Are you Team Lindsey or Team Fleetwood Mac? Who are u routing for in the lawsuit?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by David

You're pulling my leg, right? I'm being punked for a reality TV show?

What the hell is this? Sociological data mining?

Oh David. Who is that guy in your avatar? What happened to Beethoven?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by secondhandchain

Sugar Mick and Goldust Stevie are a match made in heaven.

Your obsession with me is starting to get a little freaky.

[David]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Hard evidence is two Rollling Stone reviews? Again, music review aggregate websites such as Metacritic and BestAlbumsEver.com clearly show that Lindsey has not been critically acclaimed as a solo artist although his work in Fleetwood Mac has obviously been very acclaimed.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...rock.shopping1
https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...bserver-review
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/a...ic/01decu.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/a...ll-review.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/a...553B1F&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/a...889521&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/06/a...E7526D&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/21/a...c-journey.html
http://americansongwriter.com/2018/1...ey-buckingham/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...visionary.html

I could do this all day. If you were intellectually honest about engaging me in discussion, you could do this work. Instead, you opt for coy, puzzling rejoinders, and link to data mining sites that have nothing to do with professional criticism or the rock press establishment at major pubs. (Your incoherent reference to the "soft reviewer" at Rolling Stone is a real puzzler.) Sorry, buddy, but I'm going to move on to other discussions here on the Ledge for more satisfaction and less bizarre back-and-forth.

[David]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Oh David. Who is that guy in your avatar? What happened to Beethoven?

Beethoven had to come down. I think he had been up there for about twenty years. He was growing cobwebs in his crotch. I debated swapping him out for Erich Auerbach or someone equally arcane, but I don't want people thinking I'm esoteric or odd.

Edit: I'm going with my favorite Fleetwood shot instead.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by David

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...rock.shopping1
https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...bserver-review
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/a...ic/01decu.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/a...ll-review.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/a...553B1F&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/a...889521&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/06/a...E7526D&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/21/a...c-journey.html
http://americansongwriter.com/2018/1...ey-buckingham/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...visionary.html

I could do this all day. If you were intellectually honest about engaging me in discussion, you could do this work. Instead, you opt for coy, puzzling rejoinders, and link to data mining sites that have nothing to do with professional criticism or the rock press establishment at major pubs. (Your incoherent reference to the "soft reviewer" at Rolling Stone is a real puzzler.) Sorry, buddy, but I'm going to move on to other discussions here on the Ledge for more satisfaction and less bizarre back-and-forth.

I'm not sure why you resort to attacking my intellectual honesty and saying that I'm not engaging in a discussion with you. I actually am. You may not agree with my assessments but that doesn't mean that I'm not engaging in a discussion. Do you believe that one must agree to be considered "engaging"?

You say that I'm using "data mining sites that have nothing to do with professional criticism" when, in fact, my sources in my prior posts are all about professional criticism.

These websites take the time to analyze all of the major music critical assessments out there and aggregate the scores to give a reasonably objective overall assessment of an album or artist.

Again, you may not like the results but that doesn't make the results untrue or inaccurate. When all major critical assessments are aggregated, Lindsey comes in as a solid but not critically acclaimed artist. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

He's had a solid solo career but it's important to not misrepresent the quality of the music.

I actually read all the links in your last email. Not sure if you actually read them or just linked to them but the reviews say that Lindsey's solo work is generally solid, but not excellent.

For example, the American Songwriter review that you linked says that Lindsey's "Anthology" is a "reasonable but flawed" album. That's about how I would describe Lindsey's solo career; reasonably good, but flawed.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Your obsession with me is starting to get a little freaky.

I feel the same.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

I feel the same.

Amen.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by David

I debated swapping him out for Erich Auerbach or someone equally arcane, but I don't want people thinking I'm esoteric or odd.

I think that ship has sailed, my friend.

[TheWildHeart67]

Sugar Mice. SMH.
🤔
Strange rodents of the internet

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Oh David. Who is that guy in your avatar? What happened to Beethoven?

I have to admit, when I didn't see Beethoven after his initial dismantling a couple days ago, I quickly double-checked to make sure the post I was reading was by THE David and not some new guy named Dav1d or something lol.

[David]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

I'm not sure why you resort to attacking my intellectual honesty and saying that I'm not engaging in a discussion with you. I actually am. You may not agree with my assessments but that doesn't mean that I'm not engaging in a discussion. Do you believe that one must agree to be considered "engaging"?

You say that I'm using "data mining sites that have nothing to do with professional criticism" when, in fact, my sources in my prior posts are all about professional criticism.

These websites take the time to analyze all of the major music critical assessments out there and aggregate the scores to give a reasonably objective overall assessment of an album or artist.

Again, you may not like the results but that doesn't make the results untrue or inaccurate. When all major critical assessments are aggregated, Lindsey comes in as a solid but not critically acclaimed artist. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

He's had a solid solo career but it's important to not misrepresent the quality of the music.

I actually read all the links in your last email. Not sure if you actually read them or just linked to them but the reviews say that Lindsey's solo work is generally solid, but not excellent.

For example, the American Songwriter review that you linked says that Lindsey's "Anthology" is a "reasonable but flawed" album. That's about how I would describe Lindsey's solo career; reasonably good, but flawed.

This is why I say you're intellectually dishonest, deflective, and prone to using dialectical non sequiturs. You demonstrate those qualities in every statement you make here.

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

You say that I'm using "data mining sites that have nothing to do with professional criticism" when, in fact, my sources in my prior posts are all about professional criticism.

Can you provide any more info about the methodology of these sites? How do you aggregate criticism and extrapolate a numerical score? I looked over one of the sites as thoroughly as I could, and was unable to find any info on the sources—the names of critics or the names of publications, although I did see some year-end charts based on Rolling Stone? Do I have that right?

My view is that we can glean an idea of Buckingham's critical reputation by directly reading the important critics from the start of his solo career to the present. Is there something about that approach that you consider indeterminate or not useful for describing the guy's reputation—especially in relation to the solo work of his bandmates? As far as I can see, these sites you linked to are all data mining sites: They sift through a huge number of commercial and noncommercial data and compile databases, extrapolating numerical scores based on statistics or averages or some other formula that users of the site can then use to make purchases. These sites have nothing to do with professional criticism or music journalism. They're marketing sites, and I have a feeling, from what I was able to read, that they mine from visitors to the site and from site account holders. You pay your money, and you get to create your own 'chart.'

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

He's had a solid solo career but it's important to not misrepresent the quality of the music.

You keep using these subjectively shifting weasel words like "solid" and "quality" without giving me a comparison gauge. What do you mean when you say he's had a "solid solo career"? And how am I misrepresenting the quality of the music? I'm not talking about the music per se at all; I'm talking about its reputation among music writers. Telling me that Lindsey has had a "solid solo career" doesn't address my point—repeating it for the umpteenth time here: Critics have always loved him.

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

I actually read all the links in your last email. Not sure if you actually read them or just linked to them but the reviews say that Lindsey's solo work is generally solid, but not excellent.

(sigh) Yes, I read all the links. See what I mean about not engaging me honestly? "Lindsey's solo work is generally solid, but not excellent"? Are you kidding, man? Do I need to pick through quote by quote and hand it to you on a platter?

• "This fourth solo album is a small masterpiece of tightly balanced musical contrasts"
• "This is another gripping postcard from the edge of paradise"
• "The result is a kind of intensely modern folk music, candidly personal, seemingly direct songs that flirt with soul-baring and then retreat into an enveloping cocoon of sound"
• "Under the Skin is only Buckingham's fourth solo release in three decades, a distinctive and compelling record that (supporting his self-image as neglected genius) really is one of the overlooked gems of 2006"
• "Go Insane is a triumphant culmination of this effort—the richest, most fascinatingly tuneful album of the year"
• "Go Insane is a singular mix of Seventies sheen and Eighties edge, enormously inventive in every respect, from the dazzling I Want You and the melodiously cascading Bang the Drum to the furiously eclectic D.W. Suite"

Christ, dude, this kind of adulatory language is all over the landscape since 1981 for Lindsey's solo albums and gigs. Lindsey being a critics' pet isn't a new idea. It's been commonly accepted for decades. Can't you do your own leg work? Data mining? Seriously?

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

For example, the American Songwriter review that you linked says that Lindsey's "Anthology" is a "reasonable but flawed" album.

Now you're just being a dick—deliberately obtuse. Unless you're the kind of guy who would read Swift's Modest Proposal as a book of recipes.

I'll let you carry on with this topic with others. I'm not enjoying the contrarian perversity, and that's all you keep giving me. You remind me more than ever of a guy named Jonathan Todd. I don't know whether you've heard of him, but your online persona is exactly like his was—he made vacuous arguments and used non sequiturs, willfull misunderstandings, perverse assumptions about words (highly individual, shall we say?), and backtracking, moving the goal posts up and back until his opponent didn't know what game was being played. Do you know him?

[David]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I have to admit, when I didn't see Beethoven after his initial dismantling a couple days ago, I quickly double-checked to make sure the post I was reading was by THE David and not some new guy named Dav1d or something lol.

Beethoven represents the past. This is the FUTURE, ladies and gents.

[Street_Dreamer]

I think Lindsey's songwriting prowess has got better as he's matured and helped create a family. I love Law And Order and Go Insane but the material from Under The Skin, Gift Of Screws, Seeds We Sow and Buckingham/McVie reach deeper on a lyrical level. At the same time, his gift as a guitarist and producer has taken more "simple" lyrics and pushed them to a deeper level as well. End Of Time is pretty straight forward lyrically but (and I'm referring to the superior Amazon exclusive instrumental version) Lindsey's playing and production pushes it way over the top. I will say this though, Lindsey could never write a lyric like "the forgotten chimpanzee".

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by Street_Dreamer

I will say this though, Lindsey could never write a lyric like "the forgotten chimpanzee".

Prolific

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I have to admit, when I didn't see Beethoven after his initial dismantling a couple days ago, I quickly double-checked to make sure the post I was reading was by THE David and not some new guy named Dav1d or something lol.

Wait, what--I thought this was a different David, who perhaps had made a return after a long absence. Now I think about it properly, of course it wouldn't be possible to have the exact same username.

Roll over Beethoven, indeed!

"Not Too Late"
by David

Reading the forums
Saw a review
Said I was esoteric
But nobody knew

Now that's been a problem
Being oddly perceived
Like I go around whistling
Beethoven's Fifth

What am I doing, anyway
Changing my avatar
It's not too late

Now I'm not a cool man
Like the dude in my sig
But I feel there's no room for
An intellectual prig

And there's a need
For songs that are sung
For Ledge posts not posted
For puns not yet punned

What am I doing, anyway
Changing my avatar
It's not too late

My Ledgies look away
They don't know my new face

Originally Posted by David

Unless you(Sugar Mouse) are the kind of guy who would read Swift's Modest Proposal as a book of recipes.

That's exactly the impression I keep coming away with.