[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

I'll agree that 70s mainstream rock bands weren't doing anything radical, particularly in the US, but over here, punk had pushed rock bands into doing different things. It might be a US/UK thing - Tusk is all but forgotten here. I have to disagree strongly about that last sentence though...

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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!

"Brown Eyes" was a little different for Chris, but her other songs were typical Christine. I'm not really knocking that as such, because she had a formula which worked. So did Stevie, and changing it was a risk - they were already a bit shackled by their success.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

"Illumé" I find hard to listen to "Murrow" and "Red Rover" were a bit of a departure, but not in terms of what Lindsey had been doing outside Mac, which most Mac fans would have been familiar with. That's what I mean by it sounding half like a Lindsey solo album.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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

Gotta stand up for your beliefs! I think the big difference is whether you view it as a standalone album and take it on its merits, or compare it to what went before.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

Probably true, but then Bekka's backing vocals might have dragged it up a notch or two.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

Lindsey has had new ideas, but clearly nobody felt they were suitable to become Fleetwood Mac songs. Stevie's coming up with new stuff? I sense the fabric of the space-time continuum straining under the shock I'd say a new album hasn't happened because of both political and artistic issues.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

Oh, I definitely don't hate her. I rather like her actually - she seems like a decent sort, and I do like her Mac stuff up to and including Mirage. After that, not so much, and her solo stuff I find a bit patchy. I do understand the fascination with her (I had expert help ) even though I don't join in.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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!

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I guess I just fail to see how the Time chapter qualifies as forward movement or natural progression. To me it just seems utterly formulaic.

"A pretty blond front woman brought us fame before? Let's get another!"

"Bluesy music is how Fleetwood Mac got started? Let's capitalize on that!"

To me, the entire Time era just seems utterly contrived. If it was truly a step forward and a new beginning, the Time lineup would have come out with a new sound, a new look, they wouldn't have recruited random past members, or put a pretty blond girl out front in a shawl to sing Gold Dust Woman. I guess I just fail to see how a certain subset of folks on this board pan chiffonheads for their blind allegiance to Stevie, when they give the Time incarnation of the band the exact same latitude. It's pure hypocrisy. The whole Time experiment failed because it wasn't genuine, period. Yes, Fleetwood Mac is known for it's lineup changes... but by the time Time was released their image and persona was frozen in the public's mindset. There were no rebirths left in Fleetwood Mac.

The bottom line for me? Fleetwood Mac's namesake members have dismissed the Time incarnation... that's all I need to hear.

I think new members were brought in for different reasons in the early 70s - generally non-musical reasons. I don't know if Bekka was supposed to be a direct Stevie-replacement - after all, the only thing they had in common was that they were both blonde and cute. It was a bad idea to have her sing Stevie's songs - I don't really see the point in that. But at that time, Chris wasn't there, and maybe it seemed odd not to have any girls in the band. I'd say that it was more cock-up than conspiracy - it sounds like a risky idea that didn't work on the grounds that it wasn't popular with the existing fans. It worked musically as a standalone thing, but yes, Mac had gone too far along the Rumours road for anything else to really catch on. So that's why Mac are where they are. Incidentally, they have all but dismissed the '70-'74 incarnations as well - I'd say because there's no money in it.