Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
boogie1969
So true, and yet another example of why the "the old blues guys did it/still do it, so the old rockers can too" argument just doesn't work with a band like the Stones. The reasons it works for Clapton is not just because of the above, but also because Eric isn't trying to run around the stage like it's the Some Girls tour of 78. the Stones are still trying to put on a show like they did 35 years ago and they look ridiculous doing it.

To be fair, Eric never did that kind of thing to begin with (and neither did Muddy, BB, Albert, Freddy, John Lee, etc.) but the fact remains that he does shows that fit where he is in his life and career (just like Muddy, BB, etc.). As of their last tour, the Stones don't. Even Keith knows this, with his recent can't run around in yellow tights forever remark.

The reason it worked for the old blues guys is that when they were 60+ years old they weren't carrying on like a bunch of damn idiots. That's great when your twenty, but not 40 years later.

But the old blues guys NEVER ran around like that. So their premise wasn't that to begin with. The Stones' premise WERE. And they're still carrying on with that, just as the old blues guys carried on with theirs. Don't make the mistake that The Stones ARE blues guys. They're the 2nd rock generation that came AFTER the old blues guys. The case of Clapton is also different: Did he EVER run around the stage? No. He did not. So his premise was also different to that of The Stones. Seems like everyone keeps doing their thing right?

If you read my post you can clearly see where I said Clapton and the old blues guys never acted like the Stones to begin with. That is a major part of my point which didn't come across very well- the reason performers like Eric and Muddy can/were able to carry on is because of the type of performances they put on, which were always very straightforward and more low-key production and performance wise. So once they hit middle to old-age, they didn't look like idiots trying to play a young man's game.

The Stones were different, and I'm saying there is a shelf-life on their type of theatrical, manic, high energy shows. After a certain age it just doesn't come off as well as it does when a group is young. It's not just the Stones, I feel the same way about Aerosmith. The rest of the band may not be as bad, but Steven has been hawking that character he plays for at least 15 years too long. It just doesn't come across as authentic to me anymore because of his age.

But what are guys like Tyler and Jagger supposed to do? Suddenly just stand there and not run around so much like Robert Plant and Roger Daltrey (both of whom I feel were an ideal mix of energy and restraint that continued to play well as they moved into the later stages of their careers)? Some performers really paint themselves in a corner when they start out with the kind of stage mannerisms that look cool at 20 but ridiculous at 60.

I've never made the mistake that the Stones are old blues guys, which is why I've been saying on here for the past year that they can't "still do it like Muddy did". That's a question or statement that others on here have made, not me.

And StonesTod said in one sentence what I couldn't in two posts:

"the general point is a valid one, namely that the stones failure to migrate toward a different path has left them no wiggle room at all as they approach their 70's..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-14 03:59 by boogie1969.

Clapton blows.. boring as hell... has specialized in recording tripe for about THIRTY YEARS noW!!!!!!!!!!!!! People there may be other artists the Stones could learn from but it ain't Crapton.

Clapton has the worst pacing live of any act I've ever seen. He'll rock a song, then make you sit down, rock another one, slow one. He's got the stage presence of a garden troll.

His albums have been meaningless for more than 20 years, though the JJ Cale collaboration wasn't half bad.

What the Rolling Stones could have learned from Eric Clapton (but sadly probably too late now)


Nothing...Absolutely Nothing.



Happy to be here....Happy to be anywhere.....

[www.myspace.com]

[www.facebook.com]

Put another way - the Clapton business model or business plan, for want of a better phrase, allows him to follow a diverse path that keeps it interesting for his fans.

This thread was never intended to prove that EC was a superior musician or songwriter to the Stones. It was intended to show that it is possible to break out of a groove, do different things etc. As somebody else pointed out you could use Dylan to illustrate the same point. You could use others as well.

But ask yourself this. How excited would you be to hear that the Stones were going to release an album composed of blues covers? That they were going to go on tour with an entirely different supporting cast? That the bottom line wasn't how many bums they could put on how many seats down at the enormodome? That the show you were paying for would actually be different to the show you saw in 2002/03, 2006 and 2007?

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77


clapton is a craftsman, a good one, but the stones are artists.

i hate it when people mix this up.

You seriously promote that belief outside of this forum?

I think more proper and accurate distinction is between one being a musician and the others being pop stars.

- Doxa

do you consider pop music a good or a bad thing?

i mean is pop music all evil for you. or do you think there is good pop music?

If I say The Stones are basically a pop band (compared to Eric Clapton) and if you check my few thousands posts in this forum during last few years I think it is quite akward to think that I consider pop music as a bad thing per se.

There are basically two senses of popular music: the first is the large sense into which the whole genre of rock does belong to. The Stones came a pop band when they left the blues club scene and started to conquer teenager hearts in the lead of Andrew Loog Oldlham's PR programme. They were promoted as "anti-Beatles" and they made a great, succesfull career out of it. To an extent, The Stones is a typical pop band: very carefully planned image, very careful business plans, hit records, etc. They still are. For example, we all here are just awe of how great they look. That's always been part of teh Stones secret: the image and the look. For example, there is the story of Harvey Mandel or someone else who coming to Stones guitarist audition in 1975, and first thing they did was to put him standing between Jagger and Watts, while the others were judging how does he "fit"; does he look like a "Rolling Stone". This is as pop as it can get. Most of the thing called "rock" these days goes easily under this pop category still; just another form of pop music.

But after the emergence of rock music as a genre of its own, and having more "serious" ambitions artistically than just hits in the radio and screaming girls, etc. the idea of "pop music" reduced to the idea of just a short-term style that happens to fill the charts in a given time. This sense is conrasted with "rock". For example, in the 70's, Pink Floyd were not as pop as, say, Bay City Rollers were.

Historically I think Eric Clapton is one of the first "serious" rock musicians who did not take the "pop route" (of The Stones) out the blues circuit in London and UK. He infamously left the Yardbirds because they started to make "pop hits" ("For Your Love"), and Eric wanted to play the blues. The idea of musicianship per se to be a point of "rock music" was the thing Clapton almost alone promoted. This was the foundation for all guitar god-bullshit of the late-60's and the early 70's, and especially Jimi Hendrix turned out to be the ultimate star of this business. But Clapton was the true beginner of the tradition. He was the first "guitar god" - the term was invented for him.

I think Clapton has been quite faithful to his ideas, and it is remarkable that he is, actually, one of the richest musicians in UK. In one way he is "MIck Taylor with a luck", but I think he actually has deserved his luck.

What goes Clapton's abilities as a guitarist, or a composer, or a singer, or a whatever, I pass the judgment. He has never been my idol in any sense. But I really admire the path he has taken, and especially the last decades been very gentle to his chosen route; he has been very "cool", humble older gentleman who seems to do whatever he likes, no need to enlarge his ego, and doesn't be afraid of making riskies. I watched the Cream re-union concert and I was surprised of his technical precise and his "serious" no bull-shitting touch and attitude. But he was cool enough to say that "okay, that's it of nostalgy"- these two(?) concerts is enough. It was cool to make an album out of Robert Johnson songs. It was cool to do an album with B.B. King. Wherever he is a guest he is always a humble performer, who does not try to take all the attention into his presence or guitar work (which he actually, without any bigger effort, easily does). Sometimes it even feels that there is Charlie Watts playing the guitar, if you know what I mean...

Like mentioned by someone here, Keith's recent "yellow trousers" comment speaks volumes that maybe he would like to be sometimes more like a real musician than an iconic rock - a pop - star he is, just keeping up the appareances. But Keith, actually, has never accepted the distinction between a musician and a performer. He has always been a show man, actually. Within the Stones framework - and next to Jagger's huge presence - he sounds like a true musician... but if you put a guy like Eric Clapton next to him, well...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-14 11:29 by Doxa.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Clapton is one of the greatest musician of modern time period and he is being bashed here. What do people want?

Hendrix was the best by far I think,and there were some great better blues player around already.
Clapton made it popular,that's about all (as a guitar player) but boring as hell.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77


clapton is a craftsman, a good one, but the stones are artists.

i hate it when people mix this up.

You seriously promote that belief outside of this forum?

I think more proper and accurate distinction is between one being a musician and the others being pop stars.

- Doxa

do you consider pop music a good or a bad thing?

i mean is pop music all evil for you. or do you think there is good pop music?

If I say The Stones are basically a pop band (compared to Eric Clapton) and if you check my few thousands posts in this forum during last few years I think it is quite akward to think that I consider pop music as a bad thing per se.

There are basically two senses of popular music: the first is the large sense into which the whole genre of rock does belong to. The Stones came a pop band when they left the blues club scene and started to conquer teenager hearts in the lead of Andrew Loog Oldlham's PR programme. They were promoted as "anti-Beatles" and they made a great, succesfull career out of it. To an extent, The Stones is a typical pop band: very carefully planned image, very careful business plans, hit records, etc. They still are. For example, we all here are just awe of how great they look. That's always been part of teh Stones secret: the image and the look. For example, there is the story of Harvey Mandel or someone else who coming to Stones guitarist audition in 1975, and first thing they did was to put him standing between Jagger and Watts, while the others were judging how does he "fit"; does he look like a "Rolling Stone". This is as pop as it can get. Most of the thing called "rock" these days goes easily under this pop category still; just another form of pop music.

But after the emergence of rock music as a genre of its own, and having more "serious" ambitions artistically than just hits in the radio and screaming girls, etc. the idea of "pop music" reduced to the idea of just a short-term style that happens to fill the charts in a given time. This sense is conrasted with "rock". For example, in the 70's, Pink Floyd were not as pop as, say, Bay City Rollers were.

Historically I think Eric Clapton is one of the first "serious" rock musicians who did not take the "pop route" (of The Stones) out the blues circuit in London and UK. He infamously left the Yardbirds because they started to make "pop hits" ("For Your Love"), and Eric wanted to play the blues. The idea of musicianship per se to be a point of "rock music" was the thing Clapton almost alone promoted. This was the foundation for all guitar god-bullshit of the late-60's and the early 70's, and especially Jimi Hendrix turned out to be the ultimate star of this business. But Clapton was the true beginner of the tradition. He was the first "guitar god" - the term was invented for him.

I think Clapton has been quite faithful to his ideas, and it is remarkable that he is, actually, one of the richest musicians in UK. In one way he is "MIck Taylor with a luck", but I think he actually has deserved his luck.

What goes Clapton's abilities as a guitarist, or a composer, or a singer, or a whatever, I pass the judgment. He has never been my idol in any sense. But I really admire the path he has taken, and especially the last decades been very gentle to his chosen route; he has been very "cool", humble older gentleman who seems to do whatever he likes, no need to enlarge his ego, and doesn't be afraid of making riskies. I watched the Cream re-union concert and I was surprised of his technical precise and his "serious" no bull-shitting touch and attitude. But he was cool enough to say that "okay, that's it of nostalgy"- these two(?) concerts is enough. It was cool to make an album out of Robert Johnson songs. It was cool to do an album with B.B. King. Wherever he is a guest he is always a humble performer, who does not try to take all the attention into his presence or guitar work (which he actually, without any bigger effort, easily does). Sometimes it even feels that there is Charlie Watts playing the guitar, if you know what I mean...

Like mentioned by someone here, Keith's recent "yellow trousers" comment speaks volumes that maybe he would like to be sometimes more like a real musician than an iconic rock - a pop - star he is, just keeping up the appareances. But Keith, actually, has never accepted the distinction between a musician and a performer. He has always been a show man, actually. Within the Stones framework - and next to Jagger's huge presence - he sounds like a true musician... but if you put a guy like Eric Clapton next to him, well...

