1978 Concert Review
 

Rolling Stone
In Performance

Fleetwood Mac/Steve Miller
July 30, 1978
JFK Stadium, Philadelphia

They might as well have called it a pop-blues festival. Fleetwood Mac and the Steve Miller Band, the two headliners, started out as blues bands and gradually extended their interpretations of the medium to embrace a larger, pop audience.

Yet even after all the hits, it's obvious in live performance that both bands still base their deliveries on the blues.

The audience packing JFK Stadium to the limits was older than most concert crowds. They sat and waited peaceably through the Sanford-Townshend Band's watery set and through Bob Welch, who might have sounded good if he hadn't been victimized by feedback from the stadium's sound system.

Miller, ever the capable technician, didn't do much to incite the crowd's enthusiasm while delivering a near-perfect show, marred only by occasional vocal lapses when either he stopped singing or the PA system failed. The biggest response Miller pulled was at the mention of Philadelphia in "Rockin' Me," but his clever manipulation of blues-based hooks and excellent guitar playing maintained interest even in the least-inspired moments. He flashed some brilliant playing at the end of the set, carving out a ringing, trumpetlikesolo on "The Joker" and finishing with a blues instrumental. The encore, his early trademark "Living in the USA," drew a nostalgic response but clearly didn't match previous live performances of the song.

Fleetwood Mac tapped the audience's energy more efficiently, channeling the opening applause into a rhythmic element of the first song. The group's great rhthym section was working overtime, with Mick Fleetwood slamming away the infectious drum backbeat while John McVie pinned down the arrangements with his loping, precision-punch bass playing. Lindsey Buckingham was in good form vocally and instrumentally, playing a letter-perfect guitar part on the classic "Oh Well" and a brilliant slow-blues intro to "The Chain," which provided a high point early in the set. The latter song, which seems the weak link on Rumours, becomes a tour de force onstage, where it is stretched out into a long, intense instrumental.

Despite the commercial success Stevie Nicks has helped bring Fleetwood Mac, the band is better off in concert when she shuts her mouth and whirls around the stage. Nicks sounded consistently weak vocally and apparently uninterested in the old material. Whole sections of the show, especially the one starting with "Dreams," were ruined by her lackluster vocals. She had to be saved repeatedly by Christine McVie's backup harmonies, which were embarrassingly more tuneful and responsive to the arrangements than Nicks'.

Nicks sang so poorly she even threw off the rhthym section, forcing Fleetwood to check and change tempos repeatedly during several tunes. By contrast, when Christine McVie took over lead vocals on "Monday Morning" and "You Make Loving Fun," the band sounded magnificent and everything feel into place. Nicks sang like she meant it only on the one new song the group played, "Sisters of the Moon," leading one to suspect her poor performance was due to boredom than ineptness.

Despite Nicks, the Mac pulled off a red-hot finale, churning through bright versions of "Go Your Own Way" and "Second Hand News" that gave the fans what they came for.

John Swenson

Well wasn't that nice!?

Remember what the Rolling Stone critic said about her for the June 29, 1977, show at the Garden? "twirled with all the grace of a drunken sailor"

Can you post that review?

How come these reviews aren't in the blue letter archives? They should be there.

Tee Hee.:wavey: :wavey: :lol: :lol:

Interestingly, her harmony is crucial to SHN and GYOW - which they said were great :rolleyes:

But, I agree, La Nicks can look bored to death on stage in this era.

I still find it interesting that the reasons many fans express as to why they've grown disenchanted with Stevie's performances in recent years, mirror complaints made by critics nearly thirty years ago, during what are typically considered to be the "glory days" of her live performances.

Meanwhile, critics seem to review her current live performances in a more consistently favorable fashion than thirty years ago.

Go figure.

Wait, The Chain is a weak spot in Rumours?! Hmm, time to go eat my foot.

I've read so many negative reviews of Stevie from that time.

I maintain that the Madison Square Garden (6.29.77) review in Rolling Stone is the first negative review of Stevie in performance in a major U.S. publication. I've been looking for earlier negative reviews in big journals & can't find any--although I suspect that some of the big dailies criticized her for her failing vocals during the first several months of the Rumours Tour.

Stevie got mostly mediocre criticism written about her live work in Rolling Stone's In Performance column over the years: The Garden review in 1977 said she caterwauled like Linda Blair's Regan; this JFK review blames her for being uncommitted; Steve Pond's review of the Mac's final show on the Tusk Tour said Stevie was "essentially decorative" (but still "undeniably important").

But the RS review of the Tango concert in Landover was laudatory of Stevie (& of Mac in general). Of course, by that time, many of the Golden Age Rolling Stone staff critics had moved on or out.

Stevie's interrelationship with Rolling Stone over the decades is a fascinating one to look into.

I'm not sure that the critical establishment, by & large (& it's been said that most music critics are both bi & large), ever averred to any significant degree that Stevie had a "glory" period as a performer (although many fans certainly did & do aver).

Of course, as I've said before, it's a mistake to treat critics past & present as a single monolithic lump of Stevie treatment. Not only do different individuals think different things, but Stevie herself has aged & changed & the times have changed, & all of this affects public & critical reaction to her. As far as your view that critical reaction to Stevie's performances in recent years is a lot more favorable than in eras past, I agree completely. What accounts for that? No one knows, but my view is that it's attributable at least as much--if not more--to sociological reasons than to aesthetic ones. Also, Stevie herself was never the kind of figure over whom most of the rock press had much at stake: The widespread view was that Stevie a sort of after-dinner mint at the Fleetwood Mac meal. Tasty but not exactly essential to the music-making business onstage. To stick with Rolling Stone or Stereo Review to demonstrate the perspective, neither publication to my knowledge ever published a review of any of Stevie's solo shows.

Tell me what you think, Stew. We can start a dialog here! One hopes others will join in, too.

I look at the reviews in context of the time. We looking back from a later time get a different view, a more comprehensive view as far as making comparisons, but less comprehensive contextual view (obviously). I study the whole thing from many perspectives, time and social and intellectual wise. It's fun, it's interesting to incorporate all the different perspectives and puzzle out the reasons, and gain more insights from that.
That is one of the things I appreciate most about my perspective, time wise. Perhaps the only thing. Because in many other ways I lament my fandom timewise, I regret my inability to participate much at the peak of the band's crescendo.

Okay, but don't let people try to shove the view down your throat that your asynchronous experience of the Fleetwood Mac saga renders you incapable of seeing or hearing what they see & hear. If we were to stretch that line of thinking further, we'd have a world of great biographers like Leon Edel & historians like Bernard De Voto & Jacques Barzun who were unable to "recover" the aesthetic & cultural meaning of the past, simply because they weren't yet born.

The asynchronous experientalist of the Fleetwood Mac saga has much to offer to the community's understanding & collective impressions of the band. :thumbsup:

I go in for a colonoscopy next week at the gastroenterologist's clinic.

David, I'll add this review to the Blue Letter Archives. Do you know the date of this Rolling Stone issue? July 30th was the date of the show. Do you have the date of the RS magazine?

By the way, I did add all of those other reviews/articles that you posted a while back to the Blue Letter Archives.:)

I listen to the 70's boots and while they all had their off nights, the FM FM and Rumors shows were IMO really good and often great. I listen with awe to Stevie's live Silver Springs and Rhiannon's. I also think LB had a far better voice then than now a la I'm So Afraid in that live outdoor concert on the Disney special - I mean WOW hardly covers it for him and really all of them on that. CM, IMO, could tend to wander off key, but like Billie Holiday and Bonnie Raitt, that just made it better. So, when I read reviews like the one above, I weight that against my own experience with the boots and tend to think it was a bad night or the guy just didn't like her, which certainly was a problem at that time when the pretty, flowery girl singing of dreams and witches took over rock and roll for awhile.

