Buckingham Nicks Reunion Rumblings

[WildHearted]

^I think there's the potential that the re-release could do somewhat well. Of course, all of the hardcore fans will be elated regardless. But I know that I've been posting articles about it on pop culture sites and the two of them generate a pretty good response from people. So with the right marketing [hahahaha], and coincided with a new Fleetwood Mac tour or a Buckingham Nicks one-off "reunion" or whatever else they decide to do.. I think it could make at least a blip on the radar.

[bombaysaffires]

But Keith showed up in Stevie's BTM so it seems like if there were sour grapes at one point they were smoothed over some time ago

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

But Keith showed up in Stevie's BTM so it seems like if there were sour grapes at one point they were smoothed over some time ago

Who says there's sour grapes? If you drink no wine before it's time, the vineyard owner is more likely to reap a better harvest...

Btw, did anyone get the audio from the interview? It's gone now and I'd like to hear the interview.

Thanks!

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by APerfectLie

I love the idea of Stevie and Linds working together again, but ,sorry to burst anyone's bubble, even if they start a project out as BuckinghamNicks, it will inevitably be turned into Fleetwood Mac. You know for a fact that Mick would show up at their doorstep with some puppy dog look on his face begging to be a part of it.

That's right.
And what's the point about recording a Buckingham Nicks album instead of a FM one? or doing a tour? Without Christine is practically the same . Since Lindsey is a good producer, it would be the same sound arrangements in a BN or FM album, cause he will be involved in it anyway. The song list would be the same.. So what? I don't think we will find a big difference with another drummer and bass player.

If the point is about "seeing Mick cut out of the $ on a tour " as I read in another post, I still wonder about all that hate to Mick. Yes he loves money, so what? Thanks to him and his money need we got Tango in the Night and (supposedly) the Live album. Thanks to him we got Lindsey and Stevie in the band. I guess those are enough reasons to be thankful to Mick Fleetwood.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by michelej1

But I thought they bought the rights from him and that she once said that she and Lindsey wholly owned them now. In fact, I remember her talking about that same car owned by TWO people. So, this comment sounds like a step back in time to me.

Michele

I don't think Keith ever owned it. But, he may be strong arming for a bigger piece of pie if he can?

From his Q&A:
"Lindsey and Stevie now own the rights to Buckingham Nicks... they bought it back from Polydor/polygram etc etc... The label in the beginning thought that the album lacked imagination... but by contract they had to release it... nice eh? What a wonderful business this is... I hope they (Lindsey and Stevie) will re release it soon... I'll get on their collective case about it...! I guess I have the only CD in the world.. I pulled out the masters over a year ago, baked them to re-adhere the oxide to the backing, then built a master digital from it... it took me back so many years."

According to Ken Caillat, he had been looking for the 24 track masters to mix BN into DVD Audio. He also said WB owned the rights to BN as well. That could be part of the hold up.

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by Villavic

And what's the point about recording a Buckingham Nicks album instead of a FM one? or doing a tour? Without Christine is practically the same . Since Lindsey is a good producer, it would be the same sound arrangements in a BN or FM album, cause he will be involved in it anyway. The song list would be the same..

On a second thought if the song list is based only or mainly on solo songs, that could be enough interesting. But I'm not excited about BN anyway.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

It matters to me because I'd like to see a full show with just Stevie & Lindsey & no back-up musicians. All acoustic guitar. That's a far cry from the overcrowded stage of recent Mac tours.

- Jake

Yes, and thank you. I totally agree.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I agree, but, that could just as easily be done in the context of Fleetwood Mac. Just listen to Kiln House, Future Games, and Bare Trees for proof. Mick and John are just players working with what they're given.

I think what you're missing here is the fact that some fans want to hear/see a B/N reunion that is NOT FM. There's a difference and it's okay. They were a band before they joined Mick Fleetwood and Co. It doesn't mean that we don't appreciate/love FM, it's just that we also love B/N. I know I was a fan of this duo before I became a FM fan. Weird but true.

The fact that you see B/N as a proto-FM that sounded like FM so that's why Mick was interested is ludicrous. They were a country-rock/folk duo and FM was a British blues band with pop leanings. They were not remotely the same. They melded their sounds together when they joined each other and made it work, therefore, making it appear to be a seamless pairing of musicians. I mean, let's face it, they were kind of a hodge-podge of sounds that miraculously made cohesive music. Let's not re-write history to make if it our arguments.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I think what you're missing here is the fact that some fans want to hear/see a B/N reunion that is NOT FM.

YOU'RE absolutely right. I **DON'T** get why people would want to see Stevie and Lindsey with an inferior rhythm section. I mean, why drive around with a Yugo when you have a Cadillac?

There's a difference and it's okay.

There WAS a difference. Not anymore.

They were a band before they joined Mick Fleetwood and Co. It doesn't mean that we don't appreciate/love FM, it's just that we also love B/N. I know I was a fan of this duo before I became a FM fan. Weird but true.

That's great and all, BUT LINDSEY AND STEVIE ARE THE SOLE FRONT-LINE OF FLEETWOOD MAC. Fleetwood Mac IS Buckingham Nicks, only with an amazing rhythm section. If having a sub-par rhythm section is what you need to tell yourself there's a difference, then I really don't get it. The whole "Buckingham Nicks" thing hasn't existed for nearly 40 years.

The fact that you see B/N as a proto-FM that sounded like FM so that's why Mick was interested is ludicrous.

Hmmmm...When Mick says that Lindsey's playing reminded him of Danny Kirwan, I guess I have to sweep that under the rug. F*ckin' Mick for putting thoughts in my head about things he was thinking about. The nerve of that bald bastard.

They were a country-rock/folk duo and FM was a British blues band with pop leanings.

BULLS**T. Station Man, Spare Me A Little Of Your Love, Sentimental Lady, Sometimes, Dust, Bare Trees, and Sunny Side Of Heaven beg to differ. Didn't RS call the 1975 album the little brother to "Bare Trees"?

I know it chaps their asses, but Fleetwood Mac had already charted certain waters when Ian and Sylvia joined the band. Stevie and Lindsey weren't so much original (they weren't), they just did some things better.

They were not remotely the same.

Yeah they were, if you were looking in the right places.

They melded their sounds together when they joined each other and made it work, therefore, making it appear to be a seamless pairing of musicians.

Yeah, because Mick and John (and Christine later) played with Peter Green, Jeremy Spencer, a very folky Danny Kirway, the mystic Bob Welch, and dealt with a bunch of stupid industry crap before they met Ian and Sylvia. Yeah, Fleetwood Mac wasn't ready for Stevie and Lindsey...

Please....

By the time Ian & Sylvia joined Fleetwood Mac, the band had pretty much seen or lived through it all. Linds and Nick couldn't have wished for a better situation. In one day, they upgraded their role in rock.

I mean, let's face it, they were kind of a hodge-podge of sounds that miraculously made cohesive music. Let's not re-write history to make if it our arguments.

REGARDLESS OF HISTORY....

Lindsey and Stevie simply can't find a rhythm section that will give their music the same justice Mick and John would. So, really, as of today, the only REAL difference between BN and FM is quality of rhythm section. Nothing else. Lindsey will be Lindsey, Stevie will be Stevie, the approach won't be so radically different as it has been over the past years.

You're Jonesing over a record that wasn't great (it was very good, though), that would not sound the same if the two principle members recorded a new record today.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Ian and Sylvia.

It's not often that I feel ignorant, on matters Fleetwood Mac, but WHO THE HELL are Ian and Sylvia???

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

It's not often that I feel ignorant, on matters Fleetwood Mac, but WHO THE HELL are Ian and Sylvia???

HAPPY BELATED CANADA DAY!
Voted greatest pop song in Canadian history. Neil Young sometimes covers it.

[HomerMcvie]

^^^ Gotcha. Never heard of it before!

[WildHearted]

I've said it before and I"ll say it again: obviously to Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham, there's a distinction between Fleetwood Mac and Buckingham Nicks - and that distinction still exists today. If they say there's a difference, then there's a difference to me as well.

The most obvious difference is that BN would play BN songs, not Fleetwood Mac songs. BN would probably play smaller venues than FM. And I'd venture to say that for Stevie and Lindsey, going on stage and being able to play a set without Mick and John, without having it labeled Fleetwood Mac and all that name carries, would probably be pretty sentimental for them.

This argument is like saying that Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks solo shows and albums are just Fleetwood Mac with worse backing musicians. No. They're not the same.

[sushud82]

You see, where Lindsey is the small machine and Fleetwood Mac is the big machine, Buckingham Nicks would be a nice medium-sized machine.

"Just right."

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by WildHearted

I've said it before and I"ll say it again: obviously to Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham, there's a distinction between Fleetwood Mac and Buckingham Nicks - and that distinction still exists today. If they say there's a difference, then there's a difference to me as well.

The most obvious difference is that BN would play BN songs, not Fleetwood Mac songs. BN would probably play smaller venues than FM. And I'd venture to say that for Stevie and Lindsey, going on stage and being able to play a set without Mick and John, without having it labeled Fleetwood Mac and all that name carries, would probably be pretty sentimental for them.

This argument is like saying that Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks solo shows and albums are just Fleetwood Mac with worse backing musicians. No. They're not the same.

Exactly. Thank you.

Originally Posted by sushud82

You see, where Lindsey is the small machine and Fleetwood Mac is the big machine, Buckingham Nicks would be a nice medium-sized machine.

"Just right."

Yep!