"Still Life" Van Der Graaf Generator. Lots of low organ notes recorded well in an otherwise sparse mix on tunes like the title track, very rare for rock genre recordings.
Rock: well recorded bass...60s/70s
whatz up with bass on most rock recordings? is it that hard to get a decent bass sound? must be...as most bass sounds are either a)muddy or b)razor thin...however the bass I found on Santana Abraxas is outstanding though...very dimensional...with a reach out and touch quality...any other recordings that might have this quality?
103 responses Add your response
Smacky, You and your Scottish friend have definitely had enough - give me your car keys and I'll call a cab for you. |
Listened recently to The Strawb's "Grave New World" 1998 A&M remastered CD (album first released 1972). This CD sounds great (music and sound quality; NOT hot and harsh as for many re-masters)). In particular very much enjoyed John Ford's bass playing. I had not heard much about him; looking him up on Wikipedia, he has quite the resume. |
A lot has to do with the particular mastering and pressing. A couple of young friends came over yesterday with a pile of vinyl they just acquired; one was a lime green Capitol of The Band's "brown" album which they thought was an "RL" cut. I cleaned it for them, and cued it up; couldn't see his initials in the deadwax. We played part of the first track. I then pulled out my copy, which is an RL. Vast difference- bass galore. And this happens so frequently with so many older pressings- not just in the bass region, either. Makes you much more selective about which copies you are looking for..... |
All of those records mentioned- the Yes stuff, the early Free, sound pretty great! For Free, I have early Island pink labels and pink rims, for Yes, some not so hard to find good US pressings, and a couple UK plums. Terrific records, terrific music. I didn't focus much on "prog" at the time- but came back to it with a vengeance a few years ago- mainly as a result of buying a lot of ye olde English pressings from the late '60s and early '70s. Got turned on to a lot of music I never heard, that never made a dent in the U.S. Some amazingly inventive stuff, at the time, the attempt to get out of the 3 minute radio hit formula and explore different genres, mix them together, long form, more formal compositional elements, etc, was interesting. Some of it doesn't hold up, or is dated or a tad pretentious, but it is still worth exploring. One of my favorites is Gracious! on Vertigo, and the Cressida self titled album, also on Vertigo. There is a cheap way to get some of these... Buy the 1970 Vertigo Annual, a double record sampler issued in the UK in 1970. |
BDp24- happy to do a search for you, but short of buying it, play testing it and reselling it to you at my cost, I couldn't guarantee that it is pristine. You can find these records and I'm happy to help you look. You know where to email me, right? (I'm not a used record dealer, but happy to turn you on to any sources I have, and I often resort to good old searches, eBay, discogs, etc. just like everybody else! |
ghost: yes was uncool because of (a) sci-fi lyrics and incomprehensible dungeons 'n dragons imagery (b)bloated, purposely difficult "compositions" with long drum solos, (c) technical proficiency as opposed to punky attitude, and (d)no one i know admits to liking them. also, "tales of topographic oceans" is a terrible title. |
Ghosthouse---Loomisjohnson is absoluely correct. In the 70's it was cool to find Prog rock uncool, especially amongst the influential New York critics. The whole Punk movement was often said to be a reaction against it. Of course, fans of Prog may just as easily find Punk beneath contempt---they couldn't be more diametrically opposed! Those wanting Rock n' Roll to stay true to it's roots felt Prog was getting above it's raisin', as they say in Country. The claim of many Prog musician's of having beem "Classically trained" became a sort of red flag, ya know? Well la de da, Mr. Classically trained. ELP were a despised group by every musician I knew in the Bay Area, but I saw Keith Emerson in his pre-ELP Group The Nice live at The Fillmore (along with Leslie West in his pre-solo Group The Vagrants) and found them interesting. Prog started with the Psychedelic movement, LSD making some people want to take the music where no one had gone before. |
My personal favorite is Can where in all theri albums no exception the bass recorded and sounding top notch-- Holger Czukay or Reebop Kwaku Bah(played in Talking heads as well) on bass. Certainly Talking heads -- Tina especially in the album Stop Making Sense Rich bass is also heard in Van Der Graaf Generator, but from the Hammond organ instead of guitar or string bass Stray Cats -- love that string bass dontcha? David Sylvian and Japan with Mick Karn on Fender bass -- nearly all of Japan and solo David Sylvian albums have rich and deep sound of bass. I admit the band is kinda jazzy, but still considered to be art rock. Finally why not Pink Floyd DSOM or Momentary Lapse? |
Loomis, Bdp - Ah...OK, understand the context. Well, as they say, "there's no accounting for taste." I came of age late 60s/70s...lived through and survived them and (perhaps surprisingly) recall quite a bit from those years. Was a fan of Prog before it had a name. Was introduced to Yes & ELP by musicians who apparently liked both bands quite a lot. Being classically trained myself, I've always been attracted to music that blended rock with classical elements (e.g., Procol Harum). So, Loomis, w/respect to your (d) - you sort of do now. This is certainly not to say the genre didn't have candidates ripe for and deserving of balloon popping. I'll point out, however, that bands like MC5 (Kick out the Jams) and Blue Cheer (Parchment Farm is all you need to know) were Yang to my Prog Yin during these years. Didn't know I couldn't like both genres. I do get the reactionary elements behind punk but I'll take musicianship and musicality over attitude most days. If I want attitude w/music, I'll watch some videos of early Stones. BTW - Tales of Topographic Oceans might well be a terrible title but worse, the music is just not that good. If you've not read it before, you might find the article at this link interesting. History of Prog . Makes similar points as the two of you do. Go check out The Nines' self-titled LP "The Nines". The one with Sun Don't Shine as Track 1. Digital only, I'm afraid. Crank it up. (Wish the drummer were better though). |
Ha---Blue Cheer! Considered the worst Group we had ever heard. Painfully poor musicianship, laughably bad, with no redeeming qualities to counter-balance that failing. The lamest version of "Summertime Blues" imaginable. The Who's wasn't very good either, the great version being by the unlikely original version of The Guess Who. I loved (still do) Procol Harum, and what made their "Classical training" (mostly on the part of organist Matthew Fisher---responsible for the Bach motif heard in "A Whiter Shade of Pale, rather than pianist Gary Brooker) different from Progressive Groups ( I don't consider them as such), was that they didn't flaunt it. They used their knowledge of music theory to write their songs and create their parts, not performing Classical pieces as a Rock Band, a bad idea IMO. "Pictures at an Exhibition" performed by a Rock trio? No thanks, ELP. |
One of the bands I had never heard of, that is considered "prog" is "Patto." The first self-titled was released in the U.S. on Vertigo and is pretty kick ass sonically and musically (in fact, the US pressing is a bit less 'polite' than the far more expensive UK pressing and that works very effectively with the music). Their second album, Hold Your Fire, has some wonderful music- Ollie Halsall was a gifted guitarist with a vibraphonist's touch. The UK pressings are now astronomically expensive but the US copy (on Paramount if memory serves) does not lack for bass. Some of the prog 'folk' is also amazing- John Martyn's Solid Air, the Fairport albums during the Denny-Thompson years (3 in one year), i don't know what to label Roy Harper's Stormcock, but it is magnificent, and he was a huge influence on Ian Anderson, Zep, etc. The first ELP album is one of the cheapest pink labels today and one of the last, before Island switched to the pink rim. It is a pretty cool time capsule when you are in the moo(d)[g], but does sound dated now. |
Bdp - to remain cordial, we'll have to agree to disagree on a number of your points, I suppose. Not sure I find the verdict of your "we" about Blue Cheer compelling reason to change my own. Although the 2 songs you mention are probably the ONLY things they did that were half-way good. The Who's version on Live At Leeds is excellent in my view. Various covers of "Summertime Blues" exist and while Burton Cummings did have a great voice, so far as I know, the original was by Eddie Cochran. You don't mention MC5...what was the clique's take on them? In any case, I just mentioned those two groups (BC, MC5) to provide a contrast to the "art rock" I listened to. Progressive Rock covers a lot of territory. Discussion at this link is interesting Definition of Prog. Let me close by saying that, depending on how you understand the genre, Cream is seminal to it. For me, bar none, they were and still are the ultimate rock band...which brings us nearly back to the origins of this thread as we pay homage to St. Bruce. Wish their recordings did full justice to his bass work. Even so, I've been listening recently to much Cream (Fresh Cream, Disraeli Gears, Live Cream and Live Cream II, Wheels of Fire, Goodbye) -ripped to hard drive. The sound is better than I recall (bass lines are clear and nicely detailed from nothing special CDs) and I'm recognizing and appreciating once again the formal classical elements in various of their songs. That trio had incredible talent - to restate the obvious. Jack's bass work and Baker's drumming provide one heck of a foundation for Clapton's improvisation. I can't say enough good about their music. So I've blathered on here...what's your ultimate? |
slightly off topic, but i though i'd weigh in on bd's and ghost's missives. procol harum had certain prog-y elements (technical virtuosity, obscure lyrics, ambitious song structures), but at core were a pop band--their best stuff was very accessible and easy to play, even for a duffer like me. as for cream, i vacillate between loving 'em and having reservations--to my ears their forte was tightly-constructed studio pop, like disraeli gears--compared to, say, the allman brothers their jammy live stuff always sounded somewhat lumbering and not quite coherent to me--lots of soloing for soloing sake. plus they didn't really feel the blues, though many will credibly disagree |
Cream Progressive? I never heard them characterized as such. They were considered a Blues/Jazz Band, both music's (and Cream) heavy on improvisation (Progressive is certainly not, being very structured and produced, IMO). I saw them live twice, liking them a lot at the time. I had a couple of albums from the Group Jack and Ginger were in together before Cream, The Graham Bond Organization, which was a pretty straight-ahead British Trad Jazz Band (Ginger was already doing his "Toad" solo in The GBO). I have never fully understood what they and Clapton thought they had in common, other than a love of soloing! Clapton I knew from being in The Yardbirds, on the first John Mayall album, and on the Elektra Records sampler album What's Shakin' (there's that word again) as Eric Clapton's Powerhouse, but playing with two Jazz guys? Fresh Cream answered the question---what an amazing debut album! Burton Cummings wasn't in the original Guess Who line-up. But it doesn't matter, because the song they did that I was actually thinking of was not "Summertime Blues", but rather "Shakin' All Over" (also done by The Who). The Blue Cheer version of "Summertime Blues" brought to mind The Who's vastly superior version (though nowhere near as good as Cochran's, of course!), but then my train of thought jumped the tracks to The Who's other cover of American Rock n' Roll, SAO. Whenever I think of SAO, I'm reminded of how great The Guess Who's version is (it was on the first pre-Burton Guess Who album, and also released as a 45RPM single, a hit in California). It's a scorcher bristling with unreleased tension (unlike The Who's, which is all release). It's the tension before the release that makes Rock n' Roll so sexual! The MC5 were viewed very differently than Blue Cheer (BC looked like all the other San Francisco Hippie Bands, and played even worse than most of them). Maybe it's being from the San Francisco area (though I don't think so), but they were not respected for the same reason Big Brother wasn't---they stunk. No offense---I like some Bands/Groups who can't play, sing, or write very well, but that's not the nature of those bands appeal. Blue Cheer were trying to play as if they were like Cream, you know, accomplished musicians who had the command of their instruments. They weren't and didn't, they were a Garage Band who didn't know what makes a good musician good. Their tone was terrible, their playing was comically corny, and they were out of tune---and didn't have good enough ears to know it. I love Garage Bands (was in a few myself), but not when they're unaware of their limitations, and embarrass themselves. The MC5 weren't a Garage Band, they were a Rock n' Roll Band, based on Chuck Berry style songs, guitar playing, and songwriting. They could have done a killer version of SB, and SAO! The San Francisco Band most like The MC5 (who openly expressed their like of them----and visa versa), were the rarely mentioned Flamin' Groovies. They were (and are) both a Garage Band AND a Rock n' Roll Band!. They do a good version of SAO, based on The Guess Who version, not The Who's. The MC5 and The Groovies saw kindred spirits in each other, often playing together when The Groovies traveled East. |
