Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125

    Review of Cream show...OUCH

    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

    I don't like others.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    A sometimes wet and damp York, England
    Posts
    528
    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

  3. #3
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    What do you mean overplay?
    Look & Listen

  4. #4
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    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.

  5. #5
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    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.
    Look & Listen

  6. #6
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    re

    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.
    You don't know... jack

  7. #7
    Indifferentist Slosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    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)
    Originally Posted by Troy: She has that same kind of cleft-pallet, slightly retarded way of singing that so many other people find endearing.


  8. #8
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    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
    Look & Listen

  9. #9
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    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.

    I don't like others.

  10. #10
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Well, at least she didn't call them......dare I say it.......PRETENTIOUS!


  11. #11
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    >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.

  12. #12
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    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.
    Look & Listen

  13. #13
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    This is all really a joke because nobody has to see them or listen to them.
    Then why participate in the thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    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.
    Regardless of how you, me and MGH fell about the pretentions of being a "Supergroup", that IS what Cream was called in the press. Always has been.

  14. #14
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    I was talking about Cream or any group.
    Look & Listen

  15. #15
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    I was talking about Cream or any group.
    Yeah, I'm saying that you, me and MGH all agree that the term Supergroup is ridiculous.

    But the media and a LOT of other people DO think that Cream was/is a Supergroup.

    A "Supergroup" is a band comprised of famous/top notch musicians from other bands that get together to cut an album. ELO was not a Supergroup, but Audioslave could be considered one. I don't think ELP was a suprgroup either, none of those guys were THAT big before they grouped up.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    re

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    I don't think ELP was a suprgroup either, none of those guys were THAT big before they grouped up
    I'd disagree with that, but we're splitting hairs (& I'm already slowly going bald). The first supergroup was probably Steampacket, but the term is used today in a retrospective way, which is a little different than it's original use.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Is it really even accurate to call them a 'supergroup?'
    Well, that's the generally accepted dogma, but the term wasn't really common until some time later. But even in retrospect one could (myself anyway), make the claim that Clapton had already made his best record (of his entire future career) with John Mayall's Bluesbreakers. Yeah, we're parsing words, but the truth is all 3 have a long & storied recording history, whether one likes em or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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.
    That's not how I read it.... she made the (accurate historical IMO) Hendrix reference to remind us that Cream was special in their day... but (in retrospect) not THAT special:

    History frequently gives the impression Cream were formed for the specific purpose of giving the Jimi Hendrix Experience something to upstage.
    Hendrix, rather unsportingly, fetched up in London two weeks after their first gig, and immediately set about making them look a bit stodgy. He has continued to do so after his death...


    Jimi, a young rising talent, in the right place at the right time, had just been given an opportunity to bare his creative soul upon landing in London, and quickly caught the imagination of EVERY major R&R performer who saw him in there in those early days. She was just tweaking the reader a bit, perhaps because she's a little tired of hearing about how Clapton in his youth (Cream) was the apex of the late-60's R&R tradition. But it's true, Jimi expanded the Rock landscape in many more dimensions than Cream, who were primarily a Blues band (not a criticism, I love the Blues & Cream both a lot). Heck, as much as I grew up with Cream, and played songs like Tales of Brave Ulysses in my HS band, I think Jack Bruce's solo LPs a few years later, are much more substantial in many ways (in retrospect anyway). That's not slighting Cream, just putting them in perspective.

    The fact Cream sold a lot of records isn't really relevant. I'll wager you Jimi's sold more since. (It's too bad his dad got a measly payout every year (50K?) while a tight bevy of lawyer/suits are reaping the majority of the millions themselves every year.

    I kinda like someone who writes with an attitude & style, even if I don't agree totally with it (although in this case I mostly agree). Most Rock writers (CD or concert reviews) are dreadfully dull, and even more are dreadfully uninformed (but I can forgive em that because Rock has a huge history to absorb for writers (often) barely out of college).

    "In fact, it is Cream's theoretically less substantial material that stands up best four decades on. Full of snaking melodic turns and false endings, Badge is simply a fantastic pop song. Deserted Cities of the Heart strikes an admirable balance between lush vocal harmonies and hulking, muscular power"

    Besides being very descriptive & tight writing, that's pretty positive as well, no? Better written than some old geriatric fan drooling over them sans anything critical or interesting. In the end, she gives a true description of her feelings at seeing the show... the audience, the performers, the music. Yeah, she might have given a little more ink to the songs, but since they were RE-re-treads of old Cream classics, how much can one say? I guess a true Cream zealot might gush on & on, for paragraph after paragraph... but most people reading it (Cream fans) have already seen the movie. (which is why my prime complaint was lack of background from the old geezers themselves). She should have made the effort to talk to them backstage.
    You don't know... jack

  17. #17
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746

    Troy is spot-on

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    Yeah, I'm saying that you, me and MGH all agree that the term Supergroup is ridiculous.

    But the media and a LOT of other people DO think that Cream was/is a Supergroup.

    A "Supergroup" is a band comprised of famous/top notch musicians from other bands that get together to cut an album. ELO was not a Supergroup, but Audioslave could be considered one. I don't think ELP was a suprgroup either, none of those guys were THAT big before they grouped up.
    Yeah, they called GTR, ASIA, and Damn Yankees supergroups too.

    Funny though, King Crimson did actually become a supergroup didn't it.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    Regardless of how you, me and MGH fell about the pretentions of being a "Supergroup", that IS what Cream was called in the press. Always has been.
    Are you sure? I thought Blind Faith was the first band called a supergroup. Jack Bruce wasn't famous for working with Alexis Korner or Mayall or whoever it was. I can't even remember where Ginger Baker got started. I think it was the same blues bunch.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    Exactly what I was going to suggest...of course, it was a long time ago & we weren't there, were we? But that was the point I was going to make.

    Haven't yet had a chance to post a reply in that other thread, but there is a connection. I say, if you're going to slam this or that about music, this genre or that trend, whatever, know yr stuff. I don't like prog but I won't comment on something unless I've actually heard it. I listened to Relayer when you sent it; I've listened to Tales more times than you might think since Wladimir sent it to me a few years ago. Tormato I haven't gotten to yet, but I came into a pile of Yes stuff not too long ago & one day I'll get to more of it. The point is, aside from the fact that I heard plenty of it when I was growing up, I'm not satisfied that something sucks just because all these bands I happen to like say so. That said, I'd be lying if I said that something said by someone whose music I respect didn't have the capability to make an impression on me. If it's not something that interests me then it hardly matters, but I will at least try to give it a fair listen if there's anything about it I do find interesting. What you said in the other thread about lazily relying on cliches & regurgitating Lester Bangs? That's exactly what I got from this piece. I think this reviewer shows more 70s hipster style than the experience of not only listening to this music but understanding its impact in its time. And I'm the first to express my displeasure for dinosaurs. But while I know nothing about this writer & I could be completely wrong in my perceptions of their experience w/the music, I just don't think this piece does justice to its point of view.

    I don't think the prog-hating critics of 30 years ago should be blamed for those who follow in their ideological footsteps any more than I'd blame the Ramones for Simple Plan or Good Charlotte. It's not their fault the indoctrination you reference in the other thread became legion...for a bunch of people who never bought the records these people championed anyway. And if someone today wants to write a piece slamming prog or supergroups or dinosaurs or cynical 40-years-later cash-in reunions, let 'em. I still don't think there's much in the way of rock criticism that influences consumers. But what I want is for them to know what they're talking about because they've actually listened to the records, rather than doing a Cliff's Notes by-the-numbers hatchet piece expressing the same thing they saw & loved in a Bangs piece because they loved how it was written & never got around to actually listening. Again, I could be wrong, but that was the distinct impression I got from this.

    I don't like others.

  20. #20
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    Are you sure? I thought Blind Faith was the first band called a supergroup. Jack Bruce wasn't famous for working with Alexis Korner or Mayall or whoever it was. I can't even remember where Ginger Baker got started. I think it was the same blues bunch.
    Yeah, maybe it WAS Blind Faith that was the first to be called a SG. It was close, either way. Regardless, that doesn't take away from anything I said, contexturally.

  21. #21
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    Yeah, maybe it WAS Blind Faith that was the first to be called a SG. It was close, either way. Regardless, that doesn't take away from anything I said, contexturally.
    Or BF was a one album wonder.
    Look & Listen

  22. #22
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    more super thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    Are you sure? I thought Blind Faith was the first band called a supergroup. Jack Bruce wasn't famous for working with Alexis Korner or Mayall or whoever it was. I can't even remember where Ginger Baker got started. I think it was the same blues bunch.
    Further thoughts on the "supergroup" moniker... I believe that's true, it was first bandied about with Blind Faith. But it was then (afterwards) used "retrospectively" as well, to likewise describe earlier bands like Cream & Steampacket. Troy's correct that few (in the states) were very aware of Jack Bruce & Ginger (& so are suspicious of putting the "supergroup" tag on em), but in the UK they were in Graham Bond's band (as well as others). Suffice it to say, Bond had the reputation (among the musican cognoscenti) as being a leader of a jazzy form of pop music early on. But that style of music (jazzy) never clicked. Instead, 4 guys from Liverpool DID click, and history never looked back. Who knows if a more jazzy kinda music would have evolved, & been popular, etc had things evolved differently? It's hard to imagine, since that (jazzy) kind of music (jazz-prog, jazz-rock, & jazz-fusion) was never THAT popular even 5-10 years later, when it became way more commonplace. But it's worth nothing that Bond (& those who'd worked with him like Bruce & Ginger) was held in VERY high regard (in the UK). Of course, in this country Bond & his peers were virtually unknown... & still are... LOL.

