Lesley Gore

"I'll Cry If I Want To"(1963)

Just found that Lesley Gore had passed away at the age of 68 - she will forever be associated with her early 1960s hits, though she worked in music ever since.

It was Quincy Jones (yes, same person who worked with Dinah Washington and Michael Jackson, same person who created music for "Roots" and "Color Purple") who discovered her and propelled her to stardom, producing her single, irresistibly catchy "It's My Party" that became her signature song. In less than three minutes the whole teenage drama (with Lesley as spoiled party queen) unrolls before your ears, almost like a movie. It was huge (nr.one all over the world) and it basically kept her working for decades. Single also created demand for album.

Since neither Quincy Jones, nor Gore had more irresistible, catchy pop singles in their sleeves, it was decided that concept of the album would be all about crying and tears. Which is fine, you have to understand they probably had one afternoon to finish the recording. They came up with "Judy's Turn to Cry" which is fun sequel to the story and the rest is divided between jazzy ballads about crying or upbeat, happy, hand-clapping and shoop-shoop copycat relatives of smash single. Many of those I heard later covered by singers everywhere from Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Netherlands so you bet the album was well heard around the world. Naturally, upbeat dance songs sound far more fun than weepy ballads - not because Gore was bad or anything like that, she was wonderful singer with a recognizable, clear, bell-like sound and had a particular, original way of phrasing (am I the only one who hears Liza Minelli somewhere in there?) but she was seventeen and dance tunes were just right for her. Somehow those happy, dance songs still sound great, while over-produced ballads full of strings, annoying backing choruses and harps are dated. Go figure. 

"Lesley Gore Sings of Mixed-Up Hearts" (1963)

Recorded and released in 1963, so this is more of the same. You can't help but imagine poor Lesley Gore being rushed from one recording studio to another, from photo session to a school and than probably doing TV show somewhere in between. Producer was Quincy Jones and he was just right choice to bring all the sweetness and teenage melodrama from young singer, who sounds like a dream - she really had one of the best voices around. As on previous album, everything sink a bit when she is given boring, worn-out covers of ballads like "Fools Rush In" and picks up the moment she bites into a dance song. Listen something cheerful like "Young Lover", "Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows" or "Run, Bobby, Run" and its like a school of 1960s dance moves. However, the centerpiece of the album is actually a ballad - dark, moody and surprisingly brave statement "You Don't Own Me" that went almost as high on charts as "It's My Party". Its not just a glorious, sweeping melody but it had interesting and provocative lyrics that probably surprised many back than - Gore was such a sweet girl that no one found her threatening but the message was clear.

"Boys, Boys, Boys" (1964)

One of those irresistible early 1960s pop albums, where Afro-American producer (Quincy Jones), German arranger (Klaus Ogermann) and a Jewish pop singer (Lesley Gore) joined forces to create soundtrack for a generation. It was already noted elsewhere that Gore was basically a "girl group without a group" and this is still a best description of her music - clear, bell-like, pretty voice backed with lots of hand-clapping, shing-a-lings and shoop-shoops. There is no particular standout track here (except a first self-penned Gore song "No Foolin', I'm Coolin", which is more a curiosity) but the whole album is a very pleasant light pop and fun chapter in girl group discography. Interesting note: Lesley Gore was not a kid - she was fully grown 18 years old young woman but it seems she was shoehorn into kiddie ditties about high school, first loves and boys. I can't help but to feel sorry for her, looking at her pictures she seems very uncomfortable, eyes of old soul looking out from cheesecake photos.

"Girl Talk" (1964)

Just 18 and already caught in a recording industry mill, Lesley Gore released two albums per year at the height of her early 1960s success. Quincy Jones and Klaus Ogermann lead the game again, making sure their young protégé pours her heart out in more teenage melodrama, unrequited love, first love, puppy love and school love. Ellie Greenwich and her husband Jeff Barry (later immortalized with "River Deep, Mountain High") wrote irresistible "Maybe I Know" which must have been one of the sunniest songs Gore ever recorded. As usual, upbeat dance numbers are joy while ballads are overproduced, though French cover "Little Girl, Go Home" is actually very pretty. Lesley Gore was a wonderful singer but her early 1960s albums sound very much alike.

"My Town, My Guy & Me" (1965)

Some internal changes between production/arrangement team means that both Quincy Jones and Klaus Ogermann went to greener pastures and Jack Nitzsche steps in the picture, bringing Phil Spector grandeur with him - this is most Spectorian of all Lesley Gore albums, which actually suits her just fine as beautiful, symphonic "What Am I Gonna Do With You?" shows. You can actually clearly hear what was produced by Quincy Jones (poppy, hand-clapping, shoop shoop) and what by Nitzsche (thunder, lighting, earthquake). I absolutely don't see the point of bringing old, worn-out American songbook pop standards from 1940s into this, but Gore must have wished to distance herself from girl group ditties when she decided to sing "The Things We Did Last Summer" - she is not Streisand. Much better is her return to girl-group melodrama written by Jackie DeShannon "Baby, That's Me" which is truly one of the prettiest Lesley Gore songs ever - its kind of Lesley Gore dressed up in pop-folk, bells tinkling dress of 1960s.

