Where does Fleetwood Mac rank among the greatest bands?

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

That can't happen now because they have devalued their currency, so to speak, by touring almost continuously for a decade -- with barely any new music as a band. They'd have to go away for a decade, and make a big splashy Dance-like comeback for what you are suggesting to happen. But, sadly, it's too late.

[aleuzzi]

Interesting question. I think FM has a prominent place in the best bands of all time because it has accommodated not one but several lineups. If FM were just the band from 1967-70, then they would always be remembered as a great guitar band that morphed from 12-bar blues to acid jams--with some great songwriting.

If they were remembered for the Rumours-era band alone, they would hold a place as commercial giants with a highly original approach to making great music out of stock-in-trade devices.

But they are both bands--plus an intriguing "middle period" where their somewhat underground music is all well above an acceptable standard and, often, excellent.

Given this, they are pretty unique. Unlike a lot of bands whose music suffered with a good deal of personnel changes--Jefferson Starship is just one that comes to mind--F Mac always kept the quality pretty high.

[bethelblues]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Great topic, but I want to take issue with the above two points.

The argument that the Stones started as a cover band has been used in Beatles vs. Stones conversations. It's not my own. I think maybe what critics mean is that the Stones were a pretty high profile cover band up to the mid-60s, while the Beatles of course covered songs but before they broke out of Liverpool club shows.

Thanks for bringing up a few examples of leading rock ladies in bands. Yeah, I think that was what I was getting at, what you said, Stevie's longevity and continued name recognition today makes her stand out. Glad you mentioned Pat Benatar. She beat Stevie several years in a row at the Grammys. And Debbie Harry's another notable band female lead.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

The argument that the Stones started as a cover band has been used in Beatles vs. Stones conversations. It's not my own. I think maybe what critics mean is that the Stones were a pretty high profile cover band up to the mid-60s, while the Beatles of course covered songs but before they broke out of Liverpool club shows.

Interestingly, and to your point, the Stones covered the Beatles, and the reverse never happened, to my knowledge. The Stones actually released the song "I Wanna Be Your Man," penned by Lennon/McCartney, before the Beatles.

Over the years, there have been lots of comparisons between the two bands, and they are not always fair. Why the Stones get pegged as a covers band originally and the Beatles don't is somewhat confounding. Had the Beatles stayed together through the 70s and beyond, I wonder what they would have become. Despite some unfortunate forays into other genres, like disco (even though Miss You is a kick-ass tune), the Stones pretty much have stayed true to their blues roots. The Beatles probably would have become something very different.

[Stormwind]

Well I think that the band deserves a place in the first/second tier. They were pretty original, the blues of Peter Green's era was fundamental for the whole scene.
The pop of Buckingham-Nicks's era was very influential (successful of course, but that its not the main thing). They had a very personal sound, they remade some cliches of the pop of the time (Beach Boys for what regards for example vocal harmonies) but in a new way, and they also experimented in their way, not in a strict progressive way.

[chiliD]

Had Peter Green, Danny Kirwan & Jeremy Spencer stayed together & not had the illness, religious epiphanies, etc, Fleetwood Mac today would probably have the status we now reserve for Led Zeppelin. PG was 10x's the guitarist Jimmy Page had ever HOPED to be...as a band, Fleetwood Mac was tighter (even on their extended jams) than Zep ever was even on a GOOD night. But, that's all reserved for some parallel universe that only exists in the "what if" filing cabinet of our minds.

The thing is, once bands start shifting personnel (after a bout of huge fame), the mystique is damaged bit by bit.

The Beatles got their personnel changes out of the way before the "Mania" hit full on.

The Rolling Stones shift in personnel was for the better, Brian Jones was pretty much holding them back, then mysteriously left this astral plane, to be replaced by Mick Taylor (Peter Green's replacement in the Bluesbreakers)...the result of which was the Stones took a big leap in both songwriting, record production, etc, etc. and at the time, really DID deserve the "Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World" moniker. Pretty much their ascent to that level was aided immensely by the Beatles calling it a day in 1970, as well. The combination of their already being #2, the addition of Mick Taylor, the move to their own label, when the #1's decided they didn't want to be a band anymore, the Stones were the obvious "next #1". They even are the exception to my "personnel changes" rule too. When Mick Taylor opted out of the Stones, the only REAL choice WAS Ronnie Wood, since Faces had pretty much been dropped by Rod Stewart and closed down their musical drinking establishment. The Stones popularity (and creativity) had another spike. The Stones rode that wave for another decade & a half.


The Who...pretty much were #3 behind Beatles & Stones in the 60's, and were leap-frogged by Led Zeppelin in the 70's, keeping them in the #3 spot, although they gave it a good fight with "Tommy", "Who's Next", "Quadrophenia" & "Who By Numbers"...they just couldn't really survive the death of Keith Moon, although they soldiered on with exactly the WORST choice of drummer to take Moon's place. Kenney Jones was great with Faces, but he was nowhere near Moon's level. And, because of Moon's death and the subsequent dip in quality songwriting (Townshend was obviously affected dramatically by Keith's demise), showed Zeppelin how to respond to the death of their drummer. Just not go on. (at least until the next generation was old enough and able enough to sit in for his father....which The Who followed that process by eventually getting Zak Starkey (Ringo's son, but who had been taught how to play the instrument by "Uncle" Keith Moon, being basically Keith's progeny moreso than Ringo's.)

