Review of Cream show...OUCH

[MindGoneHaywire]

Boy, has this guy got a chip on his shoulder. I'm not a big Cream fan & never was but I can't see going into something like this as staunchly as this guy did with regards to the concept of hating overblown rock star-ism. I'm sure I would have plenty to quibble with, especially given the penchant of overplayers such as these to, well, overplay, but I can't see rewriting a manifesto that's been done better before--most specifically, through music that was created by people who had ideas they wanted to express in very different ways & on very different terms. Nevertheless, I do prefer this POV to that of those who feel that the gods of classic rock were simply not capable of anything wrong, or bad. But that's me. That said, I think this guy's editor was asleep at the switch. If this really needed to be said again, it could've been said with just a bit more...something. His points about Hendrix are interesting, but even if I never hear another Cream so long as I live, I think it's at least as interesting that they played a reunion show. Thoughts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/revie...475325,00.html

[Mike]

I was never a big Cream fan but were they only together for two years it strikes me they've had a massive impact on bands of today in so many ways not to mention overlong drum solos. I've seen Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall and it is like a corporate do not like a rock concert at all. There's something about those plush seats, the boxes and winding corridors which lend themselves to an 'occasion' and the clientele it attracts don't help either.

But as for this gig what did he expect of course sub thirties would be thin on the ground no self respecting 20 year old would be there especially at the prices they were probably charging. Rock music dictates you've got to be youthful and whilst I might want to hear them the sight of old men reliving past glories is a bit sad really. And of course Hendrix gets the nod not least for his expertise but he also had the advantage of dying young which was always going to give him the upper hand.

Cheers
Mike

[shokhead]

Boy, has this guy got a chip on his shoulder. I'm not a big Cream fan & never was but I can't see going into something like this as staunchly as this guy did with regards to the concept of hating overblown rock star-ism. I'm sure I would have plenty to quibble with, especially given the penchant of overplayers such as these to, well, overplay, but I can't see rewriting a manifesto that's been done better before--most specifically, through music that was created by people who had ideas they wanted to express in very different ways & on very different terms. Nevertheless, I do prefer this POV to that of those who feel that the gods of classic rock were simply not capable of anything wrong, or bad. But that's me. That said, I think this guy's editor was asleep at the switch. If this really needed to be said again, it could've been said with just a bit more...something. His points about Hendrix are interesting, but even if I never hear another Cream so long as I live, I think it's at least as interesting that they played a reunion show. Thoughts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/revie...475325,00.html

What do you mean overplay?

[Troy]

I rather enjoyed that piece, MGH. Had the right tone of cynicism.

It seemed like she liked the show, but was overtaken by it's pompous vibe. The line "The atmosphere is less like a rock concert than a corporate hospitality tent at Wimbledon." is spot on. Veddy British. Snarky.

I just don't see it as a chip on the writer's shoulder at all. Seems to me that she called it as she saw it . . . and I'd suspect that I'd see it approximately the same way.

>I can't see rewriting a manifesto that's been done better before--most specifically, through music that was created by people who had ideas they wanted to express in very different ways & on very different terms.

I really don't know what you mean by this. I mean, yeah, I've read similar cynical anti-geezer rockstar stuff before. Working it into a review like this seems perfectly logical and appropriate to me.

[shokhead]

They havent played together for 35 years. If anybody thought they would sound the same and be as tight then they are stupit. I suppose if all the beatles were alive and played together again,the same thing would be written and said.

[jack70]

I thought it was a fair piece. It gave some needed & valid historical background (that 50%+ of the audience may NOT have been aware of). I thought it was well written as well. Not cynical (IMO)... just good style. What It lacked was any insight from talking to them about their modus-opperandi, feelings, and reasons for doing this. It was also lacking in explaining why they concentrated on Cream material... seemed like that's all they played. I guess that's the deal they made, but there should'a (at least) been some mention of their track records in the 40 years since.

Jack Bruce has played on and produced a frickin TON of music over the years. I'm actually surprised he's doing well, after reading of his recent medical problems. No mention of any of that!! And Ginger has been apart of some surprisingly good things as well in the last decade. Musically, Clapton has kept the biggest star, yet (IMHO) it's not nearly as interesting as what his 2 mates have done over the years. And I get the queezy feeling that one of the reasons for this concert (series?) is to put some much needed cash in Jack & Ginger's hands. If true that's too bad, although if true, Clapton should get credit for helping out as well. And that's part of the (back) story I wish the author had given more time to.

[Slosh]

They havent played together for 35 years. If anybody thought they would sound the same and be as tight then they are stupit.

Stupit is as stupit does? You're killin' me

NP: Beck - Guero (meh, glad I didn't buy this)

[shokhead]

And i've does some stupid stuff,thats for sure. I wouldnt go to a concert of 50-60 year olds that i saw when i was in high school and expect them to sound and do the same as then. I would go see cream because of EC and i never saw them back when. They are what they are. Now thats deep. LOL

[MindGoneHaywire]

Right tone of cynicism? Seems to me like this is someone who's critical of rock stars because they've read lots of stuff about how rock stars deserve criticism rather than because they've listened to the music by the rock stars that have come in for a lot of this criticism. Cream gave rise to jazz-rock? Is it really even accurate to call them a 'supergroup?' I have a feeling it was way more interesting to see & hear than it was good, but I can't say I like the biases of the writer going in. Way over the top, and I don't get the sense they were prepared to give the show a fair evaluation. But that's me.

>I've read similar cynical anti-geezer rockstar stuff before. Working it into a review like this seems perfectly logical and appropriate to me.

It practically is the review. Anyone caring enough to actually read this needs to know that this is a view that rock critics hold? They're not aware of this in 2005? Besides, if you are going to work it in, are you going to tell me you couldn't come up with a better way to do it than to compare the physical appearance of Ginger Baker to...the guy who played Paul McCartney's grandfather in A Hard Day's Night? Seems awful...trite.

And I don't see the 'valid historical background,' Jack. Cream was a band the writer suggests was formed to be upstaged by Hendrix, yet they managed to gross lots of money playing shows in the US...where Hendrix was how successful prior to showing up in England? I'm surprised you'd pass this pile of misinformation & tired cliches off as good style.

[ForeverAutumn]

Well, at least she didn't call them......dare I say it.......PRETENTIOUS!

[Troy]

>Right tone of cynicism? Seems to me like this is someone who's critical of rock stars because they've read lots of stuff about how rock stars deserve criticism rather than because they've listened to the music by the rock stars that have come in for a lot of this criticism. Cream gave rise to jazz-rock? Is it really even accurate to call them a 'supergroup?'

Cream WAS a supergroup. The first. That's what the term the gushing press coined for them back in the day because of their illustrious pedegrees.

A cursory re-read doesn't let me find "Cream gave rise to jazz-rock" in that article. Nor is it even implied.

>I have a feeling it was way more interesting to see & hear than it was good, but I can't say I like the biases of the writer going in. Way over the top, and I don't get the sense they were prepared to give the show a fair evaluation. But that's me.

I swear, your dipleasure with this article has me chuckling. You sound just like a progfan bemoaning an article about a Yes concert review. Summary dismissal of something you don't think deserves it sucks, donnit?

OTOH, you also sound like you are maybe more displeased with style of the writing than with the writer's conclusions. The writer is clearly young and has a, cynical "60 year old rockstars are bogus" post-rock attitude.

>>I've read similar cynical anti-geezer rockstar stuff before. Working it into a review like this seems perfectly logical and appropriate to me.

>It practically is the review.

So what? Personally, I don't want to read the pure facts of the concert, I care more about the tone and atmosphere of the scene. This is an op-ed piece, not a police blotter.

>Anyone caring enough to actually read this needs to know that this is a view that rock critics hold? They're not aware of this in 2005?

Seems pretty obvious to me too. And it is the mainstream British press who love to shred any sucessful pop culture icons. Is it that you think the writing sucks or that you disagree with her? Who cares? Why did this silly puff piece get you so exercised?

>Besides, if you are going to work it in, are you going to tell me you couldn't come up with a better way to do it than to compare the physical appearance of Ginger Baker to...the guy who played Paul McCartney's grandfather in A Hard Day's Night? Seems awful...trite.

I really have no response to this. You are overreacting terribly.

>And I don't see the 'valid historical background,' Jack. Cream was a band the writer suggests was formed to be upstaged by Hendrix, yet they managed to gross lots of money playing shows in the US...where Hendrix was how successful prior to showing up in England? I'm surprised you'd pass this pile of misinformation & tired cliches off as good style.

LOL, there you go again looking soley at record sales without looking at the big picture "cultural relevance" issue. Regardless of how many records got sold, time has shown that Hendrix WAS more important than Clapton OR Cream.

The "Cream were formed for the specific purpose of giving the Jimi Hendrix Experience something to upstage." comment is just a snarky, cynical comment, not fact.

[shokhead]

This is all really a joke because nobody has to see them or listen to them. I never considered them,or the yardbirds or the animals or blind faith or West,Bruce and Lang or Mott the Hopple or ELP or ELO or groups like that as supergroups. I dont just go by what some joker writes. He might have written the same same about the beatles Hollywood Bowl concert.