DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on April 09, 2018, 07:02:50 PM
-
The latest: Lindsey Buckingham has been ousted.
Good luck with that. :lol :lol
-
Replaced by Neil Finn on vocals and Mike Campbell from Tom Petty on guitar. I'm actually intrigued
-
Honestly, considering how much Stevie and Lindsey hate each other, it's unreal that they managed to co-exist for most of the last 40 years in the same band.
-
I didn't know that. Where'd you read that?
-
They told him to go his own way.
-
I didn't know that. Where'd you read that?
Wait, really? I thought it was pretty common knowledge how much those two hate each other.
-
I actually thought he was a woman because of his name. One time I was in the car with my mom and Go Your Own Way was playing and I told her “You hear that male singer? Well it’s actually a woman”.
-
Honestly, considering how much Stevie and Lindsey hate each other, it's unreal that they managed to co-exist for most of the last 40 years in the same band.
Have they, though? I thought they both came and went regularly. When I saw the headline my first thought was "no shit!"
-
I am sure it grinds Buckingham's gears that he has been the biggest musical force in the band since 1975, yet Nicks is viewed by most as the face of the band.
-
I really thought they resolved that. I really think this is a music issue with Lindsey. He is so self-absorbed affects everybody else.
-
I am sure that is part of it. From the sound of things, he was more concerned with getting in the studio and making new music again, while the others were ready for another greatest hits tour. Considering Mick Fleetwood and John McVie rely almost solely on concert revenue as their source of income, since their writing credits are pretty scarce, it's no surprise that they would have sided against Buckingham on this one.
-
Lindsey is one hell of a guitar player but I'd be interested in seeing Mike Campbell play for them. He is a great guitarist.
-
I am sure that is part of it. From the sound of things, he was more concerned with getting in the studio and making new music again, while the others were ready for another greatest hits tour. Considering Mick Fleetwood and John McVie rely almost solely on concert revenue as their source of income, since their writing credits are pretty scarce, it's no surprise that they would have sided against Buckingham on this one.
Yeah, from what I heard, the new Fleetwood Mac album he wanted to make wound up becoming the Buckingham/McVie album they released last year.
-
Fleetwood Mac are still active?
-
Apparently there was a huge backstage row at the MusiCares event in January (Nicks gave a very long, rambling speech, prompting rumours that she'd been smoking something) which resulted in Mick sacking Lindsey (they left separately).
The 2018/19 farewell tour had already been booked, so they have no choice but to do it without him. Lindsey can be difficult to work with, but it's a real shame these people can't put their differences aside for what was supposed to be a farewell tour.
-
I had no idea that Fleetwood Mac was still a thing..
It's a borderline miracle how they have managed to stay together as a group for this long. A shame too, since they have some quality material in their discography.
-
I am sure that is part of it. From the sound of things, he was more concerned with getting in the studio and making new music again, while the others were ready for another greatest hits tour. Considering Mick Fleetwood and John McVie rely almost solely on concert revenue as their source of income, since their writing credits are pretty scarce, it's no surprise that they would have sided against Buckingham on this one.
Yeah, from what I heard, the new Fleetwood Mac album he wanted to make wound up becoming the Buckingham/McVie album they released last year.
The Buckingham/McVie album features none other than Mick Fleetwood on drums and John McVie on Bass. So it's basically Fleetwood Mac without Stevie. I always wondered about that; now I get it. I didn't realize that Lindsey and Stevie were fighting again.
-
Hasn't Christine McVie been out of the band for some time now? Without her and Buckingham, it's a different thing. I like their music though.
To the OP's thread title, I don't think there's more drama in any band than Fleetwood Mac.
-
Hasn't Christine McVie been out of the band for some time now? Without her and Buckingham, it's a different thing. I like their music though.
To the OP's thread title, I don't think there's more drama in any band than Fleetwood Mac.
I'm not a Fleetwood Mac expert, but I just wanted to remind everybody that for some time in the late 1980s there used to exist TWO Yes bands. Oh wait - that is also the case right now. ;D
-
Some of you need to Google more. Haha.
Lindsey wants to make new music. Fleetwood and J. McVie do not. Nicks is indifferent. She didn't partake in the "Buckingham/McVie" because she was in solo mode, and notoriously, she doesn't mix (like Phil and Genesis). He is notoriously NOT in "nostalgia mode" and wants to move forward with or without the Mac. As I understand it, that's the beef with this tour. I could well be wrong, because above all things, Buckingham is a really odd duck.
His interview with Dan Rather (it should be on YouTube) is really interesting. Sheds a lot of light on him and his way of thinking.
-
Hasn't Christine McVie been out of the band for some time now? Without her and Buckingham, it's a different thing. I like their music though.
To the OP's thread title, I don't think there's more drama in any band than Fleetwood Mac.
She did retire but came out of retirement.
-
I enjoyed the show the last time they were in Nashville when Christine came back, but I got the feeling that Lindsey enjoyed to hear himself talk. Mick, the drummer, was great on that tour.
-
Some of you need to Google more. Haha.
Lindsey wants to make new music. Fleetwood and J. McVie do not. Nicks is indifferent. She didn't partake in the "Buckingham/McVie" because she was in solo mode, and notoriously, she doesn't mix (like Phil and Genesis). He is notoriously NOT in "nostalgia mode" and wants to move forward with or without the Mac. As I understand it, that's the beef with this tour. I could well be wrong, because above all things, Buckingham is a really odd duck.
His interview with Dan Rather (it should be on YouTube) is really interesting. Sheds a lot of light on him and his way of thinking.
That is the truth.
-
LOL @ people not knowing the band was still active.
Also, double LOL @ Neil Finn
-
LOL @ people not knowing the band was still active.
Also, double LOL @ Neil Finn
Back of you Aussie! :lol
-
LOL @ people not knowing the band was still active.
Also, double LOL @ Neil Finn
Back of you Aussie! :lol
You asked for it - back of Aussie
(https://www.gossiplife.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/eurovision-2017-jamala-butt.jpg)
-
:lol
Glorious!
-
Apparently there was a huge backstage row at the MusiCares event in January (Nicks gave a very long, rambling speech, prompting rumours that she'd been smoking something) which resulted in Mick sacking Lindsey (they left separately).
Stevie Nicks gets lit and gives a long rambling speech so he sacks Lindsay Buckingham? You know, that actually makes sense coming from those people.
And for what it's worth, that girl gave no indication whatsoever of being stoned. I looked pretty closely and decided she was straight as an arrow. Granted, she's a Hall of Fame level professional. Maybe she's just amazingly gifted at acting straight. But if you can't tell that she's high what difference does it make?
-
Brent :clap:
-
Apparently there was a huge backstage row at the MusiCares event in January (Nicks gave a very long, rambling speech, prompting rumours that she'd been smoking something) which resulted in Mick sacking Lindsey (they left separately).
Stevie Nicks gets lit and gives a long rambling speech so he sacks Lindsay Buckingham? You know, that actually makes sense coming from those people.
And for what it's worth, that girl gave no indication whatsoever of being stoned. I looked pretty closely and decided she was straight as an arrow. Granted, she's a Hall of Fame level professional. Maybe she's just amazingly gifted at acting straight. But if you can't tell that she's high what difference does it make?
Lindsey can be a right jerk at times. I suspect he probably said something to her backstage that was totally out of order and tempers flared. I just don't buy this "Lindsey wanted to record new music" thing. He's wanted to do that for years, and has a solo career to do that. He knows damn well the big money is in playing the hits, and up to now he's been happy to get up on stage and take the paycheck. The 2015 tour netted them $200M, and you don't walk away from a pay-day like that just because you don't want to play "Go Your Own Way" again, and certainly not once you've already signed on the line to do exactly that. I suspect he was treating Stevie like shit again and she finally snapped back.
And yeah, I don't think she was stoned either.
-
You didn't see the interview with Dan Rather, then. Of any of those crusty old fools, the one guy that WOULD do all those things is Lindsey Buckingham. He's a mercurial drama queen, and even he will say that. These aren't "nine-to-five people" that do things the customary way.
-
But I think C.O.'s point is that he is also just as likely to have gone off on Stevie or taken one jab too many, for precisely the personality characteristics you cite.
-
But I think C.O.'s point is that he is also just as likely to have gone off on Stevie or taken one jab too many, for precisely the personality characteristics you cite.
I don't argue that. I think you're right. But when he's actively and clearly said "I'm interested in new music, not just being a karaoke act." it's not really up to us to tell him "Oh, no, you're wrong about what you think about yourself."
-
We're not "telling him" anything. I think some of us are just being a bit skeptical of his story because there is certainly precedent several times over of him acting contrary to what is being portrayed. If someone who has no history of stretching the truth says something, I'm pretty likely to believe it. If someone who has a pattern of questionable behavior says something, but there is an alternate theory that is perhaps more plausible because it is consistent with the person's past behavior, it's not unreasonable to doubt their public statement.
-
Not arguing, just explaining; Buckingham himself is mercurial and he changes. I don't think it's a matter of "he's not being truthful" as much as being a sort of raw nerve and maybe flip-flopping on certain issues. I think his past behavior is all over the friggin' map, so it's not really about "straying" from an established pattern.
-
Oh, no problem. I wasn't really "arguing" as much as explaining myself. Just, again, saying that even though his statement is unequivocal, I think there may be reason to take it with a grain of salt. But at the end of the day, all I'm doing is explaining someone else's position. As for myself, I have no idea, and I don't really care enough to even try to take a position one way or the other.
Related to the point of not really having a dog in this fight, I can't really call myself anything near a die hard Fleetwood Mac fan. I became a fan of them in the early-mid '80s, and became an even bigger fan of some of Stevie's solo material. But my fandom was limited to the music. I never really followed FM or Stevie beyond buying the albums. And as for FM, I only have a few albums. I bought the ones I like, and left it at that (Rumours, Mirage, Tango, Greatest Hits, and The Dance). Usually, if I want to listen to them, I will pop in The Dance because it is a great collection of a lot of the songs I like from them, and the performance is excellent.
-
Agreed with all that. To kind of show that the "grain of salt" approach is probably the right one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/04/11/lindsey-buckingham-formerly-of-fleetwood-mac-rocks-biggest-jerk-or-misunderstood-genius/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3debef62591
My daughter came to me and asked "Hey, what's a good Fleetwood Mac greatest hits to listen to?" And I said "Rumours". She came back a couple days later and said "MAN, every song on that album is excellent". I had to tell her that it wasn't really a "greatest hits" album, but just, in 1977, the next album they put out. She couldn't believe it. I like the one before too (self-titled). Some of the later stuff veers toward bloat and saccharine, but those two albums are really on fire.
-
Have you seen/heard The Dance? It really is a fantastic show. I still need to pick up the DVD for that. I've seen it, but I only own the CD.
-
The Dance is what really made me a fan of Fleetwood Mac, although I always liked some of the hits in the 80's a lot, especially Gypsy and Big Love. And, to a slightly lesser extent, Hold Me.
I think the live version of Dreams from the Dance crushes the Rumours version, and while the original Silver Springs, which has since been restored to new releases of Rumours, is good, that live version kills it, largely because Buckingham's guitar work is both understated and killer.
Also, I never realized how weird FM was when it came to songwriting credit. Apparently whatever member wrote the original melody and lyrics got the songwriting credit, regardless of how much work the band had to do with in the studio. Buckingham doesn't have as many songwriting credits on their biggest hits and well known songs, but it sounds like he had a huge hand in making a lot of the "Stevie" and "Christine" songs far better than they would have been otherwise.
-
It's crazy how good The Dance is. The five look like a well-oiled machine, a band that has spent a year honing their craft, perfecting their live performances, culminating in a big recorded show at the end of the tour. Which is as far from how it was actually conceived as possible.
-
They had a lot of help - you can see the backup singers in the background many times and there were clearly other musicians playing as well - but, yeah, it does sound great.
-
Huh I never noticed that. Then again the last time I watched The Dance was like '99
-
It's crazy how good The Dance is. The five look like a well-oiled machine, a band that has spent a year honing their craft, perfecting their live performances, culminating in a big recorded show at the end of the tour. Which is as far from how it was actually conceived as possible.
I just looked it up on YouTube and watched The Chain. JESUS this is crazy good. Those harmonies.
-
What's neat about that live version is how in the second verse, at the end of each line, either Stevie or Lindsey hold their note longer than everyone else or do some type of vocal embellishment. I love that.
-
I saw this tour in CT in September of '97 (Wiki says that The Dance was recorded four months earlier, in May) and it was as good as advertised, maybe better. The harmonies, when allowed to resonate around the amphitheater... it was really really good (and that was what sealed my conviction that as a guitarist, Lindsey Buckingham is on the level of the greats).
-
Speaking of Lindsey Buckingham, has anyone heard his first album with Stevie Nicks?
-
I was kind of indifferent to Fleetwood Mack or Lindsay Buckingham for a long time but in 2008 a friend (some of you may know him as Gruno, who used to have an internet radio show back in the day) introduced me to Lindsay's then new solo album Gift of Screws. I was blown away...Did you Miss Me is like a perfectly crafted jewel of a pop song.
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fleetwood-mac-tour-2018-without-lindsey-buckingham/
Well, what else is there to do if one doesn't want to tour while the rest do. You kick out the one that doesn't. Reminds me of a certain band...
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fleetwood-mac-tour-2018-without-lindsey-buckingham/
Well, what else is there to do if one doesn't want to tour while the rest do. You kick out the one that doesn't. Reminds me of a certain band...
Except the guy didn't get kicked out. He felt a bit pressured in that spot that he wanted to quit.......
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fleetwood-mac-tour-2018-without-lindsey-buckingham/
Well, what else is there to do if one doesn't want to tour while the rest do. You kick out the one that doesn't. Reminds me of a certain band...
Except the guy didn't get kicked out. He felt a bit pressured in that spot that he wanted to quit.......
I know, both are pretty much all you can do in that situation. Either leave or get the boot.
-
Or realize you are part of a group and deal with the group's decisions even if you don't fully like them.
-
Right, but if the option to just leave the group is also viable...
-
The latest:
-Lindsey Buckingham is now suing the band.
-Stevie Nicks has no voice left and sounds absolutely dreadful now.
-
I can't wait to hear their reunion song about suing each other.
-
Yeah, like Stevie is ever gonna want to get in the studio again. She's much happier touring and making the easy money, and given her age, I can't say I blame her.
I also can't blame Lindsey for wanting to still scratch that creative itch.
-
That's always been him though. Not that I dislike it. I love new music.
-
Lindsey Buckingham: Life After Fleetwood Mac (Rolling Stone) (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/lindsey-buckingham-fleetwood-mac-firing-733460/)
Lots more detail than we ever got before regarding the split, most of which was suspected. Yeah, it was Stevie who forced the issue. Personally, I have no reason to not believe Lindsey.
-
Agreed.
It looks like Stevie drew a "he goes or I go" line in the sand.
Mick Fleetwood will always opt with whatever makes him more money, and let's face it, even though Lindsey is the most creative guy in the band, Stevie is the bigger mainstream draw, meaning Fleetwood Mac sans Lindsey will sell more tickets than Fleetwood Mac sans Stevie.
Considering they did an album together just a couple years ago, I would bet money that Christine McVie is not thrilled with the way things played out, but she was likely outnumbered and simply went with the flow for the sake of band unity and keeping the paychecks flowing her way.
I know I've said it before, but I am still shocked that Stevie and Lindsey co-existed for as long as they did, given the hatred and ugly history between them.
-
Why do they hate each other? Is it simply creative differences? They started out as a duo didn't they?
-
I've wondered that for a long time. They did start out as a duo. The Buckingham/Nicks album is pretty good. It sounds pretty much like what you'd expect; early songs by Lindsey and Stevie. They joined Fleetwood Mac together. Lindsey was offerred the guitarist position but he insisted that Stevie join as well, and the rest is history.
Since then, I've seen/read/heard many stories about all the relationship troubles within the band, but not a lot of specifics. Apparently Stevie and Mick had a thing, while they were all still in the band together, so maybe that was the start of things. Infidelity sucks, and definitely has broken up its share of couples. But if you're in a band together, the question isn't just whether or not you stay with the person, it's whether you put the band before your personal relationship with this other band member. Clearly both have put the good of the band over their personal issues sometimes, and sometimes not. Lindsey left for a while. I don't know if Stevie ever officially left, but the Buckingham/McVie album has Mick and John on bass and drums; it's basically a Fleetwood Mac album without Stevie.
I saw an interview one time with Lindsey and he was talking about this time when he and Stevie weren't speaking, but the band was working on a new album. Stevie had a song she was working on, but was stuck. It needed something. She went to Lindsey, because she knew he'd come up with something. Lindsey didn't want to help her because he was pissed at her, but he couldn't help himself. He knew exactly what the song needed. So for the band, they both put the personal shit aside and wrote the song together.
Maybe they hate each other because they were twentysomething and would've broken up like any normal couple, but were "forced" to work together all these years, and the resentment kept building and building. Lindsey says a part of him will always love Stevie, and Stevie has expressed a similar sentiment. But right now, the part that hates him is winning.
-
I've wondered that for a long time. They did start out as a duo. The Buckingham/Nicks album is pretty good. It sounds pretty much like what you'd expect; early songs by Lindsey and Stevie. They joined Fleetwood Mac together. Lindsey was offerred the guitarist position but he insisted that Stevie join as well, and the rest is history.
Since then, I've seen/read/heard many stories about all the relationship troubles within the band, but not a lot of specifics. Apparently Stevie and Mick had a thing, while they were all still in the band together, so maybe that was the start of things. Infidelity sucks, and definitely has broken up its share of couples. But if you're in a band together, the question isn't just whether or not you stay with the person, it's whether you put the band before your personal relationship with this other band member. Clearly both have put the good of the band over their personal issues sometimes, and sometimes not. Lindsey left for a while. I don't know if Stevie ever officially left, but the Buckingham/McVie album has Mick and John on bass and drums; it's basically a Fleetwood Mac album without Stevie.
I saw an interview one time with Lindsey and he was talking about this time when he and Stevie weren't speaking, but the band was working on a new album. Stevie had a song she was working on, but was stuck. It needed something. She went to Lindsey, because she knew he'd come up with something. Lindsey didn't want to help her because he was pissed at her, but he couldn't help himself. He knew exactly what the song needed. So for the band, they both put the personal shit aside and wrote the song together.
Maybe they hate each other because they were twentysomething and would've broken up like any normal couple, but were "forced" to work together all these years, and the resentment kept building and building. Lindsey says a part of him will always love Stevie, and Stevie has expressed a similar sentiment. But right now, the part that hates him is winning.
It's hard to recover after trust has been broken. What a mess.
-
I've wondered that for a long time. They did start out as a duo. The Buckingham/Nicks album is pretty good. It sounds pretty much like what you'd expect; early songs by Lindsey and Stevie. They joined Fleetwood Mac together. Lindsey was offerred the guitarist position but he insisted that Stevie join as well, and the rest is history.
Since then, I've seen/read/heard many stories about all the relationship troubles within the band, but not a lot of specifics. Apparently Stevie and Mick had a thing, while they were all still in the band together, so maybe that was the start of things. Infidelity sucks, and definitely has broken up its share of couples. But if you're in a band together, the question isn't just whether or not you stay with the person, it's whether you put the band before your personal relationship with this other band member. Clearly both have put the good of the band over their personal issues sometimes, and sometimes not. Lindsey left for a while. I don't know if Stevie ever officially left, but the Buckingham/McVie album has Mick and John on bass and drums; it's basically a Fleetwood Mac album without Stevie.
I saw an interview one time with Lindsey and he was talking about this time when he and Stevie weren't speaking, but the band was working on a new album. Stevie had a song she was working on, but was stuck. It needed something. She went to Lindsey, because she knew he'd come up with something. Lindsey didn't want to help her because he was pissed at her, but he couldn't help himself. He knew exactly what the song needed. So for the band, they both put the personal shit aside and wrote the song together.
Maybe they hate each other because they were twentysomething and would've broken up like any normal couple, but were "forced" to work together all these years, and the resentment kept building and building. Lindsey says a part of him will always love Stevie, and Stevie has expressed a similar sentiment. But right now, the part that hates him is winning.
There's probably truth in all of that, but you can't discount that Lindsey is an odd duck. He just doesn't do things the way other people do, musically, and, it seems, in real life. The interview with Dan Rather a couple years ago was very illuminating in this way. This would not be the first time that Lindsey's view of reality was at material odds with others' views of the exact same circumstances. That's not to suggest that others' views are automatically correct - I think Stevie lives in her own bubble as well - but suffice to say I think it would be hard to know the real story in all this.
-
Yeah, as always, the truth is something which we'll never really know. Didn't some philosopher ask once whether "truth" even exists? If only the people involved know what happened, and their accounts differ, then is there such thing as an accurate accounting of events? If none exists, then does the truth exist?
Anyway, the drama continues. Lindsey Buckingham Sues Fleetwood Mac Over Dismissal From Band (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lindsey-buckingham-sues-fleetwood-mac-over-dismissal-from-band-736063/).
So sad when it comes to lawsuits. It means that people who once cared about each other and made great music together have reached the point where some officially consider the others "the enemy". It also means that all that pretense of art and doing it for the music, for the fans, blah blah blah, is bullshit; it's about the money.
-
Not suggesting that is the case here (I haven't read the article on the suit yet) but just a point of fact: "lawsuits" are not always "bad", and in fact are sometimes a necessary step (a "trigger" if you will) for other things to happen. When Mike split with DT, there was quite the kerfluffle over at mp.com about what a "dick" Mike was, this and that, and I got into a "debate" shall we say (I know, right?) with someone when I suggested that they were out of line saying that without knowing what the operating agreement of the corporation (Ytsejam, or whatever it was) said. It got to the point that someone very close to Mike (though not Mike himself) contacted me on the side to ask me how I knew what was in the operating agreement and whether I was affiliated with any or all of the remaining DT members or counsel. I didn't know for certain (and I was not then nor am now affiliated with anyone in the DT camp past or present) but it's a very common requirement to remove/liquidate/handle a change in ownership of an entity. it is also sometimes a requirement to trigger an audit of finances, which is often necessary to draw a "line in the sand" with respect to profits/expenses moving forward.
If I'm not mistaken, something similar is happening with Donald Fagen and Walter Becker's estate. Cheap Trick (Bun E. Carlos) as well.
-
Not sure if I completely got you post Stadler (due to insufficient english knowledge). Could you please explain what's going on with Donald Fagen?
-
Well, in a nutshell, way back when, Fagen and Becker set up a company to be "Steely Dan", and one of the provisions was, if any member (I don't know if it was just Fagen and Becker then, or some of the guys with them at the start, but I know now, as of Becker's death, only Fagen and Becker remain) quit or died, there was an automatic buy-out provision where the company would buy out the quitting/dying member's share. Here's a decent summary: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/steely-dans-donald-fagen-sues-walter-beckers-estate-127107/ but bear in mind it quotes (extensively) the lawsuit, and those are worded in very precise ways, since they form the basis of the arguments that are ultimately decided.
Although I haven't read the agreement (I've never even seen it, frankly) generally speaking in my experience, suits are required to determine the baseline of what is/are the controlling documents/framework, before you can even determine the outcome of the dispute, sometimes before you can even NEGOTIATE the outcome of a dispute. In other words, this is less about Fagen "fucking over" his partners wife - which is what it sounds like - but a company - Steely Dan - suing other companies that are providing services to it to affirm the validity of the underlying contract and to set standards for any negotiations moving forward as to who owes what to whom, and who gets to make ultimate decisions moving forward.
There are also rules of probate at play here. It's not as if "Don" and "Mrs. Becker" can get in a room, share stories about Walt, and say "hey, let's do this!". Even if they did, there would be nothing that would be enforceable as to the other parties or even (maybe) the probate court handling the estate.
-
Well, in a nutshell, way back when, Fagen and Becker set up a company to be "Steely Dan", and one of the provisions was, if any member (I don't know if it was just Fagen and Becker then, or some of the guys with them at the start, but I know now, as of Becker's death, only Fagen and Becker remain) quit or died, there was an automatic buy-out provision where the company would buy out the quitting/dying member's share. Here's a decent summary: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/steely-dans-donald-fagen-sues-walter-beckers-estate-127107/ but bear in mind it quotes (extensively) the lawsuit, and those are worded in very precise ways, since they form the basis of the arguments that are ultimately decided.
Although I haven't read the agreement (I've never even seen it, frankly) generally speaking in my experience, suits are required to determine the baseline of what is/are the controlling documents/framework, before you can even determine the outcome of the dispute, sometimes before you can even NEGOTIATE the outcome of a dispute. In other words, this is less about Fagen "fucking over" his partners wife - which is what it sounds like - but a company - Steely Dan - suing other companies that are providing services to it to affirm the validity of the underlying contract and to set standards for any negotiations moving forward as to who owes what to whom, and who gets to make ultimate decisions moving forward.
There are also rules of probate at play here. It's not as if "Don" and "Mrs. Becker" can get in a room, share stories about Walt, and say "hey, let's do this!". Even if they did, there would be nothing that would be enforceable as to the other parties or even (maybe) the probate court handling the estate.
Thanks Stadler, I'm a huge fan of the Dan and I didn't even know that.
I read the article and concerning the bolded part of your post it states:
By the 2010s, the suit claims, Becker and Fagen were the “only remaining shareholders and signatories to the Buy/Sell Agreement.”