[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

If you think Tusk was the most musically progressive album ever produced by anyone, then your record collection must be tiny.

I'm looking at the album within the context of its time. With bands like Wilco and Death Cab for Cutie now a dime-a-dozen, Tusk doesn't sound all that radical. But at the end of the '70s, no mainstream rock group was making music like this; considering that a sequel to Rumours was practically a given, they completely threw everyone a curve ball. This album came completely out of left field. It is as important in rock music as the trifecta of late 60s albums from the Beatles.

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.

I have to disagree. Yes, Lindsey went the furthest afield... but being different simply for the sake of being different does not automatically make you "creative." I think everyone flexed their creative muscles on this album. Christine, the master of 3-minute pop treats, delivered a surprisingly spare/unembellished jazz-tinged song like "Brown Eyes." Stevie took her ethereal persona to the nth degree in the sprawling epic "Sara." Sure, other songs remained true to form. But you simply can't have a Fleetwood Mac album that tries too hard not to sound like Fleetwood Mac!

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.

I really don't think you've listened to Say You Will. Sure, there are some safe, pleasant, radio-oriented singles on there- those are a given. But what about songs like "Everybody Finds Out," "Illume," "Murrow" and "Red Rover?" They've never, ever done anything like that before. And although the production of "Smile at You" has been almost universally hated (myself included), you can't deny that it ventures into totally new musical territory for FM.

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.

"In the Back of My Mind" is semi-prog. And I agree, Stevie's contributions on BTM were not among her best ever.

Well, there's no accounting for taste -

I know. I know because people have the audacity to defend Time.

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.

Given your somewhat dubious praise of Time above, I think "Stand on the Rock" would have fit perfectly on it! In fact, I wish it was there and not on BTM.

Why no album since then, by the way? Because there are no new ideas.

Um... because Lindsey is an ass and Stevie misses Christine. Oops... it's no longer 2009. Um... I think Lindsey has been giving us nothing but "new ideas" since SYW. And Stevie is in the process of giving us something new. I think the fact that they have not gotten together is more of a political issue than an artistic issue.

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.

Well, I think legions of Stevie fans would disagree, but she seems to be one of those extremely polarizing figures- you either love her or hate her. There is no such thing as being indifferent about Stevie Nicks.

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.

Well, when Peter Green left the band, they really had no choice but to carry on as Fleetwood Mac due to contractual obligations. And it seems that, in the past, whenever Fleetwood Mac changed its lineup, it was done in small increments for the sake of continuity- a member here, a member there, etc. I think the next logical step after BTM would have been a Chris, Billy, Rick, John and Mick lineup. Instead, Mick did the unthinkable... the almost unforgiveable... he tried to replace Stevie Nicks! He can deny it all he wants to, but it was no mere coincidence that he enlisted this new member who was a cute blonde chick singer who stood center stage. He failed to grasp then what he now knows the hard way- Stevie Nicks cannot be replaced. Period. Ask any Chiffonhead. There are just some things in the world that you just don't f*** with. You just don't f*** with Mama!