Setlist spoiler alert...

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Would I have an entirely different set list for them? Damned right.
Does this set list surprise me in any way? No. Well, a little. I did think that they'd include 1 or 2 NEW songs that they've been recording. And, maybe even figure an arrangement of one of Stevie's 24 Karat Gold songs that she'd written for FMac. Oh, wait, what am I thinking? This is Fleetwood Mac...never mind.

And, under NO circumstances should "Oh Well" EVER, EVER, EVER be a "surprise" in a Fleetwood Mac set list. It should be standard operating procedure. Without that song, and the person who wrote it, they wouldn't be standing on stage in 2014 as Fleetwood Mac. AND, that they've not paid homage to Bob Welch via playing ONE, just ONE, effing song of his in concert since his passing is the rudest, sickest, most despicable behavior ever.

But, again, what am I thinking? This is Fleetwood Mac...never mind.

So, Fleetwood Mac is coming around again in concert, Christine's back....NEVER F-ING MIND!

(really, really sad, I kinda wanted to see Christine again...but, after how they've acted...eff it.)

Originally Posted by chiliD

The shame is EVERYBODY BUT FLEETWOOD MAC honors Fleetwood Mac's past.

Anyone else see a major FAIL in that concept???

Originally Posted by chiliD

You're being naïve. Life goes on. I never saw the Beatles or Cream, but do I whine about it? No. Yes, you're lucky to see the Fireflies, but some/most? have seen them numerous times, the idea for CREATIVE people is to keep moving forward and let your audience catch up, not SERVE the audience. That's not creative, that's nostalgic bullsh*t. Sure, there's time & place for honoring an entity's legacy, but that's not what Fleetwood Mac has done for the last, oh, 17 years. Once Lindsey & Stevie returned in '97, it's been nothing but nostalgic bullsh*t. At least, with new personnel there was creativity. They've done nothing but jump on the Rumours hype bandwagon and stay there for eternity. It is crap, it was crap, it'll always BE crap. Stinking smelly CRAP!

I'm confused- you are angry they aren't playing old standards, but you're angry they aren't doing new material. You want them mired in the past, yet you don't want them mired in the past. Got it.

Let's look at their track record for a moment- they performed 1/3 of the Say You Will album during that tour. They performed 1/2 of the EP last year. For a "legacy act" that's actually not too shabby. Their new music output definitely IS shabby, though. As are these cash grab tours with mostly stagnant setlists.

I will also admit I am sad they didn't even say anything about Bob's passing onstage, much less do one of his songs. But I have a feeling the litigation Bob & his widow had with the band played a part in that decision. Who knows what the terms of that settlement were? Could the band have been forbidden to perform any songs written by him? Or perhaps Wendy Welch threatened legal action if the band even said anything about Bob onstage- she certainly could have threatened libel, or demanded a cut of tour profits if they performed a Welch tune. I could see why the band may want to just wash their hands of such risks.

[shackin'up]

There's not a soul (apart from us) in those audiences that will recognize or love ANY Welchsong in the set.

New music must be good music, not just being new. Sad Angel did reasonably well last tour. But those aweful 15 wasted minutes Without You including long long story were rude.

I'd be happy with I Don't Want To Know and Think About Me. Recognizable, but still refreshing.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

There's not a soul (apart from us) in those audiences that will recognize or love ANY Welchsong in the set.

I'm not sure I agree with that- Hypnotized is still played on US radio fairly often. Sentimental Lady was in a TV commercial a while back, and has been picked back up by radio & other sources since then. It's probably safe to say we'll never have the chance to hear any Welch tunes live again now that Chris is back in the fold, though.

Originally Posted by shackin'up

I'd be happy with I Don't Want To Know and Think About Me. Recognizable, but still refreshing.

I've often wondered why neither of those songs have been performed live. They just seem like they're made for the stage. I'm not sure how many people would recognize Think About Me these days, though. The Mac's audiences are skewing younger with each tour. Most ticket holders weren't around for (or were too young to remember) Think About Me's limited airplay 35 years ago.

[The Analog Kid]

No one would recognize any Welch songs? If they played "Sentimental Lady" with Lindsey on lead and Chris doing her backups from the Welch solo version, the crowd would go nuts. Welch's remake was a Top 10 hit in 1977 at the height of Fleetwood Mac's popularity, and it would be a great tribute.

I am excited for this tour no matter what they play, so much so that I am planning a 900-mile drive to Minneapolis to see the opener!

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I've often wondered why neither of those songs have been performed live.

"Think About Me" WAS played for about the 2nd half of the Tusk tour. "I Don't Want To Know" is still the only Rumours song to not be played in concert (by Fleetwood Mac, that is)

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I'm confused- you are angry they aren't playing old standards, but you're angry they aren't doing new material. You want them mired in the past, yet you don't want them mired in the past. Got it.

Let's look at their track record for a moment- they performed 1/3 of the Say You Will album during that tour. They performed 1/2 of the EP last year. For a "legacy act" that's actually not too shabby. Their new music output definitely IS shabby, though. As are these cash grab tours with mostly stagnant setlists.

I will also admit I am sad they didn't even say anything about Bob's passing onstage, much less do one of his songs. But I have a feeling the litigation Bob & his widow had with the band played a part in that decision. Who knows what the terms of that settlement were? Could the band have been forbidden to perform any songs written by him? Or perhaps Wendy Welch threatened legal action if the band even said anything about Bob onstage- she certainly could have threatened libel, or demanded a cut of tour profits if they performed a Welch tune. I could see why the band may want to just wash their hands of such risks.

It's LONG overdue that they give Rumours a rest...pick one song each to play and leave it at that. (YMLF, GDW, GYOW) Enough already. They really only play songs from 3 albums...FM75, Rumours & Tusk. They have 20+ albums of material to play...get CREATIVE with the set list. THAT's what I'm pissed about.

From all I've heard (this is from Bob himself) is that Bob & band reconciled somewhere around 2003 or thereabouts. Maybe that didn't include Christine, though. And, really who cares if the audience hasn't HEARD a song before....that's the effing POINT of concerts, to introduce your audience to things...if they wanna hear the hits, just buy the albums & stay home.

[mtkad]

Originally Posted by chiliD

"Think About Me" WAS played for about the 2nd half of the Tusk tour. "I Don't Want To Know" is still the only Rumours song to not be played in concert (by Fleetwood Mac, that is)

It was performed live by Buckingham Nicks. Maybe it would have to be altered too much to fit Stevie's voice?

[Andy Man]

While I agree with everything being posted, I think we have to be very realistic with Fleetwood Mac at this stage in their career.

The band has the mixed blessing of being a band that, in their prime (75-87) was a very commercial band. It is hard to think of another rock band during that period that could rival Fleetwood Mac's success on the singles charts (obviously there were other popular and single-successful groups, but very few that could top FM). Thankfully, FM made intelligent pop music and therefore their hits actually have some 'meat' to them and are not throw-away pop. Nonetheless, FM has the burden of massively successful commercial singles that most audience members would expect to hear. I remember very much leaving the O2 last year (the last night with Christine on 'Don't Stop') and some of those people around where I was sitting with my group complaining that the band did not play songs like 'Everywhere', 'Say You Love Me', 'Little Lies', etc. When you are a band with that many singles that most people in attendance want (and expect) to hear, you have to give in to the majority.

Think of any other band that you only know the singles of. I bet that if you went to one of their shows you would primarily be interested in hearing the popular stuff, the songs you know. It is the same with Fleetwood Mac. While I am very grateful that the band has thrown in songs like 'Storms', 'Sisters Of The Moon', 'Not That Funny', and 'Say Goodbye' on the previous two tours, a set which featured a lot of rarer material would leave the majority of the audience dazed and confused.

As a more recent fan in my twenties, I do believe that we 'young' FM fans would be open to the band playing less-known material (both pre-Rumours and after); there are many younger FM fans that have a great appreciation for music. However, at the rate that FM is charging for tickets, FM would probably not want to risk mixing the set too much; people have payed a lot of money to hear the classic songs they all know.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

While I agree with everything being posted, I think we have to be very realistic with Fleetwood Mac at this stage in their career.

The band has the mixed blessing of being a band that, in their prime (75-87) was a very commercial band. It is hard to think of another rock band during that period that could rival Fleetwood Mac's success on the singles charts (obviously there were other popular and single-successful groups, but very few that could top FM). Thankfully, FM made intelligent pop music and therefore their hits actually have some 'meat' to them and are not throw-away pop. Nonetheless, FM has the burden of massively successful commercial singles that most audience members would expect to hear. I remember very much leaving the O2 last year (the last night with Christine on 'Don't Stop') and some of those people around where I was sitting with my group complaining that the band did not play songs like 'Everywhere', 'Say You Love Me', 'Little Lies', etc. When you are a band with that many singles that most people in attendance want (and expect) to hear, you have to give in to the majority.

Think of any other band that you only know the singles of. I bet that if you went to one of their shows you would primarily be interested in hearing the popular stuff, the songs you know. It is the same with Fleetwood Mac. While I am very grateful that the band has thrown in songs like 'Storms', 'Sisters Of The Moon', 'Not That Funny', and 'Say Goodbye' on the previous two tours, a set which featured a lot of rarer material would leave the majority of the audience dazed and confused.

As a more recent fan in my twenties, I do believe that we 'young' FM fans would be open to the band playing less-known material (both pre-Rumours and after); there are many younger FM fans that have a great appreciation for music. However, at the rate that FM is charging for tickets, FM would probably not want to risk mixing the set too much; people have payed a lot of money to hear the classic songs they all know.

That's been their fatal mistake of creativity...caving in to the middle ground and grinding off the edge of their material. There've been plenty of bands & artists who SHUN the "hits" and still have rabid concert following (Pink Floyd & Neil Young immediately come to mind). There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong WITH leaving the audience "dazed & confused". That's what ART is all about. Shaking the comfort level of the audience. You're not guaranteed to hear "Layla" when you see Clapton (and if you do, it might not be how you EXPECT to hear it)...you're not guaranteed to hear ANYTHING you know of Bob Dylan when you see him in concert. You can never predict what you'll hear from David Bowie, either on record or in concert. Bands like the Allman Brothers (or their younger spin-offs, the Tedeschi Trucks Band or Gov't Mule ) never play the same song the same way twice.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by chiliD

That's been their fatal mistake of creativity...caving in to the middle ground and grinding off the edge of their material. There've been plenty of bands & artists who SHUN the "hits" and still have rabid concert following (Pink Floyd & Neil Young immediately come to mind). There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong WITH leaving the audience "dazed & confused". That's what ART is all about. Shaking the comfort level of the audience. You're not guaranteed to hear "Layla" when you see Clapton (and if you do, it might not be how you EXPECT to hear it)...you're not guaranteed to hear ANYTHING you know of Bob Dylan when you see him in concert. You can never predict what you'll hear from David Bowie, either on record or in concert. Bands like the Allman Brothers (or their younger spin-offs, the Tedeschi Trucks Band or Gov't Mule ) never play the same song the same way twice.

I wonder how much the addition of the backing musicians who were brought on starting with the Dance tour had to do with this stagnation? If you look back at the '75-early '90s era of Fleetwood Mac, songs like Gold Dust Woman in particular varied from tour to tour, even night to night. There was so much more emotion to live Mac performances before the glut of backing musicians. Now the shows seem more like a Broadway rendition of Fleetwood Mac.

The Rumours incarnation of the band has never really mixed up their setlists, though. I think solo artists like Neil Young, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, etc can get away with nightly changes & such because they're just that- solo artists. They don't have to run changes by the committee that is a band. I know Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac kept things loose & flexible, but that's a byproduct of performing the blues. Like Richard Dashut said- blues comes from the heart; pop music is much more forcefully & deliberately created.

[ViscountViktor]

I know this has caused a lot of debate, but personally I'm not reading anything into this.
Any in-the-know fan could have put this together: take last years setlist, add some Chris songs, swap a couple of others.
On With The Show is the name of the tour and we know is a new track, they could have pretended they practised it.
Most of all, this setlist seems unmac like! Don't Stop before Gyow? No Standback or Sara? Not for me thx...
And people who say cut Dreams - which band would cut their only us no1 and one of their most recognizable songs?

[mottabam]

Track #4 on Rumours Don't Stop #5 GYOW

Track #7 The Chain #8 YMLF

Following the tracklisting of Rumours I guess?

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Stand Back finds it's way back in by the second or third show, right after the acoustic set to get things rocking again. I'd prefer solo stuff left out considering the amount of songs we would much prefer to hear from the band.

Does seem odd that On with the Show wouldn't be played since it is the name of the tour. Nice to hear new music, Sad Angel was well received last year.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I wonder how much the addition of the backing musicians who were brought on starting with the Dance tour had to do with this stagnation? If you look back at the '75-early '90s era of Fleetwood Mac, songs like Gold Dust Woman in particular varied from tour to tour, even night to night. There was so much more emotion to live Mac performances before the glut of backing musicians. Now the shows seem more like a Broadway rendition of Fleetwood Mac.

The Rumours incarnation of the band has never really mixed up their setlists, though. I think solo artists like Neil Young, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, etc can get away with nightly changes & such because they're just that- solo artists. They don't have to run changes by the committee that is a band. I know Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac kept things loose & flexible, but that's a byproduct of performing the blues. Like Richard Dashut said- blues comes from the heart; pop music is much more forcefully & deliberately created.

Good point, hadn't thought about that. BUT, we've seen & heard Lindsey be spontaneous with his own band, which is comprised of half the Fleetwood Mac extended band. It wouldn't be any stretch to spontaneously rip into "Seeds We Sow" or "End Of Time" or "Trouble" instead of "Big Love" or "Turn It On" instead of "Second Hand News" one night in Sheboygan or Tierra Del Fuego, or wherever. I'm sure that Brett & Neale could pull it off & they could rehearse it during soundcheck to get Mick, John & Christine up to speed. Stevie & The Girls would probably be off stage during a costume change at that point anyway. Bring the "small machine" attitude to the "big machine" venue. That's CREATIVITY!! That's being an ARTIST!!!

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by nicole21290

I think the 'all right, all right... standing in a line' reference might be a VERY subtle way of hinting towards Stand Back.

It's very obvious; great to hear that she was overruled. I have no sympathy if Stevie is pouting about it. Stand Back overstayed its welcome in Fleetwood Mac. It rightfully belongs in her solo sets.

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by chiliD

That's been their fatal mistake of creativity...caving in to the middle ground and grinding off the edge of their material. There've been plenty of bands & artists who SHUN the "hits" and still have rabid concert following (Pink Floyd & Neil Young immediately come to mind). There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong WITH leaving the audience "dazed & confused". That's what ART is all about. Shaking the comfort level of the audience.

Perfectly stated!

Unfortunately, many don't understand the beauty of that. " I paid a lot of money, so I expect to hear these songs!"
When it comes to Fleetwood Mac, if you're a true fan, you wouldn't have such stringent expectations. And, as a causal fan, even if you don't hear all the songs you're familiar with, you should still be able to be entertained, and appreciate/enjoy the show because it's being performed by an exceptional band.

I've been to many shows where I might know little to nothing about the artist or the songs (accompanying friends who are fans), but I can still appreciate and enjoy the performance. If Fleetwood feels that 90% of their show has to be the familiar well-worn road material, at least they can be a little bit more adventurous with song sequence. Open with something other than The Chain. Push Dreams near the end of the set. The band gets so set in their ways. Yet it's so perplexing to see that some fans seem to want it that way. "They have to open with The Chain, followed by Dreams." I don't understand that. I rather be surprised and challenged, expecting the unsuspected.

Elvis Costello once did a tour where he had this big wheel with dozens of songs on it; he'd spin it and perform whatever song it landed on. Pretty cool, huh? Every show was unique.