G
Greg_L
Banned
I don't know that one, and I'm probably better for it.
I don't know that one, and I'm probably better for it.
R
RAMI
Guest
Yeah, don't even bother. It's just one example of the horridly boring, vanilla, lifeless crap that he put out during his 80's "comeback".
G
Greg_L
Banned
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Up to and including his "Derek and the Dominos" stuff....Clapton was still good, IMO.
After that he just went way off into MOR radio stuff, and basically his guitar playing became insignificant and rather boring.
It was no different than when Phil Collins stopped really playing drums and became just a singer.
They just lost their rock roots and balls.
After that he just went way off into MOR radio stuff, and basically his guitar playing became insignificant and rather boring.
It was no different than when Phil Collins stopped really playing drums and became just a singer.
They just lost their rock roots and balls.
R
RAMI
Guest
Yeah, that's the thing I never understood, especially about Clapton. I mean, he wasn't just considered a good guitarist, he was "God" for a little while. He rocked, he rivalled Hendrix in people's minds (whether anyone agrees with how great those guys are supposed to be or not is a different conversation). And then, he turned into Slowhand. I think that was supposed to be a compliment, but to me, it isn't. His version of "I Shot the Sherrif" or "Cocaine", etc.....is just some horribly boring, forgettable and un-eventful shit.
G
Greg_L
Banned
This is entering an area that I always find confusing yet fascinating with people. Good players vs their shitty songs. And this is especially prevalent with guitar players. I know a lot of guitar players that only focus on guitar playing, regardless of the song. One of my very good friends will listen to any fucking thing as long as there's wanky guitar playing all over it. We'll be in his truck going somewhere, listening to this absolute shit generic rock metal crap, and I'm like "Dude, this is shit. These songs are trash". His response, "great guitar playing though". Lol. So fucking what? I can acknowledge what I think is a good player or good playing, but I'm not listening to anything that sucks just for good guitar playing. It's an alien concept to me. I'd rather listen to mediocre players playing awesome songs than some virtuoso playing shit.
R
RAMI
Guest
Definitely. That comes back to what I was saying about Jeff Beck earlier in this thread. His playing is great, to me. But I could never get into his music because it was mostly instrumental. I just can't get into instrumental tunes. "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" have some potentially great, heavy rocking tunes, but they're instrumental, and that can't hold my attention at all.
Mr Clean
AKA Teddy Wong
I like Clapton's work with The Yardbirds, as I do Beck's and Page's. Cream are OK. I'm more a fan of Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce though for what they provided to the band. his solo stuff is crass in my opinion. A couple of good tunes in a career as long as anyone else but with very little to shout about.
That's a good point. He was considered God but I don't get that at all. Hendrix was far more innovative than Clapton ever was. Although when asked what it's like to be the greatest guitarist in the world, Hendrix replied "I don't know, ask Rory Gallagher".
All the people mentioned above and in this thread couldn't lick Rory Gallagher's boots.
That's a good point. He was considered God but I don't get that at all. Hendrix was far more innovative than Clapton ever was. Although when asked what it's like to be the greatest guitarist in the world, Hendrix replied "I don't know, ask Rory Gallagher".
All the people mentioned above and in this thread couldn't lick Rory Gallagher's boots.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I bought this dvd because of Tal, but found out Jason Rebello is on it who I've heard before and really enjoy. Unfortunately, Beck keeps him restrained to one little solo which is a shame because this guy is to piano what 10 Becks are to guitars. A real master.
Then the drummer, Vinny Somebody, is awesome. He's got a great sounding kit. It's the back up band that really makes this concert good. Jeff is a great guitar player, no doubt, but I really enjoy the other musicians. I usually watch this when I'm on a late night flight, half-drunk in first class and in my jazz-snobbery mood.
and yes, tits hanging over a bass is worth buying a dvd.
That would be Vinnie Colaiuta. He's a rather accomplished drummer that has played with a few big name artists over the years ... to put it lightly.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I think that was due to his being enamored with The Band and his changing mindset during that time. He stopped caring as much about the guitar and started caring more about the singing/songwriting thing.
I never got the "God" thing back in the 80s either because all I knew at the time was his 80s shit, which, as has been said, wasn't the most impressive guitar-wise. When I finally went back and listened to the Bluesbreakers and Cream stuff, I started to see more of what people were talking about. I prefer his playing much more back with the Gibson tone than the Strat stuff. And that makes sense, because that was when he earned that "God" thing.
Regarding the "Slowhand" name, that was actually given to him in 1964 by his manager. Clapton would sometimes break a string on stage, and instead of having a backup guitar at the ready, he would just stand there on stage and put a new string on. When doing this, the audience would usually break into a "slow clap" to wait it out. There's a British expression---"to be given the slowhand"---and that's where the name came from. It had nothing to do with him playing slowly; in fact, when his manager gave him that nickname, Clapton was still considered one of the faster players around.
B
b00n
Member
Yes!
And Vinnie Colaiuta's drumming is so tasty and great that I really do listen to the record sometimes.
These wanky 70's jam tunes are pretty much unbearable otherwise.
And I'm a guitar player.
Go figure.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I like Clapton's work with The Yardbirds, as I do Beck's and Page's. Cream are OK. I'm more a fan of Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce though for what they provided to the band. his solo stuff is crass in my opinion. A couple of good tunes in a career as long as anyone else but with very little to shout about.
That's a good point. He was considered God but I don't get that at all. Hendrix was far more innovative than Clapton ever was. Although when asked what it's like to be the greatest guitarist in the world, Hendrix replied "I don't know, ask Rory Gallagher".
All the people mentioned above and in this thread couldn't lick Rory Gallagher's boots.
Ha ... music is so subjective. I like some of the early Clapton stuff, and I even like some Steve Vai stuff (less Jeff Beck stuff), but Rory never did anything for me really.
Mr Clean
AKA Teddy Wong
Yeah but isn't that personal musical taste? I mean, I can't stand Steve Vai's music at all but I still appreciate that he's a great guitarist. Damn, if I could play half as good I'd be happy.
Rory was and still is revered by the so called "greatest guitarists" the world has seen for the past 40 years or more.
Not that it matters anyway, but for me, as a guitarist, Rory wipes the floor of all of them.
G
Greg_L
Banned
All these good guitarists playing shitty music is why punk rock was invented.
Chili
Site Moderator
Yeah, that's the guy. I could have googled his name, but I'd still get it wrong. lol.
R
RAMI
Guest
R
RAMI
Guest
That's actually true. Not only the guitar wankers with shitty tunes, but I'd say the Journey's and all the "Progressive" bands like Genesis, ELP, etc.....too. It just got so corporate and pretentious. When did "Never Mind the Bullocks....." come out? Mid-70's? 1976 or something? That would make sense. It was perfect timing for something like that.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Yes, prog arena rock was another factor in the birth of punk. Never Mind the Bollocks is a great album, but there were already "punk" bands very well established before that album came out in 77. Those early punk bands didn't consider themselves punk though. Punk was a bad word back then. They were just rock bands.
Punk really probably started with bands like The Stooges, The MC5, and Velvet Underground. Those are generally considered the biggest "proto-punk" bands. That's late 60s, very early 70s. There were irreverent garage rock 60s bands before that, but The Stooges and V.U. are probably the most cited influences of what started the very first wave of punk in NYC. Then bands like the NY Dolls came along and showed everyone that you don't have to be a boring virtuoso to rock out and play good rock and roll. Inspired by the NY Dolls and The Stooges, in mid 1974 the Ramones wrote the book on what would become punk as we know it today. There were lots of more popular bands after the Ramones, but they were ground zero for punk rock everywhere, and they did it because rock and roll was shit back then.
You could draw a parallel with the grunge movement of the very early 90s. Think of rock in the 80s. It was horrible. Big hair, spandex, pointy guitars, shreddy guitar solos, power ballads, etc. It was shit. Total shit. Rock and roll was a joke in the 80s. The punk/alternative scene was still happening from the first wave, but that first wave didn't make any dents commercially. It was permanently underground. Shit music still ruled the airwaves. Then "grunge" came along and killed the hair bands of the 80s. That was sort of a pseudo punk movement that worked at first, but unlike the first wave of punk, everyone latched onto grunge and it got killed by corporate acceptance.
Now rock and roll truly is virtually dead. The VMAs happened the other day. Rock and roll was not represented by anyone. No rock and roll. Pop and rap is all that exists now in mainstream consciousness.
R
RAMI
Guest
Awesome.
I remember a band called "Television" or "TV" in the mid-70's. Never heard their music, but I remember noticing that they had short hair and I found that so weird back then. That's all I remember, they didn't have long hair. And you're right, V.U., the Stooges,etc....were around way before anything was actually called "punk". I was a pretty mainstream rocker as a teenager and I remember that we all thought punk was about purple mohawks and hating hippies. But we laughed at the music because it was so un-hard rock-ish. There were no guitar solos.
I always saw the 90's grunge thing as America's punk movement 20 years after the British did it. But I can totally see why it had to happen. The 80's was the absolute most horrible decade of music....ever. Whether it's the spandex hair bands, or the Duran Duran type bands, it all sucked really bad.
R
RAMI
Guest
Ha! These guys:
Television (band) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All I remember about them was that they were in Creem magazine and just didn't look like all the other bands. Now, they probably wouldn't stand out at all. But, in the early 70's, a short-haired rock band was really weird to me.
Television (band) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All I remember about them was that they were in Creem magazine and just didn't look like all the other bands. Now, they probably wouldn't stand out at all. But, in the early 70's, a short-haired rock band was really weird to me.