Eh...er....uh.....um....
 

I just wanted to step in and say that I believe OOTC was a "flop" because of the music industry at that particular time. In 1992, it was all about Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, etc. Nobody wanted to hear a guy from that old, outdated group. :(

I believe that most people listen to music for entertainment, it's not in their heart and soul. They don't CONNECT with it. For us FM/Lindsey/Stevie fans, it's in our soul, we "get" this music. That goes for any other hardcore whatever-group/singer fan. Those out there who love Cher or Metallica or Eminem...they "get" their music and connect with it. I'm not talking about the casual music listeners, the ones who are fickle. They, unfortunately, are the ones that record companies bow down to. :rolleyes:

And I agree, OOTC is a masterpiece. :nod:

He's at it again!
 

“The battle rages on”, to quote an ill-advised Deep Purple album. Cut my hands off if I write too much, Johnny (especially since you're in the middle of some other argument), but it just happens. It has nothing to do with boosting my ego or something like that. ;)

I wasn’t underestimating the value of lyrics to different people. I was just saying that they do not matter that much to me; especially when I consider the fact that I don’t have the same grasp of English as most of you do. It isn’t a natural language for me.
Also, your point about a bad lyric immediately rendering a song with “the most beautiful music with the world’s best singer performing it” doesn’t work for me, at least. I’ve always been capable of getting past a poor lyric if there’s something in the song that’s attractive to me; there’s another reason why I’ve never been bothered by Lindsey’s “weak early lyrics”. Remember as well that it isn’t always the lyric itself that matters; it’s the way it’s sung. A poor singer can ruin a great lyric by emphasizing the wrong words while having no understanding of nuances. A great singer can hide all the flaws of a poor or minimal lyric by his/her delivery.

What I think of the following points is basically a repetition of what I wrote on the “FM on Dick Clark’s Primetime...” thread, but since you probably haven’t paid attention to what I said there, I’ll repeat them here, just for you. ;)

I’d like to think I haven’t hinted at that. What I have stated earlier is that the only way I can find any value in Stevie’s recent demos is by listening at the performance itself. This includes the lyrics, the songwriting itself and the voice. All of these form this unique relationship with each other. Take one away and the attraction is gone. Especially if that voice is the one to go.

I’m certainly not going to start pretending that I find Stevie a great songwriter these days. She was good in the ‘70s and early ‘80s when her basic, never-changing way of writing music still had its freshness. A lot of those songs (not all of them, though) could be covered by others because they still had certain appeal outside the Nicksian mode of performing. As for the stuff made after that, though, no possibility of that ever happening. You need Stevie’s voice to make the recent demos work. It’s the performance that’s her main focus in making of music; the same way Lindsey pays most attention to the way the overall track will sound like. I haven’t ever thought that Lindsey or Stevie are great songwriters in the traditional sense; they cover up what they lack in that area through other measures and do it admirably.

No, he is not writing the music all by himself; he has Stevie’s basic work to build on. I’ve never believed it’s just the melody that makes the whole thing work. I should quote CarneVaca here:

And never can you put that stuff on paper adequately. You convey all that in the performance itself. Imagine if someone was to offer Lindsey one of Stevie’s demos but with someone else’s vocal performance. Or Stevie just gave him sheet notes to work with? (Yeah, right, like he could actually read them.) Would he be able to create a great arrangement out of that?

What Lindsey is coming up with is the overall atmosphere. It is he who gives Stevie’s demos their own special identities, so that even those people who are not fans are capable of hearing significant differences. The other producers have been less successful in that in my opinion.

The arrangement is of huge significance, but of equal meaning to me is Stevie’s singing. The words she chooses to emphasize and the nuances in her voice do it for me too.

It isn’t just any guitar in there! It’s Lindsey Buckingham’s guitar! You think there’s that much production in “Landslide”? It’s always been a “simple” acoustic track. There’s nothing of significance lost in concert. I do think it’s one of Stevie’s best written songs (and obviously so do those who have covered it) but a lot of the fascination comes from Lindsey’s playing and what notes from the chords he emphasizes. I haven’t ever heard that someone would have actually suggested Lindsey to play a particular guitar part (except for the “SOTM” debacle ;) ). He’s coming up with all of that himself. Even Ken Caillat hinted at that in his Q&A. And I certainly don’t believe that Stevie herself would have suggested something in particular with her rudimentary playing skills. Do you remember a confession of hers while talking to the audience on one particular night during the current tour? It was Lindsey who taught her to play “Landslide” without a pick (or that’s how I think it went). So there. :)

He doesn’t necessarily have to work on a song. He can do these sonic paintings without having a song to go along with. Sure, he isn’t expressing a traditional emotion. It’s a glimpse of something strange; a disturbing mental picture of sorts where all these various streams join together to create a particular senseless moment. Just like life itself.

