For Jimmy: Lindsey's chart/sales info

[trackaghost]

Jimmy, I'm still trying to find out what Under The Skin has sold overall but I can tell you that it debuted on the Billboard chart at No.80 (21/10/2006) and fell to No.187 the following week - after that it fell off the chart.

Its first week sales were 13,111 copies.

I don't have sales figures for the UK but it was only on the chart for one week (for the week ending October 21) debuting at No. 154

Edit: Hayley has provided info on the US sales for UTS and OOTC to date in this post:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=650832&postcount=33

US Soundscan totals as of this week (w/e 2-18)-

Under the Skin- 57,761 RTD
Out of the Cradle- 195,277 RTD


Also here are the chart runs for his previous singles and albums. All the numbers refer to chart positions, the number highlighted is the highest chart position.


UK SINGLES
1. TROUBLE
Date: 16/01/1982 - Run: 65-50-*31*-37-35-45-50 (7 wks) US:#9/19/5


US SINGLES
1. TROUBLE
Date: 24/10/1981 - Run: 74-55-30-24-19-16-13-12-11- 10-10-10-*9*-9-22-24-52-88-96 (19/5 wks) UK:#31/7

2. HOLIDAY ROAD
Date: 06/08/1983 - Run: 92-86-84-*82*-99 (5 wks)

3. GO INSANE
Date: 28/07/1984 - Run: 70-58-50-45-40-35-34-31-27-25-24-*23*-39-59-84-98 (16 wks)


UK ALBUMS

1. OUT OF THE CRADLE
Date: 08/08/1992 - Run: *51* (1 wk) US:#128/9


US ALBUMS

1. LAW & ORDER
Date: 07/11/1981 - Run: 98-50-41-36-33-*32*-33-39- (8 wsf)
02/01/1982: 39-43-44-43-43-46-45-51-63-66-83-95-111-128-146-188 (24 wks)

2. GO INSANE
Date: 01/09/1984 - Run: 125-62-57-48-*45*-45-45-45-55-65-96-96-113-133-137-168 (16 wks)

3. OUT OF THE CRADLE
Date: 04/07/1992 - Run: 147-133-133-143-145-*128*-135-151-0-0-0-200 (9-8c wks) UK:#51/1

[shackin'up]

who's jimmy?

[strandinthewind]

I often wonder what LB though of his very limited success in his solo career when compared to Stevie's mega success. After all, LB crafted Stevie's FM songs into hits and then she found someone else to help her do that, especially after she dumped him - though they had done some extra FM work together while in FM a la Magnet and Steel. That had to hurt.

Then, LB claimed not to care about success so much as being an artist, but, he could not sell being an artist to any significant degree save for Trouble, which was a hit, though the album was not when compared to La Nicks or FM. I often wonder if he felt perhaps emascualted because CM had the hits and La Nicks had the mega fame - both of which he was a large catalyst of, though CM and La Nicks are certainly talented in their own right - CM moreso from an ability to play perspective and La Nicks moreso from a writing and vibrant performing perspective.

I think that LB came back to FM three times (TITN, The Dance, and SYW) instead of pursuing solo projects speaks volumes as to how he felt.

I guess he truly is the artist torm between selling and art - though I argue his commercial stuff (both his own and the stuff he produced) that sold in the stratosphere is both art and successful.

[trackaghost]

who's jimmy?

AliceLover...

Btw, apparently Christine's In The Meantime sold just 7,156 copies in the UK

Also, the reason this info is hard to get is because none of Lindsey's albums (including the new one) have apparently sold or shipped more than 500,000 copies yet, which means none have been certified.

[BTFLCHLD]

I often wonder what LB though of his very limited success in his solo career when compared to Stevie's mega success. After all, LB crafted Stevie's FM songs into hits and then she found someone else to help her do that, especially after she dumped him - though they had done some extra FM work together while in FM a la Magnet and Steel. That had to hurt.

Then, LB claimed not to care about success so much as being an artist, but, he could not sell being an artist to any significant degree save for Trouble, which was a hit, though the album was not when compared to La Nicks or FM. I often wonder if he felt perhaps emascualted because CM had the hits and La Nicks had the mega fame - both of which he was a large catalyst of, though CM and La Nicks are certainly talented in their own right - CM moreso from an ability to play perspective and La Nicks moreso from a writing and vibrant performing perspective.

I think that LB came back to FM three times (TITN, The Dance, and SYW) instead of pursuing solo projects speaks volumes as to how he felt.

I guess he truly is the artist torm between selling and art - though I argue his commercial stuff (both his own and the stuff he produced) that sold in the stratosphere is both art and successful.
UHHUH <img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/BTFLCHLD/37-1.gif">

[shackin'up]

I think that LB came back to FM three times (TITN, The Dance, and SYW) instead of pursuing solo projects speaks volumes as to how he felt.

I guess he truly is the artist torm between selling and art - though I argue his commercial stuff (both his own and the stuff he produced) that sold in the stratosphere is both art and successful.

Still, listening to his solo-albums speaks bigger volumes. He simply didn't go for selling. OOTC is maybe an exception, but for the rest one can only conclude: here's a man searching for meaning in his art not for the bucks in his art. Which he already proved that he could. When in this life is that going to sip through, Strand? As so often, I just can't follow some of his fans that seem to disregard what he is telling through his music AND in every fokking interview he gives. Maybe you guys are the reason that he's telling the same story for almost 30 years, simply because people don't seem to "hear" it.

Even worse: After everytime he has to tell the same story that is NOT accepted by the most of us, we conclude he's whining. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I think Law and Order was a direct commercial venture.

I think he recently said Go Insane was a commercial venture.

In the end, I think it is possible to be both and clearly he wants to be commercially successful or he would have left The Mac after Tusk and certainly after Mirage (where they made more millions) -- yet, he came back three times, and admitted that The Dance was about the money and SYW came about because Warner's did not want the GOS but would take him with The Mac. So, commercial viability mattered to him at least four times in the past because he certainly had enough money to release all of his solo records after Tusk and never do a Mac commercial project again - but he did not and kept running back to the Mac - which I think does both art and commercially successful very well. I will note UTS is not in any way commercially viable and he seems happy with that, but only after having his cake and eating it too for 20+ years and while protesting during that time. Again, the man built a like $15 million house and lived at The Four Seasons for like a year. Clearly, he likes the money.

Of course, he could have been coming back to The Mac to be with Stevie :cool:

[BTFLCHLD]

I just want to know how many vinyls are in the world so I can fantz on rolling around naked with them and Lindsey...dammit. :blob1:

[AliceLover]

Thanks for posting this info Sharon!

Its funny, Holiday Road charted so bad, but everyone knows that song. EVERYONE.

[BTFLCHLD]

Its funny, Holiday Road charted so bad, but everyone knows that song. EVERYONE. IMO they are now sick of the bark bit.

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for posting this info Sharon!

Its funny, Holiday Road charted so bad, but everyone knows that song. EVERYONE.


I agree on both counts!!!!!!!!!

And - I LOVE Holiday Road - arf arf arf - arf arf arf :cool:

[danax6]

^^^

I think Law and Order was a direct commercial venture.

I think he recently said Go Insane was a commercial venture.I think he said it had elements aimed for the commercial market, like Trouble and Slow Dancing (respectively) but overall they were albums where he tried to push the limits of his creativity, Go Insane more so than L&O. He specifically mentioned Go Insane got crazier as the album progressed. I have a hard time believing he was aiming to sell as many albums as possible. If that was the case, he would have made a Rumours II.


In the end, I think it is possible to be both and clearly he wants to be commercially successful or he would have left The Mac after Tusk and certainly after Mirage (where they made more millions) -- yet, he came back three times, and admitted that The Dance was about the moneyNot entirely. He felt if he did the Fleetwood Mac thing he would have more of a leg out there if he were to release a solo after that. I doubt he really only did it for the money, he obviously wasn't in dire need of any. By both his own and Stevie's admission.


and SYW came about because Warner's did not want the GOS but would take him with The Mac. What other options did he have then? :shrug:


Of course, he could have been coming back to The Mac to be with Stevie :cool:That's what he told me. :laugh:

[mylittledemon]

I bow gracefully and beg pardon of TRACKAGHOST...went out of your way on all those sales info for a certain Ledgie...

[strandinthewind]

There was an interview for SYW where LB flat out says The Dance was about the money and, I think, the exposure it would get him to a world who had pretty much forgotten him.

As for SYW and what was he supposed to do, well he could have released the GOS songs online for free or for $1.00 a song after The Dance. I mean if artistic integrity is all he cares about, then why care if it sells or why use FM once again to sell it :shrug:

[danax6]

There was an interview for SYW where LB flat out says The Dance was about the money and, I think, the exposure it would get him to a world who had pretty much forgotten him.
He probably wouldn't have done it for free, no, but I do really think that the latter was the biggest issue.

[shackin'up]

There was an interview for SYW where LB flat out says The Dance was about the money and, I think, the exposure it would get him to a world who had pretty much forgotten him.

As for SYW and what was he supposed to do, well he could have released the GOS songs online for free or for $1.00 a song after The Dance. I mean if artistic integrity is all he cares about, then why care if it sells or why use FM once again to sell it :shrug:

It's not about integrity. I don't know why you come up with The Dance for g*ds sake.

The dance has NOTHING to do with Lindsey Buckinghams search for artistic growth and search of meaning. OFCOURSE that was for the money and the attention. There's not one soul on earth that would argue that. Say You Will was NOT primary for the money in LB's book. He wanted an artisticly valid double album that contained both FM's radiopopsensibility as well as out of the box new approaches in poprock. How can a man think it's about bucks if you take the challenge to put Murrow, Rover, Come, Say Goodbye etc. on a record? You're also going for critical acclaim for daring that in such a moneymachine that the Mac was.

And he could have released GOS on an indielabel and I'm sure he has weighed that as an possibility. But the labels' double standard towards that batch before and after the AOL-fusion pissed him off bigtime. Then the Mac came by for the Dance. So the possibilities of getting these songs released changed .

Now, concerning marketingdecisions he made, you may be right that those are not the most strong or consequent choices of him. But that has NOTHING I say NOTHING to do with the fact that this man challenges himself over and over again to find NEW grounds and experiments on songwriting- and productionlevel, trying to reinvent himself as a musician, not as a product. He's bad at that. It's not a Madonna, for sure. Not even a Stevie Nicks in that case. But he's not selling out like his ex does.

[danax6]

It's not about integrity. I don't know why you come up with The Dance for g*ds sake.

The dance has NOTHING to do with Lindsey Buckinghams search for artistic growth and search of meaning. OFCOURSE that was for the money and the attention. There's not one soul on earth that would argue that. The attention it would garner him so that a solo release would have more legs to get out there. It's always better to follow up on a mega selling machine like the Dance than a commercial failure like OOTC. The Dance itself has nothing to do with it, no, but the reasons behind it were definitely well thought out.


Say You Will was NOT primary for the money in LB's book. He wanted an artisticly valid double album that contained both FM's radiopopsensibility as well as out of the box new approaches in poprock. How can a man think it's about bucks if you take the challenge to put Murrow, Rover, Come, Say Goodbye etc. on a record? You're also going for critical acclaim for daring that in such a moneymachine that the Mac was.I agree 200%. Like I said, if they weren't going to release GoS, what else was there to do for him than take the songs into a FM project, the only thing they were obviously going to stand behind? There were too many loose variables with all the changes going on within WB, so he made sure that his stuff at least would get out. This was the best way to go. Besides, they didn't put a gun to his head, he made that decision himself. They're not the anti-christ, he obviously likes his bandmembers and was not against working with them again. He made the decision to start working on Stevie's demos himself. And really, he even turned one of her songs into an obscure one, so you can't convince me he did SYW for commercial reasons.

[Johnny Stew]

Still, listening to his solo-albums speaks bigger volumes. He simply didn't go for selling. OOTC is maybe an exception, but for the rest one can only conclude: here's a man searching for meaning in his art not for the bucks in his art. Which he already proved that he could. When in this life is that going to sip through, Strand? As so often, I just can't follow some of his fans that seem to disregard what he is telling through his music AND in every fokking interview he gives.I think what continues to confuse people is the fact that Lindsey has had opportunities to switch to smaller, indie labels... places where it would be more about the "art" than the "commerce"... but he continues to re-sign with Warner Bros., a label that has, at times, flat out refused to release his material.

[strandinthewind]

I think what continues to confuse people is the fact that Lindsey has had opportunities to switch to smaller, indie labels... places where it would be more about the "art" than the "commerce"... but he continues to re-sign with Warner Bros., a label that has, at times, flat out refused to release his material.

That is because he is in many ways beholden to the money - who wouldn't be. To me, that has nothing to do with artistic integrity, though he did change "only kill" to "break their will" on Peacekeeper :eek:

[strandinthewind]

It's not about integrity. I don't know why you come up with The Dance for g*ds sake . . . .

He could have finished and released GOS in lieu of doing The Dance. He did not do that. He opted for the commercial venture, which he was still opting for five years later when SYW came into the picutre. I do not blame him one bit - just calling a spade a spade :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

But he's not selling out like his ex does.I dislike that phrase... "selling out."
By all rights, an artist has "sold out" the minute they signed a contract with a record label, to create a product that the record label can sell.

In my eyes, the only folks who haven't "sold out," in the truest definition of the term, are the ones who continue to create in utter obscurity without any compromises.

I feel that Stevie fully understands the fact that she is, alongside being a singer/songwriter, an employee of her record company, and knows that she needs to deliver on her contract. Her albums have their share of obscure, esoteric songs... the ones that satisfy her artistic side... as well as more "commercial," radio-friendly songs that satisfy the record company.
She also knows that she has to get up on stage and sing certain songs in order to help sell that album.

Lindsey likes to talk about artistic freedom, but then vents frustration when his employers expect a return on their multi-million dollar investment.
When Warners passed on 'Gift of Screws,' he could have taken his music and gone elsewhere. Folding those songs into a more commercially viable Fleetwood Mac product wasn't his only option. But, perhaps it was his only option if he was hoping to make money on it.

[shackin'up]

He could have finished and released GOS in lieu of doing The Dance. He did not do that. He opted for the commercial venture, which he was still opting for five years later when SYW came into the picutre. I do not blame him one bit - just calling a spade a spade :cool:


Well, ace of spades, why don't you call Say Goodbye, Red Rover, Come, and Murrow overly commercial now, too?

These discussions between us will always be the same. You pinpoint the artist by his marketingchoices, and I pinpoint him by his musical guts.

I'm a audiovisual art-teacher. What was your job again?:laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

That is because he is in many ways beholden to the money - who wouldn't be. To me, that has nothing to do with artistic integrity....I agree. The cold, hard fact is that we all need to make money. And, hopefully, we get to make money while also doing something that we love.
But, if we want to make money, then we HAVE to be willing to make compromises. If Warner Bros is going to invest a huge amount of money for an artist to record an album, they expect... rightfully so... to make that money back. It IS a business.

The fact that Lindsey recorded most of 'Under The Skin' in hotel rooms, is probably the single biggest reason why Warners is so laidback about sales figures this time around. They didn't have to give Lindsey a huge advance to record it. He handed them something he made on a shoe-string budget.
So even if 'UTS' sells no more than the usual amount of copies for a Lindsey Buckingham album, they're in the black.

[shackin'up]

Lindsey likes to talk about artistic freedom, but then vents frustration when his employers expect a return on their multi-million dollar investment.
When Warners passed on 'Gift of Screws,' he could have taken his music and gone elsewhere. Folding those songs into a more commercially viable Fleetwood Mac product wasn't his only option. But, perhaps it was his only option if he was hoping to make money on it.

Well. Don't you also start mixing up artistic freedom with dumb marketingchoices, incoherent and inconsequent. All true. But that has nothing to do with the heartfelt passion for artistic freedom. Just acknowkedge that. I also say that his marketingstrategies are and were dumb. Thaqt's why I love the guy. He simply doesn't know how to do it because his artistic drive is constantly conflicting with it. Yes. And vice versa, before you are going to say that.

And about stevie: I talk about lindsey here. Everytime Strand or You come in the comparison with stevie is there. And THEN I react. Look at strands posts.

I love stevie, and she's made alot of better commercial choices than lindsey has. But today, Lindsey's music is alot more alive in my opinion than hers. She did that during his absence from the worlds stage, so I'm not blaming her. But her recent public appearances are sell outs. whatever you talk around it. Just calling a spade a spade.

[danax6]

And about stevie: I talk about lindsey here. Everytime Strand or You come in the comparison with stevie is there. And THEN I react. Look at strands posts.

I love stevie, and she's made alot of better commercial choices than lindsey has. But today, Lindsey's music is alot more alive in my opinion than hers. She did that during his absence from the worlds stage, so I'm not blaming her. But her recent public appearances are sell outs. whatever you talk around it. Just calling a spade a spade.What Lindsey does is most of the time irrelevant to what Stevie does, but I will say this... I don't agree with you calling Stevie a sell-out. If anything, she just doesn't have those 'guts' that Lindsey has to do anything outside the realm. That's her personality. Together, they are the yin to each other's yang, but on their own they are miles apart. It's not fair to compare them or call Stevie a sell-out because of that.

/end of Stevie talk in the Lindsey forum. :wavey:

[#1LiddyBuckFan]

Just some random comments...

There was an interview for SYW where LB flat out says The Dance was about the money and, I think, the exposure it would get him to a world who had pretty much forgotten him.

Doesn't that make him a smart businessman? :thumbsup: Even though it never happened...LOL His timing seems a little off with the whole marketing thing. LOL

As for SYW and what was he supposed to do, well he could have released the GOS songs online for free or for $1.00 a song after The Dance. I mean if artistic integrity is all he cares about, then why care if it sells or why use FM once again to sell it :shrug:

The GOS songs were already online for free. I've had them for almost 7 years. :lol: Didn't he say he felt that that selection of songs would help redefine FM? I could be wrong. On top of the bonus with the cash cow of FM, more people would hear his songs...that's an artistic goal as well in my book.

I guess he truly is the artist torm between selling and art

Why do they have to be torn at all? I think most artists no matter who they are desire to sell their work. Nothing wrong with that. They want people to hear their stuff, they want to make money, and they want the affirmation. It goes together. Buckingham doesn't "pray to the commercial Gods" like some and he does push himself to create. That's what we all love about him but it's still a business. I don't see that as a crime. Does it send him to his knees when he doesn't sell a million copies? Only he can answer that, but I don't think it does.

The Dance...probably even SYW was about money. Great actors do the same thing. They go an do a box office's dream movie for the cash so they can fund/and or take a huge hit money wise on other worth while, not-so-commerical projects. I don't doubt their artistic ability for it. I say good for them!

[shackin'up]

What Lindsey does is most of the time irrelevant to what Stevie does, but I will say this... I don't agree with you calling Stevie a sell-out. If anything, she just doesn't have those 'guts' that Lindsey has to do anything outside the realm. That's her personality. Together, they are the yin to each other's yang, but on their own they are miles apart. It's not fair to compare them or call Stevie a sell-out because of that.



I don't call her a sell out. She's done enough during her career that made me intensely happy to say that. I said that the things she DID recently are sell-outs. Vegas, Henley, that godaweful sell-out-remake of one of the greatest gems ever-Dreams ( great new vocal but a desastrous cheap result), the crappy Stand Back during the footballthing and, I'm interested, but holding my breath for her new Isaak-cooperation. Touring with Petty? That was awesome. Sing with Petty and Vedder? I'd sick a mooses duck to have been there.

[Johnny Stew]

Well. Don't you also start mixing up artistic freedom with dumb marketingchoices, incoherent and inconsequent. All true. But that has nothing to do with the heartfelt passion for artistic freedom. Just acknowkedge that. I also say that his marketingstrategies are and were dumb. Thaqt's why I love the guy. He simply doesn't know how to do it because his artistic drive is constantly conflicting with it. Yes. And vice versa, before you are going to say that.I'm not even saying that he's made "dumb marketing choices" -- all I'm saying is that he's not a slave to Warner Bros. He could easily go elsewhere if he honestly and truly wanted to. So many other artists who were unhappy with the "marketing machine" have done that. It can be done... as long as you're willing to work for less.

[#1LiddyBuckFan]

Another note -

For whatever it's worth, I'm just happy that he's not resting on his laurels at this point...like everyone has said and heard...FM could tour as an oldies act forever and still make bundles of cash and maybe one day they'll do it. But right now, IMO, he's laid his soul on the table again in the form of UTS, he's pushing himself musically and he's still passionate about his work/performing. Everything else aside...that's a true artist.

[shackin'up]

I'm not even saying that he's made "dumb marketing choices" -- all I'm saying is that he's not a slave to Warner Bros. He could easily go elsewhere if he honestly and truly wanted to. So many other artists who were unhappy with the "marketing machine" have done that. It can be done... as long as you're willing to work for less.
Again, I agree.
but he didn't do it obviously. Dumb. But still I understand that stretch. It's a wrestling game for him and he's said that often enough.

[shackin'up]

Another note -

For whatever it's worth, I'm just happy that he's not resting on his laurels at this point...like everyone has said and heard...FM could tour as an oldies act forever and still make bundles of cash and maybe one day they'll do it. But right now, IMO, he's laid his soul on the table again in the form of UTS, he's pushing himself musically and he's still passionate about his work/performing. Everything else aside...that's a true artist.

HAIL for that post. It cannot be a supprise that i agree with you on this.:xoxo:

[danax6]

I don't call her a sell out. She's done enough during her career that made me intensely happy to say that. I said that the things she DID recently are sell-outs. Vegas, Henley, that godaweful sell-out-remake of one of the greatest gems ever-Dreams ( great new vocal but a desastrous cheap result), the crappy Stand Back during the footballthing and, I'm interested, but holding my breath for her new Isaak-cooperation. Touring with Petty? That was awesome. Sing with Petty and Vedder? I'd sick a mooses duck to have been there.I'll give you Vegas, but it'd be less of a sell-out if she did anything new and innovative, but as I said earlier, she doesn't have the guts to do so. I wish she was more like Lindsey in that regard for sure. Henley...well, he contacted her about it. She thought it'd be fun. No biggie. The Superbowl performance was more for promo, and they specifically mentioned her touring with Chris Isaak this summer. Besides, it's the freakin' Superbowl, who can say no? Lindsey couldn't say no to the president either. :laugh:

Another note -

For whatever it's worth, I'm just happy that he's not resting on his laurels at this point...like everyone has said and heard...FM could tour as an oldies act forever and still make bundles of cash and maybe one day they'll do it. But right now, IMO, he's laid his soul on the table again in the form of UTS, he's pushing himself musically and he's still passionate about his work/performing. Everything else aside...that's a true artist.Exactly. :nod: And it's only backed up by his willingness to do another FM album before they go out, because he doesn't want to become a nostalgia act.

