Tusk and Tango in the Night
 

I was watching a documentary about Fleetwoood Mac the other night and it got me wondering about a few things. What do you think would have happened had the band played it safe and released another Rumours style album (i.e. Rumours Part 2) in 1979 instead of letting Lindsey experiment around? No one will know for sure, but it's interesting to think about. Tusk is a revered album that many fans name-check as their favourite, but do you think the band benefited from going a little to the left with Tusk? If the band had released another radio friendly album in 1979, do you think they would have left it three years to follow it up?

The other thing I wondered about is Lindsey leaving the band prior to the Tango Tour. How do you think things would have played out had he not left the band? Would Behind the Mask be a better album? Would The Dance have happened? It's interesting to think about, at least for me.

I don't think the Dance would have happened. The next Fleetwood Mac Album probably would have taken longer while LB did more solo work.

He kept rolling solo work into albums.

re: Tusk
Who knows? The line that Lindsey trots out is that Tusk is what enabled the band to stay together all these years. After Rumours they were the biggest band in the World but within five years had slipped back quite a lot. I think a conventional album with a handful of bigger charting hits would have sold astronomical numbers- even more than Rumours. I think they would still have gone separate ways and done solo albums but perhaps the gaps between band albums would have been shorter as demand would have remained high. Stevie had to spend huge amounts of time sat around waiting during the making of Tusk. A conventional, single album may have kept her interest in the band more and reigned in some of her solo aspirations. By the way, I hate the term Rumours 2 which negates the White FM album somewhat. A more conventional album would have created more of a trilogy of similar albums (perhaps each progressing slightly). Of course, a conventional Tusk would have had a knock-on impact on Mirage too. In general though if they'd played it straight with Tusk (and gone on to do a couple more big records) I think they could have been a much bigger band today- closer to the likes of the Stones, Led Zep, Pink Floyd etc.

re: Tango In The Night
Who knows? Behind The Mask would have obviously been a completely different album. It would probably have been more 'Fleetwood Maccy'. Perhaps Lindsey would have left after the next one anyway. Perhaps the Dance would have happened- but in the noughties instead of the late nineties. I wonder if continued participation with Fleetwood Mac in the nineties would have benefited Lindsey more as a solo artist.

Regarding Tusk...it is revered on this site because its a fan site, but to most others it was a flop given its potential after Rumours. But there was most likely no way FM ćould have succeeded artistically or commercially after Rumours' success. So looking back, Tusk wasn't such a bad move.

ROFLMAO! :blob2: STOP IT, you're killing me. :laugh: I need to catch my breath. "Relevant today" {Diet Coke out nose} They're as relevant as the Herman's Hermits.

A very astute observation! I agree that they could not make another album in a manner that would succeed Rumours. Lindsey was so right to break free of those expectations. (though no one could understand that at the time).

Tusk was only a flop when it's sales numbers are compared to Rumours. In hindsight, Tusk is a seminal album in their discography, and over the years has earned more interest and respect. When it was released, I admit wishing -like everyone else- it was more like Rumours; it was a challenging listen. Now, viewing it from a larger context of their history, I love the album more than ever. It shook up the redundancy.

Tusk didn't sacrifice creativity and innovation for commercial purposes. It was edgy and artful; Lindsey took chances and challenged the norm. Got to respect that, especially since they now play it so safe. But they have nothing to lose at this stage in the game. I hope the new album isn't what we expect, but something with an element of surprise; an album that will have some aspects that challenge the norm.

Part of the perception on Tusk though has to be WB fault as well. They could've said "instead of releasing the title track as the lead single (the most adventurous track on the album), we're going to release something more commercial like "Think About Me". Then on to others (i.e. Angel, etc.). So the public wouldn't even know about some of the different sounding tracks until they bought it, and what would WB care if people didn't like the rest as by that point, they would've gotten their money and the general public may have even thought it was another Rumours if the most commercial tracks were released as the singles which is what WB wanted in the first place but I guess their marketing dept. didn't think that one through.

John

But I don't think that's the answer. Let the public know what they're going to get or bad word of mouth will torpedo the album anyway. I very much liked Tusk, the single. It's avant garde sound didn't deter me, but when I got the whole album, I still found myself thinking, "What the heck is this?" If you had given me a more mainstream single, like "Think About Me" first, I would have only felt more baited and switched. So, the first single might as well be representative. "Warning to all who enter here."

Michele

If Tusk was released as a single album with the following tracks it would have been a completely different story.

Think About Me
Sara
I know I'm Not Wrong
Walk A Thin Line
Beautiful Child
Honey Hi
Tusk
Angel
Over And Over
Storms
That's All For Everyone
Never Forget

An often-cited reason Tusk was a commercial "failure" is that the entire album was played on the radio at the time of release, and large amounts of people recorded it to cassette. I'm not really sure how much of an impact cassette recording truly had on Tusk sales, but I do have to wonder if that broadcast scared some people off, given Tusk's adventurous nature.

In any event, had the band made Rumours II I don't doubt they could have sold more albums. At the same time, I do wonder how much listener fatigue had to do with the Tusk sales slump. Rumours spent 32 weeks atop the Billboard charts. That's the better half of a year. And nearly every song on the album ended up getting large amounts of radio airplay. The collective public was probably just sick of Fleetwood Mac come 1979. Michael Jackson was wise when he waited 5 years in between Thriller & Bad, and it paid off for him.

All this being said, I have to wonder if the band simply did record Rumours II, if it would have accelerated Lindsey's departure. If that were the case, he may never have returned to the band, and the band's legacy might not have supported a Dance type reunion.

Had Lindsey not left before the Tango tour is another subject altogether. The Tango tour could have been an even bigger monster. Fleetwood Mac was in many ways reestablishing themselves with Tango; they were showing the world they still had it. It's possible they could have gone on to make more great albums- Lindsey's Out Of The Cradle proves his potency during that era. But how relevant would the band have been soldiering on into the early 90s? With the advent of Grunge & the rise of hip hop, my guess is not very. Fleetwood Mac soldiering on with Lindsey into the 90s could have meant the death of the band altogether, in fact. I think the Rumours crew needed the most of the 90s off to reestablish their relevance for a big reunion tour.

To me, the far more intriguing question is what would have happened if the band had quickly followed up the Dance with studio albums, Chris remaining on board. Could they have gained more relevance, or does the on-again, off-again nature of Fleetwood Mac add to it's mystery & allure?

It all seems like rather a defeatist attitude to me; 'we cant top Rumours so lets do something completely different'. Who says they couldn't have topped Rumours? They were the World's favorite band. They won a Grammy for best album just the previous year. The 'DINOSAUR ROCK ACT' The Eagles topped the album chart for quite a few weeks in 1979. Of the so called 'New wave' bands you listed only The Knack had a US Number 1 in 1979.

I've never quite understood what demographic Lindsey was aiming for with Tusk. I don't have a problem with shifting the emphasis and doing something a bit different per-se. I have a problem more with the execution. All of Lindsey's Tusk songs have a strong melodic base and each one has a great song begging to get out. However, I just don't get who or what he was aiming at in the execution. I disagree with the notion that his songs sounded similar to The Knack, The Clash, The Talking Heads, The Police, The Cars, Blondie, and Elvis Costello. They are similar in that they have some unconventional song structures but the overall sounds just aren't the same.

London Calling had much more anger. Though it explored a range of genre's it was still rooted in its punk rock base. Would/did a considerable number of the demographic who listened to that album really appreciate Tusk? I cant see the angst-ridden rebellious youth of the time going for Save Me a Place (please correct me if I'm wrong here- I was 5 at the time). Neither can I see the likes of Stewart Copeland or Clem Burke accepting shoe box and biscuit tin percussion.

I can see some parallel with Talking Heads, but even then Lindsey's songs make 'More Songs About Buildings and Food' sound positively mainstream by comparison.

I remember Carol-Ann Harris' story about her and Lindsey's visit to the Elvis Costello concert (instead of launching into his familiar rock and roll numbers he proceeded to play country and western songs one after the other- badly. Lindsey stormed out in anger after Carol-Ann and John Courage found the performance so hysterical). Perhaps in this sense I can pick up on some country and western influence in some of the Tusk songs.

I still find it rather disappointing though- we're the biggest band in the world...but I want us to be more like Elvis Costello.

I'm not saying it's right, I can just see that happening. I guess they can be commended to a small degree for being honest about it's contents. :)

John

No, they're (HH's, Turtles, etc) not playing one-nighters, they're selling out 6,000 seat casino theaters & fair amphitheaters multiple nights in a row. But, still, both Herman's Hermits & Fleetwood Mac are peddling NOSTALGIA by the droves. A group that releases one album a decade, only to tank in the charts after the "faithful" buy their copies in the first 3 weeks, cannot in ANY stretch of the imagination be considered "relevant".

I don't think the fact that Tusk underperformed back when it was released in 1979 has affected its acclaim over the years, I think a lot of critics and music fans have re-evaluated it and have come to appreciate it a lot more. I remember when it was re-released about 10 years ago and most of the reviews were glowing.

In terms of new music I don't think Fleetwood Mac is relevant at the moment, but in terms of influence they are. There seems to be a lot of bands and singers who are name-checking them at the moment as a big source of inspiration. Fingers crossed that the band do release a strong final album that will top things off.

Yep, this. Not only did they re-evaluate it, they in many cases fell in love with it. There are numerous music journalists who have re-written reviews of it, including Rolling Stone, who now state that it was some of the band's best material.

A similar story occurred with Weezer. Their sophomore album "Pinkerton" was a departure from the poppy college rock that came before it. Rolling Stone and a number of other magazines flogged the album -- hating the songs. So much, in fact, that the lead writer (Rivers) left the band for a while due to him not coping well to the critical failure. Only a few years later, after the fans had declared it to be the band's best work, Rolling Stone re-wrote a review and essentially rated it at the top of the chart. It's funny how fans and a little bit of time can change your perception and appreciate of an album.

Tango is similar. While it has a distinct 80s vibe (at times, a little cheesy), it was quite ahead of its time in terms of style and feeling. It still holds up to this day.

I love modern bands like Cut Copy who claim that both Tusk (and especially Tusk) and Tango were hugely influential in their musical process. It's nice to see brilliant albums still being regarded so highly. In retrospect, one has to wonder what music we might NOT have had if Tusk was never released...

Arkansas Times, by Benji Hardy, August 26, 2014

http://www.arktimes.com/RockCandy/ar...-fleetwood-mac


For over a month now, my friends and I have been listening to the 1979 Fleetwood Mac double album “Tusk” almost every day. Let me qualify that by first admitting that my musical knowledge isn't exactly encyclopedic. I don’t have a complete discography of anything, I rarely know the lineups or lineages of bands, and I don’t really understand what it means to remaster something. So while I realize this may be old news to some of you, I’m still excited about discovering that “Tusk” is an unbelievably good piece of music.

Fleetwood Mac released the double LP as the follow up to 1976’s “Rumors” — still among the best-selling albums of all time — and though it's got much the same sound, "Tusk" is quite a bit weirder than its predecessor. There’s a hyperactive, carnival attitude to some songs, like Lindsey Buckingham’s “I Know I’m Not Wrong,” that reminds me of a candy-fueled ten-year-old jumping up and down on a bed. Then there are meltingly lovely Christine McVie tracks like“Honey Hi” and the absurd, wonderful drama of Stevie Nicks on songs such as “Sisters of the Moon” (can you think of a Stevie Nicksier name?) and so much in between. It all hangs together as a jumbled whole; listen to the entire thing to get the proper effect.

Wikipedia tells me that “Tusk” cost more to record than any rock album up until that point — over $1 million, for whatever reason. When first released, It was priced at the equivalent of $52.46 in 2014 dollars; the record sold four million copies worldwide, and its label, Warner Brothers, considered that to be a failure. This summer, my roommate bought the double record in perfect condition for five bucks. — Benji Hardy

Well, 'Rumours' had reached cultural zeitgeist level. It basically took on a life of its own, well beyond how good the songs were. Everything: Album title, album cover, songs, media coverage, etc., was "firing on all cylinders" and led to atmospheric sales levels. So IMO, an album that wasn't a sudden left turn would not have matched 'Rumours' sales. I think Lindsey was correct on the assertion that there was simply no way to do so.

I also think Mick was correct that 'Tusk' had to be a double album - to ease the pressure of the 3 songwriters fighting over space. It also had to be a left turn in order to appease Lindsey, who was already reacting (imo, over-reacting) to Mac being portrayed as "dinosaur rock" by punk rockers.

???To dupe the public isn't the smartest marketing tactic. Tusk was all over the radio then, so people were informed the album was not what they expected. Sara, and to a lesser extent, Think About Me were also staples on the airwaves. Lindsey was very forthcoming about not wanting to make a Rumours two. In hindsight, the album has grown immeasurable respect over the years, so the artistic risk eventually paid off in artistic merit. It just took a decade or two to season well, viewed with a fresh perspective. Having that album in their discography makes the band all the more interesting/dynamic.

I think Tusk was a bit ahead of it's time, too. When it first came out nearly everyone was like "Wha..?" (although it did get a good review in Rolling Stone).

To me, the one weak link on Tusk is actually McVie. She does have some gorgeous songs on there - I'm thinking "Think About Me" and "Brown Eyes" - but none of her Tusk songs have the pop music hooks that she had in her songs on Rumours or on Mirage or Tango.

On Mirage, Lindsey is the weak link. It's probably from being burned on the commercial "disappointment" that the label and band felt about Tusk, which everyone blamed on Lindsey's punk-ish streak.

On Tango, the weak link is Nicks. Her self-penned songs don't hold a candle to her previous work.

So for me, ever since Rumours, every album that had the McVie/Buckingham/Nicks songwriting triad has had one of the writers not up to their usual standards of material.

If Lindsey had never left, imagine a version of Behind The Mask that doesn't have the Burnette/Vito songs but instead has 4-5 of the best songs from Lindsey's solo album from that era, Out Of The Cradle. It's also possible that Nicks' vocals would have been less prevalent - she's all over Behind The Mask as a background singer, probably a deliberate attempt to use her star status to try to propel sales: "In The Back of My Mind", "When The Sun Goes Down", "Save Me", "Skies The Limit", and "Behind The Mask" all have very noticeable Nicks vocals on them. Compare that to Tango In The Night where Nicks' vocals are only noticeable on "Little Lies", and supposedly "Everywhere" (although I can't really pick her out on that song, honestly).

And The Dance likely would never have happened, because that was totally a reunion album and a big deal since Lindsey came back.

Actually all three were "coming back" in a way (Stevie to the group and Chris to the road), and the whole thing was a celebration of the 20th anniversary of Rumours.

Good point. I'd actually forgotten that Nicks had quit after Behind The Music, and that McVie had stopped touring.

Wow! You summed it up really well. I see those albums as perfectly imperfect. They are what they are, and I still enjoy of all of the songs in all their disparity.