[face of glass]

Originally posted by David
And then there's poor Christine . . . . who always comes in second, or third, or fourth . . . .

Poor Chris. You're the "also-ran" of Fleetwood Mac.

And then what you wrote in the “I miss Christine!” thread:

Christine was never Keith Emerson or Billy Joel. Her keyboards on FM albums didn't occupy a central place like the playing of those guys. In fact, the parts she recorded on most of the songs were generally a subtle addition to the rhythm, not a lavish piano arrangement in the spotlight. Even on "Songbird," you could argue (& I do) that the piano arrangement & performance are a subdued rhythm guitar effect (which helps it blend so nicely with the actual acoustic guitar on the track).

I think that’s the main reason, she doesn’t grab one by the neck and demand the attention, she does her own subtleties in the background. She didn’t take up the most notable space, Buckingham and Nicks did. Lindsey’s parts in Christine’s songs often seem to dominate the non-rhythm section sides of the soundscape.

She is a classy lady, after all. She favoured non-intrusive keyboard tones and rarely had the rawer side of passion in her singing.

My point? Even though Buckingham and Nicks have always had subtleties in their approaches, they also always knew when to let go vocally or guitarwise. That’s something the band hadn’t really had since the Peter Green days (even Bob Welch’s “rawer” material with Paris never sounded that raw to me), this tapping into the unknown depths of one’s psyche.

Hence Chris suffers in popularity and in the passion of the fans but I guess that’s why some people prefer her over the others.

Originally posted by HomerMcvie
Don't forget WHY, the greatest song of all time!

For me it ain’t any better or worse than any of her other songs. It won the Legacy poll with everyone giving it tens only because it’s a good song with strings on it. Surely that makes it the greatest.