who should replace SN if she continues refusing to record

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by nicepace

Even if they only had two songs on the new album, that would be two songs from Chris or Lindsey that we wouldn't get to hear.

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

Yes to this.

That's assuming that they HAD 2 more decent songs to put on the album. EVERY album has "filler"...maybe those 2 extra Christine or Lindsey songs would fit in that category, whereas a Suzanna Hoffs/Sheryl Crow tune or two would actually be the stronger choice for the album. Let go of your biases.

Originally Posted by nicepace

Now, if the band were to record a new album and tour with the album, it might be a good idea to have another female singer as a "special guest performer" to cover a couple of Stevie songs. That's where a Susanna or a Sheryl might work in this band. But she should just come on stage for a couple of tunes, and she shouldn't be considered an actual member of the band.

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

To this, respectfully…..No. Just no. And if Lindsey ever agreed to such a cheesy move that reeks of playing smoky casinos or cruise ships, I would give up on this band forever.

And, doing a tour without releasing an album...playing only 30+ year old songs in their set without is BETTER? I'll take seeing "Fleetwood Mac" anywhere with anybody they deem as a member, either permanent or temporary...I'm an "Unconditional Fan". So, if your fandom has "conditions" attached...good riddance to ya.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by chiliD

That's assuming that they HAD 2 more decent songs to put on the album. EVERY album has "filler"...maybe those 2 extra Christine or Lindsey songs would fit in that category, whereas a Suzanna Hoffs/Sheryl Crow tune or two would actually be the stronger choice for the album. Let go of your biases.


And, doing a tour without releasing an album...playing only 30+ year old songs in their set without is BETTER? I'll take seeing "Fleetwood Mac" anywhere with anybody they deem as a member, either permanent or temporary...I'm an "Unconditional Fan". So, if your fandom has "conditions" attached...good riddance to ya.

Wow. Sorry you're having such a bad day.

I don't recall ever saying I thought this tour with no new album was a good idea. In fact, I've said many times it's not. I wanted them to record first, then tour the new album. That's not what we got. The one thing about this tour at least is that we've got the writers and original performers of all the songs on stage. Bringing in strangers to cover your hits is far, far cheesier. If you would pay to go see that, well good on you. Have fun.

And there are all sorts of fans and none of them have to meet my or your standards to qualify. I've followed this band for 40 years. This is a forum for sharing opinions.
If you don't like other opinions, maybe you're the one in the wrong place.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

The one thing about this tour at least is that we've got the writers and original performers of all the songs on stage. Bringing in strangers to cover your hits is far, far cheesier. If you would pay to go see that, well good on you. Have fun.

That's why I think it would be better to have an established artist who has her own well known songs come in instead of a relative newbie. She'd sing a couple of Stevie's songs, a few of her own hits, and a couple of new songs. It's like what they did on the 1975-76 tour.