Cream

[Jon9497]

Well, I'll probably get "Flamed" for this , but...after watching the reunion DVD,

several times, and then re-listening to old "Live" tracks, of them, in the '60's...

I have to say I STILL prefer their sound, in that era! Gibson's into Marshall's!

What a great, and ballsy sound. That was (IMHO) missing, especially in EC's tone, with

a Strat and Tweed Twin, in the reunion gigs. Their playing was fine, but that "Cream"

sound, to me, was gone. The reunion sound, was more what EC does, in his current tours,

so it was like EC (with Jack & Ginger just contributing). As great as they all were!

 

Jack said, in their rehearsals, that they "tried the old setup with the Marshall's,

and it just didn't work!" Sorry, I don't buy that...I can see how they've (personally)

moved on, in what they "prefer" now, but to say "it just didn't work???" Worked mighty

well, originally! And, in fact it defined their "Live" "Cream" sound, along with their

playing abilities, of course. The "reunion" was simply less raucous, less ballsy, and (to me)

much less satisfying, than the original era "Cream." Much as I loved them getting

back together, at all! I'm just "nit picking," a bit, I guess? LOL

 

CB

[Jon9497]

Plain and simple both Cream versions were quite the showstopper. Thanks for the time.

[darling67]

Cream without Gibson and Marshall is just plain wrong.

 

Disagree with me if you wish but I never really cared for Clapton's playing with a Strat.

Jeff Beck, yes.

Clapton, no.

 

Agreed. Clapton was at his sonic best with a Les Paul or SG.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOWVg0AoHWE

[saturn]

Yeah. I also prefer the early Clapton, even though most of that was recorded before I was born.

 

One thing about EC that I'm not a fan of these days, and I really started noticing it on the Journeyman album, is how he IMO over uses the trill technique. It just seems like a cheap way to sound like you're playing faster than you really are. I mean, that's something I would do, but not one of the most accomplished players in the world.

 

An example is right here starting at about 3:20

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z63iHXAjoNA

[Dub-T-123]

That sounded awful well before 3:20 IMO

[LP Trad Pro II]

Yeah. I also prefer the early Clapton, even though most of that was recorded before I was born.

 

One thing about EC that I'm not a fan of these days, and I really started noticing it on the Journeyman album, is how he IMO over uses the trill technique. It just seems like a cheap way to sound like you're playing faster than you really are. I mean, that's something I would do, but not one of the most accomplished players in the world.

 

An example is right here starting at about 3:20

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z63iHXAjoNA

Yeah, but he is in his 70's and can play better than most people on the planet, but he is having issues playing now at his age.

[pippy]

...One thing about EC that I'm not a fan of these days, and I really started noticing it on the Journeyman album, is how he IMO over uses the trill technique...An example is right here starting at about 3:20...

That sounded awful well before 3:20 IMO

The albums Clapton recorded with/for Warner Brothers are very much the 'Curate's Egg' in terms of their content. 'Journeyman' is a perfect example of (IMO) dross mixed in with unalloyed gems. Two tracks further on from 'Bad Love' we get this superb (again IMO) interpretation of the Ray Charles - penned classic;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Y-BlKjhes

 

None of the flash and bravado of his Bluesbreakers days but as an example of taste and moderation? Sublime.

 

Pip.

[jdgm]

'Journeyman' is a perfect example of (IMO) dross mixed in with unalloyed gems.

 

 

Agree with this...

 

I like "August" more than I used to - most of the material is good stuff, though buried beneath the production.

[charlie brown]

Well, a lot of the 70's and 80's stuff, especially, had too much production and "effects," that were overused.

That seems to carry over, all too often, to a lot of today's music. In fact, it may be even worse, with the

use of computers, instead of real players, and the Auto-tune, Auto-correct, that's also employed.

 

But, I'm one of those guys that love his old Beano, Cream, even Blind Faith, minimalist playing and production.

And, some of his newer stuff, too...that is less "produced," and (to me) more "real!" I don't know...it seems

too many layers, overdubs, effects, waters it all down, to "synth pop" sounding stuff. I DO think EC is a lot

better song writer, than he (too often) gets credit for. But, in those eras, he was (like most his age) just

trying to stay "relevant" in a music genre that seemed anything but. Still, that's only My Humble Opinion,

and not gospel, for sure!

 

CB

[Dub-T-123]

The abuse of the effects is probably as bad or worse now, but IMO the actual tone of the synths, drums, and many effects have never sounded worse than they did in the 80s. A lot of the “cutting edge” gear at the time was digital, but the digital technology was of course generally really bad. (I’m not saying all music of the 80s was bad)

 

You can go to Target and buy a Casio keyboard made for children and it will easily rival the whole backing track of “Bad Love”

 

What’s interesting is that it’s often the older musicians that have the most tasteless use of effects. For example the Buddy Guy album with Jeff Beck that was posted recently. Those are all old legendary players, but the quality of the sound of the instruments and the use of effects are like the epitome of tastelessness