New CD - 18 Tracks
 

According to this new CD pre-order form at Mick's site, the new CD will have 18 tracks. I'm taking this as the truth because it's on a sales form so when you're giving money the info on the item being purhased legally/professionally requires some sort of veracity.

The way I see it, 18 tracks is 12.5% better than 16 tracks!!!!!:laugh: :wavey: ;)

OK, I also ascertained from luke on Mick's BBS that fleetwoodmac.com has finally been updated.
It gives pre-order details and advice to look out for the 70s Show promo.

Hmmm, well I wont be paying anywhere near that much for the album, pre order or not!!!

Plus, I dont think they are posting outside of america

18 tracks well at least the information about the album is now coming through a bit faster now, the more the merrier :D

Also...
 

It must have been over at Mick's site the last time I was there that someone said something about those 18 tracks being on ONE CD (not two, as was said previous by Mick).

John

Well, 18 is definitely better than 16 songs. But not as good as 23. Let's hope some extra tracks get released on import singles and so forth.

I still have to say: How annoying that the official band sites continue to perpetuate the lie that this is the first studio album in 15 years. It also shows a basic lack of understanding of marketing. If they admitted that there were two other albums since 1987, and actually made that known in a very high-profile way, they might even boost some sales of those albums.

Or... I guess they're just ashamed of those albums... since Lindsey wasn't in the band at the time. ;)

"Ashamed" or not, they can't make them disappear by not acknowledging them. I think those two "disavowed" albums are VERY GOOD albums...TUSK is, and always will be, Fleetwood Mac's last "great" album...once they took the "safe" route with MIRAGE, they lost credibility for good. Having a lineup change for those two albums were the best thing FOR Fleetwood Mac. That the Rumours lineup regrouped was, excepting the Dave Walker fiasco, the worst thing they could've done...it just showed how much Fleetwood Mac was living off past glories rather than trying to reinvent themselves as a living, creative entity.

No way, I rate Tango as the last great Mac album! The buying public agrees w/me!

My feelings exactly. Any album that can draw new-wave loving teenager to the classic rock of the 70s when the 70s weren't cool has to be great.

John

I actually agree with chiliD, I thought those two albums were very good, just different to the Buckingham Nicks era.

Lindsey was on both of those albums anyway, if only guesting.

The only missing link in the BN era "chain" was Stevie on Time. Otherwise the whole band was on those albums in one form or another, as will be the case with the new album as it has been mentioned that Christine is backing on at least one track.

I think part of the fact that Mick has "forgotten" those two albums is that, certainly for the Time era anyway, Lindsey thought that Fleetwood Mac had become it's own tribute band. Which was to him a bit of a joke, "touring with Pat Benatar" as I remember him saying at some point.

:wavey:

roflmao!:laugh: :laugh:

I bought the album, I'm among the "buying public" and I DON'T agree with you...so, that shoots down that argument right there. Anyway, the "buying public" isn't what I'm referring to...it's the CRITICAL acclaim that I'm referring to. Mirage was a safe cop-out to commerciality, after the risk-taking adventurism of Tusk. Tango was strictly for "the money" (to bail Mick out of his first, or was it second by then, bankruptcy)...Stevie was at (near) her lowest creative point during Tango. Had Fleetwood Mac just told her to kiss off and done the album without her, it probably would've been received that much MORE favorably by the media. Even from an AVID (understatement) fan like myself, her songs on it sound out of place and just plain aren't very good. (and, let's not fool ourselves by calling "Seven Wonders" one of hers...Sandy Stewart wrote the song...Stevie just made up new lyrics when she couldn't remember the original lyrics). And, that said, I still like both albums...A LOT!!...but neither are among Fleetwood Mac's "best".

That's another point...IF Tango supposedly has a "dated" 80s sound...how could it make one think of the 70s??? I don't understand that logic? Are you saying that you view Fleetwood Mac strictly as a 70s phenomenon?? If so, then you're seemingly agreeing with my point that their last gasp of creativity ended in 1979 and they continue to this day to reap current glories on past accomplishments.

I meant that Tango appealed to me in such a way that it whetted my appetite for more to the point that I started buying the older albums. This, in turn led me to other artists with a like sound (America, Eagles, etc). As for creativity, I would disaggree that it ended in 79. I've always thought LBs Tusk songs (and his L&O LP--with the exception of Trouble) sound unfinished and sketchy. If anything, they are a devolution (that's a word from the 80s ;) ) for the band to a demo sound. It WOULD be a stoke of creativity if LB could make those songs of his sound polished instead of raw. To me they are like the difference between a beautiful poem painstakingly composed and refined to the final diamond and a term paper written the night before the due date. In retrospect, I see the 80s as a period of great creativity for FM (and particularly LB) as he discovered and experimented with new tools (effects, synthesizer, etc) to help him flesh out the great sound he always had the potential to create, but had been impeded by lack of resources. When I listen to pre-Tango music, I hear a band developing towards the apex that Tango reporesents in my mind. When I hear Cradle, I hear LB straying from it (recreating the intricate arrangments of the instruments, but toning the rhythm section way too far down). Meanwhile, FM, with BTM and Time, I hear the band breaking down into blandness (with the exception of the song Behind the Mask). With the gift of screws songs, I'm hearing LB returning to that Tango sounds (i.e. intricately arranged music with an awesome rhythm section sound) and simultaneously exploring a sound I've never heard but that I welcome because the more familiar sound accompanies it (like having a favorite meal intersperced with with foods I've yet to try but am willing to try because I still my favorite food on the table)--Red Rover.

It's not that I don't respect your opinion or anything, it's just that I love the album so much that I feel the need to make others love it as much as me. I'm sure you've met someone who's not as crazy as you are about the Mac and you've felt the urge to make them love it, but to no avail. After all, what's not to love?

John

Look ChilliD I'm gonna have to disagree with you. First of all, in rebuttal - what is this 'critical acclaim'? Is it (a) retrospective overvaluation of importance, like Tusk recieves from album fans or in passing name-dropping by music columnists eager to display their vocabulary of music history, or (b) the sort of critical acclaim something gets from those who appreciate things that go against the grain of commercialism, for the sake that it went against the grain of commercialism, and not upon much inherent merit, which is 'critical acclaim' I certainly don't value, or (c) acknowledgment by a broad or respected number of peers/commentators of a work's high quality of inventive musicality ..... Tusk gets drips and drabs of this in retrospective statments but did not get it at the time, to Lindsey's disappointment. Please clairify exactly what you mean by 'critical acclaim' in relation to Tusk; if it is the 'last best' album you say they made, clarify your terms of distinction.

As for Tango, as has been said, it is expertly crafted - the arrangemets are sparse, understated, yet effective; and the vocals shine. It was purposeful in its grasp of the 80s sound edge, and its purpose gave it a strength and unity. Perhaps you dismiss it as important or high calibre because bascally, "he made it look easy". Well, look again at Big Love, Seven Wonders, Little Lies, Everywhere, and ask yourself - perhaps it is not as easy as it looks to make something that will endure on radio and elsewhere for decades to come, "outdated 80s sound" or not. If Mirage was meant as a commerical cop-out, why didn't Lindsey make more big, timeless hits than Hold Me and Gypsy? Becuase they tried, but its not as easy as it looks. Yet they/he did it with Tango, and that is worth something critically and/or commercially, and I for one give it both plaudits.

As for the Stevie songs? Is that your whole argument against Tango? No one but some of the really defiant Stevie fans will stand up for "Welcome..." and "When I See..." - for an album that has some of the best, it is not surprising it has arguably two of the worst. Only some or the more ardent Lindsey fans would stand up and applaud "That's Enough For Me" - does that make the album a write-off?

And Seven Wonders? No one has ever said they consider it a Stevie song, contra Sandy Stewart. Do you equally dispel 'Blue Letter' from attention? That FM only had two songs in the Rumours era fully written by non-members is a standard not every band who's songwriter/s also had blossoming solo careers can call fault at them for. Since when is the fact that a song wasn't written by the singer enough to award it no merit? Not in my book. And then after that fact you could go on arguing the case all night for how FM made it theirs with Lindsey's arrangement, Stevie's singing etc (as a mate of mine said when I told him it wasn't written by Stevie - "Yeah but it wouldn't be the same without Stevie")


Now I love Tusk as much as you love Tango so don't misconstrue any of this!;) :wavey:

I totally agree, I don't really care what the general public thinks of the album, I LOVE it, and I think it's the last great album FM had. The reason for this, from a totally PERSONAL point of view was the fact that LB was missing (pretty much) from BTM and Time. Having said that, I am a LB/FM fan, rather than FM/LB fan, so it's to be expected!:)

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Oh, boy, I have to jump in on this one, and I mean no disrespect!

To start, JWYS, comparisons of Fleetwood Mac to the Eagles and America!? Come on. I can see similarities with the Eagles, as much as I hate to admit it, but America!?

Tango was a great album within the context of the times. I couldn't get enough of it, after getting over the shock of the sound on things like "Big Love" and "Family Man." But, and this is where I have to side with ChiliD and disagree with DownOnRodeo, Stevie's songs on that album are beyond bad. She couldn't write and she couldn't sing. I have no choice but to skip those songs when I listen to that album. Life is too short, and wasting the 14 or so minutes to listen to those songs just isn't justifiable.

JWYS, I don't think ChiliD was dismissing Tango. I agree with his assessment of Tusk. To me, Tusk was the last of the "great" albums in the sense that the band reached its apex of creativity with that album. Lindsey's less-is-more approach has stood the test of time. People who dismissed that album when it came out now look back and see how truly brilliant it was. And let's not forget he still gave Stevie's Sara and Storms beautiful lush arrangements that make them some of her best songs ever to be released. Or take his approach to Honey Hi: Can you see Christine McVie deciding on her own to make that a folky acoustic song? I could be wrong, but the arrangement has Lindsey written all over it. Or Save Me a Place: unquestionably one of Lindsey's best moments ever.

How many albums do you know of (and I'm not talking about the sorry Rumours tribute that Mick put together) have been recorded in their entirety by another band? Tusk. That means every single song on that album has been covered at least once. That is quite a testament to the art. Unless this next album proves to be better, Tusk will remain Fleetwood Mac's best album with Stevie and Lindsey. Of course, I don't expect everyone to agree with that, but that's OK.

Sorry Carne, I must have been as incoherent as usual;) :confused: :distress:

What I was trying to say above is that 'Welcome' and 'When I See' are beyond bad and only the most avid of Stevie fans would stand up to defend them.

:wavey:

(My point being then, that to dismiss the whole album on the basis of that is pretty lame - especially when the poor quality of those songs is beyond argument ... The good stuff more than makes up for it. Plus IMHO a lot of great songs and two terrible ones is BETTER than two great songs and an album-full of mediocrity. I know you were never arguing for Mirage, but thats how I see Tango distinguished itself above Mirage)

Not every critic liked Stevie's contributions to 'Tango In The Night,' but not every critic disliked them either. :)

But of the dozen songs on Tango in the Night, only a few have the excitement and innovation of Fleetwood Mac's best music. Two are the songs Stevie Nicks has written for the album. Both "Seven Wonders" and "Welcome to the Room . . . Sara" have the sort of vague, and vaguely cliched, imagery that we've come to expect from Nicks, but like the best of her previous work, she invests that vagueness with a romantic delirium unmatched in current rock. - Ken Tucker, Philadelphia Inquirer, April 19, 1987 (***Although we know, of course, that Stevie only altered the lyrics to "Seven Wonders." She didn't write them.)

Nicks checks in with her own gems. "Seven Wonders," a cosmic tale of romance that appears to float out of King Arthur's time, has an angelically upbeat vocal. She's equally disarming on "When I See You Again," about meeting a lover for the last time. - Mercury News, April 26, 1987


By the way, when did we start listening to critics anyway? For a large part of the time the 'Rumours'-era incarnation was together, many critics dismissed their albums as lightweight pop-rock, that lacked the substance of the music their peers were making.
It's only been within the past several years, and a new batch of critics, that Fleetwood Mac's sound has become a critically respected thing.
So go figure.

Hopefully the new album (and its 18 tracks!) will be artistically successful, commercially successful, and critically successful... and then we can all be happy (there I go dreaming again). :rolleyes: :)



Johnny Stew

TUSK!!!! :nod: Critics LOVED it...most of the "high-profile" ones, anyway. They used terms like "cutting edge" & "relevant". The same critics just out & out panned Mirage for it's LACK of risk taking and "safe" approach. And, with each successive FMac album, the same critics got MORE scathing.

I read a couple of unflattering reviews of 'Tusk' too... one was in Creem, I think.

Anyway, my point was, critics shouldn't be the gauge we use, when discussing whether something is good or not.

Whether they'd admit it or not, their opinions are just as subjective as ours can be (and sometimes moreso, if they're reviewing an album by someone they already dislike).



Johnny Stew

No, you were right. I misread. My apologies.

A good point...
 

Amen to that 1 statement Johnny Stew. I think most intelligent people WHO can think for themselves & form their own opinions could care less what critics have to say nowadays...I had enough of critics this past Tuesday night, And they STILL dont know a thing (I'm NOT talking about what George "Bushy" had to say to the public either...) Brian J. :rolleyes: