Most Unpopular Opinions About Lindsey

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I agree David. I think though that LB's jealousy came more so from the fact that the girl that jilted him made good on her own. In other words, he was hurt that she no longer needed him to be a success. Male ego can be a frail thing ya know.

Also, I think La Nicks' first two records would have been panned by the critics no matter how inventive, stellar, good, etc. they were. I think critics love to take cheap shots at her, and that is sad because those first to records were mostly great to these ears. And - she, too, took risks. I mean "Beauty and the Beast" certainly was one as was the country flavor in Bella Donna. Those things were not on the radio at that point in time.

In any event, I think LB likes to take risks, but, creatively, he arrives at the end result via ideas from other artists a la the self-admitted "Jive Talking" vibe to "Second Hand News" and his whole Everly Brothers esq. flair to the Mirage and solo stuff.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree David. I think though that LB's jealousy came more so from the fact that the girl that jilted him made good on her own. In other words, he was hurt that she no longer needed him to be a success. Male ego can be a frail thing ya know.

Yeah he was irked to see Stevie Nicks make such a splash in the music business. That rubbed him the wrong way for many a year, perhaps until even today.

Also, I think La Nicks' first two records would have been panned by the critics no matter how inventive, stellar, good, etc. they were. I think critics love to take cheap shots at her, and that is sad because those first to records were mostly great to these ears.

Well, I think critics who just take cheap shots are either bad critics or not critics at all. I mean, not all critics are equally worthy of reading or understanding. I think that many genuinely fine critics -- I would say "most" but no matter how much we think we have read, we haven't read "most" -- for the most part dismissed Stevie not with cheap shots but with honest responses of impatience with or uninterest in her work. Just because a critic says something negative about your favorite artist doesn't mean you should just dismiss that critic's opinion as a cheap shot. It might be a cheap shot, but it might be an honest reaction that is well-wrought & well thought out & justified (from the critic's perspective). Under the rubric 'critic' you have dumb reviewers like Michael Musto or the Entertainment Weekly staff & you have first-rate rock critics like Steve Simels of Stereo Review (who never had anything good to say about Stevie except that she had a voice like a "no-nonsense country belter like Brenda Lee") & Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times (who felt Nicks was just an average songwriter & an occasionally brilliant but mostly narcissistic performer) & Robert Christgau (who thought Stevie was just a mooncalf) & Steve Pond (who always felt Stevie was Fleetwood Mac's weak link in the chain & not to be taken seriously).

And - she, too, took risks. I mean "Beauty and the Beast" certainly was one as was the country flavor in Bella Donna. Those things were not on the radio at that point in time.

well you know what they say, one man's meat is another man's poison. I'm not sure that the pop-country style of "Bella Donna" was either totally Stevie's doing or all that new. It was essentially the same sound that this same group of studio musicians brought to all their work throughout the 1970s on albums by Jackson Browne, Linda Ronstadt, Andrew Gold, etc. It was all sort of Eagles-derived country-pop, much of it on "Bella Donna" attributable sonically to Waddy Wachtel's slide guitar playing. Writers at the time (& still today for all I know) called it "the L.A. session player sound."

I think Stevie's big risk was actually an enormously big risk, but it's one that isn't often talked about as having been a risk: Her staunch decision to maintain her very personal visual & musical style (however you want to characterize it) year after year in both her solo act & her work with Fleetwood Mac. Rock fads fueld by MTV came & went, but Stevie Nicks was Stevie Nicks .... just about forever.

In any event, I think LB likes to take risks, but, creatively, he arrives at the end result via ideas from other artists a la the self-admitted "Jive Talking" vibe to "Second Hand News" and his whole Everly Brothers esq. flair to the Mirage and solo stuff.

Of course that in & of itself says something about the artist: From whom or from what does he steal? I think more highly of an artist, ceteris paribus, who steals something from the Everly Brothers than from Nick Gilder.

Of course, even that isn't a hard & fast rule, only a generality, because it says something important about the artist's own tastes & proclivities.

[madformac]

Lindsey has recieved a lot of critical acclaim for both his solo and Mac work. I recall many favorable reviews of Out Of The Cradle back in 1992. Stevie got the majority of commercial success. So each, as David stated, got praise. Just in different forms.

My belief is that Lindsey being a male (and a Libran one too as I speak from experience here) wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants to push boundaries, he wants critical acclaim but he also want commercial success. It's his ego that can't accept he can't have everything. I'm sure Stevie's success in terms of "breaking out" as a solo artist without his help as Strand mentioned only made his feelings worse. The fact is he is well respected in his field and critically successful. It's a shame for him he can't be so commercial but it's never going to happen with the record buying masses stuck in the same arena of always buying the safe, radio friendly albums.

Now just going off subject slightly and going back to the other artists I've mentioned earlier I'm seeing a picture of Lindsey's personality here.

If anybody has listened to David Gilmour's new album "On An Island" they will have noticed a lot of the songs and themes are to do with his domestic bliss, his wife and children. Now, if you listen to Eric Clapton's last album "Back Home" the theme is the same. Both equate Heaven to be the relationship they have with their partners. Both sing about their children and the relationships within the family. Both these guys are in their early 60's. They both have young wives and young children. Both have settled down and after years of living the rock star life are now happy and domesticated. The music is laid back and serene in places. You could even argue the same with Mark Knopfler, again he is in his late 50's with a younger wife and young children too. Although his songs are not about domestic bliss they have a laid back maturity to them. It's almost like they have found peace within themselves, or as Gerald would point out, they have gone boring and mainstream..

So we come to Lindsey. He's into his later 50's, young wife, young kids, so naturally we expect more of the above... But no. His music still has an edge and a manicness which suggests he is yet to settle down. Given his antics on the last tour, grinding, flailing and prancing around onstage and the urgency with some of his newer material it could be argued he is either still in a mid-life crisis and or he still believes he is a young man and refuses to grow up. I think he is to be both applauded and yet criticised for his unique behaviour. He certainly has some demons in there..

[Chester]

Not all musicians have to become serene peaceful musicians. Lindsey certainly acts in interviews like he is at peace, constantly talking about this being the best time in his life (musically and creatively ). Maybe he just likes loud music and likes to have fun on stage. I don't think he needs to be criticized for his uniqueness. Still having energy at 56 is a bad thing?

[madformac]

Originally Posted by Chester

I don't think he needs to be criticized for his uniqueness. Still having energy at 56 is a bad thing?

I don't think it's a case of energy, it's more to do, I believe, with feeling he still needs to prove how good he is. It all stems from the issues I mentioned earlier. He's still not comfortable with his status in the music industry in terms of public praise.

There's nothing wrong with rolling around on stage, smashing guitars, simulating sex with it etc etc etc. But I don't recall it as part of his stage act in the past, in his younger days, so why now? Lindsey has an unfulfilled need and this is the physical manifestation of it.

Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, The Who and any other older rockers who still show off on stage is fine. But they have been doing it all their career, Lindsey hasn't. Something has triggered it and I think it's his need for public adulation. It always raised an eyebrow of mine when Stevie left the stage for "Come".

[Chester]

Originally Posted by madformac

There's nothing wrong with rolling around on stage, smashing guitars, simulating sex with it etc etc etc. But I don't recall it as part of his stage act in the past, in his younger days, so why now?

Maybe the simulating sex and guitar smashing is new, but he has always been rather manic. I see these things as just new ways of letting his manic nature come out because he isn't quite as nimble as he was during say, the Mirage dvd, to be able to run around the stage for the entrie show. Just some manic antics while standing in place will suffice these days.

It always raised an eyebrow of mine when Stevie left the stage for "Come".

Uh, she doesn't sing in the song? I don't think it has to do with him needing the spotlight. Or was this a joke?

