Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If we know someone has been violent, why do we care about the details? I mean does it really matter if he threw his guitar at her or he kicked her instead? They are both violent acts which support the conlcusion that he was violent, which is sad.

I think you're really missing the point. It matters if he neither threw his guitar nor kicked her.

Those pesky details are all we have from which to draw conclusions, since we weren't witnesses.

And, though it is interesting to know why, the Titanic sank regardless of the details -- so the conclusion is still valid

The conclusion that the Titanic ran aground would be no more valid than the conclusion that she was raptured skyward by UFOs.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

I think you're really missing the point. It matters if he neither threw his guitar nor kicked her.

Those pesky details are all we have from which to draw conclusions, since we weren't witnesses.

The conclusion that the Titanic ran aground would be no more valid than the conclusion that she was raptured skyward by UFOs.

No, I am not. The point is he was violent.

Are you actually arguing that he was not violent or that the Titanic did not sink, regardless of why, which we know happened?

The facts remain that the Titanic did sink and LB was violent on two occasions. It is interesting to know the details, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion, unless you consider throwing a guitar at someone and/or kicking them not to be violent acts. Of course, LB denies either happened (actually, he did not really deny it, he said something happened and then essentially demurred) -- but that is par for the course for him when called out

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, I am not. The point is he was violent.

Man, you're fast. But you just keep missing the point, strand. You keep insisting he was "violent" at that incident, but you have no DETAILS other than contradictory & befogged accounts from one or two members of the band. Please reread my post on those accounts. Pay special attention to the legitimate questions I raise.

Are you actually arguing that he was not violent or that the Titanic did not sink, regardless of why, which we know happened?

(sigh) I'm arguing that we do not know for certain whether he was violent onstage in New Zealand. Again, please reread my post on the matter. In it, I refer you to the description of the account in Mick Fleetwood's 1990 book because that it the first presentation of the incident to the (American) public.

The facts remain that the Titanic did sink and LB was violent on two occasions.

So you keep saying . . . (sigh)
You keep harping on "facts" but you have thus far not presented me with any.

It is interesting to know the details, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion, unless you consider throwing a guitar at someone and/or kicking them not to be violent acts.

How do you know he threw a guitar at Stevie or kicked her violently? Did you read Mick Fleetwood's book?

[michelej1]

Actually, when Stevie first mentioned New Zealand, she said that Lindsey kicked or did something to her. She didn't know that he kicked her. I think she assumed that he kicked her because she could guess that it was during GYOW and he was holding his guitar. I would say that if he'd thrown his guitar at her, she would have remembered that initially -- not only in recent years. He threw it at her and she ducked or else she would have been dead? I don't think she would have forgotten that one for a few decades.

Christine didn't say what Lindsey did, she just said she knows that as the first time she ever reacted that way. You could argue that Lindsey must have done something extraordinary for her to react in that fashion. Would just pulling his jacket over his head and mocking Rhiannon have been enough? We don't know.

Of course, now she has remembered that. But she didn't initially.

Originally Posted by CADreaming

Btw, never heard about the 1979 photo shoot - sounds intriguing!

I just looked. It was 1980. This is what was actually written.

Over in the opposite corner, Buckingham's girlfriend, Carol, is sitting on a couch, looking very sad, being consoled by Christine. Fleetwood paces the perimeter of the stage, visibly worried about something. What's going on? Do all these emotional currents add up to anything? The band, back onstage now, plays another song. I don't want to know the reason why I love you. Stevie, smiling, shares a mike with Lindsey; what can they be thinking? Christine looks sharply at McVie. I don't want to know....Fifteen million people bought the album with this song on it. Maybe because part of the fascination of Fleetwood Mac is that you do want to know.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Actually, when Stevie first mentioned New Zealand, she said that Lindsey kicked or did something to her. She didn't know that he kicked her. I think she assumed that he kicked her because she could guess that it was during GYOW and he was holding his guitar. I would say that if he'd thrown his guitar at her, she would have remembered that initially -- not only in recent years. He threw it at her and she ducked or else she would have been dead? I don't think she would have forgotten that one for a few decades.

Christine didn't say what Lindsey did, she just said she knows that as the first time she ever reacted that way. You could argue that Lindsey must have done something extraordinary for her to react in that fashion. Would just pulling his jacket over his head and mocking Rhiannon have been enough? We don't know.

Of course, now she has remembered that. But she didn't initially.



I just looked. It was 1980. This is what was actually written.

It still doesn't say that they were "making out". I think they would have mentioned that if it had in fact happened. It looks like some playful flirting but not much more than that. Certainly I don't see anything about "everyone freaking out". I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

It still doesn't say that they were "making out". I think they would have mentioned that if it had in fact happened. It looks like some playful flirting but not much more than that. Certainly I don't see anything about "everyone freaking out". I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another.

I wasn't talking about them making out for that 1980 magazine article. You're confusing the two Rolling Stones. All I said was I'm surprised that Carol didn't mention that particular, later Rolling Stone story at all, since Rolling Stone noted that she was upset during it.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another.

And I said she became distraught at their cavorting. I didn't indicate they were making out. I just think it's noteworthy because Carol's book carefully avoided mention of flirting or even platonic kinship between Lindsey and Stevie. Yet, after the book was published, she gave an interview saying that she knew they never got over each other.

The Rolling Stone story she did mention was the bed one (with Annie) and it seems to me that she went out of her way to indicate there was no opportunity for Lindsey and Stevie to make out, as described by Stevie in the Rolling Stone retrospective. Because she says that that the photo shoot took place in her house, with her around and lasted too short of a time. She changed the details of it to make it seem as if there wasn't a chance for Lindsey and Stevie to make out or hold each other for 15 minutes or 2 hours. It seems to me her version was deliberately designed to contradict Stevie, Lindsey and Annie's version of events.

Yes, it's true Stevie and Lindsey do contradict each other. Stevie said they made out for 2 hours and Lindsey said they held each other for 15 minutes, overcome with emotion at realizing what they'd lost. I think he said they stopped because Mick told them that other people were becoming uncomfortable. So, that may be why CA Dreaming mentioned that people freaked out. If Mick told them to stop because people were uneasy, I think there was some freaking out among some parties going on.

By contrast, I think Stevie says they stopped because Annie told them that the room was rented and her time had expired.

Michele

[michelej1]

STEVIE SAYS:

"Afterwards, Lindsey and I got to talking about how amazing it was that not so long ago I was a waitress and he didn't have a job, and now we were on the cover of Rolling Stone with this huge record. And we lay there for two hours talking and making out. Finally, Annie had to tell us to leave, because she had rented the room for only so long. But in one afternoon she put Lindsey and me back together and also planted the seed for Mick and me, which happened a year later. You want to know the power of Annie Leibovitz, there you go."

LINDSEY SAYS:

"For Stevie and me, the wounds and animosities were still very fresh. So the idea for the photo wasn't all that funny. We had to compartmentalize our feelings to keep the band functional, and at the end of the session, we had this moment of not being able to avoid all that had been lost. We embraced for about fifteen minutes, and Mick finally came over and said that people were starting to get uncomfortable. I don't know how healthy all this display of our personal life was, but that's showbiz."

[David]

What's the other RS photoshoot?
The bit ref'd earlier was a 1979 tour rehearsal, or so I thought.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by michelej1

So, that may be why CA Dreaming mentioned that people freaked out. If Mick told them to stop because people were uneasy, I think there was some freaking out among some parties going on.

By contrast, I think Stevie says they stopped because Annie told them that the room was rented and her time had expired.

Michele

Lindsey also said:

"The [Rolling Stone cover] shoot was over and everyone else got out of the bed, except for Stevie and I. We laid there for about an hour hugging, and it was freaking everybody out."
-[Lindsey] VH1 All Access

I bet Annie went over first to stop their "hugging" or "making out" and just used the time expired as an excuse...then Mick was sent in as the reinforcement. LOL. Notice in this quote, Lindsey's 15 minutes has now turned into an hour...

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

What's the other RS photoshoot?
The bit ref'd earlier was a 1979 tour rehearsal, or so I thought.

You're right.

Michele

[henryscutter]

No debate, Lindsey said it himself in Family Man " I am what I am a mutha mutha fu fu f*cker" I swear I hear that when I listen to that song

[louielouie2000]

Lord, here y'all go again discussing the he said she saids about the infamous Rolling Stone photo shoot and such. What Carol Anne's book comes down to for me is this... it portrays the essence of the band accurately during the height of their storied career. Yes, band members (and their ex's) don't two have matching stories for any one same event. That's because people perceive things differently. What could be viewed as an enormous fight by Mick could just be creative dialogue to Lindsey. Yes, her exact recollections and memories may not all match up to others, but the gist of what Carol Ann writes about is all true. The addiction, love, hate, talent, craziness, indulgence, humor, lust, fear, creativity, and fame of Fleetwood Mac during it's height is well known and documented. Since The Dance the Rumours Five have all come out and said what Carol Ann portrays in her book in some form or another. They seem to be finally detached enough with their past to truthfully speak of how bad to each other and themselves they were during the late 70s and early 80s. You may not want to believe all of Carol Ann's "fly on the wall" recollections, but none of you can deny the overall mood her book sets is the truth. For us to pick apart this book and say this could or could not have happened, or Lindsey would or would not have done this or that is just silly. Not a one of us know any of the band members personally to make such judgements. That's why I say we all toss out the specific details and focus on the accuracy of the broad picture here. Do I believe every single story Carol Ann tells? No. Do I believe every single story is verbatim how it happened? No. Do I believe that she likely reconstructed some events from her memory, and did so in the essence of what that band member would have done in that situation? Absolutely. Does any of this negate the overall point and validity of this book for me? Not one bit. Because EVERY non-fiction autobiography does all of the above. No one can film or record every second of their waking lives to ensure accuracy.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Lord, here y'all go again discussing the he said she saids about the infamous Rolling Stone photo shoot and such. What Carol Anne's book comes down to for me is this... it portrays the essence of the band accurately during the height of their storied career. Yes, band members (and their ex's) don't two have matching stories for any one same event. That's because people perceive things differently. What could be viewed as an enormous fight by Mick could just be creative dialogue to Lindsey. Yes, her exact recollections and memories may not all match up to others, but the gist of what Carol Ann writes about is all true. The addiction, love, hate, talent, craziness, indulgence, humor, lust, fear, creativity, and fame of Fleetwood Mac during it's height is well known and documented. Since The Dance the Rumours Five have all come out and said what Carol Ann portrays in her book in some form or another. They seem to be finally detached enough with their past to truthfully speak of how bad to each other and themselves they were during the late 70s and early 80s. You may not want to believe all of Carol Ann's "fly on the wall" recollections, but none of you can deny the overall mood her book sets is the truth. For us to pick apart this book and say this could or could not have happened, or Lindsey would or would not have done this or that is just silly. Not a one of us know any of the band members personally to make such judgements. That's why I say we all toss out the specific details and focus on the accuracy of the broad picture here. Do I believe every single story Carol Ann tells? No. Do I believe every single story is verbatim how it happened? No. Do I believe that she likely reconstructed some events from her memory, and did so in the essence of what that band member would have done in that situation? Absolutely. Does any of this negate the overall point and validity of this book for me? Not one bit. Because EVERY non-fiction autobiography does all of the above. No one can film or record every second of their waking lives to ensure accuracy.

I can appreciate your point. However, the inaccuracies in CAH's book, which a casual fan could correct, does make even her peception apparently not able to hold water. Overall though, I don't think there was any new revelations in her book. It was the 70's...it was rock and roll...they were all doing cocaine...people may have gotten trashed and slept around and knocked the living daylights out of one another...big whoop. I think the real essence of her book was more like this - I need cash and I have a few good stories to tell that will probably help me obtain the cash... It's just too bad she didn't have a better editor...

[strandinthewind]

What I find hysterical is most people around here seemingly discount every version other than LB's version, which is sacred for some reason He was there and he was doing the drugs too

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

What I find hysterical is most people around here seemingly discount every version other than LB's version, which is sacred for some reason He was there and he was doing the drugs too

Precisely! That's why I say we can't discount any one person's story completely. In reality we should probably look at ALL versions of Mac history, and realize the truth is somewhere in the middle. None of them were saints, and none of them have entirely pure motives to this day to tell the complete truth. Honestly, of all of them Carol Ann has the least reason to cover her own ass, or the band's. I suspect we'll get the least biased story from her versus the band members. I mean truly, what's in it for her? She knows she's not going to get rich of famous at this point for telling her story. Her days of cashing in on the Fleetwood Mac cash cow are LONG past. I guarantee she makes more each year in her daily job than she did from this book. She doesn't have to worry about protecting the Mac cash machine either... her ties were cut from the band nearly a quarter of a century ago. Honestly, her gossipy little book could only help fuel the soap opera legend that is Fleetwood Mac. The band has long survived on the voyeur nature of it's followers, and her book certainly has aided in that. So in the end, she isn't helping herself all the much, but she probably in a minimal way is adding fodder to the Mac's bottom line $$$.