Eric Clapton - Autumn Leaves

[mr. beaumont]

I'll back 'bodge up now--

Clapton's not a jazz player. That's not a putdown, that's not "jazz-elitism" or holding jazz to a higher standard than other music, it's just fact.

You can also easily say "Mr. Beaumont is not a bluegrass player" and I'd agree with you 100%.


I understand the whole "If it sounds good, it is good" ideal. But if I threw this chord progression at you:

Fmaj7 | F#-11b5 B7 | Bb7b9 E-7b5 | A13 A7#5 | Ab7b9 D7b5 | | Dm9 C#-7b5 F#13 | Bmaj7 B7 | Bb-11 A7b5 |

You could fish around for a few weeks or so to find what "sounds good," or you could use some analysis and jam on it with me in 15 minutes. Anti-Intellectualism/ fear of inadequacy should never be confused with the beauty of simplicity. There's a ton of shit I don't know--but when I'm confronted with it, I don't say "oh, they're making things unecessarily complex." I get studying.

Btw, anyone who knows what song this is gets browine points. Looks complex, but it also has one of the most beautifully simple melodies in jazz history.

[monk]

There has been a trend over the past decade of pop/rock artists from the 60s & 70s to explore the Great American Songbook as they grow long of tooth. The results vary from good to abysmal.

Clapton has never had a wide vocal range but I think he pitched this too low for him to execute effectively. To my ears, his vocal doesn't sound so much breathy as breathless.

As far as strings go, with the right arranger, conductor & musicians, strings can swing as well as provide a much larger harmonic background than a small group. Charles Parker and Clifford Brown were reviled for recording with strings but those recordings have withstood the test of time.

The 60s & 70s spawned a different type of popular music from earlier decades, one that required a different kind of singer. Rock singers tend to have a more forceful delivery that is antithetical to songs of this type. Cole, Crosby, Armstrong, Sinatra, Bennett et. al. had a much more relaxed delivery. Regarding Clapton's range, Billie Holliday proved that someone with a narrow range and less than robust voice could become a great singer. However, I don't feel that EC is or ever was.

While I did, in my youth, and do, later in life, prefer Mike Bloomfield to Clapton as a blues player; Clapton has produced some exceptional work such as the Mayall album but for the most part his career has been erratic. In my opinion, his work over the past decade, for what ever reasons, has been more consistent than much of his earlier work.

As Dirty Harry Callahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations".

Regards,
monk

[mr. beaumont]

As far as strings go, with the right arranger, conductor & musicians, strings can swing as well as provide a much larger harmonic background than a small group.

Absolutely! That's why I called them "Diana Krall" strings and not "Desmond Blue" strings.

[docbop]

This may be a little better..??

Dailymotion - Eric Clapton live in Japan - Reptile - a Music video

cheers tom

Kenny G. wants Eric's number now.

If the word Smooth proceeds word Jazz, it ain't Jazz.

Ever since Eric did that gig with Marcus Miller, Steve Gadd, David Sanborn, and Joe Sample he's been trying to play changes and it ain't working. As the old saying goes A Jazz player can always play the Blues, but a Blues player can't alway play Jazz.

[max_power]

Kenny G. wants Eric's number now.

If the word Smooth proceeds word Jazz, it ain't Jazz.

Ever since Eric did that gig with Marcus Miller, Steve Gadd, David Sanborn, and Joe Sample he's been trying to play changes and it ain't working.

You can tell he hasn't actually studied jazz at all. He's trying to take what he already knows and apply it to jazzier stuff...but all he knows is the blues. It's not working for him.

As the old saying goes A Jazz player can always play the Blues, but a Blues player can't alway play Jazz.

In the literal sense, yes. But there are relatively few jazz players who can play blues - REAL blues - without sounding boring as hell.

[mr. beaumont]

But there are relatively few jazz players who can play blues - REAL blues - without sounding boring as hell.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin disagreeing with that.

[docbop]

In the literal sense, yes. But there are relatively few jazz players who can play blues - REAL blues - without sounding boring as hell.

Depends on what you call Real Blues. Gut-Bucket Blues is just one form of Blues in fact a lot of what is called Blues today is 60's R&B. What the real issue is, is player not playing in the genre the gig calls for. If a Jazz player got called to play gut-bucket Blues he should be trying play Bebop lines over it. Same with Eric he's doing a Jazz standard and dropping changes so he can play Blues lines over it. So playing out of context is usually not good.

[Jake Hanlon]

if you look at it as a Pop recording of an old song, it's a good performance. Not great, but good. His vocals are great on the 1st time through, nothing changes throughout, I got bored.

As a jazz performance, not good. He's however not trying to play a jazz performance. So if you cut it down the middle nothing about jazz factors into it other then the fact that a shit load of Jazz performances exist of Autumn Leaves.

This is a pop performance, that he did with his style and it's pretty much run-of-the-mill EC, which I like so I suppose I liked it in that sense.

I wouldn't use that as an example of Jazz. Might be plausible to introduce Jazz to someone who is very very ignorant.

[robertm2000]

Hmm....Seems a lot of you have forgotten what popular music is. It's music that the general public likes, and buys.

Clapton is a type of popular music - I don't count him as jazz, and to me he isn't quite blues - not in the same sense that Albert Collins, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and the Kings are.

I like the things by Clapton that were posted here. They aren't songs done with the "shotgun" and "dragster off the starting line" type of playing. You know, like Johnny Winter, and a lot of other white blues players? I like things that are laid back more than rip-roaring. Alison Krause and Robert Plant's "Raising Sand" is one of my favorite albums. And I love stuff that is musically well put together - the Singers Unlimited, the Hi-Los, Robert Farnon's, Paul Weston's, and Henry MAncini's orchestrations. None of 'em would count as Jazz in the same sense as Kenny Burrell or Joe Pass, but they are all musically skilled and sophisticated.

I guess, in all of it, it's a matter or personal taste.

[ECross]

I'm not arguing with you bodge, it is a waste of our time. I'll make sure I post something in the 'other styles' section of the forum from now on if it could fit there.

[docbop]

I would of liked it better if he made it his own forte and turned it into either a shuffle or a slow blues. I can see his next CD "Clapton Shuffles the Bird featuring Donna Lee". Now that could be fun.

[franco6719]

As for personal opinion: I think Eric Clapton is a fine musician in his style. I thought THIS performance was so-so. But that's just subjective. I wouldn't call it jazz, but I don't think it was intended to be. I don't see anything wrong with posting it here. After that, things got a little bit out of hand somewhere. They usually do with these kinds of discussions.

[Claudi]

Clapton is a basic blues guitarist and this treatment of "Autumn Leaves" would count more as a pop style than jazz.

Mmh, I don't think so! I imagine a journalist interviewing him and asking him "being a bluesman how come did you want to sound jazzy now?"
In my opinion it sounds like what it sounds: a ballad. Maaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyybe the drums give it a somewhat jazzy touch but that's not definetly jazz. Anyway, I liked it indeed. I don't use to listen to anything that Clapton does but coming from him it's a good work.