Note: Soon after the band Cream announced that they were re-forming to play 3 shows at London's Royal Albert hall in May of 2005, an official 'Cream2005' website was created for the band. This website featured bulletin boards that soon hosted some extremely interesting, informative and amusing message threads, posted by a wide assortment of people. Although most of these threads related directly to Cream (both in its 1966 - 1968 incarnation and its 2005 incarnation), many of them had only the most tenuous relationship to the band, and some had no detectable connection whatsoever. Before the boards were shut-down by the website's host near the end of 2005, I copied some of the more interesting discussions in which I participated (my screen name -- occasionally referred-to in some posts -- was hsosdrum), and I present them here for your amusement. Although I have cleaned-up some errant punctuation and added a few explanitory notes in brackets [ ] (sometimes it's hard to know what a poster is talking about unless you've read the entire message string, and some of these message strings contained hundreds of posts), I have not edited any of the text in any of the postings. My postings and responses are in plain type; postings by others are in italics.
Thread about Clapton's post-Cream playing (and improvisation in general)
Originally posted by Pickin':
ecru, Why do you think this is? [that since 1971, that "magical" quality in Clapton's solos has often eluded him]
Personally, I think it's because after Cream, Clapton has surrounded himself with musicians who DON'T challenge him to go beyond his comfort zone. When outside an environment that encourages him to push his personal envelope, EC seems content to play things very safe, which makes sense considering how he has always doubted his own musical abilities.
Jack and Ginger have an exceptionally strong jazz background. They often said that Cream was a jazz band (and it truly was). The essence of jazz is improvisation. When you're in a jazz band you improvise. When you play hundreds of gigs a year, you constantly search for new ways of musically expressing yourself if you want to remain fresh. When you listen to bootlegs of Cream's live gigs from late 1967 and early 1968 you can hear Eric really stretching himself into new melodic and textural areas. Just listen to his playing on the beginning of "Toad" from the 10/67 Grande Ballroom gig. He's using the whammy bar and producing a grinding, feedback-laced solo that's way more reminiscent of Hendrix than it is of anything Clapton played in the post-Cream period. This experimentation is the natural result of playing with musicians who encourage you to create beyond your self-imposed boundaries. (This encouragement happens both on and off the stage.) Jack and Ginger have also been quoted saying that in Cream they were trying to turn Eric into Ornette Coleman without his knowledge. (Coleman is an avante-garde jazz saxophone player.) It's clear that they might have succeeded if Cream hadn't split-up, and to me, this is the real tragedy of Cream's demise.
Since Cream, EC has created a playing environment for himself that encourages him to stay very close to home, so to speak. I can't think of a single musician he's been in a band with (excepting Duane Allman's brief tenure in Derek & The Dominoes) who can claim to be anything more than a hired studio gun. Nobody with any credentials in jazz or other experimental music. Nobody with the balls to light a fire under Clapton. Listen to the backup musicians on any of EC's live recordings. Nobody's on fire -- nobody. Everyone's playing it straight down the middle. This places all of the burden of creativity squarely on Clapton's shoulders, and this can be a crushing burden, indeed. So, to avoid being crushed, EC plays it safe. After all, if you stick to what you know works, you don't risk failure. Trouble is, you also don't risk achieving anything truly great.
Playing improvisational music demands that you accept, even embrace, the risk of failure. To avoid this is to avoid ever making magic. Cream made magic precisely because they were also willing to fail (and fail they did, sometimes). Watching supremely talented musicians play improvised music is like watching a great tightrope walker work without a net. Part of what makes the magical moments so thrilling is the knowledge that failure is just a misstep away. The greatest respect I have for other musicians is reserved for those who are willing to walk that tightrope night after night in front of an audience. I've done it myself, and when you succeed it's the most fulfilling feeling life has to offer. And when you don't, you pick yourself up and get right back on the rope. For whatever reason, since Cream Clapton has clearly had no interest in taking-up this challenge. And for this we're all the poorer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about great live concert experiences that evolves into a discussion of swing-era drummers and then of some of the differences between Cream in 1968 and in 2005
HS Post #1:
I have had so many great concert experiences, but the absolute most transcendent was the Jeff Beck Group, Ten Years After & The Moody Blues at the Shrine Exposition Hall in L.A., November, 1968. TYA played first and Alvin Lee kicked serious ass. Then the Moodys played on the side stage while roadies set-up JBG's gear on the main stage. The Moodys opened-up with "Ride My See-Saw", and I can still feel the sound of the Mellotron washing over me, 37 years later -- fantastic! Well, after the Moody's set, no Beck (he was [in]famous for being late). So they set TYA's gear back up on the main stage while the opening band played their second set and TYA played a blistering second set. Then back to the Moodys on stage 2 for their second set while the roadies re-set Beck's gear, and by the end of that it was after midnight and we were so blown-away we really didn't care if Beck showed-up or not.
About 12:30 Jeff Beck, Ron Wood, Rod Stewart, Nicky Hopkins and Mick Waller finally walked-onto the main stage, with Beck mumbling a barely-understandable apology for being late. They brought-out a frizzy-haired rhythm guitar player (looked like Noel Redding) who carried a solid-body Rickenbacker 12-string and they launched-into the most mind-blowing version of "Beck's Bolero" that any of you could ever imagine. They played until nearly 3AM, with each song topping the previous one. Besides "Bolero" they played "Train Kept A-Rollin'", just about everything from the 'Truth' album and "Rice Pudding" and "Spanish Boots" (from 'Beck-Ola'). But the piece de resistance was "Jeff's Boogie" (an old Yardbirds song). During the guitar solo the band stopped playing, allowing Beck to play a solo cadenza that included "The Theme From The Beverly Hillbillies". No kidding, he finger-picked the banjo part 100% note-for-note perfect on his Les Paul, at blinding speed. After they ended with "Ain't Superstitious" my friend and I went outside and collapsed on a parked car before driving home. Absolutely the best concert experience I've ever had.
Contenders for my #2 best concert experience would be: Cream at The Shrine Expo Hall (03/68), Monty Python at The Hollywood Bowl (1980), Jimi Hendrix & Vanilla Fudge at The Bowl (1968), ELP with full orchestra and chorus at the St. Paul Civic Center (1977), Deep Purple performing Concerto For Group And Orchestra with the LA Phil at the Hollywood Bowl (1970), Vanilla Fudge at The Shrine in 1/69 (when they recorded "Break Song"), Mahavishnu Orchestra at The Whiskey Au Go Go in 1972, Jack Bruce and Friends (Cobham, Sancious, Clempson) in 1980 (3rd-row center seats), the Doobie Brothers (a private corporate show in 1996, and it was great fun), and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young in 2000 (front-row center seats).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS Post #2:
One of the better things about going to rock concerts in the late 1960s was the variety of bands you were often able to see at a single concert. As an adjunct to this thread, I thought I'd list some of the more memorable shared concert bills I've seen:
The Who/The Animals/The Everly Brothers/The Association/Spanky And Our Gang (1967)
Cream/James Cotton Blues Band/Mint Tattoo (1968)
Jimi Hendrix/Vanilla Fudge/Soft Machine/Eire Apparent (1968)
Cream/Deep Purple (1968)
Jeff Beck/Ten Years After/Moody Blues/Outlaw Blues Band [not The Outlaws] (1968)
Vanilla Fudge/Richie Havens (1969)
John Mayall/Deep Purple (1969)
Led Zeppelin/Brian Auger & The Trinity w/Julie Driscoll (1969)
Vanilla Fugde/The Collectors/It's A Beautiful Day (1969)
Paul Butterfield/Lee Michaels/Procul Harum (1969)
Ike & Tina Turner/Canned Heat/Savoy Brown/Buddy Miles Express (1969)
The Who/Bonzo Dog Band (1969)
Lee Michaels/Big Mama Thornton (1969)
Jimi Hendrix/Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago)/Cat Mother & The All-Night Newsboys (1969)
ELP/Edgar Winter's White Trash/Humble Pie (1970)
Deep Purple/L.A. Philharmonic Orchestra (1970)
The Who/Leon Russell/Blues Image (1970)
ELP/Mahavishnu Orchestra (1971)
Yes/Mary Wells(!) (1971)
King Crimson/Fairport Convention (1972)
Mahavishnu Orchestra/Keef Hartley Band (1972)
Yes/Poco (1972)
Deep Purple/Faces (1972)
West, Bruce & Laing/J. Geils Band (1973)
Boston/Starcastle (1976 -- got free tickets -- memorable for how bad a concert it was)
UK/The Great Jazz Trio (w/Tony Williams) (1978)
Steve Martin/The Blues Brothers (Dan Ackroyd & John Belushi) (1978)
DEVO/Dove (Devo appeard as their own opening act -- a quasi-Christian band) (1982)
Frank Zappa/The BOBS (1984)
Styx/Martha & The Vandellas (2000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by pLee:
HSO - your posts are so insightful - would you please expound a bit on your impressions of Hendrix, Cream and Mahavishnu - how they developed live over the gigs you saw. Also, was Hendrix truly the force of nature he is remembered to be - that is, if you walked in without knowing about him - what would you have thought.
Thanks.
Thanks so much for your very kind words, PLee. I really can't imagine what I would have thought of Hendrix as a live performer if I had never heard his music before seeing him live the first time. I can tell you that his music was so original and powerful that I can still clearly remember the very first time I ever heard it. Back in early 1967 I was a huge fan of the Beatles and Doors, when a guy I didn't know very well invited me over to hear this new album he just got. He put "Are You Experienced" on his little 'close'n'play' record player and Hendrix's magic came through loud and clear even on that toy music system. I really felt that my ears had been opened to a completely new kind of musical expression. Right around that time I also heard 'Fresh Cream' for the first time, and my vision was further expanded. Then 'Sergeant Pepper's' came-out that June, and it seemed that everything was possible, musically.
You see, you really can't isolate Jimi Hendrix from what else was happening in music at that time -- he was part of a huge shift that took pop/rock music into whole new areas, away from the simple love-song orientation that had defined it since Sinatra became such a huge star during and after the big-band era. Music became much more meaningful, in a social context. Song lyrics talked about the war, the rift between generations, the importance of spirituality, racial and social equality, and other important subjects. Much of this was Bob Dylan's influence, and it affected every songwriter and musician. Even Motown began releasing songs that were about subjects other than love. Hendrix's music was a part of this sea-change in music, which made it less revolutionary than it seems now, when you look back on it isolated from the way society was changing in 1967-68.
As far as Hendrix as a live performer, I can tell you that I think what separated his stage persona from that of every other rock performer at that time was his sexuality. He was the first rock musician who wove sexuality into the way he performed, and this gave his live performances more power, both with women and with men. Although Jim Morrison's stage persona was also very sexual, Morrison was white, and this made him much less threatening to the powers-that-be than Hendrix. Also, Morrison's on-stage sexuality seemed more a byproduct of his drug use -- the more stoned he was the more he acted up because of it. Hendrix's sexuality seemed simply to be who he was, and he wove it into his playing so that it became a part of his music when he played it live. During live renditions of "Foxey Lady", when Hendrix sang "Here I come baby -- comin' to git'cha", there was no doubt what he meant.
Of course, Hendrix was also a hugely original guitarist, and a very unpredictable performer. I saw him live three times: the first was at the Hollywood Bowl, and it was a top-notch performance. The next time was 6 months later at the LA Forum, also a very good performance, although you could tell that by then Hendrix was getting weary of having to repeat the same guitar hystrionics (playing with his teeth, playing behind his back, etc.) and the same old songs to satisfy the audience. His show was more perfunctory than the Bowl show was, with less fire and originality.
The third time I saw him was at the Newport 69 festival in Northridge, CA. This was the very last time The Experience performed together on stage. Mitch Mitchell speculates in his book that someone backstage spiked Hendirx's drink with some sort of drugs before they performed, because the band was truly awful that night. Hendrix wandered the stage seemingly in a blur, missing cues in the music and forgetting lyrics. The audience got rowdy (a security guard fought with someone trying to climb-onto the stage during Mitchell's drum solo, taking so long that Mitchell stopped playing, got up from the drums and yelled "Will you get him off there?"). Hendrix felt so badly about this that he came back to the festival two days later and jammed on stage with other bands to try to make it up to the audience. Mitchell says that this really put the last nail in The Experience's coffin, driving Jimi to want to find new ways of musical expression.
As for Cream, I saw them in March of 1968 and again on their Farewell tour, and much has already been written about the changes in the band and their playing between those two tours. You could certainly see that on stage at The Forum on 10/19/68 Clapton was much more going through the motions than Bruce and Baker were. Bruce especially seemed into performing, while Clapton sulked around, doing little more than the 'blues noodling' that John Landau had criticized him of in his May, 1968 'Rolling Stone' review. The only two songs they stretched-out on that night were "I'm So Glad", which you can hear on 'Goodbye', and "Spoonful", which they played as an encore. I remember thinking at the time that Clapton sounded like he would rather be somewhere else, whereas when I heard Cream the previous March, Clapton played with real energy and imagination. At the Forum Bruce and Baker kept trying to pull "Spoonful" in different directions, but Clapton never took the bait -- he just spun his wheels for 10 minutes. It was disappointing, since at the time none of us knew much about what was splitting the band up -- we only knew that our heroes were letting us down. Suffice it to say that I wish I had been old enough to see them when they played at The Whiskey during their first tour, but I was only 14 at the time. I consider myself very lucky to have seen them at all, and especially lucky to have seen them before Clapton self-destructed after reading Landau's review, which I think was more accurate than many of his current fans allow themselves to believe.
Mahavishnu? I saw them twice: first at the Santa Monica Civic with ELP and then at the Whiskey. The Whiskey gig was amazing because 1) they were unbelieveably loud in such a small venue, 2) I was sitting in the front row, and 3) Cobham did things on the drums that I had never even imagined possible at that time. He was playing the clear Fibes kit, so you could see everything he played, and he was the first ambidextrous drummer I had ever seen, so he was able to go around this huge kit in either direction (low-to-high and high-to-low) with equal facility. (Of course, a couple of weeks later I saw Buddy Rich's band play at the Whiskey -- maybe the 10th time I had seen him live -- and in spite of how impressive Cobham was with Mahavishnu, all it took was one song for Buddy to once again prove that he was the greatest drummer who ever lived.)
I didn't notice any significant differences between the two Mahavishnu gigs. They were tighter the second time, but it seemed that there was some tension, especially between McLaughlin and Cobham. When they first came on stage McLaughlin put his hands together, turned and bowed to the band, and Cobham stood-up behind the drums and thumbed his nose at him. Then they launched into their first song as if nothing had happened. At the time I thought this was very weird. Nonetheless, they were truly mind-boggling live. Like Cream, they were virtuosos, and McLaughlin and Cobham were much more technically accomplished players than Clapton and Baker were. (Rick Laird couldn't hold a candle to Jack Bruce.) Like Hendrix, Mahavishnu showed that music could go places where nobody thought to take it previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Francesco the Magnificent:
Excellent post as always, hsos. It, and something I read on the other forum, got me thinking, and I was wondering if you'd care to share any opinions about the big drum rivalries of the swing and bebop eras; specifically, Krupa/Rich and Roach/Blakey. My dad was a major swing fan when he was young, and according to him, Krupa was the big star of his time whose fans felt that he was a "tasteful" player, whereas Rich's style was too "busy." He would immediately follow that by saying that Krupa's fans were all wrong, because Rich was the best drummer in the world. I agreed, because I had the good fortune (if you can call it that) to grow up in Queens in NYC, where a number of famous jazz players (everyone from Buddy Rich to Louis Armstrong) ended up, and I saw Buddy play any number of times when I was a kid. He was a regular neighborhood type guy who (for example) played a benefit concert every year for a high school close to my parents' house with which he was somehow connected. He also played a lot of free gigs for the Parks Dept., so it was always easy to see him. Spoiled as I was, I grew up thinking all drummers played like that. Anyway, I know where I stand, but where do you, as a professional, come down on Krupa vs. Rich and Roach vs. Blakey (another "tasteful" vs. "busy" contest)?
Comparing Rich and Krupa, I must agree with another drummer who has been frequently quoted saying that "Buddy Rich is the greatest drummer who ever drew breath." The quote is from none other than Gene Krupa himself.
I strongly disagree with those who characterize Rich's playing as "busy". Everything he played evolved directly from the song; he never added anything that was gratuitous, just to show-off. His left hand was constantly in motion, tap-dancing on the snare drum in wonderful counterpoint to the melody; always in support of it. I've heard recordings where Rich played almost straight time throughout the whole song -- nary a fill to be heard -- because that's what best suited the particular arrangement. The man had uncanny musical memory; he didn't read music, yet if he heard an arrangement even once he never forgot it. This tool helped him get the most out of his playing, no matter what musical situation he was in.
When Krupa was at the height of his popularity in the late 30s - early 40s he was also criticized as being "too busy" and "a showoff". I think that those critics were simply unwilling to consider the drums as a truly 'musical' instrument that is capable of adding its own voice to music. Even now, most critics and musicians see the drummer's role as simply one of support to the "real" musicians and singers. Back in Krupa's day they preferred the more laid-back styles of Jo Jones and Dave Tough to the more up-front and musically adventurous styles of Krupa and Rich. A matter of taste to be sure, but as good as Jones and Tough were, they broke no new ground for the instrument the way Krupa did. In fact, I really don't consider Rich's playing as "revolutionary". He really didn't stake-out a new role for the drums the way Krupa did early on. He didn't revolutionize the role of the drums in music; he took the drums farther than anyone else ever did within the role that had already been set for the instrument.
What thrills me the most about Buddy's playing has always been his utter and complete command on the instrument. When I see him play I always have the feeling that he could play anything and everything that he could conceive of. He always sounded completely comfortable, no matter what musical context he was playing in. His playing always seems effortless the same way that Fred Astaire's dancing always seems effortless. Of course we know that both were the result of genius (and in Astaire's case, of a lot of hard practice).
When I was studying music in college I took on an assignment to transcribe one of Krupa's drum solos. I chose his long solo from "Gene's Blues", on the 'Krupa And Rich' album. After a couple of weeks' work, I was able to transcribe the solo 100% accurately. Emboldened by this, I decided to transcribe one of Buddy's long solos. After all, how much harder could it be? Well, there was no way I could transcribe anything more than a 4-bar break of Buddy's. No matter what long solo of Buddy's I chose, there were way too many musical twists, turns and surprises in his playing. Krupa's long solos were all very linear and followed a simple musical logic. On the other hand, Buddy's long solos, while also very linear, followed a much more complex musical logic that was simply beoynd my understanding at that time. Krupa's solos consisted mostly of dotted eighth note/16th note patterns, strings of triplets with accents and strings of 16th notes with accents. He rarely varied from this (although the "Gene's Blues" solo does contain a couple of cool connecting passages). Buddy's solos consist of very complex melodic figures, theme-and-variation passages and call-and-response passages, strung-together one after another and played at blinding speed. A very different approach to soloing. Naturally, Buddy's solos also contained some 'patented' tricks of his (like the single-stroke roll he started at a snail's pace and gradually accellerated until it was so fast his hands were a blur) that always got the crowd on its feet, but he only used those as climactic passages.
I don't think I'd characterize Blakey's playing as "busy" either. In fact, I think Roach's style may have consisted of using more notes than Blakey's did. I think Roach's style was more melodically oriented while I'd characterize Blakey's as more 'textural'. Blakey's playing was more dynamically volatile than Roach's, and his approach to time was always looser; more African-sounding. Roach's playing was much more precise and refined-sounding. (If you can't tell, I'm a huge fan of both.) I think Roach's playing was more revolutionary than Blakey's, since he helped put the drumset's timekeeping emphasis on the ride cymbal and added the toms and bass drum as melodic elements, allowing the drummer to play figures similar to a horn player. Max Roach is the third leg of the triad that (along with Bird and Dizzy) invented be-bop, which really turned jazz on its ear during the late 1940s.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pedro:
The buzz I've heard is that Chick Webb smoked Krupa in Harlem. Buddy Rich was excellent drummer but I have trouble thinking of him in the same league as Max Roach, Art Blakely, Lenny White, Jack DeJohnette. My $.02.
When Benny Goodman's band played the famous 'battle of the bands' against Chick Webb's band at the Savoy Ballroom in 1937 even Krupa admitted that he had been "cut" by Webb, but I think this has more to do with Webb's band just plain swinging harder than Goodman's ever did. (Compare their recordings of "Don't Be That Way" -- both bands played the same Edgar Samson arrangement, and while the Goodman band sounds tight-assed, the Webb band really swings on it.) I've heard a lot of Chick Webb's records and frankly, I don't think that Webb's drumming has withstood the test of time nearly as well as Krupa's has. Webb rushed his fills and solos terribly: just listen to "Liza". His style was firmly-rooted in dixieland (2-beat), and his solos were classic dixieland solos of the "hit everything and sort it out later" variety. Krupa is the player who moved drumming beyond this and into a much more elegant (and musical) attitude. He helped move timekeeping away from dixieland 2-beat and into the classic swing "4-on-the-floor" mode. And his solos were the first to really take advantage of the instrument's musical capabilities, getting away from 'bashing everything in sight' in favor of longer passages on individual drums (the classic example being his floor tom solos on "Sing, Sing, Sing"). So although Webb was a huge influence on Krupa and others at the time, I think his style was of an earlier era that Krupa, Rich, Jo Jones and others simply moved beyond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pedro:
hsosdrum I’m sure you know a lot more about this than I do but it seems to me that if Chick Webbs band swung harder than Benny Goodman’s than at least part some of the credit has to go to Chick’s playing.
No doubt that part is due to Webb's playing, but a lot of it is due to the different approach to rhythm and time that black swing bands had compared with white swing bands. Black bands approached time in a much more 'elastic' fashion — the rhythm really breathed. On the other hand, white bands seemed to have a much more straightlaced approach to time; much stricter, and they just plain didn't swing as much as the black bands did. This goes beyond how the drummers played -- it was how everybody in the bands (especially their leaders) approached rhythm. If you listen to Ellington, Basie, Webb, Lunceford, Cab Calloway and then listen to Goodman, Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw and Woody Herman you can hear that the black bands handle rhythm and time differently than the white bands. Of all the white bands I think that Krupa's 1938-41 band and Woody Herman's band probably came the closest to matching the rhythmic approach of the black bands, but there was still a gulf that separated them when it came to rhythm. Where this difference came from could be the subject of a book (probably already has), and has certainly been debated among jazz scholars for decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Francesco the Magnificent:
Great post again hsos, are you coming to the Garden [for Cream’s shows at Madison Square Garden in October, 2005]?
