You don't say? It was the tone of the correction, rather than the correction itself, that made the post worthy of no nicer a response than it received.
Man, thats a pretty broad category, encompassing dozens (at least) of styles and several centuries. You hate all of it?
I've read with a sense of familiarity the posts that Alex and others made following my "corrective" post about his particular distaste for reggae music. I say "with a sense of familiarity" because I recognize from my own attitudes the smugness and the vitriol, as well as the satisfaction others derive from seeing someone taken down a peg. It is difficult from my perspective to factor in that I deserve to be called arrogant or an ignorant clown. But I can easily admit to having been misguided in my effort to be corrective, especially toward someone who didn't solicit my advice. I can also see that my tone was offensive, obviously condescending and superior, regardless of the accuracy of the correction. It is self-serving to fall back on that point to justify my remarks. I was wrong to correct you, Alex, without solicitation. I am sorry to have taken advantage of this forum to do so. Please forgive me.
Forgiveness is for Christian Rock listening pvssies. Turn the other cheek and it will be torn from your face.
The music I hate isn't necessarily the stuff I think is utter crap. That stuff isn't worth the effort. I'm talking about smooth jazz, for example. And what I hate in music isn't usually the genre so much as the way it's done. I really hate processed stuff most of the time. I really hate singalong refrains and twin-guitar leads. The music I actually get worked up about is the stuff I think is grossly overrated--and not just overrated, but overshadowing more worthy work. Eric Clapton, I'm looking at you--Layla was an OK tune, I admit. But thirty-odd years later, you've got a pretty big rep and mostly adult-contemporary soft-rock ("Wonderful Tonight," "Lay Down Sally," etc.) and some 'tasteful' blues reworkings (is there a more BORING bluesman than BB King?) to prop said rep up with. Not good enough. I'd go into my mixed feelings about Pink Floyd, but it's time for me to start closing up shop here at work. Some other time. Oh, and Creed sucks.
--- dunno. what have you been listening to? perhaps not the right stuff. live at the regal isn't completely boring, but there are several boring notes. i'm fond of completely well, but not so much for "Thrill is Gone". perhaps BB is too refined for you, too controlled in his attack. in studio, he's pretty much a technician, i think are you a magic sam fan? buddy guy? albert king?
It surprises me how many people hate Eric Clapton. Personally I think he is better than Jimi Hendrix, Santana and Jimmy Page, who are usually considered the "best". That's only because I like how Clapton mixes blues and rock together and somehow still keeps up speed. Meaning, he can play the guitar fast but still keep a blues rythm which is typically slower than rock. I guess that makes him a "p*ssy" in some people's eyes.
I think the main thing that separates Clapton from Hendrix and Page (I don't know enough about Santana to comment) is that on top of playing the guitar like noone's business, they could consistently write brilliant songs. Clapton has written about ten. Now that's nine more than most musicians will ever write, but let's be honest...after thirty years in the business and numerous accolades, it's safe to say he's more of a guitar player than a songwriter.
--- i think it has to do with the fact that Clapton has morphed into a "soft" musician, whose music is two ticks from the elevator pap on smooth jazz stations. personally, i thought his 'unplugged' stuff was horrifying. all the passion was drained out, replaced by self-conscious imitations of lounge act guitarists, but with precise chops. Eric! Say it ain't so. he was far better with Cream and Derek and the Dominoes than now, IMO. as to songwriting, Clapton really isn't a rocker, certainly not like Page, though i don't know that much about LedZep's process. if you look at the stuff he has penned that will stand up to time, it's largely ballads. when he was with Cream, Jack Bruce did a far larger share of the writing, and Clapton was doing a lot of smack then, which may have had some impact on his creativity. i don't think so, tho'.
Actually, I used to love Live at the Regal and Live at the Cook County Jail. I agree with you--in the studio, polish wins out. Live, he's more soulful. Still, he's too 'rounded' for me. I like my blues a little rougher around the edges. I'm not being fair to BB, though--I think he's very talented and a quality musician, and as I said, I do like some of his work very much.
I don't see that at all. Eric Clapton has been putting out adult contempary music for nearly twenty years now. He's custom made for the House Of Blues crowd, which is 50 year old white guys drinking Samuel Adams and arguing over who does a better version of Little Wing.
--- what does that have to do with the fact that Phil Collins looks like a troll? and there will never be a better "version" of Little Wing than the OG, unless Buddy Guy does one... i agree with your assessment on Clapton: you're nicer than i. i saw Cream four times, including a set at the old Shrine Exposition Hall in LA following the release of 'Fresh'. watching him become a soulless shill for Blues for the Masses is a painful experience for someone who heard him play "Crossroads" live twice.