"Clapton should have joined in 1975." (T&F)


It would never fly, because Clapton is a solo musician.

Keith said at the time, to writer Barbara Charone: "It doesn't matter about the B. B. Kings, Eric Claptons, and Mick Taylors, 'cause they do what they do,---but I KNOW THEY CAN'T DO WHAT I DO." They can play as many notes under the sun, but they can't hold that rhythm down, baby."

Also, when Clapton asked Keith why he didn't ask him to join the Stones, Keith actually told Clapton, "Because you're a SOLO artist."

That's awesome. It's great that they didn't take Clapton. He's too much a solo artist as you also say. And Clapton's playing sucks ass these days.

JumpingKentFlash

Demon,
My Clapton post was obviously a joke.
But it´s funny that you actually took the bait and started another one of your unnecessary bullshit threads.
If this forum had moderators, 90% of your nonsense posts would get deleted right away.

We'll never know. I like the way some of you "sorts" wiggle out of the obvious.

JumpingKentFlash wrote:
"Clapton's playing sucks ass these days."

"Yeah, Keith said once in an interview, "Get off your lazy ass Eric" and play."

Not word for word, but close.

I've seen Clapton a couple of months ago and I was not disapointed.

Allthough I must say that the previous show I saw, with Alvin Lee contributing, was more impressive.

Well Claptons playing has become SO clean and polished to listen to. He was way better in Cream. Today he is the essense of the white man playing blues, and that's not a good thing IMO. The Stones can cut it because they sound black all the way. Like John Mayall. That's a good white blues. Clpaton's isn't.

JumpingKentFlash

stop it...........................

Clapton is a brilliant guitar player.
Of course Keith his own unique sound, but also Clapton and BB King. I don't think Clapton can play like Keith and visa versa.

I don't hear Keith playing Layla like Clapton.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-04 10:39 by bartman.

rap, or, "Yap, yap. Yap" ?

saw clapton last spring,and stones 2003. guitar ability wise it is not comparable, let you guess in which favour. (let's face it..)

Dýri

There's really no sense in comparing Keith to Clapton, (for the purpose of determining who'e "best"), they do different things with the guitar, (It's "funk and guts" -vs- "soloing" ability) both are great. Personally I'll take Keith for his song writing abilities. And the guitar intro to Can't You Hear Me Knocking alone, (while perhaps not as technically proficient musically as some of Clapton's solo's), has more guts, funk, and, raw sensuality, (what's that rock 'n' roll shit all about?) then anything Clapton every played in his life. Gee, did I say that?

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

a bit "clichy " (spell) Rank ...?

Quote

"Clapton should have joined in 1975." (T&F)


It would never fly, because Clapton is a solo musician.

Keith said at the time, to writer Barbara Charone: "It doesn't matter about the B. B. Kings, Eric Claptons, and Mick Taylors, 'cause they do what they do,---but I KNOW THEY CAN'T DO WHAT I DO." They can play as many notes under the sun, but they can't hold that rhythm down, baby."

Also, when Clapton asked Keith why he didn't ask him to join the Stones, Keith actually told Clapton, "Because you're a SOLO artist."

He was right. But now, in London, we had Keith & Eric again (after 1969, 1970, 1875, and 1989).

last time I saw Eric Clapton (about three years ago) he was actually quite boring. Just seemed to be going through the motions and never said one word to the audience. That being said, he's a brilliant guitar player but there is really no comparing him and Keith. Totally different players

Two different things. You can be the most technically proficient guitarist and still not be able to live in the groove. Keith is right, but its not a knock on Clapton, Taylor etc...
Its just a different type of musician. Both have soul, just different roles. Then you have those who are good at both styles... Taylor was a pure lead guitarist, but could also play the groove. I'm not sure Keith could have done what MT could do.
In some ways, I think has always been dismissive of that style of guitarist because he knew his limitations....he used to get pissed at Taylor sometimes onstage.
'You're too @#$%&g loud!' etc...
In the old days, I think Keith was insecure and resented Taylor's prowess.....

Seeing Clapton on stage with the Stones at the 02 on 29 November was an amazing experience. Worth every penny.

They are obviously different types of players. In my opinion this goes to different influences from the blues tradition: The Stones were more influenced by Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, Jimmy Reed, etc. in which the guitar was part of an ensemble sound (this is certainly my preference in blues as well). The other electric blues tradition is personified by people like B.B. King, Albert King, etc., where the song and band exists primarily to support lead guitar playing. This has given us the school of Stevie Ray Vaughn, Johnny Lange, etc. The two don't necessarily mix well.

Keith is wrong, if you listen, Clapton and Taylor are good on both rythm and solo playing. This makes them complete guitar players. But he is right about BB King.

if I sum it up : rythm & groove guitar, and lead guitar, are not the same instruments. so all comparison is inapropriate....

Clapton would have been great in the Stones as he was great with Roger Waters and Delaney and Bonnie. Underestimating him especially in the 70's is a mistake. That being said he would have left at one point or another since he doesn't stay long on a project, Keith is right he's a solo artist. The idea of taking Woody was to get someone that made Keith step up rather than hide behind. In a sense that worked plus Ron is so lovable, great that he's on his game these days and paying the band back for all they gave him without much question. Keith has now been elevated to a guitar god status. Even when he just begins to approach a solo the audience goes wild. He deserves it, he's a pioneer, I have not experienced such love for a performer since the last tours of Jerry and The Dead. It's a shame if your expecting the impossible and missing the spiritual celebration of a great icon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-26 00:26 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
6853
if I sum it up : rythm & groove guitar, and lead guitar, are not the same instruments. so all comparison is inapropriate....

I agree, they are very different. There is more soloplayers when there are rythmplayers. I think it is easy to get bored listening to solo players, but a good rythm like whats going on between Charlie and Keith you can listen to forever

Imagine Clapton joining them in 69', a superstar in his own right, at the height of his fame & ego, getting along with Keith & Mick.

Quote
6853
if I sum it up : rythm & groove guitar, and lead guitar, are not the same instruments. so all comparison is inapropriate....

They're all played on the same guitar. As Keith said, if you go to a store, you buy a guitar, not a rhythm or lead guitar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-26 04:42 by Koen.

Clapton was also a great songwriter, so he would not have meshed well with the Jagger/Richards mold.
But its true Clapton and Taylor are great groove players....particularly MT - I was always amazed at some of rhythm parts he was playing that I thought was Keith. Taylor was the best of both worlds. He's not like SRV, BB King or even Clapton. To my ears, Mayer is similar to MT in that he can play both roles and can find a groove....
But what is Ronnie? If Keith is purely rhythm, where can we classify Ronnie? I'm never sure if its Ronnie or Keith playing those leads on Miss You...

Quote
stupidguy2
But what is Ronnie? If Keith is purely rhythm, where can we classify Ronnie? I'm never sure if its Ronnie or Keith playing those leads on Miss You...

Now that's the ancient art of weaving

You can keep on saying that Clapton and Keith are two completely different types of player's but let's face fact's here. Clapton in my opinion could play anything Keith's ever played blindfolded while Keith could never play a solo the way Eric does. Clapton might not be as exciting as he once was but anyone that play's at a proffesional level could tune his guitar to open G and hammer out Keith's big chords while few can follow Eric Clapton through one of his more famous lead solo efforts.

Eric has some good stuff.

I've seen him live 3 times - always a good gig.

I never listen to him at home though.

"White Room", "Sunshine of your love" and "Layla" are up there with the greatest rock of all time.

'''''
Edit.

Badge of course as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-29 04:02 by GravityBoy.