Fleetwood Mac - best album (a poll)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (134 of them)

Arguments to be made for several, and I love Tusk to death, but Rumors was lightning-in-a-platter.

― Vornado, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:07 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks for bumping this. Felt the need to point out that the 24 minute live version of Rattlesnake Shake is often godlike. Thank you, and back to Rumours vs. Tusk. Yawn.

― dlp9001, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

Self-titled '75 for me. In the words of David Crosby, "We tune because we care".

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

I love the Peter Green era, but I gotta go with Rumours. I would pick Tusk - if it weren't for all the painfully boring non-Buckingham tracks.

― will, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

btw I really like Nicks and McVie, but they are left in the dust on Tusk.

― will, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

i voted for bare trees. i think it's my current favorite, at least for my mood.

― félix pié, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

I picked Rumours just to be a cunt.

― Saxby D. Elder, Thursday, 3 May 2007 04:29 (nineteen years ago)

I suspect that Tusk will win in a felicitous example of ILM revisionism.

Relistening to Tango in the Night yesterday, I was struck by its weirdness. Synth-pop, sure, but lots of space in the music, and when Buckingham wants to fill it he'll use harmonies or chimes instead of the keyboards.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:46 (nineteen years ago)

i'm not sure a tusk victory would count as ILM revisionism. that's been the critic's fave for years, hasn't it?

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

No one would have predicted it in 1997.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

ILM didn't exist in 1997, so no revisionism.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

Tusk has a lot of great stuff, and (in my view) a fair bit of middling stuff as well, and it's definitely their most unusual album ever (Greil Marcus reviewing it as a punk album probably helped spread its reputation some). If it's an overwhelming favourite here, then I would agree there's some serious revisionism going on (in that, yeah, it was hardly the majority favourite for a long time, and was not particularly loved in its time). I definitely prefer Tango in the Night, which is also uneven but just has amazing singles.

― sw00ds, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

by "in its time" I mean "upon release." it was kind of considered a bomb at the time, wasn't it? Commerically, for sure, but even critically for the most part, I think.

― sw00ds, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

It was an "Ishtar"-like butt of jokes for a long time, yes.

― Stormy Davis, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I was first aware of it as an object of scorn (mostly because of "Fleetwood Mac Day" on the radio stations). Simon Reynolds picked it as his great unknown album in 1995 and wrote an essay mostly about "Sara": he wasn't the first critic to like it, obviously, he was just the first one I read. Around that time I started noticing a lot of positive mentions of Lindsay B as a lost production genius, and full-scale critical revival seems to have taken hold in the last 5 years or so.

― Groke, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:33 (nineteen years ago)

Tusk hit me hard like the punk that it deigned to be when I first heard it, but it's worn a little thin. My parents played Rumours and the self-titled one to death in the 70s and I still want to listen to them, so Rumours it is. Plus, whatever is more popular is just better.

― pj, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

I don't necessarily take issue with this kind of revisionism, by the way (it's not like rewriting history books or something), and it kind of makes a difference as well who's propping it up (in other words, can you call something "revisionist" if those doing the "revising" weren't even there the first time around? If I first came to Fleetwood Mac in the nineties, I might've gravitated towards Tusk also, who knows?).

― sw00ds, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

Rumours is a truly fantastic record, but Tusk is just so damn weird for a superstar So. Cal '70s album that it just had to get my vote. (Add to that the fact that I actually got to see the band live on the last date of the Tusk tour at the Hollywood Bowl, with Stevie all teary-eyed about the immenent parting of the ways, and the choice was virtually made for me.)

― JN$OT, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

I put on s/t ('75) last night just to be sure. It made a strong case, but yeah, still Rumours for me. I need to hear Bare Trees though.

― will, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I picked 1997 on purpose. That was the year of The Dance, which was a surprisingly huge hit and introduced a lot of undergrads to the Mac. I remember buying Tusk and Mirage shortly before the MTV documentary and playing them endlessly, the former especially. It was also the year that Miami New Times wrote this appreciative article about the band and specifically mentioned Tusk as a forgotten milestone (how Matthew Sweet hired Richard Dashut to produce Altered Beast, etc).

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

results...woah!

― sw00ds, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:57 (nineteen years ago)

that's... pretty cool.

― circa1916, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:58 (nineteen years ago)

One vote for s/t is hard to believe.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Friday, 4 May 2007 00:00 (nineteen years ago)

I voted for it .. at least, I *thought* I did. MYonga said he voted for it above as well. So, one of our votes didn't take for some reason.

― Stormy Davis, Friday, 4 May 2007 00:03 (nineteen years ago)

Listening to Say You Will right now (particularly the devastating "Thrown Down"), I'm convinced it's their best post-Tusk album.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 4 May 2007 00:08 (nineteen years ago)

which means I should have voted for it.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 4 May 2007 00:08 (nineteen years ago)

Surprise surprise

― I know, right?, Friday, 4 May 2007 01:03 (nineteen years ago)

either way, we win.

― poortheatre, Friday, 4 May 2007 04:08 (nineteen years ago)

I guess Kiln House is pretty cool...

― Saxby D. Elder, Friday, 4 May 2007 04:21 (nineteen years ago)

Listening to Say You Will right now (particularly the devastating "Thrown Down"), I'm convinced it's their best post-Tusk album.

i totally agree

― electricsound, Friday, 4 May 2007 10:42 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I was first aware of it as an object of scorn (mostly because of "Fleetwood Mac Day" on the radio stations). Simon Reynolds picked it as his great unknown album in 1995 and wrote an essay mostly about "Sara": he wasn't the first critic to like it, obviously, he was just the first one I read. Around that time I started noticing a lot of positive mentions of Lindsay B as a lost production genius, and full-scale critical revival seems to have taken hold in the last 5 years or so.

-- Groke, Thursday, May 3, 2007 10:33 AM (Yesterday)

Tom, I seem to remember Tusk-love in Frank's APA as far back as the days when you were a member.

― Rock Hardy, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:14 (nineteen years ago)

I remember being blown away by Tuskwhen it came out and this was at the height of my punk/nuwave disdain of mainstream pop SO THERE.

― m coleman, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:20 (nineteen years ago)

"That's All For Everyone" was on a tape yes! But that was around the same time (I joined Franks in 1994 or so) and for whatever reason I got the impression it was atypical. I probably wasn't paying attention and they were saying the album was atypical.

Actually I remember now that I GOT that tape in summer 95, after the Reynolds essay, cos I remember listening to it while writing job applications that summer.

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

Y'all are making me regret I didn't read Simon's essay.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:22 (nineteen years ago)

not as accessible as its immediate predecessors perhaps but Tusk has always been esteemed by those "in the know" as far as I can remember.

― m coleman, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

Alfred it was 90% about how great "Sara" is! - which I agree with but if you've read The Sex Revolts you've read what he has to say about it.

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:24 (nineteen years ago)

Grr...

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:26 (nineteen years ago)

"great unknown album" eh? sold four million worldwide

here are some reviews from back in the day:

http://www.superseventies.com/fleetwoodmac4.html

― m coleman, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:28 (nineteen years ago)

Tusk is one of the most fascinating records to listen to, precisely because it goes all over the place, and it represents the imposition of Lindsay Buckingham's will. It's a testament to the album's strangeness that my least favorite song on it, "Sara," has perhaps the best arrangement/production job. Well, that and "That's All For Everyone," which I wish Christine McVie had sung just for the experience of hearing her in those overdubs.

This thread illustrates an interesting point: In criticism, what does calling something the "best" really mean? The most perfect production? The most challenging? The weirdest or most beautiful? The one that triggers the most personal response?

I mean, I can make the following argument -- Rumours is the best, but Tusk is the best -- and not really sound too stupid. Ain't rock great? :-)

― Jiminy Krokus, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

The name of the book was Unknown Pleasures, so my phrasing was a shorthand for that. It was an excuse for music journalists on Melody Maker to write a short essay on a record they loved but which was either little-known or underrated. Obviously Tusk would have fallen into the latter category in Simon's opinion!

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

Ha ha ha, the liner notes in my Tusk CD Reissue this quote from the Rolling stone review:

the one Seventies group that can claim a musical chemistry as mysteriously right... as the Beatles'

But the original quote is:

the one Seventies group that can claim a musical chemistry as mysteriously right -- though not as potent -- as the Beatles'

Can you spot the difference?

― I know, right?, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

That's revisionism!

― I know, right?, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:37 (nineteen years ago)

...

― m coleman, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

This thread gives me a good excuse to link to Stephen Holden's fine review of the record for Rolling Stone -- a personal favorite of mine.

― Jiminy Krokus, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

that tie is pretty bloody strange...

― Charlie Howard, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

"great unknown album" eh? sold four million worldwide

Which I'm pretty sure was considered a letdown after Rumours, much in the way Bad was considered a letdown after Thriller. I don't know--I remember Rumours being EVERYwhere in '77 and '78--Tusk didn't generate a fraction of the interest--or it died out much, much quicker. But maybe that's my selective memory.

― sw00ds, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

Was "home taping" as much a factor in its "disappointing" sales as Mick Fleetwood alleges?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:52 (nineteen years ago)

Apparently, some radio station early on played the entire thing--and tons of people taped it! Or so the story goes...I think.

― sw00ds, Friday, 4 May 2007 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

radio stations used to do that all the time in the mid 70s! by 1979 the practice had died out to some extent. don't forget 1979 was a huge sales slump in the music business, the equivalent of the 1929 crash.

― m coleman, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:07 (nineteen years ago)

that's true--that was when the boom went kinda bust, I suppose (and Fleetwood Mac obviously weren't the only ones hurt).

― sw00ds, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 34 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Jon Pareles writes in the NY Times about the first album with Buckingham & Nicks.

― birdistheword, Sunday, 10 August 2025 20:06 (ten months ago)

(Mainly for the 50th anniversary box set.)

― birdistheword, Sunday, 10 August 2025 20:06 (ten months ago)

five months pass...

so i've been doing a really exhaustive discog runthrough, like i even made it through behind the mask and time for the first... time. i didn't care for behind the mask, or at least it doesn't seem up to much, not even the mcvie songs, and the album as a whole sounds brittle and thin in a way that tango in the night never did. but time is... perfectly ok? the production is AWESOME, the band sounds amazing, and even though christine mcvie characterized this record as a hostage situation, her songs are phenomenal pieces of songcraft and atmosphere (so i guess business as usual), especially this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTVXpicB4Dc

― ivy., Wednesday, 4 February 2026 21:00 (four months ago)

Good tune!

― The Luda of Suburbia (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 February 2026 21:46 (four months ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.