Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Fleetwood Mac in 1994 & especially 1995 should have been doing that instead of ****ing around with Say You Love Me & Don't Stop & The Chain & all those others.
|
I agree with you on 1995, but not 1994, for the simple reason that they probably didn't have the new material in 1994. The one thing that seems to be forgotten with your argument is that the band usually played about twelve songs per set, but those three only had seven songs (eight, if you throw in "These Strange Times") on the actual album that WAS released. So, they would still have needed at least four or five songs to fill out a set. Unless you're also suggesting that Bekka sing Christine's "Time" songs as well, which I don't see as being any different than Bekka singing SYLM, YMLF, or "Don't Stop."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
There's still a difference between that situation & the situation in 1994/95. The Heroes band wasn't living down huge, iconic hits from a previous incarnation in the United States.
|
Which makes playing only two new songs off the current album and FOUR Peter Green songs all the more curious. Those four were the core of the band for five albums by that point. If anything, the "Heroes" set should be held to higher scrutiny.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
The geography is different, & that makes a big difference. Fleetwood Mac in 1994/95 were up against previous incarnations in the United States that swamped it in the public's eye.
|
The "Rumours" era Fleetwood Mac was hugely popular around the world, so I don't see how this is relevant. I don't think there was any country in which they could escape "Rumours." Maybe some African, Asian, and ex-Soviet countries, but that's about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
We've talked about this ad infinitum before. I see no good reason for the band to play Don't Stop or Go Your Own Way in 1994/95, & plenty of bad reasons. That whole "have to play" mentality of yours is what destroyed Fleetwood Mac in 1995. It didn't help them at all. It totally hurt them. All it did was shove a reminder in people's faces.
|
David, I would buy that argument if either Stevie or Lindsey were having huge success as solo artists. But the fact that Stevie was playing to 1/2 filled venues and Lindsey was openig for Tina Turner shows me that there wasn't exactly a huge demand for any of them. And, as has been said many times, if you combine the sales of OOTC, SA, and "Time," it would still have been a disaster by FM's standards.
The big problem is that no older (classic) artist, save maybe for Tina Turner, was having a lot of chart success. Fleetwood Mac was the opening act for CSN in 1994. They were touring in support of a new album. It went nowhere, which was also the case when Neil Young came back into the fold a few years later. This is the time when radio became completely fragmented. Classic rock stations were classic hits by the classic artists. New rock stations were new hits by new artists This made it impossible for the new hits by old artists. As such, and this is the key point with all of this, the old songs were really the only thing the old acts had to market the shows. "Then they should have changed the name" so some say. They would still have had the exact same problem. Mick, John, and even Billy were too heavily associated with their membership in Fleetwood Mac, so breaking away from the band's legacy altogether, even under a new name, would have been impossible. People would still expect to hear the classics from Fleetwood Mac.
Sure, I could see how some not familiar with the band's history would think they were seeing a bastardized version of Fleetwood Mac. They would have thought that regardless if they were playing "Talkin' To My Heart" or "Don't Stop." Oddly enough, most people, at least at the shows I attended or have bootlegs, seem to give the band an overwhelmingly positive reception. (I even heard a few CSN fans say that CSN should have been the opening act!)