Release the New Album Without Stevie... - Page 3

~*BellaDonna*~ · #31 08-05-2016, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Except that Fleetwood Mac had a vibrant career prior to Stevie joining. The only constants in the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

Yeah, you got me there.

paleshadow · #32 08-05-2016, 06:18 PM

I wonder how Christine might feel knowing that the band comes to a screeching halt because Stevie might not be involved, but when she left, they barely batted an eyelash before they put out another album. It's kind of insulting and I think unprofessional of Stevie to not recognize that.

olive · #33 08-05-2016, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I wonder how Christine might feel knowing that the band comes to a screeching halt because Stevie might not be involved, but when she left, they barely batted an eyelash before they put out another album. It's kind of insulting and I think unprofessional of Stevie to not recognize that.

Screeching halt. It's Mick and John's band and as much always said as long as there's the 2 of them them there is a Fleetwood Mac. And it's only fitting that some of us who've been around before them,s supported Fleetwood Mac with out Lindsey and Christine so we'll get through without Stevie

~*BellaDonna*~ · #34 08-05-2016, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olive

They could bring back Rick and Billy . They have material to add to a live show and they could also contribute new material

If they ever commence work on a new album, they are only going to do it with their most successful lineup.

Nick · #35 08-05-2016, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~*BellaDonna*~

If they ever commence work on a new album, they are only going to do it with their most successful lineup.

For real. Nobody in the general public will care if it's not this superstar lineup.

michelej1 · #36 08-05-2016, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I wonder how Christine might feel knowing that the band comes to a screeching halt because Stevie might not be involved, but when she left, they barely batted an eyelash before they put out another album. It's kind of insulting and I think unprofessional of Stevie to not recognize that.

Well, it took them 5 years to put out an album after she left. That's more than batting an eyelash. Michele

michelej1 · #37 08-05-2016, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

For real. Nobody in the general public will care if it's not this superstar lineup.

No one here is asking for a an album for the "general public." And the "general public" is not interested in new music from the band. The "general public" is happy with the nostalgia. Even with Stevie, the album is not going to sell.

Michele

**jbrownsjr** · #38 08-05-2016, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I'm giving you a post Landslide performance hug. lol

BombaySapphire3 · #39 08-05-2016, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

No one here is asking for a an album for the "general public." And the "general public" is not interested in new music from the band. The "general public" is happy with the nostalgia. Even with Stevie, the album is not going to sell.

Michele

Yeah..which is the primary reason that the album has been shelved.If the album had a chance of selling millions it would already be completed.

~*BellaDonna*~ · #40 08-05-2016, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

For real. Nobody in the general public will care if it's not this superstar lineup.

I think you may have missed my point. I know the "general public" (myself included) could care less about what the lineup is. I was saying that I don't think the band would record an album where Stevie is excluded.

SteveMacD · #41 08-05-2016, 11:29 PM

An album by the classic lineup or a near classic lineup is minutiae at this point. They could easily go on as a credible studio and live entity without Stevie so long as Christine and Lindsey are in the band. Realistically, that's not going to happen at this stage in their careers. They want to cross the finish line with the classic lineup in tact. Doing an album without Stevie might upset that goal.

Maybe the album comes out without Stevie under the Fleetwood Mac moniker after the tour, sort of as a post-script, or maybe as a disc of new material on a 50th Anniversary box set. It's sad that Christine's primary reason for coming back was to make new music with her band.

MikeInNV · #42 08-05-2016, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

I'm giving you a post Landslide performance hug. lol

Wait, so is it sincere or not?

**jbrownsjr** · #43 08-06-2016, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

Wait, so is it sincere or not?

In 1977..

Macfan4life · #44 08-06-2016, 04:58 AM

Remember that this band just performed a concert ALL TOGETHER. Stevie does not need the money from the private concert honoring the Dodgers. She did it to be included in the group.
I still believe this is the typical Stevie drama that happens during every Fleetwood Mac record. Its not new or surprising.

elle · #45 08-06-2016, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanJT

I never thought i would say it, but, I vote to release the new album without Stevie.

yes please.

at this point i don't even care whether they go spineless and don't call themselves FM. just release that Lindsey-Christine backed by FM album already!

i was really hoping there was some movement this year, but apparently it''s still the same stalemate as it was since Christine rejoined at the start of 2014. waiting to wrap up yet another huge GH - but this time touted as farewell 2017-18 - tour as they did for 2014-2015 won't change anything.

they can release another Buck-McVie album after that farewell tour, too, but sitting on all this material that's getting stale is getting ridiculous. there is over a year till their farewell cash grab tour is set to start, they should not spend all that time sitting around trying to convince Stevie to add her songs.