Clapton...

ESBlonde

I don't put myself in the Clapton fan club, I've never listened to the whole Beano album or seen him live. I own 461 Ocean boulevard (vinyl in the loft) and August on CD somewhere.

The phrase "Standing on the shoulders of giant" keeps springing to mind though.

Does anyone remember who was the second person to fly across the Atlantic, or the second person to scale everest, we only remember Scott of the antarctic becuase he was the englishman, the rest of the world know Ademsen as the man.

There had been Link Wray, Dick Dale, Les Paul, Joe Brown, Chuck Berry, Bert Weedon, Hank Marvin, Scotty Moore, Chet Atkins etc. all active and famous before Clapton. No doubt they had some influence on him as a young player. But EC was influential on other guitar players around London and abroad before he was a household name. He was called slowhand because when he broke those thin banjo strings (frequently as it happens), he would have to restring - no spare guitar in those days, and he was given a 'slow hand clap' while everyone waited on him.

Cream were so called because everyone thought the members were the cream of thier profession at the time. There was no second choice for any of the positions, it was all about waiting for them all to be available to start the project.

Clapton always considerred himself just a journeyman guitarist and tried to shun the mantal of guitar god, this was part of the problem that led to his abuse of substances after cream.

It's said when Clapton first saw Hendrix he thought about giving up breifly. But Hendrix had no following until that time and Clapton was already referred to as god.

Clapton was the first and iirc only 'famous' musician to be invited to record by and with the Beatles (you might have heard of them).

Ask people in the street to name a great guitarist and I suspect Clapton is right up there despite the fact that he's no great front man publicist.

He's also one of the few that can gather huge numbers of musicians on stage at the same time just by inviting them. the crossroads festival being a case in point and he frequently got invited to guest with other band and musicians.

You might not think of him as one of the greats, but it seems a lot of people do, is it just possible that thats what makes him great?

Iamnobody

^ Great post - you can’t rewrite history and EC is is most likely consider by a lot of people between the age of say 30-70 as a great guitarist. It doesn’t matter whether we think he is or not.

Matt_McG

Feel is one of those intangibles people reach for.

Often it just means, "I like/prefer this person's playing more than I like this other one."  Or, "I respect this artist's work more than I respect that artist's work."

 That's fair enough. I feel exactly the same way about certain players. But it's not something where you can point and say, as a matter of objective fact, that this player has better feel than that player. (OK, there are extreme cases. Derek Trucks on a good day, versus, say, some shredder like Rusty Cooley, or whatever)

Clapton, in the linked video above, is, to my ears, not very good. By his own standards. In fact, to my ears, it's NOT an amazing piece of playing that puts some upstart in his place. It's pedestrian blooz-by-numbers, not even in time, and his tone is terrible.

But, you might well prefer it to Mayer, which is totally fine. There'll be another day when I'd be raving about something that other people thing is crap. Each to their own.

That's not to laud Mayer, either. What Mayer is doing is a pastiche of what Clapton himself played in the past. Clapton's influence is all over it. It's just that (to my ears), on this particular day, Clapton wasn't all that.

crunchman

Great isn't about the number of notes you play.  For me, someone like BB King is great but a whole bunch of people who could play 8 times as many notes aren't great.

Clapton is one of the greats.  Like most people with a long career, his output has been of varying quality.  It's very hard to keep consistently high quality output across a long career.   There are a lot of bands that peak with their first or second albums, and never get near to them again.  Clapton has done better than most in that regard, but if people regard his earlier work as better, then he's not alone in that.

rlw

Did someone really say he plays without emotion.  Look at him. WTF is driving this performance?  Do you have to innovate to be great or just supremely good at what you do.  How many originals did BB ever pen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSntVg5s1Vs

Bridgehouse

rlw said:

Did someone really say he plays without emotion.  Look at him. WTF is driving this performance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSntVg5s1Vs

It’s often difficult to separate emotion and showmanship. Back in the early days he was pretty wooden...

rossi

Matt_McG said:

What makes you think that Clapton is making Mayer look bad there? To my ears, Clapton isn't in time, and his phrasing is a mess, like he isn't even hearing the people playing behind him.

Dont ever try playing the blues .stick to Cliff Richard.

Matt_McG

Probably just as well that I have no ambitions to play the "blues".

And, for what it's worth, I think I've been pretty fair and polite above: both acknowledging Clapton as an important figure, and also, being politely dissenting about how good that particular performance is, as I say above, by Clapton's own standards. I could point to cracking performances by him, where I think he sounds pretty good. That isn't one of them.

I think I'm right, and that those who disagree are blinded by reverence for the guy, and need to listen differently. But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. 

JezWynd

But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. Which is why all these Best and Greatest threads go nowhere and resolve into a list of personal preferences.

EricTheWeary

JezWynd said:

But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. 

That was Rory Gallagher not Clappo. 














 

Bridgehouse

JezWynd said:

But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. Which is why all these Best and Greatest threads go nowhere and resolve into a list of personal preferences.

To be fair, the OP was trying to understand why so many people revered Clapton when in their opinion he was well off the mark.

not_the_dj

Bridgehouse said:

rlw said:

Did someone really say he plays without emotion.  Look at him. WTF is driving this performance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSntVg5s1Vs

It’s often difficult to separate emotion and showmanship. Back in the early days he was pretty wooden...

Back in the early days he was incredibly shy and self conscious.

darthed1981

Bridgehouse said:

randerson said:

I think a point to make is, the electric guitar as an instrument has evolved so fast in such a short space of time, and the time an place of the guitarist in question is extremely relevant.

Listen to a solo on a 'barely' electric guitar in 1946 (the year Clapton was born) and one in 1986. Hardly sounds like the same instrument. Yet each learned from what came before. Case in point: Eddie Van Halen's main inspiration? Eric Clapton.

I think that guitarists revere guitarists too much. 

OK, so the instrument developed quickly, but you could argue that the synth developed at a much more rapid pace and invited a much higher degree of innovation without the same revered-labelling being applied to synth players. 

I actually think the “influence” thing has, if anything, held back development of how the guitar could be used in music, and maybe, just maybe, it would be more influential today without the constant stream of historical navel gazing at bygone blooze greats....

Posts like this are why you have a bazillion frets.

I couldn't agree more.

steven70

JezWynd said:

But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. 

Hang on, wasn't that the other guy...you know, the Irish fella?

Now he was pretty good too...

Edit: Sorry that was really quite poor. 

JezWynd

steven70 said:

JezWynd said:

But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. 

Hang on, wasn't that the other guy...you know, the Irish fella?

Now he was pretty good too...

Edit: Sorry that was really quite poor. 

Not as poor as my iPad posting chops.

poopot

Clapton cashed in on a niche genre of music, no different to that other middle class white bloke... whatshisname... vanilla ice!

steven70

Bridgehouse said:

I think that guitarists revere guitarists too much. 

OK, so the instrument developed quickly, but you could argue that the synth developed at a much more rapid pace and invited a much higher degree of innovation without the same revered-labelling being applied to synth players. 

I actually think the “influence” thing has, if anything, held back development of how the guitar could be used in music, and maybe, just maybe, it would be more influential today without the constant stream of historical navel gazing at bygone blooze greats....

I'm gonna respectfully disagree (kind of)...

While constantly looking backwards is not useful (if it's the only direction you're looking in), I don't think admiring something which has already been done constitutes navel gazing.

Appreciating inherent beauty should not be directly at odds with the urge to grow. Also, I would disagree that 'developing' an instrument is the only criteria worth using when appreciating or making music.

Yes, blues music has 'been done' (some of it getting on for 100 years old) - but that doesn't reduce its value. It's good because it is good, not because it's clever/innovative or anything else. Like a decent work of art...or a sunset.
It just is....if you like it, that is!

That's where Clapton's early stuff sits (for me)
For what it's worth, I think a lot of the guitarists from that era touched upon something which has not been achieved since- even by themselves. 

That said, not everyones, cup o' tea, and that's what makes the world interesting.

What am I banging on about?

jeromegreenday

Clapton Is my God, I saw Cream at the Royal Albert hall reunion. Just a strat and a Suhr modded twin, no pedals, the grungy thick brownface fuzz coming out of that amp melted my face. 

He can play a song 10 times and do a different solo every time

He can play, jazz, rock, blues, country, acoustic, reggae. Even had his TDP project i believe (dance music) He is one of the few guitarist that is free to play whatever style he wants and can pull it off.

His acoustic style is totally different to his electric style,

He got to play with the bluesbreakers, Cream, Derek and the dominoes, blind faith , the yardbirds. All of us would kill to be in one of those bands.

His style and tone changes over the years,  from the cradle, riding with the king.He has something for everyone, if you cant find one album in his back catalogue that you couldn't even give a curt nod to, I wouldn't trust you!

As has been stated on a good day he cant be touched, I saw him with Jeff beck at the 02 and Jeff owned him that night, Jeff's technique and tone won the night.

ICBM

jeromegreenday said:

Just a strat and a Suhr modded twin, no pedals ... grungy thick brownface fuzz

There's a 25dB active mid boost circuit in the guitar, which explains a lot of that.

Not sure why 'no pedals' should matter, anyway - one of his best studio solos is White Room, and that uses one...

For what it's worth, he's no gear snob - in addition to various pedals, active circuitry and pickups a lot of people look down on, he's also used Sessionette solid-state amps and MusicMan hybrid amps in the past.

springhead

ICBM said:

he's also used Sessionette solid-state amps and MusicMan hybrid amps in the past.

Yes but it was the 70’s and he was very pissed!