Reinvention
 

I got to thinking today.

Fleetwood Mac's biggest contribution to music may well be the fact that a successful band, with great tunes and number one hits ceased to be over time yet the band with the very same name was totally reinvented with new personnel added, albeit again over time in the form of Buckingham and Nicks, and found fame on an even bigger level with a completely new image, sound and possibly fanbase too.

I can't think right now of any other band that has stuck with the original name and gone on to achieve such success with a totally different direction..

Faith No More sort of did this to a degree when they replaced Chuck Mosely with Mike Patton but it's not really the same.

Imagine if Guns 'N' Roses come out this year and do what Fleetwood Mac did? (although the chances are very minimal I would say)

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. I truly believe that it's the only band who has done something like that. IMO , it is certainly not similar to the cases where band members left and were replaced by others, where you could see some difference in the band's sound or style. The case of FM is a pure and, more importantly, successful re-invention, as you said.

PS Love your sig. Isn't it from Roger Waters' "Amused to Death"?

Well - when Keith Moon died, the Who had to continue on - and they had some great success.

The Rolling Stones lost Brian Jones to a drowning, and Ron Wood came on board and the group continued to be mighty successful.

But I think that Fleetwood Mac is the only group I can think of that actually shook up their line up over the years, and did a total makeover in style and sound, leading them to greater success that ever before. They went from being a successful blues band, to a california rock band by hiring Buckingham Nicks. The appeal of this new lineup placed FM on an even bigger stage than ever before. However, that combination of Mick, John, Christine, Stevie and Lindsey was the most commerically successful. Take away one part of that equation (i.e. replacing Lindsey with two guys - or Stevie with Bekka - or carrying on without Christine), and the results are less than expected with the original line up. I loved a good portion of Say You Will - but man, I miss Christine McVie. That lady is wonderful. As far as "Time" and the tour for "Tango in the Night" goes...you can't replace Buckingham...you just can't. You need them all. "I believe in The Five". HA! I just found my new sig line!

It is indeed. :nod: Full marks there.. He is one hell of a songwriter isn't he?

I'm hoping to get to see Waters at one of his gigs this summer. Already got my tickets to see Gilmour in May.

Well, both Yes & Jethro Tull have had a big (and fairly constant) turnover in personnel...but, the difference with Fleetwood Mac over other bands who've had a revolving door of musicians is that with Fleetwood Mac, the FRONT LINE (singers/songwriters) were the ones who would change...with other bands, the front person(s) would basically remain and it would usually be the rhythm section that would change.

One little pet peeve of mine. There seems to be this popular perception that Fleetwood Mac was a blues band until Stevie & Lindsey showed up...that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, they weren't even still a blues band when Peter Green left in 1970. And, they sure as hell weren't a blues band during the Future Games through Heroes Are Hard To Find incarnations, either.

Don't leave out the four years of Mick Taylor's contributions!!! He helped lift the Stones to a new height of popularity before handing over the reins to Woody.

I've always thought that the great thing (one of many) about this band is that they managed to change gradually. I'll admit I'm more of an expert inthe BN era stuff, but if you listen to the albums in order, you can hear a little bit of the last album, and a little bit of the next album, style-wise.

Yeah! Good one!

There's even a "transitional single", too..."Dragonfly"/"Purple Dancer". "Dragonfly" teased at the upcoming Kiln House album, and "Purple Dancer" looked even further ahead (despite the presence of Jeremy Spencer) to Future Games.

Disclaimer: Since Future Games and Bare Trees had the same lineup, they're obviously going to have similar sounds, even though the two albums definitely have their own "feel".

The transitional tunes per album...

Kiln House:
Tell Me All The Things You Do/Earl Grey (Then Play On)
Station Man/Jewel-Eyed Judy (Future Games)

Future Games:
Sands Of Time/Sometimes (Kiln House)
Future Games (Penguin/Mystery To Me)

Bare Trees:
title cut (Kiln House)
The Ghost (Penguin)

Penguin:
Remember Me (Bare Trees)
Night Watch (Mystery To Me)

Heroes Are Hard To Find:
Bermuda Triangle/Prove Your Love (Mystery To Me)
She's Changing Me/Come A Little Bit Closer (white album)

white album:
Over My Head/Rhiannon (Heroes Are Hard To Find)
Say You Love Me/Blue Letter (Rumours)

Rumours:
Don't Stop (white album)
Second Hand News (Tusk)

Tusk:
Sisters Of The Moon/Never Make Me Cry (Rumours)
That's All For Everyone/Never Forget (Mirage)

Mirage:
Two backward looking songs:
Gypsy (Rumours)
Eyes Of The World (Tusk)


Tango... is kind of unique...it basically is the transitional album between two Lindsey Buckingham solo albums (due to the length of time between albums), rather than Fleetwood Mac albums. It is the "middle ground" between Go Insane and Out Of The Cradle.

