Tusk Survivor - FINAL ROUND

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Vocally, she was much better during the Dance than this tour.

I LOVED her on The Dance tour.

As I've said a million times, something about Stevie's voice left her around 2000 and she's never recovered from it. It all went downhill with the TISL. While there are plenty of moments where she shines these days, there's still something missing. It went from being a powerful, strong instrument to being a rather weak tool. I think that she probably just damaged it pretty bad while continuing to tour while sick in '01.

[face of glass]

Yeah, yeah, I said "tomorrow", right? Procrastinator struck again.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

...you are hard headed...

Traditional Finnish qualities. Take 'em or leave 'em.

This whole thing is about comparison. I thought you knew that because you participated and you did just that in your meandering post, in case you did not notice...

No, I did not notice. Please point out where I exactly said something like that, or where you interpreted what I said the way you did.
I never said "IKINW" is more complex than "Storms", I suggested that it is as complex as "Storms" but in its own way.
I never criticized "Storms" in this thread anyway, unless saying that another song might be as complex as "Storms" is an obvious critique and therefore an insult to the winner of this survivor.

...their comparison and opinion differs from you to the point where you apparently are shocked or appalled into rolling your eyes...

What had me rolling my eyes was the context in which you represented the following:

I just do not know how people can say the following:
[lyrics]
which is beautifully orchestrated and sung in THAT voice (earnest, pleading, frail, strong, and so on
IS NOT HEADS AND SHOULDERS ABOVE:
[lyrics]
which is good and has a clever hook and use of horns - but in no way comparable to Storms from a musical or lyrical point of view.

This statement to me seemed to be as if you were saying it as a fact ["I just do not know how people can say the following"]. Now that you've even later underlined that you can objectively prove "Storms" is musically more complex than "IKINW" then I guess you're sticking to your position. I can't change it and I'm not trying to.
But yes, for a moment I lost control there. I was in sheer rage. I ran across the lawn naked and hit my head to a flagpole. Then I came back and let that influence my post. Gerald came in and spoke with far more tact than I did, in spite of sharing similar feelings. That's another reason for me to respect him.
And another thing I was irritated by was Christopher's assessment of "Storms" being a "heavy important song" as opposed to the "fluff" of "I Know I'm Not Wrong". As someone who believes that all human emotions are as equal, worthy, deep and complex as any then I was naturally offended by that.
My belief is that "Baby...One More Time" is as deep as "Stairway To Heaven" (people's understanding of a Grande Rock Epic) or "Storms". I believe that "That's Enough For Me" in its two minutes tells us as much of life as Wagner's "Parsifal". If one piece is lengthier than another it doesn't necessarily mean that it is then of grander importance than the other. Of course "TEFM" lacks the epic qualities of a Wagner monument, but then "Parsifal" lacks the up-to-point qualities in "TEFM"; the sharp attack and the sudden uplifting burst that it has because of its very shortness. "That's Enough For Me" is a random glimpse into the mind, a "flash of emotion" (as Les would put it); it tells me as much of Lindsey as an opera concentrating on the story of his life would (and hasn't he been trying to do something like that anyway, with those Wagnerian leitmotifs and all ).
Of course, some are irritated by the fact that I'm comparing a Britney Spears song to a Stevie Nicks song. But then, it isn't all that easy to craft what I call a "perfect pop song". Take a random bunch of those traditional lyrical cliches and combine them into one banal piece of pop; it wouldn't probably work. It takes a lot of vision to make something that works out of those cliches and then put that into a musical framework. Everyone has their own preferences here, of what works for them. Personally I'm not interested in Britney outside "B...OTM" at all. But what I'm trying to say here anyway is that a line like "I must confess, that my loneliness, is killing me now" isn't any more complex than anything that's in "Storms", but that's only when you take these things in their musical context. And that Stevie being frail in "Storms" isn't any less artistically deep than the mild lust that Britney conveys in "B...OTM". This was once again in reply to Christopher's arguments, not to yours Jason. I don't know if you share the same opinions or not. (But then again, the your latest comment on "fun, happy choruses" would hint at that. What if some people start stating that "fun, happy choruses" are shallow and that the "serious" emotions conveyed through music are the ultimate in all art? That's when I will always step up and protest.)

As for Storms being more complex, the layered vocals, the vocal structure itself, the lyrics themselves, the somewhat syncopated style, the soft drumming, LB's (apparently) beautiful arangement, the vocal (all 12 or so layers of them), her complex harmony structure (which I cannot imagine how long it took her to come with that yet people who never sang harmony in thier lives think it just happens ), and the lack of the collegiate band horn section repeating the same hook over and over again all go a long way in expressing yearning, frailty, passion, wanting, and any other purient emotion Storms CLEARLY conveys and all of which make it more complex than IKINW, which I love BTW.

Edward Macan:
"Another potential pitfall of traditional musicology is that while its existing models of musical analysis are quite successful in demonstrating how specific examples of Western art music work on a purely musical basis, they are usually inadequate for a comprehensive analysis of non-Western music or Western popular music. The reason is that these analytical methods tend to focus on those features of the music that the European system of notation can capture with fidelity: harmony, melody, meter and large-scale structure. The timbral and rhythmic subtleties that are a major - often the major - attribute of non-Western musics or Western popular music tend to be ignored, since these musical parameters cannot adequately be conveyed by the European notational system. This state of affairs has led to the frequently heard comparisons of Western art music's 'richness' and 'complexity' with the 'simplicity', even 'banality', of other styles - when, in fact, use of a different analytical system that is not so completely tied to Western art music might lead to a very different set of conclusions."

So yeah. We're speaking of two pieces of Western popular music here, but then how different is your description from the usual accusations of classical music being more complex (and therefore, better) than popular music?
In fact, what you wrote down there is something you can't convey in notation. Sure, you can write stuff like "adagio moderato ridiculementi" down there, but even then that little guiding of the musician is always an interpretative matter.
How would you get me convinced here? Take "Storms" and "I Know I'm Not Wrong" to a musicologist, have him/her analyse the tracks' contents both traditionally and then taking those timbral & rhythmic subtleties into account and bring those results to me. Because to me what you wrote down is no musicological analysis, it's pure fan talk, just like what I did with "IKINW", isn't it?
Things like "soft drumming" and "beautiful arrangement" are certainly subjective, even the former because the definitions of 'soft' and 'hard' vary from person to person.
Just as subjective is the statement of "Storms" expressing qualities of "yearning, frailty, passion, wanting" etc. That's something we fans once again pick upon when we have listened to a certain song for some time. Sometimes we might notice those qualities immediately (due to our own experiences), but how about an average listener? He/she might think it's just a sad song, that's all. And we certainly can guess that an academic wouldn't bring those possible existing qualities up when giving a musicological analysis of "Storms" to us.

YOu know all of this reminds me of Carne's whole "I can say objectively this song is better than that and its not a subjective opinion" argument about a year and a half ago Can something on its face objectively be muscially moew complex and even better I say yes, and Storms is. So sue me

Ah, so Carne actually won an argument back then and you're following his footsteps here.

Alright, I give in. "Storms" is more complex. In professional terms. After all, there's a real drummer in there, and other real musicians who have music as their full-time jobs, instead of Lindsey's amateurish playing on "IKINW". And yeah, I suppose even me, as a musically untrained person, can say "Storms" has a more complex harmony than "IKINW". The latter is what a musicologist could prove us too, even though the chord structures in both songs might have been the usual to begin with (excuse me if I'm wrong here, I'm just an oik).

But then this seems to be all about professionalism to you Jason. That if something is professionally done and is therefore executed in a more complex way than something by a bunch of amateurs playing in a garage, then I guess it is preferable to you (provided that you don't have an emotional connection to any of the latter).

Lindsey went for his own version of punk music on Tusk. That didn't involve collective band-playing. The rest of Fleetwood Mac were professionals at that point, they clearly knew how to make the most out of their playing skills that are limited, but still subtle (when they want them to be subtle, that is). Punk itself was about amateurism, about abandoning the whole rock star myth of the '70s, at first that involved getting rid of any unnecessary finesse and "real musician posturing". That was one reason for Lindsey to perform the rhythm tracks on Tusk himself (or, as Gerald once pointed out, 'educating' Mick and John so that they wouldn't play like they had played before).
This particular brand of amateurism was especially appropriate with expressing the naivety (or childishness) and the sense of freedom that these musicians felt, after having realized that one doesn't have to practice pentatonic scales on a guitar for years in order to make music.
Yet a few people here sometimes claim that it was Lindsey's ego-a-talkin' when he chose to record his tracks on Tusk on his own.

Since I believe that "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is about rediscovering one's inner child, finding that all-important naivety that at least I look for in life, then it certainly would be inappropriate for me if Mick and John came in and threw their subtle chops on the album version, or Christine added one of her fine rhythmic figures in.
The intentional clumsiness (because it sounds clumsy, even though it's played to a click track) of the cardboard box drumming only underlines the bottom emotions that he wants to communicate to us.
He chose to use minimal lyrics as is typical of his tracks on the album, also. Why would an inner child need such fine words and frills and stuff? Even if he had as fine a lyrical skill as Stevie (which he doesn't), I still daresay that he wouldn't have added any more lyrics to the whole thing.
And I mean, why should he have? Everything else he needs to add comes through the music as well.
I also fail to see how repeating a hook makes a song automatically less complex. After all, "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is only three minutes long, unlike "Storms" (which some could describe as meandering, also).
Why would people want to get back to a childish state of mind anyway? Possibly because they've been hurt badly or because they feel they've done something wrong. That's something that the insistency of "IKINW" tries to escape from, just like "Storms" is escapism in itself.
In the case of "I Know I'm Not Wrong", the notes, chords and rhythms are fairly simple but the emotions that come through the music are pretty complex. "That's enough for me".

I think inferior vs. superior arguments should be restrcited to those who can argue then solely from an objective point of view because the minute people start saying "I like it better" it becomes subjective and then everyone is correct IMO

I also don't think either of us has shown more objectivity than the other here. My problem was not your preference of "Storms" over "IKINW", my problem was that you said it's more complex than "IKINW" without explaining that you meant complexity in professionalism.

I also think it is very interesting that NONE of the vocal IKINW people can even congratulate Stevie on the victory...

Of course it seems like I'm trying to patch a hole when half of the wall has been torn down. But my sincere congratulations to "Storms" for its victory. It's not in my holy 12 of the album, but a worthy, personal track it is all the same. I do not congratulate Stevie Nicks though, I congratulate the Fleetwood Mac that made Tusk for this. To me this was about tracks, not songs.

Now Now - sour grapes are never pretty - even if they are Finnish.

Well we can always go to the FM Drama board and start the "Has the Finnish butthead at last totally lost it?" thread.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Gaius and I have had this discussion before, and there are times when I think experimentalism (is that a word?!) benefits the song, and brings it to even higher levels of greatness.
And then there are times when I think hitting a box of tissues is done just to do something "different," and doesn't aid the song itself in any way.

I guess one thing that still humours me a little here is that I don't even find Lindsey's Tusk material all that experimental. What I write now is the longer version (as usual ) of what David pointed out in the "Master Of Tusk" thread anyway.

Look at what was released in the year of Tusk and in the year preceding it. In 1978 we had Suicide's debut album which mainly consisted of cheap drum machine beats and keyboard drones. On the longest cut of the album, "Frankie Teardrop", Alan Vega gives us a bleak story of an industrial worker. In the middle of it he lets out two agonizing screams that symbolize Frankie killing his wife and himself. They are distorted and echoed to such a point that anyone would feel uncomfortable. After those screams the track descends into an aural hell where industrial noises collide with more ethereal ones.
Or take Pere Ubu's The Modern Dance, it opens with a feedback drone over which we get a traditional Chuck Berry riff, but also a squealing synthesizer and a bleating, totally demented vocal.

