[Doctor Brown]

Hi becca!

I'm not sure how long it is that you have been a fan of Fleetwood Mac, and I understand how you might come to these conclusions looking back in retrospect, with the total picture that we have today.

But at the time, Jeremy was not percieved the way you see it. Even Peter Green thought that he was great, that's why he wanted him in the band.

At the live shows, more people related to Jeremy than they did to Peter. He was fun, he was a rocker, and he was damn good.
Remember this was 1968.

To tell the truth, back then, and even today, some people give Peter credit for Jeremy's work. In Bill Wyman's book, he talks about the Elmore James slide playing in Fleetwood Mac and how great it was, but I don't think that HE knows that it was Jeremy Spencer not Peter Green who was playing it. The only name mentioned is Peter's.

Elmore James was the rage at that time, and neither Green, nor Clapton, nor, Page, nor anyone else could hit that mark the way that Spencer did. Canned Heat did a respectable job, and later Johnny Winter, but at the time Spencer was king.

If you look on the first two albums, it is not clear which member is which. Their names are not printed directly under their pictures, and even I, back then thought that Jeremy was Peter Green because he was standing seperate from the group in the photo, and this was Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac. So it seemed logical that the person seperated from the rest was Peter Green.

And when you saw them live, you just naturally thought that the one who seemed to have the most stage presence, was Peter Green. But it was Jeremy Spencer.

Back on track~ With what we had when the first two US albums came out. There was no thought of redundancy or narrowness of focus. Even up to the time that Kiln House came out, our perceptions were what we had on record. What we saw at live shows was soon digested, but you always had what was on record.

Today with what we have on "Show Biz Blues" and "The Vaudeville Years" ON RECORD, paints a different picture of the total makeup of the band at that time, than we actually had. Those were singular performances and would have only been seen by the people in attendance.

I have to disagree with your take on "Shake Your Moneymaker". Music is like visual art. It generates a certain feeling when looking at it or listening to it. When I play Jeremy's version back to back with Elmore's, the difference is like looking at a Currier and Ives painting and then Andy Warhol. Totaly different sensations.

And at the time when Kiln House came out, there was a huge trend toward a 50's music revival. People wanted to hear covers and that style of music. So it's not really fair to criticize Jeremy for playing it. He was not the only one relating to that music, everyone was. It was what the public wanted.

And to be honest, I can't see what all the fuss is about trying to pigeon hole Jeremy about playing Elmore James or rock and roll. What is the difference between him doing what he did and Peter playing B.B. King or Otis Rush. Or Clapton playing Muddy Waters or Robert Johnson. I mean none of these guys were creating a new form of music, they were putting their spin on what THEIR heroes had done. It was like that then and always will be.

There is so much to say on these subjects that I have trouble sequencing it properly, but I'll try to get it out eventually and hopefully make some sence.

Doc