The 'whatever reason' was the best blues guitarist on the British scene at the time, with the debatable exception of Clapton, together with an experienced rhythm section and an attention-grabbing loon doing uncanny musical impressions of anyone he felt like doing. To suggest their success was anything to do with luck is utterly ridiculous.

As for blues becoming a sensation during Beatlemania... the Stones had been selling blues records (of a sort) at least as long as the Beatles had been around, and their kind of blues was selling well in the UK right through the 60s. Also, not everyone was buying into the Beatlemania as much as you might think. Sure, all their records sold zillions, but many people just wanted more serious music. Lots of people didn't go along with the trippy Sgt Pepper stuff and preferred the kind of simple blues that Mac had started to do - not forgetting that you couldn't actually go and and watch the Beatles because they'd stopped playing in '66. Mac's success also stemmed from the fact that they did the blues better than the other Brit blues bands, and received acceptance from many of the original US blues artists.

I know a lot of Mac fans who don't dig the early years don't really understand or acknowledge the band's early success, but it was down to the same reasons as the BN line-up's success. The right thing at the right time, done extremely well - luck had sod all to do with it. The other thing people underestimate is the level of success they enjoyed in the UK in the late 60s. They were huge, and their singles sold better here in the 60s than they ever did in the 70s...

Agreed! It's totally apples and oranges with later versions of Fleetwood Mac. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac were basically a supergroup, with Green being considered one of the hottest guitarists in the U.K., McVie being one of the pillars of the British blues movement, and Fleetwood, just by his size alone, being one of the most recognizable figures in the music biz. While Jeremy was a bit of an unknown, he was a powerful stage presence. Anyway, it's not like they had to go out and start from scratch.

I've always thought that a lot of the allure of the current FM is that it's really like three bands in one. The styles of Stevie, Lindsey and Christine are so different that if you don't like one, you might like one of the others. My preference is Stevie, but Christine and Lindsey have their own set of followers. The old FM was very popular, but I think the inclusion of the Americans helped them in the US. Also, they went from blues to pop when Stevie and Lindsey joined and that also helped in their success. Blues is more obscure and selective than pop and FM's style of music in 1975 was really timely. I wouldn't take anything away from the old FM because Peter Green was greatness, but I don't know how far they would have gone in terms of top ten hits if Stevie and Lindsey hadn't joined. Would they have even thought to switch their format/genre to pop? Probably not. They would have continued doing the blues and their success would have remained selective.

I think now people associate FM with Stevie. Lindsey, too, but not as much. I don't think they can go backwards. An FM without Stevie Nicks? Really iffy. Therefore, I think Stevie is necessary to FM's future success, if they should decide to continue at all. The SYW tour did pretty well without Christine, but I'll bet they lost a few fans, meaning that when some concert-goers found out Christine wasn't with them, they decided to pass. When I bought SYW less than 24 hours after it had been released, I bought it used. There were already a few copies that had been bought and returned and put in the used section, but played like new. They had obviously been played only once. That was really telling to me. Without Stevie, I think I would have found a lot more used copies in that bin. :nod: Hard to say about Lindsey..

Honestly, though, they stopped being a blues band even when Peter Green was still with them. Songs like "Albatross," "Man Of The World," "Oh Well," and "The Green Manalishi" had very little to do with the blues. Those were pop-rock. And, they became a purely a progressive pop band when Welch came on board.

Well, that's true and Bob Welch was also greatness but for some reason they didn't really click until Stevie and Lindsey joined. Or, Bob Welch quit at the wrong time, right before they were about to break big. That is a possibility. I really do wonder if S&L hadn't joined, if Buckingham Nicks would have ever made it. I love the BN album but for some reason they didn't click either. Or, were they about to break big? I've often wondered if Mick hadn't discovered them what they would be doing now. I think it was the chemistry between those five people and the harmony of Stevie, Chris and Lindsey that just made it all come together. We obviously love them, but from the standpoint of why everyone seemed to fall in love with them, they just had the right sound for the times. FM couldn't seem to achieve that with Green or Welch to the same degree.

Well clearly Stevie Nicks has the most "worshipers" (I am a perfect example!) and the most fans of anyone else in the Fleetwood Mac family. So, I would say that FM certainly would not be as popular post 1975 without Stevie... and Lindsey for that matter! Of course there was a FM before Stevie and Lindsey and there was a FM afterwards, they just weren't popular compared to the Buckingham Nicks era of the band.

Stevie clearly attracts the most people to FM though. I am not saying that she is a better artist (even though she rocks the most in my opinion!) I am just saying she is the most popular and FM owes a lot to her for not leaving the band to soley be a solo artist. She is like what Sting is to the Police. Only Stevie has balanced both being the frontwoman of a band and having a successful solo career.

Not to mention, did they ever have the most gorgeous three part harmonies ever, before that? I, personally, think that's where a lot of their "magic" lays. lies? anyway, There was other kind of greatness before S&N, true. I didn't really want to argue within this thread, I just wanted to say, about the beautiful harmonies... :D

I think it was possible for them to have had a huge hit with Bob. The first question I asked in this thread was would the "Rumours" band have made albums that were as good as the ones that were released if they had to do five albums in three and a half years. On that same note, I think it's just as valid to ask would their albums have been as successful. I tend to think not, because when a band releases an album every six months, they're lucky to have one single from an album do well, let alone three or four. Look at Dave Mason's career. He had to do two albums a year when he was on CBS. The result was he had to do a lot of covers and only had one hit single during that time. His shows always sold a lot of tickets, but that didn't translate into record sales.

I completely agree that the band really didn't click all that well until Stevie and Lindsey joined. I don't think their songs were all that different from earlier incarnations, but they were able to pay much more attention to detail and had an amazing three part vocal harmony, which was definately new to the band.
A point that is often overlooked. In terms of production value, I don't see all that much difference between "Penguin" and "Buckingham Nicks." If you put Christine's "Penguin" songs on "Buckingham Nicks," it still sounds lacking.
I don't think that Peter Green wanted to achieve that level, truth be told. Anyway, as he has mentioned before, there was no real band chemistry when he was in the band. It basically WAS three different bands. As for Bob, I think it was just too casual when he was in the band. I think they were content to hang out at Benifols when they weren't on the road, or stay in hotel rooms when they were on the road. They weren't really calling the shots at that point in their career, and weren't really putting extra effort into getting the hit singles. They let their crooked manager deal with the record company, and nobody was advocating for the band with Uncle Mo at Warners. That didn't happen until Mick was the manager.

I think that's true - Peter never felt stretched by the band, except occasionally when he was inspired by Danny. Jeremy did his own non-progressive thing almost entirely, and Peter was certainly frustrated that John and Mick added no creative energy to the mix. And I also think that whatever it was that Peter wanted from the band wasn't realistically attainable anyway, i.e. musical progression that satisfied his massive thirst but with a level of success that wasn't so great that it smothered him. No band could have happily provided him with that.

The BIGGEST fallacy of the whole thing is the MAJOR, MAJOR misconception that Fleetwood Mac was a blues band right up until Stevie & Lindsey joined. As SteveMacD pointed out, they'd stopped being a blues band WAY before Peter Green left. The things that Danny Kirwan contributed to Then Play On, and definitely the three albums he was on after that, weren't blues...his contributions were more of a folk/rock/pop vein. ("Although The Sun Is Shining", "My Dream", "Station Man", "Dust", "Woman Of A 1000 Years", "Sunny Side Of Heaven", etc). Peter had gone way away from blues...(see examples provided by SMacD). Jeremy's contributions to Kiln House were basically the old R&R parodies and he had not just shuffled, but SPRINTED away from doing the Elmore James type copies. Other than Peter's "Showbiz Blues", there's not a strict blues tune to be found on Then Play On...or actually any album thereafter (before you crucify me, the Blues At Chess album was recorded BEFORE Then Play On, but not released until after.) Fleetwood Mac was in FULL "pop" mode by Bare Trees a full three years (and three incarnations) before Stevie & Lindsey joined.

Maybe NOW that MIGHT be true, but Fleetwood Mac doesn't really have the big "hit potential" anymore, even WITH Stevie & Lindsey. How much airplay did anything from SYW or Stevie's TISL get in the past two years? Almost zilch. If they'd released those same songs in, oh, let's say, 1981 or 82, I think there'd be 4 or 5 top 10 singles off each album...but now, Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks are considered "old artists" just milking past glories. (why that is revered by people in the case of the Rolling Stones & the Eagles, but not Fleetwood Mac, I'm at a loss). Sure, they draw great for their concerts, but big album sales & frequent airplay (for any NEW material) have passed 'em by...radio programmers will only play white album & Rumours tracks (rarely even anything from Tusk, Mirage or TitN...except occasionally "Gypsy")

The biggest mistake of the Time era was that Mick didn't push that incarnation to find their own identity as Fleetwood Mac. He pushed them to be a Fleetwood Mac tribute band, basically. If they'd have played their OWN songs in concert, rather than filling the set with Fleetwood Mac's past hits (and Dave Mason's solo hits), I think we might have seen a whole different outcome. Again, that's just playing "what if" and buying into alternative history, but "hindsight is 20/20" right? But, the thing is, the responses they got from MORE than a majority of the audiences was VERY positive. Mick just pulled the plug on that incarnation way too soon...they'd stopped touring before the album even came out. Had they kept touring to push the album, I think the overall perception of the Time album would be quite a bit different. But, maybe not...by 1994/95, all things "Fleetwood Mac" were uncool & really considered passe'


I got my SYW used, too...and there were three or four copies in the bin when I bought mine. And, I saw multiple copies of VBoFM in the used bins as well. I don't see copies of Behind The Mask or Time in used bins very often.

