For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RockinJive
The same people that put down Clapton would probably ask for his autograph and tell him how great he is if they had a chance to meet him.
Quote
chop
I was never impressed with Clapton the performer other than with Cream.
He always seemed to be unmotivated, going through the motions...never really throwing himself into his performances. When has he ever ripped off a ferocious Layla in concert like the album.
He's just too relaxed out there. Like a lounge singer
Tell you who really impressed me was Fleetwood Mac and Tom Petty. They still care at least
Quote
RockinJive
The same people that put down Clapton would probably ask for his autograph and tell him how great he is if they had a chance to meet him.
Quote
kishorcsog
My friend saw him last night in Vienna and was totally bored with it after seeing the Stones 2 times this tour.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Stonesrule, all you need are your ears.
Do you need me to be the authority for you that Hootie And The Blowfish and The Eagles suck as well or can you figure that one out yourself?
Did you actually read what I said? It doesn't look like it. I don't need to share my guitar expertise and what I know I'm talking about because my guitar expertise has nothing to do with Clapton being boring. Neil Pert is a hell of a drummer but he's boring too.
You're confusing it. Boring does not mean they suck ie they are bad, incapable, etc. Clapton, as I stated, is an incredible guitar player. It's just that he's boring.
However, Barbara Streisand is a horrible singer. Do I need to be a female to be the authority on that?
Quote
kishorcsog
Anyway, it reminded me when I saw Deep Purple in 2007 after seeing the Stones a few times and I said never again would I see Deep Purple, it was depressing. And I do like classic rock.
I will see Neil Young with Crazy Horse in July, I hope they will have the intensity the Stones have.
I did catch 2 Stones concert this tour - Pinkpop and Vienna - and they were absolutely amazing, so thank you Stones.
Quote
TurkuStonesFan
I find it intriguing that Clapton has such a bad attitude about two subjects from the interviews quoted above: Touring and Cream.
On the matter of Touring he says it is "unbearable" and the only way to make it better is to spend more money and then operate the tour at a "loss". He either does not know how to tour profitably or needs to talk to the Stones. They have a larger production and touring party, tour in comfort and make money.
This also might reveal that Clapton cannot bring himself to entertain the crowds and demand the prices needed to cover costs and make it profitable to do so comfortably.
On the matter of Cream he makes several comments about how difficult their relationships are and further contact could lead to bloodshed. I think he needs some anger therapy. Who talks like this in public about former band mates and collaborators- especially ones who together could make you money and your legacy stronger? I know a few people that went to the Cream shows a few years ago in London and loved it. They said Clapton seemed to come alive with those guys.
His anger and lack business touring sense might be why he hates the road. I get that it's a tough life and he has had his addictions and family tragedies but really?
Also, a few years ago I read that on his Reptile tour he would stay in one great hotel, say in LA, NY, or Chicago and then fly the band out to regional cities within an hours flight on the day of the show and then back after the gig because he didn't like changing hotels.
That sounds like a good idea until you do it a few times and realize that while you don't have to unpack every other day you still a long day of leaving the hotel, going to the Airport (which means an hour plus drive in those bigger cities) then flying in whatever weather the US has that day, then driving to the show (another hour), quick sound check, dinner back stage, then drive to the airport, fly an hour, drive to the hotel.
Let's do the timetable math.
Let's say he is staying in Chicago but has a show in St. Louis: he would have to leave the hotel downtown at 3pm or 15:00 hours, arrive at the plane at 16:00, a private jet has a sliding departure time of an hour so flight control fits in the departure between 16:00 and 17:00. Let's say he leaves at 16:30 (4:30) and arrives in St. Louis at 17:30 (5:30pm) and gets to the arena at 18:30 (6:30), then sound, dinner, pre-show (whatever he does), show at 21:00 (9pm), play approx 2 hours so now it's 23:00 hours (11pm). An hour back to the airport, an hour flight followed by another hour back to the hotel. So it is now 2 am in the morning. Not very smart or profitable. In all he spent around 12 hours commuting and playing.
Meanwhile the Stones travel every few days. Spend several nights in luxury hotels, on show day they leave the hotels late afternoon early evening, play and are back in their rooms by midnight. And they still make money.
Quote
BILLPERKS
DAFTEST POST EVER.
CLAPTON DOESNT COMMAND THE GROSS THE STONES DO GENIUS.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
BILLPERKS
DAFTEST POST EVER.
