Should Stevie have left the Mac with Lindsey in the 80s?
 

I was watching a TOSOTM-era Stevie interview the other day, another where she was welling up with tears about all she had given up for her career and the Mac, and how Mick expected her to be back in the studio the following week despite the fact she had just been on tour in Europe, and it occured to me, why didn't she just give up the Mac when Lindsey did?

I realise it was loyalty on her part but after Tango the stuff she was doing with the Mac wasn't her best (although I know some of it have become fan favourites) and she would have benefited at that point just concentrating on her solo career.

If you think about it, if she had rested after making Tango and the RAL tour, rather than gone back out on the road, she probably wouldn't have caved in and taken klonopin and would have been much healthier in mind, body and spirit. Plus I think her songwriting would have benefited from not having the pressures of her Mac workload and probably her romantic life too.

The Mac on the other hand would probably got on fine without her, those were Christine's years really. I guess some people may disagree on this point - Stevie is a big draw in the States but I think they could have survived.

The more I think about it, I think Stevie should have left the band when Lindsey did. Those huge Mac world tours, the klonopin and all that rushing back and forward between her two careers stifled her creativity IMO. She should have just left it all behind like Lindsey did, and got on with her own life and her solo career.

What do you all think?

Stevie should never do anything with LIndsey. :laugh: But seriously, she probably should have, though I don't think it would have necessarily made her work better, cause of the Klonopin. But it would have been easier on her psyche, I'm sure.

I dunno, I think there would have been less reason for her to take the klonopin if she hadn't been on the road or about to go on tour (I don't know when exactly it started). I'm sure the pressure of that, certainly helped her make her decision. She probably thought, I don't want to let the band down.

Can't really say. :shrug: I admire the person and the artist she is now, who came out from the path we know. What person would have become going her own way in 1987? Besides, I respect her for the loyalty she showed in that occasion. It would have been far easier to say: "Okay, I guess it's over, Bye guys!". Great lady. :nod:

Romy

Erm, from what I've read, her doctor just automatically prescribed it for her right away to help with the drug withdrawal, not because she said she was depressed, or overworked, or anything.

Personally, I don't think she should have ever left Fleetwood Mac in the first place. As much as I loved the whole "Time" band and as much as I think Stevie's fairly lethargic performances were hurting the band (at least in 1990), I think that period really hurt the band and Stevie. I think a tour with the BTM band, minus Christine, would have served their joint interests much better than what actually happened.

Stevie gave her reasons for leaving Fleetwood Mac as she didn't want to be the only "Rumours" vocalist still in the band and that she didn't want to be in the band without Lindsey. Which is fine, but she then preceded to make a pretty crappy album on her own that hurt her credibility and forced the band to coninue without her, releasing an album that hurt its credibility. So, really, her decision really only hurt everybody. I think the BTM band should have made an album in 1994 and Mick, John, Stevie, Billy, & Rick should have toured throughout 1994 and 1995 in support of said album.

How could have she forced the band to continue without her? Threats? Prayers? Spells? Serenades?

Romy

Well, typically when somebody quits a band, the band is forced to continue without said person. :rolleyes:

I suppose they could have broken up, but with all the free publicity they enjoyed in 1993, how could Mick and John NOT have gone out with Fleetwood Mac? They would have been more crazy to not doing anything than putting together a new version of Fleetwood Mac. Anyway, breaking up Fleetwood Mac is just not Mick's style. Sure, he said he did it in 1996, but come on, he was already working with Lindsey again at that point. So, he wasn't REALLY breaking the band up, he was getting the band back together.

Ahh ya. That's what she says. She uses the word "doctor" whenever she talks about having it prescribed. She also says it was prescribed for drug withdrawal. I've never heard of klonipin being prescribed for that reason. When she starts getting real about that subject, like she has about Betty Ford where she used to say she went for alcohol not drugs, then we'll know the real story. I'm sure her klonipin was prescribed by a "doctor" probably an MD of a certain specialty which she doesn't like to talk about. Drug withdrawal is not the standard use for that drug. People familiar with it's use know what klonipin is prescribed for.

She should have left the band as soon as she started her solo career.

I think she (AND Lindsey) should've taken off after the end of the Tusk tour. All they did was keep Fleetwood Mac from putting out probably TWICE as much material in the 80's as they did (collectively). Fleetwood Mac would've gotten new people (or gotten an ex-member to rejoin at that point...namely Bob Welch, who was still having a fairly decent solo career) to ignite new life into the band. Lindsey's solo career probably would've taken off rather than just been red-headed step-child to the band, Stevie's solo career would've reached even HIGHER heights (no pun intended). It would've been better for all around.

Exactly my point. :nod:

I vote for this one. :thumbsup:

:wavey:

I don't know that Lindsey's solo career ever really would have taken off. Not for lack of talent or vision but rather for lack of business savvy and what ever compulsion it is that keeps him from capitalizing on opportunities as they present themselves and ever finishing anything.

So she didn't force them to go on without her, they decided to do so, no ? ;)

Romy

I seriously doubt Bob would have been asked, and I doubt that he would have agreed if asked. Just by watching the "Roxy" video, it seems clear that Bob got on Christine's nerves a bit, and that maybe she was a bit too subdued for him. One of the reasons why the "Rumours" band was able to sustain their success is that they were able to develop a chemistry that was lacking in earlier versions. I doubt bringing Bob back would have changed that.

Now, had Stevie and Lindsey left the band in 1981, I could see them adding some combination of the likes of Eric Clapton, Dave Mason, Robbie Patton, Todd Sharp, and maybe even George Hawkins (rhythm guitar) to the fold. I really couldn't see them adding another female vocalist in 1981. Christine was still touring then, and really, they could axe most of Stevie's songs in the set. Maybe Chris would sing "Dreams," but that's about it. In fact, I actually wonder if Bekka would have been asked to join if Christine were still touring in 1994.

I don't recall her having ever said it was prescribed for "drug withdrawal."
What she has said on many occasions was that her friends (and, most likely, managers) were all afraid she'd relapse because of her "nervous personality," so the doctor prescribed Klonopin to calm her nerves.

Whatever. I'm not interested in have a BS discussion over symantics. Mick, John, and Christine decided that, because of renewed interest in Fleetwood Mac, they were going to do another project as Fleetwood Mac. Given the choice, Stevie would have been involved in the project. Stevie decided not to do that, thus the band was forced to do that project without her. It's pretty simple. If you want to debate something relevant, please do. But if you're going to have an argument over symantics, please count me out.

As I recall, both Chris and Stevie "retired" from the band during the BTM era. Chris didn't want any involvement but got suckered into it and layed down tracks at the last minute for Time.

I used to work in a treatment center, klonipin is a benzodiazapine that can be used to help detox people from alcohol... However; I have a hard time believing she took them like "vitamin c" for eight years and did not know they were addictive. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Actually, Christine only retired from the road. As of the last show on the BTM tour, both Chris and Stevie intended to continue recording with Fleetwood Mac, but only "the boys" would tour. Then Rick quit in 1991, followed by Stevie later that same year, followed (briefly) by Billy in early 1993. There was an interview from 1993 recently posted in the Christine forum where she said that she was planning on doing another album with Fleetwood Mac, but that she didn't know her plans beyond that point.

Well, as one of our most brilliant directors says 'words are important' so sometimes comes out from me this quixotic attitude about the way things are said. In any case, short, more likeable version: I don't agree. Nobody forced them to go on with the project, and they knew how Stevie was at the time so I doubt it was a huge surprise for them to see her go. :wavey:.

Romy

Are you positive? Were you involved directly in any of the discussions? Could it not be possible that Warners was putting a lot of pressure on the band, especially after a year of free publicity, to do another project? Could somebody from the label not have said "listen, we need another album and/or tour soon, or Fleetwood Mac is history on this label?" I certainly don't know if these types of discussions did or did not happen, but I do know enough about the industry to know that these discussions can't be ruled out. Anyway, it's not like dumber things haven't happened to Fleetwood Mac.

In any event, whether "Stevie forced them" or whether they "decided to," is irrelevant. It was Stevie's decision that created the situation, not the band's. Fleetwood Mac had a history of changing personnel, and Stevie knew this. She knew, but didn't necessarily like, that the band wasn't going to split just because she left.

That woman is EVIL, I tells ya! EEEVIL!!!!

:laugh: :xoxo:

How bout one over semantics? :laugh:
:laugh: :xoxo: Lo, gaze unto the dark heart of Stevie Nicks!!!

Well, I didn't say that :rolleyes: I understand why she left the band. I'm not even saying I disagree with her decision. And, I loved the "Time" band. So, for me, it wasn't all bad. However, can anybody honestly say it was a decision that benefitted her career or the band's? If anything, she came off as washed-up, and Fleetwood Mac came off as a souped up cover band. I don't know how well they would have come off live as the BTM band without Christine, but I'm positive that the the tours would have gotten more attention and that the album (assuming there would have been one) would have sold more than SA or "Time" combined. That's not to say they would have been a hit, just that they would have been better off together.

:laugh: Hey, I've never claimed to be a goood spelllerrr.

:laugh: Just teasing yer. In a prissy speller sort of way. I can't help it, it's a disease. I better get some Klonopin. :wavey:

It seems to me what you just argued was not a case of "Stevie forced them," but rather Warner Brothers. And yes, this is a case of semantics...but one that by your own contradictions you invite.

Amber and I must recall something you don't. I was replying to her post:

Maybe she said she took it for "nerves" or whatever euphemism she wants to label her mental health issues. Most of the time she talks about using klonipin she words it in a way that gives the impression she took it for drug addiction. I'm not the only one who got that impression. She downplays the real reason, but recently I think she actually said the word psychiatrist when talking about being put on klonipin. It was within the past few months I heard or read her say a psychiatrist gave it to her. It's refreshing to see her being more candid about this subject. There's nothing for her to be ashamed of if people know she had mental health treatment. It's always been obvious to me she has issues that required medication. It's not a crime. Cocaine was not the right drug and klonipin wasn't either, but it's not hard to see Stevie needed some help in the 80's and 90's that was too long in coming. Seems she's got a handle on it now. :nod: It's great to see her doing so well. :)

:angel:

I know. I was just having a little fun riffing on the "Stevie's a fame-hungry, man-leaving, band-ruining, lying, conniving, calculating bitch" silliness that goes around sometimes. She's EEEVIL, I tells ya! :laugh:

You and Amber must recall something I don't as well, because Johnny Stew's impression of the situation is the same as mine.
I'm pretty sure, it wasn't "automatically" prescribed, as Amber said, and that Stevie talked about how the pressure from her friends and family, concerned that she would go back on drugs, was the deciding factor for her taking klonopin.

Anyway, my point was, if she wasn't on tour her friends and family may not have been as concerned, because the road has so many temptations for a rock band.

From what I can recall she mentioned a psychiatrist at the very least during the TISL press. That being said my impression was that the "revelation" was very much downplayed in that she was there because people were worried about her and how she would deal with the stress of her lifestyle sans cocaine. She did always seem to discuss it in terms of other people's needs rather than in response to any of her own issues she may have been dealing with.

I don't think mental issues, what ever they may be, are anything to be ashamed of exactly or to be stigmatized. That being I'm sure like anyone else Stevie's not particularly proud either of the downward spiral that is marked by her Klonopin years. And I'm sure sharing something so personal is probably very difficult. I don't fault her for a lack of total honesty maybe because I don't feel entitled to that honesty simply because I'm a fan of her music and her writing. I do, however, applaud her for seeing her way through to the other side, and I am grateful that she seems to be opening up about this time.

Well this has always been the impression I got too, that it was down to other people's concerns rather than any troubles she was having herself. I never heard before that it was automatically prescribed but a decision she made based on pressure from other people. Whether Stevie doesn't want to admit the real truth is another thing, however I do admire that she came through the whole affair so well.

Well I would contend that there is a difference between her admitting the truth to all of humanity and what she holds to be true in her own mind and in the company of close friends. I do not know, there may not be any discrepency between those two realities. But it is also very possible that there is. And to me it is reality that she holds to be true to herself and her loved ones that is really important. I guess some people would say that's advocating a form of phoniness, but I tend to look at it as a very human response to the need for self-preservation. I know I don't think of myself as being phoney, but quite often the me that I present to strangers is not the me I present to friends because the comfort level and the sense of security just isn't the same. And I'm certainly not going to share an unvarnished version of my deepest, darkest moments and the greatest trials of my life to every person I encounter. I don't know many people who would...and by many what I really mean is I don't know of any one.

I admire her for that too. The only thing that bothers me is that she plays the innocent victim when she discusses her addictions. I didn't know that shoveling masses amount of coke up my nose for ten years was harmful, everybody did it. I just took klonopin every day like it was vitimin c, although I became a zombie and gained massive amounts of weight, I did not realize it was addictive. I just wish she would be more honest and real about it. I love her though and admire her for overcoming it whether she is honest about it or not.

I agree. The fact that she talks about any of this at all is pretty amazing. It can't be easy at all.
When you think about it, she says she spent two weeks in Betty Ford, which is nothing especially if you consider she was probably taking drugs since the mid 70s. No wonder everyone was worried and really it can't have been easy for Stevie to just stop like that.

Really? That's interesting. I tend to believe what she says, in a way. But more like, I believe that stuff about why she started the drugs, but to have the addictions go on for that long, then that's just an addiction, which I'm sure she realized the ramifications of. But, of course, once you are addicted, it is hard to get off. Still, I believe she started them somewhat innocently. :)

I can kinda understand the prescription drug thing, even if she was just fooling herself, you know, because a doctor has given it to me, it must be alright.
But her pleas that no one told her cocaine was dangerous :rolleyes: Honestly she can be ditzy but no one's that naive!

Like you, I don't see how Stevie deciding what she wants the public to know and what she doesn't want us to know, equates a form of dishonesty (or denial, or mental illness, or whatever else).

If you don't reveal your life story down to the minutiae, are you therefore being dishonest? If you gloss over or romanticize something difficult or painful for you, does that make you a liar?

Stevie has come off as being far more forthright than many celebrities (though, of course, not all), and I think she deserves the right to keep something to herself when she wants to. It's not a glaring sign of some form of mental illness... it's being human.

I have to add that I'm curious as to how Stevie saying the Klonopin was prescribed by a "doctor," is somehow a sign that she is/was in some sort of denial about her treatment.
A psychiatrist is a doctor, no?

If Stevie said she went to "a doctor" and he prescribed special inserts for her shoes to help alleviate pain, would we say that she's in denial about her problem because she failed to refer to him as a "podiatrist" when relating the story?

Umm, I only said that the band MIGHT NOT have decided to do a project. However, by Stevie quitting, whatever they had to do, they were forced to do without her. In any event, this isn't even the big point I was making.

My big point is that Stevie's leaving the band hurt her career and Fleetwood Mac's career for a few years, and all you want to do is talk about "forced" vs. "decided," which is a miniscule part of my discussion. But then, with some Stevie fans (not all), I should by now not expect any less. Instead of focusing on the big picture, you like to take an almost irrelevant point and expand on it.