Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
Any band that plays 135 shows for a tour is a working band, regardless of the set list.
|
WTF? I wasn't saying they weren't a working band because of their set list. I was saying they weren't a working band because they've only done ONE studio album in ten years. Again, I still don't see how "The Dance," in YOUR words "re-established Fleetwood Mac as a band." If anything, it only re-established a way for Lindsey Buckingham to promote his music. If Lindsey had thought for a second that his album would have sold as well under the "Lindsey Buckingham" moniker as it would under the "Fleetwood Mac" moniker, we would have gone to a "Gift Of Screws" concert, not a "Say You Will" concert.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
Out of 15,000 people in an arena how many are "die hard" fans who know a song like Storms, Warm Ways, Book Of Love etc. They want to hear Landslide and the rest of the songs you mentioned.
|
Maybe, just maybe, if they had thought more of those songs "back in the day" and actually played them in concert, people would want to hear those as much. MOST bands tend to gradually filter out older material as new albums are released. This band plays the SAME songs from "Fleetwood Mac" and "Rumours," adds a number of new songs from the album they're promoting, and are lucky to play two songs from the other albums. They've been an oldies band since the "Tusk" tour.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MACFAN
Fans of Fleetwood Mac in 2005 should be glad to get anything at all from the band.
|
Whereas fans of the 1995 band actually got to see them in concert for a reasonable price AND actually had more opportunities to casually meet members of the band. I'd much rather have a new version of Fleetwood Mac if it meant we'd get more albums and more concerts. My only complaint about the "Time" band is that they played too many "Rumours" era songs. But, they have the excuse of not having an album out at the time.