Hasn't that been the case since "World Turning" though?

I don't see "half-filled roadhouses and smokey casinos" in their future if MJCL are still in the band. Maybe amphitheaters and medium-to-large theater tours, as well as festivals (where the REAL money is). But, I'm all for anything that brings ticket prices down. I'm sick that I could only do two shows this tour. If they had been cheaper, I probably would/could have done at least ten shows.

They ALL scooped up the money...St. Christine and St. Lyndsey too!!

You missed the point. The others have over an album's worth of material recorded, and would rather have toured behind a new album than doing just a greatest hits tour. They would rather this have had some artistic merit instead of just being another cash grab.

It's hard to pinpoint, but I'd say sometime during the 90s Fleetwood Mac stopped being an amorphous entity, and finally froze into something solid and definable. What I mean by that is Fleetwood Mac is restricted to Fleetwood-McVie-McVie-Buckingham-Nicks. The public will accept one of those members dropping out, but will not tolerate new additions. So all of this talk about replacing a member is much ado about nothing. They've learned their lesson in regards to replacements. That's why they even cut a show short recently when Mick got sick and had to leave the stage. Yes, they could have gotten the drum tech to step in to finish the show, but they didn't dare. So if Stevie were to quit or get fired- neither of which are going to happen- the band could and probably would continue without her. I don't think that would be a quick process; it might be something like the 6 years in between the Dance and Say You Will. They'd wait to see if Stevie changed her mind, but would move forward without her if it became clear she wasn't interested. Because any way you slice it, you still have 4 members who are most eager to continue to make music. So why the hell shouldn't they? :shrug:

That was a different scenario. That was just a cop-out. On that occasion they just froze because they've come to rely too much on routine and familiarity. They could have/should have continued.

Amen, brother.

"The worst time really for me was, when we were doing that first album, was that Lindsey had been writing World Turning and I really wanted… I was his girlfriend too, you know, so you’ve got to realize that made me extra sensitive. And I really wanted to help with the song and he turned away completely and asked Chris. And that was the worst night of me being in Fleetwood Mac, because I went out to the parking lot and sat in the car and cried because I couldn’t figure out why he would tell me no and tell her yes. And it wasn’t even Christine, it was Lindsey that I was really bummed with, because I was so hurt. Then I realized as the days and weeks went on after that, that if we were going to do this, I was going to have to share him a little bit. And I was going to have to back off, because Christine certainly, of all people, didn’t want to cause any trouble between Lindsey and me. Just her as a musician and singer and a really nice lady that was becoming a friend of Lindsey’s, probably the kind of friend that I never was, nor will I ever be… he could accept her in a lot of ways that he couldn’t accept me. Because I loved her, it was alright. If I hadn’t had liked Christine, it would have been impossible. I would have had to leave, because I would have been so jealous."

^In 1981, Stevie told Jim Ladd:

Who should replace SN if she continues refusing to record?

Mrs Clause. Santa would not mind in the off season.LOL.......

Yes .Finally we will get an Holiday album out of the Mac.

Hahhahahaha.Just playing around.Hehehehehee.


Sheryl Crow is my pick or get some young blood into the band.

I think its late in the game to start with somebody new and they end up waiting it out and Stevie will be there soon.Probably just do the Mick,John,Lindsey,Chris four sum If Stevie quits which I doubt that will happen.

85%
 

current votes:

• Susanna Hoffs 2 3.64%
• Sheryl Crow 1 1.82%
• Cyndi Lauper 1 1.82%
• Gwen Stefani 0 0%
• some other girl with well known mainstream persona 1 1.82%
• some relatively unknown girl but creative (indie? influenced by FM?) 1 1.82%
• Peter Quirk (of The Cave Singers) - or some other guy? 1 1.82%
• Michelle Twig 0 0%
• Ann or Nancy Wilson 2 3.64%
• nobody - it should be just the 4 (Christine, Lindsey, John & Mick) 46 83.64%

Voters: 55.

so 46 of 55 voters so far - close to 85% prefer FM with just the 4, to anyone joining to replace SN in the case she continues refusing to record. :wavey:


i find it interesting that some people put emphasis on who would be best for touring, when cashgrab is not the part SN has problems with, apparently. the problem is creative, prolific, recording part. i suspect any replacement would need to be primarily because of the creative fit, and not because she/he would be attracting extra live audience (i.e. supergroup kind of replacement). that said, i liked the argument someone brought up in the thread, that between the 2 of them Lindsey and Christine seem to have plenty of creativity and new songs to fill up an album, so bringing in someone new and their songs would take the space of Christine's and Lindsey's songs we would otherwise hear.

Stevie isn't going anywhere. She's done 100 interviews within the last year where she's said "Nobody can leave Fleetwood Mac". If she doesn't record, it will come out as a Lindsey solo album.

Neko Case
 

hm, is that Neko Case for the win?

seems we have more votes for her here, than any of the people listed as an option in the poll!

As far as the record label is concerned, without Steve is there is no Fleetwood Mac. So basically if Stevie decides to blow off the next album (which I doubt she will) then Fleetwood Mac will just end. At this point, and since 1997, Stevie has a lot more pull in the band than she had previously. They need her, she doesn't need them.

I agree...........

If Stevie was still a multi-platinum selling artist, that might be true. Her last two albums combined may have sold 250,000. If Stevie held that much power, the biggest news in the Fleetwood Mac world for 2014 would have been the release of 24KG. I'm willing to bet Stevie made more on the first night of the Fleetwood Mac tour than she'll ever see from IYD and 24KG combined. She HAD a lot more pull in the band from 1997-2013, but she overplayed her cards.

That is a somewhat valid point, but she is the only commercially relevant solo artist of the 5. Lindsey's records don't chart top 10 and hers do. I agree with the prior posts that the record labels will want no part of a Fleetwood Mac sans Stevie Nicks. After all the band doesn't have a label.. so who would sign them without her? the business is cruel, and Stevie seems to know how to work the execs better than LB.
I still think it would be ideal for them to sign with Interscope.. WB sucks in promoting their material!

Define commercially relevant. I think somebody who makes music videos and tours for two years behind an album that still only sells 125,000 is hardly commercially relevant. At least Lindsey understands the equation, the whole small machine thing, and uses his time outside of Fleetwood Mac to pursue creative interest that he wouldn't be able to pursue within Fleetwood Mac.

I think smaller indie labels would be drooling at the opportunity to release the Fleetwood Mac album, especially if Lindsey Buckingham and Christine McVie were on it. Personally, I would like to see them sign with Matador Records.

yeah, but a small label can't AFFORD to advance them... and if you remember in DR, John didn't even wanna put up 2 grand for a mix test. they'll only sign to a major, and no major will sign them without Stevie.
she IS commercially relevant, no other rocker in her 60s is close to her sales, and top 10 debuts matter. the right record company could have doubled that total

What's to advance, though? They've already recorded the bulk of their work and with the money they're making on this tour, they don't need an advancement. The larger indie labels, like Matador, could very easily afford to release a band like Fleetwood Mac.

I'm still not completely sold on that. I think some labels might be more inclined to sign MJCL over the full five if they knew the band would be fully committed to touring and working the new album as much as possible, and MJCL appear to be willing to make that commitment. That would be a pretty safe investment, especially if the album was already finished. With Stevie being so noncommittal at this point, I'd be more nervous about signing them with her, and I'd make sure legal had an iron clad contract as far as she was concerned.

Yes Stevie still has enough "star power" that a major label like WB is still interested in her...Didn't WB show Lindsey the door last time he wanted a record deal?

Yes, I'm on this train. The era of shuffling members in and out of this group as if they were chess pieces should have ended by now. The result always felt like a desperate move—a cloying expression, like "Please love us anyway."

You can replace refrigerator water filters because the new filters are built exactly like the old. But people don't work that way.

This logic was born in a time when artists still needed a big record label to put out an album. That's not the case anymore.

Michele

Yes!

Christine and Lindsey are still formidable forces. Even without the third engine (Stevie), they could still make a great album fly. This isn't about achieving dizzying heights of commercial success anyway. It's about the ending rein of a historic band with one last musical statement that will cap off their legacy.

Stevie Nicks's (potential) withdrawal, like Peter Green's, isn't a breaking point. The band has persevered, like no other, through numerous drastic tidal waves. Though Stevie still has a lot of appeal, she's not the commercial commodity she once was. Behind the Mask didn't benefit from her presence. Nor have her recent solo albums busted up the charts.

Commercially, it makes little to no difference if Stevie is or isn't on Fleetwood Mac's last album. But from an emotional perspective/standpoint, if Stevie decides to bail on the very last stand for the band, it reveals an unflattering selfishness and a lack of gratitude and respect for the band. She's in it for the profit of live performances, but not for the creative collaboration. It is crass ass move on her part. Shame on her.

I still hope she will pull her ego-swelled head out of her ass and spare a little love and time for the band that made her rich and famous. After that, she can shed the shackles, free to follow her muse for the rest of her life.