What did Clapton think about almost joining the Beatles?

I didn't know that, and I should have known that, but I've never been interested enough about Clapton to have heard that news. He really blew it when he quit the Yardbirds. Guess he thought he was "too good" for the job. In retrospect, was he, really?

 

I would agree that she was the hottest of all the Beatlettes, which is saying something, but not a whole lot. If I was going to write a song about someone I wouldn't pick her, but I can understand why some guys would. I get the impression that George wasn't as devoted to her as Paul was to Linda. Whenever you see a hot babe and you're convinced she's the "living end", remember that somewhere there's probably a guy who's sick to death of her. Words to live by.

 

He wanted to do a different kind of music than the kind the Yardbirds were doing so he quit. In the end I think Beck was a better fit for the type of music that the Yardbirds would up doing. Beck was more experimental.

 

Let it be a lesson!

John and Paul could have any women they wanted (and they did!) But when it came to choosing soul mates in 1968/9 - neither of them chose glamor pusses. They chose real women. Attractive - but not the most beautiful on the surface by frat boy mentality. But women of character and depth. Women they could respect rather than airhead Barbie dolls.

This is another thread - and probably has already been one - but (with one exception that comes to mind ) The Fabs chose fairly well with women over the years...

 

What would Clapton have added to the Beatles? Not a great singer or songwriter and for recording, (even without George), both Paul and John were fine lead guitar players. Clapton would have been handy on a tour though. (Maybe under the stage like a U2 sideman?? ..... bwahahaha!!)

Who would have been the best choice for a 5th Beatle in 1969?

 

That was a compilation put out by RSO while Eric Clapton was out of action prior to entering re-hab.

 

Regarding the "EC Was Here" album, you wrote;

You must be confusing that album with another. The live album "EC Was Here" was released in August 1975, and Clapton was definitely not "out of action" in this period. In 1975 alone, he toured Australia, Japan and the USA - playing about 100 concerts.

 

You're right. It was "Clapton" that I was thinking of.

 

A bit of a mismatch perhaps. I think with he and Lennon conspiring we would have gotten a bluesier version of the Beatles. Not a step "backward" for Clapton, but more of a change in direction for the fabs. Clapton was mostly beyond his "blues purist" phase by then and was open to more pop-oriented stuff. But are you seriously suggestng that he was more musically advanced than the Beatles? Yes, he was a more dextrous and facile guitarist, but he would have had less to contibute to the Beatles compositionally than he could with Cream. He wasn't even close in that department - it would have been a step down in that regard from George Harrison, not to mention from Lennon and McCartney. Also, the Beatles had, with few exceptions, never been about long, self-indulgent solos. Clapton could be counted on for good and interesting improvisation, but he would tend to go on a bit too long for the Beatles' context, I think.

 

He came as close to "fifth Beatle" status as anyone besides Billy Preston, imho, playing on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," playing with John at the Stones' Rock and Roll Circus, co-writing "Badge" with George, playing on "Cold Turkey," and playing on All Things Must Pass.

My personal Beatles-stay-together fantasy is that they sorted their differences out during the Get Back sessions, added Eric Clapton and Billy Preston as official members, and recorded their own equivalents of Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street in 1971 and 1972 before finally breaking up.

 

I agree that would have been really cool. Not sure there was room for three (or four, if you count Paul too) guitarists in the group, but Billy fit in very nicely. Loved his organ playing on "I Want You", from Abbey Road, and on Let it Be.

 

I like the thought of that.

 

Me too.. tho' part of me wishes they'd have taken a break and maybe settled some of those differences and gone on until 1973 or something before they would have been forced to get hair perms and walk around in powder blue leisure suits!

 

And, of course, later that year, in Sept. 1969, Lennon and Clapton would be Plastic Ono Band-mates at the Toronto Rock & Roll Revival festival.

 

EC was a fabulous guest musician on ONE Beatles track. His guest work with John and George was also superb. But I don't see EC as a Beatles member. Wouldn't have worked. Same with Billy - wonderful player and made perfect sense for the Get Back sessions. But as a band member - I don't see it. Every album had a different texture and feel. I don't see what he would have added to Abbey Road.

Though I was heart-broken at the time by the Beatles split - in retrospect they went out at the top of their game. And they never recorded a lame album or went disco on us... After the triumverate of "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" - why would we ever want their "Fingers" or "Exile"? The best songs on each of their early solo albums exceeded "Fingers" and "Exile"...

 

Besides.. the Beatles were such an hermetically sealed unit. How long would Clapton have put up with Lennon after a few outbursts or McCartney's taking over.. did you notice even in the Concert for New York in November of 2001 when McCartney kept saying to Clapton during Let It Be... "Ok Eric let's have another solo!" First I'd like to know what Clapton thought about that... Ok.. now I have to get Patti Harrison's book!

 

I don't see it either. I think Clapton had just left a situation where two guys were at each other's throats and I think he'd have bolted after one or two go rounds with the McCartney-Lennon wrestling match.

Still.. while on ONE hand the Beatles went out leaving a good looking corpse... I still think it was too soon. Maybe it would have gotten worse and they'd have ended up sounding washed out and watered down as did many of their contemporaries. But then again... the dysfunctional nature of the Beatles through the late 60s makes me think that their last few records were flawed and unfinished works. You can't change history.. but I wonder if the Beatles had taken 1969 off and John and Yoko had continued to the point where Yoko "artistically divorced" John after Some Time In New York City.. could they have kicked off two or three more good albums before the end of the contract in 1976??? LOL... would THAT have been worth sacrificing Abbey Road for? Ah yes.. Beatles fan-fiction!!! George's guitar playing was so much improved.. and of course 16 track and Apple Studios... etc..

 

Obviously, their Sticky Fingers and Exile would have been made up of the best songs on each of their early solo albums. I'll take an album with "Imagine," "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey," and "Isn't It a Pity" any day.

 

It's fun to fantasize....although I can see John Lennon preferring to do a Bed In or running around with Abbie Hoffman instead of playing the same 3 chords on Isn't It A Pity over and over for hours....

I like how everything turned out. They went out without embarassing themselves too badly and we got 4 albums a year for a few years instead of 1.

 

Perhaps - or maybe it would have included some songs like those on "Sometime In NY City" "Wings Wild Life" "Living In The Material World" and "Ringo the 4th" !

They quit while they were well ahead - and never blotted their copybook!

 

Serious problems do not mean dysfunction. They did function quit well, IMO. In fact I'm convinced the tension actually spurred them on to make better work, Get Back Sessions notwithstanding.

 

Yeah, that made me cringe..."c'mon Eric, baby"...

 

But Billy did play on Abbey Road. At least one song, maybe others, I don't remember. He played on "I Want You". Superb. I think they would have benefitted from having a great keyboard player. They were just getting into synths a little with Abbey Road, and Billy would have added a little more swing to their sound; more textural richness in the direction on Abbey Road, too. I would have loved to see him be a part of it.

 

Given the best songs released on their solo LPs, and especially the way the Fab 4 improved on each other's material during the writing & recording steps, those "Sticky" & "Exile" equivalents would've been very worthy additions to the canon.

More food for thought: they probably would have been recorded on 16-track and would now be floating around the 'unoffical' trading circuit in quadrophonic on homemade DVD-A disks after being released in quad vinyl during the 1970s...

 

Sure they did...