25-03-2013, 03:19
I was excited when I first saw this album, but then I saw it was a series of covers and I lost interest. I think some cover albums can be good and fun, but most are a waste of time. Like MH and CH said, one or two songs is fine. But a whole album seems overkill most of the time.
Like Santana. I love Carlos' music, but there's just not much about "Guitar Heaven" that I care about. And I don't mean that in just a like/dislike way... I mean, I just don't care about in any sense. I think "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is an amazing song but the rest of the album is just a complete waste of everyone's time. He's had some covers through the years that were really good and that I really enjoyed, but when you limit yourself to an album of just covers, I think you're locking yourself in a box and you're going to get some unmotivated junk. And too much unmotivated junk on one album just becomes overkill.
Same thing happened with Great White. They did "Once Bitten, Twice Shy" which was awesome and then years later did a covers album. It fell flat. There were a couple really good songs on it (Like Robin Trower's "Lady Love" which is a song that sounds like they were made to play), but the rest was just worthless. Then they had one of just straight Led Zep covers and package the two albums together as one. I can't even imagine listening to a legitimately successful band like GW sing and play other people's songs for ~2 hours straight with little of what made the band so great before.
Speaking of Trower, he just did a "covers" album which I really appreciate. "Roots and Branches" started as just a covers album but then he added a couple original songs to it because he realized there just weren't enough songs for him to cover/he couldn't just play other people's music for such a long period of time (Not really play... But spend so long recording and release, you know?). Its still mainly covers, but some of them have been re-arranged in such a way that its hard to tell its a cover (See his version of "Hound Dog;" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSKRtUFLTw). That's a type of cover album I can get behind and buy.
Tesla did a good one too; "Real to Reel." They went to some cabin or something and recorded a bunch of covers live, on a reel to reel machine. It wasn't a mind-blowing album or anything, but at least it sounded different.
Anyway, that's my mini-spiel about cover albums. I was bummed to see Clapton was doing a straight cover album and even more bummed reading this review and listening to the samples on Amazon. "Angel" sounds like a song that 20 years ago Clapton would have made incredible. But, I agree with CH... It just sounds unmotivated. There's been too many useless cover albums coming out recently from artists who shouldn't need to stoop to that level. Hopefully Clapton goes the way of Santana and has another mini-career revival after this (ala Santana ditching the guest vocalist concept and ignoring the charts to make Shape Shifter after "Guitar Heaven.").
Like Santana. I love Carlos' music, but there's just not much about "Guitar Heaven" that I care about. And I don't mean that in just a like/dislike way... I mean, I just don't care about in any sense. I think "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is an amazing song but the rest of the album is just a complete waste of everyone's time. He's had some covers through the years that were really good and that I really enjoyed, but when you limit yourself to an album of just covers, I think you're locking yourself in a box and you're going to get some unmotivated junk. And too much unmotivated junk on one album just becomes overkill.
Same thing happened with Great White. They did "Once Bitten, Twice Shy" which was awesome and then years later did a covers album. It fell flat. There were a couple really good songs on it (Like Robin Trower's "Lady Love" which is a song that sounds like they were made to play), but the rest was just worthless. Then they had one of just straight Led Zep covers and package the two albums together as one. I can't even imagine listening to a legitimately successful band like GW sing and play other people's songs for ~2 hours straight with little of what made the band so great before.
Speaking of Trower, he just did a "covers" album which I really appreciate. "Roots and Branches" started as just a covers album but then he added a couple original songs to it because he realized there just weren't enough songs for him to cover/he couldn't just play other people's music for such a long period of time (Not really play... But spend so long recording and release, you know?). Its still mainly covers, but some of them have been re-arranged in such a way that its hard to tell its a cover (See his version of "Hound Dog;" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSKRtUFLTw). That's a type of cover album I can get behind and buy.
Tesla did a good one too; "Real to Reel." They went to some cabin or something and recorded a bunch of covers live, on a reel to reel machine. It wasn't a mind-blowing album or anything, but at least it sounded different.
Anyway, that's my mini-spiel about cover albums. I was bummed to see Clapton was doing a straight cover album and even more bummed reading this review and listening to the samples on Amazon. "Angel" sounds like a song that 20 years ago Clapton would have made incredible. But, I agree with CH... It just sounds unmotivated. There's been too many useless cover albums coming out recently from artists who shouldn't need to stoop to that level. Hopefully Clapton goes the way of Santana and has another mini-career revival after this (ala Santana ditching the guest vocalist concept and ignoring the charts to make Shape Shifter after "Guitar Heaven.").