On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Olin Lathrop wr= ote: > Except that Eric Clapton wasn't just "someone else". He was a renowed > expert at the top of his field. Therefore it would be wise to assume > whatever he did in that regard was a good idea until proven otherwise, no= t > the other way around. > I have nothing against Eric Clapton, but he's just a musician. The same kin= d that got addicted to various "hard" drugs and what not. I don't disrespect him, but I'm not going to follow him blindly. To me, he's just "someone else". And whether or not someone is an "expert" in music is subject to much debate. Yes, there is some science behind music, but specifically, what makes one an expert and another one not? And how do you define "top of his field" for a musician? Many people like it? Well that's nice, but so what? Made a lot of money? So what, that was back when people actually bought music. He is a musician. Like many, he does things on a whim. Whatever comes to mind, whenever it does. Whenever he feels like it. Again, not an attack on him, but this is not someone I would follow blindly in anything. If he jammed a piece of wood in his guitar, that's wonderful for him, but I'm most certainly not going to do it without looking into it and seeing what effects it could have. I don't want to risk damaging my baby. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .