After May 27th 2015 - I'm never going to try and see this band again.

[Macfanforever]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

The prospect of a new Fleetwood Mac seems to be in jeopardy. Aside from this ever expanding and never ending tour of greed, Stevie's ambivalence is a stunning insult to the band and fans. And time, inevitably, is not on their side.

Even if they manage to make and tour with a new album, the set list won't change much. They are so tentative with new material; maybe four new songs will be performed, and at least one will be dropped before the tour ends.

I'll save my rant on how restrictive, rote, stagnant and uninspired their set lists. Other bands I love create unique set lists for each of their tours, featuring deep cuts, a healthy amount of new material, and a handful of their hits.

Fleetwood Mac is just doesn't have that kind of nimbleness. Because they have three singer/songwriters, they have to achieve a balance between them. Aside from that, they have a lot of hits and standards they feel they required to play. This mindset leaves little wiggle room. It's like they are performing the same play every time they tour, with very minor changes to the scenes.

Look at a band like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. They have a lot of signature hits, but they don't glut their sets with the same songs in the same sequence over and over. They'll play inspired covers, deep tracks, and some select hit songs. No one leaves their shows bitching about the set. "I paid a lot of money and they didn't play the songs I wanted to hear! No "Free Fall" I'm so pissed off."

I realize this is a somewhat unfair comparison, because dynamics vary vastly among bands and their fans.

I never could understand why they cant mix up the setlist.As long as the band and sound and lighting crew are on the same page and knows what tune is next and they should be OK.

As long as Songbird ends the show .I dont see whats the big issue.

I must of missed the interview of Stevie or anybody else in the band explained why they dont change the order of the setlist every night or every week.

I agree and add my gripes and rants to the same order stale setlist.

I've been saying this for years .Whats the excuse for not changing it.

This is a good question for Mick at his meet and greets.
Or maybe he already answered it already.I dont know.

Knock on "my head" wood.The tunes are still in tacked and no dropsy's yet.As far as I know.

[Dragonfly]

I missed the 2009/2013 tours so really wanted to go to one this time around as there are a few songs I've never seen performed live, including Christine's songs obviously.


I'll keep looking/saving and hope I can still make it, but I also think it will be the last time if I do go. I don't think they'll tour Europe again anyway, I'm guessing this is the last time we'll see a world tour (just a gut feeling).

[Dreamz19]

Can't say that I do. This tour was my first time seeing the Mac, but I would love to hear new songs or album tracks. I wish I could have went to the SYW tour to hear some of the newer songs.

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

I agree and add my gripes and rants to the same order stale setlist.

I've been saying this for years .Whats the excuse for not changing it.

This is a good question for Mick at his meet and greets.

Asking that to Mick would be a waste of a question. Since he doesn't write or sing the songs, that would be a better question for Stevie or Lindsey, as they likely decide what they want to perform. Mick would answer in a very diplomatic generic way.

At this point in their history, I guess we should just except the status quo. Who knows what factors determine their set lists. Is it just easier for them to go through the motions with their most familiar live material? Do they feel a responsibility to placate the masses with the well-known songs overrules trying any new songs for fear it alienate their lightweight fans? All of their songs were new at one point in time; aside the from the high profile radio hits, album tracks become familiar staples by performing them - I Know I'm Not Wrong is a good example of that.

However, as artists, I find it peculiar they take such little stock in their body of never-performed or under-performed work --with very little interest to dust off songs worthy of performing, if only just to keep it fresh and challenging? Most of their albums sold in huge numbers; it's not as if we haven't heard those songs. I give them credit for some of the songs they surprisingly brought to life like Storms and Beautiful Child. But it looks like the Say You Will album has been entirely abandoned. Steal Your Heart Away would have been a good choice. Didn't Christine sing on it?

[secondhandchain]

Was going to see them at the forum in LA but can't do it now. I know Stevie and Christine both left the band, but time is of the essence. Stevie begged for Christine to be back. We all thought that would be the game changer. So we all bought our tickets as Stevie stayed mum. Now that all the tickets are purchased she can finally say she's not recording. NOT going to the show because I couldn't stomach applauding for Stevie right now.

[nicepace]

I understand Fleetwood Mac's reasons for playing the same show night after night. There's so much production involved (pre-recorded tracks, lighting, canned banter etc.). I don't particularly like it, but nobody asked me.

What I wish they would do is prepare two shows instead of just one. Each show would consist of 25 songs and begin with "The Chain" and end with "Songbird." However, the intermediate 23 songs would be entirely different. One night we'd get "Little Lies." The next night we'd get "Everywhere." One night "Sisters of the Moon." The next, "Seven Wonders." You get the picture.

There'd be room for some deep cuts, and maybe a solo track or two, if the heaviest hits were spaced out this way, too.

They'd be going on stage and someone would ask: "Which show tonight?" Mick would say: "The B show!"

And wouldn't it be more interesting for the musicians, too? They must get really bored playing the same show night after night.

[DauphineMarie]

Originally Posted by secondhandchain

Was going to see them at the forum in LA but can't do it now. I know Stevie and Christine both left the band, but time is of the essence. Stevie begged for Christine to be back. We all thought that would be the game changer. So we all bought our tickets as Stevie stayed mum. Now that all the tickets are purchased she can finally say she's not recording. NOT going to the show because I couldn't stomach applauding for Stevie right now.

There's not still not any sufficient evidence she won't record another album, and secondly, we don't know Stevie's intentions, but considering how much of her life she's dedicated to FM, she wouldn't abandon them as easily as you'd think.

Other than that, I wish they would change the setlist considerably. WHY couldn't they add some Tusk tracks.. I know they would be popular if they wanted them to be popular.

[ChickenStu]

All this criticism of the guys playing the same setlist every night is lost on me. I'm only going to one of the gigs.

I'd actually be kind of pissed off if they did change the setlist night by night - cause I'm the kind of guy who really hates feeling like I've missed something - which is the precise reason I'm seeing them a second time anyway!

Anyway. As I said in the title of this thread, I'm never going to "TRY" and see this band again. But if someday, a friend of mine gets tickets and offers me one... who knows? I'll tell that friend I've already seen them twice and to try and ask all their other friends who might want to go first, but if they get no bites then yeah, I'd probably take the ticket.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by nicepace

And wouldn't it be more interesting for the musicians, too? They must get really bored playing the same show night after night.

My experience of being on a tour is that the show is just another part of the day. Granted, the tours I've been on are small beer by comparison, but there are so many other things going on during the day, like traveling, being on the phone for interviews, checking into hotels, soundchecks, finding a place for dinner, getting mentally prepared to play a show, actually getting ready (i.e. a shower and getting into stage clothes), figuring out if there are guests for the guest list, getting to the venue, discussing what they need to pay close attention to, last minute preparations, and finally the show.

If anything, playing the same setlist night after night is one less thing they have to think about. Going on autopilot when you're feeling half-fried from just being on the road can be a blessing, especially with the level of machinery involved in putting on a Fleetwood Mac show.

[elle]

Originally Posted by nicepace

I understand Fleetwood Mac's reasons for playing the same show night after night. There's so much production involved (pre-recorded tracks, lighting, canned banter etc.). I don't particularly like it, but nobody asked me.

What I wish they would do is prepare two shows instead of just one. Each show would consist of 25 songs and begin with "The Chain" and end with "Songbird." However, the intermediate 23 songs would be entirely different. One night we'd get "Little Lies." The next night we'd get "Everywhere." One night "Sisters of the Moon." The next, "Seven Wonders." You get the picture.

There'd be room for some deep cuts, and maybe a solo track or two, if the heaviest hits were spaced out this way, too.

They'd be going on stage and someone would ask: "Which show tonight?" Mick would say: "The B show!"

And wouldn't it be more interesting for the musicians, too? They must get really bored playing the same show night after night.

exactly, to almost every word of this!

and if not 2 completely different shows (like many bands their age and status are doing, Steely Dan to name one), then at least 3-6 extra songs like majority of other bands are doing, and that they can rehearse upfront and rotate from show to show.

i was told that they don't change up the setlist because of band politics, i.e., 3 different songwriters/singers, and each having to have the same number of songs represented, i guess with the same weight, etc. so that once they settle on which songs, the setlist is pretty much set in stone. i don't completely buy it, although it is obvious there is a lot of "band politics" that other bands who maybe have the same songwriter for everything, as well as the same main singer, would not have to deal with. but then, if they rehearse 1 (or 2!) songs extra from each of the songwriters, they should still be able to arrive at that balance. they know many people follow them around.

[WayOfTheDragon]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

However, as artists, I find it peculiar they take such little stock in their body of never-performed or under-performed work --with very little interest to dust off songs worthy of performing, if only just to keep it fresh and challenging? Most of their albums sold in huge numbers; it's not as if we haven't heard those songs. I give them credit for some of the songs they surprisingly brought to life like Storms and Beautiful Child. But it looks like the Say You Will album has been entirely abandoned. Steal Your Heart Away would have been a good choice. Didn't Christine sing on it?

I was listening to a recent podcast interview with Lindsey here. When the interviewer mentions Bleed To Love Her, Lindsey says: "It's funny you mention Bleed To Love Her, I love that and I sit around at soundcheck and play that, and I'm hoping someone will say, 'Hey, let's do that in the set!'" What struck me about the comment was that he was hoping others in the band would suggest the song to him. I always assumed that he could just pick whichever 7 songs he wanted to play for each tour. In the recent Stevie interview, where there is a question about whether "Lady" would ever be played in a Fleetwood Mac show, she said something about how she gave Christine an ipod with the song on it, but isn't sure if Christine listened to it. I get the impression that they hope that other band members will suggest that they put these songs in the set, but they don't want to bring it up themselves, which could be another reason why the status quo is maintained in their set lists.

[AliceLover]

They could be playing Mary Had A Little Lamb, 25 times in a row, and I would still go.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by WayOfTheDragon

I was listening to a recent podcast interview with Lindsey here. When the interviewer mentions Bleed To Love Her, Lindsey says: "It's funny you mention Bleed To Love Her, I love that and I sit around at soundcheck and play that, and I'm hoping someone will say, 'Hey, let's do that in the set!'"

What's hilarious to me is imagining him sitting there ardent and focused trying to play it so passionately that everyone will be moved and a light bulb will go off in the heads of the others. Meanwhile, they're all oblivious to his intention, hardly listening and wondering where they're going to go for lunch.

That said, I guess he could get BTLH in the setlist if he really wanted it there. I mean, I'm so sure for the SYW tour no one was listening to him play Red Rover during the sound check and saying, "oh Lindsey, you simply must play that live." Michele

[LesPaulPlayer91]

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

However, as artists, I find it peculiar they take such little stock in their body of never-performed or under-performed work --with very little interest to dust off songs worthy of performing, if only just to keep it fresh and challenging? Most of their albums sold in huge numbers; it's not as if we haven't heard those songs. I give them credit for some of the songs they surprisingly brought to life like Storms and Beautiful Child. But it looks like the Say You Will album has been entirely abandoned. Steal Your Heart Away would have been a good choice. Didn't Christine sing on it?

Agree re Say You Will, obviously Christine wasn't really on it in a big way but I think it's a really great record and it's a shame they're not playing anything off it. Personally, I think adding Christine into some of those songs live would be great (but maybe that's just me...).

It would be cool if there were some setlist alterations but I'm pretty happy with the set they've been playing. Would be great if they dusted off Storms again for the European leg next year though!

Re seeing the band again after next year, I will as part of me thinks their next tour after this one will be the last. Obviously I'd like them to go on longer but you've got to be realistic. I actually have a completely different viewpoint to the thread poster re new music and older bands. Generally speaking if a band releases great new material and incorporates it into their it makes me want to see them more to hear it live, especially if it's a band/act I've seen before. The highlight of seeing Bob Dylan live in London last year for me was hearing the songs from Tempest played live.

[julieannboo]

Yeah next year will be the last fleetwood mac concert for me too.

I saw them in 2009 and last year. So next year with Christine will feel like it has been 'completed'.

Also because of their ages, reckon they will tour again after the tour finishes?