The Ledge

Go Back   The Ledge > Main Forums > Rumours
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2018, 08:11 PM
elle's Avatar
elle elle is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 10,288
Default The Chain, Broken

http://gloriousnoise.com/2018/the-chain-broken

THE CHAIN, BROKEN
OCTOBER 17, 2018 STEPHEN MACAULAY
Two of the things that have long fascinated me are (1) what makes a band a band and (2) why performers continue to perform long after ordinary people move on to something else in their lives besides that which created their livelihoods.

As for the first point, the issue is that of membership and then lack thereof: if there is a “critical mass” that makes a band what it becomes known to be, does the absence of one or more individuals change the chemistry, as it were, of the band? Does the band contain an individual or individuals such that with out them the band would be something other than it had been? For example, consider The Beatles. If Lennon or McCartney had left the band while it still existed, would it have still been The Beatles? What about Harrison or Starr?

The existing members of a band (or perhaps their manager and/or promoters) typically, when losing a key member, find someone who seamlessly integrates so that there is little difference: Consider Journey post-Steve Perry and Yes sans Jon Anderson: their replacements are cover band material extraordinaire.

Lindsey Buckingham was, in effect, recently fired by his band mates in Fleetwood Mac. And he was, in effect, orally and audibly replaced by two people, Mike Campbell, formerly of the Heartbreakers, and Neil Finn, he of Crowded House.

Presumably, Campbell and Finn got their positions (jobs?) because they would be resonate with what can be considered the “sound” of “Fleetwood Mac,” a band that Buckingham was part of for 33 years: 1975 to 1987; 1997 to 2018. After all, Buckingham was instrumental, literally and figuratively, when it put out Fleetwood Mac, which solidly established the band in a way that resonates today (“Say You Love Me,” “Landslide,” “Rhiannon”) and Rumours (“Go Your Own Way,” “The Chain”).

With the departure of Buckingham, the five-person group has become six.




So is it the “same” group, or is it different? Is Buckingham’s absence that of a Lennon or McCartney or is it, well, that of Starr? Is his removal from the band as consequential as it would be were they to give Stevie Nicks the shove?

Is the Fleetwood Mac that is on tour Fleetwood Mac as they’ve been known for the past few decades, or is it a different band?

(I think unfortunately for Buckingham, it doesn’t rise to the Perry/Journey level.)

Then the “why,” as in “Why does a performer keep on performing?” Buckingham is 69, eligible for his full Social Security, and he probably doesn’t need to worry about the solvency of that program. So is it about the passion for the music? Is he driven by the Muse who wants him out there on stage with his long-time compatriots? Or is it something else?

While I don’t know the answer to that question, the October 9 filing in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, with the Plaintiff Lindsey Buckingham, “an individual,” suing Michael Fleetwood, John McVie, Christine McVie, and Stephanie Nicks, all of whom are singularly described as “an individual,” as well as The Fleetwood Mac Partnership, makes me think that there might be something else to it. As in “This action is necessary to enforce Buckingham’s right to share in the economic opportunities he is entitled to as a member of the partnership created to operate the business of Fleetwood Mac (‘Fleetwood Mac Partnership’ or ‘Partnership’).”

Those “economic opportunities” are non-trivial: according to the filing the tour that the band has embarked on would result in “an estimated $12 million to $14 million for each of the Partners.”

The whys and wherefores of Buckingham’s view on why he was booted are not clear. It almost seems as though he doesn’t know why, at least so far as the court document goes. Presumably he is fully aware of reasons behind the move, and it probably isn’t that “the other Partners, by wrongfully excluding Buckingham, have sought to enrich themselves at Buckingham’s expense.” Their additional enrichment is undoubtedly a consequence of touring without him—does anyone think that each Campbell and Finn are going to get $7 million?–but the cause?

Might it not be argued that if enrichment was the motive, the other Partners risked what they could make from the tour: Maybe there would be something of a backlash against the band because of the treatment of Buckingham and consequently the $12 million to $14 million would be on the order of, oh, $10 million to $12 million. Unlikely that that would be the motive.

But it seems to come down to the money because that’s all there is.

Obviously, Buckingham feels that the people that he had been working with for so long need to be punished in some way for removing him from the band and that the best way to do that is through the pocketbook.

