The Upside - Page 2

becca · #16 08-16-2002, 01:22 AM

I think she has been the most successful member of FM ever, there is a reason for that. She has become a superstar/celebrity in a sense I don't think you can say about the others in that if people know of only one name or image connected to FM it is likliest to be hers.

Artistically and commercially she has hit big some home runs. You couldn't avoid Gypsy for a couple years. I remember Rhiannon was huge with teens when it was out. Dreams. I think those have to be the three most successful songs ever.

Unfortunately you can get overexposed and tired of some of it. I tend to play Kirwan, Welch and Christine McVie songs mostly now myself, if I am not in a blues mood. I used to prefer Buckingham and Nicks once, well, always liked Christine's songs too.

The Tower · #17 08-20-2002, 07:42 PM

Richard Dashut once said "Stevie is SUCH a nice lady.."

I really appreciate how warm and congenial Stevie CAN be- granted, she's had her volatile moments.

The fact that she had (has) such a great, sisterly relationship with Christine. The part of the Tusk documentary where John carries/drags her away from the photo shoot and both of them are laughing. Her ability to be bright and smiling with Lindsey, even when they may not like each other.

That kind of stuff....

tommer · #18 08-21-2002, 08:32 AM

to me the answer to this question is trivial,
stevie nicks is the heart and SOUL of fleetwood mac. easy.
i can say for myself that yes, i came because of christine and lindsey, but i stayed because of stevie.

the other main contribution is of course sales figures, it was proved that she may not be the biggest hit maker at times, but the band can have a no.1 album without lindsey (and i'm sure they will still sell nicely now without christine) but with stevie the equation is clear, no stevie=no sales.
all you stevie critics here can bitch as much as you like, but the fact remains that since 1977 (in theory, and since 1981 in facts) this lady did not need fleetwood mac for her career, the band depended on her and not the opposite.

CarneVaca · #19 08-21-2002, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tommer
all you stevie critics here can bitch as much as you like, but the fact remains that since 1977 (in theory, and since 1981 in facts) this lady did not need fleetwood mac for her career, the band depended on her and not the opposite.

Tommer, you make an important distinction by using the 1977 date. Correct me if I am wrong, but by using that date you are conceding that Stevie most positively and absolutely needed Lindsey to become who she became. And that is what we diehard Lindsey fans have argued. Is Stevie a magnificent stage presence? Yes. Did (and I mean did) she have a lovely voice to accompany some surprisingly different and fresh lyrics? Yes. Was she photogenic and deserving of all the attention she got? Yes and maybe.

My second point is this: Stevie arguably did not need Fleetwood Mac from circa 1978 to about 1986. But after the release of Rock a Little, she started to lose popularity. We've discussed ad nauseum why, so I shan't get into that. So she started to need Fleetwood Mac again. But around 1990 with the release of Behind the Mask, signs started to appear that Fleetwood Mac NEEDED Lindsey Buckingham. Proof: Fleetwood Mac asked Lindsey for a new song and used two Lindsey outtakes for its The Chain box.

In 1995 (or whenever Time came out) it became OBVIOUS that Fleetwood Mac needs Lindsey Buckingham. So, you see, it all goes back to Stevie needing Lindsey to REMAIN commercially successful, though one can argue that she is popular on her own. Don't believe me? Let's compare the sales numbers of the next Fleetwood Mac studio album with TISL. In fact, let's do an album pool (like the superbowl pools) and see who gets closer.

So in conclusion:

Stevie needs Fleetwood Mac. Fleetwood Mac needs Lindsey Buckingham. Therefore Stevie Nicks needs Lindsey Buckingham.

SmthngOfADreamr · #20 08-21-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Stevie needs Fleetwood Mac. Fleetwood Mac needs Lindsey Buckingham. Therefore Stevie Nicks needs Lindsey Buckingham.

There are a gazillion ways to look at every situation, and you're nuts if you don't think that the reverse or your above scheme is also true. That is to say, that Lindsey needs Fleetwood Mac, Fleetwood Mac needs Stevie Nicks. Therefore Lindsey Buckingham needs Stevie Nicks.

tommer · #21 08-21-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Correct me if I am wrong

gladly.

Quote:

you are conceding that Stevie most positively and absolutely needed Lindsey to become who she became.

and lindsey needed mick. LUCK was the main factor there.

Quote:

(and I mean did)

my english sucks, but i think the correct word to use there is "IS" and not "DID"

Quote:

signs started to appear that Fleetwood Mac NEEDED Lindsey Buckingham. Proof: Fleetwood Mac asked Lindsey for a new song and used two Lindsey outtakes for its The Chain box.

they also used an unreleased jeremy spencer track, is it your idea that they needed him too? and anyway, i consider 'make me a mask' to be one of "fleetwood mac"'s all time lows.

Quote:

In 1995 (or whenever Time came out) it became OBVIOUS that Fleetwood Mac needs Lindsey Buckingham

as i mentioned earlier, the difference between the two lindsey-less albums was the absence and presence of stevie, one did well despite lindsey's absence (but with stevie) and one failed (no stevie=no sales)

Quote:

it all goes back to Stevie needing Lindsey to REMAIN commercially successful.....Let's compare the sales numbers of the next Fleetwood Mac studio album with TISL.

i rather compare TISL's sales to Gift Of Screws' "sales". stevie never sold more than FM, yet one could only speculate as for what hights her solo career could have gone to if she would have taken it more seriously and not as a side effect to her band's career.

Quote:

let's do an album pool (like the superbowl pools)

i'm not american. i've no idea what you mean.

Quote:

Stevie needs Fleetwood Mac. Fleetwood Mac needs Lindsey Buckingham. Therefore Stevie Nicks needs Lindsey Buckingham.

not exactly. there will always be a record company out there who would love to help stevie's songs see the light of a music store's shelf, she doesn't need the 'fleetwood mac' title to release her songs.

CarneVaca · #22 08-21-2002, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tommer
[B] and lindsey needed mick. LUCK was the main factor there.

I'd call it happenstance.

they also used an unreleased jeremy spencer track, is it your idea that they needed him too?

At that point, they might as well have tried that. Of course, new tracks from Stevie and Christine were also used. But not only did they get a new track from Lindsey, they dug up two of his unreleased tracks as well. The point being that he wasn't officially in the band then, and they asked him for a song. If that weren't enough, they went to the vaults for more of his stuff. The unreleased Spencer track was obviously for historical purposes.

there will always be a record company out there who would love to help stevie's songs see the light of a music store's shelf, she doesn't need the 'fleetwood mac' title to release her songs.

That may be true, but 20 years from now we might be saying the same about Spitney Beers too.

Gypsy-Rhiannon · #23 08-21-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

There are a gazillion ways to look at every situation, and you're nuts if you don't think that the reverse or your above scheme is also true. That is to say, that Lindsey needs Fleetwood Mac, Fleetwood Mac needs Stevie Nicks. Therefore Lindsey Buckingham needs Stevie Nicks.

Very good point

Pip

BTW...LMAO at Tommers signature

sulamith · #24 08-21-2002, 11:54 AM

SmthngOfADreamr!
I was going to post the EXACT same twist on Carne's post!
Glad we think alike!

Admittedly this is fun to discuss as long as we know we aren't going to change anyone's mind and nobody of going to get mad.

Having said that, I will venture out onto this rather precarious limb and say that I agree FM needed Lindsey in 1974, but what if he had joined without Stevie?
Without the eye-candy of Stevie, would the band have been as successful?
Would they have gotten as much attention?
Imagine 70's FM with no Rhiannon, no Dreams, and a HAPPY content Lindsey with a sweet little gypsy wife at home and nothing to rail about. That would have led to no GYOW, no Chain, no Tusk, etc, etc....

Sounds pretty boring to me.

They would have been like America, or the Doobies, or MAYBE Queen if they had dressed Mick up in a dress more often and Lindsey went heavy on the eye shadow.

I'm glad they "needed her" even if they didn't know they needed her as much as they needed Lindsey.

This really is an endless debate isn't it?

tommer · #25 08-21-2002, 12:03 PM

Quote:

The point being that he wasn't officially in the band then, and they asked him for a song.

if my memory serves me well, stevie wasn't officially a band member too in 1992.

Quote:

That may be true, but 20 years from now we might be saying the same about Spitney Beers too.

(you didn't get my hint...)

The Tower · #26 08-21-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sulamith
They would have been like America, or the Doobies, or MAYBE Queen if they had dressed Mick up in a dress more often and Lindsey went heavy on the eye shadow.

