March Music Madness: AC/DC VS. CREAM

[newtrix1]

Gotta go with AC/DC. I've never cared about anything in the Clapton cannon while albums like Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap and others have been long time favorites of mine, so this is easy for me.

I see some comments from non-Clapton fans here. I’m wondering what the general opinion is wrt his “From the Cradle” release? It’s a collection of classic Blues numbers, which EC covers rather well IMO. I happened to spin some cuts from this album over the weekend, and remembered how much I liked it.
I think EC does a great job on vocals (putting on a pretty good “old black guy” voice) and does some serious guitar shredding. Anyhow, “From the Cradle” just might be my favorite album by him.

[Mr MidFi]

Yet another interesting matchup. AC/DC is a one-trick pony, but they do that trick very well. Cream is, well, dated...and their output was considerably less.

At their best (e.g. Highway to Hell), AC/DC could sound absolutely awesome. But they get old for me after about 3 songs. If I'm listening to an entire CD, I'd rather go for the Cream. So they get the vote.

[jasn]

I have to go with Cream, but like Troy do not own CDs from either band. Quite frankly, I think Cream is more Jack Bruce's band than Clapton's, which is probably why Eric left. Their style of english-blues has since petered out, which is too bad IMO.

If you're a fan and haven't heard of a band called Masters of Reality you may want to check it out. Baker is the drummer and they bring back the 3-man style nicely.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Newtrix 1:
I’m wondering what the general opinion is wrt his “From the Cradle” release?

I heard it when it came out, not since. Like a lot of his other solo work that leaned towards blues, I loathe the production, to the point where I find little to like. The performance may not be passionless, but he would've had to have left some blood'n'guts on the floor of the studio for me to be able to swallow a record that sounds like that. And that goes for most of his records. I probably wouldn't like most of them any more if they didn't sound the way they do, but it's definitely a piece of the puzzle. Ultimately the most important thing is going to be the songs & how they're performed, but as on From The Cradle, they're nowhere near good enough for me to like the stuff. His guitar playing has moments, but never enough for me to embrace the entire package. I still don't like much of anything he did after Eric & The Powerhouse. I am curious to hear the Concert For George, though.

jasn:
I think Cream is more Jack Bruce's band than Clapton's

I've read that elsewhere. It makes sense, I think.

If you're a fan and haven't heard of a band called Masters of Reality you may want to check it out. Baker is the drummer and they bring back the 3-man style nicely.

I think Daniel Rey was in that band?

[jasn]

I think Daniel Rey was in that band?

Yeah, I guess he is. I looked him up on AMG and it shows a ton of years in the business, but I don't really know him. Just curious, but why does he stand out for you?

[MindGoneHaywire]

jasn:

why does he stand out for you?

He co-wrote Ramones songs & produced a couple of their albums. One of those names that was always popping up in the Ramones universe over the last 10 years or so of their career, so I always pay attention if I see his name mentioned.

newtrix:
liner notes of From the Cradle: "this is a live recording with no overdubs or edits " (they then quote 2 exceptions).

Yeah, well, you can make a live recording & process the sound in a way that I just don't like. I never liked Clapton's sound, never thought there was anything about his tone that was interesting in any way. I'm hardly a zoom unit kind of guy, and I prefer minimal processing & effects, but I just always thought, here's a guy who is largely a purist, yet it's kinda wasted on him. So far as I know he was always a tube/analog kind of guy, but why did he bother? Just a boring sound, so, again, without a superior performance (given that the material on that album was mostly very good), it's just a little too much for me to be able to overcome. But part of why the tube/analog aesthetic is wasted on him is because he's a guy who never seemed to have a problem overplaying all over verse parts. I loathe that kind of playing 99% of the time, and he ain't in the 1%. I've heard this or that over the years from him, with the thought that there's an okay moment here or there, but that it's just not enough. I'd certainly listen to that album again, but I remember the reasons for not liking it pretty specifically: if he'd channeled the sorts of performances I like, & done it in a way more intense fashion, then perhaps. But it sounded way too clean, way too bland. Just not my cup of tea--but then again, outside of the Yardbirds, the Bluesbreakers, & the Powerhouse, he never was. Every time I hear a Cream song I like it isn't long before I hear one I don't. It's just tough with this guy.

it also doesn't sound like sterile and souless wanking either

Perhaps not...I actually remember it sounding more vanilla than soulless wanking such as what he did in the past. But to me the sound was definitely sterile. I remember particularly thinking that his take on 'Tore Down' had to have Freddie King grimacing, wherever he is. To me it just wasn't up to snuff.

genuine homage to some unsung blues artists.

Well, I'm always for that. But my preference is for stuff like the David Johansen & the Harry Smiths albums. That stuff is more up my alley for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that I love Johansen & loathe Clapton. But it's a different bird: I like my blues to be not always guitar-based, whether more of a harmonica thing, or just in a realm where the personality that comes through on the vocals is the prominent feature. Clapton's one of the main guys that put a big emphasis on the blues becoming way more of a guitar-oriented genre, and I just would've preferred it if the person who'd done that had been a guy whose playing, style, attitude, & sound I like more than I like Clapton. But so what? If you like it, you like it. I'll stick to what I got, I recommend the David Jo records high high highly, and if I get another crack at From the Cradle, I'll give it another fair listen.

[newtrix1]

=MindGoneHaywire]Newtrix 1:
I’m wondering what the general opinion is wrt his “From the Cradle” release?

I heard it when it came out, not since. Like a lot of his other solo work that leaned towards blues, I loathe the production, to the point where I find little to like. The performance may not be passionless, but he would've had to have left some blood'n'guts on the floor of the studio for me to be able to swallow a record that sounds like that. And that goes for most of his records. I probably wouldn't like most of them any more if they didn't sound the way they do, but it's definitely a piece of the puzzle. Ultimately the most important thing is going to be the songs & how they're performed, but as on From The Cradle, they're nowhere near good enough for me to like the stuff. His guitar playing has moments, but never enough for me to embrace the entire package.

I'm never sure exactly what's meant by the term "production" when used to describe a recording, I think it means different things to different people. I do think I know what your describing though, EC's Behind the Sun sounds very "overproduced" to me (by my definition). But for what it's worth, there's a quote in the liner notes of From the Cradle: "this is a live recording with no overdubs or edits " (they then quote 2 exceptions).

No it doesn't come across as a completely "live" album, but it also doesn't sound like sterile and souless wanking either. I'm listening to "Five Long Years" right now, and it's one of the album highlights for me. Smoking guitar and vocals that, IMO, lend genuine homage to some unsung blues artists.