[snoot]

Originally Posted by slipkid

From the concerts I hear towards the end, there's still no doubt who is the true lead guitarist, and who had more of a rhythm role. Kirwan's solos live never deviated much show to show. All Green wanted to do was improvise. I don't know where you get your information on those who claim Kirwan was surpassing Peter, certainly not the liner notes, and books I have read. Peter Green was at the peak of his powers as a guitarist when he left the band 5/25/70.

Right, and like the young Kirwan was going to step all over Green's toes with reckless abandon as he saw fit. And please dont forget that improvistion and structure are twin faces of the creative process. Both are needed to produce real magic.

As for surpassing Green, we may be sort of blurring aspects of larger FM themes here. I'm mostly talking about their overall contributions towards the end, not merely their guitar prowess. On both fronts though, the two were beginning to run head and head, so much so that Green was starting to feel a bit challenged, even threatened at times, by the upstart kid he originally freely encouraged. To what extent this all played out only those on the scene truly know. Maybe Jeremy has a few recollections he may choose to add.

I said "arguably". I think many on this board will back me up. After all, this is the Peter Green forum.

Right, one which I am currently participating on. And once again IMO, he was not. Now you do allow touches of dissention here, right?

First of all, Peter didn't bring Danny aboard. Mick Fleetwood was the one who brought him into the band via the manager.

You're really splitting hairs now. I'm sure they both had a direct hand in his enlistment, most likely in equal measure. Green was not caught off guard or surprised by the lad from Boilerhouse! Moreover, he had more to do with DK's development than any other member of the group.

Peter was relieved that duties would then be shared instead of he carrying the load. Green also used to give Kirwan a hard time. He used to call him "Young Eyes", which drove Kirwan crazy. Danny was a pretty uptight person who took thinks way too seriously, Green's polar opposite. He didn't have great social interaction skills so he drank to overcome them. Peter Green took mind altering drugs because he thought they were helping him create. All it did was bring on acute schizophrenia.

I know the story too, well, as best as it can be stitched together. "Young Eyes" could also be seen as endearing, even if DK didn't like it. As for the drinking aspect, what do you think most young musicians - especially at that ripe young age - were doing back then but drinking and/or smoking, often excessively. Danny was no different! His drinking got worse as time went on. Gee, where have we seen THAT before? Peter, in the same vein, was increasingly indulging in various drug experiments, only difference being his candle burned out much quicker with the heavier stuff he was ingesting (bouts of schizophrenia + depression aside).

The band didn't have any headline success either in the states or Europe until the white album in 1975, that's just a fact.

FM were doing quite well across Europe during the Green era, far better than in the States where they were still almost unknown. There was a big difference in the recognition factor between the two continents at that time.

I didn't say the middle period didn't produce good music. Their former manager in 1974 was trying to discredit the legit FM with a phony product! Not a great time. It's just a fact that in terms of stature and album sales there was a lull in that five year period.

What you said was Green left a void that FM didn't recover from until Buckingham/Nicks, by then a much different band.

I'll agree with a void being created, that's not a reach when your principal driver exits stage right, but there never was any "recovery" some 5 odd years later. The surviving members just put their heads together and decided to march on, with Danny and Jeremy co-leading the way at the outset. Certainly it was a disconcerting thing considering they lost their leader and chief mojo, but they pulled it off nonetheless, full of bumps and ruts along the way. The fact remains they took their name and popularity to greater heights afterwards, on a gradual, ever-increasing basis. That's just a fact dude; I know as I was there throughout the period. Also, how could there be a "lull" in sales in that period when they never had big sales in the States to begin with until after Peter left the band? Not blockbuster sales, but substantial ones nonetheless in the Kirwan/Welch (aka middle) era.

Obviously the 1975-81 version of the band went on to obliterate billboard chart history. As for how Buckingham/Nicks came to be, let's just say I prefer to remember FM as a rock band. That's not Bob Welch's fault, just a right place, right time scenario to make millions of dollars.

That's cool, I can appreciate those who would have preferred the FM sound & style staying frozen in time (or eras), but the long hard road (and changing personnel) dictated something far different. From practically day one, they were a constantly evolving sound front -- yes even in the "purer" PG blues-rock era, particularly once Kirwan came aboard. As I see it, Fleetwood and Green begat Kirwan, Kirwan's burnout then begat Welch's more prominent rise, Welch's burnout begat Buckingham's discovery, and Buckingham begat Nicks by pressing for her inclusion in the band. And then of course came superstardom, and straddling new heights.

Ok I get it, you're not a fan of the purist blues FM, Kirwan was great, and that's fine.

Wrong. I own all the old Mac stuff, and appreciate the Peter Green era in equal measure. He remains the founder and original driving force of Fleetwood Mac in my eyes, above anyone else - including Mick - since it was he that really got the ball rolling. But that's not what I'm arguing here. In fact, far from it.

Peter Green was going to leave Fleetwood Mac anyway, drugs or not. The loss is that with the drugs he dropped out of the music business completely. Had he been clean, we could've had some great exploratory "world music".

He simply overdid it, with a personality that lent itself towards that kind of indulgence. How is it you can lament his drug peccadilloes - or at least size them up for what they're worth - but then cut Kirwan no similar slack with his alcohol and personality shortcomings? Is it because one smiled as he went down, while the other growled? Or is it the love of pure blues that causes such blind spots?