Mick Fleetwood - Album News

Gypsy-Rhiannon · #1 06-25-2002, 03:33 AM

This is from the Nicksfix....

Reuters Newswire
June 24, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood changing diapers, still rocking at 55
Reuters
Jun 24 2002 7:39PM

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Drummer Mick Fleetwood, who turned 55 Monday, finds himself in the odd position of changing diapers at middle age even as he toils in the studio with members of the veteran rock band he co-founded in the late 1960s. The tall, lanky, British-born musician divides his time these days between working on a new Fleetwood Mac album, dabbling in various entrepreneurial activities and raising twin baby girls with his wife of about 10 years, Lynn.

During a telephone interview, Fleetwood told Reuters that both his creative and parenting skills had improved with age.

He also said he and his fellow bandmates are more at peace with themselves and each other, in stark contrast to the old days when Fleetwood Mac endured bitter internal rivalries and turmoil as the group churned out hit after hit.

"Our last outing was better than ever," he said, referring to Fleetwood Mac's 1997 reunion album, "The Dance," which sold more than 4 million copies in the United States and paved the way for a successful U.S. tour.

"It has to be happy. We don't want to go back into the dark ages of Fleetwood Mac, when it was way too crazy, not all that happy. We're so much over that. We came out on the other side, survivors and incredibly intact, and it's very conducive to the creative process," he said.

The new album reunites Fleetwood with three members of the band's most popular incarnation -- bass player and British co-founder John McVie, along with American songwriters and former lovers Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. Sitting this one out is McVie's ex-wife, singer-keyboardist Christine McVie, who has retired and is living in England.

DON'T STOP

The band, which shot to fame in the 1970s at the peak of its progression from British blues combo to California rock institution, has already produced enough material in the past 18 months to fill a double CD, Fleetwood said. The material was recorded in a Los Angeles house leased by the band.

Fleetwood expects the band to have the album out by early next year and to follow up with a tour in April 2003. The band also is releasing a greatest hits package around Christmas 2002, he said.

Fleetwood said there are "mumblings" from time to time of contributions by Christine McVie, but that the remaining four members have been moving ahead at full steam. In some ways, he said, the Buckingham/Nicks creative connection has been rekindled in the absence of Christine McVie.

"It's a major thing for Stevie and Lindsey. They came in as a couple, and in a strange way it's come full circle. Now that Christine is not in the mix, the Buckingham/Nicks chemistry is back, and they're having the chance to live out some of the things and energies that couldn't exist in the past 27 years," he said.

The band has changed its lineup many times through the years, with the best-known formula occurring in 1975 when Buckingham and Nicks joined Fleetwood and the McVies. They powered the band to mega-success with the 1977 album "Rumours," which sold more than 25 million copies worldwide.

"Rumours" chronicled the band's dramas at the time, with both the McVies and Buckingham and Nicks splitting up.

Fleetwood's own wife at the time was sleeping with his best friend, and the whole band struggled with drug and alcohol abuse problems.

Fleetwood, who has two grown daughters as well as a grandson, is now back to putting diapers on his 4-month-old twins, Tessa and Ruby.

He said that being an older dad has definite advantages.

"It's way more interesting the second time around and when you're older. You're more focused," he said. "I was on the road when the others were younger. I am from memory a lot more hands on than I was. And it's a great benefit that I'm not on the road."

Of course, next year could be different when he plans to take the band back on the road, with the families in tow.

"With all the children, it will be like a band of gypsies," he said, joking that he expected everyone will want the babies and nannies "way in the back of the plane."

Reuters/Variety

Pip

tuigirl · #2 06-25-2002, 05:15 AM

GREAT..some news at last...Ha!..Mick must have been reading the Ledge lately and realised the natives were getting restless

Whats more... he's told us all what we want to hear..the Buckingham/Nicks MAGIC is back!!!!

I hope that means theyr'e not fighting all the time (although, a little bit of fun fighting never hurt anyone

). All's well in the Mac camp then........Err BBC Radio 2, mentioned Micks birthday, but said he was 60, whats going on there then?

DownOnRodeo · #3 06-25-2002, 05:21 AM

Good news - or bad news - either way..... N E W S !!!

Thanks for the transcription Pip!

Nothing worse than horrible rumours about big label problems and our own crazy 'worst case scenario' thoughts. Good to hear Lindsey has pretty much full reign of the production.

A GH package - how bizzarre?! What could it be that The Chain and FM:GH 98 didnt cover? I always imagined my own personal favourites Grestest Hits, with ones like I Know I'm Not Wrong, Eyes of the World, Over and Over, Never Forget, Full length Gypsy etc etc., plus I'm so Afraid of course.

ARGGHH who am I kidding!!!!!!!

2003 = SOOO LONG AWAY!!!!!!!!

PLUS what about the cyclical nature of it... 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 - these are the big Lindsey years (yes apart from Tusk - that was heaven sent wasnt it!). Oh well.

Ghosty · #4 06-25-2002, 07:21 AM

So they are in the studio as we speak? Cool. I would love a double album. That would be so awesome! If they don't have a double one, then all of us will be dying to know what the rest of the songs were that didn't make it on to the cd. So let's hope the record people let them go for a double package! Please, please, pleeeeeease!

Ya, that's weird about the greatest hits coming out. But look at Heart, I can't even rememeber how many greatest hits cd's they put out in place of new stuff the past decade. Unless it has some cool new pictures (or never seen before ones) or some new versions or what not of songs, I probably wouldn't buy the greatest hits one. Since ya, we've got the Chain and that other greatest hits one. A full length Gypsy (what *is* the full length Gypsy? - I didn't realize there was a longer one) would get me to buy it, for sure! Anything different about that song and I'd be at the record store when they open that day to buy it! So, I hope they put some stuff like that on it. I would love to see them release a cd of all the extended and dance mix songs. Maybe they'll put one or two new songs on the greatest hits like they did last time (and hopefully a video!). To tease us, and get some hype going over the new cd to be released a few months after that.

Thanks for the article. Cool news!

(And thanks Mick - whereever you are, for giving us that info! Yay!

)

...please a double album - pleeeeease!!!!... Should we write to the record people and bombard them about it?!

CarneVaca · #5 06-25-2002, 08:44 AM

Sorry to be a bump on the log here, but this sounds like more bull**** from Mick to me. I mean, what's all this constant obsessive talk about how well they get allong and all that? Who gives a crap at this point?

Just give us the music and stop jerking us around. It will be six years since the last album, which had a grand total of four new songs! Only two of which were any good. Now before they make us part with the $20 for the double record next spring, they're going to try to bilk us out of another $20 with some stupid greatest hits record that will probably have a couple of new songs and one alternative take, just to make sure the gullible fans go out and buy it. I say BOYCOTT the f---ing thing!

Regardless of what Lindsey says (and I love the man's music), this is really beginning to sound like the band cares about nothing but the business end here. First Lindsey has all these public musings about whether to release a solo CD or put the Fleetwood Mac name on it for greater appeal (money, folks). They go into the studio, brag about having more songs than they would need for single record. It's almost done. And here we are. Now it's going to be another year!

And don't tell me they need more production time. Lindsey's had 10 years to work on HIS songs. And Stevie's songs, if they were already in demo form, shouldn't have to take that long.

These people simply don't care about us. Look at the Fleetwoodmac.com site. It was sitting there for six years, and now it has a stupid picture of that goofy drummer. None of the links work, and it's beginning to shape up as just another self-glorification medium for Mick, who is going to try to market himself more to produce some no-talent young acts.

Ahhh... I feel much better.

seteca · #6 06-25-2002, 10:32 AM

Well, it's good that at last there's some reliable news, and I'm really glad that the album and tour is still going to happen (I was beginning to fear the worst!)......

Thing is.....

I kind of feel CarneVaca's anger/frustration.......the following are rhetorical questions......

1) Why has it taken soooooo long for this album to come out?

2) Why has the date been delayed till next year, if the album is ready?

3) Why a Greatest Hits album, AGAIN...?? And of all the times of the year.....Christmas...!

.........I have a feeling anyway it's not going to be "Greatest Hits" but "Best Of"....just like Pink Floyd did with "Echoes".....The Chain Box Set was far too expensive and totally unadvertised (at least here in the U.K.) along with its offspring album ("Selections") to make that much of an impact....but the '88 Greatest Hits album DID make a big impact and is many times platinum....and even nowadays everytime I walk into a record shop there's about 50 copies sitting pretty staring at you at the front of the shop....so I have a feeling this will be that kind of album....about 20 selected "Best Of" songs....i.e. the original versions of all the classics from "The Dance" give or take a few.

I love Fleetwood Mac (along with Lindsey Buckingham) to the degree of total and utter obsession, and will forever be one of their biggest fans, but I can't help thinking that it looks like the "Rumours-sales bank accounts" are beginning to get a bit drained with the purchase of gazillion-dollar mansions in L.A. etc etc, and a teeny weeny bit of greed is kicking in.

Just my humble opinion.

Les · #7 06-25-2002, 01:10 PM

Good to hear some news. Thanks for posting this.

I can't really be too harsh without knowing the details.... Given the rumors about label troubles, a greatest hits package could be the label's way of attempting to grease the wheels since they're so wimpy about promoting new stuff. I'm suspicious since a decision appears to have been made to release a GH thing this winter instead of the new album first, when it seems as though it could be the other way around.

I guess I also suspect the label's prints on this since it pretty exactly follows the TISL release - album completed in Fall 2000, not released until April 2001.

Otherwise, I'm encouraged to hear things are going well. When the news is so sparse, it's easy to imagine the worst. These folks are all over 50 and I just honestly don't expect them to being going full-bore at the expense of personal relationships anymore.

wetcamelfood · #8 06-25-2002, 01:40 PM

I'm glad you guys spoke my feelings as well. I was holding off because I recently blasted Mick in another thread and didn't want to "over do it"!

I know many of you find our kind of thinking cynical (and if you don't like this kind of "negative" thinking please do not read on!) however...

To add to the frustrations on how they play us like Chess pawns, I worry that this Best of/Greatest hits will have meagar "new" material, sort of like this new 2 CD "Ultimate collection" compilation by The Who just put out by Universal where they have included a limited edition "bonus" 4 song disc of "rare" material to get the fans to buy the Greatest hits package as well as the casual buyers. Not only is this a fear I have regarding the new FM retro, but the "new" material that could be included on that disc would certainly not be considered "new" material to us once one or some of those tracks show up AGAIN on the actual fully "new" album a few short months later in 2003 (IF that's when it's released) to "make you" buy it again in effect since they know we would need the "new" album for the rest of the songs (that wouldn't be on the GH album in question) since we wouldn't know the tracklisting of the "new" album at the time of the release of the GH disc (remember how we were all dying to know what was going to be on the "Chain" box set and how underwraps that was?). It wouldn't be the first time it had been done before in the music industry.

I sure do love all 16 Macsters as MUSICIANS but going by what I/we can ("business manuvers" that have occurred with FM over the years etc.), I can't say I like them as people. I certainly do not profess to knowing them as people nor would I want to. I could understand them doing "business moves" in the beginning when they suppossedly didn't have money and needed some but now, if they REALLY DID "care more about the music than the money" then they would've started their own label instead of signing/re-signing with WB/Reprise and just released the stuff themselves (and not just through the "guise" of having your own label (Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) as one is still accountable to others doing it that way) by now.

I've got tons of feelings about this kind of stuff but I'm going to stop now as I've probably already made an enemy or three here already!

John

Johnny Stew · #9 06-25-2002, 03:48 PM

I realize that I am in the minority here, but the news of a new greatest hits album really doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't hold Fleetwood Mac responsible for it.

We've been aware for a few months now that there is trouble within Warner Bros.: They have a new president, who only has his eyes on new(er) artists, and who has already gained notoriety for having little interest in "veteran acts."
We also know that the band has actually had to shop this album around, in case Warners opted to not release it.

Since Fleetwood Mac is under contract with Warner Bros., they have to allow Warners first crack at the album. They have no choice.
So if Warner Bros says, "yeah, we want it... but we're not going to release it until June 2005," then the band has little recourse but to let them have their way.

Trust me, many other artists have had similar battles with record companies. To the point that some artists completely abandon an already completed album that's in release-limbo, to record something else that they might be able to get released elsewhere.

I'm sure Fleetwood Mac didn't say "hey, instead of releasing the new album that we've all worked so hard on, and that we're all so proud of... we'll release another greatest hits disc instead."
You can be sure that the record company *told* them that they have to release another compilation.

Back in 1991, I remember Stevie saying that she wasn't too keen on the idea of releasing a greatest hits, but since the record company told her she HAD to, she decided she might as well make the best of it... writing the personal stories behind the songs, and making the overall package as nice as possible.

I imagine that Fleetwood Mac is taking the same attitude about this release.

So yeah... if you don't want it, don't buy it. I wouldn't blame anyone who passed it up. But I think it's a little unfair to place all the blame on Fleetwood Mac for this.

Johnny Stew

Sorcerer386 · #10 06-25-2002, 04:24 PM

WELL SAID Johnny Stew. I'm glad I read your post last, because a few of these posts flaming and defaming the members of our supposed favorite band really started pissing me off. As I posted in the other post about this, record companies make money from albums, the bands make money from touring. If all Fleetwood Mac wanted to do was business, they would just tour. Ya know, maybe Lindsey's album wouldn't GET released under his name with his lackluster solo sales. Maybe the record companies said, "We'll release this only if you put them on a Fleetwood Mac album." I mean, I really don't see the problem here...regardless of how, this could bring Fleetwood Mac back into popularity. And none of us know the whole truth behind anything. I'm again proud to say that I love Fleetwood Mac, I WILL buy their Greatest Hits album, I WILL buy their new album, I WILL see them at least once on tour. I'm in absolute support for anything this band does right now just because I want them around again. So, you know, don't support your, again SUPPOSED, favorite band. Sit there and make snide remarks about them, but I refuse to take it laying down without sticking up for them. I would imagine they are doing this new album for the fans. They could all just retire otherwise...what the Hell do they need money for? Especially Stevie after TISL and the tour. I'm so upset that such huge fans could say such negative things about the band and/or band members. I digress...maybe forever from this site.

tommer · #11 06-25-2002, 04:53 PM

i have to agree with Brain here,
sure, record companies (and warners in particular) are wretched, the only thing that guids them is how to milk more money from poor music lovers (and look where it just got them lately), and fleetwood mac's treatment to fans sure needs *some* improvement, BUT, if mick says that they recorded enough new material to fill 2 cd's, we'll get the full album, a few more songs as B sides with the singles, and if a greatest hits album is a double cd, it may mean 4 new tracks there.
this means that the maximum amount of new mac songs will be released.
that's good.

i'm pleased.

Gypsy-Rhiannon · #12 06-25-2002, 05:33 PM

Quote:

I realize that I am in the minority here, but the news of a new greatest hits album really doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't hold Fleetwood Mac responsible for it.

We've been aware for a few months now that there is trouble within Warner Bros.: They have a new president, who only has his eyes on new(er) artists, and who has already gained notoriety for having little interest in "veteran acts."
We also know that the band has actually had to shop this album around, in case Warners opted to not release it.

Since Fleetwood Mac is under contract with Warner Bros., they have to allow Warners first crack at the album. They have no choice.
So if Warner Bros says, "yeah, we want it... but we're not going to release it until June 2005," then the band has little recourse but to let them have their way.

Trust me, many other artists have had similar battles with record companies. To the point that some artists completely abandon an already completed album that's in release-limbo, to record something else that they might be able to get released elsewhere.

I'm sure Fleetwood Mac didn't say "hey, instead of releasing the new album that we've all worked so hard on, and that we're all so proud of... we'll release another greatest hits disc instead."
You can be sure that the record company *told* them that they have to release another compilation.

Back in 1991, I remember Stevie saying that she wasn't too keen on the idea of releasing a greatest hits, but since the record company told her she HAD to, she decided she might as well make the best of it... writing the personal stories behind the songs, and making the overall package as nice as possible.

I imagine that Fleetwood Mac is taking the same attitude about this release.

So yeah... if you don't want it, don't buy it. I wouldn't blame anyone who passed it up. But I think it's a little unfair to place all the blame on Fleetwood Mac for this.

Very well said Johnny.....I'm with you on this one

Pip

Carole Ann · #13 06-25-2002, 05:40 PM

If you, Carne, seteca and...um...wet, think you're going to stay up late tonight, you've got another thing coming, you damned heathens!!!

Quote:

So, you know, don't support your, again SUPPOSED, favorite band. Sit there and make snide remarks about them, but I refuse to take it laying down without sticking up for them.

Gypsy-Rhiannon · #14 06-25-2002, 05:44 PM

CarneVaca... please feel free to sit on your soapbox and boycott a greatest hits (if it happens) I for one will happily part with my money just as I was happy to part with my cash for The Dance (um...only 4 new songs...Who the heck cares that album rocked!!)

I am disappointed that we have to wait longer but if that is the case then so be it. I also remember reading that Stevie was 'told' she had to release a greatest hits album. None of us know what is going on 'behind the scenes'

Maybe you can find others willing to boycott this but count me out

Pip

seteca · #15 06-25-2002, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sorcerer386
..... And none of us know the whole truth behind anything. I'm again proud to say that I love Fleetwood Mac, I WILL buy their Greatest Hits album, I WILL buy their new album, I WILL see them at least once on tour. I'm in absolute support for anything this band does right now just because I want them around again. So, you know, don't support your, again SUPPOSED, favorite band. Sit there and make snide remarks about them, but I refuse to take it laying down without sticking up for them. I would imagine they are doing this new album for the fans. They could all just retire otherwise...what the Hell do they need money for? Especially Stevie after TISL and the tour. I'm so upset that such huge fans could say such negative things about the band and/or band members. I digress...maybe forever from this site.

Sorcerer386,

As one of the three people who wrote negative comments about this news, I'm guessing at least some of your words are directed at me

, so here's my reply:

If FM release a Greatest Hits album everyday for the next year, with only each one being a slightly different remix, I will probably get a job just to get the cash to buy all 365 different versions - that's the extent to which I (like you) LOVE Fleetwood Mac, Lindsey, Stevie, Mick and John (and Christine!). I also WILL buy this Greatest Hits album, regardless of the tracklist, and even if the new album is a double album of 90 minutes of pure silence, I will still buy it, simply because (again, exactly as you say) I wish to support Fleetwood Mac in every way that I can, as I could never ever put into words how grateful I am to have discovered this band and its solo artists to the depth that I have. The joy I get out of listening to just one of their songs is more than I've ever felt from any other band or artist put together, and just one of their songs is worth every penny that I've ever spent on them, and a whole lot more.
However, I personally, really can't understand why it's necessary at all to release a "Greatest Hits" album for the third time...?? The '88 GH album was a success and like I said, is still the definitive FM GH album. I mean, how many "hits" has Fleetwood Mac had between 1988 and 2002??? I could totally understand if they released the new album in early 2003, and it was a huge success and all or most of its singles did well in the charts, then sure, they could say after, it would be a good idea to release a new Greatest Hits album which includes the best of the new material aswell. And if they make a trillion dollars out of that...GOOD!...they damn well earned it!!
I am not for one second trying to suggest that the band or any of its members are only doing this new album for the money - I don't believe that to be true of ANY musician (which is why I wouldn't call 95% of these bands in the pop charts nowadays "musicians" - they are simply good-looking business men and women who have the musical talent of a goat and the ability to obey choreography orders perfectly). Which is why I am upset as to the order and delay of things. Fleetwood Mac aren't some upcoming band looking for a label to sign them so that they can get their debut album out, so it's not like no label will sign them: I think that if they wanted to get this new material out by now and were not interested at all about making any money out if it, they could have. They are officially one of the biggest rock bands of all time with a MEGA multi-platinum history, and I can't see Warner execs saying to them "it's this way or nothing at all". But if Warner did say something like that, then, in an ideal world, shouldn't they turn around and say "fine, we'll take our music and our history and future elsewhere!".....?? But, I completely understand that these guys are professional musicians, and by definition, music is how they make money. If I was in FM's position and Warner people said "Look, we'll put this out but we're gonna have to release something like another Greatest Hits album before it, and we won't release it untill at least next year, so that it sells well and we can make sure it's worth our while........we estimate that the album and tour will make a total of 10 million dollars if released now, but 20 million dollars if released in February...you'll get 10% of this".....even though I would be aware that fans will be upset at the delay....it's only human nature to accept that deal, and I would, but it upsets fans like me, because "money" (HUGE amounts of it) is the reason (reasons for both the band and the record company) why I can't get to hear or see new material from my favourite band of all time untill at least January 2003.

Johnny Stew, if Fleetwood Mac are by some tough contract "glued" to Warner Bros. (as many artists are sometimes, like you said) and Warner are literally ordering them around with regards to what is released and when it is released, and Fleetwood Mac have no say in it whatsoever, then I take back everything that I said in my previous post. None of us know for sure what is really happening with regards to the reasoning behind releasing a Greatest Hits album at Christmas time, just before a long awaited new album, so as hard as I personally find it to believe that that is 100% true, I really hope you are right.