Wynton Marsalis & Eric Clapton Play The Blues

[A Lark Ascending]

His entire recorded output is not consistent to be sure, but to dismiss him as without any worth is too harsh in my opinion.

I agree. All too often sucked into indifferent projects and 'modernising' production techniques but playing 'Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs' right through is still a thrill. Very fond of the Unplugged album (especially 'Layla'!!!!) too. And the live album with Steve Winwood a while back was great entertainment.

This release just looks like a very typical pre-Xmas marketing project (Bob Dylan's Xmas Album II can't be far behind). I can assure you all that it will not end civilisation. Now the up and coming 'Lady Gaga and Anthony Braxton: Celebrating the Big Apple'...there we might have problems.

Edited September 11, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[John L]

Clapton can certainly play good guitar. The primary factor that keeps him out of the pantheon of true blues guitar greats in my book is that he never really developed his own style, his own sound. When you hear a few notes or phrases from the likes of BB, Albert King, Albert Collins, T-Bone Walker, Otis Rush etc., you know right away whose voice it is. When somebody plays like BB, the Alberts, T-Bone, or Otis, you know right away whose voice they are imitating. When you hear something of high virtuosity without real distinction, moving from BB phrases to Albert phrases, to Freddie phrases, you think, "this could be Clapton."

I also think that the Clapton legacy in the blues could have been greater if he would have worked for a number of years as the lead guitarist for a great blues vocalist, as opposed to filling his own blues songs and recordings up with his own third rate blues vocals. It amazes me in general how, in the blues today, nobody will dare play guitar with the big boys if he or she does not know their shit, but it is as if ANYBODY can sing the blues. As long as you play good guitar, then that somehow buys you the right to sing. You can even record a record where you supply the vocals and convince people to swallow them with some tricky guitar licks.

Edited September 11, 2011 by John L

[A Lark Ascending]

The usual confusion going on here between what is significant and what is enjoyable.

Is Clapton historically significant in the sense of being an innovator or utterly distinct voice in 20th/21st C music? Probably not. Was he historically significant in the development of rock? Unquestionably. Big influence on the UK rock bands of the 60s and 70s (how many kids took up guitar after hearing him?); and on the rock music that was influenced by the latter.

Is his music enjoyable? Well, obviously responses will vary based on individual listening preferences and context. But I'd imagine there are millions who would say 'yes' to at least part of his catalogue.

Is this release significant? I've not heard anything apart from a bit of that clip but it seems highly unlikely. Is it enjoyable? Did nothing for me and it won't be on my Xmas list but people with other listening priorities...

However, it's much easier to default to personal musical preconceptions about Clapton or Marsalis and manufacture outrage. Never mind.

[Swinging Swede]

This just in:

Eric Clapton To Release New Album Inspired By Blues Music

[bertrand]

Is Wynton contributing to this one

Saw the Yardbirds last night. Their guitarist Ben King is excellent. No Clapton needed to make this a great band. A special mention to singer Andy Mitchell, who really has a great voice (and plays harmonica very well).

Bertrand.

Edited September 11, 2011 by bertrand

[7/4]

I don't know who's more tired, the song Layla or me hearing it my whole fucking life.

Yeah- but the outro to Layla is still magic to my ears.

I guess I could like the microtonal slide guitars getting quarter toneish.*

I have to admit I bought the latest edition of the album to get that amazing version of Mean Old World with Duane Allman.

* edit: not that there's any thing wrong with that, it's the over exposure of an OK song that bugs me.

Edited September 11, 2011 by 7/4

[thedwork]

This just in:

Eric Clapton To Release New Album Inspired By Blues Music

hilarious

i could tell just by reading the 'headline' in your post before clicking on it that it was The Onion...

[Hot Ptah]

Clapton can certainly play good guitar. The primary factor that keeps him out of the pantheon of true blues guitar greats in my book is that he never really developed his own style, his own sound. When you hear a few notes or phrases from the likes of BB, Albert King, Albert Collins, T-Bone Walker, Otis Rush etc., you know right away whose voice it is. When somebody plays like BB, the Alberts, T-Bone, or Otis, you know right away whose voice they are imitating. When you hear something of high virtuosity without real distinction, moving from BB phrases to Albert phrases, to Freddie phrases, you think, "this could be Clapton."

I also think that the Clapton legacy in the blues could have been greater if he would have worked for a number of years as the lead guitarist for a great blues vocalist, as opposed to filling his own blues songs and recordings up with his own third rate blues vocals. It amazes me in general how, in the blues today, nobody will dare play guitar with the big boys if he or she does not know their shit, but it is as if ANYBODY can sing the blues. As long as you play good guitar, then that somehow buys you the right to sing. You can even record a record where you supply the vocals and convince people to swallow them with some tricky guitar licks.

I disagree. I think Clapton has his own guitar sound and style. I can identify it after a few notes.

I think that many people find Clapton's voice very appealing, and to be a solo artist with longevity in the pop field, it seems to help if you sing too. There are not many instrumentalists in rock who did not sing, who had a long career. He is far from the worst rock singer. I have read that he was a reluctant vocalist when he started out.

I agree that many blues/rock vocalists are not that good. I always think, where are all the good vocalists in the world--they couldn't find one? Every high school has some really good singers--what happens to all of them? None of them go into music professionally?

What has happened in the blues in the last 20 years especially is that a large number of the blues originators, or those who played with the blues originators, have passed away. Compared to who you could see live in 1990, the real blues artists are almost all gone. So the blues club performances and blues music label albums, are now dominated by a lot of music that would not have been considered blues twenty years ago. It seems like anything vaguely "rootsy" gets a gig in the long time blues clubs. Aging white hippie rock bands, which would have been called rock in 1978, are now part of the blues circuit, presented as blues. There are discussions at Blindman Blues Forum about this.

In that context, as unfortunate as it is, Clapton is not one of the prime offenders as a white guy currently presenting blues, without total authenticity.

[JSngry]

I'm totally neutral about Clapton, on-the-record negative about Wynton, what angsts me about out about this album is the sheer corporate-ness of it all, and not just in the marketing sense.That dirty deed has long been done, but seeing this album was like having Massa laughingly hand-deliver a porn film of him fucking mamma and grandmama at the same time.

[Hot Ptah]

I'm totally neutral about Clapton, on-the-record negative about Wynton, what angsts me about out about this album is the sheer corporate-ness of it all, and not just in the marketing sense.That dirty deed has long been done, but seeing this album was like having Massa laughingly hand-deliver a porn film of him fucking mamma and grandmama at the same time.

That is a really good point. This seems to be a project not conceived because the musicians had felt a spark when they jammed together informally, and felt the need to continue their musical collaboration due to the excitement of playing together. Instead, it feels like some MBA in an office tower thought it would be a viable commodity.

Clapton's great lack of enthusiasm for the project seems obvious to me, just watching the video.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Hot Ptah

[johnlitweiler]

Did ya notice that Wynton's ensemble in "Ice Cream" is starting to sound like the Yerba Buena Jazz Band?

[Larry Kart]

Yup.

[Jim Alfredson]

And if anyone cares, I am about to quit.

You and me both.

[danasgoodstuff]

Tried to listen to some of this, had to quit and find a nice clip of Cream in a club in '66 to clear my head....

[alankin]

Couldn't make it past the two minute mark.

[John L]

Clapton can certainly play good guitar. The primary factor that keeps him out of the pantheon of true blues guitar greats in my book is that he never really developed his own style, his own sound. When you hear a few notes or phrases from the likes of BB, Albert King, Albert Collins, T-Bone Walker, Otis Rush etc., you know right away whose voice it is. When somebody plays like BB, the Alberts, T-Bone, or Otis, you know right away whose voice they are imitating. When you hear something of high virtuosity without real distinction, moving from BB phrases to Albert phrases, to Freddie phrases, you think, "this could be Clapton."

I also think that the Clapton legacy in the blues could have been greater if he would have worked for a number of years as the lead guitarist for a great blues vocalist, as opposed to filling his own blues songs and recordings up with his own third rate blues vocals. It amazes me in general how, in the blues today, nobody will dare play guitar with the big boys if he or she does not know their shit, but it is as if ANYBODY can sing the blues. As long as you play good guitar, then that somehow buys you the right to sing. You can even record a record where you supply the vocals and convince people to swallow them with some tricky guitar licks.

I disagree. I think Clapton has his own guitar sound and style. I can identify it after a few notes.

I think that many people find Clapton's voice very appealing, and to be a solo artist with longevity in the pop field, it seems to help if you sing too. There are not many instrumentalists in rock who did not sing, who had a long career. He is far from the worst rock singer. I have read that he was a reluctant vocalist when he started out.

I agree that many blues/rock vocalists are not that good. I always think, where are all the good vocalists in the world--they couldn't find one? Every high school has some really good singers--what happens to all of them? None of them go into music professionally?

What has happened in the blues in the last 20 years especially is that a large number of the blues originators, or those who played with the blues originators, have passed away. Compared to who you could see live in 1990, the real blues artists are almost all gone. So the blues club performances and blues music label albums, are now dominated by a lot of music that would not have been considered blues twenty years ago. It seems like anything vaguely "rootsy" gets a gig in the long time blues clubs. Aging white hippie rock bands, which would have been called rock in 1978, are now part of the blues circuit, presented as blues. There are discussions at Blindman Blues Forum about this.

In that context, as unfortunate as it is, Clapton is not one of the prime offenders as a white guy currently presenting blues, without total authenticity.

You can always identify Clapton after a few notes? I sure can't. Of course, maybe that is because I don't listen to him very often. But I don't even really know what to associate with Clapton. Does he have his own trademark licks? What are they? His is very good at faithfully replicating Freddie King and Albert King licks.

You call Clapton "far from the worst rock singer." I can agree with that. I do not like his blues vocals, however, and do not consider him to be a good blues singer at all.

I don't have any problem with Clapton's "authenticity" or the fact that he is white. I just don't think that he is that good, especially in the blues. Stevie Ray Vaughan is white and came after Clapton, but achieved a strong and distinct voice in the blues. If Clapton did that, I sure don't hear it.

Edited September 12, 2011 by John L

[Hot Ptah]

Clapton can certainly play good guitar. The primary factor that keeps him out of the pantheon of true blues guitar greats in my book is that he never really developed his own style, his own sound. When you hear a few notes or phrases from the likes of BB, Albert King, Albert Collins, T-Bone Walker, Otis Rush etc., you know right away whose voice it is. When somebody plays like BB, the Alberts, T-Bone, or Otis, you know right away whose voice they are imitating. When you hear something of high virtuosity without real distinction, moving from BB phrases to Albert phrases, to Freddie phrases, you think, "this could be Clapton."

I also think that the Clapton legacy in the blues could have been greater if he would have worked for a number of years as the lead guitarist for a great blues vocalist, as opposed to filling his own blues songs and recordings up with his own third rate blues vocals. It amazes me in general how, in the blues today, nobody will dare play guitar with the big boys if he or she does not know their shit, but it is as if ANYBODY can sing the blues. As long as you play good guitar, then that somehow buys you the right to sing. You can even record a record where you supply the vocals and convince people to swallow them with some tricky guitar licks.

I disagree. I think Clapton has his own guitar sound and style. I can identify it after a few notes.

I think that many people find Clapton's voice very appealing, and to be a solo artist with longevity in the pop field, it seems to help if you sing too. There are not many instrumentalists in rock who did not sing, who had a long career. He is far from the worst rock singer. I have read that he was a reluctant vocalist when he started out.

I agree that many blues/rock vocalists are not that good. I always think, where are all the good vocalists in the world--they couldn't find one? Every high school has some really good singers--what happens to all of them? None of them go into music professionally?

What has happened in the blues in the last 20 years especially is that a large number of the blues originators, or those who played with the blues originators, have passed away. Compared to who you could see live in 1990, the real blues artists are almost all gone. So the blues club performances and blues music label albums, are now dominated by a lot of music that would not have been considered blues twenty years ago. It seems like anything vaguely "rootsy" gets a gig in the long time blues clubs. Aging white hippie rock bands, which would have been called rock in 1978, are now part of the blues circuit, presented as blues. There are discussions at Blindman Blues Forum about this.

In that context, as unfortunate as it is, Clapton is not one of the prime offenders as a white guy currently presenting blues, without total authenticity.

You can always identify Clapton after a few notes? I sure can't. Of course, maybe that is because I don't listen to him very often. But I don't even really know what to associate with Clapton. Does he have his own trademark licks? What are they? His is very good at faithfully replicating Freddie King and Albert King licks.

You call Clapton "far from the worst rock singer." I can agree with that. I do not like his blues vocals, however, and do not consider him to be a good blues singer at all.

I don't have any problem with Clapton's "authenticity" or the fact that he is white. I just don't think that he is that good, especially in the blues. Stevie Ray Vaughan is white and came after Clapton, but achieved a strong and distinct voice in the blues. If Clapton did that, I sure don't hear it.

Everyone has their own opinion, and own taste. I think that Clapton, on his acoustic duet with Duane Allman on "Mean Old World", achieved more in the blues than Stevie Ray Vaughan did in his whole career. I always found Vaughan to be a hard rocker with close to no subtlety. I find the blues content of Vaughan's music to be very limited. But that is just me. We don't have to agree.

Clapton's live soloing on "EC Was Here" and on the "Crossroads 2" box of live 1970s recordings contain blues soloing which I think is very good to excellent, by any standard. If you don't, that is fine.

I don't even like Eric Clapton's music that much. If my son did not like him so much, I would probably rarely play anything by him. I just think that he has been totally dismissed by several members on this thread, and that there is more merit to his career than that.

I would guess that he found the experience of playing with Wynton to be unsatisfying, even excruciating. He is probably too diplomatic to say much about it.

[mjazzg]

The reason I don't get on with Clapton. From wikipedia entry for UK organisation Rock and Racism

.

Originally conceived as a one-off concert with a message against racism, Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976 by Red Saunders, Roger Huddle and others. According to Huddle, "it remained just an idea until August 1976" when Eric Clapton made a drunken declaration of support for former Conservative minister Enoch Powell (known for his anti-immigration Rivers of Blood speech) at a concert in Birmingham.^[2] Clapton told the crowd that England had "become overcrowded" and that they should vote for Powell to stop Britain from becoming "a black colony". He also told the audience that Britain should "get the foreigners out, get the wogs out, get the coons out", and then he repeatedly shouted the National Front slogan "Keep Britain White".

doesn't affect his ability to play guitar - rock or blues - but sure affects my intention to have anything to do with him, Wynton or not

[MomsMobley]

Clapton is vile and worthless save apologetic ofays-- an insult to music and musicians of all ethnic and class backgrounds. The few decent records he did ripped off other stuff, NOT the blues, i.e. his early '70s Don Williams imitation phase with a side of J.J. Cale. Ya'll are still better off with any/all Bobby Bare sides.

SRV, however, was a goddamn terrific musician. Genius? Probably not but as po' white who absolutely & arduously identified, paid every possible due and then some, he was the best since Bloomfield, and a pretty good singer. That he died just as he was reaching delayed maturity is a shame.

The thing with SRV, however-- and not a small thing, true-- is his band was not up to his level, or even fucking close, really.

Whether the chemistry/comfort would always have been greater than working w/ funkier, jazzier, more flexible (yet reliable!) others is unknown.

Watch him admiringly hang with Albert King however--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwrye57MSgY&feature=fvst

Clapton is just goddam horrible on every level-- anti-music if you will.

HERE is how you play "After Midnight" btw (even w/ lesser fidelity)--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPRLaDJOPWI

[A Lark Ascending]

Good thing Kurt Rosenwinkel didn't say that.

[JSngry]

SRV, however, was a goddamn terrific musician. Genius? Probably not but as po' white who absolutely & arduously identified, paid every possible due and then some, he was the best since Bloomfield, and a pretty good singer. That he died just as he was reaching delayed maturity is a shame.

I don't know about the "a shame" part, people die when they die, but, yeah, Stevie Ray came by his shit honestly, as did his brother (who, on the whole, I've always enjoyed more). Maybe or maybe not it helps to have a tangible sense of what "white" Oak Cliff used to be in those days (and you probably do, right?), but it's definitely a thing unto itself, an honest and admirable thing, at least as much as honest and honorable as such things can be. There have been far less honorable places and times that have spawned any number of "stars", that's for sure!

[Hot Ptah]

Leave it to Moms to clear the whole thing up for us.

I agree with Moms that Bloomfield was great. To me, Bloomfield is the standard for white blues guitar.

Oddly, Bloomfield's collaboration with Woody Herman was not as exciting as I had hoped it would be. Maybe the suits who thought of the Wynton/Clapton idea should have thought of that. Maybe there is not that much common ground between contemporary blues and jazz, unless you have just the right players.

Another example--in T Bone Walker's biography, "Stormy Monday", by Helen Oakely Dance, there is a description of how Walker toured with Count Basie, and performed in front of the band. He "felt a draft", and left the tour abruptly because of the lack of musical support and good feeling from the band. The fact that he abandoned the tour is described as a reason why his touring career went downhill.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Hot Ptah

[jazzbo]

I agree with Hot Ptah re: Clapton for the most part. Rather unfortunate remarks he made there on stage, ah well. I can listen to Sun Ra after listening to some of his speeches too.

I really like Clapton as a sort of rootsy country guy, I think that's really his best niche. "No Reason To Cry" lp and some of the songs along those lines on following albums. His singing works then and he arranges the songs nicely and doesn't feature his blues playing.

I agree that this release is likely a mistake. I'm really not a fan of listening to music on youtube so I'll probably check the cd out sometime soon. But I do have some Clapton in my collection. Don't own any SRV.

[mikeweil]

To me, Bloomfield is the standard for white blues guitar.

To me, too.

[JSngry]

Oddly, Bloomfield's collaboration with Woody Herman was not as exciting as I had hoped it would be. Maybe the suits who thought of the Wynton/Clapton idea should have thought of that.

I bought that album upon release expecting great things, but barely got even good things...

Worth noting, perhaps/though, that it was recorded for Fantasy before they went on a buying spree, when it was still essentially a San Francisco label. If you believe the liners, the collaboration was instigated by Ralph J. Gleason.

To me, it sounds like Bloomfield might have been a little tired (or "tired"), that Woody & Co, were more interested in the "event" than about actually exerting any quality control, and the whole thing could/should have been more tightly produced than it was. Also, that as fine as Bloomfield was, he was at heart a blues-rock player whose more extended excursions came from that place and not from the place that Woody's band of the time (mostly young and open-eared, and no doubt not unfamiliar with Bloomfield, at least by name) were coming from.

Listening to Phil Upchurch play with Woody on Heavy Exposure, that's a whole 'nother thing - great contributions, but tightly focused intent & execution, not a "spotlight" time thing. Then again, in so many ways, Phil Upchurch & Michael Bloomfield were totally different people and musicians.