So it looks like I'll be in London on May 23. Should I see Eric Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall or should I take the Eurostar to Paris and see AC/DC at Stade de France? I've seen both recently (AC/DC on their last tour and Clapton last year at Budokan. I'll probably go alone and I'll have to pay inflated broker prices but cost and time are not an issue since I have Saturday free. What would you do?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 12:33 by bv.

I would choose AC/DC....but that's me (Have tickets for Glasgow and Los Angeles)

Like 'um both but Clapton has lost a little luster of late IMHO.

Unless there's some artists invited to play with Clapton at RAH, I would go to Paris to see AC/DC, but this is something I tell you because of my previous Clapton concert. That wasn't bad, but AC/DC rocks.

I would go see Clapton personally because

1) Without Phil Rudd it is like an AC/DC cover band.

2) Without Malcon it just isnt the same

3) Seems like less opportunites to go see Clapton and I think the shows will be special

Quote
[email protected]
I would go see Clapton personally because

1) Without Phil Rudd it is like an AC/DC cover band.

2) Without Malcon it just isnt the same

3) Seems like less opportunites to go see Clapton and I think the shows will be special

Good points all. In addition Clapton at a 5000 seat killer venue playing to his home crowd and friends vs AC/DC at an 80,000 seat venue thousands of miles from home? Pretty obvious choice for me.

peace

Quote
[email protected]
I would go see Clapton personally because

1) Without Phil Rudd it is like an AC/DC cover band.

2) Without Malcon it just isnt the same

3) Seems like less opportunites to go see Clapton and I think the shows will be special

I respectfully disagree. Not entirely, but to a point. I do not think that without Phil Rudd AC/DC is like a cover band. Thats just simply not true. Yes, his drumming is an important part of their sound and its always nice to see that longtime member with the band, but they've done it without him before and they will again. He isn't Angus, he isn't Brian. Hell, this is the band that continued without Bon! By that logic (and I don't know where you stand, but I'm assuming), the Stones are like a cover band without Bill Wyman. Cause the bottom line is as long as there's Mick and Keith, and Angus and Brian, the Stones and AC/DC will rightfully be seen as legitimate.

Having said that, I agree Malcolm is a crushing blow. I don't think it "isn't the same", but I do think something will be lost. I guess it depends how much of a fan you are, and personally I think in terms of live performances, his absence can be dealt with. Again, the focus live is on Angus and Brian, and as long as you have them, all the other parts can be covered. Of course I want the originals, but to not see AC/DC live because Malcolm's rhythm guitar won't be there seems folly to me.

Lastly, by all accounts, many of Eric Clapton's recent shows in the last decade have been seen as highly boring. Or at least divisive. He can be great or he can be an utter statue, and its a real big toss up. Yeah, its a birthday so maybe it'll be different, but I still think its a risk. I think you gotta be a big fan of him to really like those shows. He wasn't great with reunited Cream (IMO) but he was really good with Winwood in a Blind Faith reunion. Its a toss up, but I gotta go AC/DC. Eric Clapton has burned me too many times on shows, and I love the guy's playing to death but he's so hit or miss. Boring as hell on the 2009 or whatever tour I saw him on last, but he was amazing at the Sandy benefit a few years ago. I think there are the same opportunities to see both (arguably more to see Clapton cause this seems like a farewell to AC/DC and Clapton could easily have another 5 years left in him) and they both seem special.

AC/DC at 40 to me seems like it could have as many surprises as Clapton at 70. Clapton's got the catalogue on his side, but it depends how he uses it. AC/DC, on the other hand, may be more of a set show and setlist, but they always deliver and I would put my money there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 07:36 by RollingFreak.

tough call but i think with ac/dc you'll get a better show

won't have alot more chances to see either one of these legends. couldnt pass up a RAH show unless you have been already.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
[email protected]
I would go see Clapton personally because

1) Without Phil Rudd it is like an AC/DC cover band.

2) Without Malcon it just isnt the same

3) Seems like less opportunites to go see Clapton and I think the shows will be special

Good points all. In addition Clapton at a 5000 seat killer venue playing to his home crowd and friends vs AC/DC at an 80,000 seat venue thousands of miles from home? Pretty obvious choice for me.
peace

I don't know if Clapton is still great in 2015 but if you really want to see one of them go see Clapton.

Thanks for the comments. It really is a tough decision. AC/DC is attractive because it will be a new show, with some new crazy stage, but I must admit the absence of Mal gives me pause. He was always my favorite member of the group

Quote
drbryant
Thanks for the comments. It really is a tough decision. AC/DC is attractive because it will be a new show, with some new crazy stage, but I must admit the absence of Mal gives me pause. He was always my favorite member of the group

Mal was the heart and soul of AC/DC, without him I'm sure the show will be good but it will always be a photocopy of the real thing, imo. I'm guessing Clapton will pull out all stops for this show..no way is he going to dare a less than stellar show at this venue.

Gotta be grateful for such tough decisions.

peace

I like AC/DC, but there not on the same level as Clapton. Go see Clapton. The RH is an amazing venue. And Clapton will pull out all the stops to be playing in London again.

Serious question, since people seem to really think the Clapton show is gonna be really good (and as a fan I certainly hope it is):

I just heard the other day that he's also playing MSG in New York in early May, I guess as a continuation of these 70th birthday shows. By the OP here, it seems those are before the RAH ones (my apologies, I haven't followed the dates)? Do people think he'd pull out all the stops for New York the same as London? And furthermore, does the fact that he's playing shows that aren't JUST London make you think it'll be any less special? In the way of its no longer a one time, hometown thing and that maybe its just an excuse to play shows.

Again, serious question. Or is there no reason to compare the two?

Quote
drbryant
So it looks like I'll be in London on May 23. Should I see Eric Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall or should I take the Eurostar to Paris and see AC/DC at Stade de France? I've seen both recently (AC/DC on their last tour and Clapton last year at Budokan. I'll probably go alone and I'll have to pay inflated broker prices but cost and time are not an issue since I have Saturday free. What would you do?

Mr. Slowhand without any doubt! Seen him at RAH and that´s a fantastic venue with a fantastic performer!'

There are no AC/DC without Malcolm Young and Phil Rudd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 09:14 by JumpinJeppeFlash.

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
[email protected]
I would go see Clapton personally because

1) Without Phil Rudd it is like an AC/DC cover band.

2) Without Malcon it just isnt the same

3) Seems like less opportunites to go see Clapton and I think the shows will be special

Good points all. In addition Clapton at a 5000 seat killer venue playing to his home crowd and friends vs AC/DC at an 80,000 seat venue thousands of miles from home? Pretty obvious choice for me.
peace

I don't know if Clapton is still great in 2015 but if you really want to see one of them go see Clapton.

Are you joking? Have you seen EC at RAH? He is Always simply fantastic there!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 09:16 by JumpinJeppeFlash.

Clapton. He is a legend.

I've seen Clapton many times, the last being in Shanghai. I've never seen AC/DC so the choice is obvious, for me at least. And Paris in May? Not a hard choice

Yes, the Stones are a cover band without Bill Wyman and with that warhoses setlist on their shows.

Tough one. I'm not an AC/DC fan but if you are then I would do that. I love Clapton but the last time I saw him it was pretty soporific - nothing wrong with his playing exactly, but he was solidly within his comfort zone and showed no interest in leaving it.

If you're gonna see Clapton I think it's best to try and catch him on a one-off, like the Hubert Sumlin tribute he did with Keith or his guest spots with the Allman Brothers. To my ears, he really benefits from being slightly underrehearsed and/or playing with musicians he doesn't know very well: it forces him to actually think about what he's doing. When he's on tour he doesn't need to try: he has a standard setlist and the same musicians each time, none of whom push him.

Didn't know AC/DC were in. Paris at that time. I'll be seeing Clapton a few nights earlier. On the 23rd I'll be seeing Macca at the O2. Hope I didn't just complicate your decision...

May 23? Take the tube to North Greenwich.
A Beatle will be performing there.

I would go to see Clapton without hesitation. The RAH vs.stadium would make my decision itself. I have never been to the RAH and I am sure it must be a fantastic experience.

You'd have to pay ME to go

I have a ticket FOS for Paris May 23, but I don't know if I make it to get in Paris on time. You know there is a band in California in that very same period....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 13:07 by skyhawk.

Yeah, the clincher is that it is RAH. Far surpasses a big stadium show.

I saw AC DC 3 times on the last tour and really enjoyed them- and thought black ice was a new album. Although I do like Phil Rudd a lot I was somewhat kidding about them being a cover band. I did see them at Giants Stadium and am skipping the show this time only because it is mid-week

Rolling Freak- even though Clapton is my 4th favorite- I totally agree with the shows being not as exciting. I thought his 12/12/12 performance was inspiring, but my favorite times seeing him where in 1990-1992 when he would mix in August and Journeyman.

Pilgrim was obviously a different and darker time for him.

However, the 2001 tour had Reptile which I didn't care for.
Around 2004 he did a tour and opened with Let It Rain which I love.
2006 was okay but didn't stand out.
I missed the Nothing But The Blues Tour.

If I get in to this show and it remains a Saturday (it could get moved based on NHL playoffs) I would likely go since it is easier forme to get to

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, the clincher is that it is RAH. Far surpasses a big stadium show.

Yeah same for me. RAH has a soul while the Stade de France is a soulless acoustically dreadful cattle shed. Plus as ACDC don't soundchecks hope for the best during the 1st few numbers of the show!

Plus weight in the weather factor : if it rains over Paris you'll feel it. If it rains over London no problem during the Clapton show.

Clapton all depends on who else is playing guitar in the band. If it's Andy Fairweather Low then you know it will be relatively tame evening. If it's Doyle Bramhall II or somebody like Derek Trucks then Clapton will pull out all the stops. He needs to be challenged.

Go see Seasick Steve instead:

[zup.cm]

or:

Arctic Monkeys: [zup.cm]
Blockheads: [zup.cm]
Nine Inch Nails: [zup.cm]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 16:46 by Koen.

the no brainer is Clapton at Royal Albert Hall, if just to see a show in Royal Albert Hall.

...although,having seeing Clapton and AC/DC already, AC/DC by a mile. Clapton can be mindnumbing in concert.

After all that preamble though, I'd go with option 3 and see the Beatle.