Well, when she does something that used to make her self-conscious and decides that she doesn't care, be it playing the piano or wearing flat shoes on stage, I applaud it.

I actually think her ego problems (which seem to be growing, rather than diminishing over time) lie in the opposite direction.

Michele

Stevie is not trying to impress anyone with her musical skills but rather give her fans ( and not the bucky heads who are always complaining about her anyways) a glimpse at what these songs sound like when they are written.

As far as Stevie's attitude goes she should have adopted this outlook years ago. I think she has gotten to the point age wise where doesn't have the time to compromise now and regret it later.

I'm convinced even more now that she seriously needs help making music out of her raw material.

TO me, it feels like a resentment that's grown over the last ~40 years toward the band and (especially Lindsey) that she can do it without them. A weird place to be at her age. Especially, since she's already proven that she can. Now that Christine is back, perhaps it triggers even more of that resentment. 70% of an album with Buckingham/McVie singing and writing might have triggered it, too.

Whose fault was that though?

It's called KARMA...Since Stevie joined the band they have made her feel like an outsider and at times only had her around when it was necessary/profitable so I find the fact that FM and in particular LB are now seemingly "bending over backwards" to get her involved and Stevie seems to be "Not interested" somewhat humorous.

Huh? Like she didn't/doesn't profit from being in the band? They gave her a platform to become a star in the first place.

Exactly how did they make her feel like an outsider? It's amazing how somebody who isn't treating the band as a major priority herself "feels like an outsider." If anything, they were frustrated by her lack of availablity in the studio in all of the albums post-Tusk. And let's face it, the song she's given the band from 1987 onward haven't exactly been anywhere close to her best work with Fleetwood Mac. "Gypsy" was really her last great song that she wrote for Fleetwood Mac. That was 33 years ago.

In a similar reversal of roles I find it particularly humorous that for years Stevie didn't say very much onstage and Lindsey would ramble on and on…while Stevie stood off to the side of the stage rolling her eyes. She'd even comment in interviews that she thought he talked way too much onstage and people were there to hear the music and not talking.

Now another instance where the tables have turned and he's toned he's blather way down (at Mac shows) compared to the past and Stevie, miss "no one's here to listen to us talk" yaps on and on and on onstage.

So typically FM… what we say/do today may be the complete oppose of what we say/do tomorrow. Stay tuned!

People are always so quick to compare the success of Stevie's solo career to FM...Does that same standard apply to LB??? Because if it does then Stevie is far ahead of LB. How many of LB's records come close to selling as many as a FM record??? "Bella Donna" and "Wild Heart" had sales rivaling "tusk "mirage" and "tango". Have any of LB's records done that?

Which @fleetwoodmac song do you favor? #Rhiannon or #Dreams? pic.twitter.com/MOMShUaSqf

— Mick Fleetwood (@Mick_Fleetwood) February 10, 2015

Is Mick trying to get on Stevie's good side?

Comparing solo careers is a straw man.

If you want to be technical about it, it's real easy to say Stevie had "solo" success, but how "solo" was her actual initial success outside of Fleetwood Mac? The first two singles off "Bella Donna" were duets with Tom Petty and Don Henley. Stevie was riding the coattails of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and the Eagles. Throw in her duet with Kenny Loggins a few years earlier, and it becomes clear that Stevie's hit duets with top mainstream artists early on help her establish an identity outside of Fleetwood Mac.

Lindsey didn't do that, nor did he make albums specifically for the mainstream crowds, whereas Stevie has always been very calculating about the mainstream appeal of her music.

Fleetwood Mac didn't rely on her popularity" so much as they expected her to be the full member of the band that she was supposed to be.

This is an important statement.

That's exactly right. :nod:

Jesus, some Stevie fans have some big egos and opinions. Without this band, Stevie and Lindsey both would 99% likely be playing bars or city festivals for 200 people max right about now with nobody likely giving two ****s about their artistic potential. This band gave them everything and made them who they are. Fleetwood Mac saved Stevie's career twice. Stevie's musical career was almost dead in the water after BuckinghamNicks and again after Street Angel, considering that album only spent 3 weeks within the top 100 album chart. If it wasn't for the reunion, Stevie would be a relic by now as would Lindsey despite her 'solo success' early on.

This is all SO true.Stevie says in her Gypsy speeches that all of your dreams can come true if you just believe.I feel like saying,"Honey,you have got to be f ** king kidding me.The only thing that you had that most people don't have is unbelievably incredible luck and you just happened to have hooked up with an awesome guitar player,which is what FM wanted anyway.I've been dreaming for about 50 years now and not a f**king thing has changed for me".Don't get me wrong - I am a huge Stevie fan and I'm so thrilled that she made it.But I believe she needs to come down to earth when she describes how she made it and give credit where credit is due.I would love,just one time,to hear her say "Thank you Lindsey for not leaving me in the dust when the Mac asked you to join.And thank you FM,especially you Chris,because you gave the deciding 'green light', for accepting me when you didn't need me".Of course their career took off when the 2 hippies joined but who knows?That could have happened without them too.But y'all know this is "not gonna happen":)

I think Fleetwood Mac would've had some success without Stevie or Lindsey. They were on an upward trajectory. Maybe not at the level they achieved, but there would have been some success. Actually, in hindsight, Waddy Watchell would have been the more obvious choice. His style was more similar to the guys before 1975, and he had a quirky look about him, not dissimilar to Bob Welch.

