Whenever I tell my friends I'm listening to Cream they all say "Who's that?" I just tell them Eric Clapton was the guitarist.

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]"Moby Dick" off of HtWWW is horrible. It's suicide-inducingly boring. A 15 minute drum solo? Are you kidding me? I hate how all amatuer musicians (drummers and guitarists alike) listen to this crap. I play guitar and I hate Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Yngwie Malmsteen, and all the other "virtuosos" and I can't stand Dream Theater. And to use an example off of HtWWW, I don't like JImmy Page's sloppy guitar solo on "Heartbreaker" either. What possible explanation is there to liking it? "Dude, look at how talented it is!" It's like reading a book simply because it has a lot of big words in it.[/QUOTE]

you wouldnt like the Zeppelin DVD then, Bonhams drum solo in Moby Dick is about half an hour long. I'm not a drummer, but i find it pretty exciting.

but i agree with what you are saying about a lot of shredders, or virtuosos as you called them.

Yeah, that's the only thing they recognized.. and barely. "Tears in Heaven" has deminished his virtuoso years to nothing more than a lost memory in a sea of pop wailing.

(.****, I got rather poetic there)

--Don't get me wrong... I like "Tears in Heaven"

hey slowhand! i havent seen you in a while, hope you had a good christmas, and new year.

the vast majority of classic rock "fans" don't know anything about cream. i was talking to this one guy at my school, who had a bunch of clapton songs on his mp3 player, he was telling me what a huge fan of clapton he is, and i said i prefered him in cream way more...and he was like "whos cream?" i was very disappointed.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]hey slowhand! i havent seen you in a while, hope you had a good christmas, and new year.

the vast majority of classic rock "fans" don't know anything about cream. i was talking to this one guy at my school, who had a bunch of clapton songs on his mp3 player, he was telling me what a huge fan of clapton he is, and i said i prefered him in cream way more...and he was like "whos cream?" i was very disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Ouch, that's disappointing. I don't usually come across people who are Clapton fans but not Cream fans.

Then again, I don't come across many Clapton fans.

That's a shame. Cream should be enoyed by all.

A Clapton fan who doesn't even know what Cream is?! He is no Clapton fan then.

(Having a hard time finding a good Page avatar)

[QUOTE=rock not rolled]That's a shame. Cream should be enoyed by all.[/QUOTE]

Wow you have a total of 7 stars. How long are you banned on your other acount?

So what's everyone's thoughts on Jethro Tull?

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]hey slowhand! i havent seen you in a while, hope you had a good christmas, and new year.

the vast majority of classic rock "fans" don't know anything about cream. i was talking to this one guy at my school, who had a bunch of clapton songs on his mp3 player, he was telling me what a huge fan of clapton he is, and i said i prefered him in cream way more...and he was like "whos cream?" i was very disappointed.[/QUOTE]

You've got to be kidding. Cream is one of the first 60's bands I ever heard. It's all part of this classic rock fad going on. People listen to it because it's "cool," but don't take it any more seriously than they took Sum 41 and Blink182 three years ago.

[QUOTE=DeusExMachina]You've got to be kidding. Cream is one of the first 60's bands I ever heard. It's all part of this classic rock fad going on. People listen to it because it's "cool," but don't take it any more seriously than they took Sum 41 and Blink182 three years ago.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you represent the vast majority of the new classic rock fad fans.

Jethro Tull... Well, I'm not a big fan. Really can't get into their style *coughflutecough* but what I hear from them is good. Might give them some time later.

Did you know that on the Rock 'n Roll Circus they wanted to have an unknown band amongst the stars, you know, to give them a push into the mainstream. It came down to two bands. Jethro Tull and another band. The other band was too guitar-orientated for Jagger's taste and decided to put Tull instead.

That "guitar-orientated" band was the still very young Led Zeppelin. Ironically, they would be more famous than Tull... as if you guys didn't know that.

stick to the avatar you have now Slowhand, it's cool.

ya now that i think about it, i listened to cream before i even knew clapton had a solo career. of course back then, i only knew about four cream songs.

and yes, what are everyones thoughts on Jethro Tull, i'm a big fan myself. but i ramble about them alot so i wont go on.

Jesus... any opinion on [URL=http://www.led-zeppelin.org/multimedia/photos/jimmy157.jpg]this[/URL]

I prefer the early Tull to the later Tull, my favorite era is up to and including Thick As a Brick. They have a strange style but I find it very interesting, and obviously it is original. They cover a lot of genres in their music, especially on early albums like This Was, Stand Up, and Benefit. While they may not be your first choice for a favorite band, they are a very talented group and make for an interesting listen.

Oh and i totally love how Jethro Tull beat out Metallica for best metal album in the '88 Grammys. Everyone was totally suprised, and even Kirk Hammet made some very angry comments about it after. I mean at the time, everyone (including Metallica) thought Metallica were metal gods, and i'm sure the vast majority of Metallica fans didnt even know who Jethro Tull was.

[QUOTE=slowhand]Jesus... any opinion on [URL=http://www.led-zeppelin.org/multimedia/photos/jimmy157.jpg]this[/URL][/QUOTE]

i dunno, it's a cool pic but i think you've probably got the best avatar around right now.

and i love how jimmy page wore sweaters onstage sometimes. i mean think about it, it was either a nice conservative sweater, or some outlandish full body suit.

[QUOTE=slowhand]Jethro Tull... Well, I'm not a big fan. Really can't get into their style *coughflutecough* but what I hear from them is good. Might give them some time later.

Did you know that on the Rock 'n Roll Circus they wanted to have an unknown band amongst the stars, you know, to give them a push into the mainstream. It came down to two bands. Jethro Tull and another band. The other band was too guitar-orientated for Jagger's taste and decided to put Tull instead.

That "guitar-orientated" band was the still very young Led Zeppelin. Ironically, they would be more famous than Tull... as if you guys didn't know that.[/QUOTE]

Heh, that's interesting. Jagger didn't pick the band that would turn out to be much better than his own.

*I have about 10 more days of ban left :(

[QUOTE=slowhand]Jesus... any opinion on [URL=http://www.led-zeppelin.org/multimedia/photos/jimmy157.jpg]this[/URL][/QUOTE]

Haha great picture. I want a sweater that says Zoso on it.

[QUOTE=rock not rolled]Heh, that's interesting. Jagger didn't pick the band that would turn out to be much better than his own.

*I have about 10 more days of ban left :([/QUOTE]

I think either way he would have lost. Jethro Tull>Stones.

[QUOTE=rock not rolled]Heh, that's interesting. Jagger didn't pick the band that would turn out to be much better than his own.

*I have about 10 more days of ban left :([/QUOTE]

Zeppelin, better than the Stones?

(flies the WTF Flag)

[QUOTE=lunch998]I think either way he would have lost. Jethro Tull>Stones.[/QUOTE]

Hehe, yeah.

[QUOTE=rock not rolled]Heh, that's interesting. Jagger didn't pick the band that would turn out to be much better than his own.

*I have about 10 more days of ban left :([/QUOTE]

You know what else I found strange about that?

Page played on some Stones track when he was into the whole session guitarist thing. Then here he comes, with a new band, and Jagger didn't even seem to be interested in them. I mean, Page played for the Stones, they could at least put him on the bill. Tull did one song, what would if cost them to put Zeppelin on with just one song as well.

[QUOTE=lunch998]I think either way he would have lost. Jethro Tull>Stones.[/QUOTE]

thats a pretty bold statement. i like Jethro tull better, but the Stones were definitely way bigger in terms of famousness.

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]Zeppelin, better than the Stones?

(flies the WTF Flag)[/QUOTE]

That's just a matter of personal taste.

But when Zeppelin came along, they sold more albums and filled out more stadiums than the Stones were (that was during the 70's).

[QUOTE=slowhand]You know what else I found strange about that?

Page played on some Stones track when he was into the whole session guitarist thing. Then here he comes, with a new band, and Jagger didn't even seem to be interested in them. I mean, Page played for the Stones, they could at least put him on the bill. Tull did one song, what would if cost them to put Zeppelin on with just one song as well.[/QUOTE]

Yea but he was paid as a session guitarist. Jagger didn't owe him anything after that. Besides it turns out that Page made out just fine without Jagger giving him the gig.

[QUOTE=slowhand]You know what else I found strange about that?

Page played on some Stones track when he was into the whole session guitarist thing. Then here he comes, with a new band, and Jagger didn't even seem to be interested in them. I mean, Page played for the Stones, they could at least put him on the bill. Tull did one song, what would if cost them to put Zeppelin on with just one song as well.[/QUOTE]

Hehe, well being in The Rolling Stones, Jagger was allowed to have that big an ego.

Your classic rock knowledge is impressive, slowhand.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Yea but he was paid as a session guitarist. Jagger didn't owe him anything after that. Besides it turns out that Page made out just fine without Jagger giving him the gig.[/QUOTE]

Still, you would think he would have a good heart, and to put him on a track instead of Richards... I mean, that must mean they thought he was better than Richards to do that track.

I think if I was in Jagger's position I would have considered putting them on the bill just because of that.

its somewhat weird thinking about how big the Stones are. like some people consider them the greatest band of all time, but think about it...

early to mid sixties mod era: the Who, and the Beatles, were better than the Stones

later sixties psychadelic era: tons of bands were better than the Stones

seventies arena rock: Zeppelin, Floyd, The Who, countless bands were bigger than the Stones

eighties: they still put out albums, and toured a lot, but really didn't do anything too amazing.

90's to now: still nothing that was too great.

i think they are so famous, just because they have been touring and putting out albums for so long, they never really went away. there has always been better bands than them.

[QUOTE=rock not rolled]Hehe, well being in The Rolling Stones, Jagger was allowed to have that big an ego.

Your classic rock knowledge is impressive, slowhand.[/QUOTE]

That happens when you are bored and have nothing else to do. Of course, when I'm interested in something, I tried to find as much of information on that thing as I possibly can.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]its somewhat weird thinking about how big the Stones are. like some people consider them the greatest band of all time, but think about it...

early to mid sixties mod era: the Who, and the Beatles, were better than the Stones

later sixties psychadelic era: tons of bands were better than the Stones

seventies arena rock: Zeppelin, Floyd, The Who, countless bands were bigger than the Stones

eighties: they still put out albums, and toured a lot, but really didn't do anything too amazing.

90's to now: still nothing that was too great.

i think they are so famous, just because they have been touring and putting out albums for so long, they never really went away. there has always been better bands than them.[/QUOTE]

Good points. I think they get a lot of credit for being their at the beginning of the British invasion and really influencing and moving rock music. Their influence>their music in my opinion.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]its somewhat weird thinking about how big the Stones are. like some people consider them the greatest band of all time, but think about it...

early to mid sixties mod era: the Who, and the Beatles, were better than the Stones

later sixties psychadelic era: tons of bands were better than the Stones

seventies arena rock: Zeppelin, Floyd, The Who, countless bands were bigger than the Stones

eighties: they still put out albums, and toured a lot, but really didn't do anything too amazing.

90's to now: still nothing that was too great.

i think they are so famous, just because they have been touring and putting out albums for so long, they never really went away. there has always been better bands than them.[/QUOTE]

They also were part of the first wave of the British Invension. I think they are so big because they were the bad boys of music during those days. Today they seem tame, but back then, they were outrages, probably the Eminem of that period.

(I never thought I would put the Rolling Stones and Eminem on the same sentence... )

Plus, they kept rock alive after the disaster at Altamont, the Beatles' breakup, and the deaths of Hendrix and Morrison.

Oh, and their best material (Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, Beggars' Banquet, Exile on Main Street) is fantastic.

ya thats true. they were known more for their personalities than other bands at the time. they were so much more raw and sexual, than say...the beatles.

i'm sure you all know this, but in American Pie, Don Mclean refered to Mick Jagger as the devil. He hated Mick Jagger so much.

I have a friend who hates the Stones just because of Mick Jagger... actually, because of how Jagger performs... weird.

But I'm slowly getting him into the Stones. 'Sympathy for the Devil' and 'Paint it Black' are very tempting.

ya actually my favourites are Sympathy for the Devil, and Paint it Black. but i also love You Can't Always Get What You Want.

Wild Horses is one of their best.

Well, I like a lot of songs by them, but those are the ones that my friend actually tolerates.

i've got an off topic question, i'd ask elsewhere, but i know you guys the best so i like talking to you.

is it bad to use alcohol and marijuana at the same time? i was telling my friend about last night, and i mentioned i smoked some weed, and then drank some vodka..and he's like "mixing alcohol and weed is how you die, it's so bad for you."

i had never heard that before, is what he's telling me fact or fiction?

and once again, sorry for the spam.

The Best Classic Rock Bands

The Who

The Beatles

Bowie

The Doors

Zeppelin

Stones

AC/DC ( in a way cuz their albums came out in the 70s)

Clapton's bands
Thats all i can think of

I don't think it would kill you, but it would leave you in a very f.ucked up state later on.

Unless you plan on over-drinking-and-smoking it won't kill you.