There is, however, a line in the filing which seems as though Buckingham might end up regretting what he is wishing for:

“Buckingham voluntarily departed Fleetwood Mac in 1987 after the release of ‘Tango In the Night’ to pursue a solo career. After Buckingham’s departure from Fleetwood Mac in 1987 the Band’s fortunes and popularity declined precipitously.”

Doesn’t that imply that for those 10 years he was gone they suffered an economic consequence of his decision to leave, that their “economic opportunities” were compromised? Doesn’t he, in effect, owe them for that?

If it is only the money: Yes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
.
  #2  
Old 10-25-2018, 08:13 PM
elle's Avatar
elle elle is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 10,288
Default After 50 Years, Fleetwood Mac Is Still a Total Mess

no idea whether this was shared already.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainmen...pgT8NIhvrLU_Hw

After 50 Years, Fleetwood Mac Is Still a Total Mess

Lindsey Buckingham is suing the band after getting fired from their upcoming tour.

BY MATT MILLER
OCT 12, 2018

“We’ve all grown up and we’re all much closer to being adults now,” Lindsey Buckingham told me in 2015 ahead of Fleetwood Mac's first tour with its classic lineup since Christine McVie left the band in 1998. “We’re behaving ourselves and we’ve come to the realization that we don’t have to live our life that way to be creative.”

And for a few years, Fleetwood Mac was uncharacteristically tame. This is a band that, from the beginning, has been at each other's throats. There have been feuds, breakups, and, amazingly, some of the most iconic adult-contemporary albums of the last half century. "As you may know," Buckingham told me at the time, "Fleetwood Mac’s politics are always a mess.”

Indeed they are.

Now, after making it work for a few years, Fleetwood Mac's politics are once again a mess. In April, Fleetwood Mac fired Buckingham after "a disagreement over the band's upcoming tour."

As Rolling Stone reported this month, it was a little bit messier than that:

[Buckingham] learned he was leaving the band on January 28th when Irving Azoff, the group’s manager, called him while he was watching the Grammys. Two days earlier, Fleetwood Mac played the MusiCares benefit show at New York’s Radio City Music Hall. According to Azoff, Nicks was angry that Buckingham smirked while she delivered a speech at the event. She was also upset over his angry reaction to the decision to play a recording of “Rhiannon” while they took the stage. “Stevie never wants to be on a stage with you again,” Buckingham said Azoff told him.
Oof.

And now, Buckingham has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Fleetwood Mac "for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, among other charges," according to Rolling Stone.

The suit claims that each member of the band was estimated to earn $12 million to $14 million for 60 concerts. It also includes a copy of an email from Buckingham to Mick Fleetwood, in which he writes:

“After 43 years and the finish line so clearly in sight, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that for the five of us to splinter apart now would be the wrong thing ... At the moment, the band’s heart and soul has been diminished. But our center, which had seen us through so much, is only laying dormant.”
Certainly, the break-up is a disappointment for any fans hoping to see Fleetwood Mac with its classic lineup. But on the bright side, this drama is just as classic as anything on Rumours. It's perfect in a way that any real fan will appreciate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:34 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 6,345
Default

God, I’m sick of reading comparisons to other bands, especially The Beatles. There’s simply no parallel. AT ALL! The current setlist has roughly the same percentage of songs as Lindsey’s time in the band (65/35). Not possible with other bands.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b313/SteveMacD/fm2014_zps5c60d7b9.jpg
THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:42 PM
DownOnRodeo's Avatar
DownOnRodeo DownOnRodeo is offline
Addicted Ledgie
Supporting Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 3,041
Default Beatling a dead horse

Although you might say that Lindsey wasn't just one of the three main singer-songwriter-players (either Paul, John or George Harrison) but was also George Martin.
__________________
Joe
"There were odd sounds in Milwaukee."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:51 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 6,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo View Post
Although you might say that Lindsey wasn't just one of the three main singer-songwriter-players (either Paul, John or George Harrison) but was also George Martin.
Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b313/SteveMacD/fm2014_zps5c60d7b9.jpg
THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:18 PM
saniette saniette is offline
Ledgie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 70
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD View Post
Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.
To an audience mainly familiar with their post-1974 output, who would probably rather hear "Gypsy" than "Hypnotized."

Lindsey's more like the Brian Wilson of FM, and now they've got 2 Glen Campbells to fill his place on tour.

Last edited by saniette : 10-25-2018 at 11:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:19 PM
DownOnRodeo's Avatar
DownOnRodeo DownOnRodeo is offline
Addicted Ledgie
Supporting Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 3,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD View Post
Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.
That sounds like a discussion topic that would yield much interest in the ever-active "Early Years" forum.

