Mick Fleetwood - Album News
 

This is from the Nicksfix....



Reuters Newswire
June 24, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood changing diapers, still rocking at 55
Reuters
Jun 24 2002 7:39PM

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Drummer Mick Fleetwood, who turned 55 Monday, finds himself in the odd position of changing diapers at middle age even as he toils in the studio with members of the veteran rock band he co-founded in the late 1960s. The tall, lanky, British-born musician divides his time these days between working on a new Fleetwood Mac album, dabbling in various entrepreneurial activities and raising twin baby girls with his wife of about 10 years, Lynn.

During a telephone interview, Fleetwood told Reuters that both his creative and parenting skills had improved with age.

He also said he and his fellow bandmates are more at peace with themselves and each other, in stark contrast to the old days when Fleetwood Mac endured bitter internal rivalries and turmoil as the group churned out hit after hit.

"Our last outing was better than ever," he said, referring to Fleetwood Mac's 1997 reunion album, "The Dance," which sold more than 4 million copies in the United States and paved the way for a successful U.S. tour.

"It has to be happy. We don't want to go back into the dark ages of Fleetwood Mac, when it was way too crazy, not all that happy. We're so much over that. We came out on the other side, survivors and incredibly intact, and it's very conducive to the creative process," he said.

The new album reunites Fleetwood with three members of the band's most popular incarnation -- bass player and British co-founder John McVie, along with American songwriters and former lovers Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. Sitting this one out is McVie's ex-wife, singer-keyboardist Christine McVie, who has retired and is living in England.

DON'T STOP

The band, which shot to fame in the 1970s at the peak of its progression from British blues combo to California rock institution, has already produced enough material in the past 18 months to fill a double CD, Fleetwood said. The material was recorded in a Los Angeles house leased by the band.

Fleetwood expects the band to have the album out by early next year and to follow up with a tour in April 2003. The band also is releasing a greatest hits package around Christmas 2002, he said.

Fleetwood said there are "mumblings" from time to time of contributions by Christine McVie, but that the remaining four members have been moving ahead at full steam. In some ways, he said, the Buckingham/Nicks creative connection has been rekindled in the absence of Christine McVie.

"It's a major thing for Stevie and Lindsey. They came in as a couple, and in a strange way it's come full circle. Now that Christine is not in the mix, the Buckingham/Nicks chemistry is back, and they're having the chance to live out some of the things and energies that couldn't exist in the past 27 years," he said.

The band has changed its lineup many times through the years, with the best-known formula occurring in 1975 when Buckingham and Nicks joined Fleetwood and the McVies. They powered the band to mega-success with the 1977 album "Rumours," which sold more than 25 million copies worldwide.

"Rumours" chronicled the band's dramas at the time, with both the McVies and Buckingham and Nicks splitting up.

Fleetwood's own wife at the time was sleeping with his best friend, and the whole band struggled with drug and alcohol abuse problems.

Fleetwood, who has two grown daughters as well as a grandson, is now back to putting diapers on his 4-month-old twins, Tessa and Ruby.

He said that being an older dad has definite advantages.

"It's way more interesting the second time around and when you're older. You're more focused," he said. "I was on the road when the others were younger. I am from memory a lot more hands on than I was. And it's a great benefit that I'm not on the road."

Of course, next year could be different when he plans to take the band back on the road, with the families in tow.

"With all the children, it will be like a band of gypsies," he said, joking that he expected everyone will want the babies and nannies "way in the back of the plane."

Reuters/Variety



Pip

cool article
 

GREAT..some news at last...Ha!..Mick must have been reading the Ledge lately and realised the natives were getting restless:D Whats more... he's told us all what we want to hear..the Buckingham/Nicks MAGIC is back!!!!:D :D :D :D I hope that means theyr'e not fighting all the time (although, a little bit of fun fighting never hurt anyone;)). All's well in the Mac camp then........Err BBC Radio 2, mentioned Micks birthday, but said he was 60, whats going on there then?

Back from the Dead
 

Good news - or bad news - either way..... N E W S !!!

Thanks for the transcription Pip!

Nothing worse than horrible rumours about big label problems and our own crazy 'worst case scenario' thoughts. Good to hear Lindsey has pretty much full reign of the production.

A GH package - how bizzarre?! What could it be that The Chain and FM:GH 98 didnt cover? I always imagined my own personal favourites Grestest Hits, with ones like I Know I'm Not Wrong, Eyes of the World, Over and Over, Never Forget, Full length Gypsy etc etc., plus I'm so Afraid of course.


ARGGHH who am I kidding!!!!!!! :distress: :distress: :( :( 2003 = SOOO LONG AWAY!!!!!!!!

PLUS what about the cyclical nature of it... 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 - these are the big Lindsey years (yes apart from Tusk - that was heaven sent wasnt it!). Oh well.

So they are in the studio as we speak? Cool. I would love a double album. That would be so awesome! If they don't have a double one, then all of us will be dying to know what the rest of the songs were that didn't make it on to the cd. So let's hope the record people let them go for a double package! Please, please, pleeeeeease!

Ya, that's weird about the greatest hits coming out. But look at Heart, I can't even rememeber how many greatest hits cd's they put out in place of new stuff the past decade. Unless it has some cool new pictures (or never seen before ones) or some new versions or what not of songs, I probably wouldn't buy the greatest hits one. Since ya, we've got the Chain and that other greatest hits one. A full length Gypsy (what *is* the full length Gypsy? - I didn't realize there was a longer one) would get me to buy it, for sure! Anything different about that song and I'd be at the record store when they open that day to buy it! So, I hope they put some stuff like that on it. I would love to see them release a cd of all the extended and dance mix songs. Maybe they'll put one or two new songs on the greatest hits like they did last time (and hopefully a video!). To tease us, and get some hype going over the new cd to be released a few months after that.

Thanks for the article. Cool news!

(And thanks Mick - whereever you are, for giving us that info! Yay! :) )


...please a double album - pleeeeease!!!!... Should we write to the record people and bombard them about it?!

Sorry to be a bump on the log here, but this sounds like more bull**** from Mick to me. I mean, what's all this constant obsessive talk about how well they get allong and all that? Who gives a crap at this point?

Just give us the music and stop jerking us around. It will be six years since the last album, which had a grand total of four new songs! Only two of which were any good. Now before they make us part with the $20 for the double record next spring, they're going to try to bilk us out of another $20 with some stupid greatest hits record that will probably have a couple of new songs and one alternative take, just to make sure the gullible fans go out and buy it. I say BOYCOTT the f---ing thing!

Regardless of what Lindsey says (and I love the man's music), this is really beginning to sound like the band cares about nothing but the business end here. First Lindsey has all these public musings about whether to release a solo CD or put the Fleetwood Mac name on it for greater appeal (money, folks). They go into the studio, brag about having more songs than they would need for single record. It's almost done. And here we are. Now it's going to be another year!

And don't tell me they need more production time. Lindsey's had 10 years to work on HIS songs. And Stevie's songs, if they were already in demo form, shouldn't have to take that long.

These people simply don't care about us. Look at the Fleetwoodmac.com site. It was sitting there for six years, and now it has a stupid picture of that goofy drummer. None of the links work, and it's beginning to shape up as just another self-glorification medium for Mick, who is going to try to market himself more to produce some no-talent young acts.

Ahhh... I feel much better.

Hmmm....
 

Well, it's good that at last there's some reliable news, and I'm really glad that the album and tour is still going to happen (I was beginning to fear the worst!)......

Thing is.....

I kind of feel CarneVaca's anger/frustration.......the following are rhetorical questions......

1) Why has it taken soooooo long for this album to come out?

2) Why has the date been delayed till next year, if the album is ready?

3) Why a Greatest Hits album, AGAIN...?? And of all the times of the year.....Christmas...!:rolleyes:.........I have a feeling anyway it's not going to be "Greatest Hits" but "Best Of"....just like Pink Floyd did with "Echoes".....The Chain Box Set was far too expensive and totally unadvertised (at least here in the U.K.) along with its offspring album ("Selections") to make that much of an impact....but the '88 Greatest Hits album DID make a big impact and is many times platinum....and even nowadays everytime I walk into a record shop there's about 50 copies sitting pretty staring at you at the front of the shop....so I have a feeling this will be that kind of album....about 20 selected "Best Of" songs....i.e. the original versions of all the classics from "The Dance" give or take a few.

I love Fleetwood Mac (along with Lindsey Buckingham) to the degree of total and utter obsession, and will forever be one of their biggest fans, but I can't help thinking that it looks like the "Rumours-sales bank accounts" are beginning to get a bit drained with the purchase of gazillion-dollar mansions in L.A. etc etc, and a teeny weeny bit of greed is kicking in.

Just my humble opinion.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Good to hear some news. Thanks for posting this.

I can't really be too harsh without knowing the details.... Given the rumors about label troubles, a greatest hits package could be the label's way of attempting to grease the wheels since they're so wimpy about promoting new stuff. I'm suspicious since a decision appears to have been made to release a GH thing this winter instead of the new album first, when it seems as though it could be the other way around.

I guess I also suspect the label's prints on this since it pretty exactly follows the TISL release - album completed in Fall 2000, not released until April 2001.

Otherwise, I'm encouraged to hear things are going well. When the news is so sparse, it's easy to imagine the worst. These folks are all over 50 and I just honestly don't expect them to being going full-bore at the expense of personal relationships anymore.

Exactly Carnevaca & Seteca
 

I'm glad you guys spoke my feelings as well. I was holding off because I recently blasted Mick in another thread and didn't want to "over do it"!

I know many of you find our kind of thinking cynical (and if you don't like this kind of "negative" thinking please do not read on!) however...

To add to the frustrations on how they play us like Chess pawns, I worry that this Best of/Greatest hits will have meagar "new" material, sort of like this new 2 CD "Ultimate collection" compilation by The Who just put out by Universal where they have included a limited edition "bonus" 4 song disc of "rare" material to get the fans to buy the Greatest hits package as well as the casual buyers. Not only is this a fear I have regarding the new FM retro, but the "new" material that could be included on that disc would certainly not be considered "new" material to us once one or some of those tracks show up AGAIN on the actual fully "new" album a few short months later in 2003 (IF that's when it's released) to "make you" buy it again in effect since they know we would need the "new" album for the rest of the songs (that wouldn't be on the GH album in question) since we wouldn't know the tracklisting of the "new" album at the time of the release of the GH disc (remember how we were all dying to know what was going to be on the "Chain" box set and how underwraps that was?). It wouldn't be the first time it had been done before in the music industry.

I sure do love all 16 Macsters as MUSICIANS but going by what I/we can ("business manuvers" that have occurred with FM over the years etc.), I can't say I like them as people. I certainly do not profess to knowing them as people nor would I want to. I could understand them doing "business moves" in the beginning when they suppossedly didn't have money and needed some but now, if they REALLY DID "care more about the music than the money" then they would've started their own label instead of signing/re-signing with WB/Reprise and just released the stuff themselves (and not just through the "guise" of having your own label (Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) as one is still accountable to others doing it that way) by now.

I've got tons of feelings about this kind of stuff but I'm going to stop now as I've probably already made an enemy or three here already!

John

I realize that I am in the minority here, but the news of a new greatest hits album really doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't hold Fleetwood Mac responsible for it.

We've been aware for a few months now that there is trouble within Warner Bros.: They have a new president, who only has his eyes on new(er) artists, and who has already gained notoriety for having little interest in "veteran acts."
We also know that the band has actually had to shop this album around, in case Warners opted to not release it.

Since Fleetwood Mac is under contract with Warner Bros., they have to allow Warners first crack at the album. They have no choice.
So if Warner Bros says, "yeah, we want it... but we're not going to release it until June 2005," then the band has little recourse but to let them have their way.

Trust me, many other artists have had similar battles with record companies. To the point that some artists completely abandon an already completed album that's in release-limbo, to record something else that they might be able to get released elsewhere.

I'm sure Fleetwood Mac didn't say "hey, instead of releasing the new album that we've all worked so hard on, and that we're all so proud of... we'll release another greatest hits disc instead."
You can be sure that the record company *told* them that they have to release another compilation.

Back in 1991, I remember Stevie saying that she wasn't too keen on the idea of releasing a greatest hits, but since the record company told her she HAD to, she decided she might as well make the best of it... writing the personal stories behind the songs, and making the overall package as nice as possible.

I imagine that Fleetwood Mac is taking the same attitude about this release.

So yeah... if you don't want it, don't buy it. I wouldn't blame anyone who passed it up. But I think it's a little unfair to place all the blame on Fleetwood Mac for this.



Johnny Stew

WELL SAID Johnny Stew. I'm glad I read your post last, because a few of these posts flaming and defaming the members of our supposed favorite band really started pissing me off. As I posted in the other post about this, record companies make money from albums, the bands make money from touring. If all Fleetwood Mac wanted to do was business, they would just tour. Ya know, maybe Lindsey's album wouldn't GET released under his name with his lackluster solo sales. Maybe the record companies said, "We'll release this only if you put them on a Fleetwood Mac album." I mean, I really don't see the problem here...regardless of how, this could bring Fleetwood Mac back into popularity. And none of us know the whole truth behind anything. I'm again proud to say that I love Fleetwood Mac, I WILL buy their Greatest Hits album, I WILL buy their new album, I WILL see them at least once on tour. I'm in absolute support for anything this band does right now just because I want them around again. So, you know, don't support your, again SUPPOSED, favorite band. Sit there and make snide remarks about them, but I refuse to take it laying down without sticking up for them. I would imagine they are doing this new album for the fans. They could all just retire otherwise...what the Hell do they need money for? Especially Stevie after TISL and the tour. I'm so upset that such huge fans could say such negative things about the band and/or band members. I digress...maybe forever from this site.

i have to agree with Brain here,
sure, record companies (and warners in particular) are wretched, the only thing that guids them is how to milk more money from poor music lovers (and look where it just got them lately), and fleetwood mac's treatment to fans sure needs *some* improvement, BUT, if mick says that they recorded enough new material to fill 2 cd's, we'll get the full album, a few more songs as B sides with the singles, and if a greatest hits album is a double cd, it may mean 4 new tracks there.
this means that the maximum amount of new mac songs will be released.
that's good.:)
i'm pleased.:cool:

Very well said Johnny.....I'm with you on this one

Pip

And not only THAT...
 

If you, Carne, seteca and...um...wet, think you're going to stay up late tonight, you've got another thing coming, you damned heathens!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

CarneVaca... please feel free to sit on your soapbox and boycott a greatest hits (if it happens) I for one will happily part with my money just as I was happy to part with my cash for The Dance (um...only 4 new songs...Who the heck cares that album rocked!!)

I am disappointed that we have to wait longer but if that is the case then so be it. I also remember reading that Stevie was 'told' she had to release a greatest hits album. None of us know what is going on 'behind the scenes'

Maybe you can find others willing to boycott this but count me out :)

Pip

Explanation...
 

Sorcerer386,

As one of the three people who wrote negative comments about this news, I'm guessing at least some of your words are directed at me:(, so here's my reply:

If FM release a Greatest Hits album everyday for the next year, with only each one being a slightly different remix, I will probably get a job just to get the cash to buy all 365 different versions - that's the extent to which I (like you) LOVE Fleetwood Mac, Lindsey, Stevie, Mick and John (and Christine!). I also WILL buy this Greatest Hits album, regardless of the tracklist, and even if the new album is a double album of 90 minutes of pure silence, I will still buy it, simply because (again, exactly as you say) I wish to support Fleetwood Mac in every way that I can, as I could never ever put into words how grateful I am to have discovered this band and its solo artists to the depth that I have. The joy I get out of listening to just one of their songs is more than I've ever felt from any other band or artist put together, and just one of their songs is worth every penny that I've ever spent on them, and a whole lot more.
However, I personally, really can't understand why it's necessary at all to release a "Greatest Hits" album for the third time...?? The '88 GH album was a success and like I said, is still the definitive FM GH album. I mean, how many "hits" has Fleetwood Mac had between 1988 and 2002??? I could totally understand if they released the new album in early 2003, and it was a huge success and all or most of its singles did well in the charts, then sure, they could say after, it would be a good idea to release a new Greatest Hits album which includes the best of the new material aswell. And if they make a trillion dollars out of that...GOOD!...they damn well earned it!!
I am not for one second trying to suggest that the band or any of its members are only doing this new album for the money - I don't believe that to be true of ANY musician (which is why I wouldn't call 95% of these bands in the pop charts nowadays "musicians" - they are simply good-looking business men and women who have the musical talent of a goat and the ability to obey choreography orders perfectly). Which is why I am upset as to the order and delay of things. Fleetwood Mac aren't some upcoming band looking for a label to sign them so that they can get their debut album out, so it's not like no label will sign them: I think that if they wanted to get this new material out by now and were not interested at all about making any money out if it, they could have. They are officially one of the biggest rock bands of all time with a MEGA multi-platinum history, and I can't see Warner execs saying to them "it's this way or nothing at all". But if Warner did say something like that, then, in an ideal world, shouldn't they turn around and say "fine, we'll take our music and our history and future elsewhere!".....?? But, I completely understand that these guys are professional musicians, and by definition, music is how they make money. If I was in FM's position and Warner people said "Look, we'll put this out but we're gonna have to release something like another Greatest Hits album before it, and we won't release it untill at least next year, so that it sells well and we can make sure it's worth our while........we estimate that the album and tour will make a total of 10 million dollars if released now, but 20 million dollars if released in February...you'll get 10% of this".....even though I would be aware that fans will be upset at the delay....it's only human nature to accept that deal, and I would, but it upsets fans like me, because "money" (HUGE amounts of it) is the reason (reasons for both the band and the record company) why I can't get to hear or see new material from my favourite band of all time untill at least January 2003.

Johnny Stew, if Fleetwood Mac are by some tough contract "glued" to Warner Bros. (as many artists are sometimes, like you said) and Warner are literally ordering them around with regards to what is released and when it is released, and Fleetwood Mac have no say in it whatsoever, then I take back everything that I said in my previous post. None of us know for sure what is really happening with regards to the reasoning behind releasing a Greatest Hits album at Christmas time, just before a long awaited new album, so as hard as I personally find it to believe that that is 100% true, I really hope you are right.:)

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Re: Explanation...
 

It isn't necessary at all, Seteca. That's probably why you can't understand it. It's just a dumb thing to do, whatever the motive. It takes little effort, it doesn't head in any new directions & it doesn't give you the greatest confidence in the band's purported desire to continue working as a band. The idea of a band that has released two studio albums & a live album since its last greatest hits collection needing another greatest hits collection seems utterly pointless, at best.

I couldn't care in the least about Fleetwood Mac's financial motives for doing, or not doing, anything at all. They can be as altruistic or as sleazoid-greedy as they wish & it's of no import to me. But I am interested in artistic decisions they make because I am interested in them as artists. If they sell me 350 newly recorded songs tomorrow & I don't dig those songs, then I don't dig those songs & I'm going to enjoy talking about why in a community like this. I'd hope that at least a few others would reply with their own takes, & that we'd all get a kick out of hearing what we all like or don't like.

That's true, too. But we don't have to know the reasoning behind a dumb move like this in order to form an opinion or react in other ways. Fleetwood Mac's a band: If they make a move, I see it & I'm either happy about it or busted up over it. I hope I can say so.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Stew
[B]We also know that the band has actually had to shop this album around, in case Warners opted to not release it.

Since Fleetwood Mac is under contract with Warner Bros., they have to allow Warners first crack at the album. They have no choice.
So if Warner Bros says, "yeah, we want it... but we're not going to release it until June 2005," then the band has little recourse but to let them have their way."

Johnny, you seem terribly well informed. All this stuff you state as fact here as far as I know has been nothing but conjecture on boards such as this, unless you can prove me wrong. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that what you say above has actually happened. All we know thus far is that Warners has had some kind of upheaval, and by the way, so have all the other major labels.

You must be extremely well connected. Perhaps you know someone at the label or the band's management.

Otherwise, if we are merely playing the conjecture game, I will say only this: The band always has some kind of recourse, especially when it has that many songs ready to go. All they would have to do is submit a 10-song collection to Reprise and tell them: "Release it. That's the new album." In which case, Reprise could say: "No good. Change it. We can't release it." To which, the band could reply: "No way. That's it." Then Reprise could buy the band out, and the band would be able to go elsewhere.

Wilco did it. And with which label? You guessed it: Reprise.

So again, if you have facts, great. Tell us your sources. If you are talking out of your posterior, then we can do this speculation game for the next two weeks. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree. You want to go out and spend $20 for a bull**** greatest hits album, hey, go for it. And that goes for everyone else who says he/she is going to buy it. Enjoy it.

Re: Explanation...
 

It is exactly what I think about this. Nobody wants to boycott the thing if it ever happens (it appears that it will happen after all), but all that people are saying is that is maybe not a good idea -- since there should not be many changes between the last GH package and this one. I mean, I'm obviously buying it anyway because I want to support the band, but this seems very strange...

Thanks God we had news after all. Thank you Mick.


Song of the moment - Rock A Little (Go Ahead Lily)

I only care about two things:
 

I could care less about what they do with Greatest Hits (Which I, too, feel is silly to release considering the Dance was really live greatest hits, too - and put together with the Live album of '80, that would make this next one their FIFTH "dig out Rhiannon" collection!!) I just have two things that I want.

1) NEW album is released

2) Tour occurs


My main concern is that all of this is bluster and that the album will never actually see the light of day (see GIFT OF SCREWS). Compared to that, I'll take what I can get. Sad, but true. I mean, when Lindsey states on national television that he's going to release an album and tour and still doesn't, even Mick's press release doesn't allay my fears for the worst (although I realize FM has a little more pull than Lindsey!) I've gotten paranoid. So, I'm not too tense about all this business about a silly greatest hits album....as long as they actually DO release the new one eventually!

PLEASE let me see Lindsey do "I'm So Afraid" live before I die (or he does!!) This is my prayer. lol

No, I don't have any connections with the band, or their label, or their friends, or even the people who pick up their trash every Monday morning.... I just read every tidbit about them that I can.
Unfortunately though, I dont always have the foresight, or the opportunity, to print them out or make copies of them, in the event that I should have to say, "I read it here."

Anyway... don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion... everyone is entitled to have one.
I'm just expressing *my* opinion in turn (based on what I've read regarding the release of the new album)... and my opinion is, that it's unfair to hold the band responsible for this delay and for the release of another greatest hits package.
9.5 times out of 10, the release of a greatest hits album is a record company's decision.

Would it be *my* choice to have another greatest hits album?... no, it wouldn't.
I'd MUCH rather see them re-master and re-release all of the studio albums from 1975-1987, in anticipation of the new album. But I don't get a say in that matter.
I DO get a say in what I will buy and what I wont buy... and the truth is, that i will buy whatever it is that they release.
No hedging about it... that's the plain, unadulterated truth.

So I see no reason for me to be upset about this release. In the grand scheme of my life, it's rather inconsequential... so I just accept it, and move on.

Maybe being a Mac fan for as long as I have, has made me more pragmatic about these things.
I don't know.

Again, anyone who opts out of purchasing it, definitely has that right... but, again, I think it's unfair to blame Fleetwood Mac for it.



By the way... for anyone asking what else they could possibly put on another greatest hits album.... last time, they left off "Think About Me," "Love In Store," and "Seven Wonders," to name a few.
So add those, the major hits, probably "Silver Springs" and "Landslide" from The Dance, and hopefully a couple of new tunes... and you have yourself a new greatest hits collection.



Johnny Stew

Johnny Stew (& others)
 

I don't profess to knowing who's "fault" it is that some of these possibilities (GH) may happen hence the reason I used the phrase "they" when referring to "THEY may (do such & such) with the new GH" etc. whether it's Warners or who because I fully admit I don't know anything about the record industry and who "has the say" on such issues so I "got around" expressing my opinion (as we all are) that way.

I made the joke about "blasting Mick again" because I figured that many would interperate it that I was "against the band (or it's members)" and the only way I "suspect" anything (if it must be worded this way) is that IF FM didn't like the decisions that WB makes/made about the way in which they "market" their material then when the opportunity for "The dance" arose then they could have gone elsewhere for a deal rather than sign/re-sign with WB/Reprise. It was my understanding from articles back then, (though I can't say whhich ones because I only heard about it second hand and if this is incorrect then please do correct me) that they had renewed their contract before the release of "The dance". Them signing/re-signing with them BACK THEN seems to me personally that it's almost their way of saying "we agree with the way you want to "deal" with us" whereas if they simply wanted to get their music out, then they could've put it out themselves (as I stated) and still made money off of it (even though we know/hear that they get most of their money (apparently) from touring, but it's not to say they don't get ANYTHING from the records (songwriting royalties to the relevant members, etc.) due to the fact that though they would have overheads putting it out themselves, they wouldn't have to give "the big chunk" that goes to the record company and they could've had their own say on their own dealings. I'm not saying they "should've done it my way" or anything and I don't care how they make their money or anything like that, I was trying to think of what their reasoning would be for signing/re-signing with WB/Reprise if we are to believe that they "don't care about the money" and wanted "creative freedom" etc. It was their decision and I'm just reading in to it what I think, it's not to say anyone else should think this way. Same goes for how I view Mick's own wheelings and dealings (see what I said in the Chit Chat "Pay for sites" thread so I don't have to repeat that all here).

I never said I was going to "boycott" the GH either, I simply was stating my opinion that I am not happy about the fact that I may get a GH album with a couple "new" songs and then, whenever the fully new album comes out, could very well be buying them again because THEY (notice the intended vagueness on my part again) could include them (same versions and all) on the new CD as well again. I'm simply stating a possibility, I'm not saying I know it will hapopen or anything, just my own personal randon thoughts which as Johnny Stew says, we are all allowed to express here.

John

Re: I only care about two things:
 

Haha sodascouts - that's so good. And after all, these days ol Rhiannon is pretty much a musical ghost of its former self ... did you mean "dig up Rhiannon"!!!:nod: :laugh:

Oh my this has become the Bitching Board hasn't it! Hah, hope no one minded that bitch about the witch!! ;)

Quote:

PLEASE let me see Lindsey do "I'm So Afraid" live before I die (or he does!!) This is my prayer. lol

Amen to that! And preferably while not too old - I don't want to sit and listen to "I'm So Afraid, days when the nurses steal my money"!

Cheer up all. It's not like they're not putting out anything aat all now is it. Meanwhile I somehow manage to agree with all of you, in a very schizophrenic way. But I think it's better we all vent. :distress:

Re: I only care about two things:
 

Hahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!

I completely share your sentiment!!!

But that was hilarious, in a sick kind of way !!! I can't remember the last time I literally burst out laughing reading something on The Ledge !!! :laugh: :laugh:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Johnny
 

I didn't mean for my last post to come across as "bitchy" (as it seems that it may have been interpreted that way). It was JMHO and I felt I needed to clean up a few things that I fear were being read in to my post previous to the last one. :)

John

Johnny, I don't mean to pick on you since ultimately we want the same thing: more new FM music. It's just that you seem more willing to buy recycled music. I want NEW stuff.

Your point that we shouldn't blame the band members for this is completely off the mark. You know, as should anyone who has been following this band for a while, that each member has a separate manager, that each has side businesses. (I believe John McVie still owns that charter boat company in the Bahamas. And let's not talk about Mick and his myriad schemes.) So it's not like they're so devoted to the entity that is Fleetwood Mac that they are doing everything they can for the fans. Quite to the contrary. I admire Lindsey, and he remains my favorite guitarist, but I've grown quite weary of this overgrown child's repeatedly telling us it's about the integrity of the art and not the business when he quite clearly has made some very conscious business choices starting in 1997. All the feel-good talk about healing and reconciliation aside, no one can deny that the format of the Dance was nothing mroe than a business-inspired project. Otherwise we might have gotten songs Lindsey prefers, such as Eyes of the World and Gypsy, on the record instead of an anemic version of Dreams and Rhiannon without the raw emotion of the 1980 live album. And by the way, to his credit, Lindsey's songs are the ones in the Dance that continue to show some real emotion on stage. Christine was undoubtedly going through the motions.

But I digress... My point is that these five people who have accumulated a fair amount of legal, accounting and business advice could surely have gotten themselves a contract that would have been better for the fans. For instance, rather than going off on side projects at the end of the Dance tour, why not get right back in the studio and give us new music? By now they could be working on the third band studio album, or at least second. If it is true they have upward of 50 songs ready to go, then by Jove, find a way to release them. Other artists have:

Wilco, as I mentioned before, got itself a new label and already has a second album ready to go. While it was shopping for a new label, the band made the album available for download from their site, giving the hardcore fans a shot at the music first.

Ani DeFranco has remained independent, despite acquiring a comfortable level of fame, and releases at least one CD a year.

Marah, which has an album coming out in July, gave the true fans a chance at the new music by making it available on their site, albeit in a very low-fi format.

Cracker released each song off their new album separately on their site when the band learned the label was going to delay release of the CD for nine or 10 months.

And the list goes on, folks. So don't sit there saying you're going to "support" this band whenever they release another recycled collection and justify it to yourself as it being entirely the label's fault. That would be naive. Go out and buy it if you want, but realize what is really going on here.

If this band cared about the fans, it would find a way to give us something, as these other bands have. And don't tell me Lindsey himself leaked out those demos last fall. He's too much of a perfectionist to willingly let them out in public before being mastered.

So go on living your fantasy about this band caring about you, if you must. And meanwhile, why don't you go out and buy yourself a fourth copy of Rumours? Oh wait, that IS the greatest hits album they're going to release, only this time with Silver Springs on it.

Are we just jumping the gun a little bit? No one even knows what is on this alleged Greatest Hits. It may not even be a Greatest Hits cd. Maybe Mick just referred to it as a GH because he didn't know what else to call it at the moment. (I love him but the man has snorted his fair share you know.) It could be a collection of anything, who knows. Maybe it's another collection of old pre-Rumours recordings. Maybe it's live stuff. Maybe it's B-sides and rarities. Who knows?! Just wait and see what comes out. There's no need to go ballistic about something that hasn't even happened yet.

Even if it is another GH, I'll buy it if there's even one new song on it. I see it no different than buying any other cd for one song which I have done many times before. I love this band and Stevie and I will happily buy anything they/she releases that is of any interest to me.

I do have one question though - if you think FM is a greedy, uncaring band to the point that you have a negative attitude towards them and don't support them, then why are you here?

Are you supposed to post here only to kiss the band's ass? I thought this was a forum for the expression of opinions about the band. So when they're negative, you just shouldn't post?

I once said something harsh about what I considered the toadying careerism of a particular president, & somebody who heard me shot back, "If you don't like this country, why do you stay here?"

Is it really that illogical to some people for other people to like a band's music & style & not like the business or career decisions it makes? What's the source of the confusion in that?

Fleetwood Mac's a great band because it has recorded some of the best pop since the Beatles & some of the best blues, too. A lot of us respond to that achievement. But when it comes to keeping robust & active & pushing forward these past five years, the band fails on just about all levels. What's the big deal with talking about that sometimes? Don't you guys find it interesting, too? I absolutely love talking about the inane moves the band makes!

Sensitivity that is worn smugly, like a badge of honor, isn't sensitivity; it's just showoffy & it's pretty sordid & not very attractive in people.

No need to get defensive. Everyone is welcomed here and are certainly free to express their opinions, negative or positive, but I was just wondering why, given what seems to be a very negative attitude towards Fleetwood Mac members, you would want to post those feelings on a FAN message board dedicated to Fleetwood Mac knowing you're just going to p!ss people off who consider themselves dedicated fans with comments like "go on living your fantasy about this band caring about you, if you must" and "why don't you go out and buy yourself a fourth copy of Rumours". It's just not necessary. I guess you think we're all "silly little dreamers".

BTW, I own four copies of Rumours. Maybe I just go out and buy a fifth today, just for the hell of it.

Negative opinions are as interesting as the positive. It certainly spices up the board which has been quiet on new lately. But there is clearly a way to post without sniping at others or implying they are stupid or naive.

Pip

From an article that originated on the Music Central website, August 29th, 1997... and which can be found in the Blue Letter Archives.



If you're a "free-agent" in this business, then you can do whatever you want... release your album anytime you want, and in the exact form you want.
If you're bound to a record company by a contract, then at some point you are going to have to capitulate to their demands.



I harbor no delusions of Fleetwood Mac caring about me. They don't even have a clue as to who I am.
I remain, however, a very loyal fan.
Not because I am a mindless sheep... but because Fleetwood Mac writes, records, and performs the songs that make my existence on this planet that much more enjoyable.

I love a lot of artists, and I have a pretty sizeable CD/vinyl/cassette collection... but I always come back to Fleetwood Mac. No other band interests me, or inspires me, or entertains me to the continuing level that they do.

So yes, I will buy this Greatest Hits album... I'd also buy another copy of 'Rumours' if they re-mastered it and re-released it (it would be my sixth copy, by the way), and I will buy the new album whenever it's finally released.
Even if I'm the only one.



Johnny Stew

You won't be the only one Johnny...



Pip

LOL, Stewy!
 

Somebody's gonna have to make a hard-and-fast rule about whether the written word, whether in a magazine or on a web-site, is to be taken as fact or not...if you get my drift!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

To everybody concerned...
 

The following is directed to everybody concerned, and I realise that this point has been repeatedly made by many people in the past 24 hours or so, but seeing as I was initially involved, I'm going to say it:

The only thing that is not an opinion on The Ledge is the FACT that this IS a Fleetwood Mac DISCUSSION board. NOT a Fleetwood Mac "PRAISE" board. Unless you went out of your way to sign up to the biggest FM discussion forum on the web to simply (and only) say negative things about them (which I don't think anybody here is "guilty" of), then chances are you like the band and are a fan. Although there is no such thing as "the world's biggest Fleetwood Mac fan", it is clear that we all like the band to different degrees - it's the essence of being humans and not clones - and that in turn is the essence of a good discussion about ANYTHING.
I fell in love with this band back in 1987, and have only liked them more and more as the years have gone by. On announcement of the news that a "greatest hits" package would be released before a new album, I, for the first time since 1987, had my first ever "negative" feeling about the band. Therefore in the same way that I have always replied to threads that I have had an opinion on, I clicked "reply" and wrote my thoughts: I was not rude to anybody, I did not even suggest anything bad about any member of The Ledge or Fleetwood Mac, I simply gave my opinion on the matter and said why I thought they (being FM) were doing it - I even put a winking emoticon next to it so that just in case on the one in a trillion off-chance that any member of Fleetwood Mac read my post, who are the only people who (if they were having a seriously bad day and they knew for a fact that my opinions were totally incorrect compared with the truth) may have not liked what I had written, would take it "with a pinch of salt".
I was NOT expecting the explosive replies of the first few people who replied. I realise that I was not the only one who made a "negative comment" about the forthcoming Greatest Hits album (and I am "representing" only myself here, I am not speaking for anybody else who wrote anything negative) and therefore I'm sure that I was not being victimised, but even if 1% of those comments were directed towards me, I found that really unfair.
I read threads on The Ledge so that I can "hear" other people's views about all things related to Fleetwood Mac - my favourite band of all time, and the band whose lead guitarist is my favourite musician of all time. Therefore it is unsurprising that 99.999% of my posts are totally positive ones. However, I do NOT visit The Ledge to simply praise Fleetwood Mac NO MATTER WHAT, simply as a "daily ritual". It just so happens that neither the band, nor any of its members, nor anything to do with it, had ever given me a negative feeling. Now yesterday I read a piece of news that for once I didn't like, related to Fleetwood Mac, and gave my thoughts. (And even that piece of news, is really not a big deal...ok so they're going to release another GH album, I personally don't like that idea...but so what? it's just my opinion and is in no way going to affect the course of ANYTHING even vaguely related to Fleetwood Mac, and I am not even suggesting that any other member of The Ledge should share my sentiments in any way.)
I would say that the next time I want to express an even remotely negative opinion on The Ledge, I feel that I shouldn't have to a few hours later write an ESSAY explaining myself to those who don't like my opinion (which is how I felt, whether they meant it or not), but now I am in two minds about ever posting any negative view ever again, if only "pro" views are univerally accepted by Ledgies. The friends and "cyber-friends" that I've made thanks to this site mean a lot to me as it's extremely rare to find anybody by coincidence who shares our love for this band and its people, and therefore I will continue to post. If this wasn't the case, I don't think I would visit this site ever again.
Those of you who "know" me, know to what massive levels I love this band and its people, and that was the first, and last, time that I will ever waste my time verbally proving that fact to anybody on this site.

I like to see both sides of the situation regarding the possible Greatest Hits album as presented by some on this thread. However, if one does not like an opinion shared by another, must they respond?
I began to read another thread on this board about what songs shouldn't be played next tour. In my opinion, some of the suggestions were downright ludicrous! *But*, ladies and gentlemen, I had the decency to keep it to myself and just look at the next response. I didn't feel the need to bash someone's opinion.
-Brian

So...ummm Brian how do you feel about the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac touring together next year?!

:rolleyes:


Joe

New Album GH Repeats
 

Do you really think they would rerelease the new songs they put on the new GH on the next new studio album? That would suck! I'm unfamiliar with this marketing strategy - does it happen often? It seems ridiculous to do such a thing!

Re: To everybody concerned...
 

OH PLEASE NO! I hope to death no members of FM read this (luckily, I doubt they are very internet-savvy). Imagine what they would think of us! Then again Mick DOES have his own site (if and when he decides to make it do more than display his picture). And he would no doubt love the ego stroking found on this board most of the time. ;-)

Perhaps I'm projecting my own insecurities onto this board. I have nightmarish visions of Lindsey coming across my own site and being so filled with horror that he sics lawyers on me to "Cease and desist" from my frighteningly obsessive adoration! lol

Re: Re: To everybody concerned...
 

He (or his "Webmaster") put up some drum loops here:

www.mickfleetwood.com/loops.htm

& also here:

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/loop_lib...op.asp?PID=702

Apparently, this is his newest business venture in music technology -- he's hocking some drum samples.

Maybe if Mick did visit some of these Fleetwood Mac fan sites, it'd be good for him. It might begin to sink in that the band has seriously minded fans who follow its career the way people follow the careers of some moviemakers or actors -- people who would be interested in more than just drum samples on an unfinished Web site.

Well, there's a difference between saying the GH cd is a bad idea and saying the band is just money grubbing and making pawns of its fans. There's really only one person saying that...and that's all I have left to say about this matter.