Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[danax6]

Oy, you know you got a good discussion going on when even former bandmembers start to put in their two cents. :laugh:

[michelle2677]

Oy, you know you got a good discussion going on when even former bandmembers start to put in their two cents. :laugh:



LMFAO! :laugh:

[PenguinHead]

I had to think twice about posting here but I wanted to give you all
my opinion of Carols book.

I was present at a lot of the times she mentions , i.e the Halloween Party
in Hancock Park , the gig in Philadelphia when Lindsey was hospitalized ( I
opened up for them, along with Steve Miller and others), at the Producers
workshop when they were putting od's on Rumors, and also whrn Lindsey was producing parts of "Sentimental Lady" at that same studio(Producers Workshop), in Sausulito during much of the recording of Rumors , at Village
Recorderes studio D when they were doing Tusk many many nights,
at Stevies various houses at different times, at Micks Bel-Air house on Bellagio Rd after the "big" meeting , at Micks "Blue Whale " house in
Malibu when he was with Sara Recor, backstage before they went on , on
their private plane when I was opening up for them and Mick was my
manager etc. etc. etc., backstage when Dennis Wilson was on the road with them.......and on and on.I remeber the "bottle caps" (they were Heinekin caps;-)..... the "bumps" on the fist ( I got 'em too , from J.C.)all of that.
I was around Carol Harris a lot. Let me say that , for me, everything she portrays rings true. I never witnessed any personal violence toward her from Lindsey of course, but having been at a lot of the scenes she describes, I would agree with her recreation of the settings , mood,
and personalities of the people and places as she portrays them.

That's my 2 cents...

Bob Welch

From one Bob to another, thank you for chiming in (and for all of your wonderful music too!). Your candor and perspective are very much appreciated.

[mgikallaroundme]

I was around Carol Harris a lot. Let me say that , for me, everything she portrays rings true. I never witnessed any personal violence toward her from Lindsey of course, but having been at a lot of the scenes she describes, I would agree with her recreation of the settings , mood,
and personalities of the people and places as she portrays them.

That's my 2 cents...

Bob Welch


From one Bob to another, thank you for chiming in (and for all of your wonderful music too!). Your candor and perspective are very much appreciated.

Yes, thanks Bob! :wavey: Your candor in supporting Carol Harris is much appreciated. Now please share what you know about Carol Ann Harris. :blob2:


http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z184/mgikman_photos/3_dollar_bill.jpg

[DeeGeMe]

Oy, you know you got a good discussion going on when even former bandmembers start to put in their two cents. :laugh:

No ****! LOL. Hi Bob! :laugh:

[Tango]

I had to think twice about posting here but I wanted to give you all
my opinion of Carols book.

I was present at a lot of the times she mentions , i.e the Halloween Party
in Hancock Park , the gig in Philadelphia when Lindsey was hospitalized ( I
opened up for them, along with Steve Miller and others), at the Producers
workshop when they were putting od's on Rumors, and also whrn Lindsey was producing parts of "Sentimental Lady" at that same studio(Producers Workshop), in Sausulito during much of the recording of Rumors , at Village
Recorderes studio D when they were doing Tusk many many nights,
at Stevies various houses at different times, at Micks Bel-Air house on Bellagio Rd after the "big" meeting , at Micks "Blue Whale " house in
Malibu when he was with Sara Recor, backstage before they went on , on
their private plane when I was opening up for them and Mick was my
manager etc. etc. etc., backstage when Dennis Wilson was on the road with them.......and on and on.I remeber the "bottle caps" (they were Heinekin caps;-)..... the "bumps" on the fist ( I got 'em too , from J.C.)all of that.
I was around Carol Harris a lot. Let me say that , for me, everything she portrays rings true. I never witnessed any personal violence toward her from Lindsey of course, but having been at a lot of the scenes she describes, I would agree with her recreation of the settings , mood,
and personalities of the people and places as she portrays them.

That's my 2 cents...

Bob Welch

Thank you Bob. I appreciate the angst you probably had in speaking up, but I'm glad you did.

[camchristo]

****, you're quoting two-week old posts. Now I have to think long and hard about what the **** I was talking about again. I'm at work so I don't have the book handy to verify some of the things I am trying to remember. One of the things that struck me as odd was that CAH specifically mentions that while Lindsey was writing songs like Not That Funny he became a little more aggressive, sexually and I guess in general. She elaborates on what the songs are about when she thinks they are about her, like Save Me A Place, but then completely dismisses why Lindsey was behaving the way he was when writing those others songs. We all know the timeline coincides with Stevie and Mick doing the hanky panky and everyone being aware of it, but according to CAH he was indifferent, didn't care at all, that he probably didn't even notice. It's been said by at least 3 different people that Mick sat down at Lindsey's kitchen table at one point and told him about the affair, yet CAH never brings this up either. Where did she suppose those songs came from? :shrug:

As for Oz and New Zealand. It was blatantly obvious something was going on between Lindsey and Stevie, but CAH only talks about the kicking incident on stage. This was all right around the time that Stevie apparantly went ape-**** on CAH and said that it would be a cold day in hell before she'd let Carol marry Lindsey. Then when Lindsey gets aggressive with CAH, she only talks about herself, what her role was in all of it, and she wonders if she did anything wrong to deserve it. To the reader, it's obvious Lindsey's demons coming out had to do with whatever was going on with Stevie, but once again CAH pretends that she doesn't exist, plays an insignificant part in the 'triangle'. She keeps saying Lindsey was indifferent towards Stevie. Well, obviously he wasn't, but what made him lash out like that? :shrug:

These are all just things that make it clear to me that CAH turned the story into a certain direction, one that is at the least very one-sided. Which I guess was to be expected, considering this is her book, but it just annoys me because I feel like I am missing huge chunks of the story. Chunks that she left out deliberately and that for me makes it hard to take her book seriously.

I'm in Fleetwood Mac College. :laugh:

Nah, my mind just really has an endless capacity for useless information. It's scary.

Thanks for the info. I really like to read your posts because you really seem to have a lot of knowledge. I like to chat about FM/Stevie/LB and could do so for hours on end. However, your expanse of info is way greater than mine. Maybe we can chat on AIM and I can ask you some questions about various things I've been wondering about. :)

[Kelly]

Yes, thanks Bob! :wavey: Your candor in supporting Carol Harris is much appreciated. Now please share what you know about Carol Ann Harris. :blob2:


http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z184/mgikman_photos/3_dollar_bill.jpg


Damn it. Coffee just shot out my nose.
That **** hurts.


:D

I am endlessly amused at the fact that the Mad money is zinging right over the heads. :laugh:

[trackaghost]

Yes, thanks Bob! :wavey: Your candor in supporting Carol Harris is much appreciated. Now please share what you know about Carol Ann Harris. :blob2:


:rolleyes: Funny how you disapprove of all the talk devoted to Carol Ann Harris, yet most of your posts are devoted to her.



I am endlessly amused at the fact that the Mad money is zinging right over the heads. :laugh:

No most of us get it's directed at CAH and that's why he's not putting it in his sig. But that doesn't stop it from being a, annoying and b, not funny.

[mgikallaroundme]

:rolleyes: Funny how you disapprove of all the talk devoted to Carol Ann Harris, yet most of your posts are devoted to her.

You have determined this from what, may I ask? Just becasue I pointed out nothing in this book can be authenticated so it is foolish to assume it is truthful, now you assume I disapprove of Carol Ann Harris. Of course you are wrong. Since that goes against your preconceived notions who am I to change your mind?:shrug:

My not approving of Carol Ann Harris is silly. It would be like my not approving of Harry Potter. Just because he is the man of the moment doesn't mean I have to take him seriously. Afterall, I know fiction when I see it. :angel:

Just for you I will leave out my annoying photo. :xoxo:

[carrie721]

^ she said CAH talk, not CAH. big diff.

[Kelly]

:rolleyes: Funny how you disapprove of all the talk devoted to Carol Ann Harris, yet most of your posts are devoted to her.



No most of us get it's directed at CAH and that's why he's not putting it in his sig. But that doesn't stop it from being a, annoying and b, not funny.


Where did she/he say she disapproved of all the talk devoted to CAH? I thought she/he said it was interesting that there was so much talk about CAH and LB, when LB just came off a ten month tour and album release. The way I interpreted the comment was just a question. Why so much time is being spent by fans dissecting the trash novel and little time is being devoted to LB's album and tour...or more importantly, what is going on now in his life/career.

Maybe I misinterpreted but I did not read anything that insinuated she/he disapproved of CAH talk, just that the talk was curious and distracted from other things.

I don't agree about the Mad money but it really doesn't matter. Personally I think it is pretty funny. :o

[carrie721]

The way I interpreted the comment was just a question. Why so much time is being spent by fans dissecting the trash novel and little time is being devoted to LB's album and tour...or more importantly, what is going on now in his life/career.

i think plenty of time and energy has been devoted to discussing the album and tour ... but the album was released almost a year ago, it's not exactly foremost in people's minds anymore. same with the tour ... there has been plenty of discussion, and there still is when a poster goes to a show, but what's foremost in people's minds is this book that was released just this month. i don't find it odd that people here would want to discuss an insider's look into one of their favorite bands.

[gldstwmn]

Damn you Carol Ann. Couldn't you have afforded a decent camera instead of an instamatic??? or a Polaroid Swinger? :laugh:

I think if the pulisher had sprung for some glossy paper and decent art design those pictures would have been much clearer.

[gldstwmn]

Well, I think it will be more than 7 copies. ;) Perhaps members of the band will buy it (and deny buying it), former roadies, associates, etc. Whether one wants to believe what is written in this book, unlike the Sandra book, this one was written by someone who actually knew the band, lived with them and traveled with them. She may have some axes to grind, but at least it's her own first hand account. I have heard the pictures in Carol Ann's book are of poor quality, but fans won't buy it solely for the pictures.

I'm sure some of the band's lawyers got advance copies. :laugh: All in all, it's her story and I enjoyed the book.

[gldstwmn]

i don't know but i think fame comes with a lot more than big bucks. from her perspective, fans are interested in the band & what they were doing at the time. it'll make her some cash, sure, but it doesn't sound like she's telling all.

I definitely got the impression she held a lot back.

[gldstwmn]

Actually, it's well written. I cut a lot out because it would involve a LOT of typing. As Dana mentions, Mick totally seems to disregard the seriousness of the moment. She captures it well. He should have been hospitalized.

She did capture it well. The show must go on, I guess.

[gldstwmn]

Lindsey has always been a genious in Fleetwood Mac and some want to understand him more. I personally have never quite understood what was behind "I'm So Afraid." I kept thinking WHY is he saying "I'm so afraid of the way I feel." What could be so fearful about feelings. And he wrote that song at such a young age. What could possibly frighten Lindsey about the way he feels? I just couldn't get it. If he is speaking about rage, anger management, maybe a bit of this book and that song make some sense. He has mentioned he's been in therapy.



I don't think it makes a person a "bad fan" to be interested in this book. He wrote the song, "I'm So Afraid." He put it out there. I don't think this book paints Lindsey as an evil person, but there is clearly a Lindsey shown that has anger issues. I think there are shades of Lindsey shown that maybe some don't want to know about. Lindsey speaks of "My Little Demon," "Go Insane . . . as I always do." etc. I think he's expressing something in his lyrics.



They way he does Go Insane live is absolutely haunting. I agree. He's expressing something beneath the surface in those lyrics, something he's grasping at but can't quite seem to fathom. The book gave me a lot of insight to things that didn't really add up for me before.

[gldstwmn]

I had to think twice about posting here but I wanted to give you all
my opinion of Carols book.

I was present at a lot of the times she mentions , i.e the Halloween Party
in Hancock Park , the gig in Philadelphia when Lindsey was hospitalized ( I
opened up for them, along with Steve Miller and others), at the Producers
workshop when they were putting od's on Rumors, and also whrn Lindsey was producing parts of "Sentimental Lady" at that same studio(Producers Workshop), in Sausulito during much of the recording of Rumors , at Village
Recorderes studio D when they were doing Tusk many many nights,
at Stevies various houses at different times, at Micks Bel-Air house on Bellagio Rd after the "big" meeting , at Micks "Blue Whale " house in
Malibu when he was with Sara Recor, backstage before they went on , on
their private plane when I was opening up for them and Mick was my
manager etc. etc. etc., backstage when Dennis Wilson was on the road with them.......and on and on.I remeber the "bottle caps" (they were Heinekin caps;-)..... the "bumps" on the fist ( I got 'em too , from J.C.)all of that.
I was around Carol Harris a lot. Let me say that , for me, everything she portrays rings true. I never witnessed any personal violence toward her from Lindsey of course, but having been at a lot of the scenes she describes, I would agree with her recreation of the settings , mood,
and personalities of the people and places as she portrays them.

That's my 2 cents...

Bob Welch

Thank you for that!

[strandinthewind]

They way he does Go Insane live is absolutely haunting. I agree. He's expressing something beneath the surface in those lyrics, something he's grasping at but can't quite seem to fathom. The book gave me a lot of insight to things that didn't really add up for me before.

I soooo think GI has a lot of La Nicks in it. I think the reason he lost his power in this world is that La Nicks and FM were somewhat foreign to him - sadly, they were his power to superstardom. I think CH is in there as well.

But, that is all my opinion and tough titties if no one agrees - though I think Kelly might :angel:

[gldstwmn]

I soooo think GI has a lot of La Nicks in it. I think the reason he lost his power in this world is that La Nicks and FM were somewhat foreign to him - sadly, they were his power to superstardom. I think CH is in there as well.

But, that is all my opinion and tough titties if no one agrees - though I think Kelly might :angel:

:laugh: Losing his power may well have been post Tusk when the band told him that he would have to participate with the rest of them in the recording and playing of his songs on Mirage.
Also, by Mick's description in his book, I thought the Chateau would be something fabulous but according to CAH it was cold, old and bug infested.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Many of the Europeans houses are. But, I'd still love to stay there and sweep you up onto the horse.

[gldstwmn]

^^^

Many of the Europeans houses are. But, I'd still love to stay there and sweep you up onto the horse.

We must do that one day before my bones get too brittle. :lol: :lol:

[mgikallaroundme]

Where did she/he say she disapproved of all the talk devoted to CAH? I thought she/he said it was interesting that there was so much talk about CAH and LB, when LB just came off a ten month tour and album release. The way I interpreted the comment was just a question. Why so much time is being spent by fans dissecting the trash novel and little time is being devoted to LB's album and tour...or more importantly, what is going on now in his life/career.

Maybe I misinterpreted but I did not read anything that insinuated she/he disapproved of CAH talk, just that the talk was curious and distracted from other things.

I don't agree about the Mad money but it really doesn't matter. Personally I think it is pretty funny. :o

Great, now I have another interpreter. :rolleyes:

I never said I disapprove of Carol Ann Harris, or of her writing a book, or of any of the ongoing talk in this thread. In fact, I get lots of amusement from all three. :lol: Why would I disapprove? :shrug:

I've never said anyone discussed in the book is free from criticism or is not deserving of any. Yes, that includes the author, but I have not criticized her personally. That would be like criticizing The Wizard of OZ--not the book, but the Wizard.

All I've done in this thread is offer analysis on this book's lack of verifiable credibility. Anyone is free to disagree with my observations. That's what these forums are for, right?

I'd appreciate it if others didn't misinterpret my posts then restate my opinions using their mistaken views--even when it proves my larger point about mistaken assumptions being so far removed from reality they're laughable.:woohoo:

[danax6]

I soooo think GI has a lot of La Nicks in it. I think the reason he lost his power in this world is that La Nicks and FM were somewhat foreign to him - sadly, they were his power to superstardom. I think CH is in there as well.

But, that is all my opinion and tough titties if no one agrees - though I think Kelly might :angel:And me. "She's a lot like you" ? Don't think he's talking about his mom there.

^^^

Many of the Europeans houses are.Way to not generalize.

[Kelly]

Just to throw more junk into the debate...I read some strange reviews to this book over on Amazon. Here is what I found odd.
(Obviously this can be viewed firsthand at www.amazon.com..by searching the book and clinking on the reviews. :rolleyes:


July 16, 2007
By JustMe (Hollywood, CA) - See all my reviews

I laughed when I read in previous reviews about why Carol didn't try to get some of Lindsey's $$$$$, well I guess the fact that legally he was still married to his child bride until 1980 could have something to do with it. Even though they separated in late 1975 the marriage was still legally binding.

Has anyone ever contacted the mysterious "Mrs. Buckingham" and does anyone know what ever happened with her???? I am certainly curious as to why her story was never written...

Lila Hope
Initial post
Lindsey Buckingham was not married to anyone in 1975. Carol Ann Harris was Lindsey's girlfriend for eight years after his break-up with Stevie Nicks in early 1976. There was no child bride and therefore, no "mysterious Mrs. Buckingham". Perhaps "just me" is "just totally confused" and is thinking of another artist entirely??? This post is more like a bizarre entry to a random blog instead of a book review.

JustMe
In reply to an earlier post
Yes, there really was a Mrs Buckingham but this is a fact not widely known. There are records to this fact in the Santa Clara County hall of records.
As for a review of this book, it always seems to be about how the "rejected one" can trash the one that left them. JMHO
Now as for the fact of Lindsey and Stevie ... everyone knows that she was the love of his life. His marriage took place during a small lovers spat and his child bride knew this. I guess this is why the marriage was not truely a conventional marriage. I do know that she was a true "wild child" and not the type to get tied down to Lindsey or anyone. I was dating the drummer of Fritz during this time and met her on occasion.
So, if anyone knows what ever happened to her I would be most interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[strandinthewind]

. . . Way to not generalize.

:p :p :p

I was talking about castles and such :angel:

[strandinthewind]

LB was married :eek:

I say let's see the records, which I submit are not there because they never existed.

[strandinthewind]

We must do that one day before my bones get too brittle. :lol: :lol:

BUY THOSE LOTTERY TICKETS!!!!!!!!

[danax6]

LB was married :eek:

I say let's see the records, which I submit are not there because they never existed.Uh, yeah. I'd have to see those too first.

I do think that CAH's stuff about being his common-law wife was bull****. The state of California abolished common-law marriages as far back as 1895. She didn't have any 'rights' at all. She should be glad she got the $2000 bucks a month.

Btw, is she saying he married Sally then? She says she was around during the Fritz era and that's how she knew the girl...

Bizarre. :laugh:

[Kelly]

Uh, yeah. I'd have to see those too first.

I do think that CAH's stuff about being his common-law wife was bull****. The state of California abolished common-law marriages as far back as 1895. She didn't have any 'rights' at all. She should be glad she got the $2000 bucks a month.

Btw, is she saying he married Sally then? She says she was around during the Fritz era and that's how she knew the girl...

Bizarre. :laugh:

I don't know wtf the reviewer is saying but Sally was not a "wild child" was she? I thought she was described as the exact opposite in the Q and A's. I *think* this person is saying LB supposedly married some child bride after a spat with Stevie. Bwwhhhhaaa.

Common Law marriage has been abolished in many states and legally CA had no rights to LB's money just cause she lived with the guy. She was lucky to get the condo and two grand a month. Supposedly (according to Cheri's friend) CA was still calling LB once in awhile in the late 90's. Her book is just too one sided for me to take seriously.

[Lori40]

So Lindsey and Stevie had a "small lovers spat" and Lindsey runs off and marries a "child bride".... yeah, right.

[danax6]

...Lindsey runs off and marries a "child bride".... yeah, right.Sounds so Jerry Lee Lewis.

[gldstwmn]

Uh, yeah. I'd have to see those too first.

I do think that CAH's stuff about being his common-law wife was bull****. The state of California abolished common-law marriages as far back as 1895. She didn't have any 'rights' at all. She should be glad she got the $2000 bucks a month.



Google Palimony and community property.

[Betsy]

Excuse me.....


Who the hell is Sally?


(Consider me, the new kid in the class, whose parents moved a month before graduation.... )


Also...does anyone live in Santa Clara County and could search the records??? I would pony up some $$$ and donate to the one willing to do the search.... It just sounds too bizarro to me... but stranger things have happened....

[mgikallaroundme]

So, if anyone knows what ever happened to her I would be most interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I know. :wavey:

I'd bet my last dollar that "Just Me" already knows.:nod:

[mgikallaroundme]

Make that my last 3 dollars. :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z184/mgikman_photos/3_dollar_bill.jpg

:woohoo:

[Kelly]

Make that my last 3 dollars. :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z184/mgikman_photos/3_dollar_bill.jpg

:woohoo:



Aww, I am sure the mad money can be useful again in the future. It is certainly funnier than many of the personal sig. photos around here. :cool:

[Kelly]

I know. :wavey:

I'd bet my last dollar that "Just Me" already knows.:nod:

:rolleyes:

[Michelle Daya]

I had to think twice about posting here but I wanted to give you all
my opinion of Carols book.

I was present at a lot of the times she mentions , i.e the Halloween Party
in Hancock Park , the gig in Philadelphia when Lindsey was hospitalized ( I
opened up for them, along with Steve Miller and others), at the Producers
workshop when they were putting od's on Rumors, and also whrn Lindsey was producing parts of "Sentimental Lady" at that same studio(Producers Workshop), in Sausulito during much of the recording of Rumors , at Village
Recorderes studio D when they were doing Tusk many many nights,
at Stevies various houses at different times, at Micks Bel-Air house on Bellagio Rd after the "big" meeting , at Micks "Blue Whale " house in
Malibu when he was with Sara Recor, backstage before they went on , on
their private plane when I was opening up for them and Mick was my
manager etc. etc. etc., backstage when Dennis Wilson was on the road with them.......and on and on.I remeber the "bottle caps" (they were Heinekin caps;-)..... the "bumps" on the fist ( I got 'em too , from J.C.)all of that.
I was around Carol Harris a lot. Let me say that , for me, everything she portrays rings true. I never witnessed any personal violence toward her from Lindsey of course, but having been at a lot of the scenes she describes, I would agree with her recreation of the settings , mood,
and personalities of the people and places as she portrays them.

That's my 2 cents...

Bob Welch

thanks for sharing this. for any of the doubters, i do believe this is bob & i do believe you're right, bob, in her story being accurate. otherwise, why was his management so anxious to stop it? too many witnesses like this coming forward to back it up? i'm sure it was a wild ride back then..

[danax6]

Excuse me.....


Who the hell is Sally?

Sally was Lindsey's girlfriend before he hooked up with Stevie.

[danax6]

Google Palimony and community property.Palimony: While the state abolished common law marriage in 1896, California law recognizes non-marital relationship contracts. These contracts may be express or implied, oral or written--but they must be provable in any case.

That would imply that a contract had been drawn up somewhere along the line. CAH never made any mention of this, she only talks about being his supposed common-law wife based on the amount of years they had been living together, something which hasn't held a 'legal' drop of water since 1896.

[#1LiddyBuckFan]

Palimony: While the state abolished common law marriage in 1896, California law recognizes non-marital relationship contracts. These contracts may be express or implied, oral or written--but they must be provable in any case.

That would imply that a contract had been drawn up somewhere along the line. CAH never made any mention of this, she only talks about being his supposed common-law wife based on the amount of years they had been living together, something which hasn't held a 'legal' drop of water since 1896.

Didn't she say in her book that there were some kind of papers drawn up? I think it was when she decided to move out "for a while" (she never came back of course)? Or was that for something else? Maybe I don't remember.

[danax6]

Didn't she say in her book that there were some kind of papers drawn up? I think it was when she decided to move out "for a while" (she never came back of course)? Or was that for something else? Maybe I don't remember.I think that was her referring to the settlement after she moved out, but I'd have to check for sure when I get home.

[#1LiddyBuckFan]

I think that was her referring to the settlement after she moved out, but I'd have to check for sure when I get home.

OK, I think you're right about that though.

[The Catdancer]

:laugh: Losing his power may well have been post Tusk when the band told him that he would have to participate with the rest of them in the recording and playing of his songs on Mirage.
Also, by Mick's description in his book, I thought the Chateau would be something fabulous but according to CAH it was cold, old and bug infested.

This is true. I was there for 3 weeks, sleeping in a bus shelter (not the Chateau) and it looked like it could fall apart at any minute. I don't know about the bugs and if it was cold but yes, it was very, very old.

[TrueFaith77]

First of all, am I crazy or did I just read a post written by Bob Welch?!?!

Second of all, i think it would be asking too much for CAH to provide total illumination on every incident.

As Mr. Welch testifies, the description of events/milieu is accurate. That's good to know; all of that helps to provide keys to understanding behavior in ways CAH may never be able to. . . including whatever was going on with Stevie and Lindsey.

It really seems unlikely that Lindsey was totally unaffected by Stevie (why else kick her on stage?). And there were moments, like when Lindsey went away to confront Stevie about the arm-grabbing incident, and he's away for hours, and I'm like: "Hello, lady!"

It's interesting to think that Lindsey was taking out his feelings toward Stevie onto CAH, but even if it's true, CAH may very well have been oblivious -- isn't that a familiar circumstance. Remember the Stevie song: "I Don't Wanna Know."

Still, thanks to CAH -- and Bob Welch's testifying to her book's essential accuracy -- we get more evidence through which to sift for the truth.

[gldstwmn]

First of all, am I crazy or did I just read a post written by Bob Welch?!?!



Yep. And if you look around the other forums, you'll see posts from other members of the band as well.

[gldstwmn]

Palimony: While the state abolished common law marriage in 1896, California law recognizes non-marital relationship contracts. These contracts may be express or implied, oral or written--but they must be provable in any case.

That would imply that a contract had been drawn up somewhere along the line. CAH never made any mention of this, she only talks about being his supposed common-law wife based on the amount of years they had been living together, something which hasn't held a 'legal' drop of water since 1896.

The contract can be oral or implied. The parties must cohabitate and the sole basis of the contract may not be considered meretricious.

http://www.palimony.com/7.html

My point is, that while she cited common law in her book, she could very well have had a case in California regardless of common law status.

[gldstwmn]

Didn't she say in her book that there were some kind of papers drawn up? I think it was when she decided to move out "for a while" (she never came back of course)? Or was that for something else? Maybe I don't remember.

It doesn't matter, IMO. It would never have made it to court. The matter would have been settled before it ever got that far.

[shackin'up]

Yep. And if you look around the other forums, you'll see posts from other members of the band as well.


jeremy spencer and john mcvie. or are there more??

[Betsy]

jeremy spencer and john mcvie. or are there more??

I saw John McVie's and both of Bob Welch's....but I missed Jeremy Spencer. What is Ledge name?

[GlennGlenn]

. truly, it is already SO five minutes ago. and won't change how anyone sees or hears fleetwood mac or stevie nicks or lindsey buckingham.

The fact that we're discussing this issue 3 weeks later does NOT make it "so five minutes ago." Well leave that to Lindsey Lohan.

I firmly believe that Lindsey's stock among some (not all) of us has gone down because of what CAH has written. Perhpas, not as a musician, but as a person. There can be no denying that his "demons" and "physical acts" have a scintilla of truth to them. Anyone who believes that she's making this stuff up out of whole cloth hasn't read Stevie's story of how he accosted her (my words, not hers) in the parking lot after saying he was not touring on Tango. Same modus operandi as with CAH. Come on people, much of what she said would be truly libelous (written) and slanderous (oral) AND actionable if they never happened. Its called filing suit. Clearly, there has to be some truth (her version of the truth anyway) as to what occurred or Lindsey's attorneys would have been all over it like flies on flypaper.

As to medical records? Real easy to get. Sign a release and they're yours.

Once again, this was 30 years ago and memories are dim, BUT I believe that there has to be some basis in fact for whats she writes in the book. Otherwise, why did someone fight for 10 years to keep this off of the presses?

Glenn

[shackin'up]

I saw John McVie's and both of Bob Welch's....but I missed Jeremy Spencer. What is Ledge name?

jeremy spencer :laugh:

it's in the pre-rumours section ofcourse

[gldstwmn]

jeremy spencer and john mcvie. or are there more??

No. That's who I was referring to.:) It's wonderful to see them post here.

[gldstwmn]

This is true. I was there for 3 weeks, sleeping in a bus shelter (not the Chateau) and it looked like it could fall apart at any minute. I don't know about the bugs and if it was cold but yes, it was very, very old.

Is the Chateau still there?

[The Catdancer]

Is the Chateau still there?

I think so. I looked it up on Google Earth and the place looks renovated (if it is still Le Chateau). If you want to look it up, here's the address: 6 Rue Geoges Duhamel, Herouville, France.

[TrueFaith77]

.Anyone who believes that she's making this stuff up out of whole cloth hasn't read Stevie's story of how he accosted her (my words, not hers) in the parking lot after saying he was not touring on Tango.

Well as Stevie herself is sure to remind interviewers regarding this incident, she's the one who initiated the violence: springing across the room to strangle Lindsey upon his announcement.

And I still love her.

[Tango]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RV1jPr3N2JY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RV1jPr3N2JY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[jannieC]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RV1jPr3N2JY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RV1jPr3N2JY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I love John McVie. :)

[baugh]

ok,its been a long while since I have been aboard. I told myself I wouldn't get caught up in the bickering about CA'S book but I can't resist. I must say that I am a fan of Lindsey Buckingham. I didn't want to read the book because of having,maybe,an inkling that maybe my favorite musician had a flaw. Afterall,I named my daughter Lindsey(hers w/ an 'a')because of Lindsey. I kinda admired his determination to bulldoze his own path and be his own person and not be a follower....instead a person that was able to think outside the norm,for better or worse. So,don't get me wrong,I like Lindsey.
BUT,BUT!,I say, what is to say that her book isn't true. JUST because I like his music?? JUST because I like his lyrics or cool leather jacket?? I mean think about things....maybe,see the other side.....we really don't know what goes on behind peoples closed doors. Maybe much of what she is saying is true.....maybe not... but be mature enough or NOT so starstruck enough to see or at least think about what is being said. Long story short,don't just say ' 'oh that could never happen' yadda,yadda,yadda, because he's my idol and he's a great guitarist/songwriter etc.....and in the end,weather you name a child after him,have his poster on your wall,know every lyric to everyone of his songs,he is just a guy.....like you and me.....he is not perfect,just a guy that has talents in music,as the next guy down the street is good w/ money,or working on an assembly line.......he is just a guy w/ good points AND(yes! believe it or not)bad points....think about it...PEACE OUT!

[TrueFaith77]

I love John McVie. :)

I know! That's totally one of my favorite John moments EVER. I wish that doc were on dvd.

[Regina]

Maybe much of what she is saying is true.....maybe not... but be mature enough or NOT so starstruck enough to see or at least think about what is being said. Long story short,don't just say ' 'oh that could never happen' yadda,yadda,yadda, because he's my idol and he's a great guitarist/songwriter etc.....and in the end,weather you name a child after him,have his poster on your wall,know every lyric to everyone of his songs,he is just a guy.....like you and me.....he is not perfect,just a guy that has talents in music,as the next guy down the street is good w/ money,or working on an assembly line.......he is just a guy w/ good points AND(yes! believe it or not)bad points....think about it...PEACE OUT!

I finished the book last week and was really...I don't know. A mess? Yeah, that might cover it. I had a lot of conflicting emotions about it.

But I totally agree with you. I don't believe Carol Ann 100%, but I don't totally disbelieve her, either.

And, in the end, Lindsey is just a man. Even from the way Carol Ann described things, there seemed to be something really wrong with him. Like a disconnection when he went through these violent episodes. So, how do we know it was not some "blackout" of some sort fueled by his epilepsy/playing with his meds/ playing with drugs of all kinds type of things? Yeah, I'm looking for an excuse, in a way, but from everything I've seen...the man seemed to be somewhat of a jerk in the 70s/early 80s and did a complete turnaround in the past decade or so. He still is intense and driven in his career, but he seems to have changed so much personally.

I've been lucky enough to meet him a couple of times and only saw a kind, really considerate guy interacting with fans in situations where any other member of the group would have kind of waved and run off. And, in the end, that's who I "judge," because it's the only person I "know" in any way, shape or form. I want to believe he's the same way behind closed doors, but I don't know and will never know. And holding something he (allegedly) did over 25 years ago, without hearing one word about it from his side, is just not something I'm gonna do. People can, and do, change sometimes. No matter how horrid the circumstances.

[Kelly]

I finished the book last week and was really...I don't know. A mess? Yeah, that might cover it. I had a lot of conflicting emotions about it.

But I totally agree with you. I don't believe Carol Ann 100%, but I don't totally disbelieve her, either.

And, in the end, Lindsey is just a man. Even from the way Carol Ann described things, there seemed to be something really wrong with him. Like a disconnection when he went through these violent episodes. So, how do we know it was not some "blackout" of some sort fueled by his epilepsy/playing with his meds/ playing with drugs of all kinds type of things? Yeah, I'm looking for an excuse, in a way, but from everything I've seen...the man seemed to be somewhat of a jerk in the 70s/early 80s and did a complete turnaround in the past decade or so. He still is intense and driven in his career, but he seems to have changed so much personally.

I've been lucky enough to meet him a couple of times and only saw a kind, really considerate guy interacting with fans in situations where any other member of the group would have kind of waved and run off. And, in the end, that's who I "judge," because it's the only person I "know" in any way, shape or form. I want to believe he's the same way behind closed doors, but I don't know and will never know. And holding something he (allegedly) did over 25 years ago, without hearing one word about it from his side, is just not something I'm gonna do. People can, and do, change sometimes. No matter how horrid the circumstances.


I agree completely. I also look at Stevie's demeanor around Lindsey and I do not see fear or intimidation....anything that reflects she is afraid he may hurt her. Does she seem to want to please him sometimes? Yes. Does she talk about his intensity and passion? Yes. Whenver the topic of "abuse" comes up with Stevie, she is usually quick to defend him. She often clarifies the Tango fight by saying she ran and attacked him first. It was a mutual argument. If he was that abusive, either emotionally or physically, I think Stevie's lyrics, comments and/or body language would reflect that. (I know in the last thirty years she has made a few random comments about the NZ fight etc...but overall, she does NOT talk about LB like he abused her) She has no problem being in his personal space. No problem arguing with him. I think she is a pretty strong, independent (:p ) lady and I do not think she would act the way she does if she was afraid of LB's temper. Of course he has demons...we all do. Stevie would probably not talk about his demons publically but I do think her body language would reflect some kind of insecurity or intimidation if she was afraid of him. If she loves the guy, I figure he must be pretty ok

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Well, she says, and has repeatedly said, LB is really scary when he is angry, etc. So, she does comment on that. Also, I do not see her coming to his defense by saying she attacked him. In fact, she never to my knowledge has ever said what LB did after she attacked him in the TITN argument other than it got ugly or something like that.

I think his violence toward her is something she would neverf discuss in public. After all, she is the peacekeeper and if she outed him in that regard, he'd likely leave FM for good.

[Regina]

Except for the fact that she was doing this AFTER he left the band "for good."

There was no hope, at that time, for Lindsey to ever come back and very little good will toward anyone at that time. Even a couple of years later, I think she was quoted somewhere as saying Lindsey would never come back and there would never be a Rumours-era FM reunion (too lazy to look things up, sorry).

If she wanted to, she could have (and others WOULD have) hung him out to dry at that moment. There was a lot of bitterness there. At the least, she could have refused to comment completely but she didn't. She said she attacked him first. She didn't have to set the record straight, but she did and I think that's the reason I never truly believed the abuse rumors to begin with...because of Stevie.

I don't see Stevie in the same light as Carol Ann. I just think she has too strong a personality to stay in a situation like that. And I also think she's very open to discussing all kinds of things as a "lesson" to others. That's why she's so open about her drug use, etc. I think, if she had been abused, even if she chose not to "out" Lindsey...she would have used the "one of my boyfriends" did this to me and I'm telling you to get out while you can, type of speeches.

Lots of people can be scary when angry. They can be snide, rude, crude, intimidating, yell, scream, throw things, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean that they lift one little finger in anger, though.

That's not to say Lindsey didn't with CAH. But, as I stated before, I (chose to) think there was something very wrong with him physically or mentally at the time. And I'm basing that on Carol Ann's own words, by the way. The way she described it leaves that interpretation open.

It's all subject to interpretation, I guess, and what you want to believe.

I've gone on record many, many times on this board as saying I love both Lindsey and Stevie. I've traveled far and wide (for me) to see them both, and I've put blinders on--for them both. So...I'm biased and will be the first to admit it. But I'm not hanging out to dry the people I think either of them are now, based on something they may have done 30 years ago.

[shackin'up]

^^^

Well, she says, and has repeatedly said, LB is really scary when he is angry, etc. So, she does comment on that. Also, I do not see her coming to his defense by saying she attacked him. In fact, she never to my knowledge has ever said what LB did after she attacked him in the TITN argument other than it got ugly or something like that.

I think his violence toward her is something she would neverf discuss in public. After all, she is the peacekeeper and if she outed him in that regard, he'd likely leave FM for good.

Isn't that why domestic violence seems to be indestructable? I say: Come out of the closet and face it. People can be cruel. Including my musical hero. I think that a passionate controlfreak has some very dangerous dark sides. Esp when you combine it with drugs, booze, a passionate and dominant ex-partner and a very deep dense kind of love.
And the complex dependent bandsituation we all know about.

[Tango]

Except for the fact that she was doing this AFTER he left the band "for good."

There was no hope, at that time, for Lindsey to ever come back and very little good will toward anyone at that time. Even a couple of years later, I think she was quoted somewhere as saying Lindsey would never come back and there would never be a Rumours-era FM reunion (too lazy to look things up, sorry).

If she wanted to, she could have (and others WOULD have) hung him out to dry at that moment. There was a lot of bitterness there. At the least, she could have refused to comment completely but she didn't. She said she attacked him first. She didn't have to set the record straight, but she did and I think that's the reason I never truly believed the abuse rumors to begin with...because of Stevie.

I don't see Stevie in the same light as Carol Ann. I just think she has too strong a personality to stay in a situation like that. And I also think she's very open to discussing all kinds of things as a "lesson" to others. That's why she's so open about her drug use, etc. I think, if she had been abused, even if she chose not to "out" Lindsey...she would have used the "one of my boyfriends" did this to me and I'm telling you to get out while you can, type of speeches.

Lots of people can be scary when angry. They can be snide, rude, crude, intimidating, yell, scream, throw things, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean that they lift one little finger in anger, though.

That's not to say Lindsey didn't with CAH. But, as I stated before, I (chose to) think there was something very wrong with him physically or mentally at the time. And I'm basing that on Carol Ann's own words, by the way. The way she described it leaves that interpretation open.

It's all subject to interpretation, I guess, and what you want to believe.

I've gone on record many, many times on this board as saying I love both Lindsey and Stevie. I've traveled far and wide (for me) to see them both, and I've put blinders on--for them both. So...I'm biased and will be the first to admit it. But I'm not hanging out to dry the people I think either of them are now, based on something they may have done 30 years ago.


I tend to agree with your comments, Regina. Both pretty blonde haired chicks, but totally different personalities. In Stevie's mind she was stronger than Lindsey, or so she expressed in her songs. Yet there's no one stronger than someone enraged, fueled by alcohol and cocaine. Carol Ann was weaker than Lindsey. She was the dependent personality. And, as Stevie said in her comments while in the strangle hold, if the band didn't kill him for harming her, her father and brother would 'kill him.' Kill him? Was this the Nicks family or the Corleone family she was referring to? I hardly see Jess Nicks taking a contract out on Lindsey. :laugh: But clearly Stevie thought, based on her utterances at the scene, that she had some sense of "back up" and support system.

Carol Ann, at that time, didn't seem to have that back up. She seemed a bit estranged from her family, or at least isolating some of the facts of her life from them. I doubt she was telling her (was it 5) sisters that the beautiful rock star boyfriend that she had was periodly abusing her (see page 357) until she actually left. Even then, she didn't tell her family what the doctor said. There's a definite "shame" sense in people that have been abused, and some people never reveal it. She didn't even tell Stevie about it, when she had the chance. (see pages 329-330) Instead, she changed the subject.

I also agree with you on the neurological effects of the combination of cocaine, alcohol, self medication with seizure medications and his own faulty wired brain synapes that fostered his episodic behaviors. He wasn't like that all the time. There is also NOTHING to suggest ANY of this behavior occured prior to Stevie & Lindsey joining Fleetwood Mac and getting involved with the drugs.

But at the same time, while you suggest that Stevie wasn't abused, you forget he did publicly abuse her. I'm not talking about the Tango episode, but rather the New Zealand show. Two strikes your out? Does there have to be a third acknowledged episode of abuse on Stevie to suggest he clearly had (and I do say HAD) an abuse problem on women during those drug fueled days? Even the men were afraid of him, as outlined in the book. Again, I firmly believe the combination of drugs and alcohol played a part in this. While Lindsey has stated he wasn't under the power of drugs the way the others were, I'd have to disagree. The effects they had on him were every bit as savage, maybe more so, than on the others. He didn't even remember it.

Yesterday's gone. I DO believe that, otherwise I could not be a fan of this band. I believe they were all given a new lease on life. You can't watch The Dance or any of their solo work and not believe that.

[strandinthewind]

. . . She didn't have to set the record straight, but she did and I think that's the reason I never truly believed the abuse rumors to begin with...because of Stevie . . . .

Well, she never said LB did not beat her, hit her, or whatever. She said she attacked him first :shrug: To me, that is not denying her ever hit her.

[strandinthewind]

Isn't that why domestic violence seems to be indestructable? I say: Come out of the closet and face it. People can be cruel. Including my musical hero. I think that a passionate controlfreak has some very dangerous dark sides. Esp when you combine it with drugs, booze, a passionate and dominant ex-partner and a very deep dense kind of love.
And the complex dependent bandsituation we all know about.

Well, as long as she confronted him with it and got out of that situation, I do not see why she needs to tell the world about the private matter. CAH chose to do so, but that was her choice and IMO she did it for money, which I do not hold against her as and again, it was her story to sell, just as it was LB's story to write, sing, and talk about for money.

[Dreamz19]

But at the same time, while you suggest that Stevie wasn't abused, you forget he did publicly abuse her. I'm not talking about the Tango episode, but rather the New Zealand show. Two strikes your out? Does there have to be a third acknowledged episode of abuse on Stevie to suggest he clearly had (and I do say HAD) an abuse problem on women during those drug fueled days? Even the men were afraid of him, as outlined in the book. Again, I firmly believe the combination of drugs and alcohol played a part in this. While Lindsey has stated he wasn't under the power of drugs the way the others were, I'd have to disagree. The effects they had on him were every bit as savage, maybe more so, than on the others. He didn't even remember it.

I agree with you. I can also vaguely remember reading where Stevie mentioned that the words they said to each other during their split was more painful than the physical fights they had. She said something along those lines. While I don't think their physical incidents were as sereve as CAH reports, there definitely seemed to be some form of physical abuse in their relationship as well. Whether it was Stevie hitting him first or Lindsey pushing her etc.

[shackin'up]

Well, as long as she confronted him with it and got out of that situation, I do not see why she needs to tell the world about the private matter. CAH chose to do so, but that was her choice and IMO she did it for money, which I do not hold against her as and again, it was her story to sell, just as it was LB's story to write, sing, and talk about for money.

americans think so different.

[strandinthewind]

americans think so different.

You really think that Stevie Nicks publicly publishing that LB beat her would somehow be therapy for her? I think it is salacious and it sells, see CAH's and MF's book. But, that is just not La Nicks. She has always said that the story of her life a great and fascinating one; but she has also said she would rather couch it in terms of her poetry and leave the world wondering. So, apparently, that is how she chooses and chose to tell the world about her life and all that went on. She does haoever, discuss some things very frankly, like her addictions, weight, etc. But, those involve only her. In other words, discussing them does not effect anyone but her.

[danax6]

I tend to agree with your comments, Regina. Both pretty blonde haired chicks, but totally different personalities. In Stevie's mind she was stronger than Lindsey, or so she expressed in her songs. Yet there's no one stronger than someone enraged, fueled by alcohol and cocaine. Carol Ann was weaker than Lindsey. She was the dependent personality.Yes. But there is a needy, dependent side to Stevie also, it's just that her tough personality is present enough that it overrules the neediness when need be. Carol Ann clearly had no backbone. That is also why I think Stevie was the one that was obviously hardest to 'get away from' (and not just because they happened to be in the same band :D )and 'get over', because of her strong personality. We all know Lindsey admitted that part of the reason he left in 1987 was because of the issues with Stevie and the closure he needed. I think that Stevie was, in many ways, a worthy adversary and that brought out both the best but also the worst in him. It kept him on his toes, whereas girls like Carol Ann were, in retrospect, pretty forgettable.

I agree with you. I can also vaguely remember reading where Stevie mentioned that the words they said to each other during their split was more painful than the physical fights they had. She said something along those lines. While I don't think their physical incidents were as sereve as CAH reports, there definitely seemed to be some form of physical abuse in their relationship as well. Whether it was Stevie hitting him first or Lindsey pushing her etc.She said that they shouted horrible obscenities at each other and spewed words that they had been cropping up for years. Words that were so bad they were never able to come back from it. She said that was definitely the end of Stevie and Lindsey.

americans think so different.Thank you. Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall. ;)

[carrie721]

Thank you. Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall. ;)

hey! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Dreamz19]

She said that they shouted horrible obscenities at each other and spewed words that they had been cropping up for years. Words that were so bad they were never able to come back from it. She said that was definitely the end of Stevie and Lindsey.

That was probaly what I remembered and thought it was about their 1976 break up. I read that quote way before I knew about the Tango incident. I vaguely remembered her saying the words hurt more or something along those lines.

[Kelly]

Well, she never said LB did not beat her, hit her, or whatever. She said she attacked him first :shrug: To me, that is not denying her ever hit her.


She also never said he hit her. ;)

Don't quote me Mick either...what he wrote doesn't matter to me, esp when he said he wants to rewrite. The NZ incident was the one where he sang offkey? And mocked her during Rhiannon? And kicked his foot out? That seems like drunken, bitter behavior to me, not necessarily physical abuse. Show me where a fan saw him kick the **** out of her onstage and I may agree. Out of all the fans in that arena not ONE has ever come forward to say they witnessed this abuse? Chris was mad about him singing offkey and embarrassing the band...is this the incident you are talking about?

Curious, do you think Stevie has done things that LB wouldn't talk about publically either? She could be just as abusive as you seem to think LB is, behind closed doors. :wavey:

[danax6]

hey! :mad: :mad: :mad:There are always exceptions. :D

[strandinthewind]

She also never said he hit her. ;)

Don't quote me Mick either...what he wrote doesn't matter to me, esp when he said he wants to rewrite. The NZ incident was the one where he sang offkey? And mocked her during Rhiannon? And kicked his foot out? That seems like drunken, bitter behavior to me, not necessarily physical abuse. Show me where a fan saw him kick the **** out of her onstage and I may agree. Out of all the fans in that arena not ONE has ever come forward to say they witnessed this abuse? Chris was mad about him singing offkey and embarrassing the band...is this the incident you are talking about?

Curious, do you think Stevie has done things that LB wouldn't talk about publically either? She could be just as abusive as you seem to think LB is, behind closed doors. :wavey:

1. I never said La Nicks was not abusive -- I would have no way of knowing that. I will say though that she does not strike me as such.

2. I do not think LB is abusive without support. And, you can color it anyway you like, but many have said he is such.

Ostrich head in the sand anyone :laugh: :p

[PenguinHead]

i'm sure you are all going to kick me off the lindsey forum but i'm going to put my two cents in anyway.

i really think some of you are really going out of your way to discredit this women claiming that most of what she writes can't be true because you just might be afraid that some of it is true. look, i love lindsey's music as much as the next person around here but let's face it - the guy was not a saint. we all know he's had an anger management problem in the past. whether it was due to drugs, alcohol or other medications he might have been on for medical conditions, youth - i don't know. i tend to believe that some of what she says has a basis in truth. she claims that christine was even a witness to some of the abuse. you never know what goes on behind the closed doors of people's homes although a few of you seem to think you were there. a combination of drugs and/or alcohol can make people do strange or horrible things.

i'm glad that he finally seems happy with children now and seems to love kristen very much. maybe the lack of drugs, alcohol and aging finally calmed him down. i can only hope so for the sake of his children that this is the case. This book represents, to me, a more indepth objective perspective of the band that we will never see from any "outside" author or band members. Stevie always mentions of writing a tell-all book. It will never happen, but if did, it's likely 50% of it would be fiction.

she lives in the united states where she has the freedom of press. she's entitled to write the story of life if she wants to. i'm sure that some of lindsey's songs that he's published and made money from are written about/for her.


okay, ready - aim - fire....


No fire here! I agree with you. The anger and venom directed at her from some fans seems a little misguided. Yeah, she probably got some facts/timelines wrong --yet, actual band members can be blamed for that (Stevie?!). I don't feel she had any agenda other than writing about her experiences during her time with the band. Surprisingly, she was very forgiving and non-judgemental...just wrote it as she lived it.

Overall, it was a very unusual look inside the inner workings of the band that has never been revealed. I particularly liked reading about the tours, studio work, and the drugs!! To totally discount the book speaks loudly about the expectations and protections that others wish to preserve. And to say that money was the single motive is laughable! Perhaps it would have been if she wrote it during the band's heyday. The band is way past it's prime. The market for this book is relatively small -- I don't see it going head to head with Harry Potter.

But no big surprises here: Lindsey is/was posessive and hot-headed. Stevie is/was odd,cold and bitchy. Collectively they were a big dysfunctional mess. This book represents possibly the only document that reveals some of the gritty truth of that time in their careers. I suspect if Stevie ever wrote her tell-all book she likes to mention now and then, you could deem half of it pure fiction.

[PenguinHead]

Immoral people are essentially dishonest and play by rules not sanctioned by society and without regards for how their behavior(s) may negatively impact others. In that respect, CAH is immoral. Immoral people seldom tell the truth, let alone live it. They are masters at making a lie seem real. The vast majority of them habitually try to escape accountability, by playing the hapless, and yes, perennial victim of others (in particular) or circumstances (in general.)

Secondly, her personal, accountings/observations about the members of FWM, are thereby, flawed and just like her character, unreliable and untrustworthy. What other members of the band said about her or each other, is not a sound argument to justify the support of her spiteful, and often inaccurate, literary betrayal of the confidences of others. Nor does the argument that a book publisher would not have supported her efforts by publishing her work, if what she said, was not sanctionable. Case in point, one such publishing house paid O.J. Simpson big bucks to co-write a book entitled "What If I Did It?" Indeed!:eek:

Lastly, CAH was never a member of the band and her motivations for telling tales now, after fences have been mended within the band only reflects her unrelenting bitterness over not being "An Insider."

If your life is a mess, then it is because of the unwise choices that you have made. If you continue to have negative things happen to you without changing what you are doing, then you have only yourself to blame. CAH seldom blames herself, but always blames others/circumstances for the negative things that happen to her.

By and large, things just don't happen to us but we make them happen. Just mull-over these five points for example. She could have chosen to act responsibly but she repeatedly chose not to. Our behaviors reveal our true character and, quite frankly, I find her behaviors deplorable and, as such, reflective of a person of immoral character.

I am not being sanctimonious, as one poster inaccurately pointed out, instead I am questioning her motives for (mis)leading the public into believing what she has to say is actually a true and accurate accounting of the "Storms" within the band or even between her and Lindsey. To do that I have examined what she has done and is doing with her own life. People who point fingers at others, while making themselves look beyond reproach, are liars and fakes.

CAH is an asocial, if not anti-social, user who is still, trying to distract from the fact, that she was her own worst enemy in the "Storms" that brewed around the Mac family; not Stevie and not Lindsey. We teach people how to treat us, one famous TV psychologist preaches daily to his audience, and he is right. If people are mistreating you then you either put your foot down and stop it or you leave. And, what CAD does is, she immorally sacrifices her first born child and eventually her own personal safety, to attain the rock star lifestyle that she couldn't obviously earn on her own merits/talents but calculatingly and vicariously tries to gain through her associations with stars.

How telling that, twenty years later she is dishing it for the dollar rather than earning her keep through her musical talents and abilities; whether as a sound engineer or an artist. As I stated in an earlier post, it is also quite telling that she makes sure everyone knows, on her dedication page, that her current husband is a musician. Who cares? She does because even today, she can still only identify herself, in the entertainment business, by her latest man.

Point 1: She was deceitful and unfaithful when she willingly cheated, on her live-in boyfriend and father of her unwanted child, with LB.

Point 2: Rather than take responsibility for her own body and the welfare of any children that she might have, she fails to either marry her sexual partner or practice adequate birth control and proceeds to get pregnant out of wedlock. She was, therefore, acting irresponsibly, without principles and without discipline.
In short, she knowingly and willingly engaged in asocial behaviors, without any consideration for the welfare of any children that she might bring into this world when she had sex with a man with whom she had no legal ties. She was not a naive 15 year old living in her family's home back in Oklahoma. She was a grown woman living and working in Hollywood.

Point 3: Instead of acting responsibly and getting a better paying job and/or taking advantage of the social welfare programs available in the liberal state of California to help her keep her child, she shifts her responsibilities onto someone else. She dumps the child to continue her pursuit of a star which for her is her true career.

Point 4: She leaves one boyfriend's bed to move in with another (LB) and continues the self-destructive pattern of living without legally marrying her (sexual) partner and, once again, becomes pregnant out-of-wedlock.

That fact is laws are, codified morals, enacted by society for a reason and that is to deter us from engaging in behaviors that are injurious/unjust to ourselves and others. Bringing children into a situation where there is no established legal union/arrangement in place to support our child or ourselves, is again irresponsible and unfair to any children, such an illicit union, might produce.

Point 5: Bootlegging concert albums is illegal and a felony. Like most criminals, she makes no apologies for what she has done. Wonder what she would think if someone bootlegged her book and cut her out of her share of the profits?

I remain firm in my observation that her book sheds no light on the "Storms" within the MAC as she touts. It's a vain attempt to recapture the fame and fortune she set out to garner when she set out for Hollywood thirty some odd years ago. Her story is no different than Anna Nicole Smith's and you saw how that one ended.

CarolC


You question Carol's motives for her book; I question your motives for your tirade/ unwarrented character asassination. I'm so glad to know you possess such strong morals! It's so refreshing to hear from such a highly evolved being whose **** doesn't stink! See you at the Heavenly gates, St. Sweetheart! To get there, I guess you have to make a hard Right turn.

[Michelle Daya]

She also never said he hit her. ;)

Don't quote me Mick either...what he wrote doesn't matter to me, esp when he said he wants to rewrite. The NZ incident was the one where he sang offkey? And mocked her during Rhiannon? And kicked his foot out? That seems like drunken, bitter behavior to me, not necessarily physical abuse. Show me where a fan saw him kick the **** out of her onstage and I may agree. Out of all the fans in that arena not ONE has ever come forward to say they witnessed this abuse? Chris was mad about him singing offkey and embarrassing the band...is this the incident you are talking about?

Curious, do you think Stevie has done things that LB wouldn't talk about publically either? She could be just as abusive as you seem to think LB is, behind closed doors. :wavey:

your ex who you have stayed friends with (after not being friends) & might possibly even still love is being verbally attacked in a book written by a mutual friend for hitting you or shoving you up against a car. when someone you care about is falsely accused, most people would be shocked & say "he did not hit me.' her saying she jumped on him first was true, i'm sure but she never went to his defense to say he didn't jump on her. she went so far as to say she thought he was going to kill her & that if he did, her family & friends would go after him. you say don't quote you mick, but that's stevie talking. as for mick saying it wasn't the first time, she didn't disagree with that either.

i love lb but even as bob welch pointed out by coming to the defense of cah, he wasn't perfect. doesn't make me love his music any less but honestly, i don't think i would have wanted to date him or get on his bad side back then. i'm guessing he's worked on his little demons since & that's why he's so happy? :shrug: so i respect him for that.

[strandinthewind]

She also never said he hit her. ;)

Don't quote me Mick either...what he wrote doesn't matter to me, esp when he said he wants to rewrite. The NZ incident was the one where he sang offkey? And mocked her during Rhiannon? And kicked his foot out? That seems like drunken, bitter behavior to me, not necessarily physical abuse. Show me where a fan saw him kick the **** out of her onstage and I may agree. Out of all the fans in that arena not ONE has ever come forward to say they witnessed this abuse? Chris was mad about him singing offkey and embarrassing the band...is this the incident you are talking about? . . . .


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QLckSWNSe4M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QLckSWNSe4M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

At 6:42 (3:49 counting backward) or so - she says "he didn't just get violent with me," I attacked him, etc. So, she did say he got violent with her :shrug: Otherwise, what is your definition of getting violent with someone?

[michaelD]

Just got done reading this... It was a good read, and a very interesting tale. It's a classic story, and most of it I have heard before.

Whatever her reasons for writing it etc... I found it entertaining.

[PenguinHead]

Not true. The actions or decisions of another person can make your life a mess as well. Let's take child abuse for example. Is it the child's 'unwise choice' that causes the abuse..NO. It's that of the abuser. Unfortunately, in some cases the person abused tends to blame their-self for what happened.
Sometimes, years later they realize it wasn't their choice for it to happen, and that they are not to blame.


So we choose what happens to us? We make them happen? Sometimes, perhaps. But throughout our entire lives, childhood through adulthood, much happens that we do not make happen. Abuse, rape, any problems (mental or physical) related to either of those situations are not normally something we choose to happen.

Bullsh*t!


How can you leave a relationship you're too young to get out of? A bit f*cking difficult when you're not even old enough to know what's going on, isn't it? TV psych's are usually the ones who know the least yet make the most money. Big surprise there....:rolleyes:


She didn't 'sacrifice' her child. She put it up for adoption so it would have a better life than what she thought she could give it. What would you rather a person do, abort it or worse?? As for her safety, I haven't read the book, but I've seen through my own eyes what some people will do when they love, or believe they love someone with all their being. It's sad and absolutely horrible to watch and be a part of! You say she did it for the 'rock star lifestyle'. Do you have a clue as to how many women will put up with abuse for years because they have themselves convinced that their man really *does* love them...that they love their man...that they hang on to a hope that someday he'll change...that all forms of abuse will end??


Another bullsh*t comment. Not surpising though. Condoms break. The pill has never been 100% effective. Both of these are proven facts. At her young age I seriously doubt she would have been able to handle a child. I know I sure as hell couldn't have. Why not give it to someone that *can* take care of and provide for it. It's a much better option than abortion, imo.



Why not climb down your from high-horse, your ivory tower, or whatever the hell it is you're living in and join the real world. Bad sh*t happens everyday to people whether or not they choose it to. No psych's BS, TV or real life, will ever change that fact. There will always be demons of one sort or another to fight. And, unfortunately, there will always be someone trying to be a self-righteous, holier-than-thou twit, who's best claim to fame is that they are so flexible they can bend over and kiss their own a$$.


Thank you for responding to and tearing down every idiotic statement that presumbably religious zealot wrote. I know its an old post now, but I just re-read it recently and it brought back a lot of emotion. Her misguided, ignorant holy dogama is quite frightening to me. Scarier than any Steven King novel.

[Dreamz19]

I just finished reading the book, but I didn't comment since the thread seemed to have died down. I'll just add my 2 cents anyway. I also thought the book was very interesting. I read with an open mind and didn't dismiss her claims because it didn't shed the best light on Stevie and Lindsey. However, there were just a few things that annoyed me about the book (after reading the thread I see I wasn't alone).

Carol paints herself as a young naive girl who was nothing but a supportive and loving girlfriend. I don't doubt that she was, but she just seemed to damn perfect (besides the drug abuse). When she talks about the physical abuse incidents she says every attack was unprovoked and that she had no idea why he was upset. Not saying he would have been justified if she did do something, but obviously something happened. Unless it was the mixing of drugs and or stress that caused his rage. She also downplayed his relationship with Stevie big time. She claims that he didn't seem all that sad about it and she also mentions Lindsey didn't care at all about the Stevie/Mick affair. I wouldn't expect the woman to write that Stevie was the love of his life in her book, but to act like it was no big deal to him was silly. Even if he didn't sit her down and tell her (and why would he do that with his new gf?) his interviews and song lyrics would explain it.

Their break up was also interesting because both sides are different. I have always read that Lindsey left her because she had a serious drug problem. Carol talks as though she left him since she suggested they take a break. However, she felt like it was really the end when she heard "Go Insane." She felt betrayed because he portrayed her as a big time druggie. In the book she says her drug problem was no worse than the members of the FM family (in and out of the band). After a year apart he asked her to marry him and said he wanted to produce a CD for her. I found that part odd considering she isn't a singer and mentions she would never have Stevie's musical ability. Unless he was pulling out all of the stops to get her back, I am not sure about that one. :shrug:

Overall, I still don't dislike Carol Ann or have any issues with her. I enjoyed the book despite some annoyances. Ok, :sorry: for the rant folks. I just had to get out some of my thoughts since I don't live with any other FM fans.

[Gailh]

I only got the book yesterday (bit of delay with Amazon UK)

Having read this thread I do feel like I've already read the damn thing.

Am I the only one who is bored to death with the constant descriptions of the amount of coke everyone was doing? Jesus, enough already.

I don't think I'm going to make it to the end.

Still the story about Christine's "granny knickers" was funny

Gail

[michelej1]

I just made a comment about the book in the Austin Chronicle. I have to say its entertaining and I had no trouble getting through it at all. I consumed it in about a day and a half. I have no doubt that some of the book is true, but when even one part lacks credibility that calls the ENTIRETY into question.

Looking at the facts objectively, some discrepancies jump out:

1. Carol Ann says her lawyers told her she was Lindsey's common law wife and could have taken him for half of everything. California has not recognized "common law" marriage since 1895! No lawyer told her that. They might have told her that she could try for palimony, as Michelle Triola Marvin did. That's about it.

2. She claims she was right by Sara's side at her wedding. But she also indicates she only saw Lindsey twice after their break up: once at Desi's funeral and once a year after the separation when he rented a porsche and asked her to marry him. Well, Lindsey was in Hawaii at Mick and Sara's wedding. Why didn't she see him there? Plus, we have footage from the wedding and I don't see Carol Ann on it. I admit, it's not the best quality footage though. Still . . . I don't think she was in Hawaii for the wedding.

3. What about the Rolling Stone cover shoot. We've heard Annie AND the band describe the shoot and they didn't say it took place at Lindsey's house. Carol says it was at Lindsey's house, was over in about an hour. Well, seeing as how Stevie said she and Lindsey made out for TWO hours, I don't see how that is possible. Actually, I know Stevie was exaggerating about that, but I don't think Carol has the location for the shoot right.

4. We have the tape where Christine asks Mick if it's ok to say Lindsey has epilepsy. Mick tells her no. It doesn't sound like Christine had a problem in making this public, if the choice was up to her. So, in the book when Carol says that Christine told Lindsey he shouldn't air his private business in the media and should keep the epilepsy to himself, that doesn't sound like her. Mick is the one who told Christine not to divulge the epilepsy. Why would Christine be the one trying to make Lindsey shut up about it?

5. You guys have already mentioned the "Save Me" part. She says she was so busy working as a costume designer on two different videos that it was easy to avoid Lindsey during the shooting of the "Save Me" video. Yeah, I guess so! I think Fleetwood Mac easily avoided Lindsey during the shooting of the "Save Me" video too, since he was not there. If Carol didn't realize that Lindsey was not with the band, then all her talk about still being close to people like Sara and John Courage is suspect, because they certainly would have told her that.

6. Greg won his medal in 1968, not 1964. Small thing, but when you can't get the known facts right, why should I trust you on the unknown ones?

7. She says she signed a prenup -- at her own suggestion. Well, if she did that's another reason why she could never have taken Lindsey for half of everything, like she claims her lawyers told her she could.

Actually though, I was glad to have part of the book. But I can't believe the parts I like and discount the parts I don't like. I want to know what the truth is and this book doesn't tell me.

Random thoughts . . .

I didn't know that Jeff Buckingham lost a leg in a car accident. That was interesting to read.

Carol's description of Lindsey going downstairs with a gun to intercept a burglar had me on the edge of my seat. You know what? I didn't trust Lindsey when he was swinging a guitar chord in Stevie's face during "Tusk." I thought that was an accident waiting to happen. I also don't like him pounding the drum kit with his bare hand. I am sure he'll slit open his wrist. I sure wouldn't feel too comfortable having him running around the house with a gun. But Carol makes him sound brave.

So, if Lindsey was so violent, why did Carol have to run and tell Lindsey that Stevie grabbed her and said she would never let Carol marry Lindsey? It sounds to me like Carol wanted Lindsey to go and beat Stevie up. After she tattled on Stevie, Carol doesn't know what happened between Lindsey and Stevie, but she describes Stevie being so frightened and nervous that it sounds like Carol thinks Lindsey DID beat Stevie up, but I'm guessing he probably . . . well. Do you notice that Carol never describes any of the more tender moments between Lindsey and Stevie?

When Stevie called Lindsey crying after Robin died, Carol doesn't describe what he said to her. When Lindsey called Christine, Mick and Stevie because BAM gave their album a bad review, Carol says he was upset and they said soothing things to calm him down, but she doesn't say anything else about it. They obviously had some gentle exchanges with each other, as well as some brutal ones, but Carol doesn't describe any of the quieter moments. She says "Angel" is about Mick, but doesn't mention the cute way Lindsey and Stevie performed "Angel" on stage together. She's got to have noticed that.

It seems strange to me that since Lindsey generally beat Carol up all the time and was insanely jealous, when he heard that Dennis said he slept with Carol, all Lindsey did was give her a half smile and kiss her??? Since he was so suspicious and paranoid about everything else, why did he believe her without question on that one? Also, for him to be so possessive that he couldn't stand to be away from her, it sounds like they spent a LOT of time apart, whether he was on tour or not.

Carol describes Stevie talking to her about how to be Lindsey's perfect mate. Carol was enraged when she realized the whole conversation was being videotaped. She ran and told Lindsey and Lindsey just laughed. I get the feeling that Carol was hoping Lindsey would get mad at Stevie. This time her tattling didn't pay off.

Overall, the big problem I have with the book is that I don't feel that Carol is telling the whole story. She tells you what everyone else said and did, but doesn't tell you what SHE was doing. This happens a lot in "biographies." I felt the same way when I was reading Mary Wilson's book. Mary had children, affairs and husbands of her own. She even had a child die in a car accident while Mary was driving. She hardly mentions any of this in her book. She only talks about what a bad person Diana Ross was and paints herself as just sitting back watching every thing go by around her quietly, as if a fly on the wall. Well, in this book Carol Ann is too much of a fly on the wall. I know she was more of a participant in events than she lets on.

As far as the book being held up for 10 years, there was no litigation concerning this book (because that would have been a matter of public record) and you cannot keep something from being published. You can sue for defamation AFTER the fact, but unless material is copyrighted (like a photograph) or ownership is in question (like the OJ book) you can't keep it from being published beforehand in the United States. That would be prior restraint and that's unconstitutional. So, the delay in getting this book out wasn't because Carol was legally restricted. Maybe she was in negotiations with FM lawyers, but if she was, those negotiations were voluntary on her part. It's not like she has been fighting for over a decade to get the "truth" out.

Michele

[danax6]

^ Most of what you brought up has already been touched upon in this thread, and I agree with every little bit if your post, but I want to come back to this bit a little:

So, if Lindsey was so violent, why did Carol have to run and tell Lindsey that Stevie grabbed her and said she would never let Carol marry Lindsey? It sounds to me like Carol wanted Lindsey to go and beat Stevie up. After she tattled on Stevie, Carol doesn't know what happened between Lindsey and Stevie, but she describes Stevie being so frightened and nervous that it sounds like Carol thinks Lindsey DID beat Stevie up, but I'm guessing he probably . . . well. Do you notice that Carol never describes any of the more tender moments between Lindsey and Stevie?

