[becca]

It's going to be a personal preference situation mostly. I just haven't heard Spencer develop in the way Richards or others mentioned did. His innovation or originality that I am aware of often seem to take the form of consciously overdoing certain aspects (subjective judgement) and effects my enjoyment. At the time Then Play On was around he didn't even appear on that Fleetwood Mac album at all though his photo is on it. That is the album I was first exposed to in 1970. Going by that it seems he was a very seperate side attraction; a specialist of slide. After Green left he was pressed into service to fill the Kiln House album, which most will admit is about the most offbeat and uneven assortment FM ever produced. Spencer's songs for it all are backward looking, and in terms of the group's progression they offer dead ends. I can only take your word there was an oldies but goodies revival happening in particular that year more than other years. I know there was a big revival in Paris Art Nouveau posters at that moment in pop culture history, and in silent films. Spencer is a curious footnote in terms of the group's development is what I recon looking back over it; not someone who could lead, or even contribute to the other members' creative work. I don't know, did he ever perform on any songs not featuring him or initaited by himself to cater to showing off his two talents? I understood that to be the case. If you take just those songs and put them all together I see a curiosity mostly, a side attraction. I don't see Fleetwood Mac just FM as his backing band. I think Kirwan and Christine McVie got it right about the blues and moved on and helped move the group forward. I very much enjoyed Dave Walker's material on Penguin but it also was backward looking to some extent as well. I don't think it was intended to be as limited as what Spencer did. His strengths became major weaknesses, and just as they are what interest you they are what leaves me dissatisfied, as he seemed to pander to it almost and showed no interest in what was happening then, cureent music, even among the great fellow musicians he was around and had access to. Anyone who would refuse to play with Green or Kirwan on Green and Kirwan songs I probably will never understand. As I say I am curious to hear any later works of his which are not strictly meant to imitate or exaggerate on someone else's music or style. It's a shame his technical ability was only put to his own uses for it and not available to the others in the group. I think he could have learned a lot and grown, just as Clapton always did through his various groups, instead of closing off and being that aloof seperate act always looking backward and recreating.

I am glad he had his moment of fame in 1968-70 being associated with FM, but looking back it is the one part that didn't grow or lead or contribute. Maybe the others were just that much more creative and original to me that many would have trouble holding their own in comparison I don't know. I can imagine the slide guitar work was exciting and influential for awhile, and would agree he be counted as one the greatest technicans. I tend to value punk rock though when many despise it as counter to technical skill, but the feeling is authentic and immediate like a lot of blues music, and not having seen Spencer live all I can say is I just don't get those qualities too often from his recordings I've heard so far.

Thanks for the sounding board, sorry my position is probably a negative one in a lot of ways. I've read people who think Christine McVie or Bob Welch are trivial talents and it seems ignorant, so I hope I don't seem to say Spencer is entirely trivial or not talented.