The Ledge

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


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:01 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
Who knows what's happened with his drumming between 1995-2003, but it sure doesn't seem good.
The guy was coked out of his ****ing mind for twenty years, and then he sobered up around 1995, so maybe that had something to do with it?
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:31 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
A significant number of fans had already deserted ship after the departure of Peter Green (Kiln House may have sold well, but the albums released between 1971-74 initially didn't) so surely Lindsey's "lack of respect" isn't responsible for all of that.
Actually, in the US, they had been increasing their fan base. It was in Europe that their fan base went down after Peter quit. Their albums with Bob Welch tended to sell better in the US than the Peter Green stuff. So, I don't see that many American fans deserted ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
You've seen a few quotes of Lindsey appreciating Then Play On and "Oh Well" throughout the years (a search at BLA finds some of them anyway). Unlike you, I do not see him showing a complete disregard to the past of Fleetwood Mac.
Peter Green is the only other Mac guitarist that Lindsey seems to respect. Well, he has (or at least had) a bit of respect for Dave Mason, but that had nothing at all to do with his Mac work. So, I would it agree that it wasn't a "complete" disregard. He just disregarded everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
Now considering things like "Hypnotized"; most fans seem to think that Lindsey doesn't sound right doing the song and they consider it Bob Welch's property. I agree with that, and therefore I understand why Lindsey wanted to drop it; he couldn't add anything that was significantly his own to the song, and therefore it's not the same case as with those Dylan/Donovan/Harrison covers, which he totally makes his own, IMO.
Why does Lindsey have to sing "Hypnotized" for the band to do it? Why not Stevie Nicks? I think her voice would have been perfect for the song. Same for "Green Manalishi." Of course, there were the instrumentals. And, when the three of them sang the older songs together (i.e. Station Man, Why, Spare Me A Little), most fans went nuts. The point is that Fleetwood Mac is a brand name, and as such, there are certain songs that we associate with that brand. Just because Lindsey didn't write it doesn't mean Mick and John (and most likely Christine) weren't originally on it, and it's THEIR brand, not Lindsey's. The old Mac songs could be done as legitimately as a Buckingham Nicks song, and to suggest "oh, I hated doing those songs because I felt like I was in a cover band" is total crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
And I'd rather hear an "Oh Well" from 1969-1990 (I haven't unfortunately heard an entire Time tour bootleg) than a lackluster "Oh Well" from 1997-2004, period. If he feels he can't add anything of importance to "Oh Well" anymore, it is his right to leave it in peace.
Hmmm. Again, I disagree. That is a major song associated with the Fleetwood Mac brand. Fans LOVE the song, and always go nuts whenever it's played live. As to what he could add, why not part two? That would completely different for a Fleetwood Mac set and would be, I would think, rewarding for Lindsey as a guitarist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
And as to the band dropping "Oh Well" from the setlist, I still don't think Lindsey is all to blame; I think the band has been alienating itself from its past for a long time to come anyway. It plays the songs in its setlist that have always been the most easily negotiable between the members; it takes a lot of concrete to be shifted in order for them to bring an old classic back into play. Rick Vito and Billy Burnette could do it, but then Rick probably joined them on the condition of getting to play some Peter Green-era songs (furthermore, how come I haven't seen you complaining of the 1987-1995 tour line-ups ignoring WELCH-era songs? It's not like they were in bad blood all that time, were they?), after all that is his favourite period of Fleetwood Mac.
I agree. This band loves to cover up the bumps in the road. I love how they go into to great detail about Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, say a few kind words about the Bob Welch years, talk endlessly about "Rumours" (though glossing over almost everything else by THAT variation of Fleetwood Mac), skipping the Billy Burnette years altogether, and finish with the big "I love you, man" reunion/healing crap.

As for the band not doing Peter's stuff these days, I don't know why, but I suspect that they dropped "Oh Well" because Peter Green is/was back recording and touring, and maybe they didn't feel the need to carry on his legacy anymore.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-24-2005, 09:50 PM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 14,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
Peter Green is the only other Mac guitarist that Lindsey seems to respect.
Lindsey likes Peter Green; that's obvious. He did "Oh Well" all those years at every show because he likes the song. I don't think it's a matter of "disrespecting" other Mac guitarists, just not liking their songs. But what you guys are saying is that the current personnel should perform the songs of the previous personnel, regardless of liking it or not. I happen to know that there was a lot of "not crazy about it" going around throughout all incarnations of the band: Lindsey not being crazy about Bob Welch material, Rick not being crazy about Lindsey material, Dave not being crazy about Bob Welch material. If I joined Fleetwood Mac, I wouldn't bother playing Rick's or Dave's songs for the band -- I think they suck & I wouldn't play them. But I'd want to play several of Peter's songs & Danny's songs & Bob's songs & I would CERTAINLY want to play "The Derelict" because that is a masterpiece. However, I'd also want to play my own songs -- it doesn't take much in the way of brains to figure out why a songwriter would want to play his or her own material -- & there are only so many hours I'd want to stand onstage singing & playing.
__________________

moviekinks.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-25-2005, 09:29 AM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
-- & there are only so many hours I'd want to stand onstage singing & playing.
If they didn't play the same f***ing set list night after night; tour after tour, they might actually get to play more songs and the set would feel fresh, like a spray of Febreze, rather than the stale crap we get tour after tour.
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-25-2005, 09:40 AM
sharksfan2000's Avatar
sharksfan2000 sharksfan2000 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiliD
...the set would feel fresh, like a spray of Febreze....
Oh come on, chiliD, I know you can come up with a better analogy than that!!!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-25-2005, 09:55 AM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharksfan2000
Oh come on, chiliD, I know you can come up with a better analogy than that!!!
That's the best I could do under the circumstances ...I've got a bad cold and am under the influence of NyQuil today.
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-25-2005, 10:40 AM
face of glass's Avatar
face of glass face of glass is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Finland, the country where polar bears walk on the streets singing "Silver Girl"
Posts: 1,938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
Actually, in the US, they had been increasing their fan base. It was in Europe that their fan base went down after Peter quit. Their albums with Bob Welch tended to sell better in the US than the Peter Green stuff. So, I don't see that many American fans deserted ship.
A good correction there, but then I don't necessarily see how dropping the few pre-1975 songs they used to play per set alienated most of the previously existing fanbase. I don't think there was that many fans then who went from one show to another just to hear them replace "Spare Me A Little" with "Why" or something like that. And they still played "Oh Well" and kept things like "Station Man" and "The Green Manalishi" with them into the early Rumours tour, so they didn't disregard the past completely. And furthermore, does this suggest that the material from the White Album and Rumours wasn't good enough for those fans and that they preferred the pre-1975 oldies over those?

If it had been a big issue for the band to keep a lot of the pre-1975 material in, you'd think Christine in particular would have butted heads with Lindsey about that. We all know she was often against Lindsey's experiments in the studio, so why couldn't she resist him well enough in the subject of setlists? After all, it was her own songs that were on the line too. But then maybe she preferred to play the songs that she liked better than whatever she had written in the past (save perhaps the songs from Mystery To Me).

If those fans you're talking about were bothered by something, I think it was mainly due to the static setlists that the band adopted at some point during the Rumours tour (we all know how they changed the sets every night prior to mid-1977). But I think I already said why that happened, it was the fault of the band in general; it wasn't just a bunch of friends playing together anymore, but a group of people doing business with each other and concentrating on all the side-effects of the success in full. It was the easiest choice for them to play the same setlist every night rather than to start rehearsing something they hadn't played before in the middle of a tour.
Quote:
The old Mac songs could be done as legitimately as a Buckingham Nicks song, and to suggest "oh, I hated doing those songs because I felt like I was in a cover band" is total crap.
This is what it all boils down to; you guys feel that Lindsey should have a certain sense of duty when it comes to Fleetwood Mac whereas I feel that I'd rather hear Bob Welch do one of his own songs than hear Lindsey do a note-perfect rendition of the same song. I don't think he really added anything to most of the covers that he did (save "Oh Well", and seeing as he didn't tour with Fleetwood Mac for 15 years who knows if he has anything to give to those songs anymore or not). So artistically they are not very interesting (and I think that was his problem with those in the first place), but I do see why you guys see him not wanting to do those as "juvenile" behaviour. And hell, anything to shake up the static setlist, I agree on that too.
Quote:
As for the band not doing Peter's stuff these days, I don't know why, but I suspect that they dropped "Oh Well" because Peter Green is/was back recording and touring, and maybe they didn't feel the need to carry on his legacy anymore.
A very good point, that. It's interesting though, how I have never seen a Splinter Group setlist with "Oh Well" in it. Did they play it at all during Peter's comeback?
__________________
Gaius

^ - "a selfindulged, but funny butthead of a Fin" - Shackin'up
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-25-2005, 01:46 PM
mzero mzero is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by face of glass
".... It's interesting though, how I have never seen a Splinter Group setlist with "Oh Well" in it. Did they play it at all during Peter's comeback?
fog- no, not to my knowledge. mario probably can speak to this most definitively.

i would be very surprised if it was played w/ sg. pete has said a number of times that he doesn't like 'oh well pt 1' .

best, zero
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-25-2005, 07:16 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
But what you guys are saying is that the current personnel should perform the songs of the previous personnel, regardless of liking it or not...If I joined Fleetwood Mac, I wouldn't bother playing Rick's or Dave's songs for the band
That's not exactly it. Rick and either Dave didn't have songs that were significant to the band's history. Peter, Jeremy, Danny, and Bob did, maybe even Billy. I don't think that the current version of the band really needs to play the oldies, now that they have released six studio albums, two of which could almost be counted twice. I think they didn't need those around the time of "Tusk," when they had more than 24 album songs, or 25 released songs, to work with to have a set exclusively from THAT incarnation. Their last tour alone had about 26 songs. I think the phase out of older material was a little too sudden.

However, the attitude that Lindsey has about feeling like a lounge guitarist whenever he played the old songs seems pretty goofy. Everybody knows that he wouldn't do those songs if he wasn't in Fleetwood Mac, just as Fleetwood Mac wouldn't do a Buckingham Nicks song without either he or Stevie being in the band (although, "Crystal" and "Don't Let Me Down Again" could be exceptions, as they were also released under the Fleetwood Mac moniker). I will say that if the CURRENT personnel play a Buckingham Nicks song live, they should also play a pre-1975 song, to be fair.
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-25-2005, 07:54 PM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 14,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
Rick and either Dave didn't have songs that were significant to the band's history.
The hell you say, pal. "The Derelict," as I have already said many times, is THE MOST IMPORTANT WORK OF ART ever associated with the band. I'd stake my entire Longinian aesthetic on it.
Quote:
However, the attitude that Lindsey has about feeling like a lounge guitarist whenever he played the old songs seems pretty goofy.
That's because you consider it goofy. I don't consider it goofy. I happen not to share Lindsey's sentiment -- don't forget that I'm in a Fleetwood Mac tribute band, the agenda of which is specifically & entirely to copy Fleetwood Mac material. But not everybody feels that way, & there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with not wanting to play some other guy's songs. Songwriters, especially -- of which I happen not to be one -- are understandably into playing their own material. That's the way it's been at least as far back as the Beatles. Lindsey himself was like that even before he joined Fleetwood Mac: local So Cal agents & bookers told him they'd find him plenty of work if he'd play Top 40 material, & he was totally unenthusiastic about that -- even if it meant another month of Hamburger Helper.

The fact of the matter is that you guys see a sort of nostalgia-laden metaphysical interconnection between all the various incarnations of the Mac -- so do I, but only in a figurative sense. In other words, in practical terms (in terms of individual psychology & preference), "Fleetwood Mac" is a fiction: nothing more than a series of songwriters & singers & musicians that followed or preceded one another in various specific groupings along a certain timeline. But you really take "Chain, keep us together" literally in the sense that you want the metaphysical binding of that "Chain" to apply to pragmatic elements, such as set lists & so forth. To me, that's crying for the moon. It's like extinguishing the fire in the fireplace so that Santa won't get scorched.

Steve, did I ever say how glad I really am that you're posting on this board a lot more? You & I go waaaaaaaaaay back, you ol' son-of-a-gun, you.
__________________

moviekinks.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-26-2005, 10:42 AM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
It's like extinguishing the fire in the fireplace so that Santa won't get scorched.
Oh, no you don't...how DARE you bring Santa into this!
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-26-2005, 04:27 PM
Tom Tom is offline
Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 80
Default

Drifting
First Train Home
Man of the World
The World Keep On Turning
Need Your Love So Bad
Black Magic Woman
Rattlesnake Shake
Oh Well The Green Manalishi
The Stumble
A Fool No More
Big Boy Now

Last edited by Tom; 08-26-2005 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-26-2005, 11:59 PM
Bob Hagemier Bob Hagemier is offline
Junior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3
Default

Rollin' Man from Live at the Shrine '69.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-27-2005, 09:45 AM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hagemier
Rollin' Man from Live at the Shrine '69.
That entire Shrine '69 album is VERY good. I like the alternate modulation on "Before The Beginning"...instead of going from Bb to G as on the studio version, they go to (if I remember correctly) F.

And, also...welcome to the Ledge, Bob.
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-27-2005, 09:46 PM
SteveMacD's Avatar
SteveMacD SteveMacD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 8,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
That's because you consider it goofy. I don't consider it goofy.
Oh, it IS goofy. What if Mick said that he didn't want to play a Buckingham Nicks song because he felt like a lounge drummer??? Be honest, it makes you laugh thinking about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Songwriters, especially -- of which I happen not to be one -- are understandably into playing their own material.
I write songs, but I also enjoy playing others' songs. For me, it's a way to expand my knowledge base as a musician, if nothing else. There are things in somebody else's material, such as chords and phrasing, that I might not have thought about that I might be able to extrapolate into one of my own songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Lindsey himself was like that even before he joined Fleetwood Mac: local So Cal agents & bookers told him they'd find him plenty of work if he'd play Top 40 material, & he was totally unenthusiastic about that -- even if it meant another month of Hamburger Helper.
But even THAT is different than doing old Fleetwood Mac songs. Mick, John, and Christine were on those songs, so it wasn't like he was playing in a cover band. Just as Mick, John, and Christine weren't playing in a cover band whenever they did "Crystal," "Don't Let Me Down Again," and "Frozen Love." There was a direct connection to those songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
The fact of the matter is that you guys see a sort of nostalgia-laden metaphysical interconnection between all the various incarnations of the Mac -- so do I, but only in a figurative sense. In other words, in practical terms (in terms of individual psychology & preference), "Fleetwood Mac" is a fiction: nothing more than a series of songwriters & singers & musicians that followed or preceded one another in various specific groupings along a certain timeline. But you really take "Chain, keep us together" literally in the sense that you want the metaphysical binding of that "Chain" to apply to pragmatic elements, such as set lists & so forth. To me, that's crying for the moon. It's like extinguishing the fire in the fireplace so that Santa won't get scorched.
Interesting point. I don't necessarily see it that way, though. It has less to do with the metaphsical binding of that "Chain" than it does recognizing that there has been more to their careers than just the stuff everybody knows. That Mick and John, as well as Stevie and Lindsey, had careers before getting together as the Big Mac. Their concerts are partially promotion for the new album, but also a celebration of their careers. A better way of explaining this is when Dave Mason was in Fleetwood Mac, I would have been upset if they didn't do "We Just Disagree" and at least one other song from his earlier career (solo or with Traffic). That's also a reason why Billy's tenure with Fleetwood Mac was disappointing. To just go by what he did in concert, nobody would have ever realized that he actually had a career prior to meeting Mick Fleetwood. "The Bigger The Love" should have been a staple in the set during his tenure, and John McVie knows it! Another way of putting it is if they had fired Lindsey during the "Tusk" tour, and Clapton had joined, wouldn't we expect at least one song from the "Bluesbreaker" album? I certainly would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Steve, did I ever say how glad I really am that you're posting on this board a lot more? You & I go waaaaaaaaaay back, you ol' son-of-a-gun, you.
Well thank you! Ahh, the old amfm. The good old days. Hard to believe it's been a decade since all that madness began. I'm really glad that the Ledge is here and that I'm able to be a part of it! A lot of us old timers go waaaaaay back, and it's nice that a lot of us are still here!
__________________
On and on it will always be, the rhythm, rhyme, and harmony.



THE Stephen Hopkins
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


Christine Mcvie (reissue) by Christine McVie (CD, 1997) 1984 Solo Album picture

Christine Mcvie (reissue) by Christine McVie (CD, 1997) 1984 Solo Album

$6.98



Lindsey Buckingham Christine McV... - Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie CD XLVG picture

Lindsey Buckingham Christine McV... - Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie CD XLVG

$7.94



Christine McVie - Christine Mcvie [New CD] picture

Christine McVie - Christine Mcvie [New CD]

$16.44



Christine McVie - In The Meantime [New CD] picture

Christine McVie - In The Meantime [New CD]

$16.44



Christine McVie Self Titled CD of FLEETWOOD MAC picture

Christine McVie Self Titled CD of FLEETWOOD MAC

$4.99




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved