Clapton / Gilmour

Finnforest wrote: Totally agree on feeling v technical. A friend of mine is always trying to get me into Satriani. I acknowledge his skills, but I still glaze over fairly quickly with wave after wave of shred.

TCat wrote: Beck is great, but I have a harder time listening to his albums because he is more of a show off and (yes I know this is a strange thing to rate a guitarist by) he can't sing where both Clapton and Gilmour can making their music more versatile.  They could be excellent artists just on their singing alone, but they can both hold my interest better than Beck can.  There have been a few albums that I have enjoyed by Beck, but I consistently love Gilmour and Clapton.

Jeff Beck is a beast: the perfect storm of expression and virtuosity. 

No doubt that Beck is a virtuoso, and, as I have said, I have enjoyed some of his albums, but he just never really stuck with me as consistently as Gilmour or Clapton.  I would say that I even like some of Robin Trower's earlier albums and find them more memorable than Beck's, but, again, that is just my own taste.  I definitely won't say anyone is better than another except from my own point of view.  Beck, Satriani, Vai, Malmsteen ... I tend to classify them together, I've heard them all, and they all sound great at first, they are all guitar aficionados, but I just can't stay interested in them long enough to get through an album.  At least with Beck I can say that I have enjoyed a few of his albums.

TCat wrote: Clapton is more varied and a better improviser, but Gilmour can create more passion and strength.  They both have their own distinct styles, and they are both highly revered by me, so I can't decide which one I like more, I think they are both amazing.

With all the jamming focus Floyd had in their pre-Dark Side years, I would say the band (Gilmour included) were actually very good improvising. I would actually say I enjoy more the results that came out of Pink Floyd than those of King Crimson themselves in that respect.

Fischman wrote: Dellinger wrote: TCat wrote: Clapton is more varied and a better improviser, but Gilmour can create more passion and strength.  They both have their own distinct styles, and they are both highly revered by me, so I can't decide which one I like more, I think they are both amazing. With all the jamming focus Floyd had in their pre-Dark Side years, I would say the band (Gilmour included) were actually very good improvising. I would actually say I enjoy more the results that came out of Pink Floyd than those of King Crimson themselves in that respect. Clapton is indeed a very good improviser.... within the confines the standard pentatonic blues scale. But that is hardly varied.  As masterful as he is within those bounds, I can't see him as being more varied than any of the other guitarists discussed on this thread.