2. music
  3. 1396103469

Fleetwood Mac

Saw an interview the other day on CNN with Mick Fleetwood, Stevie Nicks, Lindsay Buckingham, and Christine McVie. Apparently they're getting back together for a tour (someone ran out of money?). The CNN crawl read "the original Fleetwood Mac back together. Seems they don't remember there was Peter Green, Danny Kirwan, and John McVie. How quickly they forget. I suppose there's a generation who only knows the "Rumours" era Mac. To me there were 3 Macs-the Green and Kirwan Mac, the Bob Welch Mac, and the group mentioned above.
mrmitch
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Slaw,

Per my post above, Bob Brunning played bass on FM's first few gigs because John McVie was reluctant to leave his steady gig with John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, notwithstanding the fact that Green and Fleetwood were bolting from Mayall to start their new band. I believe that one of those early shows made it to a live album, so J McVie isn't really a founding member. OTOH, he did join within a few months and has been there without fail for the 45+ years that followed, so - yeah - he's definitely a long timer.
ghosthouse's avatar
ghosthouse
4,321 posts
 
John McVie is the Mac in Fleetwood Mac. Band name given by Peter Green. Apologies if someone else already posted this.
loomisjohnson
1,974 posts
 
marty:
so appropos of nothing much i listened to the whole of tusk tonite and conclude that it is in fact the fm masterpiece, at least of the latter day iteration--vastly superior to the overrated, biggerselling fleetwood mac and runours. it helps me to understand your lindsey buckingham fixation--he's stellar here, with the brian wilson thing really happening.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Loomis,

I kind of agree. I always place Pet Sounds, The White Album, Exile, and Tusk in a class of their own as outlying artistic statements from bands expected to simply fire up another collection of radio hits. (It's easy to forget how deliberately outré the White Album sounded on first listen.) Obviously, Tusk has a special place in my heart, given my own quirky fascination with FM. I'd personally be a little kinder to the previous two FM albums (taken on their own terms, both shone IMO) but I'd also be the first to acknowledge that Tusk is braver and more ambitious than either of them.

IMO, Tusk a great record largely because it eschews the mass appeal of the previous two mega-hits. To really appreciate it, however, I believe that it must be heard live. As good as the record is, I also believe that (along with Say You Will), Tusk is the anomalous FM record in that the power of one writer's songs (Buckingham's in the case of Tusk and Nicks' in the case of SYW) is diminished in the tracking - very unusual for FM which is usually expertly recorded IMO.

When I first heard it performed live, Tusk just astonished me. The rockers became absolutely ferocious and the range of the band as they move from ballad to pop hit to stripped down rock was pretty incredible. FM did a mini-set from Tusk on the last tour and I thought it was the highlight of the show. Sadly, I suspect they won't go there again this time out, simply because they have a large catalog and like to change it up.

I'm glad you're enjoying the record, I hope that you do get an opportunity to hear it at its best -live, live, live- one day.
judyazblues
157 posts
 
The pretty boy and wanna-be witch ruined fleetwood muck.
More to discover