The Time Appreciation Thread - Page 2

chiliD · #16 10-23-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

No I am not a pre B/N fan but I'm not a blues fan.

Pet peeve time: Why is it that people have this ill-conceived (and totally WRONG) notion that Fleetwood Mac was a "blues band" right up until the two spoiled California brats joined?

They weren't even a blues band when Peter Green left in 1970, much less during Bob Welch's tenure.

PsychCat · #17 10-23-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billwebster

As for the members of the Time era:
-a new solo album in the blues/pop/soul direction by Bekka would be much appreciated

You ain't kiddin'!
She's got a ton of stuff and her live performances are awesome... lots of that blues/pop/soul stuff you mentioned.
Her work with Sam Moore is amazing.
Randy Jackson needs to work on an entire cd with Bekka now!

SteveMacD · #18 10-25-2006, 10:00 PM

"Time"

I've become very ambiguious towards this album. Not because of who's on it or who's not on it, but because of the disjointed nature of the album.

The pros: It goes without saying that Mick and John were as solid as ever. I think Bekka Bramlett and Billy Burnette had a certain chemistry that had been lacking in the BTM version of the band, and they sound amazing together. I honestly can't criticize anything on their part. In fact, "Talkin' To My Heart" is perhaps my favorite post-Tusk Fleetwood Mac song. Christine's music was perhaps her most reflective. While I can't say that I loved all of her songs, I think there were a few that are among her best ("I Do" is catchy as hell). I really liked Mick's song. His guitar playing reminded me a bit of David Gilmour, and the song had a Pink Floyd vibe. I think the production value of this album is more in line with the standards of Fleetwood Mac, thanks to one Richard Dashut. Sonically, it sounds more like a Fleetwood Mac album than either BTM or SYW, which tells me that Richard was more responsible for the "Fleetwood Mac Sound" than a certain guitarist.

Cons: Dave's songs left me high and dry. I liked the version of "Blow By Blow" that I have on my websight, but the version that appears on the album is horrid. In general, I find that Dave's lyrics have gotten painfully trite over the years (I have all of his solo and Traffic albums, so I feel qualified to make that statement). Dave is a guy who's biggest hit was an AOR masterpiece, yet he acts like the fact he was pals with Jimi Hendrix makes him a hard rocker, and it just doesn't work. Especially in the context of the AOR royal family of Fleetwood Mac. You know Mick was thinking "Alone Together" and "We Just Disagree" when he asked Dave in the band, and these songs are pretty far removed from that. Another big grip is Steve Thoma and Michael Thompson are totally unnecessary (though it's understandable why Thoma, who was the band's keyboardist on tour, was on the record). This album generally feels like three or four different bands. It lacks focus or purpose, which can also be said of "Penguin" and SYW.

I guess the one thing I was most disappointed in, though, was the lack of a Christine-Billy song. Those two sound great together. Why they chose not to do a duet is a bit of a surprise.

So, while I love the album, I think this group of people could have made a much better, more cohesive album than what "Time" shows. The what could have been is greater than what actually was. They played it a bit too safe at times, and let band politics get in the way, which made the album suffer.

Neb-Maat-Re · #19 10-25-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

"Time"

I think this group of people could have made a much better, more cohesive album than what "Time" shows.

I don't disagree, but I still find Time more cohesive than Tango.

SteveMacD · #20 10-25-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

NO WAY! It's so bland.

It's less bland than either "Mirage" or BTM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

If i heard a song released from that album on the radio I wouldn't think "oh, thats a fleetwood mac song" I'd think "who's this? it's not bad"

When I first heard "I Do" on the radio at a doctor's office, prior to the album's release, I knew immediately that it was Fleetwood Mac. Christine's voice is pretty hard to miss, and John's bass line is almost impossible to miss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

I just don't class it is a Fleetwood Mac lineup. All the other lineups have had very much there own sound and this one just DOESN'T!!

Well, somebody obviously hasn't heard "Penguin" before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

Sorry, but I hardly EVER play ANY songs from this album. It's so unmemorable and bland - no flare. No power. NO STEVIE!!

That last point, in 1995, was actually a selling point for a lot of fans who had to suffer (and that's the only word for it) through countless hours of "Behind The Mask" bootlegs. Stevie, to be blunt, had become stale. She really didn't have anything to offer Fleetwood Mac, other than her name, and considering the sales of "Street Angel" and tickets for said tour, even that wasn't much. It's not like she was doing anything memorable, that wasn't bland, that had a lot of flare, and a lot of power. Even if she had been in the group, it would have been a bland album, and I use her contributions to "Tango In The Night," "No Questions Asked," and "Behind The Mask" as evidence.

SteveMacD · #21 10-25-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neb-Maat-Re

I don't disagree, but I still find Time more cohesive than Tango.

In hindsight, I think that statement could be made about every album since "Tusk," if we're being honest.

foxyluva · #22 10-25-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

In hindsight, I think that statement could be made about every album since "Tusk," if we're being honest.

I sort of agree. Although an album does not have to be cohesive to be good. I wouldn't call 'Tusk' that cohesive - in fact, that was the whole point...

SteveMacD · #23 10-25-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxyluva

I sort of agree. Although an album does not have to be cohesive to be good. I wouldn't call 'Tusk' that cohesive - in fact, that was the whole point...

The songs themselves weren't all that cohesive, but there was a spirit within all of the songs, the way they were produced, that creates a cohesive album. I've always looked at "Tusk" the way one looks at a painting. I always admire the various "colors" and "textures" througout the album, and the way they come together.

PsychCat · #24 10-26-2006, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I guess the one thing I was most disappointed in, though, was the lack of a Christine-Billy song. Those two sound great together. Why they chose not to do a duet is a bit of a surprise.

Totally agree with this!
That was one of the few truly savable things from "BtM" was Christine and Billy's performing together.
I also find it odd that as much as I love "Time".... Billy makes a great intro to the album then pretty much disappears until the end. What's up with that?
Also it's kinda odd how they cram all of Bekka's tunes together in the middle.