so, lindsey or stevie? who owns this album more?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by face of glass

I still think they didn't have any huge success because the three core songwriters aren't together anymore. That's the main reason anyway.

ITA - that hits the nail on the head.

[4Buck]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not place all of that on Stevie - after all in that same doc. she stated that unlike the other three, she had no family and did not need to worry that much about it.

Nicks does have a family to take care of, though. Do you think she’d run the annual Arizona heart benefit and charge fans $1000 (WOW!!!!!!!!!) per ticket if she didn’t need some financial help? She’d just contribute her money (if she had a lot) to it to help the world AND her pa, more like generous upstart singer Clay Aiken is doing.

Nicks' beloved father’s been ailing for 30 years. The costs add up. Her ma’s elderly. Her brother is out of work whom she’s supporting (last job I heard he had he sold T-shirts at Buckingham’s OUT OF THE CRADLE TOUR), is married and has a family, and Nicks is putting a niece through college. And her cocaine habit, the one that bankrupted Mick Fleetwood, had left her pretty dry.

Both Buckingham’s affluent parents have passed away and left him money. He also makes money up-front with production, as well as song-writing royalties. He saved his money early on, and his investments grew exponentially. And since the documentary was made, the Buckingham’s decided on having another child (that they knew they’d have to put through college and had enough money for) and Buck bought out almost a fourth of the seats in September 2003 of Chicago’s SOUND STAGE at $150/ticket to give away free to fans. Buckingham's still very wealthy and generous!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by 4Buck

Nicks does have a family to take care of, though. Do you think she’d run the annual Arizona heart benefit and charge fans $1000 (WOW!!!!!!!!!) per ticket if she didn’t need some financial help? She’d just contribute her money (if she had a lot) to it to help the world AND her pa, more like generous upstart singer Clay Aiken is doing.

Nicks' beloved father’s been ailing for 30 years. The costs add up. Her ma’s elderly. Her brother is out of work whom she’s supporting (last job I heard he had he sold T-shirts at Buckingham’s OUT OF THE CRADLE TOUR), is married and has a family, and Nicks is putting a niece through college. And her cocaine habit, the one that bankrupted Mick Fleetwood, had left her pretty dry.

Both Buckingham’s affluent parents have passed away and left him money. He also makes money up-front with production, as well as song-writing royalties. He saved his money early on, and his investments grew exponentially. And since the documentary was made, the Buckingham’s decided on having another child (that they knew they’d have to put through college and had enough money for) and Buck bought out almost a fourth of the seats in September 2003 of Chicago’s SOUND STAGE at $150/ticket to give away free to fans. Buckingham's still very wealthy and generous!

Whoa. That's all I can say to that post. Whoa. What horse****.

Jess Nicks doesn't need any of his daughters money, he used to own Compton Terrace in AZ. She stopped doing coke in '86, so I don't see how it could've obliterated her fortune. The Arizona Heart Benefit is a way to make a lot of money for a cause. Why not hold an annual benefit to get support for a charity? So, everyone who takes part in a telethon is poor, eh? Sorry, but Clay Aiken doesn't have a tenth of Stevie's steak, doll. I won't even touch her brother because I can't stand him, but it says a lot about her wealth if she can afford to employ her own brother. She's had five albums that have sold at least platinum, two that have gone gold, she's headlined high-grossing tours with the Mac and on her own, she gets a large chunk of money for the Mac albums, she gets songwriting royalties every time a song of hers is played on the radio and every time one is covered by another artist, and she stand to make $20 million from the current tour. She's hurting for money? I think you're hurting for logic.

I can't help but notice the derogatory way in which you speak about Stevie as a woman and a person. It's positively shocking.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Whoa. That's all I can say to that post. Whoa. What horse****.

Esp. considering La Nicks' made how much off of the Dixie Chicks' cover of Landslide - not to mention she has youred essentially and on average every other year for about 30 years. Not to mention her Dad was the President of Amour Meats and Greyhound. Hmmmmmmmmmm

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Esp. considering La Nicks' made how much off of the Dixie Chicks' cover of Landslide - not to mention she has youred essentially and on average every other year for about 30 years. Not to mention her Dad was the President of Amour Meats and Greyhound. Hmmmmmmmmmm

Yup. I think it goes without saying that she's the wealthiest one of the bunch.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by 4Buck

Nicks does have a family to take care of, though. Do you think she’d run the annual Arizona heart benefit and charge fans $1000 (WOW!!!!!!!!!) per ticket if she didn’t need some financial help? She’d just contribute her money (if she had a lot) to it to help the world AND her pa, more like generous upstart singer Clay Aiken is doing.

Nicks' beloved father’s been ailing for 30 years. The costs add up. Her ma’s elderly. Her brother is out of work whom she’s supporting (last job I heard he had he sold T-shirts at Buckingham’s OUT OF THE CRADLE TOUR), is married and has a family, and Nicks is putting a niece through college. And her cocaine habit, the one that bankrupted Mick Fleetwood, had left her pretty dry.

Both Buckingham’s affluent parents have passed away and left him money. He also makes money up-front with production, as well as song-writing royalties. He saved his money early on, and his investments grew exponentially. And since the documentary was made, the Buckingham’s decided on having another child (that they knew they’d have to put through college and had enough money for) and Buck bought out almost a fourth of the seats in September 2003 of Chicago’s SOUND STAGE at $150/ticket to give away free to fans. Buckingham's still very wealthy and generous!

Stevie does donate money out of her pocket to charities (such as the American Heart Institute and the City Of Hope), however, if you also hold a benefit concert and charge more for tickets, you stand to raise far more money AND raise awareness for said charities.
Stevie has also donated the royalties to several of her songs over the years, both to charitable organizations and to friends-in-need.
I don't think her altruism can be questioned.

As for Mr. & Mrs. Nicks... they have always been rather affluent, and I doubt they rely THAT heavily on Stevie's financial contributions. Though she's certainly given her parents money over the years... or at least helped them *earn* money, by donating memorabilia to Mrs. Nicks' Silver Springs Emporium store, when it was in operation, and by putting the publishing rights to "Silver Springs" in Mrs. Nicks' name.

And, at any rate, the point Stevie was making was that Lindsey, Mick & John all have young children that they need to worry about providing for. Health-care, dental-care, school tuition (assuming none will attend public school, and that Molly doesn't), college tuition, and so on.
I'm sure they probably all have insurance, but I don't believe the music industry has a healthcare plan, so things like that would all come out of the pockets of the artist.

Hence Stevie cautioning Lindsey to remember that they all have families they need to worry about.

[Johnny Stew]

Oops... I was typing my response as dissention and strandinthewind were posting theirs. Sorry for the redundancy, folks!

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

...I don't believe the music industry has a healthcare plan...

If I'm not mistaken, they all belong to the Musician's Union Local whatever...the Union handles the healthcare benefits.

[Johnny Stew]

Thanks for clarifying that, chili!

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by chiliD

If I'm not mistaken, they all belong to the Musician's Union Local whatever...the Union handles the healthcare benefits.

It's like SAG or WAG. They do indeed have it. It's paid for by the dues to enter these unions.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Lux

Lindsey's songs are his and 50% of Stevie's songs are his.

Definately Lindsey. He is the genius, don't deny him that.

I'd be the last person to deny Lindsey of the "genius" title (although I don't think he is "THE" genius in Fleetwood Mac), but I still have to take exception with him being credited for 50% of the appeal of Stevie's songs.

Imagine, if you will, if fans said that the only good parts about Lindsey's songs, are Stevie's backing vocals.
I imagine you'd find that statement to be rather incredulous and akin to blasphemy.

Lindsey is "the chief architect of the Fleetwood Mac sound," no doubt about it, but I think it's unfair to give either him or Stevie credit for an entire half of the appeal of the others' music. The same goes for Christine.

[Siri Ruane]

Lindsey. It was originally gonna be his solo album anyway and he deffinetly put enough work into it.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

Stevie's songs are better in my opinion. I think Lindsey's songs are stranger, but strange doesn't always mean good. Stevie is at the top of her game and these songs prove it. Sure, Lindsey's songs are crazy, but Stevie all the way!

PS: Sorry for opening up this old post, I couldn't help but defend Stevie!

defend stevie??? almost everyone here is saying her songs are better (which i disagree with) and i think maybe one person besides the guy who hates it all (which you can just discount altogether) said anything bad about a stevie song.(up to this poijt in the thread i haven't read it all yet.) i think lindseys songs are brilliant......and people say well strange isnt always good......i think its just that strange alot of times goes over peoples heads. so if you're up there...you get it....and you love it. else you dont.

[Hawkeye]

I t nk Stevie's songs are better on SYW. But I also say that those great Stevie songs wouldn't be so great without Lindsey's production. So I'll say both.

[dontlookdown]

i'm probably the only one here who thinks that Stevie's work on Say You Will is for the most part, mediocre. I love Illume and Thrown down and Smile At You, but I think the rest of her tracks feel pretty weak.

Without a question, this is Lindsey's project - without him, this band would be worthless today. Thank God for Lindsey Buckingham - some how, he managed to bring my favorite band back to life and prevented them from becoming an embarrasing nostalgia act.

Say You Will is a brave gutsy album. I love that he made the record with his art in mind, selfishly, and beautifully. I can't stand the fact that Stevie "prayed to the commercial Gods..." - you'd think by now, she'd have the confidence to make music that's good - for only that reason. It shouldn't matter whether or not it sells to the masses. The Fleetwood Mac core fan base is loyal - and they will listen. This band doesn't need radio anymore - as long as they keep making records that have integrity.