Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
Your entitled to your opinion but if you honestly do not see how The Dance put Fleetwood Mac back into the public's eye as a band, there is nothing I can say to change your mind  . |
But, that comment contradicts what you said earlier when you said "I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to." I agree that sales don't make a good album. But they are an indication of a band's popularity. The fact that one can take THREE albums released within a few years of each other and still not come up with 500,000 tells me the the "debacle" wasn't just the "Time" album.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
Like it or not it re-established the band or at the very least the 75-87 band.
|
As a "popular" band. I thought sales (popularity) weren't the thing that made an album good. Yes, the "Rumours" band is what most think whenever Fleetwood Mac is mentioned. Nobody is arguing that point. Still, it doesn't mean that the band could continue with new personnel and be viable. I agree there are a lot of issues with "Time" that limited how well it could have done, and the sales of OOTC and SA suggest that it probably wouldn't have sold well even if they had promoted the thing. However, we'll never know the full potential the album may have had, since they never promoted it. And, we'll never know what would have happened to the band if it HAD continued. Christine was done with the band and Bekka and Billy were already thinking of working together outside of Fleetwood Mac. Which leaves Dave, and I'm betting Mick was less than thrilled with Dave's new material. To have the band suddenly break-up, and almost just as suddenly go back to the "Rumours" band was, for me, anti-climactic. It would have been more interesting, for me, to see the band continue, with all the personnel changes, and morph into something altogether different. "The Dance" insured that there would really only be one Fleetwood Mac, a sad thing because 1) it really cheats the guys in other variations of the group and 2) it means that there will be much fewer albums and tours than we may have gotten, since Lindsey is the slowest, non-reclusive music maker known to man.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
When Lindsey left in 87 people went to see them by the thousands because Stevie and Chris were still there. In 1997 we got Lindsey back. in 2005 chris left but Lindsey and Stevie were still there, so the audience still figured they would be getting a fair chunk of the songs they expected to hear.
|
Hmmm. Is this the subliminal "the band really can't function without Stevie" comment? Because, some have wondered how the band would have done if she had quit, but Lindsey and Christine had stayed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
One new album in ten years or ten new albums in ten years doesn't matter as far as justifying their viability as a working band.
|
It TOTALLY matters. To try and honestly say that Fleetwood Mac is as much a working band now as they were 1975-1980 (or 1967-1980 if you want to be technical) is total crap.