View Single Post
  #214  
Old 01-24-2021, 09:09 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 7,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwindedDreams View Post
But you use the words "pretty clearly" and that was mean. There's no need to be condescending to me when all I asked for was help to understand why 2007 was different than 2017. Because to me, Stevie was a legend in 2007 and was a legend in 2017. I don't know why you feel the need to be abusive.
Again, how you interpret the tone of my posts isn’t my responsibility. There was no personal attack and no harassing comment. I’m pretty sure people are tiring of your constant stream of character assassinations.

Quote:
And I'll share with you that my view is that Stevie's hitmaking resume didn't change from 2007 to 2017.
Who said anything about her hitmaking resume? Her boost in popularity had little to do with her music.

Quote:
I'll bet this will be pleasing to you: Lindsey solo, Mick solo, or John solo - all individuals who released solo music - could not fill those venues
Why would that be pleasing to me? Why does it matter? In my dream world, John McVie would have a side band that was almost as big as Fleetwood Mac. Kind of like Mike & The Mechanics. But, John would rather be sailing.

Quote:
I think one answer would be promotion. Was 94/95 marketed as aggressively as the 97 tour?
Of course not. Nobody was going to sink a lot of money promoting a version of Fleetwood Mac that didn’t have Stevie Nicks, Christine McVie, and Lindsey Buckingham. Also, they didn’t have an album out, since “Time” was released six weeks after their last tour date. AND, the “Live At The BBC” set, which was released a month before “Time” got considerably more promotion than “Time” got.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote