Quote:
Originally Posted by dougl
|
Wow a bit harsh that article is.
Let’s see. What do I agree with? Well yes, I’m one of those who most prefer selected songs to the album as a whole. But though it doesn’t sound like the Fleetwood Mac I expected, I don’t call it a mess. That’s too much. I agree some of the 9 + 9 songs sounds like solo works together, but it is not a mess.
18 tracks too many? For commercial reasons yes, specially for an “old” band releasing an album in 2003. There have been $uccessful double albums like The Wall, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and even phenomenons like Grease and Saturday Night Fever. But look at the years those albums from those old bands are from. A Fleetwood Mac long album (or a double one) was a challenge in 2003 that I don't think was necessary. But as Macfan4life said, we shouldn't judge albums based on sales (I agree, but that has nothing to do with whether or not we liked them).
Ok by 2003 Stevie Nicks wasn't writing songs as good as she did in the 70s to early 80s anymore, but I don't know which ballads are being referred to with “that sound like they were written by your stoned mom who just got back from Neverland”. I laughed at that, I must say. And I’m intrigued if it means the Disney movie island or the MJ ranch.
When I read “The band encountered some difficulties with the sequencing for Say You Will”, I remember threads here from that year where some ledgies suggested a different order to listen to it, affirming “You'll like this album better with this track order”. Yes many didn't like the sequence, or blamed it for their dislike of the album.
I don’t like the title that much but
Say You Will is better than
Strangely Familiar. It could have started theories of What does it mean??? but it would have been like repeating the “rumours” all over again.