Most Unpopular Opinions About Lindsey

[TomBanks147]

Tango was to be a solo project, you can hear some of his experimental style here but it was held back and "mainstreamed" for the sake of Fleetwood Mac. It sold pretty well and I think this pissed him off too. The fact you could put "Fleetwood Mac" on it and it would sell.

You know it's weird you should say that but also quite true.

There are 12 songs on Tango he wrote 7 of them (2 with christine but still 7) The other 5 songs are brilliant yes but without Lindseys addition to them I don't think they would be anywhere near as good. I think Lindseys subtle additions to them really made the songs. Little Lies and Everywhere must be 2 of the most played Fleetwood Mac songs here in the UK and (IMO) without Lindsey I don't think they would be anywhere near the song they are. He came up with the cover and name of the album. He produced and engineered it.

This album was BOTH experimental AND sucsesfull. What more could he want?

[madformac]

Originally Posted by TomBanks147

This album was BOTH experimental AND sucsesfull. What more could he want?

And he never mentions it which is so very odd..... AND, which Tango songs does he play live? None, nada, squat, zero. Big Love is totally different to the Tango version and I don't class it as the same song.

I so wish he would play the original Big Love arrangement live. And I want to hear Tango In The Night live too. He could put a mammoth solo on this song.

[Peestie]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

That's not true.

You ALWAYS state that he is NOT one of the best. Reread the intelligent post
of Peestie and then all the posts of you in this thread and feel ashamed of the here quoted remark. In this thread you cannot stand in Peestie's shadow, you Pompous Ass.

I think you got me confused with someone else, what did I say that was intelligent? Both my posts were really short.

As far as Lindsey is concerned I like the "tortured artist" persona. Whether it is a show (just like Alice Cooper isn't the same guy he is on albums/stage) or real it gives him... character .

He's neurotic and doesn't let things go until he's happy with them, and then once he has done what he wanted he gets pissed that it isn't as successful, but I think I'm exactly the same so I can't criticize. I just spent the last few days (or weeks, I can't remember) tabbing the studio version of ISA with all the instruments and vocals on Guitar Pro 5 and I have it as close as I can get (or as I'm going to get at any rate) and after all that I'm still reluctant to post it on www.mysongbook.com where others can see it, even though the whole point of making it was to post it there. I'm scared it won't be good enough since I know it isn't EXACTLY perfect, even though I know it would be one of the better ones on the site and another member told me it was very good. In the same way I think Lindsey just is so scared of people not like his albums and them not having success to the point where he doesn't want to release it. No matter how good people tell him his album is HE can see what isn't "exactly perfect" about it since it's his creation and those are the things that stick out to him, not the good points so he is always tweaking and changing. A pointless analogy, but my way of saying I understand how he might feel, even though I'm not selling thousands of albums

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by madformac

. And I want to hear Tango In The Night live too. He could put a mammoth solo on this song.

That guitar solo is so fun to play. It's short but I like it.

[TomBanks147]

Originally Posted by madformac

And he never mentions it which is so very odd..... AND, which Tango songs does he play live? None, nada, squat, zero. Big Love is totally different to the Tango version and I don't class it as the same song.

I so wish he would play the original Big Love arrangement live. And I want to hear Tango In The Night live too. He could put a mammoth solo on this song.

We see Lindsey songs from the White album, Rumours, Tusk, Mirage, SYW but NOT tango. (apart from the accoustic Big Love) but why?

Tango in the night climaxes for a PERFECT guitar solo at the end you would think he would ditch "I'm so afraid" for it. Lidsey should be proud of the album because he got best of both worlds and it was totally him that made the album but I've never once heard him mention it.

[Chester]

Originally Posted by TomBanks147

Lidsey should be proud of the album because he got best of both worlds and it was totally him that made the album but I've never once heard him mention it.

He wasn't exactly happy with the band at the time so maybe he doesn't like bringing up the horrible time in his life. Maybe he also resents the band for stealing away his solo project from him. Come to think of it, he doesn't mention Mirage all that much either, and he didn't have any big hits from Mriage or Tango, so maybe he truly does focus too much on commercial success and he's embarassed when his songs flop!

[David]

Originally Posted by Chester

He wasn't exactly happy with the band at the time so maybe he doesn't like bringing up the horrible time in his life. Maybe he also resents the band for stealing away his solo project from him. Come to think of it, he doesn't mention Mirage all that much either, and he didn't have any big hits from Mriage or Tango, so maybe he truly does focus too much on commercial success and he's embarassed when his songs flop!

I don't think he's as concerned about songs "flopping" as he is about the entire album as a whole, which is largely his production, arrangement & engineering work. "Tango" garned a lot of praise for just those features, & I'm sure that must have pleased him to no end. In fact, someone (madformac?) said earlier, or at least implied it, that Stevie's solo career was more acclaimed than Lindsey's solo career. I guess it all depends on just what you mean by that word "acclaimed." To me, that refers to critical reception, but I guess it could just as easily refer to public -- or mass -- acclaim. But if the former, there's simply no contest between Lindsey's solo albums & Stevie's solo albums: Lindsey's albums were all of them critical favorites, whereas there was never even a single solo album of Stevie's that had anywhere near the critical reception that his did. If Stevie's success irks Lindsey (& I guess it does & did), it's based solely on her public popularity, not what critics/writers & other musicians, engineers & producers have said, because Lindsey has scooped that aspect. He said back in 1981 (talking to Blair Jackson, I think) that he is appreciated for the specific reasons that are important to him (musicianship, creative arrangements, excellent production), & he was right. He wasn't bluffing that or making it up. He is, historically speaking, one of the most critically acclaimed recordmakers from the mainstream of the 1970s & '80s. A quick trip through the Blue Letter Archives will remind you if you don't remember.

So, again, it's Stevie's popularity with the public that might irk him, but certainly not her critical reception, which has been mostly a long tale of woe for her, interspersed with anomalistic & infrequent (& very reserved) praise.

[David]

Originally Posted by TomBanks147

Lidsey should be proud of the album because he got best of both worlds and it was totally him that made the album but I've never once heard him mention it.

Well, he might not mention it much any more (who does except fans?) but I think he is very proud of the album & used to say so back when the album was news.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I agree David. I think though that LB's jealousy came more so from the fact that the girl that jilted him made good on her own. In other words, he was hurt that she no longer needed him to be a success. Male ego can be a frail thing ya know.

Also, I think La Nicks' first two records would have been panned by the critics no matter how inventive, stellar, good, etc. they were. I think critics love to take cheap shots at her, and that is sad because those first to records were mostly great to these ears. And - she, too, took risks. I mean "Beauty and the Beast" certainly was one as was the country flavor in Bella Donna. Those things were not on the radio at that point in time.

In any event, I think LB likes to take risks, but, creatively, he arrives at the end result via ideas from other artists a la the self-admitted "Jive Talking" vibe to "Second Hand News" and his whole Everly Brothers esq. flair to the Mirage and solo stuff.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree David. I think though that LB's jealousy came more so from the fact that the girl that jilted him made good on her own. In other words, he was hurt that she no longer needed him to be a success. Male ego can be a frail thing ya know.

Yeah he was irked to see Stevie Nicks make such a splash in the music business. That rubbed him the wrong way for many a year, perhaps until even today.

Also, I think La Nicks' first two records would have been panned by the critics no matter how inventive, stellar, good, etc. they were. I think critics love to take cheap shots at her, and that is sad because those first to records were mostly great to these ears.

Well, I think critics who just take cheap shots are either bad critics or not critics at all. I mean, not all critics are equally worthy of reading or understanding. I think that many genuinely fine critics -- I would say "most" but no matter how much we think we have read, we haven't read "most" -- for the most part dismissed Stevie not with cheap shots but with honest responses of impatience with or uninterest in her work. Just because a critic says something negative about your favorite artist doesn't mean you should just dismiss that critic's opinion as a cheap shot. It might be a cheap shot, but it might be an honest reaction that is well-wrought & well thought out & justified (from the critic's perspective). Under the rubric 'critic' you have dumb reviewers like Michael Musto or the Entertainment Weekly staff & you have first-rate rock critics like Steve Simels of Stereo Review (who never had anything good to say about Stevie except that she had a voice like a "no-nonsense country belter like Brenda Lee") & Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times (who felt Nicks was just an average songwriter & an occasionally brilliant but mostly narcissistic performer) & Robert Christgau (who thought Stevie was just a mooncalf) & Steve Pond (who always felt Stevie was Fleetwood Mac's weak link in the chain & not to be taken seriously).

And - she, too, took risks. I mean "Beauty and the Beast" certainly was one as was the country flavor in Bella Donna. Those things were not on the radio at that point in time.

well you know what they say, one man's meat is another man's poison. I'm not sure that the pop-country style of "Bella Donna" was either totally Stevie's doing or all that new. It was essentially the same sound that this same group of studio musicians brought to all their work throughout the 1970s on albums by Jackson Browne, Linda Ronstadt, Andrew Gold, etc. It was all sort of Eagles-derived country-pop, much of it on "Bella Donna" attributable sonically to Waddy Wachtel's slide guitar playing. Writers at the time (& still today for all I know) called it "the L.A. session player sound."

I think Stevie's big risk was actually an enormously big risk, but it's one that isn't often talked about as having been a risk: Her staunch decision to maintain her very personal visual & musical style (however you want to characterize it) year after year in both her solo act & her work with Fleetwood Mac. Rock fads fueld by MTV came & went, but Stevie Nicks was Stevie Nicks .... just about forever.

In any event, I think LB likes to take risks, but, creatively, he arrives at the end result via ideas from other artists a la the self-admitted "Jive Talking" vibe to "Second Hand News" and his whole Everly Brothers esq. flair to the Mirage and solo stuff.

Of course that in & of itself says something about the artist: From whom or from what does he steal? I think more highly of an artist, ceteris paribus, who steals something from the Everly Brothers than from Nick Gilder.

Of course, even that isn't a hard & fast rule, only a generality, because it says something important about the artist's own tastes & proclivities.

[madformac]

Lindsey has recieved a lot of critical acclaim for both his solo and Mac work. I recall many favorable reviews of Out Of The Cradle back in 1992. Stevie got the majority of commercial success. So each, as David stated, got praise. Just in different forms.

My belief is that Lindsey being a male (and a Libran one too as I speak from experience here) wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants to push boundaries, he wants critical acclaim but he also want commercial success. It's his ego that can't accept he can't have everything. I'm sure Stevie's success in terms of "breaking out" as a solo artist without his help as Strand mentioned only made his feelings worse. The fact is he is well respected in his field and critically successful. It's a shame for him he can't be so commercial but it's never going to happen with the record buying masses stuck in the same arena of always buying the safe, radio friendly albums.

Now just going off subject slightly and going back to the other artists I've mentioned earlier I'm seeing a picture of Lindsey's personality here.

If anybody has listened to David Gilmour's new album "On An Island" they will have noticed a lot of the songs and themes are to do with his domestic bliss, his wife and children. Now, if you listen to Eric Clapton's last album "Back Home" the theme is the same. Both equate Heaven to be the relationship they have with their partners. Both sing about their children and the relationships within the family. Both these guys are in their early 60's. They both have young wives and young children. Both have settled down and after years of living the rock star life are now happy and domesticated. The music is laid back and serene in places. You could even argue the same with Mark Knopfler, again he is in his late 50's with a younger wife and young children too. Although his songs are not about domestic bliss they have a laid back maturity to them. It's almost like they have found peace within themselves, or as Gerald would point out, they have gone boring and mainstream..