Somewhere around the mid-70s, some weird little progressive rock band all of a sudden leapt onto the scene pretty much out of nowhere (except for a rabid UK following) and became one of the "Mt Rushmore" candidates of rock & roll...Pink Floyd. Today, they're definitely Top 5.

Fleetwood Mac, yep, they had their "reincarnation" of popularity with Rumours, but by their own hand, they've not shaken that whole Rumours hype/mystique/soap opera. Fleetwood Mac's fame was more non-musical than it was musical. To the point of being the butt of the Rumours joke for quite a while, and they still were trying to keep that whole Rumours thing going...and damned if they still aren't in a lot of ways. That's been a hinderance rather than a boon.


I'd say that these days, Fleetwood Mac would probably be in the Top 10 or 15 bands/artists of all-time, but not much higher than that.

How I'd rank them:

1) Beatles
2) Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) U2
6) Bob Dylan
7) Neil Young
8) Jimi Hendrix Experience
9) Eric Clapton
10) Eagles
11) The Grateful Dead
12) The Doors
13) Prince
14) The Who
15) Fleetwood Mac

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by chiliD

The Rolling Stones shift in personnel was for the better, Brian Jones was pretty much holding them back, then mysteriously left this astral plane, to be replaced by Mick Taylor (Peter Green's replacement in the Bluesbreakers)...the result of which was the Stones took a big leap in both songwriting, record production, etc, etc. and at the time, really DID deserve the "Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World" moniker.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by chiliD

The Who...pretty much were #3 behind Beatles & Stones in the 60's, and were leap-frogged

Eh, OK. Never got The Who. Weird sound with a single-minded message. Never evolved.

Originally Posted by chiliD

Fleetwood Mac, yep, they had their "reincarnation" of popularity with Rumours, but by their own hand, they've not shaken that whole Rumours hype/mystique/soap opera. Fleetwood Mac's fame was more non-musical than it was musical. To the point of being the butt of the Rumours joke for quite a while, and they still were trying to keep that whole Rumours thing going...and damned if they still aren't in a lot of ways. That's been a hinderance rather than a boon.

Yep

Originally Posted by chiliD

1) Beatles
2) Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) U2
6) Bob Dylan
7) Neil Young
8) Jimi Hendrix Experience
9) Eric Clapton
10) Eagles
11) The Grateful Dead
12) The Doors
13) Prince
14) The Who
15) Fleetwood Mac

Good list -- but only if punk had never happened. Where is The Clash? No credit to the Talkin' Heads? Ramones?

And, on a second tier, I would also throw in Violent Femmes, Replacements, and a few others.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Eh, OK. Never got The Who. Weird sound with a single-minded message. Never evolved.

I don't understand how you could NOT "get" The Who, yet you wonder where on the list The Clash is? No Who, No Clash...simple as that. (also, there wouldn't have been The Jam or Oasis)

The Who never evolved? From "Substitute" & "I Can't Explain & "My Generation" >> "Tommy" >> "Baba O'Riley" & "Won't Get Fooled Again" >>"Squeeze Box" & "Dreaming From The Waist" >> "Who Are You?" >> "Imminence Front" & "The Wire" isn't a progression of evolution? If you don't think so, it is obvious you don't know squat about The Who.

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Good list -- but only if punk had never happened. Where is The Clash? No credit to the Talkin' Heads? Ramones?

And, on a second tier, I would also throw in Violent Femmes, Replacements, and a few others.

We might be seeing this from opposite sides of a Generation Gap. To me, The Clash & most of the punk movement was just derivative from The Who, The Kinks, The MC5, etc. Talk about your "not evolving"...in fact, from my view, (like that weird band from Indiana) the punk movement was a DE-volving. I'll admit that I was (and except for a scant few exceptions of bands that went from a "punk" beginning to taking a quick u-turn back to the corner of "Mainstream Blvd" & "Commercial St") quite dismissive of the whole punk phenomenon. The Clash, Blondie, Patti Smith, The Ramones...and their "New Wave" counterparts Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc., all drank the Mainstream Kool-Aid quite early in their careers...which is one reason we know who they are these days and WHY they're still relevant, but still not near being "Mt Rushmore" in stature of The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, U2, Clapton, Dylan, & Neil Young.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by chiliD

I don't understand how you could NOT "get" The Who, yet you wonder where on the list The Clash is? No Who, No Clash...simple as that. (also, there wouldn't have been The Jam or Oasis)

The Who never evolved? From "Substitute" & "I Can't Explain & "My Generation" >> "Tommy" >> "Baba O'Riley" & "Won't Get Fooled Again" >>"Squeeze Box" & "Dreaming From The Waist" >> "Who Are You?" >> "Imminence Front" & "The Wire" isn't a progression of evolution? If you don't think so, it is obvious you don't know squat about The Who.



We might be seeing this from opposite sides of a Generation Gap. To me, The Clash & most of the punk movement was just derivative from The Who, The Kinks, The MC5, etc. Talk about your "not evolving"...in fact, from my view, (like that weird band from Indiana) the punk movement was a DE-volving. I'll admit that I was (and except for a scant few exceptions of bands that went from a "punk" beginning to taking a quick u-turn back to the corner of "Mainstream Blvd" & "Commercial St") quite dismissive of the whole punk phenomenon. The Clash, Blondie, Patti Smith, The Ramones...and their "New Wave" counterparts Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc., all drank the Mainstream Kool-Aid quite early in their careers...which is one reason we know who they are these days and WHY they're still relevant, but still not near being "Mt Rushmore" in stature of The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, U2, Clapton, Dylan, & Neil Young.

How can u2 even be considered amongst that league or their lessers? ugh. u2 are nothing compared to their contemporaries Echo & the Bunnymen and Simple Minds.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by chiliD

If you don't think so, it is obvious you don't know squat about The Who.

LOL, I have no problem admitting that!

Originally Posted by chiliD

We might be seeing this from opposite sides of a Generation Gap. To me, The Clash & most of the punk movement was just derivative from The Who, The Kinks, The MC5, etc. Talk about your "not evolving"...in fact, from my view, (like that weird band from Indiana) the punk movement was a DE-volving. I'll admit that I was (and except for a scant few exceptions of bands that went from a "punk" beginning to taking a quick u-turn back to the corner of "Mainstream Blvd" & "Commercial St") quite dismissive of the whole punk phenomenon. The Clash, Blondie, Patti Smith, The Ramones...and their "New Wave" counterparts Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc., all drank the Mainstream Kool-Aid quite early in their careers...which is one reason we know who they are these days and WHY they're still relevant, but still not near being "Mt Rushmore" in stature of The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, U2, Clapton, Dylan, & Neil Young.

It's true the bands you mention aren't on the same plain with the Stones, the Beatles, Clapton and others in terms of influence. But you sneakily added U2 to that list while dismissing punk. Also, I think history will look back and see The Clash as a very influential band. I would throw the Ramones in there too, but I will concede the band -- unfairly, in my opinion -- doesn't get the same level of respect.

I'm not a huge punk fan really, but I wouldn't dismiss the movement so easily. You wouldn't have Green Day and a whole host of other bands without it. Also, FM's history would have been very different without it. Sit back and think about whether FM would have the widespread respect it has today if so many artists in the 1990s hadn't rediscovered it and cited it as an influence. Could that have happened if FM had gone the way of Bread or America, which is what likely would have happened if Lindsey hadn't gotten bitten by the punk bug?

Also, it occurs to me your list doesn't include Springsteen. And you completely dismiss Nirvana and Pearl Jam -- again not favorites of mine but hard to dismiss as unimportant in terms of influence.

Of course, you can put whomever you want on your list, but as long as we're having fun arguing this stuff...

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

How can u2 even be considered amongst that league or their lessers? ugh. u2 are nothing compared to their contemporaries Echo & the Bunnymen and Simple Minds.

!!!

Would you argue those two bands have had the kind of influence U2 has had and continues to have?

[bethelblues]

This is how I read U2 earlier. I wonder if it's too harsh a read of them--let me know if anyone agrees or if I'm completely off. The reason I put U2 in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing them in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to insert themselves into the zeitgeist.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

This is how I read U2 earlier. I wonder if it's too harsh a read of them--let me know if anyone agrees or if I'm completely off. The reason I put U2 in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing them in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to insert themselves into the zeitgeist.

Early on U2 was pretty innovative, out of necessity to some extent. But that's really a recurring rock 'n roll story. I don't think U2 would be as relevant today if they hadn't reinvented themselves. Remember all the flack they took with Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum for turning to the blues? Now, looking back, that was the right move to make. And I don't think it was contrived like some of what followed. I'm thinking of Discotheque type stuff.

Before I ever got into U2, I remember fans of the band talking about how their shows were transcendent, like nothing any other band did. You can't minimize that as huge part of the band's mystique. Bono is a blowhard, but he's also very charismatic, and many millions of people around the world love him.

[Macfanforever]

Yes .FM is one of the best bands around. But underrated.


I think any band from the 1950's to the 1980's will rank on the top.

Probably can add a handful from the 1990's as will.


I like most of the bands mentioned in this thread.

I was shocked when FM was inducted into the RR hall a fame years ago.
I'm still pissed as the rest of you about having ALL past members in the hall a fame along with the current lineup.

[redbird]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Sit back and think about whether FM would have the widespread respect it has today if so many artists in the 1990s hadn't rediscovered it and cited it as an influence. Could that have happened if FM had gone the way of Bread or America, which is what likely would have happened if Lindsey hadn't gotten bitten by the punk bug?

They would've had a harder time with the rock critics, undoubtedly. For a lot of younger people, Rumours gets them to like Fleetwood Mac and Tusk gets them to admit it. (I generalize, but that's what "best ever" lists do anyway.)