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.

I will always respect him for his past accomplishments. Just like the Stones.

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

Certainly agree re Tom Petty, saw him at Isle Of Wight Festival a couple of years ago. Whilst I really like his stuff I wouldn't have called myself a huge fan but I was completely blown away. I was gobsmacked at how great a guitar player Mike Campbell is, definitely a really underrated player. Would see Petty again in an instant if he returns to the UK.

I love EC but I stopped going to the live shows about 8 years ago because, as a lot of people have noted, I just felt like he was on auto-pilot especially on his warhorses. He just looked bored much of the time so I just haven't gone back.

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.

I totally agree.

hahahahaha, are you people going to argue with Clapton's own words? He doesn't like touring anymore!

Rolling Stone 6/27/14

Eric Clapton Hints at Retirement, Says Touring is 'Unbearable'

[www.rollingstone.com]

Eric Clapton may not be long for the road. In a new interview with Uncut magazine, the legendary guitarist said he is considering curtailing his touring efforts going forward.

"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."

Clapton, who turns 70 next year, suggested he is likely to spend more time in the studio in the coming years. "There are tons of things I’d like to do, but I’m looking at retirement too," he said. "What I’ll allow myself to do, within reason, is carry on recording in the studio. I don’t want to go off the boil to the point where I’m embarrassing myself." When asked if he plans to stop playing guitar altogether, Clapton replied, “Maybe. It might be that I can't, if it hurts too much. I have odd ailments."

This isn’t the first time the guitarist has hinted at retiring his road show. Last year, Clapton told Rolling Stone, "When I'm 70, I'll stop. I won't stop playing or doing one-offs, but I'll stop touring, I think."

"The bit onstage, that's easy," he added. "If I could do that around my neighborhood, that would be great. You have guys in Texas that play their circuit, and it keeps them alive. But for me, the struggle is the travel. And the only way you can beat that is by throwing so much money at it that you make a loss."

In his chat with Uncut, Clapton also discussed the possibility of a Cream reunion. Though from his comments, the prospect of getting the band back together seems highly unlikely. "I haven’t spoken to Jack [Bruce] or Ginger [Baker] for quite a time," he said. "I don’t think there’s been any line of dialogue between any of us – or between me and them, that is to say – since the American affair [the trio’s Madison Square Garden shows in 2005].

"After that I was pretty convinced that we had gone as far as we could without someone getting killed," he continued. "At this time in my life, I don’t want blood on my hands! I don’t want to be part of some kind of tragic confrontation."

It's hardly surprising, I remember his statement that when he got to 70 he'd stop. He obviously hates touring and from the interview one infers from his statement that he may stop playing altogether that maybe he has joint problems as well.

In some ways its sad as the guy has immense talent and evidently (IMO anyway) still has the chops (although I never saw him in his prime). However, of course its his life, the guy has certainly had a full career.

Thank you to everyone who's contributed to this thread. I've never seen Clapton so all of this has been very informative.

My friend saw him last night in Vienna and was totally bored with it after seeing the Stones 2 times this tour.

Quote
kishorcsog
My friend saw him last night in Vienna and was totally bored with it after seeing the Stones 2 times this tour.

And I've been bored seeing both of them.

Wow, how many times did you see the Stones?

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.

Clapton can be a phenomenal guitar player without a doubt. I was just listening to the Cream reunion of 2005 and his playing was excellent. But, he's always been kind of boring, he never had the flash, or the exciting, dangerous element a lot of other guitar players have. To me and my other guitar playing friends, he's always seemed old and boring and his albums over the past how many years are sleepers..."Old Sock"? Oy vey, maybe he should hang it up.

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?

Ignore her. She responds to all disagreement with sneering and sarcastic personal attacks.

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.

I think the Horse will blow you away.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-28 13:49 by TurkuStonesFan.

Re: the above, I don't think it's anger issues so much - granted, few other musicians talk about their former bandmates like that, but then most other musicians weren't part of a trio with Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce. Beyond that they're legacy acts from a certain era, I don't think the Stones comparison is that productive. For one thing, the Stones have a much bigger audience and appeal to many more people than Clapton, whose audience is generally made up of the golden oldies crowd and guitar nerds (which may be why many leave his shows disappointed: he doesn't know which crowd he's meant to be playing for). For another, the Stones' band dynamic is made up of four complex personalities who have to work together in order for a tour to happen. Clapton is a solo artist touring with session musicians. He has a well-deserved reputation as a bit of a miserable bastard, which none of the Stones (for all their faults) do. If one of Clapton's puddleglum phases gets the better of him, that's it, he's off the road. The Stones situation is more complex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-28 14:29 by Stoneburst.

Why doesn't he invest in a tour bus like other artists do(Dylan, Neil, Willie) seems less stressful and you can live in it, a lot less hassle than airports and hotel rooms.

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.

DAFTEST POST EVER.
CLAPTON DOESNT COMMAND THE GROSS THE STONES DO GENIUS.

Quote
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
Stoneburst

Quote
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
TurkuStonesFan

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
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?

Bill Perks

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
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
crholmstrom

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.

I think the Horse will blow you away.

Yeah, i know they will rip my head off with those Gibsons.
My friend also said that the Clapton concert in Vienna was very low in volume.

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."

If I can read English, I think he speaks about travelling, airports, planes, cars (I would like to see a single one artist who likes that). Not about being on stage and playing music. Make any conclusions you like of course, but I (unlike you, I guess) have seen him 3 days ago and just like the last year, I really enjoyed the show, just like the whole crowd that was in the arena. His playing was brilliant and the shaow was highly enjoyable.

Quote
Bliss

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bliss

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.

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
Bliss

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bliss

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.

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.

I can sympathise with your attitude on the show-part

Then again, Clapton's shows have always been pretty laidback and have never really put priority on the show or the visuals. Maybe he expects his fans to know this?

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.

I think that in regards to Cream his inputs are mostly about JB and GB interaction between them. These two didn’t get along in the first place – the most likely didn’t do better decades after… he (Clapton) feels that another re union will end up with bigger fights and do not want to get involved in that.

As for the touring comments – com’on… we are all fan’s/consumers of classic rock but then his comments make sense. Travelling is not fun. I don’t travel even 1/3 of what the common poster in IORR does (judging by some vague feeling I got from reading so many threads) and I more and more often feel tired by it. The whole procedure is technical down to an annoying level. Even if you pay for those VIP services (up to having a relaxed passport control at some lounge, which I’m not sure Clapton does) it is a bummer. Security et all makes it all pretty irritating for some people – and Clapton sounds just like this type of person.

THE OLDER PEOPLE GET – THE MORE THEY BECOME THEMSELVES. This is Clapton. At least he is honest.

<<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?>>

Have you seen the Ginger Baker biopic from 2012, Beware of Mr Baker? You might have been struck by his admission that he really didn't think he even knew Ginger Baker, aside from a few rarified instances when they'd been in bands together, but adding how he would always pull back when Ginger's erratic behavior became too risky for him to be around--this after Ginger earlier in the film considered Clapton to be one of his best friends in the world. And also, when discussing Ginger's excessive behavior, Clapton said clinically, "We're talking about compulsion here."

He disliked being caught in the middle of the Baker-Bruce fighting. In the 2005 authorized band documentary, Clapton confessed, "I fell into a victim role in that band very easily." And further discussing the Baker-Bruce feuding added, "As you know, I now have a very young family, children who are 2 and 4, and they remind me of it. They scrap over everything."

Former Roosters band mate and long-time friend Ben Palmer confirms that Eric did not like being around such volatile people when he observed, "Eric hates confrontation. He runs from it.... And he ran from this."