Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[Forshorn]

I remember Bryan Ferry saying that he thought it was a tacky thing to do when Jerry Hall wrote about him in her autobiography. She left him for Mick Jagger, you know. But he had no comment and said he would never do something like that. I'm sure Lindsey will take it as gracefully?

[Livia]

http://www.citypaper.com/arts/review.asp?rid=12362

Carol Ann Harris' moribund autobiography is a relentlessly insipid read. Her story begins right after the most interesting period in Fleetwood Mac's history: The band had struggled with lack of success, personnel disruptions, and personal relationship nightmares, then shifted away from their blues-purist roots to a more sun-kissed California-pop sound. By the mid-1970s Fleetwood Mac had entirely absorbed another act, Buckingham Nicks, to give its songs some much-needed commercial gloss.

The resulting album, 1975's Fleetwood Mac, gave the group its first taste of major-league success. Recording the follow-up, John and Christine McVie's marriage imploded and the Lindsey Buckingham-Stevie Nicks union exploded amid a host of other betrayals and abuses. Eventually all this misery was channeled into the new album, which we know and loathe/love as 1977's Rumours.

During the mixing sessions for Rumours, Buckingham hooked up with Harris and introduced her to the inner world of Fleetwood Mac's dysfunctional family and its fondness for cocaine. What follows is a largely predictable tale of '70s rock 'n' roll excess: Tour fatigue, studio troubles, ludicrous amounts of cash and drugs, rehab, sports cars, and sexual betrayal all make their expected cameos alongside celebrities Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Dennis Wilson, et al. Other than a brief and vivid moment with Ronnie Lane jamming at Eric Clapton's house, all of this is rendered in a cliché-ridden, lifeless prose of the most junior-high variety.

Harris could have come into her own in the depiction of her abusive relationship with Buckingham and her insights into his musical cohorts. Instead we have lightly sketched caricatures already familiar to the public: Mick Fleetwood is a nice, albeit chaotically lecherous, bloke; John and Christine McVie are both decent sorts; Stevie Nicks is a laughable cliché of New Age Californians. What is new is Harris' self-portrait as devoted muse to a tortured artist. Occasionally this is unintentionally funny; she comforts a nervous Buckingham shortly before the Tusk tour with "Your music is like the Clash and Talking Heads."

The Fleetwood Mac legend has it that Harris was so destructively addicted to coke that Buckingham threw her out of their house. Harris' book makes frequent mention of cocaine but never the possibility of her addiction. Then again, she doesn't ever label the guitarist's behavior "abusive," yet according to Storms he strangled her a number of times and once dragged her by the hair while he drove off in his car, only letting go after she'd fallen and was dragged some distance. That all of this ugliness is put down to Buckingham's "artistic temperament" shows a depressingly lack of insight. Ultimately, Harris' unwillingness to grasp the nettle and say, "Lindsey Buckingham is a bad man and I'm glad I left him," is what makes Storms so difficult. The ensuing sadness is merely compounded by her horrid prose and the book's unmercifully linear progression from 1977 to 1984.

[GlennGlenn]

I guess she didn't like it, HUH??? I must say that I agree with her assessment that CAH really should have put the knife into Lindsey and basically just say," Lindsey was a bad man." Why sugar-coat it was the whole point and to that I agree.


Glenn

[Tango]

Ms. Harris states the book is headed toward it's second printing. I guess it sold fairly well:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...iew?oid=524294

Phases & Stages
Sheet Music
BY RAOUL HERNANDEZ





Storms: My Life with Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac
by Carol Ann Harris
Chicago Review Press, 383 pp., $24.95

"A flash of movement, a fist to the side of my face, and the back of my head slammed into the wall. I crumpled to the floor." Lindsey Buckingham's fist and the head of Carol Ann Harris, who began dating the wiry pop savant as Fleetwood Mac's Rumors became one of the bestselling albums of all time, rendezvous more than once in Storms: My Life With Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac. "Lindsey backed me up against the wall and held me by the throat. As his hands tightened, I knew that I was helpless." From 1976 to 1984, Stevie Nicks' successor in Buckingham's boudoir became more and more helpless, imprisoned by the guitarist's narcissism cum genius, the Andean piles of Bolivian marching powder torching Fleetwood Mac, and her own naivete. Lock "The Chain." Harris the author does just that, moving swiftly through the band's peak like a musician sucking up yet another line of blow. Cocaine night at Eric Clapton's castle, Buckingham bullying Kenny Rogers at the Grammys, and noses to mirror in the convertible of SoCal's most eligible cocksman and drug Hoover, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, don't disappoint. Like Red Hot Chili Pepper Anthony Kiedis' rippling Scar Tissue, another Hollywood Boulevard of broken bones and illusions, Storms rages ripe and juicy. Revelations such as the fact that Buckingham built Rumors' equally brilliant follow-up Tusk on a diet of the Talking Heads, Clash, and Sex Pistols lace their way through the epilepsy of fame and fortune at its highest high. You must never break the chain.



http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...ainerID=524294


Not the Perfect Storm by "Guest" | hide/show
Throughout the book, I had the feeling that the author was always telling 1/2 of the story. She told what everyone else did, but didn't discuss her own actions or reactions, making herself seem like the silent mouse in the corner. The book had many inaccuracies. The obvious ones put ALL of the book's contents into question. For instance, the author says her lawyers said she was Lindsey's common law wife. California hasn't recognized "common law" marriage since 1895! She said she avoided Lindsey during the filming of the "Save Me" video. Lindsey wasn't in Fleetwood Mac when "Save Me" was released and had nothing to do with the video! She says she attended Mick's wedding, but there's plenty of footage from that wedding in Hawaii and she was nowhere near it and Lindsey was present at the wedding, but she doesn't mention seeing him. When the author can't get the factual information straight, then all her subjective descriptions of events are called into question. 08-18-2007


Honest look at Fleetwood Mac by larry | hide/show
I was pleased to see such a positive review of this book in the Austin Chronicle as I too found this book to be one of the best rock memoirs I've read. I was puzzled at the comments written under the heading "Not the perfect storm". To use the example of the nonexistence of "common law marriage" in California to discredit the author and the book seems absurd to me. In the 1970's, the very famous celebrity case of Marvin vs. Marvin brought a new word to everyone's vocabulary. "Palimony".
I'm sure that Ms Harris' attorney told her that since she'd lived with Mr. Buckingham for over seven years she could sue him for palimony ie: spousal support.

Another point in the "comment" referred to Mick Fleetwood's marriage to Sara Recor. The wedding took place in Malibu, California in 1988. Not in Hawaii. Mick writes of it in his book "Fleetwood: My life and adventures in Fleetwood Mac". Ms. Harris clearly states in her book that it was this wedding of her friends Sara and Mick Fleetwood that she attended.

I have been a fan of Fleetwood Mac for many years and this book opened a door into their private world that I never thought I'd get a chance to see. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who loves a great read.

08-19-2007

Author's Note & Comment by Carol Ann | hide/show
I am very happy to receive such a great review from Mr. Hernandez for Storms. I would like to take a minute to address the concerns of the reviewer "Not the Perfect Storm".
(1) I was the costume designer for Fleetwood Mac's "Little Lies" video, not "Save Me". This was a small misprint error in the book and will be corrected in the second printing of "Storms" which is going to press immediately. I apologize for the small error.

(2) By using the term "common law wife" I was speaking in terms of a Palimony settlement.

(3) Mick and Sara Fleetwood were married in Malibu, California in 1988... not Hawaii. I happily attended their wedding and reception.

[danax6]

(1) I was the costume designer for Fleetwood Mac's "Little Lies" video, not "Save Me". This was a small misprint error in the book and will be corrected in the second printing of "Storms" which is going to press immediately. I apologize for the small error.

Aha.

I wonder if I send her my list of innaccuracies if she's going to defend each and every one of them also. In fact, I should just leave a question on the website and ask her about the biggest inaccuracy of them all.

[Sarah]

There comes a time in every coke addict's life where they actually kinda deserve to get punched in the head. Just sayin'.

[danax6]

Originally Posted by Sarah

There comes a time in every coke addict's life where they actually kinda deserve to get punched in the head. Just sayin'.

ilu.

[camchristo]

Originally Posted by danax6

Aha.

I wonder if I send her my list of innaccuracies if she's going to defend each and every one of them also. In fact, I should just leave a question on the website and ask her about the biggest inaccuracy of them all.

Would that be the one about Lindsey not really being upset over his break-up with Stevie? Go on, ask her - I'd love to see her response.

Unless you had one of the many other inaccuracies in mind. In that case - you should still ask her.

[danax6]

Originally Posted by camchristo

Would that be the one about Lindsey not really being upset over his break-up with Stevie? Go on, ask her - I'd love to see her response.

I wanted to ask about the article, yeah, especially since she brought that one up recently herself, but I figured... whatever. Somehow I don't think it's really appropriate.

Unless you had one of the many other inaccuracies in mind. In that case - you should still ask her.

But the one thing that bugs me the most about the book, is the timeline for Lindsey's illness being off. I understand not recollecting certain details 100%, but she spends an entire chapter talking about it, bringing in incidents and occurrances that simply could not have happened because his collapse wasn't until a year after she described in the book. That whole chapter is BS to me.

[Tango]

Originally Posted by danax6

I wanted to ask about the article, yeah, especially since she brought that one up recently herself, but I figured... whatever. Somehow I don't think it's really appropriate.

But the one thing that bugs me the most about the book, is the timeline for Lindsey's illness being off. I understand not recollecting certain details 100%, but she spends an entire chapter talking about it, bringing in incidents and occurrances that simply could not have happened because his collapse wasn't until a year after she described in the book. That whole chapter is BS to me.

Honestly, why not pursue a Q&A with her here on The Penguin; as long as the off the wall personal attacks can be screened out, I think it would be a great read. Maybe John McVie or others in the band (past/present) could interject. Carol Ann seems open to criticism. And why not HERE on The Penguin. There can be no better forum.

[JunkFoodGenius]

Skimmed through this thing myself. The only thing I want to be true in this entire book is that Lindsey puked on Dick Clark's shoes. Because I kinda want to high five him now.

[michelej1]

Well, if her lawyer told her "palimony" why didn't she say palimony in the book? Couldn't think of the word? Just made up something off the cuff? The fact is, after the Michelle Triola case made headlines in the seventies, subsequent appeals and other cases pretty much destroyed whatever merit it had. The case went up to the Supreme Court and then got sent back down to the trial level again. After 4 years of litigation, Triola ended up only getting about $100,000 and even that award was reversed on appeal. It's because Triola ultimately lost that people don't use the term "palimony" anymore. It doesn't get you anything in court. It sure wasn't going to get Carol millions.

Another case in 1983, Polackwich, sealed that deal. You can enforce a contract against a person you've lived with, just like you can enforce a contract between a person you've done business with. But just being someone's lover or "pal" doesn't give you the key to his bank vault. I doubt her lawyer ever said "common law wife" or "palimony" to her, because it was about the time that she broke up with Lindsey that palimony suits went down the drain in California.

So, I still would like to know how Carol thinks, or why she claims, she could have gotten a significant portion of Lindsey's fortune, either as a "common law wife" or through "palimony." The statement is designed to cast her as a selfless sprite, who acts without thought of gain. Perhaps she is, but she couldn't have gotten anymore from Lindsey than what she did get. So, it's not like she walked away from a fortune.

Carol never indicates that Lindsey entered an agreement to support her while they were cohabiting. She doesn't recount any promises he made while they lived together. She does suggest that she gave up her career for him, but did he promise to compensate her in exchange for doing that? That's what a Marvin v. Marvin claim has to be based on: an agreement for support between the parties. Just "shackin' up" with the guy is not enough. By paying her rent and groceries for a few years after they broke up, she got about just as much as she would have gotten through a palimony suit (based on what Michelle Triola ended up with), if not more.

And as far as Mick's wedding goes, Malibu or Hawaii, since Lindsey was at the wedding, why doesn't she mention that in the book? She took the opportunity to detail their other final meetings at Desi's funeral and when he rented a car, came to her house and proposed. She even described how she avoided seeing him when working on Save Me -- ooops Little Lies. So, why not describe how she avoided -- or didn't avoid -- seeing him at the wedding? If she was there. Michele

[michelej1]

And as for Little Lies, as a costume designer, you don't need to know the name of the project you're working on when you're doing it, but what about the resumes? Don't you show people a portfolio of your work or something? You especially have to if you're Carol, and have been away from the business for years, because your man has demanded that you quit your job and be with him 24/7. You've got to prove yourself all over again. So, just from putting together and listing her credentials when she was looking for work at that time, I'd think she'd remember the name of the video she worked on and not confuse it with one that she did NOT work on, that filmed years later.

It's a trivial error, but most of the stuff she writes about took place when she and Lindsey were alone. We can only judge her credibility based on the factual trivia. We don't know what happened behind closed doors. So, if she doesn't get the open door stuff right, the facts that are so easily documented, how can she be trusted to get the subjective, private details right. It's not that the year matters; it's not that the name of the video matters. The thing is, because they're all I have, I'm using those trivial details to gauge her credibility regarding the things that DO matter. That's the measure. That's the test. CAH fails that test.

If she gets the little things wrong, why should her memories of long ago conversations, faded acts and intense arguments, fueled with liquor and drugs, be any more accurate? And why is her recollection so much better now than it was just a few years after the events happened, when, asked to describe how Lindsey abused her, all she could think to talk about was the Elvis Costello night? Michele

[David]

Originally Posted by danax6

But the one thing that bugs me the most about the book, is the timeline for Lindsey's illness being off. I understand not recollecting certain details 100%, but she spends an entire chapter talking about it, bringing in incidents and occurrances that simply could not have happened because his collapse wasn't until a year after she described in the book. That whole chapter is BS to me.

What does she say about it? Lindsey dropped in '78 on tour, but the Fleetwood bio screws it up a bit (I think erroneously on Mick's part) by inserting a sentence on the epilepsy into the section on the '77 tour. It's obviously a reference to the '78 incident because it mentions collapsing in the shower in the hotel in Philadelphia, so obviously it was dropped into the wrong section inadvertently. They had to cancel or postpone dates on both tours (in '77 for bad throat & wisdom teeth & in '78 for spinal tap complications) so maybe that confused the writers.

[danax6]

Originally Posted by David

What does she say about it? Lindsey dropped in '78 on tour, but the Fleetwood bio screws it up a bit (I think erroneously on Mick's part) by inserting a sentence on the epilepsy into the section on the '77 tour. It's obviously a reference to the '78 incident because it mentions collapsing in the shower in the hotel in Philadelphia, so obviously it was dropped into the wrong section inadvertently. They had to cancel or postpone dates on both tours (in '77 for bad throat & wisdom teeth & in '78 for spinal tap complications) so maybe that confused the writers.

That's one sentence, we're talking about an entire chapter dedicated to the matter in this case. And according to the book, it happened in 1977. She got Philadelphia and then Washington DC correct, but the year was off. That's all fine and dandy, but she then ties some of the stuff that pertained to his illness to what took place in January of 1978, at several award ceremonies. Lindsey wasn't even aware of being sick at that time, so she had to have pulled that out of her ass.