Thanks. No, I won't be seeing Cream 2005. I don't know if you saw my post in the "More DVD Clips Are Available" thread, but watching the DVD clips of "Crossroads", "Outside Woman Blues" and "I'm So Glad" confirmed what I had suspected after watching all the bootleg videos and listening to all the bootleg audio recordings of the RAH gigs: that Cream 2005 is a very different band from the one that I saw twice in 1968. Here's what I wrote in that thread:
"I really feel bad for all of you who didn't have the opportunity to see Cream play live during 1966 - 1968. Although I realize that 'Cream 2005' is three men in their 60s, this band is but a pale reminder of the glory that was Cream in its prime. If the only opportunity you ever have to see them is in 2005 I suppose it's better than never being able to see them at all, but don't kid yourself that you're seeing the band that changed the course of rock music, because you aren't. All you have to do to prove this to yourself is compare the video version of "I'm So Glad" from the upcoming RAH DVD with the audio version of "I'm So Glad" that's on the 10/67 Grande Ballroom bootlegs. If you honestly think the 2005 version is better, then you really don't understand what made Cream such a great band in its prime. Thomas Wolfe was right: you can't go home again (and if you've never been there at all you don't even have the luxury of your own memories of it)."
I spent a total of $9.00 to see Cream twice in 1968. I won't be spending at least 500 times that much in 2005 to see what I think is an inferior band. 1968 was a very special time, never to come again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Francesco the Magnificent:
Sorry we won't see you there, hsos. I've seen the dvd preview clips too, and I agree that the band's sound is different and their ferocity level is way down from 1968. However, I've got to respectfully disagree with you on two points. First, this Cream IS the "same band" as the old one in every meaningful sense of the word. Same three guys. 'Nuff said. Second, I don't think that these particular three guys are ready to hang it up. They've all been quite creative since the band's original breakup. Now that they're putting their heads together again I believe we can expect more creative music from them (and that's a rare commodity in any year). This doesn't strike me as some lame oldies tour by a longshot - they're only playing rwo of their old hits fer crissakes. Rather, they seem to be restarting fresh from their original blues/rock base. No, for my part I'll be happy to listen to whatever music the band plays regardless of what volume they're playing it at. Hope you'll reconsider.
Gotta disagree with you on a few counts, FTM:
"Same three guys": Not exactly. None of us are the same persons we were 37 years ago. At the very least, all three members bring different musical influences and life experiences to the table now. Even though they may be playing the same songs, this makes the music they play substantially different in emotional content than the music they played 37 years ago. As a band they aren't saying the same thing in 2005 as they were saying in 1968. In fact, I don't think that Cream 2005's music has a very cohesive emotional content at all -- I can hear that the three of them are coming at this from three very different musical and emotional directions. What made Cream so potent in 1966 was that all three members wanted to show the world the power that rock music could have in the hands of virtuoso players. Putting their energies together in a single band proved this point for all time. What exactly are they saying in 2005? The only emotional messages they've communicated are "we better do this again while we still have the chance", and "let's give an opportunity to those who never got a chance to see us". Not very potent mantras for a band, in my opinion.
"I don't think that these particular three guys are ready to hang it up": Again, not exactly. For the past decade Ginger has been perfectly content to spend his life playing polo and never get behind a drumset again. The injuries that have made it so difficult for him to play were all sustained either playing polo or while tending to his horses. As posted elsewhere here, he hasn't played drums at all in the past two years, and I'm sure it was the lure of big $$ that got him back behind the kit. So while Jack and Eric definitely weren't ready to hang it up, Ginger's actions over the past 10 years indicate that he was.
"I believe we can expect more creative music from them": I hope you're right about this, but the lack of any new material at all at the RAH shows doesn't bode well for that prospect. They were in rehearsal for weeks (if not months) before those shows; if any new music was to come from this reunion I would think that they would have created it during those rehearsals, when they had lots of time. I'll certainly be excited if a CD of new Cream material appears, but if I had to place a wager on it I'd bet against it.
"they're only playing rwo of their old hits": No, their old hits were "Sunshine", "Badge", "White Room" and "Crossroads", and they played them all at RAH. However, I do agree that this doesn't make their reunion an "oldies tour".
"they seem to be restarting fresh from their original blues/rock base": Quite frankly I don't hear this at all. They already proved what they set out to prove as a band in 1966. For the 37 years since then Eric has been the journeyman blues musician he always wanted to be, and to my ears the RAH boots make this band sound much closer to an EC backup band than I ever imagined a reunited Cream would sound like. Their version of "Stormy Monday" -- the only non-Cream song they played, and therefore their best chance at staking-out new musical territory for the band -- sounds completely interchangeable with any of the hundreds of versions of it that Clapton has played in concert over the past two or three decades. I'm sorry, Francesco, but I just don't hear any new musical territory in those RAH boots, and I'm very, very disappointed to say so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pressed Rat:
I was at RAH and it was absolutely great ... yes, they're different now. Maybe less "energy" as some have said, but they are now (unbelievably) better musicians, and far better sound ... and that incredible chemistry was there.
I absolutely disagree that they are now better musicians. There's absolutely no way anyone can make a credible case that Ginger is playing better now than he did in 1968 — it just isn't so. Compare the DVD clip of "Outside Woman Blues" at RAH with his playing on the song on Disraeli Gears. On the original his snare drum/bass drum patterns are integral to the song, really moving it forward and adding appropriate punctuation. On the DVD he plays straight time (with that jazzy 2 - 4 hi-hat that just doesn't fit here), and sounds like a drummer who hasn't even heard the original version. He just "plays-through" the song without adding any texture or counterpoint like he did on the original. Same with "Crossroads". In fact, to my ears on "Crossroads" he sounds like he's just barely hanging on. On "I'm So Glad" it's also straight time -- none of the cowbell on the verses that added spice to the original, none of the twists and turns that turned the song into an anthem during their first tour. To me, this does not make Ginger a better musician now than in 1968.
I'll defer to bass players for comparisons of Jack's 2005 playing and his 1968 playing, but to this drummer's ears, he's quite a few beats behind where he was in 1968 as well. I'm not saying that I expect him to be the same, considering his health issues, but them are the facts as I see (hear) them.
"Far better sound"? No doubt, but this has nothing to do with the band in 2005, it's the result of the tremendous improvements that have taken place in the state-of-the-art in concert sound technology in the past 35+ years. As I've posted elsewhere, Cream's farewell tour in 1968 was really the birth of the concert sound industry that exists today, since that was the first tour that played huge (10,000+-seat) indoor arenas, and the sound reinforcement technology available in 1968 was woefully inadequate to the task. So really, the improvement in sound quality at RAH can be directly attributed to Cream in 1968, not Cream in 2005.
As for "that incredible chemistry [being] there", I certainly don't hear it in their music. Maybe you could feel it if you were in the audience, but it doesn't come-through in the music on the DVD. Pressed Rat, I don't know if you ever saw Cream back in the 60s, but I did, and to my ears their musical chemistry in 2005 is miles behind where it was in 1968.
I'm not trying to throw cold water on anyone's party here, but that's what I think. Believe me, nobody's sadder about it than I am...nobody.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about who is the best drummer of all time
HS Post #1:
I've been following this thread for days and finally had to speak-up. Talking about "the best" drummer implies some sort of objective measure. Otherwise, we're really talking about "my favorite" drummer. Larry Dyer nailed it: "There's no way of knowing who is really the best drummer "of all time"...how do you rate that? Technique? Speed? Independance? Style? Endurance? Approach? Power? Finesse? Time keeping ability? Diversity?"
My contention is that if you could find a single drummer who was the best when measured by all of the above criteria you might very well have found "the best drummer of all time". If you objectively rate each drummer in each of the above measures you can narrow-down the field of greats to just a few, or perhaps, to only one.
Let's define each criteria:
Technique: How accurately the drummer translates his ideas into music. Is he unintentionally sloppy? Does he try to play things he can't execute? Is he always in command of his playing?
Speed: I contend this is more than simply playing fast. Does the drummer apply speed to enhance the music? Can he play with speed all over the kit, or only on the snare? Speed relates to technique in that it indicates the level of command that the drummer has on his instrument.
Independence: How well can the drummer execute different rhythms with different limbs? How well can the drummer apply this to the entire drumset, not just single elements of it?
Style: On the surface this seems to be totally subjective, so let's define it as this: How distinctive and original is the drummer's playing? How instantly-identifiable is he? How distinctive is his drum sound?
Endurance: This is probably impossible to measure, since all we have to use is recorded performances. Perhaps we can ask if the drummer is consistently able to maintain their energy level throughout an entire live performance. Of course, the style of music would come-into play here -- death metal drummers have extraordinary endurance, playing extremely loud and extremely fast throughout an entire concert performance.
Approach: I take this to mean "originality", which would make it a subset of 'style', above. Perhaps Larry Dyer could explain why he listed 'approach' as a separate quality...
Power: Is the drummer able to apply energy and drive to the music? Can he play powerfully at both high and low volumes? (Playing with power at a low volume is extremely difficult.)
Finesse: How musically does the drummer play at lower volumes? How well is he able to find "just the right thing" to play in many different musical situations? Can he play simple things that are nonetheless musically appropriate? Does he play with musical command at low energy levels as well as high energy levels?
Time-Keeping Abilty: Is the drummer's sense of time appropriate for the music? This does NOT necessarily mean how dead-steady the drummer's tempo is, since subtle tempo variations allow music to 'breathe', and add life to it. After all, a drum machine has perfect tempo, yet it's playing is highly amusical. For me, good time-keeping ability means precisely how the drummer uses tempo variations to enhance and bring life to the music.
Diversity: Can the drummer play appropriately in many different types of music? Does he sound just as comfortable playing jazz as he does playing hard rock?
I have my own ideas about how different drummers rate in each of the above measurements, but that's another post. For now I just wanted to see if anyone agrees with how I've defined the criteria. If so, then we can have some real fun trying to figure-out who's really the best drummer of all time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Larry Dyer:
HSO...first of all...thank you for the compliment. By approach I meant how does the drummer view his/her role as a musician. Do they view themselves as primarily a time-keeper or as an equal brother-in-arms who contributes to both melody and harmonics? Of course, the approach can vary from song to song.
In identifying the "style" of, say, Ginger, I think we could all agree that a significant aspect of his style reflects his African influences. But in approach, style sometimes isn't as important as is how he views and interprets things. I think a nice example is how he approached "As You Said" by using hi-hat only in comparison to the relentless drive he shows on something like Master of Reality's "She Got Me". Someone like Ginger knows his place in the music and what fits...even when sometimes the best thing to play is nothing.
In short...another term that can be substituted for "approach" is "interpretation". Without trying to sound like a politician...for me anyway...it's the visionary thing.
I hear ya, Larry. Then "approach" would also relate to "finesse" in that they both relate to finding just the right things to play. Judging from your examples, I think that by "approach" you also mean to include originality, since Ginger's choice of only the hi-hat for "As you Said" was certainly an original approach.
I don't know if you're familiar with Peggy Lee's famous recording of "Fever". The drummer on that was none other than Shelly Manne, and I've always loved how he approached that song. Rather than keep time (after all, with Monty Budwig playing bass the drummer has the luxury of not having to be the timekeeper), Shelly instead chose to provide 'answers' to Lee's vocal phrases, and the resulting musical point-counterpoint is absolutely delicious. Manne played that tune with extreme taste and finesse — it's always been one of my favorite drum performances.
I've always been partial to drummers who consider their role as that of an equal partner. I've never bought into the idea that the drummer is simply the timekeeper and groove-maker for the music. A drummer who takes musical advantage of all the instrument's potential is, for me, a much more interesting and important musician than one who simply accepts the expected role as a timekeeper. As much as I respect the ability and accomplishments drummers like Steve Ferrone and Jim Keltner, I never found their playing original or interesting. They simply do what's expected, and while that may support the music, it doesn't add anything to it or make it truly special -- it merely makes the music what everyone thinks and knows it should be. Part of what makes Ginger's playing so vital is that he refuses to remain tied to what's commonly expected of the drummer. He constantly searches for a new approach, and as a result his playing is always fresh and never fails to surprise. In short, he brings something to the music that no other drummer could have brought. He's a true original.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Francesco the Magnificent:
I believe you Rick. I think that my point was that Bonzo's sound, and hence, reputation, was more a product of the studio than of his own talent. Seriously, how many other drummers get that much echo/equalization etc. applied to their drum tracks?
Bonham's sound was absolutely NOT a product of studio trickery, it was the result of how he played the instrument. Dave Mattacks tells the story of once having Bonham visit him at his home. Mattacks had a small jazz drumset in his den -- small drums (20" bass drum, 12" & 14" toms). He said that Bonham played that kit for a couple of minutes and sounded exactly like he did when he played his own drums (26" bass drum, 14", 16" & 18" toms). Mattacks said that he'd never heard his own set sound anything like how it sounded while Bonham was playing it. The sound is in the MAN, not in the drums, folks.
Bonham's reputation has much less to do with his sound and much more to do with his playing. Before any of you try to speak with authority about Bonham's playing I suggest that you trash your copies of the "Song Remains The Same" film and watch ALL of the recently-released Led Zeppelin DVD several times. After you do, it will become crystal-clear to you that John Bonham was a musician of extreme talent, taste and invention. To judge Bonham strictly by the "Song Remains The Same" film would be the same as judging Ginger only by Cream's 10/4/68 performance at the Oakland Coliseum. I saw Zep live 3 times (69, 70, 71) and Bonham's playing was the glue that held Zep's music together. Without him Page and Plant couldn't remain musically Earthbound. Page's playing is 100% responsible for Zeppelin's sloppy live sound. The worst thing I can say about Bonham's live playing is that he sometimes rushed his fills. The best thing I can say about it is that Zeppelin's live music absolutely revolved around and grew out of it — it was the essential element of their live sound. Not so of Ginger with Cream (a band of equals, but I must give the nod to Jack as being their essential element in live performances), Moon with The Who (it's all Townshend), Watts with The Stones (it's all Richards), or just about any other live band. Live, Zeppelin's music was all about Bonham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bridge:
"Extreme talent, taste and invention?" I'm sorry, but no way. By the time I saw LedZep live - and nearly died in the process, as described elsewhere - I'd already seen (live) drummers of the calibre of Tony Williams, Jon Hiseman, Aynsley Dunbar, Mitch Mitchell. I knew what real talent, taste and innovation were - right there in front of me, I saw them.
If simply seeing great drummers play live gives someone the perspective necessary to judge a drummer's talent, then move-over, Bridge. I've had the pleasure of seeing live:
Ginger Baker
Buddy Rich
Louie Bellson
Billy Cobham
John Bonham
Bill Bruford
Tony Williams
Elvin Jones
Shelly Manne
Ralph Humphrey
Sonny Payne
Rufus Jones
B.J. Wilson
Carmine Appice
Mitch Mitchell
Jim Gordon
Kenny Jones
Mick Waller
Clive Bunker
Carl Palmer
Ian Wallace
Robert Wyatt
Cozy Powell
Ian Paice
Simon Phillips
Phil Collins
Lenny White
Neal Peart
Mike Mangini
and many, many, many others.
If sitting within 6 feet also confers the ability to make musical judgements, at performances by Buddy Rich, Louie Bellson, Elvin Jones, Bill Bruford, Ralph Humphrey, Simon Phillips and Ginger Baker I sat close enough to reach-out and touch their drums while they played (not that I did so, of course). But of course, none of the above really matters. What does matter is citing some examples to back-up our assertions.
Bonham was far from simply a basher. He had an uncanny ability to play just the right thing at just the right time (the definition of musical "taste"). Let's look at "Stairway To Heaven". Up till the point Bonham enters, the song has been acoustic guitar, electric piano, voice and recorders. Bonham had the taste to know that a bombastic entrance would destroy the mood of the song, so he played a simple 4-note decending fill that served to firmly announce his presence and take the song to the next level without overshooting the mark. Further examples of Bonham's taste are the two fills he plays out of the choruses in "Kashmir". Both are technically simple, because Bonham knew that complex fills would destroy the song's feel. The first fill also serves as a perfect musical "exclamation point", momentarily stopping the meter so the next verse can start from scratch -- brilliant. And of course, his playing throughout "Kashmir" is a perfect synthesis of heavy rock with just enough swing to maintain the song's Middle-Eastern roots. His playing is simple and immovable; completely effective and absolutely essential to the song.
And how about his wonderful shuffle in "Fool In The Rain"? Bonham's playing manages to keep the song at an ideal energy level while still maintaining a 'behind the beat' quality that adds just enough seriousness to keep the song firmly anchored in the rock realm. You can't listen to Jeff Porcaro's playing on "Rosanna" without being reminded of "Fool In The Rain", which came out years earlier. And on "Bron Yr Aur Stomp" he only plays bass drum, hi-hat and castanets (and when they played it live he also sang back-up vocals). And his two-handed shuffle intro to "Rock'n'Roll" speaks for itself when it comes to invention, as do his brilliant fills in "D'yer Mak'er". You want taste? How about his playing on "Since I've Been Loving You"? Very simple dotted eights/sixteenths keep things moving in spite of his sparing use of the snare and bass drum. You want invention? How about "Four Sticks", where Bonham plays the kit with 4 sticks instead of 2? (Years before Steve Gadd tried it in Paul Simon's "Late In The Evening".) Or his trememdous bass drum triplet fills in "Good Times, Bad Times". Bonham's playing was unique; his style and sound were instantly identifiable as his own; his influence is undeniable.
Face it, Bridge, if you look deeply into Bonham's playing with Zeppelin you'll find a wonderfully talented, tasteful and inventive drummer who, like Ginger Baker, was talented enough and fearless enough to do the unexpected (even if it meant playing very little) if he thought it would add to the music.
Oh, and Bridge, just how could you possibly know if on the night you saw Bonham live "he was playing as well as he was able"? Although I agree that it's not too difficult to tell if a musician is having an off-night, there's a tremendous gulf between an 'off-night' and 'playing as well as you're able'. A great musician makes great music even when they're not playing their absolute best. I'm quite sure that even though you may have thought that Bonham couldn't play better than when you saw him, in reality there were many times when he was much closer to his peak form. I saw Buddy Rich play live two dozen times and I would never be so presumptive as to pronounce that "he was playing as well as he was able" at any one of them. Only the musician himself could possibly know this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Francesco the Magnificent:
"When the Levee Breaks"? I'm sorry, but I have to stand by "studio trickery"...
Francesco: Do you even know how the drums on "When The Levee Breaks" were recorded? Bonham was set-up on the floor at the bottom of a huge stairwell in Headley Grange (an old castle) and two mics were placed on the second-floor landing. That's it -- no individual mics on any of the drums. What you're hearing is Bonham playing in a huge space, picked-up by two microphones feeding an analog tape recorder. A far cry from the sort of "studio trickery" that's common on recordings made today. I'm quite sure that if you were standing on the landing between those microphones on that day (oh, to have been there...) you would have heard exactly what's on the record and nothing less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Francesco the Magnificent:
Well defended hsos. I'm just glad we're talking music here and not indulging in mindless trolling like on the other forum. How about if I change the word "trickery" for "enhancement?" I won't deny that Bonzo was a tasteful drummer (i.e. that he played what was required of a song without overdoing it), but you're not going to tell me that the drum tracks on both Kashmir and Fool in the Rain haven't been tinkered with just a little, are you?
Well, the drums on "Kashmir" have been run through a slow flanger (phase-shifter) throughout the entire song. They duplicated this when they played it live, but the effect is relatively subtle on the studio recording, especially when compared with extreme phase-shifting such as you hear at the end of Carl Palmer's drum solo on the studio recording of ELP's "Tank". Now that's some studio tomfoolery. I can't recall any effects on the drum track of "Fool In the Rain", but I don't have "In Through The Out Door" on CD and got rid of all my vinyl (except for collectible stuff) about 15 years ago, so I'm remembering it from hearing it on classic rock radio over the past decade or so.
Today you have click tracks and digital editing that are used to squeeze all the life out of a drummer's performance. They can electronically pitch shift without effecting speed so they can re-tune a drum to better compliment the rest of the instruments. They can use the acoustic drum tracks to trigger sampled sounds so that what you hear isn't the instrument the musician actually played, or at a minimum add sampled sounds to the acoustic drum sounds. None of this crap was done to the drums on any Led Zeppelin records. Maybe they did some analog editing, maybe a little EQ and some compression. Very mild and benign compared with today. There's almost nothing on the drum tracks of a Led Zeppelin record that isn't just plain Bonham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dan in Mississippi:
I really love Bonzo's playing, power, style, etc. Although I'd ultimately have to agree with Graeme's [Pattingale] write-up that Bonham didn't have the technical skills that Ginger did. Dan
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you and Graeme on this matter, Dan. If you listen carefully to both Ginger and Bonham you'll find that Bonham actually gets around the kit faster than Ginger, has a much faster and more powerful right foot, and uses speed as an element of his style much more than Ginger does. Bonham also varied his rhythmic patterns much more than Ginger does (Ginger sticks with straight 16th notes an awful lot more than Bonham did). Both drummers were very adept at integrating their hands and feet, using their feet as "extra hands" (of course, having two bass drums gives Ginger an edge in this area). The only area of technical skill where Ginger is clearly more advanced than Bonham is in limb independence -- Ginger's jazz background gave him a much greater ability to play different rhythms with his different limbs at the same time. But in speed and coordination and their application I think Bonham holds the edge over Ginger.
HOWEVER, technical facility alone does not a great drummer make. I think that Ginger's playing shows much greater musical imagination than Bonham's (and Bonham's was quite imaginative, as I discussed earlier in this thread). While Ginger's and Bonham's playing both had the capacity to suprise the listener, I would give Ginger the decided edge in this area, especially in the timekeeping patterns he came up with ("Politician", "Born Under A Bad Sign", "Sunshine", etc.) and how he applied conventional timekeeping patterns (for example, Ginger's playing on the live "Spoonful" on WOF is a brilliant use of 12/8 time in a rock context). And while both drummers infuse their playing with a lot of swing, I think that Ginger's playing shows a much wider variety of feels and grooves, partly due to his having been a jazzer, partly due to the African influence. Bonham's approach tended to be more one-dimensional than Ginger's. I think all of this makes Ginger a more musically vital and interesting drummer than Bonham, although I think they're both giants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
Sorry, but the pathetic wretch playing drums on "The Song Remains the Same" should NEVER, EVER be spoken of in the same breath as that of a player like Ginger Baker. My grandmother can play better drums than that. Use all the excuses you can muster, but there's no excuse for a supposed "great" drummer playing drums that poorly in ANY context.
OK, without getting into a shouting-match, what in particular is it that makes you think Bonham's performace in SRTS is so awful? I'm fully aware that those MSG gigs were off-nights for Zep (check-out the 'Led Zeppelin' DVD if you want to see them at the top of their game), but I don't see or hear anything in SRTS that would lead me to think that Bonham was as bad a drummer as you say he is. Would you care to tell us why? We may learn something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
Jeez, here we are discussing drum soloists the likes of Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa, and Ginger Baker ... I don't know, if you can't tell what's the matter (the difference) with Bonzo's drum solo in Moby Dick from "The Song etc.", I don't know if I have the time here to expain it all. It has NO dynamics, goes NOWHERE, is a completely BORING, ham fisted attempt...
Well, this thread isn't just about drum soloists, it's about the best drummers. Lots of great drummers were poor soloists. Jo Jones (w/Basie from 1935 into the 1950s) and Dave Tough (replaced Krupa in Benny Goodman's band in 1938) were two of the most highly-respected jazz drummers to ever pick-up a pair of sticks, yet their soloing ability was universally acknowledged as lousy. I have an audiophile record (The Sheffield Drum Record) with Jim Keltner playing solo for about 7 or 8 minutes and it's musically dreadful, yet he's one of the most sought-after session drummers on Earth. For a great drummer, being able to play a terrific solo is the icing on the cake, not the whole enchilada (to mix food metaphors).
I admit that I've never found Bonham to be a particularly engaging soloist, although I have heard solos of his that have plenty of dynamics and form. My main complaint about him as a soloist is that many of his musical ideas seem under-developed; it sounds like he's working them out for the first time in front of us. And while I heartily approve of improvisation, you'd best have your shit together before you do it -- otherwise you'll sound lame (Dead fans take note). Bonham's soloing is too full of musical dead-ends for my taste. And like most rock drum soloists of the late 1960s - 1970s (including Ginger), he often overstayed his welcome, repeating himself and building to too many false climaxes during his solo.
BUT... drumming is about much more than just playing drum solos. The overwhelming majority of what a drummer plays is during songs. Cream played for 2+ hours at RAH this May; less than 6 minutes of that was a drum solo. Same with a Zeppelin concert: Out of a 2½-hour concert, only about 15-20 minutes was drum soloing. A few posts up in this thread I wrote a farily detailed comparison between the way Ginger plays during songs and the way Bonham plays. If you want to gain some insight on Bonham's drumming you might want to read it and then listen to the specific examples I've cited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from lono:
faster than Ginger???, please, don't make me laugh!
There is absolutely no doubt that Bonham played faster than Ginger. Listen to the studio 'Moby Dick". At 3:16 Bonham plays a hand-foot pattern at the same tempo that Ginger also plays it, but Bonham plays the double bass drum notes on one bass drum (Ginger uses two). At 3:49 Bonham explodes with a hand-foot triplet pattern similar to Ginger's 'helicopter' pattern, but once again, he only uses a single bass drum, and he plays it faster than Ginger does. These two examples show Bonham's remarkable speed and coordination.
Listen to "Carouselambra", ('In Through The Out Door'). The descending triplet fills that Bonham plays at the ends of some of the verses are faster than anything I've ever heard Ginger play. There are several instances on the live Zep DVD where he plays figures that are quite a bit faster than Ginger ever has played (at least on officially-released material and the hour of solos that I recorded at his home).
Ginger's playing style is not about speed: It's about melody, swing and form. Ginger is a master at building logical melodic and rhythmic musical phrases. His fills during the verses in "White Room" are so perfect that by the end of the song they've become an integral element of the drum part. You miss them when they're not there, like at RAH this May — Ginger didn't play the fills and the song suffered for it. His solos are about building phrases that start simply, then he elaborates upon them in a "theme-and-variations" style until he reaches a musical climax. Then he moves on to another theme and repeats the process. In "Toad" on WOF he does this several times. He also uses "call-and-response" (playing a figure, then answering it with a complimentary figure -- something originated by Max Roach, one of Ginger's heroes). The early part of "Toad" on WOF (where he brings-in the hi-hat for the first time) is a call-and-response.
On the other hand, Bonham's solos are more about playing different hand-foot patterns that he repeats on different drums. He doesn't vary each pattern, he only changes the drums he plays them on, so it's not really a theme-and-variations the way Ginger plays. This hand-foot pattern basis for drum solos is what is used by the vast majority of rock drummers, and unless the solo is kept short, its lack of logical musical melody and rhythm can quickly become boring and monotonous for the audience (even for most drummers). On the other hand, jazz drummers tend to play solos the way Ginger does, although very few of them play solos that last longer than a minute. Louie Bellson's solos were closer to rock drum solos, although he punctuated his patterns with bursts of melody. Buddy Rich's solos are quintessential jazz drum solos, but he plays so damn fast that the incredible melodic elements become mostly a blur to an ear that hasn't become accustomed to listening for how rapidly the music goes by.
Baker and Bonham are stylistically miles apart, yet the playing of each was perfectly-suited to the musical situations they were in. I couldn't imagine Cream without Ginger any more than I can imagine Led Zeppelin without Bonham. To dismiss him as only "ham-fisted", a "bricklayer" (since when is that an insult?) and "a pathetic mess" is to tell the world that you really haven't listened to the music the man was making.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
Hey hso, I think zep's musicianship is putrid, but next time you get a chance, ask Eric, Jack, or Ginger what they think of it. Being actual musicians, they can probably articulate it better than myself. Hendrix thought they were terrible. Townshend said they were disgusting. They are people that would know. As for Black Sabbath, last time I checked Ozzie hadn't bought Alister Crowley's frickin house because he was so obsessed with the occult. Sabbath isn't my favorite band of all time either, but I'll take Tony Iommi in a heartbeat over Page.
I don't look to others to make up my mind for me, lono, not even to musicians whose playing I respect -- I'm quite well able to arrive at my own opinions about music; I don't need Jack, Ginger or Eric to tell me what's good.
Truth be told, Ginger has never had anything good to say about any rock drummer -- none. The only drummers he respects are jazz players, so if you feel that his opinion is always valid you must also think that Neal Peart, Keith Moon, Ian Paice, Cozy Powell, Carmine Appice, Carl Palmer, Simon Phillips, Vinnie Paul, Omar Hakim, Steve Gadd, Jim Gordon, Steve Ferrone, Mickey Hart, Billy Kreutzman, Charlie Watts, Mitch Mitchell, Steve Smith, Jon Hiseman, Michael Giles, Bill Bruford, Terry Bozzio, Phil Collins and every other rock drummer who's ever lived are all a bunch of stone wankers, because Ginger has often dismissed them out-of-hand as such. So tell me, lono, when was the last time you pulled-out a Max Roach record and listened to it? Or one featuring Art Blakey, Philly Joe Jones, Baby Dodds, Phil Seaman, Elvin Jones, Sid Catlett, Joe Jones or Gene Krupa?
As for Jack and Eric, I could imagine them not liking Led Zeppelin, but I seriously doubt that they felt as you do about the individual members' talents. John Paul Jones is a superb and versatile musician who is extremely well-respected by his contemporaries, and I'm sure Jack feels this way too. Page was also a very well-respected session musician before he joined the Yardbirds -- one of London's 'A-List' guys. During the mid 1960s the music scene in England was pretty tight-knit -- everybody knew everybody else. (Ginger was the one who recommended Charlie Watts for the drum chair in The Stones.) Clapton has played on stage with Page, and I doubt that he was muttering insults under his breath at the time. If you can show me any legitimate interviews with Jack and Eric that back-up your assertion I'll glady check them out. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
By the way, lono I am a musician -- 43 years playing drums and percussion (which is more playing experience than any of the members of Cream had at the time the band was a going concern).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
If you remember the interview Eric gave to Rolling Stone at the time of the ARMS Concert in '83, you'll remember he denied EVER having worked with Page, EVER (when we all know that's not true). Why do think that is?
Well, since it was 1983 I have a hunch the reason Clapton couldn't remember ever working with Page is because he was drunk through just about all of the 1980s.
There's plenty of interviews out there where EC, Jack, and Ginger lament the poor quality of the musicianship in zepplin. Even in a recent interview, EC said he "didn't appreciate" the direction led zep took the blues
Where were these interviews published? I'd like to read them. As I said, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
Apparently, you're so hung up on yourself this stuff goes right by you. And BTW asshole, I don't need ANYONE else's opinions to form my own, I'm the most opinionated person in the world. This is a Cream site which is the only I brought up the opinions of EC, Jack, and Ginger. 43 years in music, dude, you should find another job ...
Lono, maybe you should carefully read my posts and then carefully read your own. Do you really want to start a pissing contest with me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FranciscoTheMagnificent: You make some interesting and thoughtful points. I'd like to discuss the ones that relate specifically to Ginger and Bonham, since this is a thread about drummers.
quote:
I'm sorry hsos, but next to Ginger's structure and intensity, Bonzo's efforts on Moby Dick just don't compare favorably.
No argument there, Francesco. As I wrote way up in this thread "I've never found Bonham to be a particularly engaging soloist", and I went on to explain why I think Ginger is a much better soloist. To paraphrase myself, Ginger's solos are much more musically inventive and interesting, containing a greater variety of musical themes that he more thoroughly develops. However, like Bonham I think that he often dragged motifs on a little too long. I've never heard a 15-minute solo in "Toad" that wouldn't have been more musically satisfying if Ginger had edited his own playing down to about 11 minutes.
quote:
you have done a commendable job of demonstrating that Bonzo possessed solid drumming technique. I'd also be a fool to deny either that Bonzo was a great influence on all heavy rock drummers, or that his playing was well suited to his band's musical vision. These same compliments must be paid to both Ringo ("suddenly, everyone wanted to copy me silly little fills") and Charlie Watts. However, hsos, I spent a few years in the music biz myself and I know a few major league professional drummers too (Steve Gadd and Kenny Aronoff among them), and I agree with their opinion that - taken outside the context of their respective bands - neither Bonzo, Ringo or Charlie was anything special, and that none of them has ever demonstrated either technical ability or musical inventiveness of that curmudgeonly, arrogant old bastard Ginger Baker.
In the case of Bonham, I think this must remain an unanswered question, because of course, we never had the chance to hear him play in other musical situations. Although your contention may be correct, I think that Bonham's talent as a drummer ran deeper than most people (your illustrious friends included) suspect. We have heard Ringo and Charlie in other musical contexts, and I agree that their playing was nothing special. However, neither Ringo nor Charlie were anywhere near as talented as Bonham was -- Zep's records show that he was simply a much, much better drummer than either of them were, so I wouldn't assume that just because Ringo and Charlie fared poorly outside of their original bands that Bonham would have as well. (I don't think that Watts' drumming even fares all that well within the context of the Stones, but that's best left for a different discussion.)
quote:
One point that I'm sold on is that when a band has lots of time in the studio to make a record, it's a lot easier for the drummer to work out the appropriate beats and grooves for the songs. I think Bonzo's reputation benefits from the fact that he always had the luxury of time.
Another interesting point, and another that must remain speculation, unless you have anecdotal evidence that I'm not aware of. (Any stories from Page, Plant and Jones in this regard?) It's also quite possible that Bonham worked-out his drum parts quickly, while large amounts of studio time were taken-up with other matters. One thing I will say is that Bonham's drums parts don't sound like they had been refined to a fine degree. If in reality his parts were meticulously worked-out in advance, then I must commend Bonham's talent at being able to make them sound as fresh as if he were composing them spontaneously.
quote:
Ginger's drumming was both innovative - certainly no contemporary rock drummer played "drum parts" (as many here would have it).like he did - and suited to the band's songs. In several instances, particularly on Sunshine and Ulysses, it actually MAKES the band's songs; as you know, guys who play a basic four on the floor rock beat to that material make it sound positively pedestrian.
While I certainly agree about "Sunshine", I don't think that the drum part in "Ulysses" is all that unique. I think Ginger's playing in "White Room" more strongly makes your point. And at the recent RAH gigs Ginger did in fact play "White Room" with a basic four-on-the-floor beat, leaving-out his own classic fills, and the song did sound positively pedestrian because of it. I've pointed this out elsewhere on this board.
quote:
Ginger is a colossus. No other drummer, rock, jazz or whatever, has done for the instrument what he has. It's time to give the man his due.
I've always given Ginger his due here on this forum. Just because I think Bonham was more talented than many here give him credit for in no way disses Ginger -- this isn't an 'either-or' situation. I can (and do) recognize them both. I also agree that Ginger was extremely important in the overall history of the instrument (an influence that has been sadly overlooked by most drummers), but one cannot deny Bonham's influence either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about what type of music Jimi Hendrix would be playing had he lived
Originally posted by white room:
The big question is would JH have endured as well as Clapton and maintained the public profile that EC has?
I don't know how old you are, White Room, but that's a question we've been asking ourselves ever since the day Jimi died 35 years ago. There's simply no way to answer it -- there really isn't even any way we can speculate about it, since Jimi's musical muse was anything but linear: You never knew where it was going to lead him. On the other hand, Clapton's muse is and has always been the blues, which is very steady and predictable. In fact, if Clapton, not Hendrix had died in 1970 it would have been much easier to have predicted what kind of music he would be making in 2005, that's for sure. Those of you who were adults in 1970, think about it: Put yourself back in 1970, and from that vantage point it's not much of a stretch to imagine Clapton's 2005-era music. In fact, it's not at all difficult to imagine the entire arc of his musical career. But Hendrix? You could stand in 1970 and cast-about in almost any musical direction and plausibly imagine Hendrix going there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about Cream's live sound on the 1968 farewell tour resulting from personal rifts within the band
Originally posted by Bridge:
Everyone - I just wanted to draw your attention to a great post from 5thD on the "To all the guitar playin' folks..." in case you've missed it. It comes in a conversation between 5thD and rabbit about Clapton's use of the Firebird. Rabbit in a later post compliments the insight in what 5thD says below:
5thD:
"the sound on i'm so glad/goodbye kind of complements the acrimony that existed between the band members at the time. similarly, bruce's tone and riff selection at that point had gotten increasingly unorthodox."
I agree with rabbit; 5thD's observation is really interesting and could open up a whole direction in new appreciation of Cream's sound in relation to how the three of them were with each other at any one time: the degree to which changes in the band's sound reflected their inner feelings about each other and themselves.
A very interesting interpretation, but I was at the Forum the night the cuts were recorded for 'Goodbye', and I can tell you that the recording sounds very little like Cream sounded live in the hall that night. I remember being extremely disappointed when the album came out in 1969 that the sound of the live cuts sucked as bad as it did given my vivid memory of how it sounded, and spending the past 30 years in the audio industry (over 20 years making live recordings myself) has only deepened my disappointment. In particular, Bruce's sound on those cuts ("Politician" in particular) is much drier and deader than he actually sounded in the Forum. It's a shame, but those recordings managed to drain all of the life out of the way they really sounded. That night the hall crackled with energy from the band, none of which seems to have made it onto the tapes. The recordings on WOF and Live Cream Volume 1 are much closer to how the band sounded that night. While it's certainly true that Eric's SG 'sang' more than the Firebird ever did, the difference isn't nearly as extreme as the sound on the 'Goodbye' recordings would lead you to believe. Riff selection is a different matter...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Monkey Banana:
hsosdrum, you were there [at The Forum on 10/19/68 when Cream recorded the live cuts featured on their "Goodbye" album]? It must have sounded good based on your post. But, the forum is a large venue. Was the sound system large? Was it up to the task? Were Ginger's drums miked? Was it frighteningly loud for '68?
I was sitting dead center on the floor, about 20 rows from the stage. As I've posted in other threads, the sound system was quite small by today's standards but was large for 1968. Ginger's drums were indeed miked (3 or 4 Shure SM56s and 2 old 1930s-era RCA 44 ribbon mics), and he was well-balanced with Jack and Eric. However, when Cream first started playing that night the volume was considerably lower than we were used to at other concerts at the time, and dozens of people in the audience yelled "Turn it up!". The sound guys did turn it up during the second or third song, but even then it wasn't as loud as when Cream played smaller venues during their first and second tours. In fact, it wasn't even as loud as when I saw Hendrix at the Hollywood Bowl (outdoors) a month earlier (I was about the same distance from the stage at both shows).
As for the sound on the recordings, I remember there being much more 'snap' to the live sound than you hear on the recordings -- it was much crisper and had more 'air'. As someone else posted, they may have recorded those shows using only a 4-track recorder, which would have severely limited their ability to use additional mics to pick-up the ambience in the hall, which is now standard practice in live recording. This makes the 'Goodbye' live cuts sound more like a soundboard tape than a live recording.
Here's an excerpt from another post I made in another thread about concert sound systems back in 1968:
As for what sound systems were like back then, this was before manufacturers began designing and building speakers and amps specifically to amplify live music at such loud volumes. At that time the only equipment available were movie theater sound systems. Most of these consisted of 1945-vintage Altec components, known collectively as "Voice Of The Theater". The bass speakers were huge combination horn/bass reflex cabinets that typically held two 15" bass drivers. High frequencies were usually reproduced by one or more multicell horns. When Cream played at the Shrine Exposition hall in March of 1968 the sound system had two Altec model 210 bass cabinets (each was over 7 feet tall, with 2 x 15" bass drivers) and two Altec model 805B multicell horns (each with a single horn driver) on each side of the stage, which was a huge system for that time. [The sound system at the Forum was maybe 50% larger than this, but the Forum holds 8 times as many people.] I have no idea what amps were being used. (At that time the most powerful amps available would have been Crown DC300s, which delivered 150 watts x 2 into 8 ohms.) A typical rock show today would have more total drivers and way more amp power just for the stage monitors.
Cream's farewell tour was the first to play huge (10,000+ seat) indoor arenas, and its unprecedented success spawned today's live rock concert industry. This new industry forced audio manufacturers like JBL, Crown, and Altec to begin producing products specifically designed to reproduce live rock music. Speaker cabinets got smaller and more densely-packed with drivers, so they would have more output and be easier to transport (the Altec cabinets I described above were 7 feet tall, 3 feet wide and more than 3 feet deep and weighed nearly 300 pounds -- each!) . Amplifiers got smaller and more powerful. Mixing consoles became more sophisticated and reliable. Microphones specifically designed for use on concert stages were developed. (At the time of Cream's first incarnation the only pro-quality mics available were designed for use in recording studios. They were physically large, and for the most part too delicate to survive much use on stage at a rock show.) The bottom line is that Cream changed everything about rock music... EVERYTHING.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about a Cream ticket [in 2005] being worth $1,000 or not
The first time I saw Cream in 1968 was as close to a religious experience as I've ever had. It was the confluence of many different things at that moment in time that made that night so life-altering for me. There's no way that seeing Cream on stage in 2005 could mean as much to me as that experience I had when I was 16. It's not Cream's fault -- I'm 37 years older and the world is 37 years different. (Although after hearing the boots from RAH I feel that they've lost much of the fire and committment to the music that make Cream and their music so important to me.) Spending a lot of money to see them now could only disappoint me on many levels. I'll remain satisfied with my very special memories of seeing them twice in 1968, and the powerful emotions that I feel every time I listen to their recordings from that era. And of course, I'll be first in line to buy the DVD. But spend $1,000 to see them at MSG? I'd get way more long-term emotional satisfaction from spending $1,000 on a new snare drum. (In fact, I've got my eye on a couple of new Ludwigs...)
If I hadn't seen them in 1968 I might feel differently about it, (a friend who never saw them first time around spent several thousand dollars to fly to London and see them twice at RAH and feels it was worth every penny), but I did, and that makes all the difference to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about Eric Clapton being the "most important musician of the last 50 years"
originally posted by goin down slow:
That very fact is why I’m willing to go on record saying that Eric Clapton is the most important musician of the last 50 years. As songwriter/lyricist, there are many better than him. But as a preservationist, none are more important than Clapton himself.
I really don't want to rain on anyone's parade, since you all seem to be having such a good time here on this thread, but only someone with a 20-year old's lack of perspective would state that Clapton is the most important musician of the past 50 years. In fact, it can be very convincingly argued that Clapton isn't even the most important guitarist of the past 50 years, let alone most important overall musician.
Consider the entire past 50 years of musical history (back to 1955, and the beginnings of of rock'n'roll) and then objectively examine the influence any musician during this period has had on both other musicians and on the world at large (the only reasonably objective yardsticks one can use when measuring an artist's importance). By these standards, Clapton's overall importance is far, far eclipsed by that of Lennon/McCartney as songwriters and The Beatles as a group, by Bob Dylan as a songwriter, by Elvis Presley as a singer, and by Jimi Hendrix as a guitarist, just to name a few.
By your own admission Clapton is a "more than competent" vocalist, and that as a songwriter/lyricist "there may be many better". You even say that he's "arguably the greatest guitar player of all time", which leaves lots of wiggle room for other opinions. By what standard can these statements possibly add-up to "the most important musician of the past 50 years"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
Funny HSOSDRUM but the artists you mention probably would agree with GOINDOWNSLOW and give YOU the stink eye. Think of it, Jimi Hendrix only went to England with the promise that Chas Chandler would introduce him to Clapton (history making). Jimi went out to buy his 1st Marshall amp after hearing the Bluesbreakers album (history making). The Les Paul guitar, which had been discontinued, was put back into production as a direct result of the success of the Bluesbreakers album (history). Who's the only other guitarist to be invited to play with The Beatles? ... Eric Clapton (and he put on a stunning solo). Who was the main axeman who recorded with George Harrison AND John Lennon after the demise of the Beatles? ... Eric Clapton. Who's the man who singlehandedly got the blues back to the forefront (and took on the Beat Groups who were having so much success at the time) so guys like BB King, Buddy Guy, Skip James, etc. could make a decent living again? ... Eric Clapton (and they would be 1st to tell you so). Who's guitar playing was so influental that Duane Allman followed him from gig to gig on Cream's '67 US tour? ... Eric Clapton. Who's recorded with BB King, Buddy Guy, Freddie King, Bob Dylan, Roger Waters, The Rolling Stones, Steve Winwood, Aretha Franklin, (to name just a few???) ... Eric Clapton. Who wrote most famous love song and one of the most popular songs of all time? ... Eric Clapton. Who was the lead guitarist of the most influential power trio of all time? ... Eric Clapton. Who is the ONLY artist to be inducted into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame 3 times? ... Eric Clapton. Who's the only guitarist with the clout to put something like the "Crossroads Guitar Festival" togethor ... Eric Clapton (and not for his own glory, but for charity). Who, as a solo artist at 60 years of age is still selling out 20,000 seat venues on the strength of his own name? ... Eric Clapton. That's just for starters, sounds to me like GoinDownSlow is dead on correct in his assessment! There have been few if any artists in the history of rock who have been more influential than Eric Clapton, period.
Nice try, lono, but The Beatles changed the course of musical history across the board. Their influence reaches throughout all genres of pop and rock music and well into jazz and serious music (what's commonly referred to as "classical" music). When examined against the whole of musical history for the last 50 years Clapton's influence is very narrow and shallow. His songwriting has no meaning beyond those fans who buy his music. On the other hand, The Beatles (Lennon/McCartney) and Bob Dylan shifted ALL of popular songwriting away from simple love songs and into much more socially-relevant territory. Everyone who has written a song with lyrics about something more than "I love her, she loves me" or "I miss her", or "She dumped me; I'm so blue" has Lennon/McCartney and Dylan to thank for it. I can't over-emphasize how important this is -- EVERY SINGLE SONG written in the past 40 years has blood lines back to Lennon/McCartney and/or Dylan. When judged on this scale Clapton's influence doesn't even register.
On another level, The Beatles introduced the whole concept of using multi-track recording to create pop music in the studio that couldn't be re-created verbatim live -- they were the first to apply this technique to popular music. This completely and forever changed the way pop music was recorded, and changed the way musicians even conceive of music. Every group that goes into the studio and spends weeks layering extra parts into their music owes this directly to The Beatles. This influenced everyone -- EVERYONE. Without it, Pink Floyd couldn't have recorded "Dark Side Of The Moon"; Jimi Hendrix couldn't have recorded "1983...". In fact, just about every rock and pop record made in the last 35 years owes a debt to The Beatles (and to George Martin, their producer). Clapton can claim no similar influence when it comes to recording technique. In fact, he's one of the many who owes that debt to The Beatles. (Three simultaneous guitar solos in "Politician"? Send a thank-you to The Beatles, Mr. Clapton.)
Charity events? George Harrison's Concert For Bangladesh was the first large-scale rock charity event. Clapton played at it, but George was the very first with the clout to conceive and organize the whole thing (and this was back in 1971). And Bob Geldof had the clout to put Live Aid together in 1985 while Clapton was still struggling with his personal demons. (And Live Aid was an international event, not a single-location festival.) Sorry, lono, but compared with Harrison and Geldof, Clapton's but a babe in the woods in the rock charity department, certainly not an innovator, and certainly not the only one with that much clout (Geldof's recent Live 8 concerts were held in London, Berlin, Tokyo, and the US. Now THAT'S international clout.)
Playing with The Beatles and John Lennon may accord Clapton some degree of respect, but your statement leads to an obvious conclusion: The only reason this matters is because The Beatles were so important that anyone who played with them received notice and a certain degree of respect. All because of how important THE BEATLES were, not the other way around.
Recording with a bunch of artists doesn't, by itself, elevate a musician's importance. Hal Blaine was the drummer on more #1 records than any other human being in history, but that certainly doesn't make him a more important musician than Dylan, The Beatles, or Elvis. The same goes for Clapton.
I'll leave the guitar playing arguments to others. Suffice it to say that although Hendrix may have counted Clapton as a strong influence, Hendrix certainly can't be considered a desciple of Clapton's. Hendrix took Clapton's influence, combined it with many other diverse influences and created a revolution in guitar playing. Reasonable people can argue that either Clapton or Hendrix is the most influential guitarist, but the issue is by no means settled one way or the other. This is the ONLY area where Clapton's influence can be measured on a long-term scale, and yet this is but one small area in the vast pantheon of all of music.
A musician's importance must be judged by how their music has influenced the overall course of music. On the overall road that music has taken over the past 50 years Eric Clapton is but a small bump, while The Beatles were a hairpin turn in a completely different direction. Their tremendous influence includes how instruments are played, how songs and lyrics are written and how music is recorded in the studio. No musician in the past 50 years comes close to the having as much influence on all of music that The Beatles had -- none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GoinDownSlow:
in my view, no single musician has done more for modern music than Clapton, but arguments could certainly be made for Mssrs. Lennon, McCartney, Dylan.
The gist of your argument seems to be that Clapton's music serves as a gateway for you to other musics, and this is what makes him so important. Well, a good music history professor could also do that, GDS, yet I doubt that you would bestow upon that professor the title of "most important musician of the past 50 years". All that takes is for you to be exposed to different musics, and to then listen to them with open ears.
Truth be told, The Beatles music is also chock-full of the influences of other musics. They were the first pop musicians to incorporate Indian and mid-eastern musical influences (thanks to George). "Eleanor Rigby" has them accompanied by a classical string quartet, while "For No One" features a French Horn solo. There are a great many modern serious musical influences in The Beatles music -- Bartok, Vaughan-Williams, Cage and others. They revolutionized harmony and chord structure in pop music. Country influences? How about "Act Naturally" (originally done by Buck Owens), "Honey Don't" and "Matchbox" (originally by Carl Perkins). Roots of rock'n'roll? There's "Twist And Shout", "Rock'n'Roll Music", "Roll Over Beethoven", "Please Mr. Postman", "Chains', and "Baby It's You", along with a few others I can't think of just now. There's 1920s dance hall music in "When I'm Sixty-Four". For a couple of generations of music lovers that came before you, The Beatles were just as much a gateway to other musics as Clapton is for you. But this isn't what makes a musician truly important in the grand scheme of things, since there are many different ways one can be exposed to these other musics. (Remember that music appreciation professor...)
What defines a musician's real importance (in a 'general truth' sort of way) is: How Much Did He/They Influence Other Musicians? Did He/They Change Music? Was Music Different After He/They Came Along? (and if so, How Much Different?) There's simply no other way to judge an artist's overall importance as it relates to their art and to those who experience their art.
Think of it this way: On the one hand we have an artist whose art is tremendously popular and has millions of fans who love and find great meaning in his art. On the other hand we have an artist who is tremendously popular and has millions of fans who love and find great meaning in his art. His art has also influenced other artists so much that all art that follows has been changed by it. Which artist is more important? Of course it's the second. Well, Eric Clapton is the first artist, The Beatles are the second. (You simply can't make a truthful case that Clapton's music has influenced other musicians so much that it has changed all music that has followed it. That's just not the case.)
The Beatles simply are the most important musical force on Earth in the past 50 years. Look at how pop/rock songs were written before The Beatles and after The Beatles: There's an enormous change that can be directly attributed to them. In fact, their influence as songwriters has permeated all forms of songwriting. Do the same thing with Eric Clapton: no influence whatsoever. Look at how pop/rock music was recorded (and therefore, how it is conceived by musicians) before The Beatles and after The Beatles: There's an enormous change that can be directly attributed to them. Do the same thing with Eric Clapton: no influence whatsoever. Look at the way vocal harmonies are constructed before The Beatles and after The Beatles: There's a definite, but not so enormous change that can be directly attributed to them. Do the same thing with Eric Clapton: no influence whatsoever. The only area in which Clapton's influence is undeniable is in the realm of guitar playing, and even in that, there are others who have arguably had as much or more influence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was interesting stuff with the multi-track recording going back to The Beatles, I had no idea. But-- and this may be just the stuff of legends, correct me if I'm wrong-- the sound on the Beano album-- plugging the guitar in directly to achieve that incomparable sound on Hideaway, Steppin' Out, and others-- couldn't one argue that it's just as influential... mechanically, if you will... to modern music production as George Martin's multi-track recording? And again, wasn't that sound/technique discovered by Clapton himself?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clapton get his famous "Beano" sound by using a Les Paul through a 60-watt Marshall combo amp w/2 x 12" Celestions? And even if he did plug directly into the board, that wasn't particularly influential, because very, very few guitarists since then have recorded this way (the only one who comes to mind right now was none other than... John Lennon, for his guitar solo on "Revolution"). Almost every guitarist who goes into a studio uses an amp, they don't plug directly into the board (and if they do plug directly in, they go through all sorts of electronic trickery that was beyond even science fiction in 1966). On the other hand, every rock and pop album recorded since 1967 has used multi-tracking as pioneered by The Beatles. EVERY one, including all of Clapton's albums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clapton's music offers a clear and diverse lineage that can be followed to the very roots of rock and roll, taking you along the way to things otherwise impossibly met.
Sort of true, but hardly unique, since Clapton's music is surely not the only path one can take to arrive at "the very roots of rock and roll" and find "things otherwise impossibly met". The Beatles were just as big a gateway for millions of others, yet that's not the criteria I use to judge their importance -- it's too personal. Important? You've certainly convinced me that Clapton's music is important to you, but if you want to proclaim that it's IMPORTANT in a 'general truth' sort of way you're going to have to find reasons that are much more universal. And I'm afraid they don't exist. If you go beyond yourself into the realm of objective judgement, Clapton's importance is miniscule compared with that of The Beatles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after many posts of the "I like [XYZ] the best" variety:
Everyone:
There is a difference between personal feelings and objective facts. When someone makes the statement "Eric Clapton is the most important musician of the past 50 years", they are making a statement of objective fact. To have any value, such a statement must be able to stand-up to scrutiny beyond people's personal feelings and opinions.
So now we need to determine what sort of scrutiny the statement must be judged against. In my posts I set-out some objective standards that are commonly used in the world to judge the importance of art and artists. (Namely, the artist's influence among his peers and those who followed, and the changes in art that can be directly linked to the artist's work.) Judging Eric Clapton's music against these objective standards leads anyone who can think along logical lines to the conclusion that Clapton's influence in the overall scheme of music history for the past 50 years is quite limited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a note to Zenon: I'm quite aware that Les Paul invented multi-track recording (I have CDs of his records with Mary Ford, and saw a whole slew of his early equipment at the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame). In fact, Tom Dowd (the engineer of Disraeli Gears and Cream's live recordings) used an 8-track recorder on many jazz sessions during the late 50s and early 60s. However, he still recorded the music 'live', in real time -- he just put different instruments on different tracks so he could more fully control them when they mixed the songs down later. What The Beatles did differently was to actually use the multi-track technology as a creative and compositional tool. They used it to create music that couldn't be played live in real time. THIS is what revolutionized pop and rock music -- the application of this technology directly to the creation of the art. This step can't be overemphasized. Les Paul's application of the multi-track technique was (unjustly, in my opinion) regarded as merely a gimmick at the time he was pioneering it in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It wasn't until The Beatles used it as a compositional tool that it's use became widespread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
Sorry, I've never been one to look the other way. Never have and I'm not gonna start now. When someone is beating you out in the alley and everyone else looks the other way, you'll be glad I'm there. So if you want to come on this Cream reunion site and piss on good old Eric, I'm gonna be right here to defend him, because I know it's a bunch of crap. On top of being one of the most influential artists in the history of rock, he is also known as one of rock's gentler souls and nicest guys. Case in point, what he's doing right now for his buddies Jack and Ginger, who have recently faced very difficult times. I'm extremely sick of hearing this BS EC slagging day after day. If you don't like being slagged off, then stop the slagging. And MFC, why keep bringing up the Beatles over and over again? We all know how great the Beatles were, talk about cliche. There's probably about a million Beatles websites where you can go on and say positive things about the fab four. This is the Cream reunion site for crying out loud!
Are you trying to say that a website dedicated to Cream is not a proper place to rationally discuss the relative importance of different musicians, one of whom was a member of the group the site is dedicated to? Give me a break, lono, this is the PERFECT place for such a discussion.
I never "pissed on" gool old Eric. I merely challenged a poster's assertion about his overall importance as it relates to the past 50 years of music history. In my posts I've listed solid objective reasons why I feel the poster's assertion is not true. This is how civilized people discuss issues, and is one of the ways open-minded people learn and grow in their lives.
Just because this website is about Cream, it doesn't automatically follow that everything about the band and each of its members is beyond reproach or beyond question. I'm trying to get people who seem to have a somewhat limited view of the vast expanse of the past half-century of music to expand their knowledge by considering an alternate perspective. In other words, I'm trying to provide the means for people to increase their enjoyment of music by increasing their understanding of it. They don't have to accept what I post as the gospel truth. All they have to do is consider that it is a valid alternative to their own personal views, and use it to question their own opinions and therefore, better understand why they feel as they do. Lighten-up a little and have some fun here, lono.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
No HSO, I do NOT believe this is a forum to dicuss all the other bands that are better than Cream, all the other guitarists that are better than Clapton, etc. No, I personally don't think that's what this site is for at all. That's where we differ.
OK, then don't post anything that challenges anyone's preconceived notions or causes them to become curious and think. No problem. You can always skip my posts if they bother you.
I don't think you're increasing anybody's "enjoyment" of music by helping them to "understand" it. How presumtuous [sic] of you make such a statement. What are you, some kind of professor or something??? Like your words are going to change the way people hear music?
I don't know if my posts have in fact, increased anyone's enjoyment or understanding of music, but I can guarantee you that a website filled with nothing but parrotted praise for an artist certainly won't increase anyone's knowledge or understanding; it will just make people feel better about themselves as they pat themselves and each other on the back. Words alone won't change the way people hear music. But words can get people to think, and when people think, they almost always change. And if they think clearly, they change for the better.
The kid who started this post in the first place (Goindown ...) made an eloquent, well written, POSITIVE post about the musicians he happens to love (amazing for a 20 year old!, I'm proud of the kid!), and then you have to go and slam the kid and start once again on your anti-Clapton bag.
Ah, but his post wasn't only about how he felt about EC. His post contained a blanket statement about EC's importance in the history of music over the past 50 years. This was stated as fact, not as opinion. And I never once slammed GoinDownSlow in any of my posts here. All I did was challenge his assertion about Clapton's importance.
And yeah, you've been pissing on EC all over this web site, not just on this one post. ...
I have indeed made many posts in various threads about how I feel that Clapton reached the peak of his creative powers while he was in Cream, and how I'm saddened that in the 35+ years since then he seems to have avoided musical situations that would truly challenge him to play and create beyond his comfort zone. This is not the same thing as tearing him down. Lots of other posters (many of them Clapton fans) agree with this assesment of his carreer. We've had some very lively discussions on this subject -- they've been fun, and they've certainly taught me things I didn't know before I participated.
I've even made a post somewhere on here about the time I called Jack Bruce on the phone and what a great, neat, kind guy he was ... just like I knew he'd be! A real POSITIVE kind of guy, the kind of people I like.
Way cool! What thread is that in? I'd like to read it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jon:
So what defines EC's importance? He picks up the guitar, he plays, and you can connect with what he's feeling. THAT's a REAL musician. THAT'S how a REAL musician can stand up and be counted.
Absolutely. But that's only why he's important to you. If you want to talk about the importance of an artist in a universal sense, you must go beyond what their art may mean to any given individual, since after all, this connection between the artist and an individual is a deeply personal experience; it's not universal. Not everyone who experiences Eric Clapton's music is affected as powerfully by it as you may be. I'm certainly not. So which one of us gets to decide how important he is? Neither of us, because the criteria you describe doesn't have any meaning beyond any one individual.
If you want to discuss an artist's historical importance you are saying that you want to evaluate their place in the entire history of art. And to do this you must use objective criteria to evaluate their art. This is how we get close to figuring out how important the artist is in terms of the entire history of their art.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ripley:
One thing that I should mention - is whilst I am a huge fan of The Beatles for their music and songwriting , their influence to recording technologies owes far more to the talents of Sir George Martin than to J,P,G&R. They may have written the songs, but it was George Martin that knew how to package them.
Not entirely true. Martin has been quoted saying that most of those avante-garde musical ideas originated with the four Beatles (especially John), and it was up to him (Martin) to figure-out how to make it happen. My point was that once The Beatles realized that this technology was available, they used it in ways that had never been done before in pop or rock music. Up till then, multi-tracks were used to store the individual instruments of a real-time performance, which is how Tom Dowd recorded jazz artists like John Coltrane and Charles Mingus. The Beatles combined tracks, bouncing things back-and forth on the multi-track machines to create music that was impossible to play in real-time. Up till The Beatles only experimental 'serious' composers like John Cage had been looking into making music this way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lono:
MFC, once again you're way way off when it comes to comparing Dylan and Clapton. First of all, Bob has little instrumental influence on the music anymore. Nowadays he taken to plunking away on the piano in concert, not playing any guitar at all. Certainly not world beating stuff, not anything like the artistry EC displays every time he steps on stage with his guitar...
You've skipped the obvious here, lono: Bob Dylan's greatness, his absolute importance in the history of music has always been his songwriting, not his performing. In the early-mid 1960s Dylan absolutely changed the course of songwriting for all time. It doesn't matter that he can't sing any more or that during live performances he only tinkles-around on the piano. Dylan's influence and importance in the history of all music was solidified 40 years ago with songs like "It's Alright Mama", "Like A Rollin Stone", "Ballad Of A Thin Man", "Blowin' In The Wind", A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall", "Desolation Row", "Don't Think Twice, It's Alright", "Positively 4th Street", "Subterranian Homesick Blues" and dozens more. Even if he hadn't sung or played a note since 1970, the impact of Dylan's songwriting is reflected in every single song that has been written over the last 40 years, and cannot be overstated. It's not just that he wrote songs that you may or may not like, it's that his songs changed music, influencing every single person who has written a pop or rock song over the past 40 years.
I can't disagree with anyone who loves Clapton's solo music and finds great meaning and import in it. After all, that's what art is all about. However, almost every post on this thread has been looking at music and musicians from a very personal point of view. To gauge a musician's true import and influence (don't forget -- the statement that started all the hoopla here was "Clapton is the most important musician of the past 50 years") you must look at their work as it relates to music and the world as a whole, not just how much it is loved by or how important it is to you, your friends and the musician's fans. Try taking a step back from your own involvement with it to objectively judge Clapton's contribution in the context of music as a whole. That means you'll have to have a good knowledge of the entire history of music since 1950 (preferably since 1750).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GoinDownSlow:
All right, maybe someone can clear this for me. The term "songwriting," that encompasses the lyrics and the notes/arrangement, right?
The only elements of a song deemed unique enough to warrant legal copyright protection are the melody and lyrics. Arrangements (what instrument plays what notes), the chord sequence, the structure, the rhythms/time signatures can't be copyrighted. Think about it: If somebody held the copyright on the 1 - 4 - 5 blues chord progression, everyone who ever wrote a song using it would owe that person money. If somebody held the copyright on the classic pop song structure (verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, verse, chorus) everyone using it would owe them money. So in the strictest definition of the term, "songwriting" can be considered only the meoldy and lyrics. Everything else is considered style.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, songwriting aside, EC is still the most important musician of the last 50 years
C'mon, GDS.. By what objective measure can you possibly make this assertion? Again, I stress objective measure... No "he's opened the door for me to all these different musics" -- that's a terribly subjective thing that holds no meaning for anyone beyond you. This leads to the basic question: What makes a musician (ANY musician) important to everyone, not just to you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GoinDownSlow:
You're right. I need an objective measure [of a musician's importance to everyone, not just to any one individual]. I wonder, though... can it be found? For Eric Clapton, The Beatles, or anyone?... Notice I haven't held you to the same standard you have me-- I haven't asked you (or anyone) to prove objectively that artist X can be the most important of the last 50 years.... mostly because I don't know what that measure is.
OK, GoinDownSlow, I'll give you the standards that people have used for centuries to evaluate the relative importance of an artist in the world. In fact, I already gave them to you -- in the 3rd paragraph of my second post on page 2 of this thread, but here they are again:
1) How much and in what ways has the artist's work influenced the work of other artists?
2) How much and in what ways has the artist's work changed the course of art?
You can't look at how many people love their art, because popularity is certainly not an indication of true artistic influence. (Does anyone really believe that the Backstreet Boys, the Monkees, or ABBA were important artists?) If you use record sales as a judge then Kenny G and Kenny Rogers are both more important than Eric Clapton, since each has sold more records than EC has.
No, to judge an artist's importance you must look at their influence among their peers. And you can't simply ask their peers what they think, because 1) their peers may very well be dead, and 2) doing so removes the objectivity and turns the question back to being a popularity contest. Instead, you must examine the work of the artist's peers to see how the artist in question has influenced them. And you must look at how art has changed since the artist in question came along, and determine which of those changes are the direct result of the artist. This requires that you do much research and take an exceptionally long-distance view of the entire body of the artist's work as it relates to the history of art. This is admittedly more difficult to do with an artist who is still creating, since you're forced to aim at a moving target, so to speak. Nonetheless, it's still possible to get a pretty accurate picture of their influence as of a certain moment in time.
In the case of a musician, the areas of consideration are:
1) Their influence as a composer (songwriter) or arranger (orchestrator)
2) Their influence as an instrumental player or singer
3) Their influence as a conductor or bandleader (in the case of bandleaders who don't play instruments)
I add this last category because it is important when considering 'classical' musicians. For example, Leopold Stokowski never wrote a note of music and never played an instrument, but his influence as an orchestra conductor and music director is undeniable and far-reaching. And Leonard Bernstein arguably had more influence as the conductor and music director of the NY Philharmonic Orchestra than he ever did as a composer ("On The Town", "Candide", "West Side Story", etc.).
So there it is GoinDownSlow. Ask yourself the following questions about any musician you like:
1) How has their work as a composer, instrumental player/singer and conductor/bandleader influenced the work of other musicians?
2) How has their work as a composer, instrumental player/singer and conductor/bandleader changed the course of music?
After you've thoroughly researched their work as it relates to all of music you'll be able to honestly answer the questions and determine how important they really are. And if you do this dilligently and honestly for Eric Clapton, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley there's no way you'll be able to conclude that Eric Clapton is the most important musician of the past 50 years.
If anyone else has a different objective way to evaluate a musician's importance I'm all ears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread about Vanilla Fudge's “Break Song”
Originally posted by Tony:
I would like to have the rest of that Shrine concert. Someone, somwhere must have the complete show.
I was in the audience at that concert, and I've always wished that Atlantic would release the entire performance. Of the 3 times I saw VF live (9/68 at the Hollywood Bowl opening for Hendrix, 1/69 at the Shrine, and 4/69 at the Rose Palace), the Shrine was their best performance. (They announced they were recording at the beginning of the concert.) During "Season Of The Witch" (a song Fudge always played with great theatrics), by the last verse Vince Martell was sobbing into his mic and Mark Stein had jumped up on his organ bench and was shouting at the audience "HEY YOU OUT THERE, YOU BETTER LISTEN!!" Great stuff. They also did an absolutely killer version of "Shotgun" at that concert -- way better than the studio version on 'Near The Beginning'. And I remember the sound quality at that Shrine concert being noticeably better than it was at most other concerts at that time -- even though it was quite loud (although not by today's standards), you could hear everything very clearly. One of the best concerts I've ever been to. (Richie Havens was the opening act.)
Going to concerts back then was a much mellower (an over-used word, but 100% accurate in this case) experience than it is today. Besides not costing an arm and a leg (admission at the Shrine was only $3.50 at the door!), you sat on the floor on AstroTurf. Since there were no chairs you could move around. It was much easier to get to know other people (and share 'refreshments'), and the whole scene was a lot more communal and friendly than it is today.
Unfortunately, the tremendous success of Cream's farewell tour in 1968 deserves most of the blame for the bleak state of today's concert industry. That tour paved the way for bands to play in giant arenas at much higher ticket prices. (Tickets for Cream's farewell shows in L.A. were $6.50, twice the cost of advance tickets for other shows. At the time this seemed completely outrageous. Silly us...) This, in turn, spawned the ticket broker industry, with its exhorbitant fees. Of course, states with the balls to pass anti-scalping legislation (where you can be arrested for selling a ticket above it's face value) don't have this problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tony:
hsosdrum...you were there when they recorded that tune eh'...far out.
Yep (being an old fart does have its advantages).
They announced that they were recording that night, so my friend and I yelled-out during the quiet passage in Appice's solo, just to get on the recording (you can hear us on the CD). I know it was dumb, but we were young and stupid.
On 'Near The Beginning' I really wish that they had released the live version of "Shotgun" that Fudge played that night instead of the studio version. I'm sure that the recording quality was superior to the wretched quality on the studio version, and they really played the shit out of it that night. In fact, they were 100% ON that night -- did a killer version of "Season Of The Witch" where Vince Martell wound-up crying into his mic and Mark Stein jumped up on his organ bench to exhort the crowd: "You better listen!". Vanilla Fudge's music may have had a bit too much 'garlic' for rock purists, but I've always enjoyed the extreme amount of drama that they were able to wring from even the most innocuous songs (like "She's Not There", "Bang Bang" and "Some Velvet Morning"). And as you can hear on "Break Song", each was a brilliant player and singer.
If you ever get the chance, watch their performance of "You Keep Me Hangin' On" on 'The Ed Sullivan Show (I think it's on one of that show's compilation DVDs.). At a time when just about every band who appeared on that show either sang live and played air guitar and air drums to pre-recorded backing tracks or lip-synched and air-guitared everything, Fudge played and sang 100% live, and they really tore it up.