Let's Show Some love For... "Straight Back"!

[David]

Originally Posted by Phil

Like HejiraNYC stated, Stevie not only had the songs, but they were actually recorded. The Mirage versions of Smile At You and If You Were My Love sound virtually "good to go" to my ears, particularly the former song.

I'd have preferred either of those, as well, to "Straight Back," but the band, for whatever reason, picked the three we got. The band has never addressed why Nicks has three songs on that album instead of four or five, so we can toss our guesses around.

It was my recollection too that the whole band were in France, committed to working as a team after what had been perceived as a fragmented, disunified approach during the Tusk sessions.

In France for six or eight weeks only, pulling together basic tracks. In talking about that album, the band has always made it sound as if the majority of recording & virtually all the mixing were done in Los Angeles over the course of about 12 months (roughly, June 1981 to June 1982).

Stevie may not have contributed majorly to Lindsey's and Christine's songs but that doesn't alter the fact that she had delivered up first rate material that basically pissed all over everything else on offer.

That's your opinion, Phil. We all have our opinions, but you put forth yours as if it were observable fact, plain to one & all. I don't think much of "Straight Back" as a song & I'm not sure I think that "Gypsy" is terribly good, either. But I love the tracks that Fleetwood Mac builds around them, for which I give all of them & their engineers credit.

Maybe the potential embarrassment of being overshadowed by her natural brilliance, not to mention her rising star at the time, put paid to the inclusion of any additional material?

Maybe. Is there some way we can ask Lindsey, Mick, & Christine whether they were unwilling to include more Nicks material on Mirage because Stevie's natural brilliance cowed them? Maybe Stevie Nicks tried to buy her way out of the band, one of a bunch of rumors at the time. How much leverage did she have within the group at the time? I'm not sure she had any more than any of the others. Her solo success gave her a lot more leverage of her own career, but the idea that she was able to steer Fleetwood Mac this way or that starting in 1982 is pretty silly to me. Why didn't she demand a fourth song on Mirage? She didn't want to tour with the band in 1982, so why did she go at all?

I realise I'm in the minority here but I don't consider Lindsey's production work on Gypsy to be exceptional - serviceable yes, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Based on my observations, you're definitely in a minority on that point, a very small minority (numbering one, to be exact). But these are subjective preference matters, not objectively provable facts.

I for one adore the demo versions with The Heartbreakers and believe the basic structure of the song was intact.

I love the way the Heartbreakers play in general, but those workouts of "Gypsy" are sort of dumb to me -- just fast-paced blues rock without any particular character beyond that & certainly no dynamics, no smooth texture, & no pentatonic hook.

Lindsey added a few flourishes here and there, but the real draw of the finished recording is Stevie's superb vocal delivery and the associated harmonies.

Again we're discussing subjective impressions, but my impression is that Lindsey (in other words, Fleetwood Mac) added more than a "few flourishes here & there" (what flourishes?). The band built an elaborate orchestration into the track that was redolent of the complexity & exuberance of the arrangements & shape of tracks on "Rumours." Incidentally, the vocal harmonies on that track are emblematic of Buckingham's vocal-layering methods, not Nicks's (whose style of vocal layering you can hear on her own albums).

A great song is a great song and it was there from the beginning.

In pop music, a great track is a great song. A great song is also a great song, but it's not a necessity of a great track. More than just about any other contemporary rock band, Fleetwood Mac is proof of that, over & over again.

Stevie's own production and vocal arrangement skills should not be underestimated either.

Maybe I'm one of the people who underestimate her production skills. But I've never heard or seen evidence that she even has any production skills -- not in the sense that I understand production.

Just because she's rarely been given credit for such doesn't mean she wasn't instrumental in shaping her own songs throughout her career.

I guess she was "instrumental" (whatever that means) in shaping some of her songs & not all that instrumental in shaping others. She herself has complained from time to time about not having been allowed (or encouraged) to play a bigger part in shaping her tracks. At times (such as during the recording for Mirage & Tango in the Night), she played a minimal role because she didn't spend enough time with the band in the studio.

She always instinctively knew what she wanted in the studio

She did? Always? Can you fill out that assertion any?

and often coaxed the results out of her collaborators (who often possessed the musical prowess she didn't to achieve her aspirations). I'm aware she's given Lindsey credit over the years for arranging many of her songs but whilst I acknowledge his many talents and great work on a selection of her numbers, I don't think he "polished any of her turds".

I think he (in other words, Fleetwood Mac) polished more than a few of her turds; but also polished more than a few turds by Chris McVie & Lindsey Buckingham.

If Fleetwood Mac had never made any albums but had only published its songs on sheets of paper, would we even be here?