WHat's more annoying?

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

As usual, pal, your reply is utterly irrelevant to my point.

My point was that Billy was getting the attention of industry insiders, so it's not like he was a nobody who just happened to be hanging out with various members of Fleetwood Mac. I never said he was a superstar, just that he wasn't a complete unknown.

Originally Posted by David

Pishposh. "Overshadow"? What does that even mean, in concrete terms? Drop the abstractions.

You KNOW what I'm talking about. JCM was as big a hit machine in the '80s as the Mac were in the '70s, which means that his big hits were much more recent and relevant than the Mac hits. More people would be interested in just seeing JCM than seeing Fleetwood Mac. And, really, don't we already have enough of that with the Stevie factor as it is? Plus, when a career is THAT big, I don't see the potential new guy being a team player, especially as JCM is one of those guys who has a thing about female musicians (the only two he likes are Joni and Rickie Lee). Given everything that the band went through with Lindsey, they weren't necessarily interested in dealing with another big ego. JCM is a megastar. If you think they could have gotten JCM in 1987, why not go for Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, George Harrison, or Elton John? It's not realistic to expect somebody who is THAT huge on their own to give up total control, and significant profits, of what they're doing to join Fleetwood Mac.

Originally Posted by David

It would have been a wonderful conjoining of two powerhouse acts, each of which had more than a little in common musically with the other.

Not if it meant that the new guy was bigger than the band. It's not like when Sammy joined Van Halen. Van Halen had a lot of hits. Sammy only had a few at best. Yeah, he was a name, but it certainly wasn't bigger than the band he was joining.

[David]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

My point was that Billy was getting the attention of industry insiders, so it's not like he was a nobody who just happened to be hanging out with various members of Fleetwood Mac.

But I never said he was a nobody. That wasn't even at issue. Nobody brought that up. You created a straw man argument. I said he wasn't a commercial powerhouse & that therefore his joining Fleetwood Mac was not what the suits wanted.

You KNOW what I'm talking about. JCM was as big a hit machine in the '80s as the Mac were in the '70s, which means that his big hits were much more recent and relevant than the Mac hits. More people would be interested in just seeing JCM than seeing Fleetwood Mac.

I don't know whether that would have been the case in 1987: "Cherry Bomb" & "Little Lies" were being hummed & whistled all over the country. Both acts were huge draws in 1987 (I saw both their shows in 1987, too) -- decidedly more than Richard Marx but decidedly less than U2. But they both occupied superstar "space."

And, really, don't we already have enough of that with the Stevie factor as it is?

You & I certainly do -- & a few others. But you could just as easily argue that adding another superstar to the band would have counterbalanced Stevie's overwhelming individual popularity in those days.

Plus, when a career is THAT big, I don't see the potential new guy being a team player, especially as JCM is one of those guys who has a thing about female musicians (the only two he likes are Joni and Rickie Lee).

Well, then he has rather narrow -- but excellent -- taste in female musicians. In addition, I don't think the "team player" aspect is anything to worry about: if you hire a guy & he fits in & behaves himself, great. If he acts like an ogre, get rid of him (or wait until he himself leaves). You don't need team players in order to make excellent albums; Fleetwood Mac has proved that numerous times in its history. You don't even necessarily need team players to perform great concerts.

Given everything that the band went through with Lindsey, they weren't necessarily interested in dealing with another big ego.

Possibly, but I don't know for sure just what they wanted or didn't want at that point. Besides, they were all still dealing with big egos: four-fifths of Fleetwood Mac were still in the band, & 50 percent of that number were big egos.

If you think they could have gotten JCM in 1987, why not go for Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, George Harrison, or Elton John? It's not realistic to expect somebody who is THAT huge on their own to give up total control, and significant profits, of what they're doing to join Fleetwood Mac.

It's not totally realistic, but you with your sociological approach just can't quite get into the aesthetics of anything, can you? I was talking about what sort of MUSIC the band would make with John Mellencamp in it in 1987. Most of the ideas we all have -- you included -- pertaining to Fleetwood Mac aren't all that realistic (how about the 40th anniversary idea of twenty ex-FM members all standing on a stage jamming happily, anyone?).

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

But I never said he was a nobody. That wasn't even at issue. Nobody brought that up. You created a straw man argument. I said he wasn't a commercial powerhouse & that therefore his joining Fleetwood Mac was not what the suits wanted.

The reason I brought that into the argument is that I'm sure there were a few suits who thought it was a good idea. Billy appeared to be on the up swing in 1987. Superstar? No, but his popularity was certainly gaining in certain circles outside of Fleetwood Mac. With the exceptions of Mick, John, Peter, Christine, and Dave Mason, Fleetwood Mac has usually augmented their band with people who were relatively unknown, but had, in their eyes, a lot of potential and who they got along with.

Originally Posted by David

I don't know whether that would have been the case in 1987: "Cherry Bomb" & "Little Lies" were being hummed & whistled all over the country. Both acts were huge draws in 1987 (I saw both their shows in 1987, too) -- decidedly more than Richard Marx but decidedly less than U2. But they both occupied superstar "space."

I know. "Tango" is where it started for me. My point is that while the Mac had some new hits, they were still seen as a band who peaked in a different era. They were still able to make a hit record, and were all over MTV and VH-1, but were still of a different era. JCM was really at his peak. That was really his era. At different times, yeah, I could see it working. Just not in 1987.

Originally Posted by David

You & I certainly do -- & a few others. But you could just as easily argue that adding another superstar to the band would have counterbalanced Stevie's overwhelming individual popularity in those days.

Or, it could create a civil war in the group that would have done much more damage than what DID happen.

Originally Posted by David

Well, then he has rather narrow -- but excellent -- taste in female musicians. In addition, I don't think the "team player" aspect is anything to worry about: if you hire a guy & he fits in & behaves himself, great. If he acts like an ogre, get rid of him (or wait until he himself leaves). You don't need team players in order to make excellent albums; Fleetwood Mac has proved that numerous times in its history. You don't even necessarily need team players to perform great concerts.

I genearal, that is true. With Fleetwood Mac, a band that prides itself on being a band with a lot of chemistry and where the sum is greater than the parts, a team player is exactly what they needed.

Originally Posted by David

Possibly, but I don't know for sure just what they wanted or didn't want at that point. Besides, they were all still dealing with big egos: four-fifths of Fleetwood Mac were still in the band, & 50 percent of that number were big egos.

They did, but their egos didn't involved their relationships with others in the band. They felt, on some level, that they had control over their lives. I don't think the same was true of Lindsey.

Originally Posted by David

It's not totally realistic, but you with your sociological approach just can't quite get into the aesthetics of anything, can you? I was talking about what sort of MUSIC the band would make with John Mellencamp in it in 1987. Most of the ideas we all have -- you included -- pertaining to Fleetwood Mac aren't all that realistic

It would have been interesting, I don't disagree. What I'm saying has nothing to do with a sociological perspective. I just can't imagine somebody who's THAT big a mega star joining Fleetwood Mac. Thinking about the contract discussions alone make my head spin. In 1987, Mick needed money. Now, that tour was a financial success. I don't see where that tour would have made MORE money with JCM. So, if JCM were in the band, Mick theoretically would have made less money, as JCM would have gotten a bigger cut of the profits. That isn't sociological, that's looking at the bottom line from Mick's perspective. There's the asthetic factor, but if it cuts into the profits, we already know that we can forget about it.

Originally Posted by David

(how about the 40th anniversary idea of twenty ex-FM members all standing on a stage jamming happily, anyone?).

I'm not the only one who wants to see the big jam. Mick Fleetwood and Bob Welch both have expressed interest. I don't want to have a reunion with EVERYBODY, just the more significant members. Whether or not it happens is anybody's guess, but that Mick and John have recorded with Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer in the last few years (albiet not together) and that Bob Welch has expressed an interest at least gives some hope. Hell, I remember when it was totally unrealistic to think that Lindsey and Stevie would return, and the "Rumours" band would do another tour, yet it happened. I remember when it was totally unrealistic to think I'd ever see Peter Green play in concert, yet I have.

[Richard B]

I would have rather enjoyed Bob Welch return to fill Lindsey's shoes. Now that's full circle.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Richard B

I would have rather enjoyed Bob Welch return to fill Lindsey's shoes. Now that's full circle.

FWIW, he offered.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Richard B

I would have rather enjoyed Bob Welch return to fill Lindsey's shoes. Now that's full circle.

That would have kicked ass! I always found Rick and Billy to be as bland as wet crackers, personally. They just bored me to tears.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

FWIW, he offered.

That would have been awesome.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I remember Tesla and other hair bands of that ilk were all the rage back then. Well now most of them have cut their hair and gotten real jobs...

Tesla is still touring as far as I know.

[SteveMacD]

I like Billy and Rick, but I don't think either were leaders or visionaries (or not allowed to be if they were), which is fine in most situations. I think the same is true of Stevie and Christine. Peter, Bob, and Lindsey all had musical visions, and they were able to take those visions and give the band direction. Billy and Rick weren't able to do that, and I'm not sure it was by choice. While by all accounts Billy was going to be on the "Tango" tour even if Lindsey had stayed, I think the band was trying to hide the fact that Lindsey was gone as much as possible. As if both having dark, curly hair wasn't enough, they had Billy dress in the same type of clothing as Lindsey AND play a WHITE Gibson Les Paul Custom, a al Lindsey before the Turner. They were trying to keep their image as status quo as possible. Fleetwood Mac set themselves up for failure, because what they really needed was a paradigm shift. So, in that sense, I agree with David. However, I really can't blame either Billy or Rick for how their Fleetwood Mac tenure turned out. I think both have more than redeemed themselves since their Fleetwood Mac days.

[David]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

So, in that sense, I agree with David.

You agree with me . . . on what point?

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

You agree with me . . . on what point?

On the point that there was little that was artistically satisfying about the body of work released by the "Mask" band. The band should have done something other than maintain the "Rumours" image.

For me, there were two ways of doing this. The first way, as discussed, would have been to get a contemporary with a name, not too terribly different from the band, but was not so famous as to overpower the group. My two choices would have been Roger McGuinn or, dare I say it, Dave Mason. Either could have come into the situation, rearrange things to suit them a little better, and go on the road. There would have been a buzz, and either would have had the freedom to just be himself.

The other would be to start something altogether new. They could have gotten somebody who had a lot of ideas and the ability to get the band behind those ideas, as well as take the band in a pretty radical new direction. Like Bob did in 1971.

Sadly, they COULD have done it had they just let Billy and Rick be themselves. I was actually hoping that BTM would have had a greater country-blues feel, something along the lines of "Highway 61 Revisited" or "Sticky Fingers."

[Nicksluvver]

Originally Posted by dissention

That would have kicked ass! I always found Rick and Billy to be as bland as wet crackers, personally. They just bored me to tears.

For me personally , seeing them on the BHTM tour in the 10th row, they stunk. I wanted to beam Lindsey onto that stage! That was in 1990 at Madison Square Garden. Also I couldn't understand why Stevie seemed out of it and unable to connect to the audience. Of course, we all found out it was the Klonopin. Everyone around me in the audience kept commenting on her weight. I didn't care about that, but she was staring into space, that made me worry. My favorite memory that evening was Christine, she was amazing and beautiful, especially on SBird!

[David]

Originally Posted by Nicksluvver

For me personally , seeing them on the BHTM tour in the 10th row, they stunk. I wanted to beam Lindsey onto that stage! That was in 1990 at Madison Square Garden.

The band won some sort of award from the Garden after that show -- something for having sold 100,000 tickets to the Garden throughout their career (they played there in '77, '79 & '90). Did you ever see the little Billboard photo & item on that?

Also I couldn't understand why Stevie seemed out of it and unable to connect to the audience. Of course, we all found out it was the Klonopin.

Tranquilizers, yes ... maybe other things, too, like asthma medication, weight gain, depression, &c.

[David]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

On the point that there was little that was artistically satisfying about the body of work released by the "Mask" band. The band should have done something other than maintain the "Rumours" image.

If that's what they were trying to do, they were doing a rotten job of it. They were no more like the Rumours band than the cover band here playing "Say You Love Me" at the corner bar & grill.

But of course by 1997, even the Rumours band wasn't like the Rumours band any more.

[Nicksluvver]

Originally Posted by David

The band won some sort of award from the Garden after that show -- something for having sold 100,000 tickets to the Garden throughout their career (they played there in '77, '79 & '90). Did you ever see the little Billboard photo & item on that?
Tranquilizers, yes ... maybe other things, too, like asthma medication, weight gain, depression, &c.

Yes, I remember them winning that award!