peter green and michael bloomfield
 

This has not been aired yet
This spring gibson guitars is releasing a 59 Les Paul in honor of michael


Did he ever play with peter ?

both B B deciples

both crashed. both humble to a fault

who would you want backing you on a slow blues?

I hope this isn't because I mentioned Bloomfield's name earlier. From the Christopher Hjort book, PG and MB did meet a couple times in the states. From that it's hard to tell if they ever played together. I own the first two Paul Butterfield Blues Band albums. Of course I think Peter Green is the better guitarist.
I just wanted an argument against those guitarists compared to cutting off your heart(Kirwan) or your brain/heart (Green).

Bloomfield? Give me a break
 

Well I'll just say this. I don't think Mike Bloomfield should be mentioned in the same breath as Peter Green. Now I realize there are folks who think Bloomie was the next best thing to sliced bread, but he was basically a study in the under-realized as far as I'm concerned. Like Green, he allowed drugs to largely derail what talent he did possess, only in his case it was a largely marginal career that never really matched most of the hype (which can't be said for Green and his accomplishments). Even that famed "Super Session", at least as it was ultimately portrayed and sold, was largely a blown up scam - which even he knew.

I also can't agree with one thing you said Vinnie, that being both were humble to a fault. Pete certainly was, but Mike was often brash and over-opinionated, thinking he held the pulse of his fellow musicians and the music industry in his hands. Go back and read his interviews! Reality was, he dodged stepping up to the plate time and again, which makes TALK CHEAP. When he should have been hitting home runs, he was instead questioning the accomplishments of others around him - the trends and trailblazers of the time - and wasting precious time.

Just look at his track record with Electric Flag, which was one of rank imitation (a la Stax stylings) and failed expectations, and yet he could hardly see it himself, even as it was smacking him in the face. Some of those know-it-all critics back east were calling the Flag rock's first supergroup! Give me a break. While he pompously "puffulated" on his rock counterparts, they were all basically kicking his butt in both reach and deed. And if this wasn't bad enough, he ultimately blamed his lack of recognition on all the mixed up, culturally devoid goyim he was cursed to have to play to. I mean, for me that was the last straw back then. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! [the same one that feeds most other blues artists to boot, and keeps the genre alive].

As soon as blues purists realize you don't have to live the blues to feel the blues, or in Mike's case, change your race to achieve a requisite level of "understanding," they'll be on their way to more productive things.

Agreed not worth mentioning in the same breathe, for me he´s like an alvin lee or something like that you know, has a battery of licks he fires off over changes not in Peters league.
Now clapton and peter now thats a debate, me personally couldnt live without either, both changed the world.

reality check
 

Sometimes during these discussions, people get carried away with the moment and forget that we are all here because there is a certain amount of fun between the opinionated people that we are. Poor Michael. He was gifted as well but his upbringing led him to his own self destruction, no matter what the potential.

I am personally a fan of Michael, who left just a cupfull of good stuff and so much unfilled expectations.

It is incredible the amount of output of superior music considering the circumstances

doodyhead

I'm not familiar with Bloomfield's upbringing except that he was Jewish like Peter. Since Michael was american, I can guess that his choice of career was frowned upon by his family. In Peter's case he came from blue collar roots, so a musician was only an upgrade in scale. If you believe Snoot's account it seems Bloomfield had a lot of self-loathing in him, another heroin tragedy.

Without Clapton, Peter Green doesn't take the same musical direction so Eric is essential in the chain. His Mayall album stands as his finest achievement, and his finest guitar tone. I used to like Cream very much, but nowI just don't see them the same way. After hearing Cream Live I and II, my opinion of Clapton really soured. That's just two hours of aimless noodling. It pales to the live side of Wheels of Fire, with the great Crossroads solo. Everyone knows the story afterwards with Faith, Derek, heroin, and that average solo career. However, the day Clapton plugged his Les Paul into a Marshall 50W combo amp, the music world changed.

Well Stevie Ray Vaughan did just that, in the nick of time. Then he's killed by something that was out of his hands. In recent years I've heard that Clapton gave up his seat on the helicopter for SRV, I have to think that's fabricated. That sounds too much like Waylon Jennings giving Buddy Holly his seat on the ill-fated plane in Iowa.

Oops!
 

I was typing this on a sticky keyboard before leaving for work

The last sentence was in reference to Peter Green

Michael left a fraction of great stuff amidst less than worthyoutput.
Peter's output was substantial and prolific besdes being of superior quality

I do not think Peter ever played with Micael and my suposition was Michael was intimidated by Peters talent. This exhibited itself with Michaels encouner with a host of fine blues and rock players.

Oh Well

Clapton on the other hand (the slow one) also does not have the quality output that peter has despite the extensive catalog. I dare anyone to put a retrospective without resorting to his pop tunes. Once you leave the 60's he is overshadowed by so many others . I too feel that until he did his blues album after the death of his son he had a lot of unmemorable releases.


Yet he is recognizable and a part of the fabric of our listening. I am still influenced by him and would not have learned the pentatonic scale without his riffing sojourns in the Cream era.

I like him more now as an approachable person. Much better than the bitter arogant one. He really likes racing bicycles.

doodyhead

Say what you will about Clapton, but there is a reason just about every known axe out there puts him down as one of their inspirations. Was he the "greatest" in the modern era? Hell no. But if there was to be only one, as cited by both artists and the public at large (and when taking in one's entire body of work, plus the overall impact they had in their peak period), you would be hard pressed to come up with a name that would top his, Hendrix and others be damned. That's just the way it is.

It'd be like trying to take the title of King of Rock-n-Roll away from Elvis. See how far you get. Ha! :laugh:

I definitely agree with you guys when assessing EC's extensive catalogue -- most of his latter day output was fairly inconsequential bordering on sappy and MOR, with a few hit and miss exceptions along the way. His early stuff, especially up to Derek & The Dominos, was fresh, and it definitely was turning heads (I'm tempted to including 461 Ocean Blvd, which wasn't bad as a comeback after his extended heroin setback, but it was also the harbinger of the increasingly "pop" and midland sound that would soon follow). Hendrix was also turning heads back during the psychedelic era. Problem with Jimi is he pulled daisies well before his time, so it's hard to assess where he may have gone, or where he rightfully stands.

Alvin Lee was an interesting package too. Fiery notes sprinkled all over the place, like graffiti in a tickertape parade. A little blues, boogie and rock n roll fused into a nice tight package. But like Mick Fleetwood once said, he basically riffed his way to fame, never having fully immersed himself in the blues genre like Peter tried to do. Add the good looks and fantastic stage presence - and man could Lee put on a show - and you can see why TYA rose above the crowd years ago. Revisit A Space In Time, Cricklewood Green, Live In Europe and In Flight - all done within a 3 or 4 year span - and tell me he never rose above second class material, or didn't pack an impressive range.

Slipkid:
Well Stevie Ray Vaughan did just that, in the nick of time. Then he's killed by something that was out of his hands.

Not sure about the Clapton bit either for the same reason you cite, but what a shame with SRV. And like you put it, right when he was finally getting his act together!

Doodyhead:
I am personally a fan of Michael, who left just a cupfull of good stuff and so much unfilled expectations.

That sums it up pretty nicely.

Doodyhead:
I like [Clapton] more now as an approachable person. Much better than the bitter arogant one.

Agreed. He cleaned himself up from the powder and booze, and now is making the most of his fabled status in reaching out to others - young and old hands alike. I'll give him chops there.

[QUOTE=snoot;793429]Say what you will about Clapton, but there is a reason just about every known axe out there puts him down as one of their inspirations. Was he the "greatest" in the modern era? Hell no. But if there was to be only one, as cited by both artists and the public at large (and when taking in one's entire body of work, plus the overall impact they had in their peak period), you would be hard pressed to come up with a name that would top his, Hendrix and others be damned. That's just the way it is.

Well put, Clappo deserves his dues...it´s not his fault he survived! Looks like he tried his best to kill himself so lets not kick him for that. He is an incredible player regardless of what limitations we think he has ie is propensity to use the minor pent. He got time baby in his pocket, maybe he don´t play your fancy exotic scales but as bluesers and rockers go he as you rightly put is up there.
Don´t get the Svr thing never been into him, to me just a flash jimi hendrix tribute...sorry :shrug: thats what he´s famous for, he played like hendrix, with thick strings...hmmm not impressed. no offence to the dead like :nod:

Absolutely. He is one of the best, and when you turns heads like he did once upon a time, that's proof enough.

Don´t get the Svr thing never been into him, to me just a flash jimi hendrix tribute...sorry :shrug: thats what he´s famous for, he played like hendrix, with thick strings...hmmm not impressed. no offence to the dead like :nod:

The man had great technique, even EC was wowed. His fresh Texan style set things alight again in the blues world in early eighties. With a relatively short career, like that of Hendrix, it makes it harder to place him in amongst the competition, and those who came before him. He was not as prolific a songwriter as some of his contemporaries, so that probably costs him a few points in regards to the total impact of his legacy. But when he cut loose on those bad boy Strats of his, even slingers like Eddie Van Halen would bust a smile. I'm listening to Pride And Joy right now. Smilin' too. :p

I think thats it for me with svr the lack of song writing skills has always probably unjustly made me not judge him to kindly...he did however play the blues authewntic style like, when it was completely un fashionable with complete and utter conviction...have to give him total dues for that. So i´m glad he moves people, his heart was without doubt on his sleeve and in the right place as far as im concerned.

Recently saw a few clips of the kid john mayer, hate is voice but the kid plays good. Saw a clip with him and clappo was well impressed, singing sucked i may add again though by mayer.:thumbsup:

Dude, did Bloomfield shoot your dog or something?

IMHO, Bloomfield was very underrated, but had the ego and brashness. The only contemporary players his age he ever deferred to were Hendrix and Clapton. But he did play and learn alongside all the Chicago blues icons when Greenie was still chopping meat. And because of how his talent developed, when Muddy calls you his son, I think you've achieved something.

If Bloomfield's career was "marginal" compared to Green's, it was because he wanted it that way. He was never comfortable with the "band leader" or front man job, which was one of the reasons the Flag failed. His 70s output, which were very minimally distributed and purposely low-key affairs, stands as some of the most truly inspired playing he ever did (see "If You Love These Blues" LP). Drugs and alcohol destroyed whatever ambition he had left by then.

I don't know what "puffulating" is, or how he did it, but he was very respectful of other guitarists, namely Ry Cooder, Eric Gale, Steve Cropper, and a whole host of others. He even name-checks them all (INCLUDING Peter Green) on "The Altar Song" on the album I named. But he did hate record execs who tried to exploit him and said so publicly.

Greenie and Bloomers were markedly different players, but both had the respect of their peers and their mentors. I love both for their different styles and approaches to the music. I'm not hung up on their color or the effectiveness of their various career moves.

When you bite the hands of the hapless goyim, what do you expect? (Next best thing to a dog I suppose)

IMHO, Bloomfield was very underrated, but had the ego and brashness. The only contemporary players his age he ever deferred to were Hendrix and Clapton.

You mean by ducking trading chops with them at nearly every opportunity that presented itself? Is that the mark of a grade A performer, let alone axe slinger? He couldn't even hang with Kooper during the so called Super Session, so Stills had to be called in to finish the project. The story of his life in so many ways.

But he did play and learn alongside all the Chicago blues icons when Greenie was still chopping meat. And because of how his talent developed, when Muddy calls you his son, I think you've achieved something.

