Re: ERIC CLAPTON, KATE, ART & EXPLOITATION

[Unjay <daisyhed@adelaide.dialix.com.au>]

Samantha, I've got to thank you for taking this on. When I read the post 
below I wanted to respond immediately, but I was too angry...If anyone had 
ever read an interview with EC, or seen him speak, they would have to 
know he is a straight down the line person. I have the highest respect for 
him.

<< I think that the turning of his son's death into a money-making venture 
is
<< offensive. It's not like he wrote the song to express his grief and kept
it
<< to himself. He exploited the situation, much to the pleasure of the NARAS
<< people (who give out the Grammys).
<<

>Umm.... did I miss something?  I mean, isn't writing and painting and
>creating, etc., out of your own experiences, including grief, the basis of
>artistic expression? 

Thank God some sanity has entered into this discussion!

>To give Eric Clapton the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure he did not release
>the song with the single-minded intention of making a few extra dollars.  

In actual fact I think the song was  written for a soundtrack before 
Connor's accident even happened. It's unlikely someone whose son had just 
died would be thinking up ways to take advantage of the situation. Get real.


>... you have obviously not experienced
much suffering (or you stuff it and deny the pain) and while you may be
ignorantly blissful for it, it's probably also the reason you are so shallow.

Well said Angeltred. It takes sufferring to cause knowledge to integrate 
with heart and bring a fuller ...well, "Love and deeper understanding"...as 
usual, KaTe's been here before...

Unjay