Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva
For starters, there was too much similarity to Stevie - so it came off like she was a cheap replacement.
|
How so? Other than blonde hair, I don't see any similarity. In fact, I'd say there was more similarity, at least visually, to Christine than Stevie. In terms of voice, it's like comparing Grace Slick to Mavis Staples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva
Secondly, she didn't write her own songs, she doesn't play any instruments - what does she really bring to the band apart from her looks and her voice  |
With the last name "Bramlett," most music fans and insiders were more interested in her singing than anything else. I know when I heard about Bekka on Mick's album, my first question was "any relation to Delaney & Bonnie," and my second was "does she sound like her mother". So, her voice is her primary instrument. (Kind of a weird question. "What does a singer really bring to a rock band, apart from her voice?"
)
Having a chick in the band has been a part of Fleetwood Mac's identity since 1970. With Christine retired from the road and Stevie out of the band, it created the need for another female. So she didn't write songs. Lots of singers don't write their own songs. I don't believe Janis Joplin was a songwriter. I know her most popular songs were penned by others. Yet Stevie fans don't diminish the worth of Janis like they do Bekka.
Where people make the mistake with Bekka is comparing her to Stevie. Christine is a much nicer comparison. Christine was a good keyboardist when she joined, but her singing and songwriting paled in comparison to her later work. She DEVELOPED into the Christine McVie that wrote a butt load of hit songs. If "Future Games" was all we knew of Christine, we'd like her, but wouldn't be utterly in awe/blown away by her, especially when put up against Peter Green just a year and change earlier.