[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

FIVE SONGS out of FIFTEEN?!?! What, are you nuts? One third of the set is old FM radio warhorses, & you don't call that LOADING DOWN?! Steve, you need to eat more omega-3 or something, because there's obviously been some serious damage.

Dave, man, you are not looking at the big picture. Yes, there are five classic Mac songs (well, actually six, though one was also done by Billy as a solo artist AND was done by Billy's dad and uncle, so it's a matter of perspective). But, the set-list I posted was ONLY for the "Time" tour. Another five of the fifteen songs are "Talkin’ To My Heart," "Winds Of Change," "Nothing Without You," "I Got It In For You," and "Dreamin’ The Dream." In other words, they would have done ALL FIVE songs where Billy and/or Bekka sing lead vocals on the album. And, there's one that was recorded for the album, but not released. It would be very hard to fill an entire set with just five songs, even for an opening act. I guess they could also dive into "I Do" and "All Over Again," but how would that be different than diving into "Say You Love Me" or "You Make Loving Fun?"

Originally Posted by David

You'd have to ask Bob Welch why. Maybe he wanted to play that stuff.

I think this is it. Bob and Bekka did "Oh Well" during his last gig in Nashville not too long ago, and he recorded it on his most recent solo album. In fact, I think Bob frequently played "Manalishi," "Oh Well," and "Shake Your Moneymaker" during his solo gigs. Similarly, maybe Bekka and Billy wanted to play SOME of the classics. Billy has always said that he was a huge fan of the band long before he ever met Mick Fleetwood. I mean, if I joined Fleetwood Mac, I'd certaily want to play "Oh Well" and "Go Your Own Way." Billy played a lot of songs he didn't write for a lot of years in Fleetwood Mac. He did leave the group in 1993, but came back within a year, so obviously he didn't feel a slave to the old music.

Originally Posted by David

What does any of that have to do with what the Time band SHOULD have done?

I would think that enjoying what you're doing while also creating a distinct path is what every artist should do. It would be foolish to expect the group to drop all references to its past considering how huge that past was, especially when the two main vocalists have a combined total of ten songs (two being Billy's duets with Chrisitne from BTM). The set list I came up with for just the "Time" tour has seven of ten, which is adventerous by Fleetwood Mac's standards.

Originally Posted by David

You can respect an audience instead -- assuming that the audience has a perfectly legitimate right to enjoy or NOT enjoy your new material, but it has to hear it first.

Your faith in humanity is sweet, really, it is. But, I'd be willing to bet that audiences would want their money back if they didn't get GYOW. And really, isn't that the song they've been blowing their load on for the last 28 years?

Originally Posted by David

What makes you think that people in large numbers out there want to hear "Say You Love Me" if the original track's writer, arranger, vocalist & all three harmony singers are absent in the band that still calls itself by the same name?

Because people do it all the time. There are always a percentage of people who go to a show to hear the songs they remember. I think there was a thread on one of the boards posted just this week stating at one time, there were like six groups touring as the Shirelles, that there was a group of 20-somethings touring as the Zombies, and that there's only one original Temptation. (And so on, and so on...). Plus, it's not like they had a wealth of material at that point. Billy certainly did, but I don't think a lot of those songs would work in this particular situation, and I don't think a situation where one singer has like 80% of the set, and it's not the one who just sings, would be a good idea. I guess they could do Delaney & Bonnie covers, but isn't that similar to doing Chrisine McVie songs?

Originally Posted by David

That was precisely the problem with the whole thing: band calling itself Fleetwood Mac & therefore fallaciously assuming that it was "obligated" to play songs from the distant past that none of its current members had any direct connection with. You don't imagine, do you, that audiences LIKE that??

I think they do. Fleetwood Mac audiences have for years. I read a comment from like 1974, when they were doing four Green songs in the set, that somebody said that he wished that they would do "Albatross." I think a band like Fleetwood Mac, that has gone through changes with its singers/songwriters, IS obligated to play the old songs until the new singers/songwriters have established themselves in the band, which is a process that takes some time. But, it's a scale thing. I think it made sense in 1994 and 1995 to do a set made up mostly of old songs. They didn't have an album out, so it's not like people were going to say "I liked that new song, I'm going to get the album." It's just in an eleven song set, a band with new personnel should do more than one new song. Now, to their credit, they did play "Blow By Blow" when I saw them in 1994, which was commercially available at the time (and which can be downloaded off of my recently updated website...shameless, eh?).

Originally Posted by David

Five out of fifteen -- ONE-THIRD -- is in no way shape or form "minimal," Mr. Sophistry.

Okay, but 100% of songs off the new album that feature those singer/songwriters is good. And an outtake. And a Zoo song. And a couple of songs from BTM. Sir, I contend that the set list I presented for the "Time" tour is about as adventerous as Fleetwood Mac would ever get.

Originally Posted by David

There is NO DIFFERENCE in principle between playing SYLM, GYOW, Don't Stop, The Chain & Dreams & playing those five plus five others from that period.

Just as there's no difference in principle been the "Time" band playing those songs and Bob playing "Manalishi" or Stevie and Lindsey playing "Station Man," and I know my views of Bob, Stevie, and Lindsey are greatly enhanced by those covers.

Originally Posted by David

The press in general wouldn't have cared one way or the other. These names -- like Mick Taylor & Al Kooper -- mean little or nothing to the guys reviewing rock albums, most of whom are in their 20s & 30s & think U2 are tired old geezers. Wake up & smell the coffee, Steve.

I don't care what the guys reviewing think about those guys in terms of what they did in the past. I think the reviewers would (or should...I know that it would still be mostly bitching about Stevie) be impressed by how cohesive the project was, and how it reached a level of quality not seen by a band calling itself Fleetwood Mac in years. It's sort of the opposite of the Dave Mason thing, where they were hoping to capitalize on his name. With the guys I suggested, it would be more capitalizing on their talents, which is what every band SHOULD do.

Originally Posted by David

No, actually...BECAUSE THE TWENTYSOMETHINGS REVIEWING ROCK ALBUMS FOR NEWSPAPERS DON'T KNOW WHO THE HELL DELANEY & BONNIE ARE!! D'UH.

While I think that's obvious, I actually DID read a review of "Time" where the review said it sounded less like Fleetwood Mac as it did Delaney & Bonnie, which I personally don't hear. That's the only reason I mentioned it. I mean, when has not being familiar with something stopped people from expressing an opinion on it? Ironically, it happens all the time with the "Time" album.