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 09-25-2020, 06:39 AM
Macfan4life's Avatar
Macfan4life Macfan4life is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Somewhere out in the back of your mind
Posts: 3,219
Default Fleetwood Mac - happy at the top (Rolling Stone 1982)

I remember reading this article in real time and its fun to read it today. A few things we can understand better today. However, I was always a bit confused why Rolling Stone stated that Stevie would not partake in the interview on the advice of her manager. WTH? When I read that at the time, I thought it was about her beef with Rolling Stone making fun of her singing on the White Album. But this was only one year after RS put Stevie on their cover for Bella Donna. So why would her manager not want Stevie to partake in the interview. Its also revealed how much Stevie hates recording studios. When I was 13 and reading this, I thought Christine took a swipe at Stevie about getting the teddy bear on stage claiming usually only Stevie gets that kind of stuff. But today I can clearly see its Christine's sense of humor. You can see the debate between Mick and Lindsey about trying to get radio friendly music for Mirage. Clearly Christine was proud of Mirage claiming she was not surprised it was #1.
Anyway, just strolling down memory lane. Great read if you have not read it.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...the-top-59982/
__________________

Still I believe.....BACKSTABBING AND BETRAYAL will show us how
Reply With Quote
.
  #2  
Old 09-25-2020, 10:37 AM
soul_drifter333's Avatar
soul_drifter333 soul_drifter333 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 388
Default

Anyone who has followed the band for a while already should know this but there are still so many arguments about it on this forum. Lindsey and Stevie are two totally different people who approach their work differently. Lindsey's approach is on the artistic side and Steve's is more on the commercial side and the amount of money she can make. All you have to do is look at their solo albums. Stevie recruited Jimmy to make her sound like the hottest selling artist of the day: Tom Petty. Other the other hand, Lindsey created an album of quirky songs with virtually no commercial intent except for one song that I'm sure the record label insisted be on the album. In the recent webinar, Lindsey even gives credit to Stevie for wanting them to move to LA because of the commercial appeal. The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band. Stevie and Mick signed a tour contract with a guarantee of millions and Lindsey wanted to create new work and then tour behind it. Another obvious sign is Stevie has given up on writing and recording so she can make the most money touring the greatest hits and getting lots of attention from fans and the media for being a "legend", while Lindsey would rather spend months or years in his studio creating new music. Stevie has already said many times if it doesn't make her money she is not interested...unless it strokes her ego and establishes her as the legend she longs to be known as.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

As far as this interview, I take it that after Stevie solo success her management was pushing her to leave the band, but I suspect her affair and relationship with Mick probably prevented it. Mick and Stevie have said that their relationship lasted longer than they would like to admit to others. Stevie's management was probably negotiating for a bigger percent of the band's profits. It's amazing with such different approaches and values from the band members that they were able to stay together as long as they were.

Furthermore, the shippers have had it wrong all along. Lindsey and Stevie have not wanted and gotten back together over the years, but it has been Stevie and Mick. They're two peas in a pod and their relationship has lasted over the years because their values are the same. It wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2020, 12:04 PM
bombaysaffires bombaysaffires is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Coast
Posts: 5,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_drifter333 View Post
Anyone who has followed the band for a while already should know this but there are still so many arguments about it on this forum. Lindsey and Stevie are two totally different people who approach their work differently. Lindsey's approach is on the artistic side and Steve's is more on the commercial side and the amount of money she can make. All you have to do is look at their solo albums. Stevie recruited Jimmy to make her sound like the hottest selling artist of the day: Tom Petty. Other the other hand, Lindsey created an album of quirky songs with virtually no commercial intent except for one song that I'm sure the record label insisted be on the album. In the recent webinar, Lindsey even gives credit to Stevie for wanting them to move to LA because of the commercial appeal. The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band. Stevie and Mick signed a tour contract with a guarantee of millions and Lindsey wanted to create new work and then tour behind it. Another obvious sign is Stevie has given up on writing and recording so she can make the most money touring the greatest hits and getting lots of attention from fans and the media for being a "legend", while Lindsey would rather spend months or years in his studio creating new music. Stevie has already said many times if it doesn't make her money she is not interested...unless it strokes her ego and establishes her as the legend she longs to be known as.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

As far as this interview, I take it that after Stevie solo success her management was pushing her to leave the band, but I suspect her affair and relationship with Mick probably prevented it. Mick and Stevie have said that their relationship lasted longer than they would like to admit to others. Stevie's management was probably negotiating for a bigger percent of the band's profits. It's amazing with such different approaches and values from the band members that they were able to stay together as long as they were.

Furthermore, the shippers have had it wrong all along. Lindsey and Stevie have not wanted and gotten back together over the years, but it has been Stevie and Mick. They're two peas in a pod and their relationship has lasted over the years because their values are the same. It wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still...
Wonderfully stated.

I think Stevie staying away was a power play- it was once again some form of her holding out to get them to come to her point of view on something. She's used the threat of quitting so many times you'd think they'd have gotten over it by now but clearly it has worked every.single.time. because as you noted their definition of 'success' was purely money. Selling albums and selling seats on tours is clearly important, but for Stevie and Mick etc that was really the ONLY marker of success. To Lindsey, artistic credibility ranked higher (but he'd absolutely love to have sold lots more of his solo albums and bigger venues, maybe not necessarily stadiums and such, but..)

Stevie was always making threats.. recall the album (Mirage? Tango??) where she threatened them with "How will it look in the press if I give interviews and trash the album" or even the Lindsay Lohan movie rumours "I'll go to the press and trash it so badly". She really does have a high opinion of herself and how much her opinion counts in the larger arena of real life. The wanting to be seen as a legend is what LB was referring to in interviews post-firing when he said "This is all about Stevie wanting a certain kind of attention". She defines her whole life by her career, because she's made her career her whole life. He took a more holistic approach and wanted some kind of meaningful personal life in addition to his career. The sad thing with S&L has always been that because they each brought something different to the table their partnership was always a bigger, better thing than either one solo. But they both had egos and managers and entourages that told them "You know YOU are the real reason the band is so successful" and they, especially she, fell for it.

Sadly she got to make the final, band-ending threat on the last tour "me or him" and the others, as usual, caved in.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2020, 12:14 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 7,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_drifter333 View Post
The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band.
That downplays Mick’s role in the creative process. By all accounts, Mick was just as hell bent as Lindsey that they weren’t going to do Rumours II and he had Lindsey’s back during the making of that album.

Things like the marching band on “Tusk,“ The Visitor album, and evening that silly MIDI vest show that Mick wasn’t averse to taking creative risks. However, after Tusk, Mick understood that Fleetwood Mac was about mainstream, commercial music and that solo projects were for the quirkier, less commercial stuff. Sort of like big machine-small machine.

Also, ironically, after Go Insane, Lindsey locked himself into sounding the same on his subsequent works.

Quote:
So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.
The reason Stevie’s success is brought up (as well as Christine’s) is in response to comments like Lindsey was responsible for their/her success or that Lindsey made them/her superstars. That’s like giving Eddie Kramer credit for Jimi Hendrix’s success or Al Kooper credit for Lynyrd Skynyrd.
__________________
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
  #5  
Old 09-25-2020, 12:44 PM
Macfan4life's Avatar
Macfan4life Macfan4life is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Somewhere out in the back of your mind
Posts: 3,219
Default

I think you guys are correct. It was a power play but an odd one. I like how Rolling Stone was subtle with a swipe "on the advice of her manager." But it sort of worked because us Mac fans were like WOW, the end is near....she wont even sit down with the band for an interview on the advice of her manager? But soul_drifter made a good point. This was the first tour since solo albums and going to be the first tour of not splitting things by 5. I wonder who won this battle. Maybe this is a reason why the Mirage tour was so short. But yes, its all about the money. Mick wrote in his first book that Stevie hired Irving because the Tusk tour had missing money or profits and the band did not want to use Mick as a manager anymore. But when Bella Donna kicked in, I am sure Irving made huge demands.
I still think Christine's comment about the teddy bear was a joke but a tiny bit of a swipe to Stevie. Rolling Stone also sort of trashed the Stevie masses crowds "as usual, the crowd roared for Stevie's twirls.
The Mac also did an interview with Cream magazine around this same time. Stevie was not interviewed again but I dont remember Chris being interviewed either. Its funny to read today because a young Lindsey said he no longer wanted to tour when he hit 40 in the next few years. John commented on Stevie being sick (she supposedly had walking pneumonia.
__________________

Still I believe.....BACKSTABBING AND BETRAYAL will show us how

Last edited by Macfan4life; 09-25-2020 at 01:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2020, 06:23 AM
johnnystorms's Avatar
johnnystorms johnnystorms is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: new orleans
Posts: 739
Default choosing Jimmy

Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_drifter333 View Post
Anyone who has followed the band for a while already should know this but there are still so many arguments about it on this forum. Lindsey and Stevie are two totally different people who approach their work differently. Lindsey's approach is on the artistic side and Steve's is more on the commercial side and the amount of money she can make. All you have to do is look at their solo albums. Stevie recruited Jimmy to make her sound like the hottest selling artist of the day: Tom Petty. Other the other hand, Lindsey created an album of quirky songs with virtually no commercial intent except for one song that I'm sure the record label insisted be on the album. In the recent webinar, Lindsey even gives credit to Stevie for wanting them to move to LA because of the commercial appeal. The success of Rumours was really the end of the band because it showed Stevie and Mick how much success and money they can make and Lindsey saw it as a trap to lock him into sounding the same on future work simply to make money. In the end, that is what broke up the band. Stevie and Mick signed a tour contract with a guarantee of millions and Lindsey wanted to create new work and then tour behind it. Another obvious sign is Stevie has given up on writing and recording so she can make the most money touring the greatest hits and getting lots of attention from fans and the media for being a "legend", while Lindsey would rather spend months or years in his studio creating new music. Stevie has already said many times if it doesn't make her money she is not interested...unless it strokes her ego and establishes her as the legend she longs to be known as.

So when people on here argue that Stevie has sold more albums and tickets and has more commercial success it is true because that was her intention from the start. She (and Mick) determines their success from the amount of money and attention they get while Lindsey judges his success from creating new music in the studio and prefers to stay in the background. This is not to say that there is not so overlapping, but this is the core of how they judge their success.

As far as this interview, I take it that after Stevie solo success her management was pushing her to leave the band, but I suspect her affair and relationship with Mick probably prevented it. Mick and Stevie have said that their relationship lasted longer than they would like to admit to others. Stevie's management was probably negotiating for a bigger percent of the band's profits. It's amazing with such different approaches and values from the band members that they were able to stay together as long as they were.

Furthermore, the shippers have had it wrong all along. Lindsey and Stevie have not wanted and gotten back together over the years, but it has been Stevie and Mick. They're two peas in a pod and their relationship has lasted over the years because their values are the same. It wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still...
She didn't choose Iovine because TP was the 'hottest selling artist' of the time (he wasn't). She liked the way the Heartbreakers sounded. Wanted a more muscular sound to her songs, was branching out artistically, with her sound. WHy is that a reason to villify her?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2020, 08:20 PM
BombaySapphire3 BombaySapphire3 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Francisco Bay area
Posts: 4,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnystorms View Post
She didn't choose Iovine because TP was the 'hottest selling artist' of the time (he wasn't). She liked the way the Heartbreakers sounded. Wanted a more muscular sound to her songs, was branching out artistically, with her sound. WHy is that a reason to villify her?
She also liked Iovine's production on Patti Smith's lone hit single her cover of Springsteen's "Because the Night" .I agree she should not be vilified for her choice of producers but for engineering Lindsey's firing and ruining the band in it's sunset hell yes she should.
__________________
Children of the world the forgotten chimpanzee..in the eyes of the world you have done so much for me. ..SLN.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-27-2020, 12:26 PM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 13,955
Default

When David Gans interviewed the band in 1982 for Rolling Stone's Record (a sister publication), Stevie's absence from the interview and the room was one of the big points of the interview: "Where is Stevie?" Each band member in turn tried to answer. Chris and Lindsey both agreed that Stevie was grinding an ax of some sort within the band politically, but Stevie herself said later that she was really down on Rolling Stone and the music press. It wasn't her Timothy White cover story she didn't like - it was the lead review of Bella Donna that ran in a different issue. The copy desk called it "Gifted Dreamer or Airhead's Delight," and the review (by Parke Puterbaugh or Stephen Holden or Steve Pond, I forgot) wound up by asking, "How can someone so hip also be so incredibly silly?" You found that perspective on Stevie a lot in those days - she was a ditz, an airhead, a "blanded-out blonde musher" (as Sylvie Simmons called her). I remember Rolling Stone reader letters after Stevie's cover story calling out Stevie on her airy-fairy image and her musical blandness: "Sure, Nicks is great, but Ann Wilson is the Queen of Rock" and "Give me a break - Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders could kick that wimp's ass any day."

I think Stevie was absenting herself deliberately from All Things Rolling Stone in those days because their first-string and second-string reviewers wrote that she was insubstantial and a musical lightweight. In 1983, Steve Pond reviewed Stevie's Los Angeles concert: "She is simply too fluttery and flighty to command a stage." Robert Hilburn wrote of the 1982 benefit concert in Southern California: "Nicks has even shed some - though far from all - of the narcissistic aura that has made her something of a caricature in rock."

The ironic thing is that, in retrospect - especially after the past ten years or so of solipsistic diva behavior - that even Stevie's closest fans agree with the rock press in 1981. Every new article that someone posts exemplifies like clockwork Stevie's tendency to frame every world event or every celebrity death as an effect on HER in some ostensibly momentous way. It's uncanny just how solipsistic Stevie actually is, and that's exactly what the rock press was saying about her forty-five years ago, when we fans were all mad at them.
__________________

moviekinks.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-27-2020, 04:45 PM
Macfan4life's Avatar
Macfan4life Macfan4life is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Somewhere out in the back of your mind
Posts: 3,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
When David Gans interviewed the band in 1982 for Rolling Stone's Record (a sister publication), Stevie's absence from the interview and the room was one of the big points of the interview: "Where is Stevie?" Each band member in turn tried to answer. Chris and Lindsey both agreed that Stevie was grinding an ax of some sort within the band politically, but Stevie herself said later that she was really down on Rolling Stone and the music press. It wasn't her Timothy White cover story she didn't like - it was the lead review of Bella Donna that ran in a different issue. The copy desk called it "Gifted Dreamer or Airhead's Delight," and the review (by Parke Puterbaugh or Stephen Holden or Steve Pond, I forgot) wound up by asking, "How can someone so hip also be so incredibly silly?" You found that perspective on Stevie a lot in those days - she was a ditz, an airhead, a "blanded-out blonde musher" (as Sylvie Simmons called her). I remember Rolling Stone reader letters after Stevie's cover story calling out Stevie on her airy-fairy image and her musical blandness: "Sure, Nicks is great, but Ann Wilson is the Queen of Rock" and "Give me a break - Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders could kick that wimp's ass any day."

I think Stevie was absenting herself deliberately from All Things Rolling Stone in those days because their first-string and second-string reviewers wrote that she was insubstantial and a musical lightweight. In 1983, Steve Pond reviewed Stevie's Los Angeles concert: "She is simply too fluttery and flighty to command a stage." Robert Hilburn wrote of the 1982 benefit concert in Southern California: "Nicks has even shed some - though far from all - of the narcissistic aura that has made her something of a caricature in rock."

The ironic thing is that, in retrospect - especially after the past ten years or so of solipsistic diva behavior - that even Stevie's closest fans agree with the rock press in 1981. Every new article that someone posts exemplifies like clockwork Stevie's tendency to frame every world event or every celebrity death as an effect on HER in some ostensibly momentous way. It's uncanny just how solipsistic Stevie actually is, and that's exactly what the rock press was saying about her forty-five years ago, when we fans were all mad at them.
Amazing perspective as usual David. Right on the money. There is huge irony because in 1981 Stevie sort of disproved her doubters musically. She released a more rock album and had huge success. Her mini solo tour showed she could hold the stage as a solo act. Her voice was as strong as it ever was and she also was at peak beauty. But that did not last long. The Wild Heart was trashed by Rolling Stone and Stevie's drug use was so out of control that her stage presence was airy fairy and a disaster at times. As the Pittsburgh Press reviewed her 1983 show that bashed her for relying on her sex appeal too much and her band seemed as confused as she was almost questioning they had no idea what song to play next. By the time RAL came around, she was completely in her own orbit and in another world. She could not tell her singing sucked and her songs were no longer magical and the studio was just meant as a big party. In 1984 Christine McVie did an interview with Musician magazine or Rolling Stone where she actually says how isolated Stevie had become. She says something like they used to be very close and good friends but today Stevie lives in her own world and I don't see her anymore. Creating your own world props up your egomania.
__________________

Still I believe.....BACKSTABBING AND BETRAYAL will show us how
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-28-2020, 01:45 AM
HomerMcvie's Avatar
HomerMcvie HomerMcvie is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Indiana/Tennessee
Posts: 12,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfan4life View Post
Creating your own world props up your egomania.
So you're referring to 1983 or 2020? Or every single second between the two?
__________________
I will CRUSH YOU!!!! KAREN BRING ME MY FLIP PHONE!
And I'm David, not Homer!(we all should be able to change our name, at least once)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-28-2020, 10:04 AM
jbrownsjr jbrownsjr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfan4life View Post
Amazing perspective as usual David. Right on the money. There is huge irony because in 1981 Stevie sort of disproved her doubters musically. She released a more rock album and had huge success. Her mini solo tour showed she could hold the stage as a solo act. Her voice was as strong as it ever was and she also was at peak beauty. But that did not last long. The Wild Heart was trashed by Rolling Stone and Stevie's drug use was so out of control that her stage presence was airy fairy and a disaster at times. As the Pittsburgh Press reviewed her 1983 show that bashed her for relying on her sex appeal too much and her band seemed as confused as she was almost questioning they had no idea what song to play next. By the time RAL came around, she was completely in her own orbit and in another world. She could not tell her singing sucked and her songs were no longer magical and the studio was just meant as a big party. In 1984 Christine McVie did an interview with Musician magazine or Rolling Stone where she actually says how isolated Stevie had become. She says something like they used to be very close and good friends but today Stevie lives in her own world and I don't see her anymore. Creating your own world props up your egomania.
I remember Christine said something about Stevie no longer having a sense of humor. And, she didn't get her a wedding gift.
__________________
I would tell Christine Perfect, "You're Christine f***ing McVie, and don't you forget it!"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2020, 10:53 AM
jbrownsjr jbrownsjr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerMcvie View Post
So you're referring to 1983 or 2020? Or every single second between the two?
I remember being mad about the Wild Heart reviews. And I was mad when it didn't go to #1. I love that album. However, her live act was all over the place. Her solo stuff (live) was a bit honky for me.

I secretly loved Christine being smaller because I literally sat near her grand piano and she gave me quite a few smiles.
__________________
I would tell Christine Perfect, "You're Christine f***ing McVie, and don't you forget it!"

Last edited by jbrownsjr; 09-28-2020 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2020, 11:34 AM
On Ice On Ice is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 454
Default

I remember reading the Rolling Stone review of the Wild Heart and can almost recite it even to this day. Revealing of the depth of my obsession for the Queen . Anyway, it praised her voice, which was stellar through this period but (in retrospect) rightly went after her lyrics which were "inchoate ramblings" and far from her stellar writing in Edge of Seventeen or the sadly overlooked gem I Don't Want to Know.

I remember going through a period of slight embarrassment in my fandom when I was trying to sell such songs as I will Run to You and Nothing Ever Changes to my friends and their response was nothing short of boredom.

That truly was only the foreshadow of the disaster that was the Rock a Little and Tango in the Night disastrous studio and live performance stretch. Although she did redeem voice wise and tour wise later, I will now admit, it has never been quite the same. Patchy, inconsistent, not able to write great songs. No vocal range.

Time to retire is now and leave it be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2020, 05:02 PM
Macfan4life's Avatar
Macfan4life Macfan4life is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Somewhere out in the back of your mind
Posts: 3,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by On Ice View Post
I remember reading the Rolling Stone review of the Wild Heart and can almost recite it even to this day. Revealing of the depth of my obsession for the Queen . Anyway, it praised her voice, which was stellar through this period but (in retrospect) rightly went after her lyrics which were "inchoate ramblings" and far from her stellar writing in Edge of Seventeen or the sadly overlooked gem I Don't Want to Know.

I remember going through a period of slight embarrassment in my fandom when I was trying to sell such songs as I will Run to You and Nothing Ever Changes to my friends and their response was nothing short of boredom.

That truly was only the foreshadow of the disaster that was the Rock a Little and Tango in the Night disastrous studio and live performance stretch. Although she did redeem voice wise and tour wise later, I will now admit, it has never been quite the same. Patchy, inconsistent, not able to write great songs. No vocal range.

Time to retire is now and leave it be.
I like the Wild Heart album. It had more potential and is no Bella Donna but its good. But I saw a very odd Wild Heart show which was a sign of things to come. I think if Joe who was the biggest drunk and coke addict in rock at the time was not touring with her, her 1983 show would have been better. But when you are up all night and day with your drug addict bf, the performance at night will show some of that insanity. But unlike RAL, Stevie was a MTV vamp and she still had huge sex appeal.
__________________

Still I believe.....BACKSTABBING AND BETRAYAL will show us how
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2020, 06:50 PM
aleuzzi's Avatar
aleuzzi aleuzzi is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,313
Default

I remember that RS article the first time around--and I remember thinking the title of it (Fleetwood Mac: Happy at the Top) was sarcastic. They do NOT seem terribly at ease or happy here. All of their notorious artistic tensions are on full display, even in the absence of Stevie.

Take this excerpt:

Calculated or not, Mirage worked: in a few weeks, it hit Number One, a position Tusk never reached. Christine said she expected the showing and was surprised only by how fast the record hit the top slot. John McVie agreed, adding that he always expects to sell millions of copies. And if not? “I think we’d disband,” said Christine.

To most of this band, chart position and sales figures mean a lot. “The only yardsticks you have are Billboard, Cashbox and Radio & Records,” said John McVie firmly.

“You also have what’s in here as a yardstick,” said Buckingham, slapping his chest. “You can’t let that other stuff be your motivation for making albums.” He was adamant; just because Mirage hit Number One doesn’t make it any more of a success in his book: “No, no, no. Not to me. You’ve got reviews, you’ve got other things.”

Here we see the three Brits (Mick echoes the McVies later on) unapologetically embracing capitalism. They measure their artistic success in terms of album sales. Meanwhile, Buckingham defends what he deems is artistic integrity. Stevie may have beeen only one of the four greedmongers but her role in the band was necessary to achieve and maintain that #1 spot. This kind of thinking paved the way for Stevie's coup in 2018. None of us should have been surprised.

Buckingham even makes a passive aggressive joke to Fleetwood in the beginning of the article where, in response to the rumor of a new lead singer he turns to the drummer and says: "Is this your way of saying I'm fired?"

The sad thing is both sides are right and both sides are wrong. What we might easily dismiss as the crass commercialism of Fleetwood, Nicks, and the McVies was an essential drive in crafting the often irresistible music on MIRAGE and TANGO. No one questions Buckingham's genius and his ability to take demos and turn them into musical triumphs. His own penchant for strangeness and provocation balanced the pop song craft. Great. But some of his songs seem, in their own way, as self-indulgent and narcissistic as Stevie's.

The article shows five musicians who enjoy and are trapped by their celebrity. They don't necessarily enjoy each other's company but they stay together because they are at their most commercially AND artistically appealing when they work together. This is a dream. It is also a nightmare.
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Fleetwood Mac Signed Photo Jacket Display Stevie Nicks, Buckingham & McVie – ...
$2340.0
Fleetwood Mac Signed Photo Jacket Display Stevie Nicks, Buckingham & McVie – ... picturerock band original concert photo's ( stevie nicks-sammy hagar-nugent-ac/dc )
$249.0
rock band original concert photo's ( stevie nicks-sammy hagar-nugent-ac/dc ) pictureSTEVIE NICKS & FLEETWOOD MAC @ WINTERLAND SF 15" x 10" Concert Photo
$150.0
STEVIE NICKS & FLEETWOOD MAC @ WINTERLAND SF 15LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM SIGNED FLEETWOOD MAC VINYL STEVIE NICKS W/COA+PROOF RARE WOW
$100.0
LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM SIGNED FLEETWOOD MAC VINYL STEVIE NICKS W/COA+PROOF RARE WOW pictureStevie Nicks 11" x 14" Framed Photo Collage by Legends Never Die, Inc.
$77.84
Stevie Nicks 11



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved