Tell Me :
Talk
Mick learned claptons bluesbreaker licks note for note, some of those same licks appear in his playing after. Mick bought essentially the same type of guitar, amp and treble boost effect that clapton made his initial bluesbreaker/cream signature sounds with, Mick used that set up with similar tones for 3 years or so.
Given all of the above, I think it's fair to say he was influenced by Eric Clapton, especially when one considers that Mick has stated this himself.
Interesting that in 1968 he sounds like clapton did in 66 though.
Maybe in some alternative reality.
Those were rumours. Besides Gelling wanted his own band: Cuby and the Blizzards
Can you prove he played/sounded like that in 1966?.
I don't agree that he's better, but he certainly is one mighty fine geetar player! Better and more exciting than Mick Taylor!
Is that early cuby and the blizzards stuff available on CD?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 23:52 by His Majesty.
Sure Taylor was influenced by Clapton, he was younger,shy, and Clapton was famous. Just a pity Clapton never tried to pick up Taylor's tone and melodic approach.
Sure.
Depends basically on the quality of the teacher and the subject dealing with.
Dude, Clapton switches between major and minor scales in the same key all the time. Listen to any of his blues performances on youtube besides "Double Trouble". It's in a minor key so he stays in the minor scale but otherwise he does alot of switching up.
Can you tell me were dude,??
He's hitting the C# in some of his runs, multiple times in the first minute alone. C# is in A major pentatonic, not minor. But he does stick mostly to minor pentatonic for "Groaning The Blues" with the exception of the occasional major scale note. If you wanna hear him switch between the two, go listen to nearly any version of "Have You Ever Loved A Woman". Like the one I've included here. Doubt you could argue with that one.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 04:28 by Tumblin_Dice_07.
I only truly like Clapton during his bluesbreakers and Cream days. He had some bite and aggression in his playing then, but got a bit carried away with the whole soloing for 20 minutes thing Cream ended up doing. Regardless of scales etc I just like the sounds and most of the songs from that period.
Taylor is obviously a more melodic player than Clapton, but in the context of The Rolling Stones I prefer Micks playing when it's more simpler and more integrated rather than when he mostly plays melodic lines/solos throughout songs ie live circa 1973.
My opinions of EC vs. MT are quite close to what Edward says here, but there is a little historian in me that wants to be fair to EC and to his influence in blues rock.
I have many times wondered what is so special about Clapton's playing, because basically - I can easily relate to what Amsterdamned claims in this thread - that it is quite standard stuff, and does not have that special colour of difference that, for example, MT has (or Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page or Peter Green and hundreds of lesser known names around the world)). I think the simple reason is that Eric Clapton is the point of reference to everyone else as far as teh blues guitar playing goes. He created the "standard" of how to play the blues guitar in the first placce. It was through him that the black American blues guitar tradition get to white audiences, and inspired thousands of kids to play the guitar. It is due this very reason why it sounds "boring" or the first thing teh guitar pupils are learning these days to play the blues guitar and solos. No, it is not B.B. King, it is not Freddie King, it is not Buddy Guy, it is not Jimi Hendrix, it surely is not Stevie Ray Vaugnan - it is the way Eric Clapton plays that sets the standards. He nailed the form in the mid-60's. To play the blues as text books says is to play it like Eric Clapton once showed how to do it.
I think the discussion of Mick Taylor and EC's "influence" or "inspiration" is point of importance here. Taylor is typical young blues guitarist who learned the blues guitar vocabulary from Clapton's example - and there were thousands great white blues guitarists in the world like Taylor but who were not so lucky to be in right circumstances an a given time. The Clapton is the foundation and point of reference according to which Taylor writes his signature sound and his "difference", and I am sure Taylor would be the first to "admit" this (as he has done!). So, in way Clapton is the 'place of trading waters' (what's the expression in English ???) where the whole American black blues guitar tradition is accomplished and given a certain form, into which the whole white blues guitar-based tradition is to be build upon (they will say that they were listening to Freddie King, but don't believe them, they actually were listening to Eric Clapton and get to know Freddie's authentic cool name through Clapton...) It is no wonder why Chuck Berry calls him - and I remember hating it! - as "the king of blues guitar" in HAIL HAIL movie...
I think the relation of guitarists as Taylor to Clapton is like the relation of Pete Townshead to The Rolling Stones - even though the difference of breakthrough is a question of a yaer or two, those guys - The Stones and Clapton - were the "idols" of the others, and the latters been "fans" ever since, as they openly admit. The pioneers are pioneers and followers are followers.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 11:10 by Doxa.
Where do you get this from? I'm not sure of Eric's influence on Mick Taylor but Eric was bound to influence every aspiring blues guitarist to some degree as the Beano album was groundbreaking.
I think it was more a case that both Eric and Mick were very influenced by Freddie King (especially Eric with his vocals).
He stated this in an interview relating to him stepping in one night for a no-show Clapton in 1966. He was only 17!
Yeah, I think he did the 2nd set or something. Maybe a few off the Beano album a few others - Oh, Pretty Woman, etc. Mayall would have had an extensive repertoire I'm guessing.
I have wondered what set up Mick used to record the three Bluesbreakers albums. Didn't know he used a treble booster. I was thinking maybe he used a cranked AC30 which is quite toppy. I can hear an Eric style tone on Driving Sideways.
Not that it matters really but I seem to recall Mayall saying Mick was the greatest of the three (EC, MT and PG). Or maybe that is just me projecting. For me, Mick has the great feel/musicality as a blues guitarist although Eric was by far the most influential.
By the way, Mick's playing on the Bluesbreaker albums is incredible - on par with his playing on GYYYO.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 11:29 by terraplane.
Well, at least you have a much better pic/avatar now than before, and I remember having said something about it, I thought something like "scary", but it wouldn't surprise me if you deny the causality.
Anyway, speak for yourself and not for others. Seems to me another good advice. And it's for free.
Btw: how can one prefer a rather vulgar and one dimensional song like Star star to Silvertrain? Teach me that, please. But I'm really glad that you can appreciate 100 years ago as a great song
.
Yes,he's playing a few major blues scales here, but not very tasteful or effective.
The guy is playing a 100000000 notes,saying nothing. No rests on vital spots,no sforzando's or ritard, his tone is puny. He acts like a frustrated player who desperately tries to escape his harmonic prison ..I don't hear the Taylor or a Hendrix /Gelling musical interpretation and rest..
Not my cup of tea ,so to speak. But enjoy him.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 15, 2010 20:27
Quote
kleermaker
Well...
Mick learned claptons bluesbreaker licks note for note, some of those same licks appear in his playing after. Mick bought essentially the same type of guitar, amp and treble boost effect that clapton made his initial bluesbreaker/cream signature sounds with, Mick used that set up with similar tones for 3 years or so.
Given all of the above, I think it's fair to say he was influenced by Eric Clapton, especially when one considers that Mick has stated this himself.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 15, 2010 20:30
Quote
Amsterdamned
A simple xample of an unknown white bluesplayer '68,way more tastefull then Clapton.
He played like this in '66 already. To mention one..
Clapton would have been impressed.
Interesting that in 1968 he sounds like clapton did in 66 though.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 15, 2010 20:30
So I'm right: Taylor has been influenced by my fellow countryman Eelco Gelling and certainly not by EC!
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 15, 2010 20:42
Quote
kleermaker
So I'm right: Taylor has been influenced by my fellow countryman Eelco Gelling and certainly not by EC!
Maybe in some alternative reality.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 15, 2010 21:01
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Amsterdamned
A simple xample of an unknown white bluesplayer '68,way more tastefull then Clapton.
He played like this in '66 already. To mention one..
Clapton would have been impressed.
Interesting that in 1968 he sounds like clapton did in 66 though.
Nope, Gelling played like this in' 66(as you can read in my post above),but his recordings are rare .But that's not the issue: his tone,timing and feeling are better than Clapton's.He follows the chord changes,knew what he was doing,(just like Hendrix or mcLaughlin in '64, or Wes mont Gomery,who din't need distortion to impress in '56 see clip) .Something which Clapton never could.Clapton is a one scale guy,for the big
audience.Commercial blues for dummies IMO
Gelling refused an offer to play with Mayall in the 6-tees btw.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 15, 2010 21:41
Quote
Amsterdamned
Gelling refused an offer to play with Mayall in the 6-tees btw.
Those were rumours. Besides Gelling wanted his own band: Cuby and the Blizzards
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 15, 2010 22:13
Ok C&B where great... The clip above is mid-6-tees,not '56.
