Unpopular opinion... I don't think Eric Clapton is very great.

[AnotherSpin]

For what reason do people try to rank guitarists (or anyone else) in particular order: greatest, just great, or not great at all? Isn't it enough to just enjoy what you happen to listen to (or do) at any given moment? You like Clapton - fine! You prefer Jerry Garcia, or George Harrison, or Eddie Van Halen - wonderful! Life is a great occasion for the endless celebration for limitless variety of reasons. 

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

We have to have some other “impossible to agree upon” topics besides whether or not cables influence sound! 

 

Well... My question was rather rhetorical. There is no doubt that the stronger the ego, the sooner the ego wants to arrange objects in particular order, to separate itself from the whole and associate itself with something particular and dissociate from something else. Sadly, but what is - is.

[AnotherSpin]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

I've seen Clapton live and think he's a helluva guitarist. Absolutely love Van Morrison's music, too. But since the idiocy of the anti-lockdown song [...]

 

Anti-lockdown song is not a single iota more idiotic than a pro-lockdown song if there would be any, imo.

 

[AnotherSpin]

11 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

Then why do either? Especially if you are sitting pretty in your country estate. Perhaps a song or album supporting the front line workers might be more appropriate, with proceeds going to the NHS. Mogwai did it, why couldn't those two rich f*cks. 

 

My point is - why judge either? People are entitled to sing about what ever they can. Material wealth has nothing to do with it.

[AnotherSpin]

4 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I agree, let people do what they want to do, it  makes identifying them for what they are, easier.

 

Why would anyone need to identify other people? Or, again, judge others? Is a little compassion not enough?

[AnotherSpin]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Encouraging people to think of common sense precautions to help save lives (wearing a face mask, minimizing interactions that carry a higher risk of transmission) as a police state taking away their freedom has the consequence that some of those lives are not saved. Promoting people dying gasping for breath is something artists are surely entitled to do, and something I feel entitled to judge as bad and therefore not to support financially. All quite simple, really.

 

It may seem simple to those who non-critically accepts the thesis that "masks (and lockdowns) save lives". You are free to do that, others are free to be not so sure or be critical about quite violently enforced measures. No reason to judge any of sides, imo.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Who violently enforced your mask wearing?

 

Second, you're right. Masks don't work at all, Drs and Nurses just wear them for the hell of it...

 

If I can not enter airport or shopping mall without mask it is clear enforcing.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto said:

Because these two appeal largely to a certain age demographic that is one of the most vulnerable, so I see it as highly irresponsible of them. What are they getting out of it?

 

The most moving interview I've heard recently was from a nurse on the front lines NPR has kept checking back in on. Asked why she didn't want to consider herself a 'hero,' the nurse broke down. She said she just wants to do her job, and that if everybody else played the 'hero' - i.e. wearing masks, social distancing, etc - then she wouldn't have to be the one to try and save lives, which is in most cases too late with this virus.

 

We have a good family friend in Dusseldorf (where my wife is from) who was always the most gregarious, jovial, and sweetest man in the room, 54 years old, who may end up spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair, speaking at a whisper, due to strokes form this invisible menace. Caught it at a hospital in Italy where his girlfriend had to go for another medical emergency. He's not sitting in a country manor going on about 'violent' mask enforcement (not heard that one before) - no, after six weeks in the hospital he's sitting in a wheelchair, wondering just what the rest of his life is going to be.

 

Or how about one of my best friend's father who passed away last month from coronavirus? I could go on. At this point, if you don't know somebody who hasn't been affected by this, I'm just not sure what kind of rock you are living under. Yes, loss of jobs, schooling, strained family relationships etc are also tremendous hardships. But not seeing the grandparents for a year is better than never seeing them again. 

 

I don't see the point in defending or disapproving masks (or lockdowns). You believe in them, okay, I have nothing against your beliefs and I'm not going to convince you in ridiculousness of such. Someone else doesn't believe in the miraculous power of masks and lockdowns - again, I have nothing against it. I'm not going to point the finger at anyone or draw parallels between the content of the songs and the amount of wealth of this or that person.

[AnotherSpin]

2 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

It is not done violently. Now, other than asking you to leave for not wearing a mask, they hit you in the head with a Billy club until you do, that would be violent enforcement. Stop the hyperbole.

 

Stop what?

 

[AnotherSpin]

If we judge a guitarist by his "virtuosity" and ability to produce endless external effects, then perhaps yes - Clapton, with years and gradually accumulated maturity, has ceased to be a firebrand. As have many other really important guitarists and musicians in general. Youth is addicted to external effects, tinsel and glitter. With maturity, the movement inward becomes more noticeable, the voice becomes quieter, the words less frequent.

[AnotherSpin]

4 hours ago, ShawnC said:

If you just use the terminology is Clapton great as in the title of the thread, I think yes, he's achieved that title and well deserved as early as the mid seventies.  Is he the greatest of all time, no.  But he reigns among the greatest that have played the blues.  The other thing to remember is that Clapton kept leaving bands that wanted to become popular.  He wanted to be a blues player only.  It was Jonh Mayall that told Clapton if you want to play what you want, then your gonna have to learn how to sing so you can play what you want.  

 

As far as popularity goes, Eric was and still is very passive.  He didn't ask or choose to be famous, it just happens.  Look at all those one hit wonders that you remember the name of the artist or band that created it.  People love a good come back story and Clapton created that with his drug recovery and his mission to help those who are suffering with drugs and alcohol.  Sure in the eighties he may have moved towards a more pop like blues playing style but he's playing what he wants and the vast majority of fans enjoyed what he put out.  Lost of artist ebb and sway throughout their career.

 

Now for those of you mentioned that Tears in Heaven was a money grab, shame on you.  A musician looses a child, has the ability to put his feelings into his art and puts it all out there for those who have had the same experience to grieve with, should be honored not ridiculed.  It made a lot of money because most people care and have feelings and it's a great acoustic riff.

 

If you take someone like John Mayer who is a great guitarist, he's never considered a top 10 or 20 guitarist in most polls and I'd rather listen to him play then Clapton.  Blues is a hard category to determine who's the greatest because once you know the guitar and the scales it all sounds the same.  It's what individuals do with there instruments that can single them out.  It's all in the hands for a guitarist, some have it, some don't.  Those who have it, well, we all know there names, those who don't are still good musicians but there's nothing that makes them stand out in the crowd.

 

Thanks for the mention of John Mayer, a fine guitarist. But even the one whose place he took in a very special band would never claim to be the greatest. First, because he wouldn't, and second, because he has a very unique place in the history of rock music. As has been said once before: GD played at a level that other musicians didn't even know existed. To be the greatest guitar player of them all, one has to be one of them. But one can be light years away from all of them.

[AnotherSpin]

"Clapton is the only one that’s influenced me" - Eddie Van Halen about his guitar heroes in the Rolling Stone interview: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/who-were-eddie-van-halen-influences-1071780/

 

[AnotherSpin]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yep. Goes back to Wagner and Stravinsky's anti-Semitism (and prior I'm sure), and there's a huge through line of misogyny from the blues to rock.  ("Under My Thumb"?)

 

I try to be a bit thoughtful (e.g., not giving Clapton and Morrison more money while still enjoying the music I already own), but really I'm just muddling through.

 

By the way, Wagner's famous article is not as one-dimentional as one who has not read it might be tempted to think :-)

[AnotherSpin]

23 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

Curious as to what your take is? 

 

It is freely available to read for any one who might be willing and ready to have his/her own opinion.

[AnotherSpin]

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

Irrelevant. It's highly anti-Semitic. Why make excuses for it?

 

I see no need to put into what I have said what is not there. Jud mentioned Wagner's anti-Semitism. It seems to me that such a label is a consequence of oversimplification. Everyone can draw their own conclusion, the article is accessible, the text is not long. Also, I don't think I want to delve further into the subject.

[AnotherSpin]

12 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Terrapin is definitely a bit too smooth and boring IMO. I was lucky enough to start hearing them during the period of their two best (IMO) studio albums, Workingman's Dead and American Beauty.   The first three songs on the latter in particular are beautiful, friendly, welcoming.

 

Also from that period, the Europe '72 live album is a favorite, especially the Jack Straw through I Know You Rider sequence.

 

If you approach them as friends around the fireside playing for fun on a cold and lonely evening, I think it helps get into the proper frame of mind.

 

There is no reason to describe the rainbow to someone who is color blind...

[AnotherSpin]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I am sure you've had the experience of turning friends on to music you like.  On the other hand, if they turn out not to like what you do, that's fine too.  "De gustibus non disputandum est" is Latin for a reason - this is a very old conversation.

 

That is true. Also, most if not all my tastes were influenced more or less by others. As everything else in life of everyone. Still, Dead is a kind of magic - you either hear it or not. Sure thing, I was giving Barton Hall 5/8/77 recording to some of my dearest musical friends, no one turned on. What is pretty much ok with me. My desert island is my desert island after all.

[AnotherSpin]

13 minutes ago, Temporal_Dissident said:

 

Yawn. Here he is, blues blasting away on someone else’s song. A fine musician. Sure. But what exactly did he ever do to push the boundaries of anything? He stuck to one genre (blues) and didn’t really even innovate within that genre. He’s a fine player. Smooth, great tone, technical, soulful. Fine. But where is the innovation? Where is the creativity? As Garcia used to say, Being a talented player is fine, but do they have anything to SAY?

 

By the way, if you are looking for the real cover of this great George Harrison song (with an actually creative solo), here you go…
 

 

 

 

Everyone has seen this solo on video. Recently, tried to find this version in Qobuz and listen to the audio. I was surprised at how artificial and exaggerated the solo seemed. It seems that in this case the image impresses more than the sound.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Temporal_Dissident said:

 

This is dead-on. (Pun intended.) The Dead has always been my band and I know better than to fall deeply down a rabbit hole on a forum like this defending them, BUT I do object to this dismissive idea that they are just drugged out hippies playing to a gullible audience. 
 

I appreciate the crowd on this forum as an intellectually curious, open minded (sometimes), opinionated (always) group of music fans. If the Dead isnt to your taste, fine. But do not kid yourselves by thinking their popularity is some sort of swindle or scam, or that it is all about drugs. 
 

A few points to consider:

NO BAND has effectively integrated so many genres or influences into rock and roll. Bluegrass, country, 50’s rock (not Elvis, but Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, classical, and world music,….then played with the improvisational ethic of jazz. 
 

There are countless stories of other musicians either playing with the Dead or on the same bill and commenting later about how focused and responsive the audience was. They actually listen! This was probably best captured by Miles Davis. After Bill Graham put him on a bill with the Dead and Steve Miller Band, Davis commented that Miller was a “pathetic white cat“ (he might’ve said the same about Clapton) but that the Dead and their audience really “got it.“ They embraced the risk and openness in jazz. They wanted to be pushed. 

 

Whereas we can all easily, immediately identify Clapton‘s influences (BB King, Jonny Lee Hooker, Buddy Guy), I would argue that Garcias are far more nuanced and, frankly, interesting. After decades of listening to his music closely I would name his top influences as John Coltrane, Django Reinhardt, Chuck Berry, and Bill Monroe.
 

David Crosby called them “electric dixieland.” That works. You have two guitars, bass, and keys involved in a musical ongoing conversation during each song. Sometimes it works better than others. It is a MUCH riskier proposition than going out night-after-night and recreating the same songs in the same way (like virtually all other rock bands). 
 

The Dead have a notoriously loose rhythm section. Phil Lesh constantly improvising in counterpoint to Garcia’s lead, running scales on a 6-string bass while two drummers create a bed of sound. It doesn’t have the strong backbeat that is typical of rock n roll. It can be disorienting to most rock drummers. It is a rhythm section built around a guitar player, designed to ebb and flow as the music and moments demand.

 

Other casual listeners don’t get hooked by the signing. Fair enough. No incredibly beautiful voices in this band. Regardless, they learned to use what they have and their are plenty of high-points to point to. Example:

I would also argue that Robert Hunter certainly deserved his honor by the Songwriter’s Hall-of-Fame as one of the best lyricist in rock ‘n’ roll history. (Example: find a copy of the eulogy he wrote for Jerry Garcia in the 48 hours after his passing.)

 

I was listening to last night with a friend who was never that into the Dead. This track broke through for him. Live in ‘89 or ‘90 with guest Branford Marsalis on stage. Encourage any of you to give it time to listen actively. (Maybe headphones with a better source ;-). Listen to Garcia and Branford trade solos throughout the song, culminating in an apex where Garcia’s guitar emulates a wooden flute through MIDI (around 9:27, but PLEASE listen to the entire song). Listen to Phil Lesh’s rapid endless, counter-punctual bass playing, the soft bed of rhythm created by the drummers, the melodic key embellishments from Brent Mydland, and the Scottie Pippenesqe color and support from Weir’s rhythm guitar. Note that Garcia is not the egoist lead guitar god who hogs the spotlight,…ever willing to play the support role or do whatever needed to support the song. 
 

 

 

People get turned off by the lightness of the Beach boys. But Paul McCartney once commented that it if someone did not recognize the genius behind pet sounds, they were simply “musically uneducated.“ I’d apply the same description to those who quickly dismiss the Dead. 

 

Not your jam, fair enough. But do not be so cynical as to dismiss legions of dedicated fans as drugged out marks or to argue that their music is simplistic or they are not talented. That is just not the case. 
 

If anyone out there is truly curious to understand what the Dead is really about, I will offer the following: tell me a little about your favorite style of music, maybe some of your favorite artists. I will hit you back with some suggested, relevant entry points to the Dead‘s music. They may not be for everyone, but I can guarantee you there is much more there to discover then you think.

 

Grateful Dead are the most important rock band to me. Or not rock, whatever. I believe I have almost all of the band's official albums, studio and live, plus a couple of terabytes of taper's live recordings - Dead were one of a very few bands who allowed and encouraged amateur recording of their live performances. Through several decades I may not have listened to anything outside of classical and jazz as much as Dead. Having said that, I would like to point out that I see no point in comparing the Dead to other bands or soloists, too few points of similarity or convergence in my opinion. No way to compare Garcia to Clapton as well. A lot of listeners dismiss Grateful Dead, and it seems to me they just don't know what they're hearing or how to listen to it at all. I have no idea how I got into the Dead universe or what it takes for anyone else to replicate this. All I can say is that in my case, drugs played no part in this miraculous event.

[AnotherSpin]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

Saw Clapton live back in the day. He was fantastic. Currently he's got some quite stupid political views (along with another favorite of mine, Van Morrison), so I won't contribute to his finances by streaming or purchasing. Fortunately I already own quite a bit of his music (and Van's), so I can listen 'til my heart's content without paying him any more.

 

It doesn't seem stupid to me.