Chris won't come back....

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

Yes, of course! After I saw The Dance once, I knew I didn't need to see them again. Especially after Chris left. I had the same question as David when I see them on SYW. Who the hell am I paying to see?

Without Chris, I have little interest in seeing them live. ESPECIALLY with the backing band!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd come way closer to wanting to see them still, if they were a five piece(keep Brett). The more they add, the more it detracts.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by dissention

As a drummer? Not that much, I think he's overrated. He's competent.

yes after 1977 i think mick forgot how to drum creatively

[dissention]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Without Chris, I have little interest in seeing them live. ESPECIALLY with the backing band!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd come way closer to wanting to see them still, if they were a five piece(keep Brett). The more they add, the more it detracts.

Brett gets on my tits. I can't stand him.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

I've talked with a few really technically proficient drummers, who don't think much of him. He's -technically speaking- pretty simple. I think he does have a good "feel" though.
Would he work with a band like Rush, or the Police? No way. But, for a pop band, I think he fills the bill. Even if he would steal your silverware!

The problem I have with Mick is this:

from 1967-1977 his drums were better than average, especially with all the different styles thrown at him during this period. Green's blues, Welch's jazz/prog, etc etc

even his time keeping is questioned, which i won't debate

but really i think his personality is where his talent lies. that's pretty scary huh?!!!

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Without Chris, I have little interest in seeing them live. ESPECIALLY with the backing band!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd come way closer to wanting to see them still, if they were a five piece(keep Brett). The more they add, the more it detracts.

Yeah, I can't understand why they keep adding people. I'd prefer just them.

And about Mick, I imagine that if I ever get to see them, my bathroom break will be during his long-ass solo.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by dissention

Brett gets on my tits. I can't stand him.

Well, I didn't mean really Brett specifically. Only that they need someone on keys.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by dissention

Brett gets on my tits. I can't stand him.

I totally disagree. I got to meet Brett back in 1992 when he was in Mick Fleetwood's Zoo (with Bekka Bramlett). He was extremely friendly and gracious with the fans. He didn't have the "I'm better than you" ego you get from a lot of studio musicians who work with the big names. If Christine won't come back, Brett easily gets my vote. I was happy when they added him back in 1997. However, I wish that he would have been the only extra musician, and his presence more limited.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Would he work with a band like Rush, or the Police? No way. But, for a pop band, I think he fills the bill.

Actually, I'd put Mick somewhere between Ringo Starr and Keith Moon.

[ThePenguin]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I totally disagree. I got to meet Brett back in 1992 when he was in Mick Fleetwood's Zoo (with Bekka Bramlett). He was extremely friendly and gracious with the fans. He didn't have the "I'm better than you" ego you get from a lot of studio musicians who work with the big names. If Christine won't come back, Brett easily gets my vote. I was happy when they added him back in 1997. However, I wish that he would have been the only extra musician, and his presence more limited.

I'd agree Brett is a lovely guy; I think he is a good addition/'replacement' on keyboards...but I could do without the tons of other people up onstage as well. A couple, oK, but there are too many drummers etc.

-Lis

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

How can you tell -- between the dozens of producing, engineering & backup playing hands on the "Say You Will" album & the single dozen backup playing hands on the "Say You Will" tour?

How can you figure out what the hell you're actually listening to? More power to ya if you can.

Fleetwood Mac -- the actual members of Fleetwood Mac -- hides itself well nowadays.

True, but the same could be argued about the 1997 tour, which still featured Christine. I thought the SYW tour was as good as "The Dance" tour. IMO, one of the positive things we could say about the "Time" band is that it was just six musicians, only one of whom wasn't a member of the group (who was filling in for a member who didn't tour anymore).

Originally Posted by David

"Earth shattering"? You've stacked your argument with a loaded term. Are we supposed to respond that adding LB & SN was nothing special, or that Fleetwood Mac was never all that earth shattering to begin with, musically? And then you go on to compare songwriting styles, as if that were the only criterion worth artistic consideration.

Let me put it a different way. The greater musical paradigm shift for Fleetwood Mac wasn't when Stevie and Lindsey joined. It wasn't as radical a transition as say when Bob Welch joined the group. In fact, I think that Buckingham Nicks was already on the same musical paradigm as what Fleetwood Mac had evolved into. In terms of musical style, they were pretty much on the same page.

Originally Posted by David

I would say the greatest artistic strength of adding the two Americans to the band, especially at that point, was that Fleetwood Mac became a formidable, experimental, accomplished force in the production realm. They had not been so in the early 1970s. There isn't anything, from a producer's or engineer's point of view, on albums like "Mystery to Me" or "Kiln House" or "Heroes Are Hard to Find" that is a very noteworthy engineering or production feat. But if "Rumours" were recorded in Serbo-Croatian & none of us understood a word of what was being sung, the album would still stand throughout the entire industry as the quintessence of gorgeous engineering & production.

Which is basically my point. It wasn't a change in any musical paradigm. The band just became more focused on production. They did twice as many albums in the first half of the seventies as they did in the last. But, to be sure, the three at the end were of much higher quality because of the attention to detail. Actually, I disagree about there not being as experimental 1970-1974. I think they were more experimental with their material, but they just didn't seem to follow through.

Originally Posted by David

Steve, bless you (& I've known you for a long time), but you're reaching here. You could find hundreds of pop songs from the early 1970s & cite "similarities" between them & Kirwan's sound.

I know. But the similarities between Buckingham Nicks and Kirwan, Green, Welch, and even Spencer is pretty remarkable to my ears. To me, the 1975 album is about as idealized a Fleetwood Mac album as there ever was. You could hear echos of "Bare Trees" and "Kiln House." You could hear echos of Peter Green. There were odd, mystic references, similar to those of Bob Welch (albiet in a completely different usage). It had all of the elements that Fleetwood Mac had built their career on, but featured two members who had nothing to do with the band up to that point. Best of all, they sounded as if they had been together for years. The sound was THAT natural. It didn't change anything musically too much, but rather it enhanced what already existed.

Originally Posted by David

You're on to something here, but it wasn't actually all that noticeable in 1973. He most definitely grew slowly into his ability, & then having achieved a certain skill level, pushed it further by reconceptualizing both his own role & the idealized role of the engineer/producer in the studio. He both benefited by the earlier creations of others & re-created.

I also see that as a parallel to Fleetwood Mac pre-1975. Mick and John were pretty unremarkable in 1970, but were a force to be reckoned with by 1975. Just compare "Station Man" on "Kiln House" to a 1975 live show. Mick and John totally played it safe in 1970, but played their arses off in 1975.

Originally Posted by David

I can't agree. I think Peter was a splendid vocalist -- quietly anguished without being obstreperous (like the early metal screechers), beautifully modulated, & with an unerring sense of tone.

Which is why I prefaced the comment with that Lindsey wasn't necessarily the best vocalist. Lindsey's a very versatile singer. He has a great, strong lead vocal, but can easily harmonize with other singers, which is why I say he had the strongest voice. However, if we're just talking lead vocals, yeah, Peter gets my vote hands down. Peter has the kind of voice that can easily break your heart in the best way.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

To me, the 1975 album is about as idealized a Fleetwood Mac album as there ever was. You could hear echos of "Bare Trees" and "Kiln House." You could hear echos of Peter Green. There were odd, mystic references, similar to those of Bob Welch (albiet in a completely different usage). It had all of the elements that Fleetwood Mac had built their career on, but featured two members who had nothing to do with the band up to that point. Best of all, they sounded as if they had been together for years. The sound was THAT natural. It didn't change anything musically too much, but rather it enhanced what already existed.

I agree with everything EXCEPT the "echoes of Peter Green". I don't hear ANYTHING even remotely "Greeny" about the '75 album.

Wait. Never mind. "I'm So Afraid" has some "hints of Greeny" about it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I totally disagree. I got to meet Brett back in 1992 when he was in Mick Fleetwood's Zoo (with Bekka Bramlett). He was extremely friendly and gracious with the fans. He didn't have the "I'm better than you" ego you get from a lot of studio musicians who work with the big names. If Christine won't come back, Brett easily gets my vote. I was happy when they added him back in 1997. However, I wish that he would have been the only extra musician, and his presence more limited.

I wasn't referring to him personally, I've never met the guy. I find his over-the-top antics on stage cloying, myself.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by dissention

I wasn't referring to him personally, I've never met the guy. I find his over-the-top antics on stage cloying, myself.

i hate when he twirls on stage with his shawl and screaming like an old man and makes google eyes at LB

oh wait that's not brett

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by chiliD

I agree with everything EXCEPT the "echoes of Peter Green". I don't hear ANYTHING even remotely "Greeny" about the '75 album.

Wait. Never mind. "I'm So Afraid" has some "hints of Greeny" about it.

Don't forget, "World Turning" was based on "World Keep On Turning."

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Don't forget, "World Turning" was based on "World Keep On Turning."

Other than the words "world" & "turning", I hear no parallel between the two songs. Never have.