Big Love Live

[Neal]

Hi all-
I was just watching The Dance this evening, and it occured to me that I'm pretty damn tired of Lindsey's accoustic (spastic) version of this song. Don't get me wrong, he's still a genious and all that, and the acoustic version was awesome at first, but it's beginning to wear thin. Does anyone else think he should plug back in, add a little keyboards and give us a closer approximation of the studio version? Also, I'd love to see him and Stevie trading "oh, ah's" on stage... :D I apologize if this had been brought up already, but I got so annoyed I had to skip the song and vent...

[strandinthewind]

The version he and Stevie did on Letterman with Stevie on a very very high harmony during the "BIG BIG LOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEE" part was the one of the best things they have ever done IMO. So, I think they should do it that way always.

[Neal]

You're right, that version rocked!!! I'd hoped they would perform it that way for the tour, as I saw the Letterman performance before any of the shows I attended. But no.... :(

[jwd]

I'm with ya Neal. Plug the damn thing back in. Not that the acoustic version is bad, but just worn a little thin. And I just want to hear it "live", like it was on the record. ;) :D


Joe

[seteca]

Originally posted by Neal
Does anyone else think he should plug back in, add a little keyboards and give us a closer approximation of the studio version? Also, I'd love to see him and Stevie trading "oh, ah's" on stage... :D

YES!!!:nod:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[joe]

Originally posted by jwd
I'm with ya Neal. Plug the damn thing back in. Not that the acoustic version is bad, but just worn a little thin. And I just want to hear it "live", like it was on the record. ;) :D


Joe

i think Neal was insinuating (-sp?) that he liked the acoustic Letterman performance....

sorry....i think....Neal???

[joe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
The version he and Stevie did on Letterman with Stevie on a very very high harmony during the "BIG BIG LOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEE" part was the one of the best things they have ever done IMO. So, I think they should do it that way always.

that performance is so freaking classic it's disgusting....how about those twirls Stevie did at the end? Those harmonies were perfect....they give me chills. I'm going to have to go dig that video out....i had wished they had done that on tour too. Unfortunately, they seem to really only pull out the REAL punches when the camera's on.

[joe]

Originally posted by jwd
I'm with ya Neal. Plug the damn thing back in. Not that the acoustic version is bad, but just worn a little thin. And I just want to hear it "live", like it was on the record. ;) :D


Joe Originally posted by joe
i think Neal was insinuating (-sp?) that he liked the acoustic Letterman performance....

sorry....i think....Neal???

my bad....i got confused....first Neal said he wanted the plugged in version but he did like the Letterman performance and had hoped (-?) they would do it that way on tour.

:sorry:

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by Neal
Hi all-
I was just watching The Dance this evening, and it occured to me that I'm pretty damn tired of Lindsey's accoustic (spastic) version of this song. Don't get me wrong, he's still a genious and all that, and the acoustic version was awesome at first, but it's beginning to wear thin. Does anyone else think he should plug back in, add a little keyboards and give us a closer approximation of the studio version? Also, I'd love to see him and Stevie trading "oh, ah's" on stage... :D I apologize if this had been brought up already, but I got so annoyed I had to skip the song and vent...

For what it's worth, UK tribute band "Rumours Of Fleetwood Mac" do a 'Tango In The Night'-era arrangement of it live. Fleetwood Bac's Lindsey does it solo. We (Fleetfoot Mike) don't do it (although Tim (our Mick) can actually play the acoustic version, talented b*****d that he is ;) :))

[ricohv]

Ah yes...that Letterman performance was IMO one of the finest live performances on a TV show I've ever seen them (solo or as the Mac) do. I've lost my MP3 of this and can't remember where it originally came from to request it again. Anyone have it and want to send (please please please..to [email protected]).
Thanks, Ricoh

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by ricohv
Ah yes...that Letterman performance was IMO one of the finest live performances on a TV show I've ever seen them (solo or as the Mac) do. I've lost my MP3 of this and can't remember where it originally came from to request it again. Anyone have it and want to send (please please please..to [email protected]).
Thanks, Ricoh

Me too at [email protected]

Mucho Gracias!!!!

[gldstwmn]

I'd love to hear an electric Big Love live. The Letterman performance is a classic and Stevie is wearing RED!

