Why the disdain for Mick?

[PenguinHead]

A lot posts portray Mick in a negative manner, as a heartless "cash grabber."
This seems a bit unfair. All the band members have enjoyed financial wealth from their success. Having lived most of their lives in a higher standard, you can't blame them for wanting to maintain that standard. That is not greed to me.

Unlike the writers in the band, Mick does not get revenue on song royalties. I assume most of his income comes from touring. If you were in his position, wouldn't in be your best interests to keep your job, i.e. keep the band active?

Mick genuinely loves and respects the legacy of Fleetwood Mac. One thing to remember: the music industry is big business. Mick, more than anyone else in the band, is a business man. Instead of castigating him, how about thanking and praising him for being the catalyst that has kept the band together all these years, depsite huge upheavals and challenges?

[jbrownsjr]

I love Mick Fleetwood. If it wasn't for him, this board wouldn't exist.

[Brad]

I think he's great. He's probably one of the most down to earth celebrities out there. I did the Meet and Greet with him this last tour, and if you didn't know who he was, you'd think he was just a really friendly guy you met off the street who likes to tell long stories. He seemed very appreciative, did not rush anything, and really went out of his way to make sure we all had a good experience. You might say the money he was making for the M&G was motivating his behavior, but I don't think you can really fake it that well. He's the only one to do the M&Gs, and I think that says a lot about his character and fan appreciation despite making money off of it. Plus, I agree with the OP. I mean, don't we all work to make as much money as we can? How is his job any different? If it wasn't for him treating the band as a business (which it is), FM would've died a long time ago.

Brad

[brickney723]

I like them all pretty equally actually, they each have their quirks.. Mick seems like a very cool person to me.

[SteveMacD]

He's made some boneheaded business decisions. Outside of that, I don't get it myself. He's always been good the fans, and really that's all that matters.

[cactusjack]

he needs to cash in with meet and greets to pay his alimony, but I'm cool with that - by all accounts it was a great experience and good value for money. I'm really disappointed I didn't get to do one with him in Oz late last year, but I'm assuming he'll do them for the re-scheduled tour this year.

[louielouie2000]

He's made some boneheaded business decisions.

I can't say I've ever seen any true disdain for Mick. However, he incites a lot of eye rolling because he can't seem to keep himself financially solvent after nearly 5 decades of fame. I can see how some fans would be offended by that, especially since some have supported this band for many years.

[SteveMacD]

I can't say I've ever seen any true disdain for Mick. However, he incites a lot of eye rolling because he can't seem to keep himself financially solvent after nearly 5 decades of fame. I can see how some fans would be offended by that, especially since some have supported this band for many years.
But really, that's nobody's business. We don't pay him to make good business decisions. We pay him to see him play drums.

[elle]

A lot posts portray Mick in a negative manner, as a heartless "cash grabber."
This seems a bit unfair.

thank you! i expressed something similar a while ago. it's almost like Mick is a fair game as a punchbag and people are rarely defending him. it seems kinda assumed by many he's a cash-grabbing person and that's his only motif for getting FM together, or doing anything, really.

[PenguinHead]

But really, that's nobody's business. We don't pay him to make good business decisions. We pay him to see him play drums.

Good point. I just don't like seeing him being characterized as being motivated only by a paycheck. If I was offered a chance to spend a day with a member of Fleetwood Mac...although Stevie would be a strong contender, I would choose Mick. He seems like he'd be good company, a lot of fun, and up for anything. I think Stevie would be good company, but with conditions, and a little too intense! I'd be overwhelmed!

[michelej1]

thank you! i expressed something similar a while ago. it's almost like Mick is a fair game as a punchbag and people are rarely defending him. it seems kinda assumed by many he's a cash-grabbing person and that's his only motif for getting FM together, or doing anything, really.

I think Mick loves the band like family. I don't think money is his primary motivation for keeping them together at all. I think he's a very emotional and loving person.

However, I'm disdainful of some things he's done.

Michele

[David]

I think Mick loves the band like family. I don't think money is his primary motivation for keeping them together at all. I think he's a very emotional and loving person.

However, I'm disdainful of some things he's done.

MicheleHis crasser side really started to show itself big when he started his own website years ago. He put a guy in charge of it who was a real weirdo—a scummy Hollywood-agent type. Disgusted fans took to calling this clown "Toad."

Stevie used to say that Mick has expensive tastes. He loves fine clothes, fine cars, fine food, fine real estate. I think he's always been like the majority of the population—he leverages himself to within an inch of his life by buying things that he doesn't have the cash for at the moment so he uses loans based on investments he makes. So when his investments tank, his loans go into default. But all his marketing—sellings wines at Costco, opening dozens of restaurants (and then closing them), selling digital drum instruments and software, etc.—is really no different from what Gene Simmons does. Gene Simmons is just better at it.

But Mick is a very kindhearted guy who has always been accommodating with the news-hungry press.

[Villavic]

I love Mick Fleetwood. If it wasn't for him, this board wouldn't exist.

Yes, and if it wasn't for him, the band would have died long ago.

And whether it's for money or not, thanks to Mick we got all those bonus and unreleased tracks from the special editions (Rumours, Tusk, box set, etc.)

[jbrownsjr]

Yes, and if it wasn't for him, the band would have died long ago.

And whether it's for money or not, thanks to Mick we got all those bonus and unreleased tracks from the special editions (Rumours, Tusk, box set, etc.)

He has, for the most part, kept this band alive when this band was straight lining!!

[sjpdg]

I've never understood the "Mick-bashing" that goes on here either. Sure, the guy's made some poor business decisions (who hasn't?!?!) and gotten cross ways of Stevie more than once, but honestly, I don't think the guy is a bad person.

As others have said, if it wasn't for him, FM would have flatlined long ago. Just look at who he's brought into the band over the years (or at least was involved in bringing them in): Bob Welch, Lindsey and Stevie, Rick and Billy, all awesome players and singers who have made a definite mark on FM. I think he's doing what he can for the FM brand and not doing too poorly of late. He probably doesn't get much at all in terms of royalties, most likely album royalties as he's not a songwriter, but I'm not that music business savvy so I don't know how that works.

He certainly seems a "larger than life" type of celebrity (not just in terms of size), being so boisterous in terms of performance and public personality, no idea if he's that way in private, but sometimes that boisterousness can rub people the wrong way.

I think a lot of people are turned off by the news of his divorces, alimony, business failures, and then we get another FM album or tour, leading to the thought that it's all Mick trying to pay his debts and it's not about the music.

Personally, I think the guys is fantastic and would love to meet him. Honestly, if I had the chance for a "meet & greet", I'd love it to be him and John! I'd be in heaven listening to those guys tell stories about their adventures in the Mac!

[chriskisn]

Probably because Mick would do anything for a dollar. We aren't talking about Fleetwood Mac, of course he wants the band back on the road, although I suspect that isn't necessarily always for the sake of the music or the fans.

You just get the feeling he would lend his name to pretty much anything if it meant a dollar. Mick Fleetwood wines is an example. He didn't grow the wines, he didn't bottle the wines, he just threw his name on some wines he liked and they called it the Mick Fleetwood Collection or some such.

I understand he doesn't make as much money as some of the others in terms of royalties but then again neither does John McVie.

[Brad]

Probably because Mick would do anything for a dollar. We aren't talking about Fleetwood Mac, of course he wants the band back on the road, although I suspect that isn't necessarily always for the sake of the music or the fans.

You just get the feeling he would lend his name to pretty much anything if it meant a dollar. Mick Fleetwood wines is an example. He didn't grow the wines, he didn't bottle the wines, he just threw his name on some wines he liked and they called it the Mick Fleetwood Collection or some such.

I understand he doesn't make as much money as some of the others in terms of royalties but then again neither does John McVie.

But why is that anybody's business but his own (and maybe his family's)? Why would his foolhardy business decisions cause a fan to have "disdain" for him? Does venturing into "get rich quick" schemes (and often failing at them) really affect what a fan thinks of his drumming ability and what he does to keep FM together? I mean, you might say that what he does is "tacky" or in poor taste, but to to have disdain for the guy because of it? I don't get it.

I'm really not trying to be political, but when did doing everything you could in order to make as much money to provide for you and your family become a bad thing? Are we supposed to hit some upper income level and then all of a sudden stop being ambitious and productive and be content living at 75% of our potential? I can see if Mick was trampling on people or screwing them over in the process to do so, but from what I can tell, that's not how he operates. Someone mentioned Jonathan "Toad" Todd from several years ago with the official FM site. Yes, that guy screwed over a lot of fans. But he's gone now and has been gone for years. I don't think Mick hired him in order to screw over fans; he did that himself. Perhaps once he finally got word of and saw how he was treating the fans, that's when he let him go. Or maybe he left for other reasons. Who knows?

