Quote:
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.