Cream - a progressive band?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63746
Printed Date: February 21 2025 at 13:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Cream - a progressive band?
Posted By: Ghostmojo
Subject: Cream - a progressive band?
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 07:23
|
In a time like right now - when nothing seems to quite mean what it used to (take R&B which used to be 1950s/60s rhythm & blues to me) does progressive actually mean what it used to?
When I was a spotty herbert schoolkid - we loved what we called 'progressive' music - also called freak's music, essentially album oriented, underground rock. One of the greatest bands for me was and remains Cream. At that time they were considered progressive. They took black American blues and transformed it into heavy electric, acid-laced, pyschedelic blues-rock with more than a hint of jazz. They garnered plaudits from a wide spectrum of musos including Miles Davis, Leonard Bernstein, Jimi Hendrix and Buddy Guy.
Would you consider Cream to be a progressive band? They don't/didn't do elongated formal classical structures like Yes or ELP. But they did live by the seat of their collective pants - improvising in an extended way seldom if ever matched - every night.
For me Cream were/are extremely progressive - but I doubt many Prog fans would agree given the way the form has become quite conservative in its application...
|
Replies:
Posted By: 1967/ 1976
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 07:52
|
For me Cream is only the best Prog Blues band (with Led Zeppelin) if you speak in Prog terms.
But if you speak in Rock terms... Proto Hard Rock is, for me, the correct genre for Cream. -------------  |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 07:57
Must admit I ain't a fan, (to the extent that I really can't stand them  ) but that has no bearing on their prog credentials. From memory I think their inclusion has been debated several times before but I would imagine that for a band being so firmly blues inspired, (albeit with some gaudy psychedelic trimmings) the types of arguments needed to get them into PA will probably bear an uncanny similarity to the ones that held sway for Zep's inclusion ?
------------- 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 07:58
| I wouldn't call them a prog band, or even particularly progressive. Yes, they did improvise but that's not that hard in a 3 piece. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 08:07
|
Cream is a band that has been discussed on this site many times. I don't think they will be added anytime soon, but dismissing them too quickly would only show one's naivette about the development of rock and jazz fusion. By the way, Cream's most progressive member, Jack Bruce, is a member of PA in the jazz-rock genre.
Cream was a very innovative and 'progressive' band for their time. Their studio songs can be very artsy in a Beatles kind of way and their live performances that utilized extended improvisation had a huge impact on the developing prog-rock and jazz fusion scenes. There is a case for Cream in proto-prog, prog related and/or proto-fusion if we had such a category. Inevetably discussions about Cream's progressivness always leads to comparisms to the JH Experience. Before the conversation goes that way I'd like to point out that Cream never developed the sort of compositions that the Experience did (1984, Drifting, Midnight Oil, Aint No Tellin, Third Stone etc), they did not interract with early proggers on quite the same level as Jimi (long running musical associations with Keith Emerson, Robert Wyatt etc), and their improvs were not as innovative as the Hendrix-Mitchell onslaught. You can read more on this in our Hendrix bio. By the way, I've moved this thread to suggest new bands. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 08:51
Cream is one of those 'in between' bands. Certainly progressive for the time, but firmly grounded in the blues. I've lamely argued for the inclusion of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band, in the proto-prog space, based on their East-West album. I think we could make similar arguments for Cream. Hey, they both covered Born Under A Bad Sign  If that doesn't give a band prog credentials I don't know what does 
Sorry, I'm in a emoticon mood this morning. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 09:43
|
So really, what we're waiting for is THE one arguement that settles the case for Cream being in here. Proto Prog would seem to be obvious, because they were among the first "blues" based groups to start incorporating more complex pieces & "deeper" more intellectual lyrics into their music. What's lacking though , is that I can't recall too many references to the group at PA.It's not rare to come across a prog guitarist's playing or stylings being compared to Hendrix. Even some of Jimi's compositions are referenced from time to time in genres beyond Psychedelic (RPI & Kratutrock) . So maybe the final word will be based on what influence we can find ... if any ... on subsequent prog groups ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 10:21
|
Really a great band, as EM says they were progressive to a certain extent, but i wouldn't add to PA -------------  |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 11:04
