Top ten songs featuring names

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

No one ever says that about Stand Back.

No one, but me, I guess. I count "Stand Back" as a Fleetwood Mac song. 1st off due to the same reason as above; but, mainly because I've seen them play it many, many more times than I've seen Stevie with her solo band.

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by chiliD

No one, but me, I guess. I count "Stand Back" as a Fleetwood Mac song. 1st off due to the same reason as above; but, mainly because I've seen them play it many, many more times than I've seen Stevie with her solo band.

I count it too. I was just kidding around because there's another thread where people are complaining that it should not be in the set because it's not a Fleetwood Mac song. I was arguing that having it in there makes as much sense as some of the other choices.

[He's So Unusual]

Originally Posted by chiliD

No one, but me, I guess. I count "Stand Back" as a Fleetwood Mac song. 1st off due to the same reason as above; but, mainly because I've seen them play it many, many more times than I've seen Stevie with her solo band.

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

I count it too. I was just kidding around because there's another thread where people are complaining that it should not be in the set because it's not a Fleetwood Mac song. I was arguing that having it in there makes as much sense as some of the other choices.

You can count Stand Back as a Fleetwood Mac song all you want, but it isn't and never will be, it doesn't matter how many times the band has performed it on tour. The fact remains it's on a Stevie Nicks solo album and was released as a solo single, no member of the band had anything to do with the making of the song. My main problem with the song being continually included in the bands set list is that a) it sounds awful for the most part, and b) it's tired and worn out.

No one counts Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, Sara, Gypsy, Gold Dust Woman, etc. as Stevie solo songs just because she's performed them so often in solo shows.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by He's So Unusual

You can count Stand Back as a Fleetwood Mac song all you want, but it isn't and never will be, it doesn't matter how many times the band has performed it on tour. The fact remains it's on a Stevie Nicks solo album and was released as a solo single, no member of the band had anything to do with the making of the song. My main problem with the song being continually included in the bands set list is that a) it sounds awful for the most part, and b) it's tired and worn out.

No one counts Rhiannon, Dreams, Landslide, Sara, Gypsy, Gold Dust Woman, etc. as Stevie solo songs just because she's performed them so often in solo shows.

OMG, LOGIC!!! Thank you!

And Prince wrote the music! They're stuck in the "it works, so we have to keep doing it" vein. I think fans would die if they'd swap it out with EO17, or SDMHA.

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by He's So Unusual

no member of the band had anything to do with the making of the song.

Well actually, one member did.

Originally Posted by He's So Unusual

My main problem with the song being continually included in the bands set list is that a) it sounds awful for the most part, and b) it's tired and worn out.

Those are fine reasons if that's how you feel, but the point I was making (albeit in another thread) is that it makes no sense to complain about Stand Back not being a Fleetwood Mac song when you never see similar complaints about Go Insane or The Farmer's Daughter.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

Those are fine reasons if that's how you feel, but the point I was making (albeit in another thread) is that it makes no sense to complain about Stand Back not being a Fleetwood Mac song when you never see similar complaints about Go Insane or The Farmer's Daughter.

There were plenty of complaints about Go Insane back when it was being performed by FM, which it hasn't in years. Why would people still be complaining about that now? But yes people complained when it was being performed, especially when Lindsey was doing Sardonic World too. People were having nervous breakdowns.

As far as it having been a long time ago, that could also be said about Farmer's Daughter, but it assimilates into the FM sound better than Stand Back does and it's also part of their history and the band makes it their own with their harmonies. I also think fans appreciate what they're paying homage to.

I didn't complain about I Need to Know being in Stevie's set list for the same reason. It was always there, so I just shrugged and I know she wanted to honor TP. But I have complained and will continue to complain about Rock and Roll being in her set list until I die. All non-FM songs are not equal and there would be no reason for people to make the same argument about all of the songs.

Stand Back doesn't sound like FM and FM doesn't try to make it sound like them either. They adopt Farmer's Daughter and incorporate it into their style. They don't do that with Stand Back and it retains its "sore thumb" status.

I want SB in the setlist. I think the energy is needed. They play it as part of a trio fireball and I think that trio is the highpoint of the concert. So, I see why they keep it, but I don't wonder why others don't think it belongs. I see what they mean, because of the way it sounds. I don't think EFO sounds like them either and I'd be thrilled to have it in the setlist as well.

Michele

[AliceLover]

Originally Posted by michelej1

There were plenty of complaints about Go Insane back when it was being performed by FM, which it hasn't in years. Why would people still be complaining about that now? But yes people complained when it was being performed, especially when Lindsey was doing Sardonic World too. People were having nervous breakdowns.

As far as it having been a long time ago, that could also be said about Farmer's Daughter, but it assimilates into the FM sound better than Stand Back does and it's also part of their history and the band makes it their own with their harmonies. I also think fans appreciate what they're paying homage to.

I didn't complain about I Need to Know being in Stevie's set list for the same reason. It was always there, so I just shrugged and I know she wanted to honor TP. But I have complained and will continue to complain about Rock and Roll being in her set list until I die. All non-FM songs are not equal and there would be no reason for people to make the same argument about all of the songs.

Stand Back doesn't sound like FM and FM doesn't try to make it sound like them either. They adopt Farmer's Daughter and incorporate it into their style. They don't do that with Stand Back and it retains its "sore thumb" status.

I want SB in the setlist. I think the energy is needed. They play it as part of a trio fireball and I think that trio is the highpoint of the concert. So, I see why they keep it, but I don't wonder why others don't think it belongs. I see what they mean, because of the way it sounds. I don't think EFO sounds like them either and I'd be thrilled to have it in the setlist as well.

Michele

If they are going to do Stand Back like they did on the Say You Will Tour, fine. She SOARED on that song, literally. Flying across the stage and the tempo was MUCH higher. But they slowed it down too much in 09' and '13...

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by michelej1

As far as it having been a long time ago, that could also be said about Farmer's Daughter, but it assimilates into the FM sound better than Stand Back does and it's also part of their history and the band makes it their own with their harmonies.

Why is one part of their history and not the other? Just because, in some people's opinion, they do one of them better?

Originally Posted by michelej1

I didn't complain about I Need to Know being in Stevie's set list for the same reason. It was always there, so I just shrugged and I know she wanted to honor TP. But I have complained and will continue to complain about Rock and Roll being in her set list until I die. All non-FM songs are not equal and there would be no reason for people to make the same argument about all of the songs.

Exactly. You've got reasons that have more substance than simply, "it's not a Stevie solo song." Otherwise, both covers would upset you equally. I can appreciate people saying Stand Back has been done too much, or that she doesn't sing it well anymore, or (in your case) that it doesn't sound like FM, or even simply that it sucks. But "because it's not a Fleetwood Mac song" never seems like the real reason to me.

Originally Posted by michelej1

I want SB in the setlist. I think the energy is needed. They play it as part of a trio fireball and I think that trio is the highpoint of the concert. So, I see why they keep it, but I don't wonder why others don't think it belongs. I see what they mean, because of the way it sounds. I don't think EFO sounds like them either and I'd be thrilled to have it in the setlist as well.

In my mind, "it doesn't sound like Fleetwood Mac" and "it's not a Fleetwood Mac song" are not the same argument. You have expressed the former; other people only the latter. Stevie, Chris, and Lindsey all have solo material that sounds like Fleetwood Mac. Should those songs be brought into the set? I think how people would answer that question depends on what it really is that irks them about Stand Back.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

Why is one part of their history and not the other? Just because, in some people's opinion, they do one of them better?

It's been done a long time. That's not the same as it being part of their history like Blue Letter and Farmer's Daughter are. I don't know, but I bet people complained about it a lot less when it was added for the Cage tour than they did starting in 1997 and that's because rightly or wrongly, people didn't have the same expectations of what FM was in those intervening years. They didn't define it the same way.

Michele

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

Why is one part of their history and not the other? Just because, in some people's opinion, they do one of them better?



Exactly. You've got reasons that have more substance than simply, "it's not a Stevie solo song." Otherwise, both covers would upset you equally. I can appreciate people saying Stand Back has been done too much, or that she doesn't sing it well anymore, or (in your case) that it doesn't sound like FM, or even simply that it sucks. But "because it's not a Fleetwood Mac song" never seems like the real reason to me.



In my mind, "it doesn't sound like Fleetwood Mac" and "it's not a Fleetwood Mac song" are not the same argument. You have expressed the former; other people only the latter. Stevie, Chris, and Lindsey all have solo material that sounds like Fleetwood Mac. Should those songs be brought into the set? I think how people would answer that question depends on what it really is that irks them about Stand Back.

My argument falls in the former. That particular song was one of the biggest hits in Stevie's solo catalog; a song that strongly identifies her solo career. I understand the mindset that it adds a lot of energy to their shows; there's no denying that. But there are so many other choices. I welcome solo songs/cover songs in their set. Give the song a rest. Yet Stand Back has become Fleetwood Mac song by proxy, ever since it appeared on The Chain, Fleetwood Mac's box set. Now it's a staple in their set. Oh Well.