Author |
Topic: Lindsey Buckingham suing the rest of Fleetwood Mac... |
Jim Cohen
From: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
|
Charlie McDonald
From: out of the blue
|
Posted 13 Oct 2018 4:24 am
|
|
Yeah, like we should really care. Maybe they think he's too old?
I think I'd get it if bandmates didn't return my calls.
I'm ready and able to play; should I sue Bruce Springsteen for not calling me? |
|
|
|
scott murray
From: Asheville, NC
|
Posted 13 Oct 2018 9:28 am
|
|
a little different. he's a longtime member and a huge part of their late 70s mega success. he should at least be given an explanation and since he wasn't, he has every right to sue _________________ 1965 Emmons S-10, 3x5 • Emmons LLIII D-10, 10x12 • JCH D-10, 10x12 • Beard MA-8 • Oahu Tonemaster |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 14 Oct 2018 6:06 am Re: Lindsey Buckingham suing the rest of Fleetwood Mac...
|
|
Jim Cohen wrote: |
For those who care...
In January, Buckingham was told by his manager that the rest of the band would be touring without him, and he says none of his bandmates would return his calls to explain why. |
The "Hollywood Reporter" says:
Quote: |
Buckingham was with the band from 1975-1987 before leaving of his own volition to pursue a solo career, and rejoined the group in 1997, according to the complaint. He says there has never been a written band agreement and the group just agreed that each of the members had the right to veto any major decision and shared equally in the band's ownership.
...The singer-songwriter-guitarist says he was frustrated that the rest of the group wouldn't push the start of the 2018 tour from August to November so he could release and promote a solo album, and that the band would only be playing three shows a week at Nicks' request. So, he agreed to delay his album, but wanted to perform solo shows on off nights. |
You're either a solo artist, or a band member; can't have it both ways, I guess. |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 14 Oct 2018 6:48 am
|
|
Quote: |
...The singer-songwriter-guitarist says he was frustrated that the rest of the group wouldn't push the start of the 2018 tour from August to November so he could release and promote a solo album, and that the band would only be playing three shows a week at Nicks' request. So, he agreed to delay his album, but wanted to perform solo shows on off nights. |
So ... if that's all true, it sounds like he's might argue that they had a negotiation on terms for him to tour with the band, he made adjustments to accommodate them, and now they're abbrogating that agreement.
Me, I'm waiting until Peter Green rejoins the real Fleetwood Mac. And you don't need to remind me not to hold my breath while I wait. |
|
|
|
Godfrey Arthur
From: 3rd Rock
|
Posted 15 Oct 2018 11:32 am
|
|
Shades of CCR.
Fogerty not allowed to play his own tunes for 10 years while the rest of the band including his older brother who managed the band went out as CCR.
We all know who's voice is CCR.
Sometimes music gets so entangled in business and ownership that it screws itself. Sad side of being an artist.
I agree, Buckingham helped Fleetwood Mac propel itself.
In these days of meager earnings and scant gigs, what's wrong with doing a solo act while still being part of a band?
One would support the other since most would know who was who at either gig.
Easy to forget the times and the energies at play back in the 70's when FMac was an essential sound to society.
Listen to the wind blow, down comes the night
Running in the shadows, damn your love, damn your lies
Break the silence, damn the dark, damn the light
And if you don't love me now
You will never love me again
I can still hear you saying
You would never break the chain (Never break the chain)
_________________ ShoBud The Pro 1
YES it's my REAL NAME!
Ezekiel 33:7 |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 25 Oct 2018 4:59 am
|
|
Godfrey Arthur wrote: |
In these days of meager earnings and scant gigs, what's wrong with doing a solo act while still being part of a band? |
I guess that depends on whether you're in the audience or the band. I do know that in almost every other occupation, doing "work on the side" is accepted only as long as it doesn't interfere with your regular job.
Quote: |
...Easy to forget the times and the energies at play back in the 70's when FMac was an essential sound to society. |
It's an easy mistake to think that what's important to us is important to most other people, as well. They were an influential group in pop music back then. But I think calling them "essential to society" is a bit of a stretch. Even with a couple of decades of effort, they only had one #1 record. |
|
|
|
Godfrey Arthur
From: 3rd Rock
|
Posted 25 Oct 2018 5:51 am
|
|
Donny Hinson wrote: |
Godfrey Arthur wrote: |
In these days of meager earnings and scant gigs, what's wrong with doing a solo act while still being part of a band? |
I guess that depends on whether you're in the audience or the band. I do know that in almost every other occupation, doing "work on the side" is accepted only as long as it doesn't interfere with your regular job.
Quote: |
...Easy to forget the times and the energies at play back in the 70's when FMac was an essential sound to society. |
It's an easy mistake to think that what's important to us is important to most other people, as well. They were an influential group in pop music back then. But I think calling them "essential to society" is a bit of a stretch. Even with a couple of decades of effort, they only had one #1 record. |
Hehe...
The number of hits had less to do with the effect than the overall effect they had on the music industry and other groups as well.
It was hard back then to not come upon heavy rotation by FMac by what was mostly radio and if you like, TV shows that were not as many as today. Pre-internet, was artists and their music. And by today's standards anyone with 1M hits on Youtube is considered a "success" while back in the 70's try and figure out how narrow a bottleneck was getting your music heard on a broad spectrum, let alone your face.
And the lyrics of the songs had an effect on at least "thinking" society influencing other songwriters as well. Hence judging from the mere number of hits is to not view the bigger picture.
There was a domino effect in play.
You must've missed Rollingstone's write up:
16 Best Fleetwood Mac Songs (Not by Fleetwood Mac)
"From their lush, bittersweet harmonies to their love-tangled lyrics, Fleetwood Mac have been a go-to influence for artists for decades. In honor of our Stevie Nicks cover story, here are 16 of the best songs that channel the band, either on purpose or by accident. "
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/16-best-fleetwood-mac-songs-not-by-fleetwood-mac-153195/miley-cyrus-rooting-for-my-baby-173135/
It's an easy mistake to not have one's ear to the ground and assume one can only hear what one can only see in the landscape in front of them.
As far as the society of today, it's anyone's guess where that's heading.
Who are the bards of today and where are they leading the youth?
We can see the tree..but we can't see the roots.
Quote: |
But I think calling them "essential to society" is a bit of a stretch. |
Social engineering has been at the helm of the music industry for decades and surely from the 60's onward. Reason Timothy Leary was tasked with influencing musicians to drop acid. It was to have an ultimate effect on society through artists.
During the rock heyday of MTV, the Redstone corporation was told to drop rotation on rock and to play hip hop.
Connect the dots.
"Essential" is a double edged sword. _________________ ShoBud The Pro 1
YES it's my REAL NAME!
Ezekiel 33:7 |
|
|
|