Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeInNV
Why is one part of their history and not the other? Just because, in some people's opinion, they do one of them better?
Exactly. You've got reasons that have more substance than simply, "it's not a Stevie solo song." Otherwise, both covers would upset you equally. I can appreciate people saying Stand Back has been done too much, or that she doesn't sing it well anymore, or (in your case) that it doesn't sound like FM, or even simply that it sucks. But "because it's not a Fleetwood Mac song" never seems like the real reason to me.
In my mind, "it doesn't sound like Fleetwood Mac" and "it's not a Fleetwood Mac song" are not the same argument. You have expressed the former; other people only the latter. Stevie, Chris, and Lindsey all have solo material that sounds like Fleetwood Mac. Should those songs be brought into the set? I think how people would answer that question depends on what it really is that irks them about Stand Back.
|
My argument falls in the former. That particular song was one of the biggest hits in Stevie's solo catalog; a song that strongly identifies her solo career. I understand the mindset that it adds a lot of energy to their shows; there's no denying that. But there are so many other choices. I welcome solo songs/cover songs in their set. Give the song a rest. Yet Stand Back has become Fleetwood Mac song by proxy, ever since it appeared on The Chain, Fleetwood Mac's box set. Now it's a staple in their set. Oh Well.
07-15-2014, 10:35 PM
Threaded Mode