Mick and Stevie RULE!!!

[4Buck]

I think Nicks wants this tour to last a long, long time:

"If we get out there (on stage) and we're just having a great time, then we're going to say we could go on forever doing this.

Who knows, let's just say a prayer and hope this goes on forever!"

- Stevie Nicks from Destiny Rules Documentary

[shackin'up]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It was an S class Mercedes circa 1997-99. They ran about $80,000 or more depending of the model, etc.

What can I say, I am a car buff as well

John's essentially habd built Aston Martin convertible (I think it could have been a coupe) was by far the coolest and most expensive car I saw on the doc.!!!!!!!!

yes. but a shame that it only runs 55

gerald

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
If Stevie was concerned solely with the commercial, then she wouldn't have been open to Mark at all. I was impressed that she didn't stubbornly insist on her pick. Instead, she listened to both and made an intelligent decision based on what she heard, with consideration given to practicalities like time frame. What's wrong with that? Don't most people shop around before deciding on something? Using this to criticize Stevie as too commercial seems pretty contrived to me.

Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And all of those bands eventually break up, because the other members get sick of kow-towing to one guy's know-it-all ways.

Or, one member takes over (Read: Paul McCartney pissing off the rest of the Beatles, post-Sgt Pepper)

[CarneVaca]

Somebody has got to be in charge, though. With the Stones, it's definitely Mick. Even though he and Keith clash, ultimately Mick is the make-or-break guy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all.

I agree - they, including, by his own comments that he has to consider the financial aspect, LB, want commerical success and none of them have had it in abundance with new material (over one million records sold) since the 80's. Most assuredly, The Dance was highly commercially successful (four million + sold and that's just the CD), but that was a reunion thing with a few "new" (not counting SS - but many already knew of it) songs that went nowhere commercially. I think the biggest "hit" from The Dance was the 25 year old Landslide. I have absolutely no problem with them wanting commerical success and alot of it - who would not want that for a variety of reasons. They are in this for a business and they LOVE the benefits the commercial success provides them such as multiple houses, fancy cars, 727's, royal suites, etc. That they, unlike many others, make great (and I mean GREAT ) art in the process is ancillary to the commercial aspect to them IMO no matter how much any of them publicly protest I base that on them always (and I inlcude Tusk here because it could have been a single record with solid commerical songs) releasing a commerical record to the tempering of all their individual quirkiness. Again, if LB really wanted to be the maverick he clearly wants to be and often whines (bless his heart I love him but he sure can whine ) about, he would have been one. But something in him won't let him. Personally, I think he learned his lesson with the brilliant but commerical flop OOTC - he has said that record and tour lost him a personal fortune. I think he finally gets that if he wants to live in his lifestyle, he has to be commerical or be in his world "broke." So, I think he tries to include a little brilliant quirkiness with the mainstream stuff to satisfy this urge. I think on SYW - it worked out great.

But, others may disagree.

[wondergirl9847]

If you don't have a leader in a band...how DO you compromise because someone needs to make that ultimate decision. Don't they?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Just putting two and two together, Nancy. It may have had something to do with the gleeful, expectant look she gave the label guy after playing the Say You Will demo and saying, "It's commercial, right?"

It's not contrived at all.

I knew as soon as I saw it, that Stevie would get blasted for that "praying to the commercial gods" comment... and I have to say I knew exactly which folks would be doing the blasting.

Seriously though, it's ridiculous to argue over commercialism vs. artist integrity, because Fleetwood Mac IS a commercial band.
And, whether folks like to admit it or not, Lindsey is a commercial artist.

He does his own thing, certainly, but he has never been involved in a project that has not had a huge marketing push behind it.
Fleetwood Mac releases are one thing, but this holds true for his solo projects as well.

If he wasn't at all concerned with being commercially viable, and with selling albums, then he'd be off on some tiny indie label somewhere.
The fact that he's not, tells me that he's equally as concerned about album sales.

So no matter what he might say to the contrary, his actions prove otherwise.

Now, in saying this, I'm not blasting Lindsey.
I couldn't care less if he or anyone else in the band is concerned with selling albums. There's nothing wrong with wanting to sell albums... it is the music business.
And we're not talking about some alt-rock garage band here, we're talking about Fleetwood Mac, and its members.

I think Stevie, for instance, has proven time and time again that, while remaining mindful of the fact that she needs to sell albums in order to be able to make more albums, she also has artistic integrity.
You can make commercially appealing albums, while also staying true to your artistic impulses... but it involves compromises. As we saw quite vividly in the documentary.

So I think it's ridiculous to argue these points, when Lindsey is obviously as interested in selling albums as anyone else in the band is. Whether he wants to admit it or not.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
So I think it's ridiculous to argue these points, when Lindsey is obviously as interested in selling albums as anyone else in the band is. Whether he wants to admit it or not.

