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.