slowhand Digest Volume 01 : Issue 260
Today's Topics:
Re: NY
Thoughts on the Concert for NYC
Thoughts on "Concert for New York"
RE: put on the spot
Eric Clapton Mexico City Photos
Not That Anyone Asked Me..........
RE: Thoughts on "Concert for New York"
Ardent Collection DVD
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to;
slowhand-request@planet-torque.com
with the subject 'unsubscribe'. This is an automated service.
Submissions to the list should be sent to;
slowhand@planet-torque.com
***
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Gerd Klaassen
Subject: Re: NY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark Deavult wrote:
>>
Not only was his set alloted less time, and moved
further away from the more "important" later part of the show, but what was
really interesting was watching the pre-show and a lof of interviews - when
asked who was performing, or who people were looking forward to, most
rattled off "Paul McCartney, The Who , Billy Joel" etc. - I didn't catch any
mention of Clapton, perhaps once.
<<
That's not 100% true, at least here in Europe. The german radio stations always
mentioned EC, no word about the Who...
His performance - OK, a bit on autopilot. It wasn't an easy concert for several reasons.
It was a straddle between "let's have fun with the heroes" and "remember the victims".
TIH surely fits on the second one, but the whole MSG crying? And, btw, it WAS Manhattan
where he lost his son... No one knows where his thoughts were at that evening. Remember -
he's an artist.
Gerd
http://www.12bar.de
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Steve Proctor"
Subject: Thoughts on the Concert for NYC
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> (is it me or has Buddy gotten a GUT?).
I wondered that when I saw the Concert for NYC. But when I saw Buddy Guy
live on September 28, I did not have that impression.
Mark's observations were quite interesting. I think Clapton brings a lot of
this on himself. He was one of the few performers who did not offer words
of praise or thanks to the firefighters/police/EMS workers. If one searches
the ebay items to be auctioned, there are no mentions of Clapton. Yet there
are pictures of Pete Townshend, Elton John, Billy Joel and James Taylor
signing items. I could be wrong, but I'll bet Clapton did not sign
anything.
Furthermore, it was tough to be a Clapton fan in the 1990's. The decade
started with the "Journeyman" album, followed by a dramatic, but welcomed,
departure on "Unplugged." Then a total turnaround to the Blues on "From The
Cradle" and the 1994-1995 tours. In 1996, he briefly mixed all of the above
only to go off on a jazz tangent in 1997. And somewhere in there is the
forgetable "Retail Therapy" departure. On "Pilgrim," He was still heavily
into electronic drums and overproduction. "Reptile" has a flavor all its
own, but it seems more like a Clapton album than some of these changes.
Just some thoughts,
Steve Proctor
http://www.slowhand.net
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joan Feather
Subject: Thoughts on "Concert for New York"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Now, dont' get me wrong, I was tickled to see Buddy
> Guy on stage with Eric
> last night (is it me or has Buddy gotten a GUT?).
> But here he really had a
> chance to make an emotional statement, something
> relevant to the night - I
> mean, this wasn't your average benefit concert.
> Privately, I was hoping for
> an acoustic, solo performance of "Broken Hearted"
> which would have been in
> the tenor of the night, and then perhaps something
> like "Crossroads". Or,
> as much as I'm sick of it (), "Tears in Heaven"
> would also have been very
> appropriate to the show, and moved a lot of people.
>
> But instead, EC decided to coast through a couple
> blues numbers, and the EC
> autopilot, in my opinion, was fully engaged. There
> are 10,000 third rate
> blues players all across the world who could have
> pulled that performance
> off. Granted, they sounded underrehearsed, and he
> was not playing with his
> band, but folks, he's PROVED that there is no one
> else on the planet who can
> step up to the plate in those curcumstances like he
> can, and knock the ball
> out of the park. He's said it himself, he works
> BETTER under pressure. I
> dunno, but after seeing that I'd guess there were a
> lot of folks watching
> the tube and saying "THIS guy is the best guitar
> player in the world?"
>
> Eric's never had tremendous stage presence, but what
> happened to the Eric
> who prowled the stage at the Prince's Trust
> concerts, who blew the roof off
> the place at the Garden at the Bobfest show in 1992?
> Where is the Eric that
> about set guitars on fire with the passion and total
> control of the
> instrument he shows during the blues tours? Is he
> on holiday? Apparently
> so, because maybe it's me but he looked visibly
> annoyed when Paul McCartney
> tried to pull a few solos out of him during his set
> - he almost acted like
> he didn't want to be there, it felt grudging. As we
> know from the recent
> shows, "those" moments are getting farther apart,
> it's like EC is in his
> "safe zone" much of the time - and it's true that
> lukewarm EC is better an
> 95% of what's out there - but when he DOES move out
> of that box, and takes
> chances, there's still no one that can touch him.
>
> I dunno, maybe I'll warm up to it with repeated
> viewing - but at this point
> I don't have any real enthusiasm to watch it again,
> at least not Clapton's
> set. On the other hand, The Who put on a great set,
> and Pete, is Eric's age
> or thereabouts - and he actually seemed to put forth
> a little effort. And
> ultimately, that's what it is all about - WANTING to
> be there. If EC can't
> make that jump any more, if he doesn't have the fire
> in the belly to
> perform, it probably will be better, if he simply
> puts down the guitar and
> retires. I hope that doesn't happen - but it's
> probably better than seeing
> him fade away...
>
> Cheers,
> Mark Deavult
>
I don't think you've been listening Mark. That's
exactly what he intends to do, retire (from touring
anyway). Although you have made some interesting
points, let's not forget that the purpose of the
concert was to raise money for victims of a terrorist
attack and honor the rescue workers, not
self-promotion. I might also point out that Eric did
a concert in Mexico City Friday night and then flew to
New York just for this concert. Now, I'm much younger
than Eric, but that kind of travel schedule would wipe
me out. As for the choice of material, Broken Hearted
or Tears in Heaven would have been good choices but
maybe this was not supposed to be a night for tears,
but a night to let the rescue workers do something
they haven't had a chance to do in while, just have a
good time.
Joni
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Bob Tasker"
Subject: RE: put on the spot
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I believe that Paul McCartney was determined to not let Eric stand
behind everyone during the "encore".
> Bet Eric thought; hell fire....leave me alone! Hahaha
Bearing in mind his tasty contribution to "Let It Be", but maybe EC was
mentally rewriting another old Fab Four song to:
"Hey Eric, take a BAD song & make it better"
Yeah, I know the background to Paulie's new song, but if I want to
listen to a crap song about "Freedom" I'll dig out my Woodstock album -
at least Richie Havens only plays his song once.
Am I the only one who thought everyone turned out to promote NYC except
PMcC, who seemed to be promoting PMcC? Seems to me it might have been a
bit classier to have ended with one of the songs written by the honorary
New Yorker who used to work with PMcC.
Cheers,
Bob
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Victor chavez"
Subject: Eric Clapton Mexico City Photos
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ok here are my photos from the Mexico show. I got 1st row tickets but I took this photos from row 30. I got the security people in front of me and they don't allow you to take pictures.
http://www.fotografo.f2s.com/eric_clapton/index.htm
Victor Noe Chavez
Make a difference, help support the relief efforts in the U.S.
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/events/september11.asp
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Pepper461@aol.com
Subject: Not That Anyone Asked Me..........
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It has been a mighty long time since I have written/posted to the Slowhand
Digest ... of
course this may be in part because as an AOL user, I no longer receive the SD
... but Mark, your recent post on EC's diminishing relevance (and audience)
as well as his lack of stage presence/charisma/enthusiasm/efort etc. compared
to his fellow geriatric
rockers at The Concert for New York has roused me from my lurking.
I tend to be verbose on these occasions, I'll try to be succinct ( and
probably won't succeed). I would never presume to know or even speculate
about what Mr. Clapton was thinking or had in mind or intended last Saturday
night. But that won't stop me from offering a few assorted and not unrelated
thoughts/observations about the concert and his carreer, in general.
Here goes:
First, the mix and sound quality from my TVs (we actually tried two different
ones) was so poor, that I would not have known it if he (and/or Buddy Guy)
had played a killer solo or two. There seemed to be a definite favoring of
the voices and at one point, I could not tell when EC took a solo aduring the
finale other than to SEE that he was playing while otehers semed to be
listening. I read that a double CD will be issued, hope they do something
about the sound for that.
Second: He had just ended the Latin American part of his world tour the night
before ... had none of his band members with him and somewhere along the line
Buddy Guy came on board. I doubt there was much time for rehearsal.
Crossroads, BTW, was the second song that was advertized in the PR, but that
changed, perhaps due to Guy sharing the stage. (When ithey first started I
though, Uh Oh, they aren't gonna do Sweet Home CHICAGO at the Concert for
NEW YORK are they?) And, if you think about the lyrics ... both Hoochie
Coochie Man & Everything's Gonna Be All right were better than a song that
ends, "I believe I'm sinking down....."
SOME people ... thought his choices were good ones....one reviewer commented:
*Oddly, representatives of the old guard seemed most willing to take chances
this evening. Eric Clapton didn't succumb to the temptation to offer up any
of the maudlin material that might've been expected. Rather, Slowhand engaged
Buddy Guy in a downright nasty rendition of "Hoochie Coochie Man."*
(Reuters/Variety)
Third, concert placement: I looked through the set list and it did not seem
that there was a plumb spot other
than the closing section.....(some might like to open a show, I suspect this
one was not easy and cannot
imagine that EC would have wanted that slot.) U2 are certainly BIG BOYS on
the block and they were
scheduled (but had to withdraw) to perform before EC but not open the show...
I don't think EC was
relegated to musical Siberia.
I think they tried to space aging rockers with hot young things. The WHO got
twice as much stage time as
anyone else save Sir Paul. Why? I don't know. It does help to make an
impression when you are out
there twice as long as anyone else and have time to settle in/warm up before
you find are off. And, yeah
Elton John came on late, in part because he was to perform w/ Billy Joel and
it had to be AFTER Joel's
songs and can't have two piano guys back-to-back. (I suppose it could be the
other way round, EJ first & BJ later) The CLOSING spot went to Sir Paul, who
according to some sources, was the main man behind the music. So, in some
way, it was *his show*, I guess. And, some of the British press claimed EC
was to join MacCartney for the closing songs (and he did, sort of) so maybe
that was his extra exposure.. .. of course, he hid in the back like he
always does)
Four: stage demeanor. After all these years, Mark...... did you ... do you
really expect Eric Clapton to strut around like Mick Jagger, swing his
microphone like Roger Daltrey, windmill and leap in the air like Pete
Townsend or wear funny clothes like Bon Jovi or Elton John? I recall
numerous interviews in which EC made it very clear he finds that embarrassing
and claimed that we'd never find him doing that. And, we haven't.
The Who and The Stones have, in addition to their music, and ACT . the stage
business is an integral
part of that and who/what these groups ARE. They could no more come out and
perform without that
stuff than EC could with it. I don't believe, personally, that it has to do
with passion or commitment or
desire. It has to do with style and temperament. That is not to say some EC
performances are not more
impassioned, intense or emotional than others, clearly some are. But to hold
these guys who are
consummate SHOWMEN up as examples of what EC should be doing is, uhm,
unrealistic .
Finally: I know that *pacing* thing to which you refer and it is usually a
very good sign when he starts to roam the stage. I agree that the BOBFEST
appearance was a night when he seized an opportunity,brief as it was, and
nailed it, made a profound statement at an event where it would have been
very easy to get lost in the glittery crowd, Saturday's concert at MSG wasn't
either of those. It was, however, to my
mind, a refreshingly straightforward, highly musical interlude, mercifully
free of grandstanding, self-importance and ego. He spared us speeches (he
usually does) ... there were more than enough
already .... and he wasn't sporting any NYPD or FDNY gear, or red, white and
blue flags. He brought
along Buddy Guy and they did a coupla blues. A good thing in the middle of
a lotta pop, rock and talk.
A very good thing when you're hurting.
WOLF
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jon Maclean
Subject: RE: Thoughts on "Concert for New York"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Very perceptive and interesting thoughts Mark.
I wonder if Roger Forrester, criticised harshly by some on this list, would
have allowed Clapton to be featured so far down the bill in such a major
concert? I very much doubt it. Forrester appeared to be quietly aggressive
in ensuring that his client was not denigrated by other promoters or artists
and perhaps his current management has too many irons in the fire to be as
comitted to Clapton as Forrester certainly was.
Although I have not yet seen the broadcast, I was relieved to read that
Tears In Heaven was not aired, as I thought it just too close to the bone,
and perhaps Eric thought that as well, but on reflection you are quite
right, he would have been better playing it, and in the context you suggest.
I too would have loved for him to have stolen the show as in the examples
you listed, so it was a lost opportunity for him as an artist.
Despite the fact that it was a very visible show of unity for the rock world
and the US as a whole, every artist playing the show would have been
conscious of their own profile in proceedings, so it was indeed a shame he
was not more prominently featured.
Cheers,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Deavult [mailto:mark@inna.net]
Sent: None
Subject: Thoughts on "Concert for New York"
Interesting watching the much-hyped concert last night.
For someone who's always been quite aware of his image and understands how
important public perception must be, EC really needs to step back and take a
look at what is going on. Not only was his set alloted less time, and moved
further away from the more "important" later part of the show, but what was
really interesting was watching the pre-show and a lof of interviews - when
asked who was performing, or who people were looking forward to, most
rattled off "Paul McCartney, The Who , Billy Joel" etc. - I didn't catch any
mention of Clapton, perhaps once.
This is something that's been obvious starting really after the NBtB tour,
accelerated in 1998, and became a real epidemic with this tour - the fans,
the diehards, are aware of his work, but he's fallen off the radar screen of
a lot of people. Whereas especially from the mid 80s, starting with Behind
the Sun (and especially Live Aid), and then through the success of August
and Journeyman, and then onto capturing a completely new audience with
Unplugged, really through the mid 90s, he was quite a public fixture. But
now that's changed, and one wonders how he will approach the problem.
Now, he's got only himself to blame - he intentionally targeted "Pilgrim" at
a different audience, and then followed up with "Reptile", which is a
perfectly inoffensive James Taylor album, but the problem here is that he's
not James Taylor - and James Taylor proved last night, that he's mcu better
at playing James Taylor type songs than Eric Clapton ever will be. I think
he's pretty much made the statement on the
relative worth of the new material - he's taken it almost completely out of
his setlist, and that really tells you all you need to know. *HE* knows
it's not captivating audiences.
Now, dont' get me wrong, I was tickled to see Buddy Guy on stage with Eric
last night (is it me or has Buddy gotten a GUT?). But here he really had a
chance to make an emotional statement, something relevant to the night - I
mean, this wasn't your average benefit concert. Privately, I was hoping for
an acoustic, solo performance of "Broken Hearted" which would have been in
the tenor of the night, and then perhaps something like "Crossroads". Or,
as much as I'm sick of it (), "Tears in Heaven" would also have been very
appropriate to the show, and moved a lot of people.
But instead, EC decided to coast through a couple blues numbers, and the EC
autopilot, in my opinion, was fully engaged. There are 10,000 third rate
blues players all across the world who could have pulled that performance
off. Granted, they sounded underrehearsed, and he was not playing with his
band, but folks, he's PROVED that there is no one else on the planet who can
step up to the plate in those curcumstances like he can, and knock the ball
out of the park. He's said it himself, he works BETTER under pressure. I
dunno, but after seeing that I'd guess there were a lot of folks watching
the tube and saying "THIS guy is the best guitar player in the world?"
Eric's never had tremendous stage presence, but what happened to the Eric
who prowled the stage at the Prince's Trust concerts, who blew the roof off
the place at the Garden at the Bobfest show in 1992? Where is the Eric that
about set guitars on fire with the passion and total control of the
instrument he shows during the blues tours? Is he on holiday? Apparently
so, because maybe it's me but he looked visibly annoyed when Paul McCartney
tried to pull a few solos out of him during his set - he almost acted like
he didn't want to be there, it felt grudging. As we know from the recent
shows, "those" moments are getting farther apart, it's like EC is in his
"safe zone" much of the time - and it's true that lukewarm EC is better an
95% of what's out there - but when he DOES move out of that box, and takes
chances, there's still no one that can touch him.
I dunno, maybe I'll warm up to it with repeated viewing - but at this point
I don't have any real enthusiasm to watch it again, at least not Clapton's
set. On the other hand, The Who put on a great set, and Pete, is Eric's age
or thereabouts - and he actually seemed to put forth a little effort. And
ultimately, that's what it is all about - WANTING to be there. If EC can't
make that jump any more, if he doesn't have the fire in the belly to
perform, it probably will be better, if he simply puts down the guitar and
retires. I hope that doesn't happen - but it's probably better than seeing
him fade away...
Cheers,
Mark Deavult
***************************************************************
This message is intended for the addressee named and
may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender.
Views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the
Department of Information Technology & Management.
This email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper
for the presence of computer viruses.
*****************************************************************
------=_NextPart_000_27A5_01C17DC2.697AFDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Elliot Paterson
Subject: Ardent Collection DVD
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,
Does anyone have any information about the upcoming Region 2 DVD release
"The Ardent Collection - Eric Clapton". All the usual sites list it but with
no detail.
Thanks,
Elliot
End of slowhand Digest V01 Issue #260