Live 1980 and The Dance 1997

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I don't know... maybe in dissention's early days it would have had more impact.

These days, his pithy comments ring hollow... they seem plodding and careless to me.
I think he just types the first thing that comes into his head and clicks Send. There's no self-editing or refining.

Oh well... what can ya do?!

Did you just say something negative? Good lord, what's the world coming to? J/k, Johnny Stew.

[Miss Vicky]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

But people went "frikkin' fruitloops" for "Sara" in comparison

At the last show I went to, people went "frikkin' fruitloops" when Stevie turned her back to them. WTF? I swear for some of the chiffon-heads it's more like they're members of a cult with Stevie as their leader than just being her fans.

Kool Aid anyone?

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Miss Vicky

At the last show I went to, people went "frikkin' fruitloops" when Stevie turned her back to them. WTF? I swear for some of the chiffon-heads it's more like they're members of a cult with Stevie as their leader than just being her fans.

Kool Aid anyone?

Yeah, it always puzzles me how everyone goes absolutely nuts when Stevie turns her back and spreads out her arms. I would be pissed if I was Lindsey who has to run laps around the stage shedding 5 pounds a night with 4-5 minute guitar solos and Stevie beats his applause by wearing a red shawl and spreading her arms

[dontlookdown]

I love Lindsey's tracks on the Dance and all of Stevie's w/ the exception of Rhiannon. Christine falls flat on everyone.

"Live", for me is great from start to finish. I love its flaws - it's electric energy and gorgeous guitar - it's what has always made this band so special.

The extra musicians and back up singers mostly annoyed me during the last few tours.

[Kelly]

I felt like Stevie seemed happier during Sara..like she actually wanted to be there for a change! Maybe it is just my perception but I did not get the feeling she was forced or coerced to perform the song but who knows? The lame ass reasons she has given for years as to why she couldn't perform Sara live went out the window because it did sound good..the band was able to pull it off.... Stevie will never ever be able to say "it doesn't translate to stage well" again.

To stay on topic..I love both albums. The Dance has alot of emotional significance for me but the Live album brings back great memories. I remember my Mom putting that record on in the morning when she would wake me up for school! (Dad put on Willie Nelson...oy...I can still hear it in my head)
A favorite on that album is Fireflies.

[Hawkeye]

Diss, didn't you see Stevie at like the height of her illness. It was the 2 show return she made in the middle of 2 long breaks. You were NOT seeing her at her best.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Diss, didn't you see Stevie at like the height of her illness. It was the 2 show return she made in the middle of 2 long breaks. You were NOT seeing her at her best.

Yeah, but I got the same impressions from the boots. I don't like Sara on Tusk, but I adore it live. For some reason, though, I think they should have let it be because I found it unlistenable this past tour.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yeah, but I got the same impressions from the boots. I don't like Sara on Tusk, but I adore it live. For some reason, though, I think they should have let it be because I found it unlistenable this past tour.

But, But, she smiled so much during it!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Kelly

The lame ass reasons she has given for years as to why she couldn't perform Sara live went out the window because it did sound good..the band was able to pull it off.... Stevie will never ever be able to say "it doesn't translate to stage well" again.

I always felt she was doing a bit of artful dodging there, and that her reasons for no longer performing "Sara" were probably personal and had nothing to do with how well or how poorly it may have "translated to stage."

[GeminiCusp82]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I love both...although my only problems with the LIVE CD is that I would prefer it to be recorded from one show...it doesn't flow very well..and some of the performances are not from where they actually claim they are from...a few of them are not even from the actual TUSK Tour..although I loved that they listed all the tour dates in there..

Chris

Well, it just says Fleetwood Mac Live. It doesnt say Fleetwood Mac Live Tusk Tour. Maybe that is why they did it that way. Who knows

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I always felt she was doing a bit of artful dodging there, and that her reasons for no longer performing "Sara" were probably personal and had nothing to do with how well or how poorly it may have "translated to stage."

I think it was a master plan she cooked up years ago in an effort to ensure that tickets would still sell 15+ years on.

[GeminiCusp82]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

I love Lindsey's tracks on the Dance and all of Stevie's w/ the exception of Rhiannon. Christine falls flat on everyone.

"Live", for me is great from start to finish. I love its flaws - it's electric energy and gorgeous guitar - it's what has always made this band so special.

The extra musicians and back up singers mostly annoyed me during the last few tours.

I like the back up singers but only on Stevie's tours where they should be. When they are with the Mac they seem so over powering..even on some of Stevie's solo tours they are much louder sounding than her half of the time. But I agree that the old era of FM without the back up singers was great. I think the Mirage Tour was the last tour they did with just the 5 of them and I think Ray Lindsey but he doesnt really count except when you see him on GYOW. I think that is Ray Lindsey...I could be wrong...

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by Cour

I totally forgot they even released LIB Landslide. It didn't hold a candle to the Dance version and with the amount of airplay the original and DC's version received it was a stupid safe release.

BC could have been LIB's Landslide.

DUMB DUMB DUMB

No only was it dumb...it was redundant, redundant and more redundant. How about a new word to describe some of Fleetwood Mac's foolish marketing decisions: "REDUMBDANT."

I think it's so SHAMELESS how they milk the same small group of songs, twenty-something years after the fact, as if any of the work they have done since then has no merit.

Granted, it's mostly indicative of them bowing to the (mostly) self-impossed pressure to appeal to the masses , i.e. the casual fan who only knows and cares about the songs that brought them massive fame. As a result, we get songs like Landslide released (in various forms) in 1975, 1980, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2004.

The true, loyal long-standing fans get fed substandard, uninspired product that we often already have in various other forms. The "Live In Boston" audio cd was insulting to me. Shameless! Even the DVD wasn't really up-to-par with similar product from other bands.

In concert we get to hear worn out concert performances of Rhiannon and Dreams, long after they should have been retired, preventing the band from really progressing in order to establish "new" classics. In fact, there seems to be more degression as time goes on. They are now dangerously close to being seen as an "oldies" band.

For a band of their stature and longevity, their miss-steps and play-it-too-safe tactics baffle and frustrate the hell of out me. Maybe it's unfair to compare them to other bands. Yet, I see bands with much smaller stature and fan bases putting out product with inspired design, tailored specifically to their fans.

Take a band like REM. They had a successful career for many years as an "underground band," performing in 2000-5000 seat theaters. When the song "Stand" hit the charts, it made them famous to the masses. Then they they started performing in large stadiums. Did they continue to play "Stand" years and years to come just to placate the casual fan who only really knows them through radio play?

NO! NO! NO! And congrats to them. In actuality, they hated that song....considered it a novelty. It was their biggest hit...and they rarely, if ever, play it. Too bad for the casual fan who attends their concert and feels slighted. WA! WA! WA! Great for the ardent fans who are happy to hear a great band performing a show that embraces and establishes their newer material, and gives referential treatment to lesser known and obscure older songs.

They seem to be entirely in touch with their followers. Fleetwood Mac seems totally out of touch with their followers and very much in the pocket of the hapless, soul-less monalith that is the antiquated record industry.

And I lothe the mindset of the casual fans who attend concerts and expect (and demand) to hear the hits and take bathroom breaks during songs they don't know. I guess it may be a generation gap or something...but when I go see a band I like, I have no expectations other than a good show. When they do the unexpected, it's inspired and special. If they do just what is expected, it's like Las Vegas -- tightly safe and canned.

The independant labels are doing a much better job representing their artists. Fleetwood Mac deserves better.

I could go on...but I'll save my high-blood pressure for something more important.

[Jyqm]

Three cheers, and very well said! Couldn't have put it better.

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

No only was it dumb...it was redundant, redundant and more redundant. How about a new word to describe some of Fleetwood Mac's foolish marketing decisions: "REDUMBDANT."

I think it's so SHAMELESS how they milk the same small group of songs, twenty-something years after the fact, as if any of the work they have done since then has no merit.

Granted, it's mostly indicative of them bowing to the (mostly) self-impossed pressure to appeal to the masses , i.e. the casual fan who only knows and cares about the songs that brought them massive fame. As a result, we get songs like Landslide released (in various forms) in 1975, 1980, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2004.

The true, loyal long-standing fans get fed substandard, uninspired product that we often already have in various other forms. The "Live In Boston" audio cd was insulting to me. Shameless! Even the DVD wasn't really up-to-par with similar product from other bands.

In concert we get to hear worn out concert performances of Rhiannon and Dreams, long after they should have been retired, preventing the band from really progressing in order to establish "new" classics. In fact, there seems to be more degression as time goes on. They are now dangerously close to being seen as an "oldies" band.

For a band of their stature and longevity, their miss-steps and play-it-too-safe tactics baffle and frustrate the hell of out me. Maybe it's unfair to compare them to other bands. Yet, I see bands with much smaller stature and fan bases putting out product with inspired design, tailored specifically to their fans.

Take a band like REM. They had a successful career for many years as an "underground band," performing in 2000-5000 seat theaters. When the song "Stand" hit the charts, it made them famous to the masses. Then they they started performing in large stadiums. Did they continue to play "Stand" years and years to come just to placate the casual fan who only really knows them through radio play?

NO! NO! NO! And congrats to them. In actuality, they hated that song....considered it a novelty. It was their biggest hit...and they rarely, if ever, play it. Too bad for the casual fan who attends their concert and feels slighted. WA! WA! WA! Great for the ardent fans who are happy to hear a great band performing a show that embraces and establishes their newer material, and gives referential treatment to lesser known and obscure older songs.

They seem to be entirely in touch with their followers. Fleetwood Mac seems totally out of touch with their followers and very much in the pocket of the hapless, soul-less monalith that is the antiquated record industry.

And I lothe the mindset of the casual fans who attend concerts and expect (and demand) to hear the hits and take bathroom breaks during songs they don't know. I guess it may be a generation gap or something...but when I go see a band I like, I have no expectations other than a good show. When they do the unexpected, it's inspired and special. If they do just what is expected, it's like Las Vegas -- tightly safe and canned.

The independant labels are doing a much better job representing their artists. Fleetwood Mac deserves better.

I could go on...but I'll save my high-blood pressure for something more important.

[David]

Originally Posted by takenbythesky

I figure that, for a long time, Stevie Nicks was not in a stable or "good" enough place emotionally to perform "Sara." When she had the cocaine or the tranquilizers or the alcohol to numb the pain or occupy her mind, I'm guessing that the emotional resonance would not be there. She was most likely able to "pick up" after performing "Sara" and go on. Now, sober, Stevie Nicks would have to face the reality that all of the events that inspired her song happened, and that time in her life is over--it will never come again. Perhaps these reasons are why she chose not to perform the fan favorite that it "Sara" for years.

This is an excellent hypothesis, & seems very plausible to me. The only thing that is still puzzling is from a comment she made to Jim Ladd back in 1979: "I love performing it onstage. It's the absolute delight of my night."

My own hypothesis concerns the way that sometimes casual remarks made to us insinuate themselves in our consciousness far deeper than they were intended, & fairly haunt us -- sometimes for years afterward. My hunch is that either one of the musicians in her band or one of the musicians in Fleetwood Mac, at some point way back when, made some comment about how mechanical the music of "Sara" is when it's played live, & about how it doesn't capture the weird sonic canvas it developed in the studio. Maybe Stevie reacted to that pretty seriously; I can imagine Christine or Lindsey (or even Waddy or Benmont, solo-side) saying something about "Sara" being a bit boring onstage instrumentally, & because of that, Stevie over the years refusing to play it in concert, partly out of agreement but partly out of a confused hurt.

Imagine you had written something & were playing it live, but someone in your band said something negative about how it wasn't working, perhaps -- you might say, "Well, fine. Let's just not play it at all."

Feelings in band situations are always a lot more volatile & sensitive than they are in other situations. Those of you in bands know what I'm talking about.