Quote:
Originally Posted by Iktomi
I consider myself a big fan of Fleetwood Mac's music now, but long prior to having any interest in Fleetwood Mac, I'd been a fan of some of those other artists/bands that the OP had listed, even as a young tween. So in saying that, I guess to me, the first/second tier would belong to bands/artists who were musically, culturally, and/or socially innovative, deep, or boundary pushing. They are the type of bands that would have college history courses dedicated to them, because their influence was that far-reaching and their presence went above and beyond music and pop culture. These artists, like Dylan or the Beatles, are ingrained in our collective social/cultural consciousness and history, whether you're fan of them or not. Fleetwood Mac is a very great band with very great music, but even with Tusk, they weren't quite as innovative or the movers and shakers as those first-tier/second-tier artists. Even some of the band members themselves would admit that they pushed LB to play it safe. To me, their great musicianship and ear for good pop music though, definitely places them somewhere behind bands like Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, so third tier sounds right.
As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!
|
I think FM were considered quite innovative during the Peter Green years, he is rightly seen as being one of the most influential blues players of all time. After that era though I would agree with you, even though the Chris/Lindsey/Stevie era is my favourite.
I agree about The Who though, I've never really liked more than a couple of their songs.
The Rolling Stones are another band I'm never convinced by. They wrote some amazing stuff during their early years and are still a massive live act, but how many great albums have they produced since the late 70s?? They seemed to give up the ghost as songwriters and concentrate purely on touring.