Saw some of it High Definition tonight. It was pretty cool to see Cream together again but Eric has been playing too much blues over the years. This weakness was revealed during White Room which was one of the most intense rock songs ever conceived and perfromed back when Cream was a progressive, psychedelic rock band. The holding of the D chord and rolling down to the C, then B then Bb is one of the most powerful rock progressions that has been copied by millions and millions of musicians. The problem was Eric was pretty lame during this song (and Crossroads and some of the others for that matter). Not only did he not do the relevent fills but the guitar solo fell flat and sounded bluesy. Jack, Ginger and Eric get an A+ for effort though. It is concert all music lovers should check out. :nice:

Damn! I forgot that was on tonight. :(

but Eric has been playing too much blues over the years. This weakness was revealed during White Room which was one of the most intense rock songs ever conceived and perfromed back when Cream was a progressive, psychedelic rock band.
yes. :hmm:

I have the DVD, it's F#CKIN' GREAT!!!!

Ginger Baker doesn't have as much energy anymore, yet he is much more clean, plays everything "perfect" now, no sloppiness and actually he is in many ways better. Still, I miss him going "crazy", though his drum solo was AMAZING, and he did show that he can still do it, in some ways more interesting playing too.

Jack Bruce probably doesn't even have 70% of the voice range, however, what he's still got is enough for him to still be a GREAT singer. He also sings with more power and soul and in many ways sounds like some of his Blues idols. His bass playing is as good as ever, if not better, since he is no longer sloppy AT ALL and didn't do even ONE mistake, and I was definately impressed that he didn't lost any of the musicianship. His harmonica playing was excellent as well.

Eric Clapton impressed me the most though. I always used to think that SRV was a better Blues guitarist, however, after watching that concert, I'm not so sure any more. I still like Stevie's tone, style and feelings better, however, I can no longer deny that Eric Clapton is overall better, even if I'm biased towards SRV in many ways. Also, it made me see that even great guitarists like Gary Moore, KWS and Joe Bonamassa have still LONG WAY to go, and even Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page aren't on Clapton's level in terms of musicianship and Blues especially. Some of my friends are huge Clapton-haters, and even they couldn't deny he's the greatest one right now, after seeing it. His solos on every song, especially "Stormy Monday Blues" and "NSU" were OUTSTANDING, even compared to what he usually plays, and he's obviously a MUCH MUCH better guitarist now since the last time he played with Cream, not to mention, has much better understanding of The Blues. Also, from being a mediocre singer, he made it to be nearly-great, if not great, and can hold his own even to Jack Bruce, which is surprising.

They were absolutely tight and clean and made no mistakes, technically they are a much better band now, although the energy is missing, but still, that's one of the best concerts I've ever seen.

The song-list was impressive, and I'm quite happy that they did "Outside Woman's Blues", "Politician", "Born Under a Bad Sign" and "Sleepy Time", as well as the psychodelic classics.

Eric has been playing too much blues over the years.

"too much Blues"?? There is no such thing, the more Blues, the better!!:p

I have a problem with Eric Clapton playing not enough Blues and too much soft-rock and commercial stuff since mid-1970's to the 1990's. It's a good thing he finally returned to his roots now, especially on his Robert Johnson covers album.

This weakness was revealed during White Room which was one of the most intense rock songs ever conceived and perfromed back when Cream was a progressive, psychedelic rock band.

Probably the weakest performance during this concert, however, still great. I liked everything else better though.

The holding of the D chord and rolling down to the C, then B then Bb is one of the most powerful rock progressions that has been copied by millions and millions of musicians.

I agree.

The problem was Eric was pretty lame during this song

Ohhh, he was still excellent, could you play like that? I know I couldn't, nor do I know too many people who can play like that, even if Clapton could have done better here himself.

and Crossroads

That song was the second weakest one I think, unfortunately, since Ginger Baker didn't play what he used to play and didn't give it enough energy. It is still excellent, and Clapton's singing and guitar solos were amamzing. It just did not rock as hard as back in those days.

and some of the others for that matter

I thought everything else was WAYY above amazing.

Not only did he not do the relevent fills

He didn't do it like the old version, but he still played everything 100% perfect, not one wrong note.

but the guitar solo fell flat and sounded bluesy.

Well, no sh!t, he's a Blues guitarist, always was, and always sounds the best when he plays the Blues. And what kind of guitar solos actually even sound better than the bluesy ones anyways:confused: ?? As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing better than The Blues anyways, and I know all kinds of music quite well, from classical to rap, but I guess some people have different taste.

Jack, Ginger and Eric get an A+ for effort though. It is concert all music lovers should check out.

Effort?? They would be definately the best band right now by FAR if they decided to have a tour. With the exception of The Rolling Stones, no band that still tours could even hold their own.

While I'm not so sure about Bruce and Baker being "better" than in the 1960's, every professional musician I know (including great Jazz guitarists) would say that Eric Clapton is a MUCH better guitarist now than he ever was. He's not as innovative anymore, and he hasn't been for 30 years, but he can definately play better and play much more than he did back then.

Saw some of it High Definition tonight. It was pretty cool to see Cream together again but Eric has been playing too much blues over the years. This weakness was revealed during White Room which was one of the most intense rock songs ever conceived and perfromed back when Cream was a progressive, psychedelic rock band. The holding of the D chord and rolling down to the C, then B then Bb is one of the most powerful rock progressions that has been copied by millions and millions of musicians. The problem was Eric was pretty lame during this song (and Crossroads and some of the others for that matter). Not only did he not do the relevent fills but the guitar solo fell flat and sounded bluesy. Jack, Ginger and Eric get an A+ for effort though. It is concert all music lovers should check out. :nice:


Clapton was wild man on guitar back in the Cream days. He was also strung out on heroin which I still believe helped his creativity and playing.

He's a different sort of musician now, and I had a feeling that the reunion wouldn't be the same Cream.

Most reunion concerts are disappointing. The very worst one I saw was the Lovin' Spoonful. John Sebastian can no longer sing, and should stop pretending he can and either hire a vocalist, or quit perfoming.

I'm sorry I missed this. I'll have to catch it on DVD for sure.

Jack Bruce, the creative driving force who came up with the greatest Cream songs like Sunshine of Your Love, White Room, and I Feel Free, still "had it." Jack's work post-Cream confirms he was the best musician of the trio when they were in their prime and after. Ginger and Eric really showed their age. :(

Like what Betrade felt when he watched the Lovin' Spoonful, I felt that Eric should had any number of guitarists come out and do the lead fills and solo work to help him out. Then again, it would have been worse to see him become a ridiculous circus act like B.B. King and just get paid for standing there.

Check your local listings for the show...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/shows/cream/

Hey, Snouter!

I'm reading an interview with Neal Schon right now, and found a quote that I thought you'd find interesting (it's toward the bottom, in bold):

BW&BK: Let's talk Journey. You've been doing this for 30 years and not many bands survive a vocalist change. Why do you think the fans keep coming back? What is it about Journey?
NS: “I don't know. I don't know, man. We refuse to go away, so I guess they keep on coming. They definitely like what they are seeing. Augeri is singing now and he conveys the songs in a positive way to which the audience is responding. As a band, we're kicking a lot of ass right now (musically) and we don't sound as old as we are (laughs). So, the spark is still there. You know guys like Jeff Beck sound like he's still 16, but then you got (Eric) Clapton that sound like he's taking a snooze. I used to love him when he had the fire inside, but now it's like 'man, c'mon play that Goddamn thing.”

The entire interview is here: http://www.melodicrock.com/

I really digg Cream--funny, I just recently heard a mash up of one of their songs with an artist Hoxton or something like that--pretty cool-thanks
cheers

TheConversationalist, it might even have been bassist Jack Bruce's project. He redid some of his Cream songs with a bunch of different musicians.

No_Brakes, thanks for confirming my observations with that of guitar great Neil Schon. :) Now I want to crank up Feeling That Way. :cooldance

damn I wish I had known..I would've watched it:hmm:

Clapton was wild man on guitar back in the Cream days. He was also strung out on heroin which I still believe helped his creativity and playing.

He was more innovative, but he didn't know about playing the guitar as much as he does now, he was more limited to a few styles, while by now he has played basically all kinds of music styles. He might not be the guitar innovator and the songwriter he once was, however he's a better guitar player overall and a MUCH better singer. I'd say I prefer him without hard drugs.:D

He's a different sort of musician now, and I had a feeling that the reunion wouldn't be the same Cream.

He's a better musician now, as is Jeff Beck.

The very worst one I saw was the Lovin' Spoonful. John Sebastian can no longer sing, and should stop pretending he can and either hire a vocalist, or quit perfoming.

I know and it's unfortunate. His vocal range is very small now, but I'd still go see him in concert.

Jack Bruce, the creative driving force who came up with the greatest Cream songs like Sunshine of Your Love, White Room, and I Feel Free, still "had it."

Cream wouldn't be anywhere without Eric's guitar playing, and in fact, until he started playing with them, Bruce and Baker were only known among musicians baiscally, and after Cream broke up, their careers went downhill both creatively and financially.

Having said that, Jack Bruce is one of my 3 favorite bass players ever, a GREAT singer-songwriter. Although Clapton did co-write "Sunshine of Your Love", "Badge", "Strange Brew", and his arrangements of "Crossroads" and "Outside Woman's Blues" are some of the greatest and most influential in rock music that has been coppied by way too many people. Jack Bruce did lose a lot of his voice, but he was amazing nevertheless.


Jack's work post-Cream confirms he was the best musician of the trio when they were in their prime and after.

Yes, he is a better bass player than Clapton, I'm sure. He is a better singer, and while he was in Cream, a better songwriter, but a better musician? I'm not really sure. His solo career was pretty good (so was some of Ginger's), and George Harrison did play some good guitar on his albums, but it was mostly not so relevant. Clapton had his mediocre songs, but overall his solo career was, and especially now is, excellent, he really grew up as a musician beyond Bruce and Baker, I think.

Both of them were hardly successful after Cream, and in fact, were the ones asking for a reunion more than Clapton. His music didn't get better either, but he did just fine without them as well. Their previous attempt at reunion with Gary Moore (a GERAT guitarist) was basically poor-man's Cream, and Moore just did his best immitating Clapton, which he did pretty good, in fact, "City Of Gold" sounds just like "Crossroads".

Ginger and Eric really showed their age.

Ginger did because of the way he looks, lol, but his playing was still excellent and not sloppy like it used to be sometimes.

