Clapton Lashes Out @ U2, Coldplay

enharmonic · May 2006

Clapton's point seems to be that U2 and Coldplay are more concerned with their fame than they are withmaking valid music. I would have to agree with him on that point.

As for Clapton breaking new ground, when you get your own signature strat and Martin acoustic, come talk to us about the ground you've broken. Even into his 60s Clapton is still playing cats half his age under the table. Sure, he hasn't been right since he got off the dope and his son fell out the wndow, but he's remarkably versatile and his body of work speaks for itself.

Listen to his Unplugged performance. He defined that performance concept, and set the bar so high that MTv was hard pressed to find bands that could measure up.

I also agree with him in regard to the majority of music today being like a lot of kids...don't know where they came from, let alone who.

Sathogwa · May 2006

Keller wrote:

I would agree with that statement.

I think what Eric is talking about is complete package. There is not denying U2's muscial talent but bono has such an ego and is so concentrated on making everything he does mainstream. The man reviews videos of his live concerts and picks them apart so that he can have a perfect cookie cutter concert every time he takes the stage. That is not very rock n roll to me.

U2 has turned into more of a pop act than a rock and roll act.

Good point, man.

transplant · May 2006

enharmonic wrote:

As for Clapton breaking new ground, when you get your own signature strat and Martin acoustic, come talk to us about the ground you've broken. Even into his 60s Clapton is still playing cats half his age under the table. Sure, he hasn't been right since he got off the dope and his son fell out the wndow, but he's remarkably versatile and his body of work speaks for itself.

If you think his body of work post 1976 speaks for itself Ok. I sure as fuck am not questioning his guitar playing, the ground he broke in the 60's or his place in music history.

Gary Carter · May 2006

transplant wrote:

has Clapton broken new ground in the past 30 years?

clapton doesnt need too moron. he laid hes rock icon status 35 years ago.

red mos · May 2006

IWishIWasASailor wrote:

Transplant- Are you really questioning Eric Clapton? Eric Clapton is rock and roll to the purist form. And he's broken enough ground in his life, god damn fools.

Amen. Blues music is the ground roots of rock and roll or in todays times a lot this era is refered to as "the classic rock" era. Clapton (I am not saying anyone of the board was dissing him either) definately has enough calateral in the music industry to know what he is talking about: The guy has put together some of the best riffs ever, and he is inducted in the rock and roll hall of fame 3 different times.

reeferchief · May 2006

You know back in the day Eric Clapton was the man Jimi Hendrix was in awe of.

Sir Eric hits the nail on the head, back in the day U2 were good but then fame hit bono and his head swelled up, and U2 aint been the same since, as for Coldplay well they're just a lame imitation.

Manufactured: Something designed to replicate something succesfull, with the intent to make money.

Binaural · May 2006

transplant wrote:

has Clapton broken new ground in the past 30 years?

I could rant but I won't, I'll keep it simple;
Yes he has.

PEACE

elmer · May 2006

mrwalkerb wrote:

Has coldplay ever been anything then a second rate Travis with an Unforgettable Fire fixation?

haha, Ive always thought this! They can try but they cannot match the Unforgettable Fire which is a classic. Agree with Claptons comments, U2 have become boring(havent even botherd to hear their last) and are a long way down the slope since the heady days of the aforementioned album through to Zooropa. Tho -All that you cant leave Behind- was one that I liked.
..........so may bands seem to replicate other existing music, those that are getting thru are just fucking boring studenty sounding groups. The killers and Radiohead are respectable tho

transplant · May 2006

Binaural wrote:

I could rant but I won't, I'll keep it simple;
Yes he has.
PEACE

well I wish you would rant. what I have gathered so far is that over the past 30 years he has had an incredible Unplugged performance and Behind the Sun. I am not doubting either of those (because I have neither) nor have I doubted his guitar playing. I have that double live CD 24 Nights and his Robert Johnson cover disc. Though nice listens nothing there in my mind to write home about. His lick and solo on Forever Man are incredible.

What my simple question was, is that did he do anything groundbreaking over the past 30 years (not 35, not 40)? I may now check out all of Behind the Sun. I don't know a single Clapton freak so yeah, rant on.

Poncier · May 2006

Haven't Clapton songs been used to sell beer?
U2 has not let it songs be used to schill products (the ipod was a cross promotion, different animal).

Binaural · May 2006

transplant wrote:

well I wish you would rant. what I have gathered so far is that over the past 30 years he has had an incredible Unplugged performance and Behind the Sun. I am not doubting either of those (because I have neither) nor have I doubted his guitar playing. I have that double live CD 24 Nights and his Robert Johnson cover disc. Though nice listens nothing there in my mind to write home about. His lick and solo on Forever Man are incredible.

What my simple question was, is that did he do anything groundbreaking over the past 30 years (not 35, not 40)? I may now check out all of Behind the Sun. I don't know a single Clapton freak so yeah, rant on.

Just to mention, I did not mean to come across as sarcastic incase that's how it sounded, I was being genuine. I believe Clapton has been incredibly groundbreaking. One of the things that stands out is his constant revitilisation of Blues and the wide variety of musical traditions he has been able to incorporate into his music, while still retaining an authentic blues sound and feeling. Also his ability to cover a range of genres is breathtaking. Although the point most noteworthy is what he does live, I saw him in concert a few years ago and he had put a huge range of musical instruments into his show, some songs were sounded new. I can understand a lot of people saying "Yeah he's good but he's not really done anything new", I didn't 'get it' for a while but ater listening to a few of his influences I began to see just how much he had done with their music and his own. If you like some of his stuff then I suggest you invest in a few records, many can be goten cheap now and they are well worth the buy.

PEACE

Galiana · May 2006

Poncier wrote:

Haven't Clapton songs been used to sell beer?
U2 has not let it songs be used to schill products (the ipod was a cross promotion, different animal).

I remember those beer commercials Clapton did back in the 80s. And then Neil Young did that video where he made fun of them.

Virgil Caine · May 2006

Poncier wrote:

U2 has not let it songs be used to schill products (the ipod was a cross promotion, different animal).

You can't get a little bit pregnant, Poncier.

Shawn Smith Collective · May 2006

Since the source of the quote is http://www.digitalspy.co.uk, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Clapton one way or the other.

transplant · May 2006

Binaural wrote:

Just to mention, I did not mean to come across as sarcastic incase that's how it sounded, I was being genuine. I believe Clapton has been incredibly groundbreaking. One of the things that stands out is his constant revitilisation of Blues and the wide variety of musical traditions he has been able to incorporate into his music, while still retaining an authentic blues sound and feeling.

I had no doubt you were being serious. I guess perhaps my issue with him is that it all boils down to one genre. blues. I think of other artist, Waits, Dylan, Costello, Young and I view those guys as ones who take a risk here and there. Tough to pigeonhole those guys. Sure they all boil down to blues based however Clapton never attempted an Arc type disc, nor has he attempted collaborations as obscure as what Costello has done. Dylan to this day puts out outstanding CD's with a few bad experiments along the way. Me and Mr. Johnson wasn't exactly a big direction change. Once again, if I'm wrong, point me to a CD.

As I said earlier, I don't know a Clapton freak, I don't know that I have ever seen any solo disc of his in anybody's top 20. I am not even sure many people could name a CD. Some people appear content with him sitting on his groundbreaking work during the 60's. Fine with me.

I am being picky as hell because he is a legend and I would like to hear him attempt something else. It doesn't sound like to me that he has pushed himself and perhaps he is content with doing what he has always done. Just my view on it. thanks for sharing yours.

Virgil Caine · May 2006

transplant wrote:

I had no doubt you were being serious. I guess perhaps my issue with him is that it all boils down to one genre. blues. I think of other artist, Waits, Dylan, Costello, Young and I view those guys as ones who take a risk here and there. Tough to pigeonhole those guys. Sure they all boil down to blues based however Clapton never attempted an Arc type disc, nor has he attempted collaborations as obscure as what Costello has done. Dylan to this day puts out outstanding CD's with a few bad experiments along the way. Me and Mr. Johnson wasn't exactly a big direction change. Once again, if I'm wrong, point me to a CD.

As I said earlier, I don't know a Clapton freak, I don't know that I have ever seen any solo disc of his in anybody's top 20. I am not even sure many people could name a CD. Some people appear content with him sitting on his groundbreaking work during the 60's. Fine with me.

I am being picky as hell because he is a legend and I would like to hear him attempt something else. It doesn't sound like to me that he has pushed himself and perhaps he is content with doing what he has always done. Just my view on it. thanks for sharing yours.

I own most of Clapton's solo stuff...except for the mid 80s and early 90s stuff....that period is utter shite.

WhatWouldWellstoneDo · May 2006

stonesgstring wrote:

I can't believe he's even comparing Coldplay and U2 really :eek:
I mean come on! Coldplay, in my opinion, are boring and I don't like them. However U2 are still a decent rock band.

True, U2 has dropped off a bit, but they are rocknroll halloffamers, and have some great material. I somehow doubt Coldplay will make the hall, but then again, can you picture the hall of fame in 20 years with the quality of current bands? Perhaps Blink-182 will get in in 2020. At one time, as the saying went, "Clapton Is God", and he put his heart into the music. Outside of PJ and a few others, it's more about image appeal now more than ever. I loved MTV as a child, but now I say, "take back my fucking MTV".

WhatWouldWellstoneDo · May 2006

stonesgstring wrote:

I can't believe he's even comparing Coldplay and U2 really :eek:
I mean come on! Coldplay, in my opinion, are boring and I don't like them. However U2 are still a decent rock band.

True, U2 has dropped off a bit, but they are rocknroll halloffamers, and have some great material. I somehow doubt Coldplay will make the hall, but then again, can you picture the hall of fame in 20 years with the quality of current bands? Perhaps Blink-182 will get in in 2020. At one time, as the saying went, "Clapton Is God", and he put his heart into the music. Outside of PJ and a few others, it's more about image appeal now more than ever. I loved MTV as a child, but now I say, "take back my fucking MTV".

IWishIWasASailor · May 2006

transplant wrote:

I had no doubt you were being serious. I guess perhaps my issue with him is that it all boils down to one genre. blues. I think of other artist, Waits, Dylan, Costello, Young and I view those guys as ones who take a risk here and there. Tough to pigeonhole those guys. Sure they all boil down to blues based however Clapton never attempted an Arc type disc, nor has he attempted collaborations as obscure as what Costello has done. Dylan to this day puts out outstanding CD's with a few bad experiments along the way. Me and Mr. Johnson wasn't exactly a big direction change. Once again, if I'm wrong, point me to a CD.

As I said earlier, I don't know a Clapton freak, I don't know that I have ever seen any solo disc of his in anybody's top 20. I am not even sure many people could name a CD. Some people appear content with him sitting on his groundbreaking work during the 60's. Fine with me.

I am being picky as hell because he is a legend and I would like to hear him attempt something else. It doesn't sound like to me that he has pushed himself and perhaps he is content with doing what he has always done. Just my view on it. thanks for sharing yours.

Isn't asking for more from Eric Clapton like asking for more from say Michael Jordan in his realm? It's Eric fucking Clapton for god's sake.

angryyoungman · May 2006

Bathgate66 wrote:

Eric Clapton hits out at Coldplay and U2
Wednesday, May 17 2006, 14:48 BST - by Fiona Edwards

Eric Clapton disapproves of bands like U2 and Coldplay as they seem
to put their fame before their music.

The 61-year-old guitar legend told The Times: "Right now, the power
of music sits with Simon Cowell and Coldplay and U2, who are really
people who just attend awards shows.

"From just listening I can't tell the difference between Coldplay and
U2. The one in Coldplay even dances like Bono."

Clapton said that he's also worried that modern bands are forgetting
where rock and roll has come from.

He said: "I think what it shows is how incredibly detached all the
current stuff is from its roots. What worries me about what's going
on now is that people don't know where it's all come from, and I
don't suppose they're that interested."

has clapton ever wrote a good song? EVER? tears in heaven i guess. geez he's not exactly a song writing wiz, he should stick to his adult contemporary soft rock crap and not worry about what other bands do

Clapton Lashes Out @ U2, Coldplay

Comments

Categories