Where does Fleetwood Mac rank among the greatest bands?

[bethelblues]

OK, I've been wanting to start this thread for a while now. I'm sure there are older threads from years long ago, but rather than resurrect a similar topic I wanted to start my own. If one exists recently, please go ahead and delete this.

I've always been fascinated of conversations of the greatest bands of all time and I'm genuinely interested where people think Fleetwood Mac should be placed. Of course, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are at the top and can serve as modes of comparison. The Beatles had a huge output of diverse and influential music over a short but consistently great time period. It's amazing to think how much they produced in so short a time. Can any band match the Beatles capacity to take on and master so many genres, over just half a decade for that matter? They were a cultural phenomenon, accumulating 20 number-one hits, and were synonymous with the British invasion. Also, Paul, John, and George saw enormous success as solo artists. For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out. Their longevity, though some people would count their dud albums against them, is unparalleled. They stayed together and continue to make it work, and their social relevance in the late 60s and 70s defined the Vietnam era. Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are among the best songs ever written. Also, the Stones were noted for their live performances, musicianship, the power and danger of Mick Jagger, and singular style, while the Beatles were more a studio band, another metric to keep in mind. What both groups have in common is that they consistently put out outstanding albums, often four or five in a row: the examples: Sgt. Pepper--probably the Citizen Kane of albums, Exile on Main Street, The White Album, Let It Bleed, Revolver, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

We all love Fleetwood Mac, a band that deserves to be in this conversation and should be acknowledged for its entire history not just the most popular Rumours era, as it seems Rolling Stone magazine tends to classify the band as more pop and less an extension of rock and roll. Only recently has that magazine in its rankings recognized Lindsey as a top 100 rock guitarist, which is way overdue. There are certainly some strong albums: one an acknowledged classic (Rumours), one a bit more divisive though some argue it's the band's best (Tusk), a few forgotten gems, a few duds. There are certainly great songs: Go Your Own Way, The Chain, Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon, Oh Well, Albatross, You Make Loving Fun, Dreams. Some songs had searing power, but none really achieved a distinguished social relevance. There are the infamous live performances, which are known to be more rock and roll than the studio output. There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band. There was Grammy recognition, there was a number-one hit, a few number-one albums. There's diversity of material, music videos (Lindsey's lip synching ). And of course, there's one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history with John and Mick. So, when we step back and objectively consider Fleetwood Mac's place among the best, WHERE DOES THE BAND BELONG? Are they slightly below the Beatles and the Stones, with Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and The Who? Are they slightly below those groups? Do they surpass probably the biggest band today U2? Are they the greatest band to come out of the 70s, say vs. the pop contemporary Eagles? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

OK, I've been wanting to start this thread for a while now. I'm sure there are older threads from years long ago, but rather than resurrect a similar topic I wanted to start my own. If one exists recently, please go ahead and delete this.

I've always been fascinated of conversations of the greatest bands of all time and I'm genuinely interested where people think Fleetwood Mac should be placed. Of course, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are at the top and can serve as modes of comparison. The Beatles had a huge output of diverse and influential music over a short but consistently great time period. It's amazing to think how much they produced in so short a time. Can any band match the Beatles capacity to take on and master so many genres, over just half a decade for that matter? They were a cultural phenomenon, accumulating 20 number-one hits, and were synonymous with the British invasion. Also, Paul, John, and George saw enormous success as solo artists. For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out. Their longevity, though some people would count their dud albums against them, is unparalleled. They stayed together and continue to make it work, and their social relevance in the late 60s and 70s defined the Vietnam era. Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are among the best songs ever written. Also, the Stones were noted for their live performances, musicianship, the power and danger of Mick Jagger, and singular style, while the Beatles were more a studio band, another metric to keep in mind. What both groups have in common is that they consistently put out outstanding albums, often four or five in a row: the examples: Sgt. Pepper--probably the Citizen Kane of albums, Exile on Main Street, The White Album, Let It Bleed, Revolver, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

We all love Fleetwood Mac, a band that deserves to be in this conversation and should be acknowledged for its entire history not just the most popular Rumours era, as it seems Rolling Stone magazine tends to classify the band as more pop and less an extension of rock and roll. Only recently has that magazine in its rankings recognized Lindsey as a top 100 rock guitarist, which is way overdue. There are certainly some strong albums: one an acknowledged classic (Rumours), one a bit more divisive though some argue it's the band's best (Tusk), a few forgotten gems, a few duds. There are certainly great songs: Go Your Own Way, The Chain, Gold Dust Woman, Rhiannon, Oh Well, Albatross, You Make Loving Fun, Dreams. Some songs had searing power, but none really achieved a distinguished social relevance. There are the infamous live performances, which are known to be more rock and roll than the studio output. There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band. There was Grammy recognition, there was a number-one hit, a few number-one albums. There's diversity of material, music videos (Lindsey's lip synching ). And of course, there's one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history with John and Mick. So, when we step back and objectively consider Fleetwood Mac's place among the best, WHERE DOES THE BAND BELONG? Are they slightly below the Beatles and the Stones, with Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and The Who? Are they slightly below those groups? Do they surpass probably the biggest band today U2? Are they the greatest band to come out of the 70s, say vs. the pop contemporary Eagles? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

They are the most relevant band from the 70s right now. They have stood the test of the time.

[SteveMacD]

I think their music is great, but I think their story, '67 - '80, is the most interesting thing about them. Few bands could have thrived during all of that.

That being said, the other bands you listed were bands that changed the landscape popular music. Fleetwood Mac wasn't an especially innovative band. There was nothing too unique about their music, per se.

[AncientQueen]

In conversations, it always seems that bands like Led Zeppelin, Depeche Mode and the Rolling Stones are farmore acceptable to like. when I simply state 2I love FM" I usually get that look and either:
- Ah, Peter Green was good, after that, they were just two chicks doing some stuff.
- They were great in the 60s but sold out.
- Humming "tell me lies, sweet little lies" followed by the "your taste in music is so basic, girl" look.

I don't have illusions of grandeur when it comes to the critical success of my favorite band since 1979. But that doesn't make their music less good or their history less fascinating.

[tilthefirefades]

I do agree that they have stood the test of time greatly. In my personal social circle they are without a doubt the most recognizable through their music. My friends would absolutely recognize Landslide before their rivals, except maybe Hotel California. As for the bands even further back, it is hard to determine what makes a band the greatest. When I take casual fans and introduce them to Storms or Bleed to Love Her. They are always surprised, that would be Fleetwood Mac's flaw. That their popular music pales in comparison to the deeper cuts. The Dance was a universal success and perhaps the only reason people generated enough interest for further projects. They need that now, kind of a final test to their legacy. They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

[bethelblues]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

I do agree that they have stood the test of time greatly. In my personal social circle they are without a doubt the most recognizable through their music. My friends would absolutely recognize Landslide before their rivals, except maybe Hotel California. As for the bands even further back, it is hard to determine what makes a band the greatest. When I take casual fans and introduce them to Storms or Bleed to Love Her. They are always surprised, that would be Fleetwood Mac's flaw. That their popular music pales in comparison to the deeper cuts. The Dance was a universal success and perhaps the only reason people generated enough interest for further projects. They need that now, kind of a final test to their legacy. They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

Maybe that "new Dance" you mention could be a special, taped 50th anniversary concert that must absolutely highlight all eras of the band. Remind audiences of Albatross, the deeper cuts, the massive hits, the rock credibility. It seems like Lindsey, in particular, constantly must do Big Love and So Afraid to beat into the heads of reviewers and audiences how great of a guitarist he is...and the critics still go ahead and forget him following that moment. I think such a complete concert would force a re-evaluation of the band and again stress to the uninformed that Fleetwood Mac was way more than just a pop band. Another "new Dance" could come in the form of a film, which if done correctly (and the potential is great for an excellent movie if done by the right filmmaker---there really is no definitive film of the music industry, I think a Goodfellas approach, an entry into that world would be perfect) would bring about a huge resurgence of interest, though it should be said they are in no trouble like some of their contemporaries. Fleetwood Mac is still packing arenas and will never have to go to smaller venues.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

They need a new Dance to show the current generation that they are more than Landslide and Go Your Own Way. All personal conflict and story aside.

That can't happen now because they have devalued their currency, so to speak, by touring almost continuously for a decade -- with barely any new music as a band. They'd have to go away for a decade, and make a big splashy Dance-like comeback for what you are suggesting to happen. But, sadly, it's too late.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

For the Stones, they began as a cover band, which Beatles supporters always point out.

Originally Posted by bethelblues

There's Stevie, someone who really doesn't have an equal as a woman lead singer-songwriter of a band.

Great topic, but I want to take issue with the above two points. First, how do you think the Beatles got started? They used to play 30-minute versions of Chuck Berry songs in Hamburg; that's how they built up their chops as a band.

On the Stevie point, what about Debbie Harry? Sure, Blondie had a shorter run, but in that short run, they had more output than FM has probably had as a band. I don't know, I'd have to count the songs. I would also put Chrisse Hynde up there, and even Pat Benatar. Both were huge for a while. Stevie has had more longevity, but probably more as a result of her solo career than her relatively small role in FM.

Now, where does FM figure in among rock's influential bands? It became obvious in the mid 90s how big an influence FM is. I often hear solos, for instance, that sound like they were ripped of Rumours. To this day, I still hear young artists who, purposely or subconsciously, are channeling FM. Lindsey is a huge influence on a lot of alternative, and post, artists. It's amazing how much of an influence he really is. Now, he may not get the adoration or have the allure that Stevie has, but I would argue he has actually been the bigger influence. And what is especially interesting about that is artists don't so much try to copy Lindsey's guitar playing, but more the overall vibe of song crafting, attitude, boundary-pushing and production values.

[bethelblues]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Great topic, but I want to take issue with the above two points.

The argument that the Stones started as a cover band has been used in Beatles vs. Stones conversations. It's not my own. I think maybe what critics mean is that the Stones were a pretty high profile cover band up to the mid-60s, while the Beatles of course covered songs but before they broke out of Liverpool club shows.

Thanks for bringing up a few examples of leading rock ladies in bands. Yeah, I think that was what I was getting at, what you said, Stevie's longevity and continued name recognition today makes her stand out. Glad you mentioned Pat Benatar. She beat Stevie several years in a row at the Grammys. And Debbie Harry's another notable band female lead.

[RockawayBlind]

Originally Posted by bethelblues

The argument that the Stones started as a cover band has been used in Beatles vs. Stones conversations. It's not my own. I think maybe what critics mean is that the Stones were a pretty high profile cover band up to the mid-60s, while the Beatles of course covered songs but before they broke out of Liverpool club shows.

Interestingly, and to your point, the Stones covered the Beatles, and the reverse never happened, to my knowledge. The Stones actually released the song "I Wanna Be Your Man," penned by Lennon/McCartney, before the Beatles.

Over the years, there have been lots of comparisons between the two bands, and they are not always fair. Why the Stones get pegged as a covers band originally and the Beatles don't is somewhat confounding. Had the Beatles stayed together through the 70s and beyond, I wonder what they would have become. Despite some unfortunate forays into other genres, like disco (even though Miss You is a kick-ass tune), the Stones pretty much have stayed true to their blues roots. The Beatles probably would have become something very different.

[Stormwind]

Well I think that the band deserves a place in the first/second tier. They were pretty original, the blues of Peter Green's era was fundamental for the whole scene.
The pop of Buckingham-Nicks's era was very influential (successful of course, but that its not the main thing). They had a very personal sound, they remade some cliches of the pop of the time (Beach Boys for what regards for example vocal harmonies) but in a new way, and they also experimented in their way, not in a strict progressive way.

[chiliD]

Had Peter Green, Danny Kirwan & Jeremy Spencer stayed together & not had the illness, religious epiphanies, etc, Fleetwood Mac today would probably have the status we now reserve for Led Zeppelin. PG was 10x's the guitarist Jimmy Page had ever HOPED to be...as a band, Fleetwood Mac was tighter (even on their extended jams) than Zep ever was even on a GOOD night. But, that's all reserved for some parallel universe that only exists in the "what if" filing cabinet of our minds.

The thing is, once bands start shifting personnel (after a bout of huge fame), the mystique is damaged bit by bit.

The Beatles got their personnel changes out of the way before the "Mania" hit full on.

The Rolling Stones shift in personnel was for the better, Brian Jones was pretty much holding them back, then mysteriously left this astral plane, to be replaced by Mick Taylor (Peter Green's replacement in the Bluesbreakers)...the result of which was the Stones took a big leap in both songwriting, record production, etc, etc. and at the time, really DID deserve the "Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World" moniker. Pretty much their ascent to that level was aided immensely by the Beatles calling it a day in 1970, as well. The combination of their already being #2, the addition of Mick Taylor, the move to their own label, when the #1's decided they didn't want to be a band anymore, the Stones were the obvious "next #1". They even are the exception to my "personnel changes" rule too. When Mick Taylor opted out of the Stones, the only REAL choice WAS Ronnie Wood, since Faces had pretty much been dropped by Rod Stewart and closed down their musical drinking establishment. The Stones popularity (and creativity) had another spike. The Stones rode that wave for another decade & a half.


The Who...pretty much were #3 behind Beatles & Stones in the 60's, and were leap-frogged by Led Zeppelin in the 70's, keeping them in the #3 spot, although they gave it a good fight with "Tommy", "Who's Next", "Quadrophenia" & "Who By Numbers"...they just couldn't really survive the death of Keith Moon, although they soldiered on with exactly the WORST choice of drummer to take Moon's place. Kenney Jones was great with Faces, but he was nowhere near Moon's level. And, because of Moon's death and the subsequent dip in quality songwriting (Townshend was obviously affected dramatically by Keith's demise), showed Zeppelin how to respond to the death of their drummer. Just not go on. (at least until the next generation was old enough and able enough to sit in for his father....which The Who followed that process by eventually getting Zak Starkey (Ringo's son, but who had been taught how to play the instrument by "Uncle" Keith Moon, being basically Keith's progeny moreso than Ringo's.)

Somewhere around the mid-70s, some weird little progressive rock band all of a sudden leapt onto the scene pretty much out of nowhere (except for a rabid UK following) and became one of the "Mt Rushmore" candidates of rock & roll...Pink Floyd. Today, they're definitely Top 5.

Fleetwood Mac, yep, they had their "reincarnation" of popularity with Rumours, but by their own hand, they've not shaken that whole Rumours hype/mystique/soap opera. Fleetwood Mac's fame was more non-musical than it was musical. To the point of being the butt of the Rumours joke for quite a while, and they still were trying to keep that whole Rumours thing going...and damned if they still aren't in a lot of ways. That's been a hinderance rather than a boon.


I'd say that these days, Fleetwood Mac would probably be in the Top 10 or 15 bands/artists of all-time, but not much higher than that.

How I'd rank them:

1) Beatles
2) Rolling Stones
3) Led Zeppelin
4) Pink Floyd
5) U2
6) Bob Dylan
7) Neil Young
8) Jimi Hendrix Experience
9) Eric Clapton
10) Eagles
11) The Grateful Dead
12) The Doors
13) Prince
14) The Who
15) Fleetwood Mac