View Single Post
  #69  
Old 11-05-2009, 10:55 AM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by holidayroad View Post
I guess I should phrase my comment in this way-Time does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac most fans are familiar with.
In a VERY similar vein, Rumours does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac that fans of the band from the get-go are familiar with...hell, even Then Play On didn't sound like the Fleetwood Mac fans were familiar with at the time, either...the band was all about "change"...change in personnel, change in sound.

Fleetwood Mac was damned lucky that there was an audience for the namby-pamby soft-rock bull**** sound that they struck multi-platinum with, since there were a whole lot of their core fanbase back in 1975 who jumped ship BECAUSE of Buckingham Nicks. And, if you REALLY listen to Time with a totally open mind, it sounds MORE like the 1975 album than "most fans" would really admit to...most fans distaste of Time is due to personnel issues than the actual "sound" of the band. The "expectation" was WHO was in the band, not WHAT the band sounded like.

I condemn Fleetwood Mac for their 1997 "reunion"...they became a nostalgia act from that moment and just should've packed it in after The Dance tour.

Fleetwood Mac is dead
Long live Fleetwood Mac
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote