Producer for a new album

[EveryHour]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

Especially if he turned her down, which might inspire a great song: "You produce your songs yourself, That made me stronger..."

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally Posted by EveryHour

That last sentence implies that you have an ideal of Stevie as "a star" and cannot grasp her as a human being. It was Stevie in the 90's because...who the hell else was it??!!! That was who she was at that time, and if it doesn't move you, no one can force it down your throat. But to describe her work at that time as "cliched and rediculous" is seriously pissing me off!

You know I love ya, but tough tacos.

I have no ideal of Stevie being "a star," you're totally twisting my words. Here was an artist who had written AMAZING songs that I felt deeply in my soul. Now, she's singing really bad songs that, IMO, simply did not contain any of the magic that her previous work did. My ideal of her was to at least continue making music that would touch me as deeply as all of her previous stuff did. Unfortunately, she didn't. To me, it was cliched and ridiculous. She had gone from writing incredibly deep songs to recroding a lot of material she hadn't written and the ones she did were just blah. They weren't magical in any way, shape, or form. They just...were.

I understand your argument, I just don't see how you cannot understand where I'm coming from. It would be like Carole King recording a reggae album after Tapestry. Think you'd be a bit disappointed and a little unmoved? Of course you would. You'd say to yourself, Where is the artist I fell in love with?

Originally Posted by EveryHour

I completely understand the "speaking my language" bit. So then how could you not hear the emotion in Stevie's voice singing, "I am trying to be strong" in Destiny? That's where she was at the time, and I am interested in hearing this album as a reflection of this because I want to experience all of her ups and downs with her. That's where Stevie has always taken us. You can tell in interviews and performances from '94 that she was on her way to becoming the very happy person that she is now, but she was tired from the implant and Klonopin recoveries. I think it was an epic time in her life.

No, I was never moved by Destiny. There are only a few select songs that had any effect on me, that wasn't one of them. Like I said, I'm glad she got through the bad stuff, but just because she was in a bad state, it does NOT mean the album can't be criticized for being bad.

Originally Posted by EveryHour

Of course, this was her least creative period. But, again, I'm interested in taking any journey with her. And it all wonderfully led to Petty snapping her out of it. Everyone has to hit a low before they can rise back up.

I'm interested in taking ever journey with her, too, or else I wouldn't have bought every one of her albums, collected hundreds of bootlegs, gone to countless shows, and joined a message board to discuss her career. But again, just because I criticize one unproductive period from career, it doesn't mean I'm any less of a fan or less worthy of being one. But unfortunately , that's the mentality around here: love it all or don't speak, we'll eat you alive. My apologies, but that's not me. If I dislike something, I'm going to say so, regardless of who gets mad because I don't like what they do.

Originally Posted by EveryHour

I can't do this anymore!!!!!

Then I guess I got the last word.

[face of glass]

I'm staying out of the lyrics debate.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I hate that I always have to qualify my comments by saying that I love Lindsey's music, but I'll do it again... I love Lindsey's music.

This has never been questioned by me. What reason do I have to question it anyway? But let's question another thing. Since you've stated that you're quite a fan of Messrs. Burnette and Vito, how come I've never seen you discussing their solo albums (except for the Bekka & Billy one)?

But, Gaius, isn't it also possible that it's a rose-colored view to say that Lindsey's albums didn't sell too well because of their diversity?

Who here is to say that I have the access to the public conscience anyway? Or that I'm more objective than anyone else here is?
For me his diversity stood out from day one, long since I noticed that I've become a fan.
Should you not see it, then it speaks of your background more than mine. When I compare Lindsey to Eno, Wood or Rundgren I mean it. That's the area I come from.

Take into consideration that the singles were pushed to various radio formats, where any one of them had the potential to catch on and become a big hit.

Did anyone even try to push "Wrong" into the alternative market? How different that is from what was going on at the time?
Even then one could argue that the chaos of "Wrong" is quite a contrast to that of "Soul Drifter" or "Countdown". As is the oddball chorus of "Don't Look Down".

Did anyone care if the other songs on Chumbawamba's album didn't sound like "Tubthumping"? They still bought the album.

My understanding is that Tubthumper sold because "Tubthumping" was not available as a single, remember, this was still in a time when singles were not released just for the radio.