Hey Loomis - it's good getting a well articulated and reasoned point of view that differs from mine. I don't mind mulling over the new perspective...might be some educational parts to it...might simply confirm me in my present position. I'd way rather debate the merits of music than gear in any case. Well said about Cream (studio vs live) and Procol Harum. I tend to agree about Cream live: their live jam-type stuff IS more uneven than the studio work, (undisciplined maybe...think Jack or Eric might have said that) but for me, when they are "on" - it is just volcanic...like some kind of molten metal pouring out of the speakers. Gotta play it loud. In general, I fell mostly out of love with Eric after, say, Blind Faith. The thing that rekindled the flame was finding the Live At the Royal Albert Hall Cream Reunion video on YouTube. I think Ornette really needed those other cats. "Lumbering" and "not coherent", and (I'll add) pointless, ego-driven soloing? I'm not going to defend every note they played back in the day...but those qualities are definitely not in evidence in the performances culled from the RAH dates in 2005. Maybe evidence of a maturity. Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Hopefully, given this thread was started in '08, Phasecorrect won't be offended having it hijacked by this Cream discussion. Tostado - That's a great quote by Jack. It explains quite a lot about that trio. W/r to Blue Cheer (and MC-5 even more) - YES! "pro to-punk" - good descriptor. Exactly why (in contrast to prog) I mentioned them to Bdp. |
bd, not that anything i say merits close attention, but i didn't accuse cream of being prog-y--i was referring to procol harum. in any event, while i never liked the mc5 (who were much more countercultural icons than worthwhile music makers), i do like big brother as a musical unit--i think they're highly underrated. on a purely technical level i supposed they struggled with tempo and key, but to me they had a real feel for that big bloozy thing. they made a record after janis, with nick gravenites as singer, which was surprisingly well-written and performed--wish i could remember the name. the flamin groovies, whose name you invoke, were on a higher plane altogether--i genuinely think they were among the best american bands of the 70s, albiet in that narrow jangly pop genre. "shake some action" and "tore me down" are flat-out masterpieces and they did the best ever cover of "warewolves of london," which you should race to spotify to hear immediately. |
I think one thing a lot of these latest posts prove is that at a certain point, the various genre categories fail. To me, the era when music changed from middle of the road pablum to psych, harder rock blues, and led to different strands- from changes in electric folk to prog-- was one of the most fertile- say from the mid-'60s to the early '70s. I'm not saying there weren't elements or recordings or bands of interest before or after, but that period was an incubator of change. And, we have to thank the Brits for an awful lot of it, from helping us rediscover blues to providing a launching pad for American musicians, from Hendrix to Garnet Mimms (whose work is as great as any of the other big name soul/gospel singers, but whose name is rarely mentioned, except to note that he is tragically forgotten). I listen to all of it- and tracing back the roots of any one band's influences takes you in many different directions. Or vice-versa (listen to the originators, like Elmore James or Skip James and hear how their songs and styles were reinterpreted by others). |
I'll take the "blame" for Bdp thinking someone said Cream was a prog band - though that's not what I said. Certainly, they were not one of the "art rock" bands (defining art rock as a sub-genre of Prog Rock) like I would consider ELP, Genesis, King Crimson or Yes to be. BUT if you read the discussion about musical characteristics of Prog found at the link here, to my ear and mind, many of these same elements are present in some (not all) of Cream's songs (e.g., We're Going Wrong, White Room, Tales of Brave Ulysses seem like good examples and I think there are others. Those are the ones that come to mind). Prog Defined From that same Prog Archives site, if you read what the authors are calling Hard Prog (see link here: Hard Prog ), hard rock/heavy blues as played by Cream (and others) is cited as an influence on the Hard Prog sub-genre. If you look up the Wikipedia entry on Cream they cite Rush as a prog rock band influenced by Cream's live shows. When you read the Cream bio in the AllMusicGuide I see a strong overlap in that discussion of the prog music characteristics in the definition previously mentioned. I'm not claiming the idea is original with me but independent of those sources, given Jack's and Ginger's jazz resume, Jack's classical training and Pete Brown's lyrics, and based on what I hear in some of their music, I think they were seminal to progressive rock; seminal as in "strongly influencing later developments". Loomis - I was going to name Layla/D&TD (along with maybe, Journeyman) as an exception to falling out of love with Eric after Blind Faith. In the interest of the point I was trying to make, didn't seem worth it. I guess I'm kinda lukewarm on that album. Some of the song writing is pretty strong but the sound always seemed really crappy to me. And while some songs are very strong it doesn't have the energy or drive for me that Cream had. D&TD was a totally different place that EC wanted to be in. I don't hate it but if that was the only work of Clapton's that I knew - I don't think I'd be in love. Hey I have an open mind on it. Just saw Music Direct has a Japanese SHM SACD version of it. Maybe that'll be the ticket. Enjoying the discussion. Apologies for my lengthy reply. I try to be complete. |
