Fleetwood Mac - happy at the top (Rolling Stone 1982)

[Macfan4life]

I remember reading this article in real time and its fun to read it today. A few things we can understand better today. However, I was always a bit confused why Rolling Stone stated that Stevie would not partake in the interview on the advice of her manager. WTH? When I read that at the time, I thought it was about her beef with Rolling Stone making fun of her singing on the White Album. But this was only one year after RS put Stevie on their cover for Bella Donna. So why would her manager not want Stevie to partake in the interview. Its also revealed how much Stevie hates recording studios. When I was 13 and reading this, I thought Christine took a swipe at Stevie about getting the teddy bear on stage claiming usually only Stevie gets that kind of stuff. But today I can clearly see its Christine's sense of humor. You can see the debate between Mick and Lindsey about trying to get radio friendly music for Mirage. Clearly Christine was proud of Mirage claiming she was not surprised it was #1.
Anyway, just strolling down memory lane. Great read if you have not read it.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...the-top-59982/

[soul_drifter333]

Anyone who has followed the band for a while already should know this but there are still so many arguments about it on this forum. Lindsey and Stevie are two totally different people who approach their work differently. Lindsey's approach is on the artistic side and Steve's is more on the commercial side and the amount of money she can make. All you have to do is look at their solo albums. Stevie recruited Jimmy to make her sound like the hottest selling artist of the day: Tom Petty. Other the other hand, Lindsey created an album of quirky songs with virtually no commercial intent except for one song that I'm sure the record label insisted be on the album. In the recent webinar, Lindsey even gives credit to Stevie for wanting them to move to LA because of the commercial appeal. The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band. Stevie and Mick signed a tour contract with a guarantee of millions and Lindsey wanted to create new work and then tour behind it. Another obvious sign is Stevie has given up on writing and recording so she can make the most money touring the greatest hits and getting lots of attention from fans and the media for being a "legend", while Lindsey would rather spend months or years in his studio creating new music. Stevie has already said many times if it doesn't make her money she is not interested...unless it strokes her ego and establishes her as the legend she longs to be known as.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

As far as this interview, I take it that after Stevie solo success her management was pushing her to leave the band, but I suspect her affair and relationship with Mick probably prevented it. Mick and Stevie have said that their relationship lasted longer than they would like to admit to others. Stevie's management was probably negotiating for a bigger percent of the band's profits. It's amazing with such different approaches and values from the band members that they were able to stay together as long as they were.

Furthermore, the shippers have had it wrong all along. Lindsey and Stevie have not wanted and gotten back together over the years, but it has been Stevie and Mick. They're two peas in a pod and their relationship has lasted over the years because their values are the same. It wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still...

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by soul_drifter333

Anyone who has followed the band for a while already should know this but there are still so many arguments about it on this forum. Lindsey and Stevie are two totally different people who approach their work differently. Lindsey's approach is on the artistic side and Steve's is more on the commercial side and the amount of money she can make. All you have to do is look at their solo albums. Stevie recruited Jimmy to make her sound like the hottest selling artist of the day: Tom Petty. Other the other hand, Lindsey created an album of quirky songs with virtually no commercial intent except for one song that I'm sure the record label insisted be on the album. In the recent webinar, Lindsey even gives credit to Stevie for wanting them to move to LA because of the commercial appeal. The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band. Stevie and Mick signed a tour contract with a guarantee of millions and Lindsey wanted to create new work and then tour behind it. Another obvious sign is Stevie has given up on writing and recording so she can make the most money touring the greatest hits and getting lots of attention from fans and the media for being a "legend", while Lindsey would rather spend months or years in his studio creating new music. Stevie has already said many times if it doesn't make her money she is not interested...unless it strokes her ego and establishes her as the legend she longs to be known as.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

As far as this interview, I take it that after Stevie solo success her management was pushing her to leave the band, but I suspect her affair and relationship with Mick probably prevented it. Mick and Stevie have said that their relationship lasted longer than they would like to admit to others. Stevie's management was probably negotiating for a bigger percent of the band's profits. It's amazing with such different approaches and values from the band members that they were able to stay together as long as they were.

Furthermore, the shippers have had it wrong all along. Lindsey and Stevie have not wanted and gotten back together over the years, but it has been Stevie and Mick. They're two peas in a pod and their relationship has lasted over the years because their values are the same. It wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still...

Wonderfully stated.

I think Stevie staying away was a power play- it was once again some form of her holding out to get them to come to her point of view on something. She's used the threat of quitting so many times you'd think they'd have gotten over it by now but clearly it has worked every.single.time. because as you noted their definition of 'success' was purely money. Selling albums and selling seats on tours is clearly important, but for Stevie and Mick etc that was really the ONLY marker of success. To Lindsey, artistic credibility ranked higher (but he'd absolutely love to have sold lots more of his solo albums and bigger venues, maybe not necessarily stadiums and such, but..)

Stevie was always making threats.. recall the album (Mirage? Tango??) where she threatened them with "How will it look in the press if I give interviews and trash the album" or even the Lindsay Lohan movie rumours "I'll go to the press and trash it so badly". She really does have a high opinion of herself and how much her opinion counts in the larger arena of real life. The wanting to be seen as a legend is what LB was referring to in interviews post-firing when he said "This is all about Stevie wanting a certain kind of attention". She defines her whole life by her career, because she's made her career her whole life. He took a more holistic approach and wanted some kind of meaningful personal life in addition to his career. The sad thing with S&L has always been that because they each brought something different to the table their partnership was always a bigger, better thing than either one solo. But they both had egos and managers and entourages that told them "You know YOU are the real reason the band is so successful" and they, especially she, fell for it.

Sadly she got to make the final, band-ending threat on the last tour "me or him" and the others, as usual, caved in.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by soul_drifter333

The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band.

That downplays Mick’s role in the creative process. By all accounts, Mick was just as hell bent as Lindsey that they weren’t going to do Rumours II and he had Lindsey’s back during the making of that album.

Things like the marching band on “Tusk,“ The Visitor album, and evening that silly MIDI vest show that Mick wasn’t averse to taking creative risks. However, after Tusk, Mick understood that Fleetwood Mac was about mainstream, commercial music and that solo projects were for the quirkier, less commercial stuff. Sort of like big machine-small machine.

Also, ironically, after Go Insane, Lindsey locked himself into sounding the same on his subsequent works.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

The reason Stevie’s success is brought up (as well as Christine’s) is in response to comments like Lindsey was responsible for their/her success or that Lindsey made them/her superstars. That’s like giving Eddie Kramer credit for Jimi Hendrix’s success or Al Kooper credit for Lynyrd Skynyrd.

[Macfan4life]

I think you guys are correct. It was a power play but an odd one. I like how Rolling Stone was subtle with a swipe "on the advice of her manager." But it sort of worked because us Mac fans were like WOW, the end is near....she wont even sit down with the band for an interview on the advice of her manager? But soul_drifter made a good point. This was the first tour since solo albums and going to be the first tour of not splitting things by 5. I wonder who won this battle. Maybe this is a reason why the Mirage tour was so short. But yes, its all about the money. Mick wrote in his first book that Stevie hired Irving because the Tusk tour had missing money or profits and the band did not want to use Mick as a manager anymore. But when Bella Donna kicked in, I am sure Irving made huge demands.
I still think Christine's comment about the teddy bear was a joke but a tiny bit of a swipe to Stevie. Rolling Stone also sort of trashed the Stevie masses crowds "as usual, the crowd roared for Stevie's twirls.
The Mac also did an interview with Cream magazine around this same time. Stevie was not interviewed again but I dont remember Chris being interviewed either. Its funny to read today because a young Lindsey said he no longer wanted to tour when he hit 40 in the next few years. John commented on Stevie being sick (she supposedly had walking pneumonia.

[johnnystorms]

Originally Posted by soul_drifter333

Anyone who has followed the band for a while already should know this but there are still so many arguments about it on this forum. Lindsey and Stevie are two totally different people who approach their work differently. Lindsey's approach is on the artistic side and Steve's is more on the commercial side and the amount of money she can make. All you have to do is look at their solo albums. Stevie recruited Jimmy to make her sound like the hottest selling artist of the day: Tom Petty. Other the other hand, Lindsey created an album of quirky songs with virtually no commercial intent except for one song that I'm sure the record label insisted be on the album. In the recent webinar, Lindsey even gives credit to Stevie for wanting them to move to LA because of the commercial appeal. The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band. Stevie and Mick signed a tour contract with a guarantee of millions and Lindsey wanted to create new work and then tour behind it. Another obvious sign is Stevie has given up on writing and recording so she can make the most money touring the greatest hits and getting lots of attention from fans and the media for being a "legend", while Lindsey would rather spend months or years in his studio creating new music. Stevie has already said many times if it doesn't make her money she is not interested...unless it strokes her ego and establishes her as the legend she longs to be known as.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

As far as this interview, I take it that after Stevie solo success her management was pushing her to leave the band, but I suspect her affair and relationship with Mick probably prevented it. Mick and Stevie have said that their relationship lasted longer than they would like to admit to others. Stevie's management was probably negotiating for a bigger percent of the band's profits. It's amazing with such different approaches and values from the band members that they were able to stay together as long as they were.

Furthermore, the shippers have had it wrong all along. Lindsey and Stevie have not wanted and gotten back together over the years, but it has been Stevie and Mick. They're two peas in a pod and their relationship has lasted over the years because their values are the same. It wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still...

She didn't choose Iovine because TP was the 'hottest selling artist' of the time (he wasn't). She liked the way the Heartbreakers sounded. Wanted a more muscular sound to her songs, was branching out artistically, with her sound. WHy is that a reason to villify her?

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by johnnystorms

She didn't choose Iovine because TP was the 'hottest selling artist' of the time (he wasn't). She liked the way the Heartbreakers sounded. Wanted a more muscular sound to her songs, was branching out artistically, with her sound. WHy is that a reason to villify her?

She also liked Iovine's production on Patti Smith's lone hit single her cover of Springsteen's "Because the Night" .I agree she should not be vilified for her choice of producers but for engineering Lindsey's firing and ruining the band in it's sunset hell yes she should.

[David]

When David Gans interviewed the band in 1982 for Rolling Stone's Record (a sister publication), Stevie's absence from the interview and the room was one of the big points of the interview: "Where is Stevie?" Each band member in turn tried to answer. Chris and Lindsey both agreed that Stevie was grinding an ax of some sort within the band politically, but Stevie herself said later that she was really down on Rolling Stone and the music press. It wasn't her Timothy White cover story she didn't like - it was the lead review of Bella Donna that ran in a different issue. The copy desk called it "Gifted Dreamer or Airhead's Delight," and the review (by Parke Puterbaugh or Stephen Holden or Steve Pond, I forgot) wound up by asking, "How can someone so hip also be so incredibly silly?" You found that perspective on Stevie a lot in those days - she was a ditz, an airhead, a "blanded-out blonde musher" (as Sylvie Simmons called her). I remember Rolling Stone reader letters after Stevie's cover story calling out Stevie on her airy-fairy image and her musical blandness: "Sure, Nicks is great, but Ann Wilson is the Queen of Rock" and "Give me a break - Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders could kick that wimp's ass any day."

I think Stevie was absenting herself deliberately from All Things Rolling Stone in those days because their first-string and second-string reviewers wrote that she was insubstantial and a musical lightweight. In 1983, Steve Pond reviewed Stevie's Los Angeles concert: "She is simply too fluttery and flighty to command a stage." Robert Hilburn wrote of the 1982 benefit concert in Southern California: "Nicks has even shed some - though far from all - of the narcissistic aura that has made her something of a caricature in rock."

The ironic thing is that, in retrospect - especially after the past ten years or so of solipsistic diva behavior - that even Stevie's closest fans agree with the rock press in 1981. Every new article that someone posts exemplifies like clockwork Stevie's tendency to frame every world event or every celebrity death as an effect on HER in some ostensibly momentous way. It's uncanny just how solipsistic Stevie actually is, and that's exactly what the rock press was saying about her forty-five years ago, when we fans were all mad at them.

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by David

When David Gans interviewed the band in 1982 for Rolling Stone's Record (a sister publication), Stevie's absence from the interview and the room was one of the big points of the interview: "Where is Stevie?" Each band member in turn tried to answer. Chris and Lindsey both agreed that Stevie was grinding an ax of some sort within the band politically, but Stevie herself said later that she was really down on Rolling Stone and the music press. It wasn't her Timothy White cover story she didn't like - it was the lead review of Bella Donna that ran in a different issue. The copy desk called it "Gifted Dreamer or Airhead's Delight," and the review (by Parke Puterbaugh or Stephen Holden or Steve Pond, I forgot) wound up by asking, "How can someone so hip also be so incredibly silly?" You found that perspective on Stevie a lot in those days - she was a ditz, an airhead, a "blanded-out blonde musher" (as Sylvie Simmons called her). I remember Rolling Stone reader letters after Stevie's cover story calling out Stevie on her airy-fairy image and her musical blandness: "Sure, Nicks is great, but Ann Wilson is the Queen of Rock" and "Give me a break - Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders could kick that wimp's ass any day."

I think Stevie was absenting herself deliberately from All Things Rolling Stone in those days because their first-string and second-string reviewers wrote that she was insubstantial and a musical lightweight. In 1983, Steve Pond reviewed Stevie's Los Angeles concert: "She is simply too fluttery and flighty to command a stage." Robert Hilburn wrote of the 1982 benefit concert in Southern California: "Nicks has even shed some - though far from all - of the narcissistic aura that has made her something of a caricature in rock."

The ironic thing is that, in retrospect - especially after the past ten years or so of solipsistic diva behavior - that even Stevie's closest fans agree with the rock press in 1981. Every new article that someone posts exemplifies like clockwork Stevie's tendency to frame every world event or every celebrity death as an effect on HER in some ostensibly momentous way. It's uncanny just how solipsistic Stevie actually is, and that's exactly what the rock press was saying about her forty-five years ago, when we fans were all mad at them.

Amazing perspective as usual David. Right on the money. There is huge irony because in 1981 Stevie sort of disproved her doubters musically. She released a more rock album and had huge success. Her mini solo tour showed she could hold the stage as a solo act. Her voice was as strong as it ever was and she also was at peak beauty. But that did not last long. The Wild Heart was trashed by Rolling Stone and Stevie's drug use was so out of control that her stage presence was airy fairy and a disaster at times. As the Pittsburgh Press reviewed her 1983 show that bashed her for relying on her sex appeal too much and her band seemed as confused as she was almost questioning they had no idea what song to play next. By the time RAL came around, she was completely in her own orbit and in another world. She could not tell her singing sucked and her songs were no longer magical and the studio was just meant as a big party. In 1984 Christine McVie did an interview with Musician magazine or Rolling Stone where she actually says how isolated Stevie had become. She says something like they used to be very close and good friends but today Stevie lives in her own world and I don't see her anymore. Creating your own world props up your egomania.