked all by himself. But that's also my point now. In the recent RS article, didn't it state that it took two more guitarists on stage to maintain the sound integrity from the album?
I think the SYW album would have had a better sense of balance to it if access to the mixing table had been a little more limited.
Whatcha think?

Les · #41 06-13-2003, 08:52 PM

I thought the recent RS reviewer actually didn't like the number of voices that chimed in on the choruses of a few songs, rather than commenting that they were needed to sustain the sound.

I think not being able to exactly recreate a song as it sounded on the album is something this incarnation has dealt with since they formed. There are two main tactics to take in this circumstance: 1) re-arrange the songs to be played live by the band; 2) use additional musicians to augment the sound. They've taken both tactics at different points. As the band started to use the additional musicians/backing singers beginning with the Tango tour (when Lindsey wasn't with the band), I don't think it's a question of his or anyone else needing extra players on any of the instruments to make the sound they're going for now. It's a choice the band has made to use the extra players to augment the sound.

On top of that though, where Fleetwood Mac is more pop-oriented, more intricate, and tighter on record, they've always been a lot more rock and a lot more loose in live performance. A few in the band have mentioned that about themselves through the years.

PS - No problem, Johnny.

Anthony · #42 06-13-2003, 09:20 PM

That's why you're a moderator. You've summed up the entire reason why I started this thread to begin with. Cool.

CarneVaca · #43 06-16-2003, 09:09 AM

Leslie, that old Rolling Stone article is quite telling. Seems to me Lindsey has always been quite electric on stage, even when he's playing acoustic.

He seemed to have slowed down some on the Dance tour for whatever reason. Also, during the Cradle tour he had very little space to move around, but he certainly still released incredible amounts of energy. The more subdued performance in the Dance tour might have been as a result of so many years off the road and getting reacquainted with the band. But even so, I remember thinking that Lindsey was finally getting respect because a lot of reviewers were noticing his big stage presence.

Because of the lag time between each tour since the mid 80s, it seems every time Lindsey goes back on the road, the audience and the reviewers have to get reacquainted with him. Ever since the Cradle tour, I've sensed a "I had no idea this guy could do that" kind of reaction. Keep in mind, each time there has been a new crop of reviewers, and even publications. For all I know, this current Rolling Stone guy wasn't even born when Lindsey joined Fleetwood Mac in 1975. But Rolling Stone has made itself irrelevant anyway. Any publication that gets so hung up on the style du jour inevitably loses its importance. And influence.

If you think about it, another reason Lindsey seems to awe people on stage is that he has really become known as sort of a studio mad genius. I remember detecting -- in I believe it was Rolling Stone -- a palbable amazement on the part of the writer after Go Insane came out. All the gizmos and low-tech sounds Lindsey managed to get into a cohesive musical work seemed to really have a profound effect on that particular writer. Today, you will find some of that approach (which of course originated with Pet Sounds) in things like the Eels and Sparklehorse. Mark Linkous of Sparklehorse is definitely influenced by Lindsey, though I'm not sure about E of the Eels. Unfortunately these guys don't talk about Lindsey enough. They should, but I definitely get the sense that at least among certain creative pop circles, Lindsey is a major inspiration.

That of course has to do with his studio sensibilities. When it comes to playing, you don't hear as much. Monte Montgomery, a guitarist out of Austin, Texas, has often named Lindsey as one of his biggest influences, but you're probably saying, "Who's Monte Montgomery?"

Right.

shackin'up · #44 06-17-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca

Today, you will find some of that approach (which of course originated with Pet Sounds) in things like the Eels and Sparklehorse. Mark Linkous of Sparklehorse is definitely influenced by Lindsey, though I'm not sure about E of the Eels. Unfortunately these guys don't talk about Lindsey enough. They should, but I definitely get the sense that at least among certain creative pop circles, Lindsey is a major inspiration.

That of course has to do with his studio sensibilities. When it comes to playing, you don't hear as much. Monte Montgomery, a guitarist out of Austin, Texas, has often named Lindsey as one of his biggest influences, but you're probably saying, "Who's Monte Montgomery?"

Right.

Some things never come alone. I’m going to fly to the states to see Mac in OKC and Dallas. I’ve got a couple of days to get in OKC and take that opportunity to visit Austin, because so many good music is coming from there. Through this ( and another ) thread for me unknown artists were mentioned.The band Marah was mentioned by Carnevaca. I listened to some clips from Kids in Philly, and that’s a definite buy when I come back! Sounds very “lindsey-tusky” to me! I also checked Monte Montgomery and he’s playing in the saxon club in Austin on june 30. So I plan to see him live as a warming up!

Another thing is that I am a fan of Eels for a long time. I really think E is influenced by linds. I saw Eels a couple of years ago as a support to The screaming Trees. They really were impressive (what a drummer!). The screaming trees’frontman is Mark Lanegan, a great rockvoice, who now is part of the excellent desertrockband Queens of the stone age! (check them out, they are great!)

Didn’t everything go in cycles?…….

Thanks for the great musical suggestions! Got some more?

gerald

CarneVaca · #45 06-17-2003, 08:23 AM

Gerald, the Marah record Kids in Philly is a must. It's in my top 10. It's just too bad the band decided to go commercial pop after that. Since you're a fan of the Eels, you're probably familiar with MC Honky's record. If not, go get it. It has a lot of sampling, and it's hard to describe, but it's great party music. It's also great relaxing music. Now that would seem contradictory, right? But it isn't, trust me.

Check out A3's Exile on Cold Harbour Lane. Great record, which includes the theme to the Sopranos, Woke Up This Morning. Their follow-up album, La Peste, is also very good, but I didn't really dig the most recent one. For a more acoustic sound, with hints of bluegrass and jazz, pick up the Be Good Tanyas' Chinatown. Refreshing. Next month, Cracker releases an album of redneck songs, including Jimmy Buffett's Why Don't We Get Drunk, a bunch of Merle Haggard covers and one or two originals. I have some of the unmixed tracks, and it looks very promising. A fun record for parties and driving.

If you like non-mainstream country, check out Rodney Crowell's The Houston Kid. I get chills just thinking about that record, it's so good and profound. There's a pair of songs about characters struggling with AIDS, one beauuuuuutiful song called I Know Love Is All I Need, some really deep stuff about growing up in an abusive situation. If you don't mind a little twang, this album is among the best you'll ever put in your player. Incidently, Rodney has another one coming out in August. From what I hear, it will be more of the same introspection and sparsely, but beautifuly arranged, production.

Do you have any recommendations?