Quote:
Originally Posted by michelej1
I never said that there wouldn't be a demand for the band because Christine wasn't the household name that Stevie was. I said that the tour would not be a successful one because I felt that they saturated the market -- not completely...But thinking that had nothing to do with Stevie. It had to do with what happened during the second leg of the SYW tour, when no one wanted to see them again, having just seen them in 2003.
|
They
wouldn't have just seen them in 2013. They saw a very similar band, but not same one. It suggested that the crowds wouldn't be sophisticated enough to know the difference or care if Christine was in the band or if she wasn't. Clearly, that wasn't the case.
Quote:
|
I never said Stevie was bigger than the band. In fact, just this week I posted that Stevie alone couldn't outsell FM without her. I think that's true of both tours and albums. FM can be as profitable as Stevie is solo. It just can't be as profitable without her as it can be with her. But even that is only true when it comes to touring.
|
You also said that they could go back to being an opening act or play state fairs as part of a package tour without Stevie, because that's what happened in 1994-95 (when there were NO "Rumours" era vocalists touring with the band).
Quote:
|
My belief is that albums don't sell any more these days anyway, so there's no reason that FM should think of sales at all when it comes to making this album.
|
But, you didn't make that distinction when you said "record an album without Stevie which won't make money but might fulfill them creatively," which sounds like you're saying that an album without Stevie won't make money because she's not on it.