When you kneel at their feet like he did, you can come off as something of a junior. That's cool if he wanted to mimic the Stax swing of things when the crowds had largely taken to different pastures, but to curse others for not "getting it" hahaha. Is that my misperception? Oh yeah, must be that damn goy thinking getting in the way again! [*slaps forehead for not knowing better*]

If Bloomfield's career was "marginal" compared to Green's, it was because he wanted it that way.

Ha! Like he had much of a choice in the matter. He had Albert Grossman and his wired connections in his pocket, plenty of advance money and the promotion machine was all in place. Not everyone gets it so easy. Green was known to hit home runs with less. Bloomie ... uh .... er ....

He was never comfortable with the "band leader" or front man job, which was one of the reasons the Flag failed.

Try this. He couldn't retain the reins of his Flag when a young cat named Miles was overtaking them. Not that it didn't needle him a plenty.

His 70s output, which were very minimally distributed and purposely low-key affairs, stands as some of the most truly inspired playing he ever did (see "If You Love These Blues" LP). Drugs and alcohol destroyed whatever ambition he had left by then.

Well when his never-ending insomnia and mainlining weren't superseding most everything else, sure you can bring up his "low key" approach, for all it was worth. What else was left for him by that point?

I don't know what "puffulating" is, or how he did it

Read it in the context of how it was delivered. You don't have to be a clairvoyant [that's called a "play" on words].

but he was very respectful of other guitarists, namely Ry Cooder, Eric Gale, Steve Cropper, and a whole host of others. He even name-checks them all (INCLUDING Peter Green) on "The Altar Song" on the album I named. But he did hate record execs who tried to exploit him and said so publicly.

Respectful to those he felt were kosher enough, ergo, those who were mostly walking on his side of the musical tracks.

Greenie and Bloomers were markedly different players, but both had the respect of their peers and their mentors. I love both for their different styles and approaches to the music. I'm not hung up on their color or the effectiveness of their various career moves.

Good for you. Now go back and revisit what I already wrote. You'll see I never said he couldn't play (though I'm not sure he should have left Butterfield from the start), but if he isn't a case of the under-realized considering the original potential, I don't know who is. When others, for whom he took jabs at, were stepping up to the plate, he made a career of largely ducking things, wasting time in low budget Hollywood tub thump productions, decrying why his Flagship and that "American music" panacea he was pushing wasn't sweeping the masses, and laying low enough to effectively dodge the radar, that one called reality. The times largely passed him by imo, even if the hype machine never let go.

I believe Bloomfield's playing peaked between 1965–1970, just as Green's. In his most inspired moments he was up there with the best. Listen to his solo on I Got A Mind To Give Up Living from Butterfields second LP. I think it's in the same league as Green's solos on that song if you are talking feel and emotion (I don't care if it´s kosher or not;-) And who can deny the importance of "East-West", he practically invented improvised Eastern influenced psychedelic guitar on that song.

His playing on Super Session is unbeliavable tight and "story-telling", no noodling in sight. He considered the album a scam, not musically as I understand, but he resented the "Super" marketing. Sure he was uneven, but so was Hendrix, both could be sloppy and brilliant the same night.

He's also on top in "Mary-Ann" and "Green Onions" from Live Adventures of MB and Al Kooper and in "Carmelita Shuffle" from Live at Bill Grahams Fillmore West.

All very solid performances, and taken with his contributions to Dylan's sound, his impact on other American guitarists of the era is unmistakable -- moreso than Green's at that time. These days, it's a different story.

Hmm, the reason I never liked Phish (or countless other modern jam bands) that much is that they can't write songs (compared to Allmans and Dead). I never thought that SRV was deficient in the songwriting dept. I think 'Lenny' is one of the best guitar instrumentals ever written (and one of the prettiest). I have SRV's "Live at El Mocambo" DVD and it's just jaw-dropping good. He brought Texas blues to the forefront of the genre where so many only dabbled with it (Billy Gibbons, BTW a Peter Green fan so I've read).


