View Full Version : Would the Rumours line-up still be together if ...
Lindsey had just agreed to the tour dates EDIT: arrangements that the other band members wanted.
On this forum a fair proportion of the posters blame the band (in particular Mick and Stevie) for the impasse that lead to Lindsey parting ways with the band. But, what scant actual information we have about the causes of this, it seems that Lindsey refusing to sign off on the tour led to the impasse and the split.
Couldn't it be said that fault is on both sides for this impasse, and given that the majority of the band (all of the rest of the band) wanted to tour, then perhaps Lindsey should have agreed and signed off on the tour.
I don't see anything, other than wild speculation, to suggest that Lindsey would have been dropped had he compromised and agreed to a timetable. Hence, it seems that an unwillingness to compromise is possibly the root cause of the split, and hence there is fault on both sides. But, if you have a five member group, and four members agree and one doesn't, then that would suggest to me that it's the one member who is more at fault than the others.
I can see why FM would want to go out on the road sooner rather than later. John's cancer is now 'clear', but I can see that the scare he had in 2013/2014 would have focussed his, and other band members, minds on the fact that they aren't going to be around, and able to tour, forever. Delaying for a year increases the chance that the tour won't go ahead due to members being ill or worse. Lindsey is younger than Christine, Mick, and John, and may be less focussed on imminent mortality (or at least forced retirement.) EDIT: Based on later discussions, for this paragraph, perhaps focussing on the time of the tour is not the best way of making the point. There is conflict in the descriptions from both sides as to whether a delay was requested, or whether other points of contention led to the impasse. However, see later discussions on 1987 and whether the band felt they can trust Lindsey.
But, if we go back to basics, we have that Fleetwood Mac is touring without Lindsey because Lindsey refused to go on the tour (asking for it to be at a later time). I can't see how this is not more Lindsey's fault than Fleetwood Mac. If you want to be in a band, you have to compromise. Lindsey didn't, and paid the price.
EDIT: In light of later discussions, I'll modify the previous paragraph. The next one replaces it.
But, if we go back to basics, we have that Fleetwood Mac is touring without Lindsey because Lindsey refused to agree to tour arrangements (not just time, but potentially other details as well), I can't see how this is not more Lindsey's fault than Fleetwood Mac. If you want to be in a band, you have to compromise. It appears that Lindsey didn't compromise sufficiently or compromised too late, and paid the price.
Can I point out that I'm more of a Lindsey fan than I am a Fleetwood Mac fan. But, like my full acceptance that Roger Waters is an ... not a nice person ..., I think that Lindsey is more at fault here than the others are due to personal failings.
If Fleetwood Mac was as important to Lindsey as pronouncements suggest, then he should have compromised EDIT: compromised more and/or sooner.
Storms123
08-31-2018, 07:53 AM
Lindsey had just agreed to the tour dates that the other band members wanted.
On this forum a fair proportion of the posters blame the band (in particular Mick and Stevie) for the impasse that lead to Lindsey parting ways with the band. But, what scant actual information we have about the causes of this, it seems that Lindsey refusing to sign off on the tour led to the impasse and the split.
Couldn't it be said that fault is on both sides for this impasse, and given that the majority of the band (all of the rest of the band) wanted to tour, then perhaps Lindsey should have agreed and signed off on the tour.
I don't see anything, other than wild speculation, to suggest that Lindsey would have been dropped had he compromised and agreed to a timetable. Hence, it seems that an unwillingness to compromise is possibly the root cause of the split, and hence there is fault on both sides. But, if you have a five member group, and four members agree and one doesn't, then that would suggest to me that it's the one member who is more at fault than the others.
I can see why FM would want to go out on the road sooner rather than later. John's cancer is now 'clear', but I can see that the scare he had in 2013/2014 would have focussed his, and other band members, minds on the fact that they aren't going to be around, and able to tour, forever. Delaying for a year increases the chance that the tour won't go ahead due to members being ill or worse. Lindsey is younger than Christine, Mick, and John, and may be less focussed on imminent mortality (or at least forced retirement.)
But, if we go back to basics, we have that Fleetwood Mac is touring without Lindsey because Lindsey refused to go on the tour (asking for it to be at a later time). I can't see how this is not more Lindsey's fault than Fleetwood Mac. If you want to be in a band, you have to compromise. Lindsey didn't, and paid the price.
Can I point out that I'm more of a Lindsey fan than I am a Fleetwood Mac fan. But, like my full acceptance that Roger Waters is an ... not a nice person ..., I think that Lindsey is more at fault here than the others are due to personal failings.
If Fleetwood Mac was as important to Lindsey as pronouncements suggest, then he should have compromised.
He did agree to the tour dates. Apparently, according to Lindsey’s wife, this iteration is starting the tour later than they would have had they not fired Lindsey. The “tour dates” story was something the band dreamed up initially.
He did agree to the tour dates. Apparently, according to Lindsey’s wife, this iteration is starting the tour later than they would have had they not fired Lindsey. The “tour dates” story was something the band dreamed up initially.
I've gone and checked sources, and don't find anything that discounts the impasse over touring being the reason for Lindsey being left behind. Do you have evidence to back up claims (paraphrased) that the impasse over touring was not the cause of the split?
Whether or not the current tour will be starting later than they would have if they hadn't fired Lindsey does not address my question.
Jesus Christ. Let it go.
To whom is that addressed?
TrueFaith77
08-31-2018, 08:25 AM
I've gone and checked sources, and don't find anything that discounts the impasse over touring being the reason for Lindsey being left behind. Do you have evidence to back up claims (paraphrased) that the impasse over touring was not the cause of the split?
Whether or not the current tour will be starting later than they would have if they hadn't fired Lindsey does not address my question.
You didn't look very hard, did you?
:shocked:
You didn't look very hard, did you?
:shocked:
I've looked hard for reliable sources. I do not just accept conspiracy theories backed up by no evidence. Which are 99.999% of posts on Lindsey leaving FM.
Buster
08-31-2018, 10:07 AM
Of course Lindsey played a role in all of this. We will likely never know the truth, regardless of what the detectives in this board think. The problem I have is how it was done and that it doesn’t appear everything was done to try to work it out.
Buster
08-31-2018, 10:08 AM
I've looked hard for reliable sources. I do not just accept conspiracy theories backed up by no evidence. Which are 99.999% of posts on Lindsey leaving FM.
You are right, of course. But you are wasting your time trying to get these folks to get it.
You didn't look very hard, did you?
:shocked:
Agree with Nick - one of the reasons why I’m never here anymore is because of the constant rehashing of the same thing for 4 months now, with no worries about the facts or reliable sources.
Ench - please check the Record thread on here for some facts and reliable sources that you seem to be looking for. Then come here if you want to dissect any of those because the Record thread is kept discussion free.
Of course Lindsey played a role in all of this. We will likely never know the truth, regardless of what the detectives in this board think. The problem I have is how it was done and that it doesn’t appear everything was done to try to work it out.
Yes, we'll never know the exact truth. Though, I suspect we'll hear more details from both sides at some time.
I suspect that there was a time reasonably recently (possibly even early this year) when a Rumours lineup tour was on the cards, and the four members were prepared to tour with Lindsey. Otherwise even starting the negotiations makes no sense. And this would include Stevie being prepared (not happy to, I would think) to work with Lindsey.
It could have been 'solved' by one side or the other simply agreeing to what the other side asked for. However, it's not necessarily a good idea for that to happen.
While FM was his cash cow, Lindsey's solo work appears to be more important for him, and from an artistic point of view that makes sense to me. Lindsey's solo work has been ... affected by FM business repeatedly in the past. It's possible, and reasonable, that he didn't want this again.
On FM's side, while it's suggested that Lindsey would have joined them for a tour at some point, did they believe that they could trust that? We know that Lindsey left them in the lurch in 1987. By making the choice they did, it appears that full commitments to the tour were made by all six members. So, it may be a case that FM didn't want the tour to go on the never never. Again, that's reasonable.
It seems to me that there were 'factions' and what they wanted didn't match up. So, we end up where we are.
Agree with Nick - one of the reasons why I’m never here anymore is because of the constant rehashing of the same thing for 4 months now, with no worries about the facts or reliable sources.
Ench - please check the Record thread on here for some facts and reliable sources that you seem to be looking for. Then come here if you want to dissect any of those because the Record thread is kept discussion free.
I had already read the record thread, thank you. I went back and read the quotes again in case I had missed something. I don't see anything substantial that answers my first post.
There is one comment made in someone's 'youtube notes'.
Lindsey *did* want to tour. Saying that he did not want to tour until 2019 is simply not true, no matter who says it.
Even if this comment was true, it still doesn't mean that he wouldn't be in the band even if he had agreed to the tour dates. Lindsey most likely did want to tour, and FM wanted to tour, but they didn't agree on details.
Also, Kristen Buckingham talks about a 1 year delay.
W]ell that's just the point, he didn't do anything beyond asking for a 1yr tour delay or asking to do his own solo tour at the same time so that a delay wouldn't be needed. Stevie just decided she wanted him out of her life and that meant out of the band. That's why so many fans have turned away from the band, and why so many Stevie fans have turned away from Stevie. [H]e didn’t ask for any such delay. Ironically, they are starting later now than what they had planned with Lindsey. Cruelest move I’ve ever seen. Lindsey did not deserve any of it.
Looking through the comments by Mick, there is repeated mentioning of the inability to come to an agreement about touring. Which is backed up by Kristen's comment.
As posted up above, and supported by both sides, there were negotiations about touring, and these did not progress to a resolution, and then the other members (including Stevie) decided to go on without Lindsey. Is any of this paragraph in doubt?
Nothing in that means that had Lindsey agreed to the tour dates that the other members wanted, how they wanted, that he still wouldn't have been able to tour. Even if the conspiracy theories that this is just Stevie's doing were true, it appears to me that there was a time that by being more agreeable, that Stevie would have toured with Lindsey.
And, that was my question in the OP. So, I don't agree that the Record thread, or any other sources I've been able to find, invalidate or answer my question.
I had already read the record thread, thank you.
Also, Kristen Buckingham talks about a 1 year delay.
you misquoted Kristen, which is actually not surprising considering it is kinda jumbled up in that record thread:
Update
(Can no longer edit the OP, so am just adding new bits and corrections as new posts)
Addition:
2018 January 26 - Stevie Nicks in Musicares red carpet interview
When asked what the band will be doing next, Stevie stumbles ever so slightly and then says she doesn't know. That she's going off to Hawaii for 2 months because she's tired, she's just done 70 shows on her solo tour and she doesn't know what the band will be doing but they're all "free" going forward.
(Summary borrowed from post by bombaysaffires)
(Discuss here: http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=1234776#post1234776)
Correction:
2018 June 29 - Kristen Buckingham on her Instagram
(In response to a user asking “WTF did [Lindsey] do [to get fired], another user says "[W]ell that's just the point, he didn't do anything beyond asking for a 1yr tour delay or asking to do his own solo tour at the same time so that a delay wouldn't be needed. Stevie just decided she wanted him out of her life and that meant out of the band." In response to which, Kristen Buckingham says:
[H]e didn’t ask for any such delay. Ironically, they are starting later now than what they had planned with Lindsey. Cruelest move I’ve ever seen. Lindsey did not deserve any of it.
Source thread (Discuss here): http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...t=58003&page=5
Kristen's original comment is this (i also bolded above):
[H]e didn’t ask for any such delay. Ironically, they are starting later now than what they had planned with Lindsey. Cruelest move I’ve ever seen. Lindsey did not deserve any of it.
Kristen is answering an IG comment from a fan claiming that he asked for 1 year delay.
so Kristen Buckingham directly refutes the 1 year delay claim.
you can also go to original thread which i believe has screencap of Kristen's comment, so you can directly see what she said, in response to what. if not, you can go to that IG post and scroll down to her comment.
adding on unbroken links to threads for completeness and ease of use since some people seem to need help navigating around:
here is a thread and post where Nancy transcribed the comments from IG:
http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=1232014&postcount=68
and a quote from that thread (again, with KB's comments in bold. frankly when i saw her post i was surprised to find it out so clearly and unequivocally. before that i thought maybe he suggested 2 possible options, but Kristen was very clear and direct and left no doubt that there was no delay in discussions, and that FM tour he agreed to was supposed to start earlier than it is actually starting now. so if anything, replacing LB has caused a delay that wouldn't happen if he was still in the band):
I think we should go ahead and post the transcript from seed_we_sow's post (https://www.instagram.com/p/BkmFVqHAhT2/?taken-by=seeds_we_sow) here in case people are having trouble sifting through the instagram comments or, in the future, that post / series of replies gets lost or something (Note: kbcrush is Kristen):
jgrt35 WTF did he do ? Don't get mad cause I asked.Im like make up,��
seeds_we_sow@jgrt35 well that's just the point, he didn't do anything beyond asking for a 1yr tour delay or asking to do his own solo tour at the same time so that a delay wouldn't be needed. Stevie just decided she wanted him out of her life and that meant out of the band. That's why so many fans have turned away from the band, and why so many Stevie fans have turned away from Stevie.
kbchrush@seeds_we_sow he didn’t ask for any such delay. Ironically, they are starting later now than what they had planned with Lindsey.
kbchrush@seeds_we_sow Cruelest move I’ve ever seen. Lindsey did not deserve any of it.
you misquoted Kristen, which is actually not surprising considering it is kinda jumbled up in that record thread:
Kristen's original comment is this (i also bolded above):
[H]e didn’t ask for any such delay. Ironically, they are starting later now than what they had planned with Lindsey. Cruelest move I’ve ever seen. Lindsey did not deserve any of it.
Kristen is answering an IG comment from a fan claiming that he asked for 1 year delay.
so Kristen Buckingham directly refutes the 1 year delay claim.
you can also go to original thread which i believe has screencap of Kristen's comment, so you can directly see what she said, in response to what. if not, you can go to that IG post and scroll down to her comment.
OK, I see. The 'source thread' above appears to be a broken link. And, while I looked through Kristen's Instagram page previously, I missed that bit. I'd prefer a link to the original Instagram post if possible.
The rest of the band has been clear in claims that Lindsey wanted to delay the tour, e.g. here Stevie says directly that Lindsey wanted to delay the tour rehearsals until November 2019. http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/tevie-nicks-calls-lindsey-buckingham-relationship-volatile.html
So, we have a situation where they are saying different things. There are three situations I can see.
1. Stevie is lying.
2. Kristen is lying.
3. Neither are actually lying, but are giving simple descriptions of a more complex truth.
E.g. it could have been the case that in discussions Lindsey initially asked for the tour to be delayed (until 2020 I would guess if rehearsals only started in November 2019.) But, that in discussion various options were put forward including the solo and FM tour happening at the same time. So, no delay. However, it could be that either (i) this offer came too late after a majority of the band had already decided that they didn't want to tour with Lindsey, or (ii) other points of negotiation weren't agreed which caused the bustup. I.e. even without a delay there were other points that caused and impasse and the current situation.
In the cases described in the first paragraph, Stevie could be telling the truth if an initial discussion included a request to delay the tour, and Kristen could be telling the truth if a later offer was made by Lindsey that meant the tour would go ahead.
The bottom line was that agreement wasn't reached.
In light of this, I think my initial question needs to be modified so that it doesn't rely on the single point of contention: was there a request for a delay.
However, the bottom line is that there were at least a majority who wanted to go ahead with the tour, and at least one (and I guess one) who wanted to do things differently. (Though, it's arguable how differently.) In that situation, it's more the responsibility of the individual to compromise than the majority, if they want to keep the band together.
Macfan4life
08-31-2018, 12:35 PM
OMG Another thread on this :eek:
None of us were there. But when you add up all the circumstantial evidence, the tour dates excuse seems pretty lame.
Jury: Exhibit A
Stevie refuses to join Fleetwood Mac in the studio claiming records don't sell. However that did not stop Stevie from recording 2 solo albums recently and touring to support them.
Exhibit B
Fleetwood Mac did record Buckingham/McVie but dared not to call it a Fleetwood Mac album. Clearly this would upset Stevie or she was pissed the band went on without her.
Exhibit C
The changing stories from Mick. First it was about tour dates. Lately it was just that they did not feel good with Lindsey. Huh? We know Stevie is the only band member who does not get along with Lindsey. Its a fair assumption that Stevie gave an ultimatum …"I refuse to record with him, and I refuse to tour with him" Being the band wants to tour, Mick made his pick and the rest is history.
Back to tour dates. Lindsey's solo tour ends about a month after the Mac tour started. When you lie like Stevie did about touring, you know there is another reason.
OMG Another thread on this :eek:
None of us were there. But when you add up all the circumstantial evidence, the tour dates excuse seems pretty lame.
Jury: Exhibit A
Stevie refuses to join Fleetwood Mac in the studio claiming records don't sell. However that did not stop Stevie from recording 2 solo albums recently and touring to support them.
Exhibit B
Fleetwood Mac did record Buckingham/McVie but dared not to call it a Fleetwood Mac album. Clearly this would upset Stevie or she was pissed the band went on without her.
Exhibit C
The changing stories from Mick. First it was about tour dates. Lately it was just that they did not feel good with Lindsey. Huh? We know Stevie is the only band member who does not get along with Lindsey. Its a fair assumption that Stevie gave an ultimatum …"I refuse to record with him, and I refuse to tour with him" Being the band wants to tour, Mick made his pick and the rest is history.
Back to tour dates. Lindsey's solo tour ends about a month after the Mac tour started. When you lie like Stevie did about touring, you know there is another reason.
What you have posted is a general discussion about the event. It doesn't address the issue of whether the tour would have gone ahead with Lindsey had Lindsey been more agreeable during the negotiations for the tour.
Your claim that Stevie lied about touring is an assumption. So is your claim that Stevie was pissed by the Buckingham McVie album happening without her or that they wouldn't 'dare' call it a FM album. Later you claim to have a 'fair assumption', but it's based on other assumptions based on other assumptions.
Stevie's most recent album was in 2014. There's nothing inconsistent with her having recorded albums in 2011 and 2014, and deciding based on those albums that she didn't want to do any more. And nothing I've seen has said that that is the only reason she didn't want to join in on the album that because Buckingham McVie, so still no inconsistencies. It's clear from various evidence (e.g. SYW doco) that Stevie does not like working with Lindsey, from decades ago, but she has completed a large number of tours with him. No strong evidence that a tour with both Stevie and Lindsey was off the table from before the negotiations.
There's nothing inconsistent with the bust up having been about touring details and Mick and other members then not feeling good about continuing with Lindsey. A plausible scenario is that due to the nature of the discussions on touring a majority of the band decided that they didn't want to tour with Lindsey, the 'bad feeling' being caused or (more likely I believe) intensified by touring negotiations. EDIT: As an example, if the other band members decided that Lindsey was being an *ss, then that could easily have put them off and even later compromises by Lindsey would be too late. (I've discussed this possibility above.)
None of that is incompatible with a scenario where Lindsey being more agreeable during negotiations, from sufficiently early on, would have led to a full Rumours line up tour. Note that a full Rumours tour with a Stevie not being happy is entirely plausible - it's happened before.
bombaysaffires
08-31-2018, 01:44 PM
Of course Lindsey played a role in all of this. We will likely never know the truth, regardless of what the detectives in this board think. The problem I have is how it was done and that it doesn’t appear everything was done to try to work it out.
Yes to this.:nod:
bombaysaffires
08-31-2018, 01:45 PM
What you have posted is a general discussion about the event. It doesn't address the issue of whether the tour would have gone ahead with Lindsey had Lindsey been more agreeable during the negotiations for the tour.
Your claim that Stevie lied about touring is an assumption. So is your claim that Stevie was pissed by the Buckingham McVie album happening without her or that they wouldn't 'dare' call it a FM album. Later you claim to have a 'fair assumption', but it's based on other assumptions based on other assumptions.
Stevie's most recent album was in 2014. There's nothing inconsistent with her having recorded albums in 2011 and 2014, and deciding based on those albums that she didn't want to do any more. And nothing I've seen has said that that is the only reason she didn't want to join in on the album that because Buckingham McVie, so still no inconsistencies. It's clear from various evidence (e.g. SYW doco) that Stevie does not like working with Lindsey, from decades ago, but she has completed a large number of tours with him. No strong evidence that a tour with both Stevie and Lindsey was off the table from before the negotiations.
There's nothing inconsistent with the bust up having been about touring details and Mick and other members then not feeling good about continuing with Lindsey. A plausible scenario is that due to the nature of the discussions on touring a majority of the band decided that they didn't want to tour with Lindsey, the 'bad feeling' being caused or (more likely I believe) intensified by touring negotiations. EDIT: As an example, if the other band members decided that Lindsey was being an *ss, then that could easily have put them off and even later compromises by Lindsey would be too late. (I've discussed this possibility above.)
None of that is incompatible with a scenario where Lindsey being more agreeable during negotiations, from sufficiently early on, would have led to a full Rumours line up tour. Note that a full Rumours tour with a Stevie not being happy is entirely plausible - it's happened before.
What's your point?
Macfan4life
08-31-2018, 01:51 PM
What you have posted is a general discussion about the event. It doesn't address the issue of whether the tour would have gone ahead with Lindsey had Lindsey been more agreeable during the negotiations for the tour.
Your claim that Stevie lied about touring is an assumption. So is your claim that Stevie was pissed by the Buckingham McVie album happening without her or that they wouldn't 'dare' call it a FM album. Later you claim to have a 'fair assumption', but it's based on other assumptions based on other assumptions.
Stevie's most recent album was in 2014. There's nothing inconsistent with her having recorded albums in 2011 and 2014, and deciding based on those albums that she didn't want to do any more. And nothing I've seen has said that that is the only reason she didn't want to join in on the album that because Buckingham McVie, so still no inconsistencies. It's clear from various evidence (e.g. SYW doco) that Stevie does not like working with Lindsey, from decades ago, but she has completed a large number of tours with him. No strong evidence that a tour with both Stevie and Lindsey was off the table from before the negotiations.
There's nothing inconsistent with the bust up having been about touring details and Mick and other members then not feeling good about continuing with Lindsey. A plausible scenario is that due to the nature of the discussions on touring a majority of the band decided that they didn't want to tour with Lindsey, the 'bad feeling' being caused or (more likely I believe) intensified by touring negotiations. EDIT: As an example, if the other band members decided that Lindsey was being an *ss, then that could easily have put them off and even later compromises by Lindsey would be too late. (I've discussed this possibility above.)
None of that is incompatible with a scenario where Lindsey being more agreeable during negotiations, from sufficiently early on, would have led to a full Rumours line up tour. Note that a full Rumours tour with a Stevie not being happy is entirely plausible - it's happened before.
Threads like these is like a dog chasing its tail. They don't go anywhere.
We can only read between the lines of the statements we know. The statements are not logical IMHO so they are lies. As Judge Judy says, if it does not make sense, its not the truth. :)
Your statement:
"What you have posted is a general discussion about the event. It doesn't address the issue of whether the tour would have gone ahead with Lindsey had Lindsey been more agreeable during the negotiations for the tour".
Your statement is not logical because you are assuming Lindsey was not agreeable to tour dates. There is no proof of that. And as I mentioned, Lindsey's tour really does not interfere with the Mac's tour. They only are together for one month. So that tells me right there, scheduling was not an issue. I don't buy that argument because there are enough known facts to dispute that claim. You are asking me to comment on something I don't believe in so its a moot point. IMHO Stevie and Mick have been caught in false statements. False statements about not recording, false statements about tour schedules, false statements about not being happy with Lindsey. I also find the Christine explanation suspicious. So I am sorry I cant help you any further ;)
So what about you. Do you believe Stevie when on why she refused to join the Mac in the studio? You don't find any circumstantial evidence or something to make you go hmmmmmmm to Stevie not choosing to record with Lindsey and not touring with Lindsey?
Threads like these is like a dog chasing its tail. They don't go anywhere.
I disagree. This thread has had some posts which lead to reasonable discussion.
We can only read between the lines of the statements we know. The statements are not logical IMHO so they are lies. As Judge Judy says, if it does not make sense, its not the truth. :)
My point above was that the statements are not illogical. The reason for the double negative in that statement is that there are plausible contexts when they could be true. As an example it is entirely plausible that Stevie recorded albums in 2011 and 2014 and then decided that it wasn't worth recording any more. That would make sense.
Your statement:
"What you have posted is a general discussion about the event. It doesn't address the issue of whether the tour would have gone ahead with Lindsey had Lindsey been more agreeable during the negotiations for the tour".
Your statement is not logical because you are assuming Lindsey was not agreeable to tour dates. There is no proof of that. And as I mentioned, Lindsey's tour really does not interfere with the Mac's tour. They only are together for one month. So that tells me right there, scheduling was not an issue. I don't buy that argument because there are enough known facts to dispute that claim. You are asking me to comment on something I don't believe in so its a moot point. IMHO Stevie and Mick have been caught in false statements. False statements about not recording, false statements about tour schedules, false statements about not being happy with Lindsey. I also find the Christine explanation suspicious. So I am sorry I cant help you any further ;)
No, there's no proof of that, but quite a bit of the evidence that we have says that it is true. E.g. direct statements from Mick and Stevie that point to the negotiations being a contributing cause of the breakdown. And, note that my OP and the more refined version I'm using now after constructive follow up posts is: 'If Lindsey had been more agreeable in negotiations concerning the tour, would the Rumours lineup still be together and go out on tour?' It does not assume that Lindsey wasn't agreeable (though evidence points elsewhere). If you feel you can support the claim that Lindsey was super-cooperative right from the start, then that would allow you to answer the question as 'no, Lindsey could not have been more agreeable, and therefore there was nothing he could have done that would have resulted in the Rumours lineup staying together.' Do you claim that? If so, based on what evidence?
So what about you. Do you believe Stevie when on why she refused to join the Mac in the studio? You don't find any circumstantial evidence or something to make you go hmmmmmmm to Stevie not choosing to record with Lindsey and not touring with Lindsey?
Like many of these points, I think her explanation was over-simple. And other things she has said show that there was more than just one factor involved. She has pointed out that albums don't sell well, as we are discussing here, and they aren't worth the money invested. She has also pointed out that she doesn't find recording albums fun, and that it's a whole year of not being fun. We know that she doesn't like what Lindsey does to her songs. There isn't just one reason for her not wanting to record that album. That she mentioned one reason in one single interview is not a lie, it's what happens in human conversation when you ask something. You get an answer, because people don't usually stop and spend half an hour explaining every pro and con that has led to a decision. This isn't lying, it's just normal discussion.
Also, I wouldn't find it to be a lie if Stevie decided to record another album in the future, because the circumstances may change. E.g. if FM2018 decided to do what Neil Finn did and record a new album in a small number of sessions in Neil Finn's studio, then this would address many of the reasons Stevie has for not recording an album. It would be cheaper, take an order of magnitude less time, and perhaps Stevie would appreciate the challenge of recording so quick. At least she wouldn't be stuck there for a year. And, she might decide that she wants to write with Mike again after reconnecting on the tour. So, even if she decides to record another FM album, that wouldn't make what she said a lie. It would be circumstances changing, leading her to change her mind. Which people are allowed to do.
What's your point?
It looks to me as if Mac4Life has understood the post I quoted, and has responded to it as per the quoted materials above.
If you're asking what my point is in general, I've read a number of posts on this forum that disagree with Lindsey being ejected, and that something should have been done to fix the problem. With some, far from all, posts, this seems to be an assumption that Lindsey is the victim of the breakdown and that it should have been FM2018 that should have acted to fix the problem and keep Lindsey in the band. The overall point of this thread is that in all likelihood it was fully in Lindsey's power to have acted in such a way that the band could have stayed together, and that therefore he should be blamed as well. He's not just a victim in this, despite what #teamlindsey says.
SteveMacD
08-31-2018, 03:10 PM
But when you add up all the circumstantial evidence, the tour dates excuse seems pretty lame.
Too bad you can’t tell the WHOLE truth when presenting “evidence.”
Jury: Exhibit A
Stevie refuses to join Fleetwood Mac in the studio claiming records don't sell. However that did not stop Stevie from recording 2 solo albums recently and touring to support them.
1. She was under contract to make those albums.
2. She came to the conclusion that albums don’t sell after two years of working the first of the two aforementioned albums.
3. The second album was just rerecordings of old demos she found on YouTube. She spent like all of a week recording it. Why put a lot of effort recording something that‘s not going to sell?
4. These are her EXACT, FULL quotes about a new FLEETWOOD MAC album:
http://www.fleetwoodmacnews.com/2016/12/stevie-nicks-wants-new-fleetwood-mac.html?m=1
"The only reason that I don’t really wanna do a record is because I think that, in a year and a half, we’ll probably go out and do another Fleetwood Mac tour, since Christine has come back,"
"Do we want to go and close ourselves up in a studio for a year, [and] make a record that’s really good but that probably won’t sell, because records don’t really sell that much?" she asks. "And then we'll have been stuffed together for a year in one room, and...when you come out of that room, we may not want to go on a tour!"
"I think that we should choose the tour over the record," she tells ABC Radio. "Because touring is much more fun than making a record when you don’t have any idea how that record’s gonna come out."
As with anything, these quotes are open to interpretation. To me, it reads that she’s more concerned about the band dynamics (read: the SnL dynamic) being able to survive an album than simply being against making new music.
Exhibit B
Fleetwood Mac did record Buckingham/McVie but dared not to call it a Fleetwood Mac album. Clearly this would upset Stevie or she was pissed the band went on without her.
OR, they concluded that it would have been too confusing having an otherwise full, active member of the band on hiatus from a project.
Exhibit C
The changing stories from Mick. First it was about tour dates. Lately it was just that they did not feel good with Lindsey. Huh? We know Stevie is the only band member who does not get along with Lindsey. Its a fair assumption that Stevie gave an ultimatum …"I refuse to record with him, and I refuse to tour with him" Being the band wants to tour, Mick made his pick and the rest is history.
I agree that changing stories is never good. But there could be reasons for it, like quickly changing the subject during an interview. I’d guess there might be a gag order preventing any of them from discussing what went down, or they would have by now.
Back to tour dates. Lindsey's solo tour ends about a month after the Mac tour started. When you lie like Stevie did about touring, you know there is another reason.
Huh? Fleetwood Mac’s tour starts Oct. 3, goes through Dec. 13 and picks back up Feb. 5 going through Apr. 5. Lindsey’s tour starts Oct. 7 and goes through Dec. 9.
bombaysaffires
08-31-2018, 04:11 PM
If you're asking what my point is in general, I've read a number of posts on this forum that disagree with Lindsey being ejected, and that something should have been done to fix the problem. With some, far from all, posts, this seems to be an assumption that Lindsey is the victim of the breakdown and that it should have been FM2018 that should have acted to fix the problem and keep Lindsey in the band. The overall point of this thread is that in all likelihood it was fully in Lindsey's power to have acted in such a way that the band could have stayed together, and that therefore he should be blamed as well. He's not just a victim in this, despite what #teamlindsey says.
and again, I ask, what is your point exactly?
You have a different opinion to others on here. That's great. You've expressed that opinion. That's great.
What is your point of continuing on? Are you demanding that everyone suddenly change their perspective and agree you are entirely correct and thank you for setting everyone straight?
Both points of view are here and well-documented. Some people may choose to change their minds; others may not.
Circling around the same discussion points over and over and over proves nothing and may not change people's opinions one iota. That's life. And I say this to folks on every side of this issue. Until someone involved makes a definitive statement we won't know; and honestly, even if one of the band did say something people who support a different band member will find reasons to not believe what they say anyway.
You have your opinion, and you've laid out your reasons. Others, including me, have given our opinions and reasons. I enjoy hearing well-reasoned opinions from everyone. But frankly, at the end of the day, it honestly doesn't matter to me one way or another what anyone wants to believe.
and again, I ask, what is your point exactly?
You have a different opinion to others on here. That's great. You've expressed that opinion. That's great.
What is your point of continuing on? Are you demanding that everyone suddenly change their perspective and agree you are entirely correct and thank you for setting everyone straight?
Both points of view are here and well-documented. Some people may choose to change their minds; others may not.
Circling around the same discussion points over and over and over proves nothing and may not change people's opinions one iota. That's life. And I say this to folks on every side of this issue. Until someone involved makes a definitive statement we won't know; and honestly, even if one of the band did say something people who support a different band member will find reasons to not believe what they say anyway.
You have your opinion, and you've laid out your reasons. Others, including me, have given our opinions and reasons. I enjoy hearing well-reasoned opinions from everyone. But frankly, at the end of the day, it honestly doesn't matter to me one way or another what anyone wants to believe.
Because I think the question I asked (and have refined) is worth answering. Useful information has come out, e.g. SteveMacD posted very useful information about the 'evidence' posted by MacFan4Life. That seemingly incorrect 'evidence' has been posted shows that things are not done and dusted. One reason for asking a question is to see what is used to support arguments on both sides.
I'm prepared to change my views should good arguments be posted. E.g. at present there is more doubt than I previously thought about whether the deal-breaker was due to Lindsey asking for a delay, or other factors.
I care very little about what others believe. But, I care about what they base those beliefs on. Because, if after investigation they do have strong verifiable evidence, then that could make me change my mind.
Note that I came into this thread with a question, not a statement. I did post initially what I thought the answer is, but it's a clear invitation to 'prove me wrong'. I've seen quite a few posts, and I think the evidence against my belief is weak and the evidence for my belief is strong. So, I don't believe that the reasons for both beliefs are well documented. There is an awful lot of straw down at the bottom.
I'm not demanding that people do anything. But, I would like to see if people can back up their claims, particularly the extreme claims. People don't have to back up their claims. It's a free world. But, if people make claims and don't back them up, then that's a bit of a giveaway by omission.
saniette
08-31-2018, 04:43 PM
Because I think the question I asked (and have refined) is worth answering. Useful information has come out, e.g. SteveMacD posted very useful information about the 'evidence' posted by MacFan4Life. That seemingly incorrect 'evidence' has been posted shows that things are not done and dusted. One reason for asking a question is to see what is used to support arguments on both sides.
I'm prepared to change my views should good arguments be posted. E.g. at present there is more doubt than I previously thought about whether the deal-breaker was due to Lindsey asking for a delay, or other factors.
I care very little about what others believe. But, I care about what they base those beliefs on. Because, if after investigation they do have strong verifiable evidence, then that could make me change my mind.
Note that I came into this thread with a question, not a statement. I did post initially what I thought the answer is, but it's a clear invitation to 'prove me wrong'. I've seen quite a few posts, and I think the evidence against my belief is weak and the evidence for my belief is strong. So, I don't believe that the reasons for both beliefs are well documented. There is an awful lot of straw down at the bottom.
I'm not demanding that people do anything. But, I would like to see if people can back up their claims, particularly the extreme claims. People don't have to back up their claims. It's a free world. But, if people make claims and don't back them up, then that's a bit of a giveaway by omission.
You keep saying "evidence." There's no evidence of any kind to support either interpretation. It's just the band's word vs Lindsey's, and by extension his wife's. You can't prove any of it. News stories that just repeat the band's story aren't corroborating evidence.
I think we all have to read between the lines to figure out what happened. Considering the history of SnL, it's not exactly going out on a limb to say things reached a head. Both are to blame for their relationship, but only one person got fired. So, yes, Lindsey is the victim if he got fired for the reasons the band is saying. If it's something bigger than that, they should have said from the get go.
Some fans are angry because Stevie has been allowed to keep the band from touring and recording, simply because she's the biggest draw. But the band is bowing to money if that is the primary consideration. And while understandable, it's not right.
Lindsey is touring for 2 months, and FM is starting at about the same time. They could have waited, even if the band's story is true. Clearly the November 2019 date from Stevie makes no sense. I wonder if it was November this year, and everything got pushed back after Lindsey got fired. They waited for Stevie for years, so what's 2 or 3 months?
bombaysaffires
08-31-2018, 05:37 PM
I'm not demanding that people do anything. But, I would like to see if people can back up their claims, particularly the extreme claims. People don't have to back up their claims. It's a free world. But, if people make claims and don't back them up, then that's a bit of a giveaway by omission.
Good to know you aren't demanding people provide "evidence" that meets your approval, and that you aren't judging. :lol:
Macfan4life
08-31-2018, 05:38 PM
Too bad you can’t tell the WHOLE truth when presenting “evidence.”
1. She was under contract to make those albums.
2. She came to the conclusion that albums don’t sell after two years of working the first of the two aforementioned albums.
3. The second album was just rerecordings of old demos she found on YouTube. She spent like all of a week recording it. Why put a lot of effort recording something that‘s not going to sell?
4. These are her EXACT, FULL quotes about a new FLEETWOOD MAC album:
http://www.fleetwoodmacnews.com/2016/12/stevie-nicks-wants-new-fleetwood-mac.html?m=1
"The only reason that I don’t really wanna do a record is because I think that, in a year and a half, we’ll probably go out and do another Fleetwood Mac tour, since Christine has come back,"
"Do we want to go and close ourselves up in a studio for a year, [and] make a record that’s really good but that probably won’t sell, because records don’t really sell that much?" she asks. "And then we'll have been stuffed together for a year in one room, and...when you come out of that room, we may not want to go on a tour!"
"I think that we should choose the tour over the record," she tells ABC Radio. "Because touring is much more fun than making a record when you don’t have any idea how that record’s gonna come out."
As with anything, these quotes are open to interpretation. To me, it reads that she’s more concerned about the band dynamics (read: the SnL dynamic) being able to survive an album than simply being against making new music.
OR, they concluded that it would have been too confusing having an otherwise full, active member of the band on hiatus from a project.
I agree that changing stories is never good. But there could be reasons for it, like quickly changing the subject during an interview. I’d guess there might be a gag order preventing any of them from discussing what went down, or they would have by now.
Huh? Fleetwood Mac’s tour starts Oct. 3, goes through Dec. 13 and picks back up Feb. 5 going through Apr. 5. Lindsey’s tour starts Oct. 7 and goes through Dec. 9.
Oh Please...you are selling Stevie short. She loves to record music. She loved performing so many 24k gold songs on her last solo tour and telling all the stories behind them. Its fine you want to defend Stevie, but your blinders are a bit tight. You seem to roll over the obvious and don't connect Stevie not participating with Lindsey in the studio and not participating with Lindsey on the road. To me its a fairly easy conclusion IMHO. All those rationalizations are laughable IMHO. But to each their own :)
Mick was praising Lindsey and Christine how their album should be nominated for a Grammy. So why does Mick now say things with Lindsey were miserable?
DownOnRodeo
08-31-2018, 05:56 PM
Yes (about Stevie's enmity toward Lindsey).
Dear Ench--You appear to be a thoughtful young fan and have every right to make a post here like anyone else (ideally after having done a bit more homework) , but I think the mistake you're making is to approach this from a rational, logical angle, whereas the most convincing narrative borne out from the totality of the existing info we have to work with is that Stevie is Not operating from a rational, logical, or fair angle, at least as far as her decision to eject Lindsey goes. Emotion comes first, and bizarre, contradictory attempts to rationalize it come later.
wondergirl9847
08-31-2018, 05:58 PM
Say You Will Tour – 2003–2004
5 year gap!
Unleashed tour – 2009
4 year gap!
Fleetwood Mac Live – 2013
1 year gap!
On with the Show – 2014–2015
3 year gap!
An Evening with FM 2018-2019
They couldn't wait a bit for him or try to allow him to do solo dates during the FM tour? REALLY? :rolleyes:
Because I think the question I asked (and have refined) is worth answering. Useful information has come out, e.g. SteveMacD posted very useful information about the 'evidence' posted by MacFan4Life. That seemingly incorrect 'evidence' has been posted shows that things are not done and dusted. One reason for asking a question is to see what is used to support arguments on both sides.
I'm prepared to change my views should good arguments be posted. E.g. at present there is more doubt than I previously thought about whether the deal-breaker was due to Lindsey asking for a delay, or other factors.
I care very little about what others believe. But, I care about what they base those beliefs on. Because, if after investigation they do have strong verifiable evidence, then that could make me change my mind.
Note that I came into this thread with a question, not a statement. I did post initially what I thought the answer is, but it's a clear invitation to 'prove me wrong'. I've seen quite a few posts, and I think the evidence against my belief is weak and the evidence for my belief is strong. So, I don't believe that the reasons for both beliefs are well documented. There is an awful lot of straw down at the bottom.
I'm not demanding that people do anything. But, I would like to see if people can back up their claims, particularly the extreme claims. People don't have to back up their claims. It's a free world. But, if people make claims and don't back them up, then that's a bit of a giveaway by omission.
Who are you? A ****ing lawyer? It's like you're trying this like some kind of high crimes case! We've discussed this ad nauseum over countless threads for months now. Most of us believe on what we've seen/ heard that Mick and Stevie dismissed Lindsey because of Stevie's unwillingness to work with him anymore and Mick's love of money! Case closed! Unless of course there is further evidence that contradicts the verdict of this forum..........
HomerMcvie
08-31-2018, 09:46 PM
Many posts today have the stench of Sugar Mick all over them. :confused:
lovethemac1
08-31-2018, 11:27 PM
Many posts today have the stench of Sugar Mick all over them. :confused:
That's EXACTLY what I was just pondering..........:shocked:
SteveMacD
09-01-2018, 12:17 AM
Many posts today have the stench of Sugar Mick all over them. :confused:
You got me. Just ask Nepotist, or Tsitopen.
HomerMcvie
09-01-2018, 12:59 AM
That's EXACTLY what I was just pondering..........:shocked:
The M.O. is almost too similar...Baiting, while speaking with absolute, uncompromising certainty.
Birds of a feather...
Many posts today have the stench of Sugar Mick all over them. :confused:
Just what I thought from post ONE....
The ghost of Sugarplum fairy Mouse has risen....
Aaaaagh.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.