Mick Fleetwood - Album News - Page 2

David · #16 06-25-2002, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seteca
However, I personally, really can't understand why it's necessary at all to release a "Greatest Hits" album for the third time...??

It isn't necessary at all, Seteca. That's probably why you can't understand it. It's just a dumb thing to do, whatever the motive. It takes little effort, it doesn't head in any new directions & it doesn't give you the greatest confidence in the band's purported desire to continue working as a band. The idea of a band that has released two studio albums & a live album since its last greatest hits collection needing another greatest hits collection seems utterly pointless, at best.

I couldn't care in the least about Fleetwood Mac's financial motives for doing, or not doing, anything at all. They can be as altruistic or as sleazoid-greedy as they wish & it's of no import to me. But I am interested in artistic decisions they make because I am interested in them as artists. If they sell me 350 newly recorded songs tomorrow & I don't dig those songs, then I don't dig those songs & I'm going to enjoy talking about why in a community like this. I'd hope that at least a few others would reply with their own takes, & that we'd all get a kick out of hearing what we all like or don't like.

Quote:

None of us know for sure what is really happening with regards to the reasoning behind releasing a Greatest Hits album at Christmas time, just before a long awaited new album ...

That's true, too. But we don't have to know the reasoning behind a dumb move like this in order to form an opinion or react in other ways. Fleetwood Mac's a band: If they make a move, I see it & I'm either happy about it or busted up over it. I hope I can say so.

CarneVaca · #17 06-25-2002, 08:31 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Stew
[B]We also know that the band has actually had to shop this album around, in case Warners opted to not release it.

Since Fleetwood Mac is under contract with Warner Bros., they have to allow Warners first crack at the album. They have no choice.
So if Warner Bros says, "yeah, we want it... but we're not going to release it until June 2005," then the band has little recourse but to let them have their way."

Johnny, you seem terribly well informed. All this stuff you state as fact here as far as I know has been nothing but conjecture on boards such as this, unless you can prove me wrong. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that what you say above has actually happened. All we know thus far is that Warners has had some kind of upheaval, and by the way, so have all the other major labels.

You must be extremely well connected. Perhaps you know someone at the label or the band's management.

Otherwise, if we are merely playing the conjecture game, I will say only this: The band always has some kind of recourse, especially when it has that many songs ready to go. All they would have to do is submit a 10-song collection to Reprise and tell them: "Release it. That's the new album." In which case, Reprise could say: "No good. Change it. We can't release it." To which, the band could reply: "No way. That's it." Then Reprise could buy the band out, and the band would be able to go elsewhere.

Wilco did it. And with which label? You guessed it: Reprise.

So again, if you have facts, great. Tell us your sources. If you are talking out of your posterior, then we can do this speculation game for the next two weeks. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree. You want to go out and spend $20 for a bull**** greatest hits album, hey, go for it. And that goes for everyone else who says he/she is going to buy it. Enjoy it.

Cristian · #18 06-25-2002, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seteca

However, I personally, really can't understand why it's necessary at all to release a "Greatest Hits" album for the third time...?? The '88 GH album was a success and like I said, is still the definitive FM GH album. I mean, how many "hits" has Fleetwood Mac had between 1988 and 2002??? I could totally understand if they released the new album in early 2003, and it was a huge success and all or most of its singles did well in the charts, then sure, they could say after, it would be a good idea to release a new Greatest Hits album which includes the best of the new material aswell. And if they make a trillion dollars out of that...GOOD!...they damn well earned it!!

It is exactly what I think about this. Nobody wants to boycott the thing if it ever happens (it appears that it will happen after all), but all that people are saying is that is maybe not a good idea -- since there should not be many changes between the last GH package and this one. I mean, I'm obviously buying it anyway because I want to support the band, but this seems very strange...

Thanks God we had news after all. Thank you Mick.

Song of the moment - Rock A Little (Go Ahead Lily)

sodascouts · #19 06-25-2002, 09:58 PM

I could care less about what they do with Greatest Hits (Which I, too, feel is silly to release considering the Dance was really live greatest hits, too - and put together with the Live album of '80, that would make this next one their FIFTH "dig out Rhiannon" collection!!) I just have two things that I want.

1) NEW album is released

2) Tour occurs

My main concern is that all of this is bluster and that the album will never actually see the light of day (see GIFT OF SCREWS). Compared to that, I'll take what I can get. Sad, but true. I mean, when Lindsey states on national television that he's going to release an album and tour and still doesn't, even Mick's press release doesn't allay my fears for the worst (although I realize FM has a little more pull than Lindsey!) I've gotten paranoid. So, I'm not too tense about all this business about a silly greatest hits album....as long as they actually DO release the new one eventually!

PLEASE let me see Lindsey do "I'm So Afraid" live before I die (or he does!!) This is my prayer. lol

Johnny Stew · #20 06-26-2002, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, you seem terribly well informed. All this stuff you state as fact here as far as I know has been nothing but conjecture on boards such as this, unless you can prove me wrong.

You must be extremely well connected. Perhaps you know someone at the label or the band's management.

No, I don't have any connections with the band, or their label, or their friends, or even the people who pick up their trash every Monday morning.... I just read every tidbit about them that I can.
Unfortunately though, I dont always have the foresight, or the opportunity, to print them out or make copies of them, in the event that I should have to say, "I read it here."

Anyway... don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion... everyone is entitled to have one.
I'm just expressing *my* opinion in turn (based on what I've read regarding the release of the new album)... and my opinion is, that it's unfair to hold the band responsible for this delay and for the release of another greatest hits package.
9.5 times out of 10, the release of a greatest hits album is a record company's decision.

Would it be *my* choice to have another greatest hits album?... no, it wouldn't.
I'd MUCH rather see them re-master and re-release all of the studio albums from 1975-1987, in anticipation of the new album. But I don't get a say in that matter.
I DO get a say in what I will buy and what I wont buy... and the truth is, that i will buy whatever it is that they release.
No hedging about it... that's the plain, unadulterated truth.

So I see no reason for me to be upset about this release. In the grand scheme of my life, it's rather inconsequential... so I just accept it, and move on.

Maybe being a Mac fan for as long as I have, has made me more pragmatic about these things.
I don't know.

Again, anyone who opts out of purchasing it, definitely has that right... but, again, I think it's unfair to blame Fleetwood Mac for it.

By the way... for anyone asking what else they could possibly put on another greatest hits album.... last time, they left off "Think About Me," "Love In Store," and "Seven Wonders," to name a few.
So add those, the major hits, probably "Silver Springs" and "Landslide" from The Dance, and hopefully a couple of new tunes... and you have yourself a new greatest hits collection.

Johnny Stew

wetcamelfood · #21 06-26-2002, 06:38 AM

I don't profess to knowing who's "fault" it is that some of these possibilities (GH) may happen hence the reason I used the phrase "they" when referring to "THEY may (do such & such) with the new GH" etc. whether it's Warners or who because I fully admit I don't know anything about the record industry and who "has the say" on such issues so I "got around" expressing my opinion (as we all are) that way.

I made the joke about "blasting Mick again" because I figured that many would interperate it that I was "against the band (or it's members)" and the only way I "suspect" anything (if it must be worded this way) is that IF FM didn't like the decisions that WB makes/made about the way in which they "market" their material then when the opportunity for "The dance" arose then they could have gone elsewhere for a deal rather than sign/re-sign with WB/Reprise. It was my understanding from articles back then, (though I can't say whhich ones because I only heard about it second hand and if this is incorrect then please do correct me) that they had renewed their contract before the release of "The dance". Them signing/re-signing with them BACK THEN seems to me personally that it's almost their way of saying "we agree with the way you want to "deal" with us" whereas if they simply wanted to get their music out, then they could've put it out themselves (as I stated) and still made money off of it (even though we know/hear that they get most of their money (apparently) from touring, but it's not to say they don't get ANYTHING from the records (songwriting royalties to the relevant members, etc.) due to the fact that though they would have overheads putting it out themselves, they wouldn't have to give "the big chunk" that goes to the record company and they could've had their own say on their own dealings. I'm not saying they "should've done it my way" or anything and I don't care how they make their money or anything like that, I was trying to think of what their reasoning would be for signing/re-signing with WB/Reprise if we are to believe that they "don't care about the money" and wanted "creative freedom" etc. It was their decision and I'm just reading in to it what I think, it's not to say anyone else should think this way. Same goes for how I view Mick's own wheelings and dealings (see what I said in the Chit Chat "Pay for sites" thread so I don't have to repeat that all here).

I never said I was going to "boycott" the GH either, I simply was stating my opinion that I am not happy about the fact that I may get a GH album with a couple "new" songs and then, whenever the fully new album comes out, could very well be buying them again because THEY (notice the intended vagueness on my part again) could include them (same versions and all) on the new CD as well again. I'm simply stating a possibility, I'm not saying I know it will hapopen or anything, just my own personal randon thoughts which as Johnny Stew says, we are all allowed to express here.

John

DownOnRodeo · #22 06-26-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodascouts
that would make this next one their FIFTH "dig out Rhiannon" collection!!

Haha sodascouts - that's so good. And after all, these days ol Rhiannon is pretty much a musical ghost of its former self ... did you mean "dig up Rhiannon"!!!

Oh my this has become the Bitching Board hasn't it! Hah, hope no one minded that bitch about the witch!!

Quote:

PLEASE let me see Lindsey do "I'm So Afraid" live before I die (or he does!!) This is my prayer. lol

Amen to that! And preferably while not too old - I don't want to sit and listen to "I'm So Afraid, days when the nurses steal my money"!

Cheer up all. It's not like they're not putting out anything aat all now is it. Meanwhile I somehow manage to agree with all of you, in a very schizophrenic way. But I think it's better we all vent.

seteca · #23 06-26-2002, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodascouts
PLEASE let me see Lindsey do "I'm So Afraid" live before I die (or he does!!) This is my prayer. lol

Hahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!

I completely share your sentiment!!!

But that was hilarious, in a sick kind of way !!! I can't remember the last time I literally burst out laughing reading something on The Ledge !!!

wetcamelfood · #24 06-26-2002, 07:33 AM

I didn't mean for my last post to come across as "bitchy" (as it seems that it may have been interpreted that way). It was JMHO and I felt I needed to clean up a few things that I fear were being read in to my post previous to the last one.

John

CarneVaca · #25 06-26-2002, 08:53 AM

Johnny, I don't mean to pick on you since ultimately we want the same thing: more new FM music. It's just that you seem more willing to buy recycled music. I want NEW stuff.

Your point that we shouldn't blame the band members for this is completely off the mark. You know, as should anyone who has been following this band for a while, that each member has a separate manager, that each has side businesses. (I believe John McVie still owns that charter boat company in the Bahamas. And let's not talk about Mick and his myriad schemes.) So it's not like they're so devoted to the entity that is Fleetwood Mac that they are doing everything they can for the fans. Quite to the contrary. I admire Lindsey, and he remains my favorite guitarist, but I've grown quite weary of this overgrown child's repeatedly telling us it's about the integrity of the art and not the business when he quite clearly has made some very conscious business choices starting in 1997. All the feel-good talk about healing and reconciliation aside, no one can deny that the format of the Dance was nothing mroe than a business-inspired project. Otherwise we might have gotten songs Lindsey prefers, such as Eyes of the World and Gypsy, on the record instead of an anemic version of Dreams and Rhiannon without the raw emotion of the 1980 live album. And by the way, to his credit, Lindsey's songs are the ones in the Dance that continue to show some real emotion on stage. Christine was undoubtedly going through the motions.

But I digress... My point is that these five people who have accumulated a fair amount of legal, accounting and business advice could surely have gotten themselves a contract that would have been better for the fans. For instance, rather than going off on side projects at the end of the Dance tour, why not get right back in the studio and give us new music? By now they could be working on the third band studio album, or at least second. If it is true they have upward of 50 songs ready to go, then by Jove, find a way to release them. Other artists have:

Wilco, as I mentioned before, got itself a new label and already has a second album ready to go. While it was shopping for a new label, the band made the album available for download from their site, giving the hardcore fans a shot at the music first.

Ani DeFranco has remained independent, despite acquiring a comfortable level of fame, and releases at least one CD a year.

Marah, which has an album coming out in July, gave the true fans a chance at the new music by making it available on their site, albeit in a very low-fi format.

Cracker released each song off their new album separately on their site when the band learned the label was going to delay release of the CD for nine or 10 months.

And the list goes on, folks. So don't sit there saying you're going to "support" this band whenever they release another recycled collection and justify it to yourself as it being entirely the label's fault. That would be naive. Go out and buy it if you want, but realize what is really going on here.

If this band cared about the fans, it would find a way to give us something, as these other bands have. And don't tell me Lindsey himself leaked out those demos last fall. He's too much of a perfectionist to willingly let them out in public before being mastered.

So go on living your fantasy about this band caring about you, if you must. And meanwhile, why don't you go out and buy yourself a fourth copy of Rumours? Oh wait, that IS the greatest hits album they're going to release, only this time with Silver Springs on it.

Wild Heart · #26 06-26-2002, 01:22 PM

Are we just jumping the gun a little bit? No one even knows what is on this alleged Greatest Hits. It may not even be a Greatest Hits cd. Maybe Mick just referred to it as a GH because he didn't know what else to call it at the moment. (I love him but the man has snorted his fair share you know.) It could be a collection of anything, who knows. Maybe it's another collection of old pre-Rumours recordings. Maybe it's live stuff. Maybe it's B-sides and rarities. Who knows?! Just wait and see what comes out. There's no need to go ballistic about something that hasn't even happened yet.

Even if it is another GH, I'll buy it if there's even one new song on it. I see it no different than buying any other cd for one song which I have done many times before. I love this band and Stevie and I will happily buy anything they/she releases that is of any interest to me.

I do have one question though - if you think FM is a greedy, uncaring band to the point that you have a negative attitude towards them and don't support them, then why are you here?

CarneVaca · #27 06-26-2002, 01:39 PM

Are you supposed to post here only to kiss the band's ass? I thought this was a forum for the expression of opinions about the band. So when they're negative, you just shouldn't post?

David · #28 06-26-2002, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wild Heart
I do have one question though - if you think FM is a greedy, uncaring band to the point that you have a negative attitude towards them and don't support them, then why are you here?

I once said something harsh about what I considered the toadying careerism of a particular president, & somebody who heard me shot back, "If you don't like this country, why do you stay here?"

Is it really that illogical to some people for other people to like a band's music & style & not like the business or career decisions it makes? What's the source of the confusion in that?

Fleetwood Mac's a great band because it has recorded some of the best pop since the Beatles & some of the best blues, too. A lot of us respond to that achievement. But when it comes to keeping robust & active & pushing forward these past five years, the band fails on just about all levels. What's the big deal with talking about that sometimes? Don't you guys find it interesting, too? I absolutely love talking about the inane moves the band makes!

Sensitivity that is worn smugly, like a badge of honor, isn't sensitivity; it's just showoffy & it's pretty sordid & not very attractive in people.

Wild Heart · #29 06-26-2002, 02:12 PM

No need to get defensive. Everyone is welcomed here and are certainly free to express their opinions, negative or positive, but I was just wondering why, given what seems to be a very negative attitude towards Fleetwood Mac members, you would want to post those feelings on a FAN message board dedicated to Fleetwood Mac knowing you're just going to p!ss people off who consider themselves dedicated fans with comments like "go on living your fantasy about this band caring about you, if you must" and "why don't you go out and buy yourself a fourth copy of Rumours". It's just not necessary. I guess you think we're all "silly little dreamers".

BTW, I own four copies of Rumours. Maybe I just go out and buy a fifth today, just for the hell of it.

Gypsy-Rhiannon · #30 06-26-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Are you supposed to post here only to kiss the band's ass? I thought this was a forum for the expression of opinions about the band. So when they're negative, you just shouldn't post?

Negative opinions are as interesting as the positive. It certainly spices up the board which has been quiet on new lately. But there is clearly a way to post without sniping at others or implying they are stupid or naive.

Pip