"Fleetwood Mac In Chicago" - Not A Regular Studio Album?

[cbBen]

I used to play it when I was a college radio DJ (not the "Blues Jam" but the one titled "Fleetwood Mac In Chicago"). And as I recall, it was a regular album, not a compilation, so why does Wikipedia list it as a compilation?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwood_Mac_in_Chicago

As you can see from the entry, it's all from the same studio session. Wouldn't that contradict the notion that it's a compilation?

I do have one admittedly off-the-wall theory: Christine isn't on it, and there's an odd desire on someone's part (maybe just whoever does the Wikipedia page) to say that she participated on every Fleetwood Mac studio album after the first one.

But there must be a more coherent answer as to why this is not listed as a proper studio album.

P.S. It's weird that the official Fleetwood Mac website doesn't include a discography.

[SteveMacD]

“Blues Jam” and “Fleetwood Mac In Chicago” are the same thing. One was the UK release and the other the US release.

I think some feel it’s just a casual blues jam album. It was done in two days, and it wasn’t especially planned out or rehearsed. FWIW, I consider it an official album.

[cbBen]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

FWIW, I consider it an official album.

So do I. How much planning goes into an album does not determine whether it is a compilation or a regular studio album.

Thanks for this info.

[FuzzyPlum]

This is a good question. I agree it/they possibly should be considered as a studio album. I think its a hard one to categorize though. The biggest issue is probably due to the varying amount of playing the FM band members contribute to the recordings. Very few of the tracks have the same line up and many of them only actually include 2 FM members (augmented by the various Chess men). For that reason its probably difficult to consider them as Fleetwood Mac records.

[Mr Scarrott]

Is it actually a Fleetwood Mac album at all?

I guess the best description is that it is an album that contains some Fleetwood Mac tracks. Whether they all are is something of an angels on a pinhead argument.

Some are indisputably FM tracks- Watch out is just Peter,Danny,John and Mick,for example. Others are FM tracks with guest backing musicians, like Christine on Mr Wonderful- for example Last Night which has Peter, Danny, John, Mick and Shakey Horton on harmonica and Homework, which has Otis Spann on piano backing the same four FM guys. So yes, they are Mac tracks

Other tracks are more problematic- for example, Hungry Country Girl is Otis Spann with Peter, Danny, John, Mick backing him. Is that really Fleetwood Mac or Otis with a backing band? The latter, I think.

Then there's the fine World's in a Tangle which has Danny, Peter, John, Otis on piano and SP Leary on drums rather than Mick. Is that technically Fleetwood Mac?

Does it matter much?

The CD version of the album I have has "VARIOUS ARTISTS BLUES JAM IN CHICAGO" on the disk and BLUES JAM IN CHICAGO on the cover, then listing the participants, with Fleetwood Mac first. I am aware that there are different covers out there.

So, I'm being pedantic as ever, but that, m'lud, is the evidence for the prosecution...

[aleuzzi]

Whatever it is, I absolutely love it. Otis Span’s work alone is amazing, but there’s more, so much more...

[cbBen]

Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott

Is it actually a Fleetwood Mac album at all?

I guess the best description is that it is an album that contains some Fleetwood Mac tracks. Whether they all are is something of an angels on a pinhead argument.

Some are indisputably FM tracks- Homework is just Peter,Danny,John and Mick,for example. Others are FM tracks with guest backing musicians, like Christine on Mr Wonderful- for example Last Night which has Peter, Danny, John, Mick and Shakey Horton on harmonica. So yes, they are Mac tracks.


Other tracks are more problematic- for example, Hungry Country Girl is Otis Spann with Peter, Danny, John, Mick backing him. Is that really Fleetwood Mac or Otis with a backing band? The latter, I think.

Then there's the fine World's in a Tangle which has Danny, Peter, John, Otis on piano and SP Leary on drums rather than Mick. Is that technically Fleetwood Mac?

Does it matter much?

The CD version of the album I have has "VARIOUS ARTISTS BLUES JAM IN CHICAGO" on the disk and BLUES JAM IN CHICAGO on the cover, then listing the participants, with Fleetwood Mac first. I am aware that there are different covers out there.

So, I'm being pedantic as ever, but that, m'lud, is the evidence for the prosecution...

Thanks, this is helpful. I guess the argument for categorizing it as a compilation is not that it's a compilation of various Fleetwood Mac tracks, but rather a compilation of various artists.

[dino]

It's a Fleetwood Mac album.
Wikipedia is just someone's opinion.

[lazy poker]

Originally Posted by dino

It's a Fleetwood Mac album.

agreed. for all in doubt about it - the u.s. title "fleetwood mac in chicago" says it all.

[duracell]

When first released it was generally regarded as a Fleetwood Mac album. From memory band expressed some concern as they believed they had moved on from this "purist" blues form.

[cbBen]

Band doesn't get to retroactively reclassify an album after release.