Do we really want a new Fleetwood Mac album?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

In fairness, I don't think Silver Girl could have been saved, nor do I think the atrocious crimes against grammar in Smile at You could have been fixed by Lindsey without Stevie's consent.

How do you feel about "You can't plant no seed," in "What's The World Coming To?"

That may be just one example, but they've all played fast & loose with grammar from time to time.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

How do you feel about "You can't plant no seed," in "What's The World Coming To?"

That may be just one example, but they've all played fast & loose with grammar from time to time.

As a writer, I feel grammar/diction in songs is up to the writer. You can write something "wrong" on purpose for emphasis. Or, it could be style, etc.

Changing tense is wrong on a school paper, but on an album you are financing? There is no hard fast rule. I actually asked a musical theater composer about this subject. He said, "It's my song and I can do anything I want with it. That doesn't mean it is going to sell, and I might get hell for it by the critics. But it is still my discretion."

Having said that, you don't want to look foolish. You do want a reason for writing, " FOR You You You You You You AND I" It's almost always easier to sing the I vowel vs. the E vowel. So keep your heart open and your eyes shut tight. What will be will be.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

Having said that, you don't want to look foolish. You do want a reason for writing, " FOR You You You You You You AND I" It's almost always easier to sing the I vowel vs. the E vowel. So keep your heart open and your eyes shut tight. What will be will be.

My point of contention is "I should've turned around and ran as fast as I can." It hurts my ears and offends me as a writer and lover of the language. There's no poetry in it; it's just wrong.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

My point of contention is "I should've turned around and ran as fast as I can." It hurts my ears and offends me as a writer and lover of the language. There's no poetry in it; it's just wrong.

I completely understand.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

As a writer....

Very well said! I agree that, ultimately, it should be left up to the songwriter. It's their art. That doesn't mean we can't critique it, as your composer friend pointed out, but it's up to the artist to express themselves how they choose. Whether or not it's grammatically correct.

I've always believed that's the point Stevie was trying to make with her "would you say that to Bob Dylan" comment. Cringe-worthy as it might have sounded, she wasn't placing herself in Dylan's league (she's said in the past that she's "no Bob Dylan"), she was simply using him as an example of a songwriter who doesn't follow the rules and conventions of writing.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

How do you feel about "You can't plant no seed," in "What's The World Coming To?"

That may be just one example, but they've all played fast & loose with grammar from time to time.

Double-negatives are par for the course in rock. There would be a lot of silly-sounding rock songs if you replaced "ain't no..." For instance, "There is no sunshine when she's gone" or "There isn't any sunshine when she's gone" wouldn't have the same impact. Or try "Is that not a shame" instead of "Ain't that a shame..." Silly, no? Language can be beautiful even in its imperfections.

But when you say "I should've turned around and ran as fast as I can," it's just atrocious. There's nothing beautiful about that misuse of the language. The tense disagreement just sounds ignorant. "I should have turned around and run as fast as I could" would have lost the rhyme but would have not lost any power; in fact, it would have been more powerful.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

But when you say "I should've turned around and ran as fast as I can," it's just atrocious. There's nothing beautiful about that misuse of the language. The tense disagreement just sounds ignorant. "I should have turned around and run as fast as I could" would have lost the rhyme but would have not lost any power; in fact, it would have been more powerful.

I actually think the line sounds better with the incorrect grammar. "I should have turn around and run as fast I could," just lands with a thud. Try singing it along.

Ironically, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but "I should have turned around and ran as fast as I can," was merely a throw-away/ad-libbed line near the very end of the 'Tusk' era demo of "Smile At You," and was nowhere to be found in the 'Mirage' era recordings.

It was only after the band (Lindsey?) decided to fashion a chorus out of it for the 'Say You Will' version, that it took on such prominence in the song. Thus becoming more offensive to some listeners.

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Language can be beautiful even in its imperfections.

On that, we agree.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I actually think the line sounds better with the incorrect grammar. "I should have turn around and run as fast I could," just lands with a thud. Try singing it along.

It's not a pretty line, for sure. I would have just killed the line altogether and come up with something different. Unfortunately, Stevie seems to refuse to edit herself a lot of times, and that is to the detriment of the art, in my opinion.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

It's not a pretty line, for sure. I would have just killed the line altogether and come up with something different. Unfortunately, Stevie seems to refuse to edit herself a lot of times, and that is to the detriment of the art, in my opinion.

As I pointed out, though, it was little more than a throwaway line near the end of the 'Tusk'-era demo. I doubt Stevie was married to it. If Lindsey was the sole arranger of the 'Say You Will' version, it was he who made it a focal point.

[Phil]

I have to say that I never had a problem with the lyrics for "Thrown Down" (the shift in tenses actually suited the song in my opinion), but I was always disturbed by the use of "ran" in "Smile At You". Johnny makes a valid point about Lindsey being the one to actually focus on what was undoubtedly an ad-libbed line in the beginning, most likely just thrown in as a rhyme whilst the song was being formulated.

[Macfanforever]

They need a quick paced producer .

I dont understand how some of these artists pump out award winning top of the charts albums loaded with hits every 4 to 8 months or yearly with a new album to that matter.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Phil

I have to say that I never had a problem with the lyrics for "Thrown Down" (the shift in tenses actually suited the song in my opinion), but I was always disturbed by the use of "ran" in "Smile At You". Johnny makes a valid point about Lindsey being the one to actually focus on what was undoubtedly an ad-libbed line in the beginning, most likely just thrown in as a rhyme whilst the song was being formulated.

So you too believe that she would have dug her heels in in Thrown Down but not on this one? The line appears at least 10 times in the song. That's Lindsey's responsibility somehow? Explain the rationale because I am confused.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

As I pointed out, though, it was little more than a throwaway line near the end of the 'Tusk'-era demo. I doubt Stevie was married to it. If Lindsey was the sole arranger of the 'Say You Will' version, it was he who made it a focal point.

It was a throwaway line at the end of the Tusk-era demo. So what? It became a central line in a song. It appears at least 10 times in the song. So how can it be just a throwaway line? On what basis do you make that statement?

You doubt Stevie was married to it. Again, on what basis? Has she ever said that?

So it's Lindsey's fault now because he was the "sole arranger." Seriously? You saw the documentary, right? She dug her heels in when he pointed out that her grammar was incorrect in Thrown Down, comparing herself to Bob Dylan. So what makes you think she would not have dug her heels in on this one? If you have the information, please share.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

It was a throwaway line at the end of the Tusk-era demo. So what? It became a central line in a song. It appears at least 10 times in the song. So how can it be just a throwaway line? On what basis do you make that statement?

You doubt Stevie was married to it. Again, on what basis? Has she ever said that?

I know. Ken Caillat pointed out that she was always fighting for her lyrics, because this line would be for Mary. This line would be for Jill. That one would be for her dad. So, she'd want to keep something in not because of how it sounded but because of what it meant to her. Who knows what she is married to or not. I don't think she perceives "throw away" as we would or as other members of Fleetwood Mac would. What may very well have sounded like "rubbish" to them could have been something she went to bat for. We just don't know, because it wasn't in a documentary.

Michele

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

It was a throwaway line at the end of the Tusk-era demo. So what? It became a central line in a song. It appears at least 10 times in the song. So how can it be just a throwaway line? On what basis do you make that statement?

You doubt Stevie was married to it. Again, on what basis? Has she ever said that?

So it's Lindsey's fault now because he was the "sole arranger." Seriously? You saw the documentary, right? She dug her heels in when he pointed out that her grammar was incorrect in Thrown Down, comparing herself to Bob Dylan. So what makes you think she would not have dug her heels in on this one? If you have the information, please share.

I didn't say it was Lindsey's "fault." I have no problem with the line as it is, so I don't really care whose idea it was to use in the chorus. What I'm trying to say, is that I can't imagine the line was very important to Stevie.

It may have become a central line in the 'Say You Will' version, but it started out life as a throwaway. She sang it at the tail-end of the 'Tusk' demo (you actually have to listen for it, as other things are being sung at the same time), and it doesn't appear at all in the 'Mirage'-era recordings. Not even in Stevie's ad-libs (which, surely, if it meant anything to her, she would have carried it over to each attempt at recording the song).

The band members, Lindsey included, have said many times that they worked for months on Stevie's tracks before she arrived to record her vocals. I would assume that meant arranging the songs, working out the structure, and recording basic tracks. So if Lindsey fashioned a chorus out of that line, I'm guessing he liked the sound of it, didn't have an issue with the grammar, and thought it gave the song a good "hook."