NME article

[snoot]

Originally Posted by bjornense

Yes the live albums, mainly recorded late 68 when the band were burned out, are a bit excessive, but the live parts of "Wheels of Fire", recorded March 68 are truly fantastic...

You and Slipkid and others make a valid point re excess, only a few things should be remembered. First off, that sound was damn near mind blowing in its time. Beyond that, Clapton's free form jams may have been anything but "perfect" but still outshone most of the rockers of the era. He was clearly pushing new boundaries, rivaled only by Hendrix in that regard (with Beck and Green and Page et al pulling up the rear). Lastly, most audiences were either stoned or lit up on juice und spirits in one form or another. The improvs of the psychedelic era - and the sheer volume of the amplification - were intended to BLOW YOUR MIND as much as anything else. 'Nuff said.

Do those two live Cream volumes stand up well over time? Well definitely not to the point of psychedelic nirvana that's for sure, and I bet EC would be the first to agree. But pinned to the time, they were pretty wild and at the vanguard of pushing the ever expanding rock envelope (plus a clear prelude to heavy metal to boot, for better or worse). In any case, nothing tops the reach of Disraeli Gears, but that's studio material so no point heading there.

You also bring up a second interesting point, when referencing the live part of Wheels Of Fire [thanks for refreshing my sleepy cerebral coconut] as in my mind, all three sets have long blurred into one. And I agree, without tracks like Crossroads and Spoonful, you can't reach an apex of the group live just as you've alluded to. As I see it, if you really want a tight Cream set live, you would have to cherry-pick from all three sources. Too bad it wasn't done that way originally!

BTW if memory serves me right, Crossroads - in all its celebrated glory - took a bit of production sorcery by producer Felix Pappalardi to attain that tight framing. The original recording was considerably longer, then spliced to perfection for effect + impact. And damn if he and EC didn't pull that off adroitly.

PS for slipkid. As for Ginger Baker, that guy had chops. Sure, a touch over the top at times but come on. Beating your meat with yer sticks was par for the course back then. Too bad he and Jack Bruce were always at each other's throats, that was the bigger problem. That reduced Clapton to the role of peacemaker as much as anything else in the group, something that clearly grated on him as time went on. It also guaranteed any longevity to the band was to be short lived.