So we come to Lindsey. He's into his later 50's, young wife, young kids, so naturally we expect more of the above... But no. His music still has an edge and a manicness which suggests he is yet to settle down. Given his antics on the last tour, grinding, flailing and prancing around onstage and the urgency with some of his newer material it could be argued he is either still in a mid-life crisis and or he still believes he is a young man and refuses to grow up. I think he is to be both applauded and yet criticised for his unique behaviour. He certainly has some demons in there..

[Chester]

Not all musicians have to become serene peaceful musicians. Lindsey certainly acts in interviews like he is at peace, constantly talking about this being the best time in his life (musically and creatively ). Maybe he just likes loud music and likes to have fun on stage. I don't think he needs to be criticized for his uniqueness. Still having energy at 56 is a bad thing?

[madformac]

Originally Posted by Chester

I don't think he needs to be criticized for his uniqueness. Still having energy at 56 is a bad thing?

I don't think it's a case of energy, it's more to do, I believe, with feeling he still needs to prove how good he is. It all stems from the issues I mentioned earlier. He's still not comfortable with his status in the music industry in terms of public praise.

There's nothing wrong with rolling around on stage, smashing guitars, simulating sex with it etc etc etc. But I don't recall it as part of his stage act in the past, in his younger days, so why now? Lindsey has an unfulfilled need and this is the physical manifestation of it.

Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, The Who and any other older rockers who still show off on stage is fine. But they have been doing it all their career, Lindsey hasn't. Something has triggered it and I think it's his need for public adulation. It always raised an eyebrow of mine when Stevie left the stage for "Come".

[Chester]

Originally Posted by madformac

There's nothing wrong with rolling around on stage, smashing guitars, simulating sex with it etc etc etc. But I don't recall it as part of his stage act in the past, in his younger days, so why now?

Maybe the simulating sex and guitar smashing is new, but he has always been rather manic. I see these things as just new ways of letting his manic nature come out because he isn't quite as nimble as he was during say, the Mirage dvd, to be able to run around the stage for the entrie show. Just some manic antics while standing in place will suffice these days.

It always raised an eyebrow of mine when Stevie left the stage for "Come".

Uh, she doesn't sing in the song? I don't think it has to do with him needing the spotlight. Or was this a joke?

[madformac]

Originally Posted by Chester

Maybe the simulating sex and guitar smashing is new, but he has always been rather manic. I see these things as just new ways of letting his manic nature come out because he isn't quite as nimble as he was during say, the Mirage dvd, to be able to run around the stage for the entrie show. Just some manic antics while standing in place will suffice these days.

He's not been "manic" as far as I know. You would have to ask David or ChiliD, those guys have seen far more of LB than I have. In '75 to '77 all his effort was seemingly put into the singing/playing as far as I know. '79 he was pretty wild at times but still focused. 1982 produced his most wild times I think but still the playing was amazing, strutting around and stuff is hardly manic, his guitar work was at it's most creative live I believe in '82. In 1992/93 he had the gimic of seven guitarists or whatever it was but he was still pretty focused. In 1997 he was pretty focused on the job too. 2003/4 for the most part he was. I'm So Afraid got out of hand a couple of times and the Come antics were some kind of novelty act I guess. Very out of character and I've heard quite a few fans of LB express embarassment at it. The Come solo's were really nothing a moderately good guitarist couldn't attempt. He couldn't do those stage antics and play something tough too. I'm just confused by why he did it. I guess it's just some kind of rebellion. I'd also add I believe he is far fitter now than he was in '82 so I don't understand the thinking there.

Originally Posted by Chester

Uh, she doesn't sing in the song? I don't think it has to do with him needing the spotlight. Or was this a joke?

No. You need to expand your thinking here Chester.

From what I understand (maybe a Stevie fan can add some info) she refused to be onstage during that song for whatever reasons, maybe it's the lyrical content or it's his antics I don't know personally. I did notice from my experiences it was the song chosen by the crowds at every gig I was at to go for a drinks/pee break. She could have sung on it I'm sure. She sings on ISA so whats the difference? Apart from Lindsey's little spotlight stint with Big Love or Go Insane she would be expected to stay onstage really.