Mick's book-what's the problem?

[Lisa44]

Hi people! I haven't been a fan for nearly as long as a lot of you so I was just wondering something... How come some of you tend to dismiss Mick's book as not very good or just plain inaccurate? I read it and enjoyed it very much. Now granted , I found a few relatively small mistakes also. For example, when he says they toured for Mirage during the summer of '82. He was actually kinda close with this because it technically began in late summer. I think that he did a pretty good job considering all of the substance abuse at the time . Please tell me what you guys think.

[macfan 57]

I think Mick's book is definitely an interesting read. As far as how accurate it is, who knows? I do know that the rest of the band hated it, especially Lindsey. I do think that Stevie and Chris came off looking pretty good but that John and especially Lindsey did not. No one was exactly clear headed during those years from all of the drugs & alcohol, so they probably remember things differently. I still tend to think of the book as being fairly close to the truth.

[DrummerDeanna]

You know I've always wondered the same thing...I've heard several people completely dismiss the book...and I have never known why....so I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't know why. I found it to be an entertaining read also...though it did paint Lindsey in not so good a light, IMO...hahah..I mean after reading some of the parts I wanted to kick his ass mysefl lol...but I got over it....anyway....someone once told me that Mick admitted that he might have "expanded upon" the truth a little...but I've never heard this directly from Mick or any Mac member...anyone know anything about that?

[Les]

The problem, if it should be called that, is that it's just hard to know what's true and what isn't.

There are parts of it that are quite entertaining. There are also aspects of the book that are sort of riddled with errors, so it becomes somewhat difficult to know where you draw the line with what was true and what wasn't. I'd like to rely on my personal judgment, but since I wasn't there, I can't. I have to look at the reactions of the other members and I have to look at what I do know to be true or false, based on other things written about the band, in order to try to get a perspective on the whole thing.

You can't help but take into account Mick's circumstances when he wrote it (financial problems, bitterness over Lindsey's departure, drug problems, etc.).

The "problems" --

There are many, many incorrect dates, times, timeframes, details listed in the book.

Peter and some of his biographers contradict some of the things written about Green and the Green era.

Obviously Lindsey has expressed discontent about how Mick chose to characterize him and has flatly denied parts of it (Mick's account of how Lindsey left the band, specifically). He says he was very hurt by the book, but that Mick has apologized to him in private for some of it.

John seemed miffed at what he said was Mick's purposely excluding the unkind stories he could have told about the ladies so that they seemed a little too good to be true, but not giving the guys any such benefit.

I don't know if I've ever heard a direct reaction from Christine about it. I guess you can take her silence on the subject however you'd like to take it.

Stevie has had several reactions to it. Before it was published she threatened to sue him if he slandered her. Right after it was published, she sort of jokingly promoted the book for him from the stage (BTM tour), calling him a "best selling author." (She later said she hadn't even read it at that point and was angry that she'd done that for him.) In the 91/92 period, she gave at least a few interviews where she was very angry about it. Her current reaction is to sort of back away from it and say that she knows what she lived and isn't interested in reading Mick's version of it. Her telling of the events of the night Lindsey left the band do certainly leave quite a different impression of that night than Mick's version does.

Mick says he had a great time writing it. Bob Welch reported that he thought the book was fairly accurate about his tenure in the group. I believe Bob Brunning likes it. Those are things in its favor.

I have a few problems with it personally, but one thing that I find most disappointing about it is that there are whole passages that aren't drawn from Mick's memory at all. Instead, they're passages copied almost verbatim from some of the articles written about the band in the 70s/80s. I'm still a little puzzled how Mick and/or Stephen Davis avoided plagiarism charges with some of those. But so then you wonder -- why did they feel the need to copy those passages? Couldn't Mick remember enough on his own to make it interesting? And if not, then what else in the book has maybe been padded with "extra" details to make the stories seem more complete than Mick's memory could really provide?

So...it's just sort of a guessing game. Mick evidently conveyed the story that he wanted to tell at the time and it should be seen as "the truth" from his personal perspective. If the book was written by John or Lindsey or Christine or Stevie or Peter or the Bobs, etc., there are probably some passages that would be similar and some passages that would be vastly different.

When one decides to write a book divulging his version of others' personal travails, it opens a can of worms. Those others who are having stories told on them that they'd rather not tell, or that they'd tell quite differently, or that they say didn't happen at all, are never going to be very happy about it.

[Sorcerer386]

Speaking of which, what DOES Lindsey call Mick in that song they were talking about on Behind the Music? I sound like an ignoramus, but I don't know much about Lindsey's solo stuff. When they play it on Behind the Music, the bleep out what he says, something like "He's the rock *BEEP*." What's he calling Mick?

[Grainuaile]

It was "rock cock", but VH1 bleeped it out. I laughed every time!

[wetcamelfood]

My own personal thing about the book is that the only real "new" thing about the book at the time was the Stevie & Mick affair which (to my knowledge) had not been previously printed elsewhere (though I may be wrong on this as I don't really get in to all of the personal stuff about the Mac story).

So this was another case that I personally think Mick used the "sales tactic" of plugs to the effect of "This book is chock full of facts about the Mac such as an affair Mick had with Stevie Nicks" to get people to think "Wow, this will tell us everything!" when all along you get done with the book thinking "Geez, the only thing I didn't already know was the thing they said in the ad about their affair".

None of this probably matters now, but my own perception of it was that it was annoying to fans at the time it was released that fans were "lied to" about the wealth of information they were going to find out about the band if they bought this book when all along we found out the only info we didn't know about previously in the ads etc. for the book which were to "tease" us in to buying it. This is one of the many reasons why many of us are "suspicious" of Mick's (or whoever) milking the FM enterprise for all it's worth etc. but I will NOT go there anymore! I mean OK, I realize in this case it could've been the publisher that wanted to use this "technique" to get books sold but MY feeling was if Mick was going to tell about the affair and make others "look/come off bad" anyways and if he really wanted the book to be "useful" to fans etc. then surely he could've included more ORIGINAL material and "tell more truths" rather than just have it be a "Rolling Stone magazine FM articles Greatest Hits" package so to speak. I'm not saying anyone else should think this way, it's just how I think about it.

I personally would've preferred more talk about the recordings etc. as I'm a discography nut (for those of you that don't know me! ) and I don't know/care about all of the personal stuff in the book and all that so that was my main dissapointment but all this is JMHO anyways. I sure hope no one has been offended here. I'm simply stating my opinion to give further insight to the person that asked the "what's the problem" question that started this thread. I'm not saying anyone should/has to agree with me on this or anything, this is just a statement of an opinion of mine. Nothing more, nothing less. OK? Thanks for your time and I hope this was of some help/interest to the thread starter.

John

[CarneVaca]

Funny thing about that book: I remember devouring it when it first came out, then going away with such bad taste in my mouth about Mick, even though the slant of the book was clearly intended to paint Lindsey as the villain. It's been a while, but among the things I remember are Mick's endless praise for Stevie. He mentions that her songs on Mirage and Tango, though left over from solo projects, were brilliant. Aside from Gypsy, there is no brilliance in those tracks at all.

Mick seems to put down Lindsey's contribution, accusing him of being jealous of Christine and Stevie for having written most of the hits. Yet, ironically the book was released just as Behind the Mask was stumbling through the charts. You think that man might have been able to put two and two together -- that the Mac without Lindsey at that point was simply a vain commercial exercise devoid of any real artistry. Gee, they had to get two guitarists to replace Lindsey! Don't get me wrong, I even like a couple of songs on that album, though I find that effort as a whole to be pretty mediocre. By then, I really couldn't listen to Stevie's voice any more, but that had started with her contributions in Tango.

Mick admits he was "disloyal" in writing the book, even though some very palpable tension remains between him and Lindsey about that time period. It appears that Mick flat out lied about Lindsey's departure from the band, accusing Lindsey of striking Stevie. Maybe he did, and that's why I say "appears." Yet, if I'm not mistaken, Stevie has said she struck Lindsey. Whatever. There was probably a little shoving. Mick probably should have kept that episode to himself, rather than using his rather murky recollection to put it in a book, the proceeds of which he reportedly snorted away.

Mick is a distasteful guy. When he gets on TV he is almost endearing, but then he invariably says something infinitely stupid that makes me cringe. I get embarrassed for him. Lindsey, on the other hand, comes across as somewhat humble and insecure, though occasionally a flash of immodest self-recognition of his talent and genius pokes through as, for instance, when he says he was the one who always knew exactly what to do with Stevie's songs.

Lindsey showed some real class through that whole episode. Rather than hitting the talk show circuit, he merely addressed it through his art. And he did it elegantly, couching the obvious anger in the song with an unlikely arrangement and leaving enough ambiguity so that if you weren't familiar with the story, you wouldn't know who he was bashing. Think of how Lennon treated McCartney in How Do You Sleep. No ambiguity there.

Mick's book actually points to the fundamental problem with the Mac. Fleetwood Mac has become more of a story than a band. Problem is the story has become rather old and dull. This band invented "Behind the Music" before VH1 ever thought of the concept. Now if they would only give us some music, instead of the story behind the story of the story, I'd be much happier about the whole thing.

[sulamith]

Sorcerer386 - You need to read the lyrics, or even better, listen to Lindsey's song "Wrong" from OOTC. It will explain a tidbit or two so you won't feel left out of the joke!

