Why in 1975?
 

Okay, over on the Stevie board, there was the classic discussion as to whether or not the band could exist without Stevie and Lindsey. Some say yes, some say no. But some seem to think that the band wasn't going anywere until Stevie and Lindsey came along, as if they magically appeared and suddenly turned Fleetwood Mac into a hit machine. In any event, I posted something there that I think debunks that myth. Knowing that many Mac/Chris/LB fans avoid the Stevie board like the plague (Homer), I thought I'd post it here to read other MAC fans take on this.

1. 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? Would Lindsey have been able to work in a situation where an outside manager was dictating the band's recording and touring schedule?

2. Who in the industry did Lindsey and Stevie know? Who did Mick, John, and Christine know? And, by "know" I mean that they could actually call said person on the phone and hit up a conversation.

3. Who had been on television by 1975?

4. Who had the record contract in 1975?

5. Who had a greatest hits package out in 1971?

6. Who had songs that were actually played on the radio in 1974?

7. Who had the road crew/touring machine and the contacts with major concert promoters to go with it?

8. Who had articles written about them in Rolling Stone prior to 1975?

9. Who had the steady following, which guaranteed people would go out to the shows?

10. Who advocated on behalf of Fleetwood Mac with Warners?

11. Who had the break-out single? Were the voices of Stevie and Lindsey even present on the song? Since this was THE break out song, couldn't it be argued that the band's big break COULD have happened without Stevie and Lindsey?

Also, I forgot to mention in that post that in all reality, the white Fleetwood Mac album was really the first time the band ever recorded on its own terms. Prior to that Cliff Davis was calling the shots, with the exception of "Heroes," which was an album they had to make for their own survival. I'm sure, given the choice, they would have done things differently. In the end, I think the band had been developing momentum for about three or so years in the USA and were ripe for success, and with the addition of Stevie and Lindsey, they had five people who believed the band could be a huge success. To which they worked very hard to attain.

Yeah, but the said discussion WAS on the Stevie board...I guess I should have clarified that they were talking about the band existing as a viable commodity in the USA.

Wow, Brian was right, you can't just let this go, can you?

And apparently neither can you. :D Anyway, it's not like I have a lot to think about these days, so I tend to think of Fleetwood Mac to kill the time. My friends' band broke up recently. They were a good band, had solid material, and usually got great reviews. But at the end of the day, the only folks who went out to see them were their friends. While they weren't expecting to make it big, they should have at least been able to get a weekend gig with lots of people coming out to see them. So, for me, right now, I see a parallel to a lot of things with Fleetwood Mac, the main one being that quality doesn't necessarily translate into success, which is why I find this particular topic so interesting.

The albums may not have been as carefully crafted, but the rush may have created a more headlong, breezy musicality. Things certainly would have sounded more "live"; Fleetwood Mac's art with Buckingham at the engineer's helm was the art of multitracking & mixing.
In the early years (1975-76) only, because that was when Lindsey himself took a good many orders from the other members of the band, particularly the Brits. In later years, Lindsey would have seriously balked at an outsider pushing him to tour. I mean, look at the way he balked at band INSIDERS pushing him to tour.
Lindsey & Stevie knew a few producers & engineers (like the people who worked on their first album) as well as some musicians (people they toured with, recorded with, lived with & slept with). Mick, John & Chris must have known the members of dozens of other acts, as well as producers & engineers who worked with Fleetwood Mac.
Fleetwood Mac. If LB & SN were on TV by then, it was probably like local news in Birmingham or the San Francisco Bay Area.
Obviously, Fleetwood.
FM
Certainly Fleetwood on a national scale, but possibly BN in scattered markets like parts of the South, although that was probably minimal.
FM had the bigger road crew/touring machine, but BN had been touring off & on, & were probably able if need be to call acquaintances for help. These differences you're getting at between FM & BN are more matters of degree than anything else.
FM, obviously. BN may have had a concert review or two (they were reviewed in Billboard once or twice).
FM, but BN had niche followers, so the legend goes, in Southern markets.
WELL OBVIOUSLY IT WASN'T STEVIE NICKS (OR STEVI NICKS).
Are you talking about "Over My Head"? Didn't the Americanos sing on that? I thought they did. But that's beside the point because Americano voicings aren't what made it a hit (the catchy hooks in the song are what made it a hit). As far as the question of whether the band's big break could have happened without Stevie & Lindsey, sure. But the band's big break could have happened without Christine, too, if she had left, or without Mick, if he had left, or it might never have happened at all even with all five of them. The white album might have bombed -- history went a certain way, the way it always does. Events aren't inevitable just because Hegel said they were.
I don't think the band had been developing momentum in the USA, & I don't think that BN had been developing momentum, either. FM was pretty stagnant commercially, & putting out albums that were either good or not-so-good seemingly at random, depending on whether things were good for the band personally at any given time. Buckingham Nicks was dead in the water commercially, & were still doing good music that no one heard because there was no record deal. All parties concerned were getting by, to varying degrees & none of it in a spectacular way.

