Quote:
Originally Posted by CADreaming
.... but he has said he "hung out" at her house more than Stevie initially admitted. Perhaps, Stevie for once was taking his wife into consideration.
But, Stevie inserts her foot in her mouth a lot. I don't think she intends to be mean but she definitely speaks before she thinks. Like her saying Dave "has no ego" is not a direct dig at LB?? Please. And, like DS doesn't have an ego?! Ha! Everyone in that business has an ego. It may manifest differently but it's there.
Lindsey is usually very careful about what he says - as anyone can tell with the way he gives the same exact answer in every interview. The comments about her funding her appearance at the Clinton gig were pretty matter of fact and Stevie herself would probably have said it at some point -- like how she rambled on about how well she was doing financially in the recession and was able to pay her house off. Well, lucky her! No, the only odd thing about Lindsey's comment was the revealing nature -- he is privy to that information, but it's normally not something he would be transparent about.
[...]
I will never ever understand how anyone can claim to be a Stevie Nicks fan and hate Lindsey Buckingham's production in the same breath. If you love any of her songs from Fleetwood Mac you like his production. Period.
|
I can't see why it would be inconsiderate of Stevie Nicks to say accurately how much time her colleague Lindsey Buckingham spent working with her on her album. Making mountains out of molehills there, I think.
Yes, Stevie speaks before she thinks. But the example you give is not an example of that trait. It's an instance, indeed as you say yourself, of her knowing
exactly what she's saying. She's saying that she finds the manifestations of Dave's ego more palatable than Lindsey's. My own phrasing would be something along the lines of saying that Dave is the sort of guy who gets off on seeing other people making the music they want to make, rather than imposing his own idea of what's good.
I think we agree about why the Clinton comment was odd: it was odd because it seemed a strange thing to reveal - to undermine the apparent 'generosity' of Stevie playing the benefit gig by pointing out that she intended to make the money up elsewhere, which has the further effect of making her adding-on of more dates appear mercenary rather than driven by believe in the album, love of performing, wanting to please fanbase, or any other more noble reason. Essentially, you're arguing that LB should be commended for not plastering everything he knows about Stevie's finances or motives all over the press? I say let him plaster away. I already know full well there are aspects of Stevie's personality that don't appeal to me at all, but LB's attitude to money is equally cringeworthy.
Your last point doesn't make sense. Let's take 'Smile At You' as an example, just because it's well-known for its history. If that qualifies as one of Stevie's 'songs from Fleetwood Mac', it is also a Fleetwood Mac
track that some Stevie fans who've heard the demo don't like. They like the pre-FM song but they don't like the track because of LB's production. Simple.