In one part he says:

Did I see another
Piggy in the middle
Piggy on the cover

That's very interesting, considering the Chap in Mick's book where he chronicled the affiar with Stevie was called "Piggy in the Middle"

I also love what in my opinion are a few more digs at Mick:

The line about "Putting on the Hits" seems to be a jab at Mick for appearing on that lame-o 80's show as a judge, like, "Man, did you need money THAT bad?" that makes me chuckle everytime!

And "advance was spent some time ago" and "agent's on the phone" seem to be pointing out he only wrote the book for money.

And "the man just got it wrong" well, that self-explanatory, and Lindsey is making his feelings perfectly known here!

One more thing, I have always interpreted the "young Mr. Rock Cock, where do you belong?" part, as Lindsey refering to himself. He wasn't sure where he fit in in the rock world of the early 90's, and working on OOTC seemed to be an excercise in helping him forge his place. We all know he wanted be known for more than his looks, but at the same time, he was well aware that he and Stevie increased the eye appeal of the band a great deal when they joined.

Just my take on it, BTW, I found the book entertaining, I bought it for a couple of bucks off ebay, but I did take lots of it with a grain of salt, mainly when I realized some of the timelines were incorrect.

There is an interview where Stevie or Lindsey one talks about Stevie apologizing to Lindsey for what Mick wrote about him, and Lindsey was evidently very touched at her reaction, saying he couldn't believe she was apologizing to him for what Mick wrote. Maybe the book is one of the things that maybe even helped a little with the healing. At least it maybe helped get them talking again.

The book is just one of those things you file away with other Mac history and, like the rest of it, you have to look at it in the correct context.

-Sharon

[chiliD]

from CarneVacaGee, they had to get two guitarists to replace Lindsey!

{sigh} DO we NEED to get into THIS discussion again?

Let me run through it again for those who missed it:

Lindsey wasn't replaced by two guitarists. Billy replaced him vocally and only HAPPENED to play guitar, Rick replaced him guitar-wise and only HAPPENED to be able to sing well, too (plus, he had a vast knowledge of the Peter Green material). They just ASKED Billy to join first and Billy said that he didn't feel he was proficient enough guitar-wise so he recommened they add Rick, who Billy had been working with at the time. Had they asked Rick first, I doubt there would've been a need to add Billy (sorry, Michelle).

from CarneVaca...that the Mac without Lindsey at that point was simply a vain commercial exercise devoid of any real artistry.

Had they ALLOWED Billy & Rick full creative license, I think we would've seen a different product than "Behind The Mask". Just look at both Billy & Rick's subsequent solo albums to see that they had strong "Mac-ish" material to add, but neither were allowed such room within the band. I don't know why new personnel to Fleetwood Mac in prior incarnations were allowed such leeway and in post-1988 incarnations, they weren't...that I blame on Mick, John & Christine; NOT on the newly added writers (Billy, Rick, and subsequently Dave Mason & Bekka Bramlett)

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Lindsey wasn't replaced by two guitarists. Billy replaced him vocally and only HAPPENED to play guitar, Rick replaced him guitar-wise and only HAPPENED to be able to sing well, too (plus, he had a vast knowledge of the Peter Green material). They just ASKED Billy to join first and Billy said that he didn't feel he was proficient enough guitar-wise so he recommened they add Rick, who Billy had been working with at the time. Had they asked Rick first, I doubt there would've been a need to add Billy (sorry, Michelle).

Thanks for posting that ChiliD. I hadn't realised the reasons behind 2 people joining the band to 'replace' Lindsey.

Pip

[Janet]

So would you use Stevie's account on " Rocks Family Tree" from London tv as an accurate account of how Lindsey left the band??

Stevie seems very angry as she kind of spits out the story, and I always found that account to be totally true...only because shes standing there saying it...does everyone else think that to be what really happened even though it was said through gritted teeth???

[sulamith]

Janet, What did she say?
Could you just parphrase for us?

[Les]

Stevie has recounted the events of that night for the camera or in interviews on a few occasions now and it comes out a little differently each time. I'm not sure what the exact truth is. The story shifts, no matter who is telling it. That's part of the difficulty.

She seemed quite angry through most of Rock Family Trees, so I don't know how or if that affected her story-telling. She also says, in that interview, that the rest of the band viewed her as a bimbo from day one and never wanted her. That's in direct opposition to the many interviews she's given when she's said that they were great to her from day one, even though they originally were only looking to add Lindsey. So...the truth is out there...it's just hard to know where exactly it is.

I personally don't think it lies solely with one member.

[sulamith]

Well, I guess I will just file that under my "in context" section with Mick's book.

She had alot of issues at that time, and she was angry, and I sense there there had not been enough time and distance yet for her to get any real perspective on anything....
You know when you are fresh out of a bad situation you tend to go back over it and rehash it in your mind reading all kinds of things into people's words and actions that aren't really there. They probably all suffered from that type of reaction. It seems time and distance helped, so like I said, into the "in context of Stevie being an emotional mess at the time" section that goes, too!

Thanks!
-Sharon