CarneVaca
03-23-2004, 11:32 AM
Slate magazine reviewed the reissues. Here's an excerpt:
Of the three albums, the one that's aged best is Tusk, which was originally considered a catastrophic stiff (it only went quadruple platinum). At once more sprawling and more intimate than Fleetwood Mac and Rumours, it retains a certain mystery that its precursors have lost to overexposure—partly because the band was trying so hard not to repeat itself (Buckingham's stabs at new wave miss the mark but anticipate the lo-fi movement of the '90s); partly because even its smallest details are counterintuitive (Fleetwood's drum crescendo at the end of "Over and Over") to its overall sequence. Tusk is the only extant proof that it's possible to go into a recording studio for two years with millions of dollars and a mountain of drugs and emerge with something subtle. If anyone tried to follow Fleetwood Mac's example there, it's not surprising that they failed.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097404/
A critic who "gets it." How refreshing.
Of the three albums, the one that's aged best is Tusk, which was originally considered a catastrophic stiff (it only went quadruple platinum). At once more sprawling and more intimate than Fleetwood Mac and Rumours, it retains a certain mystery that its precursors have lost to overexposure—partly because the band was trying so hard not to repeat itself (Buckingham's stabs at new wave miss the mark but anticipate the lo-fi movement of the '90s); partly because even its smallest details are counterintuitive (Fleetwood's drum crescendo at the end of "Over and Over") to its overall sequence. Tusk is the only extant proof that it's possible to go into a recording studio for two years with millions of dollars and a mountain of drugs and emerge with something subtle. If anyone tried to follow Fleetwood Mac's example there, it's not surprising that they failed.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097404/
A critic who "gets it." How refreshing.