If one or two songs catch the public's eye, then it doesn't matter if they don't sound like the rest of the album.

"Trouble", in spite of being a top10 single, didn't lift Law And Order any further than #31 on the Billboard album chart.
Likewise, "Go Insane" charted very well and it wasn't enough make the album much of a chart success.
I think that in very rare cases people are inspired to buy an album on the basis of one song that they like. They need more hits than that; Stevie had four from Bella Donna and has nearly always had more than one heavily promoted hit from an album.
In my belief what matters the most in terms of sales is that the album itself doesn't deviate too far from the single material. Stevie's albums very rarely do that.
Personally I can imagine people being charmed by "Trouble" back in 1981 and thinking that it was especially representative of Law And Order. Then when they listen to the album and find out that nothing else sounds like it, the reputation starts spreading; Lindsey Buckingham's albums are nothing but kooky pieces of pop experiments that have no relation whatsoever to the side that he chooses to show to the public.
That's what hurt his album sales. People don't buy albums because they want the song that they can buy as a single also, they buy albums because they want more of the same.
They released "It Was I" as the second single from Law And Order and that naivete of that one has no connection at all to "Trouble".

...his music was too eccentric for people who prefer Top 40 music...

Which has been stated.

...and too "artsy" for people who prefer rock & roll

And Stevie is the queen of the party mentality, obviously.

(ironically, Warner Bros. originally passed on signing Stevie as a solo act, because they were afraid her albums would be too "artsy").

Who knows, maybe they heard some of those unfinished demos and thought the image of SN alone was unmarketable.
Let's pick this apart then. You basically described the American mainstream as follows; "Top 40 music" (as in piano ballads, the romantic background wallpaper, the dance music section) and "rock & roll". That's a pretty narrow description of it but from my understanding it might actually be an accurate description of the times. So he didn't sell and why was that? Because the music had already been put into boxes, chopped into pieces, labelized and sold to the correct consumer. What room is there for the pop eccentric anyway? And he still was able to get a single or two through. It's not like the times were totally against his music, as a whole he just didn't seem to fit into anything. And he still doesn't.

I think it also all seemed a little too calculated and aloof, for it to capture people's hearts.

That is Ken Caillat's argument. "Lindsey doesn't get along with people and it comes through in his music, Stevie gets along with people and it comes through in her music", or something along those lines. I personally think they can both be as esoteric and as navel-gazing as the other so I don't think there is any difference in between the two here.
You speaking of "calculation" doesn't seem to be anything more to me than your own preference of Stevie's more "natural" style. I think Stevie calculates as well, not when she writes but when the album evolves into the finished product from the demo stages.
How does an artist capture the people's hearts anyway? I could accuse Talking Heads of being as "calculated and aloof" as Lindsey is. No one knows what the hell David Byrne is singing about but he sure didn't seem to be dealing with the commonly accepted emotions. I can't imagine anyone taking all of his lyrics to heart. And his band still sold a lot of albums in the '80s. Lindsey isn't any weirder than Byrne is. The only reason why Lindsey then didn't sell as much as the Heads did was because his label failed to see another potential audience for him.

We can say that people just don't "get it," but if I'm told that that's a cop-out answer in regards to why people don't like"When I See You Again," then it's just as much of a cop-out when it comes to Lindsey's music.

