VoicesCarry said:

Yeah xaviers a good horse to pick on. I mean j lo, really now?

I can't compare the two.

How do you compare
when:
The Beatles are 4 guys & Fleetwod Mac is 3 guys & 2 women
The Beatles are from the 60's & Fleetwood Mac is from the 70's
The Beatles are all Brits & Fleetwood Mac is Brits & Americans

minneapolisgenius said:

Look...I love Fleetwood Mac. The self-titled album and rumors are no doubt masterpieces. Also, I personally think Lindsay Buckingham is a musical genius. However compared to The Beatles, there's really no contest. From Rubber Soul to Abbey Road every album is practically flawless (except Revolution 9 of course). John, Paul, and eventually George were exceptional songwriters. Even Ringo, with Don't Pass Me By and Octopus' Garden threw in some gems. Their influence on future musicians and songwriters can still be felt today. Their music will never die.

So THERE!

thedoorkeeper said:

sure, but that's just a shallow, superficial, non-musical comparrison.

almsot as superficial as me saying stevie nicks alone should do it

compare tusk to the white album and see if u come up with anything

Anyway my dad said he liked their early stuff, then they "sold out" to pop.

My dad musta been gutted by the time the early 80's came around.

Some of his fav bands like

Jefferson airplane
Chicago
Genesis
Fleetwood cack

All sold out to make a commercial buck. As i like sell out genesis, starSHIP (or shit) and chicago, I may like later fleetwood mack.

thesexofit said:

I really can't place Fleetwood Mac with those groups because they're still making quality music. And they didn't sell out to pop - it's what they always made. Have you ever listened to their music?

thesexofit said:

i consider the nicks/buckingham mac a completely different band to pre nicks/buckingham mac

kinaldo said:

I think members of Fleetwood Mac (esp. Stevie, Chris and Lindsey) would even say there's no comparison.

VoicesCarry said:

No. But my dad said fleetwood mack changed when steive came in.

Instead of Fleetwod Mac Vs. The Beatles howz about:
Compare & contrast Fleetwod Mac & The Beatles.
Then its not who is better
but a discussion about 2 great legendary bands.
I know its a little high school sounding but so what.

thedoorkeeper said:

Yeah, thats what I was getting at with milli vanilli.

I dont see how u could compare them except, as I have stated, on enjoyment levels only.

But enough of comparing if a comparison is comparible, and lets enjoy a thread where "blame it on the rain" is included.

I love both bands, but, what The Beatles did between 1965-70, Fleetwood couldn't hold a candle to them as far as songwriting, musicianship, experimation and just SHEER creativity. The Beatles were and are on a whole different level.

thesexofit said:

i already warned u about hijacking my thread

if you're not into the music of either band then u have no reason to be here

start your own milli vanilli or blame it on the rain thread

now back to the topic in hand...

this is not a compare and contrast thread but a versus thread between two "not too dissimilar bands"

i say fleetwood mac are better, they produced better albums, imo

i'm not interested in the contrasts between them, they're obvious enough and there's too many

i completely forgot about abbey road

great album blighted only by a couple of annoying songs

i couldn't listen to it nearly as much as rumours or tusk though

kinaldo said:

Oh no way. Abbey Road trumps Tusk anyday.
Tusk has tons of filler & dull spots.
It would have been a good album if it had been cut down to 1 album instead of 2.
Take off Tusk & Gypsy & whatever was the best McVie song & there is just a lot of hot air left.
Abbey Road is great from beginning to end.

On the other hand Rumours is a perfect album
that stands among the great albums.
Right along side the Beatles White Album.

Here's the thing, it's art and comparing one to the other is pointless.

The reason I had to respond to this highschool conversation is that there is only one good version of Fleetwood Mac and the albums mentioned here aren't them. They were a kickass blues band from England and wrote the original versions of "Green Manalishi", "Oh Well" and a version of "Black Magic Woman" that makes Santana's look tame. They were formed out of the remnants of The Bluesbreakers (Mayall/Clapton) and Fleetwood Mac in Chicago is a blues masterpiece. The soft rock version of the Mac wrote some decent music but in the Beatles league?



When you talk about music, where they are in music history and who they influenced afterward, what technology was available to record and what they did with it are all factors. History has recognized the Beatles based on this criteria but Fleetwood Mac I doubt.

Slave2daGroove said:

Yeah - Thats what I meant to say.

thedoorkeeper said:

Slave2daGroove said:

well la-di-da!

i must remember that, never compare art cos it's pointless

clearly you're not much of a fan of the nicks/buckingham era so you're opinion
is completely biased towards the beatles

as for history and recognition, i already conceeded that the beatles were more influential

does that make them better?

will music history remember, say,the vaselines,and other more recent, lesser known bands based on your criteria?

probably not, but so what, they'll still be loved by someone

like a lot of artists, fleetwood mac probably don't get the recognition they deserve for making such outstanding music
[Edited 6/29/05 17:55pm]
[Edited 6/29/05 18:14pm]

thedoorkeeper said:

tusk is an absolute masterpiece, almost flawless from beginning to end.

also, u must be confused, gypsy is on the mirage album

go back and give tusk another listen

VoicesCarry said:

Then he's got his fair share of troubles. How 'bout sexofit Tues, Thurs and Sundays?

...or we could just flip for it.

sosgemini said:

Then you didn't read the org manual. There's a Beatles clause in it.
You are not allowed to have that opinion.

thedoorkeeper said:

IMHO, Rumours, Tusk and Fleetwood Mac are all classics. The Beatles had a higher output of classic material, but I prefer listening to Fleetwood Mac

Pagey said:

well said. The Beatles changed everything, broke every rule. They are, and always will be, the ultimate rock and roll band. Fleetwood Mac wouldn't exist without the Beatles. I love Fleetwood Mac, but come on. There is no comparison.

kinaldo said:

CLASSIC POST

Never liked The Beatles' music!

But I love Fleetwood Mac!

"Rumours" is a masterpiece!!!

"Tusk" and "Fleetwood Mac"(1975) are brilliant too!!!

VoicesCarry said:

I wouldn't call the early Mac material "pop" - Albatross is far removed from polished tracks like "Everywhere". Which of the two styles you prefer is open to debate, of course.

rocknrolldave said:

thesexofit said they "sold out" to pop in the 80's, however.

Fleetwood Mac i prefer. I've never liked The Beatles. Their music lacks guts and even when they rocked it seemed like good boys playing with instruments they should really leave alone. Theres some great pop songs but thats all as far as im concerned. No resonance at all. I don't think Fleetwood Mac were ever consistent enough to be a truly world beating band but i much prefer them to Lennon and Co.