Was TUSK the perfect format?

[TrueFaith77]

It is my theory that TUSK provided the perfect format--double album built around certain aesthetic concepts (e.g., vocal harmonies replacing strings)--for the Mac's work post-RUMOURS, on which album they already perfected the two-sided pop album format.

Also, I think it's overplayed that Lindsey (though he may have requested it) shut out input from the other band members on his songs... e.g., the USC marching band for "Tusk" was Mick's idea.

Not only would this format best allow the artists to stretch out and experiment and move beyond the single-ready format that made RUMOURS so perfect for its kind, but it would also have erased the need for solo careers and would have permitted the band, if they could have gotten along and if they could have come together over this aesthetic idea (which Destiny Rules suggest they never would), to release more albums.

just some wishful thinking what-ifs. What do YOU think?

[bluefox4000]

No. this is just in my opinion. 1 double album is enough. I love love Tusk....But continuing on in that vain. Big no for me. I always trim double albums to singles eventually anyway Interesting view though

Mick

[HejiraNYC]

I think it depends on the material. Tusk simply needed to be a double album because it never would have worked as a single. There were just too many different ideas and messages that needed to be conveyed. And some of these songs needed to be spaced apart, e.g., "Storms" and "Tusk" are so stylistically different that they cannot be easily sequenced into each other.

By contrast, would it have made sense to have made Mirage or Tango double albums? We've all heard the outtakes. To me it seems that for whatever reason, they simply didn't have all that much to say as a band. The dramatic hangover from the 1970s had dissipated. They were somewhat older, somewhat more risk averse. They all had different managers and different political motives. I don't necessarily think that solo careers were the reason for this. I think they simply had an extreme fear of failure and they attempted to play it safe. During the 80s it seems to me that Stevie was the only songwriter who didn't play it too safe- her songs were the most personal, the most in the moment, and ultimately the least commercial. By contrast, Lindsey and Christine fine-tuned their commercial pop hit formulae.

[MacShadowsBall]

Before I read this thread, I felt that Tusk should not have been a double album - too many songs and cost too much to purchase.

However, when thinking about the solo careers NOT happening but instead for Fleetwood Mac to continue to release double albums, I can see the upside in double albums.

I'm more of a Fleetwood Mac fan (much more), so the more Mac for me the better. Solo careers, eh whatever!

[Keith]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I think it depends on the material. Tusk simply needed to be a double album because it never would have worked as a single. There were just too many different ideas and messages that needed to be conveyed. And some of these songs needed to be spaced apart, e.g., "Storms" and "Tusk" are so stylistically different that they cannot be easily sequenced into each other.

Tusk is bloated, in my opinion.. Bear in mind, I took the day off, watching the upsets happen in the NCAA tourney, drinking a Guiness (happy irish day), and listening to the "white" Fleetwood Mac album - my favorite from the band..

back to the Tusk. It would have worked so mystically as a single album.. 11 strong tracks..

but the double Tusk. Too much Lindsey. Now I love me some Buckingham.. but boy, did our man twist it a bit too much. I get his vision.. it was just too much vision.. I can't listen to What Makes You Think You're the One and That's Enough for Me.. but I think Save Me a Place, I know I'm not Wrong, Tusk, and the Ledge are brilliant.. add those 4 songs from Lindsey, then wrap them up with Chris' Brown Eyes, Honey Hi, and Never Forget, and bowtie it with Stevie's Sara, Beautiful Child, Angel, and Sisters of the Moon.. now you have an album. The only flaw with this tracklist is the omission of Storms... well, Storms would have sounded beautifully on Bella Donna, right after After the Glitter Fades.. I can hear the thunder now..

[David]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I think it depends on the material. Tusk simply needed to be a double album because it never would have worked as a single. There were just too many different ideas and messages that needed to be conveyed. And some of these songs needed to be spaced apart, e.g., "Storms" and "Tusk" are so stylistically different that they cannot be easily sequenced into each other.

These are good points.

By contrast, would it have made sense to have made Mirage or Tango double albums? We've all heard the outtakes. To me it seems that for whatever reason, they simply didn't have all that much to say as a band.

Good points. Also good point about the risk aversion that settled over the band in the '80s, which LB has bemoaned in print many times.

During the 80s it seems to me that Stevie was the only songwriter who didn't play it too safe- her songs were the most personal, the most in the moment, and ultimately the least commercial. By contrast, Lindsey and Christine fine-tuned their commercial pop hit formulae.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. Are you comparing apples with oranges--Buckingham's Fleetwood Mac work with Nicks's solo work? If there's a commercial pop hit formula at work in "That's How We Do It in L.A." or the "D.W. Suite," I can't spot it. Nor can I necessarily call the latter any less personal an expression of admiration, confusion, & perhaps grief than "Nightbird."

The rampant notion on this board that the personal is expressed only through lyrics is a fallacious one.

And calling her songs "the least commercial" puts the cart before the horse, does it not? They're actually the most commercial because . . . they generated the most commerce (so to speak). From an artistic standpoint, too, how does a production like "Edge of Seventeen" or "Stand Back" seem less commercial to you than, say, "Play in the Rain"? What could be LESS commercial in the pop music world than using very deliberately layered sounds as abstractions of thoughts & emotions? Where does Stevie Nicks do that on any of her albums in the '80s (or since, for that matter)? Furthermore, where does Stevie on any of her albums use words as abstractions of thoughts & emotions, as Lindsey has tried? (Stevie doesn't sound-paint with words, per se, although we could probably find snippets of exceptions.)

Your main idea--that the double album format both allowed the band to stretch out sonically & perhaps lyrically, and obviated the need for solo albums--is a very interesting one. I think such a format could have done just that for the band, had it been carried into the future. But "Tusk" also signaled the last time the band sealed itself off--all five members with a couple of trusted engineers--in a studio for lengthy periods, forcing interaction & group therapy (musical & psychological). "Tusk" was a natural extension of those circumstances. Without the circumstances in later years, would such album formats have been likely or even possible? The solo albums really are the metaphorical fracturing of the band: there is no zeitgeist or band dynamic that unites "Law & Order," "Bella Donna," "The Visitor," & "Christine McVie."

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

The rampant notion on this board that the personal is expressed only through lyrics is a fallacious one.

Originally Posted by David

Furthermore, where does Stevie on any of her albums use words as abstractions of thoughts & emotions, as Lindsey has tried? (Stevie doesn't sound-paint with words, per se, although we could probably find snippets of exceptions.)

When you say that, you make me think of Lindsey's demos where words are just place holders . . . and, even then, remnants of lyrics he's used since BN (dog with a bone). Yet, the emotion in Given Thing or Wear You Out is hardly less real, just because it's not enunciated in words.

In the same sense that Lindsey has tried to recreate the sound of other instruments with guitars, he has also tried to mimic feeling with sound that's non-vocal and, alternatively, to use vocal interjections to hasten, sharpen or accent the music. When you think of it that way, it's no surprise he has borrowed tribal or Asian influences, to say without speaking.

Michele

[TrueFaith77]

Two great posts. Thank you, David and Michele.