Where does Fleetwood Mac rank among the greatest bands?

[bethelblues]

OK, I've been wanting to start this thread for a while now. I'm sure there are older threads from years long ago, but rather than resurrect a similar topic I wanted to start my own. If one exists recently, please go ahead and delete this.

I've always been fascinated of conversations of the greatest bands of all time and I'm genuinely interested where people think Fleetwood Mac should be placed. Of course, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are at the top and can serve as modes of comparison. The Beatles had a huge output of diverse and influential music over a short but consistently great time period. It's amazing to think how much they produced in so short a time. Can any band match the Beatles capacity to take on and master so many genres, over just half a decade for that matter? They were a cultural phenomenon, accumulating 20 number-one hits, and were synonymous with the British invasion. Also, Paul, John, and George saw enormous success as solo artists. For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out. Their longevity, though some people would count their dud albums against them, is unparalleled. They stayed together and continue to make it work, and their social relevance in the late 60s and 70s defined the Vietnam era. Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are among the best songs ever written. Also, the Stones were noted for their live performances, musicianship, the power and danger of Mick Jagger, and singular style, while the Beatles were more a studio band, another metric to keep in mind. What both groups have in common is that they consistently put out outstanding albums, often four or five in a row: the examples: Sgt. Pepper--probably the Citizen Kane of albums, Exile on Main Street, The White Album, Let It Bleed, Revolver, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

We all love Fleetwood Mac, a band that deserves to be in this conversation and should be acknowledged for its entire history not just the most popular Rumours era, as it seems Rolling Stone magazine tends to classify the band as more pop and less an extension of rock and roll. Only recently has that magazine in its rankings recognized Lindsey as a top 100 rock guitarist, which is way overdue. There are certainly some strong albums: one an acknowledged classic (Rumours), one a bit more divisive though some argue it's the band's best (Tusk), a few forgotten gems, a few duds. There are certainly great songs: Go Your Own Way, The Chain, Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon, Oh Well, Albatross, You Make Loving Fun, Dreams. Some songs had searing power, but none really achieved a distinguished social relevance. There are the infamous live performances, which are known to be more rock and roll than the studio output. There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band. There was Grammy recognition, there was a number-one hit, a few number-one albums. There's diversity of material, music videos (Lindsey's lip synching :eek:). And of course, there's one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history with John and Mick. So, when we step back and objectively consider Fleetwood Mac's place among the best, WHERE DOES THE BAND BELONG? Are they slightly below the Beatles and the Stones, with Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and The Who? Are they slightly below those groups? Do they surpass probably the biggest band today U2? Are they the greatest band to come out of the 70s, say vs. the pop contemporary Eagles? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[Jondalar]

OK, I've been wanting to start this thread for a while now. I'm sure there are older threads from years long ago, but rather than resurrect a similar topic I wanted to start my own. If one exists recently, please go ahead and delete this.

I've always been fascinated of conversations of the greatest bands of all time and I'm genuinely interested where people think Fleetwood Mac should be placed. Of course, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are at the top and can serve as modes of comparison. The Beatles had a huge output of diverse and influential music over a short but consistently great time period. It's amazing to think how much they produced in so short a time. Can any band match the Beatles capacity to take on and master so many genres, over just half a decade for that matter? They were a cultural phenomenon, accumulating 20 number-one hits, and were synonymous with the British invasion. Also, Paul, John, and George saw enormous success as solo artists. For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out. Their longevity, though some people would count their dud albums against them, is unparalleled. They stayed together and continue to make it work, and their social relevance in the late 60s and 70s defined the Vietnam era. Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are among the best songs ever written. Also, the Stones were noted for their live performances, musicianship, the power and danger of Mick Jagger, and singular style, while the Beatles were more a studio band, another metric to keep in mind. What both groups have in common is that they consistently put out outstanding albums, often four or five in a row: the examples: Sgt. Pepper--probably the Citizen Kane of albums, Exile on Main Street, The White Album, Let It Bleed, Revolver, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

We all love Fleetwood Mac, a band that deserves to be in this conversation and should be acknowledged for its entire history not just the most popular Rumours era, as it seems Rolling Stone magazine tends to classify the band as more pop and less an extension of rock and roll. Only recently has that magazine in its rankings recognized Lindsey as a top 100 rock guitarist, which is way overdue. There are certainly some strong albums: one an acknowledged classic (Rumours), one a bit more divisive though some argue it's the band's best (Tusk), a few forgotten gems, a few duds. There are certainly great songs: Go Your Own Way, The Chain, Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon, Oh Well, Albatross, You Make Loving Fun, Dreams. Some songs had searing power, but none really achieved a distinguished social relevance. There are the infamous live performances, which are known to be more rock and roll than the studio output. There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band. There was Grammy recognition, there was a number-one hit, a few number-one albums. There's diversity of material, music videos (Lindsey's lip synching :eek:). And of course, there's one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history with John and Mick. So, when we step back and objectively consider Fleetwood Mac's place among the best, WHERE DOES THE BAND BELONG? Are they slightly below the Beatles and the Stones, with Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and The Who? Are they slightly below those groups? Do they surpass probably the biggest band today U2? Are they the greatest band to come out of the 70s, say vs. the pop contemporary Eagles? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

They are the most relevant band from the 70s right now. They have stood the test of the time.

[SteveMacD]

I think their music is great, but I think their story, '67 - '80, is the most interesting thing about them. Few bands could have thrived during all of that.

That being said, the other bands you listed were bands that changed the landscape popular music. Fleetwood Mac wasn't an especially innovative band. There was nothing too unique about their music, per se.

[AncientQueen]

In conversations, it always seems that bands like Led Zeppelin, Depeche Mode and the Rolling Stones are farmore acceptable to like. when I simply state 2I love FM" I usually get that look and either:
- Ah, Peter Green was good, after that, they were just two chicks doing some stuff.
- They were great in the 60s but sold out.
- Humming "tell me lies, sweet little lies" followed by the "your taste in music is so basic, girl" look.

I don't have illusions of grandeur when it comes to the critical success of my favorite band since 1979. But that doesn't make their music less good or their history less fascinating.

