Lindsey AUS Article

[nodmod]

Lindsey article from The Sydney Morning Herald (18th Feb)
- http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com/articles/2004/feb/feb004-005.html


Thanks to Michelle for sending the text on

[4Buck]

Good interview with Buckingham.....

The femaleness of it. The lightness of it. You might say it's overly poppy in parts. It's ironic that truthfulness of what we were saying in the songs was representation in a very glossy way.

I have these same feelings about RUMOURS, as I prefer the more masculine, intense sound of SAY YOU WILL.

>>>>>>I also share Buckingham's affinity towards The Clash, as the garage-punk-classics ROCK THE CASBAH and SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO are still played constantly on the radio.....

[sodascouts]

Bleh. I hate this interview.

I know this might offend some people, but Lindsey needs to stop gazing wistfully at The Clash. That trendy, dated group holds no frame of reference for most people who were born within the last THREE DECADES. A lot of his fans won't even know who the hell he's talking about. So much for standing the test of time. How sad that he doesn't realize how much better he is than that, how his music and work are so much stronger despite the fact that it was done within the confines of Fleetwood Mac. Perhaps Mirage was an exception but as a rule, when he asserted himself regarding the sound of his own music in Fleetwood Mac post-Rumours, he got his way, and that continues to this day.

Which brings me to the next point. WHY oh WHY must Lindsey insult Rumours? Doesn't he realize that by doing so, he's insulting the people who love the album? Why does he feel the need to attribute success to something besides the worth of the music? His assumption that the music wasn't good enough on its own, that the only way it could be so successful is if people were fascinated by his relationship with Stevie, betrays some serious self-esteem issues and lack of confidence in his own appeal. I would have hoped by now he would realize that he deserved every bit of Rumours' success on his OWN merits.

Finally, defining "Femaleness" as something light, fluffy, glossy, something to be ashamed of.... that sounds so condescending towards women. I mean, I understand him liking a masculine sound BETTER, but does that mean that a "female" sound is only worthy of contempt? Because that's the implication of his choice of words, the use of the word "femaleness" to describe Rumours' flaws. "Femaleness" is synonymous with selling out and lacking musical integrity and substance, apparently.

I find this one of the worst Lindsey interviews he's given in at least ten years, arguably fifteen.

[chiliD]

Sure, it's a "ballsier show"...but adding "Oh Well" would make it even that much MORE "ballsy". :laugh:

[Gazza]

There's something that just works perfectly with the music being so "glossy" though. They're going through all this heartache, but they're staying together because of their love for what they can do together musically... Go Your Own Way is both tragic and joyful at the same time, as is the entire album.

The Clash were a great, energetic band, but is there a moment on any of their albums that's as touching as the shift in tone from GYOW to Songbird?

In my opinion, Rumours sales are down to them making such a heartbreaking situation sound so hopeful (and nothing to do with the soap opera that it was)... Most bands are too busy trying to be dark and angry, to do something so honest these days.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Gazza
There's something that just works perfectly with the music being so "glossy" though.

In my opinion, Rumours sales are down to them making such a heartbreaking situation sound so hopeful (and nothing to do with the soap opera that it was)... Most bands are too busy trying to be dark and angry, to do something so honest these days. I agree.
'Rumours'... and Fleetwood Mac's music in general... is so incredible and unique, because they take these painful little pages from their diaries, and turn them into brilliant pieces of pop-rock.

Sorry Lindsey, but I have no interest in the Clash, or punk in general. They beat you over the head with every note... there's no finesse or subtlety. No talent or skill required.

If he was truly worried about the "femaleness" of it, then he should have worked harder to balance that, by contributing heavier, more guitar-oriented songs... rather than lighter fare, like "Can't Go Back," "Book Of Love," and "Oh Diane."

But then, I quite like those songs, so I have no complaints. :)

[chiliD]

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

But, I can see where he would. It is similar to Pete Townshend & Tommy...supposedly the peak of their creativity (as deemed by the critics & media) at such a young age...nothing they've done since has had the critical acclaim. Although subsequent albums by both Pete's & Lindsey's bands climbed the charts, the critical acclaim wasn't there as it was with Tommy & Rumours. Both artists are locked in, by both media & fans alike, to those albums...and 25-30+ years afterwards, it HAS to wear on your nerves (not to mention the "ego")

[wondergirl9847]

The male ego is a fragile creature, and Lindsey's dealt with the whole female vs. male factor for so long.

I know he is SO excited about the new lineup. With Christine gone, it's VERY male dominated and edgy now. There's not an overabundance of softness to the album and show. I think he sees more balance.

Obviously, he doesn't dislike or hate Christine or wish her ill will, he's just excited about the new sound and stuff. I'm the same way, love her to death, but I think retiring was an okay decision.

About the Rumours thing...I think when you do something and it's regarded as the greatest thing you have EVER done, that makes you feel like crap as in, you can NEVER do anything as good or better than that. That's gotta hurt. :( I can see his resentment towards the album, but nobody must tell him that it's the MUSIC that is revered and loved, even though most idiotic journalists and dips talk about the frickin soap opera...which, frankly, I'm so friggin sick of hearing about myself...and I've only been a fan for 3 years. :rolleyes:

[4Buck]

>>>>Hey, Nanc....

You're reading waaaaay too much into the interview.....

Besides, any 41- year-old woman (Nicks' age at the time) who can spew out "Don't f... with my people" .....miked....in front of an audience,
...is lucky to be considered a female by Buckingham at all. :laugh:

[4Buck]

>>>Besides, this reads like a compiled article....

....Buckingham did not do this as a sit-down or phoned-in verbatim interview, IMO.......

[Merf]

Sorry Lindsey, but I have no interest in the Clash, or punk in general. They beat you over the head with every note... there's no finesse or subtlety. No talent or skill required.


Oh, ouch, Johnny. That hurt my little emo punk rocker heart. :distress:

I think it's all a matter of an opinion. If you're into punk music, it doesn't get better than the Clash. They are legends, and it's clear that Lindsey finds them to be important musically as an influence on him-- and I see nothing wrong with that!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by trackaghost
You sound like an old man JS! :laugh:*lol*
And I've had that opinion since I was a teen!
But I'll concede that I was generalizing a bit with my statement. Though I didn't mean that punk musicians had no talent... simply that it doesn't really require talent to play punk music!

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

My brother's a major punk fan, so I've been exposed to various and numerous punkers (hey, they exposed themselves first! ;) ), and while I'll like a song here or there, I can't make it thru an entire album.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
[B... while I'll like a song here or there, I can't make it thru an entire album. [/B]

Yeah, that's how I feel about The Clash...take ALL their albums and you can make one really f*ing good double album. I'll edit this post and list the tracks of the compilation cassette I made about 15 years ago (when I can find the tape, that is! :laugh: )

[AngelaM]

Also, why so bitchy towards Stevie? Me thinks someone's a bit jealous! Sure, he and Stevie were a package deal but I do wonder how appealing he would have been on his own. Without her he might have been another Bob Welch (not that there's anything particularly wrong with him, but I hope you know what I mean).

As for the nostalgia for punk. Well, Johnny Rotten has just done "I'm a Celebrity...get me out of here!" He may feel frustrated and constrained by the success of Rumours but it could be a lot worse...


Angela
x

[4Buck]

>>>>Some of Buckingham's quotes may be taken from years ago.....

Nowhere in this article does it say this was recently done from his hotel room in Newcastle, Australia........or something to that effect... Where was this interview given? :shrug:

>>>>Note the Sydney interview sounds current and much more positive........

[face of glass]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, yeah, I digressed. :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

[CarneVaca]

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

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

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

[chiliD]

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

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

[jbrownsjr]

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

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

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


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

[sodascouts]

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

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

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

Originally posted by face of glass
Rumours is associated with the drama and I don’t think you can deny that.
Of course not. But it doesn't lower the music's quality. That stands on its own.


Originally posted by face of glass

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

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

Originally posted by face of glass

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

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


Originally posted by face of glass

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

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


Originally posted by face of glass

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

Aw. Poor Lindsey can't win. :(

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

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

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

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

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

[Cammie]

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

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

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

Let the Music speak- not affairs!!!Sky:)

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

[4Buck]

:laugh:

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

:laugh:

[sodascouts]

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

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

Originally posted by Cammie
Lindsey's not a boy-toy anymore!
Please let Lindsey be a Grown UP!
Who said he was a boy toy?

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

Let the Music speak- not affairs!!!Sky:)

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

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

[Les]

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

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

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

[Les]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[chiliD]

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

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

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

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

[sodascouts]

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

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

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

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

[Les]

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

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

Maybe I just read that differently from you. :shrug:

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

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

[CarneVaca]

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

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

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

[sodascouts]

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


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

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

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Still, at one point it was uncool to like Fleetwood Mac. It's never been uncool to like the Clash. And to dismiss punk as being a talentless art form is, well, just unfortunate. But I already made that point with my Mozart comment. I still stand by my comment that, while punk musicians aren't necessarily without talent, it's hard to see where talent is a requirement to be a traditional punk musician.

And yes, of course people have said the same thing about rock and roll. But then, we're not talking about other bands here, we're talking about Fleetwood Mac... and I think they go far beyond a tag such as "rock and roll band."
They may not be trained musicians in a classical sense, but the music is nuanced and complex... not to mention being emotionally resonant.

I'm not a big fan of thudding drums and tuneless guitar screeches, but that's just me. It's ok when it's used for an occasional texture (a la 'Tusk'), but I don't want a steady diet of it.
And I realize that not all punk music is like that, which is why I said "the majority of punk music" before, rather than "all."
But a lot of what is considered to be truly "pure" punk, is like that... and that's what I'm referring to here, "pure" punk music.

As with any genre of music... classical, blues, rock, country, r&b, etc.... it all has value, and one should have at least some exposure to more than one type of music... but we don't have to love all of it.

I still have to question Lindsey's complaint about the "femaleness" of Fleetwood Mac's sound though, when none of his solo albums present any strong sense of masculinity and aggressiveness. You'd think that would have been his big chance to express that.

Maybe it goes back to the feelings he must have had when Loggins & Messina's tour manager, Jim Recor, would shout "get those broads off the stage," back when FM was opening for them.

Anyway, in regards to the whole "I wanted to be in the Clash" thing... in Lindsey's defense, I believe it was during a radio interview last year in which he said that that was his feeling in the late '70s, but that he wouldn't want to be in the Clash these days.
If I remember correctly, he added, "Have you seen them lately?"

[Carolina Girl]

Not to beat the dead horse, but ... I'm 35, live in the US, and I've heard of The Clash, but I can't even think of a single song by them. Rock the Casbah, maybe??? And that's only thanks to the MTV of old.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I still stand by my comment that, while punk musicians aren't necessarily without talent, it's hard to see where talent is a requirement to be a traditional punk musician.

Johnny, I still think you're being unfair. Would you consider Elvis Costello talentless? Were the Ramones talentless? Hell, John Lennon has been heralded by some as the original punk. Go listen to some of his early solo stuff. No talent?

Perhaps you're focusing on one iteration of punk that you don't value. But I submit to you that even playing three-chord thrash punk requires a level of talent. Don't believe me? Go to your nearest guitar store, pick one up and start playing a Ramones or Violent Femmes song.

And by the way, Nancy, Lindsey said he liked Eminem because Eminem is an incredibly talented wordsmith. Say what you want about his homophobia (alleged, because if you read some of his lyrics, it would be hard to reconcile that label) and his mysogynism, he is a huge talent. I don't see anyone else out there today writing at his level. Hell, even Bruce Springsteen said he's good. And if Bruce says so...;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Bleh. I hate this interview.

I know this might offend some people, but Lindsey needs to stop gazing wistfully at The Clash. That trendy, dated group holds no frame of reference for most people who were born within the last THREE DECADES. A lot of his fans won't even know who the hell he's talking about. So much for standing the test of time. How sad that he doesn't realize how much better he is than that, how his music and work are so much stronger despite the fact that it was done within the confines of Fleetwood Mac. Perhaps Mirage was an exception but as a rule, when he asserted himself regarding the sound of his own music in Fleetwood Mac post-Rumours, he got his way, and that continues to this day.


Well, I'm only 24 and I *adore* The Clash. :laugh: Maybe he's hoping that his fans will eventually discover The Clash after they read his glowing mentions of them? Anyways, I think most die-hard classic rock fans know of and love The Clash. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
*lol*
And I've had that opinion since I was a teen!
But I'll concede that I was generalizing a bit with my statement. Though I didn't mean that punk musicians had no talent... simply that it doesn't really require talent to play punk music!

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

My brother's a major punk fan, so I've been exposed to various and numerous punkers (hey, they exposed themselves first! ;) ), and while I'll like a song here or there, I can't make it thru an entire album.

To be honest, I can't stand punk music. There is just something about The Clash that I love. I can't put my finger on it, but they have something magical going on, much like The Mac. Ever heard The Clash's "Train In Vain"? That song might turn you into a fan...:nod: ;)

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I still stand by my comment that, while punk musicians aren't necessarily without talent, it's hard to see where talent is a requirement to be a traditional punk musician.


I just pop in here, but "being a traditional punkmusician" can only be said in retrospective. To have the nerve and the guts and the idea of making such stomachturning music against the world's Led Zeppelins, Queens, Macs, Eagles and ABBA's, you HAD to have a certain amount of talent in terms of sensibility for new thoughts and visions. That's musical talent, too. Aside from brilliant simplicity as done by Fischer-z, The Jam (!) the Undertones AND sex pistols, gbh, dead kennedy's etcetera, although the latter three are not among my faves.

[wondergirl9847]

I like Eminem (HAH!!! I turned on the radio as Lose Yourself plays...weird) and he IS a talented wordsmith. I agree with Lindsey for having respect for his talent. I don't agree with everything Eminem says or believes, but I do like his music.

[dissention]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
I like Eminem (HAH!!! I turned on the radio as Lose Yourself plays...weird) and he IS a talented wordsmith. I agree with Lindsey for having respect for his talent. I don't agree with everything Eminem says or believes, but I do like his music.

Oh, Christy! :eek: :laugh:

Sorry, I think Eminem is a pig. Anyone who makes music that talks of raping their mother and beating her bloody is a real f*ck, in my opinion. I love how some people complain about gay marriage leading to the disintegration of our society, yet they have no qualms with letting their kids buy and listen to absolutle smut like Eminem. :rolleyes: I see a bit of hypocrisy and a lack of common sense.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, I still think you're being unfair. Would you consider Elvis Costello talentless? Were the Ramones talentless? Hell, John Lennon has been heralded by some as the original punk. Go listen to some of his early solo stuff. No talent?

Perhaps you're focusing on one iteration of punk that you don't value. But I submit to you that even playing three-chord thrash punk requires a level of talent. Don't believe me? Go to your nearest guitar store, pick one up and start playing a Ramones or Violent Femmes song.It's funny, because I actually like some of the artists you mentioned. I quite like Elvis Costello (of whom Stevie also happens to be a big fan), and I like some of the Violent Femmes' stuff (believe it or not).
I like the Ramones somewhat less so, but I've enjoyed some of their stuff.
Someone mentioned the Talking Heads earlier, and I know Blondie has also been referred to as a "punk" band in some circles, and I quite like Green Day, too.

But these are all artists that I tend to think of as being somewhat more "poppy" with punk sensibilities, rather than being punk traditionalists (sort of like the difference between 'Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac,' which was pretty straightfoward blues, and 'Then Play On,' which was more pop with a blues influence).

My brother owns some very hardcore punk albums (perhaps as an antidote to my Mac collection? *lol*), and I just can't get into it.
Which is why I tried to make the distinction when expressing my opinion.

I should also say that I do like some Clash stuff, just not all of it and not all the time. :)

[Cammie]

:wavey: Just because we truly admire Lindsey
and his Musical Talents doesn't mean we
agree with him admiring that guy Eminem!:distress:

We thought it was... Enema when we first
heard his ugly words on tv!:eek:Guess Lindsey
wanted to be in an All Male Band such as...
The Clash...REM...Eminem OR the Eagles!!!;)
Maybe in his heart he is Really a Punker!:]


About the boy-toy comment :eek: You all know
Stevie is the older one and manuvered around
using LB as her boy-toy! Calling him... baby and
cutsie terms!!! He cut his curls to look tough and
we feel for him as it is embarrasing being a Pretty
Boy! Stevie went after all the Tough Guys... leaving
Lindsey to pine away!SAD!Go Your Own Way, Baby!

What was this about???? Oh, yes about Femaleness!:)
Perhaps it's 'Trouble' to have Females in a Band!!!Sky;)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Cammie
Guess Lindsey
wanted to be in an All Male Band such as...
The Clash...REM...Eminem and White Strips!Meg White might actually have some objection to the White Stripes being referred to as an "all male band," when she's one-half of the duo! *hehehe*Originally posted by Cammie
About the boy-toy comment:eek: You all know
Stevie is the older one and manuvered around
using LB as her boy-toy! Calling him... baby and
cutsie terms!!! He cut his curls to look tough and
we feel for him;)as it is embarrasing being a Pretty
Boy! Stevie went after all the Tough Guys... leaving
Lindsey to pine away!SAD!Go Your Own Way Baby!I've never gotten the sense that Stevie ever treated Lindsey like he was some kind of toy-boy, because he's younger than she... or for any other reason!

In fact, the woman pretty much acquiesced to Lindsey for much of their early relationship, and she took various jobs so that Lindsey could have the luxury of staying home and honing his talents.

I feel they had a mutual respect for each other, and I don't for one second believe that either of them ever used the other. It's just that eventually differences crept into their relationship, and they began to need things the other couldn't offer them, so their romantic relationship became strained.

That it was ultimately Stevie's choice to end the relationship is no reason to demonize her, or categorize her as a "manipulator."

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Cammie
:wavey: Just because we truly admire Lindsey
and his Musical Talents doesn't mean we
agree with him admiring that guy Eminem!:distress:



Did Lindsey say he admires him? I don't remember. If he did, he should have left it at saying the guy is a great talent.

Surely Linz would not want His Kid to spout
Eminem lyrics, would HE?;) That's not ART!

Who's to say that Lindsey's kids spouting Eminem lyrics is not art? Depends on the delivery, I say. ;) Now, if you're saying Eminem's work is not art, who made you the judge?

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Did Lindsey say he admires him? I don't remember. If he did, he should have left it at saying the guy is a great talent.


His exact words were: "God love people like Eminem, who are really doing something great."

Excuse me while I puke. Interesting to invoke God in that context, isn't it? lol I just shook my head and wondered if he realized what he was saying.

(I referenced Neil's site http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com to find the interview.)

[Cammie]

:wavey: Sorry! We only saw a guy interviewed!!!
A Girl in White Strips!!!:eek: UGH!Hangs head!:(
That's what happens to ya' when one tries to
explain their womanly opinion about Lindsey!;)
Lindsey is the real deal! Doesn't color his hair to
be "cute"!:]Lindsey is just naturally sexy!:]Sky:)



CarneVaca: We are testy tonight!!!:eek:
My kids would get soap in their mouth
and you know what I mean!
If it makes you think you are winning a
great debate...that statement SHALL
BE DELETED TO KEEP THE PEACE! :] Sky:)

[CarneVaca]

I love the taste of soap in the morning. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I love the taste of soap in the morning. ;) Just as long as it's not Lifebuoy!!! ;) :laugh:

[David]

Originally posted by sodascouts
His exact words were: "God love people like Eminem, who are really doing something great." I'm no great admirer of Eminem, either. Here's my take on Lindsey's quote, which I remember seeing a few years back: I think Lindsey was citing Eminem as an example of someone in the music industry doing his own thing, speaking with his own voice in his "music," relatively free of the direct influence of record execs -- in other words, not a puppet on the strings of some label boss, manufactured & manipulated like the current teen pop idols whom Lindsey couldn't possibly have much affection for, regardless of what he may think of their actual recordings. Amid the empty, droning machinery of the pop music scene, a ferocious voice like Eminem's just rips through the fold & stirs listeners out of their narcotized state.

To Lindsey, Eminem represented a free voice, an "artist" following his own path, pursuing his own vision (regardless of how demeaning others consider his work, or of whether the stuffed shirts at the label consider him "safe" product). When I put it in these terms, I can easily see the appeal this would have to someone of Lindsey's mindset. The CEO of Eminem's label never called him to say, "Write a tender love song with words that go like such-and-such for your next album"; or, if he did, was undoubtedly brutally ignored.

[wondergirl9847]

In the radio interview Lindsey did on Mix 102.9 here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the DJ asked him what he was listening to these days and he mentioned the White Stripes, Eminem and Queens of the Stone Age.

[Johnny Stew]

Put in those terms, David, I can definitely respect Lindsey's appreciation for what Eminem is doing. :nod:

However, I'll never respect Eminem himself, and certainly not as an "artist"... he's just a hypocritical thug with hate and anger issues.

[dissention]

Yeah, God bless an "artist" who writes about raping your mother (and countless other women) and his degradation of gay people. What a voice! :rolleyes:

Sometimes I think these other musicians who say they "admire" or "adore" these other assholes are talking out of their asses.

People get their knicker elastics in a twist over harmless Mapplethorpe exhibits, yet they could give two flying turkeys about Eminem and his hate.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
However, I'll never respect Eminem himself, and certainly not as an "artist"... he's just a hypocritical thug with hate and anger issues.

Damn skippy. :nod:

Pretty good argument for birth control, IMO.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Cammie

About the boy-toy comment :eek: You all know
Stevie is the older one and manuvered around
using LB as her boy-toy! Calling him... baby and
cutsie terms!!! He cut his curls to look tough and
we feel for him as it is embarrasing being a Pretty
Boy! Stevie went after all the Tough Guys... leaving
Lindsey to pine away!SAD!Go Your Own Way, Baby!

What was this about???? Oh, yes about Femaleness!:)
Perhaps it's 'Trouble' to have Females in a Band!!!Sky;)

Hi Sky,

I think you might be mistaken here. Don't you think that's degrading to Lindsey, to imply that even his haircuts are reactions against Stevie? And the locks of Stevie's "replacement man" Don Henley were not so "tough" in this context, were they, seeing as how they looked a heck of a lot like Lindsey's. So basically I find this statement very confusing.

P.S. Lots of people call their man "baby." I don't see many men taking offense. JMHO.

[Les]

Originally posted by David
To Lindsey, Eminem represented a free voice, an "artist" following his own path, pursuing his own vision (regardless of how demeaning others consider his work, or of whether the stuffed shirts at the label consider him "safe" product). When I put it in these terms, I can easily see the appeal this would have to someone of Lindsey's mindset.

That's very much along the lines of how I viewed that comment too. Particularly considering in the next breath, he was describing how difficult he thought it would be for him, with his reputation, to have any presence in the musical landscape as a solo artist in the pop side of the music world with the labels favoring the Britney Spears productions.

Change of subject - I have a hard time seeing a strong argument to be made that Lindsey has a "problem" being in a band with women, or that he's always been dying to be in an all-male band. For the length of his entire career, he's never been in a band without women, which is, I dare say, rare for a man of his generation and his genre of music. That covers Fritz before Stevie, Fritz with Stevie, Buckingham Nicks, Fleetwood Mac, and his own Cradle band, for which he specifically recruited two women. These women weren't there "just" as backup singers either; they were front line players. (The Cholos were all-male, but I don't really count them because that was Mick's thing and it was not a unit Lindsey really spent substantial time working with.)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Les
I have a hard time seeing a strong argument to be made that Lindsey has a "problem" being in a band with women, or that he's always been dying to be in an all-male band. For the length of his entire career, he's never been in a band without women, which is, I dare say, rare for a man of his generation and his genre of music. [/B]

Good point, Les. When Lindsey says he would have liked to have been in the Clash, he's talking about attitude and creativity.

[face of glass]

I ain’t going to ruminate on most of this because Les made several clear, good points. But there’s always something else to add.

I don’t think it was all that necessary for Lindsey to be strongly masculine in his solo work. I believe he has a very powerful masculine side but he obviously didn’t want it to dominate his work.

With Law And Order, Go Insane and Out Of The Cradle he didn’t have the ladies of the FM to rely on. They couldn’t offer him the “lighter” balance. So he offered it himself. I can’t imagine OOTC without “Soul Drifter”, “You Do Or You Don’t”, “Say We’ll Meet Again” etc. And neither can I imagine L&O without “Trouble”, or Go Insane without “D.W. Suite”. It’s all a reflection of himself. He has never wanted to be a musical purist like a lot of metal or hardcore punk musicians; it isn’t all about male aggression and boasting.

When punk rock and new wave came about, the hippie dichotomy of feminine vs. masculine, of acoustic vs. electric was abandoned by many. Lindsey’s pre-Tusk work followed that dichotomy too; even “Go Your Own Way”, his supposed angry classic, has an acoustic guitar as its foundation. But the change came and Lindsey obviously felt his work up to that point was inadequate in expressing everything he wanted to say. So he started to offer this important male-balance to the ladies but he never followed that rule without an exception.

I think a lot of Tusk tracks, “Book Of Love” (which has an angry delivery and a very non-standard production for such a ‘50s style song), “Eyes Of The World”, “Empire State”, “Tango In The Night” and “Caroline” offer this balance. You could never state that this band was just another adult-rock mafia if you listened to these and others.

Also, I believe he expressed himself very obviously in the ladies' songs too. They showed us other sides of him. If he wanted to keep that careful balance in his solo work then it was only natural that he expressed those sides there too.

[CarneVaca]

Gaius, I agree with most everything you said. But I am going to nitpick on something: The foundation of Go Your Own Way is that crazy beat and the power chords underneath the acoustic. The acoustic is icing, or to stay with the metaphor, the siding.

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Gaius, I agree with most everything you said. But I am going to nitpick on something: The foundation of Go Your Own Way is that crazy beat and the power chords underneath the acoustic. The acoustic is icing, or to stay with the metaphor, the siding.

agreed with the fin, too. But on the foundation I agree with carne, even LB himself called it the "counterpart" or "counterpoint". well, that doesn't sound like foundation to me. But on the otherhand, a counterpoint sounds more essential then icing or siding. And in this case: in the song it has an essential role. It makes the song a classic. because of that 'disturbing, softly unballancing' acoustic ( hey that sounds feminine!:laugh: ) it's a song that you can hear over and over and over and over and over and over again............

sorry for nitpicking on nitpicking:eek:


gerald

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by shackin'up
. because of that 'disturbing, softly unballancing' acoustic ( hey that sounds feminine!:laugh: )

Oooh, dude, now you've done it! You'd better hide for a while. :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by trackaghost
but his use of the word (and is it a word?) "femaleness" does indeed sound condescending.


Hey, the feminist in me cringed too. But I'm willing to give the guy a little slack because I don't think he meant it as a slight to women.

[Cammie]

:wavey: Amen!!!! So Be IT!!!!Sky;)

[face of glass]

I ain’t gonna say amen on this yet. ;)

Originally posted by CarneVaca
The foundation of Go Your Own Way is that crazy beat and the power chords underneath the acoustic. The acoustic is icing, or to stay with the metaphor, the siding.

Since I’ve been gradually becoming one of the biggest nit-pickers at the Ledge, ;) I might as well add that I remember you last year speaking of “GYOW” losing something important when it was played live without an acoustic. Sure, I could remember wrong. But I don’t think those early versions where they tried to play it without one really worked.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Take it how you like, and I know I'll be berated as being a "feminist" or whatever, because I'm annoyed with that, but whatever, I'm just calling it how I see it. Obviously Lindsey needs to listen to artists like PJ Harvey or Bjork.

I still don’t think he was denigrating women in there. He was mainly speaking of how the ladies in the Rumours line-up initially failed to follow the zeitgeist along with most of the American mainstream.

Even Lindsey speaks at Les’ site of his friendship to Laurie Anderson, probably the most experimental woman in rock during the ‘80s. So I certainly don’t believe that he thinks “women can’t be experimental”. He still quotes "O Superman" for the "Peacekeeper" speech, after all.

Originally posted by trackaghost
I can definitely see why Lindsey might equate "femaleness" as he so eloquently puts it, with commercial, "poppy" appeal.

If he actually does think that way then it should be stated that he always has something to keep the balance between the commercially appealing and the experimental on his albums.

For every “Soul Drifter”, “Countdown” or “You Do Or You Don’t” you find on OOTC you also have the forced, brute qualities of “This Is The Time”, the murky depression of “Street Of Dreams” and the esoteric, glorious washes of “Surrender The Rain”.

For every “Steal Your Heart Away”, “Bleed To Love Her” and “Deep Dense” there is on GOS you also find “Murrow”, “Red Rover”, “Someone’s Gotta Change Your Mind” and “Come”.

Also, even though “Don’t Look Down”, “Wrong”, “Go Insane” and others may have been attempts at a hit single, they never sounded non-intrusive or banal. There was never an idiotic, simplistic hook repeated for forty times in a row. If some people were looking for inoffensive musical wallpaper from Lindsey they didn’t find it. “Don’t Look Down” has such unusual harmonies in the chorus that it’s bound to intrude your mind. The sonic chaos that “Wrong” indulges into isn’t for everyone either. Neither is the off-kilter quality of "Go Insane".

He knows he can’t change his way of writing songs but instead of repeating the same progressions in same atmospheres he changes his arrangements and approaches. I get a totally different feel from “Big Love”, “Doing What I Can” and “Miranda” even though they could be described similar in songwriting.

Originally posted by trackaghost
It made me laugh in that Virgin interview when Lindsey said his solo work was never meant to be as commercial as his stuff with Fleetwood Mac, because there's lots of poppy stuff on all his solo albums in particular Out Of The Cradle. It's very easy after the event to say "well, that wasn't meant for a mass audience" when it didn't do well.

I’m not going to deny that he doesn’t sometimes try to intentionally produce something that could be appealing to the record buyers. He’s never been completely esoteric in expression. Here’s a man who values The Clash as much as The Beach Boys (and both have their share of commercial as well as artistically “deep-reaching” stuff).

Are Lindsey’s solo albums intended for a mass audience? I’d like to say that some aspects of them are and some are not. Again, I ruminated on the reasons above but yes, I believe that he knew he wasn’t going to be as successful as FM. Rumours is commonly regarded as their peak; the only FM album to own if you want to own one and then you can ignore the rest. He didn’t hope for those sales to repeat themselves. He knew he wasn’t going to sell like Stevie did. In the public eye Stevie and Chris were responsible for most of Fleetwood Mac’s hits; of course most failed to see Lindsey’s contributions to them.

So no. Lindsey didn’t want his solos to sell 25 million copies worldwide. Success on a smaller scale, like the 5 million of the White Album, would most likely have been enough for him.

Lindsey was the first in the FM camp to react to punk rock. He reacted to it while the form still had its initial freshness. The hard-hitting quality that punk had, its usage of mainly electric, powerful timbres influenced the mainstream. Stevie’s and Christine’s solo albums were affected by this too but that was already at a point when the mainstream had “interpreted” the ideals of punk and new wave for its own purposes so that it would not lose listeners. The Wild Heart, Christine McVie, Rock A Little and The Other Side Of The Mirror have no acoustically dominated passages in them. They didn’t choose that approach themselves, they changed because there was no choice.

I know Johnny Stew, for instance, thinks that RAL is experimental. I don’t, unless it’s viewed against Stevie’s other solo albums. So much of the aspects of RAL are dictated by the mainstream that it certainly doesn’t sound atypical of its time. Go Insane is far more atypical to me. It’s right there besides Mister Heartbreak and Hounds Of Love in classic ‘80s studio experimentation, at least in my collection of music.

So if someone is going to look up on Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie as musical adventurers then I certainly won’t follow suit, as much as I love them. I look up to Buckingham for that and at the same time I thank him for not going over the top or totally inaccessible with his experiments.

Yeah, yeah. Major digression. Like in a vintage Nicks demo. ;)

[CarneVaca]

I might as well add that I remember you last year speaking of “GYOW” losing something important when it was played live without an acoustic. Sure, I could remember wrong.

Your recollection is accurate. But does it prove that the acoustic guitar is the foundation of the song? Not by a long stretch. If you rip the siding off the house, does the house still stand? Yes. Does the house lose something? Yes.

[dissention]

Originally posted by face of glass
Since I’ve been gradually becoming one of the biggest nit-pickers at the Ledge, ;)

Ah, the shoe's on the other foot. :laugh: :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by face of glass
I know Johnny Stew, for instance, thinks that RAL is experimental. I don’t, unless it’s viewed against Stevie’s other solo albums. So much of the aspects of RAL are dictated by the mainstream that it certainly doesn’t sound atypical of its time. Go Insane is far more atypical to me. It’s right there besides Mister Heartbreak and Hounds Of Love in classic ‘80s studio experimentation, at least in my collection of music.

