REQ: ID THIS CLAPTON SONG
kjph...@mailbox.syr.edu
>This is "May You Never" by John Martyn, originally on "Solid Air"
>(1973, Island), in every respect an excellent record. Is Clapton
>doing it now? Yecch. In a perfect world, John Martyn would be
>getting the acclaim Clapton has now.
This is hardly a recent cover by Clapton. The recording spoken of appears
on "Slowhand" and was made in 1977!!! Clapton isn't "doing it now" and as
far as I know, hasn't "done" it since 1978. As far as a perfect world thing
goes, in a perfect world everyone would get what they deserve and not feel
the need to attack others when they finally receive attention for decades
of excellent work.
As for the chords, off the top of my head wasn't it just a I IV V in E?
(the slowhand version, that is) i.e. E A B?
Kevin J. Phelan kjph...@mailbox.syr.edu
R o d Johnson
[Re John Martyn's "May You Never" and my unfocused gripe about Eric
Clapton's popularity]
>This is hardly a recent cover by Clapton. The recording spoken of appears
>on "Slowhand" and was made in 1977!!!
Wow, three exclamation points!!! I guess that means I'm rilly rilly
*rilly* out of it for not keeping track of every cut Eric "God"
Clapton has ever laid down in his semi-illustrious career.
>Clapton isn't "doing it now" and as
>far as I know, hasn't "done" it since 1978. As far as a perfect world thing
>goes, in a perfect world everyone would get what they deserve and not feel
>the need to attack others when they finally receive attention
"Finally"? Surely you jest. Silly people have been writing "Clapton
is God" on dorm walls since *I* was an undergraduate long, long ago.
Or do you mean now that he's finally gone "lite" and made it back into
the collections of boomers who gave up on anything more challenging
than George Winston way back when?
>for decades
>of excellent work.
This, of course, presumes that he *does* excellent work. Pardon me
for disagreeing. I think he's been going downhill since he left the
Yardbirds (and they *improved* when he left). My point (and you have
every right to disagree, of course) is that Clapton the musician has
never lived up to the guitar hero legend, and that he hasn't done
anything really worthwhile since, oh, "461 Ocean Boulevard" (and
*that* was considered a comeback album). He's pretty much coasted on
the legend ever since, and, in my view, should have been sent to the
Old Rock Stars Home years ago. John Martyn, on the other hand, made a
series of fine albums in near-total obscurity and deserves better.
So, in my perfect world, we'd say "Hey, John, we're sorry we ignored
you all these years!" and "Eric, don't you think you should hang it
up?" And Eric, who actually seems like a decent, modest sort of guy,
would say, yeah, maybe so.
Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
(Actually, to be fair, John Martyn hasn't really been up to his
standards for a decade or so either.)
--
* Rod Johnson
* r...@umich.edu
Ed Cummings
rod, don't hold back, tell us all. Don't you like Eric?
sounds kinda like you aren't gonna give him the RodJohnson seal of approval.
just an impression that comes across in your post.
emc
(somebody call the wahmbulance !)
Bob McCall - RIP SRV
>In article <551...@mailbox.syr.edu> kjph...@mailbox.syr.edu writes:
Stuff deleted...
>
>This, of course, presumes that he *does* excellent work. Pardon me
>for disagreeing. I think he's been going downhill since he left the
>Yardbirds (and they *improved* when he left). My point (and you have
>every right to disagree, of course) is that Clapton the musician has
>never lived up to the guitar hero legend, and that he hasn't done
>anything really worthwhile since, oh, "461 Ocean Boulevard" (and
>*that* was considered a comeback album). He's pretty much coasted on
>the legend ever since, and, in my view, should have been sent to the
>Old Rock Stars Home years ago. John Martyn, on the other hand, made a
>series of fine albums in near-total obscurity and deserves better.
>So, in my perfect world, we'd say "Hey, John, we're sorry we ignored
>you all these years!" and "Eric, don't you think you should hang it
>up?" And Eric, who actually seems like a decent, modest sort of guy,
>would say, yeah, maybe so.
>
I've never responded to one of these "flames" before (and maybe
I shouldn't now) but I have to strongly disagree. To say that
Claption has gone "down-hill" ever since "461 Ocean Blvd" is
absurd. I saw Clapton live 3 summers ago in the 2nd straight
night at the Capital Center in Wash DC. The man blew me away -
even more so than I already was by his recorded material. He
came out for the encore (after 2 straight hours of playing) by
himself, playing a blues groove on the open chords and just
walking around the stage (people were in EVERY available seat,
even behind the stage), and occasionally he would stop and just
get off! No accompaniment, no nothing, except him, and it was
amazing. He did that for about 4/5 minutes before the band
joined in (the crowd was already pounding out the beat in a
standing ovation, though.)
Aside from all that, by doing one of John Martyn's songs, especially
on "Slowhand", he probably earned more money for John Martyn in
royalties than John Martyn ever earned doing music for himself -
and Clapton *NEVER* takes credit for other people's stuff, so
people who liked the song (as I did/do) will seek out the original
artist (as I have done with Otis Rush, Robert Johnson, Freddy King,
etc...)
Clapton is an artist who is beyond compare - hell, just ask
one of the 7 million or so people who bought "Unplugged".
My 2 cents,
Bob
rw...@Virginia.EDU
R o d Johnson
rw...@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Bob McCall - RIP SRV) responds to my
not-very-positive assessment of Eric Clapton's musical worth:
>I've never responded to one of these "flames" before
No flame involved here. Unless you're one of those idiots that
believes any disagreement about someone or something you like is
somehow an insult. I wouldn't be surprised if you disliked, oh, say,
Henry Cow, who I practically worship; I certainly wouldn't get all hot
under the collar about it. Nobody likes everything.
>(and maybe
>I shouldn't now) but I have to strongly disagree. To say that
>Claption has gone "down-hill" ever since "461 Ocean Blvd" is
>absurd. I saw Clapton live 3 summers ago in the 2nd straight
>night at the Capital Center in Wash DC. The man blew me away -
>even more so than I already was by his recorded material. He
>came out for the encore (after 2 straight hours of playing) by
>himself, playing a blues groove on the open chords and just
>walking around the stage (people were in EVERY available seat,
>even behind the stage), and occasionally he would stop and just
>get off! No accompaniment, no nothing, except him, and it was
>amazing. He did that for about 4/5 minutes before the band
>joined in (the crowd was already pounding out the beat in a
>standing ovation, though.)
Sigh. This is exactly the kind of bullshit I mean. I'm happy that
you had a good time at the concert. I'm happy that you like the
records. I'm even happy that you had such a rush that a few minutes
of blues noodling was some sort of epiphany for you. But the fact
that your tastes are satisfied doesn't mean that any other reaction is
"absurd". Jesus, I've had a great time at concerts that, years later,
don't seem quite as impressive. I saw Blue Oyster Cult in about 1974
open a concert with about five minutes of mass open E chords. I
dunno, it seemed great at the time, but I'm to going to piddle on
myself every time some netter disses Buck Dharma.
Sheesh.
>Aside from all that, by doing one of John Martyn's songs, especially
>on "Slowhand", he probably earned more money for John Martyn in
>royalties than John Martyn ever earned doing music for himself -
I never mentioned money as an issue here.
>and Clapton *NEVER* takes credit for other people's stuff, so
>people who liked the song (as I did/do) will seek out the original
>artist (as I have done with Otis Rush, Robert Johnson, Freddy King,
>etc...)
Agreed--I also never said anything about Clapton's character here
(other than that he seems like a good guy, which is not exactly the
deadliest of slanders).
>Clapton is an artist who is beyond compare - hell, just ask
>one of the 7 million or so people who bought "Unplugged".
Yeah, right up there with Lionel Ritchie, Whitney Houston, Michael
Jackson and Madonna. All these big sellers must be "artists beyond
compare" by this criterion. If Clapton wants to sell lots of records
by turning out feeble ballads and remaking his old hits as adult
contemporary schlock, that's his call. But it's not exactly a
powerhouse aesthetic argument if you ask me.
Ray Shea
>the need to attack others when they finally receive attention for decades
>of excellent work.
In a perfect world, Clapton would've insisted on being on that plane so that
Stevie Ray could stick around and make a few more records.
I'm so glad that Clapton is "finally" receiving attention. I'd never heard
of him til I saw him on "MTV-Unplugged". Was he ever in the Beatles?
--
Ray Shea
UniSQL, Inc. I'm paying taxes, what am I buying?
unisql!r...@cs.utexas.edu --da godfather
DoD #0372 : Team Twinkie : '88 Hawk GT
Mathews Joshua Thundyil
>In article <551...@mailbox.syr.edu> kjph...@mailbox.syr.edu writes:
>>...in a perfect world everyone would get what they deserve and not feel
>>the need to attack others when they finally receive attention for decades
>>of excellent work.
>
>In a perfect world, Clapton would've insisted on being on that plane so that
>Stevie Ray could stick around and make a few more records.
>
>I'm so glad that Clapton is "finally" receiving attention. I'd never heard
>of him til I saw him on "MTV-Unplugged". Was he ever in the Beatles?
>
I cannot believe that this question is asked in all seriousness!
Is it still possible that
(a) people dont know who the four Beatles were (or even who the fifth was)
(b) people dont know about the various bands that clapton was a part of -
at least Cream, Derek and the Dominoes and the Yardbirds, not to mention
Blind Faith and Mayalls Bluesbreakers...
Yes, you're right in a way, we are all glad that the general public is appre-ciating what Clapton is making now, but even as the great man himself admitted
at the Grammy's ,'I've done better'. Without a doubt, and much of what
he has been making in the last few years dont stand up to compare with what
he's made earlier...
OH! DEAR! there we go again!!!!
Matts
Chris Cannam
Mathews Joshua Thundyil [ma...@doc.cc.utexas.edu] writes:
: In article <56...@unisql.UUCP> r...@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
: >
: > I'm so glad that Clapton is "finally" receiving attention. I'd
: > never heard of him til I saw him on "MTV-Unplugged". Was he ever
: > in the Beatles?
:
: I cannot believe that this question is asked in all seriousness!
How very wise of you.
: [long explanation deleted]
Robert J. Racusin
last summer and he was as good as ever. He's not a has been, his kid
just died for gods sake!!! Give the guy a break!!!!! He has the most
diverse range of music of any artist I ever heard, anyway.
R o d Johnson
I don't want to run this into the ground, but I'll make three
comments.
First, and for the nth time, the fact that *you* had a good time at a
concert does not automatically exempt the artist from criticism. I'm
sure that lots of people have had GREAT experiences at shows by New
Kids on the Block, Hammer, Einsturzende Neubaten or Garth Brooks, and
I doubt that you (or) anyone would claim that that automatically means
they're all great music.
Second, the fact that Clapton's kid died has no bearing on the
question. I have a one-year-old son, and if he died I would be
devastated. But I don't think that means that nothing negative could
ever be said about me again, expecially about things that had little
to do with my son. I really feel for Clapton, but the way the media
milked his son's death, and thereby elevated a mundane ballad into
smash hit status, was really disgusting.
Third, if you think that Clapton's musical range is more diverse than
any artist you ever heard (can a range be "diverse"?) then you've
listened to a lot of really narrow artists. Ever hear (I'm
free-associating) Fred Frith, the Kinks, the Beatles, Frank Zappa,
Shriekback, Peter Blegvad, Jane Siberry, John Zorn, the Bonzo Dog
Band, Traffic, the dBs, the Temptations, Brian Eno, Fleetwood Mac, the
Clash, Todd Rundgren, NRBQ, Doug Sahm, Bill Frisell, Squeeze, Richard
Thompson, Was (Not Was), XTC, PiL, Bongwater, Kate Bush, Henry Kaiser,
David Bowie, Duke Ellington, Ry Cooder, or Sweet Honey in the Rock?
