Dude, this is one hell of a passive-aggressive thread.
You call it "CLAPTON IS GOD" start it off with "who are these folls claiming he stole this and that dude is a master, etc etc" and within 2 posts you've already scaled it back to "just with Cream" and now we've come around to "Clapton is good."
Hey man, I agree - Clapton is good. One of the top 100 guitarists of the 60's and 70's
No, Clapton is a God. This thread is further proof of how little people know about playing music.
The guy is a virtuoso. His phrasing is perfect. His tone is brilliant.
I can understand people not liking what he plays as a matter of taste or because they feel he's ripped people off, but he is a guitar god. I mean, duh.
The guy is a virtuoso. His phrasing is perfect. His tone is brilliant.
Tha truth. I don't know, for me personally he is one of the gods. Maybe i'm a little inchoherent hehe
It's a little unfortunate the whole "Clapton is god" thing happened, cause then folls gotta get defensive and can't appreciate him for what he is...for me he is one of the greatest
So flailing around and doing some gimmicky nonsense with his guitar would make him a better guitar player?
People are confusing his playing with his performance.
Clapton the guitar player is a god; Clapton the performer is not a god.
i guess the bottom line for me is that i don't deny clapton is a very skilled technical guitar player but i think he is absolutely no fun. and for me a major stipulation for enjoying ANY form of rock n roll is the "fun-ness" and aliveness of the sound. maybe that's just a personal preference. if it was all about the "playing" then i could listen to stevie ray vaughn 24/7 without feeling nauseous
So flailing around and doing some gimmicky nonsense with his guitar would make him a better guitar player?
People are confusing his playing with his performance.
Clapton the guitar player is a god; Clapton the performer is not a god.
i guess the bottom line for me is that i don't deny clapton is a very skilled technical guitar player but i think he is absolutely no fun. and for me a major stipulation for enjoying ANY form of rock n roll is the "fun-ness" and aliveness of the sound. maybe that's just a personal preference. if it was all about the "playing" then i could listen to stevie ray vaughn 24/7 without feeling nauseous
clapton is not yngwie though. he is not just a technical virtuoso
So flailing around and doing some gimmicky nonsense with his guitar would make him a better guitar player?
People are confusing his playing with his performance.
Clapton the guitar player is a god; Clapton the performer is not a god.
i guess the bottom line for me is that i don't deny clapton is a very skilled technical guitar player but i think he is absolutely no fun. and for me a major stipulation for enjoying ANY form of rock n roll is the "fun-ness" and aliveness of the sound. maybe that's just a personal preference. if it was all about the "playing" then i could listen to stevie ray vaughn 24/7 without feeling nauseous
Agree completely. I don't think Clapton is asking people to judge his music according to how fun it is, though.
I think it's very interesting that the Blues became so popular in England. It's undeniable that The Beatles, Stones, and especially Clapton spent so much effort to perfecting, and performing the Blues.
Hendrix brought real Blues to england and it changed the world. Could this be one of the earliest forms of white apologist culture embracing southern black culture?
Because, teach, I'm making the point that the arts and superiority within them are not about technical prowness or ability to copy the masters, but something more, the intangibles, soul, feeling, creativity. It applies to music as well as painting. You really needed me to explain this to you? You keep making the argument that Clapton is techically perfect, therefore he is a guitar "god." I disagree. I put forward the notion that technical ability and the talent to copy note-for-note the solos and licks of better guitarists does not make one special, that a true guitar "God" will be original, with their own style, their own sound, and a feeling to their music that captures that thing known as soul.
Hendrix brought real Blues to england and it changed the world. Could this be one of the earliest forms of white apologist culture embracing southern black culture?
- spidey
Dude, the UK was all-fired up about the Blues years before Hendrix got there. I'd also argue that, outside of a few tunes, the Beatles were hardly caught up at all in "perfecting and performing" the Blues.
I think it's very interesting that the Blues became so popular in England. It's undeniable that The Beatles, Stones, and especially Clapton spent so much effort to perfecting, and performing the Blues.
Hendrix brought real Blues to england and it changed the world. Could this be one of the earliest forms of white apologist culture embracing southern black culture?
I ride for Clapton but y'all need to check this shit here where he is learnin from some real mofos ON WAX.
You keep making the argument that Clapton is techically perfect, therefore he is a guitar "god." I disagree. I put forward the notion that technical ability and the talent to copy note-for-note the solos and licks of better guitarists does not make one special, that a true guitar "God" will be original, with their own style, their own sound, and a feeling to their music that captures that thing known as soul.
Before you go on another tirade, why don't you do me a favor and get my argument straight instead of cherry-picking it to suit you.
Since you're unable to do so, my argument has been that 1) Clapton is technically gifted 2) He has his own sound as evidenced by Fender commodifying it with a line of guitars 3) That he has a great imagination in the way he constructs solos during improvisation.
Do the numbers help?
So he copied some blues masters in his younger years, so did Picasso copy the painting masters in his younger years. Ever heard of influences? Did Clapton not sign an autograph for you or something?
Hendrix brought real Blues to england and it changed the world. Could this be one of the earliest forms of white apologist culture embracing southern black culture?
- spidey
Dude, the UK was all-fired up about the Blues years before Hendrix got there. I'd also argue that, outside of a few tunes, the Beatles were hardly caught up at all in "perfecting and performing" the Blues.
True, they were more of a motown influenced.
Clapton dedicated his career to the Blues, and it's interesting now that a lot of people hate him for it now. Even Jimmy Page is a great example of blues appreciation that was borderline plagiarism.
I'm not a big clapton fan, but he had some moments.
There was a George Harrison tribute concert on tv. Clapton did a lot of the organizing. There were lots of celebrity guitar players up there taking their solo turns and what not. Clapton did a great job of hold everything together and coming up with just the right fills from off the original records.
Before you go on another tirade, why don't you do me a favor and get my argument straight instead of cherry-picking it to suit you.
Since you're unable to do so, my argument has been that 1) Clapton is technically gifted 2) He has his own sound as evidenced by Fender commodifying it with a line of guitars 3) That he has a great imagination in the way he constructs solos during improvisation.
Do the numbers help?
So he copied some blues masters in his younger years, so did Picasso copy the painting masters in his younger years. Ever heard of influences? Did Clapton not sign an autograph for you or something?
OK, can I go another tirade now? Fender making a line of guitars means nothing - except that the Clapton name is marketable. Clapton didn't just copy masters in his younger years, he continues to copy them to this day. He reached a creative peak around 1968 and even then was more than helped out by his often more talented collaborators.
I don't think I misunderstood your argument at all. You are claiming that technical proficiency is enough to make an artist great. I am arguing that it is not. We disagree about the level of creativity or "imagination" in his playing and soloing.
As for the corny autograph question, please note that I have already said in this thread that I appreciate some of, even alot of, his work. I like Cream's studio recordings. I like his playing with the Yardbirds. I like a bunch of stuff he was involved with. I don't have crazed hatred for him. I just think he is incredibly over-rated and far from one of the "best" guitarists of all time, the 60's, the UK, or whenever/wherever. I think he is a technically skilled but creatively lacking guitarist. Is that clear enough for you?
Oh, definitely. I will fully co-sign that the Beatles were highly influenced and tried to copy great R&B artists like Little Richard, Arthur Alexander, etc, as well as girl groups like the Shirelles, the Ronettes, etc. They were also just as influenced by rockabilly/rock n roll artists like Buddy Holly and the Everly Brothers.
But the "Blues" is something else altogether, IMO. Like how "Spidey" talked about Hendrix coming over ... but the famous UK beat bands were not influenced by Hendrix until years later, and the sound that came from his influence was often far from the Blues. The UK bands like the Stones, Animals & Yardbirds got the Blues bug from the original artists touring the UK throughout the late 50's/early 60's ... John Lee Hooker, Sonny Boy Williamson and Jimmy Reed were the biggest influences on these acts, due to both the popularity of their early 60's recordings, and their presence in Great Britain as touring artists.
Comments
Post-Cream is
The blues is about a lot of things though. And UK whitey-blues is partly about flashy guitar. And Clapton is dope on the flashy guitar tip.
Me either. I ride for Cream ... to a point.
Those 2 "Live Cream" records are the most boring
overblown noodlefests I think I've ever heard.
Cream being a great band does not = Clapton being God.
Dude, this is one hell of a passive-aggressive thread.
You call it "CLAPTON IS GOD" start it off with "who are these
folls claiming he stole this and that dude is a master, etc etc"
and within 2 posts you've already scaled it back to "just with
Cream" and now we've come around to "Clapton is good."
Hey man, I agree - Clapton is good. One of the top 100 guitarists
of the 60's and 70's
The guy is a virtuoso. His phrasing is perfect. His tone is brilliant.
I can understand people not liking what he plays as a matter of taste or because they feel he's ripped people off, but he is a guitar god. I mean, duh.
It's also further proof of what a pompous ass you can be.
that's easy. that beatclub cream clip was 1967. this blue cheer beat club clip is 68
Tha truth.