[Neal]

Originally posted by joe
my bad....i got confused....first Neal said he wanted the plugged in version but he did like the Letterman performance and had hoped (-?) they would do it that way on tour.

:sorry:

Lol... No worries joe. While I DO prefer the Letterman performance to what's being done now, a full on electric version is what I'd like to see on the next leg of the tour in spring '04 :)

[face of glass]

Yes, plug it in (even though that acoustic guitar is actually plugged in already). It would work well with the additional guitarists. Carlos for the acoustic and Neale for the "percussive" electric. Let Stevie catch something inside her throat again! ;)

[BlueGrass]

NOOOOOOOO WAYYYYYYYYY.

This song never gets boring live, it is so powerfull and full of energy today. Plus, this song was a Lindsey solo in the first place so it has some significance because it was his last single with The Mac. Just listen to his speech about it before he played it on the Dance.

[CarneVaca]

Are you guys high?

Keep it solo acoustic as is.

Damn, man, that's a no-brainer.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by BlueGrass
Plus, this song was a Lindsey solo in the first place so it has some significance because it was his last single with The Mac. Just listen to his speech about it before he played it on the Dance.

Of course he doesn’t want to remember the ”after-the-fact” release of ”Family Man”. ;)


Originally posted by CarneVaca
Keep it solo acoustic as is.

Damn, man, that's a no-brainer.

The tour versions of nearly every song have been interchangeable with each other. Nowhere is it as audible as on this one. Why doesn't he play it from the cd then? Or why doesn't he have notation in front of him? Wouldn't make any noticeable difference.

[Cammie]

:wavey: We like the soft, tender, love grunts of
the "original version"!Not screaming!:cool:Sky;)

[Neal]

Originally posted by Cammie
:wavey: We like the soft, tender, love grunts of
the "original version"!Not screaming!:cool:Sky;)

My point exactly! I love LB's intensity, but in some cases he goes overboard. Acoustic Big Love is one of those cases...

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by face of glass
Of course he doesn’t want to remember the ”after-the-fact” release of ”Family Man”. ;)




The tour versions of nearly every song have been interchangeable with each other. Nowhere is it as audible as on this one. Why doesn't he play it from the cd then? Or why doesn't he have notation in front of him? Wouldn't make any noticeable difference.

If it ain't broke...

[face of glass]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If it ain't broke...

...then you might as well put on a wig and a tux. And please use a sequencer; imperfections in the track hurt the ears of the highly cultivated audience.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by face of glass
...then you might as well put on a wig and a tux. And please use a sequencer; imperfections in the track hurt the ears of the highly cultivated audience.

Methinks though hath contradicted thyself. Earlier you said he might as well plug in the CD because he's been playing it the same way for years. Now you're objecting to imperfections on a live track!?

Am I missing something here? If you prefer the original studio version, that's your prerogative. And if you are suggesting he play at that way, I understand. If you're suggesting he change the arrangement to somewhere in between the studio and the Dance/Cradle tour versions, I understand. But what I find baffling is your reference to imperfections on a live track. Don't you think that no matter what arrangement he chooses to play live, chances are there will be an imperfection here and there?

Big Love is Lindsey's opportunity to take the spotlight and do what he does best: Play the hell out of a guitar and sing with passion. He's alone on stage. From what I understand, he has no other such moment on the current tour. Why would you want to deny him that?

Oh, and it happens to be a great arrangement. There's that too.

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Methinks though hath contradicted thyself. Earlier you said he might as well plug in the CD because he's been playing it the same way for years. Now you're objecting to imperfections on a live track!?

Am I missing something here?

Sarcasm, I think :)
FWIW, I agree with both of you, I think. I *live* for the moments where things happen *differently* live from night to night, bootleg to bootleg. They're part of what made the Mac such a great live band in the 60's and 70's...

[face of glass]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Am I missing something here?
Yes.

Methinks though hath contradicted thyself. Earlier you said he might as well plug in the CD because he's been playing it the same way for years. Now you're objecting to imperfections on a live track!?

It was sarcasm, as FleetfootMike correctly pointed out. Maybe I should use the ;) next time, right? I think that Lindsey's approach to "Big Love" has always been the same, similar to classical musicians who always try to follow the composer's original intentions as close as possible. Imperfections there may sometimes be in his thumb-tapping, but even those are often covered by the FX that he uses.

Am I missing something here? If you prefer the original studio version, that's your prerogative. And if you are suggesting he play at that way, I understand. If you're suggesting he change the arrangement to somewhere in between the studio and the Dance/Cradle tour versions, I understand. But what I find baffling is your reference to imperfections on a live track. Don't you think that no matter what arrangement he chooses to play live, chances are there will be an imperfection here and there?
Of course there are imperfections, he's only human after all. Not every imperfection is noticeable to humans anyway.
I love both versions. The "acoustic" one was the first I heard; I was immediately struck by its boldness and gall, by its intense approach to the topic at hand. The ending has always sounded like an orgasm of a maniac. I learned to appreciate the finesse of the studio version much, much later.
The thing is that this track has been the same for eleven years. It made sense for him to do it during the Dance since not too many people attended the Cradle tour. As of now, however, I'd rather hear some other finger-picking piece.
Big Love is Lindsey's opportunity to take the spotlight and do what he does best: Play the hell out of a guitar and sing with passion. He's alone on stage. From what I understand, he has no other such moment on the current tour. Why would you want to deny him that?
I wouldn't. I would love it if some of those Stevie's old warhorses were replaced with new fingerpicking pieces from LB.
The problem is that Fleetwood Mac's current stagnation on stage shows on "Big Love" the most. I have suggested before that when he decided to take this approach with his playing, his solo sections on the electric pieces started to lose some of the intensity and bravado that they had on every tour prior the Cradle. It was like he suddenly wanted to have more pre-arranged parts than before in his solos. "Big Love" as an acoustic was a new thing in 1992, hell, it could even go through as a new thing in 1997. But now when the band's appearance is that of an oldies' act, this "new, revolutionary" piece is just another oldie in the set.
I'm well aware of your reputation on these boards, CarneVaca, and I do not wish to start a long argument with you, especially since we agree on most things about Lindsey Buckingham. This is just my gut feeling, take it or leave it.

[fleetfootmike]

It was like he suddenly wanted to have more pre-arranged parts than before in his solos.

I can pretty much tell you how the solo in "I'm So Afraid" goes this tour. He has about a half dozen stock sections that he links together.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by face of glass
I'm well aware of your reputation on these boards, CarneVaca, and I do not wish to start a long argument with you, especially since we agree on most things about Lindsey Buckingham. This is just my gut feeling, take it or leave it.

Perhaps you'd care to share what this so-called reputation is? My point wasn't to start a "long argument;" I was merely trying to draw out of you what exactly you meant with the terse comments that at first blush appeared contradictory. Discussion, after all, is the purpose of these boards.

Now that you have explained, I understand where you are coming from better. However, if I were given the choice to remove "stagnation" from the Fleetwood Mac live sets, I wouldn't touch Big Love. It's still an important moment during the set. I would throw out stagnant tunes like Dreams, Gold Dust Woman and, yes, I'm So Afraid, which as much as I love the tune, has now been played to death. I'd throw in things like "That's Alright," "Sara" and "Save Me a Place."

We have a difference of opinion. I am not sure reputations, or perceptions thereof, need to play a role in it.

[Johnny Stew]

I have to confess to a boredom with the acoustic arrangement of "Big Love."
As I mentioned on the Lindsey Forum, I dug it when he first did it, but I'm much less enthusiastic about it now.

I would have rather seen them plug "Big Love" back in, and unplug "Gypsy."

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I have to confess to a boredom with the acoustic arrangement of "Big Love."
As I mentioned on the Lindsey Forum, I dug it when he first did it, but I'm much less enthusiastic about it now.

I would have rather seen them plug "Big Love" back in, and unplug "Gypsy."

I think most folks' reaction when he first did it was some mix of awe, disbelief, and slightly hysterical laughter (if you were a guitarist). It's still really cool to watch but... y'know... seen it now.

[goldustboi]

For what it's worth, UK tribute band "Rumours Of Fleetwood Mac" do a 'Tango In The Night'-era arrangement of it live.

pardon? iv seen rumours of fm live 3 times but they never once did big love, id love to see that tho coz they are a damn good tribute band. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I have to confess to a boredom with the acoustic arrangement of "Big Love."
As I mentioned on the Lindsey Forum, I dug it when he first did it, but I'm much less enthusiastic about it now.

I would have rather seen them plug "Big Love" back in, and unplug "Gypsy."

Johnny, this band has been playing the same set of seven tunes since 1977 and three more since 1975. And Big Love is what so many folks seem to have gotten sick of!?

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by goldustboi
For what it's worth, UK tribute band "Rumours Of Fleetwood Mac" do a 'Tango In The Night'-era arrangement of it live.

pardon? iv seen rumours of fm live 3 times but they never once did big love, id love to see that tho coz they are a damn good tribute band. :nod: :nod: :nod:

Yup - most recent tour.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, this band has been playing the same set of seven tunes since 1977 and three more since 1975. And Big Love is what so many folks seem to have gotten sick of!? I guess the situation is this... when Lindsey performed it acoustically on the 'Cradle' tour, it was startling and fresh and exciting.

Then, of course, many people had their first exposure to this arrangement on the 'Dance' tour.

But now, the novelty of the different arrangement has apparently worn off for a lot of folks, and they would be interested in seeing it performed in an arrangement similar to that on 'Tango.'

I don't think anyone is saying that the song should be removed from the setlist... I guess some of us would just like to see it performed in a way that it hasn't been performed ever before.

Similar sentiments have been expressed in regards to just about every song in the current setlist, and "Big Love" isn't immune to that.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Perhaps you'd care to share what this so-called reputation is?
“Reputation” was a wrong word there. I’ve just been reading these boards for a year now and you’ve never seemed like the friendliest guy on the planet to me. But I guess it’s my problem mostly; one may get along with 99% of the people in the universe just fine but then there’s always that particular one percent. No offense meant with any of this, though. I’m not the friendliest person around when it comes to it either.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I would have rather seen them plug "Big Love" back in, and unplug "Gypsy."
I agree. It is the song they play before the acoustic set anyway, so why not?

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
I think most folks' reaction when he first did it was... slightly hysterical laughter (if you were a guitarist).
FleetfootMike, I’m not a guitarist myself so could you specify this for me, please? Does it violate the “finger-picking laws” or something like that? ;)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Similar sentiments have been expressed in regards to just about every song in the current setlist, and "Big Love" isn't immune to that.

I agree with everything in your post, except that I beg to differ somewhat on this particular bit. “Big Love” as an acoustic number irks me the most in the set list at this point. I guess it’s mainly because that number was one of the first things I heard from this band. The impact was such that I had to throw all my preconceptions of FM being a washed-out ‘70s soft-rock mafia away. At that point I had become weary of the current music scene, of how it was supposedly “innovating” all the time, when I felt like it was largely recycling the ideas of the past. The acoustic “Big Love” hit me like a thunderbolt; here was a relatively new approach that had all the intensity and fire I could ever hope for.

During The Dance Lindsey presented the acoustic version as a new thing; he wanted to show all those thousands of people who didn’t buy Out Of The Cradle that he hadn’t been laying low, that he had something new to say. That’s why featuring that song (and “Go Insane”) as a solo thing was important; he basically lifted his middle finger in the air to those who had ignored him; he showed that he may be doing the same old songs with FM but as a solo act he was trying to do something new.

When he now does it, it doesn’t have the same impact. So that’s where my problem is; this number that was supposed to be “something new” has now become "something old". He may have taken the finger-picking to almost ridiculous extremes with Gift Of Screws material but the fact that he is still playing this old arrangement shows that he really isn’t willing to show people his “progress” any longer. It is now a nostalgia piece, just like most others in the set.

So basically it’s just an ideological question; the tune is the same masterpiece it’s ever been but I liked it better when it represented "something new", not "something old".

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by face of glass
FleetfootMike, I’m not a guitarist myself so could you specify this for me, please? Does it violate the “finger-picking laws” or something like that? ;)

Mostly an 'excuse me while I go chop my hands off and burn my guitar collection' reaction :)

It's actually not *as* hard as it sounds once you have the basic picking pattern he uses down in your fingers on autopilot. The bit that always gets the applause in the instrumental break is probably the easiest bit of it, too.

[face of glass]

Thanks for that FFMike. I know this is off topic and all, and I should probably ask someone who's not a big fan of LB for this, but it's connected to the acoustic "Big Love" anyway:

When Lindsey plays to people who do not know a thing about guitar playing (the majority of the audience, I guess) with an acoustic these days the usual reaction is probably along the lines: "Damn, he's good, doing all that stuff with just an acoustic!" I bet most of these do not even see his guitar cord and definitely don't know about the myriad of FX the strings go through (as in "Here Comes The Sun"). So, is he deliberately trying to impress some people this way or not? Is he trying to seem like a "natural" acoustic player when in fact he's playing with an electric? Is this another topic for ideological debate? ;)

[strandinthewind]

I know nothing about playing the guitar. But, I can say that every other person like me that sees LB play the solo BL just goes nuts and thinks its great. I mean it looks hard as hell to play even if it is not and his performance is passionate. This is show biz you know. Still, I'd rather Stevie's harmony a la Letterman. The "plugged" version as well with the grunts would be cool as well. But, it is fine the way it is.

[CarneVaca]

I don't it's Lindsey's intent to impress the pants off people necessarily, though I have no doubt he realizes how impressed people are with his playing. And I'm sure he laps it up. But I belief the gratification he gets from it has to do mostly with taking that style of fingerpicking to a different level.

Big Love is not prohibitively difficult to play (even though I have yet to get it) but it is fast, and when you are playing that fast, it takes a lot more presence of mind and skill to recover from a mistake. I think most people, guitar players or not, realize he is using effects and they realize the guitar is plugged in. But then again, I could be mistaken. I am perhaps more attuned to that stuff than folks who just listen.

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by face of glass
... is he deliberately trying to impress some people this way or not? Is he trying to seem like a "natural" acoustic player when in fact he's playing with an electric? Is this another topic for ideological debate? ;)

If you want my opinion (which clearly you do, since you asked me for it :)), Lindsey is much more setting out to impress folks with his ELECTRIC playing this tour.

Technically, certainly on electric, he's *not* on a par with the likes of Steve Vai or Joe Satriani for sheer blinding speed and mindblowing technique - he rarely uses his little finger (pinky to the transpondials amongst us) when playing lead, and the fact that he's playing with fingers probably precludes the dazzling levels of speed that Vai or Satch can get with a pick.

Having said that, lead guitar isn't all about technique. What he does do is play with a level of emotional intensity that a lot of others don't, and, these days, he also makes a point of drawing attention to it with his body language and general demeanour.

As far as his acoustic playing goes: he's a damn fine picker :) I know a number of guitarists who would p*ss all over him in terms of notes/second on electric lead, but wouldn't know where to START on an acoustic: it's a markedly different ballgame. Yes, a good chunk of what he does isn't as hard as it perhaps seems once you understand the techniques at the core of his playing: yes he's prettying up the sound with effects, but.. even so, the basic stuff he does isn't three-chords-round-a-campfire picking, not by ANY stretch of the imagination.

To be honest, what's so good about Lindsey is that he's Lindsey :) It's not just the technique, although that is pretty unique to him; it's also as much in what he plays as how he plays it. I can't, to be honest, think of many guitarists who are as good as he is on both acoustic AND electric, and make a career of it. Lindsey's somewhat rare in being publicly not so much an acoustic or electric guitarist, but simply a guitarist.

And yes, I'm a fan, but he's probably not my favourite guitarist, quite.

[face of glass]

Well said that one. :) It's something that even the non-musicians can grasp.

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
Lindsey's somewhat rare in being publicly not so much an acoustic or electric guitarist, but simply a guitarist.

I guess it's due to the musical surroundings of the '70s. It was just necessary for a guitarist of that time to play both the "gentle naturality" with an acoustic and the "screaming intensity" with an electric. Those times still had the '60s diverse spirit in them.

I know a number of guitarists who would p*ss all over him in terms of notes/second on electric lead, but wouldn't know where to START on an acoustic: it's a markedly different ballgame.

The rock audiences of the '70s weren't just hippies anymore, they started to fracture into several smaller groups. It was only natural that some of these groups wouldn't want the diversity that there had been before. The times changed; you didn't have to prove your skills on both an electric and an acoustic anymore. Specializing into the other was a natural choice for many. Lindsey may not be the best in any field of playing, but for those who demand diversity he should be among the greatest.

