So, In Regard To This New EP......

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by WatchChain

*No New Album
*No OFFICIAL NAME for the "Tour"
*A stage show and set list that (with the exception of the remarkable "Sisters" and two new songs) has been REHASHED for the past 20 years)

Call me crazy, but I'm a bit UNDERWHELMED by the whole "effort" (or lack thereof). I have WORSHIPPED Fleetwood Mac since 1977. I have bought EVERYTHING they've ever done and attended EVERY TOUR (and ALL solo member tours, including Chris McVie's only solo tour in 1984). But, I'm on the verge of losing interest.

Artists like Johnny Cash, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Tom Petty have made some of the best music of their careers after the age of 50 or 60. NOTE TO FLEETWOOD MAC: You can still saving this sinking vessel. Get Christine McVie to give up gardening and come back ONE MORE TIME. Hire an amazing producer like Rick Rubin, Ethan Johns, Mitchell Fromme or T-Bone Burnett and get back into the studio to make the greatest ART of your life (like you once did with "RUMOURS" and "TUSK, two of the greatest masterpieces in music history). Who gives a crap about TOP 40 hits or record sales? It's not going to happen anyway. Do you think Dylan and Springsteen are sitting around worrying about getting a TOP 40 RADIO HIT in 2013's market? Then, go out on the road with a revamped show (including the new music) and become ARTISTS again. You might even get critical acclaim and win a GRAMMY.......(RESPECT???)

BUT, I guess you're too busy trying to fill corporate rock arenas with the same tired casual fans and the same set list you've been playing for years. I did enjoy "SAY YOU WILL". While not perfect, it was a FINE EFFORT and you at least tried something different. Keep moving in that direction and I'll be the first to jump on board. For the first time in 35 years, I am considering NOT attending a Fleetwood Mac Tour. Why would I shell out 300 dollars plus parking and 15 dollar drinks to see the same show that I've been watching for years just to keep Mick from going broke for the 10th time. It seems to me that you're not really concerned with exploring the artistic future of this band, but rather just biding time to fill your retirement accounts. If not with the band, let Stevie and Lindsey go back to solo projects where THEY DO try to make some new and interesting art (SEEDS WE SOW & IN YOUR DREAMS). case closed

Great post and I agree with all of it except the description of SOTM on the current tour as "remarkable".I have been a fan the same amount of time and have no problem sitting this one out.

[AmazonWarrior]

Originally Posted by WatchChain;1087321Artists like Johnny Cash, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Tom Petty have made some of the best music of their careers after the age of 50 or 60. [U

NOTE TO FLEETWOOD MAC[/U]: You can still save this sinking vessel. Get Christine McVie to give up gardening and come back ONE MORE TIME. Hire an amazing producer like Rick Rubin, Ethan Johns, Mitchell Fromme or T-Bone Burnett and get back into the studio to make the greatest ART of your life (like you once did with "RUMOURS" and "TUSK, two of the greatest masterpieces in music history).

Amazing observation, I'd just like to add Paul Simon to your list of musicians who've remained productive in the dawn of their careers. I think if the band all volunteered to record close to where Christine lives, she might do it. She probably is done touring but I think she might enjoy being around her old bandmates once again.

I've been jokingly referring to this tour as "The 1% Tour" because only the top one percent can afford tix.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by elle

i'm really puzzled by all this aversion to downloading tbh. were you all against CDs when they first came out too?

Plus downloading hampers the mobility of songs. There are some songs I can't hear in my car because of Digital Rights Management issues. I don't like to "stream" music due to the sound vagaries, especially when you're in a moving vehicle. So, I often will copy digital music to a cd and play the cd in my car, but there are restrictions on my freedom to do that.

It's not about not embracing new technology. It's about not wanting to deal with the inefficiencies and artificial reins that the technology imposes.

Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I have a great stereo system at home, and there really is no difference unless you put headphones on.

I hear the difference, whether on my big sound system at home or in my car. I'm not an audiophile. I just have ears that pick up the distinction rather easily. Michele

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by WatchChain

*No New Album
But, I'm on the verge of losing interest.

Artists like Johnny Cash, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Tom Petty have made some of the best music of their careers after the age of 50 or 60. N

Who gives a crap about TOP 40 hits or record sales? It's not going to happen anyway. Do you think Dylan and Springsteen are sitting around worrying about getting a TOP 40 RADIO HIT in 2013's market? Then, go out on the road with a revamped show (including the new music) and become ARTISTS again. You might even get critical acclaim and win a GRAMMY.......(RESPECT???)

BUT, I guess you're too busy trying to fill corporate rock arenas with the same tired casual fans and the same set list you've been playing for years. I did enjoy "SAY YOU WILL". While not perfect, it was a FINE EFFORT and you at least tried something different. Keep moving in that direction and I'll be the first to jump on board. For the first time in 35 years, I am considering NOT attending a Fleetwood Mac Tour. Why would I shell out 300 dollars plus parking and 15 dollar drinks to see the same show that I've been watching for years just to keep Mick from going broke for the 10th time. It seems to me that you're not really concerned with exploring the artistic future of this band, but rather just biding time to fill your retirement accounts. If not with the band, let Stevie and Lindsey go back to solo projects where THEY DO try to make some new and interesting art (SEEDS WE SOW & IN YOUR DREAMS). case closed

Totally agree. Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning falls on deaf ears unless the tour were a flop. And if it were, well, they would just take it as FM is over, and give up. Let's face it, FM for all intents and purposes IS OVER. I'd rather get solo music at this point, anyway.

[KenB]

It's so strange -- I've spent many years listening to music hours a day. I worked for years as a professional music critic. Music is the biggest passion in my life. I also have perfect pitch and can easily pick out the notes in various instrumental lines in a song. Yet, I can't tell the difference between MP3s and a CD. I've even tested myself by having someone play each randomly and having me guess whether it's the CD or an MP3. I don't see how this can be the case when there are audiophiles who can't pick the notes out that are being played, but say they hear a "big difference" between the two formats. I don't doubt them; I just don't understand. And, yes, I'm old enough that I first listened to vinyl, then cassettes, then CDs, then digital.

Ears are weird, I guess.

Originally Posted by michelej1

I hear the difference, whether on my big sound system at home or in my car. I'm not an audiophile. I just have ears that pick up the distinction rather easily. Michele

[Nickingham]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Plus downloading hampers the mobility of songs. There are some songs I can't hear in my car because of Digital Rights Management issues. I don't like to "stream" music due to the sound vagaries, especially when you're in a moving vehicle. So, I often will copy digital music to a cd and play the cd in my car, but there are restrictions on my freedom to do that.

It's not about not embracing new technology. It's about not wanting to deal with the inefficiencies and artificial reins that the technology imposes.

Michele

Agreed.This is why I don't download anything off of iTunes.I usually go to amazon or somewhere else if I want to buy an mp3.I don't like it when DRM goes too far.If I buy a copy of something, I should be able to take it with me on whatever piece of technology or transferable medium I want.Of course I understand that it stops piracy...even though hackers can still rewrite the codes.

Believe it or not, there are alot of people who still don't have a computer.So if they want new FM songs, well, they're screwed.And FM loses money.That is why I think it's a poor choice to have those 3 songs available only on iTunes because it limits accessibility.

I can sometimes hear the difference between CD and mp3 quality.Usually when I burn an mp3 to a disc, I choose the slower burn speed. This keeps the quality of the mp3 intact.Although if I had to choose between mediums, I would pick CD's and vinyl. Cassettes would always wear out too quickly and 8 tracks were horrible!

No name for the tour? Not good, man.Not good.
I've never been to their shows (sad, I know) but from what I'm seeing in vids and reading, it seems they're phoning it in these days?
True, alot of fans like the classics(myself included), but there are so many other good songs from their albums that they can put in the setlists.

FM needs to make an album.With Christine.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by Nickingham

Believe it or not, there are alot of people who still don't have a computer.So if they want new FM songs, well, they're screwed.And FM loses money.That is why I think it's a poor choice to have those 3 songs available only on iTunes because it limits accessibility.

I wouldn't say a lot of people. And I doubt they would lose money from those people because it would cost them money to manufacture a cd. I'd say the loss of sales due to people who won't use itunes or amazon or whatever else is minimal. Plus, I bet EPs aren't very strong sellers on cd. Just like cd singles aren't which, at 3 songs, is essentially what this is. And I would like to have a cd myself, but not in any way because I think it's more beneficial to them to do so. Just for personal reasons.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by KenB

I also have perfect pitch and can easily pick out the notes in various instrumental lines in a song. Yet, I can't tell the difference between MP3s and a CD.

Congratulations on that. You are among a rare breed, and I envy you for that. No irony here, believe me.

However, perfect pitch and the ability to discern CD sound from MP3s are really unrelated qualities. I know for most people it doesn't make a difference, but it does for some. I can honestly walk into a retail store, hear a song and know immediately it's being piped in through an iPod or some such device. I can hear clipping on certain notes and I hear compression that, especially with songs that I am familiar with, changes the sound.

There is a difference. I actually used to laugh at people who were so insistent on the difference between vinyl and digital, and I'll be damned if I can't hear it now. It's, I suppose, a function of three and a half decades of listening to a lot of music.

[KenB]

But that's wht I'm saying: I've been listening to music for 30 years, many hours a day. And I listen closely, not as background music. Yet I can take a song I've heard 200 times on CD - say, "Never Going Back Again" - and play it as MP3, and I can't tell the difference. I'd just like to understand why. Is it just that we're all different in the way our ears work? Or is it a function of the fact that I've never had high-end audio equipment? I actually envy the people who can hear the difference; it makes me feel like I'm missing out on something!

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Congratulations on that. You are among a rare breed, and I envy you for that. No irony here, believe me.

However, perfect pitch and the ability to discern CD sound from MP3s are really unrelated qualities. I know for most people it doesn't make a difference, but it does for some. I can honestly walk into a retail store, hear a song and know immediately it's being piped in through an iPod or some such device. I can hear clipping on certain notes and I hear compression that, especially with songs that I am familiar with, changes the sound.

There is a difference. I actually used to laugh at people who were so insistent on the difference between vinyl and digital, and I'll be damned if I can't hear it now. It's, I suppose, a function of three and a half decades of listening to a lot of music.

[D.W-Suite]

Right, Sad Angel now has over 30,000 hits on Youtube. Rolling Stone have announced the band are planning to drop a new EP, Perez Hilton has linked people to the Sad Angel vid. It's about time they drop a date for this EP release or else all the hype will have come and gone before anything happens..... This isn't the late 70's guys. The world won't wait. Please hurry up.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by KenB

But that's wht I'm saying: I've been listening to music for 30 years, many hours a day. And I listen closely, not as background music. Yet I can take a song I've heard 200 times on CD - say, "Never Going Back Again" - and play it as MP3, and I can't tell the difference. I'd just like to understand why. Is it just that we're all different in the way our ears work? Or is it a function of the fact that I've never had high-end audio equipment? I actually envy the people who can hear the difference; it makes me feel like I'm missing out on something!

I'm in the same boat as you, but I don't envy the people that can tell the difference. Because they complain so much about sound quality. And I'm blissfully ignorant of it. I like my way better.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by KenB

Is it just that we're all different in the way our ears work? Or is it a function of the fact that I've never had high-end audio equipment? I actually envy the people who can hear the difference; it makes me feel like I'm missing out on something!

It could be the equipment, and I suspect different people hear things differently.

I remember about a year ago a friend I hadn't seen in a long time was telling me about his frustration with MP3s. We were sitting in my living room, running an iPod to a pretty decent Onkyo system, but certainly not what you'd call audiophile quality, and he was playing song after song in which you could hear the compression abuse and the peaking in some parts of the song.

After a while of venting our frustrations, we turned to something we could actually do something about -- quench our thirst with another beer.

[Macfanforever]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

iTunes does not sell MP3s. They sell AAC files, which are a proprietary Apple file type. You know those YouTube uploads are usually far worse quality than what you'd get from iTunes. Just saying.

Either way, I'd prefer a physical release as well, but only because I'd want it in my collection. I buy music in many formats, but for some artists I prefer hard copies.

Yes AAC files are lossless like MP3's .

I got tons of them.

I'm shocked that an older band will do something like digiital download deals especially they dont like the medium .

Its really a disconnect with their older fan that dont have a computer or a player that plays digital files.

Anyway whatever what the new tunes are release on .I hope they will sell good for them.

[Macfanforever]

I dont understand how come they could not sneak the new tunes on the Rumours release.

It would get the tunes without doing a separate release.