Billy Corgan: The Fact That So Many Living Rock Legends Are Not Making New Music Is Just Wrong

[Towelie]

Although he doesn't mention Axl by name, you know he's thinking of him while saying this.... (Corgan is a well-documented GNR fan).

Billy Corgan: The Fact That So Many Living Rock Legends Are Not Making New Music Is Just Wrong

"Sentimentality and the melancholy that goes with sentimentality, that's a big business."

The Smashing Pumpkins mastermind Billy Corgan discussed the fact that many living rock legends - such as Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks or The Who's Pete Townsend which he took as examples - haven't released any new music for many years, saying on Q (via Alternative Nation):

"I think our culture - and I'm including our bigger culture here in the west - sentimentality and the melancholy that goes with sentimentality, that's a big business.

"Unfortunately, I would argue at this point the sentimental crowd and the business behind the sentimental crowd, it's like the reboots of the movies.

"Let me use a perfect example. Stevie Nicks is one of my favorite songwriters, one of my favorite singers of all time.

"The world should be begging her for more new songs. She's walking this planet, she still sings great, she still looks great.

"It's like, 'Hey, can you play 'Rhiannon' one more time?' It's like, 'How about write a new song, and we'll listen to that, and we'll listen to 'Rhiannon'?' That's where we get off the wrong detour.

"I'm arguing against the fact that now that the average musical star's life has a longer shelf life.

"It's no longer 'I hope I die before I get old.' Pete Townshend was just through Chicago doing 'Quadrophenia' with Eddie Vedder and an orchestra, right? So these works live on.

"But Pete Townshend is one of the greatest living songwriters in the world, there should be more interest in his new work than the past. It should be proportionate - that's going to be my argument until the day I die.

"I think people will one day kick themselves that they didn't take more advantage of these great living artists - and I mean LIVING in capital letters - and use that vitality.

"Pete Townshend should be documenting, and I'm sure he is, he should be documenting every stage of his life, not just when he put on skinny trousers. You know what I'm saying?"

[Len Cnut]

Load of bollocks.  To paraphrase Lenny Bruce there's no such thing as 'should be', there is only what is.  'Should be' is just someones idea about something.  Perhaps most artists, like everything else, have a set mileage in terms of how well people respond to their work.  A boxer don't peak forever, a football player ain't at their peak forever, for a variety of factors these things follow a certain pattern, maybe most artists just ain't that fuckin' good for that long.  On the other hand you have people like Bob Dylan who consistently put out good stuff so people want to hear their new stuff too. 

End of the day this stuff is pop music, its about entertaining the public and if your game isn't quality enough or your appeal has certain limitations then why not give the people what they want?  Not that I'm saying people shouldn't challenge with their music but those people have always been few and far between and the ones who don't, well thats what seperates one from the other, its not something people enforce on anyone based on their demands, you gotta have the minerals to do it and if you haven't well then you'll languish in that other category of non-triers. 

Joe Strummer could've rode The Clashes fame til the wheels wore off but he didn't and he suffered for it in terms of popularity and money made.  Ultimately he'll have his fans and his own unique (and some would say more meaningful) status in the affections of some but he's not the Bruce Springsteen he could've been (thank fuckin' Christ!).  John Lydon didn't have to put out 10 albums worth of challenging mentalist music like he did. 

You can't blame audiences or 'the culture' for this shit, its just a vague imprecise way of shifting blame from the fact that to be an artist in the truest sense of the word takes guts.  If Axl Rose or whomever doesn't release new music thats his look out...but also his perogative too, if you wanna wheel out the oldies for the easy money then why not, its your work, you made it, go for it.  But just know, it seperates you from THOSE people over there.  And to a wider public thats probably a good thing, I'm sure Axl Rose fans are happy that he's not a Joe Strummer and vice versa.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Len Cnut

[Padme]

There is something called record company. Well if the recording industry cares about someone like Pink. And they don't care about Stevie Nicks or Pete Towsend. There is nothing anyone can do about it. I thought someone like Billy Corgan would know this.

It is also possible that some artists just don't feel like making new music. We have the right to feel sad about it. But if any given artist out there doesn't want to make new music for whatever reason. WelliIt is their right not to do it.

[Len Cnut]

38 minutes ago, Padme said:

There is something called record company. Well if the recording industry cares about someone like Pink. And they don't care about Stevie Nicks or Pete Towsend. There is nothing anyone can do about it. I thought someone like Billy Corgan would know this.

It is also possible that some artists just don't feel like making new music. We have the right to feel sad about it. But if any given artist out there doesn't want to make new music for whatever reason. WelliIt is their right not to do it.

Please...if Glen Matlock can put out albums then Stevie Nicks and Pete Townshend can   They have enough clout to self finance as well if they wanted to, a lot lesser people do.  Its just...perhaps they don't want to, perhaps its a lot of work.

[gnfnrs1972]

Maybe they don't put out new music because their fanbase bitches about them playing 5 or 6 new songs from the latest album when they tour.

[soon]

I agree in general with what Corgan is saying.  The pressures of the market place directs older artists to tour the oldies because they can either make big bucks selling sentimentality or follow the muse and risk get dropped from the major labels.  Sentimentality has its place, but has of late proven corrosive in a few areas of society and to me its currently the crutch for the music industry.  The industry refused to adapt to the digital age and is stalled so they use the power of sentimentality to stall us all along with them.

So why does someone get to speak up about market conditions that diminish the output of our favourite artists?  Because we are the market. The industry , the artists and us listeners are all in this together.  We can make demands - not of the specific artists, but about the conditions of the playing field that they base their decisions on.  Like Corgan said ""The world should be begging her for more new songs."

The market place has an unfortunate - nearly all powerful - control over art.  The industry has a lesser power to simply control the buying publics relationship to that art. But the industry puts forward the artists who it controls the best; those who are not compelled soley by the muse.  This has to have an influence on listeners - what they expect from artists and even in their world view in general.  A main point where the industry has shaped listeners into obedient consumers is the proliferation of the MP3.  MP3 sucks!  Yet its the go to medium for music listening.  Did music lovers ask to 'please hear music in the shittiest format?' Of course not, we were told to listen to MP3's.  Apple decided for us.  We line up around the block for the upgraded iPhone, complete with MP3.

Im with Billy in wanting to hear the next thing from these legendary artists.  Of course many are recording and releasing, but not nearly all of them.  

Stevie Nicks is incredibly open that she gets paid lots to tour, so therefor she chooses to tour over recording.  Her creative muse is apparently malleable to the economic overtures of millennials and the business people who aim to take every last penny.  

 

Do you want to make a new record with them?
"I don't think we'll do another record. If the music business were different, I might feel different. I don't think there's any reason to spend a year and an amazing amount of money on a record that, even if it has great things, isn't going to sell. What we do is go on the road, do a ton of shows and make lots of money. We have a lot of fun. Making a record isn't all that much fun."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/stevie-nicks-talks-drugs-men-aging-fleetwood-macs-future-w470914

 

She said: “I don’t write as many songs any more because with the internet, the way that kids listen to music, all the streaming, and the fact that if they’re very savvy, if they want to get it and not pay for it, they can.

"It goes against the grain of our whole belief in, ‘You write a song, you record it, and you put it out there and people should buy it’.

"We realise it’s not our world any more and the younger kids don’t look at it like they’re taking from us... we don’t have the impetus to write 20 songs because we know that unless you’re under 20 you’re not going to sell many records.”

http://www.fleetwoodmacnews.com/2017/01/stevie-nicks-says-another-fleetwood-mac.html

[EvanG]

Billy Corgan used the word ''trousers''?

[Len Cnut]

And there's your answer, to some people market forces dictate and to some people they don't.  And as far as the paying for it crap and making money or what have you I call bullshit on that, lots of artists made the album they wanted to make in their prime (see Iggy and Raw Power) knowing it would tank but doing it anyway cuz it was true to what they were.  Music wasn't always a commercial enterprise y'know, it's only a 40 or so year span where popular music was this massive money spinning enterprise...and music existed before that and it will exist afterwards.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, all your favourite bands didn't get into music knowing or even thinking necessarily that they were going to end up bajillionaires, they did it because they liked it and it became who they were.  I don't begrudge getting what you can when the goings good but its when its not is when you find out who is a heart and soul musician and who was just out to hear the register ringing.

Not that people shouldn't get appropriate recompense but hey, tour, put the work in, accept thousands instead of millions, see a thing, any thing, isn't worth what you think it is, its worth whatever its worth and prices are dictated based upon what people are willing to pay for it, thats simple economics but expecting it to make millions like it did in the 80s is the same as sitting around wishing flares were still in fashion, it just ain't that day anymore. 

And y'know what, it's worth perhaps looking into the production value of a CD and the amount it took to create per CD compared to the ridiculous prices that they sold for, 15 to 20 quid some of em at their peak and look statistically about what level of that was profit and realise that perhaps you were lucky to be able to be living in your ivory towers drinking champagne out of cowboy boots and shagging groupies in the Savoy but if you stop making music because its not profitable enough anymore to finance your 200 acre estate with a 18 bedroom house and a cocaine habit well then perhaps you weren't in it for the right reasons...if confining yourself to just the five bedrooms and actually having to go out and tour like people did in the old days for a lot less than what you guys are likely to get is reason enough for you to quit making music well then one could be forgiven for questioning the value of what you have left to contribute.  I'd rather listen to the guy out there struggling to get heard and doing it for the love of it, I wager he might have something to say worth listening to.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Len Cnut

[Padme]

59 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Please...if Glen Matlock can put out albums then Stevie Nicks and Pete Townshend can   They have enough clout to self finance as well if they wanted to, a lot lesser people do.  Its just...perhaps they don't want to, perhaps its a lot of work.

You mean going independent? Sure but there are limitations. For example not many radios will play their songs. They wouldn't have the publicity machine that record companies have. Independent artists have to rely too much on their social media and places like Spotify or youtube. Maybe that's fine for some new artist. But I'm not sure it is fine for old school guys. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, Padme said:

You mean going independent? Sure but there are limitations. For example not many radios will play their songs. They wouldn't have the publicity machine that record companies have. Independent artists have to rely too much on their social media and places like Spotify or youtube. Maybe that's fine for some new artist. But I'm not sure it is fine for old school guys. 

Not when they’re Pete Townshend and Stevie Nicks they dont cuz they have a pre-established profile that will take them above the level of your average independent artist, John Lydon is doing it now and hes got on Jools Holland, hes got magazine write ups, all sorts.

[Tori72]

1 hour ago, tremolo said:

Billy is one of those, so is Axl (although overwhelmed by his own demons to the point of inability to release anything), so is Trent Reznor.

The Young brothers, Dave Grohl and so many others are closer to being craftsmen than to be artists.

 

Although I find the idea of craftsmanship vs artists intriguing I think it is too easy an answer. As long as musicians create new music, even if they only interpret music like musicians playing classical music, they are also artists. So if they're creating something new - writing songs - that's being an artist. You can debate whether it is good or not, whether you like it or not. But who's is going to define what is art and what isn't? If you think something is art you won't let anyone tell you it isn't, right?

41 minutes ago, Padme said:

You mean going independent? Sure but there are limitations. For example not many radios will play their songs. They wouldn't have the publicity machine that record companies have. Independent artists have to rely too much on their social media and places like Spotify or youtube. Maybe that's fine for some new artist. But I'm not sure it is fine for old school guys. 

When you have a big name, at least radio stations would be interested. And even if not, you will still have your audience when you put it out on youtube, spotify etc. I'm thinking of a certain someone there  

What Corgan really says is that he's disappointed that the "zeitgeist" moved on and musicians from 60/70/80 etc. are not as acknowledged as before. Maybe it has to do with quality of the songwriting, maybe the the general taste, maybe with the politics of record companies. Corgan just seems disappointed with his fans, his audience which is a silly notion I think. Things are more complex than just "the audience isn't getting the artistry".

[RONIN]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

And there's your answer, to some people market forces dictate and to some people they don't.  And as far as the paying for it crap and making money or what have you I call bullshit on that, lots of artists made the album they wanted to make in their prime (see Iggy and Raw Power) knowing it would tank but doing it anyway cuz it was true to what they were.  Music wasn't always a commercial enterprise y'know, it's only a 40 or so year span where popular music was this massive money spinning enterprise...and music existed before that and it will exist afterwards.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, all your favourite bands didn't get into music knowing or even thinking necessarily that they were going to end up bajillionaires, they did it because they liked it and it became who they were.  I don't begrudge getting what you can when the goings good but its when its not is when you find out who is a heart and soul musician and who was just out to hear the register ringing.

Not that people shouldn't get appropriate recompense but hey, tour, put the work in, accept thousands instead of millions, see a thing, any thing, isn't worth what you think it is, its worth whatever its worth and prices are dictated based upon what people are willing to pay for it, thats simple economics but expecting it to make millions like it did in the 80s is the same as sitting around wishing flares were still in fashion, it just ain't that day anymore. 

And y'know what, it's worth perhaps looking into the production value of a CD and the amount it took to create per CD compared to the ridiculous prices that they sold for, 15 to 20 quid some of em at their peak and look statistically about what level of that was profit and realise that perhaps you were lucky to be able to be living in your ivory towers drinking champagne out of cowboy boots and shagging groupies in the Savoy but if you stop making music because its not profitable enough anymore to finance your 200 acre estate with a 18 bedroom house and a cocaine habit well then perhaps you weren't in it for the right reasons...if confining yourself to just the five bedrooms and actually having to go out and tour like people did in the old days for a lot less than what you guys are likely to get is reason enough for you to quit making music well then one could be forgiven for questioning the value of what you have left to contribute.  I'd rather listen to the guy out there struggling to get heard and doing it for the love of it, I wager he might have something to say worth listening to.

Great post as always. Here's my question though - isn't it always going to be an impossible challenge to pursue art over commerce when you've broken through and achieved mainstream success? I don't see how you would be free from the burden of weighing commercial sensibilities for any forthcoming art you create and release into the marketplace unless you're willing to walk away from a lucrative recording contract and/or alienate your audience completely.

Axl, for all his faults, was probably under immense pressure to top the sales of Appetite and Illusions with Chinese Democracy. There's no way he could have made a pure experimental album with GnR without serious repercussions. In the end, it didn't really matter anyway - but imagine Axl releasing an instrumental GnR album in the late 90's - it would have been career suicide. The label would have dropped him.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Great post as always. Here's my question though - isn't it always going to be an impossible challenge to pursue art over commerce when you've broken through and achieved mainstream success? I don't see how you would be free from the burden of weighing commercial sensibilities for any forthcoming art you create and release into the marketplace unless you're willing to walk away from a lucrative recording contract and/or alienate your audience completely.

This is where your genius level fuckers come in, your Lennons and such, who balance the right amount of boundary pushing artistry whilst bearing in mind that you're making pop music that you actually want people to like.  The Beatles actually are probably a better example than just Lennon on his own cuz he went way out there sometime, God love him, with Two Virgins and shit (which i think is fantastic but most people would call me a pretentious nobhead for liking, they're probably right to be fair ).  Bowie did a good job of it. 

Personally, I don't see why this obssession with being an artist, I've said this before, fundamentally popstars are hacks and thats not necessarily a bad thing, i love some hacks out there, The Ramones, you could argue, became hacks (justified by their originating an original idea and concept though they rode that fucker for 30 odd years) but so what, they liked rock n roll, they played rock n roll, they were the guaranteed best night out for 30 years, it has as much value to be as a stonewall 100% pushing the boundaries artist, they both serve a function y'know?  And each as honourable function as another.  Its no different than a guy that works at a lathe or drives a fuckin' cab, its a job, you do it and hope to do it well and people benefit from the service provided, I think The Ramones are one of the greatest bands that ever existed. 

As far as Axl, I dunno man, it's up to each individuals conscience what they do or don't wanna make, i can't sit here with my fundamental orifice in the back of my trousers spouting off about what Axl could or couldn't do, a lot of people have done some crazy career suicide shit and survived but I see your point, its very hard to be an Axl with an Axl audience and then expect him to jump over to doing 'x' crazy shit and have them swallow it.  I mean John Lennon can do Two Virgins (which he also got crucified for by the way) but a) he's John Lennon, b) he's John Lennon, c) he's John Lennon, d) he's STILL John Lennon and e) audiences were more receptive to progressive shit back then out of mainstream artists.

I actually really like Axls spirit in terms of like...the principles behind his not wanting to just be your average tosser rocker, I think it's admirable.  I think just think his ambition exceeds the possibilities of his actual reach.  But fuck it, God loves a tryer.

[EvanG]

Corgan is a bit hard to follow sometimes. The Smashing Pumpkins started as a new wave band in the 80s, then they turned into a heavy alternative band because that was happening at the time and he loved the rivalry and competition between bands. Then in 1998 when they were one of the biggest bands in the world, he followed up their most successful record to date with a weird electronic/acoustic album, knowing full well that it would alienate most of his audience, because all they wanted was heavy angry rock songs, and that's exactly what he didn't give them.

Edited November 16, 2017 by EvanG

[WhazUp]

Axl has been making a shit ton of new music!  The problem is the dude won't put any of it out lol

[PatrickS77]

4 hours ago, soon said:

Do you want to make a new record with them?

"I don't think we'll do another record. If the music business were different, I might feel different. I don't think there's any reason to spend a year and an amazing amount of money on a record that, even if it has great things, isn't going to sell. What we do is go on the road, do a ton of shows and make lots of money. We have a lot of fun. Making a record isn't all that much fun."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/stevie-nicks-talks-drugs-men-aging-fleetwood-macs-future-w470914

 

She said: “I don’t write as many songs any more because with the internet, the way that kids listen to music, all the streaming, and the fact that if they’re very savvy, if they want to get it and not pay for it, they can.

"It goes against the grain of our whole belief in, ‘You write a song, you record it, and you put it out there and people should buy it’.

"We realise it’s not our world any more and the younger kids don’t look at it like they’re taking from us... we don’t have the impetus to write 20 songs because we know that unless you’re under 20 you’re not going to sell many records.”

http://www.fleetwoodmacnews.com/2017/01/stevie-nicks-says-another-fleetwood-mac.html

So. At the end of the day, it's all about the greed of the artist. Creating music shouldn't be about how many money can be made. They are charging a kings ransom for concert tickets these days. Nobody talks about that. So that should offset the fewer albums they sell (and save them from the poorhouse... LOL) with new music they might get more asses in seats. But then again, if they are burned out, have no desire to create new music and only have eyes for the miney, it is best they don't record newmstuff.

[Tonto]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Load of bollocks.  To paraphrase Lenny Bruce there's no such thing as 'should be', there is only what is.  'Should be' is just someones idea about something. 

We'll remember this the next time you are shitting on Axl.

[Len Cnut]

30 minutes ago, Tonto said:

We'll remember this the next time you are shitting on Axl.

The difference there being my opinions are presented as exactly that, opinions, as opposed to an assertion regarding the correctness of reality, which a one shot thing, it just is what it is.

But if you just want the exercise, here you go, Axl Rose is a cunt.  I expect a thank you note.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Len Cnut

[Tonto]

29 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The difference there being my opinions are presented as exactly that, opinions, as opposed to an assertion regarding the correctness of reality, which a one shot thing, it just is what it is.

But if you just want the exercise, here you go, Axl Rose is a cunt.  I expect a thank you note.

You have referred to Guns N Roses without Slash as not being GN'R many, many times. That's factually incorrect, you don't get to have your own facts.

[Len Cnut]

27 minutes ago, Tonto said:

You have referred to Guns N Roses without Slash as not being GN'R many, many times. That's factually incorrect, you don't get to have your own facts.

I'm not sure that thats true, though it possibly is.  Either way, is that a difficult proposition to get your head around?  The Stones ain't The Stones without Keith Richards, The Beatles ain't The Beatles without John Lennon, its quite obvious what one might be getting at with such an assertion I think, unless you're being deliberately obtuse about it.  I tell you what I also have said on this forum, I have also said that GnR is whatever Axl chooses it to be because he owns the legal right to do so, he could go out with Aunt Bessie, a Peruvian pimp, 4 cockerspaniels and a goldfish called Ted and it'll be Guns n Roses if he so feels.

[J Dog]

All these cats are old and already paid their dues. They've given us plenty of music and already made their contribution to rock. Sometimes we act like these aren't real people, these cats are in their 60s. They've earned their right to retire and take it easy.

Corgan really needs to be calling out the younger generation. How about some fresh music from new bands? How about look to the old ones for inspiration and doing something worthwhile. How about give us something to be excited about. Instead of this half-hearted half-pop half-ass rock we're getting now. This is why pop and even country music isn't dead, young new acts are still making music instead of relying on 50 and 60 year olds to give us something more, 20 years past their prime. New bands with new music, that's who he needs to be telling give us something new.

[BorderlineCrazy]

8 hours ago, gnfnrs1972 said:

Maybe they don't put out new music because their fanbase bitches about them playing 5 or 6 new songs from the latest album when they tour.

I've seen many fans complaining about GNR playing too few songs off the UYI records, never too many so no idea what you're talking about 

[WhazUp]

1 hour ago, J Dog said:

All these cats are old and already paid their dues. They've given us plenty of music and already made their contribution to rock. Sometimes we act like these aren't real people, these cats are in their 60s. They've earned their right to retire and take it easy.

Corgan really needs to be calling out the younger generation. How about some fresh music from new bands? How about look to the old ones for inspiration and doing something worthwhile. How about give us something to be excited about. Instead of this half-hearted half-pop half-ass rock we're getting now. This is why pop and even country music isn't dead, young new acts are still making music instead of relying on 50 and 60 year olds to give us something more, 20 years past their prime. New bands with new music, that's who he needs to be telling give us something new.

There are heaps of bands and artists who fit that description, they just aren't in the top 50 or performing on the MTV VMAs or anything like that.  But there are great rocking bands out there, you just gotta dig for it

[gnfnrs1972]

1 hour ago, BorderlineCrazy said:

I've seen many fans complaining about GNR playing too few songs off the UYI records, never too many so no idea what you're talking about 

OH YOU SO FUNNY!

[Draguns]

9 hours ago, soon said:

I agree in general with what Corgan is saying.  The pressures of the market place directs older artists to tour the oldies because they can either make big bucks selling sentimentality or follow the muse and risk get dropped from the major labels.  Sentimentality has its place, but has of late proven corrosive in a few areas of society and to me its currently the crutch for the music industry.  The industry refused to adapt to the digital age and is stalled so they use the power of sentimentality to stall us all along with them.

So why does someone get to speak up about market conditions that diminish the output of our favourite artists?  Because we are the market. The industry , the artists and us listeners are all in this together.  We can make demands - not of the specific artists, but about the conditions of the playing field that they base their decisions on.  Like Corgan said ""The world should be begging her for more new songs."

The market place has an unfortunate - nearly all powerful - control over art.  The industry has a lesser power to simply control the buying publics relationship to that art. But the industry puts forward the artists who it controls the best; those who are not compelled soley by the muse.  This has to have an influence on listeners - what they expect from artists and even in their world view in general.  A main point where the industry has shaped listeners into obedient consumers is the proliferation of the MP3.  MP3 sucks!  Yet its the go to medium for music listening.  Did music lovers ask to 'please hear music in the shittiest format?' Of course not, we were told to listen to MP3's.  Apple decided for us.  We line up around the block for the upgraded iPhone, complete with MP3.

Im with Billy in wanting to hear the next thing from these legendary artists.  Of course many are recording and releasing, but not nearly all of them.  

Stevie Nicks is incredibly open that she gets paid lots to tour, so therefor she chooses to tour over recording.  Her creative muse is apparently malleable to the economic overtures of millennials and the business people who aim to take every last penny.  

 

Do you want to make a new record with them?
"I don't think we'll do another record. If the music business were different, I might feel different. I don't think there's any reason to spend a year and an amazing amount of money on a record that, even if it has great things, isn't going to sell. What we do is go on the road, do a ton of shows and make lots of money. We have a lot of fun. Making a record isn't all that much fun."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/stevie-nicks-talks-drugs-men-aging-fleetwood-macs-future-w470914

 

She said: “I don’t write as many songs any more because with the internet, the way that kids listen to music, all the streaming, and the fact that if they’re very savvy, if they want to get it and not pay for it, they can.

"It goes against the grain of our whole belief in, ‘You write a song, you record it, and you put it out there and people should buy it’.

"We realise it’s not our world any more and the younger kids don’t look at it like they’re taking from us... we don’t have the impetus to write 20 songs because we know that unless you’re under 20 you’re not going to sell many records.”

http://www.fleetwoodmacnews.com/2017/01/stevie-nicks-says-another-fleetwood-mac.html

The record that Lindsey Buckingham made with Christine McVie was supposed to be a new Fleetwood Mac album. Everyone signed on. Rumor has it that Nicks didn't want to do it since she likes doing things solo and didn't want to be in the same room with Buckingham. 

In this respect, I think Corgan was wrong.