The Chain, Broken

[elle]

http://gloriousnoise.com/2018/the-chain-broken

THE CHAIN, BROKEN
OCTOBER 17, 2018 STEPHEN MACAULAY
Two of the things that have long fascinated me are (1) what makes a band a band and (2) why performers continue to perform long after ordinary people move on to something else in their lives besides that which created their livelihoods.

As for the first point, the issue is that of membership and then lack thereof: if there is a “critical mass” that makes a band what it becomes known to be, does the absence of one or more individuals change the chemistry, as it were, of the band? Does the band contain an individual or individuals such that with out them the band would be something other than it had been? For example, consider The Beatles. If Lennon or McCartney had left the band while it still existed, would it have still been The Beatles? What about Harrison or Starr?

The existing members of a band (or perhaps their manager and/or promoters) typically, when losing a key member, find someone who seamlessly integrates so that there is little difference: Consider Journey post-Steve Perry and Yes sans Jon Anderson: their replacements are cover band material extraordinaire.

Lindsey Buckingham was, in effect, recently fired by his band mates in Fleetwood Mac. And he was, in effect, orally and audibly replaced by two people, Mike Campbell, formerly of the Heartbreakers, and Neil Finn, he of Crowded House.

Presumably, Campbell and Finn got their positions (jobs?) because they would be resonate with what can be considered the “sound” of “Fleetwood Mac,” a band that Buckingham was part of for 33 years: 1975 to 1987; 1997 to 2018. After all, Buckingham was instrumental, literally and figuratively, when it put out Fleetwood Mac, which solidly established the band in a way that resonates today (“Say You Love Me,” “Landslide,” “Rhiannon”) and Rumours (“Go Your Own Way,” “The Chain”).

With the departure of Buckingham, the five-person group has become six.




So is it the “same” group, or is it different? Is Buckingham’s absence that of a Lennon or McCartney or is it, well, that of Starr? Is his removal from the band as consequential as it would be were they to give Stevie Nicks the shove?

Is the Fleetwood Mac that is on tour Fleetwood Mac as they’ve been known for the past few decades, or is it a different band?

(I think unfortunately for Buckingham, it doesn’t rise to the Perry/Journey level.)

Then the “why,” as in “Why does a performer keep on performing?” Buckingham is 69, eligible for his full Social Security, and he probably doesn’t need to worry about the solvency of that program. So is it about the passion for the music? Is he driven by the Muse who wants him out there on stage with his long-time compatriots? Or is it something else?

While I don’t know the answer to that question, the October 9 filing in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, with the Plaintiff Lindsey Buckingham, “an individual,” suing Michael Fleetwood, John McVie, Christine McVie, and Stephanie Nicks, all of whom are singularly described as “an individual,” as well as The Fleetwood Mac Partnership, makes me think that there might be something else to it. As in “This action is necessary to enforce Buckingham’s right to share in the economic opportunities he is entitled to as a member of the partnership created to operate the business of Fleetwood Mac (‘Fleetwood Mac Partnership’ or ‘Partnership’).”

Those “economic opportunities” are non-trivial: according to the filing the tour that the band has embarked on would result in “an estimated $12 million to $14 million for each of the Partners.”

The whys and wherefores of Buckingham’s view on why he was booted are not clear. It almost seems as though he doesn’t know why, at least so far as the court document goes. Presumably he is fully aware of reasons behind the move, and it probably isn’t that “the other Partners, by wrongfully excluding Buckingham, have sought to enrich themselves at Buckingham’s expense.” Their additional enrichment is undoubtedly a consequence of touring without him—does anyone think that each Campbell and Finn are going to get $7 million?–but the cause?

Might it not be argued that if enrichment was the motive, the other Partners risked what they could make from the tour: Maybe there would be something of a backlash against the band because of the treatment of Buckingham and consequently the $12 million to $14 million would be on the order of, oh, $10 million to $12 million. Unlikely that that would be the motive.

But it seems to come down to the money because that’s all there is.

Obviously, Buckingham feels that the people that he had been working with for so long need to be punished in some way for removing him from the band and that the best way to do that is through the pocketbook.

There is, however, a line in the filing which seems as though Buckingham might end up regretting what he is wishing for:

“Buckingham voluntarily departed Fleetwood Mac in 1987 after the release of ‘Tango In the Night’ to pursue a solo career. After Buckingham’s departure from Fleetwood Mac in 1987 the Band’s fortunes and popularity declined precipitously.”

Doesn’t that imply that for those 10 years he was gone they suffered an economic consequence of his decision to leave, that their “economic opportunities” were compromised? Doesn’t he, in effect, owe them for that?

If it is only the money: Yes.

[elle]

no idea whether this was shared already.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a23735142/fleetwood-mac-feud-2018-lindsey-buckingham-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR3hTTd6-dD-zt1fCqf0l0f35503QBf-AdwK_f8WEixVjpgT8NIhvrLU_Hw

After 50 Years, Fleetwood Mac Is Still a Total Mess

Lindsey Buckingham is suing the band after getting fired from their upcoming tour.

BY MATT MILLER
OCT 12, 2018

“We’ve all grown up and we’re all much closer to being adults now,” Lindsey Buckingham told me in 2015 ahead of Fleetwood Mac's first tour with its classic lineup since Christine McVie left the band in 1998. “We’re behaving ourselves and we’ve come to the realization that we don’t have to live our life that way to be creative.”

And for a few years, Fleetwood Mac was uncharacteristically tame. This is a band that, from the beginning, has been at each other's throats. There have been feuds, breakups, and, amazingly, some of the most iconic adult-contemporary albums of the last half century. "As you may know," Buckingham told me at the time, "Fleetwood Mac’s politics are always a mess.”

Indeed they are.

Now, after making it work for a few years, Fleetwood Mac's politics are once again a mess. In April, Fleetwood Mac fired Buckingham after "a disagreement over the band's upcoming tour."

As Rolling Stone reported this month, it was a little bit messier than that:

[Buckingham] learned he was leaving the band on January 28th when Irving Azoff, the group’s manager, called him while he was watching the Grammys. Two days earlier, Fleetwood Mac played the MusiCares benefit show at New York’s Radio City Music Hall. According to Azoff, Nicks was angry that Buckingham smirked while she delivered a speech at the event. She was also upset over his angry reaction to the decision to play a recording of “Rhiannon” while they took the stage. “Stevie never wants to be on a stage with you again,” Buckingham said Azoff told him.
Oof.

And now, Buckingham has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Fleetwood Mac "for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, among other charges," according to Rolling Stone.

The suit claims that each member of the band was estimated to earn $12 million to $14 million for 60 concerts. It also includes a copy of an email from Buckingham to Mick Fleetwood, in which he writes:

“After 43 years and the finish line so clearly in sight, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that for the five of us to splinter apart now would be the wrong thing ... At the moment, the band’s heart and soul has been diminished. But our center, which had seen us through so much, is only laying dormant.”
Certainly, the break-up is a disappointment for any fans hoping to see Fleetwood Mac with its classic lineup. But on the bright side, this drama is just as classic as anything on Rumours. It's perfect in a way that any real fan will appreciate.

[SteveMacD]

God, I’m sick of reading comparisons to other bands, especially The Beatles. There’s simply no parallel. AT ALL! The current setlist has roughly the same percentage of songs as Lindsey’s time in the band (65/35). Not possible with other bands.

[DownOnRodeo]

Although you might say that Lindsey wasn't just one of the three main singer-songwriter-players (either Paul, John or George Harrison) but was also George Martin.

[SteveMacD]

Although you might say that Lindsey wasn't just one of the three main singer-songwriter-players (either Paul, John or George Harrison) but was also George Martin.

Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.

[saniette]

Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.

To an audience mainly familiar with their post-1974 output, who would probably rather hear "Gypsy" than "Hypnotized."

Lindsey's more like the Brian Wilson of FM, and now they've got 2 Glen Campbells to fill his place on tour.

[DownOnRodeo]

Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.

That sounds like a discussion topic that would yield much interest in the ever-active "Early Years" forum.

Meanwhile, the flimsy attempt at bringing in more Early Years material into this Present Band tour seems to be faltering. It's so disingenuous that they would hype up all the Early Years focus, then play Hypnotized for a few shows, only to jettison it again at this early stage. Seems like the only proportion that's really growing is the number of Tom Petty and Neil Finn tunes--hardly the best news for FM Early Years fans like yourself.

[SteveMacD]

That sounds like a discussion topic that would yield much interest in the ever-active "Early Years" forum.

Meanwhile, the flimsy attempt at bringing in more Early Years material into this Present Band tour seems to be faltering. It's so disingenuous that they would hype up all the Early Years focus, then play Hypnotized for a few shows, only to jettison it again at this early stage. Seems like the only proportion that's really growing is the number of Tom Petty and Neil Finn tunes--hardly the best news for FM Early Years fans like yourself.

I guess Black Magic Woman, TMATYD, Oh Well, and All Over Again don’t matter. I wish they would have cut a Lindsey song for Hypnotized, but it’s not like that is the only non-Rumours era song they’ve been playing. The jams alone warrant the change.

[DownOnRodeo]

I guess Black Magic Woman, TMATYD, Oh Well, and All Over Again don’t matter. I wish they would have cut a Lindsey song for Hypnotized, but it’s not like that is the only non-Rumours era song they’ve been playing. The jams alone warrant the change.

Well I assume All Over Again wouldn't matter if what you're talking about is Early Years (and not simply "Lindseyless Years"), but that's good that you're still getting three Early Years tunes with jam on the side. (Although Black Magic Woman has been, er, adjusted (if the lyrics count for anything in your concert-going experience).)

[SteveMacD]

Well I assume All Over Again wouldn't matter if what you're talking about is Early Years (and not simply "Lindseyless Years"), but that's good that you're still getting three Early Years tunes with jam on the side. (Although Black Magic Woman has been, er, adjusted (if the lyrics count for anything in your concert-going experience).)

Not “Lindsey-less” years, “Lindsey/Stevie-less” years.

And it was Stevie’s idea.

[elle]

Sure, if not for the fact Fleetwood Mac released the majority of its output prior to 1975, which they are proportionally playing now.

Yes once Nicks was in the band all FM activities were quickly squashed over and over in favor of putting her persona and solo career first.

I hope Lindsey never gets sucked back into that non productive toxic environment. We could have had several FM albums since the dance if it were up to him.

[sleepless child]

I'm very confused by the deletion of Hypnotized. I can understand replacing Storms with Gypsy, Gypsy was a big hit, but Hypnotized sounds so good and a way to honor Bob Welch.

I wish they would bring it back to the setlist.

[jbrownsjr]

Yes once Nicks was in the band all FM activities were quickly squashed over and over in favor of putting her persona and solo career first.

I hope Lindsey never gets sucked back into that non productive toxic environment. We could have had several FM albums since the dance if it were up to him.

I feel this way, too. Christine was gone for 15 years, and they did one album.

One album!!!!!

[jmn3]

I feel this way, too. Christine was gone for 15 years, and they did one album.

One album!!!!!

Fleetwood Mac's output post The Dance is nothing short of bewildering. Starting with Christine quitting at the beginning of 1998 and the band going dormant for 5 years. She took the worst years possible off and her performance since she's returned show it. She lost so much of her ability especially from a live performance standpoint - it's simply staggering when you compare her stage presence from 1998 to 2014 and beyond. I get it, we all get old, I'm just saying those particular years to be basically a recluse makes it nearly impossible to return to form at the age of 70+.

Then you have one album that took over FIVE years before it was made and released and a tour to be scheduled. FIVE YEARS! They had such an incredible momentum built in 1997 and they wasted it. I was a senior in high school during The Dance tour and they became incredibly popular with that age group. Here were these "old farts" appealing and being enjoyed by 17 year olds. Instead they went away for years. It just always blew my mind that they didn't do something else in the late 90's and early 2000's. I've always said that 1998 was the perfect opportunity to re-release Buckingham Nicks and do a tour. But alas, that will never occur.

THEN you never release another album again except for a four song EP? Everybody knows new music doesn't sell and setlist of "oldies" bands are going to be old stuff but come on - no other albums of new music from these people?

I blame all of them. Stevie obviously is the main driver as evidenced by Buckingham McVie. But they all get blame here. Where the hell is Mick's leadership as the so-called owner of the damn band? Why didn't he do anything to keep the band as a functioning unit? Well, of course he might have to piss off Lady I'mtheboss and see a reduction in touring revenue if she ever walked. Ugh, this band is always incredibly frustrating to be a fan of.

