[Slowhand] RE: A Civil Debate, Part 6

[Jason Lynch]

>

>I disagree furthermore because of Clapton's solo architecture: the 

>structure of his solos. If you compare his solo architecture from the 

>earlier days, it was perfect or near-perfect. Today's solos, while still 

>good, are somewhat more disorganized or less "on task" than during his 

>earlier career. And they all sound much more alike. In his early days, 

>Clapton's solos were mostly of the "song within a song" variety. Yes, they 

>sounded well-thought-out, well-planned. But he did this in a live setting, 

>it was natural. Bottom Line: He played that way naturally back then; 

>today's solos simply don't compare, and when they do, it happens WAY less 

>often.

>


I highly disagree with you here. Dynamically, his solos today are much more 
advanced. With Cream, he seemed to have only two volume settings. Loud and 
louder. Particularly when comparing long solo passages, I think his ability 
to construct a long and purposeful solo is much higher. I find a lot of his 
long Cream solos to be directionless.



>

>Clapton played BETTER than textbook examples of improvisational solos back 

>then. In my opinion, he doesn't do so today. Although this skill -- this 

>extraordinary gift -- seemed to come automatically back then, it no longer 

>does. Yes, he can play an adequate blues solo any time. He's said so 

>himself. But Clapton is and has done WAY more than simply adequate in the 

>past, and this is what I mean. Yes, he's got to squeeze every ounce of 

>creative energy available out of each and every solo that's noteworthy, I 

>don't think he does it today, except in the rarest of circumstances. He 

>seems too lazy.

>

>


I would point to the playing of most of his newer material. I find there to 
be a definite difference in playing between the new material and that which 
he's been playing for 30 years. Most of the Pilgrim material, for example, 
seemed highly inspired to me when played live, and I rather wish some of 
thsoe songs were still in his set list. I'll point to his playing on My 
Father's Eyes, River of Tears, Pilgrim, and She's Gone. Really interesting, 
creative, non-standard solos all-around on those.


>

>That architecture, with Clapton's ability to express levels of ascending or 

>descending tension and release, relaxation, further intensity, rest, 

>negative space verses excess, climax, and finally resolve was unsurpassed. 

>Clapton transcended everyone in solo architecture with his ability to 

>slowly build, with weaving beautifully constructed modal riffs and 

>occasional small triad clusters, to a blazing climax, lifting the listener 

>to an apogee, with either perfectly, (and emotionally intense) executed 

>stretch vibratos or bends with just the right amount of speed to exhilarate 

>the audience. This was normally achieved without pyrotechnics and 

>gimmickry. It was no accident that Jimi Hendrix asked to meet Clapton as 

>one of the prerequisites for his first trip to England. Hendrix understood 

>immediately what he heard when Clapton's recorded notes -- from the 

>Yardbirds, to Eric Clapton And The Powerhouse, to "Beano" -- reached his 

>ears for the first time. And Hendrix understood quite well that what 

>Clapton played far exceeded what he heard from other guitarists in the 

>blues-rock genre.

>

>


Check the first paragraph for my response to this part.


>

>Clapton's style of playing guitar has, no doubt, changed since the 1960s. 

>But I really don't think it's changed appreciably since the '70s or '80s. 

>In studio recordings today, Clapton plays far fewer solos altogether, 

>relegating the guitar to third or fourth place in importance, when it was 

>at the top of the heap earlier in his career. Yes, he sings more and better 

>today, but is playing guitar a sin? Other well-respected guitarists and 

>musicians play their instruments their whole careers, without EVER singing 

>a note: Wes Montgomery, John Coltrane, Chet Atkins, we can go on and on. 

>Why does playing good guitar have to be considered passé or "retro"? And 

>calling Clapton a "guitar god" is simply insulting, as it denigrates a true 

>artist. Does anyone refer to Segovia as a "guitar god," or Coltrane as a 

>"sax god"?

>

>


I don' think I ever addressed his singing, it's not really the focus of this 
debate (I could just be forgetting the mention). I do think his guitar style 
has changed. I can easily tell the difference between contemporary Clapton 
and 70's - 80's Clapton.


>

>

>We're in general agreement here, but I don't really see too much of a 

>difference in the two Robert Johnson albums. They pretty much sound as if 

>they were recorded at the same time, although the second one seems a bit 

>more relaxed. They are really BOTH quite relaxed, maybe even TOO relaxed, 

>and the relaxation has somewhat eliminated the intensity that Johnson gave 

>these songs initially, the intensity with which Clapton played "Crossroads" 

>on "Wheels Of Fire." It sounds like the old Clapton is definitely gone, and 

>the newer Clapton is a bit tired, as he states unequivocally on "Back 

>Home." Clapton's intensity -- his ability to improvise passionately -- 

>seems partly gone, the burning hunger seems now, finally, sated. Simply 

>compare the instrumental "Hideaway" on both "Beano" and "70th Birthday 

>Concert."

>

>


I really think a better comparison would be Hideway from Beano to new 
material now, and, as I said earlier. I think the new material comes across 
quite well.

I think it's important to point out that both of us are probably highly 
influenced by what we heard first. I came to Clapton in the 90's you grew up 
with him in the 60's we both like best what we heard first, I don't think 
that's a coincidence. Still, it's fun to debate this kind of stuff with some 
one. I also want to complement you on your wide knowledge of musical 
history. I always enjoy reading that stuff.

-Jason