So if someone is going to look up on Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie as musical adventurers then I certainly won’t follow suit, as much as I love them. I look up to Buckingham for that and at the same time I thank him for not going over the top or totally inaccessible with his experiments.To be fair, I never said 'Rock A Little' was "experimental," only that it's quite different from the sound of 'Bella Donna' four years before it, and it just baffles me sometimes that Stevie gets chided for doing something different, when Lindsey is lauded for it.

Stevie isn't particularly musically adventurous... that's Lindsey's niche... but she's not exactly stuck in one sound either.
Each of her albums sounds rather different from whichever one directly preceeded it, but that seems to be more of a point of derision rather than praise.
Now, I can't say that each sound was the right choice, or that each approach was successful, but hey, she tried, and you'd think that would count for something in these discussions.

She could have very easily copied the sound of 'Bella Donna,' but she didn't. Granted, she didn't exactly take a left-turn, but she certainly moved on.

As far as 'RAL' sounding like other albums of the time, I still insist it doesn't really.
Certainly there are aspects of the "80s sound" in the sensibilities of 'RAL's production... drum overdubs, synthesizers, etc.... but pull out any mainstream Top 40 pop album from 1984/85/86, and find me songs that sound like "I Can't Wait" or "Sister Honey," for example.

No, I don't think it was experimental, per se, but I don't think Stevie and her producers looked at the latest Madonna and Wham singles and said, "Ok, let's cop this sound."

There's an edginess to 'Rock A Little,' that can't be found in other Top 40 fare from that timeframe, even if they share some of the same types of instrumentation.

For me, 'Rock A Little' is a natural progression from 'The Wild Heart,' rather than a reaction to the then-current sound.

And I know it's not a popular opinion (and I have to qualify this statement by saying that I love 'Go Insane,' so this isn't a criticism), but if most people listened to 'Go Insane' between 'The Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' (since it was released in the year between the two), I bet they'd cite 'Go Insane' as the most dated sounding of the three.

So, as with most of our conversations, this is a matter of preference and perception. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
To be fair, I never said 'Rock A Little' was "experimental," only that it's quite different from the sound of 'Bella Donna' four years before it, and it just baffles me sometimes that Stevie gets chided for doing something different, when Lindsey is lauded for it.

I think the difference between what Stevie did and what Lindsey did is that Stevie *always* formulated the sounds of her albums from what was currently popular in mainstream pop rock. You listen to RAL and you realize that she didn't use that sound to make a conscious departure from earlier stuff, she did it because it was the "in" sound. On the other side of the spectrum, Lindsey, for the most part, did the complete opposite and just did some crazy, funky ****.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Stevie isn't particularly musically adventurous... that's Lindsey's niche... but she's not exactly stuck in one sound either.

No, the sound on her albums is dictated by what's currently popular most of the time.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
As far as 'RAL' sounding like other albums of the time, I still insist it doesn't really.
Certainly there are aspects of the "80s sound" in the sensibilities of 'RAL's production... drum overdubs, synthesizers, etc.... but pull out any mainstream Top 40 pop album from 1984/85/86, and find me songs that sound like "I Can't Wait" or "Sister Honey," for example.

Hogwash. :laugh: That whole album was so modeled after the eighties sound that it hurts to listen to. Of course you aren't going to be able to say that Sister Honey or The nightmare sounds like another song because they were still unique, but the basic 80s music components were inhabiting the album and then some.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
There's an edginess to 'Rock A Little,' that can't be found in other Top 40 fare from that timeframe, even if they share some of the same types of instrumentation..

RAL was edgy? Now I can die and say that I've heard it all. I think that most people who grew up listening to 80s musci would laugh at that statement and then tell you how un-edgy that album was in restrospect. At that time frame, it was the hair bands that were edgy, not blonde singers who sang about letting down their hair and taking off capes.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
For me, 'Rock A Little' is a natural progression from 'The Wild Heart,' rather than a reaction to the then-current sound.

I beg to differ. :laugh: TWH had a lot of synth and keyboards, but RAL just took it to the extreme. It was *almost* a 180 degree turn from TWH, lyrics-wise and music-wise.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And I know it's not a popular opinion (and I have to qualify this statement by saying that I love 'Go Insane,' so this isn't a criticism), but if most people listened to 'Go Insane' between 'The Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' (since it was released in the year between the two), I bet they'd cite 'Go Insane' as the most dated sounding of the three.

I absolutely agree. But put those two albums next to each other and compare the originality put into making each one, and Go Insane wins by a landslide (no pun intended!).

[jbrownsjr]

I agree with J Stew here. If I heard Go Insane on the radio and did not buy the rest of the album, my perception of LB's album would be, "Wow, that sounds just like FM."

Even though he did other songs that were experimental (Dennis' Suite, I Want You etc.) the perception because of his hits (Trouble, Go Insane, Slow Dancing) were that of a soft rock format.

I remember trying to convince so many people what a great guitarist he was (and is) and they would say, yeah but he's soft rock! I would get so frustrated, cos I knew better, but I see why they would perceive that!:(

The thing that bugs me about LB is that it's always someone else's fault for his perceived musical failures. He blamed Mick and FM for a while. He blamed Stevie for a long time. And now he says they are so much more ballsy cos CMcVie is gone. Same stuff, same chord progressions, slightly different arrangements, just more songs. But I love the music and the band and that's what matters.

He should enjoy his career because he is a huge success as a musician IMHO, and the people that he surrounded himself with was his own choice.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
The sound on her albums is dictated by what's currently popular most of the time.Again, does 'Rock A Little' sound anything like "Like A Virgin," "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go," or Chaka Khan's "I Feel For You"... which were massive hits in the two years Stevie was recording her album?

And can you honestly say that the sound of 'The Other Side Of The Mirror' is what was popular in 1989, and that the sound of 'Street Angel' is what was popular in 1994?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Stevie was trying to be "experimental," and I'm also not saying that she was entirely oblivious to what was popular.... but, I also don't believe that she deliberately set out to copy a particular style.
After all, what album released in the mid to late-80s didn't have a synthesizer or programmed drum pattern? Certainly not 'Go Insane.'

To my ears, there's no mistaking that the sound of a Stevie Nicks album is unlike the sound of anything else on the radio at any given time.Originally posted by dissention
RAL was edgy? Now I can die and say that I've heard it all. I think that most people who grew up listening to 80s musci would laugh at that statement and then tell you how un-edgy that album was in restrospect. At that time frame, it was the hair bands that were edgy, not blonde singers who sang about letting down their hair and taking off capes.When 'Rock A Little' was released, hair-bands were still about two years away from becoming what would be considered "mainstream," so they really have no place in this discussion. Besides, Stevie wasn't heavy metal, so it doesn't make sense to compare her album to a completely different genre of music.

And when I referred to "edginess," I was referring to the sound of the album, not the subject-matter of Stevie's lyrics, which is never going to sound edgy... especially not to folks who prefer listening to Dokken and Judas Priest.

I feel the album sounds "edgy" because it does not sound like any other Top 20 pop-rock album from 1985/1986.Originally posted by dissention
I absolutely agree (about 'Go Insane' sounding dated). But put ('Rock A Little' and 'Go Insane') next to each other and compare the originality put into making each one, and Go Insane wins by a landslide (no pun intended!). With 'Go Insane' Lindsey is really only taking things he had already been doing, and expanding upon them.
He had already been tinkering with VSOs (his altered voice on the "come on and," parts of "Hold Me," for example, and various sounds on 'Tusk' and 'Law And Order'), and he didn't invent the idea of channel-panning vocals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the album wasn't brilliantly produced (listen to it with your headphones on, and your mouth will drop), but many of the things folks cite as being wholly original, really aren't... Lindsey was just taking already established techniques (though not necessarily widely-used ones) and running with them.
And it's all wrapped up with sythesizers, keyboards, and drum-machines... which were very much a part of what was popular at the time.

But... if it's been lost in my comments, the crux of what I'm trying to say here, is that both Lindsey AND Stevie recorded albums that, while not being totally apart from sounds that were popular at the time, were also quite different when compared to what their peers were doing.

Lindsey just happened to take things a couple steps further with his project (as he tends to do).

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the album wasn't brilliantly produced (listen to it with your headphones on, and your mouth will drop), but many of the things folks cite as being wholly original, really aren't... Lindsey was just taking already established techniques (though not necessarily widely-used ones) and running with them.
And it's all wrapped up with sythesizers, keyboards, and drum-machines... which were very much a part of what was popular at the time.



I'll refrain from commenting on RAL, lol, and just say that I developed a new appreciation for Go Insane when I listened to it with a decent speaker system- 5 speaker surround makes me finally understand what people were talking about when they called it a "sonic experience." My crappy speakers had kept me from hearing all the nuances. It's a shame.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Your recollection is accurate. But does it prove that the acoustic guitar is the foundation of the song? Not by a long stretch. If you rip the siding off the house, does the house still stand? Yes. Does the house lose something? Yes.

I could claim that it’s one of those Buckingham sonic paintings where the missing of one element will cause the house to fall apart. But nah, that would be stretching it too far. Even by my standards. ;)

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
To be fair, I never said 'Rock A Little' was "experimental," only that it's quite different from the sound of 'Bella Donna' four years before it, and it just baffles me sometimes that Stevie gets chided for doing something different, when Lindsey is lauded for it.

That’s probably because Bella Donna sold eight million copies and is still cited as her best and most accessible work. I definitely agree with “most accessible” because it’s more devoid of her “self-indulgences” and “over the top drama game” than her other work (not counting Street Angel). Most of the album sounds appealing to the uninitiated because you can approach it without knowing anything of Stevie Nicks beforehand and still find it a good piece of work. And those who were converted by RAL or later albums already had the strong Chiffonhead (or Nickshead, as I prefer it) qualities in them. That includes you too Johnny. ;)

Also, because Lindsey hasn’t sold as much as Stevie he doesn’t necessarily have the same “fan package” as SN does. So he can do what he wants. :p

Each of her albums sounds rather different from whichever one directly preceeded it, but that seems to be more of a point of derision rather than praise.
Now, I can't say that each sound was the right choice, or that each approach was successful, but hey, she tried, and you'd think that would count for something in these discussions.

I don’t think they sound all that different but once again I will try to demonstrate that below.
I believe she didn’t consciously try to change her sound, she just went with the flow of the times and the charts. That’s far easier than trying to follow the call of the psyche without strong reservations.

She could have very easily copied the sound of 'Bella Donna,' but she didn't. Granted, she didn't exactly take a left-turn, but she certainly moved on.

The title track and “I Sing For The Things” sound like a continuation of the “Gate And Garden” vibe to me. Same old “wrap-around-my-teddybear-oh-I-wanna-be-cosy-and-warm” supposedly intimate approach, again just given the contemporary treatment. “No Spoken Word” is the equal of “If Anyone Falls” on this album. “Imperial Hotel” sounds like a Heartbreakers reject. “Some Become Strangers” and “If I Were You” I believe even you wouldn’t use as examples of a unique sound to the times. “The Nightmare” is more of the same, only through the Nicksian drone effect (and what exactly did Chris Nicks contribute to this one? *Sees Dissention waving the war-axe and ducks*) “HAEWAFY” is the typical, mainstream-drenched piano ballad (albeit a good one).

but pull out any mainstream Top 40 pop album from 1984/85/86, and find me songs that sound like…"Sister Honey," for example.

Production-wise it sounds like a mid-‘80s Prince song to me.

"I Can't Wait"

I can see your “edginess” argument with this one Johnny. There’s something truly dangerous in the way it starts when Stevie comes in and starts singing. That’s the queen of rock for me, and the last time we ever truly heard that disturbing, possessed voice of hers on a studio recording (I know some like to make a case for “FFG”, “EFO” and “RTTG”, but none of those have this disturbance). All she needed was one take and BANG! “Talk To Me” has a powerhouse vocal too but not of the same quality.

But I still don’t think it’s that unique. If you’re looking up to it as an example of how synthesizers and ‘80s production values can sound dangerous then it isn’t the only one. A similar kind of unbalanced synthesizer effect is achieved at the end of Yes’ “Owner Of A Lonely Heart”. Again, the backing track of “I Can’t Wait” for me has an atmosphere similar to Frankie Goes To Hollywood’s “Relax”, that of an imminent peril. (Trivia question, what or who connects “OOALH”, FGTH and “Docklands” to each other?) Those bursts of Fairlight just make it stronger for me (again, I know there is no Fairlight in “I Can’t Wait” but those could have been done with it too). Granted, they don’t exactly sound similar but the atmosphere links them together.

Sure, I can’t imagine Stevie necessarily listening to the ones I mentioned. But Rick Nowels most likely did. It was his backing track after all.

(Note: If Trackaghost or someone else will now come and say that I’m a blind fool for linking Stevie together with “a dated, controversial gay band devoid of talent” then I will ignore those comments. So I like “I Can’t Wait” as much as “Relax”. Whatcha gonna do about it? They’re both of equal depth for me. :p)

I mourn the current state of the pop singles where you could easily produce the sounds of “Relax” and “I Can’t Wait” with the cheapest equipment yet no one actually has the guts to make commercially successful songs sound that daring again.

There's an edginess to 'Rock A Little,' that can't be found in other Top 40 fare from that timeframe, even if they share some of the same types of instrumentation.

If you’re speaking of Stevie’s vocals I understand that. “I Can’t Wait” and the vocal of “Talk To Me” qualify, as do the intimacy of “Rock A Little” and “I Sing For The Things”. But other than that, I can’t agree.

For me, 'Rock A Little' is a natural progression from 'The Wild Heart,' rather than a reaction to the then-current sound.

Once again this “natural progression” is something that was required from Stevie so that she could still sell records. If she had tried to clone Bella Donna even in the mid-‘80s she would have been laughed at.
It’s a step further into the “electricity” alright. The Wild Heart, as much as I love it, is essentially a confused attempt to copy Bella Donna while trying to take in some of the values that new wave had brought about. They weren’t sure which style would dominate the decade so they didn’t exactly give in to either of them. With RAL they were sure though.

And I know it's not a popular opinion (and I have to qualify this statement by saying that I love 'Go Insane,' so this isn't a criticism), but if most people listened to 'Go Insane' between 'The Wild Heart' and 'Rock A Little' (since it was released in the year between the two), I bet they'd cite 'Go Insane' as the most dated sounding of the three.

Possibly. But then again Lindsey totally threw himself into that sound, making his guitars sound like keyboards and vice versa. It could be called over-the-top because he couldn’t foresee the returning of the ‘60s and ‘70s values by the beginning of the ‘90s back into the mainstream. I still don’t believe any album at the time sounded like it though, even Laurie Anderson and Kate Bush who I compared it to didn’t sound like that. And once again it was maybe a bit too early for it to come out. When KB’s Hounds Of Love came out the following year, it was a huge hit even though it wasn’t necessarily a progression from The Dreaming (which even many critics failed to understand at the time) that had come out three years earlier.

With Stevie’s albums I can find easy comparisons, if not always to other people’s work then to her own.

So, as with most of our conversations, this is a matter of preference and perception. :)

And once again I’ll sign that with my own blood. :)

Originally posted by [email protected]
Even though he did other songs that were experimental (Dennis' Suite, I Want You etc.) the perception because of his hits (Trouble, Go Insane, Slow Dancing) were that of a soft rock format.

I’m interested in knowing how “Go Insane” and “Slow Dancing” fit the soft-rock format. Of course if you see the Beach Boys, Talking Heads and Kate Bush (who I think influenced the tracks, but once again indirectly) as soft-rock then fine.

“Trouble” as soft-rock? Ok, maybe it does give that impression. But then again many have accused Burt Bacharach’s ‘60s productions of being “muzak”. That’s another false image that bugs me. Bacharach has soared in appreciation since then, many of his productions and writings are seen as classic, emotionally devastating popular music. That’s what they are for me and that’s what Lindsey’s work is for me. “Trouble” is one of the best examples of that. I’m not going to claim it has a great lyric or that it’s a great song. But arrangement-wise it’s not a hair worse than anything Brian Wilson or Bacharach pulled off during their golden era. It’s a work of inherent subtlety, of high craftmanship and skill. It’s easy to take a bunch of generic power chords and shout in blind rage. It’s easy to take any new musical toy and let it make any noise imaginable. It’s easy to do a hookless confessional serious drone like “Welcome To The Room… Sara”. But it’s difficult to do something like “Trouble”. It’s difficult to create a musical piece that is thoroughly memorable and appealing, subtle and thought-provoking. And it is the precursor of “Gypsy”, at least to these ears.

For me something like “Warm Ways” is the epitome of soft-rock. It’s also something that sounds more fitting of the Welch era line-up. (No insults intended, I like the song.)

Originally posted by [email protected]
The thing that bugs me about LB is that it's always someone else's fault for his perceived musical failures. He blamed Mick and FM for a while. He blamed Stevie for a long time.
He should enjoy his career because he is a huge success as a musician IMHO, and the people that he surrounded himself with was his own choice.

Do you think he even wanted to leave FM before they started making Rumours? He obviously had no problem at that point. But the gigantic sales eventually became a problem for him. He knew they had reached their peak in the format they were working in. So what do you do after that? You either go down quality-wise or you go sideways, you start taking different approaches. Which is what he did. He shook a lot of audience off his back with Tusk. Yet no underground elitists, no punk followers and “trendy” youngsters seemed to be interested in his work. That was because of his association with FM, because of his association with selling out and writing music for Americans leading a middle-of-the-road life. There is no other reason to that. If the elitists would have picked up on his work then he would have had another audience.

I do realize that he might have been embittered by Stevie’s success. But I do believe he had a right to feel that way. Stevie didn’t overshadow only LB, she also overshadowed Chris and the other players of FM. “The powerful frontperson syndrome” in full effect.

From your earlier post:

Someone made the point that if it weren't for SNicks he might be as obsure as Bob Welch, that's arguably true.

And if it wasn’t for Lindsey Buckingham then Stevie Nicks would have been a more amateurish version of Joni Mitchell. She might have managed a successful album or two during the singer-songwriter era but that’s about it. The woman rose to prominence as a performer because Buckingham was there besides her. It was he who reacted to Stevie’s vocal intensity during “Rhiannon” with his guitar, thus providing the perfect background. It was he who arranged the piano demo of “Rhiannon” as a rocker. That image, along with the one in “Dreams”, is something Stevie still leans on. The success of her solo career was already built on familiar building blocks, she operated within the borders that she had defined with Buckingham by her side.

So when a lot of people just focused on Stevie and ignored LB’s and FM’s contributions to her work, then it must have bothered Lindsey. And it bothers me too.

I can identify with your experience, some people can tell me the same things about FM and LB too. It’s the same old “commercial sell-out crap” argument that even in these days can lift up its ugly head. In the future we won’t have to hear much of those, though.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And can you honestly say that the sound of 'The Other Side Of The Mirror' is what was popular in 1989, and that the sound of 'Street Angel' is what was popular in 1994?

TOSOTM sounds like contemporary Tina Turner work to me. And Street Angel may not have sold much but it focused once again on the classic ‘60s-‘70s treatments because the mainstream was once again following that pattern. I remember that you posted something about Out Of The Cradle, Street Angel and Time being flops because in the early ‘90s it was uncool to like anything about FM, in any way or form.

I also don't believe that she deliberately set out to copy a particular style.
After all, what album released in the mid to late-80s didn't have a synthesizer or programmed drum pattern? Certainly not 'Go Insane.'

It’s also about which sides of the technology available one is willing to examine. I certainly don’t believe that Stevie and her helpers were exploring everything available to them. Lindsey was and yet he still doesn’t come off like he’s doing random studio experimentation.

To my ears, there's no mistaking that the sound of a Stevie Nicks album is unlike the sound of anything else on the radio at any given time.

And to my mind that’s because you’re a fan of hers and you always relate to the voice and the lyrics first. I adore her too but sometimes I just think that I wouldn’t give a damn about a lot of her work if someone else was singing it.

When 'Rock A Little' was released, hair-bands were still about two years away from becoming what would be considered "mainstream," so they really have no place in this discussion.

I agree with them not relating to this discussion but then again I’m nitpicking again when I say that Van Halen, who were the fathers of all hair-bands, were at the peak of their popularity with the release of their 1984 album not too long before the release of RAL.

With 'Go Insane' Lindsey is really only taking things he had already been doing, and expanding upon them.
He had already been tinkering with VSOs (his altered voice on the "come on and," parts of "Hold Me," for example, and various sounds on 'Tusk' and 'Law And Order'), and he didn't invent the idea of channel-panning vocals.

Yeah, that’s the same point that [email protected] made. “Same stuff, same chord progressions, slightly different arrangements, just more songs.” Well I guess at least you, Johnny, know already that I think there hasn’t really been anything genuinely new in rock and roll since the whole punk/new wave “turnaround”. It was the final spit of anger that even furthered the fractured musical scene after the original hippie counterculture had ceased to exist. Nothing new has really been invented since then and definitely nothing genuinely new has been brought to the mainstream. It’s the same stuff all over again, although more contemporary and post-modern. You won’t get as many classic songs from our times as you will get from the ‘60s and the ‘70s when the chord progressions of the popular music combined with the possibilities that electric instruments offered still seemed limitless. You ran out of ideas in that area eventually. It is within tone colour variations and rhythmic subtleties where you can still make your work seem at least somewhat fresh. That’s why I think Lindsey Buckingham is in a very good position right now. He doesn’t need to change his way of writing songs, he can change the way he arranges and records them. He can make the lines in his sonic painting bolder or vaguer. There’s no way “Murrow” would have the disturbing bite it has now if he had tried it during the making of OOTC. And there’s no way “Red Rover” would have its unique atmospheric uplift until now. When the times get tougher the going gets tougher. He reflects on that but he never chooses to follow a certain pattern. It’s still like watching a child at play, a child who can still find new things from his limitations.

A coda then. The following is a modified part of another essay of mine at the BuckinghamNicks.net board. It’s another of my manifestations on why I prefer Buckingham to Nicks:

I love FM because of the personalities they had in every track; Stevie’s tracks always had Lindsey’s large stamp on them (ok, a bit less on TITN I guess). But every time Chris added her voice or John added a bass part or Mick added his drums it became something else, it was a Fleetwood Mac song. It wasn’t just Stevie’s personality in there, it was the whole group and that made it stronger. A “group collaborative” makes the music fuller, although I don’t think it necessarily makes it better.

When she went solo it changed. It was her personality alone that was being expressed in there, and not in the instruments but mainly the vocals. Again, it doesn’t bother me that much during Bella Donna and The Wild Heart, those have good quality band work, but for the albums done after that it does. I still care for RAL, TOSOTM, SA and TISL and I think they all have good qualities but the group statement that FM had and even BD and TWH had to some extent, was gone. It’s a bunch of session musicians on her albums these days and I don’t feel those guys add their own musical personalities in there. For me it is a drawback. It’s Stevie’s personality filtered through some treatments that are very bound to the mainstream. I certainly don’t believe the producers are leaving their independent stamps on them; their motivation is to work with someone who’s a legend and get a living or whatever. For them it’s business as usual, it’s nothing born out of personal need.

With Lindsey it’s different. Here’s a man after all, who doesn’t feel the need to release albums in regular intervals; I believe he’s making music because he has this inner need to do it. It’s the same with Stevie but not with her solo producers. I feel that Lindsey’s guitars and arrangements express as much in Stevie’s songs as Stevie does vocally. He is so much in control of his studio work that every sound he puts in there expresses his personality only. There is no need for outer filters (and possible corruptions of his intentions).

Ok, I didn’t exactly mind Burt Bacharach’s or Brian Wilson’s complete control on their studio work. Their arrangements had their individual stamps on them all over the place. When Dionne Warwick sang a Bacharach song it wasn’t just her powerful vocal abilities, it was also Burt’s persona.

But I don’t get that on Stevie Nicks albums. With RAL the group contributions started to rapidly lessen. During TOSOTM it’s just a bunch of session musicians playing their routine parts. Tony Levin is one of my favourite bass players and his performance on the album still leaves me cold, unlike his classic work on the ‘80s King Crimson albums, for instance. I could say the same for “I Miss You”, where I feel Lindsey is totally neutralized. Again, I think Rupert Hine dominates TOSOTM far too much and his dominance isn’t the one I happen to thoroughly like.

Street Angel and TISL have been struggling between the group approach and the random studio musicians approach. Street Angel may have more of a band in it but the songs are nowhere near Bella Donna or TWH quality, except for “Blue Denim”. And TISL sounds like its once again bowing to the TOSOTM approach.

Of course I don’t believe Stevie is a puppet on a string during the recording process. I believe she at least approved of all of these at the time and I believe she didn’t have to be persuaded to accept most of it. But this material still has Stevie’s personality coming to us through a filter of sorts, unlike her demos (which she seems to be unwilling to release). I love the woman, I don’t love the filter. Fine, she may have approved of all of this. But I certainly won’t start calling her the queen of rock because of all of this. Neither is she the greatest musical feminist of our times. For that you need to look for Joni Mitchell, Kate Bush, Bjork or someone else. Every sound on their records reeks of them. They may use other players but it’s still their personality that comes through everything in there, every sound of it. It doesn’t happen with Stevie’s solo work.

If someone here thinks I’m just a blind Lindsey-follower, let it be said that I love Stevie almost as much. Her solo work just lacks the thing that FM albums have, while with Lindsey the feeling isn’t that strong. None of this is meant as a denigration of Nicks or a way to convert any Nickshead. This is just how I feel, even though it does come off as cold-blooded rationalization.

Dear lord. It’s the “WISYA appreciation thread”. ;) “Again and again, over and over…"

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by face of glass
I still don’t believe any album at the time sounded like ('Go Insane') though, even Laurie Anderson and Kate Bush who I compared it to didn’t sound like that.

With Stevie’s albums I can find easy comparisons, if not always to other people’s work then to her own.

I love FM because of the personalities they had in every track; Stevie’s tracks always had Lindsey’s large stamp on them (ok, a bit less on TITN I guess). But every time Chris added her voice or John added a bass part or Mick added his drums it became something else, it was a Fleetwood Mac song. It wasn’t just Stevie’s personality in there, it was the whole group and that made it stronger. A “group collaborative” makes the music fuller, although I don’t think it necessarily makes it better.

When she went solo it changed. It was her personality alone that was being expressed in there, and not in the instruments but mainly the vocals. Again, it doesn’t bother me that much during Bella Donna and The Wild Heart, those have good quality band work, but for the albums done after that it does. I still care for RAL, TOSOTM, SA and TISL and I think they all have good qualities but the group statement that FM had and even BD and TWH had to some extent, was gone. It’s a bunch of session musicians on her albums these days and I don’t feel those guys add their own musical personalities in there. For me it is a drawback. It’s Stevie’s personality filtered through some treatments that are very bound to the mainstream. I certainly don’t believe the producers are leaving their independent stamps on them; their motivation is to work with someone who’s a legend and get a living or whatever. For them it’s business as usual, it’s nothing born out of personal need.

With Lindsey it’s different. Here’s a man after all, who doesn’t feel the need to release albums in regular intervals; I believe he’s making music because he has this inner need to do it. It’s the same with Stevie but not with her solo producers. I feel that Lindsey’s guitars and arrangements express as much in Stevie’s songs as Stevie does vocally. He is so much in control of his studio work that every sound he puts in there expresses his personality only. There is no need for outer filters (and possible corruptions of his intentions). It goes back to what I was trying to say before (though may not have made clear)... I don't think Stevie was oblivious to the "sound" of the '80s, when it came time to record her albums... but I don't think Lindsey was either.

When I listen to 'Go Insane,' I hear a lot of the influence of Devo, Thomas Dolby and The Cars (the latter most likely because Roy Thomas Baker oversaw the production of 'Go Insane').

Like I said before... Lindsey didn't invent anything with 'Go Insane'... he just took certain things and explored them further.

When it comes to Lindsey and Stevie, it's their personalities that truly shape the sound of their albums, no matter what else is going on in the background.
Just as you feel a Stevie song would lose its appeal if someone else sang it (and I'm not disagreeing), I feel something like "Loving Cup," or "I Want You," or "I Must Go," would lose its appeal if Lindsey's quirky production wasn't propelling the track.

And sure, many of Stevie's songs have a direct predecessor, but that doesn't mean she's run out of things to say... Lindsey "repeats" himself too, after all.
We've talked about leit-motif before, and as I've said, I completely love it when you can listen to an artist's body of work and find the connective thread that goes thru it all.

You feel that Stevie's Fleetwood Mac songs are better because the rest of the band is adding their personality to the overall sound... and that's cool because it's your opinion.
I consider myself a MAJOR Fleetwood Mac fan, but when it comes to Stevie, I tend to gravitate more towards her solo work, because I feel that's when her personality comes out the most. It's her album, so it should be her personality that drives the sound.

I don't buy a Stevie Nicks album to hear a Waddy Wachtel guitar solo, or to hear Benmont Tench playing keyboards. I buy it because of Stevie Nicks... not the producer or the session-musicians.

I've never said or believed that there's anything particularly innovative about the production of Stevie's albums, and some people definitely feel they're far too mainstream.
Perhaps they are... but, at the same time, Stevie possesses such a unique voice, both lyrically and literally, that the production (in my humble opinion) should always be secondary.

It would be a great disservice to Stevie if her producers put their personality onto the tracks in some major way.

Lindsey may seem to have the leg up, because he can get his music across without any filters... but, on the flip-side of the coin, LB can sometimes get too preoccupied with chasing that elusive sound, and the heart of the song can sometimes get lost in the translation (or buried so deeply, that it takes the most devoted of fans to find it... just as you feel it takes the most devoted of fans to appreciate Stevie's demos).

Both approaches have their pros and their cons... again, it's all about what appeals most to those of us who care enough to listen. :)

[face of glass]

Originally posted by trackaghost
I started to read this but then what's the point. You seem determined to pit Lindsey and Stevie against one another.

Just read what I have to say next even if you don’t want to read any of my posts ever again.

I don’t want to pit them against each other. I wrote about that at the tail end of last year; it’s apples and oranges we’re talking about here. Lindsey is the art-rocker, the occasionally analytical self-conscious sonic painter. Stevie is the sincere confessionalist. It’s like comparing progressive rock to blues. It’s like comparing European musical values to American ones. It isn’t to say that Lindsey’s more devoid of feelings than Stevie and it isn’t to say that Stevie’s less intellectual than Lindsey. That’s oversimplifying the case.

The other thing that bothers me is that you always say "you're only saying that because you are a fan" but obviously a lot of your opinions and feelings about Lindsey's work is due to the fact you are a diehard Lindsey fan too! You need to be a fan to appreciate certain elements of his work.

Yeah, I always say that. But it’s because Lindsey has the skills to change the songs into appealing products for the mankind (without the overt banalities and the questioning approach) while Stevie doesn’t; her demos would be closer to the final work if she had them. I believe she doesn’t have the understanding of music on the larger scale, the necessary skills to bring a track to its completion. That’s why there’s the likeliness of the misinterpretation of her intentions in the studio.

I know you don't rate Stevie's solo work as highly as her stuff with Fleetwood Mac, but I do. I have an emotional connection to it, and I love it.

You know I love the woman. I love 50% of the songs she’s done during her solo career. With the rest I have mixed feelings; I like some of them and some just leave me cold.

Sure, it might have looked like I tried to rip RAL to shreds there but truth be told, I really like that album. I don’t care for “Imperial Hotel” or “Some Become Strangers” but the rest I can totally live with and I’m really glad half of those songs exist. “HAEWAFY” has never failed to put a tear into my eye and “I Can’t Wait” sends shivers down my spine.

So, why do I write this stuff? I still feel Lindsey is too underrated in the area of his main contributions; the arrangements. Too many people have been focusing on Stevie throughout the years. It bothers me to read reports of the Dance tour where some women in the audience yelled “Stevie, Stevie!” throughout “Big Love” when she wasn’t even on stage. Again, I think Lindsey should be mentioned in the same breath with Anderson/Ulvaeus, Brian Wilson and Burt Bacharach when we start to speak of the greatest producers of our times. I think that’s how huge his contribution to the Rumours line-up has been. But obviously we all just have to wait for that to happen.

Also, I wouldn’t write any of this if I felt that I was completely satisfied with everything Stevie has released. I’m not. Bella Donna and The Wild Heart, fine. But the rest? Too mainstream for me. Too safe, too conscious attempts to retain the biggest audience possible. It’s not the “other side of Stevie Nicks” for me, it’s the same side presented through more compromises than on FM albums.

Stevie was one of your very first musical loves, Sharon. You never lost your love for her but you also started to gravitate towards the alternative acts, the cool indie names. FM and Stevie have never been cool to the people who regularly listened to the hip names. You said it yourself too; if you hadn’t become a fan of hers in such an early age, you probably would have never later found her the way you did when you were younger. Ask yourself, would you care for Stevie’s solo albums if it was someone else singing the songs? Would you care for them if they had lyrics done in a different style? Were they typical of the other music you listened to at the time? I know you think she’s closer to Patti Smith than Pat Benatar but that I think is because of her voice, not because of the music she’s chose to put out.

I was not raised to listen to Stevie Nicks and the Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac. I found them during my later years. I’m not even supposed to like them if I wanted to follow the usual underground conventions that I followed for many years. I hate it when I hear stuff like “Stevie Nicks ruined FM, she sold them out”. I’m not exactly clear in my opinions on this matter. A part of me laughs at most of the clothes she’s worn and at her dramatic gestures. A part of me identifies with what she sings and wants to follow her anywhere. Sometimes I want to rip her to shreds because of the huge shadow she cast on the members of FM. Sometimes I just ignore all that.

It ain’t easy when I have this anal retentive attitude towards my posts too. But if I truly wanted to pit Lindsey and Stevie against each other then I’d resort to personal remarks, stuff about Stevie’s weight and persona (vs. stuff about Lindsey’s quirkiness and dominative side). I hate those remarks as much as most of us do. It has nothing to do with music, the persons who post that stuff are either mean and playing Devil’s advocate or just prefer LB or SN significantly over the other. It’s worthless and a waste of everyone’s time.

I know you think of me as some kind of bitter old fool. That I’m too cold and it seems like I don’t enjoy music like others do. Well I think I do love it as much as others. I can analyse it but I can also enjoy it totally without any rationalization whatsoever. I’ve accepted the fact that you do not wish to exchange PM’s with me anymore because of all of this but I still would have appreciated you telling me that directly instead of keeping completely silent. Or is that too frank for you Brits?

You should probably avoid my reply to Johnny Stew too.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It goes back to what I was trying to say before (though may not have made clear)... I don't think Stevie was oblivious to the "sound" of the '80s, when it came time to record her albums... but I don't think Lindsey was either.

You made it clear enough. I wasn’t trying to make a case of Lindsey being totally unique and living inside a cave and coming to save the world with his idiosyncrasy every once in a while.

When I listen to 'Go Insane,' I hear a lot of the influence of Devo, Thomas Dolby and The Cars (the latter most likely because Roy Thomas Baker oversaw the production of 'Go Insane').

Like I said before... Lindsey didn't invent anything with 'Go Insane'... he just took certain things and explored them further.

Of course there are influences, after all the whole new technology had swallowed the mainstream with it by 1984. Then again I don’t believe Stevie has really explored anything further during her solo career but of course you feel differently. I’m interested in knowing how you hear Devo in there, though.

However it isn’t really about that. Buckingham is akin to the classic British pop eccentrics like Roy Wood, Brian Eno and David Bowie in that he’s not afraid of taking influences from many things around him and then adapting those to his own sound. Or creating a bizarre pastiche, like he did with some of Law And Order. These guys were completely conscious of what was happening at the time yet they never came off as mimicking something in particular. They just went nuts into all directions and came up with totally sincere, unique artistic portraits. That’s far more than just adapting to the sounds that were popular at the time.

Like I said, Stevie has none of that in her solo albums. Adopting other approaches and influences on the wider scale has never been her thing.

Just as you feel a Stevie song would lose its appeal if someone else sang it (and I'm not disagreeing), I feel something like "Loving Cup," or "I Want You," or "I Must Go," would lose its appeal if Lindsey's quirky production wasn't propelling the track.

I’ve never made a case of him being a great songwriter. I’ve recognized Chris’ superiority in this area and I think Stevie is equal to him. And I agree with you on these songs.

And sure, many of Stevie's songs have a direct predecessor, but that doesn't mean she's run out of things to say... Lindsey "repeats" himself too, after all.
We've talked about leit-motif before, and as I've said, I completely love it when you can listen to an artist's body of work and find the connective thread that goes thru it all.

Like I said before, I don’t care how much he reuses the same chords (after all, he’s admitted he only knows a few keys) and I don’t care if he recycles an idea of his very obviously every now and then. He always puts his old ideas into new atmospheres. “Big Love”, “Doing What I Can” and “Miranda” have different feels to me. The continuation of the same theme, with its energy pumped to the max the second time and into suicidal chaos the third time. That’s why I don’t mind Lindsey recycling himself. With Stevie I mind though. It all sounds like it’s made of the same wood with the same two or three atmospheres all over the place. She doesn’t have the same grasp of the large scale structure as Lindsey does. Discussed in more detail below.

I consider myself a MAJOR Fleetwood Mac fan, but when it comes to Stevie, I tend to gravitate more towards her solo work, because I feel that's when her personality comes out the most. It's her album, so it should be her personality that drives the sound.

It certainly doesn’t sound to me like it’s her personality throughout in there. Many of those instrumental parts sound routine and non-intrusive. Sure, they don’t always take anything away from the main star that is Nicks. But they also prevent her from exposing certain sides of her, those that only come out when she is with Buckingham/Fleetwood Mac. As I’ve stated before, I don’t feel her solo albums give us anything really different from what we’ve had with Fleetwood Mac.

I get her personality unfiltered in her demos. Now that’s where she can be at her most sincere. But I feel a lot of the backing on the final versions can be truly nondescript. Static, safe, maybe even uncommitted. A bunch of guys drafted in to play a particular part and then made sure they never step outside the well-defined borders. After all by this point the majority of the public has a good conception of what a Nickssong should be. Surely you can’t shatter their illusions? :p

Ok. The main point is here that for most Nicksheads Stevie’s intimate performances and lyrics are enough. She’s sincere and heartfelt in every song of hers. Surely that should be enough? For me it gets tiresome. Same old seriousness in music (not in interviews, I know), same old chord progressions and same old, almost stream of consciousness lyrics. It isn’t songwriting to me anymore. It’s blues. If you, Johnny, feel that Lindsey can impress you aurally but sometimes he just doesn’t move you enough, then for me Stevie could potentially move me enough but it just doesn’t happen because of the thorough uniformity in her music. I always get her sincere, I always get her confessional. At that point I start to think: “ok, show me you’re talented and make your music sound different. Don’t pretend it’s that subtle, give me some obvious differences in atmosphere. Show me you’re not that one-sided in your music. Make me laugh, make me giddy.” But she just doesn’t give me that.

Couple that with the fact that I hear very little true emotion in the backing tracks of Stevie’s studio albums these days and it can get truly irritating. I don’t listen to the performance as much as you do Johnny. I want to hear emotion in music too. Hence the 50-50 credit between Buckingham and Nicks on Stevie’s FM songs.

…at the same time, Stevie possesses such a unique voice, both lyrically and literally, that the production (in my humble opinion) should always be secondary.

When I’m unable to see the subtlety in her writing I start to look for variation in music. I don’t get that. That’s why Stevie’s solo albums are always secondary to the real thing for me.

It would be a great disservice to Stevie if her producers put their personality onto the tracks in some major way.

With the various people going in and out the studio door during the making of TISL I’m not surprised that it doesn’t have any particular stamp on it at all. If this is the way her studio albums will be in the future then it isn’t the best possible direction.

Lindsey may seem to have the leg up, because he can get his music across without any filters... but, on the flip-side of the coin, LB can sometimes get too preoccupied with chasing that elusive sound, and the heart of the song can sometimes get lost in the translation (or buried so deeply, that it takes the most devoted of fans to find it... just as you feel it takes the most devoted of fans to appreciate Stevie's demos).

Yeah, I think of him as a painter but it doesn’t mean like he’s completely modernistic and has abandoned any semblance of a memorable structure. That’s his musical background after all. If you’re thinking of something like “Play In The Rain” getting “lost in the translation” then I won’t join you there. I think it is a memorable track. It has plenty of catchy riffage and powerful images that come to my head when I listen to it. It’s not a song, it’s a sonic painting with obvious lines for us to latch on to. If you want to hear something that has the experimental approach but abandons memorability, go listen to Can’s “Aumgn”. Or Amon Düül II’s “Chamsin Soundtrack”. Or Captain Beefheart’s “When Big Joan Sets Up”. Those have the painting ideas and you can’t really attach yourself to anything else in there. Listen to those and then come and tell me Lindsey loses the heart of the song. He isn’t that experimental, he has a good understanding of the unusual and the conventional and he stays admirably in between the too.

Both approaches have their pros and their cons... again, it's all about what appeals most to those of us who care enough to listen. :)

So be it. I want more than the moving performance, I want the powerful music too. For you the former is enough. But somehow I feel that this debate will resurface later again. ;)

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by trackaghost


Damn, I hate writing long posts.
:)

BUT: You say many accurate things that make me think about stevie's role on tusk. I agree with you there, i think. And you're one of the only ledgies who declares that OOTC is too slick in terms of production. Agreed again. Nobody ever responded on my repetative comments on the friggin' emotionless drumsound on that album. If he had used mick on that one it could have reached so many more people... It's the "band-feel" that misses on that album, although I know that was not what he was looking for. It's weird that tusk does have that feel. Even in the "one-man-band"-songs on that album....

gerald

[Les]

Originally posted by trackaghost
Take it how you like, and I know I'll be berated as being a "feminist" or whatever, because I'm annoyed with that, but whatever, I'm just calling it how I see it. Obviously Lindsey needs to listen to artists like PJ Harvey or Bjork.

Hey, there's no berating necessary if you're a feminist. Say it loud and proud! I'm right there with you. :D

I see how the comment seems condescending. I don't really think it was meant that way. As Carne said, he may simply have been answering an extremely familiar question for the 8593rd time and just didn't weigh his words. Personally, if it means anything particularly meaningful at all, I think the whole "femaleness" comment does relate to attitude and it especially relates to a willingness to be a little more adventurous or experimental within Fleetwood Mac.

I say specifically within Fleetwood Mac, because as Gaius pointed out, Lindsey still to this day points to the very experimental (and female) Laurie Anderson as an important and favorite artist.

But within Fleetwood Mac, I think Stevie and Christine were/are the most vociferous against wanting to try something a little off the beaten track. Stevie just as recently as this last year said she views it as part of her role in FM to argue against Lindsey's radical ideas. Bob Welch has said Christine was very much opposed (and sometimes unpleasantly so) to ideas that were out of the mainstream.

I'm not suggesting Stevie and Christine shouldn't have their opinions and make their arguments against experimentation as strongly as he made his arguments for it. But if he ever had allies in the band for experimentation, it came from the men in the band (particularly Mick), not from the women. I think that probably informs his comment to a large degree. He equates a "softness" to an unwillingness to challenge conventions. Frankly, I don't think it's far-fetched, based on some of Stevie's comments through the years, that she equates his wanting to challenge conventions to a hard-headed stubborn "maleness". ;)

It made me laugh in that Virgin interview when Lindsey said his solo work was never meant to be as commercial as his stuff with Fleetwood Mac, because there's lots of poppy stuff on all his solo albums in particular Out Of The Cradle.

Do you think he's just lying to cover up for what, I'm guessing, you sort of see as failures, even though you like his work? I think Lindsey's always been pretty honest about assessing how audiences perceive him, and knowing he's never set himself up very well to gain mainstream appeal. Besides, I think I disagree with you. Except for the few singles that were released from Law & Order and Go Insane (Trouble, Go Insane, Slow Dancing), I don't hear much of anything that would have been welcomed on radio at the time. Lindsey has even said that he thinks if people bought Law & Order thinking it was all going to sound like Trouble, they were probably sorely disappointed, hehe.

Cradle was a different creature where he was consciously trying to reconcile his experimental side with his pop side. But the climate in 1992 was not a friendly one for someone like him. Had he cemented himself as a radio hit in some niche as a solo artist in the early 80s, he might have had a chance. But he didn't, and the dynamic that Gauis has mentioned was in full bloom - "Lindsey of MOR Fleetwood Mac" was too square for alternative radio and "Lindsey weirdo solo artist" didn't have the reputation for mainstream radio -- regardless of what the music sounded like.

It's very easy after the event to say "well, that wasn't meant for a mass audience" when it didn't do well.

That's true. It could all be an elaborate excuse. But I think you can go back 25 years and see quotes from Lindsey where he recognizes he isn't making mainstream stuff that will appeal to everybody. There are a lot of things Lindsey could have done differently to be more popular, but he didn't do them. Since he has only released three solo albums over the course of his career, and he generally tries to resist the pressures and conventions labels try to impose, I think there is some reason to take him at his word. That's just me.

[David]

Originally posted by Les
I see how the comment seems condescending. I don't really think it was meant that way. As Carne said, he may simply have been answering an extremely familiar question for the 8593rd time and just didn't weigh his words. Personally, if it means anything particularly meaningful at all, I think the whole "femaleness" comment does relate to attitude and it especially relates to a willingness to be a little more adventurous or experimental within Fleetwood Mac. I remember Kate Bush talking about the "female side" of her music in 1989 & how it came to the fore on the "Sensual World" album -- I assume she was referring to thematic (the Molly Bloom soliloquy of the title track) as well as musical (the incorporation of the Trio Bulgarka into several tracks creating a banshee-like sound or the use of pentatonic & other eastern modes of scale-building) concerns. I think Kate was also referring to a longstanding -- & perfectly valid -- distinction between "male" & "female" traits in rock music: the heavy distortion & volume & kicking tempi of the former, & the reflective, subdued, more lyrical essence of the latter. It may strike some of us as unfairly or even inaccurately locked into unnecessary or outmoded gender categories, but it's a distinction that has been made for decades. You can hear it in terms like "cock rock" & all the adjectives used to describe the Lillith Fair roster of performers.

I think Lindsey refers to "male" & "female" characteristics of music in this way. I seem to remember his saying that, since Christine & Stevie generally wrote ballads -- the more languid, introspective, lyrical pieces -- it sort of fell to him to provide the balls-to-the-walls, wailing lead guitar sort of songs that every rock band needs to provide, at least periodically.

[wondergirl9847]

Well, I can just add to this thread that there are of course, songs that have a guitar or musical part that touches my soul more than any lyric EVER could. Case in point: Go Insane from the OOTC Washington DC show (the one Nancy has on her site) and of course, the difinitive...ISA from the Dance. Sure, I love the lyrics to BOTH songs, but it's not the lyrics that really get me, it's the guitar playing. :nod: Also, the music in Red Rover....brings me to tears.

I've always listened to songs musically first, then, sat down to soak in the lyrics...so they are secondary for me. Which is weird, as I write poetry...LOL

[Cammie]

:wavey: :mad: Agreed...Lindsey speaks in the present moment
and isn't always so clever at "weighing" his words!!!;)
He may have been caught at a bad time...like he may
have been tired...sick with the flu or forgot his meds!:eek:
We all have off days!!!:nod: We fans tear his words apart
because we want to understand the Genius in Lindsey!

Les and Christy, :)Well said!!! You both have a knack we
lack to use the right words!:cool:Love Our Lindsey Music!Sky;)

[CarneVaca]

Gerald, I've read your longing references to the lack of real drums on Out of the Cradle. This may seem crazy, but I think that if you put the traditional bass-and-drum backbeat on some of those songs, they would lose something. I remember playing "Soul Drifter" for my then-girlfriend and she said, "Nice song, but it would work better as a bluesier number." I didn't get what she meant at the time, but later I realized she was referring to the backbeat. It's thin. But it's supposed to be, and it works.

You're probably familiar with World Party. Karl Wallinger uses a similar approach to some songs. Occasionally he dumps the bass altogether.

Lindsey wanted to produce an album in which the guitar was the center of everything, and not the power-chord distorted guitar, mind you, it was a more gentle sound. Where I think it failed was on "Turn It On." I love the message, but the song is wimpy. It needs some "Go Your Own Way"-type power chords, to my ear. The same is true of "Temporary One" in The Dance. Not enough punch. But the near-misses are so few that I tend to forgive Lindsey for them.

Part of the reason Out of the Cradle is so brilliant is because it gives you what you didn't expect. After Tango, I thought we'd get a few more "Carolines" and "Tangos." But from note one on Cradle, Lindsey puts you on notice that he's taking a left turn. First you get that amazing finger-picked intro, then the island rhythm, then a chorus that completely throws everything off kilter. And then you get "Wrong." Then the ear-piercing guitar shrieks of "Countdown." There is not a low point in that album until "Doing What I Can" and "Turn It On."

Does Out of the Cradle lack maleness? I don't know. I don't think about it in those terms. But it sure is a courageous piece of work.

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You're probably familiar with World Party. Karl Wallinger uses a similar approach to some songs. Occasionally he dumps the bass altogether.


I'll come back on the posts of you and trackaghost tomorrow, I read them just before going to sleep. But I just have to say that I used to LOVE Worldparty, but I must admit that some of Wallingers songs lost their power for me. Maybe because he's doing what you describe. I have to relisten before stating that. That'll be joyful. Thanks for reminding me of an old love!:D

gerald

[face of glass]

A conscious attempt to hijack the thread will lead nowhere. :lol:

J/k. I once again raise my hat to David and Les who brought in some points that I couldn't have made.

Originally posted by shackin’up
Nobody ever responded on my repetative comments on the friggin' emotionless drumsound on that album. If he had used mick on that one it could have reached so many more people...
Not to intentionally nitpick again Gerald, but I don’t think anyone can attribute the commercial failure of something to one specific detail. Then we might as well blame it all on Mick's book. ;)
Originally posted by trackaghost
I think if I had discovered Lindsey later I wouldn't like him so much. It goes back to Out Of The Cradle, which many consider Lindsey's definitive work. I still can't get around that polished sound.
Yeah, you already explained to me why you don’t like that “blinding sheen”. I won’t push you there or anything. I’m just not that big on the “certain sound ideal debate” (by this I mean the production on the mixing board, not the actual arrangements). I may think The Stooges’ Raw Power (the Iggy Pop remix, not the original David Bowie one) is an ideal rock and roll album in its sound but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the different sound that releases by Hüsker Dü or the Pixies or the Birthday Party have. Earlier you spoke of Lindsey smothering away all the personality from OOTC. I think his personality is all over it and there’s no moment when it leaves me. You said that there’s no rawness on that one. I think there is, not just on “Wrong”, “This Is The Time” and “Street Of Dreams” but in the unusual treatments he gives to “Don’t Look Down”, “Surrender The Rain”, “Doing What I Can” and others. I can often imagine him sitting in the studio planning the track list; throwing something like “Soul Drifter” in there and then deciding to follow that with “TITT”. That’s how he worked on SYW too, starting the album with “What’s The World Coming To” gave people the impression of the “good, old” Mac. At that point he probably thinks: “You liked that? How about this one?” and grins when he pictures the reactions some people will have to “Murrow”. Following “Peacekeeper” with “Come” is another of those tricks. Exactly what Les wrote about.

I still don't think anything he's done is that leftfield. His most experimental work in fact, is with the band, rather than outside it, on the album Tusk.

And that was because there was no other end which to use as a balance for Rumours. Shake off most of the people who bought the album and you're bound to have only the real fans left. Like I've said, everything he's done after Tusk has been a compromise of the sound ideals of it and Rumours. There hasn't truly been a need for another Tusk since he has other sides in himself too.

And I still think the likes of Trouble, Slow Dancing, Go Insane and Countdown, to name but a few are as poppy as it gets. But maybe that's just me...

If you equal "poppy" with "catchy", then fine. Of course I've never seen you speaking of Stevie being "poppy". Is she above all that then? ;)

Yeah, yeah, I’m biased. Don’t tell me. ;)

I much prefer the sound of a band playing in a room together (which is why I love going to gigs so much), which is essentially what you get on a lot of Stevie's solo outings.

I think it seriously lessened with RAL and on TOSOTM I can’t get it at all. And it ain’t really there on Street Angel and TISL either.
You think it’s a band playing when there’s a bunch of studio musicians on every track? You think it’s a real band when usually the whole thing is done through overdubs with no one actually playing at the same time? You think it’s a real band when they’ve been told to tone down their personalities so that they wouldn’t overwhelm the main star? Yeah right. There’s no true musical communication between the players. They play away and go away, hardly ever seeing most of the other musicians ever again. That isn’t my idea of a band at all.

Also I had a lot of friends who discovered Stevie after the likes of Courtney Love, Redd Kross (who covered Rhiannon) and Smashing Pumpkins began to declare their love for her. She's still not cool cool, but certainly a lot of so-called cool people came out of the Stevie fan closet.

Where are your friends now, if not at this forum? How many people around here are Nicksfans and have fed on indie music for a long period of time? You, I, Cliffdweller, CarneVaca? That’s four people out of the 150 or so that regularly post at the Ledge. I don’t know if it’s directly comparable to the real amount of such fans vs. all Nicksfans but I’m not going to start believing that there’s a huge amount of those people out there. You’d think that if they had genuine interest they’d be here too.

Also, you should notice that you’ve only listed bands that are labelled as “grunge”. All these people emerged from America around the same time. So they liked Stevie Nicks, good for them. But how didn’t other subcultures of music start to mention her as a guru of sorts? How many UK bands you have heard thanking SN of her influence to their music? It’s not like she became that cool all of a sudden. And why didn’t the bands that emerged after them keep on mentioning her? Why did it stop that fast?

I also believe that none of those artists mentioned Stevie’s recent work, TOSOTM, Street Angel or even RAL at all. They mainly spoke of her work with FM, maybe also of Bella Donna and The Wild Heart. Yeah, so they appreciated the likes of “Landslide” but I think they mainly concentrated on the wild image that Stevie had at the time. By her influence they meant the exorcism of her vocals on “Rhiannon” and “Sisters Of The Moon”, of her primal performing power up to the RAL tour, for instance. That’s where she was the equal of Patti Smith in intensity. Not with the post 1986 work though. If someone wants to drag in the “subtlety” argument then he/she would have to prove that the artists mentioned spoke of it too.

(Sidenote to the few Americans that are still reading this: In Europe Peter Green is considered a lot cooler than anything released by the Rumours-era FM).

…the Melody Maker book Unknown Pleasures…

You still haven’t heard the album that gave the book its title, have you? ;)

"Only when time enough had elapsed for the punk-indoctrination to fade, and I could actually listen to forbidden fruit (eg Led Zeppelin), did I actually buy Tusk, along with pretty much everything else Stevie had breathed on. I'd gotten this mad notion that Nicks' lachrymal lump-in-throat (headful of snow?) voice was a precedent for the clotted, inconsolable-ness of Kristen Hersh."

Ok, I wanna marry that guy. I can write like him too! :p

He goes on to gush about Sara, Storms and Beautiful Child and calls her a precursor to the likes of Hersh, Liz Fraser and Natalie Merchant. He praises Lindsey's defiant stance with Tusk, but choses to make Nicks the indie hero (or should that be heroine) of the piece.

First of all, if she’s the heroine of Tusk when she has only written a quarter of the songs and is singing harmony audibly on four additional ones (which at places are even altered) then Reynolds is intentionally focusing on SN. It’s good he isn’t ignoring Lindsey’s songs entirely though.

Secondly that quote makes it obvious that he’s very drawn in by Stevie’s performing qualities. If he felt the need to buy “everything else Stevie had breathed on”, then it’s obvious that he’s at least close to being a fan, even though he must have known that her solo albums don’t even resemble the sound of Tusk. According to that quote it’s Stevie's performance he’s focusing on. I don’t know if he mentions Lindsey’s contributions to Stevie’s songs at all but if he doesn’t then for me his opinion is off balance. Then he is as ignorant as many FM fans.

Stevie pulls many people in because of her unique lyrics + voice + chords = performance thing. Artists who operate on that principle, artists whose lyrics can be directly related to their lives, often manage to pull in very passionate fans. I know Lindsey doesn’t have that quality in his voice. He’s compensated for that in other areas but a lot of it still tends to be unfairly dismissed.

And there’s one more reason why she was supposedly sorted out as the indie heroine. It’s because of the life she lived, the stories of constant abuse throughout the years. You know that for many it’s a huge part of the whole package; it’s the whole romantic decadence and excess that many, including the rock press, love. Syd Barrett’s and Peter Green’s mental illness, Ian Curtis’ and Kurt Cobain’s suicides, Nick Drake’s and Jeff Buckley’s premature deaths, Nick Cave’s and Lou Reed’s open drug use, David Bowie’s homosexuality and hints at Nazism, etc, etc. A lot of people just adore this stuff. Some even start looking for direct references to these from the lyrics. They love it when they can directly relate a particular phrase into an actual experience. Stevie fits this general idea of a decadent rock star.

It isn’t surprising that Courtney Love and Billy Corgan, both who have tried to imitate that lifestyle, namechecked and even covered Stevie. They didn’t just appreciate her music, they also saw her as an example of sorts.

And just a second, Reynolds actually mentioned Liz Fraser in there? Hmm, he might actually be onto something.

Paper chase is on, these are on my speed; for he warbled, bought arachnophobe on the tiara, by the gin's rack, paper chase is on, these are on my space.

From The Cocteau Twins’ “Persephone”. That’s obvious Stevie Nicks influence alright. :lol:

I know you compared Stevie's TOSOTM to Tina Turner or someone, but I assure you when that record came out it sounded unique. Maybe it sounds mainstream now, but Rooms On Fire stood out in the top 20. I remember when Stevie appeared on Top Of The Pops, how odd and cool it sounded.

First of all the success of TOSOTM was a by-product of the success of Tango In The Night, just like it was with Behind The Mask. It doesn’t surprise me at all that she hasn’t had any significant solo success in the UK outside of that one.

Maybe that TOTP appearance stood out for a 14-year-old SN fan who probably didn’t have the widest possible experience in music at the time. I’m not belittling your experience but is it not possible that you’re being a bit nostalgic here? ;)
So what did TOSOTM introduce to the world? The generic “romantic” acoustic guitars? More opportunities for Kenny G to play bland wallpaper solos? An opportunity for Rupert Hine to engulf Stevie with his sound? That’s all the backing tracks of that album are for me. I don’t hate anything in there but I won’t start believing that it’s the supposed “Queen of Rock” singing on the album. “Long Way To Go” is the only attempt to rock out, much like “Fall From Grace” on TISL. Queen of Indie Rock? More like the Queen of MOR.

And OOTC is “very mainstream” while TOSOTM isn’t? :rolleyes:

Maybe Lindsey doesn't get enough credit, but I don't see why anyone has to take the credit away from Stevie in order to give Lindsey his dues.

Because it’s largely his arrangements, his guitars and his ideas in the backing track. It’s the 50 - 50 credit between LB and SN on Stevie’s songs for me and will always be. It was with him when Stevie defined the borders of her career and she certainly hasn’t been stepping over those much.

Lindsey’s arrangements speak to me as much as Stevie’s voice. If they don’t to you then you will appreciate Stevie more. No problem there, but certain semi-facts (since we can never be totally sure) should be taken into account.

And the other thing is that Lindsey has released far less records than Stevie. Maybe if he had a higher output there would be more to criticise (and I don't think this has anything to do with quality control, so lets not even go there!).

I could tread the water with the following arguments:

A) Stevie makes records out of habit; she’s always made records, she just doesn’t know how to stop making them.
B) Buckingham releases a record only when he has the inner need to do it.
C) Besides, that statement is to underestimate Lindsey’s production work yet again. He spends a lot more time in the studio than Stevie does; after all the lady has often preferred just to put the vocals on the track. If we truly wanted to compare their work we’d have to include all of Lindsey's production work too.

Ok, I don’t believe in A) myself. I believe she’s still out there because she has the inner need too.

This wasn't written in order to remove all the indie credibility from Stevie. I think her voice does have qualities that can go over the rigid genre borders. I think Lindsey's production skills have that too.

Damn, I hate writing long posts.

*tries to hide his sadomasochistic grin* ;)

[chiliD]

Originally posted by face of glass
...Kurt Cobain’s suicide...

I will forever believe he was murdered, either directly or indirectly by Courtney.

[wondergirl9847]

Please don't leave!! :( I realize that people post stuff that irks us, but don't leave because of one person!

[Johnny Stew]

I also hope you don't go anywhere, Sharon.

Sometimes people will post things that raise our hackles... but that's all the more reason to stay around and express our opinion, in turn. :nod:

[chiliD]

Originally posted by trackaghost
I'm not trying to be horrible or anything ChiliD, but how is that relevant to this thread?
:confused:

"faceofglass" posted SOMEWHERE in that LONNNNNNNNG post making some reference to Kurt Cobain dying due to "suicide", I don't believe it WAS suicide, so I chose to directly reply to that one comment. THAT is why it is relevant. :nod:

Once threads get going, they take on a life of their own, I think. If threads didn't "stray" every now & then, they'd be awfully boring....to me anyway.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Just a warning folks, I am seriously pissed off now.
{snip/edit}
This post has pissed me off more than any of the others. Maybe it’s time to make my exit on this board.

Who DOESN'T get pissed off around here every so often? :shrug: I don't think one could be human and NOT, ya know? :)

I think your bailing out is drastic, but like everything in "cycles", you'll come back again. Heck, I couldn't stay away. :laugh:

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by trackaghost

This post has pissed me off more than any of the others. Maybe it’s time to make my exit on this board.

Hey there! Do what you have to do, but who can I agree with so often then?
PACKIN'UP, SHACKIN'UP's all you wanna do...
(not that going over to Neil's is shackin'up....:laugh:)

Come on, sharon, I don't let you go away by a selfindulged, but funny butthead of a Fin.....who did not see in my 365 posts that I had my share of Indie, too. (yes gaius that makes 5 of us!) And I know that there are a lot more on the ledge. But not so many who show off so often....And I agree with you, on 80% of your posts, and of 40 or 50% of those from Gaius. It is possible.

Stay.

gerald

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

Does Out of the Cradle lack maleness? I don't know. I don't think about it in those terms. But it sure is a courageous piece of work.

Yes, a very courageous work. It doesn't lack maleness, nor femaleness. I miss dynamics in the Sound. I miss a gross edge in the production.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Where I think it failed was on "Turn It On."

True, but in essence, I love the song. But it would have been so much better with a kickass drumtrack, even without the powerchords. It's a song with a drive, but the drive is phoney-sounding. That's what I mean. If mick hadn't played on WTWCT, and you picture the same beatsound from OOTC on that one, it would have been a wimpy song, too.
But I still belt out Turn it on when I'm vacuumcleaning the room:laugh:

Originally posted by CarneVaca But from note one on Cradle, Lindsey puts you on notice that he's taking a left turn. First you get that amazing finger-picked intro, then the island rhythm, then a chorus that completely throws everything off kilter. And then you get "Wrong." Then the ear-piercing guitar shrieks of "Countdown."

Yes, don't get me wrong; in the guitarparts and the songwriting the whole friggin' album is a masterpiece. That's not the point here. I just don't get it when you say the choice of him is to have the thing more guitaroriented means that you just let the drums sound like you and I could have played it in acid-pro on a rainy afternoon.

And I'm sure he would have never sold millions of the record, but he could have reached a lot more people who were into alternative pop back then if he made the album sound more raw underneath those fantastic guitarparts, sounds and vocallayering.
The songs were strong enough for it, it just had this slick aftertaste in a time where the vedders, cobains, cornells and those angry men against machines ruled the musicworld. And I think this album could have been a part of that "indie becoming mainstream"-era.

gerald

[dissention]

Originally posted by face of glass
*Sees Dissention waving the war-axe and ducks*)

LMAO! :laugh:

[face of glass]

Originally posted by trackaghost
I’ve never said she wasn’t poppy, I’ve never even said she is above criticism or that all her albums are great, just that I like them more. But whatever…

That was just an indistinct attempt at a joke. I’ve seen some people here totally dismiss the title track of “Say You Will”. They think it’s annoyingly catchy and sickeningly poppy, or something along those lines. Then they start praising something like “Welcome To The Room…Sara” because it’s “not catchy” and it’s “deep” and “artistic”. I personally think that writing a song like “SYW” is far more difficult than writing a song like “WTTR…S”. And I also don’t particularly appreciate opinions of that type that those people have because it can directly lead to the thought that if you don’t get “WTTR…S” then you don’t get Stevie and her artistry. That she’s supposedly above all that pop crap and then when something like the title track of “SYW” comes out it’s a shock. Thank God I’ve never seen Stevie adopting the same attitude as those fans.

But I guess you’ve never seen those discussions so I shouldn’t have tried to joke about them. My mistake, I’m sorry.

I do notice in the Lindsey forum, hardcore fans of Mr B often belittle Stevie while praising their man. In the Stevie forum, I’ve never seen that happen. Maybe I’m wrong.

I haven’t tried to belittle Stevie at all. Some of her solo music tends to be inadequate for me and this isn’t supposed to be anything more than an exorcism of an inner demon of mine. I feel the woman’s pull and at the same time there can be things that can turn me off. It’s my problem, not anyone else’s. I try to raise valid points and I always get equally valid ones as replies. And I love good conversations like that.

The only one besides me that I’ve seen taking Lindsey’s side (and not even close to my level) in the Buckingham vs. Nicks battle is CarneVaca. Sure, I’ve seen a few people at this board making a few swipes at Stevie but the Nicksfans have always given the same stuff back at Lindsey. I’ve never thought it’s been out of hatred towards LB or SN, I think it’s just a little bit of mischievous humour. It’s different when it gets to Stevie’s weight, for instance, but I’ve never seen that stuff posted in the LB board. I did find the following from the Lindsey forum though, and I’ve never seen any fans of Lindsey going over to the Stevie forum to start something like this:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?threadid=7078

Maybe you think it’s braver to criticize the person under the forum that carries his/her name. Just so you know, my first post at the Ledge was right here criticizing Lindsey’s approach to live performances nowadays. And I was the sole opposite voice at Stevie’s board when we discussed the quality of her recent songwriting. So I certainly am not trying to do any back-stabbing here.

Nancy wrote about this topic at her own board too. Some of it probably isn’t all suitable for the LB board of the Ledge ;) but here’s a part of it anyway:

Originally posted by sodascouts (but not at the Ledge)
There are also a few who have this idea that Lindsey reads boards and that the above views would please him, so they are quick to declare that they think the same way. I'm completely serious. This, I believe, is ludicrous since Lindsey recognizes Stevie's talen, and would NOT be impressed or approve of anyone degrading her, even if they did so in order to "lift up" Lindsey by comparison.

And I agree with that 100%. If some have that illusion Nancy is talking about then it doesn’t lead to anything good.

I much prefer the sound of a band playing in a room together (which is why I love going to gigs so much), which is essentially what you get on a lot of Stevie's solo outings.

I never said it was a real band. Why are you putting words into my mouth? I said it SOUNDS more like a real band

Maybe you didn’t say that but I read it the wrong way.

Originally posted by face of glass
I still care for RAL, TOSOTM, SA and TISL and I think they all have good qualities but the group statement that FM had and even BD and TWH had to some extent, was gone.

Originally posted by face of glass
I think it seriously lessened with RAL and on TOSOTM I can’t get it at all. And it ain’t really there on Street Angel and TISL either.

Originally posted by trackaghost
Jesus, she has Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and members of the E street band for heaven’s sake playing on her first two records! Pretty ****ing amazing session players, if you want to call them that.

I never stated BD and TWH were completely devoid of a “real band”. I was speaking of the work done after those two.

I think TISL has more of a band feel that anything Lindsey has done on his own.
Maybe your idea of a band sound is different to mine I don’t know.

It probably is. It seems to me that TISL has at least six permutations of a band in it and it is because of Chris Lord-Alge’s work that the album seems cohesive. Not that it necessarily proves anything, but the long preparation of that album wouldn’t exactly seem to be the ideal approach if they truly wanted to achieve that band feel.

A “band feel” is definitely subjective. TISL isn’t my idea of it. In a band one is supposed to react to what the others are playing and be willing to see what comes next. It’s supposed to be the full presence of personal playing and the other players’ acceptance of that and the skills to incorporate the personal quirks into the whole soundscape. In FM, when John hit his bass during the beginning of the build-up in the good old live “Rhiannon”, that one stroke per bar spoke to me a lot more than any instrumental passage on TISL. He was capable of capturing the sound of the entire band into something that simple.

I just don’t think TISL has any of that. It’s a solo album where no one is supposed to overshadow Stevie. Yeah, there are great backing bands out there and stuff but many of the players have often had some kind of “therapy ensembles” where they could play the stuff they really wanted to play instead of just backing someone. You feel differently and I accept that. I don’t care about the band feel on Lindsey’s albums because he didn’t really need it for a long time. It was solely about his personality after all.

No Gaius, some people just don’t post on message boards all the time (and I’m starting to envy them)

If this is a swipe at me and you’re assuming that I spend a lot of time sweating and trying to come up with responses for this board then you’re wrong. I don’t take this all that seriously; this is mostly stream of consciousness and tongue-in-cheek (at least some of it is supposed to be). Sometimes I edit it a bit later, sometimes I don’t. Like I’ve said, I don’t exactly have the time right now to hang around here that often. Just as long as I don’t get addicted I should be safe. ;)

Just because they aren’t here doesn’t make them all less a fan. Your point seems completely invalid to me.

Yeah, it’s invalid. I was just interested in knowing whether there are that many fans of both Stevie and alternative music around here or not.

*Yawn* I was going to mention Whiskeytown and Ryan Adams, who has often mentioned Stevie as being cool too. There are others as well. A singer songwriter from England from the PJ Harvey mould called Amanda Ghost, talked about what a massive Stevie fan she is I recall. I’ve seen others too but frankly I’m getting tired of this.

Keep on going if you feel like it. I’m interested in all this.

Are you trying to say Lindsey is the great indie hero and Stevie is not? Fine, because the only so-called indie act I’ve heard citing his influence is Camper Van Beethoven.

Add also Jerry Cantrell of Alice In Chains, although it most likely isn’t a direct influence. And I’m not trying to say he’s the great hero, but he could potentially be if those circles were willing to give him a proper chance.

That’s an assumption on your part so I don’t feel compelled to respond. How do you know what they like?
I just said they had publicly declared themselves as fans I don't have a clue what their favourite Stevie albums are and neither do you.

Maybe it is just an assumption. But then again I’ve never seen anyone citing RAL, TOSOTM, SA and TISL as classic Stevie work outside the fan zone. Her best work is widely seen as something that was done with Fleetwood Mac in the ‘70s, or her first two solo albums. You’d think that if these artists actually adored SN’s later achievements and found them equal of the earlier ones then they’d mention it specifically. But they haven’t and that’s why I’m going to stick to my assumption.

If they were speaking of Stevie’s musical influence, not the ideological one, then I truly can’t hear any of those four albums in their work. The Smashing Pumpkins were essentially an attempt to combine the structures of the ‘70s prog with the values of the ‘80s alternative music. There’s no sense of ’80s mainstream music in their albums, but Fleetwood Mac of the '70s could be an influence.

Redd Kross: "Rhiannon". Hole: "Gold Dust Woman". The Smashing Pumpkins: "Landslide". Doesn't that give a good idea of which era of Stevie Nicks they prefer?

So what? He does call Lindsey’s songs musical curiosities later on and admits he doesn’t like them much. Oh I forgot, it's the arrangements you like.

Hey, I love a good song when I hear one no matter how barebones it is. But “musical curiosities”?

That’s the attitude Lindsey has been suffering from. “Cool sound, no substance”. “Fragments as opposed to fully fleshed out songs”. Tusk reviews there. I’m not going to argue with the latter point, it can be accurate occasionally. But it isn’t a musical curiosity for me. It’s expression through arrangement, through the nuances in tone colours and rhythmic subtleties. It isn’t songwriting, isn’t vocal performance, it’s that sonic painter approach we’ve been talking about for a long time. It isn’t always obvious emotion, it can be shrouded, layered, twisted, chopped into pieces, but it’s there. His dedication is always in there. It can be two or more emotions crossed together to form an expressionist painting. Because of that attitude he’s still largely unscathed and hasn’t begun to entirely rehash his former glories like so many “old farts” do. It isn’t to say that he’s “beyond all that songwriting”. It isn’t to say he’s totally complex and that he’s so great that no normal music fans can appreciate him (if someone here thinks this way then I don’t believe even the man himself would share that view).

Equally, Stevie often gets called the “deep” one. Lindsey’s the intellectual, the soulless analyser. Stevie is the sincere woman who always writes from the heart. That’s a false view in my opinion and it is very common, believe me. Just because Stevie can be very personal, just because she has that voice, just because she discusses her music very openly in interviews doesn’t mean that she’s “deeper”. She’s just different than Lindsey. Lindsey isn’t any less deep, the emotions he’s trying to express aren’t always obvious for us but there is a lot being expressed when you put yourself to a different viewpoint. He isn’t esoteric and inaccessible because of all this, there are far more of those kinds of artists out there who can lose their sense of purpose amidst all the experimentation. IMO, Lindsey has never lost it.

So for all of those who resort to the age-old arguments: READ THE ABOVE TWO PARAGRAPHS YOU CLOTH-EARED NINCOMPOOPS!

I didn’t direct this to you at all Sharon. It was for those who I’ve seen making those arguments for the hundred billionth time.

Originally posted by face of glass
And there’s one more reason why she was supposedly sorted out as the indie heroine. It’s because of the life she lived, the stories of constant abuse throughout the years.

Originally posted by trackaghost
How do you know? Another assumption on your part.

Well yeah. It is, I guess. I’ve just accustomed to seeing all those myths and darker occasions attached to the artists in many articles in the alternative papers. But I can definitely see how Stevie would be cooler than anyone other in FM camp because of her past.

I think it was because they played it constantly on Radio 1, Gaius. It’s the reason why most songs become hits.

And the reason they played it on Radio 1 is….

(Don’t tell me they had ignored all the hits from BD, TWH and RAL when they were originally released.)

I love the way you dismiss my argument as “nostalgic” but your's are obviously not rose-tinted at all. It's almost as if you are saying that you have a better appreciation and evaluation of the music because your mind is not tainted by "nostalgia".

I wasn’t trying to say that, although I guess it could be once again read that way. I envy you, I envy ChiliD, I envy any fan who’s been into FM longer than I have. It’s a whole other world of experience that I have no idea of and I’m glad you people are posting here to share some of that with us Dancers. I don’t think that you’re completely blind followers. I’ve seen you, ChiliD and others criticize the band too so I believe the size of the so-called “braindead” fan segment is very small.

I grew up in a house filled with music from country and blues to punk and metal to dance and pop. You are assuming once again that I don't know what I’m talking about. Fine.

Yeah, I went wrong there again. When I was 14 I wasn’t a fan of anything in particular, I had just started to listen to music in earnest. I listened to the radio all the time and thought everything was great. :laugh: I assumed you were just as “shallow” as I was at that age, but it obviously isn’t true. I knew about your background but I dismissed it yet again. I apologize for that.

Originally posted by face of glass
And OOTC is “very mainstream” while TOSOTM isn’t?

Originally posted by trackaghost
Another thing I didn’t say. But then I’m becoming used to this.

Originally posted by trackaghost on 01-09-2004 in the “When I See You Again appreciation thread”
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.

Originally posted by trackaghost
I know you compared Stevie's TOSOTM to Tina Turner or someone, but I assure you when that record came out it sounded unique.

OK, maybe I read too much into things once again. But then again you seemed to suggest that TOSOTM was ahead of its time and that it was unique, which at least in my mind would make it less mainstream.

Perhaps it was ahead of the pack (although once again that would be because of Rupert Hine, not Stevie). But then again for me it isn’t a virtue to pioneer something that was completely imitated during the next decade. Now if it was something like 10CC’s “I’m Not In Love” which basically predicted the whole AOR genre but featured lyrics that are very unlikely in such context, then maybe I could see some Steely Dan-ish values in there. I wasn't there in 1989, you're right about that.

Yeah, I forgot Stevie is just a “voice” and that you always refer to Christine and Stevie as “the ladies” of the band.

This voice is one of the greatest instruments of our times. It’s not just a voice, it’s the thing that initiates the whole track and Lindsey wouldn’t have anything to build on if it didn’t exist.

It isn’t just the voice anyway. It’s the way she sings it. All those notes she emphasizes, all those nuances she puts in there. It’s something Lindsey doesn’t have himself. That’s far more than just singing.

You read this if you really want to know what I think on the subject:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?threadid=12574&perpage=15&pagenumber=7

If you’re jumping on my particular choice of words then you’re just reading too much into it. I’ve never spoken of Chris and Stevie being inactive “cheerleaders” within FM. I think they had their say just as much as the guys did. It has nothing to do with producer skills.

Oh Stevie’s demos are rubbish I forgot! Just piano and a voice.

I’ve never said they are rubbish. I just don’t read into that aspect of her music as much as the biggest SN fans do. There is a lot of value in there, it’s just something that doesn’t always speak to me.

Yeah, the likes of Kristen Hersh and Cat Power never do that do they? Oh if only Lindsey arranged their records then they would be worthwhile!

If Stevie thought her demos were worthy of release then we’d already have loads of officially released albums full of them.

If she truly wanted her solo releases to be alternatives to FM albums then she’d release only barebones material. Do an album with a good, real band, don’t produce it beyond the basic work, record it quickly and focus solely on the performance aspect. Now that would be something.

Stevie is just a voice, I must get that in my head. She contributes nothing but that, because lyrics aren't important. And melody means nothing only "arrangements".

It’s not like I’ve been trying to run a Buckingham propaganda machine here. Yeah, I write long posts but I’d like to think I haven’t gotten into the area where I tell people what they should think. And if I get there, I most likely will be warned by many.
Of course, it seems like it happened here anyway. I should have seen it coming.

Oh and Lindsey is a good producer, like I didn’t know. How many other great artists need a good producer? It seems to me you are saying she is useless without him. Fine. I thought she had proved herself without him but of course you think those records aren't very good. A lot of people do like them though, just so you know.

I’ve never said she’s useless without LB. I think she has proven herself without him. I like all her solo albums. I know a lot of people like them. There’s other sides to the matter but they’ve been discussed to a ridiculous detail by yours truly already.

Originally posted by shackin’up
who did not see in my 365 posts that I had my share of Indie, too. (yes gaius that makes 5 of us!) And I know that there are a lot more on the ledge. But not so many who show off so often....

Gerald, give me names. ;)

(Yes, I knew you liked the stuff but the ZZ Top reference in the LB covers thread last year threw me off for a while. :lol: But I like them too.)

*shakes hands with Gerald who has finally learned to use my real name after my 213 posts* :)

Finally, to Sharon. I know this should be a PM but I think it doesn’t cause any harm to put this here.

I’m sorry I’ve dragged this thread and others on for so long. I am a verbose person and I should learn not to impulsively react to everything.

I apologize for making you angry. I didn’t want to do it but I’m not blameless at all. I put in many stupid jokes and stuff that could be seen as haughty. I admit, I too was irritated by your post. It did bother me when you claimed that Stevie has the “alternative qualities” in her music and that you wouldn’t appreciate Lindsey as much as you do if you had discovered him later. Yeah, it influenced my post even though I tried to cover it up a little.

I admit that I’ve done some intellectual posturing in my past. It’s something I’ve tried to get rid of but I guess it still works its way into these posts somehow. Yes, I'm self-indulged, self-conscious and all that. Yes, I may pretend this is all just for the sake of a conversation, but it must seem like I'm just boosting my ego. Again, it's a completely wrong approach to write posts to any board. It's very possible that my posts haven't solely been about my preferences in this thread. It's obviously my inability to let go in the middle of an argument.

I’ve never meant to hurt anyone with any of this. I’ve never meant to convert anyone with anything I write. It’s because I love music and it’s because I feel there’s other sides to the matter. I take this too seriously, I know. It’s just such a huge part of my life.

I’ve always respected you as a person. It’s weird because a month ago I angered Nancy who is another person I respect a lot. I’ve never wanted to do that but it seems like I still haven’t learnt anything from what I’ve done.

If you want to leave because of this I understand you. It isn’t comfortable reading at all, just like I’m having difficulties with some of the Buckingham critique. Of course I wouldn’t want you to go. I’ve loved reading your posts and PMs; very often they’ve cheered me up during a bad day.

If this all bothers you so much then I should stop making these posts for a long time. Essentially they’re just a repetition of themselves.

I don’t want you to go but take care, no matter what you decide.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by shackin'up
But I still belt out Turn it on when I'm vacuumcleaning the room:laugh:

Well, I for one am happy to learn that you are not shirking your domestic duties. ;)

I just don't get it when you say the choice of him is to have the thing more guitaroriented means that you just let the drums sound like you and I could have played it in acid-pro on a rainy afternoon.

That's a good point, Gerald. But I was merely paraphrasing what Lindsey himself has said. He wanted to tone down the kit and the bass. He wanted to challenge himself by creating as many of the essential sounds with the guitar as possible. I also recall reading that he was very satisfied with his use of drum machines, saying that unlike most recordings that had used them, the drum machines in Cradle did not come across as "cartoonish." This was what he told Rolling Stone, as I recall.

To me, it generally worked. I tend to agree that acoustic drums were perhaps not necessary. But then again, if you added the acoustic drums to the songs, I might change my mind after hearing them.

To be sure, Lindsey himself realized he needed real drums for the Gift of Screws songs. Only when he got really experimental with Red Rover and She Smiles Sweetly, did he carry through with that "guitar as orchestra" concept. So a happy medium was reached?

[CarneVaca]

I haven’t tried to belittle Stevie at all. Some of her solo music tends to be inadequate for me and this isn’t supposed to be anything more than an exorcism of an inner demon of mine. I feel the woman’s pull and at the same time there can be things that can turn me off.

I've said it and I'll say it again. The main problem is editing, or lack thereof. Stevie doesn't believe in editing herself, and this is why we've been subjected to certain monstrous Stevie cuts that I needn't mention again. It's actually quite simple: No one who ever puts pen to paper is above editing. I believe this as a writer. And I believe this as and editor.

The only one besides me that I’ve seen taking Lindsey’s side (and not even close to my level) in the Buckingham vs. Nicks battle is CarneVaca.

Does this mean I am now an honorary "self-indulged but funny butthead of a Fin?"

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

That's a good point, Gerald. But I was merely paraphrasing what Lindsey himself has said. He wanted to tone down the kit and the bass. He wanted to challenge himself by creating as many of the essential sounds with the guitar as possible. I also recall reading that he was very satisfied with his use of drum machines, saying that unlike most recordings that had used them, the drum machines in Cradle did not come across as "cartoonish." This was what he told Rolling Stone, as I recall.


Well, I agree with the man that it is not cartoonish. But it didn't help in giving such great songs a rock'n'roll-feel, that I'd like to hear. And hey, I'm important, because I play his music all the time and have to listen to it. Im sure I heard that album more often than he did, after he he finished it! :laugh:

To be sure, Lindsey himself realized he needed real drums for the Gift of Screws songs. Only when he got really experimental with Red Rover and She Smiles Sweetly, did he carry through with that "guitar as orchestra" concept. So a happy medium was reached?

What he did on RR and SSS and Try for the Sun and Say Goodbye is just simply brilliant. For me that is something completely different then using drummachines in (pop)rocksongs.
And he chose to use accousticdrums on the rest of the GOS-songs, so he came back on it, to my great relief. I put GOS way above OOTC for that reason....

But that one he didn't bring out!!!! as we all know....


gerald "finlovingcriminal" van koert

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I've said it and I'll say it again. The main problem is editing, or lack thereof. Stevie doesn't believe in editing herself, and this is why we've been subjected to certain monstrous Stevie cuts that I needn't mention again. It's actually quite simple: No one who ever puts pen to paper is above editing. I believe this as a writer. And I believe this as and editor.I respect your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from... but I guess I still disagree because I don't understand why an artist needs to edit themselves.

Music provides a form of self-expression that shouldn't be reigned in... it's not journalism, where being succinct is of the utmost importance.

So it's easy for us to say she should have re-worded something, or edited a few lines out... or, in some fans' opinions, trashed certain songs altogether.
But as the artist, she knows what she's trying to express lyrically, and in which manner she wishes to express it.

I mean, we don't say Lindsey goes too far afield with his production choices, and he needs to keep that in check.... because then it wouldn't be Lindsey's true artistic statement anymore.

In regards to the art world, we wouldn't think to say that Picasso's "blue period" would have been so much more effective, if he had gone with red instead. Or that he shouldn't have indulged his depression with a monochromatic palette in the first place, as it doesn't supply enough contrast and variety.

Anyway, in my typically wordy way, I'm just trying to say that I'm a big proponent of allowing an artist to express themselves however they want to, without forcing them to be analytical or to adhere to certain "rules." :) :nod:

[wondergirl9847]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I respect your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from... but I guess I still disagree because I don't understand why an artist needs to edit themselves.

Anyway, in my typically wordy way, I'm just trying to say that I'm a big proponent of allowing an artist to express themselves however they want to, without forcing them to be analytical or to adhere to certain "rules." :) :nod:

I'm having trouble expressing myself regarding this. LOL I think a lot of people think that by not editing themselves, they are "copping out". I can draw a line on a piece of paper and say it's art. Not everyone would, but there's the argument, huh? LOL

I'm a proponent of people doing whatever they want and saying it's art. I don't have to AGREE with their assessment if I don't like it and don't think it's very artistic, but that's the whole art argument. I don't see how a canvas with splashes of paint on it is very artistic, but others think it's the greatest thing ever. :shrug:

I can see it both ways, I guess.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Music provides a form of self-expression that shouldn't be reigned in... it's not journalism, where being succinct is of the utmost importance.

Brevity does not necessarily follow from editing, though it is one of the desired effects. I just finished a freelance "editing" job that ended up becoming a rewriting job that went back with a net gain of words. In this case, the additional words were needed. This is a rare for me, admittedly.

And I agree with you that writing a song is not journalism.

So it's easy for us to say she should have re-worded something, or edited a few lines out... or, in some fans' opinions, trashed certain songs altogether.
But as the artist, she knows what she's trying to express lyrically, and in which manner she wishes to express it.

Johnny, there isn't a writer I know who has not struggled with coming to grips with what he/she was trying to express. Sometimes the artist simply doesn't know. It happens to me in my own writing. And when that happens, how you wish to express it becomes another challenge. Unless Stevie is the world's most extraordinary writer, she has struggled with this too. And in my opinion, the struggle is evident in some of her weaker songs, not because of the struggle process, mind you, but because the outcome wasn't that good.

I mean, we don't say Lindsey goes too far afield with his production choices, and he needs to keep that in check....

Yes, we do say it. In fact, you yourself say it quite a bit.

In regards to the art world, we wouldn't think to say that Picasso's "blue period" would have been so much more effective, if he had gone with red instead. Or that he shouldn't have indulged his depression with a monochromatic palette in the first place, as it doesn't supply enough contrast and variety.

I'm not sure that is a good parallel. While what you say about red being different from blue is true, painting and writing are quite different endeavours and activate different parts of the brain. Painting is far more visual than writing, which is half of 100 percent of three quarters mostly mental. Know what I mean?

[jbrownsjr]

CarneVaca,

You make some excellent points. All 3 writers of FM are guilty of either repeating the same "point/concept" or play the same chorus one too many times. I too find this in my writing.

I say to myself, "would you move on or end it already!" ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Yes, we do say (*that Lindsey goes too far with his production choices, and needs to keep that in check*). In fact, you yourself say it quite a bit.It's true that I do feel there are times when a different production approach might have served a song better (ie: "Say Goodbye"), but at the end of the day, I always believe Lindsey should have the right and privilege to express himself however he wishes. Maybe that hasn't come across in some of my critiques.Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not sure that is a good parallel. While what you say about red being different from blue is true, painting and writing are quite different endeavours and activate different parts of the brain. Painting is far more visual than writing, which is half of 100 percent of three quarters mostly mental. Know what I mean? I do both... painting/drawing and writing. So for me, they're simply different mediums for self-expression.

They are different, true... but they're both examples of an artist trying to bring forth their vision.
And since Lindsey has made the painting analogy before, when discussing the process of music-making, I thought I'd go with that.Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, there isn't a writer I know who has not struggled with coming to grips with what he/she was trying to express. Sometimes the artist simply doesn't know. It happens to me in my own writing. And when that happens, how you wish to express it becomes another challenge. Unless Stevie is the world's most extraordinary writer, she has struggled with this too. And in my opinion, the struggle is evident in some of her weaker songs, not because of the struggle process, mind you, but because the outcome wasn't that good.I seem to always know what it is I want to express, but I do sometimes struggle with how I wish to express it... so, again, I see where you're coming from.

I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like to be told, "that line would be much more effective if you changed the wording, or if you eliminated the next line," etc.
If I ask for someone's opinion, it's one thing... otherwise, the finished product is exactly the way I want it. Imperfections and all.

And, believe it or not, there are some of Stevie's songs that I thought could have been better.
"Two Kinds Of Love" is a good example: It has a lot going for it... a strong chorus, and a cool bridge... but I'm not at all crazy about the verse lyrics.
But even though that aspect of the song doesn't do anything for me, I defer to the artist's prerogative to express themselves how ever they choose.

Of course, we can point to the disappointment she has expressed over a great deal of what she wrote during her "Klonopin Years," but I personally think that unfairly dismisses a group of songs that, while flawed, are as important to her oeuvre as masterpieces such as "Silver Springs" and "Sara."
Because even though she may not have been in the best place personally and creatively, those songs stand as a reflection of the struggles she was going thru. And I think a lot of fans relate to those internal and external struggles.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. As usual, there's no right way to look at it and there's no wrong way. :)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like to be told, "that line would be much more effective if you changed the wording, or if you eliminated the next line," etc.
If I ask for someone's opinion, it's one thing... otherwise, the finished product is exactly the way I want it. Imperfections and all.


I don't know - I think EVERYONE can benefit from tactfully given constructive criticism. None of us are perfect. If Stevie were to refuse to consider anything but her "first, initial feeling," she'd never grow as an artist.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And since Lindsey has made the painting analogy before, when discussing the process of music-making, I thought I'd go with that.


Eh, what does he know!? :lol:

I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like to be told, "that line would be much more effective if you changed the wording, or if you eliminated the next line," etc.

Man, you would hate working with me then. And you wouldn't be the first. :lol:


Of course, we can point to the disappointment she has expressed over a great deal of what she wrote during her "Klonopin Years," but I personally think that unfairly dismisses a group of songs that, while flawed, are as important to her oeuvre as masterpieces such as "Silver Springs" and "Sara."
Because even though she may not have been in the best place personally and creatively, those songs stand as a reflection of the struggles she was going thru. And I think a lot of fans relate to those internal and external struggles.

Fair enough. My disappointment is primarily because I know she could have done better. Under different circumstances. But such is life.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I don't know - I think EVERYONE can benefit from tactfully given constructive criticism. None of us are perfect. If Stevie were to refuse to consider anything but her "first, initial feeling," she'd never grow as an artist. But see, when it comes to artistic endeavors, I think it is best in most every situation to go with that "first, initial feeling," because that is when the artist's "voice" is at its most honest.

No filtering, no over-analyzing.. just pure, unadulterated creative expression.

But that's just me. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Man, you would hate working with me then. And you wouldn't be the first. :lol:Nah, I'd just nod my head, say "Ok," and then leave it the way I wanted it. ;)

Actually, when it comes to journalistic writing, I have no problem with suggestions and criticism. I just don't like to be told how to express myself in artistic endeavors... unless I specifically ask for advice. :)

[David]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Actually, when it comes to journalistic writing, I have no problem with suggestions and criticism. I just don't like to be told how to express myself in artistic endeavors... unless I specifically ask for advice. :) You're talking about two different things . . . three, actually.

1. Outsider giving practical advice to artist.
2. Critic examining artist's work (not giving advice).
3. Artist revising his draft.

I don't understand why an artist needs to edit themselvesPruning one's own work -- poem, play, novel, what-have-you -- is commonplace among most writers from past to present. The notebooks of the great novelists are filled with pruning, redacting, re-ordering of paragraphs, crossing out words & phrases (sometimes in apparent anger -- see Gide's notebooks), tying up loose plot strands, & sometimes tossing out the work altogether. (I revised the syntax of that last phrase about four times before finally settling, halfheartedly, on what you see.)

I don't share your opinion that the more an artist refines his initial burst of activity, the less honest the work will be. That reduces art to some sort of self-imposed primitivism. Art is the formalized expression of experience, not the experience itself. The artist takes the experience (which presumably generated some sort of emotion in him) & rearranges it, puts it into some sort of form -- that's the artistic impulse. The members of Fleetwood Mac, at some point in their creation process, need to refine, recast, revise, etc., & I'm sure all of them do to varying degrees. That part of the process is virtually inherent in the studio/recording experience.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by David
I don't share your opinion that the more an artist refines his initial burst of activity, the less honest the work will be. That reduces art to some sort of self-imposed primitivism. Art is the formalized expression of experience, not the experience itself. The artist takes the experience (which presumably generated some sort of emotion in him) & rearranges it, puts it into some sort of form -- that's the artistic impulse. The members of Fleetwood Mac, at some point in their creation process, need to refine, recast, revise, etc., & I'm sure all of them do to varying degrees. That part of the process is virtually inherent in the studio/recording experience. Interesting comments, David, and I don't disagree with anything you said.

I guess it's just that fine line that all artists (poets, musicians, etc) have to tread... knowing when you need to refine and/or edit something, and when you should leave it as it is.

Personally, I tend to find that the more I think about something, the less natural it becomes. If I try to rework something to "make it better," something usually ends up getting lost in the process.

There are a few cases where it was definitely to the betterment of the poem, but far more times when I should have left well enough alone. "Warts and all," as they say.

But my experiences in those regards, might be completely different from that of millions of others... which is why I always enjoy these dialogues. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Just an additional thought... I remember Christine having said once that the songs that just flow out in 10-15 minutes are usually the best ones, and if she finds herself putting too much thought into it, then the song probably won't be all that great.

Granted, that's the initial writing process... not the process of taking a simple piano tune and turning it into a full-blown pop song. Which, I'm guessing, is where it's most important for that refinement to come into play.

And of course what we're probably hitting on here, is the exact reason Lindsey has often talked about having to take "raw material from the girls" and turn it into something more polished. :)

[CarneVaca]

Johnny, we all work in our own special way, and that of course is good. It is rare, however, for a first draft to be perfect. Frankly, I've seen no such beast.

I also have seen editors completely butcher very decent pieces of writing, but only shows that not everyone is good at what they do.

You know, it's funny. I find that lately I get more and more picky about my writing. I tend to rewrite more now than I ever did. And a lot of times I end up with simpler, yet more powerful, stuff.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, we all work in our own special way, and that of course is good. It is rare, however, for a first draft to be perfect. Frankly, I've seen no such beast.

Then you haven't seen any of my work. ;) :laugh:

I strive for absolute perfection when I write and usually find myself editing things twenty times before I allow them to be used. I just absolutely despise when someone else edits my stuff and cuts it to pieces.

I write a lot of op-eds (some get published, some don't) and I send a few of them out to various newspapers for consideration. I got an email back from the op-ed editor of a paper in California about a year ago and she said she was going to publish it with pretty much no editing. Two days later, she sends me a PDF copy of it, all edited and butchered. She had taken the body and put it before the intro, changed my wording; it was a real beast. I sent her an email saying that the Washington post was considering it ( :laugh: ) for publication and that they wanted an exclusive, so she dropped it and ran something else. :laugh: I was rather pissed off because it's next to impossible to get op-eds published, but I got over it eventually.

Ah, my big fling with publishing. :D

[jadegypsy]

Just an additional thought... I remember Christine having said once that the songs that just flow out in 10-15 minutes are usually the best ones, and if she finds herself putting too much thought into it, then the song probably won't be all that great.

I couldn't agree with this statement more (and my fave Christine song is Songbird). I do pastel work and the pictures I love the most are the ones I do in one night or a couple of hours, they have the impulse and the emotion, they "breath." Last summer I was asked to do a picture for someone so it had to be "professional" it took me several weeks, several "drafts" and color tests. When I gave it to them they loved it, I was neural, for me the emotion was gone, it was too worked over and too perfect, it didn't "breath."

As for working with constructive criticism, when I was in fourth grade I told my art teacher off for telling me how to draw something, this is probably one of the reasons I am NOT an artist for a job, my vision does not usually adjust well to others, or if it does the work suffers.

An example of the overworked always makes me think of Leather and Lace on BD, lots of people love this song, I don't when I first heard it I thought, "that song sounds a bit strained and overworked" especially compared with Stevies other songs. Later I read how many times it got re-written and I thought, "yup, it shows."

[sodascouts]

After watching the Destiny Rules clip where Lindsey tries to get Stevie to modify her lyrics grammatically, I was totally reminded of this conversation.

Lindsey is obviously trying SO SO hard to be tactful with his criticism - but to no avail! lol

Once again, JS, you are in sync with Stevie!

"That's the poet that I am." :)