Reinvention

[madformac]

I got to thinking today.

Fleetwood Mac's biggest contribution to music may well be the fact that a successful band, with great tunes and number one hits ceased to be over time yet the band with the very same name was totally reinvented with new personnel added, albeit again over time in the form of Buckingham and Nicks, and found fame on an even bigger level with a completely new image, sound and possibly fanbase too.

I can't think right now of any other band that has stuck with the original name and gone on to achieve such success with a totally different direction..

Faith No More sort of did this to a degree when they replaced Chuck Mosely with Mike Patton but it's not really the same.

Imagine if Guns 'N' Roses come out this year and do what Fleetwood Mac did? (although the chances are very minimal I would say)

[elie]

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. I truly believe that it's the only band who has done something like that. IMO , it is certainly not similar to the cases where band members left and were replaced by others, where you could see some difference in the band's sound or style. The case of FM is a pure and, more importantly, successful re-invention, as you said.

PS Love your sig. Isn't it from Roger Waters' "Amused to Death"?

[Boots]

Well - when Keith Moon died, the Who had to continue on - and they had some great success.

The Rolling Stones lost Brian Jones to a drowning, and Ron Wood came on board and the group continued to be mighty successful.

But I think that Fleetwood Mac is the only group I can think of that actually shook up their line up over the years, and did a total makeover in style and sound, leading them to greater success that ever before. They went from being a successful blues band, to a california rock band by hiring Buckingham Nicks. The appeal of this new lineup placed FM on an even bigger stage than ever before. However, that combination of Mick, John, Christine, Stevie and Lindsey was the most commerically successful. Take away one part of that equation (i.e. replacing Lindsey with two guys - or Stevie with Bekka - or carrying on without Christine), and the results are less than expected with the original line up. I loved a good portion of Say You Will - but man, I miss Christine McVie. That lady is wonderful. As far as "Time" and the tour for "Tango in the Night" goes...you can't replace Buckingham...you just can't. You need them all. "I believe in The Five". HA! I just found my new sig line!

[madformac]

PS Love your sig. Isn't it from Roger Waters' "Amused to Death"?

It is indeed. :nod: Full marks there.. He is one hell of a songwriter isn't he?

I'm hoping to get to see Waters at one of his gigs this summer. Already got my tickets to see Gilmour in May.

[chiliD]

Well, both Yes & Jethro Tull have had a big (and fairly constant) turnover in personnel...but, the difference with Fleetwood Mac over other bands who've had a revolving door of musicians is that with Fleetwood Mac, the FRONT LINE (singers/songwriters) were the ones who would change...with other bands, the front person(s) would basically remain and it would usually be the rhythm section that would change.

They went from being a blues band, and hired Buckingham Nicks which really placed FM on an even bigger stage than where they were.

One little pet peeve of mine. There seems to be this popular perception that Fleetwood Mac was a blues band until Stevie & Lindsey showed up...that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, they weren't even still a blues band when Peter Green left in 1970. And, they sure as hell weren't a blues band during the Future Games through Heroes Are Hard To Find incarnations, either.

The Rolling Stones lost Brian Jones to a drowning, and Ron Wood came on board and the group continued to be mighty successful.

Don't leave out the four years of Mick Taylor's contributions!!! He helped lift the Stones to a new height of popularity before handing over the reins to Woody.

[Lala]

I've always thought that the great thing (one of many) about this band is that they managed to change gradually. I'll admit I'm more of an expert inthe BN era stuff, but if you listen to the albums in order, you can hear a little bit of the last album, and a little bit of the next album, style-wise.

[chiliD]

I've always thought that the great thing (one of many) about this band is that they managed to change gradually. I'll admit I'm more of an expert inthe BN era stuff, but if you listen to the albums in order, you can hear a little bit of the last album, and a little bit of the next album, style-wise.

Yeah! Good one!