[tilthefirefades]

I do agree that they have stood the test of time greatly. In my personal social circle they are without a doubt the most recognizable through their music. My friends would absolutely recognize Landslide before their rivals, except maybe Hotel California. As for the bands even further back, it is hard to determine what makes a band the greatest. When I take casual fans and introduce them to Storms or Bleed to Love Her. They are always surprised, that would be Fleetwood Mac's flaw. That their popular music pales in comparison to the deeper cuts. The Dance was a universal success and perhaps the only reason people generated enough interest for further projects. They need that now, kind of a final test to their legacy. They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

[bethelblues]

I do agree that they have stood the test of time greatly. In my personal social circle they are without a doubt the most recognizable through their music. My friends would absolutely recognize Landslide before their rivals, except maybe Hotel California. As for the bands even further back, it is hard to determine what makes a band the greatest. When I take casual fans and introduce them to Storms or Bleed to Love Her. They are always surprised, that would be Fleetwood Mac's flaw. That their popular music pales in comparison to the deeper cuts. The Dance was a universal success and perhaps the only reason people generated enough interest for further projects. They need that now, kind of a final test to their legacy. They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

Maybe that "new Dance" you mention could be a special, taped 50th anniversary concert that must absolutely highlight all eras of the band. Remind audiences of Albatross, the deeper cuts, the massive hits, the rock credibility. It seems like Lindsey, in particular, constantly must do Big Love and So Afraid to beat into the heads of reviewers and audiences how great of a guitarist he is...and the critics still go ahead and forget him following that moment. I think such a complete concert would force a re-evaluation of the band and again stress to the uninformed that Fleetwood Mac was way more than just a pop band. Another "new Dance" could come in the form of a film, which if done correctly (and the potential is great for an excellent movie if done by the right filmmaker---there really is no definitive film of the music industry, I think a Goodfellas approach, an entry into that world would be perfect) would bring about a huge resurgence of interest, though it should be said they are in no trouble like some of their contemporaries. Fleetwood Mac is still packing arenas and will never have to go to smaller venues.

[WildHearted]

Being a huge fan, I personally would put them with that second tier that you listed, but I think the general public may put them more with the tier below that, alongside the likes of the Eagles and such.

However, like tilthefirefades said, I think FM are surprisingly recognizable right now, especially by people in my generation (late teens, early 20s). Moreso than a lot of other bands from the 70s/80s for sure.

[Dragonfly]

I was only thinking about this today -

Blondie are playing in my home town in a few days and they were MASSIVE in the UK in the 70s and early 80s, had more hits than FM, and seemed to be bigger at the time - however they are playing fairly small venues (the one in my home town holds only 1,200).

Mac are playing at the likes of the Manchester Arena which holds 21,000 and I think the London 02 holds about 19,000 which they've filled 3 times.

To have formed in the 60s and still be able to sell tickets at that rate makes them a big deal, and Say You Will although not a big seller still made the UK and US top 10.

I'd put them at the top of the second tier, and U2 should be lower than them, by several notches! Apologies to any of their fans:sorry:

[MikeInNV]

Blondie are playing in my home town in a few days and they were MASSIVE in the UK in the 70s and early 80s, had more hits than FM, and seemed to be bigger at the time - however they are playing fairly small venues (the one in my home town holds only 1,200).

Are you going to see them? Did you take your screen name from their song?

[Dragonfly]

Are you going to see them? Did you take your screen name from their song?

Blondie or Mac?

I'm not going to see either sadly as I'm not too well, although if I was having a good spell I'd try and snag a last minute Mac ticket if it was a good one:D

I love the song Dragonfly and the video is quite cool I think, so yes you are right!

[Iktomi]

I consider myself a big fan of Fleetwood Mac's music now, but long prior to having any interest in Fleetwood Mac, I'd been a fan of some of those other artists/bands that the OP had listed, even as a young tween. So in saying that, I guess to me, the first/second tier would belong to bands/artists who were musically, culturally, and/or socially innovative, deep, or boundary pushing. They are the type of bands that would have college history courses dedicated to them, because their influence was that far-reaching and their presence went above and beyond music and pop culture. These artists, like Dylan or the Beatles, are ingrained in our collective social/cultural consciousness and history, whether you're fan of them or not. Fleetwood Mac is a very great band with very great music, but even with Tusk, they weren't quite as innovative or the movers and shakers as those first-tier/second-tier artists. Even some of the band members themselves would admit that they pushed LB to play it safe. To me, their great musicianship and ear for good pop music though, definitely places them somewhere behind bands like Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, so third tier sounds right.

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

[Dragonfly]

I consider myself a big fan of Fleetwood Mac's music now, but long prior to having any interest in Fleetwood Mac, I'd been a fan of some of those other artists/bands that the OP had listed, even as a young tween. So in saying that, I guess to me, the first/second tier would belong to bands/artists who were musically, culturally, and/or socially innovative, deep, or boundary pushing. They are the type of bands that would have college history courses dedicated to them, because their influence was that far-reaching and their presence went above and beyond music and pop culture. These artists, like Dylan or the Beatles, are ingrained in our collective social/cultural consciousness and history, whether you're fan of them or not. Fleetwood Mac is a very great band with very great music, but even with Tusk, they weren't quite as innovative or the movers and shakers as those first-tier/second-tier artists. Even some of the band members themselves would admit that they pushed LB to play it safe. To me, their great musicianship and ear for good pop music though, definitely places them somewhere behind bands like Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, so third tier sounds right.

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

I think FM were considered quite innovative during the Peter Green years, he is rightly seen as being one of the most influential blues players of all time. After that era though I would agree with you, even though the Chris/Lindsey/Stevie era is my favourite.

I agree about The Who though, I've never really liked more than a couple of their songs.

The Rolling Stones are another band I'm never convinced by. They wrote some amazing stuff during their early years and are still a massive live act, but how many great albums have they produced since the late 70s?? They seemed to give up the ghost as songwriters and concentrate purely on touring.

[bethelblues]

I'm really enjoying this conversation.

I'd put them at the top of the second tier, and U2 should be lower than them, by several notches! Apologies to any of their fans:sorry:

I completely agree with U2. I'm glad you said this. The reason I put that in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing U2 in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to enter the zeitgeist.

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

Listing The Who isn't my personal opinion. I just saw they are generally included and ranked around where people consider Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin (with the latter always ranked at the top of that second tier and recognized with the Kennedy Center Honors this year). The Eagles are an interesting case since many critics believe Hotel California to be the best song written in the 1970s. It actually won the Record of the Year Grammy the same year Rumours won Album of the Year (how none of the songs on Rumours weren't nominated individually in the Record of the Year category baffles me). Their music is also staples on adult contemporary radio stations, like Fleetwood Mac's. But I don't think they can fill the arenas today (could be wrong). In my book they are below Fleetwood Mac, though clearly a contemporary pop band of FM's.

I think FM were considered quite innovative during the Peter Green years, he is rightly seen as being one of the most influential blues players of all time. After that era though I would agree with you, even though the Chris/Lindsey/Stevie era is my favourite.

I agree about The Who though, I've never really liked more than a couple of their songs.

