how many copies did Time sell?

[DavidMn]

I heard this album sold less than 40,000 copies. Is this really true? I mean I must admit, this album doesnt feature my favorite lineup, but the album is serviceable in my opinion, and I wouldve though the Fletwood Mac name alone would have been good for 100,000 or so?

[face of glass]

According to this post (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=131340&postcount=1) (which is an old one, but I haven't found anything newer) it sold about 50 000 copies in the USA. I don't know the sales figures for the rest of the world, but I suspect it probably sold the same amount outside of USA, so your guess would probably be close to reality.

[BombaySapphire3]

Time also has the dubious distinction of being the only Fleetwood Mac studio album of new material to fail to make the Billboard top 200 in the entire 38 years of the band's extistence.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I think diss has more posts than the number of copies Time sold.


It's ashame, too. It's a pretty good album.

[GateandGarden]

It's ashame, too. It's a pretty good album.It's sad how some people who probably haven't even heard it write it off, too. :(

[David]

I heard this album sold less than 40,000 copies. Is this really true? I mean I must admit, this album doesnt feature my favorite lineup, but the album is serviceable in my opinion, and I wouldve though the Fletwood Mac name alone would have been good for 100,000 or so?Maybe its Time will come one day. . .

On the other hand, maybe not.

[chiliD]

I heard this album sold less than 40,000 copies. Is this really true? I mean I must admit, this album doesnt feature my favorite lineup, but the album is serviceable in my opinion, and I wouldve though the Fletwood Mac name alone would have been good for 100,000 or so?

Well, if the other 60,000 would've been TOLD it even existed, it probably would've sold that many. :shrug:

It was released with less than zero publicity or marketing; the band ENDED their tour before the album was released (and played only two songs from the upcoming album..."Blow By Blow" & "Dreaming The Dream")...so, I think those 40,000 people got something pretty special.

[HomerMcvie]

It's sad how some people who probably haven't even heard it write it off, too. :(

People are narrowminded. Time is actually pretty good. I break it out 4 or 5 times a year.

[bretonbanquet]

Well, if the other 60,000 would've been TOLD it even existed, it probably would've sold that many. :shrug:

It was released with less than zero publicity or marketing; the band ENDED their tour before the album was released (and played only two songs from the upcoming album..."Blow By Blow" & "Dreaming The Dream")...so, I think those 40,000 people got something pretty special.

That album definitely came out of nowhere - it was suddenly just there, in the racks... I recall being very surprised to see it :laugh: It took me a while to get round to buying it, but I'm really glad I did, I still enjoy it very much.

[MACFAN]

Im one of the 40,000 who bought the album and I really dont care for it. Actually I think I listened to it twice and one of my shih-tsu's chewed it up :nod: The dog is dead. How I miss that dog !!!

[bretonbanquet]

Im one of the 40,000 who bought the album and I really dont care for it. Actually I think I listened to it twice and one of my shih-tsu's chewed it up :nod: The dog is dead. How I miss that dog !!!

You're not suggesting that there's a connection between the quality of the 'Time' album and the death of your dog, are you? :(

[SteveMacD]

I bought it the day it came out, and I still listen to it a few times a year. At the time, I really loved the album, though in retrospect, some if it is disappointing. What I don't like about the album are Dave's songs and the whole different personnel on different songs with different producers thing. I had certain hopes for Dave's songs that just didn't pan out. His stuff was a little too one dimensional. I also feel that Christine had too many songs, while the boys had too few. Bekka, just right.

That being said, the Bekka and Billy stuff was great and I enjoyed most of Christine's songs. And, Mick's lead work on "These Strange Times" was quite good, in a David Gilmore kind of way.

Overall, I'll agree that it wasn't the band's best effort, but it's nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be. And, I don't feel the sales indicate quality. Lindsey's masterpiece "Out Of The Cradle" sold about the same number of copies. As I've pointed out before, "Time," "Street Angel," and OOTC combined sold less than half a million, so it's not like any of them were setting the world on fire.

[DavidMn]

You know, one thing I think that hurt Time was the fact that they were touring on what alot of people (Not yours truly) viewed as a strictly nostalgia tour with REO Speedwagon and someone else I cant remember at the moment

[SteveMacD]

You know, one thing I think that hurt Time was the fact that they were touring on what alot of people (Not yours truly) viewed as a strictly nostalgia tour with REO Speedwagon and someone else I cant remember at the moment
Pat Benetar and Orleans (Still The One, Dance With Me). I don't see how it hurt the album, when they didn't have an album out at that time. Many fans saw that tour, as well as the tour with Crosby, Stills, & Nash the year before, as the band building stage chemistry for when the album eventually came out and as a way to make some money. However, after the album was released, the band basically split up. Of course, I have my theory (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=20136&page=3&pp=15) as to why they just let the album die. Long story short, I don't think it's coincidental that "Twisted" was released only seven months to the day after "Time."

[jbrownsjr]

I like Time more than SYW. Don't care for Dave's songs too much.

A "Dave" on any FM always has bad songs.

[macfan 57]

I like Time more than SYW. Don't care for Dave's songs too much.

Me too. :nod: I really like the ladies' songs. But I just don't care much for Billy & Dave's songs.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Me too. :nod: I really like the ladies' songs. But I just don't care much for Billy & Dave's songs.


I agree.

Winds of Change

I Do

Nothing Without You......are all high on my list as fav FM songs. :nod:

[SteveMacD]

I actually liked Billy's songs, too. Well, he really didn't have his own songs, as his were both duets with Bekka. "Talkin' To My Heart" ALWAYS makes me smile. Too bad there wasn't a Billy-Christine duet, as I LOVE how they sound together. Actually, I almost wish they would have redone "It Ain't Over" from Billy's "Try Me" album, as their voices on that were breathtaking. I have half a notion of putting that on my mp3 site.

