Will anyone ever get to this level again?

[lewis]

"In terms of music I really think Clapton may have been God, certainly an extension of him for those 3 short years. Because he never again could even come close to this kind of energy again. What must he think listening to it?
He must wonder if he's even the same person."

Lots of food for thought. I'm not going to go anywhere near religion because I don't want to get booted but as far as Clapton and his "energy" is concerned, three years of Marshalls and humbuckers may have been enough for him. To take his talent to another level he probably felt he had to go in the opposite direction.
There's that famous Clapton quote when it comes to soloing: "If you repeat yourself, you're f****d". I'm assuming he applied the same philosophy to his songwriting and performances as well.
It's easy to say EC may have peaked at Cream but when "Lay Down Sally" comes on the radio I still turn up the volume.

[chabby]

I think there's just too many differences in the music industry today to get the raw ability development guys like this had back then. There was no MTV, no mass signings for big bucks etc. You first had to be a player's player and a good musician.

Today it's more what you look like and if you can appeal to a certain demographic.
It's such a tainted industry that chops, while still valued to a degree, aren't really what matters most. Back then, guys like Page, Clapton and Beck honed their chops like of a bygone era. They had talent, but worked first at becoming good players.
These days it's not about musicianship, it's about visual appeal first, then come what may, as long as it sells.
I'm not saying those elements weren't always at play, they are just over exaggerated now because of the video idiom. That's why there's hardly anything new anymore, because people don't listen as much as they watch. Even musicians themselves come up with some kind of culture connectivity menu first to giev themselves a label.

It's not about the fidelity, meaning, emotion and musicianship - especially the musicianship. Nobody wants to put in the time to get that good. The labels all want the nest visual romp, be that as it may. Something to shock eyes more than ears.
Back then, eyes barely came into play. Hell, I probably heard Clapton 100 times before I ever knew what he looked like. That could be said for almost every musican or band from the 50's through the 70's and maybe early 80's.

Video really did kill the radio star, among other things. You had to buy the record to even see what the musicians looked like - and that's only if they had picture on the LP. Led Zep I if I remember right had no pictures.

[stevehyphen]

Originally Posted by Astro1176

I like a lot of Clapton (Slowhand/Ocean Boulevard is my favourite era, Layla comes up next), I love Freddie King as well as the other Kings, I even like Yardbirds and Bluesbreakers and I have tried and tried to appreciate Cream but I just don't get it.

Am I not bluesy enough? Am I the only one?

Same boat, I used to love Cream, but now I find it's the era of his music that I listen to the least. Love Beano, love Layla, love the solo stuff, love the acoustic songs, still enjoy Cream, it just comes last.

I wouldn't say not bluesy enough. To me, Layla is his defining blues album. I mean, you can hear the guy cryin the blues pretty hard on some of those tracks. He didn't have that kind of blues goin on when he was doing the Cream thing.

[Boogyman]

Originally Posted by chabby

I think there's just too many differences in the music industry today to get the raw ability development guys like this had back then. There was no MTV, no mass signings for big bucks etc. You first had to be a player's player and a good musician.

Today it's more what you look like and if you can appeal to a certain demographic.
It's such a tainted industry that chops, while still valued to a degree, aren't really what matters most. Back then, guys like Page, Clapton and Beck honed their chops like of a bygone era. They had talent, but worked first at becoming good players.
These days it's not about musicianship, it's about visual appeal first, then come what may, as long as it sells.
I'm not saying those elements weren't always at play, they are just over exaggerated now because of the video idiom. That's why there's hardly anything new anymore, because people don't listen as much as they watch. Even musicians themselves come up with some kind of culture connectivity menu first to giev themselves a label.

It's not about the fidelity, meaning, emotion and musicianship - especially the musicianship. Nobody wants to put in the time to get that good. The labels all want the nest visual romp, be that as it may. Something to shock eyes more than ears.
Back then, eyes barely came into play. Hell, I probably heard Clapton 100 times before I ever knew what he looked like. That could be said for almost every musican or band from the 50's through the 70's and maybe early 80's.

Video really did kill the radio star, among other things. You had to buy the record to even see what the musicians looked like - and that's only if they had picture on the LP. Led Zep I if I remember right had no pictures.

Well said.

Too many kids practice their guitar 'moves' in front of a mirror more than actually learning to play.

"Guitar Hero" has greatly contributed to the downfall of musicianship.

[chabby]

Originally Posted by Boogyman

These days so many players are trying so hard to come up with new chord progressions, new tunings, "fresh" stuff. And so much of it fails because it soumds so contrived. The fact is, there's nothing new under the sun. Everything has been done before. There's no foundation under all the experimental noodling. Being different just for the sake of being different lacks real heart and soul.

What Cream and so many other bands in that era did was embrace their instincts. They played what felt right and played it with passion, no excuses. They laid their souls down on the foundations of blues, they grew their licks from the roots of rock. And they didn't care if it'd been done before.
If some clueless critic pointed to a Clapton riff and whined about it sounding a lot like a Muddy Waters riff, ol' Slowhand would just laugh in his face and say "Exactly!"

That is so true - you put into words exactly what I've been thinking for years.
Yes, the things I listed are part of the problem too, but today's young players have no motivation to use as roots to work from. They spend so much time trying to be different instead of just being good musicians.
It has all been done before, but that doesn't mean it can't be done better.
That's just a total cop out and fear of under achieving is at an all time high.

I've talked with some young players that play what they play simply because there's been no benchmark set for it being good, or bad. Nobody wants to try and be better than Clapton, Page or Beck or any number of other great players from history. So they invent something they can call a new genre which has no benchmark - it's classic today. Kids today seem to hate being criticized. Then they dress it up in some altruistic artistic idealism BS.

Of course I realize I'm generalizing - at least I hope I am. But why else has there not been anymore Guitar Gods coming forth? They are an endangered species. Kids have a group mentality these days where they all want to call themselves part of a club or gang, or some label. That's why rap is so big because it makes kids feel like they are part of a group on TV. And in some cases they are-LOL. It's all pretty sickening and makes me glad I wasn't born a minute later.

[Telemarkman]

Originally Posted by chabby

Listen to this cut of 3 (yes, only 3) band mates, all genius level players pushing the Blues envelope making it sound like a brand new genre.

Even today this music sounds like its just been created it's so fresh to me.
It's a combination of literacy, idiosynchrasy, energy and genius all rolled into the blues idiom.

I totally agree with this part.....Clapton's attack and melodic, fluent playing of this era (Bluesbreakers/Cream) is rarely surpassed. Still Ginger Baker was my favorite Cream.

Originally Posted by chabby

What's funny is I'm not sure there has been put forth this kind of effort and soul into ANY genre since.

That is of course debatable.

But the religious aspect isn't allowed for discussion on this forum.

[purpletele]

Originally Posted by chabby

I think there's just too many differences in the music industry today to get the raw ability development guys like this had back then. There was no MTV, no mass signings for big bucks etc. You first had to be a player's player and a good musician.

Today it's more what you look like and if you can appeal to a certain demographic.
It's such a tainted industry that chops, while still valued to a degree, aren't really what matters most. Back then, guys like Page, Clapton and Beck honed their chops like of a bygone era. They had talent, but worked first at becoming good players.
These days it's not about musicianship, it's about visual appeal first, then come what may, as long as it sells.
I'm not saying those elements weren't always at play, they are just over exaggerated now because of the video idiom. That's why there's hardly anything new anymore, because people don't listen as much as they watch. Even musicians themselves come up with some kind of culture connectivity menu first to giev themselves a label.

It's not about the fidelity, meaning, emotion and musicianship - especially the musicianship. Nobody wants to put in the time to get that good. The labels all want the nest visual romp, be that as it may. Something to shock eyes more than ears.
Back then, eyes barely came into play. Hell, I probably heard Clapton 100 times before I ever knew what he looked like. That could be said for almost every musican or band from the 50's through the 70's and maybe early 80's.

Video really did kill the radio star, among other things. You had to buy the record to even see what the musicians looked like - and that's only if they had picture on the LP. Led Zep I if I remember right had no pictures.

This is a great clip. Stepping out is one of my favorite Clapton tunes ever. This version was good, I think the Beano version is more "inspired".

I think this statement is right on about the state of music when this stuff was created.

I think it's dead wrong about the state of music now. The 60's were an undeniably great era for music, but they are overly romanticized also. The 60's influenced all music to come, but good music didn't end there either, or stop being influential. The industry was also just as obsessed with image then as it is now. Lots of fans bought Cream albums because they thought Clapton was handsome. If he was repulsive he may have been a footnote in music history. It is definitely WAY easier to see a musician now I will not argue that. I don't think it effects the quality of what musicians are producing today.

So in a nutshell. I agree with you about the greatness of Clapton and how inspired his playing could be. I disagree that musicians are somehow now unable to accomplish that level of inspiration. I would post examples, but that always just turns into a "there's no way that's as good as that" argument.

[Alex W]

Originally Posted by chabby

That is so true - you put into words exactly what I've been thinking for years.
Yes, the things I listed are part of the problem too, but today's young players have no motivation to use as roots to work from. They spend so much time trying to be different instead of just being good musicians.
It has all been done before, but that doesn't mean it can't be done better.
That's just a total cop out and fear of under achieving is at an all time high.

I've talked with some young players that play what they play simply because there's been no benchmark set for it being good, or bad. Nobody wants to try and be better than Clapton, Page or Beck or any number of other great players from history. So they invent something they can call a new genre which has no benchmark - it's classic today. Kids today seem to hate being criticized. Then they dress it up in some altruistic artistic idealism BS.

Of course I realize I'm generalizing - at least I hope I am. But why else has there not been anymore Guitar Gods coming forth? They are an endangered species. Kids have a group mentality these days where they all want to call themselves part of a club or gang, or some label. That's why rap is so big because it makes kids feel like they are part of a group on TV. And in some cases they are-LOL. It's all pretty sickening and makes me glad I wasn't born a minute later.

Well let's try to be fair and realize that a musician has to be excited by a genre of music as a listener before they want to immerse themselves in that genre. The experience of young Eric Clapton the boy and the teenager listening to the blues is going to be different from that a person born in, say, 1997. To a young Eric Clapton the blues was exciting and new, and fresh, and rebellious, and exotic, all these wonderful positive things. To a 15 year old today, it's none of those things. The blues is an established genre enjoyed by adults of a prior generation (among others). It's not going to inspire that many young guitarists to go to the woodshed. It may seem like they are pursuing novelty for its own sake, but they may also be turning their back to music that to them, for the time being at least, is boring and stale. They may feel differently about the blues or any other genre in the future, of course.

[hemingway]

By the way, if you haven't read EC's autobiography, I can't recommend it enough.

I was a huge EC fan as a teenager 30 years ago, but grew disenchanted with him post-Live Aid, when he seemed to go a bit cozy.

I can see why people think his post-early 70s stuff is a bit staid and mainstream. But his life was anything but. As far as sex and drugs and rock and roll and a damn good read goes, his book rivals anything that's out there.

[Telemarkman]

His autobio is also very painful to read - at least to me. He's almost TOO honest, and there are things I'd rather not have known ... I've lost too many illusions, and that hurts I guess.

[Scantron08]

Hope so. Otherwise, the future is bleak and it's all downhill from here. I refuse to believe that.

[czook]

Cream was my favorite of any of Clapton's collaborations. He probably was at his peak in terms of creativity and energy. I think he may have become a little bored with what he was doing over and over again, slowed down and enjoyed the music. His priorities and musical interests evolved. Doesn't that happen to everyone?

That said, there were a lot of players then and now easily his equal or better, but his longevity and career in total puts him ahead of most. IMO.

[JohnK24]

if the question is will/would a trio in a rock format "every get to this level again"...sure, they were/are called The Police. Sting/Stewart/Andy..and talented musicians with catalog of stellar songs to draw from, not just jams.
imho...

Other...Gov't Mule, Derek Trucks Band would fit the bill too - in a more players/jam approach.

[Mike Eskimo]

I like a lot of Cream tunes but live Cream is what I like least.

I thought their level of improv was kinda baby-ish once I heard Coltrane/Jones or Miles/Williams or a load of others but I still have a warm spot in my heart for quite a bit of Cream.

Clapton did become the "king of cliches" like that reviewer famously said.

Remember - he bailed out of Cream because of the Band's "Big Pink" record - saying he felt ridiculous playing what he was playing after it came out.

[Jparris]

Originally Posted by JaysRiff

From a guitar playing point of view something like Driving South from the Hendrix BBC sessions scorches this.
just an opinion don't kill me

I share your opinion.

[bradpdx]

Originally Posted by Mike Eskimo

I like a lot of Cream tunes but live Cream is what I like least.

Remember - he bailed out of Cream because of the Band's "Big Pink" record - saying he felt ridiculous playing what he was playing after it came out.

As much fun as this tune is, subtle it ain't.

Yes, Cream was a great power trio and Clapton was busting a nut on lots of tracks. But it's pretty much relentless testosterone that works only within its limited parameters. It's only one kind of blues.

I feel that Clapton made a very concrete decision to pursue music with a much greater focus upon songwriting and structure, and to leave the guitar heroics to young bucks. After Cream, Clapton's guitar serves the song, even if that means playing very little. For me, that makes for much better listening and guitar work.

[chabby]

Originally Posted by bradpdx

As much fun as this tune is, subtle it ain't.

Yes, Cream was a great power trio and Clapton was busting a nut on lots of tracks. But it's pretty much relentless testosterone that works only within its limited parameters. It's only one kind of blues.

I feel that Clapton made a very concrete decision to pursue music with a much greater focus upon songwriting and structure, and to leave the guitar heroics to young bucks. After Cream, Clapton's guitar serves the song, even if that means playing very little. For me, that makes for much better listening and guitar work.

I don't disagree at all - I guess I just felt the need to celebrate this "testosterone filled" period of his career, because for whatever reason, we both agree it's just not sustainable, whether for reasons of physical prowess, or artistic idealism. As for listening to Clapton I wholeheartedly agree with the poster that sez he still turns up "Laydown Sally" as do I.
In fact, I love most of his songs better after Cream. I just love this cut because they are simply playing - no singing, not really even a song in the true sense. Oh it's got structure for sure, and I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "jam" either. In fact calling it a "jam" is in a way disrespectful to what it actually is and the genius behind it. If it's a "jam" it's a damn structured one.

I'm not a big fan of etheral jamming, even though I'm a casual fan of the Geateful Dead, if not a fervent one, when it comes to specific tunes.
But I was never into the whole "X-Factor" thing that dead heads and later Phish heads like to ascertain. Oh I've been involved as a participant in that kind of playing, but it's a largely self-serving agenda except with the most ga-ga-ish band groupy-heads-LOL! Or, for people that just want to zone out on their favorite mind trip.

No. I totally get and respect the fact that thi music (at least at first) motivated and moved Clapton as a vehicle for excitement. But I think saying that this music is now an established genre nobody under 20 can embrace, is over simplification. I think we can all agree that nothing can remain the same.
It's like my History Prof used to always say: "the only thing we can be assured of throughout history is change". That is so true.

Video and accessibility has changed everything forever. Heck, freedom has changed - it's whole concept as a reality. Having grown up in the period I did, I would feel smothered as a child today, or even 10-15 years ago. We had freeedoms up until my late 20's that are no longer part of the American relaity. Kids are tethered to their parents these days to the point, we might as well have been raised on a different planet. When I was a kid we roamed around totally free......I mean totally free. Our parents weren't worried about us much, and we certainly weren't worried either.

The workplace later is the same way - once the beeper, then later cell phone and computer were intorduced to the workplace, the majority of my freedoms were lost. All the promise of a better life through technological gadgetry went out the window with the bosse's first proclamation that productivity and profits would now also increase exponentially with all the new creaqture comforts of techno-gadgetry. It has only increased knowledge, it hasn't done almost anything to improve our lives - I mean really. Not our every day lives anyway. Not our work lives and certainly not the world's existence. The more we can see, the more we can meddle, the worse things seem to get.

The human race is doomed-LOL! At least I can laugh about it. But hey, profits keep going up with every American job lost and technology just continues increasing exponentially. Machines have steered us wrong at every turn so far. They are now running us instead of us running them, just like Terminator movies suggest. They are the new evolving life form.

Because as a species, we're no different from the guys that carried swords, or bow and arrows. But now we have all this stuff.

[backporch guy]

Originally Posted by mal paso

Surely "Sunshine.." is their signature tune, no?

I vote for "Crossroads"

[E5RSY]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this, since it seemed like quite the love-fest, but...looks like others have already started to ruin the party. So...

There is no denying Clapton's rightful place in the pantheon of greats we should admire and give due to. And, yes, I agree that Cream was his best stuff when it come strictly to the guitar. Like Brad stated above, his later stuff has more value to me, overall. When he started singing is when he started to really come into his own. In fact, I think "Unplugged" is probably his best record ever, largely due to the vocal element. For most of his career, I think he was largely phoning it in (no rocks, please). There was no better mimic of Freddie King than Clapton. And, to address and earlier comment above, Clapton in no way, shape, or form bested those that came before him, especially Otis Rush and Freddie King.

In defense of Otis (ever heard Clapton nail a vocal opening like that, or play with that kind of feeling?):



Now, on to more recent fare. To say that no one has done it since Cream, or moved beyond it is, I think, incorrect.

There's more heart and soul of the blues in any two bars of the tunes below than Clapton had on some entire albums:



And, on only five strings, to boot---

[chabby]

Yeah I love Otis Rush and will give him the nod every time as strictly a blues vocalist, but I'll take Clapton's guitar playing every time. And I'll take Clapton as a Rock or pop vocalist too.

Freddie King? I loved him, powerfulll, wonderfull blues player all of Clapton's equal for raw power, but not the polish. That's not to say Freddie couldn't have been polished, or even that he wasn't polished, just that EC was more polished.

But then it all comes down to taste and opinion too. SRV had alot of power and soul too and was a guitar God, but I like Clapton better...... if I was stuck with one artist on a deserted island, which thankfully we are not. These guys were all good, but they weren't better than Clapton to me, not one of them. As good? Maybe.....Hendrix was amazing and a one-off genius. Can't listen to Jimi for as long as EC though.