"Time" Appreciation Thread

[David]

"Time" has a fetchingly humble quality, does it not? It seems so free of self-importance & haughtiness. It features good songs by Billy Burnett, Bekka Bramlett & Christine McVie, & musicianship that is skillful yet unobtrusive. I think it contains Mick Fleetwood's best drumming during the entire period of 1984 to 2006. If you listen closely to the drum tracks & pay attention to them, you will hear the beauties that I do. His licks have spectral lines & sensitive retenue. The Dave Mason material is poor, but at least it's well engineered. Throughout the album, in fact, the engineering & production bespeak sureness, delineation, proper balance, & even freshness -- coming as it does amid a deluge of grunge magpies. Mr. Richard Dashut is to be commended heartily. "Time" is the album "Behind the Mask" should have been (especially given the fact that Fleetwood Mac's audience was somewhat larger in 1990).

I'm going to listen to "Time" right now!

[DavidMn]

My favorites are These Strange Times and Hollywood.:thumbsup:

[chiliD]

"Time" has a fetchingly humble quality, does it not? It seems so free of self-importance & haughtiness. It features good songs by Billy Burnett, Bekka Bramlett & Christine McVie, & musicianship that is skillful yet unobtrusive. I think it contains Mick Fleetwood's best drumming during the entire period of 1984 to 2006. If you listen closely to the drum tracks & pay attention to them, you will hear the beauties that I do. His licks have spectral lines & sensitive retenue. The Dave Mason material is poor, but at least it's well engineered. Throughout the album, in fact, the engineering & production bespeak sureness, delineation, proper balance, & even freshness -- coming as it does amid a deluge of grunge magpies. Mr. Richard Dashut is to be commended heartily. "Time" is the album "Behind the Mask" should have been (especially given the fact that Fleetwood Mac's audience was somewhat larger in 1990).

I'm going to listen to "Time" right now!

I don't agree that Dave Mason's material is "poor"...those two songs sound just like all his other material...either of those songs could fit seamlessly on either It's Like You Never Left or Split Coconut (my two favorites of Dave's solo material after Alone Together) It just is odd because "that" sound was then part of Fleetwood Mac.

The only thing about Time I DON'T care for is its running order. A quick reprogramming of that and it flows like an unbouldered river.

I definitely agree about the production & engineering of Time being better than Behind The Mask. It is just too bad that they didn't have Dashut at the helm for BTM. It would've been crisper & more defined.

[DavidMn]

I don't agree that Dave Mason's material is "poor"...those two songs sound just like all his other material...either of those songs could fit seamlessly on either It's Like You Never Left or Split Coconut (my two favorites of Dave's solo material after Alone Together) It just is odd because "that" sound was then part of Fleetwood Mac.

The only thing about Time I DON'T care for is its running order. A quick reprogramming of that and it flows like an unbouldered river.

I definitely agree about the production & engineering of Time being better than Behind The Mask. It is just too bad that they didn't have Dashut at the helm for BTM. It would've been crisper & more defined.That's right. Richard helped produce Time, didnt he?

[JazmenFlowers]

never heard this album, but I've always wanted to. I need to pick it up.

[Richard B]

I do like the album cover.

Blow by Blow blows as do all the Dave Mason tracks. Really cheeseball, gorgonzola stuff. A cheese ball. Love his work in Traffic though.

Christine shines. Give me Hollywood (Some Other Kind Of Town) anyday. Please add Nights In Estoril and I Do.

I do miss Rick Vito.

Bekka is sweet but too sugar for the darkside of the Mac.

[macfan 57]

I don't like Dave Mason & Billy Burnette's songs on Time. But, I love the Chris & Becka songs. I actually like Bekka's songs almost as much as Christine's songs. I agree that the Time production is better than the BTM production, thanks to Richard Dashut. Time, as a whole is far, far better than it's given credit for. My favorite songs are "All Over Again", "Nights In Estoril", "Sooner Or Later" & all three of Bekka's songs.

[SteveMacD]

I don't agree that Dave Mason's material is "poor"...those two songs sound just like all his other material...
Lyrically, maybe. His lyrics could go from cliché to downright cheesy, but his delivery was such that you never really noticed or cared. His songs, for me, are very similiar to those of Christine McVie.
either of those songs could fit seamlessly on either It's Like You Never Left or Split Coconut (my two favorites of Dave's solo material after Alone Together) It just is odd because "that" sound was then part of Fleetwood Mac.
I can't say that I hear anything close to "It's Like You Never Left" or "Split Coconut" with either of his "Time" songs. Both of those albums (like all of his albums, really) had a much more AOR feel than either of those songs. Then, suddenly he's Mr. Hard Rocker??? Even his last studio solo album, "Two Hearts," was more AOR and could easily have fit in with the Fleetwood Mac sound. What Mason actually did with the Mac came off as cheesy. FWIW, "Every Woman," "Headkeeper," and "She's A Friend" would have fit in well with Fleetwood Mac. (Imagine Stevie harmonizing on "Headkeeper." 'Twould have rocked!)

[David]

I don't like Dave Mason & Billy Burnette's songs on Time. But, I love the Chris & Becka songs. I actually like Bekka's songs almost as much as Christine's songs. I agree that the Time production is better than the BTM production, thanks to Richard Dashut. Time, as a whole is far, far better than it's given credit for. My favorite songs are "All Over Again", "Nights In Estoril", "Sooner Or Later" & all three of Bekka's songs.
"Dreaming the Dream" is an exquisite ballad, delivered with just the right vocality: searching, halting, what Beethoven called beklemmt (over the Cavatina of the Op. 130 string quartet).

Bummer that Mac didn't play that one at Konocti Harbor in either '94 or '95 ("Dreaming the Dream," not the Op. 130 string quartet).

[SteveMacD]

Bummer that Mac didn't play that one at Konocti Harbor in either '94 or '95 ("Dreaming the Dream," not the Op. 130 string quartet).
They played it in Cincinnati in 1995. One of the only times I ever got choked up at a concert, BTW.

[David]

They played it in Cincinnati in 1995. One of the only times I ever got choked up at a concert, BTW.You choked on something, steve? OH MY GOD!! Like a stray bite of pickle, or the beer went down the wrong pipe? I could have choked at Konocti Harbor Spa & Resort because it was a dinner club. You ate your prime rib & rice pilaf, & then you turned your chair around so your back faced the table & your handsome face was toward the stage ... and there WAS FLEETWOOD MAC!!!!

BEKLEMMT!!! BEKLEMMT!!! :blob2: :blob2: :] :blob1: :wavey: :( :o :(

[Miss Vicky]

This is absolutely one of my favorite Fleetwood Mac albums (it ranks WAY above Rumours). Everyone is at their best and the music is just perfect. I even love Mick's contribution, "These Strange Times."

Really, I have only one complaint: not enough Bekka. I realize that with so many vocalists in one group none of them would get many songs, but I still think she got the short end of the stick.

[Villavic]

I just didn´t like the album, enough to listen it frequently. I did like BTM enough.

By the way, who is Greg LaDanyi (the BTM producer), where they found him? What was his experience?

[Neb-Maat-Re]

What was his experience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Ladanyi

Possibly explains a number of things.

[foxyluva]

The main issue I have with Time is that it is crap - well for Fleetwood Mac anyway. I would have preferred Mick to not soil Fleetwood Mac's name any further, and just gone ahead and re-recorded with The Zoo.

there is one positive though, the production is much better than BTM. :o

[Gailh]

The main issue I have with Time is that it is crap - well for Fleetwood Mac anyway. I would have preferred Mick to not soil Fleetwood Mac's name any further, and just gone ahead and re-recorded with The Zoo.

there is one positive though, the production is much better than BTM. :o


I don't think it's that bad.

There are some good songs on it - Christine just can't help herself she always writes good stuff.

I don't see what Dave Mason was doing on it at all (and by all accounts neither did Christine)

I know some people really like it but I cant stand The Strange Times - it drives me completely and utterly barking mad.

Gail

[chiliD]

The main issue I have with Time is that it is crap

My exact sentiments about Mirage...and to just a slight lesser extent, Rumours.

[Miss Vicky]

My exact sentiments about Mirage...and to just a slight lesser extent, Rumours.

Ditto. :nod:

[ontheEdgeof17]

Not a bad song on Time....

expect I do skip These Strange Times a lot...kinda freaks me out.

Winds of Change is prob in my Top 10 Favorite 'Mac songs of all time.

[chiliD]

Winds of Change is prob in my Top 10 Favorite 'Mac songs of all time.

:thumbsup: Ditto here!

One of the few times, though, I wish that Lindsey would've made a guest appearance on lead guitar (he made the guest appearance on the wrong song on Time). I can hear a solo similar to his solo on Christine's "The Smile I Live For" on this one. I have to admit (mark the calendar) Mason's solo on that is really pretty wimpy.

[bretonbanquet]

"Time" is a class album - I was amazed when I heard it because I'd seen it rubbished so often. I realise that I may well be alone in this view, but I think it's an insight into where the band should have gone instead of "The Dance" and so on.

There isn't a bad song on "Time" (as someone said) - more than can be said for "Behind The Mask" which barely has a good song on it, IMO. I've given it so many chances, but I still can't stand it. Only Hard Feelings and Do You Know get played with any regularity in this house :(

[chiliD]

"There isn't a bad song on "Time" (as someone said) - more than can be said for "Behind The Mask" which barely has a good song on it, IMO. I've given it so many chances, but I still can't stand it. Only Hard Feelings and Do You Know get played with any regularity in this house :(

The poor quality of the production (how could Greg Ladanyi do so well on Jackson Browne albums and screw up on BTM boggles my mind) is what keeps BTM from getting more play from me. That's why I seem to listen to the outtakes more than the album itself. The production quality of the BTM outtakes, in most cases, is far superior to the final product (as well as the song choices).

[bretonbanquet]

The production quality of the BTM outtakes, in most cases, is far superior to the final product (as well as the song choices).

From what I've heard of the outtakes, I'd agree with you there, especially about the choice of Rick's songs. How Stand on the Rock got on there ahead of some of the others, I just don't understand. If Rick had stuck around, "Time" would have been even stronger with a couple of his songs, perhaps instead of Dave Mason's.

[chiliD]

From what I've heard of the outtakes, I'd agree with you there, especially about the choice of Rick's songs. How Stand on the Rock got on there ahead of some of the others, I just don't understand. If Rick had stuck around, "Time" would have been even stronger with a couple of his songs, perhaps instead of Dave Mason's.

If Rick had stuck around, there wouldn't have been the need to ask Dave Mason to join, so yeah, his tunes instead of Dave's.

[SteveMacD]

I would have preferred Mick to not soil Fleetwood Mac's name any further
Hmmm, haven't people been saying this since "Future Games?"

[chiliD]

Hmmm, haven't people been saying this since "Future Games?"


Kiln House, actually.

[bretonbanquet]

Kiln House, actually.

Some people were saying they'd sold out when "Albatross" and Then Play On were released... although they weren't blaming Mick that time :laugh:

[Miss Vicky]

Diss BTM all you want, but that album will always rank high on my list if for no other reason than the fact that it contains "In the Back of My Mind," my all time favorite Billy song (despite that freaky "I know what it's like" intro which I can only assume was Mick's doing).

[David]

Diss BTM all you want, but that album will always rank high on my list if for no other reason than the fact that it contains "In the Back of My Mind," my all time favorite Billy song (despite that freaky "I know what it's like" intro which I can only assume was Mick's doing).I never hear you discuss the plasticity of the listening experience: surely that plays as great a role in an album's stature as more logistical concerns (such as what song is on what CD).

[SteveMacD]

Kiln House, actually.
I was going to say that, but figured that Jeremy was on that one. "Future Games" was the first without either of their original guitarists, AND it had an American!

[David]

I was going to say that, but figured that Jeremy was on that one. "Future Games" was the first without either of their original guitarists, AND it had an American!You still like that song "Future Games," don't you. What are the chords please?

[SteveMacD]

You still like that song "Future Games," don't you. What are the chords please?
I do LOVE that song (and the album), but I don't know the chords. I had figured out "Woman Of 1000 Years" probably 10 years ago, but for the life of me I can't remember it.

[Miss Vicky]

I never hear you discuss the plasticity of the listening experience: surely that plays as great a role in an album's stature as more logistical concerns (such as what song is on what CD).


That's because I don't think of things that way. I look at the greatness of albums in terms of being nothing more than the sum of its parts and if enough of those parts move me, then I rank the album high on my list. If not, it gets low marks. As for Behind the Mask, I love all of its parts with the notable exception of "The Second Time," quite possibly the worst Fleetwood Mac song ever.

I also don't really think of artists in terms of what albums are great because it's really rare for me to listen to an album from start to finish. More often I just compile my favorites together onto a seperate disc and listen to that.

I'm just shallow like that, I guess. :laugh:

[foxyluva]

That's because I don't think of things that way. I look at the greatness of albums in terms of being nothing more than the sum of its parts and if enough of those parts move me, then I rank the album high on my list. If not, it gets low marks. As for Behind the Mask, I love all of its parts with the notable exception of "The Second Time," quite possibly the worst Fleetwood Mac song ever.

I also don't really think of artists in terms of what albums are great because it's really rare for me to listen to an album from start to finish. More often I just compile my favorites together onto a seperate disc and listen to that.

I'm just shallow like that, I guess. :laugh:

Hey! Don't Attack 'The Second Time' - thats a great song :p

Time, i can admit, has it's quirks, but IT IS NOT FLEETWOOD MAC! Mick should have known that you can't go changing the members of the band around everytime someone leaves - It worked with Stevie & Lindsey - i think that he thought that it would work again. I really think he should have gone with The Zoo instead, and tried to make them into something :shrug:

[chiliD]

Hey! Don't Attack 'The Second Time' - thats a great song :p

In the same way George W. Bush is a great president? Ummm...yeah, I guess so. :rolleyes:

Time, i can admit, has it's quirks, but IT IS NOT FLEETWOOD MAC! Mick should have known that you can't go changing the members of the band around everytime someone leaves - It worked with Stevie & Lindsey - i think that he thought that it would work again. I really think he should have gone with The Zoo instead, and tried to make them into something :shrug:

WTF?!?:shocked: :eek: Do you NOT know the history of the band? When somebody leaves, somebody else joins (in most cases, Dave Walker, Bob Weston & Christine McVie were the exceptions)...that's how Fleetwood Mac works. And, to that end, if Mick & John SAY it is Fleetwood Mac, it's Fleetwood Mac...regardless of who's playing guitar, keyboards, singing or writing the songs.

[foxyluva]

In the same way George W. Bush is a great president? Ummm...yeah, I guess so. :rolleyes:

WTF?!?:shocked: :eek: Do you NOT know the history of the band? When somebody leaves, somebody else joins (in most cases, Dave Walker, Bob Weston & Christine McVie were the exceptions)...that's how Fleetwood Mac works. And, to that end, if Mick & John SAY it is Fleetwood Mac, it's Fleetwood Mac...regardless of who's playing guitar, keyboards, singing or writing the songs.

LOL, that statement about George Bush had me rolling around the floor :laugh:

I disagree about the lineup changes though. I understand that there have been MANY in the past - but I think that the Stevie Nicks & Lindsey Buckingham incarnation had become so famous that to try and call any new reincarnation without them as members was silly :sorry:

Although, bringing back previous members would have been a different story...

[SteveMacD]

I disagree about the lineup changes though. I understand that there have been MANY in the past - but I think that the Stevie Nicks & Lindsey Buckingham incarnation had become so famous that to try and call any new reincarnation without them as members was silly :sorry:
I think adding new personnel was a legitimate move, though maybe not a practical one, at least the way they went about it. I completely understand why they did it, though. Losing Stevie and Lindsey was nowhere near as devastating as losing Peter Green, relatively speaking. Peter Green, in terms of success, WAS Fleetwood Mac. Yet, somehow, they managed to not only get beyond Peter Green, they ended up becoming a hugely successful band in the process. But, with the "Rumours" band, there were three writers, and the one still in the band had almost as many hit singles with the band as the other two combined. If they could survive Green's departure, why couldn't they have survived Stevie and Lindsey's departure?

The problem, though, is that they became too subservient to the "Rumours" material. During 1987 and 1990 tours, they glorified the past too much and stopped focusing on the band's future. They became a nostalgia act. And, it only got worse with the "Time" band. Their sets, which I enjoyed on one level, made getting beyond "Rumours" almost impossible. In short, I don’t think it was a bad idea to add new personnel so long as they let the new folks do their own music, with a few of the classics. But, by trying to keep the illusion of the “Rumours” band going, they limited their full potential.

[shackin'up]

But, by trying to keep the illusion of the “Rumours” band going, they limited their full potential.

You're probably right. But now it is not different. You can say this exactly about the B/N-mac from 2003 an 2004.

[bretonbanquet]

The problem, though, is that they became too subservient to the "Rumours" material. During 1987 and 1990 tours, they glorified the past too much and stopped focusing on the band's future. They became a nostalgia act. And, it only got worse with the "Time" band. Their sets, which I enjoyed on one level, made getting beyond "Rumours" almost impossible. In short, I don’t think it was a bad idea to add new personnel so long as they let the new folks do their own music, with a few of the classics. But, by trying to keep the illusion of the “Rumours” band going, they limited their full potential.

Amen to that :nod:

Progress is everything, even if it's not well-received. Once you stop progressing, you are history - literally :(

[David]

The problem, though, is that they became too subservient to the "Rumours" material. During 1987 and 1990 tours, they glorified the past too much and stopped focusing on the band's future. They became a nostalgia act. And, it only got worse with the "Time" band. Their sets, which I enjoyed on one level, made getting beyond "Rumours" almost impossible. In short, I don’t think it was a bad idea to add new personnel so long as they let the new folks do their own music, with a few of the classics.I go all the way & say that they should have ignored all songs from the members who were gone. Every time the Time band performed an old Buckingham or Nicks or McVie classic, the little thought flitted through the brains of the audience: "Hey, where IS that person?"

Even the name of the band made that little thought flit through the brains of the audience for the 1994/95 shows. Sometimes that little thought was even vocalized. I should know. I heard it vocalized a few times. People eating their prime rib.

You have to re-create yourself if your most recognizable members split. Either luck is on your side & you manage to reinvent a "new" band with the same name to which the public flocks, or you flounder. Fleetwood Mac floundered. We all probably have different reasons as to why it floundered: I think it was bad logistical planning & a complete absence of forward thinking; others might think it was just bad luck & not really the fault of anyone in the band (like Mick & John).

I also maintain that it's next to impossible for a band to reinvent itself after a period of extreme popularity with new personnel if it doesn't have hit songs. The early '70s Fleetwood Macs did all right, but that was probably because they didn't have to combat that period of extreme popularity in their new home country. If they had stayed in England, they'd have faced the same problems that the 1994 Fleetwood Mac faced.

Maybe that was the answer: Fleetwood Mac should have moved to another country in 1994 where the Rumours group weren't stratospheric.

[PsychCat]

I really like Christine's songs on "Time". Granted, she could rewrite the phonebook and accompany herself on piano while singing it and I would buy it... but truly her songs did seem more familiar to her pre-B/N tunes.

And this is probably the best place to ask this....
WHY was Dave Mason in? That struck me as odd enough at the time and I thought lent itself to the tour as more of a "remember us?" thing sharing a stage with the likes of Pat Benatar and REO.

And I have missed Christine's remarks about Dave Mason up until I've read references to it here. Any links or crumbs to shed light on this? Thanks! ;)

[SteveMacD]

And this is probably the best place to ask this....
WHY was Dave Mason in? That struck me as odd enough at the time and I thought lent itself to the tour as more of a "remember us?" thing sharing a stage with the likes of Pat Benatar and REO.

With Rick Vito and Billy Burnette out of the picture (Billy quit the band in early 1993, but came back within a year), the band needed a guitarist. They actually were accepting tapes from guitarists. Dave Mason was an old friend of Mick Fleetwood's, and was staying at Mick's place after his longtime collaborator/musical partner Jim Krueger (who wrote "We Just Disagree") died. Dave and Mick were having a conversation. Dave asked Mick how the search for a guitarist was coming. Mick said "If it gets any worse, I'll have to ask you to join my band." Dave said "So, ask me." Mick asked "Would you like to be in my band." Dave said "I'd love to be in your band."

At least that's the story I've heard. The bottom line is that Dave was a legend in his own right, and without Stevie, Lindsey, or Christine (touring), I think Mick thought Dave could add a little star power (credibility) to the band. Considering Fleetwood Mac opened for Dave when in the early days with Stevie and Lindsey, and he opened for Fleetwood Mac during a few dates on the "Mirage" tour, it's not like there hadn't been a little association already.

And, considering they added Bekka Bramlett, who's folks had a minor hit with Dave Mason's "Only You Know And I Know" and worked extensively with Mason, I think Mick felt there was an obvious association that would jump start a group chemistry. I think adding Dave to the group was in the back of Mick's mind for a while, too. When I met Mick in 1992 at a Zoo show, I asked if they were going to add any Delaney & Bonnie songs to the set and he said "We may add that song by Dave Mason. He recorded it, and then they recorded it. I can't remember the name, but it was written by Dave Mason. Bekka would know the name of the song."

As for the "Time" tours/oldies thing, I guess I'd have more of an issue with it if it weren't for the simple fact that they weren't touring in support of an album. A year earlier, they opened for Crosby, Stills, and Nash, which felt totally natural (considering Mason's affiliation with that group AND their keyboardist, Mike Finnigan, who was a member of the Dave Mason Band). Those tours were to make money and build chemistry. Which really worked, considering the whole Bekka & Billy thing.

And I have missed Christine's remarks about Dave Mason up until I've read references to it here. Any links or crumbs to shed light on this? Thanks! ;)
Basically, on an AOL chat, she said she though that adding Dave Mason was a bit bizarre, that she didn't see how he fit into Fleetwood Mac, and that if it had been up to her, they would have added Lindsey Buckingham. Christine and Dave go WAY back, though. Pre-Chicken Shack. She was Spencer Davis' girlfriend when he "discovered" Steve Winwood. Dave Mason was a roadie for the Spencer Davis Group. Christine is close friends with Steve Winwood, and there was always a mutual dislike between Mason and Winwood, so that may have played into it. There's a lot of history, and there's a lot that we don't know. But, I KNOW that the Dave/Christine thing goes far beyond creative differences.

