Are you guys high?

Keep it solo acoustic as is.

Damn, man, that's a no-brainer.

Of course he doesn’t want to remember the ”after-the-fact” release of ”Family Man”. ;)


The tour versions of nearly every song have been interchangeable with each other. Nowhere is it as audible as on this one. Why doesn't he play it from the cd then? Or why doesn't he have notation in front of him? Wouldn't make any noticeable difference.

Big Love ...
 

:wavey: We like the soft, tender, love grunts of
the "original version"!Not screaming!:cool:Sky;)

Re: Big Love ...
 

My point exactly! I love LB's intensity, but in some cases he goes overboard. Acoustic Big Love is one of those cases...

If it ain't broke...

...then you might as well put on a wig and a tux. And please use a sequencer; imperfections in the track hurt the ears of the highly cultivated audience.

Methinks though hath contradicted thyself. Earlier you said he might as well plug in the CD because he's been playing it the same way for years. Now you're objecting to imperfections on a live track!?

Am I missing something here? If you prefer the original studio version, that's your prerogative. And if you are suggesting he play at that way, I understand. If you're suggesting he change the arrangement to somewhere in between the studio and the Dance/Cradle tour versions, I understand. But what I find baffling is your reference to imperfections on a live track. Don't you think that no matter what arrangement he chooses to play live, chances are there will be an imperfection here and there?

Big Love is Lindsey's opportunity to take the spotlight and do what he does best: Play the hell out of a guitar and sing with passion. He's alone on stage. From what I understand, he has no other such moment on the current tour. Why would you want to deny him that?

Oh, and it happens to be a great arrangement. There's that too.

Sarcasm, I think :)
FWIW, I agree with both of you, I think. I *live* for the moments where things happen *differently* live from night to night, bootleg to bootleg. They're part of what made the Mac such a great live band in the 60's and 70's...

Yes.

It was sarcasm, as FleetfootMike correctly pointed out. Maybe I should use the ;) next time, right? I think that Lindsey's approach to "Big Love" has always been the same, similar to classical musicians who always try to follow the composer's original intentions as close as possible. Imperfections there may sometimes be in his thumb-tapping, but even those are often covered by the FX that he uses.

Of course there are imperfections, he's only human after all. Not every imperfection is noticeable to humans anyway.
I love both versions. The "acoustic" one was the first I heard; I was immediately struck by its boldness and gall, by its intense approach to the topic at hand. The ending has always sounded like an orgasm of a maniac. I learned to appreciate the finesse of the studio version much, much later.
The thing is that this track has been the same for eleven years. It made sense for him to do it during the Dance since not too many people attended the Cradle tour. As of now, however, I'd rather hear some other finger-picking piece.
I wouldn't. I would love it if some of those Stevie's old warhorses were replaced with new fingerpicking pieces from LB.
The problem is that Fleetwood Mac's current stagnation on stage shows on "Big Love" the most. I have suggested before that when he decided to take this approach with his playing, his solo sections on the electric pieces started to lose some of the intensity and bravado that they had on every tour prior the Cradle. It was like he suddenly wanted to have more pre-arranged parts than before in his solos. "Big Love" as an acoustic was a new thing in 1992, hell, it could even go through as a new thing in 1997. But now when the band's appearance is that of an oldies' act, this "new, revolutionary" piece is just another oldie in the set.
I'm well aware of your reputation on these boards, CarneVaca, and I do not wish to start a long argument with you, especially since we agree on most things about Lindsey Buckingham. This is just my gut feeling, take it or leave it.

I can pretty much tell you how the solo in "I'm So Afraid" goes this tour. He has about a half dozen stock sections that he links together.

Perhaps you'd care to share what this so-called reputation is? My point wasn't to start a "long argument;" I was merely trying to draw out of you what exactly you meant with the terse comments that at first blush appeared contradictory. Discussion, after all, is the purpose of these boards.

Now that you have explained, I understand where you are coming from better. However, if I were given the choice to remove "stagnation" from the Fleetwood Mac live sets, I wouldn't touch Big Love. It's still an important moment during the set. I would throw out stagnant tunes like Dreams, Gold Dust Woman and, yes, I'm So Afraid, which as much as I love the tune, has now been played to death. I'd throw in things like "That's Alright," "Sara" and "Save Me a Place."

We have a difference of opinion. I am not sure reputations, or perceptions thereof, need to play a role in it.

I have to confess to a boredom with the acoustic arrangement of "Big Love."
As I mentioned on the Lindsey Forum, I dug it when he first did it, but I'm much less enthusiastic about it now.

I would have rather seen them plug "Big Love" back in, and unplug "Gypsy."

I think most folks' reaction when he first did it was some mix of awe, disbelief, and slightly hysterical laughter (if you were a guitarist). It's still really cool to watch but... y'know... seen it now.

For what it's worth, UK tribute band "Rumours Of Fleetwood Mac" do a 'Tango In The Night'-era arrangement of it live.

pardon? iv seen rumours of fm live 3 times but they never once did big love, id love to see that tho coz they are a damn good tribute band. :nod: :nod: :nod:

Johnny, this band has been playing the same set of seven tunes since 1977 and three more since 1975. And Big Love is what so many folks seem to have gotten sick of!?