runstendt
Tele-Holic
He did, but they apparently never felt substantial enough for him to properly abuse. An SG is far too delicate of a guitar for The Who.
Should Clapton have really played a strat for this?
- Thread starter TheCheapGuitarist
- Start date
TwangerWannabe
Tele-Afflicted
Right. Because he played the heck out of them back in the day, I highly doubt his playing now is anywhere near as heavy or abusive as he was back then.
old wrench
Friend of Leo's
I've always liked Clapton's early playing with Johm Mayall and Cream the best, and it just so happens that he was playing Gibson's with humbuckers into Marshall amps back then
Clapton's style, phrasing, and intensity back then was different from what it later evolved to be
That his sound did change shouldn't really be a surprise - my own playing has changed over the course of my life-time, and I think that holds true for those of us that are fortunate enough to have played for a long time
Back then, Clapton was playing his interpretation of what the great American blues players were playing - if he had been playing a Strat instead of a Gibson, the only thing different would have been the single-coil, 25.5" scale tone
I've always thought that it was a strange turn of events that I, a young American kid, was introduced to the music of the American blues players by a young British guitar player - but that's just how things were back then
*** According to both Buddy Guy and Clapton (it's documented by both of them in the Buddy Guy PBS documentary film), it was while Buddy Guy was on his first "tour" in England that Clapton saw Buddy playing his Strat and became determined to buy a Strat for himself
It's not the guitar - it's who is playing the guitar
.
Clapton's style, phrasing, and intensity back then was different from what it later evolved to be
That his sound did change shouldn't really be a surprise - my own playing has changed over the course of my life-time, and I think that holds true for those of us that are fortunate enough to have played for a long time
Back then, Clapton was playing his interpretation of what the great American blues players were playing - if he had been playing a Strat instead of a Gibson, the only thing different would have been the single-coil, 25.5" scale tone
I've always thought that it was a strange turn of events that I, a young American kid, was introduced to the music of the American blues players by a young British guitar player - but that's just how things were back then
*** According to both Buddy Guy and Clapton (it's documented by both of them in the Buddy Guy PBS documentary film), it was while Buddy Guy was on his first "tour" in England that Clapton saw Buddy playing his Strat and became determined to buy a Strat for himself
It's not the guitar - it's who is playing the guitar
.
When I went to hear EC on his From The Cradle tour he had a rack of guitars on stage. He changed guitars almost every song. So he’s not against bringing the right tool for the job.
Chester P Squier
Friend of Leo's
Believe it or not, I can get "woman tone" on my Strat, my Squier Affinity Strat. I have to use position 4, which is noise-canceling. I can also get "woman tone" on my Gretsch 5120 with both humbuckers going. Of course, I have the guitars going into the overdrive channel on my little Vox.
My Fender Telecaster can not get woman tone, even though it has humbuckers. It sounds more like an electric fiddle or something.
2HBStrat
Friend of Leo's
Clapton had a lot of "glory days" playing Strats, too!
darkwaters
Friend of Leo's
Yes. Can’t forget Derek & The Dominos.
soundchaser59
Friend of Leo's
All spoken as if a direct comparison between the two is possible. There are just as many things that a LP falls short of or is incapable of achieving. Does anyone use an LP to copy Stevie Ray Vaughn? Was it your intention to claim or imply that the Strat is inferior? Because all you have really done is reveal your personal preference.
stephent2
Poster Extraordinaire
It's true. Hats off to EC for sustaining a career in the music biz and staying fairly relevant. And staying alive. No denying his flashes of brilliance, he's a master at creating tension in his best blues playing.
I am personally so over Clapton,.. recent things all the way back to an unfortunate speech in the '70.
Still he's a blues fan no matter what I think. And whatever guitar he chooses is fine by me. Dealers choice.
My thoughts exactly!
rand z
Friend of Leo's
Not really.
And, I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but...
First:
I've owned 4 Strats and still have 1... great guitars and I wouldn't be without one.
They're unique, especially for rhythm and fills.
If you overdrive the amp a bit, or use a good overdrive pedal, the are also good for lead work.
However, you can play lead clean with them, too.
I had a Les Paul for 8 years and let it go recently for an Gibson ES 339, a better guitar for my purposes.
I'm not a big fan of HB pickups; but, depending on the music being performed, they just might sound better than a single coil (or not).
I believe that all guitars are somewhat inter-changeable and any good player is capable of coaxing great sounds from them.
It's apples and oranges.
My comments here are regarding Eric Clapton and the Cream reunion posted by the OP.
Not about which is a better guitar: Strat vs. Les Paul
As I stated in my original post, I believe some of the songs the Cream performed at the Reunion would have sounded better on a Gibson with HB's.
Not specifically a LP... as I believe some of the original songs were performed on a Gibson SG, and possibly a 335.
Although I am partial to Fender guitars (I am here at TDPRI, aren't I?), Claptons Strat sounds a bit anemic, especially with that mid-boost thing, which I don't particularly care for...
I know why he uses it.
He's trying to get close to that woman tone from his Strat.
I'm just saying that I think it falls short, on him.
imo.
SixStringSlinger
Poster Extraordinaire
*** According to both Buddy Guy and Clapton (it's documented by both of them in the Buddy Guy PBS documentary film), it was while Buddy Guy was on his first "tour" in England that Clapton saw Buddy playing his Strat and became determined to buy a Strat for himself
It's not the guitar - it's who is playing the guitar
.
I also remember reading Clapton talking about not feeling "able" to approach a Strat until years after Jimi Hendrix died, since Clapton identified the two with each other so much.
It's not the Strat. It's the moron playing it. A person is far more than the sum of albums he's produced.
NoTeleBob
Friend of Leo's
I saw one of those shows and it was a lot fuller in person. Jack stole the show though. But, I was also hoping he'd show up with a Gibby.
As for his tone, he lost that meandering around on Ocean Blvd. Intentionally on his part, clearly. I haven't liked more than a half a handfull of his songs or his tone since the Dominoes days. YMMV.
As for his tone, he lost that meandering around on Ocean Blvd. Intentionally on his part, clearly. I haven't liked more than a half a handfull of his songs or his tone since the Dominoes days. YMMV.
Swirling Snow
Tele-Afflicted
That's what my kids say when some factoid catches them off-guard.
Perhaps you aren't aware that in the fifties, young Black men in Chicago had better prospects than young men in London. The losses from the bombings were unspeakable; they had no way to vent their rage. They were still rebuilding, and there were no production jobs, yet. Just the dole.
Eric played the rock star lottery and won big. For a short time, he was the hottest property in the business.
Then he wasn't. You can look that up, if you want.
His comeback was slow and painful.
Now, I'm familiar with the lives of most of the old bluesmen and while a few got a raw deal, by and large none suffered as Eric has. If you find one you think has, you just ask him, "And then... and then, did your 4 year old son fall out a window on the 53rd floor?"
deytookerjaabs
Friend of Leo's
Clapton is a funny case....
He revolutionized things in a way but it wasn't the way it's sometimes advertised as. He really made famous the later "modern" guitar technique of the sustained overdrive with the long held notes & beautiful vibrato.
But that's just it, it was a technique & tone revolution of sorts. Yet his playing if you actually learn all those parts is so incredibly rooted in 40's/50's R&B. I won't even say "blues" yet because as much as he loved Otis/BB he wasn't quite on any purist train at a young age even though he covered those tunes with Mayall. But when he solo'd with Cream/Mayall he played what an R&B Sax guy would play and IIRC Clapton has eluded to such. Whether he said it or not though it's obvious if you hear old R&B Sax solos then listen to 60's Clapton.
Point I'm making is he was a student of the music first and foremost. The playing he did was straight out of the bag of musical language he was studying record by record, by ear, the right way.
You listen to all those old Cream live shows and those guys were pushing limits during extended jams while Clapton kept them on earth with his R&B. When they stretched out Bruce would be on some Bartok or 20th century thing, Baker was likely high as a kite while doing this meta-tribal stuff then there was Clapton keeping the licks in the old pocket/language.
Moreover, you could tell even in those live 60's Cream jams that stretching out for 10 minutes was not his comfort zone. He was not Roland Kirk, or Trane, or even Jimi for that matter. Clapton has always been that student of great music. When he got deeper into Chicago blues he got closer in tone/feel to those older players, deeper into acoustic blues he did the same etc etc.
In his eyes all along he was that roots guy but the world changed around him and not so much him. In the 60's he hooked up with wild players during a wild time and as his career went on he went further back down the music rabbit hole he's always been primarily interested in. In his mind it's probably a lot of the guitar world that doesn't "get it." He never set out to invent heavily overdriven widdly widdle wee guitar playing that came later down the road, he was trying to recreate the stuff he heard as he heard it in his own mind from the greats who preceded him.
He revolutionized things in a way but it wasn't the way it's sometimes advertised as. He really made famous the later "modern" guitar technique of the sustained overdrive with the long held notes & beautiful vibrato.
But that's just it, it was a technique & tone revolution of sorts. Yet his playing if you actually learn all those parts is so incredibly rooted in 40's/50's R&B. I won't even say "blues" yet because as much as he loved Otis/BB he wasn't quite on any purist train at a young age even though he covered those tunes with Mayall. But when he solo'd with Cream/Mayall he played what an R&B Sax guy would play and IIRC Clapton has eluded to such. Whether he said it or not though it's obvious if you hear old R&B Sax solos then listen to 60's Clapton.
Point I'm making is he was a student of the music first and foremost. The playing he did was straight out of the bag of musical language he was studying record by record, by ear, the right way.
You listen to all those old Cream live shows and those guys were pushing limits during extended jams while Clapton kept them on earth with his R&B. When they stretched out Bruce would be on some Bartok or 20th century thing, Baker was likely high as a kite while doing this meta-tribal stuff then there was Clapton keeping the licks in the old pocket/language.
Moreover, you could tell even in those live 60's Cream jams that stretching out for 10 minutes was not his comfort zone. He was not Roland Kirk, or Trane, or even Jimi for that matter. Clapton has always been that student of great music. When he got deeper into Chicago blues he got closer in tone/feel to those older players, deeper into acoustic blues he did the same etc etc.
In his eyes all along he was that roots guy but the world changed around him and not so much him. In the 60's he hooked up with wild players during a wild time and as his career went on he went further back down the music rabbit hole he's always been primarily interested in. In his mind it's probably a lot of the guitar world that doesn't "get it." He never set out to invent heavily overdriven widdly widdle wee guitar playing that came later down the road, he was trying to recreate the stuff he heard as he heard it in his own mind from the greats who preceded him.
rand z
Friend of Leo's
His grandparents took care of him.
However, it surely had an effect on his life.
EC has had his share of tragedy.
A lot of us have.
To his credit, he was able to move on.
imo.
TheCheapGuitarist
Tele-Afflicted
We know too much about the personal issues of celebrities, and we tend to think that some are "better" than others (and of course we are "better" than all of them because we selectively use ourselves as the measuring stick...). The stupid thing about that is that literally nothing a celebrity has done in his/her past has effected us. We're better off worrying about the things we've done that have affected the lives of others than some famous guy we've never met and had no clue who we even are.
That said, at least I'm not Amber Heard.
Last edited:
Do you really think it would it would be substantially better if he used a Gibson? Music isn't about the gear.