I think their catchy songs on AM radio, along with their touring every part of the country -- where people could see their five very attractive personalities onstage -- are what made them break. Coincidentally, those are essentially the same qualities that break bands today!!

Which means that one can't make grand Hegelian pronouncements such as "In 1974, they were just about to break before so-and-so joined" or "In 1974, they were on the verge of being megastars."

Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. No one will ever know.

No one will also ever know exactly why they became the biggest band in the world. There are dozens of reasons that are all probably responsible in various degrees, but there's no way of quantifying any of them. It's akin to arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a Sennheiser microphone.

They also know "Uncle Mo" Osten and I believe Lenny Waronker, which certainly couldn't have hurt them.

My answer would be yes, absolutely, definitely. But they didn't. Why? Because they didn't have to because they were a big success and they were making money on the road. But that didn't mean they weren't getting pressure from WB to keep churning out the hits. Nevertheless, as witnessed by all of the great demos dating from 1973 to 1979 (Candlebright, Without You, Sorcerer, Watchdevil, Planets of the Universe, etc.). I would say that the creative juices were just oozing out of every pore back then. Plus, in their spare time they were all guesting on other people's albums like Warren Zevon, Walter Egan, John Stewart, Kenny Loggins, etc.

You have to consider that FM had many years jump start on BN, so of course FM would have had the most extensive network of resources. It's just an artifact of having been around longer and having more experience at making a living with music. Also, for whatever reason, FM just happened to be able to put lightning in a bottle with their first albums. Who woulda thunk that blues would become such a sensation during Beatlemania? I think it had more to do with sheer luck than with making good records. Sure, the Peter Green era FM had made some great music, particularly "Then Play On." But "Kiln House" was pretty much the start of a steep decline for FM. They were essentially irrelevant by the time Mick happened to strike lightning again by discovering BN.

I am absolutely convinced that BN, or even Lindsey and Stevie as individual solo performers would have become commercially successful. As evidenced on those few BN live tracks that surfaced last year, they put on a powerful live show that received critical praise. Stevie especially was just a little firecracker; it was just a matter of time before they would hit the big time.

By 1974 FM was down to just four members- Mick, John, Christine and Bob Welch. Now, I love love love Christine, but the thought of Bob Welch and Christine fronting the band in concert makes me want to slump over in my chair. Christine was always just one of the boys in the band, but Bob Welch was just a stoner who wrote stoner music and sang stoner songs. I think his songs from "Penguin" and "Heroes..." are absolutely unlistenable and have not aged well. Unless you have box office data, I would find it hard to believe that anybody but the most hardcore potheads would be attending FM concerts in 1974.

Lindsey and Stevie, on the other hand, weren't just drop-dead gorgeous kids, but they seriously rocked. And Stevie especially had that "it factor" going for her that's tough to describe. She had that powerful voice and that whole Bohemian hippy dippy witchy thing about her that both men and women found enigmatic and alluring. The Rumours era FM was great because you had the best of both worlds- the blokes in the band along with the drama queen.


Are you suggesting that "Over My Head" could have been recorded with such restraint and subtlety with Bob Welch producing and playing guitar? Puhlease! It would have been full of "wah-wah" guitar effects and his monotone backing vocals. I think Lindsey and Keith Olsen instinctively knew that less was more, so the end result was beautiful in its nuance and simplicity. Lindsey's guitar work on that song (both the single and album versions) were absolutely beautiful. And I do think Stevie did sing a faint high falsetto harmony on the choruses.

I do recall you mentioned some gold and platinum sales figures for the 1971-1973 FM albums, but I suspect that the vast majority of these sales occurred AFTER they hit the big time in 1975. I recall hearing in interviews that each album released during that era sold 250-300 thousand copies, which hardly sounds like they were "developing momentum." If anything, they were slowly creeping towards obsolescence; they were really at their commercial peak (in the UK) in the late 60s and were just spent creatively and commercially by 1974. Without BN, they would have gone further into the abyss.

No...they had the best white blues guitarist in the world...and who was on his way to making Eric Clapton irrelevant, had LSD not gotten in the way.

Who DIDN'T write stoner music in the '70's?? The entire Buckingham Nicks album is "stoner music", too (mainly because Lindsey was as much, if not MORE of a "stoner" than Bob Welch ever was

That's a fallacy. Unless you consider, or buy into, that just about ANYBODY WHO WENT TO ANY CONCERT (from the ages of 15-40) back in the '70's was a "hardcore pothead". Every concert hall & amphitheatre was one big incense bowl of marijuana in those days.

Again, as SteveMacD pointed out, they didn't keep an incarnation together for more than 18 months. And, yet again, I testify that had Bob Weston & Jenny Fleetwood not had their affair, the MTM incarnation of Fleetwood Mac would've eventually released an album, either the one that would've followed MTM or one after that, that would've sold in maybe not in Rumours-like numbers, but at least "white album" numbers. The legal wranglings of the post-"bogus Mac" fiasco is really what burnt out the band, and Welch in particular. They were just starting to get the notariety and promotion that the 1975 incarnation of Fleetwood Mac got.

My point was that the early versions didn't have that luxury. I highly doubt that Bob Welch spent as much time in his ENTIRE tenure in the recording studio as Stevie and Lindsey did on their first album, when they were still unknowns. Incidentally, prior to 1975, the only artists with a name that either Stevie or Lindsey worked with outside of Buckingham Nicks, that I know of, were the Everly Bros. when Lindsey toured with them.
Not really. If you take Fritz into account, they had been in the industry since at least 1968. John McVie, who was the first Maccer in the music business, got his start in 1964. So that's just four years. According to what I've read, Fritz got to open for Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jefferson Airplane. So they were playing on an equivalent scene, in the same era, with as many big name acts as Fleetwood Mac were in England. Why weren't they able to establish more contacts with other artists?
Well, they weren't exactly the pioneers of the blues boom. Well, John was with the Bluesbreakers, but it was that band's second album that really saw the explosion of British blues as well as Eric Clapton's guitar god status. Anyway, the Beatles in many ways paved the way for it to happen, as their early music was more R&B. So an interest in American black music was already underway.
I have those songs, and I'm not as convinced. Frankly, I thought that early version of "Rhiannon" sounded like any bar band in any town in America. For me, John's bass line, Christine's odd keyboard touches, and the three part harmony really make that song classic. Anyway, I could say the same for the "Bare Trees" band. I have a 1972 boot, and they were on fire. If Danny hadn't gone off the deep end, who knows how big that album would have been?
Have you actually heard any of the "Heroes" live stuff that's out there? OMG, Bob Welch was on fire on that tour! His live version of "Green Manalishi" is probably the best, at least in terms of guitar playing.
And some say Stevie was just a coke head who wrote coke head music and sang coke head songs. Let's not forget who was in the band when they upgraded from pot. Anyway, in 1997, Lindsey admitted that he still gets stoned when he's writing his music in Guitar World magazine. So that statement is frankly irrelevant in this discussion. Why do you think he kept saying "organtic" every time he could?
Hell, there was an army of pot heads in 2004! I know, because I was sitting around them. Anyway, it's not like they were touring alone in 1974. They were on the road with Jefferson Starship. But even if they were out on their own, it wouldn't surprise anyone if attendance was low, given that two tours had been cancelled and a fake Mac was on the road only months prior. Well, drama queens. Can't forget Mick. :thumbsup: I agree that they had the "it factor," the look, and the music. But even that wasn't enough for them to make it as Buckingham Nicks. Hence why I keep saying that there was a lot more to the success of Fleetwood Mac than just that.
Why not? The main rhythm guitar part that Lindsey played wasn't that much different than what Bob played on the song "Heroes Are Hard To Find." The big difference being that Lindsey did it on a Dorbro whereas Bob did it on a Les Paul. As for the other guitar parts, if Bob had three months in the studio, and was working with a decent producer, I'm sure he could have come up with something very similar.
I can't think of too many, if any, songs in which Bob used a wah pedal. In fact, I can't think of many Mac songs that had a wah. Danny used one on a few songs, but that's about all that comes to mind. As for backing vocals, the only backing vocals are Christine. Stevie and Lindsey didn't sing on the studio version of "Over My Head."
I agree that Lindsey and Keith had great instincts, which is one reason that album was great. I don't agree with the less is more thing, as most of Fleetwood Mac's earlier work was done in a few takes with just a few overdubs. Lindsey's strength was how he could orchestrate the band's sound. "Over My Head" isn't necessarily the song I'd use as an example of that. Mine would be "Say You Love Me," which is, for me, THE song that shows why this particular group of folks were so powerful together. BTW, if Stevie did sing on it, I certainly can't hear it.
Again, that's speculation. I'm the first to admit that those albums sold more after they hit the big time. However, I always qualify that with it being the joint success of Fleetwood Mac and a solo Bob Welch. I mean, the Peter Green era stuff, I don't believe, had the same benefit as the Bob Welch stuff. As for heading toward obsolescence, the fact that they were on TV, had a radio staple with "Hypnotized," and were still getting fairly large articles written about them in Rolling Stone suggests that they were still on an upswing. By the same token, where were Buckingham Nicks headed? Let's face it, there's a lot more to their success than who was in the group.

You can't hear Stevie on either of these two songs?

Put on your headphones and listen to the echoing "over my head," that follows anytime Christine sings the words, "I'm over my head."
Stevie's definitely singing there with Chris (though I admit her backing vocals aren't as distinctive as on other songs).

I'm very surprised you can't hear her on "Say You Love Me" though.
Again, put on those headphones, dude. To my ears, she's VERY obvious in the choruses.

I actually agree with this. That's why I haven't been saying that they were going to break or were on the verge. I say that the momentum for that to happen was in their favor, and that the situation could not have been more ideal for them to make a quality album and work with the record company to make it a hit. The actual working conditions in 1975 were far different than they were in 1973, and would have been regardless of who was in the band. Technically, I think it COULD have happened without Stevie and Lindsey, but I think that everything Stevie and Lindsey brought to the band in conjunction with the assets the band already had inspired Mick to do everything humanly possible to make the album a hit.
Again, that's true. But, we can compare the situations in an A-B fashion and see where there were certain advantages outside of personnel the band had in 1975. In other words, I think we can safely say that they didn't become a hit band just because two pretty Americans suddenly showed up, that there was a bit more to the story than just that.

When I said "BTW, if Stevie did sing on it, I certainly can't hear it," I was just referring to "Over My Head."

I can certainly hear her and Lindsey on "Say You Love Me" quite clearly. That's why I basically gushed over that song, saying earlier in that paragraph that "Say You Love Me" was THE song that shows why this particular group of folks were so powerful together. Why? It's catchy as hell, it's autobiographical, there's a lot of interesting instrumental orchestrations, and it has the beautiful McVie-Nicks-Buckingham harmonies. And, it's the type of song that sticks in your head. It's quite possibly the perfect example of a Fleetwood Mac song from this era. "Over My Head" wasn't too terribly different from the Welch-era stuff. "Say You Love Me" almost defines the classic, no legendary, Fleetwood Mac sound. If "Say You Love Me" had been the first single off that album, then I could almost buy the statement that Stevie and Lindsey were the biggest factor in Fleetwood Mac's success. Because THAT type of harmony just didn't exist on the earlier albums. But that wasn't the case.

Ah, ok. You brought up "Say You Love Me," then added the aside about not hearing Stevie "on it"... so I mistakenly thought you were still referring to "SYLM." :o

"Rhiannon" hit even bigger than "Over My Head" though. ;)

Seriously, it's all apples and oranges to me. I'm just thrilled the band had the success that they had, therefore paving the way for me to be exposed to their music and becoming the fan I am today. Why they hit it big and who (or what) is responsible for that success, is of little consequence to me in those terms.

We fight so much over our favorite members and their contributions as individuals, but, at the end of the day, the Mac is a team. And I'm a big sentimental goof who truly roots for them all to succeed.

I know :) However, "Over My Head" was the big break the band needed. It was the first time they had the consistent exposure. Their name was now actually being mentioned on the radio quite frequently. All I'm saying is that the song that sparked the initial mass interest in the band was a song in which Stevie and Lindsey weren't a major factor. The song could have been on any prior Mac album. BTW, the band did the exact same thing with the BTM band (As Long As You Follow) and the "Time" band (I Do), so there is a pattern here of them playing it safe by releasing a Christine song that doesn't necessarily highlight the new personnel all that much. As for "Rhiannon," the band was seeing how stunned audiences were with the song for a few months at that point. It was an obvious choice for the next single.

My argument isn't that Stevie and Lindsey weren't a major part of Fleetwood Mac's success. I'm arguing against the notion that success couldn't have happened without them. It could have, as is demonstrated with "Over My Head," a song where they weren't real major factors in the overall sound, not like they were on "Say You Love Me," being the break-out single. Now, I don't see them being able to have the continuity of success or the level of success without Stevie and Lindsey. But, still, they could have been a success.
Yeah, but really everything we do on these message boards is of little consequence. It's just fun, at least for me, to explore these things. We're not going to cure cancer or perform brain surgery on The Ledge!

I'll drink to that! :thumbsup: (Incidentally, my favorite member is a tie between Mick and John. But then I'm a whore for a good rhythm section, as are most guitarists!)

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.

Exactly. If she sat at home for five years until Fleetwood Mac called her then we wouldn't have that wonderful boxset or album, or two great tours for that matter.

In terms of post-Dance to SYW, I tend to agree that it's not totally Stevie's fault for the long wait. She was doing what she had to do to get by. I don't think her solo tours helped the situation, but I don't really think the band knew what they were doing in terms of being Fleetwood Mac. THE biggest issue was Christine's status being in question. I think they were waiting to see if she would change her mind, which became obvious that she wasn't going to do so in January, 2001. By that time, work on TISL was almost done, so Stevie would have been a fool NOT to tour. At most, though, SYW would have only come out a year or so earlier. But then you have to factor in Lindsey's constant debate as to whether he'd release his work solo or as part of a Fleetwood Mac album. Lindsey seems to have a hard time making definate descisions. The one thing we can say for sure is that the length in time was not the fault of Mick or John.

Why did Lindsey not have a single from the White Album? :wavey: I'm guessing "Blue Letter" was the choice that never came through?

Well, both "Monday Morning" ("Say You Love Me") & "I'm So Afraid" ("Over My Head") WERE single B-sides; and those were the only two solely Lindsey penned tunes from the white album.

On the reissue if FM FM - wans't there a Blue Letter single version. Maybe it was the VBOFM. I think I remember seeing one, but I cannot check right now and could be mistaken.

:nod: Yup. The "single version" of Blue Letter is included on the White Album Reissue. I think it was a contender for release in the UK, but I dunno about the US.

Thanks - I thought it was on FM FM the reissue!!!!!!!!!

Its weird that they didnt release a lindsey song as a single

Christine used to say she was always surprised by the choice of "Over My Head" & even more so "Rhiannon" as the singles. She didn't think the former was anything more than a ditty, & the latter was regarded as just weird by the band.

:laugh:

They're so modest. I really do love Christine! :xoxo: And, she's right. OMH is a ditty and Rhiannon is weird. That's why I love Stevie. She's not afraid to step into the weirdness zone and not sound like every other pop artist out there. If she did, I wouldn't be a fan today. :thumbsup: