Fleetwood Mac VS The Eagles

[MacMan]

Originally Posted by dissention

"Hole In the World," anyone? The mere mention of that heinous song sends me into hysterics.

Yeah, it's basically a chorus and that's about it... To me it's like an unfinished song.

[catinthedark]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

i hate questions like this -

sort of like comparing LA to New York...

but here i go anyway.

in their prime, both bands were excellent on stage.
without Lindsey Buckingham, FM suffered.
without Don Felder, the Eagles are suffering.
FM is/was a much more dynamic band musically.
lyrically one could argue that the songwriters in the Eagles were better at their craft.
i could go on but what's the point.
i saw the Eagles in 1980 on The Long Run tour and they were unbelievably great. Since then, they have recorded some really really bad songs.

Together, the two bands contributed an enormous amount of great music and they represent a fantastic era in California rock.
It would be fun if they toured together provided Felder and Buckingham were part of the plan.

I'm with you. Questions like this are right up there with speculations about what the band would have been without certain members... or if the band would have been as big without a certain member. Not sure what they accomplish. (But maybe I'm just a bitter old b*tch!)

[David]

Fleetwood Mac have (or had) nothing in common musically or aesthetically with the Eagles ...

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

Fleetwood Mac have (or had) nothing in common musically or aesthetically with the Eagles ...

Other than the fact that Stevie's been "involved" with Don Henley, Don Felder, Joe Walsh, Mick Fleetwood, Lindsey Buckingham....





(Runs for cover...)

[Lindsey Jr.]

THE MAC, no further comment.

[Nico]

I hate the Eagles.

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by Nico

I hate the Eagles.

Ditto. Most boring band in the history of the semi-free world. Some of their songs would be ok if another band did them.

haha.