My rant about concert setlists

[amber]

Originally Posted by David

Maybe he doesn't want the rest of the band & entourage in his home. Remember what he did in 1986 when they were recording Tango? He had a trailer brought in & parked on his driveway & the band was "invited" to hang out there.

Can't say as I blame him, either. What was the name of that woman who was constantly around Stevie in the documentary? Was that one of Stevie's umpteen assistants, I imagine? I wouldn't want that woman around my home, stalking around behind Stevie & her dog like Hamlet's ghost. I'd be polite about it, but I would be thinking, "What the feck is this woman doing here while we're trying to record?"

Yeah, I guess so.
But remember how Stevie rented a 25000 dollar a month to record in back in the day? I mean, there has to be a happy medium...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Well, yeah, I guess I just wondered what big costs that you have to pay back does for the artistic process, exactly. I mean, I realize that if it had to be done on a shoestring that you might not get exactly what you want. But it seems to me there is a lot of room between "shoestring" and whatever the Mac does that would still yield a great product, especially considering the years of experience everyone has.
For instance, How did TUSK cost 20,000 dollars a day to record? Back then? And I know we are speaking of now, but really, how does that happen? And, say...BN - I'm sure that album wasn't very expensive to produce, but it turned out very well.
Again, I'm using those two as examples of why I don't get that there has to be super enormous amounts of money involved.

How much was it in the DR doc to mix each song - wasn't it some crazy amount of money.

But, yes, renting a house in Bel Air and moving LB's studio (I think it was his) there as opposed to renting studio time seems way more expensive.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing. I mean this argument that people are burnt out on her and the Mac has been going on for years and people are still going to see them.

What thread have you been reading? The point has been made a couple of time that this has nothing to do with anyone being "burnt out" on Fleetwood Mac and everything to do with Fleetwood Mac viewing touring as part of their art and keeping things interesting and dynamic. As I said earlier, I've only been to one Fleetwood Mac concert in my life. So I'm certainly not burnt out on any of these songs.

I get that they and she are not nearly as popular as they were, but people still go to the shows and pay lots of money to do so. So, while I wish for better set lists, I cannot agree that from the point of view of concerts selling and sustaining popularity, they are short-sighted and stupid. In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary.

Again, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the band's popularity, outside of their own preconceived notions of what it takes to sustain it. But if the best thing you can say about a Fleetwood Mac concert is, "Well, they're still popular and they sell tickets," then that's precisely the problem we're talking about here. The point is that they only seem to care about the bottom line and think that the only way to make that money is to play the same old hits every night in the same order.

[David]

Originally Posted by amber

Yeah, I guess so.
But remember how Stevie rented a 25000 dollar a month to record in back in the day? I mean, there has to be a happy medium...

I think the best & easiest way for them to record is to do it all separately. Each member just go track separately -- that way you can do it at your own home or go pay a studio if you want, you can bring whoever you want along or demand that there be no visitors, & you can call all your shots. They'd probably have to hire a producer who isn't in the band to do this, & the producer would be the funnel through which all tracks & opinions & feedback & problems would go.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by David

LOLFOEFL!! Brian, you always have virtually the most sensible reasoning!!

while it is sad but true, That is exactly what I do for FM/Solo related bootlegs...Just change the date/location info and use the exact same html codes, Saves so much time

Only chance I may see FM ever again is if they play OKC, Traveling to Texas is now out of the question with my current health problems (Hell driving 100 miles roundtrip is now a chore in and of itself.)....Even if they were to play OKC I wouldnt care if they played a complete 2 hour + set of just the song "Dreams", I would only go to hang with some of the Ledgies that I like anyways.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by David

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

Not for a band like Fleetwood Mac anyway.

Actually, I think the dynamic has kind of reversed itself in some ways for up-and-coming bands: it's the albums that sell the concerts to some extent. With so much file-sharing going on, and so many bands releasing mp3s or streaming audio on their websites, I think the hope is that people will hear the music online and then shell out money for a concert ticket to the band live.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

What thread have you been reading? The point has been made a couple of time that this has nothing to do with anyone being "burnt out" on Fleetwood Mac and everything to do with Fleetwood Mac viewing touring as part of their art and keeping things interesting and dynamic. As I said earlier, I've only been to one Fleetwood Mac concert in my life. So I'm certainly not burnt out on any of these songs.

When you said short sighted, I thought you meant that the general concert going public will get burnt out on the same set list and it is, thus, short sighted of them to keep that essentially the same list. Sorry for any confusion if you did not meant that. But, what did you mean by short sighted?

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Again, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the band's popularity, outside of their own preconceived notions of what it takes to sustain it. But if the best thing you can say about a Fleetwood Mac concert is, "Well, they're still popular and they sell tickets," then that's precisely the problem we're talking about here. The point is that they only seem to care about the bottom line and think that the only way to make that money is to play the same old hits every night in the same order.

I disagree. I think they perceive themselves as the public wanting to hear the hits, etc. So, they think they are giving the public what they want. Which brings me to my point that they are correct in their reasoning because the public keeps coming back to see them despite any wish we all have for more variety.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

How much was it in the DR doc to mix each song - wasn't it some crazy amount of money.

But, yes, renting a house in Bel Air and moving LB's studio (I think it was his) there as opposed to renting studio time seems way more expensive.

I don't remember.
Plus, it appears they have to argue about everything for a long time, but does that take any money, other than more for whatever they are renting?
Gah, it's all so mysterious.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by David

Jyqm probably meant shortsighted & stupid from the artistic point of view. I would agree with Jyqm.

Jyqm, what did you mean?

Yeah, that thing, the artistic thing.

If anything, I think Fleetwood Mac's problem is that they're too popular, or want to be too popular. If they contented themselves with playing some smaller venues to their more loyal fans, maybe they wouldn't feel such a pressing need to deliver the stagnant hit parade every night.

[David]

Originally Posted by amber

But it seems to me there is a lot of room between "shoestring" and whatever the Mac does that would still yield a great product, especially considering the years of experience everyone has.

You're totally right: there is a LOT of room between shoestring & Fleetwood Mac style.

For instance, How did TUSK cost 20,000 dollars a day to record? Back then? And I know we are speaking of now, but really, how does that happen?
Again, I'm using those two as examples of why I don't get that there has to be super enormous amounts of money involved.

Recording studios can be very expensive. I was in a crappy little commercial studio for two days, with one engineer on the board, & it cost about $2,000. So compound the quality of everything involved -- equipment, staff, amenities, etc. -- twenty times, & THEN you add the huge amounts of time that the band typically stays in a studio, & $20,000 a day even back in 1979 begins to make a lot more sense.

You can get a great album out of merely decent studio technology & capable but not necessarily wildly gifted engineers for a decent outlay of money, but Fleetwood Mac chooses to go hog-wild. So they pay.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

How does her label affect how TISL turned out artistically?

The same way Lindsey's label affected how Gift of Screws turned out artistically. By saying, "Make this more MOR, or we're not going to release it... unless you call it Fleetwood Mac."

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

The same way Lindsey's label affected how Gift of Screws turned out artistically. By saying, "Make this more MOR, or we're not going to release it... unless you call it Fleetwood Mac."

Perhaps true, but La Nicks has more commercial viability than LB - so she can assert more power than he can with the label. I mean TISL was released to great fanfare and they never told her to call it FM.

Note - this is no comment on LB's talent.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I disagree. I think they perceive themselves as the public wanting to hear the hits, etc. So, they think they are giving the public what they want. Which brings me to my point that they are correct in their reasoning because the public keeps coming back to see them despite any wish we all have for more variety.

I would say that's true in principle but sometimes false in particulars. I've stopped going to see the band, so they've lost me as a concert attendee. They had me for many years, a couple of decades, but they've lost me. My absence isn't going to break them, obviously. But I'm evidence that FM is giving some of the public what it wants & not giving some of the public what it wants.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Yeah, that thing, the artistic thing.

If anything, I think Fleetwood Mac's problem is that they're too popular, or want to be too popular. If they contented themselves with playing some smaller venues to their more loyal fans, maybe they wouldn't feel such a pressing need to deliver the stagnant hit parade every night.

Bravo, bravo. I think they're obsessed with trying to maintain/match their heyday. They're an oldies hit parade now. And they're not even playing the oldies I like!




Pssssst.....hey guys, your heyday was awhile back.

[amber]

Originally Posted by David

You're totally right: there is a LOT of room between shoestring & Fleetwood Mac style.
Recording studios can be very expensive. I was in a crappy little commercial studio for two days, with one engineer on the board, & it cost about $2,000. So compound the quality of everything involved -- equipment, staff, amenities, etc. -- twenty times, & THEN you add the huge amounts of time that the band typically stays in a studio, & $20,000 a day even back in 1979 begins to make a lot more sense.

You can get a great album out of merely decent studio technology & capable but not necessarily wildly gifted engineers for a decent outlay of money, but Fleetwood Mac chooses to go hog-wild. So they pay.

Christ. that is expensive.
But as far as the capable but not wildly gifted engineers and all that...um...how much could Lindsey do? Couldn't he make up for that in some way?