The only advantage of not having Christine in the tour - Page 2

HejiraNYC · #16 03-20-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test4echo

Yep i agree, no question that "the feeling that something is missing" is very strong with me too.

I would argue that Christine's songs are the better of the Mac songs and very missed.

In fact.....now that i think about it. That may very well be why I have spoken about the fact that i "personally" felt as if the band wasn't as tight as I thought they used to be.
Interesting......

test,

If anything, I think Christine's playing was rather loose- which is what I loved about her. It wasn't enough to just pound out the chords in rhythm- she would often throw in a bluesy lick or some kind of asynchronous arpeggio, e.g., the live piano breakdown during the "dreams unwind" part of "Rhiannon." Accordingly, if anything, the classic Mac live sound was a little sloppy and raw (of course the "marching powder" didn't help matters). She was very much an intuitive player than someone who just played the notes. Brett Tuggle is a capable musician, but his playing is robotic and bereft of feeling.

I think the band sounds fantastic on the Unleashed tour. I was watching John and Mick last night closely, and I just could not believe what they were doing at times. During the outro to GYOW, Mick was doing all kinds of crazy runs/fills, even more manic than the studio version, without missing a single beat. And they nail each and every "punctuation" mark in "Oh Well." It's just crazy at their age that they can be so tight and make it all look so effortless.

macpai · #17 03-20-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test4echo

Yep i agree, no question that "the feeling that something is missing" is very strong with me too.

I would argue that Christine's songs are the better of the Mac songs and very missed.

In fact.....now that i think about it. That may very well be why I have spoken about the fact that i "personally" felt as if the band wasn't as tight as I thought they used to be.
Interesting......

test,

I think it would be the same with anyone missing. It was this unit for longer than it was any other and they had such defined roles.

Saw the Mac in '97 without Lindsey, that wasn't the same.

Didn't see them without Stevie, but that wouldn't have been the same.

And without Chris, not the same.

But I'm really glad they're all enjoying each other's company and playing so well, it still beats what the music industry is feeding us now!

Test4echo · #18 03-20-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

If anything, I think Christine's playing was rather loose- which is what I loved about her.

When I say playing "tight" It only means that the whole band hits their vocals/notes/skins together in unison at the same time.
yes, you can be loose and still be "tight" with the rest of the band.

However as each show passes they are getting "tighter" and I'm really glad they are.

test,

Villavic · #19 03-20-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

if Fleetwood Mac could do a residency like Michael Jackson at O2 Arena in London. This way Christine doesn't have to travel at all! I'm sure they could sell at least 10 shows there with Christine on the bill.

Trust me... I'll be on that first flight to London...

that's a great idea, and I love London so.. I wouldn't mind to cross the atlantic!!

chiliD · #20 03-20-2009, 11:48 AM

For 12 years now, they've hired Neale Haywood to be 2nd guitarist. Plus, he was in Lindsey's OotC touring band (1992) and Lindsey's current touring band. Brett Tuggle's been in Mick's Zoo since 1992, plus toured with both Lindsey & Stevie solo as well as being with Fleetwood Mac since 1997.

Why don't they just have these guys become full-fledged members and drop the pretense of "hired guns"...how long do you have to be "in a band" before you actually are "IN THE BAND"???

So, instead of getting somebody like Sheryl Crow to "fill Christine's shoes" (which she wouldn't be doing anyway), just get Neale & Brett on board as official members. Then we all can go from here saying that it took "Two GUYS to replace Christine".

David · #21 03-20-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

For 12 years now, they've hired Neale Haywood to be 2nd guitarist. Plus, he was in Lindsey's OotC touring band (1992) and Lindsey's current touring band. Brett Tuggle's been in Mick's Zoo since 1992, plus toured with both Lindsey & Stevie solo as well as being with Fleetwood Mac since 1997.

Why don't they just have these guys become full-fledged members and drop the pretense of "hired guns"...how long do you have to be "in a band" before you actually are "IN THE BAND"???

Totally, Steve. Those guys have been touring with Mac longer than most of the former members were IN the band!!

They should just hire Brett & Neale after all this time (especially if Mac isn't going to record).

And if they ever record again, let the "new" guys write a song or two. Big deal.

chriskisn · #22 03-20-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

how long do you have to be "in a band" before you actually are "IN THE BAND"???

Probably the question Ian Stewart asked the Rolling Stones...although he was once in the band...

RoseGarden · #23 03-20-2009, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

For 12 years now, they've hired Neale Haywood to be 2nd guitarist. Plus, he was in Lindsey's OotC touring band (1992) and Lindsey's current touring band. Brett Tuggle's been in Mick's Zoo since 1992, plus toured with both Lindsey & Stevie solo as well as being with Fleetwood Mac since 1997.

Why don't they just have these guys become full-fledged members and drop the pretense of "hired guns"...how long do you have to be "in a band" before you actually are "IN THE BAND"???

So, instead of getting somebody like Sheryl Crow to "fill Christine's shoes" (which she wouldn't be doing anyway), just get Neale & Brett on board as official members. Then we all can go from here saying that it took "Two GUYS to replace Christine".

I agree Chili! I think it would be refreshing to let them be officially part of the Mac. I felt guilty when they were introduced and applauded but didn't really know who they are. The back up singers get more exposure then they do. (I think they are great also).......

Villavic · #24 03-22-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseGarden

I agree Chili! I think it would be refreshing to let them be officially part of the Mac. I felt guilty when they were introduced and applauded but didn't really know who they are. The back up singers get more exposure then they do. (I think they are great also).......

Interesting, I wonder if general people would accept this. Anyway, I agree some musicians are not well known "members", but they deserve a recognition and a place in a band history, like Ray Lindsey and Stevie's girls.

Or Davey Johnstone, he's been for years part of the Elton John band, if not his whole career. Elton actually is not a single performer, but a band. In this case he is not so famous, but his photograph appears in some Elton CDs

Here's a curious photo of Elton with Stevie and Glenn Frey. Davey is at the left

michelej1 · #25 03-22-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Villavic

Interesting, I wonder if general people would accept this.

No. As a general person, I would not accept it. Although I appreciate Neale and Brett's loyalty.

Michele

davidalan · #26 03-25-2009, 12:33 PM

So you're saying Stevie has more of an opportunity be more "masculine"?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

You may be right, Villivic. But if Christine were playing, we might have gotten a Christine "Tusk" song, too.

Advantages of not having Christine in the tour:
Here is what we have been told:

#1-Christine is happy.*
2-Lindsey got to be "more of a guy."
3-There was "33 1/3% more room to maneuver."
4-They were able to "explore a more masculine sound."
5-"In the spirit of Fleetwood Mac reinventing itself, it was a challenge, but it was also an opportunity to flex our muscles in a different way."
6-It was "more guitar oriented."

Fleetwood Mac:

Never Break The Chain. FM is still working.

#1 is really the most important thing for Christine fans.

PastelGravel · #27 06-27-2009, 12:22 PM

Brett Tuggle is as good a "stand-in" as anyone could be, he's great! But I'd be on the first plane to London too if Christine was on the bill.

carol7lynn · #28 06-27-2009, 12:37 PM

Christine is great (super song writer and great keyboardist) but

I can't stand her voice

so I could care less if she's in the band or not. Brett does an awesome job covering her parts so I don't really miss her. She always sounds like she has a bad cold when she sings which I image is a result of smoking too much.

Carol Lynn
SoCalGalWithASmile

carol7lynn · #29 06-27-2009, 12:39 PM

Villavic,

Love the pix. Glenn Frey looks totally wasted.

Just another Tequila Sunset I guess.

Carol Lynn
SoCalGalWithASmile

David · #30 06-27-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

If anything, I think Christine's playing was rather loose- which is what I loved about her.

What do you mean by loose? I always thought her style was quite tight.

Quote:

It wasn't enough to just pound out the chords in rhythm- she would often throw in a bluesy lick or some kind of asynchronous arpeggio, e.g., the live piano breakdown during the "dreams unwind" part of "Rhiannon."

What is an asynchronous arpeggio?

Quote:

Accordingly, if anything, the classic Mac live sound was a little sloppy and raw (of course the "marching powder" didn't help matters). She was very much an intuitive player than someone who just played the notes. Brett Tuggle is a capable musician, but his playing is robotic and bereft of feeling.

I'm not sure I agree with your estimation of Chris, but the trouble I have with (what I can hear of) Tuggle's playing is that he has no strong personality.