![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() http://gloriousnoise.com/2018/the-chain-broken
THE CHAIN, BROKEN OCTOBER 17, 2018 STEPHEN MACAULAY Two of the things that have long fascinated me are (1) what makes a band a band and (2) why performers continue to perform long after ordinary people move on to something else in their lives besides that which created their livelihoods. As for the first point, the issue is that of membership and then lack thereof: if there is a “critical mass” that makes a band what it becomes known to be, does the absence of one or more individuals change the chemistry, as it were, of the band? Does the band contain an individual or individuals such that with out them the band would be something other than it had been? For example, consider The Beatles. If Lennon or McCartney had left the band while it still existed, would it have still been The Beatles? What about Harrison or Starr? The existing members of a band (or perhaps their manager and/or promoters) typically, when losing a key member, find someone who seamlessly integrates so that there is little difference: Consider Journey post-Steve Perry and Yes sans Jon Anderson: their replacements are cover band material extraordinaire. Lindsey Buckingham was, in effect, recently fired by his band mates in Fleetwood Mac. And he was, in effect, orally and audibly replaced by two people, Mike Campbell, formerly of the Heartbreakers, and Neil Finn, he of Crowded House. Presumably, Campbell and Finn got their positions (jobs?) because they would be resonate with what can be considered the “sound” of “Fleetwood Mac,” a band that Buckingham was part of for 33 years: 1975 to 1987; 1997 to 2018. After all, Buckingham was instrumental, literally and figuratively, when it put out Fleetwood Mac, which solidly established the band in a way that resonates today (“Say You Love Me,” “Landslide,” “Rhiannon”) and Rumours (“Go Your Own Way,” “The Chain”). With the departure of Buckingham, the five-person group has become six. So is it the “same” group, or is it different? Is Buckingham’s absence that of a Lennon or McCartney or is it, well, that of Starr? Is his removal from the band as consequential as it would be were they to give Stevie Nicks the shove? Is the Fleetwood Mac that is on tour Fleetwood Mac as they’ve been known for the past few decades, or is it a different band? (I think unfortunately for Buckingham, it doesn’t rise to the Perry/Journey level.) Then the “why,” as in “Why does a performer keep on performing?” Buckingham is 69, eligible for his full Social Security, and he probably doesn’t need to worry about the solvency of that program. So is it about the passion for the music? Is he driven by the Muse who wants him out there on stage with his long-time compatriots? Or is it something else? While I don’t know the answer to that question, the October 9 filing in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, with the Plaintiff Lindsey Buckingham, “an individual,” suing Michael Fleetwood, John McVie, Christine McVie, and Stephanie Nicks, all of whom are singularly described as “an individual,” as well as The Fleetwood Mac Partnership, makes me think that there might be something else to it. As in “This action is necessary to enforce Buckingham’s right to share in the economic opportunities he is entitled to as a member of the partnership created to operate the business of Fleetwood Mac (‘Fleetwood Mac Partnership’ or ‘Partnership’).” Those “economic opportunities” are non-trivial: according to the filing the tour that the band has embarked on would result in “an estimated $12 million to $14 million for each of the Partners.” The whys and wherefores of Buckingham’s view on why he was booted are not clear. It almost seems as though he doesn’t know why, at least so far as the court document goes. Presumably he is fully aware of reasons behind the move, and it probably isn’t that “the other Partners, by wrongfully excluding Buckingham, have sought to enrich themselves at Buckingham’s expense.” Their additional enrichment is undoubtedly a consequence of touring without him—does anyone think that each Campbell and Finn are going to get $7 million?–but the cause? Might it not be argued that if enrichment was the motive, the other Partners risked what they could make from the tour: Maybe there would be something of a backlash against the band because of the treatment of Buckingham and consequently the $12 million to $14 million would be on the order of, oh, $10 million to $12 million. Unlikely that that would be the motive. But it seems to come down to the money because that’s all there is. Obviously, Buckingham feels that the people that he had been working with for so long need to be punished in some way for removing him from the band and that the best way to do that is through the pocketbook. There is, however, a line in the filing which seems as though Buckingham might end up regretting what he is wishing for: “Buckingham voluntarily departed Fleetwood Mac in 1987 after the release of ‘Tango In the Night’ to pursue a solo career. After Buckingham’s departure from Fleetwood Mac in 1987 the Band’s fortunes and popularity declined precipitously.” Doesn’t that imply that for those 10 years he was gone they suffered an economic consequence of his decision to leave, that their “economic opportunities” were compromised? Doesn’t he, in effect, owe them for that? If it is only the money: Yes.
__________________
"kind of weird: a tribute to the dearly departed from a band that can treat its living like trash" |
. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() no idea whether this was shared already.
https://www.esquire.com/entertainmen...pgT8NIhvrLU_Hw After 50 Years, Fleetwood Mac Is Still a Total Mess Lindsey Buckingham is suing the band after getting fired from their upcoming tour. BY MATT MILLER OCT 12, 2018 “We’ve all grown up and we’re all much closer to being adults now,” Lindsey Buckingham told me in 2015 ahead of Fleetwood Mac's first tour with its classic lineup since Christine McVie left the band in 1998. “We’re behaving ourselves and we’ve come to the realization that we don’t have to live our life that way to be creative.” And for a few years, Fleetwood Mac was uncharacteristically tame. This is a band that, from the beginning, has been at each other's throats. There have been feuds, breakups, and, amazingly, some of the most iconic adult-contemporary albums of the last half century. "As you may know," Buckingham told me at the time, "Fleetwood Mac’s politics are always a mess.” Indeed they are. Now, after making it work for a few years, Fleetwood Mac's politics are once again a mess. In April, Fleetwood Mac fired Buckingham after "a disagreement over the band's upcoming tour." As Rolling Stone reported this month, it was a little bit messier than that: [Buckingham] learned he was leaving the band on January 28th when Irving Azoff, the group’s manager, called him while he was watching the Grammys. Two days earlier, Fleetwood Mac played the MusiCares benefit show at New York’s Radio City Music Hall. According to Azoff, Nicks was angry that Buckingham smirked while she delivered a speech at the event. She was also upset over his angry reaction to the decision to play a recording of “Rhiannon” while they took the stage. “Stevie never wants to be on a stage with you again,” Buckingham said Azoff told him. Oof. And now, Buckingham has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Fleetwood Mac "for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, among other charges," according to Rolling Stone. The suit claims that each member of the band was estimated to earn $12 million to $14 million for 60 concerts. It also includes a copy of an email from Buckingham to Mick Fleetwood, in which he writes: “After 43 years and the finish line so clearly in sight, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that for the five of us to splinter apart now would be the wrong thing ... At the moment, the band’s heart and soul has been diminished. But our center, which had seen us through so much, is only laying dormant.” Certainly, the break-up is a disappointment for any fans hoping to see Fleetwood Mac with its classic lineup. But on the bright side, this drama is just as classic as anything on Rumours. It's perfect in a way that any real fan will appreciate.
__________________
"kind of weird: a tribute to the dearly departed from a band that can treat its living like trash" |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() God, I’m sick of reading comparisons to other bands, especially The Beatles. There’s simply no parallel. AT ALL! The current setlist has roughly the same percentage of songs as Lindsey’s time in the band (65/35). Not possible with other bands.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony. THE Stephen Hopkins |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Although you might say that Lindsey wasn't just one of the three main singer-songwriter-players (either Paul, John or George Harrison) but was also George Martin.
__________________
Joe |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony. THE Stephen Hopkins |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Lindsey's more like the Brian Wilson of FM, and now they've got 2 Glen Campbells to fill his place on tour. Last edited by saniette; 10-25-2018 at 11:20 PM.. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Meanwhile, the flimsy attempt at bringing in more Early Years material into this Present Band tour seems to be faltering. It's so disingenuous that they would hype up all the Early Years focus, then play Hypnotized for a few shows, only to jettison it again at this early stage. Seems like the only proportion that's really growing is the number of Tom Petty and Neil Finn tunes--hardly the best news for FM Early Years fans like yourself.
__________________
Joe |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony. THE Stephen Hopkins |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Well I assume All Over Again wouldn't matter if what you're talking about is Early Years (and not simply "Lindseyless Years"), but that's good that you're still getting three Early Years tunes with jam on the side. (Although Black Magic Woman has been, er, adjusted (if the lyrics count for anything in your concert-going experience).)
__________________
Joe |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
And it was Stevie’s idea.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony. THE Stephen Hopkins |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I hope Lindsey never gets sucked back into that non productive toxic environment. We could have had several FM albums since the dance if it were up to him.
__________________
"kind of weird: a tribute to the dearly departed from a band that can treat its living like trash" |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I'm very confused by the deletion of Hypnotized. I can understand replacing Storms with Gypsy, Gypsy was a big hit, but Hypnotized sounds so good and a way to honor Bob Welch.
I wish they would bring it back to the setlist.
__________________
I have changed, but you remain ageless |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
One album!!!!!
__________________
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Then you have one album that took over FIVE years before it was made and released and a tour to be scheduled. FIVE YEARS! They had such an incredible momentum built in 1997 and they wasted it. I was a senior in high school during The Dance tour and they became incredibly popular with that age group. Here were these "old farts" appealing and being enjoyed by 17 year olds. Instead they went away for years. It just always blew my mind that they didn't do something else in the late 90's and early 2000's. I've always said that 1998 was the perfect opportunity to re-release Buckingham Nicks and do a tour. But alas, that will never occur. THEN you never release another album again except for a four song EP? Everybody knows new music doesn't sell and setlist of "oldies" bands are going to be old stuff but come on - no other albums of new music from these people? I blame all of them. Stevie obviously is the main driver as evidenced by Buckingham McVie. But they all get blame here. Where the hell is Mick's leadership as the so-called owner of the damn band? Why didn't he do anything to keep the band as a functioning unit? Well, of course he might have to piss off Lady I'mtheboss and see a reduction in touring revenue if she ever walked. Ugh, this band is always incredibly frustrating to be a fan of. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|
The Zoo Shakin' the Cage CD Mick Fleetwood Bekka Bramlett Billy Thorpe
$7.64
RPM RADIO PROGRAMMING #T229 JOE COCKER/BEKKA BRAMLETT, YES, DENNIS DeYOUNG,BASIA
$14.99
Bekka (Bramlett) & Billy (Burnette) - Bekka & Billy - 1997 Almo Sounds - Used CD
$9.00
I Got News for You - Audio CD By Bekka Bramlett - VERY GOOD
$249.52
RITA COOLIDGE CD THINKIN' ABOUT YOU BEKKA BRAMLETT LETTING YOU GO WITH LOVE 1998
$12.00