| I think Cream is between few basic proto-prog bands for sure. They are not real blues band, they're mixing blues roots with heavy dose of psychedelia ( in their own manner) and long instrumental pieces, again in ,let say, proto-progressive manner. If The Who is proto-prog, and The Beatles is proto-prog, do you really think, that Cream isn't? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 11:43
|
I've always supported Cream for Proto-Prog at this site (I think it fits all of the criteria well) and I consider music of Cream to be progressive rock (not as part of a genre but as an approach an according to my definition that involves a fusion of styles into a rock framework and expanding on the rock lexicon. Furthermore, it has the whimsy that can be found in many bands -- for instance, in Canterbury bands. Cream can be quirky and the albums have diversity). The resistance has always surprised me. Being blues-based is not uncommon for bands in the archives (heck, I'd say the excellent Khan's Space Shanties is blues-based). If my memory serves me right, Clapton was upset that that the band was moving farther from blues which is one reason why they split. I'm going to copy a bit of my post from a former discussion http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46247 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46247 While blues was important to Cream (and how many blues covers did they do?), and some of the band's best work was sort of blues/ psychedelic fusion, the band was considerably more than just a bluesy jam rock band. Not only do I understand the band to have been influential to the progressive rock and jam scenes, but to my ear quite a bit of the music has compositional/ structural and instrumental similarities to Prog. I'd also say that they deviated from bluesy songs, but many such songs were not typical rock -- though had mainstream success. Can find songs with unusual time signatures (helps that they had a jazzy drummer), jazzy elements, and use of various non-typically rock instrumentation. Personally, I think Wheels of Fire is a pretty progressive album of 1968, and while there is the typical blues-based music, music like "Pressed Rat and Warthog", "Anyone for Tennis", and "Passing the Time" which opens in a bluesy fashion show something of the whimsy quite commonly found in Prog (and Proto-Prog). Rather bombastic songs like "Tales of Brave Ulysses" (off Disreali Gears - 1967) and "White Room" have something of an early Prog pedigree too. .............................................................. Of course Cream is commonly describes as jam band and the long pieces (such as excellent live ones) are kind of more extended jams than the tightly structured pieces one would often expect from Prog (as a loose genre). And I wouldn't stop there with song examples. Listening to releases such as Wheels of Fire and Disraeli Gears I find a definite progressive approach to music. Even in shorter songs such as "Those Were the Days" (one of my particular favourites) I hear the similarities to Prog. I'm not posting this as the best example of the band's pedigree, but because I just love it ("Those Were the Days" plus "Deserted Cities"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHtCEGO-Yow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHtCEGO-Yow In sum, I think Cream can be described as progressive rock (progressive rock does not need to equal Progressive Rock in the generic sense) and is suitable for Proto-Prog. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 13:08
|
One thing to note about Cream: in the studio, by the time of Wheels of Fire, they had the good sense to experiment instrumentally, outside of the standard guitar/bass/drum trio format. So you get a little cello on "As You Said", a little viola on "Deserted Cities of the Heart". It's hard for me to listen objectively to Cream, Hendrix, Butterfield and others who were working within a blues framework and at the same time pushing that framework out to its boundaries. I was a mere teen at the time and while The Archies were playing on the radio, I was having a decidedly different musical upbringing. So of course I consider much of this to be progressive. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 13:32
 - Cream! Yes! Cream! Yes!! - Cream! No! Cream! No!! ------------- |
Posted By: ko
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 14:41
Cream yes! 
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 15:02
|
Hi,
This is the problem with forcing bands to be a part of a group/grouping they are not ... bands like Cream were highly influential (I really think John Mayall was much more, btw) in expanding the musical tastes into areas that are not known as pop music anymore ... and the ability to expand music like that had a side effect in that it helped, later, the progressive bands do what they did and well ...
I can't possibly say that some of these long cuts and jams, were not influential to Yes, Genesis and many other bands ... it was the norm in those days to expand things ... and I think that many people felt they could do a lot better than just a guitar solo, ... in any piece of music ... but the combination of the three, away from the 3 minute songs, is actually very good ... but invariably really tough and not something they could sustain after a few years and more ego problems all around ... it was no longer about the music!
I would consider Jack Bruce the only progressive one in the bunch, and he easily verifies this by having the guts to play with Frank Zappa and doing a lot of different things, which you can not say for the other two in teh group ... one is a very good drummer that can not get past his ego and the other is a god ... that is not big enough to tell his fans ... I'm tired of that designtation ... I just play guitar ... plz!
The combination has a lot of details that you and I might consider prog ... but in essence, as a whole ... they were simply a rock band that made it big ... and the rest is unnecessary ... and even Eric will never buy it either! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 16:18
| Cream were best - and most prog - in their psychedelic moments like We're Going Wrong and Dance the Night Away and I can hear the affinity with Jefferson Airplane so why not - the latter are here. Personally, I never saw JA as progressive...(although I LOVE the band)...so CREAM? no, thanks. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 16:36
|
^ While Jack Bruce I would consider the most progressive of them. I wouldn't say that Ginger Baker is devoid of progressiveness (I wouldn't even say that of Clapton who was the one who really wanted to stick with blues-based music). Ginger Baker has worked with Hawkind and I can't see how someone could say there is no progressiveness about his projects (Ginger Baker's Air Force and Army and albums just under his own name). I find his jazz-fusion work interesting. |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 16:44
| Best Ginger Baker Air Force's works are pure jazz-rock at the level of Brian Auger,etc. It's strange a bit, that Ginger Baker isn't on PA still. OK, Eric Clapton is really another story. But Cream never was a Clapton-only band! |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 16:58
| As far as Ginger Baker's Air Force in JR, Martin and I both voted no. The reason being, at least on my part, was that Baker's band was being given consideration over more progressive African bands such as King Sunny Ade only because Baker was a 'rock star'. I have been meaning to talk to my team about adding King Sunny Ade, but there are a couple of bands ahead of him right now. Basically I didn't think Air Force was a particularly good band, their music can be tired and turgid. Baker's percussionist, Rebop, did some albums in a similar style to Air Force, but much better. I'm also familiar with the album Baker did with Laswell, it's OK, but it didn't strike me as a priority. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 18:02
|
^
GB Air Force was not all that great of a band. Good pedigree I guess, but not much happening musically. I suppose ya gotta do something following Cream. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: December 23 2009 at 10:24
| OK, but main question wasn't about Ginger Baker or even Jack Bruce ( he is in yet), but about band. I think if we analize music works of band members ( solo works or side projects) it is some good additional information, but main reason is BAND's (Cream) music itself. So, I believe we should speak about is CREAM's music progressive enough or not. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: December 23 2009 at 10:31
|
Ginger Baker was also involved in a project called Masters of Reality. He played drums on their album Sunrise on the Sufferbus. It was somewhat progressive. ------------- 
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: December 25 2009 at 00:09
| I like Cream, but I'd say they're psychedelic rock not progressive rock. That being sad, I hate labeling music to an extent. Psychedelic rock has progressive tendencies, and prog has psychedelic tendencies. As far as I can see prog is for the most part the continuation of the same movement as psych rock. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: December 25 2009 at 00:15
Hi, This all seems really irrelevant to the point. And if anything I would say Ginger Baker ended up being the most progressive, he certainly played with more progressive bands than either of the other two later in his career. And people are heavily misconceived about Jack Bruce's contribution to Zappa's work. His only contribution was a certain noise on his cello in the song "Apostrophe". He played none of the bass on the song, it's faulty crediting, and if you disagree you can find an interview in which he discusses this. EDIT: I forgot i already commented on here, thats why it's two separate comments.
|
moshkito wrote:Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 25 2009 at 06:36
|
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: December 25 2009 at 10:12
|
I was twelve when I first saw the album cover to "Disreali Gears" and thought, this is what drugs must be like and that song "Swablar" How did they come up with a name like that? Progressive, absolutely. 3 reasons why, Eric Clapton Ginger Baker Jack Bruce oh and one more reason;
The picture has a mustache  ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: December 25 2009 at 17:16
|
Wheels of fire has to be one of the best albums on the 60s. It's a step ahead of nearly any other rock album of the time. ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: DSOMRADIO
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 06:13
|
I agree with the person who said you can categorise too much. Cream were never that far away from a hit single, so were they a pop band? Yes they stretched out on a few tracks. So did The Yardbirds. I guess the problem this site has is that you have to draw the line somewhere, or it will lose credibility for many. ------------- Dark Side Of The Moon Classic and Prog Rock Radio 8pm Mondays UK time Skyline 102.5FM and http://www.skyline.fm - www.skyline.fm |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 06:48
Isn't SWLABR an acronym or something?
I do know where the name "Disraeli Gears" comes from though (a roadie's mispronounciation of the phrase "Derailleur Gears" (as on a bike).
|
Posted By: Ghostmojo
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 06:52
|
Thanks for all those interesting responses. What I think it underlines (as some of you detected) is the semantic arguments surrounding the definition. In other words - it is quite clear that the word PROG has assumed a quite different conotation to its original usage PROGRESSIVE. 'Prog' has its own magazine these days (courtesy of Classic Rock) and is a blanket term for music that possibly fuses rock with classical with elements or flavours of jazz and/or folk. It is not easy to sum it up - but we can say that bands like Yes, Marillion, ELP, Transatlantic, King Crimson etc. all comfortably sit within its perameters, whereas the likes of Deep Purple, Motorhead, U2, REM, The Rolling Stones and god knows how many other variations of rock formats don't. But there are of course always overlaps.
Perhaps Cream occupies one of those overlaps? As a genuinely progressive band of the late sixties alongside, Floyd, The Doors, Hendrix and Traffic they were certainly pioneers. Indeed the territory occupied by Cream - which they lay claim to - really has few if any other tenants. Cream were also (as Bruce and others tirelessy point out) two distinct bands - one for the recording studio - one for the concert hall. Not many bands had/have that schitzophrenia nor that ability.
When discussing Cream you really have to distinguish if you are analysing their studio or their live material.
Cream were not PROG. In many ways such a term would have been too restrictive. The Yes/Genesis approach to extended material relies upon strict discipline and memory. Cream played upon their wits every night. I have many bootlegs of their gigs and no song was ever played the same twice. For me that dexterity is quite remarkable. Few bands would dare take the risk. Few bands possessed the verve, skill or sense of adventure.
Cream remain utterly unique. Not even Zeppelin come close. The latter did long jams but they were essentially vehicles for Page to show off with Jones and Bonham knowing when to start and stop and when to join back in again. They were a consumate rhythm section - disciplined and reliable. But they did not take the risks Cream did. Bonham and Jones never attempted to match Page or duel with him in the way Clapton, Baker and Bruce did.
Cream deserve their own bracket. I don't know what you would call it. I would call it Progressive Jazz/Blues/Rock Hybrid. What they proved beyond doubt was that it wasn't just up to the 'featured' lead player to provide all the excitement. Indeed the credo of Weather Report - "we never solo, we always solo" could easily be applied to Cream.
In Eric Clapton they had one of the most dazzling guitarists of that or any age. In Ginger Baker they had a rhythmic genius way ahead of his time who was probably the first to bring world music into his drumming. Finally, in Jack Bruce they had their ultimate secret weapon. Not only did the man (alongside Entwistle) redefine what the bass guitar was all about, but he was a powerful vocalist; considerable musical talent who had mastered cello, harmonica, piano, acoustic guitar; and of course (with Pete Brown) a phenomenal songwriter. I would put Bruce/Brown alongside Lennon/McCartney; Jagger/Richards; John/Taupin; as one of the greatest songwriting duos ever.
There was never any band like Cream and probably never will be again.
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 06:52
| SWLABR - The title stands for "She Walks Like A Bearded Rainbow." |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 06:56
I only found out a couple of days ago, when we were listening to the album during the housework, and I asked Micky if he knew why it had such a curious name. He didn't, so I turned to Wikipedia, and finally cleared the mystery  .Anyway, it is a common misconception that ProgArchives is too inclusive. It actually is much less so than most other prog sites, which feature bands and artists that would probably never be allowed to set foot here. Even a magazine like Progression features a much wider variety of music, at least as regards its reviews section. It seems this is the only place in which the addition of bands or artists that do not conform 100% to some guidelines becomes a matter of life and death  . |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 13:14
|
As you are aware, Raff, but just to make the general point for a greater audience, one of the reasons why this site is less inclusive than some other sites is because this site includes bands/artists and not just albums. There are many albums that could be included by bands/artists where the band or artists is excluded because of the majority of the work. Cream is a different case, of course, and if it were to be included, as I think it should be, it would be in Proto-Prog, not ina Prog-proper category. Certainly, as noted, it was progressive rock, but is not considered part of the Prog-proper "genre". I really think it has a lot in common with Prog, though. Although it's been discussed at great length, I don't know that it's ever been formally suggested to the admins (which are in charge of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related). The Proto-Prog/ Prog-Related team works differently from other teams and suggestions require a more involved process though sometimes acts can go through quite easily and quickly. There will always be those that consider PA too inclusive in some ways and those that consider it too exclusive in/ with others. I'm one of the more inclusive members, and on the extreme side one might find Prog Purists who might bemoan having anything in the archives that is not usually considered part of the Prog proper genre (and would like to remove various categories from the site including Proto-Prog and Prog-Related but also other categories and bands/ artists listed under the Prog umbrella). |
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 13:22
|
Or even Eric Clapton, right ? :-D or Yardbirds :-) I wouldn't mind having them here, even they're what, blues ? Rock ?
------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 13:39
Though I like Derek and the Dominos, and "Layla" has a kind of progginess about it, from what I know, I wouldn't support Clapton's entry into Prog-Related. I believe that the The Yardbirds (for Proto-Prog) would have more merit (I'd have revisit the music) than a Clapton addition (for Prog-Related) -- from what I know, but I haven't listened to either much in many years (neither projects had the same effect on me as Cream did). |
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 15:02
|
I know Logan man, it was more like childish though. I wouldn't mind having more "typical" rock bands here if only just to write review about their albums and OK agree, there are elements in their music I consider good enough to get them here. Because IF this, THEN this is a good rule (as I stated few times). Why ? Because you can say it in other words: IF there was REASON that get Band 1 here, than there should be Band 2 included too if it's from the same reason. And when we're at it, this reminded me one youtube conversation I had two years ago (my knowledge in music were VERY LOW). Because being guitar virtuoso isn't good enough to bring these artists here, I know. But if they do good music, mostly prog related, they should be here. Jeff Beck is here, but not Yngwie (he was suggested many times). Steve Vai is here, but Joe Satriani isn't. Same with Eric Johnson.
------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 20:21
|
I didn't think you were being that serious -- far too simplistic, and flawed, for someone of your experience. The thing is, as I think I made clear on the first page of this thread, I don't consider Cream to have been a "typical" rock (yes I notice the quotes around typical) band, nor was it just a blues rock/ jam band. There was a fusion of styles incorporated (obviously including psych) and there is contrast. And I also don't think it's about being good as making music that you think fits (for Proto-Prog one must consider the music itself and the historical context). I believe that Cream fits the Proto-Prog criteria. As I've often said, I think it's perfectly reasonable to make associations and make an if x is then why not y case provided that the musical comparisons (as opposed to say, shared musicians) are valid/ relevant and sufficient for suggestion purposes. Too often for my tastes I have seen X is not in so Y should not be in either or fearmongering if X is included then there will be calls for Y -- a la surely we don't want Y in so we should be very wary about letting X in. Each case must also be evaluated on its own merits, and a similar case must also be evaluated on its own merits even if some precedents are set. I don't care about adding (or supporting) bands so I can review them as I'm not a reviewer. I believe in supporting bands if I think they belong. Cream isn't in. While I think it's fair to discuss similar cases already in as a supplement to making a case, I think making the case against them by throwing out names like Clapton solo and the Yardbirds is weak (to use those as examples even if you weren't being that serious). Let's focus on Cream itself, both the music and its historical place, and worry about those later (I see the cases as being quite different, and I suppose that some might have said that if Led Zep was added, what next, the Yardbirds?). You might want to talk about bands already in based in blues-rock and say why their cases are stronger than Cream's. That's my two cents, anyway, Marty. Hope my cents make some sense. EDIT: Incidentally, have you listened to both Wheels of Fire and Disraeli Gears? |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 21:37
|
I attempted to make a case for the Yardbirds (for proto-) a while back, and that achieved about as much liftoff as a lead zeppelin. I imagine Cream will end up in that same failed-to-achieve-liftoff heap. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 21:43
Ah, but the Cream always rises to the top. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 21:51
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 21:59
Or even iced Cream as in "Oh my god, they iced Creamy! You b*****ds!" |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 29 2009 at 22:26
|
Isn't there some auto-inclusion rule for bands who meet the following criteria: First album is primarily blues-rock based; ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: January 10 2010 at 09:15
|
For me they can easily fit the proto-prog category, both in terms of time period and regarding their musical innovation, experimentation and progress beyond simple 12-bar blues rock. YES, definitely! |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: January 10 2010 at 18:56
|
If Santana is catalogued here as a Prog band, I guess Cream are a prog band too, in the same way Ten Years After are too.