Brad

[louielouie2000]

But why is that anybody's business but his own (and maybe his family's)? Why would his foolhardy business decisions cause a fan to have "disdain" for him? Does venturing into "get rich quick" schemes (and often failing at them) really affect what a fan thinks of his drumming ability and what he does to keep FM together? I mean, you might say that what he does is "tacky" or in poor taste, but to to have disdain for the guy because of it? I don't get it.

I'm really not trying to be political, but when did doing everything you could in order to make as much money to provide for you and your family become a bad thing? Are we supposed to hit some upper income level and then all of a sudden stop being ambitious and productive and be content living at 75% of our potential? I can see if Mick was trampling on people or screwing them over in the process to do so, but from what I can tell, that's not how he operates. Someone mentioned Jonathan "Toad" Todd from several years ago with the official FM site. Yes, that guy screwed over a lot of fans. But he's gone now and has been gone for years. I don't think Mick hired him in order to screw over fans; he did that himself. Perhaps once he finally got word of and saw how he was treating the fans, that's when he let him go. Or maybe he left for other reasons. Who knows?

Brad

I have most certainly never seen anyone here criticize the band members over their success. In fact, we all seem to cluck & preen when we see the likes of Lindsey & Stevie on the Richest Rock Stars lists, or Top Grossing Tours of 2013 (etc), Best Selling Album Of All Time lists, et al. We're proud of the band's accomplishments. We continually hope for new albums, albums that will validate our fandom by hitting #1 on the charts. We want the band to be successful.

If anything, we don't get how Mick can squander his fortunes over & over. And that's solely because we want him to be successful. Sure, we bitch about the inflating ticket prices, meet & greets, restaurants, and wines... but we all support these things just the same. There is absolutely no anti-capitalist sentiment around here. If anything, we want more albums, tour books, t-shirts, bumper stickers, concert tickets, and other items to buy. More than anything, I see people complaining that the band doesn't put enough stuff out there for us to purchase.

[TheWILDheart]

I think *all* the members of Fleetwood Mac are guilty of a cash-in at one time or another. The last 2 tours have been complete cash-in's for all 4 members. I'm pretty sure the 2009 tour would have funded Lindsey and Stevie's latest solo efforts. Does that make them bad people? Does it hell. Look at the rave reviews from last years tour and the THOUSANDS of people who paid out to see them and had a bloody good time. Win win for everyone.

I don't think the tours are just cash-in's either. On the 2013 tour especially, they were clearly having a blast on stage. Stevie once said "you have to think 'I would die if I wasn't doing this'. I can't do anything else".

Of course, I would love to see some more new material from the band, but I'm just thankful I've had the chance to see them 3 times now, considering I wasn't around in their peak.

The only cash-in that irritates me slightly is the constant Rumours re-issues. It's been released 6 times now in one format or another. There are other albums that need the remaster treatment and other stuff they could release from the archives, but instead they chose to "celebrate" Rumours. Why? Because it sells. $$$!! But, back to the point, I don't think that's entirely Mick's doing, I think they're all guilty of it. But again, there's nothing wrong with that. Let em cash in, I say! It's only like one of us doing overtime at the office and getting extra in our pay packet that month, just on a larger scale.

[Dex]

I wouldn't say "guilty" of a cash-in is an entirely fair word choice, but certainly all band members have been shown to have commercial interests, and there's nothing wrong with that. Mick's tend to be particularly visible because they often fall well outside the realm of his artistic work. But it's not like he's making biscuits out of ground up orphans or anything. If I thought I could make money by slapping my name on some wine that I like, I might go for it. I can think of very few people who wouldn't consider that opportunity if it came to them. I don't see ventures like that as a fair point of criticism.

I think people can get caught up in this ideal of what an "artist" is supposed to be, and it can seem jarring and unpleasant when we find out that, like everyone else who lives in the world, money matters to artists too. There's an unwritten rule that they're not "supposed to" care about money, and Mick is pretty transparent about refuting that notion.

Personally I'm basically indifferent to Mick. He seems like he's nice enough, but he's a drummer and I'm not really into drums, so I can find little in his body of work to be excited about. *shrugs*

[RockawayBlind]

His crasser side really started to show itself big when he started his own website years ago. He put a guy in charge of it who was a real weirdo—a scummy Hollywood-agent type. Disgusted fans took to calling this clown "Toad."

Yeah, I think people are forgetting how much of a disaster that website was. So many people got banned from it for very silly reasons.

Also, I think people forget how disloyal he was to the rest of the band with his book that came out around 1990. There was a fair number of untruths in it, and Lindsey even responded to it with his song "Wrong" on the Out of the Cradle CD.

[RockawayBlind]

I'm really not trying to be political, but when did doing everything you could in order to make as much money to provide for you and your family become a bad thing? Are we supposed to hit some upper income level and then all of a sudden stop being ambitious and productive and be content living at 75% of our potential? I can see if Mick was trampling on people or screwing them over in the process to do so, but from what I can tell, that's not how he operates.

To me, this is beside the point. The point is the man has had a history of wanting the band to get together only when he needs money. That offends some fans' sensibilities. Secondly, he was very disloyal to Stevie and Lindsey in his book. They may have forgiven him and it's up to them to do that, but it says something about his character that he did it in the first place.

[Jondalar]

I like Mick. God Love him. He is just a money-grubbing whore.

[MikeInNV]

If anything, we don't get how Mick can squander his fortunes over & over.

This. I don't know that I sense that much disdain for Mick, and he has always seemed to me like a very nice person, but he is in an enviable position of being able to make millions every time his band hits the road, so his repeated money woes don't generate a lot of sympathy. Most of us don't have even one chance to make a million, let alone several, so I wish Mick would learn some fiscal responsibility and not just rely on the fact that he can solve his problems by getting his band back together.

[michelej1]

From a reddit post by Mongo1021 with people discussing their favorite brushes with celebrities, 2-10-2014:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1xj01o/which_celebrity_have_you_met_and_were_they_as/?limit=500#cfbwbrd

Mick Fleetwood -- Very well spoken, friendly person. I was a reporter and interviewed him about a restaurant he was opening in Virginia.

[jannieC]

I've always liked Mick and whether he squanders his money or not is none of my business. We all do things "for the money" but that can only hold up for so long. I have always felt that he is the heart of Fleetwood Mac and that he is genuinely devoted to the band. If he tries to make more money via wine or restaurants, more power to him.

I am a Stevie fan, but I don't think I'd want to know her in person. I love her songwriting, voice, etc. What she does in her personal life is none of my business. Same for the rest of the band. If Mick screwed Stevie over (once or more than once) that's also not for me to judge. People screw over the ones they love all the time... :shrug:

[chriskisn]

I don't particularly have disdain for him, I just don't really care one way or another for him. There are a lot of members (and not necessarily in the main five) that I have a lot more time and respect for. I'm not sure why I am supposed to love him just because he drums in a band that bears his name. Sure he's done a lot to keep the band going, but he's also done a lot of things over the years that have caused the band to almost fall apart.

[louielouie2000]

This. I don't know that I sense that much disdain for Mick, and he has always seemed to me like a very nice person, but he is in an enviable position of being able to make millions every time his band hits the road, so his repeated money woes don't generate a lot of sympathy. Most of us don't have even one chance to make a million, let alone several, so I wish Mick would learn some fiscal responsibility and not just rely on the fact that he can solve his problems by getting his band back together.

This is what I've been trying to say- you're far more eloquent with your words than I am. :nod: I don't think any of us disdain Mick for his behavior- we'd just like to see him act more fiscally responsible. He's pushing 70, he can't write too many more scathing Playboy articles to entice the band to bail him out of his financial blues. His days of offering fans a $36,000 seat on his private jet have to be limited, too. I think we'd just all like to see him be able to write the last chapters of Fleetwood Mac history with some stability.

I am a Stevie fan, but I don't think I'd want to know her in person. I love her songwriting, voice, etc. What she does in her personal life is none of my business. Same for the rest of the band. If Mick screwed Stevie over (once or more than once) that's also not for me to judge. People screw over the ones they love all the time... :shrug:

I have zero desire to meet the band members, either. They're a fascinating group of people who make great music. To know them as people would strip away the element of intrigue.

I certainly don't care what Mick may have written about Stevie in his book, or if Christine slapped Lindsey once, or if John is the last one off the wagon. They're all very strong adults who can handle their own battles.

