Why the disdain for Mick?

[Brad]

I think he's great. He's probably one of the most down to earth celebrities out there. I did the Meet and Greet with him this last tour, and if you didn't know who he was, you'd think he was just a really friendly guy you met off the street who likes to tell long stories. He seemed very appreciative, did not rush anything, and really went out of his way to make sure we all had a good experience. You might say the money he was making for the M&G was motivating his behavior, but I don't think you can really fake it that well. He's the only one to do the M&Gs, and I think that says a lot about his character and fan appreciation despite making money off of it. Plus, I agree with the OP. I mean, don't we all work to make as much money as we can? How is his job any different? If it wasn't for him treating the band as a business (which it is), FM would've died a long time ago.

Brad

[brickney723]

I like them all pretty equally actually, they each have their quirks.. Mick seems like a very cool person to me.

[SteveMacD]

He's made some boneheaded business decisions. Outside of that, I don't get it myself. He's always been good the fans, and really that's all that matters.

[cactusjack]

he needs to cash in with meet and greets to pay his alimony, but I'm cool with that - by all accounts it was a great experience and good value for money. I'm really disappointed I didn't get to do one with him in Oz late last year, but I'm assuming he'll do them for the re-scheduled tour this year.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

He's made some boneheaded business decisions.

I can't say I've ever seen any true disdain for Mick. However, he incites a lot of eye rolling because he can't seem to keep himself financially solvent after nearly 5 decades of fame. I can see how some fans would be offended by that, especially since some have supported this band for many years.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I can't say I've ever seen any true disdain for Mick. However, he incites a lot of eye rolling because he can't seem to keep himself financially solvent after nearly 5 decades of fame. I can see how some fans would be offended by that, especially since some have supported this band for many years.

But really, that's nobody's business. We don't pay him to make good business decisions. We pay him to see him play drums.

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

But really, that's nobody's business. We don't pay him to make good business decisions. We pay him to see him play drums.

Good point. I just don't like seeing him being characterized as being motivated only by a paycheck. If I was offered a chance to spend a day with a member of Fleetwood Mac...although Stevie would be a strong contender, I would choose Mick. He seems like he'd be good company, a lot of fun, and up for anything. I think Stevie would be good company, but with conditions, and a little too intense! I'd be overwhelmed!

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

But really, that's nobody's business. We don't pay him to make good business decisions. We pay him to see him play drums.

Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.

Because I can say, for me, that's where the eye-rolling comes in. Mick can't manage his money, and everyone else (Stevie and/or Lindsey) has to stop what they're doing to bail him out, and it's been portrayed like that in interviews.

That's how it comes across in the media. Fleetwood Mac, since 1991, is only a cash machine that mobilizes when a certain someone needs money, because as a fan for the past 30 years, it's become crystal clear that they aren't doing it for the art.

That said, I have no real disdain for Mick - he is responsible for my exposure to one of the artists who has been a constant soundtrack to my life. But I am able to understand where the disdain comes from when expressed by others.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Then he should keep his financial woes to himself - or ask Stevie to stop telling everyone that she has to put her solo career aside *again* so Mick can tour 'cause he needs the money.

Stevie's in a band. She verbally committed to that band and then pulled out. She was irresponsible to those she committed to. She complains enough about the band/Lindsey that she should be able to take it.

Because I can say, for me, that's where the eye-rolling comes in. Mick can't manage his money, and everyone else (Stevie and/or Lindsey) has to stop what they're doing to bail him out, and it's been portrayed like that in interviews.

Maybe in 1987, but not not since. And, really, Fleetwood Mac bailed out Stevie and Lindsey more than once. They were nobodies going nowhere in 1974, and their careers had stalled by 1994. (Yeah, "Time" bombed, but at least they have the excuse of doing absolutely no promotion for it. What were Stevie's and Lindsey's excuses?) That's why Lindsey hired Mick to play drums on GOS. He knew that Mick would break up that version of Fleetwood Mac (which was already falling apart on its own) for a probable reunion of the classic line-up.

That's how it comes across in the media. Fleetwood Mac, since 1991, is only a cash machine that mobilizes when a certain someone needs money, because as a fan for the past 30 years, it's become crystal clear that they aren't doing it for the art.

It's called being in the band. Mick doesn't get any significant royalty money. The only way he makes money on Fleetwood Mac is when the band tours. How hypocritical everyone is by stating "ooh, Mick needs bailed out again" when Stevie, Lindsey, and Christine all make money on Fleetwood Mac whether or not the band is active.