How feasible is it?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

My THEORY is that a lot of fans really don't give a damn about the actual music. It's the drama and the image that the music represents that they actually like. Billy, Rick, Bekka, and Dave don't represent that drama or that image, so their music is quickly dismissed by certain fans. Fans, like myself, who enjoy all of the different incarnations, for whatever reason, don't get quite so caught up in the drama/image of those two, and take the music for what it is. But, ultimately, it's the image that sells, and they know it. The fact that "the kiss" was on the back cover of "The Dance" and was even used on a concert t-shirt proves that point to me.

I largely agree with you here, Steve, though I wouldn't go as far to say that these fans don't give a damn at all about the music. Clearly the music is important and plays a large role in anyone's fandom, but the love for the drama and image and cult of personality is often on par with it, and in quite a few cases has surpassed it over time. (And I think the theory is also further proved by a lot of the threads right here on the Ledge. You don't need to look far.)

Still, have you ever noticed how nobody flinches when Bekka or Stevie does a Christine McVie song (though, Stevie butchering the lyrics certainly hurt her cause in that regard).

I'm not going to exonerate the Christine fans here, either. There are plenty of them who cop that same attitude of, "How dare Stevie sing her songs!" or "How dare they contemplate adding more of her songs to the set next time around!"

[David]

I have a lot I want to say on this subject, but I'll need to articulate my thoughts before I post them.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

On that, I've heard it done by Peter, Bob, Lindsey, Billy, and even a duet with Bekka and Billy. So, for me, that song is more associated with Fleetwood Mac than Peter Green. Which is why I really don't have an issue with Bekka and Billy doing songs like "The Chain," "World Turning," SYLM, YMLF, GYOW, and "Don't Stop." Those are songs known as Fleetwood Mac songs. And, I think that's where the split amongst fans typically lies.

My THEORY is that a lot of fans really don't give a damn about the actual music. It's the drama and the image that the music represents that they actually like. Billy, Rick, Bekka, and Dave don't represent that drama or that image, so their music is quickly dismissed by certain fans.

Or it could simply be a matter of wanting to hear the person whose rendition you originally fell in love with, singing the song. Having been only three years old at the time, I can't really say whether early-Fleetwood Mac fans were thrilled or not at hearing Lindsey and Stevie performing Peter's and Bob's material, but it's probably a pretty safe bet that quite a number of them didn't care for it.

Bad comparison, I know, but many Van Halen fans hated the idea of Sammy Hagar replacing David Lee Roth. And while many came around to liking Hagar (obviously, if you look at their sales figures), many still felt the band ended when Roth left. Then when Gary Cherone came around, both the Roth and the Hagar fans found something on which they could agree... they all hated the new guy.

In the annals of rock history, it's comparatively rare for a hugely popular band to make a major change to its front lineup that goes over well with their audiences. Especially not multiple times. Fans don't often take to "the replacements," and that's not a phenomenon exclusive to Mac fans.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Or it could simply be a matter of wanting to hear the person whose rendition you originally fell in love with, singing the song. Having been only three years old at the time, I can't really say whether early-Fleetwood Mac fans were thrilled or not at hearing Lindsey and Stevie performing Peter's and Bob's material, but it's probably a pretty safe bet that quite a number of them didn't care for it.

I wouldn't take that bet if I were you, Stew.

By 1975, most Mac fans were so accustomed to seeing the line-up of the band change every few months, I doubt anyone was staunchly opposed to Lindsey and Stevie coming on board and performing some of the group's older material. That was just par for the course at the time.

Yes, there were people who were upset when Peter Green left the band in 1970, but I think that was more an issue of fans being upset over losing a great talent, not of "How dare the rest of these sods try to carry on playing Peter Green's songs without him." (Because even if Fleetwood Mac wasn't strictly a blues band by 1970, it still had blues roots, and one of the pillars of the blues is not just playing your own songs but also working through other people's material, making it your own and investing it with your own talent and feeling. People other than Peter Green *should* be playing Peter Green songs. If there's any justice in the world, someday people will be releasing whole albums of their own renditions of Peter Green opuses, just as Green and Clapton and others have released Robert Johnson albums in recent years.)

It's clearly not "simply a matter of wanting to hear the person whose rendition you originally fell in love with." The sentiment so often expressed by many Stevie/Lindsey/Chris fans is not, "Well, I simply would rather hear this song sung by the person I first heard sing it." More often than not it's an expression of indignation ("How dare Stevie sing 'Don't Stop'!") or inauthenticity ("Billy and Rick singing 'Go Your Own Way'? Why, that's just not Fleetwood Mac!"). And then there's the confessional aspect: "This is Stevie's song about Stevie's feelings and nobody should sing it but Stevie!"

No, this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to Fleetwood Mac fans. Actually, to some extent it's part of the fabric of the rock and roll paradigm. The idea that the only valid versions of a song are those performed by the original artist or songwriter is something that simply doesn't exist in most other forms of music, even those most closely related to rock (blues and jazz). But it is something that manifests itself much more obviously in the unique case of Fleetwood Mac, where multiple changes in line-up have time and again put this assumption to the test.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

If there's any justice in the world, someday people will be releasing whole albums of their own renditions of Peter Green opuses

1. If You Be My Baby
2. Long Grey Mare
3. Merry Go Round
4. I Loved Another Woman
5. Need Your Love So Bad
6. The Same Way
7. The Supernatural
8. Driftin'
9. Showbiz Blues
10. Love That Burns
11. Looking For Somebody

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Ack! Shame on me for forgetting that one.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I wouldn't take that bet if I were you, Stew.

By 1975, most Mac fans were so accustomed to seeing the line-up of the band change every few months, I doubt anyone was staunchly opposed to Lindsey and Stevie coming on board and performing some of the group's older material. That was just par for the course at the time.

You've got an excellent point... I hadn't considered that fact when I made my statement.

I still disagree though with Steve's suggestion that it's only the "drama" between Buckingham & Nicks, and the appeal of their respective "images," which causes many fans to feel that only they should sing certain songs. The whole romance/shipper stuff really didn't start (at least not that I ever noticed) until 'The Dance'... so it seems to be a relatively new phenomenon which wouldn't have effected how well the 'Time' lineup's performances of Buckingham & Nicks' tunes was received.

Personally, I've always liked hearing different eras of FM take on the material of the previous eras. Often times the new interpretation is successful, sometimes it's not. For example, I'm not wild about Bekka's "Gold Dust Woman" -- and not because I think ONLY Stevie should sing it, but simply because her rendition didn't move me or sway me in any way (it should be noted here that I LOVED Bekka on the 'Time' album, so, again, I'm not biased against her). Still, it was interesting to hear a different take on it, so for that reason I don't write it off completely.
Conversely, and as much as I love Stevie, I wasn't really feeling her "Don't Stop." I thought she was far more effective on "World Turning," but a little too brash on "Don't Stop" (which is one of my all-time favorite Mac songs).

[skcin]

Just trying to keep ya'll talking. A 5 page thread hasn't happened in this forum in far too long!

So. If they do a 2007 tour without ANY new material, and it's the same 4 members as the SYW tour - will you go? And if so, to multiple shows? Will you wait to hear what the setlist is before deciding?

I think I'd only go to multiple shows if they were within a 90 minute drive. If most shows were farther away, I wouldn't travel as much as I did for the SYW tour - I mean, if they came to Buffalo but the next closest show was Philly, I'll only go to the Buffalo show. But I would definitely see at least one show, regardless of the setlist.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by skcin

Just trying to keep ya'll talking. A 5 page thread hasn't happened in this forum in far too long!

So. If they do a 2007 tour without ANY new material, and it's the same 4 members as the SYW tour - will you go? And if so, to multiple shows? Will you wait to hear what the setlist is before deciding?

I think I'd only go to multiple shows if they were within a 90 minute drive. If most shows were farther away, I wouldn't travel as much as I did for the SYW tour - I mean, if they came to Buffalo but the next closest show was Philly, I'll only go to the Buffalo show. But I would definitely see at least one show, regardless of the setlist.

yeah, that's me. If it all seems to be the same, I'd catch the ATL show and possibly the Dallas show.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by skcin

Just trying to keep ya'll talking. A 5 page thread hasn't happened in this forum in far too long!

So. If they do a 2007 tour without ANY new material, and it's the same 4 members as the SYW tour - will you go? And if so, to multiple shows? Will you wait to hear what the setlist is before deciding?

I think I'd only go to multiple shows if they were within a 90 minute drive. If most shows were farther away, I wouldn't travel as much as I did for the SYW tour - I mean, if they came to Buffalo but the next closest show was Philly, I'll only go to the Buffalo show. But I would definitely see at least one show, regardless of the setlist.

Well, if the bank account allows for it.... I wouldnt count on being able to go to alot, I want to go to about 10 or so, but that might not be possible. Oh well, If not I'm not complaining.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by skcin

So. If they do a 2007 tour without ANY new material, and it's the same 4 members as the SYW tour - will you go? And if so, to multiple shows? Will you wait to hear what the setlist is before deciding?

Same 4 without new material: Probably not (but then, I can't bear to say I missed a Fleetwood Mac tour, either...so, I'm torn).

The set list will be a MAJOR deciding factor. I sure hope it is NOT the same 4 members, however.

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by skcin

So. If they do a 2007 tour without ANY new material, and it's the same 4 members as the SYW tour - will you go? And if so, to multiple shows? Will you wait to hear what the setlist is before deciding?

The setlist would definitely be the deciding factor for me. If it is just going to be a rehash of the SYW tour, I'd see the one closest to me and that's about it. There's really no excuse to be that lazy with the setlist for another tour (like opening with The Chain/Dreams again...), but they probably will keep it pretty much the same.

But - wasn't there a rumor that Stevie was going to be bringing in 6 solo songs to the set? And if she did, I assume Lindsey would be mixing in some of his solo stuff as well. If they were to do this, then I'd be on it in a heartbeat. They could add Fall From Grace, Down On Rodeo, Trouble, maybe HEEWAFY, etc. It could be a fun change.

I think opening night would be the deciding factor for a lot of us. Of course, I'll probably break down and be there on opening night whereever it is. Knowing their track record, they'll play something like Frozen Love once and then drop it and I'll be kicking myself later for missing it.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by Mike B

The setlist would definitely be the deciding factor for me. If it is just going to be a rehash of the SYW tour, I'd see the one closest to me and that's about it. There's really no excuse to be that lazy with the setlist for another tour (like opening with The Chain/Dreams again...), but they probably will keep it pretty much the same.

But - wasn't there a rumor that Stevie was going to be bringing in 6 solo songs to the set? And if she did, I assume Lindsey would be mixing in some of his solo stuff as well. If they were to do this, then I'd be on it in a heartbeat. They could add Fall From Grace, Down On Rodeo, Trouble, maybe HEEWAFY, etc. It could be a fun change.

I think opening night would be the deciding factor for a lot of us. Of course, I'll probably break down and be there on opening night whereever it is. Knowing their track record, they'll play something like Frozen Love once and then drop it and I'll be kicking myself later for missing it.

Say, are you the Mike I met in Vegas last year that's Torri's friend?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by skcin

So. If they do a 2007 tour without ANY new material, and it's the same 4 members as the SYW tour - will you go? And if so, to multiple shows? Will you wait to hear what the setlist is before deciding?

It will be an issue of ticket price and setlist for me. (And location, of course.)

If the setlist doesn't include any songs that weren't performed on either the Dance or Say You Will tours, I simply won't go, period. What's the point?

If the setlist includes a small handful of surprises, either new material or old material that hasn't gotten a workout in a while, then I'll consider going, but I doubt I'd be willing to pay more than $75 or so. Actually, I'm certain I wouldn't pay more than that.

If they really shake things up and there are all kinds of setlist surprises... well, I still likely wouldn't pay more than around $75. Maybe I'd give a little leeway up to around $90. $100 including fees and such.

There's no way I would ever go to multiple shows if the setlist didn't change from night to night, particularly if it involved travelling any great distance. Again, what's the point?

Originally Posted by Mike B

But - wasn't there a rumor that Stevie was going to be bringing in 6 solo songs to the set?

Actually, I believe the rumour was that the band might be bringing in six of Christine's songs to rehearse and see how they turn out. I still don't understand why everyone thought Stevie was referring to her own solo material; it was pretty obvious from the context of the quote that she was talking about Christine.

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Say, are you the Mike I met in Vegas last year that's Torri's friend?

Yep.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Actually, I believe the rumour was that the band might be bringing in six of Christine's songs to rehearse and see how they turn out. I still don't understand why everyone thought Stevie was referring to her own solo material; it was pretty obvious from the context of the quote that she was talking about Christine.

Ah. That is a different animal, then. Either way, at least it would be shaking up the setlist to some degree.