Circa 1982, Who *Was* Fleetwood Mac?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by David

Is Gypsy really that much better a song than Hold Me or Only Over You? I think Gypsy's production & arrangement are what really drive it home. When I listen to the Heartbreakers play it or Stevie herself play it, it's not such a big deal to me. It has nice imagery, nice turns of phrase (Lightning strikes maybe once, maybe twice/And it lights up the night/And you see your gypsy) & even a typical amount of Stevie doofy-oafy words that just plotz (Faces freedom with a little fear/I have no fear/I have only love).

to me, it seems like an average Stevie Nicks song, maybe a little above average. Classics like Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon & Candlebright leave it in the dust (except in terms of track production, which is where Gypsy really lights up the night).

Shoot, production-wise, I'd put "Hold Me" right up there with "Gypsy," too.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

-Jyqm, who generally laughs or at the very least smiles broadly at nearly everything David posts

It might just be more of the attack-the-person-instead-of-the-point stuff so prevalent -- only it's known by different names & is employed by different people in different ways.

Some people think I'm stuck up or superior. Fine. They won't debate what I say, just how I say it, as if I had complete control over that. If I were discussing something with these same people in person, would they make fun of the way I saw my R's (like W's)? Would they call me names like "Bawbwa Wa-Wa"?

Other people have the idea (or are under the delusion, whichever description you prefer) that always responding with agreements is the only way of showing respect. If someone says, "Stevie joined Fleetwood Mac in 1977," you're supposed to say, "Right you are!" If instead you say, "Only if Fleetwood Mac formed in 1969," you're being haughty or disruptive; you're "slamming."

Even my Solecism thread got twisted into weird shapes, & people reading that probably turned it back around on me so that I became the unreasonable hophead, when I VERY CLEARLY started my post explaining that rock lyrics are typically colloquial & ungrammatical & that this wasn't really what I was talking about (like using "ain't" in a rock song) -- that I was trying to distinguish ordinary informality in lyrics from the errors that really jump out at you &, in some cases, say the opposite of what the songwriter wanted to say.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Shoot, production-wise, I'd put "Hold Me" right up there with "Gypsy," too.

Oh fack yes. "Hold Me" as a production is pinnacle. It's miraculous. I wish I could engineer a track like that. I'd quit my day job.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by David

It might just be more of the attack-the-person-instead-of-the-point stuff so prevalent -- only it's known by different names & is employed by different people in different ways.

Some people think I'm stuck up or superior. Fine. They won't debate what I say, just how I say it, as if I had complete control over that. If I were discussing something with these same people in person, would they make fun of the way I saw my R's (like W's)? Would they call me names like "Bawbwa Wa-Wa"?

Other people have the idea (or are under the delusion, whichever description you prefer) that always responding with agreements is the only way of showing respect. If someone says, "Stevie joined Fleetwood Mac in 1977," you're supposed to say, "Right you are!" If instead you say, "Only if Fleetwood Mac formed in 1969," you're being haughty or disruptive; you're "slamming."

Even my Solecism thread got twisted into weird shapes, & people reading that probably turned it back around on me so that I became the unreasonable hophead, when I VERY CLEARLY started my post explaining that rock lyrics are typically colloquial & ungrammatical & that this wasn't really what I was talking about (like using "ain't" in a rock song) -- that I was trying to distinguish ordinary informality in lyrics from the errors that really jump out at you &, in some cases, say the opposite of what the songwriter wanted to say.

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.

David may be "haughty"...but, I claim the title "know-it-all asshole".

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by David

But people have argued otherwise -- which makes minced meat of the argument that the opinion is inarguable.
No, actually, it isn't. An opinion -- any opinion -- is by its very nature subjective. Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective. Objective means irrespective of opinion, belief, emotion or prejudice. There's no such thing as an objective measure of artistic merit.
We can, however, state objectively that the velocity of shallow water waves is roughly proportional to the depth of the water through which they pass.

I want to agree with you but then I don't. For example, if we just look at things from a musical perspective, "Tusk" is better than anything I could write. Is it really a matter of opinion that "Tusk" would be superior because I haven't the slightest idea how to write music?

Normally I would just accept your point (not just because it's yours but because I've had this conversation before and it always leads to me submitting) as something that I can't oppose, but I had to give it a shot with what I said above. I might try another avenue but I'm awfully tired and all. I understand, though, that art is by nature subjective to subjectivity (oh--that was bad), unlike physics and math, and so my argument may hold no water whatsoever because of that fact.

And, for the record, if it should mean anything, I don't think you sounded superior.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.