- Doxa

I suggest you take your Stones trauma / anti Stones feelings somewhere else. This is a Stones palce not an anti Stones homepage / discussion thread.

"Layla is hippy crap"... only if you remove the sublime Duane Allman slide parts!

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77


clapton is a craftsman, a good one, but the stones are artists.

i hate it when people mix this up.

You seriously promote that belief outside of this forum?

I think more proper and accurate distinction is between one being a musician and the others being pop stars.

- Doxa

do you consider pop music a good or a bad thing?

i mean is pop music all evil for you. or do you think there is good pop music?

If I say The Stones are basically a pop band (compared to Eric Clapton) and if you check my few thousands posts in this forum during last few years I think it is quite akward to think that I consider pop music as a bad thing per se.

There are basically two senses of popular music: the first is the large sense into which the whole genre of rock does belong to. The Stones came a pop band when they left the blues club scene and started to conquer teenager hearts in the lead of Andrew Loog Oldlham's PR programme. They were promoted as "anti-Beatles" and they made a great, succesfull career out of it. To an extent, The Stones is a typical pop band: very carefully planned image, very careful business plans, hit records, etc. They still are. For example, we all here are just awe of how great they look. That's always been part of teh Stones secret: the image and the look. For example, there is the story of Harvey Mandel or someone else who coming to Stones guitarist audition in 1975, and first thing they did was to put him standing between Jagger and Watts, while the others were judging how does he "fit"; does he look like a "Rolling Stone". This is as pop as it can get. Most of the thing called "rock" these days goes easily under this pop category still; just another form of pop music.

But after the emergence of rock music as a genre of its own, and having more "serious" ambitions artistically than just hits in the radio and screaming girls, etc. the idea of "pop music" reduced to the idea of just a short-term style that happens to fill the charts in a given time. This sense is conrasted with "rock". For example, in the 70's, Pink Floyd were not as pop as, say, Bay City Rollers were.

Historically I think Eric Clapton is one of the first "serious" rock musicians who did not take the "pop route" (of The Stones) out the blues circuit in London and UK. He infamously left the Yardbirds because they started to make "pop hits" ("For Your Love"), and Eric wanted to play the blues. The idea of musicianship per se to be a point of "rock music" was the thing Clapton almost alone promoted. This was the foundation for all guitar god-bullshit of the late-60's and the early 70's, and especially Jimi Hendrix turned out to be the ultimate star of this business. But Clapton was the true beginner of the tradition. He was the first "guitar god" - the term was invented for him.

I think Clapton has been quite faithful to his ideas, and it is remarkable that he is, actually, one of the richest musicians in UK. In one way he is "MIck Taylor with a luck", but I think he actually has deserved his luck.

What goes Clapton's abilities as a guitarist, or a composer, or a singer, or a whatever, I pass the judgment. He has never been my idol in any sense. But I really admire the path he has taken, and especially the last decades been very gentle to his chosen route; he has been very "cool", humble older gentleman who seems to do whatever he likes, no need to enlarge his ego, and doesn't be afraid of making riskies. I watched the Cream re-union concert and I was surprised of his technical precise and his "serious" no bull-shitting touch and attitude. But he was cool enough to say that "okay, that's it of nostalgy"- these two(?) concerts is enough. It was cool to make an album out of Robert Johnson songs. It was cool to do an album with B.B. King. Wherever he is a guest he is always a humble performer, who does not try to take all the attention into his presence or guitar work (which he actually, without any bigger effort, easily does). Sometimes it even feels that there is Charlie Watts playing the guitar, if you know what I mean...

Like mentioned by someone here, Keith's recent "yellow trousers" comment speaks volumes that maybe he would like to be sometimes more like a real musician than an iconic rock - a pop - star he is, just keeping up the appareances. But Keith, actually, has never accepted the distinction between a musician and a performer. He has always been a show man, actually. Within the Stones framework - and next to Jagger's huge presence - he sounds like a true musician... but if you put a guy like Eric Clapton next to him, well...

- Doxa

I suggest you take your Stones trauma / anti Stones feelings somewhere else. This is a Stones palce not an anti Stones homepage / discussion thread.

I just pass that comment. I never been too good to deal with blind worshippers and trolls.

- Doxa

Love him or hate him he has as a long and varied career and has for the last several tears embraced it and im sure hes made some money doing it but i think its been for helping out old mates make a little money especially bruce and bakerFunny i remember one of keiths quotes about clapton was that he was lazy seems a little reversed now

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
How excited would you be to hear that the Stones were going to release an album composed of blues covers?

this would be the worst thing i could ever imagine.

i wouldn´t buy this and no one else would. some ppl around here maybe but who else..

the stones are not and have never been a blues or rock&roll band.

Quote
Doxa
I think Clapton ..... . In one way he is "MIck Taylor with a luck".
- Doxa

i think that´s very true. lot´s of guitarists could have had claptons place but he was the lucky one and occupied that place ever since.

he still lives from the reputation that was luckily put on him in the 60´s.

How exactly are the band who churn out formulaic songs like You Got Me Rocking and Rough Justice, deliberate re-treads of their riff-driven classics, any more artistic than Eric Clapton? Clapton's done a lot of shit over the years but he strikes me as more true to himself than The Stones are.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stoneswashed77


clapton is a craftsman, a good one, but the stones are artists.

i hate it when people mix this up.

You seriously promote that belief outside of this forum?

I think more proper and accurate distinction is between one being a musician and the others being pop stars.

- Doxa

do you consider pop music a good or a bad thing?

i mean is pop music all evil for you. or do you think there is good pop music?

If I say The Stones are basically a pop band (compared to Eric Clapton) and if you check my few thousands posts in this forum during last few years I think it is quite akward to think that I consider pop music as a bad thing per se.

There are basically two senses of popular music: the first is the large sense into which the whole genre of rock does belong to. The Stones came a pop band when they left the blues club scene and started to conquer teenager hearts in the lead of Andrew Loog Oldlham's PR programme. They were promoted as "anti-Beatles" and they made a great, succesfull career out of it. To an extent, The Stones is a typical pop band: very carefully planned image, very careful business plans, hit records, etc. They still are. For example, we all here are just awe of how great they look. That's always been part of teh Stones secret: the image and the look. For example, there is the story of Harvey Mandel or someone else who coming to Stones guitarist audition in 1975, and first thing they did was to put him standing between Jagger and Watts, while the others were judging how does he "fit"; does he look like a "Rolling Stone". This is as pop as it can get. Most of the thing called "rock" these days goes easily under this pop category still; just another form of pop music.

But after the emergence of rock music as a genre of its own, and having more "serious" ambitions artistically than just hits in the radio and screaming girls, etc. the idea of "pop music" reduced to the idea of just a short-term style that happens to fill the charts in a given time. This sense is conrasted with "rock". For example, in the 70's, Pink Floyd were not as pop as, say, Bay City Rollers were.

Historically I think Eric Clapton is one of the first "serious" rock musicians who did not take the "pop route" (of The Stones) out the blues circuit in London and UK. He infamously left the Yardbirds because they started to make "pop hits" ("For Your Love"), and Eric wanted to play the blues. The idea of musicianship per se to be a point of "rock music" was the thing Clapton almost alone promoted. This was the foundation for all guitar god-bullshit of the late-60's and the early 70's, and especially Jimi Hendrix turned out to be the ultimate star of this business. But Clapton was the true beginner of the tradition. He was the first "guitar god" - the term was invented for him.

I think Clapton has been quite faithful to his ideas, and it is remarkable that he is, actually, one of the richest musicians in UK. In one way he is "MIck Taylor with a luck", but I think he actually has deserved his luck.

What goes Clapton's abilities as a guitarist, or a composer, or a singer, or a whatever, I pass the judgment. He has never been my idol in any sense. But I really admire the path he has taken, and especially the last decades been very gentle to his chosen route; he has been very "cool", humble older gentleman who seems to do whatever he likes, no need to enlarge his ego, and doesn't be afraid of making riskies. I watched the Cream re-union concert and I was surprised of his technical precise and his "serious" no bull-shitting touch and attitude. But he was cool enough to say that "okay, that's it of nostalgy"- these two(?) concerts is enough. It was cool to make an album out of Robert Johnson songs. It was cool to do an album with B.B. King. Wherever he is a guest he is always a humble performer, who does not try to take all the attention into his presence or guitar work (which he actually, without any bigger effort, easily does). Sometimes it even feels that there is Charlie Watts playing the guitar, if you know what I mean...

Like mentioned by someone here, Keith's recent "yellow trousers" comment speaks volumes that maybe he would like to be sometimes more like a real musician than an iconic rock - a pop - star he is, just keeping up the appareances. But Keith, actually, has never accepted the distinction between a musician and a performer. He has always been a show man, actually. Within the Stones framework - and next to Jagger's huge presence - he sounds like a true musician... but if you put a guy like Eric Clapton next to him, well...

- Doxa

I suggest you take your Stones trauma / anti Stones feelings somewhere else. This is a Stones palce not an anti Stones homepage / discussion thread.

I just pass that comment. I never been too good to deal with blind worshippers and trolls.

- Doxa

Difficult when you metally are a doll

"Since 1990 Eric Clapton has toured more frequently than the Stones."

Comment: Has he actually played more? The Stones have done multi-year, multi-nation tours in '89-90, '94, '97, '99, '02 and '05. Has he performed more shows in more places?


"He plays smaller venues but has has varied his shows more infineitely than the Stones ever have."

Comment: The Stones had three (3) different shows for the Licks tour, depending on whether the venue was stadium, arena or club - and there were many of each. A survey of IORR threads shows the Stones' setlist actually varies more than most other 'superstar' acts (e.g., more than AC DC, the Police, Paul McCartney and Van Halen, though admittedly not as much as U2 and Bob Dylan).


"There have been orchestral nights, blues only tours, varying line ups, collaborations with The Impressions, BB King, Steve Winwood and Jeff Beck."

Comment: The Stones have included never before played R&B and original numbers in their sets and shared the stage with multiple R&B legends and other stars. It's their prerogative as to whether they wish to change their backup musicians and singers; either approach can be and is viewed as proof of musical integrity.


"If you stand up the Stones work from Steel Wheels and compare it to Clpaton's since Journeyman (both albums released in late 1989) then the Stones work compares very unfavourably."

Comment: Since this entire thread is apples vs. oranges, in that spirit I'll simply reply: No it doesn't.

a stones tour is an event, a clapton tour is a night out

..... a boring night out.

Quote
MKjan
..... a boring night out.

the last time i saw EC - a couple of years ago - it was easily a better night out than any recent stones show i've seen. diff strokes for diff folks, i guess. i'm into music - not spectacle....

I haven't had the time to plow through all of this thread but the anti-Clapton bias on this board really blows my mind. If you don't particularly like his music, that's one thing. Perhaps he's not your cup of tea? But damn, don't insult the man. It's like people get pissed if an artist that they don't particularly care for gets really successful. Almost like it's an insult to their musical taste. So they have to bash that particular artist for proving to them that millions of people love his/her work.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MKjan
..... a boring night out.

the last time i saw EC - a couple of years ago - it was easily a better night out than any recent stones show i've seen. diff strokes for diff folks, i guess. i'm into music - not spectacle....

Yep, diff strokes for diff folks, that's cool. I'd rather a bit less spectacle, but it doesn't negate my preference of music. Stones music moves me, Claptons does not.

Don't forget to get your SEXY on!

Quote
scaffer
"Since 1990 Eric Clapton has toured more frequently than the Stones."

Comment: Has he actually played more? The Stones have done multi-year, multi-nation tours in '89-90, '94, '97, '99, '02 and '05. Has he performed more shows in more places?


"He plays smaller venues but has has varied his shows more infineitely than the Stones ever have."

Comment: The Stones had three (3) different shows for the Licks tour, depending on whether the venue was stadium, arena or club - and there were many of each. A survey of IORR threads shows the Stones' setlist actually varies more than most other 'superstar' acts (e.g., more than AC DC, the Police, Paul McCartney and Van Halen, though admittedly not as much as U2 and Bob Dylan).


"There have been orchestral nights, blues only tours, varying line ups, collaborations with The Impressions, BB King, Steve Winwood and Jeff Beck."

Comment: The Stones have included never before played R&B and original numbers in their sets and shared the stage with multiple R&B legends and other stars. It's their prerogative as to whether they wish to change their backup musicians and singers; either approach can be and is viewed as proof of musical integrity.


"If you stand up the Stones work from Steel Wheels and compare it to Clpaton's since Journeyman (both albums released in late 1989) then the Stones work compares very unfavourably."

Comment: Since this entire thread is apples vs. oranges, in that spirit I'll simply reply: No it doesn't.

Each Clapton tour is different to the previous tour - in terms of line up, material played.

The comment about the Stones work comparing unfavourably is to do with the fact that since Steel Wheels each album is essentially a continum of the one before - whereas Clapton output has been more varied. Obviosuly whether you like it or not is down to individual taste.

But my original point stands. The Stones do whatever they do because it is the fastest, most effective way to harvest £s/$s.

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
I haven't had the time to plow through all of this thread but the anti-Clapton bias on this board really blows my mind. If you don't particularly like his music, that's one thing. Perhaps he's not your cup of tea? But damn, don't insult the man. It's like people get pissed if an artist that they don't particularly care for gets really successful. Almost like it's an insult to their musical taste. So they have to bash that particular artist for proving to them that millions of people love his/her work.

Well put!

A very big bunch of uncalled-for stupid posts in this thread, I'd say

BTW, as for EC....I'm a great fan of his, - but even when I wasn't - I surely had respect for his projects; ...not to mention the guitar-playing itself. Rolling Stones haven't done much else then "the typical big-show RS Tour" the last 20 years - only the Licks tour featured something slightly different. So I really think it could had been a more insteresting (and maybe better run) for RS, after Bill Wyman left- if they done something remotely close to the risk-taking EC has.

.....when it comes to EC *guitar-playing* - I can't imagine how people with only a minor ear to music can bash it. Doesn't matter if one doesn't like his albums or songs....

Quote
Erik_Snow
A very big bunch of uncalled-for stupid posts in this thread, I'd say

stupid is as stupid posts....i'm taking a vow to not be suprised by it anymore

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Erik_Snow
A very big bunch of uncalled-for stupid posts in this thread, I'd say

stupid is as stupid posts....i'm taking a vow to not be suprised by it anymore

I'm not surprised. For some reason EC presses a button with some people. It's a shame that they have to take a confrontational attitude. They miss the point of the thread.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Erik_Snow
A very big bunch of uncalled-for stupid posts in this thread, I'd say

stupid is as stupid posts....i'm taking a vow to not be suprised by it anymore

Hi Tod, yeah well...come to think of it; my sentence was a bit stupid as well; because all posts on IORR are uncalled-for...hmmm just thinking out loud; maybe we should all quiet up for some months, untill stupid doesn't exist anymore...

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
humanriff77
@#$%& Clapton, definately in the top 10 of most overrated bores of all time, Layla is hippy crap

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I wholeheartedly agree. Layla sucks, and Clapton is a washed-up boring old fart.

Just my two cents.

Drew

Must be "Obama money"

I think there have been some terrific posts in this thread, from a fan of both.

I still think it's hard to compare a solo performer's choices to that of a whole band. One person has much more control than a band, and can exercise more flexibility.

Quote
angee
I think there have been some terrific posts in this thread, from a fan of both.

Oh yes, there has, I didn't mean that there hadn't.
I meant the "anti Clapton posts" - which had no relation to the question which Sir Craven raised....just a whole lot of un-rightous bashing.