IMO, Clapton is a truly great player. Not my favorate, by any means. But a truly great player. He’s not flashy and not a show-off. Clapton’s leads are very tasteful and very deliberate. His songs are more vocal-oriented. I don’t know if the man has EVER done an instrumental. He’s just not that kind of musician. Just not his style.
Doesn’t mean he can’t be, though.
I’ve heard a lot of guys do the guitar gymnastics, trying really hard to impress with super-difficult licks, and end up just sounding childish.
But isn’t this an apples/oranges comparison? Not that I really disagree. I think there a bunch of guys that are more impressive. But the guys you mentioned are from different genres of music.
I think Clapton’s importance is more that he helped pioneer the style (although he wasn’t the only one), and has always acted very ethically in giving credit to his influences. Plenty of his contemporaries are his equal, and lots of newer players have eclipsed him in technical skill. (The same thing could be said of B.B.King, and he’s hailed as the King of the Blues – blues is more than technical skill).
Clapton himself seems to acknowledge this, which only raises my opinion of him.
An NPR reporter was interviewing him at the release of Me And Mr. Johnson. Clapton was describing the song “Come On In My Kitchen”, and referred to a brief passage in the original version as something he’s never been able to play satisfactorily*. The reporter responded by saying, “But, you’ve been voted Best Guitarist by blah-blah- six times, and by blah-blah-blah five times, and…”.
Clapton interrupted him by saying, “Can we change the subject?”
*It’s the high descending slide lick in the middle of the song, punctuated by the lyrics, “Ooh, baby, can’t you hear the wind…”
AFAIK, he only does instramentals when playing with other people. I know of at least one duet with John Popper where John plays & sings but Eric just plays.
There was a “letter” in National Lampoon many years ago in which the grafitti’s author wrote, “Did I write “God”? I meant to write “good”. Sorry about the confusion.”
Clapton doing an instrumental? Of course: Hideaway, the classic Freddy King instrumental he covered on the Beano album (John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers featuring Eric Clapton). That is the song that led to the “Clapton is God” graffitti.
Longtime player here, big student of the blues in general and British electric blues in particular (I am a Jeff Back man myself). My take:
Clapton is a wonderful technician - he is a student of the blues; if you ask him to play Freddy King - bam, he can rip a lick. Same with Elmore James, Robert Johnson, Otis Rush, Buddy Guy, etc…Clapton is well-schooled.
Clapton got his rep because he was around right at the time that the blues were “cool” in Swinging London in the '60’s. He was cool and hip and could do a mean impression of Hideaway - what’s not to love? Until of course Hendrix came on the scene and was truly authentic in both his roots in the blues and his ability to expand; Clapton was humbled by Jimi and frankly, was never the same in terms of his coolness factor.
Clapton made his rep playing a '59 Les Paul - that was his guitar on Beano and what he used to get his famous “woman tone” from that era. He switched to the Strat mainly to follow Hendrix and other blues players like Buddy Guy. Amongst guitar players I hang out with who are pro’s, the general consensus is that Clapton’s tone has never been as good - he likes the Strat because of how its set up makes him work for his sound, but that doesn’t mean it sounds as good, IMHO. He even had to have Fender put a mid-boost into the Clapton signature Strat - he did this to try to get closer to his LP tone.
Clapton’s rep remains because of his ability to stay relevant over 3+ decades - and his willingness to play pop songs is part of that. Beck doesn’t compromise that way - or to put it another way, doesn’t have the same pop sensibility mixed into his preferences - and has drifted off the radar.
I have always liked what Clapton stood for - a respect for the blues and good songwriting - than I have liked his guitar playing. There are very few of his licks I take the time to work out, and even then I am usually figuring his interpretation of someone else’s lick. He’s a decent player who has endured; I respect him for that. But listen to Jeff Beck on Truth (Let Me Love You, the 2nd track) and nothing Clapton has done lead-wise even comes close to Beck’s ability to play slow, tasteful licks…
When you start doing your own licks that are as good, instead of copying his you get back to us. I’m sure many fine painters can copy the crude slurges of Van Gogh too. Means nothing.
Hmmm, a little snippy, aren’t we, tagos? Not to mention the fact that, as I mentioned in my post above, Clapton got the “Clapton is God” reputation because he was playing someone else’s licks - Freddy King’s on Hideaway. Kinda ironic, innit?
Not meant to be snippy but an ability to copy something is different from originating a lick or using blues building blocks to create new things. Just saying you can copy his licks so therefore no big deal is a very weak argument.
I hear you and that’s fair. Beck’s stuff on Truth is easy to play for the most part, but trying to get his investment into each note is another thing. BB King also plays supremely easy licks, but who can do it the way BB can?
I guess I will say that I feel like I can replicate Clapton’s simple licks more easily than I can other tasteful blues players…
“Clapton is God” reportedly began appearing in British Subways in the mid-60s (what the hell is it with mid-sixties British subways, anyway? “Clapton is God”, “Frodo Lives”… )
I recall a radio interview I heard with B.B. King in the mid-80s, when the 60s revival was in full swing. He was reminiscing about the early-mid 60s, when aging bluesmen, ignored in their own country, could make a mint in England, because “them British boys wanted to play the blues real bad… and that’s exactly how they played it.”
As lame as the music sounds to us now, within the land of lowered expectations that was mid-60s whit-Brit-boy blues, the Stones were the best band, and Clapton the best player, especially when you take into account a comment Winton Marsalis once made about Louis Armstrong’s later work: “the mark of a true virtuoso is not dexterity, it’s nuance”.
As pathetically lackluster as some of this music sounds to us today, especially in comparison to what the real American bluesmen could do even at the time, they were in fact the best of their time-and-place. If you don’t believe me, have a listen to the Kinks’ first British album, when they thought they were a blues band (we really need a :shudder: smiley). BTW, you can hear on that album how they got their early sound: Another tune on the album has a similar bass riff to “You Really Got Me”. They struck gold when they stopped (thank god!) trying to swing it.
I like Clapton all right, but he’s not in a league with Hendrix or SRV or, frankly, a lot of other guitarists who did some original stuff. I think he did his most exciting, original playing with Cream and Blind Faith, nothing he’s done since really matches it – while “If I Could …” is an absolutely great ballad, the guitar work isn’t what makes it great.
I think Wordman got it about right, and no, Ilsa, you’re not missing something.
Clapton deserves his plinth in the rock pantheon for all sorts of reasons. He was the right guitarist, in the right band at the right time to make a big contribution to the 60s and all that came from that magical era in British popular music. He is certainly a fine exponent of the instrument, and encouraged a whole generation of rock guitarists to explore its potential, particularly with regard to authentic blues - its voicing, phrasing and integration into the pop / rock repertoire. He’s written some great songs, played some great solos, and given many excellent performances. He has always been ready to stretch himself, to explore new (at the time) territory (white man playing reggae?) even if it isn’t all that commercially promising, and to be endearingly modest about his own contribution.
That having been said, it’s not hard to list guitarists who are technically and musically streets ahead of him.
As a guitarist myself (though not a very good one), I’ve always felt that there are two groups who tend to write about Clapton: journalists and rock scribes who don’t actually play the guitar themselves, and guitarists of one kind or another. The former may be allowed their views and enthusiasms, but I think many of them simply re-cycle boilerplate Clapton adulation because they know it’s the ‘party line’, and because they don’t know any better. Guitar players, in my experience, tend to have the broader perspective. We absolutely acknowledge Clapton’s merits and his contribution to the story, but at the same time we know he’s not the be-all and end-all, and that there are many other great and gifted names to savour.
For me, in terms of musical expression achieved via the electric guitar, there shall be no God but Hendrix. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we never see a greater exponent. As for contemporary names, my current favourite happens to be Andy Timmons. Never heard of him? Sure, many people haven’t. Just buy his album, ‘That Was Then, This Is Now’, and enjoy a dazzling, mind-boggling excursion into the higher echelons of Guitar Jedi technique welded to hi-octane take-no-prisoners solid rock riffs and melody. Testorone with its wings on fire never sounded so good.
)