Dissention did an admirable job in defending OOTC, especially because I agree with those statements ;) but I’d still like to bring up a few more points.
I have to agree that it did feel a bit too mainstream when I first heard it. Some of it could be attributed to Lindsey’s personal growth; he didn’t feel like he would have to do sonic hooliganism all over the album anymore. But it’s also because he was on his own at that point. He knew that he would have to do something that would be somehow reminiscent of FM’s records. He (and Richard) was on his own as a writer; he wouldn’t be capable of the same kind of diversity that there was on the FM records if he was to follow the established pattern of making an album that’s not relative to what FM had done before.
So there’s “normal” stuff on the album; songs like “Soul Drifter”, “Countdown” and “You Do Or You Don’t” are to OOTC what “Everywhere”, “Little Lies” and “Seven Wonders” are to TITN. It just adds to the picture and makes it more complete. Sure, you could say that he desperately wanted the stuff to sell and you could be right. But why did it not sell?

I do feel a certain kind of rawness on OOTC; it’s not like he used dirty tone colours like on Tusk or left on some obvious “flaws”. Sure, it’s polished alright, a result of studio hermit-like existence. But if you say it’s “very mainstream”, I still find that statement a bit false.

Lindsey is, has been since the days of Tusk, in between two different groups of audience. There’s the large masses who want another “Go Your Own Way” and there’s the smaller bunch of elitist snobs who embrace the art rock ethics of experiments, spontaneity and quirkiness (and yes Sharon, I do think that punk rock was an art movement too). When the bands who appeal to the second group achieved some prominence, Lindsey got interested too. It isn’t just because he didn’t want to do another Rumours, it’s because he felt a genuine affection to that music and wanted to do his own skewed version of it. Which is what he did. He’s been struggling between two personalities since then; there’s this side of him that knows how to make a song appealing through manners of traditional musicianship, then there’s this another side that always questions things and wants to add something unusual into the mix. Both sides are at work throughout OOTC too. There’s this guy who puts the “crooner” vocal on the verses of “Don’t Look Down” and there’s this guy who throws these left-field harmonies to the chorus. This “weirder” guy throws in the “tap-dancing” of “Wrong”. He’s also responsible of the “This Is The Time” and the murky depression of “Street Of Dreams”. He’s on every track of the album in my opinion, sometimes “in the shade”, sometimes far more visible. And so he is there on SYW too, even on “Steal Your Heart Away” (but not prominently enough, if you ask me).

You’ll never achieve great success if you’re working in between two target groups; in this case the audience of “adult-oriented” rock and the experimental, hipper circles. It’s the main fascination of Buckingham for me though, that he straddles the fence between the two extremes and never gives in to produce something totally inaccessible or bow to the lowest common denominator. It’s a shame that the elitists are far too interested in what is hip and thus they don’t care for the “corporate rock sell-out” that they think Lindsey is. It’s an equal shame that the mainstream has never picked up on an entire Lindsey album because “it’s too weird and druggy”. I wish both sides could open up their horizons, but that’s still very unlikely to happen.

That’s not what I was suggesting. I don’t exactly “tolerate” them, I love two of them and like the rest of them. I don’t even think that there ever will be a “greatest album ever”. There are works of art that represent various sides of various personalities. If I recognize something that I can relate to, then I treasure the album. There’s moments like that on Stevie’s albums but there’s also a significant amount of things that speak to me far less than Lindsey’s productions. There’s far less risk involved, and a smaller sense of adventurousness.

I can imagine him doing those. Like Dissention said, most of us are probably too accustomed to those tracks and therefore can’t imagine them in other contexts. Sure, I can believe that FM would have wanted to drop a particular verse in order to shorten the track (like they supposedly did with “Sara”). The thing is, would we miss it if we hadn’t heard it in the first place? That’s definitely subjective. It would be more likely that two of those tracks would be classics no matter who released it, FM or Stevie with help from Jimmy & the band. “The Wild Heart” is definitely more self-indulgent and most probably has been "edited" far less than any Stevie song that FM had released at the time, so we can assume they wouldn’t have wanted to release it as such. I love the track but since the amount of such “epics” in Stevie’s solo career can be counted with the fingers of one hand then there really wouldn’t be sense to do anything else solo, if she wanted to achieve the best possible results. But she's put quantity over quality. After these epics everything she put out could be easily given the Buckingham treatment. Sure, he wouldn't necessarily have treated "Stand Back" as a synth-rocker but I'm sure he would approached it as something else than "EO17 synthesized". Just my opinion, of course.