[HejiraNYC]

Fleetwood Mac's output post The Dance is nothing short of bewildering. Starting with Christine quitting at the beginning of 1998 and the band going dormant for 5 years. She took the worst years possible off and her performance since she's returned show it. She lost so much of her ability especially from a live performance standpoint - it's simply staggering when you compare her stage presence from 1998 to 2014 and beyond. I get it, we all get old, I'm just saying those particular years to be basically a recluse makes it nearly impossible to return to form at the age of 70+.

Then you have one album that took over FIVE years before it was made and released and a tour to be scheduled. FIVE YEARS! They had such an incredible momentum built in 1997 and they wasted it. I was a senior in high school during The Dance tour and they became incredibly popular with that age group. Here were these "old farts" appealing and being enjoyed by 17 year olds. Instead they went away for years. It just always blew my mind that they didn't do something else in the late 90's and early 2000's. I've always said that 1998 was the perfect opportunity to re-release Buckingham Nicks and do a tour. But alas, that will never occur.

THEN you never release another album again except for a four song EP? Everybody knows new music doesn't sell and setlist of "oldies" bands are going to be old stuff but come on - no other albums of new music from these people?

I blame all of them. Stevie obviously is the main driver as evidenced by Buckingham McVie. But they all get blame here. Where the hell is Mick's leadership as the so-called owner of the damn band? Why didn't he do anything to keep the band as a functioning unit? Well, of course he might have to piss off Lady I'mtheboss and see a reduction in touring revenue if she ever walked. Ugh, this band is always incredibly frustrating to be a fan of.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. But you could pretty much say the same thing about every other "legacy" band; for example, the Eagles released one new studio album over the past 38 years. But when you tabulate all of the solo projects, there is a lot of "product." Over the past 20 years since The Dance we got 1 proper studio album, an EP, 10 (give or take) solo/duo studio albums, a few live albums, a bunch of DVDs, etc. So it isn't like these kids were too busy fighting with each other to make music; they just chose not to make it together. I seriously doubt we would have gotten 10 proper FM studio albums during that time period if everyone was perfectly happy with each other, so the dysfunction does have its upside.

[David]

I feel this way, too. Christine was gone for 15 years, and they did one album.

One album!!!!!It's been a very unproductive band. Ridiculous!

And the idea that the band should add this or that to its concert set because of this "legacy" or that "legacy" is really muffy in my opinion—the notion that a song represents a former member and should therefore be present. You don't build a good set by throwing together an otherwise random grouping of songs from each of the various eras. You're not ordering a meal in a Chinese restaurant ("choose one from column A and one from column B").

Springsteen didn't do Edwin Starr's War in 1985 because he wanted to pay tribute to Edwin Starr. He did it because he wanted to make an artistic statement about politics at that time. You heed artistic reasons for building a concert set if you're a thoughtful, intelligent performer. You might want to make grand statements or you might just love the song and the way the band plays it—both legit. But I suppose adding some Green, Welch, and Kirwan was a lot better than a crass catering to "play the big hits only."

[jeets2000]

I feel this way, too. Christine was gone for 15 years, and they did one album.

One album!!!!!

The irony of that, of course, is that Stevie's musical idol Tom Petty released albums in 1999 (Echo), 2002 (Last DJ), 2010 (Mojo), 2014 (Hypnotic Eye) and 2015 (Nobody's Children). And of course he released a solo album in 2006 (Highway Companion).

I'll grant that both Lindsey and Stevie released solo albums in that period of time, but she also threw roadblocks down for her own band to record new music. For someone who became a fan in The Dance era, it's been quite frustrating.

[SteveMacD]

In retrospect, the boys should have formed Buckingham Fleetwood McVie and gone on without Stevie.

[HomerMcvie]

In retrospect, the boys should have formed Buckingham Fleetwood McVie and gone on without Stevie.

Except no one wanted to give up the $tevie paycheck.

[SteveMacD]

Except no one wanted to give up the $tevie paycheck.

They could have always gotten back to Fleetwood Mac when $tevie was ready, but still be a working, functioning band without her. BFM would have made more money than £ind$€¥ solo or the Mi¢k Fleetwood Blue$ Band.

[bombaysaffires]

They could have always gotten back to Fleetwood Mac when $tevie was ready, but still be a working, functioning band without her. BFM would have made more money than £ind$€¥ solo or the Mi¢k Fleetwood Blue$ Band.

given her supposed reaction to BuckVie it hardly seems likely she would have been happy with that idea. :shrug: Makes you wonder who might have ended up on her hit list after that....probably Lindsey again. You can't have FM without the F or the M. :eek:

[elle]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">5 Reasons Fleetwood Mac Isn&amp;#8217;t The Same Without Lindsey Buckingham <a href="https://t.co/gck2wLmGiV">https://t.co/gck2wLmGiV</a></p>&mdash; Jeff Robson (@JeffWRobson) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffWRobson/status/1061374460014551042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

lazily written article but here it is anyway -

https://rockpasta.com/5-reasons-fleetwood-mac-isnt-the-same-without-lindsey-buckingham/

5 Reasons Fleetwood Mac Isn’t The Same Without Lindsey Buckingham

via TheLeapTV/YouTube

He’s The Real Deal

Fleetwood Mac took us on a roller coaster of emotions as they announced a reunion tour earlier this year only to find out they fired Lindsey Buckingham and replaced him with two other guitarists. A few months later, Lindsey made his move by suing the band. And it only got messier.

We love the group and their catalog filled with epic masterpieces. But we have to admit it, it just ain’t the same without Lindsey. Here are the reasons why:

5. It took two guitarists to replace Lindsey.

Let that sink in.

Fleetwood Mac invited Mike Campbell, the former guitarist of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and Crowded House frontman Neil Finn to take on the part of Lindsey. If that doesn’t speak volumes about the guy’s mad guitar skills, we don’t know what else does.

4. He’s criminally underrated as an axeslinger.

His work in “The Chain” is more than enough to propel him to guitar god status. He can easily hold his own against any other guitarist which begs the question – why is his talent still being overlooked?

3. He wrote several classic hits which further solidified Fleetwood Mac’s spot in the rock ‘n roll pantheon.

Without Lindsey, there’d be no “Go Your Own Way,” “Tusk,” and of course “The Chain.” And let’s face it, Stevie Nicks wouldn’t be able to come up with her breakup songs without Lindsey.

2. His contribution to “Rumours” remains invaluable.

Putting all drama aside, we cannot imagine how that album would become their best release if Lindsey wasn’t part of it. He was the other half who helped save Fleetwood Mac from spiraling downwards. He worked hard with the arrangement and recording of the songs. His guitar even had to be restrung every 20 minutes when they recorded “Never Going Back Again.”

1. He’s a big deal.

One of the best things Lindsey has done for Fleetwood Mac is bringing along then-girlfriend Stevie Nicks. And we all know how that became a game-changer for everyone else in the band. You can’t put him out of the equation because he started the ball rolling in so many ways.

There are still issues between him and Fleetwood Mac but one thing’s for sure – he deserves better.

[Storms123]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">5 Reasons Fleetwood Mac Isn&amp;#8217;t The Same Without Lindsey Buckingham <a href="https://t.co/gck2wLmGiV">https://t.co/gck2wLmGiV</a></p>&mdash; Jeff Robson (@JeffWRobson) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffWRobson/status/1061374460014551042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

lazily written article but here it is anyway -

https://rockpasta.com/5-reasons-fleetwood-mac-isnt-the-same-without-lindsey-buckingham/

5 Reasons Fleetwood Mac Isn’t The Same Without Lindsey Buckingham

via TheLeapTV/YouTube

He’s The Real Deal

Fleetwood Mac took us on a roller coaster of emotions as they announced a reunion tour earlier this year only to find out they fired Lindsey Buckingham and replaced him with two other guitarists. A few months later, Lindsey made his move by suing the band. And it only got messier.

We love the group and their catalog filled with epic masterpieces. But we have to admit it, it just ain’t the same without Lindsey. Here are the reasons why:

5. It took two guitarists to replace Lindsey.

Let that sink in.

Fleetwood Mac invited Mike Campbell, the former guitarist of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and Crowded House frontman Neil Finn to take on the part of Lindsey. If that doesn’t speak volumes about the guy’s mad guitar skills, we don’t know what else does.

4. He’s criminally underrated as an axeslinger.

His work in “The Chain” is more than enough to propel him to guitar god status. He can easily hold his own against any other guitarist which begs the question – why is his talent still being overlooked?

3. He wrote several classic hits which further solidified Fleetwood Mac’s spot in the rock ‘n roll pantheon.

Without Lindsey, there’d be no “Go Your Own Way,” “Tusk,” and of course “The Chain.” And let’s face it, Stevie Nicks wouldn’t be able to come up with her breakup songs without Lindsey.

2. His contribution to “Rumours” remains invaluable.

Putting all drama aside, we cannot imagine how that album would become their best release if Lindsey wasn’t part of it. He was the other half who helped save Fleetwood Mac from spiraling downwards. He worked hard with the arrangement and recording of the songs. His guitar even had to be restrung every 20 minutes when they recorded “Never Going Back Again.”

1. He’s a big deal.

One of the best things Lindsey has done for Fleetwood Mac is bringing along then-girlfriend Stevie Nicks. And we all know how that became a game-changer for everyone else in the band. You can’t put him out of the equation because he started the ball rolling in so many ways.

There are still issues between him and Fleetwood Mac but one thing’s for sure – he deserves better.


He does deserve better. It always takes 2 people to replace him! Always. And yes, he's the reason the world knows Stevie. He did start the ball rolling. The world never would have heard Belladonna, without Lindsey.

[Buster]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. But you could pretty much say the same thing about every other "legacy" band; for example, the Eagles released one new studio album over the past 38 years. But when you tabulate all of the solo projects, there is a lot of "product." Over the past 20 years since The Dance we got 1 proper studio album, an EP, 10 (give or take) solo/duo studio albums, a few live albums, a bunch of DVDs, etc. So it isn't like these kids were too busy fighting with each other to make music; they just chose not to make it together. I seriously doubt we would have gotten 10 proper FM studio albums during that time period if everyone was perfectly happy with each other, so the dysfunction does have its upside.

Agree.

I’m always surprised when people say they thought there would be all these FM albums after the Dance. I never thought of 1997 as anything other than an amazing reunion show/tour. I could be wrong, but I don’t remember there being a lot of talk about FM being completely back, ready to make a bunch of albums.

FM stopped being a band in 1987 (actually, really a few years before that). After that, they stopped having the chemistry necessary to make music together. Say You Will sounds like Lindsey/Stevie solo albums slapped together for a reason. Lindsey and Christine has some nice chemistry last year that allowed them to put together some solid work but how anyone thinks the entire band would make a good album really baffles me.

Stevie put out some very solid work in the past few years, including her best solo tour in decades.

I’m so unclear on what it is people really thought was possible.

[button-lip]

He does deserve better. It always takes 2 people to replace him! Always. And yes, he's the reason the world knows Stevie. He did start the ball rolling. The world never would have heard Belladonna, without Lindsey.

No matter how many people it takes to replace him. It could be 1, it could be 200. He does deserve better and it certainly wasn't Stevie's place (of all people!) to terminate his career with the band.

Having said that, I think she would have found her way into the music industry with or without Lindsey. It would have taken longer without him, but she would have achieved her goal at some point in her life.

[HomerMcvie]

No matter how many people it takes to replace him. It could be 1, it could be 200. He does deserve better and it certainly wasn't Stevie's place (of all people!) to terminate his career with the band.

Having said that, I think she would have found her way into the music industry with or without Lindsey. It would have taken longer without him, but she would have achieved her goal at some point in her life.

Agreed.

And yet, ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS?????????

I doubt her GOAL was to mop the floors of studios. HOW could $he have achieved ANY kind of success in music, if it weren't for Lindsey? $he probably wouldn't have been allowed to mop the floors!

What an ingrate! Off with her head!:lol:

[bombaysaffires]

Agreed.

And yet, ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS?????????

I doubt her GOAL was to mop the floors of studios. HOW could $he have achieved ANY kind of success in music, if it weren't for Lindsey? $he probably wouldn't have been allowed to mop the floors!

What an ingrate! Off with her head!:lol:


Come on, Homer, you underestimate her. She would have found another guy to partner with on or off stage who could shape her music and help make her a star. Duh. :D

[HomerMcvie]

Come on, Homer, you underestimate her. She would have found another guy to partner with on or off stage who could shape her music and help make her a star. Duh. :D

Yeah, I write obscure lyrics, and can plonk out two chords on a piano. Sheer genius, $he is!

[Angel75]

No matter how many people it takes to replace him. It could be 1, it could be 200. He does deserve better and it certainly wasn't Stevie's place (of all people!) to terminate his career with the band.

Having said that, I think she would have found her way into the music industry with or without Lindsey. It would have taken longer without him, but she would have achieved her goal at some point in her life.

Agree with all this 10000%

[secondhandchain]

I'm very confused by the deletion of Hypnotized. I can understand replacing Storms with Gypsy, Gypsy was a big hit, but Hypnotized sounds so good and a way to honor Bob Welch.

I wish they would bring it back to the setlist.

Stevie doesn't want to do a tribute to Bob, because he's not famous enough.

[Buster]

The Stevie comments in this thread are absurd - and sexist.

[The Chain]

The Stevie comments in this thread are absurd - and sexist.

Your assumption that the entire band couldn't possibly make a good album together is absurd.. Take the best parts of SYW, Extended Play and BuckVie and anyone can see how, with a little condensing, the 3 songwriters are still very capable of putting out a great, classic album. It's deflection and denial to assume otherwise.. There's only one reason it won't happen. And it's name is Stevie.

[bombaysaffires]

Yeah, I write obscure lyrics, and can plonk out two chords on a piano. Sheer genius, $he is!

now, now, that's NOT what I said.

I said she's smart enough to find people and get them to help her.

It's what she's always done, and done quite well, actually.

[HomerMcvie]

The Stevie comments in this thread are absurd - and sexist.

Not liking someone doesn't necessarily mean that sexism is the reason, oh myopic one.

[Street_Dreamer]

https://image.ibb.co/b7dNuf/43521374-1105518472932185-8430506256376004608-n.jpg

[HomerMcvie]

https://image.ibb.co/b7dNuf/43521374-1105518472932185-8430506256376004608-n.jpg

I'd like to buy that, and give it as toilet paper, for this holiday $ea$on.

[Street_Dreamer]

I'd like to buy that, and give it as toilet paper, for this holiday $ea$on.

Well here's the page for you!

https://www.facebook.com/Stevie-Nicks-Lovers-1049920828491950/

[HomerMcvie]

Well here's the page for you!

https://www.facebook.com/Stevie-Nicks-Lovers-1049920828491950/

I saw all kinds of crap EXCEPT for the $tevie Nick$ toilet paper.

Toilet paper tease!!!:mad::mad::mad:

[bombaysaffires]

well, there's this one <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D1118445844972781%26id%3D 1049920828491950&width=500" width="500" height="632" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>

that has the lyrics to Gypsy all over a guitar, which is ironic considering she doesn't play one any better than she plays piano and it's someone else's guitar playing that majorly transforms that song into the hit that it is.

[HomerMcvie]

well, there's this one <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D1118445844972781%26id%3D 1049920828491950&width=500" width="500" height="632" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>

that has the lyrics to Gypsy all over a guitar, which is ironic considering she doesn't play one any better than she plays piano and it's someone else's guitar playing that majorly transforms that song into the hit that it is.

So we're admitting that $he has no(or minimal) musical talent?

GOOD, I'm glad we're finally on the same page!:xoxo:

[bombaysaffires]

So we're admitting that $he has no(or minimal) musical talent?

GOOD, I'm glad we're finally on the same page!:xoxo:

I don't think I've ever claimed she was a great musician....EVER. That said, she's had moments where her playing was much much better compared to her two finger plonking (try her songwriting demo for Sisters of the Moon... and on her demo for Planets it starts out good, nice chords, and then drifts quickly down to the two finger thing). She actually has the capability to be much better, but.... when no one holds you to any sort of standard, and you know the real musicians will either fix it for you (though I shudder to think how they coped with the same chord bong---bong---bong---bong---- going for 5 minutes while she sings over it) or better they'll give you their tracks to write a top line to.

Again why she was better when she collaborated with Lindsey. Come to think of it, I blame him for not getting better songs from Stevie after around Tusk. If he hadn't been such a dick to her, she would have continued collaborating with him and we would have had a lot more music over the years....more and better from her, more songs, and more radio friendly from him, if she hadn't become an addicted diva. Dam them both!