[Nicks Fan]

I think that the "Time Album" was not a great album but I t had it's moments. Bekka had some good songs on it. I think if it had been given the chance it could have done better.

Matt

[jbrownsjr]

i love christine bekka and billy's voices on Talkin to my Heart

Christine adds her beatiful color to that song

[DavidMn]

Pat Benetar and Orleans (Still The One, Dance With Me). I don't see how it hurt the album, when they didn't have an album out at that time. Many fans saw that tour, as well as the tour with Crosby, Stills, & Nash the year before, as the band building stage chemistry for when the album eventually came out and as a way to make some money. However, after the album was released, the band basically split up. Of course, I have my theory (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=20136&page=3&pp=15) as to why they just let the album die. Long story short, I don't think it's coincidental that "Twisted" was released only seven months to the day after "Time."
You got me there. I shouldve worded that differently. thank you for correcting me

[macfan 57]

i love christine bekka and billy's voices on Talkin to my Heart

Christine adds her beatiful color to that song

Is Christine on "Talkin' To My Heart"? I don't hear her. I have just always assumed that she played & sang on only her 5 songs.

[Gailh]

Me too. :nod: I really like the ladies' songs. But I just don't care much for Billy & Dave's songs.

I don't mind Billy's stuff but Dave Mason? I don't see what he was doing in Fleetwood Mac or was Mick short of money at the time?

Gail

[ThePenguin]

Is Christine on "Talkin' To My Heart"? I don't hear her. I have just always assumed that she played & sang on only her 5 songs.


I think she is on background vocals . I hear her in the 'ah-ahhhh's'....

Love that song, BTW. great opener to that album.

-Lis

[chiliD]

I don't mind Billy's stuff but Dave Mason? I don't see what he was doing in Fleetwood Mac or was Mick short of money at the time?

Gail


Apparently, from what I've read, Dave Mason (who had been living in Mick's "guest house" at the time) hounded Mick until he relented and let him in the band.

Why Mick didn't even bother to ask Todd Sharp just boggles my mind...he's a fantastic guitarist, he's a singer/songwriter, he went to Africa with Mick for The Visitor, he'd played in The Zoo, on Christine's album & tour (wrote "I'm The One" for her), and was with Bob Welch's band from 1978-81. He basically WAS a logical choice...but according to his Q&A here, Mick never asked.

[macfan 57]

Why Mick didn't even bother to ask Todd Sharp just boggles my mind...he's a fantastic guitaristy, he's a singer/songwriter, he went to Africa with Mick for The Visitor, he'd played in The Zoo, on Christine's album & tour (wrote "I'm The One" for her), and was with Bob Welch's band from 1978-81. He basically WAS a logical choice...but according to his Q&A here, Mick never asked.

According to Mick in a 1992 Goldmine interview, Todd was considered for the band after Lindsey left in 1987.

[chiliD]

According to Mick in a 1992 Goldmine interview, Todd was considered for the band after Lindsey left in 1987.

Ok, so who are we gonna believe :shrug:...Todd said he was NEVER asked at ANY time.

Cop-out theory: Mick probably "considered" Todd in his own mind, but never made the phone call.

[GateandGarden]

I think she is on background vocals . I hear her in the 'ah-ahhhh's'....

Love that song, BTW. great opener to that album.

-LisI had thought at one point that those "ah-ahhhhh's" were Christine but then I thought maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part, like me just wanting the song to be even more perfect than it already is. Now I think it must be since I'm not the only one who thinks so. Cool! :)

[jbrownsjr]

I had thought at one point that those "ah-ahhhhh's" were Christine but then I thought maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part, like me just wanting the song to be even more perfect than it already is. Now I think it must be since I'm not the only one who thinks so. Cool! :)


that's Christine on the ahhh's

[macfan 57]

that's Christine on the ahhh's

I'm going to have to listen a little closer next time. :) I still don't really like the song though & I usually like Billy's songs.

[jbrownsjr]

ur gonna kick urself when you hear it

and...........it might make u like the song

[MACFAN]

Apparently, from what I've read, Dave Mason (who had been living in Mick's "guest house" at the time) hounded Mick until he relented and let him in the band.

Why Mick didn't even bother to ask Todd Sharp just boggles my mind...he's a fantastic guitarist, he's a singer/songwriter, he went to Africa with Mick for The Visitor, he'd played in The Zoo, on Christine's album & tour (wrote "I'm The One" for her), and was with Bob Welch's band from 1978-81. He basically WAS a logical choice...but according to his Q&A here, Mick never asked.

Why Fleetwood Mac even released Time boggles my mind. To me that is the worst album ever!! Christine should have stayed away from the project for her own good and released her songs and they should have released the music under a different name. This album was just all over the place in terms of any form of cohesion.

[HomerMcvie]

Why Fleetwood Mac even released Time boggles my mind.
It was to be the next incarnation of FM. Too bad the public wasn't willing to accept it without ole what's her name. And it really died the death when Mick realized Lindsey was interested in coming back into the fold.
Time's not that bad. And Bekka's got an amazing voice. WAAAAY better than.....you know who! :angel:

[chiliD]

Why Fleetwood Mac even released Time boggles my mind.



BFD, its a Fleetwood Mac album, get over it. Fleetwood Mac existed for nearly a decade BEFORE those two California brats joined, they carried on without 'em. Big f-ing deal.

Why Fleetwood Mac even carried on after Peter Green left boggles mine. But, that's a whole 'nother thread.

[SteveMacD]

Why Fleetwood Mac even released Time boggles my mind. To me that is the worst album ever!!
Please. It isn't even the worst Fleetwood Mac album, far less the worst album ever.
Christine should have stayed away from the project for her own good and released her songs and they should have released the music under a different name.
Why would Christine stay away from a project in which she was there from the beginning? When they started working on the album, it was just Mick, John, and Christine. Then they added Bekka, and then Dave. Billy Burnette rejoined shortly thereafter.
This album was just all over the place in terms of any form of cohesion.
On that I'll agree, and have said it was what really hurt the album for me. As I've said, considering that "Time," "Street Angel," and "Out Of The Cradle" combined sold less than 400,000 copies says more to me about the overall popularity of Fleetwood Mac, REGARDLESS OF PERSONNEL, than it does about the quality of the albums themselves.

[MACFAN]

[QUOTE=SteveMacD]Please. It isn't even the worst Fleetwood Mac album, far less the worst album ever.

Why would Christine stay away from a project in which she was there from the beginning? When they started working on the album, it was just Mick, John, and Christine. Then they added Bekka, and then Dave. Billy Burnette rejoined shortly thereafter.

To me it is the worst Fleetwood Mac album. Christine should have stayed away because an album of her alone would have been way better than the piece of **** Time is. Sad part is Dave Mason has done some great work, just not with Fleetwood Mac.

[MACFAN]

BFD, its a Fleetwood Mac album, get over it. Fleetwood Mac existed for nearly a decade BEFORE those two California brats joined, they carried on without 'em. Big f-ing deal.

Why Fleetwood Mac even carried on after Peter Green left boggles mine. But, that's a whole 'nother thread.

Get over what? The fact that I think Time sucks....please. I like every Fleetwood Mac album that "those two California Brats" are not on. Time is just not one of them. :sorry:

[MACFAN]

It was to be the next incarnation of FM. Too bad the public wasn't willing to accept it without ole what's her name. And it really died the death when Mick realized Lindsey was interested in coming back into the fold.
Time's not that bad. And Bekka's got an amazing voice. WAAAAY better than.....you know who! :angel:

Yeah Bekka can sing Im not denying that. Better than Stevie no. Bekka's body of work does not hold a candle to Stevie's. Time died before it hit the stores.

[SteveMacD]

Christine should have stayed away because an album of her alone would have been way better than the piece of **** Time is.
Again, she was the only singer/songwriter who was involved with the project from the very beginning, so it makes no sense for her to have stayed away. As for an album of her alone, well that isn't Fleetwood Mac! Fleetwood Mac has never only had one singer. Why start going down that road 28 years later? And most folks who follow the band somewhat closely weren't shocked that Bekka Bramlett ended up in the group. Actually, I suspected from a conversation I had with Mick the one time I met him that Dave Mason would end up in the band. In any event, there are some really good songs on "Time," and honestly, I could find six songs on "Time" that I'd enjoy listening to, which is one more than I get with "Penguin." Let's face it, the band is at it's best with three songwriters. Two isn't enough, four is overkill.
Sad part is Dave Mason has done some great work, just not with Fleetwood Mac.
As somebody who has all of his solo albums and his work with Traffic (check out the discography section), I completely agree. I was very disappointed in his "Time" stuff, although I do like the toned-down 1994 version of "Blow By Blow."

[HomerMcvie]

Yeah Bekka can sing Im not denying that. Better than Stevie no. Bekka's body of work does not hold a candle to Stevie's.
I didn't SAY she had more hits, or number of songs written. I said she's a better singer. Technique-wise, she is.
I guess when she's animated as a barnyard animal on South Park, she'll have it made! ;) :wavey: :lol: :lol:

[SteveMacD]

Yeah Bekka can sing Im not denying that. Better than Stevie no.
In the truest sense, yes, Bekka is the better singer. Her range is considerable, and her tone is more universal. But, Stevie is more than a singer. She's a personna. She has a distinct image. It doesn't matter that she has almost no range these days, the actual singing is only a part of who she is.
Bekka's body of work does not hold a candle to Stevie's.
Well, duh! Stevie is older and did not have the burdon of having to be compared to her legendary mother or two other legendary rock women. Hell, Stevie didn't have the burdon of being THE girl in the band. She openly admits that Christine's time in the band made it easier for her to be accepted by Mac fans. Stevie was able to join a band that had a mild following, but was not terribly well known as a complete unknown herself, create an image, and was able to be judged on her own merits as a singer/songwriter/performer. That was never in Bekka's cards. By the time Bekka joined, the band had been THE biggest band in history, and everything from '87 on has just been a footnote in the story. So, really, their situations are so completely different, that to try and compare their careers is really pointless. I'm sure the career Bekka has had isn't necessarily the one she wanted, but she sure has been a backing vocalist of choice for a lot of huge name acts.
Time died before it hit the stores.
Because the "Time" band didn't do anything to promote the album. Again, I think we have Mr. Buckingham to thank for that. As I'll keep saying, I think it's slightly more than coincidental that "Twisted" was released seven months to the day "Time" was released.

[MACFAN]

I didn't SAY she had more hits, or number of songs written. I said she's a better singer. Technique-wise, she is.
I guess when she's animated as a barnyard animal on South Park, she'll have it made! ;) :wavey: :lol: :lol:

Well for that matter, Ive seen lots of girls in clubs who are great singers but it's not just the voice that makes a true star and a great talent. John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Chryssie Hynde and so many others are not technically perfect singers yet they became hugely successful in their medium. I **** on all that technique wise nonsense.

I guess she will so she hasn't.

[MACFAN]

In the truest sense, yes, Bekka is the better singer. Her range is considerable, and her tone is more universal. But, Stevie is more than a singer. She's a personna. She has a distinct image. It doesn't matter that she has almost no range these days, the actual singing is only a part of who she is.

Well, duh! Stevie is older and did not have the burdon of having to be compared to her legendary mother or two other legendary rock women. Hell, Stevie didn't have the burdon of being THE girl in the band. She openly admits that Christine's time in the band made it easier for her to be accepted by Mac fans. Stevie was able to join a band that had a mild following, but was not terribly well known as a complete unknown herself, create an image, and was able to be judged on her own merits as a singer/songwriter/performer. That was never in Bekka's cards. By the time Bekka joined, the band had been THE biggest band in history, and everything from '87 on has just been a footnote in the story. So, really, their situations are so completely different, that to try and compare their careers is really pointless. I'm sure the career Bekka has had isn't necessarily the one she wanted, but she sure has been a backing vocalist of choice for a lot of huge name acts.

Because the "Time" band didn't do anything to promote the album. Again, I think we have Mr. Buckingham to thank for that. As I'll keep saying, I think it's slightly more than coincidental that "Twisted" was released seven months to the day "Time" was released.

Christine being in the band had no influence on Stevie being accepted by the fans. Stevie was accepted by the fans because of her voice, looks and talent not because the band had another woman in it. Whats the difference, if the fans were not going to like Stevie, Christine could not make them.

When I saw the Time band in 94 I guess, I was embarrassed for them. They were on a bill with 3 other acts that were mediocore at best (except for Benatar). Bekka looked ridiculous in her mini Mick outfit of black hot pants, white shirt and black vest. And when her and Mick stood together on the stage for GDW (or Landslide I forget which one) in basically matching outfits it was hysterical. I was like what is this The Partridge Family. Time did nothing for the name Fleetwood Mac. Im glad it is a very brief footnote in the history of the band. Im sure in hindsight all concerned with it know it was a mistake.

[Johnny Stew]

Again, (Christine) was the only singer/songwriter who was involved with the project from the very beginning, so it makes no sense for her to have stayed away. It never seemed like Christine's heart was into 'Time' though. She has said her being on that album was a "contractual obligation," and in her AOL interview to promote 'Time,' she talked about how much she missed Lindsey and Stevie and hoped they'd all work together again.

Rather odd to openly discuss how much better things are when your former bandmates are in the equation, instead of focusing on the strengths of your current bandmates and your current album. :shrug:

That being said, I rather like 'Time.' I wasn't sure what I'd think of it before I bought it (back in '95), but was quite pleasantly surprised that I truly liked it.

[chiliD]

The biggest mistake Fleetwood Mac made was The Dance...it was the death-knell of the creativity of the band. A move backwards instead of forward. The proof that they couldn't get out from under the Rumours parachute. They should've just called it a day after Tusk. Let Stevie & Lindsey go full time into solo careers in 1980.

Then re-establish Fleetwood Mac from THAT point with a new lineup. (re-enlist Bob Welch, who would bring along Todd Sharp, and add Martha Davis & Marty Jourard)

[DavidMn]

The biggest mistake Fleetwood Mac made was The Dance...it was the death-knell of the creativity of the band. A move backwards instead of forward. The proof that they couldn't get out from under the Rumours parachute. They should've just called it a day after Tusk. Let Stevie & Lindsey go full time into solo careers in 1980.

Then re-establish Fleetwood Mac from THAT point with a new lineup. (re-enlist Bob Welch, who would bring along Todd Sharp, and add Martha Davis & Marty Jourard)
You mean Martha Davis from the Motels?

[chiliD]

You mean Martha Davis from the Motels?


The one & only.

[DavidMn]

The one & only.
Boy she has a great voice. I wonder what heppened to her. Is she still in Music?

[chiliD]

Just came out with a new album. :)

The Official Martha Davis & Motels Website (http://www.marthadavis.com)

The "Martha Davis Interviews Martha Davis" section is hilarious.

[SteveMacD]

It never seemed like Christine's heart was into 'Time' though. She has said her being on that album was a "contractual obligation,"
That's a new one to me. She seemed excited about doing another Mac album in an interview that was posted through here from around the time of the box set.
and in her AOL interview to promote 'Time,' she talked about how much she missed Lindsey and Stevie and hoped they'd all work together again.
To be fair, she was asked if she would ever like to work with Stevie and Lindsey again.

Rather odd to openly discuss how much better things are when your former bandmates are in the equation, instead of focusing on the strengths of your current bandmates and your current album. :shrug:
Really, all I got out of that interview was that Christine would have rather worked with Lindsey Buckingham over Dave Mason. I didn't get that she was unhappy with either Bekka or Billy. Knowing that Steve Winwood is a close friend, I wasn't shocked that she was less than thrilled with Dave Mason. Plus, how enthusiastic could she be if she weren't touring with the band, and basically made it known that was her last album with the group? At that point, she really didn't have a personal stake in the band, and was most likely in a place where she was reflecting on her career.

[Bumperke]

According to this post (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=131340&postcount=1) (which is an old one, but I haven't found anything newer) it sold about 50 000 copies in the USA. I don't know the sales figures for the rest of the world, but I suspect it probably sold the same amount outside of USA, so your guess would probably be close to reality.

In the Netherlands it didn't even reach the charts, suggesting not more than 10.000 copy's sold.

Will

[MACFAN]

The biggest mistake Fleetwood Mac made was The Dance...it was the death-knell of the creativity of the band. A move backwards instead of forward. The proof that they couldn't get out from under the Rumours parachute. They should've just called it a day after Tusk. Let Stevie & Lindsey go full time into solo careers in 1980.

Then re-establish Fleetwood Mac from THAT point with a new lineup. (re-enlist Bob Welch, who would bring along Todd Sharp, and add Martha Davis & Marty Jourard)

Why was it a mistake to have 5 very talented people regroup to celebrate their body of work. A step backward? The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time. Their music was introduced to new and younger fans. Seems like a good idea to me if your a musician. I attended 18 Dance shows and yes the speeches were canned but the music performed was done with a lot of passion. There was a promotional push to bring the band back into the public eye and I see nothing wrong with that. The four new songs by the band were very good, were they big hits, no. But I dont think they were meant to be. If Lindsey and Stevie would have left after Tusk we would'nt have Mirage or Tango. Which I feel are both very good albums.

As far as getting out from under the Rumours parachute the tour consisted of 8 songs from Rumours (it is a monster album for goodness sakes), 5 songs from Fleetwood Mac, 2 songs from Tango, 1 from Mirage, 1 from Tusk, 1 from Live, 1 solo Lindsey, 1 solo Stevie, and 4 new songs. Quite a lot of bang for your buck. Also a couple of million in sales ,3 grammy nominations, a Brit award, consistently sold out shows, R&R hall of fame induction, lots of press does not seem like a step backwards to me.. The tour was not a rehash of Rumours but a way for that lineup to say to the world "we are a great F*****g band aren't we". :thumbsup:

[HomerMcvie]

We get it, you worship Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. You don't like Time. We get it.
God knows, there couldn't be a FM without Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. Dead horse. We get it. :wavey: :wavey: ;)

[MACFAN]

We get it, you worship Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. You don't like Time. We get it.
God knows, there couldn't be a FM without Lindsey and Stevie. We get it. Dead horse. We get it. :wavey: :wavey: ;)

You get what? I dont worship anyone. I was answering a post about whether or not The Dance was a mistake for "the band". Had the 1973 band regrouped for a tour I would have been happy for them and attended but they didn't.

Dead Horse? Aint no dead horse here. The only thing dead was Fleetwood Mac's career in 1995.

[SteveMacD]

Why was it a mistake to have 5 very talented people regroup to celebrate their body of work.
In theory, it isn't. In reality, all they will ever be remembered for is "Rumour." Everything else is glossed over. It's because of "The Dance" that this happens, or more specifically how the history of the band was completely rewritten during the whole "The Dance" period.
A step backward? The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time.
And, Lindsey Buckingham as a popular artist after the debacle that was "Out Of The Cradle," and Stevie Nicks a popular artist after the debacle that was "Street Angel." Oh, but it's not polite to point out that their sales sucked donkey balls, too. At least Fleetwood Mac has the excuse that they did absolutely nothing to promote their album. Their touring was all done PRIOR to the album's release. No videos. No touring. No television. No radio interviews. What's Lindsey's excuse? What's Stevie's excuse?
If Lindsey and Stevie would have left after Tusk we would'nt have Mirage or Tango. Which I feel are both very good albums.
Which is why those two albums produced a total of three songs for the 1997 set and only three songs for the 2003-2004, with two being dropped by the end of the tour. Yeah, monster albums those two are.
As far as getting out from under the Rumours parachute the tour consisted of 8 songs from Rumours (it is a monster album for goodness sakes), 5 songs from Fleetwood Mac, 2 songs from Tango, 1 from Mirage, 1 from Tusk, 1 from Live, 1 solo Lindsey, 1 solo Stevie, and 4 new songs. Quite a lot of bang for your buck. Also a couple of million in sales ,3 grammy nominations, a Brit award, consistently sold out shows, R&R hall of fame induction, lots of press does not seem like a step backwards to me.. The tour was not a rehash of Rumours but a way for that lineup to say to the world "we are a great F*****g band aren't we". :thumbsup:
If that's what you want to believe, then so be it. But it was really the creative death nail for Fleetwood Mac. As much as I liked "Say You Will," it only sold about what "Behind The Mask" sold. The shows all sold well, but people weren't jonesing for the new stuff. They wanted the hits. Which basically means that Fleetwood Mac is an oldies band, and it's all the harder to take them as seriously. All promoters wanted to promote with Fleetwood Mac is "Rumours." Is it that hard to believe that an album that consisted of a major rehashing of "Rumours" would have sold millions, been up for three Grammy awards, and gotten an award in Britain? The thing is, they will NEVER have that EVER again, especially with NEW albums. "The Dance" basically was a huge high for the band, but the aftermath is that they are limited in where they can go with their careers.

[MACFAN]

In theory, it isn't. In reality, all they will ever be remembered for is "Rumour." Everything else is glossed over. It's because of "The Dance" that this happens, or more specifically how the history of the band was completely rewritten during the whole "The Dance" period.

How was the history of the band re-written? i dont get what your saying here.

And, Lindsey Buckingham as a popular artist after the debacle that was "Out Of The Cradle," and Stevie Nicks a popular artist after the debacle that was "Street Angel." Oh, but it's not polite to point out that their sales sucked donkey balls, too. At least Fleetwood Mac has the excuse that they did absolutely nothing to promote their album. Their touring was all done PRIOR to the album's release. No videos. No touring. No television. No radio interviews. What's Lindsey's excuse? What's Stevie's excuse?

I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to. How and when a band/artist promotes themselves is their decision.

Which is why those two albums produced a total of three songs for the 1997 set and only three songs for the 2003-2004, with two being dropped by the end of the tour. Yeah, monster albums those two are.

Mirage and Tango were both pretty big hits in their day. What a band chooses to include in their set is again their decison.

If that's what you want to believe, then so be it. But it was really the creative death nail for Fleetwood Mac. As much as I liked "Say You Will," it only sold about what "Behind The Mask" sold. The shows all sold well, but people weren't jonesing for the new stuff. They wanted the hits. Which basically means that Fleetwood Mac is an oldies band, and it's all the harder to take them as seriously. All promoters wanted to promote with Fleetwood Mac is "Rumours." Is it that hard to believe that an album that consisted of a major rehashing of "Rumours" would have sold millions, been up for three Grammy awards, and gotten an award in Britain? The thing is, they will NEVER have that EVER again, especially with NEW albums. "The Dance" basically was a huge high for the band, but the aftermath is that they are limited in where they can go with their careers.[/QUOTE]

Out of 15,000 folks in an arena how many of them are "die hards" who know the lesser known material. When I go see the Rolling Stones, U2 or any big name act I wanna hear the hits, why should Fleetwood Mac be different. U2 may be a bit more adventurous than Fleetwood but they still play the hits. Is there something wrong with that? Yes I do find it hard to believe that a 20 year old band can release basically a greatest hits album (considering they already had one) and a live one to boot and sell millions. Every fan I know who is a die hard was jonesing to hear the stuff from the Say You Will album and we got a lot from the album like 5 or 6 so that aint bad. They brought out Beautiful Child, I know Im Not Wrong, Red Rover, Eyes Of The World, Goodbye Baby, Say Goodbye all non hits. Hell even Say You Will and Peacekeeper werent that well know so they did try and the shows were great regardless of 'the hits".

[SteveMacD]

How was the history of the band re-written? i dont get what your saying here.
In all of the bio specials that were done around that time basically gloss over everything prior to "Rumours" as well as after "Rumours" and have the band disbanding in 1987, playing together again for Clinton, having the inauguration being the first step towards "The Dance," etc. Basically, we were lucky if Bob Welch was mentioned, and Billy Burnette was NEVER mentioned.
I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to. How and when a band/artist promotes themselves is their decision.
Okay, my bad. When you say "The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time," silly me, thought you MUST have been talking about sales. Because, really, how else did "The Dance" really reestablish Fleetwood Mac? In the ten years since "Time," Fleetwood Mac has only released one studio album, which got mixed reviews and sold less than a million. Hell, they did that with the "Behind The Mask" band, and that band was only together for little over half the time we had to wait between "The Dance" and "Say You Will." So, obviously, they're not really a working band anymore.
Mirage and Tango were both pretty big hits in their day. What a band chooses to include in their set is again their decison.
And, it also says a lot about how they really feel about the album. In any event, I don't give a damn if it is their decision. It's MY decision to be a fan, and it's MY decision to bitch about it on the Ledge.
When I go see the Rolling Stones, U2 or any big name act I wanna hear the hits, why should Fleetwood Mac be different. U2 may be a bit more adventurous than Fleetwood but they still play the hits. Is there something wrong with that?
Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that. But, they certainly play a lot of non-hits from "Rumours" and "Fleetwood Mac" that could be retired (Landslide, I'm So Afraid, World Turning, Gold Dust Woman, The Chain, and Second Hand News). Even discounting the pre-1975 stuff, some of the post 1987 stuff, and the Buckingham Nicks stuff, there's a hell of a lot of songs that they could be playing live. It's sad that "Live In Boston" was the exact show, canned speeches and all, that they played for 90% of the tour. With all of their material, can't they possibly be a little more CREATIVE in their set lists? Do they REALLY have to play the same show EVERY night?

[MACFAN]

In all of the bio specials that were done around that time basically gloss over everything prior to "Rumours" as well as after "Rumours" and have the band disbanding in 1987, playing together again for Clinton, having the inauguration being the first step towards "The Dance," etc. Basically, we were lucky if Bob Welch was mentioned, and Billy Burnette was NEVER mentioned.

Okay, my bad. When you say "The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time," silly me, thought you MUST have been talking about sales. Because, really, how else did "The Dance" really reestablish Fleetwood Mac? In the ten years since "Time," Fleetwood Mac has only released one studio album, which got mixed reviews and sold less than a million. Hell, they did that with the "Behind The Mask" band, and that band was only together for little over half the time we had to wait between "The Dance" and "Say You Will." So, obviously, they're not really a working band anymore.

And, it also says a lot about how they really feel about the album. In any event, I don't give a damn if it is their decision. It's MY decision to be a fan, and it's MY decision to bitch about it on the Ledge.

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that. But, they certainly play a lot of non-hits from "Rumours" and "Fleetwood Mac" that could be retired (Landslide, I'm So Afraid, World Turning, Gold Dust Woman, The Chain, and Second Hand News). Even discounting the pre-1975 stuff, some of the post 1987 stuff, and the Buckingham Nicks stuff, there's a hell of a lot of songs that they could be playing live. It's sad that "Live In Boston" was the exact show, canned speeches and all, that they played for 90% of the tour. With all of their material, can't they possibly be a little more CREATIVE in their set lists? Do they REALLY have to play the same show EVERY night?

But the publicity behind The Dance was done to promote that line-up. Their Behind The Music did deal with the band prior to 1975. I cant remember if Billy was metioned though.

Any band that plays 135 shows for a tour is a working band, regardless of the set list. Your absolutely right it is your decisin to bitch about it on the ledge. What good it will do you is another story. Out of 15,000 people in an arena how many are "die hard" fans who know a song like Storms, Warm Ways, Book Of Love etc. They want to hear Landslide and the rest of the songs you mentioned. It is what it is. Fans of Fleetwood Mac in 2005 should be glad to get anything at all from the band. I want Christine back with them is that gonna happen? probably not. So I dont complain and are just thankful that they are still alive and playing music and keeping the name out there. When leaving shows for Say You Will the audience seemed very happy from the feedback overheard while walking out.

[SteveMacD]

Any band that plays 135 shows for a tour is a working band, regardless of the set list.
WTF? I wasn't saying they weren't a working band because of their set list. I was saying they weren't a working band because they've only done ONE studio album in ten years. Again, I still don't see how "The Dance," in YOUR words "re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band." If anything, it only re-established a way for Lindsey Buckingham to promote his music. If Lindsey had thought for a second that his album would have sold as well under the "Lindsey Buckingham" moniker as it would under the "Fleetwood Mac" moniker, we would have gone to a "Gift Of Screws" concert, not a "Say You Will" concert.
Out of 15,000 people in an arena how many are "die hard" fans who know a song like Storms, Warm Ways, Book Of Love etc. They want to hear Landslide and the rest of the songs you mentioned.
Maybe, just maybe, if they had thought more of those songs "back in the day" and actually played them in concert, people would want to hear those as much. MOST bands tend to gradually filter out older material as new albums are released. This band plays the SAME songs from "Fleetwood Mac" and "Rumours," adds a number of new songs from the album they're promoting, and are lucky to play two songs from the other albums. They've been an oldies band since the "Tusk" tour.
Fans of Fleetwood Mac in 2005 should be glad to get anything at all from the band.
Whereas fans of the 1995 band actually got to see them in concert for a reasonable price AND actually had more opportunities to casually meet members of the band. I'd much rather have a new version of Fleetwood Mac if it meant we'd get more albums and more concerts. My only complaint about the "Time" band is that they played too many "Rumours" era songs. But, they have the excuse of not having an album out at the time.

[MACFAN]

[QUOTE=SteveMacD]WTF? I wasn't saying they weren't a working band because of their set list. I was saying they weren't a working band because they've only done ONE studio album in ten years. Again, I still don't see how "The Dance," in YOUR words "re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band." If anything, it only re-established a way for Lindsey Buckingham to promote his music. If Lindsey had thought for a second that his album would have sold as well under the "Lindsey Buckingham" moniker as it would under the "Fleetwood Mac" moniker, we would have gone to a "Gift Of Screws" concert, not a "Say You Will" concert.

Maybe, just maybe, if they had thought more of those songs "back in the day" and actually played them in concert, people would want to hear those as much. MOST bands tend to gradually filter out older material as new albums are released. This band plays the SAME songs from "Fleetwood Mac" and "Rumours," adds a number of new songs from the album they're promoting, and are lucky to play two songs from the other albums. They've been an oldies band since the "Tusk" tour.

Whereas fans of the 1995 band actually got to see them in concert for a reasonable price AND actually had more opportunities to casually meet members of the band. I'd much rather have a new version of Fleetwood Mac if it meant we'd get more albums and more concerts. My only complaint about the "Time" band is that they played too many "Rumours" era songs. But, they have the excuse of not having an album out at the time.[/QUOT

Your entitled to your opinion but if you honestly do not see how The Dance put Fleetwood Mac back into the public's eye as a band, there is nothing I can say to change your mind :shrug: . At the very least it gave the band a whole new group of fans, both younger and older. It put the name out there again, among other things I mentioned 6 posts up. Like it or not it re-established the band or at the very least the 75-87 band. Like it or not this is the lineup the majority of people think of when the hear the name Fleetwood Mac. When Lindsey left in 87 people went to see them by the thousands because Stevie and Chris were still there. In 1997 we got Lindsey back. in 2005 chris left but Lindsey and Stevie were still there, so the audience still figured they would be getting a fair chunk of the songs they expected to hear. One new album in ten years or ten new albums in ten years doesn't matter as far as justifying their viability as a working band. The road is where the real work is done and tired set lists or not, Fleetwood Mac gave us some great shows from both The dance tour and the Say You Will Tour.

How Lindsey decides to release his music is his decision. His reasoning could be fueled by commerce, his desire to work with the band. Whatever his reasons are Im still glad he's out there one way or the other. And honestly I could give a rat's ass as far as meeting Bekka, Billy or Dave.

[jbrownsjr]

But the publicity behind The Dance was done to promote that line-up. Their Behind The Music did deal with the band prior to 1975. I cant remember if Billy was metioned though.

Any band that plays 135 shows for a tour is a working band, regardless of the set list. Your absolutely right it is your decisin to bitch about it on the ledge. What good it will do you is another story. Out of 15,000 people in an arena how many are "die hard" fans who know a song like Storms, Warm Ways, Book Of Love etc. They want to hear Landslide and the rest of the songs you mentioned. It is what it is. Fans of Fleetwood Mac in 2005 should be glad to get anything at all from the band. I want Christine back with them is that gonna happen? probably not. So I dont complain and are just thankful that they are still alive and playing music and keeping the name out there. When leaving shows for Say You Will the audience seemed very happy from the feedback overheard while walking out.

i'm not... but i do want my re-mastered tango, hereos, mystery, bare, future, penguin ,kiln then play

gimme bonus tracks
gimme dvd's
gimme gimme gimme

[SteveMacD]

Your entitled to your opinion but if you honestly do not see how The Dance put Fleetwood Mac back into the public's eye as a band, there is nothing I can say to change your mind :shrug: .
But, that comment contradicts what you said earlier when you said "I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to." I agree that sales don't make a good album. But they are an indication of a band's popularity. The fact that one can take THREE albums released within a few years of each other and still not come up with 500,000 tells me the the "debacle" wasn't just the "Time" album.
Like it or not it re-established the band or at the very least the 75-87 band.
As a "popular" band. I thought sales (popularity) weren't the thing that made an album good. Yes, the "Rumours" band is what most think whenever Fleetwood Mac is mentioned. Nobody is arguing that point. Still, it doesn't mean that the band could continue with new personnel and be viable. I agree there are a lot of issues with "Time" that limited how well it could have done, and the sales of OOTC and SA suggest that it probably wouldn't have sold well even if they had promoted the thing. However, we'll never know the full potential the album may have had, since they never promoted it. And, we'll never know what would have happened to the band if it HAD continued. Christine was done with the band and Bekka and Billy were already thinking of working together outside of Fleetwood Mac. Which leaves Dave, and I'm betting Mick was less than thrilled with Dave's new material. To have the band suddenly break-up, and almost just as suddenly go back to the "Rumours" band was, for me, anti-climactic. It would have been more interesting, for me, to see the band continue, with all the personnel changes, and morph into something altogether different. "The Dance" insured that there would really only be one Fleetwood Mac, a sad thing because 1) it really cheats the guys in other variations of the group and 2) it means that there will be much fewer albums and tours than we may have gotten, since Lindsey is the slowest, non-reclusive music maker known to man.
When Lindsey left in 87 people went to see them by the thousands because Stevie and Chris were still there. In 1997 we got Lindsey back. in 2005 chris left but Lindsey and Stevie were still there, so the audience still figured they would be getting a fair chunk of the songs they expected to hear.
Hmmm. Is this the subliminal "the band really can't function without Stevie" comment? Because, some have wondered how the band would have done if she had quit, but Lindsey and Christine had stayed.
One new album in ten years or ten new albums in ten years doesn't matter as far as justifying their viability as a working band.
It TOTALLY matters. To try and honestly say that Fleetwood Mac is as much a working band now as they were 1975-1980 (or 1967-1980 if you want to be technical) is total crap.

[MACFAN]

But, that comment contradicts what you said earlier when you said "I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to." I agree that sales don't make a good album. But they are an indication of a band's popularity. The fact that one can take THREE albums released within a few years of each other and still not come up with 500,000 tells me the the "debacle" wasn't just the "Time" album.

As a "popular" band. I thought sales (popularity) weren't the thing that made an album good. Yes, the "Rumours" band is what most think whenever Fleetwood Mac is mentioned. Nobody is arguing that point. Still, it doesn't mean that the band could continue with new personnel and be viable. I agree there are a lot of issues with "Time" that limited how well it could have done, and the sales of OOTC and SA suggest that it probably wouldn't have sold well even if they had promoted the thing. However, we'll never know the full potential the album may have had, since they never promoted it. And, we'll never know what would have happened to the band if it HAD continued. Christine was done with the band and Bekka and Billy were already thinking of working together outside of Fleetwood Mac. Which leaves Dave, and I'm betting Mick was less than thrilled with Dave's new material. To have the band suddenly break-up, and almost just as suddenly go back to the "Rumours" band was, for me, anti-climactic. It would have been more interesting, for me, to see the band continue, with all the personnel changes, and morph into something altogether different. "The Dance" insured that there would really only be one Fleetwood Mac, a sad thing because 1) it really cheats the guys in other variations of the group and 2) it means that there will be much fewer albums and tours than we may have gotten, since Lindsey is the slowest, non-reclusive music maker known to man.

Hmmm. Is this the subliminal "the band really can't function without Stevie" comment? Because, some have wondered how the band would have done if she had quit, but Lindsey and Christine had stayed.

It TOTALLY matters. To try and honestly say that Fleetwood Mac is as much a working band now as they were 1975-1980 (or 1967-1980 if you want to be technical) is total crap.



I don't see how my comments about sales not making a good album and The Dance putting Fleetwood Mac back into the public eye contradict each other. The Dance sold well we know that, but that was only part of it. People wanted to see the band, their interest was piqued. Whether it was because of the album, because of the heavy rotation it was given on television I don't know but it was there and it happened. What pre conceptions the public has about who or what makes "Fleetwood Mac" in 2005, is not in my control, but it is what it is. Oldies band possibly, great live band definately, despite what some call stale set lists. And like I said before about the Dance, the same goes for the Say You Will tour, people left the arena buzzing about how great the show was, band sounded etc..

I never implied nor said that Fleetwood Mac couldn not continue without Stevie. If Stevie had left before the Tango tour instead of Lindsey, people would have still attended the shows because of Christine and Lindsey. They have enough well known songs between them to carry the set.

Saying Fleetwood Mac is a working band is not total crap. They were out there for 135 shows for Say You Will. And if you want to get technical it would be 2 albums since The Dance in 8 years, the same as the 2 we got after Tusk and between Tango, another 8 years. Is it screwed up that most people think of Fleetwood Mac as the 75-87 band yes, but again it is what it is.

I don't like one album that Fleetwood Mac has produced. I have all of them and love some and like some, I just happen to not like Time, it has nothing to do with the fact that 20 people bought it. How many copies has Future Games sold? And I love that one.

[aleuzzi]

Is Christine on "Talkin' To My Heart"? I don't hear her. I have just always assumed that she played & sang on only her 5 songs.


I thought this, too, Macfan 57, and during Billy Burnette's Q&A I asked him if she was even present beyond her five songs. In his terse response he said she was.