Is there anything "dirty" about Tusk?
 

I've heard that Stevie was outraged when she heard the title of 1979's album was going to be Tusk. What is so dirty about this? Am I really stupid for not being able to figure this out?

Somebody ought to write a frigging FAQ. Please?

Volunteers?

I don't know if she was really outraged. I think she just thought the title and the cover were stupid.

You know the mamas, she's a girlie girl and a title like "Tusk" and a picture of a dog biting on a leg isn't exactly her bag.

I'm pretty sure "Tusk" was in reference to Mick's dong. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Susie

In his book Micks says that Tusk refers to the male you know what and Stevie was very mad. She thought it was an outrage.

Is Mick's book any good? I really want to read about the history of FM. Out of all the books written, which would you recomend?

I only have a few FM books, but I'd reccomend Fleetwood Mac- The First Thrity Years by Bob Brunning. But, STAY AWAY FROM ROCK'S MYSTICAL LADY/LADY OF THE STARS! Beh, I did a report on Stevie and I chose those, and they suck to no end, lol. As for Mick's book, I've heard mised reviews on it, not too sure of it. Hope that helped!

EDIT: ::digs into books:: If you want to learn more about their discography, Fleetwood Mac- The Complete Recording Sessions by Peter Lewry is an excellent book, i got my copy for $8 at Half Price Books, lol.

It's been a while since I've read it. At first I thought it was really good but than I heard that he made many mistakes. He has written it by heart because he doesn't keep a diary. Some facts are pure fiction.... too bad.
I think the Bob Brunning book will be better.

Tusk is in reference to Mick's "male member" and Stevie threatened to quit if the album was named that. She never did. :laugh:

As for Mick's book, it's garbage. Complete and utter garbage, just like the man himself! :D

Mick's book is juicy. If you find that interesting, you may like it. It's also virtually the only book on Fleetwood Mac that concentrates to a large degree on the band's tours. A lot of it, however, is very silly ("we achieved transcension") & much of it is suspiciously paraphrased from articles that were previously published in Rolling Stone & other magazines.

The solidest book on Fleetwood Mac in terms of just a plain, boring biography is the Samuel Graham "Authorized History of Fleetwood Mac," which was published in 1978. But, like most anything else that's authorized, it's bland & pollyanna.

You get some great criticism & writing in "Rumours 'n' Fax" by Steve Clarke & Roy Carr, published in '78, but not a stupendous collection of raw data, if that's what you're looking for.

If you want to know as much as possible about the band, don't bother with the books for now. Get yourself over to the Blue Letter Archives (or any of the collections of articles on sites like Burnish) & just start reading the articles. It's been recommended to you twice already that you do this, so we'll see just how interested you are.

Well, if Mick's book is juicy, like you say, then I think I'm going to love it. I really want to learn more about the fights and some of the more crazy things. I want to know who wasn't talking to who. Who hated who. Who was sleeping with who. You know....

I was going to check burnish for articles, but the site is shut down. Does anyone know why?

yeah 'tusk' is a reference to the penis or erection... thank you mick... :rolleyes:

I wonder what the alternate album names were?? :confused:

Mick's book is worth a read, don't buy it, rent it from the library... Then buy it if you like it... I've read it about 2 or 3 times. Some interesting stuff in there but I don't know it if some of it was true and if it was, he never should have put it in the book. To me this book made Lindsey look bad. and Lindsey had something to sing about it.. haha... "wrong"


Hey I just noticed that Richard Dashut co-wrote it with Lindsey, I never knew that.. interesting...

I never got the dog biting the leg thing...weird ****.

Burnish is shut down b/c of bandwith problems. I know Tracy is probably working her butt off to get it back up...hang on people.

Richard Dashut co-wrote Wrong w/LB? Maybe he was just as pissed at Mick as LB was?

Mick's book may be "juicy," but it certainly isn't factual. He embellished pretty much anything that wrote about. Keep in mind that he went bankrupt then got a book deal. Of course he had to give the publisher something juicy. Also, the man was coked out for well over ten years, do you think he'd be able to remember everything like what he wrote and have it be factual? Please. You'll find more facts and truth in the Enquirer than in that assholes smutty book.

Unfortunately, deciding to name the album "Tusk" was quite a bone of contention within the band at that time. (sorry for the outrageously bad pun there, :laugh: ) Stevie & Christine were the most admantly against it. Lindsey & Mick were obviously for it, considering Lindsey wrote the song and it is Mick's slang word for the "male genitalia". John probably didn't care that much either way. I think the making of that whole album was more dramatic, IMO, than Rumours. I think the whole band appreciates the album a lot more now then they did back then. I read in an interview around the Dance that Stevie actually loves the album now. The album is brilliant.

Yes. Tusk was Mick's idea, I believe. Stevie did not like the title at all because she thought it was dirty.

The cover art is weird too, and I don't get it. I remember reading somewhere that Stevie was upset with the picture because she had been bitten by a dog when she was little and the picture brought back some of those memories.

As for good books - Mick's is the juciest, but you have to take what is written with a grain of salt. I think Mick has even admitted that some things were embellished (to say the least). Probably the most juicy items are Mick's account of Stevie's affair with him and the story about how Lindsey hit Stevie when he quit the band after TITN was recorded.