Carol describes Stevie talking to her about how to be Lindsey's perfect mate. Carol was enraged when she realized the whole conversation was being videotaped. She ran and told Lindsey and Lindsey just laughed. I get the feeling that Carol was hoping Lindsey would get mad at Stevie. This time her tattling didn't pay off.
The way she described the interaction between herself and Stevie most of the time reminded me of kindergarten. CAH acts like it was a constant competition between the two, but in the meantime all she really wants is to be friends with Stevie. You mentioned the tattletaling she did on several occasions, but there also instances like during the awards season, when CAH was over the moon because according to her all eyes went to her when she walked into the room, instead of to Stevie, who could usually wear a trash bag and people still noticed her because she was always very present. CAH was the better dressed one that evening and she was gloating.

Then she also describes Lindsey's behaviour of mocking Stevie on stage as funny. To me that doesn't sound like someone who really respects a person and wants nothing more than to be her friend. She constantly keeps bringing up the fact that she can't compete with Stevie. I find that combined with her running off to Lindsey every time Stevie does something a tad disturbing. Especially when she then brings up that sometimes she and Lindsey would slip into the little girl/daddy roles.

I don't buy for a second that she really just wanted to be Stevie's friend. If that was the case she could have stood up for herself and told Stevie to go to hell, or sat her down at one point and asked Stevie was the problem was. Something, anything, instead of running off to 'daddy' every time CAH felt Stevie did her wrong.

As for the lack of tender moments... yes. We've discussed this before, but it was all part of CAH's master plan of making Stevie as insignificant as possible, making her role in Lindsey's life seem more important.

[trackaghost]

It's weird re-reading this thread and seeing all the hostility towards Carol Ann. Sure there are inaccuracies (not surprising considering the amount of drugs everyone in the FM inner circle were doing) and she definitely paints herself as this innocent, Alice In Wonderland character, which is certainly an exaggeration and sometimes slightly nauseating but the book is a great read and all the backstage stuff is some of the best I've ever read. I think it gives a much better insight into the crazy world that the Mac lived in during their hey day than Mick did in his book.

Also people seem to be annoyed that CAH doesn't recognise Stevie as being Lindsey's great love, but firstly, they had been broken up for a year when Carol Ann and Lindsey got together and had even been dating other people, and secondly, I can't imagine Lindsey would have ever told her if he still had feelings about Stevie, or maybe she just didn't want to believe it? I know I wouldn't if I were her.
Lastly, people seem to want to dismiss Carol being one of Lindsey's great love (to put it in a Stevie way), but he was with her for eight years, living with her for most of that time. That's a pretty significant relationship for anyone.

We all know the timeline coincides with Stevie and Mick doing the hanky panky and everyone being aware of it, but according to CAH he was indifferent, didn't care at all, that he probably didn't even notice. It's been said by at least 3 different people that Mick sat down at Lindsey's kitchen table at one point and told him about the affair, yet CAH never brings this up either. Where did she suppose those songs came from? :shrug:


You know, even though she says that she never found out exactly when Lindsey found out about the Mick/Stevie affair, didn't his first act of violence towards her happen around this time? He came home early from the studio and attacked her. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that may have been the day when Mick told him. At least that's what when through my head.


As for Oz and New Zealand. It was blatantly obvious something was going on between Lindsey and Stevie, but CAH only talks about the kicking incident on stage. This was all right around the time that Stevie apparently went ape-**** on CAH and said that it would be a cold day in hell before she'd let Carol marry Lindsey. Then when Lindsey gets aggressive with CAH, she only talks about herself, what her role was in all of it, and she wonders if she did anything wrong to deserve it. To the reader, it's obvious Lindsey's demons coming out had to do with whatever was going on with Stevie, but once again CAH pretends that she doesn't exist, plays an insignificant part in the 'triangle'. She keeps saying Lindsey was indifferent towards Stevie. Well, obviously he wasn't, but what made him lash out like that? :shrug:

These are all just things that make it clear to me that CAH turned the story into a certain direction, one that is at the least very one-sided. Which I guess was to be expected, considering this is her book, but it just annoys me because I feel like I am missing huge chunks of the story. Chunks that she left out deliberately and that for me makes it hard to take her book seriously.

I'm in Fleetwood Mac College. :laugh:

Nah, my mind just really has an endless capacity for useless information. It's scary.

I immediately thought that Stevie's reaction towards Carol in NZ was due to the fact something had been going on between her and Lindsey, but I have to say maybe Carol really believed there was nothing between them. Obviously he wasn't divulging any of his feelings or infidelities to her.

I really enjoyed this book, I did feel certain things were left out, maybe due to legal reasons things had to be taken out or maybe it was just the writer's prerogative, but most things I believed her. The one thing I did doubt her on though was the Dennis Wilson affair. She denied it ever happened and Lindsey believed her. Then he went ape-**** after listening to those tapes she and Sara made. Nothing was on them she claims, but Lindsey's reaction sounded like her heard her confessing to something more. Obviously I'm speculating here, but that's what ran through my mind. It's funny that years later Lindsey would change his mind and claim she did have an affair with Wilson.

[danax6]

You know, even though she says that she never found out exactly when Lindsey found out about the Mick/Stevie affair, didn't his first act of violence towards her happen around this time? He came home early from the studio and attacked her. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that may have been the day when Mick told him. At least that's what when through my head.Exactly my point.

I immediately thought that Stevie's reaction towards Carol in NZ was due to the fact something had been going on between her and Lindsey, but I have to say maybe Carol really believed there was nothing between them. Obviously he wasn't divulging any of his feelings or infidelities to her.If so, then she was even more naive than I thought. That, or she just didn't want to see it. The connection is blatantly obvious.

[michelej1]

[QUOTE=trackaghost;713766]

Lastly, people seem to want to dismiss Carol being one of Lindsey's great love (to put it in a Stevie way), but he was with her for eight years, living with her for most of that time. That's a pretty significant relationship for anyone. QUOTE]

And an incredibly significant relationship for Lindsey who seems to be extremely monogamous. She says that all of Go Insane except D. W. Suite (I guess) was about her and I believe her because Lindsey has pretty much made that clear since the album came out and both Richard and Jeff described how happy the 2 of them were at the beginning in Rolling Stone. I couldn't help but accept that Carol is one of Lindsey's great loves and great heartbreaks.

As for Stevie, the way the book is written, I don't really think Carol is unaware of any less than hostile dynamics between Lindsey and Stevie. I think she's deliberately omitting them. I'm not even talking about them being lovers, because I'm not convinced they were. I just mean they had some friendly moments. I just think it's strange that she skips over those completely. The most obvious time being the phone call about Robin. Of course you leave some things out of a book, but when you consistently leave the SAME type of thing out throughout, that says something.

Or I think of the description of the way the band didn't visit Lindsey when he was in the hospital. That may be true, but I can't believe they were totally insensitive to his condition. Just from the concert footage I saw, both Stevie and Christine seemed to be very caring towards Lindsey as he exited the stage -- in rather a daze. I don't think everyone was always as hardnosed and callous as the book depicts.

Anyway, my favorite moment in the whole book is when she says she told Stevie that John Wayne was born on May 26 too. I really can actually see Stevie's reaction to that comment in my head. That was hilarious.

Michele

[Dreamz19]

Also people seem to be annoyed that CAH doesn't recognise Stevie as being Lindsey's great love, but firstly, they had been broken up for a year when Carol Ann and Lindsey got together and had even been dating other people, and secondly, I can't imagine Lindsey would have ever told her if he still had feelings about Stevie, or maybe she just didn't want to believe it? I know I wouldn't if I were her.


I immediately thought that Stevie's reaction towards Carol in NZ was due to the fact something had been going on between her and Lindsey, but I have to say maybe Carol really believed there was nothing between them. Obviously he wasn't divulging any of his feelings or infidelities to her.


I would never expect her to say that Stevie was Lindsey's great love. At the same time I thought it was really silly to think Stevie wasn't that important to Lindsey. Even if he never told her (which I also wouldn't expect him to do), his songs and attitude towards Stevie should have told her. I took it as though she still feels that way after all these years. Perhaps she was strictly writing about how she felt then (which I can understand better).

As far as them being broken up for a year, something is off with that as well. Carol Ann says she and Lindsey got together Feb 1977. However, Stevie had a journal entry dated Aug 24,1977 saying she has come to the conclusion that she and Lindsey are finally over and that it was sad to see a good love go bad. (Something along those lines). Either Carol Ann's dates are off or something was still going in with Stevie and Lindsey behind the scenes.

I also agree 100% about that NZ incident. Earlier in the book she mentions how nice Stevie was to her when she was with Mick. Then all of a sudden when Carol Ann's comes back on tour Stevie is upset to see her and reacts the way she does. That should have told Carol something. Either she was really stupid or she was still desperately trying to believe nothing was going on.




The way she described the interaction between herself and Stevie most of the time reminded me of kindergarten. CAH acts like it was a constant competition between the two, but in the meantime all she really wants is to be friends with Stevie. You mentioned the tattletaling she did on several occasions, but there also instances like during the awards season, when CAH was over the moon because according to her all eyes went to her when she walked into the room, instead of to Stevie, who could usually wear a trash bag and people still noticed her because she was always very present. CAH was the better dressed one that evening and she was gloating.

Then she also describes Lindsey's behaviour of mocking Stevie on stage as funny. To me that doesn't sound like someone who really respects a person and wants nothing more than to be her friend. She constantly keeps bringing up the fact that she can't compete with Stevie. I find that combined with her running off to Lindsey every time Stevie does something a tad disturbing. Especially when she then brings up that sometimes she and Lindsey would slip into the little girl/daddy roles.

That went on a lot in the book. It all just seemed really petty. Personally, if my Bf still had some hostility and issues with his ex I would be worried. Indifference would show he truly didn't care. She really doesn't miss a beat to diss Stevie though. Seemed like Stevie was always jealous of her. Like if the entire band was assumed at something Carol did, Stevie would just sit there with a blank expression. She also talks about Stevie's "tasteless" marriage and how she and Lindsey were horrified about it.

There was two incidents I thought that was funny. The first was when she said that she and Lindsey couldn't believe Stevie would wear a long white dress to John and Julie's wedding. Someone mentioned only Stevie would try and upstage the bride. Then she mentions how she and Sara couldn't stop laughing at Stevie when she told Sara to stop dressing nice at the studio. Apparently, she was very jealous of her looking good for Mick. If Stevie did do something of the things she claims I dunno if I could blame Carol for the disses completely. :laugh:

[Dreamz19]

It's weird re-reading this thread and seeing all the hostility towards Carol Ann.

Not saying you're talking about me, but for the record I have no hostility towards Carol Ann at all. I really liked her book and thought it was very interesting. In fact I wish she had talked a little more about her family life and a little about her life after FM. There were just somethings that were annoying to me. She just came across as really naive and super innocent at times. Even after years of living in Hollywood and with Lindsey.

[michelej1]

I could buy the fact that Rod Stewart wanted to sleep with Carol, but one moment I thought was wishful thinking on Carol Ann's part was when all the troops were looking at her onstage in her see-through skirt. I know men in the military are starved for women, but it's hard to believe they would look past Stevie doing her Rhiannon exorcism moves on stage, to gawk at Carol standing in the wings in a transparent skirt.

Michele

[Livia]

Here's the Chronicle's review - I feel like adding a comment, "Uh, that huge album? It's spelled 'RumoUrs.' Duh."

Storms: My Life with Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac
by Carol Ann Harris
Chicago Review Press, 383 pp., $24.95

"A flash of movement, a fist to the side of my face, and the back of my head slammed into the wall. I crumpled to the floor." Lindsey Buckingham's fist and the head of Carol Ann Harris, who began dating the wiry pop savant as Fleetwood Mac's Rumors became one of the bestselling albums of all time, rendezvous more than once in Storms: My Life With Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac. "Lindsey backed me up against the wall and held me by the throat. As his hands tightened, I knew that I was helpless." From 1976 to 1984, Stevie Nicks' successor in Buckingham's boudoir became more and more helpless, imprisoned by the guitarist's narcissism cum genius, the Andean piles of Bolivian marching powder torching Fleetwood Mac, and her own naivete. Lock "The Chain." Harris the author does just that, moving swiftly through the band's peak like a musician sucking up yet another line of blow. Cocaine night at Eric Clapton's castle, Buckingham bullying Kenny Rogers at the Grammys, and noses to mirror in the convertible of SoCal's most eligible cocksman and drug Hoover, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, don't disappoint. Like Red Hot Chili Pepper Anthony Kiedis' rippling Scar Tissue, another Hollywood Boulevard of broken bones and illusions, Storms rages ripe and juicy. Revelations such as the fact that Buckingham built Rumors' equally brilliant follow-up Tusk on a diet of the Talking Heads, Clash, and Sex Pistols lace their way through the epilepsy of fame and fortune at its highest high. You must never break the chain.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/review?oid=oid:524294

[SortaSavageLike]

From 1976 to 1984, Stevie Nicks' successor in Buckingham's boudoir became more and more helpless, imprisoned by the guitarist's narcissism cum genius, the Andean piles of Bolivian marching powder torching Fleetwood Mac, and her own naivete. Lock "The Chain." Harris the author does just that, moving swiftly through the band's peak like a musician sucking up yet another line of blow. Cocaine night at Eric Clapton's castle, Buckingham bullying Kenny Rogers at the Grammys, and noses to mirror in the convertible of SoCal's most eligible cocksman and drug Hoover, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, don't disappoint.

You guys noticing a pattern here? :rolleyes:

Revelations such as the fact that Buckingham built Rumors' equally brilliant follow-up Tusk on a diet of the Talking Heads, Clash, and Sex Pistols...

****. I was going to incorporate this into my new book, Revelations For The Retarded. Oh well. :rolleyes:

[TrueFaith77]

****. I was going to incorporate this into my new book, Revelations For The Retarded. Oh well. :rolleyes:

I just spit out my breakfast that was so funny.

[Michelle Daya]

Here's the Chronicle's review - I feel like adding a comment, "Uh, that huge album? It's spelled 'RumoUrs.' Duh."

Storms: My Life with Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac
by Carol Ann Harris
Chicago Review Press, 383 pp., $24.95

"A flash of movement, a fist to the side of my face, and the back of my head slammed into the wall. I crumpled to the floor." Lindsey Buckingham's fist and the head of Carol Ann Harris, who began dating the wiry pop savant as Fleetwood Mac's Rumors became one of the bestselling albums of all time, rendezvous more than once in Storms: My Life With Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac. "Lindsey backed me up against the wall and held me by the throat. As his hands tightened, I knew that I was helpless." From 1976 to 1984, Stevie Nicks' successor in Buckingham's boudoir became more and more helpless, imprisoned by the guitarist's narcissism cum genius, the Andean piles of Bolivian marching powder torching Fleetwood Mac, and her own naivete. Lock "The Chain." Harris the author does just that, moving swiftly through the band's peak like a musician sucking up yet another line of blow. Cocaine night at Eric Clapton's castle, Buckingham bullying Kenny Rogers at the Grammys, and noses to mirror in the convertible of SoCal's most eligible cocksman and drug Hoover, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, don't disappoint. Like Red Hot Chili Pepper Anthony Kiedis' rippling Scar Tissue, another Hollywood Boulevard of broken bones and illusions, Storms rages ripe and juicy. Revelations such as the fact that Buckingham built Rumors' equally brilliant follow-up Tusk on a diet of the Talking Heads, Clash, and Sex Pistols lace their way through the epilepsy of fame and fortune at its highest high. You must never break the chain.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/review?oid=oid:524294

i don't like his review because he's trying so hard to be artistic in his words it's almost unreadable. get to the point & skip the flowery **** :shrug:

[BTFLCHLD]

cum genius
:] OHYES :]

[gretchen]

:] OHYES :]

;);););):thumbsup:

[carol7lynn]

I can't believe :shrug:after two months this thread is still raging on about the book and it's so called author. :lol: The woman is a PIG! (OINK!)

CarolC

[Tarot]

it sounds like there is nothing new us hard- cores don't already know

[carrie721]

I can't believe :shrug:after two months this thread is still raging on about the book and it's so called author. :lol: The woman is a PIG! (OINK!)

CarolC

yeah, obviously you're totally over it! :rolleyes:

[jbrownsjr]

yeah, obviously you're totally over it! :rolleyes:

hahahaha i think i just fell in love with you carrie!!!:woohoo:

[carol7lynn]

You can attack me all you want. It says more about you than me. :rolleyes: I don't have to attack other posters or their opinions/observations to make my point(s) or to establish credibility. Never have and never will. So get over it. I have a different opinion. A reasonable person would accept that and let it go.

I have noticed, that there are a handful of habitual offenders on this board, who think it is their mission to attack anyone who has a different opinion than them in an attempt to bully dissenters (re: people whose opinion differs from theirs) into silence. Won't work with me. I welcome their inane emotional ratings. It only serves to reinforce my observations about their character and agendas.

CAH is A PIG! You can defend her all you want. But attacking me doesn't make your arguments, on her behalf, valid let or credible. It makes you look desperate. It goes without saying that even bullies have a right to their opinion. But, I also have a right to say she's an amoral, self-righteous PIG who betrayed the band's trust to make a buck. If you can't accept that opinion without attacking me, then again, it says more about you than me!



Peace :xoxo:
CarolC

[The Catdancer]

You can attack me all you want. It says more about you than me. :rolleyes: I don't have to attack other posters or their opinions/observations to make my point(s) or to establish credibility. Never have and never will. So get over it. I have a different opinion. A reasonable person would accept that and let it go.

I have noticed, that there are a handful of habitual offenders on this board, who think it is their mission to attack anyone who has a different opinion than them in an attempt to bully dissenters (re: people whose opinion differs from theirs) into silence. Won't work with me. I welcome their inane emotional ratings. It only serves to reinforce my observations about their character and agendas.

CAH is A PIG! You can defend her all you want. But attacking me doesn't make your arguments, on her behalf, valid let or credible. It makes you look desperate. It goes without saying that even bullies have a right to their opinion. But, I also have a right to say she's an amoral, self-righteous PIG who betrayed the band's trust to make a buck. If you can't accept that opinion without attacking me, then again, it says more about you than me!



Peace :xoxo:
CarolC

You attacking her makes your arguments valid or credible??? If anything it makes you look desperate. Every chance you get you call her a pig. Makes me wonder who the pig is in this case :rolleyes:

[camchristo]

Wow, I really just can't understand the utter hate and disgust for a woman that you don't even know. :shrug: I'm the first to agree that it isn't difficult to prevent pregnancy. That being said, some people make some irresponsible decisions, it happens every day. But I think she made the most responsible decision she could, following her irresponsible move. She gave the child up for adoption to people who could love and care for the child and provide it with a good home. At least she had enough sense to realize she couldn't provide a stable environment for the child.

And as far as her getting pregnant with Lindsey - maybe they planned it? Who really knows except those who were there?

Just my two cents, fwiw.

[carrie721]

You can attack me all you want. It says more about you than me. :rolleyes: I don't have to attack other posters or their opinions/observations to make my point(s) or to establish credibility. Never have and never will. So get over it. I have a different opinion. A reasonable person would accept that and let it go.

I have noticed, that there are a handful of habitual offenders on this board, who think it is their mission to attack anyone who has a different opinion than them in an attempt to bully dissenters (re: people whose opinion differs from theirs) into silence. Won't work with me. I welcome their inane emotional ratings. It only serves to reinforce my observations about their character and agendas.

CAH is A PIG! You can defend her all you want. But attacking me doesn't make your arguments, on her behalf, valid let or credible. It makes you look desperate. It goes without saying that even bullies have a right to their opinion. But, I also have a right to say she's an amoral, self-righteous PIG who betrayed the band's trust to make a buck. If you can't accept that opinion without attacking me, then again, it says more about you than me!



Peace :xoxo:
CarolC

i was neither defending CAH nor attacking you. you are perfectly entitled to say whatever you want about CAH, i just find it laughable that you replied in this thread to point out that everybody else was still replying :shrug:

i also find it laughable that you bookend your vitriol with :) 's in the subject line and :xoxo: 's in your closing. what is that about?

[jbrownsjr]

i also find it laughable that you bookend your vitriol with :) 's in the subject line and :xoxo: 's in your closing. what is that about?

passive/aggressive behavior...

[carol7lynn]

I rest my case! You can not intimidate me into silence by your brutish behavior. The woman is an amoral PIG and the book worthless trash! Look for it next year in the 99 cent store! :]

CarolC:blob2:

[Gailh]

I rest my case! You can not intimidate me into silence by your brutish behavior. The woman is an amoral PIG and the book worthless trash! Look for it next year in the 99 cent store! :]

CarolC:blob2:

As a matter of interest do you think Lindsey is amoral? this is a genuine question by the way.

Gail

[Nico]

I read through this whole thread on an off day and...goodnight!!! :shocked: Where do I begin?:laugh:

Even though it's said he could probably care less at this point, I still kind of wonder about Lindsey's own reaction to this. He can't possibly just brush off this long novel from a significant ex (the inspiration for some fairly powerful songs from him) that gives insight into some very private and not-so-pretty moments of his past. Or maybe he will, don't know. But I love that he has said absolutely nothing.

Then again, I think Lindsey has always been mute about things people say about him unless he's provoked to respond. For the most part. But I kind of want to hear his reaction to some of the things written in this book...just because.

BTW: read the book, and I still love him the same way...:xoxo:

[carol7lynn]

Gail,

Not to sound pedantic but your question about Lindsey's moral character is not the issue here. The issue is quite straight forward and has nothing to do with anyone's character other than CAH's. The issue is this: I feel, right or wrong, that Storms is a worthless piece of trash written by a scorned ex-girlfriend who has a history of behaving amorally just to make a buck and get back the spotlight she lost twenty odd years ago. A handful of other posters do not agree and have personally attacked me, calling me everything from a self-righteous religious zealot to a Pig (myself) in an attempt to silence me and/or distract the community from the real issue at hand.

A more appropriate side-issue, therefore, that runs through-out this particular thread and the board in general, is the unwillingness of a handful of posters to agree to disagree. It's a shame that these people are here but they are. Most boards have them. They seem to be more interested in winning than in the open exchange of information/opinions among a community of people who happen to like the same thing; in this case FWM.

Someone commented on that very fact on Mick's BB, not too long ago, when the Ledge was down and we were wondering if it was ever going to come back up. That poster referred to such behavior as "nastiness." I call it bullying which is the real issue at hand here and has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. It almost seems as if this group does it for sport! Let's hope so because any other motivation is just too disturbing to contemplate.
:thumbsup:
CarolC

[camchristo]

^^ I don't think Gail said that Lindsey was the "issue" in this conversation. She clearly stated that she was curious about your opinion as a "matter of interest" and indicated that her question was genuine. It seems to me she was trying to engage you in some lively debate and conversation. However, you chose not to respond and instead continued to focus on some perceived group of bullies on this board.

From my perspective, I think people have tried to engage you in debate but when they don't agree with you, you consider it bullying in some attempt to silence you.

I think some have just been taken aback by what they perceive as an extremely vitriolic opinion about a woman you don't know. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but your continued responses of called her a PIG, etc. make it seem like you have some sort of personal attachment to the situation. :shrug:

[trackaghost]

Carol,
You're saying you can judge CAH on the basis of this book, which is fine that's up to you, but people here aren't allowed to judge you on the basis of your posts and things you've said on a public messageboard?
I'm geniunely confused by your argument.

[camchristo]

Gail,

Not to sound pedantic but your question about Lindsey's moral character is not the issue here. The issue is quite straight forward and has nothing to do with anyone's character other than CAH's. The issue is this: I feel, right or wrong, that Storms is a worthless piece of trash written by a scorned ex-girlfriend who has a history of behaving amorally just to make a buck and get back the spotlight she lost twenty odd years ago. A handful of other posters do not agree and have personally attacked me, calling me everything from a self-righteous religious zealot to a Pig (myself) in an attempt to silence me and/or distract the community from the real issue at hand.

A more appropriate side-issue, therefore, that runs through-out this particular thread and the board in general, is the unwillingness of a handful of posters to agree to disagree. It's a shame that these people are here but they are. Most boards have them. They seem to be more interested in winning than in the open exchange of information/opinions among a community of people who happen to like the same thing; in this case FWM.

Someone commented on that very fact on Mick's BB, not too long ago, when the Ledge was down and we were wondering if it was ever going to come back up. That poster referred to such behavior as "nastiness." I call it bullying which is the real issue at hand here and has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. It almost seems as if this group does it for sport! Let's hope so because any other motivation is just too disturbing to contemplate.
:thumbsup:
CarolC

Who is this group of bullies you speak of, anyway? Just anyone who challenges your opinion?

[buckymcnix]

Paula's Cronies?

Carrie's Crusaders?

Dumbledore's Army?
:laugh::D

[trackaghost]

I must admit Carol does remind me of an ex-Ledgie who used to constantly criticise Lindsey's wife Kristin for being amoral for having children out of wedlock (even though I think if was just their first kid born before they got married), but adored and worshipped Stevie and Lindsey, hardly bastions of morality themselves.
But I guess I'll be accused of being a bully for pointing that out :rolleyes:

[danax6]

I must admit Carol does remind me of an ex-Ledgie who used to constantly criticise Lindsey's wife Kristin for being amoral for having children out of wedlock, but adored and worshipped Stevie and Lindsey, hardly bastions of morality themselves.
I was just about to bring this up. The whole thing really did strike me as familiar.

But Sharon, how can you say Stevie is not a bastion of morality? When God invented the word 'saint' it was only because he misspelled the word 'stevie'. Lord, child, the woman doesn't even defecate! She's perfection, damnit! Got that? :mad:

[trackaghost]

Sorry Vanessa, sometimes I forget :(
May the ~goddess~ forgive me for my sins.

[jbrownsjr]

I was just about to bring this up. The whole thing really did strike me as familiar.

But Sharon, how can you say Stevie is not a bastion of morality? When God invented the word 'saint' it was only because he misspelled the word 'stevie'. Lord, child, the woman doesn't even defecate! She's perfection, damnit! Got that? :mad:

I've never seen the words defecate and Stevie in the same post!!! lololol:) ever!!

[Gailh]

^^ I don't think Gail said that Lindsey was the "issue" in this conversation. She clearly stated that she was curious about your opinion as a "matter of interest" and indicated that her question was genuine. It seems to me she was trying to engage you in some lively debate and conversation. However, you chose not to respond and instead continued to focus on some perceived group of bullies on this board.


Yes it was a genuine question and I would have been interested in the response.

It seems that if you call someone "amoral" then that must be based on a set of criteria and I was interested in what those criteria were.

Gail

[scortman00]

How can anyone consider Stevie perfect! Everyone in the band had thier flaws. And Stevie was no different.

[Gailh]

How can anyone consider Stevie perfect! Everyone in the band had thier flaws. And Stevie was no different.

Christine used to be Perfect, then she married John :laugh::laugh:

Gail

[carrie721]

I rest my case! You can not intimidate me into silence by your brutish behavior. The woman is an amoral PIG and the book worthless trash! Look for it next year in the 99 cent store! :]

CarolC:blob2:

good god. get real.

[David]

Look for it next year in the 99 cent store! :]I always liked a bargain! :thumbsup:

[jbrownsjr]

I always liked a bargain! :thumbsup:

me2.... but half the stuff in there is only worth 39 cents out of 99 cents

[michelej1]

I'm getting a late start, so sorry to rehash what you guys already discussed last month, but I was just looking at old band rehearsals last night and was amused by Carol's claim that Stevie would never look at Lindsey on stage.

That's really not going to happen. When Stevie is in a normal mood, she and Christine and Lindsey all glance at each other quite a bit. When Stevie is mad at Lindsey she STARES at him. She's really not the kind of person who can just ignore you and look the other way. Even when an audience member does something Stevie doesn't like, Stevie glares at them. She tries to freeze people with her eyes. I saw that happen in Reno during the SYW tour.

I never understood why she did it to Lindsey, because he doesn't really mind. I think he's perfectly happy to be stared at. You can make him mad by interacting with the audience during GYOW (and I'm sure he hates the top hat), but staring at him, um . . . that's water off a duck's back.

Anyway, after FM that's one of the things I found strange about the Dixie Chicks live. They rarely look at each other on stage. Christine, Stevie and Lindsey frequently look at each other.

As for eye contact, the main difference between the old FM shows and the current shows is that John and Lindsey don't interact anymore. They'd often play almost nose to nose, but that pretty much stopped as of the Dance Tour. They come together during Tusk during both The Dance tour and Say You Will, but not otherwise.

Another thing I'd forgotten is that for Sara, Stevie would spin her way over to Lindsey's mic and sing the last line into it in 1979 too. I saw her doing that in a rehearsal show for Tusk and her last line was "speak a little lower." Lindsey wasn't at his mic, he was by the drum kit. But she ended the song there. So, I realized that that's where they got the bit for the SYW tour, where she ended Sara over by him in 2004. I certainly appreciate the nod to 25 years earlier.

Michele

[Chrislit18]

im posting my thoughts later, I dont have time now :(
I got the book last tuesday, and finished it friday.
Im reading it again next week for english class, and im tearing the damn thing apart.

one thing i have to point out that annoyed the sh*t out of me, CAH cant spell 'caillat' she spelt it 'caillet'....

[danax6]

Im reading it again next week for english class, and im tearing the damn thing apart.They allow you to read this stuff in English class? Yikes.

[michelej1]

They allow you to read this stuff in English class? Yikes.

I remember I did a paper on Sonny Bono for one of my Communications classes when I was in college (which was about 22 years ago, I'm sorry to say). You had to get the topic approved by the teacher first and he said he would have to limit the number of people who wrote about the Beatles or else the whole class would be doing that.

So, I said I wanted to write about Sonny Bono and he sarcastically said he didn't think I would have much material. He approved the topic and I focused the paper on Sonny's solo album mostly and I guess most people had never heard of it. After the teacher got my paper, he said he was pleasantly surprised and I got an "A" on it. Now, I don't think I analyzed Needles and Pins as one of Sonny's songs, but I could have!

It's kind of cute how Carol says when she saw the album title, "Rumours" she immediately corrected the spelling.

Also smiled when she said Lindsey's mom was cool and distant to her, although the brothers were very friendly. Speaking of unwelcoming mothers, I laughed so much when Javier said that when he and Lindsey would go pick Stevie up her mother didn't like it and would ask them why they didn't go and join Vietnam.

Michele

[Chrislit18]

They allow you to read this stuff in English class? Yikes.
well, I have to read a novel, and Ill find a way to pass this off as one, I really dont like reading i hate to admit, but its required for 'honors english'...
Ill just downplay the drugs, cursing, and 'abuse', and just say that none of the events have ever been admited too, or denied, so its basically just telling her side of the view of a 'true life story, based on her events with FM/LB'

Ill find a way to make it work, I usually do. if worst comes to worst...I can always just do an extra credit report on it..:shrug:

the Rumours thing made me laugh as well Michele...as well as Mick breaking the glass for GDW....
oh and I used LBs 'Mick Jagger-->Tom Petty' thing today in the car, as I was reading RS, and some kid said he loved Ian McKellan. My mom chuckled.

[David]

Anyway, after FM that's one of the things I found strange about the Dixie Chicks live. They rarely look at each other on stage. Christine, Stevie and Lindsey frequently look at each other.I think that, depending on the musician's personality, he or she will look at the other people in the band, or up at the lights or down at the floor. It depends on the personal comfort zone. Most musicians have to look, at least occasionally, down at what they're playing to get a periodic bearing, especially when they're doing some soloing. I think it all has less to do with your emotions than with onstage tics, so I tend not to see wild, windswept passions on the players' faces as much as other people do. I look at everything sort of mechanistically, wheels & gears grinding & shifting in order to get the song played & sung decently. If I have to perform, my overriding "emotion" is only slight anxiety: "What if my stand crashes right now? What do we really sound like at front-of-hall? It's hot up here" &c. Maybe that's personal experience talking.

I think Christine, especially in the olden days when Fleetwood Mac was not on top, tended to have that slight anxiety look on her, & even in later years when she was a superstar, she never looked totally at home in front of an audience. I notice she used to fidget quite a bit, reaching for knobs & things when she didn't really have to -- kind of the way if your boss walks in your office, you reach for some stacks of papers or shuffle something around.

[chiliD]

I If I have to perform, my overriding "emotion" is only slight anxiety: "What if my stand crashes right now? What do we really sound like at front-of-hall? It's hot up here" &c. Maybe that's personal experience talking.

Yep, I can relate. Some songs (or even whole SETS of tunes) are just so "automatic" that the mind starts wandering, "Hmmm, I wonder if {enter song title here} would sound good next?"; or, "Ok, whose guitar isn't completely in tune? Mine or his?"; or, "Man, I wish he would back off the mic a bit doing that background vocal part!"...and especially the "Hmmm, the stage mix is pretty good, but how's it sound out front?"...that last one is almost gets me into an OCD state.

[face of glass]

He approved the topic and I focused the paper on Sonny's solo album mostly and I guess most people had never heard of it. Inner Views?! That's almost the best album ever!

http://keepkey.yochanan.net/7704.jpeg

"Inside outside upside down! Everything is turning round!"

[michelej1]

Yes, Inner Views. My goodness, I've rarely heard that album talked about outside my own head! I also wrote about Laugh At Me and some of the songs Sonny wrote for Cher's first solo album. I've thought a lot about Sonny during Phil Spector's trial, as Sonny learned a lot from him. Of course, Lindsey has experiemented with the wall of sound too.

Michele

[Rapunzel]

As for LB asking for her advise about his music-hog wash. Why would he ask CA when he had 4 other gifted musicians in the band to go to. And, if he's the control freak everyone seems to claim that he is, then I seriously doubt that he would ask some high school graduate from Oklahoma-who has written how many songs:answer none-for an opinion.

CarolC:confused:


You've obviously never been in a relationship, if you had been you would know that couples usually go to each other for advice.

Hope that clears up your confusion!

[Rapunzel]

Carol7lynn, you brought up some good points, and you aren't even reading the book.


That explains a lot.

[Rapunzel]

At best, this is white trash summer reading.
Unfortunately, this book represents a woman who needs serious therapy.
It's 2007 and she's still trying to make money off of Lindsey Buckingham!
FM fans should not waste money on this garbage.


LOL! Lindsey has used this relationship as the inspiration for many songs, which he still performs. He has also discussed Carol Ann in several interviews, including accusing her of sleeping with Dennis Wilson. Why shouldn't Carol Ann be allowed her say?

[Rapunzel]

I respectfully disagree. CAH may have been there but she was not in the band. So what she has to say is just "second hand news!"

Her book is not a tell-all but a spiteful tell-on-you. There is a difference between artistic expression in a song-writers musing and mud-slinging for profit.

CarolC:sorry:

Your jealousy is showing! Carol was in the inner circle and was Lindsey Buckingham's girlfriend for several years. Deal with it.

[Rapunzel]

CA is an old, scorned ex girlfriend. Whether SnL ficticiously play up things or not, is not the point......they are not writing tell all books about each other just to make a buck. CA did just that..she is not an artist who is expressing herself through lyrics or music.


SN is an old (scorned?) ex girlfriend too. And Lindsey and Stevie play up things to make a quick buck!

[Rapunzel]

There is a chapter in the book where she hangs out with Patti Boyd Clapton, a very well respected rock and roll wife. Patti is a rock queen because of what she's been through, how she handles her privacy and what she DOESN'T say. I think Carol should take a lesson from Patti - by keeping the stories and the gory details close to your vest like Jackie O.

Patti Boyd often discusses her relationships with Clapton and Harrison in interviews and brought out a book about these relationships last week!

[Rapunzel]

it takes a calculating woman to give up her first born child (a girl) for adoption, because she doesn't want to face up to the fact that she had a child out of wedlock, at a time when she was not financially able to take care of it. The child came second to her need to be in Hollywood pursuing a career that was undefined until she met her first Hollywood (con) artist. Otherwise she would have gotten a better paying job and sucked it in and toughed it out. I'm sure the daughter would have rather had her mother's love than a chance "at a college education."CarolC

You are either very young or very cruel.

How do you feel about Stevie's multiple abortions? Do you think she should sucked it in and toughed it out? Is she calculating too? Did her potential children come second to her need to be in Hollywood pursuing a career?

[Rapunzel]

I stand by what I said. The woman has no morals. Excuses are meant to justify the unjustifiable. If you can't support a kid you shouldn't have them and there is no excuse for "accidental" pregnancies. I never wanted children and so I never got pregnant. Abstinence does work, and so does birth control. But you have to take responsibility for your body and educate yourself on how to effectively use it; especially if you can not afford to have a child.:sorry:
CarolC:nod:


Wow! Are you for real??? It must be difficult for such a judgmental person like yourself knowing that Stevie used abortion as a form of birth control.

[Rapunzel]

So, because his kids may also see stuff about Daddy on the internet, that justifies her writing in detail about LB trying to strangle her? :shrug:


They wouldn't have to read it if Daddy wasn't trying to strangle her.

[Rapunzel]

OT..but why is it necessary to bring up Stevie's alledged abortions in a discussion about CA? One or two people slam Carol, so slamming Stevie is the response? Apples and oranges.

Alleged? Stevie's admitted to at least four.

[Rapunzel]

she said several posts back that she was reading because she wanted to know whether or not stevie and lindsey are getting back together. y'know, stevie, who's always been too busy for a man, and lindsey, who's married with kids. that stevie and lindsey :laugh:

You crack me up! I can't believe there are still people out there waiting for Stevie and Lindsey to get back together. It's been 30 years, get over it!

And wouldn't it be a bit amoral of Stevie to deprive three little children of their daddy?

[danax6]

Alleged? Stevie's admitted to at least four.You'd make a great lawyer, posing speculation as fact. :rolleyes:

[Rapunzel]

I guess I just cont care about all this stuff. The abuse stuff I already had read about and is completely unnacceptable. But in the end, Lindsey's not a terrorist and he hasnt killed anyone, so I really dont consider any of what CAH ahs to say my business at all.

If he attempted to strangle her he could have killed her. They both were lucky!

[Rapunzel]

You'd make a great lawyer, posing speculation as fact. :rolleyes:

I'm a legal historian.

Stevie admitted in an interview in the Daily Mail (a UK newspaper) that she had four abortions.

It was about ten years ago - maybe before you were born?

[Rapunzel]

LB was married :eek:

I say let's see the records, which I submit are not there because they never existed.

Yes he was married way back when, he keeps her up in the attic now. Let's hope the latest Mrs B doesn't get curious about the noises up there in the dead of night. . . :rolleyes:

[Rapunzel]

I only got the book yesterday (bit of delay with Amazon UK)

Having read this thread I do feel like I've already read the damn thing.

Am I the only one who is bored to death with the constant descriptions of the amount of coke everyone was doing? Jesus, enough already.

I don't think I'm going to make it to the end.

Still the story about Christine's "granny knickers" was funny

Gail

My parents always told me not to take coke because it would kill me. Yet no one in the band died after taking mountains of the stuff for over ten years.

I hate being lied to!

[SteveMacD]

Okay, **** this. I'm getting drunk over on the GBV board.

[Rapunzel]

yeah, obviously you're totally over it! :rolleyes:

Teehee! :D

[Rapunzel]

CAH is A PIG! You can defend her all you want. But attacking me doesn't make your arguments, on her behalf, valid let or credible. It makes you look desperate. It goes without saying that even bullies have a right to their opinion. But, I also have a right to say she's an amoral, self-righteous PIG who betrayed the band's trust to make a buck. If you can't accept that opinion without attacking me, then again, it says more about you than me!



Peace :xoxo:
CarolC

Carol Ann Harris was a hottie, everything you say just sounds like sour grapes...

Unless of course you are model material too? :rolleyes:

[danax6]

I'm a legal historian.

Stevie admitted in an interview in the Daily Mail (a UK newspaper) that she had four abortions.Vox Magazine, February 1992. I know perfectly well what the article stated. This discussion has gone around many, many times, maybe you should try the search feature at the top of the page.

It was about ten years ago - maybe before you were born?Try fifteen years ago, and yes, that was well after I was born, thanks.

[mgikallaroundme]

Alleged? Stevie's admitted to at least four.


You are right. The UK press reported on Stevie's four abortions. In all her interviews during her career she's never been quoted using the word abortion including that interview you mention. She responded emotionally to the topic of being childless in her 40s. She confirmed on some level there were four incidents in her past that bothered her but she never said she had an abortion. That word was used by the writer of the article. The author also never made a distiction between an elective and spontaneous abortion. Europeans more than Americans don't use the word abortion to mean only the elective procedure. People who know medical terminology understand the word abortion includes both elective medically induced and spontaneous non-induced miscarraige. Since you are an historian I thought you might want to include that consideration in your interpretation. You imply by comparison to CAH that Stevie had chosen to electively abort 4 pregnancies. It is alleged not an historical fact that Stevie ever had even one elective abortion.

[Rapunzel]

Stevie did an interview in the Daily Mail admitting to her four abortions, it was probably longer ago than I thought, maybe at the release of Timespace.

Vox Magazine, February 1992. I know perfectly well what the article stated. This discussion has gone around many, many times, maybe you should try the search feature at the top of the page.

Try fifteen years ago, and yes, that was well after I was born, thanks.

[Rapunzel]

She has bemoaned the fact that she's never had a baby because the band would freak out if she got pregnant, I believe in a radio interview from several years back (sorry, I'm a bit hazy on the details) that Mick pressured her into terminating a pregnancy.

Personally I think the Tower is certainly about one of her abortions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging her - it just surprises me that a big Stevie fan would judge other people for giving a child up for adoption.

You are right. The UK press reported on Stevie's four abortions. In all her interviews during her career she's never been quoted using the word abortion including that interview you mention. She responded emotionally to the topic of being childless in her 40s. She confirmed on some level there were four incidents in her past that bothered her but she never said she had an abortion. That word was used by the writer of the article. The author also never made a distiction between an elective and spontaneous abortion. Europeans more than Americans don't use the word abortion to mean only the elective procedure. People who know medical terminology understand the word abortion includes both elective medically induced and spontaneous non-induced miscarraige. Since you are an historian I thought you might want to include that consideration in your interpretation. You imply by comparison to CAH that Stevie had chosen to electively abort 4 pregnancies. It is alleged not an historical fact that Stevie ever had even one elective abortion.

[camchristo]

She has bemoaned the fact that she's never had a baby because the band would freak out if she got pregnant, I believe in a radio interview from several years back (sorry, I'm a bit hazy on the details) that Mick pressured her into terminating a pregnancy.

Personally I think the Tower is certainly about one of her abortions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging her - it just surprises me that a big Stevie fan would judge other people for giving a child up for adoption.



But I thought you were a legal historian? I think the article you refer to (although I can't be sure because you're not sure what article it was) is widely known to contain the interviewer's interpretation or impression regarding the alleged abortions. Not an actual admission to four abortions by Stevie. Ask Vanessa, I think she was alive at the time.

[carrie721]

Ask Vanessa, I think she was alive at the time.

:laugh:

if there's one person around here whose FM knowledge i wouldn't question, it's nessie!!

[trackaghost]

I actually have an interview dated January 15, 1992 from the Daily Mirror where she admits having abortions. It's a tabloid so I don't know how much it's to be trusted but she is quoted. This is what she says:

"I would like very much to have a baby or at least adopt one before my time runs out - I'm 42 now, and it's on my mind a lot.
"The pregnancies had to be terminated because I was in the middle of one of the world's biggest rock groups. There was no way I could have walked in and told them that I was going to be out of the group for a year or longer because I was going to have a baby.
"It was sheer agony for me to make those decisions but I knew if I went though with having my baby it would mess up the lives of so many people."

It's a strange quote in many ways because at first she says "pregnancies" confirming it was more than one and then calls it "my baby" which makes it sound like it was just one abortion. The article does mention the four abortions before this quote.

[danax6]

I actually have an interview dated January 15, 1992 from the Daily Mirror where she admits having abortions. It's a tabloid so I don't know how much it's to be trusted but she is quoted. This is what she says:

"I would like very much to have a baby or at least adopt one before my time runs out - I'm 42 now, and it's on my mind a lot.
"The pregnancies had to be terminated because I was in the middle of one of the world's biggest rock groups. There was no way I could have walked in and told them that I was going to be out of the group for a year or longer because I was going to have a baby.
"It was sheer agony for me to make those decisions but I knew if I went though with having my baby it would mess up the lives of so many people."

It's a strange quote in many ways because at first she says "pregnancies" confirming it was more than one and then calls it "my baby" which makes it sound like it was just one abortion. The article does mention the four abortions before this quote.Just like the Vox Magazine article seemed really out of context also, where she was actually quoted saying "to give up four babies is to give up a lot that would be here now", but the article doesn't flow. We all know people get misquoted and things gets put out of context all the time. Hardly admissible evidence in a trial. It's also curious this stuff only ever ended up in the British press.

Thanks for the quotes, I was looking for them earlier and I couldn't find them. :wavey:

As for the alleged abortions... I have nothing to lose or gain by questioning the truth, because either way I don't care. I'm pro-choice, so if she did, good for her, she probably had a good reason. I just find the whole spiel about her being a martyr and giving them up because of other people a bit too fitting in the StevieDramaQueen-ish tales for me to take it seriously. She had no qualms giving everything up for Robin's son Matthew back in 1983, even going so far as marrying the father. She told Playboy magazine in 1982 that if the right man would come along she would put her career on the backburner and consider that family.

[Rapunzel]

Medieval legal history - not sure what that has to do with Stevie Nicks and her abortions though. I won't try and explain that to you, but it dates back to a little while before the release of the Timespace album! :lol:

I just wonder why you are getting so defensive about this? Stevie had every right to have abortions, they're not illegal.

