'75 Fleetwood Mac - Rate the Non-Hits

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by McTrouble

I can't really agree with this - they were huge over here and 3 out of the 5 of them Brits!

But they were based out of LA since what-'72? and the two front people were Americans, no disrespect intended to their roots or the UK fans. Just putting in my thoughts for the contest...

[McTrouble]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

But they were based out of LA since what-'72? and the two front people were Americans, no disrespect intended to their roots or the UK fans. Just putting in my thoughts for the contest...

Oh - do we over here still have a right to take part then?

[Silver Springs]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

But they were based out of LA since what-'72? and the two front people were Americans, no disrespect intended to their roots or the UK fans. Just putting in my thoughts for the contest...

It doesn't matter where they were based. Their roots were British. You can't escape your roots, so of course they were still heavily influenced by them. They're "managed" by an Englishman, had an English front lady and writer until '97 and have an English base player. They were always by a majority a UK band. Even now, they're half a UK band. You can't just discount it completely and say they're not a UK band, because that's not strictly true.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by McTrouble

Oh - do we over here still have a right to take part then?

Silly goose!

Originally Posted by Silver Springs

It doesn't matter where they were based. Their roots were British. You can't escape your roots, so of course they were still heavily influenced by them. They're "managed" by an Englishman, had an English front lady and writer until '97 and have an English base player. They were always by a majority a UK band. Even now, they're half a UK band. You can't just discount it completely and say they're not a UK band, because that's not strictly true.

Well, I said "technically" -- maybe I should have said "technically a UK band"... I still think a home base matters. What if a band is all American but is only successful overseas and doesn't even have released material in their home country?

It's not quite as cut and dried in this scenario. I would have described FM at the time as being a "former British blues band, now based out of the US". In fact, I would have thought their home turf would have sort of disowned them during their California transition and especially during the early release of FM the white album? Not discounting their roots at all though - maybe we would be safer to call them a British/American band...

[McTrouble]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

Silly goose!



Well, I said "technically" -- maybe I should have said "technically a UK band"... I still think a home base matters. What if a band is all American but is only successful overseas and doesn't even have released material in their home country?

It's not quite as cut and dried in this scenario. I would have described FM at the time as being a "former British blues band, now based out of the US". In fact, I would have thought their home turf would have sort of disowned them during their California transition and especially during the early release of FM the white album? Not discounting their roots at all though - maybe we would be safer to call them a British/American band...

at the "silly goose"!!!

I wholeheartedly agree with that description - actually, this is how they have always been referred to here in England since the Fab 5 lineup!

[Fireflies]

Originally Posted by Silver Springs

It doesn't matter where they were based. Their roots were British. You can't escape your roots, so of course they were still heavily influenced by them. They're "managed" by an Englishman, had an English front lady and writer until '97 and have an English base player. They were always by a majority a UK band. Even now, they're half a UK band. You can't just discount it completely and say they're not a UK band, because that's not strictly true.

let me restate that Dee used the term "era". they were certainly more successful/known in the US from 1981-1985. she wasn't discounting their "heritage", just that they were certainly an "american" band during that period of time.

even your subconscious agrees: "Their roots were British."

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by Fireflies

let me restate that Dee used the term "era". they were certainly more successful/known in the US from 1981-1985. she wasn't discounting their "heritage", just that they were certainly an "american" band during that period of time.

Thanks, Fireflies.

[elle]

FM are British/American band. they have been since BN joined (i guess before that they were British band with Bob Welch).

the fact that they were / are based out of the US for a number of years now doesn't make them less British. a number of solo musicians or bands were based out of the US throughout the years but were still considered British musicians... Bowie was based in the UK, Germany, US... what about Lennon? the Stones?

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

But they were based out of LA since what-'72?

I believe it was either late 73, or early 74. Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't MTM recorded in England, with the Rolling Stone's mobile unit(did I dream that?).