CLAPTON DOESNT COMMAND THE GROSS THE STONES DO GENIUS.
You are by some distance the worst poster on this board
Quote
TurkuStonesFanQuote
StoneburstQuote
BILLPERKS
DAFTEST POST EVER.
CLAPTON DOESNT COMMAND THE GROSS THE STONES DO GENIUS.
You are by some distance the worst poster on this board
Could elaborate as to whom you are addressing by Screen Name?
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Clapton has always been an odd name in my own personal music world. Since the 80's the one word that I have akways assiociated with him is "Boring". And I like Clapton. he is a phenomenal guitarist. His left hand is beautifulk to watch on the fretboard. Just the fingers alone;( sort of like Jeff Beck's right ANd left hand.) But his stage persona is a sleeper. His attitude and interviews about his OWN music are also boring. far back as that great film of him and his band on the train in Europe in 70's. The only bad thing in that film is he. he does have a dark side; maybe not dark, but selfish, cranky; evil, maybe? the drunk rants on stage;
Strangely enough - he makes a very good interview when talking about history or someone else. And some of his most inspired playing abd speaking was the whole 'Concert for George".
But when he did those 80's albums; he even had Phil Collins with him; and then the sleep inducing, what was it? 24 Night? and then "Old Sock". OLD SOCK?!!??
Like others here said: he cant make more dough touring because his shows arent exciting enough where he can charge hundreds of dollars per ticket.
I wonder what odd ailments he means.
Quote
crholmstromQuote
kishorcsog
Anyway, it reminded me when I saw Deep Purple in 2007 after seeing the Stones a few times and I said never again would I see Deep Purple, it was depressing. And I do like classic rock.
I will see Neil Young with Crazy Horse in July, I hope they will have the intensity the Stones have.
I did catch 2 Stones concert this tour - Pinkpop and Vienna - and they were absolutely amazing, so thank you Stones.
I think the Horse will blow you away.
Quote
mnewman505
hahahahaha, are you people going to argue with Clapton's own words? He doesn't like touring anymore!
"The road has become unbearable," he said. "It's become unapproachable, because it takes so long to get anywhere. It's hostile – everywhere: getting in and out of airports, traveling on planes and in cars."
Quote
BlissQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
Clapton has always been an odd name in my own personal music world. Since the 80's the one word that I have akways assiociated with him is "Boring". And I like Clapton. he is a phenomenal guitarist. His left hand is beautifulk to watch on the fretboard. Just the fingers alone;( sort of like Jeff Beck's right ANd left hand.) But his stage persona is a sleeper. His attitude and interviews about his OWN music are also boring. far back as that great film of him and his band on the train in Europe in 70's. The only bad thing in that film is he. he does have a dark side; maybe not dark, but selfish, cranky; evil, maybe? the drunk rants on stage;
Strangely enough - he makes a very good interview when talking about history or someone else. And some of his most inspired playing abd speaking was the whole 'Concert for George".
But when he did those 80's albums; he even had Phil Collins with him; and then the sleep inducing, what was it? 24 Night? and then "Old Sock". OLD SOCK?!!??
Like others here said: he cant make more dough touring because his shows arent exciting enough where he can charge hundreds of dollars per ticket.
I wonder what odd ailments he means.
The thing is, he is expensive! I had to pay $400 for two tickets half-way up in the arena, where other shows I had seen around that time - RHCP, Cure, GNR - cost half that, for better seats.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
BlissQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
Clapton has always been an odd name in my own personal music world. Since the 80's the one word that I have akways assiociated with him is "Boring". And I like Clapton. he is a phenomenal guitarist. His left hand is beautifulk to watch on the fretboard. Just the fingers alone;( sort of like Jeff Beck's right ANd left hand.) But his stage persona is a sleeper. His attitude and interviews about his OWN music are also boring. far back as that great film of him and his band on the train in Europe in 70's. The only bad thing in that film is he. he does have a dark side; maybe not dark, but selfish, cranky; evil, maybe? the drunk rants on stage;
Strangely enough - he makes a very good interview when talking about history or someone else. And some of his most inspired playing abd speaking was the whole 'Concert for George".
But when he did those 80's albums; he even had Phil Collins with him; and then the sleep inducing, what was it? 24 Night? and then "Old Sock". OLD SOCK?!!??
Like others here said: he cant make more dough touring because his shows arent exciting enough where he can charge hundreds of dollars per ticket.
I wonder what odd ailments he means.
The thing is, he is expensive! I had to pay $400 for two tickets half-way up in the arena, where other shows I had seen around that time - RHCP, Cure, GNR - cost half that, for better seats.
He is a bigger act than the other bands you mentioned.
Quote
BlissQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
BlissQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
Clapton has always been an odd name in my own personal music world. Since the 80's the one word that I have akways assiociated with him is "Boring". And I like Clapton. he is a phenomenal guitarist. His left hand is beautifulk to watch on the fretboard. Just the fingers alone;( sort of like Jeff Beck's right ANd left hand.) But his stage persona is a sleeper. His attitude and interviews about his OWN music are also boring. far back as that great film of him and his band on the train in Europe in 70's. The only bad thing in that film is he. he does have a dark side; maybe not dark, but selfish, cranky; evil, maybe? the drunk rants on stage;
Strangely enough - he makes a very good interview when talking about history or someone else. And some of his most inspired playing abd speaking was the whole 'Concert for George".
But when he did those 80's albums; he even had Phil Collins with him; and then the sleep inducing, what was it? 24 Night? and then "Old Sock". OLD SOCK?!!??
Like others here said: he cant make more dough touring because his shows arent exciting enough where he can charge hundreds of dollars per ticket.
I wonder what odd ailments he means.
The thing is, he is expensive! I had to pay $400 for two tickets half-way up in the arena, where other shows I had seen around that time - RHCP, Cure, GNR - cost half that, for better seats.
He is a bigger act than the other bands you mentioned.
Hey Mr Powderman! So are the RS, but they put energy into their performance and provide some exciting visuals. They want you to enjoy the show, because it IS a show. EC doesn't give a toss. If it had been a movie, I's have asked for a refund.
Quote
TurkuStonesFan
I find it intriguing that Clapton has such a bad attitude about two subjects from the interviews quoted above: Touring and Cream.
On the matter of Touring he says it is "unbearable" and the only way to make it better is to spend more money and then operate the tour at a "loss". He either does not know how to tour profitably or needs to talk to the Stones. They have a larger production and touring party, tour in comfort and make money.
This also might reveal that Clapton cannot bring himself to entertain the crowds and demand the prices needed to cover costs and make it profitable to do so comfortably.
On the matter of Cream he makes several comments about how difficult their relationships are and further contact could lead to bloodshed. I think he needs some anger therapy. Who talks like this in public about former band mates and collaborators- especially ones who together could make you money and your legacy stronger? I know a few people that went to the Cream shows a few years ago in London and loved it. They said Clapton seemed to come alive with those guys.
His anger and lack business touring sense might be why he hates the road. I get that it's a tough life and he has had his addictions and family tragedies but really?
Also, a few years ago I read that on his Reptile tour he would stay in one great hotel, say in LA, NY, or Chicago and then fly the band out to regional cities within an hours flight on the day of the show and then back after the gig because he didn't like changing hotels.
That sounds like a good idea until you do it a few times and realize that while you don't have to unpack every other day you still a long day of leaving the hotel, going to the Airport (which means an hour plus drive in those bigger cities) then flying in whatever weather the US has that day, then driving to the show (another hour), quick sound check, dinner back stage, then drive to the airport, fly an hour, drive to the hotel.
Let's do the timetable math.
Let's say he is staying in Chicago but has a show in St. Louis: he would have to leave the hotel downtown at 3pm or 15:00 hours, arrive at the plane at 16:00, a private jet has a sliding departure time of an hour so flight control fits in the departure between 16:00 and 17:00. Let's say he leaves at 16:30 (4:30) and arrives in St. Louis at 17:30 (5:30pm) and gets to the arena at 18:30 (6:30), then sound, dinner, pre-show (whatever he does), show at 21:00 (9pm), play approx 2 hours so now it's 23:00 hours (11pm). An hour back to the airport, an hour flight followed by another hour back to the hotel. So it is now 2 am in the morning. Not very smart or profitable. In all he spent around 12 hours commuting and playing.
Meanwhile the Stones travel every few days. Spend several nights in luxury hotels, on show day they leave the hotels late afternoon early evening, play and are back in their rooms by midnight. And they still make money.