Stevie Nicks Says "There Would Have Been No Fleetwood Mac" If She Had Not Gotten an Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
Concerts helped but in those days you needed a hit record to even get on the concert bills. Also, from a live concert standpoint, the Mac wasn’t considered groundbreaking. Some other hit acts of the time such as the Eagles (Henley’s band) were considered terrible in concert. In those days the concerts were often so big that people could barely hear or see the band and often too stoned to care if the show was any good or not. They just wanted to be there. There were a few exceptions, like Springsteen who was famous for how good his live shows were, and the Dead of course.
Click to expand...
I can see how terrible they were just by listening to them on youtube. The sound was not good and it really made the vocals not outstanding so why did Stevie Nicks go forth. Again was it they did so many concerts over and over kind of like the Rolling Stones that they gained mass appeal.?
 
Last edited:
No, in the case of an act like The Mac, the hit record came first. The band then toured in support of the record. They did not build up a following through concert tours. Remember they’d been around for a decade already, presumably playing concerts from time to time, and interest was middling at best.

Once the band had a megahit with the “Rumours” album and established itself as a big concert draw, there was a lot of money in that for a lot of people. The band would have been pressured to tour. A member who couldn’t tour might well have been replaced.

Stevie Nicks at that point was very young, had a constantly tumultuous private life, and had serious substance abuse problems that persisted for years. She and the band likely owed significant money to people because of the way contracts were set up at that time, and also would have needed a lot of money for drugs and lifestyles.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Once the band had a megahit with the “Rumours” album and established itself as a big concert draw, there was a lot of money in that for a lot of people. The band would have been pressured to tour. A member who couldn’t tour might well have been replaced.

Stevie Nicks at that point was very young, had a constantly tumultuous private life, and had serious substance abuse problems that persisted for years. She and the band likely owed significant money to people because of the way contracts were set up at that time, and also would have needed a lot of money for drugs and lifestyles.
Click to expand...
I am aware of her drug lifestyle but there were so many bands, why did her band stand out when others did not.

Debra Harry and Blondie was a popular band as were many, many others and they all faded. I am just wondering if their constant push, they did not quit but did tour after tour was the factor that made her more of an icon.

Was it her voice?
 
Last edited:
Stevie Nicks still has a following with those in their thirties, not 16 , a totally different generation probably never heard of her.

Few have heard of Blondie.
 
Last edited:
gam197 said:
Debra Harry and Blondie was a popular band as were many, many others and they all faded.
Click to expand...
Different style of music. Debbie Harry also took several years off to care for Chris Stein. Out of sight, out of mind.
 
DeniseNY said:
Different style of music. Debbie Harry also took several years off to care for Chris Stein. Out of sight, out of mind.
Click to expand...
That is what I am alluding to that Stevie Nicks never gave up the tours.

Different music might have been the factor. Stevie Nicks is more mellow.
 
Last edited:
Debra Harry was older and her band played a different style of music, was promoted in a different way, and she also was at one point pursuing a movie career and I believe her partner had cancer which took up their time for a while. That’s the short version.

Also, a band not being on mega hit number one on the American Top 40 does not mean it “faded”, especially after the early 80s. Plenty of extremely influential and revered acts didn’t have megahits after a certain point, or ever, but a whole lot of serious music fans couldn’t care less. The music scene in general fragmented starting with punk in the late 70s and continuing on. I was proud to be a part of sticking a fork in the stupid drug-addled condescending 70s aging hippie music culture, a lot of the way music was pushed then was an insult to intelligence and dignity and the drugs disgusted me even as a teenager.
 
Last edited:
Of those I know who have had abortions and talk about it later, many overstate or exaggerate the bad that would have happened if they had had the baby. Maybe it is a self protective response. So very sad in every case.
 
Perhaps there still would have been a Fleetwood Mac had she given the child up for adoption?
I think of Joni Mitchell, in similar circumstances, who I have read gave her child up for adoption in 1965.
 
Debbie was a survivor, since before she achieved success with Blondie she had already been living and working in NYC for 10 years at places like Max’s and when she had her first hit, she was 30 years old. Even so, she admitted later on that she and her boyfriend Chris Stein spent most of the 80s having drug problems but did manage to get clean.

I thought it was sad that she found her birth mother in the late 80s who had given her up for adoption as an infant, but the woman chose to not have a relationship with her.
 
Servant31 said:
Thing Is, we’ve lost how many people due to abortion? How many Fleetwood Mac’s? How many Shakespeares, Michelangelo’s… Einstein’s, etc?
Click to expand...
That’s unlikely, but in general this is not a good argument or point.
 
Last edited:
I agree. However the original argument was made implying that the talent of Fleetwood Mac would not have been possible. The result in this case, or the value argument, was placed on the band. So given that reasoning, with the value result as an end, I think my original argument stands.

I also agree however that the true value of human life isn’t in the end result, but it’s innate dignity. But that wasn’t the original argument.
 
Servant31 said:
So given that reasoning, with the value result as an end, I think my original argument stands.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t, because there is no guarantee that the child would grow up and be as talented as the parent or at all.
 
Last edited:
This is true, but there isn’t a guarantee either way either. So it’s like we’re playing the odds on either case. The argument was that the band wouldn’t have been if not fir abortion, but then again we don’t know what we’re missing…
 
I don’t think anyone has heard of her in the USA. No Wikipedia page for her.

Hope you didn’t flag me on this thread. My point was that it costs money to run these bands and few become Icons like Stevie Nicks.

I pointed out that I read that Jessica Simpson said it cost her 1 million dollars to keep up her appearance. in the post, that got deleted but I think this is a valid point.

Being a model or an actress or a band cost money and few can off the ground and maintain it. That is why abortion is so popular in Hollywood.
 
Last edited:
Thanks , did not find when I put in her name and wikipedia.

She is worth about 15-20 million compare with Stevic Nicks who is worth 70 plus million and Madonna who is worth approximately 600 million.

Did not realize that she was still touring. There are so many bands that seem to have disappeared.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top