Circa 1982, Who *Was* Fleetwood Mac?

[The Tower]

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.

[Nicksluvver]

Originally Posted by David

Apparently, they laid down only some basic tracks in France. Most of the work on the album was done back in L.A. at Larrabee. Based on what the other Macsters have said & on some articles at the time (like the David Gans piece in Record), Stevie wasn't around for much more than a couple of weeks.

But maybe she didn't need to be. Besides, her solo album was huge at that point, so that naturally captured her attention.

The story of Lindsey's having to piece together bits of unrelated Stevie vocal tracks in order to create a cohesive work, though, refers to the "Tango" sessions.

Thanks, I thought my info was pretty much on, but I wanted to be sure!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.

True.

I suppose I never really got into Lindsey or Stevie because they were all that "complex" or because they were amongst the best talent music had to offer. They are neither. I got into them because they were odd and eccentric characters who wrote songs that, as mainstream as some might be, were always off-kilter and brimming with personality and eccentricities. Neither have particularly noteworthy voices and neither write the best songs out there. As brilliant as they are at times, they aren't even all that and a bag of chips as musicians. However, they're almost unparalelled in terms infusing their own personal quirkiness into their music and that's what makes them such hot ****. Their offbeat personalities get confused for complexity far too often.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

You didn't have a point, David. You were defining "objective" for chrissakes, as if we were morons. And exploring the intricacies of what "inarguable" literally means.(again, as if we were morons). That's what I was attacking. You really expect me to "argue" that point? Ridiculous. There was no discussion, you were telling everyone the definitions of "inarguably" and "objective", and "opinion"(as if we were morons)....see how that works?
Good try, though, in playing the victim.

I think David is clearly someone who appreciates proper use of language. (I hope that's not too obvious a point for you, Amber; I wouldn't want to insult you by pointing that out.) I don't think he was assuming that you or anyone else didn't know the definitions of "inarguable," "objective," or "improper," just that you were using them improperly. And what's the point of having words with definitions if you're going to use them improperly?

I'm guessing he was also a little flustered by your assertion that Stevie's song on Mirage were "inarguably" the best. If there's been a post in this thread that was somehow "superior," it was that one, in which you effectively claimed that everyone who thinks Lindsey or Christine's songs are better is simply wrong. I'm sure you'll say you didn't mean it that way; but then we're right back at point one: Don't say something is inarguable if it's not inarguable.

[Dreammms]

Originally Posted by amber

They are not mutually exclusive. Tons of other people here post intelligently without it slipping into the realms of "haughty know it all a**hole".

Dave is far from an asshole. His post are not dribble. I find them very imformative.

He has been in the Mac community for a long time now and he KNOWS what he is talking about.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Dreammms

Dave is far from an asshole. His post are not dribble. I find them very imformative.

He has been in the Mac community for a long time now and he KNOWS what he is talking about.

I didn't say he didn't. And it's great he's been nice to you.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I think David is clearly someone who appreciates proper use of language. (I hope that's not too obvious a point for you, Amber; I wouldn't want to insult you by pointing that out.) I don't think he was assuming that you or anyone else didn't know the definitions of "inarguable," "objective," or "improper," just that you were using them improperly. And what's the point of having words with definitions if you're going to use them improperly?

I'm guessing he was also a little flustered by your assertion that Stevie's song on Mirage were "inarguably" the best. If there's been a post in this thread that was somehow "superior," it was that one, in which you effectively claimed that everyone who thinks Lindsey or Christine's songs are better is simply wrong. I'm sure you'll say you didn't mean it that way; but then we're right back at point one: Don't say something is inarguable if it's not inarguable.

I hope he was flustered - that way I think there's a better reason for his treatise on the various definitions of words. I appreciate the proper use of language, too, but I also appreciate the creative use of it, and I appreciate context as well. Say what you want - David was being a condescending know it all in that post, IMO. Especially if, as you assert, he wasn't assuming I or anyone else didn't know the definitions of those words. If he knew we knew the definitions, then saying them for us had no other purpose than to smarm. Intellectual masturbation, I still call it. And it's not like it's the first time. Not that I care, I usually ignore it. Oh, and I'll say what I want.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I want to agree with you but then I don't. For example, if we just look at things from a musical perspective, "Tusk" is better than anything I could write. Is it really a matter of opinion that "Tusk" would be superior because I haven't the slightest idea how to write music?

You're right about this, but you're speaking from a purely technical perspective. You're also assuming that "good" music is defined by the complexity of the music, right? You could only write something simplistic, and that would worse than "Tuskl," because "Tusk" is more complex, right? The problem, though, is that there are plenty of intricately complex musical works that you might very well think are awful, and there are a lot of very simplistic songs (especially rock songs) that you probably love.

The problem with coming up with any objective way of saying that certain music is "good" or "bad" is that you have to come up with some criteria to base those judgments on. But if you ask a hundred people what they think the criteria of a "good" song are, you'll probably get a hundred different answers. Everybody looks for different things in music, and everybody gets something different out of music, so there's really no overarching objective criteria to be found.

But anyway, who cares whether or not we can come up with an objective way of judging music, right? Would that change the kind of music that you or anybody else likes? Would you stop liking a song if you found out it ranked low on our new objective scale? Would you start liking a song you didn't like before if it ranked really high? We all like what we like, and as long as it speaks to us or touches us in some way, let's just be happy with that.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

I hope he was flustered - that way I think there's a better reason for his treatise on the various definitions of words. I appreciate the proper use of language, too, but I also appreciate the creative use of it,

Creative use of language does not mean using words with no regard for their definitions.

and I appreciate context as well.

What context? You said that Stevie's songs were "clearly" the best. Someone else that they were "inarguably" the best. The only "context" is that in both cases opinions were presented as facts, and that's what David took issue with.

Say what you want - David was being a condescending know it all in that post, IMO. Especially if, as you assert, he wasn't assuming I or anyone else didn't know the definitions of those words. If he knew we knew the definitions, then saying them for us had no other purpose than to smarm.

No, it had the purpose of clarifying them in the contexts in which they were being misused or questioned. And in the case of his defining "objective" and "opinion," the discussion was all but encouraged by the person who posted that she wasn't sure if such a thing as an "objective opinion" were even possible. David was simply pointing out that no, it's not, and his evidence was the definitions of the words themselves.

Intellectual masturbation, I still call it. And it's not like it's the first time. Not that I care, I usually ignore it. Oh, and I'll say what I want.

Good for you, darlin'. Lord knows nobody's stopping you.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Creative use of language does not mean using words with no regard for their definitions.

Yes, it can.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

What context? You said that Stevie's songs were "clearly" the best. Someone else that they were "inarguably" the best. The only "context" is that in both cases opinions were presented as facts, and that's what David took issue with.

That was the context. People's opinions. And of course people's opinions are presented that way, but everyone still knows they aren't facts. That's where the "too literal" thing comes in.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

No, it had the purpose of clarifying them in the contexts in which they were being misused or questioned. And in the case of his defining "objective" and "opinion," the discussion was all but encouraged by the person who posted that she wasn't sure if such a thing as an "objective opinion" were even possible. David was simply pointing out that no, it's not, and his evidence was the definitions of the words themselves.

"clarifying them in contexts they were being misused". Even though it wasn't needed, everyone knows what they mean. = intellectual masturbation. As for the second part - okay, whatever. Fine.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Good for you, darlin'. Lord knows nobody's stopping you.

yeah, ok. I was responding when you said "Don't use 'inarguably' when something is 'arguable'". I thought you were telling me not to do something, because you told me not to do something.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by amber

He actually defined the word "objective" in that post. *rolls eyes*

You can roll yer eyes until you look into the next month. I know what he defined. I can read to. I repeat. At least you can admit that he has a way with words. I love to read them. Chit-chat drizzle is something else than chit-chat poetry. Do you want a definition?

[jbrownsjr]

[QUOTE=amber]He's not too cerebral, he was pointlessly overanalyzing a definition of something that didn't need it, and pointing out the obvious. And I wasn't "defending la Nicks" at the time, if you read carefully. I was just saying David's use of pointless words in that post were a**ish - Stevie wasn't even involved. So, I know you aren't talking about me. [QUOTE=amber]

I would never "Tango" with u my dear!

[QUOTE=amber]
The other - was just intellectual masterbating, as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE=amber]

thats hot!

[HomerMcvie]

I DETEST reading the word SESLY. It makes me wince. Seriously.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I love Lindsey Buckingham, but his Mirage tracks were pretty awful. I don't understand why anyone would state that Stevie's music is "boring" or "simplistic", as if Lindsey's music is somehow "complex". Lindsey is an extremely creative producer and a fantastic guitarist (decent singer, but nothing to write home about). However, his songs are NOT complex. Most of his songs are basic I-IV-V7 chordal types, or simple minor meanderings much in the vein of Stevie's minor meanderings. Granted, Stevie is a total one trick pony with her Am G Fmaj7 routines in all their different keys. However, for somehow to infer that Lindsey's songs are these complex musical structures is really stretching it. Complex production, absolutely- complex music, not at all.

yep he's no jazzer either i agree

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

Yes, it can.

If you're Lewis Carroll or you're writing a poem, sure it can. But defending improper word usage on an INternet message board as "creative license" is, well, pretty thin.

That was the context. People's opinions. And of course people's opinions are presented that way, but everyone still knows they aren't facts. That's where the "too literal" thing comes in.

So wasn't David just stating his opinion that it was not inagruable that Stevie's songs were the best, and that other people including some critics agreed?

"clarifying them in contexts they were being misused". Even though it wasn't needed, everyone knows what they mean. = intellectual masturbation.

Whether or not everybody knew what they meant, they were being used incorrectly; David was simply bringing that to attention by noting the correct definitions.

yeah, ok. I was responding when you said "Don't use 'inarguably' when something is 'arguable'". I thought you were telling me not to do something, because you told me not to do something.

Um, yeah, okay, duh, I was just saying my OPINION that I think it would behoove you to write intelligently and correctly, maybe you thought it wasn't presented that way, but geez, everybody KNOWS that it's not a FACT. And by the way, I'll say what I want, so don't tell me not to tell you not to do something.

It amazes me that you dare to call other people smarmy and masturbatory. Christ.