The space of time between albums featuring Buckingham/Nicks/McVie

[PenguinHead]

The trio of Lindsey, Stevie and Christine define the most enduring and high-profile configuration of Fleetwood Mac. Despite their lasting impact, they weren't as prolific as they might seem. If you strip away the two live albums, the box set, two greatest hits albums, and the reissues, they made only five albums together (six, counting Say You Will).

Solo careers, big egos, soured relationships and the departures & returns (Lindsey/Stevie/Christine) resulted in vast spans of time between them. Out of the gate they had momentum, but it diminished over time.

One year between Fleetwood Mac & Rumours
One year between Rumours & Tusk
Three years between Tusk & Mirage
Four years between Mirage and Tango in the Night
Fourteen years between Tango and Say You Will (sans Christine)

Another fourteen years has gone by like a strand in the night. Will we be so lucky to get a final album from the five fireflies? If we hope and and if we pray, it might work out someday, and there will be no fearsome divorce in the night. If there is, don't blame it on Stevie, blame it on her wild heart.

[FuzzyPlum]

Sorry to be picky but isn't the gap 2 years, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 16 years?

or, if you are counting the year in-between;
1 year, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years, 15 years

???

btw: sans-Christine?- why not sans-Lindsey & Stevie?...

1 year, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years, 2 years, 4 years, 7 years....11 years.
hmmm, there's almost a Fibonnaci sequence or something in there.

[SisterNightroad]

If we want to be picky then we shouldn't round off the months:

"Fleetwood Mac" date release: 11 July 1975

"Rumours" date release: 4 February 1977

"Tusk" date release: 12 October 1979

"Mirage" date release: 18 June 1982

"Tango in the night" date release: 13 April 1987

"Say You will" date release: 15 April 2003

"Extended Play" date release: 30 April 2013

So:

Fleetwood Mac-Rumours= 19 months

Rumours-Tusk= 32 months

Tusk-Mirage= 32 months

Mirage-Tango in the night= 4 years and 9 months

Tango in the night-Say you will= 16 years

Say you will-Extended Play= 10 years

[Macfan4life]

Everyone on this site is nit picky LOL

And don't forget the Tusk tour was 16 months or something. That really added time between Tusk and Mirage. Its not like they were not working together during the time between those albums.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

Everyone on this site is nit picky LOL

And don't forget the Tusk tour was 16 months or something. That really added time between Tusk and Mirage. Its not like they were not working together during the time between those albums.

That's true also for Rumours-Tusk since there was the 1978 summer tour.

[RockawayBlind]

This is one of the biggest problems I have with this band. They have done very little to maintain the following they still have. Really, they are to this day still riding the success of one smash album. Even if arguably Tusk has inspired a younger generation of musicians more than any other FM album, the fact is this band has been very stingy with output. Compare the measly five albums with the Rumours lineup over the same 40-year period to the Rolling Stones, Tom Petty or even to artists such as Sheryl Crow or Smashing Pumpkins, which have been around only since the early 90s.

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

This is one of the biggest problems I have with this band. They have done very little to maintain the following they still have. Really, they are to this day still riding the success of one smash album. Even if arguably Tusk has inspired a younger generation of musicians more than any other FM album, the fact is this band has been very stingy with output. Compare the measly five albums with the Rumours lineup over the same 40-year period to the Rolling Stones, Tom Petty or even to artists such as Sheryl Crow or Smashing Pumpkins, which have been around only since the early 90s.

This, in my opinion, is the biggest detriment of the band. It's all well and good for Lindsey to give his long winded speeches during concerts about how Fleetwood Mac has been a band with a tumultuous history and how it will prevail, however the amount of creative collaboration that the band has actually taken part in is minimal. When you consider that the most recent song in the On With The Show setlist was released in 1987, it is actually quite embarrassing. However, people are willing to pay much money to see them so I guess the joke is on us!

I adore the band and believe that their most prolific time (1975-1980) created some of the best pop/rock music in history. They still put on a brilliant show, and when all 5 are performing together it is magic. However, it is near impossible to consider the band totally relevant and/or innovative with such little studio work behind them.

As a side note, the flip side to this argument is the fact that one album (Rumours) has had such a lasting legacy. This is actually an incredible feat, and something that even many of the most prolific of bands cannot claim.

[BlueDenimLamp]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

This, in my opinion, is the biggest detriment of the band. It's all well and good for Lindsey to give his long winded speeches during concerts about how Fleetwood Mac has been a band with a tumultuous history and how it will prevail, however the amount of creative collaboration that the band has actually taken part in is minimal. When you consider that the most recent song in the On With The Show setlist was release in 1987, it is actually quite embarrassing. However, people are willing to pay much money to see them so I guess the joke is on us!

I adore the band and believe that their most prolific time (1975-1980) created some of the best pop/rock music in history. They still put on a brilliant show, and when all 5 are performing together it is magic. However, it is near impossible to consider the band totally relevant and/or innovative with such little studio work behind them.

As a side note, the flip side to this argument is the fact that one album (Rumours) has had such a lasting legacy. This is actually an incredible feat, and something that even many of the most prolific of bands cannot claim.

That's because the band has been endlessly promoting this record for the past 30+ years.

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

That's because the band has been endlessly promoting this record for the past 30+ years.

That is true, in part. However, I think that even without the bands constant promotion this album has stayed on radio and in the public consciousness due to its own merits. Many of the new generation that has found inspiration from Rumours have probably never seen the Mac, were not musically engaged during The Dance, or have much knowledge of the previous tours.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

If we want to be picky then we shouldn't round off the months:

"Fleetwood Mac" date release: 11 July 1975

"Rumours" date release: 4 February 1977

"Tusk" date release: 12 October 1979

"Mirage" date release: 18 June 1982

"Tango in the night" date release: 13 April 1987

"Say You will" date release: 15 April 2003

"Extended Play" date release: 30 April 2013

So:

Fleetwood Mac-Rumours= 19 months

Rumours-Tusk= 32 months

Tusk-Mirage= 32 months

Mirage-Tango in the night= 4 years and 9 months

Tango in the night-Say you will= 16 years

Say you will-Extended Play= 10 years

If SYW (3/4 of the classic band) is included, BTM (also 3/4 of the classic band) should also be included. And really, "The Dance" should be on there, too, since it was the big hit "reunion" album.

Behind The Mask: 10 April 1990

The Dance: 19 August 1997

So:

Tango-Mask= 3 years

Mask-Dance= 7 years and 4 months

Dance-SYW= 5 years and 8 months.

SYW-EP= 10 years

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

the fact is this band has been very stingy with output. Compare the measly five albums with the Rumours lineup over the same 40-year period to the Rolling Stones, Tom Petty or even to artists such as Sheryl Crow or Smashing Pumpkins, which have been around only since the early 90s.

True, but to be a devil's advocate, you're forgetting about the countless solo albums that have been released during the hiatus periods of FM. None of those mentioned artists or any band i can think of has had as numerous members as FM release multiple solo albums throughout the career of the band. Make sense?

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by joe

True, but to be a devil's advocate, you're forgetting about the countless solo albums that have been released during the hiatus periods of FM. None of those mentioned artists or any band i can think of has had as numerous members as FM release multiple solo albums throughout the career of the band. Make sense?

Good point.

Also, Fleetwood Mac is really a "Supergroup." When you have that many songwriters and singers, it is less of a 'true band' and more of a 'creative gathering' of superb musicians and performers.

I still to think, though, that the band tends to oversell their creative collaborations; they do not have nearly enough studio work.

[SteveMacD]

Being generous, I counted 38 releases (band, solo, and albums with other incarnations) with new material between the five of them. That includes compilations that only had one or two new songs.

I guess that could be impressive to some people.

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Being generous, I counted 38 releases (band, solo, and albums with other incarnations) with new material between the five of them. That includes compilations that only had one or two new songs.

I guess that could be impressive to some people.

Perhaps I'm bring a greedy fan but being used to artists releasing more than 1 album per year as had been the case in the 70's, I guess 38 "albums" in 40 years is still below average output. The crux of this seems to be that we keep being told they (particularly Stevie) have "so many songs" and I'm sure many fans would be quite happy if they just recorded these live in the studio and released them as is but due to some self appointed perfectionism, this is why we must wait, and wait...and wait I guess. It is them that have decided that recordings of that nature would not be acceptable to the fans, don't know why.

John

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

Perhaps I'm bring a greedy fan but being used to artists releasing more than 1 album per year as had been the case in the 70's, I guess 38 "albums" in 40 years is still below average output. The crux of this seems to be that we keep being told they (particularly Stevie) have "so many songs" and I'm sure many fans would be quite happy if they just recorded these live in the studio and released them as is but due to some self appointed perfectionism, this is why we must wait, and wait...and wait I guess. It is them that have decided that recordings of that nature would not be acceptable to the fans, don't know why.

I'm not at all impressed, but then again, I work for somebody who is dangerously close to releasing his 100th album in a nearly 30 year timeframe