My rant about concert setlists [Archive]

Nicks Fan

11-02-2005, 11:31 PM

dissention

11-02-2005, 11:39 PM

BTFLCHLD

11-02-2005, 11:39 PM

dontlookdown

11-03-2005, 12:11 AM

I'm not sure this conversation is even worth continuing if Bon Jovi is part of it.
Let's keep this about serious music and talented songwriters.

dissention

11-03-2005, 12:44 AM

I'm not sure this conversation is even worth continuing if Bon Jovi is part of it.
Let's keep this about serious music and talented songwriters.

Well, he's got a nice ass. That has to count for something.

sparky

11-03-2005, 01:00 AM

I'm not sure this conversation is even worth continuing if Bon Jovi is part of it.
Let's keep this about serious music and talented songwriters.

Bon Jovi puts on perhaps the best concert I have ever seen.

Is he Springsteen ? No. Thank God. I hate Springsteen. He is actually a pretty skilled songwriter if you like great party songs and anthems. And he is adorable. And has one of the cutest butts ever. He has more energy in his left foot these days than Stevie does in her entire body.

Funny, I don't mind his lack of variety as much. In my experience it is not as rote. Though, I have only been going to his shows the last three tours. I saw him in Vegas recently (last March) and he played one obscure song and the title track off an as yet unreleased album. Plus two covers. I'd crap my pants if Stevie or FM ever did that.

Jyqm

11-03-2005, 01:51 AM

Just the other day I bought tickets to see bon jovi in concert at about 135.00 canadian. It got me thinking about how expensive it is getting to see my favorite people in concert. What is infuriating me is how people like Bon Jovi Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac show a blatant lack of respect for the fans by playing the same songs tour after tour with no attempt to play rare or unrelased songs. I fee like it is "going through the motions" for them. I understand that they have to play some hits or chances are the tours would not be successful. But tthey could still perform som lesser known songs. I have had the pleasure of seeing Melissa Etheridge perform over two nights and the difference in the set lsits was nine songs between both nights. If only more artsists would take chances with their set lists considering how high the prces are getting.:mad:

Just something I wanted to get of my chest.

Matt

Well, bless your heart.

I know it sucks to miss your favorite artists in concert, but sometimes you've just got to take a stand for the sake of your own wallet and not bother patronizing artists who only patronize you, and for hundreds of dollars. Fortunately, there are enough great artists out there who do mix things up to keep things interesting for both themselves and their fans, and who don't necessarily charge an arm and a leg to see them.

Mageboy25

11-03-2005, 03:37 AM

If Fleetwood Mac opens with the unplugged Chain next year that goes into dreams im gonna fuccking barf!

sparky

11-03-2005, 10:50 AM

I believe she has done all of those. Quite recently, too, except for the unreleased song thing which I don't know of happening since 1976 or so. But actually she has played more than one obscure song, and more than two covers, even on her last tour. Check and mate.

Okay, since there's no unreleased titletrack in there, I will pee my pants.

catinthedark

11-03-2005, 11:45 AM

I hear you loud and clear. That's why I had no desire to see Ms. Nicks this past go 'round. I don't understand the lack of variety. It makes them look like lazy fools just trying to make the cash so they can go home. What happened to the art of performing? It cracks me up to hear veteran artists crack on younger artists and how the state of the music industry doesn't care about the music anymore, yet they go out on the road without much respect for the music themselves. Resting on your laurels must be the chic thing these days.

Very well said. I agree, and yet, I cannot bring myself to b*tch and complain about it, as it would be most hypocritical of me. I will shell out to see SN and FM for as long as they tour. Yes, I am bored by the setlists, but I am addicted to simply being in their presence. And so I go to the shows, time after time, even though I know the setlist by heart, the in-between-song banter, and every little spin and smile and glance. Because at each show, there is something new and something (at the risk of sounding cheesy) exciting for me - I shake Stevie's hand, she says a few words to me, I stand at the stage right at her feet for the entire show, I get the ribbons off her mic at the end. This past summer, the fact that her voice was stronger and she appeared so happy was worth the price of admission alone. I have not been disappointed at one FM or SN show I've been to in the past two years. But - I was part of that live play-by-play the night she opened in Vegas the first time. I was disappointed that night, because I'd been really hoping there would be a whole new show. But, as many people know, I got over it - and shelled out for the Two Voices tour, and would have gone to a Gold Dust show if one had come near my home...

David

11-03-2005, 12:17 PM

it doesn't matter to me what these guys play. None of it will work. They're too old. It's a lost cause. Just release some old stuff. :] :]

jkmaletic

11-03-2005, 01:40 PM

Well, he's got a nice ass. That has to count for something.

:laugh:

John or Mr. Locklear?

sparky

11-03-2005, 03:37 PM

:laugh:

John or Mr. Locklear?

Richie has a flat, almost non existent butt.:(

jkmaletic

11-03-2005, 03:56 PM

Richie has a flat, almost non existent butt.:(

Oh no. Poor Heather. :distress:

ShangriLaTroubl

11-03-2005, 04:09 PM

Just the other day I bought tickets to see bon jovi in concert at about 135.00 canadian. It got me thinking about how expensive it is getting to see my favorite people in concert. What is infuriating me is how people like Bon Jovi Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac show a blatant lack of respect for the fans by playing the same songs tour after tour with no attempt to play rare or unrelased songs. I fee like it is "going through the motions" for them. I understand that they have to play some hits or chances are the tours would not be successful. But tthey could still perform som lesser known songs. I have had the pleasure of seeing Melissa Etheridge perform over two nights and the difference in the set lsits was nine songs between both nights. If only more artsists would take chances with their set lists considering how high the prces are getting.:mad:

Just something I wanted to get of my chest.

Matt

Well I think you are making an assumption that it's a blatant lack of respect...For instance when I got to a concert of a band that I like, but am not as into as say FM I don't want to hear songs I've never heard...sorry..call it what you want. Had Aerosmith hardly played many hits and a bunch of rarities at the show in 03 when I saw them, I would have been disappointed. The MAJORITY of people at the shows want familiarity...
I happen to have enjoyed the set lists of the FWM and Stevie tours recently...over and over again..show by show...I agree it doesn't hurt to change it up...but you have to realize that probably over half of the paying audience at a Fleetwood Mac show only know the hits.

Jyqm

11-03-2005, 04:23 PM

Well I think you are making an assumption that it's a blatant lack of respect...For instance when I got to a concert of a band that I like, but am not as into as say FM I don't want to hear songs I've never heard...sorry..call it what you want. Had Aerosmith hardly played many hits and a bunch of rarities at the show in 03 when I saw them, I would have been disappointed. The MAJORITY of people at the shows want familiarity...

Once again, as always, this is never an all-or-nothing proposition. It's entirely possible for band to play a concert that includes both a hefty portion of familiar hits and a number of more obscure tracks.

And it does demonstrate a lack of respect to longtime fans for a band to gear its setlists so strongly toward pleasing just the casual fans. It's the die-hards who buy all the albums and keep coming back year after year; showing those fans that you appreciate their support by offering something different is an important gesture.

I happen to have enjoyed the set lists of the FWM and Stevie tours recently...over and over again..show by show...I agree it doesn't hurt to change it up...but you have to realize that probably over half of the paying audience at a Fleetwood Mac show only know the hits.

It's not going to kill them to hear some songs they don't know. A good rock band that puts on good rock concert should be able to play anything at all and energize the crowd through their performance and passion for the music, whether or not the song is a well-known radio hit.

Fleetwood Mac have a lot of hits to choose from. There's no need for them to play all of them every single night. I doubt there are many casual fans who, if they went to a concert that featured "Rhiannon," "Go Your Own Way," "Gypsy" and "The Chain," would feel especially disappointed that they didn't get to hear "Dreams," "Don't Stop," and "Tusk." Lots of folks may be mindless sheep, but most aren't that mindless, and most are able to appreciate a good rock concert that doesn't completely pander to them.

The Tower

11-03-2005, 04:31 PM

Well I think you are making an assumption that it's a blatant lack of respect...For instance when I got to a concert of a band that I like, but am not as into as say FM I don't want to hear songs I've never heard...sorry..call it what you want. Had Aerosmith hardly played many hits and a bunch of rarities at the show in 03 when I saw them, I would have been disappointed. The MAJORITY of people at the shows want familiarity...
I happen to have enjoyed the set lists of the FWM and Stevie tours recently...over and over again..show by show...I agree it doesn't hurt to change it up...but you have to realize that probably over half of the paying audience at a Fleetwood Mac show only know the hits.
With regard to Stevie and Fleetwood Mac......

It's all their own fault. Their tour style created the whole situation that they live with now. Other artists have started from the get go playing set lists that always mix it up. They set their fan base based on those expectations. Case in point- The Indigo Girls. Since the beginning, they've always changed their set list every night. Granted, they always play "Closer to Fine", but otherwise their set list changes for every performance. Everyone who goes to an IG concert knows they're going to get something different, so they don't expect to HEAR the same old thing.

Just think how vibrant and wonderful it would have been if FM/Stevie had decided to rehearse a group of 40/50 songs and then wrote the set list each night? It's not that difficult. When my band was still performing, we "knew" about 80 songs and created the set list for each show.

When I saw Page and Plant at the Hollywood Bowl some years back they played all kinds of stuff and didn't do "Stairway to Heaven". The whole place was sold out and I didn't see anyone complaining. This whole "gotta play the hits" thing is completely created by FM/Stevie. If she didn't do "Dreams" no one would notice. Especially if a great rarity took its place.

chiliD

11-04-2005, 12:12 PM

Which is why I've stopped going to multiple Fleetwood Mac shows per tour. I figure I've seen 'em once, I'm gonna see the same show if I go again, so why drop the cash?

I'd rather go see bands/artists like Little Feat, Allman Bros Band, Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Santana...even the Rolling Stones...they change their set on a nightly basis. In Little Feat & Allman Bros Band's cases, they don't just switch a song here & there, but play a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT set night to night...they MIGHT play one or two of the same songs on consecutive nights, but rarely.

David

11-04-2005, 12:19 PM

I'd rather go see bands/artists like Little Feat, Allman Bros Band, Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Santana...even the Rolling Stones...they change their set on a nightly basis. In Little Feat & Allman Bros Band's cases, they don't just switch a song here & there, but play a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT set night to night...they MIGHT play one or two of the same songs on consecutive nights, but rarely.Are you going to the Opera Pacific production of "Tosca" at OCPAC? It will be the same set list as before, but we should go! It'll be fun! We can hum along to Vissi d'arte!

DavidMn

11-04-2005, 04:47 PM

DavidMn

11-04-2005, 04:49 PM

I'm not sure this conversation is even worth continuing if Bon Jovi is part of it.
Let's keep this about serious music and talented songwriters.HEY HEY HEY, I AM A MEMBER OF THE HAIR BAND POLICE, AND I AM HEREBY ISSUING A "WARRANT" FOR YOUR ARREST!!!!!!:lol:

DavidMn

11-04-2005, 04:51 PM

PenguinHead

11-04-2005, 08:30 PM

If Fleetwood Mac opens with the unplugged Chain next year that goes into dreams im gonna fuccking barf!

You better carry a paper bag with you wherever you are.:eek:

AliceLover

11-04-2005, 09:36 PM

well I was listening to the radio the other day and they were talking about Bruce Springsteen. Apparantly he has performed 122 different songs on his current tour. I bowed my head in shame when I heard that......

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 06:07 AM

UnwindedDreams

11-05-2005, 08:57 AM

If Fleetwood Mac opens with the unplugged Chain next year that goes into dreams im gonna fuccking barf!
I want them to.

HomerMcvie

11-05-2005, 12:20 PM

I want them to.
Why, do you have a vomit fetish?:lol: :lol:

UnwindedDreams

11-05-2005, 01:24 PM

Why, do you have a vomit fetish?:lol: :lol::laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I think the Chain is a great opener.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 01:33 PM

I think the Chain is a great opener.

It sure is. And we've got both The Dance and Live in Boston to prove it.

Next, please!

dissention

11-05-2005, 01:38 PM

They need to take a cue from Blondie on how to construct a show that shows respect for the die-hard fans. They played rarity after rarity after rarity last night. Rifle Range, Will Anything Happen, Under the Gun, 11:59, Die Young Stay Pretty, Detroit 442, etc, and even threw in some covers of Roxy Music and Mott the Hoople. AND - *gasp* - played plenty of their hits like The Tide Is High, Maria, Heart of Glass, Dreaming, and Rapture.

dissention

11-05-2005, 01:54 PM

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I think the Chain is a great opener.

It stopped being a good opener after the chain was broken. Retire that song, please.

snowman

11-05-2005, 02:25 PM

Just the other day I bought tickets to see bon jovi in concert at about 135.00 canadian. It got me thinking about how expensive it is getting to see my favorite people in concert. What is infuriating me is how people like Bon Jovi Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac show a blatant lack of respect for the fans by playing the same songs tour after tour with no attempt to play rare or unrelased songs. I fee like it is "going through the motions" for them. I understand that they have to play some hits or chances are the tours would not be successful. But tthey could still perform som lesser known songs. I have had the pleasure of seeing Melissa Etheridge perform over two nights and the difference in the set lsits was nine songs between both nights. If only more artsists would take chances with their set lists considering how high the prces are getting.:mad:

Just something I wanted to get of my chest.

Matt

Playing the same sets is conservative. It appeals to the masses, not the die hard fan. It's like "classic rock" radio- all they play are the standard icon hits from all these artists- (Creedance-Proud Mary; Clapton-Layla; Rolling Stones-Satisfaction, etc, etc). These bands had great albums- tons of songs, but all we hear are the meat and potatoes. It's conservative, banile and appeals to the masses (and advertisers).

amber

11-05-2005, 02:27 PM

It stopped being a good opener after the chain was broken. Retire that song, please.
Whoa. Thank God they won't. I'd love to part with a bunch of their songs in favor of new ones, but I would still die if I didn't hear the Chain. They don't have to open with it (although I think it's a great, great, opener). But they shouldn't drop it, it still sounds outstanding - even more outstanding really. Seriously, I think I'd die if I didn't hear the Chain. DIE!
And, wait - is that why you don't want it to open, because "the chain was broken" once? :laugh: Is the song a lie to you now? A horribly perpetrated sham? :laugh: Do the words just ring hollow in your ears, because they broke up for awhile? :distress: awww.....:xoxo:

and, wait, you just saw blondie?!:blob1:

HomerMcvie

11-05-2005, 02:27 PM

It sure is. And we've got both The Dance and Live in Boston to prove it.

Next, please!
PLEASE PLAY SOME NEW SONGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT BEATING A DEAD HORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they'd add
Green Manalishi
Oh Well
Rattlesnake Shake
Hypnotized

I'd pay to see them.

dissention

11-05-2005, 02:33 PM

And, wait - is that why you don't want it to open, because "the chain was broken" once? :laugh: Is the song a lie to you now? A horribly perpetrated sham? :laugh: Do the words just ring hollow in your ears, because they broke up for awhile? :distress: awww.....:xoxo:

Most definitely. It's all one giant lie. I won't pay to have lies sung to me by lying liars.

and, wait, you just saw blondie?!:blob1:

Last night in Jersey. I drove all night to get home and I can't fall asleep, even though I'm tired as hell. My awful review is on my LJ. Debs looked fecking hot in tight black pants and a black leather jacket, and the set was remarkable. :thumbsup:

amber

11-05-2005, 02:46 PM

Most definitely. It's all one giant lie. I won't pay to have lies sung to me by lying liars.
:laugh: :xoxo:

Last night in Jersey. I drove all night to get home and I can't fall asleep, even though I'm tired as hell. My awful review is on my LJ. Debs looked fecking hot in tight black pants and a black leather jacket, and the set was remarkable. :thumbsup:
Wow. It seems like you see them all the time. :laugh: Which I hope is true. :D
Do they play on the East Coast much more than here? She lives in NY doesn't she? Anyway, It seems like I rarely hear about shows out here.
Very cool, I'll go read review. I probably won't know a lot of those songs, but it still rocks that she did them. And, lets be honest - Even I have definitely heard the hits enough.

David

11-05-2005, 03:05 PM

PLEASE PLAY SOME NEW SONGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT BEATING A DEAD HORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they'd add
Green Manalishi
Oh Well
Rattlesnake Shake
Hypnotized

I'd pay to see them.You would?! Why would you want to hear Lindsey Buckingham, who can't play the guitar, & Stevie Nicks, who can't sing, perform Rattlesnake Shake or Hypnotized?

dissention

11-05-2005, 03:06 PM

Wow. It seems like you see them all the time. :laugh: Which I hope is true. :D

I wish it were true. :laugh:

Do they play on the East Coast much more than here? She lives in NY doesn't she? Anyway, It seems like I rarely hear about shows out here.

Yeah, they do more shows over here. This show was a warm-up to their big UK tour. And she does Jazz Passengers stuff in New York, which I'd love to go to sometime since I haven't seen them in years.

Very cool, I'll go read review. I probably won't know a lot of those songs, but it still rocks that she did them. And, lets be honest - Even I have definitely heard the hits enough.

Their show last night just proved that the ****ty "hits" argument that's always being argued in defense of the Mac is ridiculous. A band can play the hits while still going out of their way to satisfy the die-hard fans.

David

11-05-2005, 03:10 PM

I'd love to part with a bunch of their songs in favor of new ones, but I would still die if I didn't hear the Chain. They don't have to open with it (although I think it's a great, great, opener). But they shouldn't drop it, it still sounds outstanding - even more outstanding really. Seriously, I think I'd die if I didn't hear the Chain. DIE!I never liked it as an opener. I never thought it was exciting in the opening slot. I always preferred the upbeat, rollicking numbers like Monday Morning & Second Hand News in the opening slot. Once when they opened with Second Hand News, it actually cured my migraine.

Plus, I don't like the way they play Chain any more. Quelle surprise, right?!

amber

11-05-2005, 03:18 PM

I wish it were true. :laugh:

Yeah, they do more shows over here. This show was a warm-up to their big UK tour. And she does Jazz Passengers stuff in New York, which I'd love to go to sometime since I haven't seen them in years.

Their show last night just proved that the ****ty "hits" argument that's always being argued in defense of the Mac is ridiculous. A band can play the hits while still going out of their way to satisfy the die-hard fans.
Yeah, your review brought home that they did really rare songs, and also listened to their fan suggestions, which is immensely cool. I mean, if FM just once took their fan suggestions, played a few of the most requested that they don't usually do (like at least three or four) - the whole show would be a much revived animal.
I think the Mac hits parade is tired, and especially Stevie's solo, but I also think that FM and their fans are a very different animal then Blondie and their fans, and that Stevie's voice and possibilities also play a factor.
So, I would not directly compare what is possible for Blondie to what is possible for FM.
However, I would still say that so much more is possible with FM.
Actually, **** on what I just said, I just plainly agree with you. :laugh: (but Stevie really wouldn't be able to perform some songs - but she could still do other rare ones, I'm sure.)
Anyway, nice review.

amber

11-05-2005, 03:24 PM

I never liked it as an opener. I never thought it was exciting in the opening slot. I always preferred the upbeat, rollicking numbers like Monday Morning & Second Hand News in the opening slot. Once when they opened with Second Hand News, it actually cured my migraine.

Plus, I don't like the way they play Chain any more. Quelle surprise, right?!
Quelle not suprised.
I think those that you mentioned are good openers, too, I wouldn't be averse. But the Chain is very exciting for me, and I love the way they play it now - it sounds more dramatic and full (which it is, I'm sure, what with all the extra instruments). I mean, I really get a huge rush when those drums start. But then, The Chain is so epic and wonderful and strange and dramatic and musically interesting to me, I never get tired of hearing it, I always feel the same sense of excitement and wonder when I do hear it - and I mean, at home, on the radio, in a department store, whatever - that I'm not really even a remotely unbiased commentator. :shrug:
The songs you mentioned are very rollicking. I love rollicking, but I love the big dramatic boom as an opener even more. The big exclamation point that the Chain is. Okay, I think i'll stop.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 03:25 PM

Their show last night just proved that the ****ty "hits" argument that's always being argued in defense of the Mac is ridiculous. A band can play the hits while still going out of their way to satisfy the die-hard fans.

I get the feeling that the people who continue to defend the Mac hit parade simply aren't big fans of any bands who put that kind of kind of effort into this concert. I don't think they have any idea how wonderful a concert like that can be, when half the songs are a surprise and you get to experience tunes you didn't know you'd ever hear, because they've never been to anything like that. I think if Fleetwood Mac suddenly decided to mix things up and put on an interesting concert, these folks would just **** themselves and pass out from the shock.

Lindsey Jr.

11-05-2005, 03:33 PM

You guys complain about the same setlists, I complain about the following:

I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM LIVE YET *cries*

but I must agree... some "long forgotten" songs are welcome, even some of the Peter Green era.

dissention

11-05-2005, 03:40 PM

I get the feeling that the people who continue to defend the Mac hit parade simply aren't big fans of any bands who put that kind of kind of effort into this concert. I don't think they have any idea how wonderful a concert like that can be, when half the songs are a surprise and you get to experience tunes you didn't know you'd ever hear, because they've never been to anything like that. I think if Fleetwood Mac suddenly decided to mix things up and put on an interesting concert, these folks would just **** themselves and pass out from the shock.

That could very well be true.

Fleetwood Mac's problems are quite severe when it comes to their live shows. Not only do they construct set lists that are boring, but they use the very same set list night...after night...after night. They don't change a thing. Nor do they change their speeches or movements. Everything is the same. Constantly. Why? Unfortunately, they've had those problems for as long as I can remember. Even in 1979, they were performing the same goddamned set night after night.