[SteveMacD]

You're probably right. But now it is not different. You can say this exactly about the B/N-mac from 2003 an 2004.
Not really, though. Stevie and Lindsey actually wrote all the songs they sang (save for "Don't Stop"), and played about a third of a brand new album. While it was very much a machine with little heart (save for McVie's basslines!), and included songs we've heard too many times before, I don't think I'd call it an oldies act.

They only played three "new" songs on the "Time" tours, one of which ("The Bigger The Love") had already appeared on two Billy Burnette albums and John McVie's album, and relied too heavily on "Rumours" era material and Dave Mason solo/Traffic material. That being said, I really liked what they did with "Gold Dust Woman."

[macfan 57]

And I have missed Christine's remarks about Dave Mason up until I've read references to it here. Any links or crumbs to shed light on this? Thanks! ;)

Here's a transcript of that online chat. It's in the Blue Letter Archives on this website.

http://bla.fleetwoodmac.net/index.php?page=index_v2&id=401&c=2

[PsychCat]

WOW!! Y'all are amazing at getting answers around here.
Thanks for the updates and links. :wavey:

[David]

As for the "Time" tours/oldies thing, I guess I'd have more of an issue with it if it weren't for the simple fact that they weren't touring in support of an album.That's often commented on (generally by you or Chili), & while it's true to the letter, it isn't necessarily true to the spirit. Part of the band's reason for touring to introduce new members in 1994 & 1995 was to stir audience interest in a studio album at some point -- & that point wasn't more than a few months after the tour. What month was "Time" released? The 1995 tour ran at least through October, when I saw them the 2nd time around. Certainly by that time, the album was at the mixing or mastering stage.

Even as far back on the first tour swing-through as July 1994, Mick was telling the newspapers that the band was preparing a new album. He told the Times of Northwest Indiana, right before a Fleetwood Mac show at the Star Plaza Theatre, that the band was "nurturing the creative process for a new album." He added that the tour was "partly the test of the chemistry of songs off a new album" that the reporter mentioned was as yet unnamed & that would appear the following spring.

So although strictly speaking, Fleetwood Mac wasn't supporting a new album on tour -- they really were.

To that end, they should have put the new songs front & center in the set. At both Northern CA shows I saw, the new material was not emphasized -- much of it, in fact, wasn't even played at all. But boy did we get the white album & Rumours! Say You Love Me & Go Your Own Way & Don't Stop & World Turning & Gold Dust Woman & The Chain & Blue Letter & You Make Loving Fun ... it was just ridiculous.

In May & June of 1975, Fleetwood Mac also toured before a new album was out, but at that point, according to people who saw them in Texas that month (& who posted about it to amfm), the band played most of the white album & really roared & put a lot of passion & commitment into driving the new material so that audiences would come to live it. That's a far cry from what I saw Dave Mason do with the band in 1994 & 1995: essentially just snooze through the set. Obviously, the circumstances were different in terms of respective ages & careers (they were kids in 1975 & wanted to build careers, whereas Dave was no kid in 1994 & already had a career). But that's really what makes Mick's choice of adding Dave so inane. He should have hired Dave Grohl!

I wish I could remember whether anyone onstage mentioned that some of the songs they did -- like "Blow by Blow" -- were going to be on a new album. But, alas, I can't. The prime rib was pretty good that night, however!

[SteveMacD]

I wish I could remember whether anyone onstage mentioned that some of the songs they did -- like "Blow by Blow" -- were going to be on a new album. But, alas, I can't. The prime rib was pretty good that night, however!
They did both times I saw them, and on some of the boots I have of those tours.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. But, I think there's a lot of middle ground between what you're talking about and what they actually did. I think those '75-'76 sets were among the best in the band's history. And, it's not like they didn't perform ANY of the old songs. They were still there. They had a nice mix of old an new, which is what they should have been doing 19 years later!

Look at the "Heroes" boots that are floating around. There's usually only two songs from "Heroes," but the band does "Manalishi," "Oh Well," "Black Magic Woman," and "Rattlesnake." I find it odd that the "Heroes" tour doesn't get the same type of criticism that the "Time" tours get, especially considering that they were touring in support of an album.

I think the band had to do "Oh Well" (which I believe almost every incarnation of Fleetwood Mac has done at one point), "Go Your Own Way," "Don't Stop," and, since Mason was in the band "We Just Disagree." But, after those four songs, the set should have been new and/or original material with maybe a few other "classics" for good measure. Here's what I think a good set would have been:

In The Back Of My Mind
Winds Of Change
Oh Well
We Just Disagree
Talkin' To My Heart
Blow By Blow
Shakin' The Cage (Revamped and with drum vest)
Only You Know And I Know
Go Your Own Way
--
Tear It Up
Don't Stop
--
Dreamin' The Dream

[David]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. But, I think there's a lot of middle ground between what you're talking about and what they actually did. I think those '75-'76 sets were among the best in the band's history. And, it's not like they didn't perform ANY of the old songs. They were still there. They had a nice mix of old an new, which is what they should have been doing 19 years later!But I'm talking specifically about May & June 1975 before the album was released: they played most of the album before it was released. Fleetwood Mac in 1994 & especially 1995 should have been doing that instead of ****ing around with Say You Love Me & Don't Stop & The Chain & all those others.
Look at the "Heroes" boots that are floating around. There's usually only two songs from "Heroes," but the band does "Manalishi," "Oh Well," "Black Magic Woman," and "Rattlesnake." I find it odd that the "Heroes" tour doesn't get the same type of criticism that the "Time" tours get, especially considering that they were touring in support of an album.There's still a difference between that situation & the situation in 1994/95. The Heroes band wasn't living down huge, iconic hits from a previous incarnation in the United States. The 1994/95 band was. The geography is different, & that makes a big difference. Fleetwood Mac's connection with Manalishi & Rattlesnake & Oh Well in the United States was a little-known one--primarily among college audiences & the savvy 5 percent of radio DJs. As for Black Magic Woman, the Great Unwashed in this country thought it was a Santana song.

