I really like the CD. I think the recording is well done and the new song versions are a little freasher. You won't be dissapointed.
11 responses Add your response
All things being equal (which they never are of course-it will depend on what you are playing any of the 3 formats on), the DVD should sound better than the CD as it is a 24/48 recording vs. the 16/44.1 redbook CD version. My understanding is that the vinyl is taken from digital masters but I don't know whether the original digital recording at the event was done beyond 24/48 (say 24/96 or 24/192) which could make the vinyl potentially better.
I have the DVD and it sounds very good but technically not as good as the one DVD Audio I own (done at 24/96); it certainly sounds better than most CD's I own. As much as the performance has been criticized, I think the 3 of them did a great job and really enjoy listening to (and watching) the DVD.
Word is that they are going to play again later this year and I'd really like to see them if they come within a reasonable distance.
I listened to side 5 of the lp, including "White Room" and "Toad', and although I appreciated the sound quality, I found the performances a bit disappointing...especially the vocals. The voices have not aged as well, as say Jaggers. Fun album, though, and I bought the lp set at a comparatively reasonable price.
the reunion album is outstanding.....fresh and vital. for the first time in years, clapton plays the guitar like he's trying to prove himself worthy of his legend. the definitive versions of the songs however are the originals. one would hope these guys could pull off an album of new material. i believe they feed off of,compete with, and complement each other the way great bands always do(witness the stooges reunion). to simply go back to solo projects (as artists anyway) seems a bit cowardly.
I appreciate your opinion on the Cream album but one of your points was the aging of the vocalists compared to Mick Jagger. In that regard I take issue with you.
Yes I've heard the album and seen the concert. I'll admit that Jack Bruce's voice has deteriorated over time but not nearly as much as Jagger's. Simply put, Mick Jagger can no longer sing. Yes he's acrobatic, yes he still has the moves, yes he still excites the crowd but no he can't sing. Fact of the matter is, Clapton's voice is much better today than both Jagger and Bruce. Perhaps because he never had Bruce's range. Jagger never had any range. However 35 years ago Bruce was far and away the better vocalist of the three.