What do you think of the new dvd and rumours reissue?

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by SaidSomething

Warner, Reprise and all its subsidaries fall under the umbrella of the same binding artist's contract. So, and I'm not arguing...I could very well be wrong... 1 Trouble in Shangrila 2. Crystal Vistions Dvd+CD 3. Crystal Visions CD only (things may have changed but 2 and 3 actually equal 3 releases the dvd is one the cd is two and the seperately packaged cd only makes three) Soon, Soundstage (and all the seperate versions being released) Live in Chicago etc...they all add up individually per disk and package...etc...

She, in my opinon, will have fulfilled the "releases" obligation and then start fresh.

Like I said, I could be wrong. It's, as I first stated, what I have a hunch of.

The Fall 2002 "Very Best Of Fleetwood Mac" 2 CD package was part of the concession for the band to get their obscenely large (not as much in terms of the dollar amount, but for what they deserved) advance for the recording sessions/release of "Say You Will". While the album did not fully recoup, those obligations are completely fulfilled. Everything else the band has done (from "The Dance" onward) have been one-off deals with the label without any future obligations.

When WBR releases something like Crystal Visions, its because Stevie wants it to be released. Its a win-win for all involved- mining the catalogue with little to no overhead/promotion... a far easier sell (and, nine times out of ten, more profitable) than a new studio album. Don't blame WBR- blame lazy-ass Stevie.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by LukeA

The Fall 2002 "Very Best Of Fleetwood Mac" 2 CD package was part of the concession for the band to get their obscenely large (not as much in terms of the dollar amount, but for what they deserved) advance for the recording sessions/release of "Say You Will". While the album did not fully recoup, those obligations are completely fulfilled. Everything else the band has done (from "The Dance" onward) have been one-off deals with the label without any future obligations.

When WBR releases something like Crystal Visions, its because Stevie wants it to be released. Its a win-win for all involved- mining the catalogue with little to no overhead/promotion... a far easier sell (and, nine times out of ten, more profitable) than a new studio album. Don't blame WBR- blame lazy-ass Stevie.

Really? Labels are notorious for releasing compilations. It's far more cheaper to go into a catalogue for material than it is to put money into recording studios, musicians, photos and promotions for a new cd...

[DigYourGrave]

I think I'll probably buy it.

Although, I do feel, at this stage, they could give us something new to work with, theres only so many times I can look through my itunes library and see like 15 different choices of Silver Springs to listen to. :P

[SaidSomething]

Originally Posted by LukeA

The Fall 2002 "Very Best Of Fleetwood Mac" 2 CD package was part of the concession for the band to get their obscenely large (not as much in terms of the dollar amount, but for what they deserved) advance for the recording sessions/release of "Say You Will". While the album did not fully recoup, those obligations are completely fulfilled. Everything else the band has done (from "The Dance" onward) have been one-off deals with the label without any future obligations.

When WBR releases something like Crystal Visions, its because Stevie wants it to be released. Its a win-win for all involved- mining the catalogue with little to no overhead/promotion... a far easier sell (and, nine times out of ten, more profitable) than a new studio album. Don't blame WBR- blame lazy-ass Stevie.

Lazy-ass Stevie...

You know, you're probably right. At her show here in Boston last Summer...I was due to go and say, "hi" as I haven't seen her face to face since the 90s...no she didn't forget me or say I couldn't come. Things were so busy and there was a long line. I spoke with Jimmy and Al...and others. I felt that her meeting with "Make a Wish" folks and meeting with others that were terminally ill or in wheelchairs or anyone that "really needed to see her" to somehow, help them rise above...that my stupid little, "hey, again...whatcha been up to?" Wasn't urgent. She arrived very early...she (I heard) left very late becasue of her "important" visits. A lot of people probably don't know about what reallly goes on back there. She gives back...she reaches out...and she prays. She's scared and sad as hell sometimes. But, her lazy ass heart is bigger than a lot of anyone will ever know. Some know of her visits to the sick or wounded or "charity" work...most have NO idea. She doesn't call the local news...bring along the press...etc. Backstage, the act is over...and she comes down from her high boots...and spends as much time as possible with those that "urgently need her".

One thought I've had...

How much time does she take off from the road to be lazy ass? She's pretty much been consistantally on a tour since 1996.

Everyone knows when recording has begun for a new record...or do they?

I just have a hunch that she remains busy...does not take her fame, money or luxuries for granted...and in her gratitude she returns the love she recieves in different ways...quietly.

I don't feel much like rattling on about this subject anymore.

After all, I'm not in Stevie's negotiation meetings everyday.

[kennation]

I don't want to start anything, but Stevie is not a lazy ass. Between Charity, Fleetwood Mac, and her solo career I do not see how she has time for much else. Stevie has my vote- always will!

[RockALittle250]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

Really? Labels are notorious for releasing compilations. It's far more cheaper to go into a catalogue for material than it is to put money into recording studios, musicians, photos and promotions for a new cd...

I completely agree, you hit it spot on!

Look at Stevie's Soundstage CD and DVD. Even though it's not a new studio album, it had to be recorded, mixed and edited, packaged, and soon it will be released. Making her Soundstage release was probably almost as expensive as making a new studio album, because look at all the $$ that goes into it. Even renting the space to record it (Grainger Studio), and paying all the musicians and back-up singers, it all adds up and it has to be worth it in the end if they (Warner) are confident enough to spend the money on all of it.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

Making her Soundstage release was probably almost as expensive as making a new studio album, because look at all the $$ that goes into it.

Uh....... NO.

If you were to compare the costs between the Soundstage production and the cumulative costs of recording & promoting Trouble In Shangri-La, it approaches ten times as much.

[Dan B.]

Another Rumours reissue with that much material could be good, but I would have much rather had expanded Mirage and Tango sets.

[RockALittle250]

Originally Posted by LukeA

Uh....... NO.

If you were to compare the costs between the Soundstage production and the cumulative costs of recording & promoting Trouble In Shangri-La, it approaches ten times as much.

Uh.....YES.

Soundstage is not only an audio production, but it is also a visual production. The show that eventually aired had to be filmed and edited, plus the airtime had to be purchased, and it aired multiple times. I didn't say it was the same amount of money, but i said it is probably almost as much because of how much time and money actually went into it.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

Uh.....YES.

Soundstage is not only an audio production, but it is also a visual production. The show that eventually aired had to be filmed and edited, plus the airtime had to be purchased, and it aired multiple times. I didn't say it was the same amount of money, but i said it is probably almost as much because of how much time and money actually went into it.

There is no way it could have been more expensive than spending months in a recording studio with big name producers, engineers and musicians. Soundstage was filmed/recorded in a single evening with her touring band (plus a small string section), using the same live production. Additionally I suspect much of the production cost was underwritten by grants from PBS. Sure, there was some postproduction, but it probably took only a few weeks total. I have to agree that, yes, this is pretty lazy-ass for an artist who had built her trademark on her prolific songwriting and recording career, which are now pretty much non-existent. The bar is so low for her at this point that if she included just a few new original songs (like The Dance), her diehard fans would faint from joy. Heaven forbid that she should toss her fans an original morsel or two during the past six years. Instead all we got were a handful of live covers, a couple of remixes and a couple of back-up vocal appearances. Why create new material when you could re-package the old stuff for less money and make more profit from the fans? Let them eat cake!

[Almost Simon]

Originally Posted by wheart

I think I've played the "bonus material" CD from the Reissued Rumors once. I felt it was just unnecessary, most of the songs being stripped down versions of the orginals. So, at this point, I have no plans on purchasing yet another Rumors reissue unless they really make it worth my while.

I’m very interested in finding out what exactly will be released. Like you I bought the remaster. I like it but the additional disk is kind of pointless. There’s nothing there that requires a 2nd or 3rd listen. So if the album is being reissued again and this time has worthwhile extra’s, why didn’t they come out first time around??

Will the DVD be like the current Hendrix ‘Electric Ladyland’ reissue? Tacking on the classic album dvd documentary as a 2nd disk?? I hope not. I do love that Rumours classic album documentary but we’ve all got/seen that. This reissue has to have something worthwhile to make it of any interest. I mean, in the music stores its not as if the last 2cd reissue of Rumours is very expensive, it can be bought fairly cheap.

I understand with the band out on the road their record company will want some product out on the shelves. I’d much prefer reissues of Mirage/Tango or even a full length documentary film on the bands history.

There’s a million different things the band/record company could’ve done in the way of putting something of interest for the hardcore/casual fans on the shelves. But I don’t feel there’ll be much effort put into this reissue. This could we be a wasted opportunity. I certainly hope it isn’t though.

[RockALittle250]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

There is no way it could have been more expensive than spending months in a recording studio with big name producers, engineers and musicians. Soundstage was filmed/recorded in a single evening with her touring band (plus a small string section), using the same live production. Additionally I suspect much of the production cost was underwritten by grants from PBS. Sure, there was some postproduction, but it probably took only a few weeks total. I have to agree that, yes, this is pretty lazy-ass for an artist who had built her trademark on her prolific songwriting and recording career, which are now pretty much non-existent. The bar is so low for her at this point that if she included just a few new original songs (like The Dance), her diehard fans would faint from joy. Heaven forbid that she should toss her fans an original morsel or two during the past six years. Instead all we got were a handful of live covers, a couple of remixes and a couple of back-up vocal appearances. Why create new material when you could re-package the old stuff for less money and make more profit from the fans? Let them eat cake!

First of all, let me reiterate, again. I did not say it was more expensive or the same amount of money. I said with all of the costs that went into it, it was PROBABLY almost as expensive, because every aspect of the production has to be accounted for financially when comparing the two. Now, I can say with certainty that it is more expensive than a compilation album would be to make, like Crystal Visions.

I'm tired of people calling Stevie a lazy-ass. She's 60 years old, not 40, and she's not Madonna. She has the right to do whatever she wants to do at this point in her career. Unlike the aforementioned Madonna, Stevie has spent the last 4 years of her life focusing heavily on continuing her father's work with the Arizona Heart Foundation and visiting and advocating for the troops currently fighting in this war. So, for the many people who continually complain about Stevie's lazy-ass, you'll have to excuse her for not releasing new material in a timely fashion, because she's too busy trying to help out those who are afflicted by serious health issues or those who are being blown up by terrorists.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

I'm tired of people calling Stevie a lazy-ass. She's 60 years old, not 40, and she's not Madonna. She has the right to do whatever she wants to do at this point in her career. Unlike the aforementioned Madonna, Stevie has spent the last 4 years of her life focusing heavily on continuing her father's work with the Arizona Heart Foundation and visiting and advocating for the troops currently fighting in this war. So, for the many people who continually complain about Stevie's lazy-ass, you'll have to excuse her for not releasing new material in a timely fashion, because she's too busy trying to help out those who are afflicted by serious health issues or those who are being blown up by terrorists.

