Should Bob Brunning be regarded as a member of Fleetwood Mac?

[chriskisn]

Originally Posted by aleuzzi

By the way, if we consider Bob Brunning a former member (which he is, whether we want to admit it or not) we should also note that Doug Graves was one, too--and, to a slightly lesser extent, Nigel Watson. They played gigs with the group in a legitimate way. Graves was even introduced on the Don Kirshner (sp?) special as the newest addition.

See there is a difference though between backing musicians and band members. While Doug Graves was introduced as the new member was that the intention of the band or was it a mistake on the part of the Don Kirshner show? Perhaps he was the missing 17th member...

Brunning was hired as a band member, perhaps temporarily, perhaps not. Nigel Watson, as I understand it, wasn't even hired, he tagged along with PG. No different to Sharon Celani and Lori Nicks.

It is a debate that we are never going to end without input from either Peter Green or Mick Fleetwood. The fact that Mick considers himself the ONLY founding member, indicates that McVie wasn't a founding member, and thus, Brunning was.

It really does all come down to the intention of the rest of the band and management when hiring. People like Nigel Watson, Doug Graves, Sharon Celani, Brett Tuggle, and what was that guys name Michael Thompson (the guy off Time whatever his name was I'm too lazy to go and look at the CD), were never intended to be part of the band.

I wonder whether PG said to Brunning "When John McVie joins, you are out of the band" OR "If John McVie joins, you are out of the band". We shall never know...