the Peter/Chris/Danny/John/Mick Mac

[chiliD]

Here 'tis:

[sharksfan2000]

Originally Posted by mzero

who's got the pete frame family tree for fleetwood mac? those are excellent

I don't have it myself, but found this image on the web - not as complete as the one chiliD posted but easier to read

[SteveMacD]

Personally, I don't really count any of the line-ups post-Mask, pre-Time groupings as official line-ups, since there was really no official, permanent line-up in place at those times, so...

#12
Mick Fleetwood; John McVie; Christine McVie (album only); Bekka Bramlett; Dave Mason; Billy Burnette (eventually)

#13
Mick Fleetwood; John McVie; Stevie Nicks; Lindsey Buckingham

[Mr Scarrott]

Does anyone agree with me that Pete Frame should really have counted the Peter/Danny/Chris/John/Mick lineup from feb-apr 1971 as Fleetwood Mac#6? That kind of makes sense to me. We would then need to renumber all the other incarnations accordingly.

As for post- Mask, pre-Time, I agree things are a bit messy. There's a case for saying that there was a band that consisted of Chris, Stevie, Billy, Mick and John as that lineup actually recorded Heart of Stone , but then there's the semi-live Clinton innauguration, the Superbowl performance without Stevie but with Rick, and that period when Dave and Bekka were in, but Billy wasn't yet back- not that they performed or recorded... it's all a bit ephemeral...

[sharksfan2000]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

Does anyone agree with me that Pete Frame should really have counted the Peter/Danny/Chris/John/Mick lineup from feb-apr 1971 as Fleetwood Mac#6? That kind of makes sense to me. We would then need to renumber all the other incarnations accordingly.

As for post- Mask, pre-Time, I agree things are a bit messy. There's a case for saying that there was a band that consisted of Chris, Stevie, Billy, Mick and John as that lineup actually recorded Heart of Stone , but then there's the semi-live Clinton innauguration, the Superbowl performance without Stevie but with Rick, and that period when Dave and Bekka were in, but Billy wasn't yet back- not that they performed or recorded... it's all a bit ephemeral...

No, actually I would not agree with calling the Peter/Danny/Chris/John/Mick lineup #6. And you're forgetting Nigel Watson in any case - if you include Peter Green, then wouldn't he also be part of that lineup? But I wouldn't consider Green and Watson to be more than "touring members" at that stage - from everything I've read, Green made it very clear from the outset that he had no interest in rejoining the band and was only helping them get through their remaining US tour dates. So even though Green founded the band a few years earlier, I have to believe that neither he nor the band considered him (or Watson) a member of the band at that point. And as you know, we've discussed "touring members" vs. "actual band members" here on the board pretty recently!

[Mr Scarrott]

That's an interesting point, sharksfan2000, and may have some validity, but I'm not sure I agree! (it's angels on a pinhead time, I guess).

But interestingly, if we were to follow your logic, then as Jeremy had quit the band, and without Peter being counted as an actual member , then there is a new Fleetwood Mac#6 anyway, as the lineup at that point would have been Chris, Danny, John & Mick .

Then the Chris, Danny, Bob, John and Mick version would be Fleetwood Mac#7 rather than #6.

Pete Frame's #5 doesn't make sense as it is laid out as it makes it look as if Pete and Jeremy were in the band at the same time as Christine and Danny.

[sharksfan2000]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

That's an interesting point, sharksfan2000, and may have some validity, but I'm not sure I agree! (it's angels on a pinhead time, I guess).

But interestingly, if we were to follow your logic, then as Jeremy had quit the band, and without Peter being counted as an actual member , then there is a new Fleetwood Mac#6 anyway, as the lineup at that point would have been Chris, Danny, John & Mick .

Then the Chris, Danny, Bob, John and Mick version would be Fleetwood Mac#7 rather than #6.

Pete Frame's #5 doesn't make sense as it is laid out as it makes it look as if Pete and Jeremy were in the band at the same time as Christine and Danny.

Yes, I can see your #6 lineup above making some sense, going from Feb-March 1971. But I can also see the logic in not including it, since it seems clear that this lineup was never thought of as anything but a temporary one - they looked for a second guitarist to complete their lineup as quickly as they could.

I agree that the Pete Frame chart that shows Peter Green being part of his lineup #5 (even with the dashed line and "one tour" qualification) is misleading.

[Mr Scarrott]

Originally Posted by sharksfan2000

Yes, I can see your #6 lineup above making some sense, going from Feb-March 1971. But I can also see the logic in not including it, since it seems clear that this lineup was never thought of as anything but a temporary one - they looked for a second guitarist to complete their lineup as quickly as they could.

Well, Fleetwood Mac#1 was intended to be temporary, wasn't it? It lasted about as long as my putative #6. I wouldn't want to remove the Brunning version from the timeline, even though they were billed as Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac for the entire period of Brunning's participation. And Fleetwood Mac#4 never even toured! It's only counted (rightly, I think) because Chris wasn't a full member during the Kiln House sessions. Then there's the reality of the Jeremy-less Mac that featured on the original pressing of Then Play On. I'm not going to suggest that there was a Peter/Danny/John/Mick lineup that should be considered, you'll be glad to hear.

In the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter that much, but I'm a bit of a nit-picker.

[sharksfan2000]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

Well, Fleetwood Mac#1 was intended to be temporary, wasn't it? It lasted about as long as my putative #6. I wouldn't want to remove the Brunning version from the timeline, even though they were billed as Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac for the entire period of Brunning's participation.

In the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter that much, but I'm a bit of a nit-picker.

Nit-picking is welcome here! I thought about the Bob Brunning situation too, but I believe there's an important distinction. After Jeremy Spencer left the band, there was no question at all that they were going to find a replacement, it was only a matter of how long it would take to do that. So the post-Spencer / pre-Welch band was certainly a temporary lineup - there was never any doubt of that.

In contrast, Peter Green was hoping that John McVie would join the band in 1967 but there was no certainty in that. McVie had already rejected joining the band at its outset. What if he'd decided he'd be better off continuing to stay with John Mayall? Or what if he'd gotten a better offer from someone else? If that had happened, would Brunning have stayed with Fleetwood Mac long-term? Perhaps not, and we've all read that he knew from the start that he would be out if McVie decided to join. But there's really no way to know how long Brunning might have stayed with the band if McVie had never joined. Brunning played all the band's early shows and he recorded with them too. Had McVie even delayed making the decision to join for another few months, Brunning probably would have recorded the entire first album with the band. Easy in hindsight to say he was just temporary, but events could very well have taken a different course.

[Mr Scarrott]

A temporary line-up still counts, in my opinion, for what it's worth, and they were billed as Fleetwood Mac for that time. It's all subject to nuance, I guess. I suppose the only official acknowledgement of the number of line-ups came in the liner notes of the Greatest Hits album, written by Stephen Davis which refers to the Vito/Burnette band as "Mark XI" so we may have to defer reluctantly to that. Having said that, Davis might simply have got the number from Pete Frame! I can remember an interview with Mick in 1990 in which Mick guessed that there had been ten incarnations so he obviously had given up counting by that point.

There's also a version of the band that I think of as Fleetwood Mac#-1. That's when Green, Fleetwood & McVie were given studio time as a present by John Mayall and recorded the instrumental Fleetwood Mac and a couple of others that were released later on under the band's name. Clearly at that time, they weren't recording as Fleetwood Mac or as the Bluesbreakers but in some other informal capacity. They were a name before they were a band, I think I read somewhere.

[chiliD]

Well, how about an "8a" & list the Stretch guys?? After all, they DID play a few gigs AS "Fleetwood Mac". (semi- )

Under "Buckingham Nicks". He mistook Bob Aguirre's name as "Bob Geary". At least he could've spelled it "Bob A. Geary".

I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your server &/or bartender. And, try the teriyaki.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by sharksfan2000

... But there's really no way to know how long Brunning might have stayed with the band if McVie had never joined. Brunning played all the band's early shows and he recorded with them too. Had McVie even delayed making the decision to join for another few months, Brunning probably would have recorded the entire first album with the band. Easy in hindsight to say he was just temporary, but events could very well have taken a different course.

Then we'd all be fans of "Fleetwood Brun".

Hey, {tap, tap, tap} is this mic on? Really, folks, I gotta go...I'll be selling T-shirts at the merchandise counter after the show.

[sharksfan2000]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Well, how about an "8a" & list the Stretch guys?? After all, they DID play a few gigs AS "Fleetwood Mac". (semi- ).

Considering how many other bands have had issues with ownership of their band names, resulting in shows with lineups that have had little in common with a lineup that fans would expect, that's not such a far-fetched idea at all. In fact, you might say it's really not much of a stretch.

[Mr Scarrott]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Well, how about an "8a" & list the Stretch guys?? After all, they DID play a few gigs AS "Fleetwood Mac". (semi- )

Oops, hoisted by my own petard...

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

A temporary line-up still counts, in my opinion, for what it's worth, and they were billed as Fleetwood Mac for that time. It's all subject to nuance, I guess. I suppose the only official acknowledgement of the number of line-ups came in the liner notes of the Greatest Hits album, written by Stephen Davis which refers to the Vito/Burnette band as "Mark XI" so we may have to defer reluctantly to that. Having said that, Davis might simply have got the number from Pete Frame! I can remember an interview with Mick in 1990 in which Mick guessed that there had been ten incarnations so he obviously had given up counting by that point.

The Pete Frame thing was out years before it was in that book.

I disagree that temporary line-ups count as official line-ups. Those exist only to help the band meet obligations. For example, from 1991-1993, the entity of Fleetwood Mac really only existed because they owed Warner Bros. a box set. Ironically, Clinton used "Don't Stop," and suddenly there was interest in the band again. The band was not really a working entity at that point. The "Rumours" band and the "Mask" band (minus Stevie) did televised shows because the incoming president asked them to and as a way to capitalize on the renewed interest in the band as a way to try and salvage the lagging sales of the boxed set. Lindsey Buckingham, Stevie Nicks, Rick Vito, and (as we would learn) Billy Burnette had no intentions of continuing with the band. Their returns were one-offs.

Now, there is one area where it gets a little murky. The 1993-1994 band (Mick, John, Christine, Bekka, and Dave Mason) released "Blow By Blow" for "Soccer Rocks The Globe" and then Billy asked to come back. Now, from an interview I read with Dave Mason, it didn't sound like Billy was completely rejoining at that point. It mentioned Billy in the same breath as Steve Thoma. I guess one could list that as an official line-up, but I think that's really minutiae.

There's also a version of the band that I think of as Fleetwood Mac#-1. That's when Green, Fleetwood & McVie were given studio time as a present by John Mayall and recorded the instrumental Fleetwood Mac and a couple of others that were released later on under the band's name. Clearly at that time, they weren't recording as Fleetwood Mac or as the Bluesbreakers but in some other informal capacity. They were a name before they were a band, I think I read somewhere.

There wasn't an entity called Fleetwood Mac at that point. They were in fact recording as the Bluesbreakers, just minus John Mayall. Some of those songs appeared on Mayall albums. To put it another way, is "Ramblin' On My Mind" on the Beano album an Eric Clapton song just because John Mayall, John McVie, and Hughie Flint don't appear on it? No, just like "Never Going Back Again" isn't a Lindsey Buckingham solo song.