Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jyqm
I realize that math often isn't the strong suit of us poetic types, but this one isn't that hard is it?
2006 - 1997 = 9
9 + 14 = ?
|
insane far beyond your years
I was being sarcastic. But thanks for the lesson, I need to brush up anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jyqm
I'll join chiliD in caring. I love most of the performances on The Dance, but I agree that the implications of Fleetwood Mac being a nostalgia act are still troubling. Being a nostalgia act involves a certain amount of cynicism that I don't really care for, and it's more or less an admittance of, "Well, this is all we've got now. We can't be creative anymore, or rather, we don't care to be, because we can make tons of money simply touring behidn these old warhorses."
On the plus side, they didn't completely turn the corner into nostalgia land. It took them six years, but they did release an album of all-new material that turned out pretty great. Unfortunately, some of the nostalgia-act trappings still remained at the concerts - playing seven Rumours tracks every night (and in most of the same old arrangements), compared to six from Say You Will. Which album were they touring behind again?
|
fair enough. both you and chiliD fail to see my point though. they are not a nostalgia act. that's a label that people who must force everyone into some category places. I ask again, who cares if some people view them as a nostalgia act - I don't agree that they admitted they weren't/aren't creative anymore. It was a reunion, you expect them to pop out with new songs with new arrangements and have everyone asking wtf was that? I don't care if people are cynical or whatever...as long as I enjoy the music (new/old/revamped), that's all that matters. that's my point.
oh, and by the way, last time I checked dictionary.com, behind was not spelled behidn, but you probably already know that.