"Intuition" Appreciation Thread
 

Isn't this song absolutley brilliant :D Its such a shame it was left off BTM - much better than "Stand on the Rock" I felt :shrug:

Express your appreciation here :thumbsup:

I agree. I really like Intuition also and I think it could have replaced a bunch of songs on the album. It's definitely better than Love is Dangerous.

No its not ;)

I actually quite like "Stand On the Rock." Yeah, the lyrics are stupid, but I really enjoy the guitar work on it. Besides, I have "Intuition" on Vito's solo CD King of Hearts so I've got the best of both worlds anyway.

Sure, but the Fleetwood Mac version is SO much better. ;)

(and for the following reasons):

1) The rhythm section is Mick Fleetwood & John McVie instead of a drum machine and Rick Vito himself playing bass

2) The background vocals by Christine McVie & Billy Burnette are fuller than those by Stevie Nicks alone

3) IT'S FLEETWOOD MAC DAMN IT!!!!

Not Rick Vito's solo version of "Love Is Dangerous". THAT kicks som serious butt. :thumbsup:

I honestly think of all the stuff I've heard from that period, "Intuition" could have been THE biggest hit of the 1990s for Fleetwood Mac. It had radio airplay written all over it. The person who decided to leave that off BTM altogether should have his or her head examined.

For my tastes, Christine & Billy's backing vox lack oomph, and sound too slight. Stevie's vocals add a moody effect similar to the way they do on John Stewart's "Midnight Wind," and compliment the song's overall vibe much better.

I wouldn't have been opposed to all three collaborating on the backing vocals though, and they probably would have, if "Intuition" had made it to the final running order for 'Mask.'

Ignorance is bliss. :laugh:

I have yet to hear "Intuition" from Rick's solo album - would somebody be kind enough to post it or PM me :wavey:

[QUOTE=chiliD]Sure, but the Fleetwood Mac version is SO much better. ;)

I have never heard the Fleetwood Mac version. I didn't even know there was a Mac version! Would anyone be so kind to post that as well?

I think I heard this once or twice. It left no impression on me, as you can see.

It reminds me nothing of "The Weird Beast" by Rickie Lee Jones.

http://my.ecplaza.net/kestainc/image...-1-Eng-270.gif










Just a suggestion...

Having heard the outtakes before the actual album, I found it hard to believe the album could be that strong that Intutition was left off it.

Having heard the album has not changed that opinion.

I think this gets back to the frustration that many fans have about that era of Fleetwood Mac. I know I sound like a broken record, but Fleetwood Mac releasing the "Tango" concert video and "Greatest Hits" album and Stevie releasing the "Red Rocks" video and OSOTM is what really killed this band. First (and I've varied my opinion on this), the band should have released an EP in 1988, maybe while they were on the road, that would introduce the new line-up. Actually, what would have been cool is if they had released a full-blown album featuring some of the retro/blues songs recorded during that era and mixed in the b-sides from "Mirage" and "Tango" helping transition into the "new" incarnation. (Hey, it would have been more useful than the box set!)

Walk Another Mile
Roll With Me Henry
Cool Water
Book Of Miracles
Love Is Dangerous
Ricky
Whole Lotta Trouble
You And I Pt. 1
Can't Help Falling In Love
When The Sun Goes Down
Down Endless Street
I Still Miss Someone

Then, they should have released "Behind The Mask" (produced by Patrick Leonard) in 1989.

Skies The Limit
Victim Of Love
Rooms On Fire
Got No Home
Save Me
Affairs Of The Heart
In The Back Of My Mind
Behind The Mask
Stand On The Rocks
Do You Know
Intuition
Paper Doll
As Long As You Follow
The Game Of Love

Actually, to be more chronologically correct, "Got No Home" & "As Long As You Follow" should go on the EP, with "Walk Another Mile" & "When The Sun Goes Down" going on the full BTM album. And, I'd also suggest that "No Questions Asked" go on the EP, with "Whole Lotta Trouble" going the full album, as well. "Ricky" can stay as a single B-side, as far as I'm concerned.

And, "I Still Miss Someone" could stay unreleased, as well.

OSOTM is a great album, you guys are a bunch of haters :laugh:

Produced by Patrick Leonard is the key. I wouldn't even have cared all that much what songs had been on the album. If it had sounded anything like the 2 Leonard produced songs on the Chain box set, it would have been great.

For the "hearing impared". :lol:

No kidding. OSOTM is an absolute piece of sh*t. My onetime HUGE Stevie fandom ground down to zero upon hearing this dreck.

Ditto. (except for "Rooms On Fire" and the unachieved potential of "Whole Lotta Trouble")

Even Christine loved the sound Pat achieved on those songs. :nod:
I'm sure there would have been plenty of folks who grumbled that FM was working with Madonna's producer (Dear God, not that!), but there was a lot of potential there for a fantastic album.