There's even a "transitional single", too..."Dragonfly"/"Purple Dancer". "Dragonfly" teased at the upcoming Kiln House album, and "Purple Dancer" looked even further ahead (despite the presence of Jeremy Spencer) to Future Games.

Disclaimer: Since Future Games and Bare Trees had the same lineup, they're obviously going to have similar sounds, even though the two albums definitely have their own "feel".

The transitional tunes per album...

Kiln House:
Tell Me All The Things You Do/Earl Grey (Then Play On)
Station Man/Jewel-Eyed Judy (Future Games)

Future Games:
Sands Of Time/Sometimes (Kiln House)
Future Games (Penguin/Mystery To Me)

Bare Trees:
title cut (Kiln House)
The Ghost (Penguin)

Penguin:
Remember Me (Bare Trees)
Night Watch (Mystery To Me)

Heroes Are Hard To Find:
Bermuda Triangle/Prove Your Love (Mystery To Me)
She's Changing Me/Come A Little Bit Closer (white album)

white album:
Over My Head/Rhiannon (Heroes Are Hard To Find)
Say You Love Me/Blue Letter (Rumours)

Rumours:
Don't Stop (white album)
Second Hand News (Tusk)

Tusk:
Sisters Of The Moon/Never Make Me Cry (Rumours)
That's All For Everyone/Never Forget (Mirage)

Mirage:
Two backward looking songs:
Gypsy (Rumours)
Eyes Of The World (Tusk)


Tango... is kind of unique...it basically is the transitional album between two Lindsey Buckingham solo albums (due to the length of time between albums), rather than Fleetwood Mac albums. It is the "middle ground" between Go Insane and Out Of The Cradle.

Behind The Mask:
Save Me (Tango...)
When The Sun Goes Down (Time)

Time:
I Do/Winds Of Change (Rumours)
Nights In Estoril (Tango/BTM)
I Got It In For You (Behind The Mask)

Say You Will kind of stands on its own as well.

[bretonbanquet]

One little pet peeve of mine. There seems to be this popular perception that Fleetwood Mac was a blues band until Stevie & Lindsey showed up...that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, they weren't even still a blues band when Peter Green left in 1970. And, they sure as hell weren't a blues band during the Future Games through Heroes Are Hard To Find incarnations, either.


Hear Hear :thumbsup: The blues started to drop away in 1969, especially in the studio, and apart from Jeremy's occasional live airing of the "Dust My Broom" phenomenon, there were very few blues tunes post-Green, and none post-Spencer.

[bretonbanquet]

There's even a "transitional single", too..."Dragonfly"/"Purple Dancer". "Dragonfly" teased at the upcoming Kiln House album, and "Purple Dancer" looked even further ahead (despite the presence of Jeremy Spencer) to Future Games.

I'd agree except that Dragonfly/Purple Dancer was recorded and released after "Kiln House". Purple Dancer was the last Mac studio song that Jeremy played on. I'd say both tracks hinted quite strongly at "Future Games".

[Boots]

Well, both Yes & Jethro Tull have had a big (and fairly constant) turnover in personnel...but, the difference with Fleetwood Mac over other bands who've had a revolving door of musicians is that with Fleetwood Mac, the FRONT LINE (singers/songwriters) were the ones who would change...with other bands, the front person(s) would basically remain and it would usually be the rhythm section that would change.



One little pet peeve of mine. There seems to be this popular perception that Fleetwood Mac was a blues band until Stevie & Lindsey showed up...that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, they weren't even still a blues band when Peter Green left in 1970. And, they sure as hell weren't a blues band during the Future Games through Heroes Are Hard To Find incarnations, either.



Don't leave out the four years of Mick Taylor's contributions!!! He helped lift the Stones to a new height of popularity before handing over the reins to Woody.

Great points! All of them! And I totally fogot about Mick Taylor! (I'm not much of a Rolling Stones expert. I think I'm the only one in the world who doesn't really like them very much).

[Jyqm]

I got to thinking today.