Meanwhile, the flimsy attempt at bringing in more Early Years material into this Present Band tour seems to be faltering. It's so disingenuous that they would hype up all the Early Years focus, then play Hypnotized for a few shows, only to jettison it again at this early stage. Seems like the only proportion that's really growing is the number of Tom Petty and Neil Finn tunes--hardly the best news for FM Early Years fans like yourself.
__________________
Joe
"There were odd sounds in Milwaukee."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:29 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 6,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo View Post
That sounds like a discussion topic that would yield much interest in the ever-active "Early Years" forum.

Meanwhile, the flimsy attempt at bringing in more Early Years material into this Present Band tour seems to be faltering. It's so disingenuous that they would hype up all the Early Years focus, then play Hypnotized for a few shows, only to jettison it again at this early stage. Seems like the only proportion that's really growing is the number of Tom Petty and Neil Finn tunes--hardly the best news for FM Early Years fans like yourself.
I guess Black Magic Woman, TMATYD, Oh Well, and All Over Again don’t matter. I wish they would have cut a Lindsey song for Hypnotized, but it’s not like that is the only non-Rumours era song they’ve been playing. The jams alone warrant the change.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b313/SteveMacD/fm2014_zps5c60d7b9.jpg
THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:36 PM
DownOnRodeo's Avatar
DownOnRodeo DownOnRodeo is offline
Addicted Ledgie
Supporting Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 3,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD View Post
I guess Black Magic Woman, TMATYD, Oh Well, and All Over Again don’t matter. I wish they would have cut a Lindsey song for Hypnotized, but it’s not like that is the only non-Rumours era song they’ve been playing. The jams alone warrant the change.
Well I assume All Over Again wouldn't matter if what you're talking about is Early Years (and not simply "Lindseyless Years"), but that's good that you're still getting three Early Years tunes with jam on the side. (Although Black Magic Woman has been, er, adjusted (if the lyrics count for anything in your concert-going experience).)
__________________
Joe
"There were odd sounds in Milwaukee."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:34 AM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 6,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo View Post
Well I assume All Over Again wouldn't matter if what you're talking about is Early Years (and not simply "Lindseyless Years"), but that's good that you're still getting three Early Years tunes with jam on the side. (Although Black Magic Woman has been, er, adjusted (if the lyrics count for anything in your concert-going experience).)
Not “Lindsey-less” years, “Lindsey/Stevie-less” years.

And it was Stevie’s idea.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b313/SteveMacD/fm2014_zps5c60d7b9.jpg
THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-26-2018, 08:15 AM
elle's Avatar
elle elle is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 10,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD View Post
Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.
Yes once Nicks was in the band all FM activities were quickly squashed over and over in favor of putting her persona and solo career first.

I hope Lindsey never gets sucked back into that non productive toxic environment. We could have had several FM albums since the dance if it were up to him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-26-2018, 11:14 AM
sleepless child's Avatar
sleepless child sleepless child is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 467
Default

I'm very confused by the deletion of Hypnotized. I can understand replacing Storms with Gypsy, Gypsy was a big hit, but Hypnotized sounds so good and a way to honor Bob Welch.

I wish they would bring it back to the setlist.
__________________

I have changed, but you remain ageless
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:00 PM
jbrownsjr jbrownsjr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elle View Post
Yes once Nicks was in the band all FM activities were quickly squashed over and over in favor of putting her persona and solo career first.

I hope Lindsey never gets sucked back into that non productive toxic environment. We could have had several FM albums since the dance if it were up to him.
I feel this way, too. Christine was gone for 15 years, and they did one album.

One album!!!!!
__________________
I would tell Christine Perfect, "You're Christine f***ing McVie, and don't you forget it!"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:42 PM
jmn3 jmn3 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrownsjr View Post
I feel this way, too. Christine was gone for 15 years, and they did one album.

One album!!!!!
Fleetwood Mac's output post The Dance is nothing short of bewildering. Starting with Christine quitting at the beginning of 1998 and the band going dormant for 5 years. She took the worst years possible off and her performance since she's returned show it. She lost so much of her ability especially from a live performance standpoint - it's simply staggering when you compare her stage presence from 1998 to 2014 and beyond. I get it, we all get old, I'm just saying those particular years to be basically a recluse makes it nearly impossible to return to form at the age of 70+.