Ghost- my recollection is, I went through several different copies of Layla before I found one that sounded pretty good and had energy. I had always considered it to be a terrible recording. I can take a look when I get a minute- it's probably an early Atco, but I don't remember the details. Worth revisiting, as is the Delanie & Bonnie album he did, which I bought new when it came out- and was completely turned off at the time- country? WTF? Now, with age, distance, different expectations, and a more broad ranging interest in all kinds of music, it's pretty good as well. I loved Cream, and eventually bought good pressings of many of their records. Blind Faith was another one that was a mixed bag- some great songs, and some filler, plus what I considered to be a wooly, muffled sounding record. The first UK pressings are decent, and not nutty money. I'm just glad I'm not collecting 78's! |
Whart - I will happily take any advice you care to pass on. Good reminder about EC w/Delaney & Bonnie. I do buy vinyl but must say I'm not a serious collector...just not educated enough on what's original vs 2nd pressing etc. etc. I do prefer to buy older (even if not first pressing) as opposed to new, "audiophile"/re-mastered releases but it's a crap-shoot for me. I spend what I can afford and don't get too crazy on any single purchase. Some purchases sound better than others. I don't spend too much time fretting over my collection's resale value. Wasn't really thinking vinyl for Layla but tips on a good sounding version would be very nice. Thanks. |
There is a really great clip on You Tube of Clapton talking about The Band and what he thought when he heard Music From Big Pink. That hearing resulted in Eric's disbanding (ha) Cream. It's funny, because when I finally got The Band (took about a year---I wasn't quite ready for them at the time of MFBP's release), I also lost interest in Cream and their ilk (long solos, lack of ensemble playing, mediocre songs, not much harmony singing). He went to Big Pink for a couple of weeks, waiting for them to ask him to join (?!), until finally realizing they didn't need him. No duh. "Badge" is the only Cream song I ever feel myself longing to hear. Loomis, my questioning of Cream being considered Progressive was not in response to your post directly above mine (it hadn't "appeared" yet), but rather to Ghosthouse's above it. I also don't consider Procol Harum Progressive, even with Matthew Fisher's Classical training. One great thing about a Group/Band being so good is that they create their own genre, of which they are the only member. They were, by the way, also really good live. The first three albums are great, but when Matthew left, guitarist Robin Trower kind of took over, turning them too bluesy for my liking. Having no blues influence was one of the things that had set PH apart from the other Brits of the late 60's/early 70's. The MC5 never really took off on the West Coast for some reason (actually, they never took off anywhere!), but their influence was pretty big in the Punk Bands that followed them a few years later (The Ramones especially). I didn't take them seriously, thinking they were just the house band for the White Panther Party! Another Group that didn't translate to the counter-culture West was Iggy & The Stooges. I don't remember either of them playing in San Francisco or Los Angeles. The Groovies really felt like fish out of water living in San Francisco (they had nothing in common with The Grateful Dead and the rest of the hippie bands, doing short, Pop songs with no improvisation. And, they wore suits!). They went East to play a lot, ending up in England with the great Dave Edmunds producing their classic Shake Some Action album, as Loomis said, an absolute masterpiece. It has a very odd sound, very thick and dark, sort of like what Daniel Lanois gave Dylan on the Time Out of Mind album. it didn't work (for me) with Dylan, but does on Shake Some Action. |
ghost, i've previoulsy debated whether layla is overrated, but ultimately always came out on the side that says it's not. there is a bunch of filler--key to the highway and have you ever loved a woman are the sort of lethargic dross i think you're referring to, although they really nail nobody knows. mostly, though, the originals are transcendent--it's as if clapton, who ("badge" and "presence of the lord" aside)was never much of a songwriter, was momentarily infused with genius. as for the sound, it is sorta murky, but i couldn't conceive of it any other way. like you and whart suggest, it may be pressing-specific. our quibble as to layla's merit notwithstanding, i do agree that nothing clapton did after 1970 is particularly lovable. his good stuff had a strong collaborator (jack bruce/duane/the bramletts); if you look at his stone classics, very few (presence, bell bottom blues) were solo compositions. as always, many may disagree. |
Ghost- I checked this morning, my copy, early ATCO, was done at Presswell (PR) and has 'A' lacquers on all four sides of the deadwax. I don't know how I happened into this copy- it is one touted on the Hoffman board (which is a great resource if you dig into some of the older threads- there are some collectors there who have owned and compared multiple pressings and provide the minutiae). It's still not an "audiophile" record at that. I took a quick look on the intraweb. There is a play graded copy on eBay that was pressed at Monarch, an independent West Coast plant- I tend to like Monarch pressings, on this one the seller actually provides the deadwax/lacquer info, which shows as BB. Have no idea how this sounds- Sometimes the 'A' "B" etc don''t reflect sequence because different lacquers were used at the same time by different plants. The only way to know which is "better" is to listen to it and compare it to the 'A' or others. (Which I haven't done for this record; it isn't a great recording and i did not go beyond what I have; sometimes, I get the bug and will buy a bunch of pressings and compare them). BDP- I like your depth of knowledge of the music itself. Both, feel free to write to me via email if you want to talk. I'm not selling anything- just don't want to derail this thread. |
Whart - Thanks. Might well send you and an email. re Bdp - Very much agree with your assessment of (his?) music knowledge. Might not always like the tone! or agree with a given position but good insights for sure and points worth considering. Loomis, as always - helpful and constructive. Loomis BTW - too funny your assessment of "Have You Ever Loved...". Back when Layla first came out, I heard that song on FM but didn't know who had done it. Remember going in to a record shop looking for the album on the strength of "Have You Ever....". Think I knew it was Clapton but didn't understand at the time about D&TD. For me, that was THE song from Layla. In matters of art, at least, no accounting for taste (my own, In this case). Good comments re Layla. Read something good about a silver japanese CD version of Layla over on Hoffman. Might go digital, at least as a back up should vinyl not work out. Thanks to all. |
Sorry for my sometimes "tone", Ghosthouse. When I use a work like "stinks" to characterize the quality of, say, a Group/Band's playing, it is done in a very literal sense. In other words, it means they play poorly, objectively. That does not necessarily make their music worthless, it is said only to make a point such as, that to play like Cream, a Band's members MUST possess a certain degree of technical ability to make the music work. If a Band/Group plays within it's capability level, they won't "stink" at it. I went to a Vintage Drum Show (I deal in them) at which Jeff Hamilton (Diana Krall's drummer) did a Q & A session. He talked about seeing the infamous first Ed Sullivan appearance of The Beatles, and laughing at Ringo's lack of technique. Though much younger than Ringo, Jeff had learned the drum rudiments (the equivalent of scales in tuned instruments), which Ringo's playing revealed he had not (he still hasn't. McCartney still doesn't read musical notation, requiring the services of a musician who does to notate his "Classical" compositions). I bristled when Jeff said it, but that may have been because of his smug tone. I wonder if Jeff and Elvis Costello (Diana's husband) have talked about Ringo, whose playing Elvis loves. See, technically advanced players (Jazz being a music requiring the "chops" to perform well) consider drummers with that ability by definition "better" than those who without it. My question to Jeff, had I asked one, would have been: "Do you think The Beatles music would have been 'better' if they had a drummer with more technical ability than Ringo? Does that ability alone automatically guarantee that music created by such a musician will be superior to that of one possessing less of it? I'm sure his answer would have been a qualified yes. |