Have you seen some of those tour shots from the Tusk era??? Lindsey was the Queen of Eye Shadow and Eye Brow Pencil!

Maybe that's what Stevie was talking about in "Nightbird".....

CarneVaca · #27 08-21-2002, 01:07 PM

Sorry... can't talk now. Too busy working on my next episode of...
Tusk: The Story Behind the Story.

Johnny Stew · #28 08-21-2002, 03:17 PM

I'm really not trying to cause an argument, or perpetuate one... and i'm also not trying to be contrary....
but I'd venture to say that the inclusion of "Silver Springs" on '25 Years - The Chain' was regarded as more of a selling point than "Goodbye Angel" and "Teen Beat."
(And I should note at this moment, that "Goodbye Angel" is one of my favorite songs.)

With absolutely no disrespect meant towards Lindsey in any way, shape, or form, i *do* believe that Stevie's presence in Fleetwood Mac does bolster their sales a little more than if Lindsey were there sans Stevie (referring back to that 1995 blurb by Entertaintment Weekly: "who gives a Tusk about a Fleetwood Mac without Stevie Nicks?" And *this* being said at a time when her career was allegedly in ruins).

But the absolute undeniable fact of the matter is, the inclusion of BOTH individuals at the same time, is what *really* boosts the Mac, sales-wise and creatively (IMO).

Lindsey is a force to be reckoned with in Fleetwood Mac. He has crafted some absolutely brilliant and beautiful songs, and can simultaneously create the most scorching, yet subtle guitar lines.

Stevie gives Fleetwood Mac a voice that is instantly recognizable (whether you love it or hate it), lyrics that are poetic and moving, and a certain je ne sais quois that seems lacking without her.

Fleetwood Mac has existed without them, and has done very well for themselves, but in my opinion, their inclusion kicks everything up a notch.

Johnny Stew

bjk3047 · #29 08-21-2002, 03:25 PM

Quote:

my english sucks, but i think the correct word to use there is "IS" and not "DID"

No, that's quite legitimate as is. Oh yeah, and it's gramatically correct too.

Quote:

they also used an unreleased jeremy spencer track, is it your idea that they needed him too?

There's a bit of a difference between using one unreleased song, and using two unreleased songs AND ASKING for another new one. He wasn't even part of the group! And how do you figure on Stevie not being in the band? She sang backup on Heart of Stone...

Quote:

as i mentioned earlier, the difference between the two lindsey-less albums was the absence and presence of stevie, one did well despite lindsey's absence (but with stevie) and one failed (no stevie=no sales)

Oh I'm sorry, follwing up 5 straight multi-platinum albums with a gold certification is.....doing well. My mistake.

Quote:

i rather compare TISL's sales to Gift Of Screws' "sales".

Seeing as how that's quite possible and all.

Quote:

stevie never sold more than FM, yet one could only speculate as for what hights her solo career could have gone to if she would have taken it more seriously and not as a side effect to her band's career.

Not to be picky, but if you're the one who's going to bring up grammar...height. And yes, merely speculation, nothing more. And if you call 2 albums in a 5 year period in which FM was not together...a side effect...well, in my opinion, you'd be wrong.

Quote:

not exactly. there will always be a record company out there who would love to help stevie's songs see the light of a music store's shelf, she doesn't need the 'fleetwood mac' title to release her songs.

Once again merely speculation. You don't know there'll ALWAYS be a label, there hasn't yet been one...

And how does one figure that Lindsey needs Fleetwood Mac? He's released albums on his own time and really hasn't given a crap about what the public thinks of his work. It's not like he has or had much of an image that he needed to sell records. So what part of FM does he need?

-Brian

sulamith · #30 08-21-2002, 03:42 PM

Tower, he did go pretty heavy on the eyeshadow, didn't he?
The guy has a little punk in is soul, I guess. He can play in my make-up case anytime, kinky boy.

Johnny once again, SO right you are, and just what alot of us keep repeating and I guess will continue to repeat........
Hey dudes! It's all about Stevie and Lindsey TOGETHER!!!
Buckingham Nicks kicks butt! Such a perfect blend of feminine and masculine, dark and light. Soft where it needs to be soft, hard where it needs to be edgy and raw, dreamy, sensual, and quiet and loud all at once.

There's no other combo like them, hands down, like it or not.
This new CD is going to rock my soul, and I can't wait for the latest from Buckingham Nicks!