What prevents them from being a truly great live band is that they don't take risks and they don't seem to have much respect for the art of performing, especially nowadays. Once you do the exact same thing every night for months, the performances become stale, routine, and make it appear as if you're phoning everything in without much effort. Are the concerts fun? Yep. But for a fan like myself, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth afterwards knowing that what I just saw was in no way unique and that the schlubs in the next state over are going to be treated to a carbon copy of the show I just saw. Nothing beats the excitement of seeing a live show where everything is unique to that particular show. If other bands can do it, why can't they? I suspect it's because they just want the money.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 03:46 PM

You guys complain about the same setlists, I complain about the following:

I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM LIVE YET *cries*

I complain about Fleetwood Mac's setlists because their setlists are stagnant and rote, not because I've seen them hundreds of times and am bored. I've been to one Fleetwood Mac concert ever.

amber

11-05-2005, 04:01 PM

I get the feeling that the people who continue to defend the Mac hit parade simply aren't big fans of any bands who put that kind of kind of effort into this concert. I don't think they have any idea how wonderful a concert like that can be, when half the songs are a surprise and you get to experience tunes you didn't know you'd ever hear, because they've never been to anything like that. I think if Fleetwood Mac suddenly decided to mix things up and put on an interesting concert, these folks would just **** themselves and pass out from the shock.
I think that's a bit underestimative. And I don't think people really defend the hit parade much, honestly. Mostly I see people who also don't like it, but who are trying to surmise why the mac does the hit parade, rather than actually defending it as a great choice. I doubt anyone would "**** themselves and pass out from the shock" if they varied their sets. :laugh:
That being said, it's true that many of us would rather go to a Mac concert that has too many hits, then see a band we don't like as much do a fabulously unusual setlist. It's because we still like them best, and their songs best, and we like seeing them play.:shrug: I still doubt, however, that any fan would disagree that they should be much more varied in their setlist.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 04:01 PM

Nothing beats the excitement of seeing a live show where everything is unique to that particular show. If other bands can do it, why can't they? I suspect it's because they just want the money.

It's got to be more than just a monetary decision, though, because there are artists out there who both mix up their setlists and bring in big bucks. Springsteen's tours with the E Street Band being one example. It's something about their approach to performing on a more fundamental level. For whatever reason, none of them think of touring as a dynamic musical experience, a chance to try out new things and stretch themselves creatively. But perhaps that does tie back to the money thing: it's almost as though they see a concert as a product that they're hawking, and they think everybody wants the same product.

Now it doesn't really surprise me that Stevie or Mick would feel this way. And John I'm sure doesn't care one way or the other; whether they play the same songs every night, or mix it up every night, or play a "Happy Birthday"/"Mary Had A Little Lamb" medley, as long as John's up there playing the bass, he's happy as a pig in ****. It's the fact that Lindsey buys into this whole stagnant setlist thing that boggles my mind. Lord knows he puts enough time and effort into crafting all of these songs, you'd think he'd want to take advantage of the chance to give them all a good work out on the road.

Maybe he's just completely out of touch and doesn't know any better. Somebody told him thirty years ago that this is what you have to do on a tour because this is what people want, and for whatever reason, he's never questioned that. He seemed very genuinely surprised that the Soundstage audience was going so completely ape**** over unreleased songs like "Someone's Gotta Change Your Mind" and "Down On Rodeo," or when Stevie sang a few bars of "Frozen Love." Who knows, maybe that experience opened up his eyes a little bit. Maybe that's what encouraged them to take the baby step of adding a whopping three new songs to the setlist on the second leg of the tour.

amber

11-05-2005, 04:08 PM

I suspect it's because they just want the money.
I honestly don't think that that is the reason. Or at least not the sole reason. I really think they feel falsely beholden to a made up concept that no one would come without the hits. But if they aren't, I bet they are beholden to concert and record promoters. And that is where the need to make money comes in. Also, I it seems like some of them wouldn't be personally, musically comfortable switching things up all the time. :shrug:
My point is, I think there are many factors that contribute to their setlist being all the same, not just money. And, they did do at least six songs from their new album this time. So, there's that. :D

amber

11-05-2005, 04:10 PM

It's the fact that Lindsey buys into this whole stagnant setlist thing that boggles my mind. Lord knows he puts enough time and effort into crafting all of these songs, you'd think he'd want to take advantage of the chance to give them all a good work out on the road.
.
But they did do quite a few songs from their new album. :shrug: And I do think that they are out of touch in some important ways.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 04:14 PM

I think that's a bit underestimative. And I don't think people really defend the hit parade much, honestly. Mostly I see people who also don't like it, but who are trying to surmise why the mac does the hit parade, rather than actually defending it as a great choice.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people defend it as a great choice, rather that they defend it as, "Well, that's just how things are, we shouldn't really expect or ask for anything better!" It's like they're conditioned that this is what a rock concert is supposed to be like, and that's that.

I doubt anyone would "**** themselves and pass out from the shock" if they varied their sets. :laugh:

I don't know, man, have you seen some of the reactions on the Stevie forum in the thread about what songs people wish she would do with the MSO. Some people are so conditioned to expect the standard warhorse setlist, they can't even fathom imagining more obscure songs they might like to hear. Suggest something daring like "Rock A Little" or "Everybody Finds Out" and a few kids just go nuts!

amber

11-05-2005, 04:30 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people defend it as a great choice, rather that they defend it as, "Well, that's just how things are, we shouldn't really expect or ask for anything better!" It's like they're conditioned that this is what a rock concert is supposed to be like, and that's that.

Well, that's true. But it is how things are. I'm not sure that everyone doesn't want something more, though, I just think (and rightly so) that they have no idea how to help affect that change in FM. And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.

I don't know, man, have you seen some of the reactions on the Stevie forum in the thread about what songs people wish she would do with the MSO. Some people are so conditioned to expect the standard warhorse setlist, they can't even fathom imagining more obscure songs they might like to hear. Suggest something daring like "Rock A Little" or "Everybody Finds Out" and a few kids just go nuts!
Um....mostly when I view "what I wish Stevie would do" lists that people make, there are mostly strange, hardly or never done, obscure songs. So people do imagine them. They just swoon about them because they know she won't do them. :laugh: And yes, that is being "conditioned", but of course they are conditioned - they know from years of touring that she will do these songs. But again, it's not from their lack of imagination, or desire, it's that - what can they do about it, really? :( (besides not go).

But I think almost every one of these people is aware that that is not exclusively what "A rock concert should be like". Oh, and I haven't really read everyone's wishes on the particular MSO thread. Just millions of other wish lists over the past year.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 04:33 PM

But they did do quite a few songs from their new album. :shrug:.

Six. They did six songs out of eighteen every night, in a set of twenty-four songs. One of which got switched up halfway through the tour, so that makes seven. Plus two more that were played no more than three times and then dropped, right? That's nine. So only half of the new album was ever played at all, but really only a third of it - and almost entirely the same third - was played with any regularity (that is to say, every night, in Mac terms).

How many songs from Rumours were played every night? Seven. Seven! Out of eleven! And three of the four which weren't played were Christine's songs.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 04:39 PM

Well, that's true. But it is how things are. I'm not sure that everyone doesn't want something more, though, I just think (and rightly so) that they have no idea how to help affect that change in FM.

We can talk it about here, at the very least. Half the folks here seem convinced that various members of Fleetwood Mac send out their scouts to read this message board and report back to them what people think.

[QUOTE] And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.[QUOTE]

No, and I wouldn't expect anyone to completely forego a Mac concert just because the setlist is stagnant and looks like a Rumours tour once again. And if Fleetwood Mac tour behind a new album again, depending on the price, I'll likely go to one show, and be very glad to hear some new songs. But I'll still be somewhat disappointed that I'm seeing what amounts to a rote, scripted performance every night.

amber

11-05-2005, 04:49 PM

Six. They did six songs out of eighteen every night, in a set of twenty-four songs. One of which got switched up halfway through the tour, so that makes seven. Plus two more that were played no more than three times and then dropped, right? That's nine. So only half of the new album was ever played at all, but really only a third of it - and almost entirely the same third - was played with any regularity (that is to say, every night, in Mac terms).

How many songs from Rumours were played every night? Seven. Seven! Out of eleven! And three of the four which weren't played were Christine's songs.
Yeah. :shrug: That rumours thing is part of the "many, varied reasons" and "beholden to promoters and the label" thing I referred to before. This is usually the thing people bring up that makes people think that they are defending FM - which is that - If you were FM, could you honestly imagine not making Rumours a pretty heavy portion of the setlist pie? Again, not saying it's right, but most defenders think it is *somewhat* understandable. It was the biggest selling album in history for years, it defined an era and a genre, it was played so much as to be part of people's collective unconscious, people loved and identified with that album so much, it catapulted FM into superstardom, it contained their only number one hit, blah blah etc.

It does suck, it's just fairly easy to understand, should you want to do so. :p Rumours is like the albatross around their necks, and their greatest blessing, sadly.

So...about 1/4 of the tour was (were?) new songs, a bit over 1/4 was Rumours...which leaves 2/4ths to be split between FMFM, Tusk, Mirage, and Tango, with one Stevie solo song included. They dropped gypsy, and eventually EOTW (which I like IKINW better anyway) so there goes Mirage. which was fine with me. One from Tango, 4 from Tusk...3? from FM FM...
Okay, I'm rambling. I can understand why they did it for The Dance, but touring again, twice, in a relatively short time afterwards, they really had every opportunity to pull out more rare songs then BC, Sara, IKINW....

dissention

11-05-2005, 04:51 PM

But perhaps that does tie back to the money thing: it's almost as though they see a concert as a product that they're hawking, and they think everybody wants the same product.

That's exactly what I meant. I don't think they have much regard for what touring can do for them as artists; I think their only priority is to sell the tickets and they think that in order to sell tickets, they have to play the hits and pretty much nothing but.

amber

11-05-2005, 04:54 PM

We can talk it about here, at the very least. Half the folks here seem convinced that various members of Fleetwood Mac send out their scouts to read this message board and report back to them what people think.

And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.

No, and I wouldn't expect anyone to completely forego a Mac concert just because the setlist is stagnant and looks like a Rumours tour once again. And if Fleetwood Mac tour behind a new album again, depending on the price, I'll likely go to one show, and be very glad to hear some new songs. But I'll still be somewhat disappointed that I'm seeing what amounts to a rote, scripted performance every night.

I agree. Although I personally have grown weary of naming "ideal setlists" and such, and bitching constantly, and I don't think what we say here gets back to the Mac in any kind of setlist revolution way - that's just me. And others can do it to their hearts content. :thumbsup:

amber

11-05-2005, 04:59 PM

That's exactly what I meant. I don't think they have much regard for what touring can do for them as artists; I think their only priority is to sell the tickets and they think that in order to sell tickets, they have to play the hits and pretty much nothing but.
I think what they are hoping it can do for them as artists is make people hear, like, and get their new album - which really is promoting their artistic growth. And I think they do want to sell as many tickets as possible for that reason, and so that they will be viable to continue being able to make and sell albums that a label will release, to continue making music, in essence.

I know we've discussed before, and everyone knows, that they should rethink their label, and what kind of release they are expecting, and the style in which they tour. Also they are misguided in what they, or their people, perceive will get people to come to their shows.
In that, I have no disagreement. It's their intent as you expressed it that I disagree with a bit.

dissention

11-05-2005, 05:02 PM

And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.

I'm only speaking for myself, but the reason I didn't go to see Stevie on her past tour was because I couldn't fathom paying the money and going out of my way to see the same thing I've pretty much always seen from her. It's gotten to the point where I just have do desire to see the same show, year after year.

Seeing her sing Dreams and Gold Dust Woman and Rhiannon and Edge of Seventeen and Stand Back yet again with the same schtick accompanying them just isn't as special to me as it once was because it's all become so predictable. "After this verse, she'll spin twice and grab the mike this way and then toss her hair in that direction." No thank you. And I was absolutely ripped to shreds for expressing that; I was even told that I was a lousy fan for not going to see her when I had the means to do so.

When she tours again and when the Mac tours again, I'll be content in not going if they're just going to do the same thing as always. Which they will, and I can save my money for something else. No big whoop, it's just disappointing that with such a remarkable catalog, they do the same old **** every time they hit the road.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 05:04 PM

Yeah. :shrug: That rumours thing is part of the "many, varied reasons" and "beholden to promoters and the label" thing I referred to before. This is usually the thing people bring up that makes people think that they are defending FM - which is that - If you were FM, could you honestly imagine not making Rumours a pretty heavy portion of the setlist pie?

Yes! Rumours is only an albatross around their necks because they choose for it to be. They could easily play four songs instead of seven, and nobody would miss the other three. Really, if they kept in "The Chain," "Go Your Own Way," "Second Hand News" and "Gold Dust Woman," who would actually complain about the absence of "Dreams," "Never Going Back Again" and "Don't Stop," if there were other interesting choices in their place?

And any justification of Fleetwood Mac's setlists that begins with, "Well, the label..." or, "Well, the tour promoters..." is total bull****. These people have been in the music industry for over three decades. They've sold millions upon millions of records and have plenty of power over their own careers. If they don't have the balls to go out there and tour on their own terms without their f***ing label telling them what songs they have to play, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

But! The Rumours issue is a two-fold problem: 1) They play too many songs from it, and 2) They play the same songs every night. If they actually mixed things up from night to night, and they played seven Rumours songs at any given show, then no big deal. It's more the fact that it's seven songs, and it's the same seven songs, every single night.

amber

11-05-2005, 05:04 PM

I'm only speaking for myself, but the reason I didn't go to see Stevie on her past tour was because I couldn't fathom paying the money and going out of my way to see the same thing I've pretty much always seen from her. It's gotten to the point where I just have do desire to see the same show, year after year.

Seeing her sing Dreams and Gold Dust Woman and Rhiannon and Edge of Seventeen and Stand Back yet again with the same schtick accompanying them just isn't as special to me as it once was because it's all become so predictable. "After this verse, she'll spin twice and grab the mike this way and then toss her hair in that direction." No thank you. And I was absolutely ripped to shreds for expressing that; I was even told that I was a lousy fan for not going to see her when I had the means to do so.

When she tours again and when the Mac tours again, I'll be content in not going if they're just going to do the same thing as always. Which they will, and I can save my money for something else. No big whoop, it's just disappointing that with such a remarkable catalog, they do the same old **** every time they hit the road.

Yes, I know how you feel, and why. You are one I had in mind when I said "and god bless them if they can resist". :wavey:

dissention

11-05-2005, 05:09 PM

I think what they are hoping it can do for them as artists is make people hear, like, and get their new album - which really is promoting their artistic growth. And I think they do want to sell as many tickets as possible for that reason, and so that they will be viable to continue being able to make and sell albums that a label will release, to continue making music, in essence.

Then perform the whole goddamned album, accompanied by a healthy portion of hits interspersed throughout. Tons of artists do it, why not try doing it? And, I'm sorry, but SYW was nothing but a way for Lindsey to get his songs out there so that he and the rest of the band could have an excuse to make some cool millions by touring. I don't believe we'll ever see a new album from them.

The sad fact is that they don't view their live performances as an art form itself. They're content just epitomizing the dinosaur rock label and being a live greatest hits jukebox. What makes it all the more depressing is that they have so many wonderful songs that they don't even dare play live. They bring nothing new to the songs they play, unless we're counting slowing the tempos for Stevie. Nothing in their performances makes the old stuff fresh or anything of the sort; they just go out on the road, collect the cash, and reconvene when they want more.

amber

11-05-2005, 05:14 PM

Yes! Rumours is only an albatross around their necks because they choose for it to be. They could easily play four songs instead of seven, and nobody would miss the other three. Really, if they kept in "The Chain," "Go Your Own Way," "Second Hand News" and "Gold Dust Woman," who would actually complain about the absence of "Dreams," "Never Going Back Again" and "Don't Stop," if there were other interesting choices in their place?

And any justification of Fleetwood Mac's setlists that begins with, "Well, the label..." or, "Well, the tour promoters..." is total bull****. These people have been in the music industry for over three decades. They've sold millions upon millions of records and have plenty of power over their own careers. If they don't have the balls to go out there and tour on their own terms without their f***ing label telling them what songs they have to play, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

But! The Rumours issue is a two-fold problem: 1) They play too many songs from it, and 2) They play the same songs every night. If they actually mixed things up from night to night, and they played seven Rumours songs at any given show, then no big deal. It's more the fact that it's seven songs, and it's the same seven songs, every single night.

Yes, they choose it to be. But I don't think the promoter/label thing is bull****. I think their idea of the scale that they should tour and be released on is BS. But the way they choose to do so does beholden them to make the money back for everyone else involved. :shrug:

But I don't think they can fathom any other way. Which makes them not as smart as they should be. But again, although I agree with you, I still know the reasons why they do it. In short, they're dumb, and not confident enough. :laugh: I know very few people would complain if they switched it up, but obviously they don't know that(and you know Stevie would never not do Dreams, and that Don't Stop has to be included for Clintonesque optimistic feel good reasons which escape me) - Again, they are dumb. And personally, I think Stevie especially feels that she would not please the fans if she didn't do certain songs. And I think it is an insecurity with her, and an image trap, which is sad.
I still don't think there is any bad intent though.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 05:18 PM

But I don't think they can fathom any other way. Which makes them not as smart as they should be. But again, although I agree with you, I still know the reasons why they do it. In short, they're dumb, and not confident enough. :laugh: I know very few people would complain if they switched it up, but obviously they don't know that(and you know Stevie would never not do Dreams, and that Don't Stop has to be included for Clintonesque optimistic feel good reasons which escape me) - Again, they are dumb. And personally, I think Stevie especially feels that she would not please the fans if she didn't do certain songs. And I think it is an insecurity with her, and an image trap, which is sad.
I still don't think there is any bad intent though.

Well no, I don't think there's any ill intent there either. We agree on all this: they're just short-sighted and stupid.

amber

11-05-2005, 05:19 PM

Then perform the whole goddamned album, accompanied by a healthy portion of hits interspersed throughout. Tons of artists do it, why not try doing it? And, I'm sorry, but SYW was nothing but a way for Lindsey to get his songs out there so that he and the rest of the band could have an excuse to make some cool millions by touring. I don't believe we'll ever see a new album from them.

The sad fact is that they don't view their live performances as an art form itself. They're content just epitomizing the dinosaur rock label and being a live greatest hits jukebox. What makes it all the more depressing is that they have so many wonderful songs that they don't even dare play live. They bring nothing new to the songs they play, unless we're counting slowing the tempos for Stevie. Nothing in their performances makes the old stuff fresh or anything of the sort; they just go out on the road, collect the cash, and reconvene when they want more.
I agree with what they should do, but I still disagree with your reasons about why they don't do it. :shrug: Especially about Lindsey - it seems obvious to me that he not only does not need the money that bad, but honestly has quite a bit of artistic integrity about his work.
Either way, we need to use our bitching energy to try to suss out a way to make them do what we want! Cool stuff! Great stuff!!! :nod: :laugh: You know, get a petition going, see if we can get a proposition on the ballot, and all that.:p I mean, obviously our incessant bitching hasn't gotten to them yet.

dissention

11-05-2005, 05:19 PM

they're just short-sighted and stupid.

Finally, a statement no one can really disagree with.

HomerMcvie

11-05-2005, 05:20 PM

You would?! Why would you want to hear Lindsey Buckingham, who can't play the guitar, & Stevie Nicks, who can't sing, perform Rattlesnake Shake or Hypnotized?
I have NEVER said LB couldn't play the guitar. Never.
Actually, I'd rather hear Bob Welch sing those songs, now that you mention it.
WHY couldn't Bob be one of the backing guitarists?
Because LB wouldn't want him to do any songs, IMO.

amber

11-05-2005, 05:20 PM

Well no, I don't think there's any ill intent there either. We agree on all this: they're just short-sighted and stupid.
and insecure. :D

dissention

11-05-2005, 05:21 PM

Especially about Lindsey - it seems obvious to me that he not only does not need the money that bad, but honestly has quite a bit of artistic integrity about his work.

You sure as **** wouldn't know it by going to Fleetwood Mac shows.

Either way, we need to use our bitching energy to try to suss out a way to make them do what we want! Cool stuff! Great stuff!!! :nod: :laugh: You know, get a petition going, see if we can get a proposition on the ballot, and all that.:p I mean, obviously our incessant bitching hasn't gotten to them yet.

And it never will as long as they're raking in the steak like they did on their last go-'round. :laugh:

amber

11-05-2005, 05:25 PM

You sure as **** wouldn't know it by going to Fleetwood Mac shows.

And it never will as long as they're raking in the steak like they did on their last go-'round. :laugh:
Oh, C'mon! that's cynical even for you. Do you really think any of them could possibly need that much money? Even Mick should be fine by now. :laugh: I think they honestly think that what they're doing is what pleases the fans. But I can see you never will, so....:p :wavey:

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:25 PM

Well no, I don't think there's any ill intent there either. We agree on all this: they're just short-sighted and stupid.

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing. I mean this argument that people are burnt out on her and the Mac has been going on for years and people are still going to see them. I get that they and she are not nearly as popular as they were, but people still go to the shows and pay lots of money to do so. So, while I wish for better set lists, I cannot agree that from the point of view of concerts selling and sustaining popularity, they are short-sighted and stupid. In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary.

David

11-05-2005, 05:27 PM

I think what they are hoping it can do for them as artists is make people hear, like, and get their new album - which really is promoting their artistic growth.I don't believe that seeing the concert makes the general mob buy the new FM album. The rabid fans have the album by the time the concert rolls around, & for everyone else, they're just out for a party night. I have trouble believing that the people I see drinking 20 beers & yapping to their friends all through the set & wandering around & playing tag & going back to the concession stands every 20 minutes -- trouble believing that these people go buy the new FM album after attending the show.

I don't think concerts sell albums in Fleetwood Mac's case any more. The band has its fan base, & those 700,000 people in this country buy the new album, & the other million who see them on tour just drop it when they get home.

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

ontheEdgeof17

11-05-2005, 05:28 PM

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing.

Regarding Stevie as a solo artist....her concerts didn't sell well in some spots this year. Cleveland was barely 25% full. And the last Vegas show? Empty seats as far up as 5th row. But the places she hadn't visited in awhile (Red Rocks)....were solo out.

They (she) are saturating the market.

David

11-05-2005, 05:29 PM

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing.apples & oranges.
I mean this argument that people are burnt out on her and the Mac has been going on for years and people are still going to see them. I get that they and she are not nearly as popular as they were, but people still go to the shows and pay lots of money to do so. So, while I wish for better set lists, I cannot agree that from the point of view of concerts selling and sustaining popularity, they are short-sighted and stupid. In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary.Jyqm probably meant shortsighted & stupid from the artistic point of view. I would agree with Jyqm.

Jyqm, what did you mean?

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:32 PM

I don't believe that seeing the concert makes the general mob buy the new FM album. The rabid fans have the album by the time the concert rolls around, & for everyone else, they're just out for a party night. I have trouble believing that the people I see drinking 20 beers & yapping to their friends all through the set & wandering around & playing tag & going back to the concession stands every 20 minutes -- trouble believing that these people go buy the new FM album after attending the show.

I don't think concerts sell albums in Fleetwood Mac's case any more. The band has its fan base, & those 700,000 people in this country buy the new album, & the other million who see them on tour just drop it when they get home.

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

I agree - there is little significant correlation between increased CD sales in towns where they perform, etc.

Interestingly, I think La Nicks is the only one who gets your statement "The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more." I think her comments in the DR doc. demostrated that.

In the end, they, like so many other huge acts, have little options to sustain relevance in the corp. music scene. They could opt out of that, but why would they want to. La Nicks indicated TISL was what she wanted from an artistic point of view, so why would she go to a private label, etc.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:33 PM

apples & oranges.
Jyqm probably meant shortsighted & stupid from the artistic point of view. I would agree with Jyqm.

Jyqm, what did you mean?

Ahhh - I was looking at it from the concert attendance point of view.

Once again I willingly and publicly display my confusion :laugh:

amber

11-05-2005, 05:34 PM

I don't believe that seeing the concert makes the general mob buy the new FM album. The rabid fans have the album by the time the concert rolls around, & for everyone else, they're just out for a party night. I have trouble believing that the people I see drinking 20 beers & yapping to their friends all through the set & wandering around & playing tag & going back to the concession stands every 20 minutes -- trouble believing that these people go buy the new FM album after attending the show.

I don't think concerts sell albums in Fleetwood Mac's case any more. The band has its fan base, & those 700,000 people in this country buy the new album, & the other million who see them on tour just drop it when they get home.

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

That's mostly true, I would think. But does FM know that? And also, don't they just have to tour to make the money back for the release of their album? :confused:

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:36 PM

That's mostly true, I would think. But does FM know that? And also, don't they just have to tour to make the money back for the release of their album? :confused:

Which is the rub. If they would record on a smaller scale they would not be so beholden to the powers to be. But, they will never do that and I can't say I blame them as recording in a fab house in Bel Air as opposed to LB's basement on his MAC does have its advantages :laugh:

amber

11-05-2005, 05:37 PM

I agree - there is little significant correlation between increased CD sales in towns where they perform, etc.

Interestingly, I think La Nicks is the only one who gets your statement "The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more." I think her comments in the DR doc. demostrated that.

In the end, they, like so many other huge acts, have little options to sustain relevance in the corp. music scene. They could opt out of that, but why would they want to. La Nicks indicated TISL was what she wanted from an artistic point of view, so why would she go to a private label, etc.
How does her label affect how TISL turned out artistically? :confused: would she have not had enough money to pay producers and everyone with a smaller label?
I mean, would her songs have been worse? :confused: (I honestly don't get exactly how that works.)

amber

11-05-2005, 05:38 PM

Which is the rub. If they would record on a smaller scale they would not be so beholden to the powers to be. But, they will never do that and I can't say I blame them as recording in a fab house in Bel Air as opposed to LB's basement on his MAC does have its advantages :laugh:
Um...isn't Lindsey's basement a fab basement in a fab house in bel air? (or somewhere fab) With tons of studio stuff?

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:40 PM

How does her label affect how TISL turned out artistically? :confused: would she have not had enough money to pay producers and everyone with a smaller label?
I mean, would her songs have been worse? :confused: (I honestly don't get exactly how that works.)

I am unsure what you mean. I was talking about her being happy from an artistic perspective doing it the way she is doing it. I used TISL as an example because she indicated that process yielded what she considers a masterpiece.

I am unsure I answered your question :laugh:

dissention

11-05-2005, 05:40 PM

But does FM know that?

They should by now if the SYW sales are any indication.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:41 PM

Um...isn't Lindsey's basement a fab basement in a fab house in bel air? (or somewhere fab) With tons of studio stuff?

LOL - probably, but his place is sooooo last year. They need a new house representing neutral ground :laugh:

dissention

11-05-2005, 05:42 PM

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:43 PM

They should by now if the SYW sales are any indication.

I think Mick thought they were going to sell millions of records. He even said so in the DR doc when he said something like even is this record just sells a few million, etc. So, up until then, perhaps FM thought they would sell far larger numbers than actually sold. I do think La Nicks was well aware of that reality prior to SYW though.

estranged4life

11-05-2005, 05:44 PM

night-after-night, At least it makes it easy to list the tracklistings of the bootlegs of the shows online since all one needs to do is change the date/location info.

David

11-05-2005, 05:44 PM

Um...isn't Lindsey's basement a fab basement in a fab house in bel air? (or somewhere fab) With tons of studio stuff?Maybe he doesn't want the rest of the band & entourage in his home. Remember what he did in 1986 when they were recording Tango? He had a trailer brought in & parked on his driveway & the band was "invited" to hang out there.

Can't say as I blame him, either. What was the name of that woman who was constantly around Stevie in the documentary? Was that one of Stevie's umpteen assistants, I imagine? I wouldn't want that woman around my home, stalking around behind Stevie & her dog like Hamlet's ghost. I'd be polite about it, but I would be thinking, "What the feck is this woman doing here while we're trying to record?"

David

11-05-2005, 05:45 PM

night-after-night, At least it makes it easy to list the tracklistings of the bootlegs of the shows online since all one needs to do is change the date/location info.LOLFOEFL!! Brian, you always have virtually the most sensible reasoning!!

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:45 PM

"This is not about art..."

LOL - and exactly what context was that two second blurb in again?

Yet, people love to throw it up ever now and then to mean La Nicks cares nothing for art and will foresake art for finances any day of the week :laugh: :rolleyes:

amber

11-05-2005, 05:46 PM

I am unsure what you mean. I was talking about her being happy from an artistic perspective doing it the way she is doing it. I used TISL as an example because she indicated that process yielded what she considers a masterpiece.

I am unsure I answered your question :laugh:
Well, yeah, I guess I just wondered what big costs that you have to pay back does for the artistic process, exactly. I mean, I realize that if it had to be done on a shoestring that you might not get exactly what you want. But it seems to me there is a lot of room between "shoestring" and whatever the Mac does that would still yield a great product, especially considering the years of experience everyone has.
For instance, How did TUSK cost 20,000 dollars a day to record? Back then? And I know we are speaking of now, but really, how does that happen? And, say...BN - I'm sure that album wasn't very expensive to produce, but it turned out very well.
Again, I'm using those two as examples of why I don't get that there has to be super enormous amounts of money involved.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:48 PM

Maybe he doesn't want the rest of the band & entourage in his home. Remember what he did in 1986 when they were recording Tango? He had a trailer brought in & parked on his driveway & the band was "invited" to hang out there.

Can't say as I blame him, either. What was the name of that woman who was constantly around Stevie in the documentary? Was that one of Stevie's umpteen assistants, I imagine? I wouldn't want that woman around my home, stalking around behind Stevie & her dog like Hamlet's ghost. I'd be polite about it, but I would be thinking, "What the feck is this woman doing here while we're trying to record?"

If I am not mistaken, FM has never really been just the band and the producer in the studio. There have always been many other people around.

But, I agree that LB did not want that craziness (all of the people and the band) in his house 24/7 - and who can blame him.

amber

11-05-2005, 05:48 PM

Maybe he doesn't want the rest of the band & entourage in his home. Remember what he did in 1986 when they were recording Tango? He had a trailer brought in & parked on his driveway & the band was "invited" to hang out there.

Can't say as I blame him, either. What was the name of that woman who was constantly around Stevie in the documentary? Was that one of Stevie's umpteen assistants, I imagine? I wouldn't want that woman around my home, stalking around behind Stevie & her dog like Hamlet's ghost. I'd be polite about it, but I would be thinking, "What the feck is this woman doing here while we're trying to record?"
Yeah, I guess so.
But remember how Stevie rented a 25000 dollar a month to record in back in the day? I mean, there has to be a happy medium...

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:51 PM

Well, yeah, I guess I just wondered what big costs that you have to pay back does for the artistic process, exactly. I mean, I realize that if it had to be done on a shoestring that you might not get exactly what you want. But it seems to me there is a lot of room between "shoestring" and whatever the Mac does that would still yield a great product, especially considering the years of experience everyone has.
For instance, How did TUSK cost 20,000 dollars a day to record? Back then? And I know we are speaking of now, but really, how does that happen? And, say...BN - I'm sure that album wasn't very expensive to produce, but it turned out very well.
Again, I'm using those two as examples of why I don't get that there has to be super enormous amounts of money involved.

How much was it in the DR doc to mix each song - wasn't it some crazy amount of money.

But, yes, renting a house in Bel Air and moving LB's studio (I think it was his) there as opposed to renting studio time seems way more expensive.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 05:52 PM

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing. I mean this argument that people are burnt out on her and the Mac has been going on for years and people are still going to see them.

What thread have you been reading? The point has been made a couple of time that this has nothing to do with anyone being "burnt out" on Fleetwood Mac and everything to do with Fleetwood Mac viewing touring as part of their art and keeping things interesting and dynamic. As I said earlier, I've only been to one Fleetwood Mac concert in my life. So I'm certainly not burnt out on any of these songs.

I get that they and she are not nearly as popular as they were, but people still go to the shows and pay lots of money to do so. So, while I wish for better set lists, I cannot agree that from the point of view of concerts selling and sustaining popularity, they are short-sighted and stupid. In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary.

Again, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the band's popularity, outside of their own preconceived notions of what it takes to sustain it. But if the best thing you can say about a Fleetwood Mac concert is, "Well, they're still popular and they sell tickets," then that's precisely the problem we're talking about here. The point is that they only seem to care about the bottom line and think that the only way to make that money is to play the same old hits every night in the same order.

David

11-05-2005, 05:52 PM

Yeah, I guess so.
But remember how Stevie rented a 25000 dollar a month to record in back in the day? I mean, there has to be a happy medium...I think the best & easiest way for them to record is to do it all separately. Each member just go track separately -- that way you can do it at your own home or go pay a studio if you want, you can bring whoever you want along or demand that there be no visitors, & you can call all your shots. They'd probably have to hire a producer who isn't in the band to do this, & the producer would be the funnel through which all tracks & opinions & feedback & problems would go.

estranged4life

11-05-2005, 05:53 PM

LOLFOEFL!! Brian, you always have virtually the most sensible reasoning!!

while it is sad but true, That is exactly what I do for FM/Solo related bootlegs...Just change the date/location info and use the exact same html codes, Saves so much time :nod:

Only chance I may see FM ever again is if they play OKC, Traveling to Texas is now out of the question with my current health problems (Hell driving 100 miles roundtrip is now a chore in and of itself.)....Even if they were to play OKC I wouldnt care if they played a complete 2 hour + set of just the song "Dreams", I would only go to hang with some of the Ledgies that I like anyways.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 05:55 PM

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

Not for a band like Fleetwood Mac anyway.

Actually, I think the dynamic has kind of reversed itself in some ways for up-and-coming bands: it's the albums that sell the concerts to some extent. With so much file-sharing going on, and so many bands releasing mp3s or streaming audio on their websites, I think the hope is that people will hear the music online and then shell out money for a concert ticket to the band live.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 05:56 PM

What thread have you been reading? The point has been made a couple of time that this has nothing to do with anyone being "burnt out" on Fleetwood Mac and everything to do with Fleetwood Mac viewing touring as part of their art and keeping things interesting and dynamic. As I said earlier, I've only been to one Fleetwood Mac concert in my life. So I'm certainly not burnt out on any of these songs.

When you said short sighted, I thought you meant that the general concert going public will get burnt out on the same set list and it is, thus, short sighted of them to keep that essentially the same list. Sorry for any confusion if you did not meant that. But, what did you mean by short sighted?

Again, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the band's popularity, outside of their own preconceived notions of what it takes to sustain it. But if the best thing you can say about a Fleetwood Mac concert is, "Well, they're still popular and they sell tickets," then that's precisely the problem we're talking about here. The point is that they only seem to care about the bottom line and think that the only way to make that money is to play the same old hits every night in the same order.

I disagree. I think they perceive themselves as the public wanting to hear the hits, etc. So, they think they are giving the public what they want. Which brings me to my point that they are correct in their reasoning because the public keeps coming back to see them despite any wish we all have for more variety.

amber

11-05-2005, 05:56 PM

How much was it in the DR doc to mix each song - wasn't it some crazy amount of money.

But, yes, renting a house in Bel Air and moving LB's studio (I think it was his) there as opposed to renting studio time seems way more expensive.
I don't remember.
Plus, it appears they have to argue about everything for a long time, but does that take any money, other than more for whatever they are renting?
Gah, it's all so mysterious.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 05:58 PM

Jyqm probably meant shortsighted & stupid from the artistic point of view. I would agree with Jyqm.

Jyqm, what did you mean?

Yeah, that thing, the artistic thing.

If anything, I think Fleetwood Mac's problem is that they're too popular, or want to be too popular. If they contented themselves with playing some smaller venues to their more loyal fans, maybe they wouldn't feel such a pressing need to deliver the stagnant hit parade every night.

David

11-05-2005, 05:59 PM

But it seems to me there is a lot of room between "shoestring" and whatever the Mac does that would still yield a great product, especially considering the years of experience everyone has.You're totally right: there is a LOT of room between shoestring & Fleetwood Mac style.
For instance, How did TUSK cost 20,000 dollars a day to record? Back then? And I know we are speaking of now, but really, how does that happen?
Again, I'm using those two as examples of why I don't get that there has to be super enormous amounts of money involved.Recording studios can be very expensive. I was in a crappy little commercial studio for two days, with one engineer on the board, & it cost about $2,000. So compound the quality of everything involved -- equipment, staff, amenities, etc. -- twenty times, & THEN you add the huge amounts of time that the band typically stays in a studio, & $20,000 a day even back in 1979 begins to make a lot more sense.

You can get a great album out of merely decent studio technology & capable but not necessarily wildly gifted engineers for a decent outlay of money, but Fleetwood Mac chooses to go hog-wild. So they pay.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 06:00 PM

How does her label affect how TISL turned out artistically? :confused:

The same way Lindsey's label affected how Gift of Screws turned out artistically. By saying, "Make this more MOR, or we're not going to release it... unless you call it Fleetwood Mac."

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:03 PM

The same way Lindsey's label affected how Gift of Screws turned out artistically. By saying, "Make this more MOR, or we're not going to release it... unless you call it Fleetwood Mac."

Perhaps true, but La Nicks has more commercial viability than LB - so she can assert more power than he can with the label. I mean TISL was released to great fanfare and they never told her to call it FM.

Note - this is no comment on LB's talent.

David

11-05-2005, 06:04 PM

I disagree. I think they perceive themselves as the public wanting to hear the hits, etc. So, they think they are giving the public what they want. Which brings me to my point that they are correct in their reasoning because the public keeps coming back to see them despite any wish we all have for more variety.I would say that's true in principle but sometimes false in particulars. I've stopped going to see the band, so they've lost me as a concert attendee. They had me for many years, a couple of decades, but they've lost me. My absence isn't going to break them, obviously. But I'm evidence that FM is giving some of the public what it wants & not giving some of the public what it wants.

HomerMcvie

11-05-2005, 06:04 PM

Yeah, that thing, the artistic thing.

If anything, I think Fleetwood Mac's problem is that they're too popular, or want to be too popular. If they contented themselves with playing some smaller venues to their more loyal fans, maybe they wouldn't feel such a pressing need to deliver the stagnant hit parade every night.
Bravo, bravo. I think they're obsessed with trying to maintain/match their heyday. They're an oldies hit parade now. And they're not even playing the oldies I like!:shocked:

Pssssst.....hey guys, your heyday was awhile back.

amber

11-05-2005, 06:05 PM

You're totally right: there is a LOT of room between shoestring & Fleetwood Mac style.
Recording studios can be very expensive. I was in a crappy little commercial studio for two days, with one engineer on the board, & it cost about $2,000. So compound the quality of everything involved -- equipment, staff, amenities, etc. -- twenty times, & THEN you add the huge amounts of time that the band typically stays in a studio, & $20,000 a day even back in 1979 begins to make a lot more sense.

You can get a great album out of merely decent studio technology & capable but not necessarily wildly gifted engineers for a decent outlay of money, but Fleetwood Mac chooses to go hog-wild. So they pay.
Christ. that is expensive.
But as far as the capable but not wildly gifted engineers and all that...um...how much could Lindsey do? Couldn't he make up for that in some way?

amber

11-05-2005, 06:07 PM

The same way Lindsey's label affected how Gift of Screws turned out artistically. By saying, "Make this more MOR, or we're not going to release it... unless you call it Fleetwood Mac."
So...what? Are you saying that someone told Stevie to make her songs more MOR, and that it yielded what she considers an artistic triumph? :confused: No one made her release it with the Mac...basically, I don't get how those to things are analagous.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 06:09 PM

When you said short sighted, I thought you meant that the general concert going public will get burnt out on the same set list and it is, thus, short sighted of them to keep that essentially the same list. Sorry for any confusion if you did not meant that. But, what did you mean by short sighted?

I meant just what you said down here:

I think they perceive themselves as the public wanting to hear the hits, etc. So, they think they are giving the public what they want.

That is short-sighted They're not seeing the forest for the trees here.

Which brings me to my point that they are correct in their reasoning because the public keeps coming back to see them despite any wish we all have for more variety.

"That's specious reasoning, dad."
"How do you figure?"
"Well, I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away."
"How does it work?"
"It doesn't work!"
"Uh huh."
"It's just a stupid rock!"
"Uh huh."
"But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?"
... "Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock."

Their reasoning isn't correct, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. They've got no evidence that people would stop showing up if they didn't play 17 hit singles, 6 new tracks and a lone wildcard.

David

11-05-2005, 06:09 PM

Bravo, bravo. I think they're obsessed with trying to maintain/match their heyday. They're an oldies hit parade now.As I told Stew, I might go see them again & might even enjoy it if they fired all their entourage except for the riggers & such, & played folks songs from America's rich past & perhaps even some songs from the Gaslight Era here at the Cerritos Center for the Performing Arts.

Otherwise, they're out there trying to recapture their bygone era & trying to "rock" & it all strikes me as either phony or an earnest attempt but a dismal failure, in artistic terms (although financially they still bring in their big bucks). The Fleetwood Mac thing doesn't grab me any more. I'd rather watch their 1977 videos.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:11 PM

I would say that's true in principle but sometimes false in particulars. I've stopped going to see the band, so they've lost me as a concert attendee. They had me for many years, a couple of decades, but they've lost me. My absence isn't going to break them, obviously. But I'm evidence that FM is giving some of the public what it wants & not giving some of the public what it wants.

I agree that they have lost much of their public. I guess they figure the majority of the people who go to see them want the hits peppered with rarer stuff like BC on this last tour.

I also have to wonder what would happen if they did not play Dreams, Rhiannon, GYOW, etc. Those sounds get the loudest response at all the concerts I went to - in fact you could hear the arena singing along with them. So, if they played no hits and just obscure stuff what would happen - would they be able to sell that tour to anything but 2,000 person hall. I honestly do not know.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 06:11 PM

So...what? Are you saying that someone told Stevie to make her songs more MOR, and that it yielded what she considers an artistic triumph? :confused: No one made her release it with the Mac...basically, I don't get how those to things are analagous.

Well I think Jason's point was simply that Stevie seems to be happy working on a big label, as evidenced by the fact that she was so pleased with TISL, so she's really got no reason to want to switch or go someplace else.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:13 PM

. . . Their reasoning isn't correct, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. They've got no evidence that people would stop showing up if they didn't play 17 hit singles, 6 new tracks and a lone wildcard.

I saw many concerts on the SYW tour and the Enchanted, TISL, and GD tours. the loudest responses from the audience came from the standards. I mean it sounded like the entire arena was singing GYOW. So, I think they see that and figure that is what the public wants and if audience reaction is any indication, they are correct.

David

11-05-2005, 06:14 PM

But as far as the capable but not wildly gifted engineers and all that...um...how much could Lindsey do? Couldn't he make up for that in some way?He could do it all on his own. He knows how.

But for some reason or reasons, he decided not to the last time around. There was a parade through of co-producers & mixers & probably mobsters, for all I know.

The root of all that was probably that Lindsey felt guys like Mark Needham were actually helping him (i.e., the band) to set his artistic sights & then achieve them. I don't think there was anything more mysterious than that at work.

Personally, I think Lindsey no longer has the amazing ear that he used to have. He either encouraged or put the stamp of approval on too much on Say You Will that is a engineering mumbo-jumbo.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:14 PM

amber

11-05-2005, 06:17 PM

Personally, I think Lindsey no longer has the amazing ear that he used to have. He either encouraged or put the stamp of approval on too much on Say You Will that is a engineering mumbo-jumbo.
Like what?

amber

11-05-2005, 06:19 PM

Well I think Jason's point was simply that Stevie seems to be happy working on a big label, as evidenced by the fact that she was so pleased with TISL, so she's really got no reason to want to switch or go someplace else.
Oh. Well, one reason is that she could then not have as many costs to pay back, and if that would make her more adventurous with her setlists, that would be good.
Since non of this is going to happen, obviously, that's a moot point. :laugh:

David

11-05-2005, 06:21 PM

Like what?Oh, like the low bass on the first track, & the bad editing of the various lead vocal trax on Goodbye Baby. Lots of other little bothersome things to these ears on that album. They're either technical/human errors or they're deliberate artistic "statements," but either way they bespeak a weakening of his once-mighty ear.

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:22 PM

Oh. Well, one reason is that she could then not have as many costs to pay back, and if that would make her more adventurous with her setlists, that would be good.
Since non of this is going to happen, obviously, that's a moot point. :laugh:

Interestingly, La Nicks has to be willing to put her music with a producer as she cannot do it herself. So, I think having that trust with someone unproven commercially would be hard for most to have especially when a false move could ruin her career. So, I think she knows she commands more drawing power for a named producer if she is with a larger label.

David

11-05-2005, 06:23 PM

I just wanna say that we're having a really cool discussion & everyone is being really cool & calm & the promise of a message board is being fulfilled right here & now, thanks to everyone!!:thumbsup:

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:23 PM

I just wanna say that we're having a really cool discussion & everyone is being really cool & calm & the promise of a message board is being fulfilled right here & now, thanks to everyone!!:thumbsup:

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!! I was just thinking the same thing :cool:

amber

11-05-2005, 06:26 PM

Oh, like the low bass on the first track, & the bad editing of the various lead vocal trax on Goodbye Baby. Lots of other little bothersome things to these ears on that album. They're either technical/human errors or they're deliberate artistic "statements," but either way they bespeak a weakening of his once-mighty ear.
Oh. The only thing I really, really noticed was EFO.
I thought the rest was the difficulty of making Stevie sound better. Or something.
I guess my question requires to many specific things, things where we'd have to be listening to the album, and you go "see, right there, that part, it should've been blah blah etc" :laugh:

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:26 PM

Oh, like the low bass on the first track, & the bad editing of the various lead vocal trax on Goodbye Baby. Lots of other little bothersome things to these ears on that album. They're either technical/human errors or they're deliberate artistic "statements," but either way they bespeak a weakening of his once-mighty ear.

I also think his production of her stuff is weaker than before. I think Illume shows such potential but then loses its way in the gimmicks he put in that song. Same with EFO. I like the songs and him. I just think the overall production lacks the brilliance he has shown for producing her work. Of course, she was there as well and must share some of that.

amber

11-05-2005, 06:29 PM

Interestingly, La Nicks has to be willing to put her music with a producer as she cannot do it herself. So, I think having that trust with someone unproven commercially would be hard for most to have especially when a false move could ruin her career. So, I think she knows she commands more drawing power for a named producer if she is with a larger label.
That makes sense. So probably a medium sized label would not be able to pay a producer that she wants?
Some producers that charge big are probably not necessarily better than some who don't charge quite as much. There just has to be a good fit.
Not that that would necessarily apply here, I was just thinking about it. You know, for when I need a producer for my album???:laugh:
I mean, I would hardly expect Stevie to hunt around for a great producer at a reasonable price. :laugh:
Wait..."false move ruin her career"?! um...okay...I guess...Yeah, I don't think a lot of TISL songs were very good anyway. But, you know...I guess that's true. Although I really wonder to what extent they could be "ruined" compared to how they turned out anyway.:shrug:

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 06:35 PM

. . . Wait..."false move ruin her career"?! um...okay...I guess...Yeah, I don't think a lot of TISL songs were very good anyway. But, you know...I guess that's true. Although I really wonder to what extent they could be "ruined" compared to how they turned out anyway.:shrug:

Many regard Street Angel as a disaster that ruined her career and without The Dance she could have never regained her popularity. I tend to think that is mostly true, though a really great solo record in theory could have helped her as well, though IMO not as much as the energy of The Mac back together and sounding and looking as good as they did.

amber

11-05-2005, 06:47 PM

Many regard Street Angel as a disaster that ruined her career and without The Dance she could have never regained her popularity. I tend to think that is mostly true, though a really great solo record in theory could have helped her as well, though IMO not as much as the energy of The Mac back together and sounding and looking as good as they did.

I would disagree, I think timing "ruined" her career. She'd had misteps before that. I just don't think there is any way her album would have sold that well at the time. Though SA was a bit shocking, I guess.:lol: (I like it better than TISL, though)
I agree that the Dance revived her career. Except, I also put it down to that thing that happens, you know - an artist is really famous, then out of favor and dated, and then they get older, and then they do a huge successful awesome album, and then everyone remembers how great they were, and they gain some new fans as well, etc.
It seems like a pretty standard career arc for both musicians and actors. I call it the "John Travolta".:laugh:

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 06:58 PM

So, if they played no hits and just obscure stuff what would happen - would they be able to sell that tour to anything but 2,000 person hall. I honestly do not know.

No, they absolutely would not. But yet again: That's not the issue here. Just as there are a whole lot of possibilities between recording in a basement and recording Fleetwood Mac-style, there' are also a whole lots of possibilities between playing a concert with no hits and playing a concert Fleetwood Mac-style. They don't have to drop the hits completely, but they also don't have to play every single one every single night. They could mix things up and consolidate and make room for more fun choices.

Take a look at the last tour. Let's imagine Fleetwood Mac are willing to not play the exact same set every night. We don't have to get too far away from their comfort zones: let's just stick to rotating certain songs in and out every other night. Instead of playing "Go Your Own Way" AND "Tusk" every night, they just do one or the other. Same with "Rhiannon" and "Silver Springs." Same with "Gypsy" and "Dreams." Same with "Never Going Back Again" and "Second Hand News."

So now you can go to a show and hear GYOW/Rhiannon/Gypsy/NGBA, or you can go the next night and hear Tusk/Silver Springs/Dreams/SHN. Is anybody going to feel particularly gypped either night? And now you've got FOUR open wildcard slots to throw in whatever fun obscure album track you can think of!

Let's keep rotating out! How about half the shows open with "The Chain," and half open with "Monday Morning"? Half feature "Landslide," half feature a "Crystal" duet! Half have "I'm So Afraid" and half have "Tango In the Night." Half have "World Turning" and half have "Frozen Love." Half have "Beautiful Child" and half have "Storms." Half have "Gold Dust Woman" and half have "Seven Wonders." Half have "Big Love" and half have "Trouble." Half have "Stand Back" and half have "Stop Draggin'" with Lindsey doing Petty's part. And of course all the SYW songs will get rotated out with other SYW songs. I'll even leave "Don't Stop" alone as the single constant at every show, since we don't want them screwing with anymroe of Chris' tunes (although I think "Hold Me" could work quite well). So is that everything? Now let's take a look at the possible setlists:

The Chain OR Monday Morning
WILDCARD (Stevie)
Eyes Of The World OR I Know I'm Not Wrong
Peacekeeper OR Miranda
Second Hand News OR Never Going Back Again
Say You Will OR Thrown Down
WILDCARD (Lindsey)
Rhiannon OR Silver Springs
Come OR Murrow
Gypsy OR Dreams
Big Love OR Trouble
Landslide OR Crystal
Say Goodbye OR Steal Your Heart Away
What's The World Coming To OR Red Rover
Beautiful Child OR Storms
Gold Dust Woman OR Seven Wonders
I'm So Afraid OR Tango In The Night
WILDCARD (Lindsey)
WILDCARD (Stevie)
Stand Back OR Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Go Your Own Way OR Tusk
---
World Turning OR Frozen Love
Don't Stop
Goodbye Baby OR Everybody Finds Out

Doesn't that already make things incredibly exciting?! And you're still guaranteed at least five or six certifiable hits/staples at every show. That would completely satisfy the vast majority of casual fans, and it would leave folks like us going absolutely ape****!

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 07:08 PM

It appeals to us, but the average fan would riot if she did not sing Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, etc. and that is who they are selling to.

Personally, I was floored she opted not to sing Landslide on TISL in favor of a new song. So, stranger things have happened :laugh:

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 07:39 PM

It appeals to us, but the average fan would riot if she did not sing Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, etc. and that is who they are selling to.

It appeals to both! I think you completely missed my point. Yes, the casual fan would be disappointed if she didn't perform "Rhiannon" OR "Landslide" OR "Dreams" OR "Gypsy" OR "Silver Springs" OR "Sara." But she could perform any three of those six on any given night, and most people would be more than satisfied. They're casual fans, but they're not complete moron sheep. Nobody goes to a concert expecting to hear EVERY hit a band has ever had. And it's possible to appeal to both casual fans and die-hards.

I mean, go back to my potential setlist choices. Let's say one night the set was:

The Chain/Angel/I Know I'm Not Wrong/Peacekeeper/Never Going Back Again/Say You Will/Book Of Love/Silver Springs/Come/Dreams/Trouble/Landslide/Say Goodbye/Red Rover/Beautiful Child/Gold Dust Woman/Tango In The Night/What Makes You Think You're The One/Running Through The Garden/Stop Draggin' My Heart Around/Tusk//Frozen Love/Don't Stop/Goodbye Baby

And the next night they did the total opposite:

Monday Morning/Sara/Eyes Of The World/Miranda/Second Hand News/Thrown Down/The Ledge/Rhiannon/Murrow/Gypsy/Big Love/Crystal/Steal Your Heart Away/What's The World Coming To/Storms/Seven Wonders/I'm So Afraid/Blue Letter/Sisters Of The Moon/Stand Back/Go Your Own Way//World Turning/Don't Stop/Everybody Finds Out

Everything in bold is either a certifiable hit or a very well-known concert staple and casual fan favorite, and each show has nine of those, which is more than a third of the set, and a lot of folks might even know some of the other songs too, believe it or not. I can't imagine any casual fan walking out of either one of those shows and truly feeling as though they didn't hear enough of their favorites. And meanwhile, the folks with all the albums would be bouncing off the walls.

johndoe

11-05-2005, 07:42 PM

No, they absolutely would not. But yet again: That's not the issue here. Just as there are a whole lot of possibilities between recording in a basement and recording Fleetwood Mac-style, there' are also a whole lots of possibilities between playing a concert with no hits and playing a concert Fleetwood Mac-style. They don't have to drop the hits completely, but they also don't have to play every single one every single night. They could mix things up and consolidate and make room for more fun choices.

Take a look at the last tour. Let's imagine Fleetwood Mac are willing to not play the exact same set every night. We don't have to get too far away from their comfort zones: let's just stick to rotating certain songs in and out every other night. Instead of playing "Go Your Own Way" AND "Tusk" every night, they just do one or the other. Same with "Rhiannon" and "Silver Springs." Same with "Gypsy" and "Dreams." Same with "Never Going Back Again" and "Second Hand News."

So now you can go to a show and hear GYOW/Rhiannon/Gypsy/NGBA, or you can go the next night and hear Tusk/Silver Springs/Dreams/SHN. Is anybody going to feel particularly gypped either night? And now you've got FOUR open wildcard slots to throw in whatever fun obscure album track you can think of!

Let's keep rotating out! How about half the shows open with "The Chain," and half open with "Monday Morning"? Half feature "Landslide," half feature a "Crystal" duet! Half have "I'm So Afraid" and half have "Tango In the Night." Half have "World Turning" and half have "Frozen Love." Half have "Beautiful Child" and half have "Storms." Half have "Gold Dust Woman" and half have "Seven Wonders." Half have "Big Love" and half have "Trouble." Half have "Stand Back" and half have "Stop Draggin'" with Lindsey doing Petty's part. And of course all the SYW songs will get rotated out with other SYW songs. I'll even leave "Don't Stop" alone as the single constant at every show, since we don't want them screwing with anymroe of Chris' tunes (although I think "Hold Me" could work quite well). So is that everything? Now let's take a look at the possible setlists:

The Chain OR Monday Morning
WILDCARD (Stevie)
Eyes Of The World OR I Know I'm Not Wrong
Peacekeeper OR Miranda
Second Hand News OR Never Going Back Again
Say You Will OR Thrown Down
WILDCARD (Lindsey)
Rhiannon OR Silver Springs
Come OR Murrow
Gypsy OR Dreams
Big Love OR Trouble
Landslide OR Crystal
Say Goodbye OR Steal Your Heart Away
What's The World Coming To OR Red Rover
Beautiful Child OR Storms
Gold Dust Woman OR Seven Wonders
I'm So Afraid OR Tango In The Night
WILDCARD (Lindsey)
WILDCARD (Stevie)
Stand Back OR Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Go Your Own Way OR Tusk
---
World Turning OR Frozen Love
Don't Stop
Goodbye Baby OR Everybody Finds Out

Doesn't that already make things incredibly exciting?! And you're still guaranteed at least five or six certifiable hits/staples at every show. That would completely satisfy the vast majority of casual fans, and it would leave folks like us going absolutely ape****!

Absolutly and totally agreed. Great idea, man. Though Eyes of The World could work as another constant. It seems to appeal to a lot more people than just average and above average fans. I've showed it to a lot of my friends who don't like FM, and 6 out of 7 people I showed it to liked it a lot. But I dunno.

amber

11-05-2005, 07:48 PM

This is all very obvious to say, but how can we make them do it??? Darnit.

johndoe

11-05-2005, 07:50 PM

Isn't, like, Peter Green's nephew on the board? We'll just have him tell Mick! And he'll be all "OMG OMG ! THOSE LEDGIES ARE GENIUSES!" And then they'll name the tour after this board. And it will be awesome. I swear.

David

11-05-2005, 07:51 PM

It appeals to us, but the average fan would riot if she did not sing Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, etc. and that is who they are selling to.That's really an exaggeration, strand, & I don't think it's that big a deal. First of all, there's no such thing as an 'average fan' -- "fan" is short for fanatic. If you're fanatical, you're ipso facto not "average" in your admiration or attachment. So you're talking about the typical concertgoer. That person is too busy yapping & going back for a pretzel at the concession stand to care whether he hears all those hits or just a few of them. He doesn't give a ****. He's out at a concert with his pals, partying.

Secondly, Stevie didn't sing "Rhiannon" on her 1989 solo tour at all -- nor did she sing "Landslide" on that whole tour. Nobody rioted! Nobody cared all that much, if at all. We fans talked about it, but the general public at the shows -- who cared? They got to hear many recognizable things at that show -- Edge of Seventeen, Gold Dust Woman, Dreams, Stand Back. And they still went to go get more pretzels & beer at the concession stand during those!

People are out for a good time at a typical rock concert. They ultimately don't care what's being performed, within bounds of reason. What do you think the general public are doing? keeping a notebook & writing down every recognizable hit they hear from the stage, & checking it off against a second list of all hits?

Fleetwood Mac didn't even play "Rhiannon" for most of its 1987/1988 tour. Maybe a few people mentioned it ... big deal. Nobody much cared, when all was said & done, or even before that. I talked to other fans at the time: we thought it was weird because we're fans & that was the first Fleetwood Mac tour without "Rhiannon." But all those thousands of other people at the Inglewood Forum or the San Diego Sports Arena, they couldn't care less. And if it occurred to any of them at the time -- "Hey, they didn't play Rhiannon" -- it was all soon forgotten. Same story with "Gold Dust Woman," which the band never played throughout its 1979/1980 tour or its 1982 tour. Maybe this person or that person wanted to hear it (including me), but nobody died, nobody got hurt & nobody except us fans even remembers.

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 07:58 PM

This is all very obvious to say, but how can we make them do it??? Darnit.

Just get me up to the front of the stage, and I'll tape copies of my setlist over the regular one.

Actually, do Fleetwood Mac even use setlists? Or do they have a race to see who can memorize the whole thing in the fewest number of shows?

amber

11-05-2005, 07:58 PM

amber

11-05-2005, 07:59 PM

Just get me up to the front of the stage, and I'll tape copies of my setlist over the regular one.

Actually, do Fleetwood Mac even use setlists? Or do they have a race to see who can memorize the whole thing in the fewest number of shows?
:laugh:
They have setlists.
Stevie would freak out so bad. "We didn't rehearse this! We didn't rehearse this! I don't know the words! Help!"

strandinthewind

11-05-2005, 08:00 PM

LOL - of course riot was an exaggeration :laugh:

But, I remember going to those shows and being disappointed she did not sing those. I suppose the real question is would the average fan not go if they knew they or she was not singing a few of her hits. Let's hope we find out!

Jyqm

11-05-2005, 08:13 PM

I suppose the real question is would the average fan not go if they knew they or she was not singing a few of her hits. Let's hope we find out!

First off, your average concertgoer doesn't know jack**** about what the band is going to play before the band plays it. Sure, we're all online and checking The Ledge and know what the setlist is the day after the first show of the tour. But the people that you're so worried about disappointing: They see an ad in the paper that Fleetwood Mac is coming to town, think, "Hey, I like a few of their songs from the radio and from college," buy a couple tickets from themselves and their spouse, and then don't give Fleetwood Mac a second thought until the day of the show.

And even if there were a full-page ad in the paper saying, "STEVIE REFUSES TO PLAY LANDSLIDE ON THIS TOUR," a lot of people would still have no idea, because your average concertgoer doesn't pay attention. They're just going out for a fun evening, as David said.

Springsteen's current tour: Everywhere this tour went on sale, there were articles in the newspapers about how this was a solo acoustic tour, not a full E Street band tour, and Bruce wasn't going to be playing many of the hits. And yet, in Grand Rapids, there was this couple next to me talking about how they had know idea when they bought their tickets, they thought this was going to be a big rock show, is he going to play "Born To Run?"

So your average joe don't know and don't really care. And even if he did know, I doubt the presence or absence of two or three songs would be a deal-breaker on whether he bought a ticket. "Oh gee, she's gonna do Sara and Rhiannon and Silver Springs, but not Dreams or Gypsy? The hell with that, I'm not going." No way.

dissention

11-05-2005, 08:39 PM

So...what? Are you saying that someone told Stevie to make her songs more MOR, and that it yielded what she considers an artistic triumph? :confused: No one made her release it with the Mac...basically, I don't get how those to things are analagous.

I think Stevie commercializes her stuff on her own. Just look at that silly "I pray to the commercial Gods" crap she was prattling on about in Destiny Rules.

dissention

11-05-2005, 08:41 PM

I agree that they have lost much of their public. I guess they figure the majority of the people who go to see them want the hits peppered with rarer stuff like BC on this last tour.

There's so very little of that pepper that I can hardly taste it.

dissention

11-05-2005, 08:44 PM

So, I think having that trust with someone unproven commercially would be hard for most to have especially when a false move could ruin her career.

A false move would ruin her career? I love when you employ hyperbole, silly. :xoxo:

jbrownsjr

11-05-2005, 10:31 PM

it doesn't matter to me what these guys play. None of it will work. They're too old. It's a lost cause. Just release some old stuff. :] :]

yes!!!!!!!

jbrownsjr

11-05-2005, 10:35 PM

jbrownsjr

11-05-2005, 10:39 PM

jbrownsjr

11-05-2005, 10:51 PM

I'm only speaking for myself, but the reason I didn't go to see Stevie on her past tour was because I couldn't fathom paying the money and going out of my way to see the same thing I've pretty much always seen from her. It's gotten to the point where I just have do desire to see the same show, year after year.

Seeing her sing Dreams and Gold Dust Woman and Rhiannon and Edge of Seventeen and Stand Back yet again with the same schtick accompanying them just isn't as special to me as it once was because it's all become so predictable. "After this verse, she'll spin twice and grab the mike this way and then toss her hair in that direction." No thank you. And I was absolutely ripped to shreds for expressing that; I was even told that I was a lousy fan for not going to see her when I had the means to do so.

When she tours again and when the Mac tours again, I'll be content in not going if they're just going to do the same thing as always. Which they will, and I can save my money for something else. No big whoop, it's just disappointing that with such a remarkable catalog, they do the same old **** every time they hit the road.

it's not that ur a lousy fan, it's more that ur not an idiot

Lindsey Jr.

11-06-2005, 06:30 AM

I complain about Fleetwood Mac's setlists because their setlists are stagnant and rote, not because I've seen them hundreds of times and am bored. I've been to one Fleetwood Mac concert ever.

Look at the rest of my post, I too want to see other songs.

Nicks Fan

11-06-2005, 08:54 PM

ShangriLaTroubl

11-06-2005, 08:59 PM

ShangriLaTroubl

11-06-2005, 09:00 PM

it's not that ur a lousy fan, it's more that ur not an idiot

Wow I guess I'm an idiot for doing it. Thanks for letting me know!

Chris

Lindsey Jr.

11-07-2005, 03:12 AM

Sisters of the moon, the ledge, angel, I don't want to know, Miranda, everybody finds out, thrown down, seven wonders...

Doing what I can, countdown,... Just some thoughts.

Jyqm

11-07-2005, 07:13 AM

I am enjoying reading thse responses. I say we should flood the nicks fix with emails aboyt changing the setlist. May be we mail the individual band members are demands. I mean come on we all have paid many amounts of money to see them live that we deserve to hear some new songs. I would die if they ever did Live by request for A and E maybe then we could get a great set list. Wait no the calls would be probably be screened and then only the casaul fan would get through to request the hits.

In my wildest dreams, they'd do what Elvis Costello did on his 1986 Fabulous Spinning Songbook tour. He had a big wheel up on stage with different song titles written all around it, and fans would come up on stage and spin it, and wherever the wheel stopped, that's what song the band would play next.

Of course, if Fleetwood Mac ever did something like this, the wheel would feature Second Hand News, Dreams, Never Going Back Again, Don't Stop, Go Your Own Way...

HomerMcvie

11-07-2005, 12:34 PM

In my wildest dreams, they'd do what Elvis Costello did on his 1986 Fabulous Spinning Songbook tour. He had a big wheel up on stage with different song titles written all around it, and fans would come up on stage and spin it, and wherever the wheel stopped, that's what song the band would play next.

This would SOOO never happen. What is wrong with these people? Are they so......limited in their memory, that they can only perform the same rote, stagnant show, night after night after night after night? How do they keep from not gouging their own eyes out, playing the same ****?
Country band Alabama used to let the entire audience submit request cards to the ushers(there was a card on every seat in the venue). All requests were in a big barrel, and in the middle of the show, they'd pull 3(if memory serves) requests, and do them, no matter what the song(I'm sure it had to be one of their songs).

Play for your audience, not for yourselves.

Jyqm

11-07-2005, 01:22 PM

This would SOOO never happen. What is wrong with these people? Are they so......limited in their memory, that they can only perform the same rote, stagnant show, night after night after night after night? How do they keep from not gouging their own eyes out, playing the same ****?

I suppose we should give them credit for that, at least; that's a skill in itself, to be able not to get bored out of their skulls after five shows.

Country band Alabama used to let the entire audience submit request cards to the ushers(there was a card on every seat in the venue). All requests were in a big barrel, and in the middle of the show, they'd pull 3(if memory serves) requests, and do them, no matter what the song(I'm sure it had to be one of their songs).

Oh man, how exciting.

chiliD

11-07-2005, 02:04 PM

Or, at least have a thing like the Stones did a couple of tours ago (Bridges Over Bablyon tour), where you'd vote on their official site two weeks in advance for a song you'd want to hear at a particular show. The song with the most votes gets played that night. If a song gets the most votes three shows in a row, it gets added into the basic set for the rest of the tour. The song it replaces gets put back onto the ballot.

About 6 songs into their set, Mick said that it was time to play "your request"...they projected a computer screen on the jumbo-tron and showed the clicking onto the voting results for that show, then they'd play the song with the most votes.

Now how difficult would THAT be to do?

DavidMn

11-07-2005, 02:10 PM