Like what Betrade felt when he watched the Lovin' Spoonful, I felt that Eric should had any number of guitarists come out and do the lead fills and solo work to help him out.

Like who??:confused: I would agree if Jimi Hendrix was alive, but nobody else can play blues-rock better than he can right now, not even close, besides maybe Jeff Beck, and even then, not on slow blues.

Clapton can put to shame any living rock guitarist if he wants to. That's why he used to be so insecure about Hendrix being better guitarist than him, because Hendrix was actually the only one pretty much.

Then again, it would have been worse to see him become a ridiculous circus act like B.B. King and just get paid for standing there.


I've seen B.B. King twice this year and he plays 90% of the solos, and does it GREAT. He does talk a lot, but when he actually sings and plays, he makes it up even for those who are bored with him talking a lot.:) He's 80 years old and still one of the best guitarists today.:p

I'm reading an interview with Neal Schon right now,

A has-been who haven't done nothing too interesting since playing with Santana. He does pass for a great guitarist, but hardly a guitar hero.

You know guys like Jeff Beck sound like he's still 16,

Jeff Beck can do anything Schon can and better.

but then you got (Eric) Clapton that sound like he's taking a snooze. I used to love him when he had the fire inside, but now it's like 'man, c'mon play that Goddamn thing.”

Unlike Schon, Clapton expanded his musicianship, and doesn't always need to show off to sound great. Schon hardly holds his own to Carlos Santana, much less Clapton, he shouldn't talk BS.

As a band, we're kicking a lot of ass right now (musically) and we don't sound as old as we are

LMFAO:p Journey sucked 90% of the time, and even KISS has more good songs. YEAH RIGHT!!

No_Brakes, thanks for confirming my observations with that of guitar great Neil Schon. Now I want to crank up Feeling That Way.

A great guitarist who hasn't played a good song for 30 years, at the best.

He was more innovative, but he didn't know about playing the guitar as much as he does now, he was more limited to a few styles, while by now he has played basically all kinds of music styles. He might not be the guitar innovator and the songwriter he once was, however he's a better guitar player overall and a MUCH better singer. I'd say I prefer him without hard drugs.:D



He's a better musician now, as is Jeff Beck.



I know and it's unfortunate. His vocal range is very small now, but I'd still go see him in concert.



Cream wouldn't be anywhere without Eric's guitar playing, and in fact, until he started playing with them, Bruce and Baker were only known among musicians baiscally, and after Cream broke up, their careers went downhill both creatively and financially.

Having said that, Jack Bruce is one of my 3 favorite bass players ever, a GREAT singer-songwriter. Although Clapton did co-write "Sunshine of Your Love", "Badge", "Strange Brew", and his arrangements of "Crossroads" and "Outside Woman's Blues" are some of the greatest and most influential in rock music that has been coppied by way too many people. Jack Bruce did lose a lot of his voice, but he was amazing nevertheless.




Yes, he is a better bass player than Clapton, I'm sure. He is a better singer, and while he was in Cream, a better songwriter, but a better musician? I'm not really sure. His solo career was pretty good (so was some of Ginger's), and George Harrison did play some good guitar on his albums, but it was mostly not so relevant. Clapton had his mediocre songs, but overall his solo career was, and especially now is, excellent, he really grew up as a musician beyond Bruce and Baker, I think.

Both of them were hardly successful after Cream, and in fact, were the ones asking for a reunion more than Clapton. His music didn't get better either, but he did just fine without them as well. Their previous attempt at reunion with Gary Moore (a GERAT guitarist) was basically poor-man's Cream, and Moore just did his best immitating Clapton, which he did pretty good, in fact, "City Of Gold" sounds just like "Crossroads".



Ginger did because of the way he looks, lol, but his playing was still excellent and not sloppy like it used to be sometimes.



Like who??:confused: I would agree if Jimi Hendrix was alive, but nobody else can play blues-rock better than he can right now, not even close, besides maybe Jeff Beck, and even then, not on slow blues.

Clapton can put to shame any living rock guitarist if he wants to. That's why he used to be so insecure about Hendrix being better guitarist than him, because Hendrix was actually the only one pretty much.



I've seen B.B. King twice this year and he plays 90% of the solos, and does it GREAT. He does talk a lot, but when he actually sings and plays, he makes it up even for those who are bored with him talking a lot.:) He's 80 years old and still one of the best guitarists today.:p



A has-been who haven't done nothing too interesting since playing with Santana. He does pass for a great guitarist, but hardly a guitar hero.



Jeff Beck can do anything Schon can and better.



Unlike Schon, Clapton expanded his musicianship, and doesn't always need to show off to sound great. Schon hardly holds his own to Carlos Santana, much less Clapton, he shouldn't talk BS.



LMFAO:p Journey sucked 90% of the time, and even KISS has more good songs. YEAH RIGHT!!



A great guitarist who hasn't played a good song for 30 years, at the best.

GF is right.

Actually ,if you payed attention,you'll see they used later shows for Bruce and Baker material,the first show proved that both of them were rusty,now Clapton [whatever else he's going to be ] isn't about to be rusty since he's he's playing non-stop for 30 years.

Lately,I've been enjoying listening to 1950's recordings by vertan jazz artists [Benny Goodman,Louis Armstrong ,Ella Fitzgerald] because while their playing and singing showed age,the maturity that went into their music made it so much better,that's how I see the Craem reunion [I also feel the same way about ZZ Top's closing set at the Crossroads Gutiar Festival].

Frankly,I didn't think think it was going to as a great as it was.

I like the fact that [in this modern age of technology getting in the way of music] three guys came on,just a guitar,bass and drums and played their hearts out.

So what if Clapton didn't use a wah-wah pdeal on "White Room",I say more power to him for playing without gimmicks [though I do love the original recording].

Actually ,if you payed attention,you'll see they used later shows for Bruce and Baker material,the first show proved that both of them were rusty,now Clapton [whatever else he's going to be ] isn't about to be rusty since he's he's playing non-stop for 30 years.

Well all reviews from all shows said that it was excellent, but you might be right. Also to be fair, Jack Bruce just recovered from cancer a year a go, and Ginger Baker had his drug and other problems and wasn't musically active until quite recently. And yes, Clapton got ahead of them as a musician, I agree, and that is A LOT!!

Lately,I've been enjoying listening to 1950's recordings by vertan jazz artists [Benny Goodman,Louis Armstrong ,Ella Fitzgerald] because while their playing and singing showed age,the maturity that went into their music made it so much better,that's how I see the Craem reunion [I also feel the same way about ZZ Top's closing set at the Crossroads Gutiar Festival].


I agree.

Frankly,I didn't think think it was going to as a great as it was.

Me neither. I did assume it would be great, but I didn't expect them to actually be anywere as good as in the past, especially if only 3 of them were playing, much less better, as it turned out to be.

I like the fact that [in this modern age of technology getting in the way of music] three guys came on,just a guitar,bass and drums and played their hearts out.


:nice: And they used no special effects, nor other musicians at all, even if Jack Bruce had to play bass&harmonica and sing all at once!! I don't think there is even ONE band today that can play together as good.

So what if Clapton didn't use a wah-wah pdeal on "White Room",I say more power to him for playing without gimmicks [though I do love the original recording].

:nice: I agree 100%!!

I do love the recording, but then again, Clapton was never the master of wah-wah like Hendrix, nor does he really have a reason to used it, I mean, is there anything more beautiful than his clean-no-gimmicks-or-effects Freddy King inspired solos?:confused:

Look at the mashup that Napster did of "Sunshine": www.getthewholething.com. Do you think that's what Cream had in mind when they wrote the song (actually, they were rockstars, it probably is, haha)

tweedy, cool music video...for the few seconds it lasted. :(

Clapton was never the master of wah-wah like Hendrix

:rofl: Well at least you can spell the pedal nowadays. :p Clapton's fills and solos using the wah-wah in White Room far surpass Hendrix's best work using a wah-wah (and any of Jimi's other lead work actually) which is on the intro to Voodoo Child (Slight Return) and one of the lead breaks the All Along The Watchtower.

I mean, is there anything more beautiful than his clean-no-gimmicks-or-effects Freddy King inspired solos?

You consider a wah-wah a gimmick? :rofl: But yes, the effects give guitarists the ability to be far more creative. Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Do you actually think Hendrix could get crazy distortion sounds with just a Strat and Marshall stack? :p An Octavia by Tycobrache, a custom Fuzz Face by Arbiter Music, and a Uni-Vibe helped. ;)

Clapton's fills and solos using the wah-wah in White Room far surpass Hendrix's best work using a wah-wah (and any of Jimi's other lead work actually)

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :p That is even far from Clapton's best solo, much less can be even compared to Hendrix's best work. Jimi was a MUCH better guitar player, despite Clapton being the second best, and Clapton himself was insecure and often jealous about it. When Jimi jammed with Cream, Clapton was supposedly so pissed off about him playing better, he just walked away after the first song, or so I've read. Hendrix was THE ONLY guitarist that was obvoiusly better than Clapton. Clapton does have a few things over Hendirx, such as being always perfect and clean and knows more styles, but Hendrix was still overall better.

which is on the intro to Voodoo Child (Slight Return) and one of the lead breaks the All Along The Watchtower.

LOL, it was all great, but Hendrix's both best and worst playing was on stage. Some live recordings of "Voodoo Child", "Red House" and some other songs are probably the best of his playing, in my opinion, although it's hard to say really.

You consider a wah-wah a gimmick? But yes, the effects give guitarists the ability to be far more creative.

Most guitarists only use it because they aren't as great without them, nor do they use them very well all the time. There are exceptions like Hendrix, but still.

People like Eric Clapton, George Harrison, Django Reinhart, Chuck Berry, Charlie Christian, Kenny Burrel, Freddy King, Albert King, B.B. King, Scotty Moore, James Burton, Danny Gatton, Johnny Winter, Johnny Guitar Watson and Little Milton, and most Jazz and Blues guitarists could/can sound just as great without any effects. Why is that?:confused: Maybe because they are all excellent musicians?:confused:

Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Do you actually think Hendrix could get crazy distortion sounds with just a Strat and Marshall stack?

Many of the times he didn't use any effects, besides maybe basic disturtion (which wouldn't even "cover" any mistakes at the time anyways) and sounded just as great. Plus, I love his clean work on "Dolly Dadger", "Night Bird" and "Freedom" as much as the "crazy sounds" that he did on other songs.

