NEW! Members only special offers!

Satan was the angel of music ..non?

Those British blues guitarists played the most insanely exciting, passionate lead guitar I've ever heard.  The guys they imitated were perhaps more original.  But the feel and fluency that Clapton, Green, and Taylor introduced was just incredible.  Blues guitar players I hear now all have the chops, but they can't lift you.  It's like they don't actually think that it's exciting, soulful music.  They think it's a hobby.  Or a craft or something.  But when those guys were good it could seem like enlightenment would come round the next string-bend.  That's why both Clapton and Green were called God.  And Taylor wasn't far off either.

Clapton now though?  He has better chops, but without the fire, the aggression, the will to prove himself, he seldom reminds you of how he blew everyones' minds.  But you listen to Steppin' Out on the John Mayall record.  Holy sh%t.  People have been called God for far less than that.

Green of course can barely play guitar at all now.  But when you hear I Need Your Love So Bad, or the incendiary solo on Lookin' Back, you get why his name and God were also sprayed on walls together.

Taylor's now a grumpy old fat man.  But listen to a bootleg of the Stones doing Midnight Rambler in the early seventies and he shows you what rock guitar is meant to be.

fluit-fluit.  My storie is uit.

I enjoyed these two tracks as well, I started out with Live Cream and Live Cream Vol II, I preferred the live albums to the studio ones.
Although I haven't heard it for at least 30 years.

But like you say, he did enough to prove that he is one of the greats.

I think he has upped his game a bit, but he's still nowhere near his 60s form. You get occasional flashes of it. I recall hearing a cut from a live Babyface show where I thought - in quick succession - "That's one smoking solo" and "That's Clapton". He kicked into magical form on Roger Waters "Pros and Cons of Hithchiking".

One problem I think he has is that he doesn't get good material these days. When he was a member of a band he could shine as a soloist - even with Cream this was the case - but when he has to make it all happen himself or rely on pro songwriters then things get harder for him. This may be why the live discs seem better - he can draw on a lot of great songs that he has performed over the years.

There's also the point that Singemonkey makes - that of passion. Back in the 60s Clapton really wasn't kidding. There was passion, sometimes fury in his playing. These days he might actually be a technically better player, but it too often sounds like he's going through the motions.

I disagree with this - I think that he is a better overall musician - and plays with a subtle deep expression that perhaps not many people 'get'. In his current playing I feel his pain and I can also relate to his 'sense of knowing' - which maybe only comes with age.      

In defence of any guitarist who has been playing for... I dunno more than 10 years with real purpose, the graph is not a linear one. The good guys tend to make a lot of progress early on, and after that there is refinement but when you've hit a considerable high already the further gains takle a lot longer. Another application of the 80:20 rule.

The saloon doors bang open... the piano guitar player stops mid-song and raises an eyebrow. Bartender reaches for shotgun under the counter...

I'm interested in your opinion of lets say...
David Gilmour
Paul Koseff
Jeff Beck
Clapton
Hendrix
Van Halen
Andy Timmons...plays Ibanez as well.
Steve Vai ( you said you don't like G3, so I guess you don't think much of Vai and Satriani...and they play Ibanez, so that rules them out.