Fleetwood Mac in 1975 (Los Angeles Times)

[michelej1]

Los Angeles Times, November 29, 1975

At Santa Monica Civic, by Richard Cromelin

Fleetwood Mac's Elusive Identity

The venerable Fleetwood Mac has undergone fewer personnel changes than several other groups, but each one has signaled a vast upheaval in musical direction. The latest lineup, apparently the most commercially successful. Thursday night headlined a Santa Monica Civic concert, in which discrepant musical tendencies refused to meld into a solid identity.

The influence of American guitarist and vocalist Steve Nicks on the British outfit seems to be the crux of the matter. How else does one explain this formerly R & B/hard-rock outfit suddenly sounding like Ronstadt jamming with the Eagles.

The songs in that mold (which earned the most vigorous audience response) are a nice cross between country rock ambience and hard pop sensibility, but they suffer from a blandness only slightly relieved by surface catchiness. Nicks' lead guitar is competent but unremarkable and is accompanied by incongruously showy moves, a combination whose effect is blustery rather than powerful.

It's fortunate, then, that Christine McVie is on hand to lend dignity and musical dimension to the proceedings. Her rich keyboard work and superb singing imbue all the band's music with a sense of quality which is its real saving grace. On the slightly accelerated ballads that are her forte, the music attains a grace and character which further highlight the mainstream of the Mac's other side.

Also exciting is the contagious energy of drummer Mick Fleetwood, but these considerable assets are not dominant enough to fully unite the plethora of loose threads.

[michelej1]

It's so funny to me that Lindsey's (aka Steve's) showy moves don't make up for his unremarkable guitar playing.

And what about the gal? Lindsay? Did she do anything noteworthy at all.

Michele

[michelej1]

At Universal Amphitheater, by Richard Cromelin, August 30, 1976

Fleetwood Mac: View at the Top

The Fleetwood Mac success story is another case of a band going from undeserved obscurity to a level of acclaim that is equally disproportionate to what the group actually offers. Fleetwood Mac's basic talents and exemplary perseverance, if nothing else, should entitle the veteran outfit to a share of the cake, and when its disparate musical elements coalesce, it furnishes a highly attractive musical sound. Opening a four-day, sold-out engagement at the Universal Amphitheater, though, Fleetwood Mac exhibited too many shortcomings to be counted as an essential, compelling musical force.

Friday's show as immediately afflicted by a poor sound balance that hit directly at the core of the music's appeal - that smooth, easygoing, but urgent rhythmic groove enfolding the voices of Christine McVie and Stevie Nicks (at times, the former's indispensable keyboards were completely absent).

Fleetwood Mac's music is predominantly sedate (when not bland) rather than explosive, but the inclusion of some earlier, blues-based material, while adding a bit of fire, spotlights the band's two unreconcilable sides: the stately, purposeful qualities of McVie on one side and, on the other, the rougher, rather ordinary guitar and vocal work of Lindsey Buckingham, whose long turn in the macho rock-star role tends to eclipse his cohorts' more noteworthy elements. The two strains comprise an uneasy mix, and while the discrepant styles might serve to keep an album nicely varied, they preclude the unity necessary for a strong stage presentation.

The audience received Fleetwood Mac's music with wholehearted enthusiasm after unkindly dismissing opener Peter Ivers. Ivers is an interesting eccentric (her performed in a diaper a couple of years ago at the Hollywood Trash Dance), but needs a more developed and assertive musical framework for his offbeat compositions.

[daniellaaarisen]

Is it just me, or has the consistency of thorough research dramatically increased in the last few decades? Would current major publications mistake names as easily as the writer did in this article?

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by michelej1

The audience received Fleetwood Mac's music with wholehearted enthusiasm after unkindly dismissing opener Peter Ivers. Ivers is an interesting eccentric (he performed in a diaper a couple of years ago at the Hollywood Trash Dance), but needs a more developed and assertive musical framework for his offbeat compositions.

I can't believe the audience weren't more welcoming to a man in a diaper As Lindsey would say, what's the world coming to indeed.

[GypsyBlueEyes]

That first one reads as though it was written by someone who didn't bother to attend a single FM concert but still thought they could BS a story about them. I just can't see how anyone who had the slightest bit of FM knowledge could write that. It just isn't possible.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by daniellaaarisen

Is it just me, or has the consistency of thorough research dramatically increased in the last few decades? Would current major publications mistake names as easily as the writer did in this article?

Its just you.

Errors- for reasons ranging from lack of proper research to just plain sloppy editing- happen all the time, even in high profile periodicals. Not even the most basic/prominent people/events of our lifetimes are immune. Example- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02pubed.html

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by GypsyBlueEyes

That first one reads as though it was written by someone who didn't bother to attend a single FM concert but still thought they could BS a story about them. I just can't see how anyone who had the slightest bit of FM knowledge could write that. It just isn't possible.

Well, at that point there wasn't that much knowledge about that particular incarnation of Fleetwood Mac to be had! It was a new band. But that's no excuse for calling the guitarist Steve Nicks. As a reporter, if you don't want to do research, just read the doggone liner notes from their first album, for heaven's sake.

Michele

[GypsyBlueEyes]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Well, at that point there wasn't that much knowledge about that particular incarnation of Fleetwood Mac to be had! It was a new band. But that's no excuse for calling the guitarist Steve Nicks. As a reporter, if you don't want to do research, just read the doggone liner notes from their first album, for heaven's sake.

Michele

hahaha...even reading liner notes must have been a bit labor intensive for the person who wrote that

I understand what you mean about them being a new band...by knowledge I meant the kind you would have after attending a concert...I should have made that more clear

[michelej1]

Amazon Editorial Review of Fleetwood Mac (1975 Album), Enhanced Edition

http://www.epreferential.com/fleetwo...00009rajh.html

Given their monumental legacy, it’s hard to imagine that the so-called “classic edition” of Fleetwood Mac essentially came together casually over chips and margaritas at an L.A. eatery; the then-obscure duo of Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks (whose own mid-’70s debut album had initially gone almost straight to the cut-out bins) became the crucial axis of the legendary band without so much as a formal audition. As the eponymous title suggests, the 1975 Mac realignment seems like a fresh start, though tracks like Christine McVie’s smooth-jazz inflected “Warm Ways” hearken back to the Bob Welch/Bare Trees/Heroes Are Hard to Find era. But it’s Buckingham’s compelling, updated take on ’60s California folk-pop, informed by the mystique of Nicks’s proto-New Age song-sorceress presumptions, that breathed new life into the veteran, chameleonic band on now-familiar songs like “Monday Morning” and “Rhiannon.” His chemistry with McVie is no less powerful, yielding such Mac staples as their collaboration “World Turning” and suffusing her “Over My Head” with nervous, insistent guitar rhythms. This deluxe, remastered edition features the significantly different single mixes of “Say You Love Me,” “Rhiannon,” “Over My Head,” and “Blue Letter” (the latter previously unissued), as well as the moody, also unreleased studio workout “Jam #2.” Parke Puterbaugh’s newly penned liner notes offer concise, thoughtful insights into the genesis of one of rock’s greatest, if most unlikely, rebirths. –Jerry McCulley

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by daniellaaarisen

Is it just me, or has the consistency of thorough research dramatically increased in the last few decades? Would current major publications mistake names as easily as the writer did in this article?

Considering that even Billboard magazine in their ad announcing the release of the '75 self-titled album had Lindsey & Stevie's names labeled incorrectly on the photograph (the same photo that was on the back of the album cover), it seems that the mistaken identities was a pretty common occurrance throughout that first tour they did with Fleetwood Mac. (I believe Mick even mentions it in his book) If a writer used the venerable Billboard AS their "research device", then of course, they'd be wrong.

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

But that's no excuse for calling the guitarist Steve Nicks. As a reporter, if you don't want to do research, just read the doggone liner notes from their first album, for heaven's sake.

But the reviewer function in a metro daily (like the L.A. Times, where I guess Cromelin was working at the time) is a lot different from the reporter function with regard to research. The pop music reviewer goes to the concert, gets back to the newsroom, & writes a (in this case brief) review. He ain't sitting there bothering to pull out liner notes & what-have-you all for the sake of what he & his paper consider a little filler concert review. I was friends with several music reviewers at the paper I worked at, & for concerts that weren't all that noteworthy or interesting to them or the readers, they just wrote a quick jobber.

Still, I guess not knowing that Lindsey was the guy & Stevie the girl means that, even as late as the end of November 1975, the first single from the album wasn't yet quite household. Obviously, the band wasn't on the tip of everyone's tongue until the following year. The album wasn't a Top 10 album until well into the following year, right?

[kokoro]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Considering that even Billboard magazine in their ad announcing the release of the '75 self-titled album had Lindsey & Stevie's names labeled incorrectly on the photograph...

My, Stevie is looking decidedly masculine. And Lindsey has a couple of new companions.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

Still, I guess not knowing that Lindsey was the guy & Stevie the girl means that, even as late as the end of November 1975, the first single from the album wasn't yet quite household. Obviously, the band wasn't on the tip of everyone's tongue until the following year. The album wasn't a Top 10 album until well into the following year, right?

Even after Rumours hit it big, I bet a lot of people (reviewers included) didn't know whether "Stevie" was the guy or the girl. Often you hear or read the names, but you don't match them to the faces.

As far as them not reading liner notes to write a review, since they usually get promotional copies of the record beforehand you'd think they might, especially if someone spent 2 hours going to the concert.

Michele

[aleuzzi]

Interesting that "Crystal" was advertised as a featured song when "Rhiannon" was not. I knew the band were shocked by the success of "Over My Head," but I always thought they realized "Rhiannon" was a potential winner. Huh. I was wrong--again.