Then you have one album that took over FIVE years before it was made and released and a tour to be scheduled. FIVE YEARS! They had such an incredible momentum built in 1997 and they wasted it. I was a senior in high school during The Dance tour and they became incredibly popular with that age group. Here were these "old farts" appealing and being enjoyed by 17 year olds. Instead they went away for years. It just always blew my mind that they didn't do something else in the late 90's and early 2000's. I've always said that 1998 was the perfect opportunity to re-release Buckingham Nicks and do a tour. But alas, that will never occur.

THEN you never release another album again except for a four song EP? Everybody knows new music doesn't sell and setlist of "oldies" bands are going to be old stuff but come on - no other albums of new music from these people?

I blame all of them. Stevie obviously is the main driver as evidenced by Buckingham McVie. But they all get blame here. Where the hell is Mick's leadership as the so-called owner of the damn band? Why didn't he do anything to keep the band as a functioning unit? Well, of course he might have to piss off Lady I'mtheboss and see a reduction in touring revenue if she ever walked. Ugh, this band is always incredibly frustrating to be a fan of.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-26-2018, 01:04 PM
HejiraNYC's Avatar
HejiraNYC HejiraNYC is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmn3 View Post
Fleetwood Mac's output post The Dance is nothing short of bewildering. Starting with Christine quitting at the beginning of 1998 and the band going dormant for 5 years. She took the worst years possible off and her performance since she's returned show it. She lost so much of her ability especially from a live performance standpoint - it's simply staggering when you compare her stage presence from 1998 to 2014 and beyond. I get it, we all get old, I'm just saying those particular years to be basically a recluse makes it nearly impossible to return to form at the age of 70+.

Then you have one album that took over FIVE years before it was made and released and a tour to be scheduled. FIVE YEARS! They had such an incredible momentum built in 1997 and they wasted it. I was a senior in high school during The Dance tour and they became incredibly popular with that age group. Here were these "old farts" appealing and being enjoyed by 17 year olds. Instead they went away for years. It just always blew my mind that they didn't do something else in the late 90's and early 2000's. I've always said that 1998 was the perfect opportunity to re-release Buckingham Nicks and do a tour. But alas, that will never occur.

THEN you never release another album again except for a four song EP? Everybody knows new music doesn't sell and setlist of "oldies" bands are going to be old stuff but come on - no other albums of new music from these people?

I blame all of them. Stevie obviously is the main driver as evidenced by Buckingham McVie. But they all get blame here. Where the hell is Mick's leadership as the so-called owner of the damn band? Why didn't he do anything to keep the band as a functioning unit? Well, of course he might have to piss off Lady I'mtheboss and see a reduction in touring revenue if she ever walked. Ugh, this band is always incredibly frustrating to be a fan of.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. But you could pretty much say the same thing about every other "legacy" band; for example, the Eagles released one new studio album over the past 38 years. But when you tabulate all of the solo projects, there is a lot of "product." Over the past 20 years since The Dance we got 1 proper studio album, an EP, 10 (give or take) solo/duo studio albums, a few live albums, a bunch of DVDs, etc. So it isn't like these kids were too busy fighting with each other to make music; they just chose not to make it together. I seriously doubt we would have gotten 10 proper FM studio albums during that time period if everyone was perfectly happy with each other, so the dysfunction does have its upside.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

1997 Pretty Blond Singer Bekka Bramlett With Billy Burnette Press Photo
$20.0
1997 Pretty Blond Singer Bekka Bramlett With Billy Burnette Press Photo picture1985 Press Photo Billy Burnette, rock guitarist, singer, and songwriter.
$19.99
1985 Press Photo Billy Burnette, rock guitarist, singer, and songwriter. pictureRARE 1980s Original 35mm Negative Strip of (3) Rock Star BILLY BURNETTE
$15.88
RARE 1980s Original 35mm Negative Strip of (3) Rock Star BILLY BURNETTE pictureRARE 1980s Original 35mm Negative Strip of (5) Rock Star BILLY BURNETTE
$15.88
RARE 1980s Original 35mm Negative Strip of (5) Rock Star BILLY BURNETTE picture1920 Elizabeth Burnett & Billy Peasley Fill Salvation Army Barrel Press Photo
$12.88
1920 Elizabeth Burnett & Billy Peasley Fill Salvation Army Barrel Press Photo picture



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved