Lindsey AUS Article

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I've said it and I'll say it again. The main problem is editing, or lack thereof. Stevie doesn't believe in editing herself, and this is why we've been subjected to certain monstrous Stevie cuts that I needn't mention again. It's actually quite simple: No one who ever puts pen to paper is above editing. I believe this as a writer. And I believe this as and editor.

I respect your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from... but I guess I still disagree because I don't understand why an artist needs to edit themselves.

Music provides a form of self-expression that shouldn't be reigned in... it's not journalism, where being succinct is of the utmost importance.

So it's easy for us to say she should have re-worded something, or edited a few lines out... or, in some fans' opinions, trashed certain songs altogether.
But as the artist, she knows what she's trying to express lyrically, and in which manner she wishes to express it.

I mean, we don't say Lindsey goes too far afield with his production choices, and he needs to keep that in check.... because then it wouldn't be Lindsey's true artistic statement anymore.

In regards to the art world, we wouldn't think to say that Picasso's "blue period" would have been so much more effective, if he had gone with red instead. Or that he shouldn't have indulged his depression with a monochromatic palette in the first place, as it doesn't supply enough contrast and variety.

Anyway, in my typically wordy way, I'm just trying to say that I'm a big proponent of allowing an artist to express themselves however they want to, without forcing them to be analytical or to adhere to certain "rules."

[wondergirl9847]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I respect your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from... but I guess I still disagree because I don't understand why an artist needs to edit themselves.

Anyway, in my typically wordy way, I'm just trying to say that I'm a big proponent of allowing an artist to express themselves however they want to, without forcing them to be analytical or to adhere to certain "rules."

I'm having trouble expressing myself regarding this. LOL I think a lot of people think that by not editing themselves, they are "copping out". I can draw a line on a piece of paper and say it's art. Not everyone would, but there's the argument, huh? LOL

I'm a proponent of people doing whatever they want and saying it's art. I don't have to AGREE with their assessment if I don't like it and don't think it's very artistic, but that's the whole art argument. I don't see how a canvas with splashes of paint on it is very artistic, but others think it's the greatest thing ever.

I can see it both ways, I guess.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Music provides a form of self-expression that shouldn't be reigned in... it's not journalism, where being succinct is of the utmost importance.

Brevity does not necessarily follow from editing, though it is one of the desired effects. I just finished a freelance "editing" job that ended up becoming a rewriting job that went back with a net gain of words. In this case, the additional words were needed. This is a rare for me, admittedly.

And I agree with you that writing a song is not journalism.

So it's easy for us to say she should have re-worded something, or edited a few lines out... or, in some fans' opinions, trashed certain songs altogether.
But as the artist, she knows what she's trying to express lyrically, and in which manner she wishes to express it.

Johnny, there isn't a writer I know who has not struggled with coming to grips with what he/she was trying to express. Sometimes the artist simply doesn't know. It happens to me in my own writing. And when that happens, how you wish to express it becomes another challenge. Unless Stevie is the world's most extraordinary writer, she has struggled with this too. And in my opinion, the struggle is evident in some of her weaker songs, not because of the struggle process, mind you, but because the outcome wasn't that good.

I mean, we don't say Lindsey goes too far afield with his production choices, and he needs to keep that in check....

Yes, we do say it. In fact, you yourself say it quite a bit.

In regards to the art world, we wouldn't think to say that Picasso's "blue period" would have been so much more effective, if he had gone with red instead. Or that he shouldn't have indulged his depression with a monochromatic palette in the first place, as it doesn't supply enough contrast and variety.

I'm not sure that is a good parallel. While what you say about red being different from blue is true, painting and writing are quite different endeavours and activate different parts of the brain. Painting is far more visual than writing, which is half of 100 percent of three quarters mostly mental. Know what I mean?

[jbrownsjr]

CarneVaca,

You make some excellent points. All 3 writers of FM are guilty of either repeating the same "point/concept" or play the same chorus one too many times. I too find this in my writing.

I say to myself, "would you move on or end it already!"

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Yes, we do say (*that Lindsey goes too far with his production choices, and needs to keep that in check*). In fact, you yourself say it quite a bit.

It's true that I do feel there are times when a different production approach might have served a song better (ie: "Say Goodbye"), but at the end of the day, I always believe Lindsey should have the right and privilege to express himself however he wishes. Maybe that hasn't come across in some of my critiques.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not sure that is a good parallel. While what you say about red being different from blue is true, painting and writing are quite different endeavours and activate different parts of the brain. Painting is far more visual than writing, which is half of 100 percent of three quarters mostly mental. Know what I mean?

I do both... painting/drawing and writing. So for me, they're simply different mediums for self-expression.

They are different, true... but they're both examples of an artist trying to bring forth their vision.
And since Lindsey has made the painting analogy before, when discussing the process of music-making, I thought I'd go with that.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, there isn't a writer I know who has not struggled with coming to grips with what he/she was trying to express. Sometimes the artist simply doesn't know. It happens to me in my own writing. And when that happens, how you wish to express it becomes another challenge. Unless Stevie is the world's most extraordinary writer, she has struggled with this too. And in my opinion, the struggle is evident in some of her weaker songs, not because of the struggle process, mind you, but because the outcome wasn't that good.

I seem to always know what it is I want to express, but I do sometimes struggle with how I wish to express it... so, again, I see where you're coming from.

I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like to be told, "that line would be much more effective if you changed the wording, or if you eliminated the next line," etc.
If I ask for someone's opinion, it's one thing... otherwise, the finished product is exactly the way I want it. Imperfections and all.

And, believe it or not, there are some of Stevie's songs that I thought could have been better.
"Two Kinds Of Love" is a good example: It has a lot going for it... a strong chorus, and a cool bridge... but I'm not at all crazy about the verse lyrics.
But even though that aspect of the song doesn't do anything for me, I defer to the artist's prerogative to express themselves how ever they choose.

Of course, we can point to the disappointment she has expressed over a great deal of what she wrote during her "Klonopin Years," but I personally think that unfairly dismisses a group of songs that, while flawed, are as important to her oeuvre as masterpieces such as "Silver Springs" and "Sara."
Because even though she may not have been in the best place personally and creatively, those songs stand as a reflection of the struggles she was going thru. And I think a lot of fans relate to those internal and external struggles.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. As usual, there's no right way to look at it and there's no wrong way.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like to be told, "that line would be much more effective if you changed the wording, or if you eliminated the next line," etc.
If I ask for someone's opinion, it's one thing... otherwise, the finished product is exactly the way I want it. Imperfections and all.

I don't know - I think EVERYONE can benefit from tactfully given constructive criticism. None of us are perfect. If Stevie were to refuse to consider anything but her "first, initial feeling," she'd never grow as an artist.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And since Lindsey has made the painting analogy before, when discussing the process of music-making, I thought I'd go with that.

Eh, what does he know!?

I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like to be told, "that line would be much more effective if you changed the wording, or if you eliminated the next line," etc.

Man, you would hate working with me then. And you wouldn't be the first.

Of course, we can point to the disappointment she has expressed over a great deal of what she wrote during her "Klonopin Years," but I personally think that unfairly dismisses a group of songs that, while flawed, are as important to her oeuvre as masterpieces such as "Silver Springs" and "Sara."
Because even though she may not have been in the best place personally and creatively, those songs stand as a reflection of the struggles she was going thru. And I think a lot of fans relate to those internal and external struggles.

Fair enough. My disappointment is primarily because I know she could have done better. Under different circumstances. But such is life.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I don't know - I think EVERYONE can benefit from tactfully given constructive criticism. None of us are perfect. If Stevie were to refuse to consider anything but her "first, initial feeling," she'd never grow as an artist.

But see, when it comes to artistic endeavors, I think it is best in most every situation to go with that "first, initial feeling," because that is when the artist's "voice" is at its most honest.

No filtering, no over-analyzing.. just pure, unadulterated creative expression.

But that's just me.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Man, you would hate working with me then. And you wouldn't be the first.

Nah, I'd just nod my head, say "Ok," and then leave it the way I wanted it.

Actually, when it comes to journalistic writing, I have no problem with suggestions and criticism. I just don't like to be told how to express myself in artistic endeavors... unless I specifically ask for advice.

[David]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Actually, when it comes to journalistic writing, I have no problem with suggestions and criticism. I just don't like to be told how to express myself in artistic endeavors... unless I specifically ask for advice.

You're talking about two different things . . . three, actually.

1. Outsider giving practical advice to artist.
2. Critic examining artist's work (not giving advice).
3. Artist revising his draft.

I don't understand why an artist needs to edit themselves

Pruning one's own work -- poem, play, novel, what-have-you -- is commonplace among most writers from past to present. The notebooks of the great novelists are filled with pruning, redacting, re-ordering of paragraphs, crossing out words & phrases (sometimes in apparent anger -- see Gide's notebooks), tying up loose plot strands, & sometimes tossing out the work altogether. (I revised the syntax of that last phrase about four times before finally settling, halfheartedly, on what you see.)

I don't share your opinion that the more an artist refines his initial burst of activity, the less honest the work will be. That reduces art to some sort of self-imposed primitivism. Art is the formalized expression of experience, not the experience itself. The artist takes the experience (which presumably generated some sort of emotion in him) & rearranges it, puts it into some sort of form -- that's the artistic impulse. The members of Fleetwood Mac, at some point in their creation process, need to refine, recast, revise, etc., & I'm sure all of them do to varying degrees. That part of the process is virtually inherent in the studio/recording experience.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by David
I don't share your opinion that the more an artist refines his initial burst of activity, the less honest the work will be. That reduces art to some sort of self-imposed primitivism. Art is the formalized expression of experience, not the experience itself. The artist takes the experience (which presumably generated some sort of emotion in him) & rearranges it, puts it into some sort of form -- that's the artistic impulse. The members of Fleetwood Mac, at some point in their creation process, need to refine, recast, revise, etc., & I'm sure all of them do to varying degrees. That part of the process is virtually inherent in the studio/recording experience.

Interesting comments, David, and I don't disagree with anything you said.

I guess it's just that fine line that all artists (poets, musicians, etc) have to tread... knowing when you need to refine and/or edit something, and when you should leave it as it is.

Personally, I tend to find that the more I think about something, the less natural it becomes. If I try to rework something to "make it better," something usually ends up getting lost in the process.

There are a few cases where it was definitely to the betterment of the poem, but far more times when I should have left well enough alone. "Warts and all," as they say.

But my experiences in those regards, might be completely different from that of millions of others... which is why I always enjoy these dialogues.

[Johnny Stew]

Just an additional thought... I remember Christine having said once that the songs that just flow out in 10-15 minutes are usually the best ones, and if she finds herself putting too much thought into it, then the song probably won't be all that great.

Granted, that's the initial writing process... not the process of taking a simple piano tune and turning it into a full-blown pop song. Which, I'm guessing, is where it's most important for that refinement to come into play.

And of course what we're probably hitting on here, is the exact reason Lindsey has often talked about having to take "raw material from the girls" and turn it into something more polished.

[CarneVaca]

Johnny, we all work in our own special way, and that of course is good. It is rare, however, for a first draft to be perfect. Frankly, I've seen no such beast.

I also have seen editors completely butcher very decent pieces of writing, but only shows that not everyone is good at what they do.

You know, it's funny. I find that lately I get more and more picky about my writing. I tend to rewrite more now than I ever did. And a lot of times I end up with simpler, yet more powerful, stuff.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, we all work in our own special way, and that of course is good. It is rare, however, for a first draft to be perfect. Frankly, I've seen no such beast.

Then you haven't seen any of my work.

I strive for absolute perfection when I write and usually find myself editing things twenty times before I allow them to be used. I just absolutely despise when someone else edits my stuff and cuts it to pieces.

I write a lot of op-eds (some get published, some don't) and I send a few of them out to various newspapers for consideration. I got an email back from the op-ed editor of a paper in California about a year ago and she said she was going to publish it with pretty much no editing. Two days later, she sends me a PDF copy of it, all edited and butchered. She had taken the body and put it before the intro, changed my wording; it was a real beast. I sent her an email saying that the Washington post was considering it ( ) for publication and that they wanted an exclusive, so she dropped it and ran something else. I was rather pissed off because it's next to impossible to get op-eds published, but I got over it eventually.

Ah, my big fling with publishing.

[jadegypsy]

Just an additional thought... I remember Christine having said once that the songs that just flow out in 10-15 minutes are usually the best ones, and if she finds herself putting too much thought into it, then the song probably won't be all that great.

I couldn't agree with this statement more (and my fave Christine song is Songbird). I do pastel work and the pictures I love the most are the ones I do in one night or a couple of hours, they have the impulse and the emotion, they "breath." Last summer I was asked to do a picture for someone so it had to be "professional" it took me several weeks, several "drafts" and color tests. When I gave it to them they loved it, I was neural, for me the emotion was gone, it was too worked over and too perfect, it didn't "breath."

As for working with constructive criticism, when I was in fourth grade I told my art teacher off for telling me how to draw something, this is probably one of the reasons I am NOT an artist for a job, my vision does not usually adjust well to others, or if it does the work suffers.

An example of the overworked always makes me think of Leather and Lace on BD, lots of people love this song, I don't when I first heard it I thought, "that song sounds a bit strained and overworked" especially compared with Stevies other songs. Later I read how many times it got re-written and I thought, "yup, it shows."