Why do people rag Eric Clapton for his singing? [Archive]

Ando!

09-22-2007, 07:41 PM

I really don't get it. Ever since From The Cradle, and probably before that, people have used Eric Clapton to exemplify the fact that, while white boys can play a damn good guitar, they aren't good singers. Granted, there is some truth to this, as Howlin Wolf's singing voice is merely an extension of his conversational voice: some things are inherent. However, by comparing Clapton to other white singers, it becomes pretty obvious that he's not lacking in the vocal chords. Listen to anything from Sessions For Robert J, Clapton's voice is amazing. Perhaps he's no Muddy Waters, but then again, who is? I'd say that Clapton gives most black blues singers a run for their money: listening to a lot of delta stuff, it becomes pretty obvious that lots of these guys can't sing. He's no Robert Johnson, obviously, but I'd wager he's as good as say, Gary Davis, and he's certainley better than Keith Relf, Jimmy Vaughan, John Mayer, and a host of white people that actually can't sing.

big80smullet

09-22-2007, 08:31 PM

I think he's got a great voice. Not the best but far, far, far from the worst.

0_1_1_2_3_5_8

09-23-2007, 08:04 PM

while white boys can play a damn good guitar, they aren't good singers.
This is completely false.

I think on The Cradle Clapton did fairly well with vocals, but anything else is rather horrible.
Is there anywhere I can find the Rober Johnson sessions online?

Rams

09-23-2007, 09:40 PM

I think on The Cradle Clapton did fairly well with vocals, but anything else is rather horrible.
Is there anywhere I can find the Rober Johnson sessions online?

http://www.mediafire.com/?1mjyendmtmd

Eliminator

09-23-2007, 10:04 PM

because he isn't good.

misterfitch

09-24-2007, 04:02 PM

black blues singers?

Ando!

09-26-2007, 07:35 PM

black blues singers.

EADG

10-02-2007, 09:46 AM

he sings like a wussy

/thread

Aeaon

10-05-2007, 07:29 PM

and he plays like a wussy

Satan Claus

10-08-2007, 10:38 PM

Maybe he wasn't so hot when he sang in Cream (although I still like his singing in Cream), but I always thought he was a good enough singer. Oh well, you can't please everyone.

And yes, he is certainly better than Keith Relf ever was.

Milestogo05

10-09-2007, 06:35 PM

and he plays like a wussy

How dare you sir.

As much as you may not like him for whatever reason he is an amazing musician.

You can't look down at guys like Clapton or the beatles for not being good enough when they became big some 30 years ago!
Music was more...

"MUSICAL" back then

The Electric guitar wasnt that big...
But they showed hte world what they could do to make it such a fabulous instrument

AIRIC

10-09-2007, 08:09 PM

my name is eric.

Bag of Blues

10-25-2007, 05:28 AM

The only people who say Clapton isn't a good blues singer are fools. I think he does a great job (especially on the Sessions for Robert Johnson album, as has been mentioned).

and he plays like a wussy

You must not have heard him on the Beano Album with John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers, then.

rockosmodurnlife

10-25-2007, 08:46 PM

I've never heard this said about Clapton. Then again I've only heard people talking about his guitar playing. He sings alright I guess. Nothing blatant I can fault him for.

Milestogo05

10-26-2007, 07:23 AM

The man is a genius

Ambassador

10-26-2007, 02:07 PM

The man is a genius

Agreed:chug:

CatfishJones

10-26-2007, 02:36 PM

Who's Eric Clapton?

Babble

10-26-2007, 02:47 PM

ITT electric guitar wasn't big in 1977

Ando!

10-26-2007, 02:47 PM

Who's Eric Clapton?

this guy

edit: first time I've EVER had to use the quote function in jf&b

Milestogo05

10-29-2007, 07:19 AM

Who's Eric Clapton?

hmmm...

you should be ashamed...

well to clear things up, he was a musician who helped bring out the electric guitar at its fullest around the time of the Beatles and Hendrix and all that jazz

artyjames

11-02-2007, 02:19 AM

he has a good voice.

Amit

11-02-2007, 05:55 AM

How dare you sir.

As much as you may not like him for whatever reason he is an amazing musician.

You can't look down at guys like Clapton or the beatles for not being good enough when they became big some 30 years ago!
Music was more...

"MUSICAL" back then

The Electric guitar wasnt that big...
But they showed hte world what they could do to make it such a fabulous instrument

umm eric clapton never pushed the envelope for the electric guitar

nor did the beatles

Bag of Blues

11-02-2007, 06:50 AM

umm eric clapton never pushed the envelope for the electric guitar

nor did the beatles

There are lots of people who would disagree with you one that. Particularly the Eric Clapton part.

I'd say Eric Clapton's playing pushed the envelope of the electric guitar quite a bit. He was one of the pioneers of the British blues-rock explosion that impacted the way the guitar was percieved by lots of people from lots of genres, not just rockers or blues players.

Milestogo05

11-02-2007, 07:16 AM

umm eric clapton never pushed the envelope for the electric guitar

nor did the beatles

ummm...

yes

they did

lol

Amit

11-02-2007, 08:42 AM

There are lots of people who would disagree with you one that. Particularly the Eric Clapton part.

lots of people also think 50 cent is an amazing music artist

your point is awful

I'd say Eric Clapton's playing pushed the envelope of the electric guitar quite a bit. He was one of the pioneers of the British blues-rock explosion that impacted the way the guitar was percieved by lots of people from lots of genres, not just rockers or blues players.

blues rock does not, cannot, and will not ever push the envelope of electric guitar

lmfao

go see john mclaughlin or allan holdsworth if you want to find the two englishmen who had completely changed how the world viewed the electric guitar

whether or not lots of people (again with this obsession with popularity...) knew about them is a moot point; achievements don't need to be validated by the masses to still be considered achievements

SuperID

11-02-2007, 11:45 AM

Beatles definately had something going in the way of reshaping popular song structure and production. But Clapton hadn't done anything I'd consider original or revolutionary and the first Cream album at best is just a genre-trademark which isn't saying too much.

Ando!

11-02-2007, 05:03 PM

go see john mclaughlin or allan holdsworth if you want to find the two englishmen who had completely changed how the world viewed the electric guitar

I would say slowhand greatly shaped the archetype of popular music during his era. admittedly, this doesn't mean "pushed the envelope of electric guitar" at all.

I'd be wary of saying "how the world viewed" because, as you already said, the world views wrong. Really, McLaughlin and Holdsworth didn't change anything about the way the world views electric guitar. The world view holds that Clapton changed the vocabulary of the electric instrument, and barely acknowledges the existence of McLaughlin, let alone Holdsworth.

But yes, those two had far more to do with actually expanding the vocabulary of the instrument.

To get back to Clapton, I think it's important to acknowledge how bad musical exposure was back in the 60's. I remember reading a story where Paul McCartney and John Lennon had to go all the way across the city just to find someone who knew how to play a Bm chord. I mean, these guys were raised in a world where popular music was so far removed from quality music that a guy like clapton was likely to look up to Buddy Holly as a technical maestro of guitar. So, it's not that weird that people came to enshrine a guy like clapton in the way they have. Does the Beano album ever actually push the same boundaries of music that say, an Inner Mounting Flame does? No, but you can't blame people for not knowing that.

