• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Peter Green and the Bluesbreakers Better than Clapton?

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
How so, Tom? Peter is clearly trying to do his best Eric copy. Where does he take it further? Supernatural is the only cut that steps out of the direct Eric mold, and though sustain and gobs of reverb within Claptons tone blueprint might seem novel, it hardly raises the bar.

Just my personal impression from listening to both. Peter inspires me more. Especially from the live recordings of Peter in the Bluesbreakers.
Supernatural is also something I can't imagine Clapton writing or "coming up with" at the time. Peter played a lot of solos that are more unique and to me, more inventive.
They're both fantastic. Clapton at his best maybe? I absolutely love both. But in that band, I think Peter took Clapton's place and stepped it up. :salude
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
There has been more of PG's playing come to light over the years with the Bluesbreakers (live performances etc) than Eric's work at the time, but if you take the albums that they played on while with Mayall they both display great playing but different styles, individual styles. Is one BETTER than the other, that's up to each of us to decide what we like best.
For me, it's when Peter left the BBs and formed Fleetwood Mac that he did some great tunes while Eric was breaking new ground with Cream......... both different, tasty and innovative expansions on the Blues theme.......sublime playing and singing in most cases.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
Just my personal impression from listening to both. Peter inspires me more. Especially from the live recordings of Peter in the Bluesbreakers.
Supernatural is also something I can't imagine Clapton writing or "coming up with" at the time. Peter played a lot of solos that are more unique and to me, more inventive.
They're both fantastic. Clapton at his best maybe? I absolutely love both. But in that band, I think Peter took Clapton's place and stepped it up. :salude

Oh, I love them both as well, Tom. Strictly talking Bluesbreakers I prefer Clapton. Just compare te Freddie songs. It's clear that Peter was trying hard to be like Eric. Except for Supernatural, which I agree is more Peter's thing. Taking Eric's overdriven tone and use of feedback adding cranked to the max reverb and going nowhere but to bore 'em sleepyville.

I find most of Peters tone bland compared to Beano and :bigal WTF is up with that mix?? Peters tone is thin, buried in most of the songs and there is Waaaaaayyy to much freakin' reverb on everything. Beano simply sounds better. On the few songs where Peters guitar is stronger in the mix, he sounds like an over rehearsed Clapton, with little to boldly state, "Here I am. Check ME out!"!!! So please tell me which songs show him outplaying Clapton? 'Cause I don't hear it.

It's always preference. I have all the Clapton, Greene and Taylor discs and listen often. My favourite player is Clapton. He was Steppin' Out! His is the example followed and he set the template. I've always felt Peter came into his own with the Mac, not Mayall.
 
Last edited:

Juanchi

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
5
Clapton or Green?

Maybe i'll just combine both of them, add some steroids, and.....voilá!!... We get the GOAT: Mr. Robert William Gary Moore. :spabout
 

au_rick

Active member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
871
What years did they play in the Blues Breakers ?

LOL, the posts had gone well off topic before I threw that in :laugh2: but if we're talking about Bluesbreakers, then Clapton, hands down for me.
 
Last edited:

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I don’t find PGs early tone thin or slathered in Reverb. His style and note choice is more exploratory with an almost “dreamy” quality for lack of a better word than Clapton’s whose more straight ahead blues was aggressive and in your face in a way Peter’s was not.

It seems silly to argue better. There are no objectively quantifiable metrics which allow us to determine who is better, there’s just our perceptions, opinions and appreciation of each artist‘s undeniable talent.

Oh, I love them both as well, Tom. Strictly talking Bluesbreakers I prefer Clapton. Just compare te Freddie songs. It's clear that Peter was trying hard to be like Eric. Except for Supernatural, which I agree is more Peter's thing. Taking Eric's overdriven tone and use of feedback adding cranked to the max reverb and going nowhere but to bore 'em sleepyville.

I find most of Peters tone bland compared to Beano and :bigal WTF is up with that mix?? Peters tone is thin, buried in most of the songs and there is Waaaaaayyy to much freakin' reverb on everything. Beano simply sounds better. On the few songs where Peters guitar is stronger in the mix, he sounds like an over rehearsed Clapton, with little to boldly state, "Here I am. Check ME out!"!!! So please tell me which songs show him outplaying Clapton? 'Cause I don't hear it.

It's always preference. I have all the Clapton, Greene and Taylor discs and listen often. My favourite player is Clapton. He was Steppin' Out! His is the example followed and he set the template. I've always felt Peter came into his own with the Mac, not Mayall.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
I don’t find PGs early tone thin or slathered in Reverb. His style and note choice is more exploratory with an almost “dreamy” quality for lack of a better word than Clapton’s whose more straight ahead blues was aggressive and in your face in a way Peter’s was not.

It seems silly to argue better. There are no objectively quantifiable metrics which allow us to determine who is better, there’s just our perceptions, opinions and appreciation of each artist‘s undeniable talent.

Just my opinion, but I listen to both alot. The whole Hard Road CD/LP is drenched in spring reverb. It's as if the studio just got one and couldn't resist. Johns vocals and Peter's guitar, (when it is more prominent in the mix), are especially doused in sauce. Are you saying it's not??

The cuts that do not have a prominent guitar mix have a thin, plinky tone. It sounds to me as if Peters amp is turned way down as their appears to be little bleed and it doesn't appear as isolated and mixed down at the board.

You say dreamy. I say sterile and over rehearsed. Certainly nothing exciting, thrilling or especially noteworthy when compared to Beano. Cuts like "You Don't Love Me", are good example of this.

Where Peter is allowed to crank up the amp, he gets a more muscular Beano tone, [with added reverb], and does a decent Clapton impression. His best, imo, is on Freddy Kings "Stumble", and as good as it is, it fails to exceed Claptons previous work on Beano. Dreamy is apt for "Supernatural" and is the only cut that is undeniably original and unique to him. The reverb suits it and it certainly is dreamy. So much so, in fact, it's like a lullaby.

Besides that, which cuts show this dreamy note choice or playing that is superior to Beano?

I am only comparing BEANO to HARD ROAD if you want to start comparing live stuff from 67 maybe compare that to CREAM.

As I've said I love Greeney's playing. His work with Fleetwood Mac forever changed me as a musician and is just brilliant. Though enjoyable, I never found his playing or the Hard Road album better or preferable to Beano. I've recently listened to both to see if I was missing something, I wasn't. I guess it's just individual preference.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
Just my opinion, but I listen to both alot. The whole Hard Road CD/LP is drenched in spring reverb. It's as if the studio just got one and couldn't resist. Johns vocals and Peter's guitar, (when it is more prominent in the mix), are especially doused in sauce. Are you saying it's not??

The cuts that do not have a prominent guitar mix have a thin, plinky tone. It sounds to me as if Peters amp is turned way down as their appears to be little bleed and it doesn't appear as isolated and mixed down at the board.

You say dreamy. I say sterile and over rehearsed. Certainly nothing exciting, thrilling or especially noteworthy when compared to Beano. Cuts like "You Don't Love Me", are good example of this.

Where Peter is allowed to crank up the amp, he gets a more muscular Beano tone, [with added reverb], and does a decent Clapton impression. His best, imo, is on Freddy Kings "Stumble", and as good as it is, it fails to exceed Claptons previous work on Beano. Dreamy is apt for "Supernatural" and is the only cut that is undeniably original and unique to him. The reverb suits it and it certainly is dreamy. So much so, in fact, it's like a lullaby.

Besides that, which cuts show this dreamy note choice or playing that is superior to Beano?

I am only comparing BEANO to HARD ROAD if you want to start comparing live stuff from 67 maybe compare that to CREAM.

As I've said I love Greeney's playing. His work with Fleetwood Mac forever changed me as a musician and is just brilliant. Though enjoyable, I never found his playing or the Hard Road album better or preferable to Beano. I've recently listened to both to see if I was missing something, I wasn't. I guess it's just individual preference.

