Week 1 - 25 best live records of all time.

[BradH]

Yet every time I hear it I scratch my head wondering why it was necessary. And the only conclusion I can draw, in spite of the obviously-darned-good playing and general approach, is that it's not.

There's no doubt that fitting an interesting, short solo into a well composed song is compelling. I agree totally, there's just something about it. But it's not the only legitimate way to make music. Jamming didn't start with the Yardbirds, it had been going on for years back in the swing era when soloists would take turns all night until the dancers were finally worn out in the wee hours. Then there was bebop. So there was plenty of precedent for this sort of thing in the 60's when rock bands were looking for ways to break the artistic constraints imposed by the music biz; it had just never been applied to the blues before until the Yardbirds did it. It was revolutionary, that's why it was necessary. Of course, there was much that was not necessary, Sturgeon's Law applies here as always. But I see a huge difference between a Duane Allman solo and any number of "lesser thans". It's all about focus. How long can you focus on the music before you're just moving your fingers. How much music do you actually have inside? Guys like Allman, Beck or Zappa seemingly never ran out of ideas when they jammed while other guys would fake it almost from the start. There's a difference between wanking and music-making.

Was any of this necessary for the blues? Does it matter? I don't buy the idea that Clapton somehow hurt the blues by being a non-traditionalist. The blues players were never as traditional as modern music lovers' fantasies would have it. It was very protean and took elements from country, folk, Tin Pan Alley, Hollywood, all kinds of things. Whatever it took to keep the audience interested, whatever it took to survive. These guys (and gals) were performing for people, not Alan Lomax. It was distinctly perceived by black audiences as show biz and performance, not folk music. I would agree that Clapton perpetuated the myth that the blues was always about some lone travelling guitarist who sold his soul blah blah blah. But young white blues lovers had already created that myth when they canonized Robert Johnson who, in reality, was practically unknown in his own time. Besides, rock 'n' roll was nothing if not blasphemous and non-traditional. That sense of experimention and pushing the boundaries and mixing genres was the driving creative force in rock music until the mid-70's. To say that the perfect song is the pinnacle of music is to say that nothing was "necessary" after Gershwin or Cole Porter or Weill or choose-your-weapon. There's more to music than the perfect song. Your description of the track lengths on Fillmore compared to the studio versions reminds me of that scene in Dead Poet's Society with the book describing how poetry could be measured on a graph. No one should be thinking about the clock when they're listening to music anyway. In fact, I would argue that jamming has a more human element to it than traditional songs because it more accurately reflects everyday life. Sure, you have to be at a certain time at a certain place on certain days and do certain things. But you don't really know what's going to happen so, in reality, you're making it up as you go along within a framework. (This wouldn't include free jazz.) In other words, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with jamming. Obviously, this jibed well with the chemical inducements of the "youth movement" but it's not like all great songwriters were puritans either.

Anyway, as for Fillmore East, it was damn well recorded for its time and, to me, that's always a huge factor. After all, we're talking about live albums, not just performances. Are there 24 live albums that are better? Nah, not in the rock genre. But this is the problem we had with the other list because there are great live classical albums, live jazz albums, etc.; all kinds that won't be included.

[3-LockBox]

Anyway, as for Fillmore East, it was damn well recorded for its time and, to me, that's always a huge factor. After all, we're talking about live albums, not just performances.

Considering the writer followed this album with Tim Hardin and an album that was recorded in a bingo hall, it makes you wonder what the criteria is.

[Swish]

Considering the writer followed this album with Tim Hardin and an album that was recorded in a bingo hall, it makes you wonder what the criteria is.

....rock music, in all its glory, has largely failed to produce very many great live recordings, and that many of the greatest live performances were captured by bootleggers. He has some very interesting choices on his list, to say the least, and I hope that once I've posted the entire 25, everyone will post their favorite 25. In all honesty, I couldn't come up with 25. No way, no how, but rock historians like J sure can.

Let's just try to have fun with it. It appears to be drawing some interest, which is exactly as I intended, even though most of us, including yours truly, will disagree with many of his choices, or, at least, his ranking of them.

Swishalishous

[3-LockBox]

....rock music, in all its glory, has largely failed to produce very many great live recordings

agreed

Let's just try to have fun with it. It appears to be drawing some interest, which is exactly as I intended, even though most of us, including yours truly, will disagree with many of his choices, or, at least, his ranking of them.

dispair, wailing and nashing of teeth...for 23 more weeks....cool.

I'm so there.

[ForeverAutumn]

but rock historians like J sure can.

I wish I had 1/10 of J's knowledge! Not to turn this into a J appreciation thread but...

J, I love reading your posts like the one above. I always learn something from you. Keep it up.

(for those who may not know, J = MGH).