Quote:
Originally Posted by CADreaming
I didn't say anything about Mick or John.  |
Well, when you suggest they can do something as Buckingham Nicks that they couldn’t do as Fleetwood Mac, and the only difference between the two bands is that one has Mick and John while the other does not, what other possible conclusion could one come to?
Quote:
|
They didn't approach SYW any differently than they have anything for 30 years. It was planned they would do another studio album after The Dance ended and no one's solo stuff was hijacked.
|
Wrong. First, the most obvious difference is NO CHRISTINE. Second, Lindsey's material was for the "Gift Of Screws" album. That's well documented. Yes, he CHOSE to release it under the Fleetwood Mac name, but it had been part of a solo project.
Quote:
|
Lindsey has touted the BN tour since 2006. He said then that management would want that in conjunction with a BN re-release. I agree a new BN project would not at all be a new FM album. They could even release it independently as LB did with SWS.
|
Again, aside from no Mick or John, I don't see the difference between the two bands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louielouie2000
There is a certain sound that is expected out of Fleetwood Mac these days. There are certain touring expectations that would be unavoidable. At some point, a new Mac album would morph into another oldies cash grab tour.
|
Fleetwood Mac had “a sound” in 1978. It didn’t stop them from making “Tusk.” I don’t see why now would be any different. The only thing stopping them at this point is themselves.
But all of them are so far beyond being the artists they tout themselves as being that the thought of them taking risks is laughable. I'd take Lindsey more seriously if he didn't used canned backing vocals and music at his shows, but that's another issue altogether.