I agree with all of the above.... both are amazing in different ways

Gilmour > Clapton. That is all.

I'll chose Gilmour anytime.

I have always found Eric Clapton slightly overrated as a guitarist. No doubt that he is technically brilliant; he also has a very distinct sound, but he rarely goes beyond the standard blues phrasings - which is why I often lose interest during his solos.

I think David Gilmour is much more lyrical and melodic, and there's a bit more emotion in his playing while you can still hear a bluesy feel in it. "Shine On" of course is a good example of that, as is "Time".

More generally, I would say the most interesting guitar players are not necessarily the greatest virtuosos. I usually get bored by fast finger moving, especially after ten minutes, which is why I find it incredibly hard to listen through an album like Derek and the Dominos's "Layla".

There are exceptions of course: I really like Richie Blackmore, but I guess that is because of the almost classical sounding guitar playing on some Purple tracks.

Would you guys feel the same with Beck v Gilmour? 

Just curious.

Both Beck and Clapton can play circles around Gilmour.

I'd probably still choose Gilmour.   In a way, Dave has continued to evolve and become more refined.   He is also a cleaner player, a better performer, and more true to his studio work in concert.

It depends on what they play. Clapton's performances with Waters (not only Pros and Cons, I have a bootleg of their concert in Stockholm), aren't at the level of Gimour. Wish You Were Here in Stockholm is played with the E bass untuned. Probably he wasn't in a good status, actually.

On the other side, Clapton is surely more technical than Gilmour as player. 

You can be technical, you can be the most technical guitarist in the whole world...but you haven't composed Comfortably Numb.

That's the difference,

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.

 

Agreed.  I have that same problem with many of the guitar virtuoso artists, they start to sound the same.  The real artists are the ones that can display their use of dynamics and variety.

Now, I say Gilmour with equal enthusiasm.

Neither is in my top 10, but I do see a clear separation at this point. 

Clapton was really awesome at what he did when he did it, but what he did wasn't particularly unique and really rather narrow in scope when compared to those I think of as truly special guitarists.  And he has settled into making some really bland music for the last two decades at least.  While not flashy, Gilmour is indeed special, unique, and uniquely expressive.   

I wouldn't call either one any where near as versatile (as a guitarist that is, vocals aside) as Beck.  Dude has at times in his career demonstrated mastery over a broad range of styles. Clapton tried to do jazz once and it was a disappointment to say the least.  

True...and I would take him and his body of work over either Clapton or Gilmour.

Fischman wrote: I actually hear a lot of expressiveness in (some of) Satriani's playing.  He's more than just a technical wizard. The problem with his music lies mostly in his refusal to employ a rhythm section that sounds anything other than generic background music for a car commercial.  The drums and bass backing him are always hopelessly mundane.  Without any vocals, the music does end up being rather uninteresting, regardless of whether he can play his guitar expressively or not.

Yes

One of my favorites is Guitar Shop. Doesn't seem to be liked as well as some of this others. How can one not like a trio of Beck, Tony Hymas (keys) and the one & only Terry Bozzio on drums?!

^ When Guitar Shop came out it was a very interesting issue from him, a lot of imagination and actual guitar playing.   Certainly a creative redemption after the radio-oriented Flash.   Saw him on tour for it and it was very clean and well-produced.  

Atavachron wrote: ^ When Guitar Shop came out it was a very interesting issue from him, a lot of imagination and actual guitar playing.   Certainly a creative redemption after the radio-oriented Flash.   Saw him on tour for it and it was very clean and well-produced.

 

That was the soundtrack for when you wanted to pretend you were part of the cast on Miami Vice!

^ Either that or this robotic catastrophe --

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjd0L33ueLiAhXGqVQKHRRFDcsQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.progarchives.com%2Falbum.asp%3Fid%3D11409&psig=AOvVaw2VZ5FDLscOGQHDw7_19JvW&ust=1560377668918022" rel="nofollow">

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.  

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.

They were excellent improvisors, even post-DarkSide if you listen to tapes from the WYWH tour.   In fact the material was largely born of improvisation, either as a group or individually.

 

While it is true most of Clapton's music is based on the blues scale and messing around with the standard 12 bar pattern, he has often delved into other areas like country, folk, reggae, jazz, rock, pop, and all of that, not always to the best of results, but he still tries.  There were even times when he could be quite passionate.  Take, for example, his amazing guitar work (and vocals) on "River of Tears.  Yes it's blues, but its also quite heart wrenching.  And it is also true that Gilmour could be quite varied at times.  But overall, I still stand by what I said comparing the two.  Their strengths make them the amazing musicians that they are.

TenYearsAfter wrote: Lots of sidesteps during this Clapton/Gilmour topic, how about Carlos Santana versus Gilmour? For me Santana is one of the most overlooked guitarists within the world of prog, with his innovative Latin prog sound, his distinctive sustain, and lots of monumental soli, like Gilmour, and both are blues oriented, preferring emotion above scale acrobtics.

 

You're not wrong! 

Arguably, Dave Gilmour has the minimum amount of skill that still lets you belong in "great guitarists" pantheon purely relying on your sound/tone/soloing style. I think he's entrenched in a comfort zone, but he's able to pull off some impressive music with very modest tools. More power to him.

Clapton isn't the most technical on Earth, but at least he used to be on top in 1965-74 era, roughly.

Someone mentioned Beck. Of the three, he'd be my pick, although with a caveat... there are some nights when wild, groundbreaking guitar experiments backfire and he sounds less than impressive. Ritchie Blackmore said that Jeff Beck's style is out of this Earth IF he has a good night, but he also takes many risks so... you get the picture.

^ Beck was a great mistake-maker.

I'm sure many here have seen this....'nuff said.