Mick denies Stevie Nicks kicked Lindsey out of

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

Again, your sources are full of sh!t - claiming that Lindsey would demand that Fleetwood Mac wait nearly two years to tour again. No matter whose camp I was in, there's no way in hell I would understand such an insane proposition. If you take them at their alleged word, no questions asked, then it really is hopeless for anyone to further discuss this matter with you.

If these 'sources' even exist.

[elle]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

Again, your sources are full of sh!t - claiming that Lindsey would demand that Fleetwood Mac wait nearly two years to tour again. No matter whose camp I was in, there's no way in hell I would understand such an insane proposition. If you take them at their alleged word, no questions asked, then it really is hopeless for anyone to further discuss this matter with you.

those sources miraculously showed up in Mick / Sugar's (or is it Neil maybe? ) mind since he / she first started posting claiming to not know anything. these imaginary sources then confirmed Sugar's fantasies.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by dreamsunwind

If these 'sources' even exist.

And, the thing about Rick Turner talking about his sources, he’s been associated with Fleetwood Mac since at least 1974, when John started playing Alembics. So he has some credibility when he talks about HIS sources. He knows that his source is legitimately connected with Lindsey. That’s not my issue with Rick’s comment. MY issue is whether or not the source had all of the information about what went down, or just one side.

But Sugar Mouse still hasn’t answered my question.

[elle]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

And, the thing about Rick Turner talking about his sources, he’s been associated with Fleetwood Mac since at least 1974, when John started playing Alembics. So he has some credibility when he talks about HIS sources. He knows that his source is legitimately connected with Lindsey. That’s not my issue with Rick’s comment. MY issue is whether or not the source had all of the information about what went down, or just one side.

i would assume that Rick's source has Lindsey's side. is that what you mean?

now remember we also have Brett's side and he was there for some of the events, as photos and videos show.

[David]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Again, they told me that Lindsey was pushing to move the tour until late 2019 and the band got fed up and fired him. I said nothing about whether they were sympathetic or not to Lindsey's plight. They were sad that it came to a parting of the ways and they said they understood both positions; the band's position that Lindsey had agreed to the tour and then changed his mind and pushed to move it back until next year and Lindsey's position that the band owed it to him to be very flexible with rescheduling dates.

"Probably some of you know that, for the last three months, I have sadly taken leave of my band of 43 years, Fleetwood Mac. This was not something that was really my doing or my choice. I think what you would say is that there were factions within the band that had lost their perspective. ... The point is that they'd lost their perspective, and what that did was to harm — and this was the only thing I'm really sad about, and the rest of it becomes an opportunity — but it harmed the 43-year legacy that we had worked so hard to build. And that legacy was really about rising above difficulties in order to fulfill one's higher truth and one's higher destiny."

Now, what do these noble sentiments have to do with pushing back a tour? Why on earth would Lindsey be talking about the band's "higher truth" and its legacy if he really just wanted to put Fleetwood Mac on yet another hold while he worked solo? Doesn't add up. If they didn't let him work solo in 2018 and demanded instead that this be a year of band activity, he'd have said something a lot more along the lines of "Factions within the band [fill in with whatever highflown Lindseyisms you want] decided that they didn't want to wait for me to finish a solo project." Or he may have said "We weren't all on board about the importance of recording new music to fulfill the band's higher truth."

He's talking about "legacy" and "destiny" because a) he talks like that anyway, and b) he wasn't on board with another big touring circus of very old music. He was worried about the band's legacy — about not creating anything new. He's always been about creating something new. That's what he values. (Whether or not his creations were really new is an entirely different and irrelevant matter.) Another year of touring behind the White Album and Rumours is not his idea of adding to a legacy. That's why Mick and Stevie got "fed up" (as you put it). This mess wasn't about rescheduling dates.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

Again, your sources are full of sh!t - claiming that Lindsey would demand that Fleetwood Mac wait nearly two years to tour again. No matter whose camp I was in, there's no way in hell I would understand such an insane proposition. If you take them at their alleged word, no questions asked, then it really is hopeless for anyone to further discuss this matter with you.

Why does it bother you all so much that I'm stating what every media outlet has reported for the last month? If it makes you feel better to cling to your conspiracy theory, then so be it.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by David

"Probably some of you know that, for the last three months, I have sadly taken leave of my band of 43 years, Fleetwood Mac. This was not something that was really my doing or my choice. I think what you would say is that there were factions within the band that had lost their perspective. ... The point is that they'd lost their perspective, and what that did was to harm — and this was the only thing I'm really sad about, and the rest of it becomes an opportunity — but it harmed the 43-year legacy that we had worked so hard to build. And that legacy was really about rising above difficulties in order to fulfill one's higher truth and one's higher destiny."

Now, what do these noble sentiments have to do with pushing back a tour? Why on earth would Lindsey be talking about the band's "higher truth" and its legacy if he really just wanted to put Fleetwood Mac on yet another hold while he worked solo? Doesn't add up. If they didn't let him work solo in 2018 and demanded instead that this be a year of band activity, he'd have said something a lot more along the lines of "Factions within the band [fill in with whatever highflown Lindseyisms you want] decided that they didn't want to wait for me to finish a solo project." Or he may have said "We weren't all on board about the importance of recording new music to fulfill the band's higher truth."

He's talking about "legacy" and "destiny" because a) he talks like that anyway, and b) he wasn't on board with another big touring circus of very old music. He was worried about the band's legacy — about not creating anything new. He's always been about creating something new. That's what he values. (Whether or not his creations were really new is an entirely different and irrelevant matter.) Another year of touring behind the White Album and Rumours is not his idea of adding to a legacy. That's why Mick and Stevie got "fed up" (as you put it). This mess wasn't about rescheduling dates.

Let's dissect Lindsey's statement that you posted above.

1. Lindsey did not deny any part of the band's story. That's very telling.

2. Lindsey said that him being fired "was not something that was really my doing or my choice." Notice the tell there. He added "really" meaning that he knows that he had a part in being fired from the band. If he believed that he was an innocent bystander simply being fired for no reason then he would have said that in unequivocal terms. However, he did not do that.

Rather, he did not deny any part of the band's story. Until he does that, I find it very difficult to find any credibility in the theories floating around this forum.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by elle

i would assume that Rick's source has Lindsey's side. is that what you mean?

now remember we also have Brett's side and he was there for some of the events, as photos and videos show.

Yes.

And, I’d be really curious about what Brett had to say about it beyond leaving the Mac gig to stay with Lindsey. That could have been out of loyalty, but it could also be that he enjoys touring with Lindsey more or would rather play new songs.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by elle

now remember we also have Brett's side and he was there for some of the events, as photos and videos show.

Oh! I hadn't head Brett's story yet, just Frederico Pol's. What did he say?

[saniette]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Why does it bother you all so much that I'm stating what every media outlet has reported for the last month? If it makes you feel better to cling to your conspiracy theory, then so be it.

Because you're relying on unnamed sources that back your preconceptions about all this. And you dismiss named sources and any other evidence, like Lindsey's video at MusicCares, that challenges your predetermined opinion.

Every media source you cite is just repeating the band's narrative - these aren't independently corroborated sources. They're all echoing the same band interviews, and the body language is pretty clear in the CBS interview. As well as Stevie's "I'm the boss" Freudian slip.

Why would they fire Lindsey over a touring conflict? Why wouldn't they agree to mutually part ways as in 1987? That would mean Lindsey refused to budge from the arbitrary November 2019 date, which is completely implausible. That's the crucial piece that's missing here - not Lindsey's request, but that he refused to back down when/if they threatened to fire him.

I think they fired Lindsey because they didn't want to give him a chance to back down from his request to incorporate solo dates on the 2018 tour. They knew he probably would to keep peace in the band. This isn't really about touring dates at all - I think Stevie wanted Mike Campbell in the band, and wasn't going to take "No" for an answer as happened with Sheryl Crow. It's awfully suspicious how quickly Campbell was brought in after MusiCares.

I'd rather believe the most plausible explanation, rather than blindly follow whatever the band says. And I think the band is beginning to realize that firing Lindsey is a PR disaster, with the flimsy reason they're offering. I think most bands would spin it as a mutual decision even if it wasn't, which is what the band did in 1987.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by saniette

Because you're relying on unnamed sources that back your preconceptions about all this. And you dismiss named sources and any other evidence, like Lindsey's video at MusicCares, that challenges your predetermined opinion.

Every media source you cite is just repeating the band's narrative - these aren't independently corroborated sources. They're all echoing the same band interviews, and the body language is pretty clear in the CBS interview. As well as Stevie's "I'm the boss" Freudian slip.

Why would they fire Lindsey over a touring conflict? Why wouldn't they agree to mutually part ways as in 1987? That would mean Lindsey refused to budge from the arbitrary November 2019 date, which is completely implausible. That's the crucial piece that's missing here - not Lindsey's request, but that he refused to back down when/if they threatened to fire him.

I think they fired Lindsey because they didn't want to give him a chance to back down from his request to incorporate solo dates on the 2018 tour. They knew he probably would to keep peace in the band. This isn't really about touring dates at all - I think Stevie wanted Mike Campbell in the band, and wasn't going to take "No" for an answer as happened with Sheryl Crow. It's awfully suspicious how quickly Campbell was brought in after MusiCares.

I'd rather believe the most plausible explanation, rather than blindly follow whatever the band says. And I think the band is beginning to realize that firing Lindsey is a PR disaster, with the flimsy reason they're offering. I think most bands would spin it as a mutual decision even if it wasn't, which is what the band did in 1987.

So you'd rather believe a theory that not one online article supports? Not one ...

I can't say who my two sources are but I can say that Andy Greene (Rolling Stone senior reporter) has repeatedly said that the band told him that Lindsey wouldn't tour until November 2019. There's a source for you. I'm really not sure why you all are in such denial about this. The band says this is true. Lindsey has not denied this. No one in Lindsey management team has denied it. Rick's Facebook post doesn't even deny that possibility. All Rick said was that Lindsey and the band were negotiating tour dates. Rick doesn't know the details of those negotiations. Until Lindsey denies some part of the band's story, I'll stick with what every media outlet is reporting.

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by saniette

Because you're relying on unnamed sources that back your preconceptions about all this. And you dismiss named sources and any other evidence, like Lindsey's video at MusicCares, that challenges your predetermined opinion.

Every media source you cite is just repeating the band's narrative - these aren't independently corroborated sources. They're all echoing the same band interviews, and the body language is pretty clear in the CBS interview. As well as Stevie's "I'm the boss" Freudian slip.

Why would they fire Lindsey over a touring conflict? Why wouldn't they agree to mutually part ways as in 1987? That would mean Lindsey refused to budge from the arbitrary November 2019 date, which is completely implausible. That's the crucial piece that's missing here - not Lindsey's request, but that he refused to back down when/if they threatened to fire him.

I think they fired Lindsey because they didn't want to give him a chance to back down from his request to incorporate solo dates on the 2018 tour. They knew he probably would to keep peace in the band. This isn't really about touring dates at all - I think Stevie wanted Mike Campbell in the band, and wasn't going to take "No" for an answer as happened with Sheryl Crow. It's awfully suspicious how quickly Campbell was brought in after MusiCares.

I'd rather believe the most plausible explanation, rather than blindly follow whatever the band says. And I think the band is beginning to realize that firing Lindsey is a PR disaster, with the flimsy reason they're offering. I think most bands would spin it as a mutual decision even if it wasn't, which is what the band did in 1987.

DING DING DING.
I totally agree.

[saniette]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Let's dissect Lindsey's statement that you posted above.

1. Lindsey did not deny any part of the band's story. That's very telling.

2. Lindsey said that him being fired "was not something that was really my doing or my choice." Notice the tell there. He added "really" meaning that he knows that he had a part in being fired from the band. If he believed that he was an innocent bystander simply being fired for no reason then he would have said that in unequivocal terms. However, he did not do that.

Rather, he did not deny any part of the band's story. Until he does that, I find it very difficult to find any credibility in the theories floating around this forum.

Why don't you bring the same microscope to the band's statement? No one but Stevie said "November", and I'm pretty sure she just pulled that date out of thin air. She doesn't have the greatest track record on accuracy.

Lindsey's "statement" was hardly that. It was a brief comment on the elephant in the room at a political fundraiser. Hardly the time and place to get into a long discussion of what actually happened.

And Lindsey is denying their story - factions in the band lost their perspective, which implies that they used an ostensible reason, like touring schedule conflicts, to oust him from the band.

Just because Lindsey doesn't explicitly deny their story doesn't mean it's true. He doesn't tend to issue statements.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by saniette

It's awfully suspicious how quickly Campbell was brought in after MusiCares.

Not really, though. Assuming there was a blowout and an ultimatum right after MusiCares, Mike Campbell would have easily been the first choice, especially given Stevie’s speech. Ask the woman who was literally just waxing poetic about Tom Petty who the band could get to play guitar that’s available, and it’s harder to see how Mike Campbell wouldn’t have been the first choice.

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

So you'd rather believe a theory that not one online article supports? Not one ...

I can't say who my two sources are but I can say that Andy Greene (Rolling Stone senior reporter) has repeatedly said that the band told him that Lindsey wouldn't tour until November 2019. There's a source for you. I'm really not sure why you all are in such denial about this. The band says this is true. Lindsey has not denied this. No one in Lindsey management team has denied it. Rick's Facebook post doesn't even deny that possibility. All Rick said was that Lindsey and the band were negotiating tour dates. Rick doesn't know the details of those negotiations. Until Lindsey denies some part of the band's story, I'll stick with what every media outlet is reporting.

You don't know a thing about Lindsey if you think he's gonna make any statement confirming or denying the band's story. I've said this a billion times but he basically never makes press statements on anything. When he starts doing his own promo for whatever he does next then he will probably address it but to just put out a statement? Nope. Stevie Nicks spent the entire late 1980s to mid 1990s completely dragging his name through the mud with the most melodramatic statements about their relationship and all you ever saw was "reps for Buckingham declined to comment".