Ha ha. I love the twists and turns these threads can take.

In all fairness, it would likely be harder on the child if they'd gotten to know the parent before hand. While she missed out on a lot in the way of having a fatherly figure, but it's hard to physically miss a specific someone you don't really have a recollection of. Not vouching for suicide.

Now you're just being silly. The hype was manufactured but the sound was legit. Also, true about the Clapton thing but hey, not everyone can be Clapton yo

the sound was LEGIT, the songs were LEGIT. the hype post shotgunbrain-splosion? Mad Men.

true, but only at first. Once the child grows and maybe has a family of their own, having known your mom/dad for longer is a better thing. missing someone is not the issue. it is the lack of parenting....

Say what you will, Clapton's a pretty good guitar player. Can I stand to listen to his music? No. But he's got chops. He'd have done well to have gotten hired on by the Stones to replace Mick Taylor around 1975, and his career would have been set for life. Just provide the tasty noodling behind Keith's rhythm, stay quiet, don't sing, and all is good. Stones records probably would have been better. And for a guitar sound, better choice than that wanker Ronnie Wood.

Clapton is am amazing guitar player, but i have never enjoyed the tone he employs. it, no offense intended, sounds real "white" to my ears.

ronnie wood was added so keith could have someone to party with.

Oh, posthumous hype has been mercilessly bad but that is because master shark courtney love has been the mastermind.. clapton sucks and his guitar work is boring.. but he is a legendn and a true master.. just not creative. All the other "greats" are just more innovative and creative, he is at the bottom of that list. He reminds me of those classically trained guitarists who are virtuosos when it comes to set pieces but can't "jam"

I concur with your assessment on both counts.

Clapton is even whiter when he sings. I just wanna go, "Sit down, white boy."

Wood is a joke. I could get up on stage and do better lead than he does.

Clapton is a virtuoso guitar player. He knows the guitar inside and out, can play infinite numbers of riffs, etc., but yes, he's boring, unimaginative. It's all technical with him, no heart.

Exactly! He approaches guitar like algebra, when instead its about approaching it like sex. Ill take some shitty punk guitarists with passion over mathematical guitarists any day. Sure Clapton can technically play better than almost anyone, but what has he done to change the instrument itself? What has he done to change the way its played? What is his true legacy?

Yngwie Malmsteem can play the most horrifically difficult arpeggios, but it never adds up to SHIT

Thats why i love Jerry Garcia.. whatever that guy was just jacking off or noodling it always still went somewhere

Anything even remotely "innovative" about Clapton's playing can be heard via the Cream stuff. The vast majority of everything else is extremely generic. I won't go as far as to say he doesn't deserve his place in history, but he is no where near his contemporaries which he's typically compared to. Listening to the guy play Hendrix is embarrassing.

Which is why he'd make a great sideman, the lead guitarist who adds the little tasteful licks and the occasional extended solo to back up the band. Out of the spotlight, providing the expected and the tasteful. As I said, the Stones probably would not have made such terrible sounding albums with him. The songs might still have sucked but the playing would have been better.

"Eric Clapton, the driest musician of all time. He makes my vagina shrivel up"
marissa paternoster

So. Have we established that we don't like Clapton?

dont be jealous, man!

Ha ha.

Jealous of what? Playing boring guitar?