Fleetwood Mac is just so good!

[thatgirlwasme]

So, I realize this statement is obvious, but I am at work and Dreams came on the XM station we are listening to, and I was struck by just how good that song is. Sometimes when I hear a Mac, Stevie, Christine, or Lindsay song unexpectedly, I'm just struck by how much I love the music!!! Anyway, JTIS ;)

A

[Sleepless-Child]

It happens to me, sometimes. Well, in fact, probably every time I listen to Dreams, my favorite song. But we are so used to FM that we don't even realize how great they are...well, not everytime we listen to them.

[Artemis]

Poker Face is 1 play away from knocking Dreams down to #6 in my top 25 most played, thus breaking my Fleetwood Mac top 5 :(

Although, I agree with the sentiment. xD Hearing Fleetwood Mac on the radio is always a certain way of putting a smile on my face, It makes me think "Yeah. They sound gooooooood"

[Sleepless-Child]

I have 21 FM/Stevie songs on my 25 most listened list, and I'm kind of ashamed :D
Dreams is fiiiirst !

[michelej1]

When I hear them out in public, I am always struck at how good they sound, how magical their blend. Even if I'm hearing a song I would never bother to play at home on my own, when I'm out and I hear the same tune come over a speaker, pride washes over me, as if I'd written it myself and I have this compulsive urge to tell everyone around me: "Hey, that's Fleetwood Mac!"

Oh, the many strait jackets from which I have had to escape.

Michele

[ButterCookie]

This alway happens to me :)

I had a debate with some lads in my Maths class today that FM are waay better than the Beatles!

[HejiraNYC]

When I hear them out in public, I am always struck at how good they sound, how magical their blend.
Michele

I was in the Union Square Whole Foods last night and "Stand Back" was playing, and it sounded so good that I turned off my iPod to listen while I meandered. But I was very disappointed that nobody was dancing and singing in the aisles.

[chiliD]

This alway happens to me :)

I had a debate with some lads in my Maths class today that FM are waay better than the Beatles!

WOAH THERE!!!! :mad:

I'm one of the biggest, if not one of the OLDEST, Fleetwood Mac fans on the planet...but, "better than the Beatles"??? Not even close. :distress:

The Beatles changed EVERYTHING :nod:....Fleetwood Mac changed nothing (except personnel). :shrug: Fleetwood Mac just makes good music (98% of the time). :nod: Not even debatable.

[Erin]

WOAH THERE!!!! :mad:

I'm one of the biggest, if not one of the OLDEST, Fleetwood Mac fans on the planet...but, "better than the Beatles"??? Not even close. :distress:

The Beatles changed EVERYTHING :nod:....Fleetwood Mac changed nothing (except personnel). :shrug: Fleetwood Mac just makes good music (98% of the time). :nod: Not even debatable.

It's all about preference in the end, isn't it? I acknowledge The Beatles contribution to music and enjoy it, but their music doesn't speak to me in the same way as Fleetwood Mac does.

[ButterCookie]

Nah, I just can't stand the Beatles. For my music taste, the Velvet Underground changed everything.

[DefDumbandBlond]

I agree ButterCookie!

I personally think FM are better than The Beatles as well, it's really just a matter of opinion!

[FMlex]

The thing you have to remember with the Beatles (who aren't really extaordinary musicians) is that they had nothing to go off of... Because they started it.

IMO, love 'em or hate 'em, you can't really compare the Beatles to anyone.

[Sleepless-Child]

The Beatles changed EVERYTHING ....Fleetwood Mac changed nothing (except personnel). Fleetwood Mac just makes good music (98% of the time). Not even debatable.

Agreed. We even know that The Beatles had an impact on Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac's music, and probably, on every single Pop or rock band. They're the greatest, not my favorite, though.

[mylittledemon]

The thing you have to remember with the Beatles (who aren't really extaordinary musicians)


:shocked:

Ummm... George Harrison?

[chiliD]

It's all about preference in the end, isn't it? .

Not really. It's pretty much FACT that the Beatles changed EVERYTHING (not just music) as a whole in the '60s and nothing since then has been the same. Everything else FOLLOWED the Beatles and there's really been nobody since then who has had that kind of impact. Bono WISHES, but he's just a Lennon poseur.

The thing you have to remember with the Beatles (who aren't really extaordinary musicians) is that they had nothing to go off of... Because they started it.

IMO, love 'em or hate 'em, you can't really compare the Beatles to anyone.

Disagree about them not being "extraordinary musicians"...technically, maybe, but from a creative standpoint...they got the job done.

As for "had nothing to go off of", of course they did...Elvis, Buddy Holly, Gene Vincent, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc. All the early American rockers....they took what they did, Anglicized it and threw it back in our faces. Just like the Rolling Stones, Clapton, Peter Green, John Mayall, etc, took American Blues and made it palletable for white American audiences.

[BombaySapphire3]

For three superb albums in the last half of the 1970s Fleetwood Mac was likely the closest thing that the era had to a Beatles..after this the band's chemistry was gone..sure they had more hits some of them quite good, but the post Tusk albums were wildly uneven compared to the trinity of Fleetwood Mac ,Rumours and Tusk.If they could have held onto their chemistry and not gotten sidetracked with all the solo projects perhaps they could have rivaled the Beatles at least for consistency, but as it stands they cannot.

[goldustsongbird]

*Fleetwood Mac was just so good. ;)

I have the same thought every time I hear Rhiannon. The only thing that bothers me about the studio version is the chorus, but other than that? Ding dang goddamned perfection. Dreams, too, but Rhiannon comes first in terms of vocals.

[justcrazylove]

Woah woah woah there everyone, The Beatles are not even comparable! they are the greatest no questions asked! Fleetwood Mac are my favourite band and they have produced some of the greatest music of their generation, whereas the Beatles created the greatest music of all time. Furthermore if you honestly think that the beatles are not "extraordinary" musicians you have no idea about writing or playing music period!

I understand the love that we all have for Fleetwood Mac but this isn't a personal situation where "personally i believe" there is no question, the Beatles changed the landscape forever! for god sake, Revolver, Abbey Road, The White Album, George's eastern influences, John's Lyrics, Ringo's off kilter style, and Paul's melodic bass lines. :nod:

without John i don't think we would have Lindsey, Or Stevie, as we know them.