Looking into the United Kingdom of 1979, the closing track of Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures is "I Remember Nothing"; built on a repetitive drum beat, a scratchy guitar, keyboard drones and various synthesized noises, over which Ian Curtis sings lyrics like "violent, more violent/his hand cracks the chair/moves on reaction/then slumps in despair".
Public Image Ltd's "Careering" features modulated Oberheim synthesizer noises on top of a repetitive dub bass line and synth-drum crashes. Not forgetting John Lydon's wails (which certainly didn't resemble his Sex Pistols voice that much anymore): "I've been careering/across the border/is this living/both sides of the river/there is bacteria/armoured machinery mangled".
Or "A Touching Display" from Wire's 154 album that features hellish synthesizer, bass and guitar feedback for seven minutes while one of the coldest vocals known to man ruminates over a love affair gone bad (but again, it's the context that makes those lyrics perverted).
No, these albums didn't sell that much initially but some of them managed respectful chart positions in the bands' homelands (better than OOTC in USA or UK, anyway). And we are speaking of material that continues to inspire musicians to this day, and still attract new listeners in a way similar to Tusk, and perhaps in similar amounts to Tusk (after the initial burst of sales and hype died away, I mean).

Of course, there are a few more accessible tracks on these albums, but even then to me they do not appear to be any more inaccessible than Lindsey's most esoteric Tusk material.
And even then, I do not think the examples I gave are all that experimental. I mean, there's no intentional freakish noise all over the place like with Cabaret Voltaire, Throbbing Gristle or the New York noise artists of the time. There's vocal tracks, there's good songwriting within traditional song structures, but the tracks in general are disturbing expressions directly from the human psyche.

But then I guess David was right with that description of his about the American mainstream of the time. Lindsey didn't even have to adopt the nihilism, inherent cynicism and coldness of the general post-punk environment (Tony Wilson's description: punk was about saying "F*ck you", post-punk was about saying "I'm f*cked") that had arrived to the underground after the first blast of punkish rage. A band like Talking Heads was generally approved of, though, they had the experimentalism of post-punk but lacked the "self-destructive" tendencies. And so does Lindsey's Tusk material; the overall atmosphere is nowhere near as off-putting as the underground acts could have it.
So to me it isn't really surprising that some people who have grown up with what's been played on the American radio for the last 30 years would find Lindsey's Tusk contributions off-putting and even experimental for the sake of being experimental. To be sure, they may have started to appreciate this material over time, but then that's a process that I think mainly fans have really gone through.

Personally I suppose some of these people (not necessarily you, Johnny) are not fond of the far more direct emotional communication that punk and new wave in general offered, as opposed to the layered, more virtuoso and professional approach of the rest of the '70s.
Because that is what Lindsey took as his ideological guideline for his tracks, yet I don't think the results are any less complex or sophisticated (or even worse!) than what the earlier professionalism of the '70s had given to us.

And still Johnny, I must point out that you're still thinking of Lindsey in terms of songs. While I find that completely understandable, I can't do that myself. To me, when it comes to Buckingham and Nicks it's not as much as what they write than how they present what they write to me. I agree partly with that short snippet from Head Heritage's review on Tusk that I quoted in this thread; I do not find Stevie a tremendously original lyricist. It's all about the way she sings those things to me, the way how she conveys the life she's lived through her voice and makes me understand her, even though I wouldn't know every detail of everything she's been through.
And Lindsey, what he lacks vocally and lyrically, he conveys through the means of instruments. I do not need songs myself when an aural collage can express powerful emotions all in itself. I actually believe that he doesn't necessarily always start studio work on a song that he's written beforehand; he might come up with a song structure of sorts in the studio around some experiment that he's been working on.

Lindsey's and Stevie's vulnerable sides are once again audible on Tusk, maybe the most audible they have ever been. And at its darkest, in spite of being influenced by it, the album never gives in to the pessimism of the underground of the time. Which is all fine and good. The war is over, remember?

[strandinthewind]

My Lord - you are so five minutes ago

BTW - in college and in a bold and clearly ambitious move, I auditioned for the part of Amfortas in Parsifal. I was rejected based on both objective and subjective analysis - and they were correct as I was clearly never meant for that role!!!!!!!!

But, the thought of being carried in nude on a litter on the way to bathe my wounds was too much to resist

AND - solely because they rejected me and therefore had no talent - the production never took off!!!!! Such is life

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

My Lord - you are so five minutes ago

You know I love you and your posts Jason, I'm just some nutcase far away. It's all ego-ridden stuff, don't take it too seriously.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by face of glass

You know I love you and your posts Jason, I'm just some nutcase far away. It's all ego-ridden stuff, don't take it too seriously.

I know - AND you are just one loon talking to another - AND if Dissention joins in - it is a trio of loons, which should be enough for lunatic conversation by we three loons of the Ledge!!!!!

[amber]

Originally Posted by face of glass

So to me it isn't really surprising that some people who have grown up with what's been played on the American radio for the last 30 years
Personally I suppose some of these people (not necessarily you, Johnny) are not fond of the far more direct emotional communication that punk and new wave in general offered, as opposed to the layered, more virtuoso and professional approach of the rest of the '70s.

I am one of these people, although I don't think it really applies to Lindsey's Tusk tracks as much - I think punk and new wave was not just more direct, but also often "sounded crappy" and "didn't make me happy" and it's really as simple as that. I just don't like to listen to things that aren't melodic, are (sometimes) barely rhythmic, and that talk about dark, dark, nasty things that make me upset or sad. It's really that simple, to me. It's like, also, I tend not to prefer slow atonal things....

The rest of your post was well thought out and well written and gave me something to think about...even though it was so five minutes ago..
AMber

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by face of glass

I guess one thing that still humours me a little here is that I don't even find Lindsey's Tusk material all that experimental. What I write now is the longer version (as usual ) of what David pointed out in the "Master Of Tusk" thread anyway.

Look at what was released in the year of Tusk and in the year preceding it. In 1978 we had Suicide's debut album which mainly consisted of cheap drum machine beats and keyboard drones. On the longest cut of the album, "Frankie Teardrop", Alan Vega gives us a bleak story of an industrial worker. In the middle of it he lets out two agonizing screams that symbolize Frankie killing his wife and himself. They are distorted and echoed to such a point that anyone would feel uncomfortable. After those screams the track descends into an aural hell where industrial noises collide with more ethereal ones.
Or take Pere Ubu's The Modern Dance, it opens with a feedback drone over which we get a traditional Chuck Berry riff, but also a squealing synthesizer and a bleating, totally demented vocal.

Looking into the United Kingdom of 1979, the closing track of Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures is "I Remember Nothing"; built on a repetitive drum beat, a scratchy guitar, keyboard drones and various synthesized noises, over which Ian Curtis sings lyrics like "violent, more violent/his hand cracks the chair/moves on reaction/then slumps in despair".
Public Image Ltd's "Careering" features modulated Oberheim synthesizer noises on top of a repetitive dub bass line and synth-drum crashes. Not forgetting John Lydon's wails (which certainly didn't resemble his Sex Pistols voice that much anymore): "I've been careering/across the border/is this living/both sides of the river/there is bacteria/armoured machinery mangled".
Or "A Touching Display" from Wire's 154 album that features hellish synthesizer, bass and guitar feedback for seven minutes while one of the coldest vocals known to man ruminates over a love affair gone bad (but again, it's the context that makes those lyrics perverted).
No, these albums didn't sell that much initially but some of them managed respectful chart positions in the bands' homelands (better than OOTC in USA or UK, anyway). And we are speaking of material that continues to inspire musicians to this day, and still attract new listeners in a way similar to Tusk, and perhaps in similar amounts to Tusk (after the initial burst of sales and hype died away, I mean).

Of course, there are a few more accessible tracks on these albums, but even then to me they do not appear to be any more inaccessible than Lindsey's most esoteric Tusk material.
And even then, I do not think the examples I gave are all that experimental. I mean, there's no intentional freakish noise all over the place like with Cabaret Voltaire, Throbbing Gristle or the New York noise artists of the time. There's vocal tracks, there's good songwriting within traditional song structures, but the tracks in general are disturbing expressions directly from the human psyche.

But then I guess David was right with that description of his about the American mainstream of the time. Lindsey didn't even have to adopt the nihilism, inherent cynicism and coldness of the general post-punk environment (Tony Wilson's description: punk was about saying "F*ck you", post-punk was about saying "I'm f*cked") that had arrived to the underground after the first blast of punkish rage. A band like Talking Heads was generally approved of, though, they had the experimentalism of post-punk but lacked the "self-destructive" tendencies. And so does Lindsey's Tusk material; the overall atmosphere is nowhere near as off-putting as the underground acts could have it.
So to me it isn't really surprising that some people who have grown up with what's been played on the American radio for the last 30 years would find Lindsey's Tusk contributions off-putting and even experimental for the sake of being experimental. To be sure, they may have started to appreciate this material over time, but then that's a process that I think mainly fans have really gone through.

Personally I suppose some of these people (not necessarily you, Johnny) are not fond of the far more direct emotional communication that punk and new wave in general offered, as opposed to the layered, more virtuoso and professional approach of the rest of the '70s.
Because that is what Lindsey took as his ideological guideline for his tracks, yet I don't think the results are any less complex or sophisticated (or even worse!) than what the earlier professionalism of the '70s had given to us.

And still Johnny, I must point out that you're still thinking of Lindsey in terms of songs. While I find that completely understandable, I can't do that myself. To me, when it comes to Buckingham and Nicks it's not as much as what they write than how they present what they write to me. I agree partly with that short snippet from Head Heritage's review on Tusk that I quoted in this thread; I do not find Stevie a tremendously original lyricist. It's all about the way she sings those things to me, the way how she conveys the life she's lived through her voice and makes me understand her, even though I wouldn't know every detail of everything she's been through.
And Lindsey, what he lacks vocally and lyrically, he conveys through the means of instruments. I do not need songs myself when an aural collage can express powerful emotions all in itself. I actually believe that he doesn't necessarily always start studio work on a song that he's written beforehand; he might come up with a song structure of sorts in the studio around some experiment that he's been working on.

I'd say poor the man a Jack and say he's right.

Lindsey's and Stevie's vulnerable sides are once again audible on Tusk, maybe the most audible they have ever been. And at its darkest, in spite of being influenced by it, the album never gives in to the pessimism of the underground of the time.

Cheers, mate. This is touching the heart of what I hear when i'm enjoying Tusk.

[Mari]

I'm not going to re-quote everything that Gerald just did,
just to Gaius

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by face of glass

Pere Ubu
Joy Division
Public Image Ltd
Wire
Talking Heads

Thank you for mentioning these bands. They are some of my favorites. And puttting Lindsey Buckingham next to them does add perspective in the sense that he's no mere pop star, he's an experimental genius much akin to them. Add his studio genius to his creative music-making artistry and you have a truly unstoppable musician who is not only a jack-of-all-trades, but a MASTER at his musical endeavors. Tusk is proof of that. Long live Tusk!

[Mari]

just jealous, aren't you

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Mari

just jealous, aren't you

Originally Posted by Lux

Well he is my husband. I mean, in fairness to myself.

That's it. We're now taking this to FM Drama, you two.

[Mari]

Sounds fine. After all, if we were to have our little b*tch fight here, all you'd see of it would be stars anyway.