[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

OMG. Okay, on a positive note, I agree with you that they have not been relevant since the 80s. But I have to totally disagree that Time was even remotely "dynamic," let alone "progressive." It was very middle-of-the-road, very generic and bland adult pop that would not have been out of place on a Wilson Phillips album.

I didn't actually say that Time was progressive, but I'm not talking about progression in terms of music in general - the changes were progressive in terms of the band's direction. I would say that the blandest songs on there are Christine's anyway.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Uh... wut? Seriously? Ever heard of Tusk? It is arguably the most musically progressive album ever produced by any artist. It really reset the bar for 70s arena rock albums and has an enduring legacy of bands inspired by the sound of this album - Wilco, Arcade Fire, Jayhawks, etc. And even lesser albums like Tango were novel (if not innovative) for their time. We all know how heavily this album continues to be sampled even to this day.

If you think Tusk was the most musically progressive album ever produced by anyone, then your record collection must be tiny. OK, I'll qualify my statement - of course it was a radical departure from Rumours, but only Lindsey was particularly creative on that album, and he was never really allowed to do it again Even then, a lot of his songs on there are pretty similar, and after a while, that stuff was too outré for Fleetwood Mac. Stevie and Chris weren't doing anything progressive on there. That's not to say it's not good - it is. But the creativity was limited to one member, and it did not resurface to any great degree on future albums. Certain aspects (Lindsey) of Tango in the Night were innovative, but the end product was safe. In the UK at least, Mac were already old hat. I was 14 at the time, and it was popular with people my parents' age.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

The beauty of a band like Fleetwood Mac is that, as a group of equal contributors, they force each other to bring out their best while weeding out their less desirable traits. This push/pull musical tension is what creates magic. We get the best of Lindsey without getting all of his tendency for self-indulgence. I don't think he is "hamstrung" as much as he is "refined" within the confines of FM.

True, but what that also does is weed out any tendency towards risk-taking, which is where a band's musical development comes from. Take no risks, you stand still, which is what they've done for years.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Indeed, BTM was not their best album ever, but I would hardly call it "tedious." In fact, it is arguably one of their more diverse, interesting efforts. It's an olio of all sorts of morsels - pop, blues, rockabilly, folk, prog rock, etc. At the end of the day, you can't help but give them a B+ for effort considering that their primary creative voice had departed. Nobody contributed their best material to the album, but it seems that the voices of Christine and Stevie can make practically anything sparkle.

I do think it's tedious. There are various genres on there, but we're dipping our toes into all of them, without really exploring any of them. It's blues lite, rockabilly lite, folk lite, and no prog rock at all. It was the result of using new members without really letting rip. Stevie was atrocious on parts of that album, which didn't help.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

If you think BTM was "tedious," how on earth can you find Time "interesting?" There is nothing... nothing new, novel or fresh about Time. Don't get me wrong- I loved Christine's songs for the most part, but I do have to admit that the production/arrangements were pretty lackluster. Otherwise it's full of very bland California pop along with some soulless bluesy meanderings.

Well, there's no accounting for taste - Behind the Mask was lacklustre and in parts, really formulaic. "Stand on the Rock", anyone? Why Rick's better songs weren't used is a mystery. Yes, Time was interesting, starting with Bekka. Dave Mason's songs were ordinary but decent enough, and Christine's were fairly bland, but Bekka and Billy provided some really decent stuff. Even Mick got an outing for one of his weird pieces, something which had previously been restricted to B-sides ("Lizard People") or not tried at all. And there's no blues on Time.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I think the only album that was consciously moulded in homage of Rumours was Mirage. Otherwise, I have to disagree yet again. Although it is far from perfect the SYW album was perhaps the most far-reaching, ambitious album they've ever released, and Lindsey takes full credit or blame for this, depending on how you look at it. Other than the title track, I don't think there is a single song on that album that could have fit on Rumours.

Maybe you're listening to a different Say You Will to the one I have. I'd agree that Lindsey ran that show, and it's decent. Otherwise I'd say it was an exercise in making a Mac album that sounded half like a Lindsey solo album, and half like a Stevie outtake album. Still a good album though, don't get me wrong. I'd also agree that very few of those songs would have been comfortable on Rumours, but then 24 years will do that to a band. Why no album since then, by the way? Because there are no new ideas.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Well, I guess you are saying, in a roundabout way, that Stevie is the sole reason why Fleetwood Mac is/was successful?

No. I'd say she provided the style, while Lindsey provided the substance. Chris did a little of both. I fully believe that without Fleetwood Mac, Stevie would not have had much of a career.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I believe it was Lindsey who first posited the term "brand" around the time of The Dance. Say what you will about "branding," but it is definitely important. Look at what a nightmare it was when the fake Fleetwood Mac was touring the U.S. in the early 70s? And how would you feel if Benny and Bjorn reunited "ABBA" with new girl singers? It's one thing if they started a new band with a new name, but coopting the ABBA name would just be beyond the pale.

Then shame on him. The fake Mac was a different thing. There's worrying about a band stealing your name, and then there's worrying about protecting a brand at the expense of musical integrity. Again, ABBA were a different thing - they'd never had different members for a start, whereas Stevie and Lindsey were latecomers. That's what a lot of people don't get - Fleetwood Mac had always been a revolving door of members. If Peter Green could be replaced, then so could Stevie and Lindsey. Musically, it was possible of course, but they followed the money instead. Nothing wrong in that, but denying it is pointless. All four of them are chasing the dollars, and the music is a poor second. I love them as much as anyone, but I can't pretend to think otherwise.