Stevie Nicks Video Access Hollywood Interview

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

No, it didn't sound like Fleetwood Mac in many places, but it really couldn't sound like an LB solo album either, what with the 9 Stevie songs in it.

That album sounds like twelve albums mashed up. All the songs from different projects, studios, and eras, and the different producers and engineers—that album sounds like one of those anthologies, like "Great Hits From the '80s."

Also, I don't think he would have put both SYHA and BTLH on on LB album. Maybe one or the other.

But as far as I can recall, he planned to. Both those songs were on the album he & Mark Needham presented to the studio execs. Maybe he didn't give it all that much thought one way or another.

I actually never thought that the album sounded like 2 solo albums slapped together. I thought it sounded like a hybrid of Stevie and Lindsey, but that it missed key Fleetwood Mac elements.

To me, what it missed was that style of engineering—the complementary nature of EQ highs and lows—that Ken and Richard used to give Fleetwood Mac two decades prior. It was that quality that made Mac albums sound so clean and made them so playably easy to listen to in various settings, whether car audio or home stereo or Sony Walkman. No matter what setting, the Ken & Richard albums sound as if they had been mastered for that setting. The Say You Will album sounds cruddy—kind of tinny with that quality that makes sensitive ear drums pulse uncomfortably.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

To me, what it missed was that style of engineering—the complementary nature of EQ highs and lows—that Ken and Richard used to give Fleetwood Mac two decades prior. It was that quality that made Mac albums sound so clean and made them so playably easy to listen to in various settings, whether car audio or home stereo or Sony Walkman. No matter what setting, the Ken & Richard albums sound as if they had been mastered for that setting. The Say You Will album sounds cruddy—kind of tinny with that quality that makes sensitive ear drums pulse uncomfortably.

Louie mentioned Colbie Caillat's album recently and Ken's work on it. I wonder if you heard it, if you would think it possessed the "clean" sound that you describe.

Michele

[SpyNote]

Originally Posted by elle

that's a strange statement. Law&Order, Go Insane and UTS are 3 albums that are very far from each other in style and sound. so who decides what's typical Lindsey sound? how can those 3 very different albums be typical Lindsey sound, but not OOTC, GOS1, GOS, or SWS?

I'm just not a fan of his playing style and production work on his solo albums, which is the main issue. I think he tends to play frantically and his music gets buried in production. That's just not appealing to me. Less is more. I also don't find many of his solo albums very melodic, which is why I like most Fleetwood Mac and Stevie Nicks albums. I own everything that Lindsey has released, but I don't listen to his solo albums very often, if ever after the first month of release.

I actually like OOTC quite a bit because it has more of a commercial sound without being overly produced. It's quite melodic and understated, like a classic Fleetwood Mac album. He does have some frantic moments on there, like on the bombastic "Doing What I Can," but he keeps it in check for the most part.

[SpyNote]

Originally Posted by michelej1

That was my point. Actually, I don't find what she is saying now as a change from what she said before, but even if it's interpreted that way I don't think it would be unusual for Stevie to change her mind. She does it all the time. I don't think it's weird or bizarre or assume she was definitely influenced by Lindsey, if her mind changed.

So basically we both felt Stevie changed her mind, but had different interpretations of her current views. Then we agree!

The question is, did they show him a line up shot that included Christine and did he say, "don't use that one?" Or did they talk to him about possible shots that might be used and did he say, "don't use one that includes Christine?" If it was the latter, I think the original FM Mojo article would have mentioned that tidbit.

The writer was pretty clear. Lindsey didn't want Christine on the cover of the magazine. If it's about Rumours, then Christine has to be included, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Here is the writer's exact comments:

"Lindsey seems almost cross about Christine's return. He said she'd 'burned her bridges," and asked MOJO not to use a line-up shot including Christine on the cover of our issue about the making of Rumours. "

Either way, Christine wasn't back in the band at the time. I don't connect that writer's Mojo cover comment to him not wanting her in the band. He may want her or he may not, I have no idea.

Well, he did, and so did I. And I'd imagine others do as well. People have different views on this subject.

For this thread, I was reflecting on Stevie's Access interview, which isn't about what Lindsey thinks. It's about what she said about Christine needing to be sure it's what she wants, how touring is hard work and they've built themselves into a four piece without Christine. Stevie so frequently says "Lindsey thinks" or "we" or "Lindsey and I think" so when she comes out and speaks for HERSELF and doesn't mention Lindsey, I don't assume she's revealing his thoughts and not her own.

That's fine and your interpretation. It's not a black and white issue.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

So basically we both felt Stevie changed her mind, but had different interpretations of her current views. Then we agree!

No, we don't, because I wasn't trying to interpret her current views. We have different interpretations of whether what she said expresses her own opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by SpyNote

Well, he did, and so did I. And I'd imagine others do as well. People have different views on this subject.

The writer didn't connect that to Lindsey not wanting Christine back in the band. The subject of her possibly returning to the band hadn't even come up yet. The writer had discussed in the Mojo interview Lindsey's feelings about Christine leaving the band and then he asked Stevie about it and Stevie started talking about the London appearance.

Originally Posted by SpyNote

It's not a black and white issue.

That's why I said it would be interesting to hear Lindsey's take on the matter, in the first place.

Michele

[SpyNote]

Originally Posted by michelej1

No, we don't, because I wasn't trying to interpret her current views. We have different interpretations of whether what she said expresses her own opinion on the subject.

It's the same difference.

The writer didn't connect that to Lindsey not wanting Christine back in the band. The subject of her possibly returning to the band hadn't even come up yet. The writer had discussed in the Mojo interview Lindsey's feelings about Christine leaving the band and then he asked Stevie about it and Stevie started talking about the London appearance.

That's your interpretation, your opinion.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

It's the same difference.

I think there's a difference between listening to what Stevie expresses in an interview and your saying, 'well she was definitely influenced by Lindsey.' I responded that it would be interesting to hear what Lindsey has to say on the matter and you claimed you already know what he thinks about Christine's return.

That's great for you, but I wasn't telling you that I know what Stevie thinks or what Lindsey thinks. That's what you're doing. And it's fine for you to think you know. That doesn't stop me from listening to the actual people or wanting to listen to them.

Originally Posted by SpyNote

That's your interpretation, your opinion.

Time and chronology is more than in interpretation or opinion. It's a fact that the Mojo writer interviewed Lindsey before the London appearances ever happened, the writer didn't even know that Christine would be making a cameo in London. The Mojo FM interviews were in the January 2013 issue and were conducted before January. Long before there was talk of Christine's full time return to the band. Before Hawaii.

In fact around the time that Mojo interview was conducted, Mick and Stevie were saying they had to give up the dream of Christine coming back. The writer's interview with Lindsey and the band and even his subsequent interview with Stevie (which must have occurred in August or September) happened before Christine said she wanted to return to the band. So, you can't realistically bootstrap the writer's opinion onto what you think they think about Christine's return to the band.


Michele

[SpyNote]

Originally Posted by michelej1

That's great for you, but I wasn't telling you that I know what Stevie thinks or what Lindsey thinks. That's what you're doing. And it's fine for you to think you know. That doesn't stop me from listening to the actual people or wanting to listen to them.

Great! Unlike you, I can accept a dissenting view.

Time and chronology is more than in interpretation or opinion. It's a fact that the Mojo writer interviewed Lindsey before the London appearances ever happened, the writer didn't even know that Christine would be making a cameo in London. The Mojo FM interviews were in the January 2013 issue and were conducted before January. Long before there was talk of Christine's full time return to the band. Before Hawaii

His feelings about Christine leaving are consistent. If anything, they have intensified.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

Great! Unlike you, I can accept a dissenting view.

His feelings about Christine leaving are consistent. If anything, they have intensified.

Yes, Lindsey's feelings about Christine's leaving are consistent. I never said they weren't.

I don't think they've intensified though. I recall him saying strong things in 2003 that he hasn't repeated since.

Oh, I can accept a dissenting view. You weren't giving your view though. You were giving the Mojo writer's view. No, I don't accept that. Not when I can read what the Mojo writer said and point out that it's different from what you claim he said.

With this mojo writer you said he connected what Lindsey said to Mojo last year to Christine's return to the band full time -- something that no one was discussing until the Guardian said she wanted to return, that was AFTER we heard from the writer in August or September. So, there's no way the Mojo writer connected anything to Christine's return to the band full time. You were doing the connecting. You think that Lindsey's views about Christine appearing in London are the same as his views about her returning to the band full time. It's fine for you to think it, but there's no basis for saying this Mojo writer thinks so too.