You think I've been trying to put myself above the others here? That I'm so damn intelligent because I write long posts, analyse Lindsey Buckingham's work to a ridiculous degree and therefore declare that I'm the king of the universe because I "get" this deep-reaching artistry within the pop format. Then forget it. I always cringe when I see people doing stuff like that. '"Welcome To The Room...Sara" is a deep artistic piece, "Say You Will" is pop crap.' I hate stuff like that, especially when I feel that "WTTR...S" is something that one can only identify with if there's some training done before listening to it; knowing details of Stevie's life etc. And "Say You Will" is the uplifting, life-affirming, less "deep and dark" piece, the thing that seems simpler but is not tied to such "obligatory training processes" as "WTTR...S".
I have always believed that everything Lindsey Buckingham has done is accessible, is human-like, isn't too over-the-top or egocentric. And I also believe that there's no need for anyone to undergo some heavy training in order to appreciate any of it. Neither do I believe that he's been trying to put himself on to a pedestal of sorts, a place where only the "select few" can go.
What I believe, however, is that the music listening habits of too many people are limiting their horizons and that is mainly because of the environment that the record labels have created for us. It takes some questioning attitude in order to change the radio channel into a different one (in content) and it isn't easy to escape the whole "be what you listen to" mentality. It's not just a question of opening up, it's a question of learning to accept other kinds of music, in a similar way that you learn to accept other kinds of people. I don't think this is a matter of learning to love everything a particular artist has done. You can certainly think that a part of it is good and that a part of it is crap. It's people's right.
And the same goes to Lindsey; you don't have to like everything he's done. But if his role as a pop eccentric (which is what I believe he is, and you can cram a LOT of stuff under the mere label of "pop") is to express himself as much as he can through his music in spite of still being limited technically, then I think he's doing it through different genres as well. And that is why some diversity in taste would help in understanding what I think Lindsey is after.
If the alternative crowd find Lindsey suspicious because of his association with Fleetwood Mac, because he's on a large label and because he likes to enjoy his luxuries, so what. The last two "accusations" I can throw at many alternative acts as well.

And the same is true of 'Street Angel'... that it didn't have huge appeal, even to some of Stevie's own fans, doesn't mean that it's "crap."

And I've never stated that the album is crap but I believe it is closer to being a fan favourite than anything else in her solo catalogue.
About "When I See You Again" then. I think the latter can be seen as a tremendously moving song because she's nearly as intimate in there as on Tusk. But just as much as the Nicksian intimacy is a draw for some, it can also be seen as tremendously off-putting. [Just a note, I'm aware that Lindsey has some pieces that can be seen equally esoteric, although I don't think they're inaccessible at all.]
I don't think any of her most genuinely intimate work, "Storms", "Rock A Little", "When I See You Again", a few moments from Street Angel or "Goodbye Baby" are ever going to leave much of a print into public minds and that's obviously because the public doesn't know how to deal with these. There's three songs in the list that I truly love but I can personally see how many would be turned off by those.
I don't think Street Angel in its entirety reaches out to such vulnerable points but I do think it's sort of a "Stevie Nicks stripped down" album; the point where she has not only toned down some of the excesses but also the drama game. And if those were huge attraction points for people who bought Stevie's albums then I understand how it is viewed as a disappointment. Most people were not willing to see Stevie stripped down of those two things that made her so attractive to them. Again, I guess that's reflective of the state her life was in at that point. And it's not a surprise that she once again went with large scale romanticism on TISL.

In fact, I think it makes it that much more special and personal for those of us that it does reach.

And then we can always dig up the age-old, tried and tested arguments of the music being only for the "special few", the "trained ones".
Hell, I'm one of them anyway, I like the album.

I don't wish you to take this personally Johnny and correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading in 2002 something about Street Angel helping you to get through some rough times when it came out. Now I'm not saying that everyone who likes the album has had similar experiences with it but is that why I feel some defensiveness from you when we're talking about Street Angel?

I think the 1.4 million people who bought 'Timespace' are a good indication that Stevie's solo music will live on.

Like I said, I won't ever take away from her the solo success she had in the early '80s when she was THE woman of the American mainstream before Madonna came along. And I did list some of the songs from that period, material that I, too, think will live on.
Even then I listed about five songs. Who knows what would happen if such a compilation was released today? I do not see it as anything else than an opportunity for the casual fans to have most of the favourites on one disc.
And it should be said that I wrote all this only because I do not think Stevie is a superstar anymore (the claim that Snwriter made) in any other sense than the nostalgic one. And I don't think her current material will live on the way we like it would, even though that has nothing to do with the quality of the music. Ad infinitum.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by face of glass

Since you've stated that you're quite a fan of Messrs. Burnette and Vito, how come I've never seen you discussing their solo albums (except for the Bekka & Billy one)?

Because, quite honestly, I'm not as well-versed in their solo material, as I am with Lindsey's.
I think I've always said that (beyond Fleetwood Mac as an entity) Stevie is my favorite, followed by Lindsey.
So while I consider myself to be a big fan of Billy & Rick, I still don't consider myself to be as adept at discussing their music as others may be. I haven't analyzed it and poured over it and memorized every little note of it like I have with Stevie & Lindsey's material.

Originally Posted by face of glass

For me his diversity stood out from day one, long since I noticed that I've become a fan.
Should you not see it, then it speaks of your background more than mine.

Of course I see it, Gaius... I'd have to be deaf not to. I just sometimes think that saying his music is too diverse for people (ie: that people don't "get it," because it's "different") is being a bit elitist.
There are plenty of examples (in fact, you've already given some) of "diverse" artists, whose music seems inaccessible on the surface, but who've still enjoyed a pretty decent amount of success.

In regards to Stevie, I have always maintained that she's not for everyone.
Her voice and "fey" writing style will always prevent her from appealling to the broadest amount of people possible.
But, at the same time, I do think it's impressive how many people she DOES reach, given those things.

So, if Stevie's music can never possibly appeal to everyone, and Lindsey's music can never possibly appeal to everyone... why did one of them find more success as a solo act than the other?

Personally, I've always felt the reasons are far more complicated and intangible than the simple "because his music is too diverse" or "because of her sexy image" answers.

In my heart of hearts, I do believe a big part of it is due to the fact that more people can relate to the way Stevie chronicles her journey.
I know you don't agree with what Ken Caillat said, but I think it holds a lot of truth.
Stevie's personality tends to draw you in... she tends to give off the vibe of a great, fiesty gal, who'd sit down for a cup of tea with you and tell you her life-story.
Lindsey... up until recently... has always seemed more skittish, and off-put by the idea of having to actually talk with someone. Not that I think he's an un-friendly guy... I think it just seems that you'd have to work a lot harder to draw him out and gain his trust. He always (again, until recently) gave off the "loner" vibe.

I think when the public feels they don't know you... or wouldn't want to know you... then it harms your chances of ever having a mass level of fame.
Not that it can't still happen... it just makes it less likely to happen.

Originally Posted by face of glass

I don't wish you to take this personally Johnny and correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading in 2002 something about Street Angel helping you to get through some rough times when it came out. Now I'm not saying that everyone who likes the album has had similar experiences with it but is that why I feel some defensiveness from you when we're talking about Street Angel?

'Street Angel' definitely has a place in my heart, but I don't think I'm particularly defensive about it.
I have always readily admitted that, overall, it's not her best work. It's not even my favorite of her solo albums (that's a tie between 'The Wild Heart' and 'Trouble In Shangri-La')... it's just that I personally think it's more than just "worthless crap," deserving of scorn.

It reached me at a time when nothing else was making any difference to me. I was angry, mad, confused, scared, and I found no enjoyment in anything... so the fact that 'Street Angel' wasn't just another thing I couldn't have cared less about at that time, was a pretty big deal to me.
So yeah, even if it isn't the greatest Stevie Nicks album ever recorded, it is not... in my eyes... the least bit "worthless."

[TheMacAttack]

He has produced great albums from such diverse artists as the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Tom Petty, Beastie Boys, & Johnny Cash. I think he could mold a really great cohesive album from her.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by dissention

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

She took his ideas, changed a few words, and passed it off as a La Nicks original.

I disagree with much of what dissention says in this thread, but as an English teacher who deals with this all the time, what Stevie did there is indeed considered plagiarism. If she had turned that in to me for a creative writing assignment, she would have gotten an F for academic dishonesty.

I just discovered another dismaying instance of her "borrowing" that actually made me change the credits for the demo on my site: Stevie plagiarizes Evangeline Walton in Three Birds Of course maybe if the song had been released she would have been credited.

[strandinthewind]

That just goes to show you how teachers can differ. In undergrad (where I minored in English and, of all things, Math), if you took something and made it your own by changing the words and changing the context in which it was used, which Stevie did, it was not the P word. I think that fits the def. above.

But, as a law professor used to tell us all of the time, there is no F for plagiarism in the real world LOL.

[sodascouts]

Always-fair-and-honest-teacher-Nancy says:

From the University of Indiana rules on plagiarism:

A passage is plagiarized if:

- the writer has only changed around a few words and phrases, or changed the order of the original's sentences.
- the writer has failed to cite a source for any of the ideas or facts

From the Purdue University rules on plagiarism:

A passage is plagiarized when you copy the exact words or a "unique phrase" from somewhere.

-----

With regard to POTU and Poe:

The damning unique phrase: "light is lying down." That is NOT a common image. That is NOT Stevie's brainchild. That is an original phrase created and constructed by the genius of the one and only Edgar Allan Poe and Stevie took it and did not credit him. Stevie plagiarized.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I disagree with much of what dissention says in this thread, but as an English teacher who deals with this all the time, what Stevie did there is indeed considered plagiarism. If she had turned that in to me for a creative writing assignment, she would have gotten an F for academic dishonesty.

I'm not trying to rush to Stevie's aid here, but again, artists borrow (even liberally) from other mediums all of the time.
Most certainly if Stevie were in college and her assignment was to write a poem, then I'm sure she would have been given a failing grade.

But in music, the "rules" seem a little more relaxed when it comes to lyrical passages borrowed from "outside" sources.
Now, if she used a melody from another song, note-for-note, then yes, that would be plagiarism.
But if you reinterpret someone else's phrase, and put it into the context of your own song, it seems to be considered something different. In other words, the use of a literary reference in contemporary music isn't really frowned upon, because they're considered separate mediums.
Which is why one can sing, "'tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all," without getting sued (Stevie, Nazareth, Nat King Cole, etc).

It's also why Stevie wondered if she could actually use the title "Rappaccini's Daughter" for "Running Through The Garden," without infringing on a copyright... but didn't seem worried that the song itself would be a problem.

[Johnny Stew]

We've gone waaaaay beyond the original point of this thread, but this is definitely an interesting conversation in its own right!

Anyway, this is a good site to view, in light of the "plagiarism" topic.... Artists For Literacy.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

So, if Stevie's music can never possibly appeal to everyone, and Lindsey's music can never possibly appeal to everyone... why did one of them find more success as a solo act than the other?

I can't believe I am even commenting on this subject again - it will be going on long after I am dead and no on either side will ever change their minds.

Stevie's solo career was more successful for the most obvious reasons on earth. Like it or not everybody, she was the star of the band from the minute she joined. Why ? She's got "it". Charisma, star quality, call it whatever you want, she has it. She always got the most applause, the most emotional response from the fans, and above and beyond everything else, loved being in the spotlight. To quote Christine McVie, "Stevie is a show woman and she loves it." The band needed a focal point, and they found one.
Plus she was a sex symbol. And a pretty damned good songwriter. Her songs on those first three records were emotional, universal, and had just enough mystery to them to hook people in. Not so much mystery that you had to bust your ass in a library doing research to figure out what she was talking about, but enough to make people want more. Same thing she did with her sexuality. I don't think either of these things can be separated from the tenor of culture at the time either. Her career happened at the right time in history for her looks, her image, her voice, and her songwriting ( I could write a thesis on the confluence of visual, emotional, and musical streams that magically flashed together in her at the perfect point in history) . For many reasons - much of her music was accessible to many, many people.

Lindsey is a brilliant producer and musician. No doubt about it. I am not going to debate or even comment on how integral he was in being the architect of Stevie's music. Regardless, she was and always will be the bigger "star" in terms of musical history.

On purely external terms, Lindsey could have been mistaken for Jeff Lynne from ten paces away - until he cut his hair. He didn't have a compelling visual image. Good looking, yeah. Plenty. Unique and unable to go out in public after 1975 ? Doubt it. He did not cultivate an "image" the way she did. Image cannot be underestimated. He wrote some fine music, played incredible guitar, did genius producing. But his career and persona did not have the same full scale sensual wallop that Stevie's did. Her looks, voice, subject matter of songs, style of dress...it was all part and parcel of a concept that expounded upon itself and provided for a great amount interest. Is this a commentary on how shallow consumers are ? Yes and no. People want what they want. Stevie was exotic, romantic, unusual, but just normal enough to not be threatening. As Crow says, "Every women wanted to be her, every man wanted to be with her." Helps to sell a lot of solo albums.

Bingo, she has the big solo success. It's pretty basic.

I must add that his solo material was challenging. Diverse. Experimental.
PEOPLE USUALLY DON'T WANT TO WORK THAT HARD. Go Insane is a brilliant piece of work. I adore it. Most people can't sit through it - it takes too much concentration and patience to get all the levels on which it works. It is as true for "Play In The Rain" as it is for "Red Rover". Are these better or worse than any 2 random Stevie songs ? That's a matter of opinion. Are they more unusual, surprising, off the wall ? Abso-friggin-lutely. Again, most music listeners don't want to work that hard and can't be bothered to listen to a song a half dozen times to get the groove of the counter melodies, multi-layered instrumentation, and dynamics. People are too busy. Most people want something a little easier to digest.

I have very little emotional investment in who is "better" or more "talented."
However, it is just extremely plain to me why she was a bigger solo star than he was. And it isn't even very complicated. I could go on, but my flippers are sore from typing and my eyes are strained.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sparky

I can't believe I am even commenting on this subject again - it will be going on long after I am dead and no on either side will ever change their minds.

I have very little emotional investment in who is "better" or more "talented."
However, it is just extremely plain to me why she was a bigger solo star than he was. And it isn't even very complicated. I could go on, but my flippers are sore from typing and my eyes are strained.

I know (or at least I think) you simply used my comment as a springboard... but I just wanted to mention that that particular comment of mine was meant to be rhetorical.

I don't believe one is better or more talented than the other, in regards to Lindsey & Stevie.
She's not better because she's sold more albums and has been nominated for more awards, and he's not better because he's received the lionshare of critical praise and is an accomplished musician & producer.

Their talents are so uniquely their own, that they should never be compared with each other. There will always be people who prefer one or the other, and some who love them both (though perhaps never quite equally)... that's just the way it is.
And I agree, the "better" and "more talented" arguments are pointless and ridiculous.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I know (or at least I think) you simply used my comment as a springboard... but I just wanted to mention that that particular comment of mine was meant to be rhetorical.

Of course I know it was rhetorical - and my post wasn't directed at you...just the subject in general. It is a subject that never seems to die, and I guess it stuck in my craw that I read another sentence mentioning it even rhetorically.
Could be I am just grouchy today. Just calling it like I see it, though. Probably had that post percolating in my brain for awhile.

[snwriter]

Well Face of Glass:

I hate to disagree with you, but no matter what you think, Stevie IS a superstar, and you're certainly in the minority opinion if you disagree. And her music, more than any other individual ever in FM, will stand the test of time and be remembered decades from now.

[face of glass]

Let's go again, since I now have the time. If you're tired, don't bother with the following.

As of now, I feel the need to explain what I think caused the arrival of a pop eccentric into the music scene in the first place.
The general atmosphere of the late '60s, the all-endorsing environment of the time allowed for all kinds of experiments, back then people realized that rock'n'roll/pop music/however-you-prefer-to-call-it could be an artform too, in the same sense that the established, "high-brow" artforms already were.
Just to avoid plagiarization here, the following is from Edward Macan's Rocking The Classics:

There was a general belief at that time that classical, jazz, folk, rock, and Eastern styles were all tributaries that were about to flow into a new, unified style; no less a figure than Karlheinz Stockhausen, perhaps the major avant-garde composer of his generation, spoke in terms of a universal music that was on the cusp of its emergence. Of course, such a style never did emerge; it was doomed by the fragmentation of the unified youth culture of 1966-1970 into a number of distinct subcultures. The record companies and rock journalists also contributed to the demise of this ideal with their insistence on classification and compartmentalization - the former for the purposes of targeting specific segments of the record-buying public with specific types of recorded product, the latter for ideological purposes.
In fact, the journalists and music industry executives did such a good job in creating the illusion (which later became the reality) of hardened subcategories of popular music, that it is very hard for people who encountered the music of the late 1960s and early 1970s after the fact to believe that Yes and Black Sabbath - or Pink Floyd and Paul Simon, or the Nice and Sammy Davis Jr. - could have shared a stage. Yet they did...

That was typed mechanically down here because I think that Lindsey Buckingham has, if not necessarily the same ingredients in his work, then the same ideology.
Basically Lindsey still seems to believe into an album as a unit; as something that should tell a story of sorts; not necessarily a chronological one but something that gives us various glimpses at his mind. And that's the effect I think the pop ecccentrics of the past were also going for.
This ideal was also bound to be reflected in the overall music that the artists released. The Beatles didn't manage to sell the White Album/Abbey Road/whatnot just because they were the biggest band of the time; they managed to sell them because such diversity was natural; it was commonly accepted.

Originally Posted by sparky

I must add that his solo material was challenging. Diverse. Experimental.
PEOPLE USUALLY DON'T WANT TO WORK THAT HARD.

Yet the main point is that this is still pop music and that it can be enjoyed perfectly without liking every track on a Lindsey Buckingham album. The cocktail of emotions, the sonic paintings, do not always have to be appreciated in order to enjoy the core; the traditional songwriting. I don't think it's ever been a case of working hard with Lindsey. If you have to work hard to like a work of art (and given that you've some experience of that kind of art before) then in my mind this particular work of art is near worthless. This is all about emotions and what a person takes from a piece of music. In order to like something a piece of music shouldn't be intellectually analyzed. The analysis CAN be done when the piece is familiar but overall an artist mainly captures people through their emotions, not through their intellect, or at least that's how I prefer it.
So we move on.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I just sometimes think that saying his music is too diverse for people (ie: that people don't "get it," because it's "different") is being a bit elitist.

This isn't a question of elitism, this is a question of being (or not being) familiar with certain areas in music.
Like I said, Lindsey makes pop music and he's never placed himself to a high pedestal in his art. And his fans should not do such a thing either.
And I'd also like to add that this isn't necessarily just a matter of different genres but also of different emotions.
First impressions are the things that count and they are nearly always made through the emotions that one gets through when one listens to the music. If there are things that are unbearable to the listeners (=Lindsey's darkness, Stevie's confessionalism to the brink) then they are turned off by that, maybe even permanently.

There are plenty of examples (in fact, you've already given some) of "diverse" artists, whose music seems inaccessible on the surface, but who've still enjoyed a pretty decent amount of success.

Let's go through them one by one, point me to the ones I forgot to mention and feel free to add your own.
Roy Wood? Huge success with The Move in the late '60s/early '70s, regular big single hits in the UK. But that was at a time when it was acceptable to be diverse, and The Move's albums (where the diversity was truly shown, not on all of the singles) were still overall flops. Wood's most diverse solo work was his solo album Boulders (released in 1973) and that was a flop as well.
Brian Eno? He combined the Beach Boys, bubblegum/glam influences, the electronic experiments of Krautrock and the nascent new wave brilliantly in his work. But he never sold much of a thing and by the end of the '70s his work had pretty much lost whatever influence of classic rock it had in the first place, after which he decided to choose the ambient route.
Todd Rundgren? Definitely another pop eccentric but never much of a seller himself; only one RIAA gold disc (Something/Anything? certified three years after the album's release and even then not really reflective of the true sales).
David Bowie? The chameleon of rock, but he also could be accused for trend-hopping; he's never innovated anything, he's just a popularizer. And he never was truly diverse within one album; between albums maybe but never within one.
So as you can see, the gentlemen above have never lived with true eccentricity for a long, long time. And that's because the musical climate changed in a big way.

And even then there's one thing that sets Lindsey Buckingham apart from the gentlemen mentioned above. None of those men genuinely combined the values of punk and the values of classic rock together in their work in a way that they would equally endorse and represent both. A self-quotation here:

Originally Posted by face of glass

...possessiveness, paranoia, anger, sarcasm, violence, plain weird and depressive (qualities of punk/new wave) or the happiness, ye typical love topics, smoothness, subtlety and spiritual elevation, the uplift (qualities of the hippie-drenched classic rock...

Since those are things that he deals with then it should be obvious that people are always going to be split on Lindsey Buckingham. I mean, what does he want to do in the field of music? Shouldn't he decide already? Shouldn't he GROW UP?
In general, the traditional, classic rock side and the Generation X side, the side of punk and new wave, have never been truly able to get along with each other. Very rarely there's been even attempts at merging these two and even then it has been superficial (The Rolling Stones, for instance, supposedly got all punk on us with Some Girls; it never was much of a step for them because they had a rebellious image to begin with and they just dirtied up some of the guitar tones). In Lindsey Buckingham's music you find this peace between the hippie and the punk, through the values of the eccentric pop music of the '60s.
And for Lindsey it didn't do any good when Rumours was given the AOR label, a label that was never based on anything else than on the people who listened to Fleetwood Mac in the late '70s, not on the music itself. Being the anti-thesis of punk immediately made him commercial (and therefore uncommercial in the punk world) in the eyes of the rebellious/arty youngsters.
In that world "Steal Your Heart Away" can be as off-putting as "Murrow" in the world of classic rock.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Her voice and "fey" writing style will always prevent her from appealling to the broadest amount of people possible.
But, at the same time, I do think it's impressive how many people she DOES reach, given those things.

And like I said, it's just as strong an argument as yours when I say that she DID reach people before but doesn't do it anymore, at least not through her recent songwriting.

So, if Stevie's music can never possibly appeal to everyone, and Lindsey's music can never possibly appeal to everyone... why did one of them find more success as a solo act than the other?

The songs that Stevie Nicks has as the foundation of her solo success aren't particularly revelatory of her vulnerable or her raunchier side (a case for the latter can be made with "Edge Of Seventeen" but even then the album take is tame when compared to the live versions). Even you seem to feel that Bella Donna is "watered down" when compared to her other solo albums so how much true will there is to know the real Stevie Nicks, the one who supposedly appears to us without any protective layers and with all her honesty in "When I See You Again"? Or largely without the whole romantic package in Street Angel?
You will say that it's Stevie's clever balancing in between the artsy and the commercial but then again I've never believed that Lindsey has released his most esoteric material as singles anyway. He does this balance just as well as Stevie does, IMO.
And it should be said that there's no way anyone can objectively claim that Lindsey calculates more than Stevie when he's creating music. When Stevie goes to the piano and uses the same chords she's always used she uses her training and her experience just as much as Lindsey does, so her way of expression isn't any more natural than Lindsey's. You can't measure it by witnessing who spends more time in the studio.

Personally, I've always felt the reasons are far more complicated and intangible than the simple "because his music is too diverse" or "because of her sexy image" answers.

And I don't think these arguments are as simple as you seem to think they are.
Lindsey Buckingham has had enough attempts in the music industry and has still failed to establish a core audience of significant size for him. At that point one can possibly not blame the simple details nor the bad luck anymore.

I know you don't agree with what Ken Caillat said, but I think it holds a lot of truth.
Stevie's personality tends to draw you in... she tends to give off the vibe of a great, fiesty gal, who'd sit down for a cup of tea with you and tell you her life-story.
Lindsey... up until recently... has always seemed more skittish, and off-put by the idea of having to actually talk with someone. Not that I think he's an un-friendly guy... I think it just seems that you'd have to work a lot harder to draw him out and gain his trust. He always (again, until recently) gave off the "loner" vibe.

I think when the public feels they don't know you... or wouldn't want to know you... then it harms your chances of ever having a mass level of fame.
Not that it can't still happen... it just makes it less likely to happen.

Ken Caillat's argument might have some validity but it still doesn't seem to speak for anything else than what is his understanding of the music business. His understanding of a star seems to be pretty traditional; someone who likes getting along with people and enjoys performing throughout. I think it is his '60s countercultural values speaking in there mainly.
What he has basically failed to see is that loneliness, isolation and depressiveness have been marketable things for a long time.
Of course being more approachable overall will most likely result in more sales, if the music is directed to the right audience, but there's enough examples of the opposite tactics working nearly as well.
New Order basically refused to give out interviews at some point, rarely talked to the audience on stage, weren't willing to use their name on the covers of all their releases and they still sell a significant number of albums.
Talking Heads' David Byrne had a very impersonal approach to both his lyrics and his stage presence; he was like Lindsey's nerdiness amped to the max. And that still didn't prevent the band from selling.
This all tends to be seen taken to its extreme in the success of a band like Radiohead, where the album covers, stage presence and the overall texture of music and lyrics seem to give an impression of total alienation. And their audiences do not solely consist of angsty teens, just so you know.
So it's not like things like these are anti-commercial; in fact they're another part of the whole target group thinking.
Basically it all comes from the music; that's what the people use as the basis for their marketing strategies, that's how an artist's image is created.
Because Lindsey covers a wide range of emotions, crossing over from the different target group to another, it's understandable that there will be troubles for any marketing department in any record company with material like this.
The music may give us the impression of being self-centered and dark in tone overall, but there's plenty of people who will definitely identify with things like that. They might even view Stevie's openness as being highly suspicious.