Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerMcvie
The McVie's are spineless. I mean, I know they're all 100 now, but jesus, step up to the plate!
They might not have been huge without $tevie, but THEY ALSO WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN HUGE WITHOUT LINDSEY.
|
John McVie, more than any of them, is responsible for their success. On December 31, 1974, Fleetwood Mac was on a major label coming off a Top 40 album. They got signed to that label in 1969 because Fleetwood Mac was one of the top bands in Europe. Fleetwood Mac was one of the top bands in Europe because Peter Green was one of the top blues guitarists in England. Peter became that in the Bluesbreakers, after Eric Clapton had become a guitar god with them and basically invited the Gibson Les Paul through a Marshall amp sound. Prior to that, Clapton was a hot shot guitarist from the Yardbirds, though not yet a god. Clapton joined the Bluesbreakers because they were the blues band with the most potential in England. John McVie was the bassist when this happened. Without John McVie playing for Mayall, there wouldn’t be a Fleetwood Mac on a label for Stevie and Lindsey to join and none of what eventually happened would have been possible. He is literally the foundation of Fleetwood Mac.
John McVie was the bassist of record for the debut/breakout recordings for John Mayall, Eric Clapton, Peter Green, Aynsley Dunbar, Mick Taylor, Mick Fleetwood, Jeremy Spencer, Danny Kirwan, Stevie Nicks, and Lindsey Buckingham. That’s ten artists inducted into the Hall of Fame, two multiple times. Coincidence?
Spineless? No. He just wanted to go on tour and was probably tired of the BS. What gets him the biggest paycheck? Considering all of the vitally important albums he was on, which tour is better for his legacy? The one that’s full of new songs played in theaters built around the eccentricities of one that will probably be discarded by the next tour or the one representative of the entire career that’s played to arenas?