Why in 1975? [Archive]

SteveMacD

05-27-2005, 07:16 PM

Okay, over on the Stevie board, there was the classic discussion as to whether or not the band could exist without Stevie and Lindsey. Some say yes, some say no. But some seem to think that the band wasn't going anywere until Stevie and Lindsey came along, as if they magically appeared and suddenly turned Fleetwood Mac into a hit machine. In any event, I posted something there that I think debunks that myth. Knowing that many Mac/Chris/LB fans avoid the Stevie board like the plague (Homer), I thought I'd post it here to read other MAC fans take on this.

1. Would the "Rumours" band have made albums that were as good as the ones that were released if they had to do five albums in three and a half years? Would Lindsey have been able to work in a situation where an outside manager was dictating the band's recording and touring schedule?

2. Who in the industry did Lindsey and Stevie know? Who did Mick, John, and Christine know? And, by "know" I mean that they could actually call said person on the phone and hit up a conversation.

3. Who had been on television by 1975?

4. Who had the record contract in 1975?

5. Who had a greatest hits package out in 1971?

6. Who had songs that were actually played on the radio in 1974?

7. Who had the road crew/touring machine and the contacts with major concert promoters to go with it?

8. Who had articles written about them in Rolling Stone prior to 1975?

9. Who had the steady following, which guaranteed people would go out to the shows?

10. Who advocated on behalf of Fleetwood Mac with Warners?

11. Who had the break-out single? Were the voices of Stevie and Lindsey even present on the song? Since this was THE break out song, couldn't it be argued that the band's big break COULD have happened without Stevie and Lindsey?

Also, I forgot to mention in that post that in all reality, the white Fleetwood Mac album was really the first time the band ever recorded on its own terms. Prior to that Cliff Davis was calling the shots, with the exception of "Heroes," which was an album they had to make for their own survival. I'm sure, given the choice, they would have done things differently. In the end, I think the band had been developing momentum for about three or so years in the USA and were ripe for success, and with the addition of Stevie and Lindsey, they had five people who believed the band could be a huge success. To which they worked very hard to attain.

SteveMacD

05-27-2005, 08:03 PM

Yeah, but the said discussion WAS on the Stevie board...I guess I should have clarified that they were talking about the band existing as a viable commodity in the USA.

thepoetinmyhear

05-27-2005, 08:26 PM

Wow, Brian was right, you can't just let this go, can you?

SteveMacD

05-27-2005, 08:35 PM

Wow, Brian was right, you can't just let this go, can you?
And apparently neither can you. :D Anyway, it's not like I have a lot to think about these days, so I tend to think of Fleetwood Mac to kill the time. My friends' band broke up recently. They were a good band, had solid material, and usually got great reviews. But at the end of the day, the only folks who went out to see them were their friends. While they weren't expecting to make it big, they should have at least been able to get a weekend gig with lots of people coming out to see them. So, for me, right now, I see a parallel to a lot of things with Fleetwood Mac, the main one being that quality doesn't necessarily translate into success, which is why I find this particular topic so interesting.

David

05-27-2005, 09:31 PM

1. Would the "Rumours" band have made albums that were as good as the ones that were released if they had to do five albums in three and a half years?The albums may not have been as carefully crafted, but the rush may have created a more headlong, breezy musicality. Things certainly would have sounded more "live"; Fleetwood Mac's art with Buckingham at the engineer's helm was the art of multitracking & mixing.
Would Lindsey have been able to work in a situation where an outside manager was dictating the band's recording and touring schedule?In the early years (1975-76) only, because that was when Lindsey himself took a good many orders from the other members of the band, particularly the Brits. In later years, Lindsey would have seriously balked at an outsider pushing him to tour. I mean, look at the way he balked at band INSIDERS pushing him to tour.
2. Who in the industry did Lindsey and Stevie know? Who did Mick, John, and Christine know? And, by "know" I mean that they could actually call said person on the phone and hit up a conversation.Lindsey & Stevie knew a few producers & engineers (like the people who worked on their first album) as well as some musicians (people they toured with, recorded with, lived with & slept with). Mick, John & Chris must have known the members of dozens of other acts, as well as producers & engineers who worked with Fleetwood Mac.
3. Who had been on television by 1975?Fleetwood Mac. If LB & SN were on TV by then, it was probably like local news in Birmingham or the San Francisco Bay Area.
4. Who had the record contract in 1975?Obviously, Fleetwood.
5. Who had a greatest hits package out in 1971?FM
6. Who had songs that were actually played on the radio in 1974?Certainly Fleetwood on a national scale, but possibly BN in scattered markets like parts of the South, although that was probably minimal.
7. Who had the road crew/touring machine and the contacts with major concert promoters to go with it?FM had the bigger road crew/touring machine, but BN had been touring off & on, & were probably able if need be to call acquaintances for help. These differences you're getting at between FM & BN are more matters of degree than anything else.
8. Who had articles written about them in Rolling Stone prior to 1975?FM, obviously. BN may have had a concert review or two (they were reviewed in Billboard once or twice).
9. Who had the steady following, which guaranteed people would go out to the shows?FM, but BN had niche followers, so the legend goes, in Southern markets.
10. Who advocated on behalf of Fleetwood Mac with Warners?WELL OBVIOUSLY IT WASN'T STEVIE NICKS (OR STEVI NICKS).
11. Who had the break-out single? Were the voices of Stevie and Lindsey even present on the song? Since this was THE break out song, couldn't it be argued that the band's big break COULD have happened without Stevie and Lindsey?Are you talking about "Over My Head"? Didn't the Americanos sing on that? I thought they did. But that's beside the point because Americano voicings aren't what made it a hit (the catchy hooks in the song are what made it a hit). As far as the question of whether the band's big break could have happened without Stevie & Lindsey, sure. But the band's big break could have happened without Christine, too, if she had left, or without Mick, if he had left, or it might never have happened at all even with all five of them. The white album might have bombed -- history went a certain way, the way it always does. Events aren't inevitable just because Hegel said they were.
Also, I forgot to mention in that post that in all reality, the white Fleetwood Mac album was really the first time the band ever recorded on its own terms. Prior to that Cliff Davis was calling the shots, with the exception of "Heroes," which was an album they had to make for their own survival. I'm sure, given the choice, they would have done things differently. In the end, I think the band had been developing momentum for about three or so years in the USA and were ripe for success, and with the addition of Stevie and Lindsey, they had five people who believed the band could be a huge success.I don't think the band had been developing momentum in the USA, & I don't think that BN had been developing momentum, either. FM was pretty stagnant commercially, & putting out albums that were either good or not-so-good seemingly at random, depending on whether things were good for the band personally at any given time. Buckingham Nicks was dead in the water commercially, & were still doing good music that no one heard because there was no record deal. All parties concerned were getting by, to varying degrees & none of it in a spectacular way.

I think their catchy songs on AM radio, along with their touring every part of the country -- where people could see their five very attractive personalities onstage -- are what made them break. Coincidentally, those are essentially the same qualities that break bands today!!

David

05-27-2005, 09:36 PM

So, for me, right now, I see a parallel to a lot of things with Fleetwood Mac, the main one being that quality doesn't necessarily translate into successWhich means that one can't make grand Hegelian pronouncements such as "In 1974, they were just about to break before so-and-so joined" or "In 1974, they were on the verge of being megastars."

Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. No one will ever know.

No one will also ever know exactly why they became the biggest band in the world. There are dozens of reasons that are all probably responsible in various degrees, but there's no way of quantifying any of them. It's akin to arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a Sennheiser microphone.

gldstwmn

05-27-2005, 10:32 PM

Mick, John & Chris must have known the members of dozens of other acts, as well as producers & engineers who worked with Fleetwood Mac.

They also know "Uncle Mo" Osten and I believe Lenny Waronker, which certainly couldn't have hurt them.

HejiraNYC

05-27-2005, 10:35 PM

1. Would the "Rumours" band have made albums that were as good as the ones that were released if they had to do five albums in three and a half years? Would Lindsey have been able to work in a situation where an outside manager was dictating the band's recording and touring schedule?

My answer would be yes, absolutely, definitely. But they didn't. Why? Because they didn't have to because they were a big success and they were making money on the road. But that didn't mean they weren't getting pressure from WB to keep churning out the hits. Nevertheless, as witnessed by all of the great demos dating from 1973 to 1979 (Candlebright, Without You, Sorcerer, Watchdevil, Planets of the Universe, etc.). I would say that the creative juices were just oozing out of every pore back then. Plus, in their spare time they were all guesting on other people's albums like Warren Zevon, Walter Egan, John Stewart, Kenny Loggins, etc.

2. Who in the industry did Lindsey and Stevie know? Who did Mick, John, and Christine know? And, by "know" I mean that they could actually call said person on the phone and hit up a conversation.

3. Who had been on television by 1975?

4. Who had the record contract in 1975?

5. Who had a greatest hits package out in 1971?

6. Who had songs that were actually played on the radio in 1974?

You have to consider that FM had many years jump start on BN, so of course FM would have had the most extensive network of resources. It's just an artifact of having been around longer and having more experience at making a living with music. Also, for whatever reason, FM just happened to be able to put lightning in a bottle with their first albums. Who woulda thunk that blues would become such a sensation during Beatlemania? I think it had more to do with sheer luck than with making good records. Sure, the Peter Green era FM had made some great music, particularly "Then Play On." But "Kiln House" was pretty much the start of a steep decline for FM. They were essentially irrelevant by the time Mick happened to strike lightning again by discovering BN.

I am absolutely convinced that BN, or even Lindsey and Stevie as individual solo performers would have become commercially successful. As evidenced on those few BN live tracks that surfaced last year, they put on a powerful live show that received critical praise. Stevie especially was just a little firecracker; it was just a matter of time before they would hit the big time.

9. Who had the steady following, which guaranteed people would go out to the shows?

By 1974 FM was down to just four members- Mick, John, Christine and Bob Welch. Now, I love love love Christine, but the thought of Bob Welch and Christine fronting the band in concert makes me want to slump over in my chair. Christine was always just one of the boys in the band, but Bob Welch was just a stoner who wrote stoner music and sang stoner songs. I think his songs from "Penguin" and "Heroes..." are absolutely unlistenable and have not aged well. Unless you have box office data, I would find it hard to believe that anybody but the most hardcore potheads would be attending FM concerts in 1974.

Lindsey and Stevie, on the other hand, weren't just drop-dead gorgeous kids, but they seriously rocked. And Stevie especially had that "it factor" going for her that's tough to describe. She had that powerful voice and that whole Bohemian hippy dippy witchy thing about her that both men and women found enigmatic and alluring. The Rumours era FM was great because you had the best of both worlds- the blokes in the band along with the drama queen.

11. Who had the break-out single? Were the voices of Stevie and Lindsey even present on the song? Since this was THE break out song, couldn't it be argued that the band's big break COULD have happened without Stevie and Lindsey?

Are you suggesting that "Over My Head" could have been recorded with such restraint and subtlety with Bob Welch producing and playing guitar? Puhlease! It would have been full of "wah-wah" guitar effects and his monotone backing vocals. I think Lindsey and Keith Olsen instinctively knew that less was more, so the end result was beautiful in its nuance and simplicity. Lindsey's guitar work on that song (both the single and album versions) were absolutely beautiful. And I do think Stevie did sing a faint high falsetto harmony on the choruses.

Also, I forgot to mention in that post that in all reality, the white Fleetwood Mac album was really the first time the band ever recorded on its own terms. Prior to that Cliff Davis was calling the shots, with the exception of "Heroes," which was an album they had to make for their own survival. I'm sure, given the choice, they would have done things differently. In the end, I think the band had been developing momentum for about three or so years in the USA and were ripe for success, and with the addition of Stevie and Lindsey, they had five people who believed the band could be a huge success. To which they worked very hard to attain.

I do recall you mentioned some gold and platinum sales figures for the 1971-1973 FM albums, but I suspect that the vast majority of these sales occurred AFTER they hit the big time in 1975. I recall hearing in interviews that each album released during that era sold 250-300 thousand copies, which hardly sounds like they were "developing momentum." If anything, they were slowly creeping towards obsolescence; they were really at their commercial peak (in the UK) in the late 60s and were just spent creatively and commercially by 1974. Without BN, they would have gone further into the abyss.

chiliD

05-27-2005, 10:59 PM

You have to consider that FM had many years jump start on BN, so of course FM would have had the most extensive network of resources. It's just an artifact of having been around longer and having more experience at making a living with music. Also, for whatever reason, FM just happened to be able to put lightning in a bottle with their first albums. Who woulda thunk that blues would become such a sensation during Beatlemania? I think it had more to do with sheer luck than with making good records.

No...they had the best white blues guitarist in the world...and who was on his way to making Eric Clapton irrelevant, had LSD not gotten in the way.

Christine was always just one of the boys in the band, but Bob Welch was just a stoner who wrote stoner music and sang stoner songs.

Who DIDN'T write stoner music in the '70's?? The entire Buckingham Nicks album is "stoner music", too (mainly because Lindsey was as much, if not MORE of a "stoner" than Bob Welch ever was

Unless you have box office data, I would find it hard to believe that anybody but the most hardcore potheads would be attending FM concerts in 1974.

That's a fallacy. Unless you consider, or buy into, that just about ANYBODY WHO WENT TO ANY CONCERT (from the ages of 15-40) back in the '70's was a "hardcore pothead". Every concert hall & amphitheatre was one big incense bowl of marijuana in those days.

I recall hearing in interviews that each album released during that era sold 250-300 thousand copies, which hardly sounds like they were "developing momentum." If anything, they were slowly creeping towards obsolescence; they were really at their commercial peak (in the UK) in the late 60s and were just spent creatively and commercially by 1974. Without BN, they would have gone further into the abyss.

Again, as SteveMacD pointed out, they didn't keep an incarnation together for more than 18 months. And, yet again, I testify that had Bob Weston & Jenny Fleetwood not had their affair, the MTM incarnation of Fleetwood Mac would've eventually released an album, either the one that would've followed MTM or one after that, that would've sold in maybe not in Rumours-like numbers, but at least "white album" numbers. The legal wranglings of the post-"bogus Mac" fiasco is really what burnt out the band, and Welch in particular. They were just starting to get the notariety and promotion that the 1975 incarnation of Fleetwood Mac got.

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 02:18 AM

My answer would be yes, absolutely, definitely. But they didn't. Why? Because they didn't have to because they were a big success and they were making money on the road.
My point was that the early versions didn't have that luxury. I highly doubt that Bob Welch spent as much time in his ENTIRE tenure in the recording studio as Stevie and Lindsey did on their first album, when they were still unknowns. Incidentally, prior to 1975, the only artists with a name that either Stevie or Lindsey worked with outside of Buckingham Nicks, that I know of, were the Everly Bros. when Lindsey toured with them.
You have to consider that FM had many years jump start on BN, so of course FM would have had the most extensive network of resources. It's just an artifact of having been around longer and having more experience at making a living with music.
Not really. If you take Fritz into account, they had been in the industry since at least 1968. John McVie, who was the first Maccer in the music business, got his start in 1964. So that's just four years. According to what I've read, Fritz got to open for Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jefferson Airplane. So they were playing on an equivalent scene, in the same era, with as many big name acts as Fleetwood Mac were in England. Why weren't they able to establish more contacts with other artists?
Also, for whatever reason, FM just happened to be able to put lightning in a bottle with their first albums. Who woulda thunk that blues would become such a sensation during Beatlemania?
Well, they weren't exactly the pioneers of the blues boom. Well, John was with the Bluesbreakers, but it was that band's second album that really saw the explosion of British blues as well as Eric Clapton's guitar god status. Anyway, the Beatles in many ways paved the way for it to happen, as their early music was more R&B. So an interest in American black music was already underway.
I am absolutely convinced that BN, or even Lindsey and Stevie as individual solo performers would have become commercially successful. As evidenced on those few BN live tracks that surfaced last year, they put on a powerful live show that received critical praise. Stevie especially was just a little firecracker; it was just a matter of time before they would hit the big time.
I have those songs, and I'm not as convinced. Frankly, I thought that early version of "Rhiannon" sounded like any bar band in any town in America. For me, John's bass line, Christine's odd keyboard touches, and the three part harmony really make that song classic. Anyway, I could say the same for the "Bare Trees" band. I have a 1972 boot, and they were on fire. If Danny hadn't gone off the deep end, who knows how big that album would have been?
By 1974 FM was down to just four members- Mick, John, Christine and Bob Welch. Now, I love love love Christine, but the thought of Bob Welch and Christine fronting the band in concert makes me want to slump over in my chair.
Have you actually heard any of the "Heroes" live stuff that's out there? OMG, Bob Welch was on fire on that tour! His live version of "Green Manalishi" is probably the best, at least in terms of guitar playing.
but Bob Welch was just a stoner who wrote stoner music and sang stoner songs.
And some say Stevie was just a coke head who wrote coke head music and sang coke head songs. Let's not forget who was in the band when they upgraded from pot. Anyway, in 1997, Lindsey admitted that he still gets stoned when he's writing his music in Guitar World magazine. So that statement is frankly irrelevant in this discussion. Why do you think he kept saying "organtic" every time he could?
Unless you have box office data, I would find it hard to believe that anybody but the most hardcore potheads would be attending FM concerts in 1974.
Hell, there was an army of pot heads in 2004! I know, because I was sitting around them. Anyway, it's not like they were touring alone in 1974. They were on the road with Jefferson Starship. But even if they were out on their own, it wouldn't surprise anyone if attendance was low, given that two tours had been cancelled and a fake Mac was on the road only months prior. Lindsey and Stevie, on the other hand, weren't just drop-dead gorgeous kids, but they seriously rocked. And Stevie especially had that "it factor" going for her that's tough to describe.
Well, drama queens. Can't forget Mick. :thumbsup: I agree that they had the "it factor," the look, and the music. But even that wasn't enough for them to make it as Buckingham Nicks. Hence why I keep saying that there was a lot more to the success of Fleetwood Mac than just that.
Are you suggesting that "Over My Head" could have been recorded with such restraint and subtlety with Bob Welch producing and playing guitar? Puhlease!
Why not? The main rhythm guitar part that Lindsey played wasn't that much different than what Bob played on the song "Heroes Are Hard To Find." The big difference being that Lindsey did it on a Dorbro whereas Bob did it on a Les Paul. As for the other guitar parts, if Bob had three months in the studio, and was working with a decent producer, I'm sure he could have come up with something very similar.
It would have been full of "wah-wah" guitar effects and his monotone backing vocals.
I can't think of too many, if any, songs in which Bob used a wah pedal. In fact, I can't think of many Mac songs that had a wah. Danny used one on a few songs, but that's about all that comes to mind. As for backing vocals, the only backing vocals are Christine. Stevie and Lindsey didn't sing on the studio version of "Over My Head."
I think Lindsey and Keith Olsen instinctively knew that less was more, so the end result was beautiful in its nuance and simplicity. Lindsey's guitar work on that song (both the single and album versions) were absolutely beautiful. And I do think Stevie did sing a faint high falsetto harmony on the choruses.
I agree that Lindsey and Keith had great instincts, which is one reason that album was great. I don't agree with the less is more thing, as most of Fleetwood Mac's earlier work was done in a few takes with just a few overdubs. Lindsey's strength was how he could orchestrate the band's sound. "Over My Head" isn't necessarily the song I'd use as an example of that. Mine would be "Say You Love Me," which is, for me, THE song that shows why this particular group of folks were so powerful together. BTW, if Stevie did sing on it, I certainly can't hear it.
I do recall you mentioned some gold and platinum sales figures for the 1971-1973 FM albums, but I suspect that the vast majority of these sales occurred AFTER they hit the big time in 1975. I recall hearing in interviews that each album released during that era sold 250-300 thousand copies, which hardly sounds like they were "developing momentum." If anything, they were slowly creeping towards obsolescence; they were really at their commercial peak (in the UK) in the late 60s and were just spent creatively and commercially by 1974. Without BN, they would have gone further into the abyss.
Again, that's speculation. I'm the first to admit that those albums sold more after they hit the big time. However, I always qualify that with it being the joint success of Fleetwood Mac and a solo Bob Welch. I mean, the Peter Green era stuff, I don't believe, had the same benefit as the Bob Welch stuff. As for heading toward obsolescence, the fact that they were on TV, had a radio staple with "Hypnotized," and were still getting fairly large articles written about them in Rolling Stone suggests that they were still on an upswing. By the same token, where were Buckingham Nicks headed? Let's face it, there's a lot more to their success than who was in the group.

Johnny Stew

05-28-2005, 02:48 AM

As for backing vocals, the only backing vocals are Christine. Stevie and Lindsey didn't sing on the studio version of "Over My Head."

"Say You Love Me".... if Stevie did sing on it, I certainly can't hear it.You can't hear Stevie on either of these two songs?

Put on your headphones and listen to the echoing "over my head," that follows anytime Christine sings the words, "I'm over my head."
Stevie's definitely singing there with Chris (though I admit her backing vocals aren't as distinctive as on other songs).

I'm very surprised you can't hear her on "Say You Love Me" though.
Again, put on those headphones, dude. To my ears, she's VERY obvious in the choruses.

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 02:54 AM

Which means that one can't make grand Hegelian pronouncements such as "In 1974, they were just about to break before so-and-so joined" or "In 1974, they were on the verge of being megastars."
I actually agree with this. That's why I haven't been saying that they were going to break or were on the verge. I say that the momentum for that to happen was in their favor, and that the situation could not have been more ideal for them to make a quality album and work with the record company to make it a hit. The actual working conditions in 1975 were far different than they were in 1973, and would have been regardless of who was in the band. Technically, I think it COULD have happened without Stevie and Lindsey, but I think that everything Stevie and Lindsey brought to the band in conjunction with the assets the band already had inspired Mick to do everything humanly possible to make the album a hit.
No one will also ever know exactly why they became the biggest band in the world. There are dozens of reasons that are all probably responsible in various degrees, but there's no way of quantifying any of them. It's akin to arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a Sennheiser microphone.
Again, that's true. But, we can compare the situations in an A-B fashion and see where there were certain advantages outside of personnel the band had in 1975. In other words, I think we can safely say that they didn't become a hit band just because two pretty Americans suddenly showed up, that there was a bit more to the story than just that.

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 03:10 AM

You can't hear Stevie on either of these two songs?
When I said "BTW, if Stevie did sing on it, I certainly can't hear it," I was just referring to "Over My Head."

I can certainly hear her and Lindsey on "Say You Love Me" quite clearly. That's why I basically gushed over that song, saying earlier in that paragraph that "Say You Love Me" was THE song that shows why this particular group of folks were so powerful together. Why? It's catchy as hell, it's autobiographical, there's a lot of interesting instrumental orchestrations, and it has the beautiful McVie-Nicks-Buckingham harmonies. And, it's the type of song that sticks in your head. It's quite possibly the perfect example of a Fleetwood Mac song from this era. "Over My Head" wasn't too terribly different from the Welch-era stuff. "Say You Love Me" almost defines the classic, no legendary, Fleetwood Mac sound. If "Say You Love Me" had been the first single off that album, then I could almost buy the statement that Stevie and Lindsey were the biggest factor in Fleetwood Mac's success. Because THAT type of harmony just didn't exist on the earlier albums. But that wasn't the case.

Johnny Stew

05-28-2005, 03:34 AM

When I said "BTW, if Stevie did sing on it, I certainly can't hear it," I was just referring to "Over My Head." Ah, ok. You brought up "Say You Love Me," then added the aside about not hearing Stevie "on it"... so I mistakenly thought you were still referring to "SYLM." :o

If "Say You Love Me" had been the first single off that album, then I could almost buy the statement that Stevie and Lindsey were the biggest factor in Fleetwood Mac's success."Rhiannon" hit even bigger than "Over My Head" though. ;)

Seriously, it's all apples and oranges to me. I'm just thrilled the band had the success that they had, therefore paving the way for me to be exposed to their music and becoming the fan I am today. Why they hit it big and who (or what) is responsible for that success, is of little consequence to me in those terms.

We fight so much over our favorite members and their contributions as individuals, but, at the end of the day, the Mac is a team. And I'm a big sentimental goof who truly roots for them all to succeed.

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 04:21 AM

"Rhiannon" hit even bigger than "Over My Head" though. ;)
I know :) However, "Over My Head" was the big break the band needed. It was the first time they had the consistent exposure. Their name was now actually being mentioned on the radio quite frequently. All I'm saying is that the song that sparked the initial mass interest in the band was a song in which Stevie and Lindsey weren't a major factor. The song could have been on any prior Mac album. BTW, the band did the exact same thing with the BTM band (As Long As You Follow) and the "Time" band (I Do), so there is a pattern here of them playing it safe by releasing a Christine song that doesn't necessarily highlight the new personnel all that much. As for "Rhiannon," the band was seeing how stunned audiences were with the song for a few months at that point. It was an obvious choice for the next single.

My argument isn't that Stevie and Lindsey weren't a major part of Fleetwood Mac's success. I'm arguing against the notion that success couldn't have happened without them. It could have, as is demonstrated with "Over My Head," a song where they weren't real major factors in the overall sound, not like they were on "Say You Love Me," being the break-out single. Now, I don't see them being able to have the continuity of success or the level of success without Stevie and Lindsey. But, still, they could have been a success.
Why they hit it big and who (or what) is responsible for that success, is of little consequence to me in those terms.
Yeah, but really everything we do on these message boards is of little consequence. It's just fun, at least for me, to explore these things. We're not going to cure cancer or perform brain surgery on The Ledge!

We fight so much over our favorite members and their contributions as individuals, but, at the end of the day, the Mac is a team. And I'm a big sentimental goof who truly roots for them all to succeed.
I'll drink to that! :thumbsup: (Incidentally, my favorite member is a tie between Mick and John. But then I'm a whore for a good rhythm section, as are most guitarists!)

bretonbanquet

05-28-2005, 08:57 AM

Also, for whatever reason, FM just happened to be able to put lightning in a bottle with their first albums. Who woulda thunk that blues would become such a sensation during Beatlemania? I think it had more to do with sheer luck than with making good records.

The 'whatever reason' was the best blues guitarist on the British scene at the time, with the debatable exception of Clapton, together with an experienced rhythm section and an attention-grabbing loon doing uncanny musical impressions of anyone he felt like doing. To suggest their success was anything to do with luck is utterly ridiculous.

As for blues becoming a sensation during Beatlemania... the Stones had been selling blues records (of a sort) at least as long as the Beatles had been around, and their kind of blues was selling well in the UK right through the 60s. Also, not everyone was buying into the Beatlemania as much as you might think. Sure, all their records sold zillions, but many people just wanted more serious music. Lots of people didn't go along with the trippy Sgt Pepper stuff and preferred the kind of simple blues that Mac had started to do - not forgetting that you couldn't actually go and and watch the Beatles because they'd stopped playing in '66. Mac's success also stemmed from the fact that they did the blues better than the other Brit blues bands, and received acceptance from many of the original US blues artists.

I know a lot of Mac fans who don't dig the early years don't really understand or acknowledge the band's early success, but it was down to the same reasons as the BN line-up's success. The right thing at the right time, done extremely well - luck had sod all to do with it. The other thing people underestimate is the level of success they enjoyed in the UK in the late 60s. They were huge, and their singles sold better here in the 60s than they ever did in the 70s...

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 12:57 PM

The 'whatever reason' was the best blues guitarist on the British scene at the time, with the debatable exception of Clapton, together with an experienced rhythm section and an attention-grabbing loon doing uncanny musical impressions of anyone he felt like doing. To suggest their success was anything to do with luck is utterly ridiculous.
Agreed! It's totally apples and oranges with later versions of Fleetwood Mac. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac were basically a supergroup, with Green being considered one of the hottest guitarists in the U.K., McVie being one of the pillars of the British blues movement, and Fleetwood, just by his size alone, being one of the most recognizable figures in the music biz. While Jeremy was a bit of an unknown, he was a powerful stage presence. Anyway, it's not like they had to go out and start from scratch.

lagringader&r

05-28-2005, 04:10 PM

I've always thought that a lot of the allure of the current FM is that it's really like three bands in one. The styles of Stevie, Lindsey and Christine are so different that if you don't like one, you might like one of the others. My preference is Stevie, but Christine and Lindsey have their own set of followers. The old FM was very popular, but I think the inclusion of the Americans helped them in the US. Also, they went from blues to pop when Stevie and Lindsey joined and that also helped in their success. Blues is more obscure and selective than pop and FM's style of music in 1975 was really timely. I wouldn't take anything away from the old FM because Peter Green was greatness, but I don't know how far they would have gone in terms of top ten hits if Stevie and Lindsey hadn't joined. Would they have even thought to switch their format/genre to pop? Probably not. They would have continued doing the blues and their success would have remained selective.

I think now people associate FM with Stevie. Lindsey, too, but not as much. I don't think they can go backwards. An FM without Stevie Nicks? Really iffy. Therefore, I think Stevie is necessary to FM's future success, if they should decide to continue at all. The SYW tour did pretty well without Christine, but I'll bet they lost a few fans, meaning that when some concert-goers found out Christine wasn't with them, they decided to pass. When I bought SYW less than 24 hours after it had been released, I bought it used. There were already a few copies that had been bought and returned and put in the used section, but played like new. They had obviously been played only once. That was really telling to me. Without Stevie, I think I would have found a lot more used copies in that bin. :nod: Hard to say about Lindsey..

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 04:35 PM

Also, they went from blues to pop when Stevie and Lindsey joined and that also helped in their success.
Honestly, though, they stopped being a blues band even when Peter Green was still with them. Songs like "Albatross," "Man Of The World," "Oh Well," and "The Green Manalishi" had very little to do with the blues. Those were pop-rock. And, they became a purely a progressive pop band when Welch came on board.

lagringader&r

05-28-2005, 04:51 PM

Honestly, though, they stopped being a blues band even when Peter Green was still with them. Songs like "Albatross," "Man Of The World," "Oh Well," and "The Green Manalishi" had very little to do with the blues. Those were pop-rock. And, they became a purely a progressive pop band when Welch came on board.

Well, that's true and Bob Welch was also greatness but for some reason they didn't really click until Stevie and Lindsey joined. Or, Bob Welch quit at the wrong time, right before they were about to break big. That is a possibility. I really do wonder if S&L hadn't joined, if Buckingham Nicks would have ever made it. I love the BN album but for some reason they didn't click either. Or, were they about to break big? I've often wondered if Mick hadn't discovered them what they would be doing now. I think it was the chemistry between those five people and the harmony of Stevie, Chris and Lindsey that just made it all come together. We obviously love them, but from the standpoint of why everyone seemed to fall in love with them, they just had the right sound for the times. FM couldn't seem to achieve that with Green or Welch to the same degree.

diamondsnake

05-28-2005, 05:17 PM

Well clearly Stevie Nicks has the most "worshipers" (I am a perfect example!) and the most fans of anyone else in the Fleetwood Mac family. So, I would say that FM certainly would not be as popular post 1975 without Stevie... and Lindsey for that matter! Of course there was a FM before Stevie and Lindsey and there was a FM afterwards, they just weren't popular compared to the Buckingham Nicks era of the band.

Stevie clearly attracts the most people to FM though. I am not saying that she is a better artist (even though she rocks the most in my opinion!) I am just saying she is the most popular and FM owes a lot to her for not leaving the band to soley be a solo artist. She is like what Sting is to the Police. Only Stevie has balanced both being the frontwoman of a band and having a successful solo career.

amber

05-28-2005, 05:27 PM

SteveMacD

05-28-2005, 07:52 PM

Well, that's true and Bob Welch was also greatness but for some reason they didn't really click until Stevie and Lindsey joined. Or, Bob Welch quit at the wrong time, right before they were about to break big. That is a possibility.
I think it was possible for them to have had a huge hit with Bob. The first question I asked in this thread was would the "Rumours" band have made albums that were as good as the ones that were released if they had to do five albums in three and a half years. On that same note, I think it's just as valid to ask would their albums have been as successful. I tend to think not, because when a band releases an album every six months, they're lucky to have one single from an album do well, let alone three or four. Look at Dave Mason's career. He had to do two albums a year when he was on CBS. The result was he had to do a lot of covers and only had one hit single during that time. His shows always sold a lot of tickets, but that didn't translate into record sales.

I completely agree that the band really didn't click all that well until Stevie and Lindsey joined. I don't think their songs were all that different from earlier incarnations, but they were able to pay much more attention to detail and had an amazing three part vocal harmony, which was definately new to the band.
I really do wonder if S&L hadn't joined, if Buckingham Nicks would have ever made it. I love the BN album but for some reason they didn't click either.
A point that is often overlooked. In terms of production value, I don't see all that much difference between "Penguin" and "Buckingham Nicks." If you put Christine's "Penguin" songs on "Buckingham Nicks," it still sounds lacking.
FM couldn't seem to achieve that with Green or Welch to the same degree.
I don't think that Peter Green wanted to achieve that level, truth be told. Anyway, as he has mentioned before, there was no real band chemistry when he was in the band. It basically WAS three different bands. As for Bob, I think it was just too casual when he was in the band. I think they were content to hang out at Benifols when they weren't on the road, or stay in hotel rooms when they were on the road. They weren't really calling the shots at that point in their career, and weren't really putting extra effort into getting the hit singles. They let their crooked manager deal with the record company, and nobody was advocating for the band with Uncle Mo at Warners. That didn't happen until Mick was the manager.

bretonbanquet

05-28-2005, 08:17 PM

I don't think that Peter Green wanted to achieve that level, truth be told. Anyway, as he has mentioned before, there was no real band chemistry when he was in the band. It basically WAS three different bands.

I think that's true - Peter never felt stretched by the band, except occasionally when he was inspired by Danny. Jeremy did his own non-progressive thing almost entirely, and Peter was certainly frustrated that John and Mick added no creative energy to the mix. And I also think that whatever it was that Peter wanted from the band wasn't realistically attainable anyway, i.e. musical progression that satisfied his massive thirst but with a level of success that wasn't so great that it smothered him. No band could have happily provided him with that.

chiliD

05-29-2005, 12:45 AM

Also, they went from blues to pop when Stevie and Lindsey joined and that also helped in their success. Blues is more obscure and selective than pop and FM's style of music in 1975 was really timely. I wouldn't take anything away from the old FM because Peter Green was greatness, but I don't know how far they would have gone in terms of top ten hits if Stevie and Lindsey hadn't joined. Would they have even thought to switch their format/genre to pop? Probably not. They would have continued doing the blues and their success would have remained selective.

The BIGGEST fallacy of the whole thing is the MAJOR, MAJOR misconception that Fleetwood Mac was a blues band right up until Stevie & Lindsey joined. As SteveMacD pointed out, they'd stopped being a blues band WAY before Peter Green left. The things that Danny Kirwan contributed to Then Play On, and definitely the three albums he was on after that, weren't blues...his contributions were more of a folk/rock/pop vein. ("Although The Sun Is Shining", "My Dream", "Station Man", "Dust", "Woman Of A 1000 Years", "Sunny Side Of Heaven", etc). Peter had gone way away from blues...(see examples provided by SMacD). Jeremy's contributions to Kiln House were basically the old R&R parodies and he had not just shuffled, but SPRINTED away from doing the Elmore James type copies. Other than Peter's "Showbiz Blues", there's not a strict blues tune to be found on Then Play On...or actually any album thereafter (before you crucify me, the Blues At Chess album was recorded BEFORE Then Play On, but not released until after.) Fleetwood Mac was in FULL "pop" mode by Bare Trees a full three years (and three incarnations) before Stevie & Lindsey joined.

I think now people associate FM with Stevie. Lindsey, too, but not as much. I don't think they can go backwards. An FM without Stevie Nicks? Really iffy. Therefore, I think Stevie is necessary to FM's future success, if they should decide to continue at all.

Maybe NOW that MIGHT be true, but Fleetwood Mac doesn't really have the big "hit potential" anymore, even WITH Stevie & Lindsey. How much airplay did anything from SYW or Stevie's TISL get in the past two years? Almost zilch. If they'd released those same songs in, oh, let's say, 1981 or 82, I think there'd be 4 or 5 top 10 singles off each album...but now, Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks are considered "old artists" just milking past glories. (why that is revered by people in the case of the Rolling Stones & the Eagles, but not Fleetwood Mac, I'm at a loss). Sure, they draw great for their concerts, but big album sales & frequent airplay (for any NEW material) have passed 'em by...radio programmers will only play white album & Rumours tracks (rarely even anything from Tusk, Mirage or TitN...except occasionally "Gypsy")

The biggest mistake of the Time era was that Mick didn't push that incarnation to find their own identity as Fleetwood Mac. He pushed them to be a Fleetwood Mac tribute band, basically. If they'd have played their OWN songs in concert, rather than filling the set with Fleetwood Mac's past hits (and Dave Mason's solo hits), I think we might have seen a whole different outcome. Again, that's just playing "what if" and buying into alternative history, but "hindsight is 20/20" right? But, the thing is, the responses they got from MORE than a majority of the audiences was VERY positive. Mick just pulled the plug on that incarnation way too soon...they'd stopped touring before the album even came out. Had they kept touring to push the album, I think the overall perception of the Time album would be quite a bit different. But, maybe not...by 1994/95, all things "Fleetwood Mac" were uncool & really considered passe'

The SYW tour did pretty well without Christine, but I'll bet they lost a few fans, meaning that when some concert-goers found out Christine wasn't with them, they decided to pass. When I bought SYW less than 24 hours after it had been released, I bought it used. There were already a few copies that had been bought and returned and put in the used section, but played like new. They had obviously been played only once. That was really telling to me. Without Stevie, I think I would have found a lot more used copies in that bin. :nod: Hard to say about Lindsey..

I got my SYW used, too...and there were three or four copies in the bin when I bought mine. And, I saw multiple copies of VBoFM in the used bins as well. I don't see copies of Behind The Mask or Time in used bins very often.

I think the main reason Fleetwood Mac's "star" has lost so much of its lustre is that they have impeccably BAD timing (as far as marketing). It shouldn't have taken 5 YEARS from the momentum of The Dance popularity to almost completely wane before releasing SYW. Lindsey should've been forced to make up his mind to either release his solo album or meld it into a Fleetwood Mac project before the end of summer 1998. But, no, Stevie Nicks went and sabbotaged that by TOURING in support of a friggin' BOX SET, then doing a solo album AND touring after THAT, putting Fleetwood Mac on "hold" for 2 or 3 more years.

So, for as much "good" that Stevie & Lindsey BROUGHT to Fleetwood Mac initially (1975-1980), over the long haul, they've actually been the WORST thing to ever happen to Fleetwood Mac. Imagine how much MORE Fleetwood Mac music there'd be today if both Stevie & Lindsey would've both gone off on permanent solo careers after the Tusk tour? Fleetwood Mac would've carried on with others and Stevie & Lindsey would have released more albums each without being bound to Fleetwood Mac. It would've been the best thing for all concerned.

Johnny Stew

05-29-2005, 01:10 AM

It shouldn't have taken 5 YEARS from the momentum of The Dance popularity to almost completely wane before releasing SYW.
But, no, Stevie Nicks went and sabbotaged that by TOURING in support of a friggin' BOX SET, then doing a solo album AND touring after THAT, putting Fleetwood Mac on "hold" for 2 or 3 more years.Steve, my friend... the problem with that argument, is that there was no guarantee that Fleetwood Mac was going to continue after 'The Dance.'
Christine had told them once and for all that she was done with touring, and wasn't at all sure that she wanted to record either.
Plus, Lindsey still intended to release 'Gift Of Screws.'

Seems unreasonable to expect Stevie to just sit around her house and hope that the phone might ring.

Heck, by the time the finishing touches were being put on 'TISL,' Lindsey was still telling Rolling Stone that he hadn't quite made up his mind yet on whether or not to fold his solo work over to a Mac project.

Stevie was wise to not squander the goodwill created by the 'Dance' tour, and, if anything, she helped keep FM's name in the press during the band's downtime, since every single interview she did for both 'Enchanted' and 'TISL' included optimistic discussion of Fleetwood Mac's future.

She's not Yoko, bro... she didn't kill your favorite band. ;)

dudden22

05-29-2005, 01:22 AM

But, no, Stevie Nicks went and sabbotaged that by TOURING in support of a friggin' BOX SET, then doing a solo album AND touring after THAT, putting Fleetwood Mac on "hold" for 2 or 3 more years.

Stevie has been nothing but committed to FM, was it her that walked out right before a world tour like a five year old, I did not think so!!
You have got to be kidding me :laugh: She would be a fool to sit and wait around for fm to get is sh*t together and make an album. Further more, aren't you in agreement with the argument that FM would do as well without her. Doesn't that defeat your argument?

lagringader&r

05-29-2005, 04:15 AM

If they'd released those same songs in, oh, let's say, 1981 or 82, I think there'd be 4 or 5 top 10 singles off each album...but now, Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks are considered "old artists" just milking past glories. (why that is revered by people in the case of the Rolling Stones & the Eagles, but not Fleetwood Mac, I'm at a loss). Sure, they draw great for their concerts, but big album sales & frequent airplay (for any NEW material) have passed 'em by...radio programmers will only play white album & Rumours tracks (rarely even anything from Tusk, Mirage or TitN...except occasionally "Gypsy")
I've never understood that either. Sometimes it seems that the Stones or the Eagles are almost looked at as *current* bands, but FM is not. I think they were on their way back after the Dance. They gained new fans and recognition. Christine's leaving the band hurt them and there's no getting around that. They also waited too long, as you said. They should have had another cd out within two years max.

The biggest mistake of the Time era was that Mick didn't push that incarnation to find their own identity as Fleetwood Mac. He pushed them to be a Fleetwood Mac tribute band, basically. If they'd have played their OWN songs in concert, rather than filling the set with Fleetwood Mac's past hits (and Dave Mason's solo hits), I think we might have seen a whole different outcome. Again, that's just playing "what if" and buying into alternative history, but "hindsight is 20/20" right? But, the thing is, the responses they got from MORE than a majority of the audiences was VERY positive. Mick just pulled the plug on that incarnation way too soon...they'd stopped touring before the album even came out. Had they kept touring to push the album, I think the overall perception of the Time album would be quite a bit different. But, maybe not...by 1994/95, all things "Fleetwood Mac" were uncool & really considered passe'
I agree with this. Why put together a *new* FM and turn them into a cover band of the old one? Mick royally screwed up if he wanted them to be the next phase of FM. Was he expecting another Rumours phenomenon? The comparisons between the two incarnations were probably impossible for him to ignore and he just didn't get that this new FM was going to have to kick some major ass on their own.

I think the main reason Fleetwood Mac's "star" has lost so much of its lustre is that they have impeccably BAD timing (as far as marketing). It shouldn't have taken 5 YEARS from the momentum of The Dance popularity to almost completely wane before releasing SYW. Lindsey should've been forced to make up his mind to either release his solo album or meld it into a Fleetwood Mac project before the end of summer 1998. But, no, Stevie Nicks went and sabbotaged that by TOURING in support of a friggin' BOX SET, then doing a solo album AND touring after THAT, putting Fleetwood Mac on "hold" for 2 or 3 more years.
*Ahem* This, I have to take issue with. Stevie didn't sabotage anything. She's had her career with FM and her solo career for over twenty years now. She had every right, and probably contractual reasons as well, to do her own thing while FM was on hiatus. Why were they on hiatus? Well, it was Stevie's understanding that Lindsey was planning to release his own solo cd and possibly tour in support of that. Now I know that he rarely finishes what he starts before a decade ends, but that's not her fault. If he's flaky, that's not her fault. She moved on with her life and her career and in the meantime, Lindsey and his management made the decision to nix his solo project and merge again with FM. And Stevie was right there with them, writing all new material. She didn't put FM on hold. I don't think anyone can be accused of doing that, but I'd be more apt to point that finger at Lindsey for not getting his s**t together within a reasonable period of time.

I do agree that they waited too long. Whose fault that is, I don't know. Maybe a combination of the three songwriters. Christine left the band, which threw a monkey wrench into everything, Lindsey tinkered with his solo project before making his decision to nix it and Stevie carried on with her solo career. Laying the blame solely on her is a little unfair, don't you think?

strandinthewind

05-29-2005, 09:50 AM

Interestingly, to my knowledge, there were no concrete plans for a FM record immediately after The Dance. It apparently took Warner Reprise showing little interest in his solo record that he had been working on for like eight years. That is when FM then came into the pic. and La Nicks moved on from that awhile back. I think she can hardly be blamed for following LB's cue and going after her solo career. I also think WB was stupid because though I realize the draw of FM is way more than LB solo, GOS was good stuff and I think it would have sold fairly well. But, history did not play out that way.

Kelly

05-30-2005, 06:53 AM

Christine is the one who pulled out after 40 Dance shows and moved back to England. Stevie hardly sabotaged the ability for FM to capitalize on the success of the Dance.
According to Stevie, the four of them hardly seriously entertained the thought of continuing on with FM without Christine until they played for Bill Clinton in 2000. She implies in several interviews that they were all sort or waiting, hoping Christine would change her mind. Should she have sat home, doing nothing, for a few years, hoping Christine would come back? Yes, they missed the boat when it came to capitalizing on the Dance but to blame Stevie is unfair.

diamondsnake

05-30-2005, 11:55 AM

SteveMacD

05-30-2005, 11:03 PM

In terms of post-Dance to SYW, I tend to agree that it's not totally Stevie's fault for the long wait. She was doing what she had to do to get by. I don't think her solo tours helped the situation, but I don't really think the band knew what they were doing in terms of being Fleetwood Mac. THE biggest issue was Christine's status being in question. I think they were waiting to see if she would change her mind, which became obvious that she wasn't going to do so in January, 2001. By that time, work on TISL was almost done, so Stevie would have been a fool NOT to tour. At most, though, SYW would have only come out a year or so earlier. But then you have to factor in Lindsey's constant debate as to whether he'd release his work solo or as part of a Fleetwood Mac album. Lindsey seems to have a hard time making definate descisions. The one thing we can say for sure is that the length in time was not the fault of Mick or John.

johnny4406

05-31-2005, 08:45 AM

Why did Lindsey not have a single from the White Album? :wavey: I'm guessing "Blue Letter" was the choice that never came through?

chiliD

05-31-2005, 10:20 AM

Well, both "Monday Morning" ("Say You Love Me") & "I'm So Afraid" ("Over My Head") WERE single B-sides; and those were the only two solely Lindsey penned tunes from the white album.

strandinthewind

05-31-2005, 10:45 AM

Well, both "Monday Morning" ("Say You Love Me") & "I'm So Afraid" ("Over My Head") WERE single B-sides; and those were the only two solely Lindsey penned tunes from the white album.

On the reissue if FM FM - wans't there a Blue Letter single version. Maybe it was the VBOFM. I think I remember seeing one, but I cannot check right now and could be mistaken.

ontheEdgeof17

05-31-2005, 11:17 AM

On the reissue if FM FM - wans't there a Blue Letter single version.

:nod: Yup. The "single version" of Blue Letter is included on the White Album Reissue. I think it was a contender for release in the UK, but I dunno about the US.

strandinthewind

05-31-2005, 12:30 PM

:nod: Yup. The "single version" of Blue Letter is included on the White Album Reissue. I think it was a contender for release in the UK, but I dunno about the US.

Thanks - I thought it was on FM FM the reissue!!!!!!!!!

johnny4406

05-31-2005, 12:44 PM

Its weird that they didnt release a lindsey song as a single

David

05-31-2005, 02:37 PM

Its weird that they didnt release a lindsey song as a singleChristine used to say she was always surprised by the choice of "Over My Head" & even more so "Rhiannon" as the singles. She didn't think the former was anything more than a ditty, & the latter was regarded as just weird by the band.

lagringader&r

05-31-2005, 02:49 PM

Christine used to say she was always surprised by the choice of "Over My Head" & even more so "Rhiannon" as the singles. She didn't think the former was anything more than a ditty, & the latter was regarded as just weird by the band.

:laugh:

They're so modest. I really do love Christine! :xoxo: And, she's right. OMH is a ditty and Rhiannon is weird. That's why I love Stevie. She's not afraid to step into the weirdness zone and not sound like every other pop artist out there. If she did, I wouldn't be a fan today. :thumbsup:

The Tower

05-31-2005, 03:18 PM

I've never understood that either. Sometimes it seems that the Stones or the Eagles are almost looked at as *current* bands, but FM is not.
Sadly, I think that the public at large considers the Eagles and the Stones to be real (read: masculine) rock bands, whereas FM is perceived as a "chick band". I think that's a lame assessment, but I believe that perception has dogged them for a long time. The hard core "dudes" continue to follow the Stones and the Eagles- with the Stones continuing to pick up new fans (similar to Led Zep). I think FM's rock image got muddled by Rock A Little, TOSOTM and Lindsey's neurotic weirdness.

Even with that in mind, the Stones and the Eagles have not been singles chart toppers in a long, long time. The Stones new albums generally debut well and then drop from the top twenty fairly quickly. Both bands are all about touring these days anyways.

At least FM released a fresh album, instead of a reason to tour. I think Lindsey's track order killed the album.

strandinthewind

05-31-2005, 03:34 PM

. . . I think Lindsey's track order killed the album.

Yep - that and the fact that it was too long for most people and he, though I mostly love his work, think his production of La Nicks was somewhat lackluster even in the incorporation of her into his own songs. I can never seem to like that mech. voice he used for her in many of her songs and his. OY!

ontheEdgeof17

05-31-2005, 03:43 PM

Yep - that and the fact that it was too long for most people and he, though I mostly love his work, think his production of La Nicks was somewhat lackluster even in the incorporation of her into his own songs. I can never seem to like that mech. voice he used for her in many of her songs and his. OY!

Wayyyyy to much time on your hands, kills songs, IMO. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Leave it be without having to add 13 guitar overdubs on one track. SYW would have been a greater album than it was. Lyrically, it rocks my socks. Production wise, it's overdone.

As my high school teacher once said, "KISS! Keep It Simple Stupid."

The Tower

05-31-2005, 04:12 PM

Yep - that and the fact that it was too long for most people and he, though I mostly love his work, think his production of La Nicks was somewhat lackluster even in the incorporation of her into his own songs. I can never seem to like that mech. voice he used for her in many of her songs and his. OY!
I think the length of the album would have been fine if more attractive songs were at the front. The attention span of today's Britney public can't wait for catchy material. "Murrow" in the #2 slot??!?! What was he thinking???

To address the topic of this thread (which I did not do), I don't think FM would have had the same level of success without Stevie and Lindsey. I have a feeling that Chris & John would have divorced and that would have been the end of it. I'm sure that Mick and John would have continued in some fashion, but it wouldn't have been successful.

SteveMacD

05-31-2005, 04:35 PM

amber

05-31-2005, 04:36 PM

Uh, if Murrow and Come weren't on there, I'd be hella pissed. And you can keep this version of Bleed to Love Her. :nod: I mean, keep it to yourself, off the album.

SteveMacD

05-31-2005, 04:43 PM

Uh, if Murrow and Come weren't on there, I'd be hella pissed. And you can keep this version of Bleed to Love Her. :nod: I mean, keep it to yourself, off the album.
As I said, I would miss a few songs. I personally think "Murrow" and "Come" would have been better kept on a Lindsey solo album, where being oddball is a good thing. If we could move Lindsey's Mac and solo songs around for this album, I personally would have put "Down On Rodeo" over BTLH, "Murrow," AND "Come." But, the ONE reason to keep BTLH, especially this version, is that it's one of only two that features Christine's vocals. I think they need to keep it as close to the Big Mac as possible.

SteveMacD

05-31-2005, 04:56 PM

To address the topic of this thread (which I did not do), I don't think FM would have had the same level of success without Stevie and Lindsey.
A point that I haven't disagreed with. :)
I have a feeling that Chris & John would have divorced and that would have been the end of it. I'm sure that Mick and John would have continued in some fashion, but it wouldn't have been successful.
I don't know if Chris and John would have divorced. They might have wanted to, but I think one reason they stayed together for so long is that both were financially dependent on one another. Because once there was money, Chris was gone!

Now, if Mick and John continued, which I'm sure they would have, I too doubt that it would have been very successful. However, I think a lot of it depends on who they got. I COULD easily see a situation where Clapton would have joined them to take pressure off of him, as he was still in a fragile place in 1975. He had only made his comeback a year earlier, and was having some difficulites playing star. Being in an actual band COULD have eased some of the burdons a bit. Mick and John, by 1975, were as versitle in musical styles as Clapton, so they could do whatever he needed musically speaking, so it COULD have easily worked out and been huge. I doubt it would have been on the same level as "Rumours," but then how many studio albums really were? There are only a handful that have sold more than "Rumours," so it's safe to say that it's mostly the exception.

amber

05-31-2005, 05:05 PM

But, the ONE reason to keep BTLH, especially this version, is that it's one of only two that features Christine's vocals. I think they need to keep it as close to the Big Mac as possible.
I don't want anything on Lindsey's solo records, because that means I will never hear it. :laugh: And I think just because Christine is on BTLH is a poor reason to keep a poor version of a good song on an album when it was just on their last album. So christine is on it, so what? It's still a sucky repeat. IMO.

ThePenguin

05-31-2005, 05:48 PM

I don't know if Chris and John would have divorced. They might have wanted to, but I think one reason they stayed together for so long is that both were financially dependent on one another. Because once there was money, Chris was gone!

LOL well, yes, sort of. ;) However it's also true that she did initially only file for a legal separation-- defined in part as:

"Legal separation is a formal judgment issued by a court of law that all the issues concerning a marriage have been resolved (including distribution of property, attorney fees, and personal conduct) with the exception of marital status...A legal separation is desired to set the parameters for dealing with one another while living separate and apart while maintaining the status of being married, and leaving the door open for a reunion/resumption of marriage. Legal separation is not a prerequisite to divorce (dissolution of marriage)."

So this basically shows that Chris was apparently well aware of the $ that was now flowing in to a marriage that was (and had been) rocky for some time. Hence she figured it probably made sense to split what they had sooner rather than later, "just in case"-- and when they did actually divorce, the fact that $ was not really an issue must have made things a bit easier.

However it might also be noted that she could have just filed for divorce right off the bat, but she didn't.
-Lis

The Tower

05-31-2005, 05:50 PM

I don't want anything on Lindsey's solo records, because that means I will never hear it. :laugh: And I think just because Christine is on BTLH is a poor reason to keep a poor version of a good song on an album when it was just on their last album. So christine is on it, so what? It's still a sucky repeat. IMO.
Yeah, I totally agree. The inclusion of that song was a lame decision.

macfan 57

05-31-2005, 06:09 PM

LOL well, yes, sort of. ;) However it's also true that she did initially only file for a legal separation-- defined in part as:

"Legal separation is a formal judgment issued by a court of law that all the issues concerning a marriage have been resolved (including distribution of property, attorney fees, and personal conduct) with the exception of marital status...A legal separation is desired to set the parameters for dealing with one another while living separate and apart while maintaining the status of being married, and leaving the door open for a reunion/resumption of marriage. Legal separation is not a prerequisite to divorce (dissolution of marriage)."

So this basically shows that Chris was apparently well aware of the $ that was now flowing in to a marriage that was (and had been) rocky for some time. Hence she figured it probably made sense to split what they had sooner rather than later, "just in case"-- and when they did actually divorce, the fact that $ was not really an issue must have made things a bit easier.

However it might also be noted that she could have just filed for divorce right off the bat, but she didn't.
-Lis

I never thought about that. I guess that means that John didn't get a share of her Rumours income(which was huge) since she filed for a separation in 1975, but didn't get divorced until 1978. That's pretty shrewd. Remember in the Q & A, John made a somewhat joking reference to the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement?

ThePenguin

05-31-2005, 08:07 PM

I never thought about that. I guess that means that John didn't get a share of her Rumours income(which was huge) since she filed for a separation in 1975, but didn't get divorced until 1978. That's pretty shrewd.

I suppose she might be called a sound financial planner. :p I think they split the proceeds from the house, and I guess whatever was in the bank...which was probably not all that much, compared to the fortune she later made from her songwriting royalties. I think I've heard that w/ CA law at that time it took about a year for a divorce to become final (but I'm not sure if this is true?) but if it is, then she filed for divorce just around the release of Rumours, in early 1977-- after a pretty long (about 18 mos) 'legal separation'.

Remember in the Q & A, John made a somewhat joking reference to the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement?

Yeah, he did indeed. When they got married, HE was the star w/ the bigger bank account! ;) Although his other comment about 'You want a what?' struck me as more sad than funny, when you think about what he was referring to. :distress:

-Lis

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 04:25 AM

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 05:01 AM

You people who want to cut down SYW are weird.

You really wish we got less songs? I want all the tunes I can get. There's always the skip button for the ones I don't like (which is none).
The album was too much at once and it just didn't flow well. I think the band should have released SYW as I suggested (maybe with "Down On Rodeo" replacing "Bleed...") and then release a second album about a year later (which would include "Bleed..." so that Chris would still get a credit on the ablum). It's not like they didn't have the material in the can already. This would have satisfied Lindsey's desire to do a double album, while still being practical. It could have even made their tour somewhat more interesting. In the end, we would have had two new Mac albums that would have each been just right in length with better flow between songs.
You do realise that album has probably got to do us for the next 10 years? :laugh:
Hence why I wish they would have done the above suggestion.

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 07:22 AM

The album was too much at once and it just didn't flow well.

I respectfully disagree. The album is perfect as it is.
I also don't think if they had decided to cut more songs from SYW we'd see them so soon (if at all) in the form of a second album.

chiliD

06-01-2005, 08:47 AM

I tend to agree that SYW was too long. They could have EASILY cut it down to twelve songs, and it would have been much more cohesive album that one could listen to in one sitting. I think they forgot that sometimes less is more. On a purely pop basis, here are the songs I would have released, only because they're the kind of songs that stick in one's head after a couple of listenings, which is exactly what makes for a great pop album:

What's The World Coming To
Thrown Down
Miranda
Say You Will
Peacekeeper
Destiny Rules
Smile At You
Steal Your Heart Away
Running Through The Garden
Bleed To Love Her
Say Goodbye
Goodbye Baby

While I would personally miss a few songs (like "Come"), I think that the above is a much stronger album overall than what was released.

I agree that SYW could've been shorter (one of the common themes of every review of the album), but I think a lot also had to do with its tracking order.

As for the "shortened" version, I differ as to WHICH songs should've/could've been cut. Some of Lindsey's "quirky" should stay.

My "12" (and running order):

Say You Will
Red Rover
Thrown Down
Come
Smile At You
Steal Your Heart Away

Peacekeeper
Illume
Murrow
Destiny Rules
Bleed To Love Her
Goodbye Baby

shackin'up

06-01-2005, 09:17 AM

You people who want to cut down SYW are weird.

You really wish we got less songs? I want all the tunes I can get. There's always the skip button for the ones I don't like (which is none).

I agree!
But I understand the problems with the running order. I'm still convinced that that got all mixed up in the single-double-album-war. I really believe that SYW would have been a fabulous album in "albumfeel" if they could have cut it up in two discs with 11/12 songs each.....

but released as one package, stevemacd! :thumbsup:

johnny4406

06-01-2005, 09:32 AM

I agree!
But I understand the problems with the running order. I'm still convinced that that got all mixed up in the single-double-album-war. I really believe that SYW would have been a fabulous album in "albumfeel" if they could have cut it up in two discs with 11/12 songs each.....

but released as one package, stevemacd! :thumbsup:

First of all "Miranda" "Illume" "Silver Girl" suck

What's the world coming to
Say You Will
Peacekeeper
Thrown Down
Murrow
Smile At You
Running Through the Garden
Steel Your Heart Away
Bleed to love her
Red Rover
Everybody finds out
Destiny Rules
Say Goodbye
Goodbye Baby

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 10:32 AM

First of all "Miranda" "Illume" "Silver Girl" suck

No they don't. And there's plenty here who agree with me.
Fine if you think the running order could be improved or that it would work better as two albums, but, I must say, it's not a particularly great argument just to say the band should cut the songs you don't like :rolleyes:

chiliD

06-01-2005, 10:57 AM

No they don't. And there's plenty here who agree with me.

{raises hand} :thumbsup:

Fine if you think the running order could be improved or that it would work better as two albums, but, I must say, it's not a particularly great argument just to say the band should cut the songs you don't like :rolleyes:

Actually, to my ears, only "Running Through The Garden" is totally "drop-able", but even saying that, I'd never say "it sucks". I just think it would've worked better on a Stevie Nicks solo album.

And, with "My 12", it wasn't exactly easy dropping 5 of the remaining 6 tunes. :cool:

Miranda
Everybody Finds Out
What's The World Coming To?
Say Goodbye
Silver Girl

...are among my faves from the album...but, I think would've been the most expendable if they'd gone the 12 song album route.

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 11:00 AM

...are among my faves from the album...but, I think would've been the most expendable if they'd gone the 12 song album route.

I wonder if releasing just 12 tracks was ever discussed? I guess it must have been hard to cut it down from a double to a single disc.

I totally agree about RTTG btw. It does sound more like a solo Stevie track. I still love it though.

dissention

06-01-2005, 11:04 AM

You people who want to cut down SYW are weird.

You really wish we got less songs? I want all the tunes I can get. There's always the skip button for the ones I don't like (which is none).

You do realise that album has probably got to do us for the next 10 years? :laugh:

No ****!

I'm of the belief that SYW is a bloated mess (with fantastic songs, though) and that it has no cohesion or even a hint of any thought having gone into it as a final product. But there's no way that I would ever prefer 12 songs over 18 songs. That's just absurd. I'll take as much as I can get, as a consumer and as a fan.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 11:24 AM

No ****!

I'm of the belief that SYW is a bloated mess (with fantastic songs, though) and that it has no cohesion or even a hint of any thought having gone into it as a final product. But there's no way that I would ever prefer 12 songs over 18 songs. That's just absurd. I'll take as much as I can get, as a consumer and as a fan.

I agree and wish they had done a double record with 30 songs. But, my point was that the record buying community as a whole would not go for that.

Interestingly, I think they could have done two sep. records and released them six months to a year apart - I mean they were already on tour and it is not like SYW burned up the charts for them to have had to promote it :shrug:

chiliD

06-01-2005, 12:01 PM

I mean they were already on tour and it is not like SYW burned up the charts for them to have had to promote it :shrug:

According to their set list, they were STILL promoting Rumours, not SYW.

David

06-01-2005, 12:05 PM

But, my point was that the record buying community as a whole would not go for that.As usual, I don't know what everybody's talking about. Record sales? Aesthetic cohesion?

NOTHING would have made SYW sell more. It wouldn't have mattered if it had been a five-album package, a two-album package, a single-album package, or a collection of brass coasters. To hear Fleetwood Mac argue over one disc vs. two was pretty wild & pretty amusing.

The kids who DIDN'T buy SYW refrained from doing so NOT because it was too long or too short or too this or too that: they refrained from doing so because THEY DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT A GEEZER ROCK BAND that means NOTHING to them or their friends. Get real, folks. It wouldn't have sold 3 million if it had been a "manageable" 12 tracks -- that would have had no effect on its sales at all. The people who bought SYW didn't tell their friends, "Oh, don't buy it because it's too unwieldy, too much music, too variable, too much for a pleasurable listening experience yabba-dabba-doo." And their friends didn't say, "Oh, well thanks for the advice." Their friends, if they said anything at all, probably said, "I wasn't gonna buy that **** anyway. Why are you telling me this? I'm buying System of a Down & maybe the Ying Yang Twins."

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 12:07 PM

HomerMcvie

06-01-2005, 12:08 PM

I've said a 1000 times that they should've cut SYW down to 12 songs, and PUT the extra songs on the BONUS disc.
Result? The fans still get all the songs, but SYW comes out as a MUCH more cohesive effort(which might've resulted in more sales). My friend heard Come, and GAVE me her deluxe cd(I hadn't bought it yet). She absolutely HATED it. :shocked:

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 12:11 PM

I've said a 1000 times that they should've cut SYW down to 12 songs, and PUT the extra songs on the BONUS disc.

That just sounds like a double album to me.

HomerMcvie

06-01-2005, 12:17 PM

That just sounds like a double album to me.
Didn't they sell TWO versions of SYW???????????(they DID, in case you missed that).
Helloooooooooooooooooooo? :lol:

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 12:21 PM

Didn't they sell TWO versions of SYW???????????(they DID, in case you missed that).
Helloooooooooooooooooooo? :lol:

:laugh: That's still a double album though :laugh:

HomerMcvie

06-01-2005, 12:27 PM

:laugh: That's still a double album though :laugh:
BUT, only the fanatics have to shell out for the second disc, which wouldn't have inhibited, pricewise, sales of the regular SYW disc. Tell me I'm wrong. :wavey:

chiliD

06-01-2005, 12:58 PM

:laugh: That's still a double album though :laugh:

Only in the same way Rumours is now a "double-album".

dudden22

06-01-2005, 01:07 PM

I think the only way Say You Will would have sold more is if Christine was on it. I do not think a shorter album would have made much of a difference in sales unless she was on it.

shackin'up

06-01-2005, 01:08 PM

They just should have anticipated the "alt.mainstream" market more and put out singles with more guts. Red Rover, Illume, Miranda, EFO. Songs that could have been a surprise and gain a new interest in stead of putting out safe work that sounds like Mac in the old days. Nobody's waiting on that.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 01:09 PM

I think the only way Say You Will would have sold more is if Christine was on it. I do not think a shorter album would have made much of a difference in sales unless she was on it.

She didn't help out BTM and Time.

...but I see where you are going with it. The five together is better PR than just 4....

chiliD

06-01-2005, 01:09 PM

Good point, but I think the reviews of SYW would've been better had it been shorter...most reviews I read really slammed its length as being a big negative thing.

Gailh

06-01-2005, 01:10 PM

I think the only way Say You Will would have sold more is if Christine was on it. I do not think a shorter album would have made much of a difference in sales unless she was on it.

Yes. It needed the Queen of Hits to contribute!

Gail

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 01:24 PM

As usual, I don't know what everybody's talking about. Record sales? Aesthetic cohesion?

NOTHING would have made SYW sell more. It wouldn't have mattered if it had been a five-album package, a two-album package, a single-album package, or a collection of brass coasters. To hear Fleetwood Mac argue over one disc vs. two was pretty wild & pretty amusing.

The kids who DIDN'T buy SYW refrained from doing so NOT because it was too long or too short or too this or too that: they refrained from doing so because THEY DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT A GEEZER ROCK BAND that means NOTHING to them or their friends. Get real, folks. It wouldn't have sold 3 million if it had been a "manageable" 12 tracks -- that would have had no effect on its sales at all. The people who bought SYW didn't tell their friends, "Oh, don't buy it because it's too unwieldy, too much music, too variable, too much for a pleasurable listening experience yabba-dabba-doo." And their friends didn't say, "Oh, well thanks for the advice." Their friends, if they said anything at all, probably said, "I wasn't gonna buy that **** anyway. Why are you telling me this? I'm buying System of a Down & maybe the Ying Yang Twins."

I agree with this 150%. My aunt, who is 52, turned me on to Stevie Nicks, but purely by accident. I'm 27 and the only reason I got into FM/Stevie was because it had some personal meaning for me. I was really f"*ked up at the time and something about Storms grabbed me. Then, the entire Tusk album. My aunt doesn't have a huge collection, so I went out and bought everything I could get my hands on and then ordered some on the net. But my friends all said "why are you listening to that sh*t?" We were all into metal or punk and I still am, but I listen to FM or Stevie more than anyone else. I am the exception. There's no way in hell I'm ever going to turn my friends on to them or her. To everyone else, other than FM diehard fans, they're a washed up, 70s band trying to capitalize on their *once* success and set up their retirement funds. If I told my friends, "oh, but it's cohesive" or "they kept it down to 12 songs" they would look at me like I was insane. I wish that more people could get out of them what I have but the truth is, FM's big ship has sailed and the ones who care now and go to concerts are either the ones like me who they've touched with their music or the ones like my aunt who grew up with it and want to hear their old favorites. The Dance helped them to an extent, but they're still considered *has-beens* by most people.

I love SYW because I'll take any new material however I can get it and in whatever form it's packaged, but I'm a big fan. To the *outside* listener, it was a mess and definitely not cohesive. Come would be laughable I think to someone other than a big fan. So would a lot of the others. They could have cleaned SYW up more and changed the running order or nixed some songs to make it flow better, but it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in sales if you're not already into FM.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 01:25 PM

Yes. It needed the Queen of Hits to contribute!

Gail

I do not think so because In the Meantime did not sell well at all :shrug: I mean I love CM, but I think there was no saving SYW even if she had been on it. I think, save for some fluke, FM's days of selling millions of records is over. Plus, SYHA had CM on it and it was a hat tip to the days when FM sold millions of records. Yet, even it could not save SYW. Also, Temp. One was not a hit off of The Dance and CM had had no hits of any significance since 1987, though As Long as You Follow, Save Me, and Skies the Limit did chart (I think). So, I think loyal Mac fans bought the record and the same or maybe a little more would have if CM had been there.

Note - I mean no slam on CM - I am just calling it as I see it.

On edit - the five together though would have made a better record - they always do when it is the five.

HomerMcvie

06-01-2005, 01:27 PM

I think the only way Say You Will would have sold more is if Christine was on it. I do not think a shorter album would have made much of a difference in sales unless she was on it.
Amen brother!!! Preach the gospel!!!! :nod: :nod: :nod:

Gailh

06-01-2005, 01:51 PM

I do not think so because In the Meantime did not sell well at all :shrug: I mean I love CM, but I think there was no saving SYW even if she had been on it. I think, save for some fluke, FM's days of selling millions of records is over. Plus, SYHA had CM on it and it was a hat tip to the days when FM sold millions of records. Yet, even it could not save SYW. Also, Temp. One was not a hit off of The Dance and CM had had no hits of any significance since 1987, though As Long as You Follow, Save Me, and Skies the Limit did chart (I think). So, I think loyal Mac fans bought the record and the same or maybe a little more would have if CM had been there.

Note - I mean no slam on CM - I am just calling it as I see it.

On edit - the five together though would have made a better record - they always do when it is the five.

I think SYW was too long given the fact that there were only two songwriters. With Christine on board they could have kept the same number of songs but there would have been the balance that (IMO) was missing from SYW.

what a pity they sacked her! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gail

dudden22

06-01-2005, 01:51 PM

On edit - the five together though would have made a better record - they always do when it is the five.

That is all I meant, their albums have never done as well without all five. It is just not the same.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:00 PM

. . .

what a pity they sacked her! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gail

Yep - like Donald Trump - LB screamed in his singing voice (which are one in the same) YOU'RE FIRED while La Nicks hit her on the head repeatedly with her tambourine saying "you are no longer an emerald sister of Rhiannon," Mick asked what day it was with white powder on his lip, and John said FINALLY and GOOD RIDDENCE :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh:

chiliD

06-01-2005, 02:18 PM

I do not think so because In the Meantime did not sell well at all :shrug: I mean I love CM, but I think there was no saving SYW even if she had been on it. I think, save for some fluke, FM's days of selling millions of records is over. Plus, SYHA had CM on it and it was a hat tip to the days when FM sold millions of records. Yet, even it could not save SYW. Also, Temp. One was not a hit off of The Dance and CM had had no hits of any significance since 1987, though As Long as You Follow, Save Me, and Skies the Limit did chart (I think). So, I think loyal Mac fans bought the record and the same or maybe a little more would have if CM had been there.

Note - I mean no slam on CM - I am just calling it as I see it.

On edit - the five together though would have made a better record - they always do when it is the five.

Disagree. In The Meantime was released on a relatively small label, with only minimal promotion. Had the album been released on WB (like her 1984 album), there would've been a lot more promotion.

Plus, with "the five" doing a whole album of new material, it would've been more of "an event" with all five of the Rumours crew been on board. More attention to both album & tour. More airplay of the new material, etc.

Airplay = sales.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:21 PM

Disagree. In The Meantime was released on a relatively small label, with only minimal promotion. Had the album been released on WB (like her 1984 album), there would've been a lot more promotion.

Plus, with "the five" doing a whole album of new material, it would've been more of "an event" with all five of the Rumours crew been on board. More attention to both album & tour. More airplay of the new material, etc.

Airplay = sales.

I agree, but I was just noting that no one, save us loons, was chomping at the bit to get new material from her and it was advertised here a little. I fully agree that if SYW had had the five on it, it would have had a better, though still slim, chance of being a mega hit - though this is all speculation.

chiliD

06-01-2005, 02:24 PM

It'll be interesting to see how the upcoming new Eagles album of all new material fares. I'm anticipating a big let down.

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:24 PM

I agree, but I was just noting that no one, save us loons, was chomping at the bit to get new material from her and it was advertised here a little. I fully agree that if SYW had had the five on it, it would have had a better, though still slim, chance of being a mega hit - though this is all speculation.

No one was exactly chomping at the bit for the Buckingham Nicks, pseudo-Fleetwood Mac album that came out two years ago, either. No one but us fans really chomp at anything released by any of them.

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:27 PM

It'll be interesting to see how the upcoming new Eagles album of all new material fares. I'm anticipating a big let down.

Materialwise or saleswise? If it's anything like Hole In the World, expect both. :laugh:

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:33 PM

No one was exactly chomping at the bit for the Buckingham Nicks, pseudo-Fleetwood Mac album that came out two years ago, either. No one but us fans really chomp at anything released by any of them.

Well, it still sold like 800,000 or so copies and THAT was after two disasterous live performances on national t.v. :shrug:

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:37 PM

Well, it still sold like 800,000 or so copies and THAT was after two disasterous live performances on national t.v. :shrug:

You think 800,000 copies is a big success and indicates that many people were chomping at the bit for new Mac album? I think not. Their first week sales were a huge success, and then it dropped off the charts (not as quickly as TISL, though). Their days of successfully selling records have been over since Tango (or The Dance, but that success was because of pure nostalgia).

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 02:38 PM

Well, it still sold like 800,000 or so copies and THAT was after two disasterous live performances on national t.v. :shrug:

I loved the GYOW/Peacekeeper intro in the same song on TODAY. :cool:

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:39 PM

You think 800,000 copies is a big success and indicates that many people were chomping at the bit for new Mac album? I think not. Their first week sales were a huge success, and then it dropped off the charts (not as quickly as TISL, though). Their days of successfully selling records have been over since Tango (or The Dance, but that success was because of pure nostalgia).

Compared to 50,000 that she sold (was that the number) it is eons more chomping :laugh:

Plus, I think I made it clear "FM's days of selling millions of records is over" :shrug:

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:42 PM

Compared to 50,000 that she sold (was that the number) it is eons more chomping :laugh:

I thought that ChiliD already explained that to you. :shrug: People weren't "chomping at the bit" because they didn't know it was out there.

No promotion = low sales.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 02:42 PM

Compared to 50,000 that she sold (was that the number) it is eons more chomping :laugh:

Plus, I think I made it clear "FM's days of selling millions of records is over" :shrug:

I takes one song to make or break an album in it's first week. It takes the other 11 or so to keep it on the charts. Peacekeeper was a bad first single, and the running order killed it from selling more. What casual fan would want to listen past Murrow?

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:43 PM

I loved the GYOW/Peacekeeper intro in the same song on TODAY. :cool:

Oy. If I wasn't a fan and had just tuned into Today and Leno to see who Fleetwood Mac was, I would have gone running for earplugs.

jbrownsjr

06-01-2005, 02:46 PM

Oy. If I wasn't a fan and had just tuned into Today and Leno to see who Fleetwood Mac was, I would have gone running for earplugs.

i agree 10893409384092384029380938049238034928%

those vocals were scary

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:49 PM

i agree 10893409384092384029380938049238034928%

those vocals were scary

It sounded like karaoke night at The Apollo. You would never listen to those performances and believe for a second that Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham actually have careers as singers. :laugh:

David

06-01-2005, 02:49 PM

There's no way in hell I'm ever going to turn my friends on to them or her. To everyone else, other than FM diehard fans, they're a washed up, 70s band trying to capitalize on their *once* success and set up their retirement funds. Come would be laughable I think to someone other than a big fan."Come" is pretty laughable to the typical teen today. Our perspective as Mac fans is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo different from that of the half-naked kids jammed together on the beach, wriggling to 50 Cent or Trick Daddy & Lil' Kim while MTV cameras are filming another installment of "Spring Break."

"Promotion" is not just a single blanket term with the same equivalence in all instances, either. Promotion is a bunch of different things: Fleetwood Mac shooting a video of "Peacekeeper" is promotion & Gwen Stefani baring her ripped abs in a performance on the Grammys is also promotion. Which "promotion" do you think is going to translate into substantial sales? I mean, d'uh, George, right?

In fact, the "Spring Break" context is a far more accurate gauge of popularity & sales among the key music demographic than whether Fleetwood Mac is appearing on the Morning Show or something. If a performer or a band sounds hot to the wriggling, skanking naked kids on "Spring Break," then it's a hit! So all you folks who keep talking about "Well if they had done this to the album, or if they had kept that person in the band, or if they had gotten some more airplay on the Adult Contemporary stations, or if they had appeared on Howard Stern, they'd have sold a lot more," try to imagine how far four aging, paunching 55-year-olds singing "Peacekeeper" would have gotten on that beach stage on "Spring Break" with the audience out there.

Puhleeze.....

Everybody who wanted "Say You Will" bought "Say You Will." Fleetwood Mac was hot in 1976-1978. Every year after that, even if they had a #1 hit album, they were widely considered yesterday's news. Today, they aren't even yesterday's news -- they're like something out of the primeval pools of petroleum. It isn't called "dinosaur rock" for no reason.

but WE love 'em -- & that's really all that matters.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:50 PM

I thought that ChiliD already explained that to you. :shrug: People weren't "chomping at the bit" because they didn't know it was out there.

No promotion = low sales.

My point, again, is many of CM's fans knew she was releasing a record and it was advertised. She did some press for it as well. So, it is not like it went out without anything whatsoever. But, you will never concede that so that is all.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:51 PM

It sounded like karaoke night at The Apollo. You would never listen to those performances and believe for a second that Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham actually have careers as singers. :laugh:

She was good on Rhiannon :shrug: and SYW - as good as she can be on that. I think it was LB that sunk that boat.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 02:53 PM

She was good on Rhiannon :shrug: and SYW - as good as she can be on that. I think it was LB that sunk that boat.

They should have picked songs they could actually sing fairly well at 8 in the morning. Rhiannon and SYW were not good choices, IMO. :shrug:

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:54 PM

Everybody who wanted "Say You Will" bought "Say You Will." Fleetwood Mac was hot in 1976-1978. Every year after that, even if they had a #1 hit album, they were widely considered yesterday's news. Today, they aren't even yesterday's news -- they're like something out of the primeval pools of petroleum. It isn't called "dinosaur rock" for no reason.

Brilliantly put, David.

David

06-01-2005, 02:54 PM

Well, it still sold like 800,000 or so copies and THAT was after two disasterous live performances on national t.v. :shrug:TV didn't change anybody's minds. I bet the only people talking about that TV appearance were we fans.

Everyone who wanted SYW bought it. The millions who didn't want it ... didn't buy it. Their minds weren't changed by TV appearances in freezing-cold weather or other aspects of "promotion" -- they just didn't want it to begin with. What would a typical System of a Down headbanger fan want with "Say You Will"? to use as a clay pigeon?

dissention

06-01-2005, 02:56 PM

She was good on Rhiannon :shrug: and SYW - as good as she can be on that.

Yeah, if you're deaf.

I think it was LB that sunk that boat.

It was both of them. :shrug: He stunk, vocally and musically, and she was lethargic and half-assed. It was Dullsville through and through.

David

06-01-2005, 02:57 PM

They should have picked songs they could actually sing fairly well at 8 in the morning. Rhiannon and SYW were not good choices, IMO. :shrug:I liked watching them perform on that show because they were cold, & there's something about cold weather -- have you ever noticed? -- that makes the performer look sort of more alert & vibrant, I guess because your body is burning more calories trying to stay warm.

As opposed to extreme heat, which makes people look sluggish & lethargic & a little sick.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 02:59 PM

TV didn't change anybody's minds. I bet the only people talking about that TV appearance were we fans.

and, respectfully, you'd be wrong. The radio stations here panned them the morning after and I heard people who are not fans laughing about how bad it was. So, the nonfans saw it and were talking about it. Interestingly, for any of those millions who watch that very popular show who would even think about maybe buying that record, that ruined it. But, I agree with you that SYW was never going to sell millions of records outside of some fluke.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 02:59 PM

It was both of them. :shrug: He stunk, vocally and musically, and she was lethargic and half-assed. It was Dullsville through and through.

I loved her scarf.

Yup. That's it.

Oh, the GYOW/Peacekeeper intro....I roll in laughter everytime I watch it. Lindsey LOOKED PISSED! :thumbsup:

dissention

06-01-2005, 03:01 PM

TV didn't change anybody's minds. I bet the only people talking about that TV appearance were we fans.

Everyone who wanted SYW bought it. The millions who didn't want it ... didn't buy it. Their minds weren't changed by TV appearances in freezing-cold weather or other aspects of "promotion" -- they just didn't want it to begin with. What would a typical System of a Down headbanger fan want with "Say You Will"? to use as a clay pigeon?

Say You Will was very heavily promoted by Warners. Songs were showcased on three television shows (That 70s Show, Third Watch, and Friends), the band was named the Artist of the Month by AOL (owned by Warners, surprise surprise), they appeared on the top-rated morning show and the top-rated late night show, there were commercials for the album which gave you a number to order it, the first single got rather decent airplay, etc.

And after all of that, the album only sold 800,000. It only proves that you're 100% correct in your assertion that not a whole helluva lot of people were interested in it. They can promote it until everyone in the Western Hemisphere knows that it's in stores, but if they don't want it, they're aren't going to buy it. And that's exactly what happened.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:02 PM

dissention

06-01-2005, 03:03 PM

I loved her scarf.

Yup. That's it.

The only thing I could focus on was her coat. If it was real, someone should have pulled a Joan Rivers on her ass.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:04 PM

The only thing I could focus on was her coat. If it was real, someone should have pulled a Joan Rivers on her ass.

then how could you know how bad they were if all you were doing is watching the coat :lol: :lol: :lol:

SWISH :woohoo:

dissention

06-01-2005, 03:06 PM

then how could you know how bad they were if all you were doing is watching the coat :lol: :lol: :lol:

SWISH :woohoo:

Because my ears were bleeding at the same time I was imagining throwing red paint all over Nicks.

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 03:06 PM

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 03:08 PM

Oh, the GYOW/Peacekeeper intro....I roll in laughter everytime I watch it. Lindsey LOOKED PISSED! :thumbsup:

Can you elaborate? I didn't see this appearance. What happened? :confused:

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:09 PM

Because my ears were bleeding at the same time I was imagining throwing red paint all over Nicks.

so you were red and wanted her to be red :laugh:

BTW - I get that animal rights people are nuts, but if anyone ever through red paint on me, I would try and resist the urge to respond in kind to their battery by beating the living hell out of them and instead I would have them thrown in jail, press full charges, make sure they stayed there a long long time, and then sue the living crap out of them :wavey:

dissention

06-01-2005, 03:13 PM

so you were red and wanted her to be red. BTW - I get that animal rights people are nuts, but if anyone ever through red paint on me, I would try and resist the urge to respond in kind to their battery by beating the living hell out of them and instead I would have them trown in jail, press full charges, make sure they stayed there a long long time, and then sue the living crap out of them :wavey:

Then don't kill animals for fur. Simple as that. I think it says a lot about someone who can skin an animal without a care in the world just for fashion and then walk around wearing said skin. Makes me vomit.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 03:13 PM

Can you elaborate? I didn't see this appearance. What happened? :confused:

The band started playing Peacekeeper and Lindsey started GYOW. It's a riot! :laugh: Quite a combo.

Sounds like they had a sudden change in the set that the band didn't know about.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:19 PM

Then don't kill animals for fur. Simple as that. I think it says a lot about someone who can skin an animal without a care in the world just for fashion and then walk around wearing said skin. Makes me vomit.

No, destroying anyone's property is just wrong regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it. AND - the law fully supports me on this. If someone does not want fur in clothing, they need to get some to rule it illegal or get it made against the law vis the legislature. But, taking the law into one's own hands is just stupid and anytime anyone does that, they better be prepared to pay for the consequences of it. I mean what if that paint blinded someone or caused them to suffocate because they were allegeric to it? What if it caused them to silp and fall and injure or kill themselves? Would that be worth it? Would that achieve any goal other than saisfying personal rage? No, it would not. Thus, throwing things at people is assinine.

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 03:19 PM

The band started playing Peacekeeper and Lindsey started GYOW. It's a riot! :laugh: Quite a combo.

Sounds like they had a sudden change in the set that the band didn't know about.

Oh sh*t! :lol:

Were they able to laugh it off? How long did it take the band to stop? I didn't see it, so sorry for all the questions. Was it all of FM or just Stevie and Lindsey with the house band? Gawd! I wish I'd seen this!

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 03:21 PM

Oh sh*t! :lol:

Were they able to laugh it off? How long did it take the band to stop? I didn't see it, so sorry for all the questions. Was it all of FM or just Stevie and Lindsey with the house band? Gawd! I wish I'd seen this!

It was FM with the touring band.

Liddy turned around and tried to get everyone back on track. It never was the same. :shocked: Ouch! My ears hurt just thinking about it.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:22 PM

It was FM with the touring band.

Liddy turned around and tried to get everyone back on track. It never was the same. :shocked: Ouch! My ears hurt just thinking about it.

I was HORRIFIED for them :nod:

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 03:24 PM

I was HORRIFIED for them :nod:

I was, too, but I couldn't help but chuckle.

I think it was suppose to be PK, but Liddy started out wrong. JMO.

dissention

06-01-2005, 03:26 PM

No, destroying anyone's property is just wrong regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it. AND - the law fully supports me on this. If someone does not want fur in clothing, they need to get some to rule it illegal or get it made against the law vis the legislature. But, taking the law into one's own hands is just stupid and anytime anyone does that, they better be prepared to pay for the consequences of it. I mean what if that paint blinded someone or caused them to suffocate because they were allegeric to it? What if it caused them to silp and fall and injure or kill themselves? Would that be worth it? Would that achieve any goal other than saisfying personal rage? No, it would not. Thus, throwing things at people is assinine.

And regardless of how you feel about it (and I do agree that it's wrong, though not as wrong as killing the poor things in the first place), it's not going to stop just because you don't like it. Especially now that real fur is back in fashion. Like I said, if you don't want to run the risk of having someone run up to you and throw paint on your person, don't support the slaughtering of animals for fashion. I wouldn't throw anything at them, but I'd certainly condemn them.

The fact of the matter is that I find it sick and twisted that someone could kill an animal and then have the gall to say it's their "property." How sickening.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:31 PM

And regardless of how you feel about it (and I do agree that it's wrong, though not as wrong as killing the poor things in the first place), it's not going to stop just because you don't like it. Especially now that real fur is back in fashion. Like I said, if you don't want to run the risk of having someone run up to you and throw paint on your person, don't support the slaughtering of animals for fashion. I wouldn't throw anything at them, but I'd certainly condemn them

I would condemn them too. I think fur is wrong, esp. now that we have so many faux stuff that is nice.

I do think, though people ought not to have to live in fear of being assauted and battered for doing something perfectly legal :shrug: and that all paint throwers should be put in jail for a long time because they have no right to do that.

Interestinglty, did you know that PETA gives the red paint stained fur to the homeless, which I think while noble is a little hypocritical of them.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 03:32 PM

. . . The fact of the matter is that I find it sick and twisted that someone could kill an animal and then have the gall to say it's their "property." How sickening.

So, they can take the meat I just bought at the store and chunk it :shrug: Or the leather shoes I just bought and burn them? All becuase I have the gall to call that my property :eek:

dissention

06-01-2005, 04:00 PM

So, they can take the meat I just bought at the store and chunk it :shrug: Or the leather shoes I just bought and burn them? All becuase I have the gall to call that my property :eek:

You know what I mean, smartass. I find it sick that someone would kill an animal just for fashion and call the animal's hide their "property." It makes me sick. A creature's life is not property.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 04:09 PM

You know what I mean, smartass. I find it sick that someone would kill an animal just for fashion and call the animal's hide their "property." It makes me sick. A creature's life is not property.

I went though the gambit on this issue. I know many women with furs. I know many who would not get another one because they think it is wrong but still wear their old ones. I know many who got rid of them for that reason. I think fur is GORGEOUS but I think the animal's life is more important. It took me awhile to get to that point, but I am there.

trackaghost

06-01-2005, 04:54 PM

You know what I mean, smartass. I find it sick that someone would kill an animal just for fashion and call the animal's hide their "property." It makes me sick. A creature's life is not property.

I totally agree. :nod: It makes me so sad to see fur is back in fashion but what's worse is these supermodels who were posing for PETA ads back when it was trendy, now turning round and wearing fur coats, like it didn't mean anything more to them than a fashion shoot. It's really pathetic.

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 05:01 PM

It was FM with the touring band.

Liddy turned around and tried to get everyone back on track. It never was the same. :shocked: Ouch! My ears hurt just thinking about it.

Gawd, I feel badly for them but I really want to see this..is there a download of this anywhere? Anyone?

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 06:20 PM

and CM had had no hits of any significance since 1987
But who amongst them have had hits of any significance since 1987? I've been saying that "Tango" was very much the end of those days for these people!

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 06:24 PM

Compared to 50,000 that she sold (was that the number) it is eons more chomping :laugh:
Yeah, but that was without any videos or a tour, and Christine herself saying that having a hit album wasn't her motivation. She did NOTHING, save a few radio and television interviews, to promote the album. The same cannot be said of SYW. They were on a major label, they got lots of promotion, they had a very successful 130 show tour, and played live on national television.

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 06:35 PM

Yeah, but that was without any videos or a tour, and Christine herself saying that having a hit album wasn't her motivation. She did NOTHING, save a few radio and television interviews, to promote the album. The same cannot be said of SYW. They were on a major label, they got lots of promotion, they had a very successful 130 show tour, and played live on national television.

I forgot to mention, the same thing that killed Christine's solo album mentioned above is the same thing that killed "Time." If you don't nurture something, it won't grow. Now, I'm not saying either were going to be big hits, but they could have sold more than 50K.

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 06:39 PM

Gawd, I feel badly for them but I really want to see this.
It was pretty bad. However, I can give them a little break. It's hard enough playing in the cold, at least in terms of tuning. That's the biggest lesson I learned in four years of marching band. Considering they're from L.A., the cold itself must have been somewhat of a rude awakening. Add to that that their bodies were still three hours behind Eastern Time, and I'm amazed that they were even able to do what they did. Of course, as has been the common theme, I'm a fan and I support this band. If I weren't a fan, I would have laughed, reaffirmed that I thought they sucked, and changed the channel.

chiliD

06-01-2005, 06:43 PM

Say You Will was very heavily promoted by Warners. Songs were showcased on three television shows (That 70s Show, Third Watch, and Friends), the band was named the Artist of the Month by AOL (owned by Warners, surprise surprise), they appeared on the top-rated morning show and the top-rated late night show, there were commercials for the album which gave you a number to order it, the first single got rather decent airplay, etc.

And after all of that, the album only sold 800,000. It only proves that you're 100% correct in your assertion that not a whole helluva lot of people were interested in it. They can promote it until everyone in the Western Hemisphere knows that it's in stores, but if they don't want it, they're aren't going to buy it. And that's exactly what happened.

And, if radio doesn't play the **** out of the album, it isn't going sell either. I heard "Say You Will" & "Peacekeeper" once each on the radio...that's not my idea of "airplay". If classic rock stations would've substituted say "Smile At You" or "Thrown Down" for each time they had planned to play "Rhiannon" or "Gold Dust Woman" or "Dreams"; and, "What's The World Coming To?" or "Miranda" instead of "GYOW" or "Second Hand News", people would GET familiar with the new tunes and be spurred to buy the album.

How many people (other than those who OWNED the album) even recognized the tunes. And, of those who didn't, how many would even spend the time to RESEARCH the songs that were featured on those TV shows? Maybe 5 or 6. "Product placement" on a TV show isn't as much of a marketing tool as having a song featured in a motion picture.

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 06:48 PM

Puhleeze.....

Everybody who wanted "Say You Will" bought "Say You Will."
I agree, but it also has to be said that I know I'm not the only person who has bought an album by a band I'm not necessarily a fan of and thought it was actually a really good album. I think most won't disagree with your statements, but a better track order and better flow might have made the album more listenable to people who aren't necessarily fans. It might not have sold two more albums, or it might have sold an extra 200,000 albums. But that's speculation.

OTOH, look at how glowing the reviews were for Lindsey's OOTC. It got some of the best reviews I've ever seen, got lots of promotion, had videos on VH-1, was played on the radio, and Lindsey even toured in support of the album, yet I think it sold about what "Time" sold. So it would appear that there's an "it factor" that the band no longer has.

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 07:00 PM

and, respectfully, you'd be wrong. The radio stations here panned them the morning after and I heard people who are not fans laughing about how bad it was. So, the nonfans saw it and were talking about it. Interestingly, for any of those millions who watch that very popular show who would even think about maybe buying that record, that ruined it.

I had people who weren't even fans running up to me panning the performance, especially Lindsey's. :sorry: All I could sputter in their defense was "Well, they were cold." :rolleyes:

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 07:01 PM

I loved her scarf.

Yup. That's it.

I'm mortified she wore fur. It made her look Gramma. :distress:

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 07:03 PM

And possibly FM has realized this and made the decision to "throw in the towel"? However sad that might be for us..

None of them will ever really throw in the towel until the inevitable happnes.

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 07:26 PM

None of them will ever really throw in the towel until the inevitable happnes.
And even then...

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 07:49 PM

But who amongst them have had hits of any significance since 1987? I've been saying that "Tango" was very much the end of those days for these people!

Silver Springs and Landslide from The Dance as well as POTU Dance Remix :shrug:

I realize those were not huge Top 40 stuff - but and interestingly, La Nicks is probably known as much for that version of Landslide as the 70's Rhiannon.

But, as far as top 10 stuff, yes, Tango was the end of it, except for album debuts, which Nicks and the Mac have both achieved since then, though no where near the sales prior to 87.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 07:51 PM

I'm mortified she wore fur. It made her look Gramma. :distress:

well, the cardigan sweater with the little pearls was soon to follow - bless her heart :laugh:

amber

06-01-2005, 07:53 PM

But, as far as top 10 stuff, yes, Tango was the end of it, except for album debuts, which Nicks and the Mac have both achieved since then, though no where near the sales prior to 87.
But, gosh, I don't even care. I'm shocked they have had the longevity that they do, lots of people are "over" way sooner. There's only a few others who've accomplished what they have, and I'm so very proud of them. You have to be a very special band to accomplish what they have. Even Tango, having a hit 10+ years after your first breakout, is an astounding accomplishment, what with the fickleness of tastes and the music biz.:nod: :woohoo:

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 07:55 PM

well, the cardigan sweater with the little pearls was soon to follow - bless her heart :laugh:

I guess you missed the SYW tour?

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 07:58 PM

But, gosh, I don't even care. I'm shocked they have had the longevity that they do, lots of people are "over" way sooner. There's only a few others who've accomplished what they have, and I'm so very proud of them. You have to be a very special band to accomplish what they have. Even Tango, having a hit 10+ years after your first breakout, is an astounding accomplishment, what with the fickleness of tastes and the music biz.:nod: :woohoo:

Well, to be fair, 10 years later, The Dance was a HUGE hit by any standard for them as well even though none of the new material went anywhere :cool: So, I think that relevance in the music world along with La Nicks' critical and somewhat small commercial success of TISL four years later is what allowed the Mac to record SYW in the style they did. I mean they must have spent a couple of million to make that record once you count in the Bel Air house rental, the moving of the studio, the mixing, the production, promotion, etc. - though someone in the industry would know more about that than I would. I have to wonder if they record another record if they will get that perk given the relative failure of SYW to sell well - remember they were talking millions of units sold, which never happened though the tour was a relative success.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 07:59 PM

I guess you missed the SYW tour?

well that is where she wore it :shrug: I think I missed something :laugh:

amber

06-01-2005, 08:00 PM

Well, to be fair, 10 years later, The Dance was a HUGE hit by any standard for them as well even though none of the new material went anywhere :cool: So, I think that relevance in the music world along with La Nicks' critical and somewhat small commercial success of TISL four years later is what allowed the Mac to record SYW in the style they did. I mean they must have spent a couple of million to make that record once you count in the Bel Air house rental, the moving of the studio, the mixing, the production, promotion, etc. - though someone in the industry would know more about that than I would. I have to wonder if they record another record if they will get that perk given the relative failure of SYW to sell well - remember they were talking millions of units sold, which never happened though the tour was a relative success.
True. But that doesn't really go against anything I said. Um...I think they may not get that perk, which I think is fine. And I submit, again, that considering how long they have been in the biz, SYW's failure is very relative.

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 08:01 PM

Even Tango, having a hit 10+ years after your first breakout, is an astounding accomplishment, what with the fickleness of tastes and the music biz.:nod: :woohoo:
Or, even further, having your biggest hit ten years after you made a pretty big debut, had a bunch of hits in Europe, became obscure in Europe, developed a big following in the US, had three guitarists leave on tour, cancelling two of those tours, having a fake Mac on the road at one point, and having everybody in the band divorcing one another. By 1977, most bands would have said F-it, and gone their separate ways. Not this band! I'll never say Fleetwood Mac was the greatest band ever (neither would they), but they sure seem to be the most resilient.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 08:01 PM

well that is where she wore it :shrug: I think I missed something :laugh:

I misread. :sorry:

amber

06-01-2005, 08:06 PM

Or, even further, having your biggest hit ten years after you made a pretty big debut, had a bunch of hits in Europe, became obscure in Europe, developed a big following in the US, had three guitarists leave on tour, cancelling two of those tours, having a fake Mac on the road at one point, and having everybody in the band divorcing one another. By 1977, most bands would have said F-it, and gone their separate ways. Not this band! I'll never say Fleetwood Mac was the greatest band ever (neither would they), but they sure seem to be the most resilient.
I see your point. But I will raise you....GREATEST BAND EVAH!!!! :laugh:

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 08:07 PM

True. But that doesn't really go against anything I said. Um...I think they may not get that perk, which I think is fine.
I think they'll record again. It probably won't be with Warner's. But I see them fitting in nicely on Sanctuary. By now they know they'e not the big hit machine. If they can accept that, I see no reason why they couldn't make good records for a smaller label.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 08:08 PM

I think they'll record again. It probably won't be with Warner's. But I see them fitting in nicely on Sanctuary. By now they know they'e not the big hit machine. If they can accept that, I see no reason why they couldn't make good records for a smaller label.

Now that LB has sold his house, I wonder if the new one he bought has room for a private studio like the last one. If so, they could record there, assuming LB does not mind his family being there most of the time; most people work without their family being present :shrug: Or, they could rent studio time, but with LB, you are talking A LOT of time :laugh:

amber

06-01-2005, 08:12 PM

I think they'll record again. It probably won't be with Warner's. But I see them fitting in nicely on Sanctuary. By now they know they'e not the big hit machine. If they can accept that, I see no reason why they couldn't make good records for a smaller label.
Totally. And I hope they can accept that. I think Stevie might be the last to do so, unfortunately, but even she might come around. I mean, haven't they gotten enough perks? Weren't they famous enough? They should know how the biz works. Have some dignity, and all that.

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 08:17 PM

And even then...

Ha ha...never break the chain.

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 08:18 PM

Silver Springs and Landslide from The Dance as well as POTU Dance Remix :shrug:

I realize those were not huge Top 40 stuff - but and interestingly, La Nicks is probably known as much for that version of Landslide as the 70's Rhiannon.

But, as far as top 10 stuff, yes, Tango was the end of it, except for album debuts, which Nicks and the Mac have both achieved since then, though no where near the sales prior to 87.

It's just that radio is so different now.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 08:18 PM

Totally. And I hope they can accept that. I think Stevie might be the last to do so, unfortunately, but even she might come around. I mean, haven't they gotten enough perks? Weren't they famous enough? They should know how the biz works. Have some dignity, and all that.

I think that if they did a stipped down record (no more than two lead guitar parts per song) and toured with just them and maybe a keyboard player and one more lead guitar, that would be stellar and very const effective. I mean they had something like 10 people playing on stage and several more under the stage last time out and the sound too much. So, maybe a smaller recording budget would lead to that. Better yet, an acoustic record :nod:

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 08:19 PM

well, the cardigan sweater with the little pearls was soon to follow - bless her heart :laugh:

:laugh: The fur trumped that, IMO.

gldstwmn

06-01-2005, 08:22 PM

Now that LB has sold his house, I wonder if the new one he bought has room for a private studio like the last one.

If it doesn't, you can bet he's converted the walk in closet in his bedroom. :laugh:

amber

06-01-2005, 08:23 PM

I think that if they did a stipped down record (no more than two lead guitar parts per song) and toured with just them and maybe a keyboard player and one more lead guitar, that would be stellar and very const effective. I mean they had something like 10 people playing on stage and several more under the stage last time out and the sound too much. So, maybe a smaller recording budget would lead to that. Better yet, an acoustic record :nod:
Good show. It seems like that would be hard for Linds, though. I mean, he can write tons of parts, but he can't play them all himself, can he? But I totally agree. You know Stevie's not going out anywhere without her backup singers, though.

amber

06-01-2005, 08:24 PM

If it doesn't, you can bet he's converted the walk in closet in his bedroom. :laugh:
:laugh: :lol:
"white shirt, white shirt, white shirt - check." :laugh:

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 08:48 PM

:laugh: :lol:
"white shirt, white shirt, white shirt - check." :laugh:

Then Stevie calls the phone:

"Lindsey! I only count 4 black dresses in my closet. Do you have #5? It's the one with the cardigan."

amber

06-01-2005, 08:49 PM

Then Stevie calls the phone:

"Lindsey! I only count 4 black dresses in my closet. Do you have #5? It's the one with the cardigan."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

and then she's all "what the heck is this white T-shirt doing in here???"

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 08:51 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

and then she's all "what the heck is this white T-shirt doing in here???"

"No. I don't have your dress. I do have a pair of brass balls and a vesterbation set, though."

amber

06-01-2005, 08:55 PM

"No. I don't have your dress. I do have a pair of brass balls and a vesterbation set, though."
:laugh:
stupid Mick.

"oh, ok. I do have some overproduced guitar tracks in here...are those yours? Let's see...great shoes I never wear, great shoes I never wear, great shoes I never wear...ok..."

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 08:58 PM

:laugh: :lol:
"white shirt, white shirt, white shirt - check." :laugh:

:lol:

Why does he wear white all the time? The same shirt, too! Does he ever wear other colors? I picture him sitting around his house with his wife, doing whatever it is they do when he's not tinkering around with his solo project or they're not making babies (hopefully, he takes it off while they're making babies, eww..), wearing a white shirt. I'm not even trying to be funny. I'm serious! :confused:

Does anyone know where I can download the appearance when the band got the song wrong (or Lindsey did)? Thanks. :wavey:

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 08:59 PM

:laugh:
stupid Mick.

"oh, ok. I do have some overproduced guitar tracks in here...are those yours?"

Are you Stevie now? :lol:

Well, here's Lindsey's response:

"Yes. They are. And I have demo tapes with labels saying Songs About Lindsey 1988, Songs About Lindsey 1996, Songs about Lindsey 2003, and Songs About Myself."

amber

06-01-2005, 09:01 PM

Are you Stevie now? :lol:

Well, here's Lindsey's response:

"Yes. They are. And I have demo tapes with labels saying Songs About Lindsey 1988, Songs About Lindsey 1996, Songs about Lindsey 2003, and Songs About Myself."
:lol:
"oooh, those are totally mine! Do you have 'She Said' volumes 1-50 in there?" :laugh:

amber

06-01-2005, 09:02 PM

:lol:

Why does he wear white all the time? The same shirt, too! Does he ever wear other colors? I picture him sitting around his house with his wife, doing whatever it is they do when he's not tinkering around with his solo project or they're not making babies (hopefully, he takes it off while they're making babies, eww..), wearing a white shirt. I'm not even trying to be funny. I'm serious! :confused:

Does anyone know where I can download the appearance when the band got the song wrong (or Lindsey did)? Thanks. :wavey:
um...I dunno...I've seen him in other colors, but not for shows. He did the whole Kimono thing, then he did the Tusk thing...don't know about the appearance where the band got the song wrong.

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 09:03 PM

:lol:
"oooh, those are totally mine! Do you have 'She Said' volumes 1-50 in there?" :laugh:

"Shut up, Stevie. Can't you tell I'm still working on my solo album? Oh, what the hell. Let's reunite. I call John. You call Mick. And Stevie? Forget the damn Spirit Catcher. Bring stronger vocals instead."

amber

06-01-2005, 09:08 PM

"Shut up, Stevie. Can't you tell I'm still working on my solo album? Oh, what the hell. Let's reunite. I call John. You call Mick. And Stevie? Forget the damn Spirit Catcher. Bring stronger vocals instead."

"Weeeeeelll, she said, he didn't like my Spiiiiiiirit Catchah!"

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 09:12 PM

"Weeeeeelll, she said, he didn't like my Spiiiiiiirit Catchah!"

Mick:

"Well, Stevie. All I can say is that I don't want another double album like Tusk. It was a disappointment. I say let's redo the Rumours songs and tour to promote Rumours. Maybe we can throw in a rarity like Landslide or something.'

dissention

06-01-2005, 09:14 PM

I think they'll record again. It probably won't be with Warner's. But I see them fitting in nicely on Sanctuary. By now they know they'e not the big hit machine. If they can accept that, I see no reason why they couldn't make good records for a smaller label.

They'll never go to Sanctuary. I think that notion is rather laughable. The egoist that is Lindsey Buckingham won't do anything unless he gets the perks, the paychecks, and red carpet rolled out for him. Nicks is pretty much the same way and Mick would never want to do anything that might give him less profits.

amber

06-01-2005, 09:18 PM

Mick:

"Well, Stevie. All I can say is that I don't want another double album like Tusk. It was a disappointment. I say let's redo the Rumours songs and tour to promote Rumours. Maybe we can throw in a rarity like Landslide or something.'
:lol:
Oh.Meh.Gaw. - you are channeling Mick!!!

"Weeeelllllll...Mick is a toooooooollll..."

HomerMcvie

06-01-2005, 09:19 PM

They'll never go to Sanctuary. I think that notion is rather laughable. The egoist that is Lindsey Buckingham won't do anything unless he gets the perks, the paychecks, and red carpet rolled out for him. Nicks is pretty much the same way and Mick would never want to do anything that might give him less profits.
Yep, I agree 110%. Lindsey will never go small, unless it's solo. Since the acquisition of his family :lol: , I think it's ALL about the money to him, now.

amber

06-01-2005, 09:21 PM

Yep, I agree 110%. Lindsey will never go small, unless it's solo. Since the acquisition of his family :lol: , I think it's ALL about the money to him, now.
I disagree, their reality check has to come sometime, and sometime very soon. And, since Linds is the richest one, I think he'll be the first to realize this. Plus his love of Todd Solanz... :laugh:

dissention

06-01-2005, 09:23 PM

Lindsey will never go small, unless it's solo.

That's a load of crap, too. :laugh: He won't even go small for a solo album. Look at Gift of Screws. They wouldn't release it, he wrote a **** "poor me" song lamenting his "misfortune," and then turned it into a big band affair wherein he could make ****loads of money. He can say it's all about being an artiste, but it's not. It's about money, the bottom line. He wouldn't release GOS independently and then after all his dirt-kicking about eating the costs to make SYW a double album, he chickened out. Puhleeze!

amber

06-01-2005, 09:25 PM

That's a load of crap, too. :laugh: He won't even go small for a solo album. Look at Gift of Screws. They wouldn't release it, he wrote a **** "poor me" song lamenting his "misfortune," and then turned it into a big band affair wherein he could make ****loads of money. He can say it's all about being an artiste, but it's not. It's about money, the bottom line. He wouldn't release GOS independently and then after all his dirt-kicking about eating the costs to make SYW a double album, he chickened out. Puhleeze!
I don't think he did that totally because of the money, I think he did that some because he wanted more people to hear his magnificent works. Lindsey's musical ego is not to be underestimated!!!!

dissention

06-01-2005, 09:26 PM

I disagree, their reality check has to come sometime, and sometime very soon. And, since Linds is the richest one, I think he'll be the first to realize this. Plus his love of Todd Solanz... :laugh:

The day they realize that they aren't going to get treated as royalty or get the perks is the day they decide to pack it in and stop making music before being reduced to being a veteran act signed to a small label a la Robert Plant. From what I've observed in Fleetwood Mac, I think they'd think it would be a slap in the face to be "small label" artists.

HomerMcvie

06-01-2005, 09:27 PM

ontheEdgeof17

06-01-2005, 09:28 PM

dissention

06-01-2005, 09:28 PM

I don't think he did that totally because of the money, I think he did that some because he wanted more people to hear his magnificent works. Lindsey's musical ego is not to be underestimated!!!!

And in the end, he chose the cash over people hearing more of his work. The very work that he could have let people hear years ago by going independent or signing to a small label. I love the man to death, but he's an egoist and a blowhard. :laugh:

dissention

06-01-2005, 09:29 PM

I kinda meant small will be the ONLY way he can go his own way.

I agree with that, love. :laugh: :xoxo:

amber

06-01-2005, 09:53 PM

And in the end, he chose the cash over people hearing more of his work. The very work that he could have let people hear years ago by going independent or signing to a small label. I love the man to death, but he's an egoist and a blowhard. :laugh:
Well, my whole point is that not as many people would have heard it if it wasn't released as FM. :shrug: Like, considerably less people.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 09:58 PM

Good show. It seems like that would be hard for Linds, though. I mean, he can write tons of parts, but he can't play them all himself, can he? But I totally agree. You know Stevie's not going out anywhere without her backup singers, though.

AS much as I love them, they ain't going in my fantasy concert. This way La Nicks and LB will HAVE to sing on key and with effort all of the time. The only other voice allowed on stage is Christine Mcvie, so the other four better start a wooing her :nod:

dissention

06-01-2005, 09:59 PM

Well, my whole point is that not as many people would have heard it if it wasn't released as FM. :shrug: Like, considerably less people.

Feh, I don't buy that he went with FM in order for more people to hear his music. If that were the case, he wouldn't have left the Mac and continued a solo career to begin with, nor would he have pushed for Warners to release GOS when it's obvious he doesn't sell records (which is why they wouldn't release it). He went with the Mac for the money, imo.

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 10:01 PM

They'll never go to Sanctuary.
And what label was "Destiny Rules" released on? What label was "Something Big" on? In Europe, what label was "In The Meantime" on? If it means making the albums they want, on their schedule, I'm sure they'd at least consider it. In any event, I think their ride at WB is pretty much over.

amber

06-01-2005, 10:01 PM

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 10:02 PM

The day they realize that they aren't going to get treated as royalty or get the perks is the day they decide to pack it in and stop making music before being reduced to being a veteran act signed to a small label a la Robert Plant. From what I've observed in Fleetwood Mac, I think they'd think it would be a slap in the face to be "small label" artists.

Well, with all due respect to La Nicks, why should she when all rumors indicate Vaegas wants her and is willing to pay her well. I know I, at say 58 years old and having been on the road essentially every other year since 1973 and with a relatively large pile o cash - would say SEE YA here's some comp tickets :laugh:

lagringader&r

06-01-2005, 10:07 PM

That's a load of crap, too. :laugh: He won't even go small for a solo album. Look at Gift of Screws. They wouldn't release it, he wrote a **** "poor me" song lamenting his "misfortune," and then turned it into a big band affair wherein he could make ****loads of money. He can say it's all about being an artiste, but it's not. It's about money, the bottom line. He wouldn't release GOS independently and then after all his dirt-kicking about eating the costs to make SYW a double album, he chickened out. Puhleeze!

Is that song WTWCT? I agree that he talked about wanting to make a statement with his music and if the right 300,000 people heard it..but then he turns around and seemingly refuses to sign to a smaller label to get that *art* out there. Seems he wants to be viewed as a starving artist while being richer than god. Hard to take him seriously..

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:08 PM

And what label was "Destiny Rules" released on? What label was "Something Big" on? In Europe, what label was "In The Meantime" on? If it means making the albums they want, on their schedule, I'm sure they'd at least consider it. In any event, I think their ride at WB is pretty much over.

Their ride is over at Warners, but I still don't think Fleetwood Mac will ever sign to Sanctuary. I think they're finished and have thrown in the towel. They made their cash, it's the end of the line, imo.

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:10 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think when he left, he thought his solo would be much more well received. Then he realized, Not So Much. I think he did it for, maybe, both reasons, but I think the artistic, people hearing his work, is a little more important. I mean, he is the richest Mac member...

Honey, didn't you see Destiny Rules? He says he doesn't care if only a few people hear his stuff. I think it's a bit of bull**** on his part, though, and I agree with you that he wanted lots of recognition, but regardless, I think his main motivation was wanting the cash and the perks that a studio like Warners and a band like the Mac could provide.

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:11 PM

Is that song WTWCT? I agree that he talked about wanting to make a statement with his music and if the right 300,000 people heard it..but then he turns around and seemingly refuses to sign to a smaller label to get that *art* out there. Seems he wants to be viewed as a starving artist while being richer than god. Hard to take him seriously..

:nod: :thumbsup: Precisely.

He's a joke whenever he opens his mouth to wax poetic about business and being a starving artist.

amber

06-01-2005, 10:12 PM

Their ride is over at Warners, but I still don't think Fleetwood Mac will ever sign to Sanctuary. I think they're finished and have thrown in the towel. They made their cash, it's the end of the line, imo.
No.Way. They all like to record and perform too much for that. Do you really think none of them can swallow their egos that much? I think they'll find some way, and I hope to shmoodness that they retain some kind of reality and dignity to the whole process. I think they'll turn over to a smaller label, especially once the big ones stop giving them the super offers. :nod:

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:12 PM

Well, with all due respect to La Nicks, why should she when all rumors indicate Vaegas wants her and is willing to pay her well. I know I, at say 58 years old and having been on the road essentially every other year since 1973 and with a relatively large pile o cash - would say SEE YA here's some comp tickets :laugh:

What does being a Vegas act have to do with selling records and signing to a small label? :confused:

amber

06-01-2005, 10:13 PM

:nod: :thumbsup: Precisely.

He's a joke whenever he opens his mouth to wax poetic about business and being a starving artist.
Aside from that, I think he really believes what he is saying, and I think he'll be the first to turn over. Although at this point I have my doubts as to whether you'll answer my posts.... :laugh:

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 10:14 PM

Feh, I don't buy that he went with FM in order for more people to hear his music. If that were the case, he wouldn't have left the Mac and continued a solo career to begin with, nor would he have pushed for Warners to release GOS when it's obvious he doesn't sell records (which is why they wouldn't release it). He went with the Mac for the money, imo.
I disagree with the point about him leaving Fleetwood Mac. I don't think he knew how well (or poorly, as it turned out) his albums would do if he could have devoted all of his energies towards a solo career. That's why he left the band.

And, after doing everything right for OOTC, and it still bombed, Lindsey's whole attitude seemed to change towards Fleetwood Mac. Even in late '92, when before he was able to go on the road, his attitude was that FM was a dysfunctional family and that he couldn't see a situation where he'd ever work with them again. After a tour didn't help his album's sales, he magically appeared on "Time" within a year and a half. Four months later, Mick breaks up Fleetwood Mac. A month after that, Lindsey and Mick are working together. A year later, "The Dance" was recorded. The timing, for me, is suspicious. IMO, Lindsey wanted to be a success and wanted more people to hear his music, which would help him make money, which is why he came back to Fleetwood Mac. So I think dissention and Amber are both right as to Lindsey's motivation. The more people who are interested in one's work, the more money one makes.

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:14 PM

No.Way. They all like to record and perform too much for that. Do you really think none of them can swallow their egos that much? I think they'll find some way, and I hope to shmoodness that they retain some kind of reality and dignity to the whole process. I think they'll turn over to a smaller label, especially once the big ones stop giving them the super offers. :nod:

I think the most we'll see from them in the future are some album reissues and a final farewell tour to make some cash before it's finally over. I just don't think their hearts are in recording together anymore, which is sad.

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:15 PM

Although at this point I have my doubts as to whether you'll answer my posts.... :laugh:

Why? :confused:

amber

06-01-2005, 10:17 PM

I think the most we'll see from them in the future are some album reissues and a final farewell tour to make some cash before it's finally over. I just don't think their hearts are in recording together anymore, which is sad.
I disagree, I think there will be one more. But I see the point of what you are saying, it's certainly possible. I honestly think their hearts are kind of into recording, but not touring. Not touring. So, it will be fun to see who's Crystal Vision plays out.... :D ;) I think Lindsey could record forever, and never release anything. I think Stevie could tour lots more, but not write anything worthwhile, if you see what I mean.

amber

06-01-2005, 10:18 PM

Why? :confused:
uh...because I'm stupid? :lol: mea culpa. Sorry, I'm rather impatient by nature.... :D

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:20 PM

I disagree with the point about him leaving Fleetwood Mac. I don't think he knew how well (or poorly, as it turned out) his albums would do if he could have devoted all of his energies towards a solo career. That's why he left the band.

I think he knew that releasing a solo album five years after he left the Mac wouldn't do much for him. I even think he knew that he wasn't a viable solo artist to begin with and only continued it because he loved what he was doing on his own. To me, he believed in Out of the Cradle with all of his heart, promoted it because it was his baby, and just put his all behind it because he was happy for once. I honestly don't think he expected it to sell well at all, just like his previous albums. It's a shame, too, because it was (and still is) his masterpiece.

strandinthewind

06-01-2005, 10:23 PM

What does being a Vegas act have to do with selling records and signing to a small label? :confused:

:sorry: - I thought when you said they were finished that they would never record again. I was commenting that La Nicks will move on and we may get a new something from her and she will do Vegas and maybe a few big cities. But, yes, I agree with you that FM will never go to a smaller label - though I wish they would.

Did that make sense :laugh:

I am ENRAPTURED listening to the Sat. Vegas boot of "If Anyone Falls" and it is as STUNNING as I remembered it. I love her :nod: :nod: and thanks sararhiannon!!!!!!!!

"Blame it on my wild extremely bad wild heart" said in that whiskey voice - SHEEEEBUS

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:23 PM

I disagree, I think there will be one more. But I see the point of what you are saying, it's certainly possible. I honestly think their hearts are kind of into recording, but not touring. Not touring. So, it will be fun to see who's Crystal Vision plays out.... :D ;)

There might be one more, who knows. I hope so. But if so, I think it'll be ages before it comes out. We'll be meeting at IHOP to cash-in on our Tuesday senior discount before we hear it.

I think Lindsey could record forever, and never release anything.

You just described him for essentially the last 10 years. :laugh:

I think Stevie could tour lots more, but not write anything worthwhile, if you see what I mean.

You just described her for the last 10 years. :laugh: (I'm joking.)

dissention

06-01-2005, 10:25 PM

:sorry: - I thought when you said they were finished that they would never record again. I was commenting that La Nicks will move on and we may get a new something from her and she will do Vegas and maybe a few big cities. But, yes, I agree with you that FM will never go to a smaller label - though I wish they would.

Did that make sense :laugh:

A little. :laugh: :xoxo:

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 10:27 PM

I think he knew that releasing a solo album five years after he left the Mac wouldn't do much for him. I even think he knew that he wasn't a viable solo artist to begin with and only continued it because he loved what he was doing on his own. To me, he believed in Out of the Cradle with all of his heart, promoted it because it was his baby, and just put his all behind it because he was happy for once. I honestly don't think he expected it to sell well at all, just like his previous albums. It's a shame, too, because it was (and still is) his masterpiece.
Again, I really don't agree. I think that album was his most confident project ever. If he had released it in 1991, it very well could have been a hit. But, in 1992, Nirvana et. al. were taking over, and the Mac were totally irrelevant. I think he waited because he didn't want to compete with Fleetwood Mac or a solo Stevie Nicks, and 1992 was really the first opportunity for that to happen. For Lindsey, OOTC was uncharted territory. It was the first time he wasn't chained to the band, and could devote all of his time and energy on his solo career, without worrying about his solo album being extrapolated into a Fleetwood Mac album.

amber

06-01-2005, 10:29 PM

There might be one more, who knows. I hope so. But if so, I think it'll be ages before it comes out. We'll be meeting at IHOP to cash-in on our Tuesday senior discount before we hear it.

You just described him for essentially the last 10 years. :laugh:

You just described her for the last 10 years. :laugh: (I'm joking.)
Joking? Oh, no, not really. Okay, maybe. After all, I do like SA. But, TISL? Whatev. But i'm being harsh, I really only love 4-6 songs on any Stevie solo album. But Lindsey stole Destiny Rules from my Stevie Loving heart, as far as I'm concerned. It's not pretty, but it's true. Although she did have a few stand outs, I have to admit. but nothing compared to Mr. Studio.
So, I imagine you're getting the Veggie Omelet? i will have sausage, toast, and hash browns, thank you. :laugh:
I really hope there is one more, I want to see what Steve and Linds have to say about the SYW tour.... ;)

amber

06-01-2005, 10:31 PM

I am ENRAPTURED listening to the Sat. Vegas boot of "If Anyone Falls" and it is as STUNNING as I remembered it. I love her :nod: :nod: and thanks sararhiannon!!!!!!!!

"Blame it on my wild extremely bad wild heart" said in that whiskey voice - SHEEEEBUS
Aaaahhhhh...I see you have the inescapable addiction that is Stevie's voice... :cool: Don't try to quit, cause you can't! ;)

SteveMacD

06-01-2005, 10:31 PM

You just described him for essentially the last 10 years. :laugh:
Ten years? Hell, he's only released a whopping THREE studio albums in the past twenty years, and two were with a band he wasn't in for ten years!

amber

06-01-2005, 10:33 PM

Again, I really don't agree. I think that album was his most confident project ever. If he had released it in 1991, it very well could have been a hit. But, in 1992, Nirvana et. al. were taking over, and the Mac were totally irrelevant. I think he waited because he didn't want to compete with Fleetwood Mac or a solo Stevie Nicks, and 1992 was really the first opportunity for that to happen. For Lindsey, OOTC was uncharted territory. It was the first time he wasn't chained to the band, and could devote all of his time and energy on his solo career, without worrying about his solo album being extrapolated into a Fleetwood Mac album.
Good points, about the timing. :nod: Although, I'm not sure even better timing would have saved it. The crap that was coming out from 88-94 was nearly insurmountable...doesn't mean the work wasn't exquisite. But then, who ever cared about exquisiteness? :distress:

Kelly

06-02-2005, 05:24 AM

I was up there in NY for the Today taping and Lindsey was bloody pissed even though it was his fault! The band had rehearsed the songs at the SC two hours before this so he did know if anything was changed. I also "think" Stevie told the crowd they were doing PK when Lauer asked her before they started it. When they cut for a commercial, I remember thinking that LB was really angry but La Nicks kept whispering in his ear. It was freezing, Stevie was bundledd up like she was expecting a blizzard and Lindsey was running around with his chest hanging out. Good Lord. I know that affected their playing, especially Lindsey's. Watching it live I didn't think it sounded that bad but when I got home and rewatched it....horrible.

I have it on dvd..if you want it Lagrind.....I need to clean out my PM box and then you can PM me.

strandinthewind

06-02-2005, 08:58 AM

. . . When they cut for a commercial, I remember thinking that LB was really angry but La Nicks kept whispering in his ear.

She can have that calming effect on him can't she!!!!!!!! :angel: :angel:

gldstwmn

06-02-2005, 11:59 AM

I am ENRAPTURED listening to the Sat. Vegas boot of "If Anyone Falls" and it is as STUNNING as I remembered it.

It's on constant repeat while I am driving in the car. It's my favorite part of the boot.

strandinthewind

06-02-2005, 12:38 PM

It's on constant repeat while I am driving in the car. It's my favorite part of the boot.

Remember when we were sitting there and the a capella part at the end came off sooooooooooo great - I STILL get chills listening to it.

Her voice sounds sooo good in it - she sounds a lot like it is 1983 again :nod:

ontheEdgeof17

06-02-2005, 02:07 PM

Remember when we were sitting there and the a capella part at the end came off sooooooooooo great - I STILL get chills listening to it.

Her voice sounds sooo good in it - she sounds a lot like it is 1983 again :nod:

Gawd.

best.version.ever

gldstwmn

06-02-2005, 03:18 PM

Gawd.

best.version.ever

It is. I love it!

David

06-02-2005, 06:42 PM

It is. I love it!You guys convinced me to download & listen, so I did.

I ... didn't think it was the best ever ... er ...

But that's what makes the world go round, right?! :wavey: :wavey:

ontheEdgeof17

06-02-2005, 06:55 PM

You guys convinced me to download & listen, so I did.

I ... didn't think it was the best ever ... er ...

But that's what makes the world go round, right?! :wavey: :wavey:

I dramatize. It's good stuff, but I still like the album cut better.

dissention

06-02-2005, 06:59 PM

I dramatize. It's good stuff, but I still like the album cut better.

It's good, but nowhere near as good as some of the '83 versions. She sung it with gusto back then. :nod:

ontheEdgeof17

06-02-2005, 07:26 PM

It's good, but nowhere near as good as some of the '83 versions. She sung it with gusto back then. :nod:

Could you imagine it during the RAL tour? Ho****! :shocked: She would have brought the house down with her antics during that song. It would have been a kick ass encore opener!

gldstwmn

06-02-2005, 09:38 PM

You guys convinced me to download & listen, so I did.

I ... didn't think it was the best ever ... er ...

But that's what makes the world go round, right?! :wavey: :wavey:

True. It was a lot more peppy than anything I'd seen in a while, though. And not trying to sound like a cliche' but you had to be there... :lol:

strandinthewind

06-03-2005, 01:14 AM

I dramatize. It's good stuff, but I still like the album cut better.

I love how she ad libbed a little - you had to be there - I thought she might levitate a la the WH tour while singing it - and the a capella live - OY - that is why I love her live.

gldstwmn

06-03-2005, 01:54 AM

It's good, but nowhere near as good as some of the '83 versions. She sung it with gusto back then. :nod:

It wasn't so much that as she came out in a purple velvet cape and as someone has said before, her every move was filled with drama. This was her first real full tour. Unfortunately, it was 1984 ans she was out with Joe Walsh, one of the most notorious partiers of all time. And being that it was the wild 80's, she indulged in that. No one even thought twice about that, in fact, they expected it. More power to her. Vocally, she was not that strong, she had her moments though. She sang in a soft voice but her stage presence was very dramatic. It was just her presence. Watch the Landover boot and you'll get what I mean. Do you ever remember seeing her on Solid Gold doing Stand Back? That pretty much says it all. Stevie played the part of the consummate rock star during those years and rightfully so.

strandinthewind

06-03-2005, 10:14 AM

I have to say that other than the SNL and Solid Gold performances, I do not like the other vocals I have heard from that tour, though she was the dramatic one.

David

06-03-2005, 11:31 AM

Vocally, she was not that strong, she had her moments though. She sang in a soft voiceWe all hear so differently. When she sang "Stand Back" at the Forum that year, I never heard such a powerful vocal from her at any other time. Even the L.A. Times critic who reviewed the show (who was decidedly negative about her in general) said that she "whipped things up into a truly impressive, tremulous frenzy." I've never seen the whole arena get so excited about "Stand Back" as that night -- much more so than all the other Stevie solo & Fleetwood tours. And then "How Still My Love" started & oh my God! The whole place was floored.

David

06-03-2005, 11:35 AM

I have to say that other than the SNL and Solid Gold performances, I do not like the other vocals I have heard from that tour, though she was the dramatic one.then you're lucky, strand, because there isn't much high-quality stuff to listen to from that year.

But your "Stevie Nicks" is definitely different from my "Stevie Nicks"! More fans nowadays love the "Aunt Stevie" thing going on than the sultry chick of yore ... all these different Stevies wafting around, generation after generation.

strandinthewind

06-03-2005, 11:53 AM

then you're lucky, strand, because there isn't much high-quality stuff to listen to from that year.

But your "Stevie Nicks" is definitely different from my "Stevie Nicks"! More fans nowadays love the "Aunt Stevie" thing going on than the sultry chick of yore ... all these different Stevies wafting around, generation after generation.

Well, I have ben liking her since FM FM - so I have seen all the versions :cool: I must say though that in Vegas, THAT Stevie was very much the 83-85 Stevie on stage.

David

06-03-2005, 12:48 PM

I must say though that in Vegas, THAT Stevie was very much the 83-85 Stevie on stage.I didn't see those Vegas shows, but I saw some video that people shot. It didn't remind me in the slightest of what I remember of Stevie in 1983 or 1985.

It just goes to show that, when it comes to Stevie's fans & their recollections & impressions, it's Rashômon in action!

chiliD

06-03-2005, 01:07 PM

... it's Rashômon in action!

Not only that, but, it's also to each their own!

strandinthewind

06-03-2005, 02:05 PM

I didn't see those Vegas shows, but I saw some video that people shot. It didn't remind me in the slightest of what I remember of Stevie in 1983 or 1985.

It just goes to show that, when it comes to Stevie's fans & their recollections & impressions, it's Rashômon in action!

Well, she wasn't jumping off of speakers at the US Festival :laugh:

But, during the end of EO17 on Sat. she sort of did this twirl thing at the end a la the Red Rocks video. In the beginning of IAF - she ad libs the vocal a little bit and the intro speech on Sat. to that was spontaneous. It was just little things like that that sort of reminded me of 83-85. But, she was not that outrageous and I must say thank goodness she was not, because a little of that goes a long way, esp. when a la 86 she was not even singing most songs by then, she was just sort of barking the lyric between the word "well" and "baby" :laugh:

glitter_fades

06-03-2005, 03:16 PM

Well, I have ben liking her since FM FM - so I have seen all the versions :cool: I must say though that in Vegas, THAT Stevie was very much the 83-85 Stevie on stage.

I liked her in Vegas but I have to disagree she was anything like "Wild Heart" Stevie. I didn't like watching that Stevie. During the WH tour I stopped watching her. I know she was at the height of her fame then. Like someone else said, she was selling the rock star thing, but I wasn't buying it. I saw a woman suffering and self destructing before eveyone's eyes and putting that out on stage as entertainment. I didn't want to watch that. If you look at those shows mentioned a few posts back, Stevie was not even the same person on any given day depending on how distraught or how high she was. Solid Gold and SNL are like two different people. The US Festival and Landover are the same thing...two different Stevies. She appears pretty high during both concerts, but you can clearly see she's gone from one emotional extreme to the other in just a few months. Her physical appearance clearly changed in those months. I know her appearance still changes quickly these days, and she might have had a little something to calm her nerves during the Wed show in Vegas, :laugh: but In Vegas she wasn't selling drama or her personal pain. She was doing her best to be a professional. I appreciate that given her limitations as a performer.

petep9000

06-05-2005, 08:36 AM

Oh man! I loved it when she used to bark her lyrics between liberally placed "wells" and "babys". That made Stevie, well, Stevie.

Well, she wasn't jumping off of speakers at the US Festival :laugh:

But, during the end of EO17 on Sat. she sort of did this twirl thing at the end a la the Red Rocks video. In the beginning of IAF - she ad libs the vocal a little bit and the intro speech on Sat. to that was spontaneous. It was just little things like that that sort of reminded me of 83-85. But, she was not that outrageous and I must say thank goodness she was not, because a little of that goes a long way, esp. when a la 86 she was not even singing most songs by then, she was just sort of barking the lyric between the word "well" and "baby" :laugh:

Ghosty

06-05-2005, 09:12 AM

Fleetwood Mac had great stuff before S & B joined. But at the time of pre-White-album, they needed a guitar player. So what good would it have been if they didn't find a good guitar player? If they couldn't make another album, they would not have existed anymore. And they needed (for guitar) and furthermore *wanted* Lindsey, so why argue about it? Not only did they need and want him, I really doubt Mick and John and Christine has ever regretted S & B joining. And yes, Lindsey may have said it was he and Stevie, or nothing. But FWM did not have to agree with that if they didn't think Stevie would add to the group in a positive way. They could have just told S&B no thanks and then they could have gone on, looking for another guitarist. But they didn't.

Fleetwood Mac would still have gone one even without S&B most likely, finding a guitarist somewhere, but who knows how long they would have lasted. That bluesy style music was starting to wane and a new style of music was coming in.

Also, I don't think anyone can say Stevie Nicks didn't bring a major change in the band. I love Christine, with Mac and her old solo and new solo stuff. But she's not a show-stopping drama performer. I am not saying you have to be in music, but it helps to have a very vibrant, "leading lady" or "leading man" to "capture" people's attention. Some people are happy just to hear the music, while others want a "performance" too. Stevie sure gives a performance (think Bette Midler, Celine Dion, Maddona, - all who have great voices but don't "just sing', but *perform* and it drives the audience wild...etc). And Stevie and Lindsey together also added drama.

Christine has said in interviews she doesn't like that center attention. Which is fine. But it's usually a strong and dramatic personality that becomes super popular, and a "super star". Like Stevie (compared to the rest of Fleetwood Mac, past and present). Like Cher, Madonna, Brittney Spears, etc. I mean, surely there are much better songs out there than Brittney's, but you see Brittany everywhere. Only because she goes for the more dramatic, and she captures attention. Stevie has that energy to capture people. Even a lot of people that hate her still notice and talk about her (like Martha Stewart - heh!). So, she still is getting the attention and limelight. And when it comes to solo careers, we can all see how Stevie's skyrocketed for a while. Whether you like her solo stuff or not, she was a hot profit for a while. And still is not too shabby for the record people either.

SteveMacD

06-05-2005, 01:48 PM

Fleetwood Mac would still have gone one even without S&B most likely, finding a guitarist somewhere, but who knows how long they would have lasted. That bluesy style music was starting to wane and a new style of music was coming in.
I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that Fleetwood Mac hadn't been a blues band since 1970. Bob Welch was a lot of things, but a bluesman was not one of them.
Also, I don't think anyone can say Stevie Nicks didn't bring a major change in the band. I love Christine, with Mac and her old solo and new solo stuff. But she's not a show-stopping drama performer...And Stevie and Lindsey together also added drama.
You're right about Christine and about the drama that Stevie and Lindsey added to the band. However, by all accounts, Dave Walker was a show stopping front man, and Bob Welch was a great performer, too. Musically, the 1975 album wasn't too different from "Bare Trees." For me, the most unique thing Stevie and Lindsey brought to Fleetwood Mac was the vocal harmony. The Mac used some very basic vocal harmonies prior to 1975, but nothing like when Stevie and Lindsey joined.
Christine has said in interviews she doesn't like that center attention. Which is fine. But it's usually a strong and dramatic personality that becomes super popular, and a "super star".
Well, Bob Welch was a very strong personality during the shows. Probably stronger than either Stevie or Lindsey. Some might say too strong. But, from all the boots I have from Bob's time with the band, he was awesome. BTW, I'm only bringing this up as an A-B comparison. As mentioned, I think Fleetwood Mac would have been a success, but wouldn't have sustained their success for as long or reached the level of success without Stevie and Lindsey.
I mean, surely there are much better songs out there than Brittney's, but you see Brittany everywhere. Only because she goes for the more dramatic, and she captures attention.
Well, quoting Ed The Sock, Brittney's a promosexual. She'll do ANYTHING to keep her name and face in the public eye (i.e. frenching Madonna, endlessly talking about her virginity, having a reality show that would make Ozzy and Anna Nicole blush, etc.) Brittney's fame is based more on shock value than actual talent. Her movie bombed and her recent albums haven't done well. So, I don't think there's an artistic demand for Brittney. I think people only talk about her because of the freak show element.

Which does not apply to Stevie. Stevie is a singer/songwriter/artist, and that's all she is. She doesn't go out of her way to pretend to be something she's not, or fabricate things to keep her name in the media. She's what you'd call "what you see is what you get," and as a result, she has been able to maintain a respectable career overall (save for a few bad years in the 1990s).

Ghosty

06-05-2005, 03:42 PM

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that Fleetwood Mac hadn't been a blues band since 1970. Bob Welch was a lot of things, but a bluesman was not one of them.

I don't know what you'd call the Bob Welch music. I guess what I meant is it seemed like music was changing. I think you know what I mean...? I can see where the White album and Bare Trees could be sort of in the same area. I like some of the songs on Bare Trees a lot. But I listen to the white album more.

You're right about Christine and about the drama that Stevie and Lindsey added to the band. However, by all accounts, Dave Walker was a show stopping front man, and Bob Welch was a great performer, too.

But he didn't having staying power. Actually, I don't remember what happened to him...did he just do some solo stuff afterwards? But he didn't become a mega star like Stevie became, and Fleetwood (the S&L version). That's all. Not everyone reaches that. Bob may have/had some huge fans, but he's not a name that rolls off everyone's tongue. Lots of people don't know who the heck he is. I guess I'm just thinking in terms of popularity, etc. I don't think music has to be that,personally, to be good, it's just this question was about whether FWM would have still be as successful....and unless they found another dramatic person(s) instead of S&L, I don't think FWM would have been. Not in the same hugeness. People love Christine, but I don't think they would have been as huge with just her, and maybe some guitar player. You didn't have hundreds and hundreds of girls showing up at the concerts dressed like Chris, and not as many men talk about "how hot" she is. Which being a woman, I don't care that Stevie's hot. But just that, well, as the saying goes, men wanted to be with her, and women wanted to be her. Not as many men and women felt that way about Chris. And if you revise that statement a little, not many said it about John and Mick either, but more did about Lindsey (women wanting to be with him, and men wanting to be - or play - like him). S&L just had a strong popularity vibe. ;)

Well, Bob Welch was a very strong personality during the shows. Probably stronger than either Stevie or Lindsey. from all the boots I have from Bob's time with the band, he was awesome. BTW, I'm only bringing this up as an A-B comparison.

He might have been strong, and awesome, but not as many people cared. That might be sad, as far as music and talent goes. But it's how it goes. I think pretty much like you said: "I think Fleetwood Mac would have been a success, but wouldn't have sustained their success for as long or reached the level of success without Stevie and Lindsey."

Well, quoting Ed The Sock, Brittney's a promosexual. She'll do ANYTHING to keep her name and face in the public eye

Don't know who Ed the Sock is. And don't like Brittney. But besides her sex apparent, I mean - appeal, lol - it seemed like a lot of girls liked her when she was first starting out. She had the teeny-bopper group all hyped up and gained big popularity. And guys started looking at her in a more sexual way before she made it more extreme.

Which does not apply to Stevie. Stevie is a singer/songwriter/artist, and that's all she is. She doesn't go out of her way to pretend to be something she's not, or fabricate things to keep her name in the media. She's what you'd call "what you see is what you get," and as a result, she has been able to maintain a respectable career overall (save for a few bad years in the 1990s).

But she purposely made an image for herself. She has said she played all the FWM albums from front to back, over and over, to see where she could fit in, and she saw a mystical theme to them, so concentrated on that. And she said she worked with someone to create her stage image, the flowy chiffon, what did she say, like from a character from les miserable? Some Charles Dickenson character? Some wispy wafe? lol! But she worked on it and planned it, created it... But I think if she didn't have that star quality, that certain something, it would not have mattered, you know?

Thanks for the conversation. I'm not a regular here, and only pop in once in a while when I get a chance, and rarely does anyone ever talk with me or to me when I do. :)

SteveMacD

06-05-2005, 09:13 PM

I don't know what you'd call the Bob Welch music. I guess what I meant is it seemed like music was changing.
I'd call Bob's time with Fleetwood Mac progressive pop. It was a bit too out there and had too many influences to be standard pop, but it was too formulamatic to be straight ahead prog-rock (a la Rush, Yes, Genesis, et al).
But he didn't having staying power. Actually, I don't remember what happened to him...did he just do some solo stuff afterwards? But he didn't become a mega star like Stevie became, and Fleetwood (the S&L version). That's all. Not everyone reaches that.
The Cliff Notes version is that after he got the band to move to L.A. and did the "Heroes..." album and tour, he left Fleetwood Mac, formed a metal-ish band called Paris, recorded two albums with them, and split that band up. Mick then became his manager and had Chris and Lindsey help rerecord "Sentimental Lady," which was a huge hit off of his platinum album, "French Kiss." Bob's next album, "Three Hearts" (which featured Mick, Chris, and Stevie), went gold. In fact, he was a pretty successful solo artist. Only Stevie Nicks and Dave Mason had better cumulative solo careers.
it's just this question was about whether FWM would have still be as successful....
Not exactly. This question was would Fleetwood Mac have been successful, not as successful. How many bands ever have a studio album do what "Rumours" did? Even the Beatles and Stones can't say the same.
He might have been strong, and awesome, but not as many people cared. That might be sad, as far as music and talent goes. But it's how it goes.
Again, there were certain advantages that Stevie and Lindsey enjoyed that Bob did not. Could you imagine if Stevie and Lindsey, by contract, had to record two albums a year? I doubt their albums would have had the detail, and the public wouldn't have enough time to digest an album. That was this situation Bob was in during his tenure with the band. There was just an oversaturation of Fleetwood Mac albums that weren't as well crafted due to contractual reasons released between 1970 through 1974. Bob's last album with Fleetwood Mac was essentially a chess move. They had to record right then or possibly lose the right to use the name Fleetwood Mac. However, just as they won the war, Bob quit.

So, by 1975, Fleetwood Mac was playing by a new set of rules. They no longer had an outside manager calling all the shots. They weren't bound by a contract that would have them record two albums a year. And, they weren't so big that the record company was paying all that much attention to what they were doing, which gave them loads of freedom. Add to that a brilliant three part harmony, and Fleetwood Mac had an ideal situation that had never existed for Fleetwood Mac in the past. Frankly, I don't know what could have happened for Fleetwood Mac with other personnel under those circumstances.
But she purposely made an image for herself. She has said she played all the FWM albums from front to back, over and over, to see where she could fit in, and she saw a mystical theme to them, so concentrated on that. And she said she worked with someone to create her stage image, the flowy chiffon, what did she say, like from a character from les miserable? Some Charles Dickenson character? Some wispy wafe? lol! But she worked on it and planned it, created it... But I think if she didn't have that star quality, that certain something, it would not have mattered, you know?
Yeah, but I've heard Stevie say that she always liked witches and was always into the etherial. "Rhiannon" was written before she even heard the name Mick Fleetwood. And, there was a mystical quality to the band's music. So, her persona, planned or not, suited her own personal interest. In other words, being in a band like Fleetwood Mac actually helped her be herself.

chiliD

06-06-2005, 08:41 AM

... he left Fleetwood Mac, formed a metal-ish band called Paris, recorded two albums with them, and split that band up.

Just a little extra...he didn't really "split the band" up, in that kind of dry, calculated manner. Hunt Sales (Paris' drummer) was stricken with Bell's Palsy and during his recouperation time, Bob had written new material...French Kiss was recorded & released during that time...had Hunt not been ill, French Kiss would've very well been Paris' 3rd album (this per Bob himself...on his own site's message board).

Ghosty

06-06-2005, 09:30 AM

Yeah, but I've heard Stevie say that she always liked witches and was always into the etherial. "Rhiannon" was written before she even heard the name Mick Fleetwood. And, there was a mystical quality to the band's music. So, her persona, planned or not, suited her own personal interest. In other words, being in a band like Fleetwood Mac actually helped her be herself.

She wrote Rhiannon about a woman's name in a fictional novel because she just liked the name and thought it was pretty. At the time she wrote it there was no mystical association with it and she had never even heard of a goddess named Rhiannon at that point. She got into that later on when someone sent her a copy of a book about the goddess Rhiannon (after the song becoming so popular on the radio). Then she thought it was really neat how she had already written a song about the name Rhiannon, and she then started reading all the books she could find about the Welch goddess and myth.

She's was not all witchy and mystical when she was in Fritz or Buckingham Nicks.

I didn't say she isn't herself. But it's more dramatic and planned. I am sure Brittney Spears is also herself, she wouldn't do all the sexy stuff if she wasn't enjoying it and feeling like that is a part of her (women have come a long way and do not have to be pressured into that unless they like that aspect). But I was just saying Stevie did say quite a few times she planned her look and her personna on stage. She was more hippie-ish in style before that in her clothes, wearing what was normal for that era. Which there is nothing wrong with that. But if you look at her onstage clothing and look at her songs, they got more mystical and wispy and witchy as a few years went on. I didn't say it didn't suit her personal interest. I doubt she would have become something she totally was not into or cared about. But that mystical thing did evolve a lot more once she started really planning it and getting into it.

chiliD

06-06-2005, 03:39 PM

So, by 1975, Fleetwood Mac was playing by a new set of rules. They no longer had an outside manager calling all the shots. They weren't bound by a contract that would have them record two albums a year.

[edit]

Again, there were certain advantages that Stevie and Lindsey enjoyed that Bob did not. Could you imagine if Stevie and Lindsey, by contract, had to record two albums a year?

Buckingham would've imploded if he had to release two albums a year. :blob2:

We're lucky to get two albums a MILLENIUM from him.

glitter_fades

06-06-2005, 04:38 PM

She wrote Rhiannon about a woman's name in a fictional novel because she just liked the name and thought it was pretty. At the time she wrote it there was no mystical association with it and she had never even heard of a goddess named Rhiannon at that point. She got into that later on when someone sent her a copy of a book about the goddess Rhiannon (after the song becoming so popular on the radio). Then she thought it was really neat how she had already written a song about the name Rhiannon, and she then started reading all the books she could find about the Welch goddess and myth.

She's was not all witchy and mystical when she was in Fritz or Buckingham Nicks.

I didn't say she isn't herself. But it's more dramatic and planned. I am sure Brittney Spears is also herself, she wouldn't do all the sexy stuff if she wasn't enjoying it and feeling like that is a part of her (women have come a long way and do not have to be pressured into that unless they like that aspect). But I was just saying Stevie did say quite a few times she planned her look and her personna on stage. She was more hippie-ish in style before that in her clothes, wearing what was normal for that era. Which there is nothing wrong with that. But if you look at her onstage clothing and look at her songs, they got more mystical and wispy and witchy as a few years went on. I didn't say it didn't suit her personal interest. I doubt she would have become something she totally was not into or cared about. But that mystical thing did evolve a lot more once she started really planning it and getting into it.

I agree with a lot of your points. Stevie certainly planned out her mystical stage persona and created a character she could be associated with for her image. Very astute of her. I'll give her that. The stuff about her not knowing the Rhiannon myth is hard to swallow. Perhaps she hadn't read all the books but I thought she said once that she got the idea while reading one of the Triad stories during an airline flight? It doesn't really matter. I don't think the witchy part of that myth is a key to why she liked that character anyway. I think the most significant thing she's ever said about writing Rhiannon was what she said at the Tuscaloosa BN show. She did mention Rhiannon was about a witch, but she also said she wrote the song about a lady with 2 personalities and that she was facinated by that. Nobody ever mentions this as having any significant meaning. It's always the witchy thing people want to drone on about. Aside from playing up the witchy connection in the early years of FM, as much as she runs from it now :laugh: does anyone wonder about her facination with the lady who has 2 personalities? :shrug:

SteveMacD

06-06-2005, 05:00 PM

She did mention Rhiannon was about a witch, but she also said she wrote the song about a lady with 2 personalities and that she was facinated by that...does anyone wonder about her facination with the lady who has 2 personalities? :shrug:
Well, whenever I hear that, I think about the ugly scene that Mick described when Lindsey quit the band, when he called Stevie a "schizophrenic bitch." :shrug:

strandinthewind

06-06-2005, 05:05 PM

She often writes about her alter ego (SOTM and IMO GDW and Gypsy) and she often fantasizes about being someone else a la Julia, Garbo, etc. So, I think that is an open part of her life.

gldstwmn

06-06-2005, 07:08 PM

Aside from playing up the witchy connection in the early years of FM, as much as she runs from it now :laugh: does anyone wonder about her facination with the lady who has 2 personalities? :shrug:

Well, she is a Gemini.

amber

06-06-2005, 07:12 PM

Well, she is a Gemini.
Finally, someone injects some logic. :thumbsup:
"I can't live with just one, I'm a Gemini" - SN

strandinthewind

06-06-2005, 07:18 PM

Well, she is a Gemini.

the flower and the vine :nod:

gldstwmn

06-06-2005, 10:10 PM

Finally, someone injects some logic. :thumbsup:
"I can't live with just one, I'm a Gemini" - SN

That was the exact quote that popped into my head.

amber

06-06-2005, 10:13 PM

That was the exact quote that popped into my head.
Great astro minds, and all that. :angel:
Ha, I wish I only had two personalities!!! *insert yellow laughie*

Ghosty

06-07-2005, 11:55 AM

Buckingham would've imploded if he had to release two albums a year. :blob2:

We're lucky to get two albums a MILLENIUM from him.

Don't know about Lindsey, but Stevie certainly would have had plenty of songs for them! ;) And I think in her earlier years, with a good producer, she could have done it. I think she *would* have done it too (two albums in a year). She wanted the career badly. ("I want to be a star...I don't want to be a cleaning lady"). Lindsey might have done it too, if he *had* to. If he wanted it badly enough, and had no other choice. So who knows. It would have been a way for them to be heard and seen and get their foot further in the door.

Once they get older and have more say in their career, they don't need to do even one album every year. But back then I think they and most musician/singers would bust their butt to get started in the business.

And seems like she did great even with:
Tusk 1979 ~followed by a long-ass tour
Bella Donna 1981
Mirage 1982
Wild Heart 1983

Then I think if she didn't start having problems with Jimmy Iovine, Rock A Little would have been out in 1984 instead of 1985. Maybe it was romantic troubles? Who knows. But I heard she started Rock A Little with him, then went to another producer in the middle of it.

Ghosty

06-07-2005, 12:19 PM

The stuff about her not knowing the Rhiannon myth is hard to swallow. Perhaps she hadn't read all the books but I thought she said once that she got the idea while reading one of the Triad stories during an airline flight? I think the most significant thing she's ever said about writing Rhiannon was what she said at the Tuscaloosa BN show. She did mention Rhiannon was about a witch, but she also said she wrote the song about a lady with 2 personalities and that she was facinated by that.

I am not sure what show I have the BN Rhiannon from, but this is what she says to introduce the song:

"This next song is a brand new song, it's called Rhiannon, which is a Welch female name, I got it out of a book about a lady with two personalities, and I thought it was *sooo* fascinating that I just had to write a song about it. She's a little weird, but...I hope you like it 'cause it's brand new." (and then off topic, it sounds like she might be saying "...and *don't* play it too fast...." to the band?? If so, I think that is so funny. And then it is played fast, which I happen tothink sounds great. Oh well.

Anyways, I've been a Stevie fan since I was young, like around 1981, and things I've read since then, magazine interviews, books, etc. says she wrote the song about a character in a novel. The book is called Triad, by Mary Leader. It is like a "horror" or "mystery" novel, but not about the goddess Rhiannon or that myth.

Then later on when the song Rhiannon by FWM became famous on the radio, someone gave her the Rhiannon myth books (which are not written by Mary Leader, I forget who wrote them, you can probably look them up online at book stores that carry out-of-print books ~ but they are books about the old legend of Rhiannon, and other gods/goddess of the Welch pantheon), all about the Welch myth and legend. I have many goddess myths and stories from different pantheons around the world, and the Celtic ones are really interesting - funny how in school they only ever teach of the old Greek pantheon).

Witchcraft was becoming popular in the US in the early 70's and already had been getting popular in England. I am sure they all wondered about the song Rhiannon, and many probably became Stevie fans and probaly asked her about it, and probably even gave her more books, info, and talked to her about it all, including witchcraft, etc. Seems like Stevie Nicks likes reading about all religions though, not just pagan ones. I think of her as a very spiritual person, not as a pagan or witch. She did have a very witchy vibe inthe 70's, but there seems much more to her than just that.

lol- that's so funny (and true) about her seeming to "run from" the witchy word now - heh! But can we blame her for not wanting to dwell on soley the witchy part forever? She did get negative press and some people banning her albums. Why tick off a whole section of people (born-agains, baptists, etc.), and alientate them from your music.

In one book I have, it mentions when she gets upset of people talking about her always wearing black, so for the Tusk tour she got some pastel outfits, and within the band (or road crew or whatever, I forget) they (including Stevie too?) called them the Easter outfits - lol! But I do love some of those outfits. The in Mirage I love all the white and cream colored outfits she wore.