Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerMcvie
Well, they could go back to being very creative, with lots of output, if it wasn't for her holding them back. True?
|
Nope. That statement couldn’t be more false. She’s not holding anything back. I’m favt she’s allowing for everyone in the band to do what they do best at this stage in their careers while simultaneously giving the fans the most of everything. She’s off doing a career best tour (without any exaggeration, although I’m sure you’d disagree) stevie touring AND buck/I’ve allowed for way more songs to be heard live in 2016/2017 then if the band had toured. Plus everyone and their mom noticehow all parties are much happier and less staged apart. Even Mick gets to have an outlet to play drums with his blues band.
But I can already here the false rebuttal:
“Well at least we’d get Fleetwood Mac touring with NEW material,
That were all deprived of because of stevie Nicks. Which couldn’t be further from the truth. This current decade has provided so much new Fleetwood Mac related music, this terrible dry spell narrative some on here love to bring up is just wrong. Stevie has released 2 long solo albums and toured behind both and played many live cuts from both albums. Even if you consider 24 KG not a real new album which I don’t see the logic behind at all, In Your Dreams is recent enough for me to consider stevie Nicks an artist still. Considering it Was realeased in her early 60s an age I would consider retirement age for most. And then there’s still 5 to 6 actual new songs between The 24 karat album and soundtracks.
But we got deprived of Fleetwood Mac new music you say. Well if you say that your joining the group of people who consider stevie the litmus test of what makes Something considered Fleetwood Mac. Because what I believe is we 110 percent got new Fleetwood Mac music in 2017 with the Buckingham McVie. Now that it’s not as new I can confidently consider carnival begin and too far gone to be in my top 20 or even 10 Fleetwood Mac songs. I don’t care what the cover says and neither should anyone on this site. The name on the cover of the album being a hang up for so many really baffles me. Stevie is not needed on this album. The 10 songs flow so well together, for all we know stevie may have ruined the flow?
I’m by no means trying to say we should all be greatful to stevie for providing us fans with the very best Scenerio to maximize the fans value in these late years of the band, but she sort of unintentionally has done just that, and I am.
The only legit reason I see for anyone being pissed at stevie is her almost downright disregard for her fans intelligence with her bs in interviews. I want to throw up as bad as some of you when she speaks in interviews. Her and the rest of the band really annoy me with the dishonesty and permenant act of “keep the peace in public” for the good of the band when they tour next. I think this is a group criticism or specifically mick maybe more then it is a purely stevie thing which some people seem to assume. It’s infuriating they just won’t be honest about the situation.
But at least from an ends justifying the means stand point Stevie’s actions have definitely been good for the Fleetwood Mac brand as a whole, at least pertaining to output. Stevie might be as delusional as you say, but your as delusional as her if you think she’s prevented any sort of output from happening, outside of “maybe” impacting the name one of the album cover.