    Another cream review (the last concert of the series) fr local paper... focuses a bit more on the music.
    You don't know... jack

  23. #23
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by jack70
    ...but in the UK they were in Graham Bond's band (as well as others).
    Yeah, that's it. Graham Bond.

    I think a real contender for "first supergroup" was Crosby, Stills & Nash. Graham Bond wasn't known in the U.S. but in the U.K. they knew The Byrds and even Buffalo Springfield....and Nash w/ The Hollies obviously. That was about a year before Blind Faith. I guess with Blind Faith the term "supergroup" was really centered around a band concept with one guy on bass, one on guitar, etc.

  24. #24
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    re

    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    I think a real contender for "first supergroup" was Crosby, Stills & Nash. Graham Bond wasn't known in the U.S. but in the U.K. they knew The Byrds and even Buffalo Springfield....and Nash w/ The Hollies obviously. That was about a year before Blind Faith. I guess with Blind Faith the term "supergroup" was really centered around a band concept with one guy on bass, one on guitar, etc.
    Absolutely. CSN had as many "bona-fides" as any of the "supergroups"... before or after. (way more actually, if you go by charted hits). Again though, I think the term was first conjured up, then repeated, and finally became colloquial, with the formation of Blind Faith. Probably initially came from an A&R guy or newspaper writer. I think the term (adjective) "super" was fairly new, and very "hip" in them days... superball... superbowl, etc. No doubt, a very natural "new word" for that time. Same thing happened later with Watergate... every single political blunder of any sort since, is termed "xxxx-gate." ...even today.

    I'm pretty sure both albums came out in 69, although I think you're right that CSN was actually formed first. I remember traveling to South Dakota (Black Hills, Custer State Park, Wind Cave, Mt Rushmore, Sturgis Cycle Rally, etc) that summer and taping Marakesh Express off air on my portable FM/casette. It was during that week I bought the brand new Blind Faith LP (sight unheard), which had just been released (to moocho hype). I was quite pleasantly surprised... it was better than I'd expected, being that the hype had made me just a little suspicious (cynical bast_rd that I am).

    BTW Brad... I recently got ahold of some live shn & flac files. What programs do you use with them. None of my audio editors & programs are set up for them, although I'm sure there are codecs/plug-ins I could import/set up for converting them. I was just wondering if there's an easier thing I'm overlooking before I spend the time doing that.
    You don't know... jack

  25. #25
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by jack70
    BTW Brad... I recently got ahold of some live shn & flac files. What programs do you use with them. None of my audio editors & programs are set up for them, although I'm sure there are codecs/plug-ins I could import/set up for converting them. I was just wondering if there's an easier thing I'm overlooking before I spend the time doing that.
    Here's the FLAC codec:

    http://flac.sourceforge.net/download.html

    Here's the GUI front-end for FLAC:

    http://members.home.nl/w.speek/flac.htm

    Here's mkwACT for SHN files. It's got the front-end and codec all in one insatallation package. You can even drag & drop with this one:

    http://www.etree.org/mkw.html

    They're both really easy to use. If you get any APE files just use Monkey's Audio. It's all basically the same although FLAC has become the standard over Shorten in the last 12 months. Some people like to decode them on the fly as they're burning but I never do that. Before I do the burn I like to verify the WAV files for Sector Boundary Errors with Shntool and make sure everything's cool. Besides, that's a lot of extra work for a burner and I've already got the buffer on Feurio set just right at around 90%.

    E-mail me if you have any questions.

    bdkhncck@flash.net

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Books ( I highly highly recommend this show)
    By KEXPMF in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 10:16 PM
  2. Trans-Siberian Orchestra review
    By ForeverAutumn in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2004, 02:29 PM
  3. Kansas at the Keswick a review as short as the show.
    By Hyfi in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 07:26 PM
  4. Live review: Undertones headline Irish Rock Nite
    By MindGoneHaywire in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-07-2004, 05:29 AM
  5. A little live music (Sonny Landreth show review)
    By Chip_B in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-17-2004, 04:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •