1978 Concert Review
 

Rolling Stone
In Performance

Fleetwood Mac/Steve Miller
July 30, 1978
JFK Stadium, Philadelphia

They might as well have called it a pop-blues festival. Fleetwood Mac and the Steve Miller Band, the two headliners, started out as blues bands and gradually extended their interpretations of the medium to embrace a larger, pop audience.

Yet even after all the hits, it's obvious in live performance that both bands still base their deliveries on the blues.

The audience packing JFK Stadium to the limits was older than most concert crowds. They sat and waited peaceably through the Sanford-Townshend Band's watery set and through Bob Welch, who might have sounded good if he hadn't been victimized by feedback from the stadium's sound system.

Miller, ever the capable technician, didn't do much to incite the crowd's enthusiasm while delivering a near-perfect show, marred only by occasional vocal lapses when either he stopped singing or the PA system failed. The biggest response Miller pulled was at the mention of Philadelphia in "Rockin' Me," but his clever manipulation of blues-based hooks and excellent guitar playing maintained interest even in the least-inspired moments. He flashed some brilliant playing at the end of the set, carving out a ringing, trumpetlikesolo on "The Joker" and finishing with a blues instrumental. The encore, his early trademark "Living in the USA," drew a nostalgic response but clearly didn't match previous live performances of the song.

Fleetwood Mac tapped the audience's energy more efficiently, channeling the opening applause into a rhythmic element of the first song. The group's great rhthym section was working overtime, with Mick Fleetwood slamming away the infectious drum backbeat while John McVie pinned down the arrangements with his loping, precision-punch bass playing. Lindsey Buckingham was in good form vocally and instrumentally, playing a letter-perfect guitar part on the classic "Oh Well" and a brilliant slow-blues intro to "The Chain," which provided a high point early in the set. The latter song, which seems the weak link on Rumours, becomes a tour de force onstage, where it is stretched out into a long, intense instrumental.

Despite the commercial success Stevie Nicks has helped bring Fleetwood Mac, the band is better off in concert when she shuts her mouth and whirls around the stage. Nicks sounded consistently weak vocally and apparently uninterested in the old material. Whole sections of the show, especially the one starting with "Dreams," were ruined by her lackluster vocals. She had to be saved repeatedly by Christine McVie's backup harmonies, which were embarrassingly more tuneful and responsive to the arrangements than Nicks'.

Nicks sang so poorly she even threw off the rhthym section, forcing Fleetwood to check and change tempos repeatedly during several tunes. By contrast, when Christine McVie took over lead vocals on "Monday Morning" and "You Make Loving Fun," the band sounded magnificent and everything feel into place. Nicks sang like she meant it only on the one new song the group played, "Sisters of the Moon," leading one to suspect her poor performance was due to boredom than ineptness.

Despite Nicks, the Mac pulled off a red-hot finale, churning through bright versions of "Go Your Own Way" and "Second Hand News" that gave the fans what they came for.

John Swenson

Well wasn't that nice!?

Remember what the Rolling Stone critic said about her for the June 29, 1977, show at the Garden? "twirled with all the grace of a drunken sailor"

Can you post that review?

How come these reviews aren't in the blue letter archives? They should be there.

Tee Hee.:wavey: :wavey: :lol: :lol:

Interestingly, her harmony is crucial to SHN and GYOW - which they said were great :rolleyes:

But, I agree, La Nicks can look bored to death on stage in this era.

I still find it interesting that the reasons many fans express as to why they've grown disenchanted with Stevie's performances in recent years, mirror complaints made by critics nearly thirty years ago, during what are typically considered to be the "glory days" of her live performances.

Meanwhile, critics seem to review her current live performances in a more consistently favorable fashion than thirty years ago.

Go figure.

Wait, The Chain is a weak spot in Rumours?! Hmm, time to go eat my foot.

I've read so many negative reviews of Stevie from that time.

I maintain that the Madison Square Garden (6.29.77) review in Rolling Stone is the first negative review of Stevie in performance in a major U.S. publication. I've been looking for earlier negative reviews in big journals & can't find any--although I suspect that some of the big dailies criticized her for her failing vocals during the first several months of the Rumours Tour.

Stevie got mostly mediocre criticism written about her live work in Rolling Stone's In Performance column over the years: The Garden review in 1977 said she caterwauled like Linda Blair's Regan; this JFK review blames her for being uncommitted; Steve Pond's review of the Mac's final show on the Tusk Tour said Stevie was "essentially decorative" (but still "undeniably important").

But the RS review of the Tango concert in Landover was laudatory of Stevie (& of Mac in general). Of course, by that time, many of the Golden Age Rolling Stone staff critics had moved on or out.

Stevie's interrelationship with Rolling Stone over the decades is a fascinating one to look into.

I'm not sure that the critical establishment, by & large (& it's been said that most music critics are both bi & large), ever averred to any significant degree that Stevie had a "glory" period as a performer (although many fans certainly did & do aver).

Of course, as I've said before, it's a mistake to treat critics past & present as a single monolithic lump of Stevie treatment. Not only do different individuals think different things, but Stevie herself has aged & changed & the times have changed, & all of this affects public & critical reaction to her. As far as your view that critical reaction to Stevie's performances in recent years is a lot more favorable than in eras past, I agree completely. What accounts for that? No one knows, but my view is that it's attributable at least as much--if not more--to sociological reasons than to aesthetic ones. Also, Stevie herself was never the kind of figure over whom most of the rock press had much at stake: The widespread view was that Stevie a sort of after-dinner mint at the Fleetwood Mac meal. Tasty but not exactly essential to the music-making business onstage. To stick with Rolling Stone or Stereo Review to demonstrate the perspective, neither publication to my knowledge ever published a review of any of Stevie's solo shows.

Tell me what you think, Stew. We can start a dialog here! One hopes others will join in, too.

I look at the reviews in context of the time. We looking back from a later time get a different view, a more comprehensive view as far as making comparisons, but less comprehensive contextual view (obviously). I study the whole thing from many perspectives, time and social and intellectual wise. It's fun, it's interesting to incorporate all the different perspectives and puzzle out the reasons, and gain more insights from that.
That is one of the things I appreciate most about my perspective, time wise. Perhaps the only thing. Because in many other ways I lament my fandom timewise, I regret my inability to participate much at the peak of the band's crescendo.

Okay, but don't let people try to shove the view down your throat that your asynchronous experience of the Fleetwood Mac saga renders you incapable of seeing or hearing what they see & hear. If we were to stretch that line of thinking further, we'd have a world of great biographers like Leon Edel & historians like Bernard De Voto & Jacques Barzun who were unable to "recover" the aesthetic & cultural meaning of the past, simply because they weren't yet born.

The asynchronous experientalist of the Fleetwood Mac saga has much to offer to the community's understanding & collective impressions of the band. :thumbsup:

I go in for a colonoscopy next week at the gastroenterologist's clinic.

David, I'll add this review to the Blue Letter Archives. Do you know the date of this Rolling Stone issue? July 30th was the date of the show. Do you have the date of the RS magazine?

By the way, I did add all of those other reviews/articles that you posted a while back to the Blue Letter Archives.:)

I listen to the 70's boots and while they all had their off nights, the FM FM and Rumors shows were IMO really good and often great. I listen with awe to Stevie's live Silver Springs and Rhiannon's. I also think LB had a far better voice then than now a la I'm So Afraid in that live outdoor concert on the Disney special - I mean WOW hardly covers it for him and really all of them on that. CM, IMO, could tend to wander off key, but like Billie Holiday and Bonnie Raitt, that just made it better. So, when I read reviews like the one above, I weight that against my own experience with the boots and tend to think it was a bad night or the guy just didn't like her, which certainly was a problem at that time when the pretty, flowery girl singing of dreams and witches took over rock and roll for awhile.

I don't have the date of that issue, unfortunately. I guess it may have been in August or even September. As far as what it said, I'm going totally by memory here. Stevie "twirled with all the grace of a drunken sailor" & during Gold Dust Woman "uttered incantations that rivaled Linda Blair's Regan, only without Regan's exquisite control." The critic added that "Nicks righted herself the following night."

Thank you & thank you again, Mary Anne. Sometimes I get worried that things aren't being added to the BLA, but are popping up in article archives all over the rest of the Web. The BLA needs continual attention--not just for current press coverage but for historical press coverage that is constantly surfacing.

That is if you don't weenie out like you did LAST time you had the appointment. :D