Stevie In 1995 On Why She Quit And The Futility Of Trying To Replace Rumours Lineup

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I think Stevie would say that they’re not trying to replace the Rumours lineup this time out.

Of course she would say that, but that's exactly what they're doing. In the current set there are what, 6 songs, that aren't from the 1975-87 era. And out of those 6, 1 was played by the Rumours lineup for years, and 2 aren't Fleetwood Mac songs at all. Why aren't Stephanie's songs from Behind the Mask being played? Where are Christine's songs from before 1975?

[aleuzzi]

Originally Posted by jmn3

Of course she would say that, but that's exactly what they're doing. In the current set there are what, 6 songs, that aren't from the 1975-87 era. And out of those 6, 1 was played by the Rumours lineup for years, and 2 aren't Fleetwood Mac songs at all. Why aren't Stephanie's songs from Behind the Mask being played? Where are Christine's songs from before 1975?

Point and score!

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by jmn3

Of course she would say that, but that's exactly what they're doing.

Not like they were in 1987. Mike Campbell and Neil Finn have had legendary careers before joining the band. They have their own very public images/personas.

Billy Burnette was only notable for being the son of Dorsey Burnette, nephew of Johnny Burnette, cousin of Rocky Burnette, and friend/associate of Fleetwood Mac, while Rick was just a sideman and session player. They were very clearly trying to mask that Lindsey wasn’t there (no pun intended). They basically dressed Billy up like Lindsey and had him play a white Les Paul. Look at these two pics from 1987.

In the current set there are what, 6 songs, that aren't from the 1975-87 era. And out of those 6, 1 was played by the Rumours lineup for years, and 2 aren't Fleetwood Mac songs at all. Why aren't Stephanie's songs from Behind the Mask being played? Where are Christine's songs from before 1975?

“Oh Well” was played on every tour before The Dance, except for Kiln House. Bob Welch, Rick Vito, and Billy Burnette continued playing it after leaving the band, and I doubt it was coincidence that TPATH played it when Stevie toured with them.

That said, I would have been happier to see SHN and MM get cut before Hypnotized and I Got You.

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Not like they were in 1987. Mike Campbell and Neil Finn have had legendary careers before joining the band. They have their own very public images/personas.

Billy Burnette was only notable for being the son of Dorsey Burnette, nephew of Johnny Burnette, cousin of Rocky Burnette, and friend/associate of Fleetwood Mac, while Rick was just a sideman and session player. They were very clearly trying to mask that Lindsey wasn’t there (no pun intended). They basically dressed Billy up like Lindsey and had him play a white Les Paul. Look at these two pics from 1987.




“Oh Well” was played on every tour before The Dance, except for Kiln House. Bob Welch, Rick Vito, and Billy Burnette continued playing it after leaving the band, and I doubt it was coincidence that TPATH played it when Stevie toured with them.

That said, I would have been happier to see SHN and MM get cut before Hypnotized and I Got You.

I don't know Steve...while I was too young in 1987 to remember how it played out, it's my opinion that they are doing exactly the same thing. Sure they aren't dressing anyone up like Lindsey (would literally never work in the age of social media - the they'd get destroyed for that), but they're continuing to rest on their 1975-87 work under the guise of exploring their 50-year history or whatever crap they're spewing. Stevie implied back in April that it was due to Lindsey that all of the pre-1975 stuff was never in the setlist - now they have the chance and they play Oh Well (which as you pointed out, has pretty much been played by every incarnation of Fleetwood Mac), Black Magic Woman (which with the reworded lyrics is a giant eye roll complete with Stevie being like "OMG even I didn't know it was Fleetwood Mac!?"...except for the last 44 years that she has known it), and Tell Me All the Things You Do (which along with Hypnotized were some of the best parts of the set IMO). Campbell gets to recreate Lindsey's solos on GYOW, The Chain, Gypsy, etc. The arrangements of all of the songs are essentially the same as they were on the last tour.

If they really wanted to start fresh and show the world that Fleetwood Mac is more than the Lindsey Buckingham show, half the set should have been different at least, and they should have recorded something new together that they'd do live. There are MANY gems that are totally ignored even from the 75-87 timeframe. But they won't do that. They'll continue to pump out the same songs and get reviews saying that Finn "sounds like Buckingham" because it works - the general attendee is like "OMG STEVIE TWIRLED AROUND! I LOVE HERRRRRR SHE'S THE QUEEEEN" and doesn't care that a different male voice is singing Go Your Own Way.

[David]

Originally Posted by jmn3

I don't know Steve...while I was too young in 1987 to remember how it played out, it's my opinion that they are doing exactly the same thing.

I wasn't too young in '87 to remember, and the band is doing exactly the same thing. Steve is playing contrarian devil's advocate once again. I don't know why he does that, but it generally results in a very knowledgeable guy distending and distorting data into all manner of unreasonable and daffy conclusions.

Originally Posted by jmn3

Sure they aren't dressing anyone up like Lindsey

That didn't happen to Billy or Rick, either. Steve is full of it. On the 1987 and 1990 tours, Billy was Billy and Rick was Rick. Nobody "played" Lindsey. Unfortunately for the band's music, nobody played the idiosyncratic (and syncretistic) studio visionary experimenting with instrumentation and vocals and concocting elaborate arrangements (the Brian Wilsonish musical equivalent of "personal filmmaking") to "shake people's preconceptions about pop." This idea of dressing people up is really beneath Steve's intelligence.

Originally Posted by jmn3

They're continuing to rest on their 1975-87 work under the guise of exploring their 50-year history or whatever crap they're spewing.

Of course. We all know it; we all see it. Even the people arguing otherwise (including the band themselves) know it in their hearts. Every configuration of the band since 1987 has been profoundly unwilling or unable to even partially shake off the Rumours band and its effect on the culture. Adding a pre-Rumours song here or a Split Enz song there (or a Delaney and Bonnie song or a Dylan song or a Sons of the Pioneers song) doesn't change that fact. It's just swapping out some seasoning in the same basic dish.

Originally Posted by jmn3

Campbell gets to recreate Lindsey's solos on GYOW, The Chain, Gypsy, etc. The arrangements of all of the songs are essentially the same as they were on the last tour.

Precisely. None of that material has been reimagined as anything other than a faithful duplication of the old albums. Even the general progression of the traditional set is kept (The Chain and Dreams early on, acoustic songs halfway through, and Go Your Own Way and Don't Stop as closers).

If the band wants the big money, it needs to do this. I would never blame the band for doing this, but I certainly won't pretend that something else is happening musically.

[elle]

Originally Posted by David

Precisely. None of that material has been reimagined as anything other than a faithful duplication of the old albums. Even the general progression of the traditional set is kept (The Chain and Dreams early on, acoustic songs halfway through, and Go Your Own Way and Don't Stop as closers).

If the band wants the big money, it needs to do this. I would never blame the band for doing this, but I certainly won't pretend that something else is happening musically.

i find it interesting that Don't Dream Is Over is now played acoustically at the last few shows. i listened to it for Pittsburgh because i wanted to hear Neil's dedication and it made a complete sense there. but in that Ottawa review it's again described as acoustic rendition. i thought full band version i heard was a horrible cover and Neil looked like he's almost in pain bracing and trying to not hear what's happening around him while he was playing it. maybe he finally just put his foot down and decided to do it acoustically instead?

[Storms123]

Originally Posted by elle

i find it interesting that Don't Dream Is Over is now played acoustically at the last few shows. i listened to it for Pittsburgh because i wanted to hear Neil's dedication and it made a complete sense there. but in that Ottawa review it's again described as acoustic rendition. i thought full band version i heard was a horrible cover and Neil looked like he's almost in pain bracing and trying to not hear what's happening around him while he was playing it. maybe he finally just put his foot down and decided to do it acoustically instead?

I agree with you. And, if he didn't like how his song sounded, I hope he did. It's his song and he's earned the right. I really do hope Neil and Mike don't become "the unintended consequences" of this tour.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

That didn't happen to Billy or Rick, either. Steve is full of it.

No. Total figment of my overactive imagination. They totally didn’t dress up Billy like Lindsey when they did that initial press conference and photoshoot.





And, I’m sure it was purely coincidental that Billy played a white Les Paul Custom. I never said that it didn’t end or that Billy came into his own, but he was minor enough that they could do that with him.

Unfortunately for the band's music, nobody played the idiosyncratic (and syncretistic) studio visionary experimenting with instrumentation and vocals and concocting elaborate arrangements (the Brian Wilsonish musical equivalent of "personal filmmaking") to "shake people's preconceptions about pop."

Which is why this version has more potential, at least in the studio, of making a great record.

Every configuration of the band since 1987 has been profoundly unwilling or unable to even partially shake off the Rumours band and its effect on the culture.

Even in their solo/duo sets. That will never change. For any of them. I’m not sure that should be the goal, though.

Sometimes, swapping out a few spices here or there can be enough of a change to warrant that change.

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

No. Total figment of my overactive imagination. They totally didn’t dress up Billy like Lindsey when they did that initial press conference and photoshoot.





And, I’m sure it was purely coincidental that Billy played a white Les Paul Custom. I never said that it didn’t end or that Billy came into his own, but he was minor enough that they could do that with him.


Which is why this version has more potential, at least in the studio, of making a great record.


Even in their solo/duo sets. That will never change. For any of them. I’m not sure that should be the goal, though.

Sometimes, swapping out a few spices here or there can be enough of a change to warrant that change.

These pictures prove one thing - the 80’s fashion is truly terrible. They’re all bad but Rick Vito makes my eyes hurt.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by jmn3

These pictures prove one thing - the 80’s fashion is truly terrible. They’re all bad but Rick Vito makes my eyes hurt.

The sad thing is this was pretty tame by ‘80s standards. Hell, this was the least ridiculous this lineup ever looked.

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

No. Total figment of my overactive imagination. They totally didn’t dress up Billy like Lindsey when they did that initial press conference and photoshoot.

I don't think wearing a grey suit jacket qualifies as being dressed up like Lindsey just because he also sometimes wore a grey suit jacket. Not to mention that picture is from the Tusk tour 7-8 years before Ricky and Billy joined though. By the 80s Lindsey had a very different look. The farmer in a silent movie outfit from the Mirage tour and then the massive Eraserhead hair, weird Go Insane outfits and makeup.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by dreamsunwind

I don't think wearing a grey suit jacket qualifies as being dressed up like Lindsey just because he also sometimes wore a grey suit jacket. Not to mention that picture is from the Tusk tour 7-8 years before Ricky and Billy joined though. By the 80s Lindsey had a very different look. The farmer in a silent movie outfit from the Mirage tour and then the massive Eraserhead hair, weird Go Insane outfits and makeup.

Yep, they gray jacket was pure coincidence.

Nevermind the fact Billy’s jacket seems like it’s too big, but they were clearly trying to mimic Lindsey’s look in a way Finn and Campbell couldn’t and wouldn’t need to.

[David]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

No. Total figment of my overactive imagination. They totally didn’t dress up Billy like Lindsey when they did that initial press conference and photoshoot.

You're being so farfetched and so asinine that I'm getting pissed at you. However, here's an idea: Send Billy a tweet and ask him whether Mick made him dress like Lindsey when he (Billy) joined the band. If Billy says yes, I'll eat your hat. Do you have a clean hat?

Oh, look, Mick even made Billy put on gray menswear at a ZOO concert. Mick can be a cruel, bossy man.



And damned if Mick didn't also force Billy to wear gray menswear on his 1985 solo album.

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

And, I’m sure it was purely coincidental that Billy played a white Les Paul Custom.

Maybe. I don't know. Mick made some guitar demands on Lindsey in 1975, too. You'd have to ask Billy.

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I never said that it didn’t end or that Billy came into his own, but he was minor enough that they could do that with him.

Assume for a minute that Billy's clothes intentionally matched old Lindsey looks (chosen at random from a multiyear scrapbook, by the looks of it). How do you know it wasn't Billy himself deciding he wanted to look that way? He loved Lindsey. Why blame Fleetwood? Still, your "theory" is preposterous, and my suggestion is creepy.

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Even in their solo/duo sets. That will never change. For any of them. I’m not sure that should be the goal, though.

It sounds like a great goal to me. But I guess it depends on whether you want to play stadiums or intimate theaters and such, and even more important whether you want to challenge yourself and your audience, or merely feed the Big Machine. Imagine a band that was so proud of the way Tusk confounded listeners' expectations in 1979 that it never again tried to tread old ground in studio and onstage, preferring instead to consistently make truly new music and keep only a few artifacts of the 1977 halcyon days in its stage shows. Imagine a band ballsy enough to ditch most of the Rumours songs from subsequent sets in favor of the new. Sounds great to me as audience.

[bombaysaffires]

Christine looks like a blue-sequined cowgirl

[cbBen]

Originally Posted by David

Imagine a band ballsy enough to ditch most of the Rumours songs from subsequent sets in favor of the new. Sounds great to me as audience.

Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers actually did this in 1995. Ditched all but a handful of their early hits in favor of almost all post-1988 material.

Neil Young is another one. At most shows, he doesn't play "Heart Of Gold" "Old Man" or "Southern Man." Same with Bob Dylan, who usually doesn't play "Like A Rolling Stone" or "Mr. Tambourine Man."