Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
But, that comment contradicts what you said earlier when you said "I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to." I agree that sales don't make a good album. But they are an indication of a band's popularity. The fact that one can take THREE albums released within a few years of each other and still not come up with 500,000 tells me the the "debacle" wasn't just the "Time" album.
As a "popular" band. I thought sales (popularity) weren't the thing that made an album good. Yes, the "Rumours" band is what most think whenever Fleetwood Mac is mentioned. Nobody is arguing that point. Still, it doesn't mean that the band could continue with new personnel and be viable. I agree there are a lot of issues with "Time" that limited how well it could have done, and the sales of OOTC and SA suggest that it probably wouldn't have sold well even if they had promoted the thing. However, we'll never know the full potential the album may have had, since they never promoted it. And, we'll never know what would have happened to the band if it HAD continued. Christine was done with the band and Bekka and Billy were already thinking of working together outside of Fleetwood Mac. Which leaves Dave, and I'm betting Mick was less than thrilled with Dave's new material. To have the band suddenly break-up, and almost just as suddenly go back to the "Rumours" band was, for me, anti-climactic. It would have been more interesting, for me, to see the band continue, with all the personnel changes, and morph into something altogether different. "The Dance" insured that there would really only be one Fleetwood Mac, a sad thing because 1) it really cheats the guys in other variations of the group and 2) it means that there will be much fewer albums and tours than we may have gotten, since Lindsey is the slowest, non-reclusive music maker known to man.
Hmmm. Is this the subliminal "the band really can't function without Stevie" comment? Because, some have wondered how the band would have done if she had quit, but Lindsey and Christine had stayed.
It TOTALLY matters. To try and honestly say that Fleetwood Mac is as much a working band now as they were 1975-1980 (or 1967-1980 if you want to be technical) is total crap.
|
I don't see how my comments about sales not making a good album and The Dance putting Fleetwood Mac back into the public eye contradict each other. The Dance sold well we know that, but that was only part of it. People wanted to see the band, their interest was piqued. Whether it was because of the album, because of the heavy rotation it was given on television I don't know but it was there and it happened. What pre conceptions the public has about who or what makes "Fleetwood Mac" in 2005, is not in my control, but it is what it is. Oldies band possibly, great live band definately, despite what some call stale set lists. And like I said before about the Dance, the same goes for the Say You Will tour, people left the arena buzzing about how great the show was, band sounded etc..
I never implied nor said that Fleetwood Mac couldn not continue without Stevie. If Stevie had left before the Tango tour instead of Lindsey, people would have still attended the shows because of Christine and Lindsey. They have enough well known songs between them to carry the set.
Saying Fleetwood Mac is a working band is not total crap. They were out there for 135 shows for Say You Will. And if you want to get technical it would be 2 albums since The Dance in 8 years, the same as the 2 we got after Tusk and between Tango, another 8 years. Is it screwed up that most people think of Fleetwood Mac as the 75-87 band yes, but again it is what it is.
I don't like one album that Fleetwood Mac has produced. I have all of them and love some and like some, I just happen to not like Time, it has nothing to do with the fact that 20 people bought it. How many copies has Future Games sold? And I love that one.