Lindsey AUS Article

[face of glass]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I know this might offend some people, but Lindsey needs to stop gazing wistfully at The Clash. That trendy, dated group holds no frame of reference for most people who were born within the last THREE DECADES. A lot of his fans won't even know who the hell he's talking about.

Hold your horses Nancy. If you don’t like The Clash, fine. I think they still are a well-known group. London Calling is always near the top of the list in rock critics’ album polls. And I do think they still have enough of a following so that if they were to release a new album now (which is utterly unlikely, due to Joe Strummer’s passing) it would probably be equal in sales to SYW.

Sure, they were and still are trendy among the hip elite. FM were trendy among their own clique too, until they began to sell too many records. My belief is that because of the current musical climate your “average” youngster is more likely to gravitate towards The Clash than FM. It’s Fleetwood Mac who are considered the old farts, stuff that only your parents and people older than that are likely to listen to. I know FM have attracted younger generation to them because of the Dance. But I believe that The Clash and FM are equal in popularity right now, even though it’s of a different kind.

Originally posted by sodascouts
Which brings me to the next point. WHY oh WHY must Lindsey insult Rumours? Doesn't he realize that by doing so, he's insulting the people who love the album? Why does he feel the need to attribute success to something besides the worth of the music?

It’s because very few big sellers of the ‘70s wouldn’t have had that huge a success if the band that made it hadn’t had something besides the music to attract the public in. Led Zeppelin IV had grand mysticism all over it and it was later accused of paganism. Pink Floyd’s Dark Side Of The Moon had a gigantic stage show as its support and a philosophical concept that people could identify with (without being inaccessible to the common man). David Bowie had his theatrical act and accusations of homosexuality and nazism. Bob Dylan’s Blood On The Tracks had his divorce splintered all over it. It obviously meant something to people.

Rumours is associated with the drama and I don’t think you can deny that. Every thing I’ve read of this album after its release always mentions the fact that “they split up while making this one”. It’s something that the band members have also supported, they know people like to hear about what happened back then.

I would have hoped by now he would realize that he deserved every bit of Rumours' success on his OWN merits.

I think he has his right to criticize the work completely. I agree with ChiliD’s point of Lindsey having the Pete Townshend syndrome. And hell, even Pete Townshend gets credit for other work. With Lindsey the average listener is most likely to recognize only the Rumours songs and “Big Love”, in the worst case only “Go Your Own Way”. Would most of them even know of “Trouble”? He has his right to complain in my opinion.

Originally posted by trackaghost
But I agree that it's sad that Lindsey keeps knocking Rumours. The fact that it still draws new fans, young and old, must mean something.

I attest to that myself; that’s how I got into FM. I didn’t care for the drama, the music just spoke to me.
But what kind of fans does Rumours attract? The most popular line-up of Fleetwood Mac is classified as an “adult rock oriented” group or a “soft rock” band or something along those lines. That classification has always been false. Rumours attracts people because of its reputation, because of its huge sales and because of the stories that surround it. Again, you only hear this stuff in your classic rock radio and the target group of those is nostalgia-hungry people.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I have to say that I like the punk "spirit"... it's just that the execution typically leaves me cold.
I prefer music with textural shadings and subtleties, and I just don't find that in the majority of punk music.

For early punk music I can understand that statement but you should understand Johnny that many punks moved on from the initial splash of angst they had.
(Nothing against early punk but the best stuff that survives from that era usually had good songwriting and wasn’t just a venomous pile of anger.)
The Clash, for instance, grew musically a lot and began to incorporate other styles, such as reggae, jazz and even rap. It’s very audible on London Calling and Sandinista! Try those, but only one disc at a time.

There’s many ways of expressing your angst and The Clash were able to find those among many others.

Originally posted by chiliD
Yeah, that's how I feel about The Clash...take ALL their albums and you can make one really f*ing good double album.

I think they made double and triple albums because there was a certain number of SIDES, not albums, that their contract to CBS ordered them to do. So that was the quickest way to get out of it.

I agree, there’s very notable filler on Sandinista! and London Calling. But I never listen to them as single songs, I try to take them as a whole. They’re both huge, enormous musical jungles with some weak material but with a lot of greatness in them. Just like Tusk and the Beatles' White Album are horns of plenty. You just miss something when you listen to them separately, you miss this huge epic statement they have. Stuff like “That’s All For Everyone” or “Honey Pie” or “If Music Could Talk” wouldn’t stand well on their own outside the context.

Yeah, yeah, I digressed.

Originally posted by sodascouts
Finally, defining "Femaleness" as something light, fluffy, glossy, something to be ashamed of.... that sounds so condescending towards women. I mean, I understand him liking a masculine sound BETTER, but does that mean that a "female" sound is only worthy of contempt?

I don’t think he’s necessarily speaking of Stevie’s and Chris’ songs here. I think he’s speaking of the ‘60s and ‘70s musical values and the general “sound” of those times. Acoustic instruments are usually described as light and feminine, electric instruments are usually described as powerful and masculine. Or that’s how I see it. It was very usual for many bands to fuse the two during the ‘60s and ‘70s. They sort of used them to balance things out. That’s how Lindsey started too, Buckingham Nicks has “Stephanie”, the White Album has “Crystal”, Rumours has “Never Going Back Again”.
I can understand that he temporarily wanted to dispose of his feminine side. With Tusk he felt the changing of the values that took place in rock music, even though those changes were felt much later in the mainstream. Robert Fripp and Peter Gabriel felt it on the other side of the Atlantic too. Here was new music, punk music, that didn’t rely on the usual female – male dichotomy that mainstream music had had. The times had changed, it was no longer the time to pretend you were a hippie in paradise. The new generation had a much more cynical outlook. It could express its rage directly but it could also do it more subtly. This is when Lindsey starts to approach tracks as sonic paintings rather than just mainly songwriting.

At the same time he alienated many of those listeners who were interested in his Rumours songs. He took a leftfield turn and harmed his career, perhaps unintentionally. It was obvious that the “adult-oriented” audience was not going to accept his work on Tusk and it was also obvious that the underground elite wasn’t interested in Lindsey Buckingham, the man who had been labelled as a “corporate rock sell-out”. This is also why Warners have been having a tough time marketing his solo career.

All the time I still find it ironic that the man who criticizes his biggest commercial success still has no problem with playing seven songs from it each night. That’s ballsy? Yeah right.

[CarneVaca]

Ooof... much ado here. Next thing you know, Lindsey is a full-blown mysogynist. Silly. He spoke without weighing his words.

For the most part, Rumours is musically a soft album. So what?

And by the way, Mozart would have said playing rock requires no talent.

[chiliD]

"It's nice, but it has too many notes"

"Fine, your majesty, you pick out the ones you don't like and I'll leave in the rest".

[jbrownsjr]

It's funny but I don't think his solo albums are all that harder than some FMac albums. More experimental maybe, but ballsier? Law and Order rarely finds it's way into my CD player. Go Insane has a few edgy solos as does Cradle, but these comps still have the same chord progressions as all his songs. I IV V (generally speaking). It ain't jazz and it certainly ain't metal.

Someone made the point that if it weren't for SNicks he might be as obsure as Bob Welch, that's arguably true. I think CMcVie's pop writing helped him as well. One of the harder FM songs World Turning was co-written w/ Christine.

If I didn't know who he was and picked up his solo stuff, I would not classify it as Hard Rock. Or even close to it.


Fact is, all three are excellent musicians that understood how to make money and put out decent pop. The chemistry and drama just was what it was. Enjoy LB!

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by face of glass
Hold your horses Nancy. If you don’t like The Clash, fine. I think they still are a well-known group. London Calling is always near the top of the list in rock critics’ album polls. And I do think they still have enough of a following so that if they were to release a new album now (which is utterly unlikely, due to Joe Strummer’s passing) it would probably be equal in sales to SYW.

Sure, they were and still are trendy among the hip elite. FM were trendy among their own clique too, until they began to sell too many records. My belief is that because of the current musical climate your “average” youngster is more likely to gravitate towards The Clash than FM. It’s Fleetwood Mac who are considered the old farts, stuff that only your parents and people older than that are likely to listen to. I know FM have attracted younger generation to them because of the Dance. But I believe that The Clash and FM are equal in popularity right now, even though it’s of a different kind.

Perhaps things are different overseas, but over here in America I think not, lol. I'm 29, and I'd say 85% of my peers couldn't name more than one song by The Clash, if that. That's not the case with Fleetwood Mac, thank goodness! As I said, perhaps things are different over where you are.

Originally posted by face of glass
Rumours is associated with the drama and I don’t think you can deny that.

Of course not. But it doesn't lower the music's quality. That stands on its own.

Originally posted by face of glass

I think he has his right to criticize the work completely. I agree with ChiliD’s point of Lindsey having the Pete Townshend syndrome. And hell, even Pete Townshend gets credit for other work. With Lindsey the average listener is most likely to recognize only the Rumours songs and “Big Love”, in the worst case only “Go Your Own Way”. Would most of them even know of “Trouble”? He has his right to complain in my opinion.

Does this mean we are basing our criticism of Rumours on the fact that it lessened the attention his solo work got, instead of its own value? Seems kind of unfair to me, but hey, I'll go along with it for argument's sake. Something tells me that if Rumours hadn't been as succesful, Lindsey would still be complaining, because his solo sales wouldn't have gone up. In fact, it's pretty safe to say they would have been less. And if this is indeed why Lindsey disses Rumours, it's not only unfair, but bitter and futile.

Originally posted by face of glass

I attest to that myself; that’s how I got into FM. I didn’t care for the drama, the music just spoke to me.
But what kind of fans does Rumours attract? The most popular line-up of Fleetwood Mac is classified as an “adult rock oriented” group or a “soft rock” band or something along those lines. That classification has always been false. Rumours attracts people because of its reputation, because of its huge sales and because of the stories that surround it. Again, you only hear this stuff in your classic rock radio and the target group of those is nostalgia-hungry people.

I got into FM by listening to a Houston Mix Station. "Silver Springs" came on and I was hooked. Went out and bought the Dance, then the Greatest Hits, all before I saw the Behind the Music that told me Stevie and Lindsey were once in a relationship that ended during Rumours, and that Christine and John McVie had gotten a divorce at the same time. I'm not sure as many people fit in the above categories as you might assume.

Originally posted by face of glass

I don’t think he’s necessarily speaking of Stevie’s and Chris’ songs here. I think he’s speaking of the ‘60s and ‘70s musical values and the general “sound” of those times. Acoustic instruments are usually described as light and feminine, electric instruments are usually described as powerful and masculine. Or that’s how I see it. It was very usual for many bands to fuse the two during the ‘60s and ‘70s. They sort of used them to balance things out. That’s how Lindsey started too, Buckingham Nicks has “Stephanie”, the White Album has “Crystal”, Rumours has “Never Going Back Again”. I can understand that he temporarily wanted to dispose of his feminine side.

Well, this does make sense, but it still bothers me that when he's looking for a perjorative to describe what's wrong with Rumours, he chooses the word "femaleness." Sorry if you guys think I'm overreacting.

Originally posted by face of glass

At the same time he alienated many of those listeners who were interested in his Rumours songs. He took a leftfield turn and harmed his career, perhaps unintentionally. It was obvious that the “adult-oriented” audience was not going to accept his work on Tusk and it was also obvious that the underground elite wasn’t interested in Lindsey Buckingham, the man who had been labelled as a “corporate rock sell-out”. This is also why Warners have been having a tough time marketing his solo career.

Aw. Poor Lindsey can't win.

Originally posted by face of glass
All the time I still find it ironic that the man who criticizes his biggest commercial success still has no problem with playing seven songs from it each night. That’s ballsy? Yeah right.

See above. Lindsey can't please everyone. Some criticize him for playing too many new songs, some criticize him for playing too many songs from Rumours. So he has a happy medium, but there will always be complainers. And yeah, I think Lindsey's pretty ballsy, but he is in a band and has other considerations besides his own desires to consider, you know. For example, "Second Hand News" was only added after Stevie dropped "Destiny Rules."

Originally posted byCarneVaca
Ooof... much ado here. Next thing you know, Lindsey is a full-blown mysogynist. Silly. He spoke without weighing his words.

Now, now, nobody said Lindsey was a woman-hater. I'm sure his words were not some kind of deliberate slap at women. I can't pretend it doesn't bother me, though, that this is how it occurs to him to define the problems of Rumours.

Oh well, I love him anyway. I guess it was just an off-day. Regardless of the reasons, this interview is LAME!

[Cammie]

The honest truth hurts!!!
Lindsey has lived a lie for long
enough and we think he's just
trying to be a "ballsy" man with
a wife and two kids and ... one
on the way and He Loves it!!!

Lindsey's not a boy-toy anymore!
Please let Lindsey be a Grown UP!

Rumours was Too Much- Too Soon!!!
The saddness of Mick &Stevie's affair,
the divorces and musical soap opera
perpetuation is old...very stale news!

Let the Music speak- not affairs!!!Sky

Don't throw things...but I agree with
the level headed! Enough already!

[4Buck]

>>>>Why do I have an inkling that Cammie is really Buckingham's old lady>>>>

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Cammie
The honest truth hurts!!!
Lindsey has lived a lie for long
enough and we think he's just
trying to be a "ballsy" man with
a wife and two kids and ... one
on the way and He Loves it!!!

Lived a lie? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you explain?

Originally posted by Cammie
Lindsey's not a boy-toy anymore!
Please let Lindsey be a Grown UP!

Who said he was a boy toy?

Originally posted by Cammie
Rumours was Too Much- Too Soon!!!
The saddness of Mick &Stevie's affair,
the divorces and musical soap opera
perpetuation is old...very stale news!

Let the Music speak- not affairs!!!Sky

Don't throw things...but I agree with
the level headed! Enough already!

That was my point, Sky. The music speaks, not the affairs, but Lindsey insists on attributing it to the affairs. But perhaps I've misunderstood your post - are you agreeing with me? I consider myself pretty level-headed, after all.

[Les]

Perhaps things are different overseas, but over here in America I think not, lol. I'm 29, and I'd say 85% of my peers couldn't name more than one song by The Clash, if that. That's not the case with Fleetwood Mac, thank goodness! As I said, perhaps things are different over where you are.

I think I would disagree with that. You and your friends may not know or like the Clash much, but (and this is not a dig at you and your friends) that may not be the broadest sampling of people from which to get ideas about what all Americans know and listen to. (I don't mean that to be rude; I hope it doesn't come across that way.) But I think The Clash is still held in very high regard by those people to whom that movement and that kind of music is very important.

The Clash were less popular than Fleetwood Mac, no doubt. But getting into popularity contests isn't really a way I would choose to define good or bad music. If you meet people who don't hold Fleetwood Mac in the highest regard, or any regard, do you stop liking the band because of it? I'm guessing not. Lindsey seems to have a great affection for The Clash and for what they represented at the time (shaking up the status quo) because it meant something very specific and important to him, and he's not going to stop feeling that way, nor should he. Should he?

[Les]

The other stuff... (trying to type at work without people peeking at my screen)...

"Just because Rumours sold what it sold doesn't mean I had complete regard for it as a work."

Some of that is simply Lindsey. He's a questioner, analyzer, worrier kind of person. It's not a reflection on you if he doesn't love the album as much as you want him to. Considering it's one of his "children", he probably loves it more than you do, but he's not going to say it that way because it's not what he's about as an artist. (He's offered and accepted criticism of all of the albums, Tusk included.)

But I can't say that I find that to be a particularly scathing indictment anyway. Lindsey has said a number of times that it's a good piece of work which he likes a lot, though he knows he's more critical of it than many because it didn't cover all of the ground he wanted it to.

I might suspect he views that time in the band as one when he was desperately unhappy and also still too insecure to really speak up how he wanted to for all of the things what he wanted to do. (Yes, the image of Lindsey as Master Ego has been cemented in the minds of many, but he's discussed having to really summon up the courage to talk to Mick as they started Tusk and not be intimidated into thinking he was wrong just because it wasn't what Mick had on his mind.) All of that, including frustration with himself may color his perceptions of the album as he looks back as well.

Should he back down from his personal view that it is not "The Best Fleetwood Mac Album Ever" (as so many say because it did sell so many millions) if he doesn't truly think it is their best album ever? He wouldn't make his counter-point so often if he weren't constantly confronted with that original opinion in the first place.

For his tastes, the music of it was too often overshadowed by interband drama stories. Is his position unreasonable when nearly every single interviewer asks him about it and every article on the band even in 2003/2004 still takes the time to recount the drama and skip almost every other aspect of their musical history? That can't help but leave in impression on him that that is of the utmost interest beyond all else.

It was the interviewer who characterized Lindsey's reservations as what was "wrong" with the album. Did he actually pose that exact question ("What was wrong with it?") to Lindsey to elicit that response? Who knows? The quotes at the end about his family and the quote about Stevie don't exactly flow easily from the setup that preceded them. I can't imagine that what the writer wrote in those passages is actually what he said to Lindsey to elicit those responses. The writer summarized some things he said and selected other things to quote him directly. The quotes always leave a greater impact than the summaries. But look at the summaries to see things that Lindsey must have expressed that counter-balance the quotes used.

As for taking offense at the "femaleness" comments. I am a feminist and I can empathize with the touchiness, but I think there is an awful lot read into that statement that wasn't there. Gaius made some good points. Come to think of it, I've seen a lot of criticism of Say You Will as too "masculine" on these very Ledge boards. I would be curious to know if those were meant or viewed as deep personal cuts at the men in the band or men in general.

All of this reminds me of an older Lindsey interview where he discusses how he was a little wary about the white album. He said that when it went to pressing he had a conversation with Stevie in which he expressed his concern that it was "too light, too soft". He said she told him he was worrying too much and it would be great. He said something to the effect that "she was right, but I still always yearned for a rawer sound than Stevie did."

[chiliD]

Sure, the Clash get labeled as a "punk" band, but they got out of that genre fairly early on in their career, just as Fleetwood Mac left "the blues" behind.

Listen to tracks like:
Should I Stay Or Should I Go?
Rock The Casbah
London Calling
Train In Vain
Lost In The Supermarket
Somebody Got Murdered
Brand New Cadillac
Charlie Don't Surf
Hitsville UK
Police On My Back

even early harder tunes like:
Safe European Home
Tommy Gun
Julie's Been Working For The Drug Squad

They're not close to "punk" as I would define the genre. Those I mention range from straight ahead rock to pop to reggae...the Clash were definitely hindered by the "punk" tag, I think.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Les
I think I would disagree with that. You and your friends may not know or like the Clash much, but (and this is not a dig at you and your friends) that may not be the broadest sampling of people from which to get ideas about what all Americans know and listen to. (I don't mean that to be rude; I hope it doesn't come across that way.) But I think The Clash is still held in very high regard by those people to whom that movement and that kind of music is very important.

I see what you're saying, but I'm pretty confident in my assertion with regard to the majority of under-30s (although I won't be in that group much longer!)

Originally posted by Les
The Clash were less popular than Fleetwood Mac, no doubt. But getting into popularity contests isn't really a way I would choose to define good or bad music. If you meet people who don't hold Fleetwood Mac in the highest regard, or any regard, do you stop liking the band because of it? I'm guessing not. Lindsey seems to have a great affection for The Clash and for what they represented at the time (shaking up the status quo) because it meant something very specific and important to him, and he's not going to stop feeling that way, nor should he. Should he?

Oh, of course he shouldn't stop liking them. He should, however, quit using them as his example of everything experimental about music and what he wishes he were, in my humble opinion. Surely he can think of someone a little more recent? He sounds kind of "stuck in a moment" [1979-1982] when he keeps bringing them up again and again. When he mentioned in interview in the early 80s, understandable. When he's still saying it in 2004... I would say it's time to retire that horse. It just doesn't pack the same punch as it did back in the day.

[Les]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Oh, of course he shouldn't stop liking them. He should, however, quit using them as his example of everything experimental about music and what he wishes he were, in my humble opinion. Surely he can think of someone a little more recent?

Well, the article starts with a big intro about Lindsey in 1977 and then segues into him saying that he "would have" liked to have been in the Clash. I didn't think he was citing The Clash as the ultimate in experimental music today, or even that he wants to be in them today. But back then, in the time period being discussed, that band had that kind of big impact on him.

Maybe I just read that differently from you.

He sounds kind of "stuck in a moment" [1979-1982] when he keeps bringing them up again and again. When he mentioned in interview in the early 80s, understandable. When he's still saying it in 2004... I would say it's time to retire that horse. It just doesn't pack the same punch as it did back in the day.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but haven't you poked some fun at Lindsey in the past year when he has named bands he's currently interested in? I thought it was you, but maybe it was someone else who said he was trying too hard to appear contemporary and hip by talking about the White Stripes and some other artists of today? I'm not bagging on you if you feel that way, it just seems kind of contradictory to your point above.

[CarneVaca]

Les, you basically made all the points that I didn't have the patience to make when I saw the reaction to the comments. And then some.

I think "femaleness" was an unfortunate choice of words. But I completely understand what he means.

Also, it may not be the case now, but at one point the Clash was considered far more influential than Fleetwood Mac. I bet in the 80s you would find not one of the younger bands that would have admitted to having been influenced or inspired by the Mac. I say "admitted" in light of the Camper Van Beethoven episode. Turns out those guys were closet admirers of Lindsey Buckingham, not quite Fleetwood Mac. Still, at one point it was uncool to like Fleetwood Mac. It's never been uncool to like the Clash. And to dismiss punk as being a talentless art form is, well, just unfortunate. But I already made that point with my Mozart comment.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Les
Tell me if I'm wrong, but haven't you poked some fun at Lindsey in the past year when he has named bands he's currently interested in? I thought it was you, but maybe it was someone else who said he was trying too hard to appear contemporary and hip by talking about the White Stripes and some other artists of today? I'm not bagging on you if you feel that way, it just seems kind of contradictory to your point above.

You know, as I wrote it, I thought "People might think I am being hypocritical because I made fun of Lindsey thinking Eminem was cool." (this was actually over a year ago - you have a good memory!) And I admit that DOES sound bad. Here's how my reasoning went on that, though - I felt Lindsey had picked out someone trendy to gush about rather than someone talented. His comment praising Eminem as "doing something really important" seemed more of a political statement than anything else - at the time it was quite vogue to express support of the oh-so-oppressed Eminem, whom people wanted to censor. (I'm not for censorship, but I do think there's a defensive element that believes if something is being censored, it therefore is genius. Not always the case, folks.) I think there's a difference between being "recent" and being "trendy."

However, I guess I should cut Lindsey a little more slack. Maybe he really does buy into Eminem, and if so, well, I can't really say anything to that, lol. It's a whole 'nother can of worms. As for his Clash comment - there are worse things he could do besides repeat for 25 years that he wishes he'd been in the Clash, but I still can't help but think it a bit lame. Oh well! I'll let it rest.