The Problem with "Time"

[TheWILDheart]

Ok..here's my "Time" opinion.
As a Fleetwood Mac album, I hate it. It's boring. Lack of harmonies and mesmorising guitar and genius bass. Like someone else said, it doesn't sound like a group effort. It sounds like Dave Mason has gone into a studio and record some songs, Bekka and Billy have recorded some songs next door and Christine McVie has recorded some songs in a garden shed somewhere and some bright spark at the record company has gone "LETS PUT ALL THESE ODD TRACKS ON A RECORD AND CALL IT FLEETWOOD MAC!!". The lack of promotion and the tour being BEFORE the album didn't do it any favours either.

As an album in it's own right, away from Fleetwood Mac, it's actually not bad. As a mac fan, I can't stand it. As a fan of good music, I kind of appreciate it. I don't like Dave Masons tracks but I do like Bekka's voice and Christine's songs just needed some studio magic to make them shine a little more - they all felt a little too much like demo's for me. With Behind The Mask, you've got each singer backing up each other singing and the band gelling together as a unit, as we had with the white album, Rumours, Tusk and Mirage. But it just wasn't there on Time. It was 1995, but it felt more like listening to a record from 1965. It was dated and bland. Despite that, I still kind of find it pleasant to listen to, if I ignore that it has "FLEETWOOD MAC" written in big letters on the cover.

Originally Posted by chriskisn

There wasn't any problem with Time. The problem was with the narrow minded Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham fans who didn't give the new lineup the chance it deserved. Oh, that and the absence of Rick Vito.

I kind of resent this comment slightly. As anyone who has ever spoken to me will know, Stevie is my #1. However, I do like a lot of the pre-BN stuff. I don't like the REALLY early stuff, because I'm not a blues fan. But I quite like the rockier stuff of "Kiln House" onwards, especially as Christine's part in the band got larger and larger and she started writing and singing her own songs. I don't dislike "Time" because it doesn't have Stevie or Lindsey on it, I dislike "Time" because a. it bores me and b. it just doesn't deserve to have the words "Fleetwood" and "Mac" written on the front of it. One comes to expect a certain level of music from such an amazing band, and I don't think "Time" delivered it.

[holidayroad]

[QUOTE=chriskisn;844986]There wasn't any problem with Time. The problem was with the narrow minded Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham fans who didn't give the new lineup the chance it deserved. Oh, that and the absence of Rick Vito.

I also never cared for this comment because I feel that it assumes that if you like the Rumours line-up better, then you are only a fan of Stevie and Lindsey. Lindsey is my favorite, but Christine has always been my second favorite, far surpassing Stevie. Not that I'm not a Stevie fan, I am! I liked Behind the Mask reasonably well. I think Billy Burnette fit pretty well with Chris and Stevie. I like Rick Vito's solo work better than his work on BTM. As for Time, it has it's good moments, but the cohesive sound that should go with an album just wasn't there. As an album, it's fine, as a FMac album.....well, I agree with the person who posted before me, it just doesn't work.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

As an album, it's fine, as a FMac album....., it just doesn't work.

Pretty much my sentiments about the 1975 Fleetwood Mac album.

My comment after first hearing it...."WTF is THIS?"

To me, Time sounds MORE like a "Fleetwood Mac" album in 1995 than the 1975 album did in 1975.

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Pretty much my sentiments about the 1975 Fleetwood Mac album.

My comment after first hearing it...."WTF is THIS?"

To me, Time sounds MORE like a "Fleetwood Mac" album in 1995 than the 1975 album did in 1975.

I can understand that after having Bob in FMac for so long, that the change to Lindsey and Stevie would be a huge difference.

[chriskisn]

Originally Posted by chriskisn

There wasn't any problem with Time. The problem was with the narrow minded Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham fans who didn't give the new lineup the chance it deserved. Oh, that and the absence of Rick Vito.

Originally Posted by holidayroad

I also never cared for this comment...

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

I kind of resent this comment slightly. ..

TheWILDheart you'd be too young to remember this but holidayroad might, that when Time was released, all that forums that dealt with FM contained was people complaining that Bekka was a poor replacement to Stevie, that Mick and John should not use the FM name without S&L, etc.

Sure disagree with my comment, but it is funny that people keep saying that Time doesn't sound like Fleetwood Mac. I've yet to find that elusive "Fleetwood Mac" sound. Is it Peter Green? Danny Kirwan? Bob Welch? Christine McVie or Buckingham Nicks? Or perhaps something else completely.

I've spent the best part of the past one and half decades defending this album, especially Bekka Bramlett, forgive me for being slightly cynical

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by chriskisn

TheWILDheart you'd be too young to remember this but holidayroad might, that when Time was released, all that forums that dealt with FM contained was people complaining that Bekka was a poor replacement to Stevie, that Mick and John should not use the FM name without S&L, etc.

Sure disagree with my comment, but it is funny that people keep saying that Time doesn't sound like Fleetwood Mac. I've yet to find that elusive "Fleetwood Mac" sound. Is it Peter Green? Danny Kirwan? Bob Welch? Christine McVie or Buckingham Nicks? Or perhaps something else completely.

I've spent the best part of the past one and half decades defending this album, especially Bekka Bramlett, forgive me for being slightly cynical

I agree that a lot of people back then were complaining loudly about Bekka compared to Stevie. I actually like Bekka and especially Bekka and Billy together. I know that there is no one group of musicians that truly make up the Fleetwood Mac sound. I just felt that your comment assumed that everyone likes Stevie and Lindsey as a package deal,excluding liking Christine. I guess I should phrase my comment in this way-Time does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac most fans are familiar with. It's a good album, not a great album. It also includes one of my favorite songs by Christine-"Sooner Or Later".

[chriskisn]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

I agree that a lot of people back then were complaining loudly about Bekka compared to Stevie. I actually like Bekka and especially Bekka and Billy together. I know that there is no one group of musicians that truly make up the Fleetwood Mac sound. I just felt that your comment assumed that everyone likes Stevie and Lindsey as a package deal,excluding liking Christine. I guess I should phrase my comment in this way-Time does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac most fans are familiar with. It's a good album, not a great album. It also includes one of my favorite songs by Christine-"Sooner Or Later".

The interesting thing about the Christine fans (and yes you can be a Stevie/Lindsey/Christine fan all at once) is that they tend to be a bit less, dare I say, one-eyed about her music.

Take a look at the Ledge, there are ten times the threads in the Stevie forums than the Christine one, perhaps she has ten times as many fans or perhaps Stevie fans are just a little bit more passionate (read obsessed) about her. People admire Christine for her art, and obsess over Stevie for her image. At least that is how I see it.

Look, I love Stevie, so don't get me wrong, but I have always preferred to stand back and view the band as a whole rather than placing the spotlight on one member. At least fourteen of the sixteen members owe the majority of their success to being in FM (you can argue that both Billy and Dave M had a long and illustrious solo career prior to FM).

I prefer to see Time as being an extension of what is Fleetwood Mac. Personally I never really wanted the reunion, except for the fact that it gave me a chance to see Stevie & Lindsey live. Fleetwood Mac should have moved on to the future rather than looking at the past. Hopefully once Miss Nicks and Mr Buckingham have left again, we can move on to a new era.

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by chriskisn

The interesting thing about the Christine fans (and yes you can be a Stevie/Lindsey/Christine fan all at once) is that they tend to be a bit less, dare I say, one-eyed about her music.

Take a look at the Ledge, there are ten times the threads in the Stevie forums than the Christine one, perhaps she has ten times as many fans or perhaps Stevie fans are just a little bit more passionate (read obsessed) about her. People admire Christine for her art, and obsess over Stevie for her image. At least that is how I see it.

Look, I love Stevie, so don't get me wrong, but I have always preferred to stand back and view the band as a whole rather than placing the spotlight on one member. At least fourteen of the sixteen members owe the majority of their success to being in FM (you can argue that both Billy and Dave M had a long and illustrious solo career prior to FM).

I prefer to see Time as being an extension of what is Fleetwood Mac. Personally I never really wanted the reunion, except for the fact that it gave me a chance to see Stevie & Lindsey live. Fleetwood Mac should have moved on to the future rather than looking at the past. Hopefully once Miss Nicks and Mr Buckingham have left again, we can move on to a new era.

I agree that fans who greatly favor Stevie tend toward seeing their love of her
as a 'lifestyle' more than just a musical enjoyment. I like Stevie as well, but not as much as I like some other members of FMac. I also focus on the band as a whole, not just placing one person as the stand out or star. If I had never been a fan of Fleetwood Mac and had heard Time with no prior knowledge of any FMac music, I would have thought it was a fine album. But, as I think some others here have tried to say, if you listen to FMac, you have a certain expectation of what an album by them should sound like, and for most fans Time did not meet that expectation.

I am overall glad that there was a Fleetwood Mac reunion. Like you, I was able to see them together live because of it. If I really had my way though, the best reunion would be with Lindsey and Christine (with Bob Welch added!) As for Stevie, well, a Mac with Lindsey and without Stevie would be a concept not yet explored, so I for one would like to see how it would be.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

I guess I should phrase my comment in this way-Time does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac most fans are familiar with.

In a VERY similar vein, Rumours does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac that fans of the band from the get-go are familiar with...hell, even Then Play On didn't sound like the Fleetwood Mac fans were familiar with at the time, either...the band was all about "change"...change in personnel, change in sound.

Fleetwood Mac was damned lucky that there was an audience for the namby-pamby soft-rock bull**** sound that they struck multi-platinum with, since there were a whole lot of their core fanbase back in 1975 who jumped ship BECAUSE of Buckingham Nicks. And, if you REALLY listen to Time with a totally open mind, it sounds MORE like the 1975 album than "most fans" would really admit to...most fans distaste of Time is due to personnel issues than the actual "sound" of the band. The "expectation" was WHO was in the band, not WHAT the band sounded like.

I condemn Fleetwood Mac for their 1997 "reunion"...they became a nostalgia act from that moment and just should've packed it in after The Dance tour.

Fleetwood Mac is dead
Long live Fleetwood Mac

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by chiliD

In a VERY similar vein, Rumours does not sound like the Fleetwood Mac that fans of the band from the get-go are familiar with...hell, even Then Play On didn't sound like the Fleetwood Mac fans were familiar with at the time, either...the band was all about "change"...change in personnel, change in sound.

Fleetwood Mac was damned lucky that there was an audience for the namby-pamby soft-rock bull**** sound that they struck multi-platinum with, since there were a whole lot of their core fanbase back in 1975 who jumped ship BECAUSE of Buckingham Nicks. And, if you REALLY listen to Time with a totally open mind, it sounds MORE like the 1975 album than "most fans" would really admit to...most fans distaste of Time is due to personnel issues than the actual "sound" of the band. The "expectation" was WHO was in the band, not WHAT the band sounded like.

I condemn Fleetwood Mac for their 1997 "reunion"...they became a nostalgia act from that moment and just should've packed it in after The Dance tour.

Fleetwood Mac is dead
Long live Fleetwood Mac

I agree that if you were a fan before Buckingham/Nicks joined or for that fact, before Christine even joined, the change would be massive.
I have always listened to Time with an open mind. You compare the 1975 album with it, but to me, the 1975 album sounded like it fit together as an album, where Time felt like Bekka and Billy already a duo, Christine putting in the best songs she had at the time, and Dave Mason fitting nowhere at all.
When I bought Time, I already knew Stevie would not be on it. Of course Lindsey had left years before. I mainly bought it for Christine and Billy. So I had no major expectations of what the album would be like, but many other people did.
I also feel Fleetwood Mac kind of 'sold out' by doing The Dance tour and even Unleashed tour. They have let themselves sail on their former sucesses.