Sacramento Concert Cancelled

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by Nico

I know it seems dubious otherwise, but how are we so certain that it is in fact Stevie who is ill?

1) She sounded like crap in Vancouver and Tacoma.

2) They dropped "Silver Springs," arguably the most difficult song to sing in the set.

3) Anecdotal audience reports that her speaking voice was "off."

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by Somajoseph

That's really pushing it, isnt it? I've been a fan for 34 years and I dont share that opinion. Sure I've seen some shows which in hindsight were really disappointments-Stevie at Shoreline in 89-but I never walked away unhappy that I had gone.
We all feel the lows & for those of you waiting for the energy of earlier tours, say 82 and before, it dosent exist. It is what it is, and actually, for where they are, agewise, I think they are doing great.
It's a different band now-without Christine-Stevie seems to fall back as a support to Lindsey instead of displaying the fire she did say in 82, during the Mirage tour. I mean, they have taken some chances. Did we ever really think they would do "Storms", no matter what it comes across like today? For me, the vocal on the Lp can never be topped, but I am glad they are taking a stab at it anyhow.
They are not perfect, but I am glad they are there. If I wasnt going I wouldnt be posting endlessly bumming the people out who do chooose to go.

I do not have the unrealistic expectation of ever seeing her perform with the energy she had when she was in her twenties and early thirties,I am happy that I had the chance to witness it live then.As mentioned in other post this will be the first tour with the exception of Time I will be sitting out in over 30 years and that is because the tour is for no other logical reason than to make $$$..With the exception of the brief "Safari " stadium tour in the summer of 1978 when has Fleetwood Mac ever toured without an album to promote?The band has lowered themselves to the grasping ,mercenary depths of the Eagles for this tour.You're entitled to your opinion and I mine and as for my "endless" posting I can post as much as I like as long as I abide by the forum rules.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by GypsyJas

But honestly, I truly doubt that anyone in Fleetwood Mac or their management would allow a band member to just flippantly decide hours before the show that they don't feel good enough to play. I would predict that someone...oh I dunno, let's just say Stevie....would have to be evaluated by several doctors who are able to make that judgement call, and maybe that's why the cancellations are always last minute. There's too much money on the line for such a major tour; there has to be some serious due process for the band to cancel a show due to illness. I highly doubt it could be anything too trivial like "just not wanting to be there."

If Stevie (or any member of FM, for that matter) said she doesn't want to/can't perform, the show(s) in question would be canceled/postponed. Its not like there's a vetting process that's needed to validate claims/feelings.

Live Nation might be pissed, but ultimately (in light of their long term/far reaching agreement) needs to accept it as reality.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I do not have the unrealistic expectation of ever seeing her perform with the energy she had when she was in her twenties and early thirties,I am happy that I had the chance to witness it live then.As mentioned in other post this will be the first tour with the exception of Time I will be sitting out in over 30 years and that is because the tour is for no other logical reason than to make $$$..With the exception of the brief "Safari " stadium tour in the summer of 1978 when has Fleetwood Mac ever toured without an album to promote?The band has lowered themselves to the grasping ,mercenary depths of the Eagles for this tour.You're entitled to your opinion and I mine and as for my "endless" posting I can post as much as I like as long as I abide by the forum rules.

Honestly, I don't know why we aren't allowed to expect the same performance levels out of Stevie as she did in the early 80s. Let's look at it this way: Lindsey is 60, in Fleetwood Mac, actually plays an INSTRUMENT, has a family and young children to take care of, and he's performing at twice the energy level and intensity as he did 30 years ago. Stevie is also 60, in Fleetwood Mac, plays no instrument, has no family or children to take care of, and yet we're supposed to put her on her own lowered expectations scale? I just don't think that's ok at all. I love her guys (she's why I'm here), but she needs to lose the attitude, entitlement, and get her game back on. I mean, Ann Wilson is also a woman about her age, she's been in the business about as long, she's had weight and health battles too, she is a single mother of young children, yet she totally rocks out and belts vocals like she's in her 20s, with gratitude and a smile. I just want Stevie to be happy again, for her to be comfortable in her skin, and to enjoy being in the band the way that the rest of the Macsters are these days. It's really not too much to ask at all...

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Honestly, I don't know why we aren't allowed to expect the same performance levels out of Stevie as she did in the early 80s. Let's look at it this way: Lindsey is 60, in Fleetwood Mac, actually plays an INSTRUMENT, has a family and young children to take care of, and he's performing at twice the energy level and intensity as he did 30 years ago. Stevie is also 60, in Fleetwood Mac, plays no instrument, has no family or children to take care of, and yet we're supposed to put her on her own lowered expectations scale? I just don't think that's ok at all. I love her guys (she's why I'm here), but she needs to lose the attitude, entitlement, and get her game back on. I mean, Ann Wilson is also a woman about her age, she's been in the business about as long, she's had weight and health battles too, she is a single mother of young children, yet she totally rocks out and belts vocals like she's in her 20s, with gratitude and a smile. I just want Stevie to be happy again, for her to be comfortable in her skin, and to enjoy being in the band the way that the rest of the Macsters are these days. It's really not too much to ask at all...

Well admittedly La Nicks did have a little help back then other than just youth.I agree with the rest of your post.She just does not seem happy or grateful to be performing on this tour.I believe she can still put some of the old energy into a performance when she feels like it as in her recent,wonderful take on Red River Valley but when she is not so inspired to do so it is a disappointing thing to witness.

[Somajoseph]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Honestly, I don't know why we aren't allowed to expect the same performance levels out of Stevie as she did in the early 80s. Let's look at it this way: Lindsey is 60, in Fleetwood Mac, actually plays an INSTRUMENT, has a family and young children to take care of, and he's performing at twice the energy level and intensity as he did 30 years ago. Stevie is also 60, in Fleetwood Mac, plays no instrument, has no family or children to take care of, and yet we're supposed to put her on her own lowered expectations scale? I just don't think that's ok at all. I love her guys (she's why I'm here), but she needs to lose the attitude, entitlement, and get her game back on. I mean, Ann Wilson is also a woman about her age, she's been in the business about as long, she's had weight and health battles too, she is a single mother of young children, yet she totally rocks out and belts vocals like she's in her 20s, with gratitude and a smile. I just want Stevie to be happy again, for her to be comfortable in her skin, and to enjoy being in the band the way that the rest of the Macsters are these days. It's really not too much to ask at all...

Ok, You got me thinking with this one-lol, I love Ann Wilson & Heart! I agree that she does still rock out. And she does it with authority. I dont compare Ann & Stevie because really, for the most part Ann has kept her voice, but sadly Stevie has lost her voice.
I loved Stevie's voice in the 70's, it was a fascinating instrument. And by the time it deepened, around Tusk, I still thought it was great. For whatever reason, that voice is gone for the most part. Listening to her now is like a study in control. She is doing the best she can to preserve her voice & pull off a 2 1/2 hour show. I sincerely dont think it's about attitude simply because I am convinced Stevie is a lovely gracious lady.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Honestly, I don't know why we aren't allowed to expect the same performance levels out of Stevie as she did in the early 80s. Let's look at it this way: Lindsey is 60, in Fleetwood Mac, actually plays an INSTRUMENT, has a family and young children to take care of, and he's performing at twice the energy level and intensity as he did 30 years ago. Stevie is also 60, in Fleetwood Mac, plays no instrument, has no family or children to take care of, and yet we're supposed to put her on her own lowered expectations scale? I just don't think that's ok at all. I love her guys (she's why I'm here), but she needs to lose the attitude, entitlement, and get her game back on. I mean, Ann Wilson is also a woman about her age, she's been in the business about as long, she's had weight and health battles too, she is a single mother of young children, yet she totally rocks out and belts vocals like she's in her 20s, with gratitude and a smile. I just want Stevie to be happy again, for her to be comfortable in her skin, and to enjoy being in the band the way that the rest of the Macsters are these days. It's really not too much to ask at all...

Word.

Whatever's bothering Stevie, she's felt this way since before the tour started. (I'm not referring to the cold/whatever she has... but her limp, and blatantly obvious disinterested attitude towards the tour) She's more than content to do the shows & pick up the check despite her mindset/condition/attitude.

Is she entitled to do so? Of course.

Do fans have the right to call her on it? Absolutely.

[DavidMn]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they didnt just postpone Vancouver and Tacoma and not play until they knew whoever was ill was well enough to perform. In 2004, they cancelled a show in Bristow VA, then played Mansfield and Holmdel. I was at that Holmdel show, and I thought Stevie sounded terrible. Well, what hapened after that? About a week and a half's worth of shows were either re-arranged or cancelled. These California shows are going to be some of the most lucrative on the tour I would assume. To jeapordize that by attempting to play Van/Tac makes absolutely no sense to me.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they didnt just postpone Vancouver and Tacoma and not play until they knew whoever was ill was well enough to perform. In 2004, they cancelled a show in Bristow VA, then played Mansfield and Holmdel. I was at that Holmdel show, and I thought Stevie sounded terrible. Well, what hapened after that? About a week and a half's worth of shows were either re-arranged or cancelled. These California shows are going to be some of the most lucrative on the tour I would assume. To jeapordize that by attempting to play Van/Tac makes absolutely no sense to me.

There have been questionable times in the past where Stevie likely should not have played while sick (as anyone who saw TISL/Santa Barbara will tell you). Vancouver was basically the most commercially successful show on the tour thus far. But, Tacoma... not so much. Tacoma was a bit more difficult, as they would have had to cancel it the day of the show (assuming they played Vancouver), and couldn't have rescheduled it at the same venue (poor ticket sales showed it was a bad booking).

Depending on what they do in regards to Europe, the Calgary/Edmonton/Sacramento shows (and whatever else might be postponed) will get rescheduled, along with a few extras to make it worth their while (Portland, Boise, maybe Reno or Spokane) for a week of gigs at some point.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Well admittedly La Nicks did have a little help back then other than just youth.I agree with the rest of your post.She just does not seem happy or grateful to be performing on this tour.I believe she can still put some of the old energy into a performance when she feels like it as in her recent,wonderful take on Red River Valley but when she is not so inspired to do so it is a disappointing thing to witness.

Good point! . I have no doubt a big chunk of Stevie's confidence and stage prowess from 1977-1982 was coke fueled. She's said herself that it was terrifying going back on stage drug free. Though you could just as easily argue that Lindsey was a cokehead during that same 1977-1982 period too. And you'd think with him being a pothead these days, that his energy level would be way lower than Stevie's. But again, not the case!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Honestly, I don't know why we aren't allowed to expect the same performance levels out of Stevie as she did in the early 80s....

While you make some good points, I have to say that I don't think comparing Stevie to Lindsey or Ann Wilson, or anyone, is really fair. We all age differently and have varying energy levels. There's also a difference in the wear & tear on individual bodies. I know people in their 50s and 60s who could run circles around folks who are 10-20 years younger than they are -- that doesn't mean I expect everyone their age to be as energetic.

I'm not convinced that Stevie is "unhappy" or "uninspired" on this tour, or demonstrating some sense of entitlement.

I'd like to share a quote from a review....

Despite the commercial success Stevie Nicks has helped bring Fleetwood Mac, the band is better off in concert when she shuts her mouth and whirls around the stage. Nicks sounded consistently weak vocally and apparently uninterested in the old material. Whole sections of the show, especially the one starting with "Dreams," were ruined by her lackluster vocals.

Nicks sang like she meant it only on one song the group played, leading one to suspect her poor performance was due to boredom than ineptness.

Based on those familiar-sounding criticisms, one might automatically assume they'd just read a quote from a recent review -- but it was actually published 31 years ago, in Rolling Stone. I purposely omitted the name of that "one song" (which was "Sisters Of The Moon"), to avoid time-stamping it.

So if Stevie was being accused of boredom and disinterest all the way back in 1978, during a time that fans treat as the "golden age" of her career, then perhaps she isn't really miserable up there on stage with the band in 2009 at all. Maybe it has more to do with Stevie's inconsistency as a live performer (when she's feeling fine, the show is great -- when she's tired or uncomfortable, the performance isn't too hot). Which itself could have a lot to do with the pacing of FM's tours as opposed to her solo tours, where she tends to get more days off in between shows.

Also, some of it could be due to the perceptions and expectations of the audience members. I went back this evening to that "Horrific Schedule" thread, and saw your reply to me, where you mentioned that you thought she was terrific when you saw her early on during the 2003 tour. Meanwhile, I clearly recall other people seeing shows around that same time, and issuing complaints similar to the above.

As is par for the course, not only do Stevie's performances on this tour seem to vary from night (and even song to song), but the fans also have wildly different opinions of whether or not she put on a great show.

"Nothing ever changes -- no, it doesn't."

[BTFLCHLD]

yummy vancouver
healthy as a horse

standback

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

While you make some good points, I have to say that I don't think comparing Stevie to Lindsey or Ann Wilson, or anyone, is really fair. We all age differently and have varying energy levels. There's also a difference in the wear & tear on individual bodies. I know people in their 50s and 60s who could run circles around folks who are 10-20 years younger than they are -- that doesn't mean I expect everyone their age to be as energetic.

I'm not convinced that Stevie is "unhappy" or "uninspired" on this tour, or demonstrating some sense of entitlement.

I'd like to share a quote from a review....





Based on those familiar-sounding criticisms, one might automatically assume they'd just read a quote from a recent review -- but it was actually published 31 years ago, in Rolling Stone. I purposely omitted the name of that "one song" (which was "Sisters Of The Moon"), to avoid time-stamping it.

So if Stevie was being accused of boredom and disinterest all the way back in 1978, during a time that fans treat as the "golden age" of her career, then perhaps she isn't really miserable up there on stage with the band in 2009 at all. Maybe it has more to do with Stevie's inconsistency as a live performer (when she's feeling fine, the show is great -- when she's tired or uncomfortable, the performance isn't too hot). Which itself could have a lot to do with the pacing of FM's tours as opposed to her solo tours, where she tends to get more days off in between shows.

Also, some of it could be due to the perceptions and expectations of the audience members. I went back this evening to that "Horrific Schedule" thread, and saw your reply to me, where you mentioned that you thought she was terrific when you saw her early on during the 2003 tour. Meanwhile, I clearly recall other people seeing shows around that same time, and issuing complaints similar to the above.

As is par for the course, not only do Stevie's performances on this tour seem to vary from night (and even song to song), but the fans also have wildly different opinions of whether or not she put on a great show.

"Nothing ever changes -- no, it doesn't."

How very interesting! The review you posted is from the brief "Safari' stadium tour from summer 1978 I cited earlier in this thread..JFK stadium in Philly I believe it was ..As I mentioned it was the only other time that Fleetwood Mac toured without an album to support..until now .So maybe she was in a similar psychological space then as now.

[Johnny Stew]

Here's another quote from an old review. This time, from the middle of the 'Tusk' tour:

Behind Stevie Nicks, (Fleetwood Mac) are mellow, temperate, cruising on automatic, unprodded and unchallenged. Nicks is supposed, I know, to be an enigmatic, mystical child, and all that baloney, but this translates into a haughty reserve that makes her seem either stiff or scared.

There is little natural ease in her manner. She projects no warmth, only an artless self that seems to leave her unaware of the vast audience watching her pout into her private mirror.

I also expected more kinetic energy from Nicks. She should fly, or at least move a bit when singing lines from "Rhiannon" about being "taken by the sky." But everything about her delivery is strictly pedestrian.

How about these two quotes, from later in the 'Tusk' tour:

(Nicks) seemed to have no focus & was merely walking through the song ("Rhiannon").

Nicks proved to be the only disappointment, although her enchanting presence on stage added to the show's electricity. Having essentially lost her once-splendid voice, Nicks was relegated to a supporting role in the concert by her former husband [sic], Lindsey Buckingham.

It was when Nicks left the stage, in fact, that Fleetwood Mac sounded at its best.

It was, ultimately, Buckingham's show. That the other band members realize this and defer to him is a good sign for Fleetwood Mac fans, who can expect many more good things from this reincarnated band.

So much of what is expressed in these quotes is interchangeable with current reviews.

And how about that "Buckingham's show" statement? Also very familiar sounding. In fact, there is no shortage of past reviews that credit the bulk of the on-stage excitement to Lindsey:

"Lindsey Buckingham is the sparkplug that keeps the Mac’s engine running."

"The dominant force all evening was the only band member who stayed onstage throughout the show—the talented & tireless Lindsey Buckingham."

"Guitarist Lindsey Buckingham has emerged.... as the main musical force on stage."

All of which leads me to believe that the sky is not falling, that Stevie is not miserable touring with the band, and that very little about Fleetwood Mac's on-stage dynamic has really changed from 30 years ago.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

So much of what is expressed in these quotes is interchangeable with current reviews.



All of which leads me to believe that the sky is not falling, that Stevie is not miserable touring with the band, and that very little about Fleetwood Mac's on-stage dynamic has really changed from 30 years ago.

Wow I guess I was lucky I caught her in December 1979 on the first leg of the Tusk tour.and I do agree and have posted in the past that the way she is feeling on any given night dictates her performance to a large extent which is also IMO somewhat unprofessional .I wouldn't trade the good shows I have seen and the memories of them for any money though and that even includes one on the OSOTM tour at the Greek in Los Feliz where I thought she was stellar and my friend at the show agreed ..He had seen her only a few nights earlier at an OC show and said she was terrible.I do feel though if people are shelling out 150 bucks + a pop to see her she should try to keep to a certain standard ..if she can't then just don't tour.I hope I don't seem ungrateful for I know you'd have given just about anything to see her live on many of these tours.