Sara question

[secondhandchain]

I just had this wierd thought. Stevie will not perform Sara anymore, why? I noticed on the Storytellers clip she completely changed the melody. Could it be there was some out of court settlement where she legally cannot perform the song live anymore. I don't buy that it doesn't translate well to the stage. (we know better) I know there were those lawsuits long ago and thought they were settled. Just a thought.

[DownOnRodeo]

Well for starters, Sara arguably does not translate relatively well to the stage. Of course many of us would beg to differ should the band decide to pull it out for the tour, but when you have to perform a 7 minute song night after night (not forgetting her solo tours) for basically three or more years on end, you make a decision on whether you can get away with dropping it for (a) new, fresher material and (b) those classics without which the fans would not show up, ie Dreams, Rhiannon and GDW.
For all we like about Sara, studio or live, the form of the song doesn't really provide for a great deal of variety when presented live. There's no flaming guitar solo halfway through. The best songs are broken up into 'stages', whereas the live version of Sara was kinda flat for the most part.

What carried the studio version (aside from the lyrics etc) were factors like the extremely good voice of Stevie in the recording, the verb/delay on that voice, the stereo 'twinkly' guitar effects; and what really divided the song into segments were those big fat b'ground vocal choruses. None of those were ever really produced live, at least not all of them at once. Mind you, I'm a big fan of the bootlegs and Tusk video. But I can totally see why Stevie gave it up for one of her fresher songs better arranged for live reproduction.

That said I would kill for them to reintroduce the song with an innovative take on the live arrangement. I don't know how they'd do it, but if they did Red Rover, they could do a knock-out Sara.

Note that the band or Lindsey were eager to do Beautiful Child this time. The way they've arranged it, the song has a lot of distinct parts - quiet parts, BN duet parts, Stevie 'wailing' parts - so compare that to the live Sara they used to do and while very good most of the time, it's not as dynamic/dramatic as BC and others.

And to answer your main question (whoops, talk about going off on a tangent!) as to whether Sara isn't performed now because of the lawsuit: interesting idea, but I don't think so. My understanding is that there was no settlement since Stevie was in the right and fought very hard to prove that although whoever it was may have written some similar song, Stevie definitely wrote her own regardless. A demo tape predating the woman's claimed time of creation, so I understand that either the court found for Stevie or the woman and her lawyers said "We believe you!" and gave up (to paraphrase a Stevie quote I recall on the matter).

THIRDLY (lol, talk about long-winded :P ) the Storytellers melody, if you ask me, is a matter of Stevie being asked to play and sing Sara off the cuff. So she's sort of figuring it out as she goes, and you'll notice her vocal melody follows the 'downward' chord progresssion she's tentatively playing on the piano, which seems to suggest that she's consciously focusing on getting the piano notes right and is letting the vocal fit subconsciously around that.

[strandinthewind]

I have a piano demo of Sara somewhere where it is just Stevie on the piano and it, like so many of Stevie's paino demos, has the melody of the song, but is a far cry from the finished product. So, I think she was playing this simple piano demo on Storytellers. Plus she said then "see I did write it" or simething like that. Finally, FM played Sara at at least one BTM concert - so I do not think there are legal issues, but you never know. Also, Brett told me he would love to play Sara but Stevie just won't do it.

FInally, with three drummers/percussionist, five guitarist (Ray, Neale, Carlos, LB, JM), two or more (the guys chime in as well) back up singers, a keyboardist, and midi tracks ( a la the hawks in Peacekeeper) - they certaily could get any sound they wanted.

So, I say DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[PenguinHead]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
... you make a decision on whether you can get away with dropping it for (a) new, fresher material and (b) those classics without which the fans would not show up, ie Dreams, Rhiannon and GDW.


I disagree...I'm a fan and I would, without question, show up for a show without Dreams, Rhiannon and Gold Dust Woman! In fact, I welcome it. She's clung to those few songs for 25 years and played them to death...at the expense of dozens of other great songs she could perform instead. Stevie performing "fresher material?" She is one of least confident artists I know when it comes to that.

It's not the real fans who have followed her for decades that would feel disappointed or complain, or wouldn't show up...its the casual fan that only knows her hits, and nothing about her other songs.

For the record, I consider Sara among one of Stevie's classics along those others. Considering the huge support band that Fleetwood Mac tours with these days, they could easily and reasonably do justice to a live version.

Contridictory, Stevie had no reservations performing it in the past. Did it have to take five or so tours for her to determine it didn't go over well in concert?

Tusk
Bella Donna - Watch the HBO concert and tell me that
performance go over well with the audience
Mirage
Wild Heart
Rock A Little

With regard to the legal issue...I think that Stevie either settled out of court or won. Either way, she still holds the rights to the song. No legal contrainsts were established to prevent her from performing the song!! If by fat chance, the crazy woman who pursued the law suit actually was given partial rights to the song, Stevie could still perform it...she would just have to pay out a portion to the woman

[darklinensuit]

I hate to re-hash a sore subject, but there has been talk that Stevie is reluctant to perform the song since Don's GQ interview, the one where he claims that the song is about their aborted baby. I'm not saying this is the real reason - who but Stevie really knows? - but this theory has gone around for some time.

- Jake

[face of glass]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Finally, FM played Sara at at least one BTM concert...

This thread, especially the things that David and Mike B wrote, doesn't support that "myth".

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?threadid=11872&perpage=15&highlight=urban%20myths&pagenumber=3

Sorry if I appear picky, it isn't my intention.

[strandinthewind]

No offense taken. I was just reporting what other people said. :cool:

[face of glass]

In my opinion, if "Sara" was to be played live again like it was in the old days, then it would seriously need some of the old intensity back. It was monotonous live, but on some nights, like on the Mirage tour in Memphis, Stevie would get carried away with it. And that's when I have no complaints about the simpleness of the arrangement, it's almost solely that voice that does it.

[secondhandchain]

When I saw the storytellers clip it just kind of reminded me of George Harrison and how he would have to change the melody of "My Sweet Lord" when he sang it live, because of the lawsuit. I don't think he actually sang it live much after that.

[joe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
FInally, with three drummers/percussionist, five guitarist (Ray, Neale, Carlos, LB, JM), two or more (the guys chime in as well) back up singers, a keyboardist, and midi tracks ( a la the hawks in Peacekeeper) - they certaily could get any sound they wanted.



I agree completely...and i've been saying this all along. despite liking "sara" way more than "gypsy", i think the live version might have the same boring quality that "gypsy" has now....there's just no umph to it....but if they added some cool eclectic string instruments to the arrangements and did a sort of acoustic thing (like the "what's the world/beautiful child" part) then it could definately work....they've got enough people and technology to make it happen. i don't think that's the reason though. if stevie doesn't want to do it, there's no hope then.

[skcin]

I think there may be a more personal reason for not performing Sara anymore. Maybe, since it's about the whole Stevie/Mick/Sara thing, someone asked her not to do it anymore? Didn't they stop doing the song around the time Mick & Sara split, or were about to?
The Henley thing is a crock, IMO, it doesn't make sense to me that she'd stop because of a comment made in the past (I'd like to read that interview, though - does anyone know if there's a transcription of it posted anywhere?) And the lawsuit issue - it never stopped her from doing it before, what's the problem now? Doesn't make sense.
If my hunch is incorrect, then I'm thinking the "live vs. studio" aspect is the most plausible.

Paula

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by PenguinHead
I disagree...I'm a fan and I would, without question, show up for a show without Dreams, Rhiannon and Gold Dust Woman! In fact, I welcome it.
Believe me, when I said 'fans' I didn't mean us! I mean the majority of concert goers, who have bought Rumours and maybe Tango and/or the Greatest Hits. I think it's unanimous on the Ledge that we'd like Dreams and Rhiannon to go.
And while Sara's my favourite studi osong from Stevie, if not the band, I'm the first to recognize that objectively the live version is not in the league of Dreams, Rhiannon, Landslide and GDW, in terms of the 'must-do' songs that are so well-known they're iconic. Sara was a hit but outside the big fans I doubt it's as popular as to be iconic. (By iconic I guess I really mean 'hooks'. The live version is pretty bereft of iconic hooks except for te opening bit. From there on in it's 6 minutes of the same two-part riff, even without any discernable chorus really (compare to the uber chorus in Dreams).

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
Believe me, when I said 'fans' I didn't mean us! I mean the majority of concert goers, who have bought Rumours and maybe Tango and/or the Greatest Hits. I think it's unanimous on the Ledge that we'd like Dreams and Rhiannon to go.
And while Sara's my favourite studi osong from Stevie, if not the band, I'm the first to recognize that objectively the live version is not in the league of Dreams, Rhiannon, Landslide and GDW, in terms of the 'must-do' songs that are so well-known they're iconic. Sara was a hit but outside the big fans I doubt it's as popular as to be iconic. (By iconic I guess I really mean 'hooks'. The live version is pretty bereft of iconic hooks except for te opening bit. From there on in it's 6 minutes of the same two-part riff, even without any discernable chorus really (compare to the uber chorus in Dreams).

I think Dreams live is pretty lame these days. Definitely no better than Gypsy, IMO.

- Jake

[chiliD]

Originally posted by secondhandchain
When I saw the storytellers clip it just kind of reminded me of George Harrison and how he would have to change the melody of "My Sweet Lord" when he sang it live, because of the lawsuit. I don't think he actually sang it live much after that.

Actually, it was the featured song on his 1991 tour of Japan with Eric Clapton & His Band backing him. It was the featured song in the Concert For George.

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I think Dreams live is pretty lame these days. Definitely no better than Gypsy, IMO.
Agreed. As I said though, that's what the general fans come for: 'Thunder only happens when it's raining."
Of course _we_ could do well without it at this stage.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I think Dreams live is pretty lame these days. Definitely no better than Gypsy, IMO.

- Jake

IMO Dreams is no where near as lame as Gypsy is live. Not even in the same league. Granted, it's not that exciting, but I still look forward to it a teeny tiny bit. Although I admit wouldn't be terribly sad if they replaced it with something newer/more rare.

[Sorcerer386]

I still don't understand why everyone thinks there some huge, elaborate story behind Stevie no longer doing Sara live. I still think it's the fact that Stevie got bored with doing it live. I mean, where has Beauty and the Beast been the past three solo tours? It's gone, because let's face it, by the time Timespace came around, she was obviously bored with it. And it's much harder to commit to doing a 7 to 8 minute song live that you find boring than to doing a 4 minute song that you might also find boring, but feel you should still perform it because the audience wants to hear it. Don't forget Stevie wanted Rhiannon out of the set for a while (at least that's what Mick's book said). I think Stevie still likes doing Rhiannon though, and she absolutely loves doing Gold Dust Woman and Landslide. However, I do admit that they should have pulled Sara out and did it this tour. But anyone who has performed, be it singing or dancing or acting, knows that doing something you find boring just isn't fun at all, so what's the point of performing if it's not fun for you?