The Ledge

Go Back   The Ledge > Main Forums > Post-Rumours
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 03-11-2006, 11:33 AM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 14,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
As for the "Time" tours/oldies thing, I guess I'd have more of an issue with it if it weren't for the simple fact that they weren't touring in support of an album.
That's often commented on (generally by you or Chili), & while it's true to the letter, it isn't necessarily true to the spirit. Part of the band's reason for touring to introduce new members in 1994 & 1995 was to stir audience interest in a studio album at some point -- & that point wasn't more than a few months after the tour. What month was "Time" released? The 1995 tour ran at least through October, when I saw them the 2nd time around. Certainly by that time, the album was at the mixing or mastering stage.

Even as far back on the first tour swing-through as July 1994, Mick was telling the newspapers that the band was preparing a new album. He told the Times of Northwest Indiana, right before a Fleetwood Mac show at the Star Plaza Theatre, that the band was "nurturing the creative process for a new album." He added that the tour was "partly the test of the chemistry of songs off a new album" that the reporter mentioned was as yet unnamed & that would appear the following spring.

So although strictly speaking, Fleetwood Mac wasn't supporting a new album on tour -- they really were.

To that end, they should have put the new songs front & center in the set. At both Northern CA shows I saw, the new material was not emphasized -- much of it, in fact, wasn't even played at all. But boy did we get the white album & Rumours! Say You Love Me & Go Your Own Way & Don't Stop & World Turning & Gold Dust Woman & The Chain & Blue Letter & You Make Loving Fun ... it was just ridiculous.

In May & June of 1975, Fleetwood Mac also toured before a new album was out, but at that point, according to people who saw them in Texas that month (& who posted about it to amfm), the band played most of the white album & really roared & put a lot of passion & commitment into driving the new material so that audiences would come to live it. That's a far cry from what I saw Dave Mason do with the band in 1994 & 1995: essentially just snooze through the set. Obviously, the circumstances were different in terms of respective ages & careers (they were kids in 1975 & wanted to build careers, whereas Dave was no kid in 1994 & already had a career). But that's really what makes Mick's choice of adding Dave so inane. He should have hired Dave Grohl!

I wish I could remember whether anyone onstage mentioned that some of the songs they did -- like "Blow by Blow" -- were going to be on a new album. But, alas, I can't. The prime rib was pretty good that night, however!
__________________

moviekinks.blogspot.com

Last edited by David; 03-11-2006 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-11-2006, 06:18 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
I wish I could remember whether anyone onstage mentioned that some of the songs they did -- like "Blow by Blow" -- were going to be on a new album. But, alas, I can't. The prime rib was pretty good that night, however!
They did both times I saw them, and on some of the boots I have of those tours.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. But, I think there's a lot of middle ground between what you're talking about and what they actually did. I think those '75-'76 sets were among the best in the band's history. And, it's not like they didn't perform ANY of the old songs. They were still there. They had a nice mix of old an new, which is what they should have been doing 19 years later!

Look at the "Heroes" boots that are floating around. There's usually only two songs from "Heroes," but the band does "Manalishi," "Oh Well," "Black Magic Woman," and "Rattlesnake." I find it odd that the "Heroes" tour doesn't get the same type of criticism that the "Time" tours get, especially considering that they were touring in support of an album.

I think the band had to do "Oh Well" (which I believe almost every incarnation of Fleetwood Mac has done at one point), "Go Your Own Way," "Don't Stop," and, since Mason was in the band "We Just Disagree." But, after those four songs, the set should have been new and/or original material with maybe a few other "classics" for good measure. Here's what I think a good set would have been:

In The Back Of My Mind
Winds Of Change
Oh Well
We Just Disagree
Talkin' To My Heart
Blow By Blow
Shakin' The Cage (Revamped and with drum vest)
Only You Know And I Know
Go Your Own Way
--
Tear It Up
Don't Stop
--
Dreamin' The Dream
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-12-2006, 12:33 PM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 14,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. But, I think there's a lot of middle ground between what you're talking about and what they actually did. I think those '75-'76 sets were among the best in the band's history. And, it's not like they didn't perform ANY of the old songs. They were still there. They had a nice mix of old an new, which is what they should have been doing 19 years later!
But I'm talking specifically about May & June 1975 before the album was released: they played most of the album before it was released. Fleetwood Mac in 1994 & especially 1995 should have been doing that instead of ****ing around with Say You Love Me & Don't Stop & The Chain & all those others.
Quote:
Look at the "Heroes" boots that are floating around. There's usually only two songs from "Heroes," but the band does "Manalishi," "Oh Well," "Black Magic Woman," and "Rattlesnake." I find it odd that the "Heroes" tour doesn't get the same type of criticism that the "Time" tours get, especially considering that they were touring in support of an album.
There's still a difference between that situation & the situation in 1994/95. The Heroes band wasn't living down huge, iconic hits from a previous incarnation in the United States. The 1994/95 band was. The geography is different, & that makes a big difference. Fleetwood Mac's connection with Manalishi & Rattlesnake & Oh Well in the United States was a little-known one--primarily among college audiences & the savvy 5 percent of radio DJs. As for Black Magic Woman, the Great Unwashed in this country thought it was a Santana song.

Fleetwood Mac in 1994/95 were up against previous incarnations in the United States that swamped it in the public's eye.
Quote:
I think the band had to do "Oh Well" (which I believe almost every incarnation of Fleetwood Mac has done at one point), "Go Your Own Way," "Don't Stop," and, since Mason was in the band "We Just Disagree." But, after those four songs, the set should have been new and/or original material with maybe a few other "classics" for good measure.
We've talked about this ad infinitum before. I see no good reason for the band to play Don't Stop or Go Your Own Way in 1994/95, & plenty of bad reasons. That whole "have to play" mentality of yours is what destroyed Fleetwood Mac in 1995. It didn't help them at all. It totally hurt them. All it did was shove a reminder in people's faces.
__________________

moviekinks.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-12-2006, 04:22 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Fleetwood Mac in 1994 & especially 1995 should have been doing that instead of ****ing around with Say You Love Me & Don't Stop & The Chain & all those others.
I agree with you on 1995, but not 1994, for the simple reason that they probably didn't have the new material in 1994. The one thing that seems to be forgotten with your argument is that the band usually played about twelve songs per set, but those three only had seven songs (eight, if you throw in "These Strange Times") on the actual album that WAS released. So, they would still have needed at least four or five songs to fill out a set. Unless you're also suggesting that Bekka sing Christine's "Time" songs as well, which I don't see as being any different than Bekka singing SYLM, YMLF, or "Don't Stop."
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
There's still a difference between that situation & the situation in 1994/95. The Heroes band wasn't living down huge, iconic hits from a previous incarnation in the United States.
Which makes playing only two new songs off the current album and FOUR Peter Green songs all the more curious. Those four were the core of the band for five albums by that point. If anything, the "Heroes" set should be held to higher scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
The geography is different, & that makes a big difference. Fleetwood Mac in 1994/95 were up against previous incarnations in the United States that swamped it in the public's eye.
The "Rumours" era Fleetwood Mac was hugely popular around the world, so I don't see how this is relevant. I don't think there was any country in which they could escape "Rumours." Maybe some African, Asian, and ex-Soviet countries, but that's about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
We've talked about this ad infinitum before. I see no good reason for the band to play Don't Stop or Go Your Own Way in 1994/95, & plenty of bad reasons. That whole "have to play" mentality of yours is what destroyed Fleetwood Mac in 1995. It didn't help them at all. It totally hurt them. All it did was shove a reminder in people's faces.
David, I would buy that argument if either Stevie or Lindsey were having huge success as solo artists. But the fact that Stevie was playing to 1/2 filled venues and Lindsey was openig for Tina Turner shows me that there wasn't exactly a huge demand for any of them. And, as has been said many times, if you combine the sales of OOTC, SA, and "Time," it would still have been a disaster by FM's standards.

The big problem is that no older (classic) artist, save maybe for Tina Turner, was having a lot of chart success. Fleetwood Mac was the opening act for CSN in 1994. They were touring in support of a new album. It went nowhere, which was also the case when Neil Young came back into the fold a few years later. This is the time when radio became completely fragmented. Classic rock stations were classic hits by the classic artists. New rock stations were new hits by new artists This made it impossible for the new hits by old artists. As such, and this is the key point with all of this, the old songs were really the only thing the old acts had to market the shows. "Then they should have changed the name" so some say. They would still have had the exact same problem. Mick, John, and even Billy were too heavily associated with their membership in Fleetwood Mac, so breaking away from the band's legacy altogether, even under a new name, would have been impossible. People would still expect to hear the classics from Fleetwood Mac.

Sure, I could see how some not familiar with the band's history would think they were seeing a bastardized version of Fleetwood Mac. They would have thought that regardless if they were playing "Talkin' To My Heart" or "Don't Stop." Oddly enough, most people, at least at the shows I attended or have bootlegs, seem to give the band an overwhelmingly positive reception. (I even heard a few CSN fans say that CSN should have been the opening act!)
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-12-2006, 05:03 PM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 14,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
I agree with you on 1995, but not 1994, for the simple reason that they probably didn't have the new material in 1994. The one thing that seems to be forgotten with your argument is that the band usually played about twelve songs per set, but those three only had seven songs (eight, if you throw in "These Strange Times") on the actual album that WAS released. So, they would still have needed at least four or five songs to fill out a set. Unless you're also suggesting that Bekka sing Christine's "Time" songs as well, which I don't see as being any different than Bekka singing SYLM, YMLF, or "Don't Stop."
It's a ****kicker's worth of difference: audiences know SYLM & Don't Stop, they don't know I Do & Hollywood. When you play SYLM, your audience immediately thinks of the Fleetwood Mac incarnation that recorded it. The same is not true of "All Over Again" or "Sooner or Later."
Quote:
The "Rumours" era Fleetwood Mac was hugely popular around the world, so I don't see how this is relevant. I don't think there was any country in which they could escape "Rumours."
Wow. You really missed the point. My point had nothing to do with the popularity of Rumours around the world. My point had everything to do with the very minimal popularity of "Then Play On" & Dog & Dustbin in the United States.
Quote:
David, I would buy that argument if either Stevie or Lindsey were having huge success as solo artists. But the fact that Stevie was playing to 1/2 filled venues and Lindsey was openig for Tina Turner shows me that there wasn't exactly a huge demand for any of them.
But that wasn't my point, either. What Stevie or Lindsey was doing solo in 1994/95 is irrelevant to the fact that, when Fleetwood Mac -- or any cover band in the United States -- played SYLM or YMLF or GYOW, the audience (whether it was in the open-air venue or the bar or the Bar Mitzvah or the corporate party) immediately linked the song to the Fleetwood Mac that rules the American airwaves in the 1970s.

Any time ANYONE plays Dreams or SYLM (at least in this country), the listener immediately thinks of Fleetwood Mac if he thinks of anyone at all (i.e., assuming we're not talking about a 14-year-old black kid who has never heard the classic pop-rock playlist--& such a kid probably didn't turn out in droves for the Time concerts, so that's a moot exception).
Quote:
The big problem is that no older (classic) artist, save maybe for Tina Turner, was having a lot of chart success.
I ain't talkin' about CHART SUCCESS in 1994!!! Don't play stupid!!! I'm talkin' 'bout recognizability factor in SAY YOU LOVE ME & DREAMS & DON'T STOP & all those goddamn old FM song hits!!!

The 1994 band should not have been playing any of those if they wanted to cement a new identity & get their own hits or grow their own audience!! it's as simple as that.

Quote:
As such, and this is the key point with all of this, the old songs were really the only thing the old acts had to market the shows.
What do you mean "market the shows"? To market such shows, you announce that you're playing at the Konocti Harbor Spa & Resort, & people either show up or they don't! But you PLAY your new material & whatever else you want that ISN'T connected to your former incarnations because otherwise the PEOPLE will continue to think of you as HAS-BEENS trying to CASH IN on your past, & they will grow very weary of you & bored with you.

Quote:
"Then they should have changed the name" so some say. They would still have had the exact same problem. Mick, John, and even Billy were too heavily associated with their membership in Fleetwood Mac
Billy? Come on, what ridiculousness. Stop the next chap you see on the street, show him a photo of Billy, & ask him, "Do you remember this man from Fleetwood Mac?"

Quote:
Sure, I could see how some not familiar with the band's history would think they were seeing a bastardized version of Fleetwood Mac.
How SOME?! Oh you're really pissin me offnow. I'm gonna call Nepo in here to give you an asswhuppin. Virtually EVERYONE in the audience knew they were watching a band that needed to establish its own identity APART from Rumours & Stevie Witch & Go Your Own Way ... & that wasn't trying very hard to do that.

Quote:
They would have thought that regardless if they were playing "Talkin' To My Heart" or "Don't Stop." Oddly enough, most people, at least at the shows I attended or have bootlegs, seem to give the band an overwhelmingly positive reception.
Your rhetoric skews the argument to your favor, but it's still extreme exaggeration & rhetoric. "Overwhelmingly positive reception" does not accurately describe the general air of a Time show. However, "applause" or even "mostly pleased" might describe it. To hear you tell it, those Time shows went over like U2 turning the crowds at the Coliseum into raving, dancing, chanting idolators. THAT is what "overwhelmingly positive reception" means connotatively.
__________________

moviekinks.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-12-2006, 06:13 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
It's a ****kicker's worth of difference: audiences know SYLM & Don't Stop, they don't know I Do & Hollywood.
Either way, it's a Christine song, and Bekka singing that is Bekka covering a Christine song.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Wow. You really missed the point. My point had nothing to do with the popularity of Rumours around the world. My point had everything to do with the very minimal popularity of "Then Play On" & Dog & Dustbin in the United States.
And, you seem to keep missing the point that it makes the decision to play so many Green-era songs, especially "Black Magic Woman," so odd in 1974, at least if you're coming from the perspective of forging a unique identity. Sure, the scale was different, but the concept is identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
But that wasn't my point, either. What Stevie or Lindsey was doing solo in 1994/95 is irrelevant to the fact that, when Fleetwood Mac -- or any cover band in the United States -- played SYLM or YMLF or GYOW, the audience (whether it was in the open-air venue or the bar or the Bar Mitzvah or the corporate party) immediately linked the song to the Fleetwood Mac that rules the American airwaves in the 1970s.
So, then, why is it acceptable for Stevie and Lindsey to do "The Chain" at solo shows? Because they were on "Rumours?" Well so were Mick and John. It was their album, too. If it's unacceptable for Mick and John to do GYOW because it would make people think of "Rumours," then why is it acceptable for Lindsey? Because he was the singer/songwriter of GYOW? Either way, people are thinking of X's previous glories, not necessarily their new material. The bottom line is that the success of "Rumours" is something that NONE of them will ever be able to live down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Any time ANYONE plays Dreams or SYLM (at least in this country), the listener immediately thinks of Fleetwood Mac if he thinks of anyone at all
And, go figure, Fleetwood Mac would play songs that are immediately associated with Fleetwood Mac. In any event, whenever people see Mick Fleetwood, they think of Fleetwood Mac. He IS one of the most unique looking characters in the history of rock, and he was on the cover of two of the band's most successful albums. His presence alone makes getting away from the "Rumours" era impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
The 1994 band should not have been playing any of those if they wanted to cement a new identity & get their own hits or grow their own audience!! it's as simple as that.
That's why I was talking about chart positions in 1994! Established artists weren't having hits. Hell, the two "stars" of Fleetwood Mac weren't having hits! It's pretty obvious those days were over for all of them. Now, I agree that they shouldn't have done an almost all oldies show, but to throw EVERYTHING out makes no sense, either. People expect certain songs when they see Fleetwood Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
What do you mean "market the shows"? To market such shows, you announce that you're playing at the Konocti Harbor Spa & Resort, & people either show up or they don't!
And, where do they announce stuff like that? On the RADIO. What do they typically do (or, at least were doing in 1994) when they have a radio announcement? They play the songs people remember. When they promoted Lindsey opening for Tina Turner, they actually played "Don't Stop" in the ad. The simple fact is that "Rumours" is the 500 pound elephant in the middle of the room as far as any future incarnation of Fleetwood Mac is concerned. They could choose to pretend like it's not there, or accept it and use it in moderation towards their advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
But you PLAY your new material & whatever else you want that ISN'T connected to your former incarnations because otherwise the PEOPLE will continue to think of you as HAS-BEENS trying to CASH IN on your past, & they will grow very weary of you & bored with you.
So, then EVERY incarnation after Peter Green consisted of HAS-BEENS because they all played "Oh Well," eh? Mick, John, and the Fleetwood Mac name will always be connected with that. To completely ignore that is, at best, dysfunctional. I wouldn't have done so much from it. I only listed four that I thought were essential (with Mason in the band). Other than that, it's wide open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Billy? Come on, what ridiculousness. Stop the next chap you see on the street, show him a photo of Billy, & ask him, "Do you remember this man from Fleetwood Mac?"
You could do the same with John McVie and get the same answer. Billy was on a concert video that sold well enough to be reissued on DVD, was on two very successful tours, and was on an album that had decent sales. Fleetwood Mac fans knew who he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Virtually EVERYONE in the audience knew they were watching a band that needed to establish its own identity APART from Rumours & Stevie Witch & Go Your Own Way ... & that wasn't trying very hard to do that.
On that, I don't disagree, except GYOW, which will always be in the set of any future incarnation of Fleetwood Mac. The only two songs from the "Rumours" era that I don't ever see going away are GYOW and "Don't Stop." "Oh Well" is, IMO, a BAND song that transcends personnel. But, I think SYLM, YMLF, GDW, "The Chain," and "World Turning" could certainly have been cut in favor of new songs, Billy's songs from BTM, and maybe even some Delaney & Bonnie/Johnny Burnette Trio material.

There was a lot that could have been different, and should have been different. In their early days, they needed to balance past glories (also true of the Mason material) with creating a new sound. It's not something I see happening with any band over one tour. But, since they ultimately closed shop before doing a proper tour, we'll never know. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say they wouldn't have had a hit with "Time" regardless, but I think it could have turned into something different, if given the opportunity to develop. We'll never know.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-13-2006, 01:39 AM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Ok...I'm going to chime in, not so much regarding Time, since I'm pretty much the middle ground between you guys (although, David, in most of the set list ideas, I'm leaning more toward Steve), and I'd only be "Captain Redundant"; but since you brought the comparison of the Heroes... tour into it, I have to toss my two-cents in regarding that tour.

1) They did more than just two songs from Heroes..., "Bermuda Triangle", "Coming Home", "Angel", "Come A Little Bit Closer"...that's four.

2) Why did they pack the set with older material? You have to remember what the band was going through in 1974...they were fighting for their very survival due to the Cliff Davies/Bogus band litigation. They played a plethora of Peter Green material (and "Black Magic Woman" HAD been a constant in their set since 1968). to PROVE to their record company, to the lawyers, to their fans that they were STILL "Fleetwood Mac".

3) Ok, one point regarding the 1994/95 tour...HAD Christine been on stage with them, toured with them, this whole issue of the Time incarnation's "worth" would be moot. My view is that it was the fact that Christine wasn't there, moreso than the absence of Lindsey & Stevie, that created the oddness/weirdness. I think in the 13 previous years, Fleetwood Mac fans HAD to have some inkling in their minds that "one of these days Stevie & Lindsey would leave the band". Lindsey had been grumbling for 6 years until he finally gave notice, Stevie seemed to be going through the motions with Fleetwood Mac since Wild Heart; proving that her solo career was more than a one album creative outlet anomaly. And, her "interest" seemed to wane even further after Lindsey's departure.

ALLLL RIGHT, you know once I got going...Captain Redundant HAS to chime in:

4) I'm right with Steve regarding the crew on the 1994/95 tour playing SOME of "the hits", but the main downer was that they didn't have enough NEW material to divert the focus off the Rumours material. (Like they did in 1975 by mixing their new material with the bands then "standards": "Oh Well", Green Manalishi", "Station Man", "Hypnotized", etc) And while I like Steve's hypothetical set list as a base, I think it could be tweaked a bit:

The Chain/In The Back Of My Mind
Winds Of Change
I Got It In For You
Oh Well
We Just Disagree
Talkin' To My Heart
Gold Dust Woman
Blow By Blow
Hard Feelings
Shakin' The Cage
When The Sun Goes Down
Nothing Without You
Only You Know And I Know
You Make Loving Fun
Go Your Own Way
--
Tear It Up
Dreamin' The Dream


5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Part of the band's reason for touring to introduce new members in 1994 & 1995 was to stir audience interest in a studio album at some point
Sure, "at some point" SHOULDN'T have been 18 months down the road. The album should've been out before the end of 1994 sans Christine if that's how it would be. (and then started a follow-up if Christine had THEN shown interest) But, no, they delayed the album for nearly A YEAR to incorporate Christines' songs, yet kept touring without her (which was probably the reason that they ended up telling her "no" in regards to SYW once she'd most likely shown interest in being involved in the album, yet not touring). It was great that they DID play a decent number of shows during '94, but to drag it on until (I believe it was) September 1995...the album itself was released on October 10, 1995...was just a marketing faux pas on a grand scale. What they needed to do was QUICKLY do a second album with that lineup
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-13-2006, 06:57 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Whatever the case, I think that what they set out to do was fairly ambitious: Three singers playing Fleetwood Mac classics, Dave Mason/Traffic classics, and new songs in typically a twelve song set. Even if they had done a balanced set, it would have still been a challenge coming up with a semi-cohesive set in which each singer gets a fair representation. But then, creative set-lists aren't really Fleetwood Mac's, or Dave Mason's, specialty to begin with.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


FLEETWOOD MAC FUTURE GAMES FEAT JOHN & CHRISTINE MCVIE 1971 LP RS 6465 picture

FLEETWOOD MAC FUTURE GAMES FEAT JOHN & CHRISTINE MCVIE 1971 LP RS 6465

$12.00



Rare Scene 1981 Benatar John Denver Christie McVie HUGE ADS picture

Rare Scene 1981 Benatar John Denver Christie McVie HUGE ADS

$12.00



FLEETWOOD MAC 1971 CLASSIC 8x10 BW MATT PROMO GROUP PHOTO CHRISTINE McVIE MICK picture

FLEETWOOD MAC 1971 CLASSIC 8x10 BW MATT PROMO GROUP PHOTO CHRISTINE McVIE MICK

$12.99



Fleetwood Mac John McVie Guitar Pick with Cannon on Back picture

Fleetwood Mac John McVie Guitar Pick with Cannon on Back

$69.00



John McVie : Blues Breakers, John Mayall with Eric Clapton CD   LN picture

John McVie : Blues Breakers, John Mayall with Eric Clapton CD LN

$6.99




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved