Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
tomcasagranda
Mike Campbell does a good job with Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, covering Oh Well Part 1 on the Live Anthology set. I think he could be a good blend with Fleetwood Mac.

I'm debating getting hold of some Buckingham solo material.

I'd recommend Out of the Cradle & Go Insane. There's a bootleg version of Gift of Screws that has 2 or 3 Stones covers on it that are awesome. Worth hunting down.

all of his solo albums are great. I'd really like to know what the tracklisting was going to be for his late 80's solo album and the original gift of screws that was set for release around 2000

I'm so glad I caught them in Dublin 3 years ago with Lyndsey, Stevie, Mick Fleetwood and the McVies all present. I thought Lyndsey Buck was the standout as his guitar and voice dominated the sound. It will be strange without him and not really the same band.

Quote
dmay
Re who makes a band in terms of members, didn't KR say once, re the Stones, that as long as the band had him, Mick and Charlie, it was the Rolling Stones regardless of who else was in the band?

If he did then he lied because nobody cares about Charlie Watts and I do not believe they would have stopped touring if he quit as opposed to Wyman back in 92.

I saw them in 2003 without Christine and without much personal interest (I was the guest of a HUGE Stevie fan) and I became a Lindsey fan that night. Also of Mick Fleetwood.

Saw them again in 2014 or 15 with Christine and my feelings re: Lindsey & Mick were confirmed. Not sure if I'd ever make the effort to go see a Lindsey solo show. I am sure that I have no desire to see the Mac without him though.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
dmay
Re who makes a band in terms of members, didn't KR say once, re the Stones, that as long as the band had him, Mick and Charlie, it was the Rolling Stones regardless of who else was in the band?

If he did then he lied because nobody cares about Charlie Watts and I do not believe they would have stopped touring if he quit as opposed to Wyman back in 92.

I don't think Keith ever did say that.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
dmay
Re who makes a band in terms of members, didn't KR say once, re the Stones, that as long as the band had him, Mick and Charlie, it was the Rolling Stones regardless of who else was in the band?

If he did then he lied because nobody cares about Charlie Watts and I do not believe they would have stopped touring if he quit as opposed to Wyman back in 92.

That's a good question though...was Charlie always beloved by the fans, or is that a fairly recent phenomenon (post '89)?

Were Charlie and Bill viewed similarly, or was Charlie always a bit more liked due to his quirky personality and unique dress code within the band?

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
dmay
Re who makes a band in terms of members, didn't KR say once, re the Stones, that as long as the band had him, Mick and Charlie, it was the Rolling Stones regardless of who else was in the band?

If he did then he lied because nobody cares about Charlie Watts and I do not believe they would have stopped touring if he quit as opposed to Wyman back in 92.

That's a good question though...was Charlie always beloved by the fans, or is that a fairly recent phenomenon (post '89)?

Were Charlie and Bill viewed similarly, or was Charlie always a bit more liked due to his quirky personality and unique dress code within the band?

Obviously I'll get it out of the way that I love Charlie. The man is a gift. Having said that, I also loved Bill in his own way. The same way I love Taylor, Brian, Ronnie in their own ways. They all contributed something. But Charlie being beloved by fans and people saying the Stones is "those 3 and I wouldn't accept any of them being gone" is a bold faced lie coming out of many mouths. You know thats not true. You know the Stones are Mick and Keith and thats literally it. Its not to belittle Charlie or anyone in the band, but unless you're a drummer or truly appreciate his drumming on a different level (I adore Charlie, but I'm sure it would be difficult for me to tell how another drummer would be "different") then I just don't think thats true. The love for Charlie is because he's still there. If Bill were still there I firmly believe that people would be saying "if any of those 4 left, its over." If there's a world where we accept the Eagles without Glenn Frey then 100% fans would accept a Rolling Stones without Charlie. You can lose anyone but Mick and Keith, even though I don't like to think of the band that way and only went to the 50th tour because they brought an older member BACK.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
dmay
Re who makes a band in terms of members, didn't KR say once, re the Stones, that as long as the band had him, Mick and Charlie, it was the Rolling Stones regardless of who else was in the band?

If he did then he lied because nobody cares about Charlie Watts and I do not believe they would have stopped touring if he quit as opposed to Wyman back in 92.

That's a good question though...was Charlie always beloved by the fans, or is that a fairly recent phenomenon (post '89)?

Were Charlie and Bill viewed similarly, or was Charlie always a bit more liked due to his quirky personality and unique dress code within the band?

Obviously I'll get it out of the way that I love Charlie. The man is a gift. Having said that, I also loved Bill in his own way. The same way I love Taylor, Brian, Ronnie in their own ways. They all contributed something. But Charlie being beloved by fans and people saying the Stones is "those 3 and I wouldn't accept any of them being gone" is a bold faced lie coming out of many mouths. You know thats not true. You know the Stones are Mick and Keith and thats literally it. Its not to belittle Charlie or anyone in the band, but unless you're a drummer or truly appreciate his drumming on a different level (I adore Charlie, but I'm sure it would be difficult for me to tell how another drummer would be "different") then I just don't think thats true. The love for Charlie is because he's still there. If Bill were still there I firmly believe that people would be saying "if any of those 4 left, its over." If there's a world where we accept the Eagles without Glenn Frey then 100% fans would accept a Rolling Stones without Charlie. You can lose anyone but Mick and Keith, even though I don't like to think of the band that way and only went to the 50th tour because they brought an older member BACK.

I agree that to the vast majority of the public, the Stones are Mick and Keith.

My question is only when did Charlie develop this sort of lovable cult following among a sizable number of Stones fans, and did Bill have a similar relationship with the fans?

First off i love Charlie as a man.

I'm in a minority because i think there are better more suited drummers out there than Charlie, i know i'm wrong about Charlie so don't attack me guys its just my personal view, i think Charlie slows the band down to much now.

I think Bill was always liked as much as Charlie, they were thought of about equal, since Bill's gone Charlie gets a lot more love from the fans.

I think he was always replaceable, and to this day i wouldn't put it past Mick to replace him if Charlie retired. Nothing is going to stop Mick doing what he loves.

Back to Lindsey, i think FM are going to find it harder to sell tickets without him, a really crazy thing to do at this stage, firing the main man so late in life and career , its just silly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-10 17:49 by keithsman.

From The Lefsetz Letter:

Lindsey Buckingham Fired From Fleetwood Mac

It's about the songs, not the band.

It started with Journey. The voice of the act, Steve Perry, didn't want to work, he needed an operation, so the rest of the act went on the road without him, with a bunch of faceless singers, doing reasonable business. Then they found a replica of Steve's voice online, and then business started to increase to the point where they're playing stadiums this summer, with Def Leppard.

Foreigner not only goes on the road without Lou Gramm, but sans Mick Jones sometimes too.

And then Glenn Frey dies and the Eagles not only reunite, their grosses are bigger than ever!

What's going on?

When your hits are behind you, it's all about the money. No one's got enough. And touring gives purpose to your life. And there's nowhere you can get that kind of adulation, that hit of adrenaline, other than on stage.

But shouldn't the audience balk?

They did not when all the fifties acts toured with a group of faceless performers not in the original incarnation.

It's an oldies phenomenon, after the thrill is gone, the cult of personality, the adoration, the laughter and the tears, all that is left is the songs and the memories. And it turns out many can't get enough of them.

Ergo the tribute acts. Doing a bang-up imitation of Led Zeppelin and so many more.

As long as it sounds close enough to what once was, and it includes some patina of originality, people are in. After all, the Mac toured without Christine McVie for years and played arenas. They've proven in the past the act has a hard time surviving without Stevie Nicks, but if god forbid she passed and Grace Potter took her spot, or Lorde...

Queen tours with Adam Lambert.

We could speculate on the cause of this. Then again, it's been Lindsey's band from day one, and he's been irascible. Of course, of course, it was Fleetwood and McVie's band, but they could play theatres without Lindsey and Stevie and therefore they let Lindsey control the act. And when the noose gets too tight and there are alternatives...

