Reinvention

[David]

Originally Posted by chiliD

But, the difference is they DID change the name...albeit just slightly...but enough to signal "Hey, we're different". With Fleetwood Mac, there has never been any HINT of a signpost that says "a change has been made".

They didn't even change record labels, the fruitcakes!!

[Sahara]

Bearing in mind that sixteen people have been through the Mac.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by David

fans who consider Rick's departure unacceptable (one of them posts around here)

Yes David, I think at least two actually. As for one of them, don't get him started on that one..

I think all the versions up to the 1975 version have had a blues feel to some degree, I still think Christine gave a more bluesy feel to her songs with the 75/87 line up too. She has a natural blues voice and I think that dynamic linked with Stevie's soft voice turning into an intense wailing at times and Lindsey's high pitched Californian tones was a major factor in the resurgance. It was a different sound to anything that had gone before it I feel.

After Lindsey left I think Rick Vito was an admirable replacement although I can't help but feel he would have fit in better with the original lineup. Billy and later Bekka brought what should have been a more country flavour but it ended up, at least in my opinion, as a more poppy sound. I think the post Lindsey band was very good, certainly underrated, but once more the sound changed quite dramatically, this time it wasn't quite the repeated success of 1975.

The point is (here we are ) every member of the band played their part in steering the ship in the direction it has gone. It's probably fair to say some members didn't really pay attention during their watch but the vessel never crashed. By all accounts it should have crashed, sunk and never been recovered after Mr Greenbaum departed but to Mick and John's credit they kept it going..

[Gailh]

Originally Posted by Boots

(I'm not much of a Rolling Stones expert. I think I'm the only one in the world who doesn't really like them very much).

No I don't much care for them

Gail

[Gailh]

Originally Posted by Boots

"I believe in The Five". HA! I just found my new sig line!

Yeah me too! I believe in the five.

Fleetwood Mac has been at its most successful as a five piece.

Gail

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

I'd agree except that Dragonfly/Purple Dancer was recorded and released after "Kiln House". Purple Dancer was the last Mac studio song that Jeremy played on. I'd say both tracks hinted quite strongly at "Future Games".

"Dragonfly"'s inclusion on the 1971 Greatest Hits always throws me on that one. I just consider everything on that "pre-Kiln House. OF COURSE, it was released after Kiln House wtf was I thinkin'!!

Actually, I think "Dragonfly" is more Kiln House-esque...whereas "Purple Dancer" would've been perfectly placed between "Woman Of A Thousand Years" & "Morning Rain".

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Gailh

Yeah me too! I believe in the five.

Fleetwood Mac has been at its most successful as a five piece.

Gail

One reason I think the mostly-four-piece Then Play On is just a tad over-rated!

[David]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Actually, I think "Dragonfly" is more Kiln House-esque...whereas "Purple Dancer" would've been perfectly placed between "Woman Of A Thousand Years" & "Morning Rain".

Dragonfly is such a beautiful, beautiful song ... it really sums up an era, a zeitgeist.

If Mozart had written an opera set in poverty, it might have had this kind of painful, languid beauty.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by madformac

Faith No More sort of did this to a degree when they replaced Chuck Mosely with Mike Patton but it's not really the same.

That's a great example. And what Patton brought to the table can most assuredly be considered a reinvention. That band did a total 180 when Patton came onboard, and a lot of that can be attributed Patton's influence, experimentation, and whackass songwriting. It proved with time that the rest of the band couldn't keep up with him, and I think that, as well as the personal and professional tension between Patton and Jim Martin broke the band up. But yeah, Mike Patton took that band to new musical heights when he joined.

[DavidMn]

Here's another thought. Ok, certain bands such as Led Zepplin, The Who, and Kiss and the Grateful Dead have achieved this cult status through time. I'm not saying Fleetwood Mac doesnt have a hardcore following, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly why Fleetwood Mac hasnt achieved that sort of status. Maybe it's the annoying(To me) perception amongst some that they're a "Lightweight" band. I asked someone thats pretty knowledgeable about music and he told me that Fleetwood Mac never really promoted themselves in their heyday to the extent that some of the other bands out ther did. They just made the music and toured.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by madformac

She has a natural blues voice and I think that dynamic linked with Stevie's soft voice turning into an intense wailing at times and Lindsey's high pitched Californian tones was a major factor in the resurgance.

It's more like Chris's warm voice mixed with Stevie's and Lindsey's tinny, more rougher edged vocals. Who was it that described Chris's voice as a woodwind instrument and Stevie's and Lindsey's as brass? Anyway, I don't think of Stevie's voice as ever really being "soft" it was more like smooth gravel. I remember reading a review of, I think it was Rumours a while back and the reviewer described Stevie's voice as "crackling mesquite" and I thought, yes, that is it! The feel that evoked was just spot on.

[elie]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Maybe it's the annoying(To me) perception amongst some that they're a "Lightweight" band. .

You're not the only one who finds this perception annoying. I actually hate it.
I can't for the life of me get why The Kiss or the Who are "less leightweight". (Led Zeppelin ok, I won't argue about that-though not a fan.. )

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by elie

You're not the only one who finds this perception annoying. I actually hate it.
I can't for the life of me get why The Kiss or the Who are "less leightweight". (Led Zeppelin ok, I won't argue about that-though not a fan.. )

We get it. That's all that really matters, right?

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Here's another thought. Ok, certain bands such as Led Zepplin, The Who, and Kiss and the Grateful Dead have achieved this cult status through time. I'm not saying Fleetwood Mac doesnt have a hardcore following, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly why Fleetwood Mac hasnt achieved that sort of status.

Peter Green left, plain & simple. Had Peter STAYED...had they kept the Peter, Jeremy & Danny lineup, they would've surpassed The Who, LZ, Pink Floyd, etc, on the "Legendary Band" scale. They were right on the precipuce of achieving that when Peter left (and the cover photo of LZ 1 basically shows what happened to the future of their "legend" status thereafter).

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Here's another thought. Ok, certain bands such as Led Zepplin, The Who, and Kiss and the Grateful Dead have achieved this cult status through time. I'm not saying Fleetwood Mac doesnt have a hardcore following, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly why Fleetwood Mac hasnt achieved that sort of status. Maybe it's the annoying(To me) perception amongst some that they're a "Lightweight" band. I asked someone thats pretty knowledgeable about music and he told me that Fleetwood Mac never really promoted themselves in their heyday to the extent that some of the other bands out ther did. They just made the music and toured.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "cult status," David. Do you mean a particular group of devoted fans who have been following their career for years, or do you mean more an institutionalized status, with the proper publications always making sure to give the band their due and a steady stream of relatively hip young people jumping on board the train? The four bands you mentioned do all enjoy something of a cult status, but in very different ways.

At any rate, part of the problem with Fleetwood Mac is indeed the perception of the post-1974 incarnations as "lightweight," but I think it's also the fact that the band has changed so much over the years, it's somewhat difficult for a cult status to emerge. Fleetwood Mac has to settle for a couple mini-cults, then, the largest of which is the Green God fans. There's an ever-growing group of people who recognize just how awesome Fleetwood Mac was under Peter, and the various archival releases over the past few years (come to think of it, there's been an unfortunate paucity of those lately...) have really helped that.

I think there's also a slowly growing cult that is beginning to appreciate the Fleetwood Mac, Rumours and especially Tusk albums in a new light, as kind of the epitome and deconstruction of perfect California 70s pop/rock.

I think the biggest obstacle to Fleetwood Mac achieving more of a cult status, though, is Stevie. She's got quite the cult revolving around just herself, and I think the image that comes out of that (either the airy fairy witchy woman, or the big-haired cokehead, propped up by inscrutable lyrics and relatively generic music) turns off a lot of people who might otherwise give Fleetwood Mac more credit.