But my opinion is that those 3 great bands are only Jam bands who played Rock.
ooooouuuuuuuuhhhhh...  ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 10 2010 at 20:05
and what KC in their most beloved incarnation?.. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: ko
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 06:48
Oh dear, are you mean that Santana would not be here? ? ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaDdHmj09c - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaDdHmj09c
|
Posted By: Ghostmojo
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 07:05
You can't compare Ten Years After with Cream.
Cream were not a jam band - although TYA probably were.
The blues was a jumping-off point for exploratory improvisation with Cream (by all three musicians) - different from aimless boogie jamming of the likes of TYA, Mountain and others.
Like Cream - Santana are a hybrid. A classy band that fused hitherto different and unconnected elements.
Long live Cream and Viva Santana!!!
 |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 07:20
Thanks for the reminder - coincidenally checking out Disraeli gears yesterday and asking myself that very question, and got stuck after Sent With Love And...... (after SWALK or NORWICH)..... BTW check out the double CD set of Disraeli gears, which includes outtakes of those recording sessions - including a couple of tunes that reemerged on Jack Bruce's 'Songs For A Tailor', which indeed is as progressive as any of the band went.
Cream were most innovative for their time hence progressive in the literal sense (especially if you believe those reunion quotes about doing an Ornette Coleman - "but we didn't tell Eric") but were most definitely part of the underground movement both sides of the Atlantic. But they effectively only impinge on the beginning of the progressive music period 67-71. Said it before, in the record shop I worked 67-71, what went into the 'progressive music' section was originally Canned Heat , Nice and Moody Blues, whilst Cream and John Mayall went into the 'blues' section. It might be argued that skilled musicians jamming pseudo-jazz-wise would have influenced a few musicians in the sense pop or rock (which was only a few years old) didn't have to be confined to 3 minute recorded tracks. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 07:24
Define 'jam'. When Garaj Mahal through to Medeski Martins & Woods are described as modern 'jam bands' - and quite different from each other, other than being jazz-based - I get ever bemused by the terminology and its vagueness. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 20:50
Ohh my gawd ... you have never heard the bootlegs ... Led Zeppelin was insanely good in concert ... and way more adventurous than anyone ever gave them credit ... and to say that John Paul Jones or Bonzo or Robert were not as adventurous ... is really pusing the button ... in fact, Bonzo's contribution was so important that the band stopped after he passed away ... I really think that says a lot more than they are being given credit for ...
They really need to release "Live on Blueberry Hill" as is ... it is by far one of the best concerts ever ... and the playing is ... dangerous ... not sure many of us can even stand up to it ... and it is also a real sad comment about John Paul Jones, when he also played keyboards and added a massive amount of emotional content that went way beyond the bass playing ... yes, it is "rock" ... and at times it gave rise to "metal" ... but it's compositional abilities for the first 5 albums ... are second to almost none ... and it doesn't matter who it is ....
Cream were never progressive ... before or since ... and Ginger Baker's comments about Hawkwind are ... "the worst little rock band" ... and he wasn't even appreciative of having Tim Blake in there either ... which is sad. So he's good and the rest stink ... sorry! Eric is fine and he is progressive in his own way, and I will never say he's a bad guitarist ... but I think he needs another Gregg Allman to show him up and push him ... because him as a star is not being challenged enough ...
Cream is much more in the lines of John Mayall ... than prog ... still good ... and again ... that's the problem with adding labels and names on these things ... no one is going to agree with anyone ... and instead of appreciating the good music ... we're wasting it ... ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: January 11 2010 at 21:50
|
There's a lot of intersting thoughts here. In the interest of not having to try to stack up quotes: 1. Ghostmojo, I understand the initial impulse to label TYA as a jam band. But they were a bit more than that if you listen to the early albums. I suppose the popularity of the I'm Going Home track from the Woodstock movie saddles them with the jam category, and I don't doubt that they cultivated that, in that much of their music tends to devolve into Alvin Lee jamming. It's too bad most listeners never hear something like Me and My Baby, from Cricklewood Green. The band was very capable. 2. Dick Heath, I have that Disraeli Gears double and it's great. It's also amusing that somehow Canned Heat would end up in the progressive bin rather than blues. Eh, those were the days. 3. Ghostmojo, I'm not thinking Mountain was a jam band, at least on album. Some of their work (Theme For an Imaginary Western (written by Pete Brown) and Nantucket Sleighride, for example) is about as proggy as yer average blues-rock ensemble ever got back in the day. Of relevance is that ol' Felix played bass for the band, and obviously had learned a few lessons from his days hanging out with Cream. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: January 12 2010 at 00:58
|
Well, if somebody is happier thinking about the fact that Cream were a prog band, ok, no problem.
But they were probably the first band who changed the blues to hard rock, and 3 great musicians who liked playing jams very much. I think its simple.
That idea of naming Proggy every long song is so terrible for me...  ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 12 2010 at 05:25
|
This is the old Prog vs Progressive debate yet again. We could dig every single band out of the 1960s progressive music scene, as well as the Progressive bluesmen (remember Johnny Winters' "Progressive Blues Experiment", as well as Mayall's "Bare Wires" from 1969?). Progressive isn't the same thing as Prog, despite the word. Take this simple acid test; Compare Cream's music to that of Gentle Giant (or even Simon Dupre and the Big Sound). Is that the same music? I say no, but it could just be me... There's no disputing that Cream are Prog-related, Metal related, Hard Rock related, and everything else related, because they were one of the most inspiring rock bands ever. But compare "Fresh Cream" to "Disraeli Gears" and play spot the real differences between the songs, look for the concepts, influences from other musical genres, theatricality and boundary-pushing on the old song structure and be prepared to hunt in vain. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Ghostmojo
Date Posted: January 12 2010 at 06:52
Don't get me wrong jammun - I like TYA. I am familiar with some of their studio cuts as well as their live workouts. I always saw them more as Alvin Lee vehicle than a democratic band of equal parts. Did the later version - Ten Years Later - carry on in the same way ... I lost track somewhere along the route although I did see A.L. on the Night of the Guitars Tour back in the late 80s. My favourite track was always "I Can't Keep From Crying". I say a jam band in their case because the rhythm section held down pretty basic patterns over lengthy stretches - rather than joining in.
Well, perhaps you are right, but in the case of Mountain - they tried the Cream thing but it just didn't click. They lacked the same level of chemistry and were aping rather than originating. They wrote some good stuff of course, in their own right, oh and BTW Theme was written by Jack Bruce & Pete Brown (and not just the latter). Jack and Felix were great mates. F.P. played on both Wheels Of Fire and Goodbye (as well as producing) and possibly appeared uncredited on Disraeli Gears - as well as reprising these roles on Jack's first solo album Songs For A Tailor (which also featured George Harrison). Bruce's best early album (in my opinion) is the beautifully atmospheric Harmony Row which I recommend to all and sundry.
|
Posted By: Ghostmojo
Date Posted: January 12 2010 at 07:14
OMG - I have you know. I saw them in the 70s and I possess a whole raft of Zep bootlegs including Blueberry Hill. I am and always will be a seriously big Zeppelin fan. I'm not knocking a band I love - BUT - and it is a big but - Zep's live approach was radically different than Cream. JB and JPJ were both fine musicians but NEVER, ever improvised in the way that Bruce and Baker did. Page led the way in LZ. Clapton didn't always in Cream. I have compared many Zep boots and the same basic structure is evident on most of them. Cream never played the same song song the same way twice. It's not a case of which band is better - they were different. One paved the way for the other as Plant readily admitted. Page, famously, wanted Jack Bruce in the 'New Yardbirds' band before he ever considered JPJ.
I love the variety of LZ. They covered a lot more ground in the studio, but they did have the benefit of doing this in the 70s with better technology and a different industry. Cream (with Hendrix) provided the huge stadium arena audiences to allow for this.
Baker's comments about Hawkwind notwithstanding - Cream were hugely progressive. You let your whole argument down with that contrary remark. Cream and Hendrix opened the doors through which Zeppelin and the rest followed.
Cream's only connection with Mayall is the blues. That and the fact Bruce and Clapton had both done stints in the Bluesbreakers. After that the similarities are pretty non-existent. mayal remained true to the Chicago sound until relocating to the States. Clapton left because he wanted to do more with the blues - which he did ... with Bruce and Baker.
|
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: January 13 2010 at 10:13
Important post. Made me think about my opinions and position, point of view I've taken. Seriously. ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
Posted By: MasterShake
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:02
| If the Doors are Proto-Prog, I think Cream definitely fits into the genre, as it is their music which steered me towards the genre. Clapton for God's sake!! Add them so we can spew our nonsense already ! |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: July 17 2010 at 04:45
| have anyone wahtched the 2006cream reunion concert, I have and ehat a gret energy they had even when they all are above 60, and I am sure i was watching a progressive band playing bluesy prog. |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 09:21
|
Spoonful is prog enough, I think ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 06:57
|
album "Disraeli gears" with TALES FROM BRAVE ULYSSES is pyschedelic with proggy moments. i am not sure if they could be in prog related - I would agree with that but not full prog by any stretch of imagination. Good choice that should have serious consideration. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 07:48
|
Listening to Disraeli Gear now, and to me it sounds like a 70s progressive album made in the 60s, very innovative album of its time, the innovative aproach to music and the virtouse aproach to playing is very clear, I just saw the docu, 7 ages of rock and it seriously infused in me the thought that Cream was very progressive, and sett the standards for power trios, for technical aproach to rock music, but maybe it is just a normal rock album but hell this is early 66 and it have not staled nor becomed un-important, i still can hear its relevance in music history and progressive music -------------  
|
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:02
|
We already have the Doors. I don't think we need Cream too. Just my $0.02
------------- 
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:33
|
Replace the Doors with Cream.....my 2 centavos. -------------   
|
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:35
|
I don't disagree, but that will happen when swine begin to levitate inexplicably.
-------------
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:37
|
i would rather have Cream in my cofee then Doors,
-------------
|
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:44
|
As I think we all agree, there are a number of artists on this site now whose presence can be seen as ...dubious, shall we say? It seems that the criteria for acceptance seem to have changed in the last 3 to 4 years, moving away from Prog and Prog-Related to a more generalised approach. On the one hand it seems that in this way a lot of watering down has taken place, on the other hand this development makes the music assembled here a lot more comprehensive, something that surely is worth a lot. Personally I welcome this, and I've accepted that just as I can skip a CD track, I can skip posts, reviews etc. of artists whose presence here I don't really understand. In the past it has helped me to see a lot of artists in a different light; a distinct broadening of my horizons, although in a lot of cases my opinions have remained unchanged. Concerning Cream: As in the past I dumped Wheels Of Fire, a Cream section here might make me rethink. You never know. As long as it's not Britney, Take That, or RAP I'm OK with it. |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:47
|
Britney Spears influenced Mr. Bungle. So she should be on here.
-------------
|
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:50
|
Sorry but no. ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 10:58
|
because of Spoonful I would say "Yes" ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 11:03
|
i get a Camel feeling by listening to Disrael Gears (really i do), but also a Uriah Heep feel., yet this is almost 5 years before Uriah Heep and 10 years earlyer then Camel
-------------
|