Fleetwood Mac's biggest contribution to music may well be the fact that a successful band, with great tunes and number one hits ceased to be over time yet the band with the very same name was totally reinvented with new personnel added, albeit again over time in the form of Buckingham and Nicks, and found fame on an even bigger level with a completely new image, sound and possibly fanbase too.

I can't think right now of any other band that has stuck with the original name and gone on to achieve such success with a totally different direction..

It is difficult to think of any similar examples, simply because Fleetwood Mac's situation was so peculiar. Because the band always had a front line of at least two (and usually three) singers/songwriters, the "essence" of the group was never inextricably linked to a single person. So it was never too unacceptable when one frontperson left or another one came on-board. The biggest shock was obviously Peter's departure, but it was easy for the band to continue on since they still had two frontmen, plus Christine, who had been something of an honorary member - or at least frequent collaborator - since the group's second album.

In this respect, I think Kiln House becomes Fleetwood Mac's most important album. It confirmed that the band could still carry on without its most famous member, and it set the tone for the revolving door aspect of the band's history which would continue until they finally found major commercial success again.

The fact that Peter named the band after Mick and John, the rhythm section, also helped, and made it a lot easier for the frontmen and -women to keeping popping in and out. If Fleetwood Mac had been named anything else, it might have been considered tacky or a money grab to release Kiln House, or any album without Peter, under the same name, and the remaining members might have been less willing to carry on with the same moniker. But as long as Mick and John stayed at the group's core, they had a completely legitimate reason to call anything they recorded "Fleetwood Mac."

The Mac aren't completely alone at this party. We've got to mention Genesis in any discussions of bands that achieved success at different times with very different styles of music.

You could also make a case for Jefferson Starship. While it was technically different band from Jefferson Airplane, since they changed the name, the former was no more different from the latter than Mac '75 was from Mac '69. It was pretty much the same process of losing a few members here and adding a few more there.

[Jyqm]

Hear Hear :thumbsup: The blues started to drop away in 1969, especially in the studio, and apart from Jeremy's occasional live airing of the "Dust My Broom" phenomenon, there were very few blues tunes post-Green, and none post-Spencer.

Don't forget about Christine's performances of "Get Like You Used To Be"!

[chiliD]

I think I'm the only one in the world who doesn't really like them very much).

No...my wife doesn't like them either.:laugh:

[chiliD]

You could also make a case for Jefferson Starship. While it was technically different band from Jefferson Airplane, since they changed the name, the former was no more different from the latter than Mac '75 was from Mac '69. It was pretty much the same process of losing a few members here and adding a few more there.

But, the difference is they DID change the name...albeit just slightly...but enough to signal "Hey, we're different". With Fleetwood Mac, there has never been any HINT of a signpost that says "a change has been made".

[David]

It is difficult to think of any similar examples, simply because Fleetwood Mac's situation was so peculiar. Because the band always had a front line of at least two (and usually three) singers/songwriters, the "essence" of the group was never inextricably linked to a single person. So it was never too unacceptable when one frontperson left or another one came on-board.That depends on whom you ask, Jyqm. If you're talking about the way the band members themselves felt about a situation, perhaps most of those firings & resignations weren't unacceptable (I'm assuming you mean aesthetically unacceptable). But there are fans who consider Green's departure unacceptable (I used to work with one of them), fans who consider Welch's departure unacceptable, fans who consider Buckingham's departure unacceptable, fans who consider Christine's departure unacceptable (check out the Christine forum), fans who consider Rick's departure unacceptable (one of them posts around here) & fans who consider Dave Walker's departure unacceptable (ME!).

For all we know, maybe there are fans who consider Bob Brunning's departure unacceptable! :lol: :wavey: (Hi, Bob!)

However, you're certainly correct about your main point: the essence of the band was never -- at least permanently -- intertwined in the public's mind with only one (or any one specific) frontline person. For example, even in Stevie's heyday, people were writing letters to Rolling Stone saying things like: "Nicks's poor performance doesn't matter. If she leaves the group, the four remaining & excellent musicians can get back to making music instead of playing backdrop to ballet."

