Fleetwood Mac:The Greatest Soft Rock Band of All Time

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by David

That's it. It's not so much the categorization of the band's overall sound--every band plays some loud stuff & some soft stuff & lots of stuff in between--as it is the connotation of 'soft rock,' which is something that marketing people created for elevators, dental offices & Supercuts salons.

It's a peg of vapidity.

I mean, nobody ever refers to Elvis Costello & the Attractions as "soft rock," & Fleetwood Mac hits the same decibals as the Attractions, particularly in concert. Most bands do. But that 'soft rock' label effectively says: "You are savorless & without personality. Your insipid music is fit only for relaxing patients waiting to see the oral surgeon. You are corporate ciphers."

It's a bad way to classify Mac overall, whether you're taking about the rage & wicked humor of the Peter Green years or the multifaceted, shimmering studio concoctions--what's been called "pop rococo" or "pop contrapuntal"--of the Buckingham years.

Even Robert Hilburn & other Mac-appreciative critics, however, said of "Rumours" & "Mirage" that there was a lightweight element in the music, in the presentation. I agree that there was filigree, but I almost always felt it had personality--recognizable, definable, plottable. Up until some of the work on the 1990 album & beyond, that is. That's when Fleetwood Mac tracks began to be indistinguishable from numerous other recording artists of that generation.

Some very scholarly rational thoughts. Great writing! I'm entertained and thinking... Thanks.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by David

It's great to place so high in this sort of thing & all, but that term "soft rock" is something that insults me. It's a label that has dogged Fleetwood Mac since 1975 (in many cases justifiably). It suggests something bloodless, something not quite pure or true, something bland, something tasteless, savorless, ultimately inconsequential.

And to be bracketed with sugary, bland Billy Joel & Eagles & Chicago (& not even GOOD Chicago but crappy '80s Chicago!) is also a (disguised) kick in the teeth.

No, I'd have been happier had they been voted Best Pop Group since the Beatles, or Most Innovative Mainstream Use of Studio Technology or something related.

I agree David. It's kind of a left-handed compliment to be called soft rock, well, really it's more of an insult. Yeah, insult. They've done their fair share of rocking, people tend to forget or not realize that.

[amber]

Originally Posted by David

It's great to place so high in this sort of thing & all, but that term "soft rock" is something that insults me. It's a label that has dogged Fleetwood Mac since 1975 (in many cases justifiably). It suggests something bloodless, something not quite pure or true, something bland, something tasteless, savorless, ultimately inconsequential.

And to be bracketed with sugary, bland Billy Joel & Eagles & Chicago (& not even GOOD Chicago but crappy '80s Chicago!) is also a (disguised) kick in the teeth.

No, I'd have been happier had they been voted Best Pop Group since the Beatles, or Most Innovative Mainstream Use of Studio Technology or something related.

I, too was insulted. The connotation of "soft rock" just isn't fm as a whole.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I agree David. It's kind of a left-handed compliment to be called soft rock, well, really it's more of an insult. Yeah, insult. They've done their fair share of rocking, people tend to forget or not realize that.

Of course we and many other rock music fans view the term as an insult, but I don't think that's usually how it's intended by folks who use it. It's a neutral term, like "classic rock" or "alternative rock," that in the end does nothing more than denote a radio format. That's all. It's not making a value judgment so much as dividing up the music world into a series of aesthetics that have been pre-approved by corporate focus groups to determine how consumers will be allowed to experience music when they turn on the radio.

And quite frankly, as much as we'd all hate to admit it, there are plenty of Fleetwood Mac songs that fit into the aesthetic radio format category of "soft rock." "Dreams," "Hold Me," "Little Lies" - none of these sound out of place on a corporate soft rock/lite rock radio station. We may view their inclusion on those kinds of playlists as an insult - an assertion that those songs are bland, unoffensive background music. But I don't think the people at corporate headquarters are thinking, "Ha, we'll tell all our stations to play 'Gypsy,' that'll show those fans that Fleetwood Mac isn't real rock!" Let's face it: a lot of people actually like "soft rock," and a lot of people who like soft rock like Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by David

I mean, nobody ever refers to Elvis Costello & the Attractions as "soft rock," & Fleetwood Mac hits the same decibals as the Attractions, particularly in concert.

It's because of Fleetwood Mac's "corporate rock" status. They were a big, popular band who didn't "stand for something" or were part of any big movements in rock and roll history. Elvis Costello and the Attractions came in with the wave of punk and new wave bands back in the late 70's; they were political, socially relevant, quirky, full of attitude, etc., so they kind of got stuck in that groove, you know? They will forever be associated with those roots. No matter how "soft" they get, they'll never be labeled as such.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Elvis Costello and the Attractions came in with the wave of punk and new wave bands back in the late 70's, they were political, socially relevant, quirky, full of attitude, etc., so they kind of got stuck in that groove, you know? They will forever be associated with those roots. No matter how "soft" they get, they'll never be labeled as such.

Which is all very funny considering how far from punk/new wave Elvis Costello's first album is (although it's not with the Attractions, of course). It's a rockabilly-soul record, really, and while his next one was obviously quite a bit closer to new wave's musical aesthetic, I've always found it hilarious that Costello got lumped in with the punks just because he was such a snot (both in his lyrics and his persona). Especially considering how far (and in how many different directions) he's strayed from that aesthetic since then.

For the record, though, the Attractions can no longer get any "softer," because they don't exist anymore. EC's current rock band is the Imposters, although the only difference is Davey Farragher on bass.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I've always found it hilarious that Costello got lumped in with the punks just because he was such a snot

I've often felt this way about Blondie. Their sound was never consistantly punk or new wave...I mean, Heart of Glass and Rapture? That is straight up disco! "The Tide is High" is just a hybrid of reggae and pop. I don't know. I love Blondie, and I don't mean to focus so heavily on them, but I don't know if it's fair to lump them in with punk as people so often do, new wave, yes, punk no.

[Angelick Witch]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

She's a man, baby!

Stevie's _the_ man!! Go Stevie!!

[Hawkeye]

the biggest greaking travesty in all of those lists is John is not on the top 100 Bassists I mean he's in most of our top 10 at least, but even without any bias at all, how is it possible for him not to be in the top HUNDRED. And it was just rock bassists included and he still didn't make it

[johndoe]

Ya, I was going to mention that. Hes probably the most under appreciated bassist in the history of Rock.

[Sorcerer386]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I've often felt this way about Blondie. Their sound was never consistantly punk or new wave...I mean, Heart of Glass and Rapture? That is straight up disco! "The Tide is High" is just a hybrid of reggae and pop. I don't know. I love Blondie, and I don't mean to focus so heavily on them, but I don't know if it's fair to lump them in with punk as people so often do, new wave, yes, punk no.

I remember my first exposure to Blondie quite vividly, actually, because of an assessment like this. I first heard of Blondie when they were advertising one of those compilation cds to order from television, and they showed a clip from Heart of Glass -- the close-up of Deborah singing the first two lines. I thought it was rather comical and extremely pop/disco looking and sounding. THEN, I come to find that Blondie is supposedly a "punk" band, and I simply could not understand why they were labelled as punk. Upon further exposure, I still don't understand.

My beef really isn't that Fleetwood Mac is a softer rock band. In comparison, yes, they are. Like Jyqm mentioned, most of their hits are on the lighter side, as well as other non-hits/non-singles. The problem I have is that seemingly anything that isn't raucous jibberish is today labelled as "soft rock." I prefer to make a distinction between "soft rock," "hard rock," and
"rock." Today "rock" is simply short for "hard rock," so anything not "hard rock" is "soft rock," which doesn't make sense. Like I said, I cringe when a "soft rock" station plays GYOW, The Chain, Rhiannon, etc, and lumps it in with Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey songs, as well as I cringe when soft rock stations will play something like Smooth by Santana/Rob Thomas. It's a rock song, it's NOT soft rock, although not necessarily hard rock. There has to be that middle distinction, because soft rock just doesn't fit the bill of a lot of the bands labelled as such.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Sorcerer386

The problem I have is that seemingly anything that isn't raucous jibberish is today labelled as "soft rock." I prefer to make a distinction between "soft rock," "hard rock," and
"rock." Today "rock" is simply short for "hard rock," so anything not "hard rock" is "soft rock," which doesn't make sense.

According to whom?

I'm not one who prefers to make distinctions, but those who do make far more distinctions these days than "soft rock," "hard rock" and "rock." There's indie rock, noise rock, folk rock, rap rock, punk rock... the list goes on and on.

[Sorcerer386]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

According to whom?

I'm not one who prefers to make distinctions, but those who do make far more distinctions these days than "soft rock," "hard rock" and "rock." There's indie rock, noise rock, folk rock, rap rock, punk rock... the list goes on and on.

I just meant them as generic distinctions.

[elie]

I would have to agree with David's older post and say that, to me, the term "soft rock" sounds insulting, especially as opposed to 'alternative rock" (however, I would have to agree, that if I had to categorize them like that, the term "soft rock" is quite fitting).
I grew up (I mean I was in my late teens) when alternative brit pop bands were very much in fashion (at least in Europe) and very "hip" , so to speak, and listening to bands like FM that were considered "oldfashioned" or "dinosaur rock" or I don't know what else, pretty much meant that you have no taste or that you are not really interested in music, you just listen to whatever comes up on mainstream radio.Believe it or not, that's the way some friends of mine think
I think it is very unfair, to say the least.
However, I couldn't care less about labels such as "alternative" or "soft" . If I like an artist, I like them because of various reasons, and not because a radio station or a Rolling Stone magazine names them something- it's the opposite thing that I find ridiculous (and I do believe that there are many people who would never be into a particular band if it didn't fall into the "appropriate" category).