Johnny, for sure Lindsey wants to sell albums. But I don't think it's about the commerciality of the music. It's really more from an artistic ego standpoint. He wants a lot of people to hear his music because he thinks it's worthy from an artistic standpoing. His comments about family and new home notwithstanding, the man has enough money to live comfortably. So it's not like this album had to be a huge commercial success, from that perspective. And so far, it isn't.

The main difference between Lindsey's and Stevie's approach is that he wouldn't push a song for its commercial appeal. But Stevie does, and it was very clear.

Here's the nuance: They both want commercial success. Stevie will give the label what she thinks will be commercial sounding and, presumably, tailor some songs for that purpose. Lindsey wants the commercial success, but he wants it on his own terms.

Now you and I know that commercial success doesn't necessarily happen on your own terms, though it can. But give the man credit for continuing to "push the envelope," as he likes to say.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, for sure Lindsey wants to sell albums. But I don't think it's about the commerciality of the music. It's really more from an artistic ego standpoint. He wants a lot of people to hear his music because he thinks it's worthy from an artistic standpoing. His comments about family and new home notwithstanding, the man has enough money to live comfortably. So it's not like this album had to be a huge commercial success, from that perspective. And so far, it isn't.

The main difference between Lindsey's and Stevie's approach is that he wouldn't push a song for its commercial appeal. But Stevie does, and it was very clear.

Here's the nuance: They both want commercial success. Stevie will give the label what she thinks will be commercial sounding and, presumably, tailor some songs for that purpose. Lindsey wants the commercial success, but he wants it on his own terms.

Now you and I know that commercial success doesn't necessarily happen on your own terms, though it can. But give the man credit for continuing to "push the envelope," as he likes to say.

Trust me, I'd be the last person to ever take credit away from Lindsey when he deserves it.
And I completely agree that his influence pushes Fleetwood Mac to some very lofty heights.

But I also don't see anything un-commercial about the bulk of his music.
For every "Bwana" or "The Ledge," there's a "Trouble," "Slow Dancing," or "Soul Drifter."

He hasn't taken any radical left-turns like Bowie has, and he hasn't turned his back on major labels like many other artists have. His music is essentially commercial, albeit quirky.

Sure, Stevie wrote "Say You Will" in the hopes that it would have broad commercial appeal, and I still really don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to sell those albums, then you have to include some songs that will help you achieve those ends.
And really, stylistically, "Say You Will" isn't that unlike the kind of material Christine would have contributed if she were there... so it's not like Stevie was trying to appeal to the Britney Spears crowd. It's just that she was trying to help fill whatever void Christine's absence would leave, in terms of radio-friendly songs.

And really, aside from that one tune, the rest of Stevie's contributions are classic Nicks.

Again, it's all well and good to want things on your own terms. There's nothing at all wrong with standing up for what you believe in. But, as the saying goes, sometimes the ends justifies the means... and if you want to sell albums, and Lindsey does, then you better be willing to play ball.

You make some compromises... you give the record company a few of the kinds of songs they want, and then you can fill the rest of the album with the songs you want (and is it really that difficult to give the record company two or three radio-friendly songs, when that still leaves you with room for nine or ten of the songs you'd prefer?).
Otherwise, you go off and make the kind of music you want, with no compromises, and release it in relative obscurity.

Rightly or wrongly, those are the choices. And any artist who has a fundamental problem with Door #1, has the option of taking Door #2.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
If you don't have a leader in a band...how DO you compromise because someone needs to make that ultimate decision. Don't they?

The way I see it, being in a band should be a lot like being in a relationship or marriage.

No one single person should be making all of the decisions... it should be a mutual agreement.

One-side relationships don't work, and neither do one-sided bands.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Somebody has got to be in charge, though. With the Stones, it's definitely Mick. Even though he and Keith clash, ultimately Mick is the make-or-break guy.

I dunno, I would think just the opposite. But, then, I'll never know.

[chiliD]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
The way I see it, being in a band should be a lot like being in a relationship or marriage.

No one single person should be making all of the decisions... it should be a mutual agreement.

One-side relationships don't work, and neither do one-sided bands.

Well, it worked GREAT for CCR until John Fogerty relented and made it a democracy right before the Mardi Gras album...they lasted for that one album and the subsequent tour, then broke up.

[strandinthewind]

I totally think LB writes for commercial viability and did so on this record. Look at BTLH and SYHA - two classic commercial singles if I've ever hear a single. Plus, they are both brilliant IMO, even though he has said they are too commerical (there he is whining again )

Serviously, I think LB is well aware when he begins a record that he will for whatever reason make the largest commotion possible to push for some brilliant new uncommerical sound (whatever that is ) when he knows full well that he is going to have to have a commercial aspect to the record - hence SYHA and BTLH. I think he balances that very well. Long live LB!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by chiliD
Well, it worked GREAT for CCR until John Fogerty relented and made it a democracy right before the Mardi Gras album...they lasted for that one album and the subsequent tour, then broke up.

Then there was the Mammas and the Poppas