I think the main reason Fleetwood Mac's "star" has lost so much of its lustre is that they have impeccably BAD timing (as far as marketing). It shouldn't have taken 5 YEARS from the momentum of The Dance popularity to almost completely wane before releasing SYW. Lindsey should've been forced to make up his mind to either release his solo album or meld it into a Fleetwood Mac project before the end of summer 1998. But, no, Stevie Nicks went and sabbotaged that by TOURING in support of a friggin' BOX SET, then doing a solo album AND touring after THAT, putting Fleetwood Mac on "hold" for 2 or 3 more years.

So, for as much "good" that Stevie & Lindsey BROUGHT to Fleetwood Mac initially (1975-1980), over the long haul, they've actually been the WORST thing to ever happen to Fleetwood Mac. Imagine how much MORE Fleetwood Mac music there'd be today if both Stevie & Lindsey would've both gone off on permanent solo careers after the Tusk tour? Fleetwood Mac would've carried on with others and Stevie & Lindsey would have released more albums each without being bound to Fleetwood Mac. It would've been the best thing for all concerned.

Steve, my friend... the problem with that argument, is that there was no guarantee that Fleetwood Mac was going to continue after 'The Dance.'
Christine had told them once and for all that she was done with touring, and wasn't at all sure that she wanted to record either.
Plus, Lindsey still intended to release 'Gift Of Screws.'

Seems unreasonable to expect Stevie to just sit around her house and hope that the phone might ring.

Heck, by the time the finishing touches were being put on 'TISL,' Lindsey was still telling Rolling Stone that he hadn't quite made up his mind yet on whether or not to fold his solo work over to a Mac project.

Stevie was wise to not squander the goodwill created by the 'Dance' tour, and, if anything, she helped keep FM's name in the press during the band's downtime, since every single interview she did for both 'Enchanted' and 'TISL' included optimistic discussion of Fleetwood Mac's future.

She's not Yoko, bro... she didn't kill your favorite band. ;)

Stevie has been nothing but committed to FM, was it her that walked out right before a world tour like a five year old, I did not think so!!
You have got to be kidding me :laugh: She would be a fool to sit and wait around for fm to get is sh*t together and make an album. Further more, aren't you in agreement with the argument that FM would do as well without her. Doesn't that defeat your argument?

I've never understood that either. Sometimes it seems that the Stones or the Eagles are almost looked at as *current* bands, but FM is not. I think they were on their way back after the Dance. They gained new fans and recognition. Christine's leaving the band hurt them and there's no getting around that. They also waited too long, as you said. They should have had another cd out within two years max.

I agree with this. Why put together a *new* FM and turn them into a cover band of the old one? Mick royally screwed up if he wanted them to be the next phase of FM. Was he expecting another Rumours phenomenon? The comparisons between the two incarnations were probably impossible for him to ignore and he just didn't get that this new FM was going to have to kick some major ass on their own.

*Ahem* This, I have to take issue with. Stevie didn't sabotage anything. She's had her career with FM and her solo career for over twenty years now. She had every right, and probably contractual reasons as well, to do her own thing while FM was on hiatus. Why were they on hiatus? Well, it was Stevie's understanding that Lindsey was planning to release his own solo cd and possibly tour in support of that. Now I know that he rarely finishes what he starts before a decade ends, but that's not her fault. If he's flaky, that's not her fault. She moved on with her life and her career and in the meantime, Lindsey and his management made the decision to nix his solo project and merge again with FM. And Stevie was right there with them, writing all new material. She didn't put FM on hold. I don't think anyone can be accused of doing that, but I'd be more apt to point that finger at Lindsey for not getting his s**t together within a reasonable period of time.

I do agree that they waited too long. Whose fault that is, I don't know. Maybe a combination of the three songwriters. Christine left the band, which threw a monkey wrench into everything, Lindsey tinkered with his solo project before making his decision to nix it and Stevie carried on with her solo career. Laying the blame solely on her is a little unfair, don't you think?

Interestingly, to my knowledge, there were no concrete plans for a FM record immediately after The Dance. It apparently took Warner Reprise showing little interest in his solo record that he had been working on for like eight years. That is when FM then came into the pic. and La Nicks moved on from that awhile back. I think she can hardly be blamed for following LB's cue and going after her solo career. I also think WB was stupid because though I realize the draw of FM is way more than LB solo, GOS was good stuff and I think it would have sold fairly well. But, history did not play out that way.

Christine is the one who pulled out after 40 Dance shows and moved back to England. Stevie hardly sabotaged the ability for FM to capitalize on the success of the Dance.
According to Stevie, the four of them hardly seriously entertained the thought of continuing on with FM without Christine until they played for Bill Clinton in 2000. She implies in several interviews that they were all sort or waiting, hoping Christine would change her mind. Should she have sat home, doing nothing, for a few years, hoping Christine would come back? Yes, they missed the boat when it came to capitalizing on the Dance but to blame Stevie is unfair.