What if Stevie had left in 1980?

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Also to add..I think that that DR documentary as was stated is severely edited simply due to the fact that they filmed over 500 hrs of footage and only released about 70 mins of footage...that tells you something right there..


Now to the actual topic : I think had Stevie left in 1980 Fleetwood Mac would not have had the success of the 80s that they had. Regardless of the "low" sales of Tusk, Fleetwood Mac were still pretty popular in 1980. Now I know I know Stevie isn't what "MAKES" Fleetwood Mac, but she was definetely the most visible one, and even though Christine had more hits with Fleetwood Mac than Stevie did--the crowds came for Stevie at that time.
Had she quit she would've done her solo album, and it would've been a hit as it was..however I think it would have been a BIGGER hit had she not been in Fleetwood Mac. She would've been able to devote much more time to promoting it without having to go back to Fleetwood Mac. Her tour was obviously cut very short, which in a way is unfortunate because I believe even though short the Bella Donna Tour was her best tour in terms of performance, of her entire solo career.
She likely would have done one or even two more solo albums in the 80s, which I think would've done well. It's a world of possibilities what would've happened. And while I think Fleetwood Mac still would have been able to function and go on without her, they would not have enjoyed near the success they did in the 80s.

[DavidMn]

I'm just glad it never happened.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Now to the actual topic : I think had Stevie left in 1980 Fleetwood Mac would not have had the success of the 80s that they had.

I disagree...I think had they (as I proposed earlier in the thread) got Bob Welch back, added Martha Davis, (plus, Todd Sharp on 2nd guitar)...I think they would've been just fine. Welch was still riding the wave of popularity from French Kiss & Three Hearts (granted The Other One didn't match the numbers of his previous two albums, but a return to Fleetwood Mac would've been met with high anticipation)...plus Martha Davis was at that time in the midst of writing her biggest hits, "Only The Lonely", "Take The L", "Misson Of Mercy", with "Suddenly Last Summer", "Remember The Nights" right on their heels. I think there wouldn't have been the dip in popularity that you would think. Plus, with Stevie & Lindsey out there on their own, it only would keep the Fleetwood Mac name in people's minds...plus, with the new more (then) current sound of Fleetwood Mac with Martha Davis & Bob Welch fronting the band with Christine, they PROBABLY would've had a more prolific decade...there would've been a Fleetwood Mac recording & touring for the WHOLE decade without the two & three (and more) year gaps. For what you might think would've been a slight decline in quality (however much I would debate that point, too), the QUANTITY would have kept them in the consistent public eye.

[The Tower]

I don't think Stevie has ever been capable of leaving FM. Even the early '90's thing I blame on Klonopin. I'm guessing she would consider leaving a "defeat"- and she doesn't strike me as the type of person that likes to lose. I think FM has so many romantic connotations for her that she will always be drawn to and a part of the band.

[SteveMacD]

We could what-if this period of the band's history to death. They were at a crossroads, and there were a number of potential situations.

To answer this question, if Stevie had quit the band in 1980, I think there are two things that could have happened. The first is that the band would have continued as a quartet. I believe Mick would have done "The Visitor" regardless, but Lindsey is the real crap shoot. On the one hand, being able to work without having to be the grand interpreter of Stevie's music would have had some appeal. On the other, I'm sure the others, especially Christine, would want the next album to be a bit more polished, which may have alienated Lindsey. So "Law & Order" may or may not have been made. For the sake of argument, let's say that Lindsey and Christine abandoned solo projects altogether. I'm certain that those four would have been able to produce an album every other year for a few years. I think the albums would have been successful because the sound would have been familiar. "Hold Me" was a hit, and I bet songs like "Trouble," "Got A Hold On Me," and "Go Insane" would have been huge hits, too.

The other situation would be that Lindsey would have left, too. Not because he didn't want to be in the band without Stevie. In fact, quite the opposite. The "if she can go solo, why the hell can't I" attitude. In that case, I see the band continuing with somebody like Todd Sharp. I don't know if I agree with Mr. D wanting to add Martha and Bob, though. With Martha, I don't see how adding somebody who sounds a little like Stevie would help the band advance to get beyond the image of the "Rumours" band. As for Bob, I just don't see any situation in which he'd come back to the band. He was happy being out of the group. And, could you imagine how it would feel for Bob to be in a situation where he joined joined the band after it had been huge in Europe, he left the band when it was playing clubs, it became Beatles big, and then comes back when it's on the downslide? Nobody wants to be the guy who's in the band only when it's NOT huge. If they were going to go back to a two guitarist line-up, I say give somebody new, who was connected to the band, a shot. Maybe Walter Egan.

Now, a few other what ifs...

What if the band had fired Lindsey in 1980, after he snapped, and actually got Clapton? I think Stevie would have left the band after the tour, but the band would have continued to be a monster. Now, Clapton, at least since 1974, liked having a second guitarist....What if Peter Green had gotten "better" (at least to where he was with the Splinter Group), had accepted the record contract Mick got for him, and was having success as a solo artist? What if Mick and Eric convinced him to rejoin the group? Would a Fleetwood-McVie-McVie-Green-Clapton Fleetwood Mac not have been HUGE? Provided everybody stayed sane, that group could have recorded for many years, and would have had success.

Or, what if Stevie left, and the band was able to get Green back? I think Lindsey was thinking about another guitarist for a while, and having Green in the band would have taken a lot of pressure off of Lindsey.

What if Lindsey hadn't quit in 1987, but Billy Burnette was still added to the group (as had been discussed prior to Lindsey's departure)? The band tours for "Tango," records as a six-piece for the new songs on the Greatest Hits package, and then Lindsey quits. Would people still have reservations about Billy?

What if in 1987 the band added Dave Mason or Roger McGuinn?

[JazmenFlowers]

I think if Stevie had left in 1980 FM would have continued on with a different sound. Maybe getting back to blues-"ish" music. I don't think they would have had the same success they had...they would've been successful, just went down a different, maybe less mainstream (that's a bad word, but the only one I can think of) path and I think they would have eventually dissolved by 85. I really don't see Stevie's career really changing much if she had left. Maybe one more album or tour, but I think if Stevie really wanted that to begin with she would have had it.

[Sorcerer386]

One thing you have to remember about the Destiny Rules documentary, it was, as we would all hate to admit, just a marketing device (at least as far as the record execs are concerned). It was used to redevelop the history of Fleetwood Mac, and show viewers that that story is still there. Stevie and Lindsey STILL exhibit this kind of romantic tension and creative differences that often lead to arguments. Lindsey is STILL "the trouble maker" (and it's not ME calling him a trouble maker...I think that's how he's perceived at some level), arguing with the band over, again, creative differences. There is STILL tension in the band. Lindsey might up and quit the project, and Stevie might cut the tour short. The purpose was to reinvigorate its target audience with not just the music, but the band's soap opera-like story in general. I actually did a paper about this for my Media Crit class, showing how "authenticity" and "narrative" is used for marketing rock and roll music, because "the heart" of rock and roll is authenticity. I got an A!

And as far as Gypsy goes, yeah, it did begin as a story about Stevie going back to San Francisco, but as someone said, the verse after the bridge was never there until it appeared on Mirage (she is dancing away from you now...). In the demoes, she went back to the first verse. So I suppose that's why the song really IS about BOTH things.

And now to the original topic. It just seems that Fleetwood Mac could never do as well, commercially, without one of the members. Lindsey left, and Behind the Mask failed to sell as well as the Rumours era albums. Stevie left, and Time was just a bust. Now Christine left, and Say You Will fails to have as much commercial success as the Rumours era (although some of that can be attributed to the way the music industry is today). So, if Stevie left in 1980, I really don't think FM would have had the commercial success it had, even if Stevie's contributions seemed not up to par with her older songs. But remember, Stevie wasn't really the one who said, "these songs will go on the album." Smile at You SHOULD have been on Mirage, but the band picked three other songs instead (and thank God Gypsy was one of them). There were also other songs they could have chosen for TITN, and I still don't see what is so terrible about Welcome to the Room...Sara. ALSO, Stevie always had only three songs on the albums. I've always thought that it was sort of part of the agreement to her joining. She can join, but she gets THIS many cuts out of THIS many songs, you know? As for Stevie's solo career, I kind of wonder if she would have continued through the years if she was purely solo. But really that's all the speculation I have. I think most of it would have gone the way it did, except there may have been another album pushed in there somewhere. Ok, I'm tired now, time to go.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different?

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different?

are you serious?

you are right in that they would have continued. Lindsey and Stevie joining added/created that special magic that made FM explode...wouldn't one or both of them leaving cause just as much change...Stevie was, for sure, the visual for most people into FM...her absence would change their course just as Christine's absence has changed their course - I just think that Stevie's departure would leave a void visually and musically

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different?

Actually, Stevie DID leave, and they DID continue...Only, it was in 1993 (I know it was actually earlier, but the first time Fleetwood Mac played out after the "Mask" tour was at the Clinton gig, and Stevie was t here. A few weeks later, she snubbed the group. THAT'S when she was officially out of the band, IMO.)

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different?

My God, we agree on something...Halelluja!!

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

are you serious?

you are right in that they would have continued. Lindsey and Stevie joining added/created that special magic that made FM explode...wouldn't one or both of them leaving cause just as much change...Stevie was, for sure, the visual for most people into FM...her absence would change their course just as Christine's absence has changed their course - I just think that Stevie's departure would leave a void visually and musically

No, there would've been no "void", it just would've been somebody OTHER than Stevie Nicks. "Change in course" isn't necessarily a BAD thing, either.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by chiliD

No, there would've been no "void", it just would've been somebody OTHER than Stevie Nicks. "Change in course" isn't necessarily a BAD thing, either.

well, I agree with you there. maybe void wasn't the right word.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by chiliD

My God, we agree on something...Halelluja!!

When it comes to the Mac I think we agree on a lot!

I LOVE TIME!

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Sorcerer386

And now to the original topic. It just seems that Fleetwood Mac could never do as well, commercially, without one of the members.

But, the Fleetwood-McVie-McVie-Buckingham band wasn't tried. Would it have done as well? Probably not AS well, but I think it would have been THE most successful variation of the "Rumours" band, and would have been a very commercially viable band. Especially in 1980. Remember, "Rumours" had only been released five years prior to "Mirage," so Christine and Lindsey, as far as the pop music world was concerned, weren't exactly chopped liver. They were also hit makers, and Stevie's input on their songs was often minimal.

Originally Posted by Sorcerer386

Lindsey left, and Behind the Mask failed to sell as well as the Rumours era albums. Stevie left, and Time was just a bust.

The key difference being that by the time "Behind The Mask" was released, the band was thirteen years past "Rumours" and "Time" eighteen years (or, a generation) past "Rumours." Add to that the personnel changes, and the band had become pretty far removed from "Rumours" while trying to keep the alure of the "Rumours" band.

Originally Posted by Sorcerer386

Now Christine left, and Say You Will fails to have as much commercial success as the Rumours era (although some of that can be attributed to the way the music industry is today).

And, that change happened in the early 1990s, which is partially why "Time," "Street Angel," and "Out Of The Cradle" were all doomed.

Really, though, the band has been making one bad decision after another since 1988. They made the right decision to to bring in two talents like Billy and Rick. But, then they screwed everything up. I think "Red Rocks," the "Tango In The Night" video, and "Greatest Hits" were terrible ideas. Two concert videos that really don't show Stevie at her best AND have that stupid close-up footage that wasn't part of the actual show was amazingly bad in judgement. Then, a "Greatest Hits" package that had all of the stuff that everybody wanted, thus making anything new obsolete before it was even released was very stupid. Add to that, Stevie releases a mediocre at best solo album that really does more to hurt everybody's career than help it. (Hey, if you want to give her all of the credit for their success, then you have to accept that she deserves some of the responsibility for their demise.) By the time "Behind The Mask" came out, Fleetwood Mac's image took a real beating. The fact that it was horribly produced, and a lot of the best songs were omitted in favor of safe, bland songs didn't help. Fleetwood Mac lost its edge (no fault of the new guys, btw), and rendered itself irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Sorcerer386

ALSO, Stevie always had only three songs on the albums. I've always thought that it was sort of part of the agreement to her joining.

If you add up the amount of time she gets per album, she was on par with that of Lindsey and Christine. Maybe not the first album (although, she gets royalties from "Chrystal"), but certainly by "Tusk." The three song thing is only due to her refusal to edit her songs down a bit.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Really, though, the band has been making one bad decision after another since 1988. They made the right decision to to bring in two talents like Billy and Rick and Billy. But, then they screwed everything up. I think "Red Rocks," the "Tango In The Night" video, and "Greatest Hits" were terrible ideas. Two concert videos that really don't show Stevie at her best AND have that stupid close-up footage that wasn't part of the actual show was amazingly bad in judgement. Then, a "Greatest Hits" package that had all of the stuff that everybody wanted, thus making anything new obsolete before it was even released was very stupid. Add to that, Stevie releases a mediocre at best solo album that really does more to hurt everybody's career than help it. (Hey, if you want to give her all of the credit for their success, then you have to accept that she deserves some of the responsibility for their demise.) By the time "Behind The Mask" came out, Fleetwood Mac's image took a real beating. The fact that it was horribly produced, and a lot of the best songs were omitted in favor of safe, bland songs didn't help. Fleetwood Mac lost its edge (no fault of the new guys, btw), and rendered itself irrelevant.

Well said, Steve, and I agree. And of course you can go well beyond Behind the Mask with the bad decision-making. The Chain is a pretty crappy box set, with too much focus on Rumours-era songs and not nearly enough unreleased tracks or alternative versions of songs. Pretty much everything about Time was botched, from conception to execution. The reunion tour was a good thing, though it could have leaned on Rumours a little less, but waiting six whole years to release another studio album, thereby losing any and all commercial momentum and renewed interest from the public, was stupid. And then there was the ensuing tour, which wasn't bad per se, but it was for all intents and purposes The Dance Part Deux, with Christine's songs replaced with songs from Say You Will.

(What are these "best songs" that were omitted from Behind the Mask?)

If you add up the amount of time she gets per album, she was on par with that of Lindsey and Christine. Maybe not the first album (although, she gets royalties from "Chrystal"), but certainly by "Tusk." The three song thing is only due to her refusal to edit her songs down a bit.

I added it up once, and Stevie's songs actually take up the most vinyl on Tusk, though she has the fewest in number. This isn't a bad thing; one of the album's many charms is the way Lindsey's short frenetic freak-outs are juxtaposed with Stevie's longer, mellower mini-epics. With Christine as always falling somewhere in between.