I don't have the date of that issue, unfortunately. I guess it may have been in August or even September. As far as what it said, I'm going totally by memory here. Stevie "twirled with all the grace of a drunken sailor" & during Gold Dust Woman "uttered incantations that rivaled Linda Blair's Regan, only without Regan's exquisite control." The critic added that "Nicks righted herself the following night."

Thank you & thank you again, Mary Anne. Sometimes I get worried that things aren't being added to the BLA, but are popping up in article archives all over the rest of the Web. The BLA needs continual attention--not just for current press coverage but for historical press coverage that is constantly surfacing.

That is if you don't weenie out like you did LAST time you had the appointment. :D

Help me remember here: John Swenson wrote which other famous Rolling Stone stories & reviews of Fleetwood Mac? I know Swenson did something. Most of the staffers at RS in the '70s liked Fleetwood Mac quite a lot. I think I have even gone so far as to say that the band was a critics' pet.

Here is what I could find:

http://www.superseventies.com/fleetwoodmac3.html

which contains some pretty cool stuff, but I, I think, nothing new.

I do not remember the article you are talking about, though I likely read it way back then.

Ahhh....D'UH, David. Swenson reviewed Rumours for the magazine. A classic review for us Mac fans because it takes Fleetwood Mac partly out of the bland Southern California studio-player tradition & places them squarely in the Beatles genre of bejeweled pop producers. I would say that Rolling Stone & select others led that particular charge, & it was especially gratifying to us fans in those days. Unfortunately, that keen perspective didn't really stick as the years passed--& today the band is noted for its sales (imagine opening every magazine & newspaper & reading nothing but how many albums the Beatles sold--the idea is ridiculous).

I find it ironic, or at least interesting, that he bashes "I Don't Wanna Know" when I feel certain he would not have with "Silver Springs" - also he never mentions GDW - arguably, the records most complex and darkest work both musically and lyrically.

David, I just added this review to the Blue Letter Archives. I thought John Swenson's name was very familiar. Then I remembered that I had added one of his reviews from Creem Magazine. He must have moved from Rolling Stone to Creem. That Creem Magazine review was for Christine's 1984 solo album. It was a rave review too.:thumbsup: I can see why he liked Chris at this Philly show. He just must have really liked Christine McVie.

Now Homer play nicely

Gail

If Arion Berger truly thinks that Gold Dust Woman is the nastiest song Stevie ever wrote, than he obviously hasn't much of her discography. :rolleyes:

Wasnt Stevie having problems with nodules and vocal strain by the 78 summer tour? I think that was the cause of her poor performance. I had read another review back then that mentioned she was wrapping hot towels around her throat between songs. It was a bit unfair to attack her when it wasnt something she could help at that particular time.

Cool! :thumbsup:

In the 1970s, Chris had this reputation of being the woman rock critics wanted to marry.

According to Stevie, her nodes were giving her terrible trouble in 1977 & 1978. In fact, the band had to postpone about two or three weeks' worth of dates near the start of the Rumours tour to allow her to get some treatment.

When Fleetwood Mac would come around in concert in those days, the subject of whether Stevie's voice would hold up or give out would always come up among ticket buyers.

Janis Joplin, she ain't!:p :thumbsup:

:distress:
So delicate, so wonderful. I bet the "real musicians" were frustrated by that. It's too bad she didn't get a good vocal coach back then. I know there were some around, it just appears she didn't get them.
I've seen reviews where she gives a normal, good performance and the reviewers still did not like her. I don't think I've ever read a past review, actually, that didn't say something like "But Christine McVie's pure alto voice redeemed blah on such songs as blah".

So, David - I'm very curious, actually - I know Christine's voice is beautiful, and Stevie's was erratic. Assuming she didn't give one of her "bad" performances that night - did critics appreciate her passion, improv, intensity, harmonies, and showmanship? It doesn't seem so to me. Was that "old hat" at the time?

It doesn't seem anyone thought she was the obvious singing force of nature that I do.
And that begs another question - If a critic says Stevie looked bored...well, Christine never came out and danced, or had any histrionics. So, then, was Stevie being reviewed as a frontgirl and therefore didn't measure up? At the same time, while Christine was staying still, playing the piani, and being note perfect, what standards was she judged on? I think she's great, a great musician, a great singer, a great voice - but showmanship, improv - that is Stevie's realm, and Christine just doesn't have the same fire and charisma.


At the time, David, did critics not care about fire and charisma? Or weird harmonies? Or super improv? Or did they just want that steady, classicly beautiful, predictable, reliable vocal that Christine delivers?
To me, Stevie bored is about the same effect as Christine most times. It's just that people expect more histrionics from Stevie. Is that fair?

My point is, I don't get the disparity in the criticism. Or...maybe I do. I think Stevie is more likely to be "off" vocally than Christine, but she is also more likely to bust out something sublimely amazing. If she sings, though, but doesn't do the histrionics, shouldn't they just judge her on her singing, like they do Christine?
It seems to me that either the critics don't appreciate her "antics" (which I call showmanship), or they don't appreciate her vocal quality. Or they don't appreciate her lyrics. Or all of that.

I mean, C'mon! :confused: All those things mixed together have brought some of the most sublime moments in music and performance. It's like no one really saw that. Except the fans. It's like there was a box she had to fit into, which is totally against what really happened, Stevie is not one thing, one facet, one mood at all times. And it seems few critics made room for the all that she is.
I have not read one critic who praised her harmonies. Ridiculo!

I don't know why you're asking me specifically, but I think some critics did love those qualities in Stevie & some critics didn't.

My opinion is that the histrionics thing--the Joplin ape**** stuff--is a red herring. I don't think that's really what some of these reviews are saying or implying. I think the criticism is that Stevie isn't demonstrating commitment or passion in her vocals at some of these shows. One doesn't necessarily need to jump around like a gymnast to demonstrate a conviction in one's vocal. Michael Stipe is a good example of that: He barely moved around at all in front of the mic but he acquired a reputation for being a passionate, riveting vocalist.

Again, I think this is a red herring. Besides, you're talking about all these critics as if they were one monolithic, unvarying opinion about Stevie Nicks. But that wasn't the case. Stevie had her critical support--think of Al Aronowitz of the Washington Post, Ken Tucker of the Philadelphia Enquirer, Robert Hilburn & Dennis Hunt of the Los Angeles Times, Steve Morse of the Boston Globe, John Rockwell of the New York Times & Blair Jackson of BAM. These critics lauded Stevie in performance many times & generally thought she was a powerful songwriter & performer.

Other critics just weren't as enthusiastic about Stevie: Steve Pond of Rolling Stone, Mitch Cohen, David Gans & Christopher Hill of Record Magazine, Steve Simels of Stereo Review. Many of them thought Fleetwood Mac was a great band despite Stevie rather than because of her. I'm sure it's like that today, too. Some critics think she's great & some critics don't.

Well, I think that's accurate. But that's also true of the general public as regards Stevie.

I think so! :thumbsup:

I haven't read any of those good reviews of Stevie. That is where my questions were coming from. :shrug: And it still seems like most reviews from then were not that great/and simplistic.
And FM being a great band in spite of her?! I agree they are a great band, but not in spite of her.
See, I don't really understand these opinions. Probably because I haven't actually seen many of Stevie's shows from then, just some.
I figured the reviews were varied, and not the monolithic thing you said - I just haven't read many of those good ones about her past performances. :shrug:

I just had a flash about what you say about her commitment to her vocals. Unregardless (:laugh: ) of whether Stevie's lackluster vocals were then comparable to Christine's (I consider her fairly flatline) or not, of course they could tell that for Stevie, she was bored. Which is the pitfall of performing amazingly at some times. I mean, no one would be able to tell that much if Christine was bored. And that is in no way a diss. It's just that, if you are always the same, constant, never changing mood or performance or vocal - well - there isn't as much room to fall, is there? Not as much risk, so not as much fall or triumph.
You know the kid who gets good grades, or is good at sports - but then when they mess up, they are judged more harshly for it, whereas a constant B-C student wouldn't have the same judgements.

If you bust some serious weird sh*t out, people might want and expect that all the time. I guess it doesn't matter if someone's lack of commitment is the same as another's regular performance. Because of the individuality. But who can give that much, all the time???

Is that fair, though? Is it fair that Christine is always good, but always...less than a super dynamic stage presence...but is judged favorably, while Stevie is usually good, usually a very dynamic stage presence, usually brings delightful SUPRISE to a show, and generally takes the risks that the others won't - but sometimes is not like that and is judged unfavorably - is that fair? Sucks.
I guess so, especially if the critic judges the technical vocal performance. And, the critic can only really judge the performance they saw, I guess...


I love this band. There is so much to think about, compare, and ponder. The goodness and non-boringness of this band is at maximum.

P.S. I guess I should seek out these good reviews. I get really irritated by how journalists describe S. in such a simple, patented way - and bring up the cliches of her persona rather than the body of her work, her real feelings/personality, her songwriting, her skills, her collaberations, her harmonies, her voice - in addition to her image and persona. I'm not even a journalist and I would never describe anyone in the pat way I've so often seen her described. It's totally ridiculous. It's not true. It's shallow and simplistic. Don't make me come over there!!:mad:

P.P.S. - not a huge fan of Stipe's whiny voice, or his song subjects. Have liked him in collaberation. Notably "Fire" with Indigo Girls (tour de force, one of the top five gorgeous songs I've ever heard), and "Shiny Happy People" with B-52's, who boast three awesome vocalist themselves. "Stand" is cool, it's fun and can be deep if you think of it so. The rest I've heard is way too emo, and vocally icky.
But still see your point. I'm not saying he's not good or talented, I just don't like his music much.

It's not fair or unfair. There are many critics and fans who simply don't care about supposed "dynamic stage presence". I could care less about "stage antics". I LOVE understated, brilliant musicianship. All of my favorite performers are like that...Christine, George Harrison, Steve Winwood, etc. The others are just very annoying to me. Obviously, back in the 1970's when Fleetwood Mac was in their prime, there were quite a few critics who felt the same way.

I agree. I find over dramatic stage performances somewhat embarassing. Lindsey's antics on Come for instance made me cringe. But some people like that sort of thing.

Stevie did provide a much needed focal point for the band when she first joined and I really don't think she and Chris were rivals simply because they were there to do different things. It's like a sports team - everyone has their job to do. The strikers on a football (soccer) team will always get more attention than the defenders but you can't have a team with all strikers.

Stevie has always been a fairly obvious and easy target for the critics.

Gail

Especially now that she's easier to see through the crosshairs!:p

Wow, I didn't really know there were people who didn't care about showmanship and engaging the audience. I don't just mean with movement, I mean also with vocal delivery.
But, anyway, learn something new every day. :) Also, I think Lindsey's antics are embarrassing sometimes, but Stevie's have not been, to me, until lately.

OMG! How DARE they slag off my Stevie! HOW VERY DARE THEY!? I SHALL CASTRAIT THEM!!!

i honestly thought Fmac had the right balance most of the time... with LB SN and CM...

in CM's case, i loved watching her groove behind the keys
with LB, i loved his spastic head shaking and coke induced guitar solos... (quite honestly it looked like he was going to ejaculate afterwards hahah)
and then stevie's twirls were cool to me as well...

they were five completely different acts with completely different stage presences...

i will say this about anyone of them when they attempt to dance... .they are whiter than Hanson....

Oh just some critic shooting off his mouth.:lol:

Thank God for that.

For sure. At least Stevie didn't overdose and die before she turned 30. How tragic that would have been...around the time of Tusk/Bella Donna.

[QUOTE=jbrownsjr
i will say this about anyone of them when they attempt to dance... .they are whiter than Hanson....[/QUOTE]
:laugh: You've got that right. What's so ironic is that Stevie used to take ballet classes!!! But I would never use the word "graceful" to describe her movements; more like "clunky and awkward." Hey, but that's rock and roll!

Most ballerina's dont take to the stage in 6" platform boots.