Re: Clapton's contribution on "And So is Love"

[wagreiner@ucdavis.edu ()]

In article <2c8uos$lau@delphinium.rtsg.mot.com> langrlld@rtsg.mot.com (Daniel J. Langrill) writes:
>I've got one observation about "And So Is Love" --
>
>First of all, I really like the song...But, Eric Clapton on guitar is
>sort of unnecessary to the song.  If you listen to the song, Clapton
>"interjects" every once in a while during the song, but has no part in
>the actual melody.
>
>Has anyone else noticed this?  Anticipating flames- yes, Clapton is a
>good guitarist.  However, his contribution to "And So Is Love" is
>seemingly useless.  The song would have been just as good without the
>"blues-y" guitar in between lyrics.

Well, obviously this is a judgement call.  If you like Clapton's guitar playing
on "And so is Love" it is clearly not "useless."  No the guitar part does not
reproduce the melody, but so what?  Why should it?  He is playing around the 
melody.  He is replying to her voice not duplicating it.  That's an
instrumentalists art, their personal creative contribution.  If she wanted a
guitarist to just play the melody, any session guitarist off the street 
would do.  This is an old musical tradition.  Certainly they are not doing
anything on the level of a Bessie Smith/Louie Armstrong combo (who used to
do similar songs, Bessie singing and Louie replying to her) but it comes
off okay, I think.  Actually Clapton's contribution, to me, is the highlight
of the album instrumentally.  Most of the other intruments sound like they
were played reading the notes off a page as they were going along.  With the
exception of BSL of course, but as much as I like Kate I don't see her as
much of a guitar player.  (Maybe in a decade or two, if she keeps practicing.
:-)

All this is just a matter of taste, of course.

Wade