how many copies did Time sell?

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by chiliD

The biggest mistake Fleetwood Mac made was The Dance...it was the death-knell of the creativity of the band. A move backwards instead of forward. The proof that they couldn't get out from under the Rumours parachute. They should've just called it a day after Tusk. Let Stevie & Lindsey go full time into solo careers in 1980.

Then re-establish Fleetwood Mac from THAT point with a new lineup. (re-enlist Bob Welch, who would bring along Todd Sharp, and add Martha Davis & Marty Jourard)

You mean Martha Davis from the Motels?

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

You mean Martha Davis from the Motels?

The one & only.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by chiliD

The one & only.

Boy she has a great voice. I wonder what heppened to her. Is she still in Music?

[chiliD]

Just came out with a new album.

The Official Martha Davis & Motels Website

The "Martha Davis Interviews Martha Davis" section is hilarious.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

It never seemed like Christine's heart was into 'Time' though. She has said her being on that album was a "contractual obligation,"

That's a new one to me. She seemed excited about doing another Mac album in an interview that was posted through here from around the time of the box set.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

and in her AOL interview to promote 'Time,' she talked about how much she missed Lindsey and Stevie and hoped they'd all work together again.

To be fair, she was asked if she would ever like to work with Stevie and Lindsey again.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Rather odd to openly discuss how much better things are when your former bandmates are in the equation, instead of focusing on the strengths of your current bandmates and your current album.

Really, all I got out of that interview was that Christine would have rather worked with Lindsey Buckingham over Dave Mason. I didn't get that she was unhappy with either Bekka or Billy. Knowing that Steve Winwood is a close friend, I wasn't shocked that she was less than thrilled with Dave Mason. Plus, how enthusiastic could she be if she weren't touring with the band, and basically made it known that was her last album with the group? At that point, she really didn't have a personal stake in the band, and was most likely in a place where she was reflecting on her career.

[Bumperke]

Originally Posted by face of glass

According to this post (which is an old one, but I haven't found anything newer) it sold about 50 000 copies in the USA. I don't know the sales figures for the rest of the world, but I suspect it probably sold the same amount outside of USA, so your guess would probably be close to reality.

In the Netherlands it didn't even reach the charts, suggesting not more than 10.000 copy's sold.

Will

[MACFAN]

Originally Posted by chiliD

The biggest mistake Fleetwood Mac made was The Dance...it was the death-knell of the creativity of the band. A move backwards instead of forward. The proof that they couldn't get out from under the Rumours parachute. They should've just called it a day after Tusk. Let Stevie & Lindsey go full time into solo careers in 1980.

Then re-establish Fleetwood Mac from THAT point with a new lineup. (re-enlist Bob Welch, who would bring along Todd Sharp, and add Martha Davis & Marty Jourard)

Why was it a mistake to have 5 very talented people regroup to celebrate their body of work. A step backward? The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time. Their music was introduced to new and younger fans. Seems like a good idea to me if your a musician. I attended 18 Dance shows and yes the speeches were canned but the music performed was done with a lot of passion. There was a promotional push to bring the band back into the public eye and I see nothing wrong with that. The four new songs by the band were very good, were they big hits, no. But I dont think they were meant to be. If Lindsey and Stevie would have left after Tusk we would'nt have Mirage or Tango. Which I feel are both very good albums.

As far as getting out from under the Rumours parachute the tour consisted of 8 songs from Rumours (it is a monster album for goodness sakes), 5 songs from Fleetwood Mac, 2 songs from Tango, 1 from Mirage, 1 from Tusk, 1 from Live, 1 solo Lindsey, 1 solo Stevie, and 4 new songs. Quite a lot of bang for your buck. Also a couple of million in sales ,3 grammy nominations, a Brit award, consistently sold out shows, R&R hall of fame induction, lots of press does not seem like a step backwards to me.. The tour was not a rehash of Rumours but a way for that lineup to say to the world "we are a great F*****g band aren't we".

[HomerMcvie]

We get it, you worship Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. You don't like Time. We get it.
God knows, there couldn't be a FM without Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. Dead horse. We get it.

[MACFAN]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

We get it, you worship Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. You don't like Time. We get it.
God knows, there couldn't be a FM without Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. Dead horse. We get it.

You get what? I dont worship anyone. I was answering a post about whether or not The Dance was a mistake for "the band". Had the 1973 band regrouped for a tour I would have been happy for them and attended but they didn't.

Dead Horse? Aint no dead horse here. The only thing dead was Fleetwood Mac's career in 1995.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by MACFAN

Why was it a mistake to have 5 very talented people regroup to celebrate their body of work.

In theory, it isn't. In reality, all they will ever be remembered for is "Rumour." Everything else is glossed over. It's because of "The Dance" that this happens, or more specifically how the history of the band was completely rewritten during the whole "The Dance" period.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

A step backward? The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time.

And, Lindsey Buckingham as a popular artist after the debacle that was "Out Of The Cradle," and Stevie Nicks a popular artist after the debacle that was "Street Angel." Oh, but it's not polite to point out that their sales sucked donkey balls, too. At least Fleetwood Mac has the excuse that they did absolutely nothing to promote their album. Their touring was all done PRIOR to the album's release. No videos. No touring. No television. No radio interviews. What's Lindsey's excuse? What's Stevie's excuse?

Originally Posted by MACFAN

If Lindsey and Stevie would have left after Tusk we would'nt have Mirage or Tango. Which I feel are both very good albums.

Which is why those two albums produced a total of three songs for the 1997 set and only three songs for the 2003-2004, with two being dropped by the end of the tour. Yeah, monster albums those two are.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

As far as getting out from under the Rumours parachute the tour consisted of 8 songs from Rumours (it is a monster album for goodness sakes), 5 songs from Fleetwood Mac, 2 songs from Tango, 1 from Mirage, 1 from Tusk, 1 from Live, 1 solo Lindsey, 1 solo Stevie, and 4 new songs. Quite a lot of bang for your buck. Also a couple of million in sales ,3 grammy nominations, a Brit award, consistently sold out shows, R&R hall of fame induction, lots of press does not seem like a step backwards to me.. The tour was not a rehash of Rumours but a way for that lineup to say to the world "we are a great F*****g band aren't we".

If that's what you want to believe, then so be it. But it was really the creative death nail for Fleetwood Mac. As much as I liked "Say You Will," it only sold about what "Behind The Mask" sold. The shows all sold well, but people weren't jonesing for the new stuff. They wanted the hits. Which basically means that Fleetwood Mac is an oldies band, and it's all the harder to take them as seriously. All promoters wanted to promote with Fleetwood Mac is "Rumours." Is it that hard to believe that an album that consisted of a major rehashing of "Rumours" would have sold millions, been up for three Grammy awards, and gotten an award in Britain? The thing is, they will NEVER have that EVER again, especially with NEW albums. "The Dance" basically was a huge high for the band, but the aftermath is that they are limited in where they can go with their careers.

[MACFAN]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

In theory, it isn't. In reality, all they will ever be remembered for is "Rumour." Everything else is glossed over. It's because of "The Dance" that this happens, or more specifically how the history of the band was completely rewritten during the whole "

The Dance" period.

How was the history of the band re-written? i dont get what your saying here.

And, Lindsey Buckingham as a popular artist after the debacle that was "Out Of The Cradle," and Stevie Nicks a popular artist after the debacle that was "Street Angel." Oh, but it's not polite to point out that their sales sucked donkey balls, too. At least Fleetwood Mac has the excuse that they did absolutely nothing to promote their album. Their touring was all done PRIOR to the album's release. No videos. No touring. No television. No radio interviews. What's Lindsey's excuse? What's Stevie's excuse?

I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to. How and when a band/artist promotes themselves is their decision.

Which is why those two albums produced a total of three songs for the 1997 set and only three songs for the 2003-2004, with two being dropped by the end of the tour. Yeah, monster albums those two are.

Mirage and Tango were both pretty big hits in their day. What a band chooses to include in their set is again their decison.

If that's what you want to believe, then so be it. But it was really the creative death nail for Fleetwood Mac. As much as I liked "Say You Will," it only sold about what "Behind The Mask" sold. The shows all sold well, but people weren't jonesing for the new stuff. They wanted the hits. Which basically means that Fleetwood Mac is an oldies band, and it's all the harder to take them as seriously. All promoters wanted to promote with Fleetwood Mac is "Rumours." Is it that hard to believe that an album that consisted of a major rehashing of "Rumours" would have sold millions, been up for three Grammy awards, and gotten an award in Britain? The thing is, they will NEVER have that EVER again, especially with NEW albums. "The Dance" basically was a huge high for the band, but the aftermath is that they are limited in where they can go with their careers.[/QUOTE]

Out of 15,000 folks in an arena how many of them are "die hards" who know the lesser known material. When I go see the Rolling Stones, U2 or any big name act I wanna hear the hits, why should Fleetwood Mac be different. U2 may be a bit more adventurous than Fleetwood but they still play the hits. Is there something wrong with that? Yes I do find it hard to believe that a 20 year old band can release basically a greatest hits album (considering they already had one) and a live one to boot and sell millions. Every fan I know who is a die hard was jonesing to hear the stuff from the Say You Will album and we got a lot from the album like 5 or 6 so that aint bad. They brought out Beautiful Child, I know Im Not Wrong, Red Rover, Eyes Of The World, Goodbye Baby, Say Goodbye all non hits. Hell even Say You Will and Peacekeeper werent that well know so they did try and the shows were great regardless of 'the hits".

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by MACFAN

How was the history of the band re-written? i dont get what your saying here.

In all of the bio specials that were done around that time basically gloss over everything prior to "Rumours" as well as after "Rumours" and have the band disbanding in 1987, playing together again for Clinton, having the inauguration being the first step towards "The Dance," etc. Basically, we were lucky if Bob Welch was mentioned, and Billy Burnette was NEVER mentioned.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to. How and when a band/artist promotes themselves is their decision.

Okay, my bad. When you say "The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time," silly me, thought you MUST have been talking about sales. Because, really, how else did "The Dance" really reestablish Fleetwood Mac? In the ten years since "Time," Fleetwood Mac has only released one studio album, which got mixed reviews and sold less than a million. Hell, they did that with the "Behind The Mask" band, and that band was only together for little over half the time we had to wait between "The Dance" and "Say You Will." So, obviously, they're not really a working band anymore.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

Mirage and Tango were both pretty big hits in their day. What a band chooses to include in their set is again their decison.

And, it also says a lot about how they really feel about the album. In any event, I don't give a damn if it is their decision. It's MY decision to be a fan, and it's MY decision to bitch about it on the Ledge.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

When I go see the Rolling Stones, U2 or any big name act I wanna hear the hits, why should Fleetwood Mac be different. U2 may be a bit more adventurous than Fleetwood but they still play the hits. Is there something wrong with that?

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that. But, they certainly play a lot of non-hits from "Rumours" and "Fleetwood Mac" that could be retired (Landslide, I'm So Afraid, World Turning, Gold Dust Woman, The Chain, and Second Hand News). Even discounting the pre-1975 stuff, some of the post 1987 stuff, and the Buckingham Nicks stuff, there's a hell of a lot of songs that they could be playing live. It's sad that "Live In Boston" was the exact show, canned speeches and all, that they played for 90% of the tour. With all of their material, can't they possibly be a little more CREATIVE in their set lists? Do they REALLY have to play the same show EVERY night?

[MACFAN]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

In all of the bio specials that were done around that time basically gloss over everything prior to "Rumours" as well as after "Rumours" and have the band disbanding in 1987, playing together again for Clinton, having the inauguration being the first step towards "The Dance," etc. Basically, we were lucky if Bob Welch was mentioned, and Billy Burnette was NEVER mentioned.

Okay, my bad. When you say "The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time," silly me, thought you MUST have been talking about sales. Because, really, how else did "The Dance" really reestablish Fleetwood Mac? In the ten years since "Time," Fleetwood Mac has only released one studio album, which got mixed reviews and sold less than a million. Hell, they did that with the "Behind The Mask" band, and that band was only together for little over half the time we had to wait between "The Dance" and "Say You Will." So, obviously, they're not really a working band anymore.

And, it also says a lot about how they really feel about the album. In any event, I don't give a damn if it is their decision. It's MY decision to be a fan, and it's MY decision to bitch about it on the Ledge.

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that. But, they certainly play a lot of non-hits from "Rumours" and "Fleetwood Mac" that could be retired (Landslide, I'm So Afraid, World Turning, Gold Dust Woman, The Chain, and Second Hand News). Even discounting the pre-1975 stuff, some of the post 1987 stuff, and the Buckingham Nicks stuff, there's a hell of a lot of songs that they could be playing live. It's sad that "Live In Boston" was the exact show, canned speeches and all, that they played for 90% of the tour. With all of their material, can't they possibly be a little more CREATIVE in their set lists? Do they REALLY have to play the same show EVERY night?

But the publicity behind The Dance was done to promote that line-up. Their Behind The Music did deal with the band prior to 1975. I cant remember if Billy was metioned though.

Any band that plays 135 shows for a tour is a working band, regardless of the set list. Your absolutely right it is your decisin to bitch about it on the ledge. What good it will do you is another story. Out of 15,000 people in an arena how many are "die hard" fans who know a song like Storms, Warm Ways, Book Of Love etc. They want to hear Landslide and the rest of the songs you mentioned. It is what it is. Fans of Fleetwood Mac in 2005 should be glad to get anything at all from the band. I want Christine back with them is that gonna happen? probably not. So I dont complain and are just thankful that they are still alive and playing music and keeping the name out there. When leaving shows for Say You Will the audience seemed very happy from the feedback overheard while walking out.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by MACFAN

Any band that plays 135 shows for a tour is a working band, regardless of the set list.

WTF? I wasn't saying they weren't a working band because of their set list. I was saying they weren't a working band because they've only done ONE studio album in ten years. Again, I still don't see how "The Dance," in YOUR words "re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band." If anything, it only re-established a way for Lindsey Buckingham to promote his music. If Lindsey had thought for a second that his album would have sold as well under the "Lindsey Buckingham" moniker as it would under the "Fleetwood Mac" moniker, we would have gone to a "Gift Of Screws" concert, not a "Say You Will" concert.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

Out of 15,000 people in an arena how many are "die hard" fans who know a song like Storms, Warm Ways, Book Of Love etc. They want to hear Landslide and the rest of the songs you mentioned.

Maybe, just maybe, if they had thought more of those songs "back in the day" and actually played them in concert, people would want to hear those as much. MOST bands tend to gradually filter out older material as new albums are released. This band plays the SAME songs from "Fleetwood Mac" and "Rumours," adds a number of new songs from the album they're promoting, and are lucky to play two songs from the other albums. They've been an oldies band since the "Tusk" tour.

Originally Posted by MACFAN

Fans of Fleetwood Mac in 2005 should be glad to get anything at all from the band.

Whereas fans of the 1995 band actually got to see them in concert for a reasonable price AND actually had more opportunities to casually meet members of the band. I'd much rather have a new version of Fleetwood Mac if it meant we'd get more albums and more concerts. My only complaint about the "Time" band is that they played too many "Rumours" era songs. But, they have the excuse of not having an album out at the time.

[MACFAN]

[QUOTE=SteveMacD]WTF? I wasn't saying they weren't a working band because of their set list. I was saying they weren't a working band because they've only done ONE studio album in ten years. Again, I still don't see how "The Dance," in YOUR words "re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band." If anything, it only re-established a way for Lindsey Buckingham to promote his music. If Lindsey had thought for a second that his album would have sold as well under the "Lindsey Buckingham" moniker as it would under the "Fleetwood Mac" moniker, we would have gone to a "Gift Of Screws" concert, not a "Say You Will" concert.

Maybe, just maybe, if they had thought more of those songs "back in the day" and actually played them in concert, people would want to hear those as much. MOST bands tend to gradually filter out older material as new albums are released. This band plays the SAME songs from "Fleetwood Mac" and "Rumours," adds a number of new songs from the album they're promoting, and are lucky to play two songs from the other albums. They've been an oldies band since the "Tusk" tour.

Whereas fans of the 1995 band actually got to see them in concert for a reasonable price AND actually had more opportunities to casually meet members of the band. I'd much rather have a new version of Fleetwood Mac if it meant we'd get more albums and more concerts. My only complaint about the "Time" band is that they played too many "Rumours" era songs. But, they have the excuse of not having an album out at the time.[/QUOT

Your entitled to your opinion but if you honestly do not see how The Dance put Fleetwood Mac back into the public's eye as a band, there is nothing I can say to change your mind . At the very least it gave the band a whole new group of fans, both younger and older. It put the name out there again, among other things I mentioned 6 posts up. Like it or not it re-established the band or at the very least the 75-87 band. Like it or not this is the lineup the majority of people think of when the hear the name Fleetwood Mac. When Lindsey left in 87 people went to see them by the thousands because Stevie and Chris were still there. In 1997 we got Lindsey back. in 2005 chris left but Lindsey and Stevie were still there, so the audience still figured they would be getting a fair chunk of the songs they expected to hear. One new album in ten years or ten new albums in ten years doesn't matter as far as justifying their viability as a working band. The road is where the real work is done and tired set lists or not, Fleetwood Mac gave us some great shows from both The dance tour and the Say You Will Tour.

How Lindsey decides to release his music is his decision. His reasoning could be fueled by commerce, his desire to work with the band. Whatever his reasons are Im still glad he's out there one way or the other. And honestly I could give a rat's ass as far as meeting Bekka, Billy or Dave.