Quote:
Originally Posted by gldstwmn
When they started to turn on Christine I realized that we'd started to cross the Rubicon.   |
Reading the threads in the Rumours forum, yeah it seems like there's been an element of misogyny in the over-the-top rage being expressed by some posters. It makes it difficult to take anything they say seriously.
I found it annoying that Nicks was avoiding recording a new Mac album, and I can see why Buckingham fans would feel its really unfair that Nicks didn't get bounced out of the band for refusing to record but Buckingham does for refusing to tour. I think it IS unfair, but I also think its the reality of the business side of Fleetwood Mac: Initially Nicks didn't have much influence in the band even though she was the obvious star of the band. That has changed over the years, I think - Nicks wasn't fired for refusing to record because she couldn't be, whereas Buckingham was fired for not touring because he doesn't hold the power in the band now - Nicks (and Fleetwood) do.
Ultimately though I think the working relationship between Buckingham and Nicks just finally completely broke down, so this result was eventually inevitable. And I think what many irate posters on this board are forgetting is that Fleetwood Mac has always morphed into different bands....saying that Mac should have "just broken up" instead of moving on post-Buckingham is ignoring that fact.