Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
How was the history of the band re-written? i dont get what your saying here.
|
In all of the bio specials that were done around that time basically gloss over everything prior to "Rumours" as well as after "Rumours" and have the band disbanding in 1987, playing together again for Clinton, having the inauguration being the first step towards "The Dance," etc. Basically, we were lucky if Bob Welch was mentioned, and Billy Burnette was NEVER mentioned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
I never said sales are what make a good album. Both OOTC and SA were good albums, to me anyway and their respective tours were pretty good to. How and when a band/artist promotes themselves is their decision.
|
Okay, my bad. When you say "The Dance re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band after the debacle that was Time," silly me, thought you MUST have been talking about sales. Because, really, how else did "The Dance" really reestablish Fleetwood Mac? In the ten years since "Time," Fleetwood Mac has only released one studio album, which got mixed reviews and sold less than a million. Hell, they did that with the "Behind The Mask" band, and that band was only together for little over half the time we had to wait between "The Dance" and "Say You Will." So, obviously, they're not really a working band anymore.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
Mirage and Tango were both pretty big hits in their day. What a band chooses to include in their set is again their decison.
|
And, it also says a lot about how they really feel about the album. In any event, I don't give a damn if it is their decision. It's MY decision to be a fan, and it's MY decision to bitch about it on the Ledge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
When I go see the Rolling Stones, U2 or any big name act I wanna hear the hits, why should Fleetwood Mac be different. U2 may be a bit more adventurous than Fleetwood but they still play the hits. Is there something wrong with that?
|
Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that. But, they certainly play a lot of non-hits from "Rumours" and "Fleetwood Mac" that could be retired (Landslide, I'm So Afraid, World Turning, Gold Dust Woman, The Chain, and Second Hand News). Even discounting the pre-1975 stuff, some of the post 1987 stuff, and the Buckingham Nicks stuff, there's a hell of a lot of songs that they could be playing live. It's sad that "Live In Boston" was the exact show, canned speeches and all, that they played for 90% of the tour. With all of their material, can't they possibly be a little more CREATIVE in their set lists? Do they REALLY have to play the same show EVERY night?