[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

It's a ****kicker's worth of difference: audiences know SYLM & Don't Stop, they don't know I Do & Hollywood.

Either way, it's a Christine song, and Bekka singing that is Bekka covering a Christine song.

Originally Posted by David

Wow. You really missed the point. My point had nothing to do with the popularity of Rumours around the world. My point had everything to do with the very minimal popularity of "Then Play On" & Dog & Dustbin in the United States.

And, you seem to keep missing the point that it makes the decision to play so many Green-era songs, especially "Black Magic Woman," so odd in 1974, at least if you're coming from the perspective of forging a unique identity. Sure, the scale was different, but the concept is identical.

Originally Posted by David

But that wasn't my point, either. What Stevie or Lindsey was doing solo in 1994/95 is irrelevant to the fact that, when Fleetwood Mac -- or any cover band in the United States -- played SYLM or YMLF or GYOW, the audience (whether it was in the open-air venue or the bar or the Bar Mitzvah or the corporate party) immediately linked the song to the Fleetwood Mac that rules the American airwaves in the 1970s.

So, then, why is it acceptable for Stevie and Lindsey to do "The Chain" at solo shows? Because they were on "Rumours?" Well so were Mick and John. It was their album, too. If it's unacceptable for Mick and John to do GYOW because it would make people think of "Rumours," then why is it acceptable for Lindsey? Because he was the singer/songwriter of GYOW? Either way, people are thinking of X's previous glories, not necessarily their new material. The bottom line is that the success of "Rumours" is something that NONE of them will ever be able to live down.

Originally Posted by David

Any time ANYONE plays Dreams or SYLM (at least in this country), the listener immediately thinks of Fleetwood Mac if he thinks of anyone at all

And, go figure, Fleetwood Mac would play songs that are immediately associated with Fleetwood Mac. In any event, whenever people see Mick Fleetwood, they think of Fleetwood Mac. He IS one of the most unique looking characters in the history of rock, and he was on the cover of two of the band's most successful albums. His presence alone makes getting away from the "Rumours" era impossible.

Originally Posted by David

The 1994 band should not have been playing any of those if they wanted to cement a new identity & get their own hits or grow their own audience!! it's as simple as that.

That's why I was talking about chart positions in 1994! Established artists weren't having hits. Hell, the two "stars" of Fleetwood Mac weren't having hits! It's pretty obvious those days were over for all of them. Now, I agree that they shouldn't have done an almost all oldies show, but to throw EVERYTHING out makes no sense, either. People expect certain songs when they see Fleetwood Mac.

Originally Posted by David

What do you mean "market the shows"? To market such shows, you announce that you're playing at the Konocti Harbor Spa & Resort, & people either show up or they don't!

And, where do they announce stuff like that? On the RADIO. What do they typically do (or, at least were doing in 1994) when they have a radio announcement? They play the songs people remember. When they promoted Lindsey opening for Tina Turner, they actually played "Don't Stop" in the ad. The simple fact is that "Rumours" is the 500 pound elephant in the middle of the room as far as any future incarnation of Fleetwood Mac is concerned. They could choose to pretend like it's not there, or accept it and use it in moderation towards their advantage.

Originally Posted by David

But you PLAY your new material & whatever else you want that ISN'T connected to your former incarnations because otherwise the PEOPLE will continue to think of you as HAS-BEENS trying to CASH IN on your past, & they will grow very weary of you & bored with you.

So, then EVERY incarnation after Peter Green consisted of HAS-BEENS because they all played "Oh Well," eh? Mick, John, and the Fleetwood Mac name will always be connected with that. To completely ignore that is, at best, dysfunctional. I wouldn't have done so much from it. I only listed four that I thought were essential (with Mason in the band). Other than that, it's wide open.

Originally Posted by David

Billy? Come on, what ridiculousness. Stop the next chap you see on the street, show him a photo of Billy, & ask him, "Do you remember this man from Fleetwood Mac?"

You could do the same with John McVie and get the same answer. Billy was on a concert video that sold well enough to be reissued on DVD, was on two very successful tours, and was on an album that had decent sales. Fleetwood Mac fans knew who he was.

Originally Posted by David

Virtually EVERYONE in the audience knew they were watching a band that needed to establish its own identity APART from Rumours & Stevie Witch & Go Your Own Way ... & that wasn't trying very hard to do that.

On that, I don't disagree, except GYOW, which will always be in the set of any future incarnation of Fleetwood Mac. The only two songs from the "Rumours" era that I don't ever see going away are GYOW and "Don't Stop." "Oh Well" is, IMO, a BAND song that transcends personnel. But, I think SYLM, YMLF, GDW, "The Chain," and "World Turning" could certainly have been cut in favor of new songs, Billy's songs from BTM, and maybe even some Delaney & Bonnie/Johnny Burnette Trio material.

There was a lot that could have been different, and should have been different. In their early days, they needed to balance past glories (also true of the Mason material) with creating a new sound. It's not something I see happening with any band over one tour. But, since they ultimately closed shop before doing a proper tour, we'll never know. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say they wouldn't have had a hit with "Time" regardless, but I think it could have turned into something different, if given the opportunity to develop. We'll never know.