Quote:
Originally Posted by Fannymac
Stevie put her solo career on hold for almost a DECADE for Fleetwood Mac
|
I don't get this.. what decade? Before Bella Donna there wasn't a Stevie solo career, she got famous in Fleetwood Mac and before that she belonged to a band called Buckingham Nicks. And the 1994-2001 gap.. is not almost a decade, I think. And within that time there was only one Fleetwood Mac album: The Dance
The 2001-2011 gap, it's a decade yes, but there were just 2 FM albums; Say You Will and the Live in Boston... I think there was more reasons for not recording a studio album, beyond Fleetwood Mac
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrStevie
. Let's face it, there is no Fleetwood Mac without Stevie.  |
Oh yes, there is a Fleetwood Mac without Stevie Nicks, but not as successful as they would want. I mean, I say this, not thinking as a fan. Probably I (and many of us) would find interesting to see Mick, John and Lindsey (and probable any new member), but do you think the general public would? Not at all, I'm sure. A tour with just those three would be a short one. Ok, you may answer me
Who cares! I'd go to see them. But I do believe that Mick, John or Lindsey do care! A Fleetwood Mac tour in small theatres, or clubs... after being so successful during the Unleashed tour (I remember the AA arena at Dallas, almost sold out! Thousand of souls enjoying the show!)... not to mention the huge 70s tours... I don't think they would enjoy it.
Bob Brunning mentioned it in his book about the Time tour.. Fleetwood Mac sharing the stage with Reo Speedwagon..
Again, think like a common guy who likes FM wants to see them, not a die-hard fan. Fleetwood Mac without Christine.. and now without Stevie? It's like.. Beatles with Paul & Ringo, and some other supporting players. Hummm..... That would be more a Paul tour than a Beatles tour