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

Yes Bob Brunning was a member of Fleetwood Mac, I don't think that point can really be argued, but should he be really be considered as such?

For my part I think that he should, for without Bob Brunning there might not be a Fleetwood Mac, perhaps Peter having failing to convince McVie to join and having failed to recruit a bass player (remember that Bob was the only one who replied to the Melody Maker ad), might have decided to give the whole idea away and finish his butcher's apprenticeship...

I agree that he should be considered a member. If he had not joined, there may have been no Fleetwood Mac. So I should say 'Thanks Bob!!!":wavey:

Bob can be considered the most brief member of Fleetwood Mac. Blink a minute, and you'll miss him. In comparison, Dave Walker could be considered a long-term member.

Of course he should! Bekka gets regarded as a member doesn't she :rolleyes::p

What is, IS. He WAS a member of Fleetwood Mac, fact, game over.

It's not like he's some "dwarf planet" whose definition can be changed by some panel of scientist geeks. (Sorry, Pluto, couldn't resist)

Well from what I have understood, they wanted John - but he passed. They got Bob and then John said "Okay." So if Brunning was there first, John can't be considered an "original" member - as he is always referred to as along with Mic.


Of course some think of Stevie and Lindsey as "original" members!! :shrug:

Although, recently, I've seen Mick referred to as "the only remainin original member" of Fleetwood Mac. John's been recategorized on that count. :thumbsup:

The only answer is yes, but boy do I hate to admit it. His book on the band was one of the worst things I ever read--good lord all those errors of well-known facts! And his affiliation with a recent dvd documentary which has no band footage and no interviews with any member of the band, save him, was worse.

Yes, he was and should be considered a member.

I voted "No." Otherwise, aren't there many musicians who should also be considered members? Do we have the names of all of the members of the 1979 USC band? For me, it's Mick & John and the singer/songwriters. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Bob's contribution to the band, but if he only played on a few recorded tracks, that's not enough to rate him above other musicians who did the same.


p.s. -- My dream of a Mac reunion album with ALL the past members would not necessitate a return of Bob Brunning, for example. ... In fact, I'd prefer the return the of USC marching band.

Surely though, he was actually hired as a member of the band (admittedly a temporary one) rather than as a session musician or a backing musician. It doesn't matter that he was only there for a few short months...

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? If a few months isn't enough, then does Dave Walker count? How many months/years are required for someone to be classified as a band member?

How many songs does someone have to contribute to? Would he be considered more important (and more of a band member) if he had been a vocalist rather than the bass player? :shrug:

Well I defined MY line. But I agree that MINE should not be everyone's--and that someone should define exactly what constitutes a Mac member. On how many studio tracks did Bob play bass with no McVie?

What difference does it make how many studio tracks he played on? During his tenure, Fleetwood Mac was basically a LIVE band, not a RECORDING band. How many live Fleetwood Mac gigs did he play between August & November 1967 while McVie was still schlepping to gigs for John Mayall?? There's your benchmark.

Well didn't he only officially play on one studio track - Long Grey Mare?

However, he may have played on others uncredited when McVie was too drunk - I seem to remember something about that from his book?

According to Mike Vernon's notes in the Complete Blue Horizons Sessions box set, Brunning also played bass on "I Believe My Time Ain't Long" and probably contributed backing vocals on "Rambling Pony". And as chiliD notes, he played a number of shows during his tenure in the band (the number varies depending on the source - according to Christopher Hjort's book, it may have been as few as 10 shows, while both Fleetwood's and Brunning's books imply it was considerably more).

But there's no denying that he was an original part of the band, and regardless of what you may think of Brunning's book or anything else about him, by definition he was a band member. And an anecdote from Fleetwood's book shows that's how other band members thought of him - he notes that Peter Green had Brunning step up to the mike to announce the first song they ever played at their debut gig at Windsor! You think Green would have had someone he didn't consider a fellow band member - even one he may have hoped would be replaced at some point - do that?

Bruns studio recordings with FM
 

3 that are known of, LGM (as Chris said) & the 1st Rambling Pony (on backing vocals, no bass on track) & I Believe My Time Ain't Long and there may be more. Live stuff too as Chili says, (Windsor, Marquee) though it does seem McVie joined/Bruns left closer to Sept of '67 (I think the later live dates story was extrapolated from documents Bruns had in his books of upcoming gigs he would've played at w/FM through Dec if he was still there but the Savoy Brown single Bruns was on as a SB member dates from Sept '67 so he must've still had the list but not played on the later dates but regardless of length or # of recordings, he was announced to the press/public by the band as a member. Heck, there have been bands that have had members who NEVER recorded with the bands, just live stuff etc.

As for the USC band, I asked the USC who was in the USC band when they recorded Tusk for the discog and they wouldn't tell me (for legal reasons) but undoubtedly, the USC must've had some in the USC band with short tenures but I doubt their "membership" was taken away, JMHO though. :)

John

You beat me to it sharksfan! :)

John

Consider the following:

A group of friends like to play music together. They decide to start a band, give it a name (Bleedwould Cams), and for a couple of months (perhaps upto a full year) they rehearse, write songs (or maybe just one or two of them) and have fun together. They did not have a gig (yet). Then, for some obscure reason, one or two of them (let's assume two brothers) move to another city, approximately 200 miles (could be kilometers if they don't live in the States or Britain) away. The two remaining guys decide that the band does not exist without the two brothers and the band stops. Each member follows his own musical path from then.

Twenty years later a question arises: were they ever member of this band?
They did not play live,
They did not record.

Luckily I ran into a discussion on this Ledge about Bob Brunning and Fleetwood Mac.
Still haven't got an answer :laugh:

Well to my opinion of course they were members of the band. They may sit back in later years and say (or if they become famous - in an interview) "when I was 21 I was in a band called Bleedwould Cams". Surely they wouldn't deny all knowledge?

In Mick's book however (taken with a grain of salt I know) he says (refering to the pre-McVie days):

"We spent the autum of 1967 doing our venues - the 100 Club and the Marquee Club in London, Sheffield University, Bradford College, the Nottingham Boat Club, Enfield Technical College and clubs all over Wolverhampton, North Wales, Manchester, Brighton, Grimbsy, Leicester. We played Cook's Ferry Inn and The Chelsea Cat. We honed our raw and vulgar blues music almost every night for three months until we were as tight as a drumhead."

"Then John McVie decided to join Fleetwood Mac, at least. It was December 1967, and we were playing the Ram Jam Club in Brixton when we got the call..."


I take two things away from this (assuming Mick's memory is correct).

There were a hell of a lot more gigs than just 10... (the ones he mentioned above were after the two sets they played at the Windsor Jazz and Blues Festival).

PLUS

If they spent the autumn of 1967 playing with Brunning that would be (equinoxes aside) covering the months of September, October and November.

I'll have to dig out Brunning's book to see what he says about the matter...

EDIT

Ok looking at Brunning's book he lists gig dates from August 13th 1967 (Windsor) though to December 10th (Turnstall). He lists over 20 gigs between 4th October and 10th December. :shrug:

Brunning a Fleetwooder or not
 

The gigs listed in Brunning's book are with Chicken Shack and not Fleetwood Mac, despite Bob's claim. John McVie was definitely with Fleetwood Mac by September 17, 1967 - perhaps even a few days earlier.

Ok so is there any documented evidence of this other than the fact that the Savoy Brown single that Brunning is on is apparently from September 1967?

Basically this means that the memories of two of the four men who were there are wrong? :shrug:

Oh and I assume you mean Savoy Brown not Chicken Shack?

EDIT:

Ok to make this whole issue more confusing - reading Martin Celmin's PG biography, he states that Brunning began rehearsals with the band in July 67 (which I think everyone tends to agree on?); McVie joined them three weeks after the Windsor Festival, and that on Sept 9 Melody Maker announced that bassist Paul Williams was joining Mayall to replace McVie who had joined FM.

So the only definite way to solve this is to find a copy of Melody Maker from Sept 9 and confirm this :shrug:

I agree with Author, really we can't go by Mick, he also says in that same book he played on the Bluesbreakers Curly/Rubber Duck single (which we know is wrong). Sorry Mick, John Tracy of Decca has a better rep than you for facts. :)

John

Meant to reierate, sorry to Bob, but just because he lists those dates to Dec, even if they were Mac dates, it doesn't mean he ended up playing them. Sort of like if this month at work your boss gives you an assignment to work on in October, you write it down put it in your poicket then you leave that job in Sept. You'll still have that piece of paper kicking around saying you were to do this in Oct but since you left in Sept, you ain't doin' it. :)

Also, we can't go by length of time, take Hungry Fighter which lasted all of one gig, does this mean neither Walker nor Kirwan were members of the group becuase it only lasted one gig (i.e. too short a time)?

As for the Bleedwould Cams senario, that can happen too, take Led Zep, though they did reform through the years as we know, they did say they couldn't continue in any realistic way after the loss of Bonzo.

Even if no recording of gigs, I think we should respect who they say are members. Just sayin'. :)

John

I think your edit info makes matters more than clear. As wetcamelfood notes, Mick Fleetwood's book has numerous errors and can't really be relied upon for things like how long Brunning was in the band. And Brunning has had a long history of puffing up his brief membership in Fleetwood Mac into something more significant than it was (it wasn't enough just being an original member?).

More detail from Christopher Hjort's "Strange Brew" book helps clear up the picture. He notes that John McVie formally quit the Bluesbreakers on 3 September, and that this was noted in Mayall's diary. McVie's departure and Paul William's joining the band was also noted in Mayall's September fan club newsletter. Hjort also notes that McVie had informed Mayall of his intention to quit earlier, so that Paul Williams actually had his debut with the Bluesbreakers on 4 September.

Hjort also notes Fleetwood Mac playing the Ram Jam club on 9 September and he says that could have been McVie's first gig with Fleetwood Mac (though Brunning may have played that gig). Hjort notes an advertisement for a gig in Nottingham on 24 September, which mentions Fleetwood Mac featured "Peter Green and John McVeigh - John Mayall's ex-guitarists".....well, they almost got that right :D Interestingly, the support band for the following night's gig was Boilerhouse - looks like that may have been the first time those two bands played on the same bill.

Further to what Chris said, the liner notes for the SB "Getting To The Point" CD which has "Taste & Try Before You Buy" and "Someday people" (the SB single Bruns played on as a member of SB & on that CD reissue as bonus tracks) John Tracy of Decca says in the liner notes that though he couldn't locate the recording date(s) for the session(s) that produced these 2 tracks he said the line up with Bruns had "rehearsed and toured togeher for 3 or 4 weeks prior to the release of the single which was released on Nov 24 of '67 so even if we only go back 3 weeks that takes us to Nov 3 he was definietly in SB and I highly doubt he got the SB job on Nov 2 and they raced in to record these tracks in between the rehearsal & tour dates they had been doing. Tracy also says in the liner notes for Crusade that McVie had left Mayall around the UK release date of the Bluesbreakers "Crusade" album which was McVie's last for Mayall as a member and he says that was Sep 1st. So again, even if we say "around" means after that date (and we'll stretch it and say he left Mayll Sep 30th) it couldn't have been much longer I mean if the rest of FM were so eager to get him in there, why would they then tell him to sit around for a few months doing nothing while we do these gigs with Bruns?

Again, not trying to cause disention in the ranks juist trying to chime in some historical dates we can work with in trying to figure this thing out is all. :)

John

Great stuff sharksfan, meant to check Hjort's book, you beat me to it again! :)

John

I was trying to find a copy of Melody Maker from Sept 9 1967, but at the moment there are only copies from Sept 2 and 23rd available on Ebay...

It is a pity that Brunning's email no longer works or we could ask him (although John (wetcamelfood not McVie) might have some comment on that - :lol:)

Yup, e mailing him doesn't work (in more ways than one) unfortunately. :)

John

Brunning a Fleetwooder or not or maybe
 

The question is: Would Peter G name his new band Fleetwood Brunning? Hardly. Green had his sights firmly set on his favorite rhythm section, Messrs. Mick F and John M when he quit John Mayall in the early summer of 1967. When McVie got (temporarily) cold feet and remained with Mayall, Green simply wanted someone who could deputize. Brunning joined in mid-July 67 at the the earliest and he was out six-to-eight weeks later in September 67. I guess Green chose an unknown player (instead of, say, Dave Ambrose or Ric Grech who both tried out) to underline the fact that this was a temporary situation. Hence there was no hurtful Pete-Best-sacking when Brunning graciously bowed out. I'd even argue and say McVie was a founding member given the fact that he, Green, and Fleetwood recording the first acknowledged F Mac tracks in late spring 67. As for the dates in the gig sheet reproduced in Brunning's "Blues: The British Connection" (p 116) these were all Savoy Brown gigs (oops, not C Shack as I hurriedly wrote above), whatever his claim to the contrary.

The Stones also wanted Ian Stewart to be a member of their band too but as we know sometimes in life things don't end up the way people want them to. So again, not for a "certainty".

Also there's bound to have been other bands formed over the years that were named after people they were never in (or at least not long out of after their formation but they carried on anyways). This calls for a ChiliD list. :)

I see what you're saying and fair enough I respect your point of view though. :)

John

Personally though I need a couple of questions answered, what would have happened if McVie had not left Mayall? Would McVie have only come in when the band was famous, and would Brunning have been so gracious if the band were famous by the time McVie wanted in? Would the rest of the band even want McVie say 12 months later when they had become a close knit group?

Apparently the only two ways that McVie would have left Mayall were:

Mayall turning away from pure blues (which of course was the real reason)

OR

Fleetwood Mac being stable and profitable enough for McVie to leave the security of Mayall...

So the reason that Bob Brunning is still not in Fleetwood Mac is because John Mayall likes to experiment! :shrug:

?
 

He absolutely is a member

think of this another way.

Derek and the Dominoes never appeared with Duane Allman. Yet who would dispute that he was a member?

At least Bob not only played songs in the studio with the band He appeared at their debut performance as their bass player as well as other venues before getting the sack. That says it all.

doodyhead

hehehehehe

Brunning should be considered an original member, but a horrible writter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Original member, sure. Peter picked him. He didn't pick Buckingham, Nicks, Welch...

another take
 

The band was listed on it's debut as:
Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac with Jeremy Spencer

It was not listed as:

Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac with Jeremy Spencer and special temprary fill-in Bob ...uh Brunning

No one on the planet except their mothers , knew who Mick Fleetwood and John McVie were, let alone the play on words.

doodyhead

Before I answer this question, let's consider what The Moody Blues think of the first three years of the band by checking their line-ups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_band_members) and discography:
1. The Magnificent Moodies (pre-psychedelic era line-up)
2. Days Of Future Passed (start of psychedelic era line-up)
3. In Search Of The Lost Chord
4. On The Threshold Of A Dream
5. To Our Children's Children's Children
6. A Question Of Balance
7. Every Good Boy Deserves Favour
8. Seventh Sojourn
(Brief band split, 1974-77.)
9. Octave (end of psychedelic era line-up)
Also, check their history on their site - http://www.moodyblues.co.uk/index_main.html. You'll find no mention of anything done before Days Of Future Passed.
So, back to the question - should Bob Brunning be considered a band member? Well, unless The Moody Blues suddenly care to mention their founding band members and first album in their history on their official site, I'm voting no.

Don't see where the Moody Blues' choice to pull a Stalin-esque view of their own history has anything to do with Fleetwood Mac & Bob Brunning being a member of Fleetwood Mac? Seems like a non-sequitur of the grandest proportions.

Pretty close to: "I don't like pumpkin pie, so Bob Brunning was never a member of Fleetwood Mac".

I agree, chiliD. I can see some reasonable arguments for why Brunning should not be considered a member (though I certainly consider him to be one), but that is not one of them. The Moody Blues first album never existed? - what a joke.