Lindsey Buckingham gets kicked out of Fleetwood Mac and the band gets better?

[sodascouts]

In his "Mailbag," Lefsetz published two emails from readers who agreed with him.

Those two readers just happened to be the executive producer and music producer of Ellen.

I imagine Lefsetz is counting on the fact that very few people will actually take the time to click on those links to the performance to verify what he says, and just accept his claim that their performance on Ellen was so incredible that it has outshone anything they have done in recent memory. Read: Buy tickets to see them now, folks!

I've subscribed for years, and I've never seen a more blatant example of Lefsetz being a "company man."

If you're curious, here are the employee emails of which I speak:

Subject: Re: The Chain

This piece made me very happy, Bob. During the soundcheck I turned to a younger co-worker next to me and said, "...and all of those sounds are actually coming from the band!" They even count themselves in, instead of clips or digital tracks counting them in. Mick Fleetwood on drums sounded incredible. And the whole band looked so happy to be performing together. It was a booking Jonny Norman, our Co-EP and music booker wanted so badly, and it was so much fun.

Ed Glavin
Exec. Producer, The Ellen Show

_____________________________________________________

Subject: Re: The Chain

Longtime fan, first time caller!

Thanks for this Bob, I'm the Music Producer at Ellen, and this booking was 15 years in the making, and let me tell you, they were incredible. I wish you had been in the room, because it was electric. They sounded not only better than ever, they sounded fresh, like a new band. I?m not sure even the band thought it could be possible, that they could reinvent the wheel at this stage of their career and succeed, but they did it.

And their work ethic. So many acts show up, perform their song, and get right back into their car. Not these guys. They show up early, they rehearse, they stay long after to make sure it sounds great, they work HARD. And that's why it works. And why this machine has been working for so long. They actually CARE about the music. And they?ve been smart. They have an amazing team of people around them, from the top - down. It was an extraordinary thing to be a part of and to watch them create their magic. And I'm so happy you posted our clip and felt the same way.

Best,
Jonathan
_______
Jonathan Norman
Co-Executive Producer
"The Ellen DeGeneres Show"

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally Posted by Ellen co-producer

they stay long after to make sure it sounds great, they work HARD

Aha!!
This proves that the Ellen performance (unlike the 100% live-to-air Today Show performances) was operated on during editing.

They spent SO much dedicated time on rehearsing and post-mixing, and yet half the band was still completely inaudible???

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

Aha!!
This proves that the Ellen performance (unlike the 100% live-to-air Today Show performances) was operated on during editing.

They spent SO much dedicated time on rehearsing and post-mixing, and yet half the band was still completely inaudible???

It was ridiculous that the Crowded House guy and the backup singers were the only ones you could hear!

[lovethemac1]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

It was ridiculous that the Crowded House guy and the backup singers were the only ones you could hear!

Sugar Mouse's other day job.....sound engineer.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by lovethemac1

Sugar Mouse's other day job.....sound engineer.

And Crowded House publicist!

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

It was ridiculous that the Crowded House guy and the backup singers were the only ones you could hear!

The only instruments I could easily hear during the first part of The Chain were drums, Neil’s guitar, and the trills at the end of the chorus. I had turn up the volume and focus to hear John, the organ, and Stevie. Mike’s resonator guitar wasn’t in the mix during the second verse. I could see him playing, but couldn’t hear anything.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

Aha!!
This proves that the Ellen performance (unlike the 100% live-to-air Today Show performances) was operated on during editing.

They spent SO much dedicated time on rehearsing and post-mixing, and yet half the band was still completely inaudible???

I hadn't thought about that.

Wow.

Do you think that perhaps they deliberately lowered Stevie and Christine in the mix after the fact? That their voices were so "off" that for the band to "sound great" (ha!) they had to be turned down? That their inaudibility wasn't a mistake?

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Do you think that perhaps they deliberately lowered Stevie and Christine in the mix after the fact? That their voices were so "off" that for the band to "sound great" (ha!) they had to be turned down? That their inaudibility wasn't a mistake?

Exactly--that becomes one of the possibilities. Along with the question of who "they" is. The FM "machine", the Ellen producers, or a combination thereof? To what extent did the likes of Christine have any say? And I certainly can't imagine that Stevie was hanging around for ages in the post-edit studio. (Wasn't she off cavorting with that muscular guy half her age in the green room?...)

I can even read the producer's letter as being satire--ie taking a dig at the band's members and keepers--if not for the remark about Mick's energetic drumming, which rings true.

Originally Posted by lovethemac1

Sugar Mouse's other day job.....sound engineer.

Lol, that's as funny as the original.

Sugar Mouse: "Neil Finn to 11!"
Stevie: "More cowbell!"
Sugar Mouse: "Those harmonies with himself are off-the-charts spine-tingling!"
The McVies: "Sorry to interrupt--we can't hear ourselves in the mix."
Ellen producer: "Increase the volume of Mike Campbell's casio keyboard!"

[lovethemac1]

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

Exactly--that becomes one of the possibilities. Along with the question of who "they" is. The FM "machine", the Ellen producers, or a combination thereof? To what extent did the likes of Christine have any say? And I certainly can't imagine that Stevie was hanging around for ages in the post-edit studio. (Wasn't she off cavorting with that muscular guy half her age in the green room?...)

I can even read the producer's letter as being satire--ie taking a dig at the band's members and keepers--if not for the remark about Mick's energetic drumming, which rings true.



Lol, that's as funny as the original.

Sugar Mouse: "Neil Finn to 11!"
Stevie: "More cowbell!"
Sugar Mouse: "Those harmonies with himself are off-the-charts spine-tingling!"
The McVies: "Sorry to interrupt--we can't hear ourselves in the mix."
Ellen producer: "Increase the volume of Mike Campbell's casio keyboard!"

That's pretty hilarious too!!! More cowbell...hahahahahaha.

[TheWildHeart67]

Is that producer's email for real? Pure denial and embarrassing.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

Aha!!
This proves that the Ellen performance (unlike the 100% live-to-air Today Show performances) was operated on during editing.

They spent SO much dedicated time on rehearsing and post-mixing, and yet half the band was still completely inaudible???

that was the first thing that popped into my head as soon as I read that line as well.

Why would they hang around? to FIX things!!

This points to how bad the SN team has gotten. They also ask for copies of audio recordings of interviews she does, and then go through them and tell reporters which parts to edit out. I don't have time to find it now but one reporter wrote about it.

She's OBSESSED with herself. I mean, she always has been....who else stays up all night taking pics of themselves and then spending countless hours hand tinting and tweaking them oh, wait....Kim Kardashian.... except you know what? Kim K has managed to get married and have multiple children as well. And she has family members who (for better or worse reasons) will call her out on stuff. Stevie has her career, and that's it. Sad. She really is on her way to becoming Norma Desmond.

[David]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

She's OBSESSED with herself. I mean, she always has been....who else stays up all night taking pics of themselves and then spending countless hours hand tinting and tweaking them oh, wait....Kim Kardashian.... except you know what? Kim K has managed to get married and have multiple children as well. And she has family members who (for better or worse reasons) will call her out on stuff. Stevie has her career, and that's it. Sad. She really is on her way to becoming Norma Desmond.

Norma Desmond, Miss Havisham, Sylvia Browne, Elizabeth Taylor. The references aren't very flattering—not the way they're intended.

Everything Stevie says and does is forced through her own gills. She romanticizes herself. She writes about other women real and fictional in the third person—Rhiannon, Mabel Normand, Garbo, Julia, Cecilia, sisters of the moon (or the moon and her sisters). But everybody knows those "characters" are really Stevie. That's why fans all interpret Stevie's hundreds of songs autobiographically. Those third-person princesses suffer just like Stevie. They're waifs with flowing golden hair trapped in ancient windswept castles, and it's all metaphorical for Stevie Nicks and her life circumstances. (Notice how the female faces in all the Maxfield Parrish paintings all look like the same girl?)

Back in her heyday, concert critics used to say the same thing about her in every review: "She has shed some, though far from all, of the spacey narcissism that has made her something of a caricature in rock," "Stripped of all her dying swan poses and faerie queen pretensions, Nicks was riveting," and so on. I know them all practically from memory. One of them wrote, "She is simply too flighty and fluttery to command a stage." The rock press accurately called out her narcissism back in the day, and we Macheads got really pissed off at them. (Treat yourself to the old reviews in the Blue Letter Archives.) But they were right. Stevie can't talk about anything without referring back to herself—the movies she loves, the movie stars she believes she resembles, the career choices other people make, the other members of Fleetwood Mac or Lady Antebellum or the Heartbreakers or any other band she takes a shine to, or those dozens of younger singer-songwriters she promotes in creepy ways, like Vanessa Carlton. Stevie thinks they're all younger versions of her.

She is obsessed with herself to a degree that seems to indicate a certain degree of pathology. It was compelling in a 30-year-old, but it seems twisted or creepy in a 70-year-old. Last year's 60 Minutes piece on Stevie and Chrissie Hynde was intended to celebrate two tough old rock stars, but the incongruity in their respective psychiatric health left me with a sour stomach and a crabbed fatigue. Chrissie sounded like a normal, healthy post-Freudian woman ("Why should I care if other people don't like the way I talk about my rape? I did some stupid sh|t when I was younger. I'm not here to give my critics the warm fuzzies."), and there was Stevie, locked in her self-worship, romanticizing her every golden curl, engaging in ditzy, pre-Freudian Barbie doll commentary. What other 60-year-old woman was moved beyond description by the Twilight movies? She has something wrong with her.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by David

Norma Desmond, Miss Havisham, Sylvia Browne, Elizabeth Taylor. The references aren't very flattering—not the way they're intended.

Everything Stevie says and does is forced through her own gills. She romanticizes herself. She writes about other women real and fictional in the third person—Rhiannon, Mabel Normand, Garbo, Julia, Cecilia, sisters of the moon (or the moon and her sisters). But everybody knows those "characters" are really Stevie. That's why fans all interpret Stevie's hundreds of songs autobiographically. Those third-person princesses suffer just like Stevie. They're waifs with flowing golden hair trapped in ancient windswept castles, and it's all metaphorical for Stevie Nicks and her life circumstances. (Notice how the female faces in all the Maxfield Parrish paintings all look like the same girl?)

Back in her heyday, concert critics used to say the same thing about her in every review: "She has shed some, though far from all, of the spacey narcissism that has made her something of a caricature in rock," "Stripped of all her dying swan poses and faerie queen pretensions, Nicks was riveting," and so on. I know them all practically from memory. One of them wrote, "She is simply too flighty and fluttery to command a stage." The rock press accurately called out her narcissism back in the day, and we Macheads got really pissed off at them. (Treat yourself to the old reviews in the Blue Letter Archives.) But they were right. Stevie can't talk about anything without referring back to herself—the movies she loves, the movie stars she believes she resembles, the career choices other people make, the other members of Fleetwood Mac or Lady Antebellum or the Heartbreakers or any other band she takes a shine to, or those dozens of younger singer-songwriters she promotes in creepy ways, like Vanessa Carlton. Stevie thinks they're all younger versions of her.

She is obsessed with herself to a degree that seems to indicate a certain degree of pathology. It was compelling in a 30-year-old, but it seems twisted or creepy in a 70-year-old. Last year's 60 Minutes piece on Stevie and Chrissie Hynde was intended to celebrate two tough old rock stars, but the incongruity in their respective psychiatric health left me with a sour stomach and a crabbed fatigue. Chrissie sounded like a normal, healthy post-Freudian woman ("Why should I care if other people don't like the way I talk about my rape? I did some stupid sh|t when I was younger. I'm not here to give my critics the warm fuzzies."), and there was Stevie, locked in her self-worship, romanticizing her every golden curl, engaging in ditzy, pre-Freudian Barbie doll commentary. What other 60-year-old woman was moved beyond description by the Twilight movies? She has something wrong with her.

Excellent post David! You summed up our long lost Queen so well.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by David

...those dozens of younger singer-songwriters she promotes in creepy ways, like Vanessa Carlton. Stevie thinks they're all younger versions of her.

I'd never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it... you're right.

What other 60-year-old woman was moved beyond description by the Twilight movies?

Because Bella reminded her of herself.

Now that you've laid it all out like that... it's a pretty depressing read.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by David

Norma Desmond, Miss Havisham, Sylvia Browne, Elizabeth Taylor. The references aren't very flattering—not the way they're intended.

Everything Stevie says and does is forced through her own gills. She romanticizes herself. She writes about other women real and fictional in the third person—Rhiannon, Mabel Normand, Garbo, Julia, Cecilia, sisters of the moon (or the moon and her sisters). But everybody knows those "characters" are really Stevie. That's why fans all interpret Stevie's hundreds of songs autobiographically. Those third-person princesses suffer just like Stevie. They're waifs with flowing golden hair trapped in ancient windswept castles, and it's all metaphorical for Stevie Nicks and her life circumstances. (Notice how the female faces in all the Maxfield Parrish paintings all look like the same girl?)

Back in her heyday, concert critics used to say the same thing about her in every review: "She has shed some, though far from all, of the spacey narcissism that has made her something of a caricature in rock," "Stripped of all her dying swan poses and faerie queen pretensions, Nicks was riveting," and so on. I know them all practically from memory. One of them wrote, "She is simply too flighty and fluttery to command a stage." The rock press accurately called out her narcissism back in the day, and we Macheads got really pissed off at them. (Treat yourself to the old reviews in the Blue Letter Archives.) But they were right. Stevie can't talk about anything without referring back to herself—the movies she loves, the movie stars she believes she resembles, the career choices other people make, the other members of Fleetwood Mac or Lady Antebellum or the Heartbreakers or any other band she takes a shine to, or those dozens of younger singer-songwriters she promotes in creepy ways, like Vanessa Carlton. Stevie thinks they're all younger versions of her.

She is obsessed with herself to a degree that seems to indicate a certain degree of pathology. It was compelling in a 30-year-old, but it seems twisted or creepy in a 70-year-old. Last year's 60 Minutes piece on Stevie and Chrissie Hynde was intended to celebrate two tough old rock stars, but the incongruity in their respective psychiatric health left me with a sour stomach and a crabbed fatigue. Chrissie sounded like a normal, healthy post-Freudian woman ("Why should I care if other people don't like the way I talk about my rape? I did some stupid sh|t when I was younger. I'm not here to give my critics the warm fuzzies."), and there was Stevie, locked in her self-worship, romanticizing her every golden curl, engaging in ditzy, pre-Freudian Barbie doll commentary. What other 60-year-old woman was moved beyond description by the Twilight movies? She has something wrong with her.

Well said, as usual David.

I felt the same way about that 60 Minutes piece. I was also front row center for the 24 Karat Gold Tour, and the difference between Chrissie and Stevie's musical styles, personalities, and interactions with the crowd, was equally stark in that setting, and in exactly the way that you describe.

"She has something wrong with her." Yes, for sure she does. I think that it has a great deal to do with (1) the small mountain of cocaine she spent ten years shoveling into her face, (2) the brain rot that resulted, (3) the pharmacy of pills she ingested over the better part of a decade, (4) far, far too much money, and (5), a "team" (to use their corporate lingo) of handmaidens and homegirls that are probably a little bit overindulgent.

She's also old.

But the fact that she has something wrong with her isn't new. That paper that someone wrote for a college film class likening her to Norma Desmond (right down to her fashion sense) was done in the mid-90s, during the Street Angel-era. So that's been 25 years. In my view, the likeness between SN and Desmond began even earlier - around 1987 or so, after she had gotten off the blow, and record sales had slowed.

Jim from Boston (SaidSomething is his username) has some fantastic stories about serving her in restaurants during that time period. I will PM him to see if he would like to chime in for those who haven't heard them.

For me, the Desmond connection has always been part of the appeal and the make-up of the whole package. She is at least half, and perhaps wholly, off of her rocker, and has been for some time. Her relationship with reality or lack thereof is one of the many contradictions that play a part in her image, and keep people engaged. If we remain tuned in, we might be able to figure her out completely. I call it the Stevie Nicks Scavenger Hunt, and I think it's the puzzle that many fans are intent on putting together. Is she crazy? Or just rich and eccentric? Or both? Is she strong or fragile? Impassioned performer or just high as a bat? Gifted writer or lifter of Oscar Wilde, the Spinners, Joni Mitchel, et al? Controlling diva or, humble woman who is aware that she got lucky by virtue of destiny and Lindsey Buckingham? An artist living life on her own new-wave feminist terms or, a giant B. who is so insufferably self-involved that she was unable to maintain a marriage or have children?

I subscribe to the theory of "I don't know."