Lindsey does a Stevie and sells his publishing rights.
 

https://variety.com/2021/music/news/...is-1234878556/

LOL at those who scolded Stevie for doing the exact same thing last month.

---

Hipgnosis Songs kept busy over the holiday: Not 24 hours after the fast-growing company announced that it acquired Jimmy Iovine’s production catalog, it announced it has acquired the music publishing rights of Lindsey Buckingham, best known for his work with Fleetwood Mac.

Along with the 25% share it acquired in September, Hipgnosis — which has invested more than $1.5 billion in music catalogs in just two and a half years — now owns 100% of Buckingham’s music publishing rights, including his publishing and writer’s share, of his entire catalog, comprising 161 songs, as well as a 50% share of any unreleased compositions, according to the announcement.

Buckingham was represented by managers Matt Sadie and Simon White at C3 Management, his attorney, David Altschul, of Altschul Olin & Vandergast LLP, and his business manager, Rick Mozenter of Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman.

Along with his solo work and an album with longtime partner Stevie Nicks — who sold her catalog to Primary Wave late last year for a reported $100 million — Buckingham’s catalog includes his four credits on Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumours” — including the smash single “Go Your Own Way” — one of the top-selling albums of all time at 45 million copies worldwide, as well as the group’s 1975 self-titled album, 1979’s “Tusk,” 1987’s “Tango in the Night” and others.

In addition to his work with Fleetwood Mac, Buckingham has released five solo albums, as well as 1973’s “Buckingham Nicks” and an eponymous 2017 album with Fleetwood Mac bandmate Christine McVie.

I really wanted to buy the rights to "Johnny Stew" so that I could release a classical/orchestral version.

Thank you for posting.
They have a lot of great clients at that company: Blondie, Jack Antonoff, Mark Ronson, Chrissie Hynde, Manilow
It sure wasn't $100mil. Any guesses?

Nice group but still, sucks.

Lmao at the title of this thread, it’s more like Lindsey does a Dylan. Stevie sold her “likeness” too if I remember correctly, not just her music catalog.

Maybe now GYOW and whoever owed those rights will stop being all over stupidest commercials? :p

thanks for posting the link. not sure why you didn't include the title or quote the whole article.... there are couple more paragraphs - apparently Lindsey is hoping for the promotion of his current and future solo work -


Fleetwood Mac Vet Lindsey Buckingham Sells Publishing Catalog to Hipgnosis Songs

By Jem Aswad

...............................................

Merck Mercuriadis, Founder of The Family (Music) Limited and Hipgnosis Songs Fund Limited, said: “Lindsey Buckingham is one of the greatest guitarists, songwriters and producers of all time yet is still so underrated. His work with Fleetwood Mac has brought the world unparalleled joy over the last 45 years and he belongs in any discussion featuring Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney. It’s wonderful to welcome him and his iconic songs both as a solo artist and with Fleetwood Mac to the Hipgnosis family”.

Lindsey Buckingham said: “Prior to arriving at an agreement with Hipgnosis, I had wonderful long conversations with Merck Mercuriadis. I was pleased to find a kindred spirit, someone who’s a big fan of my work in Fleetwood Mac, and an even bigger fan of my solo efforts. I look forward to working with Merck and the whole Hipgnosis team going into the future, and am confident that my body of work will be curated with great heart and insight”.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...wood-mac-hits/

HIPGNOSIS FULLY ACQUIRES LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM SONG CATALOG, INCLUDING 100% WRITER AND PUBLISHER SHARE OF FLEETWOOD MAC HITS

JANUARY 5, 2021BY TIM INGHAM
L-R: John McVie, Mick Fleetwood, Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks
Hipgnosis Songs Fund isn’t playing as 2021 gets underway.

Just one day after it announced the acquisition of Jimmy Iovine’s production royalties, the Merck Mercuriadis-led entity has confirmed yet another major rights buyout.

This time, Hipgnosis has acquired 100% of Lindsey Buckingham’s publishing rights, including both his publishing and writer’s share, across 161 songs.

Those songs include an array of hits that Buckingham wrote and/or co-wrote for Fleetwood Mac, including Go Your Own Way and The Chain.

Hipgnosis previously acquired a 25% stake in Buckingham’s song catalog via its buyout of a publishing portfolio from Kobalt for $323m in September (announced in November).

As part of its new agreement with Buckingham, announced today (January 5), Hipgnosis also acquires a 50% share of any unreleased compositions.

Today’s news means that the majority of publishing rights for songs penned by two of Fleetwood Mac’s biggest songwriters – Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks – are now owned by modern, highly acquisitive, rights management firms. (Nicks sold 80% of her publishing rights last year to Hipgnosis rival Primary Wave for around $80m.)

Merck Mercuriadis, founder of Hipgnosis Songs Fund Limited, said: “Lindsey Buckingham is one of the greatest guitarists, songwriters and producers of all time yet is still so underrated. His work with Fleetwood Mac has brought the world unparalleled joy over the last 45 years and he belongs in any discussion featuring Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney. It’s wonderful to welcome him and his iconic songs both as a solo artist and with Fleetwood Mac to the Hipgnosis family”.

“LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM IS ONE OF THE GREATEST GUITARISTS, SONGWRITERS AND PRODUCERS OF ALL TIME YET IS STILL SO UNDERRATED.”

MERCK MERCURIADIS, HIPGNOSIS

Lindsey Buckingham said: “Prior to arriving at an agreement with Hipgnosis, I had wonderful long conversations with Merck Mercuriadis. I was pleased to find a kindred spirit, someone who’s a big fan of my work in Fleetwood Mac, and an even bigger fan of my solo efforts.

“I look forward to working with Merck and the whole Hipgnosis team going into the future, and am confident that my body of work will be curated with great heart and insight.”

“I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH MERCK AND THE WHOLE HIPGNOSIS TEAM GOING INTO THE FUTURE, AND AM CONFIDENT THAT MY BODY OF WORK WILL BE CURATED WITH GREAT HEART AND INSIGHT.”

LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM

Lindsey Buckingham was represented by managers Matt Sadie and Simon White at C3 Management, his attorney, David Altschul, of Altschul Olin & Vandergast LLP, and his business manager, Rick Mozenter of Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman.

Lindsey Buckingham released his debut album Buckingham Nicks in 1973 with his then partner, Stevie Nicks. The duo then joined Mick Fleetwood, John McVie and Christine McVie as Fleetwood Mac.

Buckingham’s second album with Fleetwood Mac, Rumours, was released in 1977 and has sold over 45 million copies worldwide, making it one of the nine bestselling albums of all time. It won Album of the Year at the 1978 Grammy Awards, containing Go Your Own Way, written by Buckingham, and The Chain, co-written by Buckingham. Buckingham also wrote Second Hand News and Never Going Back Again on Rumours.

Buckingham’s four songs from Rumours have collectively been streamed more than 1 billion times on Spotify alone.

In 1979, Fleetwood Mac released the multi-platinum album Tusk, whose title track was written by Buckingham. He also wrote the likes of What Makes You Think You’re The One, Save Me A Place, Walk A Thin Line, Not That Funny and I Know I’m Not Wrong on the record.

Buckingham released his first solo album Law and Order in 1981, which included the Top 10 single Trouble. He then returned to Fleetwood Mac to record the UK No.1 and multi-platinum album Mirage which sold over 4 million copies.

In 1987, Fleetwood Mac released Tango in the Night which sold over 15 million copies worldwide. The LP featured four US Top 20 hits including Big Love, which was written by Buckingham and reached the Top 10 in both the US and the UK.

In 2003, Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac released the album Say You Will which sold more than 2 million copies worldwide and featured the hit single Peacekeeper written by Buckingham.

As a member of Fleetwood Mac, Buckingham was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998 and in 2011 was listed in Rolling Stone Magazine’s ‘100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time’.

In addition to his work with Fleetwood Mac, Buckingham has released five solo albums including Out of the Cradle, Under the Skin, Gift of Screws and Seeds We Sow.

In 2017, Buckingham and his Fleetwood Mac bandmate Christine McVie released the UK Top 5 and certified silver album Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie.

UK-listed Hipgnosis Songs Fund owned (or owned cuts in) 57,836 songs in its portfolio as of the end of September 2020, when its market cap value stood at circa $1.7bn.Music Business Worldwide

Maybe these sales of publishing rights will result in more cool, under-the-radar releases — songs that never got released, concerts, etc.

hmmm.... why give up your writer's share as well??

I kinda get that you sell to an entity that because they stand to make money from it will make all sorts of efforts to get your music out into the world....though of course they don't really care where that income comes from, hence putting songs in commercials, films, whatever.... But I suppose he thinks that having a company that is motivated to push more of his work out into the public forum is better than being stuck with a dud record company who will only promote the flavor-of-the-month artists. But clearly the "what's in it for us" mentality of the companies is that they will get to keep all the profits going forward which they clearly expect to be more than what they are giving the artist now.:shrug:

Never knew producers could sell off their future royalties as well... Learn something new every day. So someone else will be making money off the work he did on Stevie's and Tom's albums... not sure how you promote the producer's work if it is contingent on the songwriter/artist controlling the songs, but what do I know

It's being covered on RollingStone and Billboard too.
I'm happy he's making bank. Treat himself to an upgraded home studio

Very smart move to do this. Otherwise he continues to pay big taxes annually, and here he cashes out for a big sum. There may even be a larger audience that ends up discovering his music that might not have? This is all about estate planning for his family and kids, which in my opinion is all that really matters right? He earned it, and these groups he sold to will help look out for his legacy. You know that had to be a big part of the deal that was eventually reached.

Reading this thread, I thought it was interesting to compare people’s reactions to Lindsey selling his catalog to when Stevie sold hers just a few weeks ago. Vastly different reactions to two people doing the exact same thing. On her thread, she sold out, she doesn’t need the money, she has no one to leave it to anyway, etc.

interesting. guess it tells you Lindsey fans are much more positive, nicer people than Stevie fans! :nod::) ;) ;)

unless there were same people commenting there - but pretty sure there are a good number of LB fans that never look at the Stevie forum, and i'm sure the opposite is true too. i do know she didn't sell the whole 100% and that she sold her "likeness" / persona as a part of the package. which makes sense for her.

interesting Forbes article on selling publishing from earlier this year -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercs...n_DKUTM03qhVZU

Feb 10, 2020,09:00am EST|9,359 views
10 Reasons Why Musicians Should Consider Selling Publishing & Masters
Peter Csathy

Music publishing and masters have never been in such high demand. GETTY

In my last article for Forbes, I discussed why today’s acquisition market for music, movie and television content (intellectual property or IP) has never been hotter. Demand for content is at its peak in our new tech and streaming-driven multi-platform world of media and entertainment. Deep pocketed, well-resourced buyers abound. It’s a seller’s market.

Here, I discuss the flip side - music acquisitions from the artist’s perspective - and lay out ten reasons why artists (songwriters, recording artists) should consider selling some or all of their music publishing, masters and/or royalty streams. And, why artists and their representatives (gatekeepers who frequently don’t even pass these opportunities on to their artists because they don’t understand them) should resist the knee jerk reaction to dismiss them outright.

(1) Artists and musicians hold the power in this seller’s market and can retain control over their songs and recordings if they decide to sell. Control, plus significant benefits.

Musicians frequently fought hard to retain or take back control and ownership of their songs and recordings, which are deeply personal to them. But a sale of publishing and/or master rights does not mean loss of control. Artists hold the power to define specific parameters of how their songs and recordings can (and cannot) be used.

And, it's not an "all or nothing" proposition when considering selling publishing and/or master rights. In fact, there is no pressure to sell 100%. Many buyers are happy to buy a portion of publishing and master IP (in fact, most major buyers are happy to simply be in business with the artist). Buyers are flexible and listen to the songwriter’s and artist’s goals and what they want. So, while some artists are happy to sell 100% of their IP to maximize their immediate upfront payment and enjoy their money today (rather than wait to collect it over the years), others are more comfortable selling 50% or less of their publishing and/or master IP (or streaming royalties). That partial sale enables them to retain a continuing financial stake in their songs and recordings.

MORE FOR YOU
In Georgia, Trump Says ‘They’re Not Taking This White House’
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: ‘Trump Is A Cancer On The Republican Party’
ViacomCBS Is Bringing 14 More Channels To Hulu’s Live TV Service
In those cases where an artist sells only a portion of their IP, musicians can take a significant chunk of money off the table right now (with major tax benefits described below). Yet they can still hold on to a significant percentage of their IP and "let it ride" with the percentage that they retain. This scenario enables artists to participate in the upside growth that inevitably results from “active” management of their songs and recordings by sophisticated buyers who become real “partners” to maximize value in everything the artist does. Respected buyers carry deep expertise and sophisticated teams of specialists who actively promote the artist’s valuable songs and recordings. These are resources that most artists and songwriters simply can't match on their own. Active, significant attention generates real results. Period.

(2) It’s a great time to be an owner of valuable music publishing, master rights and streaming royalties.

Well-funded buyers actively and aggressively compete for music publishing, master recordings and streaming royalties right now. So-called financial multiples on these rights and royalty streams (essentially a multiplier placed on current royalty streams) have never been higher. That means that artists can get a big cash payment right now - in one immediate lump sum - rather than wait for royalty checks arriving over many years that may never add up to the lump sum they can enjoy right now.

Multiples today typically range from 10X-15X on the publishing side (and go significantly higher for the biggest names). So, for example, if an artist’s annual royalties for the past 3 years average $500,000, a 12X multiple means that they can expect to receive an offer of at least $6 million (depending on the mix of publishing versus master royalties). If those royalties average $2 million annually, a 15X multiple means that the artist can expect an offer of at least $30 million and potentially more. Remember, multiples can go even higher. Significantly higher.

(3) These acquisition deals can generate major tax benefits over ongoing royalty payments.

Buyout compensation (in the above case, the $6-$30 million number) may be treated as long-term capital gains in the U.S., whereas the feds treat continuing royalty checks as ordinary income. So, that gives artists even more money to enjoy right now. This is a significant, yet frequently not appreciated, factor to consider.

(4) Buyers understand that musicians frequently “don’t need the money.” But getting paid top dollar right now is only one reason to sell. Perhaps even more important to many artists, “active” buyers’ deep expertise and resources grow new opportunities for songs, recordings and the artist’s overall "brand" and legacy.

These are resources that artists, bands and songwriters - no matter how “big” - can't match. Resources that expand a song’s reach and artist’s audience (including to new generations of fans). Some buyers (those who take an “active” approach) have built significant teams of brand experts, marketing experts, digital experts - in addition to traditional synch and licensing experts - who proactively manage catalogs and create important and innovative new opportunities to maximize the artist’s “brand” and extend their legacy.

(5) Not all buyers are massive nameless, faceless entities. Active buyers listen to the artist’s goals and give real attention and focus to the artist, songs, recordings and overall “brand.”

Sophisticated active buyers think of artists as partners in every sense of the word (and want the artist to feel the same way about them). They develop real strategies together with artists, and frequently share their vision and those strategies early in the deal process. They seek active input. They are receptive to the artist’s wishes. They crave active artist participation. That's why many of the top artists and legends of all time have entered into these kinds of deals.

(6) Songwriters can customize publishing deals any way they want, selling some or all of their publisher’s share, writer’s share, or one but not the other. And, recording artists need not sell any master rights, period.

Again, artists and musicians hold the power in these deals. Songwriters shouldn’t feel the need to sell their writer's share on publishing deals (unless they want to, of course). If they desire to continue to receive their "mailbox" money, buyers will accommodate. And, on masters deals, musicians need not sell any rights/IP at all. Some buyers are happy to simply buy some or all ongoing streaming royalties flowing from specific recordings (even potentially one recording). That opportunity gives even music’s biggest names immediate liquidity to finance their goals as artists. Again, tremendous flexibility exists in terms of how to structure these deals.

(7) The artist’s songs, recordings and legacy become even more lucrative and valuable over time as a result of an active buyer's active management and development of new strategic opportunities.

Even when musicians choose to sell their full ownership interest to maximize their immediate payout, a buyer's active management of their songs and recordings yields substantial continuing benefits for the artist. First, new opportunities serve as tremendous new marketing for all of the musician’s continuing pursuits and overall brand (touring and merchandise, being two examples). That means more opportunities for artists to maximize their ongoing income. Second, a buyer's active management extends the artist’s legacy and introduces artists (and their songs) to new audiences.

Just think of all the new technology and new forms of consumer engagement for music out there (about which I recently wrote in Forbes). Immersive entertainment (virtual reality, augmented reality, games, esports) are just some examples. And, think of new audiences in emerging markets in our increasingly global music world. Those are new highly lucrative opportunities to introduce young audiences - who enjoy and engage with music very differently than they did just a few years ago - to the artist’s songs and recordings. For those songs and recordings to drive entirely new experiences. To drive entirely new impact. To drive entirely new fan engagement. To drive entirely new fans.

(8) For many artists, bands and songwriters, without active management, their "brand" slowly diminishes over time and their songs and recordings lose out on the critical opportunity to be exposed to (and enjoyed by) new generations of fans.

Gen Y and Z’ers face an onslaught of new media choices and new artists vying for their attention in this new tech and streaming-driven world of entertainment. Not only does this reality risk diminishing and marginalizing a song’s impact and artist's legacy over time, it also risks significantly slowing down relevant IP royalty streams. The artist’s "mailbox money" becomes less significant.

It’s important for artists and their representatives to fully appreciate these risks before they reject acquisition opportunities out of hand. Managers frequently block those opportunities from even reaching their artists in the first place, because they simply don’t understand them.

(9) For iconic and legacy artists, active management by a dedicated and passionate team of experts is especially critical.

Active “care and feeding” of artist IP by a team of dedicated, innovative experts increases and extends the overall value and impact of those songs, recordings and the artist’s overall “brand” (and all opportunities and revenues that flow from that).

And, the buyout portion of any deal - at current high multiples with the additional tax benefits - would require many years (perhaps decades) of royalty checks to match the sum iconic and legacy artists can enjoy today. In many cases, artists will never make up that number. So, it makes sense to enjoy that monetary value today, rather than wait for an unknown tomorrow.

(10) These deals give songwriters and recording artists control over their songs, recordings and legacies, including control to decide who will care for and nurture those songs, recordings and their legacies in the future.

Many artists see tremendous benefit in making their own personal decisions about their songs, recordings and legacies today. The alternative is to have others (including family members) attempt to define and carry out the artist’s wishes when the artist is no longer able to do so. We have seen stories of epic and ugly family battles over the past few years when, instead, the focus should always be on artists and their songs (and their place in music’s great pantheon).

The Bottom Line

That’s a lengthy list of positives.

That's why there is no downside for songwriters and recording artists (and their representatives) to seriously consider an acquisition deal of some kind at this unique moment in time. Why not listen to buyers and receive a formal offer? After all, the songwriter and recording artist - the content/IP owner - holds the power to say "yes" or "no.”

One More Thing: Reversion Rights

And, don't forget about music reversion rights under U.S. copyright law. So long as songwriters and artists give sufficient notice, ownership of post-1978 music publishing rights - and potentially even master recordings (there is some debate here) - revert back artists after 35 years (assuming the songwriter or recording artist didn't originally own them outright). That means that, in most cases, songwriters should own all of their publishing rights - and recording artists potentially their master recordings - for all works created prior to 1985 (no matter what those deals looked like back then).

[Peter Csathy is Chairman of CREATV Media and represents both buyers and sellers in music and IP-related acquisitions. He has facilitated transactions for a diverse list of music legends, including classic rock’s BOSTON, Grammy-winning duo AIR SUPPLY, and jazz great COUNT BASIE.]

I wonder if Christine regrets selling when she did.

Probably, but she was ready to retire. She'd have probably made double if she'd waited until now.

No, that’s not it. What it tells me is that Lindsey fans can be just as nasty as Stevie fans. Just like some Stevie fans think she can do no wrong, some Lindsey fans think he can do no wrong.

Don't leave your shrine unattended!:cool:

Actually, you’re a perfect example. You ridiculed Stevie for selling her catalog, which is fine, but when Lindsey did it, you didn’t say a word. That makes me think you can’t say anything negative about Lindsey. Yet you say I have a shrine? Also, way to deflect a point- you didn’t disagree with me, maybe because I brought up a reasonable point, so you do what you almost always do with someone you disagree with- you say to go back to my shrine. You say that a lot to people you disagree with. Instead of deflecting, why don't you share your thoughts on Lindsey selling his catalog? A serious opinion from you would be nice.

Do you know what she made? I'm sure she's richer now than she ever was:laugh:

Stevie fans criticizing her decision while Lindsey fans seem to be more understanding about his tells you that Lindsey fans are just as nasty as Stevie fans? you skipped a few steps of logic there. :shrug:

also, as far as i recall, Homer is a fan of Christine's music, first and foremost, so i'm not really sure why you characterize him as a Lindsey fan.

Neil Young just also sold 50% stake in his publishing (1000+ songs!) to the same co Lindsey did.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ne...k=tw&tsrc=twtr

Neil Young and Fleetwood Mac's Lindsey Buckingham join music rights mega deal spree
Kumutha Ramanathan·Contributor
Wed, 6 January 2021, 7:48 am GMT-5·2-min read

Canadian singer-songwriter Neil Young performs at the Orange Stage at the Roskilde Festival in Roskilde, Denmark, July 1, 2016. Picture taken July 1, 2016. Scanpix Denmark/Nils Meilvang/via REUTERS

Canadian singer-songwriter Neil Young performs at the Orange Stage at the Roskilde Festival in Denmark. (Credit: Scanpix Denmark/Nils Meilvang/Reuters)
Rock legend Neil Young is the latest musician to strike a catalogue deal with London-listed Hipgnosis (SONG.L) as it continues its buying spree.

The firm has taken a 50% stake in the Canadian star’s portfolio of 1,180 tracks. He is a prolific songwriter and performer, known for his solo work and with bands, such as Buffalo Springfield, Crazy Horse and Crosby, Stills & Nash.

The value of the deal has not been disclosed, but experts have estimated a price tag of $150m (£110m).

Hipgnosis (SONG.L) was trading lower 0.3% in London at around 11.45am.

The music company's shares were trading lower on Wednesday. Chart: Yahoo Finance

“This is a deal that changes Hipgnosis forever,” said Merck Mercuriadis, the company’s founder.

Hipgnosis has also secured a number of other high-profile acquisitions of late, including some of the most famous Fleetwood Mac hits as part of a 100% deal for Lindsey Buckingham’s publishing rights across 161 songs. These include both his publishing and writer’s share.

READ MORE: FTSE soars as market focuses on a potential US Democratic sweep

Among Buckingham’s writing credits are Fleetwood Mac’s famous songs “Go Your Own Way” and “The Chain.”

Hipgnosis, a company that makes money from placing songs in films and TV shows, raised £250m in September to help fund its buying spree, with a pipeline of roughly £1bn.

The acquisition frenzy has hit as music juggernauts increasingly sell off all or portions of their catalogue, including Bob Dylan, Taylor Swift and Stevie Nicks.

With COVID-19 restrictions limiting people’s ability to leave their home, musicians are not able to rely on revenue from concert sales, a significant portion of income for many. A string of sales of music rights and catalogues among top artists is the result.

“It’s amazing the way prices are going [up], after years of music assets being very low priced,” says Guillermo Page, a former record label executive who worked for Sony and Universal, and now teaches in the music program at the University of Miami, told Yahoo Finance. “The multiples we’re seeing right now are two or three times more than what those multiples used to be five or seven years ago. The music industry is generating money.”

WATCH: Bob Dylan sells song-writing catalogue to Universal Music

yes but that lump sum will also be subjected to BIG taxes

Lindsey fans who hate Stevie are the ones who ridiculed her for selling her catalog. There are a few Lindsey fans who hate Stevie who comment on her board. I apologize if I misspoke and said homer is a Lindsey fan if he’s not.

I'm a Lindsey fan, and always have been. But I've never followed anyone blindly. I would say that.....historically, Christine was my favorite, with Lindsey being second. But taste changes over time. Around the time of Bella Donna, I LOVED Stevie, dearly. But I also loved Law And Order(my all time favorite Lindsey album). And again, I also loved Christine's 1984 album. They were all at the top of their game, then.

Christine’s 1984 album is one of my secret treasures. And her work in FM has consistently been my favorite. There are many Lindsey and Stevie songs I love, but there are also some Lindsey and Stevie songs I hate, so using that unorthodox formula, that makes Christine my favorite member, musically. She is consistent! But I simply could not get into her album In the Meantime, as much as I wanted to like it.

I didn’t care for Law and Order, although a funny story about that album- my mom was looking through my record collection after she saw an interview with Tipper Gore, who was railing against the music industry at the time, and she yelled at me for having pornography in the house because of the picture of the woman on the back cover of Law and Order! Pretty crazy, and ironic too, as I was gay and had no interest in the woman pictured, though I was plenty interested in Lindsey! Out of the Cradle is my favorite Lindsey album.

Christine is by far the most consistent. What was it Dick said, 'Christine never stops coming up with ways to tell us that she loves us'? (or something like that) I love In The Meantime, but not nearly as much as 1984.

I can't explain why I love Law and Order so much, other than we were pretty much straight out of Tusk, and it's quirkiness is what worked for me. Which is pretty weird(:lol:), because I'm typically not a fan of quirky(see:Christine). Law and Order is freaky deaky at it's finest. When I used to have FM pool party weekends, I turned all these girls onto Johnny Stew. They'd NEVER heard it! And they loved it!

You know, it's weird, I never really thought Lindsey was very attractive. I mean, I look back now at pics from back in the day, and realize that he was very handsome, but it just never struck me that way back then. Probably that Eraserhead hair!

Speaking of which, a friend had recently told me to watch all the behind the scenes stuff on Youtube of the making of "We Are The World". He looks like a god damned freak with that stupid Eraserhead do! I mean, all the rest of them look fairly normal...but not Lindsey!

Law and Order is not my favorite Lindsey album.... because of the above mentioned overall quirkiness (songs like Johnny Stew, which I also love, notwithstanding). I think that hurt him in terms of public reception, and often I wonder what would have happened if his very first solo record had been OOTC or something similar... I think it would have set his solo career on a different path. That being said, regarding Lindsey's attractiveness, the cover of L&O is pretty hard to beat.:nod:

Johnny Stew is crazy fun! After I turned my friends(who were all Ledgies, like 10 years ago, but all moved on from here) onto JS, anytime there would be a party lull or something, one of us would mumble "Stew", then Sttteeewwww, then STTTEEEWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!, and we'd all break out laughing!

And I agree. Being a quirky mess out of the gate wasn't a wise career move. OOTC probably would have garnered him some major attention.

Hard to imagine he wants no control over his music for the rest of his life.

Control of Music
 

In the recent Q&A, remaining songs from the original Gift of Screws was brought up. Lindsey stated that he is very forward thinking and doesn’t like to re-visit his past. I also get the feeling that he would prefer to leave the business side to others. After a near death experience, a pandemic where people analyze a lot of things (including cash reserves), estate planning for a younger wife and children, etc. - it all seems to make sense.

Yep, very true.

I'm gay and I was more attracted to Stevie back in the day. Lindsey never really caught my eye. Looking back, I see the handsome face, just never timed it right for me.

I looked at Christine as a very attractive elegant lady with slight masculine features. I just wanted to hang with her. I truly loved the fact that she was a bit masculine and even sounded like a man at times.

Of course I was in the closet until the 90's.

Holy smokes!.. Neil Young. Who's next?!.. Billy Joel..Elton... Bruce?:blob2:

Yeah. I didn’t buy that stuff about not revisiting his past.

I’m glad to hear this... no one better be looking at my man! :p

Besides his face, I think Lindsey’s mop of curls were what caught my eye. That was probably my favorite look. He’s aged well; remarkably, the entire Rumours band have aged well, considering everything. Mick especially, who looked like a freak and was even kind of scary looking in the late 70s, looks good now.

Once Lindsey cut his hair and shaved I thought he was gorgeous. Before that, with all the hair, I could not tell him apart from anyone else. He looked grungy and generic to me. Dopey.

The Seven Wonders video is his peak look for me.

Remember how Lindsey removed his moles? I want someone to ask him about that because it’s a vanity move that I don’t think he would be interested in discussing. In fact I think he would not directly answer. He would give the impression that it is too insignificant for him to remember, but he remembers.

Like he knows whether he had epilepsy or mono. If he hasn’t ever been diagnosed with either, then he knows if he was diagnosed with something else. But he won’t say, he vagues out on a direct answer.

Moles? On his face?? Huh... I don't recall them.:shrug:

Often dermatologists will recommend removing them if there's even a remote risk of skin cancer. I have a mole on my leg that hasn't changed one iota since birth but every time a dr or dermatologist sees it they gasp and say, oh my how long have you had that? (It's tiny but very dark). My dear mother, as she was dying of cancer, used to bark at them (I'd go with her to her dr appts and they'd call out MY mole) "oh fer crissakes she's had that since she was BORN". :laugh:

He had them on his chin. I was looking for a picture and saw that I was talking about the same thing 10 years ago. At least I am consistent.

I agree with you- the reference I made to Lindsey’s curls was actually from Law and Order, although they weren’t nearly as prominent then as they were pre-Tusk. During FM and Rumours, I again agree with your assessment that he looked generic. Except for the fact that he had more hair, Lindsey and John both have that same look/vibe going on, just like the guys from Boston, etc. He really solidified his look during Tusk, and for the better. But during L&O, he had curls, which made him look even better, IMO. And the whole Tango period he looked great, though I think they all did, with the exception of Stevie’s hair in Big Love. Big Love, Seven Wonders, and Little Lies are probably all of them at their peak, in terms of looks alone.

Not to mention Jeff Lynne from ELO, and James Brolin in 'The Amityville Horror' movie.

Hard to tell them all apart. :nod: :laugh: