Circa 1982, Who *Was* Fleetwood Mac?

[David]

Fleetwood Mac, as it stands in its current incarnation, is Stevie Nicks & Christine McVie. The men in the band are pure backup (despite the cloying efforts of Lindsey Buckingham to dig up the moldering spirit of Buddy Holly) & as such they just fill in the gaps, round out the record, or just plain snooze when the forces of Nicks & McVie grasp the moment.

--Joe Fernbacher
"Mirage" Review
Creem
December 1982

[The Tower]

I pretty much agree with that. Strictly from a songwriting point of view, Lindsey's Mirage material is his worst. Stevie's voice was at her zenith. Christine's Mirage stuff is beautiful.

[strandinthewind]

I pretty much agree with that. Strictly from a songwriting point of view, Lindsey's Mirage material is his worst. Stevie's voice was at her zenith. Christine's Mirage stuff is beautiful.

I agree. I also think LB was reluctant to even participate.

[HomerMcvie]

I pretty much agree with that. Strictly from a songwriting point of view, Lindsey's Mirage material is his worst. Stevie's voice was at her zenith. Christine's Mirage stuff is beautiful.
And it's also my favorite era for the band. FM could do no wrong, IMO, in those days. And I loved them all equally.

[Nicksluvver]

While I think the bands problems are evident in the music at that point in time {for example Stevies voice having to be dubbed in from other sessions, because 3/4 of the time she was not present during the making of the record do to drugs and solo stuff plus the rest of the bands addiction, fame, money and personality clash issues, with the exception of Christine who usually got along with everyone up untill Tango } I love that record! Book of love , Thats Alright, Love in a store, Only over you , Wish you were here , and Eyes of the world are my faves from Mirage.

[ontheEdgeof17]

{for example Stevies voice having to be dubbed in from other sessions, because 3/4 of the time she was not present during the making of the record}

This true?

We all know about the Tango sessions, but I didn't know Stevie wasn't present for most of Mirage. I was always under the assumption that they recorded in France....together....as a unit.

[Nicksluvver]

This true?

We all know about the Tango sessions, but I didn't know Stevie wasn't present for most of Mirage. I was always under the assumption that they recorded in France....together....as a unit.

Unless I am mistaken I believe I got this from FM behind the music. That it was hard to get Mirage done, becuase she wasn't there and vocals had to be dubbed in. Maybe he said Tango and I got them mixed up. Anyone know for sure? I can't dig out my FM BTM right now~!

[amber]

Wow, I didn't realize. It seems Lindsey tried pretty hard during Mirage to "do something" but it just came out crappy. I guess I am wrong? I don't even like Christine's Mirage material. The "tinny" production makes it unlistenable to me. And usually Christine's stuff is kind of...untouchable - the voice is still there. (yes, there are exceptions)
Never listen.
Stevie's voice was kick ass, though, I only like her songs. So far.

The tour was outstanding, though, thankfully. :woohoo: :woohoo:

[David]

We all know about the Tango sessions, but I didn't know Stevie wasn't present for most of Mirage. I was always under the assumption that they recorded in France....together....as a unit.Apparently, they laid down only some basic tracks in France. Most of the work on the album was done back in L.A. at Larrabee. Based on what the other Macsters have said & on some articles at the time (like the David Gans piece in Record), Stevie wasn't around for much more than a couple of weeks.

But maybe she didn't need to be. Besides, her solo album was huge at that point, so that naturally captured her attention.

The story of Lindsey's having to piece together bits of unrelated Stevie vocal tracks in order to create a cohesive work, though, refers to the "Tango" sessions.

[DavidMn]

Yeah I can see where that person is coming from, at least when it comes to mirage.

[amber]

Apparently, they laid down only some basic tracks in France. Most of the work on the album was done back in L.A. at Larrabee. Based on what the other Macsters have said & on some articles at the time (like the David Gans piece in Record), Stevie wasn't around for much more than a couple of weeks.

But maybe she didn't need to be. Besides, her solo album was huge at that point, so that naturally captured her attention.

The story of Lindsey's having to piece together bits of unrelated Stevie vocal tracks in order to create a cohesive work, though, refers to the "Tango" sessions.
How odd that Stevie's tracks are clearly the best.... :confused:

[trackaghost]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?

[macfan 57]

Fleetwood Mac, as it stands in its current incarnation, is Stevie Nicks & Christine McVie. The men in the band are pure backup (despite the cloying efforts of Lindsey Buckingham to dig up the moldering spirit of Buddy Holly) & as such they just fill in the gaps, round out the record, or just plain snooze when the forces of Nicks & McVie grasp the moment.

--Joe Fernbacher
"Mirage" Review
Creem
December 1982

I pretty much agree with this review. Chris & Stevie carried this record. This album was the last Fleetwood Mac album in which I actually liked Stevie's songs. I don't think Lindsey really even wanted to do this album because of the flack he had gotten for Tusk. At this point, I think he was sort of half in, half out of the band. The solo careers of both Buckingham & Nicks after Tusk totally changed everything for Fleetwood Mac as a band.

[GateandGarden]

And it's also my favorite era for the band. FM could do no wrong, IMO, in those days. And I loved them all equally.:shocked::shocked::shocked: :laugh: :xoxo:

[GateandGarden]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?I really love or like some of them. My love for "Oh Diane" still seems hard to justify. I think Amber is correct when she says that Stevie's songs on that album are inarguably the best. I try (though it's a really difficult thing) to separate my personal tastes and objectively say what is best, musically and lyrically, regardless of what I think is best. Hmmm, is that really possible? Anyway, despite my undying love for "Only Over You" (which only grows and flourishes the more people talk about how they don't like it :laugh: ), I feel certain that Stevie's songs are the best on that CD. Like with Then Play On, I know "Underway" isn't the best song on there (it's even a song, really), but it's my favorite for whatever reason. Is this making sense and does it have any relevance? This actually goes through my mind during survivors; I wonder if I should vote something off simply because I don't like it, or because I think it's technically inferior regardless of whether or not I like it. But then I figure out soon enough that survivor games are about neither of those things and all about "strategery," anyway. :laugh: [/end senseless rambling]

[strandinthewind]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?

I like them. But, they pale in comparson to La Nicks and then CM, which is said because they are good on their own, at least to me.

[Jyqm]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?

I like most of them! "Empire State" is the only that really doesn't do much for me. I rather enjoy the 50s throwback aspect of most of Lindsey's tracks.

[David]

How odd that Stevie's tracks are clearly the best.... :confused:Clearly to you, maybe. Not to, for example, critics like David Gans or Sam Sutherland, who wrote in High-Fidelity magazine:

"Buckingham's own songs are the most distinctive ... keyboardist McVie's are the warmest ... if there's any serious weakness here, it's the perfunctory feel Nicks brings to her songs ... the dreamy pop siren sounds particularly mannered ... Her writing simply recycles the ersatz mysticism & narcissistic role-playing that initially intrigued on songs like Rhiannon ..."

[David]

[COLOR=Navy]I think Amber is correct when she says that Stevie's songs on that album are inarguably the best.But people have argued otherwise -- which makes minced meat of the argument that the opinion is inarguable.
I try (though it's a really difficult thing) to separate my personal tastes and objectively say what is best, musically and lyrically, regardless of what I think is best. Hmmm, is that really possible?No, actually, it isn't. An opinion -- any opinion -- is by its very nature subjective. Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective. Objective means irrespective of opinion, belief, emotion or prejudice. There's no such thing as an objective measure of artistic merit.

We can, however, state objectively that the velocity of shallow water waves is roughly proportional to the depth of the water through which they pass.

[David]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?I always loved "Book of Love" & "Eyes of the World." I liked "Can't Go Back" & "Empire State" & even "Oh Diane" for their arrangement & production values, although I miss that "tube-amp-is-exploding-in-my-face" aspect that he experimented with on Tusk.

[dissention]

Clearly to you, maybe. Not to, for example, critics like David Gans or Sam Sutherland, who wrote in High-Fidelity magazine:

"Buckingham's own songs are the most distinctive ... keyboardist McVie's are the warmest ... if there's any serious weakness here, it's the perfunctory feel Nicks brings to her songs ... the dreamy pop siren sounds particularly mannered ... Her writing simply recycles the ersatz mysticism & narcissistic role-playing that initially intrigued on songs like Rhiannon ..."

:laugh:

I don't think Stevie had turned towards that path until The Wild Heart. Once she spread her legs and gave birth to Rock A Little, that's when the real recycling and embarrassment began.

[dissention]

I like most of them! "Empire State" is the only that really doesn't do much for me. I rather enjoy the 50s throwback aspect of most of Lindsey's tracks.

Same here. "Empire State" is the only one I'm not too keen on, the rest are great. "Oh Diane" doesn't seem to be liked very much, but that's one of my favorite Lindsey songs.

[dissention]

I always liked this review by Geoffrey Himes from the Washington Post, 8/1/82:

LOS ANGELES has long harbored some of rock 'n' roll's most reclusive, most brilliant studio wizards: Phil Spector, the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson and Steely Dan's Donald Fagen and Walter Becker. Now Fleetwood Mac's Lindsey Buckingham and Christine McVie must be added to this select company. "Mirage" (Warner Bros. 23607-1), the fifth and latest album by the current Fleetwood Mac lineup, carries on this pop baroque tradition splendidly.

Spector, Fagen, Becker and McVie come from elsewhere, but they (and Buckingham and California native Wilson) have found Hollywood the most conducive environment for manufacturing their dreams. This is the appeal of their art: By the sheer force of their imagination they have created complex, new worlds on record where seemingly disparate elements harmonize perfectly. For many American suburbanites--forced to compensate for their drab world by acts of imagination--these records are reassuring proof that it can be done.

If you subtract the three dreary Stevie Nicks tracks, the nine remaining cuts on "Mirage" marry the melodic accessibility of "Fleetwood Mac" and "Rumors" with the experimental boldness of "Tusk." Christine McVie's four songs feature the intoxicating romantic melodies of her famous singles, but Lindsey Buckingham's production fleshes them out with more intricate imaginative detail than they ever had before. Buckingham's own five songs are clearly rooted in the bouncy simplicity of early rock 'n' roll. He then proves how a little jingly melody and basic lyric wish can be musically expanded into the grand importance they have subjectively for the wisher.

The album's first single is "Hold Me" by McVie and singer-songwriter Robbie Patton. Much like the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda," the song builds from heartbroken verses aching with sustained notes to a punchy, repeating chorus making a plea for love. McVie has constructed one contagious melody for the first verse and still another for the chorus. The body of the song is sung as a duet between McVie's hopeful alto and Buckingham's anxious tenor. Buckingham takes over on the tag: He plays a slow, high guitar solo that extends the plea beyond words; he pits a groaning bass vocal against the pretty, high harmonies.

McVie's "Love in Store" has a couple more gorgeous mid-tempo melody hooks. Buckingham once again expands the romantic moment--this time with layers upon layers of odd, twangy guitars. On "Only Over You" (dedicated to Beach Boy Dennis Wilson) and "Wish You Were Here" (written with John Mayall's drummer Colin Allen), McVie's melodies are suffused with angelic choirs that give the romantic themes the swooning feeling they need.

If McVie's songs are romantic without irony, Buckingham's songs are romantic with irony. Long a musical wizard, Buckingham is finally developing skill at words, too. He now strips his lyrics to simple catch phrases that sound as if they came from "Teen Angel" of 1962, but in fact suggest far more than they explain. "Can't Go Back" suggests in short four-word lines the inevitable but impossible desire to return to one's youth. The irresistible opening theme--a cabaret piano phrase answered by a circus synthesizer phrase over a fast heartbeat rhythm--suggests that it may indeed be possible via one's musical imagination. Buckingham's synthesizer-treated vocal bends in and out of focus magically.

"Book of Love" and "Oh Diane" are even more rooted in the pre-Beatles' era. But the innocence is lined with irony--Buckingham suspects that God knows no more about love than we mortals; he suspects his Diane is slipping away with time. The potential of the original doo-wop harmonies are heightened by Buckingham's control over his greater options in the studio. As his lead vocal fades on each line in "Book of Love," the harmony vocals rise in a crossing arc. Two of Buckingham's biggest influences have been the Beach Boys and the Kingston Trio. He practices his odd brand of folkie-surf music on "Empire State" and "Eyes of the World."

Stevie Nicks is the album's big disappointment. Once one of the band's best writers, she has deteriorated into penning overly long tales about vaguely defined dream landscapes with minimal melodies and the blandest of chord progressions. Whereas McVie and Buckingham evoke dreams through the lovely complexity of their music, Nicks simply talks about dreams and gypsies and evokes very little. Nevertheless Nicks is still an excellent harmony singer, and her echoing vocals on McVie's "Love in Store" give the song an incredible lift. And let's not forget Fleetwood Mac's two founding members; drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie are still important to their band . The rhythm tracks on "Mirage" are sparer yet far more effective than the rhythm work on the solo albums by Buckingham and Nicks last year.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^^

Hmmmm - Gypsy is amongst her best and The other two contain what could be her better vocals. Sounds like someone doesn't like that feminine edge :laugh:

[shackin'up]

I always loved "Book of Love" & "Eyes of the World." I liked "Can't Go Back" & "Empire State" & even "Oh Diane" for their arrangement & production values,

Except for Oh Diane I love that album. I say I LOVE that album.

although I miss that "tube-amp-is-exploding-in-my-face" aspect that he experimented with on Tusk.

Well that's the reason exactly why I ADORE that one. I say ADORE that one.

Trackaghost, we're a born minority if it comes to why we like FM. It seems like it is just that what others dislike, hits the nail for us. I'm getting used to it.
Besides, it's not a problem at all, we all are obsessed with them....

[Jyqm]

No, actually, it isn't. An opinion -- any opinion -- is by its very nature subjective. Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective. Objective means irrespective of opinion, belief, emotion or prejudice. There's no such thing as an objective measure of artistic merit.

We can, however, state objectively that the velocity of shallow water waves is roughly proportional to the depth of the water through which they pass.

Of course, we can also set parameters for what constitutes "good" art, and if - if - we can all agree on those, then we can start making some "objective" judgments about artistic merit. However, the nice thing about art is that everybody comes to it looking for different things, and with different parameters in mind, and so we can all come away from it with our experiences and our own judgments what we thought was good or not. But no, let's not call those judgments objective.

[Jyqm]

I always liked this review by Geoffrey Himes from the Washington Post, 8/1/82:

Stevie Nicks is the album's big disappointment. Once one of the band's best writers, she has deteriorated into penning overly long tales about vaguely defined dream landscapes with minimal melodies and the blandest of chord progressions. Whereas McVie and Buckingham evoke dreams through the lovely complexity of their music, Nicks simply talks about dreams and gypsies and evokes very little.

While I don't necessarily agree, I can see this as a fair judgment of "Straight Back" and even (gasp!) "Gypsy." But I think it's a bit fair to put "That's Alright" in this category. As a little country ditty, it's got a rather nice melody, and I think Stevie does a nice job of evoking the emotional state of her character. (And shoot, "complexity of music" isn't what a country song is usually all about anyway.)

[trackaghost]

Trackaghost, we're a born minority if it comes to why we like FM. It seems like it is just that what others dislike, hits the nail for us. I'm getting used to it.
Besides, it's not a problem at all, we all are obsessed with them....

Yeah, I think so. It amazes me when people say Stevie's songs outshine Lindsey's on that album. I mean obviously Gypsy does, that's a true classic and the best song on the album, but no one other than hardcore Mac fans would love the wimpy country of That's Alright, or the unfinished feel of Straight Back. I always thought they sounded like B-sides.

[amber]

Yeah, I think so. It amazes me when people say Stevie's songs outshine Lindsey's on that album. I mean obviously Gypsy does, that's a true classic and the best song on the album, but no one other than hardcore Mac fans would love the wimpy country of That's Alright, or the unfinished feel of Straight Back. I always thought they sounded like B-sides.
:rolleyes:

Anyways. Her voice sounds great. Besides, Gypsy is so much better than all the other songs that it counts as "Stevie's song(s) outshining everything" :lol:

What I dislike the very most on this album, I just realized, is not totally Lindsey's songs, but what Lindsey (I guess) did with Christine's songs. EOTW is okay, I even kind of like Oh Diane (kind of). I think I made this face ===> :eek: :distress: when I heard Christine's songs...Someone said this album sounds way better on vinyl, I think i need to hear that. It sounds mostly terrible to me.

[GypsySorcerer]

I really like Lindsey's material on Mirage, except for Empire State. Blech. Chris' are good too, but Only Over You is the only song from her I truly despise. Sorry, Hillary. :laugh: And as others have said, vocally, Stevie was in top form. I like Mirage, despite the generally low approval from fans.

[amber]

But people have argued otherwise -- which makes minced meat of the argument that the opinion is inarguable.
No, actually, it isn't. An opinion -- any opinion -- is by its very nature subjective. Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective. Objective means irrespective of opinion, belief, emotion or prejudice. There's no such thing as an objective measure of artistic merit.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow, thanks! When's the next lesson? I love your "Things I Already Know that you try to sound intellectually superior about, to what purpose I have no idea" Class! It Rocks!

[Dreammms]

I love MIRAGE. The only song I am not that crazy about is Only Over You. But even that isn't that bad. Mirage is the first Fleetwood Mac album I got. My dad got me the cassette when it came out. I was about 6. I used to play that and Wild Heart all the time.

I love all the vocals. The harmonies are amazing.

Another reason I love Mirage is because I LOVE the demo and outtakes from that album. Lindsey playing Oh Diane and moaning a long to it. SO good. Also love the If You Were My Love tracks.

I am confused why so many don't love Empire State. I love it.

What they have to do now is Remaster it and add some of the outtakes to it. That would make me very happy. For some reason Mirage is very low sounding compared to all the other Mac albums.

[David]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow, thanks! When's the next lesson? I love your "Things I Already Know that you try to sound intellectually superior about, to what purpose I have no idea" Class! It Rocks!Oh, Amber, come on ... get off it! You & your eyeball rolling. You made a comment that Stevie's songs were inarguably the best, & I only pointed out that some fans & some critics were a long way from arguing that.

If I can never respond to anything without fear of being pegged as a person with a superiority complex, what's the point of my saying anything at all?!! :mad:

Let's say I had made the comment you made, & you wanted to make the point I made. How would you have said it? With plenty of lovey-dovey smilies & hedging & tentativeness so that your point had no meat? You would NOT have done that.

[David]

Besides, Gypsy is so much better than all the other songs that it counts as "Stevie's song(s) outshining everything"Is Gypsy really that much better a song than Hold Me or Only Over You? I think Gypsy's production & arrangement are what really drive it home. When I listen to the Heartbreakers play it or Stevie herself play it, it's not such a big deal to me. It has nice imagery, nice turns of phrase (Lightning strikes maybe once, maybe twice/And it lights up the night/And you see your gypsy) & even a typical amount of Stevie doofy-oafy words that just plotz (Faces freedom with a little fear/I have no fear/I have only love).

to me, it seems like an average Stevie Nicks song, maybe a little above average. Classics like Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon & Candlebright leave it in the dust (except in terms of track production, which is where Gypsy really lights up the night).

[shackin'up]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow, thanks! When's the next lesson? I love your "Things I Already Know that you try to sound intellectually superior about, to what purpose I have no idea" Class! It Rocks!

don't get me started on your -fill-the-air-with-chit-chat-drizzle, amber. at least you can admit the guy knows his way with words. I love to read them.

[jbrownsjr]

I find it funny that Stevie fans always go to the "your just too cerebral" card when defending La Nicks. This mostly happens with Stevie vs LB...

interesting............. :laugh:

[jbrownsjr]

Is Gypsy really that much better a song than Hold Me or Only Over You?

no, Gypsy is boring sans the guitar/keyboard and background vocal work

[jbrownsjr]

And when was the last time a Lindsey fan accused of Stevie fan of acting superior?

it's kind of like a Britney fan saying that Radiohead is just too simplistic :lol:

[dissention]

And when was the last time a Lindsey fan accused of Stevie fan of acting superior?

