Quote:
Originally Posted by CADreaming
Honey, I don't have anything against Mick and John. Wanting a Buckingham Nicks reunion has nothing to do with them. It's about material and how it is presented.
|
But how does anyone know how songs would be presented on a brand-new Buckingham Nicks tour? How does anyone even know
which songs would be performed? It's just as likely that the set would be filled with Fleetwood Mac songs as not.
I agree with Dougie—Fleetwood Mac right now is Buckingham Nicks (the duo). Nicks & Buckingham are the sole songwriters and the stars of the show. They're free to write what they want and structure the set how they want. The only artistic obstacles either of them runs into come from the other. How would a revived Buckingham Nicks act change any of that? They aren't going to write differently for one project vs. another, they aren't going to sing differently, and they aren't going to twirl any differently.
And what
is Buckingham Nicks (the duo) anyway? Its characteristics all come from a time that's loooong gone. Do you think a new Buckingham Nicks album is going to
sound like the 1973 album? How on earth would they manage that (supposing they set out to do so)? They don't write like 1973, they don't sing like 1973, they don't harmonize like 1973, and they don't look like 1973.
Are you guys imagining an album full of tracks like
Soldier's Angel? I suppose it's possible—but what makes
Soldier's Angel any more Buckingham Nicks than
Destiny Rules or
Say Goodbye or other Fleetwood Mac songs? Just the fact that it's a twangy, countryish dirge in a minor key with an acoustic guitar ringing like a funeral bell?
When we're talking about overall style or mood, just what
is Buckingham Nicks? I think it's a largely unanswerable question, especially 40 years later. In fact, the best answer is probably: "It's anything Lindsey and Stevie want it to be today."