Wes is playing bbluesscales for 90%..The border between Jazz and Blues is very small.
Wes is playing bbluesscales for 90%..The border between Jazz and Blues is very small.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 15, 2010 22:56
Clapton ....Imagine how groovy the piss-break woulda been ta I Shot the Sheriff ...
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 15, 2010 22:58
Quote
Rockman
Clapton ....Imagine how groovy the piss-break woulda been ta I Shot the Sheriff ...
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 15, 2010 23:47
Quote
Amsterdamned
Nope, Gelling played like this in' 66(as you can read in my post above),but his recordings are rare .But that's not the issue: his tone,timing and feeling are better than Clapton's.
Can you prove he played/sounded like that in 1966?.
I don't agree that he's better, but he certainly is one mighty fine geetar player! Better and more exciting than Mick Taylor!
Is that early cuby and the blizzards stuff available on CD?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 23:52 by His Majesty.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:21
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Amsterdamned
Can you prove he played/sounded like that in 1966?.
I don't agree that he's better, but he certainly is one mighty fine geetar player! Better and more exciting than Mick Taylor!
Is that early cuby and the blizzards stuff available on CD?
No,I ,I will have to be a burglar to prove that.
Agree he maybe even better than Taylor or Clapton,not Hendrix I'am afraid.
But cannot you come up with pure musical arguments, such as tone,timing improvisation;playing over chord changes like Taylor,Hendrix or Wes (more jazzy though) do,and genuine blues.
Let's start simple:did you ever notice how clever Taylor is in mixing between Major and minor blues scales in the same key,something Eric never does? Otherwise we never get out of this Clapton kindergarten level, ok?-I'am sorry.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Tumblin_Dice_07
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:21
Why would Taylor lie about being influenced by Clapton?
I personally can hear the influence. Taylor played alot of Claptonesque licks.
I find the personal bias that some people on this board have against certain players is insane. Many bash Clapton, some bash Taylor, the majority bash Ronnie Wood. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but for god's sake, just because a person likes one guitarist better than another doesn't mean the less admired musician should be insulted. People argue aggressively as if their opinions are facts that can be proven and backed up. They're all great players. I can appreciate alot of different musicians, although Clapton is my favorite guitarist, I still love Taylor's playing, and the playing of Peter Green, and Hendrix. I love to hear great guitar playing. I'm not that crazy about Jimmy Page's style but the man was/is a fantastic musician. I don't feel the need to put him down and claim he never influenced anybody.
I personally can hear the influence. Taylor played alot of Claptonesque licks.
I find the personal bias that some people on this board have against certain players is insane. Many bash Clapton, some bash Taylor, the majority bash Ronnie Wood. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but for god's sake, just because a person likes one guitarist better than another doesn't mean the less admired musician should be insulted. People argue aggressively as if their opinions are facts that can be proven and backed up. They're all great players. I can appreciate alot of different musicians, although Clapton is my favorite guitarist, I still love Taylor's playing, and the playing of Peter Green, and Hendrix. I love to hear great guitar playing. I'm not that crazy about Jimmy Page's style but the man was/is a fantastic musician. I don't feel the need to put him down and claim he never influenced anybody.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:30
Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
Why would Taylor lie about being influenced by Clapton?
I personally can hear the influence. Taylor played alot of Claptonesque licks.
.
Sure Taylor was influenced by Clapton, he was younger,shy, and Clapton was famous. Just a pity Clapton never tried to pick up Taylor's tone and melodic approach.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:30
Quote
kleermaker
Truly wise men let themselves be taught by others.
Sure.
Depends basically on the quality of the teacher and the subject dealing with.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:37
clapton would have lasted even less time than taylor because of ego, clapton was a superstar in his own right. it could never work
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Tumblin_Dice_07
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:39
Quote
Amsterdamned
Let's start simple:did you ever notice how clever Taylor is in mixing between Major and minor blues scales in the same key,something Eric never does? Otherwise we never get out of this Clapton kindergarten level, ok?
Dude, Clapton switches between major and minor scales in the same key all the time. Listen to any of his blues performances on youtube besides "Double Trouble". It's in a minor key so he stays in the minor scale but otherwise he does alot of switching up.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 00:57
Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07Quote
Amsterdamned
Let's start simple:did you ever notice how clever Taylor is in mixing between Major and minor blues scales in the same key,something Eric never does? Otherwise we never get out of this Clapton kindergarten level, ok?
Dude, Clapton switches between major and minor scales in the same key all the time. Listen to any of his blues performances on youtube besides "Double Trouble". It's in a minor key so he stays in the minor scale but otherwise he does alot of switching up.
Can you tell me were dude,??
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 01:09
Sorry to choose the wrong clip, but that makes it even worse.. how boring can a blues player be to repeat the same minor lick for eight minutes. Taylor plays in a minor key and also uses Major scales and reverse. Listen to ggyyo for example.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 01:19
Cannot hear it?
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Tumblin_Dice_07
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:20
Quote
Amsterdamned
Cannot hear it?
He's hitting the C# in some of his runs, multiple times in the first minute alone. C# is in A major pentatonic, not minor. But he does stick mostly to minor pentatonic for "Groaning The Blues" with the exception of the occasional major scale note. If you wanna hear him switch between the two, go listen to nearly any version of "Have You Ever Loved A Woman". Like the one I've included here. Doubt you could argue with that one.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 04:28 by Tumblin_Dice_07.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:26
I don't see a great resemblance between the playing of Taylor and Clapton. Taylor is a lot more jazzy, whereas Eric is very dry, almost bordering on being bland. Eric has never truly moved me as a guitar player. Maybe Mick Taylor is a little more like Carlos Santana to a degree, except he isn't so musically flamboyant, and he has a much more soulful touch, much more subtle, so to speak.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 10:19
Quote
Amsterdamned
No,I ,I will have to be a burglar to prove that.
Agree he maybe even better than Taylor or Clapton,not Hendrix I'am afraid.
But cannot you come up with pure musical arguments, such as tone,timing improvisation;playing over chord changes like Taylor,Hendrix or Wes (more jazzy though) do,and genuine blues.
Let's start simple:did you ever notice how clever Taylor is in mixing between Major and minor blues scales in the same key,something Eric never does? Otherwise we never get out of this Clapton kindergarten level, ok?
I only truly like Clapton during his bluesbreakers and Cream days. He had some bite and aggression in his playing then, but got a bit carried away with the whole soloing for 20 minutes thing Cream ended up doing. Regardless of scales etc I just like the sounds and most of the songs from that period.
Taylor is obviously a more melodic player than Clapton, but in the context of The Rolling Stones I prefer Micks playing when it's more simpler and more integrated rather than when he mostly plays melodic lines/solos throughout songs ie live circa 1973.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 16, 2010 10:45
Quote
Edward Twining
I don't see a great resemblance between the playing of Taylor and Clapton. Taylor is a lot more jazzy, whereas Eric is very dry, almost bordering on being bland. Eric has never truly moved me as a guitar player. Maybe Mick Taylor is a little more like Carlos Santana to a degree, except he isn't so musically flamboyant, and he has a much more soulful touch, much more subtle, so to speak.
My opinions of EC vs. MT are quite close to what Edward says here, but there is a little historian in me that wants to be fair to EC and to his influence in blues rock.
I have many times wondered what is so special about Clapton's playing, because basically - I can easily relate to what Amsterdamned claims in this thread - that it is quite standard stuff, and does not have that special colour of difference that, for example, MT has (or Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page or Peter Green and hundreds of lesser known names around the world)). I think the simple reason is that Eric Clapton is the point of reference to everyone else as far as teh blues guitar playing goes. He created the "standard" of how to play the blues guitar in the first placce. It was through him that the black American blues guitar tradition get to white audiences, and inspired thousands of kids to play the guitar. It is due this very reason why it sounds "boring" or the first thing teh guitar pupils are learning these days to play the blues guitar and solos. No, it is not B.B. King, it is not Freddie King, it is not Buddy Guy, it is not Jimi Hendrix, it surely is not Stevie Ray Vaugnan - it is the way Eric Clapton plays that sets the standards. He nailed the form in the mid-60's. To play the blues as text books says is to play it like Eric Clapton once showed how to do it.
I think the discussion of Mick Taylor and EC's "influence" or "inspiration" is point of importance here. Taylor is typical young blues guitarist who learned the blues guitar vocabulary from Clapton's example - and there were thousands great white blues guitarists in the world like Taylor but who were not so lucky to be in right circumstances an a given time. The Clapton is the foundation and point of reference according to which Taylor writes his signature sound and his "difference", and I am sure Taylor would be the first to "admit" this (as he has done!). So, in way Clapton is the 'place of trading waters' (what's the expression in English ???
) where the whole American black blues guitar tradition is accomplished and given a certain form, into which the whole white blues guitar-based tradition is to be build upon (they will say that they were listening to Freddie King, but don't believe them, they actually were listening to Eric Clapton and get to know Freddie's authentic cool name through Clapton...) It is no wonder why Chuck Berry calls him - and I remember hating it! - as "the king of blues guitar" in HAIL HAIL movie...I think the relation of guitarists as Taylor to Clapton is like the relation of Pete Townshead to The Rolling Stones - even though the difference of breakthrough is a question of a yaer or two, those guys - The Stones and Clapton - were the "idols" of the others, and the latters been "fans" ever since, as they openly admit. The pioneers are pioneers and followers are followers.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 11:10 by Doxa.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: March 16, 2010 10:53
Quote
His Majesty
Mick learnt claptons guitar parts from the beano album note for note.
Where do you get this from? I'm not sure of Eric's influence on Mick Taylor but Eric was bound to influence every aspiring blues guitarist to some degree as the Beano album was groundbreaking.
I think it was more a case that both Eric and Mick were very influenced by Freddie King (especially Eric with his vocals).
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:03
Quote
terraplane
Where do you get this from?
He stated this in an interview relating to him stepping in one night for a no-show Clapton in 1966. He was only 17!
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:13
He's hitting the C# in some of his runs, multiple times in the first minute alone. C# is in A major pentatonic, not minor. But he does stick mostly to minor pentatonic for "Groaning The Blues" with the exception of the occasional major scale note. If you wanna hear him switch between the two, go listen to nearly any version of "Have You Ever Loved A Woman". Like the one I've included here. Doubt you could argue with that one.
I'am gonna listen to it.!
I'am gonna listen to it.!
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:27
Quote
His MajestyQuote
terraplane
Where do you get this from?
He stated this in an interview relating to him stepping in one night for a no-show Clapton in 1966. He was only 17!
Yeah, I think he did the 2nd set or something. Maybe a few off the Beano album a few others - Oh, Pretty Woman, etc. Mayall would have had an extensive repertoire I'm guessing.
I have wondered what set up Mick used to record the three Bluesbreakers albums. Didn't know he used a treble booster. I was thinking maybe he used a cranked AC30 which is quite toppy. I can hear an Eric style tone on Driving Sideways.
Not that it matters really but I seem to recall Mayall saying Mick was the greatest of the three (EC, MT and PG). Or maybe that is just me projecting. For me, Mick has the great feel/musicality as a blues guitarist although Eric was by far the most influential.
By the way, Mick's playing on the Bluesbreaker albums is incredible - on par with his playing on GYYYO.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 11:29 by terraplane.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:04
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
kleermaker
Truly wise men let themselves be taught by others.
Sure.
Depends basically on the quality of the teacher and the subject dealing with.
Well, at least you have a much better pic/avatar now than before, and I remember having said something about it, I thought something like "scary", but it wouldn't surprise me if you deny the causality.
Anyway, speak for yourself and not for others. Seems to me another good advice. And it's for free.
Btw: how can one prefer a rather vulgar and one dimensional song like Star star to Silvertrain? Teach me that, please. But I'm really glad that you can appreciate 100 years ago as a great song
.Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:31
Quote
Tumblin-Dice
He's hitting the C# in some of his runs, multiple times in the first minute alone. C# is in A major pentatonic, not minor. But he does stick mostly to minor pentatonic for "Groaning The Blues" with the exception of the occasional major scale note. If you wanna hear him switch between the two, go listen to nearly any version of "Have You Ever Loved A Woman". Like the one I've included here. Doubt you could argue with that one.
Yes,he's playing a few major blues scales here, but not very tasteful or effective.
The guy is playing a 100000000 notes,saying nothing. No rests on vital spots,no sforzando's or ritard, his tone is puny. He acts like a frustrated player who desperately tries to escape his harmonic prison ..I don't hear the Taylor or a Hendrix /Gelling musical interpretation and rest..
Not my cup of tea ,so to speak. But enjoy him.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:37
"The guy is playing a 100000000 notes,saying nothing."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1832
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10