That made me howl with delight.

[jbrownsjr]

That made me howl with delight.

i had quite the chuckle too

[dissention]

it's kind of like a Britney fan saying that Radiohead is just too simplistic :lol:

That made me howl, too. :laugh:

[Jyqm]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow, thanks! When's the next lesson? I love your "Things I Already Know that you try to sound intellectually superior about, to what purpose I have no idea" Class! It Rocks!

I don't think she gets the joke, Dave.

-Jyqm, who generally laughs or at the very least smiles broadly at nearly everything David posts

[Jyqm]

I am confused why so many don't love Empire State. I love it.

It seems like a very silly, throwaway track to me. I'm confused as to why Lindsey even wrote it, actually. Plus, his conflation of New York the city and New York the state has always kind of annoyed me...

What they have to do now is Remaster it and add some of the outtakes to it. That would make me very happy. For some reason Mirage is very low sounding compared to all the other Mac albums.

Agreed, the CD sounds very quiet and very thin. A proper remastering would really open up the sound of this album. Listening to it, I can just tell there's all kinds of depth that I'm missing out on.

[jbrownsjr]

That made me howl, too. :laugh:

i owe u a few hundred more

[sparky]

I can only recall my intitial reaction to this album, as I don't listen to it much these days. I liked EOTW, BOL, and OD quite a lot. I also loved Gypsy. That's Alright, even though it has a great vocal, was recycled. I had heard the demo, and didn't think it was an improvement. SB...I love Christine's work on it. The production in that song gives it a great atmosphere, but to me it always seemed a fragment of a song. At 16, I thought this was great. I looked and looked for the real meat of the song and the finish disracted me so much I never realized there wasn't any THERE there. The song simply doesn't say much of anything.
CM's songs here were the really bland stuff, IMO. Not offensive, just yawn worthy. That's okay, she really shined on Tango.

[Jyqm]

Is Gypsy really that much better a song than Hold Me or Only Over You? I think Gypsy's production & arrangement are what really drive it home. When I listen to the Heartbreakers play it or Stevie herself play it, it's not such a big deal to me. It has nice imagery, nice turns of phrase (Lightning strikes maybe once, maybe twice/And it lights up the night/And you see your gypsy) & even a typical amount of Stevie doofy-oafy words that just plotz (Faces freedom with a little fear/I have no fear/I have only love).

to me, it seems like an average Stevie Nicks song, maybe a little above average. Classics like Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon & Candlebright leave it in the dust (except in terms of track production, which is where Gypsy really lights up the night).

Shoot, production-wise, I'd put "Hold Me" right up there with "Gypsy," too.

[David]

-Jyqm, who generally laughs or at the very least smiles broadly at nearly everything David postsIt might just be more of the attack-the-person-instead-of-the-point stuff so prevalent -- only it's known by different names & is employed by different people in different ways.

Some people think I'm stuck up or superior. Fine. They won't debate what I say, just how I say it, as if I had complete control over that. If I were discussing something with these same people in person, would they make fun of the way I saw my R's (like W's)? Would they call me names like "Bawbwa Wa-Wa"?

Other people have the idea (or are under the delusion, whichever description you prefer) that always responding with agreements is the only way of showing respect. If someone says, "Stevie joined Fleetwood Mac in 1977," you're supposed to say, "Right you are!" If instead you say, "Only if Fleetwood Mac formed in 1969," you're being haughty or disruptive; you're "slamming."

Even my Solecism thread got twisted into weird shapes, & people reading that probably turned it back around on me so that I became the unreasonable hophead, when I VERY CLEARLY started my post explaining that rock lyrics are typically colloquial & ungrammatical & that this wasn't really what I was talking about (like using "ain't" in a rock song) -- that I was trying to distinguish ordinary informality in lyrics from the errors that really jump out at you &, in some cases, say the opposite of what the songwriter wanted to say.

[David]

Shoot, production-wise, I'd put "Hold Me" right up there with "Gypsy," too.Oh fack yes. "Hold Me" as a production is pinnacle. It's miraculous. I wish I could engineer a track like that. I'd quit my day job.

[Jyqm]

It might just be more of the attack-the-person-instead-of-the-point stuff so prevalent -- only it's known by different names & is employed by different people in different ways.

Some people think I'm stuck up or superior. Fine. They won't debate what I say, just how I say it, as if I had complete control over that. If I were discussing something with these same people in person, would they make fun of the way I saw my R's (like W's)? Would they call me names like "Bawbwa Wa-Wa"?

Other people have the idea (or are under the delusion, whichever description you prefer) that always responding with agreements is the only way of showing respect. If someone says, "Stevie joined Fleetwood Mac in 1977," you're supposed to say, "Right you are!" If instead you say, "Only if Fleetwood Mac formed in 1969," you're being haughty or disruptive; you're "slamming."

Even my Solecism thread got twisted into weird shapes, & people reading that probably turned it back around on me so that I became the unreasonable hophead, when I VERY CLEARLY started my post explaining that rock lyrics are typically colloquial & ungrammatical & that this wasn't really what I was talking about (like using "ain't" in a rock song) -- that I was trying to distinguish ordinary informality in lyrics from the errors that really jump out at you &, in some cases, say the opposite of what the songwriter wanted to say.

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.

[chiliD]

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.


David may be "haughty"...but, I claim the title "know-it-all asshole". :D

[GateandGarden]

But people have argued otherwise -- which makes minced meat of the argument that the opinion is inarguable.
No, actually, it isn't. An opinion -- any opinion -- is by its very nature subjective. Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective. Objective means irrespective of opinion, belief, emotion or prejudice. There's no such thing as an objective measure of artistic merit.
We can, however, state objectively that the velocity of shallow water waves is roughly proportional to the depth of the water through which they pass.I want to agree with you but then I don't. For example, if we just look at things from a musical perspective, "Tusk" is better than anything I could write. Is it really a matter of opinion that "Tusk" would be superior because I haven't the slightest idea how to write music?

Normally I would just accept your point (not just because it's yours but because I've had this conversation before and it always leads to me submitting) as something that I can't oppose, but I had to give it a shot with what I said above. I might try another avenue but I'm awfully tired and all. I understand, though, that art is by nature subjective to subjectivity (oh--that was bad), unlike physics and math, and so my argument may hold no water whatsoever because of that fact.

And, for the record, if it should mean anything, I don't think you sounded superior.

[GateandGarden]

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.I wouldn't say so. I don't think there's necessarily a direct relationship between the two.

[Johnny Stew]

Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective.How extremely weird that you mentioned those two songs in relation to one another. My mother is a massive Beatles fan, and Beatles songs... especially McCartney's... were always playing in our house when I was growing up.
Mom used to sing to us as well... all sorts of goofy little ditties, like "Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor (On The Bedpost Overnight)" and "Great Big Gobs Of Greasy, Grimy Gopher's Guts."

I credit Mom for my eclectic tastes in music... and the reason why I can love something like "Storms" alongside something like "That's How We Do It In L.A." :nod:

[amber]

don't get me started on your -fill-the-air-with-chit-chat-drizzle, amber. at least you can admit the guy knows his way with words. I love to read them.
Good for you. I find it hilarious that he actually pointed out that someone could argue that Stevie's songs were inarguably the best. Of course they could - and to me him saying that was needless chitchat drizzle. He just used up airspace to point out an obvious definition. And, he often starts threads that are chit chat drizzle, to me. He actually defined the word "objective" in that post. *rolls eyes*

[amber]

I find it funny that Stevie fans always go to the "your just too cerebral" card when defending La Nicks. This mostly happens with Stevie vs LB...

interesting............. :laugh:
He's not too cerebral, he was pointlessly overanalyzing a definition of something that didn't need it, and pointing out the obvious. And I wasn't "defending la Nicks" at the time, if you read carefully. I was just saying David's use of pointless words in that post were a**ish - Stevie wasn't even involved. So, I know you aren't talking about me. :)

Now this:

Is Gypsy really that much better a song than Hold Me or Only Over You? I think Gypsy's production & arrangement are what really drive it home. When I listen to the Heartbreakers play it or Stevie herself play it, it's not such a big deal to me. It has nice imagery, nice turns of phrase (Lightning strikes maybe once, maybe twice/And it lights up the night/And you see your gypsy) & even a typical amount of Stevie doofy-oafy words that just plotz (Faces freedom with a little fear/I have no fear/I have only love).

to me, it seems like an average Stevie Nicks song, maybe a little above average. Classics like Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon & Candlebright leave it in the dust (except in terms of track production, which is where Gypsy really lights up the night).

Is something that actually makes a point, something that people can discuss.

The other - was just intellectual masterbating, as far as I'm concerned.

[amber]

It might just be more of the attack-the-person-instead-of-the-point stuff so prevalent -- only it's known by different names & is employed by different people in different ways.

Some people think I'm stuck up or superior. Fine. They won't debate what I say, just how I say it, as if I had complete control over that. If I were discussing something with these same people in person, would they make fun of the way I saw my R's (like W's)? Would they call me names like "Bawbwa Wa-Wa"?

.
You didn't have a point, David. You were defining "objective" for chrissakes, as if we were morons. And exploring the intricacies of what "inarguable" literally means.(again, as if we were morons). That's what I was attacking. You really expect me to "argue" that point? Ridiculous. There was no discussion, you were telling everyone the definitions of "inarguably" and "objective", and "opinion"(as if we were morons)....see how that works?
Good try, though, in playing the victim.

[Johnny Stew]

I always liked this review by Geoffrey Himes from the Washington Post, 8/1/82:Anyone ever notice the gist of dissy's favorite album reviews?
Schtick! Schtick! Schtick! :laugh:

I also got a chuckle out of the little jbrownsjr/Bobo/dissy exchange. Anyone notice how no one had so much as compared Stevie and Lindsey (or their fans) to each other until....

Well, nevermind. :angel:

[dissention]

Anyone ever notice the gist of dissy's favorite album reviews?
Schtick! Schtick! Schtick! :laugh:


I didn't say I agreed with everything he said, I just said I thought it was a good review. :p I like all of Stevie's tracks on Mirage, all of Lindsey's except for Empire State, and a precious few of Christine's.

[amber]

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.
They are not mutually exclusive. Tons of other people here post intelligently without it slipping into the realms of "haughty know it all a**hole".

[Johnny Stew]

I didn't say I agreed with everything he said, I just said I thought it was a good review. :pI know, sweetie... but everytime you proclaim a review to be one of your favorites, there's always a distinct biased slant.
I have a thing for themes and patterns. ;)

As for 'Mirage'... I actually love it. Considerably more than 'Fleetwood Mac,' in fact. And I enjoy the material on it from all three writers. Even stuff like "Empire State" and "Only Over You," which seem to be nearly universally panned.

[The Tower]

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.

[Nicksluvver]

Apparently, they laid down only some basic tracks in France. Most of the work on the album was done back in L.A. at Larrabee. Based on what the other Macsters have said & on some articles at the time (like the David Gans piece in Record), Stevie wasn't around for much more than a couple of weeks.

But maybe she didn't need to be. Besides, her solo album was huge at that point, so that naturally captured her attention.

The story of Lindsey's having to piece together bits of unrelated Stevie vocal tracks in order to create a cohesive work, though, refers to the "Tango" sessions.

Thanks, I thought my info was pretty much on, but I wanted to be sure!

[dissention]

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.

True.

I suppose I never really got into Lindsey or Stevie because they were all that "complex" or because they were amongst the best talent music had to offer. They are neither. I got into them because they were odd and eccentric characters who wrote songs that, as mainstream as some might be, were always off-kilter and brimming with personality and eccentricities. Neither have particularly noteworthy voices and neither write the best songs out there. As brilliant as they are at times, they aren't even all that and a bag of chips as musicians. However, they're almost unparalelled in terms infusing their own personal quirkiness into their music and that's what makes them such hot ****. Their offbeat personalities get confused for complexity far too often.

[Jyqm]

You didn't have a point, David. You were defining "objective" for chrissakes, as if we were morons. And exploring the intricacies of what "inarguable" literally means.(again, as if we were morons). That's what I was attacking. You really expect me to "argue" that point? Ridiculous. There was no discussion, you were telling everyone the definitions of "inarguably" and "objective", and "opinion"(as if we were morons)....see how that works?
Good try, though, in playing the victim.

I think David is clearly someone who appreciates proper use of language. (I hope that's not too obvious a point for you, Amber; I wouldn't want to insult you by pointing that out.) I don't think he was assuming that you or anyone else didn't know the definitions of "inarguable," "objective," or "improper," just that you were using them improperly. And what's the point of having words with definitions if you're going to use them improperly?

I'm guessing he was also a little flustered by your assertion that Stevie's song on Mirage were "inarguably" the best. If there's been a post in this thread that was somehow "superior," it was that one, in which you effectively claimed that everyone who thinks Lindsey or Christine's songs are better is simply wrong. I'm sure you'll say you didn't mean it that way; but then we're right back at point one: Don't say something is inarguable if it's not inarguable.

[Dreammms]

They are not mutually exclusive. Tons of other people here post intelligently without it slipping into the realms of "haughty know it all a**hole".

Dave is far from an asshole. His post are not dribble. I find them very imformative.

He has been in the Mac community for a long time now and he KNOWS what he is talking about.

[amber]

Dave is far from an asshole. His post are not dribble. I find them very imformative.

He has been in the Mac community for a long time now and he KNOWS what he is talking about.
I didn't say he didn't. And it's great he's been nice to you.

[amber]

I think David is clearly someone who appreciates proper use of language. (I hope that's not too obvious a point for you, Amber; I wouldn't want to insult you by pointing that out.) I don't think he was assuming that you or anyone else didn't know the definitions of "inarguable," "objective," or "improper," just that you were using them improperly. And what's the point of having words with definitions if you're going to use them improperly?

I'm guessing he was also a little flustered by your assertion that Stevie's song on Mirage were "inarguably" the best. If there's been a post in this thread that was somehow "superior," it was that one, in which you effectively claimed that everyone who thinks Lindsey or Christine's songs are better is simply wrong. I'm sure you'll say you didn't mean it that way; but then we're right back at point one: Don't say something is inarguable if it's not inarguable.
I hope he was flustered - that way I think there's a better reason for his treatise on the various definitions of words. :wavey: I appreciate the proper use of language, too, but I also appreciate the creative use of it, and I appreciate context as well. Say what you want - David was being a condescending know it all in that post, IMO. Especially if, as you assert, he wasn't assuming I or anyone else didn't know the definitions of those words. If he knew we knew the definitions, then saying them for us had no other purpose than to smarm. Intellectual masturbation, I still call it. :) And it's not like it's the first time. Not that I care, I usually ignore it. Oh, and I'll say what I want. :wavey:

[Jyqm]

I want to agree with you but then I don't. For example, if we just look at things from a musical perspective, "Tusk" is better than anything I could write. Is it really a matter of opinion that "Tusk" would be superior because I haven't the slightest idea how to write music?

You're right about this, but you're speaking from a purely technical perspective. You're also assuming that "good" music is defined by the complexity of the music, right? You could only write something simplistic, and that would worse than "Tuskl," because "Tusk" is more complex, right? The problem, though, is that there are plenty of intricately complex musical works that you might very well think are awful, and there are a lot of very simplistic songs (especially rock songs) that you probably love.

The problem with coming up with any objective way of saying that certain music is "good" or "bad" is that you have to come up with some criteria to base those judgments on. But if you ask a hundred people what they think the criteria of a "good" song are, you'll probably get a hundred different answers. Everybody looks for different things in music, and everybody gets something different out of music, so there's really no overarching objective criteria to be found.

But anyway, who cares whether or not we can come up with an objective way of judging music, right? Would that change the kind of music that you or anybody else likes? Would you stop liking a song if you found out it ranked low on our new objective scale? Would you start liking a song you didn't like before if it ranked really high? We all like what we like, and as long as it speaks to us or touches us in some way, let's just be happy with that.

[Jyqm]

I hope he was flustered - that way I think there's a better reason for his treatise on the various definitions of words. :wavey: I appreciate the proper use of language, too, but I also appreciate the creative use of it,

Creative use of language does not mean using words with no regard for their definitions.

and I appreciate context as well.

What context? You said that Stevie's songs were "clearly" the best. Someone else that they were "inarguably" the best. The only "context" is that in both cases opinions were presented as facts, and that's what David took issue with.

Say what you want - David was being a condescending know it all in that post, IMO. Especially if, as you assert, he wasn't assuming I or anyone else didn't know the definitions of those words. If he knew we knew the definitions, then saying them for us had no other purpose than to smarm.

No, it had the purpose of clarifying them in the contexts in which they were being misused or questioned. And in the case of his defining "objective" and "opinion," the discussion was all but encouraged by the person who posted that she wasn't sure if such a thing as an "objective opinion" were even possible. David was simply pointing out that no, it's not, and his evidence was the definitions of the words themselves.

Intellectual masturbation, I still call it. :) And it's not like it's the first time. Not that I care, I usually ignore it. Oh, and I'll say what I want. :wavey:

Good for you, darlin'. Lord knows nobody's stopping you.

[amber]

Creative use of language does not mean using words with no regard for their definitions.
Yes, it can.



What context? You said that Stevie's songs were "clearly" the best. Someone else that they were "inarguably" the best. The only "context" is that in both cases opinions were presented as facts, and that's what David took issue with.
That was the context. People's opinions. And of course people's opinions are presented that way, but everyone still knows they aren't facts. That's where the "too literal" thing comes in.



No, it had the purpose of clarifying them in the contexts in which they were being misused or questioned. And in the case of his defining "objective" and "opinion," the discussion was all but encouraged by the person who posted that she wasn't sure if such a thing as an "objective opinion" were even possible. David was simply pointing out that no, it's not, and his evidence was the definitions of the words themselves.
"clarifying them in contexts they were being misused". Even though it wasn't needed, everyone knows what they mean. = intellectual masturbation. As for the second part - okay, whatever. Fine.



Good for you, darlin'. Lord knows nobody's stopping you.
:confused: yeah, ok. I was responding when you said "Don't use 'inarguably' when something is 'arguable'". I thought you were telling me not to do something, because you told me not to do something. :wavey:

[shackin'up]

He actually defined the word "objective" in that post. *rolls eyes*

You can roll yer eyes until you look into the next month. I know what he defined. I can read to. I repeat. At least you can admit that he has a way with words. I love to read them. Chit-chat drizzle is something else than chit-chat poetry. Do you want a definition?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jbrownsjr]

[QUOTE=amber]He's not too cerebral, he was pointlessly overanalyzing a definition of something that didn't need it, and pointing out the obvious. And I wasn't "defending la Nicks" at the time, if you read carefully. I was just saying David's use of pointless words in that post were a**ish - Stevie wasn't even involved. So, I know you aren't talking about me. :) [QUOTE=amber]

I would never "Tango" with u my dear!

[QUOTE=amber]
The other - was just intellectual masterbating, as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE=amber]

thats hot! :laugh:

[HomerMcvie]

I DETEST reading the word SESLY. It makes me wince. Seriously. :xoxo:

[jbrownsjr]

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.

yep he's no jazzer either i agree

[Jyqm]

Yes, it can.

If you're Lewis Carroll or you're writing a poem, sure it can. But defending improper word usage on an INternet message board as "creative license" is, well, pretty thin.

That was the context. People's opinions. And of course people's opinions are presented that way, but everyone still knows they aren't facts. That's where the "too literal" thing comes in.

So wasn't David just stating his opinion that it was not inagruable that Stevie's songs were the best, and that other people including some critics agreed?

"clarifying them in contexts they were being misused". Even though it wasn't needed, everyone knows what they mean. = intellectual masturbation.

Whether or not everybody knew what they meant, they were being used incorrectly; David was simply bringing that to attention by noting the correct definitions.

:confused: yeah, ok. I was responding when you said "Don't use 'inarguably' when something is 'arguable'". I thought you were telling me not to do something, because you told me not to do something. :wavey:

Um, yeah, okay, duh, I was just saying my OPINION that I think it would behoove you to write intelligently and correctly, maybe you thought it wasn't presented that way, but geez, everybody KNOWS that it's not a FACT. And by the way, I'll say what I want, so don't tell me not to tell you not to do something. :wavey: :D :laugh: ;) :p

It amazes me that you dare to call other people smarmy and masturbatory. Christ.

[Johnny Stew]

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.
I suppose I never really got into Lindsey or Stevie because they were all that "complex" or because they were amongst the best talent music had to offer. They are neither. I got into them because they were odd and eccentric characters who wrote songs that, as mainstream as some might be, were always off-kilter and brimming with personality and eccentricities. Neither have particularly noteworthy voices and neither write the best songs out there. As brilliant as they are at times, they aren't even all that and a bag of chips as musicians. However, they're almost unparalelled in terms infusing their own personal quirkiness into their music and that's what makes them such hot ****. Their offbeat personalities get confused for complexity far too often.I don't usually like to quote long sections of someone else's posts and then just say "ditto," but I really don't have anything to add to either of these comments, other than to say that I couldn't agree more with both of them.

Very well said on all counts. :nod: :)

[jbrownsjr]

i think David is an asshole and by asshole I mean someone that I care about and love to read his posts and logic.


There I did it!! I used a word that has a funny yet insulting meaning, and I changed the context to show my appreciation for someone that really cares about music and making me laugh quite a bit.

BTW his "arrogance" and "meanderings" are what I love about him. ;)

[jbrownsjr]

I don't usually like to quote long sections of someone else's posts and then just say "ditto," but I really don't have anything to add to either of these comments, other than to say that I couldn't agree more with both of them.

Very well said on all counts. :nod: :)


Stew have I told you lately that I love you?!?! :xoxo:

[amber]

If you're Lewis Carroll or you're writing a poem, sure it can. But defending improper word usage on an INternet message board as "creative license" is, well, pretty thin.



So wasn't David just stating his opinion that it was not inagruable that Stevie's songs were the best, and that other people including some critics agreed?



Whether or not everybody knew what they meant, they were being used incorrectly; David was simply bringing that to attention by noting the correct definitions.



Um, yeah, okay, duh, I was just saying my OPINION that I think it would behoove you to write intelligently and correctly, maybe you thought it wasn't presented that way, but geez, everybody KNOWS that it's not a FACT. And by the way, I'll say what I want, so don't tell me not to tell you not to do something. :wavey: :D :laugh: ;) :p

It amazes me that you dare to call other people smarmy and masturbatory. Christ.

Does it amaze you? Because you seem very amazed, in a rude way. Yes, I am very skilled at spotting that sort of thing, it's no wonder you are amazed. ;) And in case you are implying that I write intellectually masturbatory things, I would say you are wrong.
I do write intelligently. I just don't have to be as esoterically abstruse to do so.
Obviously, we will never agree about David's tone or intent. It's nice of you to defend him when he's not here, though, and so vociferously. I'll give you that.
Have a nice day. :)

[Jyqm]

I just find the way he speaks offputting and antisocial.

As long as we're on the topic of defining words nd concepts, could somebody help me out here? I don't think this quite falls under the umbrella of "irony," but I'm not quite sure how else to define it.

[amber]

i think David is an asshole and by asshole I mean someone that I care about and love to read his posts and logic.


There I did it!! I used a word that has a funny yet insulting meaning, and I changed the context to show my appreciation for someone that really cares about music and making me laugh quite a bit.

BTW his "arrogance" and "meanderings" are what I love about him. ;)
:laugh:

Good. I don't love it. And I don't think other people who don't talk like him care about music any less, just for the record. :)

[amber]

As long as we're on the topic of defining words nd concepts, could somebody help me out here? I don't think this quite falls under the umbrella of "irony," but I'm not quite sure how else to define it.
Why don't you say what you mean - that way I can specifically defend myself. Also - I don't even know you, just for the record.

[Jyqm]

Does it amaze you? Because you seem very amazed, in a rude way. Yes, I am very skilled at spotting that sort of thing, it's no wonder you are amazed. ;) And in case you are implying that I write intellectually masturbatory things, I would say you are wrong.

As long as we're working on our reading comprehension, I'll repost my exact sentence: "It amazes me that you dare to call other people smarmy and masturbatory."

The word "intellectual" is not in there. The words "smarmy" and "masturbatory" are. So, to be perfectly clear and explicit, I was implying that you are both incredibly smarmy (which is fine by me, I really don't care what tone you take; it's only the hypocrisy of complaining that you think others are smarmy that bothers me) and incredibly masturbatory (you have, after all, posted 18,000 messages to this board in a matter of fifteen months).

Also, don't harbor any illusions that I've posted all of this to defend David, as he certainly doesn't need it. I did it solely to point out your follies and hypocrisies. That I happened to be defending David in the process, and not myself or someone else entirely, is simply a happy coincidence.

[jbrownsjr]

:laugh:

Good. I don't love it. And I don't think other people who don't talk like him care about music any less, just for the record. :)

oh ok ...

[Jyqm]

Why don't you say what you mean - that way I can specifically defend myself. Also - I don't even know you, just for the record.

For someone who seems to pride herself so much on knowing the meaning of everybody's posts and not requiring any further explications or definitions, you sure are asking me for a lot of clarification.

What I meant by my post is that I find your way of speaking to be off-putting and anti-social (which, again, is totally fine by me, as I really don't care what tone you take; what bothers me is the total hypocrisy of turning around and complaining that you find others to be off-putting).

To clarify further: When you respond to somebody's post with, "Don't tell me what to do, I'll say whatever I want," immediately after making such a huge stink over the way somebody else posts and the tone that he uses, that is ludicrously hypocritical, and you'd probably be better off if you simply quit complaining, as you're no kindly humble saint yourself.

[amber]

As long as we're working on our reading comprehension, I'll repost my exact sentence: "It amazes me that you dare to call other people smarmy and masturbatory."

The word "intellectual" is not in there. The words "smarmy" and "masturbatory" are. So, to be perfectly clear and explicit, I was implying that you are both incredibly smarmy (which is fine by me, I really don't care what tone you take; it's only the hypocrisy of complaining that you think others are smarmy that bothers me) and incredibly masturbatory (you have, after all, posted 18,000 messages to this board in a matter of fifteen months).

Also, don't harbor any illusions that I've posted all of this to defend David, as he certainly doesn't need it. I did it solely to point out your follies and hypocrisies. That I happened to be defending David in the process, and not myself or someone else entirely, is simply a happy coincidence.


Oh, good. Cause that David thing was kind of silly. I mean, David's a good guy, I like him alright, he just irritates me sometimes. :) It's better now just to know that you don't like me and are...angry with me? Good, good. This really clears the air.
mmkay....
A) I included the "intellectual" comment b/c I was responding to this: I was just saying my OPINION that I think it would behoove you to write intelligently and correctly,
B) I am often smarmy. Actually, I sometimes am smarmy, usually I am more sarcastic or silly. Sometimes I am blunt. But fair enough. I retract the use of the word "smarm" and instead supply: condescending.
C) I do have a lot of posts. But they are mainly because I talk a lot. I would not call them "masturbatory" or "intellectually masturbatory". I see you disagree.
D) I am now disavowed of any illusions I may have previously had that you posted all of that to defend David, and said defense of David being a "happy coincidence" for you is duly noted.

Wow, that really cleared things up. :nod: I appreciate that you told me how you feel, it's always nice to know where I stand. :) You seem to be much more familiar with me than I am with you, too. I actually have no judgements at this time on your character. It sounds like I really irritate you, though - have you considered putting me on ignore?

[Jyqm]

Oh, good. Cause that David thing was kind of silly. It's better now just to know that you don't like me and are...angry with me? Good, good. This really clears the air.

I'm not angry with you; hypocrisy in general just flabbergasts me.

B) I am often smarmy. Actually, I sometimes am smarmy, usually I am more sarcastic or silly. Sometimes I am blunt. But fair enough. I retract the use of the word "smarm" and instead supply: condescending.

Fair enough. Though again, you also have a tendency to be condescending (as being smarmy and being condescending often go hand-in-hand, both implying an undue sense of superiority).

C) I do have a lot of posts. But they are mainly because I talk a lot. I would not call them "masturbatory" or "intellectually masturbatory". I see you disagree.

All of us here are posting on an Internet message board devoted to an aging rock band. Nothing that occurs in this forum is not masturbatory.

D) I am now disavowed of any illusions I may have previously had that you posted all of that to defend David, and said defense of David being a "happy coincidence" for you is duly noted.

Wow, that really cleared things up. :nod: I appreciate that you told me how you feel, it's always nice to know where I stand. :) You seem to be much more familiar with me than I am with you, too. I actually have no judgements at this time on your character. It sounds like I really irritate you, though - have you considered putting me on ignore?

As long we're all clear. You don't especially irritate me, I simply found your line of argument in this thread to be both illogical and stubbornly hypocritical. Besides, if I put you on ignore, I wouldn't get to watch Stevie do her "Rhiannon" wail all the time.

[amber]

I'm not angry with you; hypocrisy in general just flabbergasts me.



Fair enough. Though again, you also have a tendency to be condescending (as being smarmy and being condescending often go hand-in-hand, both implying an undue sense of superiority).



All of us here are posting on an Internet message board devoted to an aging rock band. Nothing that occurs in this forum is not masturbatory.



As long we're all clear. You don't especially irritate me, I simply found your line of argument in this thread to be both illogical and stubbornly hypocritical. Besides, if I put you on ignore, I wouldn't get to watch Stevie do her "Rhiannon" wail all the time.


Okay. That all sounds fair to me. No big, no hard feelings on my part. :)
I agree, the avatar is compelling. :)

[jbrownsjr]

Okay. That all sounds fair to me. No big, no hard feelings on my part. :)
I agree, the avatar is compelling. :)


i think its swarmy

[amber]

I would just like to point out that although, I do not especially follow your posting carefully, I have noticed that you see to enjoy accusing people of disliking you. Twice in one post here, and you have accused me of it with very little immediate evidence in the particular conversation we were having. There may or may not be more examples. I am not inferring anything, just thought it was interesting.
:laugh:
That is interesting. Actually...I think those 2 times may be the bulk of the total times I have done that. There may be a few other times, but I don't remember them offhand.
I base that opinion on people's conversations with me. I suppose it may easily not be true, but I just judge by things like...if they are calling me names (in this case)...sometimes on past remembered conversations (in your case). :shrug: In this case I was wrong, as Jyqm said that he doesn't particularly dislike me.

[amber]

i think its swarmy
oh, it's inarguably swarmy. :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Stew have I told you lately that I love you?!?! :xoxo:No, but the roses and the chocolates were a good start! ;)

[dissention]

I don't usually like to quote long sections of someone else's posts and then just say "ditto," but I really don't have anything to add to either of these comments, other than to say that I couldn't agree more with both of them.

Very well said on all counts. :nod: :)

I'm shocked. :shocked: :laugh:

[dissention]

At least you can admit that he has a way with words.

He truly does. I'm surprised that he doesn't write for a living; I love reading his posts. He always has something interesting to say that no one else has said before or even thought of, and he expresses himself so eloquently with such a biting wit.

[jbrownsjr]

I'm shocked. :shocked: :laugh:

now that's what i'm talking about!!!

[jbrownsjr]

He truly does. I'm surprised that he doesn't write for a living; I love reading his posts. He always has something to interesting say that no one else has said before or even thought of, and he expresses himself so eloquently with such a biting wit.

thats when i fell in love with him!! :D

[strandinthewind]

Oh Goody Goody Gundrops - we haven't had a real spitfire "Stevie is a talentless hag without LB" and "well maybe so, but LB would never have had any success without her star power" and "why is Christine never noticed in the mix" fight in a long long time.

Hmmmmm - Diss. will post articles slamming la Nicks and then pretend that he really really likes her and did not mean it that way.

Amber will take offense.

David will post a brilliant post.

Gerald will defend LB to the death and quite eloquently

and so on and so on :laugh:

Ahhhhhhhh - I have been around her too long me thinks :laugh:

[jbrownsjr]

No, but the roses and the chocolates were a good start! ;)

You make me look up everytime that you walk in the room!

[dissention]

Oh Goody Goody Gundrops - we haven't had a real spitfire "Stevie is a talentless hag without LB" and "well maybe so, but LB would never have had any success without her star power" and "why is Christine never noticed in the mix" fight in a long long time.


You're right, this thread contains no such thing.

[The Tower]

I'm shocked. :shocked: :laugh:
That makes two of us..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

With regard to your post- I also agree with what you said. For me, the whole thing with Stevie is her vibe. She is utterly unique. Only Stevie could pull off a line like "In silence she says, 'Excalibur'..." and come across with that much conviction.

Lindsey is hot and all, but he's no Stevie. ;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

You're right, this thread contains no such thing.

Of course it doesn't :rolleyes: :wavey:

[jbrownsjr]

Oh Goody Goody Gundrops - we haven't had a real spitfire "Stevie is a talentless hag without LB" and "well maybe so, but LB would never have had any success without her star power" and "why is Christine never noticed in the mix" fight in a long long time.

Hmmmmm - Diss. will post articles slamming la Nicks and then pretend that he really really likes her and did not mean it that way.

Amber will take offense.

David will post a brilliant post.

Gerald will defend LB to the death and quite eloquently

and so on and so on :laugh:

Ahhhhhhhh - I have been around her too long me thinks :laugh:

u forgot

jbrownsjr's witty humor and clever flirtatious attempts on johnny stew
johnny stew's trying to pretend he likes christine's material
Homer's anger that we went here again and again and again
and Carne reading without being able to post! :laugh:

[dissention]

Of course it doesn't :rolleyes: :wavey:

No, it doesn't.

[strandinthewind]

u forgot

jbrownsjr's witty humor and clever flirtatious attempts on johnny stew
johnny stew's trying to pretend he likes christine's material
Homer's anger that we went here again and again and again
and Carne reading without being able to post! :laugh:


LOL - I am sorry darlin' :laugh:

Witty indeed!!!!!!!! and missed of late :nod:

[strandinthewind]

No, it doesn't.

Well, if you say you had only true intent with that article - oh wait, you never said that :laugh: Your panties are showing missy :wavey:

[amber]

you forgot "then strand and diss argue about something."

[strandinthewind]

you forgot "then strand and diss argue about something."

and voila - :laugh: :laugh:

At least he admitted I was "right" about what was happening - before he unexplainedly detracted :laugh:

[dissention]

Lindsey is hot and all, but he's no Stevie. ;) :laugh:

You're talking to the wrong person, because I don't find him hot. :laugh:

They're both extreme personalities, which is why the triple threat of Lindsey-Christine-Stevie worked so well; he was on one extreme side, Christine was the buffer in the middle, and Stevie was on the other extreme side. It all depends on who you prefer; an anal control freak, a ditsy woman-child, or *gasp* a normal person.

[jbrownsjr]

Anderson Cooper is hot

[dissention]

Well, if you say you had only true intent with that article - oh wait, you never said that :laugh: Your panties are showing missy :wavey:

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is about Mirage and the reviews resulting from it's release, so I posted a review I liked; nowhere did I say that I agreed with everything said in it. Put your glasses on.

[strandinthewind]

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is about Mirage and the reviews resulting from it's release, so I posted a review I liked; nowhere did I say that I agreed with everything said in it. Put your glasses on.

Bless your heart :laugh: your altruistic motive is just not always so apparent.

[dissention]

Anderson Cooper is hot

And he wore baby blue tonight. :woohoo:

[HomerMcvie]

u forgot

jbrownsjr's witty humor and clever flirtatious attempts on johnny stew
johnny stew's trying to pretend he likes christine's material
Homer's anger that we went here again and again and again
and Carne reading without being able to post! :laugh:
I've no anger, J. I try to avoid certain subjects that have been hashed over 500 times. Too repetitive for me. Ya'all know how I feel. :wavey:
I'm just thrilled to be back online. THREE trojans in a year!!! I'm refomatted now, and virus scanning like a madman!

[strandinthewind]

Anderson Cooper is hot

and a Stevie fan :laugh: :rolleyes: :cool:

I bet he even likes Gypsy more than Book of Love :laugh:

[dissention]

Bless your heart :laugh: your altruistic motive is just not always so apparent.

I simply shared a review that I particularly liked. It is possible to find value in a piece that's well-written even if you don't agree with all of the things being stated in it, after all.

[Dreammms]

I've no anger, J. I try to avoid certain subjects that have been hashed over 500 times. Too repetitive for me. Ya'all know how I feel. :wavey:
I'm just thrilled to be back online. THREE trojans in a year!!! I'm refomatted now, and virus scanning like a madman!

I was wondering where you were. Glad to see you back and I am sorry about all your computer problems.

[GateandGarden]

u forgot

jbrownsjr's witty humor and clever flirtatious attempts on johnny stew
johnny stew's trying to pretend he likes christine's material
Homer's anger that we went here again and again and again
and Carne reading without being able to post! :laugh::lol::lol::lol:

[strandinthewind]

I simply shared a review that I particularly liked. It is possible to find value in a piece that's well-written even if you don't agree with all of the things being stated in it, after all.

Didn't I say you said your intent was altruistic (actually you never said that - but I infer it :wavey: ) - are you now doubting my sincerity :cool:

[GateandGarden]

You're right about this, but you're speaking from a purely technical perspective. You're also assuming that "good" music is defined by the complexity of the music, right? You could only write something simplistic, and that would worse than "Tuskl," because "Tusk" is more complex, right? The problem, though, is that there are plenty of intricately complex musical works that you might very well think are awful, and there are a lot of very simplistic songs (especially rock songs) that you probably love.

The problem with coming up with any objective way of saying that certain music is "good" or "bad" is that you have to come up with some criteria to base those judgments on. But if you ask a hundred people what they think the criteria of a "good" song are, you'll probably get a hundred different answers. Everybody looks for different things in music, and everybody gets something different out of music, so there's really no overarching objective criteria to be found.

But anyway, who cares whether or not we can come up with an objective way of judging music, right? Would that change the kind of music that you or anybody else likes? Would you stop liking a song if you found out it ranked low on our new objective scale? Would you start liking a song you didn't like before if it ranked really high? We all like what we like, and as long as it speaks to us or touches us in some way, let's just be happy with that.
I think that good music is defined by the complexity of it in one sense, but that is just one aspect of what makes it good. So, did I effectively argue that, objectively speaking, "Tusk" is better than something I would write? Whether or not I or someone else loves my lame creation more than "Tusk," it's still inferior to "Tusk," right?

Now, it's certainly true that people will come up with different criteria as to what makes a song "good," but I think that musicians are qualified to judge this, and I imagine that they would also say "musical complexity" would be a good criterion. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them either because I don't know enough about it or I'm too tired after my day from hell.

Of course I can't argue with your last paragraph. I'm going to love what I love regardless and the same goes from everyone else, I assume. Art should be enjoyed, but I also like to analyze things to death (even more so when I'm not so tired), so I just had to "go there." But that doesn't mean that I'm not happy just enjoyed the music and not mulling over what is superior to what. :)

[dissention]

are you now doubting my sincerity :cool:

No, you doubt my sincerity enough for the both of us whenever I partake in a conversation dealing with Nicks. I post a review that isn't flattering towards her material on one particular album and I'm accused of intentionally trying to slam her so that I can feign shock when my post is interpreted that way, and then scramble to profess my love & adoration for her just to be contrary.

[GateandGarden]

...but Only Over You is the only song from her I truly despise. Sorry, Hillary. :laugh: It's okay because you're perfect in every other respect. :laugh: :nod: :xoxo:

[HomerMcvie]

I was wondering where you were. Glad to see you back and I am sorry about all your computer problems.
Thanks. Eight days off-line was really hard! It had been about 4 years since my last reformat, so it was time anyway. The trojans all (afaik) came in emails, all labeled "eBay fraud". I'm now looking at all my emails on my server's site, deleting what I don't want, THEN downloading them. Damned viruses!

[strandinthewind]

No, you doubt my sincerity enough for the both of us whenever I partake in a conversation dealing with Nicks. I post a review that isn't flattering towards her material on one particular album and I'm accused of intentionally trying to slam her so that I can feign shock when my post is interpreted that way, and then scramble to profess my love & adoration for her just to be contrary.

But then you implied confession to the contrary and I accepted that :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

Thanks. Eight days off-line was really hard! It had been about 4 years since my last reformat, so it was time anyway. The trojans all (afaik) came in emails, all labeled "eBay fraud". I'm now looking at all my emails on my server's site, deleting what I don't want, THEN downloading them. Damned viruses!Man, I really haven't been around here as much I have wanted to be so I hardly notice when someone is gone for eight days! :sorry: I'm so sorry you had computer troubles. Damn, that's annoying. Glad that you're here. :xoxo: :xoxo:

[David]

So, did I effectively argue that, objectively speaking, "Tusk" is better than something I would write?No, that's still an opinion. That's not objective; it's subjective. "Better" & "worse" are judgments that come out of people's preferences & personalities & everything else that makes them people. Besides, my friend Brian Danks, who hates Fleetwood Mac, might think your music is a lot better than "Tusk." And there might be thousands of other people with the same opinion. No matter how many or how few think your songs are worse than Fleetwood Mac's songs, it's still opinion & it's still subjective.
Whether or not I or someone else loves my lame creation more than "Tusk," it's still inferior to "Tusk," right?People can be of the opinion that it's inferior to "Tusk," but that's subjective. It can't be objectively demonstrated that your lame creation is inferior to "Tusk." There's no way to prove that in a laboratory; there's no litmus test to show that.

Imagine a piece of music with absolutely no composed sounds**: no notes, no musical notation indicating anything for any musician to actually play. Even that isn't "objectively" worse than "Tusk." It's my opinion (& probably yours, too) that it's worse than "Tusk" -- but that's subjective on our part to judge it worse than "Tusk." In other words, our judgment of it is relative to aspects of our own personalities & preferences -- "relative" in the sense that there's a relationship between what we think about it & something about us. All judgments about art are subjective; every judgment is relative (relationship) to something about the person passing that judgment. You can say objective things about music, too -- things like "This song is written in the key of C." That's objective because it isn't related to your tastes or preferences. Regardless of what you think about it, it is in the key of C. That's what makes the key an objective fact about the song.

(**By the way, there is such a piece of music: it's called 4'33" & it was "composed" by John Cage in 1952, & it has been performed all over the world.)

[HomerMcvie]

Man, I really haven't been around here as much I have wanted to be so I hardly notice when someone is gone for eight days! :sorry: I'm so sorry you had computer troubles. Damn, that's annoying. Glad that you're here. :xoxo: :xoxo:
Thanks Hillary, I luv ya! :xoxo:

[GateandGarden]

No, that's still an opinion. That's not objective; it's subjective. "Better" & "worse" are judgments that come out of people's preferences & personalities & everything else that makes them people. Besides, my friend Brian Danks, who hates Fleetwood Mac, might think your music is a lot better than "Tusk." And there might be thousands of other people with the same opinion. No matter how many or how few think your songs are worse than Fleetwood Mac's songs, it's still opinion & it's still subjective.
People can be of the opinion that it's inferior to "Tusk," but that's subjective. It can't be objectively demonstrated that your lame creation is inferior to "Tusk." There's no way to prove that in a laboratory; there's no litmus test to show that.

Imagine a piece of music with absolutely no composed sounds**: no notes, no musical notation indicating anything for any musician to actually play. Even that isn't "objectively" worse than "Tusk." It's my opinion (& probably yours, too) that it's worse than "Tusk" -- but that's subjective on our part to judge it worse than "Tusk." In other words, our judgment of it is relative to aspects of our own personalities & preferences -- "relative" in the sense that there's a relationship between what we think about it & something about us. All judgments about art are subjective; every judgment is relative (relationship) to something about the person passing that judgment. You can say objective things about music, too -- things like "This song is written in the key of C." That's objective because it isn't related to your tastes or preferences. Regardless of what you think about it, it is in the key of C. That's what makes the key an objective fact about the song.

(**By the way, there is such a piece of music: it's called 4'33" & it was "composed" by John Cage in 1952, & it has been performed all over the world.)
I'm still not clear on why something can't be superior from a purely musical standpoint. That doesn't mean that someone can't think it's crap. That would be a preference, obviously. Can't it be "better" or "worse" in that sense only, if nothing else?

I did learn about the Cage piece in my music appreciation course years ago, and I recall how all the students thought it was crappy just from a subjective standpoint, as you can imagine. But, just in the realm of musical complexity, wouldn't it be inferior to "Tusk"? Why is musical complexity not a criterion?

You went offline! I wasn't finished waxing philosophical!!! :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

It must be added that 4'33'' also has seperate movements and designated page turns.Oh yeah! I had forgotten that. :laugh:

Are you implying that those really add something to the complexity of it? I can't help but see it as a joke. :sorry:

[David]

[COLOR=Navy]I'm still not clear on why something can't be superior from a purely musical standpoint.I don't know what you mean by "purely musical standpoint." Do you mean objectively? No, there's no musical superiority in an objective sense. "Superiority" is a concept based on judgment, & if human beings are doing the judging, it's subjective. Notions of quality in art, in music, are relative to time & place. They aren't eternal objective truths that have no relation to tastes & preferences. To Mediaeval European composers, vocal music was considered more important than instrumental music. Later on, Baroque composers gave primary importance to instrumental music. The fashion changed; what composers considered great was reexamined & revised. Still later on, Romantic composers valued musical freedom above the constraints of form & expression in Baroque writing. The point of all this is the relative nature -- the subjectivity -- of our conceptions of quality in music.
I did learn about the Cage piece in my music appreciation course years ago, and I recall how all the students thought it was crappy just from a subjective standpoint, as you can imagine. But, just in the realm of musical complexity, wouldn't it be inferior to "Tusk"? Why is musical complexity not a criterion?A criterion for what? I don't understand what you mean, Hillary.
You went offline! I wasn't finished waxing philosophical!!! :laugh:Keep waxing, but I need to work.

[GypsySorcerer]

It's okay because you're perfect in every other respect. :laugh: :nod: :xoxo:

:o :xoxo:

In the first line.....when she sings "I'm out of my mind" makes me hit the skip button. :laugh:

[David]

It must be added that 4'33'' also has seperate movements and designated page turns.I've never seen the score, but I assumed it had some form of direction on it. So I was careful to say that it had no notation that indicated anything for a musician to actually play (although I don't know for certain). It might have directions telling musicians how to sit or whether to cough or, as you say, when to turn the page.

[Dreammms]

:o :xoxo:

In the first line.....when she sings "I'm out of my mind" makes me hit the skip button. :laugh:

:lol: :lol: that's so funny
that's the part that bothers me

[SteveMacD]

No, that's still an opinion. That's not objective; it's subjective. "Better" & "worse" are judgments that come out of people's preferences & personalities & everything else that makes them people.
Not necessarily. You could say something like "Rumours did better on the album charts than Tusk" and the use of the word "better" wouldn't subjective.

[David]

Not necessarily. You could say something like "Rumours did better on the album charts than Tusk" and the use of the word "better" wouldn't subjective.Oh, Steve, for chrissake. That's just a manner of speaking -- idiom. Saying "better" in that context doesn't indicate a judgment as to artistic merit. You're stating a fact that's demonstrable by empirical data; it's not subjective because its meaning doesn't rely on personal preference. Just the opposite: no matter what my "Rumours"-hating friends think about it, "Rumours" was No. 1 album on the Billboard charts. That fact is irrespective of their opinions.

When is your band playing?

[GateandGarden]

I don't know what you mean by "purely musical standpoint." Do you mean objectively? No, there's no musical superiority in an objective sense. "Superiority" is a concept based on judgment, & if human beings are doing the judging, it's subjective. Notions of quality in art, in music, are relative to time & place. They aren't eternal objective truths that have no relation to tastes & preferences. To Mediaeval European composers, vocal music was considered more important than instrumental music. Later on, Baroque composers gave primary importance to instrumental music. The fashion changed; what composers considered great was reexamined & revised. Still later on, Romantic composers valued musical freedom above the constraints of form & expression in Baroque writing. The point of all this is the relative nature -- the subjectivity -- of our conceptions of quality in music.
A criterion for what? I don't understand what you mean, Hillary.
Keep waxing, but I need to work.I bet there are eternal objective truths in music and art, you just haven't asked enough questions to identify them, Socrates. ;)

To cite Medieval European composers and say that they valued vocal music over instrumental music doesn't seem applicable because I never pitted genres against each other. That seems obviously flawed. :shrug:

I'll concede that there may not be an objective truth because of something you mentioned--the changing times. Because of the changing times, few things are constant, including art. But maybe it's possible to judge based on our time exclusively.

Ah, so you're working. I'm not because I'm trying to master the art of procrastination. I think I may qualify as a superior artist in that realm. :laugh:

[SteveMacD]

When is your band playing?
Well, we broke up after we spotted our lead singer getting coke blown up her ass by a roadie...

[Johnny Stew]

I'm shocked. :shocked: :laugh:
That makes two of us..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh::laugh:

I don't really know why either of you would be shocked though (well, other than the fact that I'm agreeing with you two), as I've expressed similar thoughts on many occasions.

The big misconception about me, seems to be that I think Stevie Nicks is technically the greatest singer/songwriter to be found, bar none.
But I'm absolutely aware of her limitations in all regards, and that there are MANY singer/songwriters who are technically "better" than her. It's just that the difference is that none of those artists have written even a fraction of the amount of Stevie Nicks songs that move me so deeply.

I have my intellectual moments (of course the use of the word "intellectual" is surely pushing things when it comes to me), but I'm really nothing more than a schlub who wears his heart on his sleeve. If something is going to appeal to me to the utmost, it has to evoke emotions from within me.
The most technically perfect piece of writing doesn't impress me at all, if it leaves me feeling cold. But some clumsy little cliché can, through the virtue of sincerity alone.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. :o

[Johnny Stew]

u forgot

johnny stew's trying to pretend he likes christine's materialIf you think I'm just pretending, my friend, then that's misconception #2! :shocked:
It's true that I didn't always have the appreciation for Christine that I do now, but I never disliked any of her material (well, ok, "One More Night"... but I think I can be forgiven).

'Sides, you should know by now that this blow-hard doesn't pretend to like anything! :laugh:

jbrownsjr's... clever flirtatious attempts on johnny stewSo the roses and chocolates WERE from you! :shocked: :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

It all depends on who you prefer; an anal control freak, a ditsy woman-child, or *gasp* a normal person.Normalcy is simultaneously overrated and underrated! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :lol: that's so funny
that's the part that bothers me

and CM rarely misses - but that one OY :laugh:

Lest anyone be concerned, I love CM and think she is an immense talent and the SYW tour was not the same without her brilliant input.

[Jyqm]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I think that good music is defined by the complexity of it in one sense, but that is just one aspect of what makes it good.

Again, says you. Others might not think so, or even if they did, they might come up with a number of other qualifying aspects that wouldn't jibe with what you come up with.

So, did I effectively argue that, objectively speaking, "Tusk" is better than something I would write? Whether or not I or someone else loves my lame creation more than "Tusk," it's still inferior to "Tusk," right?

Well, no. You argued that "Tusk" is more complex than something you could write.

Now, it's certainly true that people will come up with different criteria as to what makes a song "good," but I think that musicians are qualified to judge this, and I imagine that they would also say "musical complexity" would be a good criterion. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them either because I don't know enough about it or I'm too tired after my day from hell.

I don't know about that. Especially among rock musicians, I think you could find a lot of folks who appreciate the value of a very simple song. The Ramones, anyone?

Sorry to hear you had a bad day!

[Jyqm]

To cite Medieval European composers and say that they valued vocal music over instrumental music doesn't seem applicable because I never pitted genres against each other. That seems obviously flawed. :shrug:

But to claim the existence of objective truths which apply to all forms of music implicitly pits genres against each other.

I'll concede that there may not be an objective truth because of something you mentioned--the changing times. Because of the changing times, few things are constant, including art. But maybe it's possible to judge based on our time exclusively.

If it's constrained by time, though, it's not objective. judging music within the constraints of "our time" would simply mean adhering to a set of standards which were subjectively chosen by a majority of people (or a majority of people who know about music, anyway).

[shackin'up]

"Stevie is a talentless hag without LB" and "well maybe so, but LB would never have had any success without her star power"


:lol: :lol:

As a statement, and I love those, these have both a lot of truth.



Gerald will defend LB to the death and quite eloquently

:lol: :lol: Even though the guy LOVES Stevie: In this environment he became a monster in buckpowder dust!! :lol:

eloquence and crappy english are combinable?

:xoxo:

[GateandGarden]

Again, says you. Others might not think so, or even if they did, they might come up with a number of other qualifying aspects that wouldn't jibe with what you come up with.I just think that musicians would generally adhere to this, and I think they're the most qualified people to judge. :shrug:



Well, no. You argued that "Tusk" is more complex than something you could write.And I think that really means something! :laugh: But we could do this forever.



I don't know about that. Especially among rock musicians, I think you could find a lot of folks who appreciate the value of a very simple song. The Ramones, anyone?True, true. Maybe you've nullified what I said a few sentences ago.

Sorry to hear you had a bad day!Aw, thanks. It's okay. :)

[GateandGarden]

But to claim the existence of objective truths which apply to all forms of music implicitly pits genres against each other.



If it's constrained by time, though, it's not objective. judging music within the constraints of "our time" would simply mean adhering to a set of standards which were subjectively chosen by a majority of people (or a majority of people who know about music, anyway).You're right. I hadn't considered those things.

[strandinthewind]

. . .

eloquence and crappy english are combinable?

:xoxo:

Oui mon amis :cool:

[jbrownsjr]

If you think I'm just pretending, my friend, then that's misconception #2! :shocked:
It's true that I didn't always have the appreciation for Christine that I do now, but I never disliked any of her material (well, ok, "One More Night"... but I think I can be forgiven).

'Sides, you should know by now that this blow-hard doesn't pretend to like anything! :laugh:

So the roses and chocolates WERE from you! :shocked: :laugh:

what was misconception #1? i forgot... :distress:

[Janet]

Fleetwood Mac, as it stands in its current incarnation, is Stevie Nicks & Christine McVie. The men in the band are pure backup (despite the cloying efforts of Lindsey Buckingham to dig up the moldering spirit of Buddy Holly) & as such they just fill in the gaps, round out the record, or just plain snooze when the forces of Nicks & McVie grasp the moment.

--Joe Fernbacher
"Mirage" Review
Creem
December 1982

I wish I had seen this 10 pages ago!
What a loaded thought that is...that the men were backseat to Christine and Stevie.

When I think of 1982, I think of FM just becoming so huge again. I think of them everywhere.

Well this is their first MTV album. MTV loved playing Gypsy and Hold Me. To me, I think they were all involved.

I rather enjoy Lindseys songs on Mirage. I love the album. I love the open room vibe it gives. I love the demos...it makes me feel closer to the songs ( and the songs not used)

It seems they are were still creative. Lindsey AND Stevie having solo careers I'm sure helped them to open up creatively.

I see this album as an attempt to gain fans...to go back into the mainstream. It was definitely strike while the iron is hot...or while the Stevie is hot.

Stevie cut her Edge tour for this album. She didn't have to go back but she did. I am sure she went to the studio as much as she could while balancing two careers. Plus she was going thru alot. Robin was getting sick. She was probably totally getting into coke by then and I'm sure things were crazy for her.

But Lindsey too. He did his solo thing. He did have some success. He also probably felt he had alot to prove. I think he is totally in this album...along with Christine.

I'm sure Mick was involved. He did HIS solo album too. They were all growing as musicians semi apart and came back together and made this album that is unique from the other albums but kind of mystical.

I don't know, I really like the album. I feel it's a group effort when I listen to it...unlike Tango where I just think LINDSEY....or DRAMA when I listen to TUSK or Rumours...

Now I will read these 10 pages to see what everyone else thought!

[Janet]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?

No, I really think Lindsey has some great songs on this album. Can't Go Back is gorgeous, Book Of Love is really cute and Oh Diane is great...I love them.

Empire State has never been my fav...but I can't stand Only Over You either!

[jbrownsjr]

This was the first album I had ever purchased. My uncles had all the older stuff.

This album has an addictive quality. Like amber said, the cd sounds awful... Let me say the album was awesome in fidelity.

I love LB's songs except Oh Diane.

Fav track is Straight Back. Solid FM effort in my opinion. It's way way better than SYW.

[EveryHour]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?

Nope! LOVE them all!!!

But I do think by a landslide that Goodbye Angel (brilliant, one of my very faves) should have been on the album instead of Empire State (beyond cheesy, but still somehow lovable).

If people are commenting on his songs from a purely technical point (which I don't do well with), though, I understand that they may not be deemed as good or creative in that regard.

[David]

If people are commenting on his songs from a purely technical point (which I don't do well with), though, I understand that they may not be deemed as good or creative in that regard.Au contraire. It's the more technical aspects of Fleetwood Mac work from 1977 to approx. the present that give the band its aesthetic standing, & yet another reason why it's a different solar system (with a couple of interstellar travelers providing a certain sameness of style) from previous groupings: you don't listen to Mystery To Me or Bare Trees & exclaim, "What a splendid use of mic placement!" or "What a bold foray into multitrack composite processing!"

Songs like "Empire State" or "Isn't It Midnight" or "Sara" are interesting only for their mechanistic properties, whereas "Before the Beginning" & "Oh Well" are interesting only for aspects pertaining to performance technique.

[SteveMacD]

Au contraire. It's the more technical aspects of Fleetwood Mac work from 1977 to approx. the present that give the band its aesthetic standing, & yet another reason why it's a different solar system (with a couple of interstellar travelers providing a certain sameness of style) from previous groupings: you don't listen to Mystery To Me or Bare Trees & exclaim, "What a splendid use of mic placement!" or "What a bold foray into multitrack composite processing!"

Songs like "Empire State" or "Isn't It Midnight" or "Sara" are interesting only for their mechanistic properties, whereas "Before the Beginning" & "Oh Well" are interesting only for aspects pertaining to performance technique.
I don't totally agree. "The Supernatural" and "Fool No More" are two songs that fascinate me in the way Peter Green was able to manipulate his guitar with feedback and reverb. While I love the actual performances on those songs, I think I've been more impressed with the studio trickery than the songs themselves. Furthermore, I think the whole "Mr. Wonderful" album WAS a splendid use of mic placement. They worked for days to get the mics placed just right to get that "Chess tone" that makes the album all the more convincing as a purist, Chicago blues album.

[Nicksluvver]

I really like Lindsey's Mirage songs. Am I in the minority here?

I like Lindsey's songs on Mirage- especially Book of love!

[David]

While I love the actual performances on those songs, I think I've been more impressed with the studio trickery than the songs themselves.Steve ... pal ... you make a rotten liar.

You're like the Deborah Kerr character in "Black Narcissus."

[SteveMacD]

Steve ... pal ... you make a rotten liar.

You're like the Deborah Kerr character in "Black Narcissus."
I WISH I was lying. The fact that I've spent many years and subsequent dollars trying to recreate these songs would suggest otherwise. To be able to go from that clean, reverb-less tone to that dirty, reverb-heavy tone has long been a dream of mine. I have amps that can technically do it, but the tone is just not right. And, that's just "Fool No More." I haven't even gotten to the point where I could attempt "Supernatural."