Lindsey Buckingham: Getting Fleetwood Mac Back Together for One Last Tour

[Nico]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Agreed. If only I could put this in words he would understand.

Lindsey, this collaboration would mean to me what John and Paul working together again would mean to you.

One more time baby, just one more time.

Michele

Wow, Michele...that much. I've always felt that, of all members in the band, LB and CM had the best musical chemistry. I love the way their songs sound, I love their co-written songs, and I ADORE their voice together- even more than him and SN...blasphemy! I think they had a remarkable connection through their music and were probably very alike in that pop sensible way.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by michelej1

I cracked up when Lindsey said he didn't want to say that Christine burned her bridges, which is what he definitely wants to say every single chance he gets.


Michele

He's been reading here!!! ...cos he wanted to sort of re-phrase that comment...

[starshine]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

This bit slays me because I'm from London, I love hearing him mention all these names, like the 100 Club and Greek Street etc. Very weird but cool too.
I also love how much credit he gives to Christine, it's pretty nice to read. There's absolutely no doubt that he respects her as a musician despite the whole "burning bridges" thing. And he totally does mean it in a derogatory way when he mentions The Eagles I think it's great he realises it was the combination of influences that helped them become more than another formulaic country rock band.

I think he is for sure derogatory about his 'Eagles' comment......but why....I mean FMac became 'big' in the '70's as well.....its almost like the pot calling the kettle black....I mean them & the Eagles both became big & popular back than.....I think he's saying that in a way cause well the Eagles did have a 'hit' CD out (LROFE) even if it was Country.....and a well sold out tour....not that I went but I didn't see Mac either....both prices were just disgusting......anyway, it sounds like sour grapes too me ......not that I'm trying to defend the Eagles per say. Yes , I am a fan but still.....come on......they may not be countryfied but there music is still formulaic too in some ways......pop/classic rock/etc.....no offence just some thoughts......

[holidayroad]

I don't think Lindsey meant anything bad about the Eagles, just that he was glad there was something to set FMac and the Eagles apart from each other.

[SuzeQuze]

Maybe he says these things that are on the verge of controversial to get people talking about him and the band again, to keep the "advertising" going. The Eagles and FM were chart rivals in the 70s so they're kind of like the Sox/Yankees. Perhaps there is not necessarily personal animosity but on a professional level they'd like to slay one another.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Maybe he says these things that are on the verge of controversial to get people talking about him and the band again, to keep the "advertising" going.

And once Lindsey says something like this, if the press picks up on it and keeps asking about it, he'll keep saying it. It does get carried in blurbs for all the media outlets. Certainly the Sheryl Crow thing is still getting attention.

I like Lindsey and Don on You Can't Make Love.

Michele

[David]

When Lindsey criticizes the Eagles, he's criticizing aesthetics & stylistics. He considers the Eagles sound bland & conforming. The Eagles didn't emphasize orchestration the way Lindsey & his engineers did.

[starshine]

Well no offence but to me Fmac can sound bland & uninspired well playing as well.....personally I don't see that many 'differences between Fmac & the Eagles.....they both had there time in the '70's most of them (from each group) have had various solo careers.....the only difference is that when the Eagles released there LROOE new cd through Walmart...the sold a ton & I guess got played on country radio....were as when SYW was released it didn't do as well......stylisticly they both can be bland & boring on stage....but that is IMO......considering I didn't pay to see either band/or solo from either band.....& I don't intend on paying those high ticket prices for the same boring over done setlists......but again thats IMO.......anyway....it is whatever it is......

[trackaghost]

Artistically I think there is a massive difference between The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac myself. I can't imagine anyone in The Eagles risking or even wanting to make a record like Tusk, for instance. Everything I've read about them has confirmed to me they were always in it for the money and the stardom and never for the music or the art.

[David]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Artistically I think there is a massive difference between The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac myself. I can't imagine anyone in The Eagles risking or even wanting to make a record like Tusk, for instance.

When The Long Run was released in 1979, Lindsey told the press: "It's more of the same. I mean, why bother?"

The Eagles had a different aesthetic. They didn't want to make bold inroads into new sonic territory. They just wanted to pull their ironic songs together with tight playing & singing, & appeal to as many listeners as possible. Whereas Fleetwood Mac -- or at least certain factions within Fleetwood Mac -- specifically wanted to confound the expectations listeners had & to experiment with the traditional ways in which a track was built. (You would never have caught the Eagles recording an entire track of guitars manipulated specifically to sound like keyboards from around the world.)

But the two bands were lumped together so frequently in those days -- because they were both such massive organizations -- that the relationship has stuck to this day.

[starshine]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Artistically I think there is a massive difference between The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac myself. I can't imagine anyone in The Eagles risking or even wanting to make a record like Tusk, for instance. Everything I've read about them has confirmed to me they were always in it for the money and the stardom and never for the music or the art.

Not that I know all about the Eagles , even though I am a fan of them as well as Mac/Stevie....The Long Run (or Long One....) was to have also been a double LP just like Tusk but I don't think they had enough songs for said LP & well the recording of that LP wasn't too easy (personally I don't like much of TLR....) I like Tusk better than TLR....the songs on Tusk were of much better quality than Long Run....some of the songs on Run are crap to me. They may have different styles but they are lumped together just because of how they were back in the '70's .....they were both 'big' bands than......got played mostly on the same stations.....but stations didn't have all the formated crap that it is now either.....Plus during the Long Run....I don't think Frey/Henley were getting along too well....none of them were prolific songwriters. They did have there issues just like Mac did......anyway, just some thoughts.......

[Spikey]

When The Long Run was released in 1979, Lindsey told the press: "It's more of the same. I mean, why bother?"

The Eagles had a different aesthetic. They didn't want to make bold inroads into new sonic territory. They just wanted to pull their ironic songs together with tight playing & singing, & appeal to as many listeners as possible. Whereas Fleetwood Mac -- or at least certain factions within Fleetwood Mac -- specifically wanted to confound the expectations listeners had & to experiment with the traditional ways in which a track was built. (You would never have caught the Eagles recording an entire track of guitars manipulated specifically to sound like keyboards from around the world.)

But the two bands were lumped together so frequently in those days -- because they were both such massive organizations -- that the relationship has stuck to this day.

I believe Ken Caillat said in an interview that Lindsey brought "Hotel California" to the "Tusk" sessions and said something along the lines of "It all sounds the same, we're not doing a record like this."

Lindsey definitely meant something derogatory about The Eagles. They rarely broke new ground with their albums, although I do like most of them.

Can someone who knows the actual quote save me?

- Spike

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by starshine

Not that I know all about the Eagles , even though I am a fan of them as well as Mac/Stevie....The Long Run (or Long One....) was to have also been a double LP just like Tusk but I don't think they had enough songs for said LP & well the recording of that LP wasn't too easy (personally I don't like much of TLR....) I like Tusk better than TLR....the songs on Tusk were of much better quality than Long Run....some of the songs on Run are crap to me. They may have different styles but they are lumped together just because of how they were back in the '70's .....they were both 'big' bands than......got played mostly on the same stations.....but stations didn't have all the formated crap that it is now either.....Plus during the Long Run....I don't think Frey/Henley were getting along too well....none of them were prolific songwriters. They did have there issues just like Mac did......anyway, just some thoughts.......

I think you're missing the point. Both bands were played on the same radio stations and The Eagles may have wanted to make a double album BUT the musical risk that Fleetwood Mac and Lindsey Buckingham took with Tusk, ie turning their back on the hugely successful Rumours sound for something more punk-inspired, is one The Eagles never took. They stuck with the same sound, they never made a risk like that to try something new and stretch themselves artistically. David's post explains it perfectly:

Originally Posted by David

The Eagles had a different aesthetic. They didn't want to make bold inroads into new sonic territory. They just wanted to pull their ironic songs together with tight playing & singing, & appeal to as many listeners as possible. Whereas Fleetwood Mac -- or at least certain factions within Fleetwood Mac -- specifically wanted to confound the expectations listeners had & to experiment with the traditional ways in which a track was built. (You would never have caught the Eagles recording an entire track of guitars manipulated specifically to sound like keyboards from around the world.)

But the two bands were lumped together so frequently in those days -- because they were both such massive organizations -- that the relationship has stuck to this day.

Everything you've said, David, is in line with all I've read and heard about The Eagles: they were in it to appeal to the most possible people and be the biggest band they could, not to grow musically and try things that could possibly alienate their audience (as Tusk did). Plus the evidence is in the music itself. If anything they became more commercial as time went on.

Originally Posted by Spikey

I believe Ken Caillat said in an interview that Lindsey brought "Hotel California" to the "Tusk" sessions and said something along the lines of "It all sounds the same, we're not doing a record like this."

Lindsey definitely meant something derogatory about The Eagles. They rarely broke new ground with their albums, although I do like most of them.

Yes, exactly. I can totally imagine Lindsey doing something like that.

[starshine]

Personally, It doesn't matter to me about the Eagles/Fmac back than or really now.....its all water under the bridge.....I mean Tusk may have went futher in 'new' territory to some degree but most of the Members of Fmac back than were not happy cause well it didn't make them the $$ that Rumours made. I do like Tusk & it is much better than The Long Run by far. But too me Hotel California is way 'better' than TLR....they don't compare......that will always be my favorite LP of theres period. I guess some could say that Mac went the easy route when they made Mirage (which was dubbed the Rumours II that Lindsey didn't want) but was heard they wanted to go the safer route because of Tusk......Really Fmac hasn't broke alot of ground for along time......they could be considered predictable as well. They have followed the same path of commerical success too......I'm not saying all of this to make you/or anyone/ angry.....I think in some ways they are the same....big groups for there time.......anyway, it is what it is or isn't.......I guess for both bands most of the time it can be this love /hate relationship that I have...same with Stevie's music......its easy to get burnt out after hearing all the same stuff over & over again. Probably the one thing that bothers me about both bands is the setlists & doing the same stuff over again. Plus the Eagles are somewhat boring on stage.....I like ad libs during songs which they don't like to do.....have it sound just like the record.....which can be sad really.....either way for various reasons....I didn't buy any tickets to either Mac/Eagles this yr.......anyway.......take care....

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

I think "Teen Beat" that was on 25 Years: The Chain was his attempt at the Sex Pistols.

I love Teen Beat! I wish they would have performed it on the Mirage tour.