That’s not the same. First of all, Paul was not the only singer in the Beatles, he did not have the same kind of lead-vocalist role that Bruce had in Cream where his voice was THE voice of the band. Paul also frequently played other instruments. Brian Wilson was capable of playing the bass but he was most noted as a studio musician and arranger - Carol Kaye played bass on the majority of his work at that time.
Jack Bruce exemplifies the Platonic ideal of the ‘lead-singer/bassist’ role in a way that the others don’t. And as a member of a power trio, he carried far more responsibility in that role than he would have if he was in a band with four members in which one of them was either a rhythm guitarist-vocalist or simply a vocalist alone.
Ugh, couldn’t stand that pretentious sod of a narrator, and the film itself, with the requisite 60’s psychedelic “amoeboid” graphics and rapid zoom in/zoom out silliness, was made even more infuriatingly stupid by showing several-minute close-ups of their faces as they were soloing.
No, not overrated; in their short time they made a significant, worthwhile splash.
Will always thank Jack for his “Politician” bass line - truly great.
I like Cream well enough (or better put, I like some Cream singles a lot - White Room,* Strange Brew*, Sunshine of Your Love), but the esteem they’re accorded is beyond me - but then, I’m not a muso or a rockist or a noodler, so them being a great live act in the early days does nothing for me.
I have most of them and it’s amazing to hear how they evolved in the two years between Nov '66 and Nov '68. Cream was Jeckyl in the studio and Hyde on stage. If you’re looking for a note for note, beat for beat recreation of their songs, you won’t find it in their live work. My go to song is Spoonful, which begins and ends the same, but in between each rendition is completely different!
Remember, what they were doing was unheard before them. There was no one who mixed jazz, blues and rock the way they did. The fact that you still hear their influence in music today is testament to how important they were to music in general. You can’t judge Cream or many other 60’s/early 70’s groups by the influences they’ve had, but with a mindset that this was something that was completely new.
It took me nearly a decade to appreciate my brother’s Fresh Cream album, but even though I was more interested in bubble gum pop when Sunshine of Your Love and White Room came out, I remember thinking that this was something special that I’d never heard before.
But it seems, per lingyi, that they have that improvisational fretwankery aspect in common with them when playing live, so I was saying I’m grateful I’ve only heard the recorded singles.
Listen to any of the hundreds of live concert recordings from the Grateful Dead from sometime around 1967-'68 onward and you will realize how completely wrong you are here., not to mention the Grateful Dead kept evolving their music for another 25+ years after Cream broke up.
I guess I can’t understand that sort of thinking. If they’re going to sound exactly like their recorded work, why see them live? You can just listen to the recording again.
When I see an act live, I want to hear something different than the recordings.
There are many approaches to performing live, and many ways to enjoy attending shows. On one end of the performing spectrum are bands like the Eagles and the Cars, who pretty much play and sing what was on the record at their shows. I don’t know who would represent the opposite end of that spectrum. Cream would be in the middle, I think, at least based on the show I saw. Some of the songs they played, like Spoonful, were like jazz songs, with a recognizable beginning and end wrapped around ten minutes or so of improvisation. Others, like Sunshine of Your Love and White Room, duplicated the arrangement of the recorded versions, with slightly longer guitar solos.
As for the enjoyment side, for me there are a few factors that make “just like the record” concerts fun. I’m a musician, so I enjoy seeing and hearing music played well, simply as a feat of skill. I also enjoy the slight differences that enter into performances over time, like the tiny phrasing changes that have become part of James Taylor’s Fire and Rain over the decades. There’s the feeling of participation, too, both with the artists and the crowd.
I don’t want them to sound exactly like their recordings. But I don’t want them to sound very different from them, either. I am not a fan of solos, either, and that’s usually what jamming breaks out into - a succession of solos. Like I said, extended fretwankery does nothing for me, I see it as self-indulgent.
I’m at a live concert to hear the songs I like, with some nuances - stuff like little fills, some witty mid-tune banter, maybe a different pace to the song. An example would be how Billy Bragg often makes up different, topical or situational, lyrics for Great Leap Forward. I make allowances for the opening and closing songs being jamm-y, that’s expected - introduce the band and blow off steam at the end, sure. But not the whole fucking concert.
I don’t go to the symphony for a Sibelius work and expect the 1st chair violin to break into 5 minutes of freeform fiddling, why would I take it from other music I like?
You can probably tell, I loathe most live jazz even more than jam bands…
We’re closing in on nitpicking, but I’ve got two points to make.
Clapton sang lead on several songs starting from the first album, and Bruce pushed him to do more singing in concert. The more Clapton wrote, the more he sang. Proportionally, he sang more Cream than George and Ringo combined did for the Beatles.
Wilson was *the *bass player for the Beach Boys for their first several years. The Wrecking Crew didn’t start appearing until their eighth album (in 1965), and after that were only the true backing band for about two years.
I just listened to Disraeli Gears on You Tube. They aren’t my favorite musicians, but there is no way they are overrated. I think there are better vocalists than those gentlemen, but damn few to equal or exceed them for playing.
I just realized why “Clapton is God” wasn’t heard during the Cream years. He was surrounded by two other Gods (edit: who were his equals and arguably his superiors…definitely in jazz) and he was no longer unique! Not only did they push Eric to heights he never hit before, with the exception of the Layla sessions with Duane Allman, he never hit them again. He came close to hitting those heights a few times at the reunion (particularly on Stormy Monday), but while Jack and Ginger were goading him along, he (as he’s done so often after Cream) restrained himself.
That’s okay. It’s hard to realize that they were only together 2 1/2 years!
Which brings us back to the original question. Overrated? Name another group that was only together for 2 1/2 years that had as great an impact as Cream! :eek:
I really prefer Mocha Mix. I can invite my Jewish friends over for dinner and not worry about whether the mashed potatoes could be served with the meatloaf without causing problems. As Steve Allen used to say, “With Mocha Mix, it’s A-OK!”
Clapton may have enjoyed “Reunion Cream” more than “Original Cream” because he was not the referee. The group’s dynamics were different in the 60s. Bruce and Baker had been in the Graham Bond Organization together and agreed on only 2 things. They each HATED each others guts and they each wanted to play with Clapton. So Clapton was in the middle of that. During the Reunion, it was just a reunion for one gig. They didn’t have to pal around, just make music. And sound reinforcement technology was a LOT different in 05 than it was in 68.
Clapton played a '64 Gibson SG Standard with a stop tailpiece with Cream. In '68 he switched to a Gibson Firebird and he had that Cherry red Gibson ES-335. He liked guitars with 2 humbuckers, volume controls, and tone controls then.
