Skip to main content

Why ed prefers Cream to Clapton

I prefer Cream to Clapton as the former had the psychedelic spirit, which, in its aesthetic sense, attempt to go beyond the realms of the norm and popular. 

Cream, amongst others of that era, had it.  Clapton, thereafter, didn't.  He was sucked into the pop and mundane - ‘You look wonderful tonight’....what kind of soppy whiny crap is that, compared to ‘mind-expanding, Tales of Brave Ulysses’.  The former just focuses on the microcosm of reality - romantic relationships, infatuation, etc, - whereas the latter takes on the microcosm of reality and renders its boundaries elastic.  I suppose when the 'hippie' era passed away, it's spirit took refuge in myself.

To be suckered into 'fanhood' is to become a victim of the times, as opposed to having discerning taste when it comes to a choice between times.Hence, i'm no fan of no band, only the spirit of a worthwhile era.   That (psychedelic) spirit always exists, but it doesn't rest permanently on anyone.  It's like a butterfly that flits from one petal to another, and the true artist chases it wherever it wanders, and s/he's not distracted by where it lands but where it goes.   And in that, the chaser becomes the butterfly itself.  S/he becomes psychedelia herself.  To be suckered into 'fanhood' is to become a victim of the times, as opposed to having discerning taste when it comes to a choice between times.

If you think about it, the way psychedelic artists developed after the psychedelic era, and through them, how their ‘fans’ just followed them and undeveloped along with them, these ‘artistes’ underdeveloped their fans enough for them to not have the spirit to love their past works as much as their present.

So when ‘Cream’ came back to the Royal Albert Hall in 2005 to do the stuff they did back in the 1968 - a year before the ed took a mid-day flight into planet earth via the wormhole of the universal spirit of femininity - you could say that they were actually doing a ‘cover version’ of another band, because they weren’t now, as they were then. 



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…