Talk:Eric Clapton/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Possible redirect

I think it might make sense to redirect "Slowhand" to this article, as opposed to the album of the same name. I would however like to get some feedback from others. Don 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek and the Dominos

I added info on Clapton's guest appearence with Bobby Whitlock in 2003, added info on Radle's death, and changed the sources for the live material on the Goodbye album. (Heteren 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Layla

My first time trying to post a comment.Appologies for being ignorant to use not-user-friendly-rules of wikipedia: 1)The name of Ganjavi's story is "Layli and Majnoon",[Layli and the madman(madness due to love)], so reference to Layla being taken from Ganjavi by Eric Clapton is incorrect. 2)Ganjavi ( meaning: from Ganje) is considered an Iranian poet/writer.All his works are in Farsi language. 4)Ganje was a place in today's Azarbayejan,yet part of Iranian at the time. 5)Wheather Nezami Ganjavi should be considered as an Azarbayejani artist is open to discussion.See Turkish people claiming that Molana Jalal Edin Roomi(listen to his poems as recorded by Maddona), is also Turkish. Yet at his time, today's Turkey was part of Iran. Fm1328 Fm1328 19:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discog Question

Is there any particular reason why the albums released while Clapton was with Cream are not listed in the Discography section? If someone were to give me a yay or ney on adding these, I would appreciate it. I don't want to change anything without first trying to find a why, assuming there is one. (I intend to remove the subject heading for this after I get an answer)[I changed my mind]--Ostermana 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I was wondering that myself. Counting his work with The Yardbirds, Cream, John Mayall and Blind Faith there are at least a dozen albums Clapton released before 1973 that are not in the discog section, and I for one would like to see them listed. Derek & The Dominos are listed, why not these? I know they're mentioned earlier on the page, but sometimes you just can't be bothered to read the whole article for just a couple of small pieces of information. You dig? -- MightyMoose22 03:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While the previous was a valid input, I was sort of hoping for a series of "go ahead"'s and "no, because..."'s - Ostermana - EDIT: If you say "no" make sure you *STATE WHY!!!!*
  • Yeah, me too. I think we'll have to wait a bit longer for that. If it helps any, I say go ahead. -- MightyMoose22 05:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Final Update Ok, in the last 122 hours, I have had a total of 2 responses from a total of one person. Anyone who knows of an album that isn't included, even if clapton only has a bit part or a cameo of sorts, go ahead and add it. If anyone wants to complain later, they certainly have the ability to do so here on the talk page. --Ostermana 03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess I'm a bit late on this but I'd say there's probably no need to check on this kind of thing (see WP:BOLD). Making the change certainly isn't malicious, and if someone originally had a good reason not too, then chances are they'll revert the changes and leave a comment as to why.
At anyrate, I say go ahead and add them (I think you have already). An argument against it may be that it's not technically Clapton's album, it's Cream's, but I say it makes sense to have a consolidated discography of all Clapton's work instead of a bunch of links saying "Oh, he also played with Cream, so go check out their discography", or some such thing. B.Mearns*, KSC 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage Breakup

In the section "Bad Luck Clapton" it says "It resulted in the break-up of his marriage.".

  1. What resulted in the break-up ? The success of "Tears In Heaven", his son's death or the tragedies that struck him in the 90's ?
  2. Marriage to whom ?

Jay 09:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the wording would make me believe it was the grief over his son (that was the subject of the previous sentence), but that is just a guess. I agree that it should be cleared up, and maybe even some additional detail would help

  • The article now says that the death of his son resulted in the breakup of his marriage to Lori Del Santo, but according to everything else I have seen about them, Clapton and Del Santo were never married. --Metropolitan90 01:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the line since 1. Clapton and Lori Del Santo were neved married. 2. They were already separated at the time of their son's death, so the death had nothing to do with the separation. The separation was due to other reasons. [1]. Jay 09:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Backtracking Album

Please, can you explain to me why the 'Backtracking' Album is not in all officials Clapton discography ? Thanks --Le mollusque 09:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of Backtracking. I am a major Clapton enthusiast - owning all commercially released recordings and many bootlegs. Is it a bootleg? A non UK/US release? A search on Yahoo only yields three matches that mention it - all three are simple personal CD lists. Perhaps you could post some more information about it here. - Slow Graffiti 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen 'Backtracking' around. I think it was an official release compilation double CD released in 1984. Black cover and coloured stripes. It was around in Australia. From memory the track list was pretty standard. Cheers

Backtrackin' was released by RSO in 1984. The copy I have was manufatured in West Germany its number is 821 937 -2 it is two cd's with 22 tracks from all across his career.

[edit] Peacock v. weasel, etc

The wording of the piece that identifies EC to readers as one of the best, the best, premier, maharajah, etc. is tricky. I've removed the words "by many", as that really doesn't add anything, besides being an inexcusable use of weasel terms. What is ideal is a quote or something, such as one I remember from Snopes saying that Clapton had reigned unchallenged as the world's premier guitarist for well over thirty years. Alternately, we can use the system that the pages on the Telecaster, Stratocaster, and Les Paul use, saying "one of the best along with..." and naming the others. I don't think there are really any others that can lay claim to the title; Duane Allman, Jimi Hendrix, and Stevie Ray Vaughan have tragically died. Jimmy Page has never really broadened out or had a solo career and doesn't do much anymore, three issues that operate for Eddie Van Halen as well. This entire post, of course, is POV, though, and such reasoning has no place in a encyclopedia article. We need to work something out. Deltabeignet 23:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No on has reverted my use of Rolling Stone's rankings, so I'll assume it works fairly well. Deltabeignet 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the rankings from Rolling Stone are pretty idiotic... having guys like Kurt Cobain and Johnny Ramone not only on there but high, and not even have a guy like Steve Vai is odd. I understand that, you know, they probably care about things beyond techinical skill, but still.. these are kind of out there. But, I suppose, Rolling Stone is the most popular rock and roll magazine out there, so maybe it's the most relevant in the intro...

I know that weasel words aren't supposed to be used, but I personally think they are OK in a case like this. If you state that someone is the best, then that would be a POV. It seems OK to me to say "many people consider him the best". Of course, in this case you can report the poll as a fact, but often you don't have something like that. Bubba73 04:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are Rolling Stone rankings "dubious"? It seems a very POV statment exactly the same as stating that "EC is the beat guitarist" If you have never read RS then it leads to the belief that EC is rated too high by the magazine. CambridgeBayWeather 06:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SG or Les Paul on "While my Guitar Gently Weeps"?

The article says "Clapton also played the SG on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" ". The article While My Guitar Gently Weeps says it was a Les Paul. I've read in other places that it was a Les Paul (and that he gave the Les Paul to George Harrison afterwards). I always thought it sounded like a LP. So which is correct?

  • I've adjusted the article to say "either SG or LP", but that's hardly a long-term fix. I agree that it sounds like a Les Paul, though I'm more of a Fender type anyway. Deltabeignet 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that every other source I've seen says that it is a Les Paul. Bubba73 04:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I, too, believe it was a Les Paul on While My Guitar... but a large part of the sound is due to the use of a Leslie cabinet (a speaker type predominately associated with the Hammond B3 organ that has a rotating horn (high frequency speaker) and produces a Doppler-type effect.) Crash Pad Dad

Both of you are incorrect, it has been stated with absolute verification by both Clapton and Harrison (1988 Guitar Player Interview) that Clapton used the refinished, (Red) Les Paul that he in fact, gave to Harrison as a gift just a few months earlier. The LP Clapton used was originally a Gold Top refinished as a Burgunduy Red LP.

