When I See You Again Appreciation Post!

[diamondsnake]

Anyone else love this song? I have heard nothing but negative comments about it. It is so sad and haunting, I just love it! My favorite part is when you can hear Lindsey's voice very faint at the end of the song. Come on, there has to be a few people who like it...

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Anyone else love this song? I have heard nothing but negative comments about it.

You must be avoiding Johnny Stew's posts.:laugh:
I like it, too, though I like Seven Wonders & WTTRS more.

- Jake

[Regina]

I love the song.
Each "what's the matter, baby" is different and heartbreaking. And Lindsey's voice at the end just gets me all teary.
I think it's a great, sad, sad song.

[EveryHour]

From the moment I first heard it, this has been one of my very favorite Stevie songs. Her delivery is, in fact, heart wrenching. It makes me FEEL more deeply than words can show and showcases the uniqueness of what Stevie can do with her voice...that she never sings "What's the matter, baby?" the same way twice. The Lindsey bit makes the song perfect (I seem to recall Stevie saying no one else thought Lindsey should sing on it, but she insisted). My favorite of the Lindsey bit is the last line: "Again and again / Over and over".

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G:nod:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Anyone else love this song? I have heard nothing but negative comments about it. Originally posted by darklinensuit
You must be avoiding Johnny Stew's posts.:laugh:Now Jake, whatever would give you the idea that I like "When I See You Again"? ;) :laugh:

Christopher, you can definitely count me as one of "When I See You Again's" biggest fans... if not the biggest.
In my totally humble opinion, it's one of Stevie's best contributions to Fleetwood Mac, and it's pretty much the heart and soul of 'Tango In The Night.'

Alas, it remains a song that people either absolutely love or absolutely hate. There doesn't seem to be a middle-ground for this one.

(By the way, I hope this thread sticks to the "appreciation" theme, and doesn't dissolve into yet another "all the reasons 'WISA' sucks" kind of thread.)

[Carlene]

I've never been a fan of this song, but I will agree that Lindsey's vocals at the end make it. Yes, the fade out is heartbreaking!

[EnchantedSLN]

I've always loved this song too. I don't have much to add that Johnny Stew hasn't said in past posts, or that EveryHour didn't already point out. She sounds frail, but it reflects the lyrics of the song, just as it does in I Sing For The Things or One More Big Time Rock & Roll Star.

I really like the way she sings "so she stays up nights on end, well at least there is a dream left", & of course Lindsey's parts at the end (both vocal & guitar).

But I can see how it might be an acquired taste.

[tommer]

i already mentioned it here a billion times, but i don't mind doing it again: IT'S A MASTERPIECE, one of stevie's all-time best.

[Siri Ruane]

I love this song... TITN is one of my favorite albums ever, all those songs are good. :D

[Janet]

I really like the song as well. I think the warbly vocals and cheesy Lindsey tag on ending is perfect. I hear so much negative about this song and I can see their point, but I think this song is really good. I love that Lindsey sings the ending, makes it even better!

After all they went through, and knowing Lindsey leaves the band...I always felt this song should have ended the album.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Alas, it remains a song that people either absolutely love or absolutely hate. There doesn't seem to be a middle-ground for this one.

I only like it, believe it or not. Of course I found the repetition and Stevie's tone annoying at first, but I soon got over them. For me, however, "When I See You Again" is something that only the fans can truly love. It doesn't show any "classic" songwriting potential in it like "Landslide" does; it's mostly all about Stevie's performance and whether it will get to you or not. And of course it benefits from its position on Tango In The Night; as a mainly acoustic track amidst songs that use those "cold" '80s production values. Of course Stevie wanted it as the album closer. It just would have emphasized the drama once more. ;)

I thought it was better to put "You And I Part Two" as the last song anyway. Instead of going out with this dramatic fade-out, Lindsey puts these bitter lyrics together with this childish backing track. It's as if he doesn't care for the big "separation" at all. Definitely a more vague, and I dare say more interesting, way to close the album.

[stevierocks87]

I LOVE this song too (as does my mom!). She sounds so tragically vunerable and frail......the vocals and the song as a whole are heart-wrenching, but beautiful. I also love "Seven Wonders" and especially "Welcome to the Room....Sara", since I know what it's about and it hits close to home...and the imagery is great. I really don't get why people dis Stevie's contributions to TITN, IMO I think they're all great (of course, to each their own :) )

:wavey: adam:wavey:

[EricBliss12345]

I think the song had a lot of unrealised potential. I think it says a lot about how Stevie and Lindsey's relationship was going at that point considering that he'd let something so half assed go on the official album with his name in the production credits.

Why he wouldn't have tried to get a better vocal performance or work on some lyrics with Stevie is beyond me. In my opinion, he let her make a complete ass out of herself on that one because he just didn't give a ****. It's one of the most hilariously bad vocal performances I've ever heard, and the lyrics don't help matters one bit. The "finished product" doesn't sound any better than a rough demo.

However, I will say that shoddy production aside, the actual music (not vocals, production, or arrangement) that's presented is really good. I think the acoustic guitar part is subtle and beautiful, and I love the idea of Lindsey singing back to her at the end. Even though it sounds like a touching way to end the song I doubt there was any reasoning for that besides Stevie not having any more lyrics.

My main problems with the tune are

-The chorus, calling it weak or even annoying is an understatement
-Stevie's vocals, she could have at least coughed out the wads of coke drip on the back of her throat before she cut it
-The lyrics, they're just not well thought out and are actually kind of amatuerish. Yeah they're honest, but I don't care. She could have done much better.
-The total lack of the textural, lush Mac backing vocals throughout the track. It sounds empty.
-The keyboard part sucks. How about some piano, Chris?
-I HATE those shakers!

My final statement -- it could have been a great song and a great album closer, but Lindsey obviously had serious ego problems at the time that prevented it from happening.

[HomerMcvie]

C'mon, tell us how you really feel.;)

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by EricBliss12345
I think the song had a lot of unrealised potential. I think it says a lot about how Stevie and Lindsey's relationship was going at that point considering that he'd let something so half assed go on the official album with his name in the production credits.

Why he wouldn't have tried to get a better vocal performance or work on some lyrics with Stevie is beyond me. In my opinion, he let her make a complete ass out of herself on that one because he just didn't give a ****. It's one of the most hilariously bad vocal performances I've ever heard, and the lyrics don't help matters one bit. The "finished product" doesn't sound any better than a rough demo.

However, I will say that shoddy production aside, the actual music (not vocals, production, or arrangement) that's presented is really good. I think the acoustic guitar part is subtle and beautiful, and I love the idea of Lindsey singing back to her at the end. Even though it sounds like a touching way to end the song I doubt there was any reasoning for that besides Stevie not having any more lyrics.

My main problems with the tune are

-The chorus, calling it weak or even annoying is an understatement
-Stevie's vocals, she could have at least coughed out the wads of coke drip on the back of her throat before she cut it
-The lyrics, they're just not well thought out and are actually kind of amatuerish. Yeah they're honest, but I don't care. She could have done much better.
-The total lack of the textural, lush Mac backing vocals throughout the track. It sounds empty.
-The keyboard part sucks. How about some piano, Chris?
-I HATE those shakers!

My final statement -- it could have been a great song and a great album closer, but Lindsey obviously had serious ego problems at the time that prevented it from happening.

I actually love the rasp she gives us on this song, I sing for the things, the second time, et cetera.

[laurie816]

I think it's a beautiful song...the "what's a matta baby" does grate on my nerves a bit...but for the most part it is a beautiful song filled with a lot of raw emotion.

Lyrically, yeah...it's not the best Stevie has ever written either, but again, I think she wasn't going for 'drama or effect'...she wasn't going to paint a pretty picture of heartache (like she did with Welcome To The Room...Sara which I LOVE) this was real honest heartbreak and conflict she was dealing with at this time...coked up or not.

[AgainLindsey]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
It is so sad and haunting, I just love it! My favorite part is when you can hear Lindsey's voice very faint at the end of the song. Come on, there has to be a few people who like it...

i like it. it's a snapshot in time when stevie was totally wasted and shortly before lindsey departed. I read somewhere that stevie asked lindsey to sing the last part along with her, then flicked a switch or something when he wasn't around to make it look like he just sang the last part himself, which is how it comes out in the final product. there wasn't much lindsey could do with stevie's voice in her condition, as she only showed up about ten days during the "tango in the night" project and the album had to go out soon.

[Jason T.]

With the exception of "Isn't It Midnight," "When I See You Again" and "Welcome To the Room...Sara" have to be my favorite two songs off of Tango In the Night. I don't understand the mass group bashings either one of these songs receive, they're incredible in my opinion. :nod:

[Bella Figura]

I love When Will I See you Again but I do have to agree, it's one of those songs only a devoted fan can love and appreciate...I also love the demo quality of the song, it feeds into the fraility of the music and lyrics...

[AgainLindsey]

i also thought the levity of "you and i, pt. II" was the appropriate denouement after the dark and sad "when i see you again."

lindsey tied this album together spectacularly which resulted in multi-millions of "tango in the night" being sold.

[face of glass]

Ok EricBliss. If your post was intended as a bait for a Lindseyhead, you’ve caught one:

Originally posted by EricBliss12345
I think it says a lot about how Stevie and Lindsey's relationship was going at that point considering that he'd let something so half assed go on the official album with his name in the production credits.
I realize why some people have been offering a different perspective on Stevie’s contributions to TITN recently; they’re tired of the seemingly endless bashing of “WISYA” and “WTTR…S” that has been going on for quite a while. It has been suggested that the main blame should not be poured on Stevie anymore, that Lindsey should be its main target. While I understand that he should receive his part of it too, especially since he’s one of those who are responsible of the overall sound, it still feels too blunt to me when someone says something like the following:
Originally posted by EricBliss12345
…but Lindsey obviously had serious ego problems at the time that prevented it from happening.
That line especially suggests that he’s the only one responsible of how the track turned out. I don’t think that’s the case and I will explain it right now.
Originally posted by EricBliss12345
Why he wouldn't have tried to get a better vocal performance or work on some lyrics with Stevie is beyond me.
Very few of Stevie’s demos are altered in the area of lyrics or even vocal performance when they go through the various stages of production. I’m sure that possibility is very rarely considered at all; the band wouldn’t choose a Stevie demo if it lacked something particular in the first place. I think she wouldn’t even let any alteration of that kind happen. Whenever there are changes, they are in the sphere of the overall arrangement.

So you seriously think that Stevie has no say in the final outcome of the track? That Buckingham can ignore her wishes and put a song like “WISYA” on the album no matter what she says? I’d like to see some statements or quotes backing that up. No, I can’t prove the opposite myself but I’d still say that claiming Lindsey having a “complete dominance” over the sound of a particular track is pushing some.

If you have problems with the tone colours and Stevie’s voice, fine. They don’t take me away from the songwriting a bit though. It’s not like LB drowned the track in distortion or anything.

In the end, the main blame on the success/failure of a particular track should be put on the songwriter. Because I don’t believe that Stevie has ever been inactive in deciding of the content of her songs. Not even when recording Fleetwood Mac albums.

But no one’s objective here. It’s who we prefer that we’re always speaking for. It’s always easy to ignore the contrary statements. Likewise it’s always easy to discuss someone’s actions to the point where he/she doesn’t seem like a human being anymore.

[strandinthewind]

I like WISYA despite those repititive baby lines.

Interestingly, Stevie said she "tricked" LB into singing solo at the end by telling him they were recording his voice for harmony - she then tool herself out of the mix. She did the same thing for Macy Gray on "Bombay Sapphires" when Macy said "I don't [know how to] sing harmony."

Oh that clever and trixie Stevie :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I like WISYA despite those repititive baby lines.

Interestingly, Stevie said she "tricked" LB into singing solo at the end by telling him they were recording his voice for harmony - she then tool herself out of the mix. She did the same thing for Macy Gray on "Bombay Sapphires" when Macy said "I don't [know how to] sing harmony."

Oh that clever and trixie Stevie :laugh:

With a voice like that, Billie Holiday is the only person Macy *could* sing harmony with, and even then, it's kinda iffy. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
With a voice like that, Billie Holiday is the only person Macy *could* sing harmony with, and even then, it's kinda iffy. :nod: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[sable]

i absolutely love this song it's one of my favs, it just reeks of heartache :distress:

not that other peoples pain makes me happy mind you!! :)

~~~~kezzie~~~~

[Cristian]

Do you know what was the combination that made me laugh the most today? It started with this statement from Johnny:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I hope this thread sticks to the "appreciation" theme, and doesn't dissolve into yet another "all the reasons 'WISA' sucks" kind of thread.

And then I read EricBliss's post. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

BTW, I'm in agreement with his comments, but I'm not posting here anymore because this is an appreciation thread, right? We bashers aren't welcome? ;)



Song of the moment - Say You Will

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I like WISYA despite those repititive baby lines.

Interestingly, Stevie said she "tricked" LB into singing solo at the end by telling him they were recording his voice for harmony - she then tool herself out of the mix. She did the same thing for Macy Gray on "Bombay Sapphires" when Macy said "I don't [know how to] sing harmony."

Oh that clever and trixie Stevie :laugh:

I don't get it, if that is true, does that mean right before the record went to print, she erased her vocals?

Also, I don't know any music terms, so when you say "harmony", what do you mean? What would be a Fleetwood Mac example of harmony in a song?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
I don't get it, if that is true, does that mean right before the record went to print, she erased her vocals?

Also, I don't know any music terms, so when you say "harmony", what do you mean? What would be a Fleetwood Mac example of harmony in a song?

Harmony is when two people sing together in the same key. Many different types exist, but here she is talking about how she sings the main melody and someone singing a little higher or lower than she is singing. A good example of this is the chorus in "Dreams" - where you have LB and CM singing the main parts and Stevie is singing what sounds like at least two higher (oh her voice in those days could soar!! :cool: ) and perhaps one lower part. The result is a stunning sound of three people singing at least six parts.

Harmony can also be people singing parts of a song in the same key but at slightly different times. The best example of this is the chorus of "Little Lies" the "tell me lies" and then "can't disguise."

I know this may not make sense reading about it. I suggest you find someone who plays the piano or guitar and have them show you if you do not understand.

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by trackaghost
Maybe it's just me, but Stevie does appear to get the most criticism over all the other members of the Mac but I guess it's also fair to say that she gets the most love from certain quarters too (the Nicks forum seems to be one of the most active). The more people that love you, the more people that hate you too I guess. It's the curse of popularity ;)

Keeping this is mind, I still can't help feeling peeved with this ongoing argument that Stevie owes everything to Lindsey and his magic touch, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.

Some of my favourite Stevie tunes had nothing to do with Lindsey and his production skills (which I am not doubting at all). That said, this one song (WISYA) gets more criticism than most and Lindsey had plenty to do with it! It seems Stevie can't win. If she records a great song, Lindsey gets the credit. If she records a not so great song, well Lindsey obviously didn't pay any attention to that tune. Oh well!
:laugh:

Ya gotta laugh. I am tempted to start up a thread called Lindsey's worst moments, cos he does have a few (go on admit it!). As for When I See You Again, it's definitely my least favourite of the Stevie tunes on TITN but I don't understand the hatred towards it at all. Is it any worse than Caroline (fine use of Lindsey's rhyming dictionary) for instance?

I actually really like Caroline, but WISYA is still better. And you are right, people should also become aware that Lindsey is not a saint. I know most people like his songs on tusk on this board, but I think they are the pits and not good at all (other then a couple) to these ears at least.

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Harmony is when two people sing together in the same key. Many different types exist, but here she is talking about how she sings the main melody and someone singing a little higher or lower than she is singing. A good example of this is the chorus in "Dreams" - where you have LB and CM singing the main parts and Stevie is singing what sounds like at least two higher (oh her voice in those days could soar!! :cool: ) and perhaps one lower part. The result is a stunning sound of three people singing at least six parts.

Harmony can also be people singing parts of a song in the same key but at slightly different times. The best example of this is the chorus of "Little Lies" the "tell me lies" and then "can't disguise."

I know this may not make sense reading about it. I suggest you find someone who plays the piano or guitar and have them show you if you do not understand.

Interesting. I don't completely understand, but do you mean that it is like different voices blending together to form one?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Cristian
I'm not posting here anymore because this is an appreciation thread, right? We bashers aren't welcome? ;)Given the fact that you winked, Christian, I get the feeling that you didn't really feel like you weren't welcome to post in the thread. :) At least I hope you didn't feel that way. Certainly everyone's always welcome to post their opinions regarding any topic in any thread, but since this was meant as an appreciation thread, it would have been nice if it had remained that way.
The song sure gets bashed enough everywhere else on this board, it wouldn't have hurt for there to have been one thread where people could just discuss what they like (or love) about it.

Ah well.Originally posted by face of glass
Ok EricBliss. If your post was intended as a bait for a Lindseyhead, you’ve caught one.
I realize why some people have been offering a different perspective on Stevie’s contributions to TITN recently; they’re tired of the seemingly endless bashing of “WISYA” and “WTTR…S” that has been going on for quite a while. It has been suggested that the main blame should not be poured on Stevie anymore, that Lindsey should be its main target.I'm not sure of Eric's motivations, but I know... and he'd be the first one to admit this... that he's not really a major fan of Stevie's work, so I don't think it was his intention to divert blame towards Lindsey, in order to defend Stevie. After all, Stevie definitely didn't escape his criticism here either! :laugh:
Maybe he was just playing Devil's Advocate.Originally posted by face of glass
I don’t believe that Stevie has ever been inactive in deciding of the content of her songs. Not even when recording Fleetwood Mac albums.In the past, Stevie has said that she didn't have as much control over the outcome of her songs as she would have liked to have had, within Fleetwood Mac. I think she used the term "hi-jacked" once, in describing how she sometimes felt her songs were no longer in her hands.
But that really was "back in the day," when I think she had fears that Lindsey might try to sabotage her songs out of anger or spite.

These days she has said that she implicitly trusts Lindsey to not do something to one of her songs that she would absolutely hate. And she has said that if there happens to be something she doesn't like, she knows she can go to him about it, and that they'll work together to make it so that they're both happy with it. :)

(The rest of this isn't directed at Gaius. Just some of my thoughts....)

In my opinion (as if people don't already know I feel this way), there isn't any "blame" to be placed regarding the outcome of "When I See You Again," because I think the track is aces just the way it is.
It's not for everyone, and it never will be (even though I still feel that the song can touch the listener, if they let it)... but I think it's simply perfect.

In my opinion, the song conveys what the artist (both Stevie as the songwriter, and Fleetwood Mac as a whole) wanted it to, and that's why it's on the album.
They had other tracks to choose from... "Juliet," "Joan Of Arc," and "What Has Rock And Roll Done For You," for example... but they went with this one. I assume this means they liked the song and the texture it provides alongside the other tracks. Forgive me if that sounds naive, or like some "tired excuse." :)

No film, painting, book, poem, or song is ever going to appeal to every single person out there... but I imagine every artist's hope is that their work will elicit some kind of emotion in people, good or bad.
When a work of art is met with indifference, that's when the artist should really worry.

Love it or hate, no one can deny that we sure do talk about "When I See You Again" more than any one Fleetwood Mac song you can name!

[Vianna]

I love this song-it's one of my favorites, especially the ending-it's just haunting..

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Interesting. I don't completely understand, but do you mean that it is like different voices blending together to form one?

Yes. Here is a better explanation.

http://wv.essortment.com/musicandtheory_rkxl.htm

[face of glass]

Originally posted by trackaghost
The more people that love you, the more people that hate you too I guess. It's the curse of popularity ;)

Yep. After all, one can’t possibly like the most popular ones because they only appeal to the braindead masses. #1 rule of The Rolling Stone school of rock criticism.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Keeping this is mind, I still can't help feeling peeved with this ongoing argument that Stevie owes everything to Lindsey and his magic touch, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.

Ah yes. I remember what you wrote on the subject earlier in another thread:

Originally posted by trackaghost
I also feel uncomfortable with all this, because it seems like a symptom of the general reluctance of people to give women in the music industry credit for their own work. I've seen it with so many of my favourite artists. Female singer/songwriters and musicians always get overlooked as credible artists. :distress: It's a shame because I do think Stevie and others like her, have fought hard to be thought of as serious songwriters.

If this is a feminist statement of sorts then I do sympathize with the view. However, it all depends on what you listen to in music. So you’re pleased with several Stevie demos, including those that are barebones and have her voice with the usual Nicksian chords? Fine. It’s not like I feel totally unmoved by those. But I’m personally not satisfied with that approach. If I was handed out an album full of that stuff I couldn’t bare listening to them straight through. I always pay attention to the way the overall track sounds the most and that’s why I’m bound to give more credit to Lindsey than to Stevie. It’s he who puts the diversity in and that’s one of the main attractions to me in music. He doesn’t, however, put in the Nicksian personality; that’s what Stevie does. I believe that without Stevie’s voice and lyrics Lindsey wouldn’t be able to create such a magnificent arrangement. There has to be something to be built on anyway. I will never give Lindsey the full credit on any success a particular Nickssong might have. It’s 50/50 and it will always be so for me.

Sharon, shouldn’t you be doing something else anyway? Like reading my PM, for instance. ;)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm not sure of Eric's motivations, but I know... and he'd be the first one to admit this... that he's not really a major fan of Stevie's work, so I don't think it was his intention to divert blame towards Lindsey, in order to defend Stevie. After all, Stevie definitely didn't escape his criticism here either! :laugh:

I’m not going to guess his motivations either. Of course, if you look at the “Favourite FM song” thread, there are two Nicks songs in his list and nothing by Buckingham. Not to mention that he’s clearly criticized Lindsey in some aspects before. But never mind. I apologize Eric if what I’m writing seems rude. I definitely thought this was rude too:

Originally posted by EricBliss12345
In my opinion, he let her make a complete ass out of herself on that one because he just didn't give a ****.

If that was supposed to be humorous, I’m not laughing. I know the reputation of the 1987 Buckingham isn’t the best possible among the FM fan community, but I still think that if that quote is a serious statement then it just can’t go unanswered. If it was intended to generate some fuss, it sure did succeed. Thanks to my Finnish stubbornness.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
In the past, Stevie has said that she didn't have as much control over the outcome of her songs as she would have liked to have had, within Fleetwood Mac. I think she used the term "hi-jacked" once, in describing how she sometimes felt her songs were no longer in her hands.

Yes, that’s probably what the dedication on the inner sleeve of Bella Donna, “to Jimmy… for giving me back my music”, was referring to. I’m not going to comment on particular songs where this “hi-jacking” might have happened. I just think it didn’t happen with “When I See You Again” at all. The demo hasn’t been changed in any significant way. The song is therefore an anomaly on a Fleetwood Mac album. It gains something because of this fact; that they had guts to give us something so stripped down at a time when FM were known of their studio polish. Give me another one of this type with the same old Nickschords and it’s on the same level as Stevie’s recent stripped-down demos for me.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
They had other tracks to choose from... "What Has Rock And Roll Done For You,"

In which case I’m not surprised they picked “WISYA”. ;)

But I’m sorry if I did violate the “rules of the thread” and started to write some negative things into it.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by trackaghost
The more people that love you, the more people that hate you too I guess. It's the curse of popularity ;)

Cue the Pretenders...

...it's a thin linnnnnne, between love & hate


Originally posted by dissention
With a voice like that, Billie Holiday is the only person Macy *could* sing harmony with, and even then, it's kinda iffy. :nod:

Kind of like Bob Dylan...not a better person to harmonize with him than Tom Petty, eh? :shrug:


My two-cents:

I don't necessarily LIKE "WISYA", but I don't DISLIKE it, either. Just don't ask me what I think of "WTTR...S", you won't like my answer. And, in saying that; then, DEFINITELY avoid asking me about "The Second Time" from Behind The Mask

[CarneVaca]

The one redeeming aspect of WISYA: The nylon-string solo at the end. The song itself is mediocre at best.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by face of glass
I always pay attention to the way the overall track sounds the most and that’s why I’m bound to give more credit to Lindsey than to Stevie. It’s he who puts the diversity in and that’s one of the main attractions to me in music. The only "argument" I have with that statement, is that... out of about 113 Nicks-penned songs that have been officially released with Fleetwood Mac, on a solo album, or on a soundtrack or b-side, Lindsey only has production credit on 21 of those (10 of those being the 'SYW' tracks, and not counting "Seven Wonders," which Stevie only added some lyrics to). Of course, we should probably credit him for at least arranging the 'Buckingham Nicks' tracks, as well as "Rhiannon" and "Landslide," and I'm sure he had more than just a little input on the 'Rumours' tracks (despite the lack of a production credit)... but Lindsey is definitely not the "only one who knows what to do with Stevie's songs," as is often implied.

Which has always been why I feel it's important that Lindsey's credit for the appeal of Stevie's songs, doesn't get too out of proportion with the actual amount of songs he's had a hand in producing.
Keith Olsen, Richard Dashut, Ken Caillat, Jimmy Iovine (my favorite of anyone who's produced Stevie's music), Rick Nowels, Mike Campbell, John Shanks, and others, have definitely added wonderful touches to many of Stevie's songs over the years... though I'm most definitely not belittling Lindsey's contributions.

But in my opinion... regarding Stevie, or any songwriter... I'm always going to give 70/30 credit, with the songwriter first, and the producer second, as the producer is only really embellishing what's already there (in my opinion).Originally posted by face of glass
I’m not going to guess (Eric's) motivations either. Of course, if you look at the “Favourite FM song” thread, there are two Nicks songs in his list and nothing by Buckingham.I hadn't noticed his post in that thread. I'd definitely be interested in reading which songs of Stevie's he picked, as I know when he and I have chatted, Christine and Bob Welch are his favorites, by far, and I've gotten the feeling that he has only a moderate interest in Stevie or Lindsey (not that there's anything wrong with that).


At any rate, I'm still chuckling over the fact that, nearly 17 years after its release, we're still having multi-page debates about "When I See You Again." :)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
but Lindsey is definitely not the "only one who knows what to do with Stevie's songs," as is often implied.

But in my opinion... regarding Stevie, or any songwriter... I'm always going to give 70/30 credit, with the songwriter first, and the producer second, as the producer is only really embellishing what's already there (in my opinion).

I agree, and IMO some folks rely too much on that Christine quote about Lindsey fixing Dreams.

- Jake

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I agree, and IMO some folks rely too much on that Christine quote about Lindsey fixing Dreams.

- Jake

You mean more than certain folks have accepted as gospel Stevie's contention that she sneaked to the mixing board to lower her vocal and leave Lindsey's at the end of WISYA? Frankly, I don't see how anyone could believe that tall tale, considering the process of mixing and mastering a recording. Yes, I believe she may have been the one who talked Lindsey into doing that particular vocal, but methinks the lady doth exaggerate.

By the way, I listened to the song yesterday, and I concluded that it is actually among the best of Stevie's mediocre songs from that 1985-1994 period. Had she taken more care with the lyrics, it would have been a decent song.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You mean more than certain folks have accepted as gospel Stevie's contention that she sneaked to the mixing board to lower her vocal and leave Lindsey's at the end of WISYA? Frankly, I don't see how anyone could believe that tall tale, considering the process of mixing and mastering a recording. Yes, I believe she may have been the one who talked Lindsey into doing that particular vocal, but methinks the lady doth exaggerate.

By the way, I listened to the song yesterday, and I concluded that it is actually among the best of Stevie's mediocre songs from that 1985-1994 period. Had she taken more care with the lyrics, it would have been a decent song.

That, my friend, is a high compliment coming from you :laugh: :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You mean more than certain folks have accepted as gospel Stevie's contention that she sneaked to the mixing board to lower her vocal and leave Lindsey's at the end of WISYA? Frankly, I don't see how anyone could believe that tall tale, considering the process of mixing and mastering a recording. Yes, I believe she may have been the one who talked Lindsey into doing that particular vocal, but methinks the lady doth exaggerate.

Well, we all know how her stories change along with her underwear. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, we all know how her stories change along with her underwear. :nod:

Sadly - not with that black dress!! :cool:

Seriously, I took Stevie's story to mean, that she removed her vocals and then they completed the record once they saw how it sounded. I did not take it to mean that she snuck in at the end of the mixing process and removed them without telling anyone and then sent the record to the final mass production stage.

[Johnny Stew]

The exact quote, from Creem magazine, September 1987....

How do you like my slow song with Lindsey singing at the end ("When I See You Again")? That's one of my favorite things... I made him sing with me; I said, "Lindsey, you're gonna sing on all my songs whether you like it or not -- you have to sing this with me." So we went out and sang "If I see you again, will it be over?" -- we sang it in unison, then I snuck in and took my voice off. Otherwise, I'd have never gotten him to do it -- see, Lindsey's pretty shy and he's singing differently there than he is on anything else on the record. He wouldn't think to do that: to sing on my song at the end. He would think to sing with me, but he wouldn't want to end it. But that's what I wanted, to leave people feeling they are really talking to each other.

I have no doubt that she probably did wipe her vocal from the mix (there's an alternate mix floating around out there that definitely has Stevie and Lindsey both singing the coda), but certainly Lindsey knew about it not long afterwards, and certainly he knew about it before the final mixes were approved and sent to be pressed.

Stevie never said that it was some kind of surprise to him when the album was released, just that he wouldn't have thought to record it that way in the first place.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
The exact quote, from Creem magazine, September 1987....



I have no doubt that she probably did wipe her vocal from the mix (there's an alternate mix floating around out there that definitely has Stevie and Lindsey both singing the coda), but certainly Lindsey knew about it not long afterwards, and certainly he knew about it before the final mixes were approved and sent to be pressed.

Stevie never said that it was some kind of surprise to him when the album was released, just that he wouldn't have thought to record it that way in the first place.

Yeah, and don't forget, Stevie creeped into the studio late one night to remove her love grunts from Big Love. Lindsey would have never thought to be grunting alone. ;) (kidding, especially if Mrs. Buckingham is reading this)

- Jake

[Jen77]

:wavey:
I would just like to say that I love this song too! Just the whole Stevie singing "When I see you again...." and Lindsey at the end singing "If I see you again..." :distress: Its just heartbreaking!

Jen~*

[blackdove]

WISYA is my favourite Stevie song from Tango, its awesome!

Love Sarah

[ricohv]

Well I alway get in on these threads at the end *dang*...
I thought the song did sound a little out of place on the album (but so did WTTR...S). Only Seven Wonders seemed to really fit. But I am glad it wasn't a piano ballad. The keyboard and then the ______'s (? Marachas or whatever-the rubbing metal on metal kinda sound?) at the end kind of give it a quirkiness -for a ballad at least-which I think does help it to fit. I don't think a song has to be lyrically brilliant to move you. Simple pop songs generally aren't brilliant lyrically. Everywhere comes to mind: simple lyrics/sort of a fluff song, but I love it Everytime that I have ever heard it.

[EricBliss12345]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

But in my opinion... regarding Stevie, or any songwriter... I'm always going to give 70/30 credit, with the songwriter first, and the producer second, as the producer is only really embellishing what's already there (in my opinion).I hadn't noticed his post in that thread. I'd definitely be interested in reading which songs of Stevie's he picked, as I know when he and I have chatted, Christine and Bob Welch are his favorites, by far, and I've gotten the feeling that he has only a moderate interest in Stevie or Lindsey (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[/B]

About the Mcvie/Welch era being my favorite you're most definately right. But don't get me wrong, I like the best of Stevie's and Lindsey's time in the band just as much. Most of Stevie's Tusk and Mirage songs are my very favorite Fleetwood Mac songs and I also think Silver Springs may very well be the bands best song along with The Chain. I have about an equal amount of albums from both era, and I like both of them equally but for different reasons. I just swing towards the Welch era because that's when Chris was at the top of her game. I'd like to go on record saying that I definately don't think Stevie was a slouch in the least. It's more of a very minimal interest in Lindsey's stuff than Stevie's (even though when I heard "Trouble" for the first time recently it really made me want to check out Law And Order).

I was in no way trying to stir **** when I said Lindsey let her make an ass out of herself. Do you really think none of the other band members winced when they heard that vocal track play back? I really thought I was giving a well thought out and balanced opinion there! That's the best I can do! :laugh:

[Cristian]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Given the fact that you winked, Christian, I get the feeling that you didn't really feel like you weren't welcome to post in the thread. :)
I was having problems to log in but I think I may have solved them already. Of course the wink was because of that! I was just laughing about the course of the thread. I cannot seriously think about other Fleetwood Mac/Stevie song that can inspire so many multi-page threads (you can just check the files!) as "When I See You Again". :)

In my opinion is a very, very weak song, but I've come to find people who think it's a masterpiece and it's OK. Matter of tastes, one can guess.



Song of the moment - I Sing For The Things

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I have no doubt that she probably did wipe her vocal from the mix (there's an alternate mix floating around out there that definitely has Stevie and Lindsey both singing the coda), but certainly Lindsey knew about it not long afterwards, and certainly he knew about it before the final mixes were approved and sent to be pressed.

Highly unlikely that the voice would be wiped out. I just don't see it happening. Plus, if it's true that a second mix exists with both voices, that only proves my point and weakens yours.

[sparky]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But in my opinion... regarding Stevie, or any songwriter... I'm always going to give 70/30 credit, with the songwriter first, and the producer second, as the producer is only really embellishing what's already there (in my opinion).

I would generally agree with this statement. In some cases, it is more like 90/10. That, however, all depends on the artist and how completely they are able to realize the vision of a song in the demo process. My own estimation of Lindsey's production skills skyrocketed when I heard the finished version of "Thrown Down." The TISL demo of that song is nearly unlistenable IMO. I thought it couldn't be saved, and felt there was barely a song there at all. In it's present form, I think it is a solid piece of work. For that feat I give Lindsey major credit.

[Carolina Girl]

Originally posted by Cristian
I cannot seriously think about other Fleetwood Mac/Stevie song that can inspire so many multi-page threads (you can just check the files!) as "When I See You Again". :)

[/B]

How do I access the old threads? I'd like to read them. I'm wondering if you guys ever discusssed the use of the lyric "When I see you again" on Destiny Rules, which was on Say You Will, the first FM album with both Stevie and Lindsey since TITN, which included the song WISYA. Just another case of recycled lyrics or something more?

[chiliD]

Originally posted by Jen77
:wavey:
I would just like to say that I love this song too! Just the whole Stevie singing "When I see you again...." and Lindsey at the end singing "If I see you again..." :distress: Its just heartbreaking!

Jen~*


The whole "When..." by Stevie, then Lindsey comes in with "If..."...one word just swings the whole meaning of the line 180 degrees from "hopeful" to "doubtful".


Holy crap, chiliD gets "sentimental", wtf's up with THAT?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Highly unlikely that the voice would be wiped out. I just don't see it happening. Plus, if it's true that a second mix exists with both voices, that only proves my point and weakens yours. I'm not really sure why we're even debating this. I'm also not sure how the existence of another mix featuring both vocals, necessarily "proves" your point and "weakens" mine.

You stated that it was "highly unlikely" Stevie removed her voice from the mix, which I assume to mean that you believe Lindsey must have recorded his vocal separately... therefore there would be no need to remove another vocal.

(And perhaps it should be noted here that Lindsey's voice is noticeably more prominent on the left channel, even on the album version.)

I have three versions of "When I See You Again."
The album version; the mix where they're both singing the "If I see you again" coda; and a third where the ending is merely more repetitions of the line "what's the matter, baby," as the song fades.

Given that it's common practice to make safeties (backup copies) of the various takes, why is it so hard to believe that a copy could still exist of the mix that featured both Stevie and Lindsey, while also believing that Stevie could have "removed" her vocals (a task which probably really only amounted to dropping her voice out of the mix) from the master to create the version the band used for the album?

Stevie has had a hand in remixing various tracks over the years, and has produced or co-produced some others... so surely she has enough knowledge of the soundboard to be able to drop her vocals out of a mix.

So what causes the improbability in your mind? And what would make it such a hard pill to swallow if she had?
It was 17 years ago, and it's not like it really matters one way or the other if she had.

[face of glass]

Late, later, the latest. That’s the story of my life on these boards. Please don’t mind the occasional weirdness, this was mainly written during night. ;)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
The only "argument" I have with that statement, is that... out of about 113 Nicks-penned songs that have been officially released with Fleetwood Mac, on a solo album, or on a soundtrack or b-side, Lindsey only has production credit on 21 of those (10 of those being the 'SYW' tracks, and not counting "Seven Wonders," which Stevie only added some lyrics to). Of course, we should probably credit him for at least arranging the 'Buckingham Nicks' tracks, as well as "Rhiannon" and "Landslide," and I'm sure he had more than just a little input on the 'Rumours' tracks (despite the lack of a production credit)... but Lindsey is definitely not the "only one who knows what to do with Stevie's songs," as is often implied.

If it seems that I have implied so in this thread, then I have to apologize. I guess I’ve been looking at the whole thing through Buckingham-filled spectacles (I wonder if Stevie uses those too). Let it be stated now: I love Bella Donna and The Wild Heart; I like Rock A Little, The Other Side Of The Mirror, Trouble In Shangri-La and even Street Angel. No, I do not consider them the greatest albums in the history of the universe but I do have tolerance to Stevie’s approach, to the point where I can honestly say that I do not actively dislike any track on any album. Yes, I do think that all of them have their amount of monotonousness; on Street Angel it gets to the point where I can’t even begin to discern the majority of songs from each other. And yes, I do think that every album could use a bit of that diversity that Lindsey gives Stevie through his production. But that’s just a minor complaint.

What I feel that producers other than Lindsey are doing is just picking up the crumbs from a table where he just feasted. They are building on what he helped to create, and for me at least, the results seem secondary when compared to “the real thing”. You have to consider the circumstances though.

In the ‘70s female singer-songwriters who were dealing with these “feminine, romantic topics” were basically all given the same production (except for those who had the reins in their own hands, like Joni Mitchell); you usually slapped on a piano, an acoustic guitar and a bunch of strings and that was that. That was the producers’ idea of romance at the time. Then enter Lindsey Buckingham. What Lindsey, Ken and Richard basically did was show to the world that you can convey a sense of romance through other measures too. This style starts in earnest on “Dreams” and runs through Stevie’s Tusk songs. It’s a non-conformist style that does not fail to sell but doesn’t bow to the mainstream; it’s not dependent on what’s going on around it. Enter part two of the story:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Keith Olsen, Richard Dashut, Ken Caillat, Jimmy Iovine (my favorite of anyone who's produced Stevie's music), Rick Nowels, Mike Campbell, John Shanks, and others, have definitely added wonderful touches to many of Stevie's songs over the years... though I'm most definitely not belittling Lindsey's contributions.

So there it is. Suddenly Lindsey’s no longer in control; there’s this Jimmy Iovine guy who’s going to bring in a great band and give Stevie her music back. I have to agree with you somehow Johnny, Mr. Iovine is my favourite Stevie solo producer too. If what David told us earlier in another thread is true: that Jimmy was a very laissez-faire producer in that he let the band work on the songs throughout the whole arranging/recording period, then it’s simply a different approach to Lindsey’s.

Yet I still get the feeling that no matter how great work there is on Bella Donna and The Wild Heart, it would be even greater if Buckingham was let to leave his stamp on them. And it’s just not on the likes of “Outside The Rain” (which most people cite as the most FM-like song on the album). Stuff like “Leather And Lace”, “After The Glitter Fades” and “The Highwayman” come off as too routine and safe sounding; as if Stevie was trying to make herself appealing to the country radio. Compare those to something like “That’s Alright” where the chorus sounds like a grasp of ethereality from heavens and beyond and you’ll see what I mean. In concert a song like “Edge Of Seventeen” could have been a showcase for Stevie on the level of “Rhiannon” and “Sisters Of The Moon” if there had been a partner who would be willing to be the equal of Stevie’s vocal intensity with a guitar; namely Buckingham. Don’t get me wrong; I love the song. But there’s certain areas where Stevie’s unwilling to go if Lindsey’s not there with her. I guess that’s a bit beside the point though.

Jimmy had also the good fortune of producing some of Stevie’s best songs. She had some of those ‘70s “rejects” (rejects? Fools!) to give him and add to that the fact that her basic songwriting still hadn’t lost its freshness, that she was capable of writing material that would possibly interest a larger audience (than a group of hardcore fans) up to The Wild Heart was important in building her a significant following. Of course she and Jimmy were still leaning on the groundwork that came from Buckingham, Caillat and Dashut but they were also establishing a new audience; a bunch of Nicksheads that didn’t want to hear anything of Fleetwood Mac (although I have no idea how sizeable this group is).

Yet they were still following a mainstreamish path. Danny Goldberg may claim in the booklet of Enchanted that Stevie’s solo work was “artsy-craftsy, not muscular commercial music like Fleetwood Mac’s”, but for me it’s always been the opposite. I’m not denying the shades of mainstream on Fleetwood Mac’s albums but for me Lindsey has always walked the plank between the experimental and the commercial. He’s been more daring in his production than Jimmy Iovine and others. You may claim that doing “epics” like the title tracks on Stevie’s two first solo albums took some nerve but I might as well claim that they had the nerve to do those tracks because they were doing an entire album, not a collection of hit singles (or 2-5 tracks, as on Fleetwood Mac albums) where you would have to make sure that every track is commercially appealing. I mean, take a look at how similar those two albums are. The Wild Heart is essentially a repetition of Bella Donna with some synths slapped on (because the times demanded it; everyone at that point had converted to synthesizers. Thanks a lot, new wave); both begin with a long “epic” (why, they’re both also the title tracks! How come!), stuff like “Gate And Garden” and “How Still My Love” are practically interchangeable (for someone who doesn’t hear the subtle differences anyway), “Stand Back” has the same foundation to it as “Edge Of Seventeen” does (that little “sixteenth-note” thing that Waddy plays with the guitar constantly during “EO17” is too similar to the one that’s played on the keyboards in “Stand Back”), the synthesizers on “If Anyone Falls” do not add anything significant to it that wasn’t already there on Bella Donna, etc. It’s a bunch of people following almost the same approach two years later.

Buckingham’s quirks aren’t present on either of these and that’s a drawback for me (even though they do an admirable job in almost covering it up). The tracks set almost similar atmospheres throughout. At least Lindsey, when he re-uses something, uses the recycled idea in a new context. Lindsey’s shadow is still there looming on these two albums (on places where his influence is heard and where it can’t be heard = the most mainstream tracks; surely they didn’t want to sound like Buckingham all the time); hell, “Sable On Blond” is basically “Gypsy” all over again.
Sure, they’re adding synthesizers into the picture but that was something that the mainstream told them to do. They certainly didn’t want to appear as “non-modernistic” or anything like that. “I Can’t Wait”, for all its goodness, sounds like a typical ‘80s Fairlight experiment. Compare that to the approach of Go Insane where the Fairlight is used in an untrivial way. Yes, both approaches may sound dated today but Lindsey’s work on that album is more reminiscent of what Kate Bush and Laurie Anderson were doing at the time than whatever the “powers-to-be” in the music industry said was hip.

Then enter Rupert Hine. Sure, he’s creating this aura of romanticism too and it is a different kind of romanticism. It’s not like what Lindsey was doing on Tango In The Night. So what is it then? Loads of mainstream ‘80s production again. Generic, non-intrusive saxophone solos. Acoustic, “Spanish”-sounding guitars (come on, the guitar in “Family Man” is at least playful and quirky, these sound like they’re inviting you to Santa Barbara). In short, the usual deal, even worse this time. And I still like the album. Goes to show how much respect I have for Stevie.

Hello Street Angel. Oh, you’re a much maligned creature, even though you’re not that much weaker than the others. Now what do you have in there? Very little synthesizers? Something that at least sounds like a real band? Hooray! But oh, wait, it seems like your songs mostly sound the same. No great production and arrangement work has gone into you and it seems like the band isn’t that inspired either. Oh, the songs aren’t as inspired as on Bella Donna either. That explains why this particular approach isn’t working the fourth time around.

And so it goes, in comes Mr. John Shanks. Now we all know TISL very well at this point and I would have to say that right after Lindsey Buckingham and Jimmy Iovine Shanks would be the next in line for me. Who cares about those suspected Pro Tools or that the album sounds a bit too mainstreamish again; Stevie sounds good there and there’s enough arrangement details so that I can separate the songs from each other. There’s one small problem though and that’s something that other people, including veterans like ChiliD have noticed too; Shanks’ style on this album is essentially an imitation of a Lindsey production, except on places where it once again sounds way too mainstream. I can’t deny it myself either and I can’t escape from thinking how much better the thing would sound in Lindsey’s hands. I even find myself escaping to the original demos of “Sorcerer” (because what could replace those valuable Buckingham vocals?) and “Planets Of The Universe” (take that technophilia off from the final take!).

So there you have it. That’s why I still prefer Lindsey to any other Stevie’s producer. This is not to underestimate the contributions of the producers or Waddy or Sharon (& other vocalists) or whoever but I think that certain sides of Stevie come out only when she’s working with Lindsey. It shows right there in the way he wraps his guitars onto a Nickssong so that it becomes difficult (for me, at least) to imagine that there’s some other kind of approach. It’s also there in his singing and how he cleverly inserts his voice into Stevie’s work; he knows the reactions that their two voices still generate. Above all, it still creates this network of emotions that’s definitely alone-standing in the world of rock music.

I haven’t tried to suggest here that Stevie should solely work with LB or that she should not do another solo album. I’ve only tried to explain why I prefer Lindsey to any other producer of Nicks that there is. If Lindsey’s the perfectionist he’s reputed to be in the studio, then I see no problem with Stevie doing a solo album including all the usual hubbub that comes along with it. But neither do I think that anyone will ever come and match Buckingham’s impact on Nicks’ music and life; that’s what you wanted to hear you romantics! ;)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But in my opinion... regarding Stevie, or any songwriter... I'm always going to give 70/30 credit, with the songwriter first, and the producer second, as the producer is only really embellishing what's already there (in my opinion).

Opinion understood. Of course you’re speaking as someone for whom the lyrics are an integral part of music. I’ve explained this several times: lyrics don’t hold that much value for me (it’s not that difficult to write lyrics that are adequate to the piece, or something that’s thoroughly incomprehensible and thus the message wouldn’t matter), that’s why I’m prone to give more credit to those who are responsible of the actual music. When there’s this “hi-jacking” going on; large atmospheric shifts that happen when Lindsey takes a particular Stevie song into his gloves, my appreciation for the arranger will be even bigger. Like David once quoted, it’s “magnificent castles of sound built out of seemingly thin air”. But I guess it doesn’t matter how we put the ratio here; Stevie’s performance is always crucial to the success of a song. And we all love these songs in the end. :)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
At any rate, I'm still chuckling over the fact that, nearly 17 years after its release, we're still having multi-page debates about "When I See You Again."

That’s how it tends to be with works of art where self-parody and seriousness go together hand in hand. ;) Note though, I still appreciate the song, like I appreciate “Family Man” which is another self-parody that deserves a book written about it.

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I agree, and IMO some folks rely too much on that Christine quote about Lindsey fixing Dreams.

It’s not just a single quote that I’m basing this on; it’s by comparing Stevie’s demos to the final products and by intent listening on Lindsey’s playing that leads into this. For me “Dreams” is musically all about that guitar and those harmonies. One of the message boards I like to visit on is a board where people discuss all kinds of music. Occasionally there’s a discussion on FM; a while ago they were talking about “Dreams” and how the track seems to have no immediately grappling musical hook on it (as you can guess, there’s no FM fans on that board; I wonder if they have anything else than Rumours anyway). They came to the conclusion that the track relies on subtle little things: how darn sexy Stevie sounds on it, how the minimal groove of Mick and John contributes a lot to the final track, etc. They praised the guitar and the harmonies especially. No one commended on Stevie’s basic songwriting. It just proves to me that you can go from very rough beginnings to something so great that even former musical snobs would feel the significance.

Originally posted by EricBliss12345
I was in no way trying to stir **** when I said Lindsey let her make an ass out of herself. Do you really think none of the other band members winced when they heard that vocal track play back? I really thought I was giving a well thought out and balanced opinion there! That's the best I can do! :laugh:

No problem there Eric; I overreacted myself and apologize for that. Your comment just seemed to me to be playing around with the stereotype of Lindsey being this “dominative ego-feeding idiot” who around the time of TITN sessions didn’t want to support Stevie because of emotional problems or whatever. Basically it would be the same if I went to the pre-Rumours board and started talking about Bob Welch being the biggest stoned-out hippie whose writing is always the same because of a brain atrophy (compare 'HOW-many-PEOple-SIT-home-at-NIGHT...' with 'And ALL of the THINGS that I SAID that I WANted'). Mind you, I wouldn’t do that because I respect Bob deeply. Anyone who creates an album like The Other One can always have a pint or two in my household.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm not really sure why we're even debating this. I'm also not sure how the existence of another mix featuring both vocals, necessarily "proves" your point and "weakens" mine.

You stated that it was "highly unlikely" Stevie removed her voice from the mix, which I assume to mean that you believe Lindsey must have recorded his vocal separately... therefore there would be no need to remove another vocal.

(And perhaps it should be noted here that Lindsey's voice is noticeably more prominent on the left channel, even on the album version.)

I have three versions of "When I See You Again."
The album version; the mix where they're both singing the "If I see you again" coda; and a third where the ending is merely more repetitions of the line "what's the matter, baby," as the song fades.

Given that it's common practice to make safeties (backup copies) of the various takes, why is it so hard to believe that a copy could still exist of the mix that featured both Stevie and Lindsey, while also believing that Stevie could have "removed" her vocals (a task which probably really only amounted to dropping her voice out of the mix) from the master to create the version the band used for the album?

Stevie has had a hand in remixing various tracks over the years, and has produced or co-produced some others... so surely she has enough knowledge of the soundboard to be able to drop her vocals out of a mix.

So what causes the improbability in your mind? And what would make it such a hard pill to swallow if she had?
It was 17 years ago, and it's not like it really matters one way or the other if she had.

Down, boy! Methinks you're getting waaaaay too defensive here. I'm not questioning whether your beloved Nicks can push up a f*cking slider on a soundboard. You'd have to be an idiot not to figure that out. What I am saying is that because of the very nature of how recordings are approached, it is highly unlikely she could get away with "wiping out" her voice from the mix. You addressed that issue yourself: There are safety copies and sound engineers/producers don't tend to erase things from the mix; they merely hide them. Is it possible that she touched a slider? Of course. I'm merely arguing that she didn't wipe out the vocal nor was it her final decision.

In the quote you used, "took my voice off" are the words she uses, as if to imply that sneaking into the studio to "take off" her voice from the mix is as simple as that. As if Lindsey wouldn't have noticed before the mix was mastered. That's why I called it a tall tale. Even if she did that -- which is unlikely because she was in the studio for, what, three days? -- chances are Lindsey would have noticed the very next time he played the mix. Her quote implies she pulled one over on him, and I contend it's simply not believable.

Take a deep breath now.

[David]

Originally posted by blackdove
WISYA is my favourite Stevie song from Tango, its awesome! Mine, too. It's a naked little ballad on which Fleetwood Mac sounds sublime. It's one of the highlights of the album.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
At any rate, I'm still chuckling over the fact that, nearly 17 years after its release, we're still having multi-page debates about "When I See You Again." :)

Aren't you just the teeniest bit proud of me for staying out of this thread with my negative WISYA energy?

I deserve a medal! :laugh:

:wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by trackaghost
I also hate the implication that Stevie's main contribution is the lyrics. I was under the impression she wrote most of her best known songs, music AND lyrics ;)

You're right and "That Made Me Stronger" is a testament to that. The lyrics are pretty bad, but the music is worse. I don't understand why she wrote those lyrics but didn't heed them. ;)

Originally posted by trackaghost
Oh wait Keith Olsen produced that didn't he? ;) (Yeah, yeah I know Linds was involved!)

But he also produced Mirror Mirror. :eek:

Originally posted by trackaghost
I'm in no way denying Lindsey's talent as a producer or the amazing way he has helped shape Stevie's best songs but if he didn't have good material to work with in the first place then it wouldn't matter what flourishes or studio wizardry he added, it would still be a dudd song. I mean, is Lindsey that amazing that he could turn The Cheeky Girls into credible artistes or make I'd Rather Jack a great song? Well?

He couldn't make those good songs, but I'd bet my life that he could make them more tolerable. I think what we're all missing is that Lindsey is the one person who truly understands what Stevie is trying to do and that understanding makes him a better producer than the other people she's worked with. For me, no one can compare to what Lindsey has done with her songs. Yeah, some of her solo songs are works of genius, but could imagine how much better those genius songs would be if Lindsey put his stamp on them? They were meant to work together and appreciate each others work.

Originally posted by trackaghost
It could be suggested that Lindsey's attention to detail and perfectionism can sometimes go too far. (Right remember now that I'm saying this as a huge Lindsey fan, and we all can't like the same things) The album that everyone holds up as Lindsey's masterpiece, Out Of The Cradle, suffers from too much production and polish for my taste. It's almost like he has smoothed away all the personality of those songs (I still like that record but it stops me from loving it!). I always thought that's why it wasn't a big hit, not because it was too "leftfield" or "not meant for the mainstream", as Lindsey himself might put it, because it's very mainstream. Sometimes a little rawness and a few mistakes here and there add the real personality. That's why I've always loved Tusk, his true masterpiece..

OOTC was his most mainstream work up until that point in his career. The reason it failed was because the general public had forgotten about him, the promotion behind it stunk, and it wasn't the hippest kind of music at the time. The same things you said about that album can be attributed to many of Stevie's solo albums, IMO. I enjoy many songs off of RAL, but the slickness of it really turns me off like you said about Lindsey's album. It seems to me that the rawness and emotion of her work was literally buried underneath a bunch of junk; it had turned into a non-entity, whereas with OOTC, I appreciate the slickness because I know that it was produced as a labor of love. Lindsey put his heart and soul into that record, lyrically and musically, while RAL came off as a calculated attempt at modernizing Stevie's sound, all the while forgetting what the whole thing was about: the music.

Originally posted by trackaghost
The other thing that bothers me is the suggestion that if Lindsey had worked on Stevie's solo albums that they would be transformed from albums you "tolerate" to "the greatest albums ever". I personally disagree. I can't imagine Lindsey producing a song like Edge Of Seventeen or even Stand Back or Wild Heart. I can't! And if he did they would be completely different tracks and I love those songs exactly the way they are. I think those albums show a different side to Stevie, one which wasn't represented in Fleetwood Mac and one which I don't think we would have ever seen if she hadn't decided to make solo albums.

If those songs had been originally released as FM songs, you'd say the same thing, though. However, I do agree with you somewhat.

Originally posted by trackaghost
The other thing implied is that all Stevie's albums have the same formula or "approach". I don't think they do actually. Jimmy Iovine's "laissez-faire" approach sounded to me like a real band playing live, which is why I always loved his work and also why so many of those songs transformed so well to stage. Bella Donna is essentially Stevie Nicks backed by Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers and I can't think of a better combination than that. I thought TOSOTM suffered because it sounded more like a studio creation. Street Angel suffered simply because Stevie and her voice were so uninspired at that time, but I still maintain the worse songs on that record are the covers not her self-penned tunes.

I think they do have the same formula and approach: make a really great record that is as mainstream as possible and make sure that it sounds slick enough to slip on. Granted, FM is a very mainstream band, but not as mainstream as Stevie solo is. After awhile, a lot of Stevie's solo tunes got pretty boring because you could tell exactly how it would sound before you even got up to the first-minute mark.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Also John Shanks is a good producer because he is a Lindsey wannabe?! Pur-lease! I don't really rate him actually, I prefered most of the songs he didn't produce on that album apart from maybe Planets Of The Universe (although the extended version is 10 times better than the album version) and I can't see Lindsey producing a song like that in a million years (which is why she needs to do solo stuff).

The opening chords to POTU sound like the opening chords to Rhiannon, only backwards. I don't know the technical jargon, so someone help me out! And I always thought the reason she needed to do solo stuff was to release more of an output.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Down, boy! Methinks you're getting waaaaay too defensive here. I'm not questioning whether your beloved Nicks can push up a f*cking slider on a soundboard. You'd have to be an idiot not to figure that out.
Take a deep breath now. Well, isn't that sweet? In a matter of a few sentences, you painted me like some over-emotional and irrational fan, who has no idea what they're talking about.

I think I've offered a very probable explanation as to how Stevie's comments could be true, without ever veering into "Stevie's a goddess, so it MUST be true" territory.

So thanks for the little pat on the head, Daddy.

And sure, "took my voice off" is how she described it, but I doubt anyone expects Stevie to go into some long technical explanation as to how one would go about fiddling with various knobs in order to drop their voice out of a mix.

She also never said that Lindsey was shocked or surprised when the album was released, and he heard that he was the only one singing at the end of the song. That's putting words into her mouth.

All she ever said was that Lindsey would not think to sing solo at the end of one of her songs, and that, in order to get the vibe she was after, she had to sing the lines along with him, and then remove her voice from the mix.

She very well could have played "her" mix for the band five minutes later to show them how she had been wanting it to sound all along.

Again, as I said previously, I'm 100% positive that Lindsey had to be aware of what she did fairly quickly after the fact, as these mixes must get final approval from all involved before they're sent off to be mastered.
I don't think I ever implied that she pulled a major fast-one on Lindsey, and that he was in the dark the entire time.

But hey, you know, if you want to believe Stevie's just completely talking out of her ass there, and that the whole thing could only have been another one of Lindsey's brilliant touches, that's fine. :nod:

(By the way, that she was only in the studio for "three days" is another one of those exaggerated comments that has been taken for gospel. If it was only three days, they must have gotten a lot of work done, what with Stevie recording multiple vocals takes on "Seven Wonders," "When I See You Again," and "Welcome To The Room, Sara," as well as "What Has Rock And Roll Ever Done For You," "Juliet," and "Joan Of Arc."
Not to mention recording backing vocals for "Little Lies," "Everywhere," "Family Man," and "Big Love.")

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
OOTC was his most mainstream work up until that point in his career. The reason it failed was because the general public had forgotten about him, the promotion behind it stunk, and it wasn't the hippest kind of music at the time.'Out Of The Cradle' deserved far more recognition and success than it received, but to say that the promotion behind it stunk, isn't very accurate.

They released four singles to radio, some of which featured special mixes to help make them even more radio-friendly... they filmed four promo videos... Lindsey appeared on Lettermen (twice), Leno (twice), Live with Regis & Kathy Lee, ABC In Concert, PBS, and VH1... there were multiple print ads that ran in magazines like Rolling Stone... Lindsey toured (even opened for Tina Turner for a while!)... and so on.

That is a pretty big promotional blitz for an album that peaked at #128 on the Billboard Top 200 Albums chart.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
Aren't you just the teeniest bit proud of me for staying out of this thread with my negative WISYA energy?

I deserve a medal!:lol:

I have to say that I was actually going to post earlier in this thread about how much I appreciated the fact that you hadn't jumped in to slam the song... given how much I know you dislike it.

But I refrained, because I didn't want it to sound like a veiled slap in the face to anyone who did post something negative about it.

But yes, you definitely deserve a medal!!! :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
:lol:

I have to say that I was actually going to post earlier in this thread about how much I appreciated the fact that you hadn't jumped in to slam the song... given how much I know you dislike it.

But I refrained, because I didn't want it to sound like a veiled slap in the face to anyone who did post something negative about it.

But yes, you definitely deserve a medal!!! :laugh:

Thanks, doll. :D

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
'Out Of The Cradle' deserved far more recognition and success than it received, but to say that the promotion behind it stunk, isn't very accurate.

They released four singles to radio, some of which featured special mixes to help make them even more radio-friendly... they filmed four promo videos... Lindsey appeared on Lettermen (twice), Leno (twice), Live with Regis & Kathy Lee, ABC In Concert, PBS, and VH1... there were multiple print ads that ran in magazines like Rolling Stone... Lindsey toured (even opened for Tina Turner for a while!)... and so on.

That is a pretty big promotional blitz for an album that peaked at #128 on the Billboard Top 200 Albums chart.

Let's not forget that Lindsey, the artist, paid mostly for the videos and when serviced, they didn't get much rotation.

I don't believe the number of singles released has much bearing, either, because if it isn't the kind of music that is going to do well on radio, not one of them is going to get airplay.

What I meant was that the promotion being given out by Lindsey and his label wasn't getting picked up by the national media or the public. :) Unfortunate, IMO, because it's a masterpiece.

[dissention]

Originally posted by trackaghost
I feel bad now about dissing Lindsey. I do think he's amazing and I've changed my mind ("it's a woman's right" hehe) I do love OOTC, but I still reckon it's too slick and shiny and I would like it more without the blinding sheen!

Don't feel bad, at least the two of us got a good discussion out of it! :D

[dissention]

Originally posted by trackaghost
I still think part of the reason OOTC didn't do as well was because it was too slick. I'm not saying that was the whole reason, but part of the reason definitely, esp considering it was a time when people were embracing rawer music.
But yes, I completely agree about Rock A Little. It's not one of my favourites although there are several songs off that record which I love.

I have to say that I agree. :D

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
Let's not forget that Lindsey, the artist, paid mostly for the videos and when serviced, they didn't get much rotation.

I don't believe the number of singles released has much bearing, either, because if it isn't the kind of music that is going to do well on radio, not one of them is going to get airplay.

What I meant was that the promotion being given out by Lindsey and his label wasn't getting picked up by the national media or the public. Ah, ok... on that last point we can agree.

I took your comments to mean that the record company/Powers That Be didn't do enough to promote the album. And in my opinion, releasing four singles (the hope is always that they WILL get played), etc., is a pretty decent show of faith for an album that never sold big numbers.

[Johnny Stew]

For Gaius....

Forgive me for not replying in a more involved manner, but you made so many points, that I'd be here forever trying to fashion all of my responses into a concise post.

I just wanted to say that i do agree with you, that Lindsey and Stevie seem to bring out the best in each other.
She always seems more inspired and daring with him... and he always seems to be at his best when producing one of her songs.

But, having said that, I don't think Stevie's other producers were necessarily taking the easy way out, or following in Lindsey's footsteps.
I think that the way in which Stevie writes, somewhat dictates the progression the songs will take on their way to being a finished product.

"Sisters Of The Moon" is a good example: Lindsey approached the song in a dark, moody fashion, and his electric guitar touches throughout are perfect.
But... in the piano demo of the song, Stevie is clearly playing the basis of those guitar parts. Albeit, in a slower fashion, and with less finesse.

Certainly there have been other songs where Lindsey's approach was not as obvious, based on the sound of the demo... "Gypsy" being a good example of that... but for the most part (and this is entirely my opinion) what the songs will end up becoming, is well laid-out in Stevie's original demos.

It's the other elements that Lindsey adds... the left-of-center instrumental touches, for example... that help the songs to stand out that much more.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
"Sisters Of The Moon" is a good example: Lindsey approached the song in a dark, moody fashion, and his electric guitar touches throughout are perfect.
But... in the piano demo of the song, Stevie is clearly playing the basis of those guitar parts. Albeit, in a slower fashion, and with less finesse.

The master reel piano demo ("pretty weird, huh?") that's floating around is astonishing. She sounds absolutely amazing on it. I much prefer it to the album version. :nod:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Down, boy! Methinks you're getting waaaaay too defensive here. I'm not questioning whether your beloved Nicks can push up a f*cking slider on a soundboard.

Woah, where did this come from? Totally uncalled for.


Originally posted by Johnny Stew

She also never said that Lindsey was shocked or surprised when the album was released, and he heard that he was the only one singing at the end of the song. That's putting words into her mouth.

All she ever said was that Lindsey would not think to sing solo at the end of one of her songs, and that, in order to get the vibe she was after, she had to sing the lines along with him, and then remove her voice from the mix.

She very well could have played "her" mix for the band five minutes later to show them how she had been wanting it to sound all along.

Again, as I said previously, I'm 100% positive that Lindsey had to be aware of what she did fairly quickly after the fact, as these mixes must get final approval from all involved before they're sent off to be mastered.
I don't think I ever implied that she pulled a major fast-one on Lindsey, and that he was in the dark the entire time.



I've read somewhere - was it Mick's book? That she did without Lindsey's knowledge and then played the "new and improved" version for the band along with Lindsey. Lindsey wanted to change it back, but the band outvoted him, agreeing with Stevie that it sounded better - and so it stayed. Stevie only pulled a "fast one" by having the band listen to the version with her vocals turned down without consulting Lindsey first. It was an idea which Lindsey had already vetoed but which the rest of the band could now see was a good one. You go Stevie! :)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
The master reel piano demo ("pretty weird, huh?") that's floating around is astonishing. She sounds absolutely amazing on it. I much prefer it to the album version. :nod:

Amen - she is resplendent on it and another copy I have.

For me, I think SOTM is one of the songs , probably with SN's approval for all we know, somewhat ruined for me. the Tusk version is just too produced (albeit brilliantly) for me. In any event, I still like the Tusk version.

The same could be said about John Shanks and POTU. I like the TISL version, but the piano demo is just heartwrenching. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Well, isn't that sweet? In a matter of a few sentences, you painted me like some over-emotional and irrational fan, who has no idea what they're talking about.

I need not paint you in any way, Johnny. Don't attribute to me more power than I have.

And sure, "took my voice off" is how she described it, but I doubt anyone expects Stevie to go into some long technical explanation as to how one would go about fiddling with various knobs in order to drop their voice out of a mix.

Geezus... Give me a break, man. You're like dog with a bone about his stuff. Read her own words. If you don't get that she's trying to convey that she thinks she was so clever to sneak into the studio and pull this stunt you're not reading it right then. All I'm saying is it is highly unlikely it happened that way. Stevie has been known to exaggerate. And besides, she probably was so coked up at the time, so how could she remember?

Perhaps you should stick to moderating.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I need not paint you in any way, Johnny. Don't attribute to me more power than I have.



Geezus... Give me a break, man. You're like dog with a bone about his stuff. Read her own words. If you don't get that she's trying to convey that she thinks she was so clever to sneak into the studio and pull this stunt you're not reading it right then. All I'm saying is it is highly unlikely it happened that way. Stevie has been known to exaggerate. And besides, she probably was so coked up at the time, so how could she remember?

Perhaps you should stick to moderating.

Technically, I think she had quit coke and gone through rehab by then - but I could be wrong as I am unsure how much of TITN was recorded prior to Betty Ford. Stevie did send in tapes from the road.

Personally, I think all Stevie is saying is she wanted LB to sing in a certain manner that he normally does not sing in. So, she got him to sing in her preferred manner by tricking him by singing it with him (thus getting him into the preferred voice) and then taking her voice off of or out of it.

Oh to have been a fly on the wall!!!! :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

That she may have romanticized her actions by using the phrases "snuck in" and "took her voice off," rather than giving a detailed technical explanation of the mixing process, was not in question.
You stated outright that it was all a big lie, and that Lindsey just went out and recorded the vocal by himself.

I merely tried to offer reasons and evidence (the alternate take that exists with both vocalists, for example), as to how her story could very well be true... even if she had simplified it when she spoke about it with Creem Magazine.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen you offer any evidence or proof to contradict Stevie's story, or to prove why you're certain she must be lying. Beyond the statement that she was just coked out of her mind, that is... which most fans know that, by all accounts, she was clean by the time she went in to record 'Tango.'
Originally posted by CarneVaca
I need not paint you in any way, Johnny. Don't attribute to me more power than I have.

Perhaps you should stick to moderating. Trust me, pal, you have no power in my life. At the end of the day, you're just some guy on a message board.
And if you want to deny that your post was condescending and dismissive, that's fine. I wouldn't expect an apology from you.
But I'm not the only one who noted your tone, so I trust that I wasn't over-reacting.

I stated my case, and I think I did so in an articulate and clear fashion, without ever getting emotional or responding to anyone in a patronizing way. So I think I'll just go right on posting as often as my little heart desires. :nod:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That she may have romanticized her actions by using the phrases "snuck in" and "took her voice off," rather than giving a detailed technical explanation of the mixing process, was not in question.
You stated outright that it was all a big lie, and that Lindsey just went out and recorded the vocal by himself.


I never said "big lie." You don't seem to know the difference between "big lie" and "tall tale," but that's your problem.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen you offer any evidence or proof to contradict Stevie's story

You provided the evidence yourself. The fact you have alternate takes of the song proves that she did not "wipe" the vocals. That's all I've contented all along -- that it didn't happen.

Trust me, pal, you have no power in my life. At the end of the day, you're just some guy on a message board.

Awwhhh, what a huuuuuuge disappointment.

But I'm not the only one who noted your tone, so I trust that I wasn't over-reacting.

Here we go with the generalizations. You and your buddies are exchanging private messages again. That's fine. But just keep them private; I could give a **** less about your exchanges with them.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I never said "big lie." You don't seem to know the difference between "big lie" and "tall tale," but that's your problem.As I'm sure you should be well aware, a "tall tale" is something improbable or unlikely to be true... and when we purposely say something "untrue," it amounts to telling a "lie."

So no, you may not have actually used the word "lie," but it's just a matter of semantics, when you stated that you believe Stevie was telling a story that wasn't true.
IE:, a lie.

But hey, I'm just a dumb Stevie fan, who apparently doesn't have a grasp on the English language, so what do I know?Originally posted by CarneVaca
You provided the evidence yourself. The fact you have alternate takes of the song proves that she did not "wipe" the vocals. That's all I've contented all along -- that it didn't happen.I have multiple mixes of many songs where a certain harmony or backing vocal was mixed out, or... conversely... made more prominent. "Oh Daddy" being a good example of that... where Stevie's backing vocal is nowhere to be found on the album version, but is clearly noticeable on the DVD-Audio mix. Same exact take, different mix.

So I'm still not sure why you consider that alternate mix of "When I See You Again" to be proof that your theory has to be the only one that's right.Originally posted by CarneVaca
Here we go with the generalizations. You and your buddies are exchanging private messages again. That's fine. But just keep them private; I could give a **** less about your exchanges with them. Nancy (sodascouts) posted right here on this thread, saying your comments to me were "uncalled for" (Sorry to bring you into this, Nancy - I hope you don't mind), and that's what I was referring to.
Anything else you read into it is completely on you and your ego, buddy.

At any rate, this whole thing has become absolutely ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[CarneVaca]

This is just getting tedious now. And boring. Not worth my time.

[Hawkeye]

well what was a thread about When I See You Again SUPPOSED to generate:laugh: Could you imagine how bad it would get if this was The Second Time appreciation Thread:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Hawkeye
well what was a thread about When I See You Again SUPPOSED to generate:laugh: Could you imagine how bad it would get if this was The Second Time appreciation Thread:laugh:

Not only do I LOVE "The Second Time," but I sang it a capella on Tracy's site and dedicated my performance to the talented and handsome Johnny Stew! :cool:

[EricBliss12345]

Perhaps you should stick to moderating.

Agreed. I also think he should stick to moderating.

Shut up Stew. :laugh:

[wondergirl9847]

I just wanted to step in and say that I believe OOTC was a "flop" because of the music industry at that particular time. In 1992, it was all about Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, etc. Nobody wanted to hear a guy from that old, outdated group. :(

I believe that most people listen to music for entertainment, it's not in their heart and soul. They don't CONNECT with it. For us FM/Lindsey/Stevie fans, it's in our soul, we "get" this music. That goes for any other hardcore whatever-group/singer fan. Those out there who love Cher or Metallica or Eminem...they "get" their music and connect with it. I'm not talking about the casual music listeners, the ones who are fickle. They, unfortunately, are the ones that record companies bow down to. :rolleyes:

And I agree, OOTC is a masterpiece. :nod:

[face of glass]

“The battle rages on”, to quote an ill-advised Deep Purple album. Cut my hands off if I write too much, Johnny (especially since you're in the middle of some other argument), but it just happens. It has nothing to do with boosting my ego or something like that. ;)

Originally posted by trackaghost
To begin with lyrics are very important to me personally. I wouldn't say I like a song solely because of the lyrics but even if a song had the most beautiful music with the world's best singer performing it, it would be instantly spoiled if it had bad lyrics. I know I'm not alone here. I'm not saying lyrics make the song, but they are a huge part of it.

I wasn’t underestimating the value of lyrics to different people. I was just saying that they do not matter that much to me; especially when I consider the fact that I don’t have the same grasp of English as most of you do. It isn’t a natural language for me.
Also, your point about a bad lyric immediately rendering a song with “the most beautiful music with the world’s best singer performing it” doesn’t work for me, at least. I’ve always been capable of getting past a poor lyric if there’s something in the song that’s attractive to me; there’s another reason why I’ve never been bothered by Lindsey’s “weak early lyrics”. Remember as well that it isn’t always the lyric itself that matters; it’s the way it’s sung. A poor singer can ruin a great lyric by emphasizing the wrong words while having no understanding of nuances. A great singer can hide all the flaws of a poor or minimal lyric by his/her delivery.

What I think of the following points is basically a repetition of what I wrote on the “FM on Dick Clark’s Primetime...” thread, but since you probably haven’t paid attention to what I said there, I’ll repeat them here, just for you. ;)

Originally posted by trackaghost
I also hate the implication that Stevie's main contribution is the lyrics. I was under the impression she wrote most of her best known songs, music AND lyrics ;)

I’d like to think I haven’t hinted at that. What I have stated earlier is that the only way I can find any value in Stevie’s recent demos is by listening at the performance itself. This includes the lyrics, the songwriting itself and the voice. All of these form this unique relationship with each other. Take one away and the attraction is gone. Especially if that voice is the one to go.

I’m certainly not going to start pretending that I find Stevie a great songwriter these days. She was good in the ‘70s and early ‘80s when her basic, never-changing way of writing music still had its freshness. A lot of those songs (not all of them, though) could be covered by others because they still had certain appeal outside the Nicksian mode of performing. As for the stuff made after that, though, no possibility of that ever happening. You need Stevie’s voice to make the recent demos work. It’s the performance that’s her main focus in making of music; the same way Lindsey pays most attention to the way the overall track will sound like. I haven’t ever thought that Lindsey or Stevie are great songwriters in the traditional sense; they cover up what they lack in that area through other measures and do it admirably.

Originally posted by trackaghost
You certainly give the impression here that Lindsey as producer is writing the music. Even if Stevie is just coming up with the melody then that is a HUGE part of the music no matter what words she is singing.
No, he is not writing the music all by himself; he has Stevie’s basic work to build on. I’ve never believed it’s just the melody that makes the whole thing work. I should quote CarneVaca here:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
It is the dynamic interplay between melody, chord structure and rhythm that makes a song good or bad musically.
And never can you put that stuff on paper adequately. You convey all that in the performance itself. Imagine if someone was to offer Lindsey one of Stevie’s demos but with someone else’s vocal performance. Or Stevie just gave him sheet notes to work with? (Yeah, right, like he could actually read them.) Would he be able to create a great arrangement out of that?

What Lindsey is coming up with is the overall atmosphere. It is he who gives Stevie’s demos their own special identities, so that even those people who are not fans are capable of hearing significant differences. The other producers have been less successful in that in my opinion.

Originally posted by trackaghost
It seems to me the arrangement is what's important to you. Of course a song like Landslide is utter perfection and that's just a voice and an acoustic guitar. There's not really any Buckingham quirks there...
Oh wait Keith Olsen produced that didn't he? ;) (Yeah, yeah I know Linds was involved!)
The arrangement is of huge significance, but of equal meaning to me is Stevie’s singing. The words she chooses to emphasize and the nuances in her voice do it for me too.

It isn’t just any guitar in there! It’s Lindsey Buckingham’s guitar! You think there’s that much production in “Landslide”? It’s always been a “simple” acoustic track. There’s nothing of significance lost in concert. I do think it’s one of Stevie’s best written songs (and obviously so do those who have covered it) but a lot of the fascination comes from Lindsey’s playing and what notes from the chords he emphasizes. I haven’t ever heard that someone would have actually suggested Lindsey to play a particular guitar part (except for the “SOTM” debacle ;) ). He’s coming up with all of that himself. Even Ken Caillat hinted at that in his Q&A. And I certainly don’t believe that Stevie herself would have suggested something in particular with her rudimentary playing skills. Do you remember a confession of hers while talking to the audience on one particular night during the current tour? It was Lindsey who taught her to play “Landslide” without a pick (or that’s how I think it went). So there. :)

Originally posted by trackaghost
I'm in no way denying Lindsey's talent as a producer or the amazing way he has helped shape Stevie's best songs but if he didn't have good material to work with in the first place then it wouldn't matter what flourishes or studio wizardry he added, it would still be a dudd song.

He doesn’t necessarily have to work on a song. He can do these sonic paintings without having a song to go along with. Sure, he isn’t expressing a traditional emotion. It’s a glimpse of something strange; a disturbing mental picture of sorts where all these various streams join together to create a particular senseless moment. Just like life itself.

Originally posted by trackaghost
The album that everyone holds up as Lindsey's masterpiece, Out Of The Cradle, suffers from too much production and polish for my taste. It's almost like he has smoothed away all the personality of those songs (I still like that record but it stops me from loving it!). I always thought that's why it wasn't a big hit, not because it was too "leftfield" or "not meant for the mainstream", as Lindsey himself might put it, because it's very mainstream.

Dissention did an admirable job in defending OOTC, especially because I agree with those statements ;) but I’d still like to bring up a few more points.
I have to agree that it did feel a bit too mainstream when I first heard it. Some of it could be attributed to Lindsey’s personal growth; he didn’t feel like he would have to do sonic hooliganism all over the album anymore. But it’s also because he was on his own at that point. He knew that he would have to do something that would be somehow reminiscent of FM’s records. He (and Richard) was on his own as a writer; he wouldn’t be capable of the same kind of diversity that there was on the FM records if he was to follow the established pattern of making an album that’s not relative to what FM had done before.
So there’s “normal” stuff on the album; songs like “Soul Drifter”, “Countdown” and “You Do Or You Don’t” are to OOTC what “Everywhere”, “Little Lies” and “Seven Wonders” are to TITN. It just adds to the picture and makes it more complete. Sure, you could say that he desperately wanted the stuff to sell and you could be right. But why did it not sell?

Originally posted by trackaghost
Sometimes a little rawness and a few mistakes here and there add the real personality. That's why I've always loved Tusk, his true masterpiece.

I do feel a certain kind of rawness on OOTC; it’s not like he used dirty tone colours like on Tusk or left on some obvious “flaws”. Sure, it’s polished alright, a result of studio hermit-like existence. But if you say it’s “very mainstream”, I still find that statement a bit false.

Lindsey is, has been since the days of Tusk, in between two different groups of audience. There’s the large masses who want another “Go Your Own Way” and there’s the smaller bunch of elitist snobs who embrace the art rock ethics of experiments, spontaneity and quirkiness (and yes Sharon, I do think that punk rock was an art movement too). When the bands who appeal to the second group achieved some prominence, Lindsey got interested too. It isn’t just because he didn’t want to do another Rumours, it’s because he felt a genuine affection to that music and wanted to do his own skewed version of it. Which is what he did. He’s been struggling between two personalities since then; there’s this side of him that knows how to make a song appealing through manners of traditional musicianship, then there’s this another side that always questions things and wants to add something unusual into the mix. Both sides are at work throughout OOTC too. There’s this guy who puts the “crooner” vocal on the verses of “Don’t Look Down” and there’s this guy who throws these left-field harmonies to the chorus. This “weirder” guy throws in the “tap-dancing” of “Wrong”. He’s also responsible of the “This Is The Time” and the murky depression of “Street Of Dreams”. He’s on every track of the album in my opinion, sometimes “in the shade”, sometimes far more visible. And so he is there on SYW too, even on “Steal Your Heart Away” (but not prominently enough, if you ask me).

You’ll never achieve great success if you’re working in between two target groups; in this case the audience of “adult-oriented” rock and the experimental, hipper circles. It’s the main fascination of Buckingham for me though, that he straddles the fence between the two extremes and never gives in to produce something totally inaccessible or bow to the lowest common denominator. It’s a shame that the elitists are far too interested in what is hip and thus they don’t care for the “corporate rock sell-out” that they think Lindsey is. It’s an equal shame that the mainstream has never picked up on an entire Lindsey album because “it’s too weird and druggy”. I wish both sides could open up their horizons, but that’s still very unlikely to happen.

Originally posted by trackaghost
The other thing that bothers me is the suggestion that if Lindsey had worked on Stevie's solo albums that they would be transformed from albums you "tolerate" to "the greatest albums ever".

That’s not what I was suggesting. I don’t exactly “tolerate” them, I love two of them and like the rest of them. I don’t even think that there ever will be a “greatest album ever”. There are works of art that represent various sides of various personalities. If I recognize something that I can relate to, then I treasure the album. There’s moments like that on Stevie’s albums but there’s also a significant amount of things that speak to me far less than Lindsey’s productions. There’s far less risk involved, and a smaller sense of adventurousness.

Originally posted by trackaghost
I personally disagree. I can't imagine Lindsey producing a song like Edge Of Seventeen or even Stand Back or Wild Heart. I can't! And if he did they would be completely different tracks and I love those songs exactly the way they are.

I can imagine him doing those. Like Dissention said, most of us are probably too accustomed to those tracks and therefore can’t imagine them in other contexts. Sure, I can believe that FM would have wanted to drop a particular verse in order to shorten the track (like they supposedly did with “Sara”). The thing is, would we miss it if we hadn’t heard it in the first place? That’s definitely subjective. It would be more likely that two of those tracks would be classics no matter who released it, FM or Stevie with help from Jimmy & the band. “The Wild Heart” is definitely more self-indulgent and most probably has been "edited" far less than any Stevie song that FM had released at the time, so we can assume they wouldn’t have wanted to release it as such. I love the track but since the amount of such “epics” in Stevie’s solo career can be counted with the fingers of one hand then there really wouldn’t be sense to do anything else solo, if she wanted to achieve the best possible results. But she's put quantity over quality. After these epics everything she put out could be easily given the Buckingham treatment. Sure, he wouldn't necessarily have treated "Stand Back" as a synth-rocker but I'm sure he would approached it as something else than "EO17 synthesized". Just my opinion, of course.

Originally posted by trackaghost
I think those albums show a different side to Stevie, one which wasn't represented in Fleetwood Mac and one which I don't think we would have ever seen if she hadn't decided to make solo albums.

I still think it’s pretty much the same thing throughout. She recognizes this in herself, by stating things like “all my songs are extensions of each other”. The solo career has been definitely important to Stevie; she could indulge in some things that she didn’t have the room to do in FM. Doing epics like the title tracks of the first two solo albums or “Beauty And The Beast” was one of them; another was putting the backing vocalists on stage and going mad with all kinds of clothes. At the same time, though, it made her even more of a laughing stock in the elitist rock circles. Who knows, maybe the tide would have turned on the Rumours era FM and they’d be spoken in the same breath with the Rolling Stones, the Who and Bob Dylan, the Clash and the Stooges if Stevie hadn’t done what she did. I’m not blaming her for this at all, I lift my middle finger in the air for those who always dismiss Stevie with the same old tired arguments. It’s just that I come from these elitist circles and I hate to see the whole thing happening. That’s why I brought it up once again.

Originally posted by trackaghost
The other thing implied is that all Stevie's albums have the same formula or "approach". I don't think they do actually. Jimmy Iovine's "laissez-faire" approach sounded to me like a real band playing live, which is why I always loved his work and also why so many of those songs transformed so well to stage.

I agree with Dissention’s response to this particular point. But there’s something more that I’d like to bring to the table.

Despite all the unbiased approach (hey, I loved FM and Stevie's songs in the band before I even gave her solo albums a chance) that I had towards Bella Donna I still found the record far too samey on the first listen. The same with The Wild Heart. Nothing stood out for me, except for rockers like “Edge Of Seventeen” and “Stand Back”. I seriously thought both albums were boring. Then a few listens more and I’m enjoying both albums pretty much throughout. The thing is, are there people willing to go through more than a couple of listens of each Stevie album. Will they notice the differences that fast? If they will, then they will most likely become fans. I still hold up the fact that Lindsey’s productions for Stevie all have easily discernible different personalities.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Also John Shanks is a good producer because he is a Lindsey wannabe?! Pur-lease!

I wasn’t stating that. I’m sure he has enough experience to do what he wants but he chose this approach which is a bit irritating.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Lastly, I realise that most of Stevie's demos are rough but they are demos for heaven's sake! And some are pretty good too despite being quite minimal.

Put someone else than Stevie to sing them. Change the lyrics if you want, but leave in the basic Nicksian chords and the vocal melody. Then we’ll see what attraction they will have for you. ;)

Originally posted by trackaghost
Funny thing is I have bought plenty of lo-fi records over the years that sound like that as the finished product lol!

Really? I’ve always thought that the ones you mentioned, the likes of Yo La Tengo and Stereolab use non-standard tone colours and it’s this particular “dirtiness” that’s a large part of the attraction, alongside the pretty-sounding songwriting. It’s a different thing than what Stevie’s demos are doing. Those use the same old sounds she’s always used. It’s not like she’s experimenting with them, like the lo-fi artists you mentioned. She’s just drawing a very rough, black-and-white sketch where the lines are so thin that only Buckingham will be able to find all of them and then colour the picture to the maximum effect.

Originally posted by trackaghost
I can see her now, working with the likes of Sebadoh, Stereolab and Yo Lo Tengo.

As much as you and I would cherish Stevie “the indie queen”, I still think that most of the people on these boards would find that kind of work her worst ever. :lol:

Originally posted by trackaghost
I'd like a Stevie record with a bit of rawness and a little grit! Rubin can definitely do that.

I’m still wondering whether she’s willing to do that after all these years. It’s that huge change that happened between the RAL and TITN tours that’s partly responsible, of course.

Originally posted by dissention
And I always thought the reason she needed to do solo stuff was to release more of an output.

I think so too. I don’t think she’s ever transcended the border between honest artistic expression and audience-pleasing banality; those artistic instincts are still present in her writing. It’s the producers who tend to cross that line occasionally.

Originally posted by trackaghost
I do love OOTC, but I still reckon it's too slick and shiny and I would like it more without the blinding sheen!

What you’re speaking of as the “blinding sheen” is something that has been referred to as “homogenous sound”. It’s the thing that gives the record its unity; it doesn’t sound like it’s a bunch of scattered pieces put together in the same package. SYW is far more scattered. It depends on which approach you prefer though. ChiliD, for instance, has expressed criticism towards the running order of Say You Will, whereas when he was discussing OOTC a couple of years ago he stated that it’s one of the few albums where he doesn’t feel the need to change the tracklisting at all.
As for me, I’ve never necessarily needed the perfect running order or the homogenous sound. I like the approach on SYW where the changes in sound are almost schizophrenic.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But, having said that, I don't think Stevie's other producers were necessarily taking the easy way out, or following in Lindsey's footsteps.
My opinion is contrary, as you already know. However, they most definitely knew how Lindsey had treated Stevie’s work before; there was already a certain kind of pen that they very rarely stepped outside of. It’s not like Stevie was going to adopt the approach of Patti Smith or Kate Bush all of a sudden.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think that the way in which Stevie writes, somewhat dictates the progression the songs will take on their way to being a finished product.
From someone who’s a big fan and who’s capable of seeing all the subtle differences I can understand that statement. But Stevie’s stated herself that FM could have had any song of hers that they wanted. I don’t when she stated that, whether it was in the ‘80s or much later but I still think there was a particular point when she would have given them anything. Of course, maybe not during the making of TITN anyway. ;)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
"Sisters Of The Moon" is a good example: Lindsey approached the song in a dark, moody fashion, and his electric guitar touches throughout are perfect.
But... in the piano demo of the song, Stevie is clearly playing the basis of those guitar parts. Albeit, in a slower fashion, and with less finesse.

I’m not denying that. In “Sisters Of The Moon” the lines in the original Nicksian sketch are more obvious than in many other demos. She came up with that riff for sure. She wouldn’t have had the skills to turn the song into a rocker though. Nor would she have had the skills to add the “left-of-center instrumental touches” or the certain tone colours. But yes, the basic idea comes from her and this time it’s stronger than usual. The thing is, this is the only song that I've seen fans use as a basis for their argument of "Stevie contributing a lot to the arrangement". It still appears to be an exception and not that big.

I think that if there was a particular idea into which Stevie would like a particular song to develop, she’d draw stronger, more obvious lines into her sketches. “SOTM”, which still went through a metamorphosis, seems like a rare exception. If she doesn’t have the instrumental skills to express everything, she could always get one of her friends in and try to convey what she wants to him/her. But nah, whenever there’s a rough Nicks demo with Stevie on her own, I feel that there’s still a “long way to go”. I like the more arranged recent ones, like “Space Needle”, but even those things are not entirely a product of Stevie’s mind. Sure, she may know what she wants but she just doesn’t know how to get there. She would’ve managed to do one or two good albums on her own in the ‘70s as a singer-songwriter but no more than that.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
For me, I think SOTM is one of the songs , probably with SN's approval for all we know, somewhat ruined for me. the Tusk version is just too produced (albeit brilliantly) for me. In any event, I still like the Tusk version.

No, it doesn’t entirely dive into the same pool of emotion as the live versions but that’s somewhat understandable. FM played it during the very tail end of the Rumours tour as an encore; it was obvious that it would be a showcase on the level of “Rhiannon”. Of course Lindsey recognized this and since Tusk wasn’t about repeating the formula of Rumours and the White Album, he wanted to undermine some of its potential.

I appreciate the way LB approached it in the studio. He knew that no matter how hot a studio take they might get out of it, it would still be exceeded by the live versions because of the looser environment. It would be comparable to some live takes by The Who and Deep Purple, in that the band would completely annihilate the studio version of a certain song by exceeding it completely. LB approached “SOTM” differently, he didn’t want to do a milder studio counterpart; he gave the song a subtler treatment with harmonies that the band wasn’t capable of pulling off live.

Finally, I apologize to those who actually have the interest to wade through all this stuff. This particular manner of participating in threads is mainly dictated by the current situation in my life. Not all dancing on the roses, that.

[CarneVaca]

It isn’t just any guitar in there! It’s Lindsey Buckingham’s guitar! You think there’s that much production in “Landslide”? It’s always been a “simple” acoustic track. There’s nothing of significance lost in concert. I do think it’s one of Stevie’s best written songs (and obviously so do those who have covered it) but a lot of the fascination comes from Lindsey’s playing and what notes from the chords he emphasizes.

"Landslide" examplifies the Buckingham/Nicks ideal. A great song with compelling lyrics and melody arranged by a great guitarist. Top it off with one of Stevie's best vocal deliveries and you have pop perfection. But you certainly cannot discount Lindsey's contribution to this song. Were it a leftover used in Bella Donna or The Wild Heart, it most likely would have gotten a completely different treatment. I credit Lindsey's genius with keeping this a simple, sparsely arranged folk pop ditty. There is beauty in simplicity. ;)

The beauty of Bella Donna and The Wild Heart is that Stevie was allowed to be Stevie to a greater extent than she had been allowed to before. And it worked While we can have academic discussions about whether certain songs would have been better or worse had Lindsey arranged them, it becomes moot when you consider how truly good those albums are. Sure there are some self-indulgent moments, but let's face it, Stevie had not been allowed any self-indulgence on record until she went solo, while one could certainly make the argument that Lindsey had done so quite extensively on Tusk, with what I consider to be stellar results.

But after The Wild Heart, one gets the sense that Stevie had become such a big star that the people around her in the studio became timid about editing and producing her. Her self-indulgence became unchecked, and therefore a huge problem. Jimmy Iovine pretty much laid down the law for Bella Donna, but by Rock a Little it looks as if she's getting away with some truly bad ideas. It got worse later.

Sometimes success becomes your biggest problem. Lindsey fully realizes this, which is why his solo records are what they are. But I think he wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the creativity and envelope-pushing abilities and the commercial success. Which, I believe, is why SYW is somewhat disjointed. There's some capitulation to commercial interests very evident in that album, whereas in Out of the Cradle, while a lot of the stuff is "poppy," I wouldn't necessarily say it is poppy in a commercial way.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Nancy (sodascouts) posted right here on this thread, saying your comments to me were "uncalled for" (Sorry to bring you into this, Nancy - I hope you don't mind), and that's what I was referring to.
Anything else you read into it is completely on you and your ego, buddy.



That's OK. I was surprised at the hostility and the injection of profanity. It seemed to come out of nowhere and be totally unwarranted.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
[quote]
But after The Wild Heart, one gets the sense that Stevie had become such a big star that the people around her in the studio became timid about editing and producing her. Her self-indulgence became unchecked, and therefore a huge problem. Jimmy Iovine pretty much laid down the law for Bella Donna, but by Rock a Little it looks as if she's getting away with some truly bad ideas. It got worse later.

I have to say I agree with this. "The Nightmare"? "Imperial Hotel"? "Sister Honey"? These are some of my least favorite Stevie songs EVER.

But I think he wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the creativity and envelope-pushing abilities and the commercial success. Which, I believe, is why SYW is somewhat disjointed. There's some capitulation to commercial interests very evident in that album, whereas in Out of the Cradle, while a lot of the stuff is "poppy," I wouldn't necessarily say it is poppy in a commercial way.

I don't see commercial capitulation in Lindsey's songs very much. Are you talking about "Steal Your Heart Away"? That's such a good song I don't consider it merely an offering for the masses. I like the fact that there are different styles on the album. Something for everyone. I do think that if the track list had been arranged a little better, the album would not have sounded so disjointed. Group the similar stuff together. That's what he did with "Go Insane" - not sure why he didn't do it hear. I get a better track list arrangment by putting it on random.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
That's OK. I was surprised at the hostility and the injection of profanity. It seemed to come out of nowhere and be totally unwarranted.

Well, let me explain it then. The following statement is what did it:

Stevie has had a hand in remixing various tracks over the years, and has produced or co-produced some others... so surely she has enough knowledge of the soundboard to be able to drop her vocals out of a mix.

So what causes the improbability in your mind? And what would make it such a hard pill to swallow if she had?

When you start using phrases such as "surely she has enough knowledge..." and "what causes...in your mind" and "what would make ... hard pill," surely those are provocative statements, no? There's an implication that I was implying that Stevie couldn't possibly figure out how to move slider on a soundboard, which is far from what I was saying.

Was my reaction unwarranted? Perhaps, but my use of profanity was not meant as an insult; it was more along the lines of: "Hey, give me a break, of course I know she can use a [expletive] slider." Hey, I'm a New Yorker. That's just common vernacular here.

So hit me for tone. But it goes both ways, no? Do you detect some sarcasm, and even a hint of exasperation, in Mr. Stew's message? if you're going to use a certain tone, expect the same in return, especially considering my use of sarcasm has been pointed out to me as a problem by none other than Johnny Stew himself. And this is what I mean by "stick to moderating." If you want to get down and dirty, pass the baton.

And, Nancy, let's face it. As far as tone goes, you're in no position to criticize anyone. :)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I don't see commercial capitulation in Lindsey's songs very much. Are you talking about "Steal Your Heart Away"? That's such a good song I don't consider it merely an offering for the masses. I like the fact that there are different styles on the album. Something for everyone. I do think that if the track list had been arranged a little better, the album would not have sounded so disjointed. Group the similar stuff together. That's what he did with "Go Insane" - not sure why he didn't do it hear. I get a better track list arrangment by putting it on random.

Not so much Lindsey's songs. But Running Through the Garden, Say You Will and Thrown Down are definitely produced with commercial appeal in mind. Steal Your Heart Away and What's the World Coming To (especially the latter) are to some extent as well.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

And, Nancy, let's face it. As far as tone goes, you're in no position to criticize anyone. :)

What are you talking about? I am perfect. ;)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
What are you talking about? I am perfect. ;)

Even perfection requires tone, my friend.

[stefan]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Not so much Lindsey's songs. But Running Through the Garden, Say You Will and Thrown Down are definitely produced with commercial appeal in mind. Steal Your Heart Away and What's the World Coming To (especially the latter) are to some extent as well.
Originally posted by CarneVaca
Not so much Lindsey's songs. But Running Through the Garden, Say You Will and Thrown Down are definitely produced with commercial appeal in mind. Steal Your Heart Away and What's the World Coming To (especially the latter) are to some extent as well.

Interesting aspects. I thought about that too and wouldn't have counted WTWCT in this commercial categorie. In my opinion the singles like Peacekeeper and Say you will are these obvious attempts of grabbing the masses or being the hit singles. I always thought this song was an attempt to recreate a certain sound a la Monday morning. He did the same thing with Twist of fate, which was my "Monday morning"or "WTWCT of the GOS compilation. Call it an appetizer for the long term fans who like this sound and who probably need to struggle with "Come" or "Murrow".
Concerning the commercial success aspect--- every FM album and even the LB albums have their hit single attempts. The difference to me is that these other albums have a certain basic ground structure and sound. There is a TITN sound. There is a OOTC sound. There is of course a "TUSK" sound (although for me Christines approach doesn't fit on the concept of the album, in difference to f.e. Mirage or TITN) But SYW is lacking of this sound. It's a puzzle, a song compilation, a caleidoscope but not an album in the old fashioned sense. I like most of the songs very much and I believe there is no real clunker except of SG. (and BTLH still didn't belong there) Gaius, Chili D, Nancy and some others already gave a hint how this incoherent production problem could have been handled (but not solved)- the setlist.
I hope this post helps you to understand every aspect of the song "When I see you again". I did my best to clarify it and think I did so pretty good.

[CarneVaca]

Stefan, I agree with you on the sound thing. I've made the same observation on occasion. SYW lacks a cohesive sound. By the way, WTWCT is indeed reminiscent of earlier Fleetwood, maybe not outright commercial but not exactly groundbreaking.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Stefan, I agree with you on the sound thing. I've made the same observation on occasion. SYW lacks a cohesive sound. By the way, WTWCT is indeed reminiscent of earlier Fleetwood, maybe not outright commercial but not exactly groundbreaking.

That is why I agree with chiliD's thought that the band should get together and write some new stuff for the new (hopefully) record. That way, I think the new record would sound more "together" than SYW did for me, although I still like SYW, esp. LB's songs.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I still like SYW, esp. LB's songs.

Say that again. Are you saying you like Lindsey's stuff better on SYW?

See, we agree on something else. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Say that again. Are you saying you like Lindsey's stuff better on SYW?

See, we agree on something else. ;)

Well, yes, although I do like La Nicks' stuff very, very much and think most of it is great (esp. Smile at You and GB), I do like LB's stuff better after a few listens and perhaps browbeatings here on the Ledge :cool:

I must say seeing Murrow at the PBS Soundstage thingee was the turning point for me.

Note: This does not in any way compromise my chiffonhead status as I am still a closeted shipper!! :laugh:

[sulamith]

Jason, I am keeping my eye on you, boy!

LOL!!

-Sharon

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
So hit me for tone. But it goes both ways, no? Do you detect some sarcasm, and even a hint of exasperation, in Mr. Stew's message? if you're going to use a certain tone, expect the same in return, especially considering my use of sarcasm has been pointed out to me as a problem by none other than Johnny Stew himself. And this is what I mean by "stick to moderating." If you want to get down and dirty, pass the baton.I'm sure there was definitely some exasperation to be noted in the tone of my response, because I was a bit exasperated.
I understood what you were saying in your earlier comments about the technical aspect of what Stevie said she did, but to me, it seemed that you weren't seeing the forest for the trees. And I'm meaning that in regards to your insistence on taking Stevie's "wiped my vocal" comment with unwavering literalism, rather than in the more simplified tone I always took her comment in.
Do I think she erased her vocal completely? No.
All I've been saying all along is that I do believe she mixed her vocal out of audibility, and presented it to the band as such, to demonstrate the vibe she wanted to leave the listener with. And I maintain that Stevie wouldn't go into some detailed technical explanation of the entire recording process, but rather, would simplify the action with a statement such as "I took my vocal off."

So yeah, your insistence that even that seems implausible and ridiculous, was exasperating to me.

But I can, with complete honesty, say that there was no sarcasm meant in my response to you, and there most certainly wasn't any kind of aggression or condescension. And it was those tones in your response, that I took exception to.

As for the "stick to moderating" comment... you've said something similar in the past, but I really don't see any kind of conflict of interest in my wanting to discuss and debate the various topics on these boards, with just as much passion and conviction as anyone else, while still being a moderator.

I might be tenacious regarding my opinions, but I'm not aggressive. And even though I'm not about to let myself get walked all over or treated like an idiot, I'm definitely not mean in my replies... no matter how much I may disagree with someone.
So again, I don't see a conflict of interest.

I've always maintained that I'm "just a Ledgie," like everyone else... the only difference is that I also have to step in and enforce the "rules" when necessary.
Posting here has always been for my own entertainment, but the moderating side is something I treat with respect and take very seriously. And not to pat my own back, but I think I do a pretty darn good job of not letting one get in the way of the other.

So as long as I trust that I can continue posting and debating, while also being a fair and impartial moderator, I'm going to keep doing both. :nod: :)

[Johnny Stew]

And just to comment on some other points made in the various posts....
I think Lindsey and Stevie are equally as guilty of self-indulgences in their solo music.

Sometimes it works ("Wild Heart," "D.W. Suite"), and sometimes it doesn't quite ("Desert Angel," "Street Of Dreams"), but in either regard it's an extension of their personalities, and their personalities should be a huge part of their solo albums, otherwise it really would be just faceless, corporate pop/rock.

And I guess which of the self-indulgences you enjoy most (or criticize the least) depends on which of the two artists you tend to prefer.

[wondergirl9847]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
and sometimes it doesn't quite ("Street Of Dreams")

That's one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard!!

Well, it works for me. :nod:

But, like we ALWAYS say 'round these parts....OPINION. ;)

And I guess which of the self-indulgences you enjoy most (or criticize the least) depends on which of the two artists you tend to prefer.

:nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sulamith
Jason, I am keeping my eye on you, boy!

LOL!!

-Sharon

I hear the dark side calling "all my life - every night - all the time - Well IIII HHEEEAAAR TTHHE CAAAALLLLL OF THE DAAAARRRRKKK SSIIIIDDDEEEEE" Ok - I'm back!! :laugh:

[sparky]

Running Through Garden commercial ? What a JOKE ! With that silly assed Casio sounding keyboard riff ? Maybe in 1983. Maybe in 1985. Not today.

[CarneVaca]

Johnny, I didn't accuse of condescending or aggression. I did accuse you of sarcasm and exasperation, and I stand by that. Don't tell me, in all honesty, that when you suggested I didn't think Stevie could use a soundboard you weren't being sarcastic. That would be disengenuous. Sarcasm begets sarcasm. And your view of what constitutes "aggression" obviously differs from mine.

I see that we essentially had a miscommunication. You misused a couple of words that implied you were saying something other than what you meant to say, it appears. A good moderator would step back, examine what's going on and call it what it is--a misunderstanding. You chose to keep fighting. I would to. But I'm not a moderator.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sparky
Running Through Garden commercial ? What a JOKE ! With that silly assed Casio sounding keyboard riff ? Maybe in 1983. Maybe in 1985. Not today.

I agree it's silly-assed and retro. And as such, it may not technically qualify as commercial. As you said, it would have been in 1985. So not only was the song produced to be commercial, it was produced to be commercial 20 years (!!!) ago. A double sin.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I agree it's silly-assed and retro. And as such, it may not technically qualify as commercial. As you said, it would have been in 1985. So not only was the song produced to be commercial, it was produced to be commercial 20 years (!!!) ago. A double sin.

I think every aspect of the song is un-commercial. :laugh:

First, those lyrics. Non-fans would hear them and just go "What the fuuuuuuuuuuccccccc...?" They are so out there that you need pot to be able to understand them if you aren't a fan, and even that there's no guarantee.

But I love the song anyway. :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I think every aspect of the song is un-commercial. :laugh:

First, those lyrics. Non-fans would hear them and just go "What the fuuuuuuuuuuccccccc...?" They are so out there that you need pot to be able to understand them if you aren't a fan, and even that there's no guarantee.

But I love the song anyway. :laugh:

I don't mind saying that was one of my biggest disappointments on SYW, that and Peacekeeper. I mean, after hearing Stevie's demo, I was thinking this was going to be a great rocker if Stevie could just pull off the vocals. She did a fine job, but the production is plastic. I just don't get it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I don't mind saying that was one of my biggest disappointments on SYW, that and Peacekeeper. I mean, after hearing Stevie's demo, I was thinking this was going to be a great rocker if Stevie could just pull off the vocals. She did a fine job, but the production is plastic. I just don't get it.

Oh, the album version SUCKS next to the demo. I don't understand why they decided to get rid of the "dueling vocals." That was the best aspect of the song on the demo and they got rid of it. WTF? I thought her vocals on the album version were great, but the whole production left me wanting much more. If only they had made it a bit more rockier instead of poppier and included the dueling vocals, it would've been phenomenal. Instead, it's just really, really good. :laugh:

My biggest disappointment was Illume. If it wasn't Stevie, there would've been no redeeming value to that song. Those chipmunk voices are just ridiculous. Actually, embarassing.

[stefan]

Well how different tastes can be. Illume is really something different from the Stevie section. The guitar on that song is brilliant. When I listen to a few SYW songs- Illume is always one of them. :nod:

[dissention]

Originally posted by stefan
Well how different tastes can be. Illume is really something different from the Stevie section. The guitar on that song is brilliant. When I listen to a few SYW songs- Illume is always one of them. :nod:

I listen to it, I just think it's a bit ridiculous. I don't know what the intention of having those manipulated voices was; it cheapens the song and its message.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I listen to it, I just think it's a bit ridiculous. I don't know what the intention of having those manipulated voices was; it cheapens the song and its message.

I agree. I think maybe LB was going for "this is the dark part of the some which conveys confusion" and then SN's fabulous belting "I'm alone now . . . " after is her soming back into the light a la the Ode to Joy chorus in the 9th of B (how's that for an analogy :laugh: ) But, unlike B. , LB's use of this falls flat for me. I also will always maintain SN's failure to write a third stanza lessens the song's appeal to me. But, I like the song and think it is brilliantly written (just my opinion).

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree. I think maybe LB was going for "this is the dark part of the some which conveys confusion" and then SN's fabulous belting "I'm alone now . . . " after is her soming back into the light a la the Ode to Joy chorus in the 9th of B (how's that for an analogy :laugh: ) But, unlike B. , LB's use of this falls flat for me. I also will always maintain SN's failure to write a third stanza lessens the song's appeal to me. But, I like the song and think it is brilliantly written (just my opinion).

I agree with you.

I couldn't believe when someone said that Lindsey used those voices to "lighten up" and joke around with the song.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, I didn't accuse of condescending or aggression. I did accuse you of sarcasm and exasperation, and I stand by that. Don't tell me, in all honesty, that when you suggested I didn't think Stevie could use a soundboard you weren't being sarcastic. That would be disengenuous. Sarcasm begets sarcasm. And your view of what constitutes "aggression" obviously differs from mine.

I see that we essentially had a miscommunication. You misused a couple of words that implied you were saying something other than what you meant to say, it appears. A good moderator would step back, examine what's going on and call it what it is--a misunderstanding. You chose to keep fighting. I would to. But I'm not a moderator. I maintain that there was no sarcasm meant in that response.
My question to you about whether or not you thought Stevie could use a soundboard was purely out of the exasperation I was expressing in the entire response, and not sarcasm.

Anyone who knows me in person, or beyond these message boards, knows that I don't treat people with sarcasm.
My parents didn't talk to me with sarcasm as a child, and it's not my nature to talk to others that way as an adult. I find it rude, and I try to avoid rudeness at all times.

Yes, I agree with you on the miscommunication part... but I was taught that you talk thru a miscommunication until you have a better understanding of where the other is coming from.
I do that as a person and as a moderator. I didn't feel that I was "fighting," I felt that I was presenting the various reasons, and asking the proper questions, to explain my stance on the subject. Which is why I felt your responses seemed needlessly aggressive and condescending.

At any rate, I think it's time to move on from all of this silliness now, and I'm sure we can both agree on that. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
I couldn't believe when someone said that Lindsey used those voices to "lighten up" and joke around with the song. Yeah, I definitely don't think that weird bridge was meant to "lighten" the song.

It's not the way I would have gone with it, but I think they (I don't want to put all the "blame" on Lindsey) chose to do that, to add somewhat of a sinister, dark tone to that section of the song.
I think it was Les that said, to her, the altered voices expressed the fear and confusion that people were feeling as everything was happening on September 11th.

I do have to say that I love how Stevie's voice comes bursting out of that section, crying, "Ooh, I'm alone now with my thoughts...."

No matter what can be said of it, I still feel that it's the most arresting and sincere of the various 9/11 inspired songs that I've heard.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
No matter what can be said of it, I still feel that it's the most arresting and sincere of the various 9/11 inspired songs that I've heard.

I think it is, too, but those damn voices...ugh.

Didn't they make you cringe at least once???

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I think it is, too, but those damn voices...ugh.

Didn't they make you cringe at least once???

Oh yes - esp. after the IMO rather delightful opening stuff and the chorus (though "monotonal" ). I was just like "Oh come on - are we back to Madonna circa 1995" :laugh: But, as I have said before, even with what I perceive as its faults, I still like the song and play it, though I skip through the comp. voices. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Johnny Stew on Jan. 13:

My parents didn't talk to me with sarcasm as a child, and it's not my nature to talk to others that way as an adult. I find it rude, and I try to avoid rudeness at all times.

Perhaps we'll have to disagree on what "sarcasm" and "rude" is, but I am pretty good at recognizing it and here are some examples:

Johnny Stew on Jan. 9:

so surely she has enough knowledge of the soundboard to be able to drop her vocals out of a mix.

So what causes the improbability in your mind? And what would make it such a hard pill to swallow if she had?

Well, isn't that sweet?

But hey, you know, if you want to believe Stevie's just completely talking out of her ass there, and that the whole thing could only have been another one of Lindsey's brilliant touches, that's fine.

Johnny Stew on Jan. 10:

So thanks for the little pat on the head, Daddy.

Trust me, pal, you have no power in my life.

How miscommunications happen (notice the highlighted word):

Johnny Stew on Jan. 9:

You stated that it was "highly unlikely" Stevie removed her voice from the mix, which I assume to mean that you believe Lindsey must have recorded his vocal separately...

Johnny Stew on Jan. 13:

I think it's time to move on from all of this silliness now

I agree, but just had to make the point

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny Stew on Jan. 10:

"Well, isn't that sweet?"

"So thanks for the little pat on the head, Daddy."

"Trust me, pal, you have no power in my life."I'm not looking to beat a dead horse, as I think we've both agreed to move on... but the above comments were only made after your post telling me "down, boy," that my "beloved Nicks" surely could push up a "f***ing slider," and that "you'd have to be an idiot not to figure that out." You also told me to "take a deep breath," and later, to "stick to moderating."

I was insulted at that and the condescending tone of the rest of your post, and I responded accordingly.
But none of the other quotes you posted, were ever meant to be sarcastic.

Even as a moderator, I don't think anyone would expect me to just lay down and allow someone to treat me like a child or an idiot, without responding.
And you should note that even in my responses, I never once verbally attacked you or mistreated you.

Yeah, I'm a moderator, but I'm also a human being, and I don't think I deserve to be mistreated, and I don't think I should be expected to just pretend it didn't happen, when I am.

Now hopefully we've both made our final points on the matter.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oh yes - esp. after the IMO rather delightful opening stuff and the chorus (though "monotonal" ). I was just like "Oh come on - are we back to Madonna circa 1995" :laugh: But, as I have said before, even with what I perceive as its faults, I still like the song and play it, though I skip through the comp. voices. :cool:

You know, I always thought that the manipulated voice was actually the result of combining Lindsey's and Stevie's voice together. Did you ever think so?

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm not looking to beat a dead horse, as I think we've both agreed to move on... but the above comments were only made after your post telling me "down, boy," that my "beloved Nicks" surely could push up a "f***ing slider," and that "you'd have to be an idiot not to figure that out." You also told me to "take a deep breath," and later, to "stick to moderating."

I was insulted at that and the condescending tone of the rest of your post, and I responded accordingly.
But none of the other quotes you posted, were ever meant to be sarcastic.

Even as a moderator, I don't think anyone would expect me to just lay down and allow someone to treat me like a child or an idiot, without responding.
And you should note that even in my responses, I never once verbally attacked you or mistreated you.

Yeah, I'm a moderator, but I'm also a human being, and I don't think I deserve to be mistreated, and I don't think I should be expected to just pretend it didn't happen, when I am.

Now hopefully we've both made our final points on the matter.

Well, you contend that I misread your intent. I contend you misread mine. "Down, boy" was not to be taken seriously, nor was the "deep breath" comment. The "idiot" comment was certainly not hurled at you, or my response on the slider. I responded to what I perceived as an insult from you. You don't seem to get that. I don't know how else to explain that. You were putting words in my mouth and I didn't appreciate it.

Besides, you said,"My parents didn't talk to me with sarcasm as a child, and it's not my nature to talk to others that way as an adult." But the fact is you did, regardless of what provoked it. You used sarcasm and you were rude. So regardless of what your parents taught you or didn't, which is rather beside the point here, if you ask me, you were sarcastic and rude.

But I agree, let's move on.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
You know, I always thought that the manipulated voice was actually the result of combining Lindsey's and Stevie's voice together. Did you ever think so? Well, I thought for awhile it was Stevie's voice alone because (no flames please) it was flat sounding as I imagined she would sound in that type of altered voice. But then, I got the DVD or CD-R or whatever (the fancy one) and was able to isolate that "noise" :laugh: - when I did that, it sounds like two different voices. So, yea, I think it is the two of them or at least two voices.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think Lindsey and Stevie are equally as guilty of self-indulgences in their solo music.

And I definitely agree with this. I wasn’t speaking of “self-indulgences” in a negative way (if someone thought of that). I think it's a poor argument to criticize a particular work by.

Of course it depends on what one considers self-indulgent. Lindsey’s Tusk songs can be seen as such, because he’s on his own for most of them while he could have used the entire band. I guess “self-indulgent” for me is anything that puts the focus on a single person, is long and uses a non-standard, “artsy” song structure and seems like it’s coming directly from the personal world of the artist. I think they both tend to get self-indulgent a lot more than your “usual” rock/pop artist. Definitely something like the “wallowing-in-depression” of “Street Of Dreams” or the “patriotic” “Desert Angel” belong into this category.

Alternatively, I don’t think something like “Steal Your Heart Away” or “Thrown Down” can be called self-indulgent since those songs are something that even a person who doesn’t know a thing about the artists can identify with. And I’ve never heard anyone claim that Chris is self-indulgent in her writing. Which is probably why she will never attract as feverish following as Buckingham and Nicks, but I guess fans of Chris prefer it that way. ;)

[face of glass]

Originally posted by dissention
I couldn't believe when someone said that Lindsey used those voices to "lighten up" and joke around with the song.

“You talkin’ to me?” ;)

Yes, I made that comment at the BuckinghamNicks.net message board. Here’s the necessary disclaimer right away: none of the following is meant to underestimate the tragedy that was 9-11.

I do think it’s humorous in its own odd way. I agree with Johnny in that it is the “best” song about those events, simply because it doesn’t address the things that happened as such. Take out what’s in the brackets (“9-11”) from the title and only the biggest fans of Stevie will be able to connect it to what happened. That makes it a good lyric.

But ok, Lindsey’s use of the goofy voices in there does appear to me as if he’s mocking Stevie’s lyrics. Especially the “ooh, it’s never-ending” bit; the voice there seems very sarcastic. Of course you may think that this is another of LB’s cheap shots and that it’s inappropriate to insert something into such a song. Just like it’s inappropriate to fart during the “Star Spangled Banner”.

I do think Les came up with a great explanation for the use of those voices. My interpretation is different; LB wanted to mock Stevie’s message momentarily. Let’s look at that particular bit in the lyrics:


What I saw on this journey
I saw history go down
I cannot pretend
That the heartache falls away
It's just like a river
Oooh, it's never-ending
I cannot pretend
That the heartache falls away

You may cringe at the voices; I cringe at some of these lyrics and think that they would come off as somewhat preachy if it wasn’t for Stevie (and the manipulated voices) who sings them. She’s basically representing her own take on the whole catastrophe and it is very one-sided. She focuses on her own version of the tragedy; that of an American (or European, whichever you prefer) who now for the first time in her life faces some of the same struggles that people living in other parts of the world have suffered from for centuries. The using of words like “heartache” and “never-ending” definitely seems appropriate in a situation like that but when looked at from the viewpoint of those who are not as privileged as Americans and Europeans, it comes off as laughable. Yes, the things that happened may leave traces on her but none of them will be significant; she’ll carry on living for years to come.

LB’s using of those voices puts in a sarcastic slant; he wants to emphasize the fact that while a few thousand people may have died in New York, a lot more people died elsewhere that day and not because of “natural” reasons. On that particular day in September 2001 he must have thought along the lines of “I told you so”, like a significant amount of European newspapers did. He does not belittle the events themselves; he belittles Stevie’s experiences while knowing that most of those common Americans and Europeans who were so “shocked” by the events will once again be continuing their egotism. In short, they haven’t learned a thing.

Ok, that’s very far-fetched. But admit it, you definitely wouldn’t want to think that LB is laughing in the middle of such an “important” song. For me, though, it’s not the ultimate take on 9-11, it’s just another way of looking at it. And LB’s hints at sarcasm prove that there’s far more expressed in the track than just “common grief”.

Here’s another choice that’ll be as discussed as “When I See You Again” years from now. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by face of glass
“You talkin’ to me?” ;)

Yes, I made that comment at the BuckinghamNicks.net message board. Here’s the necessary disclaimer right away: none of the following is meant to underestimate the tragedy that was 9-11.

I do think it’s humorous in its own odd way. I agree with Johnny in that it is the “best” song about those events, simply because it doesn’t address the things that happened as such. Take out what’s in the brackets (“9-11”) from the title and only the biggest fans of Stevie will be able to connect it to what happened. That makes it a good lyric.

But ok, Lindsey’s use of the goofy voices in there does appear to me as if he’s mocking Stevie’s lyrics. Especially the “ooh, it’s never-ending” bit; the voice there seems very sarcastic. Of course you may think that this is another of LB’s cheap shots and that it’s inappropriate to insert something into such a song. Just like it’s inappropriate to fart during the “Star Spangled Banner”.

I do think Les came up with a great explanation for the use of those voices. My interpretation is different; LB wanted to mock Stevie’s message momentarily. Let’s look at that particular bit in the lyrics:



You may cringe at the voices; I cringe at some of these lyrics and think that they would come off as somewhat preachy if it wasn’t for Stevie (and the manipulated voices) who sings them. She’s basically representing her own take on the whole catastrophe and it is very one-sided. She focuses on her own version of the tragedy; that of an American (or European, whichever you prefer) who now for the first time in her life faces some of the same struggles that people living in other parts of the world have suffered from for centuries. The using of words like “heartache” and “never-ending” definitely seems appropriate in a situation like that but when looked at from the viewpoint of those who are not as privileged as Americans and Europeans, it comes off as laughable. Yes, the things that happened may leave traces on her but none of them will be significant; she’ll carry on living for years to come.

LB’s using of those voices puts in a sarcastic slant; he wants to emphasize the fact that while a few thousand people may have died in New York, a lot more people died elsewhere that day and not because of “natural” reasons. On that particular day in September 2001 he must have thought along the lines of “I told you so”, like a significant amount of European newspapers did. He does not belittle the events themselves; he belittles Stevie’s experiences while knowing that most of those common Americans and Europeans who were so “shocked” by the events will once again be continuing their egotism. In short, they haven’t learned a thing.

Ok, that’s very far-fetched. But admit it, you definitely wouldn’t want to think that LB is laughing in the middle of such an “important” song. For me, though, it’s not the ultimate take on 9-11, it’s just another way of looking at it. And LB’s hints at sarcasm prove that there’s far more expressed in the track than just “common grief”.


Oh, no, someone on this board said it a while back. :)

I completely agree that it's the best 9/11 song because it doesn't pussyfoot around with cheesy patriotism like Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney; their songs made me gag and I doubt I'll ever recover because they were so bad. Throw in Toby Keith and we can forever banish the use of ipecac syrup.

But, I think your take on the voices is too much of a stretch for me to believe. :laugh: They should've been left out because they cheapen the sentiment and make it sound more like an embarassment. :nod:

[CarneVaca]

The using of words like “heartache” and “never-ending” definitely seems appropriate in a situation like that but when looked at from the viewpoint of those who are not as privileged as Americans and Europeans, it comes off as laughable.

I couldn't agree with you more about the lyrics. The song is essentially drivel. It does not address the tragedy and is rather self-indulgent. Someone ought to have told Stevie this was the wrong 9/11 song to use. If you want expressions of compassion and keen observation, check out some of the songs in Springsteen's The Rising. I think Stevie's heart was in the right place, but this song misses the mark by a few miles.

And speaking of being off the mark by miles:

LB’s using of those voices puts in a sarcastic slant; he wants to emphasize the fact that while a few thousand people may have died in New York, a lot more people died elsewhere that day and not because of “natural” reasons. On that particular day in September 2001 he must have thought along the lines of “I told you so”, like a significant amount of European newspapers did.

With all due respect, that's pretty outrageous. I'll be the first one to look at our history in the Middle East and say the source of our troubles is our own misguided policy, which by no way means I am justifying terrorism. However, to deduce from Lindsey's choice of voice effects on the song that he on that day reacted with "I told you so," is outlandish. There is no evidence of such sentiments by him anywhere that I have seen. And considering his anti-violence message on other SYW songs, I seriously doubt he would have reacted with anything but compassion and shock to the events of that day, the European papers' assessment notwithstanding. I understand why some Europeans are so cynical about Americans' reaction to the tragedy, but I don't see how you could possibly equate that with Lindsey's feelings. Not unless he says so.

That Lindsey might have laughed at Stevie's reaction, considering the self-centered approach in the song, is not far-fetched. But it's highly improbable. The man has said these songs are some of her best stuff yet (an assessment with which I disagree) so let's take him at his word, at least on this.

To be sure, there are far better songs out there about 9/11, even by unknown artists. But any detection of hints of sarcasm in the song is fantasy.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I completely agree that it's the best 9/11 song because it doesn't pussyfoot around with cheesy patriotism like Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney; their songs made me gag and I doubt I'll ever recover because they were so bad. Throw in Toby Keith and we can forever banish the use of ipecac syrup.


Agree on McCartney, Keith and the like. But you're way off on Bruce. He even wrote at least one song from the perspective of the terrorists. You really have to listen to get it, but it's there. One thing you cannot accuse Springsteen of is cheesy patriotism. No way.

Come to think of it, he should be running for president.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Agree on McCartney, Keith and the like. But you're way off on Bruce. He even wrote at least one song from the perspective of the terrorists. You really have to listen to get it, but it's there. One thing you cannot accuse Springsteen of is cheesy patriotism. No way.

Come to think of it, he should be running for president. :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Agree on McCartney, Keith and the like. But you're way off on Bruce. He even wrote at least one song from the perspective of the terrorists. You really have to listen to get it, but it's there. One thing you cannot accuse Springsteen of is cheesy patriotism. No way.

Come to think of it, he should be running for president.

You're probably right; I've actually only heard two songs off of The Rising. But they weren't memorable to me, I can't even remember their names. :laugh:

And about Bruce running for president...:nod:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
You're probably right; I've actually only heard two songs off of The Rising. But they weren't memorable to me, I can't even remember their names. :laugh:

And about Bruce running for president...:nod:

All is well with the world again. :laugh:

[Bella Figura]

thanks Carne for putting into words what I was thinking upon reading face of glass post...

everyone spins their own interpretations of favorite songs and lyrics and rightly so, if it means that to you, it is true for you...

but anti-American sentiment subtely "snuck in" by Lindsey as an "I told you so, nanananana!!" political statement onto one of Stevie's patriotic songs seems quite far-fetched. Also considering Lindsey would then be criticizing himself 'cause last time I checked he was still an American citizen. 'course if face of glass gets a direct quote from Lindsey supporting this position, then I'm wrong...

but it is not right to mock even one death...no matter what your politically motivation but it is right to be shocked, dismayed and to feel the heartache. Even if you just witness tragedies as a live observer or just on the evening news, the heartache of a stangers death can get to any compassionate human being and it just may be so "never-ending" that you write a poem about it, which gets turned into a song.

My heart went out to the Iranian earthquake victims and so did my money but never any "i told you so" comments...

btw, just curious, what's the death toll from terrorist attacks in Finland???

[CarneVaca]

Non sequitur: Speaking of death, war and Fins. I recently saw the movie Cuckoo, which is Finnish. Brilliant. Check it out.

[Bella Figura]

is it on Netflix??? we're still going thru famed Japanese director Kirasawa's (forgive the spelling) movie catalogue...

[CarneVaca]

Yes, it's called "The Cuckoo." A little slow, but very compelling story.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
All is well with the world again. :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[ricohv]

We are a passionate bunch, aren't we?

[Johnny Stew]

Poor Stevie... she writes a song conveying her very human reaction to what has to be the United States' greatest tragedy, dedicating it to those who lost their lives that day, and those who bravely risked theirs, and she gets called self-centered and indulgent in the process.

Meanwhile, Lindsey writes a song ("What's The World Coming To") about a big, bad record company not liking his album, and no one says a word.

What is the world coming to? :confused:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by ricohv
We are a passionate bunch, aren't we? Yeah, no one can accuse us Ledgies of being apathetic, can they? :laugh:

[Bella Figura]

I was thinking of this all day as I read through this massive post. and I do include myself in this observation: But people who hang out on message boards instead of working for the betterment of mankind could also be called "self-centered and self-indulgent".

:laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
I was thinking of this all day as I read through this massive post. and I do include myself in this observation: But people who hang out on message boards instead of working for the betterment of mankind could also be called "self-centered and self-indulgent".:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Based on the number of posts I have here, I'm sure guilty of being "self-indulgent" too! ;)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Poor Stevie... she writes a song conveying her very human reaction to what has to be the United States' greatest tragedy, dedicating it to those who lost their lives that day, and those who bravely risked theirs, and she gets called self-centered and indulgent in the process.

Meanwhile, Lindsey writes a song ("What's The World Coming To") about a big, bad record company not liking his album, and no one says a word.

What is the world coming to? :confused:

Good thing you don't use sarcasm.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Good thing you don't use sarcasm. Now, now, let's not have another instance of miscommunication... what I actually said is that I don't speak to people with sarcasm.

That post wasn't sarcastic anyway... it was just an honest observation.

'Sides, I thought we agreed to drop this? :nod: :)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Now, now, let's not have another instance of miscommunication... what I actually said is that I don't speak to people with sarcasm.

That post wasn't sarcastic anyway... it was just an honest observation.

'Sides, I thought we agreed to drop this? :nod: :)

Yes, we did, but it sure as hell looked like you were being sarcastic, especially since you picked on words that I had used in my posts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the interest of peace here, though I'm not sure what to make of this statement:

what I actually said is that I don't speak to people with sarcasm.

Does this mean you speak to animals with sarcasm? :lol: And if so, what are you saying about me?

I think we should try to make these posts less about the poster and more about the message. Perhaps you could have made a comment on what you think of the song to counter what I said instead?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Does this mean you speak to animals with sarcasm? :lol: And if so, what are you saying about me?:laugh:

I may use a sarcastic tone in a broader, general kind of way... such as: "Dubya has had problems with drugs and alcohol, and can barely even control his own daughters, but apparently he knows what's best for the rest of us regarding morality."

But would I speak directly to the president, or anyone else, using a sarcastic tone? No, because that would be disrespectful and rude.
So that's what I meant by that comment. :)Originally posted by CarneVaca
I think we should try to make these posts less about the poster and more about the message.That's a good suggestion actually, and I've often taken pains to qualify comments with "this isn't directed at anyone here," but even that's unfortunately not always adequate it seems. :(
And since you weren't the only one who has used the term "self-indulgent" here or in other threads, I didn't think to add it this time.Originally posted by CarneVaca
Perhaps you could have made a comment on what you think of the song to counter what I said instead?I've discussed "Illumé's" merits in the past, so I didn't bother this time. I just felt like commenting on the fact that I've never seen anyone here, or on other message boards, chastize Lindsey for writing what... based on his own explanation of the inspiration behind the song... seems to me to be a very self-involved and somewhat self-pitying song.
While Stevie... even when her heart's in the right place... more often than not, get's lambasted for the same thing.

And Carne... in the hope of avoiding these types of miscommunications in the future... I want you to know that, despite the fact that we agree on very little (outside of politics, of all things!), and have engaged in very passionate debates on many occasions, I don't consider you the enemy or something, and I definitely don't have it out for you.

I realized years ago that life's way too short to hold grudges, or to carry hate, and trust me, people have done a lot worse to me than saying that a song I like sucks! :laugh:
So you honestly don't have to worry that I'm making little digs directed at you, or something. :)

I just enjoy debating, and since we agree on very little when it comes to Stevie Nicks' music, it's often you and I in the middle of these discussions... but it's definitely not a personal thing.

And hopefully dissention knows that too! :) :wavey:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

With all due respect, that's pretty outrageous. I'll be the first one to look at our history in the Middle East and say the source of our troubles is our own misguided policy, which by no way means I am justifying terrorism. However, to deduce from Lindsey's choice of voice effects on the song that he on that day reacted with "I told you so," is outlandish. There is no evidence of such sentiments by him anywhere that I have seen. And considering his anti-violence message on other SYW songs, I seriously doubt he would have reacted with anything but compassion and shock to the events of that day, the European papers' assessment notwithstanding. I understand why some Europeans are so cynical about Americans' reaction to the tragedy, but I don't see how you could possibly equate that with Lindsey's feelings. Not unless he says so.

That Lindsey might have laughed at Stevie's reaction, considering the self-centered approach in the song, is not far-fetched. But it's highly improbable. The man has said these songs are some of her best stuff yet (an assessment with which I disagree) so let's take him at his word, at least on this.

To be sure, there are far better songs out there about 9/11, even by unknown artists. But any detection of hints of sarcasm in the song is fantasy.

Amen. As for Lindsey's reaction to the song, Stevie said he got tears in his eyes, put his hand on her knee, and asked "How do you do it?"

I said this on the BuckinghamNicks.net board in response to Gaius' post - using the voices to mock Stevie as well as anyone feeling extreme grief for the victims of 911 would be appalling and, from the above quote, he feels that grief as well. I can't imagine where ANYONE would get the idea he thinks that the sentiment is one to be mocked - unless he/she were projecting his/her own ideas about 911 onto Lindsey.

Instead, I think Lindsey was once again trying to be "cool" and "different" by manipulating the voices and it backfired.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Poor Stevie... she writes a song conveying her very human reaction to what has to be the United States' greatest tragedy, dedicating it to those who lost their lives that day, and those who bravely risked theirs, and she gets called self-centered and indulgent in the process.

Meanwhile, Lindsey writes a song ("What's The World Coming To") about a big, bad record company not liking his album, and no one says a word.

What is the world coming to? :confused:

I agree with your first statement, but as to the second, I remember there being some criticism of Lindsey's take on "What's the World Coming To" - meaning "What's the World Coming To when my albums get rejected" - when discussing his lame answer regarding the cost of tickets. I was among the critics there, although I love my man Lindsey. :)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Good thing you don't use sarcasm.

Dude, LET IT GO.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Amen. As for Lindsey's reaction to the song, Stevie said he got tears in his eyes, put his hand on her knee, and asked "How do you do it?"

He said this in direct reference to Illume? I thought he said it in reference to the Phoenix four in general? HELP :confused:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
He said this in direct reference to Illume? I thought he said it in reference to the Phoenix four in general? HELP :confused:

Yes. Look in the Uncut magazine article and you will find it - don't have time to read it again myself!

[DownOnRodeo]

Yep, I remember that bit, and it was in reference to Illume, not the Phoenix Four :laugh: I couldn't really imagine that, as damn good as those songs are. (Hmm... Say You Will, Illume, DR ... what's the next one? Not Silver Girl??:confused: )

Meanwhile, personally I'm surprised that not everyone who listened to Illume for the first time had a tear in their eye and thought 'How did she do it'. Stevie and the band were never going to release a song directly referring to 9/11. Except obviously the title directly referred to it, which still surprises me. But the song itself is an ethereal dirge about massive grief and trauma, being scared witless, being haunted at night...
One of my favourite lines goes something like 'When you haunt us, just remember that I was so scared' ('I was so scared' I read as sort of meaning 'I was levelled by sympathy for you'). It's that idea of being haunted that I assume inspired Lindsey to do that ghost voice. I get the impression that it ruins the song for some people because it stands out too much, whereas for me it just takes the song to an even deeper level. Plus, in terms of arrangement/production, it sets up Stevie for that awesome refrain sung in a higher, louder register. When she sings that, it's like she's shouting down the ghost, and by the end of the song it sounds like she's lulling into peaceful sleep, like she's successfully dealt with her demons. I love it!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I agree with your first statement, but as to the second, I remember there being some criticism of Lindsey's take on "What's the World Coming To" - meaning "What's the World Coming To when my albums get rejected" - when discussing his lame answer regarding the cost of tickets. I was among the critics there, although I love my man Lindsey. :) Yikes, I actually forgot about that thread! Thanks for reminding me, Nancy. :)

Still, and I think you'd agree, nothing has really been said in those regards since last May.
Not that I'm saying Lindsey should be criticized, mind you... you know I like when songwriters write from a personal experience. Even if I don't necessarily relate to the situation (Stevie singing about the drawbacks of fortune and fame, for example), I greatly respect the ability to look inward and write about how one feels in regards to what's going on around them, and in their lives. :)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Yes. Look in the Uncut magazine article and you will find it - don't have time to read it again myself!

Much thanks!!!!! :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
Meanwhile, personally I'm surprised that not everyone who listened to Illume for the first time had a tear in their eye and thought 'How did she do it'. Stevie and the band were never going to release a song directly referring to 9/11. Except obviously the title directly referred to it, which still surprises me. But the song itself is an ethereal dirge about massive grief and trauma, being scared witless, being haunted at night...
One of my favourite lines goes something like 'When you haunt us, just remember that I was so scared' ('I was so scared' I read as sort of meaning 'I was levelled by sympathy for you'). It's that idea of being haunted that I assume inspired Lindsey to do that ghost voice. I get the impression that it ruins the song for some people because it stands out too much, whereas for me it just takes the song to an even deeper level. Plus, in terms of arrangement/production, it sets up Stevie for that awesome refrain sung in a higher, louder register. When she sings that, it's like she's shouting down the ghost, and by the end of the song it sounds like she's lulling into peaceful sleep, like she's successfully dealt with her demons. I love it! Thanks, Joe!
From now on, I'll just quote you when I want to explain what I think is so amazing about "Illumé!" :nod:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And hopefully dissention knows that too! :) :wavey:

You know I do, doll. :wavey:

Here's my take on the whole WTWCT self-indulgence vs. the Illume self-indulgence:

IMO, What's the World Coming To is a song where unless you're a hardcore fan, you aren't going to know what the song is about. (I'm still not convinced that it is entirely about the music biz, though) The lyrics are vague enough where it can relate to many different life experiences or someone's view of the world in general. It doesn't scream "They hated my record, so here's bitter song for the motherf*ckers!" It's very vague in what it's about, therefore making it more accessible.

Illume, on the other hand, is noted as being about 9/11, but it isn't so much about 9/11 as it is about one persons view of those events. While that isn't a bad thing, and I genuinely believe that her heart was in the right place, it won't be accessible to a great deal of people for the simple fact that everyone has (or had) different feelings about those events. Not everyone burned Nag Champa in their rooms to mask the smell, etc. It can very well alienate the listener because of it's constraint of being about only one persons feelings. Stevie repeatedly uses "I" in the song and one starts to wonder if she couldn't have at least made one collective mention about everyone else and how they've been affected by those tragic events. I just think she over-indulges with it being about her throughout the entire song. "What I saw," "The candle that I burn," "I will not take you for granted," "I like the coastal cities," "I cannot pretend," etc.

However, after saying that, I think the song contains one of the most beautiful lyrics I've ever heard in my life:

I will not take you for granted
I wouldn't trade you for jade
Or for diamonds
Not for anything
Not for a minute

[strandinthewind]

Here is aquote I got from http://www.sararhiannon.com/syw_album.html (many thanks :cool: )

"Illume is a very interesting song,actually. I wrote it after September 11th, you know, so it was one of the first I wrote after those tragedies. It’s just about making it, you know. I was sitting there, thinking about those horrible tragedies in October of 2001, and I was sitting there with just me in the room, and the candle was lit. I love candles, you know. And my heart was still so heavy from everything, and I didn’t know quite what would happen, and we were all like that, confused.
I didn’t set out to write a September 11th song, it just happened. It goes “Illume, says the candle that I burn, a reflection in the window,” and that’s just about the inspiration for the song. And I tell you, my heart was so very heavy and full at this time, I was so confused. And then there are some other parts…
"And I am alone with my thoughts, And how we could make it – And what we have been through, all of the trauma.” I also wrote one called “Get Back on the Plane,” and a song called “The Towers Touched the Sky,” but it was just too depressing."
~Stevie Nicks, 2003


I still maintain that the songs power comes from her IMO brilliant reference to "nag champra." For me, in that one moment and phrase she depicts and envisions herself lighting the incense a few monthws later at her LA home and the smell taking her back to when she had to burn it to cover the smell of terror, death, and scorched people and buildings ( :( ). Here we are almost a year later and I have chills and the same vision as if I was there with her on that day. That is pretty powerful to me. :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
“Get Back on the Plane,”

We all saw the lyrics to that stinkbomb. :rolleyes:

[sparky]

Originally posted by dissention
. While that isn't a bad thing, and I genuinely believe that her heart was in the right place, it won't be accessible to a great deal of people for the simple fact that everyone has (or had) different feelings about those events. Not everyone burned Nag Champa in their rooms to mask the smell, etc. It can very well alienate the listener because of it's constraint of being about only one persons feelings. Stevie repeatedly uses "I" in the song and one starts to wonder if she couldn't have at least made one collective mention about everyone else and how they've been affected by those tragic events. I just think she over-indulges with it being about her throughout the entire song. "What I saw," "The candle that I burn," "I will not take you for granted," "I like the coastal cities," "I cannot pretend," etc.


As is often the case, D, I agree with your statement. This is my central argument about why some of Stevie's songs do not appeal to more people. The stuff gets too specific and specific to a life that is radically different from average people. I too think this song came from a genuine and authentic place, but it doesn't really move me. The production, wacky voices notwithstanding, is stellar. However, emotionally, it hits me about the same as 'Desert Angel'. How something can be too specific and too vague at the same time is puzzling, but the song is both to me. Happy to hear it means so much to others, though.

[CarneVaca]

I might have liked Illume if I hadn't been in Manhattan that day, not all that far from Ground Zero. It's just that when I heard the song it didn't speak to me at all. I couldn't relate to it. I understood what Stevie and Lindsey were doing musically, and I think musically it's very effective, but from a lyrical standpoint, it simply left me cold. Perhaps calling it "drivel" was too harsh. Even I don't really believe that. My issue with the song goes back to what I keep complaining about in Stevie's music--lack of editing. Certain words shouldn't be there, but I've said all this before.

As for What's the World Coming To, it's not even as musically interesting as Illume, except that it's catchy in an effortless sort of way. The lyrics are cool, though the "gone to the moon" line makes me cringe a bit. Is it self-indulgent? Perhaps, if indeed it is about the record industry, but there's nothing else about the song that is self-indulgent--no drawn out solos, no weird effects, nothing that I would call indulgent. And if Lindsey hadn't said it's about the industry, it could apply to anything. And in the ears of most listeners, I bet it has nothing to do with the industry.

[dissention]

Originally posted by sparky
As is often the case, D, I agree with your statement. This is my central argument about why some of Stevie's songs do not appeal to more people. The stuff gets too specific and specific to a life that is radically different from average people. I too think this song came from a genuine and authentic place, but it doesn't really move me. The production, wacky voices notwithstanding, is stellar. However, emotionally, it hits me about the same as 'Desert Angel'. How something can be too specific and too vague at the same time is puzzling, but the song is both to me. Happy to hear it means so much to others, though.

:wavey:

When I first heard it, it reminded of the drivel that is "Ghosts." "She depends on her music like a husband..." Help me, I'm gagging! How would that song relate to anyone? :laugh:

[DownOnRodeo]

Carne, I can easily imagine how, aside from everyone experiencing things differently, anyone who was in NY or around Ground Zero at the time could have a very different view on Illume or indeed be apprehensive about it. Which is why in my opinion Stevie shouldnt've called it 9/11 and, perhaps to a lesser extent, dedicated it to Rudy Guiliani and the firemen etc. But then i don't like the idea of telling Stevie what to call her songs and who to dedicate them to, either. But yeah, maybe if it was just called Illume, not Illume (9/11), it could be understood in a more general sense. In fact, it would have really added so much mystique. Imagine hearing that song for the first time and not knowing what Stevie said it was about. And add some contradictory quotes about its inspiration up on inherownwords :laugh:

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
As for What's the World Coming To, it's not even as musically interesting as Illume, except that it's catchy in an effortless sort of way. The lyrics are cool, though the "gone to the moon" line makes me cringe a bit. Is it self-indulgent?
That wailing at the end strikes me as a candidate for self-indulgence! Meanwhile, that song is growing on me a lot. 'Everyone's gooone to the moon' is actually starting to strike a chord with me, and I think of that song as often as Murrow Turning Over in my day to day life.

Wasn't this thread about WISYA? To be honest I've only read from the last few pages onwards anyway. Who knows where or how it turned into a thread about Illume :)


What's this thread coming to?
What they say about you...
Stevie don't feel sad:
Very few of your songs are bad.

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Thanks, Joe!
From now on, I'll just quote you when I want to explain what I think is so amazing about "Illumé!" :nod:
Phew, thanks JS. I went out on a limb thinking I would probably be the only one to see it that way. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
When I first heard it, it reminded of the drivel that is "Ghosts." "She depends on her music like a husband..." Help me, I'm gagging! How would that song relate to anyone? :laugh: *lol*
Actually, I do relate to that one... as pathetic as that sounds.

No husband to curl up to at night for comfort or warmth, but the headphones are always on and the music is ever present.

"To fill the empty spaces she's feeling,
She depends on her music like a husband,
And she knows it's no good to fall in love again.
One day, they were lovers... one day, they were friends...
There was nothing left to say...."

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
What's this thread coming to?
What they say about you...
Stevie don't feel sad:
Very few of your songs are bad. :laugh: :lol: :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I still maintain that the songs power comes from her IMO brilliant reference to "nag champra." For me, in that one moment and phrase she depicts and envisions herself lighting the incense a few monthws later at her LA home and the smell taking her back to when she had to burn it to cover the smell of terror, death, and scorched people and buildings ( :( ). Here we are almost a year later and I have chills and the same vision as if I was there with her on that day. That is pretty powerful to me. :cool: Thanks for posting that quote from SaraRhiannon's site, Jason.

Have you read this one? I think it says it all.... Well, you know I didn't write "Illume (9-11)" to try and be political. I wrote it because I had arrived in New York at 3 o'clock in the morning, in the middle of the night, and had gone to the Waldorf Astoria hotel and got there at 4:30 and then unpacked, went to bed at 7:30, and then somewhere between 10:30 and 11, my assistant came in and tapped me on the shoulder and said, "I think you need to wake up and see what's happening." And so I was in New York for three days, and it was so disturbing, and "Illume" was a poem that I wrote when I got back to Los Angeles at the end of that tour. There was part of me that thought I might never get home. It was so frightening out there. So I wrote this poem "Illume," and when I went home two months later, I wanted to write a few new songs for this record and pulled all of my poetry out from my journals that I had from over that year and the tour, and I pulled out the "Illume" poem. I thought, "Maybe I can very subtly put this to music."
I never expected it to be a song that would be anything more than for the people that were in New York City that day. Because I can't write about how everybody else felt--I can only write about how I felt and how I feel New Yorkers felt that day, that morning. So I'm very, very proud of that song. I wanted to say something for those people. That would be forever.Even though she wrote a poem/song that reflected her feelings that day, I think she did an amazing job of capturing the fear and disorientation felt by those of us who watched helplessly as the day's events unfolded.

And even though the song's lyrics are specific to Stevie's particular reaction, we know that she was definitely thinking beyond herself that day... personally taking food down to the firemen working in and around Ground Zero, as well as lending financial assistance to the wife and newborn child of one of the Backstreet Boys' crew-members who died on Flight 11, as he was returning home for the birth of his daughter.

A very classy lady, who has shown on many occasions that she is generous and compassionate. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Even though she wrote a poem/song that reflected her feelings that day, I think she did an amazing job of capturing the fear and disorientation felt by those of us who watched helplessly as the day's events unfolded.

And even though the song's lyrics are specific to Stevie's particular reaction, we know that she was definitely thinking beyond herself that day... personally taking food down to the firemen working in and around Ground Zero, as well as lending financial assistance to the wife and newborn child of one of the Backstreet Boys' crew-members who died on Flight 11, as he was returning home for the birth of his daughter.

A very classy lady, who has shown on many occasions that she is generous and compassionate. :)

Like I said, I admire her effort. I was in Boston on 9/11, watching the news in my hotel room, and I think everyone felt a sense of shock and amazement at what happened. Stevie did a good job at expressing her feelings towards what happened, but it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

I will clearly state that I think a 9/11 song should not be done; it just shouldn't. No matter how true the song is, it cheapens the events. That's just how I feel about it.

Now, Johnny, no one is questioning whether she thought beyond herself that day. I don't see a point in the things you brought up about helping the firefighters and such; that is not the issue and helps no argument. The issue is the song and whether some feel that it is self-indulgent on Stevie's part, which I believe it is and I've stated my reasons. Her compassion is not at hand here, her song is.

Taking that quote on face value, my response would be to can the idea of recording Illume. Yes, Stevie, we know that you were affected by those events; we all were. But to release a song about your personal experiences and emotions of those events is not necessarily the right thing to do. It will alienate people, especially some listeners who aren't die-hard fans, and even die-hards will feel a tad alienated (as proven in this thread). To focus those events on just one person kind of trivializes things. We all know, whether we would like to admit it or not (and I'm not directing this towards you, Johnny! LOL), that Stevie is a self-indulgent writer. Just listen to Ghosts, I Sing For the Things, Desert Angel, or After the Glitter Fades. Illume is one of those indulgences.

I don't think Stevie thought about how her song could be construed by some and I don't believe that she was doing anything out of ill-will; I thinks she's a genuine person whose heart was in the right place. I just think it backfired this time around, though.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
Now, Johnny, no one is questioning whether she thought beyond herself that day. I don't see a point in the things you brought up about helping the firefighters and such; that is not the issue and helps no argument. The issue is the song and whether some feel that it is self-indulgent on Stevie's part, which I believe it is and I've stated my reasons. Her compassion is not at hand here, her song is.I know, and I wasn't trying to defend or argue... I was just thinking outloud. :nod:

(I better check my horoscope, I seem to be having a rough time this week, with my intentions being misconstrued!) :lol:

At any rate... and I mentioned this to a close friend the other day... my mother, who only begrudgingly listens to Stevie (she's a total Lindsey fan, and has even asked me to make her a Mac CD with "just Lindsey and Christine songs"), loves "Illumé."
In fact, it, and "Running Through The Garden," are her two favorite songs on the entire album... and to me, that's very impressive. :D

[wondergirl9847]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
my mother, she's a total Lindsey fan

I love your mother and I don't even know her!! :nod:

:laugh:

[CarneVaca]

I never expected it to be a song that would be anything more than for the people that were in New York City that day. Because I can't write about how everybody else felt--I can only write about how I felt and how I feel New Yorkers felt that day, that morning. So I'm very, very proud of that song. I wanted to say something for those people. That would be forever.

But that's just it. The song doesn't speak to or for me, as one of the New Yorkers being evacuated and scurrying about in major confusion and fear trying to get the hell out of Manhattan. So I can't relate to Nag Champa or Point Dune in this context nor do I need to be told "I was so scared," for I can figure that out. I've said this before: Had she written about what she actually "saw," and less about her later reflections on the event, it might have been more interesting.

Ultimately Stevie is a rich, pampered rock star. Does she really need to interject herself into a song about the suffering of so many average people? She was sitting in a comfortable hotel while people were running for their lives. Is it not self-indulgent to wallow on your own experience? I can remember that day hearing people complain about the trains being out of service for a few hours because they wanted to get out. At some point, I felt compelled to say, "Look, we're going to get out. We're the lucky ones. And if we have to wait till tomorrow, we're still the lucky ones." Hearing some of the lyrics in the song produces a similar reaction in me. And I do believe Stevie had the right intentions, but the execution was all wong.

[Bella Figura]

and this is one New Yorker that totally relates to this song...

and just to bust chops, Carne, everyone knows that any native New Yorker never relates to any music by that New Jerseyite, Bruce Springstein!!! ;)

I think Stevie's subtleness in this song means more to me than any of the other more blatant songs I've heard. There was a time when Stevie was criticized for being too lyrically vague and artsy, and unable to be real by drawing upon her personal experiences when writing her lyrics and now she is criticized as self-indulgent for doing the opposite...

"This coastline is glittering
Like a diamond snake
In a black sky" and I actually used this quote last weekend when we took our close friends who live in Italy into Manhattan for Chinese. It is the wife's first time visiting the US (she's french) and she was amazed by the twinkling lights of the city as we crossed over the Hudson...

[CarneVaca]

Sorry, Bella, but I just don't see what the subtlety is in words like "trauma" and "Just remember I was so scared." That is a big part of my problem with the song: If there was trauma, you needn't use the word, and the same goes for "scared." Show me you're afraid, show me there was trauma, but don't bother telling me. To use a poor analogy, it's like explaining the punchline to a joke.

[Bella Figura]

no problem, you are completely entitled to your opinion of this song and of the many other Stevie tunes which you do not like. It does not speak to you whereas the stuff Bruce recorded, did speak to you. and that's alright... :)

That's why, thank goodness, we have many many different types artists and art in the world to help us interpret, escape from and/or deal with the reality and fantasy of our lives.

Stevie poetry/lyrics and her stripped down music on the many demos has always spoken to me. from her corniest hokey lyrics of Jane and Ghosts to the lyrical perfection of Sara and Landslide...from her halting piano of her Rhiannons to her acoustic guitar on Twisted. please don't get me wrong, I like the produced and finished products as well but I also enjoy Stevie's musical talents as limited as they may be.

and Illume did touch and please me as well. And as a long time fan,. Stevie had a big order from me to live up my expectations prior to my first hearing of Illume.

and it is so odd, but at that dinner I referred to in my previous post, my hubby actually found out from our Italian friends that a girl he had casually dated in college died in the towers..."just remember when I'm haunted"

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I never expected it to be a song that would be anything more than for the people that were in New York City that day. Because I can't write about how everybody else felt--I can only write about how I felt and how I feel New Yorkers felt that day, that morning. So I'm very, very proud of that song. I wanted to say something for those people. That would be forever.

But that's just it. The song doesn't speak to or for me, as one of the New Yorkers being evacuated and scurrying about in major confusion and fear trying to get the hell out of Manhattan. So I can't relate to Nag Champa or Point Dune in this context nor do I need to be told "I was so scared," for I can figure that out. I've said this before: Had she written about what she actually "saw," and less about her later reflections on the event, it might have been more interesting.

Ultimately Stevie is a rich, pampered rock star. Does she really need to interject herself into a song about the suffering of so many average people? She was sitting in a comfortable hotel while people were running for their lives. Is it not self-indulgent to wallow on your own experience? I can remember that day hearing people complain about the trains being out of service for a few hours because they wanted to get out. At some point, I felt compelled to say, "Look, we're going to get out. We're the lucky ones. And if we have to wait till tomorrow, we're still the lucky ones." Hearing some of the lyrics in the song produces a similar reaction in me. And I do believe Stevie had the right intentions, but the execution was all wong.

AMEN!!!

I would also like to add that if it was a song that she believed it could only be "anything" for her and the people of New York, she should never have recorded the song.

I completely agree with everything you said, doll.

[Bella Figura]

the common saying goes "if it touches one person, then it's worth it" especially if it's what you do for a living...

also an existential (sorry for the bad spelling") quote applies here as well "if it's my foxhole then it is the center of the universe"

[shackin'up]

As a European and a non-native speaker the lyrics of illume don't have immediate impact -positive nor negative. It is just the feel that communicates immediately for me. With that in mind....



Originally posted by CarneVaca
Sorry, Bella, but I just don't see what the subtlety is in words like "trauma" and "Just remember I was so scared." That is a big part of my problem with the song: If there was trauma, you needn't use the word, and the same goes for "scared." Show me you're afraid, show me there was trauma, but don't bother telling me. To use a poor analogy, it's like explaining the punchline to a joke.

agreed,

then... what about "i'm so afraid, slip and i fall and i die"?

I'll have to see, but I really think lindsey is doing that a lot, too. For me, it is not a problem when you are telling a story, but it is when you write a poem. maybe that's the case here. (I'm just thinking out loud.)

But for me, illume' s intensity is in how she sings it, not in the lyric. when I heard the centermix I thought... oh buckingham, you should have left it there; Bass, drums, the pure vocal and maybe some backingvocals and that's it. It goes to your throat immediately. and the direct soul of that mix and raw vocal is something the song needed. So I think the arrangement gave something extra distential (english expression?) to the song. Not only by the (lack of) strength of the lyric.


gerald:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I guess I do not see those example as example of self-indulgence because when I think of that term, I think of someone behaing badly, etc. I do not think La Nicks or LB do that. Perhaps self-absorbed, which, although I like it alot, "Ghosts" is too me because she is beginning the 10 or more years of whining in songs about her life and no husband? In any event, I think Illume was not either of those terms per se.

[face of glass]

The usual apologies to everyone. Once again I haven’t been reading the board for several days. Let’s hope this is the final inclusion of the sort into the thread.
I believe it’s this sentence that has seemingly bothered some of you:
Originally posted by face of glass
On that particular day in September 2001 he must have thought along the lines of “I told you so”, like a significant amount of European newspapers did.
I agree I went way too far there. The thing Nancy spoke about later happened there; I was “projecting my own views of 9-11 onto Lindsey.” And I was way too blunt also. The only things I know of LB’s political orientation are the few I’ve read from the BuckinghamNicks.net message board and even those must have become distorted in my head. So I’m sorry for writing that. That’s the reason why I have that particular signature these days; I need to keep my head straight amidst all my speculation. This time I didn’t succeed in it. I stand behind everything else though.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
The man has said these songs are some of her best stuff yet (an assessment with which I disagree) so let's take him at his word, at least on this.
A) Lindsey may think so but would it necessarily prevent him from inserting shades of other emotions into them? Would he treat them as “sacred” and leave them untouched? Listening to the demos of “Thrown Down” and “Not Make Believe”; I think he wouldn’t.
B) Show me an artist who doesn’t tell the media that “our latest work is the best work we’ve ever done”. ;)

Originally posted by Bella Figura
but it is not right to mock even one death...no matter what your politically motivation but it is right to be shocked, dismayed and to feel the heartache.
I never said he was trying to mock the event itself (or any particular death); he was just providing us with an alternative reaction to Stevie’s lyric. Stevie didn’t write the all-encompassing take on 9-11 (and I’m sure no one is capable of that), she wrote her own interpretation of it. If you think “Illume” is beyond criticism as the most adequate take on the whole tragedy, then you and I aren’t on the same wavelength. And I still find the song moving, I share very little of CarneVaca’s criticism on Stevie’s lyrics.

Originally posted by Bella Figura
btw, just curious, what's the death toll from terrorist attacks in Finland???
Seven, indirectly. Some guy went into a supermarket exactly thirteen months after the whole 9-11 thing (at least, the media doubling in September 2002 was probably a partial influence) and blew himself up along with innocent people. Of course nothing like that is big news in there; here it shocked many. Let me just tell you, however, that no one here (except for the most obstinate communists) had the “I told you so” reaction immediately after the whole 9-11; those started surfacing about a week after the crashes.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Non sequitur: Speaking of death, war and Fins. I recently saw the movie Cuckoo, which is Finnish. Brilliant. Check it out.
I know it probably seems like the two countries are inseparable from the good ol’ USA, but that’s a Russian movie you mentioned, even though one of the main characters is a Finnish sniper played by a Finn.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
”Illumé”
Just an aside: I’ve seen you type the title that way a few times before. Are you hinting at the way Stevie pronounces the word during the song?

Originally posted by sodascouts
I said this on the BuckinghamNicks.net board in response to Gaius' post - using the voices to mock Stevie as well as anyone feeling extreme grief for the victims of 911 would be appalling and, from the above quote, he feels that grief as well. I can't imagine where ANYONE would get the idea he thinks that the sentiment is one to be mocked - unless he/she were projecting his/her own ideas about 911 onto Lindsey.
You’re right in that I can’t prove he wanted to mock Stevie’s lyrics deliberately. That’s the impression I got, however, and it was weird at first to hear such a choice in a song like that. Even you, as you said on your board, got that impression at first but obviously you didn’t want to cling to it. It’s impossible to say objectively whether there’s a sarcastic tone used or not as the interpretations would vary depending on the listener. For me it is one though.

I was thinking of that LB quote too when I wrote my thoughts on “Illume” into this thread. I have no reason to doubt that he felt very shocked that day. If he didn’t, then he’d obviously be one of these intellectuals who oppose to these things only because they want to be “different”. I also believe he fully shares (or shared) Stevie’s grief. However, that does not prevent him from taking an alternative view.

For the record: I agree with Dissention’s take on “Illume” completely, especially “of it's constraint of being about only one persons feelings”. That’s a flaw in Stevie’s writing occasionally; for the uninitiated it can come off as pieces of a personal world that might seem far too esoteric at first. Her producers capable of wrapping these pieces up into something that the casual listeners can also find appealing, they’re capable of colouring Stevie’s images into something more attractive. Especially Lindsey. He’s not afraid of bringing in these “alternate views”, through his own voice or his production.

So, is he mocking Stevie then, like many kids in the schoolyard used to mock something someone was saying with a funny voice? Nah, not that blatantly. If he shares Stevie’s grief, it’s not necessarily Stevie and her emotions that he’s mocking, he could be poking at himself for his own reaction. If Stevie wrote “Illume” directly after the events and didn’t do any editing on it, then it is natural that she wouldn’t be capable of taking on a point of view other than her own. However, it was different when LB received the song way after the tragedy and obviously worked on it for a long period of time. He could already take some distance to it, he could ruminate on the topic instead of being completely crushed by emotions. In short, he wanted to reflect on other possible interpretations of the tragedy, not just the Nicksian grief. For “Illume” is a very one-sided song; Stevie has only inserted grief in there (which she subtly varies, though). But since Lindsey has started to act as a sonic painter of sorts; someone who doesn’t just spurt a single emotion on the canvas but uses several intersecting ones at the same time, then it’s understandable for him to put something like that in “Illume” too. It is there in his own songs, along with this self-ridicule; “Come” is basically a parody of male aggression (which I’m sure is not unfamiliar to him) which he crosses with the verses that sound like the confessions of an obsessive lunatic, “Family Man” is LB laughing at his disability to write a good lyric (up to that point, at least) through the various voice manipulation while setting the tune to harmless ‘80s backing music. So, if he can do this with his own songs, why can’t he do it with Stevie’s too? For me saying that “Illume” is just a “simple” song about sadness/grief after LB’s treatment is the same as saying that “Say Goodbye” is just Lindsey waxing nostalgic after a love affair. There’s so much more other things that he adds into these songs.

The problem that people are having with my suggestion is probably that someone who mocks a serious song about a tragedy seems like a cruel person. That someone would have the guts to make an open joke about a tragedy. I don’t think there is that obvious a joke in the song; otherwise I wouldn’t be alone in my position. It is a subtle joke, not something that seems to underestimate the lyric. It’s just something that deflates the imagery a bit; it’s not the history of the world Stevie is talking about in there, it’s her own story.

Is the using of those voices humorous? For me it is partially; although it’s humour that’s born out of the unlikelihood of something like that happening in a song that’s supposed to be full of sadness. It doesn’t make me laugh directly or anything like that. It serves as a necessary reminder to the mourner; life isn’t all centred around you and there’s people who just won’t care for what you feel. You’re just a drop in an ocean. It’s an intellectual thing, of course, something that one can only come up with after the tragedy, but no less valid an expression than anything Stevie is doing.

I don’t know. I guess I’m just a bit bothered by the fact that there’s this common opinion in our society of grief and what it should be like. These days, after an event that shocks the nation, you’re just not supposed to be showing any other emotion besides pure mourning. Anything else, even a variant of that, and then you’re a freak. For me there’s always been so much other things involved in it; cynicism, anger, depression and yes, even sarcasm. That’s what Lindsey reflects on. We may watch all these funerals and tragedies from the TV every year but even then it’s usually because of voyeurism. You never see anyone showing true “negative” emotions in public and that’s obviously because most people wouldn’t bear to watch it. LB is not afraid of recognizing these things in people though.

I refuse to believe that Lindsey was “cheapening the message of the song” with those voices. He was just trying to give us a glimpse of something else. It’s easy to wrap oneself in mourning and stay in that state for a long time. These people usually dismiss humour as escapism. For me humour, the like of which is in “Illume” too, is not about pushing away one’s problems and fears. It an ability to look at yourself from a larger perspective; the fears won’t crush you then.

“Illume” may have been written as a direct response to what was happening all around Stevie but the fact that she apparently didn’t alter the message of the song when recording it with Fleetwood Mac proves that she didn’t want to express anything other than grief. Such a song, hell, even the original Stevie demo would have been an understandable release if it had been put out at the tail end of 2001. I have no reason to believe that Lindsey would have wanted to do something that would alter the atmosphere so significantly that quick. He shared her grief, as we admit. However, in time your perspectives are bound to change and you will start seeing other sides of the matter. Which is what happened to Lindsey too, and he wanted to communicate that through music and the lyrical repetition. And especially the tones he chose to use.

Originally posted by sodascouts
Instead, I think Lindsey was once again trying to be "cool" and "different" by manipulating the voices and it backfired.
And I don’t share this view with you either. It isn’t just a case of replicating “Madonna circa 1995”, it’s such an obvious a deviation from the overall atmosphere of the song that it has to represent something else. Whether it’s the fear and confusion of all those people on that day or just “mere sarcasm”, depends on the interpreter.

In the end, Nancy, I think you sometimes underestimate Lindsey’s sonic paintings; the different feelings they can evoke and the musical quotations he makes. I think those could be used as a basis for interesting song interpretations too, along with the lyrics. Of course that stuff might be more vague than whatever Stevie’s giving you to work with, but I’m sure that in many cases the results wouldn’t be that much more nebulous than what some of the reader comments at your site are. ;)

Another necessary disclaimer: This is all just my humble opinion! But I guess most of you knew that already.

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by face of glass
For “Illume” is a very one-sided song; Stevie has only inserted grief in there (which she subtly varies, though). But since Lindsey has started to act as a sonic painter of sorts; someone who doesn’t just spurt a single emotion on the canvas but uses several intersecting ones at the same time, then it’s understandable for him to put something like that in “Illume” too. It is there in his own songs, along with this self-ridicule; “Come” is basically a parody of male aggression (which I’m sure is not unfamiliar to him) which he crosses with the verses that sound like the confessions of an obsessive lunatic, “Family Man” is LB laughing at his disability to write a good lyric (up to that point, at least) through the various voice manipulation while setting the tune to harmless ‘80s backing music. So, if he can do this with his own songs, why can’t he do it with Stevie’s too? For me saying that “Illume” is just a “simple” song about sadness/grief after LB’s treatment is the same as saying that “Say Goodbye” is just Lindsey waxing nostalgic after a love affair. There’s so much more other things that he adds into these songs.



Agreed on everything about the sonic painter and extra viewpoints added in somany steviesongs:

This one should have been left pure. He was touched (he perhaps even cried) when he heard that first stevie demo.

On this occasion I feel that he should have captured that emotion. Especially because it is in there!

Okay I repeat myself:
listen to the centermix and you know what I mean. That's F*ckin funky bleeding soul.


gerald:wavey:

[face of glass]

Originally posted by shackin'up
listen to the centermix and you know what I mean. That's F*ckin funky bleeding soul.

I agree. I love that vocal to death. No intellectual pondering needed. ;)

Also, he should have put John's bass way more upfront into the mix. Some "f*cking funky" stuff there. :nod:

I'd love to hear them jamming it on stage.

[Johnny Stew]

Very interesting interpretations, but I still don't feel that Lindsey was intending to be even mildly humorous with the "weird voice" modulation in the song.

He has a wry sense of humour, which he's not afraid to express in song (nor should he be), but that's never been the vibe I've gotten from his production on this particular track.

I think he was going for a sinister, unnatural sound... something dark and off-putting... to help bolster the heartbroken and fearful sentiment that Stevie was expressing in her lyrics.

I doubt it was ever his intention to have someone listen to that part and think it's meant to be silly... he'd probably even be kind of offended to hear that!
Anybody have the guts to ask Lindsey, "So hey, Lindsey, were you trying to be funny when you produced 'Illumé'?" :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Anybody have the guts to ask Lindsey, "So hey, Lindsey, were you trying to be funny when you produced 'Illumé'?" :laugh:

When they come back to Atlanta, I will have cocktails again with him and ask him :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by face of glass
I know it probably seems like the two countries are inseparable from the good ol’ USA, but that’s a Russian movie you mentioned, even though one of the main characters is a Finnish sniper played by a Finn.


Forgive the faux pas. The setting is in Lapland, which is Finnish, and about half the movie is spoken in Finnish. Two other languages, German and Russian are spoken. But you are correct, it is Russian.

And no, Finland and Russia don't look the same to me, especially since I was born in Europe myself. Be that as it may, though I've never belonged to the anti-communist alarmist crowd, one has to admit that if not for the influence and might of the "good ol' USA," Finland might well have become another Soviet republic or satellite. And at that point, yes, it would have become quite indistinguishable to us. ;)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Very interesting interpretations, but I still don't feel that Lindsey was intending to be even mildly humorous with the "weird voice" modulation in the song.

I... gulp... agree with this assessment. As much as I may disagree with you on the beauty, or lack thereof, of the lyrics, I just don't see Lindsey injecting any sort of sarcasm or humor into this song. And, really, it doesn't come across as humorous anyway.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Anybody have the guts to ask Lindsey, "So hey, Lindsey, were you trying to be funny when you produced 'Illumé'?" :laugh:
Hey, if I shouted “spontaneity!” to him in Germany before the usual “WTWCT” speech then I have the guts to ask him just about anything. ;)
Originally posted by CarneVaca
...if not for the influence and might of the "good ol' USA," Finland might well have become another Soviet republic or satellite.
And looking at the way our country is now because of this “influence”, I might as well prefer the big hug of Josef Vissarionovich. As we say around here: “Siberia could teach you a thing or two”. ;)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by face of glass
Lindsey may think so but would it necessarily prevent him from inserting shades of other emotions into them? Would he treat them as “sacred” and leave them untouched? Listening to the demos of “Thrown Down” and “Not Make Believe”; I think he wouldn’t.

Do you think he would do so without Stevie's permission? I think not. And I do not think she would go for such an "alternative reaction."



You’re right in that I can’t prove he wanted to mock Stevie’s lyrics deliberately. That’s the impression I got, however, and it was weird at first to hear such a choice in a song like that. Even you, as you said on your board, got that impression at first but obviously you didn’t want to cling to it. It’s impossible to say objectively whether there’s a sarcastic tone used or not as the interpretations would vary depending on the listener. For me it is one though.

You are right that I initially got that, but I'm positive it was unintentional. I hold Lindsey in too high a regard to believe that he would intentionally do something like that. In that way, I believe it is you who are underestimating him.

For the record: I agree with Dissention’s take on “Illume” completely, especially “of it's constraint of being about only one persons feelings”. That’s a flaw in Stevie’s writing occasionally; for the uninitiated it can come off as pieces of a personal world that might seem far too esoteric at first. Her producers capable of wrapping these pieces up into something that the casual listeners can also find appealing, they’re capable of colouring Stevie’s images into something more attractive. Especially Lindsey. He’s not afraid of bringing in these “alternate views”, through his own voice or his production.

While this sounds very nice, I doubt Lindsey would be so presumptuous as to take Stevie's songs and change their meaning. His production does make Stevie's material more attractive on an AESTHETIC level. He makes her MUSIC sound better. He does NOT take it upon himself to make her meaning more "broad."

Lindsey would be the last person to try and make a song more appealing to the masses, don't you think? Aren't we all so proud of him for his "artistic integrity" in doing his thing against the mainstream? Do we think he disregards Stevie's own right to use a song she has written to convey an emotion that perhaps everyone might not like? I find this hard to believe. It would be amazingly disrespectful to Stevie.

So, is he mocking Stevie then, like many kids in the schoolyard used to mock something someone was saying with a funny voice? Nah, not that blatantly. If he shares Stevie’s grief, it’s not necessarily Stevie and her emotions that he’s mocking, he could be poking at himself for his own reaction.

If Stevie wrote “Illume” directly after the events and didn’t do any editing on it, then it is natural that she wouldn’t be capable of taking on a point of view other than her own. However, it was different when LB received the song way after the tragedy and obviously worked on it for a long period of time. He could already take some distance to it, he could ruminate on the topic instead of being completely crushed by emotions. In short, he wanted to reflect on other possible interpretations of the tragedy, not just the Nicksian grief. For “Illume” is a very one-sided song; Stevie has only inserted grief in there (which she subtly varies, though). But since Lindsey has started to act as a sonic painter of sorts; someone who doesn’t just spurt a single emotion on the canvas but uses several intersecting ones at the same time, then it’s understandable for him to put something like that in “Illume” too.

The MEANING is not SUPPOSED to be his, Gauis. It's Stevie's. I guess that's the fundamental difference in our views. You feel Lindsey would have no problem rendering her song more "acceptable" to the masses without her permission. I have too much respect for Lindsey to think that he is that arrogant, or that he believes himself to be the arbiter of what is "acceptable" for a song about 911 to convey.

It is there in his own songs, along with this self-ridicule; “Come” is basically a parody of male aggression (which I’m sure is not unfamiliar to him) which he crosses with the verses that sound like the confessions of an obsessive lunatic, “Family Man” is LB laughing at his disability to write a good lyric (up to that point, at least) through the various voice manipulation while setting the tune to harmless ‘80s backing music. So, if he can do this with his own songs, why can’t he do it with Stevie’s too?

To me, the distinction is obvious. He has the right to make a statement about whatever the hell he wants on his own songs. STEVIE HAS THAT SAME RIGHT. Lindsey's talents in production do NOT give him authority to act as her "meaning filter." Think about what you're saying here!

And I know some people who will be surprised to hear that "Family Man" is Lindsey satirizing his inability to write lyrics! The song's lyrics suck, but that seems completely unintentional to me. Or are Stevie's insipid lines in the song that started this thread also "self-ridicule"? Nah, couldn't be. Stevie is not capable of such deep thought. Let's call in Lindsey to do it for her, shall we?

For me saying that “Illume” is just a “simple” song about sadness/grief after LB’s treatment is the same as saying that “Say Goodbye” is just Lindsey waxing nostalgic after a love affair. There’s so much more other things that he adds into these songs.

See above. "Say Goodbye" is a LINDSEY song.

The problem that people are having with my suggestion is probably that someone who mocks a serious song about a tragedy seems like a cruel person. That someone would have the guts to make an open joke about a tragedy. I don’t think there is that obvious a joke in the song; otherwise I wouldn’t be alone in my position. It is a subtle joke, not something that seems to underestimate the lyric. It’s just something that deflates the imagery a bit; it’s not the history of the world Stevie is talking about in there, it’s her own story.

EXACTLY. It's her own story. If Lindsey wanted to convey something different, he would've written his OWN song about it.


Is the using of those voices humorous? For me it is partially; although it’s humour that’s born out of the unlikelihood of something like that happening in a song that’s supposed to be full of sadness. It doesn’t make me laugh directly or anything like that. It serves as a necessary reminder to the mourner; life isn’t all centred around you and there’s people who just won’t care for what you feel. You’re just a drop in an ocean. It’s an intellectual thing, of course, something that one can only come up with after the tragedy, but no less valid an expression than anything Stevie is doing.

Well, if Lindsey wants to do this kind of philosophizing to make sure everyone mourns more "intellectually," then I repeat that he can write his own song about it. Perhaps the reason why Stevie's song is so personal is that she doesn't believe she has the right to tell people what they should be feeling after 911. But she DOES have the right to express her OWN ideas and she DID SO. Lindsey has enough integrity to respect her right!

I don’t know. I guess I’m just a bit bothered by the fact that there’s this common opinion in our society of grief and what it should be like. These days, after an event that shocks the nation, you’re just not supposed to be showing any other emotion besides pure mourning. Anything else, even a variant of that, and then you’re a freak. For me there’s always been so much other things involved in it; cynicism, anger, depression and yes, even sarcasm. That’s what Lindsey reflects on. We may watch all these funerals and tragedies from the TV every year but even then it’s usually because of voyeurism. You never see anyone showing true “negative” emotions in public and that’s obviously because most people wouldn’t bear to watch it. LB is not afraid of recognizing these things in people though.

I actually agree with this overall sentiment! Lindsey is not afraid to express criticism of such things IN HIS OWN SONGS. But why would he presume to hijack Stevie's to do so? How selfish would that be?

I refuse to believe that Lindsey was “cheapening the message of the song” with those voices. He was just trying to give us a glimpse of something else. It’s easy to wrap oneself in mourning and stay in that state for a long time. These people usually dismiss humour as escapism. For me humour, the like of which is in “Illume” too, is not about pushing away one’s problems and fears. It an ability to look at yourself from a larger perspective; the fears won’t crush you then.

Again, I agree with this sentiment in general. But I refuse to believe Lindsey would use Stevie's song as a format for conveying his own message (and, really, mocking voices wouldn't effectively convey this anyway.)

“Illume” may have been written as a direct response to what was happening all around Stevie but the fact that she apparently didn’t alter the message of the song when recording it with Fleetwood Mac proves that she didn’t want to express anything other than grief. Such a song, hell, even the original Stevie demo would have been an understandable release if it had been put out at the tail end of 2001. I have no reason to believe that Lindsey would have wanted to do something that would alter the atmosphere so significantly that quick. He shared her grief, as we admit. However, in time your perspectives are bound to change and you will start seeing other sides of the matter. Which is what happened to Lindsey too, and he wanted to communicate that through music and the lyrical repetition. And especially the tones he chose to use.

I hope by now you understand why I would find it impossible to believe Lindsey would superimpose his own agenda on Stevie's songs that way.


And I don’t share this view with you either. It isn’t just a case of replicating “Madonna circa 1995”, it’s such an obvious a deviation from the overall atmosphere of the song that it has to represent something else. Whether it’s the fear and confusion of all those people on that day or just “mere sarcasm”, depends on the interpreter.

Well, perhaps he isn't just trying to be "different," but he certainly isn't trying to improve Stevie's meaning somehow, because he deems it inadequate to express a true range of emotions.

In the end, Nancy, I think you sometimes underestimate Lindsey’s sonic paintings; the different feelings they can evoke and the musical quotations he makes.

So you think I am underestimating his talent as a producer by not agreeing that he is changing Stevie's meaning for her? Whatever.

I think those could be used as a basis for interesting song interpretations too, along with the lyrics. Of course that stuff might be more vague than whatever Stevie’s giving you to work with, but I’m sure that in many cases the results wouldn’t be that much more nebulous than what some of the reader comments at your site are. ;)

If you want to twist Stevie's lyrics into a meaning you prefer by using some supposed "meaning" Lindsey added, that's your right. It WOULD make about as much sense as a few of the things that some people have sent me. But I for one think that going beyond the lyrics to find meaning FROM ANOTHER PERSON is totally unfair to Stevie. "Stevie feels this, but we can tell from how Lindsey treated her song that he believes her feelings are inadequate. Luckily he has taken it upon himself to make her song more appropriate. Aren't we fortunate he was around to 'improve' Stevie's meaning and express what other people feel? Isn't that what music production's all about - changing the songwriter's meaning to fit the producer's agenda? Lindsey sure is a good meaning producer, isn't he?"


Another necessary disclaimer: This is all just my humble opinion! But I guess most of you knew that already.

Yeah, I knew that already. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[dissention]

Good lord.

[HomerMcvie]

Good lord.
Amen.

[dissention]

Originally posted by HomerMcvie
Amen.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Wish I could contribute more to this tome of a thread, but alas, I am fresh out. :shrug:

[HomerMcvie]

12 full screens of text for one post does tend to wear one out, no?

[Lorraine]

ha and it still makes no sense to me



Lorraine :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by trackaghost
And is this the longest thread EVER?

HELL NO!

We have political threads that run over 50 pages over on the Chit Chat board! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
HELL NO!

We have political threads that run over 50 pages over on the Chit Chat board! :laugh: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :

[face of glass]

Originally posted by dissention
Good lord.

Hey, don’t you think it’s about time someone gave me my own medicine? ;)

Originally posted by sodascouts
Do you think he would do so without Stevie's permission? I think not. And I do not think she would go for such an "alternative reaction."

No, I don’t think he would do anything with a Nickssong without Stevie’s approval these days. And by that I mean approval during the “arranging” of song or approval after the backing track is completed. I didn’t believe such claims in the first place when EricBliss suggested that Lindsey screwed up with the production of “WISYA” (and my reaction to that is what caused this thread to go so seriously off-tangent).

Would she go for that kind of reaction? I do get the feeling that she probably wouldn’t.

You are right that I initially got that, but I'm positive it was unintentional. I hold Lindsey in too high a regard to believe that he would intentionally do something like that. In that way, I believe it is you who are underestimating him.

If you think I suggested that LB did the whole “voice mockery” as a childish joke without Stevie’s acceptance then you’re wrong. But I guess we all agree on the fact that those voices could represent almost anything. Like I said, if it’s a joke, it’s not an obvious one. I can imagine Stevie shaking her head in disbelief at those voices first (if we presume Lindsey did them earlier). Equally I can imagine LB answering to her that they “represent the confusion and chaos of that day” or “ghosts” or whatever you have been suggesting. If he wanted to sneak in sarcasm to the track then he most likely wouldn’t have told Stevie that he was doing so. But what am I actually saying here?

If the voices were intended as sarcastic and were added without Stevie’s approval then that would suggest that LB would still have some ire towards SN, or that his relationship with her isn’t all that they’ve made us believe now. I wouldn’t want to say so though. Ok, I do believe that if someone’s a real friend to you then he/she will also shake you up once in a while when you’re all self-centred by deflating your self-importance.
But I do not wish to suggest that. Instead I do believe that Stevie approved of the voices fully. But I also believe that those voices can’t be subjugated to represent one particular, obvious thing. Lindsey very rarely hits us on the head anyway; he can be very vague. That’s what those voices are too; they’re open to all kinds of interpretations. They’ve screamed “sarcasm!” at me since day one of listening to SYW but I guess that tells more of me than of anything else.
Besides, if someone was to ask Lindsey what those voices are doing in there we probably wouldn’t get a straight answer from the man. He’s so vague in interviews too nowadays. I’m sure it’s mainly because he doesn’t want to ruin other people’s interpretations. But then again it could be because he’s too scared to discuss his songs and contributions in more detail, unlike Stevie.

While this sounds very nice, I doubt Lindsey would be so presumptuous as to take Stevie's songs and change their meaning. His production does make Stevie's material more attractive on an AESTHETIC level. He makes her MUSIC sound better. He does NOT take it upon himself to make her meaning more "broad."

Since you made a similar point later on, I’ll answer it there. But now I’d just like to say that whenever Lindsey puts on a guitar track of his on a Stevie song, it changes the meaning for me. So it changes when he puts on his vocal. So it changed when Chris sang on a Stevie song. In that way no FM track is totally about Stevie. It’s also about Fleetwood Mac. When I was speaking of these “alternate views”, I mainly meant musical contributions. I don’t think Stevie’s recent demos hint at all the potential of a song enough. That’s why I used this wording. You probably misunderstood me and thought that Lindsey is trying to “make her [lyrical] meaning more broad” in every song she’s written. I didn’t want it to be read like that.

Lindsey would be the last person to try and make a song more appealing to the masses, don't you think? Aren't we all so proud of him for his "artistic integrity" in doing his thing against the mainstream? Do we think he disregards Stevie's own right to use a song she has written to convey an emotion that perhaps everyone might not like? I find this hard to believe. It would be amazingly disrespectful to Stevie.

Again, I stated this earlier in the thread and will state it here again; Lindsey knows how to approach the mainstream but he doesn’t want appear banal. In every song he’s done since Tusk he’s always thrown in some element that might possibly alienate an audience.
Alright, everyone wouldn’t like what Stevie’s expressing in “Illume”. But this song wasn’t intended as a single. In some songs LB’s emphasis is to approach the mainstream (although with the possible “alienation” factor), with the rest he can do pretty much what he likes. If Stevie would have wanted to cash in on “Illume” she would have called in another producer or told Lindsey that he can’t do everything he wants with it. Then the song wouldn’t have the hellish guitars or goofy voices. No way do I think those goofy voices are trying to “seduce the masses”. The masses would rather listen to a song that can be more easily interpreted as being about grief (I mean “Illume” without the voices) than something that has those voices which change the mood completely for a while. Lindsey may be using a thing that was fashionable once but he’s using it in a very unlikely context.

I have too much respect for Lindsey to think that he is that arrogant, or that he believes himself to be the arbiter of what is "acceptable" for a song about 911 to convey.

I don’t believe he has the possible arrogance of the past anymore either. But there’s no way the masses would approve of the possible use of sarcasm in a song about grief.

To me, the distinction is obvious. He has the right to make a statement about whatever the hell he wants on his own songs. STEVIE HAS THAT SAME RIGHT. Lindsey's talents in production do NOT give him authority to act as her "meaning filter." Think about what you're saying here!

If that’s what I have said, that Lindsey is Stevie’s “meaning filter”, then I’ve expressed some things inadequately. I’d like to think I haven’t put things that way (although I do admit doing so with “Illume” only), although I do believe that he can change the meaning of the music. Then again, do you think the new arrangement of “Smile At You” takes away some of the power (and perhaps even meaning) of the lyric?

And I know some people who will be surprised to hear that "Family Man" is Lindsey satirizing his inability to write lyrics! The song's lyrics suck, but that seems completely unintentional to me. Or are Stevie's insipid lines in the song that started this thread also "self-ridicule"? Nah, couldn't be. Stevie is not capable of such deep thought. Let's call in Lindsey to do it for her, shall we?

That’s the only way I can explain why the lyrics of “Family Man” are poor but then again as a fan of LB I want to find a rational explanation to the weakness of some of his material. ;) But I do think the approach in that track is basically to see how weak a lyric he can get away with by using all that voice treatment. I’ve never seen it as a song that takes itself with seriousness at all.
And to be honest, I don’t think Stevie has ever let out a weak lyric in an official release. Of course, as someone who doesn’t “get lyrics” like the native speakers of the English language do, I don’t think I’m that capable of seeing what makes a certain Stevie lyric a masterpiece and why some other piece of is supposed to be below par. But there’s no way I think the lyrics of “When I See You Again” are bad, especially when that voice is singing them. “Family Man”, on the other hand, :rolleyes: but then again the arrangement covers most of that up.

OK. Do you want to know why I write this “pseudo-intellectual rubbish”? Because I hate to see the usual assumption of “Stevie being deeper than Lindsey”. That Stevie’s songs have more depth, that they’re more emotional and personal etc. I’m not denying her more intimate approach at all but I still think the whole assumption is selling Lindsey a bit short. Just because he doesn’t write like Stevie does and doesn’t have the same voice are some dismissing him? It’s unfair in my opinion. Sure, Lindsey’s more self-conscious. Sure, his lyrics were mainly poor in the early days. Sure, he likes the unusual dashes, large dramatic shifts. But that’s the way he expresses himself, in everything he puts into his songs. You need to take his songs as the final products with all these various streams of emotions coming in. He isn’t any less deep than Stevie is, he just achieves a different kind of depth.

Nancy, I don’t think Stevie really philosophises over her songs, or at least not as much as Lindsey does over his. She has one very powerful tool, her voice. It’s always been capable of expressing different emotions and with her getting “older and wiser” it has reached this mature point where it can present very subtle variants of those. I’ve never thought Lindsey’s voice has such potential, if it does it’s just a fraction of Stevie’s. Lindsey covers this up with his musical skills while Stevie doesn’t really need those. I don’t think either is deeper than the other, they just express different things. Together or alone.

Perhaps the reason why Stevie's song is so personal is that she doesn't believe she has the right to tell people what they should be feeling after 911.

I’ve never thought he was trying to obviously put his opinion in there for all to see. And I’ve never seen either LB or SN trying to tell people what they should feel.

I actually agree with this overall sentiment! Lindsey is not afraid to express criticism of such things IN HIS OWN SONGS. But why would he presume to hijack Stevie's to do so? How selfish would that be?

For how long a time does he “hijack” “Illume” then? 23 seconds. That’s how long those voices are in there. I don’t think that’s hijacking on a larger scale. It doesn’t affect anything Stevie’s singing in any way and it doesn’t change her message one bit; he just puts in this diversion there for a while.

But why do I feel it’s a different message that I get from the song during those 23 seconds? I think “Illume” has an approach somewhat similar to very many classic progressive rock pieces; you state a theme and later repeat it in a different context and evoking different emotions; often it can seem like they’re playing an entirely new thing altogether. In early ‘70s prog rock you usually played a particular theme with acoustic instruments and then later on it transformed into a fiery electric showcase. In this format the same theme can mean an entirely different thing when it’s played with different tone colours. “Illume” doesn’t work entirely like that, it’s a five-minute song by a band that’s supposed to be doing “pop”. Instead they use the lyrical repetition: the “what I saw on this journey” stanza gives a totally different impression when done by those goofy voices as does Stevie’s furious vocal when it repeats the chorus after that. Now if that approach suggests different things in prog, why can’t it do so here?

But I refuse to believe Lindsey would use Stevie's song as a format for conveying his own message (and, really, mocking voices wouldn't effectively convey this anyway.)

But could you give me a rational reason as to why she wouldn’t want the song to convey something else than her own viewpoint for 23 seconds? Alright, it’s likely it’s not sarcasm but it’s something else anyway. It’s something that her voice can’t convey unless it’s warped to another extreme through voice manipulation. And it’s something she approved of.

So you think I am underestimating his talent as a producer by not agreeing that he is changing Stevie's meaning for her? Whatever.

No, no and no. You can read into Stevie’s songs however you want. Single exceptions like “Illume” won’t really matter. I was speaking about Lindsey’s own songs here. About the only musical self-quotation you speculate on your site is the “Stephanie” – “Eyes Of The World” connection. How about “You And I Part 2” – “Surrender The Rain”, “Big Love” – “Destiny Rules”, “Lola (My Love)” – “The Chain”, etc.? Also, his use of altered voices always changes the mood and tone of a lyric.
Of course I’m not asking you to do this because it can be difficult. It’s harder to analyse music along with lyrics than just purely lyrics; it can often be like “dancing about architecture”, as Frank Zappa put it. Yet I think that Lindsey communicates to us as much through his music as he does through his lyrics.
And even Les, who seems to be the most vocal supporter of this theory along with me, hasn’t put anything like that on her site. And she most likely won’t.

"Stevie feels this, but we can tell from how Lindsey treated her song that he believes her feelings are inadequate. Luckily he has taken it upon himself to make her song more appropriate. Aren't we fortunate he was around to 'improve' Stevie's meaning and express what other people feel? Isn't that what music production's all about - changing the songwriter's meaning to fit the producer's agenda? Lindsey sure is a good meaning producer, isn't he?"

If that’s what you got from my post then it really must have failed to represent what I think and feel.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And so shall it be. But I won’t rehash the “sarcasm” argument anymore. It’s a very vague one anyway and if what I wrote can cause interpretations that feel extreme (to me at least), then it’s just not worth it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by face of glass
Hey, don’t you think it’s about time someone gave me my own medicine? ;)

Oh, of course, doll. I was just shocked at the tone of condescension; that's all. :D