Stevie Nicks Says Issues With Lindsey Buckingham Threaten Her Involvement With FM

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, she would have had to wait until after SA was over, which was about 1995 and possibly longer if it had been a success and had she toured Europe. In hindsight, it was not a success.

We're talking about the inauguration in January 1993. She wasn't on tour in 1993. The Street Angel tour didn't start until mid July 1994. Michele

[carol7lynn]

The drama sells tickets and records by keeping everyone all riled-up waiting for the other shoe to drop. Who knows they may be the best of friends "behind the mask."

Personally, most of the songs from SYW were forgetable compared to their (Stevie/Lindsey) solo work. Seems the two would benefit the most from another FWM album/tour would be McVie and Fleetwood not Stevie or Lindsey. But, I do the love drama.

Carol-Lynn
SoCaGalNow

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by michelej1

We're talking about the inauguration in January 1993. She wasn't on tour in 1993. The Street Angel tour didn't start until mid July 1994. Michele

Right, but she was working of SA in 1993 and then into rehab - then the record was released in 1994 and the tour. So, I think she had all that going on which have delayed any reunion until January 1995 or so presuming she would want at least a month or so off after the 1994 SA tour. Unless she was willing to shelve SA altogether and go to the Mac. Interestingly, she likely could have negotiated with Warners to pay for SA as a stipend for her returning to the Mac; they could have used and put their spin on the SA songs Also, she could have agreed to it and LB and the gang could have worked without her in 1993 and 94 - but I think after TITN that was unlikely.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

Huh? Searing? Remind me not to eat steak at your house, pal . . . .

Don't worry, I'll serve you Crow

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Right, but she was working of SA in 1993 and then into rehab.

She wasn't even working on SA yet in January 1993.

Later she commented: At the inauguration, I just realized I wanted it to be back the way it was, or I didn't want to be in it anymore. I couldn't continue to be in a Fleetwood Mac that didn't have Lindsey in it.

When Stevie says today that, but for the Klonopin, there might have been one more good FM album, I think she is saying that if she had been healthier there probably would have been an earlier band reunion than the one that emerged in 1997.


Michele

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by michelej1

... I think she is saying that if she had been healthier there probably would have been an earlier band reunion than the one that emerged in 1997.

Ok, let's get this out of the way.

Fleetwood Mac hasn't been "a band" since 1980. They might have touched on some "band-ness" between 1987-90 and a little bit during the 94/95 tour, but that's it. From '97 onwards, they're just solo artists who USED to be in a band together getting playing subpar music together for the big paycheck. Being a "band" is seemingly the furthest thing from their minds. There's no way that a "band vibe" can be achieved when over 50% of the musicians/singers on stage are card carrying union hired guns.

Sure, Lindsey kind of established a "band" vibe with Brett, Neale & Tako (and later the other guy whose name escapes me at the moment), and Mick has re-established a "band" vibe with Billy & Rick. But, "Fleetwood Mac"??? As a "band", they've been long dead.

LONG LIVE FLEETWOOD MAC!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by michelej1

She wasn't even working on SA yet in January 1993.

Later she commented: At the inauguration, I just realized I wanted it to be back the way it was, or I didn't want to be in it anymore. I couldn't continue to be in a Fleetwood Mac that didn't have Lindsey in it.

When Stevie says today that, but for the Klonopin, there might have been one more good FM album, I think she is saying that if she had been healthier there probably would have been an earlier band reunion than the one that emerged in 1997.


Michele

I believe she had started the process. I mean seemingly she did not hire poducer(s), rent the studio, produce that record, go to rehab for like 47 days, then spend a couple of months trying to redo SA, and then release it for packaging, etc. - all in a year. Who knows though - maybe she did. But, seemingly SA must have been at least in her mind and in its infancy in late Jan. 1993 That is why I think the earliest a FM reunion could have occured was at the beginning of 1995 assuming she was contractually bound to see SA to its fruition. I am not saying it would not have accurred then, but it did not. Rather, the rest of the band around that time (1995 or so) was working with LB in some capacity on GOS and then LB worked with La Nicks on Twisted around then as well.

Here is a quote illustrating generally the timing - the inital record was finished by November 03 - surely she must have been working on it in Jan. 03 - but maybe not though she says it was "in the last two years of the Klonopin --

TONY: What was blocking you?

Stevie: Well, I know what was blocking me. First of all, in the beginning of 1994, I went into rehab to stop taking Klonopin, which I'd been taking for almost eight years. Street Angel was done in the last two years of the Klonopin, when it had really kicked in to the point that it took away my soul and creativity. The record was finished in November; I went into rehab on the 12th of December and got out on the 27th of January. So I listened to the record--I'm off all the drugs--and I knew it was terrible. It had cost a fortune. I tried really hard to fix it, but I couldn't. So I had to go and do interviews for it, just like I'm doing right now, and it was everything I could do not to say to the interviewers, "I hate this record." When I had dinner with Tom, I was having a hard time getting over the Street Angel experience. I was just really sad. That dinner made all the difference. I give Tom all the credit in the world for this record.

http://www.nicksfix.com/interview_ti...ny_apr2001.htm

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Ok, let's get this out of the way.

Fleetwood Mac hasn't been "a band" since 1980. They might have touched on some "band-ness" between 1987-90 and a little bit during the 94/95 tour, but that's it. From '97 onwards, they're just solo artists who USED to be in a band together getting playing subpar music together for the big paycheck. Being a "band" is seemingly the furthest thing from their minds. There's no way that a "band vibe" can be achieved when over 50% of the musicians/singers on stage are card carrying union hired guns.

Sure, Lindsey kind of established a "band" vibe with Brett, Neale & Tako (and later the other guy whose name escapes me at the moment), and Mick has re-established a "band" vibe with Billy & Rick. But, "Fleetwood Mac"??? As a "band", they've been long dead.

LONG LIVE FLEETWOOD MAC!!

When artists get lot of money and fame, the "band vibe" is usually lost. Definitely is not the same vibe like when they are just good fellows playing in dad's garage. When a rock band gets fame and wealth, the band is reinvented and enter more members: managers, lawyers, record company managers, wives or husbands, etc.

Remember Eagles, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. Lot of bands have suffered this kind of metamorphosis. Most of them didn't survive it, but those who did, are converted in a "almost" or "pseudo" band as Chili says. Imho they are still kind of band, but yes most of the essence is missed

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Ok, let's get this out of the way.

Fleetwood Mac hasn't been "a band" since 1980. They might have touched on some "band-ness" between 1987-90 and a little bit during the 94/95 tour, but that's it. From '97 onwards, they're just solo artists who USED to be in a band together getting playing subpar music together for the big paycheck. Being a "band" is seemingly the furthest thing from their minds.

I don't know Chili. You don't think that whatever it took to put the short-lived Dance tour together required band-ness? I mean, what it takes to hammer out the new arrangement for SYLM seems like a band to me. There was a unity there, I thought.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I believe she had started the process. I mean seemingly she did not hire poducer(s), rent the studio, produce that record, go to rehab for like 47 days, then spend a couple of months trying to redo SA, and then release it for packaging, etc. - all in a year.
http://www.nicksfix.com/interview_ti...ny_apr2001.htm

I don't know. When you consider everything she did in 1987, Tango songs, the tour with Petty, and rehab and then Cage, I don't think her 1993 schedule was all that crowded.

Michele

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by michelej1

I don't know Chili. You don't think that whatever it took to put the short-lived Dance tour together required band-ness? I mean, what it takes to hammer out the new arrangement for SYLM seems like a band to me. There was a unity there, I thought.

NO!!! That only lasted a few months. A band is a full-time thing. I won't speake for ChiliD, but I have a hunch his feelings aren't too different from my own. But, by 1997 their careers collectively went down the crapper. Mick, John, and Christine bombed with a new Fleetwood Mac, Lindsey bombed on his first major outing as a solo artist, and Stevie bombed as an established solo artist. Combined, they were lucky to be selling what Bare Trees or Mystery To Me sold prior to 1975! Now, I'm not saying that was the only reason they got back together, I'm just saying so-and-so starts looking less like an areshole when your career is tanking. Except for Christine, who just wanted to retire on a respectable note (mission accomplished).

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by michelej1

. . . I don't know. When you consider everything she did in 1987, Tango songs, the tour with Petty, and rehab and then Cage, I don't think her 1993 schedule was all that crowded.

Michele

True - but then there are these:

USA Today
January 8, 1993

Yesterday's Back For Fleetwood Mac

"President Clinton is trying to reunite the country - bless his heart he is reuniting Fleetwood Mac - and we wouldn't miss it for anything."

That's Stevie Nicks, ex-member of the band whose 1977 hit Don't Stop, penned by Christine McVie, has become Clinton's theme song.

The five who played in Mac during its pop heyday will reunite to play that tune at the Presidential Gala Jan. 19 at the Capital Centre in Landover, Md. (9-11 p.m. ET/PT on CBS).

"We're all excited and very honored," Nicks told USA TODAY. "It makes all 18 years (in the band) worthwhile."

She admits it was tricky getting everyone back together - two years ago Nicks was not speaking to then-band members Lindsey Buckingham and Mick Fleetwood.

"When they asked, it was a very touchy thing, especially getting Lindsey to agree. But I think everyone took a second look at life," she says, "and this is such a great honor. It is very endearing for someone to pick a song of yours as their theme."

Nicks is recuperating from sinus surgery and is in the midst of putting together a new album, but says she'll get on that D.C.-bound plane Jan. 17. "I've never failed (the band) yet. I'll die trying," she says.

Although she says Fleetwood Mac is not rusty -- "We could go onstage tonight. When you're together 18 years, those harmonies are just there" - rehearsals are planned in Los Angeles next week and more in Washington Inaugural week.

"For the president, we'll be the best," Nicks says. "He definitely loves music. I hope we meet him." Maybe she'll see him at Inaugural balls or glitzy parties while she's in town?

"I would love to, but we haven't been invited."

Hmmm. Are you listening Mr. Clinton?

-- Shawn Sell

_______________________________

USA Today
January 25, 1993

Do stop thinking about tomorrow, says Stevie Nicks, eager to dispel rumors Fleetwood Mac's reunion is permanent. Performing at the Presidential Gala "was a magical moment for all of us," says Nicks. "(But) I have no desire for any further active involvement," including the band's scheduled Super Bowl appearance. Would she reconsider? "If the president should call again."
___________________________________________________________

Mick and La Nicks and La Nicks and LB and LB and FM were all so in and out of anger at that time I am rather glad that any talk of a reunion never went past that stage.

Interestingly, during The Dance, Stevie is still aware of the issues because she talks about how she and LB are not really hanging out and that the time on the stage is the time they get to hash it all out, though she did say those efforts on all asides and from everyone made The Dance a pleasant experience overall, esp. the performances, which were great IMO.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Now, I'm not saying that was the only reason they got back together, I'm just saying so-and-so starts looking less like an areshole when your career is tanking. Except for Christine, who just wanted to retire on a respectable note (mission accomplished).

Oh, I don't think desperation was the only motivation. I think there was actually strong sentiment involved, monetary incentive notwithstanding.

Michele

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Oh, I don't think desperation was the only motivation. I think there was actually strong sentiment involved, monetary incentive notwithstanding.

Michele

Me too. I also think that La Nicks and LB's unresolved issues were way in the front of the line for them. I also think they briefly got back together during the tour and it ended badly, hence the song Thrown Down. But, that is just speculation.

[michelej1]

I don't mean to sound naive, but when an audience feels chemistry, I believe that the people emitting it must feel something as well. When Mick says that he doesn't know what his life would have been like without the others, I truly don't think he's just saying that because Rumours sold a zillion records.
I don't think he just says he likes the 1975 line up because that's the one that turned out to be most profitable for him. I think there had to have been, still is, an emotional connection. Fans romanticize it and probably exaggerate it, but I still think it exists at core.

When that Vegas Beatles act opened up, Paul and Ringo went on Larry King and Paul reached out and stroked Ringo's hand to simulate what his last moments with George Harrison had been like and, boy, that small gesture overwhelmed me.

I don't think you can share and survive all that excess, turmoil, anger, drama and triumph with a finite group of others, without a bond forming.

I'm not saying it's a lovey dovey thing. I'm just saying its there, good, bad or indifferent. And it's impenetrable. I believed in The Dance.

Michele

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I agree. The Dance was just something out of a dream. SYW had many moments as well, though they were different than the intensity of The Dance. When La Nicks locked eyes with LB during SG, it gave me chills. Ditto for that Madison Sara clip I posted awhile back. And, that intensity has lasted for the vast majority of the fans for all these years and despite doing it every night in the same basic manner. To me, that is cool. I wonder if they can sustain the love affair on stage now. If history shows anything it is that they can.