Lincoln cut short. Mick very sick

[PenguinHead]

How did a thread about Mick getting sick mutate into a debate about Stevie's relevance in the band? Whatever...

I feel bad for Mick and the fans who missed out on a big chunk of the show. But that audience can claim being at one of most notable, if unfortunate incidents to happen in the history of the band performances. Does anyone know at what point in the show Mick had to stop? Stevie certainly was the alpha dog of the group when informing the audience.

This incident has just jarred my memory of two moments I completely forgot. I attended a Maria McKee show in the early 90s. She just put out her fantastic second album and I was seeing her for the first time. She came out and immediately told the audience that she was sick and said she would perform as much as she could. She had a large band with a horn section; it seemed like it would have been a great show, but she only managed to get through about five songs before calling it quits. It was really disappointing, but what can you do, especially when you're a solo performer? Fans can only have empathy and understanding. I saw Jethro Tull once in the 80's in Boston Gardens (I went through an intense, but brief infatuation with the group). They performed for about an half hour then abruptly stopped. No explanations; no goodbyes. The bright lights of the arena came up, and everyone was shocked in a "What the hell just happened?" manner.

If Fleetwood Mac weren't so lock-step and tight-knitted, they could ad-libbed the rest of the show in some manner. But they just don't have those abilities; once they go off script they get completely lost and then grind to a halt. They could have turned this into a historic show for all the right reasons. Lindsey could have done some solo numbers. Surely they must have some songs in their wheelhouse could perform. Aside from stripping down some of their set lists songs, they could have performed unrehearsed numbers. Surely they would be expected to sound rough and unpolished, but that would be the charm about it. They could have garnered suggestions -- taking requests and questions from the audience, making them part of the show. Turn it partly into a talent show, and call out members of the audience with specific skills. Just some ideas to fill the time.

Some artists have the skills of engagement, with the confidence to be impromptu. Tom Petty and Elvis Costello come to mind, though I know there are better examples. It's an arena of entertainment just doesn't suit Stevie and Lindsey; that level of exposure and looseness makes them uncomfortable. Neither of them have that kind of showmanship in them. The only band member who does is, ironically, Mick!

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

How did a thread about Mick getting sick mutate into a debate about Stevie's relevance in the band? Whatever...

If Fleetwood Mac weren't so lock-step and tight-knitted, they could ad-libbed the rest of the show in some manner. But they just don't have those abilities; once they go off script they get completely lost and then grind to a

You know, everybody keeps talking about what they could have done.
But nobody seems to want to focus on what they should have done.
The name of the band is "Fleetwood Mac."

They're named after their bass guitar player, John McVie, and their drummer, Mick Fleetwood. Their leaders. Their friends. The ones who formed the band more than 47 years ago.

Like they said in "Jurassic Park," "Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we MUST do a thing."

Just because they could have continued while their best friend, their leader, the founder of the band, was, at age 67, suddenly puking his guts up for unknown reasons, unable to perform for the first time ever in 48 years, about to be rushed to the hospital with symptoms which could potentially have been those of a heart attack, does not mean that they should have continued. And no offense but I bet you that any comments addressing this question from the other Four Fireflies would not be as lengthy, but would simply boil down to just two words.

Something to think about, z'all's I'm sayin'.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

You know, everybody keeps talking about what they could have done.
But nobody seems to want to focus on what they should have done.
The name of the band is "Fleetwood Mac."

They're named after their bass guitar player, John McVie, and their drummer, Mick Fleetwood. Their leaders. Their friends. The ones who formed the band more than 47 years ago.

Like they said in "Jurassic Park," "Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we MUST do a thing."

Just because they could have continued while their best friend, their leader, the founder of the band, was, at age 67, suddenly puking his guts up for unknown reasons, unable to perform for the first time ever in 48 years, about to be rushed to the hospital with symptoms which could potentially have been those of a heart attack, does not mean that they should have continued. And no offense but I bet you that any comments addressing this question from the other Four Fireflies would not be as lengthy, but would simply boil down to just two words.

Something to think about, z'all's I'm sayin'.

I say ask the people who paid hundreds of dollars what they want.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I say ask the people who paid hundreds of dollars what they want.

I'd say they probably want Fleetwood Mac to return and give another show, which is what Stevie said was going to be the case.

I don't know why people are automatically assuming that that's not going to happen.

People get sick sometimes. Mick's not a robot.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

I'd say they probably want Fleetwood Mac to return and give another show, which is what Stevie said was going to be the case.

I don't know why people are automatically assuming that that's not going to happen.

People get sick sometimes. Mick's not a robot.

Nobody said it was long term. Just eight songs. It's not like Steve wasn't already playing drums. People don't believe Stevie because she constantly contradicts herself, and thus lacks credibility.

[elle]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

I'd say they probably want Fleetwood Mac to return and give another show, which is what Stevie said was going to be the case.

for free? like Pearl Jam did when they did 3/4 of the show and couldn't finish so they added another one and didn't charge?

don't see that happening with Fleetwood Mac but i would love to be proven wrong.

[The Catdancer]

Originally Posted by elle

for free? like Pearl Jam did when they did 3/4 of the show and couldn't finish so they added another one and didn't charge?

don't see that happening with Fleetwood Mac but i would love to be proven wrong.

They did just that during the BTM tour. They were opening the European tour in Belgium and quit playing after Rhiannon because John had fractured his finger and couldn't play anymore. They told us to hang on to our ticket stubs, came back a month later and gave us an awesome show and didn't charge us one dime extra. So it could happen.

[elle]

Originally Posted by The Catdancer

They did just that during the BTM tour. They were opening the European tour in Belgium and quit playing after Rhiannon because John had fractured his finger and couldn't play anymore. They told us to hang on to our ticket stubs, came back a month later and gave us an awesome show and didn't charge us one dime extra. So it could happen.

thanks for the info.

so in their 40 years that did happen, that they had to stop the show because one of the essential players was sick/injured and they handled it.

seems John had problems several times from all the posts - including the time someone else described when they had another guitar player replace him for the rest of the show.