Rumours Part 2... are you serious?

[Villavic]

I'm checking the Bob Brunning 2004 book "The Fleewood Mac Story - Rumours and Lies" I recently recovered, I had already given it up for lost until my brother called to say he’d found it in his attic. It’s a long story how it got there.

I had forgotten much of what is in that book, different or not included in Mick's book. One of those things caught my attention; I want to ask if anyone remembers any reviewer or critic saying this about Say You Will:

The new album, Say You Will, was completed in November 2002 and released in April 2003. It immediately entered the UK and US charts and was largely welcomed by reviewers and fans alike. Some reviewers carped a little, referring to it as Rumours: Part Two. But considering Rumours: Part One has now sold upwards of 25 million copies this might be regarded as a huge compliment, and certainly not something likely to worry Warner Bros.

If I had to choose an album as a Rumours 2 -which I don't— it would be Mirage. But not SYW. Not only because Christine isn't on it, but because it's quite different from Rumours.

[cbBen]

Perhaps they were referring not to the sound or sales of the album but to the subject matter, as on a few songs such as "Destiny Rules" "Thrown Down" and "Say Goodbye."

All those sped up vocals and instrumentation, and oddball production generally (not on the whole thing, but on much of it), are sonically at odds with not in keeping with Rumours.

[Mr Scarrott]

Bob Brunning's writing style was really terrible.

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

Bob Brunning's writing style was really terrible.

It is much more condensed than Mick's book, and you can tell it is a collection of articles and interviews he must have kept. But though more condensed, it includes some info not mentioned in Mick's book.

Several stories in Mick’s book are also based on articles—some exact phrases appear in YouTube interviews—but most of the book is narrated as if he were recalling himself, sometimes adding a touch of emotional truth that makes the book more engaging. Of course, this can also spark controversy, as there is room for disagreement—especially if we have read other sources that contradict the account.

[Macfan4life]

SYW is nothing close to Rumours. It much more like Tusk. As the fans of this board always say: its too long, its too cold, its not mixed correctly, I cant sing to Immune, Lindsey had too much control. The same criticisms of Tusk. SYW is a brilliant album. I understand Lindsey completely. The album rocks and is a musical orchestra. Fleetwood Mac has never played like this on an album before. So much music basses thumping, drums rolling, great guitar, etc. Lindsey's guitar offends people on Come. Boo hoo

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

SYW is nothing close to Rumours. It much more like Tusk. As the fans of this board always say: its too long, its too cold, its not mixed correctly, I cant sing to Immune, Lindsey had too much control. The same criticisms of Tusk. SYW is a brilliant album. I understand Lindsey completely. The album rocks and is a musical orchestra. Fleetwood Mac has never played like this on an album before. So much music basses thumping, drums rolling, great guitar, etc. Lindsey's guitar offends people on Come. Boo hoo

I agree it's nothing close to Rumours. Tusk too long? Maybe (I'm sure Warner thought so), but I didn't find it cold. I'm not a music pro so I can't analyze SYW or compare it to the other albums technically. What I do know is that, even though there are some things I didn't like about Tusk, I listen to it very often, entirely. I rarely listen to SYW.

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I agree it's nothing close to Rumours. Tusk too long? Maybe (I'm sure Warner thought so), but I didn't find it cold. I'm not a music pro so I can't analyze SYW or compare it to the other albums technically. What I do know is that, even though there are some things I didn't like about Tusk, I listen to it very often, entirely. I rarely listen to SYW.

I think Lindsey would agree with me that the process was similar. The band was against him and made him cut tracks. They wanted even more tracks cut but he got his way and they stayed. There is also experimentalism on SYW which is very similar to Tusk. Songs like Come, Illume and Everybody Finds Out are not the typical Mac songs. The band was against him but yielded to his ways. Mick says during the SYW documentary that if the album only sells 500K copies Lindsey is going to be so depressed. Sadly that is what the album sold back then.
So the process of creation was more similar to Tusk than Rumours. At the time of release both were considered slightly failures (in their time). Tusk clearly went platinum right away but those days albums sold.
And before the SYW haters jump on me YES I agree the album is missing Chris.

[HomerMcvie]

But Tusk came on the heels of the biggest album in the world.

SYW came 16(SIXTEEN!!!) years after Tango. They should have played it safe(r). Cut that bitch down to 12 tracks, and made it a more pleasant experience for the CASUAL fan.

Oh yeah, and without Christine, it was gonna suck anyway...

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

down to 12 tracks, and made it a more pleasant experience for the CASUAL fan.

I'm sure Reprise and Warner would have agreed with you. Casual fans are who at the end define their market share.

I remember there were threads and poll here, about which songs would we have chosen so that t SYW would have a usual runtime.

If it had only 12 songs, would I listen to it more often? Maybe, but I don't think much more. Definitely not as much as Tusk.

Would it have sold better? Probably, Google says when Fleetwood Mac released Say You Will on April 15, 2003, the standard CD version carried a standard list retail price of $18.98. Correct me if I'm wrong but that was a bit more expensive than the usual price. How much more would it have sold if it had cost ~$13? I don't think much more; it was already 2003.

How many casual fans cared that Christine wasn't there, to the point of not wanting to buy the album? That's a good question.

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I'm sure Reprise and Warner would have agreed with you. Casual fans are who at the end define their market share.

I remember there were threads and poll here, about which songs would we have chosen so that t SYW would have a usual runtime.

If it had only 12 songs, would I listen to it more often? Maybe, but I don't think much more. Definitely not as much as Tusk.

Would it have sold better? Probably, Google says when Fleetwood Mac released Say You Will on April 15, 2003, the standard CD version carried a standard list retail price of $18.98. Correct me if I'm wrong but that was a bit more expensive than the usual price. How much more would it have sold if it had cost ~$13? I don't think much more; it was already 2003.

How many casual fans cared that Christine wasn't there, to the point of not wanting to buy the album? That's a good question.

In 2003 digital sales were beating CD sales. Not only had music changed but selling it also changed. Peacekeeper came nowhere close to getting to the top 40. I think it hit #80 but it did alright on rock charts. In 2003 500K copies was considered almost a flop. Today that would be a HUGE success. Another perspective is Chris's 2004 solo album. It had zero promotion and sold 50k copies. Few knew about it and it was a huge commercial failure. Fast forward to 2018 and Buckingham McVie selling 50k copies and it debuted in the top 20.
You are correct. Casual fans did not know or care Christine was not there.
Too many Stevies on this board that also make the claim songs should have been cut. Its like cutting songs from Tusk. Why? I think people are delusional thinking that if 4 songs were cut from SYW that it would have sold more copies. That makes no sense. I cherish all the songs. We need to stop judging albums and music by commercial success or length of album. By that standard Extended Play should be the most popular EP/album ever. I rest my case

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I'm sure Reprise and Warner would have agreed with you. Casual fans are who at the end define their market share.

I remember there were threads and poll here, about which songs would we have chosen so that t SYW would have a usual runtime.

If it had only 12 songs, would I listen to it more often? Maybe, but I don't think much more. Definitely not as much as Tusk.

Would it have sold better? Probably, Google says when Fleetwood Mac released Say You Will on April 15, 2003, the standard CD version carried a standard list retail price of $18.98. Correct me if I'm wrong but that was a bit more expensive than the usual price. How much more would it have sold if it had cost ~$13? I don't think much more; it was already 2003.

How many casual fans cared that Christine wasn't there, to the point of not wanting to buy the album? That's a good question.

Casual fans are the ones who make your album sell 5 million copies. Die hards are the ones who buy your 50k.

A great album(ones that sell into the stratosphere) is a great experience, front to back. It flows seamlessly. I'd say that Tusk is that. SYW is NOT. I maintain that if they'd cut it down to the poppiest 42 minute album possible, that it would have sold more.

Casual fans not caring about Christine? Maybe not seeing her face, but hearing her pop songs, and her soothing voice? I've told this story a million times, but I got my copy of deluxe SYW from my cousin's roommate. She'd bought it, and tried to like it, but HATED it, and gave it to me. "This doesn't sound like FM!" She especially hated Come. I'd say she has good taste...

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

I think people are delusional thinking that if 4 songs were cut from SYW that it would have sold more copies. That makes no sense. I cherish all the songs. We need to stop judging albums and music by commercial success or length of album.

Well I do think it makes sense. But not because it would have been a better album. That's not my point. It could have sold more copies only if that had meant a lower price. By 2003, most casual fans interested in buying new Fleetwood Mac material already had other priorities—rent, children's school tuition, among other expenses. Yes paying a high price wouldn't have bankrupted them, but when you have more important things to spend money on, the reaction might simply be Hey, I will not pay that much for that album. Maybe 4 less songs wouldn't have meant an extreme cheap price, but a regular one could have eliminated the perception of an expensive product.

Those are my thoughts just about commercial outcomes. I am not within that "we" who judge albums based on that, but let's face it, that's a -not only but- important factor who may affect the future of any band.

And according to the review aggregator Metacritic, Say You Will received "generally favorable reviews" based on a weighted average score of 66 out of 100 from 8 critic scores. I know that just because I just read wikipedia. Actually I don't mind critics. Sometimes I check movies scores, but never music's.

So if SYW had only 12 songs, would I listen (entirely) to it more often? Maybe, but I don't think much more. I mean, I don't think I would have liked it much more, even if it had won the Grammy or sold more than Thriller. But that's me. As I always say, I love Empire Strikes Back but that doesn't mean that movie is better than The Godfather or Citizen Kane; "best" is not that same as "favorite".

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by Villavic

Well I do think it makes sense. But not because it would have been a better album. That's not my point. It could have sold more copies only if that had meant a lower price. By 2003, most casual fans interested in buying new Fleetwood Mac material already had other priorities—rent, children's school tuition, among other expenses. Yes paying a high price wouldn't have bankrupted them, but when you have more important things to spend money on, the reaction might simply be Hey, I will not pay that much for that album. Maybe 4 less songs wouldn't have meant an extreme cheap price, but a regular one could have eliminated the perception of an expensive product.

Those are my thoughts just about commercial outcomes. I am not within that "we" who judge albums based on that, but let's face it, that's a -not only but- important factor who may affect the future of any band.

And according to the review aggregator Metacritic, Say You Will received "generally favorable reviews" based on a weighted average score of 66 out of 100 from 8 critic scores. I know that just because I just read wikipedia. Actually I don't mind critics. Sometimes I check movies scores, but never music's.

So if SYW had only 12 songs, would I listen (entirely) to it more often? Maybe, but I don't think much more. I mean, I don't think I would have liked it much more, even if it had won the Grammy or sold more than Thriller. But that's me. As I always say, I love Empire Strikes Back but that doesn't mean that movie is better than The Godfather or Citizen Kane; "best" is not that same as "favorite".

Now you have a project to do. Put on SYW and listen front to back with headphones and rediscover the album you are not crazy about.
I still listen to Street Angel. Half the album is really good. I love the non-commercial aspect of it and the country rock feel. Songs are really good lyrically and there is lots of music unlike TISRA which sounded like studio musicians adding a soft back track.
I don't love the album but its got some good moments. One album I never bought again upgrading to CD is Rock A Little. Most of the album is a giant dud. It has a few ok tracks but nothing listening through for. When I listen to SYW I am blown away at the production and music. Maybe because I mostly listened to it with headphones? Who knows.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Villavic

Well I do think it makes sense. But not because it would have been a better album. That's not my point. It could have sold more copies only if that had meant a lower price. By 2003, most casual fans interested in buying new Fleetwood Mac material already had other priorities—rent, children's school tuition, among other expenses. Yes paying a high price wouldn't have bankrupted them, but when you have more important things to spend money on, the reaction might simply be Hey, I will not pay that much for that album. Maybe 4 less songs wouldn't have meant an extreme cheap price, but a regular one could have eliminated the perception of an expensive product.

The Eagles Long Road OOE debuted at #1, AND was a double album, AND had an exclusive deal with Walmart, and I believe was only $9.99(maybe it was $12?) THAT'S how you sell your sh1t. And sold 3.5M in the U.S.(counted as 7M sold, since it was a double album).

For lack of a better and more socially accepted word....our band is retarded. Bad decisions abound!

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Casual fans are the ones who make your album sell 5 million copies. Die hards are the ones who buy your 50k.

A great album(ones that sell into the stratosphere) is a great experience, front to back. It flows seamlessly. I'd say that Tusk is that. SYW is NOT. I maintain that if they'd cut it down to the poppiest 42 minute album possible, that it would have sold more.

Casual fans not caring about Christine? Maybe not seeing her face, but hearing her pop songs, and her soothing voice? I've told this story a million times, but I got my copy of deluxe SYW from my cousin's roommate. She'd bought it, and tried to like it, but HATED it, and gave it to me. "This doesn't sound like FM!" She especially hated Come. I'd say she has good taste...

I mean, can you imagine Tusk without Brown Eyes, Think About Me, Honey Hi, Never Forget, Never Make Me Cry, and The amazing Over and Over?

And then have those songs replaced by those two whackos? It would be a trashy mess, much like SYW is.