Quote:
Originally Posted by michelej1
It's not that the world is waiting for it, but the media loves to hype this sort of thing and a reunion involving Christine would get more publicity than . . . Harold Camping.
I think it would sell more, just because more people would be aware of it, due to the increased media attention. It would get that little extra push and coverage boost that SYW and Unleashed outings did not.
|
But you guys are changing the rules before the game is over. I expect you're right that a studio project with all five fireflies would sell "more" than otherwise; but my assertion was that the addition of Christine wouldn't turn the project into a multimillion seller (like "The Dance").
I also disagree with DallasDude that the situation in 1987 was comparable in any substantial way. The Mac's album was about two years in the making (or at least in the news), & nobody really doubted that, when it was finally released, it would sell big. "Tango" didn't surprise anyone on the commercial front. Had the album sold like "Say You Will" (under a million), THAT would have been the surprise. The commercial aura surrounding the band in 1987 was still very potent. They weren't just considered a hot touring commodity. They were still considered a powerhouse in the record stores.
The reason for my original comment was to disagree with what seemed a widespread view here that, if all five were to record, it would be a huge commercial splash. I just don't think it would be. That's why I said, somewhat facetiously, that the world wasn't exactly waiting for Christine McVie to rejoin the Fleetwood Mac fold.
I find myself thinking about why "The Dance" hit so big. It was good stuff, to be sure, but it wasn't the Fleetwood Mac Hour, the way it was for "Rumours." So what explains it? The Eagles project a few years earlier on MTV may have paved the way, greased expectations. I also think something else was in the air: Fleetwood Mac's catalog was newly undergoing its renaissance, with Billy Corgan & Courtney Love & some other hot rockers talking about the band in very respectful terms. Also, Stevie Nicks herself hadn't been saturating the market. She hadn't toured in 1997, 1996, or 1995, & her tour in 1994 was short & ill-attended. The aura of rejuvenation was in the air, swirling all about the band. Even the talk about the drugs & the in-fighting (remember the cover of Rolling Stone?) was pretty new in 1997. Nowadays, of course, we can't pick up a newspaper or a magazine article without reading the same crap about the drugs. But back then, it was new -- or at least a lot newer. (Mick broke a lot of the awareness of the drug use in 1990.)
These days, it's different. The band has already had its classic American lineup renaissance. It's already done its new studio album. It's already had its big world tours. Stevie Nicks has been on the road every year, & everybody knows what she looks like from TV--she's everywhere. There's no more sense of today's rockers rediscovering Fleetwood Mac. They've been rediscovered already, & even their musician supporters have moved on, as you would expect them to.
People just aren't pumped for another Fleetwood Mac explosion anymore. Even the inevitable marketing for a fireflies lineup project won't generate that kind of gaga.