I will likely always prefer PG to EC but I think we can agree it is individual preference.

With regard to spring Reverb, It sounds to me that most of those cuts were recorded live, with the natural reverb Of the venue. Given the quality, the production seems minimal. Unless it was recorded direct to the FOH desk which I doubt, who would add spring reverb to an already wet recording . Take the first track. I hear a lot of room ambience, the guitar is mixed pretty prominently, the vocals on the other hand are recessed and muddled almost as if they mixed in too much room sound to the direct vocal sound. But who knows I don’t have the liner sheets or production notes of those tracks. I think Beano is a much better produced album but that has nothing to do with Spring reverb.
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
I am only comparing BEANO to HARD ROAD if you want to start comparing live stuff from 67 maybe compare that to CREAM.

The comparison is between Clapton and Green, while in the Bluesbreakers. While in that band, not subsequent bands.

Have you heard any of the live recordings of Peter Green with the Bluesbreakers?

It is all our own personal likes and dislikes.
So, I'm not trying to fight. Just wanting to compare apples to apples.
 

Tarcisioo

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
385
Everyone's talking about live recordings, but what I see Big Al saying and I also agree very much is that, at least in the studio, Eric sounded a thousand times better than Peter, as the guitar mix on A Hard Road sounds very thin and reverby and (to me) not a very pleasing guitar tone, wich is exactly the opposite of the Beano album, wich is the best studio guitar tone ever recorded in history :spabout

But talking about live recordings, of course you guys have heard Clapton's guitar on Stormy Monday live with Mayall, right?

I really love both, but saying A Hard Road shows a better guitar tone and performance than the Beano album really intrigues me
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
wich is exactly the opposite of the Beano album, wich is the best studio guitar tone ever recorded in history :spabout


The Beano album was a great album for the fact that it bought Eric playing a LP and Marshall to us all..........not all the tracks sounded great though imho(in the LP/Marshall style).
You can argue the toss on these things day in and day out but as an example(from the BBs era) I really like Mick Taylor's tone on Crusade as a 'tonal' album.
Just my 2c.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
Everyone's talking about live recordings, but what I see Big Al saying and I also agree very much is that, at least in the studio, Eric sounded a thousand times better than Peter, as the guitar mix on A Hard Road sounds very thin and reverby and (to me) not a very pleasing guitar tone, wich is exactly the opposite of the Beano album, wich is the best studio guitar tone ever recorded in history :spabout

But talking about live recordings, of course you guys have heard Clapton's guitar on Stormy Monday live with Mayall, right?

I really love both, but saying A Hard Road shows a better guitar tone and performance than the Beano album really intrigues me


I’m talking about the PG Bluesbreaker tracks I posted above. Despite the audio quality being less than great, PG’s guitar tone has a very expressive vocal like quality. I find Clapton’s tone to have more bite and clarity, no doubt a great benchmark Les Paul tone but to me PG’s is more haunting. Idk it’s hard to describe tone really. Two great but very different iconic Les Paul/Marshall tones: Duane and Kossoff. Duane’s tone was incredibly vocal, maybe the most vocal of any of the great Les Paul slingers whereas Kossoff had that very present, in your face crunch.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
I’m talking about the PG Bluesbreaker tracks I posted above. Despite the audio quality being less than great, PG’s guitar tone has a very expressive vocal like quality. I find Clapton’s tone to have more bite and clarity, no doubt a great benchmark Les Paul tone but to me PG’s is more haunting. Idk it’s hard to describe tone really.


Based on the evidence(tracks available) from both of them you'd have to say that Peter showed the greater dexterity and finesse/dynamics...........I would love to have heard more of Eric's live tapes with Mayall from that '65/66 period.
However..........a small inkling of what happened with those gigs is the medium paced track It Hurts To Be In Love off of the Primal Solos album......inspirational tone and a small sample of what's been lost to us.

I'm reiterating my previous comments here..........tried to erase this post but it wouldn't let me..........oh well........c'est la vie.........I used to be a parrot but I'm alright now..I used to be a parrot but I'm alright now:lol
 
Last edited:

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
The comparison is between Clapton and Green, while in the Bluesbreakers. While in that band, not subsequent bands.