He was actually VERY creative with the effects whenever he used them, more creative than any other guitarist, and he really actually did something with it. But what he did took WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than the technology, and if you really don't understand what I'm talking about, then you will never be a pro-musician, nor will you ever know about much about music. Sh!t, a technically amazing guitarist like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, with MUCH better equipment and effects and obviously with more sources of influence (including Jimi himself) could never do anything like that. So who can?:confused:

An Octavia by Tycobrache, a custom Fuzz Face by Arbiter Music, and a Uni-Vibe helped.

Sure, but many other guitarists used all of them (and other effects) too. Can you explain why Jimi is still considered to be the best guitarist by most rock musicians, critics and fans? :p And please don't even say "because he's black and the anarcho-marxist media is PC";)

I see Snouter ran away again after saying some very dumb things which would make any real musician laugh. I'm really surpirsed:p

Then again, it would have been worse to see him become a ridiculous circus act like B.B. King and just get paid for standing there.

Alright Snouter, I cannot take it anymore, you make yourself look more immature and ignorant than an average backstreet boys and brintney spears fan, and while it is very funny, people might think that you really have lost your mind, unless I help you out a little bit here to make you actually sound half-normal, so here we go::p

Of course Snouter did not mean to put down great musicians and guitarists such as B.B. King and Eric Clapton. While he would rarely admit so, he understands that they are some of the most innovative, creative and influential peole to ever play the guitar, who can put to shame any of his "heros", even if they play one note for every 100 notes they play.
He just simply feels that the other Kings of The Blues, such as Freddy and Albert, are very underrated compared to B.B., are equally responsible for inspiring great guitarists like Clapton, and just like many Blues fans, he prefers their style, so sometimes he might sound a bit angry that B.B. and Eric get all the attention:cool:

(thinking to myself) "damn, I'm too nice":p

I saw the concert and it was a total yawn fest, the epitome of self indulgence. In fact, it put me to sleep (no feces). Yeah, they're all talented. Talented enough to put me to sleep. I guess Jack & Ginger need the money. For my money, Clapton is one of the most overrated rock guitar players of all time and that concert just drove the point home. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........

I saw the concert and it was a total yawn fest, the epitome of self indulgence.

Well, there's always Britney Spear and Jessica Simpson, I guess great musicians are not interesting enough for you.:p

In fact, it put me to sleep (no feces).

:confused:

Yeah, they're all talented.

No, the guys from U2 and Phish are talented. Cream are way above that level.:cool:


I guess Jack & Ginger need the money.

Wrong again, their financial problems are probably behind them by now. This one wasn't about the money.

For my money, Clapton is one of the most overrated rock guitar players of all time and that concert just drove the point home.

Unless you are a big fan of old Blues players such as Albert and Freddy King, Johnny Watson, and Hubert Sumlin, and believe that since they inspired him so much, they should be given more credit, this statement is dumb on many levels.

"overrated guitarist"- Kurt Cobain, The Edge, Tom Morello, Ace Frehley...but Clapton?? He's more underrated than overrated.

Everybody talks about Jimi, Stevie, Duanne and the dead great guitarists, while taking Clapton completely for granted..."yes, of course he'll play a perfect 100% great and clean solo, what a surprise, he's been doing it non-stop for 30 years, c'mon Eric, play it as good or better than ever, because you always do it"...he is always expected to sound perfect. I'll admit that I do it myself too sometimes, and I almost convinced myself before about other guitarists like Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page being better, until I saw them all jamming together. Despite the fact that I like Led Zeppelin much more than most Clapton's solo stuff after 1974 at least, he really put Jimmy Page to shame without even trying, and while Jeff Beck holds his own, as did SRV and Allman, they aren't actually better, and I see no evidence that any living guitar player can actually go on stage with Clapton and actually sound better, if Clapton is playing his best.

When Jimi Hendrix was alive it was of course a different story, and Clapton himself knows that, that's why he was always afraid (even according to Paul McCartney) to go on stage with Jimi, since that was the only guitarist with the ability to put him to shame, and being somewhat arrogant, Eric Clapton just couldn't take it sometimes.

This one wasn't about the money.



I do agree that if things weren't right between them then no amount of money could have reunited them,but the best seats were over $500.00 each,medium level seats I think were $250.00 each,so yeah,money did play a big part in it.

In fact one show was attended by Paul Mc Cartney,Ringo Starr,Mick Jagger and Keith Richards,after the show Mc Cartney and Starr talked to fans leaving the show and I said "As much money as The Cream tickets cost,most of the people there were probably Paul and Ringo's neighbors".

Clapton doesn't need the money ,I don't know about Baker or Bruce.

In fact,at his own concerts Clapton often wears Armani suits,at the all the Cream reuinon shows he wore a off the rack shirt ,jeans and non-desginer tennis shoes.

Clapton doesn't need the money ,I don't know about Baker or Bruce.

Well, they aren't as rich as Clapton, but I'm pretty sure that they aren't exactly poor either. I'm pretty sure that if Syd Barret can still live well just off the sales of 3 albums, without doing ANYTHING for 30 years, both Baker and Bruce have at least a couple of millions, that is even if they spent most of their money on drugs:).

I do agree that if things weren't right between them then no amount of money could have reunited them,but the best seats were over $500.00 each,medium level seats I think were $250.00 each,so yeah,money did play a big part in it.


To be fair, that's NOTHING compared to what Barbra Streisand takes for an average ticket. It's not that they are poor or even need money, they just feel that this should be the price.

I mean, I recently saw Paul McCartney for almost $200 a ticket (I'll admit that even if I had to pay twice as much, I wouldn't be mad about it by the end of the show, since it was by far the best concert I've ever been to), and it's a lot of money, and it's not like Paul needs any of it, he probably doesn't even have enough brain-cells left by now to even know what to do with it, but that's still the price, and U2 and Rolling Stones aren't cheaper either.

Well, they aren't as rich as Clapton, but I'm pretty sure that they aren't exactly poor either. I'm pretty sure that if Syd Barret can still live well just off the sales of 3 albums, without doing ANYTHING for 30 years, both Baker and Bruce have at least a couple of millions, that is even if they spent most of their money on drugs:).


Ah,but you [nor I ]know what kind of royalty deal Syd Barrett had vs what kind of royalty deal Cream had.


To be fair, that's NOTHING compared to what Barbra Streisand takes for an average ticket. It's not that they are poor or even need money, they just feel that this should be the price.


I'm not saying that Cream or Streisand are poor,but if money had nothing at all to with it,then they wouldn't charge that price.

The Stones and Paul Mc Cartney each charged around $250.00 for just one of the best seats on their tours this year,last year Simon and Garfunkel with The Everly Brothers charged $180.000 for one good set and The Eagles charge over $100.00 for the best seats on their tours.

I saw Don Henley on Charlie Rose and Henley honestly told Rose that money was a major reason why The Eagles reunite from time to time[though he added it wasn't the only reason,that if they couldn't still make good music,if they couldn't get along and if it wasn't fun ,then there was no amount of money that could get Henley to do it again].


I mean, I recently saw Paul McCartney for almost $200 a ticket (I'll admit that even if I had to pay twice as much, I wouldn't be mad about it by the end of the show, since it was by far the best concert I've ever been to), and it's a lot of money, and it's not like Paul needs any of it, he probably doesn't even have enough brain-cells left by now to even know what to do with it, but that's still the price, and U2 and Rolling Stones aren't cheaper either.

See above.


By the way,I saw Roger Waters on Charlie Rose too.

He said Pink Floyd will reunite again,but not for money like Cream did [he spefically gave Cream as an example].

He said her thinks Floyd will reunite again for charity ,like they did at Live 8.

Ah,but you [nor I ]know what kind of royalty deal Syd Barrett had vs what kind of royalty deal Cream had.

Yeah, but Syd Barret hasn't done anything to earn money for 30 years, besides off his old music, while Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker have been recording albums and touring, and therefore have probably much more money.

I'm not saying that Cream or Streisand are poor,but if money had nothing at all to with it,then they wouldn't charge that price.

Well it does, but then again, if it was mostly for the money, they hardly have a reason to do it.

Hell even when they try to actually quit playing music, they still can't do it, just ask Little Richard, lol. The Cream reunion mostly happened because Jack Bruce almost died from cancer recently and Ginger Baker is also probably not in his best health because of all the heroin, so I think Eric Clapton did it because he's afraid that later on they might not be able to do that, or at least anywhere as great.

The Stones and Paul Mc Cartney each charged around $250.00 for just one of the best seats on their tours this year,last year Simon and Garfunkel with The Everly Brothers charged $180.000 for one good set and The Eagles charge over $100.00 for the best seats on their tours.

Sure they like the money too, but I bet that all of them have enough money to be in good shape for another 200 years without working at all.

He said Pink Floyd will reunite again,but not for money like Cream did [he spefically gave Cream as an example].

He said her thinks Floyd will reunite again for charity ,like they did at Live 8.

Cream didn't do it for the money, at least not Clapton, that's for sure. If it was the money, they would actually do a real tour, what are 4 shows gonna do for them.

I would definately pay $250 if Cream comes within 3 hours from where I live, I wouldn't pay that money for Pink Floyd, unless with Syd Barret.:cool:

I do love Cream, and Clapton in particular. Is this going to be re-run at all?

GF,

The reason for the ticket price [and maybe even the concerts] could be to help Jack Bruce pay his medical bills,because even if you are rich [and I don't know that Bruce was] the very best medical care is very,very,very expensive.

The reason for the ticket price [and maybe even the concerts] could be to help Jack Bruce pay his medical bills,because even if you are rich [and I don't know that Bruce was] the very best medical care is very,very,very expensive.

Well, he did recover a year ago I think, and he didn't look ill. Then again, after touring for 40 years and recording so many albums (including playing with other people), I think he has enough money to get the best medical care, even most "poor" celebrities do. I mean, maybe he doesn't have a lot of money compared to Clapton and some other VERY rich rock stars and everybody has money problems including the rich people, but I bet he still got a few millions AT LEAST, and that's probably enough for him to stay as healthy as modern technology can make him be.

GF,

Wait until you get out in the world and start having medical [and other]bills,you will get a rude awkening.

TT is right - especially about the medical bills. Even with insurance it's no picnic. :mad:

I have a feeling we're all (at least slightly) overestimating the royalties the members of Cream have gotten. They may be a lot sweeter than most royalty checks artists receive - especially considering the amount of time and such (like generations of new fans) - but except for Clapton, perhaps, I doubt they're rolling in as much dough as we like to think.

Well, they aren't as rich as Clapton, but I'm pretty sure that they aren't exactly poor either. I'm pretty sure that if Syd Barret can still live well just off the sales of 3 albums, without doing ANYTHING for 30 years, both Baker and Bruce have at least a couple of millions, that is even if they spent most of their money on drugs:).
Well, it's not exactly that simple - Barrett is rich because of the royalties paid on the reissue of the early Pink Floyd albums with many of his songwriting credits in best-selling box sets.

But only writers earn royalties & not performers & Ginger Baker didn't get many credits on the three Cream studio LPs. He most likely earned very little from the reissues. And while Jack Bruce composed much of the music for many of the songs, Pete Brown wrote the lyrics, which means he got most of the publishing.

Given their lifestyles in the 60s & 70s, & the fact that he lives in Britain, with it's incredibly high tax brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if he burned through most of that money a long time ago.

Thanks for clarifying that, CP. I think I may have been thinking somewhere along those lines last night when I came up with my previous post, but couldn't quite "spit it out" right.

And as far as that last paragraph of yours goes, that thought hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it - I have no doubt you're right about that!

Well, it's not exactly that simple - Barrett is rich because of the royalties paid on the reissue of the early Pink Floyd albums with many of his songwriting credits in best-selling box sets.

That's 1.5 albums, plus some greatest hits I guess.

Cream had much more albums (and greatest hits collections) than that. Also, after Pink Foyd broke up, Barrett only recorded 2 great but hardly successful albums and did not play live too often, and since 1975 he haven't done nothing other than get high, paint pictures, watch tv, and occasionally going outside for a walk. He is living off what he has done 30-40 years ago, and he's still doing good.

Baker and especially Bruce, have been touring, playing music, recording albums...sure not as successful as Eric Clapton, and I'm sure that they are "poor" compared to him, but I really can't imagine either of them not having at least a few millions. It's basically impossible, unless they have been getting ripped off all this time.

But only writers earn royalties & not performers & Ginger Baker didn't get many credits on the three Cream studio LPs.

The few songs that he did write and the credit for playing, plus all the money from concerts, as well as his music after Cream (which includes Blind Faith)...I doubt that he's poor or even middle class.

He did have money problems in the 1970's, but we're talking about BIG money here, and plus his heroin addiction. Everybody has money problems, but I have a hard time believing that those people aren't rich.


He most likely earned very little from the reissues.

Why?

And while Jack Bruce composed much of the music for many of the songs, Pete Brown wrote the lyrics, which means he got most of the publishing.

Good points, but still, unless they got ripped off worse than The Animals or Bo Diddley, there's no way that whatever Bruce got from Cream is not enough for him to live the rest of his life well without the need to be working, although he has been playing music all this time as well.

Even Bo Diddley, who claims to be not so rich and complains a lot about not getting like 95% of the $ he should have got...I saw him live recently, I met him, and I must say that it takes no less than a rich man to hire so many bodyguards alone, lol.

Maybe it's because you're a rock star yourself, but what you guys call "poor", we still call "rich".:)

Given their lifestyles in the 60s & 70s, & the fact that he lives in Britain, with it's incredibly high tax brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if he burned through most of that money a long time ago.

Syd Barrett also lives in England, and obviously he was having too much fun with drugs too. Then again, at one point, Clapton also lost his money because of drugs, but with rock stars, such things are usually temporary.

NB and CP are right.

That's 1.5 albums, plus some greatest hits I guess.
He took a credit on almost every song before he left, which is a lot of royalties & publishing with their supersuccessful box sets and greatest hits packages.

Cream had much more albums (and greatest hits collections) than that.
Only 2.5 studio albums besides the greatest hits - they don't get royalties on the live stuff.

Also, after Pink Foyd broke up, Barrett only recorded 2 great but hardly successful albums and did not play live too often, and since 1975 he haven't done nothing other than get high, paint pictures, watch tv, and occasionally going outside for a walk. He is living off what he has done 30-40 years ago, and he's still doing good.
True, but those albums have never been off the charts, & my understanding is that Roger Waters & David Gilmore chose to give Syd a piece of the publishing of the later albums like Shine On, You Crazy Diamond as well.

Baker and especially Bruce, have been touring, playing music, recording albums...sure not as successful as Eric Clapton, and I'm sure that they are "poor" compared to him, but I really can't imagine either of them not having at least a few millions. It's basically impossible, unless they have been getting ripped off all this time.
Baker didn't get much in the way of royalties from the Cream albums, because of his lack of writing credits, & neither of their albums charted. Bruce didn't write lyrics, so he got the short end of the royalty stick.

After Cream, they made whatever they got from their later careers & touring, which wasn't not likely to be millions in the 70s & while they were aging in the 80s & 90s.

Of course, living in the 98% tax bracket doesn't help much.

The few songs that he did write and the credit for playing, plus all the money from concerts, as well as his music after Cream (which includes Blind Faith)...I doubt that he's poor or even middle class.
Those class definitions have a different meaning in Britain, & the cancer treatment was expensive. In fact, even Jeff Beck is said to be far from financially secure.

He did have money problems in the 1970's, but we're talking about BIG money here, and plus his heroin addiction. Everybody has money problems, but I have a hard time believing that those people aren't rich.
I think you need some more experience with the realities of the biz, Ganj.

Why?
Because he didn't have many writing credits, & performers don't get royalties.


Good points, but still, unless they got ripped off worse than The Animals or Bo Diddley, there's no way that whatever Bruce got from Cream is not enough for him to live the rest of his life well without the need to be working, although he has been playing music all this time as well.
I'm not sure that's true, for reasons already stated, & the fact that it was earned in 60s & 70s dollars.

Maybe it's because you're a rock star yourself, but what you guys call "poor", we still call "rich".:)
I didn't say they were "poor"; I'm just questioning your assumption about the significance of the ticket prices. The cost of his cancer treatment was probably prohibitive.

Syd Barrett also lives in England, and obviously he was having too much fun with drugs too. Then again, at one point, Clapton also lost his money because of drugs, but with rock stars, such things are usually temporary.
Syd is legally disabled, & in Britain's socialist system, his earnings aren't treated the same way. Also, his lifestyle is extremely modest, as he does little more than paint, watch TV, & take bicycle rides. I don't believe he ever married or has any dependents either.

He took a credit on almost every song before he left, which is a lot of royalties & publishing with their supersuccessful box sets and greatest hits packages.

Ok.

Only 2.5 studio albums besides the greatest hits - they don't get royalties on the live stuff.

Yeah, but their songs have been used everywhere...movies, tv, covers...they don't only get money from the albums. They should be getting money from anywhere where their music is used.

True, but those albums have never been off the charts, & my understanding is that Roger Waters & David Gilmore chose to give Syd a piece of the publishing of the later albums like Shine On, You Crazy Diamond as well.


I didn't know about it.

Baker didn't get much in the way of royalties from the Cream albums, because of his lack of writing credits, & neither of their albums charted. Bruce didn't write lyrics, so he got the short end of the royalty stick.

After Cream, they made whatever they got from their later careers & touring, which wasn't not likely to be millions in the 70s & while they were aging in the 80s & 90s.

Of course, living in the 98% tax bracket doesn't help much.


Ummm, I don't think they always lived in England, Baker lived in South-Africa for a while, and Jack Bruce have been playing shows in America all the time, including his tour with Ringo Starr's band (I couldn't even afford the ticket to see them), so I will go with my common sense and not believe that they aren't rich, at least compared to me or any middle class people.

Those class definitions have a different meaning in Britain, & the cancer treatment was expensive. In fact, even Jeff Beck is said to be far from financially secure.

Jeff Beck? Do you know that for sure? That's interesting, especially since he still lives there, while in America he can probably make a few millions just in a year if he plays enough shows.

I think you need some more experience with the realities of the biz, Ganj.

Ohhh, I know how hard it is to make it there...believe me, I'm working on it right now...but I also believe that once you DO make it, the worst financial problems are USUALLY behind you unless you spend all your money on hard drugs.

Because he didn't have many writing credits, & performers don't get royalties.

I don't know...when Beatles Anthology came out, Pete Best got money for that, and he didn't write ANY songs, he just played on like 10 of them, and that was enough to make him a millioner (he wasn't until then).

I didn't say they were "poor"; I'm just questioning your assumption about the significance of the ticket prices. The cost of his cancer treatment was probably prohibitive.

Yeah, but that was a while ago too. Plus, if they REALLY needed money, they would go for a real tour instead of 8 shows.

Syd is legally disabled, & in Britain's socialist system, his earnings aren't treated the same way. Also, his lifestyle is extremely modest, as he does little more than paint, watch TV, & take bicycle rides. I don't believe he ever married or has any dependents either.

Yeah, but you also forget that he has his health problems (mental and physical) and that cost a lot of money too. And Britain is hardly socialist, lol.

dp X2

Ok.
From what I've been told, he's getting mid-six figures yearly

Yeah, but their songs have been used everywhere...movies, tv, covers...they don't only get money from the albums. They should be getting money from anywhere where their music is used.
Covers only generate royalties if they're recorded or played on television/film typically. Royalties for film & TV soundtracks are negotiated separately from airplay royalties, & don't pay anywhere near as much.

Ummm, I don't think they always lived in England, Baker lived in South-Africa for a while
As bad as Britain in terms of taxes in many ways, IIRC.

and Jack Bruce have been playing shows in America all the time, including his tour with Ringo Starr's band (I couldn't even afford the ticket to see them), so I will go with my common sense and not believe that they aren't rich, at least compared to me or any middle class people.
I can assure you that Bruce's tours are not generating millions.

Jeff Beck? Do you know that for sure? That's interesting, especially since he still lives there, while in America he can probably make a few millions just in a year if he plays enough shows.
I don't know for sure - it's just what I've heard.

Ohhh, I know how hard it is to make it there...believe me, I'm working on it right now...but I also believe that once you DO make it, the worst financial problems are USUALLY behind you unless you spend all your money on hard drugs.
*nods*

I don't know...when Beatles Anthology came out, Pete Best got money for that, and he didn't write ANY songs, he just played on like 10 of them, and that was enough to make him a millioner (he wasn't until then).
What he got was "performance royalties," which are part of the studio's payment of the band. They're not generated every time the songs are played like publishing royalties are.

Yeah, but that was a while ago too. Plus, if they REALLY needed money, they would go for a real tour instead of 8 shows.
Hard to say - it might be too much for them at this point, & Bruce & Baker don't exactly get along well. Clapton probably has other committments as well.

Yeah, but you also forget that he has his health problems (mental and physical) and that cost a lot of money too.
That's not my understanding of it, but it may be true. I don't believe his mental health issues are treated.

And Britain is hardly socialist, lol.
I meant to type "socialistic."

Everything CowPunk said is right but I'll add a few more for GF.

Pink Floyd's catalog has never stopped selling big [especially with young people in the U.S. and U.K.],the same is not true with Cream.

Also,all the members of Pink Floyd [from the very start] has amde sure that Syd Barett was always taken care of,that ranged from private donations ,to box sets/anthologies with him to probably giving him a couple of songwriting credits he probably didn't deserve.

GF,

One thng about your Pete Best point,The Beatles [through Apple] made he sure got theat kind of royalty[obviously in part as a "I'm sorry for any hard feelings"],they didn't have to give him that and I heard one of the songwriters of "Nothin' Skain" But The Leaves On The Tree" [on Live At the BBC]say that Apple always makes sure that royalties with all the parties on any Apple record are agreed on in advance.

The person also said that Paul ,Ringo and John and George's widows do that for two reasons:Becasue it's the right thing to do and also to [smartly] advoid lawsuits over royalties.

GF, since you're already in school you should take some business/business law courses because you will need them as a professional musican,you seem to have an idealized view on money in the music business that concerns me.

The music business or [for lack of a better term] show business is like any other business in that the more you know fiscally means the more your back is covered.


The fact is virtually all musicians from the 50's,60's [not to mention earlier] were ripped off in one way or another because they weren't educated about buisness law,learn from their mistakes.

Pink Floyd's catalog has never stopped selling big [especially with young people in the U.S. and U.K.],the same is not true with Cream.

Actually I believe that each Cream album sells much better than all albums Syd Barrett ever did combined. The fact that later Pink Floyd albums are more successful doesn't do much good for him.

Also,all the members of Pink Floyd [from the very start] has amde sure that Syd Barett was always taken care of,that ranged from private donations ,to box sets/anthologies with him to probably giving him a couple of songwriting credits he probably didn't deserve.

That's a good point.

From what I've been told, he's getting mid-six figures yearly

That's not very poor:p , and again, he hasn't been touring or doing ANYTHING.
He has ONE guitar that he possibly plays in private, but even his family members haven't seen him play music for many many years.



I can assure you that Bruce's tours are not generating millions.

1. How do you know?

2. He often tours as a part of a supergroup (with Ringo Starr or Gary Moore or somebody like that) and those kind of tours probably bring him lots of money.

Hard to say - it might be too much for them at this point,

I don't know, the few shows that they did...it seems like they still got it and in fact are better in many ways now (Bruce and Baker not sloppy anymore and Clapton's a much better guitarist), and I'd probably say that right now they could be the best band by far among what we still have (maybe besides The Rolling Stones).

Bruce & Baker don't exactly get along well.

:confused: I thought it was them against Clapton mostly. Anyways, I'm sure now they get along better with age, especially after the reunion. Maybe they will end up touring:) .

Clapton probably has other committments as well.


Yeah.

That's not my understanding of it, but it may be true. I don't believe his mental health issues are treated.

Well, he can't be cured from them, but if he doesn't take whatever medicine, he will start hearing voices and freak out as if he was on LSD, and he will be crazy, which happens whenever he forgets to take his drugs, and that does cost money. Also, he has diabetees and rummored to have vision problems too.

Actually I believe that each Cream album sells much better than all albums Syd Barrett ever did combined.


Source?

I used to work [untill a year or so ago] at a record store and I can tell you that anything Pink Floyd,from any era for Floyd does sell big,the same is not true for Cream.



:confused: I thought it was them against Clapton mostly. Anyways, I'm sure now they get along better with age, especially after the reunion. Maybe they will end up touring:) .


It was mainly Baker bitter about Clapton leaving Cream and Blind Faith,Bruce and Clapton never had big issues.

Baker & Bruce disliked each other intensely long before Cream, & just held things together for the sake of the band. I don't believe that rift has ever been bridged, although their outspoken conflict has probably mellowed with age.

It's extremely unlikely the Cream albums are outselling the Pink Floyd stuff: for example, Dark Side of the Moon, IIRC, has never been off the charts.

That's not very poor:p , and again, he hasn't been touring or doing ANYTHING.
I wasn't claiming he IS poor - he's worth millions.

How do you know?
We had the same insurance underwriter for our tours for some time, actually until around 2003.

. He often tours as a part of a supergroup (with Ringo Starr or Gary Moore or somebody like that) and those kind of tours probably bring him lots of money.
The headliners get most of the proceeds & he gets a per-diem. He has very little star power these days & is lucky to get what he gets. That's even more true for Baker than Bruce, who at least has bass disciples.

I don't know, the few shows that they did...it seems like they still got it and in fact are better in many ways now (Bruce and Baker not sloppy anymore and Clapton's a much better guitarist), and I'd probably say that right now they could be the best band by far among what we still have (maybe besides The Rolling Stones).
I wasn't much impressed by the show I saw, despite my continuing enthusiasm for the songs.

Well, he can't be cured from them, but if he doesn't take whatever medicine, he will start hearing voices and freak out as if he was on LSD, and he will be crazy, which happens whenever he forgets to take his drugs, and that does cost money. Also, he has diabetees and rummored to have vision problems too.
He still does do that **** from what I hear, & the psychiatric drugs aren't THAT expensive. My diabetic treatment doesn't cost over five figures a year, & you can't have it any worse than I do.

I wasn't claiming he IS poor - he's worth millions.


Yeah.



We had the same insurance underwriter for our tours for some time, actually until around 2003.

Oh wow, so do you personally know him, or have you ever played with him?


The headliners get most of the proceeds & he gets a per-diem. He has very little star power these days & is lucky to get what he gets. That's even more true for Baker than Bruce, who at least has bass disciples.

I don't know, if they were struggling for money, they could always be studio musicians (as they were in the early 1960's), since ANY musician would not miss the opportunity to hire them...I would personally quit smoking pot for 5 years if it meant saving money to have Bruce or Baker on my album:D

I mean, you really say that neither of them even have $1,000,000?:confused:

I wasn't much impressed by the show I saw, despite my continuing enthusiasm for the songs.

Really??:confused: I do miss the energy, but I would say that the musicianship did improve (especially for Clapton), they aren't sloppy anymore, and sound as "perfect" as they ever did.

Maybe it's because I'm more of a Blues fan than Rock fan right now, and I'm more impressed with the way Clapton plays now (after that show I could no longer even question that he's the best guitarist ever, other than Jimi Hendrix, despite the fact that I relate to SRV and a few others even more), but to me it was just amazing, and many of my friends who don't even like Clapton agree with me.

He still does do that **** from what I hear,

What?? LSD??:confused: Other illegal drugs? lol. No way!!

the psychiatric drugs aren't THAT expensive.

Really?

My diabetic treatment doesn't cost over five figures a year, & you can't have it any worse than I do.

Well, last time I heard, he has it so bad that he might be going blind, and he always has to go to the hospital for that.

Oh wow, so do you personally know him, or have you ever played with him?
No, having the same insurer isn't like sharing a label - we don't have formal social functions. I just get to hear gossip about the guy. :D

I don't know, if they were struggling for money, they could always be studio musicians (as they were in the early 1960's), since ANY musician would not miss the opportunity to hire them...I would personally quit smoking pot for 5 years if it meant saving money to have Bruce or Baker on my album:D
That's a trifle bit optimistic: in fact, former headliners rarely get a lot of the studio calls in the US - their egos are too big to fit into the supporting role - & some influential people, like Frank Zappa, have gone on record as saying that he's less than a team player.

I mean, you really say that neither of them even have $1,000,000?:confused:
Couldn't say. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pre-reunion, though.

Really??:confused: I do miss the energy, but I would say that the musicianship did improve (especially for Clapton), they aren't sloppy anymore, and sound as "perfect" as they ever did.
"Tired" is the word that comes to mind, personally.

Maybe it's because I'm more of a Blues fan than Rock fan right now, and I'm more impressed with the way Clapton plays now (after that show I could no longer even question that he's the best guitarist ever, other than Jimi Hendrix, despite the fact that I relate to SRV and a few others even more), but to me it was just amazing, and many of my friends who don't even like Clapton agree with me.
I like EC, but I like Billy Gibbons & Roy Buchanan better.

What?? LSD??:confused: Other illegal drugs? lol. No way!!
Actually I meant hallucinatory & psychotic episodes, although, unlike Daniel Johnston, I've not heard of him being violent.

Really?
Under the socialized British healthcare system? I'd find it hard to believe. Even in the US, it'd probably run $500 a month max.

Well, last time I heard, he has it so bad that he might be going blind, and he always has to go to the hospital for that.
I've got a contact I can use for info. Of course, many schizophrenics are born with various genetic vision defects.

That's a trifle bit optimistic: in fact, former headliners rarely get a lot of the studio calls in the US - their egos are too big to fit into the supporting role - & some influential people, like Frank Zappa, have gone on record as saying that he's less than a team player.

Yeah, but then again you have people like George Harrison who didn't mind helping other people in the studio, even 3 months before he died, and did it great.

Frank Zappa was always a solo artist and a real headliner, kind of like B.B. King, where he never had to back people up, and their solos are 90% of the guitar work that they do on stage. I don't see people like that being great in team playing, mostly because they probably wouldn't want to do it anyways.

Baker and Bruce ALWAYS backed people up, they are the rhythm section, and that's what they been doing since early 1960's. They know how to play anything in any style and they can do it great...if they really need big money, they would be playing like that for other musicians more often, since any musician who has the money and is not an idiot would play with them.

If they do have money issues, it's probably not as much about them not having money, but rather about Clapton having MUCH more money than them.

Couldn't say. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pre-reunion, though.

With Ginger Baker (who is probably the "poorest" one) having houses in South-Africa, England, America...and them being inducted into the hall of fame and known as some of the greatest instrumentalists ever.......I doubt it.:p

"Tired" is the word that comes to mind, personally.


No, they are still the same, just older and without the hard drugs.

I like EC, but I like Billy Gibbons & Roy Buchanan better.

That's fine. I personally like Chuck Berry, Buddy Guy, Freddy&B.B.&Albert King, SRV, Duane Allman, George Harrison and Jeff Beck at least as much as Clapton. Yet it doesn't change the fact that he's overall a greater player, considering everything that makes one a great guitarists. In some ways he's even better than Hendrix, but Hendrix was so much better in what he did that I would say that Hendrix is still #1, despite being more limited with theory and not knowing as many styles as Clapton.

Gibbons and Buchanan are some of the best ever in my opinion, however not nearly as original or influential as Clapton, their tone and styles are not nearly as beautiful in my opinion, I think that Clapton understands the Blues even better and technically you can't even compare them to Clapton, as much as I admire them.

Baker and Bruce ALWAYS backed people up, they are the rhythm section, and that's what they been doing since early 1960's. They know how to play anything in any style and they can do it great...if they really need big money, they would be playing like that for other musicians more often, since any musician who has the money and is not an idiot would play with them.
Baker has to back people up, simply because he's a drummer. Bruce is known as a guy who plays "guitar on bass" rather than filling out the support role in the rhythm corner.

With Ginger Baker (who is probably the "poorest" one) having houses in South-Africa, England, America...
You asked what his net worth is, not his property holdings. Besides, you don't know he owns them as opposed to his label leasing them for him.

and them being inducted into the hall of fame and known as some of the greatest instrumentalists ever.......I doubt it.:p
Plenty of less than wealthy people have been inducted.

No, they are still the same, just older and without the hard drugs.
Not IMO.

Gibbons and Buchanan are some of the best ever in my opinion, however not nearly as original or influential as Clapton, their tone and styles are not nearly as beautiful in my opinion, I think that Clapton understands the Blues even better and technically you can't even compare them to Clapton, as much as I admire them.
As always, you entirely overrate Clapton's level of technical ability. It's not even close to what Buchanan's was. He himself would tell you he's not an especially technical player.

Baker has to back people up, simply because he's a drummer. Bruce is known as a guy who plays "guitar on bass" rather than filling out the support role in the rhythm corner.

They can play anything and in any style if they have to, just because that's Bruce's style with Cream doesn't mean it is all he can do. Also, he can play other instruments besides Bass pretty good. And the main point is that most musicians would STILL pay lots of money to play with them.

I have my own style of music and guitar playing too, but if somebody was paying me money, I would play whatever for them...punk, heavy metal, country, alternative rock...even that my styles are Blues, Rock'n'Roll and Jazz. So if I could work outside of my styles if I had to (as could most pro-musicians) what makes you think that Bruce and Baker couldn't play anything for anybody especially if they really needed money. I've been only playing pro for less than 2 years, while they have been doing it before my parents were born:) .


You asked what his net worth is, not his property holdings. Besides, you don't know he owns them as opposed to his label leasing them for him.

Ok.

Plenty of less than wealthy people have been inducted.

Other than people who died wayy too early (Robert Johnson) or the few who spent all their money on dope and never recovered to this day (Sly Stone)...I don't know any. Even, the 1950's artists who were alive by 1985, even though they have been ripped off, they are still VERY rich mostly.

Not IMO.

I actually like them even better now, and they always were one of my top 10 favorite bands ever. They played even more blues now, and songs like "Crossroads", "Outside Women's Blues", "Sleepy Time" and "Spoonfull" always were my favorites anyways, and now they are even played better because Clapton learned alot more about the guitar during the last 35 years.

As always, you entirely overrate Clapton's level of technical ability.

Ummm...any guitarist I know wished he could play like Clapton. Other than Hendrix, Beck and SRV, he's the only guitarist who can play THAT GREAT with so much soul while being so fast, and unlike the other 3, he's ALWAYS clean and perfect and never makes mistakes and every note he plays is 100% right and amazing in terms of the context of the music. By technical ability, I don't only talk about what notes you play, but also what kind of notes you play, what notes you don't play, and how do you play what you play. Clapton is about REAL musicianship, not just speed.

It's not even close to what Buchanan's was.

Buchanan wouldn't agree with that. Their styles were different, but Clapton NEVER played sloppy and always sounds perfect. I can't say the same about Buchanan and I'm a huge fan. Clapton feels the blues MUCH MUCH better, his sound is much more beautiful, and his selection of notes is always right. I don't think that Buchanan even had 50% of Clapton's musical abilities, although he was still one of the best ever.

And if you care about "technical ability" so much, I don't see how you can admire Billy Gibbons then. Technical abilities wasn't the greatest thing about him, and he isn't more of a virtuoso than John Lee Hooker or Muddy Waters really.

He himself would tell you he's not an especially technical player.

Yeah, lol, Jimi Hendrix also thought he wasn't very good:p . And Clapton DOES know how good he is, and he is known to feel uncomfortable if there's a better guitar player around...it took him 3 years or so to forgive Jimi for...playing better:p , and Paul McCartney recently said in an interview that Jimi once invited Clapton on stage during his show, and Clapton was hiding away from people so that nobody will see him around...obviously because he was afraid Jimi would put him to shame.

He is not afraid to go on stage with any other guitarist, he could put most of them to shame without a problem (even sometimes some of the best ones like Jimmy Page and Santana), and he could hold his own to any of the best gutiarists...Allman, SRV, B.B. King, Freddy King, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck, George Harrison, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Mark Knofler...and he always ends up sounding better or AT LEAST just as great. And yes, he doesn't always have to use his technical abilities for that either.

They can play anything and in any style if they have to, just because that's Bruce's style with Cream doesn't mean it is all he can do. Also, he can play other instruments besides Bass pretty good. And the main point is that most musicians would STILL pay lots of money to play with them.
TBH, most players who've worked with him on sessions, like Zappa, say that's what he DID do, instead of lending support. He's also not the nicest or friendliest man, which is one reason why he & Ginger Baker get along so poorly.

Other than people who died wayy too early (Robert Johnson) or the few who spent all their money on dope and never recovered to this day (Sly Stone)...I don't know any. Even, the 1950's artists who were alive by 1985, even though they have been ripped off, they are still VERY rich mostly.
Mostly, but not always.
Try Dee Dee Ramone, for example. :rolleyes:

Ummm...any guitarist I know wished he could play like Clapton.
Melody, taste & tone, but he's hardly the ultimate in technique. Eric Johnson is far superior technically, but lacks Clapton's gift for melody. His tone is just as good, however.

By technical ability, I don't only talk about what notes you play, but also what kind of notes you play, what notes you don't play, and how do you play what you play. Clapton is about REAL musicianship, not just speed.
Note selection is something different than "technical ability," although speed is not the only element of technique. I'd agree with you on the latter, although I like Buchanan's playing better.

Buchanan wouldn't agree with that. Their styles were different, but Clapton NEVER played sloppy and always sounds perfect. I can't say the same about Buchanan and I'm a huge fan. Clapton feels the blues MUCH MUCH better, his sound is much more beautiful, and his selection of notes is always right. I don't think that Buchanan even had 50% of Clapton's musical abilities, although he was still one of the best ever.
He had much greater technique - his overall musical ability is a different matter.

And if you care about "technical ability" so much, I don't see how you can admire Billy Gibbons then. Technical abilities wasn't the greatest thing about him, and he isn't more of a virtuoso than John Lee Hooker or Muddy Waters really.
I didn't say I did - I'm not Snouter. However, we were discussing Clapton's level of technique as a topic, so a dispassionate analysis is required. And Gibbons certainly has better technical ability than those two, although I'm not saying he's a better player.

Yeah, lol, Jimi Hendrix also thought he wasn't very good:p .
He was supremely confident of his rock guitar abilities. He felt insecure about his theoretical knowledge & his ability to play jazz with the big boys, not his rock 'n' roll playing.

And Clapton DOES know how good he is, and he is known to feel uncomfortable if there's a better guitar player around...it took him 3 years or so to forgive Jimi for...playing better:p , and Paul McCartney recently said in an interview that Jimi once invited Clapton on stage during his show, and Clapton was hiding away from people so that nobody will see him around...obviously because he was afraid Jimi would put him to shame.
Many players felt that way, of course. Larry Coryell made a total fool of himself jamming with Jimi.

He is not afraid to go on stage with any other guitarist, he could put most of them to shame without a problem (even sometimes some of the best ones like Jimmy Page and Santana), and he could hold his own to any of the best gutiarists...Allman, SRV, B.B. King, Freddy King, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck, George Harrison, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Mark Knofler...and he always ends up sounding better or AT LEAST just as great. And yes, he doesn't always have to use his technical abilities for that either.
What Clapton does is just play what he feels like playing. If someone tries to upstage him, he goes right ahead & plays what he was planning to anyhow, even if it was very simple.

TBH, most players who've worked with him on sessions, like Zappa, say that's what he DID do, instead of lending support. He's also not the nicest or friendliest man, which is one reason why he & Ginger Baker get along so poorly.

I thought it was Ginger Baker who is more of an a$$hole:confused:

Try Dee Dee Ramone, for example.

He wasn't ever rich?

He also was a heroin addict and died from it, so I could believe it.

Melody, taste & tone, but he's hardly the ultimate in technique.

Ummm, you're talking about Albert King and B.B. King here. Clapton is technically outstanding by all means.

Eric Johnson is far superior technically

He knows more about theory and probably can move around the guitar faster. Hardly superior though.

but lacks Clapton's gift for melody.

I agree 100%.
And that's one of the reasons why he's inferior to Clapton in my opinion.

His tone is just as good, however.

Not in my opinion, it's great, but overproduced, not as much soul as Clapton. I never get tired of Clapton's solos (I could only wish they were longer), while with Johnson it is different some of the times.

Note selection is something different than "technical ability,"

Well, what's the point in your "technical ability" or moving fast around the guitar, if your note selection is poor and you don't play it with a good taste and tone, and it just doesn't sound good overall? Of course it is an important part, because otherwise, you might as well just hit random notes very very fast, lol.

I'd agree with you on the latter, although I like Buchanan's playing better.


Yeah, nothing wrong with thtat, I like Chuck Berry's playing better than both of them anyways, even that he is not the techinically amazing guitarist that they are.


He had much greater technique - his overall musical ability is a different matter.


I don't see it. I don't even believe he was technically any better than Stevie Ray Vaughn, but he was still one of the best.

I didn't say I did - I'm not Snouter. However, we were discussing Clapton's level of technique as a topic, so a dispassionate analysis is required. And Gibbons certainly has better technical ability than those two, although I'm not saying he's a better player.

Good points, and yes, I like Hooker and Waters better than Gibbons, despite that, and I like Gibbons better than many people who are techincally better than him, such as Steve Vai or EVH.

He was supremely confident of his rock guitar abilities. He felt insecure about his theoretical knowledge & his ability to play jazz with the big boys, not his rock 'n' roll playing.

He didn't think he was better than his blues and rock heros either.

Many players felt that way, of course. Larry Coryell made a total fool of himself jamming with Jimi.


I never heard of that, but I can definately believe it, even that Coryell is a great guitarist. I did hear people like Johnny Winter jamming with Hendrix, and they were really really put to shame, despite being great.

What Clapton does is just play what he feels like playing. If someone tries to upstage him, he goes right ahead & plays what he was planning to anyhow, even if it was very simple.

I don't know, but whatever he plays and the way he plays it, sounds perfect to me, almost all of the times. I can hardly say that about anybody else, even Jimi.

I thought it was Ginger Baker who is more of an a$$hole:confused:
They both are, honestly, from what I hear. Clapton's generally a nice man, though. I've met him a few times, & he's always been very friendly.

He wasn't ever rich?

He also was a heroin addict and died from it, so I could believe it.
They never made huge money & there were the drug issues.

Ummm, you're talking about Albert King and B.B. King here. Clapton is technically outstanding by all means.
Definitely good, but there are far better.

He knows more about theory and probably can move around the guitar faster. Hardly superior though.
Superior overall, I'm not saying, but on a purely technical level, he is.

I've seen them both play in neutral, non-performance situations. (Eric J.'s a close friend, & Eric C. & I share a luthier in LA), so I've gotten a pretty good feel for a comparison.

I agree 100%.
And that's one of the reasons why he's inferior to Clapton in my opinion.
Not many players can compete on that level. The guy's like a melody machine. Even Hendrix wasn't superior in that regard.

Not in my opinion, it's great, but overproduced, not as much soul as Clapton. I never get tired of Clapton's solos (I could only wish they were longer), while with Johnson it is different some of the times.
Different issue than his tone specifically.

Well, what's the point in your "technical ability" or moving fast around the guitar, if your note selection is poor and you don't play it with a good taste and tone, and it just doesn't sound good overall? Of course it is an important part, because otherwise, you might as well just hit random notes very very fast, lol.
You see, Ganj, right now we're discussing technique in particular, and not "tone" or "feel" or "taste" or "melody" or "imagination."

Andrian Belew has no picking technique, but is so imaginative & melodic, he's a great player overall. Paul Gilbert has monstrous technical ability, but I'm rarely enthused by what he plays.

Yeah, nothing wrong with thtat, I like Chuck Berry's playing better than both of them anyways, even that he is not the techinically amazing guitarist that they are.
It's fun.

I don't see it. I don't even believe he was technically any better than Stevie Ray Vaughn, but he was still one of the best.
His technique was superior to Stevie Ray's - I was often unimpressed with SRV's execution or tone. He had other things going for him like soul and spontaneity.

Good points, and yes, I like Hooker and Waters better than Gibbons, despite that, and I like Gibbons better than many people who are techincally better than him, such as Steve Vai or EVH.
I doubt Billy would say he's an equal to JLH or Waters. I much prefer him to them on a personal level, however. Objectively, it's a difficult matter to call.

He didn't think he was better than his blues and rock heros either.
He certainly believed he was the best in the rock 'n' roll business.

I never heard of that, but I can definately believe it, even that Coryell is a great guitarist. I did hear people like Johnny Winter jamming with Hendrix, and they were really really put to shame, despite being great.
Typical comment: "Larry's fingers were flying all up & down the fretboard, & then Hendrix did one slide BAROOOOOMMMM down the neck, & cancelled out everything he'd played."

I don't know, but whatever he plays and the way he plays it, sounds perfect to me, almost all of the times. I can hardly say that about anybody else, even Jimi.
Few players are as appropriate to their musical context. Try to cut him & you just look like a jerk.

They both are, honestly, from what I hear. Clapton's generally a nice man, though. I've met him a few times, & he's always been very friendly.

Oh ok. Have you ever played guitar with Clapton?

They never made huge money & there were the drug issues.

Ok.

Definitely good, but there are far better.

FASTER, not bettter. Big difference.

Superior overall, I'm not saying, but on a purely technical level, he is.

Even if it's true (which is not in many ways actually), it wouldn't mean much to me anyways, since the things that I really care about when it comes to guitar playing, Clapton still does better. That's why I even take B.B. King and Albert King over Johnson (even that he's technically better than them), because despite having more limits, they sound MUCH better in whatever they play and are superior when it comes to feelings, tone, melody and feel for the blues.

I've seen them both play in neutral, non-performance situations.

Ummm, what would make you think that Eric Clapton would try to show off or play his best in non-performance situations? As a musician myself, I never feel like I have the need to show my friends my best technical abilities and prove myself...and we're talking about Eric Clapton here...it's his job to do all that stuff on stage, right.

Eric J.'s a close friend,

And that's exactly my point here. Of course if he's a close friend you would know much more about his best abilities and your personal taste would be biased towards him. If I was good friends with him, I would definately like myself to believe that he's better than Clapton, especially since technically they are on about the same level, but as somebody who doesn't know either one of them and not personally biased, I cannot deny that Clapton is a greater guitarist OVERALL.

Maybe if I was friends with other great guitarists like you are, my opinion might have been different, but then I wouldn't be objective either.

Eric C. & I share a luthier in LA

Well, since you and him aren't friends like you are with Johnson, of course you would wanna rather believe that Johnson is better and you probably know more about Johnson's abilities than Clapton's abilities anyways.

Not many players can compete on that level.

That's why he's the best right now in my opinion, since I care about HOW GOOD does something sounds.

The guy's like a melody machine. Even Hendrix wasn't superior in that regard.


I agree. I still believe Hendrix was the best for other reasons, but there were some things that Clapton did do better when it comes to playing.

Different issue than his tone specifically.


No, he does have a good tone, it's just not my favorite, and I prefer Clapton's and Santana's by far.

You see, Ganj, right now we're discussing technique in particular, and not "tone" or "feel" or "taste" or "melody" or "imagination."

So do you believe you could be "technically great" without good tone, feel, taste, melody, imagination, soul, good note selection or ability to play great in different styles as long as you move your fingers fast?:confused:

Paul Gilbert has monstrous technical ability, but I'm rarely enthused by what he plays.

EXACTLY...there's no point in playing so many notes when it just sucks. For every 100 notes that he plays, B.B. King will play 2 notes and sound so much better, so therefore it doesn't matter how fast he can go.

His technique was superior to Stevie Ray's - I was often unimpressed with SRV's execution or tone.

I dissagree. I always liked SRV's execution and tone and that's one of the things I like about his playing the most, and while Buchanan may know more styles...SRV plays much better whatever he does know, and if you wanna talk about speed, SRV is probably faster, and his tone, feel for blues and melodic ablities impress me much more than Buchanan's.

He had other things going for him like soul and spontaneity.

Yes, and in my opinion, no guitarist besides Hendrix actually had as much soul.

I doubt Billy would say he's an equal to JLH or Waters.

He wouldn't. They are his heros.

I much prefer him to them on a personal level, however. Objectively, it's a difficult matter to call.


Hooker and Waters were more limited but they sounded the best in what they played than anybody.

He certainly believed he was the best in the rock 'n' roll business.

No he didn't. He never actually believed that he was better than Clapton or Beck, even that he was.


Typical comment: "Larry's fingers were flying all up & down the fretboard, & then Hendrix did one slide BAROOOOOMMMM down the neck, & cancelled out everything he'd played."


I can imagine that, lol, hardly surprising. When and where was it at, and who said that comment? Just wondering.



Few players are as appropriate to their musical context. Try to cut him & you just look like a jerk.

There you go:nice: And that's why I think he's the best guitarist right now.

GF,

Get the two-disc 25th Anniversary edition of Band On The Run and read the booklet,it'll tell you that Paul Mc Cartney had major issues with Ginger Baker.

GF,

People back at the forum you and I met at want you to drop in and let them know how you are doing.

... & Eric C. & I share a luthier in LA....

Thanks CP for the vocab lesson! :nice: :D

For the benefit of anyone else reading this thread who needs it:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luthier

I'd think that anyone reading this far would prolly know that one, but pleased I could be of service. :nice:

Interestingly, although you'd think otherwise, EC is a sub-rosa crotchety old guy.

Once he was talking to me about the young musicians he'd see around in LA, & he said things like "Did you get a look at their hair? And it's not just onstage! And their clothes!" :rolleyes:

The world is waiting to find out where TT and GF first met. :o

The world is waiting to find out where TT and GF first met. :o

You're not going to find out.

I'd think that anyone reading this far would prolly know that one, but pleased I could be of service. :nice:

I'm not a musician, you see - I just take pictures of them! :D

You're not going to find out.

Why the big secret as to where TT and GF met? :o :shrug:

Get the two-disc 25th Anniversary edition of Band On The Run and read the booklet,it'll tell you that Paul Mc Cartney had major issues with Ginger Baker.

What happened between them?

People back at the forum you and I met at want you to drop in and let them know how you are doing.

Thanks, I will do that.:)

Once he was talking to me about the young musicians he'd see around in LA, & he said things like "Did you get a look at their hair? And it's not just onstage! And their clothes!"

I've been to L.A. earlier this year, I've seen young musicians there, and I have to agree with Eric.

I played at the Roxy, and there were like 3-4 punk/metal bands comming before us, bands that have played for a while and do it all the time. And yes, all of them had weird "hair and clothes", while we looked normal. I hardly even had a "band"...3 of the 5 people in the band never ever played with me before, one of them (the drummer) I never even met before, and we had exactly 2-3 days to do everything, and that means work on 8-10 songs. Not to mention that my stage experience at the time was quite limited. But anyways, as good or bad as our show turned out to be in the end...we still stole the show from all of these bands (even according to the members of those bands, no joke), and most of their fans liked us MUCH MUCH BETTER, despite being into punk-rock and metal, and many people told me after the show that they never even listened to blues or blues-rock until then, and now they love it.

So, that's why I feel that Clapton is right about such musicians being very concerend with their image and looking weird, while obviously not having that much of talent and can't play very good.

In some ways, I'm happy about it (I'm moving there next year), because I wouldn't have to worry about not playing good, since most of these young bands and musicians make me look like Jimi Hendrix (and I'm not joking about it either, unfortunately) http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=7225810&imageID=87638369&Mytoken=152106B2-9999-14DD-46B8F0A5413533BA30537536

I do hope that some of these girls come back to seem me in concert:D :

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=7225810&imageID=87641484&Mytoken=152106B2-9999-14DD-46B8F0A5413533BA30537536

The world is waiting to find out where TT and GF first met.

Hey, I didn't know I was THAT famous YET:D .

You're not going to find out.

Yeah, since the original website does no longer exist...it's been like 5-6 years or so.

Why the big secret as to where TT and GF met?

Snouter, I understand that you are a huge fan and I respect the fact that you can't wait to find out every fact about me, I definately do appreciate that. However, I cannot share that information because that website no longer exists.:p

What happened between them?


The booklet goes into more detail than I can,but Baker bullied Mc Cartney to record a track for the album in Baker's studio and Macca rigthfully didn't like that.

It was living hell for Macca to cut that album [one of his two best albums by the way] his band left him,he was nearly killed in a mugging,he found himself in the middle of all sorts of messes he didn't want to be in and he didn't like Ginger Baker adding to the mess.

But the album did indeed come out great.



Hey, I didn't know I was THAT famous YET:D .


And I didn't know I was THAT famous yet either.:D


Yeah, since the original website does no longer exist...it's been like 5-6 years or so.


GF,if you still have the e mails of the people involved,then contact them,they miss you and want to hear from you.

Awww, TT and GF, you are both world famous right here on DA. http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/weihnachten/xpb_stupid.gif http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/weihnachten/woswmann74.gif

But the album did indeed come out great.

:nice:

GF,if you still have the e mails of the people involved,then contact them,they miss you and want to hear from you.

I don't have any of the e-mails.:(

And I didn't know I was THAT famous yet either.

If I had my way, you would be...as a music critic/historian (if not politics as well):nice:

Awww, TT and GF, you are both world famous right here on DA.

Awww, I love all my fans, even the few who don't know too much about music and have a bad taste most of the time while thinking they are better and smarter than everybody else:nice: I believe it is part of my job as a pro-musician to teach such people a thing or two about music and inspire them to listen to real great bands and artists. CD's will be availible for $10 each...enjoy the show!!:drink:

I wish I saw it.

Coldplay was also on last weekend but since I cannot get network tv at my house I missed that too.

Maybe I can find somebody who recorded it and borrow the tape.:hmm:

Criminal, you don't get PBS in your area?

Criminal, you don't get PBS in your area?
Yes but I have direct Tv and I do not have an antenna to pick up local networks. I could set it up but I am really too lazy to do so.

Saw some of it High Definition tonight. It was pretty cool to see Cream together again but Eric has been playing too much blues over the years. This weakness was revealed during White Room which was one of the most intense rock songs ever conceived and perfromed back when Cream was a progressive, psychedelic rock band. The holding of the D chord and rolling down to the C, then B then Bb is one of the most powerful rock progressions that has been copied by millions and millions of musicians. The problem was Eric was pretty lame during this song (and Crossroads and some of the others for that matter). Not only did he not do the relevent fills but the guitar solo fell flat and sounded bluesy. Jack, Ginger and Eric get an A+ for effort though. It is concert all music lovers should check out. :nice:

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I just don't know where to begin.

Really? Bluesy? Problem? Are ya smokin' crack?

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I just don't know where to begin.

:nice:

Really? Bluesy?

Is there anything better than the Blues?:confused:

Problem?

You can't go wrong with the Blues.

Are ya smokin' crack?

I guess crack is a bad drug after all if it makes you not like Blues, but like overproduced sh!t and 1980's metal. It's a good thing I've never done it:D .

...



You can't go wrong with the Blues.


...


Indeed, there is nothing better than the Blues. Maybe not even sex.......well, maybe.

Indeed, there is nothing better than the Blues. Maybe not even sex.......well, maybe.

:nice: I'd say they are equally THE BEST!!

Also, Blues is much harder to play than most styles in many ways, since that's where music theory, fast fingers, technical ability or even good understanding of music is really not enough at all and you need to feel every note in a special way in order to play it very good, and not everybody, not even most good/great guitarists can play the Blues REALLY great. That's why in my opinion, the best guitarists come from Blues, or at least are very inspired by them. I mean, look at Jeff Beck, he can do pretty much anything Steve Vai or Al Dimeola can, usually better and with more soul, while he is also one of the best Blues guitarists, while Dimeola couldn't play the blues to save his life, and Vai does show some soul and feelings when he really tries hard, but he's HARDLY that good when it comes to the Blues. I doubt that Hendrix, Clapton or SRV would have much of a problem playing anything else, since they got enough musicianship and talent, WAY more than enough feelings to play anything well, and probably enough technical ablities (at the most they would have to increase the speed in their left hands, but that's HARDLY a big problem).

Clearly Eric's overly bluesy solos were not appropriate in the context of the progressive rock songs such as White Room and did not compare favorably to the original version, but here is a question for you Bear Stories to test your knowledge of blues theory. What are the two elements of song structure in Jack Bruce's Sunshine Of Your Love that could be considered blues-based?

Clearly Eric's overly bluesy solos were not appropriate in the context of the progressive rock songs such as White Room and did not compare favorably to the original version, but here is a question for you Bear Stories to test your knowledge of blues theory. What are the two elements of song structure in Jack Bruce's Sunshine Of Your Love that could be considered blues-based?

42? ;)

Incorrect.

The main riff contains a b5 (the flat fifth is the blues note) and the general structure is more complex but based loosely on the I-IV-V blues progression in D.

Well, duh! (snicker) Incorrect, do ya think? I'm not anywhere near the musician that you are and I am by no means any sort of blues theorist......I mean, I can read music, if it comes with subtitles. ;)

Clearly Eric's overly bluesy solos

There is no such thing as "overly bluesy":p . And Eric Clapton is a BLUES GUITARIST!!!! It's like complaining that Johnny Cash sings too much Country music, lol.

Do you even have any albums by Clapton (and all the bands that he played with) besides some Greatest Hits CDs? And if so, what albums?:rofl:

were not appropriate in the context of the progressive rock songs

What IS appropriate? Why don't you show Eric how it's done?:lol:

The only guitarist I know of that can be compared to Clapton in terms of having the best notes selections is George Harrison, since both of them ALWAYS played the perfect notes, nearly all the time. While I still believe Hendrix is the best by far overall, even he didn't have that kind of ability.

such as White Room

Earlier you also said "Crossroads" as well. Are you trying to tell me that it is not a Blues song either??:confused: Do you even know who wrote it? :p Have you ever heard of Robert Johnson?:confused: Do you know what kind of music did he play/sing/write?:devil:

did not compare favorably to the original version,

1. The original version was very bluesy too, for your information.

2. While the new solo wasn't AS great, there is nothing wrong with it, and besides, Clapton did MUCH better solos on nearly every other song during the concert, so it hardly even matters. I never hear Clapton sound so good, and he was always in my Top 5 favorite guitarists.

test your knowledge of blues theory.

Blues is hardly based on any kind of theory. Yeah, sure you got the blues scales and the 12-bar form and all of that, but it's 90% about the feelings, soul, and HOW WELL you play it (as opposed to what exactly do you play and how fast). The theory itself is very easy and anybody can learn it. That's why the Blues is both the easiest and the hardest music to play. Yeah, sure, you can play a solo in a 12-bar form that has b5, b3, b7, but it doesn't mean that you can play the Blues very well, and all that alone doesn't make it "Blues". On the other hand, you can take a completely different form, not even a I-IV-V progression, use all kinds of notes and STILL play the Blues.

Some Blues songs have only 1 chord in them, some have LOTS of chord changes, but as long as the musician has the blues and feels the blues when he plays every note...it's THE BLUES.

What are the two elements of song structure in Jack Bruce's Sunshine Of Your Love that could be considered blues-based?

1. It has a bluesy chord progression: I-IV-I------V-IV/IV-IV-V-IV/IV-IV-V....or something like that. The chord changes are VERY good here to make the song sound Bluesy, however, that alone is not enough...

2. The feeling of the Blues. The way Jack Bruce sings it and Clapton's solo (not only the note selection but the way he feels every note) is Blues, so that song is Blues-Rock.

The main riff contains a b5 (the flat fifth is the blues note)

It would still be bluesy without that note, and if it wasn't for HOW they played this song, that note wouldn't be much help in terms of making it bluesy.

However, it was a great idea and the b5 does add a lot to the main riff and to the song in general.

the general structure is more complex but based loosely on the I-IV-V blues progression in D.

Right, but even if it was a usual 12-bar form, it still wouldn't definately mean that the song is Blues. It's mostly about the WAY you play it.

Well, duh! (snicker) Incorrect, do ya think? I'm not anywhere near the musician that you are and I am by no means any sort of blues theorist......I mean, I can read music, if it comes with subtitles.


I'm a music major, and I'm graduating in 5 months. Theory knowledge doesn't alway means that you are better or worse musician, since I've already completed all my music theory classes (with A's and B's) and I could NEVER EVER play what people like Wes Montogomory, Louis Armstrong, Jimi Hendrix or even Paco de Lucia can (all of them do/did not read or write music at all), and no other musician (educated or not) can do what they did, so it's not always as relevant in this context, although there's nothing wrong with learning music theory and it does help alot.

There is no such thing as "overly bluesy":p . And Eric Clapton is a BLUES GUITARIST!!!! It's like complaining that Johnny Cash sings too much Country music, lol.
.....


Yeah, that goddamn Jonny Cash and his Ring of Fire bullsh!t! Why can't he just do some hair-metal and be done with it.

(and before you answer, the obvious of, "he's dead", not so many points.) ;)

I'm a music major, and I'm graduating in 5 months. Theory knowledge doesn't alway means that you are better or worse musician, since I've already completed all my music theory classes (with A's and B's) and I could NEVER EVER play what people like Wes Montogomory, Louis Armstrong, Jimi Hendrix or even Paco de Lucia can (all of them do/did not read or write music at all), and no other musician (educated or not) can do what they did, so it's not always as relevant in this context, although there's nothing wrong with learning music theory and it does help alot.

I really can actually read music, (9 years of school band on the tenor sax), I was kidding about the subtitles. But I do understand my limitations in the world of music theory. Hell, what do I know? My BA is in English Lit. Now, with words, we can go toe to toe with dictionaries at dawn, :D, but music.....not so much. I know what I like and I like to think I have a pretty good ear, but when it comes down to mechanics, I will always bow to someone else's superiour knowledge.

I don't have any of the e-mails.:(


PM me your e mail and I'll get it to them.