Talk:Eric Clapton: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Pimpalicious (talk | contribs) Roger Waters |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
:I disambiguated it.There's nothing inherently wrong with a two-subject disambig, though I added [[Lower Clapton]] as well. [[User:Deltabeignet|Deltabeignet]] 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) |
:I disambiguated it.There's nothing inherently wrong with a two-subject disambig, though I added [[Lower Clapton]] as well. [[User:Deltabeignet|Deltabeignet]] 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
:: Cool. Thanks. - MightyMoose22 08:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) |
:: Cool. Thanks. - MightyMoose22 08:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
== 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. |
Revision as of 22:13, 24 November 2005
In the section "Bad Luck Clapton" it says "It resulted in the break-up of his marriage.".
- 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 ?
- Marriage with who ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The "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)
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)
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.