"Lesley Gore Sings All About Love" (1966)

Just a few years ago Lesley Gore was fighting with The Beatles for the top of charts, now at the age of twenty, her singles struggle to hit top 50. With Quincy Jones now busy with other projects, she struggles with other producers (in this case, Shelby Singleton) and inappropriate material, excessive arrangements and frankly boring songs. It seemed as a good idea than to give her covers of "Too Young" and "Young Love" but privately Gore must have cringed inside with all that patronizing. Both younger brother Michael Gore and Valerie Simpson can't breath life into what is uninspired collection of songs and singer herself sounds unsure. "To Know Him Is To Love Him" is beautiful, though. 

"California Nights" (1967)

Producer Bob Crewe here and he brings slightly different, than-current bubble gum sound (kind of Cass Elliott sunny pop) that suits Lesley Gore just fine. Title song and "I'm Going Out (The Same Way I Came In)" are highlights, she chirps like a little birdie and sounds cuddly & sweet but obviously there is a slight problem with ex-teenage party queen not being accepted as a grown-up person. Ultimately its not about managers and producers but about singer herself who can't  find other way to express herself outside of well-mannered, polite image. “The Bubble Broke” was well-meant step into rebellious direction but she is not convincing. 

"Magic Colors" (1967 unreleased)

Inexplicably shelved upon its recording, this album is actually far stronger than Lesley Gore's previous "California Nights" - she sings like a dream (always had), songs are fun and sunny, bubble gum pop, everything is rainbow-colored and groovy, so what was the problem? Apparently this is a cruel world and a competitive business so "Mercury Records" had no problem to drop artist who was only four years ago their main hit maker but recently could not follow the same money-making path. Either you sell millions or we don't need you. Listen closely and album is late 1960s wonder, firmly standing in that particular time (production, music, arrangements) and Gore obviously loved "Mamas and Papas" because same kind of atmosphere is present here. Its not that her singing had changed drastically - if anything, she sounds better than ever before - there are shades and nuances that her younger self could never knew, as much as that now she was sophisticated way above that teenage party queen image and obviously outgrew that chapter. "Magic Colors", "How Can I Be Sure" and "To Sir With Love" uplift this album way above anything she was doing so far and I honestly think this must have been the peak of her 1960s recording discography. 

"Love Me by Name" (1976)

In all the excitement built around the new collaboration between old friends - Lesley Gore teaming up with Quincy Jones again, backed by big recording company - somebody forgot to actually provide most important thing: hit songs. Its really bizarre that so much planning, care and production was used when something so basic as radio-friendly music was ignored. Nothing wrong with ingredients - if anything, Lesley Gore and Quincy Jones are even better now when decade ago when they created hit after hit - but the main course is surprisingly bland, there is simply nothing above average here, except painfully mournful title song (which is stunning, but hardly a hit material). I have a gnawing feeling that this might be one of those highly polished albums where musicians are way too skilled to care for record sales and audience. It is a long way from "It's My Party" to "Love Me by Name" - this time, its almost uncomfortable, clear-eyed look at loneliness, emptiness and sex without love. Title song is still chilling, after all those years.

"The Canvas Can Do Miracles" (1982)

Lesley Gore experienced top of her music career at the age of eighteen and rest was slow decline that even 1976. reunion with Quincy Jones could not prevent. When 1980. movie "Fame" came out, Gore and her brother received "Oscar" nomination for songwriting - it kept her name in media and gave her opportunity to record something new. Alas, "new" turned out to be a album of pop covers, something that was just a little bit before its time (cover albums will become big trend in 1990) and Gore - always sunny, pleasant and warm singer - sticks too closely to originals to actually make any difference. Nothing wrong with material, except that it was already being done by everybody from Carole King, Dolly Parton, Elton John and Carly Simon so new versions should be radically re-imagined in order to get attention. Final results are surprisingly average - almost like Lesley Gore doing Karaoke. It didn't exactly set a world on fire and Gore turned to nostalgia circuit, performing her old 1960s hits.

"Ever Since" (2005)

Well, its been a long time since we last heard from Lesley Gore and she has basically never been allowed to grow up above the spoiled teenage party queen of "It's My Party" years - though Gore actually became even better singer as she matured, no one listened her rare 1970s and 1980s albums and it seems her destiny was to forever sing oldies on nostalgic concerts. Than - out of the blue - new album, of completely new material. Because in our collective memory she is so closely associated with particular sound of her teenage years, it does come as a shock to suddenly hear much older, huskier and slightly worn out voice, not to mention that texture of music has nothing to do with shoop shoop, shing-a-ling 1960s hits - this time is dark, spare, nocturnal small combo backing her trough mostly very melancholic journey. Contrary to all those upbeat ditties she was famous for, Gore sounds as she was waiting all her life to sing this and there is a certain sincerity and determination here that would surprise even Marianne Faithfull. Its a little bleak and gloomy, but very appealing once you wrap your head around the fact this is a completely different person now. This is not "It's My Party" Lesley Gore, but "Love Me by Name" Lesley Gore, waking up in a empty bed after a night with a stranger, feeling empty, lonely, hangover and unloved. There is a whole life between original "You Don‘t Own Me" and new version recorded here. Clever and witty "Not The First" is just one of the highlights here, its written by lady herself but it could have been Burt Bacharach. 

"Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney" by Howard Sounes

Affectionate and immaculately researched biography of one of the most popular people on the planet. 

McCartney comes across as charming, natural, witty and funny, only slightly straining under pressures of the fame (when he snaps at fans, it becomes front news)  and by far the most likable of all his ex-colleagues. Most of the people, when faced with immense wealth and crazed adulation, found it very difficult but McCartney  was apparently balanced enough to focus on his family, countryside life, occasional joint and lovely songs. I understand that because he is sunny and upbeat person, McCartney somehow appear less "artistic" and "serious" than John Lennon (who by all accounts was bitter, angry and cynical) but in my opinion world needs upbeat, energetic and sunny people more than moping and depressing ones, so here's my three cheers for McCartney.

There are tons of stories and anecdotes - the book is divided in "The Beatles" and "Paul Solo" halves - at first I expected it too be too detailed and planned to cheat and skip first part but everything was so entertaining and well-connected that I read it with greatest pleasure. Yes, the guys were young and impossible to work with, yes George Martin comes across as genius in the shadow who orchestrated everything, yes the wives were the final nail in the coffin. Paul's solo years were even more interesting because he constantly faced pressure to keep up with oh-so-arty Lennon, crazed adoration from fans and criticism for being lightweight. He was also by far the most successful ex-Beatle and worked darn hard to establish himself as an solo artist. 

Howard Sounes traces every relative, neighbour and musician who had ever crossed McCartney's path, but author is not hell-bent on exposing dirty secrets or scandals - he is actually surprisingly clear-eyed about the whole pop superstar phenomenon and describes his subject as a well balanced, likable and decent human being who took good care of his family, relatives and hometown. Its funny to read about all the important business people who had to pinch themselves while making a deals with him ("I am talking to Paul McCartney") because truly he is one of the biggest stars in the world. Contrary to most celebrity biographies, this is not a story of someones downfall and epic tragedy - basically, McCartney became one of world's greatest pop composers at the age of 21 and he just went on to became more and more successful with time. Even under immense scrutiny of media, he appears cheerful, easy-going and lovable personality who loved quiet family life in countryside and worked really hard to step outside of impossible large shadow of his old band. Hard as newspapers might look, there's not much you can put on him except occasional joint, vegetarianism and absolute devotion to his wife - none of which actually means anything bad. One thing that strikes me is how much his easy-going, prince charming public persona was criticised in media for decades, until it became grudgingly accepted that after all he genuinely might be happy, sunny, upbeat person - if he had been suicidal drunk or drug addict he would probably have this romantic appeal of misunderstood, bohemian artist who dies in hunger and poverty, but McCartney basked in success all his life so there is this strange feeling of envy and rejection because he "had it easy" - truth is, we don't know was it easy and his happy, upbeat personality is probably more conscious decision and choice than reality. Everybody can be miserable and depressed, but it takes a real strength to keep on with a smile on your face. I believe McCartney genuinely made a world a better place with his music and that he is at the very top of the most important composers of 20th century.

"Black and White" (1968) by Tony Joe White

The first and still probably the best album by uncrowned king of swamp-rock who might have been very young but had everything sorted out from the start. 

He plays mean, chugging guitar and possessed irresistible, macho bravado that sounds appealing even now some 45 years after album's release - not to mention seductive baritone voice that probably killed ladies back than. It is clear he soaked inspiration from black r&b singers and added his own touch to it, creating his own unique sound somewhere along the way. The debut album is combination of mean original work ("Polk salad Annie") and several covers ("Who's making love", "Wichita lineman", "Little green apples", even "The Look of love") but whatever he does, he sounds like male counterpart of Bobbie Gentry with more focus on sex and perhaps less brainy. You can easily imagine White driving a truck somewhere and playing his guitar on a porch on a hot summer evening. He is a real guy, there is nothing phony or fabricated here.

Eric Clapton

"Eric Clapton" (1970s) first solo album

For better or worse, this is Delaney Bramlett show and Clapton was apparently so taken with the whole camaraderie that he happily joined the fun. 

At first I thought it was over-produced and overcooked (there must have been million people in the studio) but I grew to seriously like it and now found it irresistible for the sheer joy and energy. You can tell these people were inspired and had fun together, even when ideas are half-baked it doesn't matter because everybody sounds so involved and committed that final results are wonderful, hippie-flower-child group session. I think its just so right and amazing that these people from different continents somehow found each other and recognized kindred spirits - it must have been hugely exciting to live back than - and not for a moment it does sound like this is a serious project with financial obligations (which is what music became later) but it is 100% fun. I just love this album beyond words.

"461 Ocean Boulevard" (1974)

Well, well, goodbye hippie 1960s but this is not bad either - as much as I love his debut album, I must admit this is actually improvement and completely another story. It is chugging, wonderful collection of rock/blues/reagge and it works like a dream - in fact, music is so darn good that it took me a long time to actually realize that words are really completely off-the-wall (most of the time barely functional) and unimportant factor here. "I Shot The Sheriff" is now so well-known and overplayed that I get far more pleasure from lesser-known "Get ready" where Clapton wonderfully interplay with Yvonne Elliman. "Steady Rollin' Man" is ancient blues number turned into hypnotic rock-blues and its brilliant - just when you think it can't get any better, here comes "Let It Grow" which might be Clapton's own "Stairway to Heaven" but its beautiful and I loved it my whole life. The more I listen to this album, more I am amazed.

"There's One In Every Crowd" (1975)

Slightly disappointing but not because its bad or boring, its simply that preceding album was such darn masterpiece that anything coming after that is kind of letdown. 

It is more or less same easy going rock-reagge sound except that this time around it doesn't come as fresh so the effect is noticeably of milking the same ideas. "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" is obvious sequel to  "I Shot The Sheriff" and though its fun, it does suggest a pattern. I prefer chugging "Singin' The Blues" anytime, with wonderful Marcella Detroit on backing vocals - I just love interaction of Clapton and crazy backing vocalists. The final impression is that this is lesser sequel to "461 Ocean Boulevard" but who knows, maybe with repeated listening i might grow to like this one even better. 

"No Reason To Cry" (1976)

At first listening, it sounds like watered-down version of previous album (which was in itself a lesser relative of brilliant 1974. album) because honestly it has only one stand-out track ("Carnival") and the rest is slow-burning & not very inspired doodling. Unexpected appearance of Bob Dylan does nothing for either artist except for the surprise factor of two superstars collaborating (and its a half-baked number anyway) where Clapton's playing by far overshadows Dylan's singing. To be honest, even uninspired Clapton album is still far above mediocre competition - songs might not be memorable but his guitar playing is spot on and his band follows him closely. He must really be thrilled with backing vocalists because he gives solo spot twice to Marcy Levy (later known as Marcella Detroit from "Shakespeare's Sister") which just proves my point that as musician Clapton was always ready to step back and enjoy collaboration, instead hogging the spotlight. I like the guy but this was not one of his best efforts, it feels routine and weak compared to what preceded it.

"Slowhand" (1977)

Everybody knows about "Cocaine" and "Wonderful Tonight" but make no mistake - centerpiece of this album is "The Core" with its blistering guitar solo and it appears that Marcella Detroit inspired Clapton to wake up from his drunk stupor and get his act together - not only that she sings trough the album, but she also co-wrote several of the songs. Energized and inspired, Clapton creates one of his best albums ever - it sounds extremely relaxed at first, until you realize this guy is so seriously confident that he does not need to show off. He just rolls along and than quickly tucks dozen tricks in one guitar lick, before you even understand what hit you. Seductive, ballsy, confident and fun. Clapton might have became a millionaire but he still plays his old blues favorites ("Mean Old Frisco") and he really deserves all the praises heaped on him. And the guy is humble enough to close the album with an instrumental - not pushing himself in the front, but putting music in the spotlight, which I find seriously appealing.

"Backless" (1978)

Very typical, easy-rolling Clapton album of its time - perhaps he could have waited a year or two for better inspiration instead of recording those similar-sounding albums year in and year out, but in all honesty its unrealistic to expect masterpiece every time. If anything, it resembles its predecessor just a little bit too closely, but without a standout hit single (country ditty "Promises" is pretty and mellow but hardly earth-shattering). Again the same sound, same band and Marcella Detroit sings backing vocals. I hear more pleasure in traditional "Early In The Morning" than in anything written by Bob Dylan or J.J.Cale so material is clearly an issue here, however guitar playing is masterful and authoritative as ever. 

Another Ticket (1981)

Surprisingly strong album - considering the guitar God has been taking it easy recently and was not really determined on chart success - apparently the backing band has been changed and it feels like a new blood had arrived. No big hits but it all sounds darn good, this is Eric Clapton giving a few guitar lessons to new kids. It does sound like a veteran musician being totally himself and not compromising for selling a hit single - there's a good portion of classic blues rock, solid singing and the whole collection is actually quite enjoyable. Title song is a haunting ballad and "I Can't Stand It" is all ballsy attitude and fun.

