I liked his work with Cream, but he falls into the same category as the Rolling Stones do with me... I have total respect for their influence, inimitable style and craft, but it's not something that I seek out or herald as one of my faves.

To me, it's in the way that he uses it.

At least we're having a thread about him. In 15 years, will be having similar threads about john frusciante, or stone gossard, maybe jonny greenwood?

doubtful.

If Clapton had died in 1971 from a heroin overdose, I have no doubt he would've been idolized as much or more than Hendrix and people would be constantly waxing philosophic on what could've been.

Hendrix is awesome, don't get me wrong...it's just funny how 30 years of almost complete pointlessness really can tarnish a legacy.

I like his solo upto and including Backless. After that he still has some good songs very irregularly (eg. from Journeyman or Behind the Sun). However, all in all I agree, no album is spectacular as far back as Slow Hand.

Never underestimate the power of revisionism

I take exception to this. You absolute bastard.

Like him or dislike him you can't deny that he's a survivor in a brutal business.


I just looked it up, every studio album he's released since Slowhand has entered into the Top 40, 2 of which went to #1 (Unplugged, From the Cradle) and a several were in the Top 10. 6 or 7 of them went platinum or multi-platinum.

I'm not surprised a bunch of indie centric music fans think he's a boring relic but the man can play the fucking guitar and write a song. He hits and misses but you can't deny his talent.

You don't have a 40 year career without talent.



I still love "Lay Down Sally", "Crossroads", "Promises", and the Derek and the Dominos stuff.

"Bell Bottom Blues" is the only song besides the end of Layla that I like of his.

Too many years of my brother and sister loving him and playing him endlessly gave way to dislike on my part.

KISS has had a similar run with generally terrible, terrible albums from 1982-1998. All charted in the top 40, all went at least gold, most went platinum or multi-platinum. This has nothing to do with an artists' relevance or current ability, it has to do with how easily they are able to live off of their past legacy with little invention. It's pretty surprising that a band as critically derided and publicly divisive as KISS did that.

I know KISS isn't exactly comparable, but we can dig up other 60s relics and find them heavily charting. What's McCartney's run look like? How about Harrison? Clapton has been COASTING for the past 30 odd years as the article insinuates. As long as you keep a relatively high live profile you can hang around basically as long as you are alive.





Talented? Sure. Play the guitar? At one time, like nobody else. Now he's just merely incredible but not as amazing as he used to be. Write songs? I don't think so, at least not a good one (well maybe ONE is good) in about 30 years. I hardly think 8 minute versions of Cocaine followed by 6 minute versions of I Shot the Sheriff constitutes anything of any real substance. After Midnight? I'll be asleep, Eric...especially after listening to that fucking song. BOTH versions.

I think most people in this thread were not disputing his talent at all...I think most were disputing his relevance after 1970...which is debatable.






I don't mind Rock and Roll Heart once every 25 years or so.

Good to see real music talk back at Obner.

No that's just what YOU are trying to make it about. The original question was just, do you dislike Clapton?



If putting out albums that go platinum and touring behind them for months on end is coasting then knock yourself out. I don't know many bands or artists in music that put out that seminal album 25 years into their career.




Yes, but it doesn't necessarily translate into album sales. Ask the Grateful Dead.





Everything in this paragraph is your opinion. I have no plans to ever see him live or buy a new record from him (maybe that JJ Cale record) but I'm not arrogant enough to think that just because I don't like his stuff anymore doesn't mean others don't.

He's no more irrelevant than any other artist of his generation. The only artist I can think of that is still making an impact is Dylan and that's debatable.

Neil Young, mang.

I stand corrected.

As is everything in yours...I wasn't trying to present it as fact.

My point was the ability to sell at a platinum level has nothing to do with how good your current output is. You originally brought up a boatload of statistics, and I was trying to illustrate how those don't necessarily have to do with how good or impactful a current album is for a long-time artist. I personally believe Clapton could've pressed blank cds in the 1980s and probably done very well with them.

As for the Dead, when did they ever really sell records anyway? That's kind of a unique band and a strange example to cite.

I think Jonny Greenwood will be more like Eno in that time period than he will any of the classic guitarists.

*sigh*


Once again, this shit is your opinion and you're stating it like this is fact. Yeah, i have my opinion too. I get it, neither of us like Clapton's latter output.

Who are the taste makers? "From the Cradle" got INSANE critical raves and went 3 times platinum. Just because you don't like him doesn't make him irrelevant.

Do I have to start every sentence with "In my humble opinion"

I said "don't necessarily have to do". In some cases, I'm sure he put out a great album and it sold great and it got great reviews. Probably two or three at most out of 15 or so. For any other artist with a lesser legacy, I'm sure you'd agree that one or two missteps in a row would probably be a career ender. Anyway, I'm not making broad sweeping claims about irrefutable facts here, I'm just stating my opinion. I apologize if it seems otherwise.

I can give you several other examples of forgettable albums released by classic rock artists that the public gobbles up. Clapton established such an amazing legacy in the 1960s, that it seems like it doesn't matter what the quality of the output is like, it sells anyway.

I liked Clapton's stuff from about 1964-1970. For me though, compared to all the cool things he was into (and it seems like several others have stated a similar opinion in this thread), the dude had a monumental dropoff which is really disappointing.

I also really don't like the blues compared to Cream, but that's probably just me.

Cream sucks as bad as Clapton

NOW MAYBE I'M WRONG BUT...

...didn't Eric Clapton publicly back Enoch Powell after his infamous 'Rivers of blood' speech.

There's a planet sized reason for disliking him right there.

I'll take "Lay Down Sally", "After Midnight" (especially the slowed down late 80's beer commercial version), and even "Its In The Way That You Use It" (which like "Layla" benefits from brilliant usage in a Scorsesse movie) over fucking "Sunshine of Your Love" or "White Room" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.