BuffettNews.com

From RollingStone.com:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ ... on=single1

Cream Rise in London

Rock & Roll Hall of Famers rediscover blues ancient and modern at Royal Albert Hall

On November 26, 1968, Cream walked off the stage at London's Royal Albert Hall for what they fully expected to be the last time. Exhausted by infighting and non-stop touring, their rare instrumental telepathy creeping into formula and all but obliterated by arena-PA volume, rock's first supergroup -- guitarist Eric Clapton, bassist Jack Bruce and drummer Ginger Baker, already individual stars in Britain when they formed in 1966 -- held rock's first super-wake in this majestic Victorian concert hall, playing two final shows of what Clapton once described as "Blues Ancient and Modern" to audiences that literally begged them not to go, with massed cries of "God save the Cream!"

Those prayers were finally answered, thirty-seven years later. At 8:10 p.m. on May 2nd, Clapton, Bruce and Baker walked back on to that stage to a standing, delirious, disbelieving ovation, opening the first of four shows this week at the Albert Hall with the perfect, galloping sentiment: the Skip James blues "I'm So Glad," from their first album, Fresh Cream. This was, admittedly, not the breakneck, juggernaut Cream of the concert half of 1968's Wheels of Fire or the post-mortem live albums. Clapton's old wall of Marshall cabinets was gone; he played through just two small tube amps, with a Leslie for that majestic bridge lick in "Badge." And Clapton has long since exchanged the assaultive snarl of his original Cream weapons -- the Gibson SG and Les Paul -- for the cleaner ring and bite of a Stratocaster. There was less assault in the music, but more air, which allowed the original swing in Cream's power blues to come through: the conversational way Bruce improvised inside Clapton's slalom runs and grinding notes during the instrumental breaks in "Spoonful" and "N.S.U."; the taut fire of Baker's snare and tom-toms under Clapton's solo in "Sleepy Time Time."

Clapton's brief remarks to the crowd suggested lingering nerves and fears of overexpectation. "Thanks for waiting all these years," he said, after a rare live outing of "Outside Woman Blues," from Disraeli Gears. "I think we're going to do every song we know," quickly noting, "We'll play them as well as we can." But when Clapton pointed out that "the slings and arrows of misfortune cut us down in our prime," Bruce was having none of it. "What do you mean?" he interjected with needling glee. "This is our prime."

It was a bold claim for a band, which, with the exception of a brief reunion set at their 1991 induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, had not played together in nearly four decades. And much that was once remarkable and unique to Cream -- the fusion and compression of jazz and blues dynamics into pop song; the instrumental democracy of the power trio; the license to jam at great length -- is now established rock & roll language and tradition. But the deliberate tautness of the performances tonight, sounding at first uncomfortably close to overrestraint, was probably closer to the way Cream first heard themselves in 1966 and early '67 -- a modern R&B trio of equal, virtuoso soloists; blues purists with futurist nerve -- before the live extremes and routines of '68 took over.

Many of the highpoints were in the details: the odd bent and time of Bruce's and Clapton's twinned riffing in "Politician" against Baker's straight, anchoring motion; the heightened tension of Bruce's high, choking bass notes and Baker's tom-tom bombs under Clapton's solo in "Sweet Wine." In a stunning exhumation of the trance-rock gem "We're Going Wrong," from Disraeli Gears, Baker's mallets rolled across his tom-toms in liquid 6/4 time as Bruce sang with operatic despair over the simple, climbing tension of Clapton's strumming. And at the end of the encore, "Sunshine of Your Love," Clapton, Bruce and Baker locked into a powerful, mounting suspense, a droning, one-chord crescendo that, frankly, climaxed too soon with a final reentry into that immortal riff.

The only venture outside Cream's recorded library was a cover of T-Bone Walker's "Stormy Monday," a Clapton vocal-and-guitar showcase that made clear how the balance of power and celebrity has shifted since he was the band's junior genius and the quiet mediator between Bruce's and Baker's combative tempers. "Crossroads" also bore the matured Clapton's touch, taken at the country-funk gait he has long favored in his own shows. But the surprise of the night was the focused power and undiminished strength of Baker, who sat ramrod straight as he fired off precise, provocative accents -- cymbal stings, snare gunshots and double-kick-drum eruptions -- without loosening his grip on the pulse. Even in the inevitable "Toad," he soloed with startling control, never breaking the snapping, high-hat beat as his sticks flew over the rest of his kit.

And it was Baker who left the audience with the defining image of the night: stepping out from behind his drums after "Sunshine of Your Love" with a huge smile, pumping his fists in the air like a former championship boxer who had just gone twenty rounds with history -- and won.

The set list:

I'm So Glad
Spoonful
Outside Woman Blues
Pressed Rat and Warthog
Sleepy Time Time
N.S.U.
Badge
Politician
Sweet Wine
Rolling and Tumbling'
Stormy Monday
Deserted Cities of the Heart
Born Under a Bad Sign
We're Going Wrong'
Crossroads
Sitting on Top of the World
White Room
Toad

Sunshine of Your Love

DAVID FRICKE

I have a friend who went to that show!! I can't wait till he comes back and gives me a REAL review

Not sure what constitutes a "real" review but here's another, this one from the NY Times:

With Egos Set Aside and Blues on Its Mind, Cream Reunites
By JON PARELES

ONDON, May 2 - Cream was a crisp, tautly rehearsed band on Monday
night in its first full-length concert since 1968. Eric Clapton on
guitar, Jack Bruce on bass and Ginger Baker on drums sounded as if
they had every song mapped out from introductory riff to precise
finish. Their voices were strong; their musicianship was impeccable.
Their set list even had a few surprises.

Cream was back at the Royal Albert Hall, where it had played the
final concert of its two-year career on Nov. 26, 1968. Between then
and now, Cream's only reunion was to play three songs when it was
inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in 1993. Monday's
concert was the first of four sold-out shows being filmed for the
inevitable DVD; plans beyond that have not been announced. Scalpers
were getting $1,000 a ticket.

"Thanks for waiting all these years," Mr. Clapton said onstage. "We
didn't go very long. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune cut
us off in our prime."

Mr. Baker spoke up: "This is our prime, what do you mean?"

Yet the neatness and order of the music were precisely what made
Cream's first return engagement underwhelming. It wasn't unity that
made Cream one of the great 1960's rock bands. It was the same
friction - of personalities, methods and ambitions - that would soon
tear the band apart.

From July 1966 to November 1968, Cream came up with songs that were
an unlikely blend of Anglicized blues, eccentric pop structures,
psychedelic surrealism, melancholia and comic relief. Along with the
Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream would define both power-trio rock and
the potential of jam bands.

In its most incendiary 1960's shows, Cream played like three
simultaneous soloists, relentlessly competitive and brilliantly
volatile. Back then, Mr. Clapton didn't need Robert Johnson's
hellhound on his trail; he had Mr. Baker and Mr. Bruce snapping at
his heels, goading him with bass countermelodies and bursts of
polyrhythm. It was the brashness of youth in sync with the
experimental spirit of the era. Cream played with reckless
intensity, as if sure that all the risks would pay off; most often,
they did.

Since Cream broke up, Mr. Clapton has had million-selling albums,
Grammy Awards and regular arena tours; his music has grown more
temperate. Mr. Bruce followed his musicianly impulses, starting
other rock trios (including one in 1994 with Mr. Baker) while also
delving into jazz and various fusions. Mr. Baker joined Mr.
Clapton's short-lived supergroup, Blind Faith, and went on to build
West Africa's first modern recording studio in Nigeria, to farm
olives in Tuscany and to run a club in Denver.

Mr. Clapton, at 60 the youngest member of Cream, was the most
reluctant to reunite the group, and on Monday night, the reunited
Cream deferred to him. Lately, his albums have circled back to the
blues he has loved since the beginning of his career, and Cream's
concert set leaned toward blues. There were borrowed ones, like "I'm
So Glad," "Rollin' and Tumblin'," "Spoonful" and "Outside Woman
Blues" along with Cream's own blues, like "Politician," and a
Clapton showcase that's not part of the Cream discography, "Stormy
Monday Blues." When Mr. Clapton took a guitar solo, he played the
kind of long-lined, melodic leads, moving from symmetrical phrases
to wailing peaks, that he unfolds with his own bands, while Mr.
Bruce and Mr. Baker carefully nailed down the riff and the beat.
They didn't challenge him much.

Mr. Baker had some rambunctious moments, dropping sly snare-drum
rolls into "Sitting on Top of the World" and "Stormy Monday Blues."
With his band mates offstage, he took a five-minute drum solo
during "Toad" that was considerably shorter than the live recording
from 1968. He also talk-sang the most unexpected song in the
set, "Pressed Rat and Warthog," about shopkeepers with a peculiar
inventory, then joked afterward about stocking Cream T-shirts and
memorabilia.

There were stretches in "Sweet Wine" and "Sunshine of Your Love"
where Cream started to hint at its old improvisatory free-for-all.
But those passages were brief, quickly heading back to the
song. "Crossroads," which Cream once turned into a psychedelic
fireball, returned as straightforward blues-rock: not bad, but not
revelatory.

The other side of Cream's repertory - Mr. Bruce's songs, like "White
Room," "N.S.U." and "Deserted Cities of the Heart" - has aged
differently. They, too, had a blues feeling, but more in their
despondent lyrics then in their music, which stretched pop
structures. Nearly four decades later, the songs have grown even
more telling, as the mishaps of youth have given way to the
irrevocable losses and regrets of maturity. Mr. Bruce sings them no
less clearly now, but with far more poignancy. As Mr. Baker rolled
mallets across his tom-toms, Mr. Clapton played slow swells of
guitar and Mr. Bruce rose to the melody's falsetto peaks, "We're
Going Wrong" - written on the way to Cream's 1968 breakup - was
lambent in its sorrow.

Perhaps Cream's caution reflected first-night jitters about living
up to decades of anticipation. In a set that lasted less than two
hours, there was ample room for songs to expand if the chemistry was
right. With any luck, Cream was just getting reignited.

Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

I didn't say they wern't fans but they are someone who is just doing a job as well. I also said something on a more personal leval rather than some dry piece written for the masses. To me that is more interesting than something that appeared in any major publication because the emotions come thru. A person writing for any major publication rarely shows emotions in writing a concert review.

For example, reading the piece PHat Matt wrote for his class last year (maybe year before?) about the first Buffett concert he attended was much more an enjoyable read than the reviews in the Chicago newspapers.

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

I didn't say they wern't fans but they are someone who is just doing a job as well. I also said something on a more personal leval rather than some dry piece written for the masses. To me that is more interesting than something that appeared in any major publication because the emotions come thru. A person writing for any major publication rarely shows emotions in writing a concert review.

Perhaps, but not always. I've read my share of reviews over the years and just because it was written by a professional writer doesn't make the review any less passionate than one written by a fan. In many cases one written by a a professional might even do a better job than a review written by a fan because a professional writer has a better command of the language. Of the reviews I've read of this concert none came across as cut and dry assignment type pieces. The only fan written reviews I've seen so far were very short because they were so in awe of the event they just witnessed they didn't have much (or anything) to say. That's not to say there isn't any well written ones out there, I just haven't seen any yet.

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

I didn't say they wern't fans but they are someone who is just doing a job as well. I also said something on a more personal leval rather than some dry piece written for the masses. To me that is more interesting than something that appeared in any major publication because the emotions come thru. A person writing for any major publication rarely shows emotions in writing a concert review.

Perhaps, but not always. I've read my share of reviews over the years and just because it was written by a professional writer doesn't make the review any less passionate than one written by a fan. In many cases one written by a a professional might even do a better job than a review written by a fan because a professional writer has a better command of the language. Of the reviews I've read of this concert none came across as cut and dry assignment type pieces. The only fan written reviews I've seen so far were very short because they were so in awe of the event they just witnessed they didn't have much (or anything) to say. That's not to say there isn't any well written ones out there, I just haven't seen any yet.

well see that's where you and I are different - you like the cut and dry long and I would rather see a shorter one by someone in awe than someone who sat there pencil in hand to make sure they got the set list down.

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

I didn't say they wern't fans but they are someone who is just doing a job as well. I also said something on a more personal leval rather than some dry piece written for the masses. To me that is more interesting than something that appeared in any major publication because the emotions come thru. A person writing for any major publication rarely shows emotions in writing a concert review.

Perhaps, but not always. I've read my share of reviews over the years and just because it was written by a professional writer doesn't make the review any less passionate than one written by a fan. In many cases one written by a a professional might even do a better job than a review written by a fan because a professional writer has a better command of the language. Of the reviews I've read of this concert none came across as cut and dry assignment type pieces. The only fan written reviews I've seen so far were very short because they were so in awe of the event they just witnessed they didn't have much (or anything) to say. That's not to say there isn't any well written ones out there, I just haven't seen any yet.

well see that's where you and I are different - you like the cut and dry long and I would rather see a shorter one by someone in awe than someone who sat there pencil in hand to make sure they got the set list down.

Where did I ever say I prefer a cut and dry type review? I didn't. What I did say was that I prefer both but oftentimes a professional review may do a better job than a casual observer because they have a better command of the language. That's not to say I would never prefer a review written by a casual fan, I often do but in this case I've yet to read a review by a fan of this particular concert that has gone into very much detail at all.

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

I didn't say they wern't fans but they are someone who is just doing a job as well. I also said something on a more personal leval rather than some dry piece written for the masses. To me that is more interesting than something that appeared in any major publication because the emotions come thru. A person writing for any major publication rarely shows emotions in writing a concert review.

Perhaps, but not always. I've read my share of reviews over the years and just because it was written by a professional writer doesn't make the review any less passionate than one written by a fan. In many cases one written by a a professional might even do a better job than a review written by a fan because a professional writer has a better command of the language. Of the reviews I've read of this concert none came across as cut and dry assignment type pieces. The only fan written reviews I've seen so far were very short because they were so in awe of the event they just witnessed they didn't have much (or anything) to say. That's not to say there isn't any well written ones out there, I just haven't seen any yet.

well see that's where you and I are different - you like the cut and dry long and I would rather see a shorter one by someone in awe than someone who sat there pencil in hand to make sure they got the set list down.

Where did I ever say I prefer a cut and dry type review? I didn't. What I did say was that I prefer both but oftentimes a professional review may do a better job than a casual observer because they have a better command of the language. That's not to say I would never prefer a review written by a casual fan, I often do but in this case I've yet to read a review by a fan of this particular concert that has gone into very much detail at all.

Since all you post is a cut and past type review from a major publication I made that assumption for which I apologize.

Like I said that's the differences between you and me - a "command" of the language is not important to me - it's the emotion and thrill of the concert.

Who gives a s*** who writes the damn review. Was it a good show? That's all I need to know.

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Being able to see - not a cut and paste job from a major publication written by someone who was paid to attend the concert and then write a piece about it - but a post from an actual fan that used their hard earned money to get tickets and go. Something on a more personal level rather than some dry piece obviously written for the masses.

Just because it's a published piece doesn't make it any less "real". And how do you know the authors of the articles arent' fans? In fact, you don't. I love reading reviews from a casual fan's perspective as well but that doesn't lessen the impact of a review written by a professional writer either.

Anyone here that is catching the reunion shows, by all means post. I'd love to read 'em, even if they're published pieces.

I didn't say they wern't fans but they are someone who is just doing a job as well. I also said something on a more personal leval rather than some dry piece written for the masses. To me that is more interesting than something that appeared in any major publication because the emotions come thru. A person writing for any major publication rarely shows emotions in writing a concert review.

Perhaps, but not always. I've read my share of reviews over the years and just because it was written by a professional writer doesn't make the review any less passionate than one written by a fan. In many cases one written by a a professional might even do a better job than a review written by a fan because a professional writer has a better command of the language. Of the reviews I've read of this concert none came across as cut and dry assignment type pieces. The only fan written reviews I've seen so far were very short because they were so in awe of the event they just witnessed they didn't have much (or anything) to say. That's not to say there isn't any well written ones out there, I just haven't seen any yet.

well see that's where you and I are different - you like the cut and dry long and I would rather see a shorter one by someone in awe than someone who sat there pencil in hand to make sure they got the set list down.

Where did I ever say I prefer a cut and dry type review? I didn't. What I did say was that I prefer both but oftentimes a professional review may do a better job than a casual observer because they have a better command of the language. That's not to say I would never prefer a review written by a casual fan, I often do but in this case I've yet to read a review by a fan of this particular concert that has gone into very much detail at all.

ph4ever wrote:Since all you post is a cut and past type review from a major publication I made that assumption for which I apologize.

Just because something may be cut and pasted from a major publication doesn't make it any less passionate than something a fan may have written. It works both ways.

ph4ever wrote:Like I said that's the differences between you and me - a "command" of the language is not important to me - it's the emotion and thrill of the concert.

A command of the language isn't always important to me either but oftentimes a professional can do a better job of capturing a moment than a casual observer for that very reason, that's why they're writing professionally to start with. Again, that's not to say a fan can't do the same but that's usually the exception, not the rule. Personally I enjoy reading both types of reviews.

Damn Jahfin you'd freaking argue with a goddamn fence post!!!! I freaking apologized and you CONTINE to have to have a rebuttal. Can't you just accept someone's apology without having to continue to debate an issue.

Geez....

and... scene!

Lightning Bolt wrote:and... scene!

It's in the can... that's a wrap!

ph4ever wrote:Damn Jahfin you'd freaking argue with a goddamn fence post!!!! I freaking apologized and you CONTINE to have to have a rebuttal. Can't you just accept someone's apology without having to continue to debate an issue.

Geez....

No need to get your knickers in a twist, just clarifying that each type of review has it's good points and it's bad points. I like reading both kinds.

Tiki Bar wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:and... scene!

It's in the can... that's a wrap!

yea......right

The show from 5/5/05 is up now at thetradersden

Another of the recent reunion shows is also now up at http://www.dimeadozen.org