PLEASE SETTLE THESE ARGUMENTS, FM, ETC FOR ME PLEASE, pls read

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by David A

Hello All

Some things I hope people can answer for me , etc.

. Has Beyonce actually sold more records than FM ? I know it’s a strange comparison, but I was with family in Arizona, and they insisted that Beyonce has sold more than FM, and I just didn’t think that was the case.

If you include all of the Destiny's Child albums, then yes, I think Beyonce may have outsold FM.

. Am I correct that FM has sold more records World Wide than the Eagles? Meaning the Eagles are bigger in the states than FM, but FM is larger world wide?

It depends on whether you are counting The Eagles Greatest Hits album, which I believe is the best-selling album in U.S. history. If you are counting only studio albums, then I think Fleetwood Mac has them beat.

. Has Stevie Nicks actually sold over 50 million records as a SOLO artist? I find that hard to believe when in my eyes , she hasn’t sold crap since her first 2 records, I just think that is a inflated number

I think if you add up her solo albums plus 1/5 of Stevie's Fleetwood Mac albums (since she is 1/5 of the band), then you get to the 50 million number. If you add up her solo albums, I think, at most, she would garner 25 million worldwide.

. The FM BTM really gave a lot of credit to Say You Will. I mean, I do like the album, but technically it hasn’t even gone platinum, and by FM standards, im not sure how that is to be viewed as a success.

I believe WB originally anticipated two million sales, minimum. So from that perspective it was a bit of a flop, especially considering their previous album had sold five million.

. I find it weird that on the Ledge, many people actually diss The Dance, as they claim it’s a oldies thing, etc. I mean, I think The Dance and everything about it was perfect and I don’t get how people think they should have came back with a new album. I mean, 1997 standards, FM were long gone, and if people think lets say FM could have released a SYW type of album, and it would have done well, are crazy. I mean, The Eagles in 1994 did the same thing, I just find it weird how people diss The Dance when It sold 5 million records, was Grammy nominated, sold out tour, etc. I mean, that’s when I became aware of FM, and they were all over the TV. I just find it strange how people think the SAME thing would have happened had they don’t a NEW album in 1997

I don't necessarily disagree with you that the Dance was a phenomenal success for FM after such a long absence. However, it seems that in 1997, when all the planets seemed to align perfectly for that fleeting instant, FM blew their wad on an oldies concert album instead of doing one more proper studio album with Christine on board. As far as I am concerned, there was no reason FM couldn't have done both The Dance and a new studio album simultaneously. They already had four new songs plus other songs that would have eventually ended up on Lindsey, Stevie and Christine's subsequent solo albums. The Dance was ultimately a run-through of their live show, which they would have rehearsed for anyway for the tour, so it's not like it would have been a lot of extra work. They could have released The Dance first, ridden the momentum for a while and then released a new album like six months later. Alas, that brief window of time passed and Christine disappeared forever like a thief in the night.

. Honestly, I think Warner Bros. did all they could to help and promote LB Under The Cradle album. I mean, they promoted it, he did videos, was on Lettermen and Leno, and even ABC. I just , unlike his other records, don’t see what more Warner Bros. could have done

Is that a mash-up of two Lindsey solo albums? That would be interesting...

I do think WB promoted the sh*t out of OOTC. Lindsey promoted the sh*t out of OOTC, including a spectacularly financially ruinous tour. My theory is that they released the worst possible lead single- "Wrong." The momentum just never recovered from that.

. Technically, I think FM is a better actual band than the Beatles, meaning they way they play, besides John Lennon, from a instrument stand point, the rest of the Beatles don’t impress me

I don't think that's a fair comparison. FM built their reputation and musical chops as a live band whereas The Beatles were mainly a studio concern. Also, their music did not necessarily lend itself well to extended jamming and improvisation; their songs were succinct but meticulously packed with lush orchestration, hummable melodies, layers of voices and sound effects. It wasn't about musical dexterity as much as it was about the sound. That being said, George Harrison was one of the most unique, melodic guitarists ever. He is one of those rare musicians whose work can be recognized instantly.