Should Clapton have really played a strat for this?

TwangerWannabe

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
1,094
Location
West Coast
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.
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
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Posts
3,625
Location
corner of walk and don't walk
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 ;)

.
 

Chester P Squier

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Posts
3,245
Age
74
Location
Covington, LA
I believe Clapton's Strat works for some songs... but, others fall a little short of "girth."

As we know, humbuckers have a "Creamier" (pun intended) and naturally thicker tone to em.

A single coil, Strat, neck pu, is just going to fall short of that hb tone.

Even with the mid boost.

Especially, at achieving the "woman tone" he was noted for, at that time.

Some of those Cream classics require that "woman tone."

I dont believe a Strat is capable of getting that exact tone.


imo.

100% agree. The mid-boost is nice, but it's nowhere close to the humbucker "woman tone". I think that's why his tone in the late-80's started sounding obnoxious (to me); he went back to heavier overdrive for his solos but it was a strat and lacked the punch, sounding more nasally.
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.
 

soundchaser59

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Posts
2,199
Location
Up The Creek
I believe Clapton's Strat works for some songs... but, others fall a little short of "girth."

As we know, humbuckers have a "Creamier" (pun intended) and naturally thicker tone to em.

A single coil, Strat, neck pu, is just going to fall short of that hb tone.

Even with the mid boost.

Especially, at achieving the "woman tone" he was noted for, at that time.

Some of those Cream classics require that "woman tone."

I dont believe a Strat is capable of getting that exact tone.


imo.
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
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Posts
7,875
Location
Georgia/Minnesota
Poor Eric.
He gave us so much, and he takes a lot of, uh, abuse.
There’s no other guitarist/singer who touches his output, versatility, and longevity, IMO.
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.
 

rand z

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
4,711
Location
trumansburg, ny
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.
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
Joined
May 21, 2006
Posts
5,971
Location
Space
*** 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.
 

Jared Purdy

Friend of Leo's
Gold Supporter
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Posts
4,745
Age
63
Location
Toronto, Ontario.
I never knew anything about Cream, except "White Room" and "Sunshine of Your Love", so I've been digging into the old stuff. Clapton's playing at the time was very aggressive and had lots of attitude.

Then I stumbled across this. To my ears, it seems far less aggressive but I can't tell if it's his playing or the fact that he's on a strat. Whatever the case, it's missing a lot of the impact I associate with his earlier playing. It's not bad, it's just missing something substantial.


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
Joined
Feb 12, 2020
Posts
4,207
Location
Southwestern, USA
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.
 

thunderbyrd

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Posts
9,247
Age
64
Location
central ky
I never knew anything about Cream, except "White Room" and "Sunshine of Your Love", so I've been digging into the old stuff. Clapton's playing at the time was very aggressive and had lots of attitude.

Then I stumbled across this. To my ears, it seems far less aggressive but I can't tell if it's his playing or the fact that he's on a strat. Whatever the case, it's missing a lot of the impact I associate with his earlier playing. It's not bad, it's just missing something substantial.



it would have sounded better with a LP, imo.
 

Swirling Snow

Tele-Holic
Joined
Dec 4, 2021
Posts
839
Location
No Dakota
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
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Posts
4,037
Location
Maryland
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.
 

TheCheapGuitarist

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 22, 2022
Posts
1,160
Location
Maryland
Maybe just me.....but I hope by accepting that my musical heroes are, for the most part, human beings.....with the flaws that we all have to one degree or another, doesn't mean I'm "giving a pass" for their behavior.
And yes, Clapton has had a lot of turmoil and pain in his life, through his own poor choices or possibly even Karma, but I'm not here to "judge". When it adversely affects someone else, I might step in with objections.....but otherwise, I try to stay out of it. I enjoy, and even love some of his work......and find too much of it c**p, but, contrary to the infamous wall graffiti, he's not God.
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.:lol:💩
 
Last edited:




Top