Release the New Album Without Stevie... [Archive]

Macfan4life

08-05-2016, 04:57 AM

That wont happen. No way no how. They want Stevie to do the 2 year farewell tour. If they would record without her, I don't see her suddenly going on the road with them to promote an album she did not record.

Stevie will come around and will record this album. This is Fleetwood Mac after all. This pattern happens EVERY time an album is coming up.

Stevie threatened to leave the band in 1976 if Lindsey's "Shaking up" line was in GYOW.

Stevie threatened to leave the band in 1979 if the new album was called "Tusk"

Stevie threatened to blackmail the band and tell Rolling Stone she had nothing to do with Tango in the night in 1987

Must I go on?

James89

08-05-2016, 05:07 AM

She will do it at some point and they cannot release a Fleetwood Mac album without Stevie Nicks on it. That's ridiculous and not many people would buy it.

Simple answer. No they shouldn't.

bombaysaffires

08-05-2016, 09:54 AM

They should. But they won't.

WatchChain

08-05-2016, 09:56 AM

Since 1967, there have been numerous groups of people with different faces that have been called "Fleetwood Mac", all with varying degrees of success and artistic credibility. The output has ranged from stellar (Kiln House) to iconic (Rumours) to groundbreaking (Tusk) to forgettable, bland and generic (Behind The Mask). Now that we've finally had the ICONIC Rumours lineup back together, I'm just NOT interested in a product without the COMPLETE Rumours 5, ESPECIALLY the 3 leads. If you're going to record a record WITHOUT Lindsey, Christine or Stevie, you might as well call the band something else and tour as the opening act for REO SPEEDWAGON (Time). As much as I ADORE Stevie Nicks, I'm sorry to say that's she's been a spoiled brat for most of her life. She likes to be catered to, pampered, showered in praised and BEGGED. Most of the "yes people" that she surrounds herself with do this (including Mick because he always needs cash). I just don't think Lindsey and Chris are very good at stroking her ego, thus the hold out. I assume
that after she's begged enough, she'll FINALLY come into
the studio at the END, lay down some background vocals on Chris and Lindsey's songs, re-record 3 of her old demos (Julia) and call it a day. The huge tour will follow for the cash grab. So, ok folks, let the begging chess game begin, the High Priestess is waiting. You know what to tell her. Better hurry before she runs for her life with the Mad Hatter again.

nicepace

08-05-2016, 10:08 AM

I absolutely agree. Release the album without Stevie, release it soon. Supposedly there's quite a lot of material already recorded, so put out an album now without Stevie, and then in 2017 they can put out another album with her if she finally comes around to wanting to do the album.

I don't buy the argument that no one will buy an album without Stevie. There is a very large fan base for this band and not everyone worships at the feet of Stevie. I think there are a lot of people (myself included) who are intrigued by what the Buckingham/McVie duo combo would come up with. Historically, most of their hits have been Christine songs, and if they have a hit with a Christine song from the new album it will boost sales of the album, whether Stevie is on the record or not.

As for a big tour after an album is released, it's pretty obvious that they would only play a couple of songs from a new album, so Stevie's absence from that album won't matter. She can either just leave the stage or rattle her tambourine and hum into the mike while Chris & Lindsey are doing their songs from the new album.

jbrownsjr

08-05-2016, 12:04 PM

If she doesn't want to do it, then just release the music without her. It's that simple.

I don't understand why she wouldn't want to be a part of the band that propelled her into stardom. I guess people make everything about themselves. That's the worst thing you can do as an artist.

She tries so hard to stay in the limelight... forgetting why she is an artist in the first place.

One of the reasons why I love Christine so much is that she makes the band better. She creates and groves her way as an artist. She never cared about the limelight and yet... her return put FMac on the tour map in 2014.

James89

08-05-2016, 12:13 PM

Come on guys. They must know that she'll eventually do it otherwise they'd be voicing a lot more anger than this. It's clear that they have some kind of future plan for the recorded music so STOP PANICKING!!!

michelej1

08-05-2016, 12:37 PM

That's ridiculous and not many people would buy it.

The "not many people would buy it" argument seems irrelevant to me. Album sales are inconsequential at this point. And wouldn't impact their nostalgia tour one way or another.

They could release the album and promote the tour as a "farewell" tour not a [INSERT NAME OF NEW ALBUM] tour and the concert seats would still get taken.

Michele

James89

08-05-2016, 12:46 PM

MikeInNV

08-05-2016, 01:30 PM

I don't understand why she wouldn't want to be a part of the band that propelled her into stardom.

Do you think it's that much different than when Lindsey, in 1987, didn't want to be part of the band that propelled him into stardom? Like everyone, they ultimately have to live their lives for themselves.

SteveMacD

08-05-2016, 01:44 PM

SteveMacD

08-05-2016, 01:48 PM

As I said in another thread, there is precedent for releasing an album without one of the vocalists without that vocalist leaving the band. Jeremy Spencer didn't have any songs on "Then Play On" and barely played on the album but was still a member of the band.

WatchChain

08-05-2016, 02:00 PM

The "not many people would buy it" argument seems irrelevant to me. Album sales are inconsequential at this point. And wouldn't impact their nostalgia tour one way or another.

They could release the album and promote the tour as a "farewell" tour not a [INSERT NAME OF NEW ALBUM] tour and the concert seats would still get taken.

Michele.

You are spot on. In the age of streaming and youtube, few artists move millions of units anymore. Fleetwood Mac can make any album they want, but it won't sell over 500,000 units. A million units would be aiming high. For dinosaur acts like The Mac, album sales don't make one bit of difference--concert seats will be filled. Moreover, 85% of people sitting in those seats don't care one bit about a NEW album. That's the sorry state of the music business nowadays.

MikeInNV

08-05-2016, 02:07 PM

At least he didn't hold them up and left the band.

As I said in another thread, there is precedent for releasing an album without one of the vocalists without that vocalist leaving the band. Jeremy Spencer didn't have any songs on "Then Play On" and barely played on the album but was still a member of the band.

So then they are holding themselves up; Stevie isn't.

jbrownsjr

08-05-2016, 02:36 PM

Do you think it's that much different than when Lindsey, in 1987, didn't want to be part of the band that propelled him into stardom? Like everyone, they ultimately have to live their lives for themselves.

Um yes I do. Because he quit the band. She isn't quitting the band. Unless, you know something I don't. If you want to live your own life that's fine. But I think you are completely missing the point.

jbrownsjr

08-05-2016, 02:38 PM

At least he didn't hold them up and left the band.

Exactly my point. Either in or out. You want to live your own life.. By all means... please do...

jbrownsjr

08-05-2016, 02:39 PM

So then they are holding themselves up; Stevie isn't.

Well, now you're starting to make sense (somewhat). They have 5 different managers with lawyers etc. That indeed does hold up the band. So Mike.. guess which member's management is holding up the rest of the band?? Just take a stab at it.

As for the other 4.. I do blame them for being gutless.

michelej1

08-05-2016, 02:50 PM

Oh yeah, as if Stevie would pass on the album but do a massive tour. I think you guys need to chill out a bit and be even more patient because there will be new music eventually and on what format and when I don't know but we'll get it. JESUS!!!

Why would Stevie have anything against not being on the album and doing a massive tour. It's not like a lot of the album songs would be on the tour anyway. What does she care? And anyway, I don't mind if they don't tour at all. I'd rather have the album than another tour. The band wants a tour. But the idea that we have to wait for Stevie to be in the mood because she won't tour unless she is on the album -- which she has not been interested in doing for YEARS -- is anathema to me.

As far as people being patient, first of all, they're seventy and all of their friends are dropping dead. "Eventually" doesn't cut it any longer.

Second of all, it's been 13 years since SYW. I don't think asking for a new band album is jumping the gun. Maybe if we'd asked in just the 10th year we would have been getting ahead of ourselves, but around year 13, are we still being impatient?

Third of all, talking about something incessantly on a message board doesn't actually signify impatience in a real world sense. I mean, if you're on a message board and just say, "I am going to sit and quietly way for an album. I don't care if it takes another 5 years, I will NOT complain," what are you going to post about? I mean, isn't the nature of a forum to comment on things big and small from reeboks to albums that will never be released?

The Harry Potter fans didn't bide their time since the last book being QUIET. They probably posted non-stop about wanting new material and now ... they have a cursed child.

Michele

michelej1

08-05-2016, 02:53 PM

As for the other 4.. I do blame them for being gutless.

Yes, I blame them. She is immaterial at this point. It makes no sense for them to talk about what she will and will not do. What are Christine and Lindsey going to do? I wish Lindsey had the mentality he had in the past.

Michele

SteveMacD

08-05-2016, 03:08 PM

So then they are holding themselves up; Stevie isn't.
I don't know, to be honest. Peter Green and Danny Kirwan wanted to go in a direction Jeremy Spencer either didn't want to or couldn't go in, so they came up with an arrangement that allowed them to record an album as Fleetwood Mac without Jeremy while Jeremy stayed in the band.

I don't know if Stevie would be willing to make that arrangement. I don't know whether or not she'd threaten to leave if they released an album without her. Given this late stage in their careers, I don't see them asking her to leave or doing something that would make her want to leave. They have one more big tour and the classic lineup is in tact. An album may or may not not sell, but a tour definitely will.

If it were 10 to 15 years earlier, I'd absolutely part ways with her, but realistically it's all about to wrap up in the next few years.

MikeInNV

08-05-2016, 04:58 PM

Um yes I do. Because he quit the band. She isn't quitting the band. Unless, you know something I don't. If you want to live your own life that's fine. But I think you are completely missing the point.

Well, now you're starting to make sense (somewhat). They have 5 different managers with lawyers etc. That indeed does hold up the band. So Mike.. guess which member's management is holding up the rest of the band?? Just take a stab at it.

Either you're a little touchy or I am, because I don't usually find your posts to be as condescending as these are coming across. What point am I missing? You asked why she wouldn't want to be part of the band that made her a star. I think it's safe to assume it's because she doesn't find the prospect of going into the studio to be fulfilling or enjoyable, much like Lindsey felt about a 1987 tour. And as far as "taking a stab at it," I'm well aware that Mick, Chris, and Lindsey are ready to record, but you and everyone who talk about "holding up the band" are perpetuating the unfounded notion that Stevie has some sort of ownership rights over the name "Fleetwood Mac." A complete lack of balls is the only reason the new Fleetwood Mac album isn't coming out tomorrow, or even last year for that matter.

~*BellaDonna*~

08-05-2016, 05:09 PM

Can we just let this topic go now?
We will get a new album eventually. Be patient. And no, the Mac would NOT record a new album without Stevie. That would be like The Rolling Stones recording an album without Keith Richard's.......

louielouie2000

08-05-2016, 05:26 PM

Someone could always start a petition on change.org for FM to release the album without Stevie if she won't agree to record by a certain date, and then everyone could spread it all over social media. If enough people sign the petition the media could get wind of it, it would be sort of a wake up call for the band. Maybe if the band and Stevie got the message that their fans are absolutely at their wits end, the band could come up with some sort of solution.

Then there is the other option... BURN THE WITCH!! :laugh:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/louielouie2000/burning.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/louielouie2000/media/burning.jpg.html)

SteveMacD

08-05-2016, 05:30 PM

And no, the Mac would NOT record a new album without Stevie. That would be like The Rolling Stones recording an album without Keith Richard's.......
Except that Fleetwood Mac had a vibrant career prior to Stevie joining. The only constants in the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

olive

08-05-2016, 05:32 PM

Then there is the other option... BURN THE WITCH!! :laugh:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/louielouie2000/burning.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/louielouie2000/media/burning.jpg.html)

Thanks I laughed so hard. ..

jbrownsjr

08-05-2016, 05:35 PM

Either you're a little touchy or I am, because I don't usually find your posts to be as condescending as these are coming across. What point am I missing? You asked why she wouldn't want to be part of the band that made her a star. I think it's safe to assume it's because she doesn't find the prospect of going into the studio to be fulfilling or enjoyable, much like Lindsey felt about a 1987 tour. And as far as "taking a stab at it," I'm well aware that Mick, Chris, and Lindsey are ready to record, but you and everyone who talk about "holding up the band" are perpetuating the unfounded notion that Stevie has some sort of ownership rights over the name "Fleetwood Mac." A complete lack of balls is the only reason the new Fleetwood Mac album isn't coming out tomorrow, or even last year for that matter.

I don't get why she wouldn't want to be a part of THE LAST project of the band that gave her everything.

You comparing it to Tango and Lindsey quitting is not even in the ballpark.

Sorry, if I"m coming off as a jerk.. I'm just so frustrated with not getting to hear the new music that I guess I am becoming a little impolite. I apologize (sincerely)

olive

08-05-2016, 05:37 PM

Except that Fleetwood Mac had a vibrant career prior to Stevie joining. The only constants in the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

They could bring back Rick and Billy . They have material to add to a live show and they could also contribute new material

olive

08-05-2016, 05:52 PM

I don't get why she wouldn't want to be a part of THE LAST project of the band that gave her everything.

You comparing it to Tango and Lindsey quitting is not even in the ballpark.

Sorry, if I"m coming off as a jerk.. I'm just so frustrated with not getting to hear the new music that I guess I am becoming a little impolite. I apologize (sincerely)

No apologies needed. You have your opinions share them

MikeInNV

08-05-2016, 05:58 PM

Sorry, if I"m coming off as a jerk.. I'm just so frustrated with not getting to hear the new music that I guess I am becoming a little impolite. I apologize (sincerely)

Thank you, I appreciate that.

~*BellaDonna*~

08-05-2016, 06:14 PM

Except that Fleetwood Mac had a vibrant career prior to Stevie joining. The only constants in the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.
Yeah, you got me there.

paleshadow

08-05-2016, 06:18 PM

olive

08-05-2016, 06:23 PM

I wonder how Christine might feel knowing that the band comes to a screeching halt because Stevie might not be involved, but when she left, they barely batted an eyelash before they put out another album. It's kind of insulting and I think unprofessional of Stevie to not recognize that.

Screeching halt. It's Mick and John's band and as much always said as long as there's the 2 of them them there is a Fleetwood Mac. And it's only fitting that some of us who've been around before them,s supported Fleetwood Mac with out Lindsey and Christine so we'll get through without Stevie

~*BellaDonna*~

08-05-2016, 06:27 PM

They could bring back Rick and Billy . They have material to add to a live show and they could also contribute new material
If they ever commence work on a new album, they are only going to do it with their most successful lineup.

Nick

08-05-2016, 08:32 PM

If they ever commence work on a new album, they are only going to do it with their most successful lineup.

For real. Nobody in the general public will care if it's not this superstar lineup.

michelej1

08-05-2016, 08:35 PM

michelej1

08-05-2016, 08:36 PM

For real. Nobody in the general public will care if it's not this superstar lineup.

No one here is asking for a an album for the "general public." And the "general public" is not interested in new music from the band. The "general public" is happy with the nostalgia. Even with Stevie, the album is not going to sell.

Michele

jbrownsjr

08-05-2016, 08:51 PM

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I'm giving you a post Landslide performance hug. lol

BombaySapphire3

08-05-2016, 09:21 PM

No one here is asking for a an album for the "general public." And the "general public" is not interested in new music from the band. The "general public" is happy with the nostalgia. Even with Stevie, the album is not going to sell.

Michele

Yeah..which is the primary reason that the album has been shelved.If the album had a chance of selling millions it would already be completed.

~*BellaDonna*~

08-05-2016, 11:00 PM

For real. Nobody in the general public will care if it's not this superstar lineup.
I think you may have missed my point. I know the "general public" (myself included) could care less about what the lineup is. I was saying that I don't think the band would record an album where Stevie is excluded.

SteveMacD

08-05-2016, 11:29 PM

An album by the classic lineup or a near classic lineup is minutiae at this point. They could easily go on as a credible studio and live entity without Stevie so long as Christine and Lindsey are in the band. Realistically, that's not going to happen at this stage in their careers. They want to cross the finish line with the classic lineup in tact. Doing an album without Stevie might upset that goal.

Maybe the album comes out without Stevie under the Fleetwood Mac moniker after the tour, sort of as a post-script, or maybe as a disc of new material on a 50th Anniversary box set. It's sad that Christine's primary reason for coming back was to make new music with her band.

MikeInNV

08-05-2016, 11:34 PM

I'm giving you a post Landslide performance hug. lol

Wait, so is it sincere or not? :laugh:

jbrownsjr

08-06-2016, 02:30 AM

Wait, so is it sincere or not? :laugh:

In 1977.. :)

Macfan4life

08-06-2016, 04:58 AM

Remember that this band just performed a concert ALL TOGETHER. Stevie does not need the money from the private concert honoring the Dodgers. She did it to be included in the group.
I still believe this is the typical Stevie drama that happens during every Fleetwood Mac record. Its not new or surprising.

elle

08-06-2016, 01:24 PM

I never thought i would say it, but, I vote to release the new album without Stevie.

yes please.

at this point i don't even care whether they go spineless and don't call themselves FM. just release that Lindsey-Christine backed by FM album already!

i was really hoping there was some movement this year, but apparently it''s still the same stalemate as it was since Christine rejoined at the start of 2014. waiting to wrap up yet another huge GH - but this time touted as farewell 2017-18 - tour as they did for 2014-2015 won't change anything.

they can release another Buck-McVie album after that farewell tour, too, but sitting on all this material that's getting stale is getting ridiculous. there is over a year till their farewell cash grab tour is set to start, they should not spend all that time sitting around trying to convince Stevie to add her songs.

paleshadow

08-06-2016, 01:45 PM

Screeching halt. It's Mick and John's band and as much always said as long as there's the 2 of them them there is a Fleetwood Mac. And it's only fitting that some of us who've been around before them,s supported Fleetwood Mac with out Lindsey and Christine so we'll get through without Stevie

My point exactly. Micks dialogue seems to suggest if Stevie doesn't sign on, they just won't continue. As much as she needs to stop holding them up, Mick and the others also need to decide to go on without her.

paleshadow

08-06-2016, 01:47 PM

Well, it took them 5 years to put out an album after she left. That's more than batting an eyelash. Michele It took that long to put the album out, but the decision to move forward with a new album sans Chris didn't take that long.

MikeVielhaber

08-06-2016, 02:06 PM

Kansas, though not in their original classic lineup, decided to release an album without Steve Walsh due to his reluctance to participate in new music. They released Native Window as band and album name in 2009. It's actually pretty decent too. But they had to get on without Kansas' main songwriters and Fleetwood Mac still has 2 of 3 songwriters. But I think FM and definitely Mick are very commercially minded and wouldn't put an album out under a different name.

Additionally, Kansas is now putting out their first album since 2000 next month following Steve Walsh's departure a couple years ago.

paleshadow

08-06-2016, 02:41 PM

But I think FM and definitely Mick are very commercially minded and wouldn't put an album out under a different name.

I don't think that if Lindsey and Chris are still on board they would put out an album under a different name. If it was just Mick and John maybe. I agree with the focus being on commercialism, and I think they would have to shop around for an independent label if they move forward w/o Stevie. Maybe they should do that either way though.

SorcererJP

08-06-2016, 02:47 PM

At least he didn't hold them up and left the band.

I think 1987 was another era and complete other situation.

They had a major release (despite the history of making it), a few hit-songs. They were in their early 40's. Prime of their (creative) lives.

NOT touring after such a hit was complete not done back then. They just had to Nobless Oblige. So they went with two replacements for Lindsey (and had succes too with even another album).

In 2016 they are all towards their 70th birthday. They don't have to tour. Touring or recording with anyone of the five fireflies missing is out of the question. They won't take that risk and will wait for Stevie to show up.

SteveMacD

08-06-2016, 04:42 PM

I think 1987 was another era and complete other situation.

They had a major release (despite the history of making it), a few hit-songs. They were in their early 40's. Prime of their (creative) lives.

Which is why I said "If it were 10 to 15 years earlier, I'd absolutely part ways with her, but realistically it's all about to wrap up in the next few years"

SteveMacD

08-06-2016, 04:48 PM

I agree with the focus being on commercialism, and I think they would have to shop around for an independent label if they move forward w/o Stevie. Maybe they should do that either way though.
I'd love to see them on Matador, although Nonsuch might be preferable since it's a Warner subsidiary.

ETA: I don't think they'd have as much of a problem finding a label, since they're recording on their own dime. They don't need an advance and would be giving the label a completed Fleetwood Mac album. A smaller label would jump at the chance at having such a prestigious band on their label.

guillamene

08-06-2016, 04:50 PM

YES - release the album without Stevie! And I mean an album - we don't want the material to be come out in in bits and pieces as 'previously unreleased' or 'bonus tracks' of some anthologies of the future. It won't be the first time that this band released a record without the particpation of a key member.....
As regards a tour: they won't/can't tour without Stevie. Fact.And if the five do go on the road, what will a 2017/18 show have that 'On with the Show' didn't? Very little!Remember the audience reaction to the return of Christine - there is no way that this can be replicated next time(should there be a next time). As a final tour ,'On with the Show' will be very difficult to surpass.
On a personal note, it was quite stressful for me last year between securing
seats for shows I wanted to see, paying a LOT of money for good seats, worrying if the shows would go ahead after the few cancellations and then give statement to police DURING the show as a result of witnessing an altercation between a genuine fan and an abusive 'lady' in front of us who persisted in holding up her cellphone to take selfies of herself and her boyfriend! But that's another story....

michelej1

08-06-2016, 11:33 PM

It took that long to put the album out, but the decision to move forward with a new album sans Chris didn't take that long.

At the time, Stevie said that the reason they waited so long was because they were giving Christine time to change her mind.

Michele

HomerMcvie

08-07-2016, 10:25 AM

I don't get why she wouldn't want to be a part of THE LAST project of the band that gave her everything.

You comparing it to Tango and Lindsey quitting is not even in the ballpark.

Sorry, if I"m coming off as a jerk.. I'm just so frustrated with not getting to hear the new music that I guess I am becoming a little impolite. I apologize (sincerely)

Because she's a witch. A selfish witch. Except I made a typo on witch.

BLY

08-07-2016, 12:05 PM

This will NEVER happen!

bombaysaffires

08-08-2016, 07:04 PM

At the time, Stevie said that the reason they waited so long was because they were giving Christine time to change her mind.

Michele

I'm reminded of the Mirage scenario where Stevie threatened she could go to RollingStone and tell everyone how she thought the album sucked if they didn't give her her way. I don't see her being above threatening similar now if they were to put out something without her. That's the biggest issue-- they all know the media sh$tstorm she could and would cause if they didn't do things on her timetable.

I can see the stories now: "It is so sad that the band had to end like this", says Nicks, wiping away a tear. "The band that I gave up my whole life to, just turned its back on me. I have always, always made Fleetwood Mac my first priority. When I did Bella Donna, my first ever solo album, it was a very big deal for me, but I only went on tour for 6 weeks because of my commitment to Fleetwood Mac. My band and I could have kept touring for that record for months and months but it was important to me to let Fleetwood Mac know that they were still everything to me. And now, after everything we've been through together, this will be our sad legacy, to be left out of what is probably their last album ever" etc etc

jmn3

08-08-2016, 07:28 PM

I'm reminded of the Mirage scenario where Stevie threatened she could go to RollingStone and tell everyone how she thought the album sucked if they didn't give her her way. I don't see her being above threatening similar now if they were to put out something without her. That's the biggest issue-- they all know the media sh$tstorm she could and would cause if they didn't do things on her timetable.

I can see the stories now: "It is so sad that the band had to end like this", says Nicks, wiping away a tear. "The band that I gave up my whole life to, just turned its back on me. I have always, always made Fleetwood Mac my first priority. When I did Bella Donna, my first ever solo album, it was a very big deal for me, but I only went on tour for 6 weeks because of my commitment to Fleetwood Mac. My band and I could have kept touring for that record for months and months but it was important to me to let Fleetwood Mac know that they were still everything to me. And now, after everything we've been through together, this will be our sad legacy, to be left out of what is probably their last album ever" etc etc

I could see her trying that approach. The difference between 1982 and now is that Stevie Nicks isn't really relevant anymore. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'd lay it out there and let her go to the press if she wants. Maybe that's one way to make Fleetwood Mac interesting again...a big ass war. Stevie whining...Lindsey giving his philosophical rambling replies...and then Chris just being all like "And now you see why I went into hiding for 16 years?"

Jondalar

08-09-2016, 03:24 AM

They should release a new album without Stevie. Tango in the Night proves they don't need her and 24 Karat Gold proves that she is better off on her own.

Macfan4life

08-09-2016, 04:45 AM

We all can use the "should" word. The Mac should release the album without Stevie. The Mac then should tour without Stevie.
Reality check: It wont happen.
If the Mac would record without her, Stevie would never do a tour to promote the album she was not part of. The Mac knows that and that is why Mick said the album is shelved for now.

James89

08-09-2016, 07:06 AM

Reality check: It wont happen.
If the Mac would record without her, Stevie would never do a tour to promote the album she was not part of. The Mac knows that and that is why Mick said the album is shelved for now.

PRECISELY. It's so obvious that's what's happening so can't people just stop with all of this? We're bound to get little bits of news somewhere down the line.

nicepace

08-09-2016, 01:06 PM

If the Mac would record without her, Stevie would never do a tour to promote the album she was not part of.

I think that's an absurd statement. We all know that the theme of any future tour won't be to promote a new album, even if there is a new album. Any new tour is going to be another oldies, cash-grab tour. If there happens to be a new album, they might do a mini-set of three songs from it (one from each songwriter), or two songs from it (one from Lindsey, one from Chris if Stevie isn't on the album).

The various musicians already take breaks during the show, except for Lindsey, and Stevie taking a short break while Lindsey and Chris do their new songs would be totally in keeping with the way the shows have been structured.

And guess what? Sadly, the mini-set of new songs would probably be a popular bathroom break for the majority of concert goers.

Macfan4life

08-09-2016, 07:01 PM

I think that's an absurd statement. We all know that the theme of any future tour won't be to promote a new album, even if there is a new album. Any new tour is going to be another oldies, cash-grab tour. If there happens to be a new album, they might do a mini-set of three songs from it (one from each songwriter), or two songs from it (one from Lindsey, one from Chris if Stevie isn't on the album).

The various musicians already take breaks during the show, except for Lindsey, and Stevie taking a short break while Lindsey and Chris do their new songs would be totally in keeping with the way the shows have been structured.

And guess what? Sadly, the mini-set of new songs would probably be a popular bathroom break for the majority of concert goers.
You may call it an absurd statement but I think its an absurd belief Stevie is going to perform on the stage (or run backstage) on a tour where she did not participate in the new songs. No matter what "YOU" call the tour, the tour would definitely promote the new album.
You cant have it both ways. You are calling any future tour an oldies tour. I think its fair for any band to play their hits. Lindsey and Chris love recording new material and will want to perform it on stage. I don't see the band recording an album without Stevie and then ignoring the album on any new tour (no matter what you call it). This is the band's last go round. The album or tour will not happen without Stevie.

jbrownsjr

08-09-2016, 07:36 PM

You may call it an absurd statement but I think its an absurd belief Stevie is going to perform on the stage (or run backstage) on a tour where she did not participate in the new songs. No matter what "YOU" call the tour, the tour would definitely promote the new album.
You cant have it both ways. You are calling any future tour an oldies tour. I think its fair for any band to play their hits. Lindsey and Chris love recording new material and will want to perform it on stage. I don't see the band recording an album without Stevie and then ignoring the album on any new tour (no matter what you call it). This is the band's last go round. The album or tour will not happen without Stevie.

I don't see Stevie running back stage. She would sing the new songs with them. She sang on World Turning. If they did Peacekeeper, I know Christine wouldn't run back stage even though, she wasn't on that album.

lbfan

08-09-2016, 07:49 PM

SteveMacD

08-10-2016, 12:24 AM

They won't sacrifice the "golden goose" (i.e., the tour and the $ that come with it) for a new album. That is why there is not a new album and may never be a new album. The rest of the band realizes that if Stevie doesn't participate in the new album, there won't be an album at all. She holds all of the cards in this affair.

Only because they let her. With Christine back, they could easily be a viable entity without Stevie. At this point, it appears they just want to finish with the classic lineup in tact, and are going out of their way to make sure that happens. They want to ride into the sunset and have that happy sense of closure.

Of course, that flies counter to their entire history, or they'd be a hapless Krautrock inspired jam band that gives away all of its earnings to help struggling Africans. I wish Mick and John could find that thing within them that they had all those years ago that let them stand up to Peter Green. Yeah, they lost Peter, but they got Christine as a result.

Perhaps Stevie feels a new album would detract from the band's legacy (or her own personal legacy).
Yet somehow a rushed album of lost demos she found on YouTube helps her legacy???

Jondalar

08-10-2016, 03:12 AM

She is almost 70 years old and she has toured more than any of them. She doesn't want to do it. Can't blame her. She clearly did not enjoy the last tour.

Macfan4life

08-10-2016, 04:24 AM

I don't see Stevie running back stage. She would sing the new songs with them. She sang on World Turning. If they did Peacekeeper, I know Christine wouldn't run back stage even though, she wasn't on that album.
What the? Stevie was part of the album Mirage and Mirage tour. Of course she sung on those songs. The running backstage line was a joke because Stevie is not going to quit the band only to rejoin them months later on a world tour. I am surprised how many people believe that. That makes no sense. And its not personal to just Stevie. Who quits a band, refuses to record a new album but then gladly goes out on a tour with the group? That makes no sense and reflects you don't care about your craft or your band. You just want to sing songs on stage and get paid big bucks.
Peacekeeper is not going to be played at their farewell tour nor any tour promoting their new album.
Seriously?;)
Really:eek:

jbrownsjr

08-10-2016, 08:39 AM

What the? Stevie was part of the album Mirage and Mirage tour. Of course she sung on those songs. The running backstage line was a joke because Stevie is not going to quit the band only to rejoin them months later on a world tour. I am surprised how many people believe that. That makes no sense. And its not personal to just Stevie. Who quits a band, refuses to record a new album but then gladly goes out on a tour with the group? That makes no sense and reflects you don't care about your craft or your band. You just want to sing songs on stage and get paid big bucks.
Peacekeeper is not going to be played at their farewell tour nor any tour promoting their new album.
Seriously?;)
Really:eek:

You missed my point. My point was... whether she recorded or not. She would still sing on any of the songs they performed live. Do I think that would happen (that they record without her) Unlikely.

I used to love when she ran back stage. It gave the band moments of instrumentation. Like "Not That Funny", "I'm So Afraid"

But she doesn't do that anymore.

Macfan4life

08-11-2016, 05:09 AM

You missed my point. My point was... whether she recorded or not. She would still sing on any of the songs they performed live. Do I think that would happen (that they record without her) Unlikely.

I used to love when she ran back stage. It gave the band moments of instrumentation. Like "Not That Funny", "I'm So Afraid"

But she doesn't do that anymore.
C'mon now. Stevie clearly said in interviews in the early 80's she ran backstage to breathe steam to help her voice. She was only helping the band by making her voice better for the concerts. ;)

bwboy

08-11-2016, 06:30 AM

She doesn't play an instrument, so why would Stevie stay on stage during I'm So Afraid or Not That Funny? Same thing with Songbird.

olive

08-11-2016, 06:54 AM

She doesn't play an instrument, so why would Stevie stay on stage during I'm So Afraid or Not That Funny? Same thing with Songbird.

http://i5.cdnds.net/12/41/lg_82232edf127590273714286.jpg

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lka08e292v1qcaugio1_400.jpg

[

olive

08-11-2016, 06:56 AM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f3/bf/de/f3bfde85031e605452e3710897e7f36f.jpg

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2014/article/stevie-nicks-joins-the-voice-as-adam-levines-advisor-20140709/18974/_original/1035x699-nicks1800-1404922618.jpg

jbrownsjr

08-11-2016, 07:50 AM

She doesn't play an instrument, so why would Stevie stay on stage during I'm So Afraid or Not That Funny? Same thing with Songbird.

Backing vocals, additional guitar, percussion...

jbrownsjr

08-11-2016, 07:52 AM

C'mon now. Stevie clearly said in interviews in the early 80's she ran backstage to breathe steam to help her voice. She was only helping the band by making her voice better for the concerts. ;)

I'm glad she ran back stage... I don't like her singing on ISA, World Turning..

Although, I rather like her howling on World Turning Jam at the end in the old days..

Currently, I don't like her vocals on these..

bwboy

08-11-2016, 03:08 PM

Wow, I never thought that Stevie should sing back up or harmony on Not That Funny or Songbird. And thanks for the pictures of Stevie playing tambourine and a clapper and holding a guitar. A good reminder of how integral those instruments are to the band's sound.

olive

08-11-2016, 04:24 PM

Stormwind

08-11-2016, 08:46 PM

I think Stevie doesn't believe in recording with the band anymore, not as Lindsey, the band, did with SYW and the last EP. But, in a broader concept, the whole concept of recording as a band died after Mirage with the exception of sales numbers and hit singles. A flop? Nah, too much for her ego. And, I guess she isn't very proud of rehashing old demos there and there, nor has the creative support of the other two songwriters in the band. No album, nada de nada. Fleetwood Mac died long ago.

bombaysaffires

08-11-2016, 10:52 PM

Well Mick's back in Hawaii, according to his Facebook page. He was celebrating the 4th anniversary of his restaurant:

What an amazing show at Fleetwood’s on Front Street in Lahaina, Maui!!! We celebrated the 4th Year Anniversary of my restaurant performing with the Houseshakers Band featuring Wille K.
Surprise guests included Sammy Hagar, Questlove and Kris Kristofferson.

Pictures included on his FB.

aleuzzi

08-12-2016, 05:45 PM

elle

08-12-2016, 06:11 PM