who should replace SN if she continues refusing to record

[Dr.Brown]

I voted "nobody" since realistically this is likely to be their farewell album but, if Christine had rejoined 10 years ago and Stevie had refused to record, I agree that Neko Case would have been an amazing choice with her incredible vocal range and energy.

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

I'm not saying it would not be FM I'm saying does the band want the blockbuster "OWTS" tour to be the last thing great thing the band is remembered for or do they want people looking back 10 or 20 years from now and saying FM went down hill after Stevie left and just faded away.

The On With The Show tour will hold little significance in terms of their long term legacy. The hill you presume they will go down without Stevie would just be a twist in the road of a band with a twisted history.

Unwarranted are the dire predictions that their last years will be spent be limping around, reduced to playing to half-filled road houses; their status and reputation so sadly damaged that it will nullify all they have accomplished.

Bollocks!

[BlueDenimLamp]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

The On With The Show tour will hold little significance in terms of their long term legacy. The hill you presume they will go down without Stevie would just be a twist in the road of a band with a twisted history.

Unwarranted are the dire predictions that their last years will be spent be limping around, reduced to playing to half-filled road houses; their status and reputation so sadly damaged that it will nullify all they have accomplished.

Bollocks!

You seem to be forgetting the "Time" years when FM was a mere shadow of it's former self...This could happen again as it's possible that CM or LB would grow weary of a SN replacement and retire leaving Mick with trying to carry on with only one of the 3 "Rumours" singers in the band.

[jbrownsjr]

The B/N version of FM was very generic in my opinion, which confuses me because their one album is very good. It's probably because they can't stand each other most of the time, and it really informs why there was not much output in 16 years of capitalizing on just the two of them.

You could tell in LB's body language during DR how he feels about Stevie. While they did have some great performances, adding Christine really re-energized them. Perhaps, Stevie will let that translate into the studio. (That's my first choice of what I would like to see.)

They need more output and LB and CM as artists have recognized that and have written many new songs for their band. The more Stevie doesn't want to make new music with this band, the more it was about the huge paycheck she scooped up for doing this tour.

If not, I would like to see Nancy Wilson. Same era.. good range, good harmony, and work some of her own tunes in.

Not plausible, but it's a poll.

Having said that, I think just the 4 would be less generic, more musical, and less popular. In my experience as a musician and a fan, some of the best music is unpopular.

[jcalzaretta]

SN will record

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by nicepace

Even if they only had two songs on the new album, that would be two songs from Chris or Lindsey that we wouldn't get to hear.

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

Yes to this.

That's assuming that they HAD 2 more decent songs to put on the album. EVERY album has "filler"...maybe those 2 extra Christine or Lindsey songs would fit in that category, whereas a Suzanna Hoffs/Sheryl Crow tune or two would actually be the stronger choice for the album. Let go of your biases.

Originally Posted by nicepace

Now, if the band were to record a new album and tour with the album, it might be a good idea to have another female singer as a "special guest performer" to cover a couple of Stevie songs. That's where a Susanna or a Sheryl might work in this band. But she should just come on stage for a couple of tunes, and she shouldn't be considered an actual member of the band.

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

To this, respectfully…..No. Just no. And if Lindsey ever agreed to such a cheesy move that reeks of playing smoky casinos or cruise ships, I would give up on this band forever.

And, doing a tour without releasing an album...playing only 30+ year old songs in their set without is BETTER? I'll take seeing "Fleetwood Mac" anywhere with anybody they deem as a member, either permanent or temporary...I'm an "Unconditional Fan". So, if your fandom has "conditions" attached...good riddance to ya.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

You seem to be forgetting the "Time" years when FM was a mere shadow of it's former self...This could happen again as it's possible that CM or LB would grow weary of a SN replacement and retire leaving Mick with trying to carry on with only one of the 3 "Rumours" singers in the band.

Which would still be one more than what they had during the "Time" era. You don't seem to understand what the problem was. NONE of the "Rumours" era vocalists were touring with the band. I also remember Lindsey's album flopped and Stevie's album flopped. None of them were setting the world on fire. At least Fleetwood Mac never promoted or toured in support of "Time."

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by chiliD

That's assuming that they HAD 2 more decent songs to put on the album. EVERY album has "filler"...maybe those 2 extra Christine or Lindsey songs would fit in that category, whereas a Suzanna Hoffs/Sheryl Crow tune or two would actually be the stronger choice for the album. Let go of your biases.


And, doing a tour without releasing an album...playing only 30+ year old songs in their set without is BETTER? I'll take seeing "Fleetwood Mac" anywhere with anybody they deem as a member, either permanent or temporary...I'm an "Unconditional Fan". So, if your fandom has "conditions" attached...good riddance to ya.

Wow. Sorry you're having such a bad day.

I don't recall ever saying I thought this tour with no new album was a good idea. In fact, I've said many times it's not. I wanted them to record first, then tour the new album. That's not what we got. The one thing about this tour at least is that we've got the writers and original performers of all the songs on stage. Bringing in strangers to cover your hits is far, far cheesier. If you would pay to go see that, well good on you. Have fun.

And there are all sorts of fans and none of them have to meet my or your standards to qualify. I've followed this band for 40 years. This is a forum for sharing opinions.
If you don't like other opinions, maybe you're the one in the wrong place.

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

The B/N version of FM was very generic in my opinion, which confuses me because their one album is very good. It's probably because they can't stand each other most of the time, and it really informs why there was not much output in 16 years of capitalizing on just the two of them.

You could tell in LB's body language during DR how he feels about Stevie. While they did have some great performances, adding Christine really re-energized them. Perhaps, Stevie will let that translate into the studio. (That's my first choice of what I would like to see.)

They need more output and LB and CM as artists have recognized that and have written many new songs for their band. The more Stevie doesn't want to make new music with this band, the more it was about the huge paycheck she scooped up for doing this tour.

I wonder if Lindsey and Christine's creative relationship is what makes Stevie so reluctant. She's seen how well they work together- could she now feel like an outsider? Has she reached a point where she's too self-conscious of her own songwriting in relation to the other two. She knows she probably cant write with Christine or Lindsey. Does she feel like the gooseberry? (whether she should feel that way or not).

Its funny how these same discussions keep going around in circles over several threads- for what its worth I wouldn't mind Fleetwood Mac playing to significantly smaller venues so long as MJCL are there. Half-filled roadhouses and smokey casinos are just up my street and would probably be a lot cheaper- could go to more shows.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

The one thing about this tour at least is that we've got the writers and original performers of all the songs on stage. Bringing in strangers to cover your hits is far, far cheesier. If you would pay to go see that, well good on you. Have fun.

That's why I think it would be better to have an established artist who has her own well known songs come in instead of a relative newbie. She'd sing a couple of Stevie's songs, a few of her own hits, and a couple of new songs. It's like what they did on the 1975-76 tour.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by FuzzyPlum

I wonder if Lindsey and Christine's creative relationship is what makes Stevie so reluctant. She's seen how well they work together- could she now feel like an outsider?

Hasn't that been the case since "World Turning" though?

for what its worth I wouldn't mind Fleetwood Mac playing to significantly smaller venues so long as MJCL are there. Half-filled roadhouses and smokey casinos are just up my street and would probably be a lot cheaper- could go to more shows.

I don't see "half-filled roadhouses and smokey casinos" in their future if MJCL are still in the band. Maybe amphitheaters and medium-to-large theater tours, as well as festivals (where the REAL money is). But, I'm all for anything that brings ticket prices down. I'm sick that I could only do two shows this tour. If they had been cheaper, I probably would/could have done at least ten shows.

[gypsy333]

The more Stevie doesn't want to make new music with this band, the more it was about the huge paycheck she scooped up for doing this tour.

They ALL scooped up the money...St. Christine and St. Lyndsey too!!

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by gypsy333

They ALL scooped up the money...St. Christine and St. Lyndsey too!!

You missed the point. The others have over an album's worth of material recorded, and would rather have toured behind a new album than doing just a greatest hits tour. They would rather this have had some artistic merit instead of just being another cash grab.

[louielouie2000]

It's hard to pinpoint, but I'd say sometime during the 90s Fleetwood Mac stopped being an amorphous entity, and finally froze into something solid and definable. What I mean by that is Fleetwood Mac is restricted to Fleetwood-McVie-McVie-Buckingham-Nicks. The public will accept one of those members dropping out, but will not tolerate new additions. So all of this talk about replacing a member is much ado about nothing. They've learned their lesson in regards to replacements. That's why they even cut a show short recently when Mick got sick and had to leave the stage. Yes, they could have gotten the drum tech to step in to finish the show, but they didn't dare. So if Stevie were to quit or get fired- neither of which are going to happen- the band could and probably would continue without her. I don't think that would be a quick process; it might be something like the 6 years in between the Dance and Say You Will. They'd wait to see if Stevie changed her mind, but would move forward without her if it became clear she wasn't interested. Because any way you slice it, you still have 4 members who are most eager to continue to make music. So why the hell shouldn't they?

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

They've learned their lesson in regards to replacements. That's why they even cut a show short recently when Mick got sick and had to leave the stage. Yes, they could have gotten the drum tech to step in to finish the show, but they didn't dare.

That was a different scenario. That was just a cop-out. On that occasion they just froze because they've come to rely too much on routine and familiarity. They could have/should have continued.