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


whatz up with bass on most rock recordings? is it that hard to get a decent bass sound? must be...as most bass sounds are either a)muddy or b)razor thin...however the bass I found on Santana Abraxas is outstanding though...very dimensional...with a reach out and touch quality...any other recordings that might have this quality?
phasecorrect
Cream Progressive? I never heard them characterized as such. They were considered a Blues/Jazz Band, both music's (and Cream) heavy on improvisation (Progressive is certainly not, being very structured and produced, IMO). I saw them live twice, liking them a lot at the time. I had a couple of albums from the Group Jack and Ginger were in together before Cream, The Graham Bond Organization, which was a pretty straight-ahead British Trad Jazz Band (Ginger was already doing his "Toad" solo in The GBO). I have never fully understood what they and Clapton thought they had in common, other than a love of soloing! Clapton I knew from being in The Yardbirds, on the first John Mayall album, and on the Elektra Records sampler album What's Shakin' (there's that word again) as Eric Clapton's Powerhouse, but playing with two Jazz guys? Fresh Cream answered the question---what an amazing debut album!

Burton Cummings wasn't in the original Guess Who line-up. But it doesn't matter, because the song they did that I was actually thinking of was not "Summertime Blues", but rather "Shakin' All Over" (also done by The Who). The Blue Cheer version of "Summertime Blues" brought to mind The Who's vastly superior version (though nowhere near as good as Cochran's, of course!), but then my train of thought jumped the tracks to The Who's other cover of American Rock n' Roll, SAO. Whenever I think of SAO, I'm reminded of how great The Guess Who's version is (it was on the first pre-Burton Guess Who album, and also released as a 45RPM single, a hit in California). It's a scorcher bristling with unreleased tension (unlike The Who's, which is all release). It's the tension before the release that makes Rock n' Roll so sexual!

The MC5 were viewed very differently than Blue Cheer (BC looked like all the other San Francisco Hippie Bands, and played even worse than most of them). Maybe it's being from the San Francisco area (though I don't think so), but they were not respected for the same reason Big Brother wasn't---they stunk. No offense---I like some Bands/Groups who can't play, sing, or write very well, but that's not the nature of those bands appeal. Blue Cheer were trying to play as if they were like Cream, you know, accomplished musicians who had the command of their instruments. They weren't and didn't, they were a Garage Band who didn't know what makes a good musician good. Their tone was terrible, their playing was comically corny, and they were out of tune---and didn't have good enough ears to know it. I love Garage Bands (was in a few myself), but not when they're unaware of their limitations, and embarrass themselves.

The MC5 weren't a Garage Band, they were a Rock n' Roll Band, based on Chuck Berry style songs, guitar playing, and songwriting. They could have done a killer version of SB, and SAO! The San Francisco Band most like The MC5 (who openly expressed their like of them----and visa versa), were the rarely mentioned Flamin' Groovies. They were (and are) both a Garage Band AND a Rock n' Roll Band!. They do a good version of SAO, based on The Guess Who version, not The Who's. The MC5 and The Groovies saw kindred spirits in each other, often playing together when The Groovies traveled East.
Hey Loomis - it's good getting a well articulated and reasoned point of view that differs from mine. I don't mind mulling over the new perspective...might be some educational parts to it...might simply confirm me in my present position. I'd way rather debate the merits of music than gear in any case. Well said about Cream (studio vs live) and Procol Harum. I tend to agree about Cream live: their live jam-type stuff IS more uneven than the studio work, (undisciplined maybe...think Jack or Eric might have said that) but for me, when they are "on" - it is just volcanic...like some kind of molten metal pouring out of the speakers. Gotta play it loud.

In general, I fell mostly out of love with Eric after, say, Blind Faith. The thing that rekindled the flame was finding the Live At the Royal Albert Hall Cream Reunion video on YouTube. I think Ornette really needed those other cats. "Lumbering" and "not coherent", and (I'll add) pointless, ego-driven soloing? I'm not going to defend every note they played back in the day...but those qualities are definitely not in evidence in the performances culled from the RAH dates in 2005. Maybe evidence of a maturity. Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Hopefully, given this thread was started in '08, Phasecorrect won't be offended having it hijacked by this Cream discussion.

Tostado - That's a great quote by Jack. It explains quite a lot about that trio. W/r to Blue Cheer (and MC-5 even more) - YES! "pro to-punk" - good descriptor. Exactly why (in contrast to prog) I mentioned them to Bdp.

bd, not that anything i say merits close attention, but i didn't accuse cream of being prog-y--i was referring to procol harum. in any event, while i never liked the mc5 (who were much more countercultural icons than worthwhile music makers), i do like big brother as a musical unit--i think they're highly underrated. on a purely technical level i supposed they struggled with tempo and key, but to me they had a real feel for that big bloozy thing. they made a record after janis, with nick gravenites as singer, which was surprisingly well-written and performed--wish i could remember the name.
the flamin groovies, whose name you invoke, were on a higher plane altogether--i genuinely think they were among the best american bands of the 70s, albiet in that narrow jangly pop genre. "shake some action" and "tore me down" are flat-out masterpieces and they did the best ever cover of "warewolves of london," which you should race to spotify to hear immediately.
I think one thing a lot of these latest posts prove is that at a certain point, the various genre categories fail. To me, the era when music changed from middle of the road pablum to psych, harder rock blues, and led to different strands- from changes in electric folk to prog-- was one of the most fertile- say from the mid-'60s to the early '70s. I'm not saying there weren't elements or recordings or bands of interest before or after, but that period was an incubator of change. And, we have to thank the Brits for an awful lot of it, from helping us rediscover blues to providing a launching pad for American musicians, from Hendrix to Garnet Mimms (whose work is as great as any of the other big name soul/gospel singers, but whose name is rarely mentioned, except to note that he is tragically forgotten). I listen to all of it- and tracing back the roots of any one band's influences takes you in many different directions. Or vice-versa (listen to the originators, like Elmore James or Skip James and hear how their songs and styles were reinterpreted by others).