[brickney723]

I am a Stevie fan, but I don't think I'd want to know her in person. I love her songwriting, voice, etc. What she does in her personal life is none of my business. Same for the rest of the band. If Mick screwed Stevie over (once or more than once) that's also not for me to judge. People screw over the ones they love all the time... :shrug:

Agree, and I have absolutely no desire to meet any of the band members either.. I do not want to be recognized at shows- like maybe Lindsey will see me as some crazy, obsessed punter. :shocked: I get that lots of ppl don't feel this way, but I do. Certainly they want ppl- lots and lots of people, to appreciate their music- so of course they appreciate their fans.. but actually getting out there and dealing with fans- like meeting them and talking to them is a job, like it would be for anybody. Having had a position where you were expected to smile, schmooze a bit, and act interested in what people are saying, I understand this completely. I guess going along with that, and though it may be fun to discuss, I'm perplexed when people very seriously want to agendize for them; how exactly they should behave, who exactly they need to be collaborating with, how exactly they should be making their music, even what exactly they should or should not be writing about. :shocked: I'm satisfied just listening to everything and anything they have to say from the heart, lyrically or otherwise, on their own terms- just taking in what is, and leaving it at that.. As a fan, judging (or caring in the least) about the way Mick takes care of his personal finances- other than wanting the best for him- I don't get it.:sorry:

[jbrownsjr]

Agree, and I have absolutely no desire to meet any of the band members either.. I do not want to be recognized at shows- like maybe Lindsey will see me as some crazy, obsessed punter. :shocked: I get that lots of ppl don't feel this way, but I do. Certainly they want ppl- lots and lots of people, to appreciate their music- so of course they appreciate their fans.. but actually getting out there and dealing with fans- like meeting them and talking to them is a job, like it would be for anybody. Having had a position where you were expected to smile, schmooze a bit, and act interested in what people are saying, I understand this completely. I guess going along with that, and though it may be fun to discuss, I'm perplexed when people very seriously want to agendize for them; how exactly they should behave, who exactly they need to be collaborating with, how exactly they should be making their music, even what exactly they should or should not be writing about. :shocked: I'm satisfied just listening to everything and anything they have to say from the heart, lyrically or otherwise, on their own terms- just taking in what is, and leaving it at that.. As a fan, judging (or caring in the least) about the way Mick takes care of his personal finances- other than wanting the best for him- I don't get it.:sorry:

I do a little local show out here in the Valley of Los Angeles. After the show people will come up and want to talk to me and you would not believe some of the stuff that comes out of their mouths. Especially because they've been drinking. I had one audience member start talking about music and then was telling me about his sex life. I can only imagine what kind of questions and conversations FMac members have. People are crazy!! lol

[elle]

apparently i feel differently than some others here. i enjoy meeting and observing interactions among people that interest me, and am curious to see how they'll behave. i don't generally tend to keep almost anybody on a pedestal (definitely not any rock stars), so i guess i cannot be too disappointed when meeting them. their music is a way to make our lives nicer. if we can influence that in some ways (yeah right ;) ), telling Mick at m&gs what we would like them to do, hey it's worth a try!

meeting Mick was definitely interesting. he talks and talks, and has some interesting stories to tell, when people ask him the right questions, or when he's in the mood. i don't see how whether or not he's bankrupt is of any concern to me. and i don't ask him (or care!) what he thinks of me. ;)

[elle]

I do a little local show out here in the Valley of Los Angeles. After the show people will come up and want to talk to me and you would not believe some of the stuff that comes out of their mouths. Especially because they've been drinking. I had one audience member start talking about music and then was telling me about his sex life. I can only imagine what kind of questions and conversations FMac members have. People are crazy!! lol

ha - i'd definitely want to meet you. :)

seriously though, i guess it would depend, but don't you generally enjoy some of those conversations? shows you that you are doing something right if all these people want to talk to you... or maybe something wrong if that's what they are telling you? :D

[jbrownsjr]

ha - i'd definitely want to meet you. :)

seriously though, i guess it would depend, but don't you generally enjoy some of those conversations? shows you that you are doing something right if all these people want to talk to you... or maybe something wrong if that's what they are telling you? :D

I do enjoy them!! But it's only once a week and about 5-10 people out of 100.

I was just thinking that I would not want to be famous like Mick or Lindsey because it does get tiring to talk to people after a show and I want a hot dog or a martini!!!

I would love to meet you Elle. We could argue about FMAc all damn day!!

[jbrownsjr]

apparently i feel differently than some others here. i enjoy meeting and observing interactions among people that interest me, and am curious to see how they'll behave. i don't generally tend to keep almost anybody on a pedestal (definitely not any rock stars), so i guess i cannot be too disappointed when meeting them. their music is a way to make our lives nicer. if we can influence that in some ways (yeah right ;) ), telling Mick at m&gs what we would like them to do, hey it's worth a try!

meeting Mick was definitely interesting. he talks and talks, and has some interesting stories to tell, when people ask him the right questions, or when he's in the mood. i don't see how whether or not he's bankrupt is of any concern to me. and i don't ask him (or care!) what he thinks of me. ;)

I would love to meet the band. I could sit and talk to Christine McVie all day long. I'd probably hug her and get arrested.

[elle]

I do enjoy them!! But it's only once a week and about 5-10 people out of 100.

I was just thinking that I would not want to be famous like Mick or Lindsey because it does get tiring to talk to people after a show and I want a hot dog or a martini!!!

I would love to meet you Elle. We could argue about FMAc all damn day!!
we will one day, hopefully! :)

re having to talk to people after the shows, i understand that's what some entertainers routinely do, so i guess it depends. personally, that's why i like those prearranged paid for m&gs, as both Mick and Lindsey were doing. i don't find enjoyable hanging behind the venues yelling after some people passing by. m&gs are clear-cut - a part of a job for them, and structured for people who are interested in talking to them. it's part of the deal and doesn't take any of their, or your, personal time.

[KarmaContestant]

But really, that's nobody's business. We don't pay him to make good business decisions. We pay him to see him play drums.

Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.

Because I can say, for me, that's where the eye-rolling comes in. Mick can't manage his money, and everyone else (Stevie and/or Lindsey) has to stop what they're doing to bail him out, and it's been portrayed like that in interviews.

That's how it comes across in the media. Fleetwood Mac, since 1991, is only a cash machine that mobilizes when a certain someone needs money, because as a fan for the past 30 years, it's become crystal clear that they aren't doing it for the art.

That said, I have no real disdain for Mick - he is responsible for my exposure to one of the artists who has been a constant soundtrack to my life. But I am able to understand where the disdain comes from when expressed by others.

[KarmaContestant]

But why is that anybody's business but his own (and maybe his family's)?

I'll say it again - Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.

[BlueDenimLamp]

I'll say it again - Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.

This is one of the things I don't like about Mick...Stevie was nice enough to invite Mick to play on her record (IYD) and she even portrays him as a fairly charming guy in the IYD doc and how did he return the favor???While Stevie was doing her "IYD" thing Mick publicly complained about not working and stating that he feared that FM might never tour again...He even went so far as to accuse certain band members (Stevie) of not being loyal to the band...

[michelej1]

Some of the stuff Mick has done that I don't like has impacted me as a fan and consumer. It's not about whether he can afford handmade, italian red shoes for himself.

But all and all, he's done more good than bad and I hold him responsible for Christine's return. The relationship he maintains with each band member individually makes things happen for them as a group. Without him there, they wouldn't be reaching out to each other. I'm grateful to him for that.

But all in all, I don't think it matters whether fans disdain him or not. He's not losing any sleep at night over fan opinion.

Michle

[elle]

Some of the stuff Mick has done that I don't like has impacted me as a fan and consumer. It's not about whether he can afford handmade, italian red shoes for himself.

But all and all, he's done more good than bad and I hold him responsible for Christine's return. The relationship he maintains with each band member individually makes things happen for them as a group. Without him there, they wouldn't be reaching out to each other. I'm grateful to him for that.

But all in all, I don't think it matters whether fans disdain him or not. He's not losing any sleep at night over fan opinion.


i don't think anybody's worried whether Mick's losing any sleep over their opinions. some people are just wondering why are so many fans of this band quick to jump on Mick in the most - for a lack of a better word - disrespectful manner, and blame him for all kinds of stuff, and seemingly not acknowledging all the positives he brings in.

a fresh example from just a second ago in regards to him adding to other artists' opinion (that they were invited to provide) on some patent law revisions:

Mick Fleetwood??? What copyrights does he own???

[michelej1]

i don't think anybody's worried whether Mick's losing any sleep over their opinions.

Well, good. Because once he (his ghostwriter) wrote his book (which was mostly cut and pasted from published magazine articles) I figured he wanted me to form an opinion of him. And I did.

