Rock: well recorded bass...60s/70s

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?

Jack Bruce once said (on film) "Cream was actually an Ornette Coleman band, with Eric as Ornette--but neither Ginger nor I told Eric."

FWIW, I liked Blue Cheer but understand why they weren't everyone's cup of tea. Sort of proto-punk in a way.

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.