New CD - 18 Tracks

[DownOnRodeo]

Sorry Carne, I must have been as incoherent as usual

What I was trying to say above is that 'Welcome' and 'When I See' are beyond bad and only the most avid of Stevie fans would stand up to defend them.



(My point being then, that to dismiss the whole album on the basis of that is pretty lame - especially when the poor quality of those songs is beyond argument ... The good stuff more than makes up for it. Plus IMHO a lot of great songs and two terrible ones is BETTER than two great songs and an album-full of mediocrity. I know you were never arguing for Mirage, but thats how I see Tango distinguished itself above Mirage)

[Johnny Stew]

Not every critic liked Stevie's contributions to 'Tango In The Night,' but not every critic disliked them either.

But of the dozen songs on Tango in the Night, only a few have the excitement and innovation of Fleetwood Mac's best music. Two are the songs Stevie Nicks has written for the album. Both "Seven Wonders" and "Welcome to the Room . . . Sara" have the sort of vague, and vaguely cliched, imagery that we've come to expect from Nicks, but like the best of her previous work, she invests that vagueness with a romantic delirium unmatched in current rock. - Ken Tucker, Philadelphia Inquirer, April 19, 1987 (***Although we know, of course, that Stevie only altered the lyrics to "Seven Wonders." She didn't write them.)

Nicks checks in with her own gems. "Seven Wonders," a cosmic tale of romance that appears to float out of King Arthur's time, has an angelically upbeat vocal. She's equally disarming on "When I See You Again," about meeting a lover for the last time. - Mercury News, April 26, 1987


By the way, when did we start listening to critics anyway? For a large part of the time the 'Rumours'-era incarnation was together, many critics dismissed their albums as lightweight pop-rock, that lacked the substance of the music their peers were making.
It's only been within the past several years, and a new batch of critics, that Fleetwood Mac's sound has become a critically respected thing.
So go figure.

Hopefully the new album (and its 18 tracks!) will be artistically successful, commercially successful, and critically successful... and then we can all be happy (there I go dreaming again).



Johnny Stew

[chiliD]

originally posted by Johnny Stew
By the way, when did we start listening to critics anyway? For a large part of the time the 'Rumours'-era incarnation was together, many critics dismissed their albums as lightweight pop-rock, that lacked the substance of the music their peers were making.

It's only been within the past several years, and a new batch of critics, that Fleetwood Mac's sound has become a critically respected thing.

TUSK!!!! Critics LOVED it...most of the "high-profile" ones, anyway. They used terms like "cutting edge" & "relevant". The same critics just out & out panned Mirage for it's LACK of risk taking and "safe" approach. And, with each successive FMac album, the same critics got MORE scathing.

[Johnny Stew]

I read a couple of unflattering reviews of 'Tusk' too... one was in Creem, I think.

Anyway, my point was, critics shouldn't be the gauge we use, when discussing whether something is good or not.

Whether they'd admit it or not, their opinions are just as subjective as ours can be (and sometimes moreso, if they're reviewing an album by someone they already dislike).



Johnny Stew

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
Sorry Carne, I must have been as incoherent as usual

No, you were right. I misread. My apologies.

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
"By the way, when did we start listening to critics anyway?"-Johnny Stew

Amen to that 1 statement Johnny Stew. I think most intelligent people WHO can think for themselves & form their own opinions could care less what critics have to say nowadays...I had enough of critics this past Tuesday night, And they STILL dont know a thing (I'm NOT talking about what George "Bushy" had to say to the public either...) Brian J.