Quote:
While I realize it wasn’t called Fleetwood Mac, the LBCM tour wasn’t especially well attended, at least by Fleetwood Mac standards. Meanwhile, Stevie had her biggest solo tour in 2017. As for Fleetwood Mac as a brand, while it was pre-1997 and didn’t feature any of the classic vocalists, the Fleetwood Mac brand itself wasn’t enough to get past opening act or packaged tour level 94-95. Obviously, an MJLC version would be viable, but not at the arena level. So, again, where is the evidence that Fleetwood Mac would still be an arena band without the member who has sold 30 million albums independent of the band? There‘s no way Mick and John were going to gamble that Fleetwood Mac would remain a huge concert draw without Stevie when they knew they would be with Stevie. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fleetwood Mac is "in" brand, nowadays. people go to their shows to say they saw a legendary band and for singalongs while drinking beer. Fleetwood Mac before their re-grouping in 1997 were has-beens and a laughing stock ("i'd rather jack" remember?). |
Quote:
If there had to be a choice between Stevie and Lindsey and there was no possibility of both being in the band together anymore, Mick, John, and Christine knew from prior history that Fleetwood Mac could survive and continue playing arenas without Lindsey. Sure, they could have taken the creative path, but their relevance as a recording entity passed them by. The Eagles had a hit with “Long Road Out of Eden,” but it’s never going to be held in the same regard as their ‘70s albums. The same would be true for any new Fleetwood Mac album. So, do you make a new album that will be largely forgotten in a few years and make $3-$6 million, or do you skip the album and make $12 million, keeping in mind that the core 12-15 songs will be the same in either set? |
Quote:
however, you are right that Mick and promoters didn't want to risk the unknown, just in case. they didn't want to in 2011/12 and didn't want to in 2018. and apparently you are similarly risk averse, or you think you'd be. Quote:
. |
Quote:
The legacy of FM means nothing to him. Hitching his broken down wagon to $tevie's sagging 3 note goat tractor is the best chess move he has. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, it’s not my band. I don’t know any of them. As for risk, if it had been up to me, they would have fired Dave Mason in ‘96 and gone on as a quartet with Bekka and Billy for at least one or two more albums. But, just as in 2018, money called. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Interestingly, Lindsey was the opener for Tina Turner's 1993 tour. A friend of mine saw the show in Montreal, Canada.
I remember her telling me that as it was a Tina audience, no one knew who Lindsey was until he did 'Go Your Own Way', and then he was recognized only as 'what's his name from Fleetwood Mac'. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
as for 1990, it was the time before the interwebs. people here talk about so many people going to the shows and not having any idea who will be in the band. apples and oranges - and again, you know better! :shrug: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In the early days remember the photo of the band where they thought Lindsey was the female (Stevie) and Stevie was the man (Lindsey). Many just referred to them as the band with those 2 ladies in it. But it got crazy when people started referring to Stevie as the lead singer of the band. I always believed that irked the band so much to purposely not release any Stevie single as the lead single off any album. They also only kept her to only 3 songs. Except for Angel, Stevie also never had a song as the first track on any album. I never believed any of this was a "coincidence." I wish they would have axed one of Lindsey's songs on Mirage and included "Smile at you." That album needed an angry rocker but they kept everything "music box." |
Quote:
so when people go around saying look BuckVie with 2 FM front people didn't sell as many tickets as FM last year with the other 2 front people you gotta wonder whether they are willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant of the branding power. BuckVie under Fleetwood Mac name is a completely different beast than BuckVie under 2 names nobody knows. NickVie under Fleetwood Mac name has 2 brands in it - the biggest one - Fleetwood Mac, and the 2nd one - Stevie Nicks. it's been interesting to watch push and pull in advertising over the last 2 years between Mick and Stevie - Mick trying to preserve really hard a Fleetwood Mac brand separate from Stevie Nicks brand. and Stevie and her people and fans for years tried to make those 2 brands synonymous with Stevie Nicks. i've seen tweets that said - i've seen FM and they sucked! then they corrected themselves and said - actually it was Stevie Nicks solo. so 2 opposite forces played over the last 2 years -
|
I have to agree. Buckingham McVie was so out in left field as a name brand. And, the tickets actually did well in my book considering they had to put that together last minute. The tour picked up momentum and even added another leg.
However, had Mick and John Joined them without Goat, then I believe it would have been far more successful as Fleetwood Mac. And furthermore, I enjoyed the Billy/Rick shows far more than Mike and Neil shows. Rick and Billy shows were explosive, deep rich sound, wonderful energy, and they were a force. Billy even sounds better on LB songs. The Mike and Neil shows had some great moments, but flat, flatter, flattest in so many areas. Gypsy made me want to leave. Christine actually played more keys than I expected, but I could barely hear her. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved