They do it funky :cool: It's a bit messy though, but that's kind of their style.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]They do it funky :cool: It's a bit messy though, but that's kind of their style.[/QUOTE]
Who Phish? I think they both do it funky.

Badmoon remeber when you sampled us Robert Randolph, well I am listening to them at Bonnaroo.:cool:

Yes, you'd be no where without me. :p

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Yes, you'd be no where without me. :p[/QUOTE]
Do they have a violin player?

No, but it is Bonnaroo so they may have a guest apperance.

[url]http://web1.nugs.net/galactic/03bonnaroo_mp3.asp?artist=29&show=283&cmd=shows[/url]


Go here and go to Zepp Thing for a weird treat.:cool:

EDIT- 1000th post in thread!!1!!!!!11!11 w00Tz0rZ

Congrads.

That nugs site is awesome ;)

yaaaayyyy!

Yeah, that site is great. The moe. stuff is the best.

hey,
ive noticed that in my high school, tons of kids r into older stuff, like pink floyd beatles stones kiss hendrix rhcp the who(my favorite) n tons of other stuff,

i geuss cuz they figured out rap sux

I saw Robert Randolph (and the family Band). He opened for clapton.

^I would have been much more excited to see Randolph than Clapton.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]^I would have been much more excited to see Randolph than Clapton.[/QUOTE]

:eek: I find that hard to believe.

Actually I don't because it's coming from badmoon ;)

Alls I knows is Clapton puts on one hell of a show.

Try to download some shows from Randolph. He is like Hendrix sitting down.

Can anyone else recommend me some folk Jethro Tull?

[QUOTE=wanton]Can anyone else recommend me some folk Jethro Tull?[/QUOTE]

my favorite Tull album that is more folk is Songs From the Wood. In my opinion, it isn't their best album, but it shows that they werent just a hard rock band, since most people only heard aqualung.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]^I would have been much more excited to see Randolph than Clapton.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't Randolph was great, but not on par with Clapton.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]my favorite Tull album that is more folk is Songs From the Wood. In my opinion, it isn't their best album, but it shows that they werent just a hard rock band, since most people only heard aqualung.[/QUOTE]
Aqualung wasn't all hard rock either though.

They're a very talented, diverse group. They even adapt classical peices.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]my favorite Tull album that is more folk is Songs From the Wood. In my opinion, it isn't their best album, but it shows that they werent just a hard rock band, since most people only heard aqualung.[/QUOTE]

Even Aqualung is very diverse. Some early Tull like This Was has good folk on it. Most Tull albums have folk songs.

I have seen both live on a DVD my friends friend bootlegged, and I never though Clapton was exciting on stage. Randolph is flying around, screaming, playing wild and his backing band was crazy. While Clapton is standing, singing, and running through the same dang progression I've heard a million times

Yea, like Cat's Squirrel. Their version and the Cream version are great.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]I have seen both live, and I never though Clapton was exciting on stage. Randolph is flying around, screaming, playing wild and his backing band was crazy. While Clapton is standing, singing, and running through the same dang progression I've heard a million times[/QUOTE]
I have seen both actually live!

Randolph was more repetitive than clapton. He was livelier but none the less not as good. Clapton was backed by the finest musician's in the world, some of which provided that energy clapton doesn't have as much of. Randolph was also backed by great musicians but I can't say they were the same calibur as clapton's.

Randolph was great but Clapton's got tons more experience which gives him a little bit of an edge.

[QUOTE]I have seen both actually live![/QUOTE]

Which really is irrelevant, unless one of the musicians spits a burning liquid at you, or you get pulled on stage. That didn't happen, did it?

Randolph has a unorthodox Blues method, like Jimi Hendrix. While to me, Clapton tries to stay traditional like his band. His drummer during his last year was very calm, is bassists supports, and that's all I can really remember. While Randolph's players are doing crazy fills, slaps, and interludes. It's opinion, but I'm easily not amused from Blues. With the exception of a few musicians, and Clapton is not one of them.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Which really is irrelevant, unless one of the musicians spits a burning liquid at you, or you get pulled on stage. That didn't happen, did it?[/QUOTE]
No, it didn't. But it's not irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Randolph has a unorthodox Blues method, like Jimi Hendrix.
While to me, Clapton tries to stay traditional like his band. His drummer during his last year was very calm, is bassists supports, and that's all I can really remember. While Randolph's players are doing crazy fills, slaps, and interludes. It's opinion, but I'm easily not amused from Blues. With the exception of a few musicians, and Clapton is not one of them. [/QUOTE]
His drummer, Steve Gadd has feel that cannot be compared. His Bassist did a Solo, as did every other member other then Steve. Stop being Silly and Calling clapton orthodox though he was a part of major changes in music and you know it. While you praise Randolph for doing what was has been done almost 40 years before him.

It's fine if you don't like blues but the quality of Clapton's performance was still higher than that of Randolph's.

[QUOTE]Stop being Silly and Calling clapton orthodox though he was a part of major changes in music and you know it. While you praise Randolph for doing what was has been done almost 40 years before him. [/QUOTE]

Can you explain what is so crazy about Clapton's Blues?

[QUOTE]It's fine if you don't like blues but the quality of Clapton's performance was still higher than that of Randolph's.[/QUOTE]

I atleast knew your's and mine were opinions. Now, who's being silly.

I'm just having a hard time seeing anyone top Clapton live. He;s so passionate and he's almost flawless when he plays. Plus what RockAndRoll said about his backup being great.

But i've only heard a little of RRATFB so I really can't judge too much.

Well no offense, but there may be an elitist side to you. I use to think no one was as great as The Who in any form, but then I tryed to realize that there are other good acts.

I'm not saying there is though.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Well no offense, but there may be an elitist side to you. I use to think no one was as great as The Who in any form, but then I tryed to realize that there are other good acts.[/QUOTE]

I think most people in here know that they are other great acts, and maybe they still favor Clapton.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Well no offense, but there may be an elitist side to you. I use to think no one was as great as The Who in any form, but then I tryed to realize that there are other good acts.[/QUOTE]
Like a Clapton fanboy? I haven't heard Randolph live, but I do know that Clapton is tremendous live. I'll listen to Randolph on nugs, and we'll see if he compares.

Well, then read the other part of the statement.

[QUOTE=jpjrulestheworld]Like a Clapton fanboy? I haven't heard Randolph live, but I do know that Clapton is tremendous live. I'll listen to Randolph on nugs.[/QUOTE]

Well, it doesn't have to be Clapton. I use to not even compare any other band to a Classic Rock band.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Can you explain what is so crazy about Clapton's Blues?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it crazy, but then again i don't think music ahs to be crazy. But you and I both know that he was part of a major change in music. Music like the stuff he did with Cream was new, it was fresh, and it inspired musicians, Hendrix being one of them that took on that same blues based hard rock style. Clapton was one of the british performers who took to american blues when it made it's way over. From there he (and others) took their own approach to it giving it a more rocky sound, a harder sound, and a more electric sound. I would say the butt end of that movement is what you see in Hendrix and Randolph.

It may be fresh in a way. But when I listen to it, and I hear a 12 bar Blues progression, and maybe a few effects like a wah added in. Some may be amazed by that, but I am not.

When I hear Randolph, I hear a guy on a Country instrument going over the top on each solo, and singing the hell out of himself on a microphone. And playing for a half of an hour.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]It may be fresh in a way. But when I listen to it, and I hear a 12 bar Blues progression, and maybe a few effects like a wah added in. Some may be amazed by that, but I am not.[/QUOTE]
Not all of it is fresh. But some was, alot was. He does some good old fashion blues but he also does some of his fresh stuff.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]It may be fresh in a way. But when I listen to it, and I hear a 12 bar Blues progression, and maybe a few effects like a wah added in. Some may be amazed by that, but I am not.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but the wah sure is cool. (Tales Of Brave Ulysses)

[QUOTE=Badmoon]
When I hear Randolph, I hear a guy on a Country instrument going over the top on each solo, and singing the hell out of himself on a microphone. And playing for a half of an hour.[/QUOTE]
When I hear Randolph I hear a great musician that loves to go over the top. Is over the top always better though? No! And although he loves to go over the top I still do not find him to be musically on par with clapton. There were some bits at the concert that were too repetitive as well.

Has anyone seen "the rolling stone" magazines top 500 song, I think it's great that Bob Dylan made number one but i was looking through it and dr. dre made it, WTF IS THAT RAP ON GREATEST SONGS THAT BS!

elitism is bad.

I'm off now though.

[QUOTE=godigoy]Has anyone seen "the rolling stone" magazines top 500 song, I think it's great that Bob Dylan made number one but i was looking through it and dr. dre made it, WTF IS THAT RAP ON GREATEST SONGS THAT BS![/QUOTE]

It's a mainstream music magazine I guess. 99% of their lists are mainstream and then they throw in a few unkown songs or something in an attempt to make people think that they aren't lame.

I think they put Like a Rolling Stone #1 because their name is Rolling Stone. Same with Satisfaction at #3, GOD **** ATTENTION WHORES :mad:

No Grateful Dead. :(