Quote:
Originally Posted by KarmaContestant
Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.
|
Stevie's in a band. She verbally committed to that band and then pulled out. She was irresponsible to those she committed to. She complains enough about the band/Lindsey that she should be able to take it.
Quote:
|
Because I can say, for me, that's where the eye-rolling comes in. Mick can't manage his money, and everyone else (Stevie and/or Lindsey) has to stop what they're doing to bail him out, and it's been portrayed like that in interviews.
|
Maybe in 1987, but not not since. And, really, Fleetwood Mac bailed out Stevie and Lindsey more than once. They were nobodies going nowhere in 1974, and their careers had stalled by 1994. (Yeah, "Time" bombed, but at least they have the excuse of doing absolutely no promotion for it. What were Stevie's and Lindsey's excuses?) That's why Lindsey hired Mick to play drums on GOS. He knew that Mick would break up that version of Fleetwood Mac (which was already falling apart on its own) for a probable reunion of the classic line-up.
Quote:
|
That's how it comes across in the media. Fleetwood Mac, since 1991, is only a cash machine that mobilizes when a certain someone needs money, because as a fan for the past 30 years, it's become crystal clear that they aren't doing it for the art.
|
It's called being in the band. Mick doesn't get any significant royalty money. The only way he makes money on Fleetwood Mac is when the band tours. How hypocritical everyone is by stating "ooh, Mick needs bailed out again" when Stevie, Lindsey, and Christine all make money on Fleetwood Mac whether or not the band is active.