Master of Tusk
 

Was LB the genius behind Tusk?

I say the aswer is yes. In many interviews, the band says yes. I readily admit, the record is not "all LB" because the contributions of CM and SN are significant. But, the concept, the groundbreaking, and the invention are solely LB.

Thus, kudos to him for it!!!!!!!!!

He's the genius behind ever Fleetwood Mac album that he contributes to. :laugh:

He gave them their sound and when he wasn't with them, the music itself suffered, not just quality. So, Tusk was his album, it was his showcase. He showcased not only his fabulous material, but his skills in producing songs from Stevie and Chris.

I'm going to say no. His songs on Tusk are not genius but are borderline annoying. Christine's songs are okay also. I only care for about half a dozen of her songs and his songs on Tusk combined.

As far as Stevie's songs go I love them all except Angel. Her songs on this record are timeless and beautiful and even though she is given the least amount of songs on the record she clearly steals the show without trying to. Imagine this record without her songs- imagine if it was just a single record with Chris and Lindsey's songs. That, my friend, does not sound too appealing to me.

So, I will say that Stevie is the genius behind a hit or miss record.

For the record, Stevie gets the most airtime on Tusk... :wavey:

Of course LB is the genius behind Tusk. When all the band members and people were there say it's true, how can you argue it? :shrug:

That's not to say the songs Stevie or Christine brought aren't good, that's not how I feel at all. But Lindsey came to the table with a concept, while S & C came in the same way they would have come to any album.

I will also admit that it took me a while to get to the level of appreciation I presently have for Lindsey's stuff, so I empathize with the younger/newer fans. That's not meant to be condescending, it's just the way it happened for me. :shrug:

Hers are also the longest.

Stevie's songs on "Tusk" are by far my favorites on the album and most of Lindsey's are borderline annoying as another member said, but I don't think any Fleetwood Mac album would be a Fleetwood Mac album without a Buckingham contribution.

But perhaps the reason they were still accessible, was because he was "surrounded by people who were trying to drag him back down in line."

It seems like a good balance... Lindsey kept them from playing it too safe, and they kept Lindsey from going too far afield.

By the way, and I certainly don't mean to lessen Lindsey's significant contributions, but I still say we shouldn't discount the influence of Ken Caillat and Richard Dashut (and, to a lesser extent, Keith Olsen) on the "Fleetwood Mac sound."

well
 

it's easy : If you don't think he's the genius behind Tusk, and you say his contributions are annoying, you simply don't catch the masterplan behind this album and you cannot like this album very much. I have the same thing with tango: here lindsey was the genius behind the album and sound, too, but it's simply a sinkin' ship with very flat songs except for the openingsong and the titlesong. The rest just doesn't have the tension of all other Macalbums with S&L on board. No problem. Only, in the survivor, alot of people who do NOT like the album voted too. They are fully entitled to, but it just hit the irritationstring over here: people voting for some fav songs without seeing the whole concept: that's the core of my "tone" during the whole Tusksurvivor. And to be fair: there is NO other Fleetwood Mac-album that is build out of tension on purely artistic level, and the question: holy cow we made a thing called rumours....what's next? And unlike a lot of people who think Tusk's incoherent and fragmented, i think it is an organic entity. rumours is, too. But that's because it was the first and only real divorce-album. Tusk is the album from the day after: now we have to split all possessions and furniture, who's having the kids and friggin' hell, how am I going to get my own identity again? That's what Tusk is: darker, weirder, more emotionally worn out. And that's what happy guys like me like.

I absolutely agree that you simply can't appreciate Tusk unless you can appreciate Lindsey's songs. I've owned Tusk for 4 years now, and for like the first 2 years I was one of those, Oh Lindsey's songs suck and are annoying and Stevie has the 5 best songs and it's Stevie's album all the way. But eventually it just clicked and all of a sudden I just GOT what Lindsey did. I didn't force myself it just happened and I GOT it. Now I know I love all of Lindsey's songs (Minus the sludged song of course :laugh: ) And something I don't get is how come Tusk the song isn't considered experimental anymore? It seems because the song is so popular it's lost it's experimental status and is considered a safe song. The song Tusk is IMO the MOST experimental song on the album. I mean it seriously sounds like something Native Americans would chant dancing around a fire after killijng a Buffalo :laugh: and yet it was a MAJOR hit. And I'd say is one of FM's biggest songs EVER, and is such a concert pleaser. That fact alone to me made Tusk a real success. How something that experoimental would become the band's biggest song is such a compliment to Lindsey.

And on the flip side, I'd say the LEAST experimental song of Lindsey's was SMAP, a song I dislike immensely but many obviously adore.

It's not a terribly deep message that comes through the medium: essentially, the innovation on "Tusk" is in the conception of the tracks (How do I use my studio technology to build a new atmosphere in this song?) & the utilization of tools to do things they weren't specifically designed to do. The former concern is what I'd call the Brian Wilson element, & the latter I'd call the Beatles element -- not that there wasn't cross-pollination along the way from both Wilson & the Beatles as well as dozens of other great bands.

If you were lucky enough to come at "Tusk" in the same chronology that the band itself did, the reconceptualizing on the album speaks to you very directly because you were probably sick of the same elements & combinations of elements in pop music that the band was sick of, & your frustration jibed with theirs. Radio was awful in 1978; you had micro-engineered garbage like "You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone, "How Deep Is Your Love" by the Bee Gees, "Baby Come Back" by Player, "Kiss You All Over" by Exile, "Three Times a Lady" by the Commodores, "I Go Crazy" by Paul Davis, "Just the Way You Are" by Billy Joel, "Feels So Good" by Chuck Mangione, "Dance With me" by Peter Brown, "Sometimes When We Touch" by Dan Hill, & so on. All of it dreck & all of it so predictable that you knew exactly what the song would sound like the moment you heard the opening chords. Drums were never anything more than drums, bass never more than bass, guitars never more than guitars -- tracks were built by businessmen, not artists, & they were engineered to please the widest number of pablum-seekers, the mass audience. There wasn't an ounce of personality or vision or idiosyncrasy in any of the MOR dreck drowning everything else out on the radio.

Lots of listeners were sick of it, & "Tusk" said, very forcefully & out of nowhere, "I'm not going to groove you smoothly & blandly like the latest Player song." It was absolutely invigorating for anyone locked in mainstream listening habits (although I imagine it wasn't all that special to those following the Underground).

"Tusk" is bound to be a different listening experience if you first heard it, say, five years ago because your frame of reference (in, for example, 1995) isn't the same as it would have been in 1979 -- "Tusk" would probably strike you as a palliative to the corrosive grunge & rap of the period, so that "Tusk" would strike you as the reactionary piece rather than the revolutionary thing it was twenty years earlier.

I don't think loving Lindsey's stuff is a necessity in order to get what he was after. Several very intelligent, knowledgeable critics in 1979 -- like Steve Simels -- understood the left turns but just didn't like the results. I think this is true in all the arts: I don't have to enjoy what Dreyer does in "Ordet" in order to understand its importance or relevance.

A far lesser extent, in Keith Olsen's case. I think he had practically no essential or noteworthy influence on the "Fleetwood Mac sound."

Well, the Sara demo is puported to be without FM - a lady who sang back up on it said that was her on back up at some non FM recording. That demo is brilliant and VERY close to the CD cut. In fact, many like it better. So, at least Sara could have been a hit :shrug:

But, in the end, LB was the mind behind Tusk and he along with the band and songwriters made great music - period.

I didn't want to give him too much credit, by including him right alongside Dashut and Caillat, but I didn't want to write him off completely either.

In essence, it was the coming together of those five people (Thanks, Lindsey!) which created the overall "sound," but I think Olsen helped establish the groundwork for how that sound would be conveyed.

Dashut, Caillat and Buckingham perfected it... and then turned it on its ear, and managed to perfect it even further. :)

David, if you pulled those artists and song titles out of your mind and didn't use a reference book, I bow down in supplication at the awesome and terrible power of your brain.

Not that I didn't know them, but I could never have just spit them out.

Since you bring it up, radio was awful then. Thankfully, it is mostly the good stuff that I vividly remember. Much of the good stuff has stood the test of time. I do submit, however, that radio is EVEN WORSE now. It is (and has been) so bad that I stopped listening to it about seven years ago. Granted, Los Angeles, since the demise of it's AAA radio stations, does have the worst radio of any major city in the country....

Hell David, you just described the current state of the music industry!
IMO, most major label releases are crapola.