[QUOTE=newyawka;824105]they are OVER in terms of competing with the artists of today’s standards which makes them IRRELEVANT. All that matters about Fleetwood Mac is their story and the fact that they made great music.
Tusk was irrelevant. The only two Fleetwood Mac albums that are relevant are Fleetwood Mac (1973) and Rumours. Every album after Rumours was completely irrelevant, even though Tusk might be their most creative album to date. Tusk didn’t make as huge of a impact on pop culture which is why I don’t consider it relevant. Actually, I’m wrong. The Dance was also relevant because it was the reunion of the five most popular Fleetwood Mac members.
You've got to be kidding me!!!! Apparently you are totally unaware of "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac", "English Rose", "Then Play On", "Mystery To Me" and "Tango In The Night". All of which were relevant albums at their time, with music that still resonates today. The other albums you mentioned are, of course, relevant and important in the FM history, no need to discuss their importance. From that standpoint you are correct.
You've got to be totally insane to say that FM is irrelevant today. You are comparing modern pop music to classic rock. Try comparing apples and oranges and you'll get the same result. They are not trying to compete with modern pop artists, so your comparison is IRRELEVANT. FM is appealing to their long-standing audience. They don't need to appeal to younger listeners. They have an audience. They don't need to build one. Spears, Lohan, GaGa and all the rest of that pop "shyte" won't last. Spears, Lohan, Gaga and the rest will be minor footnotes in musical history while FM will have their own chapter. None of them have the sustainability that FM has shown. That is undeniable.
Catch a clue.
|