The space of time between albums featuring Buckingham/Nicks/McVie

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I'm not at all impressed, but then again, I work for somebody who is dangerously close to releasing his 100th album in a nearly 30 year timeframe

Hey, as long as it sounds good...

John

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

And don't forget the Tusk tour was 16 months or something. That really added time between Tusk and Mirage. Its not like they were not working together during the time between those albums.

Yes, and you could argue a case for including 'Live' as output in that time-span too.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

If SYW (3/4 of the classic band) is included, BTM (also 3/4 of the classic band) should also be included. And really, "The Dance" should be on there, too, since it was the big hit "reunion" album.

Behind The Mask: 10 April 1990

The Dance: 19 August 1997

So:

Tango-Mask= 3 years

Mask-Dance= 7 years and 4 months

Dance-SYW= 5 years and 8 months.

SYW-EP= 10 years

Yes, we should include all the albums released by the band on the timeline but then the thread originally talked about albums with Stevie/Lindsey/Christine so I thought we were talking about albums in wich there was at least one of the three hitmakers...
But then again if we take it literally we should just count albums in which all of them were present, so no Say you will nor Extended play.
This is becoming confusing.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by joe

True, but to be a devil's advocate, you're forgetting about the countless solo albums that have been released during the hiatus periods of FM. None of those mentioned artists or any band i can think of has had as numerous members as FM release multiple solo albums throughout the career of the band. Make sense?

I totally agree with you, if you think that both Stevie and Lindsey were working on their firsts solo efforts while they were also working on Mirage, those 32 months between Tusk and Mirage seem very short since there were also the tours for Tusk and Bella Donna and the making of Stevie's and Lindsey's albums Belladonna and Law and order.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

Everyone on this site is nit picky LOL
.

No. We're ACCURATE. We don't subscribe to presenting "facts" in the mode of "Fox News".

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

so I thought we were talking about albums in wich there was at least one of the three hitmakers...

Using that standard, "Time" (10 October 1995) should also be included since Christine had five of thirteen songs.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Using that standard, "Time" (10 October 1995) should also be included since Christine had five of thirteen songs.

Oh yeah!

So now it should be:

"Fleetwood Mac" date release: 11 July 1975

"Rumours" date release: 4 February 1977

"Tusk" date release: 12 October 1979

"Mirage" date release: 18 June 1982

"Tango in the night" date release: 13 April 1987

"Time" date release: 10 October 1995

"Say You will" date release: 15 April 2003

"Extended Play" date release: 30 April 2013

So:

Fleetwood Mac-Rumours= 19 months

Rumours-Tusk= 32 months

Tusk-Mirage= 32 months

Mirage-Tango in the night= 4 years and 9 months

Tango in the night-Time= 8 years and 6 months

Time-Say you will= 7 years and 6 months

Say you will-Extended Play= 10 years

[APerfectLie]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

That is true, in part. However, I think that even without the bands constant promotion this album has stayed on radio and in the public consciousness due to its own merits. Many of the new generation that has found inspiration from Rumours have probably never seen the Mac, were not musically engaged during The Dance, or have much knowledge of the previous tours.

I think The Dance was actually the catalyst for their resurgence with the new generation. Our parents dug out their old Fleetwood Mac records when The Dance came out and introduced their young children to their music at a very impressionable time in their lives. And then we all grew up with Fleetwood Mac playing somewhere out in the back of our minds.

[vivfox]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

those 32 months between Tusk and Mirage seem very short since there were also the tours for Tusk and Bella Donna/Law and order

I don't recall a Law & Order Tour.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by vivfox

I don't recall a Law & Order Tour.

True, I wrote wrong...
I replied yesterday late at night and I also did a major arithmetic error but fortunately nobody realized!

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

This, in my opinion, is the biggest detriment of the band. It's all well and good for Lindsey to give his long winded speeches during concerts about how Fleetwood Mac has been a band with a tumultuous history and how it will prevail, however the amount of creative collaboration that the band has actually taken part in is minimal. When you consider that the most recent song in the On With The Show setlist was released in 1987, it is actually quite embarrassing. However, people are willing to pay much money to see them so I guess the joke is on us!

Indeed. I, however, will not pay this band a penny to go to a show as long as they continue to put on nostalgia shows, which interestingly, is what Lindsey accused the band of doing when it toured with Bekka and Dave Mason. Of course, at the time the band had a new album, which made Lindsey's comment terribly unfair.

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Indeed. I, however, will not pay this band a penny to go to a show as long as they continue to put on nostalgia shows, which interestingly, is what Lindsey accused the band of doing when it toured with Bekka and Dave Mason. Of course, at the time the band had a new album, which made Lindsey's comment terribly unfair.

Strong stance. I, admittedly, have paid to see the band on each of the last two tours and last week with On With The Show in Toronto. Seeing Christine McVie reunite with the band at the O2 was definitely worth the price of admission; last week was one of the best concerts I have been to. Seeing the full lineup for an entire show was a moment to remember.

So, as a live act they are incredibly strong. However, if we get another tour in a couple years time that is just "the hits" I will not attend. My favourite band is U2. Although Bono and the boys get a lot of flack (some of it deservingly) they are a band that has never toured without moving forward. Each tour has been in support of a new album with new music, and that is a massive achievement.

I by no means would compare U2 and FM on any artistic/musical level as they are completely different bands. However, as productively creative units bands like U2 far outweigh FM.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by joe

True, but to be a devil's advocate, you're forgetting about the countless solo albums that have been released during the hiatus periods of FM. None of those mentioned artists or any band i can think of has had as numerous members as FM release multiple solo albums throughout the career of the band. Make sense?

This sounds like rationalizing. In one sense, it doesn't matter whether individual members release solo music from the band's stand point because the band doesn't play that music, with two exceptions that I can think of. Second, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger and plenty of other artists have released albums with and without their main bands. Increasingly these days you see guys like Jim James, Marcus Mumford, Conor Oberst and countless others release solo, band and collaboration albums. David Lowery of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven in the last four years has had two albums with Camper, one solo and now a double album with Cracker. He's also a college professor, producer and now a strong advocate for artists' rights.

You simply cannot begin to compare the output of these hard-working musicians out there with that of Lindsey, Stevie &co.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by APerfectLie

I think The Dance was actually the catalyst for their resurgence with the new generation. Our parents dug out their old Fleetwood Mac records when The Dance came out and introduced their young children to their music at a very impressionable time in their lives. And then we all grew up with Fleetwood Mac playing somewhere out in the back of our minds.

Without The Dance, FM would have been relegated to the dust bin of rock history. It just so happened that this comeback coincided with an emerging strong culture bent on co-opting all things vintage, including cars and fashion. The comeback also was timed perfectly to the whispers of praise FM had been getting by newer artists such as Billy Corgan and Courtney Love. Once The Dance happened -- and oh how exciting it was -- it became cool to like FM again, and a bunch of artists started openly admitting they were fans. Unfortunately, the band, being as lame, petty and inept as it has proven itself to be, decided to capitalize on this by focusing on nostalgia rather than proving it could still be a viable creative entity.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

Strong stance. I, admittedly, have paid to see the band on each of the last two tours and last week with On With The Show in Toronto. Seeing Christine McVie reunite with the band at the O2 was definitely worth the price of admission; last week was one of the best concerts I have been to. Seeing the full lineup for an entire show was a moment to remember.

Of course, I don't bregrudge anyone the joy of going to a live show. I've made a personal decision to not support a band that seems interested only in the money grab. I'll go see Lindsey solo because he continues to put out new music, but I sat out the One Man Band show for two reasons: I objected to him having no new music but, primarily, I didn't like the concept of a guy standing there by himself playing to recorded music. Struck me as pretty lame. I've heard some tracks from those shows and was decidedly unimpressed, so I feel I made the right decision.