Oh, here's something some may find interesting: The piano part in the middle of "Layla" was composed and played by drummer Jim Gordon. Jim was a 1st call session drummer in L.A. whom George Harrison had brought over to England, to play on his first 3-LP album. Eric met him, and asked him to join D & TD, which he obviously did. Jim was a relatively young, straight (studio musician's have to be "together" to keep getting recording dates) guy, but he took to the drug environment of D & TD quickly. Unfortunately, that resulted in his undiagnosed schizophrenia leading him to kill his mother with a hammer (the voices in his head told him to). I absolutely adored Jim's playing (he was really, Really, REALLY good, in a musical sense), and have managed to acquire one of his Camco drumsets! |
One last note on a related matter, that of a musician's "taste". When a musician has attained a certain level of technical proficiency, he will (hopefully) come to realize that technique is of value only in the service of playing what that musician thinks will be a good musical part; a means to an end, not the end itself. Some musicians never have that realization, and their playing tends to be viewed as "vulgar" by more musically-minded musicians (such as Jim Gordon, who was very musical, though also possessing a high degree of technique). Along with that, the "tone" a musician is able to produce out of his instrument is determined by the musician's taste. You would think that tone is a subjective matter, but you would be surprised by how much agreement there is on the question of the quality of tone some musician's are known for. For instance, Ry Cooder's tone is universally considered unsurpassed amongst electric guitarists. Not to be insulting, but the guy in Blue Cheer's tone was about as bad as it gets (really "cheesy"). It might also surprise you, but the assessment of a musician's taste in playing is also not as subjective amongst musician's as it is amongst civilians (;-). The caveat is that a musician has to have acquired a sufficient degree of taste to be able to recognize it in another. Ry Cooder is universally acknowledged in that regard as well. Again, the guy in Blue Cheer (sorry Ghosthouse, nothing personal!) was considered extremely vulgar. Amongst drummers, Jim Gordon is universally considered amongst the all-time greats, with as good a sounding instrument (drums and cymbals) as I have ever heard. On the other end of the spectrum, Carmine Appice (Vanilla Fudge, Rod Stewart) is certainly as vulgar a drummer as I can imagine. That the appreciation of another musician's taste is determined by he doing the appreciating, consider that Eric Clapton asked Jim to be his drummer, and would NEVER have asked Carmine, Clapton's got taste! |
Bdp: I have no issue with your tone but I think technical proficiency has to be mixed with soul or something that conveys emotion. Maybe less of an issue with drummers since I tend to like good jazz drummers playing rock better than a lot of rock drummers. ( though I like Ringo on the early stuff). Some of those old blues guys convey with what I assume are pretty rudimentary skills. Tone and skill: add David Lindley to the list. Leslie West, who was not as technically proficient as a lot of guitarists could get amazing tone and emotion. Don't know where Chris Whitley fits on the skill-o-meter, but listen to Dirt Floor. His voice and guitar playing give me goosebumps. I get the difference between musicians' musicians and less skilled players. Unfortunately there are so many hugely talented players that are unknown. When we heard Little Richard a few years ago in Manhattan he had one of the best bands- with some of the best individual players- I ever heard. They were not credited on the bill or even on his tour website. I saw the show with somebody who is a pretty famous and skilled multi instrumentalist - his words; "those guys were hired killers." |
I wouldn't throw Cream in with Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, etc. but they certainly had songs with a nod in that direction--As You Said, Passing the Time, Deserted Cities of the Heart, for instance. The use of orchestration and time changes is consistent with Progressive Rock. But they still had their bluesy/jazzy feel so the overall effect is different. |
The psychedelic movement and associated interest in experiments in music in the mid to latter sixties was what initially spawned early examples of "progressive rock" as per King Crimson, the Moody Blues, etc. Cream was part of all that, but came at it like the Yardbirds and many other British rockers from an original strong base formulated on the blues. So while Cream may not be strictly considered "progressive rock" in their time, they no doubt participated on the road that led to the more purely "progressive" acts that soon followed. |
