What if?

[Meowi]

What if?

• Peter Green Stayed
• Buckingham Nicks never came to be
• Rumours never happened
• FM stayed a blues band

Scary thought?
What do you guys think

[slipkid]

Originally Posted by Meowi

What if?

• Peter Green Stayed
• Buckingham Nicks never came to be
• Rumours never happened
• FM stayed a blues band

Scary thought?
What do you guys think

Scary, are you kidding? ChiliD thinks they would've been better than Led Zeppelin. I think they could've been equals. If those "Live at the Boston Tea Party" tapes were released in 1970 as intended, Fleetwood Mac would've been a whole new ballgame in the United States.

Look, I know I'm in that minority red headed step-child section of what became a very successful pop band. Yet ask Mick Fleetwood the same question. He'd drop his current life (and band) in less than a second to bring back Peter Green's version of Fleetwood Mac. Why do you think he has a blues band on the side?

With all apologies to Jeremy Spencer, I think his time was up by 1970, and he had felt excluded for a long time. I think Peter's sudden departure put pressure on Spencer to stay longer than he wanted in the band. If Peter had not left 5/70, I think Spencer would've left in a more formal fashion to leave an opening for Christine McVie (Perfect). So the future of Fleetwood Mac would have been (ironically) the post Spencer 1971 U.S. tour, with more Peter Green songs in the setlist. There also would've been a four month U.S. tour beginning in 6/70 which would've solidified Fleetwood Mac as a legitimate concert band in America outside of the hippie ballroom circuit, on top of the release of the Boston live album. Peter Green's legacy in the U.S. would've been secured, and the rest of the history of FM would've been very different.


My best guess is that you would not have been a fan of that band. Otherwise the word "Scary" wouldn't have been used in your original post. Personally, this band would've been a member of the rock music ladder of great bands. The Rumours band is The Eagles, Jackson Browne, and other assorted California rock from that period. Very pop, very popular, and very successful, but not Peter Green Fleetwood Mac great.

[Meowi]

Originally Posted by slipkid

Scary, are you kidding? ChiliD thinks they would've been better than Led Zeppelin. I think they could've been equals. If those "Live at the Boston Tea Party" tapes were released in 1970 as intended, Fleetwood Mac would've been a whole new ballgame in the United States.

Look, I know I'm in that minority red headed step-child section of what became a very successful pop band. Yet ask Mick Fleetwood the same question. He'd drop his current life (and band) in less than a second to bring back Peter Green's version of Fleetwood Mac. Why do you think he has a blues band on the side?

With all apologies to Jeremy Spencer, I think his time was up by 1970, and he had felt excluded for a long time. I think Peter's sudden departure put pressure on Spencer to stay longer than he wanted in the band. If Peter had not left 5/70, I think Spencer would've left in a more formal fashion to leave an opening for Christine McVie (Perfect). So the future of Fleetwood Mac would have been (ironically) the post Spencer 1971 U.S. tour, with more Peter Green songs in the setlist. There also would've been a four month U.S. tour beginning in 6/70 which would've solidified Fleetwood Mac as a legitimate concert band in America outside of the hippie ballroom circuit, on top of the release of the Boston live album. Peter Green's legacy in the U.S. would've been secured, and the rest of the history of FM would've been very different.


My best guess is that you would not have been a fan of that band. Otherwise the word "Scary" wouldn't have been used in your original post. Personally, this band would've been a member of the rock music ladder of great bands. The Rumours band is The Eagles, Jackson Browne, and other assorted California rock from that period. Very pop, very popular, and very successful, but not Peter Green Fleetwood Mac great.

You know what? thats completely true
I only found out about Fleetwood Mac exactly one year ago, by watching School of Rock. I thought to my self, who is this elusive Stevie Nicks?

Anyway, here is another what if...

• Stevie was not in the 'package'

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by slipkid

With all apologies to Jeremy Spencer, I think his time was up by 1970, and he had felt excluded for a long time. I think Peter's sudden departure put pressure on Spencer to stay longer than he wanted in the band. If Peter had not left 5/70, I think Spencer would've left in a more formal fashion to leave an opening for Christine McVie (Perfect).

I dunno about that, though. I think she would've happily retired and Jeremy's part of the set would've been filled with more jamming. If anything, I think they would've become the English equivalent of the Allman Bros., which isn't a bad thing by a long shot. I think the better "What If" is what if they had actually played Woodstock? Would it have helped them, or would it have hurt Santana and Ten Years After?

Personally, this band would've been a member of the rock music ladder of great bands. The Rumours band is The Eagles, Jackson Browne, and other assorted California rock from that period.

To say I don't agree would be an understatement. Fleetwood Mac back then was also connected to the likes of Eric Clapton, Tom Petty, Steve Winwood, Brian Wilson, Ron Wood, Rod Stewart, the Everly Bros., and George Harrison. That's what set them apart from the Eagles, Jackson Browne, et. al.

Very pop, very popular, and very successful, but not Peter Green Fleetwood Mac great.

Yeah, but it stopped be that immediately after Peter quit. I mean, that first album with Stevie and Lindsey wasn't too far removed musically from Kiln House or Bare Trees.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by slipkid

Scary, are you kidding? ChiliD thinks they would've been better than Led Zeppelin. I think they could've been equals. If those "Live at the Boston Tea Party" tapes were released in 1970 as intended, Fleetwood Mac would've been a whole new ballgame in the United States.

Personally, this band would've been a member of the rock music ladder of great bands. The Rumours band is The Eagles, Jackson Browne, and other assorted California rock from that period. Very pop, very popular, and very successful, but not Peter Green Fleetwood Mac great.

I just don't know about that. The reason why Led Zepplin were so special and made it so big was because they took something very familiar, the blues, and put it into a blender with the then unheard of hard rock. They basically invented heavy metal. It was the innovation that put them on the map, and kept them there. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac just wasn't that kind of innovative. While Peter was a fine guitar player (I don't think his tone and soul can be matched by anyone), the Green era Mac just didn't break any new ground. There wasn't anything inherently unique about what they were doing... which was essentially regurgitating blues standards. You could argue Led Zepplin did just the same thing... but they fused blues standards with hard rock, and created an entirely new genre. I often listen to Zepplin's albums and wonder just how alien they must have seemed when they first came out. We have to face it... Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac just isn't in that realm. They were just another British blues band (albeit with an exceptional guitar player). By the dawn of the '70s, popular music was moving on from the blues. Unless Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac came up with a way to set themselves apart and break some new ground, their biggest moments were always to be a flash in the pan in the '60s.

[LukeA]

Fleetwood Mac as big as Led Zeppelin? haaaaaa. They needed a viable, charismatic/interesting frontman to make that leap, and Peter wasn't/wouldn't have ever have been it. Their potential ceiling (of commercial success) was what Cream achieved. Nothing too legendary/earth shattering.

[dino]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

The reason why Led Zepplin were so special and made it so big was because they took something very familiar, the blues, and put it into a blender with the then unheard of hard rock. They basically invented heavy metal. It was the innovation that put them on the map, and kept them there. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac just wasn't that kind of innovative. .

Whaaat? Agree with the "made it big" part, not the "innovative" part. Post 1968 Mac - "Green Manalishi" and "Oh Well" (copied by Zeppelin, guess which song) are more innovative than anything Zep put out, it could be argued. To be fair, I have mostly heard their 2 first albums, which are very derivative, with most songs "borrowed" from black blues artists. Better production than Then Play On, though.

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

I just don't know about that. The reason why Led Zepplin were so special and made it so big was because they took something very familiar, the blues, and put it into a blender with the then unheard of hard rock. They basically invented heavy metal. It was the innovation that put them on the map, and kept them there. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac just wasn't that kind of innovative. While Peter was a fine guitar player (I don't think his tone and soul can be matched by anyone), the Green era Mac just didn't break any new ground. There wasn't anything inherently unique about what they were doing... which was essentially regurgitating blues standards. You could argue Led Zepplin did just the same thing... but they fused blues standards with hard rock, and created an entirely new genre. I often listen to Zepplin's albums and wonder just how alien they must have seemed when they first came out. We have to face it... Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac just isn't in that realm. They were just another British blues band (albeit with an exceptional guitar player). By the dawn of the '70s, popular music was moving on from the blues. Unless Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac came up with a way to set themselves apart and break some new ground, their biggest moments were always to be a flash in the pan in the '60s.

Respectfully, that's very wide of the mark. Fleetwood Mac sold more records in 1969 than the Beatles or the Stones, let alone Led Zeppelin. They were a lot bigger than Zep when Peter left. By that time Mac had stopped "regurgitating blues standards" and were moving blues-rock a long way down the road towards shaping the kind of hard rock that dominated the 1970s. Zeppelin's albums alien? By what standards? Yes, by the dawn of the 70s popular music had moved away from the blues, and it was bands like Mac that did exactly that. Unless people are still labouring under the impression that Green Manalishi and Man of the World are old blues songs. Saying that the Green-era Mac didn't break any new ground is incredibly inaccurate.

Zeppelin are massively overrated in this concept of inventing heavy metal as well. Mildly heavy folk with a wailing bloke. Deep Purple and Black Sabbath were infinitely more influential than Zeppelin. I never saw Judas Priest cover any Zep songs. And let's not forget that "Whole Lotta Love" was just yet another blues standard tarted up and passed off as something else. Not only that, Fleetwood Mac had already introduced and dropped it from their set.

Originally Posted by LukeA

Fleetwood Mac as big as Led Zeppelin? haaaaaa. They needed a viable, charismatic/interesting frontman to make that leap, and Peter wasn't/wouldn't have ever have been it. Their potential ceiling (of commercial success) was what Cream achieved. Nothing too legendary/earth shattering.

As I said, they were bigger before Peter left. Bands don't necessarily require a charismatic frontman to become huge - Eagles etc - and suggesting that Cream were "nothing too legendary" is pretty funny.

[doodyhead]

the spring of 7o seemed like the end of the world

In the US "School" stopped (grade through graduateSchool) after the Kent State Jackson State National Guard shootings. The Viet Nam war was grinding on and Cambodia was being bombed. (apocalypse now). Blind faith was history The beatles were history, cream was history, Led Zeppilin was the second band on any card. Hendrix , who was, and joplin (who was not a big draw) were dead by the end of november
The Allman Brothers couldnt fill up any big stadiun yet. ABB big break wes two years later at watkins glen with the band and The Dead, Eric clapton was a doped out stoner and not even touring but tagging along with other bands

The big megga concerts were the only big shows and those were a culmination of Newport/Monterey/ woodstock/ilse of white

Hell the Dead were not a big draw. The only big single draw in the US was the Stones, and only due the being the last band standing.
If Iff If Peter had remained which I think he would have bolted in any event They would have changed the scene somewhat. but would they evolve into the death metal voodo spirit world cult crap, i think not. Jam band persona, maybe but I think he was, and rightly so, scared of the US. i know a lot of people who bolted during that time toget the heck out of harms way.
The seventies were annother matter

[trackaghost]

I'm still gobsmacked that Cream were just described as "nothing too legendary". And I'm saying this as someone who hates Clapton.
I don't know if Fleetwood Mac would have attained the same success as Led Zeppelin but I do think Peter would be nearer to the likes of Clapton in status. I know to many here and in Europe he's viewed that way, but not so much in the States, he's certainly not a household name the way Clapton is anyway.

[luckydimecaper]

I don't get this whole Peter Green vs. Buckingham/Nicks thing. It's weird because I see the two eras almost as completely different bands, and I love both! I'm really into the Buckingham/Nicks era and Nicks' solo stuff atm, and I'm just starting to get into the Bob Welch albums but the first FM material I ever loved was stuff like Green Manalishi and Oh Well, I think I had the 'Best of PG's FM' tape or something and I loved it. The thing I love most about FM is that they have evolved and changed so much over the past 40 years, it's their history that makes them so interesting.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

As I said, they were bigger before Peter left. Bands don't necessarily require a charismatic frontman to become huge - Eagles etc - and suggesting that Cream were "nothing too legendary" is pretty funny.

I was speaking entirely from a commercial perspective (which I thought I clearly noted in my post), and speculating on the potential success of the band if the lineup stayed intact. Cream is arguably the most successful British blues group of all time, so using them as a comparison/potential ceiling isn't exactly an insult, even if that commercial/popular success isn't anywhere near what Led Zeppelin achieved (thus, the comparison). PG-era Fleetwood Mac (as-is)/Cream/Led Zeppelin are all legendary in my eyes.

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by Meowi

Anyway, here is another what if...

• Stevie was not in the 'package'

I think Fleetwood Mac with Lindsey, Christine, Mick, and John would have been successful.

[vivfox]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

I think Fleetwood Mac with Lindsey, Christine, Mick, and John would have been successful.

But with no drama! And a lot of us love that soap opera effect FM has on some of us.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

I think Fleetwood Mac with Lindsey, Christine, Mick, and John would have been successful.

Hmm. Its definitely interesting to consider. I wonder how many (if any) of the BN songs would have surfaced. Also, in this scenario, is Stevie completely out of the picture/out of Lindsey's life? (would they co-write anything even though she wasn't in the band?)

FM was inching towards commercial success in the US by '74. Its not a given that switching out Welch for Buckingham would have helped- it might have killed momentum for a couple years/albums.