Houston Chronicle: A wait-and-see attitude

[Matt Lucas]

Hello all---

Just in case no one has shared this yet...

mattl

-------------------------

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...c/4492612.html

Music

Lindsey Buckingham remains loyal to his ties to Fleetwood Mac. Maybe that's why it took so long for him to release his latest solo effort, Under the Skin.
REPRISE RECORDS

Jan. 24, 2007, 11:20AM
A wait-and-see attitude
Fleetwood Mac will always beckon, but Lindsey Buckingham still likes going solo
By ANDREW DANSBY
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM
When: 8 p.m. Friday, Jan. 26
Where: Verizon Wireless Theater, 520 Texas
Tickets: $35-$45; 713-629-3700 or ticketmaster.com

Perhaps it's a laid-back California thing or possibly the security of having had a record sell some 30 million copies, but Lindsey Buckingham doesn't hurry.

Two presidential elections ago, Buckingham, with Fleetwood Mac, played a concert for Bill Clinton as the president departed the White House. The next day I asked if he was working on anything new.

Yes, he replied, a big batch of songs that could be a solo album or half of a Mac album. "What do you think I should do?" he asked.

I don't think he liked my answer. Three years later, Fleetwood Mac released Say You Will, the first studio album Buckingham had made with the band since 1987.

It took another three years for Buckingham to release Under the Skin, a great recording and the latest in a tantalizingly low-output solo career that bubbles to the surface every few years despite being hooked to the heavy chain that is Fleetwood Mac.

Ask Buckingham about the wait and he sounds surprised.

"Yeah, I guess it took a while," he says. "Jeez."

"Well, I sort of think of myself as a slow worker."

He also blames the band a bit. Buckingham rang up drummer Mick Fleetwood to play on some tracks nearly a decade ago, which led to an MTV Unplugged thing, a reunion tour and, eventually, that studio album.

"Being in a band, you have to be mindful of the needs of the whole," he admits.

It's an admirable sense of loyalty, especially since Buckingham's relationship with Fleetwood Mac has been tenuous for nearly 28 years, since he guided the group through the ambitious disasterpiece Tusk. The album has since enjoyed reassessment as a misunderstood classic. But at the time, it was the follow-up to Rumours, one of the most popular records of all time.

Tusk was not Rumours Redux.

The album's production credits included a specific thank-you from the band to Buckingham for his tireless work on it.

"It was only after it didn't sell 16 million copies that the backlash from the band came in," Buckingham says.

He claims Tusk's aftermath sent the band's members on solo careers, only to be dragged back to Fleetwood Mac from time to time.

Buckingham's solo recordings haven't been the big-sellers that bandmate Stevie Nicks' were between 1981 and 1983. But as a whole, they're a marvelous body of work, just so long as you don't mind waiting eight to 14 years between them.

Which would put Skin's follow-up out sometime around 2020.

"No, no, no," Buckingham corrects, "the plan is to put out two rapid-fire. So the second one will probably come out either in early 2007 or early 2008. It's a lot of stuff that will sound more rock 'n' roll."

That's a reference to Under the Skin's largely acoustic construction. It's a quiet album. Buckingham calls it "a more pared-down approach" that he says was largely done in hotel rooms while touring with Fleetwood Mac.

He said songs like Big Love and Go Insane were going over well with audiences as single-guitar-and-voice productions. "That got me thinking about what would happen if you were to try that on a record," Buckingham says. "To have very little else, no drums, no lead guitar, but still applying a certain level of production value. It's like going back to Joni Mitchell's Blue or before, just sitting in a room with James Taylor and that's it. There's such a purity to that.

"It also lends itself well to hotels."

Buckingham says the title track is about somebody who "is having a hard time getting to the next point in life."

He won't say whether that person is in Fleetwood Mac, but in addressing the song, he said each of the members "had to wear suits of armor to get through the experience, living in states of denial."

Buckingham, 58, credits fatherhood with getting him past the bad blood. Twice he counts himself lucky to have had his kids — three between the ages of 2 and 8 — late in life. "All of that armor comes off, and you feel parts of yourself again."

He seems less smug than bemused about the revisionism surrounding Tusk, even joking about its creation.

"Long days with lots of drugs," he jokes.

"Even back then, I never felt it was the wrong thing to do. I was disappointed we couldn't build on it, that the band couldn't move on from there and take what was good from that and build on it. It's such a reactionary impulse to go back to something from before. But I never doubted what it was. When you cut to X years later, you have people and bandmates — Stevie saying it was her favorite album — that is gratifying."

Still, when he talks about the band, Buckingham comes across like a member of the mob who's having second thoughts.

"The band is definitely the mob," he says. "But that allows me to say, 'I need to do this,' and to make this album. I'm happy to go out with Fleetwood Mac in '08 or '09. But I need them to give me the respect to do this, too."

He snickers with a hint of deviousness.

"Of course, I'm just trying to get them to knock at the door for a little while, too."

[Peestie]

Originally Posted by Matt Lucas

Yes, he replied, a big batch of songs that could be a solo album or half of a Mac album

NO! Please no!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Matt Lucas

. . . "Of course, I'm just trying to get them to knock at the door for a little while, too."

I KNEW IT LOL!!!!

Nice, thanks!

I'll just add that upon repeated listenings, I don't think UTS is as mellow or chilled as people, including myself, have been describing it. After listening to all of LB's solo albums all week I can easily say that this work stands with the best of all of his work, even that with Fleetwood Mac. Can I really say that? Did I mean to? Yeah, I think so. Maybe I should wait for the more "rockin'" album to make that claim.

But really, those saying that LB has lost his powers are insane. I'm really finding a lot of depth in this one.

Just my two cents, as if anyone cared! hehe!

[Johnny Stew]

Maybe I'm just feeling grumpy right now, but I am sooooo sick and tired of the "Lindsey's solo output suffered because of his ties to Fleetwood Mac" angle that so many of these journalists have locked onto.

Lindsey was out of Fleetwood Mac for an entire decade and only managed to release one album (five years after he left the band) and record "about 65%" of another.

Fleetwood Mac doesn't deserve even a "bit of the blame" for that fact, when he could have easily released three albums in that span of time... even taking three full years to record each of them.

[BTFLCHLD]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

"Lindsey's solo output suffered because of his ties to Fleetwood Mac" angle that so many of these journalists have locked onto.

you know you should never...
believe what you read.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

you know you should never...
believe what you read.

Lindsey, in his responses, doesn't really seem to be arguing to the contrary.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Maybe I'm just feeling grumpy right now, but I am sooooo sick and tired of the "Lindsey's solo output suffered because of his ties to Fleetwood Mac" angle that so many of these journalists have locked onto.
.

OOTC: 92 followed by a small tour in 93

GOS: ready early 96. and then hell broke loose at warner and the macmachine pulled him back in.

Weigh the words especially when feeling grumpy.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

OOTC: 92 followed by a small tour in 93

Don't forget that he left Fleetwood Mac in '87... yet it still took him five years to release 'Out Of The Cradle.' The band certainly wasn't holding him back then.

Originally Posted by shackin'up

GOS: ready early 96. and then hell broke loose at warner and the macmachine pulled him back in.

'Gift of Screws' wasn't ready in '96. On the 'Dance' tour, he said that he was "still working on" his solo album and that it was "about 65% finished."
He had a full three years after the 'Cradle' tour to record what would have been his fourth solo album, before he decided in the very early part of '97 to reunite with Fleetwood Mac.

Again, the paucity of material from Lindsey between his leaving the band and then eventually re-joining the band, had nothing to do with his ties to Fleetwood Mac.

[Nicks Fan]

I agree with With Brian here. Lindsey can't use the FM angle as an excuse for a lack of output in terms of solo albums. He left in 87 and had 10 years at which oint all we got was one album. Then seven years later we get another. I t wasn't like they forced him to abandan his projects. I mean stevie said something like "we are waiting to see what he wants to do and what ever he does we are fine with it" areound the time they played at Clinton's Farewell party.

One thing that has bothered me is back when the so called execs at Warner Bros suppossedly put a stop to any solo release from him at that time, then why would they now be more then happy to allow him to release not one but possibly two full solo albums knowing that no matter what they won't make any money for them.

Matt

[wondergirl9847]

Originally Posted by Nicks Fan

One thing that has bothered me is back when the so called execs at Warner Bros suppossedly put a stop to any solo release from him at that time, then why would they now be more then happy to allow him to release not one but possibly two full solo albums knowing that no matter what they won't make any money for them.

I believe there was a change in management or whatever at WB recently.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Don't forget that he left Fleetwood Mac in '87... yet it still took him five years to release 'Out Of The Cradle.' The band certainly wasn't holding him back then.

'Gift of Screws' wasn't ready in '96. On the 'Dance' tour, he said that he was "still working on" his solo album and that it was "about 65% finished."
He had a full three years after the 'Cradle' tour to record what would have been his fourth solo album, before he decided in the very early part of '97 to reunite with Fleetwood Mac.

Again, the paucity of material from Lindsey between his leaving the band and then eventually re-joining the band, had nothing to do with his ties to Fleetwood Mac.

Come on. Think one layer deeper. He had to cut the funicle first, just after working on TITN, which was a very hard process as we all know. He cut off what was supposed to be his third soloalbum in six years. And thanks to Christine's hitsensibility and not in the least LB's groundbreaking arrangement and productionskills put the band back on the map again. Hell broke loose and he needed time to come to his senses. I guess he got fed up with the whole business for a few years and then he began working on out of the cradle. Five years after such a mindboggling breakup isn't that long. Especially if you look at the highly perfectionistic level of OOTC.

He's never been a quick writer. In 2003 he said he was "writing like a madman". Well, we don't what he will come up with on the next one, but there are 8 new tunes on that one.

We know there's a lot more from GOS, but he wants to deconstruct, logically, because his ideas on music developped ten years: he wants to do it differently and follow his muse. SYW ofcourse delayed this.

Writing and producing an album are two different ballgames. Plus, it's pretty apparent that the dude works sloooow.

Plus, you can't rush art, maaaaan.

[Johnny Stew]

I'm not questioning Lindsey's reasons for taking as long as he did... I'm only arguing with the notion that Fleetwood Mac had anything to do with it.

It was Lindsey, pure and simple.

He could have quit Fleetwood Mac in 1979 (something chiliD would have probably been happy about! ), and I'd wager that we'd still only have four solo albums from the chap.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm not questioning Lindsey's reasons for taking as long as he did... I'm only arguing with the notion that Fleetwood Mac had anything to do with it.

It was Lindsey, pure and simple.

He could have quit Fleetwood Mac in 1979 (something chiliD would have probably been happy about! ), and I'd wager that we'd still only have four solo albums from the chap.

The third would have been there around TITN, which already WAS a chopped up soloalbum. then one in 92, one in 97, one in 2002 one now and one in the near future. That's equal likely without the mac and it's frustration on his development. I just don't understand why one should constantly question what the man says about himself and his own development. Do you really think he is constantly making up stories? Sorry dude, but I believe you when you talk about yourself: who am I to question your own vision on your own life? I think that would be pretty disrespectful.