I don't know, for me personally he is one of the gods. Maybe i'm a little inchoherent hehe
It's a little unfortunate the whole "Clapton is god" thing happened, cause then folls gotta get defensive and can't appreciate him for what he is...for me he is one of the greatest
People are confusing his playing with his performance.
Clapton the guitar player is a god; Clapton the performer is not a god.
i guess the bottom line for me is that i don't deny clapton is a very skilled technical guitar player but i think he is absolutely no fun. and for me a major stipulation for enjoying ANY form of rock n roll is the "fun-ness" and aliveness of the sound. maybe that's just a personal preference. if it was all about the "playing" then i could listen to stevie ray vaughn 24/7 without feeling nauseous
clapton is not yngwie though. he is not just a technical virtuoso
Agree completely. I don't think Clapton is asking people to judge his music according to how fun it is, though.
that Norman Rockwell >>>>>> Pablo Picasso.
Hendrix brought real Blues to england and it changed the world. Could this be one of the earliest forms of white apologist culture embracing southern black culture?
- spidey
Why are you pretending you don't know?
Because, teach, I'm making the point that the arts
and superiority within them are not about technical
prowness or ability to copy the masters, but something
more, the intangibles, soul, feeling, creativity. It applies
to music as well as painting. You really needed me to
explain this to you? You keep making the argument that
Clapton is techically perfect, therefore he is a guitar
"god." I disagree. I put forward the notion that technical
ability and the talent to copy note-for-note the solos and
licks of better guitarists does not make one special, that
a true guitar "God" will be original, with their own style,
their own sound, and a feeling to their music that captures
that thing known as soul.
Rory Gallagher >>>>>>> Eric Clapton.
Dude, the UK was all-fired up about the Blues years
before Hendrix got there. I'd also argue that, outside
of a few tunes, the Beatles were hardly caught up at all
in "perfecting and performing" the Blues.
I ride for Clapton but y'all need to check this shit here where he is learnin from some real mofos ON WAX.
Before you go on another tirade, why don't you do me a favor and get my argument straight instead of cherry-picking it to suit you.
Since you're unable to do so, my argument has been that
1) Clapton is technically gifted
2) He has his own sound as evidenced by Fender commodifying it with a line of guitars
3) That he has a great imagination in the way he constructs solos during improvisation.
Do the numbers help?
So he copied some blues masters in his younger years, so did Picasso copy the painting masters in his younger years. Ever heard of influences? Did Clapton not sign an autograph for you or something?
True, they were more of a motown influenced.
Clapton dedicated his career to the Blues, and it's interesting now that a lot of people hate him for it now. Even Jimmy Page is a great example of blues appreciation that was borderline plagiarism.
I'm not a big clapton fan, but he had some moments.
- spidey
And still I don't like him.
"You really needed me to explain this to you?"
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
OK, can I go another tirade now?
Fender making a line of guitars means nothing - except that
the Clapton name is marketable.
Clapton didn't just copy masters in his younger years, he
continues to copy them to this day. He reached a creative
peak around 1968 and even then was more than helped out by
his often more talented collaborators.
I don't think I misunderstood your argument at all. You are
claiming that technical proficiency is enough to make an artist
great. I am arguing that it is not. We disagree about the level
of creativity or "imagination" in his playing and soloing.
As for the corny autograph question, please note that I have
already said in this thread that I appreciate some of, even
alot of, his work. I like Cream's studio recordings. I like
his playing with the Yardbirds. I like a bunch of stuff he was
involved with. I don't have crazed hatred for him. I just think
he is incredibly over-rated and far from one of the "best" guitarists
of all time, the 60's, the UK, or whenever/wherever. I think he is a
technically skilled but creatively lacking guitarist.
Is that clear enough for you?
Oh, definitely. I will fully co-sign that the Beatles
were highly influenced and tried to copy great R&B artists
like Little Richard, Arthur Alexander, etc, as well as girl
groups like the Shirelles, the Ronettes, etc. They were also
just as influenced by rockabilly/rock n roll artists like
Buddy Holly and the Everly Brothers.
But the "Blues" is something else altogether, IMO. Like how
"Spidey" talked about Hendrix coming over ... but the famous
UK beat bands were not influenced by Hendrix until years later,
and the sound that came from his influence was often far from
the Blues. The UK bands like the Stones, Animals & Yardbirds got
the Blues bug from the original artists touring the UK throughout
the late 50's/early 60's ... John Lee Hooker, Sonny Boy Williamson
and Jimmy Reed were the biggest influences on these acts, due to both
the popularity of their early 60's recordings, and their presence in
Great Britain as touring artists.