Discussion:
My Problem With the Cream Reunion w/ Clapton
(too old to reply)
grifty
2005-12-11 16:14:29 UTC
Permalink
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
Nil
2005-12-11 16:22:35 UTC
Permalink
My problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos
from the albums.
Clapton NEVER EVER played the same solo as the recorded version when
playing live. Not in the old days, and not now. That wasn't his thing -
what he does, and has always done, is improvise. Why would you expect
him to do something different now?
Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Just like he's done for his entire career.
Russell Watson
2005-12-13 02:14:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:22:35 -0600, Nil
Post by Nil
My problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos
from the albums.
Clapton NEVER EVER played the same solo as the recorded version when
playing live. Not in the old days, and not now. That wasn't his thing -
what he does, and has always done, is improvise. Why would you expect
him to do something different now?
Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Just like he's done for his entire career.
While not necessarly note-for-note from the studio versions, the live
stuff he did on the "Derek and the Dominoes Live at the Fillmore" is
mostly damn close. Differs mostly in lacking the parts Duane Allman
did on the studio album, but otherwise a lot of the same stuff played
the same way.


'97 FLSTF
winnard is in the house
2005-12-11 16:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
It's all about Clapton, he doesn't give a rip what the fans want. He's
about as overrated as Frank Sinatra.



winnard
Charles Beauchamp
2005-12-11 16:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by winnard is in the house
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul
or an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
It's all about Clapton, he doesn't give a rip what the fans want.
He's about as overrated as Frank Sinatra.
winnard
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
--
v/r Beau

I believe if you can't say something nice about somebody, you must be
talking about Hillary Clinton -- Jeff Foxworthy
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2005-12-11 17:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by winnard is in the house
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul
or an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
It's all about Clapton, he doesn't give a rip what the fans want.
He's about as overrated as Frank Sinatra.
winnard
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
Apples and kumquats
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Charles Beauchamp
2005-12-11 18:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by winnard is in the house
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing.
My problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos
from the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of
guitar players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their
bedrooms trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the
classics of all time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of
like the originals.' Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other
gripe was that Clapton's guitar tone was not right for Cream. He
should have used a Les Paul or an SG to get the original tone, not
a strat. I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always
play
the original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but
they do play the original 1st.
It's all about Clapton, he doesn't give a rip what the fans want.
He's about as overrated as Frank Sinatra.
winnard
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
Apples and kumquats
Kumquat...doesn't that seem like it should be a dirty word? Maybe replace
tits.
--
v/r Beau

I believe if you can't say something nice about somebody, you must be
talking about Hillary Clinton -- Jeff Foxworthy
Jaybyrd
2005-12-12 23:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
Apples and kumquats
we used to always have the Hendrix vs Clapton discussion when I was a
kid. Ultimately I think I prefer Hendrix. But you're right they are
completely different styles. My favorite 70's guitarist was Steve
Howe.
eDog
2005-12-11 23:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
But I think that Clapton's screaming guitar with the Yardbirds and Mayall
was the inspiration for the others who followed, including Hendrix.

Being the first to do something counts for something.

Sure guitars were getting louder. You could make the case that when Muddy
Waters played in London and turned out to be a loud electric act rather
than a folk singer the British guitar slingers got cracking.

But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like the
notes were never going to stop ringing.
James Schrumpf
2005-12-11 23:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by eDog
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
But I think that Clapton's screaming guitar with the Yardbirds and
Mayall was the inspiration for the others who followed, including
Hendrix.
Being the first to do something counts for something.
Sure guitars were getting louder. You could make the case that when
Muddy Waters played in London and turned out to be a loud electric act
rather than a folk singer the British guitar slingers got cracking.
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like
the notes were never going to stop ringing.
In my personal experience, I've heard much better guitar work from David
Gilmour than from Eric Clapton -- but then I never listened to early Cream.

If I wanted to hear the Clapton equivalent to Gilmour's "Money", or "One of
These Days," or "Comfortably Numb", what would be the best bet?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2005-12-12 00:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by eDog
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
But I think that Clapton's screaming guitar with the Yardbirds and
Mayall was the inspiration for the others who followed, including
Hendrix.
Being the first to do something counts for something.
Sure guitars were getting louder. You could make the case that when
Muddy Waters played in London and turned out to be a loud electric act
rather than a folk singer the British guitar slingers got cracking.
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like
the notes were never going to stop ringing.
In my personal experience, I've heard much better guitar work from David
Gilmour than from Eric Clapton -- but then I never listened to early Cream.
If I wanted to hear the Clapton equivalent to Gilmour's "Money", or "One of
These Days," or "Comfortably Numb", what would be the best bet?
I'm a big fan of Gilmour as well , but come on! This is like asking what
is the YES equivalent of some Beegees number.
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 01:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Quiet, Zaphod Beeblebrox <***@comcast.net> -- I'm
transmitting rage.
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by eDog
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
But I think that Clapton's screaming guitar with the Yardbirds and
Mayall was the inspiration for the others who followed, including
Hendrix.
Being the first to do something counts for something.
Sure guitars were getting louder. You could make the case that when
Muddy Waters played in London and turned out to be a loud electric
act rather than a folk singer the British guitar slingers got
cracking.
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like
the notes were never going to stop ringing.
In my personal experience, I've heard much better guitar work from
David Gilmour than from Eric Clapton -- but then I never listened to
early Cream.
If I wanted to hear the Clapton equivalent to Gilmour's "Money", or
"One of These Days," or "Comfortably Numb", what would be the best
bet?
I'm a big fan of Gilmour as well , but come on! This is like asking
what is the YES equivalent of some Beegees number.
So clue me in. Like I said, I've never heard any of the "great" Clapton
work. Don't just freak out and run around with your hands in the air!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2005-12-12 02:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
transmitting rage.
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by eDog
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
But I think that Clapton's screaming guitar with the Yardbirds and
Mayall was the inspiration for the others who followed, including
Hendrix.
Being the first to do something counts for something.
Sure guitars were getting louder. You could make the case that when
Muddy Waters played in London and turned out to be a loud electric
act rather than a folk singer the British guitar slingers got
cracking.
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like
the notes were never going to stop ringing.
In my personal experience, I've heard much better guitar work from
David Gilmour than from Eric Clapton -- but then I never listened to
early Cream.
If I wanted to hear the Clapton equivalent to Gilmour's "Money", or
"One of These Days," or "Comfortably Numb", what would be the best
bet?
I'm a big fan of Gilmour as well , but come on! This is like asking
what is the YES equivalent of some Beegees number.
So clue me in. Like I said, I've never heard any of the "great" Clapton
work. Don't just freak out and run around with your hands in the air!
Older stuff:

Blind Faith
Cream
Yardbirds
(believe it or not, I'm NOT a big fan of Derek and the Dominoes...)

"Classic" stuff: Material in Slowhand

Newer Stuff:
Rush

All quite different, yet equally valid.

One of the best albums I've ever heard is called "Muddy and the Wolf"
where he jams with Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf - the combination is
just profound...
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
eDog
2005-12-12 03:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Well, if you buy into the case that Clapton briefly reigned as god as I do
you would think that the Beano album with John Mayal was really
spectacular. You would really dig some of the guitar parts with cream like
Spoonful.

He burned out early, but who was creating the Les Paul/Marshal tone before
him? Nobody.

The Les Pauls were discontinued guitars when he picked his up.
Post by James Schrumpf
So clue me in. Like I said, I've never heard any of the "great" Clapton
work. Don't just freak out and run around with your hands in the air!
--
Free advice worth twice the price!
RD Jones
2005-12-12 01:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by eDog
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like
the notes were never going to stop ringing.
I think Beck should be correctly credited for this.
Post by James Schrumpf
If I wanted to hear the Clapton equivalent to Gilmour's "Money", or "One of
These Days," or "Comfortably Numb", what would be the best bet?
Anything from Blind Faith, although Winwood gives him a run for his
money.

rd
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 01:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD Jones
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by eDog
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain
like the notes were never going to stop ringing.
I think Beck should be correctly credited for this.
Post by James Schrumpf
If I wanted to hear the Clapton equivalent to Gilmour's "Money", or
"One of These Days," or "Comfortably Numb", what would be the best
bet?
Anything from Blind Faith, although Winwood gives him a run for his
money.
rd
Anything? I have both Musicmatch On Demand and Rhapsody, so I can get
anything that available that you might suggest.

Is there one or two tunes that really stick out for you, or a particular
album?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Nil
2005-12-12 02:28:58 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Dec 2005, James Schrumpf
Post by James Schrumpf
Is there one or two tunes that really stick out for you, or a
particular album?
Crossroads (live)
Sunshine of Your Love (studio)
Sleepy Time Time (live only)
Deserted Cities fo The Heart (studio)
I Feel Free (studio)
I'm So Glad (studio)
Sitting On Top of the World (live)
Badge (studio)
Sweet Wine (live)
NSU (studio & live)
Double Crossing Time (Bluesbreakers)
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2005-12-12 02:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nil
On 11 Dec 2005, James Schrumpf
Post by James Schrumpf
Is there one or two tunes that really stick out for you, or a
particular album?
Crossroads (live)
Sunshine of Your Love (studio)
Sleepy Time Time (live only)
Deserted Cities fo The Heart (studio)
I Feel Free (studio)
I'm So Glad (studio)
Sitting On Top of the World (live)
Badge (studio)
Sweet Wine (live)
NSU (studio & live)
Double Crossing Time (Bluesbreakers)
Yes!

BTW, the John Mayall and Bluesbreakers album is one of my all-time favs...
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Nil
2005-12-12 03:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by Nil
Crossroads (live)
Sunshine of Your Love (studio)
Sleepy Time Time (live only)
Deserted Cities fo The Heart (studio)
I Feel Free (studio)
I'm So Glad (studio)
Sitting On Top of the World (live)
Badge (studio)
Sweet Wine (live)
NSU (studio & live)
Double Crossing Time (Bluesbreakers)
Yes!
BTW, the John Mayall and Bluesbreakers album is one of my all-time favs...
Great album! I actually meant to list "Have You Heard" from that album,
rather than Double Crossing Time - they're both good, but Have You
Heard takes my breath away.

Another one I should have listed: "Presence of the Lord" from Blind
Faith.
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 03:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Quiet, Zaphod Beeblebrox <***@comcast.net> -- I'm
transmitting rage.
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by Nil
On 11 Dec 2005, James Schrumpf
Post by James Schrumpf
Is there one or two tunes that really stick out for you, or a
particular album?
Crossroads (live)
Sunshine of Your Love (studio)
Sleepy Time Time (live only)
Deserted Cities fo The Heart (studio)
I Feel Free (studio)
I'm So Glad (studio)
Sitting On Top of the World (live)
Badge (studio)
Sweet Wine (live)
NSU (studio & live)
Double Crossing Time (Bluesbreakers)
Yes!
BTW, the John Mayall and Bluesbreakers album is one of my all-time favs...
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and realized/remembered why
I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure blues. It just... bores me
after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink Floyd, while definitely blues-
oriented (duh), have a higher rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I
never really took to Clapton.

Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Nil
2005-12-12 03:31:24 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Dec 2005, James Schrumpf
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like
pure blues.
That's certainly your perogative. However, I consider Deserted Cities
of the Heart, I Feel Free, Badge, NSU, and many other Cream tunes to be
quite far from "pure blues".
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 03:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nil
On 11 Dec 2005, James Schrumpf
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like
pure blues.
That's certainly your perogative. However, I consider Deserted Cities
of the Heart, I Feel Free, Badge, NSU, and many other Cream tunes to be
quite far from "pure blues".
Maybe I missed them in my picks. I'll check them out too.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 03:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Quiet, James Schrumpf <***@adelphia.nospamnet> -- I'm
transmitting rage.
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Nil
On 11 Dec 2005, James Schrumpf
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like
pure blues.
That's certainly your perogative. However, I consider Deserted Cities
of the Heart, I Feel Free, Badge, NSU, and many other Cream tunes to be
quite far from "pure blues".
Maybe I missed them in my picks. I'll check them out too.
Oh yeah. I'd forgotten those old Cream tunes. Quite removed from pure
blues, indeed.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Jeff Davis
2005-12-12 14:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and realized/remembered why
I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure blues. It just... bores me
after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink Floyd, while definitely blues-
oriented (duh), have a higher rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I
never really took to Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.

Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
a***@redshark.goodshow.net
2005-12-12 19:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and realized/remembered why
I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure blues. It just... bores me
after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink Floyd, while definitely blues-
oriented (duh), have a higher rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I
never really took to Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
I actually like his tone, but it really wouldn't work outside that band...
and he really isn't spectacular as a soloist, I can think of a dozen people
better.
Post by Jeff Davis
Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
I think pure blues is just a little too "comfortable" for Clapton - when it
comes to it his playing is good enough, but it has absolutley no edge or
rawness to it. His rock playing didn't used to have that problem - and seems
to be good with Cream - but it has even been pretty bland from what I've
heard from his last couple non Cream tours.
--
Aaron
Nil
2005-12-12 19:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
I actually like his tone, but it really wouldn't work outside that band...
Well, Paul McCartney, Pete Townsend, Kate Bush, Brian Ferry, and others
might disagree.
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
and he really isn't spectacular as a soloist,
I disagree. I think he's a superior soloist. Excellent. Very melodic,
and tone to die for.
Jeff Davis
2005-12-12 19:39:15 UTC
Permalink
I disagree. I think he's [Gilmour] a superior soloist. Excellent. Very melodic,
and tone to die for.
In a large enough dose, it just might be.
Larry
2005-12-12 19:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Are we talking about David Gilmour here?

If so, what's not to like?

-Larry
Post by Jeff Davis
I disagree. I think he's [Gilmour] a superior soloist. Excellent. Very
melodic, and tone to die for.
In a large enough dose, it just might be.
Jeff Davis
2005-12-12 20:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Are we talking about David Gilmour here?
If so, what's not to like?
-Larry
I think his guitar sounds like a head cold.
Post by Larry
Post by Jeff Davis
I disagree. I think he's [Gilmour] a superior soloist. Excellent. Very
melodic, and tone to die for.
In a large enough dose, it just might be.
Ricky Hunt
2005-12-12 20:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by Larry
Are we talking about David Gilmour here?
If so, what's not to like?
-Larry
I think his guitar sounds like a head cold.
I don't care much for his later tones but his early stuff and playing in
general is some of the tastiest stuff I've ever heard. As for his later tone
if you've ever seen his setup it's amazing any guitar signal makes it to the
amps. This is overboard by any definition in my book:
http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/equipment.html
Larry
2005-12-12 22:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Really? I sure don't hear that.

I think his bending control is amazing.

-Larry
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by Larry
Are we talking about David Gilmour here?
If so, what's not to like?
-Larry
I think his guitar sounds like a head cold.
Post by Larry
Post by Jeff Davis
I disagree. I think he's [Gilmour] a superior soloist. Excellent. Very
melodic, and tone to die for.
In a large enough dose, it just might be.
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 22:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure
blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink
Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
I actually like his tone, but it really wouldn't work outside that
band... and he really isn't spectacular as a soloist, I can think of a
dozen people better.
I heard Gilmour live on SNL many years ago, and it was awful. My wife
and I sat there wincing, trying to figure out why he sounded so flat.

When I heard him live with the Floyd, he was just fine. Maybe that's a
good criticism of his playing.

I also agree he's not "spectacular as a soloist," but the licks he played
for those particular songs are classic, and cannot be topped.

Were they crazy flights of technical dazzlement? No, but he made it "cry
and sing" for sure.
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
Post by Jeff Davis
Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
I think pure blues is just a little too "comfortable" for Clapton -
when it comes to it his playing is good enough, but it has absolutley
no edge or rawness to it. His rock playing didn't used to have that
problem - and seems to be good with Cream - but it has even been
pretty bland from what I've heard from his last couple non Cream
tours.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Jeff Davis
2005-12-13 13:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
I heard Gilmour live on SNL many years ago, and it was awful.
SNL has deliberately had terrible sound for their musical acts. It's one
of their affectations. Dropped mikes. Too much gain. Rotten balance.
It's to make the performance seem ... live! (All of Ed Sullivan's acts,
from 1948 on, performed live and they never had the problems SNL has had
consistently.)
a***@redshark.goodshow.net
2005-12-13 16:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure
blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink
Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
I actually like his tone, but it really wouldn't work outside that
band... and he really isn't spectacular as a soloist, I can think of a
dozen people better.
I heard Gilmour live on SNL many years ago, and it was awful. My wife
and I sat there wincing, trying to figure out why he sounded so flat.
When I heard him live with the Floyd, he was just fine. Maybe that's a
good criticism of his playing.
I think it is - he sounds pretty good in very specific musical situations,
but he has never seemed extremely rounded.
Post by James Schrumpf
I also agree he's not "spectacular as a soloist," but the licks he played
for those particular songs are classic, and cannot be topped.
I agree.
Post by James Schrumpf
Were they crazy flights of technical dazzlement? No, but he made it "cry
and sing" for sure.
I'm not big on technicality (hell, I'd rather listen to a Neil Young solo
than Yngwie Malmsteen) - but I am big on interest, emotion, and originality.
--
Aaron
Ricky Hunt
2005-12-13 17:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
I'm not big on technicality (hell, I'd rather listen to a Neil Young solo
than Yngwie Malmsteen) - but I am big on interest, emotion, and originality.
I agree. If I had to pick between being technically brilliant or emotionally
moving I'd take the later.
Jeff Davis
2005-12-13 17:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Hunt
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
I'm not big on technicality (hell, I'd rather listen to a Neil Young solo
than Yngwie Malmsteen) - but I am big on interest, emotion, and originality.
I agree. If I had to pick between being technically brilliant or emotionally
moving I'd take the later.
Music and the number of notes are pretty much irrelevant. Don Everly has
never played anything but rhythm guitar and you can pick his sound out
almost anywhere. On "All Along the Watchtower" -- Dave Mason's 12 string
is unmistakable. Curtis Mayfield never dazzled anyone with notes and yet
his sound is all his own. Steve Cropper never needed to do anything but
riff or strum. When Lieber and Stoller put together session musicians to
back The Coaster's great records, they usually chose jazz musicians to
push them along. No sides ever rocked harder and if there was ever an
instrumental solo, I can't remember one.
peevee_hermann
2005-12-13 18:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by Ricky Hunt
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
I'm not big on technicality (hell, I'd rather listen to a Neil Young solo
than Yngwie Malmsteen) - but I am big on interest, emotion, and originality.
I agree. If I had to pick between being technically brilliant or emotionally
moving I'd take the later.
Music and the number of notes are pretty much irrelevant. Don Everly has
never played anything but rhythm guitar and you can pick his sound out
almost anywhere. On "All Along the Watchtower" -- Dave Mason's 12 string
is unmistakable. Curtis Mayfield never dazzled anyone with notes and yet
his sound is all his own. Steve Cropper never needed to do anything but
riff or strum. When Lieber and Stoller put together session musicians to
back The Coaster's great records, they usually chose jazz musicians to
push them along. No sides ever rocked harder and if there was ever an
instrumental solo, I can't remember one.
whoever played saxophone on those old Coasters singles fucking RAWKED.

Charlie Brown, Along Came Jones, Yakkety Yak, some fine playing there,
and personally I couldnt imagine them being half as good without that
sax work. Just my opinion.
a***@redshark.goodshow.net
2005-12-13 17:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Hunt
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
I'm not big on technicality (hell, I'd rather listen to a Neil Young solo
than Yngwie Malmsteen) - but I am big on interest, emotion, and originality.
I agree. If I had to pick between being technically brilliant or emotionally
moving I'd take the later.
A perfect explanation of why I love the _Sex Pistols_ and can't stand _Dream
Theatre_
--
Aaron
James Schrumpf
2005-12-12 22:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and realized/remembered
why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure blues. It just...
bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink Floyd, while
definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher rock-to-blues ratio.
I guess that's why I never really took to Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
Post by Jeff Davis
Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
S'funny -- I like Gilmour's tone, but Clap's is too fuzzy for my taste.
Some kind of yin/yang at work here, apparently.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Jeff Davis
2005-12-12 23:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and realized/remembered
why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure blues. It just...
bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink Floyd, while
definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher rock-to-blues ratio.
I guess that's why I never really took to Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
I suppose that is a private word.

Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do more
than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement. A soloist is the focus. I also remember his work with Kate
Bush. His guitar sound always sounded of a piece with Pink Floyd's
rather phlegh-heavy tone.
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
S'funny -- I like Gilmour's tone, but Clap's is too fuzzy for my taste.
Some kind of yin/yang at work here, apparently.
As soon as technology let tones get beefier, guitarists kind of
abandoned that whole 50s ringing treble thing. (I was just listening to
the amazing Gene Vincent and the Red Caps stuff with Cliff Gallup. You
want clear tone? Mr. Gallup's your man.
Nil
2005-12-12 23:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's featured as
a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard "Time", and
"Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big radio hits.
James Schrumpf
2005-12-13 00:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nil
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's featured as
a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard "Time", and
"Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big radio hits.
I _yam_ a huge Floyd fan, and I'd certainly agree that especially "Money,"
and especially _especially_ "Comfortably Numb" are examples of Gilmour at
his best. Prolly his signature solos.

His solos on "Echos" are quite different, but they show another side of his
abilities, too. Very soft and haunting.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
James Schrumpf
2005-12-13 07:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Quiet, "Jefferson N Glapski" <***@PENNSTATEglapski.com> -- I'm
transmitting rage.
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Nil
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's featured
as a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard "Time",
and "Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big radio
hits.
I _yam_ a huge Floyd fan, and I'd certainly agree that especially
"Money," and especially _especially_ "Comfortably Numb" are examples
of Gilmour at his best. Prolly his signature solos.
His solos on "Echos" are quite different, but they show another side
of his abilities, too. Very soft and haunting.
Listent to fucking Animals, you cocksucker!
"Animals" has been in my collection since 1977. Not my favorite, but it
has its moments. Can't remember offhand where his good stuff is in that
one.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Jefferson N Glapski
2005-12-13 05:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Nil
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's featured
as a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard "Time",
and "Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big radio
hits.
I _yam_ a huge Floyd fan, and I'd certainly agree that especially
"Money," and especially _especially_ "Comfortably Numb" are examples
of Gilmour at his best. Prolly his signature solos.
His solos on "Echos" are quite different, but they show another side
of his abilities, too. Very soft and haunting.
Listent to fucking Animals, you cocksucker!
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
Daniel Seriff
2005-12-13 02:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Don't you talk ugly to me, James Schrumpf. I'll send you to the moon with my
magic shirt!
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Nil
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's featured as
a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard "Time", and
"Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big radio hits.
I _yam_ a huge Floyd fan, and I'd certainly agree that especially "Money,"
and especially _especially_ "Comfortably Numb" are examples of Gilmour at
his best. Prolly his signature solos.
"Comfortably Numb" is possibly the best guitar solo ever recorded.
--
Daniel Seriff

People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the
point.
Jefferson N Glapski
2005-12-13 05:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Don't you talk ugly to me, James Schrumpf. I'll send you to the moon
with my magic shirt!
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Nil
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's
featured as a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard
"Time", and "Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big
radio hits.
I _yam_ a huge Floyd fan, and I'd certainly agree that especially
"Money," and especially _especially_ "Comfortably Numb" are examples
of Gilmour at his best. Prolly his signature solos.
"Comfortably Numb" is possibly the best guitar solo ever recorded.
The SNAMMP is taking the wrong stuff.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
a***@redshark.goodshow.net
2005-12-13 17:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Don't you talk ugly to me, James Schrumpf. I'll send you to the moon with my
magic shirt!
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Nil
Post by Jeff Davis
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement.
Well, then you shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm not
particularly a Pink Floyd fan, either, but I know that he's featured as
a soloist in many Pink Floyd songs. Surely you've heard "Time", and
"Money", and "Comfortably Numb" to name 3 of their big radio hits.
I _yam_ a huge Floyd fan, and I'd certainly agree that especially "Money,"
and especially _especially_ "Comfortably Numb" are examples of Gilmour at
his best. Prolly his signature solos.
"Comfortably Numb" is possibly the best guitar solo ever recorded.
You are high...

...and I LIKE that solo.
--
Aaron
Larry
2005-12-13 18:16:20 UTC
Permalink
It's great stuff, but personally I think the solo work in "Time" and "Shine
On You Crazy Diamond" (the full, un-neutered version) is considerably
better.

SOYCD is a very complex song, with numerous changes in style, tone and
progression. Possibly their best song.

-Larry
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
Post by Daniel Seriff
"Comfortably Numb" is possibly the best guitar solo ever recorded.
You are high...
...and I LIKE that solo.
--
Aaron
Ricky Hunt
2005-12-13 04:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
"Comfortably Numb" is possibly the best guitar solo ever recorded.
It usually makes it into the top 10 of every "greatest solo" poll I've seen.
I consider them (both solos) perfect and a true joy to play. The first one
(in the major key) is just perfect in it's "hope" (with the soaring major
3rd) and juxtapositioned with the darker second solo perfectly states the
manic/depressive mood the song and lyrics calls for. You can't do much
better than that (so I guess I'd vote he's soloist AND colorist all at the
same time). The second solo is just basic pentatonics but the first solo is
sheer perfection for showing how much can be done just by tracing the chord
shapes and is worth of study on many levels. (I can't believe I just wrote
all that because I usually hate guys that dissect music in such a way but in
this case I think it's warranted).
scullen
2005-12-13 20:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Whenever anyone thinks a solo should be fast, I always think of the
"Comfortably Numb" solo because it proves that the perfect solo needs
to be MELODIC, not necessarily fast. I can't think of a more
expressive solo (to me of course).
James Schrumpf
2005-12-13 00:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure
blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink
Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
I suppose that is a private word.
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do more
than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement. A soloist is the focus. I also remember his work with
Kate Bush. His guitar sound always sounded of a piece with Pink
Floyd's rather phlegh-heavy tone.
So you've never actually heard his soaring solos on "Echoes," "Money" or
"Comfortably Numb"?

[snip]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Jeff Davis
2005-12-13 01:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like pure
blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the Pink
Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
I suppose that is a private word.
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do more
than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement. A soloist is the focus. I also remember his work with
Kate Bush. His guitar sound always sounded of a piece with Pink
Floyd's rather phlegh-heavy tone.
So you've never actually heard his soaring solos on "Echoes," "Money" or
"Comfortably Numb"?
[snip]
I've heard Money and Comfortably Numb. Are there other versions than the
ones that get played on the radio?
James Schrumpf
2005-12-13 01:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like
pure blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the
Pink Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
I suppose that is a private word.
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement. A soloist is the focus. I also remember his work with
Kate Bush. His guitar sound always sounded of a piece with Pink
Floyd's rather phlegh-heavy tone.
So you've never actually heard his soaring solos on "Echoes," "Money"
or "Comfortably Numb"?
[snip]
I've heard Money and Comfortably Numb. Are there other versions than
the ones that get played on the radio?
There are live versions, but those are definitive. You didn't like
either of those solos, and consider them "color" more than "solos"?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Jeff Davis
2005-12-13 13:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like
pure blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the
Pink Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
I suppose that is a private word.
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement. A soloist is the focus. I also remember his work with
Kate Bush. His guitar sound always sounded of a piece with Pink
Floyd's rather phlegh-heavy tone.
So you've never actually heard his soaring solos on "Echoes," "Money"
or "Comfortably Numb"?
[snip]
I've heard Money and Comfortably Numb. Are there other versions than
the ones that get played on the radio?
There are live versions, but those are definitive. You didn't like
either of those solos, and consider them "color" more than "solos"?
It's been awhile but isn't it a sax solo in "Money"? I don't know if
I've ever heard "Echoes" and the only memory I have of "Comfortably
Numb" is its plodding beat.
James Schrumpf
2005-12-14 01:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by James Schrumpf
I listened to a selection of the above tunes, and
realized/remembered why I prefer Gilmour: I don't really like
pure blues. It just... bores me after a while. Gilmour, and the
Pink Floyd, while definitely blues- oriented (duh), have a higher
rock-to-blues ratio. I guess that's why I never really took to
Clapton.
Not trying to put down the Slow Hand, just stating my personal
preference.
Gilmour may play rock, but he seems to me to be a colorist than a
soloist. And I can't stand his tone.
How do you define "colorist" as opposed to a "soloist"?
I suppose that is a private word.
Not being able to stomach Pink Floyd, I've never heard Gilmour do
more than play little obligattos or doodle along with the general
arrangement. A soloist is the focus. I also remember his work with
Kate Bush. His guitar sound always sounded of a piece with Pink
Floyd's rather phlegh-heavy tone.
So you've never actually heard his soaring solos on "Echoes," "Money"
or "Comfortably Numb"?
[snip]
I've heard Money and Comfortably Numb. Are there other versions than
the ones that get played on the radio?
There are live versions, but those are definitive. You didn't like
either of those solos, and consider them "color" more than "solos"?
It's been awhile but isn't it a sax solo in "Money"? I don't know if
I've ever heard "Echoes" and the only memory I have of "Comfortably
Numb" is its plodding beat.
There is an awesome sax solo in "Money." There's also a kickass guitar
solo.

"Money" is one of the great tunes in rock'n'roll, ever.

And it's in seven time, mostly.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2005-12-12 23:49:06 UTC
Permalink
<SNIP>
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
S'funny -- I like Gilmour's tone, but Clap's is too fuzzy for my taste.
Some kind of yin/yang at work here, apparently.
I like both but I really don't think you can compare their styles at
all. Given a choice I much prefer Clapton, although there's plenty of
Floyd that I enjoy as well (and a bit of it that I don't - Animals comes
to mind...).

With Clapton, I think it's unfair to compare him with pure blues players
(Muddy Waters, BB King, Howling Wolf et al.). He's simply NOT a blues
purist. While he HAS recorded numerous hard core blues tunes, for the
most part what he played and gained a following for was rock, albeit
with a strong blues base. In fact he's "rockified" numerous classic
blues tunes (which of course upsets the purists, but I for one like his
style). As a pure blues man my favorite has always been Buddy Guy. But
for "bluesy" rock - well as the old saying goes, Clapton is God.
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
a***@redshark.goodshow.net
2005-12-13 17:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
<SNIP>
Post by James Schrumpf
Post by Jeff Davis
Clapton claims to prefer blues, but his playing kicks up a notch when
he's playing rock. Even on his signature solo -- Crossroads.
S'funny -- I like Gilmour's tone, but Clap's is too fuzzy for my taste.
Some kind of yin/yang at work here, apparently.
I like both but I really don't think you can compare their styles at
all. Given a choice I much prefer Clapton, although there's plenty of
Floyd that I enjoy as well (and a bit of it that I don't - Animals comes
to mind...).
With Clapton, I think it's unfair to compare him with pure blues players
(Muddy Waters, BB King, Howling Wolf et al.). He's simply NOT a blues
purist.
The problem is that recently he has tried to be. There really has been an
abandonment of rocking in an attempt to be a blues purist. It sounds like a
soulless white guy playing uninspired blues.
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
While he HAS recorded numerous hard core blues tunes, for the
most part what he played and gained a following for was rock, albeit
with a strong blues base. In fact he's "rockified" numerous classic
blues tunes (which of course upsets the purists, but I for one like his
style). As a pure blues man my favorite has always been Buddy Guy. But
for "bluesy" rock - well as the old saying goes, Clapton is God.
I'll take Duane Allman.
--
Aaron
Jeff Davis
2005-12-13 17:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
While [Clapton] HAS recorded numerous hard core blues tunes, for the
most part what he played and gained a following for was rock, albeit
with a strong blues base. In fact he's "rockified" numerous classic
blues tunes (which of course upsets the purists, but I for one like his
style). As a pure blues man my favorite has always been Buddy Guy. But
for "bluesy" rock - well as the old saying goes, Clapton is God.
I'll take Duane Allman.
White guy playing blues: Johnny Winter

Bear in human clothes: SRV
a***@redshark.goodshow.net
2005-12-13 17:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by a***@redshark.goodshow.net
While [Clapton] HAS recorded numerous hard core blues tunes, for the
most part what he played and gained a following for was rock, albeit
with a strong blues base. In fact he's "rockified" numerous classic
blues tunes (which of course upsets the purists, but I for one like his
style). As a pure blues man my favorite has always been Buddy Guy. But
for "bluesy" rock - well as the old saying goes, Clapton is God.
I'll take Duane Allman.
White guy playing blues: Johnny Winter
Bear in human clothes: SRV
I like SRV - but I don't really think of him as much other than a pure blues
player.
--
Aaron
eDog
2005-12-12 06:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Hmm.

This gives me something to look up. was under the impression that the
Mayal album with the combination of the 1960 Les Paul and the
"bluesbreakers" combo was the first LP/Marshal pairing.

The leads on Hideaway and All Your Love are high volume affairs. There
are moments of controlled feedback.

Is this prior to or contemporary with Jeff Beck?

I once heard John Lennon on a radio interview in the 70s point out that
the opening note to "I Feel Fine" was the first recorded example of
feedback by a british invasion band in the 60s.

Gee. I never thought of it that way before but he had a point.

It wasn't a Les Paul though.
Post by RD Jones
I think Beck should be correctly credited for this.
--
Free advice worth twice the price!
Charles Beauchamp
2005-12-12 00:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by eDog
Post by Charles Beauchamp
He always wanted to be Jimi Hendrix.
But I think that Clapton's screaming guitar with the Yardbirds and
Mayall was the inspiration for the others who followed, including
Hendrix.
Being the first to do something counts for something.
Sure guitars were getting louder. You could make the case that when
Muddy Waters played in London and turned out to be a loud electric
act rather than a folk singer the British guitar slingers got
cracking.
But Clapton was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like
the notes were never going to stop ringing.
I think I really truly truly hate you. I hope you die.
--
v/r Beau

I believe if you can't say something nice about somebody, you must be
talking about Hillary Clinton -- Jeff Foxworthy
eDog
2005-12-12 02:58:24 UTC
Permalink
On the other hand Clapton sort of bailed out of being a guitar god with his
Layla album.

A lot of Rock stars in those days didn't know how to handle the pressure
they put upon them selves.

The lyrics to Bell Bottom Blues sound like an anouncement to the world that
he was out of the guitar god business before it killed him. (my own
interpretation and I often get that sort of thing wrong).

Dylan nearly died in a motorcycle accident and he gave up touring.

Hendrix gave up living. Who was smarter?
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I think I really truly truly hate you. I hope you die.
--
Free advice worth twice the price!
WiNK
2005-12-12 19:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by eDog
On the other hand Clapton sort of bailed out of being a guitar god with his
Layla album.
A lot of Rock stars in those days didn't know how to handle the pressure
they put upon them selves.
The lyrics to Bell Bottom Blues sound like an anouncement to the world that
he was out of the guitar god business before it killed him. (my own
interpretation and I often get that sort of thing wrong).
Bell Bottom Blues is a song to a chick..... "do you wanna see me crawl
across the floor to you.... do you wanna see me beg you to take me
back?"

Peach
eDog
2005-12-13 03:32:52 UTC
Permalink
I usually think that song lyrics operate on a literal and metaphorical
level.

Sometimes in song lyrics a woman represents an object of obsession.

When Jimi Hendrix is singing about Electric Lady Land, do you think he has
Stepford wives in mind?
Post by WiNK
Bell Bottom Blues is a song to a chick..... "do you wanna see me crawl
across the floor to you.... do you wanna see me beg you to take me
back?"
Peach
--
Free advice worth twice the price!
WiNK
2005-12-13 20:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by eDog
I usually think that song lyrics operate on a literal and metaphorical
level.
Sometimes in song lyrics a woman represents an object of obsession.
Considering Clapton didn't even write the lyrics to the song, I think
you're stretching. Whitlock himself said he wrote it about a chick.
Post by eDog
When Jimi Hendrix is singing about Electric Lady Land, do you think he has
Stepford wives in mind?
I'm familiar with the concept of metaphors, dear. It's my specialty.
But sometimes lyrics are just what they are. And some are made up
about fictitious things... and have no meaning whatsoever.

Peach
eDog
2005-12-13 23:43:55 UTC
Permalink
And sometimes they just go over some peoples heads.
Post by WiNK
I'm familiar with the concept of metaphors, dear. It's my specialty.
But sometimes lyrics are just what they are. And some are made up
about fictitious things... and have no meaning whatsoever.
Peach
--
Free advice worth twice the price!
e***@yahoo.com
2005-12-14 00:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by eDog
And sometimes they just go over some peoples heads.
And sometimes people think that someone *else* wrote the lyrics because
the real songrwriter didn't receive credit, therefore they concoct some
theory as to what the lyrics were about based on the wrong person.

Heh.

Peach
Edward M. Kennedy
2005-12-14 01:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by WiNK
Post by eDog
I usually think that song lyrics operate on a literal and metaphorical
level.
Sometimes in song lyrics a woman represents an object of obsession.
Considering Clapton didn't even write the lyrics to the song, I think
you're stretching. Whitlock himself said he wrote it about a chick.
Post by eDog
When Jimi Hendrix is singing about Electric Lady Land, do you think he has
Stepford wives in mind?
I'm familiar with the concept of metaphors, dear. It's my specialty.
But sometimes lyrics are just what they are. And some are made up
about fictitious things... and have no meaning whatsoever.
Silly human
Silly human
Silly human race...

[Cue the cool bass line]

--Tedward
Bill
2005-12-12 19:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Coming from someone who gets their political advice from Jeff Foxworthy,
that's probably a compliment ; )
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I think I really truly truly hate you. I hope you die.
--
v/r Beau
I believe if you can't say something nice about somebody, you must be
talking about Hillary Clinton -- Jeff Foxworthy
Jeff Davis
2005-12-12 14:23:35 UTC
Permalink
But Albert King was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain like the
notes were never going to stop ringing.
Fixed your post.
eDog
2005-12-12 18:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Hmm. You are probably right.

But in the studio recordings Albert's guitar was less distorted.
Post by Jeff Davis
But Albert King was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain
like the notes were never going to stop ringing.
Fixed your post.
--
Free advice worth twice the price!
Jeff Davis
2005-12-12 18:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by eDog
Hmm. You are probably right.
But in the studio recordings Albert's guitar was less distorted.
That's just a question of how much.

Also, listen to King's solos. The logic of Clapton's solos and Kings are
really close. At least when Clapton plays blues. When he breaks out into
rock, he becomes more his own man.
Post by eDog
Post by Jeff Davis
But Albert King was the first to make the guitar scream and sustain
like the notes were never going to stop ringing.
Fixed your post.
T N Nurse
2005-12-13 11:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Didn't Clapton completely cop the solo for Strange Brew from Albert
King?
Note for note from King's 'Personal Manager'.
eDog
2005-12-13 03:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Didn't Clapton completely cop the solo for Strange Brew from Albert
King?
Post by Jeff Davis
Post by eDog
Hmm. You are probably right.
But in the studio recordings Albert's guitar was less distorted.
That's just a question of how much.
Also, listen to King's solos. The logic of Clapton's solos and Kings
are really close. At least when Clapton plays blues. When he breaks
out into rock, he becomes more his own man.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2005-12-11 17:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by winnard is in the house
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
It's all about Clapton, he doesn't give a rip what the fans want. He's
This is correct.
Post by winnard is in the house
about as overrated as Frank Sinatra.
This on the other hand is SO RONG!
Post by winnard is in the house
winnard
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Tonawanda Kardex
2005-12-11 18:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Is this a tour? INfo, please.
Nil
2005-12-11 19:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tonawanda Kardex
Is this a tour? INfo, please.
No tour, just a short stint in London last May, and one in NYC last
October. See <http://www.cream2005.com/> for details.
Paul Aspinall
2005-12-12 00:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Agreed.

Sinatra is a legend..... ;-)
Post by winnard is in the house
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
It's all about Clapton, he doesn't give a rip what the fans want. He's
about as overrated as Frank Sinatra.
winnard
Ricky Hunt
2005-12-11 16:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
The truth is he probably doesn't remember them, at least not as well as you
and the thousands of others who've studied them over and over. It was just
something he played one time to him. Trust me, you know it note for note
much better than him having heard the album many more times than he has.
Some artists aren't concerned (or flat out don't want) to play the EXACT
same solo over year after year. Who would?
Burnham Treezdown
2005-12-13 06:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Hunt
Some artists aren't concerned (or flat out don't want) to play the EXACT
same solo over year after year. Who would?
The Eagles.....
Ricky Hunt
2005-12-13 15:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burnham Treezdown
Post by Ricky Hunt
Some artists aren't concerned (or flat out don't want) to play the EXACT
same solo over year after year. Who would?
The Eagles.....
LOL. Got me.
scullen
2005-12-13 20:43:38 UTC
Permalink
dingdingdingdingdingding -- correct!

Actually I think of The Eagles as a cover band -- covering themselves.

OTOH, no one sells out bigger venues these days and commands more for
their tickets than they do. Which may prove that fans really do want
to hear solos note for note live.
Thad
2005-12-13 22:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by scullen
dingdingdingdingdingding -- correct!
Actually I think of The Eagles as a cover band -- covering themselves.
OTOH, no one sells out bigger venues these days and commands more for
their tickets than they do. Which may prove that fans really do want
to hear solos note for note live.
I saw David Spade ranting about the the other night.
The gist of the bit was that people want to to hear it "just like I"m
listening to the stereo in my car" and they just want the hits.
I think that he was exactly right as far as the general public goes.
Musicians are a hard to please lot and musicians who play for other
musicians usually play very small venues.
:-)

--
Thad
Sacramento Dave
2005-12-11 16:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
I saw a lot of these bands in the 60tys and early 70tys ( never cream )
but one point never mentioned is they never sounded as good as there record
albums. ( for you younger ones, That's a spinning plastic disk with groves
that vibrate a needle) The sound gear to take on the road is nothing like
today, Bar bands have a better sound. I'm sure the Cream tour lets a lot of
us relive those days,$7 concert tickets, Cheap Wine, Hand rolled
"Cigarettes" and $300 American made Strats.If anyone finishes there time
machine before me buy Polaroid
Father Tom
2005-12-11 16:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I
Okay, let's think about this one. Who here thinks that the original model
for that lovable character we all know as Jesus Christ would have gone for
the abstinence thing?

Anyone?

Michael? Elvis?
grifty
2005-12-11 20:29:43 UTC
Permalink
I recently heard the new Jethro Tull " Aqualung Live" concert CD that
was given out at the recent concerts. The new live concert is pretty
much exactly the same as the original album, w/ a few minor changes and
additions. That's what the fans want, that's what the band delivers. In
fact in an interview after the concert Ian Anderson states that's he's
recreating the Aqualung album live and even playing the same wrong
notes as on the original recording.

Clapton on the other hand does whatever he please because he's Clapton
and he still has a recording contract.
Tad Huggins
2005-12-11 21:33:36 UTC
Permalink
As a fan, I don't want to go to a concert and hear a note for note
recreation of the album. I want to hear them stretch out and jam. Anyone
can learn a solo off of an album and play it the same way every time and
thats boring. I want to hear the band really play. Just my 2 cents.

Also, I have the Cream dvd and really enjoyed it. Again, I wasn't expecting
them to have Marshall stacks and try to be just the way they were forty
years ago. I liked it for what it was. I think it was cool that they got
back together for that. If only Zeppelin could do that, but I think Robert
Plant has always been the problem with a Zeppelin reunion which is really
too bad. They could have done alot more in my opinion.
Post by grifty
I recently heard the new Jethro Tull " Aqualung Live" concert CD that
was given out at the recent concerts. The new live concert is pretty
much exactly the same as the original album, w/ a few minor changes and
additions. That's what the fans want, that's what the band delivers. In
fact in an interview after the concert Ian Anderson states that's he's
recreating the Aqualung album live and even playing the same wrong
notes as on the original recording.
Clapton on the other hand does whatever he please because he's Clapton
and he still has a recording contract.
b***@gmail.com
2005-12-12 19:12:03 UTC
Permalink
The death of Jon Bonham is also a problem.

There was a Page and Plant tour a few years back. From what I could see
it was John Paul Jones who wanted no part of a reunion.
RC_Moonpie
2005-12-12 19:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
The death of Jon Bonham is also a problem.
There was a Page and Plant tour a few years back. From what I could see
it was John Paul Jones who wanted no part of a reunion.
I believe it was Robert Plant who wanted no part of John Paul Jones.
b***@gmail.com
2005-12-12 19:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
I recently heard the new Jethro Tull " Aqualung Live" concert CD that
was given out at the recent concerts. The new live concert is pretty
much exactly the same as the original album, w/ a few minor changes and
additions. That's what the fans want, that's what the band delivers. In
fact in an interview after the concert Ian Anderson states that's he's
recreating the Aqualung album live and even playing the same wrong
notes as on the original recording.
Clapton on the other hand does whatever he please because he's Clapton
and he still has a recording contract.
Anyone who pays money to see a band play songs off thier album's note
for note has no idea what live music is all about. Save yourself some
cash and buy the CD and get drunk at home. . WTF would you not want to
hear the band take the music to a different place?

I'll probably get bashed for this but that's why the Grateful Dead were
so fun to see live. Sometimes they sounded like crap, most of the times
they were decent but sometimes they were firing on all cylinders and
took the fans on a wild ride.

Spare the stoner and hippie jokes I've heard them a 1000 times already.
Nil
2005-12-12 19:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
I'll probably get bashed for this but that's why the Grateful Dead
were so fun to see live. Sometimes they sounded like crap, most of
the times they were decent but sometimes they were firing on all
cylinders and took the fans on a wild ride.
I'm not a Grateful Dead fan, and I only own a couple of their records
(which I rarely listen to), but I saw them live 4 times in the '70s,
and I can attest that what you say above is true. Twice they were just
OK, too long-winded and a bit snoozy. The other two times were just
astounding.
chasw
2005-12-11 23:14:12 UTC
Permalink
G: Its not that EC didn't want to play the original solo parts, rather he
wasn't up to it, it appears. From my POV, I wasn't looking for him to play
those old solos exactly the same, or even with the same sounding guitar. I
was just hoping he could play at that same high standard of excellence as he
did when he was young. Fast, accurate and with feeling. Like you said,
some of those licks are like gospel to the cognoscenti.

Alas, old age creeps up on all of us and and EC is no different than anyone
else. I guess we have to just cut him some slack and leave it at that. - CW

www.johnwinters.biz/listen.htm
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
x
Nil
2005-12-11 23:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by chasw
G: Its not that EC didn't want to play the original solo parts,
rather he wasn't up to it, it appears.
At no time during his career would Clapton have duplicated the studio
parts. That's not what he does.
Tim
2005-12-12 12:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
Having seen The Who umpteen times Townshend rarely plays solos as per
the album. I don't think he remembers them and if he did he'd get bored
of them and do something else. Personally, I like this kind of
improvisation.
--
Tim Westcott
Larry
2005-12-12 14:29:25 UTC
Permalink
maybe he forgot them...
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
RC_Moonpie
2005-12-12 15:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums.
OMG OMG IT WAS JUST LIKE THE VIDEO OMG OMG OMG
Jim Anable
2005-12-12 20:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
It was very obvious that he was not trying to reproduce the original
Cream tone, and I found that disappointing as well. I guess I expected
a more original package, since it was hyped as a reunion.
jtees4
2005-12-12 23:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by grifty
These guys could definately still get up there and play and sing. My
problem was with Clapton who refused to play the original solos from
the albums. Clapton's Cream solos are like gospel to a lot of guitar
players. I wonder how many guitar players have sat in their bedrooms
trying to figure out the Crossroads solo, one of the classics of all
time. Instead Clapton played something 'kind of like the originals.'
Sorry but that just didn't cut it. My other gripe was that Clapton's
guitar tone was not right for Cream. He should have used a Les Paul or
an SG to get the original tone, not a strat.
I've seen a lot of classic rock acts and they almost always play the
original solos as true as possible. Sometimes they add on but they do
play the original 1st.
Maybe he can't anymore (seriously).
scullen
2005-12-13 20:51:32 UTC
Permalink
If you watch the special features interviews, Ginger states that they
tried the Marshall stacks when they started rehearsing for the reunion
concert, but they all felt that they were past all that -- whatever
that means.

I believe Clapton can play it all as original, I just don't think he
cares to any more. He certainly doesn't feel the need to prove it to
anyone at this point in his carreer.
t***@yahoo.com
2005-12-13 19:03:45 UTC
Permalink
I saw the Stones in concert and thought they were the best live act
ever- that I actually saw in person.

The Cream show on PBS was better.

nuff said.

You don't have to play loud and distorted, to be good. And you don't
have to play exactly the same way today, as you did 35 years ago. Stop
nitpicking- we're lucky that Cream even bothered doing the shows this
year. They cranked- and definitely was the best rock show I've seen in
person, or on film, ever. The only one that comes close or surpasses
Cream, would be Hendrix.

Even Led Zep vintage live footage pales in comparison to that Cream
reunion.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...