The writer talked to Stevie about Christine's return for the upcoming London appearances.

[Mojo] The big Fleetwood Mac news is that Christine McVie is back. How involved has she been?

[NIcks] She’s just re-emerged to do one song. It could have been a few songs, but Lindsey’s very funny about that. Chris left in 1998 and we didn’t start Say You Will until 2002. It took us that long to figure out what the hell we were going to do without her or even if we could do without her.

[Mojo] Lindsey seems almost cross about Christine’s return. He said she’d “burned her bridges”, and asked MOJO not to use a line-up shot including Christine on the cover of our issue about the making of Rumours…

[Stevie]I think his words to us were, “She can’t just come and go.” That’s important to him, but it’s not quite so important to me. Chris is coming to Dublin when we go into production rehearsal, and she’s going to come on and do Don’t Stop the second two nights in London. Much as Lindsey adores her and he does; she’s the only one in Fleetwood Mac he was ever really willing to listen to he doesn’t want the first night reviews to be all about Christine’s one song, rather than the set we rehearsed for two months. But it will be wonderful to have her back up there, and from there, who knows?

I said I don't connect Lindsey's comments to him not wanting Christine in the band and you not only spoke for yourself but yourself and the writer: "Well, he did, and so did I. " That Mojo writer never said anything of the kind and interviewed Stevie before the London shows before it had come out publicly that Christine wanted to return.

Michele

[michelej1]

Now, this is Lindsey's comment about Christine from last year and I went to find it to showcase the distinction between a discussion of Christine's leaving and a discussion, like the one below, of her return. They're really two different matters.


Ultimate Classic Rock,
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/linds...fleetwood-mac/

“It’s an odd thing for me, in many ways I’m having a better time in the band as a foursome, only because it opens up a range of things that I can do,” he continued. “Except for maybe ‘Don’t Stop,’ we don’t do a lot of her stuff. It opens up the amount of material we can play, it allows me to be more of a ‘guy,’ to be more of who I am up there.”

Of course, Buckingham hastened to add, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t miss McVie’s contributions to the group. “I would be shocked if she ever expressed any interest to do anything with us,” he mused. “Shocked and pleased.”

In Buckingham’s eyes, it’s all about what McVie wants — and that doesn’t include having anything to do with her former life as a pop star. “She ended up getting a divorce, she ended up selling her house in L.A., she moved back to England, she quit the band, she sold her publishing. She didn’t necessarily have to burn as many bridges as she did,” Buckingham explained. “Everyone sometimes wonders whether or not there might have been more of a middle ground for her to strike, not necessarily in terms of her staying in Fleetwood Mac. But she just wanted to reinvent herself. She seems to want to lead the antithesis of the life she led before, and I don’t pretend to understand such a radical change, but it was obviously something she needed.”

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

His feelings about Christine leaving are consistent. If anything, they have intensified.

Originally Posted by michelej1

Yes, Lindsey's feelings about Christine's leaving are consistent. I never said they weren't.

I don't think they've intensified though.

I agree that Lindsey's feelings of Christine's leaving are consistent. I don't think he's intensifying his position, though... he's simply been elaborating his feelings this past year. He's referred to Christine "burning her bridges" since what, 2003? Maybe before that, in fact. However, lately he's simply delineating what he means by that. Her quitting the band, getting a divorce, selling her LA home, selling her publishing, moving back to England, etc.

I do wonder what Lindsey thinks about her possible return, though. She's really the only one in the band that completely calls him out on his sh*t. And like he said himself, her return musically limits him in multiple ways- his song arrangements for the band (both live & in the studio), setlist time, etc. So Lindsey's all-important ego may be victimized by Christine's possible return.

However, like the Destiny Rules documentary shows, Fleetwood Mac does mean a lot to Lindsey. I think he really wanted Say You Will to be the album that healed the band from his infamous exit following the making of Tango In The Night. Not just that, but to right all the other wrongs the band did to each other during their heyday. Perhaps Lindsey was a bit bitter that Christine's departure has denied that opportunity. But I would be willing to bet he's still very much wanting to set everything right with one more studio album from the 5 Fireflies.

[BlueDenimLamp]

In Buckingham’s eyes, it’s all about what McVie wants — and that doesn’t include having anything to do with her former life as a pop star. “She ended up getting a divorce, she ended up selling her house in L.A., she moved back to England, she quit the band, she sold her publishing

I've seen this somewhere before but if Christine sold the publishing/copyrights to her songs won't they (FM) have to get some kind of licensing agreement from the holder of the copyrights in order for the band to perform the CM songs...So that could mean FM will have to pay someone outside the band if they want to perform their own songs...Is it possible that if they aren't granted permission they won't be able to play Christine's songs??? How does the whole thing work...

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

But I would be willing to bet he's still very much wanting to set everything right with one more studio album from the 5 Fireflies.

And I know that he was still in the process of buttering up Stevie and trying for a second EP. He may be still buttering her as we speak, but the odds that he was going to get any studio album were very slim. Stevie didn't want to do it. Now she will. Having Christine back may be his only way of getting an FM album at all, even if he only has 1/3 of the songs on it.

I don't know if he was disappointed with SYW, but if he was, this is a chance to give the world a more satisfying final word from FM.

Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

I've seen this somewhere before but if Christine sold the publishing/copyrights to her songs won't they (FM) have to get some kind of licensing agreement from the holder of the copyrights in order for the band to perform the CM songs...So that could mean FM will have to pay someone outside the band if they want to perform their own songs...Is it possible that if they aren't granted permission they won't be able to play Christine's songs??? How does the whole thing work...

You mean perform them on tour, at a live concert? The mechanical rights are separated from the performance rights. The music publishers have mechanical rights.

Michele

[olive]

There are a number of “rights” involved in a song that the copyright holder controls. These “rights” are licensed for use in a public performance, on a CD, in a film or TV show, in print, or on the Broadway stage. The copyright owner [i.e. publisher(s)] licenses these “rights” to other parties for the use of their song and in turn receive “royalties” (payment) for each use. The “rights” are as follows:
The Performing Right is the right to have your song performed in public (on radio, TV, live venues, satellite and internet radio, background music services, etc.) and is represented by a PRO, like SESAC, who licenses these rights on your behalf, and then collects and distributes performance royalties to both the songwriter and music publisher of the work. The majority of a song’s income will come from performing rights royalties.



The Mechanical Right is the right to “mechanically” reproduce or distribute your song on to a fixed medium, including records and CDs. The mechanical right gives you the ability to collect on the sale of a song to the public. The record company obtains a Mechanical License from the publisher for this use and is responsible for paying mechanical royalties to the publisher for each use. Many publishers utilize The Harry Fox Agency [www.harryfox.com] to handle mechanical licensing grants on their behalf, as well as synchronization licenses (see below). The record company pays royalties to the publisher who then pays the writer. If you are both the writer and publisher of a work, then the royalties would be paid directly to your publishing company, for both writer and publisher shares.

The Synchronization Right comes into play when your song is used in a film or as part of a television show. Your music is “synchronized” to the film, either in whole or in part. The producers of the film or TV show will negotiate a Synchronization Fee – “sync fee” – and will acquire a license from the publisher to obtain permission to synchronize the music. These royalties are paid to the publisher of the work who then splits the royalties with the songwriter.

The Print Right is the right to have your song used in printed form such as a songbook or sheet music. Print Rights are generally handled by a publisher who specializes in this area.

The Grand Right is the right of the copyright owner to perform or license others to perform their song in a dramatic matter, which advances the plot of the production in which it is included (such as a Broadway show). This requires a license from the copyright owner separate and distinct from, what is commonly known as, the “small” performing rights which SESAC represents (concert and live performances, incidental and background music on TV programs, and radio airplay, just to name a few).

Other Rights: The Sound Recording Performance Right is the right to have your sound recording performed in public (as opposed to the song or underlying composition embodied on the recording). Currently this right is limited in the U.S. to require that certain digital services --Internet radio, satellite radio and cable TV radio-- pay a royalty for the streaming of your sound recording. Terrestrial radio is not required as of yet to pay such a royalty. The Sound Recording Performance Right also allows for performers (both the main performer and background singers/musicians) on the recording to earn a royalty when that recording is used by these digital services. SoundExchange is the organization designated to collect and distribute these royalties to recording artists and record labels. For more information about SoundExchange go to www.soundexchange.com. If you are, however, a background singer and/or session musician go to the AFM & AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund at www.raroyalties.org. This organization collects royalties on behalf of both royalty artists and session performers.