Five Tips For Saving FM (Chicago Sun Times)

[StandbackStevie]

very good article and hope the band reads this one and takes some notes.I am a maybe about going to see them at Mohegan Sun Arena here in Connecticut on April 20th.I wish they would rehash there set list and like everyone else.Lindsey and Stevie can read the bible and we would be happy with it.lol.

[Ulpian]

I agree with the sentiments expressed in this article.

I saw David Gilmour some years ago at the Royal Albert Hall; he did the old Floyd trick of playing the entirety of his new album before the interval, prefaced by one old track. He then did hits/lost treasures in the second half.

No one jeered in the first half. No one walked out. They were hearing stuff for the first 80 mins which was not 'hits' and they didn't care. They came to hear David's beautiful voice and amazing guitar playing.

The Mac could do the same. To pretend that if they changed the set list people would walk out or wouldn't come is disingenuous.

Add Angel, Seven Wonders, Tango in the Night, Crystal, Save Me A Place, Blue Letter, Peacekeeper, Bleed to Love Her, I Don't Want to Know... And you know what, if your voice has changed since you last did it, then change how the song sounds live. Plenty of older artists do, and it works; you've done it for SotM.

Get rid of Rhiannon, Gypsy, NGBA, Stand Back, World Turning and others. They're tired and they need a rest (esp if you are going to trot the same versions out as you did on the last tour).

I love Fleetwood Mac but I'm a little fed up of hearing the band complain that they 'have' to play a particular batch of hits every tour. You don't. You have the power to change that. Sure, some must stay in, but not all, and frankly both you and the audience will reap the rewards of a fresh set and a renewed vibe.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by Ulpian

I agree with the sentiments expressed in this article.

I saw David Gilmour some years ago at the Royal Albert Hall; he did the old Floyd trick of playing the entirety of his new album before the interval, prefaced by one old track. He then did hits/lost treasures in the second half.

No one jeered in the first half. No one walked out. They were hearing stuff for the first 80 mins which was not 'hits' and they didn't care. They came to hear David's beautiful voice and amazing guitar playing.

The Mac could do the same. To pretend that if they changed the set list people would walk out or wouldn't come is disingenuous.

I think David Gilmour and Fleetwood Mac have different audiences though. Fleetwood Mac is more of a pop band with hit songs. Not the case with Pink Floyd. So Gilmour's audience might be more willing to sit and listen to new stuff. Now, I do believe many of those songs you mentioned are expendable and not songs they HAVE to play, but they still have quite a bit of songs they do have to play IMO.

[Ulpian]

Originally Posted by MikeVielhaber

I think David Gilmour and Fleetwood Mac have different audiences though. Fleetwood Mac is more of a pop band with hit songs. Not the case with Pink Floyd. So Gilmour's audience might be more willing to sit and listen to new stuff. Now, I do believe many of those songs you mentioned are expendable and not songs they HAVE to play, but they still have quite a bit of songs they do have to play IMO.

You're right that the audiences are different, but I do think there are a few staples which they can just retire. Many of the hits disappeared when Christine left; she, after all, had the most chart hits amongst her repertoire and yet the last three tours have worked without her (even if I'd rather she was there).

[PenguinHead]

Fleetwood Mac have artistically constrained and boxed themselves in with a flawed and limited mindset. Mick, Stevie and Lindsey have all stated, in their own terms, that a huge block of songs always have to be in the set "other wise people will run for the doors."

Where is this twisted thought coming from? If they took this approach at their onset, they'd still be playing Peter Green era songs, and the Tusk tour would feature only three new songs at most.

What happened to their creative ambition? Both Lindsey and Stevie, in their solo careers, have shown some of that ambition. Yet, within the context of Fleetwood Mac, they button up tight. Where is the drive to explore their overlooked and under-exposed work? They obviously see the positive reaction they get when something unexpected is offered. Yet they default to the same old same old material, because "they have to."

I don't think they have any clue about the true nature of their hard-core fan base, and instead, cater to casual mom and pop fans who only know the hits, not wanting to disappoint that audience. This seriously limits them. I know of many big bands who don't operate this way. They know they can put on a great show without any constraints or expectations other than performing well.

My sister, who will be seeing them at the upcoming Boston show, is a very casual fan. When she told me she was bought tickets to the show, I asked her if she had any Fleetwood Mac albums, and she didn't. So I can understand that she would want to hear some songs she recognized. Yet, those songs don't need to dominate the show. I'm sure she will enjoy Sad Angel, Without You, Sisters of the Moon etc...having never heard them, because a good performance can be entertaining and enjoyable even though you may not be familiar with it! That's not a revelation by any means.

All those well-worn, over-familiar songs were, at one time, new and unfamiliar songs, so why are Fleetwood Mac, at this late stage in their lauded career, so sheepish about introducing new material? They need grow a big pair of balls, listen to their fans (who are more in touch with their catalog of work than they are), and give us new recorded music and perform it. It's not about aiming for chart-topping success (it's unreasonable as they are beyond that phase), but artistic growth and creative progression. Lindsey talks a lot about that, and it has shown in his recent solo work, but the "Big Machine" mentality seeps in when he's the the Fleetwood Mac fold.

In lieu of that, I'm so frustrated that they don't mine their previous work: Buckingham/Nicks tracks, Crystal. I Don't Want To Know, Tango In the Night, Seven Wonders, That's Alright, Walk A Thin Line, Twisted, etc...so many missed opportunities, and so many stale choices.

[Ulpian]

^ Amen.

It just feels lazy of them, which of course is silly because they work hard. New stuff in the set would be a tonic for them and us.

[LB Freakazoid]

I remember some interview with one of them (FM) talking about when they went on tour to promote Rumours, they played almost all of Rumours at the first couple of shows - maybe even just the first one - and they saw a lot of the audience bored and whatnot... And they immediately changed the set list to include songs the audience would know...
And it was at that moment, they all decided never to do too many songs the audience did not know...

Silly as it is... It seems like they have never moved from that stance.

Does anyone remember this interview?

[Ulpian]

Originally Posted by LB Freakazoid

I remember some interview with one of them (FM) talking about when they went on tour to promote Rumours, they played almost all of Rumours at the first couple of shows - maybe even just the first one - and they saw a lot of the audience bored and whatnot... And they immediately changed the set list to include songs the audience would know...
And it was at that moment, they all decided never to do too many songs the audience did not know...

Silly as it is... It seems like they have never moved from that stance.

Does anyone remember this interview?

Yes, I think it was a recent one with Lindsey and Stevie.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

All those well-worn, over-familiar songs were, at one time, new and unfamiliar songs, so why are Fleetwood Mac, at this late stage in their lauded career, so sheepish about introducing new material? They need grow a big pair of balls, listen to their fans (who are more in touch with their catalog of work than they are), and give us new recorded music and perform it. It's not about aiming for chart-topping success (it's unreasonable as they are beyond that phase), but artistic growth and creative progression. Lindsey talks a lot about that, and it has shown in his recent solo work, but the "Big Machine" mentality seeps in when he's the the Fleetwood Mac fold.

On the other hand, Lindsey, Mick and John did record nearly an album's worth of songs for a FM album and want to release them. It's Stevie that's holding them back. Last time they released an album they played plenty of new music.

[TrueFaith77]

I think they just don't like recording with each other and Stevie is not about to hand over her songs to Lindsey again.

I just wish they would SAY it's over.

I feel like either she is leading him on or they are leading me on.

[Ulpian]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I think they just don't like recording with each other and Stevie is not about to hand over her songs to Lindsey again.

I just wish they would SAY it's over.

I feel like either she is leading him on or they are leading me on.

They ought perhaps just to have finished in 1998. It's been 'over' for a long time, really.

LB and SN could have done their own thing after The Dance and it wouldn't, for me, have made much difference. I don't like SYW and I haven't been overwhelmed by the last two tours, though the 09 one was enjoyable enough.

As Christine said, it's basically now Buckingham Nicks with a very good rhythm section.

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by LB Freakazoid

I remember some interview with one of them (FM) talking about when they went on tour to promote Rumours, they played almost all of Rumours at the first couple of shows - maybe even just the first one - and they saw a lot of the audience bored and whatnot... And they immediately changed the set list to include songs the audience would know...
And it was at that moment, they all decided never to do too many songs the audience did not know...

Silly as it is... It seems like they have never moved from that stance.

Does anyone remember this interview?

Its not silly though. We, the diehard fans, would probably love to hear deep album tracks and new songs. Many of the concert goers though want the hits and just the hits. I saw Mac on the Say You Will tour in Madison WI. When a Say You Will song was being played, you could see lines of people heading for concessions/restrooms. Every single time. That has to be really hard to take when you're playing your new stuff that you're really excited about.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by LB Freakazoid

Does anyone remember this interview?

About 6 min in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPlK7nPJpA0

[LB Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

About 6 min in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPlK7nPJpA0

Thanks!

It wasn't that particular interview - however, same thing said.....

[NOMAD2]

Let's face it. All of my heroes are for the most part disconnected from or don't care about their TRUE fans. OOOOOP)S did ya hear what KID ROCK (YUK) IS DOING. FM,Paul McCartney ( although he's sloooowwwwllly integrated rare/new songs in recent years), THE MOODY BLUES & sooooo many more just keep mailing it in & refuse to put in rare (save for the token new/rare song) ,previously undone songs never done live etc. After all this time they CAN play those rare songs because after all this time it doesn't matter. THEY WILL COME. if many go on bathroom breaks for the non hits so be it. If they've come many times before they will come again ( how many more agains can there be). And if they don't come back SO WHAT. Others will fill the seats.
We die hard fans have been beating this topic to death for all these bands . They really don't care folks. It's all about disconnect & the almighty $$$.
GEEEE sounds like a politician. But, that's another story.