Thoughts on this tour and Lindsey's Departure

[bombaysaffires]

really, why is it so hard for folks to understand that no one is angry that there was a change in the band line up per se, but rather the WAY in which it was handled. i.e., that a band member was apparently booted against their wishes??

[Angel75]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

really, why is it so hard for folks to understand that no one is angry that there was a change in the band line up per se, but rather the WAY in which it was handled. i.e., that a band member was apparently booted against their wishes??

Exactly, I can embrace change well, it's the one constant thing in life right? But yes it's the way it was handled, why could Stevie not compromise, suck it up, continue one last time as a legacy act and get on with the show. Why fire the one person who made you the rock diva you are.

[button-lip]

Originally Posted by Angel75

Exactly, I can embrace change well, it's the one constant thing in life right? But yes it's the way it was handled, why could Stevie not compromise, suck it up, continue one last time as a legacy act and get on with the show. Why fire the one person who made you the rock diva you are.

Because she wants to wake up every morning and dance around her house and be happy. If that's not a confession, I don't know what it is.

[SteveMacD]

Keeping in mind Mick was working his coffee table book on the pre-1975 years last summer…

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/f...erhood-w499636

Rolling Stone: Are You thinking at all about the setlist? Will it be very different than the last tour?

Mick: Yeah. I was in Italy recently and met Stevie out there. Actually, she was in Capri and I was close to there. She says to me, “Let’s sit down and really listen to some stuff that sort of almost got forgotten.” So I know she’s already thinking she wants to do some things we haven’t done in years.

Lindsey has often said that he felt like he was part of a cabaret act whenever he played the old songs, so I could see him having an issue with the concept of getting into the early stuff, but especially right after playing new music from what was a Fleetwood Mac album credited to another entity. However, the stage was set…

Then he was fairly disengaged from Stevie during the Classics, and made an unfortunate comment about taking the money and run (telling the world his heart wasn’t really into it, which came through during the shows). Then came the concurrent tour/delayed tour talk…

Mick talking about how it was like using his muscle memory? I actually kind of get it. Look, I don’t fault Lindsey, but I also don’t fault the others. Lindsey was more in touch with going forward, the others (at least Stevie and Mick) were more interested in revisiting the past. Both are valid, especially in the wake of LBCM and around the 50th Anniversary of the band’s first album. But admitting your heart isn’t in it, acting accordingly, AND the whole notion of a concurrent tour is something I can’t imagine ever flying in any other band. I see both sides here, and think it’s probably the best overall outcome for all parties. Lindsey never has to worry about band politics or not moving forward, and the band has a pretty killer new lineup doing songs I never dreamed I’d get to hear (Man of the World being atop the list).

[David]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Lindsey has often said that he felt like he was part of a cabaret act whenever he played the old songs

But that's not what he meant. He meant that Stevie and Christine (this was in 1984) were doing their old songs in concert but not presenting them in new ways; they weren't making a new statement (in his opinion) with their hits. They were relying too heavily on the Fleetwood Mac brand. He wasn't criticizing the fact that they were playing some old material, but that they weren't presenting it as a concept distinct from Fleetwood Mac concerts. (I guess he forgot about Stevie's presentation of Rhiannon in the original piano ballad style.)

I see both sides here, and think it’s probably the best overall outcome for all parties. Lindsey never has to worry about band politics or not moving forward

It's potentially great for Buckingham because the band conventionality and politics have always been a millstone around his neck.

and the band has a pretty killer new lineup doing songs I never dreamed I’d get to hear (Man of the World being atop the list).

How do you know you're going to hear "Man of the World"? Did they announce that one, or were they just tossing out some ideas that may or may not be realized?

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by David

How do you know you're going to hear "Man of the World"? Did they announce that one, or were they just tossing out some ideas that may or may not be realized?

When Mike Campbell guested at a recent Neil Finn concert in Los Angeles they played Man of the World and a David Bowie song. Given Mick and Stevie recently talked about them playing oldies on the new tour it seems a good bet they'll play Man of the World as its obviously been rehearsed.
Not a certainty, of course.

[Murrow]

Here's my twopenny worth and I'm posting it as one who loved Behind the Mask as well as most of the pre-BN stuff.

It was so obvious to me back around 1989/90 that Stevie would hardly care if she never worked with Lindsey again. Mick was saying like "Hey he was too dominant, we need to get back to being a democracy".

Of course the BTM line-up collapsed a few months after that album came out and for a variety of reasons.

Time... don't get me started.

I was amazed when the Rumours line-up reformed. I was even more amazed when Say You Will came out - Stevie was right to describe it as "a Buckingham Nicks album with power trio backing" but crikey it was amazing. I even fell for the overture of mutual forgiveness between L & S on the closing two tracks.

But... really Mick. Did you really think having those two together again in the same band was going to work for any great length of time? Oh sure, 21 years but what did that produce? One new album which gave a tour rich in new material to compensate for the absence of Chris's songs, sure but then a looooong silence apart from a couple of tours with neither Chris nor (very much) new material and all because Stevie wouldn't do another album as the only girl. OK there was that EP but that was just a glorified LB solo work really and not just because of SN being on compassionate leave - It Takes Time was no more a true Mac track than Make Me A Mask and had a reused tune from Show You How to boot. And then Chris comes back and then what? Stevie can't bring herself to go into a studio with Lindsey and we get the BuckVie album. Seriously Mick, why didn't you just ditch Stevie then like you have Lindsey now? The words "money" and "talks" spring to mind as well as I bet you've still got a bit of a soft spot for her.

Look at Deep Purple. Their classic line-up reformed in 1984 but it only took a few years to work out that Ian Gillan and Ritchie Blackmore could not co-exist in a band anymore. They tried it without Gillan, realised their mistake and brought him back before Blackmore spit his dummy (pacifier) and quit mid-tour but even then they still came out with something new every three years and knew that with four out of five classic members they still stood a good chance of packed venues even if the albums weren't going platinum. No question of twenty years of virtual silence with just the odd nostalgia tour.

And now Mick... now that you have finally wised up and got a line-up together that I think could easily work, you, John, Chris and (almost) Stevie have all passed the threescore and ten mark. It's back to the whole "We're renewed and going forward" that was being touted when Billy and Rick joined. Let's hope you can deliver something new before either you or John croaks it.

I rest my case.