Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinHead
How did a thread about Mick getting sick mutate into a debate about Stevie's relevance in the band? Whatever... 
If Fleetwood Mac weren't so lock-step and tight-knitted, they could ad-libbed the rest of the show in some manner. But they just don't have those abilities; once they go off script they get completely lost and then grind to a |
You know, everybody keeps talking about what they could have done.
But nobody seems to want to focus on what they
should have done.
The name of the band is "Fleetwood Mac."
They're named after their bass guitar player, John McVie, and their drummer, Mick Fleetwood. Their leaders. Their friends. The ones who formed the band more than 47 years ago.
Like they said in "Jurassic Park," "Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we MUST do a thing."
Just because they
could have continued while their best friend, their leader, the founder of the band, was, at age 67, suddenly puking his guts up for unknown reasons, unable to perform for the first time ever in 48 years, about to be rushed to the hospital with symptoms which could potentially have been those of a heart attack, does not mean that they
should have continued. And no offense but I bet you that any comments addressing this question from the other Four Fireflies would not be as lengthy, but would simply boil down to just two words.
Something to think about, z'all's I'm sayin'.