Ny Times Review

MacMan · #1 03-20-2009, 09:23 PM

Tamed by Time: Ex-Lovers, Hit Songs
NYTIMES

House lights still dimmed, Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks came out onto the Madison Square Garden stage on Thursday night holding hands, then took their positions at opposite sides of the stage and got into character: Ms. Nicks the romantic mystic, Mr. Buckingham the petulant cad. At points over the next two hours Ms. Nicks would cede the stage to her former lover, disappearing backstage as if she couldn’t bear to watch, or couldn’t be bothered. Probably the latter.

This is Fleetwood Mac, the golden years, catering to two different constituencies. Mr. Buckingham, with his extravagant gestures, indulgent guitar playing and general air of preening, was trying very hard to keep a flickering flame alive — a panting salesman. Ms. Nicks, on the other hand, appeared content with laurel-resting, coasting along on the familiar: the shawls, the twirls, the fringe dangling from her microphone and, occasionally, the piercingly cloying vocals. A screen with scrolling words — lyrics, presumably — sat at her feet.

As ever, the rhythm section — the drummer Mick Fleetwood and the bass player John McVie, for whom, together, the band is named — soldiered on like exceedingly tolerant parents. Mr. Fleetwood, ponytail intact and wearing short pants that brought to mind plus fours, played with force, if not grace, and Mr. McVie succeeded by not drawing notice to himself. In a band so obsessed with role-playing, such restraint qualifies as innovation.

“There is no new album to promote — yet,” Mr. Buckingham teased early in the night. But even the most rabid Fleetwood Mac fans probably don’t crave the distraction of new songs and were perfectly content with this show, designed as a hits revue and sticking closely to the band’s self-titled 1975 album and its follow-up two years later, the tragicomic “Rumours,” one of the biggest-selling albums ever. (These were the first with the band’s essential lineup, which included the Buckingham-Nicks combo and Christine McVie, who no longer tours with the band.) Here, particularly on the breakup songs from “Rumours,” Ms. Nicks and Mr. Buckingham still had a touch of zest, making for rare moments of lightness. (Mr. Buckingham also shined on a theatrically unhinged version of “Go Insane,” from his solo album of the same name.)

Mostly, though, the band sounded desiccated. On “I’m So Afraid,” Mr. Buckingham’s guitar solo, which he accompanied with hoots and hollers, was excruciatingly long, and excruciatingly dull. On “World Turning,” Mr. Fleetwood saw him, but thankfully did not raise him, with his own numbing solo.

And just as it did 30 years ago, the band succumbed to an obstacle of its own creation, and its name was “Tusk.” That 1979 album, driven by Mr. Buckingham’s experimental impulses, was an overreach, burdensome and needlessly decadent. Here, after the band played the title track and “Sara” midset, it never fully recovered. Introducing “Storms,” from that album, Ms. Nicks said the band chose it for this tour because they had never played it live before, though the turgid rendition that followed made it clear why that had been the case.

Unexpectedly, the night’s most invigorating moments came when the band stepped out from its own long shadow. “I Know I’m Not Wrong,” a song from “Tusk” played early in the night, sounded like the Replacements, as if the band had just discovered punk. And “Oh Well,” an electric blues from before Mr. Buckingham and Ms. Nicks joined the group, was a welcome nod to the band’s early history as a tribute to something bigger than itself.

Fleetwood Mac performs on Saturday at the Izod Center in East Rutherford, N.J.; fleetwoodmac.com.

michelej1 · #2 03-20-2009, 09:30 PM

What are "plus fours."

I really resent him saying that even the most rabid fans don't crave the "distraction" of new material. What does that even mean? Do we have Attention Deficit Disorder or . . . If he just said FM was so bad that we don't want new material from them I could take it, but to say we don't want the distraction, as if we are drones who don't want to be stimulated and would simply rather stick with the familiar. . . What a slap in the face. Don't paint us with our band's brush.

Michele

TrueFaith77 · #3 03-20-2009, 10:26 PM

The New York Times is always wrong.

Nico · #4 03-20-2009, 10:30 PM

Why are these reviews so bitchy?

michelej1 · #5 03-20-2009, 10:30 PM

Well, I wasn't expecting them to like it any more than they liked the SYW tour ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/ar...0review&st=cse), but I didn't get that line about no one wanting new material, not even rabid fans.

Michele

Regina · #6 03-20-2009, 10:36 PM

Eh, they are kind of taken by their own pomposity sometimes.

This guy was probably just pissed that they didn't let him review Masterpiece Theater: The Next Generation or something.

Nico · #7 03-20-2009, 10:42 PM

They sound like curmudgeons. How dare they call Lindsey a "petulant cad." Even if it's true, did they have to say it like that?

This doesn't phase me at all. I'm still going to my shows and I plan on having a great time and doing my little I'm So Afraid sway the ENTIRE time of the "excruciatingly long, and excruciatingly dull" solo.

David · #8 03-20-2009, 11:01 PM

Back when John Rockwell & his colleagues worked for the Times, Fleetwood always got excellent reviews (albeit sometimes with sensible reservations). I guess those days are past!

StreetAngel86 · #9 03-21-2009, 06:46 AM

ouch

these NY reviews are pretty harsh

kathy1 · #10 03-21-2009, 07:09 AM

thanks for posting the review.

shackin'up · #11 03-21-2009, 08:25 AM

Come on fans, it's a very simple and cheap but also imaginable point of view. Any band this age with it's heighdays 30 years ago and no new material, has to prove themselves double. An they simply don't like Lindsey over there.

Tusk! · #12 03-21-2009, 08:37 AM

[QUOTE=michelej1;808024]What are "plus fours."

Plus fours are knickers.

Sanne2 · #13 03-21-2009, 09:05 AM

Wow that was...bad

Steviefan49 · #14 03-21-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

What are "plus fours."

I really resent him saying that even the most rabid fans don't crave the "distraction" of new material. What does that even mean? Do we have Attention Deficit Disorder or . . . If he just said FM was so bad that we don't want new material from them I could take it, but to say we don't want the distraction, as if we are drones who don't want to be stimulated and would simply rather stick with the familiar. . . What a slap in the face. Don't paint us with our band's brush.

Michele

OMG.... you took all the words right out of my mouth here, which is still on the floor- after reading such garbage! And yeah.. I'd also like to know what "plus fours" are? It sounds like something out of a friggen bakery! Totally looks like a case of ADD, and who ever they "PAID" to write this up, needs to be slapped! What a waste of good money, when a monkey could have come in, been fed a few bananas, and run rings around this lunatic! What the hell? LOL

wheart · #15 03-21-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

Well, I wasn't expecting them to like it any more than they liked the SYW tour ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/ar...0review&st=cse), but I didn't get that line about no one wanting new material, not even rabid fans.

Michele

that was interesting to read the review from 6 years ago, thanks for posting it. That review painted Stevie in a much more flattering light. He sure was a fan of Lindsey, though. yikes!