Where does Fleetwood Mac rank among the greatest bands?

[bethelblues]

OK, I've been wanting to start this thread for a while now. I'm sure there are older threads from years long ago, but rather than resurrect a similar topic I wanted to start my own. If one exists recently, please go ahead and delete this.

I've always been fascinated of conversations of the greatest bands of all time and I'm genuinely interested where people think Fleetwood Mac should be placed. Of course, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are at the top and can serve as modes of comparison. The Beatles had a huge output of diverse and influential music over a short but consistently great time period. It's amazing to think how much they produced in so short a time. Can any band match the Beatles capacity to take on and master so many genres, over just half a decade for that matter? They were a cultural phenomenon, accumulating 20 number-one hits, and were synonymous with the British invasion. Also, Paul, John, and George saw enormous success as solo artists. For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out. Their longevity, though some people would count their dud albums against them, is unparalleled. They stayed together and continue to make it work, and their social relevance in the late 60s and 70s defined the Vietnam era. Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are among the best songs ever written. Also, the Stones were noted for their live performances, musicianship, the power and danger of Mick Jagger, and singular style, while the Beatles were more a studio band, another metric to keep in mind. What both groups have in common is that they consistently put out outstanding albums, often four or five in a row: the examples: Sgt. Pepper--probably the Citizen Kane of albums, Exile on Main Street, The White Album, Let It Bleed, Revolver, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

We all love Fleetwood Mac, a band that deserves to be in this conversation and should be acknowledged for its entire history not just the most popular Rumours era, as it seems Rolling Stone magazine tends to classify the band as more pop and less an extension of rock and roll. Only recently has that magazine in its rankings recognized Lindsey as a top 100 rock guitarist, which is way overdue. There are certainly some strong albums: one an acknowledged classic (Rumours), one a bit more divisive though some argue it's the band's best (Tusk), a few forgotten gems, a few duds. There are certainly great songs: Go Your Own Way, The Chain, Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon, Oh Well, Albatross, You Make Loving Fun, Dreams. Some songs had searing power, but none really achieved a distinguished social relevance. There are the infamous live performances, which are known to be more rock and roll than the studio output. There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band. There was Grammy recognition, there was a number-one hit, a few number-one albums. There's diversity of material, music videos (Lindsey's lip synching ). And of course, there's one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history with John and Mick. So, when we step back and objectively consider Fleetwood Mac's place among the best, WHERE DOES THE BAND BELONG? Are they slightly below the Beatles and the Stones, with Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and The Who? Are they slightly below those groups? Do they surpass probably the biggest band today U2? Are they the greatest band to come out of the 70s, say vs. the pop contemporary Eagles? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

OK, I've been wanting to start this thread for a while now. I'm sure there are older threads from years long ago, but rather than resurrect a similar topic I wanted to start my own. If one exists recently, please go ahead and delete this.

I've always been fascinated of conversations of the greatest bands of all time and I'm genuinely interested where people think Fleetwood Mac should be placed. Of course, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are at the top and can serve as modes of comparison. The Beatles had a huge output of diverse and influential music over a short but consistently great time period. It's amazing to think how much they produced in so short a time. Can any band match the Beatles capacity to take on and master so many genres, over just half a decade for that matter? They were a cultural phenomenon, accumulating 20 number-one hits, and were synonymous with the British invasion. Also, Paul, John, and George saw enormous success as solo artists. For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out. Their longevity, though some people would count their dud albums against them, is unparalleled. They stayed together and continue to make it work, and their social relevance in the late 60s and 70s defined the Vietnam era. Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are among the best songs ever written. Also, the Stones were noted for their live performances, musicianship, the power and danger of Mick Jagger, and singular style, while the Beatles were more a studio band, another metric to keep in mind. What both groups have in common is that they consistently put out outstanding albums, often four or five in a row: the examples: Sgt. Pepper--probably the Citizen Kane of albums, Exile on Main Street, The White Album, Let It Bleed, Revolver, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

We all love Fleetwood Mac, a band that deserves to be in this conversation and should be acknowledged for its entire history not just the most popular Rumours era, as it seems Rolling Stone magazine tends to classify the band as more pop and less an extension of rock and roll. Only recently has that magazine in its rankings recognized Lindsey as a top 100 rock guitarist, which is way overdue. There are certainly some strong albums: one an acknowledged classic (Rumours), one a bit more divisive though some argue it's the band's best (Tusk), a few forgotten gems, a few duds. There are certainly great songs: Go Your Own Way, The Chain, Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon, Oh Well, Albatross, You Make Loving Fun, Dreams. Some songs had searing power, but none really achieved a distinguished social relevance. There are the infamous live performances, which are known to be more rock and roll than the studio output. There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band. There was Grammy recognition, there was a number-one hit, a few number-one albums. There's diversity of material, music videos (Lindsey's lip synching ). And of course, there's one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history with John and Mick. So, when we step back and objectively consider Fleetwood Mac's place among the best, WHERE DOES THE BAND BELONG? Are they slightly below the Beatles and the Stones, with Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and The Who? Are they slightly below those groups? Do they surpass probably the biggest band today U2? Are they the greatest band to come out of the 70s, say vs. the pop contemporary Eagles? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

They are the most relevant band from the 70s right now. They have stood the test of the time.

[SteveMacD]

I think their music is great, but I think their story, '67 - '80, is the most interesting thing about them. Few bands could have thrived during all of that.

That being said, the other bands you listed were bands that changed the landscape popular music. Fleetwood Mac wasn't an especially innovative band. There was nothing too unique about their music, per se.

[AncientQueen]

In conversations, it always seems that bands like Led Zeppelin, Depeche Mode and the Rolling Stones are farmore acceptable to like. when I simply state 2I love FM" I usually get that look and either:
- Ah, Peter Green was good, after that, they were just two chicks doing some stuff.
- They were great in the 60s but sold out.
- Humming "tell me lies, sweet little lies" followed by the "your taste in music is so basic, girl" look.

I don't have illusions of grandeur when it comes to the critical success of my favorite band since 1979. But that doesn't make their music less good or their history less fascinating.

[tilthefirefades]

I do agree that they have stood the test of time greatly. In my personal social circle they are without a doubt the most recognizable through their music. My friends would absolutely recognize Landslide before their rivals, except maybe Hotel California. As for the bands even further back, it is hard to determine what makes a band the greatest. When I take casual fans and introduce them to Storms or Bleed to Love Her. They are always surprised, that would be Fleetwood Mac's flaw. That their popular music pales in comparison to the deeper cuts. The Dance was a universal success and perhaps the only reason people generated enough interest for further projects. They need that now, kind of a final test to their legacy. They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

[bethelblues]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

I do agree that they have stood the test of time greatly. In my personal social circle they are without a doubt the most recognizable through their music. My friends would absolutely recognize Landslide before their rivals, except maybe Hotel California. As for the bands even further back, it is hard to determine what makes a band the greatest. When I take casual fans and introduce them to Storms or Bleed to Love Her. They are always surprised, that would be Fleetwood Mac's flaw. That their popular music pales in comparison to the deeper cuts. The Dance was a universal success and perhaps the only reason people generated enough interest for further projects. They need that now, kind of a final test to their legacy. They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

Maybe that "new Dance" you mention could be a special, taped 50th anniversary concert that must absolutely highlight all eras of the band. Remind audiences of Albatross, the deeper cuts, the massive hits, the rock credibility. It seems like Lindsey, in particular, constantly must do Big Love and So Afraid to beat into the heads of reviewers and audiences how great of a guitarist he is...and the critics still go ahead and forget him following that moment. I think such a complete concert would force a re-evaluation of the band and again stress to the uninformed that Fleetwood Mac was way more than just a pop band. Another "new Dance" could come in the form of a film, which if done correctly (and the potential is great for an excellent movie if done by the right filmmaker---there really is no definitive film of the music industry, I think a Goodfellas approach, an entry into that world would be perfect) would bring about a huge resurgence of interest, though it should be said they are in no trouble like some of their contemporaries. Fleetwood Mac is still packing arenas and will never have to go to smaller venues.

[WildHearted]

Being a huge fan, I personally would put them with that second tier that you listed, but I think the general public may put them more with the tier below that, alongside the likes of the Eagles and such.

However, like tilthefirefades said, I think FM are surprisingly recognizable right now, especially by people in my generation (late teens, early 20s). Moreso than a lot of other bands from the 70s/80s for sure.

[Dragonfly]

I was only thinking about this today -

Blondie are playing in my home town in a few days and they were MASSIVE in the UK in the 70s and early 80s, had more hits than FM, and seemed to be bigger at the time - however they are playing fairly small venues (the one in my home town holds only 1,200).

Mac are playing at the likes of the Manchester Arena which holds 21,000 and I think the London 02 holds about 19,000 which they've filled 3 times.

To have formed in the 60s and still be able to sell tickets at that rate makes them a big deal, and Say You Will although not a big seller still made the UK and US top 10.

I'd put them at the top of the second tier, and U2 should be lower than them, by several notches! Apologies to any of their fans

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Blondie are playing in my home town in a few days and they were MASSIVE in the UK in the 70s and early 80s, had more hits than FM, and seemed to be bigger at the time - however they are playing fairly small venues (the one in my home town holds only 1,200).

Are you going to see them? Did you take your screen name from their song?

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

Are you going to see them? Did you take your screen name from their song?

Blondie or Mac?

I'm not going to see either sadly as I'm not too well, although if I was having a good spell I'd try and snag a last minute Mac ticket if it was a good one

I love the song Dragonfly and the video is quite cool I think, so yes you are right!

[Iktomi]

I consider myself a big fan of Fleetwood Mac's music now, but long prior to having any interest in Fleetwood Mac, I'd been a fan of some of those other artists/bands that the OP had listed, even as a young tween. So in saying that, I guess to me, the first/second tier would belong to bands/artists who were musically, culturally, and/or socially innovative, deep, or boundary pushing. They are the type of bands that would have college history courses dedicated to them, because their influence was that far-reaching and their presence went above and beyond music and pop culture. These artists, like Dylan or the Beatles, are ingrained in our collective social/cultural consciousness and history, whether you're fan of them or not. Fleetwood Mac is a very great band with very great music, but even with Tusk, they weren't quite as innovative or the movers and shakers as those first-tier/second-tier artists. Even some of the band members themselves would admit that they pushed LB to play it safe. To me, their great musicianship and ear for good pop music though, definitely places them somewhere behind bands like Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, so third tier sounds right.

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by Iktomi

I consider myself a big fan of Fleetwood Mac's music now, but long prior to having any interest in Fleetwood Mac, I'd been a fan of some of those other artists/bands that the OP had listed, even as a young tween. So in saying that, I guess to me, the first/second tier would belong to bands/artists who were musically, culturally, and/or socially innovative, deep, or boundary pushing. They are the type of bands that would have college history courses dedicated to them, because their influence was that far-reaching and their presence went above and beyond music and pop culture. These artists, like Dylan or the Beatles, are ingrained in our collective social/cultural consciousness and history, whether you're fan of them or not. Fleetwood Mac is a very great band with very great music, but even with Tusk, they weren't quite as innovative or the movers and shakers as those first-tier/second-tier artists. Even some of the band members themselves would admit that they pushed LB to play it safe. To me, their great musicianship and ear for good pop music though, definitely places them somewhere behind bands like Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, so third tier sounds right.

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

I think FM were considered quite innovative during the Peter Green years, he is rightly seen as being one of the most influential blues players of all time. After that era though I would agree with you, even though the Chris/Lindsey/Stevie era is my favourite.

I agree about The Who though, I've never really liked more than a couple of their songs.

The Rolling Stones are another band I'm never convinced by. They wrote some amazing stuff during their early years and are still a massive live act, but how many great albums have they produced since the late 70s?? They seemed to give up the ghost as songwriters and concentrate purely on touring.

[bethelblues]

I'm really enjoying this conversation.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I'd put them at the top of the second tier, and U2 should be lower than them, by several notches! Apologies to any of their fans

I completely agree with U2. I'm glad you said this. The reason I put that in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing U2 in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to enter the zeitgeist.

Originally Posted by Iktomi

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

Listing The Who isn't my personal opinion. I just saw they are generally included and ranked around where people consider Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin (with the latter always ranked at the top of that second tier and recognized with the Kennedy Center Honors this year). The Eagles are an interesting case since many critics believe Hotel California to be the best song written in the 1970s. It actually won the Record of the Year Grammy the same year Rumours won Album of the Year (how none of the songs on Rumours weren't nominated individually in the Record of the Year category baffles me). Their music is also staples on adult contemporary radio stations, like Fleetwood Mac's. But I don't think they can fill the arenas today (could be wrong). In my book they are below Fleetwood Mac, though clearly a contemporary pop band of FM's.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I think FM were considered quite innovative during the Peter Green years, he is rightly seen as being one of the most influential blues players of all time. After that era though I would agree with you, even though the Chris/Lindsey/Stevie era is my favourite.

I agree about The Who though, I've never really liked more than a couple of their songs.

The Rolling Stones are another band I'm never convinced by. They wrote some amazing stuff during their early years and are still a massive live act, but how many great albums have they produced since the late 70s?? They seemed to give up the ghost as songwriters and concentrate purely on touring.

That's what the critics seem to forget, that Fleetwood Mac's history is more than just the Rumours era. I appreciated reading what you said about the Peter Green years, and it was my opinion a few posts back that in a 50th Anniversary Concert Video, Fleetwood Mac should recognize the remarkable history of the band, the different genres and musicians long before Lindsey and Stevie joined. They need to bring back Albatross and Oh Well and FM's version of Black Magic Woman, a Bob Welch tribute...going through the material. This could prompt a re-evaluation of Fleetwood Mac's significance by music critics, which should be important to the band members for it would elevate their legacies. Also, as I said, magazines like Rolling Stone continue to limit Fleetwood Mac as a pop band. Such a concert could expand this and again make everyone realize how great a guitar player Lindsey is, how their live shows do have a rock edge, how Stevie is not washed up and totally owning her songs (Gold Dust Woman has been insane recently!!). I also think a fiction film of high caliber about the band and inevitably their relationships would also be important.

Re the Stones: Well, they had a core decade or so of amazing music, which is probably only surpassed by the Beatles. Fleetwood Mac had one great album that is recognized as such: Rumours. There are several underrated and arguably forgotten gems from pre Fleetwood Mac Fleetwood Mac 1975. Tusk as I said in the original post continues to divide people to this day. The Stones at their career peak turned out album after album of great material, including several legendary concert films (the foremost being the amazing Gimme Shelter). It's hard to keep up a superior level of songwriting for more than a decade.

[redbird]

Well, I think they are a great pop band. A lot of the time they went to put out music that would make them popular/successful, and they succeeded, and the majority of those songs have not yet become dated, so as far as we can tell right now they're pretty classic. I think they're one of the most memorable pop bands (not that they weren't also a blues band, a rock band, it's just within the pop, uh, ethos that I think they make their biggest mark).

I am not very good with highly specific rankings, I feel that there are a lot of snobbish tendencies and prejudices in rockism and a lot of the accepted canon isn't always the product of Rigorous Standards that music fans often think it is (not that I don't get why The Beatles and Stones get singled ... doubled out ... just that when you try to break things down to specifics often I read a lot of criteria for superiority that I can't get behind). When I read about who's the greatest ever or the greatest today or whatnot, I tend to see rules within traditions but no real reason as to why certain rules should trump others. The reasons people say Radiohead are the best don't seem to apply to Frank Sinatra but I never feel very inclined to choose.

There's the side of me that reads music magazines and can trace patterns in musical fashion as they change throughout time, and there's the side of me that reads neuroscience books about why audio stimulus affects the brain the way it does. You can find parts of western music history where the way to be influential and important was to be, scientifically speaking, simplistic. The way we decide what's valuable is interesting but I always find it difficult to do it myself. I guess I'm too much of a "P" on the Myers-Briggs index

But anyway. I don't think they're a top tier band, but I do think they are a bit unfairly sneered upon. They had their share of crap, but if you cut that out you still get a lot of great stuff. If a cult legend that happened to have a band member die before they could make anything more had all of the Mac's stuff in terms of quality they'd be lauded, but because Fleetwood Mac hit it so big they have to deal with the whole "Anything that's popular sucks" idea. They're an important enough band. Maybe second tier depending on how you define it. They didn't define a lot of new rules but they embodied a lot of time-tested ones very well.

PS: And they're definitely better than the Eagles

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out.

Originally Posted by bethelblues

There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band.

Great topic, but I want to take issue with the above two points. First, how do you think the Beatles got started? They used to play 30-minute versions of Chuck Berry songs in Hamburg; that's how they built up their chops as a band.

On the Stevie point, what about Debbie Harry? Sure, Blondie had a shorter run, but in that short run, they had more output than FM has probably had as a band. I don't know, I'd have to count the songs. I would also put Chrisse Hynde up there, and even Pat Benatar. Both were huge for a while. Stevie has had more longevity, but probably more as a result of her solo career than her relatively small role in FM.

Now, where does FM figure in among rock's influential bands? It became obvious in the mid 90s how big an influence FM is. I often hear solos, for instance, that sound like they were ripped of Rumours. To this day, I still hear young artists who, purposely or subconsciously, are channeling FM. Lindsey is a huge influence on a lot of alternative, and post, artists. It's amazing how much of an influence he really is. Now, he may not get the adoration or have the allure that Stevie has, but I would argue he has actually been the bigger influence. And what is especially interesting about that is artists don't so much try to copy Lindsey's guitar playing, but more the overall vibe of song crafting, attitude, boundary-pushing and production values.