Fleetwood Mac Backup Singers?
 

I hope this isn't a dumb question :o

When did they start touring with backup vocalists? Was The Dance the beginning of this?

Have they discussed why they started to tour with them at all?

Thanks!

Wasn't it '87?

Yeah - per FM Legacy the TITN tour was the first with backup singers:

Sharon Celani: Backup Singer
Lori Perry-Nicks: Backup Singer
Elisecia Wright: Backup Singer

I just looked, and you are right! They first show up during Everywhere, about six minutes in.

I'm wondering what the reasoning is/how that conversation went :)

That'll be Stevie's doing. Especially after Lindsey walked, she got her way a hell of a lot more. Especially as Sharon and Lori were her solo back up singers.

Although, I think the amount of production on TITN with the different layers and vocal effects would've meant that more musicians and singers would need to be on stage to recreate that

Oddly enough, Lindsey wanted another full-time guitarist, and it was going to be Billy Burnette.

I can see needing the guitarist more than the backup singers.

When I met Mick Fleetwood in 2009 he said the back up singers were added to amke the songs sound more liek the album verisons with due to layerd vocals.

Matt

Ah, that makes sense. I kind of like the variety of songs that don't sound just like the album version, but I get what he means. :cool:

Thanks all!

Yeah, the entire "expanded lineup" was already planned for that '87 tour. (Stevie's "girls", additional guitars, keyboards & percussion, too)

Not a fan of the back up singers.
Sharon and Lori sound shrill to me.
I liked Fleetwood Mac better when it was just the 3 singers - raw and live.
I think the last time was the Mirage tour.
The tours since 97 have been disappointing for me -- too rehearsed for my taste.

Tango in the night tour
 

I have seen the Mac many times, but the first time I saw them with an extra back up band members was for the Tango In The Night tour............

I like the back up singers and extra guitar players, but I have to admit.......the Unleashed tour was great and sounded better with Mick being the only guy up there with "two sticks and a drum". ;)

I think it is something they have to do these days to compete with other big shows out there. When many are using pre-recorded tracks to get that great full sound...... atleast their music is still played live on stage {with the exceptions of a few samples on "world turning", "Go Insane", etc..... I love several of the other big artists out there, Madonna, Gaga.....etc, they do put on a good show....but you know alot of their stuff will be prerecorded.

Atleast with Fleetwood Mac, you know the vocals/music is live...........and you know that their songs are never played the same twice. :rolleyes: Especially with Stevie, her lyrics change all the time....and I love that. Her songs are almost dictated by her mood that night..... that is a true artist that I will always pay good money to see. Ain't nothing fabricated about this band...or their members.

Almost all of the newer, younger acts, are just playing with tracks now. All the backing vocals, and many keyboard parts, are just magically there!

I secretly made a board recording of my favorite country singer(I was the "house" sound guy, and had secretly ran my "lines" to a hidden recorder, the day before the show). And I was SHOCKED by how prominent the backing vocals and fake keyboard parts were, in the mix. Hell, they were only playing about 60% of what the audience was hearing!

I too, would rather hear the skin and bones versions...it doesn't NEED to sound like the record, it needs to sound like you!

I didn't mind having an extra percussionist or Stevie's "girls", but having HIRED HAND guitarists & keyboards to fill out the sound was bs. At least, in '87 & '90, they HAD 2 guitarists. Even prior to that, Lindsey's tech, Ray Lindsey, would play 2nd guitar parts during certain songs (mainly "Gypsy" & "Go Your Own Way") which was ok. Even in '97 having Neale Heywood was alright, since he was brought in because he'd worked with Lindsey in the studio on a few tracks from the original GOS sessions, as well as his OotC touring band. But where I draw the line is with having a "double" for EACH instrument (except for John....he's a MONSTER!). Brett backing Christine, having both Carlos Rios (excuse me I think I threw up a little in my mouth) AND Neale was overkill.

However, the "guitar army" sound on "Eyes Of The World" during the SYW tour was pretty spine-tingling...but other than that one song, the redundancy was majorly annoying.

I was never a fan of Fleetwood Mac using back up singers. I had a tough enough time getting it down that Lindsey wasn't touring in '87 let alone the back up band. I got use to it for the live shows. I still think that Stevie should use her own vocals for all her recordings on her solo albums. Bring Sharon and Lori out on tour only.

So was Elisecia Wright; she was a hold over from the RAL tour.

I was sitting near the side/rear of the stage during one of the shows I saw on the SAY YOU WILL TOUR. I could have sworn I saw a guy sitting on an additional drum kit BEHIND Mick......and I'm not talking about the hired percussion player. He was a third percussionist backing up Mick......

I agree, although I think if Christine were still in the band, I'd be okay if they kept Brett for additional guitars/keyboards.

I think I remember Mick saying that he wasn't going to have the extra percussionist this go-round.

Yes, Mick has a drum tech. Steve drums and he bottle feeds Mick and, I imagine, wipes his perspiring brow (or at least gets him towels) during the show.

Michele

I don't think that's all that new. I know Mick has had his drum tech play additional drums on songs like "Tusk" since the "Tusk" tour.

Although the purist in me says that I should prefer the "raw" 3-vocalists-only approach of the 70s & early 80s, I actually find much of the harmony vocals on their live recordings from those eras to be quite ragged (I'll probably get crucified for that opinion). Sometimes the problem is with the vocal arrangement (e.g. Stevie taking the high harmony on the "Dreams" chorus). But more often I suspect they just weren't working that hard to make their voices blend...effective harmony singing requires tight concentration on the other singer(s) and continually adjusting your own voice to maintain an effective blend.

In any event, using the additional singers to augment the harmony vocals certainly created a fuller, richer vocal sound (compare the chorus of "Rhiannon" on The Dance with the 1980 Live). Where I object to the female background singers is when they are used to provide standalone backup vocals, such as their "runnin' in the shadows" refrain on the GDW coda. This veers much too close to the sound of Stevie's solo work.

I don't think you'll get crucified for that, however, I think people who don't like the backing vocalists actually enjoyed that raggedness. The songs became rawer, edgier, and morphed into something very different without all of those extra musicians and singers. Now it feels more bland.

I don't disagree - however I find the same issue with the backing singers. Not only do they get off a lot of the time, but I also find it's harder to hear them in general.. (And obviously, they all have their good and bad days - the problem is when ONE person is off the whole thing sounds bad. And since they had 3 people up there singing, it upped the chances for that to happen.)

If we're going to hear shaky harmonies, I'd rather it be actual band members :lol: If you're going to pay other people to do it then it better be perfect.

I'll only approve Sharon and Lori on this tour as long as there is one more back-up singer with them who is 45 years old, or younger. Can we have SOME 'youthful' energy on that stage?

I actually kind of like that they aren't putting 20 year olds up there on stage trying to seem relevant and youthful.

That said, I don't like all the extra people on stage period. They would be fine with an extra guitarist, a keyboardist and if one of them could sing harmony then great, and if not, then one back-up singer. I understand that they feel like they need to flesh everything out to sound more like the recordings... I just don't agree.

Me too and me too. When I met Lindsey in 2006 I was talking to him about a live recording of GYOW from 1976 that he didn't remember anything about. I told him I'd burn a copy for him. His response: I wouldn't mind hearing a recording of us when we were just a five piece.

Having all the extra musicians onstage IMHO is all Stevie's idea.

I don't know about the extra musicians being all her idea just because I could see where Lindsey might have been into bringing all his "layering" into the live shows & the only way to do that without over using & abusing tracks is to use the extra players & vocalists. But, I definitely think there is a huge tendency toward obsessive compulsive behavior going on. Please - relax. :D

I 100% agree! I love the changes that are made to songs for live performances. It's like a treat to me, like having two versions of the song to choose from.

I love that parts of this sounds so different than the album, for example:

I completely disagree. Remember Lindsey's 1993 tour? He had three other guitarists, a keyboardist, three percussionists, and a bass player.

(Whenever he makes that comment about how it took two guys to replace him, I think "Well, it took eight people for you to replace Fleetwood Mac.")

I'm with you on all of that. In my opinion, the added players diluted their sound more than they added it it. They sort of became like a polished Vegas act. Just before their show starts, you can see an army of about 8 people walk on to the stage, before Mick, Stevie, John and Lindsey eventually get there.

I'm glad I got to attend a Mirage show, before this became the norm.

I don't think I can really tell if someone is off, but I know I used to crack up when other people made jokes about Jana.

Michele

I think it's just not your opinion, but the truth. When Lindsey left the band I understand the reasons why they added Billy and Rick. But with the absence of Lindsey, I think Stevie felt a bit abandoned, and adding her solo singers to the band gave her a sense of support. Also, by then the music business became more corporate, and the stakes got higher, so there was more pressure to be more polished, and that opened the door to all the other support players.

Even though they get panned here, that WAS the nice thing about the "Time" band. The only extra musician they had was a keyboardist, but that was necessary because Christine didn't tour. If she had been there, it would have just been the six people in the band (and a way better show).

Didn't Jana say after being fired from Stevie's band that she wouldn't be touring with Stevie anymore but that she was still employed by Fleetwood Mac?
This may have been on her Q&A on the Nicksfix if I recall...
Anyone know anything to the contrary?

I seem to recall her ties with both Fleetwood Mac/Stevie have been severed. She's doing her own tour these days. And, on her Facebook site, there's no hint of her "convening" with Fleetwood Mac at any time in the near future.

^^But, yeah Jana did originally say that she would be with FM. Maybe she also thought they would be touring last year & had to make other plans. :shrug:

I don't mind the extra help, but you don't need more "back-up" players than actual members. Max of 4 back-ups - guitar, keyboard, and two vocalists with Mick, John, Stevie, and Lindsey should be fine. Part of the problem since Christine's departure is replacing her keyboard parts. Fleetwood Mac has to have a keyboard player and three vocalists.

I run sound at my church. We have three musicians...lead singer/keyboard, her husband on drums/vocals, and another background singer. That's it. Not perfect but we get through five songs every Sunday morning real well!