What's the nicest thing FM ever did for the fans?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by David
Can't you look at this equally validly from the public's perspective? If 18 million fans didn't purchase "Rumours," who would've cried & whined the most? The band.

But you didn't finish the rest of your sentence. "Just as we work hard to please our bosses in order to continue earning a living, entertainers work hard to please their fans" ... in order to continue earning a living!

Some other people in this thread said that Fleetwood Mac makes music & CDs for me. That puts a loony, simplistic spin on what is really a very complex interrelationship between the published musician & the consumer. When I buy the new CD by Fleetwood Mac, am I doing it for them? It's a business transaction, a marketplace event. Both sides happen to benefit: Fleetwood Mac makes a good living & enjoys the emotional benefits of adulation & connection; the consumers get to pop a CD in the car CD player or have a great time at a live show. It's Fleetwood Mac's living; it's our recreation, our hobby, even in some cases our emotional healing. It's symbiotic. But it ain't one literally giving something to the other. If John McVie paid this month's bills for me, that's giving me something. If he washed & waxed my kitchen floor, that's giving me something. But he & his bandmates don't give me their music. I buy it.

You make very valid points, David, and I do agree with you.
My posts have a tendency to get a bit verbose though, so sometimes I decide to refrain from veering off into yet another side of the argument, simply for the sake of my fingers, my keyboard, and the poor people reading these.

Yes, this whole situation is an "I'll scratch your back, if you'll scratch mine" kind of thing.
I tend to assume that's inherent, so I didn't bother mentioning it.

Fleetwood Mac does record and tour in the hopes that people will buy what they're selling... they need us.
And no, they don't "give" us anything in the completely philanthropic meaning of the word, but they are supplying what we want to buy, when they (well, at least some of the members of the band) could have just hung it up years ago and lived off their royalties. Which, to me, implies that a large part of what they're doing is for the fans.

As you said, it's symbiotic: If Fleetwood Mac continues to record, then I'll continue to buy... and if I continue to buy, hopefully they'll continue to record.

The main point I was trying to make, is that it's my choice to buy. No one is putting a gun to my head.
I like the music for hundreds of various reasons, and it has always been enough to satisfy me.
I try not to put demands on the things that make me happy, and to just appreciate them for what they are.

I know that's probably a pretty naive way to look at it, but it has held me in good stead this long, so I think I'm going to stick with it.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by David
Can't you look at this equally validly from the public's perspective? If 18 million fans didn't purchase "Rumours," who would've cried & whined the most? The band.

But you didn't finish the rest of your sentence. "Just as we work hard to please our bosses in order to continue earning a living, entertainers work hard to please their fans" ... in order to continue earning a living!

Some other people in this thread said that Fleetwood Mac makes music & CDs for me. That puts a loony, simplistic spin on what is really a very complex interrelationship between the published musician & the consumer. When I buy the new CD by Fleetwood Mac, am I doing it for them? It's a business transaction, a marketplace event. Both sides happen to benefit: Fleetwood Mac makes a good living & enjoys the emotional benefits of adulation & connection; the consumers get to pop a CD in the car CD player or have a great time at a live show. It's Fleetwood Mac's living; it's our recreation, our hobby, even in some cases our emotional healing. It's symbiotic. But it ain't one literally giving something to the other. If John McVie paid this month's bills for me, that's giving me something. If he washed & waxed my kitchen floor, that's giving me something. But he & his bandmates don't give me their music. I buy it.

I agree with this almost completely, but I'd like to point out that many fans DO purchase the albums for the benefit of the band. We can download the songs off the net if all we want is the music. We want to give this band the royalties & the platinum certification. I imagine that at least a couple posters on this board have bought more than one copy of SYW to help boost sales.

And since you brought it up, John McVie is scrubbing my toilet right now as I surf the Ledge. That's why he doesn't talk onstage: He's too pooped, not to mention loaded on Clorox fumes.

- Jake

[seeknpeace]

Originally posted by David
Can't you look at this equally validly from the public's perspective? If 18 million fans didn't purchase "Rumours," who would've cried & whined the most? The band.

But you didn't finish the rest of your sentence. "Just as we work hard to please our bosses in order to continue earning a living, entertainers work hard to please their fans" ... in order to continue earning a living!

Some other people in this thread said that Fleetwood Mac makes music & CDs for me. That puts a loony, simplistic spin on what is really a very complex interrelationship between the published musician & the consumer. When I buy the new CD by Fleetwood Mac, am I doing it for them? It's a business transaction, a marketplace event. Both sides happen to benefit: Fleetwood Mac makes a good living & enjoys the emotional benefits of adulation & connection; the consumers get to pop a CD in the car CD player or have a great time at a live show. It's Fleetwood Mac's living; it's our recreation, our hobby, even in some cases our emotional healing. It's symbiotic. But it ain't one literally giving something to the other. If John McVie paid this month's bills for me, that's giving me something. If he washed & waxed my kitchen floor, that's giving me something. But he & his bandmates don't give me their music. I buy it.

Well said Dave...I buy it, they do not give it to me. This "relationship" gives them a lot to be thankful for, not just us fortunate fans. And, now, we have Jonathan Todd, and this fan club mess, that has to be resolved and if it is NOT, then I am ready to go for the band. It has taken me some time to get to that point, but, there are things that I know now.

They are in a position of a certain type of power and leadership, which they opted for and they wanted. It was not just music. They have lived as rock royalty and it was preparation meeting opportunity and some luck.

[seeknpeace]

This argument has taken an interesting philosophical turn though. Is there such a thing as altruism? Does any band do what they are doing for the fans? Hmm I can't imagine anyone does! I guess its either, money, the feeling of being worshiped and adored or the enjoyment of doing it really. I like the third option the best myself, although I'd like to think band's appreciate their fans too

I like the third one too. I do not think that Stevie Nicks did not have a family to make me happy. I think that she was driven and had a deep thirst for being a rock star, and they are tied together. I think some bands do appreciate their fans. Again, I have to quote my buddy Dave, to Fleetwood Mac we are an audience, not fans. This club crap is proving that to me even more.

[Anthony]

What a whirlwind! I've finally read every post on this thread.
I didn't know about the Fan club scandal.
I didn't know Johnny Stew was a philosopher. I failed philosophy in college.
I now know what Ambien is.
Back on track.....
I know this is gonna raise a few eyebrows, but here it is.
If Limp Bizkit can throw free concerts in a park, on a whim, why not Fleetwood Mac? Sure, it isn't owed to anyone, but wouldn't it be cool and simbiotic? A nice thankyou to the loyal fans and a way to develop some new fans to generate extra income. Everyone would be happy. I know, I know......I'm dreaming, must be the ambien.

[FiercestCalmSea]

If Limp Bizkit can throw free concerts in a park, on a whim, why not Fleetwood Mac?

No s**t right??? I never thought of that..but really...why in the hell not...you'd think Stevie would get the idea from her pal Sheryl..

[macmar71]

Fleetwood Mac kept me sane when I was a very depressed teenager, it gave me something to listen to and look forward to.
Through my love of their music, I have met many people who share the same love for the music and the band, so the Mac has brought me some great friends as well as gotten me through a tough time or two.

[WindingRoad]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

Stevie is probably the best example of that, as she nearly killed herself trying to make everyone happy.
One could argue that no one is responsible for her drug addictions but her, and that would definitely be true... but the whole impetus behind doing cocaine in the first place, was to have the energy to continue making music, and performing... to please us.

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Hmm, well, since I made the comments you addressed, I might as well take a stab at responding.

First, I think it's twisting my words a bit, to write that I said Stevie did cocaine for us.

As you can see, Johnny Stew, Stevie using cocaine "to please us " is EXACTLY what you said.

Perhaps you'd want to reread your posts before accusing someone of twisting your words.

susieq

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by WindingRoad
As you can see, Johnny Stew, Stevie using cocaine "to please us " is EXACTLY what you said.

Perhaps you'd want to reread your posts before accusing someone of twisting your words.

Personally, I think there is a difference between saying "the whole impetus behind doing cocaine in the first place, was to have the energy to continue making music, and performing," the outcome of which (more music and more performances), hopefully pleases the fans; and in the overly-simplified statement that Stevie did cocaine for us.

But I can understand how that conclusion could be drawn from what I originally said.

Still, I stand behind my comments... I'll just try to be clearer with my statements next time around.

[Anthony]

I know I shouldn't side-track y'all here, but I must, I must.
This "who did what for who" thing keeps reminding me of Pete Townshend saying he "researched" kiddy-porn, so he could write a book. Something about being able to develop a sense of retrospect.
Okay, there, I said it. It's out of my system now.
I'm almost glad that I didn't become a rock-star. I can't think of any whose personal lives aren't a mess. Hey, maybe that could be a new thread in the chit-chat forum.