The space of time between albums featuring Buckingham/Nicks/McVie

[SisterNightroad]

If we want to be picky then we shouldn't round off the months:

"Fleetwood Mac" date release: 11 July 1975

"Rumours" date release: 4 February 1977

"Tusk" date release: 12 October 1979

"Mirage" date release: 18 June 1982

"Tango in the night" date release: 13 April 1987

"Say You will" date release: 15 April 2003

"Extended Play" date release: 30 April 2013

So:

Fleetwood Mac-Rumours= 19 months

Rumours-Tusk= 32 months

Tusk-Mirage= 32 months

Mirage-Tango in the night= 4 years and 9 months

Tango in the night-Say you will= 16 years

Say you will-Extended Play= 10 years

[Macfan4life]

Everyone on this site is nit picky LOL

And don't forget the Tusk tour was 16 months or something. That really added time between Tusk and Mirage. Its not like they were not working together during the time between those albums.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

Everyone on this site is nit picky LOL

And don't forget the Tusk tour was 16 months or something. That really added time between Tusk and Mirage. Its not like they were not working together during the time between those albums.

That's true also for Rumours-Tusk since there was the 1978 summer tour.

[RockawayBlind]

This is one of the biggest problems I have with this band. They have done very little to maintain the following they still have. Really, they are to this day still riding the success of one smash album. Even if arguably Tusk has inspired a younger generation of musicians more than any other FM album, the fact is this band has been very stingy with output. Compare the measly five albums with the Rumours lineup over the same 40-year period to the Rolling Stones, Tom Petty or even to artists such as Sheryl Crow or Smashing Pumpkins, which have been around only since the early 90s.

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

This is one of the biggest problems I have with this band. They have done very little to maintain the following they still have. Really, they are to this day still riding the success of one smash album. Even if arguably Tusk has inspired a younger generation of musicians more than any other FM album, the fact is this band has been very stingy with output. Compare the measly five albums with the Rumours lineup over the same 40-year period to the Rolling Stones, Tom Petty or even to artists such as Sheryl Crow or Smashing Pumpkins, which have been around only since the early 90s.

This, in my opinion, is the biggest detriment of the band. It's all well and good for Lindsey to give his long winded speeches during concerts about how Fleetwood Mac has been a band with a tumultuous history and how it will prevail, however the amount of creative collaboration that the band has actually taken part in is minimal. When you consider that the most recent song in the On With The Show setlist was released in 1987, it is actually quite embarrassing. However, people are willing to pay much money to see them so I guess the joke is on us!

I adore the band and believe that their most prolific time (1975-1980) created some of the best pop/rock music in history. They still put on a brilliant show, and when all 5 are performing together it is magic. However, it is near impossible to consider the band totally relevant and/or innovative with such little studio work behind them.

As a side note, the flip side to this argument is the fact that one album (Rumours) has had such a lasting legacy. This is actually an incredible feat, and something that even many of the most prolific of bands cannot claim.

[BlueDenimLamp]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

This, in my opinion, is the biggest detriment of the band. It's all well and good for Lindsey to give his long winded speeches during concerts about how Fleetwood Mac has been a band with a tumultuous history and how it will prevail, however the amount of creative collaboration that the band has actually taken part in is minimal. When you consider that the most recent song in the On With The Show setlist was release in 1987, it is actually quite embarrassing. However, people are willing to pay much money to see them so I guess the joke is on us!

I adore the band and believe that their most prolific time (1975-1980) created some of the best pop/rock music in history. They still put on a brilliant show, and when all 5 are performing together it is magic. However, it is near impossible to consider the band totally relevant and/or innovative with such little studio work behind them.

As a side note, the flip side to this argument is the fact that one album (Rumours) has had such a lasting legacy. This is actually an incredible feat, and something that even many of the most prolific of bands cannot claim.

That's because the band has been endlessly promoting this record for the past 30+ years.

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

That's because the band has been endlessly promoting this record for the past 30+ years.

That is true, in part. However, I think that even without the bands constant promotion this album has stayed on radio and in the public consciousness due to its own merits. Many of the new generation that has found inspiration from Rumours have probably never seen the Mac, were not musically engaged during The Dance, or have much knowledge of the previous tours.

[APerfectLie]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

That is true, in part. However, I think that even without the bands constant promotion this album has stayed on radio and in the public consciousness due to its own merits. Many of the new generation that has found inspiration from Rumours have probably never seen the Mac, were not musically engaged during The Dance, or have much knowledge of the previous tours.

I think The Dance was actually the catalyst for their resurgence with the new generation. Our parents dug out their old Fleetwood Mac records when The Dance came out and introduced their young children to their music at a very impressionable time in their lives. And then we all grew up with Fleetwood Mac playing somewhere out in the back of our minds.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

This, in my opinion, is the biggest detriment of the band. It's all well and good for Lindsey to give his long winded speeches during concerts about how Fleetwood Mac has been a band with a tumultuous history and how it will prevail, however the amount of creative collaboration that the band has actually taken part in is minimal. When you consider that the most recent song in the On With The Show setlist was released in 1987, it is actually quite embarrassing. However, people are willing to pay much money to see them so I guess the joke is on us!

Indeed. I, however, will not pay this band a penny to go to a show as long as they continue to put on nostalgia shows, which interestingly, is what Lindsey accused the band of doing when it toured with Bekka and Dave Mason. Of course, at the time the band had a new album, which made Lindsey's comment terribly unfair.

[Andy Man]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Indeed. I, however, will not pay this band a penny to go to a show as long as they continue to put on nostalgia shows, which interestingly, is what Lindsey accused the band of doing when it toured with Bekka and Dave Mason. Of course, at the time the band had a new album, which made Lindsey's comment terribly unfair.

Strong stance. I, admittedly, have paid to see the band on each of the last two tours and last week with On With The Show in Toronto. Seeing Christine McVie reunite with the band at the O2 was definitely worth the price of admission; last week was one of the best concerts I have been to. Seeing the full lineup for an entire show was a moment to remember.

So, as a live act they are incredibly strong. However, if we get another tour in a couple years time that is just "the hits" I will not attend. My favourite band is U2. Although Bono and the boys get a lot of flack (some of it deservingly) they are a band that has never toured without moving forward. Each tour has been in support of a new album with new music, and that is a massive achievement.

I by no means would compare U2 and FM on any artistic/musical level as they are completely different bands. However, as productively creative units bands like U2 far outweigh FM.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Andy Man

Strong stance. I, admittedly, have paid to see the band on each of the last two tours and last week with On With The Show in Toronto. Seeing Christine McVie reunite with the band at the O2 was definitely worth the price of admission; last week was one of the best concerts I have been to. Seeing the full lineup for an entire show was a moment to remember.

Of course, I don't bregrudge anyone the joy of going to a live show. I've made a personal decision to not support a band that seems interested only in the money grab. I'll go see Lindsey solo because he continues to put out new music, but I sat out the One Man Band show for two reasons: I objected to him having no new music but, primarily, I didn't like the concept of a guy standing there by himself playing to recorded music. Struck me as pretty lame. I've heard some tracks from those shows and was decidedly unimpressed, so I feel I made the right decision.

[Mr Scarrott]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Indeed. I, however, will not pay this band a penny to go to a show as long as they continue to put on nostalgia shows, which interestingly, is what Lindsey accused the band of doing when it toured with Bekka and Dave Mason. Of course, at the time the band had a new album, which made Lindsey's comment terribly unfair.

Well, as we're nit-picking, or being accurate, Time wasn't released until 10 October 1995, and the last date on the 1995 tour was on 30 August so the album wasn't out at that point. Another stroke of genius.... They only ever played Blow by Blow and Dreamin the Dream to plug the forthcoming release, as far as I can make out.

Even on the most optimistic timeframe, if a new Mac album were to be released in Autumn 2015, are they really going to immediately launch into another mammoth tour to promote it?

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

Well, as we're nit-picking, or being accurate, Time wasn't released until 10 October 1995, and the last date on the 1995 tour was on 30 August so the album wasn't out at that point. Another stroke of genius.... They only ever played Blow by Blow and Dreamin the Dream to plug the forthcoming release, as far as I can make out.

Even on the most optimistic timeframe, if a new Mac album were to be released in Autumn 2015, are they really going to immediately launch into another mammoth tour to promote it?

The point is they were playing new music. Are they doing that now? And as for whether they tour after a 2015 release, it wouldn't matter to me. I'd rather get the new music.

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

Well, as we're nit-picking, or being accurate, Time wasn't released until 10 October 1995, and the last date on the 1995 tour was on 30 August so the album wasn't out at that point.

That was messed up by WB since they rejected the done album and had Christine come in to add some songs and have others dropped, hence the delay. What was FM going to do? Say "we're going to cancel all shows, sit at home then book new dates when the album comes out"? They were probably getting strung along by WB saying "we'll put it out soon, don't worry, keep touring".

John

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

the fact is this band has been very stingy with output. Compare the measly five albums with the Rumours lineup over the same 40-year period to the Rolling Stones, Tom Petty or even to artists such as Sheryl Crow or Smashing Pumpkins, which have been around only since the early 90s.

True, but to be a devil's advocate, you're forgetting about the countless solo albums that have been released during the hiatus periods of FM. None of those mentioned artists or any band i can think of has had as numerous members as FM release multiple solo albums throughout the career of the band. Make sense?