I still think it’s pretty much the same thing throughout. She recognizes this in herself, by stating things like “all my songs are extensions of each other”. The solo career has been definitely important to Stevie; she could indulge in some things that she didn’t have the room to do in FM. Doing epics like the title tracks of the first two solo albums or “Beauty And The Beast” was one of them; another was putting the backing vocalists on stage and going mad with all kinds of clothes. At the same time, though, it made her even more of a laughing stock in the elitist rock circles. Who knows, maybe the tide would have turned on the Rumours era FM and they’d be spoken in the same breath with the Rolling Stones, the Who and Bob Dylan, the Clash and the Stooges if Stevie hadn’t done what she did. I’m not blaming her for this at all, I lift my middle finger in the air for those who always dismiss Stevie with the same old tired arguments. It’s just that I come from these elitist circles and I hate to see the whole thing happening. That’s why I brought it up once again.

I agree with Dissention’s response to this particular point. But there’s something more that I’d like to bring to the table.

Despite all the unbiased approach (hey, I loved FM and Stevie's songs in the band before I even gave her solo albums a chance) that I had towards Bella Donna I still found the record far too samey on the first listen. The same with The Wild Heart. Nothing stood out for me, except for rockers like “Edge Of Seventeen” and “Stand Back”. I seriously thought both albums were boring. Then a few listens more and I’m enjoying both albums pretty much throughout. The thing is, are there people willing to go through more than a couple of listens of each Stevie album. Will they notice the differences that fast? If they will, then they will most likely become fans. I still hold up the fact that Lindsey’s productions for Stevie all have easily discernible different personalities.

I wasn’t stating that. I’m sure he has enough experience to do what he wants but he chose this approach which is a bit irritating.

Put someone else than Stevie to sing them. Change the lyrics if you want, but leave in the basic Nicksian chords and the vocal melody. Then we’ll see what attraction they will have for you. ;)

Really? I’ve always thought that the ones you mentioned, the likes of Yo La Tengo and Stereolab use non-standard tone colours and it’s this particular “dirtiness” that’s a large part of the attraction, alongside the pretty-sounding songwriting. It’s a different thing than what Stevie’s demos are doing. Those use the same old sounds she’s always used. It’s not like she’s experimenting with them, like the lo-fi artists you mentioned. She’s just drawing a very rough, black-and-white sketch where the lines are so thin that only Buckingham will be able to find all of them and then colour the picture to the maximum effect.

As much as you and I would cherish Stevie “the indie queen”, I still think that most of the people on these boards would find that kind of work her worst ever. :lol:

I’m still wondering whether she’s willing to do that after all these years. It’s that huge change that happened between the RAL and TITN tours that’s partly responsible, of course.

I think so too. I don’t think she’s ever transcended the border between honest artistic expression and audience-pleasing banality; those artistic instincts are still present in her writing. It’s the producers who tend to cross that line occasionally.

What you’re speaking of as the “blinding sheen” is something that has been referred to as “homogenous sound”. It’s the thing that gives the record its unity; it doesn’t sound like it’s a bunch of scattered pieces put together in the same package. SYW is far more scattered. It depends on which approach you prefer though. ChiliD, for instance, has expressed criticism towards the running order of Say You Will, whereas when he was discussing OOTC a couple of years ago he stated that it’s one of the few albums where he doesn’t feel the need to change the tracklisting at all.
As for me, I’ve never necessarily needed the perfect running order or the homogenous sound. I like the approach on SYW where the changes in sound are almost schizophrenic.

My opinion is contrary, as you already know. However, they most definitely knew how Lindsey had treated Stevie’s work before; there was already a certain kind of pen that they very rarely stepped outside of. It’s not like Stevie was going to adopt the approach of Patti Smith or Kate Bush all of a sudden.

From someone who’s a big fan and who’s capable of seeing all the subtle differences I can understand that statement. But Stevie’s stated herself that FM could have had any song of hers that they wanted. I don’t when she stated that, whether it was in the ‘80s or much later but I still think there was a particular point when she would have given them anything. Of course, maybe not during the making of TITN anyway. ;)

I’m not denying that. In “Sisters Of The Moon” the lines in the original Nicksian sketch are more obvious than in many other demos. She came up with that riff for sure. She wouldn’t have had the skills to turn the song into a rocker though. Nor would she have had the skills to add the “left-of-center instrumental touches” or the certain tone colours. But yes, the basic idea comes from her and this time it’s stronger than usual. The thing is, this is the only song that I've seen fans use as a basis for their argument of "Stevie contributing a lot to the arrangement". It still appears to be an exception and not that big.

I think that if there was a particular idea into which Stevie would like a particular song to develop, she’d draw stronger, more obvious lines into her sketches. “SOTM”, which still went through a metamorphosis, seems like a rare exception. If she doesn’t have the instrumental skills to express everything, she could always get one of her friends in and try to convey what she wants to him/her. But nah, whenever there’s a rough Nicks demo with Stevie on her own, I feel that there’s still a “long way to go”. I like the more arranged recent ones, like “Space Needle”, but even those things are not entirely a product of Stevie’s mind. Sure, she may know what she wants but she just doesn’t know how to get there. She would’ve managed to do one or two good albums on her own in the ‘70s as a singer-songwriter but no more than that.

No, it doesn’t entirely dive into the same pool of emotion as the live versions but that’s somewhat understandable. FM played it during the very tail end of the Rumours tour as an encore; it was obvious that it would be a showcase on the level of “Rhiannon”. Of course Lindsey recognized this and since Tusk wasn’t about repeating the formula of Rumours and the White Album, he wanted to undermine some of its potential.

I appreciate the way LB approached it in the studio. He knew that no matter how hot a studio take they might get out of it, it would still be exceeded by the live versions because of the looser environment. It would be comparable to some live takes by The Who and Deep Purple, in that the band would completely annihilate the studio version of a certain song by exceeding it completely. LB approached “SOTM” differently, he didn’t want to do a milder studio counterpart; he gave the song a subtler treatment with harmonies that the band wasn’t capable of pulling off live.

Finally, I apologize to those who actually have the interest to wade through all this stuff. This particular manner of participating in threads is mainly dictated by the current situation in my life. Not all dancing on the roses, that.

"Landslide" examplifies the Buckingham/Nicks ideal. A great song with compelling lyrics and melody arranged by a great guitarist. Top it off with one of Stevie's best vocal deliveries and you have pop perfection. But you certainly cannot discount Lindsey's contribution to this song. Were it a leftover used in Bella Donna or The Wild Heart, it most likely would have gotten a completely different treatment. I credit Lindsey's genius with keeping this a simple, sparsely arranged folk pop ditty. There is beauty in simplicity. ;)

The beauty of Bella Donna and The Wild Heart is that Stevie was allowed to be Stevie to a greater extent than she had been allowed to before. And it worked While we can have academic discussions about whether certain songs would have been better or worse had Lindsey arranged them, it becomes moot when you consider how truly good those albums are. Sure there are some self-indulgent moments, but let's face it, Stevie had not been allowed any self-indulgence on record until she went solo, while one could certainly make the argument that Lindsey had done so quite extensively on Tusk, with what I consider to be stellar results.

But after The Wild Heart, one gets the sense that Stevie had become such a big star that the people around her in the studio became timid about editing and producing her. Her self-indulgence became unchecked, and therefore a huge problem. Jimmy Iovine pretty much laid down the law for Bella Donna, but by Rock a Little it looks as if she's getting away with some truly bad ideas. It got worse later.

Sometimes success becomes your biggest problem. Lindsey fully realizes this, which is why his solo records are what they are. But I think he wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the creativity and envelope-pushing abilities and the commercial success. Which, I believe, is why SYW is somewhat disjointed. There's some capitulation to commercial interests very evident in that album, whereas in Out of the Cradle, while a lot of the stuff is "poppy," I wouldn't necessarily say it is poppy in a commercial way.

That's OK. I was surprised at the hostility and the injection of profanity. It seemed to come out of nowhere and be totally unwarranted.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CarneVaca

Quote:

But after The Wild Heart, one gets the sense that Stevie had become such a big star that the people around her in the studio became timid about editing and producing her. Her self-indulgence became unchecked, and therefore a huge problem. Jimmy Iovine pretty much laid down the law for Bella Donna, but by Rock a Little it looks as if she's getting away with some truly bad ideas. It got worse later.

I have to say I agree with this. "The Nightmare"? "Imperial Hotel"? "Sister Honey"? These are some of my least favorite Stevie songs EVER.

Quote:

But I think he wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the creativity and envelope-pushing abilities and the commercial success. Which, I believe, is why SYW is somewhat disjointed. There's some capitulation to commercial interests very evident in that album, whereas in Out of the Cradle, while a lot of the stuff is "poppy," I wouldn't necessarily say it is poppy in a commercial way.