I wouldn't say so. I don't think there's necessarily a direct relationship between the two.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by David

Regardless of how sensible or widespread an opinion is -- "Eleanor Rigby" is a better song than "Great Big Gobs of Greasy Grimy Gopher's Guts" -- it still isn't objective.

How extremely weird that you mentioned those two songs in relation to one another. My mother is a massive Beatles fan, and Beatles songs... especially McCartney's... were always playing in our house when I was growing up.
Mom used to sing to us as well... all sorts of goofy little ditties, like "Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor (On The Bedpost Overnight)" and "Great Big Gobs Of Greasy, Grimy Gopher's Guts."

I credit Mom for my eclectic tastes in music... and the reason why I can love something like "Storms" alongside something like "That's How We Do It In L.A."

[amber]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

don't get me started on your -fill-the-air-with-chit-chat-drizzle, amber. at least you can admit the guy knows his way with words. I love to read them.

Good for you. I find it hilarious that he actually pointed out that someone could argue that Stevie's songs were inarguably the best. Of course they could - and to me him saying that was needless chitchat drizzle. He just used up airspace to point out an obvious definition. And, he often starts threads that are chit chat drizzle, to me. He actually defined the word "objective" in that post. *rolls eyes*

[amber]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

I find it funny that Stevie fans always go to the "your just too cerebral" card when defending La Nicks. This mostly happens with Stevie vs LB...

interesting.............

He's not too cerebral, he was pointlessly overanalyzing a definition of something that didn't need it, and pointing out the obvious. And I wasn't "defending la Nicks" at the time, if you read carefully. I was just saying David's use of pointless words in that post were a**ish - Stevie wasn't even involved. So, I know you aren't talking about me.

Now this:

Originally Posted by David

Is Gypsy really that much better a song than Hold Me or Only Over You? I think Gypsy's production & arrangement are what really drive it home. When I listen to the Heartbreakers play it or Stevie herself play it, it's not such a big deal to me. It has nice imagery, nice turns of phrase (Lightning strikes maybe once, maybe twice/And it lights up the night/And you see your gypsy) & even a typical amount of Stevie doofy-oafy words that just plotz (Faces freedom with a little fear/I have no fear/I have only love).

to me, it seems like an average Stevie Nicks song, maybe a little above average. Classics like Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon & Candlebright leave it in the dust (except in terms of track production, which is where Gypsy really lights up the night).

Is something that actually makes a point, something that people can discuss.

The other - was just intellectual masterbating, as far as I'm concerned.

[amber]

Originally Posted by David

It might just be more of the attack-the-person-instead-of-the-point stuff so prevalent -- only it's known by different names & is employed by different people in different ways.

Some people think I'm stuck up or superior. Fine. They won't debate what I say, just how I say it, as if I had complete control over that. If I were discussing something with these same people in person, would they make fun of the way I saw my R's (like W's)? Would they call me names like "Bawbwa Wa-Wa"?

.

You didn't have a point, David. You were defining "objective" for chrissakes, as if we were morons. And exploring the intricacies of what "inarguable" literally means.(again, as if we were morons). That's what I was attacking. You really expect me to "argue" that point? Ridiculous. There was no discussion, you were telling everyone the definitions of "inarguably" and "objective", and "opinion"(as if we were morons)....see how that works?
Good try, though, in playing the victim.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

I always liked this review by Geoffrey Himes from the Washington Post, 8/1/82:

Anyone ever notice the gist of dissy's favorite album reviews?
Schtick! Schtick! Schtick!

I also got a chuckle out of the little jbrownsjr/Bobo/dissy exchange. Anyone notice how no one had so much as compared Stevie and Lindsey (or their fans) to each other until....

Well, nevermind.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Anyone ever notice the gist of dissy's favorite album reviews?
Schtick! Schtick! Schtick!

I didn't say I agreed with everything he said, I just said I thought it was a good review. I like all of Stevie's tracks on Mirage, all of Lindsey's except for Empire State, and a precious few of Christine's.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Do you really care? Such are the dynamics of an Internet message board. You're probably not posting intelligently if someone isn't claiming that you're a haughty know-it-all asshole.

They are not mutually exclusive. Tons of other people here post intelligently without it slipping into the realms of "haughty know it all a**hole".

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

I didn't say I agreed with everything he said, I just said I thought it was a good review.

I know, sweetie... but everytime you proclaim a review to be one of your favorites, there's always a distinct biased slant.
I have a thing for themes and patterns.

As for 'Mirage'... I actually love it. Considerably more than 'Fleetwood Mac,' in fact. And I enjoy the material on it from all three writers. Even stuff like "Empire State" and "Only Over You," which seem to be nearly universally panned.