Tusk Tour: 1979-1980

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by vivfox

Wow I didn't know this. Which cities did they perform it in?

Yeah! I knew you were going to ask that! I went looking in my clippings, because I thought I had seen reviews which had it in the setlist, but I can't find any. I went over to The Legacy and looked at the notes from a lot of the individual shows and it doesn't come up in any of them. Aside from the rehearsals, it is not in any of the boots. Guess I just imagined it.

Michele

[vivfox]

December 16,1979 the third show at The Cow Palace in San Francisco. This is the last show on the first leg of the Tusk Tour. The band then takes a much needed rest for the Christmas holidays and more rest in January 1980. In February they head for the Orient.

One of my favorite ever magazine quotes came out of this time period. They showed a picture of Stevie on stage in Creem Magazine and the caption below the photo read, "light brown hair streaked with green doesn't qualify as blond."

They were just trying to be funny. In those days Creem ranked on all the famous rock stars with humorous quotes.

The single "Sara" was released in December, 1979

93 people have viewed this thread in the last 24 hours!

[vivfox]

Los Angeles Times (10/14/79), 'Tusk' Shows Fleetwood Mac's Artistry is More than a 'Rumour'


Los Angeles Times
Sunday, October 14, 1979

‘Tusk’ Shows Fleetwood Mac’s Artistry is More than a ‘Rumour’
by Robert Hilburn

A rock superstar once scolded me for comparing the quality and sales potential of his new album to the work of another recordmaker. “We are artists, not race horses,” he puffed.

But if I don’t compare Fleetwood Mac’s just released “Tusk” to the Eagles’ “The Long Run,” I’ll probably be the only person in America who listens to both albums and doesn’t pass judgment.

The albums--both of which were at least two years in the making and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in studio time--are probably the most awaited LPs of 1979.

“The Long Run” (discussed at length Sept. 30 in Calendar) has the early commercial edge because the Eagles’ new “Heartache Tonight” single is showing more initial strength than Fleetwood Mac’s title track, which has been released as a single.

The Eagles also have an edge in that “The Long Run” is a single album, while “Tusk” is a two-record set with a whopping $15.98 list price--$3 more than “Saturday Night Fever.” Still, it is word of mouth that will determine which album sells the most, and that’s where Fleetwood Mac should have an advantage.

The more substantial work, clearly, is “Tusk.”

Show me a double album that wouldn’t have been more satisfying as a single LP and I’ll show you a rarity in pop music. “Tusk” isn’t that rarity, but it comes close. All things considered, the follow-up to “Rumours” is quite an achievement.

Mention 1977 to record retailers and they’ll smile in much the same way wine connoisseurs bubble over product of a vintage year.

After all, 1977 was the year the Eagles’ “Hotel California,” Paul McCartney’s “Wings Over America,” Barbra Streisand’s “A Star Is Born,” Barry Manilow’s “Live” and Linda Rondstadt’s “Simple Dreams” all went to No. 1.

More importantly, it was the year Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumours” went to No. 1.

On its way to 12 million sales, “Rumours” spent 31 weeks at the top of the national charts, more than all five other albums combined.

You have to go back 17 years to “West Side Story” to find an LP that spent more weeks at No. 1 -- and the album market wasn’t nearly as competitive then. Before the Beatles arrive in 1964, rock fans concentrated on singles, not albums.

“Saturday Night Fever” and “Grease” eventually outsold “Rumours,” but not even those sound tracks dominated the charts the way Fleetwood Mac did in 1977.

The temptation in following up an album as successful as “Rumours” is to duplicate the sound. Record makers always speak of artistic growth and of not being intimidated by success, but the music normally betrays their words.

Fleetwood Mac hasn’t abandoned the smooth, seductive sound of “Rumours,” but neither has the group been a slave to it. In most cases, the familiar elements have been strengthened and the new ingredients--mostly supplied by Lindsey Buckingham--have given the band a harder, more intriguing feel.

Before discussing “Tusk” further, it’s important to put “Rumours” into perspective. It was a pleasant, but far from great work. The best thing about it was that everyone seemed to like it. The album mixed folk, rock and blues fibers in a way that was hugely accessible. Still, it seemed like a nutritionist’s nightmare at times: 16 zillion calories and very little substance.

The songs frequently dealt with romantic disappointment, but the presentation was so polished that even the heartbreak numbers came across as sweet. In that year, Randy Newman’s “Short People,” the Sex Pistols’ “Never Mind the Bollocks” and Elvis Costello’s “My Aim Is True” were far more provocative and--in the last two cases--more influential collections.

“Tusk” isn’t as relentlessly pleasant as “Rumours.” That’s good. The album’s refusal to court everyone’s favor gives it a sturdier, more distinguished tone. It’s too simplistic to say Fleetwood Mac didn’t take chances in “Rumours.” But the risks are more noticeable this time.

The first time I heard the “Tusk” single on the car radio, I instinctively reached for the fine tuner. I mistook the single’s strident, eccentric rhythm pattern for static noise.

But the biggest surprise wasn’t when I found out that the radio was tuned properly. The surprise was when the disc jockey announced that “Tusk” was by Fleetwood Mac and not some experimental new wave rock band.

While nothing else on the album is as extreme rhythmically, most of Buckingham’s compositions do mix soft and harsh textures in a way that push and pull the listener like a washing machine agitator.

“Tusk” is a mature step for Fleetwood Mac; an album that not only tested the group’s artistic fiber, but now tests the huge Fleetwood Mac audience’s ability to respond to more challenging music.

The adventurousness of “Tusk” should please early Fleetwood Mac fans who became disenchanted with the softer tones associated with albums like “Fleetwood Mac” and “Rumours.”

The band, now based in Los Angeles, started off as a blues group in London 12 years ago. It was named after drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie. After recording an album in 1969 with Chicago blues figures like Otis Spann and Willie Dixon, the group moved toward a more mainstream rock style.

Christine McVie joined Fleetwood Mac in 1971. She had been voted England’s top female singer in 1969 and 1970 in the prestigious Melody Maker reader’s poll.

“Future Games”--her first full album with the band--was a step toward the mellower, folk-rock style that eventually brought the group such popularity. McVie’s “Morning Rain” was in the disarming romantic style of such later hits as “Say You Love Me” and “Over My Head.”

The problem was that the non-McVie songs on that and subsequent LPs lacked the consistency and accessibility of her compositions. That changed when singer-guitarist Lindsey Buckingham and singer Stevie Nicks joined the group in 1975. The pair had previously been in a San Francisco rock group (Fritz) and had recorded a duo LP for Polydor.

The combination clicked. The singing and songwriting of Buckingham and Nicks complemented McVie nicely. The quintet’s first album together, “Fleetwood Mac,” went into the Top 10 in 1975, setting the stage for “Rumours.”

The new Fleetwood lineup worked even better live. While retaining the charm of the records, the music in concert was more dynamic. Buckingham’s guitar work and Fleetwood’s drumming were especially forceful. “Tusk” moves toward that rawer sound.

The added intensity, however, doesn’t make the album’s key songs any less inviting. McVie’s tunes are simple, but convincing statements of romance. It’s her singing that gives them such an engaging quality. McVie’s selections -- especially “Over and Over”, “Never Make Me Cry” and “Never Forget” -- also benefit this time from more tailored arrangements.

More than in “Rumours,” you feel the disappointment and optimism in her songs. The result is some of the most evocative tracks by a female artist since Emmylou Harris’ early albums.

Buckingham is also a straight forward songwriter. he places more emphasis on song texture in “Tusk” than on lyrics. but, like McVie, the arrangements accent the message more fully than in the past. The jarring rhythms on “Tusk” and other tunes underscore the uncertainties of romance. He also varies the rhythms stylishly to make you feel the sarcasm of “What Makes You Think You’re The One?” and the desire of “Save Me A Place.”

Nicks is amore ambitious songwriter than McVie or Buckingham. Her best tunes are more complex lyrically and more distinctive melodically. In “Sara,” she speaks of romantic upheaval with the sensitivity of the Eagles’ best love songs:

Wait a minute baby
Stay with me awhile
Said you’d give me light
But you never told me about the fire.

“Storms,” however, is an even more affecting look at romantic discomfort:

So I try to say
Goodbye my friend
I’d like to leave you with something warm
But never have I been a calm blue sea
I have always been a storm.

One of the weaknesses of “Tusk” is that Nicks’ contributions don’t keep pace with those two songs. The other three tunes suffer from various ailments. Nicks’ whiney vocals; too much of the coy, near-narcissism of her “Rumours” and “Fleetwood Mac” songs and an ultimate overdose of melodrama.

But there’s another problem with “Tusk.” One of Fleetwood Mac’s strengths -- having three independent writers--is also one of its handicaps. Most important rock bands rely on the vision supplied by a single songwriter (the Band’s Robbie Robertson, the Who’s Peter Townshend) or a duo of songwriters (the Rolling Stones’ Jagger-Richard, the Eagles’ Henley-Frey). Without that single vision, a band’s focus often becomes blurred.

Indeed, “Tusk” often seems too much like a random collection of tunes. Despite the individual high points, the LP never transcends the songs to forge the dramatic or unified focus of an album like the Eagles’ “Hotel California” or Bob Dylan’s “Slow Train Coming.”

Yet it is undeniably a step forward for Fleetwood Mac. The band has shown there is more to life than mellowness. The fact the group took that step despite such massive acceptance for its old style elevates it from a band that everyone likes, to a band that everyone can admire.

http://bla.fleetwoodmac.net/index.ph...v2&id=892&c=18

119 people have viewed this thread in the last 24 hours!

[vivfox]

Defending TUSK


Los Angeles Times
Sunday, November 4, 1979

Popline: FM Puzzles Over ‘Tusk’
by Patrick Goldstein

“It sounds weird to me,” one radio programmer said. Another griped, “It’s just not what’s being played on the radio.” And one station chief confessed, “I don’t have any idea what the album is all about. There simply ain’t no rock here--it all sounds the same.”

You’d think these FM radio tastemakers were complaining about a bombastic new Clash album. But they’re talking about “Tusk,” Fleetwood Mac’s new double album that’s already headed for the pole position on the pop charts (this week’s Record World has it No. 3 with a bullet).

Culled from the FM Friday Morning Quarterback, an influential radio tip sheet, the above quotes point out the essentially conservative programming philosophy of today’s FM radio. Despite Fleetwood Mac’s astounding sales record, many radio execs appear perplexed by “Tusk’s” adventurous, thought often eccentric musical textures.

Brian St. James, music director at WRKI in Bridgeport, Conn., captured the mood of many programmers: “The material on ‘Tusk’ is obviously not in the direction that most album stations are going.”

Other radio chiefs were more blunt.

WLUP/Chicago music director Sky Daniels snapped, “What can you buy with a million dollars? You could take all your friends to Hawaii. Or you could make ‘Tusk.’” Red Beard of WZXR in Memphis added, “Why do we tolerate mediocrity based on prior commercial success?”

Despite the potshots, all these stations are bombarding their listeners with the entire album. Most local FM radio people are more open about “Tusk.” “It’s a good radio album,” said KRTH’s Bob Hamilton. “It just sounds different. We had a negative reaction on our call-outs at first, but I think the listeners are growing more accustomed to it now.”

Other L.A. programmers gave the record mixed reviews. “To be honest, I’m less than enthusiastic,” admitted KMET’s Sam Bellamy. “But I don’t always love what we play on the air. We’re still looking for more listener reaction and local sales feedback.”

Preparing to embark on a lengthy U.S. tour, Fleetwood Mac members stoutly defended their latest work. While admitting that many radio people viewed the “Tusk” single as “an assault on their intelligence,” Lindsey Buckingham added, “I think it’s great. It’s funny, it’s tribal, it’s got a lot of soul to it.”

Offering a more pragmatic defense, Mick Fleetwood said, “I can see why it’s hard to play the ‘Tusk’ single in the middle of a radio set.” As for “Tusk’s” steep price tag ($15.98 list), he countered, “That’s what records cost these days. No one’s forced to buy it. To me albums are like shoes--I buy good ones because I like them and because maybe they’ll last a little longer.”

http://bla.fleetwoodmac.net/index.ph...v2&id=891&c=18

69 people have viewed this thread in the last 24 hours!

[vivfox]

109 people have viewed this thread in the last 24 hours! And a couple of animals too.

Below is a morphed photo. The child of Mick and Stevie.

[Mywyldhrt]

Originally Posted by vivfox

109 people have viewed this thread in the last 24 hours! And a couple of animals too.

Below is a morphed photo. The child of Mick and Stevie.

Now that is truly scary!!!!!


MERRY CHRISTMAS MARK!

[vivfox]

82 people have viewed this thread in the last 24 hours!
Ooh, that poodle hair...