The Ledge

Go Back   The Ledge > Main Forums > Rumours
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:10 PM
TheWILDheart TheWILDheart is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiliD View Post
Not really ...ask Gary Wright; or Emerson, Lake & Palmer; or the Modern Jazz Quartet, or Thelonious Monk, or Miles Davis.
what about Keane? they don't have any guitars it's all piano and they ROCK!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:11 PM
foxyluva's Avatar
foxyluva foxyluva is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiliD View Post
Not really ...ask Gary Wright; or Emerson, Lake & Palmer; or the Modern Jazz Quartet, or Thelonious Monk, or Miles Davis.
Let me rephrase - Fleetwood Mac needed another guitarist.

And on a side note - I love Gary Wright wasn't he the first person to release an album made up only of music from a keyboard?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:23 PM
michelle2677's Avatar
michelle2677 michelle2677 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: at the railway station, waiting
Posts: 7,804
Default

I really just think that it is difficult to change someones perceptive of a band after key players have left. Well, key players that one is used to listening to. That spark, chemistry and magic is gone that you loved so much. It's not to say that Peter Green is better than Lindsey, or Stevie is better than Bekka. They are just totally different bands imho. The reason I fell in love with Fleetwood Mac in the first place is because of the chemistry of the Rumours line-up. I'm not saying the other reincarnations are awful (I can't really pass ANY judgement because I have never really listened to them) but I just prefer this lineup.

Exact same with a cover of a song. I never got it until recently. My mother would always get SO mad when people would remake songs she listened to growing up and she would say...."Its not as good as the original". Well..of course it's not. You're used to hearing it a certain way...but people hearing it for the first time may love it. Same with the different lineups of the ever-changing mac.

did that make sense?? not to step on anyone's toes. I think the "original" way you hear it is more than likely always going to be your favorite and nothing will ever compare.



Quote:
Originally Posted by chiliD View Post
Or a cleaning lady.

.
Priceless!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva View Post

It has nothing to do with Fleetwood Mac reinventing themselves - but they went around it the wrong way. The album had no promotion, so what did they expect? For it to be a new defining moment for them


.
Just because an album is promoted poorly, does that necessarily make it a bad album??
__________________
Photobucket
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:29 PM
foxyluva's Avatar
foxyluva foxyluva is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle2677 View Post
Just because an album is promoted poorly, does that necessarily make it a bad album??
If you check the same post that you quoted me from - I never once said 'Time' is a BAD album...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:32 PM
TheWILDheart TheWILDheart is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle2677 View Post
Just because an album is promoted poorly, does that necessarily make it a bad album??
No of course it doesn't....look @ TISL in the uk...#45..or Out of the Cradle..#104 (?) in the US and #55 (?) in the UK...or somewhere round there..and they are really good albums (I'm not a LB solo fan but it was a good album)

However, the cold fact is...Time WAS a bad album. It was a waste of everyone's time and a waste of money to those who bought it.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 04:33 PM
michelle2677
This message has been deleted by michelle2677.
  #36  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:34 PM
michelle2677's Avatar
michelle2677 michelle2677 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: at the railway station, waiting
Posts: 7,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva View Post
If you check the same post that you quoted me from - I never once said 'Time' is a BAD album...
oh..I'm sorry. You said "pointless venture" earlier in the thread.


that's definately different than "bad".
__________________
Photobucket
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:35 PM
foxyluva's Avatar
foxyluva foxyluva is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle2677 View Post
^^oh..I'm sorry. You said "pointless venture" earlier in the thread.
that's definately different than "bad".
It was very pointless - it came out of nowhere - and for once I agree with theWILDheart - it was a waste of time (no pun intended) and effort, but not because it was a bad album, but because they went about it all wrong...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:36 PM
michelle2677's Avatar
michelle2677 michelle2677 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: at the railway station, waiting
Posts: 7,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWILDheart View Post
No of course it doesn't....look @ TISL in the uk...#45..or Out of the Cradle..#104 (?) in the US and #55 (?) in the UK...or somewhere round there..and they are really good albums (I'm not a LB solo fan but it was a good album)

However, the cold fact is...Time WAS a bad album. It was a waste of everyone's time and a waste of money to those who bought it.
oh..I agree that it sold very bad!!! But I do know of a couple of people who really love the album (I'm hoping there are actually MORE than a few out there!! ) so would not think it was a waste of time
__________________
Photobucket
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:37 PM
michelle2677's Avatar
michelle2677 michelle2677 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: at the railway station, waiting
Posts: 7,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva View Post
It was very pointless - it came out of nowhere - and for once I agree with theWILDheart - it was a waste of time (no pun intended) and effort, but not because it was a bad album, but because they went about it all wrong...

I know..I wonder if they just "assumed" it wouldn't do good because S and L were gone so they didn't bother. I would think they would have tried even harder to promote since they had some ground to cover with all the band memeber changes.
__________________
Photobucket
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:46 PM
TheWILDheart TheWILDheart is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle2677 View Post
oh..I agree that it sold very bad!!! But I do know of a couple of people who really love the album (I'm hoping there are actually MORE than a few out there!! ) so would not think it was a waste of time
Yeh but my point was that it's just rubbish. I could name some songs from it but wouldn't be able to hum it, sing it or fart it...it's so unmemorable. There is no amazing vocal performance, no enchanting lyrics and no soul. It's like someone has put together a machine to put the bare minimum of a Fleetwood Mac album onto CD. There is no WOW factor like we had with every album before it and every Stevie album ever made. Even SYW had a WOW factor on a lot of songs - even RAL did cos Stevie's voice kicked ass on it. Time was just not worth it. I keep expecting Christine to fall asleep during her own song - "The bright lights of the city are starting to.....(Billy: Psstt..chris..we're still recording..) Zzzzzzzzzzz". And something else, I forgot Billy was even present on this album. It seems all the members of Fleetwood Mac had either left, fallen asleep or gone to get a coffee during the making of this album.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:48 PM
foxyluva's Avatar
foxyluva foxyluva is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWILDheart View Post
Yeh but my point was that it's just rubbish. I could name some songs from it but wouldn't be able to hum it, sing it or fart it...it's so unmemorable. There is no amazing vocal performance, no enchanting lyrics and no soul. It's like someone has put together a machine to put the bare minimum of a Fleetwood Mac album onto CD. There is no WOW factor like we had with every album before it and every Stevie album ever made. Even SYW had a WOW factor on a lot of songs - even RAL did cos Stevie's voice kicked ass on it. Time was just not worth it. I keep expecting Christine to fall asleep during her own song - "The bright lights of the city are starting to.....(Billy: Psstt..chris..we're still recording..) Zzzzzzzzzzz". And something else, I forgot Billy was even present on this album. It seems all the members of Fleetwood Mac had either left, fallen asleep or gone to get a coffee during the making of this album.
Jeez your a chiffon-head if I ever heard one

What do you think of the pre-Buckingham Nicks stuff just out of interest
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-06-2006, 04:51 PM
TheWILDheart TheWILDheart is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva View Post
Jeez your a chiffon-head if I ever heard one

What do you think of the pre-Buckingham Nicks stuff just out of interest
Actually you know some of it is ok...I like some of Christine's stuff and stuff along the lines of "Black Magic Woman" but "Oh Well" is more bonkers than "Tusk" and "Albatross" just bores the living snot out of me. I don't really know a lot of the early stuff. I got into Fleetwood Mac through my Dad - they're his era ya see and then ventured into Stevie myself. I have to say, STEVIE WHOPPS EVERYONE'S TUSH!! SHE IS THE ULTIMATE!! Right ok..look u see I'm giving "Time" another shot...it's only on track 2 and I'm allready bored. Looking down at the tracklisting i'm thinking "God this is gonna take AGES!!" - i'm gonna have to play Bella Donna TWICE now to make up for it!!

Last edited by TheWILDheart; 10-06-2006 at 04:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-06-2006, 05:05 PM
chiliD's Avatar
chiliD chiliD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the backseat of a Studebaker
Posts: 9,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWILDheart View Post
Yeh but my point was that it's just rubbish. I could name some songs from it but wouldn't be able to hum it, sing it or fart it...it's so unmemorable. There is no amazing vocal performance, no enchanting lyrics and no soul. It's like someone has put together a machine to put the bare minimum of a Fleetwood Mac album onto CD. There is no WOW factor like we had with every album before it and every Stevie album ever made. Even SYW had a WOW factor on a lot of songs - even RAL did cos Stevie's voice kicked ass on it. Time was just not worth it. I keep expecting Christine to fall asleep during her own song - "The bright lights of the city are starting to.....(Billy: Psstt..chris..we're still recording..) Zzzzzzzzzzz". And something else, I forgot Billy was even present on this album. It seems all the members of Fleetwood Mac had either left, fallen asleep or gone to get a coffee during the making of this album.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyluva View Post
Jeez your a chiffon-head if I ever heard one :
A deaf one at that. If OSOTM has a "Wow" factor (or "amazing vocal performances"), I'd run, not walk to a ENT specialist, because something is DEFINITELY wrong with your auditory canals.
__________________
Among God's creations, two, the dog and the guitar, have taken all the sizes and all the shapes in order not to be separated from the man.---Andres Segovia
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-06-2006, 05:14 PM
foxyluva's Avatar
foxyluva foxyluva is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiliD View Post
A deaf one at that. If OSOTM has a "Wow" factor (or "amazing vocal performances"), I'd run, not walk to a ENT specialist, because something is DEFINITELY wrong with your auditory canals.


Let him live in his own little world of chiffon and lace - we are the enlightened ones

Although I love OSOTM
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-06-2006, 05:14 PM
michelle2677's Avatar
michelle2677 michelle2677 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: at the railway station, waiting
Posts: 7,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWILDheart View Post
Yeh but my point was that it's just rubbish. I could name some songs from it but wouldn't be able to hum it, sing it or fart it...it's so unmemorable. There is no amazing vocal performance, no enchanting lyrics and no soul. It's like someone has put together a machine to put the bare minimum of a Fleetwood Mac album onto CD. There is no WOW factor like we had with every album before it and every Stevie album ever made. Even SYW had a WOW factor on a lot of songs - even RAL did cos Stevie's voice kicked ass on it. Time was just not worth it. I keep expecting Christine to fall asleep during her own song - "The bright lights of the city are starting to.....(Billy: Psstt..chris..we're still recording..) Zzzzzzzzzzz". And something else, I forgot Billy was even present on this album. It seems all the members of Fleetwood Mac had either left, fallen asleep or gone to get a coffee during the making of this album.

or gone to get coffee so they DIDN'T fall asleep

I know...and trust me-I get it. I just don't knocking other lineups because I don't like it when people make fun of stevie. I can take it, but it doesn't necessarily mean I have to like it To me she's tops...but to other people she is unnerving and that's o.k. too.
__________________
Photobucket
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


1970s Pop, Bob Brunning picture

1970s Pop, Bob Brunning

$5.40



Reggae Hardcover Bob Brunning picture

Reggae Hardcover Bob Brunning

$8.05



Reggae Hardcover Bob Brunning picture

Reggae Hardcover Bob Brunning

$8.05



Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae picture

Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae

$59.99



Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae picture

Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae

$38.99




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved