Fleetwood Mac VS The Eagles
 

Which Band do you think is more successful????????????:confused:

It all depends on how your determine success...I think Fleetwood Mac definetely has a more loyal and devoted "hardcore" fanbase...but we all know that the Eagles have sold more albums, and had more hits..so it's not something that is such a one or the other answer

Chris

Michael Jackson

ZZ Top is way better than Michael Jackson! :mad:

We're all gonna say Fleetwood Mac. After all, this is a Fleetwood Mac board. And success is in the eye of the beholder.

The Lindsey/Stevie era alone is far better. Fleetwood Mac taken as a whole from Peter Green onwards destroys them. The Eagles have never done anything bad, but Lindsey's unique playing, that distinctive rhythm section, Stevie's performing/lyrics/voice, and Christine's underrated vocal, and the harmonies those voices create leads to something I don't think the Eagles can match.

And I'm not sure The Eagles have sold that many more albums have they? They may have done in America, but I would imagine Fleetwood Mac were as big in worldwide sales.

The Eagles are more successful commercially. :shrug: Not saying I like them better, but they're more "successful."

Maybe compared to the "Rumours" band in the United States. However, if one takes how successful the Peter Green era was in Europe, and how all of the pre-Rumours albums got a boost after the band hit it big, I think the Mac may have had more actual sales worldwide.

i hate questions like this -

sort of like comparing LA to New York...

but here i go anyway.

in their prime, both bands were excellent on stage.
without Lindsey Buckingham, FM suffered.
without Don Felder, the Eagles are suffering.
FM is/was a much more dynamic band musically.
lyrically one could argue that the songwriters in the Eagles were better at their craft.
i could go on but what's the point.
i saw the Eagles in 1980 on The Long Run tour and they were unbelievably great. Since then, they have recorded some really really bad songs.

Together, the two bands contributed an enormous amount of great music and they represent a fantastic era in California rock.
It would be fun if they toured together provided Felder and Buckingham were part of the plan.

Depends.

Which incarnation of the Eagles are you talking about? The Bernie Leadon era or the Joe Walsh era? With or without Don Felder? With Randy Meisner or with Timothy B. Schmit? Pre-break up or post-reunion?

There's just too many variables.

Firing Don Felder was the dumbest, and greediest, move they could've ever made. He's a brilliant, tasty player, and played rings around Joe "nutbag" Walsh.

My take ont it is this. I went to an Eagles concert back in 2003 wearing a Fleetwood Mac shirt and this clown says to me "HEY DUDE, WRONG BAND." I responded with "Well, if your band would EVER release anything new besides that pice of dogcrap Hole In The World, and stop constantly touring without ANY new material, then maybe I'll consider buying some Eagles stuff. I like the Eagles well enough, but as an aside, I had ZERO interest in the whole Don/Stevie thing this year. I'm there to see Stevie not him.

Interestingly enough too, for writing so few songs for the Eagles, Timothy Schmidt has by far my favorite song of theirs, I Can't Tell You Why.:nod:

Eww, and besides, you don't want to be That Guy, wearing the t-shirt of the band whose concert you're at.

"Hole In the World," anyone? The mere mention of that heinous song sends me into hysterics.