Isn't it ironic that pop bands like Fleetwood Mac are still going strong and making great albums and CH aren't?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Not ironic at all. CH made a small number of quality LPs, and broke up at a peak when NF decided to continue under his own name.
Fleetwood Mac peaked in the late 70s (or when Peter Green* was in charge, if you think like me) and Fleetwood, McVie, and whoever else is around continue to milk the name for all it's worth.
Where's the irony?
* edited to add - I'm referring to the OTHER Peter Green.
Paul.
Fleetwood Mac peaked in the late 70s (or when Peter Green* was in charge, if you think like me) and Fleetwood, McVie, and whoever else is around continue to milk the name for all it's worth.
Where's the irony?
* edited to add - I'm referring to the OTHER Peter Green.
Paul.
Erm, THERE's the only irony, and on your part it was entirely unintentional. An accident of names.quote:Originally posted by Paul_G:
[qb]
Where's the irony?
* edited to add - I'm referring to the OTHER Peter Green.
[/qb]
Otherwise your points were valid, concise, and far better-made than I could have done... full marks, Paul.
I think that clears it up for shadowbomber Si...
Well, Si, this is really an apples-and-kiwi kind of question. The last incarnation of Fleetwood Mac with Buckingham and Nicks did start about the same time Split Enz was founded, and they had three talented songwriters (when you include Christine McVie). As much as I love Fleetwood Mac, when you compare Neil's output from 1986 to present, Neil just keeps getting better while Mac just keeps touring. Though Lindsay's 1992 solo album is great.
erm how are fleetwood mac and crowded house anything like each other? fleetwood mac were/are a legendary blues/rock band who have had many guises and members and crowded house are a more (how do i say this without sounding like i'm slagging em off?) middle of the road, mellowed rocky type band (if you get what i'm on about)
and yes fleetwood mac did rule with peter green! 'oh well', 'man of the world' and 'need your love so bad' rule!
and yes fleetwood mac did rule with peter green! 'oh well', 'man of the world' and 'need your love so bad' rule!
They're both pop bands in my opinion, a form of group which seems to have almost died out in the advent of vocal groups and "trendy" guitar bands. Fleetwood Mac's great current album was simply a Lindsey Buckingham (guitarist in the band for nearly 30 years) solo album which never happened because Fleetwood was the drummer chosen by Buckingham. A bit like if Neil wanted Paul to be his drummer on his next solo album, not such a strange idea as they have both enjoyed working with each other before. What happens then, you bring in Nick Seymour who is obviously a good bass player and you've already got Crowded House back together even without the keyboardist and even without thinking about it. The only problems I see for this is attitudes, egos and perhaps geography.
It may be a marketing ploy by Buckingham, because his solo album would not have sold as much, but who cares as long as the end result is great! and it is 30 years on after he joined the band he's still making sweet music with them if not better! This rubbishes the theory that a band should exist for 10 years maximum (which I've heard said by Neil himself!)
It may be a marketing ploy by Buckingham, because his solo album would not have sold as much, but who cares as long as the end result is great! and it is 30 years on after he joined the band he's still making sweet music with them if not better! This rubbishes the theory that a band should exist for 10 years maximum (which I've heard said by Neil himself!)
I'm just rereading that last post a few times and trying to figure out what you're getting at.
So far I've got that Buckingham puts together an ersatz Fleetwood Mac because he can't sell enough under his own name.
NF does the opposite and breaks up CH because he wants to have a shot at producing material in his own name, rather than hiring Paul and Nick to do what Fleetwood Mac is doing.
So you say that the outcome is Fleetwood Mac is going strong (by leaning on the name, playing Don't Stop for the fifty millionth time and supporting what is basically an occasional member's solo LP) and it's ironic that NF isn't doing the same thing and debasing the CH name in the process.
Have you been up all night watching the Erasure DVD again?
Paul.
ps. I'm disappointed too, Kia, I think there was a better standard of shadowbombing in the past...
So far I've got that Buckingham puts together an ersatz Fleetwood Mac because he can't sell enough under his own name.
NF does the opposite and breaks up CH because he wants to have a shot at producing material in his own name, rather than hiring Paul and Nick to do what Fleetwood Mac is doing.
So you say that the outcome is Fleetwood Mac is going strong (by leaning on the name, playing Don't Stop for the fifty millionth time and supporting what is basically an occasional member's solo LP) and it's ironic that NF isn't doing the same thing and debasing the CH name in the process.
Have you been up all night watching the Erasure DVD again?
Paul.
ps. I'm disappointed too, Kia, I think there was a better standard of shadowbombing in the past...
Fleetwood Mac is still going strong in Britain because of the British component, strong in USA because of the USA component, and the rest of the world because of a MacDonald style marketing component.
I sure someone can quote figures that the CH albums are still selling, the DVD (dreaming) sold well and is still going, and musician around the world cover CH songs regularly (Has anyone covered a Fleetwood Mac song?). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Fleetwood Mac died when Peter Green (great name!) left and was resurrected as a 'pop' band that gets together every 3-4 years, yell at each other, produce a sub-standard album compared to what they've done in the past, and do a half-assed tour so they can go back to their mansions to try and forget it ever happened.
CH is fondly remember by all the band members (Nick had a small gripe, but it wasn't much) and will be remembered for years to come as a great band live and in the studio. Why spoil something that good, by flogging the proverbial dead horse.
That's my 2 cents worth.
I sure someone can quote figures that the CH albums are still selling, the DVD (dreaming) sold well and is still going, and musician around the world cover CH songs regularly (Has anyone covered a Fleetwood Mac song?). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Fleetwood Mac died when Peter Green (great name!) left and was resurrected as a 'pop' band that gets together every 3-4 years, yell at each other, produce a sub-standard album compared to what they've done in the past, and do a half-assed tour so they can go back to their mansions to try and forget it ever happened.
CH is fondly remember by all the band members (Nick had a small gripe, but it wasn't much) and will be remembered for years to come as a great band live and in the studio. Why spoil something that good, by flogging the proverbial dead horse.
That's my 2 cents worth.
I'd rather hear an old band anyday than have the music industry run by solo artists
That's a nonsensical argument.
*cue applause from the peanut gallery*quote:Originally posted by dedunn:
[qb] That's a nonsensical argument. [/qb]
Well-put. Succinct and spot-on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd rather hear an old band anyday than have the music industry run by solo artists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm....I gotta say, when I first read this I didn't agreed completely, but when I thought about it, the truth is that what's the difference ? I mean, if we are talking about getting the credits, or the royalty rights , hell yeah, it sort of makes sense and if you can choose who you play with or record with or collaborate with, not having a ten year commitment, well, then..right, it makes sense. But then again if we are talking about putting someone really "solo" on a stage or a studio, even Neil, just with a guitar, what can I say, its quite difficult not to get boring. So, anyway, the people around the main "solo" figure are crucial in the equation to make the whole thing work, so they might as well get the recognition, right ?...go bands go!
I'd rather hear an old band anyday than have the music industry run by solo artists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm....I gotta say, when I first read this I didn't agreed completely, but when I thought about it, the truth is that what's the difference ? I mean, if we are talking about getting the credits, or the royalty rights , hell yeah, it sort of makes sense and if you can choose who you play with or record with or collaborate with, not having a ten year commitment, well, then..right, it makes sense. But then again if we are talking about putting someone really "solo" on a stage or a studio, even Neil, just with a guitar, what can I say, its quite difficult not to get boring. So, anyway, the people around the main "solo" figure are crucial in the equation to make the whole thing work, so they might as well get the recognition, right ?...go bands go!
Hmmm...I give you......
The Beatles.....Sir Paul McCartney
Crowded House...Sir (surely) Neil Finn
Icicle Works....Ian McNabb (indulge me)
Solo stuff very rarely stacks up against previously successful group material - although there are always shining examples (and Mr Finn comes as close as anybody to pulling it off).
For me great groups are more than the sum of their individual parts. Therefore anyone going solo is up against it.
Which leads me to the point about Nick and Paul's input into the creative process as discussed elsewhere on this site. They had a huge input even if it can only be decribed as chemistry.
Just for the record (and getting back on track)...Fleetwood Mac???..SH*TE listened to by people who's idea of Hi-Fi is a ghetto blaster.
The Beatles.....Sir Paul McCartney
Crowded House...Sir (surely) Neil Finn
Icicle Works....Ian McNabb (indulge me)
Solo stuff very rarely stacks up against previously successful group material - although there are always shining examples (and Mr Finn comes as close as anybody to pulling it off).
For me great groups are more than the sum of their individual parts. Therefore anyone going solo is up against it.
Which leads me to the point about Nick and Paul's input into the creative process as discussed elsewhere on this site. They had a huge input even if it can only be decribed as chemistry.
Just for the record (and getting back on track)...Fleetwood Mac???..SH*TE listened to by people who's idea of Hi-Fi is a ghetto blaster.
LOL... welcome, E. Keep posting like that and you'll win as many smiles as friends.quote:Originally posted by E:
[qb]Fleetwood Mac???..SH*TE listened to by people who's idea of Hi-Fi is a ghetto blaster. [/qb]
I always enjoy someone with a particularly unique turn of phrase... *looks in E's direction* - guess you'd be one of those, then
Dunno whether I've just been insulted or complemented !
Complimented, methinks.