"Money and Cigarettes" (1983)

My impression is that Clapton started with a thunder back in 1960s, lived dangerously trough 1970s but kind of sunk artistically in 1980s. Not that he forgot how to play or anything, it just sounds like he didn't really didn't care for either new trends or new sounds, not to mention chart hits. I don't think that hit singles are beginning and the end of everything and often my favorite tracks were B sides and forgotten ones, but when you listen the whole album, you at least expect some songs to jump out as outstanding. "I've Got A Rock N' Roll Heart" is the only solid song here, nicely rolling, chugging, perfect car song. The rest is extremely mildly interesting, which comes as surprise if you consider talents amassed in studio (Ray Cooder!) and this must be one of the very rare occasions that I even noticed the drummer (Roger Hawkins). It could also be a question of repertoire, because Clapton's own songs are far less memorable than his covers of old chestnuts like "Crosscut Saw" or "Crazy Country Hop" which points at lack of strong material and perhaps he should have focused on his favorite covers instead. Playing is magnificent thorough.

"Behind The Sun" (1985)

You know, Clapton-Collins collaborations were much maligned almost everywhere as some terrible treachery and commercial sell-out + this was recorded in 1980s so I approached this album with really a lot of prejudice, convinced this will be worst of synthesizers/drum machines because, after all, that was than current sound and I was sure this can't possibly appeal to me because I lived and suffered trough 1980s. Guess what, I gave it a listen, than second, than a third and realized this is far more enjoyable than quite few previous Clapton's albums. I am actually pleasantly surprised how much things have improved once recording company took reins and pointed at strong, compatible producer and a good material (songwriter Jerry Lynn Williams gets no less than three songs and he is actually very good) - I understand there are many blues fans who saw this as unwelcome direction towards commercial pop but wake up people, this album gave Clapton hit single ("Forever Man") and kept him in the spotlight, in fact at the top of the game during 1980s without really compromising anything artistically - he still plays same sizzling guitar as ever, its just that production and cellophane were than current state-of-the-art. Three songs by Jerry Lynn Williams are really great fun, melancholic ballad "Never Make You Cry" is genuinely beautiful & heartfelt and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this record.

"August" (1986)

Everywhere you look, Clapton-Collins 1980s collaborations are dismissed as tasteless, calculated commercial pop music that had nothing to do with presumedly divine rock/blues past of the guitar hero who should know better. Than you take a closer look (or at least, give this album a spin) and discover that it was his biggest selling album up to that point, it gave him several really huge hit singles and kept old boy very, very successful indeed. Obviously there is a huge difference between critical perception and public reaction. Buddy was playing stadiums, hanging out with the biggest stars on "Live Aid" and was everybody's favorite special guest but we are nitpicking that he sold out for millions? Well, he deserved them. Yes, this is not a blues/rock album and it has Phil Collins pop sensibility all over it, it was created this way in order to get massive radio play, which it did. It is a happy, peppy, pop 1980s album full of synthesizers and drum machines and tons of high profile guest musicians and if you listen without prejudice, you might have a surprise - "Holy Mother" is very pretty indeed.

"Journeyman" (1989)

This is Jerry Lynn Williams album - Texas songwriter proved to have golden touch, so here he has no less than five songs, almost half of the album is his material. Either Williams is darn good, or new producer brought some fresh air (Russ Titelman is positively uncluttered compared to Phil Collins) or our guitar God simply felt inspired this time around, in any case this is one of the best later Clapton albums and I am seriously surprised how well it survived its age, because dear reader I remember this one from the first time around. Everything I loved back than, I still do - snarling, Grammy-winning "Bad Love", loving tribute to Ray Charles ("Hard times"), joyous and celebratory "Hound Dog" and best of all, wonderfully melodic and feather-light collaboration with George Harrison called "Run So Far" that actually make me smile and purr with pleasure. And Chaka Khan doing backing vocals, so now I'm bowing to the ground. We are not worthy. It actually sounds even better than I remember.

"Unplugged" (1992)

After all the synthesizers/drum machines and special effects in the 1980s, new phenomenon of "unplugged" came as a fresh air and most of us welcomed it warmly for the sheer joy of return to a source, playing music instead of twisting the knobs and programming it. And surely, when it comes to real musicians than you look towards someone who is recognized as virtuoso in the field. McCartney's own "unplugged album" was a joy but guitar God was by far unsurpassable - Clapton's own performance was brilliant for its simplicity, light touch and pleasure of playing acoustic instruments once again. The man known for mind-boggling, white-hot guitar solos was now relaxed and comfortable enough not to show off. Surely, critics hated it, bemoaned lack of 30 minute solo passages and complained that he had mellow beyond recognition but the whole world bought this album and it still sounds excellent. Although it has been played and played on the radio to death, I still find "Tears in Heaven" moving beyond the words.

"From the craddle" (1994)
If "Unplugged" (1992) was deliberate sentimental look back at his life and career, with this album Clapton goes all the way back to his first blues idols and pays homage to musicians who preceded him - guys like Willie Dixon, Charles Brown, Tampa Red, Lowell Fulson, Elmore James and Muddy Waters. Since he was always recognized as a rock/blues guitar virtuoso, it actually comes as a surprise that Clapton actually never released true, pure blues album until this point. His guitar playing is sizzling, as expected and the biggest surprise is the way his singing had improved with years, where once he was reticent and timid, now he grew into full-throated blues growler. Some found this "back to the roots" a sign of artistic stagnation and criticized Clapton for not coming up with something new but to me this sound as an excellent showcase for a musician doing his own thing and not compromising anything for commercial success. Everything from choice of classic material to his playing and singing is pure blues heaven. If you want pop singles, look elsewhere - personally I found this album by far preferable and more enjoyable to many of previous releases with their hit-and-miss moments, this one plays nicely from the start to finish.

