Mick and Stevie RULE!!!

[Cammie]

:wavey: :rolleyes: We were very much disappointed in the
way Mick sucked Lindsey in to do this record
and then ganged up against Lindsey to change
the bargin!:eek:Stevie and Mick were...definitely
in charge! John got three words in...but he did
tell Mick to "shut-up"! Lindsey was very kind to
John and John sided with Lindsey! The workings
of the band and the back-biting and tempers do
spoil it for me! I would take my SYW album back
if I could! Lindsey was worn down to a skeleton
by this fighting and the troubles! His jeans were
falling off him by the end! Glad they showed his
pretty Leelee calling him Daddy and his son Will
and Kristen! He is a proud Family Man!!!:) Good
thing he can go home to them at night!!!;) Sky:)

[CarneVaca]

The main impression I take away from this documentary is that Lindsey was fundamentally true to the ideal he had for this album. I owe him an apology because I criticized him last year when it was made public that the double-album idea was scrapped. I thought he had caved because of the money. I see now that he was slimed by Mick and no one stood by him. Stevie seemed more concerned with giving the record company "commercial" songs while Lindsey wanted to make sure the album didn't become too safe.

Kudos to our man,who is the main reason I started paying attention to Fleetwood Mac again six years ago. In a way, I wish he had followed through on his threat to Mick that he would pull his songs and go solo again.

[Johnny Stew]

I'm going to choose my words VERY carefully, so as not to start some goofy war.

But I honestly don't understand how someone could think that Stevie and Mick ruled the proceedings.
Lindsey pushed for a double-album... they eventually all conceded to his wishes.
Lindsey pushed for Mark Needham to mix the album... and despite Chris Lord-Alge being her preference, Stevie agreed to using Lindsey's choice after careful consideration.
Not to mention that Lindsey produced the album... most likely calling all the shots on arrangements, etc.

So, uhm, how did Mick and Stevie rule?

Not defending Mick here, but Mick explained his position... initially he was gung-ho about doing a double album, but as the reality of that began to sink in, he started to have doubts. I don't think he was trying to deceive Lindsey... he merely began having a change of heart. Which happens.
Stevie, for her part, was concerned that the album-buying public was not going to want to spend a lot of money to buy a double disc set from artists in their late-50s... but when the record company came back to them and said that they could keep the cost down, Stevie was then comfortable with the idea.

Just because Lindsey wants something, it doesn't mean the rest of the band should just nod their heads like mindless automatons. They are allowed to have opinions contrary to Lindsey's, without having to be painted as "the bad guys."

And for what it's worth, Lindsey seems to have gotten just about everything he wanted... Mark Needham mixed the album, and his "gutsier" material dominates the track-listing for the first half of the disc.
And it should be said that it was his decision to pare it back to a single disc after all, because he was afraid he wouldn't recoup his costs, if the band didn't tour for x amount of time, record another album, and then tour again.

From what I saw in the documentary, Mick & Stevie worked to make compromises that would keep Lindsey happy, while Lindsey didn't appear to make any compromises... even threatening to remove 3/4th's of his material from the equation if they didn't agree to doing it his way (material that was already meant for a solo album, that he had made the decision to recast as a Fleetwood Mac album).

Yeah, I completely agree that Lindsey is good for Fleetwood Mac, in regards to keeping them from "playing it too safe," but he should also realize that if he wants to keep that expensive mansion, and to buy his wife expensive diamond rings, then he's going to have to be mindful of the "commercial"/business side of things, too.

Life's all about compromises. :nod: :)

[BBALLGYPSY17]

Lay off, just when I was about to come in here and gloat about how I have a new appreciation for the man you go and diss my girl;) Least he can do when going home to them all night to show he ain't frail is to eat...*Smirk* And 'trouble' isn't in any one specific place, if the man didn't love the process so much he wouldn't be there :rolleyes:
Politics are just that, politics and are you forgetting that in the end it was HIS decision to pull it because he WAS thinking about his family *cough* Food for thought sweets, No pun intended:laugh:
On a final note I echo what Johnny Stew said. Compromise, as opposed to have 'Stevie run the show' or, what you might often dream about in your bed late at night, 'LINDSEY run the show'....it's about the compromise that lies between.:nod:

[Kelly]

I agree with everything you have said Johnny Stew, it was STevie who backed down and went along with what Lindsey wanted with most things. The mixing, the album length etc. Mick did not misrepresent himself to suck Lindsey in either. Lindsey 'asked' Mick to play drums on his GOS tracks and it went from there. This is a band with four people in it, who all have equal rights and opinions. Mick changed his mind and explained his position very well. They all want Lindsey to be happy but they also want to make money and have a successful album. Lindsey is the one in this doc who came across as demanding, pushy and like he had to have his own way or he would 'walk'.
I agree that without Lindsey this album would not be the masterpiece it is. His vision was a wonderful one and I am glad he pushed for his ideas, however he needs to learn to compromise a bit more. Overall, the special was great. It gave me a renewed appreciation for the hard work the whole band put into this project. I also never realized how involved they all are in every little aspect of things. I think STevie came across as very articulate, smart, creative and in touch with reality.
I will always support this band and nothing I could watch would want me to take my cd back. I love the music and listen to all 18 tracks quite often. That is really mind blowing to me that you would not want the cd anymore after watching such an interesting show.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Not defending Mick here, but Mick explained his position... initially he was gung-ho about doing a double album, but as the reality of that began to sink in, he started to have doubts. I don't think he was trying to deceive Lindsey... he merely began having a change of heart. Which happens.

Lindsey mentioned that apparently he found out about Mick's change of heart through some indirect channel. Or did I misunderstand that? This was during the footage with Lindsey in the car. I'll have to review it, but it seemed that something less-than-straightforward happened there.


Stevie, for her part, was concerned that the album-buying public was not going to want to spend a lot of money to buy a double disc set from artists in their late-50s... but when the record company came back to them and said that they could keep the cost down, Stevie was then comfortable with the idea.

Admit it, even you must have gotten a giggle or two from her rather naive 10-27-year-old-buyer comment. It was goofy and charming all at once. I mean, come on Stevie, teenagers aren't going to rush out and buy FM's new album. The Dance was different because a lot of kids had heard those songs in their parents' record collections and they were therefore pre-disposed to like the stuff. Frankly, I don't know too many 10-year-olds who rush to the stores for any albums.

Even from a business perspective, 30- and 40-somethings are the ones who would buy the album, and this group being more value-savvy than teenagers, would have loved to get a double disc. Besides, as it later became clear, the second disc would have cost pennies per copy to put out. It really was a non-issue and I'm still a little baffled as to why ultimately the idea was scrapped. It seems that fear, more than reality, drove this decision. I also was curious about Lindsey's comment that Stevie might drop out after doing 40 dates on the tour and it would therefore not be cost effective. Puzzling words, which seemed somewhat out of context. Had she threatened to do that?

Just because Lindsey wants something, it doesn't mean the rest of the band should just nod their heads like mindless automatons. They are allowed to have opinions contrary to Lindsey's, without having to be painted as "the bad guys."

I agree with this, and I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. At least, not I.

And for what it's worth, Lindsey seems to have gotten just about everything he wanted... Mark Needham mixed the album, and his "gutsier" material dominates the track-listing for the first half of the disc.

Well, they went with Needham because Stevie didn't like Chris' mixes. Lindsey seemed to instinctively know who would do the mixes that would best serve the songs. And he was afraid Chris would do an assembly-line approach that Lindsey simply didn't want, and rightly. Here is another example in which Stevie was pushing for commercial and Lindsey was pushing for what would best serve the songs.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Kelly
Lindsey 'asked' Mick to play drums on his GOS tracks and it went from there.

Lindsey needed someone to play drums, so he got Mick. Makes perfect sense. Then Micks says, "Hey, you know what would be really nice? Let's get John to play bass." Lindsey agreed. Then Mick suggested they get Christine. You don't think Mick had an agenda?

This is a band with four people in it, who all have equal rights and opinions./

A band is not a democracy. Somebody has to take charge. Usually the songwriters have more say. And that's how it should be. The problem with this band is that the guy who really needs to be in charge, Lindsey, finds resistance from the other band members on a lot of things. I can see why he gets frustrated and hurt, especially when the rest of the band takes off for Hawaii while he's still slaving away.

however he needs to learn to compromise a bit more.

I couldn't disagree more. If you had told DaVinci, Picasso or Hemingway to compromise, they would have sneered. And rightly. Somebody has to be the creative force and have the vision. If the work has to have artistic integrity, there is very little room for compromise.

Compromise is overrated.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I couldn't disagree more. If you had told DaVinci, Picasso or Hemingway to compromise, they would have sneered. And rightly. Somebody has to be the creative force and have the vision. If the work has to have artistic integrity, there is very little room for compromise.

Compromise is overrated.

But SN should only compromise to LB :shrug: :laugh: (I am just joking :cool: )

But seriously, I thought this doc showed that they (all of FM) work well together. I mean FM is big time rock and roll that costs alot of money to produce and they apparently love to produce themselves in this costly way. So, if they want to record and live that way, they have to sell their product. Having to sell means making commerical music, which some view as selling out, etc. I do not view it that way. I think it is possible to do both. I think LB and SN in this instance did just that. IMO they balance each other out in a very good and appealing way.

Also, I think the statistics indicate that the under 30 year old buyers comprise the vast majority of the music buying public. Thus, the success of the rap stars (scarily in some instances) and the Brittany Spears of the world. So, I think SN was right on point that if they want to sell five million or more records they have to appeal somewhat to this demographic. The Dance certainly did. :cool:

[Patti]

Keeping in mind that we only saw a tiny snippet of the whole story, I think that Lindsey was concerned about only getting out 12 songs out of 22. In the end, they apparently all compromised to put out an 18 song single CD.

As for Mick betraying Lindsey, I think that's kind of a strong word. Doesn't Mick have a history of saying one thing and then changing his mind? He said he was all for the double CD until Carl Stubner changed his mind. I think we are all aware that Mick isn't the savviest business person.

I am also feeling that it's plain wrong to label Lindsey a victim of Mick and Stevie. He's a grown man with his own opinions. I agree with Johnny Stew, the other three band members are entitled to their own opinions. Being in a band is about compromise. If he truly felt strongly about his finished product, then he could have pulled his songs and gone solo. The fact that he CHOSE not to is telling, IMO.

Patti

[CarneVaca]

Strand, as I mentioned before, The Dance did well because it was familiar music, not because a bunch of teenagers were interested in buying music from old farts.

Stevie seems to want to recreate the 70s glamor. That's pointless and unrealistic. Stick with being an adult band and release the best music you can. Go on tour and make your money that way.

And guess what? That's precisely what happened. If they had only envisioned this reality a little better, they might have gotten rid of a couple of dogs that show up on the album.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Patti
Being in a band is about compromise

Where do people get this idea? Most wildly successful bands have one leader. And the exceptions are very few. Compromise does not good music make. Period.

[strandinthewind]

I agree they need to move on and I think they have. SN will never get rid of her Dickensian schitck. By the same token, LB will never get rid of his tortured artist driving a Benz in the big house on the hill schtick. Its who they are :laugh:

I seem to remember, but am too lazy to check :laugh: , that The Dance sold very well due in large part to FM reaching, albeit through familiar old stuff, the younger audience SN was talking about. More than one article from that period mentions this. They were like FM connects with kids of their olderer fans or something like that. In any event, I am glad The Dance did as well as it did, because we get SYW and TISL essesntially from the wave of commercial success of The Dance.

Now - let's get them back in the studio!!!! :cool:

[Patti]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Where do people get this idea? Most wildly successful bands have one leader. And the exceptions are very few. Compromise does not good music make. Period.

Just to clarify, Carne, I wasn't referring to compromise in the music. I was referring to compromise of the business decisions. And deciding whether or not to realse a single CD or a double CD was a business decision.

Back in the 70's I think one could consider that FM WAS wildly successful. Don't you? And I don't see where anyone was considered the "one leader".

Patti

[BBALLGYPSY17]

I believe that Lindsey takes raw material and molds it.. HOWEVER I do NOT believe that he'd be anymore worthwhile on his own anymore so then everyone else. There's times when you have to weigh critical triumph under commercial success, and I say, yet again, his artistic priority was given the back seat because of the smack in the face by reality. I love this man to death. His gift, his vision, but he even takes business into consideration. And any good 'leader' would. Which he is not. They all have their place.:rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Where do people get this idea? Most wildly successful bands have one leader. And the exceptions are very few. Compromise does not good music make. Period.

I think we will but heads on that postulate forever :laugh:

Perhaps common ground is here - I do not view it as a compromise. I view it as LB wearing the producer's hat listening to SN's vision for her music, which he does very, very well!!!!

:cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree they need to move on and I think they have. SN will never get rid of her Dickensian schitck. By the same token, LB will never get rid of his tortured artist driving a Benz in the big house on the hill schtick.

I'm not sure why people seem so surprised that Lindsey is driving a Mercedes. What should he drive, a Corolla? Not that there's anything wrong with Corollas, but people [should] live within their means. And clearly he can afford a big-bad Mercedes. And by the way, that Mercedes looked like it was at least four years old. So it's not like he's not frugal in a sense. ;)

[BBALLGYPSY17]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
So it's not like he's not frugal in a sense. ;)

Good point :laugh: It will always be the 'poor, starving' artist in him, one way or the other,won't it?;)

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Not that there's anything wrong with Corollas

Since when?:laugh:

hell, I wanna see the friggin' doc. Can't play with you guys and gals without seeing it.

gerald

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
Good point :laugh: It will always be the 'poor, starving' artist in him, one way or the other,won't it?;)

Why would you bregrudge the man the Mercedes? Gee, aren't you indirectly putting the money in his pocket? What should he do with it?

[BBALLGYPSY17]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Why would you bregrudge the man the Mercedes? Gee, aren't you indirectly putting the money in his pocket? What should he do with it?

*Tries to keep from cracking up* True, but what about a nice Porsche or JAG for that matter? (Edit 2 add-From THIS year...lol) Afterall, you said it yourself, whether or not I'm indirectly providing the money for the man is irrelevant, if he has the means.. to LIVE within the means?:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not sure why people seem so surprised that Lindsey is driving a Mercedes. What should he drive, a Corolla? Not that there's anything wrong with Corollas, but people [should] live within their means. And clearly he can afford a big-bad Mercedes. And by the way, that Mercedes looked like it was at least four years old. So it's not like he's not frugal in a sense. ;)

This was shot three years ago :shrug: So, it probably was new then :laugh:

Believe me, I do not belittle LB for spending the cash he's got. I say more power to him and wish he all the best in it!!!!!! I am just pointing out that he loves to play the tortured artist who gives into the music industry, but he appears to like the rewards of what he seems to think of as giving in. In other words, LB appears to like fame and the money that comes with it, but at the same time he initially appears to want to make anything but commercial music which is how he got what he has and how he is able to continue to live and record in high style, etc. Thus, the conundrum of LB :laugh: What was it SN said when they started out about the high life "its a high price for your luxury." :cool:

[BBALLGYPSY17]

^ He's a contradiction that way, (well in many ways actually :rolleyes: ) but we wouldn't love him otherwise:p

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
*Tries to keep from cracking up* True, but what about a nice Porsche or JAG for that matter? (Edit 2 add-From THIS year...lol) Afterall, you said it yourself, whether or not I'm indirectly providing the money for the man is irrelevant, if he has the means.. to LIVE within the means?:laugh:

Crack yourself up all you want. I think this car discussion is silly. I see it gained a lot of momentum in the Rumours board as well. I don't see why we should expect him not to drive a nice car.

It's just silly.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
This was shot three years ago :shrug: So, it probably was new then :laugh:

Believe me, I do not belittle LB for spending the cash he's got. I say more power to him and wish he all the best in it!!!!!! I am just pointing out that he loves to play the tortured artist who gives into the music industry, but he appears to like the rewards of what he seems to think of as giving in. In other words, LB appears to like fame and the money that comes with it, but at the same time he initially appears to want to make anything but commercial music which is how he got what he has and how he is able to continue to live and record in high style, etc. Thus, the conundrum of LB :laugh: What was it SN said when they started out about the high life "its a high price for your luxury." :cool:

I really have no idea how Lindsey feels about cars. If he were a car guy, I bet he'd be driving anything but the biggest, baddest Mercedes there is. THose things are about as fun to drive as freakin tanks. It's obviously a family car for him.

Besides, why should the tortured artist role be exclusive of driving a nice car? When I think tortured artist, I think inner demons. It's not necessarily about what material things you possess. Gee, you don't think Curt Cobain could have afforded a Mercedes? (I have no idea what the man drove.) Sylvia Path came from a well-to-do family.

Again, this is a silly discussion.

[BBALLGYPSY17]

And yet, you keep biting at the discussion. :laugh: You wouldn't play if you weren't interested...you're giving into the irony and your personal sense of sarcasm, silly or not ;)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
And yet, you keep biting at the discussion. :laugh: You wouldn't play if you weren't interested...you're giving into the irony and your personal sense of sarcasm, silly or not ;)

Well, I didn't say I don't enjoy a silly discussion now and then... Just look at my record on these boards. ;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I really have no idea how Lindsey feels about cars. If he were a car guy, I bet he'd be driving anything but the biggest, baddest Mercedes there is. THose things are about as fun to drive as freakin tanks. It's obviously a family car for him.

Besides, why should the tortured artist role be exclusive of driving a nice car? When I think tortured artist, I think inner demons. It's not necessarily about what material things you possess. Gee, you don't think Curt Cobain could have afforded a Mercedes? (I have no idea what the man drove.) Sylvia Path came from a well-to-do family.

Again, this is a silly discussion.

Oh come on :laugh:

You know I am not harping on his car, his house, or anything like that. I think if he wants, he can have ten of the nicest there are and I will shout out three cheers for him :laugh:

I am solely talking about LB constantly saying for like 30 years that he does not want to be a commercial artist or at least that he never wants to release "commercial" work and its always FM or someone else that makes him. Similarly, he also claims not to care about the money, but he enjoys the money (who wouldn't :cool: ) AND his willingness to compromise for the last 30 or so years into commercial recordings is what keeps him in such luxuries :laugh: Again, I am not faulting him for any of these things. I am just saying after 30 years and probably at least as many millions of $$$ if not more, LB clearly does not have to sell out to commercialism in his own head. He could make all the records he wants and release them on the net. Yet, he does not. He continues to "sell out" to the commerical side. This makes me think that although LB clearly is a brilliant artist, he really does not mind the commerical side too much as it has afforded and continues to afford him a great lifestyle that he worked very hard for.

[jeffs]

That Mercedes represents about 45 minutes of one concert that LB has performed in over his lifetime. My Honda represents about about 1/4 of my yearly salary. So I wouldn't say LB is living lavishly by the stupid Mercedes he drives. This conversation if pathetic

[BBALLGYPSY17]

*Smirks and looks up at Jeffs* So you're not Privvy to some good old fashioned banter on the subject...though you just proved yourself wrong :laugh: with all due respect... if you are serious about the 'pathetic' what's up your ass?:D *IS pathetic I believe you were saying.. not 'if', panties in a twist and all or are you just freaudianly calling the convo into question and/ or questioning your ability to call said convo into question ;)

[Cammie]

:wavey: You guys are good! Lots of excellent points
were made all around! Lindsey drove up in a Gold
Land Rover when Jessica met him at... That House
on the Hill...now bulldozed to build for their Kids!;)
One does need a safe Mercedes for the kiddo's!:]Sky:)


P.S. Remember him pointing where the new high-tech
Recording Studio will be for the next :confused:F Mac Album!:eek:
Iam remembering Rock and Rollers love to fight it out!
Maybe I better watch the video again and rethink it all!;)

[Les]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am solely talking about LB constantly saying for like 30 years that he does not want to be a commercial artist or at least that he never wants to release "commercial" work and its always FM or someone else that makes him.

I don't think that's quite what he's said for 30 years. He's been of the mindset for many years that he doesn't want to release commercial work solely for the sake of having it sell well. I think he's pretty aware that commerciality is a selling point to a broader audience, but as compared to the other members of the band, he's less willing to take the music in a totally commercial direction if he'd really like it to sound different.

That whole segment of the documentary was kind of interesting. Mick made a good point. Lindsey's never going to be in a two-bedroom. On the other hand, neither is anybody in the band. I suspect they all have a lot of money and are entirely comfortable. As a band, if they aren't in a position to make some decisions more for the music and less for the business at this point, who is?

I can see where both men were coming from and why they will never quite see eye to eye. I think Lindsey and Mick have been having some form of this same discussion for 25 years and will continue to have it forever, hehe. :laugh:

I point to piece of evidence #1 ;):

Rolling Stone, 1982

....To most of this band, chart position and sales figures mean a lot. "The only yardsticks you have are Billboard, Cashbox, and Radio & Records," said John McVie firmly.

"You also have what's in here as a yardstick," said Buckingham, slapping his chest. "You can't let that other stuff be your motivation for making albums." He was adamant; just because Mirage hit number one doesn't make it any more of a success in his book: "No, no, no. Not to me. You've got reviews, you've got other things."

Even so, it doesn't seem that Fleetwood Mac has to worry. Even the expensive, confusing Tusk was a financial success, suggesting that it is possible to challenge pop audiences without losing them if you have the right name and track record. But if you want to shake things up, Buckingham has learned, you've got to be ready to take some abuse.

"Even in the band, I remember getting flak afterward for having done Tusk," he said. "I remember Mick saying, 'I think you went too far.'"

"Well, I think you did," said Fleetwood. "As far as the presentation of your songs, a lot of them never got played on the radio."

"Well, but so what?"

Mick sighed. "Yeah, I know, but..."

"My songs aren't getting played on this album either!"

As John and Christine laughed uproariously, Fleetwood protested. "You know what I meant."

Lindsey forged on. "You can't put the Clash up against Olivia Newton-John and expect the Clash to get the airplay."

"I know, but..." Mick trailed off.

"I know," muttered Lindsey. He then stopped himself short. "My God, what is this - a therapy session?"

John McVie laughed heartily. "Sounds good to me."

[wondergirl9847]

Thanks for posting that stuff Les! LOL

I just wanted to say... I think Lindsey was ahead of his time in terms of knowing that being #1 means nada really. I mean, there's so much music that's been #1 over the years, but it wasn't necessarily the best music ever. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good stuff.

[strandinthewind]

LOL - things sure have not changed much in 22 or so years!!!! :laugh:

Thanks for quoting that article!!!!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Lindsey mentioned that apparently he found out about Mick's change of heart through some indirect channel. Or did I misunderstand that? This was during the footage with Lindsey in the car. I'll have to review it, but it seemed that something less-than-straightforward happened there.It's apparent that we didn't quite get the full story there, but I agree that from the looks of it, Mick could have handled his change of heart in a better fashion.
We didn't get to hear that phone call though, so we have no idea how Mick might have explained it to Lindsey.
For all we know, Mick might have explained it to him exactly the way he explained it to the cameras, but Lindsey might have still felt that Mick was going back on his word.

But who knows?Originally posted by CarneVaca
Admit it, even you must have gotten a giggle or two from her rather naive 10-27-year-old-buyer comment. It was goofy and charming all at once. I mean, come on Stevie, teenagers aren't going to rush out and buy FM's new album. The Dance was different because a lot of kids had heard those songs in their parents' record collections and they were therefore pre-disposed to like the stuff. Frankly, I don't know too many 10-year-olds who rush to the stores for any albums.

Even from a business perspective, 30- and 40-somethings are the ones who would buy the album, and this group being more value-savvy than teenagers, would have loved to get a double disc. Besides, as it later became clear, the second disc would have cost pennies per copy to put out. It really was a non-issue and I'm still a little baffled as to why ultimately the idea was scrapped. It seems that fear, more than reality, drove this decision. I also was curious about Lindsey's comment that Stevie might drop out after doing 40 dates on the tour and it would therefore not be cost effective. Puzzling words, which seemed somewhat out of context. Had she threatened to do that?I did get a chuckle out of Stevie discussing who's most likely to buy an album these days, but she's not entirely wrong either. My 11 year old cousin and my 14 year old cousin buy far more CDs than I do, and I'm "only" 31.
However, we're talking about Fleetwood Mac here, and their audience is always going to be somewhat more older-skewing.

Mind you, I would have LOVED to have had a double album in my greedy little hands, but Stevie made very good points about the men in the band... who have families they need to support... taking a hit if a double-album didn't sell well.
And, again, once Warner Bros. came back to them and said they could keep the price down, Stevie was on board with the idea.

As for Lindsey's comment about the tour... I didn't get the sense that Stevie said anything about pulling out. I took it to be Lindsey re-thinking the scenarios that he had planned out in order for this to work for him financially, and realizing that if just one thing goes wrong... Stevie wanting to stop touring after 40 dates, for instance... and the tour doesn't run for as long as he needed it to, then he'd be up a creek.
Plus, we know Stevie was having health problems throughout the beginning of this tour, and I'm sure Lindsey was very aware of that, and the problems it could cause.Originally posted by CarneVaca
Well, they went with Needham because Stevie didn't like Chris' mixes. Lindsey seemed to instinctively know who would do the mixes that would best serve the songs. And he was afraid Chris would do an assembly-line approach that Lindsey simply didn't want, and rightly. Here is another example in which Stevie was pushing for commercial and Lindsey was pushing for what would best serve the songs. Stevie has worked with Chris Lord-Alge on MANY occasions, so she's probably a lot more comfortable telling him what she expects and wants... which is why she seemed more critical of his mix, as opposed to the mix done by the guy she wasn't familiar with.

If she had her druthers, I still bet she would have went with Lord-Alge, rather than Needham. I have a feeling the "Chris is really busy, so we should go with Mark" thing was just an excuse to smooth things over.
But that's just my perception of it.

You know, I have to wonder if Lindsey really did do what best served the songs... I mean, even you have criticized the mix on this album as being uneven and sloppy in places.
Did he really do what was best for the songs, or is it that Lindsey had his heart settled on Needham, and refused to see anyone else as a possibility?
"Destiny Rules" (the only track Lord-Alge mixed) is one of the best sounding songs on the album, sonically, and Lord-Alge's radio mix for "Say You Will" blows Needham's mix out of the water.

Stevie explained her qualms about Needham's mixes, not as them lacking commercial appeal, but rather that they left her feeling cold. She said that she wants to feel as warm about the songs as she did when she was first sitting at the piano writing them. Her desire to use Lord-Alge seemed to have nothing to do with making the album sound more commercial, and everything to do with making the album sound as best it could.

And I don't think that Stevie has less integrity than Lindsey, just because she wants to sell a decent amount of albums.
Lindsey must want that too, in his heart of hearts, or he would have just released 'Gift of Screws' as it was, and let those 300,000 people buy it.

We can't have our cake and eat it too. If one wants to do everything their way, and never compromise their "artistic integrity," then they can go do that... but they better not expect to make a lot of money.
If, however, one wants to make a lot of money, so they can live beyond comfortably, and have an expensive car, and buy beautiful things for their wife, then they have to be willing to make some business-minded compromises.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Where do people get this idea? Most wildly successful bands have one leader. And the exceptions are very few. Compromise does not good music make. Period. And all of those bands eventually break up, because the other members get sick of kow-towing to one guy's know-it-all ways. ;)

[Les]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
[B]We didn't get to hear that phone call though, so we have no idea how Mick might have explained it to Lindsey. For all we know, Mick might have explained it to him exactly the way he explained it to the cameras, but Lindsey might have still felt that Mick was going back on his word.

I don't think there was a phone call. That was sort of the point of Lindsey's distress. Lindsey said Mick was just treating the change of heart rather lightly, like, "Oh yeah, forgot to call you" when obvously Lindsey thought it was a bigger deal than that and something he should have mentioned.

Did he really do what was best for the songs, or is it that Lindsey had his heart settled on Needham, and refused to see anyone else as a possibility?

Lindsey didn't veto Chris. The footage didn't show him sitting in Chris' studio criticizing Chris' work. Stevie did that. Lindsey said it was her decision to make. She made it. Just as Lindsey had to take into account the finances of the situation, Stevie had to take into account the timeframe of the mixing. She made a choice.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Les
Lindsey didn't veto Chris. The footage didn't show him sitting in Chris' studio criticizing Chris' work. Stevie did that. Lindsey said it was her decision to make. She made it. Just as Lindsey had to take into account the finances of the situation, Stevie had to take into account the timeframe of the mixing. She made a choice.

Right.

Johnny, I have criticized the mix, yes. But judging from what I have heard of the "singles," I don't know that I would have liked Chris' stuff better. Perhaps I would.

Probably at the core of my criticism is the disjointed feel of the album. And while the mix on a couple of songs I think could have been better (for instance, harmony vocals are too loud on Peacekeeper) my main issue is not the mix.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Les
I don't think there was a phone call. That was sort of the point of Lindsey's distress. Lindsey said Mick was just treating the change of heart rather lightly, like, "Oh yeah, forgot to call you" when obvously Lindsey thought it was a bigger deal than that and something he should have mentioned. My mistake... I had forgotten his wording, and I was thinking he said that Mick called him and just casually said, "oh, i changed my mind."

Sorry for the mistake. :)Originally posted by Les
Lindsey didn't veto Chris. The footage didn't show him sitting in Chris' studio criticizing Chris' work. Stevie did that. Lindsey said it was her decision to make. She made it. Just as Lindsey had to take into account the finances of the situation, Stevie had to take into account the timeframe of the mixing. She made a choice. No, Lindsey didn't veto Chris, but he sure didn't seem willing to look at him as a possibility either, did he?
The only reason Lord-Alge was even in the equation was because Stevie wanted him, and Lindsey seemed to only begrudgingly consider him. Right from the outset, he was already listing all the reasons why he didn't want Chris... and from the footage we saw, it seems his mind was made up, with no thought to actually considering the guy a viable choice for mixer.

Again, Stevie was criticizing Lord-Alge's mix, but I still feel it's because she's comfortable with him and feels she can make the suggestions she wants without ruffling feathers.
Stevie's been working with Lord-Alge for years, so obviously she likes his work.

At any rate, I'm not trying to point fingers at Lindsey or blame him for something that doesn't even require blame.
I just completely disagree with the whole "Lindsey has artistic integrity, while Stevie just wants to sell albums" arguments.

[Les]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
[B]No, Lindsey didn't veto Chris, but he sure didn't seem willing to look at him as a possibility either, did he?

Clearly, Chris wasn't Lindsey's first choice. (I believe Lindsey has also worked with Chris in the past as well). Nevertheless, he proved himself willing to look at Chris by, in fact, being willing to look at Chris. Hehe. They did send songs to Chris and Chris did try his hand at them. That seems willing to me.

Right from the outset, he was already listing all the reasons why he didn't want Chris... and from the footage we saw, it seems his mind was made up, with no thought to actually considering the guy a viable choice for mixer.

I disagree. I think he knew Stevie wanted Chris to be a viable candidate and so he put his qualms aside and said it was up to Stevie to decide.

At any rate, I'm not trying to point fingers at Lindsey or blame him for something that doesn't even require blame.

Oh, okay, I kind of thought you were. ;) Just joking with you JS. :D

[Johnny Stew]

:)

Obviously he let Stevie have the opportunity to see what Chris could do with the mixes... that can't be argued.
But I still felt she was more willing to consider Needham (as long as she could also see what Lord-Alge might do), than Lindsey was to consider Lord-Alge.

At any rate, it's all water under the bridge.
Over a year later, after all of the arguments and bickering, they're still on the road and adding additional dates every time we turn around... so they're obviously pleased with the final results, and are getting along well enough to keep this going. :)

And I should add, that the only reason i replied to the thread at all, was because of the issue of Stevie & Mick being perceived as ruling the proceedings, and making poor Lindsey do their bidding. Which I think it's a totally off-base opinion, and I wanted to comment on it. My personal opinion is that they were all right at various times, and wrong at various times... but they should each be mindful of the others' opinions, and willing to make compromises happily, not just begrudgingly. :)

[Les]

And I should add, that the only reason i replied to the thread at all, was because of the issue of Stevie & Mick being perceived as ruling the proceedings, and making poor Lindsey do their bidding.

Yeah, I know where you're coming from. I don't see that either. I don't think the reverse is true either, though. ;)

[chiliD]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not sure why people seem so surprised that Lindsey is driving a Mercedes.

Mercedes? I could've sworn it was the top-o'-the-line BMW. (He's been driving them since he had a 2002 in 1975!!!)

[CarneVaca]

Chili, it was definitely a Benz. One of those big, ugly ones. I would have gone for the Bimmer myself.

[strandinthewind]

It was an S class Mercedes circa 1997-99. They ran about $80,000 or more depending of the model, etc.

What can I say, I am a car buff as well :wavey:

John's essentially habd built Aston Martin convertible (I think it could have been a coupe) was by far the coolest and most expensive car I saw on the doc.!!!!!!!!

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Lindsey mentioned that apparently he found out about Mick's change of heart through some indirect channel. Or did I misunderstand that? This was during the footage with Lindsey in the car. I'll have to review it, but it seemed that something less-than-straightforward happened there.

My impression was that initially Mick said it was a great idea, then clammed up about it. At one point Lindsey says the issue had been "sidestepped." However, in the car, Lindsey didn't say he'd found out through indirect channels. He did say that when Mick finally did tell him, he had acted like it was no big deal - like "Oh yeah, I no longer think we should do a double album. Didn't I tell you that? Sorry! Forgot to call."



I also was curious about Lindsey's comment that Stevie might drop out after doing 40 dates on the tour and it would therefore not be cost effective. Puzzling words, which seemed somewhat out of context. Had she threatened to do that?

Yes! I noticed this too. Sure sounds like it....



Well, they went with Needham because Stevie didn't like Chris' mixes. Lindsey seemed to instinctively know who would do the mixes that would best serve the songs. And he was afraid Chris would do an assembly-line approach that Lindsey simply didn't want, and rightly. Here is another example in which Stevie was pushing for commercial and Lindsey was pushing for what would best serve the songs.
If Stevie was concerned solely with the commercial, then she wouldn't have been open to Mark at all. I was impressed that she didn't stubbornly insist on her pick. Instead, she listened to both and made an intelligent decision based on what she heard, with consideration given to practicalities like time frame. What's wrong with that? Don't most people shop around before deciding on something? Using this to criticize Stevie as too commercial seems pretty contrived to me.

[4Buck]

I think Nicks wants this tour to last a long, long time:

"If we get out there (on stage) and we're just having a great time, then we're going to say we could go on forever doing this.

Who knows, let's just say a prayer and hope this goes on forever!"

- Stevie Nicks from Destiny Rules Documentary :)

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It was an S class Mercedes circa 1997-99. They ran about $80,000 or more depending of the model, etc.

What can I say, I am a car buff as well :wavey:

John's essentially habd built Aston Martin convertible (I think it could have been a coupe) was by far the coolest and most expensive car I saw on the doc.!!!!!!!!

yes. but a shame that it only runs 55:eek:

gerald

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
If Stevie was concerned solely with the commercial, then she wouldn't have been open to Mark at all. I was impressed that she didn't stubbornly insist on her pick. Instead, she listened to both and made an intelligent decision based on what she heard, with consideration given to practicalities like time frame. What's wrong with that? Don't most people shop around before deciding on something? Using this to criticize Stevie as too commercial seems pretty contrived to me.

Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And all of those bands eventually break up, because the other members get sick of kow-towing to one guy's know-it-all ways. ;)


Or, one member takes over (Read: Paul McCartney pissing off the rest of the Beatles, post-Sgt Pepper)

[CarneVaca]

Somebody has got to be in charge, though. With the Stones, it's definitely Mick. Even though he and Keith clash, ultimately Mick is the make-or-break guy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all.

I agree - they, including, by his own comments that he has to consider the financial aspect, LB, want commerical success and none of them have had it in abundance with new material (over one million records sold) since the 80's. Most assuredly, The Dance was highly commercially successful (four million + sold and that's just the CD), but that was a reunion thing with a few "new" (not counting SS - but many already knew of it) songs that went nowhere commercially. I think the biggest "hit" from The Dance was the 25 year old Landslide. I have absolutely no problem with them wanting commerical success and alot of it - who would not want that for a variety of reasons. They are in this for a business and they LOVE the benefits the commercial success provides them such as multiple houses, fancy cars, 727's, royal suites, etc. That they, unlike many others, make great (and I mean GREAT :cool: ) art in the process is ancillary to the commercial aspect to them IMO no matter how much any of them publicly protest :laugh: I base that on them always (and I inlcude Tusk here because it could have been a single record with solid commerical songs) releasing a commerical record to the tempering of all their individual quirkiness. Again, if LB really wanted to be the maverick he clearly wants to be and often whines (bless his heart I love him but he sure can whine :laugh: ) about, he would have been one. But something in him won't let him. Personally, I think he learned his lesson with the brilliant but commerical flop OOTC - he has said that record and tour lost him a personal fortune. I think he finally gets that if he wants to live in his lifestyle, he has to be commerical or be in his world "broke." So, I think he tries to include a little brilliant quirkiness with the mainstream stuff to satisfy this urge. I think on SYW - it worked out great.

But, others may disagree.

[wondergirl9847]

If you don't have a leader in a band...how DO you compromise because someone needs to make that ultimate decision. Don't they?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all. I knew as soon as I saw it, that Stevie would get blasted for that "praying to the commercial gods" comment... and I have to say I knew exactly which folks would be doing the blasting. ;) :)

Seriously though, it's ridiculous to argue over commercialism vs. artist integrity, because Fleetwood Mac IS a commercial band.
And, whether folks like to admit it or not, Lindsey is a commercial artist.

He does his own thing, certainly, but he has never been involved in a project that has not had a huge marketing push behind it.
Fleetwood Mac releases are one thing, but this holds true for his solo projects as well.

If he wasn't at all concerned with being commercially viable, and with selling albums, then he'd be off on some tiny indie label somewhere.
The fact that he's not, tells me that he's equally as concerned about album sales.

So no matter what he might say to the contrary, his actions prove otherwise.

Now, in saying this, I'm not blasting Lindsey.
I couldn't care less if he or anyone else in the band is concerned with selling albums. There's nothing wrong with wanting to sell albums... it is the music business.
And we're not talking about some alt-rock garage band here, we're talking about Fleetwood Mac, and its members.

I think Stevie, for instance, has proven time and time again that, while remaining mindful of the fact that she needs to sell albums in order to be able to make more albums, she also has artistic integrity.
You can make commercially appealing albums, while also staying true to your artistic impulses... but it involves compromises. As we saw quite vividly in the documentary.

So I think it's ridiculous to argue these points, when Lindsey is obviously as interested in selling albums as anyone else in the band is. Whether he wants to admit it or not.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
So I think it's ridiculous to argue these points, when Lindsey is obviously as interested in selling albums as anyone else in the band is. Whether he wants to admit it or not.

Johnny, for sure Lindsey wants to sell albums. But I don't think it's about the commerciality of the music. It's really more from an artistic ego standpoint. He wants a lot of people to hear his music because he thinks it's worthy from an artistic standpoing. His comments about family and new home notwithstanding, the man has enough money to live comfortably. So it's not like this album had to be a huge commercial success, from that perspective. And so far, it isn't.

The main difference between Lindsey's and Stevie's approach is that he wouldn't push a song for its commercial appeal. But Stevie does, and it was very clear.

Here's the nuance: They both want commercial success. Stevie will give the label what she thinks will be commercial sounding and, presumably, tailor some songs for that purpose. Lindsey wants the commercial success, but he wants it on his own terms.

Now you and I know that commercial success doesn't necessarily happen on your own terms, though it can. But give the man credit for continuing to "push the envelope," as he likes to say.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, for sure Lindsey wants to sell albums. But I don't think it's about the commerciality of the music. It's really more from an artistic ego standpoint. He wants a lot of people to hear his music because he thinks it's worthy from an artistic standpoing. His comments about family and new home notwithstanding, the man has enough money to live comfortably. So it's not like this album had to be a huge commercial success, from that perspective. And so far, it isn't.

The main difference between Lindsey's and Stevie's approach is that he wouldn't push a song for its commercial appeal. But Stevie does, and it was very clear.

Here's the nuance: They both want commercial success. Stevie will give the label what she thinks will be commercial sounding and, presumably, tailor some songs for that purpose. Lindsey wants the commercial success, but he wants it on his own terms.

Now you and I know that commercial success doesn't necessarily happen on your own terms, though it can. But give the man credit for continuing to "push the envelope," as he likes to say. Trust me, I'd be the last person to ever take credit away from Lindsey when he deserves it.
And I completely agree that his influence pushes Fleetwood Mac to some very lofty heights.

But I also don't see anything un-commercial about the bulk of his music.
For every "Bwana" or "The Ledge," there's a "Trouble," "Slow Dancing," or "Soul Drifter."

He hasn't taken any radical left-turns like Bowie has, and he hasn't turned his back on major labels like many other artists have. His music is essentially commercial, albeit quirky.

Sure, Stevie wrote "Say You Will" in the hopes that it would have broad commercial appeal, and I still really don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to sell those albums, then you have to include some songs that will help you achieve those ends.
And really, stylistically, "Say You Will" isn't that unlike the kind of material Christine would have contributed if she were there... so it's not like Stevie was trying to appeal to the Britney Spears crowd. It's just that she was trying to help fill whatever void Christine's absence would leave, in terms of radio-friendly songs.

And really, aside from that one tune, the rest of Stevie's contributions are classic Nicks.

Again, it's all well and good to want things on your own terms. There's nothing at all wrong with standing up for what you believe in. But, as the saying goes, sometimes the ends justifies the means... and if you want to sell albums, and Lindsey does, then you better be willing to play ball.

You make some compromises... you give the record company a few of the kinds of songs they want, and then you can fill the rest of the album with the songs you want (and is it really that difficult to give the record company two or three radio-friendly songs, when that still leaves you with room for nine or ten of the songs you'd prefer?).
Otherwise, you go off and make the kind of music you want, with no compromises, and release it in relative obscurity.

Rightly or wrongly, those are the choices. And any artist who has a fundamental problem with Door #1, has the option of taking Door #2.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
If you don't have a leader in a band...how DO you compromise because someone needs to make that ultimate decision. Don't they? The way I see it, being in a band should be a lot like being in a relationship or marriage.

No one single person should be making all of the decisions... it should be a mutual agreement.

One-side relationships don't work, and neither do one-sided bands. :nod:

[chiliD]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Somebody has got to be in charge, though. With the Stones, it's definitely Mick. Even though he and Keith clash, ultimately Mick is the make-or-break guy.

I dunno, I would think just the opposite. But, then, I'll never know.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
The way I see it, being in a band should be a lot like being in a relationship or marriage.

No one single person should be making all of the decisions... it should be a mutual agreement.

One-side relationships don't work, and neither do one-sided bands. :nod:


Well, it worked GREAT for CCR until John Fogerty relented and made it a democracy right before the Mardi Gras album...they lasted for that one album and the subsequent tour, then broke up.

[strandinthewind]

I totally think LB writes for commercial viability and did so on this record. Look at BTLH and SYHA - two classic commercial singles if I've ever hear a single. Plus, they are both brilliant IMO, even though he has said they are too commerical (there he is whining again :laugh: )

Serviously, I think LB is well aware when he begins a record that he will for whatever reason make the largest commotion possible to push for some brilliant new uncommerical sound (whatever that is :laugh: ) when he knows full well that he is going to have to have a commercial aspect to the record - hence SYHA and BTLH. I think he balances that very well. Long live LB!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by chiliD
Well, it worked GREAT for CCR until John Fogerty relented and made it a democracy right before the Mardi Gras album...they lasted for that one album and the subsequent tour, then broke up.

Then there was the Mammas and the Poppas :laugh:

[wondergirl9847]

When you have a group of people who all have something important to add and you are trying to come to some sort of compromise, what if you NEVER can come to a decision as a group? SOMEONE needs to step up and say, "THIS is how we are going to do this. End of story." Dont'cha think?

Everyone can have their say, add their ideas, etc., but SOMEONE needs to come to the final decision, right?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by chiliD
Well, it worked GREAT for CCR until John Fogerty relented and made it a democracy right before the Mardi Gras album...they lasted for that one album and the subsequent tour, then broke up. chili... don't undermine me in front of the kids, you know how that makes me feel! ;) :laugh: :lol:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
When you have a group of people who all have something important to add and you are trying to come to some sort of compromise, what if you NEVER can come to a decision as a group? SOMEONE needs to step up and say, "THIS is how we are going to do this. End of story." Dont'cha think?

Everyone can have their say, add their ideas, etc., but SOMEONE needs to come to the final decision, right? That's usually where the managers come in.
Of course, that's not a perfect situation either.

At any rate, a band definitely needs to have an idea-man, but I still believe that idea-man better be flexible. :)

Ask Steve Perry or Axl Rose if being the top-dog worked out for them.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
When you have a group of people who all have something important to add and you are trying to come to some sort of compromise, what if you NEVER can come to a decision as a group? SOMEONE needs to step up and say, "THIS is how we are going to do this. End of story." Dont'cha think?

Everyone can have their say, add their ideas, etc., but SOMEONE needs to come to the final decision, right?

Agreed. I think SN said she essentially does that in that she gives her demos to LB to work on. He works on them and then she makes comments on them. Then the fighting about them begins!!!!!

[chiliD]

Fleetwood Mac is fairly unique since each member of the band has their own manager...the band itself doesn't have one. It's "management by committee". And, we wonder why things don't get done quickly in Fleetwood Mac circles.

[wondergirl9847]

Long live LB!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

I am sitting here trying to think of how many FM Lindsey songs (IMO) are the commercial ones vs. the "artistic" ones.

Monday Morning - commercial
Blue Letter - commercial
ISA - artistic

SHN - commercial
NGBA - commercial
GYOW - commercial

The Ledge - artistic
Save Me a Place - artistic
WMYTYTO - artistic
That's All for Everyone - artistic
Not That Funny - artistic
That's Enough For Me - artistic
I Know I'm Not Wrong - artistic
Walk a Thin Line - artistic
Tusk - commercial

Can't Go Back - commercial
Book of Love - artistic
Empire State - artistic
Oh Diane - commercial
EOTW - commercial

Big Love - commercial
Caroline - artistic
Tango in the Night - artistic
Family Man - artistic
You and I, Part I - commercial

WTWCT - commercial
Murrow - artistic
Miranda - commercial
Red Rover - artistic
Peacekeeper - commercial
Come - artistic
SYHA - commercial
BTLH - commercial
Say Goodbye - artistic

commercial - 16
artistic - 18

He's half and half...sorta. LOL

[strandinthewind]

Christy - that was great!!!!!

The only thing is ISA was kind of typical for that era's guitar crunchers (except that it was more brilliant than most!!!! ;) - I am too old!!! :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Great list, Christy!

I'd say that some of them would definitely straddle the line between "commercial" and "artistic."
"I'm So Afraid," "Family Man," and "Book Of Love" could easily fall into the "commercial" category, too.
While "Big Love" and "Miranda" could also be considered "artistic."

[wondergirl9847]

I always see that song as way too dark for the 70's. LOL When I think of the "happy decade", I think of disco and light-heartedness...also, would you hear that song on the radio...newp.

You're too old? PUH-LEEZE!! I wish I had been born earlier. :( I'm a bi-centennial baby. LOL

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
I always see that song as way too dark for the 70's. LOL When I think of the "happy decade", I think of disco and light-heartedness...also, would you hear that song on the radio...newp.

You're too old? PUH-LEEZE!! I wish I had been born earlier. :( I'm a bi-centennial baby. LOL

Oh you children :laugh: Disco came out in the latter half of the 70's.

IMO, ISA fits squarely with the late 60's and early to mid 70's guitar crunching bands like Led Zeppelin, Foghat, Black Sabbath, etc. Although these bands all had their own distinct sounds, they all had these long guitar oriented songs similar to ISA. Interestingly, apparently, Fritz was somewhat like this because Stevie said it was a heavy band, etc. :cool:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Trust me, I'd be the last person to ever take credit away from Lindsey when he deserves it.
And I completely agree that his influence pushes Fleetwood Mac to some very lofty heights.

But I also don't see anything un-commercial about the bulk of his music.

For every "Bwana" or "The Ledge," there's a "Trouble," "Slow Dancing," or "Soul Drifter."

I'm not criticizing you directly on this, because everybody and their dog does it (including Lindsey himself to some degree) but I must say....

WHY must people act like making the terrific songs you've classified as "commercial" somehow takes away from his artistic integrity?!!! I see Christy's list and I cringe as I see many of my favorites labelled with the dreaded "commercial" - ie, sell-outs and not truly from Lindsey's heart. Again, I'm not saying Christy feels this way, or you JS, but that's the implication that comes up AGAIN and AGAIN. Here you are using it to imply Lindsey is disingenuous about not wanting to "sell out." That is sure a harsh criticism, in my humble opinion, and I hate the fact it is based on songs that have really touched me (in this case, namely, Soul Drifter).

I contend that, with VERY few exceptions, EVERY song Lindsey has released has NOT been done to appeal to commercial success, but because it comes from his own aesthetic impulses. I realize that Lindsey's disparaging remarks about songs like SYHA take away somewhat from my argument, but I also believe that he was forced into that kind of stance from other people's stereotypical views of what is "artistic." I really do believe that Lindsey cares A LOT about whether or not people perceive him as a "true artist" and he hopes that his self-disparagement would raise him in the esteem of people whose respect he seeks (those Clash-types). (My thoughts on Lindsey's misguided need for the approval of these types is a whole 'nother issue!)



Sure, Stevie wrote "Say You Will" in the hopes that it would have broad commercial appeal, and I still really don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to sell those albums, then you have to include some songs that will help you achieve those ends. [...]

Again, it's all well and good to want things on your own terms. There's nothing at all wrong with standing up for what you believe in. But, as the saying goes, sometimes the ends justifies the means... and if you want to sell albums, and Lindsey does, then you better be willing to play ball.

You make some compromises... you give the record company a few of the kinds of songs they want, and then you can fill the rest of the album with the songs you want

you know what? I give Stevie the same credit I give Lindsey. I don't think she wrote SYW thinking "I'm going to write something commercial." I DO think that, once she wrote it, she thought, "I hope people will like this" (in other words, it be :: gasp :: commercially successful).

I think BOTH Lindsey and Stevie write from the heart, and I think BOTH want people to enjoy their music. There is nothing wrong with either of those despite the perjorative labelling of the latter as "selling out" or compromising oneself by SO MANY people - even some of his staunchest defenders, who seem embarrassed to admit to liking anything on Rumours better than anything on Tusk. LINDSEY FANS, DON'T BUY INTO THIS MENTALITY! ALL of Lindsey's work is worthy of our respect.

OK, except for Family Man. ;)

[wondergirl9847]

I dont' understand why commercial songs are looked at as crap either. Didn't The Beatles have some commercial songs? Well, OF COURSE they did. "She Loves You" anyone?

I did that list out of curiosity of which songs of his are very radio-friendly as opposed to songs you'd NEVER hear on the radio. My whole belief is that just because it's on the radio, doesn't mean it's the artist's best songs. That kind of crap is engrained in our brains from the moment we are old enough to appreciate music.

I love pop music, commercial and non-commercial. I do understand that the music industry today kinda sucks weed, but there are some songs on the radio I like a lot.

Also, I'm more openminded than I used to be regarding music.

[strandinthewind]

For the record and as have said, I am all for commercial records because it means future recordings, etc. Also, I think LB, SN, and CM are in that rare breed of artist/poet ( :wavey: Christy :laugh: ) that write music that appeals to the masses. Thus, the term commercial. I do not for minute think it takes away from the merit of the music. But, LB seemingly does in that HE uses the term commercial in a seemingly negative way. Maybe when he says commercial he is suggesting Brittany Spears, etc. But, I do not think that is what we are talking about here in this thread, at least I am not :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Nancy... Christy... trust me when I say that my comments about Lindsey and Fleetwood Mac making commercial music, are in no way meant to be disparaging. I know sometimes when I'm trying to make a point, my personal feelings about the music get lost in the translation, but I'm not someone who turns my nose up at a song just because it happens to be catchy or radio-friendly.

My comments are only made because I think the "Lindsey equals artistic integrity/Stevie equals commercialism" line of thinking, is way off base.

Whether some folks like it or not, our favorite band... and the members therein... make commercially appealing music.

But I whole-heartedly agree that, even when they've crafted a song to make it most appealing, they're still doing it out of love for their art.
So yeah, Stevie hoped "Say You Will" had commercial legs... and wrote it with the intention of paying homage to the kinds of hit songs Christine has contributed over the years.
But I don't see it as selling out, or lacking in artistic integrity just because she hoped it would get radio play and be successful.

My argument was this: it's not a big deal that Stevie wants to sell some albums... so does Lindsey, whether he admits it or not.
Personally, I don't see a problem with wanting that. :nod: :)

[Cammie]

:wavey: YOUR comments are most interesting!:nod:
Tell Stevie, some of us are older then 27yrs.
and stood in a line just to buy SYW for $13.99
+Tax!!! Another $24.99 + tax was also spent
by my family to buy their Mom the Red SYW...
DOUBLE ALBUM with... Extra Songs... by her
favorite Band and Mother's... most Favorite
Guitarist ever...Lindsey BucKINGham!!!:laugh:
Why DID FMac Make a RED Double Album???:eek:

We sympathize with Lindsey for being lead by
Mick to go in studio to record their Double Album,
then Mick doing a 180*...and pouting about it!!!:(
(Remember J.Todd and the infamous Fan Club?)
What went wrong? SYW has only sold 810,827!
They'll be THRILLED :laugh: with all that Tour Money!
The Doc.had :) Fun moments but not many!:( Sky;)

ps Johnny Stew...Ditto what you said...we get Lost!

[CarneVaca]

I think some of us are confusing accessibility with commercialism.

For instance, in 1992 I would hardly call "Soul Drifter" a commercial song. Is it accessible? Most certainly, as is all of "Out of the Cradle," at least to my ears. Any time I've played "Out of the Cradle" songs for people, they get this expression of amazement, like, "Wow, who is that?" Yet, the album didn't sell. I've tried to figure it out, but it still doesn't make sense to me.

I don't believe "Steal Your Heart Away" is terribly commercial, even though I have said that very thing in the past (lest someone picks up on an apparent contradiction). It's an accessible song, but if it were commercial, it would have hit big when it was released to radio a few months ago.

What is commercial today is what will sell today, and in some ways, what we have grown used to hear. Something like "Go Your Own Way" may sound commercial today because everybody's heard it 6,000 times, it really was fairly unorthodox in 1977.

[BBALLGYPSY17]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Something like "Go Your Own Way" may sound commercial today because everybody's heard it 6,000 times, it really was fairly unorthodox in 1977.

Standards change and stuff, good argument, but wasn't that song played (Or OVERplayed-not that I get sick of hearing it) *just* as much back then? Radio stations loved that single, it might in fact be thee most "commercial" thing he's ever done. They didn't play much of anything out of the ordinary til much later. (aside from the moron who released the whole 'Tusk Album' pre-release on air) Majority were stickler for soft-rock formula, so tell me, how do you get the 'unorthodox'? Because if you're talking just about the obsession over the production (over production, perfect production).. then... yyyyeah.:laugh: Most musicians probably didn't need to stay in the studio that long for a single like that. Many weren't perfectionists and/or already so well-established they can get anything on air:rolleyes: Not to say it's not my fav song of his;)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
so tell me, how do you get the 'unorthodox'? Because if you're talking just about the obsession over the production (over production, perfect production).. then... yyyyeah.:laugh:

The beat is the most unorthodox thing about the song. Then think of how all the instruments come together, even though they are pulling in different directions. There's a lot of tension in the way the verses are structured. Then everything falls in line in the chorus, including the beat, and it's a kind of catharsis. And it matches the message. Brilliant, really.

[wondergirl9847]

Christy... trust me when I say that my comments about Lindsey and Fleetwood Mac making commercial music, are in no way meant to be disparaging.

I know. I just wanted to say that I don't think commercial = crap 100% of the time. :)

When I think commercial, I think radio, but also, I'm thinking accessible as well, Carne. Lindsey's "wierd" (for lack of a better term. LOL) songs such as Time Bomb Town (complete with herky jerky singing) and 99% of the Tusk songs are songs that mostly Lindsey fans love. Not that your casual listener wouldn't like them if they heard them, but it's just that with Lindsey, I feel like most people need to dip their toe in, before jumping in the pool. LOL

[teedee]

Originally posted by 4Buck
I think Nicks wants this tour to last a long, long time:

"If we get out there (on stage) and we're just having a great time, then we're going to say we could go on forever doing this.

Who knows, let's just say a prayer and hope this goes on forever!"

- Stevie Nicks from Destiny Rules Documentary :)

and dont you think lindsey wants the same thing? after all he has to pay for that new house, lol
. Lindsey , from the destiny rule doc.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all.
geeze do you ever give stevie any credit or is it all and everything is lindsey in your book.... im not doubting lindseys knowledge, but is she just suppose to have no input and go with whatever lindsey says?but why should nt she have some say? wasnt it lindsey who thought stevie was going to end up with chris, but no she met with both and went with mark. and whats wrong with being an songwriter and wanting your song to be a commercial success? when i say commerecial success, in my book, i mean to hear it on the radio alot. I mean you write music, we hear music on the radio, its what they do. i think its totally ok for a songwriter to want that. maybe thats why her solo stuff was more successful. but that doesnt mean a commerecial song is any less of value than a non commercial song and vice versa, but a commercial song now and again will at least lead people to buy a cd, otherwise the general public, (not the die hard fans) wont even know a new cd exists. if your were a screen writer and wrote a movie wouldnt you want people to be sitting in the theatre , rather than waiting til it shows up on video, or the bargain bin?

[CarneVaca]

Teedee, if you think the stuff you're hearing on the radio is great music, that tells me all I need to know.

There's a difference between music that is original and creative, and it just happens to achieve commercial success, and music that is written expressly to be played on the radio. Very different situations. If you like formulaic commercial music, good for you. To me, it stinks.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Teedee, if you think the stuff you're hearing on the radio is great music, that tells me all I need to know.

There's a difference between music that is original and creative, and it just happens to achieve commercial success, and music that is written expressly to be played on the radio. Very different situations. If you like formulaic commercial music, good for you. To me, it stinks.

carne believe me when i say i dislike most of the music thats out here today, these young artists today are just puppets. but when i say a commercial song by fleetwood mac, i in no way mean to compare its credibility to the crap thats out there today. i dont think even fm's worst song is as half as bad as what they play on the radio. i just think one great commercial song sometimes helps lead the buyer to the store. unfortunately , the radio too is a business that gets its palms greased and is told what to push. so , older bands are in a lose lose situation when it comes to radio play.. with the mac, i think the touring is there success machine. it would be just nice to be driving in the car and here a new fm song on the radio and not just the classics... altho my heros are all from the sixtys , seventies and eighties.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by teedee
when i say a commercial song by fleetwood mac, i in no way mean to compare its credibility to the crap thats out there today.

And if that's the case, and I happen to agree with you there, wouldn't it just make sense for Stevie and Lindsey to just say, "To hell with commercial songs, let's just do what we want." Let's face it, they could have gotten their album out even if Reprise had rejected it. Because, as we know, a reject doesn't mean it's bad. ;) They could have gone to Interscope or a number of independent labels that would have jumped at the chance to have Fleetwood Mac.

Slipping intentionally commercial songs into a FM CD at this point just soils the work and, clearly, does not get them enough radio play anyway.

[shackin'up]

Being commercial as intention stinks. Sometimes you just don't know what hits. Tusk was the highest ranking Macsong of the 70's in the UK! OH Well was number one in the netherlands in '69. I am totally convinced that something like Gift of Screws or Shuffle Riff or Miranda, Destiny Rules or even illume would have done much better in terms of recordsales for the album (if all those songs were on it) than the singles they did put out now. Because an old brand MUST shake the expectations of the listener to provoke new attention.

It's just dumb to try to cope with the industry in radioland. They did that in choosing the single-album. And they caved in in the choice for singles, too. Maybe that worked a little bit in the States, but certainly not in Europe. I believe, even in these strange consumption-times, character can sell. it's a shame that an album with a lot of a-typical songs, did not once provided a single that Pushed the so called envelope...

And now I'm going to play with my 4-year-old son who's sitting in his bath singing "I'm a poor lonesome cowboy, I'm a long way from home......" not bad for a dutch kid.... :laugh:


:wavey:

gerald

[teedee]

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
Standards change and stuff, good argument, but wasn't that song played (Or OVERplayed-not that I get sick of hearing it) *just* as much back then? Radio stations loved that single, it might in fact be thee most "commercial" thing he's ever done. They didn't play much of anything out of the ordinary til much later. (aside from the moron who released the whole 'Tusk Album' pre-release on air) Majority were stickler for soft-rock formula, so tell me, how do you get the 'unorthodox'? Because if you're talking just about the obsession over the production (over production, perfect production).. then... yyyyeah.:laugh: Most musicians probably didn't need to stay in the studio that long for a single like that. Many weren't perfectionists and/or already so well-established they can get anything on air:rolleyes: Not to say it's not my fav song of his;)




yes gyow, was played alot back in the day when it was released, so i would think that it was a commercial song.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
And if that's the case, and I happen to agree with you there, wouldn't it just make sense for Stevie and Lindsey to just say, "To hell with commercial songs, let's just do what we want." Let's face it, they could have gotten their album out even if Reprise had rejected it. Because, as we know, a reject doesn't mean it's bad. ;) They could have gone to Interscope or a number of independent labels that would have jumped at the chance to have Fleetwood Mac.

Slipping intentionally commercial songs into a FM CD at this point just soils the work and, clearly, does not get them enough radio play anyway.


"lets just do what we want"
i do basically think that they do , do what they want already. or at least they did on syw. but i also see nothing wrong with an artist wanting to have a commercial success. i think when an artist/band puts out new material, they want some kind of commercial success/air play/ call it what you want.. but a hit song, generally will bring up the number of sales , than hurt the number of sales. and when i say have a commercial success, that doesnt mean i want them to lower there standards of writing because if whats out there today..

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
By the same token, LB will never get rid of his tortured artist driving a Benz in the big house on the hill schtick.

You got it. Lindsey's just trying to be controversial and ruffle some feathers. In the end, if he really wanted indie cred, he would have recorded his solo album in his basement and released it on a minor label or on the internet. He's so full of it sometimes, he kind of acts like a spoiled brat---like someone else on another board said, he wants his cake and to eat it too!

You can't have it both ways Linds!

Stevie Nicks the drama queen? Hello Mr. Buckingham! :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by teedee
[Band when i say have a commercial success, that doesnt mean i want them to lower there standards of writing because if whats out there today.. [/B]

Well, evidently, if we are to assume that they didn't lower their standards to put commercial songs in SYW, they might have fared better commercially if they did. The album, though a success by some measures, is a failure by FM measures.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
You got it. Lindsey's just trying to be controversial and ruffle some feathers. In the end, if he really wanted indie cred, he would have recorded his solo album in his basement and released it on a minor label or on the internet. He's so full of it sometimes, he kind of acts like a spoiled brat---like someone else on another board said, he wants his cake and to eat it too!

You can't have it both ways Linds!

Stevie Nicks the drama queen? Hello Mr. Buckingham! :laugh:

What exactly makes him a spoiled brat? Is it his zealous protection of the integrity of the music? Is it the fact that he does that while driving a Mercedes?

I agree that he should have given the independent-label idea a try for his solo record, but then we wouldn't be talking about a FM record right now, would we?

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
What exactly makes him a spoiled brat? Is it his zealous protection of the integrity of the music? Is it the fact that he does that while driving a Mercedes?


If he was so zealous about the integrity of the music he wouldn't have "sold out" with Mirage and TITN, he would have quit the band after Tusk and continued on as a solo artist. He's always had to make compromises in Fleetwood Mac, so I don't know why he acts like he's the rogue outsider all the time. I think his, "I'm-the-cool-experimental-mastermind-of-the-band-and-noone-understands-me" attitude is for dramatic effect more than anything. He usually ends up caving in the end on most issues (because he realizes, if it's a band effort there must be compromise) so he's not quite the rebel he makes himself out to be after all.

And further, I couldn't care less what kind of car Lindsey drives either. It's unimportant in the grand scheme of the "integrity of the music!" :laugh:

[Les]

He is the cool experimental mastermind of the band. :D

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by Les
He is the cool experimental mastermind of the band. :D

You're half right....he's one of them! :laugh:

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
If he was so zealous about the integrity of the music he wouldn't have "sold out" with Mirage and TITN, he would have quit the band after Tusk and continued on as a solo artist. He's always had to make compromises in Fleetwood Mac, so I don't know why he acts like he's the rogue outsider all the time. I think his, "I'm-the-cool-experimental-mastermind-of-the-band-and-noone-understands-me" attitude is for dramatic effect more than anything. He usually ends up caving in the end on most issues (because he realizes, if it's a band effort there must be compromise) so he's not quite the rebel he makes himself out to be after all.

And further, I couldn't care less what kind of car Lindsey drives either. It's unimportant in the grand scheme of the "integrity of the music!" :laugh:


I know you all like to be cynical about this but I have to say it's very cheap to serve off someone with artistic principles (and standing for it in public) because he or she got rich by it.

It's like attacking a socialist on the fact that he won the lottery.

He caved in for Mirage and TITN, and is not proud of it. and now he caved in-again. Without that tortured artist-behaviour say you will looked like this:

WTWCT
Thrown Down
Miranda
Say You Will
Peacekeeper
Silver Girl
SYHA
Destiny Rules
Bleed to love her
RTTG
say goodbye
Goodbye Baby


IF you would have liked that I pull back what I said before.:wavey:

[wondergirl9847]

No Red Rover, Murrow or Come....me no likey. :distress:

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by shackin'up
I know you all like to be cynical about this but I have to say it's very cheap to serve off someone with artistic principles (and standing for it in public) because he or she got rich by it.

Yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. Lindsey Buckingham is rich, and rightfully so, he's worked hard and saved---he deserves the fruits of his labor. I don't begrudge him his money, I mean, what do I care what he makes or how much money he has?

What I'm saying is, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth (not you, Lindsey) just admit you enjoy your lifestyle, make a Fleetwood Mac record that you can live with, and then go into the studio and do your solo album and purge yourself buddy. How hard is that?

And don't get me wrong, I love Lindsey, in fact, he's the reason I first got into Fleetwood Mac. I just think that sometimes, he goes a bit over the top and isn't it our job to reel him back into reality! :laugh: :laugh:

And don't forget, I kid because I love!!

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
No Red Rover, Murrow or Come....me no likey. :distress:

haha....me even pukey!

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by cliffdweller

And don't forget, I kid because I love!!

Of course , I know that.

But my point is, If he didn't do the tortured artist stuff, they come out with spinecringing albums!!! He HAS to do that, or else we get some tensionless music. How can you say: just do a mac-album, gross your doe and go in the studio to do your art-thing?

BECAUSE of the art-thing he made those beautiful songs and arrangements.

So-although kidding, I just don't think it's a fair approach.:distress: .....:laugh:

:wavey:
G.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
If he was so zealous about the integrity of the music he wouldn't have "sold out" with Mirage and TITN, he would have quit the band after Tusk and continued on as a solo artist.

Fleetwood Mac sold out. Lindsey didn't. The proof is in the songs.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
isn't it our job to reel him back into reality! :laugh: :laugh:


No. Our job, if you could call it that, is to listen to the music. Or not. No one has appointed the fans masters of Lindsey's reality as far as I can tell.

[wondergirl9847]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
No. Our job, if you could call it that, is to listen to the music.

I like the sound of this! How do we get paid for that because I'd make a KILLIN'?

:laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Fleetwood Mac sold out. Lindsey didn't. The proof is in the songs. Grrr... this is the argument you and I always come back to.

How is it selling out, to want to continue making the kind of music you ENJOY making, while simultaneously wanting it to sell??
Fleetwood Mac is a pop-rock band, recording pop-rock music. They've never purported to be anything else.

Sure, they make the music likeable so that they can reach the largest audience possible... but if it's the kind of music you WANT to make, then what's the harm in wanting it to also sell well? Where's the selling out?

Selling out is listening to the Top 40 and saying, "Ok, we have to make a record that sounds JUST like whoever is #1 right now," and Fleetwood Mac has never done that.

And I don't want to sound like I'm busting Lindsey's chops, because, again, I have no problem with any of them wanting to sell as many copies of an album as possible... but, you cannot decry Fleetwood Mac for doing something that Lindsey also does.
He filmed four videos for the 'Cradle' singles, and did a heap of print and TV interviews (including, of all things, an appearance on 'Live with Regis & Kathy Lee')... so you can't tell me he wasn't trying his darnedest to get as many people as possible to buy his album.

So to me, to claim he's above all of that, just looks hypocritical.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Grrr... this is the argument you and I always come back to.


There's no need to. Keep the context of my statement in mind. Cliffdweller said Lindsey sold out. That's plain wrong. The band sold out. And the proof is in the songs. None of Lindsey's stuff on Mirage is truly commercial. And on Tango, even Big Love was kind of an aberration on radio at the time. Nothing else really sounded like it.

Lindsey wants a wide audience for his music, it's true. But he wants it on his own terms, not on the terms of what is commercial at that particular time.

It makes perfect sense to me.

[chiliD]

I hold to the notion that Lindsey really isn't "cutting edge" or "groundbreaking"...he's just recycling ideas he's had for years, plus taking OLD ideas and presenting them in semi-new ways. Nothin' wrong with that, but the perception that he's so profoundly "ahead of his time" is, to me, misleading.

Take "Everybody Finds Out"...it has a fresh sound to it, in some ways, but the production fits better with the mid-80's mush of Tango In The Night.

Early on, during my extreme loathing of "Come", somebody mentioned how "Zeppelin-ish" it sounded. After seeing them play it live, I had to agree...but, Zeppelin isn't "now" or "ahead of their time"...they're yesterday's news.

I think if you try to compile the 12 most "commercial" sounding tunes on Say You Will, you WILL end up with an album that would sound like it should've been the follow-up to Tusk...it is like they're trying to roll back the clock to 1982 and say, "Ok, let's start over from after the Tusk tour...THIS is how we should've sounded then".

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Lindsey wants a wide audience for his music, it's true. But he wants it on his own terms, not on the terms of what is commercial at that particular time.I do understand what you're saying, but I still don't think it's an entirely accurate assessment, because FM doesn't really go by what's commercial at any given time either.

I'll remove 'Mirage' and 'Tango' from the equation, because of Lindsey's involvement... but look at 'Behind The Mask' and 'Time.'
Granted, I know you have no love lost for either of those albums, but neither of them sound exactly like the kind of music that was selling the most albums in 1990 and 1995.

Certainly they weren't entirely out of touch with the time period (Lindsey's solo stuff never is, either), but they weren't duplicates of the Top 40, top-selling music that was out then either.

By the way, if you want to look at the term "selling out" in the strictest of terms, then it really isn't entirely unreasonable to say Lindsey sold out.
If he's absolutely, fundamentally against doing something, but then gives in to sell more albums, he has sold himself out.
The documentary clearly showed us that he was against releasing 'Say You Will' as a single album, but then feared it wouldn't sell enough for him to recoup his investment... so, he made the decision to release it as a single. Therefore he gave-in to sell more albums.
Which, if one chooses to look at it honestly, is "selling out."

I reiterate, I have no problem with Lindsey or anyone else in the band, wanting to sell as many copies of their albums as possible... but, again, it's exhibiting a bit of tunnel vision to claim Lindsey is above doing something to sell more albums. Even when it means compromising his original artistic vision.

[CarneVaca]

Sell-out is a goofy term anymore. What does it really mean? My point is that if you are going to say Lindsey sold out (and I realize you haven't, Johnny) for Mirage and Tango, then it's really more accurate and fair to say the band sold out.

But I really don't think FM sold out. I think it was just more cautious than it should have been.

If Lindsey had stayed out of Fleetwood Mac after Tusk, he might have had a viable solo career, strictly based on the limited success he had with Trouble, Holiday Road and Go Insane. He proved he could get hits as a solo artist. Maybe he kicks himself for having gone back to the band in 1982 and 1987, thereby short-selling and ultimately destroying his solo career. I am strictly speculating here, but it would be an understandable position. We all look back on certain decisions on our lives and realize there are certain nagging doubts we'll never be able to vanquish. What if?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
. . . But I really don't think FM sold out. I think it was just more cautious than it should have been.

Therein is my point. I mean you cannot take money like FM does from a major label like Warner's and not expect them to have a say in what product you put out, esp. when your are LB and have a rep. for sort of wanting to thumb your nose at any form of convention. So, that is why I kind of roll my eyes when LB goes off like he did in the doc. on an "I'm an artist first and I do not care about anything else" tirade. I just think to myself well, no one forced you to be here spending Big Daddy Warner's money and workling with three other people (four in CM's day) who love convention :shrug: :laugh: Thus, I conclude he must like it or at least the lifestyle it gives him or he would not keep coming back to it. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Also, do y'all think LB was talking about the number of songs or the production of the songs. I mean there really was no change other than the addition of La Nicks' vocals in the production of the final product from the original GOS stuff. So, no one really foreced him to comply with a more mainstream musical effort in that aspect, with the possible exception of the lyric change in Peacekeeper, which he said he did not mind. I wonder if LB views the "commercial" aspect he was talking about as just picking the more mainstream stuff from his GOS material? He kind of goes into this when he says "I own the masters," etc. I guess he wanted to release almost his entire GOS body of work in a FM record so that it reached the widest possible audience. :cool:

[Les]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
What I'm saying is, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth (not you, Lindsey) just admit you enjoy your lifestyle, make a Fleetwood Mac record that you can live with, and then go into the studio and do your solo album and purge yourself buddy. How hard is that?

But I think you're putting words into his mouth. Why does arguing for a double album, which would admittedly sell less, mean he's not admitting to liking his lifestyle? Why does making money from his work mean he has to shut up about his ideas?

His ideas (along with the ideas of everyone else) have been a big part of making the band what it is. Lindsey personally plays a big part in what has made this band a critical darling, which has, in my mind, helped greatly in making their longevity possible. That's not a jab at anyone else in the band who have also earned praise through the years. It's just a comment on the basic fact that for many years Lindsey was most singled out by critics for praise. To me, that did nothing but help the band. So why the urge to stop him from making the same such arguments and arguing for similar artistic directions now?

And don't get me wrong, I love Lindsey, in fact, he's the reason I first got into Fleetwood Mac. I just think that sometimes, he goes a bit over the top and isn't it our job to reel him back into reality! :laugh: :laugh:

You seem to be starting from a place that says that what Stevie wants is what is best for the band, while what Lindsey wants isn't best for the band. I don't think that's true. I think they just look at different factors. Lindsey's argument was for something that he thought was a larger "statement" because he thought that would make for a better album. And yes, it was, as he admitted several times, also self-serving in that it would allow him to get more of his material out. Stevie's and Mick's arguments that a double album wouldn't sell well is a valid point, especially if you're looking at sales as a determining factor of what indicates a good album. It was also a self-serving argument for them to make sure they made more money than they thought they'd make if they followed Lindsey's path. I'm not trying to say that sales is the only thing that is important to either of them or that sales are never important to Lindsey. But his making an argument for an album that aspires to be something different than just one that will sell most easily isn't wrong for the band. At least I don't think so.

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
No. Our job, if you could call it that, is to listen to the music. Or not. No one has appointed the fans masters of Lindsey's reality as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I was kidding around.

[strandinthewind]

Les - I agree with what your saying in that the art is what counts, etc. But, my point is the art (music) really did not change from his original stuff. He just wanted more songs on the record. I think he should have given FM what they wanted and released his original GOS stuff on the net. That way no one has to eat any costs associated with a double record. In the end, though, LB mostly got all of the GOS released on a FM record. So, from that angle, LB won :shrug:

[Les]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Les - I agree with what your saying in that the art is what counts, etc. But, my point is the art (music) really did not change from his original stuff. He just wanted more songs on the record. I think he should have given FM what they wanted and released his original GOS stuff on the net.

Well, and I guess I'm saying is- why? SYW probably wouldn't have contained anything like the material it finally did contain if he had just "given FM what they wanted" (though it may have pleased some Ledgies ;)). Ultimately, he did get more than just the 12 safest songs on there. That's not wrong. I don't think Lindsey feels disconnected from the band in such a way that he doesn't want for it, as an entity, to be everything he also personally aspires to. That is also, necessarily, self-serving. He's invested in it. When he didn't feel that way, he left it.

In most cases, I think arguments about musical direction and content are a basic and essential quality of any viable band.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Les
In most cases, I think arguments about musical direction and content are a basic and essential quality of any viable band.

Agreed!!!!!!

Also, for the life of me, I will never get why artists don't put more than 12 songs on records in this age of digital music where the restrictions of vinyl no longer apply, esp. when the other 10 or so songs that are good, but are clearly never going to be commerical hits a la Come, Red Rover, etc.

Also, for the record, I was and still am for them having made SYW a double record because I think that if it was going to be a hit record, a few extra dollars would not have mattered that much. But, in the end, we got 20 for the price of 12, so it all worked out.

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by shackin'up
But my point is, If he didn't do the tortured artist stuff, they come out with spinecringing albums!!!

Spinecringing? Now I know you're serious!! :laugh:

And you're right.

For example, Tusk is by far my favorite Fleetwood Mac album, and I realize it's thanks to Lindsey. And I also realize that if the band hadn't trusted in Lindsey we would never have had the honor of listening to it. I also realize that any "edge" Fleetwood Mac has ever acquired has been thanks to Lindsey. But let's not be too short-sighted here, there are other band members who have contributed greatly to the success of Fleetwood Mac, or, do you ONLY like Lindsey's stuff? If so, I guess all the other members contributions are moot.

To The Selling Out Comments:

I also realize that Lindsey has never been in any way shape or form an avante garde artist and I don't mean to hold him up to those standards nor would I want him to be that. Fleetwood Mac is a mainstream pop/rock group, something Lindsey knew when he joined and actually helped to maintain throughout the years, albeit somewhat grudgingly. So when I say he "sold out" with Mirage and Tango, I don't mean he sold out as an avante garde or maverick artist. However, I do believe in his mind, he sold out some of the principles of the kind of music he wanted to make (he's admitted to that). And in the end, it was his decision to stay in the band. Noone was forcing him to remain tethered to Fleetwood Mac, it was always his choice if he wanted to stay or leave.

And I'm glad he stayed for as long as he did. I'm also glad that he's back, even if it's only for a little while.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
But I really don't think FM sold out. I think it was just more cautious than it should have been.I agree with you... they did play it a bit too cautious with 'Mirage,' but I think they were considerably less cautious with 'Tango.'

Certainly, one can point to Lindsey's larger influence over 'Tango' as a reason for that, but when you think about it, even though most people have a huge distaste for her 'Tango' songs, the two self-penned tracks that Stevie contributed weren't very commercial at all either.
In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that her material on 'Tango' is a lot less commercial than Lindsey's.

Ironically, it seems that the majority of fans would have preferred it if she had contributed songs that were "safer."Originally posted by CarneVaca
If Lindsey had stayed out of Fleetwood Mac after Tusk, he might have had a viable solo career, strictly based on the limited success he had with Trouble, Holiday Road and Go Insane. He proved he could get hits as a solo artist. Maybe he kicks himself for having gone back to the band in 1982 and 1987, thereby short-selling and ultimately destroying his solo career. I am strictly speculating here, but it would be an understandable position. We all look back on certain decisions on our lives and realize there are certain nagging doubts we'll never be able to vanquish. What if? That's a very good question you raise there.

It is quite possible that Lindsey would have achieved more solo success if he had left Fleetwood Mac after 'Tusk,' but, in my opinion, the factor that ultimately fated his solo career to being less than successful, was that there were such huge gaps between his releases.
There were three years between 'Law & Order' and 'Go Insane'... and 'Go Insane' came two years after 'Mirage.'
Then there was another three year lull, before 'Tango' was released.
And perhaps most damning... five years between 'Tango' and 'Out Of The Cradle.'

Also, because he didn't tour for either of his first two solo albums, and didn't end up touring for 'Tango,' people only had one real chance to see him perform live during the entire 12 year period before 'Cradle.'

Absence can make the heart grow fonder, but in the music world, it usually causes the audience to forget you. :(

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
. . . Certainly, one can point to Lindsey's larger influence over 'Tango' as a reason for that, but when you think about it, even though most people have a huge distaste for her 'Tango' songs, the two self-penned tracks that Stevie contributed weren't very commercial at all either.
In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that her material on 'Tango' is a lot less commercial than Lindsey's.

Ironically, it seems that the majority of fans would have preferred it if she had contributed songs that were "safer."That's a very good question you raise there.



Ah Ha - I have been saying this for years. I think RAL was very different for SN - I think RAL was a conscious effort by her to be experimental and some of the songs reflect that. I think her two self penned TITN songs were experimental as well. Yet, she gets slammed because they are not that great from a commercial point of view :shrug:

In the end though, our little Rodeo Drive Maverick LB (oh come on that is funny and you know it :laugh: ) is the one gets all of the credit for exsperimenting. Perhaps it is when LB does it, it usually sounds great and when La Nicks makes an attempt, it sometimes is less than stellar a la WISYA - which I like but it ain't all that and a bag of chips like the song TITN is.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Les
You seem to be starting from a place that says that what Stevie wants is what is best for the band, while what Lindsey wants isn't best for the band. I don't think that's true. I think they just look at different factors. Lindsey's argument was for something that he thought was a larger "statement" because he thought that would make for a better album. And yes, it was, as he admitted several times, also self-serving in that it would allow him to get more of his material out. Stevie's and Mick's arguments that a double album wouldn't sell well is a valid point, especially if you're looking at sales as a determining factor of what indicates a good album. It was also a self-serving argument for them to make sure they made more money than they thought they'd make if they followed Lindsey's path. I'm not trying to say that sales is the only thing that is important to either of them or that sales are never important to Lindsey. But his making an argument for an album that aspires to be something different than just one that will sell most easily isn't wrong for the band. At least I don't think so. Stevie, for her part, seemed less concerned about how much money she would make, and more concerned over how much the "family men" in the band could stand to lose if the album tanked.

Now, I'm not trying to paint her as a martyr, because certainly she stands to make a lot of money if an album does well... but I just want to point out that, as she expressed them in the documentary, her feelings on why a double-album might not have been the best idea, weren't entirely self-serving either.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yet, she gets slammed because they are not that great from a commercial point of view :shrug:

Jason, are you sure about that? Doesn't she get slammed because the lyrics were subpar in comparison to earlier stuff and because her voice had deteriorated? I'm not trying to slam Stevie here, but I think that saying those of us who slam her for what she created during that time period do so because of any perceived lack of commercialism in the songs is missing the mark.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Jason, are you sure about that? Doesn't she get slammed because the lyrics were subpar in comparison to earlier stuff and because her voice had deteriorated? I'm not trying to slam Stevie here, but I think that saying those of us who slam her for what she created during that time period do so because of any perceived lack of commercialism in the songs is missing the mark.

Touche - she was not at her height in those areas.

But, I was more or less pointing out that I think she was trying to branch out from RAL to TOSOTM and people often overlook that. Yet, when LB branches out he is great for trying, granted his results are aften better becuase unlike SN, LB is a multi faceted musician as well.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But, I was more or less pointing out that I think she was trying to branch out from RAL to TOSOTM and people often overlook that. Yet, when LB branches out he is great for trying, granted his results are aften better becuase unlike SN, LB is a multi faceted musician as well.

Uhm... dude, if the results of the one are good, and he gets praise for it, and the results of the other are not so good, and she gets criticized for it, all is well with the world. Nyet?

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Ah Ha - I have been saying this for years. I think RAL was very different for SN - I think RAL was a conscious effort by her to be experimental and some of the songs reflect that. I think her two self penned TITN songs were experimental as well. Yet, she gets slammed because they are not that great from a commercial point of view :shrug:

I don't know if commercialism is the issue. RAL is her weakest album because it was just flat uninspired (quickly ducks head for fear of rock throwing). I think Stevie should branch out, just not in that way.

Illume is a great example of Stevie branching outside her tried and true formula and producing amazing music. IMO, she should experiment more in that type of vein.

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
Spinecringing? Now I know you're serious!! :laugh:
But let's not be too short-sighted here, there are other band members who have contributed greatly to the success of Fleetwood Mac, or, do you ONLY like Lindsey's stuff? If so, I guess all the other members contributions are moot.



Oh I would NEVER say that the other members didn't contribute greatly. But they obviously make other choices then he does, and even when it looks whiny or hypocrite, his role or extreme pole in the chemistry of the band is important. And here, on the lindsey-side of the ledge we were talking about his behaviour in public, and his artistic story that he keeps repeating. I believe him, because I can hear it in his music. And, yes, he sold out different times, but that is also a part of being in such a band. As long as he is fighting for the artistic, he will keep that band one millimeter away from the danger of trivial music. Stevie is in her soloprojects always searching for a "contrapartner" to keep her away from that: she's also aware of it i think.

That does not mean that stating this I would disrespect the other members.

However, I do believe in his mind, he sold out some of the principles of the kind of music he wanted to make (he's admitted to that). And in the end, it was his decision to stay in the band. Noone was forcing him to remain tethered to Fleetwood Mac, it was always his choice if he wanted to stay or leave.

Yes, i agree on that totally. But with Lindsey coming back to the band they also chose for him to take the artistic lead. And that was his task when mick called him (them) on the edge of 1974/75. Not only for playing guitar but also take the lead in the musical vision: replacing the role of Green and Welch. So it was certainly no pop-band or commercially succesful band at that time.

Yes, to some extend he digged his own pluche grave!! Isn't that great about the story? He still wrestles with that! And for me, he may do that until he finally takes a long rest in it:laugh:

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Uhm... dude, if the results of the one are good, and he gets praise for it, and the results of the other are not so good, and she gets criticized for it, all is well with the world. Nyet?

Yes, but what I am saying is no one gives her credit for trying to change, grow, etc. They just focus on the "this is horrible" aspect of it :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Jason, are you sure about that? Doesn't she get slammed because the lyrics were subpar in comparison to earlier stuff and because her voice had deteriorated? I'm not trying to slam Stevie here, but I think that saying those of us who slam her for what she created during that time period do so because of any perceived lack of commercialism in the songs is missing the mark. Ah, but then we come back around to that little matter of taste.

That the lyrics were "subpar" is a matter of opinion. Certainly they weren't the kinds of songs she had written for previous albums, or the kinds of songs people expect from her, but that doesn't mean they have less value. She was writing differently, and while some chide her for that, I praise her for that.

Also, I happen to love the Billie Holiday quality of her voice during that time-period. I loved that vulnerable, world-weary rasp, and I actually really miss it.
I was a new fan during that time-period, and her 'Tango' songs further cemented my love of her music... rather than turning me off. So I wasn't listening and just pretending to like it out of some kind of loyalty, I was listening because I was thoroughly captivated and amazed by the depth of this woman's songs.

So whether one loves them or hates them, the fact of the matter is that she didn't just play it safe, and she didn't just contribute the most commercially-viable material possible.
Leaving the question: Why is it that Lindsey can do something offbeat and wholly artistic (and, therefore, potentially unappealing to the masses), but Stevie's not allowed to, lest she be criticized for not living up to what we expect from her?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Uhm... dude, if the results of the one are good, and he gets praise for it, and the results of the other are not so good, and she gets criticized for it, all is well with the world. Nyet? Again, that the results are good or aren't good, is just a matter of opinion.

I know die-hard music afficianados, with highbrow tastes, who are completely turned off by Lindsey's stuff.
Their opinion doesn't mean any more or less than our opinions, but certainly in their minds, what Lindsey has done isn't "good," if it doesn't appeal to them.

Even though 'Rock A Little' and 'The Other Side Of The Mirror' weren't as successful as 'Bella Donna' and 'The Wild Heart,' they did both go platinum... so certainly some people felt that they were at least "good."

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Why is it that Lindsey can do something offbeat and wholly artistic (and, therefore, potentially unappealing to the masses), but Stevie's not allowed to, lest she be criticized for not living up to what we expect from her?

Well for one thing, I don't think Stevie fans demand (change) of her the way Lindsey fans demand (and expect) it of him. I don't know how pro-experimentation Stevie fans are. I also think, (and this is if she even has the desire to experiment--which I think is up for debate) that Stevie is fearful of fans' reactions to her branching out.

[Johnny Stew]

I should clarify that I'm not meaning to say that record sales are an indicator of whether or not something is of good quality.
I just wanted to point out that, from the fact that these two albums eventually sold a million copies apiece, one could pretty safely assume that their sales figures were not just due to the die-hard fans buying them out of loyalty.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
What exactly makes him a spoiled brat? Is it his zealous protection of the integrity of the music? Is it the fact that he does that while driving a Mercedes?

I agree that he should have given the independent-label idea a try for his solo record, but then we wouldn't be talking about a FM record right now, would we?


we would be talking about a lindsey record, nothing wrong with that.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
There's no need to. Keep the context of my statement in mind. Cliffdweller said Lindsey sold out. That's plain wrong. The band sold out. And the proof is in the songs. None of Lindsey's stuff on Mirage is truly commercial. And on Tango, even Big Love was kind of an aberration on radio at the time. Nothing else really sounded like it.

Lindsey wants a wide audience for his music, it's true. But he wants it on his own terms, not on the terms of what is commercial at that particular time.

It makes perfect sense to me.


i hope he gets that large audience someday, but after all these years of what hes doing (solo, i mean ) just how does he expect to reach a large audience , if he doesnt want commercial songs, or even a commercial single, how does he ever expect to reach all these people. so even if say you will never happened and he did release this material as a solo. just how would he grab a bigger listening group? even if he had the best cd ever of the most artistic music , you still have to make the people want to buy it and hear it. its not going to happen just because he wants it too, or i t would of happened for him already. i wished it happened with ootc, even tho he did a club tour and got out there, it still didnt achieve what i wished it had for him.. i will admit tho, after this syw tour i think if he does release a new solo. i think maybe more ppl will be interested in him, but again , thats because of major exposer with fleetwood mac on tour, because fm reaches a much larger audience. i think before fm records again, linds should do a new solo first. even tho i know it takes him so long to do so, im sure a fm cd wil be born first. lets hope and see.

[teedee]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I do understand what you're saying, but I still don't think it's an entirely accurate assessment, because FM doesn't really go by what's commercial at any given time either.

I'll remove 'Mirage' and 'Tango' from the equation, because of Lindsey's involvement... but look at 'Behind The Mask' and 'Time.'
Granted, I know you have no love lost for either of those albums, but neither of them sound exactly like the kind of music that was selling the most albums in 1990 and 1995.

Certainly they weren't entirely out of touch with the time period (Lindsey's solo stuff never is, either), but they weren't duplicates of the Top 40, top-selling music that was out then either.

By the way, if you want to look at the term "selling out" in the strictest of terms, then it really isn't entirely unreasonable to say Lindsey sold out.
If he's absolutely, fundamentally against doing something, but then gives in to sell more albums, he has sold himself out.
The documentary clearly showed us that he was against releasing 'Say You Will' as a single album, but then feared it wouldn't sell enough for him to recoup his investment... so, he made the decision to release it as a single. Therefore he gave-in to sell more albums.
Which, if one chooses to look at it honestly, is "selling out."

I reiterate, I have no problem with Lindsey or anyone else in the band, wanting to sell as many copies of their albums as possible... but, again, it's exhibiting a bit of tunnel vision to claim Lindsey is above doing something to sell more albums. Even when it means compromising his original artistic vision.



Well Said.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

Fleetwood Mac sold out. Lindsey didn't. The proof is in the songs.


your words!

[Les]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Now, I'm not trying to paint her as a martyr, because certainly she stands to make a lot of money if an album does well... but I just want to point out that, as she expressed them in the documentary, her feelings on why a double-album might not have been the best idea, weren't entirely self-serving either.

Oh, JS, I've got some land in Florida... ;)

Just off work and off to find the reissues! Woohoo!

[teedee]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, do y'all think LB was talking about the number of songs or the production of the songs. I mean there really was no change other than the addition of La Nicks' vocals in the production of the final product from the original GOS stuff. So, no one really foreced him to comply with a more mainstream musical effort in that aspect, with the possible exception of the lyric change in Peacekeeper, which he said he did not mind. I wonder if LB views the "commercial" aspect he was talking about as just picking the more mainstream stuff from his GOS material?

He kind of goes into this when he says "I own the masters," etc. I guess he wanted to release almost his entire GOS body of work in a FM record so that it reached the widest possible audience. :cool:

exactly, he used the fleetwood mac avenue to have his songs reach a wider audience. which is fine with me.
so to say he wants to reach a wider audience but on his own terms, thats fine if its a solo cd and your record company backs you. but when you have 3 other artists in a "group" situation its still a group effort with input from the others , whether they are discussing double cds, or what ever. I dont think they were being stubborn for not agreeing with him at all.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Les
Oh, JS, I've got some land in Florida... ;)

Just off work and off to find the reissues! Woohoo!

:rolleyes:

Here we go again, when LB wants to have a double record he is 100% correct. Yet, when Stevie who for all we know also wanted a double record sees the handwriting on the wall and decides to temper action with wisdom, she is not to be believed - your bias is showing :laugh:

:cool:

[Les]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:rolleyes: Here we go again, when LB wants to have a double record he is 100% correct. Yet, when Stevie who for all we know also wanted a double record sees the handwriting on the wall and decides to temper action with wisdom, she is not to be believed - your bias is showing :laugh::cool:

Huh? Nowhere in my discussion of any of this do I say Lindsey is 100% correct for anything. He had a point of view. He argued for it. She had hers, and she argued for it. However, I don't find the "supporting the family" argument any more convincing from her than I do anyone else. It was a rationalization from each of them when trying to deal with not quite getting what they really wanted.

I was teasing JS. That's all. ;)

[teedee]

Originally posted by Les
But I think you're putting words into his mouth. Why does arguing for a double album, which would admittedly sell less, mean he's not admitting to
liking his lifestyle? Why does making money from his work mean he has to shut up about his ideas?

His ideas (along with the ideas of everyone else) have been a big part of making the band what it is. Lindsey personally plays a big part in what has made this band a critical darling, which has, in my mind, helped greatly in making their longevity possible. That's not a jab at anyone else in the band who have also earned praise through the years. It's just a comment on the basic fact that for many years Lindsey was most singled out by critics for praise. To me, that did nothing but help the band. So why the urge to stop him from making the same such arguments and arguing for similar artistic directions now?



You seem to be starting from a place that says that what Stevie wants is what is best for the band, while what Lindsey wants isn't best for the band. I don't think that's true. I think they just look at different factors. Lindsey's argument was for something that he thought was a larger "statement" because he thought that would make for a better album. And yes, it was, as he admitted several times, also self-serving in that it would allow him to get more of his material out. Stevie's and Mick's arguments that a double album wouldn't sell well is a valid point, especially if you're looking at sales as a determining factor of what indicates a good album.






"It was also a self-serving argument for them to make sure they made more money than they thought they'd make if they followed Lindsey's path. I'm not trying to say that sales is the only thing that is important to either of them or that sales are never important to Lindsey. But his making an argument for an album that aspires to be something different than just one that will sell most easily isn't wrong for the band. At least I don't think so. [/B]

THis is their lively-hood, i dont think its wrong for the band to go in the path thats going to make them the most money and i dont think thats selling out. to say its the band being self serving, well, its their band, its their product, not just lindseys. like i said before, if lindsey was working on a solo cd and he really felt he didnt care how little it sold , then thats ok because its his solo cd and his record company backs him up. but this was fm's cd.

[Les]

And Lindsey is part of FM. He argued for what he thought was important for an FM album. Just like the others did.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Again, that the results are good or aren't good, is just a matter of opinion.


Come on, man, even a lot of the diehard fans admit that was her low point. Even Cliffdweller admits it. She was uninspired. The drugs messed her up. She could barely write a song by herself.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by teedee
your words!

Really? You're getting more perceptive.

[teedee]

Originally posted by Les
And Lindsey is part of FM. He argued for what he thought was important for an FM album. Just like the others did.


they are all allowed there input, im not say ing that he isnt. what i feel the difference is here is, he didnt care if the cd only sold 300,000 and it lost money, i mean if the other 3 disagree with that , i can certainly understand why. i mean if thats his logic, why do it in the first place as a fm cd, he should o f made it a solo, and if he was really not bothered by losing money then he wouldnt of had nothing to lose (lol except the money).
but in the end of the doc his own words bit him in the but, cause he said i have a family to raise and a house to pay for , so i guess the money does matter in some ways.

[Les]

they are all allowed there input, im not say ing that he isnt. what i feel the difference is here is, he didnt care if the cd only sold 300,000 and it lost money, i mean if the other 3 disagree with that , i can certainly understand why.

I can understand why too.

My general point is this -- I don't think having a minority opinion on a matter is tantamount to being automatically wrong, nor is it an indication that you shouldn't argue for your point of view. In the course of arguing you're either going to convince people to come over to your way of thinking or you're not.

They eventually reached a group decision they all seem to have been able to swallow and live with even if it was hard getting there. Hard isn't bad either.

[teedee]

Originally posted by Les
I can understand why too.

My general point is this -- I don't think having a minority opinion on a matter is tantamount to being automatically wrong, nor is it an indication that you shouldn't argue for your point of view. In the course of arguing you're either going to convince people to come over to your way of thinking or you're not.

They eventually reached a group decision they all seem to have been able to swallow and live with even if it was hard getting there. Hard isn't bad either.

i agree with your post here. but ppl here have to apply that theory with stevies opinions as well. when stevies disagrees its because she has her own opinions , but ppl here call her, greedy , stubborn, doesnt want to give in to her ex, etc,,, just because she disagrees with lindsey. and thats not true. i think she is very fair and level headed and willing to compromise in a group effort, but just cause linds didnt get his way this time, doesnt mean stevie is not willing to compromise too, just cause she felt differently about the situation.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Come on, man, even a lot of the diehard fans admit that was her low point. Even Cliffdweller admits it. She was uninspired. The drugs messed her up. She could barely write a song by herself.



we all know about the drugs , its true, we are not denying that. but its still a matter of opinion. some say SA was her worst cd, it may have sold the least, i dont know, but i happen to really like that cd. im sure lots of people would disagree with me here, its their opinion, and i respect that, but im sure some would agree too, and even if no one did agree with me, its not going to change how i feel about it, i was never one to just say oh i hate that or i love , just because other people or critics or djs say something isnt good or its the best.

[sodascouts]

OK, this is a little tangential, but I was just watching the doc for about the 20th time and it sounds like Lindsey fully intends to release a solo album when he says he'll pull his masters. Do you guys think another solo album is still a possibility?

And here's something else that I've been thinking about. Let's say FM took his most accessible stuf and left him with the "marginalized." He could still release them solo, right? Or - is the problem that a solo CD of just "marginalized" material isn't going to sell well; therefore, he'd want to pull OUT the masters of the "commercial" stuff to put on his own album instead of FMs?

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
OK, this is a little tangential, but I was just watching the doc for about the 20th time and it sounds like Lindsey fully intends to release a solo album when he says he'll pull his masters. Do you guys think another solo album is still a possibility?

If he gets off his ass and actually takes matters into his own hands to get the material out there. But, as of now, he's too busy touring and raking in the dough. I'm sure that on the road he's of the mindset "If it ain't broke..." After this tour, he'll have probably made tens of millions, so he'll have plenty of resources to release an album on his own label; it's not like it's extravagantly expensive to do.

[Cammie]

:wavey: Hi -Nancy, wouldn't that be just wonderful?
When Lindsey threatened to pull his tunes we
thought...Why don't you do that? We so want
a Lindsey Solo Work with All Our Hearts!!!Sky:laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Les
Huh? Nowhere in my discussion of any of this do I say Lindsey is 100% correct for anything. He had a point of view. He argued for it. She had hers, and she argued for it. However, I don't find the "supporting the family" argument any more convincing from her than I do anyone else. It was a rationalization from each of them when trying to deal with not quite getting what they really wanted.I think the catch is in the implication that Lindsey arguing for a double-album, can't possibly be a selfish thing... but Stevie arguing to release a single album, can't possibly not be a selfish thing. She might claim to have a selfless reason, but it's not to be believed or trusted.

I think it was that implication that Jason was speaking of. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Come on, man, even a lot of the diehard fans admit that was her low point. Even Cliffdweller admits it. She was uninspired. The drugs messed her up. She could barely write a song by herself. I'm not saying that every single thing she did during that time-period, or any, is absolutely golden... but I think people overlook a good amount of great songs, by writing off that entire era as "uninspired," or whatever.
She might not have been at her absolute best, but even then she was writing far better songs than most.

And it may not seem that way by some of the people who post around here, but there are a good many people who quite enjoy the songs she released during that time-frame... I've talked to quite a few of them.
My experience has been that the "naysayers" are just more adamant about voicing their opinion.

[GardenStateGirlie]

...why does this always have to turn into some melodramatic Lindsey VS Stevie thing? ALWAYS. Tired and old. Seriously. And before someone chimes in and says I don't need to read the thread and could ignore it, I know. However, It's now crossed into each section of the message board whether it be Rumours (where it's featured in multiple threads), Stevie, or Lindsey and it's always the same long winded diatribes.

[Les]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think the catch is in the implication that Lindsey arguing for a double-album, can't possibly be a selfish thing... but Stevie arguing to release a single album, can't possibly not be a selfish thing. She might claim to have a selfless reason, but it's not to be believed or trusted.

If you think I've been saying Lindsey was totally right and never self-serving, and the rest of them were totally wrong and only self-serving, well, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think I've said that at all. I don't believe any of them arguing for their point of view is wrong, no matter how passionate or weak that argument seems at different points.

And, yeah, lol, if I haven't mentioned it before, I kind of identify with Lindsey's role a bit more strongly than some of the others in the band. How 'bout that? :laugh: It doesn't really matter to me if he would seem like a "better person" if he'd back down more quickly. If I generally identify with the principle of his argument, and disagree with the idea that he's wrong because he's in a minority, that's what I'll say. None of that means I think anyone else was wrong for arguing against him.

PS - I find the "supporting the family" argument silly from anyone in the band. Whether it was sweet and selfless and endlessly wonderful of Stevie to say it, it doesn't ring terribly true to me. It rings like a rationalization. Maybe it's a selfless rationalization? ;) Sorry.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Les
LOL! Yeah, if I haven't mentioned it before, I kind of identify with Lindsey's role a bit more strongly than some of the others in the band. How 'bout that? Hehe. :wavey:

I still find the "supporting the family" argument silly from anyone in the band. Whether it was sweet and selfless and endlessly wonderful of Stevie to say it, I find it silly, because I don't believe it. What can I say?

If you think I've been saying Lindsey was totally right and never self-serving, and the rest of them were wrong and only self-serving, well, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think I've said that at all. I don't believe any of them arguing for their point of view is wrong, no matter how passionate or weak that argument seems at different points. That's just me. I don't think that's what you've been saying... I just wanted to point out that I think it's just an eensy bit unfair to automatically assume that Stevie can't possibly be speaking honestly when expressing her worries about her bandmates and their families.

I admit I thought it was somewhat selfish of Lindsey to insist on pushing the rest of the band into doing this his way, with seemingly little regard for the needs of anyone other than himself... but I'd much rather give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he had nothing but the purest of intentions and motivations. Trusting him at his word, and all of that.

But maybe it's because even though I'm obviously more of a Stevie fan, I am still a Lindsey fan, too.
And, beyond that, a Fleetwood Mac fan. :)

[Les]

LOL, sorry I didn't like the way my original post flowed, so I changed it, thus sort of mucking up the reply. :D

I don't think that's what you've been saying... I just wanted to point out that I think it's just an eensy bit unfair to automatically assume that Stevie can't possibly be speaking honestly when expressing her worries about her bandmates and their families.

Really, JS, it's got nothing to do with doubting that Stevie's a nice person with concerns for her bandmates.

... but I'd much rather give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he had nothing but the purest of intentions and motivations. Trusting him at his word, and all of that.

I guess I hadn't actually seen you say anything but the opposite of all of that, so...I thought I'd argue the other side of it.

But maybe it's because even though I'm obviously more of a Stevie fan, I am still a Lindsey fan, too. And, beyond that, a Fleetwood Mac fan.

I'm obviously more of a Lindsey fan, which is a symptom of generally being more drawn to his perspective and his music. Doesn't mean I'm not also a fan of all. Just so you know. ;)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Les


PS - I find the "supporting the family" argument silly from anyone in the band. Whether it was sweet and selfless and endlessly wonderful of Stevie to say it, it doesn't ring terribly true to me. It rings like a rationalization. Maybe it's a selfless rationalization? ;) Sorry.

Well, I have to agree, Stevie's comment sounded kind of lame to me, too. But I don't think she was being insincere. I do think she was wanting to look understanding and unselfish, though. Only natural. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Les
I guess I hadn't actually seen you say anything but the opposite of all of that, so...I thought I'd argue the other side of it.

I'm obviously more of a Lindsey fan, which is a symptom of generally being more drawn to his perspective and his music. Doesn't mean I'm not also a fan of all. Just so you know. ;) That's the downside of these debates... a lot of times only one side of how you see something, comes across.

Well, at least in my case, because I'm the type of person who tends to look at most every situation from a dozen different angles... so the opinion I'm debating is often but one of many ways I view it.

So, I see Lindsey's point of view... I see Stevie's point of view... and I see Mick's.
But in this particular thread, Mick & Stevie were being bashed for having an opinion other than Lindsey's, so I was arguing their side of it, and the viewpoint that Lindsey isn't inherently above certain things, just because he tends to be painted in those terms, or that he was the victim of mean ol' Stevie and her little lackey, Mick. ;)

[Les]

Funny, and I've been responding to posts (albeit spread over a few threads) that Lindsey's talented, but otherwise a false and pointlessly trouble-making ass, with no actual principles, trying to ruin an album. The love, it's all around us. Hehe.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by teedee
we all know about the drugs , its true, we are not denying that. but its still a matter of opinion. some say SA was her worst cd, it may have sold the least, i dont know, but i happen to really like that cd. im sure lots of people would disagree with me here, its their opinion, and i respect that, but im sure some would agree too, and even if no one did agree with me, its not going to change how i feel about it, i was never one to just say oh i hate that or i love , just because other people or critics or djs say something isnt good or its the best.

I thought I might let you know I've stopped reading your replies in case you want to spare yourself the effort of replying to me. I find that the way you post, without any discernible punctuation and weird word breaks, drives me to distraction.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think the catch is in the implication that Lindsey arguing for a double-album, can't possibly be a selfish thing... but Stevie arguing to release a single album, can't possibly not be a selfish thing.

Often perception takes on a life of its own until it becomes de facto reality. So I want to disavow you of any notion that I thought Stevie was being selfish, or more selfish than Lindsey. My problem with the double album issue was the way Mick handled it. I felt a lot of sympathy for Lindsey, who was in a situation in which he had a lot of songs to put out and saw that channel narrowing. He was having a very human reaction, and I believe he's gotten too much flak around here for being just human.

As for the Stevie v. Lindsey issue in this case, my position has been that she was far more interested in what was commercial than he was. I know there have been some arguments about that, but all you have do is watch the document to draw that conclusion.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Les
PS - I find the "supporting the family" argument silly from anyone in the band. Whether it was sweet and selfless and endlessly wonderful of Stevie to say it, it doesn't ring terribly true to me. It rings like a rationalization. Maybe it's a selfless rationalization? ;) Sorry.

Well, I really haven't wanted to touch that one. But it struck me as rather cynical. I'll leave it at that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Les
Huh? Nowhere in my discussion of any of this do I say Lindsey is 100% correct for anything. He had a point of view. He argued for it. She had hers, and she argued for it. However, I don't find the "supporting the family" argument any more convincing from her than I do anyone else. It was a rationalization from each of them when trying to deal with not quite getting what they really wanted.

I was teasing JS. That's all. ;)

I know - I was, albeit in a lame manner, teasing you as well :laugh: :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
OK, this is a little tangential, but I was just watching the doc for about the 20th time and it sounds like Lindsey fully intends to release a solo album when he says he'll pull his masters. Do you guys think another solo album is still a possibility?

And here's something else that I've been thinking about. Let's say FM took his most accessible stuf and left him with the "marginalized." He could still release them solo, right? Or - is the problem that a solo CD of just "marginalized" material isn't going to sell well; therefore, he'd want to pull OUT the masters of the "commercial" stuff to put on his own album instead of FMs?

20 times eh - you have it as bad as I do :laugh:

I think LB may indeed release a solo record, but with 10 songs on SYW I am unsure how many completed songs he has left. If he has to go back into the studio to make four or so more, well, that could take four years bless his creative genius heart!!!! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
. . . My problem with the double album issue was the way Mick handled it. I felt a lot of sympathy for Lindsey, who was in a situation in which he had a lot of songs to put out and saw that channel narrowing. He was having a very human reaction, and I believe he's gotten too much flak around here for being just human.

As for the Stevie v. Lindsey issue in this case, my position has been that she was far more interested in what was commercial than he was. I know there have been some arguments about that, but all you have do is watch the document to draw that conclusion.

I agree, I think LB for some reason believed Mick, although I cannot imagine why after all of these years :laugh:

I think in the end, FM released as close to a double record as they thought they could get away with. So, I do not think all were 100% against LB double record notion and instead solely for 12 songs only.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree, I think LB for some reason believed Mick, although I cannot imagine why after all of these years :laugh:

I think in the end, FM released as close to a double record as they thought they could get away with. So, I do not think all were 100% against LB double record notion and instead solely for 12 songs only.

Did you notice Mick implied that he had not really committed, saying something like "I'd told him that if it worked, we'd do it" - forget exact words now.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I thought I might let you know I've stopped reading your replies in case you want to spare yourself the effort of replying to me. I find that the way you post, without any discernible punctuation and weird word breaks, drives me to distraction.


That is quite ok with me! I will reply where i see fit. Whether it be to your posts or someone elses. But trust me when I say, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a response from you, I never have. You do what it comfortable for you, as will I.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Did you notice Mick implied that he had not really committed, saying something like "I'd told him that if it worked, we'd do it" - forget exact words now.

I know - I was like SPIN SPIN SPIN :laugh: I think it says alot of good things about LB that he did not walk at that point.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think it says alot of good things about LB that he did not walk at that point.

:eek: You're coming around to our side!?

Oh, come to think of it, you're already on our side. After all, you like Lindsey's songs better than Stevie's on SWY.

I knew you were a good man... ;)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know - I was like SPIN SPIN SPIN :laugh: I think it says alot of good things about LB that he did not walk at that point.

Do you think it might have been somewhat true, though? Lindsey said at one point, "We've kind of side-stepped the issue."

[strandinthewind]

:laugh:

I admit I do prefer in general LB's songs to Stevie's songs on SYW. Although if La Nicks had taken nine of her best fromt he last 10 years, the situation might be different (You didn't think I was not going to spin that did ya!!! :laugh: ).

Seriously, I love LB and his body of work.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Do you think it might have been somewhat true, though? Lindsey said at one point, "We've kind of side-stepped the issue."

What might have been somewhat true (I am in a food coma after a large lunch and am not thinking clearly :laugh: )

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What might have been somewhat true (I am in a food coma after a large lunch and am not thinking clearly :laugh: )

That Mick had been wishy-washy with Lindsey from the get-go, parsing his words so that he APPEARED to be behind the double album, but leaving himself an out?

[CarneVaca]

Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

Me too - I mean MF had not worked in any lucrative way since The Dance. That is a long time when you spend like people say he does. I think LB may have always known the option was there to release only 12 songs, but I think he thought the band might go for releasing more. Who knows what really went down, but I think the compromise of 20 songs (18 + 2) shows this group of strong willed people can work together better as opposed to 15 years ago.

P.S. Thanks Nancy for clarifying!!!

[wildangel]

I agree Stevie does rule:wavey: :cool: :nod: :laugh:

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

No question. but I also think mick was very convinced it was going to be a double album for a long time.

until the dollar-argument came from his management.

[4Buck]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Mick told Lindsey what Lindsey wanted to hear so Lindsey would go back in the studio with Fleetwood Mac. No doubt in my mind.

Originally posted by shackin'up
No question. but I also think mick was very convinced it was going to be a double album for a long time.

until the dollar-argument came from his management.

>>I agree, totally.>>>

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by 4Buck
>>I agree, totally.>>>

O.

I'm sorry.

[cliffdweller]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
:eek: You're coming around to our side!?

Oh, come to think of it, you're already on our side. After all, you like Lindsey's songs better than Stevie's on SWY.

I knew you were a good man... ;)

Why do we have to pick sides anyway? Just because we may criticize Lindsey or Stevie sometimes doesn't mean we're against them. They're not perfect people, they make mistakes from time to time, they're human.

[face of glass]

Ok, I finally found the time to write something to this. Not that anyone cares about this right now but what the heck.

Necessary disclaimers first; this is what I think of commercialism in music.

The word “commercial” was used during the ‘50s and ‘60s but eventually came into heavy use in the ‘70s school of rock criticism, most likely because of the onslaught of bubblegum pop. In USA this meant Dave Marsh, Robert Christgau, Greil Marcus, etc. Those guys basically derided anything that was on the charts, unless it fit their conception of “authenticity”. Yet they failed to explain why they thought that The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, etc, were authentic even though those were the biggest selling artists of the ‘60s. Consequently I believe it had something to do with the disintegration of the hippie culture which led into the rock music scene breaking into several subcultures. Very few people were willing to give all of these divergent styles a proper chance. At least those three guys mentioned above didn’t.

I’ve never thought being commercial is a bad thing. It can be a very good thing. But that’s only if you try to steer away from banalities and try to do something else every once in a while. Experiment with sounds or be sincere, those are the usual two routes (and some manage to follow both of them). But do not lose the listener in the middle of all of this.

In addition, I don’t think the commercial value of something, whether it can be measured that something is more commercial than something else or not, can be measured through charts or radio play. There’s always luck/fortune/alignment of stars/”time bomb of human incompetence” that might interfere with any particular piece of work, no matter how appealing (or appalling, if you’re speaking of the charts of today ;)).

Accessibility, as CarneVaca put it, is a more comfortable word to be used with Lindsey (and Stevie) but I certainly would sometimes associate the two with each other, except that “commercialism” seems to have a negative slant to it, thanks to those neo-Marxist critics.

The best artists for me aren’t necessarily the ones who innovate; they’re the ones who make these innovations appealing so that the achievements do not come off as totally alienating.

I think Lindsey Buckingham is one of the best in straddling the fence between the artistic and the audience-pleasing/commercial/mainstream/accessible. He has tracks that are closer to the former, he has tracks that are closer to the latter but he also has, as Johnny Stew said, several that are right in the middle of the two extremes.

Now I’ve never thought that Lindsey has specifically needed someone to kick him in the head so that he could keep the balance between the extremes, not even with his solo albums. I do think he needs a pair of outside ears for the recordings, just like he stated that smoking pot can make you hear a piece of work from a totally different angle. ;) We all know Richard Dashut provided just that for Lindsey (the outside ears, not the drugs. Not always!). But that’s all. And Stevie hasn’t been in that role, unless we’re discussing the double album matter.

Ok. That’s done. I’ll try to answer some individual comments here and then make my grand pretentious statement after them.

First of all I believe that Lindsey had all the rights to push for a double album. The man hadn’t seen his latest music released for ten years except for a few separate songs here and there; “On The Wrong Side”, “Bleed To Love Her” and “My Little Demon”. And this was due to Warners’ disinterest in the solo artist Lindsey Buckingham. They obviously haven’t been interested in him other than as a part of Fleetwood Mac for a long time. That’s why I can understand Lindsey being so insistent on the double cd; it was obviously a very emotional and important thing to him. They could have put out the 23 songs and thus it would have been even closer to “Lindsey Buckingham solo/Stevie Nicks produced by Lindsey Buckingham”, it wouldn’t have changed a thing in the overall shape of the album.

I do realize that because of the “marketplace reality” it was a naive idea in the end but that’s what I think Lindsey is like; he doesn’t mind the business side too much in these things, he just wants as much music out as possible. In that way he can definitely be a hippie relic. ;)

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, if LB really wanted to be the maverick he clearly wants to be and often whines (bless his heart I love him but he sure can whine :laugh:) about, he would have been one. But something in him won't let him. Personally, I think he learned his lesson with the brilliant but commerical flop OOTC - he has said that record and tour lost him a personal fortune.

I’ve never believed he’s tried to follow the path of total inaccessibility. It isn’t his thing. He loves the Beach Boys and he loves the Clash. Many see the former as commercial and the latter as more credible. I think the two bands have been experimental and commercial throughout their career, most often combining the two (listen to Pet Sounds, Smile, Love You, London Calling or Sandinista!). That’s the area Lindsey is coming from.

The Beach Boys and The Clash operated within traditional song structures. So does Lindsey. He reuses the same chord progressions and he has never felt the need to abandon them. If he wanted to do that he wouldn’t necessarily be on a major label, I agree with that.

Within Fleetwood Mac, as Les pointed out, he is the maverick. Will be debated further below.

I also find weird that you’re speaking of OOTC in that paragraph of yours. If anything, that album is seen by many as his most mainstream work up to that point. There is more “traditional-sounding” material than usual on that album because SN and CM aren’t there to give Buckingham’s left-field impulses the proper balance and he needed to provide it himself. It’s hard to see how he would have learnt his lesson from its failure when he operated within the same principle with GOS.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
If he wasn't at all concerned with being commercially viable, and with selling albums, then he'd be off on some tiny indie label somewhere.

If you’re speaking of labels that release underground music, I believe no one there would even be interested in him because of his association with Fleetwood Mac.

He hasn't taken any radical left-turns like Bowie has…

I don’t think David Bowie has been taking any radical left-turns during his career, even though he may be known as “the chameleon”.

Bowie, even during his “most cutting-edge” period of 1970-80, was essentially a populist/popularizer; after that he has interpreted the values of the mainstream for his own use (Let’s Dance = Chic, Outside = Nine Inch Nails, Earthling = Goldie). Everything he has done can be traced to an earlier innovation. The Man Who Sold The World follows the pattern of Led Zeppelin et al., Hunky Dory fits into the early ‘70s singer-songwriter mould, Ziggy Stardust jumps on the glam bandwagon as inspired by Marc Bolan, Young Americans is an attempt at white boy soul, Station To Station is an attempt at white boy funk and even his most “experimental” work, namely Low and Heroes, lean on the innovations that Brian Eno had introduced with No Pussyfooting in 1973 and heavily worked on after that.
He was never without significant help from musicians. Ziggy wouldn’t have existed without Mick Ronson, Station To Station needed a great band, Low and Heroes had Brian Eno’s contributions all over them. et cetera, et cetera.
His changes haven’t been surprising to me anyway. Even when he switched from glam to soul he made a transitional album in between (Diamond Dogs) that had elements of both. Likewise I think that the hits of Low and Heroes, “Sound And Vision” and “Beauty And The Beast” are both derivative of the material on Station To Station.

I may put Bowie in the same eccentric bag of musicians as Lindsey but DB’s never had the gall to make his albums truly diverse. There’s the Bowieish way of writing songs that never really changes, and neither do his vocals. He may be diverse when his career is viewed as a whole but inside one particular album he is not. For me it takes guts to have true diversity; that’s far braver than following the changing of the sound ideals.

I also think that with Tusk Lindsey was far braver than Bowie has ever been. Bowie was considered “an artist” from the outset, he never appealed just to the largest masses, he always received great critical acclaim during his golden period.
Lindsey Buckingham wasn’t considered “an artist” before Tusk, he was considered a mainstream hit merchant. So when that change came it surprised many. He didn’t have to change his way of writing songs, he just changed the way he recorded and arranged them. That was enough. The atmospheres of Tusk were largely unrelated to the ones Fleetwood Mac had been having before.

…and he hasn't turned his back on major labels like many other artists have.

He could do it if he was truly disappointed in the Warner Brothers. It doesn’t seem like he is though, or maybe he is but he doesn’t still have any problems with working inside the machinery. Will be discussed in the second post.

Right now I’ll just say that even The Clash, despite their rebellious anti-music industry image, were on CBS for their most experimental albums. Even those guys were interested in selling some records.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
You make some compromises... you give the record company a few of the kinds of songs they want, and then you can fill the rest of the album with the songs you want (and is it really that difficult to give the record company two or three radio-friendly songs, when that still leaves you with room for nine or ten of the songs you'd prefer?).

Warner Brothers may have seen Gift Of Screws as unappealing but it is also interesting as of how they never released it even though there were at least five appealing songs that could have appeared as singles. “Bleed To Love Her”, “Deep Dense”, “Down On Rodeo”, “Steal Your Heart Away” and “Twist Of Fate” should not be too inaccessible to anyone. I daresay they’re the closest to the stereotypical image of FM that the public has, without appearing as banal or totally non-intrusive (except for “SYHA”, and that’s just me talkin’). It just goes to show that the label was far more interested in a Fleetwood Mac album.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
IMO, ISA fits squarely with the late 60's and early to mid 70's guitar crunching bands like Led Zeppelin, Foghat, Black Sabbath, etc. Although these bands all had their own distinct sounds, they all had these long guitar oriented songs similar to ISA.

I’m not completely going to deny that. But even then Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath didn’t have any chart hits in that vein, even Sabbath’s “Paranoid” appears to me as a compromise between the heavy guitar tone and the major-mode, bubblegum-pop melody. They were mainly album bands. Granted, they did build their legacy out of songs like that but that material certainly wasn’t hit-single oriented.

For me “I’m So Afraid” doesn’t just take something from Zeppelin and Sabbath, it builds a bridge between them and the oncoming punk/new wave generation. There’s none of Ozzy Osbourne’s self-conscious pseudo-satanistic swagger or Robert Plant’s unintentional over-the-top cock-rockish self-preening (self-self-self, that’s what I’m all about too). There’s an inherent depression at the heart of “ISA”, wrapping around oneself totally. It’s depression turned inwards, a person who is willing to see himself dead rather than just toying with the imagery of death (like Ozzy/Geezer Butler did).
The music side of “I’m So Afraid” is very relative to post-punkers like Joy Division. Mick and John play things there that Peter Hook and Stephen Morris would play later on (but more amateurishly, of course). And I think the only person who has even wanted to get close to Lindsey’s obsessive weaving on the fretboard is Bernard Sumner in Joy Division’s “Shadowplay”.

(Sure, the lyrics are less subtle than whatever Ian Curtis would sing but they ain’t any less sincere or heartfelt to me).

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Thus, the term commercial. I do not for minute think it takes away from the merit of the music. But, LB seemingly does in that HE uses the term commercial in a seemingly negative way.

IMO, he uses it in relation to the band and himself sometimes being willing to play along with the public perception of FM’s music. The soft-rock sound, that is.

Originally posted by sodascouts
…(those Clash-types). (My thoughts on Lindsey's misguided need for the approval of these types is a whole 'nother issue!)

I don’t believe his willingness to be approved by those types is misguided. If you and your friends don’t appreciate The Clash then it’s your problem. Lindsey isn’t any less deserving of your attention than he is of other people with different tastes in music and different lifestyles.

There is nothing wrong with either of those despite the perjorative labelling of the latter as "selling out" or compromising oneself by SO MANY people - even some of his staunchest defenders, who seem embarrassed to admit to liking anything on Rumours better than anything on Tusk.

I will never belittle the music of Rumours but I will always spit on its sales which were totally ridiculous and unhealthy when compared to any other Fleetwood Mac album. I just don’t think that LB’s work outside of Rumours is a hair worse than those three songs that are considered his apex. It’s an over-simplified and far too popular a conception that needs to be shattered.

Originally posted by cliffdweller
He usually ends up caving in the end on most issues (because he realizes, if it's a band effort there must be compromise) so he's not quite the rebel he makes himself out to be after all.

This isn’t accurate for me. Do you think there are not compromises between the experimental and the commercial on his solo albums? He doesn’t need the rest of the band to be able to compromise on most matters. He’s a questioner, I’m sure he questions himself, some of his thoughts and his approach to music more than other people question them.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
…look at 'Behind The Mask' and 'Time.'
Granted, I know you have no love lost for either of those albums, but neither of them sound exactly like the kind of music that was selling the most albums in 1990 and 1995.

BTM and Time are the closest this band has ever gotten to the soft-rock image that they have in the minds of the many.
There is very little unusual or intrusive on these albums overall. You can make a case for “In The Back Of My Mind” or “These Strange Times” ;) but otherwise there is none of Buckingham’s eclectic diversity and musical schizophrenia.
Even though I think the albums are good my belief is that they wouldn’t change anyone’s perception of FM when listened to as a neophyte. They wouldn’t pull in any of the underground elitist crowd even if those were suddenly given a chance to listen to the albums in fair conditions and they wouldn’t really pull in any of the rootsier crowd either, despite the presence of two such members, because of the compromises involved.

I’ve listened to some of Billy Burnette’s solo albums. The only album of those I truly like, the only one that can’t be used as inoffensive background filler is his self-titled one from 1980. That one kicks my butt and makes me appreciate him as a musician but his other stuff, even within Fleetwood Mac, doesn’t. I understand he isn’t the [only] one responsible of the experiments in “ITBOMM” anyway. Yes, I fail to hear the subtlety in his songwriting. But I don’t call him a no-good, lousy hack because of that, like some have done. And contrary to some people’s opinions, I do think he got to do what he wanted in the band.

Rick Vito gets run over by a steam-roller in terms of his own songs even though he made compromises and didn’t push his blues-oriented material on the album. He wrote two sophisticated pop songs, “Got No Home” and “Intuition”, that didn’t get on BTM because they obviously weren’t what FM wanted which is simply ridiculous when they wanted “Stand On The Rock”, an overblown, tasteless nod to the ‘80s.

That’s how those records turned out to be because there was no one to kick the members’ rear ends and to tell them that they do not need to make the records totally bound to the common conception of FM since 1975. Rick Vito could have led the band into a very blues-bound direction but there was no will to go there; the band wanted to cling on to the public perceptions that had been strengthened by TITN. Look out below.

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean there really was no change other than the addition of La Nicks' vocals in the production of the final product from the original GOS stuff.

Which is another case of Warners being interested in Lindsey Buckingham material only if it is done within the context of FM. Stevie doesn’t add a thing to those songs for me and I think that’s because Lindsey didn’t have her in mind when he first formulated them.

…with the possible exception of the lyric change in Peacekeeper, which he said he did not mind.

Someone pointed out on the Legboard that the line “break their will” is actually far crueler than “only kill”. “Only kill” suggests a fast, honourable death. “Break their will” suggests long torture, both mental and physical. It’s another case of LB laughing secretly into his sleeve after supposedly following the company demands.

Originally posted by cliffdweller

I also realize that Lindsey has never been in any way shape or form an avante garde artist and I don't mean to hold him up to those standards nor would I want him to be that. Fleetwood Mac is a mainstream pop/rock group, something Lindsey knew when he joined and actually helped to maintain throughout the years, albeit somewhat grudgingly.

Lindsey Buckingham has done much more than has been expected of him.

The man was pidgeonholed with the success of Rumours and was expected by everyone to follow the formula. He didn’t, and in that way, shape and form he is an avantgarde artist. He was the only man in America in the whole genre of classic/soft/hippie rock who reacted to punk rock genuinely. And that makes him avantgarde in that context, even though he was working inside the traditional song structures and rarely resorted to pure dissonance.

So when I say he "sold out" with Mirage and Tango, I don't mean he sold out as an avante garde or maverick artist. However, I do believe in his mind, he sold out some of the principles of the kind of music he wanted to make (he's admitted to that). And in the end, it was his decision to stay in the band. Noone was forcing him to remain tethered to Fleetwood Mac, it was always his choice if he wanted to stay or leave.

I daresay that I’ve never found Mirage quite the sellout that it seems to be for many Mac fans, in spite of Lindsey’s own statements of it.

Yes, Lindsey has more “generic” material there, material that’s more directly related to the ‘50s and early ‘60s than anything he’s ever done.

So what? Law And Order has obvious nods to the past too. How different is it to put that ‘40s approach to “Bwana”, make “Love From Here Love From There” sound like those old 78s, or cover “It Was I”, “September Song” and “A Satisfied Mind” when compared to doing an early Beatles pastiche (“Can’t Go Back”), writing ‘50s ballads in “Book Of Love” or “Oh Diane” or pulling out your old three chords for “Eyes Of The World”? There is no difference in my opinion. In spite of all of the hints at past his production still makes the songs totally skewed, perverted and mutilated when compared to their origins. “Holiday Road” and “Dancing Across The USA”, released in the following year, come from the same area. It isn’t something he necessarily resented doing. It’s a road he chose to follow himself for a while. He could have been forced to put the clear “Go Your Own Way” production to “Eyes Of The World” but he didn’t do it. He undermined its potential with the “cheaper” production (and its true rocker potential came out only live).

In the end, most of them are tributes to the past but there’s such a unique take to them that there’s not much, if any, nostalgia involved.

Not to mention that the two hit singles of the album, the public side of the band’s music, “Hold Me” and “Gypsy”, have HUGE Buckingham involvement.

As for Tango: I know some Lindsey fans claim that it’s closer to Tusk II than anything the band has put out. I do not agree with that really. You can make a case for his own songs but for the rest, no way. There are far less Buckingham quirks on “Isn’t It Midnight”, “Everywhere”, “Little Lies” and “Seven Wonders” than usual. They’re the ones that correspond to the soft-rock image the most and lay the ground for following up to that on BTM. There’s been reportage of the businessmen and lawyers interfering with the band decisions at this point and I believe some of them were carefully following the sessions; the outer forces obviously wanted this album to be Rumours II.

That is the main reason (IMO) for Lindsey’s departure, not just his psychological problems or his unwillingness to tour. He spoke of the band getting more generic in that point and I don’t believe he was just speaking of BTM and Time (I may agree with his criticism but I still like both albums).

Now I finally move on to my second post and my main points.

[face of glass]

Let’s deal with SN first, shall we? I’m not going to pit them against each other in any other way than musically. I think both have gotten over the supposed “battle of wills” (or, rather, battle for getting more public attention than the other) that was discussed at the BuckinghamNicks.net board a while ago and that’s good for them. But the differences in their music can be discussed and I still try to make clear that although I criticize Stevie’s music I still enjoy it a lot overall. In fact, I should go to the Stevie forum and start that “Docklands” appreciation thread where I will be the only poster. ;)

And I ain’t trying to win anything here. I was unwilling to participate into the thread for a while and now it’s just overflowing like in Atlantis.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think Stevie, for instance, has proven time and time again that, while remaining mindful of the fact that she needs to sell albums in order to be able to make more albums, she also has artistic integrity.
You can make commercially appealing albums, while also staying true to your artistic impulses... but it involves compromises.

I concur. I think Stevie always writes from the heart, I’ve never thought she ever tries to calculate anything she writes in advance. I think even “Say You Will” wasn’t done in order to create something specific. The problem emerges when she puts her songs into the hands of the mainstream producers.
That is when she sacrifices some of the unique performance aspects of the demos.

With her solo albums she’d be much better off if she just teamed up with a small, REAL band and let the musicians work on the songs without the studio polish. Then it would be a vital alternative to what Lindsey and Fleetwood Mac do to her, at least it wouldn’t feel secondary.

As you know Johnny I think the soundscapes of her solo albums are too much dictated by the mainstream. Of course it doesn’t matter too much what I think.

You also know how I don’t see RAL as experimental and how after that one I think her records eventually bowed entirely down to that soft-rock ideal. I don’t have huge problems with it but it’s obvious to me how she and the businesspersons have eventually decided that it’s the best road for her to take.

