When I See You Again Appreciation Post! - Page 7

CarneVaca · #91 01-12-2004, 02:33 PM

Stefan, I agree with you on the sound thing. I've made the same observation on occasion. SYW lacks a cohesive sound. By the way, WTWCT is indeed reminiscent of earlier Fleetwood, maybe not outright commercial but not exactly groundbreaking.

strandinthewind · #92 01-12-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Stefan, I agree with you on the sound thing. I've made the same observation on occasion. SYW lacks a cohesive sound. By the way, WTWCT is indeed reminiscent of earlier Fleetwood, maybe not outright commercial but not exactly groundbreaking.

That is why I agree with chiliD's thought that the band should get together and write some new stuff for the new (hopefully) record. That way, I think the new record would sound more "together" than SYW did for me, although I still like SYW, esp. LB's songs.

CarneVaca · #93 01-12-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I still like SYW, esp. LB's songs.

Say that again. Are you saying you like Lindsey's stuff better on SYW?

See, we agree on something else.

strandinthewind · #94 01-12-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Say that again. Are you saying you like Lindsey's stuff better on SYW?

See, we agree on something else.

Well, yes, although I do like La Nicks' stuff very, very much and think most of it is great (esp. Smile at You and GB), I do like LB's stuff better after a few listens and perhaps browbeatings here on the Ledge

I must say seeing Murrow at the PBS Soundstage thingee was the turning point for me.

Note: This does not in any way compromise my chiffonhead status as I am still a closeted shipper!!

sulamith · #95 01-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Jason, I am keeping my eye on you, boy!

LOL!!

-Sharon

Johnny Stew · #96 01-12-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
So hit me for tone. But it goes both ways, no? Do you detect some sarcasm, and even a hint of exasperation, in Mr. Stew's message? if you're going to use a certain tone, expect the same in return, especially considering my use of sarcasm has been pointed out to me as a problem by none other than Johnny Stew himself. And this is what I mean by "stick to moderating." If you want to get down and dirty, pass the baton.

I'm sure there was definitely some exasperation to be noted in the tone of my response, because I was a bit exasperated.
I understood what you were saying in your earlier comments about the technical aspect of what Stevie said she did, but to me, it seemed that you weren't seeing the forest for the trees. And I'm meaning that in regards to your insistence on taking Stevie's "wiped my vocal" comment with unwavering literalism, rather than in the more simplified tone I always took her comment in.
Do I think she erased her vocal completely? No.
All I've been saying all along is that I do believe she mixed her vocal out of audibility, and presented it to the band as such, to demonstrate the vibe she wanted to leave the listener with. And I maintain that Stevie wouldn't go into some detailed technical explanation of the entire recording process, but rather, would simplify the action with a statement such as "I took my vocal off."

So yeah, your insistence that even that seems implausible and ridiculous, was exasperating to me.

But I can, with complete honesty, say that there was no sarcasm meant in my response to you, and there most certainly wasn't any kind of aggression or condescension. And it was those tones in your response, that I took exception to.

As for the "stick to moderating" comment... you've said something similar in the past, but I really don't see any kind of conflict of interest in my wanting to discuss and debate the various topics on these boards, with just as much passion and conviction as anyone else, while still being a moderator.

I might be tenacious regarding my opinions, but I'm not aggressive. And even though I'm not about to let myself get walked all over or treated like an idiot, I'm definitely not mean in my replies... no matter how much I may disagree with someone.
So again, I don't see a conflict of interest.

I've always maintained that I'm "just a Ledgie," like everyone else... the only difference is that I also have to step in and enforce the "rules" when necessary.
Posting here has always been for my own entertainment, but the moderating side is something I treat with respect and take very seriously. And not to pat my own back, but I think I do a pretty darn good job of not letting one get in the way of the other.

So as long as I trust that I can continue posting and debating, while also being a fair and impartial moderator, I'm going to keep doing both.

Johnny Stew · #97 01-12-2004, 07:10 PM

And just to comment on some other points made in the various posts....
I think Lindsey and Stevie are equally as guilty of self-indulgences in their solo music.

Sometimes it works ("Wild Heart," "D.W. Suite"), and sometimes it doesn't quite ("Desert Angel," "Street Of Dreams"), but in either regard it's an extension of their personalities, and their personalities should be a huge part of their solo albums, otherwise it really would be just faceless, corporate pop/rock.

And I guess which of the self-indulgences you enjoy most (or criticize the least) depends on which of the two artists you tend to prefer.

wondergirl9847 · #98 01-12-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
and sometimes it doesn't quite ("Street Of Dreams")

That's one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard!!

Well, it works for me.

But, like we ALWAYS say 'round these parts....OPINION.

Quote:

And I guess which of the self-indulgences you enjoy most (or criticize the least) depends on which of the two artists you tend to prefer.

strandinthewind · #99 01-12-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sulamith
Jason, I am keeping my eye on you, boy!

LOL!!

-Sharon

I hear the dark side calling "all my life - every night - all the time - Well IIII HHEEEAAAR TTHHE CAAAALLLLL OF THE DAAAARRRRKKK SSIIIIDDDEEEEE" Ok - I'm back!!

sparky · #**100** 01-13-2004, 03:57 AM

Running Through Garden commercial ? What a JOKE ! With that silly assed Casio sounding keyboard riff ? Maybe in 1983. Maybe in 1985. Not today.

CarneVaca · #**101** 01-13-2004, 09:18 AM

Johnny, I didn't accuse of condescending or aggression. I did accuse you of sarcasm and exasperation, and I stand by that. Don't tell me, in all honesty, that when you suggested I didn't think Stevie could use a soundboard you weren't being sarcastic. That would be disengenuous. Sarcasm begets sarcasm. And your view of what constitutes "aggression" obviously differs from mine.

I see that we essentially had a miscommunication. You misused a couple of words that implied you were saying something other than what you meant to say, it appears. A good moderator would step back, examine what's going on and call it what it is--a misunderstanding. You chose to keep fighting. I would to. But I'm not a moderator.

CarneVaca · #**102** 01-13-2004, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sparky
Running Through Garden commercial ? What a JOKE ! With that silly assed Casio sounding keyboard riff ? Maybe in 1983. Maybe in 1985. Not today.

I agree it's silly-assed and retro. And as such, it may not technically qualify as commercial. As you said, it would have been in 1985. So not only was the song produced to be commercial, it was produced to be commercial 20 years (!!!) ago. A double sin.

dissention · #**103** 01-13-2004, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I agree it's silly-assed and retro. And as such, it may not technically qualify as commercial. As you said, it would have been in 1985. So not only was the song produced to be commercial, it was produced to be commercial 20 years (!!!) ago. A double sin.

I think every aspect of the song is un-commercial.

First, those lyrics. Non-fans would hear them and just go "What the fuuuuuuuuuuccccccc...?" They are so out there that you need pot to be able to understand them if you aren't a fan, and even that there's no guarantee.

But I love the song anyway.

CarneVaca · #**104** 01-13-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
I think every aspect of the song is un-commercial.

First, those lyrics. Non-fans would hear them and just go "What the fuuuuuuuuuuccccccc...?" They are so out there that you need pot to be able to understand them if you aren't a fan, and even that there's no guarantee.

But I love the song anyway.

I don't mind saying that was one of my biggest disappointments on SYW, that and Peacekeeper. I mean, after hearing Stevie's demo, I was thinking this was going to be a great rocker if Stevie could just pull off the vocals. She did a fine job, but the production is plastic. I just don't get it.

dissention · #**105** 01-13-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I don't mind saying that was one of my biggest disappointments on SYW, that and Peacekeeper. I mean, after hearing Stevie's demo, I was thinking this was going to be a great rocker if Stevie could just pull off the vocals. She did a fine job, but the production is plastic. I just don't get it.

Oh, the album version SUCKS next to the demo. I don't understand why they decided to get rid of the "dueling vocals." That was the best aspect of the song on the demo and they got rid of it. WTF? I thought her vocals on the album version were great, but the whole production left me wanting much more. If only they had made it a bit more rockier instead of poppier and included the dueling vocals, it would've been phenomenal. Instead, it's just really, really good.

My biggest disappointment was Illume. If it wasn't Stevie, there would've been no redeeming value to that song. Those chipmunk voices are just ridiculous. Actually, embarassing.