"Pilgrim" (1998)

I can't even imagine the sense of loss, grief and sadness parent goes trough at the loss of the child. It must shake to the core the whole purpose of one's life and probably leave a wound that can never be completely healed. In his autobiography "Clapton", Eric Clapton explains how he used not alcohol or drugs, but music as healing process and this beautiful, sad, bleak album reflects his state of mind. Describing the last day with his little son in "Circus" with lyrics that came from deep inside his heart, he softly murmurs: "Little man with his eyes on fire/And his smile so bright/In his hands all the toys you gave/to fill his heart with delight/What you see and what you will hear/Will last for the last of your life" . This is a truly tortured but artfully voiced cry translated in the language of music. Elsewhere Clapton looks inside for more reflection ("My Father's Eyes" gets completely different meaning once you know he never met his father, "River Of Tears" is epic sadness, "Why can't I find no relief in my heart?" in "Inside Of Me") and for once different emotions, completely different perspective colors the music of guitar virtuoso who this time is not in the mood to prove his legendary rock machismo and ballsiness, this is probably his most emotional, most personal album ever.

Of course, it didn't sell. In fact, it was almost universally panned and reviled as too soft, too mellow, too unlike "Clapton the rock star" which is completely besides the point. Do we want artist to entertain us constantly, to continue his usual country/rock/blues/reggae/whatever greatest-hits-played-at-stadium-arena routine or do we actually understand there is a real person with personal tragedy behind him and this is his reaction to it? Perhaps this is just me and the way I am usually affected by sad songs more profoundly than happy ones but I rather hear sad, heartbroken and reflective Eric Clapton at this stage of his life than crowd-pleasing, "Layla" playing rock musician going on with same greatest hits night after night. I don't think this is disaster or low point as almost everybody claims, in fact I am deeply affected by this album and understand it, in my way.b

"Reptile" (2001)

I might be minority here, but I actually truly enjoy Eric Clapton's later work - for the sake of this reviews I went trough his complete discography and in all honesty, those famous, celebrated albums were spotty (gems and all) while his post-Unplugged music simply appeals to me far more. I play this eclectic collection of rock/blues/country/pop constantly with greatest pleasure and can't understand why would anybody prefer earlier work to this. Everything from Clapton's own mellow originals to covers of Stevie Wonder, J.J.Cale and Ray Charles is impeccable, warm and uncompromising - this is veteran artist doing what he loves best and its one of my all-time favorite Clapton albums. No hits, no big sales, no naked tits videos. But we have Billy Preston on hammond organ and The Impressions on backing vocals, so choose your priorities.  ad arrived. No big hits but it all sounds darn good, this is Eric Clapton giving a few guitar lessons to new kids. It does sound like a veteran musician being totally himself and not compromising for selling a hit single - there's a good portion of classic blues rock, solid singing and the whole collection is actually quite enjoyable. Title song is a haunting ballad and "I Can't Stand It" is all ballsy attitude and fun.

"Shakespeare: The World as Stage" by Bill Bryson (2007)

After some infatuation with epic sagas (that quickly stopped cold with confusing "Gilgamesh") and bitter-tasting, boozy autobiography of Eric Clapton, I found something really delightful completely by accident - there is a little corner on the very top of the ship where I usually sit & write my diary and its near the passenger's library. Where I browsed absentmindedly while I was waiting for my coffe - lo and behold, I spotted Bill Bryson on the shelf. Now, I know Bryson from before and he never failed to amuse me, he is absolutely adorable character though I found hard to recommend him to people because he is difficult to describe - he doesn't write fiction, he is not a historian, he is basically a chatty, witty, eccentric non-fiction writer covering absolutely everything that pops in his head. And more I read from him, the more I love him.

This time around Bryson writes about life of Shakespeare. Since the book was published as a part of series "Eminent lives" my guess is that it was probably written specifically for this list of biographies - this might explain why the book appears only slightly strained and artificial, where other Bryson books flow like some eccentric river - this one has a feeling of commissioned piece. However, even commissioned piece by Bill Bryson is wonderful.

The life of William Shakespeare is anybody's guess - we hardly know anything at all about the man, except few historical details that might as well have been fabricated and embellished with time. As Bryson wittily points out, all those intimidating books written about him are mostly fabrications because nothing can be proven for sure and people mostly imagined and guessed whatever they believed. In fact, we are unbelievably lucky that we have his complete works (printed and published after his death) because majority of other plays - popular and brilliant as they might have been - from this era are lost and forgotten. Not having anything concrete to hold on and decidedly avoiding guesswork, Bryson focuses on what kind of world Shakespeare lived in - here he goes his usual eccentric way and delights in describing living conditions of Tudor's London, food, housing, clothing, diseases, religious wars and so on. Clearly, those were dangerous times and one of the biggest wonders of all is that he actually survived childhood at all - not to mention all the other lethal possibilities afterwards (you could have been arrested and killed if anyone accused you for being an atheist, for example). I gulped the whole book in three days and it only took me so long because I work long hours and have time to read only after midnight - every day I was looking forward to finish the work and return to my book.

The very last chapter was very amusing - Bryson deals with all the assumptions of someone else being the "true" author of Shakespeare works: it is something I was quite fascinated for some time but the way Bryson waves it off actually embarrassed me - he is so sharp, witty and right on the spot that I felt foolish for ever even thinking about it. For example, the very first person who started the snowball rolling was American lady who was mildly demented and ended up in sanatorium convinced she is a Holy Ghost. And others who followed were equally loony. For all the theories that Shakespeare was a uneducated provincial boy who couldn't possibly know all these things, Bryson points that he was a son of a city mayor and had a decent education for that time - when they write "Shakespeare never owned a book" this is absolutely impossible to prove because we know absolutely nothing about his possessions (except what is written in his will - Bryson jokingly points that for all we know, he might had spent his life naked from the waist down, as well as bookless, but it is probable that what is lacking is the evidence, not the clothing or the books). I just love Bill Bryson.

"Clapton: The Autobiography" by Eric Clapton

This felt like one of those sordid, scandalous, tell-all biographies published during 1950s and 1960s with intention to sell tons of copies by sheer strength of amount of dirt in them (see Billie Holiday, Anita O'Day books) - one difference is that those books were so focused on drugs & alcohol abuse that music was rarely mentioned, while to be fair to Clapton, he discusses music lovingly as a leading force in his life. Than he talks about getting drunk again.

I must have been the only person in the world who was not aware of the fact that Eric Clapton spent most of his life as either drug or alcohol addict. Very celebrated and highly respected addict, but addict nevertheless. For some reason - probably because I was kind of aware of his presence but never truly interested  to go that way - I simply assumed he is part of British rock aristocracy and left it at that. Besides some casual facts collected from magazines, I didn't know much about him so I have approached this book with real curiosity, while I listened his albums at the same time (which I started to kind of like, to my surprise).

Well, well.

It's interesting how people decide to describe their life: some get all flowery and poetic, other hide behind telling basically nothing, third dive into warts and all, like its some kind of therapy. Clapton obviously goes the third way. It could be the only honest way, considering his age and point in life, you probably have clearer view  from a certain point and no need to hide anymore, I guess. He is absolutely adorable as long as he was describing childhood and upbringing in a sleepy little provincial town - first books, first records, radio programs, TV shows and his love for Buddy Holly - but as soon as he approaches adolescence and substances rear their heads, my eyebrows lifted in suspicion. And they basically stayed there for the rest of the book. Yes, I understand these were 1960s and everybody was supposed to do drugs all the time but following the cattle was never my priority and it repels me. Once I got over my own necessary, youthful period of experiments and wrapped my head around the fact what makes me happy, I consciously stayed clear from anything that could affect my mood and decided that messing with substances is immature. Its for teenagers to get smashed and roll in their own vomit. Which is what Clapton was doing a lot, according to his book.

To be fair to Eric Clapton, he really admits his own weaknesses, obsessions and attempts to clean up - which was very difficult, considering most of his buddies were hard drinking, drugs users so sooner or later he was pulled back into old habits. And towards the end of the book he dies clean up his act and turns into happy family man, grandfatherly figure surrounded with daughters who probably charm him off his feet. I feel his whole reason to come up with this book might be not so much to come clean to himself as perhaps support to countless potential addicts around the world who might get inspired by his example. After all, this is a man who after a lifetime of all sorts of addictions, eventually left them all behind. It was a fascinating read and I still have lots of love for Clapton as musician, its just that I am not so sure about all this dope, boozing and drugs - it simply does not appeal to me and I don't think its "cool" - it is so wide-spread and accepted as social behavior that not participating in it almost makes you a weirdo, which is the situation I am nowadays. Even Clapton himself admits that once he stopped boozing it was hard - but not impossible - to collected pieces and find other hobbies and ways to live.

"The Epic of Gilgamesh"

My sudden enthusiasm about ancient epic sagas brought me here and it evaporated here at the door of Babylon - contrary to what I expected and assumed, this was the first time that I couldn't get my head around piece of literature and in fact understand more from encyclopedic essays about it than the piece itself. All those long explanations of what it is and what it (probably) meant were by far more revealing than poem itself - I kind of expected, OK this is going to be something really, really ancient and probably very different from anything we are used to but really, it ended up more like extremely distant echo from a wind, something from not just another time but another planet as well. Sure, I understand this was 2 100 BC and things were quite different back than, but really, what I got from this were just a fragments of sentences and unconnected pieces - rarely a whole thought, except something so ridiculous as "open thy hymen" whatever that could have been - I can just imagine people trying to translate these ancient stone tablets from a long dead languages and turning them all upside down, walking around the tables and discussing what the hell was happening there. So it is fascinating as attempt to understand literary work from completely another time, but confusing once you actually approach it because this is far from anything complete - at least translation that came my way - which was 1920. Yale University joint work by two professors. There is a very interesting essay & introduction about it and I read carefully anything I could find on Wikipedia (my Bible) but honestly, I got far more from those than from the piece itself, in fact, to be honest, since these are all translations of translations of various versions, I really wonder how anybody ever came to any conclusions about anything about this story because to me it looks like way too many pieces of the puzzle are missing and everything is just a guesswork. So I read this is about Gilgamesh and Enkidu, but in piece itself I don't get it. Its like not exactly catching a radio wave so you can hear just a part of speech and trying to decipher something really difficult. I didn't understand a thing here and felt disappointed with myself and expectations I had build around it. This is where we'll stop for a moment with ancient epics.

"The Song of Roland" (La Chanson de Roland) by Turold (?) (1140)

Previous epic saga about King Arthur and his knights was so pretty, enjoyable and poetic that I have decided to check out something similar, but from a French side. After all, life is too short to waste it on trashy celebrity biographies and to my biggest surprise I found myself getting truly involved while reading about heroic deeds from centuries ago - not for nothing was my childhood spent with Greek mythology - this is something I enjoyed even more than Sir Gawain and my head buzzed from all that fire and brimstone.

Absolutely fascinating - kind of "Iliad" but set in early days of French kingdom and instead of Greek Gods, St.Gabriel visits Charlemagne in a dreams to warn him about upcoming danger. Obscure poet Turold might or might have not been responsible for this masterpiece of epic saga that probably used to be recited out loud by the fires and to remind generations about heroic deeds by real people who actually fought at some point in history - naturally it is all embellished (Charlemagne was not two hundred years old, for the start) but names are real and yes, these people actually existed, lived and died very much as described here. So it could be taken as a historical document or poetic memory of something that occurred at the southern border of France. Names and historical figures abound - they can all be checked - focus is exclusively on warriors and their fights, horses and weapons so not much of romance and frills (two single female figures appear and they both faint while men are doing the fights) but fights are fierce and there is a blood everywhere - I am surprised Hollywood have not filmed this, because it reads as some swashbuckling spectacle made for big screen. 

Its Christians against Muslims so naturally it reflects its time - I guess this was just around First Crusade - of course we read it differently now and have different sensibility than people back than, however it does describe even enemies as noble and brave in order to make them more dangerous towards our heroes - each knight is listed by name and we got detailed description of what they wore and their image, on both sides. It is not Muslims or their king but Christian lord Ganelon who is the ultimate villain and he gets classic, unforgettable treatment which by the way was quite popular back than. 

Excellent - I enjoyed this so much that I might even re-visit it again.

"Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" by Pearl Poet (assumed)

Perhaps its childish but I am constantly aware that besides everything else that I read - best sellers, current biographies and what not, there is a whole other world of literature out there, called "classic literature" that had somehow escaped me earlier and that it is a question of my own self-education to approach them (no matter how un-academic and un-sophisticated I might be, which is probably just fine as I have no prejudice or misconceptions about them). "Penguin books" usually takes care of them and I have the whole list of "books to read" for the sake of my own clumsy introduction to literature classics - the whole fact that I am aware of these titles and still have curiosity to check them out is already good news, since most my friends and acquaintances would not bother with anything that is not on a current best seller list. Occasionally I clench my teeth and dive into some ancient classic but rarely find them exciting or inspiring (see "Phantom of the Opera" or May Sinclair) and this usually cools me off from classics until few months later the guilt sets in again and I start thinking that instead of reading some trashy celebrity biography of Madonna & Cher I should visit something that's serious and lofty, something that would enrich me (same for classical music).

With this in mind, after gorging on celebrity biographies, I decided to go straight for something completely different and turned my attention to a saga/ballad/heroic epic from 14 century England - I have bought this in Amsterdam's second-hand exchange book shop which must be one of my favourite places in the world, so it was well planned, just needed the right moment.

This amazing piece of art - probably forced at throats of school kids in UK - was forgotten for centuries until unearthed again in 1839 and has been published in various translations ever since. As translator Brian Stone notes it is a language which is remote from Chaucer as Chaucer is from ours - so we are basically talking about dead language. Contrary to zillions of interpretations that dwell on possible symbolical meanings, religion, magic and even erotic angles, I approached it as medieval adventure romance, which works just fine by me. It turned out amazingly easy, absorbing read and best of all is the sense of listening an ancient voice telling a story so removed from our times and perspective - where today we have books and movies packed with non-stop action and cliffhangers, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" has very little of action and a tons of wonderful, flowery, poetic descriptions that create pure magic if reader is in the right frame of mind - it probably works very well as reading out loud in the winter's night around Christmas I would guess. It is a slim volume of a great beauty and worth re-visiting. The more I think about it, the more I like it.