Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMacD
Or, just call it Fleetwood Mac. They've already done two with three out of four members, why not one more?
|
as I said, I believe there would be business/legal complications. If Stevie says I didn't quit FM, but they've released an album without me there could be problems. I am sure there are contracts in place that define what/who "Fleetwood Mac" means unless otherwise agreed to by the parties involved.
I'm not talking about how can they put out an album to sell the most copies. That's a bit of a moot point these days.
I'm saying that if this group of people minus Stevie has a collection of music that they would like to put out as the next (possibly final) collection for people to hear for ARTISTIC reasons, not especially sales, then they should do it. Call it whatever.
I still believe the producer issue is the sticking point for Stevie, followed by time that she wants to spend on solo stuff. She wants to do her alternating back-and-forth between careers thing. Understandable. But time is running out. She's made it clear she's likely NOT going to do the Goldfish & Ladybug project, doubtful on the Rhiannon project, or the memoir in the next five or ten years. She's mentioned a SFV vol 2…well, how long did it take her to do Vol 1? So realistically, how long would it take her to do Vol 2? A couple months? 6 months? In any case it won't eat up an amount of time that precludes a Mac album.
I agree with those who say it makes absolutely zero sense that she doesn't at least say "Fleetwood Mac still has some chapters to be written" or "This band's not over yet, we may surprise you with more new music" or something that doesn't pin her to a timeframe but does indicate she is indeed onboard.
But like others have said, this band is special. Bless their hearts.