The truth is these acts are riddled with personality problems, all that bonds the members is the music. Would you want to hang forever with your high school buddies? That's what it's like. Furthermore, artists are uncompromised, it's their edges that made them successful, and they don't know how to trim them. You'd tell them just to get along, but then again, you could never be in the act.

And the act does include Lindsey's soloing. But the seventies are over, the audience doesn't want to hear virtuosos extend, they just want the songs, they just want to nod their heads and sing along. And Lindsey's vocals have oftentimes been...

Rough.

So now you've got Mike Campbell, whose ability rivals Lindsey's, although his sound is different, and Neil Finn comes back from the dead, in this case New Zealand, to demonstrate the chops which never fully got the praise they deserved.

And if you don't think Vince Gill brought the Eagles to new heights...

You haven't seen them.

This news would have been revolutionary in the seventies, even the eighties, but today it's another blip on the radar screen. Fleetwood Mac has long since surrendered the zeitgeist to the younger generation. Hell, the McVie/Buckingham album got no traction. That's what it's like being an aged act doing new music in today's cacophonous world.

So now YOU'RE Fleetwood Mac. When you go to the show and sing along with your head in the air it's about you, not the people on stage. You're long in the tooth, remembering when, feeling good for the moment, that's what you pays your money for and if you want to see these people in the flesh, go soon, because they're not gonna be around much longer.

But the songs remain the same.


[lefsetz.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-10 18:13 by bye bye johnny.

Mike Campbell and Neil Finn seems like an upgrade to me.
Was not planning on going to see them, but this makes it more interesting.

I saw the first tour in 75 when LB and SN joined the Mac when they played Phoenix. It was an excellent concert, the band was having fun, and they had themselves a hit album. Strangely, I never went to see them again, being content just to play old Mac records and the first 2 when LB and SN were in the mix. I just didn't care for their music that came afterwards.

While I have sworn off big arena gigs because of the "people" factor, the addition of Campbell, Finn on guitars is intriguing. Nice post bye bye johnny. I think that's where my head is right now.

An era is slowly coming to an end. At least many of us were there.

Quote
bye bye johnny
From The Lefsetz Letter:

...and if you want to see these people in the flesh, go soon, because they're not gonna be around much longer./

Yes, because as a fan of the Rumours-era version of Fleetwood Mac for more than forty years, I want to see Mike Campbell of the Heartbreakers and Neil Finn from Crowded House.

And this was supposed to be FM's farewell tour...so let's bring in two guys who've never had anything to do with the band. Of course, apparently most people won't care and the $$$ will be there, but a whole bunch of longtime fans like me won't be going.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
dmay
Re who makes a band in terms of members, didn't KR say once, re the Stones, that as long as the band had him, Mick and Charlie, it was the Rolling Stones regardless of who else was in the band?

If he did then he lied because nobody cares about Charlie Watts and I do not believe they would have stopped touring if he quit as opposed to Wyman back in 92.

That's a good question though...was Charlie always beloved by the fans, or is that a fairly recent phenomenon (post '89)?

Were Charlie and Bill viewed similarly, or was Charlie always a bit more liked due to his quirky personality and unique dress code within the band?

Obviously I'll get it out of the way that I love Charlie. The man is a gift. Having said that, I also loved Bill in his own way. The same way I love Taylor, Brian, Ronnie in their own ways. They all contributed something. But Charlie being beloved by fans and people saying the Stones is "those 3 and I wouldn't accept any of them being gone" is a bold faced lie coming out of many mouths. You know thats not true. You know the Stones are Mick and Keith and thats literally it. Its not to belittle Charlie or anyone in the band, but unless you're a drummer or truly appreciate his drumming on a different level (I adore Charlie, but I'm sure it would be difficult for me to tell how another drummer would be "different") then I just don't think thats true. The love for Charlie is because he's still there. If Bill were still there I firmly believe that people would be saying "if any of those 4 left, its over." If there's a world where we accept the Eagles without Glenn Frey then 100% fans would accept a Rolling Stones without Charlie. You can lose anyone but Mick and Keith, even though I don't like to think of the band that way and only went to the 50th tour because they brought an older member BACK.

I agree that to the vast majority of the public, the Stones are Mick and Keith.

My question is only when did Charlie develop this sort of lovable cult following among a sizable number of Stones fans, and did Bill have a similar relationship with the fans?

Fair, I'd be interested as well.

Unfortunately I really don't think this will hurt FM's sales at all. I am NOT a Stevie Nicks hater. Granted, I kinda used to. I loved early Mac so I always thought the addition of Buckingham Nicks ruined that band, but I always had to give Lindsey credit because he played a mean guitar and I liked Go Your Own Way. Stevie, on the other hand, literally just sang, and twirled around, and when she did her songs FM became HER backing band, whereas I at least always thought Buckingham was writing FOR the band and helping all of them. Stevie was all about herself.

Having said that, over the years I really grew to enjoy the "popular" version of Fleetwood Mac. I realized Lindsey is an excellent songwriter, and the stuff I thought was "lite" I really started to enjoy. FM, Rumours and Tusk are all fantastic albums front to back IMO. And I really came around to Stevie, she's awesome. One of the main rock and roll women, and she deserves it. She's a great singer, her songs have truly lasted, and she can rock out with the best men. Check out the link below of Rhiannon where Stevie just absolutely crushes it. Yeah, I've seen them and you have to deal with the shawl and gypsy dancing sort of thing which I never got but many love, but overall I think its fine. What really kills me about her is she lost that beautiful higher register voice she had. She can still sing really well, but she can never do that "all your LIFE" part from Rhiannon and many other vocal parts like that the same way (I think there's one in Dreams too but I forget). I get that it happens with age but it was so uniquely hers, and she's combated it well. My point being, I really grew to love Stevie so its not a criticism on her.

[www.youtube.com]

Having said all THAT, she's absolutely the bigger name and arguably THE draw of Fleetwood Mac. Whether thats right or not I'm not sure, but people love her and its so evident at the shows. Its amazing how Lindsey is up there crushing it ALL NIGHT, yet most people's favorite moment of the show will still be Silver Spring or Landslide or Rhiannon. Its truly a testament to her. I don't think its right that they drop Lindsey and keep Stevie, knowing she'll probably still sell them tickets the way the Eagles have managed to do. But unfortunately in the world we live in now, Stevie will unfortunately most likely be enough for them. As long as people go to the show and see her, 80% of those in attendance will leave happy, which I think is wrong but hey its the world these days.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-10 19:04 by RollingFreak.

That lefsetz letter is interesting...

Oh and from a comment on Variety : "Guarantee Buckingham said “I will tour…if we do another album” Stevie wouldn’t commit and he said, then I’m not touring. End of story."

Also the fact (per lefsetz) that the Buckinghma/McVie album got "no traction", I wonder if Stevie didn't tell him "I told you so" and vettoed any projects for a new album. That would have hurt.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Neil Finn has a storied fantastic career and it’s still keeping him comfy...I hope they don’t make him sing Tusk...

Quote
gotdablouse
Also the fact (per lefsetz) that the Buckinghma/McVie album got "no traction", I wonder if Stevie didn't tell him "I told you so" and vettoed any projects for a new album. That would have hurt.

"Buckingham/McVie" was supposed to be a Fleetwood Mac album (Mick and John play on it) and Stevie originally committed to participating, but delayed the sessions by going on a solo tour...Lindsey and Christine eventually decided to go forward as a duo. They reconvened to finish the album more than two years after the initial sessions.

Quote
gotdablouse
That lefsetz letter is interesting...

Oh and from a comment on Variety : "Guarantee Buckingham said “I will tour…if we do another album” Stevie wouldn’t commit and he said, then I’m not touring. End of story."

Also the fact (per lefsetz) that the Buckinghma/McVie album got "no traction", I wonder if Stevie didn't tell him "I told you so" and vettoed any projects for a new album. That would have hurt.

Good point. The album was subpar, I wouldn't lie. I liked the tour and grew to enjoy the album but overall it was nothing special. Wouldn't have lit the world on fire even if it was the next Rumours, but that also probably didn't help. With some solid Stevie songs thrown in though it could have made a great FM album.

And I agree with Stevie Nicks on the album thing. She says there's no point for an artist to bare their souls, live in the studio and slave over an album that will go nowhere and I totally agree with her. I don't want my bands to become oldies acts, but the bottom line is if the audience isn't gonna care there really isn't any reason to make albums for them, and feel obligated to play them at the shows. What annoys me is if Lindsey did say "we need an album" and Stevie said "no", I don't know why the idea wasn't floated "let's play whatever we want then. Deep cuts, our favorites, mixed in with hits. Let's just not play the same god damn thing they've done for 20 years." Maybe it was, who knows, but I feel like thats never an option with these bands when that would satisfy hardcores and casuals and make each tour something actually different and not monotonous. If Stevie and the rest just agreed "we're gonna do the same thing" then I applaud Lindsey. He's already done that and there's zero reason to keep doing it.

Quote
filstan
Nice post bye bye johnny Bob Lefsetz. I think that's where my head is right now.

Fixed that for you... ; )

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
gotdablouse
That lefsetz letter is interesting...

Oh and from a comment on Variety : "Guarantee Buckingham said “I will tour…if we do another album” Stevie wouldn’t commit and he said, then I’m not touring. End of story."

Also the fact (per lefsetz) that the Buckinghma/McVie album got "no traction", I wonder if Stevie didn't tell him "I told you so" and vettoed any projects for a new album. That would have hurt.

Good point. The album was subpar, I wouldn't lie. I liked the tour and grew to enjoy the album but overall it was nothing special. Wouldn't have lit the world on fire even if it was the next Rumours, but that also probably didn't help. With some solid Stevie songs thrown in though it could have made a great FM album.

And I agree with Stevie Nicks on the album thing. She says there's no point for an artist to bare their souls, live in the studio and slave over an album that will go nowhere and I totally agree with her. I don't want my bands to become oldies acts, but the bottom line is if the audience isn't gonna care there really isn't any reason to make albums for them, and feel obligated to play them at the shows. What annoys me is if Lindsey did say "we need an album" and Stevie said "no", I don't know why the idea wasn't floated "let's play whatever we want then. Deep cuts, our favorites, mixed in with hits. Let's just not play the same god damn thing they've done for 20 years." Maybe it was, who knows, but I feel like thats never an option with these bands when that would satisfy hardcores and casuals and make each tour something actually different and not monotonous. If Stevie and the rest just agreed "we're gonna do the same thing" then I applaud Lindsey. He's already done that and there's zero reason to keep doing it.

Unfortunately not every band has a fanbase like Springsteen...the fans EXPECT to be thrown curveballs every night, and relish it. Expecting crazy, ever-changing setlists is baked into the Springsteen fanbase.

A lot of fanbases aren't like that. They just want the hits.

If Dickie Betts can be let go from The ABB then so can Buckingham.

I know, and its why most of these bands (Stones, FM, Tom Petty, Eagles, etc etc) are all "one time shows" for the most part because you're getting largely the same thing tour to tour. When I truly think casual fans wouldn't revolt if bands played more deep cuts. I know its a dead argument but I just don't get the hesitation. OK, the audience will kind of stand still, maybe will go to the bathroom. What would you prefer: playing stuff you don't play often for your enjoyment that alienates some of the audience, or playing exactly what they want and you being so bored by it? There's that idea you can't play stuff the audience doesn't know. But again, the audience for the most part is stupid. Thats why they are going to see these bands without key members. Cause they don't care, they just want to say they saw this band. As long as you give them a hit every other song, they'll leave happy. Whereas if you only do hits, you're alienating a large hardcore fanbase. Bands seem to think casual audiences are so hard to please when I really think its the opposite. They either aren't coming back anyway or they will because they just want to see the hits. So you can do both and not just cater to them. Play half the show as hits and you're guaranteed they leave happy and would come back. And if they don't, they weren't going to even if you played every hit.

I don't know, now I'm ranting and rambling. Fleetwood Mac could play 20 songs, 10 hits, 10 rotating deep cuts, every night and everyone would leave happy. Instead, they make fans like me only want to see them once. Same with the Stones.

Quote
RollingFreak
I know, and its why most of these bands (Stones, FM, Tom Petty, Eagles, etc etc) are all "one time shows" for the most part because you're getting largely the same thing tour to tour. When I truly think casual fans wouldn't revolt if bands played more deep cuts. I know its a dead argument but I just don't get the hesitation. OK, the audience will kind of stand still, maybe will go to the bathroom. What would you prefer: playing stuff you don't play often for your enjoyment that alienates some of the audience, or playing exactly what they want and you being so bored by it? There's that idea you can't play stuff the audience doesn't know. But again, the audience for the most part is stupid. Thats why they are going to see these bands without key members. Cause they don't care, they just want to say they saw this band. As long as you give them a hit every other song, they'll leave happy. Whereas if you only do hits, you're alienating a large hardcore fanbase. Bands seem to think casual audiences are so hard to please when I really think its the opposite. They either aren't coming back anyway or they will because they just want to see the hits. So you can do both and not just cater to them. Play half the show as hits and you're guaranteed they leave happy and would come back. And if they don't, they weren't going to even if you played every hit.

I don't know, now I'm ranting and rambling. Fleetwood Mac could play 20 songs, 10 hits, 10 rotating deep cuts, every night and everyone would leave happy. Instead, they make fans like me only want to see them once. Same with the Stones.

it stinks too because Buckingham was the one trying to include deeper cuts. I believe Buckingham played 13 of the 21 songs he sang lead/co lead vocals on that were released by Fleetwood mac in the 70's during the last decade. if I'm looking at this right 2 songs he didn't do live were written by nicks and another song was a cover. that means there are only 5 Buckingham songs from the 70's that he wrote that he hasn't played live in the 00's.i wish he would have played some more of his 80's FM tunes live though recently

FM has, largely, passed under my radar for decades. Until I heard a tv commercial with the intro to "Everywhere" recently. Such a great pop song! It made me rediscover them again...
[www.youtube.com]

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Hairball

Quote
dadrob
they are not making any great new music. The are an oldies act.

Leave the Stones out of this!

Why spend good money see FM again just to play their old hits?
Ridiculous!

Hey hey hey! That's what I say!

As someone mentioned earlier, imagine if the Stones replaced Keith with two fairly decent guitar players (lets say Campbell and Finn), and then went on tour to play their old hits?
It's already a nostalgia show even with Keith, so imagine how odd it would be to see the show w/out Keith. There would be a massive uproar heard around the world!!!
While this FM situation might not be of the exact same level, in some ways it really is at this late point in their career imo.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

If people didnt see FM back in the late 70s early 80s then they missed the best incarnation of the band... and there have been many incarnations of FM... and this situation is no where near the same as The Stones today and only goofs who will twist any given thread so they can cast another insult at The Stones would claim it is.


Seems like a lot people these days are collecting concerts more to check things off some bucket list (e.g. so they can say "I went to Desert trip", "I saw Brian Wilson" etc tec) than their actual joy of the music. And if that is that case with Fleetwood Mac then this version of the band will work.


But if you want go for the joy of the music from their heyday, played by that band, sorry you missed it.... but dont lose hope... in 2-3 years Linsey will probably be back... but another member may have left by then... they seem to do it all in loving fun



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-10 20:49 by Leonioid.

I too thought it was a joke, but I agree with all here, he was a Big part of the FM machine that made things go....will be strange again without him.

While admittedly not a diehard historian of all things Fleetwood Mac, I am familiar enough with the various key lineup changes throughout the years. That said, I had no idea Dave Mason was in the band (playing state fairs) in '93. And I had no idea Bekka Bramlett had replaced Stevie Nicks for a short spell! And I was almost 100% positive that it was Peter Green who wrote The Green Manalishi (With the Two Prong Crown), but it was Danny Kirwan?!!!


Rolling Stone magazine takes a closer looks at all the twists and turns of the soap opera:
FM

Broken Chain: A History of Fleetwood Mac Firings and Departures
Lindsey Buckingham's firing is just the latest in a decades-long game of musical chairs for the Hall of Fame band

Over its 50-year history, Fleetwood Mac has seen just about as many people come and go as the Harlem Globetrotters. Drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie have been there from the start – the group's moniker is a combination of their last names – but they've had a hell of a time holding onto guitarists and singers. The latest stunning development is the firing of Lindsey Buckingham and the addition of Mike Campbell and Neil Finn as touring members. Here's a guide to the rotating crew of musicians have been come and gone from Fleetwood Mac over the decades (though we're skipping some fringe members so this doesn't become longer than Tusk).


Peter Green (1966 to 1971)
Fleetwood Mac suffered its first serious blow in May 1970 when founding guitarist/vocalist Peter Green walked out. He was their primary songwriter, churning out classics like "Black Magic Woman" and "Oh Well" in a short period of time. But success didn't agree with him and after a few years he was wearing robes, growing his hair long and preaching against the dangers of money. (His steady diet of LSD played no small role in all of this.) In 1970, he quit the band and disappeared from the public eye, eventually ending up in a mental institution.

Jeremy Spencer (1967 to 1971)
Guitarist Jeremy Spencer joined Fleetwood Mac as a second guitarist soon after the band’s formation, but he never really got along with Green. Things came to a head on a 1971 U.S. tour where he got a little too into mescaline and began a devout reader of the Bible. By that point, he'd grown very disillusioned with life on the road and his role within the band. He was more than happy to leave when he came across the religious cult Children of God. The group begged him not to go, but Spencer was a child of God at that point. There was no going back.

Danny Kirwan (1968 to 1972)
As Green became less reliable, Fleetwood Mac brought on guitarist Danny Kirwan. By the late-1960s, he was writing many of their hits, including "The Green Manalishi (With the Two Prong Crown)," but he had a hard time getting along with Green and the rest of the group. He began drinking heavily and the group fired him after he got into a nasty backstage brawl with American guitarist Bob Welch in 1972.

Bob Welch (1971 to 1974)
The group had the unenviable task of finding replacements for Spencer and Green, but in 1971 they brought Welch into the group. It was the beginning of a whole new era for the band, taking them away from their blues-rock roots into a more mainstream arena-rock direction. Welch's three years in the band were a blur of recording sessions and long tours. He penned many memorable songs, including "Sentimental Lady," but he began drinking heavily and the long tours put an untenable strain on his marriage. After a couple of tense years, he quit in late 1974.

Dave Walker (1972 to 1973)
Guitarist Dave Walker had a very brief run in Fleetwood Mac. They brought him in to play on 1973's Penguin after Kirwan left, but the band quickly surmised that he wasn't the right fit and gave him his walking papers just a few months later. Today, he's best known for very briefly fronting Black Sabbath in late 1977 when Ozzy Osbourne left the band. He left when Ozzy came back. Poor guy. He just couldn't catch a break.

Bob Weston (1972 to 1973)
The Rumours-era ineup of Fleetwood Mac gets all the attention for being a soap opera, but things got pretty sordid in 1973 when new guitarist Bob Weston had an affair with Mick Fleetwood's wife Jenny Boyd. The group somehow made it to the end of a tour after Fleetwood learned what happened, but the band sacked Weston when it concluded. If the band thought things would smooth out internally when Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks joined the next year, they were very, very wrong.

Billy Burnette (1987 to 1995)
Fleetwood Mac had a major problem on their hands when Lindsey Buckingham walked away from the group following the release of 1987's Tango in the Night. The album was a big hit and a tour was in the works, but they hadn't played a show without Buckingham since he joined in late 1974. Nobody else in the band was willing to see the group die, so they hired guitar virtuoso Billy Burnette and hit the arena circuit. He stuck around through the lean years that followed when Nicks exited and the group was left opening for REO Speedwagon, but they had no use for him once Nicks and Buckingham returned in 1996 for The Dance.

Stevie Nicks (1974 to 1990, 1996 to present)
Fleetwood Mac limped forward after Buckingham left in 1987, but their 1990 LP Mask stiffed in record stores. It was the first bomb of the Nicks era. They supported it with a long arena tour, but when it wrapped, Nicks decided it was time to devote herself fully to her solo career. She was also dealing with a severe drug problem and needed time to herself. Just six years later, however, 1970s reunion tours were all the rage. She came back for The Dance and never left again.

Bekka Bramlett (1993 to 1995)
Bekka Bramlett has the rare distinction of having two rock star parents: Delaney Bramlett and Bonnie Bramlett. (The duo fronted pop group Delaney & Bonnie and Friends, whose members included Eric Clapton, George Harrison and Duane and Gregg Allman.) If that didn't put enough expectations on her, she accepted the impossible task of taking on Nicks’ role in Fleetwood Mac for the 1995 album Time and subsequent tour. Night after night, she walked onto the stage and sang the hell out of "Rhiannon" and "Gold Dust Woman," but nobody does Stevie like Stevie. Mick Fleetwood said years later that he should have ended the band rather than continue with replacements. Bramlett went on to have a long career as a backup singer.

Christine McVie (1970 to 1998, 2014 to present)
John McVie brought his new wife Christine into Fleetwood Mac in 1970 following her successful stint in the blues band Chicken Shack. Her voice became a key part of the Fleetwood Mac sound and she more than held her own in the Rumours era, writing "Songbird," "You Make Loving Fun" and many others. She stayed all through the rough times in the mid-1990s, but after The Dance tour, she wanted to get off the road and couldn't be talked into doing otherwise. She came back in 2014 after her marriage fell apart and she recovered from her fear of flying.

Dave Mason (1993 to 1995)
In 1993, Fleetwood Mac needed a big-name star to join Fleetwood Mac after Buckingham and Nicks left. Traffic's Dave Mason was eager for steady work and a paycheck, so he took the gig. It led to a summer playing Fleetwood Mac songs at state fairs, but the group never really gelled. People want to see members of Traffic play Traffic songs. They want to see members of Fleetwood Mac play Fleetwood Mac songs. You can't mix and match them like cogs in a machine.

Lindsey Buckingham (1974 to 1987, 1996 to 2018)
We're still waiting on details of Buckingham's departure, but it's no secret that it's always been a struggle for him to co-exist in a band with his ex-girlfriend. The legend of Nicks grows every year and she did a huge arena tour last year with the Pretenders. It showed that people will show up in droves just for her. That same time, the Eagles were making enormous money with Vince Gill and Deacon Frey. It was likely enough to convince promoters that Fleetwood Mac minus Buckingham was still something that would generate a ton of money. Also, it paves the way for a big reunion tour in a few years. In the world of Fleetwood Mac, if you played on Rumours, they are always willing to let you back in.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
Rolling Stone magazine takes a closer looks at all the twists and turns of the soap opera:

Billy Burnette (1987 to 1995)
Fleetwood Mac had a major problem on their hands when Lindsey Buckingham walked away from the group following the release of 1987's Tango in the Night. The album was a big hit and a tour was in the works, but they hadn't played a show without Buckingham since he joined in late 1974. Nobody else in the band was willing to see the group die, so they hired guitar virtuoso Billy Burnette and hit the arena circuit. He stuck around through the lean years that followed when Nicks exited and the group was left opening for REO Speedwagon, but they had no use for him once Nicks and Buckingham returned in 1996 for The Dance.

They didn't hire Burnette for his guitar playing, but for his vocals...the article neglects to mention Rick Vito was brought aboard in 1987 (with Burnette) as the lead guitarist. He left in 1991.

Quote
BamaStone
I too thought it was a joke, but I agree with all here, he was a Big part of the FM machine that made things go....will be strange again without him.

I imagine the songs will sound almost the same, even if they have to pump in recordings of Linsey's parts at times... or maybe they will have people hidden off stage to help reinforce the sound. Many many bands are doing that these days.


Seems like a good band line up for a festival or something. I might go see this incarnation... but I would probably not pay more than 50 bucks for a ticket... so... oh well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-10 21:19 by Leonioid.