But I thought you were a legal historian? I think the article you refer to (although I can't be sure because you're not sure what article it was) is widely known to contain the interviewer's interpretation or impression regarding the alleged abortions. Not an actual admission to four abortions by Stevie. Ask Vanessa, I think she was alive at the time.

[Rapunzel]

That's the article I was thinking of, thank you! :nod:

I've don't have my collection of articles at hand, they're still at my Mother's house as I don't have space to store them in my apartment, too many medieval books and papers here!

I actually have an interview dated January 15, 1992 from the Daily Mirror where she admits having abortions. It's a tabloid so I don't know how much it's to be trusted but she is quoted. This is what she says:

"I would like very much to have a baby or at least adopt one before my time runs out - I'm 42 now, and it's on my mind a lot.
"The pregnancies had to be terminated because I was in the middle of one of the world's biggest rock groups. There was no way I could have walked in and told them that I was going to be out of the group for a year or longer because I was going to have a baby.
"It was sheer agony for me to make those decisions but I knew if I went though with having my baby it would mess up the lives of so many people."

It's a strange quote in many ways because at first she says "pregnancies" confirming it was more than one and then calls it "my baby" which makes it sound like it was just one abortion. The article does mention the four abortions before this quote.

[Betsy]

Let's talk about the parts of the book we remember for the laughter, they brought....

I read the book about two months ago and what sticks in my medieval, warped mind and equally warped sense of humor are:

Lindsey drank two (?) pitchers of beer at the ? Sex Pistols ? concert...and on the way back in the limo...he had to go. So CAH tells him to use his boot...an expensive urinal....(I can't remember the exact amount that the designer boot cost, but it rivaled any weekly paycheck I have gotten so far.)

The pill or whatever it was Lindsey stole out of Stevie's bag before some awards show...and then had difficulty functioning and accepting the award.

Kenny Rogers and the Pancake make-up.

Stevie's dog ingesting coke...

Anything else I am missing?

I guess, I don't care so much about the drama and what if's and motives....the descriptions of the humorous parts are what sticks with me. They reminded me of some episodes of The Osbournes....it amazes me how the rich live.

[Sapphire Girl]

I actually have an interview dated January 15, 1992 from the Daily Mirror where she admits having abortions. It's a tabloid so I don't know how much it's to be trusted but she is quoted. This is what she says:

"I would like very much to have a baby or at least adopt one before my time runs out - I'm 42 now, and it's on my mind a lot.
"The pregnancies had to be terminated because I was in the middle of one of the world's biggest rock groups. There was no way I could have walked in and told them that I was going to be out of the group for a year or longer because I was going to have a baby.
"It was sheer agony for me to make those decisions but I knew if I went though with having my baby it would mess up the lives of so many people."

It's a strange quote in many ways because at first she says "pregnancies" confirming it was more than one and then calls it "my baby" which makes it sound like it was just one abortion. The article does mention the four abortions before this quote.
Stevie was 43 as of Jan 15, 1992 so what's the bit with her saying she's 42? Her having to tell FM that she was going to be out of the group for a year or longer because she was going to have a baby is a bunch of bs, imo. She was out of FM for at least 3 years between the Mirage tour and the making of TITN.

[camchristo]

Medieval legal history - not sure what that has to do with Stevie Nicks and her abortions though. I won't try and explain that to you, but it dates back to a little while before the release of the Timespace album! :lol:

I just wonder why you are getting so defensive about this? Stevie had every right to have abortions, they're not illegal.

I'm not getting defensive. She certainly had the right to do whatever she pleased. I was simply pointing out your contradictory statements in saying you were a legal historian and then not knowing which article you were talking about. You were the one who brought the whole "legal historian" part into the discussion, seemingly to bolster your statements about Stevie having had four abortions. I took it to mean that "I'm a legal historian so I have all my facts straight and I know she had four abortions". I don't care if she did or didn't.

By the way, has anyone ever shown you how to use the multiquote feature?

[Rapunzel]

Someone said I should be a lawyer, which is why I mentioned being a legal historian, I research medieval common law, not Stevie Nicks articles from 15 or so years ago - you are the one who thinks being a medieval legal historian should somehow make me an expert on every article/interview that was ever written about Ms Nicks. I enjoy the music but I don't have the time to make Stevie Nicks my entire life anymore! I never said "I am a legal historian so I have all my facts straight"! Please don't put words into my mouth or tell me what I meant because you obviously haven't a clue.

And I know how to use the multiquote, I just choose not to use it - why does that bother you so much? You obviously have very little else to think about! :laugh:

I'm not getting defensive. She certainly had the right to do whatever she pleased. I was simply pointing out your contradictory statements in saying you were a legal historian and then not knowing which article you were talking about. You were the one who brought the whole "legal historian" part into the discussion, seemingly to bolster your statements about Stevie having had four abortions. I took it to mean that "I'm a legal historian so I have all my facts straight and I know she had four abortions". I don't care if she did or didn't.

By the way, has anyone ever shown you how to use the multiquote feature?

[Forshorn]

I remember Bryan Ferry saying that he thought it was a tacky thing to do when Jerry Hall wrote about him in her autobiography. She left him for Mick Jagger, you know. But he had no comment and said he would never do something like that. I'm sure Lindsey will take it as gracefully?

[Livia]

http://www.citypaper.com/arts/review.asp?rid=12362

Carol Ann Harris' moribund autobiography is a relentlessly insipid read. Her story begins right after the most interesting period in Fleetwood Mac's history: The band had struggled with lack of success, personnel disruptions, and personal relationship nightmares, then shifted away from their blues-purist roots to a more sun-kissed California-pop sound. By the mid-1970s Fleetwood Mac had entirely absorbed another act, Buckingham Nicks, to give its songs some much-needed commercial gloss.

The resulting album, 1975's Fleetwood Mac, gave the group its first taste of major-league success. Recording the follow-up, John and Christine McVie's marriage imploded and the Lindsey Buckingham-Stevie Nicks union exploded amid a host of other betrayals and abuses. Eventually all this misery was channeled into the new album, which we know and loathe/love as 1977's Rumours.

During the mixing sessions for Rumours, Buckingham hooked up with Harris and introduced her to the inner world of Fleetwood Mac's dysfunctional family and its fondness for cocaine. What follows is a largely predictable tale of '70s rock 'n' roll excess: Tour fatigue, studio troubles, ludicrous amounts of cash and drugs, rehab, sports cars, and sexual betrayal all make their expected cameos alongside celebrities Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Dennis Wilson, et al. Other than a brief and vivid moment with Ronnie Lane jamming at Eric Clapton's house, all of this is rendered in a cliché-ridden, lifeless prose of the most junior-high variety.

Harris could have come into her own in the depiction of her abusive relationship with Buckingham and her insights into his musical cohorts. Instead we have lightly sketched caricatures already familiar to the public: Mick Fleetwood is a nice, albeit chaotically lecherous, bloke; John and Christine McVie are both decent sorts; Stevie Nicks is a laughable cliché of New Age Californians. What is new is Harris' self-portrait as devoted muse to a tortured artist. Occasionally this is unintentionally funny; she comforts a nervous Buckingham shortly before the Tusk tour with "Your music is like the Clash and Talking Heads."

The Fleetwood Mac legend has it that Harris was so destructively addicted to coke that Buckingham threw her out of their house. Harris' book makes frequent mention of cocaine but never the possibility of her addiction. Then again, she doesn't ever label the guitarist's behavior "abusive," yet according to Storms he strangled her a number of times and once dragged her by the hair while he drove off in his car, only letting go after she'd fallen and was dragged some distance. That all of this ugliness is put down to Buckingham's "artistic temperament" shows a depressingly lack of insight. Ultimately, Harris' unwillingness to grasp the nettle and say, "Lindsey Buckingham is a bad man and I'm glad I left him," is what makes Storms so difficult. The ensuing sadness is merely compounded by her horrid prose and the book's unmercifully linear progression from 1977 to 1984.

[GlennGlenn]

I guess she didn't like it, HUH??? I must say that I agree with her assessment that CAH really should have put the knife into Lindsey and basically just say," Lindsey was a bad man." Why sugar-coat it was the whole point and to that I agree.


Glenn

[Tango]

Ms. Harris states the book is headed toward it's second printing. I guess it sold fairly well:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/review?oid=524294

Phases & Stages
Sheet Music
BY RAOUL HERNANDEZ





Storms: My Life with Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac
by Carol Ann Harris
Chicago Review Press, 383 pp., $24.95

"A flash of movement, a fist to the side of my face, and the back of my head slammed into the wall. I crumpled to the floor." Lindsey Buckingham's fist and the head of Carol Ann Harris, who began dating the wiry pop savant as Fleetwood Mac's Rumors became one of the bestselling albums of all time, rendezvous more than once in Storms: My Life With Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac. "Lindsey backed me up against the wall and held me by the throat. As his hands tightened, I knew that I was helpless." From 1976 to 1984, Stevie Nicks' successor in Buckingham's boudoir became more and more helpless, imprisoned by the guitarist's narcissism cum genius, the Andean piles of Bolivian marching powder torching Fleetwood Mac, and her own naivete. Lock "The Chain." Harris the author does just that, moving swiftly through the band's peak like a musician sucking up yet another line of blow. Cocaine night at Eric Clapton's castle, Buckingham bullying Kenny Rogers at the Grammys, and noses to mirror in the convertible of SoCal's most eligible cocksman and drug Hoover, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, don't disappoint. Like Red Hot Chili Pepper Anthony Kiedis' rippling Scar Tissue, another Hollywood Boulevard of broken bones and illusions, Storms rages ripe and juicy. Revelations such as the fact that Buckingham built Rumors' equally brilliant follow-up Tusk on a diet of the Talking Heads, Clash, and Sex Pistols lace their way through the epilepsy of fame and fortune at its highest high. You must never break the chain.



http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=524294


Not the Perfect Storm by "Guest" | hide/show
Throughout the book, I had the feeling that the author was always telling 1/2 of the story. She told what everyone else did, but didn't discuss her own actions or reactions, making herself seem like the silent mouse in the corner. The book had many inaccuracies. The obvious ones put ALL of the book's contents into question. For instance, the author says her lawyers said she was Lindsey's common law wife. California hasn't recognized "common law" marriage since 1895! She said she avoided Lindsey during the filming of the "Save Me" video. Lindsey wasn't in Fleetwood Mac when "Save Me" was released and had nothing to do with the video! She says she attended Mick's wedding, but there's plenty of footage from that wedding in Hawaii and she was nowhere near it and Lindsey was present at the wedding, but she doesn't mention seeing him. When the author can't get the factual information straight, then all her subjective descriptions of events are called into question. 08-18-2007


Honest look at Fleetwood Mac by larry | hide/show
I was pleased to see such a positive review of this book in the Austin Chronicle as I too found this book to be one of the best rock memoirs I've read. I was puzzled at the comments written under the heading "Not the perfect storm". To use the example of the nonexistence of "common law marriage" in California to discredit the author and the book seems absurd to me. In the 1970's, the very famous celebrity case of Marvin vs. Marvin brought a new word to everyone's vocabulary. "Palimony".
I'm sure that Ms Harris' attorney told her that since she'd lived with Mr. Buckingham for over seven years she could sue him for palimony ie: spousal support.

Another point in the "comment" referred to Mick Fleetwood's marriage to Sara Recor. The wedding took place in Malibu, California in 1988. Not in Hawaii. Mick writes of it in his book "Fleetwood: My life and adventures in Fleetwood Mac". Ms. Harris clearly states in her book that it was this wedding of her friends Sara and Mick Fleetwood that she attended.

I have been a fan of Fleetwood Mac for many years and this book opened a door into their private world that I never thought I'd get a chance to see. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who loves a great read.

08-19-2007



Author's Note & Comment by Carol Ann | hide/show
I am very happy to receive such a great review from Mr. Hernandez for Storms. I would like to take a minute to address the concerns of the reviewer "Not the Perfect Storm".
(1) I was the costume designer for Fleetwood Mac's "Little Lies" video, not "Save Me". This was a small misprint error in the book and will be corrected in the second printing of "Storms" which is going to press immediately. I apologize for the small error.

(2) By using the term "common law wife" I was speaking in terms of a Palimony settlement.

(3) Mick and Sara Fleetwood were married in Malibu, California in 1988... not Hawaii. I happily attended their wedding and reception.

[danax6]

(1) I was the costume designer for Fleetwood Mac's "Little Lies" video, not "Save Me". This was a small misprint error in the book and will be corrected in the second printing of "Storms" which is going to press immediately. I apologize for the small error.

Aha.

I wonder if I send her my list of innaccuracies if she's going to defend each and every one of them also. In fact, I should just leave a question on the website and ask her about the biggest inaccuracy of them all.

[Sarah]

There comes a time in every coke addict's life where they actually kinda deserve to get punched in the head. Just sayin'.

[danax6]

There comes a time in every coke addict's life where they actually kinda deserve to get punched in the head. Just sayin'.:laugh:

ilu. :xoxo:

[camchristo]

Aha.

I wonder if I send her my list of innaccuracies if she's going to defend each and every one of them also. In fact, I should just leave a question on the website and ask her about the biggest inaccuracy of them all.

Would that be the one about Lindsey not really being upset over his break-up with Stevie? Go on, ask her - I'd love to see her response.

Unless you had one of the many other inaccuracies in mind. In that case - you should still ask her. :lol:

[danax6]

Would that be the one about Lindsey not really being upset over his break-up with Stevie? Go on, ask her - I'd love to see her response. I wanted to ask about the article, yeah, especially since she brought that one up recently herself, but I figured... whatever. Somehow I don't think it's really appropriate.

Unless you had one of the many other inaccuracies in mind. In that case - you should still ask her. :lol:But the one thing that bugs me the most about the book, is the timeline for Lindsey's illness being off. I understand not recollecting certain details 100%, but she spends an entire chapter talking about it, bringing in incidents and occurrances that simply could not have happened because his collapse wasn't until a year after she described in the book. That whole chapter is BS to me. :shrug:

[Tango]

I wanted to ask about the article, yeah, especially since she brought that one up recently herself, but I figured... whatever. Somehow I don't think it's really appropriate.

But the one thing that bugs me the most about the book, is the timeline for Lindsey's illness being off. I understand not recollecting certain details 100%, but she spends an entire chapter talking about it, bringing in incidents and occurrances that simply could not have happened because his collapse wasn't until a year after she described in the book. That whole chapter is BS to me. :shrug:

Honestly, why not pursue a Q&A with her here on The Penguin; as long as the off the wall personal attacks can be screened out, I think it would be a great read. Maybe John McVie or others in the band (past/present) could interject. Carol Ann seems open to criticism. And why not HERE on The Penguin. There can be no better forum.

[JunkFoodGenius]

Skimmed through this thing myself. The only thing I want to be true in this entire book is that Lindsey puked on Dick Clark's shoes. Because I kinda want to high five him now.

[michelej1]

Well, if her lawyer told her "palimony" why didn't she say palimony in the book? Couldn't think of the word? Just made up something off the cuff? The fact is, after the Michelle Triola case made headlines in the seventies, subsequent appeals and other cases pretty much destroyed whatever merit it had. The case went up to the Supreme Court and then got sent back down to the trial level again. After 4 years of litigation, Triola ended up only getting about $100,000 and even that award was reversed on appeal. It's because Triola ultimately lost that people don't use the term "palimony" anymore. It doesn't get you anything in court. It sure wasn't going to get Carol millions.

Another case in 1983, Polackwich, sealed that deal. You can enforce a contract against a person you've lived with, just like you can enforce a contract between a person you've done business with. But just being someone's lover or "pal" doesn't give you the key to his bank vault. I doubt her lawyer ever said "common law wife" or "palimony" to her, because it was about the time that she broke up with Lindsey that palimony suits went down the drain in California.

So, I still would like to know how Carol thinks, or why she claims, she could have gotten a significant portion of Lindsey's fortune, either as a "common law wife" or through "palimony." The statement is designed to cast her as a selfless sprite, who acts without thought of gain. Perhaps she is, but she couldn't have gotten anymore from Lindsey than what she did get. So, it's not like she walked away from a fortune.

Carol never indicates that Lindsey entered an agreement to support her while they were cohabiting. She doesn't recount any promises he made while they lived together. She does suggest that she gave up her career for him, but did he promise to compensate her in exchange for doing that? That's what a Marvin v. Marvin claim has to be based on: an agreement for support between the parties. Just "shackin' up" with the guy is not enough. By paying her rent and groceries for a few years after they broke up, she got about just as much as she would have gotten through a palimony suit (based on what Michelle Triola ended up with), if not more.

And as far as Mick's wedding goes, Malibu or Hawaii, since Lindsey was at the wedding, why doesn't she mention that in the book? She took the opportunity to detail their other final meetings at Desi's funeral and when he rented a car, came to her house and proposed. She even described how she avoided seeing him when working on Save Me -- ooops Little Lies. So, why not describe how she avoided -- or didn't avoid -- seeing him at the wedding? If she was there. Michele

[michelej1]

And as for Little Lies, as a costume designer, you don't need to know the name of the project you're working on when you're doing it, but what about the resumes? Don't you show people a portfolio of your work or something? You especially have to if you're Carol, and have been away from the business for years, because your man has demanded that you quit your job and be with him 24/7. You've got to prove yourself all over again. So, just from putting together and listing her credentials when she was looking for work at that time, I'd think she'd remember the name of the video she worked on and not confuse it with one that she did NOT work on, that filmed years later.

It's a trivial error, but most of the stuff she writes about took place when she and Lindsey were alone. We can only judge her credibility based on the factual trivia. We don't know what happened behind closed doors. So, if she doesn't get the open door stuff right, the facts that are so easily documented, how can she be trusted to get the subjective, private details right. It's not that the year matters; it's not that the name of the video matters. The thing is, because they're all I have, I'm using those trivial details to gauge her credibility regarding the things that DO matter. That's the measure. That's the test. CAH fails that test.

If she gets the little things wrong, why should her memories of long ago conversations, faded acts and intense arguments, fueled with liquor and drugs, be any more accurate? And why is her recollection so much better now than it was just a few years after the events happened, when, asked to describe how Lindsey abused her, all she could think to talk about was the Elvis Costello night? Michele

[David]

But the one thing that bugs me the most about the book, is the timeline for Lindsey's illness being off. I understand not recollecting certain details 100%, but she spends an entire chapter talking about it, bringing in incidents and occurrances that simply could not have happened because his collapse wasn't until a year after she described in the book. That whole chapter is BS to me. :shrug:What does she say about it? Lindsey dropped in '78 on tour, but the Fleetwood bio screws it up a bit (I think erroneously on Mick's part) by inserting a sentence on the epilepsy into the section on the '77 tour. It's obviously a reference to the '78 incident because it mentions collapsing in the shower in the hotel in Philadelphia, so obviously it was dropped into the wrong section inadvertently. They had to cancel or postpone dates on both tours (in '77 for bad throat & wisdom teeth & in '78 for spinal tap complications) so maybe that confused the writers.

[danax6]

What does she say about it? Lindsey dropped in '78 on tour, but the Fleetwood bio screws it up a bit (I think erroneously on Mick's part) by inserting a sentence on the epilepsy into the section on the '77 tour. It's obviously a reference to the '78 incident because it mentions collapsing in the shower in the hotel in Philadelphia, so obviously it was dropped into the wrong section inadvertently. They had to cancel or postpone dates on both tours (in '77 for bad throat & wisdom teeth & in '78 for spinal tap complications) so maybe that confused the writers.That's one sentence, we're talking about an entire chapter dedicated to the matter in this case. And according to the book, it happened in 1977. She got Philadelphia and then Washington DC correct, but the year was off. That's all fine and dandy, but she then ties some of the stuff that pertained to his illness to what took place in January of 1978, at several award ceremonies. Lindsey wasn't even aware of being sick at that time, so she had to have pulled that out of her ass. :shrug:

[gretchen]

I finished the book about 2 weeks ago..stayed up until 3:45AM to finish it. I must say I felt strange after the last page turned and the book ended. I felt depressed and a bit angered. It was as if I were wearing cement shoes and I had been cast into the water reading that thing. The book was so totally unnecessary and hurtful. Carol Ann Harris had a right to write the piece for her own personal satisfaction, but to what end? I just left the whole situation with a heavy feeling in my heart and a sachel of melancholy the size of a small car.:distress:

[michelej1]

I was thinking how, except for the major events in my life, I don't remember what year most things happened to me, let alone the more specific dates on which they occurred. You remember high and lowpoints, but can't easily put them in order.

I often have to go back and say, "Did I take that trip before or after, so-and-so died?" Memory makes a jumble of events and their chronological sequence. So, off the top of my head, I might get a lot of things in my life wrong, if pressed to recount them for you spontaneously.

But Carol wasn't working off the top of her head. After all, she kept an "audio diary" which chronicled everything as it happened. Moreover, she had years to check witnesses, notes, old FM memorabilia and references while writing and researching. I assume that's why she's able to assure readers in one of the prefacing pages that everything in the book is "documented."

It's for this reason that when some of the pieces in Storms don't fit, I suspect fabrication as the reason, rather than human error.

Michele

[Tango]

Book Review: Carol Ann Harris - Storms - My Life with Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac


Written by Nancy Dunham
Published November 04, 2007


At last – a glimpse behind the scenes of Fleetwood Mac, the mega group of the 1970s. As fans know, the writing and recording of the band’s 1975 album Rumours won its members international fame and enormous wealth. It also shattered the relationship of guitarist/songwriter Lindsey Buckingham and long-time girlfriend/collaborator Stevie Nicks, as well as the marriage of band members John and Christine McVie.

While gossip about the group has been rampant from the release of Rumours until now, insiders’ accounts have been few. Enter Carol Ann Harris, ex-long-time girlfriend of guitarist/songwriter Lindsey Buckingham, who had a front row seat on day to day life in “The Mac” for almost nine years.

Harris tells it all, from her eye-locking flirtations with Buckingham just prior to Rumours’ release, to his proclamation that a night spent with another woman was chaste due to his longing for Harris, right through the consummation of their relationship and the resulting cocaine-fueled nights, anger-filled recording sessions, and tearful accusations of sexual betrayal.

The tales, while not unbelievable, make Elvis Presley’s reported indulgences seem almost modest.

The stories not only involve Harris and Buckingham but the entire “Mac” family, including managers and technicians plus the band’s A-List cast of intimates such as Dennis Wilson, Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, and Eric Clapton. One thing you can say — Harris doesn’t hold back.

Although she professes to have made peace with Nicks through the years, this book portrays the singer as a bubble-headed, self-absorbed nymphomaniac who never felt genuine affection or compassion for others. Mick Fleetwood is cast as a dull-witted old addict and a rampant womanizer who drives Jenny Boyd (sister of model Pattie Boyd, who is also the ex-wife of Clapton and George Harrison) to near insanity, Although John and Christine McVie come off as halfway intelligent, their purported excesses and failings are recounted in painstaking detail.

What’s interesting is while Harris tsk tsks at the antics of the Mac family, she takes on a fairy-tale like vision of her own life. Time and time again, Harris said she returned to the physically and emotionally abusive Buckingham because he needed her as his muse. Despite seemingly endless accounts of strangling, hair-pulling and other torture, Harris proclaims she never saw the mistreatment coming.

Yet for all her tales of how she sought to be just a normal influence leading a regular life in this chaotic world, Harris' glee at the abundent cocaine, 5-star hotels, limos, and luxury living bubbles just below the surface.

Her tales of her kindness and self sacrifices fall a bit flat in some scenarios such as when she vividly recounts mocking an ex-love of Fleetwood’s – whom she calls “The Blob.” The woman’s major sin was that she wore a size 12. Oh, wait, maybe she was “mentally ill” too, Harris says later in the book. That’s just a glimpse into the superficial status and values in this woman’s life.

Everyone makes mistakes, especially as young adults. But generally as one grows older and reflects on those blunders they feel regret and sadness. What’s stunning is that Harris tells of her “fairy tale” life and times without a shred of self awareness or remorse. Even now, she doesn't seem to realize that this "fairy tale" is a nightmare.

Nancy Dunham is an award-winning freelance writer and editor who lives in Alexandria, Va. Contact her at [email protected]


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/04/192539.php

[danax6]

Although she professes to have made peace with Nicks through the years, this book portrays the singer as a bubble-headed, self-absorbed nymphomaniac who never felt genuine affection or compassion for others.Thanks for my laugh of the day. :laugh:

I'm glad someone else sees it this way.

[Lori40]

I think that Nancy Dunham did a great job summarizing the main problem that I have with CAH, in the last sentences of her review.

"Everyone makes mistakes, especially as young adults. But generally as one grows older and reflects on those blunders, they feel regret and sadness. What's stunning is that Harris tells of her 'fairy tale' life and times without a shred of self awareness or remorse.

[SuzeQuze]

Yes a lot of fans have said that Harris paints herself as an innocent in it all which is ridiculous.

[danax6]

Yes a lot of fans have said that Harris paints herself as an innocent in it all which is ridiculous.I agree. Combine that with her biased and therefore rather inaccurate portrayal of Stevie Nicks -which Nancy Dunham perfectly described- and I still wonder why some people think this book is the second coming. It was nothing more than a fun read.

[michelej1]

Yes a lot of fans have said that Harris paints herself as an innocent in it all which is ridiculous.


I don't think that CAH made herself look innocent in the book. I think she did try to depict herself that way, even though the result was something quite different.

She made herself seem very passive. She was never an actor. Well, the things she initiated were always the good things -- like taking care of Lindsey. But something like her own drug use just happened to her. It wasn't a choice and she wasn't responsible. She naively fell into it, without realizing the implications. She was basically just a victim throughout and she kind of carefully crafts that image. I rather smile when she describes her life at home with her sisters all reading books quietly, then she is suddenly thrust into this loud, raging, drug world.

She observes and has things happen to her. She doesn't do them. She is not the cause of them. And I just don't believe that anyone is really that much of a bystander in their own lives. Just from the way she made sure that Lindsey knew that Stevie grabbed her (although she wasn't hurt, Stevie was clearly high, and other people around them never knew that anything had happened), I can tell that she was a participant in some of the friction around her. She was trying to make Lindsey go off on Stevie and I'm sure that wasn't the only time, she sparked things among the band and crew. Love to hear those girlfriend tapes she and Sara made.

I get the feeling that she left some of the most juicy part of events (her part) out of the book.

Anyway, aside from the drug use, what did she describe herself as doing in the book that wasn't innocent? Michele

[jkmaletic]

I just finished this book and it was a very interesting read, although I had to wonder, despite the supposed taped conversations and journals kept, how she was able to remember her times with Lindsey so vividly.

I was surprised of all the writing about the abuse she received from Lindsey. It was shocking and disappointing to say the least. I've never been a huge fan of Lindsey's solo career, so I don't know a lot about him. But I wanted to know what YOU guys thought, as obvious Lindsey "fans", of this book. I'm curious.


~Jamie

[michelej1]

I would look at this thread. I think the thing was hashed out pretty throroughly.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=33136

[jkmaletic]

I would look at this thread. I think the thing was hashed out pretty throroughly.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=33136

Oh, ok. Thanks - didn't know there was one already.:wavey:

[David]

I was surprised of all the writing about the abuse she received from Lindsey. It was shocking and disappointing to say the least. I've never been a huge fan of Lindsey's solo career, so I don't know a lot about him. But I wanted to know what YOU guys thought, as obvious Lindsey "fans", of this book. I'm curious.I think Lindsey is violent.

[CelticGypsy]

I just finished this book and it was a very interesting read, although I had to wonder, despite the supposed taped conversations and journals kept, how she was able to remember her times with Lindsey so vividly.

I was surprised of all the writing about the abuse she received from Lindsey. It was shocking and disappointing to say the least. I've never been a huge fan of Lindsey's solo career, so I don't know a lot about him. But I wanted to know what YOU guys thought, as obvious Lindsey "fans", of this book. I'm curious.


~Jamie



I recently bought and read this book too. Yes, I had heard about Lindsey's temper but wow I was shocked that it got as bad as it did. I love Lindsey as a performer but I definitely could understand why Stevie and other girlfriends like Carol Ann chose to leave him. Carol Ann seems much happier now with her husband and so does Lindsey with Kristen and the kids. A few surprises in the book that I never heard before so it was worth the money and the two days not doing any housework while reading it:D
Glad I have a very understanding hubby:xoxo:

[#1LiddyBuckFan]

I went ahead and merged jkmaletic's thread about the book Storms into this one since we already have such an extensive conversation started. :wavey:

[Nico]

I'm a little confused because the chapter where Carol describes Lindsey's horrible seizure appears chronologically in the book before the incident of him cutting off most of his hair/beard...yet, there was some video posted in the "Rumours" board of Lindsey during the time he had the seizure/spinal tap and he had no beard. So was there more than one seizure or is her version of history off?

I know I should be able to differentiate between Lindsey during "Rumours Tour" and "Tusk Tour" by now. Most fans can, but I still have no idea which is which. I just know "Lindsey with a beard tour" and "Lindsey when he shaved it off" tour.:shrug:

[CADreaming]

I'm a little confused because the chapter where Carol describes Lindsey's horrible seizure appears chronologically in the book before the incident of him cutting off most of his hair/beard...yet, there was some video posted in the "Rumours" board of Lindsey during the time he had the seizure/spinal tap and he had no beard. So was there more than one seizure or is her version of history off?



I think this is a way safe bet...

[D.W-Suite]

I've just finished reading it and to be honest, I rather wish that I hadn't, she's completely destroyed my high opinion of Go Insane, I still love that whole album, but now I just dunno what to believe, and I don't think I can ever have as much respect for Lindsey again over the whole 'pulling of hair out car window' scene.

Did anybody else get fed up of this whole 'mystical' **** she kept spoonfeeding us?

[David]

I'm a little confused because the chapter where Carol describes Lindsey's horrible seizure appears chronologically in the book before the incident of him cutting off most of his hair/beard...yet, there was some video posted in the "Rumours" board of Lindsey during the time he had the seizure/spinal tap and he had no beard. So was there more than one seizure or is her version of history off?Even Mick gets it wrong (in his book). He assigns two different years to the event.

But if we believe the newspapers like the Washington Post or the Philly Enquirer, Lindsey had his seizure in July 1978 while showering in the hotel during a Fleetwood Mac tour. That means he was clean-shaven.

[GlennGlenn]

I think Lindsey is violent.

Obviously , something happened, because this book somehow cleared his lawyers and had to be vetted as well. The craziness and hair pulling episodes (Australia is one I can think of) must have some grain of truth. I'd prefer to call him "intense," not violent.

[Nico]

I would really take it all with a grain of salt. I'm sure Lindsey had/has a very bad temper. He just looks like he does. But then again, there are two sides to every story. Perhaps Carol Ann conveniently painted over many of her own discretions to her benefit, since the general public- even Lindsey's biggest fans- don't know that much about his personal life to base any opposing case on. So she could basically say what she wants, within the legal boundaries.

I have to also think that a lot of his problems could be related to the fact that he was abusing tons of dangerous drugs/alcohol and appeared to have serious health problems on top of all that. No excuses, but it could be a factor.

[RockALittle250]

I enjoyed the book because CAH throughly described her great respect for every member of the band, and at the same time did not hold back the truth. I appreciated her candor, because it was not one-sided or partial towards herself.

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was indeed violent and abusive towards women. After reading about his abuse towards CAH, it is clear that he wasn't being "intense"...he was very violent. Behavior like that is called Domestic Abuse, and CAH was clearly like a lot of abused women who deny that it will ever happen again.

The fact is, CAH was with Fleetwood Mac for a good 7 years, and she was there and we were not. She has the journal writings and recordings to prove it, and she states this clearly in the book.

[GlennGlenn]

I enjoyed the book because CAH throughly described her great respect for every member of the band, and at the same time did not hold back the truth. I appreciated her candor, because it was not one-sided or partial towards herself.

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was (and maybe still is) indeed violent and abusive towards women. After reading about his abuse towards CAH, it is clear that he wasn't being "intense"...he was very violent. Behavior like that is called Domestic Abuse, and CAH was clearly like a lot of abused women who deny that it will ever happen again.

The fact is, CAH was with Fleetwood Mac for a good 7 years, and she was there and we were not. She has the journal writings and recordings to prove it, and she states this clearly in the book.

A lot has been discussed about this book, BUT the fact remains, Lindsey's lawyers had to agree to a LOT of this and I am sure that the book was "vetted" by BOTh his lawyers & the publishers for possible "libel." What she says MAY be exaggerated, BUt I am sure that it is TRUE!!

[David]

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was indeed violent and abusive towards women.I always wanted to see Lindsey & Barbara Nicks in a set-to.

I'd lay 10 to 1 on ol' barb.

[michelej1]

A lot has been discussed about this book, BUT the fact remains, Lindsey's lawyers had to agree to a LOT of this and I am sure that the book was "vetted" by BOTh his lawyers & the publishers for possible "libel." What she says MAY be exaggerated, BUt I am sure that it is TRUE!!

This thing about "vetting" the book is mythical. You cannot "vet" a book as to matters involving only 2 people, if one is the writer.

Yes, when the writer is a journalist who has no personal knowledge of an event, then he would usually get verification from at least 2 independent sources, before he states something as fact. So, when Carl Bernstein claimed that Hillary and Bill Clinton were going to get a divorce, since he doesn't know that himself and Hillary and Bill aren't talking, he'd have to "friends of the Clintons" say it to him. Bernstein's book may have been vetted, but when you are writing about yourself, there is no vetting.

Look at the Scott McClellan book that just came out. Everyone in Washington claims he is lying, but he's writing about what was said to him, what he said, what he saw, what he thought. There's no way to vet that, especially as many of the people in meetings with him (Cheney, Libby, etc. wouldn't talk).

You can check facts, but you can't verify whether personal exchanges happened or not. If you're a publisher and want to check facts, you can find out if someone traveled to England in 1983. You can see if they filed a police report in 1979. See if they really went to the Betty Ford clinic. But you really can't verify what went on in their own home.

Also, there is no prior restraint on speech in America. You can't stop something from coming out before it's published. Even if it's full of lies. That book didn't have to be "cleared" with Lindsey's lawyers. From the rumors, we understand that it was 10 years in the making. So maybe they saw drafts of it first. But you can write a book about somebody without them seeing any part of it, until the thing hits the stands.

If it's copyrighted material or trade secret, like the secret Coke recipe, yes you can stop it before it hits the press. But if it's a book about your love affair, you don't get a chance to "clear" it before it is published. All you can do is threaten to sue after it comes out.


Even then, if something is not really a factual matter, but an event subject to differing interpretations, then you can't sue for libel because an OPINION is protected from defamation.

When you're talking about something inimate that happened between 2 people who were mostly alone together, you can't "vet" it and you can't win a libel suit based on it, because it's strictly he said/she said.

Here in America, where the plaintiff would have the burden of proof in a defamation suit, people only win libel suits when there are disinterested third parties who can be called upon to say there was no drunken brawl in the Hokey Pokey in January 2006 directly after the Super Bowl. If someone just describes what happened alone at their house and you think they're lying, you could try to take them to court on that, but your case would go nowhere.

Regarding CAH's book, aside from the incident at Christine's house, there are no witnesses to any of the physical events that Carol describes. She talks about the "you're all alike" matter starting at a concert, but she says everyone at the concert thought Lindsey was being loving and attentive towards her. They stopped her and told her how caring her boyfriend was. So, onlookers thought she was being caressed and not strangled, like she says she was. That's similar to the time when she says that Stevie accosted her back stage. She said no one else could tell what Stevie was doing, because Stevie was blocking their view. So, the only 2 incidents that happened in public weren't perceived by anyone else, the way they were perceived by Carol.

Since most of the passages in CAH's book had no witnesses other than herself, there would be no one available to verify what she says or dispute it either.

As for Carol's audio diaries that confirm everything she said, that's one of the problems with the book. If she'd said she was writing from memory, you could forgive the inaccuracies. But she says that she is using her journals and audio recordings and that assertion is used to give everything the false patina of authenticity. Yet, she still gets most of the objective facts wrong, even using her "records." How could you actually forget the name of a video you worked on as one of your very first professional designing jobs?

The messed up chronology, the wrong names, this is all stuff that could have been verified, but it wasn't. That gives me no confidence in her ability to get the subjective details, the ones that can't be verified correct.

Michele

[michelej1]

I always wanted to see Lindsey & Barbara Nicks in a set-to.

I'd lay 10 to 1 on ol' barb.

They might have had many. I noticed that this last tour Lindsey dedicated NGBA to Barbara. Had to wonder what was up with that. Funniest thing was when Javier said they would go to the house to pick up Stevie and Barbara Nicks would ask them why they didn't go join Vietnam.

Stevie said that her father adored Lindsey and that was one of the reasons why she could never lose contact with LB, even when things were difficult between them. She never said too much about Barbara liking him.

I did notice though at AHI when Barbara was standing with everyone she pointed out that Lindsey's father and brother had died of a heart attack. Lindsey usually wouldn't mention that himself. I found it rather a touching personal moment.

Michele

[mgikallaroundme]

They might have had many. I noticed that this last tour Lindsey dedicated NGBA to Barbara. Had to wonder what was up with that.

Stevie said that her father adored Lindsey and that was one of the reasons why she could never lose contact with LB, even when things were difficult between them. She never said too much about Barbara liking him.

Michele

Stevie never had to say much about Barb liking him to convince me of anything. Even after Jess's death Barbara dragged her own 80 something year old ass to Lindsey's solo show. He didn't dedicate that song to thin air ya know. He also dedicated it to his beloved wife during the SYW tour. I think he's got a sentimental fondness for that tune.

:wavey: Excellent post above. You clearly understand general public misconceptions regarding the total lack of accountability or validation in book publishing.

[Liza]

I have to say I really enjoyed reading this book, but saying that there is a lot to take into consideration. She was with the band for a long time, they had an interesting time, and met some interesting people but it was a crazy time for them all, the incredible fame, drugs, relationships etc. Probably most of them don't remember when this or that happaned, they probably don't remember much! But saying all that and at the same time, I took it 'as a whole' with a pinch of salt and enjoyed it. Worth reading as long as you don't take it too seriously.:)

[Gailh]

I have to say I really enjoyed reading this book, but saying that there is a lot to take into consideration. She was with the band for a long time, they had an interesting time, and met some interesting people but it was a crazy time for them all, the incredible fame, drugs, relationships etc. Probably most of them don't remember when this or that happaned, they probably don't remember much! But saying all that and at the same time, I took it 'as a whole' with a pinch of salt and enjoyed it. Worth reading as long as you don't take it too seriously.:)

I quite enjoyed the book but I think she might have been selective with some of her memories. I doubt if she could have got away with describing the incident at Christine's if it hadn't happened because if it was not true Lindsey could have used Christine as a witness.

In the UK the law does allow publication to be stopped if you get an injunction on the grounds that the allegations are untrue. Sometimes this is only temporary and can be appealed against. I don't know too much about it but I know it is possible.

Gail

[michelej1]

Stevie never had to say much about Barb liking him to convince me of anything. Even after Jess's death Barbara dragged her own 80 something year old ass to Lindsey's solo show. He didn't dedicate that song to thin air ya know. He also dedicated it to his beloved wife during the SYW tour. I think he's got a sentimental fondness for that tune.

I know Barbara was in the audience at least twice at 2 different UTS shows.

Michele

[BTFLCHLD]

The messed up chronology, the wrong names, this is all stuff that could have been verified, but it wasn't. That gives me no confidence in her ability to get the subjective details, the ones that can't be verified correct.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this information. :xoxo:

[CADreaming]

Stevie never had to say much about Barb liking him to convince me of anything. Even after Jess's death Barbara dragged her own 80 something year old ass to Lindsey's solo show. He didn't dedicate that song to thin air ya know. He also dedicated it to his beloved wife during the SYW tour. I think he's got a sentimental fondness for that tune.

:laugh: That was too funny...

I think there's a reason why Lindsey said in his last interview the meaning of NGBA has changed for him in the last few years. Dedicating it to Barbara I think proves that...otherwise he's slamming an 80 year old woman who is dragging her ass to his shows. LOL.

[louielouie2000]

People who are totally dismissing this book on the basis of relatively small inaccuracies really are looking at it the wrong way. Can any of you remember mundane details from 30 years ago? Would your memory, feelings, thoughts, and diaries from when you were a young adult even stand up to YOUR OWN standards today? You've gotta keep in mind the crazy head spinning lifestyle that Carol was thrown into at the age of 22, and her newfound substance abuse problem too. I think we ALL have to look at this book in a big picture sense, and not dissect the details of it. Carol was just trying to convey the overall nature and feel of the band behind closed doors, and I think she did an excellent job at that.

There is no question that Lindsey was publicly violent with Stevie on 2 very well documented times, once on stage in I believe 1978 or 1979 in New Zealand where he mocked and kicked her, and in 1987 when he refused to tour with the band following Tango and he choked her. If he would publicly assault Stevie on multiple occasions, one can only imagine the things he'd do to Carol behind closed doors. Do I personally believe Lindsey is that way still with his current wife Kristen? I highly doubt it... he seems to have grown up some and calmed down... mainly, become more comfortable in his skin and seems somewhat less insecure. I have to have some sympathy for Lindsey too... his rapid and cosmic rise to fame would probably make anyone go a little nuts.

I too kinda hate in a way that I read this book. It absolutely shows just how crazy each member of the band was, and how terribly they treated each other and themselves. If you all go back and listen to all your Mac interviews from the past 10 years, you'll see that Carol's book seems to be pretty accurate in this account indeed. I don't know if anyone can survive that kind of fame and fortune without going a little insane though. Most notably I will never look at Stevie in the same light again. But that's ok... the book showed that she was not the airy fairy princess goddess she plays on stage, this book humanized her. If you really look objectively at this book, in the end, it isn't trying to trash or tarnish ANYONE in particular. This is no vengence book, this is no publicity book, I truly think she wrote it for her own psychological needs, and for the fans of Fleetwood Mac. If she was trying to fling mud at someone or cash in, she would have done that LONG ago. Until one of the band members comes out with their own book to refute Carol's, this book will be the definitive word on Fleetwood Mac for me.

[David]

There is no question that Lindsey was publicly violent with Stevie on 2 very well documented times, once on stage in I believe 1978 or 1979 in New Zealand where he mocked and kicked her, and in 1987 when he refused to tour with the band following Tango and he choked her. I like your writing, Louie, & I have several of the same views you do. But I don't consider the New Zealand incident (which was in 1980) a closed case. You say "there is no question that Lindsey was publicly violent," but there most certainly is a question. The incident was first brought to the (American) public's attention in "My Life & Adventures" (1990) -- see pages 229-230. It's described not in terms of physical violence but in terms of an alcoholic bender in which no one in the band was either assaulted or threatened until Christine smacked Lindsey backstage afterward.

Years later, the description of the incident took on a different hue in which Stevie was ferociously kicked -- much more of an assault than Mick & Stephen Davis originally characterized it.

Lindsey himself says he doesn't remember any of these details, but nonetheless doesn't doubt that something or other happened.

It's been a long time now since March 1980, & even the band members' recollections seem to reflect back more on what they've recently heard other members say than on the actual incident -- sort of a "my faulty memory of your faulty memory of my faulty memory" ... endlessly regressing to a point at which probably the actual incident is all but unrecoverable. To this day, the radio broadcast Mick refers to has never surfaced, & only a single fan -- here on the Ledge -- has reported that his or her mom or dad was there & saw something or other (this person has never brought the topic up again or ever verified it in anything other than a circumstantial, somewhat out-of-left-field assertion). To get Stevieish on you, the whole incident has been buried in mythology. I seriously wonder whether the incident ever would have been recollected at all had it not been in Mick's book in 1990.

Anyway, that's my point: The details of the incident are unresolved, even among the members of the band.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Anyway, that's my point: The details of the incident are unresolved, even among the members of the band.

Details of the actual attack aside, I think there is no question LB was violent in some manner, which to me is the point :shrug:

[michelej1]

Anyway, that's my point: The details of the incident are unresolved, even among the members of the band.

Well, that's true of the Tango fight too. Mick tells one story. Stevie tells another, saying that she lunged at Lindsey to kill him (hyperbole, yes) and then he chased her down the block and was going to kill her on the hood of the car. John's version of events was spare and ambiguous. Lindsey -- well, Lindsey has never actually said what he did. He just said what he did NOT do -- he says the slapping never happened (and I think Stevie would agree with that), but he didn't say he didn't slam her on the car.

People who are totally dismissing this book on the basis of relatively small inaccuracies really are looking at it the wrong way.

I don't dismiss the book at all. I think it's very insightful and entertaining. But far from thinking it is the definitive word on Fleetwood Mac, at most, I think it's the definitive word on Carol Ann Harris, through both what it says and what it doesn't say. I don't think the book is all lies, but I think it's got enough lies to call the whole thing into question. So, I enjoy it for its entertainment value not for its truthiness (as the lovely Colbert would say).

To me, the inaccuracies in the book are not "relatively small." They aren't random mistakes. They're deliberate and purposeful, designed to further a point. She's telling the story in a way slanted to leave a certain impression.

For instance, the bed cover shoot for Rolling Stone -- everyone (Mick, Stevie, Lindsey and an objective third party, Annie Liebowitz) says it happened quite differently from the way Carol says it did. It didn't even take place in Lindsey's house the way Carol says. Why would she change those details of all things? Well, for some reason, after all these years, she still felt the need to dispute the notion that Lindsey and Stevie made out during the shoot. So, she went out of her way to fabricate a scenario for the photo shoot that would have given no opportunity for the make out to take place. I don't know why that was so important to her, but what it tells me is that when there are so few details that we can check against proven facts and even those few details don't hold up to the light of scrutiny, then I certainly don't trust the descriptions I can't check.

And it's funny that Carol describes the one Rolling Stone photo shoot, but doesn't mention the one in 1979 when Rolling Stone says that Carol was looking so distraught about Lindsey and Stevie cavorting that Christine had to comfort her.

It's clear to me that Carol chose to offer only a very filtered version of her story with Fleetwood Mac and I don't fault her for that. A biography is one thing, but an autobiography is another. Whether it's CAH or James Frey, in a memoir, I don't expect to get the truth. I only expect to get the story that one person wants to tell about themselves.

As for waiting for a member of Fleetwood Mac to refute Carol's book, she's already refuted parts of it herself. I don't have to wait. In the book, she goes out of her way to say Lindsey was relieved to be out of his relationship with Stevie. Yet, after the book was published, last year, she gave an interview about Fleetwood Mac (Sex, Lines and Audio Tapein which she said that Lindsey and Stevie shared ongoing guilt and pain over their break up and she, Carol, knew Stevie and Lindsey had never gotten over each other during all the years she was with Lindsey. That's something that Carol not only didn't say in the book but denied. She completely contradicted her own writing.

And it's not the only time she's said one thing and written another. Years before the book came out, in 1992 I believe, she went on tv, on a show about abused women, and described how Lindsey grabbed her in the car after the Elvis Costello concert and said "you are all alike". But when expressly asked for other examples of his violence, she didn't or couldn't give any and actually said that she and Lindsey had been happy for most of their time together. So, I'd say that Elvis Costello attack has been pretty consistently described by her for about 15 years, but I am puzzled as to why she couldn't think of any other violent moments between them, when she was asked to do so on a show about abuse. When memories sharpen over time rather than fade, when events start to get more detailed as the years pass, I get suspicious.

In the UK the law does allow publication to be stopped if you get an injunction on the grounds that the allegations are untrue. Sometimes this is only temporary and can be appealed against. I don't know too much about it but I know it is possible.
Gail

Regarding Storms, the jurisdiction for suing Carol would probably be in California where she lives. Although, if you sued the publisher, I guess the publisher's state of incorporation could be the be the place where the suit would be filed.

In California, the case would be even worse than in other states, because we have this anti-SLAPP legislation, SLAPP being strategic lawsuits against public participation. Anti-SLAPP laws protect those who speak out from being sued for doing so. It started as a way to protect people who speak out about civil rights or against the government, but it's been expanded to protect people who speak on any "public issue." Although, I don't think Fleetwood Mac is really a public issue, the law is frequently used to protect negative speech about public figures, which not only includes politicians, but celebrities too. The anti-SLAPP law makes it easy to get defamation suits thrown out of court within 60 days of their filing.

Most notably I will never look at Stevie in the same light again. But that's ok... the book showed that she was not the airy fairy princess goddess she plays on stage.

See, I never thought Stevie was an airy fairy princess. I always thought she was a pistol. And there is one point in the book, where Carol describes the look Stevie gave her when she pointed out that John Wayne shared their birthday, that I can totally see Stevie doing. I just think it's hilarious.

But by and large, Carol's jealousy towards Stevie is so palpable throughout the book that I could never take anything she wrote at face value. I'm sure some of it is true, but I'm equally sure some of it is false. I'll never know which is which.

Actually, what Carol writes about Stevie gave me the most damning revelation about Carol. She paints Lindsey as this murderously violent guy, yet she constantly describes herself as running and tattling to Lindsey about everything Stevie supposedly did to her. It's like she is hoping that he'll beat Stevie to a pulp. That tells me something dark about Carol that I don't think she meant to say.

Michele

[CADreaming]

Michele, thanks for all the above. :thumbsup:

Btw, never heard about the 1979 photo shoot - sounds intriguing!

[David]

Details of the actual attack aside, I think there is no question LB was violent in some manner, which to me is the point :shrug:But there is a question: I question it. Q.E.D., right?

But on the level of rhetoric or even logic, how can you conclude that something is beyond question after pushing aside its details?

That's like saying "Never mind what happened on April 14, 1912; the Titanic unquestionably ran aground."

[ajmccarrell]

Not EVERYONE agrees on the Rolling Stone cover shoot either. Stevie is the only one mentioned, at least of anything I've read, that says that she and Lindsey "made out". Lindsey himself contradicts that. Stevie, historically, exaggerates things. Besides, ALL of them were so coked up, I don't know how any of them remember anything.

[CADreaming]

Not EVERYONE agrees on the Rolling Stone cover shoot either. Stevie is the only one mentioned, at least of anything I've read, that says that she and Lindsey "made out". Lindsey himself contradicts that. Stevie, historically, exaggerates things. Besides, ALL of them were so coked up, I don't know how any of them remember anything.

Actually, Lindsey has said they were "freaking" everyone out after the shoot by making out. That's one story that he and Stevie have related that match - the only difference being how long it lasted - and with his toking mind trying to calculate it....anyway, I totally agree with you about the coke - if any details are right it's a miracle coming from that lot!

[ajmccarrell]

I remember that as being Stevie that made the "freaking out" remark. I even remember a post on Buckinghamnicks.net about this very topic and their opposing views. Either way, so much of their "chemistry" is scripted, as indicated by the mike placement instructions given by Mick Fleetwood, that it's hard to tell what is real and what is said for drama and promotional reasons. They're all attuned to the fact that the rumour mill is what keeps them going.:shrug:

[LukeA]

And lets not forget that it doesn't necessarily take a woman for Lindsey to express his anger physically- remember his ridiculous blowup when he found out that he *might* not be on the Peter Jennings/ABC NYE 2001 show?

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

[Peestie]

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

Or when he trashed his M1 on the last tour because it stopped working. :o

[TrueFaith77]

And lets not forget that it doesn't necessarily take a woman for Lindsey to express his anger physically- remember his ridiculous blowup when he found out that he *might* not be on the Peter Jennings/ABC NYE 2001 show?

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

I don't know about that. . .

[strandinthewind]

But there is a question: I question it. Q.E.D., right?

But on the level of rhetoric or even logic, how can you conclude that something is beyond question after pushing aside its details?

That's like saying "Never mind what happened on April 14, 1912; the Titanic unquestionably ran aground."

If we know someone has been violent, why do we care about the details? I mean does it really matter if he threw his guitar at her or he kicked her instead? They are both violent acts which support the conlcusion that he was violent, which is sad.

And, though it is interesting to know why, the Titanic sank regardless of the details -- so the conclusion is still valid :shrug:

[Nico]

Or when he trashed his M1 on the last tour because it stopped working. :o

OMG, the lady next to me was scared. His face got so beet red and he had this expression of, well, she thought he was going to start throwing things at the crowd next. lol! Like I said, he probably has the same temper. Perhaps he has learned to control it better, but tempers like that don't just miraculously disappear.

[David]

If we know someone has been violent, why do we care about the details? I mean does it really matter if he threw his guitar at her or he kicked her instead? They are both violent acts which support the conlcusion that he was violent, which is sad. I think you're really missing the point. It matters if he neither threw his guitar nor kicked her.

Those pesky details are all we have from which to draw conclusions, since we weren't witnesses.

And, though it is interesting to know why, the Titanic sank regardless of the details -- so the conclusion is still valid :shrug:The conclusion that the Titanic ran aground would be no more valid than the conclusion that she was raptured skyward by UFOs.

[strandinthewind]

I think you're really missing the point. It matters if he neither threw his guitar nor kicked her.

Those pesky details are all we have from which to draw conclusions, since we weren't witnesses.

The conclusion that the Titanic ran aground would be no more valid than the conclusion that she was raptured skyward by UFOs.

No, I am not. The point is he was violent.

Are you actually arguing that he was not violent or that the Titanic did not sink, regardless of why, which we know happened?

The facts remain that the Titanic did sink and LB was violent on two occasions. It is interesting to know the details, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion, unless you consider throwing a guitar at someone and/or kicking them not to be violent acts. Of course, LB denies either happened (actually, he did not really deny it, he said something happened and then essentially demurred) -- but that is par for the course for him when called out :shrug:

[David]

No, I am not. The point is he was violent. Man, you're fast. But you just keep missing the point, strand. You keep insisting he was "violent" at that incident, but you have no DETAILS other than contradictory & befogged accounts from one or two members of the band. Please reread my post on those accounts. Pay special attention to the legitimate questions I raise.

Are you actually arguing that he was not violent or that the Titanic did not sink, regardless of why, which we know happened?(sigh) I'm arguing that we do not know for certain whether he was violent onstage in New Zealand. Again, please reread my post on the matter. In it, I refer you to the description of the account in Mick Fleetwood's 1990 book because that it the first presentation of the incident to the (American) public.

The facts remain that the Titanic did sink and LB was violent on two occasions.So you keep saying . . . (sigh)
You keep harping on "facts" but you have thus far not presented me with any.

It is interesting to know the details, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion, unless you consider throwing a guitar at someone and/or kicking them not to be violent acts.How do you know he threw a guitar at Stevie or kicked her violently? Did you read Mick Fleetwood's book?

[michelej1]

Actually, when Stevie first mentioned New Zealand, she said that Lindsey kicked or did something to her. She didn't know that he kicked her. I think she assumed that he kicked her because she could guess that it was during GYOW and he was holding his guitar. I would say that if he'd thrown his guitar at her, she would have remembered that initially -- not only in recent years. He threw it at her and she ducked or else she would have been dead? I don't think she would have forgotten that one for a few decades.

Christine didn't say what Lindsey did, she just said she knows that as the first time she ever reacted that way. You could argue that Lindsey must have done something extraordinary for her to react in that fashion. Would just pulling his jacket over his head and mocking Rhiannon have been enough? We don't know.

Of course, now she has remembered that. But she didn't initially.


Btw, never heard about the 1979 photo shoot - sounds intriguing!

I just looked. It was 1980. This is what was actually written.

Over in the opposite corner, Buckingham's girlfriend, Carol, is sitting on a couch, looking very sad, being consoled by Christine. Fleetwood paces the perimeter of the stage, visibly worried about something. What's going on? Do all these emotional currents add up to anything? The band, back onstage now, plays another song. I don't want to know the reason why I love you. Stevie, smiling, shares a mike with Lindsey; what can they be thinking? Christine looks sharply at McVie. I don't want to know....Fifteen million people bought the album with this song on it. Maybe because part of the fascination of Fleetwood Mac is that you do want to know.

[ajmccarrell]

Actually, when Stevie first mentioned New Zealand, she said that Lindsey kicked or did something to her. She didn't know that he kicked her. I think she assumed that he kicked her because she could guess that it was during GYOW and he was holding his guitar. I would say that if he'd thrown his guitar at her, she would have remembered that initially -- not only in recent years. He threw it at her and she ducked or else she would have been dead? I don't think she would have forgotten that one for a few decades.

Christine didn't say what Lindsey did, she just said she knows that as the first time she ever reacted that way. You could argue that Lindsey must have done something extraordinary for her to react in that fashion. Would just pulling his jacket over his head and mocking Rhiannon have been enough? We don't know.

Of course, now she has remembered that. But she didn't initially.



I just looked. It was 1980. This is what was actually written.

It still doesn't say that they were "making out". I think they would have mentioned that if it had in fact happened. It looks like some playful flirting but not much more than that. Certainly I don't see anything about "everyone freaking out". I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another. :cool:

[michelej1]

It still doesn't say that they were "making out". I think they would have mentioned that if it had in fact happened. It looks like some playful flirting but not much more than that. Certainly I don't see anything about "everyone freaking out". I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another. :cool:


I wasn't talking about them making out for that 1980 magazine article. You're confusing the two Rolling Stones. All I said was I'm surprised that Carol didn't mention that particular, later Rolling Stone story at all, since Rolling Stone noted that she was upset during it.

I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another. :cool:

And I said she became distraught at their cavorting. I didn't indicate they were making out. I just think it's noteworthy because Carol's book carefully avoided mention of flirting or even platonic kinship between Lindsey and Stevie. Yet, after the book was published, she gave an interview saying that she knew they never got over each other.

The Rolling Stone story she did mention was the bed one (with Annie) and it seems to me that she went out of her way to indicate there was no opportunity for Lindsey and Stevie to make out, as described by Stevie in the Rolling Stone retrospective. Because she says that that the photo shoot took place in her house, with her around and lasted too short of a time. She changed the details of it to make it seem as if there wasn't a chance for Lindsey and Stevie to make out or hold each other for 15 minutes or 2 hours. It seems to me her version was deliberately designed to contradict Stevie, Lindsey and Annie's version of events.

Yes, it's true Stevie and Lindsey do contradict each other. Stevie said they made out for 2 hours and Lindsey said they held each other for 15 minutes, overcome with emotion at realizing what they'd lost. I think he said they stopped because Mick told them that other people were becoming uncomfortable. So, that may be why CA Dreaming mentioned that people freaked out. If Mick told them to stop because people were uneasy, I think there was some freaking out among some parties going on.

By contrast, I think Stevie says they stopped because Annie told them that the room was rented and her time had expired.

Michele

[michelej1]

STEVIE SAYS:

"Afterwards, Lindsey and I got to talking about how amazing it was that not so long ago I was a waitress and he didn't have a job, and now we were on the cover of Rolling Stone with this huge record. And we lay there for two hours talking and making out. Finally, Annie had to tell us to leave, because she had rented the room for only so long. But in one afternoon she put Lindsey and me back together and also planted the seed for Mick and me, which happened a year later. You want to know the power of Annie Leibovitz, there you go."

LINDSEY SAYS:

"For Stevie and me, the wounds and animosities were still very fresh. So the idea for the photo wasn't all that funny. We had to compartmentalize our feelings to keep the band functional, and at the end of the session, we had this moment of not being able to avoid all that had been lost. We embraced for about fifteen minutes, and Mick finally came over and said that people were starting to get uncomfortable. I don't know how healthy all this display of our personal life was, but that's showbiz."

[David]

What's the other RS photoshoot?
The bit ref'd earlier was a 1979 tour rehearsal, or so I thought.

[CADreaming]

So, that may be why CA Dreaming mentioned that people freaked out. If Mick told them to stop because people were uneasy, I think there was some freaking out among some parties going on.

By contrast, I think Stevie says they stopped because Annie told them that the room was rented and her time had expired.

Michele

Lindsey also said:

"The [Rolling Stone cover] shoot was over and everyone else got out of the bed, except for Stevie and I. We laid there for about an hour hugging, and it was freaking everybody out."
-[Lindsey] VH1 All Access


I bet Annie went over first to stop their "hugging" or "making out" and just used the time expired as an excuse...then Mick was sent in as the reinforcement. LOL. Notice in this quote, Lindsey's 15 minutes has now turned into an hour...:D

[michelej1]

What's the other RS photoshoot?
The bit ref'd earlier was a 1979 tour rehearsal, or so I thought.

You're right.

Michele

[henryscutter]

No debate, Lindsey said it himself in Family Man " I am what I am a mutha mutha fu fu f*cker" I swear I hear that when I listen to that song :lol:

[louielouie2000]

Lord, here y'all go again discussing the he said she saids about the infamous Rolling Stone photo shoot and such. What Carol Anne's book comes down to for me is this... it portrays the essence of the band accurately during the height of their storied career. Yes, band members (and their ex's) don't two have matching stories for any one same event. That's because people perceive things differently. What could be viewed as an enormous fight by Mick could just be creative dialogue to Lindsey. Yes, her exact recollections and memories may not all match up to others, but the gist of what Carol Ann writes about is all true. The addiction, love, hate, talent, craziness, indulgence, humor, lust, fear, creativity, and fame of Fleetwood Mac during it's height is well known and documented. Since The Dance the Rumours Five have all come out and said what Carol Ann portrays in her book in some form or another. They seem to be finally detached enough with their past to truthfully speak of how bad to each other and themselves they were during the late 70s and early 80s. You may not want to believe all of Carol Ann's "fly on the wall" recollections, but none of you can deny the overall mood her book sets is the truth. For us to pick apart this book and say this could or could not have happened, or Lindsey would or would not have done this or that is just silly. Not a one of us know any of the band members personally to make such judgements. That's why I say we all toss out the specific details and focus on the accuracy of the broad picture here. Do I believe every single story Carol Ann tells? No. Do I believe every single story is verbatim how it happened? No. Do I believe that she likely reconstructed some events from her memory, and did so in the essence of what that band member would have done in that situation? Absolutely. Does any of this negate the overall point and validity of this book for me? Not one bit. Because EVERY non-fiction autobiography does all of the above. No one can film or record every second of their waking lives to ensure accuracy.

[CADreaming]

Lord, here y'all go again discussing the he said she saids about the infamous Rolling Stone photo shoot and such. What Carol Anne's book comes down to for me is this... it portrays the essence of the band accurately during the height of their storied career. Yes, band members (and their ex's) don't two have matching stories for any one same event. That's because people perceive things differently. What could be viewed as an enormous fight by Mick could just be creative dialogue to Lindsey. Yes, her exact recollections and memories may not all match up to others, but the gist of what Carol Ann writes about is all true. The addiction, love, hate, talent, craziness, indulgence, humor, lust, fear, creativity, and fame of Fleetwood Mac during it's height is well known and documented. Since The Dance the Rumours Five have all come out and said what Carol Ann portrays in her book in some form or another. They seem to be finally detached enough with their past to truthfully speak of how bad to each other and themselves they were during the late 70s and early 80s. You may not want to believe all of Carol Ann's "fly on the wall" recollections, but none of you can deny the overall mood her book sets is the truth. For us to pick apart this book and say this could or could not have happened, or Lindsey would or would not have done this or that is just silly. Not a one of us know any of the band members personally to make such judgements. That's why I say we all toss out the specific details and focus on the accuracy of the broad picture here. Do I believe every single story Carol Ann tells? No. Do I believe every single story is verbatim how it happened? No. Do I believe that she likely reconstructed some events from her memory, and did so in the essence of what that band member would have done in that situation? Absolutely. Does any of this negate the overall point and validity of this book for me? Not one bit. Because EVERY non-fiction autobiography does all of the above. No one can film or record every second of their waking lives to ensure accuracy.

I can appreciate your point. However, the inaccuracies in CAH's book, which a casual fan could correct, does make even her peception apparently not able to hold water. Overall though, I don't think there was any new revelations in her book. It was the 70's...it was rock and roll...they were all doing cocaine...people may have gotten trashed and slept around and knocked the living daylights out of one another...big whoop. I think the real essence of her book was more like this - I need cash and I have a few good stories to tell that will probably help me obtain the cash... It's just too bad she didn't have a better editor...

[strandinthewind]

What I find hysterical is most people around here seemingly discount every version other than LB's version, which is sacred for some reason :rolleyes: He was there and he was doing the drugs too :shrug:

[louielouie2000]

What I find hysterical is most people around here seemingly discount every version other than LB's version, which is sacred for some reason :rolleyes: He was there and he was doing the drugs too :shrug:

Precisely! That's why I say we can't discount any one person's story completely. In reality we should probably look at ALL versions of Mac history, and realize the truth is somewhere in the middle. None of them were saints, and none of them have entirely pure motives to this day to tell the complete truth. Honestly, of all of them Carol Ann has the least reason to cover her own ass, or the band's. I suspect we'll get the least biased story from her versus the band members. I mean truly, what's in it for her? She knows she's not going to get rich of famous at this point for telling her story. Her days of cashing in on the Fleetwood Mac cash cow are LONG past. I guarantee she makes more each year in her daily job than she did from this book. She doesn't have to worry about protecting the Mac cash machine either... her ties were cut from the band nearly a quarter of a century ago. Honestly, her gossipy little book could only help fuel the soap opera legend that is Fleetwood Mac. The band has long survived on the voyeur nature of it's followers, and her book certainly has aided in that. So in the end, she isn't helping herself all the much, but she probably in a minimal way is adding fodder to the Mac's bottom line $$$.

[TrueFaith77]

The band has long survived on the voyeur nature of it's followers, and her book certainly has aided in that. So in the end, she isn't helping herself all the much, but she probably in a minimal way is adding fodder to the Mac's bottom line $$$.


I wonder if Lindsey will respond to the book in his songs!!!

[michelej1]

I mean truly, what's in it for her? She knows she's not going to get rich of famous at this point for telling her story. Her days of cashing in on the Fleetwood Mac cash cow are LONG past. .

Her days of cashing in may be long past, but her days of TRYING to cash in aren't. That was obvious to me just 3 or 4 years ago when she appeared on the Discovery Health Channel's plastic surgery show, talking about her beauty of the past and hoping to recapture it by going under the knife. Explaining why she wanted further surgery, she wistfully fingered old pictures of herself with the band members and talked about their glory days.

She was never really in the spotlight herself, but it was obvious she missed being on the periphery of it, the vicarious glow. I imagine the book helps her relive a little of that, just as the cheek implants do.

My approach to the Mac is the same as my approach to Siskel and Ebert (or Ebert and Roeper or Roeper and Phillips). I may not trust either of their individual viewpoints completely, but when they reach a consensus, that's when I decide whether I want to see or skip the movie. I form an opinion of Mac history in much the same way. I don't discount all of Carol's story, but I could hardly believe it all. I also don't believe all of what Stevie, Lindsey, Mick, John or Christine have to say either. Without throwing any out, I fit all of the pieces together -- even the mismatched ones -- as best I can and form my own picture, but I never think any one piece is the definitive key to the puzzle.

Michele

[macpai]

I bought this in hopes of learning a little bit more about Lindsey and the band. But early on, it's been written in such romance novel speak, that I can hardly get through it.
I know there are kernels of information to be gleaned, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get through this.
I'd say maybe it was a drugs haze, but she wasn't even into the drugs at this point.

[marinnette]

I bought this in hopes of learning a little bit more about Lindsey and the band. But early on, it's been written in such romance novel speak, that I can hardly get through it.
I know there are kernels of information to be gleaned, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get through this.
I'd say maybe it was a drugs haze, but she wasn't even into the drugs at this point.

I got the same feeling too... but at the end it is worth it. The bad thing is that, as you go on, the language gets more "fairytale-like"...eventually, I did diagonally reading. but I insist, I strongly recommend you this book. among others, you'll find out how drugs side effects last so long they even have a tough effect on some people's writing.

[PenguinHead]

If she was trying to fling mud at someone or cash in, she would have done that LONG ago. Until one of the band members comes out with their own book to refute Carol's, this book will be the definitive word on Fleetwood Mac for me.


Well stated. :wavey:I completely agree with you on Carol's motivation for writing the book, as well as the book's contents. In fact, everything you said was spot on in my mind.