To be fair, in the UK (in the 60’s) Fleetwood Mac were household names and had big big hits.
No not as ginormous as they became with the Rumours 5 lineup.
And your right it’s The Rumours 5 legacy that’s gone.............

That's why I qualified my statement with "not in the 1960's".

Parting ways with Lindsey didn’t ruin their legacy. Calling a Fleetwood Mac album something else, surrendering any future creative potential they might have had as Fleetwood Mac with Lindsey, THAT ruined their legacy. That damage was already done.

And we know WHO it was that forced it to become that. $tevie Nick$.

The worst thing that ever happened to FM. Lindsey is the best thing that ever happened to them.

I haven't really commented on this before, but I finally will.

Whenever you list Lindsey's sins, you always place among them as one of the worst the fact that the album he and Christine McVie made together, on which Mick and John appeared, was not called a Fleetwood Mac album. You have presented this, time and time again, as something appalling - in this case, characterizing it as a move that "ruined their legacy."

Of course, you have every right to your opinion.

However, I find this quite puzzling, frankly.

Stevie Nicks was in the band at the time. Stevie Nicks did not appear on the album. Calling it a Fleetwood Mac album, therefore, would have been inaccurate and false advertising... because... It was not actually a Fleetwood Mac album.

I just scratch my head every time I see you declare your outrage over this.

Oh okay, misread or misunderstood....

(I am watching Nigeria and Iceland .....crikey Nigeria score.)

It wouldn’t have even been the first Fleetwood Mac album not to feature an active fronting member. They did “Then Play On” without any participation from Jeremy Spencer, so it could have been done.

Mick said Spencer played some piano on it, so technically....

However, I do see your point in that light, if you truly believe they would have destroyed their legacy by releasing Then Play On under another name. I understand why you believe it could have been called a Fleetwood Mac album, even why it should have been called a Fleetwood Mac album.

But... if I hadn't been warned beforehand, I would have felt cheated and misled if I had bought an album which claimed to be a Fleetwood Mac album only to discover it was missing a key member, Stevie Nicks. I don't think I am the only one who would have felt that way.

Indeed, I think most fans would have considered it to be false advertising. "We were told we were getting a Fleetwood Mac album, but there's no Stevie Nicks on this. We've been lied to."

I believe it would have dishonest to call it a Fleetwood Mac album. I believe what you consider Lindsey's worst sin was a virtue.

I just wish that you could see that from one perspective, the choice was actually ethical.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. They went in with the idea they were making a new Fleetwood Mac album, not a duet album. The way they danced around it not being called Fleetwood Mac was embarrassing.

As for “false advertising,” all they needed to do is have a band photo without Stevie for the front cover. During the press for the album, they only needed to explain that Stevie wasn’t involved in the project due to solo commitments, but was still a member in good standing and would be rejoining them for the upcoming world tour.

23rd
Happy birthday for next month Angel75
:wavey:


Ahem...sorry everyone else

Nearly the same, I am the 26th! Making you Cancer and I'm a Leo.
Happy birthday for next month too!

And then she would have sued the pants off then. That theory never would have worked nor would she allow it. She loved holding the reins, but was then pissed they released it anyway under a different name.

I agree that this should have been called a Fleetwood Mac album and that it frankly is a Fleetwood Mac album in many respects, but this sounds far more complicated than doing what they actually did, which was slap a different name on it. The publicity tour would have been a never-ending explanation of what fans AREN'T getting rather than a celebration of the music itself.

What they should have done, but didn't have the courage to because of financial considerations, is given Stevie the ultimatum. They could have called it a Fleetwood Mac album then. The reason they didn't is why kicking Lindsey out over "scheduling conflicts" is so infuriating. One member refuses to record, the other asks for a delay (if you buy the company line). To a band, one of these objections seems like a much bigger deal than the other. (Not to mention the fact that Lindsey was likely fine with keeping the schedule and sprinkling in solo dates, but that's a digression.)

And therein lies the sad truth about the band that we all love... for some of the members, it stopped being about the music a long time ago.

But, really, they weren’t spared questions about why it wasn’t called Fleetwood Mac, and Stevie wasn’t spared questions about why she didn’t participate. They really didn’t gain any advantage by not calling it Fleetwood Mac. If anything, it came off as awkward and it hurt album sales.

In principle, I agree. However, tours make money, albums don’t, and the reality is that she’s the big draw. I don’t like that, but Mick and John don’t make money from royalties, so they need the income from touring.

On what grounds? She doesn’t own the name.