How legendary is Fleetwood Mac?

[Villavic]

Not sure of using the word legendary, or iconic, or popular, timeless, unforgetable...

My point is.. every time I visit music stores, or those rock or music bands t-shirts, I always find lot of t-shirts of.. Pink Floyd, Elvis, Beatles, Rolling Stones. A few more depending on what city (in NYC.. John Lennon, in LA.. Jim Morrison or Doors). Sometimes Janis, Madonna, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Michael Jackson.

But never.. never.. Fleetwood Mac. Why there is never Fleetwood Mac merchandise? Is Fleetwood Mac a not-enough legendary to be part of the icons and rock culture? If Mick is that money-lover they say, and controls licensing, why he has not impulsed FM t-shirts and merchandise? Not sure if the bands receive revenue for those t-shirts I mention (I don't think they are the "official" merchandise) but anyway it's a good way to promote the band and its music (and records, dvds, i-tunes, whatever).

Beyond the commercial issue, I don't know why Fleetwood Mac is not considered a legendary band as the others I've mentioned. If Rumours was that record sales. If Tusk was that innovative. If Stevie Nicks was that 70s goddess. Why it was that forgotten? Or ignored? Surely most of today's teens have no idea who the hell is Fleetwood Mac, but probably they know who were the Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd. Or even The Police.

Most of cities I remember where i found those t-shirts store are from the US, but also I visited in London and Amsterdam during the 90s.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by Villavic

Not sure of using the word legendary, or iconic, or popular, timeless, unforgetable...

My point is.. every time I visit music stores, or those rock or music bands t-shirts, I always find lot of t-shirts of.. Pink Floyd, Elvis, Beatles, Rolling Stones. A few more depending on what city (in NYC.. John Lennon, in LA.. Jim Morrison or Doors). Sometimes Janis, Madonna, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Michael Jackson.

But never.. never.. Fleetwood Mac. Why there is never Fleetwood Mac merchandise? Is Fleetwood Mac a not-enough legendary to be part of the icons and rock culture? If Mick is that money-lover they say, and controls licensing, why he has not impulsed FM t-shirts and merchandise? Not sure if the bands receive revenue for those t-shirts I mention (I don't think they are the "official" merchandise) but anyway it's a good way to promote the band and its music (and records, dvds, i-tunes, whatever).

Beyond the commercial issue, I don't know why Fleetwood Mac is not considered a legendary band as the others I've mentioned. If Rumours was that record sales. If Tusk was that innovative. If Stevie Nicks was that 70s goddess. Why it was that forgotten? Or ignored? Surely most of today's teens have no idea who the hell is Fleetwood Mac, but probably they know who were the Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd. Or even The Police.

Most of cities I remember where i found those t-shirts store are from the US, but also I visited in London and Amsterdam during the 90s.

I do believe Mick generally best answered your questions recently in that now infamous March Playboy interview, where he asserts Fleetwood Mac "are the worst-run franchise in the rock-and-roll business."

http://nickslive.blogspot.com/2012/0...g-playboy.html

[HejiraNYC]

I think this raises a more general, philosophical question: what makes someone a legend in general? I think there a number of possible scenarios:

1. They were bold and beautiful but lived fast and died young. Hence, the fascination with Marilyn Monroe, Steve McQueen, Jim Morrison, James Dean, etc. I suppose Elvis may fit the bill technically, but it's hard to say since he died a bit past his prime. That being said, if Elvis was still alive today, I wonder if he would have spawned so many imitators in Las Vegas. Would he be regarded just like any other oldies artist, e.g., Paul Anka, Frankie Valli, Chuck Berry, etc.?

2. They were mavericks in their respective fields and they inspired legions. Einstein comes to mind. The Beatles, Kurt Cobain, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan... even Madonna, who singularly invented the dance pop diva archetype now copied by the likes of Gaga, Katy Perry, Kylie Minogue, Rhianna, etc.

3. They were beautiful rebels. Che Guevara was an ardent socialist. James Dean played one and dressed like one. Bob Marley was the symbol of stoner culture. Punk music spawned lots of beautiful rebels, namely Sid Vicious, Deborah Harry, etc. Led Zeppelin was not exactly counterculture, but their shameless, high-flying excesses are the stuff of legend. Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones were the bad boy answer to The Beatles. And in a way they (as well as Zeppelin) kinda thumbed their noses at the British invasion sound by going on a deep dive through the black Americana of the deep south. David Bowie was the pioneer of glam rock and did not shy from putting all of his eccentricities on display.


Now, back to the topic at hand. What about Fleetwood Mac? They were none of the above. The fab five are all alive and well. Although they created some of the best rock music ever, none of it was particularly original. Unique, yes, but not original. And it's debatable whether Fleetwood Mac has had a direct musical influence on anyone. Yes, there are legions of rock stars who love FM, but it's difficult to actually hear it manifested in their music, much like one could listen to an Oasis album and hear lots of (not so subtle) Beatles references. And finally, they were as far from "rebels" as one could get. They were wearing bell bottoms, floral prints, waistcoats and chiffon while their contemporaries were wearing denim, leather and safety pins. Even Tusk is arguably the most contemporary album they have ever made when you consider that punk started peaking in the American mainstream in the late seventies; the Village People were also going in a New Wave direction at that time

Fleetwood Mac occupies that strange in-between space occupied by Steely Dan, The Eagles, The Mamas and the Papas, Heart, Jackson Browne, Carly Simon, James Taylor, Crosby Stills and Nash, and other (mostly) American artists who made their mark by dressing like adults and playing adult music for adults. Of them, one could argue that Steely Dan was the most subversively snarky and counterculture band ever, but their ruse was too subtle and got lost amid the perfect gloss of their jazz fusion rock. But none of these artists were ever featured in the pages of Teen Beat magazine or were adored by the teeny bopper set. They didn't burn with the flame of angry youth. Despite their various personal turmoils and interpersonal problems, they made beautiful, heartfelt music that occasionally rocked hard and made you want to sing along.

As such, I am not sure if Fleetwood Mac could be considered "legendary."

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I think this raises a more general, philosophical question: what makes someone a legend in general? I think there a number of possible scenarios:

1. They were bold and beautiful but lived fast and died young. Hence, the fascination with Marilyn Monroe, Steve McQueen, Jim Morrison, James Dean, etc. I suppose Elvis may fit the bill technically, but it's hard to say since he died a bit past his prime. That being said, if Elvis was still alive today, I wonder if he would have spawned so many imitators in Las Vegas. Would he be regarded just like any other oldies artist, e.g., Paul Anka, Frankie Valli, Chuck Berry, etc.?

2. They were mavericks in their respective fields and they inspired legions. Einstein comes to mind. The Beatles, Kurt Cobain, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan... even Madonna, who singularly invented the dance pop diva archetype now copied by the likes of Gaga, Katy Perry, Kylie Minogue, Rhianna, etc.

3. They were beautiful rebels. Che Guevara was an ardent socialist. James Dean played one and dressed like one. Bob Marley was the symbol of stoner culture. Punk music spawned lots of beautiful rebels, namely Sid Vicious, Deborah Harry, etc. Led Zeppelin was not exactly counterculture, but their shameless, high-flying excesses are the stuff of legend. Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones were the bad boy answer to The Beatles. And in a way they (as well as Zeppelin) kinda thumbed their noses at the British invasion sound by going on a deep dive through the black Americana of the deep south. David Bowie was the pioneer of glam rock and did not shy from putting all of his eccentricities on display.


Now, back to the topic at hand. What about Fleetwood Mac? They were none of the above. The fab five are all alive and well. Although they created some of the best rock music ever, none of it was particularly original. Unique, yes, but not original. And it's debatable whether Fleetwood Mac has had a direct musical influence on anyone. Yes, there are legions of rock stars who love FM, but it's difficult to actually hear it manifested in their music, much like one could listen to an Oasis album and hear lots of (not so subtle) Beatles references. And finally, they were as far from "rebels" as one could get. They were wearing bell bottoms, floral prints, waistcoats and chiffon while their contemporaries were wearing denim, leather and safety pins. Even Tusk is arguably the most contemporary album they have ever made when you consider that punk started peaking in the American mainstream in the late seventies; the Village People were also going in a New Wave direction at that time

Fleetwood Mac occupies that strange in-between space occupied by Steely Dan, The Eagles, The Mamas and the Papas, Heart, Jackson Browne, Carly Simon, James Taylor, Crosby Stills and Nash, and other (mostly) American artists who made their mark by dressing like adults and playing adult music for adults. Of them, one could argue that Steely Dan was the most subversively snarky and counterculture band ever, but their ruse was too subtle and got lost amid the perfect gloss of their jazz fusion rock. But none of these artists were ever featured in the pages of Teen Beat magazine or were adored by the teeny bopper set. They didn't burn with the flame of angry youth. Despite their various personal turmoils and interpersonal problems, they made beautiful, heartfelt music that occasionally rocked hard and made you want to sing along.

As such, I am not sure if Fleetwood Mac could be considered "legendary."

Hold up! Though I think you make some astute pop culture observations, Where I disagree with you is Fleetwood Mac were never as homogeneous as the group of "in between" bands you compare them with, more exemplified in their personality. FM, even while being mostly considered soft rock on record & radio, are eccentric! As Stevie famously used to say before they all descended on stage, that they looked & dressed like they were going to different parties. Fleetwood Mac were an oddball serendipitous accident featuring extremes on the creative AND personality spectrum!

And there can be no doubt that "Rumours" alone is "legendary"! While Stevie, in her own inimitable way, accidentally perfected the cult of personality, which has inspired everyone from fashion designers who name check her with regularity over the last 20 yrs, to Courtney Love, Florence & The Machine, etc., to the yearly pilgrimage of Night Of A Thousand Stevies. Who else has such a ridiculously fervent event (NOTS), or influence over such a wide array of artists?? Doesn't matter if you can hear or see it directly. It's alive and it exists. Call it the agnostic FM effect/influence. Because nobody on your "in between" list is cited or name checked as often as Fleetwood Mac or Stevie Nicks.

Yes, we can think this to death, but imo Fleetwood Mac AND Stevie Nicks are indeed legendary. They just have never been good at marketing and merchandising their unique brand (for better or worse) to the masses. I agree with Mick on that front that FM is indeed one of the worst run franchises in rock-and-roll.

[BombaySapphire3]

I think that one thing that Fleetwood Mac did not share with some of the other bands the OP mentioned like Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones is a consistency of true classic albums over a long period of time.The band had three albums of their classic lineup before their chemistry fragmented.I understand that there were good albums before and after the 'white ' album Rumours and Tusk .I would also include Bella Donna in that rarified group .Here in the states the great Peter Green singles barely registered while Mirage and the inernational smash Tango were able to recapture some of the shimmer of the 1975-1979 trinity the band's fragile chemistry that made those three albums one of the greatest 8 sides of vinyl in rock history had fragmented.Tusk IMHO their greatest artistic triumph was the sound of the splintering of that chemistry.I always wonder what could have been if the band had held it together and made a few more albums without the solo album turkey shoot that prematurely sapped their creativity as a unit.

[On Ice]

I think you nailed it Bombay....it is difficult to consider the Mac in the league of the Stones, Floyd and Zep when we're only talking about essentially two ground breaking records. Keeping in mind that the triumphant Tusk was considered a "failure" at the time. That said, Tusk does reverberate in the sound of some of the new bands out there. Sadly, the band most definitely lost its chemistry after Tusk. To me, that can be chalked up to too much time on the road, too much time together and too many drugs. Had that been scaled back a bit, I believe we would have seen at least two more albums in the calibre of Rumours and Tusk. The early 80's was also an awkward time for producing great music, many bands lost their direction a bit in that period and despite Mirage's high points, it's hardly a classic. Tango in the Night did not have the band's chemistry in tact when its strongest link, Nicks, fell flat with low quality material and poor performances. I think if we had a few pre-White albums that had been monster sellers, then the Mac would be in the Floyd category. Certainly Mystery to Me, Bare Trees and Then Play On are all high quality albums, but they weren't commercial successes, hence the difficulty in keeping the band up there.

[wetcamelfood]

As the 80s started it seemed like the labels were pressuring band members (of many groups, not just FM) to go solo because they thought having 5 solo albums = more sales for them instead of one selling album. Funny how when that didn't work out the way they hoped then in the 90s they seemed to want bands to do the reuinion thing. So this could play a part of that timing as well.

John

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I think that one thing that Fleetwood Mac did not share with some of the other bands the OP mentioned like Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones is a consistency of true classic albums over a long period of time.The band had three albums of their classic lineup before their chemistry fragmented.I understand that there were good albums before and after the 'white ' album Rumours and Tusk .I would also include Bella Donna in that rarified group .Here in the states the great Peter Green singles barely registered while Mirage and the inernational smash Tango were able to recapture some of the shimmer of the 1975-1979 trinity the band's fragile chemistry that made those three albums one of the greatest 8 sides of vinyl in rock history had fragmented.Tusk IMHO their greatest artistic triumph was the sound of the splintering of that chemistry.I always wonder what could have been if the band had held it together and made a few more albums without the solo album turkey shoot that prematurely sapped their creativity as a unit.

I think there's a lot to be said about this analysis. Mirage, Tango, and Say You Will are all very good pop-rock records with glimmers here and there of the Mac chemistry....but you're right that they aren't the solid wall-to-wall Mac brilliance that was Fleetwood Mac/Rumours/Tusk.

I think what shattered them was the reaction to Tusk. When the album sold "only" a few million and the recriminations started, I think Buckingham was hurt by the recriminations, Nicks was peeved that the weirdness of Tusk threw off the fans, Fleetwood thought Buckingham's songs "went too far", and who knows what the McVie's thought. Then Bella Donna comes out, sells better than Tusk, and it becomes the band vs. Nicks.

So you go into Mirage with tension between the band and Nicks and with Buckingham reacting to getting "spanked" over the reception of Tusk. That probably explains a lot of why Mirage wasn't as artistically "sharp" as the previous three albums.

By the time of Tango Nicks was reeling from years of drug dependency and for the first time on a Mac album her contributions suffered. If she'd been up to her usual par, I think Tango could have been a fourth "super Mac" album.

Mask suffered from no Buckingham, and Time suffered from no Buckingham or Nicks. Say You Will is a very good album but basically seems to like two solo albums put together, and McVie's bridging and soothing presence is definitely missed.

It would be wonderful to see the five of them come back together with a sense of basically "starting over" artistically and see what they could pull off. Not likely to happen, but it's a nice thought.