Fleetwood Mac Philanthropy?

[greenfire]

This may have been discussed previously...please pardon if repetitive. I havn't read Mick's book but have heard about the occasion when Peter Green wanted to donate some portion of the bands ticket sales to charity. I could be wrong but I vaguely remember reading some place that the rest of the band agreed...all except for Mick. Please correct if I'm wrong? If this was real, does anyone know if this happened on the eve of him leaving the band or at an earlier time. It just sounded like a really nice gesture. Sort of like the 80s when the 'We Are The World' album generated money to be donated to Aftrican famine relief. Does anyone have any thoughts on Pete's intentions?

"The Earth is good, why do we abuse it?"....Ray Thomas

[wetcamelfood]

Nah, it was John McVie who agreed momentarily but it was Mick that talked him out of agreeing with Pete.

What a thoughtful guy Mick is huh?

John

[greenfire]

John--Thanks for the observation. I havn't read Peter Green's Q&A session yet and that topic is probably discussed within. Am I correct in assuming that Mick was the most business oriented within the band and I think he managed the group at one point...I recall reading that someplace. I don't know how the band distributed their earnings amongst its members but Peter could have done charitable contributions on his own but it probably would have had more recogniton if Fleetwood Mac as one entity did it.

The band was really making a name for themselves and at the same time becoming financially more successful. I know for the record companies it's always about the money...It had to be to survive. If I may use Bob Welch's thought from his 1999 Q&A session.

"The music BUSINESS is a cold blooded business K.E., the competition among the record companies is fierce, and the way they survive is on a new trend coming around every couple of years, although today it seems there's a new trend every month! ;-)"---Bob Welch

I don't know how many fans contemplate the business aspect of the record industry. They like the artist or songs and purchase the album or cd but there is that perception of greed and all that counts is profit. I realize it has to be that way in order to survive. I'm sure fans are happy that their much admired artist is well off financially and living the good life but Pete's gesture just seemed really noble and genuine. It just gave me the impression that it was more about the music and how he could express himself by writing heartfelt music & lyrics and less about being hip and trying to write the type of song solely intended to sell thousands of copies. It's nice to see an artist/band that does care and wants to give back some of that succeess.

"The Earth is Good, why do we abuse it?"....Ray Thomas

[David]

Originally posted by greenfire
This may have been discussed previously...please pardon if repetitive. I havn't read Mick's book but have heard about the occasion when Peter Green wanted to donate some portion of the bands ticket sales to charity. I could be wrong but I vaguely remember reading some place that the rest of the band agreed...all except for Mick. Please correct if I'm wrong? If this was real, does anyone know if this happened on the eve of him leaving the band or at an earlier time. It just sounded like a really nice gesture. Sort of like the 80s when the 'We Are The World' album generated money to be donated to Aftrican famine relief. Does anyone have any thoughts on Pete's intentions?

According to Mick (in his book), Pete wanted Fleetwood Mac to become a "charity band"; Pete said, "We can keep working, keep enough to pay expenses & live simply, & give the rest to starving people." But Mick also makes the point that the guys in the band, despite being popular, weren't making great fortunes, just a good living. He & Jenny were living in a third-floor flat at the time -- not at all glamorous.

Despite the nobility of Peter's intentions at that point, I can't fault Mick & John for opting not to be a "charity band," if that meant giving away most of what they earned & keeping only enough to "get by on" (whatever that means -- you can interpret that a million different ways).

Peter had noble intentions & a strong desire to do good, but he was also eating a lot of acid & wigging out in many ways (a Jew who suddenly goes messianic Christian is one of the surest signs of weirdness). Mick has proven himself to be a venal, mercenary schemer over the past 20 years or so & has made numerous outlandish & sordid business decisions that have embarrassed not only him but the whole band, but I can't hypocritically fault him for not wanting to give away all his earnings in 1970, just as he was building financial security for himself & his spouse -- something almost all of us seek.

[wetcamelfood]

I agree with David. Though Peter had claimed in latter day interviews that the "to get by" funds would've been larger than the other members had decided it would've been, it's hard to tell if he really would've allowed that or not. It does seem a lot of assuming had taken place on Mick's part before sit dows about "who kicks in what amount" had taken place though which was wrong of Mick (I think). It would certainly be reasonable if they had the meeting and THEN Mick had said "no" instead of saying no before any amounts on everyone's part had been discussed. It could just have been one of Nigel Watson's "nudge in the side" answers and not really Peter answering in these modern day PG "interviews" but whatever.

If it was to be discussed though, I'd like to think that Peter would've taken in to consideration that his income was much higher than Mick, John, etc. (due to the songwriting royalties he got that they didn't which I'm sure he was well aware of) and he would've paid a large pertentage of it anyways but again, I guess there's no way we'll ever really know for sure about this. Interesting thoughts though (everyone).

John