[madformac]

Originally Posted by Chester

Maybe the simulating sex and guitar smashing is new, but he has always been rather manic. I see these things as just new ways of letting his manic nature come out because he isn't quite as nimble as he was during say, the Mirage dvd, to be able to run around the stage for the entrie show. Just some manic antics while standing in place will suffice these days.

He's not been "manic" as far as I know. You would have to ask David or ChiliD, those guys have seen far more of LB than I have. In '75 to '77 all his effort was seemingly put into the singing/playing as far as I know. '79 he was pretty wild at times but still focused. 1982 produced his most wild times I think but still the playing was amazing, strutting around and stuff is hardly manic, his guitar work was at it's most creative live I believe in '82. In 1992/93 he had the gimic of seven guitarists or whatever it was but he was still pretty focused. In 1997 he was pretty focused on the job too. 2003/4 for the most part he was. I'm So Afraid got out of hand a couple of times and the Come antics were some kind of novelty act I guess. Very out of character and I've heard quite a few fans of LB express embarassment at it. The Come solo's were really nothing a moderately good guitarist couldn't attempt. He couldn't do those stage antics and play something tough too. I'm just confused by why he did it. I guess it's just some kind of rebellion. I'd also add I believe he is far fitter now than he was in '82 so I don't understand the thinking there.

Originally Posted by Chester

Uh, she doesn't sing in the song? I don't think it has to do with him needing the spotlight. Or was this a joke?

No. You need to expand your thinking here Chester.

From what I understand (maybe a Stevie fan can add some info) she refused to be onstage during that song for whatever reasons, maybe it's the lyrical content or it's his antics I don't know personally. I did notice from my experiences it was the song chosen by the crowds at every gig I was at to go for a drinks/pee break. She could have sung on it I'm sure. She sings on ISA so whats the difference? Apart from Lindsey's little spotlight stint with Big Love or Go Insane she would be expected to stay onstage really.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by madformac

Lindsey has recieved a lot of critical acclaim for both his solo and Mac work. I recall many favorable reviews of Out Of The Cradle back in 1992. Stevie got the majority of commercial success. So each, as David stated, got praise. Just in different forms.

My belief is that Lindsey being a male (and a Libran one too as I speak from experience here) wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants to push boundaries, he wants critical acclaim but he also want commercial success. It's his ego that can't accept he can't have everything. I'm sure Stevie's success in terms of "breaking out" as a solo artist without his help as Strand mentioned only made his feelings worse. The fact is he is well respected in his field and critically successful. It's a shame for him he can't be so commercial but it's never going to happen with the record buying masses stuck in the same arena of always buying the safe, radio friendly albums.

Now just going off subject slightly and going back to the other artists I've mentioned earlier I'm seeing a picture of Lindsey's personality here.

If anybody has listened to David Gilmour's new album "On An Island" they will have noticed a lot of the songs and themes are to do with his domestic bliss, his wife and children. Now, if you listen to Eric Clapton's last album "Back Home" the theme is the same. Both equate Heaven to be the relationship they have with their partners. Both sing about their children and the relationships within the family. Both these guys are in their early 60's. They both have young wives and young children. Both have settled down and after years of living the rock star life are now happy and domesticated. The music is laid back and serene in places. You could even argue the same with Mark Knopfler, again he is in his late 50's with a younger wife and young children too. Although his songs are not about domestic bliss they have a laid back maturity to them. It's almost like they have found peace within themselves, or as Gerald would point out, they have gone boring and mainstream..

So we come to Lindsey. He's into his later 50's, young wife, young kids, so naturally we expect more of the above... But no. His music still has an edge and a manicness which suggests he is yet to settle down. Given his antics on the last tour, grinding, flailing and prancing around onstage and the urgency with some of his newer material it could be argued he is either still in a mid-life crisis and or he still believes he is a young man and refuses to grow up. I think he is to be both applauded and yet criticised for his unique behaviour. He certainly has some demons in there..

Haha. I admit it. I don't want an artist who has inner peace. Knopfler is a bad example in this case. The man is born as inner peace. Yawn. But Lindsey-wise: excellent post buddy. I just don't want him to grow up. I love the fact that he is still eager to get any critical acclaim. I don't believe he is so eager for that big commercial succes. I think the man wants to be a legend. He just is intelligent enough to know that that will be impossible without commercial succes. Justin, I'm so glad you're back at the forum. The threads are getting beef again.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Justin, I'm so glad you're back at the forum. The threads are getting beef again.

Thanks Gez.

I'm just trying to inject a little stimulation to this thread. This "unpopular" thread is funnily enough one of the most popular threads ever on this forum. I think Lindsey would find some odd satisfaction in that statistic. You see Lindsey, unpopular can be popular.

[David]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Haha. I admit it. I don't want an artist who has inner peace. Knopfler is a bad example in this case. The man is born as inner peace. Yawn. But Lindsey-wise: excellent post buddy. I just don't want him to grow up.

When you read biographical material on Beethoven, you're constantly saying, 'Oh, grow up!' because it feels as if you were dealing with an extremely neurotic petulant child.

[madformac]

Well this is a great thread. Lots of good interaction and no petulance unlike another popular forum here.

If I could use an analogy to sum up what these guys mentioned mean to me then it might make more sense. This is something Chris Rea used to describe himself in the business and I think it works.

Eric Clapton is to me Coca Cola. He's very popular, sells millions and has been a major brand name for decades. I love coke, I can't go for long periods without cracking a can open and enjoying that taste. But Coca Cola is very mainstream and you know that when you buy a can it will taste like all the previous ones you have drunk. But if you like it (and millions do) then you enjoy it. It's a predictable but very enjoyable experience. It can be semi addictive.

David Gilmour to me is like coffee. Most people would argue it tastes better with milk (milk being Roger Waters) but drunk neat it has a strong and rich flavour that tastes very different from a cappucino but not any less pleasant. His earlier solo work, like Lindsey, is experimental and to me considered a double shot of espresso. It's not as popular as cappucino but it's a great experience if you take the plunge.

Lindsey Buckingham is to me like absinthe. Very strong and individual. I don't drink it often but when the mood takes me I have to have a hit of the stuff. It's frowned upon in the mainstream drinks industry but is rarely understood. It's not advised to take in too much in one go but when you do it's like nothing else. Experts will tell you it's a fine drink with a very agreeable flavour but the side effects can be quite extreme. You can take it in the acceptable form with water and sugar (Mac and Nicks) and get away with it without being labelled a nutjob. If you however choose to take it neat it's far more potent and you are likely to get strange looks from the masses.

Mark Knopfler is to me like Hot Chocolate. Rich and smooth, very mellow and not offensive. Great to chill out to and can be used to send you to sleep before bedtime.

Peter Green. Peter is like Jack Daniels to me. My favorite drink. Sometimes you can mix it with coke (Eric) but taken straight it's a full, strong flavour with sends fire to my heart. It's important not to drink too much but to treat it with respect and drink it when the mood and time allows. Although it's great in public, you can sit back at home, pour a JD and immerse yourself in the moment. It chills me out.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by madformac

Well this is a great thread. Lots of good interaction and no petulance unlike another popular forum here.

If I could use an analogy to sum up what these guys mentioned mean to me then it might make more sense. This is something Chris Rea used to describe himself in the business and I think it works.

Eric Clapton is to me Coca Cola. He's very popular, sells millions and has been a major brand name for decades. I love coke, I can't go for long periods without cracking a can open and enjoying that taste. But Coca Cola is very mainstream and you know that when you buy a can it will taste like all the previous ones you have drunk. But if you like it (and millions do) then you enjoy it. It's a predictable but very enjoyable experience. It can be semi addictive.

David Gilmour to me is like coffee. Most people would argue it tastes better with milk (milk being Roger Waters) but drunk neat it has a strong and rich flavour that tastes very different from a cappucino but not any less pleasant. His earlier solo work, like Lindsey, is experimental and to me considered a double shot of espresso. It's not as popular as cappucino but it's a great experience if you take the plunge.

Lindsey Buckingham is to me like absinthe. Very strong and individual. I don't drink it often but when the mood takes me I have to have a hit of the stuff. It's frowned upon in the mainstream drinks industry but is rarely understood. It's not advised to take in too much in one go but when you do it's like nothing else. Experts will tell you it's a fine drink with a very agreeable flavour but the side effects can be quite extreme. You can take it in the acceptable form with water and sugar (Mac and Nicks) and get away with it without being labelled a nutjob. If you however choose to take it neat it's far more potent and you are likely to get strange looks from the masses.

Mark Knopfler is to me like Hot Chocolate. Rich and smooth, very mellow and not offensive. Great to chill out to and can be used to send you to sleep before bedtime. :

Peter Green. Peter is like Jack Daniels to me. My favorite drink. Sometimes you can mix it with coke (Eric) but taken straight it's a full, strong flavour with sends fire to my heart. It's important not to drink too much but to treat it with respect and drink it when the mood and time allows. Although it's great in public, you can sit back at home, pour a JD and immerse yourself in the moment. It chills me out. :

Holy frick man. If you been in amsterdam or what?

But this clears everything. Absinthe and jack daniels. Fock the rest.

PS Mixing bourbon is killing it.

[TomBanks147]

Originally Posted by madformac

Well this is a great thread. Lots of good interaction and no petulance unlike another popular forum here.

If I could use an analogy to sum up what these guys mentioned mean to me then it might make more sense. This is something Chris Rea used to describe himself in the business and I think it works.

Eric Clapton is to me Coca Cola. He's very popular, sells millions and has been a major brand name for decades. I love coke, I can't go for long periods without cracking a can open and enjoying that taste. But Coca Cola is very mainstream and you know that when you buy a can it will taste like all the previous ones you have drunk. But if you like it (and millions do) then you enjoy it. It's a predictable but very enjoyable experience. It can be semi addictive.

David Gilmour to me is like coffee. Most people would argue it tastes better with milk (milk being Roger Waters) but drunk neat it has a strong and rich flavour that tastes very different from a cappucino but not any less pleasant. His earlier solo work, like Lindsey, is experimental and to me considered a double shot of espresso. It's not as popular as cappucino but it's a great experience if you take the plunge.

Lindsey Buckingham is to me like absinthe. Very strong and individual. I don't drink it often but when the mood takes me I have to have a hit of the stuff. It's frowned upon in the mainstream drinks industry but is rarely understood. It's not advised to take in too much in one go but when you do it's like nothing else. Experts will tell you it's a fine drink with a very agreeable flavour but the side effects can be quite extreme. You can take it in the acceptable form with water and sugar (Mac and Nicks) and get away with it without being labelled a nutjob. If you however choose to take it neat it's far more potent and you are likely to get strange looks from the masses.

Mark Knopfler is to me like Hot Chocolate. Rich and smooth, very mellow and not offensive. Great to chill out to and can be used to send you to sleep before bedtime.

Peter Green. Peter is like Jack Daniels to me. My favorite drink. Sometimes you can mix it with coke (Eric) but taken straight it's a full, strong flavour with sends fire to my heart. It's important not to drink too much but to treat it with respect and drink it when the mood and time allows. Although it's great in public, you can sit back at home, pour a JD and immerse yourself in the moment. It chills me out.

haha man thats so funny, yet true.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by David

When you read biographical material on Beethoven, you're constantly saying, 'Oh, grow up!' because it feels as if you were dealing with an extremely neurotic petulant child.

The problem with Beethoven was that he just wouldn't LISTEN to anyone.


(sort of like Gerald)

[madformac]

Originally Posted by chiliD

The problem with Beethoven was that he just wouldn't LISTEN to anyone.


(sort of like Gerald)

I don't think Beethoven's problem was wouldn't so much as couldn't.

(unlike Gerald)