No, because they're self-important greedy fucks.

There was a time when, despite super-star status EC did a few low-key unadvertised gigs at local village halls near his house. Here's one with Gary Brooker and Andy Fairweather-Low among others:-


They don't pull any punches in the performance, even though there were only about 200 people in the audience. Added bonus: if you look carefully, you can even see Sean Dunphy in the crowd - he's the guy standing next to Trollheart.

Jimi Hendrix's grandma is in there too.

Dunno. Me ma said he was someone though. Hey, I got a free chip, what do I care? :D
Unsure, but I carry it on my shoulder to this day.
Yeah, greedy. A whole eleven dollars. Wow.
Have to rate "Layla", "Wonderful Tonight" but "Tears in Heaven" just makes me want to puke. No offence, as a father I'm sure he was hurting but it seems almost a little like capitalising on a tragedy to me. August and Behind the Sun were half-ok albums (the only ones I have) though what possessed him to duet with Tina Turner I don't know. And Clapton could not really by any metric be called a shredder. There's a reason he's known as "Slowhand".
I am on her side, however she was advised to stop and basically gave the legal guys the finger, so it's hard to have that much sympathy.
You can tell me by the chip, but you really have to zoom in. :D

Thanks! I didn't recognise her until she took out her false teeth and started whistling Purple Haze.

Good one!

Yes, I thought that was a weird description too.

With all this focus on his mid-career solo albums & persona:
yes, I don't like the way he tried to turn himself into some rather too slick middle-of-the-road singer/songwriter, but if anyone has taken the trouble to listen to some of that Chiddingfold concert, you'll see a different Clapton: member of a really top-notch band cranking out great music, not for money or fame, but just for the joy of playing together.
Let's put that on the balance sheet when we are listing all the ways in which the latter-day Clapton sucks, please.

My problem with any of this Clapton business is that it all comes from an angle of
some kind of worship of technical prowess when the majority of it sounds like revved
and hyped-up bar-band music full of all of the sound and fury cliches not only just
associated with it, but actually encouraged by his worshippers.
The gawd-awful pinched, nasal sax sound ... those chord-banging attempts of repetitious energy ...
the rather uninspired drumming/rhythm overall ... semi-unconscious chord changes ...
pretend "soul" vocals ... every kind of patterned backing and cliched soloing ...
all of this in disregard to actual sound and more in line with him/them being showmanship entertainers.
There's room for this in some people's lives, but I couldn't see any reason to look forward to hearing or seeing this.

John Peel:

"At number 5, Eric Clapton with his new album Unvaxxed"....

The only time I listen to Eric Clapton is when I'm in the mood to hear some Cream or Blind Faith. His work with John Mayall and The Yardbirds was good but I've never cared much for either one. Everything he did after Blind Faith just bores me.

Yes, the same: I don't search out Clapton's music as a rule, but if I did it would be the old stuff.
Nonetheless, I'm a big fan of the musical style that rostasi and John Peel take against: pub/jam band rock. To me it's a good combination: a safe, solid beat and wandering instrumental stuff on top. If it has a predictable element about it, it is also capable of endless minor variations that trick the musically ignorant, like me, into thinking they are hearing something new each time.

Those are the nadirs for me.