Bag of Blues

11-03-2007, 12:01 AM

lots of people also think 50 cent is an amazing music artist

your point is awful

And you opinion on the issue is somehow more objective or valid than anyone else's?

blues rock does not, cannot, and will not ever push the envelope of electric guitar

Umm it certainly did within the context of the times. Just because you may be high on some jazz high horse doesn't mean that this particular style and playing of music hasn't had a vast impact on music. Does it use some odd modal scale or something? No, not usually, but that really isn't what the blues is all about. Some of the most expressive players have been of the blues rock genre.

lmfao

go see john mclaughlin or allan holdsworth if you want to find the two englishmen who had completely changed how the world viewed the electric guitar

Actually I bet Clapton has had an affect on more guitar player's than John McLaughlin or Allan Holdsworth ever have.

It doesn't really matter though. One person being good doesn't take away from the fact that another person is viewed as good.

whether or not lots of people (again with this obsession with popularity...) knew about them is a moot point; achievements don't need to be validated by the masses to still be considered achievements

You seem to be imply that there is some sort of objective standard to measuring creativity and expression in art.

Bag of Blues

11-03-2007, 12:06 AM

I would say slowhand greatly shaped the archetype of popular music during his era. admittedly, this doesn't mean "pushed the envelope of electric guitar" at all.

See, it has everything to do with how you view "the envelope" and what constitutes "pushing it."

I'd be wary of saying "how the world viewed" because, as you already said, the world views wrong.

No, the world views differently.

Really, McLaughlin and Holdsworth didn't change anything about the way the world views electric guitar. The world view holds that Clapton changed the vocabulary of the electric instrument, and barely acknowledges the existence of McLaughlin, let alone Holdsworth.

But yes, those two had far more to do with actually expanding the vocabulary of the instrument.

To get back to Clapton, I think it's important to acknowledge how bad musical exposure was back in the 60's. I remember reading a story where Paul McCartney and John Lennon had to go all the way across the city just to find someone who knew how to play a Bm chord. I mean, these guys were raised in a world where popular music was so far removed from quality music that a guy like clapton was likely to look up to Buddy Holly as a technical maestro of guitar. So, it's not that weird that people came to enshrine a guy like clapton in the way they have. Does the Beano album ever actually push the same boundaries of music that say, an Inner Mounting Flame does? No, but you can't blame people for not knowing that.

Nor can you objectively place some sort of measure on music. To presuppose one's view of an expressive art is any more valid or "right" than any other experiencer of said art is actually pretty arrogant.

superjoe

11-03-2007, 10:45 AM

but I'd wager he's as good as say, Gary Davis,
Whoa Whoa! Are you KIDDING me?!

Ando!

11-03-2007, 09:38 PM

idk joe Gary Davis is pretty hit and miss for me

Amit

11-03-2007, 10:26 PM

And you opinion on the issue is somehow more objective or valid than anyone else's?

Umm it certainly did within the context of the times. Just because you may be high on some jazz high horse doesn't mean that this particular style and playing of music hasn't had a vast impact on music. Does it use some odd modal scale or something? No, not usually, but that really isn't what the blues is all about. Some of the most expressive players have been of the blues rock genre.

Actually I bet Clapton has had an affect on more guitar player's than John McLaughlin or Allan Holdsworth ever have.

It doesn't really matter though. One person being good doesn't take away from the fact that another person is viewed as good.

You seem to be imply that there is some sort of objective standard to measuring creativity and expression in art.

this is just hilariously ironic

RyMac59

11-03-2007, 10:38 PM

Without a doubt, clapton has influenced and inspired more guitarists than holdsworth ever will. He is known ubiquitously by musicians and non musicians alike, which can't be said for holdsworth or even McLaughlin. I am majoring in jazz guitar right now and without a doubt I wouldn't be here without having heard claptons music. As far as the two you mentioned, I've only recently(past couple years) gotten into them. I take it that you understand "pushing the envelope" as a technical thing. Well claptons phrasing and musicality without a doubt pushed the envelope in my opinion. Again, just and opinion, but I don't think I've ever seen "Holdsworth is God" spray painted on a wall before. :thumb:

And on another topic.... who has read claptons autobiography that just came out? I finished it yesterday, a great read.

Rams

11-03-2007, 11:41 PM

John Mclaughlin is terrible

RyMac59

11-03-2007, 11:56 PM

John Mclaughlin is terrible
Heard Friday Night in San Francisco?

(*The Noonward Race*)

11-04-2007, 12:58 AM

John Mclaughlin is terrible
nah son i dont agree

Amit

11-04-2007, 01:59 PM

Without a doubt, clapton has influenced and inspired more guitarists than holdsworth ever will. He is known ubiquitously by musicians and non musicians alike, which can't be said for holdsworth or even McLaughlin. I am majoring in jazz guitar right now and without a doubt I wouldn't be here without having heard claptons music. As far as the two you mentioned, I've only recently(past couple years) gotten into them. I take it that you understand "pushing the envelope" as a technical thing. Well claptons phrasing and musicality without a doubt pushed the envelope in my opinion. Again, just and opinion, but I don't think I've ever seen "Holdsworth is God" spray painted on a wall before. :thumb:

yeah i guess so that means britney spears is a far more important musician than eric clapton as well

malaise

11-04-2007, 02:39 PM

hmmm...

you should be ashamed...

well to clear things up, he was a musician who helped bring out the electric guitar at its fullest around the time of the Beatles and Hendrix and all that jazz

Shut up.

Aeaon

11-04-2007, 06:50 PM

Eliminator

11-04-2007, 07:53 PM

clapton invented thee blooz

RyMac59

11-04-2007, 10:56 PM

yeah i guess so that means britney spears is a far more important musician than eric clapton as well

Britney Spears never pushed the envelope though. She may have inspired many people to sing, which despite her terrible music I still think thats great, but she is not very good at singing and doesnt write anything. Although clapton did a lot of covers, he wrote some amazing stuff as well.

Amit

11-04-2007, 11:01 PM

clapton never pushed the envelope though and isn't very good at playing guitar either

:amaze:

11-05-2007, 12:01 AM

clapton never pushed the envelope though and isn't very good at playing guitar either

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nCzUMjCykn8

watch that and try and tell me he can't shred!!!11

:amaze:

Spoonerism

11-05-2007, 12:31 AM

Sup this is Spoonful,

Clapton can rock that blues scale like no other. Plus, he's more of a songwriter when considering the entirety of his career.

traveller

11-05-2007, 01:17 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nCzUMjCykn8

watch that and try and tell me he can't shred!!!11

:amaze:

haha. if you watch the vid closely/read the comments below on the site you'll see that that isnt actually clapton playing, its dubbed. pretty good editing skills though, i had to read the comments to realise.

:amaze:

11-05-2007, 01:26 AM

haha. if you watch the vid closely/read the comments below on the site you'll see that that isnt actually clapton playing, its dubbed. pretty good editing skills though, i had to read the comments to realise.

shhhh! it was a joke.... there's a whole bunch of them by the same guy, all pretty good.

:amaze:

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 03:29 AM

clapton never pushed the envelope though and isn't very good at playing guitar either

Yet he is better at expressing himself with the guitar than a whole bunch of jazz guitarists that may be able to run up and down a bunch of scales. Not to mention that he has one of the most distinctive voicings with the guitar.

I suppose you can play the guitar better than Clapton can, right?

Babble

11-05-2007, 06:43 AM

uh oh noobs coming in think they know everything about guitar again

let me guess jazz and classical players have no soul

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 06:55 AM

uh oh noobs coming in think they know everything about guitar again

let me guess jazz and classical players have no soul

Uh oh people assuming that my post count is at all relevant to the issue at hand.

I actually said nothing taking away from jazz or classical players. You assume that because I am defending the blues in general, Clapton in particular, I must automatically be in opposition to jazz as a form. That is not the case at all. I enjoy jazz and classical music quite a bit, actually.

The problem I have found with a lot of jazz and classical players is their arrogance. They assume everything else is inferior to their precious jazz or classical forms because it is usually technically more complex. This assumes that complexity somehow equates superiority.

Milestogo05

11-05-2007, 07:20 AM

uh oh noobs coming in think they know everything about guitar again

let me guess jazz and classical players have no soul

dude whats your problem??

maybe this man knows more about music than you!

just because he hasn't always sat on his computer and talked about it doesn't mean he has no musical knowledge or spirit

I bite my thumb at you.

Good Day!

lol
but seriously

Amit

11-05-2007, 07:32 AM

Yet he is better at expressing himself with the guitar than a whole bunch of jazz guitarists that may be able to run up and down a bunch of scales. Not to mention that he has one of the most distinctive voicings with the guitar.

wait i thought you said expressiveness was subjective

hahahah i love blues fanboys

I suppose you can play the guitar better than Clapton can, right?

when i played guitar seriously

yes

but that is completely irrelevant; your criticisms about someone aren't validated or invalidated by how much better or worse you are than them

duh

Uh oh people assuming that my post count is at all relevant to the issue at hand.

uh oh people assuming one's personal abilities are at all relevant to the issue at hand

I actually said nothing taking away from jazz or classical players. You assume that because I am defending the blues in general, Clapton in particular, I must automatically be in opposition to jazz as a form. That is not the case at all. I enjoy jazz and classical music quite a bit, actually.

so you're just acting stupid then

The problem I have found with a lot of jazz and classical players is their arrogance. They assume everything else is inferior to their precious jazz or classical forms because it is usually technically more complex. This assumes that complexity somehow equates superiority.

the problem i find with talentless blues fanboys is their arrogance and their assumption that wanking over the same scale for 30 years is equal to "soul" or "emotion" or "expressiveness"

the best part is how they have so completely convinced themselves that this is true

you have to realize that it's completely okay to listen to musicians who aren't very talented; all that matters is that you can acknowledge that and be able to enjoy the music regardless of how good or bad they are in terms of technique or whatever

it's a lot more honest and satisfying than trying to delude yourself

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 08:02 AM

wait i thought you said expressiveness was subjective

It is, but the fact that Clapton has a distinctly recognizable voice on the guitar isn't, and it is no secret that many many people find that voice very expressive.

hahahah i love blues fanboys

hahaha and I love arrogant jazz fanboys.

when i played guitar seriously

yes

Do you have any recordings of this self-proclaimed feat?

but that is completely irrelevant; your criticisms about someone aren't validated or invalidated by how much better or worse you are than them

duh

Neither is your comparison of one musician to another musician, then.

uh oh people assuming one's personal abilities are at all relevant to the issue at hand

Uh oh you were the one that started with that kind of comparison.

so you're just acting stupid then

No, not at all. But you, sir, are acting arrogant and snobbish. Two traits that have turned lots of people off to jazz and classical musics, unfortunately. You do nothing to help that by perpetrating that stereotype.

the problem i find with talentless blues fanboys is their arrogance and their assumption that wanking over the same scale for 30 years is equal to "soul" or "emotion" or "expressiveness"

I like how you just assume someone is talentless when you don't even know them. I thought you said personal abilities were irrelevant?

Sorry, but your jazz guys have been wanking over the same scales for years as well.

the best part is how they have so completely convinced themselves that this is true

The best part is how you are still being snobbishly arrogant over something as subjective as art.

you have to realize that it's completely okay to listen to musicians who aren't very talented; all that matters is that you can acknowledge that and be able to enjoy the music regardless of how good or bad they are in terms of technique or whatever

I didn't realize there was some universal objective benchmark in determining talent and superiority/inferiority of technique.

it's a lot more honest and satisfying than trying to delude yourself

And convincing yourself that you are somehow objectively right and superior in your opinions over a subjective artform compared to others isn't a form of delusion?

Amit

11-05-2007, 08:07 AM

It is, but the fact that Clapton has a distinctly recognizable voice on the guitar isn't, and it is no secret that many many people find that voice very expressive.

that's not a fact sorry

and many many more people find britney spears to be very expressive so i am not sure where you're taking that

hahaha and I love arrogant jazz fanboys.

good thing i don't play jazz then

Do you have any recordings of this self-proclaimed feat?

of course

Neither is your comparison of one musician to another musician, then.

of course it is; they aren't the ones doing the criticizing

Uh oh you were the one that started with that kind of comparison.

where did i do that; i never mentioned your abilities at all

No, not at all. But you, sir, are acting arrogant and snobbish. Two traits that have turned lots of people off to jazz and classical musics, unfortunately. You do nothing to help that by perpetrating that stereotype.

better than acting deliberately stupid and ignorant tbh

I like how you just assume someone is talentless when you don't even know them. I thought you said personal abilities were irrelevant?

i wasn't talking about your abilities...?

Sorry, but your jazz guys have been wanking over the same scales for years as well.

more ignorance

The best part is how you are still being snobbishly arrogant over something as subjective as art.

oh hey this sounds exactly like what you're doing

I didn't realize there was some universal objective benchmark in determining talent and superiority/inferiority of technique.

how do you think performance degrees work at conservatories and schools

And convincing yourself that you are somehow objectively right and superior in your opinions over a subjective artform compared to others isn't a form of delusion?

no because i am right :]

but this is all from straying the original point of contention

show me anything

ANYTHING

that reflects eric clapton's ability to push the technical envelope of the electric guitar

and here's a hint:

one's criticisms are not invalidated by the one's own personal abilities compared to the person being criticized; it is kind of one of the tenets of free speech and press

do you realize this

otherwise i could be like hey you aren't as good as john mclaughlin so stop talking

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 08:49 AM

that's not a fact sorry

Really? Because I am sure it has been said many many times over by very well known and respected musicians.

and many many more people find britney spears to be very expressive so i am not sure where you're taking that

Sorry but Britney Spears isn't continually cited as major influence from a large number of working musicians.

good thing i don't play jazz then

Nobody said you did.

of course

I'd love to hear this.

of course it is; they aren't the ones doing the criticizing

The point was your comparison is like saying "Tuck Andress is better than Vai so therefore Vai sucks."

where did i do that; i never mentioned your abilities at all

You implied I was talentless right here:

hahahah i love blues fanboys

the problem i find with talentless blues fanboys is their arrogance and their assumption that wanking over the same scale for 30 years is equal to "soul" or "emotion" or "expressiveness"

better than acting deliberately stupid and ignorant tbh

Well it's a good thing I have done neither, then, isn't it?

i wasn't talking about your abilities...?

You sure implied it by calling me a "blues fanboy" and then proceeding to use the word "talentless" in reference to "blues fanboys."

more ignorance

Umm not really. I suppose it is pretty easy to denounce things as ignorant instead of actually, you know, providing a countering point that would invalidate what I said.

oh hey this sounds exactly like what you're doing

Umm I don't recall really being arrogant about any of this. You are the one that has placed some sort of objective measure on talent, not me.

how do you think performance degrees work at conservatories and schools

You really think that makes much of two shits? I have a performance degree and I am no where close to the ability level of lots of people who don't know jack **** about music theory or any of that stuff. Knowing theory and a billion different scales and chords is great, but it is a far cry from some sort of objective measure of talent/ability.

no because i am right :]

I hope your ego starts eating itself.

but this is all from straying the original point of contention

show me anything

ANYTHING

that reflects eric clapton's ability to push the technical envelope of the electric guitar

Well let's see he helped pioneer blues-rock and psychedelic rock forms respectively, inspired countless guitarists, pushed the tonal possibilities of the electric guitar and amplifier, and is credited as an innovator in several different phases of his career.

Just because you may not like the guy, doesn't mean he wasn't an innovater within his respected field of influence.

and here's a hint:

one's criticisms are not invalidated by the one's own personal abilities compared to the person being criticized; it is kind of one of the tenets of free speech and press

do you realize this

otherwise i could be like hey you aren't as good as john mclaughlin so stop talking

No ****, but you were the one saying you can play better than Clapton, so I would like to hear that.

Besides, I love how you keep using John McLaughlin as a referance, yet last time I checked he was a fan of Clapton's.

Amit

11-05-2007, 09:13 AM

Really? Because I am sure it has been said many many times over by very well known and respected musicians.

that doesn't make it a fact sorry

Sorry but Britney Spears isn't continually cited as major influence from a large number of working musicians.

so?

i thought you were interested in a popularity contest

I'd love to hear this.

well when i get back to my apartment i will upload a recording

The point was your comparison is like saying "Tuck Andress is better than Vai so therefore Vai sucks."

no it wasn't

my point is that eric clapton is a pretty run of the mill guitarist from an instrumental standpoint

You implied I was talentless right here:

oh sorry freudian slip

Well it's a good thing I have done neither, then, isn't it?

well you are acting deliberately stupid if you seriously think clapton pushed any envelopes or innovated anything on the electric guitar

You sure implied it by calling me a "blues fanboy" and then proceeding to use the word "talentless" in reference to "blues fanboys."

freudian slip

i meant to call the guitarists the fanboys incessantly fellate talentless

Umm not really. I suppose it is pretty easy to denounce things as ignorant instead of actually, you know, providing a countering point that would invalidate what I said.

to say that john mclaughlin has used the same scale in indian classical music, flamenco, and modern classical works is pretty ignorant and quite laughable

Umm I don't recall really being arrogant about any of this. You are the one that has placed some sort of objective measure on talent, not me.

"It is, but the fact that Clapton has a distinctly recognizable voice on the guitar isn't, and it is no secret that many many people find that voice very expressive"

lolol

You really think that makes much of two poops? I have a performance degree and I am no where close to the ability level of lots of people who don't know jack **** about music theory or any of that stuff. Knowing theory and a billion different scales and chords is great, but it is a far cry from some sort of objective measure of talent/ability.

because a performance degree is only about music theory and a billion different scales

it's pretty funny you don't understand a lot about the degree you supposedly have

even then, you still haven't addressed that point but nice try trying to get out of it

also i guess it means you're just very easily impressed (which is not a big surprise considering the thread we're in...)

I hope your ego starts eating itself.

oh wow a personal attack how interesting

Well let's see he helped pioneer blues-rock and psychedelic rock forms respectively

overly banal and cliche'd music doesn't do much for me sorry

inspired countless guitarists

this doesn't push any envelopes sorry

all it proves is that he can cater to the lowest possible denominator

pushed the tonal possibilities of the electric guitar and amplifier

laughable

and is credited as an innovator in several different phases of his career.

please post some proof

Just because you may not like the guy, doesn't mean he wasn't an innovater within his respected field of influence.

just because you like the guy doesn't mean he innovated anything

No ****, but you were the one saying you can play better than Clapton, so I would like to hear that.

when i get back to my apartment sure!

but i'm sure if i said i wasn't as good as clapton, you'd still use that logical fallacy with as much smugness as you are now

haha

Besides, I love how you keep using John McLaughlin as a referance, yet last time I checked he was a fan of Clapton's.

john mclaughlin is also a huge fan of jimi hendrix

but that doesn't mean he absolutely dominates over both of them

try again

Amit

11-05-2007, 09:27 AM

ok look just post something comparable to this, bag of blues

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yrrBtAahALU

all i want to see some really mindblowing harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic sophistication

it doesn't have to be uber shred or whatever you think i'm asking for

i would love to be proven wrong i really would

RyMac59

11-05-2007, 12:15 PM

Rams

11-05-2007, 12:47 PM

all i want to see some really mindblowing harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic sophistication

I'd like to see Mclaughlin do anything mindblowing harmonic or melodic sophistication. The guy just plays his guitar like a pissing contest.

Amit

11-05-2007, 01:07 PM

Perhaps John McLaughlin is the better guitarist technically, I don't think anyone is arguing that. But the bottom line is 90% of people will get more out and and enjoy http://youtube.com/watch?v=VRsJlAJvOSM more so than that video you posted. Which I don't think is anywhere near mclaughlin's best work but thats another topic altogether.

whether or not people will "get more out of it" is irrelevant to his technical abilities; otherwise bach's mass in b minor would be overshadowed by some drunken sailor's lewd rhyming chant

and it was the only video i could find quickly on youtube :[

btw songs like lotus feet or isis do a lot more for me than tears in heaven or layla lolol

I'd like to see Mclaughlin do anything mindblowing harmonic or melodic sophistication. The guy just plays his guitar like a pissing contest.

yeah man he totally plays his guitar like a pissing contest in thieves & poets or after the rain or in remember shakti

oh and yeah man he totally abuses the blues scale in every solo and song he has ever done oh wait wrong guitarist

Rams

11-05-2007, 01:18 PM

yeah man he totally plays his guitar like a pissing contest in thieves & poets or after the rain or in remember shakti

oh and yeah man he totally abuses the blues scale in every solo and song he has ever done oh wait wrong guitarist

I didn't say anything about abusing scales. In fact, he never follows any harmonic pattern in his playing. He doesn't refer to heads or get a motif and build upon it. He just noodles around, and when he is in a setting where he can't do that he sounds stupid. He's a white Sasha Starostenko.

Amit

11-05-2007, 01:22 PM

In fact, he never follows any harmonic pattern in his playing.

of course he does

his excellent instructional DVD outlines all of his practices

He doesn't refer to heads or get a motif and build upon it.

of course he does

go listen to, well, any of his albums

He just noodles around, and when he is in a setting where he can't do that he sounds stupid. He's a white Sasha Starostenko.

lmao

Spoonerism

11-05-2007, 01:23 PM

Clapton is easier on the royal ears.

But his blues and rock interpretations are sophisticated and original enough to garner artistic merit.

Amit

11-05-2007, 01:28 PM

royal ears what

tbh listening to clapton is simply painful to these ears

Spoonerism

11-05-2007, 01:33 PM

Royal ears = reference to Amadeus where Emperor Joseph can't handle Mozart's complex composition because it's too taxing on the royal ears.

Yeah but aren't you prejudiced against anything down-home and southern - and even inspired by it? I mean that's the impression I get from all your music associated posts. Can you even say one good thing about pre-war blues?

Amit

11-05-2007, 01:34 PM

shawn lane is awesome

so is steve morse

Rams

11-05-2007, 01:36 PM

of course he does

his excellent instructional DVD outlines all of his practices

of course he does

go listen to, well, any of his albums

You cited his instructional DVD? :lol:
If you listen to his jazz settings, you hear he just streamlines his solos and covers up his crappy ideas by playing fast. His rock albums with the Mahavishnu Orchestra are him using his guitar in a pissing contest. He is garbage for a jazz musician, and even more laughable as a blues musician.

Amit

11-05-2007, 01:39 PM

You cited his instructional DVD? :lol:
If you listen to his jazz settings, you hear he just streamlines his solos and covers up his crappy ideas by playing fast.

except he doesn't

maybe in the mahavishnu orchestra but have you even listened to anything by him from the 90's to the present?

His rock albums with the Mahavishnu Orchestra are him using his guitar in a pissing contest. He is garbage for a jazz musician, and even more laughable as a blues musician.

if you're judging a musician just by his output from 30 years ago...

lmao

mclaughlin has matured and diversified a lot, believe it or not

the same can't be said for some other guitarists hm...

Spoonerism

11-05-2007, 01:43 PM

Have you compared 90's Clapton to 60's Clapton?

Rams

11-05-2007, 01:44 PM

except he doesn't

maybe in the mahavishnu orchestra but have you even listened to anything by him from the 90's to the present?

if you're judging a musician just by his output from 30 years ago...

lmao

mclaughlin has matured and diversified a lot, believe it or not

the same can't be said for some other guitarists hm...

The Promise and Industrial Zen was derivative garbage. I'm not defending Eric Clapton, just that Mclaughlin is a terrible jazz musician.

Amit

11-05-2007, 02:10 PM

The Promise and Industrial Zen was derivative garbage. I'm not defending Eric Clapton, just that Mclaughlin is a terrible jazz musician.

i disagree completely

but that's what opinions are for

Iscariot

11-05-2007, 02:22 PM

Clapton is good stuff. Most often when people are overly critical and pompous about something like, say, an artist, it's just jealousy speaking.

Babble

11-05-2007, 02:34 PM

I can't even listen to clapton anymore. it's just boring music.

and yes I have heard mostly everything he played and even learned some of his songs like tears in heaven when I was first getting into guitar but now it's just not interesting to me anymore.

I don't care what you play or what you listen to, but not acknowledging that clapton's music (and blues rock as a whole) is simplistic and formulaic is just ridiculous.

there's so many more amazing melodies and harmonies out there to explore than what clapton does.

Spoonerism

11-05-2007, 02:42 PM

Meh, he's a songster, that's how I judge him.

Amit

11-05-2007, 03:50 PM

Clapton is good stuff. Most often when people are overly critical and pompous about something like, say, an artist, it's just jealousy speaking.

lmfao

yeah i am sooooooooooooo jealous

most often when people accuse someone of being jealous of someone else simply because they are criticizing them, it's just ignorance speaking

I can't even listen to clapton anymore. it's just boring music.

and yes I have heard mostly everything he played and even learned some of his songs like tears in heaven when I was first getting into guitar but now it's just not interesting to me anymore.

I don't care what you play or what you listen to, but not acknowledging that clapton's music (and blues rock as a whole) is simplistic and formulaic is just ridiculous.

there's so many more amazing melodies and harmonies out there to explore than what clapton does.

this perfectly summarizes it up

Babble

11-05-2007, 04:10 PM

Meh, he's a songster, that's how I judge him.

that's perfectly acceptable and in my opinion he deserves more credit in this function than specifically as a musician.

Amit

11-05-2007, 04:13 PM

that's perfectly acceptable and in my opinion he deserves more credit in this function than specifically as a musician.

indeed!

i think most rock guitarists should be treated more like that

Iscariot

11-05-2007, 04:21 PM

lmfao

yeah i am sooooooooooooo jealous

most often when people accuse someone of being jealous of someone else simply because they are criticizing them, it's just ignorance speaking

Oh stop whining, Amit. You talk a big game but I have never once heard you back it up.

Babble

11-05-2007, 04:24 PM

is this gym class

Amit

11-05-2007, 04:24 PM

is this gym class

hahah

Oh stop whining, Amit. You talk a big game but I have never once heard you back it up.

that's very strange because i have made dozens of threads with my recordings in them

that is very strange indeed jared

i love the unnecessary hostility too; i'm just glad you're taking it out on me and not real life people :]

Iscariot

11-05-2007, 04:24 PM

What hostility?

My first post wasn't even aimed at you and with that in mind,

lmfao

yeah i am sooooooooooooo jealous

most often when people accuse someone of being jealous of someone else simply because they are criticizing them, it's just ignorance speaking

is way more hostile than anything I've said. I think you're getting way too worked up tbh. All I said was Clapton is good stuff, so chill the hell out.

Amit

11-05-2007, 04:28 PM

What hostility?

My first post wasn't even aimed at you and with that in mind

it certainly implied it!

is way more hostile than anything I've said. I think you're getting way too worked up tbh. All I said was Clapton is good stuff, so chill the hell out.

nah this seems pretty hostile so i suggest you chill out thanks

Oh stop whining, Amit. You talk a big game but I have never once heard you back it up.

it's rather funny how you suddenly stopped pressing your point about recordings though

Iscariot

11-05-2007, 04:30 PM

it certainly implied it!

Only because you were looking for it. I didn't even read the thread before I posted ffs. This is not uncommon in my MX posting habits.

nah this seems pretty hostile so i suggest you chill out thanks

Why are you persisting with this?

it's rather funny how you suddenly stopped pressing your point about recordings though

You said you've posted plenty. I haven't seen them, but you said they're there so that's good enough for me. Like I said, I'm not being hostile and you are making yourself look very bad right now.

Babble

11-05-2007, 04:32 PM

I've heard several

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 04:53 PM

that doesn't make it a fact sorry

But you saying something does, amirite?

so?

i thought you were interested in a popularity contest

No, not really. But when you influence masses of musicians, I think it is fair to say you did something right within the realms of music, regardless of whether or not you personally like it or not.

well when i get back to my apartment i will upload a recording
Good I look forward to it.

no it wasn't

my point is that eric clapton is a pretty run of the mill guitarist from an instrumental standpoint

You mean from some technical standpoint. There is more to playing the instrument than from some mechanical movements.

oh sorry freudian slip

It happens.

well you are acting deliberately stupid if you seriously think clapton pushed any envelopes or innovated anything on the electric guitar

Then I suppose the tons of musicians that say the same things are deliberately being stupid as well, huh?

i meant to call the guitarists the fanboys incessantly fellate talentless

So is someone like Joe Bonamassa or Stevie Ray Vaughan talentless?

to say that john mclaughlin has used the same scale in indian classical music, flamenco, and modern classical works is pretty ignorant and quite laughable

Umm I never said that. I am saying he is also just playing scales that have been used for hundreds of years. Funny thing is that the minor/major pentatonic/blues scales are used quite frequently in jazz as well. Surely you realize this.

"It is, but the fact that Clapton has a distinctly recognizable voice on the guitar isn't, and it is no secret that many many people find that voice very expressive"

lolol

Yeah laughing really does a good job of refuting the point, doesn't it?

because a performance degree is only about music theory and a billion different scales

No **** that is what I was saying. There is more to playing guitar than those things.

it's pretty funny you don't understand a lot about the degree you supposedly have

I understand it perfectly fine.

even then, you still haven't addressed that point but nice try trying to get out of it

Sure I did. It was the part about how there is more to playing guitar than knowing a bunch of theory.

also i guess it means you're just very easily impressed (which is not a big surprise considering the thread we're in...)

Suprise suprise more musical arrogance.

oh wow a personal attack how interesting

Oh wow you've been sprinkling them in your posts from the start.

overly banal and cliche'd music doesn't do much for me sorry

Whether or not you personally enjoy listening to said music is irrelevant as to whether or not he helped pioneer those genres. Pioneering something always involves creativity.

this doesn't push any envelopes sorry

It certainly did at the time.

all it proves is that he can cater to the lowest possible denominator

Yes like countless other influencial guitarists, including John McLaughlin.

laughable

That doesn't do anything to refute what was said. You realize that, right?

please post some proof

Let's see, he was inducted into the hall of fame on three seperate occasions (Yardbirds, Cream, solo). I continually see him cited as an inspiring and creative artist to many well-known guitar players in numerous publications.

just because you like the guy doesn't mean he innovated anything

Umm no, he is innovative because he was a major factor in establishing blues-rock and psychedelic rock as known and popular genres.

when i get back to my apartment sure!

but i'm sure if i said i wasn't as good as clapton, you'd still use that logical fallacy with as much smugness as you are now

haha

Yeah asking you to back up your claim is smugness....:rolleyes:

john mclaughlin is also a huge fan of jimi hendrix

but that doesn't mean he absolutely dominates over both of them

try again

Umm the point was that John McLaughlin would probably agree that Clapton is an innovative guitarist.

ok look just post something comparable to this, bag of blues

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yrrBtAahALU

all i want to see some really mindblowing harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic sophistication

it doesn't have to be uber shred or whatever you think i'm asking for

i would love to be proven wrong i really would

From Clapton or from anyone within the blues/blues-rock genre?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PBgAfksivZo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NKYKxXc2D4I

Babble

11-05-2007, 05:02 PM

those links feature the same tired old blues melodies, harmonies, and rhythms we've been drinking beers and partying on the street to for a hundred years

and while that's a good example of modern blues rock it's seriously not in any sense of the word sophisticated or musically interesting

Amit

11-05-2007, 05:26 PM

damn it thanks for stealing my post babble >:[

(*The Noonward Race*)

11-05-2007, 05:49 PM

No, not really. But when you influence masses of musicians, I think it is fair to say you did something right within the realms of music, regardless of whether or not you personally like it or not.famous doesnt = better. his influence is from fame not music.
Good I look forward to it.amits compositions are musically better then eric claptons guitar playing... in my opinion
You mean from some technical standpoint. There is more to playing the instrument than from some mechanical movements.
exactly, hence why blues and/or rock music isnt very good

Umm I never said that. I am saying he is also just playing scales that have been used for hundreds of years. Funny thing is that the minor/major pentatonic/blues scales are used quite frequently in jazz as well. Surely you realize this.
Yeah uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you know like like a square is a rectangle and but a rectangle isn't a square, rectangles still have more sides of differing lengths.

Whether or not you personally enjoy listening to said music is irrelevant as to whether or not he helped pioneer those genres. Pioneering something always involves creativity. hey, what did he do?

Umm the point was that John McLaughlin would probably agree that Clapton is an innovative guitarist.john is a polite man

malaise

11-05-2007, 06:11 PM

relevant to the issue at hand.

****?

Babble

11-05-2007, 06:11 PM

I dunno tnr he was ragging on yngwie in that interveiw

SugarCoatedSour

11-05-2007, 11:32 PM

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 11:32 PM

To be honest I have no real interest in discussing this with who snobbishly think that their opinions on something as subjective as art is some sort of objective measure anymore.

Bag of Blues

11-05-2007, 11:37 PM

People should play nice. Clapton never did anything but make the necessary progressions that any one of us would make in the first year of playing guitar. And John although potent and lasting is just a heavier more pungent fart. He deftly broke wind over the first Mahavishnu album and ever since then has been doing nothing but assimilating himself into an increasingly tired genre (minus the occasional talent). Therefore amit along with babble closely trailing are quite right in some aspects but ultimately are losing out on the duality. And Bagofwhatnot although noble in defense is merely postponing the obvious fact that fanboyism of any one musician is not only wrong but counterproductive.

All these musicians are nowhere near the monumental status they occupy in your minds. And if you use somebody elses progress as a cornerstone for your own don't expect much.

I would actually agree, although I don't really believe I am some "fanboy" of any one musician. I was simply using Clapton because that was who was being discussed and I believe he did a lot for the expressiveness of the instrument.

Please dont just assume that because I like the blues and blues based music, I don't have a deep appreciation, respect, and tastes for other kinds of music.

SugarCoatedSour

11-05-2007, 11:44 PM

I was giving the "fanboy" warning as a general disclaimer. I see even Amit although revelling in his internet anonymity, is still a Mclaughlin fanboy. Something everyone has to acknowledge rather than defend. It's just when the battle enters ones own psychology and motives it becomes much more important to defend rather than change perspectives willingly.

Babble

11-06-2007, 06:39 AM

To be honest I have no real interest in discussing this with who snobbishly think that their opinions on something as subjective as art is some sort of objective measure anymore.

I can throw a rock into a pond and call it art but that doesn't mean that the artistic community has to accept it. Why? I dunno. maybe they know about art.

clapton has never been accepted as anything special outside of a pop music standpoint and it's only the fanboys who keep these ideas alive

Bag of Blues

11-06-2007, 08:24 AM

I can throw a rock into a pond and call it art but that doesn't mean that the artistic community has to accept it. Why? I dunno. maybe they know about art.

Umm yeah lots of artists call Clapton influencial and talented....

clapton has never been accepted as anything special outside of a pop music standpoint and it's only the fanboys who keep these ideas alive

And because something is "pop music" it must not have any artistic merit, right? You act like writing songs that lots of people enjoy listening to is some easy, talentless feat. Writing a good pop song is an art in itself.

John McLaughlin has never really been anything special outside of jazz music, so what is your point exactly?

It is also interesting to note that McLaughlin himself started out in the UK's blues-rock scene. Obviously he finds some merit in the genre and style.

The pretentious arrogance in this thread coming from yourself and amit is almost palpable. I can kinda taste it over the internet.

Amit

11-06-2007, 08:41 AM

umm are you ****ing kidding me

he pretty much pioneered indian fusion music with two of the most important ensembles out there

that's what i know and love him for; not his shitty jazz rock fusion from the early 70s

also his modern classical works are ****ing fantastic

what has eric clapton done outside of generic blues rock in his career that spans almost half a century

i guess his complete lack of diversity would be considered "artistic integrity" or "consistency" for you fanboys; i would have never listened to mclaughlin if he stuck with boring UK blues rock and never diversified

Rams

11-06-2007, 09:26 AM

umm are you ****ing kidding me

he pretty much pioneered indian fusion music with two of the most important ensembles out there

riiiiight. Because he didn't take that idea from Duke Ellington or John Coltrane (most likely) and probably taking just as much from Gabor Szabo, Davy Graham, and Blues-Rock group The Paul Butterfield Blues Band. And to an even lesser extent John Handy and The Free Spirits probably were doing it before him. I forget when L. Subramaniam started trying to incorporate his playing into rock music too. But yeah, besides all those guys, fusing western music with indian Raga had never been done before.

what has eric clapton done outside of generic blues rock in his career that spans almost half a century

Clapton hasn't really done a blues album in a long while (I haven't listened to his RJ covers though). His music was closer to rock at the time than the blues.

Amit

11-06-2007, 09:35 AM

riiiiight. Because he didn't take that idea from Duke Ellington or John Coltrane (most likely) and probably taking just as much from Gabor Szabo, Davy Graham, and Blues-Rock group The Paul Butterfield Blues Band. And to an even lesser extent John Handy and The Free Spirits probably were doing it before him. I forget when L. Subramaniam started trying to incorporate his playing into rock music too. But yeah, besides all those guys, fusing western music with indian Raga had never been done before.

all of those groups you cited were doing a completely different thing compared to what john did originally with shakti; to cite those artists is just complete lol (just because coltrane named his son ravi doesn't mean he and the other artists you listed actually fused jazz with hindustani classical music in anything but a superficial way)

john handy is a better example but he was just another white jazz guy who did some superficial explorations into ICM (probably because he, like most people even today, think that just because ICM has "improvisation," that it is a complete match for jazz)

mclaughlin actually was formally trained and had a sincere interest in implementing not only the overarching and general practices of Hindustani (and later, Carnatic) ICM, but also the more specific and localized practices found within each raga and tala...his music in both remember shakti and even shakti is still stunning to me, having been formally trained in both jazz and hindustani classical (and informally trained in carnatic classical)

the artists you cited either did the former or the latter and never achieved the synthesis that was found in shakti (or just acted like stereotypical white exoticists and recorded some sitar drones and called it a day)

compare handy's work with ravi to mclaughlin's work with zakir and l shankar and you really ought to hear the difference (i hope!)

and look at who john has played with: ravi shankar, zakir hussain, l shankar, l subramanium, hariprasad chaurasia, shiv kumar sharma, v selvaganesh, u srinivas...i think it's pretty clear that his interest and dedication in ICM isn't as wishy washy or superficial as the artists you listed :-P

lmao it would be like discrediting karsh kale or nitin sawhney just because ananda shankar came before them

Aeaon

11-06-2007, 09:51 AM

how about you all shut the god damn **** up already and just move on?

Rams

11-06-2007, 09:53 AM

all of those groups you cited were doing a completely different thing compared to what john did originally with shakti; to cite those artists is just complete lol (just because coltrane named his son ravi doesn't mean he and the other artists you listed actually fused jazz with hindustani classical music in anything but a superficial way)

john handy is a better example but he was just another white jazz guy who did some superficial explorations into ICM (probably because he, like most people even today, think that just because ICM has "improvisation," that it is a complete match for jazz)

You mean the black guy who made probably the first jazz-rock album in '65? Yeah, what a white jazz guy. It's strange that the one person you pick out of this is the guy who was doing his Raga-Jazz cross over at the same time as Mclaughlin. As for Coltrane, the guy did write "India" which might be the first jazz-Indian fusion that I have heard.

mclaughlin actually was formally trained and had a sincere interest in implementing not only the overarching and general practices of Hindustani (and later, Carnatic) ICM, but also the more specific and localized practices found within each raga and tala...his music in both remember shakti and even shakti is still stunning to me, having been formally trained in both jazz and hindustani classical (and informally trained in carnatic classical)

the artists you cited either did the former or the latter and never achieved the synthesis that was found in shakti (or just acted like stereotypical white exoticists and recorded some sitar drones and called it a day)

compare handy's work with ravi to mclaughlin's work with zakir and l shankar and you really ought to hear the difference (i hope!)

and look at who john has played with: ravi shankar, zakir hussain, l shankar, l subramanium, hariprasad chaurasia, shiv kumar sharma, v selvaganesh, u srinivas...i think it's pretty clear that his interest and dedication in ICM isn't as wishy washy or superficial as the artists you listed :-P

lmao

This is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter how Mclaughlin was formerly trained or names; he still didn't pioneer jazz-raga fusion.

Amit

11-06-2007, 10:00 AM

You mean the black guy who made probably the first jazz-rock album in '65? Yeah, what a white jazz guy. It's strange that the one person you pick out of this is the guy who was doing his Raga-Jazz cross over at the same time as Mclaughlin. As for Coltrane, the guy did write "India" which might be the first jazz-Indian fusion that I have heard.

just goes to show that black americans can be just as bad superficial exoticists as white americans!

This is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter how Mclaughlin was formerly trained or names; he still didn't pioneer jazz-raga fusion.

of course he didn't

he pioneered something completely different, and in my opinion, a whole lot more interesting and sincere

by the way, the examples of jazz-raga fusion you have cited are a complete joke from an ICM perspective

i guess that's what john really pioneered; a synthesis of music which wasn't laughed at by everyone in india

Rams

11-06-2007, 10:12 AM

just goes to show that black americans can be just as bad superficial exoticists as white americans!

Again, irrelevant.

of course he didn't

he pioneered something completely different, and in my opinion, a whole lot more interesting and sincere

by the way, jazz-raga fusion is a complete joke (if you're actually at all interested in ICM)

I like how you try to discredit all the years of prior east-west meetings with your last statement. It's a nice arguing tactic, but doesn't make your point true. Seemingly in your mind, no other musician besides Mclaughlin is doing this jazz-ICM/raga/world beat is completely different than everyone else doing it; so what did he pioneer if no one can follow him? It's clear why he was following Indian music and it was clear that he was following what was done before him.

edit:

i guess that's what john really pioneered; a synthesis of music which wasn't laughed at by everyone in india

Oh no, they laugh at Cannonball Adderley; his music must be ****.

Amit

11-06-2007, 10:18 AM

I like how you try to discredit all the years of prior east-west meetings with your last statement. It's a nice arguing tactic, but doesn't make your point true. Seemingly in your mind, no other musician besides Mclaughlin is doing this jazz-ICM/raga/world beat is completely different than everyone else doing it; so what did he pioneer if no one can follow him? It's clear why he was following Indian music and it was clear that he was following what was done before him.

then our definitions of what it means to be a pioneer are different

to me, mclaughlin went far beyond what the previous (and rather pathetic) efforts had done in this particular field

and for me, even if his work came later than those efforts, he's still a pioneer of east west synthesis

for you, i guess the fact that he came later overshadows what he's been able to do in his collaborations with zakir & company

so i guess our definitions are different

and other than remember shakti, i haven't found a group that comes close to shakti (and believe i have tried my best because this is probably my favorite non-classical music out there other than south asian underground stuff) :[

Amit

11-06-2007, 10:23 AM

Oh no, they laugh at Cannonball Adderley; his music must be ****.

what an...uh...interesting jump in logic!

Rams

11-06-2007, 10:33 AM

malaise

11-06-2007, 11:15 AM

To be honest I have no real interest in discussing this with who snobbishly think that their opinions on something as subjective as art is some sort of objective measure anymore.

Then you lose.

SugarCoatedSour

11-06-2007, 11:46 AM

Amit hit me up with the first Shakti album if you can. I've been looking for that for a while now.

Against Miik!

11-06-2007, 12:27 PM

Clapton has a good voice, it's just not very bluesy if ask me. I never really saw him as really a "blues" artist exactly, except when he is purposely trying to make a blues album, like Ridin With The King or whatever with BB King.

Amit

11-06-2007, 01:28 PM

If no one can follow you, then how is it pioneering? All I have seen is Mclaughlin follow others and try to find his place in the style. It doesn't matter how good or bad the music is when considering who started the style.

wait so now you're criticizing him for being so good

this is like saying kazuhito yamashita didn't pioneer anything when he was able to play a piece on one classical guitar that was previously thought to be impossible and no one could follow him

Rams

11-06-2007, 01:42 PM

Amit

11-06-2007, 02:04 PM

You should buy his DVD on how to critically analyze text. I criticized him for being a terrible guitarist. He is. However, I am arguing here that he didn't pioneer jazz-raga fusion or whatever you claimed he did. It's not a criticism, it's telling you he didn't. Personally, Shakti's stuff is borderline unlistenable.

he isn't a terrible guitarist sorry

and he did pioneer indo-jazz fusion

way to ignore my point about kazuhito as well, very well played

if you're going to parade your opinions around as fact i guess i'll do the same!

how about this

you go listen to your shitty music and i'll go listen to my shitty music; there's no fun in talking to someone about ICM if they don't understand it at all

RyMac59

11-06-2007, 02:24 PM

How about we go back to the topic.

I like eric claptons singing for the most part. His early days were pretty shaky but his voice improved and is a nice match to his music.

Rams

11-06-2007, 02:59 PM

and he did pioneer indo-jazz fusion

way to ignore my point about kazuhito as well, very well played

I already told you people who predated him by fusing indian music and jazz. You didn't make a point, you just mad a simile, one that is a different point. The guy did a technical/physical feat. Mclaughlin has done no such. What you are claiming is subjective, that his music is so much different than other jazz-raga fusions. All you are doing is putting his music on such a high pedestal that no one else can even attempt to come close. I could just as easily claim Prasanna invented jazz-raga fusion because he did so much more than Mclaughlin. It doesn't make it remotely true because I have a perverted view of what Prasanna does.

Amit

11-06-2007, 03:10 PM

I already told you people who predated him by fusing indian music and jazz. You didn't make a point, you just mad a simile, one that is a different point. The guy did a technical/physical feat. Mclaughlin has done no such. What you are claiming is subjective, that his music is so much different than other jazz-raga fusions. All you are doing is putting his music on such a high pedestal that no one else can even attempt to come close. I could just as easily claim Prasanna invented jazz-raga fusion because he did so much more than Mclaughlin. It doesn't make it remotely true because I have a perverted view of what Prasanna does.

mclaughlin did a technical and physical feat

gg

Bag of Blues

11-06-2007, 04:57 PM

he isn't a terrible guitarist sorry

and Eric Clapton isn't a terrible guitarist either.

and he did pioneer indo-jazz fusion

And Clapton helped pioneer blues-rock. What is your point?

if you're going to parade your opinions around as fact i guess i'll do the same!

You've already been doing that for that last few pages.

Amit

11-06-2007, 05:23 PM

i never said eric clapton is a terrible guitarist

just not a very technically stunning one

myron

11-06-2007, 06:22 PM

Yet he is better at expressing himself with the guitar than a whole bunch of jazz guitarists that may be able to run up and down a bunch of scales.

Im reading this thread for the first time, and (i try not to swear too much, but) ****ING HELL, you are wrong.

myron

11-06-2007, 06:28 PM

And we should really all go listen to Joe Pass. Better than clapton and Mclaughlin put together!

RyMac59

11-06-2007, 08:33 PM

And we should really all go listen to Joe Pass. Better than clapton and Mclaughlin put together!

Game set match.

I'm listening to Virtuoso 2 right now. Oh man....

Though for my money I'll take Jim Hall over Joe Pass in a group setting.

Rams

11-06-2007, 08:59 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9XE2N4mxeRw

This is what jazz guitar is all about.

SugarCoatedSour

11-06-2007, 09:14 PM

I was just going to say Derek Bailey then I clicked your video. Get out of my head!

myron

11-07-2007, 12:34 AM

That was terrible!

Milestogo05

11-07-2007, 07:28 AM

i never said eric clapton is a terrible guitarist

just not a very technically stunning one

I'm with you

he's NOT the best guitarist to ever live or anything...

He just did a lot for music at the time

Babble

11-07-2007, 04:12 PM

not really

maybe a lot for rock music or a lot for blues rock but really come on

he's not that important.

IcyFangas

11-07-2007, 06:43 PM

Once there was a thread. Then it sidetracked itself. Now it is lost. It will never return.

This is what I get for making a clapton thread I guess. Basically, I started this thread to say that Clapton imitates black guys pretty well. In no way did I intend for us to venture into his guitar playing, but Milestogo05 turned us downhill with his fateful post of

hmmm...

you should be ashamed...

well to clear things up, he was a musician who helped bring out the electric guitar at its fullest

You are an idiot for two reasons here:

1. Failing to recognize catfish isn't serious
2. Eric Clapton did no such thing.

Rather than tirelessly argue the merits of Eric Clapton's guitar playing in comparison to John McLaughlin (you've already been getting owned for 7 pages), let's put them in historical context with the peers of his own genre:

Eric Clapton did nothing that Paul Butterfield, Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, or any of the other of the legions of blues-rock guitarists from the same time period were doing. The mere fact that Eric Clapton was, because he recorded that record with Mayall, at the forefront of that movement means nothing more than that he was the most popular blues rock guitarist, and not that he was the most historically profound. In short, Eric Clapton didn't make ANY innovations that wouldn't have been or wasn't already made. And this is in a genre where innovation is rather in short supply to begin with: All these british 'blues' revivalists were doing essentially the same thing: taking your stock BB, T-Bone, and Freddy licks and playing them in a more refined, technically sound format. Is this a physically respectable feat? Perhaps in the eyes of your typical non-musician or non-musically inclined, but not much more than that.

It's a joke to compare Clapton's phrasing to McLaughlin's. The fact is, Clapton never approaches the same rhythmic or harmonic complexity of JM. The blues is NOT a compositional art form. Eric Clapton is, as Spoonful put it, a songster. He makes pop songs that are not intended to break musical boundaries, they are merely intended to satisfy the audience that appreciates them. Do I put myself in this audience? Yes, I do. I like Eric Clapton. But like Amit said, we're free to enjoy his music as long as we admit that he is not the innovator you claim him to be. Let's not kid ourselves: there's more artful music than Clapton's out there. Do you think there's a reason that early blues music was produced by a people completely ignorant of traditional music theory and composition? There kinda is. (I would actually argue that the rhythmic variation of son house is actually far more interesting than all the electrified stuff of latter years, in that it bears some resemblance to flamenco's improv with rhythmic ideas, but that's a different argument entirely. Let's not go there yet.)