No, it’s not necessary for her to go nuts vocally anymore, I think she does the best she can in that area with her voice these days. “Running Through The Garden”, “Everybody Finds Out”, “Fall From Grace” and even “Long Way To Go” are flawless vocal performances for me. It’s the overall atmosphere of the music that bothers me. TOSOTM, Street Angel and TISL can essentially be used as high quality background music if you disregard Stevie’s voice completely. Lindsey isn’t there to make his surprising shifts and turns.

At this point people might pull out the subtlety argument. “Stevie doesn’t need those sonic shifts in ‘Come’ and “Murrow”, she doesn’t need the weird disturbing stuff and ‘em quirks. She’s subtle and therefore she’s far more clever and mature than Lindsey”.

Granted, no one has ever used those exact words here. But I’m once again going to pull out my age-battered argument and say that in most cases only the fans are capable of hearing the subtlety. I hear a lot of subtlety in Lindsey’s work (even in the “commercial” material) and I also hear it in Stevie’s work. But I think it’s mainly because of my fandom, because I’ve listened to this material for a long time.

It’s basically about this: is a song ear-catching when you listen to it on the radio or is a song part of the inoffensive wallpaper that we surround ourselves with every day, because it takes time to hear the subtlety if the song is bound to what’s current. This goes to both Lindsey and Stevie, to “Soul Drifter” and “Blue Denim”, to “Peacekeeper” and “Say You Will”.

I’ve said it often; I think Stevie Nicks lost the freshness of her songwriting rapidly in early ‘80s and that was because she has never changed or tried to change her way of writing songs. When we had the first debate on this at Stevie’s board Johnny said that he is glad Stevie has never tried to change it or “improve” it with musical theory (and he used Madonna as an example of what can happen). And I do agree with that in a way; I do believe she has a unique artistic insight that could possibly even disappear if she was was to train herself further in certain ways.

So the only way to make her backing tracks truly stand out for me would be to diversify the atmospheres if she is going to keep on working within the format she’s been having for her solo career. It’s the usual music business tradition that Stevie is following, write the songs and have some professional players play their routine parts to that.

To me it is bothersome to see SN do this. Her songwriting lost the wider appeal it had; no one can pull off a cover of a late period Stevie Nicks song at this point because her appeal is now largely leaning on her voice, her delivery and her lyrics. It seems like other people responsible for the business side have realized this too.

[Once again, I’m not discussing the lyrics. I think she knows how to balance the esoteric (“Welcome To The Room… Sara”) and appealing (“Say You Will”) in that area.]

The singles that were the flagships of TOSOTM and Street Angel were always written with other people with Stevie most likely only adding her lyrics. TISL, the album when she was supposed to gain her inspiration back, had three songs from the ‘70s. Nothing wrong with that but it speaks volumes to me that even though they wrapped up recent Stevie Nicks songs into the contemporary production values, they still ended up choosing “rejects” like “POTU” and “Sorcerer” for the flagships, along with songs that others had written for Stevie (“Everyday”, “Rooms On Fire”, “Blue Denim”).

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Sure, Stevie wrote "Say You Will" in the hopes that it would have broad commercial appeal, and I still really don't see anything wrong with that.

The only broad commercial appeal in that one comes from the production (which I’m sure Stevie completely approved of anyway). I can imagine the demo being the usual Nicksian drone.

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that her material on 'Tango' is a lot less commercial than Lindsey's.

I’ve never thought the two songs are awful. But I think “WTTR…S” is ideologically probably one of her worst for me. It leans completely on the performance aspect and the lyrics are so Nicks-centred that I can’t believe anyone outside the fan community would take that close to his/her heart.

“WISYA” can raise feelings that are and are not related to the song itself, I know that. ;)

I do not see any experimentalism (like Gerald suggested) in these. It’s the same old tired bunch of chords. If there is experimentalism it’s obviously something that only diehard fans can detect. The easiest thing in this world is to grab an acoustic instrument, pick a few generic chord structures and try to be confessional. It takes skills to make that thing work. You need a song that could be appealing in another context and you need a moving delivery. Stevie only gives me the latter. (I still don’t blame Stevie entirely for the somewhat lacklustre results, Lindsey could have done more after all.) So when Stevie Nicks does work that is songwritingwise unappealing to non-fans and leans completely on the performance aspect (and has Lindsey’s production) she is “branching out” or “experimenting” or being “anti-commercial”. The biggest fans may think so, I don’t.

These are the closest she’s got to the “deep-reaching, impenetrable artistic sense” and that’s the attitude I personally hate. Thank God she’s never showed any of that in her interviews but the fact that some fans (not meaning Johnny Stew) hold these as her greatest masterpieces and bash songs like “SYW” is nothing but reflection of the mentality that “she’s too good to appeal to the masses”.

Again, it’s the same thing we discussed last year:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew a long, long time ago
Not to belittle "Landslide," but this is why I've often said I actually prefer "When I See You Again" to "Landslide."
Just about anyone can like "Landslide"... it's reflective without being too deep, and it's simple. "When I See You Again" is very esoteric with its stark, harrowing and confessional lyrics and vocal. It's not just a pretty little song that you can sing along with... and that's what struck me most about Stevie's writing when I started to become a fan.

To which I then replied:

The fact is that I'm more likely to respect a song that appeals to a larger audience than a song that seems to reflect only the writer's inner world, a world that is inaccessible everyone else but the writer and the fans. I personally think it's more difficult to do a song that reaches a wide audience than to write something that incomprehensible and esoteric. Not that I think "When I See You Again" is like that. But I still think it's "Landslide" pt. 2, without any particular freshness in it. Hey, it's easy to follow your artistic impulses, it's difficult to make your work appealing to other people without resorting to cheap stunts (both musical and non-musical).

Originally posted by cliffdweller
Illume is a great example of Stevie branching outside her tried and true formula and producing amazing music. IMO, she should experiment more in that type of vein

The only experiments in “Illume” come from Lindsey Buckingham’s screeching guitars and goofy vocals. I daresay that the obsessive delivery that Stevie has in that track (and is unlike anything she’s been attempting before) came about only when she did the final take. And I will hold that opinion until the demo is leaked.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Also, I happen to love the Billie Holiday quality of her voice during that time-period. I loved that vulnerable, world-weary rasp, and I actually really miss it.

*joins sighing and swooning* But it disappeared pretty fast, already on the TITN tour it was gone.

I was listening because I was thoroughly captivated and amazed by the depth of this woman's songs.

Depth is something that only the fans (or those with the potential) are capable of hearing.

Leaving the question: Why is it that Lindsey can do something offbeat and wholly artistic (and, therefore, potentially unappealing to the masses), but Stevie's not allowed to, lest she be criticized for not living up to what we expect from her?

Because Stevie Nicks doesn’t experiment in her songwriting; the form does not allow for stretching out anymore.
If there’s any experimentation on her songs, it comes from elsewhere than SN. Breaking the rules isn’t possible for someone who has limited grasp of music.

And it may not seem that way by some of the people who post around here, but there are a good many people who quite enjoy the songs she released during that time-frame... I've talked to quite a few of them.

Let me hear this again; there are actually non-fans who cite “Juliet”, “Doing The Best I Can”, “Affairs Of The Heart”, “Desert Angel”, “Street Angel”, “Love Is Like A River”, etc, the only songs she wrote on her own from those years as career highlights? Wow.

(I can understand them appreciating one or two and liking the songs she didn’t write [on her own] from those years.)

Lindsey Buckingham then. At last.

Like I’ve said before, I associate Lindsey Buckingham with British pop eccentrics like Roy Wood, David Bowie and Brian Eno, or even the American Todd Rundgren. People who work like those gentlemen do need not necessarily to innovate or to break totally new ground.

Originally posted by chiliD
I hold to the notion that Lindsey really isn't "cutting edge" or "groundbreaking"...he's just recycling ideas he's had for years, plus taking OLD ideas and presenting them in semi-new ways. Nothin' wrong with that, but the perception that he's so profoundly "ahead of his time" is, to me, misleading.

I think it is misleading as well. He hasn’t been innovative, he’s taken on particular influences and created his unique artistic path through all that. And I dislike it when someone says that “he’s too good for the common listener”, especially when I think that he hasn’t been trying to set himself on a high pedestal that only the select few can reach.

But I daresay that it hasn’t been necessary for him to innovate. Fleetwood Mac in its history has not been innovating too much; the original line-up didn’t start any revolution in approach but it may have influenced the contemporaries somewhat (you can hear “Oh Well” in Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog”, for instance).

And as some of you may know, I think that no one has really innovated in the history of rock and roll for the past 20-25 years; someone may come up with a pseudo-new thing or two every once in a while but even that can be difficult to get through to a bigger audience. We’re at such a point that a lot of what people do is quotation art or a bunch of post-modernistic, vague emotions. There are lots of more layers in the music of the recent years; ironic, knowing distance, intentional attempts at pastiches and so on. Not to mention that the music scene has fragmented to the point of absurdity. No more ‘60s naivety for us, the revolution is over.

The thing that Lindsey has done, along with Messrs. Wood, Bowie, Eno and Rundgren (and a few others, such as the Beatles when they were still together), is to take a lot of the influences from different kinds of music surrounding him and turning those into a highly idiosyncratic style. The man still speaks of being influenced by The Kingston Trio, his father’s old 78s, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, The Talking Heads, Laurie Anderson, Radiohead and Bach, even though the latter might something of a stretch. He’s not taking EVERYTHING available to him but he’s taking in a lot more than is required and letting all that influence him. That’s his biggest strength and I think he still has that attitude to this day.

Originally posted by chiliD
Take "Everybody Finds Out"...it has a fresh sound to it, in some ways, but the production fits better with the mid-80's mush of Tango In The Night.

For me it sounds closer to the hyperactive helium highs of the Associates’ Sulk (but then again, now it fits your 1982 theory!).

Early on, during my extreme loathing of "Come", somebody mentioned how "Zeppelin-ish" it sounded. After seeing them play it live, I had to agree...but, Zeppelin isn't "now" or "ahead of their time"...they're yesterday's news.

Songwriting-wise it is that but I think it has other levels to it too. It has all the math-rock creep of the 1973 King Crimson or 1991 Slint, play so quietly and in such a dimension of sound that when you switch to the loud point it will hit the listener damn hard. As it does. I don’t know if Lindsey listened to these two but I can imagine the disturbance of Radiohead’s OK Computer influencing the production of the verses.

Not to mention that I think the song is a parody, an intentional over-exaggeration of obsession and male bravado, especially when you look at the lyrics. I can’t imagine Robert Plant doing that one because I think he always took himself too seriously, even when he was asking for his lemon to be squeezed. ;)

Originally posted by CarneVaca
For instance, in 1992 I would hardly call "Soul Drifter" a commercial song. Is it accessible? Most certainly, as is all of "Out of the Cradle," at least to my ears.

I don't believe "Steal Your Heart Away" is terribly commercial, even though I have said that very thing in the past (lest someone picks up on an apparent contradiction).

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I totally think LB writes for commercial viability and did so on this record. Look at BTLH and SYHA - two classic commercial singles if I've ever hear a single. Plus, they are both brilliant IMO, even though he has said they are too commercial…

I think that while the production of “Soul Drifter”, “BTLH” and “SYHA” might be appealing to the people who Warner Brothers think is the main target group of Fleetwood Mac, I also think that Lindsey didn’t write them in order to appear commercial.

“Soul Drifter” I have always thought of being Frank Sinatra worthy, even LB himself said that it comes from the Tin Pan Alley mould of songwriting and that certainly wasn’t selling at all in 1992. “BTLH” comes from the same place, after all Lindsey said that the verses are ripped off from Dean Martin’s “Memories Are Made Of This”.

David said this once of “Steal Your Heart Away”:

Originally posted by David
I've always liked it because it has a bit of the Kingston Trio (generic folkies who played banjo well) vibe to it, & maybe even a little Beach Boys (the dipping little melody that accompanies "suddenly we hit the ground").

So I think they’re all respective, heartfelt tributes to Lindsey’s origins. And a part of his eccentric popmeister game.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
His music is essentially commercial, albeit quirky.

Consequently you have to ask yourself where these quirks come from.

My personal belief is that they come from the punk/new wave area. They’re not something that his background in “classic rock” would lead to.

Lindsey’s core songwriting may derive from the music he listened to when he was a lot younger but his production quirks come from the classic rock zone and from the Generation X sense of abandon.

This is what makes him a genuine eccentric. And I daresay that Roy Wood and Todd Rundgren have very little, if at all, punk influences in them. David Bowie and Brian Eno are closer to that, but in DB’s case it’s either to this or that direction rather than having both seemingly incompatible styles together at the same time. Eno influenced punk and new wave a lot with his work in between 1973-78 but even he went into a totally artistic direction when he started the development of ambient music on a wider scale.

Lindsey often has the classic rock influences and the punk influences visible at the same time. Sometimes the other side takes over the other but that doesn’t happen too often.

The acoustic “Big Love” has all the subtlety in the world in its fingerpicking but it’s still delivered with a passion of a punk. “Miranda” has the lightness at its heart but still plunges into a suicidal section. “Caroline” may sound smooth but there’s a sense of struggle that those lyrics (when sung) and the rhythm machines give. “Don’t Look Down” gives a sense of relaxation but then those harmonies come in and startle the listener.

It’s all over his work in the end. It’s two different audiences that he’s trying to communicate to and that’s most probably unconsciously. You’d think that if he saw anything wrong with his approach, he’d change something. But he hasn’t.

It’s not just a question of the two different audiences being unwilling to see the qualities in LB’s work, it’s also the battle between the “old world” and the post-modernistic.

Startling, shocking, quirky, distorted, these are all qualities of the post-modernism that new wave brought about. It’s not music about clear, obvious emotions anymore (like many presume the hippie music was about), it’s a vague message that he gives us through this. It’s no wonder the soft-rock/classic rock crowd won’t appreciate Lindsey’s work outside Rumours.

And it seems like some of the underground elitists are turned off by Lindsey’s reputation and his I-IV-V approach to songwriting.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I know die-hard music afficianados, with highbrow tastes, who are completely turned off by Lindsey's stuff.
Their opinion doesn't mean any more or less than our opinions, but certainly in their minds, what Lindsey has done isn't "good," if it doesn't appeal to them.

This I believe is not necessarily always just “personal taste”. It could as well be that some of them are unwilling to approach Lindsey’s work because of this dichotomy that it has. I don’t know if these guys brush off entire genres or not but they should learn not to dismiss them entirely anyway.

Originally posted by BBALLGYPSY17
Because if you're talking just about the obsession over the production (over production, perfect production).. then... yyyyeah.:laugh: Most musicians probably didn't need to stay in the studio that long for a single like that. Many weren't perfectionists and/or already so well-established they can get anything on air:rolleyes:

I will always defend his approach for studio polish.

It’s not just that he’s anal retentive and a control freak. Working to get that polished sound is a part of the big game he plays with the music industry. He builds this huge, smooth sonic canvas and then puts his quirkiness there so that it won’t fit the common perception of the Rumours-FM. I’m sure he gets a huge kick from working inside the music industry and then doing his little sabotage in there behind the scenes. There’s no way anyone can use any FM album as inoffensive filler when this man is present. Love him or hate him but you can’t ignore him. And I would say the last two sentences of Stevie and her voice too.

That’s the reason why Warners have a difficult time with Lindsey Buckingham and that’s why many other labels would have it too.

These days you just have to fall into a specific target group so that you can be easily marketed, branded and put inside a box.

There’s specific groups you try to appeal to if you work inside the music industry. You don’t try to appeal to both the middle-aged classic rock listeners and the underground types; that’s what people tell you. There’s music everywhere so that it fills every damn hole, there’s format radios that only play certain kinds of music so that no one would complain or spill the coffee on the keyboard. The situation hasn’t been good for true eccentrics for a long time.

Stevie Nicks goes along with the typical music industry ballgame in spite of always writing from the heart. There’s a certain group she always tries to appeal to and with the modern production she always tries to lure in some younger people too.

Lindsey Buckingham doesn’t play this game. He still works within the eccentric values of the ‘60s and tries to make his music diverse, not only in writing but in SOUND.
He would be much better off doing this in the ‘60s but then again that would leave out his unique interpretation of punk.

So this is why I think Stevie Nicks (who I still truly love) is in the end more commercial than Lindsey Buckingham. Listening to her album is like listening to a radio station (if you disregard her performance), whereas Lindsey Buckingham still takes me up for a true emotional ride in MUSIC.

You may say to Lindsey that the times have changed and that train has gone a long time ago but I won’t. I detest it when the media gives me only the easiest possible choices and I hate the whole “be what you listen to, this is your lifestyle” thing it tries to give me from everywhere. And I love it that Lindsey doesn’t go along with it.

So I come back to the first paragraph I quoted:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, if LB really wanted to be the maverick he clearly wants to be and often whines (bless his heart I love him but he sure can whine :laugh: ) about, he would have been one.

I will whine with him. I will mutter and complain and moan and protest (but not here, not always, I understand how people view that as obnoxious) until his work will start to be accepted as is by many. I think that he still doesn’t have an obvious target group for himself and just a few dozen thousand people of those who bought SYW appreciate everything in there. And I think he shouldn’t make compromises and bow to the current general thinking.

His solo work essentially presents a challenge to people.

To the hip, street credibility elitists: are you willing to see through the polished sound and the traditional songwriting? Are you willing to accept those as valid forms of expression?

To the classic rock listeners: are you willing to accept the quirks, the offbeat qualities and the obsessive personality? They have their value too, you know.

I don’t know how diverse tastes Lindsey fans have here, something tells me that many of you don't just listen to one or two things. And that’s good.

The times may still not be right for the man but one day everything will change again. And then we all will join hands in perfect harmony and all the wars will be over, including the Buckingham vs. Nicks battle and we’ll all get to heaven and… ;)

[strandinthewind]

I do not see how anyone cannot think the lyrics of SYW (the song) are not greatness and classic SN. I mean who, other than the largest sourpusses :laugh: , does not get a little happy when they hear those great, poetic (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word ;) ) lyrics. Who doesn't flush a little when they think about a "fever dance" - who cannot relate to the "electricty of love?" I say the same thing about the song TISL - I think those lyrics are great and inspired. Ditto for Bombay Sapphires IMO. So, I think SN can still write a great song - hand down. Also, the demos in the VH1 special were very similar to the final SYW product even though LB clearly gave subtle brilliance to them, although I wish he would have kept the flute in SG.

Note: I am not saying LB cannot. In fact and to the contrary, I think his stuff on SYW is also brilliant.

Finally, this whole "I am an artist and will not compromise my work for commercialism" argument is a bunch of hooey IMO because they all want to sell records not matter what any of them say. Otherwise, why would they fo with a large label that they know will insist on that :shrug: Moreover, I do not think any of them have had the missed meal cramps ( :laugh: )suffering financially for their previously highly commercial and IMO brilliant art. Then again, I do not buy the argument that commercialism = crapola :cool:

My $0.02

[face of glass]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not see how anyone cannot think the lyrics of SYW (the song) are not greatness and classic SN.

Hey, I agree with that but like I said, I left the lyrics out of my part of discussion yet again.

So, I think SN can still write a great song - hand down. Also, the demos in the VH1 special were very similar to the final SYW product even though LB clearly gave subtle brilliance to them, although I wish he would have kept the flute in SG.

Put someone else to sing those and then we'll see how much attraction it has. Maybe you and DownOnRodeo ought to work together in order to convince me. ;)

Finally, this whole "I am an artist and will not compromise my work for commercialism" argument is a bunch of hooey IMO because they all want to sell records not matter what any of them say.

Yeah, I agree. But there's different levels in that. SN has changed according to the commerical climate while Buckingham is still the eccentric '60s hippie smoking pot and fooling around in the garage with his various sounds. Maybe he's just dated. :laugh:

Otherwise, why would they fo with a large label that they know will insist on that :shrug:

You can be on a large label but you don't have to do everything the label says or completely give in on musical issues. Lindsey doesn't and I believe Stevie doesn't either. She just has better business sense. ;)

[face of glass]

I guess innovation is something that isn’t entirely original but I think it’s something that introduces a new concept.

The Beatles’ Revolver has been cited as the opening call of psychedelic music but even then in America The Byrds had released 5D (which features “Eight Miles High” and other attempts at psychedelia) and the 13th Floor Elevators had put out their first album which can be spoken of as psychedelic too.

Revolver is influenced by the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds, those two mentioned above, Bob Dylan’s Highway 61 Revisited (and Blonde On Blonde) [all of those innovative] and George Martin brings his classical training to the table. Not to mention the experiments with tapes which probably come from Stockhausen, etc.

Yet the album is still innovative because it takes things previously unheard of in rock music and puts them into that context. It was influenced by the stuff that preceded it, yes, but it also influenced stuff that came after it.

Sgt. Pepper also, that album influenced several English bands and even though not everyone did a carbon copy of it (and I don’t think even Satanic Majesties’ is one), some did. Of course the most important thing it introduced was a particular attitude or form, a song cycle; that an album could tell a story through its songs.

And I wouldn’t say that the White Album is innovative, other than for its sheer scope. It’s the one I reach for the most anyway. Putting “Revolution 9” and “Good Night” next to each other was just sheer genius.

No one has really spoken of Lindsey as innovative or even very influential and while that tells us of his under-appreciation, it also tells us of the state of rock music today (so he probably entered the scene too late to make any big impression in that area). It may have seemed to have limitless possibilities once but now it doesn’t. I’m not gonna join Lenny Kravitz and say it’s dead ;) but you probably get my meaning somehow.

[teedee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by face of glass
[B]Let’s deal with SN first, shall we? I’m not going to pit them against each other in any other way than musically. I think both have gotten over the supposed “battle of wills” (or, rather, battle for getting more public attention than the other) that was discussed at the BuckinghamNicks.net board a while ago and that’s good for them. But the differences in their music can be discussed and I still try to make clear that although I criticize Stevie’s music I still enjoy it a lot overall. In fact, I should go to the Stevie forum and start that “Docklands” appreciation thread where I will be the only poster. ;)

And I ain’t trying to win anything
These are the closest she’s got to the “deep-reaching, impenetrable artistic sense” and that’s the attitude I personally hate. Thank God she’s never showed any of that in her interviews but the fact that some fans (not meaning Johnny Stew) hold these as her greatest masterpieces and bash songs like “SYW” is nothing but reflection of the mentality that “she’s too good to appeal to the masses”.

Again, it’s the same thing we discussed last year:



To which I then replied:





The only experiments in “Illume” come from Lindsey Buckingham’s screeching guitars and goofy vocals. I daresay that the obsessive delivery that Stevie has in that track (and is unlike anything she’s been attempting before) came about only when she did the final take. And I will hold that opinion until the demo is leaked.



*joins sighing and swooning* But it disappeared pretty fast, already on the TITN tour it was gone.



Depth is something that only the fans (or those with the potential) are capable of hearing.



Because Stevie Nicks doesn’t experiment in her songwriting; the form does not allow for stretching out anymore.
If there’s any experimentation on her songs, it comes from elsewhere than SN. Breaking the rules isn’t possible for
"Syha, fro example. you stated you dont think lindsey wrote it to sound commercial"

but he used it on the syw cd. why is it that formula of music is ok for lindsey to use and not ok for stevie. why is it when stevie writes a song its because she was thinking commercial , i do agree stevie writes a song like say you will and hopes ppl will like it, but i dont think she always has that on her mind when she is writing. another thing if we are talking musically, yeah lindsey is a genious of a guitar player, he is my fave and will always be. when we are talking lyric wise, i do not see lindsey as a great one for words, call it experimenting call it what ever, but with the exception of out of the cradle , his other solos to me when i listened to them , they never made me think wow he is a genious , i often felt, what is he doing or trying to do, i felt he was at a lost for words, so he used noises and such. when ootc came out, i fell in love with it , with every song practically, and why because lindsey was singing . you may say well you just didnt get his other solo material, and you know what maybe i didnt get it , but i will just be honest and say i didnt like it, it didnt appeal to me at all not lyrcally, or musically. i mean trouble, was good, but as some would say that was a more commercial ,( forlack of a better word) sounding song, than the other material. on say you will , i think come and murrow, yeah are true lindsey type songs that he would love to have more of, but i also think with the rest of his material on this syw cd, syha, pk,wtwct,sg,btlh, altho i like these songs, but i think these are more safe sounding lindsey songs that will appeal to the average listeners ears, rather than the die hard fan who loves his really obscure sounding material. i think rttg,efo, say, illume, (altho you will state that lindseys genious production is on those songs, and im not arguing that at all) im talking lyric wise, i think those songs of stevies are less commercial sounding than lindseys,and even saying that , i do think they appeal more to the general listener than just the die hards.

[face of glass]

Sheesz Teedee, you don't have to quote the entire post. Makes it easier to browse through for some. :)

Originally posted by teedee
"Syha, fro example. you stated you dont think lindsey wrote it to sound commercial"

but he used it on the syw cd. why is it that formula of music is ok for lindsey to use and not ok for stevie. why is it when stevie writes a song its because she was thinking commercial , i do agree stevie writes a song like say you will and hopes ppl will like it, but i dont think she always has that on her mind when she is writing.

I said in my post that Stevie always writes from the heart and I don't even believe that "Say You Will" was written with commercial intentions in mind; it was just produced that way.

And the same I will say about "SYHA" too, even though I've never been particularly fond of it. (I think it's the weakest on the entire Say You Will album.)

i think those songs of stevies are less commercial sounding than lindseys,and even saying that , i do think they appeal more to the general listener than just the die hards.

It's your opinion. And it's my opinion when I say that nothing Lindsey has done is inaccessible and is appealing if listened to from different angles. But I do say that it might take a little more struggle than seems to be required of listeners today to get through to some of his material because of the diversity that he has.

You want to hear something inaccessible, you go listen to Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. Or Tangerine Dream's Electronic Meditation.

[teedee]

Originally posted by face of glass
Hey, I agree with that but like I said, I left the lyrics out of my part of discussion yet again.



Put someone else to sing those and then we'll see how much attraction it has. Maybe you and DownOnRodeo ought to work together in order to convince me. ;)

huh?


Yeah, I agree. But there's different levels in that. SN has changed according to the commerical climate while Buckingham is still the eccentric '60s hippie smoking pot and fooling around in the garage with his various sounds. Maybe he's just dated. :laugh:


first everyone states, nicks never changes and thats suppose to be bad, but lindsey is eccentric for staying in his hippie ways,




You can be on a large label but you don't have to do everything the label says or completely give in on musical issues. Lindsey doesn't and I believe Stevie doesn't either. She just has better business sense. ;)

hmmmmm and the result you dont release a solo cd!

[face of glass]

Originally posted by teedee
hmmmmm and the result you dont release a solo cd!

If that's the result for giving in on a lot of the diversity that Lindsey Buckingham can achieve, then so be it. He doesn't have to delete the "questionable" material because someone says so.

I think Say You Will isn't that much of a compromise anyway, because Lindsey can express himself through Stevie's songs as well. Those always bring out some sides of him that wouldn't come out otherwise.

[face of glass]

Oh yeah, there's this too. :)

first everyone states, nicks never changes and thats suppose to be bad, but lindsey is eccentric for staying in his hippie ways,

I never said it's bad but it's something I don't prefer.

Lindsey isn't a '60s nostalgic (how could he be, he never wrote a single song during the decade anyway) but he retains that important attitude from the era.


(Damn, what a way to get the "addicted" status. I got it bad alright.)

[teedee]

Originally posted by face of glass
If that's the result for giving in on a lot of the diversity that Lindsey Buckingham can achieve, then so be it. He doesn't have to delete the "questionable" material because someone says so.

I think Say You Will isn't that much of a compromise anyway, because Lindsey can express himself through Stevie's songs as well. Those always bring out some sides of him that would


n't come out otherwise.


you stated yyou dont have to do what the record label says, if that were true then he still would of mad e a solo, but he didnt.


as for expressing himself thru stevies songs , sure he is a great producer and guitarist, but what if stevie werent in this fm project? if he firmly believes in his work and material as a solo, he should of done the solo, but the record company didnt back him and thats why we have fm's syw and if stevie didnt agree to be part of it, we wouldnt have any of this material. and please dont tell me then lindsey weould of released his solo, because if he could have , he would have , but he didnt have the backing .

[teedee]

Originally posted by face of glass
Oh yeah, there's this too. :)



I never said it's bad but it's something I don't prefer.

Lindsey isn't a '60s nostalgic (how could he be, he never wrote a single song during the decade anyway) but he retains that important attitude from the era.


(Damn, what a way to get the "addicted" status. I got it bad alright.)



THat important additude? is it helping his career or hurting it.. i love lindsey and i believe that the concert syw will get him alot of respect so that if he does release that solo, he will have a chance with some kind o f recognition,( i know he isnt after that, but thats sometimes reflects how successfull yo are in the business)

[face of glass]

Originally posted by teedee
if he firmly believes in his work and material as a solo, he should of done the solo, but the record company didnt back him and thats why we have fm's syw and if stevie didnt agree to be part of it, we wouldnt have any of this material.

It’s true I guess, but I think Warners aren’t interested in anything but Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac with Stevie Nicks at this moment.

The reason why he didn’t release the solo elsewhere is in my opinion this: Lindsey Buckingham loves to play his little perverted game inside the music business machinery. He loves being the one in this line-up who clings the least to the common understanding of Fleetwood Mac and their music. He knew Fleetwood Mac were going to get their act back together, he hadn’t finished Gift Of Screws when he did the Dance tour and the whole reunion told him that if he wouldn’t get his solo album out, he’d always have a back gate, provided that he wouldn't have to compromise much. Which I think he didn't.

And I’m sure he just loves to work on Stevie’s songs.

If Stevie would have not wanted to do SYW then Lindsey wouldn’t have had the back gate and at that point I believe he would have left Warners.

(This all assuming that Lindsey can terminate his contract at any point. No one has seen it anyway and yet we all keep on making assumptions of its content.)

[face of glass]

Originally posted by teedee
THat important additude? is it helping his career or hurting it.. i love lindsey and i believe that the concert syw will get him alot of respect so that if he does release that solo, he will have a chance with some kind o f recognition,( i know he isnt after that, but thats sometimes reflects how successfull yo are in the business)

Maybe that attitude isn't helping him now. But in the future no one will listen to records because of their chart positions or because of their historical/sociological package. There's just the music. And I have a feeling that DIVERSE music (at least in the area we know as "rock and roll") will hold up much better in the end.

No more replies today from me to this. “There’s more to life than the Ledge, you know, but not much more”. ;)

[David]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That's the downside of these debates... a lot of times only one side of how you see something, comes across. That's understandable. Lots of people rarely have any criticisms to make of their favorites, whether that's Lindsey or Stevie or Peter or any of the others. It's important for anyone who wants to be seen by others as balanced to rip new assholes from time to time in all their favorites! I personally follow that path & find it satisfying & rewarding.

[David]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
...why does this always have to turn into some melodramatic Lindsey VS Stevie thing? ALWAYS. Tired and old. Seriously. And before someone chimes in and says I don't need to read the thread and could ignore it, I know. However, It's now crossed into each section of the message board whether it be Rumours (where it's featured in multiple threads), Stevie, or Lindsey and it's always the same long winded diatribes. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

[David]

Originally posted by cliffdweller
I don't know if commercialism is the issue. RAL is her weakest album because it was just flat uninspired (quickly ducks head for fear of rock throwing). I think Stevie should branch out, just not in that way.How can RAL be both uninspired & a "branching out"? Something must have inspired Stevie to branch out, no?
Illume is a great example of Stevie branching outside her tried and true formula and producing amazing music. IMO, she should experiment more in that type of vein. What type of vein?

[David]

Originally posted by teedee
if he firmly believes in his work and material as a solo, he should of done the solo, but the record company didnt back him and thats why we have fm's syw and if stevie didnt agree to be part of it, we wouldnt have any of this material. and please dont tell me then lindsey weould of released his solo, because if he could have , he would have , but he didnt have the backing . Lindsey is never going to be wildly popular, either on his own or with Fleetwood. He should choose -- especially at this point in his life -- to forswear the toadying careerism of popular rock stars by following Emily Dickinson's example. She wasn't published in her lifetime, except for a straggly few poems, which were doctored almost beyond recognizability. She was disgusted when that happened & refused to publish anything else. But she homed in on her art with singlemindedness & kept writing HER voice. They found her work in a dresser after she died. The upshot is that we read her work today, more than a century later, & consider her the greatest woman poet of modern times.

An artist should write for the future, not the present. The present is too confused: it's a jumbled mass of contradictions & incomprehension & vulgarity & derision. Look to the future, Lindsey! Shun the careerists & self-advertisers by refusing to write for consumption now.

[Mari]

yes, if he wants to be a real artist, he should die alone, pennyless and unhappy :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Mari
yes, if he wants to be a real artist, he should die alone, pennyless and unhappy :rolleyes:

No - but he does protest a little too much about commercialism given his station in life and how he got there :laugh: AND - I love him for it :cool:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by face of glass
Lindsey isn’t any less deserving of your attention than he is of other people with different tastes in music and different lifestyles.

Of course he's not any less deserving of my attention. I'm sorry if the way I worded it gave you the impression that because Lindsey likes the Clash, I no longer like his work as much. My musical likes and dislikes are not based on what he says in interviews. Frankly, that would be ridiculous and I'm suprised you got that idea from my posts.

Originally posted by face of glass
I will never belittle the music of Rumours but I will always spit on its sales which were totally ridiculous and unhealthy when compared to any other Fleetwood Mac album. I just don’t think that LB’s work outside of Rumours is a hair worse than those three songs that are considered his apex. It’s an over-simplified and far too popular a conception that needs to be shattered.


Not around here. You hold the majority opinion on this Ledge. It just seems some of that attitude might stem from a defensiveness about Tusk's underappreciation rather than the fact that Rumours was appreciated by the masses. Perhaps not.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - but he does protest a little too much about commercialism given his station in life and how he got there :laugh:AND - I love him for it :cool:

The only thing I think he protests against is giving in completely, in terms of the sound of the album, to the “soft-rock” ideal that most people have of Fleetwood Mac.

He doesn’t have a clearly defined audience, a target group, that he could sell his albums to. I daresay that giving into the street credibility crowd is also selling out in a way because even then you get a particular target group, albeit smaller than the Rumours crowd. It isn’t about the fact that he helped the band sell a lot of albums at one time; it is about not following the easiest possible path.

But then again we’re getting close to Lindsey’s level of complaining here; stating the same points in different ways. So… ;)

Originally posted by sodascouts
Of course he's not any less deserving of my attention. I'm sorry if the way I worded it gave you the impression that because Lindsey likes the Clash, I no longer like his work as much. My musical likes and dislikes are not based on what he says in interviews. Frankly, that would be ridiculous and I'm suprised you got that idea from my posts.

I thought you referred to his music and how it doesn’t and can’t appeal to the “Clash-types”. An opinion I wouldn’t support at all.

But I guess you said that because he mentioned the Clash in that Australian article a while ago and how you think it’s lame that he’s still doing it, am I right?

I don’t care for who he mentions, godspeed you black emperor!, Radiohead, Björk, the White Stripes or the Clash, because I think they all have the same attitude. And I don’t think the Clash is dated at all. Their best work is as relevant as anything FM/LB have done.

Besides, mentioning a supposedly "cool" band in an article every once in a while wouldn't help him in getting to attention of those types anyhow. He'd have to do more drastic things.

Not around here. You hold the majority opinion on this Ledge. It just seems some of that attitude might stem from a defensiveness about Tusk's underappreciation rather than the fact that Rumours was appreciated by the masses. Perhaps not.

I actually think that Rumours is somewhat better than Tusk in terms of it being more instantly appealing and not so bound to the “fan-favourite status”. While I love all FM albums with Buckingham and Nicks almost equally and while I listen to Tusk the most (because of the challenge it lays out) I still think that some of the instrumentation could have been stated with more clarity. That’s the reason I think it is the fan favourite anyway.

I just think that Tusk, right after the presence of Buckingham and Nicks in the line-up, is the biggest reason as to why the Rumours era of Fleetwood Mac can appeal beyond the audiences Warners have had in mind.

[strandinthewind]

I am not saying LB should write songs like Britany Spears or whomever is popular at that moment. Again, the artistic quality of his songs on SYW was never an issue in his or my argument. They were not significantly changed from his GOS stuff "released" on the net. I am saying he wanted to release them all on a FM record when the price of doing that would have made the record sell less according the experts. Then he sort of balks at that notion :laugh: In any event, in the end it worked out okay.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am saying he wanted to release them all on a FM record when the price of doing that would have made the record sell less according the experts. Then he sort of balks at that notion :laugh: In any event, in the end it worked out okay.

Well I do think that he has less business sense than Stevie. Putting out a diverse double album is a very '60s thing to do (as was putting some of them in outlandish packages).

I guess he is naive in some matters; he still believes that if he wants to put out a certain amount of songs he should have all the support for that even though the times have changed for FM.

Someone at the LegBoard joked about Lindsey thinking the ticket price to an FM concert is 75 cents these days. :laugh:

So yeah, he's naive and he's a hippie relic. That's why I love the guy. :)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by face of glass
So yeah, he's naive and he's a hippie relic. That's why I love the guy. :)

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by face of glass
Someone at the LegBoard joked about Lindsey thinking the ticket price to an FM concert is 75 cents these days. :laugh:

So yeah, he's naive and he's a hippie relic. That's why I love the guy. :)

There's an interview which is on Neil's site: http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com/articles/FMart129.html where Lindsey is told the price of tickets, and asked about the contradiction between his attitudes about how greedy the music industry is and the fact that arguably charging so much for tickets is greedy.

He honesty says he hasn't chosen to be involved with the price of tickets (implying that he is aware that some artists like Tom Petty have), but then proceeds to justify it by saying that they are a "large-scale band." So... I think the naivety that he first puts out there as an excuse was obviously at the time of this interview gone - he knew the type of money he was going to be making and why. In the Destiny Rules doc you also hear him talking about how much money he's going to make touring. He's obviously not only OK with it, but banking on it.

[Cammie]

The Managers DO RULE! Carl Stubner
told Mick NO!!!:distress: Stevie just tried to
back Mick up when they had to tell
this news to Lindsey who was hired
to do a Double Album ...Half Stevies
and Half Lindsey's New Songs!!!:p:cool:

David...good sensible comments as usuall!

Nancy...Lindsey comes from a well-to-do
family and he never played the starving
artist!!!Stevies Dad was vp of Greyhound
and even bought a theatre in Phoenix!;)

Neither...are Poor Starving orphans actually!!!

But you are Right...Lindsey just doesn't seem to
understand the value of ordinary ppl's money!:distress:

They $peak in Thou$and$ and MILLION$!:eek:Sky;)

[teedee]

Originally posted by Cammie
The Managers DO RULE! Carl Stubner
told Mick NO!!!:distress: Stevie just tried to
back Mick up when they had to tell
this news to Lindsey who was hired
to do a Double Album ...Half Stevies
and Half Lindsey's New Songs!!!:p:cool:

David...good sensible comments as usuall!

Nancy...Lindsey comes from a well-to-do
family and he never played the starving
artist!!!Stevies Dad was vp of Greyhound
and even bought a theatre in Phoenix!;)

Neither...are Poor Starving orphans actually!!!

But you are Right...Lindsey just doesn't seem to
understand the value of ordinary ppl's money!:distress:

They $peak in Thou$and$ and MILLION$!:eek:Sky;)

their families were not supporting them during the BN days, in fact it was stevie who went and got employment to support both her and lindsey. I do believe that stevie does realize that normal people, earn normal wages, and have other priorities when it comes to their own money. she knows that they dont live on the same scale as she does. and that is very refreshing to hear and makes your realize how realistic and down to earth she is.

[4Buck]

Buck’s parents were affluent, as were Nicks’... and they most likely would help them out financially, as both Nicks and Buckingham were extremely close to their parents. :)

Buckingham inherited $10,000 from a rich aunt in the early ‘70s which enabled him to not work for two years as well as buy recording equipment. ($10,000 was a lot of money back then.)

She still is the most braggadocio about her successes. It was Nicks that was bragging in interviews about the group having 7 limos, a private jet……. and then remember this:

Nicks insists on taking her furniture from a Bel Air mansion the band rented while recording their latest album, Say You Will. "I lived with that furniture for almost a year, so it feels like home. When I walk into my dressing room, I want to be cozy," Nick said.

By revealing this extravagant living to the press, how do you think fans feel who can’t afford concert tickets?

And Cammie’s right. Lindsey was hired to do a double album…..

[teedee]

Originally posted by 4Buck
Buck’s parents were affluent, as were Nicks’... and they most likely would help them out financially, as both Nicks and Buckingham were extremely close to their parents. :)

Buckingham inherited $10,000 from a rich aunt in the early ‘70s which enabled him to not work for two years as well as buy recording equipment. ($10,000 was a lot of money back then.)

She still is the most braggadocio about her successes. It was Nicks that was bragging in interviews about the group having 7 limos, a private jet……. and then remember this:

Nicks insists on taking her furniture from a Bel Air mansion the band rented while recording their latest album, Say You Will. "I lived with that furniture for almost a year, so it feels like home. When I walk into my dressing room, I want to be cozy," Nick said.

By revealing this extravagant living to the press, how do you think fans feel who can’t afford concert tickets?

And Cammie’s right. Lindsey was hired to do a double album…..

then why did stevie go to work to pay their rent back then?


How did it look when they told lindsey how much the concert tickets prices were and he made like he didnt know and stated im not really involved with that like tom petty may be. as for stevie and lindseys way of living, they earned it, ma and dad, well off as they may be, didnt just pay the way for them. personally compared to the eagles, stones and other bands from this era, 125.00 is cheaper than what the eagles got for their reunion tour . im not saying that everyone can afford 125.00 tix price, but if people couldnt, they shouldnt go. if it relfected in their concert attendance and sales, then im sure ticket prices would be lowered. but if they sell, its not the bands fault.
and 10,000 dollars may be a lot of money, but it wasnt a huge enough salary even then, to not have to work for 2 yrs and have enough left to buy equipment. stevie worked and paid the rent and bills.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by 4Buck
She still is the most braggadocio about her successes. It was Nicks that was bragging in interviews about the group having 7 limos, a private jet……. and then remember this:

Nicks insists on taking her furniture from a Bel Air mansion the band rented while recording their latest album, Say You Will. "I lived with that furniture for almost a year, so it feels like home. When I walk into my dressing room, I want to be cozy," Nick said.

By revealing this extravagant living to the press, how do you think fans feel who can’t afford concert tickets?Let's not forget that the sentence before the part you quoted, was this:Lindsey Buckingham (guitar), John McVie (bass) and Mick Fleetwood (drums) bring their own furniture on tour.They all enjoy their luxuries, and I appreciate Stevie's openness and honesty about it. I've never felt like she's throwing anything in our faces by talking about it. In fact, she usually seems pretty much in awe of the fact that she can lead the life she does... and she doesn't come off at all jaded about it, which is very refreshing.

But whatever she says and does, she'll never be able to catch a break from some people. :)

[EveryHour]

Originally posted by Cammie
The workings
of the band and the back-biting and tempers do
spoil it for me! I would take my SYW album back
if I could!

Forgive me, but PUH-LEASE! Fleetwood Mac work the way they work, and obviously they have a lot of emotion invested in their job/craft so disagreements are inevitable. It's your choice to let it effect you that much. If you had film of Rumours being made (which we all know was much worse), would you take that back too?!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Lux
But only Lindsey is allowed to enjoy Lux.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

brilliant pun!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
There's an interview which is on Neil's site: http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com/articles/FMart129.html where Lindsey is told the price of tickets, and asked about the contradiction between his attitudes about how greedy the music industry is and the fact that arguably charging so much for tickets is greedy.

He honesty says he hasn't chosen to be involved with the price of tickets (implying that he is aware that some artists like Tom Petty have), but then proceeds to justify it by saying that they are a "large-scale band." So... I think the naivety that he first puts out there as an excuse was obviously at the time of this interview gone - he knew the type of money he was going to be making and why. In the Destiny Rules doc you also hear him talking about how much money he's going to make touring. He's obviously not only OK with it, but banking on it.

Boy, Nancy, you read my mind. Well put. VERY well put. :nod:

I find a lot of his tortured artist/naive about the business talk to be quite comical, myself. He really must be naive if he thinks people buy it. The band demanded $750,000 a night, surely he must've thought once or twice about ticket prices. And his claiming that he isn't involved with ticket pricing is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a musician say. :rolleyes:

He is quite the ridiculous, over-the-top, drama queen, bull**** artist...but he's a musical genius nonetheless. And I don't buy much of anything that he says. ;)

[face of glass]

Originally posted by dissention
I find a lot of his tortured artist/naive about the business talk to be quite comical, myself.

In the double album issue I think he was being naive, talking about “eating the cost” and intently pushing for its release. Not to mention releasing material that’s of such divergence that it will often divide most people.

In short, the content of SYW doesn’t matter for a lot of people who have been to see FM this tour; they don’t even care if there’s new material out or not. But when the tours are gone, along with ‘em bootlegs, the studio albums will stay. And that’s what Lindsey is aware of.

If he really isn’t interested in the ticket prices issue then to me that speaks more of the age-old fact that Lindsey Buckingham isn’t interested in tours and is more concerned about the studio work.

He is quite the ridiculous, over-the-top, drama queen, bull**** artist...but he's a musical genius nonetheless. And I don't buy much of anything that he says. ;)

I don’t buy everything either but I still think he has a long way to go to SN’s level; after all then he’d discuss THE relationship in more detail and give us better hints of what his songs are about. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by face of glass
. . . I don’t buy everything either but I still think he has a long way to go to SN’s level; after all then he’d discuss THE relationship in more detail and give us better hints of what his songs are about. ;)

He is worse - his fave flushes and he acted like a school boy called out by his crush :laugh: :cool:

Long live LB

[face of glass]

Oldies but goldies:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But whatever she says and does, she'll never be able to catch a break from some people. :)

I think that at this point in her career she shouldn’t be allowed a break musically. I (who am nothing but a harmless mosquito circling around her hair) will leave her alone when she sticks with Lindsey only because I know that Lindsey won’t let her get away too easy. ;)

Originally posted by strandinthewind
He is worse - his fave flushes and he acted like a school boy called out by his crush :laugh: :cool:

Hey, I’d say they’re both about equal in the whole game now, what with Lindsey speaking of the inspiration behind “Say Goodbye” and going along with it on stage. In the past the man was somewhat bothered by it though (except for “The Chain” bit on stage, and that was probably supposed to be symbolic). Not letting the three-part harmonies (or SN) to be put on to any of his songs after 1977 (except for The Dance and SYW) is probably the best example of the man wanting to shake off the Rumours package.

In the end I think he’s fine now; he gets to release a record with little compromises on a large label that doesn’t know how to market the material but puts it out anyway because it’s FM; the album is a good excuse for touring and then he gets to play the rock god, gets a lot of cash and can always tell those who accuse him of selling out to listen to the songs on the album. So I do think he’s having his cake and eating it too. :nod:

Long live this thread. ;)

[wondergirl9847]

I see Lindsey as someone who wants to put out his own version of "pushing the envelope". What I mean is, I don't think he wants to go total psycho on the music industry and put out some freakazoid album for the sake of being a freak. He makes POP/ROCK music and he knows that. The fact he made Red Rover, Murrow and Come show that he can mix the freak inside him with the commerciality of Fleetwood Mac.

Is there some sort of definition of experimentation? I don't think there is. It's whatever is in that crazy brain of his...and that goes for every musician.

I just don't get why everyone wants to put him in a certain box.
:shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by trackaghost
It's just I get slightly annoyed with hearing people say "oh Stevie only wants to do commercial music". Well, Lindsey does too!

I think the doc showed that Stevie is just a tad more concerned about making her music more commercial than Lindsey, I don't think anyone can deny that with her saying "I pray to the commercial gods!" ;)

If someone can explain to me how Murrow, Come, and Red Rover are commercial, I'll be happy to listen. Of course they all want commercial appeal, but I think Stevie has the distinction of wanting her music to appeal to the most people, therefore making it more commercialized. All it takes is a simple listen to her tracks next to Lindsey's. No, no one else makes such great songs as Stevie's these days, but they are more commercial than all of Lindsey's stuff combined. I applaud her for actually going through with Illume the way it is, though. That is the weirdest song she's EVER recorded and isn't the least bit commercial. :nod:

[face of glass]

Reiteration (from my part) to the very end:

Originally posted by trackaghost
Lindsey could have easily put out his album on an independent label made it as extreme as possible, and only sold them to hardcore fans. Kinda like Prince I suppose. But the fact is, despite the "I'm a real artist" posturing, Lindsey wants to sell lots of records too.

Lindsey knows that Fleetwood Mac are supposed to appeal to certain types of audience only (the nostalgic/the AOR listeners); not to the underground people and yet a lot of his tracks still have many qualities that are bound to the underground/indie traditions. Not all of them do but I think at least five tracks from SYW fit into that (although you could say that a couple of them are walking the tightrope between the two worlds).

I do think that Lindsey knows a lot of people at the concerts do not care if Fleetwood Mac have a new album out or not. The release of SYW doesn’t matter to them; they all come just to hear the old hits. Lindsey probably also had a hunch that SYW wouldn’t sell that much, no matter what it contained. So it wouldn’t really have mattered if it had sold the 300,000 copies or the approx. 900,000 that it has sold now. The band makes the most money from touring and most people only come there to listen to the old songs. I’m sure he’s accepted the situation a long time ago and has nothing against getting all the money and going along with the whole game that the alternative folk (possibly) view as polished, staged and insincere business deal.

So that’s why I don’t think there’s much compromise on SYW; there’s no need for that at this point in their career when it’s the tours that matter the most financially. So he doesn’t want to sell a lot of records, IMO. Or at least he doesn’t want to sell on the Rumours level because then he’d be forced to compromise. But he’ll never release an extreme experimental album because it doesn’t interest him.

He is on a large label and with Fleetwood Mac because he wants his material to reach out the biggest possible audience and because he loves working with Mick, John and Stevie. But LB is probably aware that his tracks will never appeal to an entire single type of audience only because of the overall diversity in sound.

So that’s why I don’t find anything drama queen-like or purely “real artist posturing” in his behaviour, or anything contradictory in it, for that matter. He isn’t about extremism or purism; he’s too eclectic for all that.

Sure he's experimental and has a certain amount of artistic integrity, but only within the confines of a commercial sound.

If by “commercial sound” you mean traditional song structures then I do agree. I don’t think he’s ever wanted to step out of those. And there are artists who work inside the same structures, are endorsed by the indie press and still aren’t labelled as commercial yet I think they should.

I don’t have any problems with calling something “commercial”. Commercial or accessible, it’s the same for me. But I do see how people think the former has a negative clang to it.

To me everything on Tusk is fairly commerical (hell the oddball title track Tusk was a number 2 hit here in the UK) apart from The Ledge.

While I do think that the success of “Tusk” in the UK was mainly because it was the first single from a long-awaited album, I do agree with you again. And I don’t think “The Ledge” is uncommercial at all. It’s a memorable song but it’s just recorded in a weird way.

Fleetwood Mac had been boxed, labelled and defined with Rumours so I think the “uncommercial” tag that Tusk has is mainly because of the arrangements and the recording methods. The songwriting didn’t change but the other changes were enough to scare a lot of people away for good.

Probably the least commercial stuff he's done is DW Suite and Play In The Rain, on Go Insane, the rest is very easy on the ear.

And I think these are easy on my ear at least; they don’t have the usual Buckingham song structures in them but they’re still accessible and memorable. They both sound like two or three traditional songs put together anyway.

I'm not saying he doesn't like to "push the envelope" or whatever his latest saying is these days, but come on admit it, he's pushing the envelope of a commerical sound.

I agree with that. BTW, I guess the “envelope-pusher” term originated from Stevie:

I am not what you'd call an envelope-pusher," Nicks says. "Lindsey is there to make sure our band isn't too safe. I'm there to make sure it isn't too nuts. It's all about that balance between us. - NY Daily News

I don’t really agree with Stevie’s comment anyway because I think Lindsey can make compromises on his own too.

Maybe it's because I've listened to much harder edged music throughout my life, but those songs to me (except Red Rover but then that's not exactly Amon Dull is it?) wouldn't sound out of place on Radio 2.

And it’s also surprising that Radio 2 (of BBC) isn’t playing them. Would that have something to do with the Fleetwood Mac package and the fact that those people wouldn’t necessarily appreciate “Steal Your Heart Away” or “Peacekeeper”?

But yes, once again those three are commercial and accessible. But the commerciality in those songs doesn’t scream out of every pore and it isn’t blatantly obvious. And I can say that for Stevie’s songs too.

Come is a nod to Zeppelin and Murrow is not half as radical as a lot of Talking Heads stuff.

IMO, “Come” is too harsh, violent, self-conscious, exaggerative and tongue-in-cheek (and yes, these all can be found inside the track) to be fit for Zeppelin or the core audience of that band or the classic rock format. I can imagine indie types getting kicks out of it though; if they could only learn to accept (and dig) long solos. :)

I’d also say that the Talking Heads and Lindsey are just about equally radical. Even the Heads’ most experimental album, Remain In Light, has traditional, memorable songs in it even though it all goes through the polyrhythms and Belew’s/Eno’s electronic treatments. The sound of that band went closer to the mainstream when Eno stopped producing them and that’s not surprising. Eno, after all, abandoned the pop song structures at the end of the ‘70s and chose a totally experimental path for his own projects. It was he who kicked the Talking Heads’ rear ends and that resulted in that innovative work released in between 1978-80. Much like Lindsey’s work within Fleetwood Mac (except that they didn’t really innovate and they never will).

And I don’t think that Amon Düül II, who you mentioned earlier, were overtly radical either. Even within their most experimental work I often hear clearly recognizable song structures. Tear the 20 minute opuses of Yeti and Tanz Der Lemminge into smaller pieces and you have mainly your usual pop/rock songs.

I just wanted to state that Lindsey's art is about making good commercial music for the masses.
My belief is that he hasn’t been trying to write to the biggest masses since Rumours and very possibly even Rumours wasn’t about that. ChiliD once stated that Rumours was pop experimentation that became mainstream and I agree with him.

What I was trying to say here is that I think the “corporate rockers”, those on the major labels, and the protesters of commerciality, those on the independent labels, are both selling out in their own way. Both have their audiences that usually expect the certain kind of music from the artists. The classic rock types want the things to stay the same as they were on that good old album 30 years ago, or they want the same with little differences. The indie types often expect some kind of experimentation from their favourite artists.

All of these artists, no matter what stance they support, are marketed through tried and well-proven channels; magazines, radio stations and programmes geared towards certain target groups. In that way no one will ever get to hear anything “uncomfortable” when everyone is trying to be totally happy inside their own boxes.

When one looks at Lindsey’s whole catalogue I don’t think it goes along with the whole labelizing game at all. Like I said, I think the values of the traditional, of the classic rock, of the pure, naive hippie emotions are involved. And the values of the post-modern, of punk and new wave, of the overt self-consciousness are in there too. Sometimes both sides are in almost equal balance, sometimes the other might take over for a while.

That’s why I think he’s a very difficult artist to sell. Warners simply don’t have a clue of what his solo work is about. The underground elitists will most likely just despise “Bleed To Love Her” and the soft-rock/classic rock/traditionalists would just hate “Murrow”.

But until he releases his 60 minute jazz-funk odyssey or that experimental feedback album with Kevin Shields, I won't be convinced that Lindsey wants to be anything but a commercial artist despite his protests.

I even think this is selling out in a way because there’s always a certain kind of audience that buys this stuff. Always the same channels are used for marketing etc. With Lindsey the channels that are used today don’t seem to fit; hence his lack of success.

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
I just don't get why everyone wants to put him in a certain box.

I hear you girl. “No one falls into a simple set of labels”. A comment from a liberal wuss perhaps ;) but I think it fits his music perfectly. And I daresay he shouldn’t be put inside a box.

As of why I think Stevie is more commercial than Lindsey; I did try to explain that but what the hell; I’ll do it again.

Stevie Nicks’ solo albums have always been worked upon through the traditional music industry format for solo singers, both male and female. While that does not necessarily prevent experimentation and is not necessarily reflective of the quality of music it still shows that she hasn’t really questioned her working habits. Many times the results depend upon the people she chooses to surround herself with. It doesn’t matter what I think, I think it’s all too mainstream but that’s my problem.

For me it seems that people like Björk and PJ Harvey are achieving less mainstream-ish results when they refuse to follow the usual patterns (and I could say the same of Lindsey with Tusk) and the music seems to be more in their control but that would be pidgeonholing once again.

I think SN is a very smart woman in that she knows what’s selling and wants her solo albums to have some of that too. Or then she knows how to hook up with people who can do that for her. Either way, I do think she has a better business sense than LB.

The problem for me is when all her solo albums start to sound the same and it seems like she wants to work inside the same format all the time. Whether that is calculation; an attempt not to drive all the fan package and the recently found listeners away or a sound she truly prefers is not known.

But that’s why I think Lindsey is less commercial than Stevie at the moment even though he’s not hugely left-field. His arrangements don’t go with the whole “target group” thinking while Stevie’s solo albums are very likely approached from that viewpoint.

Of course it all comes down to what Johnny Stew said in another thread:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
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.

I do believe that her unique performance can transcend the whole production and I don’t think there’s anything commercial in her writing in the end, as there isn’t in Lindsey’s.

Once again, if you take the voice over the music then you see nothing wrong with Stevie’s albums and that’s how it should be. I can’t follow suit.

If this develops into another hard argument between me and Sharon then I should’ve once again seen that coming. I should just learn to let it go, right? :rolleyes:

[teedee]

I think lindsey is most definatley interested in releasing that experimental solo cd. it s just that since the label wasnt interested in that solo project, he was trying to do it thru a double cd with the mac. doesnt the doc cover that, he wanted it for personal reasons too, to get more of his songs out. he knows that fm as a whole is the avenue for him to get those songs of his out there and heard, by fans going to the show or buying a fm cd. one could say lindsey is using the system, fm may be more commercial but he used it to get his solo material out there on cd, one way or another. i dont look at anyones music as commercial or not commercial when referring to sn or lb, yes stevie said it in the doc, for say you will. but lindsey also agreed to be a part of fm again knowing what they were all about. as for stevies solo career and her not being experimental on them, she never went solo with those intentions , it was just another avenue for her to get her songs out there, like she said 3 , 4 songs every couple of years is not alot, for a writer like her. as for lindseys come, rr, Murrow, compared to the rest of the syw cd, yeah they are not like say you will or silver girl, but they are also not like syha or pk or wtwct or miranda or btlh, . again athese songs were meant for his solo project, and to compare such songs like those to the rest of syw, sometimes it looks like they were just thrown on there to make him happy, and dont really fit with the rest of the cd. its purely a lindsey show when he does come live, his solo , which is incredible , is just that a solo performance. if he is so experimental why didnt he have any of these experimantal songs on out of the cradle.. and dont get me wrong i love that cd, its his best work ever. but i dont think its fair to fault one for wanting commercial success and the other for using the commercial avenue to get ones music out there. if lindsey really didnt care to lose the money on his solo project and only reach a small number of ppl , then he should of done that just like the movie maker that was living in his two bedroom apartment , but was happy doing what he was doing.

[face of glass]

Originally posted by teedee
I think lindsey is most definatley interested in releasing that experimental solo cd.

if he is so experimental why didnt he have any of these experimantal songs on out of the cradle..

That seems like a contradiction but nevermind. I don’t think Gift Of Screws is experimental, except only when viewed against the background he’s supposed to be coming from. There’s at least five songs on the album that do not deviate significantly from the common understanding of what Fleetwood Mac’s music is supposed to be like and I believe they also would have made the final version of the album.

If you think “Wrong”, “This Is The Time”, “Street Of Dreams” and “Surrender The Rain” do not have any experimental qualities in them then you simply have a different understanding of “experimental” than I do. Being experimental doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to put a crude distortion on every guitar part.

…sometimes it looks like they were just thrown on there to make him happy, and dont really fit with the rest of the cd.

They fit in with the diversity that he has always had in his solo music. A double album isn’t necessarily about the perfect track flow; it often represents a chance for the band to branch out.

I don’t fault Stevie and Lindsey for the modes they’ve chosen to work in. But I do think that in the current climate Lindsey doesn’t just fit in and I daresay he shouldn’t be made to fit in. The times and the attitudes will change anyway.

[wondergirl9847]

The underground elitists will most likely just despise “Bleed To Love Her” and the soft-rock/classic rock/traditionalists would just hate “Murrow”.

That is one of the reasons I love Lindsey so much! I don't listen to ONE type of music and I believe that music lovers (not the masses who do stick with one type their whole lives) everywhere are that way. I love the craziness of Red Rover, but I love the traditional sounding SYHA as well.

I'm a dial flipper. I can go from my classic rock station to the country stations, to Top 40, to classical to jazz to friggin Radio Disney. :laugh:

I don't wanna be pigeonholed or stereotyped and I don't want Lindsey to be either.

"You're not like other people,
you do what you want to." - Stevie Nicks ;)

[teedee]

Originally posted by face of glass
That seems like a contradiction but nevermind. I don’t think Gift Of Screws is experimental, except only when viewed against the background he’s supposed to be coming from. There’s at least five songs on the album that do not deviate significantly from the common understanding of what Fleetwood Mac’s music is supposed to be like and I believe they also would have made the final version of the album.

If you think “Wrong”, “This Is The Time”, “Street Of Dreams” and “Surrender The Rain” do not have any experimental qualities in them then you simply have a different understanding of “experimental” than I do. Being experimental doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to put a crude distortion on every guitar part.



They fit in with the diversity that he has always had in his solo music. A double album isn’t necessarily about the perfect track flow; it often represents a chance for the band to branch out.

I don’t fault Stevie and Lindsey for the modes they’ve chosen to work in. But I do think that in the current climate Lindsey doesn’t just fit in and I daresay he shouldn’t be made to fit in. The times and the attitudes will change anyway.




didnt mean to sound like a contradiction, sometimes i think lidsey contradicts himself. he faults fm sometimes for playing it safe, all the while he talks about his solo work being experimental and not following the usual songwriters formual. them he doesnt release his solo with this typ of music but puts it on a fm cd. no i dont think his music on ootc was experimental, and i know it doesnt have to have that distortion sound to mean its experimental, at least not in my book, but lets not forget everyone quotes rr or murrow or come as the experimental songs, because they are the rougher sound or what ever. then when stevie does a song that doesnt have a loud distortion in it , its oh well she is playing it safe again. personally ootc is his best solo work, and i do love the tracks on s y w, i get them, but when the average listener hears the whole cd, you always hear well i liked stevies songs but some of lindseys are a bit hard to listen to. i dont mean that she is better or he is worse, just that if he isnt looking for commercial success, then he should be very happy with the way his solo career is going and stop trying to make people get something , that they may not want to get,,if music doesnt touch you , you cant make it touch you by tryng to explain it or pick it apart, that doesnt work. its sad in a way cause he is a music genious, in the same respect i think fm is very lucky and they know it to have him part of the group again esp as producer and arranger and guitarist.

[teedee]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Lindsey mentioned that apparently he found out about Mick's change of heart through some indirect channel. Or did I misunderstand that? This was during the footage with Lindsey in the car. I'll have to review it, but it seemed that something less-than-straightforward happened there.


[b]

Admit it, even you must have gotten a giggle or two from her rather naive 10-27-year-old-buyer comment. It was goofy and charming all at once. I mean, come on Stevie, teenagers aren't going to rush out and buy FM's new album. The Dance was different because a lot of kids had heard those songs in their parents' record collections and they were therefore pre-disposed to like the stuff. Frankly, I don't know too many 10-year-olds who rush to the stores for any albums.

Even from a business perspective, 30- and 40-somethings are the ones who would buy the album, and this group being more value-savvy than teenagers, would have loved to get a double disc. Besides, as it later became clear, the second disc would have cost pennies per copy to put out. It really was a non-issue and I'm still a little baffled as to why ultimately the idea was scrapped. It seems that fear, more than reality, drove this decision. I also was curious about Lindsey's comment that Stevie might drop out after doing 40 dates on the tour and it would therefore not be cost effective. Puzzling words, which seemed somewhat out of context. Had she threatened to do that?

[b]

I agree with this, and I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. At least, not I.

[b]

Well, they went with Needham because Stevie didn't like Chris' mixes. Lindsey seemed to instinctively know who would do the mixes that would best serve the songs. And he was afraid Chris would do an assembly-line approach that Lindsey simply didn't want, and rightly. Here is another example in which Stevie was pushing for commercial and Lindsey was pushing for what would best serve the songs.





Stevies comment about who buys records was true, meaning todays music is guided towards the teeny boppers , and she meant those kids arent going to be interested in FM. then she stated older ppl have morgages and troubled kids, buyin records isnt their first priority. we know that older ppl buy records too, but she was making a point that maybe you failed to get. if this were lindsey saying this you would all be pattin him on the back for caring, but not stevie. everyone loved when lindsey stated i dont care if i have to eat the money, or if we only sell 300, 000 copies, fine if it were a solo project, but its kinda crazy to ask fm to feel the same way, but in the end what did lindsey say, i have to pay for my new house and raise a family, hey lindsey , you should be able to pay cash for that house even before syw went on tour.

[Cammie]

:wavey: Thanks a LOT... for the Great Debates about
Who Rules in The Studio!!!;) Commercial "gods"
or Just Good Music!Your sorta' wrong in the last
paragraph explaining Lindsey! He said it was...
His Own Solo Songs,not the FMac cd,that would
ONLY SELL 300,000 copies! But Mick and Carl S.
expected to $urely SELL Millions of Units of Their
Single cd of 18 Tunes!So They RULED!!!Bye,Sky;)

{teedee...They should not be hurting for money!
Unless music doesn't make the millions we think!}

[face of glass]

Originally posted by teedee
sometimes i think lidsey contradicts himself. he faults fm sometimes for playing it safe, all the while he talks about his solo work being experimental and not following the usual songwriters formual. them he doesnt release his solo with this typ of music but puts it on a fm cd.
For all I know the only critique for playing it safe has been directed at Mirage (which I don’t entirely agree with), Behind The Mask and Time (which have almost zero Lindsey involvement). And I think that the last two are the closest the post-Welch FM have got to playing it safe; making the sound almost thoroughly smooth on the ears. I don’t think he has any complaints of the music on FM albums he’s appeared on as a significant contributor (sans Mirage).

I also don’t think he’s making the songwriting his biggest focus. The studio, along with his guitar, is his main instrument; it’s the arrangements/production that are the best way for him to express himself.
no i dont think his music on ootc was experimental
I think there is the sense of experimental, of unusual, on OOTC, a bit less than on his other solo albums maybe but I think that was because he had left FM at that point and wanted to reach out into the areas that Stevie and Chris had covered earlier. But the unusual is there, in the harmonies of “Don’t Look Down”, in the quirky, chaotic splatter of “Wrong”, in the forced violence of “This Is The Time”, in the self-centred depression of “Street Of Dreams” and in the symphonic washes of “Surrender The Rain”. Not to mention his riffage almost throughout the album.

The things may not jump at you like they do on SYW but that’s most likely because OOTC was aiming for a homogenous sound and SYW is not. Rumours, Tusk and TITN also aimed for that sound too. But even then, no matter how smooth some of the things might sound to people, there’s always the sense of unusual, of something being out of touch, of something that just isn’t willing to fit in to the commonly accepted framework. That factor comes from Lindsey Buckingham and it’s the thing that for me made the whole Rumours line-up stand out from the AOR muck.
lets not forget everyone quotes rr or murrow or come as the experimental songs, because they are the rougher sound or what ever. then when stevie does a song that doesnt have a loud distortion in it , its oh well she is playing it safe again.
It’s not about distortion. It’s about unusualness. Something that truly makes the song stand out from its comrades.

As Lindsey states in that 1981 article posted in the forum:
I hate turning on the radio and being able to guess what an entire song is going to sound like in the first five seconds. I don’t mean there aren’t good songs on the radio-there are-but don’t you get tired of hearing that same approach over and over again?
That’s what I think is LB’s biggest strength; he may repeat some of the things but he always assembles them together so that the feel and the construction are different.

Stevie doesn’t do that. Teedee, I personally think that she has had about two or three moods up her sleeve for her entire career and I think that is because she hasn’t got the skills, the will and the need to change things. She just wants it to have the contemporary production and everything else stays the same. “I don’t change baby, you don’t change, it’s all the same, Rhiannon”.

Subtlety is her biggest pull but that subtlety can be something that only the fans can hear. It’s something I can’t always hear anyway. That’s why there’s the danger of everything sounding the same and then it might come off as calculated.

I can think of only very few Lindsey Buckingham songs that people could feel completely neutral to. I think he wants to generate a reaction of some kind in people. Love it or hate it but you can’t ignore it. And I can say that of Stevie too but once again, disregard the voice and the music can approach the level of total neutrality.
i get them, but when the average listener hears the whole cd, you always hear well i liked stevies songs but some of lindseys are a bit hard to listen to.
Are you speaking about the “average FM listener”? The “soft-rock crowd”?

I wouldn’t speak of the listeners of alternative music as “average” but there’s still millions of us all over the planet and for them Lindsey’s songs wouldn’t be hard to listen to.
…trying to make people get something , that they may not want to get…
Are you trying to say that he should compromise? Work in a certain mode only? I wouldn’t endorse that.

I don’t think he’s on a mission of sorts; I don’t think he’s trying to combine different target groups intentionally.

There might have been discussions he’s been having with record executives; he might have been told to tone down his quirks or to decide which audience he should try to bow down to. If there were those then it appears to me that he can be very stubborn with his music. If there weren’t any discussions then he’s just simply being naive when he wants to release all this widespread material. And I daresay it’s the right kind of naivety, especially when he doesn’t have to sell records any more.
… if music doesnt touch you , you cant make it touch you by tryng to explain it or pick it apart, that doesnt work.
But you can separate the analysis from the enjoyment of music itself. For instance, if at the Ledge everyone was constantly trying to write from a purely emotional point of view then the posts would be close to uninformative if people I know nothing about were to write such stuff. Use some common sense here people ;)

I’m not trying to make Stevie’s music appealing to me by analysing it. It wouldn’t work. But you can always discuss your feelings regarding the music and why it feels lacklustre in parts. I don’t think anyone here is, in the end, speaking from the brain. We’re all speaking from the heart, even though we may wrap it up in fancy talk.

Lindsey Buckingham hits a larger palette on the scale of human emotions for me than Stevie Nicks. Even in his most experimental moments he never loses my feelings. Stevie has a smaller palette but she has more shades.

That’s why I don’t think Lindsey should compromise in the way his music sounds. It just would limit his personal expression a lot.

[teedee]

Originally posted by Cammie
:wavey: Thanks a LOT... for the Great Debates about
Who Rules in The Studio!!!;) Commercial "gods"
or Just Good Music!Your sorta' wrong in the last
paragraph explaining Lindsey! He said it was...
His Own Solo Songs,not the FMac cd,that would
ONLY SELL 300,000 copies! But Mick and Carl S.
expected to $urely SELL Millions of Units of Their
Single cd of 18 Tunes!So They RULED!!!Bye,Sky;)

{teedee...They should not be hurting for money!
Unless music doesn't make the millions we think!}

no he was commeneting on being happy if the double cd only sold 300,000 . if it was about his solo cd, the band wouldnt of had an issue with it. and there wouldnt have been the big debate about the double cd. go back and watch it.

[teedee]

[i]Originally posted by face of expression a lot. [/B]


its not about distortion, i know that,
i dont think OOTC is or has an experimental sound. its a shame that cd didnt reach a larger audience.



i do not think of fm as an alternative band.....


the people who bought syw, maybe newer fans, was who i was referring to mostly , but there have been some older fans that mad e the same comments on lbs songs as well.



as for music and feelings. if you like a song, it needs no explaination. i was not talking about a song expressing emotions,ex its about love, i was talking about if you personally like a song, it moves you in some way , doesnt matter what the subject is.


as for you r other comments about lb and sn's palette, thats a personal opinion. as far as im concerned, i dont think there will ever be another songwriter like stevie, nor another guitarist like lindsey,

[Cammie]

We adore Lindsey's musical palette of quirky sounds!!!
He is producing tunes with a great R & R Edgeness!:]

LB DID Try to Explain that... "This Body of MY Work
IF I put out as MY Solo cd...only 300,000 ppl would
hear My Work!" (I give 2 or 3 songs to this project!)

Mick then whines to Lindsey's old friend Ray Lindsey!
Something about him saying they would sell 500,000.
Mick Makes fun to Ray of His Dear Friend Lindsey who
was Trying to make a Great Album for Fleetwood!:eek:

YOU haven't even $old a million SYW cd's yet Mick!:(

A waste of money(23.99)a duplicated purchase for my
friend to buy me the Red Double! Why not just put out
an 'Honest to Lindsey Double' to begin with Mick? Sky;)

[EveryHour]

Though I don't really care about arguing over "who rules in the studio" because we really cannot form TRUE opinions, not having been involved...we're looking in from the outside, so I personally think it's a waste of time to even think about this in such depth when you cannot possibly be coming from the same place as the band. Just my personal feelings.

Anyway...despite this opinion, I do agree that they should have gone ahead with a double album. It probably would have sold just as many copies (ie, the same group of people who bought the single album would have been willing to buy a double). I almost tend to think an 18 track single album might be more overwhelming to people in general. At least if, say, 24 tracks are divided onto 2 discs, they feel like they'll get a rest in between:). Especially, as mentioned, if they were going to put out the set with the bonus CD anyway...

[face of glass]

Sorry Teedee, was away for a while. Not that there’s much for me to say anymore.

Originally posted by teedee
i dont think OOTC is or has an experimental sound. its a shame that cd didnt reach a larger audience.
Whereas I think that even the little experimental qualities it has; the new wave quirks or however you want to call them, drove away the mainstream audience. And the polished sound, along with the FM connection, drove away the seekers of “authenticity”. That’s the only way I can explain its commercial failure.

do not think of fm as an alternative band.....

But with Buckingham and Nicks FM has many qualities that can make the alternative people turn their heads and listen.

What Peter Green, Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks have is an ability to communicate to people directly from their psyches. They know how to explore the murkier depths of their minds and come out with results that are powerful and will most likely speak to the listeners’ psyches as well.

This is why they can have such passionate following. And this is why they can cross the rigid genre borders and speak to the “elitists” as well.

There are some of us, even here, who listen to both alternative music and FM and I’m willing to bet that it’s mainly because of SN and LB. Sharon posted Simon Reynolds’ review of Tusk that had Stevie described as an indie heroine. Marcello Carlin, when reviewing the recent reissues for Uncut, compared Lindsey’s Tusk work to well-known underground bands. And I raise my hat to anyone from those circles who recognizes these qualities in their work, despite it being released on a major label and having been deemed as the antithesis of punk for a long time.

the people who bought syw, maybe newer fans, was who i was referring to mostly , but there have been some older fans that mad e the same comments on lbs songs as well.

Doesn’t prove a thing as far as I’m concerned. ChiliD, a fan since 1967, doesn’t seem to have anything particular against any Lindsey song on SYW (from what I’ve gathered here and there) and like him, I don’t think there’s anything too experimental in them.

as for music and feelings. if you like a song, it needs no explaination. i was not talking about a song expressing emotions,ex its about love, i was talking about if you personally like a song, it moves you in some way , doesnt matter what the subject is.

Also it should be kept in mind that some topics and emotions are acceptable in the underground and the same goes for the mainstream too.

What I get out of “Murrow” are images of violence and chaos. It is a harrowing track, it doesn’t make me angry but it serves as a purification.

“Come” is, to me, a picture of an obsessive man who just haunts himself all the time with the thoughts in his head. Yet it has a sense of humour and self-deprecation in it. Yes, it’s of sarcastic type but at least it shows that Lindsey isn’t totally engulfed by his feelings.

“Red Rover” has a hyperactive uplift to it; to me it’s a person in a totally euphoric state yet moving along rapidly like that all-famous Duracell-bunny.

That’s what I get out of those that you deem experimental. There’s very little inaccessible in them. They’re states of mind that every human can relate to. I may interpret them differently than the others but I will never believe that they’re just experimenting for experiments sake.

They may be a bit more extreme than what’s on OOTC but I still don’t think he’s ever wanted to make a solely experimental album. It isn’t his thing.

It’s all about expressing the various sides of his personality. Not everything can be digested easily and some people don’t even want to digest those sides. But it’s the same thing with Stevie’s vulnerability. They both know how to present everything they want to express to the public in accessible forms. Stevie’s way isn’t just the one I prefer.

“That’s Enough For Me”.

[Cammie]

:wavey:Well said...face of glass!!! OOTC is a great LB Work!!!
To...Fleetwood Mac Fans! THEY ALL RULE!:] :] :] :]

With their MUSIC...Lawyers...Managers...Friends... Families
and their Own... Individual... Very Strong Personalities!!!
Four EGOES intermingling 18 tunes on ONE Little CD!:eek:

Lindsey works to Produce The Music...Sing Tunes and Play Guitar Magic! He just wants to get his Music out there!Lindsey's life is now different... with his Kids and his Wife expecting a third child momentarily!Some seem upset Lindsey is a Happy Family Man!

(Surely Stevie, a Beauty, could marry her true Love!!!)

Mick is a bankruptcy survivor and needs a steady income first!
He has twin daughters! Stevie is his friend and cohort and she goes along with Mick's opinions!Mick said she rents down the street from them in Hawaii!
They like each other!!!:)

John is a great guy but he just wants to be on his
boat & fish (on the Doc.) having Fun with Lindsey!
He's the quiet Bass Genius...going along with Mick!
They are the Backbone that Holds FMac Together !!!

This is My Assessment...not yours to Analyze!
THE END!!!Thanks for your critiques! Bye,Sky:)


(This IS the LINDSEY Thread!:cool:We ADMIRE His WORK!)

[Kelly]

Boy, that was confusing. I just do not understand the comment "some seem upset Lindsey is a HAPPY FAMILY MAN:wavey: now". I do not remember reading anything even remotely similar to that. Further, Mick was not whining to Ray Lindsey, he was discussing what Lindsey had said regarding the Ridley Scott/two bedroom apartment scenario. Lindsey was not making a whole lot of sense with that analogy and Mick was just pointing that out. Obviously money is important to Lindsey, did you see the new house she was having built? If LB was living in a two bedroom apartment and not having a several million dollar home built, his argument to Mick would have had some substance behind it. I understood what he was saying, I do "get him" but comparing the two was sort of laughable IMO. LB is a genius and without his vision this album would not be the gem it is, but he is a man full of contradictions!

[4Buck]

I always remember how Buckingham bought out roughly 85 - 100 expensive seats at his PBS Sound Stage performance in September of 2003 so that many ardent fans could win these as free tickets! He just wants everyone to hear his brilliant (do I use that word enough when I describe him?!?!) compositions!

He is sooooo wealthy and generous! :)