Thanks for posting that quote from SaraRhiannon's site, Jason.

Have you read this one? I think it says it all.... Even though she wrote a poem/song that reflected her feelings that day, I think she did an amazing job of capturing the fear and disorientation felt by those of us who watched helplessly as the day's events unfolded.

And even though the song's lyrics are specific to Stevie's particular reaction, we know that she was definitely thinking beyond herself that day... personally taking food down to the firemen working in and around Ground Zero, as well as lending financial assistance to the wife and newborn child of one of the Backstreet Boys' crew-members who died on Flight 11, as he was returning home for the birth of his daughter.

A very classy lady, who has shown on many occasions that she is generous and compassionate. :)

Like I said, I admire her effort. I was in Boston on 9/11, watching the news in my hotel room, and I think everyone felt a sense of shock and amazement at what happened. Stevie did a good job at expressing her feelings towards what happened, but it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

I will clearly state that I think a 9/11 song should not be done; it just shouldn't. No matter how true the song is, it cheapens the events. That's just how I feel about it.

Now, Johnny, no one is questioning whether she thought beyond herself that day. I don't see a point in the things you brought up about helping the firefighters and such; that is not the issue and helps no argument. The issue is the song and whether some feel that it is self-indulgent on Stevie's part, which I believe it is and I've stated my reasons. Her compassion is not at hand here, her song is.

Taking that quote on face value, my response would be to can the idea of recording Illume. Yes, Stevie, we know that you were affected by those events; we all were. But to release a song about your personal experiences and emotions of those events is not necessarily the right thing to do. It will alienate people, especially some listeners who aren't die-hard fans, and even die-hards will feel a tad alienated (as proven in this thread). To focus those events on just one person kind of trivializes things. We all know, whether we would like to admit it or not (and I'm not directing this towards you, Johnny! LOL), that Stevie is a self-indulgent writer. Just listen to Ghosts, I Sing For the Things, Desert Angel, or After the Glitter Fades. Illume is one of those indulgences.

I don't think Stevie thought about how her song could be construed by some and I don't believe that she was doing anything out of ill-will; I thinks she's a genuine person whose heart was in the right place. I just think it backfired this time around, though.

I know, and I wasn't trying to defend or argue... I was just thinking outloud. :nod:

(I better check my horoscope, I seem to be having a rough time this week, with my intentions being misconstrued!) :lol:

At any rate... and I mentioned this to a close friend the other day... my mother, who only begrudgingly listens to Stevie (she's a total Lindsey fan, and has even asked me to make her a Mac CD with "just Lindsey and Christine songs"), loves "Illumé."
In fact, it, and "Running Through The Garden," are her two favorite songs on the entire album... and to me, that's very impressive. :D

JS...
 

I love your mother and I don't even know her!! :nod:

:laugh:

I never expected it to be a song that would be anything more than for the people that were in New York City that day. Because I can't write about how everybody else felt--I can only write about how I felt and how I feel New Yorkers felt that day, that morning. So I'm very, very proud of that song. I wanted to say something for those people. That would be forever.

But that's just it. The song doesn't speak to or for me, as one of the New Yorkers being evacuated and scurrying about in major confusion and fear trying to get the hell out of Manhattan. So I can't relate to Nag Champa or Point Dune in this context nor do I need to be told "I was so scared," for I can figure that out. I've said this before: Had she written about what she actually "saw," and less about her later reflections on the event, it might have been more interesting.

Ultimately Stevie is a rich, pampered rock star. Does she really need to interject herself into a song about the suffering of so many average people? She was sitting in a comfortable hotel while people were running for their lives. Is it not self-indulgent to wallow on your own experience? I can remember that day hearing people complain about the trains being out of service for a few hours because they wanted to get out. At some point, I felt compelled to say, "Look, we're going to get out. We're the lucky ones. And if we have to wait till tomorrow, we're still the lucky ones." Hearing some of the lyrics in the song produces a similar reaction in me. And I do believe Stevie had the right intentions, but the execution was all wong.

and this is one New Yorker that totally relates to this song...

and just to bust chops, Carne, everyone knows that any native New Yorker never relates to any music by that New Jerseyite, Bruce Springstein!!! ;)

I think Stevie's subtleness in this song means more to me than any of the other more blatant songs I've heard. There was a time when Stevie was criticized for being too lyrically vague and artsy, and unable to be real by drawing upon her personal experiences when writing her lyrics and now she is criticized as self-indulgent for doing the opposite...

"This coastline is glittering
Like a diamond snake
In a black sky" and I actually used this quote last weekend when we took our close friends who live in Italy into Manhattan for Chinese. It is the wife's first time visiting the US (she's french) and she was amazed by the twinkling lights of the city as we crossed over the Hudson...

Sorry, Bella, but I just don't see what the subtlety is in words like "trauma" and "Just remember I was so scared." That is a big part of my problem with the song: If there was trauma, you needn't use the word, and the same goes for "scared." Show me you're afraid, show me there was trauma, but don't bother telling me. To use a poor analogy, it's like explaining the punchline to a joke.

no problem, you are completely entitled to your opinion of this song and of the many other Stevie tunes which you do not like. It does not speak to you whereas the stuff Bruce recorded, did speak to you. and that's alright... :)

That's why, thank goodness, we have many many different types artists and art in the world to help us interpret, escape from and/or deal with the reality and fantasy of our lives.

Stevie poetry/lyrics and her stripped down music on the many demos has always spoken to me. from her corniest hokey lyrics of Jane and Ghosts to the lyrical perfection of Sara and Landslide...from her halting piano of her Rhiannons to her acoustic guitar on Twisted. please don't get me wrong, I like the produced and finished products as well but I also enjoy Stevie's musical talents as limited as they may be.

and Illume did touch and please me as well. And as a long time fan,. Stevie had a big order from me to live up my expectations prior to my first hearing of Illume.

and it is so odd, but at that dinner I referred to in my previous post, my hubby actually found out from our Italian friends that a girl he had casually dated in college died in the towers..."just remember when I'm haunted"

AMEN!!!

I would also like to add that if it was a song that she believed it could only be "anything" for her and the people of New York, she should never have recorded the song.

I completely agree with everything you said, doll.

the common saying goes "if it touches one person, then it's worth it" especially if it's what you do for a living...

also an existential (sorry for the bad spelling") quote applies here as well "if it's my foxhole then it is the center of the universe"

As a European and a non-native speaker the lyrics of illume don't have immediate impact -positive nor negative. It is just the feel that communicates immediately for me. With that in mind....



agreed,

then... what about "i'm so afraid, slip and i fall and i die"?

I'll have to see, but I really think lindsey is doing that a lot, too. For me, it is not a problem when you are telling a story, but it is when you write a poem. maybe that's the case here. (I'm just thinking out loud.)

But for me, illume' s intensity is in how she sings it, not in the lyric. when I heard the centermix I thought... oh buckingham, you should have left it there; Bass, drums, the pure vocal and maybe some backingvocals and that's it. It goes to your throat immediately. and the direct soul of that mix and raw vocal is something the song needed. So I think the arrangement gave something extra distential (english expression?) to the song. Not only by the (lack of) strength of the lyric.


gerald:wavey:

I guess I do not see those example as example of self-indulgence because when I think of that term, I think of someone behaing badly, etc. I do not think La Nicks or LB do that. Perhaps self-absorbed, which, although I like it alot, "Ghosts" is too me because she is beginning the 10 or more years of whining in songs about her life and no husband? In any event, I think Illume was not either of those terms per se.

The usual apologies to everyone. Once again I haven’t been reading the board for several days. Let’s hope this is the final inclusion of the sort into the thread.
I believe it’s this sentence that has seemingly bothered some of you:
I agree I went way too far there. The thing Nancy spoke about later happened there; I was “projecting my own views of 9-11 onto Lindsey.” And I was way too blunt also. The only things I know of LB’s political orientation are the few I’ve read from the BuckinghamNicks.net message board and even those must have become distorted in my head. So I’m sorry for writing that. That’s the reason why I have that particular signature these days; I need to keep my head straight amidst all my speculation. This time I didn’t succeed in it. I stand behind everything else though.

A) Lindsey may think so but would it necessarily prevent him from inserting shades of other emotions into them? Would he treat them as “sacred” and leave them untouched? Listening to the demos of “Thrown Down” and “Not Make Believe”; I think he wouldn’t.
B) Show me an artist who doesn’t tell the media that “our latest work is the best work we’ve ever done”. ;)

I never said he was trying to mock the event itself (or any particular death); he was just providing us with an alternative reaction to Stevie’s lyric. Stevie didn’t write the all-encompassing take on 9-11 (and I’m sure no one is capable of that), she wrote her own interpretation of it. If you think “Illume” is beyond criticism as the most adequate take on the whole tragedy, then you and I aren’t on the same wavelength. And I still find the song moving, I share very little of CarneVaca’s criticism on Stevie’s lyrics.

Seven, indirectly. Some guy went into a supermarket exactly thirteen months after the whole 9-11 thing (at least, the media doubling in September 2002 was probably a partial influence) and blew himself up along with innocent people. Of course nothing like that is big news in there; here it shocked many. Let me just tell you, however, that no one here (except for the most obstinate communists) had the “I told you so” reaction immediately after the whole 9-11; those started surfacing about a week after the crashes.

I know it probably seems like the two countries are inseparable from the good ol’ USA, but that’s a Russian movie you mentioned, even though one of the main characters is a Finnish sniper played by a Finn.

Just an aside: I’ve seen you type the title that way a few times before. Are you hinting at the way Stevie pronounces the word during the song?

You’re right in that I can’t prove he wanted to mock Stevie’s lyrics deliberately. That’s the impression I got, however, and it was weird at first to hear such a choice in a song like that. Even you, as you said on your board, got that impression at first but obviously you didn’t want to cling to it. It’s impossible to say objectively whether there’s a sarcastic tone used or not as the interpretations would vary depending on the listener. For me it is one though.

I was thinking of that LB quote too when I wrote my thoughts on “Illume” into this thread. I have no reason to doubt that he felt very shocked that day. If he didn’t, then he’d obviously be one of these intellectuals who oppose to these things only because they want to be “different”. I also believe he fully shares (or shared) Stevie’s grief. However, that does not prevent him from taking an alternative view.

For the record: I agree with Dissention’s take on “Illume” completely, especially “of it's constraint of being about only one persons feelings”. That’s a flaw in Stevie’s writing occasionally; for the uninitiated it can come off as pieces of a personal world that might seem far too esoteric at first. Her producers capable of wrapping these pieces up into something that the casual listeners can also find appealing, they’re capable of colouring Stevie’s images into something more attractive. Especially Lindsey. He’s not afraid of bringing in these “alternate views”, through his own voice or his production.

So, is he mocking Stevie then, like many kids in the schoolyard used to mock something someone was saying with a funny voice? Nah, not that blatantly. If he shares Stevie’s grief, it’s not necessarily Stevie and her emotions that he’s mocking, he could be poking at himself for his own reaction. If Stevie wrote “Illume” directly after the events and didn’t do any editing on it, then it is natural that she wouldn’t be capable of taking on a point of view other than her own. However, it was different when LB received the song way after the tragedy and obviously worked on it for a long period of time. He could already take some distance to it, he could ruminate on the topic instead of being completely crushed by emotions. In short, he wanted to reflect on other possible interpretations of the tragedy, not just the Nicksian grief. For “Illume” is a very one-sided song; Stevie has only inserted grief in there (which she subtly varies, though). But since Lindsey has started to act as a sonic painter of sorts; someone who doesn’t just spurt a single emotion on the canvas but uses several intersecting ones at the same time, then it’s understandable for him to put something like that in “Illume” too. It is there in his own songs, along with this self-ridicule; “Come” is basically a parody of male aggression (which I’m sure is not unfamiliar to him) which he crosses with the verses that sound like the confessions of an obsessive lunatic, “Family Man” is LB laughing at his disability to write a good lyric (up to that point, at least) through the various voice manipulation while setting the tune to harmless ‘80s backing music. So, if he can do this with his own songs, why can’t he do it with Stevie’s too? For me saying that “Illume” is just a “simple” song about sadness/grief after LB’s treatment is the same as saying that “Say Goodbye” is just Lindsey waxing nostalgic after a love affair. There’s so much more other things that he adds into these songs.

The problem that people are having with my suggestion is probably that someone who mocks a serious song about a tragedy seems like a cruel person. That someone would have the guts to make an open joke about a tragedy. I don’t think there is that obvious a joke in the song; otherwise I wouldn’t be alone in my position. It is a subtle joke, not something that seems to underestimate the lyric. It’s just something that deflates the imagery a bit; it’s not the history of the world Stevie is talking about in there, it’s her own story.

Is the using of those voices humorous? For me it is partially; although it’s humour that’s born out of the unlikelihood of something like that happening in a song that’s supposed to be full of sadness. It doesn’t make me laugh directly or anything like that. It serves as a necessary reminder to the mourner; life isn’t all centred around you and there’s people who just won’t care for what you feel. You’re just a drop in an ocean. It’s an intellectual thing, of course, something that one can only come up with after the tragedy, but no less valid an expression than anything Stevie is doing.

I don’t know. I guess I’m just a bit bothered by the fact that there’s this common opinion in our society of grief and what it should be like. These days, after an event that shocks the nation, you’re just not supposed to be showing any other emotion besides pure mourning. Anything else, even a variant of that, and then you’re a freak. For me there’s always been so much other things involved in it; cynicism, anger, depression and yes, even sarcasm. That’s what Lindsey reflects on. We may watch all these funerals and tragedies from the TV every year but even then it’s usually because of voyeurism. You never see anyone showing true “negative” emotions in public and that’s obviously because most people wouldn’t bear to watch it. LB is not afraid of recognizing these things in people though.

I refuse to believe that Lindsey was “cheapening the message of the song” with those voices. He was just trying to give us a glimpse of something else. It’s easy to wrap oneself in mourning and stay in that state for a long time. These people usually dismiss humour as escapism. For me humour, the like of which is in “Illume” too, is not about pushing away one’s problems and fears. It an ability to look at yourself from a larger perspective; the fears won’t crush you then.

“Illume” may have been written as a direct response to what was happening all around Stevie but the fact that she apparently didn’t alter the message of the song when recording it with Fleetwood Mac proves that she didn’t want to express anything other than grief. Such a song, hell, even the original Stevie demo would have been an understandable release if it had been put out at the tail end of 2001. I have no reason to believe that Lindsey would have wanted to do something that would alter the atmosphere so significantly that quick. He shared her grief, as we admit. However, in time your perspectives are bound to change and you will start seeing other sides of the matter. Which is what happened to Lindsey too, and he wanted to communicate that through music and the lyrical repetition. And especially the tones he chose to use.

And I don’t share this view with you either. It isn’t just a case of replicating “Madonna circa 1995”, it’s such an obvious a deviation from the overall atmosphere of the song that it has to represent something else. Whether it’s the fear and confusion of all those people on that day or just “mere sarcasm”, depends on the interpreter.

In the end, Nancy, I think you sometimes underestimate Lindsey’s sonic paintings; the different feelings they can evoke and the musical quotations he makes. I think those could be used as a basis for interesting song interpretations too, along with the lyrics. Of course that stuff might be more vague than whatever Stevie’s giving you to work with, but I’m sure that in many cases the results wouldn’t be that much more nebulous than what some of the reader comments at your site are. ;)

Another necessary disclaimer: This is all just my humble opinion! But I guess most of you knew that already.

Agreed on everything about the sonic painter and extra viewpoints added in somany steviesongs:

This one should have been left pure. He was touched (he perhaps even cried) when he heard that first stevie demo.

On this occasion I feel that he should have captured that emotion. Especially because it is in there!

Okay I repeat myself:
listen to the centermix and you know what I mean. That's F*ckin funky bleeding soul.


gerald:wavey:

I agree. I love that vocal to death. No intellectual pondering needed. ;)

Also, he should have put John's bass way more upfront into the mix. Some "f*cking funky" stuff there. :nod:

I'd love to hear them jamming it on stage.

Very interesting interpretations, but I still don't feel that Lindsey was intending to be even mildly humorous with the "weird voice" modulation in the song.

He has a wry sense of humour, which he's not afraid to express in song (nor should he be), but that's never been the vibe I've gotten from his production on this particular track.

I think he was going for a sinister, unnatural sound... something dark and off-putting... to help bolster the heartbroken and fearful sentiment that Stevie was expressing in her lyrics.

I doubt it was ever his intention to have someone listen to that part and think it's meant to be silly... he'd probably even be kind of offended to hear that!
Anybody have the guts to ask Lindsey, "So hey, Lindsey, were you trying to be funny when you produced 'Illumé'?" :laugh:

When they come back to Atlanta, I will have cocktails again with him and ask him :cool:

Forgive the faux pas. The setting is in Lapland, which is Finnish, and about half the movie is spoken in Finnish. Two other languages, German and Russian are spoken. But you are correct, it is Russian.

And no, Finland and Russia don't look the same to me, especially since I was born in Europe myself. Be that as it may, though I've never belonged to the anti-communist alarmist crowd, one has to admit that if not for the influence and might of the "good ol' USA," Finland might well have become another Soviet republic or satellite. And at that point, yes, it would have become quite indistinguishable to us. ;)

I... gulp... agree with this assessment. As much as I may disagree with you on the beauty, or lack thereof, of the lyrics, I just don't see Lindsey injecting any sort of sarcasm or humor into this song. And, really, it doesn't come across as humorous anyway.

Hey, if I shouted “spontaneity!” to him in Germany before the usual “WTWCT” speech then I have the guts to ask him just about anything. ;)
And looking at the way our country is now because of this “influence”, I might as well prefer the big hug of Josef Vissarionovich. As we say around here: “Siberia could teach you a thing or two”. ;)

Do you think he would do so without Stevie's permission? I think not. And I do not think she would go for such an "alternative reaction."



You are right that I initially got that, but I'm positive it was unintentional. I hold Lindsey in too high a regard to believe that he would intentionally do something like that. In that way, I believe it is you who are underestimating him.

While this sounds very nice, I doubt Lindsey would be so presumptuous as to take Stevie's songs and change their meaning. His production does make Stevie's material more attractive on an AESTHETIC level. He makes her MUSIC sound better. He does NOT take it upon himself to make her meaning more "broad."

Lindsey would be the last person to try and make a song more appealing to the masses, don't you think? Aren't we all so proud of him for his "artistic integrity" in doing his thing against the mainstream? Do we think he disregards Stevie's own right to use a song she has written to convey an emotion that perhaps everyone might not like? I find this hard to believe. It would be amazingly disrespectful to Stevie.

The MEANING is not SUPPOSED to be his, Gauis. It's Stevie's. I guess that's the fundamental difference in our views. You feel Lindsey would have no problem rendering her song more "acceptable" to the masses without her permission. I have too much respect for Lindsey to think that he is that arrogant, or that he believes himself to be the arbiter of what is "acceptable" for a song about 911 to convey.

To me, the distinction is obvious. He has the right to make a statement about whatever the hell he wants on his own songs. STEVIE HAS THAT SAME RIGHT. Lindsey's talents in production do NOT give him authority to act as her "meaning filter." Think about what you're saying here!

And I know some people who will be surprised to hear that "Family Man" is Lindsey satirizing his inability to write lyrics! The song's lyrics suck, but that seems completely unintentional to me. Or are Stevie's insipid lines in the song that started this thread also "self-ridicule"? Nah, couldn't be. Stevie is not capable of such deep thought. Let's call in Lindsey to do it for her, shall we?

See above. "Say Goodbye" is a LINDSEY song.

EXACTLY. It's her own story. If Lindsey wanted to convey something different, he would've written his OWN song about it.




Well, if Lindsey wants to do this kind of philosophizing to make sure everyone mourns more "intellectually," then I repeat that he can write his own song about it. Perhaps the reason why Stevie's song is so personal is that she doesn't believe she has the right to tell people what they should be feeling after 911. But she DOES have the right to express her OWN ideas and she DID SO. Lindsey has enough integrity to respect her right!



I actually agree with this overall sentiment! Lindsey is not afraid to express criticism of such things IN HIS OWN SONGS. But why would he presume to hijack Stevie's to do so? How selfish would that be?



Again, I agree with this sentiment in general. But I refuse to believe Lindsey would use Stevie's song as a format for conveying his own message (and, really, mocking voices wouldn't effectively convey this anyway.)



I hope by now you understand why I would find it impossible to believe Lindsey would superimpose his own agenda on Stevie's songs that way.




Well, perhaps he isn't just trying to be "different," but he certainly isn't trying to improve Stevie's meaning somehow, because he deems it inadequate to express a true range of emotions.



So you think I am underestimating his talent as a producer by not agreeing that he is changing Stevie's meaning for her? Whatever.



If you want to twist Stevie's lyrics into a meaning you prefer by using some supposed "meaning" Lindsey added, that's your right. It WOULD make about as much sense as a few of the things that some people have sent me. But I for one think that going beyond the lyrics to find meaning FROM ANOTHER PERSON is totally unfair to Stevie. "Stevie feels this, but we can tell from how Lindsey treated her song that he believes her feelings are inadequate. Luckily he has taken it upon himself to make her song more appropriate. Aren't we fortunate he was around to 'improve' Stevie's meaning and express what other people feel? Isn't that what music production's all about - changing the songwriter's meaning to fit the producer's agenda? Lindsey sure is a good meaning producer, isn't he?"


Yeah, I knew that already. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Good lord.

Amen.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Wish I could contribute more to this tome of a thread, but alas, I am fresh out. :shrug:

12 full screens of text for one post does tend to wear one out, no?

ha and it still makes no sense to me



Lorraine :laugh:

HELL NO!

We have political threads that run over 50 pages over on the Chit Chat board! :laugh:

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :

Hey, don’t you think it’s about time someone gave me my own medicine? ;)

No, I don’t think he would do anything with a Nickssong without Stevie’s approval these days. And by that I mean approval during the “arranging” of song or approval after the backing track is completed. I didn’t believe such claims in the first place when EricBliss suggested that Lindsey screwed up with the production of “WISYA” (and my reaction to that is what caused this thread to go so seriously off-tangent).

Would she go for that kind of reaction? I do get the feeling that she probably wouldn’t.

If you think I suggested that LB did the whole “voice mockery” as a childish joke without Stevie’s acceptance then you’re wrong. But I guess we all agree on the fact that those voices could represent almost anything. Like I said, if it’s a joke, it’s not an obvious one. I can imagine Stevie shaking her head in disbelief at those voices first (if we presume Lindsey did them earlier). Equally I can imagine LB answering to her that they “represent the confusion and chaos of that day” or “ghosts” or whatever you have been suggesting. If he wanted to sneak in sarcasm to the track then he most likely wouldn’t have told Stevie that he was doing so. But what am I actually saying here?

If the voices were intended as sarcastic and were added without Stevie’s approval then that would suggest that LB would still have some ire towards SN, or that his relationship with her isn’t all that they’ve made us believe now. I wouldn’t want to say so though. Ok, I do believe that if someone’s a real friend to you then he/she will also shake you up once in a while when you’re all self-centred by deflating your self-importance.
But I do not wish to suggest that. Instead I do believe that Stevie approved of the voices fully. But I also believe that those voices can’t be subjugated to represent one particular, obvious thing. Lindsey very rarely hits us on the head anyway; he can be very vague. That’s what those voices are too; they’re open to all kinds of interpretations. They’ve screamed “sarcasm!” at me since day one of listening to SYW but I guess that tells more of me than of anything else.
Besides, if someone was to ask Lindsey what those voices are doing in there we probably wouldn’t get a straight answer from the man. He’s so vague in interviews too nowadays. I’m sure it’s mainly because he doesn’t want to ruin other people’s interpretations. But then again it could be because he’s too scared to discuss his songs and contributions in more detail, unlike Stevie.

Since you made a similar point later on, I’ll answer it there. But now I’d just like to say that whenever Lindsey puts on a guitar track of his on a Stevie song, it changes the meaning for me. So it changes when he puts on his vocal. So it changed when Chris sang on a Stevie song. In that way no FM track is totally about Stevie. It’s also about Fleetwood Mac. When I was speaking of these “alternate views”, I mainly meant musical contributions. I don’t think Stevie’s recent demos hint at all the potential of a song enough. That’s why I used this wording. You probably misunderstood me and thought that Lindsey is trying to “make her [lyrical] meaning more broad” in every song she’s written. I didn’t want it to be read like that.

Again, I stated this earlier in the thread and will state it here again; Lindsey knows how to approach the mainstream but he doesn’t want appear banal. In every song he’s done since Tusk he’s always thrown in some element that might possibly alienate an audience.
Alright, everyone wouldn’t like what Stevie’s expressing in “Illume”. But this song wasn’t intended as a single. In some songs LB’s emphasis is to approach the mainstream (although with the possible “alienation” factor), with the rest he can do pretty much what he likes. If Stevie would have wanted to cash in on “Illume” she would have called in another producer or told Lindsey that he can’t do everything he wants with it. Then the song wouldn’t have the hellish guitars or goofy voices. No way do I think those goofy voices are trying to “seduce the masses”. The masses would rather listen to a song that can be more easily interpreted as being about grief (I mean “Illume” without the voices) than something that has those voices which change the mood completely for a while. Lindsey may be using a thing that was fashionable once but he’s using it in a very unlikely context.

I don’t believe he has the possible arrogance of the past anymore either. But there’s no way the masses would approve of the possible use of sarcasm in a song about grief.

If that’s what I have said, that Lindsey is Stevie’s “meaning filter”, then I’ve expressed some things inadequately. I’d like to think I haven’t put things that way (although I do admit doing so with “Illume” only), although I do believe that he can change the meaning of the music. Then again, do you think the new arrangement of “Smile At You” takes away some of the power (and perhaps even meaning) of the lyric?

That’s the only way I can explain why the lyrics of “Family Man” are poor but then again as a fan of LB I want to find a rational explanation to the weakness of some of his material. ;) But I do think the approach in that track is basically to see how weak a lyric he can get away with by using all that voice treatment. I’ve never seen it as a song that takes itself with seriousness at all.
And to be honest, I don’t think Stevie has ever let out a weak lyric in an official release. Of course, as someone who doesn’t “get lyrics” like the native speakers of the English language do, I don’t think I’m that capable of seeing what makes a certain Stevie lyric a masterpiece and why some other piece of is supposed to be below par. But there’s no way I think the lyrics of “When I See You Again” are bad, especially when that voice is singing them. “Family Man”, on the other hand, :rolleyes: but then again the arrangement covers most of that up.

OK. Do you want to know why I write this “pseudo-intellectual rubbish”? Because I hate to see the usual assumption of “Stevie being deeper than Lindsey”. That Stevie’s songs have more depth, that they’re more emotional and personal etc. I’m not denying her more intimate approach at all but I still think the whole assumption is selling Lindsey a bit short. Just because he doesn’t write like Stevie does and doesn’t have the same voice are some dismissing him? It’s unfair in my opinion. Sure, Lindsey’s more self-conscious. Sure, his lyrics were mainly poor in the early days. Sure, he likes the unusual dashes, large dramatic shifts. But that’s the way he expresses himself, in everything he puts into his songs. You need to take his songs as the final products with all these various streams of emotions coming in. He isn’t any less deep than Stevie is, he just achieves a different kind of depth.

Nancy, I don’t think Stevie really philosophises over her songs, or at least not as much as Lindsey does over his. She has one very powerful tool, her voice. It’s always been capable of expressing different emotions and with her getting “older and wiser” it has reached this mature point where it can present very subtle variants of those. I’ve never thought Lindsey’s voice has such potential, if it does it’s just a fraction of Stevie’s. Lindsey covers this up with his musical skills while Stevie doesn’t really need those. I don’t think either is deeper than the other, they just express different things. Together or alone.

I’ve never thought he was trying to obviously put his opinion in there for all to see. And I’ve never seen either LB or SN trying to tell people what they should feel.

For how long a time does he “hijack” “Illume” then? 23 seconds. That’s how long those voices are in there. I don’t think that’s hijacking on a larger scale. It doesn’t affect anything Stevie’s singing in any way and it doesn’t change her message one bit; he just puts in this diversion there for a while.

But why do I feel it’s a different message that I get from the song during those 23 seconds? I think “Illume” has an approach somewhat similar to very many classic progressive rock pieces; you state a theme and later repeat it in a different context and evoking different emotions; often it can seem like they’re playing an entirely new thing altogether. In early ‘70s prog rock you usually played a particular theme with acoustic instruments and then later on it transformed into a fiery electric showcase. In this format the same theme can mean an entirely different thing when it’s played with different tone colours. “Illume” doesn’t work entirely like that, it’s a five-minute song by a band that’s supposed to be doing “pop”. Instead they use the lyrical repetition: the “what I saw on this journey” stanza gives a totally different impression when done by those goofy voices as does Stevie’s furious vocal when it repeats the chorus after that. Now if that approach suggests different things in prog, why can’t it do so here?

But could you give me a rational reason as to why she wouldn’t want the song to convey something else than her own viewpoint for 23 seconds? Alright, it’s likely it’s not sarcasm but it’s something else anyway. It’s something that her voice can’t convey unless it’s warped to another extreme through voice manipulation. And it’s something she approved of.

No, no and no. You can read into Stevie’s songs however you want. Single exceptions like “Illume” won’t really matter. I was speaking about Lindsey’s own songs here. About the only musical self-quotation you speculate on your site is the “Stephanie” – “Eyes Of The World” connection. How about “You And I Part 2” – “Surrender The Rain”, “Big Love” – “Destiny Rules”, “Lola (My Love)” – “The Chain”, etc.? Also, his use of altered voices always changes the mood and tone of a lyric.
Of course I’m not asking you to do this because it can be difficult. It’s harder to analyse music along with lyrics than just purely lyrics; it can often be like “dancing about architecture”, as Frank Zappa put it. Yet I think that Lindsey communicates to us as much through his music as he does through his lyrics.
And even Les, who seems to be the most vocal supporter of this theory along with me, hasn’t put anything like that on her site. And she most likely won’t.



If that’s what you got from my post then it really must have failed to represent what I think and feel.

And so shall it be. But I won’t rehash the “sarcasm” argument anymore. It’s a very vague one anyway and if what I wrote can cause interpretations that feel extreme (to me at least), then it’s just not worth it.

Oh, of course, doll. I was just shocked at the tone of condescension; that's all. :D