Interview with comments from Sharon Celani

[Angel75]

Originally Posted by dreamsunwind

I so agree with this. That's why I think the 'Stevie has a right to want to be happy' argument I've seen some people make is ridiculous. It's not just about Stevie and that's such a selfish thing to do. Push someone out of a group and affect SO many people all because you don't want the hassle? I'm sure both Lindsey and Stevie are far from perfect people and I doubt he thought she was a cup of tea to work with either, but I am about 500% positive that had he had the power to push her out of the band(which granted, he did not at all have that power), he wouldn't have done so.

Exactly, no matter how much she grates on him ...he never would have had her fired. Simply because he is LOYAL.....and respects their legacy

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

WTF are you talking about??? We’re not shareholders, we’re fans who voluntarily decided to follow a band, presumably because we liked their music. The band is under no obligation to any of us. You chose to spend money on what they were selling. That’s NOT an investment, that’s a simple transaction.

It’s a rock band. They get to decide who is in. Sorry you don’t like how they went about it. If I fault them for anything, it’s talking about it at all. They should have just said they parted ways with him for a number of reasons without getting into specifics.

We are patrons... a patron is someone who supports an artist financially so they can pursue their art. Like the Medicis were the patrons of Michelangelo. The only thing we can't do that other patrons (e.g. of painters, composers etc) because of the nature of the business, is actually commission a work of art from them in the form of an album. People can, however, commission art from them in the form of a performance, and companies do this all the time-- how many corporate gigs a year does Stevie do? Far, far more than you know. Why? The money, because the performances themselves aren't providing anything new, just the bragging rights to the purchasers of having bought her to sing for them on demand.

So as patrons of their art over the years-- i.e. as the ones who bought so many albums which gave them the financial means and the clout to hold a record contract and make more albums in lush studios, banking on us buying the output which would reimburse the costs.....we definitely have a right to express opinions. And to vote with our future dollars.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

We are patrons...we definitely have a right to express opinions. And to vote with our future dollars.

Which is basically what I said. Patron is a stuffy way of saying customer of the arts.

They have a product and we voluntarily buy it, under zero obligation to do so.

But, that’s all it is. We’re not financially invested in them, we simply bought their product. I’m no more a shareholder of Fleetwood Mac than I am a McDonald’s because I sometimes get a Big Mac. We have no say in how they run their business, and we’re not owed anything by them.

[elle]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

We have no say in how they run their business, and we’re not owed anything by them.

and, we don't owe them anything. once when their product stopped being interesting to many of us, we stopped buying.

their product is interesting to you, so you'll be buying it.

simple.

[Storms123]

There are roughly 10 people I work with on a regular basis who fail the 8-hour rule. It's work not camp! I'd love to "help them seek alternative means of employment" (fire is such an ugly word), but in the real world, that's just not feasible. Oh, I'd love to know the color of the sky in this bands world

[Dr.Brown]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Which is basically what I said. Patron is a stuffy way of saying customer of the arts.

They have a product and we voluntarily buy it, under zero obligation to do so.

But, that’s all it is. We’re not financially invested in them, we simply bought their product. I’m no more a shareholder of Fleetwood Mac than I am a McDonald’s because I sometimes get a Big Mac. We have no say in how they run their business, and we’re not owed anything by them.

Exactly, and whenever I pay for my Mac I don't want to be handed Whoppers.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by elle

and, we don't owe them anything. once when their product stopped being interesting to many of us, we stopped buying.

Exactly. It’s completely voluntary on our part. Personally, I lost interest in them in 2006 and quit going to shows until 2014. The SNLB drama grated on me to no end.

their product is interesting to you, so you'll be buying it.

It’s compelling and has the potential to be interesting, and I will definitely be checking it out. Whether or not it is actually interesting remains to be seen.

[secondhandchain]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Which is basically what I said. Patron is a stuffy way of saying customer of the arts.

They have a product and we voluntarily buy it, under zero obligation to do so.

But, that’s all it is. We’re not financially invested in them, we simply bought their product. I’m no more a shareholder of Fleetwood Mac than I am a McDonald’s because I sometimes get a Big Mac. We have no say in how they run their business, and we’re not owed anything by them.

This is not the same thing as buying a Big Mac. Are we owed anything by them? No not really, but if they really cared about the fans like they say and were decent people, what we feel would matter, just a little.

[Macfan4life]

The biggest story from the interview is what no one is discussing IMHO. The part where Sharon states Stevie always promised her to bring her into Fleetwood Mac many years before Stevie's solo career. I wonder if Stevie asked the band at the time and they said no or Stevie just kept it to yourself until the timing was right (Lindsey left).

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

The biggest story from the interview is what no one is discussing IMHO. The part where Sharon states Stevie always promised her to bring her into Fleetwood Mac many years before Stevie's solo career. I wonder if Stevie asked the band at the time and they said no or Stevie just kept it to yourself until the timing was right (Lindsey left).

I can imagine it probably would've been complicated trying to convince a group that's supposed to be a rock band to welcome her girl backup singers. Especially because they all knew Sharon and Lori weren't just any singers, they were part of Stevie's entourage. Lindsey leaving was a huge thing and switch up so it makes sense that's when she would've best gotten the chance to do it. But Christine definitely wasn't too thrilled at first, I read where she said that she doesn't care where they stand onstage as long as she can't see them

[secondhandchain]

I knew the back up singers was the nasal tambourine b/witches idea.

[bwboy]

Originally Posted by secondhandchain

I knew the back up singers was the nasal tambourine b/witches idea.

And Lindsey was fine with it from 1996-2014. And for his tour with Christine, they used recorded backing vocals to save money. So what's the big deal? I mean, really, what difference does it make?

[Neal]

During the early planning stages of the Tango tour, I thought Lindsey was the one who wanted to add more musicians to the stage in the first place?

Maybe backup singers weren't part of that plan. And if they were, it's probably a safe bet he didn't want Stevie's...

[bwboy]

Originally Posted by Neal

During the early planning stages of the Tango tour, I thought Lindsey was the one who wanted to add more musicians to the stage in the first place?

Maybe backup singers weren't part of that plan. And if they were, it's probably a safe bet he didn't want Stevie's...

Funny you should mention that... I also remember an interview with Mick where he said Lindsey had asked for changes from their previous tours, such as back up singers, and the band had no problem granting his requests if it would help convince him to tour. After Lindsey backed out, Mick said they kept the changes Lindsey had requested, including the backup singers. I think it was a magazine called Q or something like that, and it was back in 1987 or 1988. That was one of the reasons the band was surprised Lindsey backed out of the tour, because they had actually progressed beyond just talking about touring and made plans for a short tour, I think 2 months.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Neal

During the early planning stages of the Tango tour, I thought Lindsey was the one who wanted to add more musicians to the stage in the first place?

Maybe backup singers weren't part of that plan. And if they were, it's probably a safe bet he didn't want Stevie's...

Billy Burnette was going to be a second guitarist/backing vocalist.