We should be so lucky if Stevie had the work ethic of Madonna, who is not exactly a spring chicken either. In addition to releasing a new studio album and touring every few years, she has released live albums, live DVDs, produced a documentary movie, and somehow she finds the time to go to Africa to adopt kids while maintaining 2% bodyfat and a commercial modeling career. And God knows what charities she has also worked for. Meanwhile, on the Stevie front, all I hear are crickets. Admittedly, I don't know anything about Stevie's day-to-day work for her causes, but I suspect that it is not exactly a 24/7 commitment; she hasn't even done an AHI benefit concert in several years. Stevie is not a heart surgeon or a nurse; Stevie's gift to the world is her song and her voice. And if her mission in life was to bring comfort and joy to the hurting/needy, she should be recording more beautiful music, and THEN download it onto iPods. I think it's one thing if she was the type of reclusive artist who released new music once every decade or so (e.g., Sade, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, etc.) and then practically disappearing in the intervening years. My problem with Stevie is that she is just so blatantly mining the archives for gold and constantly re-selling the same material over and over. So she maintains a constant public profile, tours incessantly and releases new "compilations," but doesn't do anything new at all. I just don't find that respectable. Others in her age bracket- Bob Dylan, James Taylor, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Carly Simon, Neil Young, Linda Ronstadt, Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, etc. have been consistently releasing new material in recent years. Hell, even Joni Mitchell retired and then came out of retirement since the last Stevie solo album. It's not like Stevie has retired from music or that her singing ability has suddenly fallen off of a cliff. So what is her excuse? Hmmm....

[RockALittle250]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

We should be so lucky if Stevie had the work ethic of Madonna, who is not exactly a spring chicken either. In addition to releasing a new studio album and touring every few years, she has released live albums, live DVDs, produced a documentary movie, and somehow she finds the time to go to Africa to adopt kids while maintaining 2% bodyfat and a commercial modeling career. And God knows what charities she has also worked for. Meanwhile, on the Stevie front, all I hear are crickets. Admittedly, I don't know anything about Stevie's day-to-day work for her causes, but I suspect that it is not exactly a 24/7 commitment; she hasn't even done an AHI benefit concert in several years. Stevie is not a heart surgeon or a nurse; Stevie's gift to the world is her song and her voice. And if her mission in life was to bring comfort and joy to the hurting/needy, she should be recording more beautiful music, and THEN download it onto iPods. I think it's one thing if she was the type of reclusive artist who released new music once every decade or so (e.g., Sade, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, etc.) and then practically disappearing in the intervening years. My problem with Stevie is that she is just so blatantly mining the archives for gold and constantly re-selling the same material over and over. So she maintains a constant public profile, tours incessantly and releases new "compilations," but doesn't do anything new at all. I just don't find that respectable. Others in her age bracket- Bob Dylan, James Taylor, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Carly Simon, Neil Young, Linda Ronstadt, Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, etc. have been consistently releasing new material in recent years. Hell, even Joni Mitchell retired and then came out of retirement since the last Stevie solo album. It's not like Stevie has retired from music or that her singing ability has suddenly fallen off of a cliff. So what is her excuse? Hmmm....

Stevie isn't one of those artists who releases compilation albums like "The Ultimate Collection" or "Greatest Hits Volume 3" like alot of other artists out there. Under Reprise, she has released one studio album, one compilation album, and soon, one live album. So she's not continually releasing the same versions of the same songs over and over. Fleetwood Mac on the other hand is, because they are, as we know, re-releasing Rumours once again. Stevie cannot be compared to other artists because she works at a pace that is her own, and she has balanced two careers for almost 30 years. Plus, we don't know how her label feels about her doing another studio album. They might feel that her name alone is no longer big enough to carry a new studio album, and therefore, have discouraged her from doing one.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

Stevie isn't one of those artists who releases compilation albums like "The Ultimate Collection" or "Greatest Hits Volume 3" like alot of other artists out there. Under Reprise, she has released one studio album, one compilation album, and soon, one live album. So she's not continually releasing the same versions of the same songs over and over. Fleetwood Mac on the other hand is, because they are, as we know, re-releasing Rumours once again. Stevie cannot be compared to other artists because she works at a pace that is her own, and she has balanced two careers for almost 30 years. Plus, we don't know how her label feels about her doing another studio album. They might feel that her name alone is no longer big enough to carry a new studio album, and therefore, have discouraged her from doing one.

If Joni Mitchell can do a studio album (who makes about 10% of what Stevie has made) then Stevie Nicks can somehow regardless of label, do an album...