[David]

But, the difference is they DID change the name...albeit just slightly...but enough to signal "Hey, we're different". With Fleetwood Mac, there has never been any HINT of a signpost that says "a change has been made".They didn't even change record labels, the fruitcakes!! :laugh:

[Sahara]

Bearing in mind that sixteen people have been through the Mac.

[madformac]

fans who consider Rick's departure unacceptable (one of them posts around here)

Yes David, I think at least two actually. As for one of them, don't get him started on that one.. ;) :laugh:

I think all the versions up to the 1975 version have had a blues feel to some degree, I still think Christine gave a more bluesy feel to her songs with the 75/87 line up too. She has a natural blues voice and I think that dynamic linked with Stevie's soft voice turning into an intense wailing at times and Lindsey's high pitched Californian tones was a major factor in the resurgance. It was a different sound to anything that had gone before it I feel.

After Lindsey left I think Rick Vito was an admirable replacement although I can't help but feel he would have fit in better with the original lineup. Billy and later Bekka brought what should have been a more country flavour but it ended up, at least in my opinion, as a more poppy sound. I think the post Lindsey band was very good, certainly underrated, but once more the sound changed quite dramatically, this time it wasn't quite the repeated success of 1975.

The point is (here we are :laugh: ) every member of the band played their part in steering the ship in the direction it has gone. It's probably fair to say some members didn't really pay attention during their watch but the vessel never crashed. By all accounts it should have crashed, sunk and never been recovered after Mr Greenbaum departed but to Mick and John's credit they kept it going..

[Gailh]

(I'm not much of a Rolling Stones expert. I think I'm the only one in the world who doesn't really like them very much).

No I don't much care for them

Gail

[Gailh]

"I believe in The Five". HA! I just found my new sig line!

Yeah me too! I believe in the five.

Fleetwood Mac has been at its most successful as a five piece.

Gail

[chiliD]

I'd agree except that Dragonfly/Purple Dancer was recorded and released after "Kiln House". Purple Dancer was the last Mac studio song that Jeremy played on. I'd say both tracks hinted quite strongly at "Future Games".

"Dragonfly"'s inclusion on the 1971 Greatest Hits always throws me on that one. I just consider everything on that "pre-Kiln House. OF COURSE, it was released after Kiln House wtf was I thinkin'!!:shocked: :lol:

Actually, I think "Dragonfly" is more Kiln House-esque...whereas "Purple Dancer" would've been perfectly placed between "Woman Of A Thousand Years" & "Morning Rain".

[Jyqm]

Yeah me too! I believe in the five.

Fleetwood Mac has been at its most successful as a five piece.

Gail

One reason I think the mostly-four-piece Then Play On is just a tad over-rated!

[David]

Actually, I think "Dragonfly" is more Kiln House-esque...whereas "Purple Dancer" would've been perfectly placed between "Woman Of A Thousand Years" & "Morning Rain".Dragonfly is such a beautiful, beautiful song ... it really sums up an era, a zeitgeist.

If Mozart had written an opera set in poverty, it might have had this kind of painful, languid beauty.

[cliffdweller]

Faith No More sort of did this to a degree when they replaced Chuck Mosely with Mike Patton but it's not really the same.

That's a great example. And what Patton brought to the table can most assuredly be considered a reinvention. That band did a total 180 when Patton came onboard, and a lot of that can be attributed Patton's influence, experimentation, and whackass songwriting. It proved with time that the rest of the band couldn't keep up with him, and I think that, as well as the personal and professional tension between Patton and Jim Martin broke the band up. But yeah, Mike Patton took that band to new musical heights when he joined.

[DavidMn]

Here's another thought. Ok, certain bands such as Led Zepplin, The Who, and Kiss and the Grateful Dead have achieved this cult status through time. I'm not saying Fleetwood Mac doesnt have a hardcore following, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly why Fleetwood Mac hasnt achieved that sort of status. Maybe it's the annoying(To me) perception amongst some that they're a "Lightweight" band. I asked someone thats pretty knowledgeable about music and he told me that Fleetwood Mac never really promoted themselves in their heyday to the extent that some of the other bands out ther did. They just made the music and toured.

[cliffdweller]

She has a natural blues voice and I think that dynamic linked with Stevie's soft voice turning into an intense wailing at times and Lindsey's high pitched Californian tones was a major factor in the resurgance.


It's more like Chris's warm voice mixed with Stevie's and Lindsey's tinny, more rougher edged vocals. Who was it that described Chris's voice as a woodwind instrument and Stevie's and Lindsey's as brass? Anyway, I don't think of Stevie's voice as ever really being "soft" it was more like smooth gravel. I remember reading a review of, I think it was Rumours a while back and the reviewer described Stevie's voice as "crackling mesquite" and I thought, yes, that is it! The feel that evoked was just spot on.

[elie]

Maybe it's the annoying(To me) perception amongst some that they're a "Lightweight" band. .

You're not the only one who finds this perception annoying. I actually hate it.
I can't for the life of me get why The Kiss or the Who are "less leightweight". (Led Zeppelin ok, I won't argue about that-though not a fan..:nod: )

[DavidMn]

You're not the only one who finds this perception annoying. I actually hate it.
I can't for the life of me get why The Kiss or the Who are "less leightweight". (Led Zeppelin ok, I won't argue about that-though not a fan..:nod: )
We get it. That's all that really matters, right?:thumbsup:

[chiliD]

Here's another thought. Ok, certain bands such as Led Zepplin, The Who, and Kiss and the Grateful Dead have achieved this cult status through time. I'm not saying Fleetwood Mac doesnt have a hardcore following, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly why Fleetwood Mac hasnt achieved that sort of status.

Peter Green left, plain & simple. Had Peter STAYED...had they kept the Peter, Jeremy & Danny lineup, they would've surpassed The Who, LZ, Pink Floyd, etc, on the "Legendary Band" scale. They were right on the precipuce of achieving that when Peter left (and the cover photo of LZ 1 basically shows what happened to the future of their "legend" status thereafter).

[Jyqm]

Here's another thought. Ok, certain bands such as Led Zepplin, The Who, and Kiss and the Grateful Dead have achieved this cult status through time. I'm not saying Fleetwood Mac doesnt have a hardcore following, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly why Fleetwood Mac hasnt achieved that sort of status. Maybe it's the annoying(To me) perception amongst some that they're a "Lightweight" band. I asked someone thats pretty knowledgeable about music and he told me that Fleetwood Mac never really promoted themselves in their heyday to the extent that some of the other bands out ther did. They just made the music and toured.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "cult status," David. Do you mean a particular group of devoted fans who have been following their career for years, or do you mean more an institutionalized status, with the proper publications always making sure to give the band their due and a steady stream of relatively hip young people jumping on board the train? The four bands you mentioned do all enjoy something of a cult status, but in very different ways.

At any rate, part of the problem with Fleetwood Mac is indeed the perception of the post-1974 incarnations as "lightweight," but I think it's also the fact that the band has changed so much over the years, it's somewhat difficult for a cult status to emerge. Fleetwood Mac has to settle for a couple mini-cults, then, the largest of which is the Green God fans. There's an ever-growing group of people who recognize just how awesome Fleetwood Mac was under Peter, and the various archival releases over the past few years (come to think of it, there's been an unfortunate paucity of those lately...) have really helped that.

I think there's also a slowly growing cult that is beginning to appreciate the Fleetwood Mac, Rumours and especially Tusk albums in a new light, as kind of the epitome and deconstruction of perfect California 70s pop/rock.

I think the biggest obstacle to Fleetwood Mac achieving more of a cult status, though, is Stevie. She's got quite the cult revolving around just herself, and I think the image that comes out of that (either the airy fairy witchy woman, or the big-haired cokehead, propped up by inscrutable lyrics and relatively generic music) turns off a lot of people who might otherwise give Fleetwood Mac more credit.

[DavidMn]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "cult status," David. Do you mean a particular group of devoted fans who have been following their career for years, or do you mean more an institutionalized status, with the proper publications always making sure to give the band their due and a steady stream of relatively hip young people jumping on board the train? The four bands you mentioned do all enjoy something of a cult status, but in very different ways.

At any rate, part of the problem with Fleetwood Mac is indeed the perception of the post-1974 incarnations as "lightweight," but I think it's also the fact that the band has changed so much over the years, it's somewhat difficult for a cult status to emerge. Fleetwood Mac has to settle for a couple mini-cults, then, the largest of which is the Green God fans. There's an ever-growing group of people who recognize just how awesome Fleetwood Mac was under Peter, and the various archival releases over the past few years (come to think of it, there's been an unfortunate paucity of those lately...) have really helped that.

I think there's also a slowly growing cult that is beginning to appreciate the Fleetwood Mac, Rumours and especially Tusk albums in a new light, as kind of the epitome and deconstruction of perfect California 70s pop/rock.

I think the biggest obstacle to Fleetwood Mac achieving more of a cult status, though, is Stevie. She's got quite the cult revolving around just herself, and I think the image that comes out of that (either the airy fairy witchy woman, or the big-haired cokehead, propped up by inscrutable lyrics and relatively generic music) turns off a lot of people who might otherwise give Fleetwood Mac more credit.Oh I guess what I was trying to say there is that those other bands I mentioned, it seems like they have this beyond rabid following.Does that make sense?:lol:

[SteveMacD]

One band that I can immediately think of that had a lot of changes in personnel that resulted in really two or three different bands altogether would be the Byrds. When Gram Parsons joined, their sound immediately changed. When Clarence White joined, it changed again.

It's obviously not as nice a comparison to that of Fleetwood Mac, as Roger McGuinn was the primary singer/songwriter throughout the Byrds. Still, the surrounding cast were also singer/songwriters, so the overall vibe of the band changed. Also, it's obviously not as nice a comparison in that the Byrds didn't have the success of Fleetwood Mac, although their albums still have a large cult following, and they have divisions among fans. The folk rock only fans don't necessarily like the country stuff, and vice versa, AND there are fans who think it's all good (oddly enough, ME).

[elie]

It is indeed. :nod: Full marks there.. He is one hell of a songwriter isn't he?

I'm hoping to get to see Waters at one of his gigs this summer. Already got my tickets to see Gilmour in May.

This totally off topic and I apologize for that, but since I don't happen to know many Roger Waters fans, I 'm asking this (please feel free to PM me, if it inappropriate to continue this here)- I just found out that he will be in Athens as well and I am very excited about this..Do you know perhaps what to expect of that gig? Older Pink Floyd stuff? Solo work?
By the way, he is a great songwriter -even though a bit too poltical for my taste:) - and I absolutely loved the Final Cut. *used to be sooooo in loooove with him when I was younger:o *

[Jyqm]

This totally off topic and I apologize for that, but since I don't happen to know many Roger Waters fans, I 'm asking this (please feel free to PM me, if it inappropriate to continue this here)- I just found out that he will be in Athens as well and I am very excited about this..Do you know perhaps what to expect of that gig? Older Pink Floyd stuff? Solo work?
By the way, he is a great songwriter -even though a bit too poltical for my taste:) - and I absolutely loved the Final Cut. *used to be sooooo in loooove with him when I was younger:o *

Roger Waters' MO for this summer seems to be performing Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety (inaddition to a second set of other material, of course)! Not sure if he'll be doing this everywhere, but I know that's his plan for at least a couple of his upcoming European shows.

I saw him back in 2000 on the tour which yielded the live album In the Flesh: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053EZS/qid=1141039119/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-0578248-7776059?s=music&v=glance&n=5174

As you can see, it was a pretty good mix of Floyd and solo material, leaning a bit more to the Floyd side of things.

[elie]

Thank you Jyqm!
Actually I am so thrilled about the show, so anything, old or solo material would do for me:blob1:
I am curious about the whole Dark Side of the Moon thing, though. Maybe that's a naive thing to say, but I am wondering how the songs are goinna sound, sung by him only.

*Sudden idea* Actually, this conversation sort of applies to the initial theme of the topic- I don't know if it's been brought up before, but Pink Floyd is one of the groups that have changed directions a couple of times (when Syd Barrett left, when Waters left). It was certainly not a total reinvention, but as far as I am concerned, the post-Waters Floyd was no Pink Floyd at all..

[madformac]

Thank you Jyqm!
Actually I am so thrilled about the show, so anything, old or solo material would do for me:blob1:
I am curious about the whole Dark Side of the Moon thing, though. Maybe that's a naive thing to say, but I am wondering how the songs are goinna sound, sung by him only.

*Sudden idea* Actually, this conversation sort of applies to the initial theme of the topic- I don't know if it's been brought up before, but Pink Floyd is one of the groups that have changed directions a couple of times (when Syd Barrett left, when Waters left). It was certainly not a total reinvention, but as far as I am concerned, the post-Waters Floyd was no Pink Floyd at all..

I think if previous form is anything to go by, Doyle Bramhall II will be performing most of Gilmour's vocal duties. I would expect him to sing some of Dark Side. I just hope he doesn't make such a mess of Comfortably Numb with Snowy White on this tour. You cannot use two guitarists for that solo, it just sounds dreadful......

Some good songs came out of the post Waters Floyd but I would agree it's not the same without Roger.

* I just noticed Doyle is gonna be touring with Eric Clapton for most of this year (I'll see them in May in London. :) ) so who will sing with Roger is anybodys guess... I'd say Andy Fairweather Low but he's probably with EC too...

[chiliD]

* I just noticed Doyle is gonna be touring with Eric Clapton for most of this year (I'll see them in May in London. :) ) so who will sing with Roger is anybodys guess... I'd say Andy Fairweather Low but he's probably with EC too...


Andy Fairweather-Low hasn't been with Eric's touring band for a couple of years now. (his last performance with Eric was the Concert For George)

Eric's got Allman Bros Band guitarist Derek Trucks touring with him, too. It's going to be "slide guitar heaven" with Eric, Doyle & Derek all together. YIKES!!! Hope the US dates start being finalized soon...gotta start saving $$. I'm NOT going to miss EC this tour. I took a couple of tours off (regrettably, as well).

[madformac]

Andy Fairweather-Low hasn't been with Eric's touring band for a couple of years now. (his last performance with Eric was the Concert For George)

Eric's got Allman Bros Band guitarist Derek Trucks touring with him, too. It's going to be "slide guitar heaven" with Eric, Doyle & Derek all together. YIKES!!! Hope the US dates start being finalized soon...gotta start saving $$. I'm NOT going to miss EC this tour. I took a couple of tours off (regrettably, as well).

Well considering Eric said he had finished with world tours a couple of years back he's not doing too badly. I think he expects to be gigging for two years from what I read... This will (I'm ashamed to say) be the first time I've gotten around to going to a Clapton gig despite him being a major influence on my music and playing style for over 20 years... :o

* Roger Waters band for his summer tour are confirmed as :

Roger Waters - vocals, bass, guitar
Graham Broad - drums
Andy Fairweather-Low - guitar
Snowy White - guitar
Jon Carin - Keyboards
Harry Waters - keyboards
Katie Kissoon - vocals
PP Arnold - vocals
Carol Kenyon - vocals
Ian Ritchie - sax

* Nick Mason will be playing drums for the Dark Side Of The Moon live performance at Magny Cours on 14th July 2006 as part of the 2006 French F1 Grand Prix meeting.