Producer for a new album

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

But do you think Lindsey is a superstar?

What I've written in this thread has never been about the typical Buckingham vs. Nicks battle; i.e. "he should have what she doesn't have" and vice versa.
I wrote what I wrote because I feel that Lindsey Buckingham's legacy has always been too obscure and I'm afraid it will be too obscure in the years to come. But that's what also can be said of Stevie Nicks' work in the past fifteen years.

Now we have alt-country and indie music that sounds like rock music made in the 70s (it's all so post modern these days!), so perhaps the tide is turning, but I'm not sure that anything on that album would have appeased the NME crowd back when it was first released.

A) Explain to me what is so '70s-like in "Wrong".
B) If it is so '70s-like then how come it wasn't successful in those circles when grunge was very much about bringing back some of those '70s values back into the mainstream?

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by snwriter

I hate to disagree with you...

Yes, obviously my self-esteem is dependable on the level of success that Lindsey Buckingham has and Stevie Nicks doesn't have.

And her music, more than any other individual ever in FM, will stand the test of time and be remembered decades from now.

The case can be made for her early '80s material but where's the proof for the rest?

Also keep in mind that Stevie Nicks has never been much of a star outside the USA/Canada sector. Only Australia seems to have followed suit and even they dropped out of the ride with Street Angel and TISL.
Look at the chart figures in the FM Legacy and you'll see that pretty much the only bigger hit that she's had in Europe/the rest of the world is "Rooms On Fire" and even that might as well have been in the aftermath of TITN.
She's never been able to sell much copies of her solo work elsewhere; in Europe, at least, she definitely needs Fleetwood Mac in order to sell significant amounts.
In the end, the appeal of Stevie Nicks is these days even far more limited than it was in her golden days.
But then it makes the music all the more special for us, now doesn't it?

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I don't think Wrong sounds "70s-like", if anything it has an 80s pop sheen (which if anything was its problem) I just meant that things considered uncool back in the early 90s are now alternative, that's all.

But you hinted at it being a relative to the '70s music.
Your reservations towards the production of Out Of The Cradle I tend to associate with your preference of the "real rhythm section" over the mechanized one (and the rhythm section on TISL sounds as "lifeless" as the one on OOTC, IMO). How come Jesus & Mary Chain were still cool at the time, in spite of using drum machines almost constantly?
I'd also like to know what in particular is so '80s-like in Lindsey's production polish. Let people speak of SYW sounding "oh so '80s" but I've never seen proper detailed discussion of this one. The statement in general is made and it hasn't been dealt with any further.
Then again, maybe we need someone with the technical understanding for this one.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I'm not sure why you keep labouring that point.

And I'm not sure why you keep on thinking that any criticism I direct at Stevie is at same time an attempt to boost Lindsey up in that same area.

Even if that's true at least she has written some classics.

A thing I've never argued against.

I maintain the Rolling Stones, during their long career, have only released a few great albums (Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street and Beggars Banquet), but that doesn't make their career any less important or diminish their legendary status, because those albums I mentioned really will stand the test of time.
So in Stevie's case, two (or three) out of six ain't bad by my standards.

Even then the Stones have sold almost constantly and strongly.
This isn't relative of Stevie or the topic at all; I just think that The Stones have released at least eleven great studio albums (if we go by their American catalogue [the one available on cds]; England's Newest Hitmakers, Now!, "Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Flowers, Satanic Majesties', Beggar's, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Goat's Head Soup, Black And Blue and Some Girls) and that they've nearly always put out high quality product (excluding the abominable [IMHO] Dirty Work). Just because BB, LIB, Fingers and Exile gather all the critical praise and are more mysterious and most representative of the Stones' public image overall doesn't mean that any of their other work is of significantly lower quality.

So in Stevie's case, two (or three) out of six ain't bad by my standards.

I think it's tremendously good for SN too but then again I can't understand how you dragged the Stones into this since their sales have always been consistent. If it's not the public popularity you're talking about then what is it? Your own preference? I prefer not to talk about that one further then.
Look here, it's never been a case of quality in this debate for me. Think of SN's work however you like but right now she's clearly made her mark in the history of rock and roll and she most likely won't be adding anything to it anymore. The general consensus is; everyone in Fleetwood Mac (+ the past members) are all washed up and their current work isn't up to the past standards. No one can change that thought in a flash (and cynically speaking, no one can ever change it)

As for Stevie not being a huge star in Europe, well Lindsey ain't either.

I've never stated in this thread that I think Lindsey Buckingham is a superstar. Some people seem to think that Stevie Nicks still is one (in that her latest material would still find the public hearts as easily as it did a long time ago) and I disagree with that. I still wonder why you think that my statements go along the lines of: "if Stevie doesn't have something then Lindsey automatically has it." I do not want them to come off that way.

Oh I forgot his music is too "challenging". Honestly, I really can't see what's so challenging about songs like Trouble, Slow Dancing or Countdown - they are all perfectly palatable pop songs (there's a tongue twister for you!)...

I'm not going to rewrite my points for the nth time. Instead I'll just self-quote, a standard LB/SN trick.

Originally Posted by face of glass

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.

Originally Posted by trackaghost

...despite any experimental tangents Lindsey goes on, he's always continued to write pop songs.

Lindsey has never made a case of himself being the new Stockhausen or Boulez or anyone like that.
But I also find your insistent claim (writing poppy songs equals a totally commercial songwriter/musician) off-base.
Our beloved Pixies and Sonic Youth have always written memorable, catchy material as well so it's not like they're above all that.
Make any case for Can and Amon Düül II or nearly any experimental rock act you can find if you wish but the facts remain: Can were never afraid of having short pop songs on their albums (and they even hit #1 in Germany with "Spoon", in the middle of their 'most experimental' period). And Amon Düül II always had several memorable pop songs crammed into one 20 minute track (=another thing that the early '70s endorsed).
So sure, Lindsey remains commercial and accessible but the same can be said for most of the supposedly experimental rock acts too.
Lindsey's background is that of the experimental pop of Brian Wilson (as the guy who wrote the liner notes for the new Tusk reissue admits) and of the pop eccentricity of other talented people from the late '60s and early '70s. There was a new concept established by these people: pop art (because many British musicians of the time had studied in various art schools), art that isn't in essence inaccessible and retains the form and the appeal of the rest of the pop genre while still trying to find more meaning into it all; trying to explore all the depth that a two-minute track (as opposed to an hour of "serious" classical music) can have. That already should make it clear that his work isn't inaccessible at all.
Frankly I'm still baffled as to why you think that I'm trying to maintain this image of Lindsey being the "great artist that only few are allowed to 'get'".

You can't tell me that Holiday Road wasn't a big hit because audiences didn't "get" that song!

Exceptions may exist but Lindsey has had enough attempts in the music industry in order to try to establish a significant core audience for himself and it hasn't happened. And it is because overall he just doesn't fit into any ready-made format that are available; and his wide emotional palette can not be truly appreciated in a time like ours.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

...the shiny pop sound does put me off.

Does it bother you on TITN as well? Or SYW (which is even glossier than OOTC, dare I say, and if you think Lindsey's at the top of his game now, as you once stated, then why on earth does the gloss of SYW sound so much better than the gloss of OOTC? Because his guitar distortion is more hard-hitting in a few songs?). How come it doesn't bother you on TISL?
Ok, enough OOTC therapy. No one will learn to like an album more after sessions like these anyway.

I guess this is all down to preference, but I truly believe in my heart people won't remember, or want to remember, their latter day work in years to come.

If you still wish to compare the Stones to Stevie (which I think isn't appropriate but what the heck) then you should take into account that their period of getting material to the public hearts (as opposed to releasing new product and selling well but no new songs ever climbing to the classic status) goes from 1964-1981, whereas with Stevie a similar period was about eight years (1975-1983, with five of those in Fleetwood Mac). Even now the Stones feel compelled to play "Start Me Up" and that's because it was a huge hit and an acknowledged late period classic.
There may be a critical consensus of the Stones golden period (1968-72) but their classics have always been equally spreaded throughout their career. And that has been the case with their record sales as well. Also, there is no general public consensus of what's their best work.
And there is a consensus of Stevie's best work that both the critics and the general public uphold; Bella Donna.

Yeah but I bet if you played Sonic Youth's version of a pop song to most people here they wouldn't consider it catchy but if you played Holiday Road to almost anyone they'd call it a pop tune.

And there's a good point for me to accuse Sonic Youth of being non-diverse overall.
You make a case for the Youth? You can't make one for the Pixies. Stuff like "Here Comes Your Man" and "Havalina" (stuff that I love dearly, btw) is just as much "pop" as "Holiday Road" is.
I think "Holiday Road" is friggin' genius. Sure, it may have less layers in it than a lot of the other stuff that Lindsey has done but that's why I love it; it's Lindsey Buckingham letting his hair down completely in the middle of his serious artistic pretentiousness. My belief is that a superficially banal pop song has just as much meaning in its two minutes as any other piece of art.
Sonic Youth can never do a fun piece like "Holiday Road" because they've been busy being all angsty and artsy all the time. And that makes their material more snobbish to me (and I still love it) than whatever Lindsey has done.

Spoken like a true fan. Time will only tell if its true though.

There's no doubt that my emotions are involved in our prolonged debates as well but mostly I try to keep some of them at bay. I speak from the background I come from, nothing else.
Time will also tell whether the people of the future will listen to the recordings of the past with completely open ears and without the necessary hype (the past successes, for instance) or not. Stevie has the advantage now (even if just for a few songs) but who knows what will happen later?
But then again that's a thing we're not allowed to see; we'll be in our graves after having strangled each other in these constant debates when the true evaluation comes.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

The recent 40 Licks album has new and old stuff together and the contrast of quality is clear to me.

I felt the same way about the Mac's "Greatest Hits." To hear something like Gypsy and Over My Head quickly followed by No Questions Asked and As Long As You Follow was and is quite jarring. That's a shocking difference in quality.

I'm still recovering.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Why isn't it appropiate? Stevie isn't exactly washed up. Also it's better than me comparing them to say Busted lol! Which I could, just cos I wanna.

I think you're totally missing one of the main cruxes of Gaius' argument: she certainly isn't washed up to us, but she is to the record-buying public.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think you're totally missing one of the main cruxes of Gaius' argument: she certainly isn't washed up to us, but she is to the record-buying public.

I guess I have a hard time buying the "washed up" argument, when I see her on VH1's Divas Las Vegas, and she gets the biggest ovation of the night... and she gets the biggest ovation at Stormy Weather... and the Blockbuster Awards... and, so on.
Certainly Nicks fans in attendance would account for some of that applause, but not for all of it.

And I also can't imagine so many publications doing features on her when 'TISL' was released, if she were "washed up."
Sure, they weren't cover stories, but still, I don't see other "washed up" artists getting much space in dozens of publications, most of which are considered "major."

Now, if the question is whether or not her new music is relevant to the majority of the current record-buying public, then I'd definitely agree that she isn't.
The majority of teens and 20-somethings are not going to find an artist like Stevie Nicks to have a relevant point-of-view, unless they're into classic rock. And most are not.

Still, as I've said dozens of times before, I don't feel that her not having a new song that reaches a massively wide audience, means that her current music is any way of a lesser value than her earlier work.

[strandinthewind]

I agree with Johnny in that Stevie is still a VERY popular, viable, and relevant commercial artist to this day. People still like her alot - the concert sales figures and placement in the recently posted lists clearly indicate that.

I totally agree she has not had a million + seller since The Dance and may not ever had one again. But, although TISL's sales and SYW's sales were respectable - somwhere in the 700,000 vicinity in America I think. So, she is not totally washed up from that vantage point. Interestingly, POTU was a hit dance single with the help of two very hot DJ's at the time - it was still being played in the clubs over a year later, a occurence that does not normally happen in the genre. Also, Everyday received heavy rotation on Vh-1 and Sorcerer got played as well. So, yes, Stevie and the Mac are not anywhere as relevant in terms of record sales as they were in TITN and The Dance, she and they are still very relevant in every other aspect.

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by dissention

I felt the same way about the Mac's "Greatest Hits." To hear something like Gypsy and Over My Head quickly followed by No Questions Asked and As Long As You Follow was and is quite jarring. That's a shocking difference in quality.

I'm still recovering.

\I think ALAYF is a very good song. I never cared much for Over My Head until Very Best Of was released.

- Jake

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I guess I have a hard time buying the "washed up" argument, when I see her on VH1's Divas Las Vegas, and she gets the biggest ovation of the night... and she gets the biggest ovation at Stormy Weather... and the Blockbuster Awards... and, so on.

Never was I speaking of her performance or her ability to still mesmerize the audience live; I was speaking of what she's been writing as of late.

And I also can't imagine so many publications doing features on her when 'TISL' was released, if she were "washed up."
Sure, they weren't cover stories, but still, I don't see other "washed up" artists getting much space in dozens of publications, most of which are considered "major."

Trouble In Shangri-La was being hyped as the big comeback so there was naturally going to be a lot promotion done, and Stevie isn't exactly the dullest interviewee around.
However, seemingly, the record still wasn't that much more of a success than what could have been expected in the aftermath of The Dance.

Still, as I've said dozens of times before, I don't feel that her not having a new song that reaches a massively wide audience, means that her current music is any way of a lesser value than her earlier work.

A thing I've stated as many times as you have. Stevie's observation in the Destiny Rules documentary of the past listeners of Fleetwood Mac having growed up, raised their families and not having the same kind of urge to buy a newly released album any more is accurate. But that's the way the history is written; the general assumption will be that eventually rock and roll just died a slow death as the audiences changed, no new innovations were brought into the game and the artists eventually rehashed their old tricks until they were just a collection of cliches and pure form over substance. That doesn't take away the possibility of someone finding a long-gone artist by digging up some old records and even becoming a fan of sorts. Even then, whatever the older generations in rock and roll have been releasing, it will most likely be the interest of archivalists only. And in that way Stevie's work (not counting her dominance in the early '80s) is in a similar position to that of Lindsey's, or nearly any other old fart's.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree with Johnny in that Stevie is still a VERY popular, viable, and relevant commercial artist to this day.

In the nostalgic sense, definitely.

But, although TISL's sales and SYW's sales were respectable - somwhere in the 700,000 vicinity in America I think.

TISL around 640,000, SYW something over 800,000 (I'm sure Hayley would know the exact numbers). If I were to have a crack at the sales numbers in the rest of the world then SYW would have about 600,000 buyers more and TISL would probably add about 200,000 copies to its overall sales number.

Interestingly, POTU was a hit dance single with the help of two very hot DJ's at the time - it was still being played in the clubs over a year later, a occurence that does not normally happen in the genre.

I've never thought that status has much to do with the artist(s) him/herself/themselves, the popularity in that area seems to have more to do with the remixer of the track.

Also, Everyday received heavy rotation on Vh-1 and Sorcerer got played as well.

The other (like "POTU") is an old song and the other was written by John Shanks, remember that as well. This was about CURRENT material.

So, yes, Stevie and the Mac are not anywhere as relevant in terms of record sales as they were in TITN and The Dance, she and they are still very relevant in every other aspect.

Who cares about the moderate record sales if the material doesn't reach the public hearts and doesn't touch a generation? How many of those who bought TISL listen and appreciate other stuff than what was used for promotion; how many of them are casual fans?

[face of glass]

About comparing the Stones to Stevie:

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Why isn't it appropiate?

The Stones' widely successful period in the public minds is longer than Stevie's and their appeal isn't as geographically limited as Stevie's is.

For sure she's selling less records but to say she is washed-up is a little drastic IMO.

Drastic it may feel but that's what you will hear many of the young 'uns say anyway, of any old rocker. Stevie certainly isn't any more immune to that than the rest of them, and I don't think it's because young people don't give the material enough of a chance. And when the "old" people start accusing them of that as well it's obvious that a change has happened. Where it exactly did happen, though, is anyone's guess.

And you know Phil Collins doesn't sell so many records anymore but he can't claim to be an icon (IMO).

Collins has never had his image taken to same level that Stevie has taken hers; to the point where it's difficult the separate the image from the music.
And it isn't solely about record sales or image (or whatever iconic status), it's about getting the music to reach the classic status.

...but still enough to keep her firmly on the map...

At this point she could just tour around and keep herself on the map without any need to release a record to back the whole thing. The records give the tours some more promotion and that's that.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

For sure she's selling less records but to say she is washed-up is a little drastic IMO. She's still the most famous member of Fleetwood Mac, and her cultural impact is far bigger than any other member (just last year she was mentioned in two films for example, while I'm not sure Lindsey can claim to have inspired any of Anna Sui's clothing lines lol).

So she may not be a superstar anymore but she's certainly, for lack of a better word, iconic. And you know Phil Collins doesn't sell so many records anymore but he can't claim to be an icon (IMO).

Plus I still think Stevie sells a lot of records (to me it's a lot, maybe not compared to her past sales - and really most albums will pale in comparison to those - but still enough to keep her firmly on the map) but then once again I will state that record sales mean little to me.

Hey, I don't think she's washed up in the least. As I've said many times, I thought she was in '94, but that's all over and she's back and better than ever.

Reading you and Gaius go back and forth, I simply pointed out where I thought the two of you were hitting a snag. I don't mean to speak for him becaus ehe's more than capable of speaking for himself ( ), but I think his argument was that, in his opinion, she was washed-up to the general record-buying public.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I guess I have a hard time buying the "washed up" argument, when I see her on VH1's Divas Las Vegas, and she gets the biggest ovation of the night... and she gets the biggest ovation at Stormy Weather... and the Blockbuster Awards... and, so on.
Certainly Nicks fans in attendance would account for some of that applause, but not for all of it.

I never said it was my opinion.

As for those instances you pointed to, gimme a break. That's your perception, but that's not reality. If I remember correctly, and I'll gladly bust out my tape, at the Blockbuster Awards, the audience barely stood up to applaud her. And to say that Stevie herself got the biggest ovation at Divas Live is just ridiculous.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

\I think ALAYF is a very good song. I never cared much for Over My Head until Very Best Of was released.

- Jake

I like it, too, but there can be denying, IMO, that there is a glaring difference in quality. As I've said earlier, the difference is jarring.