Lindsey Songs: Tusk vs. Mirage

seekerj · #1 11-30-2009, 11:56 AM

I just finished reading the thread about which Lindsey "Tusk" songs might have freaked out the record executives, so I had to start this thread. I think Lindsey's songs on "Mirage" are far more odd than anything on "Tusk". I thought this the day I bought "Mirage" in 1982. I remember thinking that I had never heard stranger music in my life, from any band or artist, and I still think that now. Then there's that whole thing in interviews where Mick and others have said that with "Mirage", the band wanted to do something "more accessible" than the "Tusk" album. But to me, Lindsey's songs on "Mirage" were not. To this day, I have never heard anything more strange than "Can't Go Back" or "Empire State". There's nothing on "Tusk" that even approaches this weirdness for me. Even "Eyes Of The World", which is slightly more "accessible", the production is very strange (compared to the more straight-forward live versions of this song).

I don't see much discussion about Lindsey's "Mirage" songs, and I'm wondering if anyone else feels this way?

Spikey · #2 11-30-2009, 10:03 PM

Totally do (agree that is). I remember hearing "Mirage" for the first time, after listening to "Tusk" for 5 or so straight playthroughs.

After hearing an album which was held together so cohesively by Lindsey, Mirage's biggest flaw, I still feel, is the lack of good Lindsey songs. It's almost like the tracks should have been held over for "Go Insane", they remind me a lot of his quirky solo album just before Mirage, "Law and Order" (which IMO is not very good). Mirage is like LaO II with good McVie and Nicks songs :P

I like Eyes of the World, especially live. But Christine and Stevie save the day.

Yeah, Can't Go Back, Book of Love, Empire State are all weird songs. I like all of them though. They are very representative of Lindsey in that period I think. Empire State is just kind of out of place and very Lindsey-solo-work, although I like it. The other two fit on the album, but the production is very odd given Tusk's well done acoustic-y feel, I agree (although I know, it's supposed to sound dreamlike :P ).

Last comment- I think Tusk has weirder songs. The Ledge being a good example. But yeah, all his work on Mirage is weird, and I think it's the only album outside of LaO that I would say that about.

Enough for now!

- Spike

seekerj · #3 12-01-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spikey

Totally do (agree that is). I remember hearing "Mirage" for the first time, after listening to "Tusk" for 5 or so straight playthroughs.

After hearing an album which was held together so cohesively by Lindsey, Mirage's biggest flaw, I still feel, is the lack of good Lindsey songs. It's almost like the tracks should have been held over for "Go Insane", they remind me a lot of his quirky solo album just before Mirage, "Law and Order" (which IMO is not very good). Mirage is like LaO II with good McVie and Nicks songs :P

I like Eyes of the World, especially live. But Christine and Stevie save the day.

Yeah, Can't Go Back, Book of Love, Empire State are all weird songs. I like all of them though. They are very representative of Lindsey in that period I think. Empire State is just kind of out of place and very Lindsey-solo-work, although I like it. The other two fit on the album, but the production is very odd given Tusk's well done acoustic-y feel, I agree (although I know, it's supposed to sound dreamlike :P ).

Last comment- I think Tusk has weirder songs. The Ledge being a good example. But yeah, all his work on Mirage is weird, and I think it's the only album outside of LaO that I would say that about.

Enough for now!

- Spike

Thanks for your response! I never thought about similarities with LaO. But you're so right about that.

David · #4 12-01-2009, 09:53 PM

My favorite song on that album is "Book of Love," but it sounds pretty normal to me -- for Fleetwood Mac.

My second favorite is "Can't Go Back," which doesn't sound so much weird as tinky-slinky winky-dinky.

"Can't Go Back," from the point of view of songcraft, is actually a terrifically well-planned & rendered song.

michelej1 · #5 12-01-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

"Can't Go Back," from the point of view of songcraft, is actually a terrifically well-planned & rendered song.

I agree about Can't Go Back. Those acoustic flicks, the echoing arrangement, the great vocals that weave around the song's message, expressing everything elusive and distant. When the way those 3 sing together leaves one with a sense that they're falling away, it makes for a very emotional experience (as it also did in Hold Me). This song offers a Beatles' melody, combined with some of LB's best lyrics.

Also, lyrically the "can't go back" reminds me of John Stewart's Liddy Buck and the lovely words about Lindsey trying to tear down the sky for a star. Awesome.

Michele

HejiraNYC · #6 12-02-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

I agree about Can't Go Back. Those acoustic flicks, the echoing arrangement, the great vocals that weave around the song's message, expressing everything elusive and distant. When the way those 3 sing together leaves one with a sense that they're falling away, it makes for a very emotional experience (as it also did in Hold Me). This song offers a Beatles' melody, combined with some of LB's best lyrics.

Michele

I am not entirely convinced that Stevie even sings on "Can't Go Back" or even "Hold Me." In fact, other than her own songs, I think Stevie only appears on "Love in Store," "Book of Love" and "Eyes of the World." Everything else seems to be Christine, Lindsey and "Fake Stevie," aka Lindsey with a variable speed oscillator.

Personally I despise "Can't Go Back"- it's just a bit too sappy and sugary for my taste, much in the same way that I despise "You and I Pt. II." Upon first hearing it all those years ago, my initial reaction was that Lindsey was trying too hard to be commercial, and that it was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek joke in a way. And the fact that they tossed it out there as a b-side to the "Hold Me" single says it all; I've always considered album-cuts-that-become-b-sides to be the biggest insult of all. It's basically the band or record label saying that the song sucks so badly that it would never stand a chance of becoming an A-side or even a radio hit.

David · #7 12-02-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

I agree about Can't Go Back. Those acoustic flicks, the echoing arrangement, the great vocals that weave around the song's message, expressing everything elusive and distant. When the way those 3 sing together leaves one with a sense that they're falling away, it makes for a very emotional experience (as it also did in Hold Me). This song offers a Beatles' melody, combined with some of LB's best lyrics.

Yes, yes. I got to thinking about the ostinato that anchors the whole thing musically: in the treble register you hear this repeated motive of the thirds. It's an example of true ostinato, & it carries weight equally with the work the singer is performing. I guess it's actually a double or dual ostinato, if you count the thirds as one (played on keyboards) & the descending single-note pattern (played on guitar).

It's not terrifically complex -- or even complex at all -- but it shows very well how Lindsey thinks in terms of gluing motives together to create an arrangement around his lyrics & chords. Stevie doesn't think that way. Lindsey used to say that Stevie made her words & vocal melody central to her songs. It's not that she makes them central; it's that she makes them totally exclusive. That's all there is in a Stevie Nicks song (before an arranger gets to it). She doesn't construct the track part by part. She doesn't paint that canvas. Consequently, if she doesn't put a terrific vocal on a track of hers, or write some terrific lyrics, there's nothing left. If Lindsey doesn't do a good vocal or lyric, chances are still good there'll be something else to listen to in the track because he has built other things in.

If Stevie had sung "Gypsy" crappily or written crappy words, we could still enjoy the 5-tone scale motive Lindsey built into it. It's craftsmanlike. It displays musical thinking rather than (or in addition to) verbal thinking. It's what pop music is for, as far as I'm concerned. It's what the Beatles & George Martin excelled at.

Dr.Brown · #8 12-02-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

Also, lyrically the "can't go back" reminds me of John Stewart's Liddy Buck and the lovely words about Lindsey trying to tear down the sky for a star. Awesome.

Lyrically perhaps, but musically it's more akin to "Not That Funny". In fact, "Liddy Buck" fits right in when you insert it into the Tusk playlist. Either way, it's a great song.

**jbrownsjr** · #9 12-02-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

My favorite song on that album is "Book of Love," but it sounds pretty normal to me -- for Fleetwood Mac.

My second favorite is "Can't Go Back," which doesn't sound so much weird as tinky-slinky winky-dinky.

"Can't Go Back," from the point of view of songcraft, is actually a terrifically well-planned & rendered song.

We're friends again!! Book of Love one of my fav's.. it's a really cool tune.. and I love the way they arrange Mirage... Vocally spacious on many tunes...

Mirage is so pleasing to my taste..

David, is "Eyes of the World" intro a take on Pachebel's Canon.. I've always pondered this.. have we talked about it before? My memory fails me...

David · #10 12-02-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

David, is "Eyes of the World" intro a take on Pachebel's Canon.. I've always pondered this..

How best to explain this, jb?

As a viewer, I have an unavoidable problem with the Delmer Daves film DARK PASSAGE: When I see a man whose entire head is covered in bandages (excluding peepholes & blowhole), I laugh hysterically.

michelej1 · #11 12-02-2009, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

Lyrically perhaps, but musically it's more akin to "Not That Funny". In fact, "Liddy Buck" fits right in when you insert it into the Tusk playlist. Either way, it's a great song.

It doesn't even remind me of Liddy Buck lyrically, except for the words "can't go back." It's just those words alone that make me think of Stewart's song. I wasn't saying that the two tunes shared any other similarity.

Michele

**jbrownsjr** · #12 12-03-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

How best to explain this, jb?

As a viewer, I have an unavoidable problem with the Delmer Daves film DARK PASSAGE: When I see a man whose entire head is covered in bandages (excluding peepholes & blowhole), I laugh hysterically.

I'll take that as a yes?

Spikey · #13 12-03-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

and "Fake Stevie," aka Lindsey with a variable speed oscillator.

Oh-Ah! Oh-Ah!
Yeah, I don't think "real Stevie" shows up much on Mirage or Tango.

I don't like Can't Go Back as much as Book of Love, which I really like. I think the problem with both of them is that Lindsey always needs more lyrics to fill his songs up. i've always felt that Lindsey's strength is music and Stevie's is lyrics, which is amplified on their solo albums. Christine has strengths in both, although solo she kind of misses both.

I feel Mirage is musically solid but lyrically near-bankrupt, save for Gypsy, Straight Back, and a couple of other tracks. Think "Eyes of the World"- could've been an amazing piece with more lyrics, instead of hardly any, and then repeated. Instead it kinda sounds half-finished lyrically and musically excellent.

Tusk, although it's weird-sounding in parts, is lyrically near-flawless. Musically I think it's weirder, and to me, going to the topic title, it's THAT which scared record execs, the music of Tusk. Rumours and Mirage are much 'safer' musically than Tusk, which was experimental for its' time.

Mirage is pop-goodness but it could've been so much better with minimal extra effort. It continues to bug me everytime I hear it. But I still love it.. I guess I'm a tragic Mac-er after all.

- Spike

michelej1 · #14 12-03-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spikey

Oh-Ah! Oh-Ah!

I don't like Can't Go Back as much as Book of Love, which I really like. I think the problem with both of them is that Lindsey always needs more lyrics to fill his songs up. i've always felt that Lindsey's strength is music and Stevie's is lyrics, which is amplified on their solo albums. Christine has strengths in both, although solo she kind of misses both.

I think "Can't Go Back" has some of Lindsey's best lyrics from those earlier days, although face as soft as a tear in a clown's eye is gag inducing.

I do love "melodies awaken sorrows from their sleep" and think it is especially fitting, given the Mac's past.

Michele

aleuzzi · #15 12-03-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

It's not terrifically complex -- or even complex at all -- but it shows very well how Lindsey thinks in terms of gluing motives together to create an arrangement around his lyrics & chords. Stevie doesn't think that way. Lindsey used to say that Stevie made her words & vocal melody central to her songs. It's not that she makes them central; it's that she makes them totally exclusive. That's all there is in a Stevie Nicks song (before an arranger gets to it). She doesn't construct the track part by part. She doesn't paint that canvas. Consequently, if she doesn't put a terrific vocal on a track of hers, or write some terrific lyrics, there's nothing left. If Lindsey doesn't do a good vocal or lyric, chances are still good there'll be something else to listen to in the track because he has built other things in.

If Stevie had sung "Gypsy" crappily or written crappy words, we could still enjoy the 5-tone scale motive Lindsey built into it. It's craftsmanlike. It displays musical thinking rather than (or in addition to) verbal thinking. It's what pop music is for, as far as I'm concerned. It's what the Beatles & George Martin excelled at.

This is a great explanation of how their approach to songwriting differs. Now do Christine!