Time, Q Review

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by michelej1

A review from David Bowling of Blogcritics.org, November 27, 2010

http://blogcritics.org/music/article...c-time/page-2/

During the early nineties Fleetwood Mac was in disarray. Rick Vito left after only one album with the group. The real loss was Stevie Nicks who withdrew to concentrate on her solo career, which meant no Buckingham or Nicks as a part of the band. It is a testament to Mick Fleetwood and the McVie’s that they had the resolve to keep the group going.

New members Bekka Bramlett and Dave Mason joined the band, which when combined with the other holdover Billy Burnette, brought a very different approach to the group’s sound. Bramlett was the daughter of Delaney & Bonnie of Eric Clapton Fame. Her country leanings melded well with those of Burnette and they would form a duo after leaving the group. Dave Mason was an odd choice in some ways. He is a world class guitarist but his sound and style was shaped by his former group Traffic and probably would have fit the pre-pop Fleetwood Mac better. He was inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame with his former group at the 2004 induction ceremony.

Time was released October 10, 1985 and was their least successful commercial studio release as it did not even reach the album charts in The United States. The diverse personalities of the members did not mesh together, and their fan base did not respond to the disjointed nature of the album.

Christine McVie tries very hard with five songs, co-written with then husband Eddy Quintela. They may not be the best group of songs she ever produced, but they are solid pop and remain representative of her skill as a composer and singer. “Hollywood (Some Other Kind Of Town)” was an interesting throwback to her Future Games sound, but “Nights In Estoril,” “Sooner Or later,” and “I Do” are all very listenable pop songs.

I tend to think of Burnette and Bramlett as a duo and their contributions travel in a country direction which takes the group away from its strength. Bramlett is a good vocalist in her own right, but it was a stretch for her as the replacement for Stevie Nicks. Their best contribution is their own song, “Dreamin’ The Dream,” which is a gentle song which fit the bands preconceived profile well.

Dave Mason contributed two songs and he is who he is. His vocals and guitar playing are excellent and he is certainly the equal of Lindsey Buckingham, but not in this setting.

The release’s oddest track is Mick Fleetwood’s seven minute album closer, “These Strange Times.”

The album and the band just did not function as a whole in this incarnation. Bramlett, Mason, and Burnette would all be gone after touring to support the release and some old friends would return. Time remains one of the weakest albums in The Fleetwood Mac catalogue and should be explored only by hard core fans of the group.



Read more: http://blogcritics.org/music/article...#ixzz16bgzP2w9

More drivel from a "head-up-his-ass" reviewer.

1) it was released 10/10/1995

2) Bekka wasn't brought in to "replace" Stevie Nicks...she was brought in to be the lead singer in a band that had a recent history of having TWO female vocalists. The set included twice as many Christine McVie songs as Stevie Nicks songs, so who REALLY was she replacing??

3) And, really...didn't EVERY Christine McVie song sound like a "throwback to her Future Games days? They either sounded like "Morning Rain" ("You Make Loving Fun") or "Show Me A Smile" ("Songbird"), right?

4) I'll never understand how "the loss of Stevie Nicks" is considered a BAD thing.

5) Their 18 month tour ended BEFORE the release of the album, so they never DID tour to back the album.

6) In 1995 country music was bigger than pop, rock or any other non-rap/hip-hop genre...had they taken that route, they could've reinvented themselves and grabbed themselves a whole new (and substantially larger) audience.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by chiliD

More drivel from a "head-up-his-ass" reviewer.

Well, we only have two more reviews to go from Mr. Bowling and how much more can he get wrong in so short of a time?

Michele

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by chiliD

4) I'll never understand how "the loss of Stevie Nicks" is considered a BAD thing.

6) In 1995 country music was bigger than pop, rock or any other non-rap/hip-hop genre...had they taken that route, they could've reinvented themselves and grabbed themselves a whole new (and substantially larger) audience.

4)Yep, she(her nutty fans, really) ended what FM had always been about....reinvention! Because god forbid they could ever go on, without her. She was the worst thing to ever happen to FM.

6)Absolutely. This was their chance to grab the brass ring, in another genre, but they failed. I think the band feels(save for Christine) that there can be no FM, minus the ditz. Again, the worst thing to ever happen to the band.

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

4)Yep, she(her nutty fans, really) ended what FM had always been about....reinvention! Because god forbid they could ever go on, without her. She was the worst thing to ever happen to FM.

Worst thing? Please explain in detail.

Without Stevie no Behind The Mask (gag),
or even the reinvention of the Mac to
carryover into the great TIME.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

Worst thing? Please explain in detail.

Without Stevie no Behind The Mask (gag),
or even the reinvention of the Mac to
carryover into the great TIME.

Because Rumours, and Stevie, forever sealed, for much of the public, WHAT FM was now. It became so big, that reinvention was now nothing, but a possibility waiting to fail.

And I like Time, better than BTM, for the record.

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Because Rumours, and Stevie, forever sealed, for much of the public, WHAT FM was now. It became so big, that reinvention was now nothing, but a possibility waiting to fail.

So you wish they had never been successful on that level?
If so, would that logic apply to Elvis, Beatles and Michael
Jackson etc...? Those are extreme examples of success, but
my point is you think success destroys creativity or at very
least reinvention. In that case no one would ever be
popular. Though in Elvis and even Michael's case, if their
popularity would have fell off it might have saved their lives.
But that's another thread.

I think going back to the syrupy sweet music that was Mirage
didn't help the Mac's credibility. But if some how the 5 could
have stuck together through Tango, that might have kept the lesser
versions of the Mac from getting together and almost ruining the
legacy of Fleetwood Mac.

[Street_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

But if some how the 5 could
have stuck together through Tango, that might have kept the lesser
versions of the Mac from getting together and almost ruining the
legacy of Fleetwood Mac.

The legacy of Fleetwood Mac was ruined in 1977 when Rumours was released. Fleetwood Mac is one of the most unique bands in the history of pop music. The story of the band itself could not be written by the best script writers in Hollywood. Fleetwood Mac has made so much great music throughout the years with its various different members, but the focus always ends up on Rumours and the drama in and surrounding the making of that album. The thing is Rumours saga isn't even the best story of the band. You can start with the band having its name hijacked, to Bob Weston having an affair with Mick's wife, to Jeremy joining the Children of God, to Peter getting messed up on LSD. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find those stories and others to be so much more fascinating than the tired old Rumours story.

As far as I'm concerned, Fleetwood Mac should be placed on the level that bands like The Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, The Beatles, The Who, etc. are, but they aren't. The difference between Fleetwood Mac and the bands I mentioned is that you can pick and choose what albums are the greatest of their releases. It's an argument as to which album is the best. With Fleetwood Mac, it's already been set in stone that Rumours is the best album the band ever made which in my view is not the case. Fleetwood Mac has had some of the greatest guitarists ever in the band, but you never hear about it. It's such a shame that one album has overshadowed so many good things about this band.

Matt

[tilthefirefades]

I do believe that without Stevie, FM wouldn't have half the fans they do. So if anything, she did not ruin Fleetwood Mac, she made Fleetwood Mac. Whether it was for the better or worse. I do agree that what Rumours has become is nauseating, but what else is there? If Mirage had been as successful we would be sick of those songs too. I can't imagine Dave or Bekka being the saviors of a band that was set in stone decades prior. By that point, there was no replacing, they should have just quit.

Also: The reason Fleetwood Mac isn't on the pedestal of Led Zepplin or The Beatles is the revolving door of mediocre singers and guitarists. If Mick Jagger quit and was replaced with a nobody, their reputation would be hurt as well. Maybe that is why they drag the greatest hits into the dirt, so that people remember what they once were. It's too bad they can't move on.

[Street_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

I do believe that without Stevie, FM wouldn't have half the fans they do. So if anything, she did not ruin Fleetwood Mac, she made Fleetwood Mac. Whether it was for the better or worse. I do agree that what Rumours has become is nauseating, but what else is there? If Mirage had been as successful we would be sick of those songs too.

There's plenty. Tusk, Mystery To Me, Future Games, Bare Trees, Then Play On, Tango In The Night. The band hasn't done any favors for itself for choosing to focus on songs from Rumours and constantly play those on tour and it's a crying shame. There is plenty of top notch material that could be performed, much of which never has been done live but they choose to keep the old war horses going.

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

Also: The reason Fleetwood Mac isn't on the pedestal of Led Zepplin or The Beatles is the revolving door of mediocre singers and guitarists. If Mick Jagger quit and was replaced with a nobody, their reputation would be hurt as well. Maybe that is why they drag the greatest hits into the dirt, so that people remember what they once were. It's too bad they can't move on.

Aside from Bob Brunning, every guitarist that's ever been in Fleetwood Mac is world-class. That includes Rick and Billy. Same goes for the vocalists. Prior to Rumours, Lindsey and Stevie performed songs like Hypnotized, Station Man and The Green Manalishi. Afterward, Oh Well was the only pre-Buckingham/Nicks song that the band played live. Again, there is such a great backlog of songs made by the band, yet they ignored it all and stuck with the Rumours stuff.

Matt

[tilthefirefades]

Could be because Rumours is one of the most successful albums ever

Not to mention the fact that it is the reason Fleetwood Mac has 90% of it's fan base. I guess they really have no choice but to play it to death.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

I can't imagine Dave or Bekka being the saviors of a band that was set in stone decades prior. By that point, there was no replacing, they should have just quit.

Also: The reason Fleetwood Mac isn't on the pedestal of Led Zepplin or The Beatles is the revolving door of mediocre singers and guitarists. If Mick Jagger quit and was replaced with a nobody, their reputation would be hurt as well. Maybe that is why they drag the greatest hits into the dirt, so that people remember what they once were. It's too bad they can't move on.

Anthony, you get extra Scooby Snacks! You have very, very valid points, though. Following Rumours, Fleetwood Mac was forever typecast to those 5 members, with that unique sound. Any variation of that, and the public will no longer bite. Variations to that formula in any fashion only served to erode Fleetwood Mac's lasting fame and credibility. It doesn't matter how good any replacement members were or were not, they WEREN'T the members who brought the band to stratospheric fame. It'd be like regrouping the Beatles now and bringing in replacements for John and George. And much like Fleetwood Mac, there WAS a band before John, Paul, George, and Ringo. But they were the folks who made it big, and in the public's eyes, those 4 men ARE the Beatles. To rope this back to the Mac, I'd argue your summation that 50% of people who are Mac fans are so because of Stevie Nicks is actually a conservative number. Folks can love her or hate her, but she IS Fleetwood Mac. And further, those who try to put Time on such a pedestal are full of it. It's just a forgettable album... there's nothing unique, cutting edge, or special there. To me all this claimed forward movement regarding Time is woefully overreaching.

For sh!ts and giggles, I thought I'd include the Amazon.com editorial review on Time... it sums up the situation pretty well:

Amazon.com
The temptation is to compare this version of Fleetwood Mac with the multiplatinum quintet that peaked in the '70s and then made a triumphant return in 1997. But there've been some half dozen versions of Mac over the last 28 years, some significantly more memorable than others. This 1995 lineup isn't likely to make anyone forget Rumours. Three stalwart members--Mick Fleetwood, John McVie, and Christine McVie--are back, joined by 10-year Mac vet Billy Burnette and short-term members Bekka Bramlett (the daughter of first generation Mac contemporaries Delaney and Bonnie Bramlett) and journeyman rocker Dave Mason. The spotlight inevitably shines brightest upon McVie, who responds with four songs that are never less, or more, than pleasant. For their part, Burnette, Bramlett, and Mason check in with mostly nondescript contributions. --Steven Stolder

[David]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

I do agree that what Rumours has become is nauseating

But you can't blame Rumours for your fatigue, any more than you can blame the Ninth Symphony for being chopped up & jingled for commercials, cable news shows, sports events, kiddie recitals, elevator muzak, & European Union festivities.

The art always stands apart from the consumer culture which feeds on it.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Following Rumours, Fleetwood Mac was forever typecast to those 5 members, with that unique sound. Any variation of that, and the public will no longer bite.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But, not for the reasons you list.

Variations to that formula in any fashion only served to erode Fleetwood Mac's lasting fame and credibility. It doesn't matter how good any replacement members were or were not, they WEREN'T the members who brought the band to stratospheric fame.

Lasting fame? Probably. But, I think they COULD have maintained credibility if they had had a complete paradigm shift. Look at the Byrds. They had numerous personnel changes that came with stylistic changes. They didn't try to pretend that guys like Crosby weren't in the band anymore. It wasn't nearly as successful, but it was still viable and inventive, and is still respected as much as, if not even more than, the "classic" Byrds.

It'd be like regrouping the Beatles now and bringing in replacements for John and George. And much like Fleetwood Mac, there WAS a band before John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

I call bull****. The Beatles didn't have any significant recordings outside of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Fleetwood Mac had been around for nearly eight years prior to Stevie and Lindsey and even had a greatest hits album out. No parallel whatsoever.

To rope this back to the Mac, I'd argue your summation that 50% of people who are Mac fans are so because of Stevie Nicks is actually a conservative number. Folks can love her or hate her, but she IS Fleetwood Mac.

Which was really part of the problem. Stevie Nicks had become a joke, too. Her voice was bad and she looked awful. Remember when the "Rumours" band reunited for the Inauguration? For me, it wasn't magical, it was embarrassing. The Mac was already a joke by the time "Time" came out.

And further, those who try to put Time on such a pedestal are full of it. It's just a forgettable album... there's nothing unique, cutting edge, or special there.

Same thing can be said about every album since "Tusk." All of the post-Tusk albums have one or two stand out songs, one or two cringe-worthy songs, and the rest was, well, just there (neutral, bland, etc.).

To me all this claimed forward movement regarding Time is woefully overreaching.

As with the other post-"Tusk" albums, there was a lot of unrealized potential. Knowing the works of the players in that line-up, it SHOULD'VE been a great album.

[michelej1]

Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek,CA), May 18, 1996

Section: Time Out

LATEST FLEETWOOD MAC DISBANDS
Howard Cohen


"I can still hear you saying/You would never break the chain . . ."
Almost 20 years ago, "The Chain" served as the centerpiece of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours." Recorded while the members of its most famous lineup were all enduring painful romantic breakups with each other, the album resonated with record buyers who related to its soap opera aspect and its bright, passionate pop/rock.

To this day, "Rumours" remains the top-selling studio album by a rock group in history and is behind only Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the Eagles' first greatest hits album.

"The Chain," though never a single, became the group's theme. After all, the band formed by celebrated guitarist Peter Green in 1967 as a British blues act stumped skeptics who felt Green's defection in 1970 would be insurmountable.

The cast of characters to follow featured some of rock's most storied tales one member disappeared to follow God, another aimlessly wandered the streets of England, yet another was fired for sleeping with Fleetwood's wife. By the '90s, Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, star players on "Rumours," also bailed out.

But Fleetwood Mac continued.

Until now. The chain has broken, Fleetwood Mac has disbanded.

Fleetwood, through his Los Angeles publicist, says, "The Fleetwood Mac as we know it is no longer." He is referring to the latest lineup, which featured Dave Mason and Bekka Bramlett. Fleetwood blames record company apathy (that incarnation's 1995 album, "Time," sold only 32,000 copies, according to SoundScan, and received no promotion from Warner Bros.). "We worked hard on that record and no one knew it existed."

Fleetwood Mac watchers should know by now to never rule out a reunion. Fleetwood himself says "never say never." The improbable has already happened: Nicks, Buckingham and Fleetwood recently teamed to record "Twisted" for the movie "Twister," and Fleetwood is in an L.A. studio cutting drum tracks for Buckingham's forthcoming fourth solo album.

Still, Christine McVie's "All Over Again," released on last fall's "Time," seemed all too final.

"Well it's time to say goodnight/And finally turn out the light/How do I say in some simple way/How much you have been on my mind."

[michelej1]

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA), February 25, 1996


Section: ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
TRACY COLLINS


"Time," Fleetwood Mac. Warner Bros. one and a half stars

Let's say this about "Time": Mick Fleetwood and John McVie are still here, but that's just the rhythm section you only noticed when they acted goofy on the videos. Dave Mason's back, just to make you realize you didn't really miss him when he left the band 20 years ago. Christine McVie is still here, but acts as if she wishes she weren't. Stevie Nicks is either in Arizona or the cosmos somewhere, licking her wounds over a fine solo effort that no one cared about. And Lindsey Buckingham -- the one you should really care about -- is home trying to figure out why his impeccable "Out of the Cradle" could never crack a hit list dominated by Nirvana, Pearl Jam and R.E.M. in '92.

Do yourself a favor: If you pine for the days of "Rhiannon," "Over My Head" or "Monday Morning," go buy 1976's "Fleetwood Mac" or 1977's "Rumours." Great discs. Or better yet, buy Buckingham's "Out of the Cradle." It really was a blast. But don't buy "Time," unless you've just been dying for the latest Billy Burnette-Bekka Bramlett release. Because that's what Fleetwood Mac is these days, fronted by two passable club singers. And it's too lame for you to bother with it.

RECORDING REVIEW

Recordings are rated on a scale of one (poor) to four (excellent) stars.