Please a bit of perspective!:sorry:

[trackaghost]

Not really. It's pretty much FACT that the Beatles changed EVERYTHING (not just music) as a whole in the '60s and nothing since then has been the same. Everything else FOLLOWED the Beatles and there's really been nobody since then who has had that kind of impact. Bono WISHES, but he's just a Lennon poseur.


But none of what you have said acknowledges the fact that certain people may not enjoy their music as much as Fleetwood Mac. It is indeed down to preference. Erin said she appreciates and realises the contribution The Beatles made but FM's music means more to her. So to her they are better.
This idea that it's blasphemy to say anything negative about The Beatles has always baffled me. Just because they are probably, along with Dylan, one of the most important artists in music history doesn't mean you're going to like them. I think The Who are better than The Beatles, that doesn't mean I am saying they are as historically as important, that they made the same impact as The Beatles just that my preference leans towards The Who. Which is what, I believe Erin was saying the first place (only about FM).
I could argue all day that Citizen Kane is one of the most important, brilliant and influential films of all time that paved the way for some of your favourite movies but that doesn't mean you are going to like it more than, say, The Shawshank Redemption or some other beloved, popular movie.

[HomerMcvie]

This idea that it's blasphemy to say anything negative about The Beatles has always baffled me.

:laugh: Me too, Sharon! But in musician's circles, it IS considered blasphemy! I, for one, have never been much of a Beatles fan, but I DARE NOT ever speak that, around musicians.

They just don't really do it for me. The first band I ever fell in love with, was FM, and everything else has paled in comparison. I can appreciate the Beatles, and the impact they had on our culture, but that doesn't mean that they're my #1 band. Or #2, for that matter.

[GypsySorcerer]

:laugh: Me too, Sharon! But in musician's circles, it IS considered blasphemy! I, for one, have never been much of a Beatles fan, but I DARE NOT ever speak that, around musicians.

They just don't really do it for me. The first band I ever fell in love with, was FM, and everything else has paled in comparison. I can appreciate the Beatles, and the impact they had on our culture, but that doesn't mean that they're my #1 band. Or #2, for that matter.

I like the Beatles, but I don't think the sun rises and sets on them. One of my college friends (not a musician) held a personal grudge against anyone who disliked the Beatles. Seriously. I never told her my true feelings. :laugh:

[gypsy4life]

I like the Beatles...but I LOVE Fleetwood Mac!!!
Why?----because they are just so good!! corny, I know, sorry:)

[thatgirlwasme]

Gosh, I didn't realize the thread I started would turn into an such an interesting discussion about The Beatles vs. Fleetwood Mac! I agree that it just comes down to preference. It's certainly possible to recognize and appreciate something while prefering something else. I certainly appreciate The Beatles, but I just like Fleetwood Mac much better. There's just something about the opening chords of Dreams, Rhiannon, Sara, or any number of Mac songs that just gives me chills because they are so good--I just don't get that with The Beatles.

A

[Janis_no1]

Yeah, i'm you on this... even yesterday i walked into an Oroton shop and Stand back was on... i just thought, how awesome, do the sales girls know just how good this music is! So of course stayed in the shop a little longer just to hear it. :blob1:

[blondyy-x]

I like the Beatles, but a good part of their music sounds the same, and is bland. I agree that they did help shape music, but they aren't everything. There was many many artists before them, and many artists after them who also helped to shape and create music.

And back on topic - I love Fleetwood Mac :D

[Andy Man]

For three superb albums in the last half of the 1970s Fleetwood Mac was likely the closest thing that the era had to a Beatles..after this the band's chemistry was gone..sure they had more hits some of them quite good, but the post Tusk albums were wildly uneven compared to the trinity of Fleetwood Mac ,Rumours and Tusk.If they could have held onto their chemistry and not gotten sidetracked with all the solo projects perhaps they could have rivaled the Beatles at least for consistency, but as it stands they cannot.

While I don't know if FM (or any other band) could rival the Beatles in terms of cultural importance, I do agree with the trilogy comments. Those first three albums were all creative perfection and, for me, they are the three 'band' albums from FM (Rumours line-up). Just by listening to them you can feel the creative collaboration between band members and you do get a real sense of musical relationships. The albums after 1979 (expect maybe The Dance) have always felt like considerable efforts for the band - sometimes it feels forced. Now I love songs on Mirage and TITN - some songs are spectacular, but as albums they have less of that 'band' quality than the first three records. They feel more like individuals coming to play together rather than a unified band.

Oh and to add to the original topic of this thread - yes, Fleetwood Mac is sooooooooo good!:nod:

[FMlex]

:shocked:

Ummm... George Harrison?

:laugh:

:shrug:

[APerfectLie]

Who had the largest impact on the music industry and the world? The Beatles.

Who was the better band? Fleetwood Mac.

The Beatles were great, and they made a HUGE impact and are more popular than Fleetwood Mac today. But Fleetwood Mac is a much better band and I prefer their music over the Beatles any day.

[DavidMn]

Fleetwood Mac is and has been my favorite band for 34 years, basically my whole life. That's all I'm going to say. I PREFER them over the Beatles. Having said that I will leave it to others here who have forgotten more about music than I will ever know to judge who is "better.":)

[Meowi]

Yes Fleetwood Mac IS my favorite band :o
But sometimes we have to realise that it isn't the best in the world.

[luckydimecaper]

Yes Fleetwood Mac IS my favorite band :o
But sometimes we have to realise that it isn't the best in the world.

Yeah, exactly.. Sometimes it's hard to differentiate when you love a band so much. But I kinda liked both bands from around the same age, and I've been through my honeymoon period with both.
As much as I love Fleetwood Mac though, I would pick the Beatles over them anyway :sorry:

[ButterCookie]

But none of what you have said acknowledges the fact that certain people may not enjoy their music as much as Fleetwood Mac. It is indeed down to preference. Erin said she appreciates and realises the contribution The Beatles made but FM's music means more to her. So to her they are better.
This idea that it's blasphemy to say anything negative about The Beatles has always baffled me. Just because they are probably, along with Dylan, one of the most important artists in music history doesn't mean you're going to like them. I think The Who are better than The Beatles, that doesn't mean I am saying they are as historically as important, that they made the same impact as The Beatles just that my preference leans towards The Who. Which is what, I believe Erin was saying the first place (only about FM).
I could argue all day that Citizen Kane is one of the most important, brilliant and influential films of all time that paved the way for some of your favourite movies but that doesn't mean you are going to like it more than, say, The Shawshank Redemption or some other beloved, popular movie.

This was my argument during said debate between my friends and I, only you worded it better. I'm not doubting the cultural influences The Beatles have or their impact on the music world. Personally I just think that Fleetwood Mac's music is more enjoyable.

[goldustsongbird]

The Mac even influenced the Beatles with Albatross and Sun King, so... :shrug:

[luckydimecaper]

The Mac even influenced the Beatles with Albatross and Sun King, so... :shrug:

I didn't know that! But I guess it would make sense, for the Beatles later stuff when Pete Green's FM were around by then. That's pretty cool!

[jaycee]

Just back on topic briefly, I cannot help but smile whenever I hear FM on the radio, mostly because I know that many other people tuning in will surely also be enjoying their music. And yes, they are just so good! Personally, I think the phrase "Fleetwood Mac" should be made to mean "just so good", so as to make this thread title a tautology. I know I'm not wrong because I know I'm not wrong! :lol:
Now, off topic...
...
...
I'm just trying to prepare myself for the flurry of replies that'll tell me I'm wrong...
...
...
Okay, The Beatles obviously had a bigger impact on the music industry - FM only produced one #1 US single, and The Beatles had... far too many! :laugh: However, I think a better criteria for choosing the best band is musical creativity, and not popularity (even if it is popularity that usually garners influence, which I guess is what we're talking about). I think FM wins this category hands down. With an honourable mention to Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music! :nod:

I like the Beatles, but a good part of their music sounds the same, and is bland. I agree that they did help shape music, but they aren't everything. There was many many artists before them, and many artists after them who also helped to shape and create music.

And back on topic - I love Fleetwood Mac :D

We're not so different, you and I, blondyy-x! :D
The last controversial comment - John Lennon solo (oh, and Yoko!) produced much better work than during his time with The Beatles. Okay, so political songwriting shouldn't instantly make you a brilliant songwriter... but I'm afraid it does! :D :laugh: Especially the way Lennon pulls it off!
All that said, I do actually like The Beatles very much! :nod:
(Phew! Now I should settle down to the sound of Rumours, or something...)

[GoldDustBoy]

Of course there are better, and more talented musicians who had a bigger impact on music out there. It's just that I don't like them nearly as much as I like FM.

[Peestie]

Okay, The Beatles obviously had a bigger impact on the music industry - FM only produced one #1 US single, and The Beatles had... far too many! :laugh: However, I think a better criteria for choosing the best band is musical creativity, and not popularity (even if it is popularity that usually garners influence, which I guess is what we're talking about). I think FM wins this category hands down. With an honourable mention to Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music! :nod:


Seriously? Sure, FM have been creative but they still don't come close to the Beatles in terms of "musical creativity". The Beatles are pretty much the paragons of "musical creativity" from the last hundred years. Lindsey wishes he pioneered half as many things as the Beatles did. I know it's kind of a "they got there first" thing, but the fact is that they did it. While Tusk subverted people's expectations of Pop music, The Beatles did both that and created a whole host of new techniques and methods in the process.

Having said all that, I have yet to really try hard to get into the Beatles yet. I think I could love them if I went out and bought their albums but at the minute I'm on a bit of an Indie kick.

[Fleetwoodmark]

Beatles contribution to music is much overrated. The idea that they changed everything about pop music is sanctimonious bollocks. Most pop music originated from Blues of the 40's & 50's. The Beatles were merely a link in that chain. From a creative point of view FM piss all over them. The dynamic between Lindsey, Stevie, Christine, Mick and John was unrivalled in any band before or since, especially live. Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney is a first class twat.

[ButterCookie]

Beatles contribution to music is much overrated. The idea that they changed everything about pop music is sanctimonious bollocks. Most pop music originated from Blues of the 40's & 50's. The Beatles were merely a link in that chain. From a creative point of view FM piss all over them. The dynamic between Lindsey, Stevie, Christine, Mick and John was unrivalled in any band before or since, especially live. Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney is a first class twat.

I posted that on a private blog! Those exact words, about two nights ago! Haha

[Sanne2]

Beatles contribution to music is much overrated. The idea that they changed everything about pop music is sanctimonious bollocks. Most pop music originated from Blues of the 40's & 50's. The Beatles were merely a link in that chain. From a creative point of view FM piss all over them. The dynamic between Lindsey, Stevie, Christine, Mick and John was unrivalled in any band before or since, especially live. Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney is a first class twat.

This comment is full of win.
Sure the Beatles had a lot of influence, but at the same time they are totally overrated. But I'm more of a Rolling Stones girl anyway.
Rolling Stones >>> Beatles
FM >>>>>>>>>>>>Rolling Stones>>>Beatles

[luckydimecaper]

Beatles contribution to music is much overrated. The idea that they changed everything about pop music is sanctimonious bollocks. Most pop music originated from Blues of the 40's & 50's. The Beatles were merely a link in that chain. From a creative point of view FM piss all over them. The dynamic between Lindsey, Stevie, Christine, Mick and John was unrivalled in any band before or since, especially live. Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney is a first class twat.

WOAH woah woah.. :lol:
I am aware that this is an "agree to disagree" kind of thing, as it's all down to personal opinion and tastes. I know that. BUT!
They DID change everything about pop music! They were the first band who all wrote, played, performed and then later produced their own music, as a band. Blues and rock n roll from the previous decades had been made up of a lot of covers and many of them had song writers to write their material for them. The Beatles did it ALL themselves. They were the first to have the singer/songwriter setup. And in the short 8 or 9 years they were properly together, they evolved SO much creatively. Just look at them in '62 and then again in '70!
As for FM, there's not THAT much of a change creatively from the white album to Tango, except that music itself had changed a whole lot in those 10 or 12 years. Of course, with the exception of Tusk (which they seemed to abandon as a one off and went back to making more middle of the road rock and pop again). If you were to include the Peter Green and Bob Welch line ups in this then I would be more inclined to agree, but as it stands with the Rumours line up, I don't think you could say that they "piss all over" the Beatles as you so eloquently put it :laugh:

[LukeA]

They DID change everything about pop music! They were the first band who all wrote, played, performed and then later produced their own music, as a band. Blues and rock n roll from the previous decades had been made up of a lot of covers and many of them had song writers to write their material for them. The Beatles did it ALL themselves. They were the first to have the singer/songwriter setup. And in the short 8 or 9 years they were properly together, they evolved SO much creatively. Just look at them in '62 and then again in '70!

There's a difference between true innovation and simple progression. Writing/playing/performing/producing your own music are basic, natural progressions that were to be expected as the particular artform of pop/rock music progressed into adolescence, and acts became larger & held more clout. If it wasn't the Beatles, it would have been someone else- and within months, not years.

Not to say Beatles weren't innovative- I'd point to the introduction of instruments heretofore unheard of in pop music (at least in terms of a band at the top of the charts), such as the sitar. I have to believe that they were years ahead of everyone else in that regard (if you took the Beatles out of the equation and let the rest of the pop/rock world evolve circa '62 onward, how long would it have taken?)

[luckydimecaper]

If it wasn't the Beatles, it would have been someone else- and within months, not years.

Who? Just out of curiosity :) I know bands like the Kinks and the Stones weren't too far behind the Beatles, but they might not have had such a huge breakthrough and therefore the same kind of influence on that kind of musicianship.

I really wish I had a time machine. It would be so interesting to see what music would be like now if the Beatles hadn't existed!

[blondyy-x]

They were the first band who all wrote, played, performed and then later produced their own music, as a band. Blues and rock n roll from the previous decades had been made up of a lot of covers and many of them had song writers to write their material for them. The Beatles did it ALL themselves.

I agree that they changed music, but not by themselves. They maybe did it as a band... But i ain't going to clap for them cause they played together. Roger Miller wrote and performed his own music a few years before The Beatles even formed. They don't deserve to take credit for changing all music.

[trackaghost]

Okay, before I argued that people shouldn't be demonised for saying they thought Fleetwood Mac are better than The Beatles or that they don't like The Beatles but these arguments trying to minimise their role in music history are silly.


Okay, The Beatles obviously had a bigger impact on the music industry - FM only produced one #1 US single, and The Beatles had... far too many! :laugh: However, I think a better criteria for choosing the best band is musical creativity, and not popularity (even if it is popularity that usually garners influence, which I guess is what we're talking about). I think FM wins this category hands down. With an honourable mention to Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music! :nod:


Seriously? I'm not a huge Beatles fan but please explain why you think Fleetwood Mac were musically more creative. Even as a big Fleetwood Mac fan I can quite plainly see The Beatles were a clearly more innovative and challenging band than Fleetwood Mac ever were, even compared to the Mac's most experimental moments.

Beatles contribution to music is much overrated. The idea that they changed everything about pop music is sanctimonious bollocks. Most pop music originated from Blues of the 40's & 50's. The Beatles were merely a link in that chain. From a creative point of view FM piss all over them. The dynamic between Lindsey, Stevie, Christine, Mick and John was unrivalled in any band before or since, especially live. Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney is a first class twat.

The amount of legendary bands who formed and were inspired by The Beatles is extraordinary. They not only changed things musically but they changed how the whole music industry was run. And again, how were Fleetwood Mac more creative than The Beatles?

Who? Just out of curiosity :) I know bands like the Kinks and the Stones weren't too far behind the Beatles, but they might not have had such a huge breakthrough and therefore the same kind of influence on that kind of musicianship.

I really wish I had a time machine. It would be so interesting to see what music would be like now if the Beatles hadn't existed!

But even The Stones and The Kinks were influenced by The Beatles. I agree with Luke that music was changing anyway but The Beatles were definitely at the centre of that revolution (and let's not forget Elvis here, definitely as important if not more so than The Beatles).

I agree that they changed music, but not by themselves. They maybe did it as a band... But i ain't going to clap for them cause they played together. Roger Miller wrote and performed his own music a few years before The Beatles even formed. They don't deserve to take credit for changing all music.

To be fair Roger Miller wasn't the only artist before The Beatles who wrote and performed his own music! There were plenty of other performers out there who wrote their own songs, particularly in the world of blues and country. But much of popular music was controlled by record companies who dictated what their artists would sing. Tin Pan Alley and the like dominated the music industry before they came along. The Beatles, along with Dylan, without a doubt paved the way for the singer/songwriter. I'm sure Stevie and Lindsey would acknowledge this.

[CADreaming]

To be fair Roger Miller wasn't the only artist before The Beatles who wrote and performed his own music! There were plenty of other performers out there who wrote their own songs, particularly in the world of blues and country. But much of popular music was controlled by record companies who dictated what their artists would sing. Tin Pan Alley and the like dominated the music industry before they came along. The Beatles, along with Dylan, without a doubt paved the way for the singer/songwriter. I'm sure Stevie and Lindsey would acknowledge this.

Hank Williams, Sr. comes to mind. He was a superstar in the late '40's and early '50's. His songs were covered by pop artists of the day, due to his success.

[chiliD]

Ok, just a survey...how many of you Beatle-bashers were even born when the Beatles were still together? How many of you were even born before John Lennon was shot?

I think THAT has a helluva lot to do with "Beatle perception".

For those of us were (as Sting wrote) "born in the 50s", the Beatles are not just musicians/songwriters/singers/performers, they're ****ing GODS. Don't mess with 'em. May John Lennon's ghost piss in your drink and George Harrison's give you a painful wedgie.

[jaycee]

Ok, just a survey...how many of you Beatle-bashers were even born when the Beatles were still together? How many of you were even born before John Lennon was shot?

I think THAT has a helluva lot to do with "Beatle perception".

For those of us were (as Sting wrote) "born in the 50s", the Beatles are not just musicians/songwriters/singers/performers, they're ****ing GODS. Don't mess with 'em. May John Lennon's ghost piss in your drink and George Harrison's give you a painful wedgie.

