I think there's a big difference between a change in their young careers (especially considering that they weren't even particularly well known in the US) when none of the various lineups had lasted more than a few years each and a change when they're all 70 years old and have broken apart the lineup that launched them into the crazy fame and success that made them iconic, produced most of their legendary songs and albums and has been definitive for the name 'Fleetwood Mac' for several decades.

:laugh: they didn't even exist in my head at the time. i couldn't care less about FM or any of its members in the 90s. and yeah, that's how "reunions" work - you gotta reunite everyone! :]

we are talking about who needed it and for what reasons, not who all was needed in order to do the reunion. as a LB fan, i'm saying i'd have much more music from him by now if he wasn't held back over and over by FM since that reunion. of course that's not something he'd agree with, that's just "only in my head"! ;)

Lindsey had few fans back then and probably even fewer now. I always thought the reunion was for him more than anyone else, to make a few bucks since he had not had any real income since Tango, and that was just from album sales not even the tour.

Nah it's all about Mick's obsession. The only reason Fleetwood Mac continues to exist is because Mick rallies them all together. John nearly bottled out round Tango time according to the first autobiography. Stevie needs Mac a lot less than vice versa and John's quite happy just yachting and watching Penguin progs on National Geographic I reckon.

But I do find it interesting that during his ten year period out of the band he only came up with one album whereas in the post SYW period we got three (plus BuckVie of course).

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/30/b...-tomorrow.html

Several industry executives believe the current tour [1997] is more of a financial imperative for Mr. Fleetwood than for other members of the band. Though he declined to comment specifically on his net worth, he would say only half kidding, "I'm not broke if that's what you mean." Whereas in contrast, Mr. Buckingham is said to have held onto his money, and Ms. Nicks has earned income from hit solo albums and royalties for songs she wrote.

Nobody in Fleetwood Mac is ever in more dire financial straits than Mick Fleetwood, rest assured.

I figure it has to do with where he was in his personal life back then. I speculate that since he went the Family Man route, that part of his life has grounded him enough to be more productive than ever in his musical career.

Yes—when OOTC came out it was the culmination of many years of rediscovering his priorities and focusing on them. It took him a long time to get over working with FM, especially on the previous two albums. But once OOTC was released, he never seemed to slow down. He was already at work on new material when Mick intervened and coaxed him into a MAC reunion. And then, after SYW, he was really on fire, with no hindrances.

What’s so sad, however, is that once he eventually found his way back to the band that brought him to stardom and once he wanted to celebrate his affiliation with it through new music, Stevie kept blocking him. Rightly or wrongly, working with him seems to have traumatized her.

Not exactly accurate. They patched things up sometime during “Time” and Lindsey invited Mick to be a part of the original “Gift of Screws.”

To play devil’s advocate, Lindsey saw how the band was commercially struggling, as was he, and found a way to get Mick on board with his new music, probably knowing it would lead to a big Mac reunion, without looking desperate. I can’t believe he would bring on Mick without expecting it to lead to Fleetwood Mac.

I like that theory (isn’t this weird my ass!!!)

But t devil advocate your already advocated scenerio, He could’ve just finally wanted to have a real drummer play on his solo songs hence why his gift of Screws songs are far better then his previous 3 solo albums combined) and he’s not as sociable as Stevie, so he wasn’t going to look very far for a great drummer and bassist.

That's what's upsetting—Christine was an opportunity to herald great new music from that configuration of the band, and now it's blown for good. We wanted a Tusk-like triumph of experimentation and commercialism, a series of albums that would put the Mac back at the forefront of quirky, inventive rock. It was always a pipe dream anyway, but it felt like a stronger possibility with Christine's return than it had in two decades. The 1997 reunion felt like a long-term opportunity just flowering, and it got dashed when Chris quit just a year later. Her return created the same excitement about opportunities, but it too got dashed. People are angry and frustrated more over these hills and valleys than they would be if the band's trajectory were just straight down.

That sums it up perfectly. We Mac fans feel like the donkey chasing the carrot. There is excitement over possibilities but something always happens that blocks those possibilities. This is even more bitter this time because of age and the likelihood of these being the last few years of the band.

Mick should have held everyone together "We are a band. This is our legacy. We want one last tour. We have been through thick and thin and nothing will stop us now. We owe it to ourselves and our fans to stick it out one more time."