Fleetwood Mac in 1994/95 were up against previous incarnations in the United States that swamped it in the public's eye.
I think the band had to do "Oh Well" (which I believe almost every incarnation of Fleetwood Mac has done at one point), "Go Your Own Way," "Don't Stop," and, since Mason was in the band "We Just Disagree." But, after those four songs, the set should have been new and/or original material with maybe a few other "classics" for good measure.We've talked about this ad infinitum before. I see no good reason for the band to play Don't Stop or Go Your Own Way in 1994/95, & plenty of bad reasons. That whole "have to play" mentality of yours is what destroyed Fleetwood Mac in 1995. It didn't help them at all. It totally hurt them. All it did was shove a reminder in people's faces.

[SteveMacD]

Fleetwood Mac in 1994 & especially 1995 should have been doing that instead of ****ing around with Say You Love Me & Don't Stop & The Chain & all those others.
I agree with you on 1995, but not 1994, for the simple reason that they probably didn't have the new material in 1994. The one thing that seems to be forgotten with your argument is that the band usually played about twelve songs per set, but those three only had seven songs (eight, if you throw in "These Strange Times") on the actual album that WAS released. So, they would still have needed at least four or five songs to fill out a set. Unless you're also suggesting that Bekka sing Christine's "Time" songs as well, which I don't see as being any different than Bekka singing SYLM, YMLF, or "Don't Stop."
There's still a difference between that situation & the situation in 1994/95. The Heroes band wasn't living down huge, iconic hits from a previous incarnation in the United States.
Which makes playing only two new songs off the current album and FOUR Peter Green songs all the more curious. Those four were the core of the band for five albums by that point. If anything, the "Heroes" set should be held to higher scrutiny.
The geography is different, & that makes a big difference. Fleetwood Mac in 1994/95 were up against previous incarnations in the United States that swamped it in the public's eye.
The "Rumours" era Fleetwood Mac was hugely popular around the world, so I don't see how this is relevant. I don't think there was any country in which they could escape "Rumours." Maybe some African, Asian, and ex-Soviet countries, but that's about it.
We've talked about this ad infinitum before. I see no good reason for the band to play Don't Stop or Go Your Own Way in 1994/95, & plenty of bad reasons. That whole "have to play" mentality of yours is what destroyed Fleetwood Mac in 1995. It didn't help them at all. It totally hurt them. All it did was shove a reminder in people's faces.
David, I would buy that argument if either Stevie or Lindsey were having huge success as solo artists. But the fact that Stevie was playing to 1/2 filled venues and Lindsey was openig for Tina Turner shows me that there wasn't exactly a huge demand for any of them. And, as has been said many times, if you combine the sales of OOTC, SA, and "Time," it would still have been a disaster by FM's standards.

The big problem is that no older (classic) artist, save maybe for Tina Turner, was having a lot of chart success. Fleetwood Mac was the opening act for CSN in 1994. They were touring in support of a new album. It went nowhere, which was also the case when Neil Young came back into the fold a few years later. This is the time when radio became completely fragmented. Classic rock stations were classic hits by the classic artists. New rock stations were new hits by new artists This made it impossible for the new hits by old artists. As such, and this is the key point with all of this, the old songs were really the only thing the old acts had to market the shows. "Then they should have changed the name" so some say. They would still have had the exact same problem. Mick, John, and even Billy were too heavily associated with their membership in Fleetwood Mac, so breaking away from the band's legacy altogether, even under a new name, would have been impossible. People would still expect to hear the classics from Fleetwood Mac.

Sure, I could see how some not familiar with the band's history would think they were seeing a bastardized version of Fleetwood Mac. They would have thought that regardless if they were playing "Talkin' To My Heart" or "Don't Stop." Oddly enough, most people, at least at the shows I attended or have bootlegs, seem to give the band an overwhelmingly positive reception. (I even heard a few CSN fans say that CSN should have been the opening act!)

[David]

I agree with you on 1995, but not 1994, for the simple reason that they probably didn't have the new material in 1994. The one thing that seems to be forgotten with your argument is that the band usually played about twelve songs per set, but those three only had seven songs (eight, if you throw in "These Strange Times") on the actual album that WAS released. So, they would still have needed at least four or five songs to fill out a set. Unless you're also suggesting that Bekka sing Christine's "Time" songs as well, which I don't see as being any different than Bekka singing SYLM, YMLF, or "Don't Stop."It's a ****kicker's worth of difference: audiences know SYLM & Don't Stop, they don't know I Do & Hollywood. When you play SYLM, your audience immediately thinks of the Fleetwood Mac incarnation that recorded it. The same is not true of "All Over Again" or "Sooner or Later."
The "Rumours" era Fleetwood Mac was hugely popular around the world, so I don't see how this is relevant. I don't think there was any country in which they could escape "Rumours."Wow. You really missed the point. My point had nothing to do with the popularity of Rumours around the world. My point had everything to do with the very minimal popularity of "Then Play On" & Dog & Dustbin in the United States.
David, I would buy that argument if either Stevie or Lindsey were having huge success as solo artists. But the fact that Stevie was playing to 1/2 filled venues and Lindsey was openig for Tina Turner shows me that there wasn't exactly a huge demand for any of them.But that wasn't my point, either. What Stevie or Lindsey was doing solo in 1994/95 is irrelevant to the fact that, when Fleetwood Mac -- or any cover band in the United States -- played SYLM or YMLF or GYOW, the audience (whether it was in the open-air venue or the bar or the Bar Mitzvah or the corporate party) immediately linked the song to the Fleetwood Mac that rules the American airwaves in the 1970s.

Any time ANYONE plays Dreams or SYLM (at least in this country), the listener immediately thinks of Fleetwood Mac if he thinks of anyone at all (i.e., assuming we're not talking about a 14-year-old black kid who has never heard the classic pop-rock playlist--& such a kid probably didn't turn out in droves for the Time concerts, so that's a moot exception).
The big problem is that no older (classic) artist, save maybe for Tina Turner, was having a lot of chart success.I ain't talkin' about CHART SUCCESS in 1994!!! Don't play stupid!!! I'm talkin' 'bout recognizability factor in SAY YOU LOVE ME & DREAMS & DON'T STOP & all those goddamn old FM song hits!!!

The 1994 band should not have been playing any of those if they wanted to cement a new identity & get their own hits or grow their own audience!! it's as simple as that.

As such, and this is the key point with all of this, the old songs were really the only thing the old acts had to market the shows.What do you mean "market the shows"? To market such shows, you announce that you're playing at the Konocti Harbor Spa & Resort, & people either show up or they don't! But you PLAY your new material & whatever else you want that ISN'T connected to your former incarnations because otherwise the PEOPLE will continue to think of you as HAS-BEENS trying to CASH IN on your past, & they will grow very weary of you & bored with you.

"Then they should have changed the name" so some say. They would still have had the exact same problem. Mick, John, and even Billy were too heavily associated with their membership in Fleetwood MacBilly? Come on, what ridiculousness. Stop the next chap you see on the street, show him a photo of Billy, & ask him, "Do you remember this man from Fleetwood Mac?"

Sure, I could see how some not familiar with the band's history would think they were seeing a bastardized version of Fleetwood Mac.How SOME?! Oh you're really pissin me offnow. I'm gonna call Nepo in here to give you an asswhuppin. Virtually EVERYONE in the audience knew they were watching a band that needed to establish its own identity APART from Rumours & Stevie Witch & Go Your Own Way ... & that wasn't trying very hard to do that.

They would have thought that regardless if they were playing "Talkin' To My Heart" or "Don't Stop." Oddly enough, most people, at least at the shows I attended or have bootlegs, seem to give the band an overwhelmingly positive reception.Your rhetoric skews the argument to your favor, but it's still extreme exaggeration & rhetoric. "Overwhelmingly positive reception" does not accurately describe the general air of a Time show. However, "applause" or even "mostly pleased" might describe it. To hear you tell it, those Time shows went over like U2 turning the crowds at the Coliseum into raving, dancing, chanting idolators. THAT is what "overwhelmingly positive reception" means connotatively.

[SteveMacD]

It's a ****kicker's worth of difference: audiences know SYLM & Don't Stop, they don't know I Do & Hollywood.
Either way, it's a Christine song, and Bekka singing that is Bekka covering a Christine song.
Wow. You really missed the point. My point had nothing to do with the popularity of Rumours around the world. My point had everything to do with the very minimal popularity of "Then Play On" & Dog & Dustbin in the United States.
And, you seem to keep missing the point that it makes the decision to play so many Green-era songs, especially "Black Magic Woman," so odd in 1974, at least if you're coming from the perspective of forging a unique identity. Sure, the scale was different, but the concept is identical.
But that wasn't my point, either. What Stevie or Lindsey was doing solo in 1994/95 is irrelevant to the fact that, when Fleetwood Mac -- or any cover band in the United States -- played SYLM or YMLF or GYOW, the audience (whether it was in the open-air venue or the bar or the Bar Mitzvah or the corporate party) immediately linked the song to the Fleetwood Mac that rules the American airwaves in the 1970s.
So, then, why is it acceptable for Stevie and Lindsey to do "The Chain" at solo shows? Because they were on "Rumours?" Well so were Mick and John. It was their album, too. If it's unacceptable for Mick and John to do GYOW because it would make people think of "Rumours," then why is it acceptable for Lindsey? Because he was the singer/songwriter of GYOW? Either way, people are thinking of X's previous glories, not necessarily their new material. The bottom line is that the success of "Rumours" is something that NONE of them will ever be able to live down.
Any time ANYONE plays Dreams or SYLM (at least in this country), the listener immediately thinks of Fleetwood Mac if he thinks of anyone at all
And, go figure, Fleetwood Mac would play songs that are immediately associated with Fleetwood Mac. In any event, whenever people see Mick Fleetwood, they think of Fleetwood Mac. He IS one of the most unique looking characters in the history of rock, and he was on the cover of two of the band's most successful albums. His presence alone makes getting away from the "Rumours" era impossible.
The 1994 band should not have been playing any of those if they wanted to cement a new identity & get their own hits or grow their own audience!! it's as simple as that.
That's why I was talking about chart positions in 1994! Established artists weren't having hits. Hell, the two "stars" of Fleetwood Mac weren't having hits! It's pretty obvious those days were over for all of them. Now, I agree that they shouldn't have done an almost all oldies show, but to throw EVERYTHING out makes no sense, either. People expect certain songs when they see Fleetwood Mac.
What do you mean "market the shows"? To market such shows, you announce that you're playing at the Konocti Harbor Spa & Resort, & people either show up or they don't!
And, where do they announce stuff like that? On the RADIO. What do they typically do (or, at least were doing in 1994) when they have a radio announcement? They play the songs people remember. When they promoted Lindsey opening for Tina Turner, they actually played "Don't Stop" in the ad. The simple fact is that "Rumours" is the 500 pound elephant in the middle of the room as far as any future incarnation of Fleetwood Mac is concerned. They could choose to pretend like it's not there, or accept it and use it in moderation towards their advantage.
But you PLAY your new material & whatever else you want that ISN'T connected to your former incarnations because otherwise the PEOPLE will continue to think of you as HAS-BEENS trying to CASH IN on your past, & they will grow very weary of you & bored with you.
So, then EVERY incarnation after Peter Green consisted of HAS-BEENS because they all played "Oh Well," eh? Mick, John, and the Fleetwood Mac name will always be connected with that. To completely ignore that is, at best, dysfunctional. I wouldn't have done so much from it. I only listed four that I thought were essential (with Mason in the band). Other than that, it's wide open.
Billy? Come on, what ridiculousness. Stop the next chap you see on the street, show him a photo of Billy, & ask him, "Do you remember this man from Fleetwood Mac?"
You could do the same with John McVie and get the same answer. Billy was on a concert video that sold well enough to be reissued on DVD, was on two very successful tours, and was on an album that had decent sales. Fleetwood Mac fans knew who he was.
Virtually EVERYONE in the audience knew they were watching a band that needed to establish its own identity APART from Rumours & Stevie Witch & Go Your Own Way ... & that wasn't trying very hard to do that.
On that, I don't disagree, except GYOW, which will always be in the set of any future incarnation of Fleetwood Mac. The only two songs from the "Rumours" era that I don't ever see going away are GYOW and "Don't Stop." "Oh Well" is, IMO, a BAND song that transcends personnel. But, I think SYLM, YMLF, GDW, "The Chain," and "World Turning" could certainly have been cut in favor of new songs, Billy's songs from BTM, and maybe even some Delaney & Bonnie/Johnny Burnette Trio material.

There was a lot that could have been different, and should have been different. In their early days, they needed to balance past glories (also true of the Mason material) with creating a new sound. It's not something I see happening with any band over one tour. But, since they ultimately closed shop before doing a proper tour, we'll never know. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say they wouldn't have had a hit with "Time" regardless, but I think it could have turned into something different, if given the opportunity to develop. We'll never know.

[chiliD]

Ok...I'm going to chime in, not so much regarding Time, since I'm pretty much the middle ground between you guys (although, David, in most of the set list ideas, I'm leaning more toward Steve), and I'd only be "Captain Redundant"; but since you brought the comparison of the Heroes... tour into it, I have to toss my two-cents in regarding that tour.

1) They did more than just two songs from Heroes..., "Bermuda Triangle", "Coming Home", "Angel", "Come A Little Bit Closer"...that's four.

2) Why did they pack the set with older material? You have to remember what the band was going through in 1974...they were fighting for their very survival due to the Cliff Davies/Bogus band litigation. They played a plethora of Peter Green material (and "Black Magic Woman" HAD been a constant in their set since 1968). to PROVE to their record company, to the lawyers, to their fans that they were STILL "Fleetwood Mac".

3) Ok, one point regarding the 1994/95 tour...HAD Christine been on stage with them, toured with them, this whole issue of the Time incarnation's "worth" would be moot. My view is that it was the fact that Christine wasn't there, moreso than the absence of Lindsey & Stevie, that created the oddness/weirdness. I think in the 13 previous years, Fleetwood Mac fans HAD to have some inkling in their minds that "one of these days Stevie & Lindsey would leave the band". Lindsey had been grumbling for 6 years until he finally gave notice, Stevie seemed to be going through the motions with Fleetwood Mac since Wild Heart; proving that her solo career was more than a one album creative outlet anomaly. And, her "interest" seemed to wane even further after Lindsey's departure.

ALLLL RIGHT, you know once I got going...Captain Redundant HAS to chime in:

4) I'm right with Steve regarding the crew on the 1994/95 tour playing SOME of "the hits", but the main downer was that they didn't have enough NEW material to divert the focus off the Rumours material. (Like they did in 1975 by mixing their new material with the bands then "standards": "Oh Well", Green Manalishi", "Station Man", "Hypnotized", etc) And while I like Steve's hypothetical set list as a base, I think it could be tweaked a bit:

The Chain/In The Back Of My Mind
Winds Of Change
I Got It In For You
Oh Well
We Just Disagree
Talkin' To My Heart
Gold Dust Woman
Blow By Blow
Hard Feelings
Shakin' The Cage
When The Sun Goes Down
Nothing Without You
Only You Know And I Know
You Make Loving Fun
Go Your Own Way
--
Tear It Up
Dreamin' The Dream

5) Part of the band's reason for touring to introduce new members in 1994 & 1995 was to stir audience interest in a studio album at some point Sure, "at some point" SHOULDN'T have been 18 months down the road. The album should've been out before the end of 1994 sans Christine if that's how it would be. (and then started a follow-up if Christine had THEN shown interest) But, no, they delayed the album for nearly A YEAR to incorporate Christines' songs, yet kept touring without her (which was probably the reason that they ended up telling her "no" in regards to SYW once she'd most likely shown interest in being involved in the album, yet not touring). It was great that they DID play a decent number of shows during '94, but to drag it on until (I believe it was) September 1995...the album itself was released on October 10, 1995...was just a marketing faux pas on a grand scale. What they needed to do was QUICKLY do a second album with that lineup

[SteveMacD]

Whatever the case, I think that what they set out to do was fairly ambitious: Three singers playing Fleetwood Mac classics, Dave Mason/Traffic classics, and new songs in typically a twelve song set. Even if they had done a balanced set, it would have still been a challenge coming up with a semi-cohesive set in which each singer gets a fair representation. But then, creative set-lists aren't really Fleetwood Mac's, or Dave Mason's, specialty to begin with.