How are any of the above incorrect? They all say it was a Les Paul. No one says anything about the color.

I think that it was neither a Les Paul nor an SG, it sounds more like a Stratocaster. If it was a Paul it would have been a 3-pickup, with a Bigsby, like the one in that picture. Couldn't have been an SG.

The story of Clapton giving the Les Paul to George is well known. I have it at least once in my large collection of Guitar magazines. For example Guitarist magazine did a long article on Beatles' guitars a couple of years ago, coinciding with the first publication of a book on the subject (it was also the main cover story). A reference to the appropriate page in that book would be helpful. [Clapton has likely played this song on several guitars ... didn't he play it on one of his bright, multi-coloured signature strats for Party at the Palace?]

I would agree that it was most likely a Les Paul. It is not possible that it was a Stratocaster and was unlikely to have been an SG, the first Strats Eric had were a group of 6 that he bought in early 1970 from a shop in Tennessee, I think it mentions that in the article somewhere. The only SG Eric was known for playing was the 'fool' SG, which Eric gave away to George around June, 1968. It is known that the recording took place on the 25th July 1968, so that rules out the SG or a Stratocaster. The sound of the guitar is quite ambiguous which makes it awkward. Eric taken a black Les Paul on a US tour in '68, so it could have been that one, although saying that, he had used a Firebird quite a lot around that period too. Incidently, yeah he did play one of his 'Crashocasters' for The Party at the Palace. CDicken 1:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding

unsigned comment added by 172.200.164.166 (talk)

You are possibly all wrong. In his biography Eric clearly states that he did not take a guitar to Abbey Road that day to play on While my guitar gently weeps. He states that he borrowed George's guitar and did the solo in one take.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.15.169 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Tears In Heaven

Tears In Heaven was nominated for a Grammy (and a Golden Globe and MTV Music Award) but didn't win. Al 20:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This song is a tribute to Conor Clapton, Eric's pre-school son, who died in an accident in 1991. The housekeeper just finished cleaning the window and left it open and when Conor ran past he fell out of the 53 story building.

The song was written for the 1991 film 'Rush'. In a 1992 Granada TV interview with Sue Lawley, before playing the song Clapton asks for us not to read too much into the lyrics, as the song was written before Conor's death. The words may have been prophetic, and the song may have subsequently been performed as a tribute to Conor, but it was not originally written as such. 82.12.82.85 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "dubious" rankings?

Isn't "dubious" rankings a little biased? It seems out of place to question the reliability of Rolling Stone Magazine's rankings of guitarists, as we should let the reader decide for himself as to the journalistic/musical credibility.

I happen to agree that RS "lists" are dubious as far as citations of notability, but I also agree that it makes no sense to make a reference and call it "dubious" at the same time, especially in the lead paragraph. What I'd suggest is that we move the RS "ranking" to the Trivia section, and try to come up with some neutral way to establish Clapton's notability and esteem in the ranks of guitarists. What say? Jgm 16:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Even if you move the the RS bit to trivia you still need to drop the word "dubious" as it's POV. See my remarks above. CambridgeBayWeather 16:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Let me take a shot at it and see what you think. Jgm 16:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clapton Redirect

If you visit the Clapton page, you're automatically redirected to the page about Upper Clapton. I'd be willing to bet that more people would be looking for this page than that one, but it seems to be not worth making a disambig page for only 2 subjects. Any thoughts? - MightyMoose22 07:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I disambiguated it.There's nothing inherently wrong with a two-subject disambig, though I added Lower Clapton as well. Deltabeignet 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. - MightyMoose22 08:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Waters

Didn't he play for Roger Waters on tour in the late '80s? Or maybe Roger Waters played for him but I don't see him in the band section. Then again maybe I'm completely wrong but I remember it from somewhere.

Clapton played for Waters on a tour, but this does not constitute joining his band. The 'band members' section is more for permanent (or intended long term) members such as his touring band; not guest spots, session work, etc. - Slow Graffiti 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfectionist

One thing that doesn't come out in the article is Clapton's perfectionism and resulting modesty about his own musicianship. The nickname "Slowhand" was propagated by Clapton himself. Some of the album titles like "Journeyman" and "Reptile" seem to be slightly taking the piss out of himself. I heard a radio interview where he said that he made so many mistakes on the Unplugged session that he didn't want the album to be released and that, in any case, only a few devotees would buy it. (At the time of the interview it had sold 15 million copies.) This all fits with his extreme discomfort with superstar status and the "Clapton is God" era. Bluewave 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe both were involved with the Countryside Alliance bashes at Highclere Castle too.

[edit] Main image

Since the main image will soon be deleted due to copyright problems, I thought I should try to find a new one. I really like http://www.drjazz.ch/album/bilder/CLAPTON31.JPG even though it is B&W. I know we have Image:Eclapton cardiff.jpg, but honestly, it doesn't look very flattering, and you can't really see his face well. I contacted the site's webmaster seeking permission, I hope we get it. Just thought I'd throw this out here so everyone knows. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I got permission, it's now at Image:Clapton.jpg and I've updated the main article with it. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please change the main picture to something else? Any other alternatives? - himurakenshin

[edit] Vaughan Helicopter

I have read from numerous online sources that it was Jimmie Vaughan that surrendered his seat to Stevie Ray Vaughan on the ill fated helicopter. I edited the Clapton page to this effect, but the changes have been deleted. Hopefully the 'deleter' can provide some evidence to support his assertion?

Can you provide sources to support yours? -Greg Asche (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's between the Vaughans and has little to do with Clapton. You can list 73 people who passed up that seat if you want to, but the only bit that's relevant to this article about Clapton is that he was one of them. - MightyMoose22 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In Clapton's autobio it does not mention Jimmie giving up a seat for Stevie. However, Clapton's PR guy went doen in that crash, leading many reports that Clapton was aboard.97.66.74.106 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Kitten b

[edit] British Canadian

The article describes him as British/Canadian. I know he had a Canadian father (whom he never met) but, to me, "British/Canadian" implies that he has dual nationality: AFAIK that is not the case. Bluewave 16:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is wrong with voting on Enoch Powell?

I don't think that comments against massive immigration and encouraging to vote on Enoch Powell are "ill-advised". And that is what is written in the article. I understand that some people might dislike him, but to be fair you can't make comments like that. Ask French or Dutch what they think about massive immigration now...

Brief reply

  • In England, we don't vote "on" people. We vote for or against them. Whether the French or Dutch like immigration in 2006 is nothing to do with what Enoch Powell and Eric Clapton said in 1968 and 1976. The contemporary situation should not be used to justify things done long ago. Your remarks make it look as the the historical record is being moulded to suit your current political opinions.
I must say that I am not entirely happy with Clapton being defined such. Forgetting Powell for a second, nothing Clapton could seriously be construed as racist; the man said that the country could become overcrowded... just how is that racist? Also; if we are going to be pedantic... I don't believe you can "vote against" candidates either!!--Zoso Jade 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think a dispute if Enoch Powell is racist or not, and if somebody who supports / favors him over other is as well, isn't really the main purpose of the Clapton page. However, the wording in the article does not say it is wrong to vote for Enoch Powell, but that at the time it was controversial, which it undoubtedly was. Poeloq 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone verify?

Once while playing a Cream concert, he suddenly stopped playing, and neither Ginger Baker nor Jack Bruce noticed.

That quote although being on the page for a long time seems to be inaccurate or strangely put especially for a trivia page. In most bands people notice if the lead guitarist stops playing especially in a three a man band and when your guitarist is Eric Clapton. I think it just might be very well disguised vandalism to discredit Clapton but if someone can back it up then fine I'll go along with it. -- Patman2648 15:47 1 February 2006


Taken from the presentation booklet included with Those Were The Days (page 28)...

"The last year became extremely painful for me," offers Baker. "When we first went out, Eric and Jack had one Marshall speaker cabinet each. Then it became a stack, then a double stack, and finally a triple stack. I was the poor bastard stuck in the middle of these incredible noise making things. Finally they started to mike my drums because people were coming up to me and saying that the only time they heard my drums was during the solo. It was ridiculous. I used to get back to the hotel and my ears were roaring. That one year damaged my hearing. The incredible volume was one of the things which destroyed Cream. Playing that loud had nothing to do with the music. There was, in fact, one gig where Eric and I stopped playing for two choruses. Jack didn't even know. Standing in front of his triple stack of Marshalls, he was making so much noise that he couldn't tell if we were playing or not."

- MightyMoose22 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it when nice and friendly wikipedians like you leave a comment or answer to a question on a talk page, half the time I'll put something down and wait months for a random guy to come along and say "hmmn, I don't know." Thanks again Patman2648 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have that problem too, eh? Probably most of us who bother to ask unusual questions strike that from time to time. You're never alone in Wikipedia. JackofOz 05:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we're all in the same boat when it comes to that, and it's true, you are never alone when you're in a boat with more than 850,000 other Wikipedians. :) - MightyMoose22 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles

I seem to recall that he is the only musician to contribute a major instrumental section to a Beatles album... Can someone confirm? SteelyDave 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


There are several others: Billy Preston on various songs, George Martin's piano through Rubber Soul, Chris Thomas' harpsichord on "Piggies," etc.

[edit] "Damage" to career by political views

I have edited the start of the "Controversy & Tragedy" section which stated that Clapton's career suffered "damage" from his remarks on UK immigration as I have not seen any evidence of this "damage". Did people stop buying his records or attending his concerts? Did he find it difficult to get work in the UK? Did other artists criticise him personally? --Thoughtcat 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too negative for such a "god"?

Nothing about Clapton being a pederast? Maybe a little NPOV. --24.131.209.132 02:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because he isn't and never has been? You should either withdraw this allegation immediately or provide concrete evidence for your suspicions. --Thoughtcat 07:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently added picture

Does anyone else feel that the leading picture doesn't accurately represent Clapton? -- Krash (Talk) 14:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of any of the pictures currently in the article. I mean, they're nice pictures and I'm not saying they shouldn't be included in the article somewhere, but I feel the main image should be one of Clapton with beard circa 1970s/80s, as seen in the artwork for his eponymous album & August and in Tommy. I think it's his most recognisable/iconic look. It's how I always picture him, at least. - MightyMoose22 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with all of that. I would suggest using the August picture as the main image, however it's rather small and the resolution is bad. And you're quite right; that is really his iconic look. I'm not an expert on finding fair-use/public-domain images so I'm really only in a position to contribute opinions at this point. -- Krash (Talk) 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. But that's what talk pages are for. ;) - MightyMoose22 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, when I added the picture I was thinking a similar thing. You must admit it is an awfully cool picture of Clapton with his SG and little afro. I'm up for moving that down and replacing that Cream album image with that one, and finding a a big version of the August album (or something of similar nature) and placing it as the main image. Hacmid

Not bad. Though his hand's kind of obscuring his face. Everyone's a critic. Any information on the date of that picture? -- Krash (Talk) 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an older picture would be best, one during the sixties or seventies especially from 68-71 when he was probably most popular or most prominent in culture, I'll see if I can put up an older picture up since we've clearly reached a concensus here that an older picture not a new one would be best. - Patman2648 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Band Members

I know the list of his band members is incomplete, so I'll try to help. Anyone know who is in this clip? I know there's Nathan East, Steve Gadd, Andy Low, as well as Niles and Kisson I think, and perhaps Phillinganes. But what about the bloke with the saxophone and the other keyboard player? Thanks. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The sax player is the famous David Sanborn! Phillinganes was not there; the keyboardists were Tim Carmon and Dave Delhomme.
The clip is taken from the concert Clapton put together for the Crossroads Centre following his first major guitar auction (released as Eric Clapton & Friends In Concert: A Benefit For The Crossroads Centre At Antigua). Other guests that night included Mary J. Blige, Bob Dylan (on Crossroads and Don't Think Twice, It's Alright), and Sheryl Crow (on Little Wing among others). - Slow Graffiti 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize the point of your asking when I commented earlier (that it's about the 'Band Members' list of the article). This concert was a one-off fundraising/celebration sort of thing, so the musicians here shouldn't necessarily be included in Clapton's 'band members' list. [Not that you implied such, but...] If we did include them, we'd have to include the slew of other musicians he shared a stage with at one point or another.
I don't know anything else about the two keyboards (Carmon and Delhomme) from that night. I'll comb through other Clapton credits to see if they've played with him at other gigs. - Slow Graffiti 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pages are needed for George Terry & Jamie Oldaker. These were long-time '70s band members. I can start a stub. I removed Jim Price & Bobby Keys. These were session players and never in EC's band. Vytal 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did stubs for George Terry and Jamie Oldakeer. Need to do one for Dick Sims. Removed Jack Johnson.

Vytal 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Still need articles for Alan Darby, Dick Sims & Ricky Lawson Vytal 05:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Added article for Tim Carmon. Vytal 04:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layla live

The article currently states:

"Because the electric version is difficult to coordinate live (it requires the use of a piano), Clapton will frequently play the acoustic version of "Layla". However, Clapton did play an electric version of the song at Live Aid in 1985; instead of a piano, an electronic keyboard was used."

This statement is incorrect. There was no 'acoustic version' of Layla until the MTV Unplugged performance. Clapton was hesitant to play Layla live, but only for the first part of the Derek & the Dominos tour. His hesitation was not because it required a piano - Bobby Whitlock had a piano onstage, and Clapton continued to have a keyboardist at most live gigs for the rest of his career. The hesitation was about being able to sing the chorus while playing the famous guitar riff (as he was the only guitarist in the band).
He soon learned to do this, and the song was played 'electric' on most of the tours since (unless it was left off the setlist altogether). It was also played in full (electric guitars, piano outro) at his comeback Rainbow Concert. On the '70s solo tours, the song was usually stopped prior to the piano-led outro - maybe because his keyboardist usually stuck to organ, or to shorten the length of the song in the live setting. It was a long song by Clapton's studio standards (7 minutes), and Clapton was already spending much of the night stretching out many blues songs; perhaps he didn't want to overdo it.
On his more recent tours, the song has been played 'electric' complete with piano outro. I plan on removing the above statement soon. Input is welcome. - Slow Graffiti 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the current comment is totally inaccurate. As if a musician like Clapton with the sort if bands he commands would be unable to play a song because it requires the use of - shock horror! - a piano!! Is there also any evidence that he "frequently" plays the acoustic version? He may in fact not play either electric or acoustic versions very often these days, especially as he does more concerts that are blues- rather than greatest-hits-based. --Thoughtcat 11:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"because it requires the use of - shock horror! - a piano!!"
Heh...my thoughts exactly. Thanks. I'll remove the statement now. Slow Graffiti 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article if well cited

If this article were to put in citations (far more than it does now), I can easily see it becoming a featured article. Unfortunately, I don't see a single in-line citation... Nrbelex (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed that. There are no citations at all. It is well written, and a fun article. I might go through and look for places where citations are needed, but I have no time to go around finding them. Djarnum1 (Talk)

I wrote from Clapton's Early Days all the way to Full Throttle Career so I might be able to find the sources I used but I wrote it in Sept. 2005, 8 months ago and most of the information was just from my own knowledge which was all factually based and is verifiable which prevents the material from being from Wikipedia:No Original Research. I'll look into the materials I used or just re-write parts of it that could be linked to sources but keep bulk of the info. Interesting note, the song Layla by Clapton when in D&Ds was a featured article back on October 23 so Clapton does have a featured article history. Cheers - Patman2648 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit wars

What's been going on today (and yesterday)? Through all the pedantic semantics we're losing some good information.

  1. The racism issue - It's not such an important part of Clapton's career that it should be in the opening section. One could argue that it doesn't need mentioning since it has it's own section, except that the section has now been completely wiped off the face of the article due to "content lacking proper citations". Okay, fine, so give it a {{Fact}} tag, don't just delete it. It's interesting stuff that deserves to be here, just not in the leading paragraph.
  2. Clapton the busker: part I - The bit about Clapton being a busker in his youth was deleted due to it being lifted straight from Cream's official website. Fair enough, copyvios should not be tolerated. However, maybe try copyediting so the info stays in a more wiki friendly way?
  3. Clapton the busker: part II - Just after this copyvio was deleted, Category:Buskers was also removed due to "no proper citation" again. Now, the source of this info was made known in the last edit, and as sources go, I reckon Cream's official site is a pretty damned reputable one. True, it wasn't cited properly, but why not take initiative and put 2 and 2 together so that it is, rather than just deleting recklessly. How feasible is it to add a citation to a category, anyway?

Is this the way we're running things now? Are we going to start deleting everything that's not written up perfectly? What about grammar/spelling mistakes and general typos? How about we stop to think about what we're deleting and why we're deleting it. A lot of it can be just as easily fixed.
In case you're wondering, the reason why I'm just bitching on here instead of just editing the article myself is that the way things are going today, I fear I'll just be reverted anyway. - MightyMoose22 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Many people do believe that what you call "the racism isssue" is an important aspect of Clapton's career. Personally, I think (a) that it is important enough to go in the intro where it fits neatly and (b) that the persistent denial of the seriousness of this is a peculiar residual feature of the "Clapton is God" scenario. So what if he has clay feet. Doesn't that make him more interesting? (c) This issue is especially important since he repeated these remarks all over again in his big (May 2004) interview with the magazine UNCUT.
Clapton's consistent refusal to apologise for his comments undermines the idea that this is just an issue of alcoholic juvenalia. His attachment to the legacy and vision of Enoch Powell is an important cultural and political component of his larger view of the world and of the outlook of the class to which he belonged as a young man. How a person can hold those views while wanting to be Jimi, loving Freddie, Albert and BB as well as "pimping" the blues and reggae is a deep and significant question that delivers us to the heart of his personality. I admire him greatly and have for nearly forty years but there's no point pretending that these things aren't a significant part of his legacy. After all Rock Against Racism changed Britain decisively and for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Guitar (talk • contribs)

Sorry I did not sign my comment. I am new to this process. Blue Guitar

Clapton's drunken comments are an interesting tidbit but hardly notable enough for the lead section. It does not convey the full story and leaves a reader with the wrong conclusions simply by having it as a single sentence. Inclusion in the article is fine but it should tell the whole, correct, story. Clapton made a drunken comment in 1976 about immigration. He issued an apology a few days later. He does not retract the sentiment for his comments...that England sells itself as the "land of milk and honey" only to turn around and stick it's invited immigrants into low paying labour jobs, living in substandard conditions...something he feels is very sad and wrong. He is not a racist yet the single line entry in the lead section appears to portray him as such. His best friends include B.B King and Robert Cray. His own backing band, who have been with him for years, can attest to his credibility also. As a balanced, cited part of the article is not in question. As a misleading blurb in the lead section most certainly is. 216.21.150.44 12:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no apology either at the time or subsequently. There have been a few dubious statements that purport to provide an explanation and As I pointed out a degree of repetition. That is not the same thing as an apology. I certainly did not say that Clapton was a racist. I said his views were extreme on the subjects of race and immigration. The Enoch Powell connection substantiates that statement. It is more interesting to me that in the guise of conveying the "full story" you wish to minimise this episode or have it removed from the historical record simply because you find it to be inconvenient. Blue Guitar

I've adeded a {{fact}} tag to the last sentence of the first paragraph. The structure of the sentence is unclear. First of all what sort of extreme views does he hold? Second the sentence makes it seem as if he is dead. The sentence needs rewriting and if true then it needs its own section with an explanation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
"It is more interesting to me that in the guise of conveying the "full story" you wish to minimise this episode or have it removed from the historical record" - Nobody's saying that. In fact, my original point was that a full section that was 2 paragraphs long in the article body was deleted. What I'm saying is that it should be there, in it's own section, where we can go into as much detail as the subject requires.
The lead section, however, is meant to serve as a brief introduction to the subject (i.e. Clapton) made with the assumption that the reader is entirely unfamiliar with him or his work. Imagine you're given twenty seconds to outline his life and career, what would you say? "He's a famous and well respected guitarist. He's also a successful songwriter, which has earned him a CBE, a few Grammys and induction to the Hall Of Fame. Whilst mostly blues influenced, he doesn't stick to one specific musical style. He's currently still active, and he made a comment about immigration 30 years ago, but I'm not telling you what he said." I'm sorry, but I don't believe that should be there. Could you at least refrain from reposting it at least until we resolve this issue? Thanks. - MightyMoose22 23:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I will not repost my contributions yet but this all seems very weird to me. You say "what were the details?" but when I post sources you remove them. When you say "what were EC's controversial views?" all you manifest is your own disabling ignorance. It's a shame that an entry essentially about EC the musician cannot be allowed to accomodate relevant information on EC the man. If he is still talking defensively about all this nearly thirty years after it all started how come none of you, the self-appointed wiki "guardians" of his career and memory can see the relevance of this matter? Blue Guitar
Okay, first of all, calm down. Bandying insults and "sarcasm" around will not win you any friends in this place, except maybe a couple of trolls. The "guardians" of this article have been more than patient with you, always assuming good faith and trying to be helpful. On most other pages you would've most likely been branded a vandal and blocked from editing several times by now. Secondly, as myself and many others have stated already, the information you are trying to add is already in the article, in greater deatil, in it's own section. I suggest you take a break to clear your head, re-read the whole article (as well as the comments on here), have a look at some other bio pages, thumb through the help guides, talk to a few other wikipedians and come back in a week or two when you're absolutely sure what it is that you're arguing. MightyMoose22 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not patronise me. Enoch Powell was expelled from the British Conservative government after the remarks that Clapton quoted with approval. This was done because his views and the way that they were articulated were judged to be inflamatory. That is all a matter of public record. I am sure it makes no difference to you but the minority communities in England were also incensed by Clapton's remarks which were described by CLR James the philosopher--perhaps the greatest black intellectual of the twentieth century--as an example of "pure unalloyed evil". Again this is a matter of public record. A new documentary film about the history of Rock Against Racism has been produced in the UK recently. Once again, the whole history of this episode is back in the public eye and it will be discussed again when the Clapton autobiography appears next year. If these issues cannot be accomodated here and are peremptorily dismissed, you risk the credibility of this entry and indeed of Wikipedia itself. Blue Guitar
Please don't try to dictate to me the sentiments behind my own comments. Now, you have been told no less than five times in the edit summaries of Patman2648 & Anger22 on May 25th & 26th, and I have said it a further three times in this discussion, but I'll say it once more before giving up - the information you're trying to add is already there, in further detail, in it's own section. If you feel this section is inadequate, by all means add to it. MightyMoose22 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
OK having the section looks much better than the single unexplained sentence. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
As one of the early editors of this topic before an edit war started, I agree with what you say and my edits that I did way back when backs that up. The controversial section deserves to be incorporated just not in the intro which is exactly what I did and I did remove blatant copyvio because that of course can't be tolerated as you stated, following wikipedia:copyvio regulations, a speedy deletion of the information is suggested and possible other choices below would have been fine with me:
  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own.
  • Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
  • Ask for permission - see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission
I additionally spent the extra time to aware the editor that such plagiarism is not accepted at wikipedia and inform on policies because I don't like letting newer editors believe that they can simlpy copy and paste large portions, run off and expect someone to reword and cite or ask for permission. Also, the buskers category should be kept as stated and thank you for trying to calm down the edit war and resolve the conflict. The article now in those sections are fine and hopefully with stay that way with everyone keeping calm if any problems arise with a renewal of an edit war, you have my full support. Thanks very much and Best of luck in the future. - Patman2648 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. As you may have noticed, I have already fixed two of the things I was bitching about earlier. I also plan to write up a bit about Eric's busking to replace the deleted copyvio as soon as I can muster the energy, but if anyone else feels like sparing me the hassle, I really don't mind. :) MightyMoose22 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Mayall AND THE Bluesbreakers?

Since when? It's "John Mayall's Bluesbreakers".Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen both used. I think they can be used interchangably; it's still the same group. Cubs Fan 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Racist' remarks not actually 'repeated in Uncut 2004' and citations needed for others

I have removed the passage:

He has recently repeated the remarks in an interview for UNCUT magazine in 2004

because the only 2004 Clapton Uncut interview I could find on the net is hereand he does not make any such comments. It is purely an interview about music.

I also have requested sources and citations for the other remarks about Britain being a "black colony" etc. --Thoughtcat 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

According to User:Blue Guitar (up there), "he repeated these remarks all over again in his big (May 2004) interview with the magazine UNCUT." If anyone (anyone else) has this particular issue and can either confirm or deny this, please do. MightyMoose22 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the actual magazine UNCUT you will see the remarks repeated. The online piece that you found does not include the full version of the interview which was much, much longer than the online extract. You may be surprised to learn that the online version being free, is actually an inducement to go and purchase the paper version. (Blue Guitar)

BlueGuitar, your attitude does you no favours. Instead of being sarcastic why not just quote the relevant passage from the copy of Uncut you have so we can see what EC actually said? It's incumbent on you to back up your statements, not for other people to do so.
The aside "(along with other ill-advised remarks by David Bowie)" is also risible. Wikipedia's Bowie page does not attribute any "racist" remarks to him - it just mentions that silly so-called nazi salute, which Bowie later attributed to being under the influence of drugs. It also says exactly the same thing about Clapton that this article says about Bowie, i.e. "along with other ill-advised remarks by Eric Clapton". --Thoughtcat 08:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your response doesn't sound much like the presumption of good faith by which we're all supposed to operate. I think you'll find that Bowie said that Britain needed a Fascist dictatorship. That was hardly a well-advised remark given the historical context. I was not the author of the passage you quote but I'd certainly defend it. It is clear that, against the much vaunted spirit of this collective effort, you wish to santize Clapton's life and purge it of any political significance. I do not want to make this element appear out of proportion to his musical gifts and achievements but it is an important and necessary element in the way that his career developed and the way it has been judged by the world. I wrote originally that his remarks were remembered in England. I cannnot for the life of me see why this causes you such a problem. It opens the door after all to the idea that the "meaning" of Clapton's life and music might vary according to where one is in the world, and perish the thought where one stands politically. Some people here think that anti-immigrant ranting is acceptable. I do not. In the light of that disagreement surely the idea that it is contoversial is a reasonable solution? Let me add one thing. I sat through his racist rant thirty years ago. Nothing you say can take that painful and unpleasant memory away from me. When he repeated those remarks two years ago I was deeply shocked. It will be interesting to see what happens when his autobiography comes out and he shows himself to be a good deal less politically squeamish than his misguided fan club here. (Blue Guitar)

The fact that you've chosen to reply with a rant of your own about fellow Wikipedians instead of quoting the relevant passage from the interview as requested shows how much of this "good faith" you've got. You have made some ridiculous assumptions. I have no wish to "sanitise" Eric Clapton - as it happens I am the author of the paragraph questioning whether adding black musicians to his band was prompted by political correctness (for the record I don't believe it was, but it's worth thinking about in the context). I resent your implication that I feel "anti-immigrant ranting is acceptable". I certainly do not, either here or anywhere else. All I want to do is get the facts right and ensure claims are attributed correctly. The first time I'd heard about the Uncut thing was when I read this article, not from Uncut itself. Like you I would be extremely disappointed and saddened if it turned out that Clapton had recently reiterated his original remarks but I have yet to see this claim backed up, and my only recollection of any latterday comments he'd made about those remarks was from the 1985 Q interview which I mention in the "Controversy" section - hence the edits.
As for Bowie, this is veering into an area which should actually be discussed on the Bowie page, but your claim that he said Britain "needed a Fascist dictatorship" is again not backed up by anything currently on the Bowie page or anything I've ever read (I'm not a Bowie fan, but still). You can't go round making wild claims and expect people not to object when you don't back them up. --Thoughtcat 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)#
Okay, I have now obtained a copy of the relevant issue of Uncut (May 2004) from eBay. I do now concede that the printed article is several thousand words longer than the one displayed on the official Uncut site (ironic name for a magazine, then). The interview covers all of Clapton's career from the early days up to the release of the Me and Mr Johnson album, which had just come out. In the middle of the interview is a separate boxed section headlined "There's no way I could be a racist" addressing "the night EC voiced support for Enoch Powell". This dates the original remarks to 5th August 1976 and is summarised thus:

'Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight?' he asked after the first song. 'If so, please put up your hands... I think we should vote for Enoch Powell.' He then proceeded to make a series of inflammatory remarks about race relations, ending with a plea for Britain to 'stop becoming a colony'.

Note that the article does not quote Clapton as referring to "a black colony" as is currently the case in our article; whoever added the word "black" should substantiate this addition.
The article describes the remarks as "an appalling gaffe, on a par with Siouxsie Sioux's swastika and David Bowie's Nazi salute... the pages of Melody Maker were filled with letters of protest, which led to the formation of Rock Against Racism." It says Clapton wrote to Melody Maker at the time to attribute his comments to the fact that he'd "had a few [to drink]" and that before going on stage "one foreigner had pinched my missus's bum". So it seems he was trying to make it out to be the drink talking right from the start, not just in the later Q interviews.
The article then goes on as follows:

More than a quarter of a century on, does he have any regrets about what he said? It seems not. "Yes, it was booze talk," he concedes. But it was a lot more than that, too, as he proceeds to make clear. "It was fuelled by an outrage at what was happening to London with all the Saudi Arabians buying up the West End. And that connected with what Enoch was saying about how our immigration policies had failed. Also, I'd been to Jamaica and seen all of these adverts saying, 'Come to England for a bright, shiny future.' But I knew when they got there, they'd sit at Heathrow and be interrogated and the best they could expect was to be a bus conductor or to work on the London Underground. So I thought this guy Powell was making sense and we were doing something really corrupt in the way we were inviting people in under false premises. There was something about him that I thought was outrageously brave. He was doing what he thought was the best thing for the country. He got shot down for it. But he spoke from the heart and I recognised that."
But does Clapton still agree with what he said?
"My feeling about this hasn't changed, really. We've always been up to some funny business in this country, inviting people in as cheap labour and then putting them in ghettoes. There's been a lot of racial trouble here. But obviously there's no way I could be a racist. It just wouldn't make any sense. But I do have funny feelings politically about the double standards that have always gone on. And he was one man who recognised that and took a real risk in saying something about it."

It is clear from this that Clapton's views on UK immigration are, according to him, borne of a concern for the welfare of immigrants themselves and a mistrust of the way that Caribbean people have been encouraged to come to the UK. No matter what spin anyone personally might want to put on any of these remarks, this is Clapton's argument and therefore it is this which is important, not how those remarks may be interpreted.
Elsewhere in the main article the interviewer asks Clapton about the Crossroads centre he set up in Antigua in the '90s for recovering drug addicts, and he comments:

"The idea was that it would be for Caribbean people, which again proves I can't be a racist... We marketed the centre in America and Europe to fund it and we kept one third of the beds for Caribbean people who couldn't pay. Most of the people in there are now local people, and we've also built a halfway house."

Our article currently says "To counterbalance claims of racism supporters often cite that in the late 1980s Clapton had four black musicians to his band" (and went out with Naomi Campbell, lived in Antigua etc). Rightly or wrongly, I started this paragraph, if anything, to raise the question of whether the additions of "non-caucasians" to his band were politically motivated, but the "supporters often cite" addition by others has actually turned this round the other way. The article should not be about what "supporters" think or feel about Clapton's remarks, it should just be about the facts. This being the case I'd be happy for the whole paragraph to go now (being mistakenly added in the first place) but ironically the paragraph now reads like an extended list of bloody good reasons why it indeed "doesn't make any sense" to accuse Clapton of racism.
Incidentally, when trying to clear this whole thing up I Googled for "Clapton Uncut interview" and one of the results was a white supremacist talkboard in which subscribers approve highly of Clapton's comments, which I found infinitely more upsetting than the attitude of some Wikipedians. --Thoughtcat 15:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for the effort, and for spending your own time and money to try and clear this up to the extent that you have. It's these kind of efforts that make a truly great article. Thanks again.
As for the list of excuses, I think it's rather POV, myself. It's basically saying "Clapton might be considered racist because of this, but he's obviously not because of this, this, this and this." It's definately taking sides and displaying an unbalanced argument in Clapton's favour. I did clean it up a bit here, but it was not to be. I think it should stay, but be cleaned up and cut down a hell of a lot. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course what is truly and depressingly shocking about all this is that Thoughtcat is actually surprised that the Stormfront racist website developed a thread of enthusiastic Clapton support in response to the publication of Uncut article which according to you, did not include a repetition of the original remarks. They are correctly quoted above along with Clapton's saying that his feeling about this hasn't changed. How can that not be understood as a repetition?

The standard account of what happened that night is given by BBC journalist Robin Denselow [[2]] in his 1989 book "When The Music Stopped: The Story of Political Pop" (Faber) The Birmingham concert and its context are discussed on pages 138 and 139. Let me emphasise that Denselow is hardly a leftwing or PC source. He quotes Caryl Phillips a young man who was in the audience that night and went on to become a famous writer.

"'Clapton went into a rap about Enoch', Phillips remembers. 'His initial line was "Enoch's right - I think we should send them back." I don't think he said "nigger" he said "wogs". He definitely said, "Keep Britain White". Nobody cheered, but after he played another song, he did the same again. It was extraordinary - but he stood there being overtly offensive and racist. I was completely mystified as to why this man playing black music would behave this way."

Blue Guitar 18th July 2006

Blue Guitar, take it easy. Nobody wants a war over this. Your first comment on my edit was "If you look at the actual magazine UNCUT you will see the remarks repeated." This implied that Clapton sat in front of the interviewer who was talking to him about music and rattled off the same ill-advised claptrap that the Uncut piece quotes from the original concert, which he didn't. The magazine explicitly confronted him over the controversy and he explained what it was all about. Of course he says he doesn't "really" feel any differently now from how he did then but he does deny he's a racist and makes an effort to explain that the opinions came from a suspicion about the way Caribbean immigrants are encouraged by the UK to come here, which is a valid argument even if you don't agree with it, and there is a lot of difference between that and repeating the same unprovoked and out-of-context remarks, which is what your comment implied. Also I have to point out that my comment about the white supremacist organisation did not name them. As I abhor racism it never crossed my mind to give them the publicity by naming them here. Your doing so seems unnecessary under the circumstances. Anyway I hope that draws a line under this? --Thoughtcat 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your latest response encapsulates a familiar pattern of denial with regard to racism on this page. The white supremacists of Stormfront don't need any publicity here. My actions in naming them are irrelevant. Actually, they are probably more rational than you on this one because they can see exactly where Clapton stood, where he still stands and what it means for them, their horrible political project and the world. The issue is the connection that is so obvious that only your desire for a permanently heroic Clapton obscures your view of it. You'll see this very clearly when his autobiography comes out. In the meantime, when I re-write it gets taken out. When I cite respectable sources you can't handle they are ignored. From my point of view, this makes you complicit with Clapton saying "Keep Britain White" in the 1970s and then endorsing the same thing two years ago by saying that his views of this issue haven't changed and refusing any apology. The Uncut piece doesn't, as the Denselow source shows, quote the original statements accurately. It offers a paraphrase only. The gap between them just makes it easy for you and the rest of the apologists here to go on trying to keep your hero "whiter than white" which is presumably the way he likes it. No line drawn.

Blueguitar 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I give up as (a) you are clearly on a crusade and (b) you keep turning this into a personal thing. All my efforts here (commended by other users) have been to try to more accurately reflect what EC actually said in the Uncut interview. If you interpret those efforts as me being complicit with his remarks then that's your problem - I have never said I agreed with the remarks themselves. When are you going to be happy, when the EC article is categorised under "white supremacist blues musicians" or similar? (By the way, you say I was "surprised" to find those comments quoted on the racist website but if you read my comment above you'll see what I actually said was that I found their appearance there "upsetting".) The fact that your changes supposedly keep getting reverted is surely more to do with your unpleasant attitude and disproportionate responses than anything else. I have no doubt that either Denselow or Phillips are reliable sources but if your issue now is that Uncut didn't happen to ring either of those two up for a quote on the issue then you need to take it up with Uncut, not continue your diatribe here. --Thoughtcat 11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your loudly proclaimed abhorence of racism takes some very odd forms with regard to the saintly figure of Eric Clapton. All I would like to happen here is for an accurate account of Clapton's views to be represented among his other obvious musical achievements. Even that minimal acknowledgement of this unsavoury history seems to be too much for most folks here. The point about UNCUT is twofold: (a) The interview makes it clear that Clapton's views have not changed in the time since his racist comments were first delivered (b) the interview which is now heavily featured on this page, glosses or "spins" the earlier remarks rather than reporting them accurately. In other words he has, understandably enough, placed the most favourable construction of his original words on the record rather than recount the words themselves. UNCUT, unlike this page, presents that account as a paraphrase rather than a verbatim account of what was said. Clapton's actual words are as reported in the Denselow book. Clapton said "keep Britain white" and send the wogs back. These views are enough in my book to have him desribed--at that point anyway--as somebody with racist views. By saying his views have not changed and refusing to apologise for the offence that resulted, he is bringing them into the present where they can be used (I supposed you'd say abused) by white supremacists of the stormfront variety. If you can see all this but refuse to say anything about it, then I'm afraid that you do become complicit. Actually, "Thoughtcat" If you weren't surprised by Clapton's racist remarks being taken up by the likes of white supremacist Stormfront, then you must have known they were racist all along. So, why on earth do you object to the issue being properly aired here?

Blue Guitar 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Guitar, could you please explain to me how your latest opinion, "All impartial observers will find it obvious that he is a saintly man who accepts no racial hierarchies and has the interests of humanity as a whole at heart", is in any way, shape or form "acknowledgement of this unsavoury history"? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh my! I've suffered the ultimate criticism - having my username encased in speech marks. Clearly I need to get myself a better name, like, er, BlueGuitar. Anyway, we're clearly all missing the real issue here: can blue supremacists sing the whites? --Thoughtcat 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You sound defensive, childish and unserious. Whatis the problem here? Surely you´d want to deal with this propely given that you said above that you abhor racism. To a bystander in this spat it looks like you have a pretty odd way of showing it.


An article in last week's Observer newspaper includes a very different account of EC's Birmingham outburst than the one which is on this page. If we want it to look less like an apology for EC we should probably take a good look at that article.


[[3]]


[edit] Pattie Boyd

I can't find any reference to the fact that Pattie Boyd divorced Clapton once his drug problems resurfaced and he began having affairs. Nor that Clapton has since remarried. And this an FA?--Crestville 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It isn't.--Crestville 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That info on the Pattie Boyd divorce is carried over from the Pattie Boyd article where it gives a reference to a biography on her at the bottom so you can assume good faith that it was taken from that book but there is no direct referencing on that point.
For the info on Clapton remarrying, that can be foundhere and it goes on to talk about his new young daughters with the woman. Also their names and birth info can be found here
It's not a featured article and most likely won't until it has around 30 citations and even then there's so much competition, just look at wikipedia: featured article candidates and you'll see how difficult it would be. The pluses for the article are its nice length, mostly NPOV with few exceptions and its generally well copy edited but the article needs work. Best of luck and assume good faith! - Patman2648 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Illegitimate son"

"Eric Clapton was born in Ripley, Surrey, England as the illegitimate son of 16-year-old Patricia Molly Clapton and Edward Walter Fryer..." How do you modernise that?

I'm not sure, perhaps by using the term "out of wedlock"? PerDaniel 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Or, it you want to go by the original definition of the the word "bastard".

Illegitimate is the polite word in current British English usage - it seems the best word to use here. Out of wedlock is more "pleasant" but archaic. Bastard is concise and accurate but, sadly, extremely offensive because of its other uses.

Really? Illegitimate is no longer polite here in the US. But, anyway, it's been changed to "unwed parents" which I think is accurate without being offensive or awkward. 71.234.195.253 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

why is it mentioned at all? who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Search for his father

I understood that finding the identity of his father was very important and that it was only quite recently that Clapton had tracked him down...and discovered a Canadian half-sister. A newspaper account said something to the effect that Clapton was delighted to discover that his father had been a womanising musician. I couldn't find anything about this in the article: anyone have any details? Bluewave 11:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an article here by the journalist who first identified Clapton's father - undated, but the reference to Pilgrim puts it in 1998. --Thoughtcat 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cream Record Sales

PBS http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/shows/cream/ states record sales of 35 million not 15 million, as stated in this article.

Thanks for researching that, I originally put in the 15 million because I got it from a Rolling Stone article but the 35 is also well documented so either one is acceptable. - Patman2648 07:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "prepubescent" or "young"?

The girl on the cover of the album "Blind Faith" is described as "prepubescent" in this article. I do not think that this correct, as the girl clearly has breasts, and therefore has entered puberty. In the article about Blind Faith she is described as "young" which I think is much better. PerDaniel 16:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix up, I wrote both the Blind Faith section on the Clapton page first and used prepubescent because that was the word that the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll gave but then later on when I wrote the Blind Faith article I tried to vary up the info from this one with new info and changed some sentences around to avoid duplicates. But anyways the original Rolling Stone article writes: "It's jacket, featuring a prepubescent nude girl, was deemed controversial in the U.S. and ...." Either way, prepubescent or young girl is fine with me, I just wanted to clarify the situation. Thanks - Patman2648 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

The talk page is getting too long. Maybe it should be archived. --69.67.234.72

[edit] Universities

I have removed EC from the alumni of the universities of Kingston and Westminster. He studied stained glass window designing briefly at Kingston technical college in the early 60s but that was years before it became a university, and he never took a degree in that or any subject as far as I'm aware. I've also never heard of him attending the University of Westminster. In any case there is no mention anywhere in the article that he attended either institution. --Thoughtcat 09:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An alumnus is specifically a former student, not a graduate, so the Kingston reference is probably tenable - I looked at that before. I don't think it's important, though. -- Ian Dalziel 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I emailed Kingston University's alumni department and got a reply on 11th December 2005 from Anita Gupta, Media & PR Manager, saying the following: "I've checked our records because we did have a similar inquiry a couple of years ago when a local paper thought Eric Clapton had failed or was thrown off his course. This was not, in fact, the case. Eric Clapton completed a one-year foundation art course in 1962 at the Kingston College of Art, one of the forerunners to Kingston Polytechnic (which then became Kingston University in 1992). He did not go on to undertake an art degree at Kingston. I'm not sure where the stained glass window design came from but on a foundation art course, students do experience a number of different art techniques." Article updated accordingly. --Thoughtcat 09:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture

Okay that does him no justice as a guitarist, use a picture from the early seventies please.

[edit] Good article Review of GA status

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason why article was delisted as GA

[edit] Eric Clapton

result:Delist 4-1

Badly fails criteria 2a: only 3 inline cites in the entire article excluding the trivia section that should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. In September '06, a user posted a message on the page saying that the article needed to be cited, but apparently didn't return. Also, the lead is pretty short considering he's one of the most influential guitarists of all time, too many EL's that don't link to official sites, and a pair of images lack fair use rationales [4] [5]. Teemu08 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though the second image does cite the source at least. Delist. Homestarmy 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Insufficient citations - delist. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delist as per above. Tarret 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's certainly well-written, but the lack of citations in the main article is cause for a delist. --Wizardman 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist Trivia section, heaps of one sentence 'paragraphs' lead should be 3 paragraphs, lack of citations and some aren't formatted properly, dates aren't formatted properly. This article is at FAC at the moment and has 7 objects ;\. M3tal H3ad 08:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RE-EVALUTE ARTICLE I have personally added over 20 citations since the last review and will continually be adding more (it now has over 30 citations) and the images have all been given fair use rationale or have the proper copyright tags. Please don't remove because my recent work negates most of these complaints and it should be re-judged. Thank you so much. - Patman2648 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's look at a small example of how the article is written: "Although Cream was hailed as one of the greatest groups of its day, and the adulation of Clapton as guitar hero reached new heights, the band was destined to be short-lived.". Hailed by whom, adulated by whom, where is the cite for the vast consensus of sources referring to him a "guitar hero" specifically, (as that would be the only likely justification for this POV) what does "new heights" mean in encyclopedic terms, and why is the word destined used when a more neutral and less dramatic word could be used? I maintain my delist vote, the area of the article this one sentence is in has large problems with WP:WEASEL like this and dramatic language. Homestarmy 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe you're serious. Cream WAS hailed as one of the greatest bands of its day, Clapton WAS hailed as a "guitar hero", and we now know the band WAS destined to be short-lived. What sort of proof do you want - the names of all the people who bought the records and went to the concerts? As for "destined" being "dramatic language", you need to get out more, old bean! --Thoughtcat 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you de-list content like the above, you will loose important information. Cream has been talked about in those terms for decades. They were considered by many to be the first "Supergroup" - 3 top musicians, in their prime, joining together to form a new band - at a time when music was really important (people spent their spare money on records rather than computer games, LCD TVs, foreign holidays & fast food). I personally don't care for their music but I appreciate their influence and impact, which apparently some don't. Eddie Van Halen credits cream with being a major influence on him in a tutorial article in the American Guitar Player magazine - the article is currently re-published as the first section in one of the Guitar Player magazine tutorial books. I will hunt around to see if I can find it. Jimmy Page sometimes talks of Eric's influence on him too (he was present at the recording of the Beano album), perhaps somebody can provide some quotes for him? Surely has some figures on album sales of Cream at the time too? Or perhaps quotes from the footage of them playing live at the Albert Hall (was this Old Grey Whistle Test or a special for "Rock Goes to College"?)

Some editors have been way to fast to de-list entries -- I've had two entries removed while I was typing the reference sources in below!

[edit] John Mayer

Is it just me, or does the mention of Clapton's collaboration with John Mayer reek of ass-kissing? Not Mayer kissing Clapton's ass, but a Mayer fan sucking up to Mayer: "Sounds as if it could have been written by Clapton himself." Seems excessive. I know this isn't really the place for it, but John Mayer isn't even close to being on the plane that Clapton is. He's a good guitarist, probably one of the best to surface in recent years, but his music is positively boring. I don't think the article should sound like an over-excited bubblegum-pop fan penned it hoping that John Mayer would read it someday. -Notahippie76

I'm brand-new to Wikipedia, and due to that fact, I am not ready to perform the edit myself to a sentence that is obviously in error on the Eric Clapton page, in the section 'Clapton's Early Years.'

It is obviously in error, and possibly "nonsense" to state that Clapton was "...trying to emulate exactly black blues musicians such as Big Bill Broonzy, Lionel Hampton, and Stan Kenton."

While I think it is correct to state the influence of Broonzy; Lionel Hampton was, even according to Wikipedia, a great innovator and lifelong jazz vibraphonist. He was also very proficient on the drum set. While Stan Kenton was highly original, he was neither a black nor a blues musician, but composed and perfomed on piano in the world of highly modernistic big band jazz, with a particular emphasis on complex harmony and Afro-Cuban rhythms.

While blues is a direct ancestor of the jazz form that has had a seminal influence on jazz; and been absorbed or is sometimes incorporated whole and performed alongside more complex or modern jazz, no one with the barest knowledge of these two innovative pioneers would be so completely mistaken as to regard either Kenton or Hampton as more than incidentally or occasionally a bluesman.

A cursory look at the back issues of Downbeat magazine would prove as much, but I don't have the pertinent issues at hand.

Absolutely right to comment that Lionel Hampton and Stan Kenton weren't bluesmen, and that Kenton wasn't even black. I read an interview with Clapton in downbeat where he said he was influenced by Thelonious Monk and (I think) Charlie Parker, but not having the mag to hand I can't cite it. I don't know where that Hampton/Kenton thing is coming from. It should be deleted and replaced with a sourced reference to who exactly Clapton was trying to copy when he started playing. Lexo 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Somebody is contributing and editing this entry to deliberately portray EC as a rascist. That person is also one of the few contributors that seems to make claims without proper references: "citation needed" -- well if you don't have them, don't make the claim.

While I find it plausible that EC expressed some or all of the sentiments mentioned, he is like us all, a product of our times and surroundings. However, I do not find it plausible that EC is a rascist. Even if he was, that is his perogative. However, I believe EC loves black people and has a huge sympathy for their historic plight - perhaps because of his own humble beginning and pain. His heros, influences and art form are entirely, or almost all, "African American". He has gone to great length to promote the blues and to include his heros. B.B. King has said as much on several occasions. I find this politically slanted, preachy, politically correct, editing reminiscent of the Soviet Polit Bureau totalaterism.

Also, I don't think disagreement with mass immigration is necessarily rascist either; this is currently an issue that is being suppressed in Britain starting to become a debating point. There are all kinds of issues, beyond race, that it effects: education, economy, congestion, health care, pension, drought,infrastructure, housing, benefits, employment,... To classify it as "rascist" is grossly underestimating the issues involved. "Rascist" is currently being used as a general insult of greater magnitude than "bastard" [see discussion above on that] to attack EC. I doubt if the "contributor" concerned has done as much to help, enrich and grow opportunities for black people (in particular) as EC. I get the impression that the editor concerned is simply a left-wing activist, pushing a very particular agenda in an inappropriate forum.

Eric Clapton hunts too and actively supports the Countryside Alliance. No doubt that offends the sensibilities of some left-wing political activists too.

[edit] Live aid (and band members)

Eric played on the philadelphia portion of live aid and it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, maybe it should. also he had notable band members; phil collins (already mentioned as playing drums) and Donald "Duck" dunn (bass) from Booker T and the Mg's, i assume he was in erics band in 1985 (supposedly he was touring america). the band is mentioned here http://liveaid.free.fr/rewind/mtv/pages/078ericclapton.html

i dont want to sound lazy but im a wiki newb and dont really know how to add a new bit to the original article so id be happy if somone could mention somthing thx Samba. 82.152.212.125 10:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox update

Guitarist Infobox is now updated to Infobox Musical Artist. - B.C.Schmerker 04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Guitarist project box is the proper box and ha been in place for a long time. 156.34.209.240 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Folk rock? Acoustic tunes are not necessarily folk tunes. What does anyone else think about this? Vytal 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammys

If someone is intrested, he won 16 Grammys according to this source: http://www.classic-rock-legends-start-here.com/eric_clapton.html

[edit] 'Secret' Daughter Ruth

There is a recent interview with Clapton's daughter Ruth here [6] I think it could reasonably be linked to (as a footnote/reference) in the 'Tragedy again' section, but am unsure how to do this. Can someone help?Snowbunni 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor job

This article does a poor job explaining Clapton's solo career from the 70's and 80's. Each sections makes slight mention of his successes, but there is very little detail and explanation of his solo career, the albums released, and their success or lack of. The data is vague. Clapton has had one of the best solo careers you can imagine, and only when you get to the 90's does even start to include any detail. This article needs improvement!! The extended write up on racism is also unnecessary and I believe to be untrue for the most part. I suspect it is not from a neutral viewpoint.