# Eric Clapton Biography



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know how many members here have read the book. I have not finished with it yet and can't believe anyone could consume the copious amounts of drugs and alcohol he claims to have used. I'm only at 1988 and he should have been dead by then yet he's still hanging around today. I'm at the part where he's in rehab for the second time and is in the process of convincing himself that this is it, he will make it, although booze is still the upper most thought in his mind. Booze drugs and the ladies, if I had lived my life that way I'm sure I'd be pushing up daisies by now. There must be something about British rock stars that gives them immunity from death due to stupidity or they have a constitution that can take any abuse no matter how much or how long.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Ha, ha, I tried, oh how I tried. My plan was to not live past 40. I'm 62. Life has a cruel sense of humour.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

fredyfreeloader said:


> I don't know how many members here have read the book. I have not finished with it yet and can't believe anyone could consume the copious amounts of drugs and alcohol he claims to have used. I'm only at 1988 and he should have been dead by then yet he's still hanging around today. I'm at the part where he's in rehab for the second time and is in the process of convincing himself that this is it, he will make it, although booze is still the upper most thought in his mind. Booze drugs and the ladies, if I had lived my life that way I'm sure I'd be pushing up daisies by now. There must be something about British rock stars that gives them immunity from death due to stupidity or they have a constitution that can take any abuse no matter how much or how long.


Something in the water?


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

zontar said:


> Something in the water?


As children, they walk to school wearing little caps and itchy short pants - all winter long! They can tolerate pain and discomfort.

BTW, have you got to the part where Lennon and Yoko asked him to fly to New York with them to perform at some charity event, and when they landed, the Lennons took off in a limo, leaving Clapton standing at the terminal?


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

If you want others to compare Clapton to, read the Miles Davis and Keith Richards biographies.

Warning: Miles' biography would be shorter by about 30% if the word "motherf&cker" had been left out.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

J-75 said:


> As children, they walk to school wearing little caps and itchy short pants - all winter long! They can tolerate pain and discomfort.
> 
> BTW, have you got to the part where Lennon and Yoko asked him to fly to New York with them to perform at some charity event, and when they landed, the Lennons took off in a limo, leaving Clapton standing at the terminal?


After the Lennon's left, Eric and the other musicians rode to the gig in the trucks delivering equipment. I think he was not amused. I'm now at the part where his son Conner fell 50 plus floors from a condo building in New York.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

I read it. Fascinating book. When I finished it I was left with the thought that although he's literally a guitar god, I wouldn't want to walk in his shoes. He's had a hard life marred by tragedy, the bit about losing his son is especially sad.


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

Lord-Humongous said:


> I read it. Fascinating book. When I finished it I was left with the thought that although he's literally a guitar god, I wouldn't want to walk in his shoes. He's had a hard life marred by tragedy, the bit about losing his son is especially sad.


Ya, that is a horror that is even hard to imagine. I don't think I would want to live after that.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

That book made me hate Clapton and his music, it's instant channel change the last few years with the single exception of 'Layla'.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

keto said:


> That book made me hate Clapton and his music, it's instant channel change the last few years with the single exception of 'Layla'.


I feel the same way Kent. I never did finish the book in fact. I got to a point where I just didn't want to read anymore about him, set it down, walked away, and never looked back.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Fredy, I'm sure you have heard of Keith Richards.................

Enough said?


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I found the book a good read. He seemed quite honest and genuinely remorseful/embarrassed about some of the shit he did. I don't get the hate.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

He seemed proud of how many people he'd screwed over, and how badly.....that's how I read it.


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

I have to agree with Keto and Lincoln. After reading the book. I really developed a dislike for the man. Not enough dislike to shun his music or sell my Clapton Blackie, but enough to conclude he was not a very good human being. I would not want him as a friend. He is still an excellent musician.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Intrepid said:


> I have to agree with Keto and Lincoln. After reading the book. I really developed a dislike for the man. Not enough dislike to shun his music or sell my Clapton Blackie, but enough to conclude he was not a very good human being. I would not want him as a friend. He is still an excellent musician.


I stopped reading before it developed into the hate stage. I can still listen to and enjoy his music, but like you say, I wouldn't invite him over for dinner.

What's that song line, "we should never meet our hero's"??? That's kinda where I am.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Fredy, I'm sure you have heard of Keith Richards.................
> 
> Enough said?


You could include almost if not all the rock "Gods" and stars over the last 4 decades. I personally don't think he was any worse than most of the others out there whoring around whenever and where ever they could. Booze, Drugs, Sex and Rock and Roll seems to be the formula for success. AHH I wish I was eighteen again. I can admire these people as musicians and be discussed at their lack of morals. I would probably stand there looking extremely dorky and awe stuck if I ever met one of them today. Love them or hate them they are still our Rock and Roll Idols, we still go to see their shows if and when we can and still buy their records. IMHO the Eric Clapton's, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger's and their fellow musicians are one hell of a lot better than the current crop of Justin Bieber types.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Perhaps living on the edge gave their music a rough edge rarely present in most over-produced technically perfect current music. They were pioneers. There is little to pioneer any longer other than technology. Exceptions might include Dave Grohl and Jack White among a very few. They don't need drugs to do what they do but they at least learned from the early drugs and booze saturated rock guys.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

I like Clapton's music but reading a book about him or any other ''star'' would be boring as hell to me. I really don't give a damn their non music lifes. Actually that's the way I feel about a lot of people. As far as the drugs and alcohol go, been there, done that.... few times. Never thought I'd make 25. 30 was a surprise to every one.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

fredyfreeloader said:


> You could include almost if not all the rock "Gods" and stars over the last 4 decades. I personally don't think he was any worse than most of the others out there whoring around whenever and where ever they could. Booze, Drugs, Sex and Rock and Roll seems to be the formula for success. AHH I wish I was eighteen again. I can admire these people as musicians and be discussed at their lack of morals. I would probably stand there looking extremely dorky and awe stuck if I ever met one of them today. Love them or hate them they are still our Rock and Roll Idols, we still go to see their shows if and when we can and still buy their records. IMHO the Eric Clapton's, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger's and their fellow musicians are one hell of a lot better than the current crop of Justin Bieber types.


The justin biebers et al of this time frame are no different than those we used listen to and still do. It's just they're so damned young now. Of course if bieber leaned against a mic stand and smoked like Bowie used to they might throw him out of town.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> I have to agree with Keto and Lincoln. After reading the book. I really developed a dislike for the man. Not enough dislike to shun his music or sell my Clapton Blackie, but enough to conclude he was not a very good human being. I would not want him as a friend. He is still an excellent musician.


I see your point but that's what addiction does to a person. They become completely self-centered and it's not until they break that addiction that they can recognize and change that behaviour. I thought the book was a great read and I feel very sorry for the man. i would not want to walk a mile in his shoes.

- - - Updated - - -



keto said:


> He seemed proud of how many people he'd screwed over, and how badly.....that's how I read it.


I think that's more how you read it than what he was actually saying.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Electraglide said:


> The justin biebers et al of this time frame are no different than those we used listen to and still do. It's just they're so damned young now. Of course if bieber leaned against a mic stand and smoked like Bowie used to they might throw him out of town.


The Bieber's et al are different, they have equipment that wasn't even thought of when the Clapton types were starting out. Today the young ones don't really need to be singers or musicians the sound men can correct any mistake they make before an audience even hears the sound, computers correct tone, volume, treble bass and anything else that needs fixing, they are tutored in every aspect of how to walk, talk, smile, dance, anything and everything to make them look and sound cool to their very young and impressionable fans. There was a time when you actually had to learn to play an instrument, not fake it while someone else did the playing. IMO they definitely are very different.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

fredyfreeloader said:


> The Bieber's et al are different, they have equipment that wasn't even thought of when the Clapton types were starting out. Today the young ones don't really need to be singers or musicians the sound men can correct any mistake they make before an audience even hears the sound, computers correct tone, volume, treble bass and anything else that needs fixing, they are tutored in every aspect of how to walk, talk, smile, dance, anything and everything to make them look and sound cool to their very young and impressionable fans. There was a time when you actually had to learn to play an instrument, not fake it while someone else did the playing. IMO they definitely are very different.


If the modern equipment was around when we were growing up the bands would have used it. As it was they used what was the modern equipment of the time. Was a time when we were young and impressionable fredy.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Electraglide said:


> If the modern equipment was around when we were growing up the bands would have used it. As it was they used what was the modern equipment of the time. Was a time when we were young and impressionable fredy.


I've found that many singers that based their initial fame on all the technology and production that can easily cover up a complete lack of real musical talent can actually sing very well without it.

For example a lot of the disco queens from the 70s after the corporate types lost interest in them as flavour of the month actually demonstrate some impressive talent in a basic live band. Likewise for even more current singers who rose to fame with electronic vocal enhancements and banks of backup singers burying their vocals who show their true colours as great singers when given the opportunity.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

fredyfreeloader said:


> The Bieber's et al are different, they have equipment that wasn't even thought of when the Clapton types were starting out. Today the young ones don't really need to be singers or musicians the sound men can correct any mistake they make before an audience even hears the sound, computers correct tone, volume, treble bass and anything else that needs fixing, they are tutored in every aspect of how to walk, talk, smile, dance, anything and everything to make them look and sound cool to their very young and impressionable fans. There was a time when you actually had to learn to play an instrument, not fake it while someone else did the playing._* IMO they definitely are very different.*_


From what I've seen they are usually better looking and less talented.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Electraglide said:


> If the modern equipment was around when we were growing up the bands would have used it. As it was they used what was the modern equipment of the time. Was a time when we were young and impressionable fredy.


Bringing in the if factor doesn't work, there simply was nothing to enhance their voice or their musical talents, in a great many cases the hit record was recorded through an eight track board in a tiny room. Would singers and musicians have used more advanced equipment, most likely, there just was nothing. If you didn't have the talent there was no magic computer board to make you sound good, you either had it or you didn't.

One example, I won't name the group as I don't know the legal limitation on using their name. The record was made in a local studio here in LA LA land with two union musicians hired to fill in the back ground ie: drums and keyboards, the completed record cost less than $200.00. They shopped it around, got a deal and it was an instant hit, the duo made over $1,000,000.00 in royalties from a minimal cost recording, in todays world that just would not be possible, this happened because they had talent and a whole lot of balls to even try this. The duo had many more hit records with no fancy computer enhancements, just their writing talents and their vocal abilities. Could the Bieber types pull this off on their own today, I seriously doubt that they have enough talent.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

The old recording sessions were usually done in a few live takes and an entire album was often recorded within a week. These days it takes longer than that to get the 'right' snare sound. Albums can take years to complete and sweetening and tweaking vocals over many tracks any many months has become an art form.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

fredyfreeloader said:


> The Bieber's et al are different, they have equipment that wasn't even thought of when the Clapton types were starting out. Today the young ones don't really need to be singers or musicians the sound men can correct any mistake they make before an audience even hears the sound, computers correct tone, volume, treble bass and anything else that needs fixing, they are tutored in every aspect of how to walk, talk, smile, dance, anything and everything to make them look and sound cool to their very young and impressionable fans. There was a time when you actually had to learn to play an instrument, not fake it while someone else did the playing. IMO they definitely are very different.


I think the kids these days are better guitar players than we were in the 60's & 70's. They have all the information in the world at their finger tips. They have software to isolate lead parts and even chart the notes being played. How could they go wrong? All they need to do is stay away from other distractions (games/girls) and practice. It's all there for them. The local teenage talent never fails to blow me away. Singers aren't any better, but the guitar players sure have their licks down.

I remember trying to learn songs from a record. play, stop, pull the needle back. play, stop, pull the needle back. Tape recorders were reel to reel and expensive, nobody had one. Even if you did have a tape recorder, record players didn't have headphone jacks so there was no way to direct record anything. We learned more from each other I think. That was the big resource. Playing with other guys/bands and learning stuff from each other. Somebody figured out this song, you figured out that song, somebody else had another one down, and we'd all share.


----------



## Xelebes (Mar 9, 2015)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Bringing in the if factor doesn't work, there simply was nothing to enhance their voice or their musical talents, in a great many cases the hit record was recorded through an eight track board in a tiny room.


Not true. The use of choruses, delays, reverbs, vocoders, ring modulators and phasers were commonly used to manipulate the voice to sound otherworldly but seems to have met a similar reaction as modern singers do on current recordings.

Autotune is not used to make the voice sound good, it is used to manipulate the voice to match the whims of the producer who might want that otherworldly sound. A clean recording would not permit that.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Xelebes said:


> Not true. The use of choruses, delays, reverbs, vocoders, ring modulators and phasers were commonly used to manipulate the voice to sound otherworldly but seems to have met a similar reaction as modern singers do on current recordings.
> 
> Autotune is not used to make the voice sound good, it is used to manipulate the voice to match the whims of the producer who might want that otherworldly sound. A clean recording would not permit that.


You're talking mid 70s onward. Phil Spector's manual flange technique was about as high tech as it got and even then, after the late 60s.

For example, I was around Mushroom Records at the time Heart recorded Dreamboat Annie and Chilliwack recorded Dreams, Dreams, Dreams and saw the equipment they used - A chimney outfitted with speakers and mics for reverb, an innovative 10 band tube EQ, a 12 (?) channel tube consol and a pair of Altec 407 (?) speakers with whizzer cones for monitors, all hand built by Keith Stein. I'd give the production and performance on that equipment an A++. They didn't need a lot of FX and fancy gear. They were just that good all on their own.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Xelebes said:


> Not true. The use of choruses, delays, reverbs, vocoders, ring modulators and phasers were commonly used to manipulate the voice to sound otherworldly but seems to have met a similar reaction as modern singers do on current recordings.
> 
> Autotune is not used to make the voice sound good, it is used to manipulate the voice to match the whims of the producer who might want that otherworldly sound. A clean recording would not permit that.


What your talking about came along many years after Clapton, the Beatles, the Rolling Stone and others had already established themselves as bonafide Rock stars
There simply was no fancy add ons to alter what you were playing. I was there, I am actually that old and have retained a reasonable memory. Those things just were not available in the early 1960's through the early 1970 and they did not all jump out at you in the music stores because no one had much experience with amp and guitar sound altering equipment. Everything was pretty basic, amps with reverb were scarce. as I've said before let the young hot dogs play with what was available back then and see how good they really are. I know some will sound good simply because they have the talent, most will sound rather dull and maybe out of tune.


----------



## Xelebes (Mar 9, 2015)

Yeah, I am talking about the disco era. I thought that was what I was responding to.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Well this has certainly gone on a roller coaster ride since my post in the thread.

I was going to add that I have read Clapton's book, and enjoyed the read overall--can't say I agree with many of his choices, but an interesting read.

but then that seems to be beside the point of what the thread has become.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

bluzfish said:


> You're talking mid 70s onward. Phil Spector's manual flange technique was about as high tech as it got and even then, after the late 60s.
> 
> For example, I was around Mushroom Records at the time Heart recorded Dreamboat Annie and Chilliwack recorded Dreams, Dreams, Dreams and saw the equipment they used - A chimney outfitted with speakers and mics for reverb, an innovative 10 band tube EQ, a 12 (?) channel tube consol and a pair of Altec 407 (?) speakers with whizzer cones for monitors, all hand built by Keith Stein. I'd give the production and performance on that equipment an A++. They didn't need a lot of FX and fancy gear. They were just that good all on their own.


[video=youtube;OZuW6BH_Vak]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZuW6BH_Vak[/video]
For some reason I seem to recall someone putting a speaker in a garbage can to get some weird echo.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

fredyfreeloader said:


> What your talking about came along many years after Clapton, the Beatles, the Rolling Stone and others had already established themselves as bonafide Rock stars
> There simply was no fancy add ons to alter what you were playing. I was there, I am actually that old and have retained a reasonable memory. Those things just were not available in the early 1960's through the early 1970 and they did not all jump out at you in the music stores because no one had much experience with amp and guitar sound altering equipment. Everything was pretty basic, amps with reverb were scarce. as I've said before let the young hot dogs play with what was available back then and see how good they really are. I know some will sound good simply because they have the talent, most will sound rather dull and maybe out of tune.


Live performance? I'd say if you took a lot of the kids today and put them in the Commodore or the Colosseum or the Orpheum with what was around then they'd sound pretty good. Malkin Bowl might be a stretch for some. You might have to work to get them in the Cave tho.. Saw a lot of shows there including Roy Orbison.

- - - Updated - - -



zontar said:


> Well this has certainly gone on a roller coaster ride since my post in the thread.
> 
> I was going to add that I have read Clapton's book, and enjoyed the read overall--can't say I agree with many of his choices, but an interesting read.
> 
> but then that seems to be beside the point of what the thread has become.


Which is a good thing. Guys like bluz and fredy help keep what little grey cells I have left working.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> Which is a good thing. Guys like bluz and fredy help keep what little grey cells I have left working.


Going off track can be a lot of fun.
It's like a saying I once heard--the shortest distance between two places is a straight line, but it's also the most boring.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

zontar said:


> Going off track can be a lot of fun.
> It's like a saying I once heard--the shortest distance between two places is a straight line, but it's also the most boring.


was a time when a line was a line, straight or not, and it was never boring.


----------

