Buckingham Nicks Reunion Rumblings

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

I didn't say anything about Mick or John.

Well, when you suggest they can do something as Buckingham Nicks that they couldn’t do as Fleetwood Mac, and the only difference between the two bands is that one has Mick and John while the other does not, what other possible conclusion could one come to?

They didn't approach SYW any differently than they have anything for 30 years. It was planned they would do another studio album after The Dance ended and no one's solo stuff was hijacked.

Wrong. First, the most obvious difference is NO CHRISTINE. Second, Lindsey's material was for the "Gift Of Screws" album. That's well documented. Yes, he CHOSE to release it under the Fleetwood Mac name, but it had been part of a solo project.

Lindsey has touted the BN tour since 2006. He said then that management would want that in conjunction with a BN re-release. I agree a new BN project would not at all be a new FM album. They could even release it independently as LB did with SWS.

Again, aside from no Mick or John, I don't see the difference between the two bands.

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

There is a certain sound that is expected out of Fleetwood Mac these days. There are certain touring expectations that would be unavoidable. At some point, a new Mac album would morph into another oldies cash grab tour.

Fleetwood Mac had “a sound” in 1978. It didn’t stop them from making “Tusk.” I don’t see why now would be any different. The only thing stopping them at this point is themselves.

But all of them are so far beyond being the artists they tout themselves as being that the thought of them taking risks is laughable. I'd take Lindsey more seriously if he didn't used canned backing vocals and music at his shows, but that's another issue altogether.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Well, when you suggest they can do something as Buckingham Nicks that they couldn’t do as Fleetwood Mac, and the only difference between the two bands is that one has Mick and John while the other does not, what other possible conclusion could one come to?

Hmmm... Ask Mick.

I was pointing out that I would prefer a true BN set list as opposed to a small two song gesture thrown into a FM set. For the billionth time there is a difference and I doubt Mick & John have any say so in the set.

Wrong. First, the most obvious difference is NO CHRISTINE. Second, Lindsey's material was for the "Gift Of Screws" album. That's well documented. Yes, he CHOSE to release it under the Fleetwood Mac name, but it had been part of a solo project.

Stevie was interviewed on camera at the end of The Dance tour. She said at that time they knew Christine was retiring and would not return but that they had every intention of doing another album within the next five years and that was definitely the plan. It was a premeditated project and as I said, it was the writers choice as to what songs they felt they wanted to convey as Fleetwood Mac instead of interpreting them in their solo projects. There are probably 20-30 songs that they sift through and think "Mac" or "solo" for any given album. It's not some song stealing frenzy...

Again, aside from no Mick or John, I don't see the difference between the two bands.

Which is why you are clearly not a Buckingham Nicks fan.

I hope Fleetwood Mac does something again too, but I would hope a new Buckingham Nicks / re-release and tour would happen more.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

Which is why you are clearly not a Buckingham Nicks fan.

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME BAND NOW!!!

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME BAND NOW!!!

If they are the same now when were they ever Fleetwood Mac?? Are you saying that Christine McVie defined Fleetwood Mac? I am saying Buckingham Nicks songs define Buckingham Nicks. With the exception of Crystal and Don't Let Me Down Again - Buckingham Nicks songs have not been released in Fleetwood Mac. Crystal has never been performed live and the last time they did DLMDA was 8 years ago for two shows (maybe).

Soldier's Angel is a great example of the Buckingham Nicks sound.

PS -- The image looks strangely like Javier Pacheco....

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

If they are the same now when were they ever Fleetwood Mac??

Buckingham Nicks only had two singers: Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. Fleetwood Mac only has two singers now: Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks.

Are you saying that Christine McVie defined Fleetwood Mac?

YES!!! She's been on all but two Fleetwood Mac albums (the very first album and the Chicago blues jam album that was never intended for release). Her keyboard playing was a HUGE part of the Fleetwood Mac sound. She wasn't the single defining member of the band. There isn't one, by Peter Green's original design. But, she most definitely helped define the Fleetwood Mac sound. With her gone, there's no obligation to have keyboards in the music anymore. That means they can take a much lighter approach to the music. They could actually do stuff as a quartet. Remember NGBA from the SYW tour? I do, and I don't think that's too far from the Buckingham Nicks sound.

Where do I sign up to have "Frozen Love" played instead of "Don't Stop" because I'm kind of sick of the latter. I think the thing MOST people on here have complained about is the utter lack of creativity in the set-list.

I think they could do the whole BN album, with SA and whatever thrown in at this point. Not only would I love for them to do the entire BN album, but also add some of the old folky Danny Kirwan songs (Station Man, Sometimes, etc, Dust.) to the mix. The ***ONLY*** thing hold them back from doing that now is themselves.

I am saying Buckingham Nicks songs define Buckingham Nicks. With the exception of Crystal and Don't Let Me Down Again - Buckingham Nicks songs have not been released in Fleetwood Mac. Crystal has never been performed live and the last time they did DLMDA was 8 years ago for two shows (maybe).

Again, I don't think that Mick and John had anything to do with that. I mean, I think they've always played the Buckingham Nicks stuff with the utmost respect.

Fleetwood Mac said "screw your expectations" in 1979 and survived. Actually, they're held in much higher regard today because of it today. But, trying to live up to the "Rumours" expectation has really killed the band for the past 30 years (especially during the BTM and "Time" eras, where they held people back). I say go back to the 1979 philosophy all the way around.

Buckingham Nicks


Fleetwood Mac


Sounds about the same here. Okay, Christine's keyboard parts do fill it out, but not offensively.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Buckingham Nicks only had two singers: Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. Fleetwood Mac only has two singers now: Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks.

and Sharon and Lori and Jana...

YES!!! She's been on all but two Fleetwood Mac albums (the very first album and the Chicago blues jam album that was never intended for release). Her keyboard playing was a HUGE part of the Fleetwood Mac sound. She wasn't the single defining member of the band. There isn't one, by Peter Green's original design. But, she most definitely helped define the Fleetwood Mac sound. With her gone, there's no obligation to have keyboards in the music anymore. That means they can take a much lighter approach to the music. They could actually do stuff as a quartet. Remember NGBA from the SYW tour? I do, and I don't think that's too far from the Buckingham Nicks sound.

Where do I sign up to have "Frozen Love" played instead of "Don't Stop" because I'm kind of sick of the latter. I think the thing MOST people on here have complained about is the utter lack of creativity in the set-list.

I think they could do the whole BN album, with SA and whatever thrown in at this point. Not only would I love for them to do the entire BN album, but also add some of the old folky Danny Kirwan songs (Station Man, Sometimes, etc, Dust.) to the mix. The ***ONLY*** thing hold them back from doing that now is themselves.

I appreciate your point of view. I just want them to do BN songs. Period. And, I forgot they did try to do Frozen Love in FM back '75. It wasn't as good as BN's version though. There was a different dynamic in FM than the sound they had in BN. The only way I can explain it is to my ears the post BN FM overall had more of a pop sound, whereas BN was more country/southern rock. It was more raw, had more of an edge, was guitar-oriented. Loved them doing Station Man and Why with Christine though - that was a great fit.

It's all good. We all have our preferences.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

and Sharon and Lori and Jana...

Who are Stevie's employees, NOT members of Fleetwood Mac. They'd likely also be part of a BN tour. Same goes for Neale and Brett. At that point, what's the difference?

For the record, the only "additional" musician the band had on the "Time" tour was Steve Thoma, who was playing Christine's parts on tour, as she wasn't touring back then. In other words, none of the extras are the call of Mick and John.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Who are Stevie's employees, NOT members of Fleetwood Mac. They'd likely also be part of a BN tour. Same goes for Neale and Brett. At that point, what's the difference?

For the record, the only "additional" musician the band had on the "Time" tour was Steve Thoma, who was playing Christine's parts on tour, as she wasn't touring back then. In other words, none of the extras are the call of Mick and John.

Honey, I don't have anything against Mick and John. Wanting a Buckingham Nicks reunion has nothing to do with them. It's about material and how it is presented.

If there wasn't a difference then Stevie and Lindsey wouldn't be qualifying it as such.

[David]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

Honey, I don't have anything against Mick and John. Wanting a Buckingham Nicks reunion has nothing to do with them. It's about material and how it is presented.

But how does anyone know how songs would be presented on a brand-new Buckingham Nicks tour? How does anyone even know which songs would be performed? It's just as likely that the set would be filled with Fleetwood Mac songs as not.

I agree with Dougie—Fleetwood Mac right now is Buckingham Nicks (the duo). Nicks & Buckingham are the sole songwriters and the stars of the show. They're free to write what they want and structure the set how they want. The only artistic obstacles either of them runs into come from the other. How would a revived Buckingham Nicks act change any of that? They aren't going to write differently for one project vs. another, they aren't going to sing differently, and they aren't going to twirl any differently.

And what is Buckingham Nicks (the duo) anyway? Its characteristics all come from a time that's loooong gone. Do you think a new Buckingham Nicks album is going to sound like the 1973 album? How on earth would they manage that (supposing they set out to do so)? They don't write like 1973, they don't sing like 1973, they don't harmonize like 1973, and they don't look like 1973.

Are you guys imagining an album full of tracks like Soldier's Angel? I suppose it's possible—but what makes Soldier's Angel any more Buckingham Nicks than Destiny Rules or Say Goodbye or other Fleetwood Mac songs? Just the fact that it's a twangy, countryish dirge in a minor key with an acoustic guitar ringing like a funeral bell?

When we're talking about overall style or mood, just what is Buckingham Nicks? I think it's a largely unanswerable question, especially 40 years later. In fact, the best answer is probably: "It's anything Lindsey and Stevie want it to be today."

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

I agree with Dougie—Fleetwood Mac right now is Buckingham Nicks (the duo). Nicks & Buckingham are the sole songwriters and the stars of the show. They're free to write what they want and structure the set how they want. The only artistic obstacles either of them runs into come from the other. How would a revived Buckingham Nicks act change any of that? They aren't going to write differently for one project vs. another, they aren't going to sing differently, and they aren't going to twirl any differently.

True, after Come got on, it became obvious to me that Lindsey would put any of his solo songs on a Fleetwood Mac album. He only had to be in the mood. I mean, for FM they do (and I'm sure this is all 4 of them) try to acknowledge the need for a Christine presence, which is why we had SYW (the song) and SYHA on the last album. But other than that, they just seem to be doing what they feel like, without feeling the need to stay within a particular genre or to access a specific audience, old or new. Everyone Finds Out sounds nothing like Fleetwood Mac. It's just what Stevie and Lindsey felt like doing at the time.

The only distinction would be whether or not a song was more suited for a solo singer, than a duet. Do the two voices add to the song's impact or detract from it? The added vocal detracted on Peacekeeper, but that didn't keep them from putting it on the album. But vocal arrangements for singing are the only differentiating criteria I see in separating the songs. The types of songs can't be categorized into a BN, solo or FM experience any longer.

Michele

[MacShadowsBall]

I'm partly confused by this debate between BN and FM.

Since Christine left, Fleetwood Mac is Lindsey/Stevie with John/Mick as the rhythm section. The only difference in a new Buckingham/Nicks album/tour vs a Fleetwood Mac album/tour is no involvement from Mick and John. Obviously a new BN album/tour would still need a drummer and bass player. Does anyone here know of anybody better than Mick Fleetwood and John McVie?

It would be almost rude of Stevie and Lindsey to exclude Mick/John from a potential future album/tour.

[elle]

Originally Posted by MacShadowsBall

I'm partly confused by this debate between BN and FM.

Since Christine left, Fleetwood Mac is Lindsey/Stevie with John/Mick as the rhythm section. The only difference in a new Buckingham/Nicks album/tour vs a Fleetwood Mac album/tour is no involvement from Mick and John. Obviously a new BN album/tour would still need a drummer and bass player. Does anyone here know of anybody better than Mick Fleetwood and John McVie?

It would be almost rude of Stevie and Lindsey to exclude Mick/John from a potential future album/tour.

to be cynical, i think the difference might be the involvement of lawyers + managers + potential label for 3 people (+ whatever FM brand is) instead of 2?

although i would think tension between SN's and LB's people would be larger than between theirs and Mick's.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by elle

to be cynical, i think the difference might be the involvement of lawyers + managers + potential label for 3 people (+ whatever FM brand is) instead of 2?

although i would think tension between SN's and LB's people would be larger than between theirs and Mick's.

I suspect that's not all that cynical. However, I thought Mick, John, and Lindsey were all with Frontline. I could be wrong.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by MacShadowsBall

I'm partly confused by this debate between BN and FM.

Since Christine left, Fleetwood Mac is Lindsey/Stevie with John/Mick as the rhythm section. The only difference in a new Buckingham/Nicks album/tour vs a Fleetwood Mac album/tour is no involvement from Mick and John. Obviously a new BN album/tour would still need a drummer and bass player. Does anyone here know of anybody better than Mick Fleetwood and John McVie?

It would be almost rude of Stevie and Lindsey to exclude Mick/John from a potential future album/tour.

I agree. It doesn't make any difference to me who plays drum and bass. Others have insinuated that a BN tour would exclude Mick and John. I have no idea how they would choose to present it, but personally I'm open to whatever as long as it means the Buckingham Nicks material has ample representation. I also think that the Buckingham Nicks sound (think BN album and "Soldier's Angel") might inject a much needed adrenaline shot in the arm of a stale FM set list. Which is why I think a new album or a few new cuts in conjunction with a tour that has been discussed by Stevie (loosely) and Lindsey as a "reunion" of Buckingham Nicks would be billed as such - Buckingham Nicks. I have no idea if that's what will happen. But, I think it would be really neat if they did follow through and if they bring Mick and John along then so be it. My fear is that not much would change and if they label it a Buckingham Nicks tour then I would hope it would be that -- meaning a significant change in the material or the way they presented it. Another example is the SYW version of "Silver Springs" -- that sounds Buckingham Nicks to me.

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

However, I thought Mick, John, and Lindsey were all with Frontline. I could be wrong.

Fleetwood Mac is manged by Front Line. Irving Azoff manages Lindsey. Howard Kaufman manages Stevie. Azoff and Kaufman reformed Front Line in 2004. It's basically all the same.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by David

But how does anyone know how songs would be presented on a brand-new Buckingham Nicks tour? How does anyone even know which songs would be performed? It's just as likely that the set would be filled with Fleetwood Mac songs as not.

I agree with Dougie—Fleetwood Mac right now is Buckingham Nicks (the duo). Nicks & Buckingham are the sole songwriters and the stars of the show. They're free to write what they want and structure the set how they want. The only artistic obstacles either of them runs into come from the other. How would a revived Buckingham Nicks act change any of that? They aren't going to write differently for one project vs. another, they aren't going to sing differently, and they aren't going to twirl any differently.

Soldier's Angel sounded like Buckingham Nicks. I can't explain that from a technical musical standpoint like you can. Maybe it was the same kind of guitar Lindsey played in BN? The Les Paul? Idk.

And what is Buckingham Nicks (the duo) anyway? Its characteristics all come from a time that's loooong gone. Do you think a new Buckingham Nicks album is going to sound like the 1973 album? How on earth would they manage that (supposing they set out to do so)? They don't write like 1973, they don't sing like 1973, they don't harmonize like 1973, and they don't look like 1973.

Are you guys imagining an album full of tracks like Soldier's Angel? I suppose it's possible—but what makes Soldier's Angel any more Buckingham Nicks than Destiny Rules or Say Goodbye or other Fleetwood Mac songs? Just the fact that it's a twangy, countryish dirge in a minor key with an acoustic guitar ringing like a funeral bell?

Not all the songs, of course. That would be boring. But, that was my initial impression when I first heard SA. This is Buckingham Nicks.

When we're talking about overall style or mood, just what is Buckingham Nicks? I think it's a largely unanswerable question, especially 40 years later. In fact, the best answer is probably: "It's anything Lindsey and Stevie want it to be today."

I can agree with that. But, I would like to know how Lindsey would interpret that today. Maybe BN is more stripped down (no pun intended). For example, LB has been notorious for using layers and layers of vocals and music tracks in FM. Maybe the BN sound is less about the background and more about the foreground. Maybe it's about each of their vocals being turned up in the mix to be more of a duet sound instead of having him wailing off in the background with some "ahh haha ahh" like in "Illume" or having Stevie on the left channel chanting "but she loves to be seen" on "Miranda".

So, if Lindsey BUCKINGHAM and Stevie NICKS are saying "we are more like BUCKINGHAM NICKS" today and are inferring they may tour as such, then I'm all for it and want to know what they mean and how they define BUCKINGHAM NICKS outside of FLEETWOOD MAC.

If it exists as they are insinuating, prove it. I'm listening...