Who Shuns FM Albums With No Lindsey/Stevie In Them?
 

Anyone care to fess up? Do you dare? :D

ARE YOU KIDDING?! What morons would deprive themselves of so much fantastic music? ;)

:D

I don't shun them. I bought Then Play On & Bare Trees out of curiosity. But I'm a Stevie fan above all else. I enjoy the Peter Green blues stuff, but the Bob Welch-era stuff is just "blah" to me. :sorry:

Wait, you mean there are Fleetwood Mac albums without Stevie and Lindsey on them? what would be the point of that? ;)

For my own mental health and the sake remaining even a quasi-nice person, I'm going to stop reading this thread right now.

I don't shun them, but I am not as familiar with them. I like the pre S&L....but I will admit, I don't like the post. I like the very early Peter Green FM the best out of the non S&L line up. Bare Trees is great, too. Other than that I don't know much. I was a Stevie fan before a FM fan, but I'm coming along!

Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks are not the be-all end-all of Fleetwood Mac that some people like to fantasize about.

I? Not only do not shun non Buckingham Nicks Fleetwood Mac albums, but am quite fond of several of them. Then Play On, Bare Trees, Behind the Mask, and Time all rank higher on my list than several Buckingham Nicks era Fleetwood Mac albums, INCLUDING RUMOURS. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

I'm not a huge fan of the blues, so I'm not really into the Peter Green era so much, but I love Bob Welch, Danny Kirwan, Rick Vito, Bekka Bramlett, and especially Billy Burnette.

I admit, in general I shun them. I like them in a different way. It's a different band to me. Totally different sound other than the staples in the rhythm section. I know ChiliD will be rolling over in his pre-grave at that comment, but I just don't dig the early stuff. There's some good songs and some great muscianship but I prefer the 1975 to current stuff (minus the Time era). I guess it's kind of like somebody enjoying the newer 3 Star Wars movies better than the original 3. Or...something like that.

ROFL! They are selling some GOOOOOOOD crack rock out in Cali these days!

Actually, to tell the truth, I don't like Rumours. Period. The studio versions of those songs just don't do a whole hellavu lot for me. Now, if you were to take live recordings of each of them and put those on a disc, I'd love it - but the actual album does nothing but collect dust in my house.

That wouldn't bother him at all, nor should it. Why would it bother him that you heard some music by Kirwan or Green or Welch & didn't like it? There are undoubtedly other bands whose music you like that he doesn't. Taste varies. That's a fact of life -- who would let himself be bothered by that? How silly.

What irks Steve is the myopia some Fleetwood Mac fans have: the ones who a priori assume that Fleetwood Mac albums without Stevie Buckingham or Lindsey Nicks -- or even Peter Green -- can't possibly be any good or of any use to anyone. He deplores the fans who blithely & arrogantly say that Fleetwood Mac came into being only in 1975, & that its artistic stature was a function only of its commercial windfall in the United States -- thus eliminating any artistic achievements from incarnations earlier than 1975 or later than 1987.

I don't usually speak for Steve, but I've discussed this with him so thoroughly that I feel I know where he stands.

WTF? :confused:

I don't dig much blues rock, either, but there's something about early Fleetwood Mac that hits me. I take my "Jumping at Shadows" CDs on the road with me often; I really get into it. But otherwise, I don't listen to much blues rock, although I adore blues from earlier decades. One of the first CDs I ever bought was a Bessie Smith "Empress of the Blues" CD.

That's true. But at the same time ... :sorry:

I don't like any of the Pre-Rumours line up stuff. I bought Bare Trees but I didn't like it. Maybe blues aren't just my thing. I got the Buckingham-less Behind the Mask and did enjoy it, but I don't properly regard it as a good album ... which isn't really fair, but that's the way I think. I agree with mylittledemon -- it is a different band to me.

I put off buying the Tango in the Night DVD for ages and ages until about two weeks ago when I finally went into the record shop and got it. Every time Rick and Billy came on the screen my heart burned with a sort of "How dare they try and replace Lindsey?!" contempt. If I'm being fair, they were pretty good. If I'm being honest, it just wasn't the same without Lindsey. I scrutinised their every move and gave out about them to myself constantly.

Although the TITN DVD was admittedly brilliant. The filming, the songs, everything. Everything about it was perfect except for the fact that Lindsey wasn't there. I guess I'm just bitter because Tango is my favourite Mac album, and Lindsey not being there for the tour robbed me of the chance to see his brilliant Tango songs like Big Love [the original version], Caroline and Tango in the Night done live. I would KILL to see Tango in the Night live.

I haven't heard any of the Stevie-less stuff and I don't really intend to...
:sorry:

Were they just supposed to throw in the towel? Dig themselves a grave? Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE Lindsey fan, but Fleetwood Mac neither began when he joined nor ended when he left - just like the guitarists that came before him and those who came in his wake.
Also, from what I understand, the band had already booked shows for the tour before Lindsey quit and so were probably contractually obligated to appear, with or without Mr. Buckingham.

Eww...Bare Trees isn't blues. :D

I don't shun them. :shrug: I listen to boots a lot more now and the majority of those include Buckingham Nicks so...

Same here, David. I'm not that into Clapton or other blues rock heroes, and I don't listen to very much Zeppelin anymore, but I do really enjoy pre-rock blues, especially stuff like Lightnin' Hopkins. The Green/Spencer/Kirwan incarnations of Fleetwood Mac are the huge exceptions to the rule, especially the live stuff. Can't get enough of it. There's just some beautiful, passionate stuff there, and I even love a lot of Spencer's sillier stuff (especially on the BBC CDs).

I don't own the Jumping at Shadows compilation - is it worth getting if I already have the two Vaudeville Years collections?

I would imagine that everyone could agree on this point, especially concerning the 67-70 and 75-87 periods. They're the same band in name only, and I don't think anyone would really claim otherwise.

Personally, I don't see how you could shun the previous eras! :shrug: Without the previous eras, there is no Fleetwood Mac with or without Lindsey and Stevie. The previous eras was important in making the band who it is today. Also, there is unbelieveable music to be heard from the previous eras. Who could shun Bare Trees, or songs like "Oh Well," "Rattlesnake Shake," "Black Magic Woman," "Albatross," "Shake Your Moneymaker," etc.! IMO, that would be crazy! :]

I would completely agree with this. The fact that I am a fan of the 75-87 and 97-present incarnation does not mean I shun the pre-75 incarnations. I simply don't care for the music as much ( I do own and like Bare Trees). But I just don't care for it on the whole any more than I care for... I don't know... Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, etc. etc. It's just a question of taste. I don't believe that Fleetwood Mac began in 1975. Not by any stretch. (However, I don't really believe that the Time line up was truly Fleetwood Mac, but again, that's just me. I think it's because I perceive that they were trying to be the 75-87 incarnation, whereas when Stevie and Lindsey joined, the band was not simply trying to imitate earlier incarnations. They created a new sound).

Anyway. I think it does all come down to personal taste. Fans of Van Halen might say the same about the David Lee Roth days. Same band? It's all a matter of taste. But just because you don't care for one line up, doesn't mean you're shunning them or narrow minded.

I really don't see the similarities between the sound of the Time lineup and that of the Rumours lineup. I also don't see why people think that Burnette/Bramlett/Mason/McVie is somehow faux Fleetwood Mac. If they aren't truly Fleetwood Mac, then what is? As for creating a new sound just what exactly were they supposed to do with it?

In any case, the sound of the band can be largely blamed on Mick Fleetwood. I seem to recall Burnette saying that he and Bramlett were sort of reined in and not allowed to be their true musical selves because they were too country. (Which doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me... why hire country musicians if you don't want a country sound?)

Oh I know that. I know all of that! I just love him too much ... :shrug: He's just wonderful! *sobs of adoration*

Oh I know that. I know all of that! I just can't get used to the band without him, you know? I just love him too much ... :shrug: He's just wonderful! *sobs of adoration*

Sorry, I get a little defensive over Billy Burnette. I'm not big on his solo material from the 70s but I adore everything from the 80s forward (well... except for the movies. He really should just stick with music. Acting is not his forte). I think he's a gifted songwriter and I really like his voice.

I think you have a point. I think the perception I have of the Time band is that Mick was trying to create a Stevie-Lindsey "cover band" - maybe my perception is wrong. I fully admit it could be. I don't own the Time album, and I didn't go see them in concert. Once Stevie was gone, after already losing Lindsey, my main reasons for loving Fleetwood Mac were gone. I certainly didn't want to hear anyone singing or playing their songs. So it sort of has created a mental block in my head.

I did see the band on the TITN tour. Stevie saved that tour for me, but it was nothing like seeing the band with Lindsey. I personally just don't care for Rick and Billy as well. I don't like hearing them playing or singing Lindsey's songs. Their own stuff - absolutely - go for it. I just don't care for their stuff, so I don't listen to it. I don't really like any of the Behind the Mask album, to be honest. I have tried and tried. I just don't. :sorry:

Of course I can listen to Christine's songs, some of them are really great, and Mick is a cool drummer, but LB/SN are my number ones!

Never heard Time or behind the mask. I also like the Peter Green era, but as a "normal" listener.

And I still think that John is way way underrated!

He absolutely is. Greetings from the Creepy Little John Fangirl! :laugh:

I love the picture of Lindsey in your signature by the way. Weird but highly hilarious.

I didn't know he had a solo career. Or an acting career. I don't mind Rick and Billy's stuff but as part of Fleetwood Mac ... 'nuff said.

Although I must say, I didn't miss Christine much on SYW. That's mean I know. But true. :sorry:

[QUOTE=Sahara]He absolutely is. Greetings from the Creepy Little John Fangirl! :laugh:

I love the picture of Lindsey in your signature by the way. Weird but highly hilarious.


Thx! :wavey: Yeah, John's great to say the least!
Sahara, maybe you can help me:

Lindsey said that "you don't tell John what to play", I'm almost sure I read it somewhere, but I wanna be REALLY sure ;) :wavey:

Billy's been making music professionally since he was a kid. His father is Rockabilly pioneer Dorsey Burnette (in fact, the term "Rockabilly" was coined by his father and is a combination of Billy's name and that of his cousin, Rocky). His last solo album (unless I've missed something) was 2000's "Are You With Me Baby." More recently he's worked as part of John Fogerty's touring band.
As for the movies, they've mostly been B movies and straight to video sequels. He starred in a B "erotic thriller" called Saturday Night Special which is so bad it's actually quite funny (and has a cameo by Mick Fleetwood), a horror movie called Not Like Us (which I've never managed to get past the first 10 minutes of), and had small roles in Carnosaur 3, Richie Rich's Christmas Wish, Casper Meets Wendy, and Addam's Family Reunion.

Personally I think Burnette is a great guitar player and that's about it. I really dislike his vocals and his songwriting.

raises hand :wavey:


Except I do like some of Christine's pre S&L FM songs. But I don't own any FM albums without S&L on them.

Indeed, what a squandered opportunity. Mid-90s Fleetwood Mac as a country band could have been pretty neat.

I think your perception is wrong. Neither Bekka nor Billy nor Dave were really attempting to be Stevie/Lindsey imitators on the album, and in concert, I don't think the setlists were totally dominated by Lindsey/Stevie songs.

I don't think i understand what you been by this. "Normal" as opposed to what?

Fair enough. :wavey: I'll take your word on it because I haven't heard them - but I also have no desire to hear them. :laugh:

I understand it. "Normal" as in a casual fan opposed to a die hard fan. I would consider myself a casual fan of the pre S&L, a diehard fan of the S&L eras.

Me neither. The little I have heard was enough to know it wasn't for me.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic.

But just for the record, I wouldn't have wanted FM to go country (I actually don't like most country music), I just don't think that the sound of the band during that time can be blamed on the newcomers.

I find the rhythm section (Mick & John) keep all the years connected for me. That has been the heart of the band since 1967. You can hear it throughout all the personnel changes of the band. The one true element, Mick and John, that same thumping rhythm.

I love all the incarnations of FM, which began to wain after Time.