Tusk Song Survivor!

[Hippocampus]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Qui, moi? Or le Stew? Me, I'm the funniest MF I know.......just ask me.

Oui toi! Just ribbing you for that awfully immodest statement

Anyway, my vote is Not That Funny again. For the pleasure of killing it twice.

[GateandGarden]

My vote goes to "Walk a Thin Line."

Hillary

[amber]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

My vote goes to "Walk a Thin Line."

Hillary

Finally! Thank you
AMber

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by 77Rumours77

ok, Heres how Immunity will work...
The question will be asked at the beginning of each round, someone will contact me with the correct answer and the song that desrves immunity, So immunity will be givin to the song at the beginning of the next round, If any of this makes sence.

Frankly, no. Why not just do a straight vote?

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Doesn't matter what round it is, or how many recounts are done... my vote will remain the same until it's gone.
So farewell to that little song that I just can't stand....
"Save Me A Place."

Man, that's really sounding like a grudge now, Johnny. Come on. This in all honestly in your view is the worst song in the Tusk record?

[dougl]

Round 2.5

Not That Funny, Not That Funny!

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by amber

Finally! Thank you
AMber

We seem to be the only two people who dislike that one enough to vote it off now! I don't really get it. I'll take "That's Enough for Me," and certainly "That's All for Everyone" over "Walk a Thin Line." But that's just me. (Well, and you).

Hillary

[marc402]

Originally Posted by 77Rumours77

Ok OK!!!!!
ROUND 2 DO-OVER
Please vote for one of thses, I will tally to votes tomorrow....

Over & Over
The Ledge
Think About Me
Save Me A Place
Sara
What Makes You Think You'er The One
Storms
Thats All For Everyone
Not That Funny
Sisters Of The Moon
Angel
That's Enough For Me
Brown Eyes
Never Make Me Cry
I Know I'm Not Wrong
Honey Hi
Beautiful Child
Walk A Thin Line
Tusk
Never Forget

Sorry no votes from round 2 or 3 counted SORRY
Please dont kill me

huh why is honey hi back in? i thought that going was a sure thing
well if it is back in i vote for honey hi
if not i vote beautiful child again

[amber]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

We seem to be the only two people who dislike that one enough to vote it off now! I don't really get it. I'll take "That's Enough for Me," and certainly "That's All for Everyone" over "Walk a Thin Line." But that's just me. (Well, and you).

Hillary

Yeah, after i listened to it i thought maybe others forgot about it, it was so obviously a choice..
And i actually like That's Enough For Me quite well, cause of "YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH," etc That's all for Everyone is a bit better (to me) than WATL.
AMber

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Man, that's really sounding like a grudge now, Johnny. Come on. This in all honestly in your view is the worst song in the Tusk record?

Yes, in all honesty, I do feel it's the worst song on the album. It's the one song, in the 17 years I've owned 'Tusk,' that has never grown on me.

Lindsey has had other songs in a similar vein, which were far more effective... in my opinion. And even songs like "Not That Funny," "Walk A Thin Line" and "That's All For Everyone," that others seem to deeply dislike, are songs that I'm very fond of.

[Lala]

That's Enough For Me

[Bryan]

Voting Sara [again!]

[Claudia]

Not That Funny.....

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I could just say that I'm only being funny.

Of all of yours posts discussing "Save Me A Place" in this thread, this is the only one that I can see as attempting to be humorous: http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpo...9&postcount=55.
While I personally love reading openly funny assasinations of music (see Abba's The Name Of The Game biography, where they practically destroy nearly every other '60s and '70s band/artist that isn't Abba), there's a certain limit to everything for me. Even when dissing music that I do not care much for.
So, you made a joke about your dislike of "Save Me A Place", cool.
Then you had to repeat the same thing in the subsequent posts in different ways, while actually adding nothing to the message you were going for.
Why did you really bother to answer to people when you were just redressing the same point all over again? One would think that the one attempt at humour was enough. Was it really so important to run the same point into the ground, so that everyone would understand that you dislike "Save Me A Place"? No one posted anything else than their opinion of the song, and you were the only one who bothered to repeat your message for everyone.
So at that point the IMOs and hints of humour you had originally inserted to a single post of yours were zeroed out in my mind. And your critique of "Save Me A Place" turned into an almost negative repetition to me. Seriously, if you feel it's a monotonous 'sludge', must your critique attempt for the same effect?
It's different to call someone crap than it is to call something that someone created crap, I agree. Yet this is a fan board. We have witnessed cases where people get very upset because a particular favourite thing of theirs is critiqued harshly. I brought one up there. That's a thing that everyone should keep in mind. "Say something once, why say it again?" Repeat the same point when the argument comes up later, fine. But in the same thread, several times? Come on.

Originally Posted by AMber

It would be weird if people always had to say IMO before everything they said, cause, unless you're quoting someone, who else's opinion would it be?

AMber, honey I never said that one should use the IMO stuff 'everywhere' (now there's a pun, will Johnny catch it or not? ). I just think it should be used when one is expressing a particularly, or even somewhat, extreme opinion. And it's not that IMOs will always help the message that much. Look at Johnny's list, it still doesn't look that much better, now does it? It's all about the way you type the whole thing.
Here's again that thread I linked to: http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...1&page=1&pp=15. John (Wetcamelfood) wrote the last post on that. He typed:

It really is down to the way you say it. Look at these 2 sentences and see if they come across different to you (and these are your opinions, not mine, just for the record for everyone else) I can't remember the exact words you used a long thread ago now so just paraphrasing here:

1. It is my opinon that Time sucks

2. Hey, it's my opinion. Time sucks.

The first part of sentence 2 may allude to it being your opinion but then the second part turns it upside down. Just something to consider is all. OK?

I have nothing more to add to that. Let's get humble then.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

It sure didn't sound like a vote of approval... especially when you were offering it as the reason to vote the song off.

I never said that "Everywhere" was the sole representative of the housewife side on TITN; I spoke of the housewives section of the album. Which isn't all Chris, btw.

I said that at a point when the three most esoteric pieces on the album had already been voted off, mind you. And I like everything on Tango In The Night, as you probably know.

Look at my past survivor thread posts: there's hardly anything positive that I say for any song when I'm voting.

For me that's the point of the survivor. Basically everything Fleetwood Mac has released, in every line-up, is flawed in a way. That's what makes it human, but not everyone will find those flaws appealing.

So when I choose a song to drop in these threads, a song that I respond to the least from the remaining ones, I will try to find some flaws from them. I do not feel the need to add a positive note to the one I try to vote off, like you do. Speaks of our opinions of the world, now doesn't it?

But of course, that's what you weren't picking up on. You were picking up on my "housewives" comment. That I hinted at "Everywhere" being a piece that only the 'bored housewives, the ones who do not actively listen to music and therefore will respond to any piece of banality that comes their way', will like.
As I said, there's numerous songs in the catalogue of the Rumours line-up (and even the Welch-era ones, not to mention the Post-Rumours ones) that fit this "housewives" category. Because how do you go and prove that "Everywhere" is more banal than the others, or that it has less care put into it than the rest of the band's output?

So if you understood that I loathe housewives and their lifestyles, and that I think "Everywhere" is perfect for them, you didn't get me right.

No, I don't live like they do. Yes, they are a common target for every "thinkin' musical dude with brain". But I don't think they take on to everything that comes their way anyway, or that their experiences of music is any less deeper than those of people with different, more active relationships to music.
I might as well have criticized "WTTR...S", "WISYA" or "Seven Wonders" being the usual Chiffonhead songs. Or "Big Love", "Caroline" and "Family Man" being songs that only sexually perverted people will completely identify with.
Because, quite frankly, our experiences with music are very much dictated by the life we live and the way God or whatever has shaped us.

That's something that I will discuss in the next post. For now, let me just tell you that I've met a punk rocker in the BuckinghamNicks.net chatroom who thinks Christine is the best thing that's ever happened to Fleetwood Mac. "No one falls into a simple set of labels", neither does the music that's out there.

[face of glass]

Jacob: no vote in this one.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Not at all. I said that it doesn't matter to me if I'm the only one who likes a song... I didn't say that no one else is ABLE to like the song.
Big difference.

Then this. You finally picked up the bait I set up for you, so I might as well keep the ball a-movin'.
You already know what post I'm going to be referring to. The one I never got around to answering. http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpo...&postcount=454

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

For me, relatability IS a different thing from being universal. Which is why thousands of people can find great appeal in a particular song, but it will still never be loved across the board.

Relatability is also a thing one can not measure at all, in any way. It's a thing that's based on our own beliefs, and our own emotional responses to a song.
Universality can be measured, not just through charts but also through the song being played on the radio, even decades after its original release. If people are willing to dig up something that wasn't much of a success in the past then that should prove something on the staying power of the material.
Not that measuring universality through those ways is always accurate, but it's the only thing we really have.

And, because of that, I DO tend to think that one can find things to relate to, even in Stevie's most esoteric writings... but that you have to care enough. If you just want to be entertained on a basic level, then you're probably not going to have much use for Stevie Nicks. Her songs require more of an emotional investment, in my opinion.

And another question is, how do you get to that point where you start caring enough?
I believe that only a few of us got into Fleetwood Mac because of an album track that was never played on the radio. We got into them because of the things we heard passively at various places and at one point got interested. That didn't make us fans. Rumours gathered dust in my shelf for a whole year before I eventually went out and bought another Fleetwood Mac album. Becoming a fan is usually a gradual process, it's not like being hit by lightning or anything like that.
So we started acquiring their music and at one point noticed that our interests towards the band were bordering to obsessive. We had become fans, those rotating windmills that you see on the roofs sometimes.
Again, most people never get to that point, or even near it. How come we did then? We obviously noticed that there was something we related to a lot. We kept on playing those records, to the point where we started to develop an appreciation for the band's lesser-known works too. But I believe we would never have got to that point if the band's universal material hadn't existed.
No casual listener will want to hear a song for the second or third time if there's nothing in it that he/she can relate to.
Basically, if you're saying with that "emotional involvement" argument of yours that one should listen to the song a lot in order to appreciate it, then I do not agree with it at all.
A piece that you have to work hard for, in order "to get it", is no good for me. It's different when you're trying to get accustomed to new genres though.
Did Fleetwood Mac go down in quality at one point then, or just in public favour? No one knows for sure. We know what the music history books will tell us, though.
Did the band members start writing more esoteric, less universal material? Possibly. You know my usual defense for Lindsey Buckingham; the topics he conveys are not all suited to the AOR format that he's been boxed into, the music that he makes speaks more for the '60s experimentalism of Brian Wilson and the DIY attitude of punk rock, things that are not associated with AOR at all. And the emotional content that's being dealt with in those genres is very different.

Most everyone can enjoy "Go Your Own Way," or "Big Love," or "Trouble," but it takes more of an investment to enjoy... to that same degree... something like "Play In The Rain" or "D.W. Suite."

And of course, the one thing that I will point out here is that "Play In The Rain" and "D.W. Suite" are quite unlike anything Lindsey's done. They're multi-movement suites that break down the usual song-form that he uses. No wonder if they might take more listens for some people so that they could start appreciating them.
Whereas for material like "When I See You Again" there isn't much defense at all.
It was released on a popular album when Fleetwood Mac were in public favour again, yet it never rose to the same status as "Landslide", another 'mere album track', even though it is very close to it musically.
The depression that it supposedly conveys isn't all that obvious, since only a few people around here have picked up on that.
For me the fact that even the diehard fans are totally split on it just underlines its esoteric quality.

But who cares for these arguments anyway, when all we have is Kierkegaardian belief on the quality of their music.

But anyway, I'm just trying to say that it's not that I think Lindsey & Stevie's songs can necessarily be easily covered by anyone...it's just that, I feel their music CAN be appreciated by anyone who cares enough to make the investment.

And it necessarily wasn't all about being able to cover a song in the first place. There is music that is universal and still can not be covered without losing a lot of the original impact.

I also wonder how appropriate examples in all this we fans are:

I related to the emotions Stevie conveyed in her songs, before I had any knowledge of her back-story. So it was never "I like it because Stevie wrote it," I liked it for what it was.

That was when you were 13-14 and your experiences in life had taken you to areas that some people will never go to. You found comfort in Stevie Nicks because her music spoke to you. And that was because of the way you were born, and because of your own experiences.
AMber (tell me if you don't like that typing, girl ) noticed that she found Stevie's voice extremely attractive, at various ages in her life.
Romy found Stevie last year and discovered an immediate passion for her.

Why did these things happen? How come they didn't happen to other people? Obviously there's something in us that made us far more receptive to the artists than the others usually are. This always speaks of our experiences in life, the things we've been through. We don't have to know that much about the artists themselves. They already convey their experiences through their music, that's when we pick up on it.

In the end all people are exposed in certain areas emotionally, and not everything will ever speak to those areas, even though I believe that one could relate to all music.
I'm an extreme person myself. I can go from the industrial, ugly noise of Coil to Frank Sinatra's bossanova recordings within the same hour, and get maximum enjoyment and emotional involvement out of both. But even then, my range of human emotions, which I do measure through music, is limited. I will never learn to enjoy, or even listen to, all music. Those limitations are there in all of us.

But yes. One can relate to everything in the end. I believe that even the stuff that you call teen-pop garbage can be related to. And that Britney Spears is as 'deep' as Stevie Nicks, because there is no way to measure 'depth'. I may identify with the latter a lot more than with the former, but that's just me-emotions-a-talkin'.
I'm glad to see writers like Nick Hornby bringing out arguments like "there's incredible depth in banality". That means the most common pop cliches you hear, the stuff that can turn you off, but when you actually manage to combine them for the perfect pop song, it's magic. Everyone can draw their lines of class and trash themselves, of course. If you laugh at that, how would that be any different from those who laughed at '60s Motown because it was the "more superficial, bubblegummy alternative to Stax"? And a lot of those songs that were made there are classics now. So how do we know what will survive from our times? We'll just have to wait and see.

And because one can relate to everything, then Stevie Nicks, or the members of Fleetwood Mac, past and present, aren't in any better position than anyone else whose current material is now being publicly ignored.

Good night, y'all.