Keeping our enemies close 2022 season

[T-Dub]

12 minutes ago, whodey? said:

to be fair to Zappa, he is one hell of a guitar player and musician himself however his music is fuckin weird 

 

 

I think sometimes he was trying to play 3 different songs at once

[BengalBuck]

1 hour ago, whodey? said:

to be fair to Zappa, he is one hell of a guitar player and musician himself however his music is fuckin weird 

He certainly played by his own rules. 

[claptonrocks]

2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

I think sometimes he was trying to play 3 different songs at once

Im wondering if self taught musicians

or any artist at his craft for that matter

have an inate abilty to be great on their owns terms..

Zappa followed noone....

Leonard Cohen was a singer of that fashion.

 

in 

[Kingspoint]

I'm mad as hell that the Bengals have sat pat since the NFL Draft last spring.  That's backwards movement.  There's been a shitpot of poor decision-making by the front office in not dealing with issues because they don't want to give up draft picks, don't want to spend money and don't understand the poor quality of Taylor's play-calling.

 

They had a Plan A that they carried out perfectly back in March, but they had no Plan B, no Plan C and no Plan D, all necessary for the adjustments needed to win a Championship.  That's why the Eagles and the Bills are going to the Super Bowl and the Bengals got themselves bent over the barrel on Monday Night Football for everyone to watch and laugh at.  The Bengals were the Clowns of Ohio last night, and after today's silence at the Trade Deadline, they are the Clowns of the NFL.

[UncleEarl]

Zappa had his influences.  He was in to west coast do-wop and guitar players like Johnny “Guitar” Watson.  
 

A lot of people who immerse themselves in music to an extreme level end up making music most of us can’t understand or enjoy.  Late Coltrane, Zappa, and Holdsworth come to mind.  Admittedly all of their more esoteric stuff is beyond me, but I still try to listen and understand. It’s all stretching music theory.  Mad scientists and all.  

[Kingspoint]

37 minutes ago, claptonrocks said:

Im wondering if self taught musicians

or any artist at his craft for that matter

have an inate abilty to be great on their owns terms..

Zappa followed noone....

Leonard Cohen was a singer of that fashion.

 

in 

Clapton would have been 10 times greater if he would have asked for a little help with his drinking problem.  His arrogance got in the way of his being much greater than he was.  Arrogance is always the problem of self-taught people in their fields.  They often have a hard time getting along with others, certainly can't take orders from anyone, struggle with self-discipline and sacrifice and patience, and basically waste a ton of talent trying to do things "their own way".

 

Ray Bradbury said of these types, "there are writers who think they are "inspired" by an external entity (invisible pink unicorn, whatever), that their first draft is the best one because of this inspiration.  They think they are "artists".  The Liberal Arts are a craft as much as any science.  Quality work comes from reworking, rewriting, rethinking, relearning, and resculpting whatever project you're working on.  There is no perfect product, but there always can be a better one.  Someone who doesn't do at least 8 or 9 drafts is lazy and arrogant, and not an Artist, regardless of what praise they might get from uninformed opinions who do not know the effort it takes to put out a quality piece of work.

 

 

This is like the Bengals.  They always think they don't have to adjust during the entire 12 months.  To go with that same horrible Offensive Line last year and the year before was conceited.  To keep the same Receivers they had last season after Boyd was conceited.  To not do something about the play-calling of Taylor is conceited.  To do nothing at this trade deadline is conceited.

[UncleEarl]

2 minutes ago, Kingspoint said:

Clapton would have been 10 times greater if he would have asked for a little help with his drinking problem.  

Ehhhh…When it comes to artistic output substance abuse and mental illness seem to have more of a positive than negative effect.  The examples are numerous.  Clapton is an odd example.  More of a technician than actual artist.  He didn’t do as much creating as mimicking at a very high level. 

[claptonrocks]

22 minutes ago, Kingspoint said:

Clapton would have been 10 times greater if he would have asked for a little help with his drinking problem.  His arrogance got in the way of his being much greater than he was.  Arrogance is always the problem of self-taught people in their fields.  They often have a hard time getting along with others, certainly can't take orders from anyone, struggle with self-discipline and sacrifice and patience, and basically waste a ton of talent trying to do things "their own way".

 

Ray Bradbury said of these types, "there are writers who think they are "inspired" by an external entity (invisible pink unicorn, whatever), that their first draft is the best one because of this inspiration.  They think they are "artists".  The Liberal Arts are a craft as much as any science.  Quality work comes from reworking, rewriting, rethinking, relearning, and resculpting whatever project you're working on.  There is no perfect product, but there always can be a better one.  Someone who doesn't do at least 8 or 9 drafts is lazy and arrogant, and not an Artist, regardless of what praise they might get from uninformed opinions who do not know the effort it takes to put out a quality piece of work.

 

 

This is like the Bengals.  They always think they don't have to adjust during the entire 12 months.  To go with that same horrible Offensive Line last year and the year before was conceited.  To keep the same Receivers they had last season after Boyd was conceited.  To not do something about the play-calling of Taylor is conceited.  To do nothing at this trade deadline is conceited.

Very enlightening thoughts.

Respect......

 

[claptonrocks]

2 hours ago, UncleEarl said:

Ehhhh…When it comes to artistic output substance abuse and mental illness seem to have more of a positive than negative effect.  The examples are numerous.  Clapton is an odd example.  More of a technician than actual artist.  He didn’t do as much creating as mimicking at a very high level. 

His early years were blues ..

He was a gypsy in genres.

In Cream he found himself.

 

Again he was an artistic gtpsy in many genres.

I hear every cord he plays in a song.

Thats the beauty of Clapton..

 

[Kingspoint]

15 minutes ago, claptonrocks said:

His early years were blues ..

He was a gypsy in genres.

In Cream he found himself.

 

Again he was an artistic gtpsy in many genres.

I hear every cord he plays in a song.

Thats the beauty if Clapton..

 

A buddy of mine (who was the best guitarist I ever saw play personally) spent a Summer with Clapton on the coast of Oregon getting wasted on booze all day, every day, while jamming the whole time together.  [My roommate was the lead singer of band my friend was in.....had a lot of musician friends back then ('77-'79), just coincindence.]

[Kingspoint]

58 minutes ago, UncleEarl said:

Ehhhh…When it comes to artistic output substance abuse and mental illness seem to have more of a positive than negative effect.  The examples are numerous.  Clapton is an odd example.  More of a technician than actual artist.  He didn’t do as much creating as mimicking at a very high level. 

Sorry.  That's just not true.  That's a copout by the lazy drug user or alcoholic.

 

There are directions, thoughts and feelings that come from being on drugs, being depressed (Chopin's greatest works came from this), being drunk, or any number of chemical-changing mental reactions that occur when one is trying to work.  But, all work would have a better quality over the length of a career if chemical-altering to the brain had not occurred.

[claptonrocks]

2 minutes ago, Kingspoint said:

A buddy of mine (who was the best guitarist I ever saw play personally) spent a Summer with Clapton on the coast of Oregon getting wasted on booze all day, every day, while jamming the whole time together.

That might be one of my ultimate 

memories if happened..

I'm sure it was for him

 

[Kingspoint]

2 minutes ago, claptonrocks said:

That might be one of my ultimate 

memories if happened..

I'm sure it was for him

 

It definitely was.  Unfortunately for him, he never handled his alcoholism.  

[UncleEarl]

14 minutes ago, Kingspoint said:

Sorry.  That's just not true.  That's a copout by the lazy drug user or alcoholic.

 

There are directions, thoughts and feelings that come from being on drugs, being depressed (Chopin's greatest works came from this), being drunk, or any number of chemical-changing mental reactions that occur when one is trying to work.  But, all work would have a better quality over the length of a career if chemical-altering to the brain had not occurred.

So, Parker, Coltrane, Hendrix, etc, etc would have been better without mental Illness/substance abuse.  Ok.  It’s a f’ed up topic, but the amount of artistic output from people suffering from these issues make it very hard for me to agree.
 

I’m not saying it made them better people.  It certainly did not, but the artistic output is amazing. 

[Kingspoint]

39 minutes ago, UncleEarl said:

So, Parker, Coltrane, Hendrix, etc, etc would have been better without mental Illness/substance abuse.  Ok.  It’s a f’ed up topic, but the amount of artistic output from people suffering from these issues make it very hard for me to agree.
 

I’m not saying it made them better people.  It certainly did not, but the artistic output is amazing. 

Without a doubt,  Hemingway would have been a better writer, Chopin a better writer/musician.  

 

That's always the issue with musicians....has been since the 1800's, and the same for writers.  It's such a solitary journey that you're susceptible to loneliness, depression and alcohol/drug abuse.  It takes more will power than a normal person to be a musician or writer in order to overcome the drudgery that comes with the work necessary to become good at your craft.

 

Everyone you mentioned, and there are 1000's and 1000's and 1000's more, would have had a cumulatively better career had they been able to overcome their need for immediate gratification.  As I mentioned before, all of them produced work that came from their experiences while under the chemical-changing influences that effected their brains, and while much of that work was unique and fantastic, their body of work would have been greater, but different had they been able to develop their crafts without chemically altering their minds and bodies.

[Kingspoint]

45 minutes ago, UncleEarl said:

So, Parker, Coltrane, Hendrix, etc, etc would have been better without mental Illness/substance abuse.  Ok.  It’s a f’ed up topic, but the amount of artistic output from people suffering from these issues make it very hard for me to agree.
 

I’m not saying it made them better people.  It certainly did not, but the artistic output is amazing. 

Oh, and I don't consider any of them bad or worse or better people, just that their potential remained untapped, though for each of them, it would have been different, and some of the great pieces of work they produced would never have happened, but they would have created great pieces of work in a different way.

 

Also, most good musicians went to a music school or majored in music at a University.  You could call the Appalacians a music school in and of itself.  The influences from the backwoods was a great musical education for them.  The same goes for so many from the South who were able to listen and watch and imitate those before them, who never had the opportunity of ever recording a note on a piece of vinyl.

[Kingspoint]

One of my best friends in college, Mark Simon, probably had about 140 LSD experiences by the time he was 19.  We had a few together ourselves.  At 19, he finished 2nd in the nation at a musical tournament that all Division 1 schools, and every school from all divisions could participate in.  Only a piano player from UCLA beat him out.  He was from a Community College (Mt. Hood).  It was also the first year of the Mt. Hood Jazz Festival, one of the premier Jazz Festivals in the country for 20 years after, though clearly better the first decade.

 

He played the piano rolling his knuckles across the keys.  He made up everything as he went along.  His jazz was as good as I've seen from anyone at any age.  He needed classical training to enhance what he already had.  He was from Chicago and spent the rest of his life here in Portland.  He never achieved anything other than local success because of his mental addictions and depression.

 

I definitely promote music if I can.  I got my son a bass guitar when he was 12.  He was in three bands when he was 12.  He quit HS when he was a Sophomore.  He's an attorney now.

 

I grew up with only two kinds of music,...the classical music my Father, Sister or I played on our Grand Piano or the Elvis records she played endlessly.  I never listened to the radio.  I had an Aunt who was an opera star and my grandfather's family was a musical group that played concerts in Salem in the 1920's.  My sister would play the organ at all five Masses on Sunday's when she was in grade school.  My Dad's buddies dropped a Grand Piano into the San Francisco Bay when they were trying to load it onto the U. S. S. Ticonderoga, his ship he was on in the early to mid 60's.

 

Another buddy of mine, Ron Bergstrom, was Manager of the 2nd best Rock Group in Portland in 1977, a group called Airborne.  I was at the house a lot that Summer because my best friend lived with them.  Their problem wasn't drugs or alcohol.  It was Portland.  There was no market (business connections in the music industry) for a band in Portland at the time.  You had to get to LA.  Bergstrom tried to get them there, but it didn't work.

 

If you think about how difficult Clapton was to work with, you have an idea how just a little bit of continuity would have done wonders for his artistic creations.  He didn't do alone well.  He also didn't do people well.

[claptonrocks]

6 hours ago, whodey? said:

to be fair to Zappa, he is one hell of a guitar player and musician himself however his music is fuckin weird 

Unique would be appropriate..

[|SF2|]

3 hours ago, UncleEarl said:

So, Parker, Coltrane, Hendrix, etc, etc would have been better without mental Illness/substance abuse.  Ok.  It’s a f’ed up topic, but the amount of artistic output from people suffering from these issues make it very hard for me to agree.
 

I’m not saying it made them better people.  It certainly did not, but the artistic output is amazing. 

It seems to me most musicians peak very early and THEN the distractions like spouses, drugs, and/or alcohol abuse drag them down.  Fame and the commitments that go with it also take their toll. 
 

Hendrix was only around for 4 years. 
 

In my opinion, Clapton peaked with Cream and the one Blind Faith album. He had some good stuff later but not “Disraeli Gears” good. 
 

The Stones peaked around 1968-69 with the Let It Bleed album the culmination. They put out tremendous music in that timeframe  like Sympathy For The Devil, Can’t Always Get What You Want and Gimme Shelter. Eventually they  became mainstream musicians just producing borderline pop songs. 
 

The Who had a similar trajectory as the Stones. 
 

It’s rare to see a band or artist recapture the glory of their early days. Maybe Black Sabbath with “Heaven and Hell” but that was after firing Ozzy.  
 

 

 
 

 

 

[claptonrocks]

37 minutes ago, SF2 said:

It seems to me most musicians peak very early and THEN the distractions like spouses, drugs, and/or alcohol abuse drag them down.  Fame and the commitments that go with it also take their toll. 
 

Hendrix was only around for 4 years. 
 

In my opinion, Clapton peaked with Cream and the one Blind Faith album. He had some good stuff later but not “Disraeli Gears” good. 
 

The Stones peaked around 1968-69 with the Let It Bleed album the culmination. They put out tremendous music in that timeframe  like Sympathy For The Devil, Can’t Always Get What You Want and Gimme Shelter. Eventually they  became mainstream musicians just producing borderline pop songs. 
 

The Who had a similar trajectory as the Stones. 
 

It’s rare to see a band or artist recapture the glory of their early days. Maybe Black Sabbath with “Heaven and Hell” but that was after firing Ozzy.  
 

 

 
 

 

 

Very true SF...

 

Elton John is takins old melodies from songa yeats ago  and recapturing audiences now.

 

Def Leppard should try it!!!..

And. Btw..

Clapton peaked with "Layla and other Love Songs"... 

You know it..

 

[T-Dub]

1 hour ago, SF2 said:

It seems to me most musicians peak very early and THEN the distractions like spouses, drugs, and/or alcohol abuse drag them down.  Fame and the commitments that go with it also take their toll. 
 

Hendrix was only around for 4 years. 
 

In my opinion, Clapton peaked with Cream and the one Blind Faith album. He had some good stuff later but not “Disraeli Gears” good. 
 

The Stones peaked around 1968-69 with the Let It Bleed album the culmination. They put out tremendous music in that timeframe  like Sympathy For The Devil, Can’t Always Get What You Want and Gimme Shelter. Eventually they  became mainstream musicians just producing borderline pop songs. 
 

The Who had a similar trajectory as the Stones. 
 

It’s rare to see a band or artist recapture the glory of their early days. Maybe Black Sabbath with “Heaven and Hell” but that was after firing Ozzy.  

 

 

I think most bands have 3-5 truly good albums in them, tops.  There are weird cases like Fleetwood Mac where the original band gets almost entirely replaced and morphs into something completely different but very, very few who stay relevant throughout a long career. 

 

For me the most disappointing thing about Hendrix is that he was still innovating and progressing.  I'll forever wonder what the Miles Davis collaboration would've sounded like..

[Kingspoint]

4 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

I think most bands have 3-5 truly good albums in them, tops.  There are weird cases like Fleetwood Mac where the original band gets almost entirely replaced and morphs into something completely different but very, very few who stay relevant throughout a long career. 

A High School classmate that was at Mt. Hood with me had every Fleetwood Mac album (at least a dozen it seemed) from the '60's forward framing the living room ceiling border.  All of his walls were covered by albums.  We used to listen to an import version (the vinyl was better from England, and more could be heard) of "Dark Side of the Moon" with blotter on his incredible stereo system.  It was awesome.  Awe...the honey oil on the Jamaican Sins was mind-blowing.

[|SF2|]

7 hours ago, claptonrocks said:

Very true SF...

 

Elton John is takins old melodies from songa yeats ago  and recapturing audiences now.

 

Def Leppard should try it!!!..

And. Btw..

Clapton peaked with "Layla and other Love Songs"... 

You know it..

 

We are only talking 2 years later for Layla but the reality is everything is better with Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker, a perm,  and a Gibson guitar. 

All my 20 something children and their friend have rediscovered Rock music. You can only digest so much of the same hip hop music,  mass produced Disney/Nickelodeon Princess crap and boy band garbage.  
 

BTW, does every musician now need 3 other musicians to produce a song?  
 

My daughter had a Harry Styles song on the other day and my exact words was, “Oh, 21st Century Donny Osmond garbage!” She wasn’t amused once she Googled Donny Osmond. 

[UncleEarl]

7 hours ago, claptonrocks said:

Very true SF...

 

Elton John is takins old melodies from songa yeats ago  and recapturing audiences now.

 

Def Leppard should try it!!!..

And. Btw..

Clapton peaked with "Layla and other Love Songs"... 

You know it..

 

 

Clapton had a lot of help on Layla...

[UncleEarl]

8 hours ago, SF2 said:

It seems to me most musicians peak very early and THEN the distractions like spouses, drugs, and/or alcohol abuse drag them down.  Fame and the commitments that go with it also take their toll. 
 

Hendrix was only around for 4 years. 
 

In my opinion, Clapton peaked with Cream and the one Blind Faith album. He had some good stuff later but not “Disraeli Gears” good. 
 

The Stones peaked around 1968-69 with the Let It Bleed album the culmination. They put out tremendous music in that timeframe  like Sympathy For The Devil, Can’t Always Get What You Want and Gimme Shelter. Eventually they  became mainstream musicians just producing borderline pop songs. 
 

The Who had a similar trajectory as the Stones. 
 

It’s rare to see a band or artist recapture the glory of their early days. Maybe Black Sabbath with “Heaven and Hell” but that was after firing Ozzy.  
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Oh, the addictions will eventually drag them down, but so much amazing output is done during those addictions.  You can add Lennon & Harrison to that list as well. 

 

Love "Let it Bleed," but "Exile on Main Street" gives it a run for it's money.

 

The Who were ruined by listening to fans, and their management likely, when they kept trying to make an "authentic Who album" after Face Dances.  Face Dances was fabulous, but it was a departure.  You can't stay  young and angry forever.   Ironically, Pete sobered up in that same timeframe.  Imagine that...