Behind The Mask:
Save Me (Tango...)
When The Sun Goes Down (Time)

Time:
I Do/Winds Of Change (Rumours)
Nights In Estoril (Tango/BTM)
I Got It In For You (Behind The Mask)

Say You Will kind of stands on its own as well.

Hear Hear :thumbsup: The blues started to drop away in 1969, especially in the studio, and apart from Jeremy's occasional live airing of the "Dust My Broom" phenomenon, there were very few blues tunes post-Green, and none post-Spencer.

I'd agree except that Dragonfly/Purple Dancer was recorded and released after "Kiln House". Purple Dancer was the last Mac studio song that Jeremy played on. I'd say both tracks hinted quite strongly at "Future Games".

Great points! All of them! And I totally fogot about Mick Taylor! (I'm not much of a Rolling Stones expert. I think I'm the only one in the world who doesn't really like them very much).

It is difficult to think of any similar examples, simply because Fleetwood Mac's situation was so peculiar. Because the band always had a front line of at least two (and usually three) singers/songwriters, the "essence" of the group was never inextricably linked to a single person. So it was never too unacceptable when one frontperson left or another one came on-board. The biggest shock was obviously Peter's departure, but it was easy for the band to continue on since they still had two frontmen, plus Christine, who had been something of an honorary member - or at least frequent collaborator - since the group's second album.

In this respect, I think Kiln House becomes Fleetwood Mac's most important album. It confirmed that the band could still carry on without its most famous member, and it set the tone for the revolving door aspect of the band's history which would continue until they finally found major commercial success again.

The fact that Peter named the band after Mick and John, the rhythm section, also helped, and made it a lot easier for the frontmen and -women to keeping popping in and out. If Fleetwood Mac had been named anything else, it might have been considered tacky or a money grab to release Kiln House, or any album without Peter, under the same name, and the remaining members might have been less willing to carry on with the same moniker. But as long as Mick and John stayed at the group's core, they had a completely legitimate reason to call anything they recorded "Fleetwood Mac."

The Mac aren't completely alone at this party. We've got to mention Genesis in any discussions of bands that achieved success at different times with very different styles of music.

You could also make a case for Jefferson Starship. While it was technically different band from Jefferson Airplane, since they changed the name, the former was no more different from the latter than Mac '75 was from Mac '69. It was pretty much the same process of losing a few members here and adding a few more there.

Don't forget about Christine's performances of "Get Like You Used To Be"!

No...my wife doesn't like them either.:laugh:

But, the difference is they DID change the name...albeit just slightly...but enough to signal "Hey, we're different". With Fleetwood Mac, there has never been any HINT of a signpost that says "a change has been made".

That depends on whom you ask, Jyqm. If you're talking about the way the band members themselves felt about a situation, perhaps most of those firings & resignations weren't unacceptable (I'm assuming you mean aesthetically unacceptable). But there are fans who consider Green's departure unacceptable (I used to work with one of them), fans who consider Welch's departure unacceptable, fans who consider Buckingham's departure unacceptable, fans who consider Christine's departure unacceptable (check out the Christine forum), fans who consider Rick's departure unacceptable (one of them posts around here) & fans who consider Dave Walker's departure unacceptable (ME!).

For all we know, maybe there are fans who consider Bob Brunning's departure unacceptable! :lol: :wavey: (Hi, Bob!)

However, you're certainly correct about your main point: the essence of the band was never -- at least permanently -- intertwined in the public's mind with only one (or any one specific) frontline person. For example, even in Stevie's heyday, people were writing letters to Rolling Stone saying things like: "Nicks's poor performance doesn't matter. If she leaves the group, the four remaining & excellent musicians can get back to making music instead of playing backdrop to ballet."