
04-21-2006, 03:16 PM
|
 |
Addicted Ledgie
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,471
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
That's it. It's not so much the categorization of the band's overall sound--every band plays some loud stuff & some soft stuff & lots of stuff in between--as it is the connotation of 'soft rock,' which is something that marketing people created for elevators, dental offices & Supercuts salons.
It's a peg of vapidity.
I mean, nobody ever refers to Elvis Costello & the Attractions as "soft rock," & Fleetwood Mac hits the same decibals as the Attractions, particularly in concert. Most bands do. But that 'soft rock' label effectively says: "You are savorless & without personality. Your insipid music is fit only for relaxing patients waiting to see the oral surgeon. You are corporate ciphers."
It's a bad way to classify Mac overall, whether you're taking about the rage & wicked humor of the Peter Green years or the multifaceted, shimmering studio concoctions--what's been called "pop rococo" or "pop contrapuntal"--of the Buckingham years.
Even Robert Hilburn & other Mac-appreciative critics, however, said of "Rumours" & "Mirage" that there was a lightweight element in the music, in the presentation. I agree that there was filigree, but I almost always felt it had personality--recognizable, definable, plottable. Up until some of the work on the 1990 album & beyond, that is. That's when Fleetwood Mac tracks began to be indistinguishable from numerous other recording artists of that generation.
|
Some very scholarly rational thoughts. Great writing! I'm entertained and thinking... Thanks. 
__________________
Life passes before me like an unknown circumstance
Last edited by PenguinHead; 04-21-2006 at 03:18 PM..
|