[seteca]

Originally posted by face of glass
the myriad of FX the strings go through

Actually for his "acoustic" songs, the guitar signal goes through only one FX box - a Boss DD-3 delay unit. It's just a light slapback delay which gives the sound some more texture, it doesn't really "assist" in any way. Lindsey played "Big Love" totally dry (i.e. no FX at all) on the "Mark and Brian Show" and it still sounded just as amazing.

Also, the thing about using delay units is that although any correct notes you play will sound better, any wrong notes you play ALSO get delayed - so it's a two way street. Using a delay box doesn't automatically make you sound better: if you're very good, it'll make you sound great, if you're bad, people will leave the arena!lol!

(For those who saw him play Big Love in concert on the SYW tour, you may have seen him step on the DD-3 to switch it off just before the song is about to finish - he does that to prevent the final chord from echoing i.e. so that the song has a sharp and sudden ending.)

Even for his "electric" songs, his setup is pretty simple. He uses a DD-3 (a different one, obviously) and also an SD-1 (super overdrive unit). You can really hear the brilliant way he uses the echo effect of the DD-3 on songs like Gold Dust Woman, and the SD-1 really shines through on the end solo of Go Your Own Way.

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
It's actually not *as* hard as it sounds once you have the basic picking pattern he uses down in your fingers on autopilot. The bit that always gets the applause in the instrumental break is probably the easiest bit of it, too.

I know exactly what you mean by saying this, and I've often come across as sounding (unintentionally!!) patronising when I've made similar comments about Big Love. I think for pro. acoustic guitarists, it's not that tough a song to learn, but if you don't play guitar and you suddenly decided to learn to play just so you can play "Big Love"......how long would that take....??:eek: Probably forever...literally! I think it's relatively easy for pro. guitarists to learn how to play because it's such a beautifully constructed song, but you HAVE to have that prior knowledge to see through it.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by seteca
Even for his "electric" songs, his setup is pretty simple. He uses a DD-3 (a different one, obviously) and also an SD-1 (super overdrive unit). You can really hear the brilliant way he uses the echo effect of the DD-3 on songs like Gold Dust Woman, and the SD-1 really shines through on the end solo of Go Your Own Way.

Not to mention on "I'm So Afraid". (here speaks the happy owner of a 50W Marshall, a Les Paul and an SD-1. Instant Lindsey tone in a box :))

I think for pro. acoustic guitarists, it's not that tough a song to learn, but if you don't play guitar and you suddenly decided to learn to play just so you can play "Big Love"......how long would that take....??:eek: Probably forever...literally! I think it's relatively easy for pro. guitarists to learn how to play because it's such a beautifully constructed song, but you HAVE to have that prior knowledge to see through it.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

As I said, once you have the picking pattern down on autopilot...

However, that bit ISN'T easy :)

[BlueGrass]

I have that MArk and Brian Show, and it always stood apart from other Big Love versions because it sounds more thicker and synthy. I thought he had his effects up actually, not down completely.

Thanks for the insight Seteca.

[BlueGrass]

Oh Yea, can someone send me an mp3 of the Letterman performance?

[email protected]

[Cammie]

:wavey: As a set...we liked The Dance video Go Insane
performance and the lovely first part of Big Love!
It is LB's screeching love grunts that really spoil
an other wise brilliantly executed Guitar set!!!Sky:)

ps...If a guy screamed at me like that I'd RUN!!! :eek:
His HBO carnal moaning was more alluring!!! :xoxo:;)

[face of glass]

Originally posted by seteca
Actually for his "acoustic" songs, the guitar signal goes through only one FX box...
Sure, for "Big Love" and "Go Insane" anyway. But not for "Here Comes The Sun", I think. I guess he's not interested in doing the more layered finger-picking pieces on stage at this point. Probably because he received an almost unanimous disapproval on his "HCTS" performance.

Also, the thing about using delay units is that although any correct notes you play will sound better, any wrong notes you play ALSO get delayed - so it's a two way street.
I thought that he benefits from the delay in some other way too; if his thumb lets him down when he's doing those quavers it isn't audible to the audience because of the FX. Or that's what I once read from one of the guitar wizzes on this forum.

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
As I said, once you have the picking pattern down on autopilot...

However, that bit ISN'T easy :)

Obviously not, especially if you fall into the general male stereotype of "being capable of concentrating on only one thing at a time." ;)

Keith Richards once said of Robert Johnson that he seemed to have "three brains" because Johnson was capable of playing the boogie bass figure along with the melody and also singing at the same time. Lindsey's struggled his way to the same situation too, but "Big Love" doesn't have the same spontaneity that Robert Johnson's pieces have. LB obviously went through plenty of rehearsing before he started to pretend that he, too, has three brains. ;)

[seteca]

Originally posted by face of glass
Sure, for "Big Love" and "Go Insane" anyway. But not for "Here Comes The Sun", I think.

On HCTS he was using a Turner RS-6 guitar going through a Roland VG-8 synth pad. The RS-6 is a steel strung guitar so using a synth pad gives a sweeter sounding texture than using a simple DD-3 delay, but ultimately the end result is the same. i.e. to slightly sweeten the sound of the guitar - and not to assist him in any way.

Other than that one unit it wasn't going through anything else, and his playing on that song is mindblowing and one of his most technically challenging pieces.

My point is that unlike (to use an extreme example) a typical live Pink Floyd solo which critically depends on a large number of FX units, ALL of Lindsey's acoustic songs would still sound 95% the same and instantly recognisable even if all/any of his FX units were switched off - they're there because the song sounds that little bit better with it/them, only.

Originally posted by face of glass
I thought that he benefits from the delay in some other way too; if his thumb lets him down when he's doing those quavers it isn't audible to the audience because of the FX. Or that's what I once read from one of the guitar wizzes on this forum.


I think I remember which post you're talking about, but the writer was talking about him/herself - not Lindsey. Yes it's true that if you miss one of the bass notes then a correct delay will make your mistake seem less apparent, but it would still be very much noticeable (a picked bass note and a delayed bass note are clearly distinguishable, even if you're using the finest Lexicon delay racks) and I've never heard Lindsey miss a single bass note as he is an extremely gifted Travis picker. Also, if you increase the level of the feedback on the delay unit to such a level where a played note and the delayed note are close to indistinguishable in terms of volume, it means you have to be even MORE accurate and pretty much perfect in your playing to avoid making any mistakes - the slightest error would horribly echo right through that part of the song.

Originally posted by face of glass
Keith Richards once said of Robert Johnson that he seemed to have "three brains" because Johnson was capable of playing the boogie bass figure along with the melody and also singing at the same time. Lindsey's struggled his way to the same situation too, but "Big Love" doesn't have the same spontaneity that Robert Johnson's pieces have.

No "Big Love" certainly does not have the spontaneity of those Robert Johnson pieces, but the songs have totally different roots. Robert Johnson was not a Travis picker (he simply played the melody and bass independently at the same time) and was playing blues songs (which are by their very nature the most spontaneous and improvisional songs in the Western world), while Lindsey's roots lie in bluegrass (a style whose songs are generally fixed, highly melodic, pieces) and "Big Love" could very easily be defined as a classical guitar composition. I would not say that Lindsey "struggled to get himself to the same situation", because he was going for a totally different type of song and performance. (Furthermore, some live versions/rehearsals of "The Chain", "Landslide", "Never Going Back Again" and "World Turning" from the 70s clearly show that he was already an amazing Travis picker and could improvise whenever he felt like it.) Lindsey said (not literally) that "Big Love" was the start of something he'd been wanting to do for a very long time i.e. create a song where there are enough simultaneous parts from one guitar which would allow him to keep the number of other musicians on stage with him to a minimum, and for some songs make that number equal to zero. He never implied that he was going to use that method to give his songs any more or less spontaneity.

Originally posted by face of glass
LB obviously went through plenty of rehearsing before he started to pretend that he, too, has three brains

It's not just Keith Richards who used the "3 brains" term. Guitarists (and other musicians) who are able to play two independent parts at the same are often labelled as people who are able to "divide their brain into two". People who can sing (well!) on top of that are said to be able to "divide their brain into three". I think that unless you sat down with both Robert Johnson and Lindsey Buckingham and timed how much they practiced and rehearsed their respective songs, it's impossible to say which one of the two is more worthy of the "3 brain accolade":). There's nothing to "pretend" about - they are both musical geniuses and legends, and that's as far as their similarities go.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by seteca
I've never heard Lindsey miss a single bass note as he is an extremely gifted Travis picker.

Beg to differ :) He definitely fluffed the leadin to verse two of Big Love at the second NEC gig - not enough for the average non-musical-obsessive to notice, I suspect.

(Furthermore, some live versions/rehearsals of "The Chain", "Landslide", "Never Going Back Again" and "World Turning" from the 70s clearly show that he was already an amazing Travis picker and could improvise whenever he felt like it.)

"World Turning"'s a whole 'nother story :)
My problem with that isn't the riff, which is actually not THAT hard, but the fact that (like the very simple riff in "Peacekeeper") you have to totally disengage your playing brain from your singing brain, and leave the riff running on comeplete autopilot while you sing something that's rhythmically different over the top.

I think that unless you sat down with both Robert Johnson and Lindsey Buckingham and timed how much they practiced and rehearsed their respective songs, it's impossible to say which one of the two is more worthy of the "3 brain accolade":). There's nothing to "pretend" about - they are both musical geniuses and legends, and that's as far as their similarities go.

In a completely different style, listen to the late and remarkably excellent Isaac Guillory: my first introduction to him was a live recording of a jazz blues, bass/chords/melody all flowing and independent. Awesome.

BTW, seteca - we clearly need to meet up for a beer and a jam sometime :)

[chiliD]

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
My problem with that isn't the riff, which is actually not THAT hard, but the fact that (like the very simple riff in "Peacekeeper") you have to totally disengage your playing brain from your singing brain, and leave the riff running on comeplete autopilot while you sing something that's rhythmically different over the top.

Which is the very concept of "lead singing bass players"...they amaze me.

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by chiliD
Which is the very concept of "lead singing bass players"...they amaze me.

You too, huh? :)

The likes of Phil Lynott amaze me. It's one thing strumming and singing, but a melodic bass line and singing?

It took me long enough to get voice and fingers round the descending lick that runs under the last note of the vocals in the first couple of verses of "Green Manalishi"!

[seteca]

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
Beg to differ :) He definitely fluffed the leadin to verse two of Big Love at the second NEC gig - not enough for the average non-musical-obsessive to notice, I suspect.

Ah yes..I was standing right in front of him as he did it....I hope it wasn't because of my manic grin....lol..!:laugh: I'm pretty sure it was a left hand fretting mistake though (as opposed to actually missing a bass note). It sounded (and looked, from what I remember) suspiciously like a case of the "guitarist's worst nightmare" - that moment during a live performance when for some reason your brain decides to momentarily forget everything it knows about guitar and the song, and even though you've played and rehearsed it 1000 times before you feel like a chimp at the controls of an F-16.lol.:)

If we hear an mp3 of that show I'm sure we'll be able to tell. I know somebody definitely recorded the Manchester and London gigs, but don't know about Birmingham (or any of the other UK shows.)

Originally posted by fleetfootmike
BTW, seteca - we clearly need to meet up for a beer and a jam sometime :)

Absolutely! A Model One, a Les Paul, some Boss FX units, amps, and a bottle of Jack Daniels....sounds good to me!:cool:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[fleetfootmike]

Originally posted by seteca
It sounded (and looked, from what I remember) suspiciously like a case of the "guitarist's worst nightmare" - that moment during a live performance when for some reason your brain decides to momentarily forget everything it knows about guitar and the song, and even though you've played and rehearsed it 1000 times before you feel like a chimp at the controls of an F-16.lol.:)

Ah... yes. Been there. Done that.

Long, complex, solo acoustic and voice setting of one of the poems from the Silmarillion. Most of the chords are serious finger-spaghetti things with long names. All except the very last one. Which is a simple, strummed, boring, vanilla, first-chord-you-learn C major.

Which takes me THREE goes to finger right.

[chiliD]

Also, nothing worse than an involuntary muscle twitch in the left index finger when trying to solo after 1,240 consecutive bars of barre-ing an "A" a chord at the second fret (think "Chuck Berry" rhythm pattern) :nod: :laugh: