What if Stevie had left in 1980? [Archive]

Jyqm

01-22-2006, 08:14 PM

mylittledemon

01-22-2006, 10:38 PM

A little "what if" query for all of you to discuss while I head off to bed. Imagine if you will: The year is 1980. Fleetwood Mac has just completed its marathon world tour in support of Tusk, and Stevie is working out the details of recording and releasing her first solo album. The rest of the band knows about her decision and isn't terribly happy about it. So Stevie decides, the hell with you kids, I'm outta this band.

How would the careers of Stevie and Fleetwood Mac have been different? Discuss!

Some preliminary suggestions:

On Stevie's side of things, she would have had "Gypsy" for Bella Donna, though who knows what the song might have ended up like without Lindsey's production. Maybe it still would have been a big hit, and Bella Donna would have sold even better.

The Fleetwood Mac side of the equation is where things get really interesting, though. Would Lindsey and Mick still have released their 1981 solo albums? Or would the band, reeling from losing one of its most popular frontpersons, have jumped right back into the studio to record a new album? Would we have seen a much earlier manifestation of the Buckingham-McVie songwriting team that first emerged on Tango in the Night? Would Lindsey have retained much creative control within the band, or would the others have forced him to become even more reactionary and commercial, since not only Tusk not live up to sales expectations, but now they'd lost one of their biggest commercial assets in Stevie? Or would Lindsey have simply followed Stevie's example and said, "The witch is right, forget you guys, I'm outta here," and gone off to record his wacky solo albums? Or maybe something else entirely.

Discuss!

I don't think Stevie wanted "out" of the band completely like Lindsey seemed to want to. I think Stevie wanted to release her solo material, not just a desire to LEAVE Fleetwood Mac (until the Silver Springs inclusion on TimeSpace thing in 1991). Anyway...I dont think Gypsy would've been a "hit" if it had been on Bella Donna. Also, that song didn't really fit into the running of the other Bella Donna songs. Stevie said once that she "saved" Gypsy for Fleetwood Mac. She probably wasn't happy with the way it was turning out in the studio, and knew it could be taken to another level. What Lindsey and Stevie did with Gypsy during the Mirage recordings was amazing. That song...in it's own way is really distinct and unique. I cant think of anything that really sounds like it since.

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 12:40 AM

A little "what if" query for all of you to discuss while I head off to bed. Imagine if you will: The year is 1980. Fleetwood Mac has just completed its marathon world tour in support of Tusk, and Stevie is working out the details of recording and releasing her first solo album. The rest of the band knows about her decision and isn't terribly happy about it. So Stevie decides, the hell with you kids, I'm outta this band.

Discuss!

Uhmm, I realize it's more complex than this and that they all love each other and so on but - - - how's this for an answer? Just for "food for thought."

- - - She did.

1982: Mirage. Songs:

"That's Alright." - I've never heard of it, and I'm a "long-term fan."

"Gypsy." Brilliant, I agree. Maybe even Stevie's best. But Lindsey wrote the guitar solo and produced/arranged most of this, and Stevie really wrote it as more of a solo song to honor Robin anyway, not for Fleetwood Mac.

"Straight Back" - not exactly memorable..

Five year delay. Lindsey has left the band. Stevie's "not too sorry to see him go," to use Mick Fleetwood's phraseology.

"Tango in the Night."

Stevie has three songs, only one of which was a hit, and that was "co-written" with Sandy Stewart.

Three year delay.

1990: "Behind the Mask." Four songs, none of which are hits.

For all intents and purposes, the band breaks up. SEVEN year delay.
"Five camera reunion, onstage" - for all the world to see - as that Producer
mentions in "Destiny Rules" - because he knew that Lindsey's solo album
was going to bomb unless he had the rest of Fleetwood Mac to back him up.

1997: "The Dance." One new song, never heard from again.

SIX year delay.

2003: "Say You Will."

FOUR new songs (count carefully.) Cuts back tour drastically after horrible fight with Lindsey over the running order.

So the running total since 1980, of good, quality songs, of the calibre she's capable of - in the last TWENTY FIVE YEARS - has been five. FIVE.
Anyway, it's one way to look about it. I'm not saying that they don't all care
VERY deeply for one another and make great music together, still, but they really have more of a "loose association" now, and have kinda struck out on their own. "Sometimes, to be near you, is to be, unable, to FEEL you (my love...)"

HomerMcvie

01-23-2006, 01:20 AM

Cuts back tour drastically after horrible fight with Lindsey over the running order.
Gawd, didn't the SYW Orchestra go on, seemingly, forever? It was, by no one's judgement, a SHORT tour.

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 01:47 AM

Gawd, didn't the SYW Orchestra go on, seemingly, forever? It was, by no one's judgement, a SHORT tour.

Well, I can tell you that in the "Destiny Rules" documentary DVD, Lindsey specifically says that the tour was being cut back. Stevie and Lindsey had a really bad fight over the running order of the album, and Lindsey says in the DVD that Stevie as a result was cutting back the number of shows she was willing to do. In response, he withheld some of his songs from the "Say You Will" album, as he no longer felt it was financially reasonable to "give" them to Fleetwood Mac, given the decreased income from the tour..... They apparently managed to work some things out later on but there is one scene on the DVD, during rehearsal, where Stevie is clearly very angry with Lindsey. "All part of the creative process," of course! :rolleyes:

I'm only guessing but I think it's possible that Stevie refused to do a world-wide tour, but instead only one in the U.S. Don't quote me though, I don't know the gory details.

chiliD

01-23-2006, 02:10 AM

If Stevie HAD left in 1980, I'm sure Lindsey would've bailed, too.

Which would've been a great scenario for Bob Welch to rejoin the band, since he & the rest of FMac were still getting along then (Bob might've even coerced his then co-guitarist Todd Sharp into the Mac fold, too)...and since at that point, The Motels hadn't hit it big yet and were still just kind of floundering after two really good albums that sold nearly nothing, Welch might've persuaded his Capitol label mate Martha Davis to ditch the Motels project & join Fleetwood Mac, too.

Just imagine, "Take The L", "Mission Of Mercy", "Only The Lonely", "Tragic Surf", "Suddenly Last Summer", "Remember The Nights" all being Fleetwood Mac songs/hits. A front line of C McVie/B Welch/M Davis woulda been awesome! Totally different than the Rumours/Tusk crew, but nearly as strong.

Kelly

01-23-2006, 07:30 AM

Uhmm, I realize it's more complex than this and that they all love each other and so on but - - - how's this for an answer? Just for "food for thought."

- - - She did.

1982: Mirage. Songs:

"That's Alright." - I've never heard of it, and I'm a "long-term fan."

"Gypsy." Brilliant, I agree. Maybe even Stevie's best. But Lindsey wrote the guitar solo and produced/arranged most of this, and Stevie really wrote it as more of a solo song to honor Robin anyway, not for Fleetwood Mac.

"Straight Back" - not exactly memorable..

Five year delay. Lindsey has left the band. Stevie's "not too sorry to see him go," to use Mick Fleetwood's phraseology.

"Tango in the Night."

Stevie has three songs, only one of which was a hit, and that was "co-written" with Sandy Stewart.

Three year delay.

1990: "Behind the Mask." Four songs, none of which are hits.

For all intents and purposes, the band breaks up. SEVEN year delay.
"Five camera reunion, onstage" - for all the world to see - as that Producer
mentions in "Destiny Rules" - because he knew that Lindsey's solo album
was going to bomb unless he had the rest of Fleetwood Mac to back him up.

1997: "The Dance." One new song, never heard from again.

SIX year delay.

2003: "Say You Will."

FOUR new songs (count carefully.) Cuts back tour drastically after horrible fight with Lindsey over the running order.

So the running total since 1980, of good, quality songs, of the calibre she's capable of - in the last TWENTY FIVE YEARS - has been five. FIVE.
Anyway, it's one way to look about it. I'm not saying that they don't all care
VERY deeply for one another and make great music together, still, but they really have more of a "loose association" now, and have kinda struck out on their own. "Sometimes, to be near you, is to be, unable, to FEEL you (my love...)"

Gypsy was written before Robin even got sick and it is about STEVIE..

And Stevie did not cut the tour back over the running order...she did 135 dates. That DR doc is edited to Kingdom come to present a certain image of this band.

The Dance? Lindsey didn't even want to DO the Dance.... "you said you wouldnt do this for very long, the applause from it all was so defining"...

Jyqm

01-23-2006, 09:11 AM

If Stevie HAD left in 1980, I'm sure Lindsey would've bailed, too.

I agree with this, I can't imagine Lindsey would have felt any compulsion to stick around without the assurance of being in a band that was a huge moneymaker. But I can't considered the idea of Bob Welch coming back into the fold. That could have led to some very interesting possibilities!

ontheEdgeof17

01-23-2006, 09:22 AM

The Dance? Lindsey didn't even want to DO the Dance.... "you said you wouldnt do this for very long, the applause from it all was so defining"...

Did Stevie say this line was about Lindsey? It sounds more Christine-ish to me.

gldstwmn

01-23-2006, 12:17 PM

Gawd, didn't the SYW Orchestra go on, seemingly, forever? It was, by no one's judgement, a SHORT tour.

I believe it was their longest, in the Rumours type incarnation.

mylittledemon

01-23-2006, 03:06 PM

Uhmm, I realize it's more complex than this and that they all love each other and so on but - - - how's this for an answer? Just for "food for thought."

- - - She did.

FOUR new songs (count carefully.) Cuts back tour drastically after horrible fight with Lindsey over the running order.

So the running total since 1980, of good, quality songs, of the calibre she's capable of - in the last TWENTY FIVE YEARS - has been five. FIVE.
Anyway, it's one way to look about it. "

Thats the most narrow minded view I've read yet. Stevie has said on several occasions she always had a dream in the back of her mind that Fleetwood Mac would get back together. She's always wanted to "stay" in Fleetwood Mac. There was no drastic cut back of the Say You Will tour...they toured for the better part of 2 years! durrrr! And as far as the calibre of songs since 1980...thats a pretty poor opinion. Stevie has written some great damn songs "since 1980." Maybe you're not listening hard enough.

DavidMn

01-23-2006, 03:47 PM

Gawd, didn't the SYW Orchestra go on, seemingly, forever? It was, by no one's judgement, a SHORT tour.I'm not sure how many shows you attended, but from what I was able to see, they were unbelieveable for all being in their 50's. I know you love Christine, as do I, but I think her not being there is more of a compliment to how good the remeining members still are, not any kind of a detraction to Chris. At least that's how I view it. Would I prefer that Christine was still there, yes, but they moved on very well in her abscence.

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 03:52 PM

[QUOTE=Kelly]Gypsy was written before Robin even got sick and it is about STEVIE..

And Stevie did not cut the tour back over the running order...she did 135 dates. That DR doc is edited to Kingdom come to present a certain image of this band.

[QUOTE]

I guess I'm confused about Gypsy. Maybe the meaning of it "changed" for her after Robin died. I've seen interviews where she talks about Robin and Gypsy - I think maybe it was on inherownwords.com ... It might be that "shaky memory" of her's creeping in again. . . . :rolleyes:

Didn't know about the editing in DR either; but somehow my jaw didn't exactly drop to the floor when I read this. ;)

I still think that if you go back and look at the actual songs she's given to them post-1980 or so, it will seem that maybe she lost a lot of her motivation towards them and (sorta) started "keeping the good stuff to herself." Then again, Lindsey had intended to do the same thing with all his solo albums so maybe fair's fair. Ultimately though, I think everyone, especially S & L, recognized that they needed to be more independent from each other. Stevie needed to grow on her own, and I think a lot of this actually boils down to that.

skcin

01-23-2006, 03:54 PM

Did Stevie say this line was about Lindsey? It sounds more Christine-ish to me.

I thought so too. :shrug:

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 04:00 PM

I count two, that you even remotely compliment.

I love ALL of them - but I just simply think that there's a difference in her attitude towards the band, pre-1980 (or so) vs. post-1980. I was a little shocked when I went back and actually looked at the songs though - I received an impression that "the record speaks for itself." What I'm saying is, compare pre-1980 (or so) with the period after that time, and you may agree that there's a PROFOUND difference. Which in my opinion is a separate thing from the love she feels for the members of the band, and the band as a whole. I think a perfect example is "Say You Will" - I would call that song brilliant, fun, upbeat, and "a sure hit" - but Rhiannon it's not (in my opinion).
Meanwhile, throughout the 80s, for example, Stevie was continuing to release what in my opinion is really high-quality, even brilliant stuff. I guess what I'm saying is that in my opinon Fleetwood Mac was tending to get stuff which was "pretty good to REALLY good," whereas as a solo artist she was releasing stuff which was "Really good to STUNNINGLY BRILLIANT." Granted there must be a natural tendency to do that as a solo artist anyway, but it just seems to me that there was a change in her feelings about this after certain things happened, such as their "failure" to support her solo career.

Jyqm

01-23-2006, 04:04 PM

I still think that if you go back and look at the actual songs she's given to them post-1980 or so, it will seem that maybe she lost a lot of her motivation towards them and (sorta) started "keeping the good stuff to herself."

Regardless, she was still in the band, not only contributing songs to the albums but also going out on tour. Her presence was integral to the success of the Mirage album and tour, and the band would have been a very different entity had she left (especially if Lindsey had left, too, in her wake).

And Stevie's own career might very well have been much different, too. Bella Donna likely would have been a much more successful album, if not for the fact that it would have had "Gypsy" (in some form), then because she would have been able to tour much more extensively behind it, instead of cutting everything short so she could run off to record Mirage. She also would have had a nice breather in 1982, instead of firing on all cylinders for three years straight as she did...

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 04:11 PM

Thats the most narrow minded view I've read yet. Stevie has said on several occasions she always had a dream in the back of her mind that Fleetwood Mac would get back together. She's always wanted to "stay" in Fleetwood Mac. There was no drastic cut back of the Say You Will tour...they toured for the better part of 2 years! durrrr! And as far as the calibre of songs since 1980...thats a pretty poor opinion. Stevie has written some great damn songs "since 1980." Maybe you're not listening hard enough.

Well, please see the post I added below my original one. I TOTALLY agree that she feels loyalty to the band, in terms of ALWAYS being a member and touring, supporting them, etc. It's like they say in "Sopranos" - "Once you're IN . . . you can NEVER get out!" :lol: But - I do think that there was a change, around 1980 or so, once her solo career started - in terms of feeling a need to be more independent from the band, and keeping more of "the good stuff" for herself. Trust me - when you go back and compare what she was giving to them in the '70s, compared to post-1980 or so, it's truly surprising - mostly i'm saying that it's MUCH different than one might have imagined.
And if you go through "Say You Will," for example, one song at a time, MUCH of it was actually based on older songs she wrote way back in the 70s - "Goodbye Baby" is perhaps a perfect example - that was originally written as "The Tower" and it's from 1979, I believe (and there's a WONDERFUL demo of it floating around). Anyway if you have the time and feel like it, go back and look, and maybe you'll see what I mean. Also, I agree totally that Stevie has written some WONDERFUL songs since 1980. But go back and look at how many of those - the ones written entirely by Stevie herself which were brand-spanking new - ended up on Fleetwood Mac albums, for their original release - compared to the number which ended up on her solo albums.

mylittledemon

01-23-2006, 04:25 PM

I guess what I'm saying is that in my opinon Fleetwood Mac was tending to get stuff which was "pretty good to REALLY good," whereas as a solo artist she was releasing stuff which was "Really good to STUNNINGLY BRILLIANT.

Ok now that's getting somewhere. It's a just an opinion...my opinion disagrees with you. I like Stevie's solo stuff, but I don't think it's "better" than her Mac-material. I personally feel that Stevie's material is better within the context of the band, production wise, etc...not on her own. Granted she's done some pretty good solo work, but I don't think anything she's done, as a whole, has surpassed her first album.

Jyqm

01-23-2006, 04:27 PM

But go back and look at how many of those - the ones written entirely by Stevie herself which were brand-spanking new - ended up on Fleetwood Mac albums, for their original release - compared to the number which ended up on her solo albums.

Putting aside the issue of Stevie turning old demos into "new" songs decades down the road, obviously she has more "original" "new" songs on her solo albums than she does on Fleetwood Mac albums. That was the whole point of her launching a solo career - because with multiple songwriters in the band, she could never put as many songs as she wanted on a Fleetwood Mac album.

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 05:43 PM

Gypsy was written before Robin even got sick and it is about STEVIE..

..

Ummm, this is from inherownwords.com - :shrug:

"'The song Gypsy isn't a real happy story. Gypsy is a lot about returning to San Francisco. And Gypsy was written when my best friend [Robin] died of Leukemia and uh ...about the fact that she wasn't going to see the rest of this: I still see your bright eyes, it was like she wasn't ...going to make it. And uh, I was like the lone gypsy ~ this was my best friend from when I was 15 and so I was a solo gypsy all of a sudden and it was very sad for me and that's sometimes when I write my very best songs.
Robin had been on the road with Fleetwood Mac for five years. As my speech therapist and also management, an incredibly efficient helper. I still miss your bright eyes ~ that's why we don't do it on stage ~ it's because it's really too hard for me to sing. Lightening strikes maybe once, maybe twice... that means one time in your life you find a very good friend, and maybe if you're incredibly lucky, you might find a second. It all comes down to you, means but you have to look very hard.'
~Stevie Nicks, video interview for Fleetwood Mac's Greatest Hits (1988)"

Could it sorta be about BOTH Robin and Stevie? I had also felt it was mostly or all about Stevie, but when I came across this I figured it must've been about her, also. There's other stuff on the same website where she indicates that it IS about her (Stevie), but maybe she just wasn't really ready to talk about it yet. I've gotten the impression that performing it onstage is kinda "therapeutic" for her. ANY-way, overall I think maybe it's about a LOT of things! ( Including LINDSEY of course! :laugh: )
( "Lightning strikes. . . maybe once....." ;) )

demonchaser

01-23-2006, 07:24 PM

I remember an interview where Stevie said Gypsy was originally about her returning to San Francisco. Then when she found out about Robin's illness she added those parts later. This would explain why the "she is dancing away from me now..." verse and the "I still see your bright eyes" lines are not on the Bella Donna Demos.

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 07:47 PM

HomerMcvie

01-23-2006, 09:26 PM

I'm not sure how many shows you attended, but from what I was able to see, they were unbelieveable for all being in their 50's. I know you love Christine, as do I, but I think her not being there is more of a compliment to how good the remeining members still are, not any kind of a detraction to Chris. At least that's how I view it. Would I prefer that Christine was still there, yes, but they moved on very well in her abscence.
David, NObody mentioned Chris. The assertion was made that: Stevie cut the SYW tour short, out of spite, over the running order of SYW. That is the only point being debated. My point was:it certainly WASN'T a short tour, by any stretch.

ontheEdgeof17

01-23-2006, 09:32 PM

The assertion was made that: Stevie cut the SYW tour short, out of spite, over the running order of SYW. That is the only point being debated. My point was:it certainly WASN'T a short tour, by any stretch.

Lindsey was afraid it would be cut short, but it never came to be.

Ghost_Tracker

01-23-2006, 10:12 PM

Lindsey was afraid it would be cut short, but it never came to be.

OH okay, that clears up my confusion. It seemed weird to me that they showed (at the end of "Destiny Rules") that Stevie and Lindsey were getting along again (for example, walking out hand-in-hand onto the stage at the beginning of the first show - and if you notice, Stevie intentionally switched positions with him so that he could be "seen first"). I know these things are somewhat choreographed but they really did seem to have worked things out somewhat. I had the impression that Stevie had still cut the tour short though, but I guess they managed to resolve that issue. Gotta admit, it's interesting that they didn't happen to mention that in
"Destiny Rules." :shocked: Maybe they forgot! :rolleyes:
ANY-way I didn't mean to detract from the main point of the thread, which was Jyqm's question about "What if Stevie had [actually] left the band in 1980?" . . . .

ReFleetwoodMac

01-23-2006, 11:18 PM

Gotta admit, it's interesting that they didn't happen to mention that in
"Destiny Rules." :shocked: Maybe they forgot! :rolleyes:

Destiny Rules was about the making of Say You Will. They had not yet not cut the tour short while they were making Say You Will. Even by the first show, which was shown, they had not yet not cut the tour short.

Jyqm

01-24-2006, 05:30 AM

ANY-way I didn't mean to detract from the main point of the thread, which was Jyqm's question about "What if Stevie had [actually] left the band in 1980?" . . . .

Yeah man, let's get back to that. I thought there'd be all kind of interesting possibilities to talk about and suddenly it's all about the SYW tour.

Angelick Witch

01-24-2006, 12:51 PM

[QUOTE=Ghost_Tracker] I had the impression that Stevie had still cut the tour short though, but I guess they managed to resolve that issue. Gotta admit, it's interesting that they didn't happen to mention that in
"Destiny Rules." :shocked: Maybe they forgot! :rolleyes:
QUOTE]

Damn Lindsey, making it all about the double-album. Never got a chance to show any other arguments... *sigh*

danax6

01-24-2006, 04:09 PM

Lindsey was afraid it would be cut short, but it never came to be.Exactly. If you listen closely to what Lindsey says you'd have known that he clearly stated that he couldn't risk Stevie quitting after only 40 shows, and that's why he had to compromise here and there. Which he did.

I think if Stevie left in 1980, she would still have had her successful solo career, and the others, sadly, wouldn't have. Aside from Mirage (and the hit single Gypsy that came from that), Fleetwood Mac did nothing noteworthy until 1987 (though they have proven with TITN that they can have a successful record without much of Stevie's input also). So, it's not like Stevie was riding on that success, she did it pretty much by herself. Also, as some others have mentioned, I don't think Lindsey would have wanted to continue, so I think FM would have bled to death right after 1980. Everybody to this day and age would still know who Fleetwood Mac was (because of Rumours, mostly) but they wouldn't have left as big an impact as they do now, with them having been around for 40 years, and having major success again fairly recently with The Dance, which got them noticed by a whole new generation.

ShangriLaTroubl

01-24-2006, 04:41 PM

David, NObody mentioned Chris. The assertion was made that: Stevie cut the SYW tour short, out of spite, over the running order of SYW. That is the only point being debated. My point was:it certainly WASN'T a short tour, by any stretch.

There was obviously SOMETHING going on about the length of the tour...however like you said as we all now something must've gotten worked out because the tour certainly ended up NOT being cut back, as it was atleast their second longest tour ever..it may even be longest, compared to Tusk..I would have to compare the actual number of dates...

ShangriLaTroubl

01-24-2006, 04:46 PM

Also to add..I think that that DR documentary as was stated is severely edited simply due to the fact that they filmed over 500 hrs of footage and only released about 70 mins of footage...that tells you something right there..

Now to the actual topic : I think had Stevie left in 1980 Fleetwood Mac would not have had the success of the 80s that they had. Regardless of the "low" sales of Tusk, Fleetwood Mac were still pretty popular in 1980. Now I know I know Stevie isn't what "MAKES" Fleetwood Mac, but she was definetely the most visible one, and even though Christine had more hits with Fleetwood Mac than Stevie did--the crowds came for Stevie at that time.
Had she quit she would've done her solo album, and it would've been a hit as it was..however I think it would have been a BIGGER hit had she not been in Fleetwood Mac. She would've been able to devote much more time to promoting it without having to go back to Fleetwood Mac. Her tour was obviously cut very short, which in a way is unfortunate because I believe even though short the Bella Donna Tour was her best tour in terms of performance, of her entire solo career.
She likely would have done one or even two more solo albums in the 80s, which I think would've done well. It's a world of possibilities what would've happened. And while I think Fleetwood Mac still would have been able to function and go on without her, they would not have enjoyed near the success they did in the 80s.

DavidMn

01-24-2006, 06:32 PM

I'm just glad it never happened.:nod:

chiliD

01-24-2006, 07:57 PM

Now to the actual topic : I think had Stevie left in 1980 Fleetwood Mac would not have had the success of the 80s that they had.

I disagree...I think had they (as I proposed earlier in the thread) got Bob Welch back, added Martha Davis, (plus, Todd Sharp on 2nd guitar)...I think they would've been just fine. Welch was still riding the wave of popularity from French Kiss & Three Hearts (granted The Other One didn't match the numbers of his previous two albums, but a return to Fleetwood Mac would've been met with high anticipation)...plus Martha Davis was at that time in the midst of writing her biggest hits, "Only The Lonely", "Take The L", "Misson Of Mercy", with "Suddenly Last Summer", "Remember The Nights" right on their heels. I think there wouldn't have been the dip in popularity that you would think. Plus, with Stevie & Lindsey out there on their own, it only would keep the Fleetwood Mac name in people's minds...plus, with the new more (then) current sound of Fleetwood Mac with Martha Davis & Bob Welch fronting the band with Christine, they PROBABLY would've had a more prolific decade...there would've been a Fleetwood Mac recording & touring for the WHOLE decade without the two & three (and more) year gaps. For what you might think would've been a slight decline in quality (however much I would debate that point, too), the QUANTITY would have kept them in the consistent public eye.

The Tower

01-24-2006, 08:00 PM

I don't think Stevie has ever been capable of leaving FM. Even the early '90's thing I blame on Klonopin. I'm guessing she would consider leaving a "defeat"- and she doesn't strike me as the type of person that likes to lose. I think FM has so many romantic connotations for her that she will always be drawn to and a part of the band.

SteveMacD

01-24-2006, 08:58 PM

We could what-if this period of the band's history to death. They were at a crossroads, and there were a number of potential situations.

To answer this question, if Stevie had quit the band in 1980, I think there are two things that could have happened. The first is that the band would have continued as a quartet. I believe Mick would have done "The Visitor" regardless, but Lindsey is the real crap shoot. On the one hand, being able to work without having to be the grand interpreter of Stevie's music would have had some appeal. On the other, I'm sure the others, especially Christine, would want the next album to be a bit more polished, which may have alienated Lindsey. So "Law & Order" may or may not have been made. For the sake of argument, let's say that Lindsey and Christine abandoned solo projects altogether. I'm certain that those four would have been able to produce an album every other year for a few years. I think the albums would have been successful because the sound would have been familiar. "Hold Me" was a hit, and I bet songs like "Trouble," "Got A Hold On Me," and "Go Insane" would have been huge hits, too.

The other situation would be that Lindsey would have left, too. Not because he didn't want to be in the band without Stevie. In fact, quite the opposite. The "if she can go solo, why the hell can't I" attitude. In that case, I see the band continuing with somebody like Todd Sharp. I don't know if I agree with Mr. D wanting to add Martha and Bob, though. With Martha, I don't see how adding somebody who sounds a little like Stevie would help the band advance to get beyond the image of the "Rumours" band. As for Bob, I just don't see any situation in which he'd come back to the band. He was happy being out of the group. And, could you imagine how it would feel for Bob to be in a situation where he joined joined the band after it had been huge in Europe, he left the band when it was playing clubs, it became Beatles big, and then comes back when it's on the downslide? Nobody wants to be the guy who's in the band only when it's NOT huge. If they were going to go back to a two guitarist line-up, I say give somebody new, who was connected to the band, a shot. Maybe Walter Egan.

Now, a few other what ifs...

What if the band had fired Lindsey in 1980, after he snapped, and actually got Clapton? I think Stevie would have left the band after the tour, but the band would have continued to be a monster. Now, Clapton, at least since 1974, liked having a second guitarist....What if Peter Green had gotten "better" (at least to where he was with the Splinter Group), had accepted the record contract Mick got for him, and was having success as a solo artist? What if Mick and Eric convinced him to rejoin the group? Would a Fleetwood-McVie-McVie-Green-Clapton Fleetwood Mac not have been HUGE? Provided everybody stayed sane, that group could have recorded for many years, and would have had success.

Or, what if Stevie left, and the band was able to get Green back? I think Lindsey was thinking about another guitarist for a while, and having Green in the band would have taken a lot of pressure off of Lindsey.

What if Lindsey hadn't quit in 1987, but Billy Burnette was still added to the group (as had been discussed prior to Lindsey's departure)? The band tours for "Tango," records as a six-piece for the new songs on the Greatest Hits package, and then Lindsey quits. Would people still have reservations about Billy?

What if in 1987 the band added Dave Mason or Roger McGuinn?

JazmenFlowers

01-24-2006, 09:59 PM

I think if Stevie had left in 1980 FM would have continued on with a different sound. Maybe getting back to blues-"ish" music. I don't think they would have had the same success they had...they would've been successful, just went down a different, maybe less mainstream (that's a bad word, but the only one I can think of) path and I think they would have eventually dissolved by 85. I really don't see Stevie's career really changing much if she had left. Maybe one more album or tour, but I think if Stevie really wanted that to begin with she would have had it.

Sorcerer386

01-24-2006, 11:55 PM

One thing you have to remember about the Destiny Rules documentary, it was, as we would all hate to admit, just a marketing device (at least as far as the record execs are concerned). It was used to redevelop the history of Fleetwood Mac, and show viewers that that story is still there. Stevie and Lindsey STILL exhibit this kind of romantic tension and creative differences that often lead to arguments. Lindsey is STILL "the trouble maker" (and it's not ME calling him a trouble maker...I think that's how he's perceived at some level), arguing with the band over, again, creative differences. There is STILL tension in the band. Lindsey might up and quit the project, and Stevie might cut the tour short. The purpose was to reinvigorate its target audience with not just the music, but the band's soap opera-like story in general. I actually did a paper about this for my Media Crit class, showing how "authenticity" and "narrative" is used for marketing rock and roll music, because "the heart" of rock and roll is authenticity. I got an A! :]

And as far as Gypsy goes, yeah, it did begin as a story about Stevie going back to San Francisco, but as someone said, the verse after the bridge was never there until it appeared on Mirage (she is dancing away from you now...). In the demoes, she went back to the first verse. So I suppose that's why the song really IS about BOTH things.

And now to the original topic. It just seems that Fleetwood Mac could never do as well, commercially, without one of the members. Lindsey left, and Behind the Mask failed to sell as well as the Rumours era albums. Stevie left, and Time was just a bust. Now Christine left, and Say You Will fails to have as much commercial success as the Rumours era (although some of that can be attributed to the way the music industry is today). So, if Stevie left in 1980, I really don't think FM would have had the commercial success it had, even if Stevie's contributions seemed not up to par with her older songs. But remember, Stevie wasn't really the one who said, "these songs will go on the album." Smile at You SHOULD have been on Mirage, but the band picked three other songs instead (and thank God Gypsy was one of them). There were also other songs they could have chosen for TITN, and I still don't see what is so terrible about Welcome to the Room...Sara. ALSO, Stevie always had only three songs on the albums. I've always thought that it was sort of part of the agreement to her joining. She can join, but she gets THIS many cuts out of THIS many songs, you know? As for Stevie's solo career, I kind of wonder if she would have continued through the years if she was purely solo. But really that's all the speculation I have. I think most of it would have gone the way it did, except there may have been another album pushed in there somewhere. Ok, I'm tired now, time to go.

Brwn_eyes0511

01-25-2006, 09:29 AM

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different? :rolleyes:

JazmenFlowers

01-25-2006, 10:19 AM

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different? :rolleyes:
are you serious?

you are right in that they would have continued. Lindsey and Stevie joining added/created that special magic that made FM explode...wouldn't one or both of them leaving cause just as much change...Stevie was, for sure, the visual for most people into FM...her absence would change their course just as Christine's absence has changed their course - I just think that Stevie's departure would leave a void visually and musically

SteveMacD

01-25-2006, 11:09 AM

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different? :rolleyes:
Actually, Stevie DID leave, and they DID continue...Only, it was in 1993 (I know it was actually earlier, but the first time Fleetwood Mac played out after the "Mask" tour was at the Clinton gig, and Stevie was t here. A few weeks later, she snubbed the group. THAT'S when she was officially out of the band, IMO.)

chiliD

01-25-2006, 11:41 AM

If Stevie would have left...they would have continued, like they have always done when someone leaves FM....

It's what they do...

Why would Stevie leaving be any different? :rolleyes:

My God, we agree on something...Halelluja!! :D

are you serious?

you are right in that they would have continued. Lindsey and Stevie joining added/created that special magic that made FM explode...wouldn't one or both of them leaving cause just as much change...Stevie was, for sure, the visual for most people into FM...her absence would change their course just as Christine's absence has changed their course - I just think that Stevie's departure would leave a void visually and musically

No, there would've been no "void", it just would've been somebody OTHER than Stevie Nicks. "Change in course" isn't necessarily a BAD thing, either.

JazmenFlowers

01-25-2006, 11:49 AM

No, there would've been no "void", it just would've been somebody OTHER than Stevie Nicks. "Change in course" isn't necessarily a BAD thing, either.
well, I agree with you there. maybe void wasn't the right word.

Brwn_eyes0511

01-25-2006, 11:59 AM

My God, we agree on something...Halelluja!! :D

When it comes to the Mac I think we agree on a lot!

I LOVE TIME! :thumbsup:

SteveMacD

01-25-2006, 12:05 PM

And now to the original topic. It just seems that Fleetwood Mac could never do as well, commercially, without one of the members.
But, the Fleetwood-McVie-McVie-Buckingham band wasn't tried. Would it have done as well? Probably not AS well, but I think it would have been THE most successful variation of the "Rumours" band, and would have been a very commercially viable band. Especially in 1980. Remember, "Rumours" had only been released five years prior to "Mirage," so Christine and Lindsey, as far as the pop music world was concerned, weren't exactly chopped liver. They were also hit makers, and Stevie's input on their songs was often minimal.
Lindsey left, and Behind the Mask failed to sell as well as the Rumours era albums. Stevie left, and Time was just a bust.
The key difference being that by the time "Behind The Mask" was released, the band was thirteen years past "Rumours" and "Time" eighteen years (or, a generation) past "Rumours." Add to that the personnel changes, and the band had become pretty far removed from "Rumours" while trying to keep the alure of the "Rumours" band.
Now Christine left, and Say You Will fails to have as much commercial success as the Rumours era (although some of that can be attributed to the way the music industry is today).
And, that change happened in the early 1990s, which is partially why "Time," "Street Angel," and "Out Of The Cradle" were all doomed.

Really, though, the band has been making one bad decision after another since 1988. They made the right decision to to bring in two talents like Billy and Rick. But, then they screwed everything up. I think "Red Rocks," the "Tango In The Night" video, and "Greatest Hits" were terrible ideas. Two concert videos that really don't show Stevie at her best AND have that stupid close-up footage that wasn't part of the actual show was amazingly bad in judgement. Then, a "Greatest Hits" package that had all of the stuff that everybody wanted, thus making anything new obsolete before it was even released was very stupid. Add to that, Stevie releases a mediocre at best solo album that really does more to hurt everybody's career than help it. (Hey, if you want to give her all of the credit for their success, then you have to accept that she deserves some of the responsibility for their demise.) By the time "Behind The Mask" came out, Fleetwood Mac's image took a real beating. The fact that it was horribly produced, and a lot of the best songs were omitted in favor of safe, bland songs didn't help. Fleetwood Mac lost its edge (no fault of the new guys, btw), and rendered itself irrelevant.
ALSO, Stevie always had only three songs on the albums. I've always thought that it was sort of part of the agreement to her joining.
If you add up the amount of time she gets per album, she was on par with that of Lindsey and Christine. Maybe not the first album (although, she gets royalties from "Chrystal"), but certainly by "Tusk." The three song thing is only due to her refusal to edit her songs down a bit.

Jyqm

01-25-2006, 12:32 PM

Really, though, the band has been making one bad decision after another since 1988. They made the right decision to to bring in two talents like Billy and Rick and Billy. But, then they screwed everything up. I think "Red Rocks," the "Tango In The Night" video, and "Greatest Hits" were terrible ideas. Two concert videos that really don't show Stevie at her best AND have that stupid close-up footage that wasn't part of the actual show was amazingly bad in judgement. Then, a "Greatest Hits" package that had all of the stuff that everybody wanted, thus making anything new obsolete before it was even released was very stupid. Add to that, Stevie releases a mediocre at best solo album that really does more to hurt everybody's career than help it. (Hey, if you want to give her all of the credit for their success, then you have to accept that she deserves some of the responsibility for their demise.) By the time "Behind The Mask" came out, Fleetwood Mac's image took a real beating. The fact that it was horribly produced, and a lot of the best songs were omitted in favor of safe, bland songs didn't help. Fleetwood Mac lost its edge (no fault of the new guys, btw), and rendered itself irrelevant.

Well said, Steve, and I agree. And of course you can go well beyond Behind the Mask with the bad decision-making. The Chain is a pretty crappy box set, with too much focus on Rumours-era songs and not nearly enough unreleased tracks or alternative versions of songs. Pretty much everything about Time was botched, from conception to execution. The reunion tour was a good thing, though it could have leaned on Rumours a little less, but waiting six whole years to release another studio album, thereby losing any and all commercial momentum and renewed interest from the public, was stupid. And then there was the ensuing tour, which wasn't bad per se, but it was for all intents and purposes The Dance Part Deux, with Christine's songs replaced with songs from Say You Will.

(What are these "best songs" that were omitted from Behind the Mask?)

If you add up the amount of time she gets per album, she was on par with that of Lindsey and Christine. Maybe not the first album (although, she gets royalties from "Chrystal"), but certainly by "Tusk." The three song thing is only due to her refusal to edit her songs down a bit.

I added it up once, and Stevie's songs actually take up the most vinyl on Tusk, though she has the fewest in number. This isn't a bad thing; one of the album's many charms is the way Lindsey's short frenetic freak-outs are juxtaposed with Stevie's longer, mellower mini-epics. With Christine as always falling somewhere in between.

SteveMacD

01-25-2006, 12:39 PM

(What are these "best songs" that were omitted from Behind the Mask?)
Billy's "Victim Of Love" comes to mind. That song would have kicked ass live. Go to the "Post Rumours" board. A bunch of the songs are available.

chiliD

01-25-2006, 12:58 PM

(What are these "best songs" that were omitted from Behind the Mask)

Besides Billy's "Victim Of Love" that Steve mentioned, there's:

Rick Vito's "Intuition"...with great backing vocals by Christine & Billy...(the song eventually surfaced on his King Of Hearts album with Stevie singing backups...the Fleetwood Mac version, I think, is actually the better version)

They could've resurrected Rick's "Got No Home" which he submitted for the 1988 Greatest Hits set and was turned down. I think it had the most potential for being a "hit single" than anything that WAS released as a single on BTM. And, infinitely a better song...a song that would've fit the overall "feel" of the BTM album...than "Stand On The Rock".

They could've finished "Paper Doll" (which was also turned down for inclusion on the 1988 GH album)...but, again, how different would it have sounded than the finished box set version without Lindsey's contributions? We'll never know. But, for argument's sake, let's say it sounds nearly identical...there's another potential "hit"...sure, it didn't do squat when they released it as a single when the box set came out, but in 1990, it might've had more of a chance to garner airplay then than three years later.

Villavic

01-27-2006, 04:16 PM

I agree that the post-Tusk era was not the best for Stevie Nicks. No great songs (besides Gypsy, and Seven Wonders that she cowrote). She was dedicated to her solo career, and later she was too much in drugs.

But... she IS Stevie Nicks. And Fleetwood Mac wouldn't be the same. Actually it wasn't the same when TIME was released.

And I remember Mick's book. during the Tango sessions she was not so involved. And when they listenend the final records, she complained a lot because you couldn't listen to her. Of course, since she wasn't there but few days, as Christine replied.

So they did more recordings with Stevie's voice, adding harmonies, etc. And.. we got the TANGO IN THE NIGHT we know. A great album. And Stevie was there. :cool:

Jyqm

01-27-2006, 04:22 PM

I agree that the post-Tusk era was not the best for Stevie Nicks. No great songs (besides Gypsy, and Seven Wonders that she cowrote).

Stevie didn't co-write "Seven Wonders." She misheard and missang a lyric, so they gave her a writing credit for it.

Actually it wasn't the same when TIME was released.

It wasn't the same when the white Fleetwood Mac album was released.

Villavic

01-27-2006, 04:33 PM

It wasn't the same when the white Fleetwood Mac album was released.

I don't get it. Explain that

Jyqm

01-27-2006, 04:47 PM

I don't get it. Explain that

One frontperson had left the band. Two new ones joined. It was a very different band. It wasn't the same. Just as it wasn't the same when Time was released. Or Behind the Mask. Or Penguin. Or Future Games. Or Kiln House. Or...

Saying, "Fleetwood Mac wasn't the same," is like saying, "I changed my underwear this morning." At least I hope it is.

chiliD

01-27-2006, 04:48 PM

I'm assuming when you mentioned that without Stevie and Lindsey, the Time album was a totally different Fleetwood Mac.

Well, my view (and apparently Jyqm's, as well) is that having a whole new frontline of the band (as was on Time) is absolutely the same as when Bob Welch left and Stevie & Lindsey joined. It was a new lineup that was a whole different vibe than the incarnation before it. So, it is incredibly hypocritical of anyone to consider the Time album any differently than when the white album came out in 1975...it was a brand new Fleetwood Mac, different than the Fleetwood Mac that came before. The difference...the 1975 incarnation only had to carry on the tradition of the band, the 1995 incarnation had to live up to the whole Rumours mystique.

EDIT: Jyqm, you beat me to it. And, yeah, the same with EVERY Fleetwood Mac personnel change...however the two most drastic were in 1975 and 1994. With every other personnel change, there was still a front person who carried over. In 1975 & 1994 the entire frontline changed. (Christine never considered herself part of the "frontline"):

Kiln House: Jeremy and Danny were still there
Future Games: Danny was still fronting
Penguin: Bob Welch was still the main frontman & guitarist, even though Dave Walker was added.
white album: all new male lead guitarist/vocalist; added another female lead singer
Behind The Mask: Stevie Nicks was still the focus.
Time: new frontline of Bekka & Dave Mason...no Christine (in concert)

Villavic

01-27-2006, 04:57 PM

I'm assuming when you mentioned that without Stevie and Lindsey, the Time album was a totally different Fleetwood Mac.

Well, my view (and apparently Jyqm's, as well) is that having a whole new frontline of the band (as was on Time) is absolutely the same as when Bob Welch left and Stevie & Lindsey joined. It was a new lineup that was a whole different vibe than the incarnation before it. So, it is incredibly hypocritical of anyone to consider the Time album any differently than when the white album came out in 1975...it was a brand new Fleetwood Mac, different than the Fleetwood Mac that came before. The difference...the 1975 incarnation only had to carry on the tradition of the band, the 1995 incarnation had to live up to the whole Rumours mystique.

Yes, you got a point. And now I understand Jyqm, too.

I agree... partially. Cause... I still think Stevie (and Lindsey) was better than Bekka and the others. I mean, it's not just to say "I changed my underwear..." because if you change Calvin Klein for K-mart underwear, or silk for nylon, there is a difference.
and it's not only a tradition. There is a quality difference. Genesis was succesful after Peter Gabrile left the band. And with Phil Collins, I could say it was very different, but it was very good. The Bekka/Dave/... lineup couldn't make it well enough

Villavic

01-27-2006, 05:01 PM

(Christine never considered herself part of the "frontline")

Now this is verry interesting. Though I''m detouring from the initial question (something I hate to do within a thread), I ask, why does she think that? IMO she is part of the frontline, and a very important part, from the beginning she entered the band, until BTMAsk. Duirng TIme.. I don't know, I don't find her an important member. I thnik she didn't even want to.

chiliD

01-27-2006, 05:03 PM

The Bekka/Dave/... lineup couldn't make it well enough

Did they have a REAL chance? They ended the tour BEFORE the album came out, there was no marketing for the album, the music scene wasn't condusive to ANYTHING related to Fleetwood Mac to flourish. Remember, neither Street Angel nor Out Of The Cradle, which were released in the same 18 month time frame as Time were chart-toppers, either. That incarnation was disbanded before they could even work on a follow up album. No other main incarnation of Fleetwood Mac lasted only one album. There were incarnations that subtracted one member, but kept the basic lineup...Kiln House (same minus Peter Green), Mystery To Me (same minus Dave Walker), Heroes Are Hard To Find (same minus Bob Weston). Basically, all other lineups lasted two or more albums together...except Time

And, even the Rumours incarnation of Fleetwood Mac couldn't replicate the success of Rumours, either. Tusk sold 4+ million copies, yet was considered a failure. Most bands would sell their souls to the devil to sell 4+ million copies of their albums.

Jyqm

01-27-2006, 05:08 PM

I agree... partially. Cause... I still think Stevie (and Lindsey) was better than Bekka and the others. I mean, it's not just to say "I changed my underwear..." because if you change Calvin Klein for K-mart underwear, or silk for nylon, there is a difference.

Regardless, there were plenty of folks who thought Bob Welch was a lot better than Stevie and Lindsey. And there were plenty of folks who thought Peter Green was a lot better than Bob and Danny.

chiliD

01-27-2006, 05:12 PM

And there were plenty of folks who thought Peter Green was a lot better than...

...anybody alive...Eric Clapton included.

Villavic

01-27-2006, 05:12 PM

but Chili, you are talking in commercial terms, and I agree with you 100%. But OOTCraddle was well critiziced (at least). And Time.. I never read any good review about it.

chiliD

01-27-2006, 05:15 PM

but Chili, you are talking in commercial terms...

Weren't you? :shrug:

Isn't that the basis of the whole Time criticism? Most people who own it, really like it. Had Time sold even in Mirage or Behind The Mask quantities, do you think we'd be having this debate? Would The Dance even had happened?

As far as critical raves...sure, an album can get all the raves it can in print, but it isn't it the cash register that really is the measure of "success"?

Villavic

01-27-2006, 05:21 PM

Weren't you? :shrug:

Isn't that the basis of the whole Time criticism? Most people who own it, really like it. Had Time sold even in Mirage or Behind The Mask quantities, do you think we'd be having this debate? Would The Dance even had happened?"

Actually I wasn't. I have no idea about BTMask quantities, and I do like it (and I thought that was a real failure $), as I like OOTC and Bare Trees. But Time.. no. I tried, but I couldn't :( And.. I don't even like Say you will as I do like the White album, OOTC, or BTMask (Sorry Lindseyettes!)

As far as critical raves...sure, an album can get all the raves it can in print, but it isn't it the cash register that really is the measure of "success"?

Well, I do agree this time again. :o

SteveMacD

01-28-2006, 01:41 AM

however the two most drastic were in 1975 and 1994. With every other personnel change, there was still a front person who carried over. In 1975 & 1994 the entire frontline changed. (Christine never considered herself part of the "frontline"):

Kiln House: Jeremy and Danny were still there
Future Games: Danny was still fronting
Penguin: Bob Welch was still the main frontman & guitarist, even though Dave Walker was added.
white album: all new male lead guitarist/vocalist; added another female lead singer
Behind The Mask: Stevie Nicks was still the focus.
Time: new frontline of Bekka & Dave Mason...no Christine (in concert)
I agreed with everything up until this point. Really, every time the band has added people since 1973, they have added two people. And, since 1971, every time a new member records his/her first album with Fleetwood Mac, it is with another person making his/her debut with band.

Future Games: Christine and Welch.
Penguin: Weston and Walker
Fleetwood Mac: Stevie and Lindsey
Behind The Mask: Billy and Rick
Time: Bekka and Mason

Conceptually, I think "Time" is about as drastic a change for Fleetwood Mac as "Penguin" was in 1973. Mick, John, Christine, and Bob were joined by two new musicians, just as twenty one years later, Mick, John, Christine, and Billy were joined by two new musicians. So, for me, 1994 wasn't an "entirely new" frontline. Even though Christine didn't tour, it was still known that she was still in the band. And, really, that tour wasn't all that different from the "Future Games" tour, in which Danny was joined by two newcomers. If somebody missed the "Kiln House" tour, imagine what must have been going through his/her mind when he/she saw Danny with Christine and Bob!

All that said, I think the most significant of all the changes happend between May, 1970 and May, 1971. In that period of time, Peter Green quit, the band recorded an album, Christine McVie joined, Jeremy Spencer left to join a cult mid-tour, Peter Green came back to finish the tour, and Bob Welch joined. For me, THAT was the most significant change in the band's history. Subsequently, I think "Future Games" is really the most significant album in the band's history. It was the first album that didn't feature one of the original singer/songwriter/guitarists, which solidified the fact that Fleetwood Mac was Mick and John's band. Even though the band had three singer/songwriter/guitarists for about 18 months, it was the first studio album that they recorded with three singer/songwriters. ("English Rose" and "Pious Bird" were compilations, "Blues Jam At Chess" was never intended to be released when they were recording, Jeremy didn't have any songs on "Then Play On," and Pete was gone by "Kiln House.") Most importantly, it was the first album in which they played straight ahead rock. No blues, no 50s rock, just pop rock. It set the tone for the rest of the band's career. And, it was the first time an American was in the group, which hasn't changed since.

RavenOfRhiannon

01-29-2006, 01:05 PM

Actually, Stevie DID leave, and they DID continue...Only, it was in 1993 (I know it was actually earlier, but the first time Fleetwood Mac played out after the "Mask" tour was at the Clinton gig, and Stevie was t here. A few weeks later, she snubbed the group. THAT'S when she was officially out of the band, IMO.)

Here is where I get confused: The concert review of Stevie and Chris' 'last' show with the Mac in 1990, (when Linsdey was a guest) is the only place where I have seen in print that Stevie was leaving the band. Is there anywhere where an announcement was made or a press release?

chiliD

01-29-2006, 04:34 PM

Here is where I get confused: The concert review of Stevie and Chris' 'last' show with the Mac in 1990, (when Linsdey was a guest) is the only place where I have seen in print that Stevie was leaving the band. Is there anywhere where an announcement was made or a press release?

Yep, both Christine & Stevie made a joint announcement to the press when there was about 2 months left in the BTM tour. Stevie said she was quitting outright, Christine left the door open to "possibly" record with them, but she was definitely through with touring (of course, she obviously changed her mind 7 years later).

Check the "Blue Letter Archives" here on the Penguin, there might be an article.

Brwn_eyes0511

01-29-2006, 04:58 PM

(of course, she obviously changed her mind 7 years later).

I always wonder WHAT did change her mind about doing "The Dance"...perhaps Lindsey and Stevie coming back...or maybe a promise that if she were to do this it would REALLY be the last time? Who knows...

SteveMacD

01-29-2006, 06:20 PM

Yep, both Christine & Stevie made a joint announcement to the press when there was about 2 months left in the BTM tour. Stevie said she was quitting outright, Christine left the door open to "possibly" record with them, but she was definitely through with touring (of course, she obviously changed her mind 7 years later).
The way I remember is that BOTH ladies said they would continue to record with the band, just not tour. Stevie basically annouced that she had quit when she was putting "Timespace" together. I went through the BLA, but didn't find any official announcement. All I found was two paragraphs from an interview she did with USA Today from Oct. 1991. Everything before that was saying that Stevie and Christine were leaving the touring part of Fleetwood Mac. Here's what she said in the interview:

After 15 years, her split from the band was less than amicable. "Mick and I are not speaking," she says, still miffed over a business dispute. Never, she says, will she record with him again.

She denies the rift occurred because of Fleetwood's tell-all 1990 autobiography, which detailed his liaison with Nicks. "I didn't read it," she says crisply. "I don't need to read about something I lived."

SteveMacD

01-29-2006, 06:32 PM

I always wonder WHAT did change her mind about doing "The Dance"...perhaps Lindsey and Stevie coming back...or maybe a promise that if she were to do this it would REALLY be the last time? Who knows...
If you believe the interviews, she had been doing session work, with Mick and John, for Lindsey and everybody was getting along quite well (didn't they say about the same thing during "Tango??"). One thing leads to another, and they're doing "The Dance" which followed with preassure for a tour.

My more cynical side thinks it was her way of going out on top. If she hadn't done "The Dance," her last album with Fleetwood Mac would have been "that one that featured Dave Mason," and I know that's not how she wanted to leave the situation. It's that legacy thing.