Quote:
Originally Posted by aleuzzi
I think, Time would have been more interesting if there were no Dave Mason (horrible contributions there) and no Christine (great contributions)
|
For someone as talented and well versed as DM, his contributions were pretty weak indeed. That said, I still think I would like to see him paired with LB in a concert setting. Not sure if it would really work, but it's an intriguing notion, since both are masters of the stage and live settings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicepace
Maybe it "counts" as Fleetwood Mac without Christine ... but to me the band is now missing its heart and soul. I think that may have been the point the person who wrote that post was trying to make.
|
That's odd, as I always have viewed CM as the ultimate (dare I say "Perfect") compliment or supplement, as opposed to the heart and soul of FM. Peter Green, Danny Kirwan, Bob Welch, and Lindsey Buckingham I have always viewed as carrying the H&S leadership torch, but never Christy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicepace
By the way, this is not my feeling about the PRE-Christine Mac. I like the early Peter Green band just fine. But I think of them as virtually a different band, for which the name "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" can be used. That was a blues band (with some pop/rock elements) that ended when Peter left the band. Then the band recreated itself, and the sound of the band made a fairly abrupt turn toward pop/rock. Christine has been present for the band's entire pop/rock history up until the last album, and in my thinking she is an essential ingredient of the band in its long-enduring pop/rock incarnation. Something is very seriously missing without Christine.
|
Decent argument, only I'd beg to differ on one account, a critical one IMO. That is, the band "recreated itself" aspect. FM sound and identity has
always been evolving, even in the PG era. Their sound changed considerably - and for the better IMHO - when Green enlisted Kirwan, who first brought in rock/pop elements and sensibilities to the band (kinda like adding a dose of McCartney to a Lennon palette). Then Play On was the culmination of that synthesis. When Green departed, Kirwan and Spencer took the FM torch and further distanced the band's sound from their pure blues-rock roots, with a little help from Christy into the bargain. After Bob Welch came aboard, it was a straight-up rock-n-roll band, with but a touch of blues-rock and jazz pizazz. Then came B&N, which further pushed the pop (a very smooth sounding pop) envelope.
As I have always seen it, having followed the group from its early days (even watching Bob Welch shut down a concert in mid-flight due to poor audience response), it's been a continual evolution, as opposed to an accumulation of separate sound units. I definitely agree that their history could be divided into three "waves" or periods, but fact is they have all been thoroughly connected and overlapped, with Fleetwood and Mac (J. McVie) serving as the continuum or glue so to speak.
If you want a "recreated itself" scenario, look no further than the Moody Blues. When led by Denny Laine (later of Wings fame) initially, they were a true Birmingham blues-rock unit. When he departed in '66 and Justin Hayward and John Lodge came aboard, the band truly recreated its sound and stage image, quite consciously (purposefully), even when 3 of the 5 originals remained on board. Hayward took center stage, and with the help of Mike Pinder's mellotron and producer Tony Clarke, they never looked back.