Fleetwood Mac and AOL Time Warner

[CarneVaca]

We’ve had a lot of discussion here about the corporate pressure on Fleetwood Mac by the label. Some of us, myself included, have criticized the band. Not to excuse Mick’s boneheaded online moves, but I think we need to consider some extremely important facts here. If we’re going to be angry, most of the blame should go to the label, though I still think Lindsey and the gang could have stood up to them more.

One thing we won’t be able to complain about is the level of pre-release publicity. Despite some confusion, mostly caused by Mick and his goofballs on the board, it looks like the label is throwing a lot of marketing weight into this thing. They are taking full advantage of the “synergy” with AOL. With all the Fleetwood Mac publicity on AOL, you would think AOL Time Warner is banking on Fleetwood Mac sales to pay for the huge tower complex they're building uptown.

For those of you who don't know, the company is building a twin-tower complex at Lincoln Center. You can already see the frame of the buildings from Queens and New Jersey. It looks like its going to be an impressive presence in, and welcome addition to, the New York skyline, with 55 stories above ground. However, I've read someplace the buildings would be 80 stories high. That has something to do with underground floors as well as unused space on top, but I'm not too sure

But I digress. My point, ultimately, is the label seems to have huge expectations for this record. Of course, if within a couple months of its release we see slow sales, the label is liable to cut back on the marketing plans. That’s just the way business goes these days. Considering the label is owned by the corporation that just recently reported a staggering $1 billion quarterly loss, one can start to understand the amount of pressure that a big-name band like Fleetwood Mac would feel from the corporate powers that be.

In a way, I almost wish the album wouldn’t sell much so the label would release Fleetwood Mac, at which point the band could hook up with a younger, more nimble label such as Sugar Hill that would not interfere with the creative process. Because, let’s face it folks, the way this record is shaping up smells pretty strongly of corporate interference. I’d rather see a modest-selling album that has a lot of artistic integrity than a huge seller full of concessions to commercial interests.

[stefan]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
[B
In a way, I almost wish the album wouldn’t sell much so the label would release Fleetwood Mac, at which point the band could hook up with a younger, more nimble label such as Sugar Hill that would not interfere with the creative process. Because, let’s face it folks, the way this record is shaping up smells pretty strongly of corporate interference. I’d rather see a modest-selling album that has a lot of artistic integrity than a huge seller full of concessions to commercial interests. [/B]

I would like them to release albums more often and faster in the making also. And without influences from outside. Who wouldn`t... So I know what you mean with that record label change thing. But at this stage of their career and regarding the energy which especially LB as a producer has put in it (putting back his 10 year GOS project stuff- letting it flow into the FM project, as the producer of SYW being seen as responsible for what comes out of it- musically and commercially) a commercial failure could easily be the end of the band. I don't see why this inevitably should be the case as a lot of people here suppose, if it succeeds. I absolutely have no idea of how it will be received by the audience. I really think that it is not a question of quality if an album sells or gets airplay or not. I think that never was more unimportant than nowadays.
Back to the band: believing that they did something special ("best thing ever etc"), spending so much time on it, even getting this whole AOL media support and then having a flop that should be very disappointing. So I surely hope they will earn broader recognition. Not because I care for what the children Television of MTV, VIVA (Germany) and so on say or because I want to be with the masses. But because I would like to get other FM albums in the future and I don`t want to wait till 2012 to see the next internet leaked LB demos, while waiting on a never will be released solo album project. And because I wish them every joy with it as I think they deserve it for their work.
So being a little overcritical sometimes by hearing certain snippets of this and that (still like the more edgie tusk and GOS approach most) I must say that most of the material I have heard is really great and that I appreciate the sound they offer.

A last question: Carne and the others from the US. Of course all of us on the board check out often if and where some news about the group are spread. But how much recognition gets the band by this marketing thing (articles and AOL stuff) in the "normal" US public? Is AOL and "the first listen" and "Artist of the month"- thing something that is recognized by a lot of people over there- or just by us?

[Rainman]

I’d rather see a modest-selling album that has a lot of artistic integrity than a huge seller full of concessions to commercial interests.

You said it, CarneVaca. Yes, it seems the big boys have high expectations. I suspect the "dumbing down" of Peacekeeper is an indication.

And maybe they're banking on a big name to help put some black ink back on the financial statements (although no record in the world is going to erase a $1 billion loss!).

And I agree with Stefan--I'd be much happier with a few more albums over the next few years. Would more freedom in the creative and production process help this?

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by stefan
Carne and the others from the US. Of course all of us on the board check out often if and where some news about the group are spread. But how much recognition gets the band by this marketing thing (articles and AOL stuff) in the "normal" US public? Is AOL and "the first listen" and "Artist of the month"- thing something that is recognized by a lot of people over there- or just by us?

Good question. I suspect those of us who use the web on a regular basis are way more attuned to this than the general public. Regardless, using AOL as a marketing tool, which theoretically costs the label nothing (there might be some internal accounting, depending on how they work) still creates a pretty good buzz. Often other media will pick up on the fact that something is being pushed strongly online.

[tommer]

Originally posted by stefan
But at this stage of their career and regarding the energy which especially LB as a producer has put in it (putting back his 10 year GOS project stuff- letting it flow into the FM project, as the producer of SYW being seen as responsible for what comes out of it- musically and commercially) a commercial failure could easily be the end of the band. I don't see why this inevitably should be the case as a lot of people here suppose, if it succeeds.

whether it sells well or not, keep in mind that in FM's case, an album is being released to support a tour, and not the other way around, the tour is where's the big $$$$.
as for the band's future- it is only up to their own wills and has nothing to do with this album being succesful or not, there will ALWAYS be a good record company out there who will be thrilled to have them aboard, if not for the sake of $$$ then for the sake of their respectability.

[CarneVaca]

Has anyone else noticed that the price of this CD is considerably higher than most new releases, even on Amazon?

[strandinthewind]

You know I did notice the price was higher; however, it is 18 songs as opposed to the usual 12 or so. Hopefully, "they" will do like other artists, including Stevie's TISL, and offer it at a discount on the first day of sales, etc. I think Target did that and TISL was a few dollars less expensive.

[CarneVaca]

The number of songs should have no bearing on the price. It is the number of discs that matters from a cost standpoint. I suspect I'll be able to find it for $13.99 or $14.99 retail on the day of the release, but the Amazon price definitely caught my eye because it often is lower than retail because of their streamlined distribution system and lower overhead.

[Janet]

Unfortunately we aren't talking about some tiny little band.

Fleetwood Mac, ledgend wise, are as big as Rolling Stones and The Who and other big bands coming around.

They never really diminished, with everything thats happened, the Dance proved that.

Now the BIG Mac is back, everyone knows WHO they are, its the same members, and they can have the HUGE publicity and Time Warner CAN pretty much depend on them for big sales because FM has always HAD big sales. Again, the Dance proved that.

So I think its just the way it is. We aren't speaking of some little unknown band that has a small cult following. We are speaking of one of the biggest bands and they aren't ever just going to become what so many of the 70's bands are today ( practically tribute bands) they are going to be on top until the end.

Don't hold your breath that they will all just go on some small label...Lindsey could...but not the band as a whole. They know they can sell 3 million copies...and they want to make sure they do with a label who is good at it and knows what they are doing.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[ERigby818]

Carne, as usual, you make some excellent points.
I hate AOL Time Warner (even Ted Turner thinks they're evil and he and Steve Jobs are both gone) and they are on my list of corporations I have a lot of profanities to say about. Those Twin towers you're talking about....would those be the ones going up in Columbus Circle? I was in the city and saw that the other day...I didn't pay attention to whose project it was...I just figured it was more Trump stuff since he owns half that neighborhood .
But I also agree with Stefan and don't wish the album wouldn't succeed just because there are a lot of greedy fingers in the pie. I think Fleetwood Mac is almost cursed by having one of the highest selling albums of all time...that kind of guarantees they'll have to have a big monster of a record company because none of the band members seems to have very good business sense. All of their thought and energy goes into the music (well except maybe Mick) which is why we love them.
-Sonia

[strandinthewind]

I guess I was looking at it from a price per song/production time angle. Which I think sort of makes sense and would be how I would look at it if they had asked me (which they did not ). But who knows. Also, Amazon.com is offering free shipping and there is no tax for most states. So, that is probably somehow built into their price structure - and that makes it a little better price but still not to the $13 or $14 plus tax level, etc. Moreover, on FM.com, the price is almost the same as on Amazon.com and they want $5.75 or so to ship

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by ERigby818
Those Twin towers you're talking about....would those be the ones going up in Columbus Circle?

Yes, you can see them from just about every angle now when you come into the city. In comparison to the Chrysler and Empire State buildings, they will be short. But the way they are designed should be very eye-catching. I think it's cool. I love this kind of thing. I can't get over when I watch reruns of Cheers how different the Boston skyline is now. I remember seeing some of those buildings go up.