Message from Wendy Welch (re: BW RRHOF induction)

[MacShadowsBall]

I've had some time to think about this. Sorry if this offends but it's just my opinion.



I don't fault Mick for agreeing with Christine. She was a current member of the band and had been for 28 years while all others left. You should support your current bandmates just like an employer should support current employees over former members/employees. Think of it this way Mick is an employer who had a former employee cause a major issue with his company and staff. He supported his current staff in an attack from a former employee. In other words, Bob should have been inducted, but Mick felt it was more important to keep his current band happy than to satisfy a former bandmate from 20+ years earlier. In the end, Bob was right to fight for his royalities and his induction.

Again, sorry if this offends anyone....

[jbrownsjr]

It doesn't offend me. Nothing can take away how amazing Bob Welch was and he totally deserved to be inducted. He'll always be one of my favorite musicians.

Having said that..

Two FMac members not getting along!!?? Groundbreaking!!!
Band politics within Fleetwood Mac? Unreal!!!
Politics and stupidity within the Rock Hall? Unheard of!!!

[redbird]

I dunno, I'm not impressed with Mick in this whole story. No Bob wasn't going to come back to help his band but, come on dude, have a little integrity.

As for Chris ... sad to hear, anyway.

[Wendy Welch]

I don't care who you are, you can't rewrite history, rock and roll or otherwise. Plus you can't deprive a person from their own legacy and what they have earned and deserve! Would you allow that to be done to your loved one?

[michelej1]

First I would say that I would think that it's in the hands of the RRHOF more than the band. So, unless we knew more about how the band possibly influenced the RRHOF or made the decision in its place, I don't know what to think.

Secondly, I'd have to agree with what MacShadowsBall said. No, it's not fair. Bob deserved to be included and no petty resentments should have kept him out. It should not have happened. But I understand why Christine was angry and I understand that her bandmates supported her. If she was responsible for him being excluded, she was wrong. BUT I understand them deciding to be wrong with her. I want the 5 of them to have solidarity, in the end. Right or wrong. It would have been nice if they'd tried to change her mind and reason with her. But for any one of them to say, "Sorry, if you feel that way, then we're going to do what's just and you'll just have to stay home, because we're insisting that Bob be included," would have been unthinkable. I'd rather have them all be immoral together than to even think of not standing with her, if she didn't back down.

Obviously, Wendy I understand why you're fighting to right a wrong. Anyone would in your place.

Michele

[wetcamelfood]

Jeremy & Danny were inducted and weren't present and that wasn't seen as a big deal. If they said to Christine "fine don't go if you don't want to but we're inducting everyone" then at the end of the day, the result would be there. Peter was there but played separately with Santana instead, no one complained about that. Even though the 5 fireflies played together later in the show, S&L without the others kicked off the show with the 2 acoustic tracks, no one complained. Look at when Dave Mason & Steve Winwood hugged when Traffic was inducted yet they didn't play together that night and the stories came out later that Winwood wouldn't play with him so the RRHOF ended up doing the separate performances but as far as I know Traffic fans aren't complaining that both were inducted & that they didn't play together (though they may have been surprised they didn't when seeing the hug earlier in the show). JMHO though.

John

[holidayroad]

Why is any big decision like this left to the musicians? Shouldn't the RRHOF be the one who has the final say as to who is in and who is out??

[Dr.Brown]

Originally Posted by michelej1

If she was responsible for him being excluded, she was wrong. BUT I understand them deciding to be wrong with her. I want the 5 of them to have solidarity, in the end. Right or wrong.

I'd rather have them all be immoral together than to even think of not standing with her, if she didn't back down.

Michele

Wow...

Hypothetical: If Stevie one day goes off on a homophobic rant thus alienating her gay fanbase (a la Michelle Shocked) would you also expect solidarity from "the 5" right or wrong?

I really don't mean this as a personal attack, but I find this kind of slavish devotion (re: "I'd rather have them all be immoral together...") indicative of a very cult-like mentality.

[forever]

I don't know the ins and outs of the RRHOF induction process but I would hope that the band could now put aside any past differences to at least speak up for Bob Welch's posthumous induction.

I understand that there's a Bob Welch tribute album in the works, and that Fleetwood Mac needs to okay covers of the songs he did while with the band. I hope that can happen soon.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

Wow...

Hypothetical: If Stevie one day goes off on a homophobic rant thus alienating her gay fanbase (a la Michelle Shocked) would you also expect solidarity from "the 5" right or wrong?

I really don't mean this as a personal attack, but I find this kind of slavish devotion (re: "I'd rather have them all be immoral together...") indicative of a very cult-like mentality.

I am talking about business immorality in terms of corporate decisions and loyalty, not involving societal issues and not involving actual crimes.

I don't think I am in any danger of being a cultist.

Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

Jeremy & Danny were inducted and weren't present and that wasn't seen as a big deal. If they said to Christine "fine don't go if you don't want to but we're inducting everyone" then at the end of the day, the result would be there. Peter was there but played separately with Santana instead, no one complained about that. Even though the 5 fireflies played together later in the show, S&L without the others kicked off the show with the 2 acoustic tracks, no one complained. Look at when Dave Mason & Steve Winwood hugged when Traffic was inducted yet they didn't play together that night and the stories came out later that Winwood wouldn't play with him so the RRHOF ended up doing the separate performances but as far as I know Traffic fans aren't complaining that both were inducted & that they didn't play together (though they may have been surprised they didn't when seeing the hug earlier in the show). JMHO though.

John

The example you gave from other bands just makes it all the more inconceivable to me that the RRHOF would leave the inclusion decision up to the band. I don't think they would, especially since there are many band members out there who hate each other's guts.

As far as Christine staying home, I was upset enough about Stevie and Lindsey doing Big Love and Landslide alone. Those weren't recorded as duets. If Christine hadn't been present and had not only performed SYLM but did so in a way which put the five of them and what they created together at the forefront of the performance, then I would have thought the entire ceremony was rather invalid. I don't know about other fans, but I never would have stopped complaining about her not being there. Some people feel that way about Bob, but in Mick's place, if he made any choice between Christine and Bob, he made what I think was the obvious one.

The fact is, in light of the lawsuit, Christine probably wasn't alone in her antipathy towards Bob at the time. I would find it hard to believe that John wasn't as upset as she was. If Mick was put in the position of deciding whether or not to side with John and Christine, it's a no brainer to me. The timing no doubt impacted their judgment and probably caused them to minimize his contributions in their minds.

Of course, I don't think Christine was always right. I was just down in the Stevie forum earlier this week expressing shock over a homophobic remark Christine supposedly made to Status Quo members in the sixties. But I don't place this RRHOF kerfuffle on the same level at all. One involves band politics and the other social injustice.

At any rate, she just said something nice about Welch in Mojo, maybe at this point they might be all willing to unite and support something posthumous, as suggested.

Michele

[Dr.Brown]

Originally Posted by michelej1

I am talking about business immorality in terms of corporate decisions and loyalty, not involving societal issues and not involving actual crimes.

I'm glad you clarified that but I still don't agree with this attitude. "Business immorality", I guess that means "the 5" get a free pass then and it was just peachy of them leaving a former band member out of loop when it came to royalty payments since this did not involve "actual crimes".

Originally Posted by michelej1

At any rate, she just said something nice about Welch in Mojo, maybe at this point they might be all willing to unite and support something posthumous, as suggested.

Okay, at last here we can agree.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

I'm glad you clarified that

It really didn't need clarification. We're talking about a musical commendation, not murder. And I don't know why a statement about one thing would lead you to extrapolate and apply what I said to prejudice.

Originally Posted by Dr.Brown

but I still don't agree with this attitude. "Business immorality", I guess that means "the 5" get a free pass then and it was just peachy of them leaving a former band member out of loop when it came to royalty payments since this did not involve "actual crimes".

I didn't say it was peachy. I expressly said it was wrong. I also said that the rest of them should have tried to talk her out of it, if she actually took that stance. But if they couldn't, then I appreciate the solidarity. It doesn't mean they get "a free pass." It means that if they go down, they go down together. I like the "all for one, one for all attitude."

My grandmother had 3 sons, they were all 15 months apart and she used to tell me how if one was walking home and he saw his brother engaged in a fight with someone else, he just threw down his bookbags and he started fighting the third person too. He didn't ask questions about what the fight was about. That came later. During the fight, if you're hitting one brother, you're hitting them all.

If John, Mick and Christine were still bruised by Bob's lawsuit, I don't care that Stevie and Lindsey followed along, even if their conduct was petty. I like the familial idea that we may fight each other, but we have a bond that makes us band together against anyone else. In fact, I've often lamented that those 5 FM members don't seem more loyal to each other than they are.

I've said this before on this board, but it is always something that I admired about Cher. She did nothing but blast Sonny and I hated her for it, but I never once heard her let anyone else say anything negative about him in her presence. I don't care how minor or valid it was. Katie Couric criticized his singing voice and as nasal and awful as it was, Cher said to her, "What's your point? Bob Dylan has a nasal voice too." Cher knocked Sonny, but she didn't let anyone else do it.

I'd rather Mick side with Christine than Bob, if he had to pick sides. Maybe he shouldn't have had to, but I don't fault his choice.

Clearly, you don't agree, but I don't think it's a cult mentality. I think it's a team mentality.

Michele

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by michelej1

If John, Mick and Christine were still bruised by Bob's lawsuit, I don't care that Stevie and Lindsey followed along, even if their conduct was petty.

And I wouldn't suggest it was petty at all. I'm really not sure it was any of their business, so maybe they just stayed out of it. I mean, I know they were friends with Bob and respected him, but they weren't involved in the lawsuit, and their tenure in the band didn't overlap with his, so while they (like anyone) might have an opinion about whether he should be inducted, they shouldn't really have any decision-making power.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

And I wouldn't suggest it was petty at all. I'm really not sure it was any of their business, so maybe they just stayed out of it. I mean, I know they were friends with Bob and respected him, but they weren't involved in the lawsuit, and their tenure in the band didn't overlap with his, so while they (like anyone) might have an opinion about whether he should be inducted, they shouldn't really have any decision-making power.

That's a good point and let's be honest, even though Stevie listened to the previous albums from "back to front," I don't know if she and Lindsey have that much of an idea of what Bob meant to Fleetwood Mac before they came. I'm not sure they did that much homework on their own band and may not know what fans know about what Bob did in front of the scenes for FM, much less behind them. So, it does make more sense to put this on the shoulders of the 3 people who were bandmates with Bob.


Michele