Originally Posted by michelej1
Well, depending on the quality of the clubs you're playing, you probably wouldn't be judged as harshly either, if the club is known for the quality of the talent it attracts, its acoustics, etc.
Also, if you're alone on the bill or playing with a string of other crippled acts makes a difference. Yeah, the "club" wasn't the problem. It was just an abbreviated way of describing a collection of factors that the writer perceived as negative.
I understand what you're saying, but it's still not a neat comparison with Fleetwood Mac (compared to Styx or Journey), given that it already had three or four distinct periods by that time. Mick and John were the only originals still in the band by 1971.
Which isn't to say the band didn't screw up. The played it right when they opened for Crosby, Stills, & Nash. That's a very good fit. They may have only done one or two new songs a set, but that was okay since the album hadn't been released, yet. The REO/Benetar tour was a disaster. They would have been better off, IMO, headlining a medium-size club tour and focusing on newer material than have anything to do with this tour. But, they wouldn't have made as much on a club tour, and may have lost money. The only saving grace is that the album still hadn't been released.
OTOH, I find it odd that when people talk about this period, they always mention Stevie and Lindsey not being in the band, but never mention that they were bombing as solo acts themesleves. Lindsey was either an opening act or was playing small to medium sized clubs. Stevie was playing the larger venues, at about 25% capacity. So, how beneficial would they have been? The problem in 1995 is that people didn't care about Fleetwood Mac or the people who had been in the band (save for Peter Green, who went from being rumored to have died, to being rumored to have been preparing for his own comeback). It took a joint effort from Time Warner and Viacom to get people back into the Mac.