Mick and Stevie RULE!!!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Lindsey wants a wide audience for his music, it's true. But he wants it on his own terms, not on the terms of what is commercial at that particular time.

I do understand what you're saying, but I still don't think it's an entirely accurate assessment, because FM doesn't really go by what's commercial at any given time either.

I'll remove 'Mirage' and 'Tango' from the equation, because of Lindsey's involvement... but look at 'Behind The Mask' and 'Time.'
Granted, I know you have no love lost for either of those albums, but neither of them sound exactly like the kind of music that was selling the most albums in 1990 and 1995.

Certainly they weren't entirely out of touch with the time period (Lindsey's solo stuff never is, either), but they weren't duplicates of the Top 40, top-selling music that was out then either.

By the way, if you want to look at the term "selling out" in the strictest of terms, then it really isn't entirely unreasonable to say Lindsey sold out.
If he's absolutely, fundamentally against doing something, but then gives in to sell more albums, he has sold himself out.
The documentary clearly showed us that he was against releasing 'Say You Will' as a single album, but then feared it wouldn't sell enough for him to recoup his investment... so, he made the decision to release it as a single. Therefore he gave-in to sell more albums.
Which, if one chooses to look at it honestly, is "selling out."

I reiterate, I have no problem with Lindsey or anyone else in the band, wanting to sell as many copies of their albums as possible... but, again, it's exhibiting a bit of tunnel vision to claim Lindsey is above doing something to sell more albums. Even when it means compromising his original artistic vision.

[CarneVaca]

Sell-out is a goofy term anymore. What does it really mean? My point is that if you are going to say Lindsey sold out (and I realize you haven't, Johnny) for Mirage and Tango, then it's really more accurate and fair to say the band sold out.

But I really don't think FM sold out. I think it was just more cautious than it should have been.

If Lindsey had stayed out of Fleetwood Mac after Tusk, he might have had a viable solo career, strictly based on the limited success he had with Trouble, Holiday Road and Go Insane. He proved he could get hits as a solo artist. Maybe he kicks himself for having gone back to the band in 1982 and 1987, thereby short-selling and ultimately destroying his solo career. I am strictly speculating here, but it would be an understandable position. We all look back on certain decisions on our lives and realize there are certain nagging doubts we'll never be able to vanquish. What if?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
. . . But I really don't think FM sold out. I think it was just more cautious than it should have been.

Therein is my point. I mean you cannot take money like FM does from a major label like Warner's and not expect them to have a say in what product you put out, esp. when your are LB and have a rep. for sort of wanting to thumb your nose at any form of convention. So, that is why I kind of roll my eyes when LB goes off like he did in the doc. on an "I'm an artist first and I do not care about anything else" tirade. I just think to myself well, no one forced you to be here spending Big Daddy Warner's money and workling with three other people (four in CM's day) who love convention Thus, I conclude he must like it or at least the lifestyle it gives him or he would not keep coming back to it.

[strandinthewind]

Also, do y'all think LB was talking about the number of songs or the production of the songs. I mean there really was no change other than the addition of La Nicks' vocals in the production of the final product from the original GOS stuff. So, no one really foreced him to comply with a more mainstream musical effort in that aspect, with the possible exception of the lyric change in Peacekeeper, which he said he did not mind. I wonder if LB views the "commercial" aspect he was talking about as just picking the more mainstream stuff from his GOS material? He kind of goes into this when he says "I own the masters," etc. I guess he wanted to release almost his entire GOS body of work in a FM record so that it reached the widest possible audience.

[Les]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
What I'm saying is, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth (not you, Lindsey) just admit you enjoy your lifestyle, make a Fleetwood Mac record that you can live with, and then go into the studio and do your solo album and purge yourself buddy. How hard is that?

But I think you're putting words into his mouth. Why does arguing for a double album, which would admittedly sell less, mean he's not admitting to liking his lifestyle? Why does making money from his work mean he has to shut up about his ideas?

His ideas (along with the ideas of everyone else) have been a big part of making the band what it is. Lindsey personally plays a big part in what has made this band a critical darling, which has, in my mind, helped greatly in making their longevity possible. That's not a jab at anyone else in the band who have also earned praise through the years. It's just a comment on the basic fact that for many years Lindsey was most singled out by critics for praise. To me, that did nothing but help the band. So why the urge to stop him from making the same such arguments and arguing for similar artistic directions now?

And don't get me wrong, I love Lindsey, in fact, he's the reason I first got into Fleetwood Mac. I just think that sometimes, he goes a bit over the top and isn't it our job to reel him back into reality!

You seem to be starting from a place that says that what Stevie wants is what is best for the band, while what Lindsey wants isn't best for the band. I don't think that's true. I think they just look at different factors. Lindsey's argument was for something that he thought was a larger "statement" because he thought that would make for a better album. And yes, it was, as he admitted several times, also self-serving in that it would allow him to get more of his material out. Stevie's and Mick's arguments that a double album wouldn't sell well is a valid point, especially if you're looking at sales as a determining factor of what indicates a good album. It was also a self-serving argument for them to make sure they made more money than they thought they'd make if they followed Lindsey's path. I'm not trying to say that sales is the only thing that is important to either of them or that sales are never important to Lindsey. But his making an argument for an album that aspires to be something different than just one that will sell most easily isn't wrong for the band. At least I don't think so.

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
No. Our job, if you could call it that, is to listen to the music. Or not. No one has appointed the fans masters of Lindsey's reality as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I was kidding around.

[strandinthewind]

Les - I agree with what your saying in that the art is what counts, etc. But, my point is the art (music) really did not change from his original stuff. He just wanted more songs on the record. I think he should have given FM what they wanted and released his original GOS stuff on the net. That way no one has to eat any costs associated with a double record. In the end, though, LB mostly got all of the GOS released on a FM record. So, from that angle, LB won

[Les]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Les - I agree with what your saying in that the art is what counts, etc. But, my point is the art (music) really did not change from his original stuff. He just wanted more songs on the record. I think he should have given FM what they wanted and released his original GOS stuff on the net.

Well, and I guess I'm saying is- why? SYW probably wouldn't have contained anything like the material it finally did contain if he had just "given FM what they wanted" (though it may have pleased some Ledgies ). Ultimately, he did get more than just the 12 safest songs on there. That's not wrong. I don't think Lindsey feels disconnected from the band in such a way that he doesn't want for it, as an entity, to be everything he also personally aspires to. That is also, necessarily, self-serving. He's invested in it. When he didn't feel that way, he left it.

In most cases, I think arguments about musical direction and content are a basic and essential quality of any viable band.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Les
In most cases, I think arguments about musical direction and content are a basic and essential quality of any viable band.

Agreed!!!!!!

Also, for the life of me, I will never get why artists don't put more than 12 songs on records in this age of digital music where the restrictions of vinyl no longer apply, esp. when the other 10 or so songs that are good, but are clearly never going to be commerical hits a la Come, Red Rover, etc.

Also, for the record, I was and still am for them having made SYW a double record because I think that if it was going to be a hit record, a few extra dollars would not have mattered that much. But, in the end, we got 20 for the price of 12, so it all worked out.

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by shackin'up
But my point is, If he didn't do the tortured artist stuff, they come out with spinecringing albums!!!

Spinecringing? Now I know you're serious!!

And you're right.

For example, Tusk is by far my favorite Fleetwood Mac album, and I realize it's thanks to Lindsey. And I also realize that if the band hadn't trusted in Lindsey we would never have had the honor of listening to it. I also realize that any "edge" Fleetwood Mac has ever acquired has been thanks to Lindsey. But let's not be too short-sighted here, there are other band members who have contributed greatly to the success of Fleetwood Mac, or, do you ONLY like Lindsey's stuff? If so, I guess all the other members contributions are moot.

To The Selling Out Comments:

I also realize that Lindsey has never been in any way shape or form an avante garde artist and I don't mean to hold him up to those standards nor would I want him to be that. Fleetwood Mac is a mainstream pop/rock group, something Lindsey knew when he joined and actually helped to maintain throughout the years, albeit somewhat grudgingly. So when I say he "sold out" with Mirage and Tango, I don't mean he sold out as an avante garde or maverick artist. However, I do believe in his mind, he sold out some of the principles of the kind of music he wanted to make (he's admitted to that). And in the end, it was his decision to stay in the band. Noone was forcing him to remain tethered to Fleetwood Mac, it was always his choice if he wanted to stay or leave.

And I'm glad he stayed for as long as he did. I'm also glad that he's back, even if it's only for a little while.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
But I really don't think FM sold out. I think it was just more cautious than it should have been.

I agree with you... they did play it a bit too cautious with 'Mirage,' but I think they were considerably less cautious with 'Tango.'

Certainly, one can point to Lindsey's larger influence over 'Tango' as a reason for that, but when you think about it, even though most people have a huge distaste for her 'Tango' songs, the two self-penned tracks that Stevie contributed weren't very commercial at all either.
In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that her material on 'Tango' is a lot less commercial than Lindsey's.

Ironically, it seems that the majority of fans would have preferred it if she had contributed songs that were "safer."

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If Lindsey had stayed out of Fleetwood Mac after Tusk, he might have had a viable solo career, strictly based on the limited success he had with Trouble, Holiday Road and Go Insane. He proved he could get hits as a solo artist. Maybe he kicks himself for having gone back to the band in 1982 and 1987, thereby short-selling and ultimately destroying his solo career. I am strictly speculating here, but it would be an understandable position. We all look back on certain decisions on our lives and realize there are certain nagging doubts we'll never be able to vanquish. What if?

That's a very good question you raise there.

It is quite possible that Lindsey would have achieved more solo success if he had left Fleetwood Mac after 'Tusk,' but, in my opinion, the factor that ultimately fated his solo career to being less than successful, was that there were such huge gaps between his releases.
There were three years between 'Law & Order' and 'Go Insane'... and 'Go Insane' came two years after 'Mirage.'
Then there was another three year lull, before 'Tango' was released.
And perhaps most damning... five years between 'Tango' and 'Out Of The Cradle.'

Also, because he didn't tour for either of his first two solo albums, and didn't end up touring for 'Tango,' people only had one real chance to see him perform live during the entire 12 year period before 'Cradle.'

Absence can make the heart grow fonder, but in the music world, it usually causes the audience to forget you.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
. . . Certainly, one can point to Lindsey's larger influence over 'Tango' as a reason for that, but when you think about it, even though most people have a huge distaste for her 'Tango' songs, the two self-penned tracks that Stevie contributed weren't very commercial at all either.
In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that her material on 'Tango' is a lot less commercial than Lindsey's.

Ironically, it seems that the majority of fans would have preferred it if she had contributed songs that were "safer."That's a very good question you raise there.

Ah Ha - I have been saying this for years. I think RAL was very different for SN - I think RAL was a conscious effort by her to be experimental and some of the songs reflect that. I think her two self penned TITN songs were experimental as well. Yet, she gets slammed because they are not that great from a commercial point of view

In the end though, our little Rodeo Drive Maverick LB (oh come on that is funny and you know it ) is the one gets all of the credit for exsperimenting. Perhaps it is when LB does it, it usually sounds great and when La Nicks makes an attempt, it sometimes is less than stellar a la WISYA - which I like but it ain't all that and a bag of chips like the song TITN is.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Les
You seem to be starting from a place that says that what Stevie wants is what is best for the band, while what Lindsey wants isn't best for the band. I don't think that's true. I think they just look at different factors. Lindsey's argument was for something that he thought was a larger "statement" because he thought that would make for a better album. And yes, it was, as he admitted several times, also self-serving in that it would allow him to get more of his material out. Stevie's and Mick's arguments that a double album wouldn't sell well is a valid point, especially if you're looking at sales as a determining factor of what indicates a good album. It was also a self-serving argument for them to make sure they made more money than they thought they'd make if they followed Lindsey's path. I'm not trying to say that sales is the only thing that is important to either of them or that sales are never important to Lindsey. But his making an argument for an album that aspires to be something different than just one that will sell most easily isn't wrong for the band. At least I don't think so.

Stevie, for her part, seemed less concerned about how much money she would make, and more concerned over how much the "family men" in the band could stand to lose if the album tanked.

Now, I'm not trying to paint her as a martyr, because certainly she stands to make a lot of money if an album does well... but I just want to point out that, as she expressed them in the documentary, her feelings on why a double-album might not have been the best idea, weren't entirely self-serving either.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yet, she gets slammed because they are not that great from a commercial point of view

Jason, are you sure about that? Doesn't she get slammed because the lyrics were subpar in comparison to earlier stuff and because her voice had deteriorated? I'm not trying to slam Stevie here, but I think that saying those of us who slam her for what she created during that time period do so because of any perceived lack of commercialism in the songs is missing the mark.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Jason, are you sure about that? Doesn't she get slammed because the lyrics were subpar in comparison to earlier stuff and because her voice had deteriorated? I'm not trying to slam Stevie here, but I think that saying those of us who slam her for what she created during that time period do so because of any perceived lack of commercialism in the songs is missing the mark.

Touche - she was not at her height in those areas.

But, I was more or less pointing out that I think she was trying to branch out from RAL to TOSOTM and people often overlook that. Yet, when LB branches out he is great for trying, granted his results are aften better becuase unlike SN, LB is a multi faceted musician as well.