![Cream: Royal Albert Hall [concert poster]](http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6280/creamalberthall7ai.jpg)
The first thing you need to know about the Cream DVD/CD pair from Rhino is that the DVD movie is presented as a real event, from the through-the-wings opening, to the canny cinematography that takes many cues from the original Cream Farewell Concert, shot at the same location, Royal Albert Hall, London in 1968.
The first assumption many may have about the Cream reunion is that time must have slowed these guys down, it's bound to be a disappointment.
Another issue that probably will need to be addressed is the famously high ticket prices for the shows, but we'll address that later.
So now the big questions: Does the Cream reunion live up to the band's name? Can these guys still play? Is it a nostalgia trip, or is there real music going on?
Rest assured, the shows are good, the guys are in fine form, but at first glance one can't help but notice the effects of time, which is disorienting; except for the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction, the trio has remained forever frozen in time, still the frizzed-out 60's band even if individually we've seen them age.
So we get our first taste of them with "I'm So Glad", and there they are all three, looking their ages but otherwise fit, with a psychedelic light show in back of them on an otherwise uncluttered stage. They seem to warm up as the song progresses; at first Clapton sounded tentative and murky, more like the early 70's Clapton than the Cream Clapton, while Bruce's voice has deepened, and he doesn't shoot for the high notes at first.
I started to get uncomfortable at this point; there are two discs of this. But all worries are set to rest when the slinky bass intro to "Spoonful" kicks in, and suddenly the band simply gels, all the years of playing the tune solo has honed them keenly; together at once, they suddenly transform themselves into Cream before your very eyes and ears. Bruce starts getting his high register Cream voice back, and takes a strutting bass solo; Clapton starts answering his runs, and takes off for the rafters and down below the floorboards in the first of what will turn out to be plenty of Cream worthy solos. Baker gets his swing on, and "Spoonful" is the real Cream, right there before your eyes.
From this point on, the viewer or listener can take from this what they came in for; it does remain evident that this Cream isn't 1968 Cream. But 2005 Cream is still Cream, and if you're looking for some of that old magic, it really is here. And if you're a skeptic, the music is a textbook case in mastery of their form. While they sound more professional than the old Cream, which got reckless, it serves to highlight what really is some pretty extraordinary playing that musicians a third of their ages can only dream about.
Article comments
1 - Pacze Moj
I had no idea Cream had had a reunion! So, thanks.
As for the vocals, it's a bit of a shame, I guess, but not too many people listen(ed) to Cream for the singing.
I feel fine.
2 - Lono
Great piece: thorough, without too much bias on their legend or the fact that the ticket prices are near insano.
You are right about the ticket prices, though. Folks are paying that to get close seats at U2, who come every single year. The set sounds good. I'll need to hear and see a track or two before I commit to buy, but I'd bet it's worth it.
3 - The Proprietor
The DVD certainly exceeded my expectations, however, I'm still waffling a bit about Clapton's guitar tone. True, it's probably closer to the great "woman tone" of Cream's first go-round than anything Clapton has played in decades, but for some reason it's just somehow unsatisfying to see him playing a Stratocaster through a pair of tweed Twins (there's some debate over whether he was using Twins or Cornell amps at the Albert Hall shows) instead of a Gibson through a Marshall plexi stack. Not that his tone back then was always perfect - there are plenty of reminiscences of some nights on the '68 tour when Clapton was using a Firebird and sounded positively brittle.
4 - uao
I don't have your knowledge of instruments Proprietor, so I really couldn'ttell you what guitars and amps were used without looking it up. But it's pretty interesting what kind of difference the choice in instrument and amp makes.
I did detecta slight difference in Claptone's tone, but I wasn't sure if it was the guitar or his playing.
So I just focused on the playing, which really does manage to do the band right.
Always interested in your instrument commentary; I learn something newevery time.
5 - Captain Kaos
The comment about thousand dollar ticket prices has me stumped. I bought 4 tickets (a box) for these gigs for less than $1000 the lot. Maybe people were paying those prices for tickets bought on the street on the night - or through dodgy agencies, but they were the ticket prices for the tickets from the venue. FYI the ticket prices (legal, rather than illegally bought) were �75 and �125.
As for the the DVD sound, its a pity the bass is mixed so low. As someone who was there on Tuesday night, I can assure you on the night the bass was damn loud. Its a shame that the audio on the dvd was done by EC's producer de jour Simon Climey(I just dont like the Slimey Simey sound - its far too 80's)
6 - uao
I didn't mean $1000 in the literal sense of 'exactly $1000'; I wasn't sure of the exact price, although I'll bet you anything some people did pay a thou to get in; maybe on the street.
I kind of was using it as a round number symbolic of the lack to cheap seats. Sorry if it was misleading.
As for the production of the DVD, it didn't bug me too much, but I was running the DVD through a 200-watt system with an equalizer which may have made the bass sound a little more meaty to my ears than it would on a small playback unit.
I'm glad to hear that the bass sounded good live; I can't think of a group that benefits from a good careful mix, more than these guys.
Thanks for the info, Captain Kaos.
7 - uao
Edit: I did edit the original text to change "thousand" to "three digit"
8 - Rowland Ford
I have noticed that the bass on the DVD sounds at it's best when listening through headphones.
(My opinion only though.)
"We're going wrong"is a standout for me.
9 - rohbear
Was anyone else besides me outraged at the video editing? I was shocked that such a historical event was put in the hands of a video crew with apparently no affinity for music. Shots of each musician during a solo abruptly and painfully switched to another member before the solo's conclusion. Rarely did we get a good shot of Baker's playing.
I admit I was grinning many times while watching, but it was mostly because of what my ears were receiving, not my eyes. Outstanding performance; a crime that it wasn't captured well. This is a rental DVD, rather than one to own.
10 - wanky kill-wah
Yeah, the guitar tone is different than original Cream. Early Cream had the darker Gibson/Marshall sound (and Clapton played a whole line of Gibson's during that time...like he was searching for 'the one'). He began with Gibson/Marshall in John Mayall's Bluesbreakers.
But most I've read agree it was Cornell amps he used. Check out the Clapton Custom 80.
If you look at recent pictures on the web of all the guitar greats, you'll see just about everyone of them that played the darker sounding British amps in their youth, have all switched to Fender, which is typically bright and cutting. My guess is to compensate for their hearing loss thru the years. Blackmore, Townsend, Clapton, Page, Beck...all of them can be found of late with Fender amps behind them, unlike their early days with stacks of Marshall, Hiwatt, WEM, etc.