[hayley]

US Soundscan totals as of this week (w/e 2-18)-

Under the Skin- 57,761 RTD
Out of the Cradle- 195,277 RTD

The OOTC number shocked me. Go Insane & Law and Order were out before the beginning of the Soundscan era, so their numbers are moot- they only represent sales since that time.

[shackin'up]

she doesn't have the guts to do so.

But that is what I mean. With such a legacy it's difficult to prevent doing sell outs. You need guts for that. She hasn't. That's my whole point.

You strageticly tresspassed my point about the Dreams-abomination?

[trackaghost]

US Soundscan totals as of this week (w/e 2-18)-

Under the Skin- 57,761 RTD
Out of the Cradle- 195,277 RTD

The OOTC number shocked me. Go Insane & Law and Order were out before the beginning of the Soundscan era, so their numbers are moot- they only represent sales since that time.


Thanks Hayley. I'll add those to the first post :)

[danax6]

But that is what I mean. With such a legacy it's difficult to prevent doing sell outs. You need guts for that. She hasn't. That's my whole point.But that's not really a conscious choice she makes, as I said it's part of her personality. You can't change who you are. :shrug:


You strageticly tresspassed my point about the Dreams-abomination?What? If there was ever anything unStevie-like it was that. She went with the times and redid vocals for a remix of one of her classics. It was something innovative in her book, you can't fault her for that.

[Kelly]

I dislike that phrase... "selling out."
By all rights, an artist has "sold out" the minute they signed a contract with a record label, to create a product that the record label can sell.

In my eyes, the only folks who haven't "sold out," in the truest definition of the term, are the ones who continue to create in utter obscurity without any compromises.

I feel that Stevie fully understands the fact that she is, alongside being a singer/songwriter, an employee of her record company, and knows that she needs to deliver on her contract. Her albums have their share of obscure, esoteric songs... the ones that satisfy her artistic side... as well as more "commercial," radio-friendly songs that satisfy the record company.
She also knows that she has to get up on stage and sing certain songs in order to help sell that album.

Lindsey likes to talk about artistic freedom, but then vents frustration when his employers expect a return on their multi-million dollar investment.
When Warners passed on 'Gift of Screws,' he could have taken his music and gone elsewhere. Folding those songs into a more commercially viable Fleetwood Mac product wasn't his only option. But, perhaps it was his only option if he was hoping to make money on it.


How could LB have taken the GoS songs, that WB passed on in 2000, and gone elsewhere? He was an employee of Reprise/WB when all that went down. He may very well have asked WB to release him, under whatever terms that he may have offered them. If they chose to keep him on their roster...what choice did he have? He wanted to release his music and his band was a valid way to do that.

Strand......I do not believe LB "runs back" to FM. Chris and Stevie made it very clear that they had an "intervention" type dinner, at Christine's, to talk him into doing the Dance. The four of them came to LB and talked HIM into doing the Dance. He made money off the tour..but so did everyone else, including La Nicks who DOES run back to FM. It was Stevie who handed LB the potential set list for the next Mac tour in 2007/2008.

[AliceLover]

US Soundscan totals as of this week (w/e 2-18)-

Under the Skin- 57,761 RTD
Out of the Cradle- 195,277 RTD

The OOTC number shocked me. Go Insane & Law and Order were out before the beginning of the Soundscan era, so their numbers are moot- they only represent sales since that time.

Reallu surprised at that OOTC #. Im glad 200,000 heard that album. Its a masterpiece!

[Johnny Stew]

How could LB have taken the GoS songs, that WB passed on in 2000, and gone elsewhere? He was an employee of Reprise/WB when all that went down. He may very well have asked WB to release him, under whatever terms that he may have offered them. If they chose to keep him on their roster...what choice did he have? He wanted to release his music and his band was a valid way to do that.I believe he could have shopped it elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong.

If he was still contractually bound to Warners though, I'm sure... again, if he was so desperately unhappy there... that he could have bought himself out of the contract. That's done all of the time, too.

And, of course, none of this explains why he would still want to stay with Warners even after he released his 'Gift Of Screws' material on 'Say You Will.' Doesn't he run the risk that they'll turn their noses up at his material again in the future (such as pushing for a more "radio-friendly" album after 'Under The Skin,' as Lindsey has already intimated that they've done)?

I'm not saying that the man doesn't put himself out there and that he doesn't take chances. I'm also not saying that he's less of an "artist" for staying with a big record label. I guess I just don't understand the mindset of someone who steadfastly refuses to compromise his art, and yet won't take his music to a smaller label that would actually WANT him to be uncompromisingly "Lindsey Buckingham." Somewhere where he'd be a huge fish in a very small pond, instead of a "misunderstood visionary" lost in a sea of pre-manufactured fluff-head pop acts and hip hop "artists."

Strand......I do not believe LB "runs back" to FM.
He made money off the tour..but so did everyone else, including La Nicks who DOES run back to FM. It was Stevie who handed LB the potential set list for the next Mac tour in 2007/2008.As far as Stevie "running" back to Fleetwood Mac. I don't know. Her albums sell quite well and her tours bring in quite a bit of revenue. 'Say You Will' has only sold about 200,000 more copies than 'Trouble In Shangri-La'... and Stevie didn't have to split the royalty payments four ways on the latter. "Running back" implies a need (whether that be a financial need or a need for the level of exposure that the name "Fleetwood Mac" brings), and I don't see a need there.

[shackin'up]

But that's not really a conscious choice she makes, as I said it's part of her personality. You can't change who you are. :shrug:

What? If there was ever anything unStevie-like it was that. She went with the times and redid vocals for a remix of one of her classics. It was something innovative in her book, you can't fault her for that.
I don't fault her, I said the result is a cheap sell-out. And I agree that one can't change ones personality, but that can't be a reason to LIKE the choices someone makes. I don't like her choices nowadays.

[strandinthewind]

Well, ace of spades, why don't you call Say Goodbye, Red Rover, Come, and Murrow overly commercial now, too?

These discussions between us will always be the same. You pinpoint the artist by his marketingchoices, and I pinpoint him by his musical guts.

I'm a audiovisual art-teacher. What was your job again?:laugh:

I never said LB was not an artist. In fact, I have repeatedly called him brilliant - even if some of his stuff is not for me, etc.

I am just taking issue with the position that LB's selling out is somehow less of a sell out than La Nicks' deal. Clearly, La Nicks is not about being adventerous (though she has her moments) and LB is. Does that make one a better artist than the other? I say no because (to use another example) Cézanne bridged late 19th century Impressionism and the early 20th century's new line of artistic enquiry, Cubism. Does that make is folowers Matisse and Picasso (who call Cezanne "the father of us all") any less of an artist because they were not that relatively adventerous. I say no. Same thing for La Nicks and LB.

In the end, I think it is possible to be overtly commercial and still an artist. Them's fighting words to the LB fans though because they seemingly cannot abide any talk of LB having any interest in money, a position the facts belie.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But her recent public appearances are sell outs. whatever you talk around it. Just calling a spade a spade.

Both heer and his set lists are mostly hit (and note she has way more hits) with some non-hits put in there. So, how is she selling out more than he is :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Why do they have to be torn at all? . . . .

Lord Child - be careful with that crazy talk around here - LB is NEVER about the money - EVER :laugh: :rolleyes: He cares only about the music and nothing more - even if it may break their will - oops I meant only kill - I mean errrrrrrr :laugh:

(this post is meant light hearted and to enrage Gerald, whom I love)

[shackin'up]

Both heer and his set lists are mostly hit (and note she has way more hits) with some non-hits put in there. So, how is she selling out more than he is :shrug:

yes, she simply is.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :xoxo:

Come on dude. Listen to his new album and tour. It's not just setlist, also HOW you perform old hits. That tight threepiece ensemble with electronic drums is something else. And besides that: The energy!!!!

[strandinthewind]

. . . You strageticly tresspassed my point about the Dreams-abomination?

I love how when she does something a little out there for her, it is horrid. When LB makes something essentially unlistenable to the masses, it is great art.

I love the Dreams redo by Deep Dish and think it was adventerous of her to reach out to these at the time hot young artists. Of course, she could have sold the song to a car rental company for their commercial, which is wholly artistic in every possible fashion and has nothing to do with money :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

How could LB have taken the GoS songs, that WB passed on in 2000, and gone elsewhere? He was an employee of Reprise/WB when all that went down. He may very well have asked WB to release him, under whatever terms that he may have offered them. If they chose to keep him on their roster...what choice did he have? He wanted to release his music and his band was a valid way to do that.

Strand......I do not believe LB "runs back" to FM. Chris and Stevie made it very clear that they had an "intervention" type dinner, at Christine's, to talk him into doing the Dance. The four of them came to LB and talked HIM into doing the Dance. He made money off the tour..but so did everyone else, including La Nicks who DOES run back to FM. It was Stevie who handed LB the potential set list for the next Mac tour in 2007/2008.


I am sure the only reason Warner's did not drop LB from the label was because of FM, which is a money maker. But, that is just what I think.

As for Stevie running back to FM, in the 80's, she didn't need them to sell anything. She was crowned the reigning Queen of Rock and Roll for goodness sake, though by the OSOTM, her star had faded as had FM's. Clearly, they all used The Dance as a money maker, etc. Then, she hits rather big on her own with TISL and is in the limelight again. She did not need FM's SYW because TISL sold very well. So, I do not think she runs back to FM as much as she likes the people in it and is loyal.

Regading LB's unwillingness to do The Dance. Give me a break, he doth protest too much and is the most high maintanence straight male I have ever seen :laugh:

[shackin'up]

I love how when she does something a little out there for her, it is horrid. When LB makes something essentially unlistenable to the masses, it is great art.

The way he does it: YEP!

I love the Dreams redo by Deep Dish and think it was adventerous of her to reach out to these at the time hot young artists. Of course, she could have sold the song to a car rental company for their commercial, which is wholly artistic in every possible fashion and has nothing to do with money :xoxo:



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: sorry dude, but if you call that artistic and nothing to do with money you leave me nothing than snobistic laughter. SELL-OUT!!! Cheap cheaper cheapest!:xoxo: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: sorry dude, but if you call that artistic and nothing to do with money you leave me nothing than snobistic laughter. SELL-OUT!!! Cheap cheaper cheapest!:xoxo: :xoxo:

Want to rent a National Rental Car - I hear you can "Go Your Own Way"

CHA CHING!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

[Little Nicki]

I think the main, inarguable point about whether or not they are sellouts all boils down to how popular they are. Stevie is ten thousand times more popular than Lindsey, and thus has had more chances than him to sell out. His only real chances to sell out have been with Go Your Own Way, by far his biggest hit. And he took it. But Stevie has had so many hits, so many chances to sell them, so many chances to half-heartedly perform them just for the money, that "selling out" has become her whole life. She has had the opportunity because of her popularity and she took it. If Lindsey had more hits, they very well might be played all over TV, and he may be performing them when he goes on Jimmy Kimmel, Conan, etc. But oh yeah, he actually cares about staying fresh and he records new music. Again, who knows if he would choose to make new albums if he had the chance not to (though one would think the answer would be obvious), but the fact is Stevie doesn't have to, and so she doesn't. She tours and plays the super bowl singing her hits from 20 years ago, almost exclusively.

[shackin'up]

I think the main, inarguable point about whether or not they are sellouts all boils down to how popular they are. Stevie is ten thousand times more popular than Lindsey, and thus has had more chances than him to sell out. His only real chances to sell out have been with Go Your Own Way, by far his biggest hit. And he took it. But Stevie has had so many hits, so many chances to sell them, so many chances to half-heartedly perform them just for the money, that "selling out" has become her whole life. She has had the opportunity because of her popularity and she took it. If Lindsey had more hits, they very well might be played all over TV, and he may be performing them when he goes on Jimmy Kimmel, Conan, etc. But oh yeah, he actually cares about staying fresh and he records new music. Again, who knows if he would choose to make new albums if he had the chance not to (though one would think the answer would be obvious), but the fact is Stevie doesn't have to, and so she doesn't. She tours and plays the super bowl singing her hits from 20 years ago, almost exclusively.

well, I'm sorry dear, but that is not what I mean by sell-out.

[strandinthewind]

I think the main, inarguable point about whether or not they are sellouts all boils down to how popular they are. Stevie is ten thousand times more popular than Lindsey, and thus has had more chances than him to sell out. His only real chances to sell out have been with Go Your Own Way, by far his biggest hit. And he took it. But Stevie has had so many hits, so many chances to sell them, so many chances to half-heartedly perform them just for the money, that "selling out" has become her whole life. She has had the opportunity because of her popularity and she took it. If Lindsey had more hits, they very well might be played all over TV, and he may be performing them when he goes on Jimmy Kimmel, Conan, etc. But oh yeah, he actually cares about staying fresh and he records new music. Again, who knows if he would choose to make new albums if he had the chance not to (though one would think the answer would be obvious), but the fact is Stevie doesn't have to, and so she doesn't. She tours and plays the super bowl singing her hits from 20 years ago, almost exclusively.

Interestingly, LB had many completed songs after SYW. Nicks had, from what we can see, one "My Heart" -- assuming she consideres that done. Also, LB recorded on the road, Nicks did not because IMO she does not know how to produce like LB can. So, it was easy for LB to go a year or so later from SYW to UTS. Nicks, however, has to rent a studio and session players -- then undergo a two or so year process that will cost at least a million dollars. So, I think Nicks cares as much as LB about staying fresh, she just realizes the reality of it.

[shackin'up]

Interestingly, LB had many completed songs after SYW. Nicks had, from what we can see, one "My Heart" -- assuming she consideres that done. Also, LB recorded on the road, Nicks did not because IMO she does not know how to produce like LB can. So, it was easy for LB to go a year or so later from SYW to UTS. Nicks, however, has to rent a studio and session players -- then undergo a two or so year process that will cost at least a million dollars. So, I think Nicks cares as much as LB about staying fresh, she just realizes the reality of it.

Can be, but you can fill in what you want, realism or not, one goes ahead and one stands still in development. Not that she's lazy ofcourse, she's a busy bee all the way. It's just that she's not searching the challenge in her art anymore, but in staying in the public eye with what the public wants. Keep the eye on what she already established.

Spot on, gerald.


:lol:

[Little Nicki]

Interestingly, LB had many completed songs after SYW. Nicks had, from what we can see, one "My Heart" -- assuming she consideres that done. Also, LB recorded on the road, Nicks did not because IMO she does not know how to produce like LB can. So, it was easy for LB to go a year or so later from SYW to UTS. Nicks, however, has to rent a studio and session players -- then undergo a two or so year process that will cost at least a million dollars. So, I think Nicks cares as much as LB about staying fresh, she just realizes the reality of it.

Do you not realize that from 1981 to 1989 she released six albums, four of them being solo? In the last eight years, she has released two albums, one being solo. And she's got a band already that she has been with constantly for the last couple years, and I'm guessing money isn't too big of a factor for her to NOT do an album. She's got plenty and will only make boatloads more once the album is complete. Though she might actually have to try if she wants the album to be any good, and she can have none of that.

Also, she's recorded way more solo albums than Lindsey, so the argument of it being easier for Lindsey to record is not valid, despite it being true.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Also, she's recorded way more solo albums than Lindsey, so the argument of it being easier for Lindsey to record is not valid, despite it being true.

I meant it is easier for LB to record because he can play many instruments very well. She cannot. Plus, I am unsure if she can work a board or not, but I doubt she has that skill seeing as how she still types on a typewriter :laugh: Conversely, shile way more musically talented in that regard, LB is not so talented in the "good enough to go and I am not a perfectionist" mode :laugh:

[Little Nicki]

I know. As I said, Lindsey can record an album easier than Stevie can, that's true. But she has released more albums than him so clearly she isn't just some hopeless singer who doesn't have the resources to make an album.

[Johnny Stew]

I love how when she does something a little out there for her, it is horrid. When LB makes something essentially unlistenable to the masses, it is great art.The less people who like your music, the more "artistic" it is. ;)

In all fairness, Stevie's art has never been about experimenting and blazing new territory. She prefers to wrap her weird little voice and strange, songwriting style in beautiful, glossy music with ethereal backing vocals. She has a particular sound that she, as a music lover, prefers -- and that's what she brings to her own music as well.

Lindsey, on the other hand, has always been more interested in pushing the envelope. I don't see as much of that envelope-pushing these days -- after all, the material on 'Under The Skin' is really just an extension of what he's been doing with "Big Love" and "Go Insane" on stage since 1992 -- but his music still tends to be more "outside the box" and definitely isn't "mainstream."

I've always said that if Lindsey & Stevie had never been a couple or had never been in a band together, there's not a single music listener who would ever even think to compare their work. They're two completely different artists. Stevie uses more aurally appealing production styles and instrumentation to balance the oddness of her voice and lyrics, while Lindsey uses offbeat production and instrumentation to play up the inherent weirdness factor in his songs.

I love the Dreams redo by Deep Dish and think it was adventerous of her to reach out to these at the time hot young artists. Of course, she could have sold the song to a car rental company for their commercial, which is wholly artistic in every possible fashion and has nothing to do with money :xoxo:I love the Deep Dish version of "Dreams," too. It was a fun collaboration with a hot, hip and well-respected remixing team who have tons of dancefloor cred, and it was a great, fresh way to bring a classic song to an entirely new audience.

[Johnny Stew]

I know. As I said, Lindsey can record an album easier than Stevie can, that's true. But she has released more albums than him so clearly she isn't just some hopeless singer who doesn't have the resources to make an album.We've all offered many theories as to why Stevie isn't working on anything new right now, and one that I keep coming back to of late, is that her overhead is so high. Because she needs to rent studio time, and hire talented musicians (such as Waddy Wachtel), and because she needs a capable producer, the cost of recording a Stevie Nicks album is in the millions. Because of that, it also has to sell a lot to recoup those expenses. Check out BTFLCHLD's "www.boycott-riaa.com (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=31407)" thread in the Chit-Chat Forum to get a glimpse of how little an artist actually makes from their albums, after all of the fees and various other expenses are paid.

Lindsey, being someone who can play a multitude of instruments and who can more than ably handle the production aspects on his own, could record an album basically for free while on tour. His overhead is considerably low this time around... again, which is probably why no one's sweating whether or not it'll sell a million copies.

Maybe the moral of the story is that you can take more risks when your livelihood isn't on the line.

[MacMan]

Check out BFLCHLD's "www.boycott-riaa.com (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=31407)" thread in the Chit-Chat Forum to get a glimpse of how little an artist actually makes from their albums, after all of the fees and various other expenses are paid.

That was interesting... and probably part of the reason FM stayed out on the road with SYW for a year and half - so that they wouldn't be in the hole at the end of the day... They went with Warners because they offered a bigger advance then Interscope at the time... It also goes to show why artists would license there material for commercial payback like tv commercials and other things like that - to make some cash.

[LukeA]

I am sure the only reason Warner's did not drop LB from the label was because of FM, which is a money maker.

FYI, WBR dropped Fleetwood Mac in the Spring of 2002; incidentally, Fleetwood Mac didn't make the label any considerable money with SYW.

The notion (as has been recounted in this thread) that Fleetwood Mac extended the SYW tour in part to pay off whatever advance WBR gave to them is laughable. Everyone made tons of cash on that tour- which is why they can't wait to trot out the old warhorses again for a tour next year.

[strandinthewind]

FYI, WBR dropped Fleetwood Mac in the Spring of 2002; incidentally, Fleetwood Mac didn't make the label any considerable money with SYW.

The notion (as has been recounted in this thread) that Fleetwood Mac extended the SYW tour in part to pay off whatever advance WBR gave to them is laughable. Everyone made tons of cash on that tour- which is why they can't wait to trot out the old warhorses again for a tour next year.

I think the label gets a cut from the concert promoting the CD and the record itself ana all others it produced. But, I could be wrong. Does anyone in the business (and you may be) know for sure?

[shackin'up]

I know. As I said, Lindsey can record an album easier than Stevie can, that's true. But she has released more albums than him so clearly she isn't just some hopeless singer who doesn't have the resources to make an album.

exactly. ridiculous reason for stop making an album. she can hire great good musicians for a lot less than those topmusicians. write songs, find someone to arrange and stop making albums that are meant to underline what you established. It can be done alot cheaper than she used to, and you don't need to have all skills alone, with great results.

[Johnny Stew]

exactly. ridiculous reason for stop making an album. she can hire great good musicians for a lot less than those topmusicians. write songs, find someone to arrange and stop making albums that are meant to underline what you established. It can be done alot cheaper than she used to, and you don't need to have all skills alone, with great results.Then again, the results could be bland, like 'In The Meantime.' ;)

If the only way we could get a new album, is for Stevie to record something a lot more no-frills, then of course I'd opt for something rather than nothing... but I'd miss the high-gloss sheen of the "Stevie Nicks Sound."

Thinking about it, I have been really pleased with the sound of the demos she's done with Al Ortiz... so maybe that's the route she should go. He's not the kind of collaborator that others desire for Stevie, but I'm not looking for that -- I prefer Stevie to stay just the way she is. Why mess with perfection? :D

[shackin'up]

Then again, the results could be bland, like 'In The Meantime.' ;)
but I'd miss the high-gloss sheen of the "Stevie Nicks Sound."
.


Sorry, Stewie, but As far as I know her sound is in her voice. And I think her most "high-gloss"- albums are her weakest ones. The warmest sounding album still is bella donna. And if I heard an album with just some acoustic guitars, piano and her voice, I'd opt for that ten times earlier than such oversheening albums like OSOTM. No, it's quite possible to record an album for her. But she doesn't want to, because it's not profitable enough anymore. A damn pity. Creating isn't her thing anymore. Damn.

[Johnny Stew]

Sorry, Stewie, but As far as I know her sound is in her voice. And I think her most "high-gloss"- albums are her weakest ones. The warmest sounding album still is bella donna. And if I heard an album with just some acoustic guitars, piano and her voice, I'd opt for that ten times earlier than such oversheening albums like OSOTM.Yes, Stevie's voice is the front & center focus, but I do think her album tracks have an overall sound that is part of the entire package. When the songs come on the radio, you know they're Stevie Nicks songs before she even starts singing.
I like that sound -- others, apparently, do not. Or, at least, they're itching for something "different."

My three favorites are 'The Wild Heart,' 'Trouble In Shangri-La' and 'Rock A Little'... that's the sound I prefer. 'Street Angel' and 'Bella Donna' would be fourth and fifth, and 'The Other Side Of The Mirror' would be sixth because it is too "high gloss."
For my ears, 'Bella' is bland. The songs themselves are great, Stevie's voice is great, but the production lacks any oomph. It's laidback, Eagles-styled, California country-pop. Production-wise, 'Street Angel' has more "muscle."

But trust me, Gerald, I'm ultimately not going to turn my nose up at ANYTHING Stevie might want to do. If it results in there being a brand new Stevie Nicks album in my greedy little hands, then I'm all for it.

No, it's quite possible to record an album for her. But she doesn't want to, because it's not profitable enough anymore. A damn pity. Creating isn't her thing anymore. Damn.I still think that's an unfair assessment. I don't think it's that she doesn't want to create at all -- I think she just hasn't yet figured out how to make an album that sounds the way she wants it to sound, without losing a lot of money in the process.

[The Tower]

I never thought I see the day when Gerald would be gushing about Stevie in the Lindsey forum.

Has the world gone topsy-turvy???

:p :p :p

[shackin'up]

Yeah, sorry. The gushing seems to come more out of a deepfelt wish. I just would LOVE it if she'd collaborate with a guy like Rick Rubin. Someone who can push one to go back to the bare roots. Simple, dry production, sparse instrumentation and basicly just the voice and the song. It can be done. And for me it could be a reinvention of Stevie's muse. And right after that, S&L can record a modern countyfolkalbum with the Mac.

[carrie721]

Yeah, sorry. The gushing seems to come more out of a deepfelt wish. I just would LOVE it if she'd collaborate with a guy like Rick Rubin. Someone who can push one to go back to the bare roots. Simple, dry production, sparse instrumentation and basicly just the voice and the song. It can be done. And for me it could be a reinvention of Stevie's muse. And right after that, S&L can record a modern countyfolkalbum with the Mac.

and then monkeys will fly out of my ass.

just kidding.

that is absolutely my dream too, for stevie to do a stripped down album, preferably country. i would die on the spot.

[Little Nicki]

I still think that's an unfair assessment. I don't think it's that she doesn't want to create at all -- I think she just hasn't yet figured out how to make an album that sounds the way she wants it to sound, without losing a lot of money in the process.

#1 - Does she not have plenty to spare? She's been doing nothing but letting it roll in while doing very little work for the last three years. How greedy can one person possibly be??

#2 - You saying she would rather keep her money than create an album she's happy with is pretty much like agreeing wholeheartedly with Gerald's quote you quoted.

[Johnny Stew]

#1 - Does she not have plenty to spare? She's been doing nothing but letting it roll in while doing very little work for the last three years. How greedy can one person possibly be??Uhm, "very little work"? She's toured nearly non-stop since 2001, and the only lengthy "time-off" that she's had since 2001 was spent recording 'Say You Will.' How is that "very little work"?

And how is she being greedy? Do you work in order to be able to pay for the roof over your head and the food on your table? Do you work in order to pay for the CDs and various other things you buy? Do you work in order to insure that you'll have money when it's time to retire? I'm sure you do, because it's what everyone does... and Stevie is really no different than anyone else.

I have no real idea what Stevie's financial situation is like, but you do understand, don't you, that she has to make sure she's earned enough money to sustain her (and, really, the rest of her family) long after she's no longer healthy enough to tour or record? Royalty payments only go so far when sales slow down with each passing year.

#2 - You saying she would rather keep her money than create an album she's happy with is pretty much like agreeing wholeheartedly with Gerald's quote you quoted.I didn't say she'd "rather keep her money" -- I said she may be protecting her nest egg. It's easy for us to say "hey, Stevie, blow a million and record a new album," when we don't know if that million is what's going to send Jessica to college.

[Little Nicki]

Just to qualify, I'm working under the assumption that Stevie Nicks is a rich person.
Uhm, "very little work"? She's toured nearly non-stop since 2001, and the only lengthy "time-off" that she's had since 2001 was spent recording 'Say You Will.' How is that "very little work"?
I consider recording hard work. She actually has to be creative and try to sound good. You can't tell me she's really trying hard night in and night out on these last few tours. In the delivery or, more painfully obvious, the set lists.

And how is she being greedy? Do you work in order to be able to pay for the roof over your head and the food on your table? Do you work in order to pay for the CDs and various other things you buy? Do you work in order to insure that you'll have money when it's time to retire? I'm sure you do, because it's what everyone does... and Stevie is really no different than anyone else.
Except for the fact that she has millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars and she hasn't been to a grocery store since the 70's. Not willing to part with a fraction of that money in order to make her fans, her label, and herself (in the end) happy? I would consider that greedy. More personality disorder than greedy if it's making her unhappy to do the thing that will make her happy.

I have no real idea what Stevie's financial situation is like, but you do understand, don't you, that she has to make sure she's earned enough money to sustain her (and, really, the rest of her family) long after she's no longer healthy enough to tour or record? Royalty payments only go so far when sales slow down with each passing year.

I didn't say she'd "rather keep her money" -- I said she may be protecting her nest egg. It's easy for us to say "hey, Stevie, blow a million and record a new album," when we don't know if that million is what's going to send Jessica to college.

I'm thinking that if my mother can afford to send me to college, as countless other non-musical-superstar-of-gargantuan-fame mothers can, Stevie can afford to help out her niece.

[Für Elise]

Uhm, "very little work"? She's toured nearly non-stop since 2001, and the only lengthy "time-off" that she's had since 2001 was spent recording 'Say You Will.' How is that "very little work"?

And how is she being greedy? Do you work in order to be able to pay for the roof over your head and the food on your table? Do you work in order to pay for the CDs and various other things you buy? Do you work in order to insure that you'll have money when it's time to retire? I'm sure you do, because it's what everyone does... and Stevie is really no different than anyone else. I don't really know what is being argued here but did you relate her situation to the everyman working a day job situation? I work in order to pay my bills and in twenty years I'll probably be working to secure my future financially and support kids if that's what happens but I doubt Stevies big solo career was all about making sure she is able to retire. Maybe it was about her version of retirement which includes a lot more excesses which makes her situation not relevant to the comparison being made. She is different to most.

I have no real idea what Stevie's financial situation is like, but you do understand, don't you, that she has to make sure she's earned enough money to sustain her (and, really, the rest of her family) long after she's no longer healthy enough to tour or record? Royalty payments only go so far when sales slow down with each passing year.If she's in this situation then the average person is up **** creek when it comes to finances. She's not royalty collecting our taxes til she dies but come on, she lives far more excessively than us and it's not about if she can afford to be housed, fed and able to retire, it's if she can afford to that with great comfort.

[Johnny Stew]

I consider recording hard work. She actually has to be creative and try to sound good. You can't tell me she's really trying hard night in and night out on these last few tours. In the delivery or, more painfully obvious, the set lists.I think touring is harder work. How hard can it be to sit in a studio and sing? Do a few takes and go home. See ya tomorrow.

Ask chiliD if it's harder to perform on stage or if it's harder to record in a studio. I think he prefers performing, but I think he'll also tell you it's harder work.

Except for the fact that she has millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars and she hasn't been to a grocery store since the 70's. Not willing to part with a fraction of that money in order to make her fans, her label, and herself (in the end) happy? I would consider that greedy. More personality disorder than greedy if it's making her unhappy to do the thing that will make her happy.Ok then, let's look at it this way... what if recording a new album ISN'T what would make Stevie happy? What if exactly what she's doing right now is what makes her happiest?
All we can think about is what would make US happy, and very few people seem to be taking into consideration what would make Stevie happy.

There's definitely greed afoot, and I'm not so certain it's on Stevie's part.

[Johnny Stew]

I don't really know what is being argued here but did you relate her situation to the everyman working a day job situation? I work in order to pay my bills and in twenty years I'll probably be working to secure my future financially and support kids if that's what happens but I doubt Stevies big solo career was all about making sure she is able to retire. Maybe it was about her version of retirement which includes a lot more excesses which makes her situation not relevant to the comparison being made. She is different to most.

If she's in this situation then the average person is up **** creek when it comes to finances. She's not royalty collecting our taxes til she dies but come on, she lives far more excessively than us and it's not about if she can afford to be housed, fed and able to retire, it's if she can afford to that with great comfort.I thought it was implied that I'm speaking comparatively.

Certainly she lives more extravagantly than any of us here, but don't we all work hard in order to maintain whatever lifestyle we're living? Those who have a house work hard in order to pay their mortgage so they don't lose that house. Those who rent work hard so they won't get evicted.
And don't we all work so that we can retire "comfortably"... whatever our definition of "comfortable" may be?

A huge amount of what Stevie earned in the '70s and '80s went up her nose. It's gone. She has often said they probably could have cured leukemia by now with the money she wasted on drugs.
So she's living on what she's earned in recent years... not on what she made off of 'Rumours' or 'Bella Donna.'

I'm not saying she's anywhere near poor... hell, if I had one eighteenth of what she has, I'd feel like Donald Trump... but she has to make sure that the money keeps coming in if she wants to continue living the lifestyle that she prefers. Especially when she's no longer healthy enough to work.
Again, that's no different than what the rest of us are doing -- we're just doing it in different tax brackets.

[Little Nicki]

I think touring is harder work. How hard can it be to sit in a studio and sing? Do a few takes and go home. See ya tomorrow.

Well if we're heading off to oversimplify land, how hard can it be to sit in a five star hotel all day, take a limo to the best venues in the world, blandly sing the same songs she's been doing for thirty years (and literally the same exact ones she's been doing for the last two years) change a pair of gloves, take the limo back to the hotel. Okay, she has to wear that one hat which requires some effort. Does she even do interviews anymore?


Ok then, let's look at it this way... what if recording a new album ISN'T what would make Stevie happy? What if exactly what she's doing right now is what makes her happiest?


Well then you lose. At first you were defending her when Gerald says "she's not creative and artistic, she should be like Lindsey." You say "she did the Dreams thing, which was fresh and hip and introduced her song to a whole new generation," etc. Then when we established no, that's not creative. You say "she doesn't have the resources to make an album like Lindsey does - has to find a studio, players..." No, she has found plenty of those over her career, more times than Lindsey. You say "she has no money?" Nope, she's got plenty. "Well she's doing what makes her happy right now. Okay, so she's not creative or artistic anymore. Good to finally get that out in the open.

[Für Elise]

I thought it was implied that I'm speaking comparatively.

Certainly she lives more extravagantly than any of us here, but don't we all work hard in order to maintain whatever lifestyle we're living? Those who have a house work hard in order to pay their mortgage so they don't lose that house. Those who rent work hard so they won't get evicted.
And don't we all work so that we can retire "comfortably"... whatever our definition of "comfortable" may be?

A huge amount of what Stevie earned in the '70s and '80s went up her nose. It's gone. She has often said they probably could have cured leukemia by now with the money she wasted on drugs.
So she's living on what she's earned in recent years... not on what she made off of 'Rumours' or 'Bella Donna.'

I'm not saying she's anywhere near poor... hell, if I had one eighteenth of what she has, I'd feel like Donald Trump... but she has to make sure that the money keeps coming in if she wants to continue living the lifestyle that she prefers. Especially when she's no longer healthy enough to work.
Again, that's no different than what the rest of us are doing -- we're just doing it in different tax brackets.so basically you mean that she's not recording because she doesn't want to risk the lifestyle that she leads at present no longer being possible? Her lifestyle at present is of course that of a very rich, single woman. There's not 5 kids going through college and even if it were it would still be an excessive lifestyle. I think I get what you mean but I prefer to think that she's just not interested in it at the moment because by your account she's not recording just because she wants to maintain her excessive lifestyle, that risking gold plated surroundings for the sake of being creative is a little much.as a fan of her msuic I would rather not see it that way but maybe you're right, it just puts her in a little less positive light.

[Johnny Stew]

Well then you lose. At first you were defending her when Gerald says "she's not creative and artistic, she should be like Lindsey." You say "she did the Dreams thing, which was fresh and hip and introduced her song to a whole new generation," etc. Then when we established no, that's not creative. You say "she doesn't have the resources to make an album like Lindsey does - has to find a studio, players..." No, she has found plenty of those over her career, more times than Lindsey. You say "she has no money?" Nope, she's got plenty. "Well she's doing what makes her happy right now. Okay, so she's not creative or artistic anymore. Good to finally get that out in the open.First off, I'm not in Stevie's head. I'm only offering possible reasons for her not recording.

You point out that Stevie's recorded more albums than Lindsey, and you're surmising from that fact that it must therefore be no problem for her to record them. But you're not at all taking into consideration the fact that this is no longer 1983, when it was easy for her to sell a couple million albums and pay her overhead.

You're also grossly misunderstanding some of the things I've said. I did not say "she doesn't have the resources to record" -- I said that Lindsey recording an album by himself in his hotel rooms is vastly less expensive than it would be for Stevie to go into a studio with hired musicians and a hired producer, and therefore she needs to sell far more copies than he does, in order for her to pay back the record company advance, the studio fees, the musician fees, etc., etc.

Like I've said before, since Stevie's apparently letting folks down so unforgivably, maybe she should just retire. No more setlists to bitch about. No more performances to rip apart. No more songs to negatively compare to ones she wrote 30 years ago. No more complaints that she's become an artistically bankrupt "nostalgia act."

And everyone can rejoice that Stevie Nicks will never again disappoint them.

[Johnny Stew]

so basically you mean that she's not recording because she doesn't want to risk the lifestyle that she leads at present no longer being possible?I said that maybe the high expense/low returns of recording an album is why Stevie isn't currently doing so. Right now. And that maybe she's looking to find a "best of both possible worlds" scenario, where she can not only record the kind of album she wants to record, but also not lose a lot of money in the process.

I've also, in various other threads, suggested the possibility that she's currently feeling uninspired (which happens to all artists), and the possibility that performing is what she wants to focus on while she's still healthy enough to do so, as well as the possibility that she's trying to burn off her contract with Warner Bros. so that she can go elsewhere.

They're all simply different possible scenarios... things to discuss, debate or completely dismiss, if necessary.

There are two other things that haven't come up in recent conversations -- the fact that Stevie told the Australian press that, while she wasn't writing anything new, she was hoping to finally get her "Rhiannon" album completed... and... her comment about perhaps releasing a small handful of tracks through iTunes or her website, instead of putting out a full-length album that might contain some songs she's not 100% in love with (which MIGHT mean the songs written by other writers, that the record company usually pushes to include).

[Mari]

How come Johnny, whenever I see you posting on this board, you're always talking about Stevie?:laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

How come Johnny, whenever I see you posting on this board, you're always talking about Stevie?:laugh::laugh:
Maybe not always, but I certainly am guilty of doing that frequently! :o

I think sometimes because of the days when the Ledge consisted of only one board and we talked about everything and anything on that one board, no matter what the specific thread topic was, that I still tend to do that.
Even though we've had this new format for nearly 7 years!

By the way, how have you been, Mari?

[Mari]

I've been crap, but thanks for asking (bet you regret that, now;) )
But post away, certainly adds to the discussion here.

[HomerMcvie]

since Stevie's apparently letting folks down so unforgivably, maybe she should just retire. No more setlists to bitch about. No more performances to rip apart. No more songs to negatively compare to ones she wrote 30 years ago. No more complaints that she's become an artistically bankrupt "nostalgia act."

And everyone can rejoice that Stevie Nicks will never again disappoint them.

Finally Bri Bri, we find our common ground.:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

I've been crap, but thanks for asking (bet you regret that, now;) )I'm sorry to hear that. :( I don't know what it is about the past twelve months, but they seem to have been extremely unkind to a lot of people. I hope things start looking up for you soon. Perhaps a European leg on Lindsey's tour? :xoxo:

But post away, certainly adds to the discussion here.Thanks... I try. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Finally Bri Bri, we find our common ground.Except that I meant it sarcastically, and you... well, you just mean it.

[trackaghost]

I knew that as soon as Lindsey's album sales info was posted the Stevie vs Lindsey debate would start up again...