An Official Fleetwood Mac Album Debate - Page 2

shackin'up · #16 02-21-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danax6

And as I mentioned once before, the argument that it sounds like two solo albums thrown together doesn't hold up either. Lindsey made Stevie's songs to fit his own ones. Secondly, you could say that about Tusk and TITN also, both Lindsey albums with a flavor of the other members thrown in. And they are ALL great ones.

Well, I'm sorry Vanessa, but I think TITN is their worst album. I really don't like it as a whole although I was friggin' dancing when it came out. In hindsight, it's a very poor album compared to SYW. I agree on the fact that the solo-album argument doesn't hold. I've never listened to the album that way. I just can't flush away the idea that it is an aborted double album. I tend to hear/feel that when I listen to it in it's full length. There's a friction somewhere.

danax6 · #17 02-21-2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Well, I'm sorry Vanessa, but I think TITN is their worst album. I really don't like it as a whole although I was friggin' dancing when it came out. In hindsight, it's a very poor album compared to SYW. I agree on the fact that the solo-album argument doesn't hold. I've never listened to the album that way. I just can't flush away the idea that it is an aborted double album. I tend to hear/feel that when I listen to it in it's full length. There's a friction somewhere.

I love TITN, although it's a very, very dated album. There are more stinkers on there than SYW and Tusk (heck, Tusk has NO stinkers), but overall I still love it. Then again, I am one of the few that really loves When I See You Again also. I guess I'm weird?

strandinthewind · #18 02-21-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danax6

I love TITN, although it's a very, very dated album. There are more stinkers on there than SYW and Tusk (heck, Tusk has NO stinkers), but overall I still love it. Then again, I am one of the few that really loves When I See You Again also. I guess I'm weird?

I think Tusk has some stinkers - namingly The Ledge. But, to each their own AND I liske "When I See You Again" as well, though I think the "baby" fest ruins the song.

BTFLCHLD · #19 02-21-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

I am still totally convinced that it would have worked better as a doublepackage.

I disagree.

Bottom line, Lindsey does what he wants to do. SYW is my favorite...followed by a tie: Rumours and Tusk.

shackin'up · #20 02-21-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

I disagree.

Bottom line, Lindsey does what he wants to do.

That's bull

.

He definately took his loss in the double-album case. You cannot state that it was his own idea or what he wanted to do. He wanted a double-album. There's no discussion possible. Or do you think it was a total set-up to make a main topic for Destiny rules?

gretchen · #21 02-22-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danax6

I am one of the few that really loves When I See You Again also. I guess I'm weird?

You're not weird!! I like that song too, but Stevie's voice is a little shaky in some sections...I mainly love the part where Linds is singing at the end with that beautiful little guitar thing as the song fades off.

Johnny Stew · #22 02-22-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

He definately took his loss in the double-album case. You cannot state that it was his own idea or what he wanted to do. He wanted a double-album. There's no discussion possible.

Ultimately it was Lindsey's idea to release it as a single album. In the documentary he states that in order for them to release it as a double-album and for him to not lose a "f*** of a lot of money" in the process, the band would have had to tour for at least two years, record another album and then tour again. So he decided that the risk of things falling through, and the band not continuing to tour past the initial 40 dates, was too great to take.

It may not have been what he originally conceived for the album, but it was his decision to not release a double.

I think the smartest thing would have been to first release a more radio-friendly, "classic Fleetwood Mac" sounding album ("Thrown Down," "Bleed To Love Her," etc.) with about 13 tracks and tour to support it. Then take a few months off the road, release a second, edgier batch of 13 songs ("Murrow," "Illume," etc.), and then go out on the road again.
Fans would have had two Mac albums in the span of a year, the rest of FM and the record company would have had their more commercially viable album, and Lindsey would have had his "envelope-pushing" album.

shackin'up · #23 02-23-2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Ultimately it was Lindsey's idea to release it as a single album. In the documentary he states that in order for them to release it as a double-album and for him to not lose a "f*** of a lot of money" in the process, the band would have had to tour for at least two years, record another album and then tour again. So he decided that the risk of things falling through, and the band not continuing to tour past the initial 40 dates, was too great to take.

It may not have been what he originally conceived for the album, but it was his decision to not release a double.

I think the smartest thing would have been to first release a more radio-friendly, "classic Fleetwood Mac" sounding album ("Thrown Down," "Bleed To Love Her," etc.) with about 13 tracks and tour to support it. Then take a few months off the road, release a second, edgier batch of 13 songs ("Murrow," "Illume," etc.), and then go out on the road again.
Fans would have had two Mac albums in the span of a year, the rest of FM and the record company would have had their more commercially viable album, and Lindsey would have had his "envelope-pushing" album.

Of course it was not only HIS decision. It was HIS decision in the end, yes, but the pressure was laid on him by the rest of the band and their managers. In the end it was his decision, yes.

But The idea of the two albums is interesting. On the other hand, Lindsey always tries to mix radiofriendlyness with off-mainstreamtracks in the FM-setting, as we all know. So I don't think he'd ever choose such a strategy.

chiliD · #24 02-23-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

...but the pressure was laid on him by the rest of the band and their managers.

Well, Fleetwood Mac IS a BAND...it's not "Lindsey Buckingham" under a pseudonym. I think Lindsey himself forgets that fact sometimes.

Little Nicki · #25 02-23-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

Well, Fleetwood Mac IS a BAND...it's not "Lindsey Buckingham" under a pseudonym. I think Lindsey himself forgets that fact sometimes.

That is an extremely good point that I think we Lindsey fans always loose sight of. I forget exactly how it all went down in Destiny Rules, but if nobody else in the band wants a double album or whatever else, then there is no reason why it should happen. Still, screw the label.

shackin'up · #26 02-23-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

Well, Fleetwood Mac IS a BAND...it's not "Lindsey Buckingham" under a pseudonym. I think Lindsey himself forgets that fact sometimes.

Very true, But he has always compromised but fought for his part until the end. His opinion stands alone in many cases, so he goes for the maximum. And I don't think he forgets that fact, Chili: his repetative speaches underline what you said: that FM IS a band, and he knows is more of a political situation. And hearing the Backingvocals, arrangements and very tasteful guitarwork on the songs of the girls speak enough Bandcommitment to my ears.

chiliD · #27 02-23-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

And I don't think he forgets that fact, Chili: his repetative speaches underline what you said: that FM IS a band, and he knows is more of a political situation.

True, he SAYS those things, but that doesn't mean he LIKES the situation. As far back as Rumours (maybe even before that), Mick kept confronting Lindsey about it BEING a band and that he wasn't always going to get "his way".

shackin'up · #28 02-23-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

True, he SAYS those things, but that doesn't mean he LIKES the situation. As far back as Rumours (maybe even before that), Mick kept confronting Lindsey about it BEING a band and that he wasn't always going to get "his way".

Yes, it is a stubborn and fulforce goalgetter. But doesn't every team get better by one? Especially if he IS playing together a lot.

chiliD · #29 02-23-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Yes, it is a stubborn and fulforce goalgetter. But doesn't every team get better by one?

No.

(example: Kobe Bryant & the Los Angeles Lakers)

Johnny Stew · #30 02-23-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Of course it was not only HIS decision. It was HIS decision in the end, yes, but the pressure was laid on him by the rest of the band and their managers. In the end it was his decision, yes.

By that point, the rest of the band had agreed to a double album. Stevie basically said in the doc that she wasn't wild about the idea, but that they all wanted Lindsey to be happy (giving the baby his bottle, perhaps?

).

So, by that point, I don't think there was any pressure from the rest of the band to release a single album. They had worked out the financial logistics and it appeared to be full-steam ahead.