Release the New Album Without Stevie... - Page 4

paleshadow · #46 08-06-2016, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olive

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

My point exactly. Micks dialogue seems to suggest if Stevie doesn't sign on, they just won't continue. As much as she needs to stop holding them up, Mick and the others also need to decide to go on without her.

paleshadow · #47 08-06-2016, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

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

It took that long to put the album out, but the decision to move forward with a new album sans Chris didn't take that long.

MikeVielhaber · #48 08-06-2016, 02:06 PM

Kansas, though not in their original classic lineup, decided to release an album without Steve Walsh due to his reluctance to participate in new music. They released Native Window as band and album name in 2009. It's actually pretty decent too. But they had to get on without Kansas' main songwriters and Fleetwood Mac still has 2 of 3 songwriters. But I think FM and definitely Mick are very commercially minded and wouldn't put an album out under a different name.

Additionally, Kansas is now putting out their first album since 2000 next month following Steve Walsh's departure a couple years ago.

paleshadow · #49 08-06-2016, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeVielhaber

But I think FM and definitely Mick are very commercially minded and wouldn't put an album out under a different name.

I don't think that if Lindsey and Chris are still on board they would put out an album under a different name. If it was just Mick and John maybe. I agree with the focus being on commercialism, and I think they would have to shop around for an independent label if they move forward w/o Stevie. Maybe they should do that either way though.

SorcererJP · #50 08-06-2016, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

At least he didn't hold them up and left the band.

I think 1987 was another era and complete other situation.

They had a major release (despite the history of making it), a few hit-songs. They were in their early 40's. Prime of their (creative) lives.

NOT touring after such a hit was complete not done back then. They just had to Nobless Oblige. So they went with two replacements for Lindsey (and had succes too with even another album).

In 2016 they are all towards their 70th birthday. They don't have to tour. Touring or recording with anyone of the five fireflies missing is out of the question. They won't take that risk and will wait for Stevie to show up.

SteveMacD · #51 08-06-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SorcererJP

I think 1987 was another era and complete other situation.

They had a major release (despite the history of making it), a few hit-songs. They were in their early 40's. Prime of their (creative) lives.

Which is why I said "If it were 10 to 15 years earlier, I'd absolutely part ways with her, but realistically it's all about to wrap up in the next few years"

SteveMacD · #52 08-06-2016, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I agree with the focus being on commercialism, and I think they would have to shop around for an independent label if they move forward w/o Stevie. Maybe they should do that either way though.

I'd love to see them on Matador, although Nonsuch might be preferable since it's a Warner subsidiary.

ETA: I don't think they'd have as much of a problem finding a label, since they're recording on their own dime. They don't need an advance and would be giving the label a completed Fleetwood Mac album. A smaller label would jump at the chance at having such a prestigious band on their label.

guillamene · #53 08-06-2016, 04:50 PM

YES - release the album without Stevie! And I mean an album - we don't want the material to be come out in in bits and pieces as 'previously unreleased' or 'bonus tracks' of some anthologies of the future. It won't be the first time that this band released a record without the particpation of a key member.....
As regards a tour: they won't/can't tour without Stevie. Fact.And if the five do go on the road, what will a 2017/18 show have that 'On with the Show' didn't? Very little!Remember the audience reaction to the return of Christine - there is no way that this can be replicated next time(should there be a next time). As a final tour ,'On with the Show' will be very difficult to surpass.
On a personal note, it was quite stressful for me last year between securing
seats for shows I wanted to see, paying a LOT of money for good seats, worrying if the shows would go ahead after the few cancellations and then give statement to police DURING the show as a result of witnessing an altercation between a genuine fan and an abusive 'lady' in front of us who persisted in holding up her cellphone to take selfies of herself and her boyfriend! But that's another story....

michelej1 · #54 08-06-2016, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleshadow

It took that long to put the album out, but the decision to move forward with a new album sans Chris didn't take that long.

At the time, Stevie said that the reason they waited so long was because they were giving Christine time to change her mind.

Michele

HomerMcvie · #55 08-07-2016, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

I don't get why she wouldn't want to be a part of THE LAST project of the band that gave her everything.

You comparing it to Tango and Lindsey quitting is not even in the ballpark.

Sorry, if I"m coming off as a jerk.. I'm just so frustrated with not getting to hear the new music that I guess I am becoming a little impolite. I apologize (sincerely)

Because she's a witch. A selfish witch. Except I made a typo on witch.

BLY · #56 08-07-2016, 12:05 PM

This will NEVER happen!

bombaysaffires · #57 08-08-2016, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

At the time, Stevie said that the reason they waited so long was because they were giving Christine time to change her mind.

Michele

I'm reminded of the Mirage scenario where Stevie threatened she could go to RollingStone and tell everyone how she thought the album sucked if they didn't give her her way. I don't see her being above threatening similar now if they were to put out something without her. That's the biggest issue-- they all know the media sh$tstorm she could and would cause if they didn't do things on her timetable.

I can see the stories now: "It is so sad that the band had to end like this", says Nicks, wiping away a tear. "The band that I gave up my whole life to, just turned its back on me. I have always, always made Fleetwood Mac my first priority. When I did Bella Donna, my first ever solo album, it was a very big deal for me, but I only went on tour for 6 weeks because of my commitment to Fleetwood Mac. My band and I could have kept touring for that record for months and months but it was important to me to let Fleetwood Mac know that they were still everything to me. And now, after everything we've been through together, this will be our sad legacy, to be left out of what is probably their last album ever" etc etc

jmn3 · #58 08-08-2016, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

I'm reminded of the Mirage scenario where Stevie threatened she could go to RollingStone and tell everyone how she thought the album sucked if they didn't give her her way. I don't see her being above threatening similar now if they were to put out something without her. That's the biggest issue-- they all know the media sh$tstorm she could and would cause if they didn't do things on her timetable.

I can see the stories now: "It is so sad that the band had to end like this", says Nicks, wiping away a tear. "The band that I gave up my whole life to, just turned its back on me. I have always, always made Fleetwood Mac my first priority. When I did Bella Donna, my first ever solo album, it was a very big deal for me, but I only went on tour for 6 weeks because of my commitment to Fleetwood Mac. My band and I could have kept touring for that record for months and months but it was important to me to let Fleetwood Mac know that they were still everything to me. And now, after everything we've been through together, this will be our sad legacy, to be left out of what is probably their last album ever" etc etc

I could see her trying that approach. The difference between 1982 and now is that Stevie Nicks isn't really relevant anymore. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'd lay it out there and let her go to the press if she wants. Maybe that's one way to make Fleetwood Mac interesting again...a big ass war. Stevie whining...Lindsey giving his philosophical rambling replies...and then Chris just being all like "And now you see why I went into hiding for 16 years?"

Jondalar · #59 08-09-2016, 03:24 AM

They should release a new album without Stevie. Tango in the Night proves they don't need her and 24 Karat Gold proves that she is better off on her own.

Macfan4life · #60 08-09-2016, 04:45 AM

We all can use the "should" word. The Mac should release the album without Stevie. The Mac then should tour without Stevie.
Reality check: It wont happen.
If the Mac would record without her, Stevie would never do a tour to promote the album she was not part of. The Mac knows that and that is why Mick said the album is shelved for now.