who should replace SN if she continues refusing to record

[David]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

An interesting but ridiculous proposition. Stevie is not replaceable. It would seem like a cover band if someone else singing her songs. Bekka Bramlett was suitable only because it was a drastically different line up, without Lindsey, Stevie or Christine. Bekka wasn't a cookie cutter Stevie replacement, but it allowed them to perform a couple of her songs.

Yes, I'm on this train. The era of shuffling members in and out of this group as if they were chess pieces should have ended by now. The result always felt like a desperate move—a cloying expression, like "Please love us anyway."

You can replace refrigerator water filters because the new filters are built exactly like the old. But people don't work that way.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by skuncles

As far as the record label is concerned, without Steve is there is no Fleetwood Mac. So basically if Stevie decides to blow off the next album (which I doubt she will) then Fleetwood Mac will just end. At this point, and since 1997, Stevie has a lot more pull in the band than she had previously. They need her, she doesn't need them.

This logic was born in a time when artists still needed a big record label to put out an album. That's not the case anymore.

Michele

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by michelej1

This logic was born in a time when artists still needed a big record label to put out an album. That's not the case anymore.

Michele

Yes!

Christine and Lindsey are still formidable forces. Even without the third engine (Stevie), they could still make a great album fly. This isn't about achieving dizzying heights of commercial success anyway. It's about the ending rein of a historic band with one last musical statement that will cap off their legacy.

Stevie Nicks's (potential) withdrawal, like Peter Green's, isn't a breaking point. The band has persevered, like no other, through numerous drastic tidal waves. Though Stevie still has a lot of appeal, she's not the commercial commodity she once was. Behind the Mask didn't benefit from her presence. Nor have her recent solo albums busted up the charts.

Commercially, it makes little to no difference if Stevie is or isn't on Fleetwood Mac's last album. But from an emotional perspective/standpoint, if Stevie decides to bail on the very last stand for the band, it reveals an unflattering selfishness and a lack of gratitude and respect for the band. She's in it for the profit of live performances, but not for the creative collaboration. It is crass ass move on her part. Shame on her.

I still hope she will pull her ego-swelled head out of her ass and spare a little love and time for the band that made her rich and famous. After that, she can shed the shackles, free to follow her muse for the rest of her life.