I get the feeling that John Lennon, were he here, would be too nice a chap to do such a thing, what with this peace promotion and all... unless you forgot about his peaceful revolution antics? :) And I don't think John Lennon would like to be called a god, even if he consider the band "bigger than Jesus" - just listen to the lyrics of "Imagine"! (Those lyrics are gold! Lennon, eat your heart out! :blob2:)
Perhaps I should buy that stereo box set that came out recently and have a listen (trust me when I say that I'd absolutely love it!) before I make any more comments against The Beatles creativity. I've only listened to a few compilations of The Beatles, and I should know by now that compilations usually don't do justice to a band's work.
Anyway, I'll now defend my comment that creativity is a better selection criteria...
Why is it that music (and usually books) is usually judged in how good it is by how popular it is? Think of Susan Boyle - one of the more talented modern days singers, like Dido, Norah Jones, and Michael Buble. The ads for her album are promoting it as the worldwide #1 album. Now imagine if the ad made no mention of her success, instead just advertising her songs... I'm extremely confident that significantly fewer people would buy it.
I'll quote Richard Dawkins now, as he has a habit of being able to say things people think in the most eloquent fashion possible:
"Whereas other genres of art criticism betray some preoccupation with style or skill of performence, with mood, emotional impact, with the qualities and properties of the art-form, the 'pop' music sub-culture is almost exclusively preoccupied with popularity itself. It is quite clear that the important thing about a record is not what it sounds like, but how many people are buying it. The whole sub-culture is obsessed with a rank ordering of records, called the Top 20 or Top 40, which is based only upon sales figures."
The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 219
And he goes on about it a bit more. It was an analogy for sexual selection, if you were curious. :) (I'm not sure how popular The Blind Watchmaker is, but make no mistake when I say that it's the best book on an explanation of evolutionary biology for laymen (like myself) I've read!)
Actually, I don't think I need to say any more, because Dawkins said it all! :laugh:
And, back on topic once more, FM is just so good! :nod:

[jaycee]

I know I'm getting seriously off topic now, but I just need to post these. :laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3ic6OOXns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
If I had to choose between The Beatles and John Lennon (although I'm glad I don't have to! :laugh:), John Lennon would be chosen in a heartbeat!
Now, to stay on topic, FMijsg!

[blondyy-x]

[QUOTE=trackaghost;864688]To be fair Roger Miller wasn't the only artist before The Beatles who wrote and performed his own music!QUOTE]

I just used Roger Miller as an example since i was listening to him as i wrote it :D

Y'know, yeah i wasn't born when The Beatles were around. Or when John Lennon got shot. I'm a 90's child. I wasn't born when any of my favourite artists formed - Blondie, Heart, Janis Joplin, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, Ramones.. etc etc. But i still know how they influenced music. It's not fair to say that just because i wasn't born then that i have no idea of how they shaped music.
I'm not a Beatle-basher, they're just not my everything. If The Beatles hadn't have done it, then someone else would've.

[trackaghost]

If The Beatles hadn't have done it, then someone else would've.

Well you could say that about Fleetwood Mac or any band really.

It's not fair to say that just because i wasn't born then that i have no idea of how they shaped music.


Yes, but you (and I for that matter) don't understand in the same way as someone who saw it all happening. I remember the great late DJ John Peel saying that younger people today don't understand how important Elvis was: the music world and youth culture changed completely when he came along. The change, he said, was striking, he literally changed everything almost overnight. Now you could argue that someone else would have done it if Elvis hadn't but that doesn't make him any less important.

[luckydimecaper]

Well you could say that about Fleetwood Mac or any band really.



Yes, but you (and I for that matter) don't understand in the same way as someone who saw it all happening. I remember the great late DJ John Peel saying that younger people today don't understand how important Elvis was: the music world and youth culture changed completely when he came along. The change, he said, was striking, he literally changed everything almost overnight. Now you could argue that someone else would have done it if Elvis hadn't but that doesn't make him any less important.

Exactly, I think the fact here is that Elvis and the Beatles were those people. It might have been someone else if it hadn't have been them, and we'd be having the same argument. But it just happened that it WAS them.

[LukeA]

Exactly, I think the fact here is that Elvis and the Beatles were those people. It might have been someone else if it hadn't have been them, and we'd be having the same argument. But it just happened that it WAS them.

Yes. Their influence is undeniable. I'm just not one of the people who consider them sacrosanct and immune from any real criticism (not saying you are)

[Fleetwoodmark]

Pretty sad folks who think any type of musician could be branded a "God".

Ludicrous.

The Beatles were a band that wrote and produced mediocre pop rock songs, Get a life and get over it. The idea that any band/musician is immune to critiscism is insane.

[luckydimecaper]

Pretty sad folks who think any type of musician could be branded a "God".

Ludicrous.

The Beatles were a band that wrote and produced mediocre pop rock songs, Get a life and get over it. The idea that any band/musician is immune to critiscism is insane.

Was this aimed at me? :wavey:

I agree with you btw.

Apart from the "mediocre pop songs" bit ;)

[trackaghost]

Yes. Their influence is undeniable. I'm just not one of the people who consider them sacrosanct and immune from any real criticism (not saying you are)

I agree completely. I've never been a huge fan of The Beatles but those denying the impact they made or the influence they had obviously have no real knowledge or understanding of music.
I'm still waiting though for someone to explain to me how Fleetwood Mac were musically more creative than The Beatles.

[HomerMcvie]

I agree completely. I've never been a huge fan of The Beatles but those denying the impact they made or the influence they had obviously have no real knowledge or understanding of music.
I'm still waiting though for someone to explain to me how Fleetwood Mac were musically more creative than The Beatles.

Oh, it's the same mindset as "FM can't/won't open for the Eagles". They let their fandom get in the way of the FACTS.
Rose colored glasses...

[Fleetwoodmark]

Was this aimed at me? :wavey:

I agree with you btw.

Apart from the "mediocre pop songs" bit ;)

Was aimed at no one in particular. I just had to reply to the bizarre idea that The Beatles are the be all and end all of pop rock music as if no one else had any contributing factor to the way this genre was shaped.

For what it's worth I have a degree from Edinburgh in Music & History so I know my fair share of the background surrounding most genres of music and their evolution.

The fact that some folks on here are Beatles mad and as a result are blinded from the facts about the argument.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this but it's almost as if people have been brainwashed to the point that if you critiscise The Beatles you are branded a blasphemist.

[trackaghost]

Where does anyone say that no one else contributed to popular music and it the way it evolved? I don't believe anyone said that, just that The Beatles were one of the most important acts in terms of influence etc. To deny that is as bad as those who can't bear for them to criticised imo.
And I say this as something who doesn't even like The Beatles much.

[luckydimecaper]

Was aimed at no one in particular. I just had to reply to the bizarre idea that The Beatles are the be all and end all of pop rock music as if no one else had any contributing factor to the way this genre was shaped.

For what it's worth I have a degree from Edinburgh in Music & History so I know my fair share of the background surrounding most genres of music and their evolution.

The fact that some folks on here are Beatles mad and as a result are blinded from the facts about the argument.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this but it's almost as if people have been brainwashed to the point that if you critiscise The Beatles you are branded a blasphemist.

Well, I personally didn't say that they were the be all and end all! I was just replying to someone who made the bizarre comment "FM pisses all over the Beatles creatively". But there's a difference between criticising them because you don't personally like them and then just plain disregarding their importance. Just as some people might be brainwashed into worshipping the Beatles, I think there are a lot of people out there who don't like them just because they're so popular and so highly regarded. :shrug: (I'm not implying that's your viewpoint).

Anyway, I guess everyone will have to agree to disagree :D

[LikeAWillow]

Anyway, I'll now defend my comment that creativity is a better selection criteria...

Awesome, but no one here asked you to defend that creativity is a better measure of a band's worth than popularity. That's accepted. We're curious about why you think Fleetwood Mac was a more creative band than the Beatles.

Most Beatles songs don't draw an emotional pull for me, and because they don't, I can't count them among my favorite bands. I can recognize, though, that the bands that are my favorites made the music they did because the Beatles broke down huge barriers in pop. I might not love Paul, Ringo, George, and John but I love the bands they made possible.

[AliceLover]

Where does anyone say that no one else contributed to popular music and it the way it evolved? I don't believe anyone said that, just that The Beatles were one of the most important acts in terms of influence etc. To deny that is as bad as those who can't bear for them to criticised imo.
And I say this as something who doesn't even like The Beatles much.

I totally agree, Sharon! I think some people post here sometimes just to start sh*t. I come here to read about Fleetwood Mac, not watch John Lennon videos.

I understand that the Beatles probably had an impact on all of the music listen to today, does that mean I enjoy them? No not really.

[tdfwiner]

I just thought I'd point out that a large chunk of the Beatles best work probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Beach Boys. Pet Sounds was a major influence on their post-Revolver work, especially SPLHCB. They were also a MAJOR influence on Lindsey.

[jaycee]

I just thought I'd point out that a large chunk of the Beatles best work probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Beach Boys. Pet Sounds was a major influence on their post-Revolver work, especially SPLHCB. They were also a MAJOR influence on Lindsey.

It looks like we could be heading towards an infinite regress! :laugh:

[jaycee]

I totally agree, Sharon! I think some people post here sometimes just to start sh*t. I come here to read about Fleetwood Mac, not watch John Lennon videos.

I understand that the Beatles probably had an impact on all of the music listen to today, does that mean I enjoy them? No not really.

Yeah, sorry about that post, it was completely off topic... :sorry: I just get ultra-defensive of Lennon's views (which just happen to mostly coincide with mine) when it comes to anything remotely concerning religion (and I consider calling Lennon a god to be one of those things... I seriously think he would hate being called that). So posting those songs was a way for me to reaffirm his (generally negative) ideas about God and politics. What can I say? It seemed like a good idea at the time!
Another thing I just thought of - perhaps I should be clearer about what I mean by creativity? By creativity I mean things like musical style and instrumentation, not songwriting. Certainly The Beatles are more creative songwriters - they wrote about everything from paperback writers to blackbirds! FM mostly wrote about themselves! :laugh: But when it comes to the sound of their music... well, like I said, my views may be premature in that I've only heard compilations and not albums, but I honestly think FM are the more creative band in this respect (perhaps, to be slightly more specific, particularly Lindsey). If I didn't, then The Beatles would be my favourite band instead. So it's not as if I'm a FM fan who thinks FM are infallible or something... :)
As for influence... well, I've already said The Beatles had the greater influence. I'll leave this area for others to dispute.
One last thing that may play a part in my opinions (although I hope it doesn't...) - when I listen to The Beatles, I usually end up thinking about Lennon's solo projects - I prefer the political nature of Lennon's songwriting while he went solo. IMO Lennon's the greatest songwriter there ever was, and presumably will be. So, theoretically, me thinking that Lennon's solo work is superior to The Beatles could tarnish my view of The Beatles' creativity, songwriting etc., even though I don't think it does...
Phew! This is exhausting, thinking about all this! :laugh:
Anyway, back on topic, FMijsg! :lol:

[jaycee]

I have 21 FM/Stevie songs on my 25 most listened list, and I'm kind of ashamed :D
Dreams is fiiiirst !

Sounds a lot like me nowadays! :laugh: But I'm hardly ashamed... I exhibit more of a mixture of pride and self-consciousness, if that makes any sense... :shrug: :laugh:

[jaycee]

When I hear them out in public, I am always struck at how good they sound, how magical their blend. Even if I'm hearing a song I would never bother to play at home on my own, when I'm out and I hear the same tune come over a speaker, pride washes over me, as if I'd written it myself and I have this compulsive urge to tell everyone around me: "Hey, that's Fleetwood Mac!"

Oh, the many strait jackets from which I have had to escape.

Michele

What she said! :laugh: Although I listen to pretty much all their stuff at home myself... even "Oh Diane" when I'm playing Mirage through! :o

[jaycee]

Yeah, i'm you on this... even yesterday i walked into an Oroton shop and Stand back was on... i just thought, how awesome, do the sales girls know just how good this music is! So of course stayed in the shop a little longer just to hear it. :blob1:

That reminds me of when I was buying albums in a JB Hi-Fi, and as I lined up behind a long row of people to pay, "Second Hand News" came on. I was completely taken aback! :shocked: Although I tried not to show it... :laugh: Could they really be playing Rumours?! Then, of course, as I was paying at the counter, "Dreams" came on. It was Rumours!! :woohoo: All I wanted to do was to continue shopping, even if it meant only pretending to be looking for stuff! :lol: But, of course, I had to get to uni... :distress: It tore me apart to leave!
I think the reason I love hearing them in public, like on the radio, is because I expect several others around me should be enjoying it too. Or maybe because I think FM are worthy of public/radio play, and they get it? In any case, I absolutely love it when it happens! :nod:

[blondyy-x]

Well you could say that about Fleetwood Mac or any band really.



Yes, but you (and I for that matter) don't understand in the same way as someone who saw it all happening. I remember the great late DJ John Peel saying that younger people today don't understand how important Elvis was: the music world and youth culture changed completely when he came along. The change, he said, was striking, he literally changed everything almost overnight. Now you could argue that someone else would have done it if Elvis hadn't but that doesn't make him any less important.


The point i was (badly:D) trying to make was that if anybody else could have come along and done the same then they can't be gods. They're just quick.
I wasn't trying to say that they are less important (infact i think they are one of the most important atrists in music) i was just reffering to them being called gods.

[trackaghost]

The point i was (badly:D) trying to make was that if anybody else could have come along and done the same then they can't be gods. They're just quick.
I wasn't trying to say that they are less important (infact i think they are one of the most important atrists in music) i was just reffering to them being called gods.

Come on, not just anybody could have done it! You're making it sound like you or I, if we had been around at the time, could have written the songs they did and had the impact they did. The Beatles were special, they weren't just "quick". Were there other special bands around then that could have possibly done what they did? Sure, inevitably it would have happened, music would have continued to evolve with or without them although probably in a different way, that doesn't make The Beatles' achievements any less special or amazing.

Also, I think people are taking ChiliD's "Gods" comments too literally. To me he was just exaggerating for effect the high esteem he holds them in. Given we're all here spending way too much time talking and obsessing about another band, surely people can relate to that.

[ButterCookie]

I wish I'd kept my big mouth shut now, jeesh.

[blondyy-x]

Come on, not just anybody could have done it! You're making it sound like you or I, if we had been around at the time, could have written the songs they did and had the impact they did. The Beatles were special, they weren't just "quick". Were there other special bands around then that could have possibly done what they did? Sure, inevitably it would have happened, music would have continued to evolve with or without them although probably in a different way, that doesn't make The Beatles' achievements any less special or amazing.

Also, I think people are taking ChiliD's "Gods" comments too literally. To me he was just exaggerating for effect the high esteem he holds them in. Given we're all here spending way too much time talking and obsessing about another band, surely people can relate to that.

I didn't mean anybody as in you and I, i meant other artists at the time. I'm not good at writing down opinions or explaining stuff on paper. And again, im not saying that they are less special or amazing. I'm a fan, really. And i'm new to the boards, meaning i don't know what ChiliD meant, i don't know the context he types in and i can't read his personality. So when he said Gods i took it as Gods. Now that i know what he actually meant, i understand.

[DefDumbandBlond]

It's obvious we all have different opinions on the Beatles, and who was most important, etc. Clearly the Beatles had an impact on music, no doubting that, but I think (and I'm sure a few others can agree) that this arguing has gone on long enough, and I doubt nobody is going to change anyone else's minds about how they feel about the Beatles, so I think we should just getting back to talking about the band we are all actually here to talk about.

[trackaghost]

I wish I'd kept my big mouth shut now, jeesh.

Seriously? This has been one of the most interesting discussions on here in ages I think! :laugh:

so I think we should just getting back to talking about the band we are all actually here to talk about.

So discussions outside of gushing about Fleetwood Mac aren't allowed here now? As long as I've been a member they have. Clearly some people want to talk about this even if you don't.

[trackaghost]

I might not love Paul, Ringo, George, and John but I love the bands they made possible.

I completely agree! There are so many bands I love that formed because they wanted to be like The Beatles. Maybe they would have formed anyway but they would have been different bands. Even The Byrds, the band that arguably started the whole folk-rock thing, formed inspired by The Beatles and I'd say that the Stevie/Lindsey line-up of Fleetwood Mac owes a debt to that.

[ButterCookie]

So discussions outside of gushing about Fleetwood Mac aren't allowed here now? As long as I've been a member they have. Clearly some people want to talk about this even if you don't.

Woah, erm, Rude much? I think, upon reading DefDumbandBlond's post again, you could re-interpret it that I've managed to sway this poor thread about the Band into a pretty nasty debate about the Beatles and that she wants to get back onto the subject of Fleetwood Mac, as do I.

[trackaghost]

Woah, erm, Rude much? I think, upon reading DefDumbandBlond's post again, you could re-interpret it that I've managed to sway this poor thread about the Band into a pretty nasty debate about the Beatles and that she wants to get back onto the subject of Fleetwood Mac, as do I.

Are you serious? How is it a nasty debate? Threads often veer off topic into interesting territory. Just because they are not completely about Fleetwood Mac doesn't make them any less worthy.

[ButterCookie]

Are you serious? How is it a nasty debate? Threads often veer of topic into interesting territory. Just because they are not completely about Fleetwood Mac doesn't make them any less worthy.

I was referring sheer amount of contradiction and how some of these posts read. :distress:

[trackaghost]

I was referring sheer amount of contradiction and how some of these posts read. :distress:

I really don't see any nastiness here, just a discussion. If you think this thread is nasty please report it to the mods but if people aren't allowed to disagree and argue their opposing points then it takes away a huge part of what this board has always been about.

[DefDumbandBlond]

So discussions outside of gushing about Fleetwood Mac aren't allowed here now? As long as I've been a member they have. Clearly some people want to talk about this even if you don't.

I don't believe anywhere in my post I said it wasn't allowed. Not everyone here wants to 'gush' about The Beatles apparently, and I and quite a few others on here aren't the type of people who like to nit pick over things and keep arguing about something that everyone has a different opinion about. Sure people are allowed to argue their points, but who wants to come on the computer, which usually people do to relax during the day, to come on here and argue back and forth? Certainly not me. I don't get my kicks out of it.

[trackaghost]

But you don't have to join in or read it, so I don't understand what the problem is.

[ButterCookie]

Girls, it appears the mods on the other forums we use have allowed us to lead sheltered lives.

[DefDumbandBlond]

But you don't have to join in or read it, so I don't understand what the problem is.

No, I don't HAVE to read it. The problem is that I and quite a few others on here WANT to read about Fleetwood Mac, not pages upon pages of bickering!<img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/9vazcx.png">

[trackaghost]

No, I don't HAVE to read it. The problem is that I and quite a few others on here WANT to read about Fleetwood Mac, not pages upon pages of bickering!>

But there's loads of threads here about Fleetwood Mac :confused: You don't need to read this one if it annoys you so.
And there's discussions or "bickering" as you call it, in many of them too.

[carrie721]

Are you serious? How is it a nasty debate? Threads often veer of topic into interesting territory. Just because they are not completely about Fleetwood Mac doesn't make them any less worthy.

why are you so mean, sharon???

I don't believe anywhere in my post I said it wasn't allowed. Not everyone here wants to 'gush' about The Beatles apparently, and I and quite a few others on here aren't the type of people who like to nit pick over things and keep arguing about something that everyone has a different opinion about. Sure people are allowed to argue their points, but who wants to come on the computer, which usually people do to relax during the day, to come on here and argue back and forth? Certainly not me. I don't get my kicks out of it.

WELCOME TO THE LEDGE.

if you do not want to have spirited debate; if you do not wish to be required to back up your claims/opinions; if you just want to talk about how awesome this/that/the other thing is without worrying that someone might have a dissenting thought, please check out seven wonders, as i hear there are few thoughts there, period, let alone dissenting ones.

[David]

I just thought I'd point out that a large chunk of the Beatles best work probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Beach Boys. Pet Sounds was a major influence on their post-Revolver work, especially SPLHCB. They were also a MAJOR influence on Lindsey.I agree here. The tradition of orchestrations & arrangements -- the very notion itself that a track is built in a recording environment by layering voicings recorded at different times -- in the Beach Boys & certainly in the Beatles can be traced directly down to Fleetwood Mac during the Buckingham/Dashut/Caillat era.

In that sense, Fleetwood Mac is one of the most noticeable artistic heirs of the Beatles & the Beach Boys.

My own view is that I don't see how it's even possible (or at least how it's likely) to be drawn to Fleetwood Mac's work from 1977 to 1987 & not to find anything to like in the George Martin Beatles productions. They have so much in common in terms of methods (for example, employing instruments in ways for which they weren't specifically designed), tracking philosophies, even sounds. But I've always held a view that is a personal quirk: To adore Fleetwood Mac without being aware of Mac's Beatles-inspired track-building creativity is to miss the fundamental strength of the Mac from that period.

[trackaghost]

why are you so mean, sharon???


Are you saying this because I spelled "off-topic" with only one "f"? :'(


I just thought I'd point out that a large chunk of the Beatles best work probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Beach Boys. Pet Sounds was a major influence on their post-Revolver work, especially SPLHCB. They were also a MAJOR influence on Lindsey.

Very true although Brian Wilson was in turn inspired by The Beatles. Didn't he in fact make his masterpiece Pet Sounds because he wanted to make a better album than Rubber Soul (or was it Revolver)?



In that sense, Fleetwood Mac is one of the most noticeable artistic heirs of the Beatles & the Beach Boys.

My own view is that I don't see how it's even possible (or at least how it's likely) to be drawn to Fleetwood Mac's work from 1977 to 1987 & not to find anything to like in the George Martin Beatles productions. They have so much in common in terms of methods (for example, employing instruments in ways for which they weren't specifically designed), tracking philosophies, even sounds. But I've always held a view that is a personal quirk: To adore Fleetwood Mac without being aware of Mac's Beatles-inspired track-building creativity is to miss the fundamental strength of the Mac from that period.

Interesting. Thanks for that David. I always wondered how influenced Lindsey was by The Beatles. I know he did that George Harrison cover but I was sure there was more of an influence than that. Do you know if he, or any of the Mac, ever spoke about it?

[michelej1]

Interesting. Thanks for that David. I always wondered how influenced Lindsey was by The Beatles. I know he did that George Harrison cover but I was sure there was more of an influence than that. Do you know if he, or any of the Mac, ever spoke about it?

I've heard Lindsey talking about them, but what I really remember is how Stevie said she was a little bit angry with them because Lindsey kept pushing the Beatles on her and she just got weary of hearing about them from him.

Michele

[jbrownsjr]

why are you so mean, sharon???



WELCOME TO THE LEDGE.

if you do not want to have spirited debate; if you do not wish to be required to back up your claims/opinions; if you just want to talk about how awesome this/that/the other thing is without worrying that someone might have a dissenting thought, please check out seven wonders, as i hear there are few thoughts there, period, let alone dissenting ones.

dId you say dissention?

[trackaghost]

I've heard Lindsey talking about them, but what I really remember is how Stevie said she was a little bit angry with them because Lindsey kept pushing the Beatles on her and she just got weary of hearing about them from him.

Michele

Now you say it I remember that too, that's pretty funny :laugh:
I can imagine Lindsey being more of a fan than Stevie although she did say that she wrote Edge Of Seventeen partly inspired by John Lennon's death so she must have admired him a little at least.

[Fleetwoodmark]

ELO in my opinion were far better than the Beatles. Jeff Lynne wrote much more catchy songs.

Yes I know he was influenced by them.

[jaycee]

ELO in my opinion were far better than the Beatles. Jeff Lynne wrote much more catchy songs.

Yes I know he was influenced by them.

Excellent! Another point of contention for everyone! Especially because I agree! :nod: :laugh: As a side, my favourite ELO song is "Wild West Hero". Anyone here heard of that?
Hell, let's go for gold! I'm listening to "Days of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues at the moment. It is an incredible album! There is a 2008 remaster of it, with additional tracks. Do yourself a favour right now and buy it! (And listen to the album and additional tracks separately, as the album is a "concept album" and markedly different to the other tracks. I made a playlist of each separately on my computer...) I think, in addition to FM, The Moody Blues were more creative than The Beatles in the musical (not songwriting) sense. Although I think The Moody Blues were slightly more evolutionary than FM's revolutionary changes between albums. (Oops! I said I'd reserve all comments against The Beatles creativity until after I listened to their albums! :sorry: It won't happen again! :sorry:) Thus, for me at least, FM > The Moody Blues.
Will this thread now become the one wth the most posts ever? Only time will tell...

[Fleetwoodmark]

Yeah Wild West Hero is one of the best, There are so many though !