Last night I watched a dvd from cream in r albert hall last spring. And then straight afterwards i watched a video from stones 1995 miami concert. :two legend greops from sixties , plaing old material Very interesting comparison i must say.

personnel:
cream 3 people perfoming
stones 14 pepole on stage

Trying to look "cool" : Stones : long hair, posing, dancing on stage all that,
Cream definitely not.

musical contribution of individuals worth metioning : great solos from baker and clapton, jagger solid as sways, great singing and playin from bruce, HE IS fantasitc !

not gona say no more there are a lot of aspects for comparison.

and as you prob. conclude from my text, my winner of the night was : rjómi > cream...

maybe it is because it is so long ago that cream have performed, the joy of getting somone back that you have missed for 37 years, but :

to be honest I loved the the enhusiasm, honesty, and sheer mysical ability and music ear of the trio : And remember they are just three, no hiding behind the
music wall, it is "naked" as calpton put it in the dvd.


Shoot me !

best
Dýri

The Stones have always been posers. They sure are more pleasing to the eye than Cream.
myself,I would not cross the street to see Clapton

It is a very good dvd and the musicianship is unquestionable and better than you'd expect after an almost 40 year break but the music lacks the raw rhythmic power of the Stones and Jack Bruce's shirts apart, has all the visual appeal of watching paint dry.

the thing is that musicability wise stones dont touch cream i am afraid!

but then the Stones of course they have the abilty to create massive rock groove as a group.... and use also ohter means to keep the fans happy, like posing...

Allthough Clapton and Baker have had a great inlfuence on Rock music I don't think that the first person you meet in the street will be able to name one Cream songtitle.

"It is a very good dvd and the musicianship is unquestionable and better than you'd expect after an almost 40 year break but the music lacks the raw rhythmic power of the Stones
( never ever Teseverin, that is excaxtly what it has , rawness and power not some silk sound of organ, horns and backup vocals etc!!!?! ) "

and Jack Bruce's shirts apart, has all the visual appeal of watching paint dry."

(visual appeal : i loved watching the video (maybe i alove wathcing painging?), also didnt you notice bakers short trouses ? ! they were amusing, )

best
Dyri

It does have power richter but not the awesome blitzkrieg power of JJFlash or Streetfighting Man. I didn't mean to suggest it was all frilly & twee. It does lack a certain groove too that the Stones possess, they sound too 'white' to me despite the bluesy basis to a lot of the songs.

I'd mercifully forgotten the short keks

Cream is great. The problem with them is that they aren't as cool as The Stones and they don't have The Stones standard of songs. Even if you compared Cream Royal Albert Hall 2005 to the Stones bootleg "13 Nerveous Breakdowns", the Stones would still take the price just by being themselves. That's how effin' great and cool they are.

JumpingKentFlash

The advantage is you can hide on stage behind 10 backing musicians. Why do you think didn't they continue with sway on this tour? They can't use their auto control system...

Come on richter, what's the use in going to a Stones message board and stating the Cream is better than the Stones?

after having listened to Cream r a hall 2005, the music and stage performance of stones plus 10 assistants in miami 1995 felt like, yes disco...

i love them both - i would've flown to new york to see cream but when the stones are on tour, its all i care about. too bad cream has only played two cities - although they're ticket prices in new york were high, they don't seem to have the same money making aspirations as the stones - they could've made a lot more if they had toured. i know they would've been sold out in chicago - a classic rock town.

ok Reptile I know .

My message is porb .more this :

Stones :
strip down the no of assistants, go to your roots, grow old gracefully like charlie, skip the pathetic posing and dancing, being cool and all that shit..
and you are the best..

best
Dýri

I saw some of the cream reunion stuff on pbs. I expected but was still somewhat disappointed in how tame clapton was. Couldn't he put down the strat for just a couple of gigs? You'd think he would get a kick out of playing a gibson again. No one's going to take away his "blues purist" awards at this point.

I dunno, this is not fair imo. Cream, from mid-66 to January '69, issued four albums - two studio, a studio/live double, and "Goodbye" which has 3 live tracks and 3 studio tracks - the latter 3 adding up to under ten minutes. And I LIKE Cream, the way they developed from raw heavied up blues ("Fresh") to psych-pop gems of "Disreali"(thanks in no small part to fourth member, in all but name, Felix Pappalardi, who produced, played a dozen instruments, gave direction, & co-wrote material), and then to the creative studio craftsmanship of "Wheels" & "Goodbye". It is evident that in '68 some of that later material would NOT have been reproduceable onstage, what with the trumpets, cellos, tubular bells, tonettes, keyboards, mellotron, violas, and recorder that gave those discs color and tonal variety. Not the way they played in '68. Hell, disc one of Wheels gets a lot more play in my house than the wretched (except for the blistering "Crossroads") disc 2. So Cream reunites 35-plus years later, plays all oldies (pretty well) and it's like the second coming of Christ. They have not had to sustain a band career, and continue to make new records and write songs and tour regularly yet still remain commercially viable. I can't understand why people expect the Stones to go out as just a guitar band (which they do, for several songs each set) and play material that since '65 has grown way beyond 2 guitars, bass, drums. That may be the foundation, and listening to Handsome girls or Ya-Yas the foundation is indeed more than enough, but it no more embodies everything great about the Stones than bass/guitar/drums "power trio" embodies what is best, and to me most interesting, about Cream.

Well, I'm a big Stones fan and totally love Cream (saw them 3 times at the RAH and flew to NYC to see the final gig at MSG). As for which group is better than the other, who cares, it's just personal opinion, but I do have one comment...

Eric Claption solo and as a member of Cream are completely different.
Most of EC's material leaves me cold. Most good groups are more than the sum of their parts. Including the Stones!

Lee

i agree with you totally on ec.
with crem he is with two of the most original artists, in rock history and they dont let him get away with anything like he does when doing solo.

While I like some Cream songs, their show was brutal. For all the talk on this board about lethargic audience participation, the Cream "fans" sat through most of the set with a bit of energetic applause at the end. The dancing stood out for the lack of it.Seemed more like a Simon and Garfunkel show. Compare that to a show by the Stones and you'll note the fans getting into it, even some of the disparaged rich boys. As far as musicianship goes, if you want to be impressed by three piece groups you'll be limited to Cream, Rush, ELP, etc. Seems a bit lackluster.

Saw Cream at both the RAH in May and @ MSG in New York in October. I personally thought the RAH shows were much better. After the first MSG show I was not sure that they had rehearsed at all since the RAH shows and Clapton appeared to be disinterested. That said the RAH shows were great IMHO! As for a lethargic crowd at the RAH well that's what you get when folks are paying the enormous ticket prices, especially at a small and intimate setting like the RAH. I have been to many shows at the RAH through the years and have yet to see a rowdy, loud crowd and you know what -- that's alright by me after sitting thru beer swilling drunks at rock shows around the world. BTW when was the last time the Stones played the RAH?

Cream and the Stones are like comparing apples and oranges. Both are good in their own way. There is something to say about raw musicianship when there are only 3 members on stage. Certainly nothing to hide behind. And that is not knocking the Stones. The Stones have their own unique material and sound. To capture that sound and play their material requires a larger band.

I also don't think the Cream with only the 3 members could do a tour similar to Bigger Bang. Having the other band mates/larger band (Stones) makes it easier to get through a grueling world tour.

Looking forward to Stones MSG 1/20/06!!!!!!!!

richter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to look "cool" : Stones : long hair,
> posing, dancing on stage all that,
> Cream definitely not.

Personally, I want my rock stars to look cool. It's part of rock 'n' roll. If Jagger came out looking like Pete Townshend, mostly bald with three gray hairs left on his head, I would be depressed. It's like, I know you're old, everyone gets old, but do you have to shove it in my face? They can certainly afford to have the work done and I'm glad most of them have.

Brixton was 1995 was it not ? Well, for my money, the Stones at the Brixton Academy versus Cream at the RAH (OK - so it was the first time those three were onstage together in 37 years or whatever) - absolutely no contest. Stones every time. Having said that, Cream were fantastic. Never saw them in 1968, so albeit nearly four decades later, wow ? What a privilege.

richter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grow old gracefully like charlie

Oh God no. You've got the totally wrong idea about them dude.

JumpingKentFlash

Cream? Load of twiddley guitar solo nonscence! Depends what your after, rock nroll or a cure for insomnia.....

Ablett - go take off your John Travolta White Disco Suit & shut up!!

MLC

I like both Cream and the Stones but their respective music and concerts come from different places and are not fairly comparable. I saw Cream at RAH and MSG (where I also saw the Stones in Sept.) and enjoyed both of those shows immensely - but they simply do not/cannot generate anything like the same thrill or excitement of a Stones show. Ginger Baker is still the most outstanding drummer but I can't make any fair comparison between his and Charlie's drumming because the music is so different and the same goes for the lead and bass guitars. As for RAH, I personally dislike it as a venue but I'd prefer to see the Stones there than in a stadium any day!

Upon hearing the Cream DVD would be released last year I was thrilled. One of rocks greatest bands getting back together for a few shows. What I expected was the crisp, loud, powerful, wailing blues that I have heard countless times on Cream's records. Sadly this DVD was far from it. Anyone that appreciates the music on this DVD I strongly recommend relistening to the Creams records and especially the live version of "Crossroads" on Wheels of Fire, which was horribly played on the DVD. The Cream of 2005 was uninspired, and Clapton continues to disapoint me. Could he please pick up a Gibson, increase the volume, and stop trying to reproduce a sub-par version of the original bluesmen's music, and go back to playing his unique style that he had in the 60's (to be honest he hasn't recorded anything significant since after Cream, if you disagree please give me some examples). I know this will never happen. As a result I have never watched the DVD again or listened to much Cream after the disapointment. Don't compare Cream of 2005 to the Stones of 2005, the Stones will know when to stop if they ever sound and perform as lously as Cream did.

I saw the Stones three times last fall. I love the old coots but it was the same old same old.

I saw CREAM at MSG as well. Three of the finest musicians in jazz and blues combining to create one of the most phenomenal rock bands of all time.

One experience was a helluva lot of fun, as always. The other was a once-in-a-lifetime experience I shall cherish til the day I die,

Get the DVD. Watch, listen and feel the musicianship. Three guys... ON TV... standing there playing music... will blow you away.

Rocks - I have to laugh at your statement about the Stones, ALL they care
about anymore is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If they cared about the music they are producing on stage, they wouldn't
worry about hurting Woody feelings and bring back Mick Taylor to kick their
sound in the ASS!! My opinion

MLC

why do you attack claptons playing so much ?
ok his sound, style and so on, can be a matter of taste, but ability wise neither stones men touch him, in my opinion.

and accusing him of playing "white blues " meaning what. ?
cant white peple play blues then,? the stones music is more or less based on the blues!

best
Dyri

Cream at Albert Hall put me to sleep when I saw it on PBS. Most of their songs are boring. Would prefer to see the Stones w/o all the back up people, though.