I just for the life of me can't understand why :( Can you fill me in on what is so bad about the album that it would ruin your fandom...

I'd venture to guess that, outside of the change in Stevie's voice, his biggest problem is the MOR production... but then I remember he loves Christine. ;)

All this talk of how bad OSOTM is has got me miffed. Sure, I can understand why somebody would think that it is not as good as any previous albums, but has everybody forgotten about Street Angel :shrug: That album is so much more worse than OSOTM - so much worse...

It's all subjective. Some people see beauty in 'TOSOTM' or 'Street Angel,' while other people think those albums are dreck.
Some people think 'In The Meantime' is bland and lacks character, while others think it's a brilliant album.

The difference of viewpoints keeps things interesting... it's what makes the world go 'round. Unfortunately it's the lack of respect for each others' tastes that brings things down to a junior-high level.

Au contraire. Listening to Street Angel is like swimming in a Las Vegas hotel's swimming pool...OSOTM is like falling into a vat of the mystery fluid on MXC.


:p NEE-ner, NEE-ner, NEE-ner.

Part of the problem, though, is that we're talking about a specific timeline here. (At least I am.) This, in many ways, marks the downfall of Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac. Up to that point, it was still cool to like Stevie Nicks. But, then came the "Red Rocks" and "Tango" videos, which were, to be honest, horrid, if for no other reason that the close-ups of Stevie that were filmed after the show. When somebody's hair style changes several times during a song in a CONCERT video, it turns people off. And, let's be honest, Stevie's "looks" (while not important to me, ARE important to the public) were beginning to decline. Stevie looked very different in 1989 than she did in 1983. Add to all of this the "Greatest Hits" package, which basically ended any hope of future success for Fleetwood Mac, was released.

So, before "Behind The Mask" was even released, the band had the challenges of Lindsey being gone, two new guys, a fat Stevie Nicks who had a voice that had lost most of its range, and a compilation that basically told the world the band's best days were behind it. And then they release a new album that didn't even have the all of the good songs on it. That's the legacy of Fleetwood Mac 1988-1991. Looking back, it would have been better for everybody involved if Stevie hadn't released "Red Rocks" or OSOTM and the Mac hadn't released the "Tango" video or "Greatest Hits" album and focused all of their energy on making the best album they could, and based on all that's out there, it could have been significantly better.

Now, I don't completely hate OSOTM. It hasn't aged especially well, which can be said of several projects from the post-Tango, pre-Dance era. Even the masterpiece, Lindsey's "Out Of The Cradle" sounds dated with the drum machines. And, the Zoo's "Shakin' The Cage" sounded a bit dated when it was released (too hair metal). So, I'm not going to completely knock Stevie on this point.

To me, it basically went downhill as soon as the Tusk tour was over and there was no new material from Fleetwood Mac (other than three songs on a live double album) for two years..then another five until the one after that...THAT to me was the killer.

Stevie & Lindsey should've just left the band the day after the final show of the Tusk tour (Hollywood Bowl)...let the band find their way with new people THEN.

In my opinion, it really had very little to do with what they released, and almost everything to do with the fact that hip-hop/rap was starting to take over the charts, with grunge following shortly after. A lot of artists who had been extremely popular just a few years prior, found their album sales dwindling as the '90s approached. The teenagers who, in 1983, thought Fleetwood Mac & Stevie Nicks were cool, were now well out of high school, and the new teenagers who made up the majority of the album-buying market, were looking for their own sound -- not something their big brother or... gasp... their parents listened to.

Fleetwood Mac was a dinosaur band, and I really doubt there's anything they could have done about it. Even if they hadn't released the 'Tango' video and 'Greatest Hits,' and even if Stevie hadn't released 'Red Rocks' and 'TOSOTM,' whatever album they did release would have still been viewed by the younger generation as just another album by "that band my Mom & Dad likes."

It still amazes me that the 'Tango' album and most of its singles did so well, because there was nary a soul in my school that would even admit to remotely liking Fleetwood Mac... and I graduated in 1990. I remember a few of the girls liked "Little Lies," but that was it.

So I don't think a "better" album with a different song selection would have changed any of that.

Just stating an opinion that some don't care for doesn't make it Jr High, Bri Bri.
If anything, THAT MAKES it a more adult conversation.

Sure, if it stopped with the simple stating of an opinion. But the "for the hearing impaired" response to someone else's opinion that it's a good album... not so much an adult conversation. :shrug:

This might not be a defense, but I was quoting Chili, from an earlier post.
If one can't take a little ribbing, perhaps one shouldn't play with others.

yabbut her vocal shouldn't have been THAT big a surprise if he went to the tango tour.

and as for mor production, that characterizes ALL of stevie's albums & good chunks of fm albums.

so, homie, just why DO you hate osotm?
I hate it too but why do YOU hate it?

do you not see the illogicality of what you just said? you're confused & upset when someone says he hates your favorite, but then you say you hate MY favorite..... what's the diff in principle? (of course, I don't get upset but that's not the point)

the moral of the story is: one man's meat is another man's poison

of course this is true & you are the only one to peg the problem. the band was not a cool band in 1990 so it didn't matter what the album was like. That's why I laugh when people say "oh if they only released this song instead of that song, THIS song would have been a hit"--which is poshposh ridiculous screwyrabbit. I don't care if they released GO YOUR OWN ****ING WAY in 1990, it would NOT have been a hit by any stretch of the imagination. The same is doubly or triply true for today, or for that last beached whale of an album back in 2003.
true true absolutely true. I was working for a newspaper at the time in sacratomato & I hung out with the pop music critic & there's no ****ing way in hell that fleetwood mac would have got major airplay or had a big hit with ANYTHING they did. Get off the crack, people.
yes that was amazing to me too stew. I think what drove that album was little lies & everywhere being so popular on adult-contemporary. remember back then adult-contemporary was a lot different from what adult-contemporary grew into in the early '90s with guys like dave matthews & sarah maclaghlin when it grew some balls. But back in the '80s, adult-contemporary was dreck unfortunately & those fleetwood mac songs were VERY popular on those stations & those people bought the album. You could walk into ANY hairdresser or haircut shop in 1987 & you would hear everywhere or little lies on the radio station. It was ridiculous.

but yes you are absolutely right that by 1987 even, fleetwood mac (despite its hit album) was definitely slipping out of coolsville. a few things helped prop it up: the aforementioned popularity of the adult-contemporary side of things, also the continued airplay & support on mtv, which was still showing fleetwood mac videos (or just plain videos) in 1987 & still covering the band's doings on MTV IN THE NEWS.

but I'll tell ya, stew cause you may not know this being quite a bit younger: fleetwood mac's luster in the public eye----that growing sense in the public that they were old farts----began even well before 1987....I began to notice such a phenomenon even by the time they headlined the us festival in 1982. LOTS of kids questioned just who the hell they were even then, & bitched about why the hell stupid fleetwood mac was headlining. the band had nothing in common with missing persons & other progressives in 1982, which was the stuff played at teenager parties & school dances--NOT fleetwood mac.

from there it was just a pretty steady decline. Concert attendance tells you nothing because even though it seems like a lot of people, it ain't---not compared with all the people buying albums or listening to radio. The concert audience is an extremely miniscule part of that. besides most of the people who filled up the forum when stevie or whoever came to play were just out for a party----you probably wouldn't have caught them dead with a stevie nicks cassette of Wild heart in their car, paradoxically enough.

that's the fleetwood mac story according to david o. :eek:

Partially why I said it should have been released in 1989 is that there was still SOME hope for chart success. I mean, you guys are totally discounting that a number of Fleetwood Mac's contemporaries had BIG hits, some of the biggest of their careers, in 1989. Clapton had "Journeyman," Henley had "End Of The Innocence," and Petty had perhaps the album of his career with "Full Moon Fever." So, why Fleetwood Mac couldn't have had a hit in 1989? It was still possible in 1990. Now, within two years, it wouldn't have been possible. "Surrender The Rain" vs. "Smells Like Teen Spirit." Hmmmm...

What do those three have to do with the price of tea in China. I like the disingenuous way you phrased it, too--"Fleetwood Mac's contemporaries"--thereby trying to make us group all four bands together in terms of public profile in 1989. The fact of the matter--the fact YOU have discounted, not I--is that neither Eric Clapton nor Don Henley & CERTAINLY not Tom Petty was regarded in 1989 the way Fleetwood Mac was: that is, as a blanded out, milquetoast group of cooers well past their heyday, regarded as such by both audiences & critics.

And THAT, pal, is the reason that Fleetwood would not have struck a new vein of gold in 1989.
I would never say it was impossible--only painfully unlikely.

Funny, I seem to remember a tongue-in-cheek post from Curtis about Christine that ruffled someone's feathers. ;)

I never said that I hate SA, I happen to quite like it - I just said it is worse than OSOTM, just my opinion.

I was never "upset" at you not liking OSOTM - I just wondered what was so bad about it that it made you lose you "onetime huge fandom"

And I find that what I said about SA was a fair opinion - what you said about OSOTM was almost an attack, an attack I never was "confused or upset" about:

"No kidding. OSOTM is an absolute piece of sh*t. My onetime HUGE Stevie fandom ground down to zero upon hearing this dreck."

And just for the record I never once said that OSOTM is my favourite :p