Agreed.

Agreed x358423840249234!

Good luck with this everyone, haha!

LB would have to replace the rest of the band with robots for this to happen.

:lol:

That was discussed here at one stage, if I remember correctly. The subject of Stevie doing private shows came up and someone suggested that a gang of Ledgies get funds together for a private Ledgie-only gig. I think we got to the point in the conversation where we were working out how much cash we'd actually have to sink in, though I forget the details.
The point was raised that Stevie might not actually go for it. Performing a private show is one thing, but performing for a room full of serious diehard fans is quite another, and it was suggested that that might be too intimidating. Also I think we gave up the idea of dictating our dream setlist.
Still, a nice idea, I'll see if I can find the thread.

The song I want to hear live more than any other right now is Tango in the Night. Having seen the new treatment of Go Insane, I know they could do an absolutely cracking job of it. :nod:

Yes!!! To be able to shout Taaaaannnnngoooooo along with Lindsey just once...

Could you imagine if this was a reality? If Stevie promised us a whole new show, unlike anything she's ever done before? Oh wait she's already done that and it was called Las Vegas 2005, four concerts in May. The highlight was NOTHING EVER CHANGES.

^^

.....?:confused:

I'm one of those people, and I am paying to enjoy hearing a great band play whatever they want - hopefully an inspired and unexpected set. All songs are expendible, as all songs are possible. As long as it's a dedicated and dynamic show, there is no reason to feel disappointed that certain songs aren't included...unless it's casual fans who feel slighted that they didn't hear the few hit songs they are familiar with. (wah, wah, wah!)

I have great respect for bands that don't feel the need or bow to the pressure to play particuliar songs all the time. As well, there are many famous and progressive bands whose fans don't hold those expectations.

To demand/require that certain songs must always be in a set to meet some personal objective seems somewhat regressive and close-minded. I've gone to concerts to see bands I was unfamiliar with, where I was unfamiliar with almost all of the songs, I could still enjoy the show for the musicality and showmanship. So why wouldn't a true fan of music as a whole (Fleetwood Mac included) be unhappy if certain songs weren't performed? For me, it would be like a breath of fresh air.

Stevie will do a 90 minute set (not necessarily of your choosing) anytime, anywhere for $300K+ 1st class airfare + hotels.

But does Fleetwood Mac? They used to sweat during Rhiannon in their much younger days. They don't sweat anymore, to put it mildly. They treat it like muzak. I never found muzak all that haunting, except for the Love Theme from Sayonara as played by the 101 Strings.

Imagine if Lindsey & Mick pumped up Rhiannon once again, as if they were playing Come or I'm So Afraid. What would Stevie do? Would she rise to the occasion? Would it flummox her?

Questions all . . . .

Okay David, I'm gonna bounce ideas off of you.

So, I'm gonna guess that Lindsey and Mick's "spark" was lost when Stevie lost her own interest and enthusiasm for the song. If we so wish, we can blame this on the "Klonopin years"... I don't know what made the change, but it definitely happened. So then The Dance came along and Stevie's voice wasn't nearly what it was in "Rhiannon"s prime years so they tried the eerie, slower approach to the song. I actually think it was pretty well performed during 1997 but there was something about the tension in Stevie's "dreams unwind" that kept the song intact. Now that she's lost even more power and range, the song is pretty dead, plain and simple.

SO, I think that Lindsey and Mick should put more energy into the song and add that guitar solo again. If they make the shifts in the song more prominent, it'll automatically transfer to a better performance onstage. In my dream world, Fleetwood Mac would take another Stevie song out of the setlist ("Stand Back", the ballad, whatever) and give "Rhiannon" the time and energy it deserves. One less song means a few more minutes for that buildup towards the end and a little bit more energy for Stevie's performance and voice.

I would cry of happiness if "Rhiannon" became worthwhile again. Seriously.

Stevie's saving up her Rhiannon energy/passion for the forthcoming Rhiannon movie, duh.

I think you're spot on with all that. I definitely think the old Rhiannon died sometime in the mid 1980s, and it cannot be resurrected. Rhiannon won't be a force again partly to do with confidence, partly due to the fact she's sang the song 10,000,000,000 times. I also think that Fall From Grace is Stevie's Rhiannon for the 21st Century: meaning, it's the one song where her eyes light up, you see some of the old passion, and where she actually lets herself loose and gets into the song. It's unfortunate Fleetwood Mac concert goers don't get even one passionate performance song from Stevie these days.

An interesting exception to this are Stevie's performances from the Street Angel tour. Almost every song was like an exorcism for her on that tour, she was on FIRE! Again, not in the Mac confines tho lol.

She CAN do it, but she won't unless someone kicks her into it and says, "Stevie, this is your trademark. What the hell are you doing to it?!"


Sigh, as I said... I can dream.