The Rolling Stones are another band I'm never convinced by. They wrote some amazing stuff during their early years and are still a massive live act, but how many great albums have they produced since the late 70s?? They seemed to give up the ghost as songwriters and concentrate purely on touring.

That's what the critics seem to forget, that Fleetwood Mac's history is more than just the Rumours era. I appreciated reading what you said about the Peter Green years, and it was my opinion a few posts back that in a 50th Anniversary Concert Video, Fleetwood Mac should recognize the remarkable history of the band, the different genres and musicians long before Lindsey and Stevie joined. They need to bring back Albatross and Oh Well and FM's version of Black Magic Woman, a Bob Welch tribute...going through the material. This could prompt a re-evaluation of Fleetwood Mac's significance by music critics, which should be important to the band members for it would elevate their legacies. Also, as I said, magazines like Rolling Stone continue to limit Fleetwood Mac as a pop band. Such a concert could expand this and again make everyone realize how great a guitar player Lindsey is, how their live shows do have a rock edge, how Stevie is not washed up and totally owning her songs (Gold Dust Woman has been insane recently!!). I also think a fiction film of high caliber about the band and inevitably their relationships would also be important.

Re the Stones: Well, they had a core decade or so of amazing music, which is probably only surpassed by the Beatles. Fleetwood Mac had one great album that is recognized as such: Rumours. There are several underrated and arguably forgotten gems from pre Fleetwood Mac Fleetwood Mac 1975. Tusk as I said in the original post continues to divide people to this day. The Stones at their career peak turned out album after album of great material, including several legendary concert films (the foremost being the amazing Gimme Shelter). It's hard to keep up a superior level of songwriting for more than a decade.

[redbird]

Well, I think they are a great pop band. A lot of the time they went to put out music that would make them popular/successful, and they succeeded, and the majority of those songs have not yet become dated, so as far as we can tell right now they're pretty classic. I think they're one of the most memorable pop bands (not that they weren't also a blues band, a rock band, it's just within the pop, uh, ethos that I think they make their biggest mark).

I am not very good with highly specific rankings, I feel that there are a lot of snobbish tendencies and prejudices in rockism and a lot of the accepted canon isn't always the product of Rigorous Standards that music fans often think it is (not that I don't get why The Beatles and Stones get singled ... doubled out ... just that when you try to break things down to specifics often I read a lot of criteria for superiority that I can't get behind). When I read about who's the greatest ever or the greatest today or whatnot, I tend to see rules within traditions but no real reason as to why certain rules should trump others. The reasons people say Radiohead are the best don't seem to apply to Frank Sinatra but I never feel very inclined to choose.

There's the side of me that reads music magazines and can trace patterns in musical fashion as they change throughout time, and there's the side of me that reads neuroscience books about why audio stimulus affects the brain the way it does. You can find parts of western music history where the way to be influential and important was to be, scientifically speaking, simplistic. The way we decide what's valuable is interesting but I always find it difficult to do it myself. I guess I'm too much of a "P" on the Myers-Briggs index :laugh:

But anyway. I don't think they're a top tier band, but I do think they are a bit unfairly sneered upon. They had their share of crap, but if you cut that out you still get a lot of great stuff. If a cult legend that happened to have a band member die before they could make anything more had all of the Mac's stuff in terms of quality they'd be lauded, but because Fleetwood Mac hit it so big they have to deal with the whole "Anything that's popular sucks" idea. They're an important enough band. Maybe second tier depending on how you define it. They didn't define a lot of new rules but they embodied a lot of time-tested ones very well.

PS: And they're definitely better than the Eagles :p

[RockawayBlind]

For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out.


There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band.

Great topic, but I want to take issue with the above two points. First, how do you think the Beatles got started? They used to play 30-minute versions of Chuck Berry songs in Hamburg; that's how they built up their chops as a band.

On the Stevie point, what about Debbie Harry? Sure, Blondie had a shorter run, but in that short run, they had more output than FM has probably had as a band. I don't know, I'd have to count the songs. I would also put Chrisse Hynde up there, and even Pat Benatar. Both were huge for a while. Stevie has had more longevity, but probably more as a result of her solo career than her relatively small role in FM.

Now, where does FM figure in among rock's influential bands? It became obvious in the mid 90s how big an influence FM is. I often hear solos, for instance, that sound like they were ripped of Rumours. To this day, I still hear young artists who, purposely or subconsciously, are channeling FM. Lindsey is a huge influence on a lot of alternative, and post, artists. It's amazing how much of an influence he really is. Now, he may not get the adoration or have the allure that Stevie has, but I would argue he has actually been the bigger influence. And what is especially interesting about that is artists don't so much try to copy Lindsey's guitar playing, but more the overall vibe of song crafting, attitude, boundary-pushing and production values.

[RockawayBlind]

They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

That can't happen now because they have devalued their currency, so to speak, by touring almost continuously for a decade -- with barely any new music as a band. They'd have to go away for a decade, and make a big splashy Dance-like comeback for what you are suggesting to happen. But, sadly, it's too late.

[aleuzzi]

Interesting question. I think FM has a prominent place in the best bands of all time because it has accommodated not one but several lineups. If FM were just the band from 1967-70, then they would always be remembered as a great guitar band that morphed from 12-bar blues to acid jams--with some great songwriting.

If they were remembered for the Rumours-era band alone, they would hold a place as commercial giants with a highly original approach to making great music out of stock-in-trade devices.

But they are both bands--plus an intriguing "middle period" where their somewhat underground music is all well above an acceptable standard and, often, excellent.

Given this, they are pretty unique. Unlike a lot of bands whose music suffered with a good deal of personnel changes--Jefferson Starship is just one that comes to mind--F Mac always kept the quality pretty high.

[bethelblues]

Great topic, but I want to take issue with the above two points.

The argument that the Stones started as a cover band has been used in Beatles vs. Stones conversations. It's not my own. I think maybe what critics mean is that the Stones were a pretty high profile cover band up to the mid-60s, while the Beatles of course covered songs but before they broke out of Liverpool club shows.

Thanks for bringing up a few examples of leading rock ladies in bands. Yeah, I think that was what I was getting at, what you said, Stevie's longevity and continued name recognition today makes her stand out. Glad you mentioned Pat Benatar. She beat Stevie several years in a row at the Grammys. And Debbie Harry's another notable band female lead.

[RockawayBlind]

The argument that the Stones started as a cover band has been used in Beatles vs. Stones conversations. It's not my own. I think maybe what critics mean is that the Stones were a pretty high profile cover band up to the mid-60s, while the Beatles of course covered songs but before they broke out of Liverpool club shows.

Interestingly, and to your point, the Stones covered the Beatles, and the reverse never happened, to my knowledge. The Stones actually released the song "I Wanna Be Your Man," penned by Lennon/McCartney, before the Beatles.

Over the years, there have been lots of comparisons between the two bands, and they are not always fair. Why the Stones get pegged as a covers band originally and the Beatles don't is somewhat confounding. Had the Beatles stayed together through the 70s and beyond, I wonder what they would have become. Despite some unfortunate forays into other genres, like disco (even though Miss You is a kick-ass tune), the Stones pretty much have stayed true to their blues roots. The Beatles probably would have become something very different.

[Stormwind]

Well I think that the band deserves a place in the first/second tier. They were pretty original, the blues of Peter Green's era was fundamental for the whole scene.
The pop of Buckingham-Nicks's era was very influential (successful of course, but that its not the main thing). They had a very personal sound, they remade some cliches of the pop of the time (Beach Boys for what regards for example vocal harmonies) but in a new way, and they also experimented in their way, not in a strict progressive way.

[chiliD]

Had Peter Green, Danny Kirwan & Jeremy Spencer stayed together & not had the illness, religious epiphanies, etc, Fleetwood Mac today would probably have the status we now reserve for Led Zeppelin. PG was 10x's the guitarist Jimmy Page had ever HOPED to be...as a band, Fleetwood Mac was tighter (even on their extended jams) than Zep ever was even on a GOOD night. But, that's all reserved for some parallel universe that only exists in the "what if" filing cabinet of our minds.

The thing is, once bands start shifting personnel (after a bout of huge fame), the mystique is damaged bit by bit.

The Beatles got their personnel changes out of the way before the "Mania" hit full on.

The Rolling Stones shift in personnel was for the better, Brian Jones was pretty much holding them back, then mysteriously left this astral plane, to be replaced by Mick Taylor (Peter Green's replacement in the Bluesbreakers)...the result of which was the Stones took a big leap in both songwriting, record production, etc, etc. and at the time, really DID deserve the "Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World" moniker. Pretty much their ascent to that level was aided immensely by the Beatles calling it a day in 1970, as well. The combination of their already being #2, the addition of Mick Taylor, the move to their own label, when the #1's decided they didn't want to be a band anymore, the Stones were the obvious "next #1". They even are the exception to my "personnel changes" rule too. When Mick Taylor opted out of the Stones, the only REAL choice WAS Ronnie Wood, since Faces had pretty much been dropped by Rod Stewart and closed down their musical drinking establishment. The Stones popularity (and creativity) had another spike. The Stones rode that wave for another decade & a half.


The Who...pretty much were #3 behind Beatles & Stones in the 60's, and were leap-frogged by Led Zeppelin in the 70's, keeping them in the #3 spot, although they gave it a good fight with "Tommy", "Who's Next", "Quadrophenia" & "Who By Numbers"...they just couldn't really survive the death of Keith Moon, although they soldiered on with exactly the WORST choice of drummer to take Moon's place. Kenney Jones was great with Faces, but he was nowhere near Moon's level. And, because of Moon's death and the subsequent dip in quality songwriting (Townshend was obviously affected dramatically by Keith's demise), showed Zeppelin how to respond to the death of their drummer. Just not go on. (at least until the next generation was old enough and able enough to sit in for his father....which The Who followed that process by eventually getting Zak Starkey (Ringo's son, but who had been taught how to play the instrument by "Uncle" Keith Moon, being basically Keith's progeny moreso than Ringo's.)

Somewhere around the mid-70s, some weird little progressive rock band all of a sudden leapt onto the scene pretty much out of nowhere (except for a rabid UK following) and became one of the "Mt Rushmore" candidates of rock & roll...Pink Floyd. Today, they're definitely Top 5.

Fleetwood Mac, yep, they had their "reincarnation" of popularity with Rumours, but by their own hand, they've not shaken that whole Rumours hype/mystique/soap opera. Fleetwood Mac's fame was more non-musical than it was musical. To the point of being the butt of the Rumours joke for quite a while, and they still were trying to keep that whole Rumours thing going...and damned if they still aren't in a lot of ways. That's been a hinderance rather than a boon.


I'd say that these days, Fleetwood Mac would probably be in the Top 10 or 15 bands/artists of all-time, but not much higher than that.

How I'd rank them:

1) Beatles
2) Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) U2
6) Bob Dylan
7) Neil Young
8) Jimi Hendrix Experience
9) Eric Clapton
10) Eagles
11) The Grateful Dead
12) The Doors
13) Prince
14) The Who
15) Fleetwood Mac

[RockawayBlind]

The Rolling Stones shift in personnel was for the better, Brian Jones was pretty much holding them back, then mysteriously left this astral plane, to be replaced by Mick Taylor (Peter Green's replacement in the Bluesbreakers)...the result of which was the Stones took a big leap in both songwriting, record production, etc, etc. and at the time, really DID deserve the "Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World" moniker.

Agreed.


The Who...pretty much were #3 behind Beatles & Stones in the 60's, and were leap-frogged

Eh, OK. Never got The Who. Weird sound with a single-minded message. Never evolved.


Fleetwood Mac, yep, they had their "reincarnation" of popularity with Rumours, but by their own hand, they've not shaken that whole Rumours hype/mystique/soap opera. Fleetwood Mac's fame was more non-musical than it was musical. To the point of being the butt of the Rumours joke for quite a while, and they still were trying to keep that whole Rumours thing going...and damned if they still aren't in a lot of ways. That's been a hinderance rather than a boon.


Yep


1) Beatles
2) Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) U2
6) Bob Dylan
7) Neil Young
8) Jimi Hendrix Experience
9) Eric Clapton
10) Eagles
11) The Grateful Dead
12) The Doors
13) Prince
14) The Who
15) Fleetwood Mac

Good list -- but only if punk had never happened. Where is The Clash? No credit to the Talkin' Heads? Ramones?

And, on a second tier, I would also throw in Violent Femmes, Replacements, and a few others.

[chiliD]

Eh, OK. Never got The Who. Weird sound with a single-minded message. Never evolved.

I don't understand how you could NOT "get" The Who, yet you wonder where on the list The Clash is? No Who, No Clash...simple as that. (also, there wouldn't have been The Jam or Oasis)

The Who never evolved? From "Substitute" & "I Can't Explain & "My Generation" >> "Tommy" >> "Baba O'Riley" & "Won't Get Fooled Again" >>"Squeeze Box" & "Dreaming From The Waist" >> "Who Are You?" >> "Imminence Front" & "The Wire" isn't a progression of evolution? If you don't think so, it is obvious you don't know squat about The Who. :shrug: ;) :D


Good list -- but only if punk had never happened. Where is The Clash? No credit to the Talkin' Heads? Ramones?

And, on a second tier, I would also throw in Violent Femmes, Replacements, and a few others.

We might be seeing this from opposite sides of a Generation Gap. To me, The Clash & most of the punk movement was just derivative from The Who, The Kinks, The MC5, etc. Talk about your "not evolving"...in fact, from my view, (like that weird band from Indiana) the punk movement was a DE-volving. I'll admit that I was (and except for a scant few exceptions of bands that went from a "punk" beginning to taking a quick u-turn back to the corner of "Mainstream Blvd" & "Commercial St") quite dismissive of the whole punk phenomenon. The Clash, Blondie, Patti Smith, The Ramones...and their "New Wave" counterparts Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc., all drank the Mainstream Kool-Aid quite early in their careers...which is one reason we know who they are these days and WHY they're still relevant, but still not near being "Mt Rushmore" in stature of The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, U2, Clapton, Dylan, & Neil Young.

[TrueFaith77]

I don't understand how you could NOT "get" The Who, yet you wonder where on the list The Clash is? No Who, No Clash...simple as that. (also, there wouldn't have been The Jam or Oasis)

The Who never evolved? From "Substitute" & "I Can't Explain & "My Generation" >> "Tommy" >> "Baba O'Riley" & "Won't Get Fooled Again" >>"Squeeze Box" & "Dreaming From The Waist" >> "Who Are You?" >> "Imminence Front" & "The Wire" isn't a progression of evolution? If you don't think so, it is obvious you don't know squat about The Who. :shrug: ;) :D



We might be seeing this from opposite sides of a Generation Gap. To me, The Clash & most of the punk movement was just derivative from The Who, The Kinks, The MC5, etc. Talk about your "not evolving"...in fact, from my view, (like that weird band from Indiana) the punk movement was a DE-volving. I'll admit that I was (and except for a scant few exceptions of bands that went from a "punk" beginning to taking a quick u-turn back to the corner of "Mainstream Blvd" & "Commercial St") quite dismissive of the whole punk phenomenon. The Clash, Blondie, Patti Smith, The Ramones...and their "New Wave" counterparts Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc., all drank the Mainstream Kool-Aid quite early in their careers...which is one reason we know who they are these days and WHY they're still relevant, but still not near being "Mt Rushmore" in stature of The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, U2, Clapton, Dylan, & Neil Young.

How can u2 even be considered amongst that league or their lessers? ugh. u2 are nothing compared to their contemporaries Echo & the Bunnymen and Simple Minds.

[RockawayBlind]

If you don't think so, it is obvious you don't know squat about The Who. :shrug: ;) :D

LOL, I have no problem admitting that!


We might be seeing this from opposite sides of a Generation Gap. To me, The Clash & most of the punk movement was just derivative from The Who, The Kinks, The MC5, etc. Talk about your "not evolving"...in fact, from my view, (like that weird band from Indiana) the punk movement was a DE-volving. I'll admit that I was (and except for a scant few exceptions of bands that went from a "punk" beginning to taking a quick u-turn back to the corner of "Mainstream Blvd" & "Commercial St") quite dismissive of the whole punk phenomenon. The Clash, Blondie, Patti Smith, The Ramones...and their "New Wave" counterparts Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc., all drank the Mainstream Kool-Aid quite early in their careers...which is one reason we know who they are these days and WHY they're still relevant, but still not near being "Mt Rushmore" in stature of The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, U2, Clapton, Dylan, & Neil Young.

It's true the bands you mention aren't on the same plain with the Stones, the Beatles, Clapton and others in terms of influence. But you sneakily added U2 to that list while dismissing punk. Also, I think history will look back and see The Clash as a very influential band. I would throw the Ramones in there too, but I will concede the band -- unfairly, in my opinion -- doesn't get the same level of respect.

I'm not a huge punk fan really, but I wouldn't dismiss the movement so easily. You wouldn't have Green Day and a whole host of other bands without it. Also, FM's history would have been very different without it. Sit back and think about whether FM would have the widespread respect it has today if so many artists in the 1990s hadn't rediscovered it and cited it as an influence. Could that have happened if FM had gone the way of Bread or America, which is what likely would have happened if Lindsey hadn't gotten bitten by the punk bug?

Also, it occurs to me your list doesn't include Springsteen. And you completely dismiss Nirvana and Pearl Jam -- again not favorites of mine but hard to dismiss as unimportant in terms of influence.

Of course, you can put whomever you want on your list, but as long as we're having fun arguing this stuff... :D

[RockawayBlind]

How can u2 even be considered amongst that league or their lessers? ugh. u2 are nothing compared to their contemporaries Echo & the Bunnymen and Simple Minds.

!!!

Would you argue those two bands have had the kind of influence U2 has had and continues to have?

[bethelblues]

This is how I read U2 earlier. I wonder if it's too harsh a read of them--let me know if anyone agrees or if I'm completely off. The reason I put U2 in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing them in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to insert themselves into the zeitgeist.

[RockawayBlind]

This is how I read U2 earlier. I wonder if it's too harsh a read of them--let me know if anyone agrees or if I'm completely off. The reason I put U2 in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing them in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to insert themselves into the zeitgeist.

Early on U2 was pretty innovative, out of necessity to some extent. But that's really a recurring rock 'n roll story. I don't think U2 would be as relevant today if they hadn't reinvented themselves. Remember all the flack they took with Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum for turning to the blues? Now, looking back, that was the right move to make. And I don't think it was contrived like some of what followed. I'm thinking of Discotheque type stuff.

Before I ever got into U2, I remember fans of the band talking about how their shows were transcendent, like nothing any other band did. You can't minimize that as huge part of the band's mystique. Bono is a blowhard, but he's also very charismatic, and many millions of people around the world love him.

[Macfanforever]

Yes .FM is one of the best bands around. But underrated.


I think any band from the 1950's to the 1980's will rank on the top.

Probably can add a handful from the 1990's as will.


I like most of the bands mentioned in this thread.

I was shocked when FM was inducted into the RR hall a fame years ago.
I'm still pissed as the rest of you about having ALL past members in the hall a fame along with the current lineup.

[redbird]

Sit back and think about whether FM would have the widespread respect it has today if so many artists in the 1990s hadn't rediscovered it and cited it as an influence. Could that have happened if FM had gone the way of Bread or America, which is what likely would have happened if Lindsey hadn't gotten bitten by the punk bug?

They would've had a harder time with the rock critics, undoubtedly. For a lot of younger people, Rumours gets them to like Fleetwood Mac and Tusk gets them to admit it. (I generalize, but that's what "best ever" lists do anyway.)

[Stormwind]

They would've had a harder time with the rock critics, undoubtedly. For a lot of younger people, Rumours gets them to like Fleetwood Mac and Tusk gets them to admit it. (I generalize, but that's what "best ever" lists do anyway.)

I agree, I think that Tusk was fundamental for the band

[michelej1]

!!!



You guys are cracking me up.

Michele

[seekerj]

You guys are cracking me up.

Michele

Me, too!

Plus, I believe this discussion is lasting longer than punk itself did.

[bethelblues]

I was shocked when FM was inducted into the RR hall a fame years ago.
I'm still pissed as the rest of you about having ALL past members in the hall a fame along with the current lineup.

Wasn't that the band's choice, to leave out certain members? Especially on the part of Christine with regard to Bob Welch.

[elle]

\Wasn't that the band's choice, to leave out certain members?

seems that officially it is not a band's choice, that members who are inducted are chosen according to how "worthy" of induction certain periods of that band are. however, it also seems there can be a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on, and after being selected for induction some bands insisted that e.g., all their members from any era be inducted. apparently, FM didn't.

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i399/ellellew/P1030242FM2_zps2124efb8.jpg (http://s1091.photobucket.com/user/ellellew/media/P1030242FM2_zps2124efb8.jpg.html)

[Sleepless-Child]

Agreed.



Good list -- but only if punk had never happened. Where is The Clash? No credit to the Talkin' Heads? Ramones?

And, on second tier, I would also throw in Violent Femmes, Replacements, and a few others.


:laugh: exactly. I however disagree with you, Fleetwood Mac > Violent Femmes in terms of influence.
Now what about Nirvana and Pixies?

[RockawayBlind]

Me, too!

Plus, I believe this discussion is lasting longer than punk itself did.

LOL.

But remember, punk lives on in bands like Green Day and, and .... well I'm sure there's others. Some years back, there was a lot of punk-pop: Jimmy Eat World, The Hives, The Killers, etc.

And, let's not forget The Strokes. Had they happened at a time when music wasn't being stolen left and right, they would probably have become a real icon.

[RockawayBlind]

:laugh: exactly. I however disagree with you, Fleetwood Mac > Violent Femmes in terms of influence.

Yeah, I agree with that. If anything, it might have been the Violent Femmes influencing Lindsey at that point. Did he ever mention them? I know he used to cite Talking Heads and The Clash as influences.

[RockawayBlind]

I also believe that some 90s and 00s bands have gone short shrift here. Dave Matthews has been unbelievably influential. At one point his band was the only one that could sell out stadiums when everybody else was struggling to sell tickets. There have been so many wannabes, it's crazy. Just last year, the kid that won American Idol was a Dave Matthews imitator.

Then there's John Mayer. His story is only halfway written, and he will be around a long time.

Phish had and has a lot of influence, second only to Grateful Dead in the jam band category.

The Goo Good Dolls were huge, and might make a comeback someday.

The Foo Fighters have definitely carved a place for themselves in rock history.

And Cracker. Doesn't anyone remember Cracker? OK, not huge, but it's my favorite band.

And I will say this: Any rock band that can be huge today (and I am not counting the heavily marketing, pablum-infused Katy Perrys, Gagas and Pinks of the world), is truly huge. It's just so hard to get attention, so getting the kind of recognition that makes you a superstar as a rock artist today is even harder than when FM, the Stones or Led Zep were doing it.

[redbird]

Yeah, the fractured state of pop culture today makes it really hard to compare to anything before 1990, being influential is a lot harder to do. And influence is only one common component of what makes a band the "greatest" but it tends to be an important one.

There's also musicianship, lyrical ability, chart success, etc, although there's the idea in rock that all you are supposed to need is three chords and the truth.

[SteveMacD]

The Beatles
Elvis Presley
Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Byrds
The Beach Boys
Buddy Holly
Booker T & The MG’s
The Yardbirds

[michelej1]

Music Times

http://www.musictimes.com/articles/5901/20140505/5-band-who-hit-their-stride-after-adding-a-new-member-nirvana-rush-and-more.htm

5 Bands Who Hit Their Stride After Adding a New Member: Nirvana, Rush, and more

5. Fleetwood Mac


There are plenty of rockists who insist that the 1967-1974 incarnation of Fleetwood Mac is the only "real" Fleetwood Mac, and those people are obviously wrong. In its early days, Fleetwood Mac was undoubtedly an important part of the English blues scene and featured some incredible guitarists, but nothing from that period even comes close to the music the band made after the inclusion of Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham. "Black Magic Woman" might be a good song, but is it "Landslide"? "Go Your Own Way"? "Everywhere"? Not even close. The Buckingham/Nicks era of Fleetwood Mac is the best Fleetwood Mac.

[MikeVielhaber]

As a side note - I'm not quite sold on including The Who in that second tier as the OP listed (which is admittedly a bias of mine), but I'd argue that the Eagles are well below Fleetwood Mac!

The Eagles had more hits, sold more albums and are still a big concert draw (as are FM). Their last album in 2007 is certified 7X Platinum which means as a double album it's shipped 3.5 million copies. Fleetwood Mac's last album in 2003 went Gold. So I'm not sure how you could argue that they're well below FM. And I'm not an Eagles fan...I like many of their hits, but I'm not familiar with them deeper than that.

[MikeVielhaber]

\

seems that officially it is not a band's choice, that members who are inducted are chosen according to how "worthy" of induction certain periods of that band are. however, it also seems there can be a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on, and after being selected for induction some bands insisted that e.g., all their members from any era be inducted. apparently, FM didn't.



Some weird inductions of recent years include Robert Trujillo of Metallica and Josh Klinghoffer of Red Hot Chili Peppers. Both of them had only released 1 album with their respective bands and both of those albums were about 6 months old at the time of the inductions. At least Trujillo had already been in the band for 5 years before the album. Klinghoffer had not been on tour as an official member of the band before the album. Certainly if it were solely up to the powers that be, those two would not have been inducted. Another odd thing though is that at least every member of Metallica was inducted, but for RHCP they had some members in and others not including Dave Navarro who was part of only one album, but it was a successful one (2X Platinum) while the latest one with Klinghoffer was not particularly (Gold). So I'm not sure who makes the call in the end.

[Jondalar]

The Eagles had more hits, sold more albums and are still a big concert draw (as are FM). Their last album in 2007 is certified 7X Platinum which means as a double album it's shipped 3.5 million copies. Fleetwood Mac's last album in 2003 went Gold. So I'm not sure how you could argue that they're well below FM. And I'm not an Eagles fan...I like many of their hits, but I'm not familiar with them deeper than that.

Ummmm ever since Garth Brooks, country has been in which favors the Eagles. Also FM was missing Christine McVie. The Eagles is modern country. Where is their Tusk? Blah

[Jondalar]

Had Peter Green, Danny Kirwan & Jeremy Spencer stayed together & not had the illness, religious epiphanies, etc, Fleetwood Mac today would probably have the status we now reserve for Led Zeppelin. PG was 10x's the guitarist Jimmy Page had ever HOPED to be...as a band, Fleetwood Mac was tighter (even on their extended jams) than Zep ever was even on a GOOD night. But, that's all reserved for some parallel universe that only exists in the "what if" filing cabinet of our minds.

The thing is, once bands start shifting personnel (after a bout of huge fame), the mystique is damaged bit by bit.

The Beatles got their personnel changes out of the way before the "Mania" hit full on.

The Rolling Stones shift in personnel was for the better, Brian Jones was pretty much holding them back, then mysteriously left this astral plane, to be replaced by Mick Taylor (Peter Green's replacement in the Bluesbreakers)...the result of which was the Stones took a big leap in both songwriting, record production, etc, etc. and at the time, really DID deserve the "Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World" moniker. Pretty much their ascent to that level was aided immensely by the Beatles calling it a day in 1970, as well. The combination of their already being #2, the addition of Mick Taylor, the move to their own label, when the #1's decided they didn't want to be a band anymore, the Stones were the obvious "next #1". They even are the exception to my "personnel changes" rule too. When Mick Taylor opted out of the Stones, the only REAL choice WAS Ronnie Wood, since Faces had pretty much been dropped by Rod Stewart and closed down their musical drinking establishment. The Stones popularity (and creativity) had another spike. The Stones rode that wave for another decade & a half.


The Who...pretty much were #3 behind Beatles & Stones in the 60's, and were leap-frogged by Led Zeppelin in the 70's, keeping them in the #3 spot, although they gave it a good fight with "Tommy", "Who's Next", "Quadrophenia" & "Who By Numbers"...they just couldn't really survive the death of Keith Moon, although they soldiered on with exactly the WORST choice of drummer to take Moon's place. Kenney Jones was great with Faces, but he was nowhere near Moon's level. And, because of Moon's death and the subsequent dip in quality songwriting (Townshend was obviously affected dramatically by Keith's demise), showed Zeppelin how to respond to the death of their drummer. Just not go on. (at least until the next generation was old enough and able enough to sit in for his father....which The Who followed that process by eventually getting Zak Starkey (Ringo's son, but who had been taught how to play the instrument by "Uncle" Keith Moon, being basically Keith's progeny moreso than Ringo's.)

Somewhere around the mid-70s, some weird little progressive rock band all of a sudden leapt onto the scene pretty much out of nowhere (except for a rabid UK following) and became one of the "Mt Rushmore" candidates of rock & roll...Pink Floyd. Today, they're definitely Top 5.

Fleetwood Mac, yep, they had their "reincarnation" of popularity with Rumours, but by their own hand, they've not shaken that whole Rumours hype/mystique/soap opera. Fleetwood Mac's fame was more non-musical than it was musical. To the point of being the butt of the Rumours joke for quite a while, and they still were trying to keep that whole Rumours thing going...and damned if they still aren't in a lot of ways. That's been a hinderance rather than a boon.


I'd say that these days, Fleetwood Mac would probably be in the Top 10 or 15 bands/artists of all-time, but not much higher than that.

How I'd rank them:

1) Beatles
2) Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) U2
6) Bob Dylan
7) Neil Young
8) Jimi Hendrix Experience
9) Eric Clapton
10) Eagles
11) The Grateful Dead
12) The Doors
13) Prince
14) The Who
15) Fleetwood Mac

U2????????????????? Huh, like where - in Ireland? Don't buy that one.

[MikeVielhaber]

Ummmm ever since Garth Brooks, country has been in which favors the Eagles. Also FM was missing Christine McVie. The Eagles is modern country. Where is their Tusk? Blah

We're trying judge objectively where they would place. There's no handicaps or excuses because none of that matters for this discussion (and anyway I don't think Christine's presence would've added another 3 million in sales when it failed to get even 1 million without her). So basically we have to consider how the public in general would view them and their legacy among music fans and not simply our individual opinions on them. That's where all the hit singles, album sales and enduring popularity come into play. And it's all greater than FM by any objective measure.

Whether The Eagles released an album as adventurous or risky as Tusk is irrelevant. Tusk isn't the album FM is most known for anyway, Rumours is, and it sold fewer copies,by a large amount, in 1979 (and to date) at the height of their popularity and when people still bought albums than Long Road Out of Eden sold in 2007 in the digital age. And again I like Fleetwood Mac way more than the Eagles so I think FM is a much better band, but what the Eagles did was enormously popular and still is. Rumours has sold more than any Eagles studio album, but Hotel California comes close. Their greatest hits is neck and neck with Thriller for best selling album ever in the US.

To put a little perspective, FMs greatest hits is their second best selling album after Rumours. The difference in US sales between the Eagles greatest hits and FMs greatest hits is greater than total sales of Rumours. They also had 5 number 1 hits and another just missing at number 2. That is reality whether you like it or not. They both have had immense and enduring popularity and influence, but I'd say, looking at the evidence, the Eagles were/are at a higher level.

[Jondalar]

We're trying judge objectively where they would place. There's no handicaps or excuses because none of that matters for this discussion (and anyway I don't think Christine's presence would've added another 3 million in sales when it failed to get even 1 million without her). So basically we have to consider how the public in general would view them and their legacy among music fans and not simply our individual opinions on them. That's where all the hit singles, album sales and enduring popularity come into play. And it's all greater than FM by any objective measure.

Whether The Eagles released an album as adventurous or risky as Tusk is irrelevant. Tusk isn't the album FM is most known for anyway, Rumours is, and it sold fewer copies,by a large amount, in 1979 (and to date) at the height of their popularity and when people still bought albums than Long Road Out of Eden sold in 2007 in the digital age. And again I like Fleetwood Mac way more than the Eagles so I think FM is a much better band, but what the Eagles did was enormously popular and still is. Rumours has sold more than any Eagles studio album, but Hotel California comes close. Their greatest hits is neck and neck with Thriller for best selling album ever in the US.

To put a little perspective, FMs greatest hits is their second best selling album after Rumours. The difference in US sales between the Eagles greatest hits and FMs greatest hits is greater than total sales of Rumours. They also had 5 number 1 hits and another just missing at number 2. That is reality whether you like it or not. They both have had immense and enduring popularity and influence, but I'd say, looking at the evidence, the Eagles were/are at a higher level.

Greatest hits? It's not a studio album.

[Angel69]

LOL, I have no problem admitting that!




Sit back and think about whether FM would have the widespread respect it has today if so many artists in the 1990s hadn't rediscovered it and cited it as an influence. Could that have happened if FM had gone the way of Bread or America, which is what likely would have happened if Lindsey hadn't gotten bitten by the punk bug?



Fleetwood Mac at any incarnation are light years ahead of Bread and America. Both of those bands while good were basically faceless bands. Meaning that there was no central charismatic figurehead such as Peter Green, Bob Welch, Lindsey Buckingham, Christine McVie and yes even Stevie Nicks. Stevie bless her soul has an undeniable magnetism about her. The woman just radiates power and star quality. :angel:

[MikeVielhaber]

Greatest hits? It's not a studio album.

I wasn't comparing greatest hits to studio albums. Apparently you just skimmed my post. I compared greatest hits to greatest hits. And mentioned that while Rumours has sold more than any Eagles studio album Hotel California is not far behind. Outside of those two albums released around the same time, The Eagles generally were a bigger seller and at the very least no worse. So you could say that FM at their peak popularity were bigger than the Eagles, though not by a lot. But outside of that, probably not.

[Jondalar]

I wasn't comparing greatest hits to studio albums. Apparently you just skimmed my post. I compared greatest hits to greatest hits. And mentioned that while Rumours has sold more than any Eagles studio album Hotel California is not far behind. Outside of those two albums released around the same time, The Eagles generally were a bigger seller and at the very least no worse. So you could say that FM at their peak popularity were bigger than the Eagles, though not by a lot. But outside of that, probably not.

Ok I agree. But Fleetwood Mac is the better band. They experiment musically. The Eagles no.

[Nicks Fan]

What I always found interesting is that Eagles got that award around 99-2000 where they were honored for selling more albums then any othere artist (Including Elvis and The Beatles). I like the Eagles but I am amazed that given there small output of studio albums (7 in 40 odd years) and yet they sold so many. Also everytime they get back together it seems to be bigger then the last time. I like FM more simply because they have more albums and have taken risks in their music. FM unfortuantely will always be defined by Rumors even though they have made some worthy music since then.

[MikeVielhaber]

What I always found interesting is that Eagles got that award around 99-2000 where they were honored for selling more albums then any othere artist (Including Elvis and The Beatles). I like the Eagles but I am amazed that given there small output of studio albums (7 in 40 odd years) and yet they sold so many. Also everytime they get back together it seems to be bigger then the last time. I like FM more simply because they have more albums and have taken risks in their music. FM unfortuantely will always be defined by Rumors even though they have made some worthy music since then.

I'm not sure what that award would've been for because they certainly didn't sell more than the Beatles or Elvis. But it doesn't hurt that their greatest hits album is tied for the best selling album in the US. It took Michael Jackson dying for Thriller to catch up because the Eagles had pulled ahead at one point. They really didn't get crazy sales until that greatest hits album in 1976 and later that year with Hotel California. Everything after that sold a ton...studio albums, live albums, greatest hits albums.

[Jondalar]

We're trying judge objectively where they would place. There's no handicaps or excuses because none of that matters for this discussion (and anyway I don't think Christine's presence would've added another 3 million in sales when it failed to get even 1 million without her). So basically we have to consider how the public in general would view them and their legacy among music fans and not simply our individual opinions on them. That's where all the hit singles, album sales and enduring popularity come into play. And it's all greater than FM by any objective measure.

Whether The Eagles released an album as adventurous or risky as Tusk is irrelevant. Tusk isn't the album FM is most known for anyway, Rumours is, and it sold fewer copies,by a large amount, in 1979 (and to date) at the height of their popularity and when people still bought albums than Long Road Out of Eden sold in 2007 in the digital age. And again I like Fleetwood Mac way more than the Eagles so I think FM is a much better band, but what the Eagles did was enormously popular and still is. Rumours has sold more than any Eagles studio album, but Hotel California comes close. Their greatest hits is neck and neck with Thriller for best selling album ever in the US.

To put a little perspective, FMs greatest hits is their second best selling album after Rumours. The difference in US sales between the Eagles greatest hits and FMs greatest hits is greater than total sales of Rumours. They also had 5 number 1 hits and another just missing at number 2. That is reality whether you like it or not. They both have had immense and enduring popularity and influence, but I'd say, looking at the evidence, the Eagles were/are at a higher level.

I don't think you read the initial question. It had nothing to do with sales. I love the Eagles but they do the same thing over and over again. Fleetwood Mac is more diverse. It's got 3 completely different songwriters which make the bands sound unique. And Fleetwood Mac has experimented musically. I don't think the Eagles are unique. They are the best of the country rock bands, which means a lot. However, there is nothing innovative about them.

[MikeVielhaber]

I don't think you read the initial question. It had nothing to do with sales. I love the Eagles but they do the same thing over and over again. Fleetwood Mac is more diverse. It's got 3 completely different songwriters which make the bands sound unique. And Fleetwood Mac has experimented musically. I don't think the Eagles are unique. They are the best of the country rock bands, which means a lot. However, there is nothing innovative about them.

But it kinda does. All those things you mention are what you value. That's for you personally and it's subjective. As I mentioned, I agree with you. But if we're trying to objectively rank them we have to use some kind of objective measures. So hits, sales, enduring popularity, influence......those would definitely be things to consider.

[Nicks Fan]

I remembered what it was and I stand corrected. This is what was said. I watched an interview that former Eagles member Don Felder gave on the Jeff Probst talk show. He said something about at the millennium they were honored as having the biggest selling album of the 20th Century. I remember him saying something along the lines of when mentioning the Beatles and Elvis he "it was pretty cool to think we outsold them all".

Matt

[FuzzyPlum]

Moving my thread to this old one...


I'm sure this has been pondered often...

...where exactly do Fleetwood Mac sit in the all time list of biggest bands?
In terms of overall sales they are propped up significantly by Rumours compared to many other bands who have a number of mass-selling albums. That said, when I think of the 'biggest bands' I don't necessarily think in terms of overall sales and the number of hit singles- its also about their influence, notoriety etc.

For some reason, over the past ten years or so I think Fleetwood Mac have reached a status that's above where they would generally be placed solely on their body of work.

Excluding FM I'd suggest;

1) The Beatles
2) The Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) The Beach Boys
6) The Eagles
7) AC/DC
8) Queen
9) U2
10) Aerosmith

I'd be inclined to rank FM around The Eagles and AC/DC in terms of their overall status. Anyone agree/disagree?