As for Mayer, it seems he's mastered that Hendrix/SRV "Little Wing" style of playing and that's it. His influences were far more multi-faceted. I think he's had it removed but he used to have a huge SRV tattoo on one of his upper arms. As if we couldn't tell. :rolleyes:

On behalf of Jewish guitar players everywhere, I apologize that he offended you so.

You mean by ducking trading chops with them at nearly every opportunity that presented itself? Is that the mark of a grade A performer, let alone axe slinger? He couldn't even hang with Kooper during the so called Super Session, so Stills had to be called in to finish the project. The story of his life in so many ways.

Yeah, damn him for staying up 3 days straight and collapsing before finishing an album. Chronic insomnia is SO unprofessional :rolleyes:

When you kneel at their feet like he did, you can come off as something of a junior. That's cool if he wanted to mimic the Stax swing of things when the crowds had largely taken to different pastures, but to curse others for not "getting it" hahaha. Is that my misperception? Oh yeah, must be that damn goy thinking getting in the way again! [*slaps forehead for not knowing better*]

What does learning from Chicago blues players have to do with mimicing Stax? Or with cursing his audiences? You make no sense, unless you were the Flag's agent.

Try this. He couldn't retain the reins of his Flag when a young cat named Miles was overtaking them. Not that it didn't needle him a plenty.

Yeah, nothing to do with the fact that half the band was on heroin and the other half on acid. The Flag kicked HIM out and kept going, remember?

Respectful to those he felt were kosher enough, ergo, those who were mostly walking on his side of the musical tracks.

Who exactly was he disrespectful to? You? Name three, and where he said it. Instead, listen to that song I named and tell me who he leaves out.

... if he isn't a case of the under-realized considering the original potential, I don't know who is. When others, for whom he took jabs at, were stepping up to the plate, he made a career of largely ducking things, wasting time in low budget Hollywood tub thump productions, decrying why his Flagship and that "American music" panacea he was pushing wasn't sweeping the masses, and laying low enough to effectively dodge the radar, that one called reality. The times largely passed him by imo, even if the hype machine never let go.

Under-realized talent? Missed opportunities? Lack of ambition? Poorly conceived projects? Absolutely. He alone blew up his career, and he knew it. One could also say that about Greenie during many parts of his life. Was Greenie more consistent with his output? Yes. Was he more talented? Who cares? When both were "on", there were few better. Sadly in their prime, both fell victim to various substances and situations of the time. Bloomers was much more easily led astray than Green, which is what ultimately killed him. And since this is a Peter Green forum, that's all I've got to say about Bloomfield here. PM me if you want.

my education in brooklyn
 

when I started to learn the guitar, my first influence to learn to play was lightning hopkins. i then confronted bb king. who even was close. eric clapton was an instruction manual. alvin lee ;s motto was repitition. bloomie was like silk he learned from so many. he had more styles of blues than any of these guys. he learned where to shut up. hendrix was inapprachable. Taylor was Eric's cloneat first. Albert King was a wondement. Then I heard Peter and Otis Rush at the same time. Then Freddy K brought me back to Earth. He had fire.


Peter has much for posterity

Someplace I have a disc that's got Bloomfield playing different blues styles - impressive breadth of knowledge and ability.

I love Freddy King (or is it Freddie?) :) I've seen it spelled both ways, more often as Freddie, actually. Great fusion of Texas and Chicago styles and a huge influence on so many.

Albert Collins is another favorite of mine - any comments on his playing, doodyhead? I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem like he's been as much as influence on other players as most of the other guitarists who have been mentioned, not sure why.

Albert collins is frosty
 

his tele just singes the air

there are many great players with distintive styles
I like robert cray too


tough to imitate

Now don't go getting your Jewish dandruff up. You don't owe me an apology, and neither does Bloomfield. You are what you are, I am what I am, and Bloomfield is what he was. In heaven - or hell perhaps - the 'twain may someday meet. In the meantime, we're left on Terra Mater to slug it out.

Yeah, damn him for staying up 3 days straight and collapsing before finishing an album. Chronic insomnia is SO unprofessional.

His form of treatment to address it didn't come from a licensed M.D., that's for sure. It came from a strap and junkie mainline. Not the wisest approach or solution for the rich and would-be famous. It was that chronic condition that often depleted him, and made itself manifest at the worst times. I still can't figure out how he couldn't figure it out. There were/are ways to treat such things, especially when so much is riding on the line. Others have burrowed for air and light from far deeper in the hole.

What does learning from Chicago blues players have to do with mimicing Stax? Or with cursing his audiences? You make no sense, unless you were the Flag's agent.

You obviously don't know much of the story, and I know you weren't his agent or you'd know I make more sense than you're attempting to insinuate. If you can't see and appreciate the Stax influence in a lot of what he was trying to push and expand on, I don't know what to say. As for his angst with much of his anglo audience, aye yea yea. I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, nothing to do with the fact that half the band was on heroin and the other half on acid. The Flag kicked HIM out and kept going, remember?

That was part of it for sure. But the other half of the story is that he had become marginalized within the unit, due to him not offering the kind of leadership, drive and even direction the guys were counting on. Who else had the name and musical pedigree to match? Young Miles was just an up-and-comer. Why did he keep ducking the big guns on stage? So what does that say in the end? Doesn't surprise me they began to question his leadership and standing as time went on, whether they were ****ed up to boot or not.

Under-realized talent? Missed opportunities? Lack of ambition? Poorly conceived projects? Absolutely. He alone blew up his career, and he knew it. One could also say that about Greenie during many parts of his life. Was Greenie more consistent with his output? Yes. Was he more talented? Who cares? When both were "on", there were few better. Sadly in their prime, both fell victim to various substances and situations of the time. Bloomers was much more easily led astray than Green, which is what ultimately killed him. And since this is a Peter Green forum, that's all I've got to say about Bloomfield here. PM me if you want.

Here's the thing. There are a ton of great riffers and pickers and reed men out there, but only a few are ever going to get a crack at the big time. Some that get the shot deserve it, and some don't quite frankly. Not many have a say in the matter so what counts is if you do get a break, for whatever reason or by whatever means, you had damn better make the most of it. Your livelihood - and legacy as an artist - are going to depend on it. When I attend local festivals or smaller club venues, I'm not going to such places to judge the players in any intense manner. I'm there to temporarily soak up their world and enjoy myself. Many may be but one big break away from fame and wealth, but few will ever see it. So why should I cast harsh or dissenting glances upon the hopeful and under-acknowledged, regardless of the level of their prowess. As I'm sure you know, a lot of the cats out there are pretty damn talented in their own right, and are every bit as hungry and played out in the name of dues as those rolling in dough, or fortunate enough to find themselves under recording contracts. That includes a lot of gifted session men.

Which brings me to the point, to Bloomfield and beyond. When you get your chance you take it, and run it out for all its worth. If you can't measure up to the mark, well so be it. But once you get your place in the limelight, you're fair game for any praise and criticism that follows. You owe your audience, as well as your legacy, nothing but full measure once you make it to that rarified air. Anything less and you basically amount to a slacker, a wannabe, or second rate material running on more hype than mettle. And that's just the way it is! In Bloomfield's case, he had it all - the name, the connections, the promotion money, pretty much the full enchilada. And what did he do with it? He largely whittled it away, boxed himself in a corner, and damn near threw away the key. If he was the guy on the corner singing his lungs out for little more than pocket change, few other than those closest to him, to his limited following, would shed tears. Sad but true.

But when you get a shot at center stage, when so many other deserving candidates never shall, and then basically piss it away, I feel little sympathy for the almost-ran's and crash-n-burn types. I'm judging his career and legacy at the top grade level, not his ability to cut a few chops. That's mid or lower level at best. Now some care, and some don't -- and that's cool. I just happen to be one of those types that does, whether I come off as a prick or not.