*Any* of these artists has explored more of the stylistic map than
Clapton, who's stuck fairly close to his base of Chicago blues and
country, with occasional forays into skiffle, reggae, gospel and
pre-psychedelic rocknroll since Blind Faith broke up.
I don't want to dispute those achievements (though as Faithful Readers
of this thread know, I'm not all that impressed by them), but he's
simply rehashing the basic black roots of pop music, and a fairly
narrow spectrum of them at that. If he's so diverse, when do we get
to hear him do "Stars and Stripes Forever," "In A Silent Way," "Sister
Ray", "You Can't Catch Me," "Satin Doll," "Willie O' Winsbury" or
"Baby Elephant Walk?" Hell, John Zorn could do those in one *song*,
and it would be under three minutes.
Bill Polhemus
RO> Message-ID: <1v2scv...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
RO>
RO> In article <C882y...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Robert.J...@dartmouth.edu (Robert J. Racusin) writes:
RO>
RO> >PLEASE, stop dissing Eric Clapton. I went to see him at Great Woods
RO> >last summer and he was as good as ever. He's not a has been, his kid
RO> >just died for gods sake!!! Give the guy a break!!!!! He has the most
RO> >diverse range of music of any artist I ever heard, anyway.
RO>
RO> I don't want to run this into the ground, but I'll make three
RO> comments.
RO>
RO> First, and for the nth time, the fact that *you* had a good time at a
RO> concert does not automatically exempt the artist from criticism. I'm
RO> sure that lots of people have had GREAT experiences at shows by New
RO> Kids on the Block, Hammer, Einsturzende Neubaten or Garth Brooks, and
RO> I doubt that you (or) anyone would claim that that automatically means
RO> they're all great music.
On the FIDOnet MUSIC echo, there's a regular lurker who is absolutely
*WILD* about TIFFANY. You know, the girl who about eight years ago or so
had a hit with a cover of the old Tommy James song "I Think We're Alone
Now"? I believe she was a teenager at the time.
Anyway, the guy runs a BBS whose origin line is something like "TIFFANY:
The Definition of True Musical Greatness!"
One man's meat is another's potatoes, forsooth.
* KWQ/2 1.1 * I think we're ALL bozos on this board.
Jonathan Schilling
>
>Third, if you think that Clapton's musical range is more diverse than
>any artist you ever heard (can a range be "diverse"?) then you've
>listened to a lot of really narrow artists. Ever hear
>*Any* of these artists has explored more of the stylistic map than
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that the Clash were more musically
diverse than Eric Clapton?
For starters, the Clash couldn't really play in time, sing in tune, or
do much of anything else. It may have been great political theatre for
left-wing poseurs, but that's about it. Live radio broadcasts of their
concerts were aural torture. As for diversity, are you counting "Hitsville
UK" as gospel? "Sandanista Dub #29" as proto-rap? "Should I Stay or
Should I Go" as stage music for "Hamlet"?
--
Jonathan Schilling
DDC-I, Inc.
uunet!ddciiny!jls
R o d Johnson
>Isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that the Clash were more musically
>diverse than Eric Clapton?
Perhaps. I hope we both realize that the question is basically a
stupid one, right?
>For starters, the Clash couldn't really play in time, sing in tune, or
>do much of anything else. It may have been great political theatre for
>left-wing poseurs, but that's about it. Live radio broadcasts of their
>concerts were aural torture.
Chacun a son gout. None of this has anything to do with the
"diversity" question, though.
>As for diversity, are you counting "Hitsville
>UK" as gospel?
Gospel? OK. I was thinking Motownish pop myself.
>"Sandanista Dub #29" as proto-rap?
I was thinking of "The Magnificent Seven" in the rap category,
actually. Problem with that?
>"Should I Stay or
>Should I Go" as stage music for "Hamlet"?
Cute. ;)
And "Police & Thieves", "Rudie Can't Fail", "The Guns of Brixton" and
any number of others as reggae. "Wron 'Em Boyo": ska. "Junco
Partner", "The Crooked Beat" (?), "Living in Fame", "One More
Time/Dub," others: dub.
"Ivan Meets GI Joe": call it funk? And "Lightning Strikes"?
"Brand New Cadillac": Link Wray-ish rockabilly.
"Let's Go Crazy": Calypso.
"Career Opportunities" (second version): pure Kinks popcorn.
And what are "Washington Bullets", "Version City", and "Wrong 'Em
Boyo". Definitely not straight-ahead punk.
Plus any number of unclassifiables. When did Clapton ever do anything
as outside as "Mensforth Hill" or "Silicone on Sapphire"? Face it, on
"Sandinista!" alone, whether you think it's crap or diamonds, they
wandered (stumbled, maybe) through more stylistic category than most
bands do in a career.
Robert J. Racusin
set. It includes the Yardbirds, Cream, reggae ("I Shot the Sheriff"),
pop ("She's Waiting, etc, anything from "Journeyman,") blues(of
course), traditional songs, etc. etc.
Compare For Your Love" to "Tales of Brave Ulysses" to "Heaven is One
Step Away " to "Alberta" to "Layla" and "Can't find My Way Home." Not
diverse?? Whatever.
JESS RACUSIN
R o d Johnson
Robert.J...@dartmouth.edu (Robert J. Racusin) writes:
>If you think Eric Clapton is not diverse, listen to
[bunch of Clapton songs deleted]
No one ever claimed that Clapton was "not diverse" (again, whatever
"not diverse" would mean--0 on a scale of 0=does the same song every
time, 10=none of his songs resemble one another at all?).
Your claim was that C was had the "most diverse" range you've ever
heard. The only response I made to this, and it takes nothing away
from Clapton's "diversity", was that you can't have heard too many
musicians, then.
Is it Clapton fans or just Dartmouth students who have this problem
with the idea that there's a lot of music out there? (I remind the
jury of the case of one Young.Tim...@dartmouth.edu, who didn't
have to hear a genre to know it was worthless.)
Mark Schnitzius
>Plus any number of unclassifiables. When did Clapton ever do anything
>as outside as "Mensforth Hill" or "Silicone on Sapphire"? Face it, on
>"Sandinista!" alone, whether you think it's crap or diamonds, they
>wandered (stumbled, maybe) through more stylistic category than most
>bands do in a career.
You forgot:
"The Sound of Sinners" -- which is the gospel song, not "Hitsville U.K.",
and "Look Here" -- straight jazz.
Mark
Jonathan Schilling
>In article <C8Gus...@ddciiny.UUCP> j...@ddciiny.UUCP (Jonathan Schilling) writes:
>
>>Isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that the Clash were more musically
>>diverse than Eric Clapton?
>
>Perhaps. I hope we both realize that the question is basically a
>stupid one, right?
Well, yes :-)
> [long list of Clash tracks and apparent styles]
It seems to me that the diversity question is also dependent on quality,
i.e. not only do you have to play in a certain style, but also be good
at it, or add a new wrinkle to it, or show a real feel or understanding
for it, etc. Otherwise the most diverse musicians of all would be your
local Bat Mitzvah band, since they play any and all material from 1910
to 1993.
Then the question becomes whether the Clash were any good at any of these
styles, or were just flailing about to find somewhat different musical
backgrounds for the same political messages; and the same for Clapton.
At this point it becomes wholly subjective, so I won't carry it further.
(But I am willing to concede that "Lost in the Supermarket" is more genuine
to post-capitalist-malaise-music than "I Shot the Sheriff" is to reggae....)
As a complete aside, I've noticed more Clash air time on VH-1 than on
MTV or the local classic rock or "modern" rock stations. For what was
supposedly once "The only band that matters", this must be something of
a let-down.