Stevie does thank them.. In her Gypsy speeches she usually thanks Chris specifically for letting in another girl singer. And I know for a fact she has thanked Lindsey for letting taking her with him. You can find it on Youtube, it's the introduction to Without You somewhere in England. But in all honesty, we have to remember here, Lindsey is an amazingly talented and incredible guitarist - but so was Bob Welch, Peter Green, etc. and FM was never massively popular, even in England. It was Stevie that got FM their first and only, to date#1. No, she is not the musical driving force behind the band, or even that song, but I guarantee you FM would not be where they are without Stevie's image. Yes talent should come before style, but in reality, image is crucial to a band's success, and Stevie had "the look." Did she play an instrument? No. Did men and women alike come in droves to admire her beauty and voice? Yes, and they bought the music as well. So yes, Stevie should give credit to FM for making her life easier, but FM would not be where it is today without her.

EDIT:: I found the video. The thank you's start at about 6:45.. She did this just about every night.

Fleetwood Mac was selling hundred of thousand of records, by the time Welch left. Plus, they were stars in England. B/N were on their last dime and using the recording studio for free when it was not in use. They did have a blowing up in Birmingham.

And she would be nowhere without them. It's a symbiotic process in my mind. And yes, FMac was very popular in England.

As DauphineMarie said, basically every single night of the 2013 tour, she profusely thanked Mick, John, Lindsey and sometimes even Christine.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/88e1b5e61...8si8o4_250.gif http://38.media.tumblr.com/6714b82d6...8si8o3_250.gif http://33.media.tumblr.com/4de6fbb45...8si8o2_250.gif

Really? From 22 November 1968 to 26 September 1969, Fleetwood Mac had four top ten singles in England (including the #1 single, "Albatross," which hit #2 when rereleased in 1973). They were only #3 in sales, behind the Beatles the Stones. But I guess that wasn't really massive.

If you don't like Stevie, you have a right to your opinion but before Stevie and Lindsey joined, Fleetwood Mac had very limited success--which Mick Fleetwood himself said in his book. With Stevie and Lindsey, the band rose to success because the five of them together created wonderful music.

Just because you don't like someone, you don't need to belittle their achievements. And, really, how many people can sustain career success for 40+ years. Do all of you think that you're going to be functioning at your peak levels when you're 66 or 70?

I suppose you're right, my apologies.. Even though I'm English, I never really considered them that big in retrospect. The correct usage should have been they were never that popular in the United States.

Upward trajectory? More like just maintaining air speed. After Peter Green left, they were riding on the brand name, continuing to exist despite having an identity crisis, with constant changes in band dynamic. It's amazing they retained enough of an audience to keep them going; though they weren't busting up the charts, their albums still sold a feasible amount and they continued to tour.

When Bob Welch left, and they were reduced to just Mick, John and Christine, I would say they were at their most vulnerable. Mick's sense of perseverance and the shear luck of finding Lindsey and Stevie saved them; a union of chemistry that ignited a firestorm.

If you don't like or respect pre-1975 Fleetwood Mac, you have a right to your opinion but before Stevie and Lindsey joined, Fleetwood Mac had already released over ten albums, including a Greatest Hits album, had had four top ten singles (one rereleased five years after its first run and hitting #2), had been all over the music press in 1974 (any press is good press), had a record deal, had a significant following, and had been on American national television twice.

They also made wonderful music with Peter Green, Jeremy Spencer, Danny Kirwan, and Bob Welch. Maybe it didn't rise to the same level of success, but it was still wonderful.

You mean like you did with the pre-1975 Fleetwood Mac?

Since always. Two different things.

Depends on how you look at it. By the end of 1974, they pretty much established with the record company and the music industry that they (Mick, John, and Christine) were the legitimate owners of the Fleetwood Mac brand, they had moved their base of operations to Los Angeles, they still had a record deal, and they were managing their own affairs, yet they were off the radar enough to where they could still try anything and probably get away with it.

The fact that the first top 20 hit was a Christine McVie-penned song that could have easily been on any of the five albums prior just adds to the notion that they were on their way up anyway. The performances of Stevie and Lindsey on that song weren't especially distinguishable, or really even noticeable (unlike "Say You Love Me").

I agree that their chemistry took them to the next level. But to suggest that Fleetwood Mac couldn't have continued to be a viable band without Stevie and Lindsey is pretty disingenuous.

That kind of defies the character of band Fleetwood Mac as displayed throughout their tumultuous history. Despite the upheavals, they have always moved forward. This fatalistic expression of sentiment is similar to that of the fans that couldn't (and still don't) accept the band as Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green.

So many definitive statements are being expressed regarding this situation! Speculation is reasonable, but the "should nots" and "will nots" are so bluntly absolute.

Where can I purchase the crystal ball that some people appear to have?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. There is nothing disingenuous with my statement; perhaps the nuance was overlooked. I never inferred that they that they didn't have the potential to be a viable band.

YES! I agree with penquinhead:]:]

Christine McVie is 71 and she sure inspires me to be as healthy as I can, at that age.

Surely not, as is the case with Stevie. You seem to forget that starting in the mid 80s she basically became a has-been, a laughing stock really. I still cringe when I remember the comments people were making about Stevie when FM played at the Clinton inaugural. She remained a laughing stock until The Dance, and then her star rose again. I'm glad it did, but unfortunately it seems to have risen just high enough to make her insufferable.

There's 2 reasons I wish Stevie would end her commitment with Fleetwood Mac.

1. To end this incessant bashing she receives here.

2. So she can resume what's left of her career as a solo artist.

However, I highly doubt this will happen. If she did leave after this, a lot of fans and casual fans would view her as a selfish b*tch, like WTH is her problem? Who does she think she is? How dare she leave?!
Although I don't know her personally, I think that is likely the main reason she stays.
I believe she is happy Christine is back, but clearly there are still tensions between band members and not in a good/creative way. From what I'm observing from her, it's more of a 'I'm sick of this sh*t' way.

I have seen her enough times to tell a distinct difference in her energy/attitude when she performs with FM versus her solo performances. Good or bad, she seems to be a person that's highly affected by her emotions. So if there's negativity floating around between her and other member(s), it unfortunately affects her performance. She still sings well and does her thing, but it's mostly just like a job she's doing.

I myself have mixed feelings about feeling sorry for her. I mean, boo-hoo, I'm a big rock star making tons of money and now I'm stuck in this huge band. But on the other side of it I do feel sorry for her just because it sucks when you're not happy - no matter what the reason.

It's unfortunate, because I am pretty positive she'd be much happier if she were resuming her solo career.

Jamie

I'm still trying to understand how people can think that the massive success of Rumours was a GOOD THING. :shrug: It killed the band, for all intents. Yeah, they still kept making music & writing songs, but what are they locked into playing in concert for the next 40 years?? There's no expectation of anything ELSE from them by their general audience (except us painfully & pained few). Even in their solo shows (mainly speaking of Lindsey & Stevie), they are EXPECTED to play their Rumours songs...and because they "do as they're told", they acquiesce. Had they had the balls to tell their audience "THIS is what we're doing NOW" and actually PLAYED the material that they constantly were telling the press "it's the best stuff we've ever done", then maybe they might've been given some credit for being creative bastions of rock. But, they're not. They're a nostalgia act...and not even for their music...for the Rumours soap opera. Their whole post-1978 careers have been based on Shippers' fantasies.

yep. I remember reading an interview where Stevie mentioned being practically booed off the stage when they first introduced songs from their upcoming Rumours album to a live audience. It seems that ever since then this band has been spooked from that experience or experiences like that. You're right, they don't have the balls to do otherwise. And that's a shame.

I think this was actually, partially, the band's fault, as they chose to push Reprise harder in '75, got Over My Head remixed for radio, etc. Why they didn't do this before, we'll never know, but just to think how easy it could've been for them to do this before. I guess they deserve a semi-pass in the sense that they were dealing with the fake Mac thing and maybe they didn't have it in them to put effort in to this at that time (though it could be argued "why bother" if they busted their humps to get their name back then not do this) but anyway, I really do wonder how well (or let's say "differently") the '75 album would've done compared to the previous few had they not made the effort they did with OMH? I know they like to blow over this in some of the docs (i.e. "by the time Rhiannon was a hit") but since OMH is what nudged the public to take interest in a follow up single to a top 20 hit single... Can we honestly say it still would've been as big a seller as it was compared to the last few?

John

I'm not so sure that would really be a valid option for her anymore. Her most recent solo outings show her status as a concert draw has greatly waned. She has only been able to half fill amphitheaters in recent years. Her latest solo albums have had top 10 debuts, but have sharply fallen off the charts after their debut week and failed to even make Gold status. She hasn't gotten radio or TV airplay for new songs since the Say You Will era.

Point being, Stevie can't really continue being a solo artist in the fashion she's used to. Could her ego handle having to perform in smaller venues & theaters? Would she be willing to ditch the private tour jet? She's getting to the point where her lavish touring and recording expenses can no longer be justified by her handlers.

Sure, she's financially stable enough to walk away from FM and live out the rest of her days in sublime comfort. But her solo career does not offer her the trappings FM does: sold out arena tours, massive media attention, and unfettered rock star perks. More than any FM member, this sort of stuff matters to Stevie.

Good point. She does seem to love the lavish life and attention she gets that touring with FM provides. But I think we would both agree that it's a double-edged sword for her. Like you said, if she were to go back to her solo career, that would mean smaller venues and lack of personal aircraft, among other things. She would obviously have to weigh the pros and cons of this, but I would guess that if given the choice, she'd probably still opt for the solo career. I've seen her several times at smaller venues and I've never seen her happier on stage than she is at those shows.

Nothing to see here, it's just the old "not doing it" 'til the cows come home then will agree to get people to think it's more of a big deal she's doing it than it is in the hopes of drawing more people into the "unthinkable". She'll be there.

John