Dear Eric Clapton,
I can't stand you.
Listen, you had a decent run with the Yardbirds/Bluesbreakers/Cream/Blind Faith/Bonnie & Delaney/and Derek and the Dominos, but that does not excuse the flotsam that has trickled out of your pasty British ass ever since. By being completely incapable of doing anything innovative with an instrument that you could obviously play capably, you have succumb to being that guy that boring married couples go to see so they can tell their friends how much they love to cut loose. Shit, they might even throw caution to the wind and break out the vibrator that night. That's what you're responsible for. Kudos.
While you were wearing blazers with poofy shoulders, other guitar players were evolving and changing the landscape of rock & roll music forever. Doing it with nary the recognition. You owe your life savings to Duane Allman and Tom Dowd for keeping you relevant, even though it was clear you had already thrown in the towel. John Mayall deserves to be fucking Knighted for giving you the nickname "Slowhand." In retrospect, it was an apt title. Listening to your limp-wrist wrestling of J.J. Cale standards gives the impression that you're painfully slow. As in mentally challenged.
Do you need more evidence that you're a total sell-out? Your crappy music has appeared in 39 movies and TV shows. That's approaching Kenny Loggins status, dude.
Oh and thanks again for ruining the FM airwaves for decades with crap like "Let it Grow," "Lay Down Sally," "After Midnight," "Cocaine," "I Shot The Sheriff," and "Wonderful Tonight." These shitty songs rank right up there with the tripe divvied out by soulless wonders like Steve Miller Band and Supertramp. Ugh. You made me mention Supertramp. You're a dick.
The pinnacle of your suckitude comes from the song that I hear in my office lobby every single fucking day:
I get off on '57 Chevys;
I get off on screaming guitar.
Like the way it gets me every time it hits me.
I've got a rock and roll, I've got a rock and roll heart.
The little turd of a riff after you sing "screaming guitar" makes me want to stab.
11 comments:
Wow. Such indignation.
It's pretty weak to argue that other guitarists continued to "change the landscape" without "recognition," and are therefore more valuable to rock and roll's evolution than Clapton was. For one thing, if they're without recognition...doesn't that mean there's a lack of universal agreement that their contribution was of any note? At least in the historical long-view? I mean, I could toss out five or six names of shredders that I think are unknown masters, and you can offer your list as well. In the end, we'd just both be saying "THIS GUY RULZ", which isn't making a case for their role in evolving rock music or the guitar as an instrument.
But more than that, the fact is that your unnamed revolutionaries have maybe--MAYBE--done something to change the "landscape." But Clapton's one of the original "gardeners" of the genre, to extend your metaphor. He laid the sod. He's recognized as a giant in the field for good reason. (The bands you mentioned at the outset... I'd say that 3 out of 7 of them are arguably in the pantheon of game-changing rock outfits, don't you think? How many other musicians can you name who'd be able to scrape together a list of seven slightly-noteworthy projects they were a part of?) Clapton's style might be weak in your eyes, but it's done more to open up the genre than anyone on your unsung heroes list, I'm willing to bet. What kept Clapton relevant wasn't just the people who championed him, but the fact that he cultivated a sound that was skillful and evocative, and as a result has inspired countless others to use that style to arrive at their own sound.
So, is it a matter of Clapton hitting a specific ratio of lame-new-stuff to inspiring-old-stuff that makes you so dismissive? I guess you must cringe when you hear early Police, then. It's been 40 years since "RAM"; Sir Paul must be fast approaching his irrelevancy event-horizon. Are the Honeydrippers, The Firm, and Coverdale/Page big enough sins for you to brush off Led Zeppelin? Wanna guess how many TV and movie soundtracks The Ramones have appeared on?
Sorry, dude. I don't buy it. You're being all blustery for blustery's sake. Maybe next time, you can just tune out that song you dislike.
Hey Matt,
My argument is and has always been that Clapton is a skilled and capable musician, who is incredibly overrated as a guitar player/master/god.
Perhaps I'm poking too much fun of his solo era, but even the shining moments of his career lacked true innovation. I'm a huge fan of Blind Faith, but he isn't the virtuoso in that group. Cream was on to something, but it wasn't his architecture. His gift with Derek and the Dominoes was choosing to work with the best engineer/producer in the business in Dowd, and trusting his opinion of a young axe slinger named Duane Allman.
The guy himself has stated that he was so consumed with insecurity about the "Clapton is god" mantra, that he collapsed into drug and alcohol addiction. In my opinion he never came in sniffing distance of that monicker. He was and is today a solid rhythm guitar player.
The argument of what Page did post-Zeppelin isn't the point. His failures are many. He however reached an amazing pinnacle of guitar composition and production pre-erosion 1975. Clapton has never come close to achieving that pinnacle in the first place. Now, if were to choose a studio musician to imitate Robert Johnson bars note for note, Clapton's my guy. Big fucking deal.
I'm fully aware that my opinion isn't shared by everyone, and writing blustery diatribes is whole lot of fun.
That's a somewhat more reasonable position, and maybe it has been your argument in the past. But it's not what your original post says.
You set down a pretty clear dividing line in the second sentence, pushing aside his Yardbirds-to-Dominoes period, and referring to the "flotsam that has trickled out...ever since." That's blocking off one part of his history from another, and you only barely mention his early period after that. (Part of which is so you can imply he's retarded.)
The post-Zep comparison was made strictly based on the emphasis you placed on critiquing Clapton as a sell-out, and someone who writes music for "boring married couples." Even if you didn't think he had chops back in his early days, that's not when he was writing the kind of music you railed against. Presumably, in order to sell out, one must be considered a pure artist of merit at some point in their career, right? Once again, that's you slapping the divider down on the supermarket conveyor belt of Clapton history.
And why bring up the topic of soundtrack appearances at all if selling out isn't essential to your argument?
I happen to think you're wrong about Clapton's contribution to the architecture of Cream's sound (as important a part of it as Baker's or Bruce's was). And if "Layla..." was success-by-association, then those non-blues-standards songs must've written themselves, I guess. But again, that wasn't the thrust of your original piece, so that wasn't the thrust of my initial comment.
I do agree, though, that blustery diatribes are fun to write sometimes.
"That's a somewhat more reasonable position, and maybe it has been your argument in the past. But it's not what your original post says."
I state pretty clearly that his inability to innovate paved the path for future suckitude. When I state that he had a nice "run" with the his early groups, I wasn't necessarily referring to his guitar playing or lack there of. Just the era when he was most prolific.
As for the selling out comments, there isn't a performer of his supposed caliber that has done more in that regard. He straight up pandered for 4 solid decades, nearly gave up playing the guitar entirely in favor of some blue-eyed blues adult contemporary crooning, all the while positioning himself as some sort of political/religious omnipotent (read about his anti-immigration views, and his born again period) and business mogul. Meanwhile Jeff Beck was playing his guitar like 14 hours a day and fixing classic cars.
Page went a long way towards innovation of the genre while mastering the "light and shade" compositions that have been a mainstay in rock music ever since. Pinnacle. Clapton never got there in any of his bands during his prolific period, and it drove him fucking nuts. Whereas Page and Hendrix died/faded after there periods of brilliance, Clapton kept chugging along covering crappy song after crappy song. His legacy isn't about brilliance or innovation it's about top 40 cover songs over multiple decades.
I state pretty clearly that his inability to innovate paved the path for future suckitude. When I state that he had a nice "run" with the his early groups, I wasn't necessarily referring to his guitar playing or lack there of. Just the era when he was most prolific.
Having to refine your point doesn't seem like stating something pretty clearly to me. But that's a matter of opinion. Your comments have been much clearer in their arguments than the original post has, seems to me.
Similarly, I think your definition of "selling out" is different than the one I'm coming in with. "Pandering" may be a better term for it, in terms of getting your point across. If you'd said two, even three decades instead of four...I can see that. But a panderer from the start? Considering he left The Yardbirds specifically because he didn't like the pop-hit direction their earliest work was taking, that's harder to see.
Anyway, I'll bow out of this. We're probably as close to getting where each other is coming from as we'll able to get. Good luck with that in-office music.
Yeah, maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Thanks for checking in Matt.
You can say what you like about the obviously washed up (and quietly racist) Eric Clapton. But if you ever slur Steve Miller Band again, I'm going to "Fly Like an Eagle" all over your face.
"Fly Like an Eagle all over your face" is amazing.
Wow Brew, some serious hate for Slowhand huh?
Always like a RAM reference though:
It's been 40 years since "RAM"; Sir Paul must be fast approaching his irrelevancy event-horizon.
Who in your opinion has less talent: Phish or Eric Clapton?
This is a hot button issue.
Dude. Phish sucks, but Clapton sucked first.
For professional photographers, this often leads to problems while on the job. If you are not concerned with any of these issues or are willing to compromise, this larger capacity battery can be had for about $35 to $50. On a few occasions I have had to wait a few hours for assistance because my booster kit was drained. It's a pretty horrific way to start a movie, but It certainly grabs your attention.
Post a Comment