Michele

[jbrownsjr]

Some of the stuff Mick has done that I don't like has impacted me as a fan and consumer. It's not about whether he can afford handmade, italian red shoes for himself.

But all and all, he's done more good than bad and I hold him responsible for Christine's return. The relationship he maintains with each band member individually makes things happen for them as a group. Without him there, they wouldn't be reaching out to each other. I'm grateful to him for that.

But all in all, I don't think it matters whether fans disdain him or not. He's not losing any sleep at night over fan opinion.

Michle

We are agreeing too much lately. Mick is the non-musical glue that holds these people together. Without him, this whole institution would have ended long ago. In heinsight, I give him huge kudos.

[SteveMacD]

This is one of the things I don't like about Mick...Stevie was nice enough to invite Mick to play on her record (IYD) and she even portrays him as a fairly charming guy in the IYD doc and how did he return the favor???While Stevie was doing her "IYD" thing Mick publicly complained about not working and stating that he feared that FM might never tour again...He even went so far as to accuse certain band members (Stevie) of not being loyal to the band...
Stevie verbally committed to doing a Fleetwood Mac tour and backed out to tour with Rod Stewart. The album had already bombed by that point. I think Mick's frustration is completely understandable. I'm sure John and Lindsey felt the exact same way Mick felt. I mean, Lindsey also expressed frustration with Stevie for not wanting to record another record. And frankly, Stevie's no saint. She pisses and moans about the band all the time, especially about Lindsey. What's her excuse?

[SteveMacD]

Well, good. Because once he (his ghostwriter) wrote his book (which was mostly cut and pasted from published magazine articles) I figured he wanted me to form an opinion of him. And I did.
Heaven forbid the drummer for the band that gave us "Rumours" writes a tell-all autobiography. :rolleyes:

[SteveMacD]

Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.
Stevie's in a band. She verbally committed to that band and then pulled out. She was irresponsible to those she committed to. She complains enough about the band/Lindsey that she should be able to take it.

Because I can say, for me, that's where the eye-rolling comes in. Mick can't manage his money, and everyone else (Stevie and/or Lindsey) has to stop what they're doing to bail him out, and it's been portrayed like that in interviews.
Maybe in 1987, but not not since. And, really, Fleetwood Mac bailed out Stevie and Lindsey more than once. They were nobodies going nowhere in 1974, and their careers had stalled by 1994. (Yeah, "Time" bombed, but at least they have the excuse of doing absolutely no promotion for it. What were Stevie's and Lindsey's excuses?) That's why Lindsey hired Mick to play drums on GOS. He knew that Mick would break up that version of Fleetwood Mac (which was already falling apart on its own) for a probable reunion of the classic line-up.

That's how it comes across in the media. Fleetwood Mac, since 1991, is only a cash machine that mobilizes when a certain someone needs money, because as a fan for the past 30 years, it's become crystal clear that they aren't doing it for the art.
It's called being in the band. Mick doesn't get any significant royalty money. The only way he makes money on Fleetwood Mac is when the band tours. How hypocritical everyone is by stating "ooh, Mick needs bailed out again" when Stevie, Lindsey, and Christine all make money on Fleetwood Mac whether or not the band is active.

[MacShadowsBall]

I'm glad that this is being discussed, because I have never understood the dislike/disdane/borderline hatred towards Mick Fleetwood. How can anybody call themselves a Fleetwood Mac fan when he or she can't stand Mick Fleetwood. :sorry:

As far as the recent FM tours, I'm sure thousands of fans enjoyed them as I do watching youtube videos. We weren't exactly getting new Mac songs after Say You Will as Stevie and Lindsey were concentrating on their respective solo careers. Unfortunately that leaves Mick AND John out in the cold.

Lastly when I make of FM related purchase, I don't say to myself, "Boy I hope Mick and company spend my money wisely." Instead I say, "Boy I hope I ENJOY this album/CD/DVD or whatever I just purchased for my ENJOYMENT! :cool:

[michelej1]

Heaven forbid the drummer for the band that gave us "Rumours" writes a tell-all autobiography. :rolleyes:

I'm glad Mick wrote a book. I wish he'd written more of it.

When you write a book, odds are even higher that people will form an opinion of who you are and what they think about that person, than if you hadn't written one. I assume that's what the author wants. That's what he gets.

I was just writing someone about Shirley Temple based on what Myrna Loy said about her in The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer. Then, I went on to note that I didn't like the way Loy used third party quotes to complain about her co-stars instead of coming out and criticizing them herself, when that is what she clearly wanted to do.

The thing is, if Myrna Loy had never written a book, I would know nothing about her except that I liked her work, the Thin Man movies especially, but she put herself out there in an autobiography and I have a fuller impression of who I think she is and what I like and dislike about that person.

Same with Mick.

Michele

[michelej1]

I'm glad that this is being discussed, because I have never understood the dislike/disdane/borderline hatred towards Mick Fleetwood. How can anybody call themselves a Fleetwood Mac fan when he or she can't stand Mick Fleetwood. :sorry:



I think it would be pretty darn easy to like Fleetwood Mac and not like Mick.

I liked Sonny and Cher tremendously and didn't like Cher.

Compartmentalize, baby.

Michele

[RockawayBlind]

I'm glad that this is being discussed, because I have never understood the dislike/disdane/borderline hatred towards Mick Fleetwood. How can anybody call themselves a Fleetwood Mac fan when he or she can't stand Mick Fleetwood. :sorry:


So you can't be a fan of a band if you dislike one member!?

[HomerMcvie]

I think Mick is a very nice guy, and a very well meaning guy. Just not a very smart guy. He's always chosen to live beyond his long term means, and when the slim times come around, "Oh, there's our Mick, in financial trouble again!".

He wants to live like Stevie, but he ain't got the bank for it. Or the wisdom to realize that he doesn't.

[louielouie2000]

So you can't be a fan of a band if you dislike one member!?

I think it would be pretty darn easy to like Fleetwood Mac and not like Mick.

I liked Sonny and Cher tremendously and didn't like Cher.

Compartmentalize, baby.

Michele

I think Mick is a very nice guy, and a very well meaning guy. Just not a very smart guy. He's always chosen to live beyond his long term means, and when the slim times come around, "Oh, there's our Mick, in financial trouble again!".

He wants to live like Stevie, but he ain't got the bank for it. Or the wisdom to realize that he doesn't.

I also think it's possible to totally roll your eyes at any given band member's behavior, yet still adore their musical talent. Same thing goes for being a Stevie fan (for instance), but not liking every single one of her songs. Just because we are fans of this band doesn't mean we have to accept the whole package lock, stock, and barrel with unquestioned adoration.

[KarmaContestant]

Stevie's in a band. She verbally committed to that band and then pulled out. She was irresponsible to those she committed to. She complains enough about the band/Lindsey that she should be able to take it.

I can agree with that, but it's unfair to target Stevie when everyone has quit Fleetwood Mac at one time or another except Mick and John. The great thing about verbal agreements is that they are nonbinding. Stevie not committing to a tour has nothing whatsoever to do with Mick's financial woes.

Maybe in 1987, but not not since. And, really, Fleetwood Mac bailed out Stevie and Lindsey more than once. They were nobodies going nowhere in 1974, and their careers had stalled by 1994. (Yeah, "Time" bombed, but at least they have the excuse of doing absolutely no promotion for it. What were Stevie's and Lindsey's excuses?) That's why Lindsey hired Mick to play drums on GOS. He knew that Mick would break up that version of Fleetwood Mac (which was already falling apart on its own) for a probable reunion of the classic line-up.

Well, that's an interesting opinion, because from my perspective it's pretty clear to me that even though Stevie and Lindsey were going nowhere, so was Fleetwood Mac. I would say it's the other way around - in both cases - Lindsey and Stevie bailed out Fleetwood Mac. No one could have predicted it, but in hindsight, it's obvious. Yes, The Dance reignited all three careers, that is undeniable, but it wasn't Stevie who came knocking on their door. She is the one who had to be persuaded, and without her and Lindsey, The Dance would never have had any traction.

It's called being in the band. Mick doesn't get any significant royalty money. The only way he makes money on Fleetwood Mac is when the band tours. How hypocritical everyone is by stating "ooh, Mick needs bailed out again" when Stevie, Lindsey, and Christine all make money on Fleetwood Mac whether or not the band is active.

The issue isn't how Mick makes his money - I'm well aware that as a band member who neither writes nor produces, that his income options are limited. The basis of the thread was why some fans show disdain for Mick - I answered the question with a point of view I've seen expressed - Mick is bad at managing money and has squandered, more than once, many, many times more money than any of us will see in our lives, collectively, and has gone public with his money woes more than once. There is nothing hypocritical about pointing out Mick's money woes. Billions of people make less money in their entire lives than he does from one tour, and they manage to live within their means. To claim that he can't afford his divorce because of Stevie not wanting to tour is quite rude when the reality is that he couldn't afford his divorce because he has a problem managing his own finances.

I'll reiterate, I don't have any disdain for Mick. I am just, unlike some, capable of seeing both sides of a story and I presented my theory as to why some fans might dislike Mick or look down on him.

[MacShadowsBall]

I think it would be pretty darn easy to like Fleetwood Mac and not like Mick.

I liked Sonny and Cher tremendously and didn't like Cher.

Compartmentalize, baby. :confused:

Michele

I just don't understand. If you like Sonny and Cher and didn't like Cher, then you just liked Sonny. :D

So you can't be a fan of a band if you dislike one member!?

When that member is one of the founding members, his name, his drums crafting that FM sound, yeah I have a hard time understanding how one can dislike/hate him. He is/was responsible for keeping our favorite band together for 47 years, when others including Christine, Lindsey, AND Stevie weren't interested. :cool:

Just because we are fans of this band doesn't mean we have to accept the whole package lock, stock, and barrel with unquestioned adoration.

I certainly have my criticisms of the band's activity and various decisions they've made over the 47 years. Excessive drug abuse is high (no pun intended) on the list.

I've noticed also that everybody likes John, probably because he remains quiet and out of the spotlight and doesn't express his opinion too much. Just like on the job in real life, you can't hate the shy, quite guy, but the one that's going around being a leader, rocking the boat, voicing his opinions/concerns gets all the attention, both good and bad. :cool:

[elle]

I've noticed also that everybody likes John, probably because he remains quiet and out of the spotlight and doesn't express his opinion too much. Just like on the job in real life, you can't hate the shy, quite guy, but the one that's going around being a leader, rocking the boat, voicing his opinions/concerns gets all the attention, both good and bad. :cool:
yes, i've noticed that too, John gets a pass and lots of love, seemingly mostly because he doesn't say anything so people project whatever they want him to be.

[elle]

other than bad handling of his finances (that has been discussed way too much already), these are the other reasons i see listed, and i'm still puzzled by most of them:

Yeah, I think people are forgetting how much of a disaster that website was. So many people got banned from it for very silly reasons.
this one i can understand - people expressing dislike if they were personally burned, like this seems to indicate.

Also, I think people forget how disloyal he was to the rest of the band with his book that came out around 1990. There was a fair number of untruths in it, and Lindsey even responded to it with his song "Wrong" on the Out of the Cradle CD.
but if these band members are over this, as they seem to be, i don't get why fans keep holding the grudge?

I'll say it again - Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.
i don't really see how he can stop Stevie from saying whatever she wants to.

This is one of the things I don't like about Mick...Stevie was nice enough to invite Mick to play on her record (IYD) and she even portrays him as a fairly charming guy in the IYD doc and how did he return the favor???While Stevie was doing her "IYD" thing Mick publicly complained about not working and stating that he feared that FM might never tour again...He even went so far as to accuse certain band members (Stevie) of not being loyal to the band...
i'm not sure how Mick playing on Stevie's album is a favor to him? i would think it's a favor that he did for her. what did he gain by helping her out?

[Phil]

MacShadowsBall wrote:
I've noticed also that everybody likes John...

I beg to differ...

[MacShadowsBall]

Phil and others...

Do you know of anything where fans have said bad things about John? Now I've only been in fandom/Ledgie for about four years, but I have heard very little. Perhaps back in the day things were said/believed/felt by fans. I don't know how well he treated Christine back in his drinking days. Suffice it to say, none of them treated each other all that great from about '76-'87.

Really interesting conversations, by the way....:cool:

[SteveMacD]

Phil and others...

Do you know of anything where fans have said bad things about John? Now I've only been in fandom/Ledgie for about four years, but I have heard very little. Perhaps back in the day things were said/believed/felt by fans. I don't know how well he treated Christine back in his drinking days. Suffice it to say, none of them treated each other all that great from about '76-'87.

Really interesting conversations, by the way....:cool:
John dressed as a Nazi, and Christine in blackface and 1979–1980, and people still hold it against him.

[michelej1]

I just don't understand. If you like Sonny and Cher and didn't like Cher, then you just liked Sonny. :D


No, I loved Cher as a member of Sonny and Cher, as a singer, comedian and entertainer within that construct. I didn't like her outside of it.

As for Mick, there are lots of people who know FM songs and like them quite a bit, have all the albums, but just see Mick as the drummer. Not a founder, not a glue that keeps the whole thing together. They don't delve into the entire history of a musical act. They don't read every interview or maybe they do read every interview and decided that despite his talent and contributions to the band, his personality is obnoxious.

Maybe they saw him up there with Samantha Fox and decided he was a loser, although his band is cool and their opinion of him has nothing to do with the band. Maybe they like Christine, Lindsey and Stevie and loathe Mick. It's not hard to dislike him and to also like the band at all.

What I don't understand is the (1) the whole "how can you call yourself a fan" argument, and (2) why it's necessary to like someone because you like their talent. So, he held the band together, good for him. I pay him with my money. I don't have to pay him with my heart.

As for calling yourself a fan, I am not a fan of anyone's if it means I have to meet certain criteria and believe and say only certain things in order to maintain my fanship. I define what my fanship means. It doesn't define me. What a "fan" is is as different as what every individual is.

By your standards, I am not a Fleetwood Mac fan and wouldn't want to be. I'm just an interested observer and I like it like that, because I don't want to follow any guidelines except for my own for how to display or express my admiration, affection, appreciation and respect.

Michele

[bombaysaffires]

i'm not sure how Mick playing on Stevie's album is a favor to him? i would think it's a favor that he did for her. what did he gain by helping her out?

he got paid. As much as he loves Stevie, union rules is union rules.

[michelej1]

yes, i've noticed that too, John gets a pass and lots of love, seemingly mostly because he doesn't say anything so people project whatever they want him to be.

Or maybe because when he doesn't say anything, he's not annoying anyone.

And I hold my grudges independent of the band members. If you don't like what you know of someone's personality, you just don't like it. It doesn't matter how much everyone else loves him.

Take all the stuff Wendy says. I don't buy it, but if I did, I could dislike Mick on that ground. It's my perogative. I could care less if Bob forgave him, if I believed Wendy's suspicions were accurate and that truth upset me (which it doesn't actually) I would hate Mick no matter who else loved him.

I was watching Sherlock the other day and John's wife shot Sherlock and John and Sherlock were ok with that, but I sure wasn't. Sherlock was like, "Well, she didn't shoot to kill me." Huh?

Michele

[michelej1]

he got paid. As much as he loves Stevie, union rules is union rules.

Well, maybe Stevie got paid for singing with Vanessa too, that doesn't mean it wasn't totally a favor to Vanessa.

Michele

[MacShadowsBall]

One thing to remember too is that being a "fan" of one's talent is different than being a "fan" of the actual person. One can be a fan of Micks drumming but not a fan of himself. The same goes for Lindsey and others.

On a side note, I tend to like everybody! Even my crazy boss who has threatened to fire me twice in the past two months, I still "kinda" like her. I mean she's like insane, but we are still nice to each other! :cool:

[michelej1]

One thing to remember too is that being a "fan" of one's talent is different than being a "fan" of the actual person. One can be a fan of Micks drumming but not a fan of himself. The same goes for Lindsey and others.


That's true. I'm sure a lot of the people who complain about Mick think he's an awesome musician.

Michele

[MacShadowsBall]

John dressed as a Nazi, and Christine in blackface and 1979–1980, and people still hold it against him.

Really! I didn't know that.

I read your posts michele. I understand what you're saying. :cool:

[michelej1]

I read your posts michele. I understand what you're saying. :cool:

You mentioned that you and your boss are still nice to each other and that's a point we can use here. Things said on a music message board --that he doesn't read -- don't reflect what someone would say to Mick if they met him in real life. I'm sure that even his detractors would be cordial to him in person and probably delighted by his presence and most might actually like him fine in that situation.

It's easy to view a person who is a public figure in the abstract and to assess them in ways that you would not, meeting a flesh and blood human whose face is familiar but who you realize is actually a stranger.

Michele

[SteveMacD]

Really! I didn't know that.
This is the photo.

[SteveMacD]

I can agree with that, but it's unfair to target Stevie when everyone has quit Fleetwood Mac at one time or another except Mick and John.
STEVIE DIDN'T QUIT THE BAND??? Huh? She very publicly quit the band, and she reneged on playing the Super Bowl pre-game in 1993 (with the BTM line-up). Stevie's loyalty hasn't been iron clad.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/g2ipz8n7sfA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well, that's an interesting opinion, because from my perspective it's pretty clear to me that even though Stevie and Lindsey were going nowhere, so was Fleetwood Mac.
If anything, Fleetwood Mac (and Christine Perfect McVie) were has-beens in 1974, having had big hits in Europe. Fleetwood Mac even had a Greatest Hits compilation by that point. In reality, they were rebuilding their careers by moving to L.A. and managing themselves (another example of Mick using the band to not lose everything, as some would say). They were on a major label. They had never been dropped by a label. They had been on television in Europe and the United States. Even the publicity from the Fake Mac scandal in 1974 helped their cause in some strange way. "Hypnotized" was a radio staple.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3MUxCzEhLQY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZR_-maCdTGQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How many hits did Fritz or Buckingham Nicks ever have? How many times were they ever on national television? Be honest. Lindsey and Stevie walked into a dream situation. They joined a band that had gone through frequent personnel changes, making it easier for the fan-base to accept them as is, and were slightly under the radar at a major label, which gave them the freedom to be themselves. I'm not saying they weren't a major part of the band's success, just that the band was also a major part of their success. Without Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Nicks as everybody has come to love her would not exist. Without "Tusk," Lindsey wouldn't be considered a genius.

I would say it's the other way around - in both cases - Lindsey and Stevie bailed out Fleetwood Mac. No one could have predicted it, but in hindsight, it's obvious.
How so? Their first hit single was "Over My Head," and that could have just as easily been on any album prior that featured Christine. In fact, Christine had most of the hit singles during the heyday. Again, I come back to who benefitted most from the union. Christine McVie wasn't a waitress or cleaning lady, and wasn't at risk of becoming one.

Yes, The Dance reignited all three careers, that is undeniable, but it wasn't Stevie who came knocking on their door. She is the one who had to be persuaded, and without her and Lindsey, The Dance would never have had any traction.
Well, what would have been the point of a reunion album if the two people who left the band weren't a part of that reunion? And, don't kid yourself. Stevie was done after the SA tour. She was a joke, fodder for late night shows. "The Dance" completely changed that. It made her relevant to a new generation. It wouldn't have happened for her as a solo artist.

[iamnotafraid]

Why the disdain for Mick?

It's probably because he's mean, he's nasty and
he hates everything to do with Christmas.

[SteveMacD]

Why the disdain for Mick?

It's probably because he's mean, he's nasty and
he hates everything to do with Christmas.
And he smells funny.

[Phil]

Michelle wrote:
No, I loved Cher as a member of Sonny and Cher, as a singer, comedian and entertainer within that construct. I didn't like her outside of it.

As for Mick, there are lots of people who know FM songs and like them quite a bit, have all the albums, but just see Mick as the drummer. Not a founder, not a glue that keeps the whole thing together. They don't delve into the entire history of a musical act. They don't read every interview or maybe they do read every interview and decided that despite his talent and contributions to the band, his personality is obnoxious.

Maybe they saw him up there with Samantha Fox and decided he was a loser, although his band is cool and their opinion of him has nothing to do with the band. Maybe they like Christine, Lindsey and Stevie and loathe Mick. It's not hard to dislike him and to also like the band at all.

What I don't understand is the (1) the whole "how can you call yourself a fan" argument, and (2) why it's necessary to like someone because you like their talent. So, he held the band together, good for him. I pay him with my money. I don't have to pay him with my heart.

As for calling yourself a fan, I am not a fan of anyone's if it means I have to meet certain criteria and believe and say only certain things in order to maintain my fanship. I define what my fanship means. It doesn't define me. What a "fan" is is as different as what every individual is.

By your standards, I am not a Fleetwood Mac fan and wouldn't want to be. I'm just an interested observer and I like it like that, because I don't want to follow any guidelines except for my own for how to display or express my admiration, affection, appreciation and respect.


I agree with Michelle's comments above. I happen to adore Phil Spector's skills as an arranger/producer, but perhaps not so much as a person...

By the way, I don't hold the Nazi/black-face debacle against John and Christine - I can appreciate that situation for what it most probably was, a drunken lark and nothing more. However, I don't care for John as a person. I consider him to be an arrogant, chauvinistic, misogynistic, abusive, dismissive arsehole. Undeniably talented as a musician and an integral contributor to the Mac over the years, but not someone I'd want to know.

[chriskisn]

How can anybody call themselves a Fleetwood Mac fan when he or she can't stand Mick Fleetwood. :sorry:

He's not the reason to like or dislike Fleetwood Mac unless you are specifically into the band for the drumming. I like the people who sing, and sadly Mick's two efforts in that direction haven't been successful.

[louielouie2000]

He's not the reason to like or dislike Fleetwood Mac unless you are specifically into the band for the drumming. I like the people who sing, and sadly Mick's two efforts in that direction haven't been successful.

How could you dislike Lizard People?! If you don't like that song, you hate Fleetwood Mac & are a terrorist. :p

[RockawayBlind]

When that member is one of the founding members, his name, his drums crafting that FM sound, yeah I have a hard time understanding how one can dislike/hate him. He is/was responsible for keeping our favorite band together for 47 years, when others including Christine, Lindsey, AND Stevie weren't interested. :cool:

And without Hitler, we wouldn't have Volkswagen. Or the interstate highway system. Do I have to like Hitler too?

[RockawayBlind]

but if these band members are over this, as they seem to be, i don't get why fans keep holding the grudge?

I don't hold a grudge against Mick. Frankly, I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't do. The question was asked, "Why do fans disdain Mick?" In my view, he has been disloyal to fellow band members and, to me, that shows a character flaw. It matters not to me whether those members have forgiven him. I hope they have. But their forgiveness doesn't change his character, does it?

[elle]

I don't hold a grudge against Mick. Frankly, I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't do. The question was asked, "Why do fans disdain Mick?" In my view, he has been disloyal to fellow band members and, to me, that shows a character flaw. It matters not to me whether those members have forgiven him. I hope they have. But their forgiveness doesn't change his character, does it?

i do agree with your points and don't have a problem with any of this, and Michele stated similar points in her posts.

i guess my annoyance (which may or may not be slightly different from the original question / poster) is seeing repeated free-for-all dumping on Mick... you see dumping on Lindsey and someone will react and provide counterpoints; you see dumping on Stevie and tons of people will jump to defend her; but it almost seems that whenever SN and LB defenders don't feel like fighting with each other they all just dump on Mick instead and nobody defends him, ya know? :shrug:

[michelej1]

you see dumping on Stevie and tons of people will jump to defend her; but it almost seems that whenever SN and LB defenders don't feel like fighting with each other they all just dump on Mick instead and nobody defends him, ya know? :shrug:

But what is Mick being attacked for? Maybe it's something he can't be defended about. If there's a reason to refute allegations against him maybe people would.

If he was attacked for ruining Tusk, then I would defend him. Mostly, he's attacked for things that can't be fully denied. Maybe people don't have counterpoints.

Michele

[elle]

But what is Mick being attacked for? Maybe it's something he can't be defended about. If there's a reason to refute allegations against him maybe people would.

If he was attacked for ruining Tusk, then I would defend him. Mostly, he's attacked for things that can't be fully denied. Maybe people don't have counterpoints.

Michele

maybe... but you know most of the points in this thread were about people having a problem with some part of his character... so if we are talking about character, are Stevie or Lindsey better people than Mick? i can't tell that, and don't think that any fans really can. we really don't know these people. :shrug:

having been to m&gs with both Mick and Lindsey, the only thing i can say is that Lindsey's felt much more personal. Mick's mostly felt like any of his interviews you hear. Lindsey's didn't, they felt warmer, he didn't give you interview talking points, it was more like talking to someone you causally met.

[michelej1]

maybe... but you know most of the points in this thread were about people having a problem with some part of his character... so if we are talking about character, are Stevie or Lindsey better people than Mick? i can't tell that, and don't think that any fans really can. we really don't know these people. :shrug:



Stevie and Lindsey aren't accused of the same things that Mick is accused of and vice versa. Content matters. I don't think anyone says, "Lindsey is a man of upstanding moral character and Mick isn't." What character traits are you talking about. Mick was the manager of the band for a long period of time and I DO hold him responsible for things that went on during his management.

What are the specific attacks on him that made you start this thread. Maybe the content of the attack is why he wasn't defended and no counterpoints were given.


If the attack was about his pony tail. I can't defend that. If the attack was about the RRHOF it WAS defended by many fans and they used quotes from Bob Welch himself. If Mick is not defended, it's probably because he's perceived as guilty of whatever the attack was, but he usually is defended when there are two sides to the story.

Michele

[elle]

Stevie and Lindsey aren't accused of the same things that Mick is accused of and vice versa. Content matters. I don't think anyone says, "Lindsey is a man of upstanding moral character and Mick isn't." What character traits are you talking about. Mick was the manager of the band for a long period of time and I DO hold him responsible for things that went on during his management.

What are the specific attacks on him that made you start this thread.

i didn't start this thread. :D

my point was that i don't really get why are peeps so upset about Mick's character when other members might be possibly much worse people than Mick, and yet people talk about some of them like they are saints.

[michelej1]

i didn't start this thread. :D

my point was that i don't really get why are peeps so upset about Mick's character when other members might be possibly much worse people than Mick, and yet people talk about some of them like they are saints.

Maybe they keep the fact that they are much worse people than Mick to themselves.

You know, all the members may like testicles equally, but Mick is the only one who chose to adorn his wardrobe with wooden ones. Mick is flamboyant and ubiquitous. He talks a lot and he appears a lot. He's scheduled to be the master of ceremonies at a whale-watching event soon.

He's not like the other members. He's not the band manager any more, but he was. In many ways he's not the band leader any more, but he was. In fact, in many other ways he still is the band leader. He's a magnet, for just the kind of responses he gets.

We were just talking about the HAHTF cover in another thread. I don't think any of the other members would have posed like that. He has a personality that invites comment and criticism. Well, he not only invites it, but probably welcomes it.

Michele

[sodascouts]

And without Hitler, we wouldn't have Volkswagen. Or the interstate highway system. Do I have to like Hitler too?

Typically the invocation of Hitler in a debate annoys me, but I have to say, this is a pretty good line.

[RockawayBlind]

Typically the invocation of Hitler in a debate annoys me, but I have to say, this is a pretty good line.

LOL, well, I'm glad you took it in the spirit I intended.

[SteveMacD]

Mick was the manager of the band for a long period of time and I DO hold him responsible for things that went on during his management.
Do you ever give him any of the credit for what went on during that time? I mean, the white album in 1976 was WB's best selling album ever, which was then unseated by "Rumours." Mick gets no credit for that at all? Seems a little one-sided, unbalanced.

If anything, he's the guy who can't say "no" people, and THAT more than anything has gotten him into trouble.

[SteveMacD]

I don't hold a grudge against Mick. Frankly, I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't do. The question was asked, "Why do fans disdain Mick?" In my view, he has been disloyal to fellow band members and, to me, that shows a character flaw.
How was he disloyal, or MORE disloyal than the others? His book? Everything he said in his book was either taken from previous articles in magazines or has been corroborated since the book came out (even the night Lindsey quit). What about Lindsey's loyalty? He quit the band. What about Stevie's loyalty? She quit the band. Both have left him high and dry more than once, both bad-mouthed him in the press. Both have committed to tours or shows and have backed out at nearly the last minute. Oh, but THAT'S so easy to overlook. They've been canonized, Mick's just a drummer who contributed nothing to the band's success and longevity.

[michelej1]

Do you ever give him any of the credit for what went on during that time? I mean, the white album in 1976 was WB's best selling album ever, which was then unseated by "Rumours." Mick gets no credit for that at all? Seems a little one-sided, unbalanced.



What are you talking about. I give Mick credit for an abundance of things things. I give him credit for Tusk, for heaven's sake. Without him convincing the rest of the band, Lindsey never would have gotten the chance to do it. Lindsey went to Mick and it was Mick who smoothed things over with everyone else and made them see it was something that would help keep the band together in the end. Lindsey never would have had that diplomacy by himself.

I give Mick (not Steven Tyler) credit for getting Christine back. In fact, I keep telling you that that was all Mick.

I give Mick credit for getting them together for The Dance. By himself, Lindsey would have gotten just Mick on his solo album. I think it is Mick who asked John to join and play bass on Lindsey's stuff. Lindsey has asked Christine to be on his solo albums himself in the past, but I don't think he would have done it then. And I'm 100% sure he would not have asked John. I think Mick got them on Lindsey's GOS songs and I think he did it hoping and plotting for an FM reunion which we got.

I give Mick credit for lots of things. Nothing in here has been about me not giving Mick credit. I've just been saying why I think Mick gets a lot of cricitism from fans.

Michele

[Wendy Welch]

Let's get one thing straight. It was really Bob Welch that was managing the band at the point when they moved to LA with SOME help from Mick. Bob tracked him down in Africa when he couldn't play on the stage anymore with Bob Weston, who was seeing his wife. Bob talked him and Chris into moving to LA. Mick basically ruined their career when he left the band because of Weston, and they were being asked to perform everywhere by promoters. That's the real reason Clifford Davis/Adams put out the fake band, because they were just about to become huge when Mick bailed.

Bob also got them his lawyer to handle everything and even put all their royalties through his IRS account which caused him many problems and was never paid back for taxes from the band. That's my understanding and what I have had to help Bob straighten out.

All you have to do is look at how he allowed Christine to prevent Bob Welch from being inducted into the Hall of Fame to see how politically greedy he was. I could tell you so much more, but it will come out soon enough. Also how he deleted Bob from everything FM since then. Pay attention and look a little deeper.

They are all very talented, but they are all not very loyal people. Just look at what they have done to other members to be in the band.

[SteveMacD]

I give Mick (not Steven Tyler) credit for getting Christine back. In fact, I keep telling you that that was all Mick.
I was just quoting what was said in an interview. Actually, I give Ken Caillat the a lot of credit, too. When he said that Christine told him the book brought "passion back into the music for her, I suspected we'd be seeing her return in some form. Clearly, that brought something back, something Mick could work with. She wouldn't have jammed with the blues band at rehearsals let alone considered going on stage without something triggering her enthusiasm for playing music.

I give Mick credit for getting them together for The Dance. By himself, Lindsey would have gotten just Mick on his solo album. I think it is Mick who asked John to join and play bass on Lindsey's stuff. Lindsey has asked Christine to be on his solo albums himself in the past, but I don't think he would have done it then. And I'm 100% sure he would not have asked John. I think Mick got them on Lindsey's GOS songs and I think he did it hoping and plotting for an FM reunion which we got.
Eh, I'm a little more cynical than that. I think Lindsey knew what was going to happen when he asked Mick to play on GOS, and I think he really wanted that to happen. Just look at the timeline. The "Time" band's last show was November 15, 1995 at COMDEX. Mick announced that he and Lindsey were working together in February, 1996. By April, 1996, Mick announced that he disbanded Fleetwood Mac, and the "Twister" soundtrack was released in May, 1996.

[michelej1]

Eh, I'm a little more cynical than that. I think Lindsey knew what was going to happen when he asked Mick to play on GOS, and I think he really wanted that to happen. Just look at the timeline. The "Time" band's last show was November 15, 1995 at COMDEX. Mick announced that he and Lindsey were working together in February, 1996. By April, 1996, Mick announced that he disbanded Fleetwood Mac, and the "Twister" soundtrack was released in May, 1996.

Even if Lindsey realized that the wheels were being placed in motion, they tend to use or to rely on Mick as a conduit. Mick reaches out for them if they have pride as a barrier between them and want to save face with each other. Mick's not afraid or too embarrassed to plead.

Michele

[Wendy Welch]

Mick just happens to own the name of FM. Which gives him a lot of power. Like he told me, "I own the name. It's not a matter of IF Bob Welch will be in the RRHall of Fame, but WHEN." Isn't that odd. It's been over 1 1/2 years since he told me that and it never happened. He was just shining me on..... ?????? They don't rely on Mick as a conduit, they can't do anything with the name FM without Mick. Get real! <3

[SteveMacD]

Even if Lindsey realized that the wheels were being placed in motion, they tend to use or to rely on Mick as a conduit. Mick reaches out for them if they have pride as a barrier between them and want to save face with each other. Mick's not afraid or too embarrassed to plead.
Absolutely. Fleetwood Mac is Mick's baby, and he'll do whatever it takes to keep it together. I don't buy for a minute that it's solely about the money for him, as some have portrayed. Sure, he has done some boneheaded things with his money, but even if he hadn't, I still think he would do whatever it takes to get Fleetwood Mac together.

[iamnotafraid]

I think this thread has become The Ledge's soap opera.

Y'all are a feisty bunch.

Stay tuned...

[louielouie2000]

Absolutely. Fleetwood Mac is Mick's baby, and he'll do whatever it takes to keep it together. I don't buy for a minute that it's solely about the money for him, as some have portrayed. Sure, he has done some boneheaded things with his money, but even if he hadn't, I still think he would do whatever it takes to get Fleetwood Mac together.

Absolutely, without a doubt, Fleetwood Mac is Mick's band. It's his life. He's sacrificed absolutely everything for it- family, friendships, marriages, his pride, etc. Fleetwood Mac would never have gotten off the ground without him, much less exist in any form nearly 50 years later. It's his enthusiasm that formed & carried this band, period. But at the same time, when he has the chance, he franchises that, too. Since he is the reason for the band, it's absolutely valid to argue that it's his right. It is also absolutely valid when some folks find it distasteful, or at the very least, distracting. :)

[RockawayBlind]

How was he disloyal, or MORE disloyal than the others? His book? Everything he said in his book was either taken from previous articles in magazines or has been corroborated since the book came out (even the night Lindsey quit). What about Lindsey's loyalty? He quit the band. What about Stevie's loyalty? She quit the band. Both have left him high and dry more than once, both bad-mouthed him in the press. Both have committed to tours or shows and have backed out at nearly the last minute. Oh, but THAT'S so easy to overlook. They've been canonized, Mick's just a drummer who contributed nothing to the band's success and longevity.

That's a pretty dramatic take. Mick was disloyal by airing dirty laundry and, worse, lying about certain events. Just because things had been published, that doesn't excuse publishing cheap gossip about your friends.

And you're not going to get me to defend Lindsey's or Stevie's actions. They quit the band at some point? I'm not sure I care. As far as I can tell, this band, with its pathetic output in four decades, should have packed it up already. There will never be another Rumours. There will never be another Tusk. Perhaps at some point, it could have been possible. But these people have let their personal agendas, petty squabbles and greed overtake them, and as a result, the art has suffered.

And if I'm being honest, the biggest culprit is Stevie. She has really bought into the idea that she's a big star and everybody else should kowtow to her. You take that out of the equation, and we would have had at least three studio albums since The Dance.

And, yeah, Mick is kind of a fool.

[RockawayBlind]

I think this thread has become The Ledge's soap opera.

Y'all are a feisty bunch.

Stay tuned...

LOL, I enjoyed that!

[Lori40]

Mick just happens to own the name of FM. Which gives him a lot of power. Like he told me, "I own the name. It's not a matter of IF Bob Welch will be in the RRHall of Fame, but WHEN." Isn't that odd. It's been over 1 1/2 years since he told me that and it never happened. He was just shining me on..... ?????? They don't rely on Mick as a conduit, they can't do anything with the name FM without Mick. Get real! <3


Wendy, as far as I know, you are the only one on here who really knows Mick. Do you perceive him as a "People Pleaser", you know, the kind of person who can't say "no" to anyone? Is he really a nice guy who just wants his band to stay together and keep everyone happy, or at least as happy as this group can be? Don't you think that he really knows how important your Bob was to FM, and that he deserves to be recognized in the
RRHOF? Could it be just really bad timing with Christine coming back into the band, and Mick not wanting to do anything that might jeopardize this?

[SteveMacD]

Mick was disloyal by airing dirty laundry
Umm...this IS the band that made "Rumours," right? That argument is completely ridiculous.

and, worse, lying about certain events.
Such as?

Just because things had been published, that doesn't excuse publishing cheap gossip about your friends.
They did a whole album full of cheap gossip.

[shackin'up]

I still hold Mick responsable for making SYW meat nor fish. It should have been a double CD with a decent tracklisting. He backend out.
But still, this band had so much bizarre personel changes that one can never really point at one man for letting that happen, on the positive sides and on all the negative sides. They were a mess on so many occasions that it always made victims. I love the guy for a lot of reasons. And I think he still made more bad than good choices in life.

[RockawayBlind]

Umm...this IS the band that made "Rumours," right? That argument is completely ridiculous.


Such as?


They did a whole album full of cheap gossip.

We're not going to change each other's minds. The question was asked about why people disdain Mick. And I answered it. Now you want me to cover the same old ground, detail by detail, to prove the man is worthy of disdain so you can tell me how wrong and ridiculous my arguments are? I have no interest in doing that. You're still going to think what you think.

It's not like I hate Mick or anything. Hell, I even went to his restaurant in Hawaii before the official grand opening and took pictures in front of his kit.

[SteveMacD]

Now you want me to cover the same old ground, detail by detail, to prove the man is worthy of disdain so you can tell me how wrong and ridiculous my arguments are?
I'm just asking for an example of how what he said was an outright lie. :shrug: The ONLY thing I can think of is the night Lindsey left, which at worst was an overstatement on Mick's part. Even Stevie has said that she thought Lindsey was going to kill her that night. If anything, compared to other biographies, Mick held back.

[SteveMacD]

Let's get one thing straight. It was really Bob Welch that was managing the band at the point when they moved to LA with SOME help from Mick. Bob tracked him down in Africa when he couldn't play on the stage anymore with Bob Weston, who was seeing his wife. Bob talked him and Chris into moving to LA. Mick basically ruined their career when he left the band because of Weston, and they were being asked to perform everywhere by promoters. That's the real reason Clifford Davis/Adams put out the fake band, because they were just about to become huge when Mick bailed.
While maybe not said quite like this, Mick basically said this in his book. I suspected Bob had to be frustrated by all that happened during this time, being the main songwriter and all. I would have been if I were in his shoes, too. But I also see Mick's perspective. He had to deal with the losses of Peter, Jeremy, and Danny, and now the new guy shagging his wife. That's too much to deal with in the span of less than four years.

What's weird, for me, is the part that was published in magazines at the time, that said Mick and Christine were the only ones Cliff was interested in. Maybe that's not accurate, and if Bob told Cliff to go take a flying f**k, I love Bob even more. If it is accurate, though, it speaks to the power of their catalog up to that point. Even on the Kirshner show, three of the five songs broadcasted were written by Peter Green.

They were also on the verge in the USA when Jeremy Spencer quit the band. "Kiln House" was the first time they cracked the Top 50 in the USA.

Bob also got them his lawyer to handle everything and even put all their royalties through his IRS account which caused him many problems and was never paid back for taxes from the band. That's my understanding and what I have had to help Bob straighten out.
Again, all of which Mick said in his book.

[dino]

. Fleetwood Mac would never have gotten off the ground without him, much less exist in any form nearly 50 years later.

Que? Peter Green formed Fleetwood Mac and hired Mick as the drummer. Without the reputation and genius of Green, Mick would be a pub band player now. Mick did become the de facto leader after Peter left, building on the first flush of success (they were a big hit band in Europe and getting a foothold in the US), but that's another thing.

[chriskisn]

and now the new guy shagging his wife.

My understanding of this is that Weston always denied that there was any affair? Sure he was a smooth character who probably flirted with her, but I wasn't aware either Weston or Jenny had ever admitted sleeping together.

[RockawayBlind]

Que? Peter Green formed Fleetwood Mac and hired Mick as the drummer. Without the reputation and genius of Green, Mick would be a pub band player now. Mick did become the de facto leader after Peter left, building on the first flush of success (they were a big hit band in Europe and getting a foothold in the US), but that's another thing.

Uh, yeah, good point.

[SteveMacD]

Without the reputation and genius of Green, Mick would be a pub band player now.
Nah, Mick would've found a way to make it somehow. He had the visual presence and a bunch of legendary friends. I think Mick, John, and maybe Christine would have been successful in other bands. I'm just glad they weren't!

[louielouie2000]

Que? Peter Green formed Fleetwood Mac and hired Mick as the drummer. Without the reputation and genius of Green, Mick would be a pub band player now. Mick did become the de facto leader after Peter left, building on the first flush of success (they were a big hit band in Europe and getting a foothold in the US), but that's another thing.

I realize that, but it was Mick's drumming skills, enthusiasm, and musical chemistry with John that inspired Peter to form Fleetwood Mac in the first place, and to woo John away from the Bluesbreakers. Yes, Peter was the musical genius behind the formation of the band; but his musical sixth sense also recognized something very special in Mick. And even though Peter formed Fleetwood Mac, I don't know that he was ever it's true leader, even during his short tenure with the band. Peter may have sired the band, but Mick has long been it's true parent.

[dino]

I realize that, but it was Mick's drumming skills, enthusiasm, and musical chemistry with John that inspired Peter to form Fleetwood Mac in the first place, and to woo John away from the Bluesbreakers. Yes, Peter was the musical genius behind the formation of the band; but his musical sixth sense also recognized something very special in Mick. And even though Peter formed Fleetwood Mac, I don't know that he was ever it's true leader, even during his short tenure with the band. Peter may have sired the band, but Mick has long been it's true parent.

Sure, I get the drift. But of course Green was the leader while he was in the band. Fleetwood has said as such. Green was known as a very forward character in the early Mac days before lsd etc.