whoa there

you're nuts, that's a great version

Okay, Blackmore is the undisputed #1 because he kills in ever criteria.

1. Blackmore
2. Allman
3. Hendrix
4. Vaughan
5. Clapton

I'd rather not.

Clapton destroys Townshend in consistency and reputation.

Stop making these unfounded claims all the time.

...And I'm accused of being a fanboy. Have you listened to ANYTHING by Clapton? I highly doubt this.

The only thing Townshend has over Clapton is stage presence. Clapton takes improv EASILY, consistency by a fair amount, and reputation by a small but decent amount.

Clapton is greater, imo, but it's very close.

How many times have you seen Clapton live and I dont mean in Youtube or DVD?

Well, I've seen him probably 10 or 11 times and I can tell you that for 90% of those Gigs, he mailed in the performance. Thats not to say his playing wasn't exemplary, because it was. It was just a case of Eric doing what he does and no more/no less.

I have seen him on 2 consecutive nights and they were identical, right down to the 'hello - How are you intros etc. and the White suit. I bet the concerts were timed to the second.

The backing band with Gadd, Nathan East, Greg Phillinganes etc. was so damn good that everything was just too scripted, tight and perfect. I might as well have listened to a CD.
I saw one of the 2010 Winwood/Clapton shows and was seriously disappointed. It was only an 8 minute version of Voodoo Chile that saved the day for me.

Clapton's Bluesbreaker and Cream days alone are enough to have him in top 10 but he loses points against Townshend who has banged in explosive performances consistently since day 1.


NC

This Clapton improv thing is a strange one and can be looked at in more than one way. I dont think he improvises like Robben Ford or Larry Carlton does or any other of he Jazz influenced guys.

Does 'Blues improv' actually exist? - I think he just has that many stock blues based licks in his repertoire, that nothing sounds improvised (even if it is).

With all due respect, you're describing RECENT performances aren't you? Nobody is saying that Clapton is the same ferocious player that he was in his prime. You cant expect everyone to maintain a level of excellence over a career of 50 years.



You're also forgetting his Derek & The Dominos phase, which had arguably the best live playing of his career.
As for Townshend, he was more consistent in terms of being a visual thrill, but not necessarily in terms of consistent quality playing.



Well obviously everyone has their own style of improvising. Ford and Carlton have different styles and have adapted jazz flourishes into their playing, which makes their improv a little more...varied, I guess.
But the things Clapton could do with a mere pentatonic blues scale, in his prime, were astounding. The way he could solo for 10 minutes or more, and keep it fresh and exciting, is all the more remarkable to me considering that he really WASN'T all that versatile.



I think you just need to hear some more prime era Clapton.

Dont think Clapton takes reputation? What do you think all the "Clapton is God" fuss was about? It was due mainly to his live playing.
As stated in the liner notes of the Bluesbreakers album, "He IS the best, dammit, and on his best nights, Eric can make time stand still".

And no, Moon and Daltrey were just as responsible for the Who's live greatness.

Explain why he should be higher than Page.

Stage presence is NOT a comfortable win for Townshend.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ7CZ7nLWZ4[/youtube]

Yes it is. Townshend was one of the most visually exciting live rock guitarists ever.

Reputation: Tied (perhaps a very slight edge to Pete)
Improv: Page
Stage Presence: Townshend
Consistency: Townshend

Townshend wasn't that consistent in live gutiar playing. Listen to some of his 80s' gigs.