the sweet sweet voices of bill raftery and verne lundquist. i want to make slow and thoughtful love to march madness.
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - It's Blitz Animal Collective - Meriweather Post Pavilion The Decemberists - The Hazards of Love (disappointing) Ra Ra Riot - The Rhumb Line Andrew Bird - Noble Beast Blitzen Trapper - Furr Editors - An End Has A Start Cut Copy - In Ghost Colors Handsome Furs - Face Control
Phil Collins is the devil. I would rather listen to a child being beaten than any band with Phil Collins in it. And Clapton sucks, too.
What a crap opinion. Layla is one of the 10 best CDs of all time, Duke is an excellent album, and ... that's all I'm going to say. If Clapton sucks, who do you feel is a better guitarist?
all music is good music, to someone. that being said i also hate clapton, or rather, i think he's the most overrated musician in history.
Hate Eric Clapton? How does one hate Clapton? That said, I started my morning off very will listening to a little Traveling Wilbury's. It really makes you miss George Harrison and Roy Orbison that much more.
it's okay to be influenced, everyone is, but he didn't do much with that influence. the stones and the beatles changed pop music and, most importantly, wrote great songs.
Save it as I have heard crap like that from other people for some time. For some reason, it has become really "cool and hip" to hate on Phil Collins, Eric Clapton and probably Sting and Steve Winwood too. The funny thing is all 4 of those guys are outstanding musicians and could put together a band that would kick ass (hell Winwood himself is practically a one man band!). I have this theory on the hating: All 4 of these guys came from highly respected bands in Genesis (especially in the days that Peter Gabriel fronted the group), Cream, The Police, and Traffic. When they went out on their own, they changed their sound to appeal to a more mass audience. Call it pandering to the adult contemporary crowd but apparently them doing that is worse than going out and committing a series of murders according to some like "tutone88". They are just changing their sound to what they feel is current. I am not going to say they suck just because they don't play blues based rock or prog rock anymore.
I would make the argument that what Clapton has done is impressive because he has made himself still relevant in music today. Are the Stones even relevant today? It is a serious question. Granted, Clapton's target audience has changed radically compared to what it was 40 years ago. Just because that audience may not include you or is not the cool audience doesn't mean the guy sucks. Besides, who really cares - it is a subjective thing anyway. I personally detest Nickelback, Daughtry, and groups like that (and I have even stated that before on the BBS which I probably shouldn't have done) but there are audiences out there for their music. When I hear someone these days tell me that they can't wait to get the new Nickelback album or whatever, I just smile. I'm glad that there is music out there that they can relate to. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it sucks - it is just not my cup of tea.
i'm listening to the new dan deacon, because i'm "cool and hip". just can't get into him. rather listen to lightening bolt.
Blue October - Approaching Normal Papa Roach - Metamorphisis Bryan Adams - Reckless Michael Jackson - Dangerous John Mellencamp - Whenever we wanted ZZ Top - Eliminator
The last Stones record was great. It's not Eric Clapton is on some career renaissance. Now, I am biased. I think Eric Clapton is horrible.