I don't see commercial capitulation in Lindsey's songs very much. Are you talking about "Steal Your Heart Away"? That's such a good song I don't consider it merely an offering for the masses. I like the fact that there are different styles on the album. Something for everyone. I do think that if the track list had been arranged a little better, the album would not have sounded so disjointed. Group the similar stuff together. That's what he did with "Go Insane" - not sure why he didn't do it hear. I get a better track list arrangment by putting it on random.

Well, let me explain it then. The following statement is what did it:

When you start using phrases such as "surely she has enough knowledge..." and "what causes...in your mind" and "what would make ... hard pill," surely those are provocative statements, no? There's an implication that I was implying that Stevie couldn't possibly figure out how to move slider on a soundboard, which is far from what I was saying.

Was my reaction unwarranted? Perhaps, but my use of profanity was not meant as an insult; it was more along the lines of: "Hey, give me a break, of course I know she can use a [expletive] slider." Hey, I'm a New Yorker. That's just common vernacular here.

So hit me for tone. But it goes both ways, no? Do you detect some sarcasm, and even a hint of exasperation, in Mr. Stew's message? if you're going to use a certain tone, expect the same in return, especially considering my use of sarcasm has been pointed out to me as a problem by none other than Johnny Stew himself. And this is what I mean by "stick to moderating." If you want to get down and dirty, pass the baton.

And, Nancy, let's face it. As far as tone goes, you're in no position to criticize anyone. :)

Not so much Lindsey's songs. But Running Through the Garden, Say You Will and Thrown Down are definitely produced with commercial appeal in mind. Steal Your Heart Away and What's the World Coming To (especially the latter) are to some extent as well.

What are you talking about? I am perfect. ;)

Even perfection requires tone, my friend.

Interesting aspects. I thought about that too and wouldn't have counted WTWCT in this commercial categorie. In my opinion the singles like Peacekeeper and Say you will are these obvious attempts of grabbing the masses or being the hit singles. I always thought this song was an attempt to recreate a certain sound a la Monday morning. He did the same thing with Twist of fate, which was my "Monday morning"or "WTWCT of the GOS compilation. Call it an appetizer for the long term fans who like this sound and who probably need to struggle with "Come" or "Murrow".
Concerning the commercial success aspect--- every FM album and even the LB albums have their hit single attempts. The difference to me is that these other albums have a certain basic ground structure and sound. There is a TITN sound. There is a OOTC sound. There is of course a "TUSK" sound (although for me Christines approach doesn't fit on the concept of the album, in difference to f.e. Mirage or TITN) But SYW is lacking of this sound. It's a puzzle, a song compilation, a caleidoscope but not an album in the old fashioned sense. I like most of the songs very much and I believe there is no real clunker except of SG. (and BTLH still didn't belong there) Gaius, Chili D, Nancy and some others already gave a hint how this incoherent production problem could have been handled (but not solved)- the setlist.
I hope this post helps you to understand every aspect of the song "When I see you again". I did my best to clarify it and think I did so pretty good.

Stefan, I agree with you on the sound thing. I've made the same observation on occasion. SYW lacks a cohesive sound. By the way, WTWCT is indeed reminiscent of earlier Fleetwood, maybe not outright commercial but not exactly groundbreaking.

That is why I agree with chiliD's thought that the band should get together and write some new stuff for the new (hopefully) record. That way, I think the new record would sound more "together" than SYW did for me, although I still like SYW, esp. LB's songs.

Say that again. Are you saying you like Lindsey's stuff better on SYW?

See, we agree on something else. ;)

Well, yes, although I do like La Nicks' stuff very, very much and think most of it is great (esp. Smile at You and GB), I do like LB's stuff better after a few listens and perhaps browbeatings here on the Ledge :cool:

I must say seeing Murrow at the PBS Soundstage thingee was the turning point for me.

Note: This does not in any way compromise my chiffonhead status as I am still a closeted shipper!! :laugh:

Jason, I am keeping my eye on you, boy!

LOL!!

-Sharon

I'm sure there was definitely some exasperation to be noted in the tone of my response, because I was a bit exasperated.
I understood what you were saying in your earlier comments about the technical aspect of what Stevie said she did, but to me, it seemed that you weren't seeing the forest for the trees. And I'm meaning that in regards to your insistence on taking Stevie's "wiped my vocal" comment with unwavering literalism, rather than in the more simplified tone I always took her comment in.
Do I think she erased her vocal completely? No.
All I've been saying all along is that I do believe she mixed her vocal out of audibility, and presented it to the band as such, to demonstrate the vibe she wanted to leave the listener with. And I maintain that Stevie wouldn't go into some detailed technical explanation of the entire recording process, but rather, would simplify the action with a statement such as "I took my vocal off."

So yeah, your insistence that even that seems implausible and ridiculous, was exasperating to me.

But I can, with complete honesty, say that there was no sarcasm meant in my response to you, and there most certainly wasn't any kind of aggression or condescension. And it was those tones in your response, that I took exception to.

As for the "stick to moderating" comment... you've said something similar in the past, but I really don't see any kind of conflict of interest in my wanting to discuss and debate the various topics on these boards, with just as much passion and conviction as anyone else, while still being a moderator.

I might be tenacious regarding my opinions, but I'm not aggressive. And even though I'm not about to let myself get walked all over or treated like an idiot, I'm definitely not mean in my replies... no matter how much I may disagree with someone.
So again, I don't see a conflict of interest.

I've always maintained that I'm "just a Ledgie," like everyone else... the only difference is that I also have to step in and enforce the "rules" when necessary.
Posting here has always been for my own entertainment, but the moderating side is something I treat with respect and take very seriously. And not to pat my own back, but I think I do a pretty darn good job of not letting one get in the way of the other.

So as long as I trust that I can continue posting and debating, while also being a fair and impartial moderator, I'm going to keep doing both. :nod: :)

And just to comment on some other points made in the various posts....
I think Lindsey and Stevie are equally as guilty of self-indulgences in their solo music.

Sometimes it works ("Wild Heart," "D.W. Suite"), and sometimes it doesn't quite ("Desert Angel," "Street Of Dreams"), but in either regard it's an extension of their personalities, and their personalities should be a huge part of their solo albums, otherwise it really would be just faceless, corporate pop/rock.

And I guess which of the self-indulgences you enjoy most (or criticize the least) depends on which of the two artists you tend to prefer.

Bite your tongue Stew!!!
 

That's one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard!!

Well, it works for me. :nod:

But, like we ALWAYS say 'round these parts....OPINION. ;)

:nod:

I hear the dark side calling "all my life - every night - all the time - Well IIII HHEEEAAAR TTHHE CAAAALLLLL OF THE DAAAARRRRKKK SSIIIIDDDEEEEE" Ok - I'm back!! :laugh:

Running Through Garden commercial ? What a JOKE ! With that silly assed Casio sounding keyboard riff ? Maybe in 1983. Maybe in 1985. Not today.

Johnny, I didn't accuse of condescending or aggression. I did accuse you of sarcasm and exasperation, and I stand by that. Don't tell me, in all honesty, that when you suggested I didn't think Stevie could use a soundboard you weren't being sarcastic. That would be disengenuous. Sarcasm begets sarcasm. And your view of what constitutes "aggression" obviously differs from mine.

I see that we essentially had a miscommunication. You misused a couple of words that implied you were saying something other than what you meant to say, it appears. A good moderator would step back, examine what's going on and call it what it is--a misunderstanding. You chose to keep fighting. I would to. But I'm not a moderator.

I agree it's silly-assed and retro. And as such, it may not technically qualify as commercial. As you said, it would have been in 1985. So not only was the song produced to be commercial, it was produced to be commercial 20 years (!!!) ago. A double sin.

I think every aspect of the song is un-commercial. :laugh:

First, those lyrics. Non-fans would hear them and just go "What the fuuuuuuuuuuccccccc...?" They are so out there that you need pot to be able to understand them if you aren't a fan, and even that there's no guarantee.

But I love the song anyway. :laugh:

I don't mind saying that was one of my biggest disappointments on SYW, that and Peacekeeper. I mean, after hearing Stevie's demo, I was thinking this was going to be a great rocker if Stevie could just pull off the vocals. She did a fine job, but the production is plastic. I just don't get it.

Oh, the album version SUCKS next to the demo. I don't understand why they decided to get rid of the "dueling vocals." That was the best aspect of the song on the demo and they got rid of it. WTF? I thought her vocals on the album version were great, but the whole production left me wanting much more. If only they had made it a bit more rockier instead of poppier and included the dueling vocals, it would've been phenomenal. Instead, it's just really, really good. :laugh:

My biggest disappointment was Illume. If it wasn't Stevie, there would've been no redeeming value to that song. Those chipmunk voices are just ridiculous. Actually, embarassing.

Well how different tastes can be. Illume is really something different from the Stevie section. The guitar on that song is brilliant. When I listen to a few SYW songs- Illume is always one of them. :nod:

I listen to it, I just think it's a bit ridiculous. I don't know what the intention of having those manipulated voices was; it cheapens the song and its message.

I agree. I think maybe LB was going for "this is the dark part of the some which conveys confusion" and then SN's fabulous belting "I'm alone now . . . " after is her soming back into the light a la the Ode to Joy chorus in the 9th of B (how's that for an analogy :laugh: ) But, unlike B. , LB's use of this falls flat for me. I also will always maintain SN's failure to write a third stanza lessens the song's appeal to me. But, I like the song and think it is brilliantly written (just my opinion).

I agree with you.

I couldn't believe when someone said that Lindsey used those voices to "lighten up" and joke around with the song.

I maintain that there was no sarcasm meant in that response.
My question to you about whether or not you thought Stevie could use a soundboard was purely out of the exasperation I was expressing in the entire response, and not sarcasm.

Anyone who knows me in person, or beyond these message boards, knows that I don't treat people with sarcasm.
My parents didn't talk to me with sarcasm as a child, and it's not my nature to talk to others that way as an adult. I find it rude, and I try to avoid rudeness at all times.

Yes, I agree with you on the miscommunication part... but I was taught that you talk thru a miscommunication until you have a better understanding of where the other is coming from.
I do that as a person and as a moderator. I didn't feel that I was "fighting," I felt that I was presenting the various reasons, and asking the proper questions, to explain my stance on the subject. Which is why I felt your responses seemed needlessly aggressive and condescending.

At any rate, I think it's time to move on from all of this silliness now, and I'm sure we can both agree on that. :)

Yeah, I definitely don't think that weird bridge was meant to "lighten" the song.

It's not the way I would have gone with it, but I think they (I don't want to put all the "blame" on Lindsey) chose to do that, to add somewhat of a sinister, dark tone to that section of the song.
I think it was Les that said, to her, the altered voices expressed the fear and confusion that people were feeling as everything was happening on September 11th.

I do have to say that I love how Stevie's voice comes bursting out of that section, crying, "Ooh, I'm alone now with my thoughts...."

No matter what can be said of it, I still feel that it's the most arresting and sincere of the various 9/11 inspired songs that I've heard.

I think it is, too, but those damn voices...ugh.

Didn't they make you cringe at least once???

Oh yes - esp. after the IMO rather delightful opening stuff and the chorus (though "monotonal" ). I was just like "Oh come on - are we back to Madonna circa 1995" :laugh: But, as I have said before, even with what I perceive as its faults, I still like the song and play it, though I skip through the comp. voices. :cool:

Johnny Stew on Jan. 13:

My parents didn't talk to me with sarcasm as a child, and it's not my nature to talk to others that way as an adult. I find it rude, and I try to avoid rudeness at all times.

Perhaps we'll have to disagree on what "sarcasm" and "rude" is, but I am pretty good at recognizing it and here are some examples:

Johnny Stew on Jan. 9:

so surely she has enough knowledge of the soundboard to be able to drop her vocals out of a mix.

So what causes the improbability in your mind? And what would make it such a hard pill to swallow if she had?

Well, isn't that sweet?

But hey, you know, if you want to believe Stevie's just completely talking out of her ass there, and that the whole thing could only have been another one of Lindsey's brilliant touches, that's fine.

Johnny Stew on Jan. 10:

So thanks for the little pat on the head, Daddy.

Trust me, pal, you have no power in my life.

How miscommunications happen (notice the highlighted word):

Johnny Stew on Jan. 9:

You stated that it was "highly unlikely" Stevie removed her voice from the mix, which I assume to mean that you believe Lindsey must have recorded his vocal separately...

Johnny Stew on Jan. 13:

I think it's time to move on from all of this silliness now

I agree, but just had to make the point

I'm not looking to beat a dead horse, as I think we've both agreed to move on... but the above comments were only made after your post telling me "down, boy," that my "beloved Nicks" surely could push up a "f***ing slider," and that "you'd have to be an idiot not to figure that out." You also told me to "take a deep breath," and later, to "stick to moderating."

I was insulted at that and the condescending tone of the rest of your post, and I responded accordingly.
But none of the other quotes you posted, were ever meant to be sarcastic.

Even as a moderator, I don't think anyone would expect me to just lay down and allow someone to treat me like a child or an idiot, without responding.
And you should note that even in my responses, I never once verbally attacked you or mistreated you.

Yeah, I'm a moderator, but I'm also a human being, and I don't think I deserve to be mistreated, and I don't think I should be expected to just pretend it didn't happen, when I am.

Now hopefully we've both made our final points on the matter.

You know, I always thought that the manipulated voice was actually the result of combining Lindsey's and Stevie's voice together. Did you ever think so?

Well, you contend that I misread your intent. I contend you misread mine. "Down, boy" was not to be taken seriously, nor was the "deep breath" comment. The "idiot" comment was certainly not hurled at you, or my response on the slider. I responded to what I perceived as an insult from you. You don't seem to get that. I don't know how else to explain that. You were putting words in my mouth and I didn't appreciate it.

Besides, you said,"My parents didn't talk to me with sarcasm as a child, and it's not my nature to talk to others that way as an adult." But the fact is you did, regardless of what provoked it. You used sarcasm and you were rude. So regardless of what your parents taught you or didn't, which is rather beside the point here, if you ask me, you were sarcastic and rude.

But I agree, let's move on.

Well, I thought for awhile it was Stevie's voice alone because (no flames please) it was flat sounding as I imagined she would sound in that type of altered voice. But then, I got the DVD or CD-R or whatever (the fancy one) and was able to isolate that "noise" :laugh: - when I did that, it sounds like two different voices. So, yea, I think it is the two of them or at least two voices.

And I definitely agree with this. I wasn’t speaking of “self-indulgences” in a negative way (if someone thought of that). I think it's a poor argument to criticize a particular work by.

Of course it depends on what one considers self-indulgent. Lindsey’s Tusk songs can be seen as such, because he’s on his own for most of them while he could have used the entire band. I guess “self-indulgent” for me is anything that puts the focus on a single person, is long and uses a non-standard, “artsy” song structure and seems like it’s coming directly from the personal world of the artist. I think they both tend to get self-indulgent a lot more than your “usual” rock/pop artist. Definitely something like the “wallowing-in-depression” of “Street Of Dreams” or the “patriotic” “Desert Angel” belong into this category.

Alternatively, I don’t think something like “Steal Your Heart Away” or “Thrown Down” can be called self-indulgent since those songs are something that even a person who doesn’t know a thing about the artists can identify with. And I’ve never heard anyone claim that Chris is self-indulgent in her writing. Which is probably why she will never attract as feverish following as Buckingham and Nicks, but I guess fans of Chris prefer it that way. ;)

“You talkin’ to me?” ;)

Yes, I made that comment at the BuckinghamNicks.net message board. Here’s the necessary disclaimer right away: none of the following is meant to underestimate the tragedy that was 9-11.

I do think it’s humorous in its own odd way. I agree with Johnny in that it is the “best” song about those events, simply because it doesn’t address the things that happened as such. Take out what’s in the brackets (“9-11”) from the title and only the biggest fans of Stevie will be able to connect it to what happened. That makes it a good lyric.

But ok, Lindsey’s use of the goofy voices in there does appear to me as if he’s mocking Stevie’s lyrics. Especially the “ooh, it’s never-ending” bit; the voice there seems very sarcastic. Of course you may think that this is another of LB’s cheap shots and that it’s inappropriate to insert something into such a song. Just like it’s inappropriate to fart during the “Star Spangled Banner”.

I do think Les came up with a great explanation for the use of those voices. My interpretation is different; LB wanted to mock Stevie’s message momentarily. Let’s look at that particular bit in the lyrics:

You may cringe at the voices; I cringe at some of these lyrics and think that they would come off as somewhat preachy if it wasn’t for Stevie (and the manipulated voices) who sings them. She’s basically representing her own take on the whole catastrophe and it is very one-sided. She focuses on her own version of the tragedy; that of an American (or European, whichever you prefer) who now for the first time in her life faces some of the same struggles that people living in other parts of the world have suffered from for centuries. The using of words like “heartache” and “never-ending” definitely seems appropriate in a situation like that but when looked at from the viewpoint of those who are not as privileged as Americans and Europeans, it comes off as laughable. Yes, the things that happened may leave traces on her but none of them will be significant; she’ll carry on living for years to come.

LB’s using of those voices puts in a sarcastic slant; he wants to emphasize the fact that while a few thousand people may have died in New York, a lot more people died elsewhere that day and not because of “natural” reasons. On that particular day in September 2001 he must have thought along the lines of “I told you so”, like a significant amount of European newspapers did. He does not belittle the events themselves; he belittles Stevie’s experiences while knowing that most of those common Americans and Europeans who were so “shocked” by the events will once again be continuing their egotism. In short, they haven’t learned a thing.

Ok, that’s very far-fetched. But admit it, you definitely wouldn’t want to think that LB is laughing in the middle of such an “important” song. For me, though, it’s not the ultimate take on 9-11, it’s just another way of looking at it. And LB’s hints at sarcasm prove that there’s far more expressed in the track than just “common grief”.

Here’s another choice that’ll be as discussed as “When I See You Again” years from now. ;)