Have you heard any of the live recordings of Peter Green with the Bluesbreakers?

It is all our own personal likes and dislikes.
So, I'm not trying to fight. Just wanting to compare apples to apples.

Have you heard the live Clapton recordings? 'Cause good ones are rare and hard to source and line ups varied. Too me, the two studio recordings closest in time, with the same band, represent the fairest comparison. Someone posting a vague live recording claimed from '67, where the guitar is clearly out of phase, something that was said to occur well after Peter started Fleetwood Mac makes it fair to compare to Clapton's live playing from the same time. Otherwise stick to the records, apples to apples.

I get it, you like Pete, you give vague impressions and rely on live recordings done much later, 'cause the record just don't get it. It ain't fighting Tom, I was looking for clarity and examples from the record to see if I could hear what has only been hinted at. I was poking and prodding hoping to get an example. I get it.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
I will likely always prefer PG to EC but I think we can agree it is individual preference.

With regard to spring Reverb, It sounds to me that most of those cuts were recorded live, with the natural reverb Of the venue. Given the quality, the production seems minimal. Unless it was recorded direct to the FOH desk which I doubt, who would add spring reverb to an already wet recording . Take the first track. I hear a lot of room ambience, the guitar is mixed pretty prominently, the vocals on the other hand are recessed and muddled almost as if they mixed in too much room sound to the direct vocal sound. But who knows I don’t have the liner sheets or production notes of those tracks. I think Beano is a much better produced album but that has nothing to do with Spring reverb.

No, that is not room sound. That sounds very much like studio spring reverb. My 8 track studio in the 70's had an AKG BX20 spring reverb that sounded very much like Hard Road. That thing was HUGE!!!! I don't know if they had that or a British equivalent, but damn it sounds like it, and they laid it on thick. It's not on drums or bass, which is a clue. Supernatural is the same effect.

Take the "I love Peter Green" hat off for a bit, and give that a serious listen, then do the same for Beano, then please give a honest assessment.

Too me, The Stumble is the standout guitar track, Supernatual my favorite. I'd like to compare notes and explain why.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I definitely need to revisit early Clapton. He is for many the gold standard.

In quite a few of the PG tracks I posted you can actually hear the audience. In tears in my eyes, after PG’s solo, the applause from the audience actually overloads the room mics.


No, that is not room sound. That sounds very much like studio spring reverb. My 8 track studio in the 70's had an AKG BX20 spring reverb that sounded very much like Hard Road. That thing was HUGE!!!! I don't know if they had that or a British equivalent, but damn it sounds like it, and they laid it on thick. It's not on drums or bass, which is a clue. Supernatural is the same effect.

Take the "I love Peter Green" hat off for a bit, and give that a serious listen, then do the same for Beano, then please give a honest assessment.

Too me, The Stumble is the standout guitar track, Supernatual my favorite. I'd like to compare notes and explain why.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
I definitely need to revisit early Clapton. He is for many the gold standard.

In quite a few of the PG tracks I posted you can actually hear the audience. In tears in my eyes, after PG’s solo, the applause from the audience actually overloads the room mics.

I prefer the post Hard Road Peter Green live Bluesbreaker stuff and, imo it is far above that album. Make no mistake, I am a big Greenie fan. I'm also a big Clapton fan and find I can like both and till be fairly objective about them and I'm old enough to remember the times and can separate and place things in perspective.

Do you really think it fair to compare live Clapton from 1965, well before Beano to post Beano, post Hard Road Green live material from 1967 and some later I suspect. The clip you posted clearly has that oof tone that happened after Fleetwood Mac.

There is a huge difference between 65 and 67. Much greater than 2 years as witnessed by the music produced. That short time period saw major changes and if you are too young to remember, research a little.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I didn’t listen to PG until I bought my first Les Paul. I knew about Clapton from Layla. Never heard of Beano until I saw it mentioned on this forum. So I’m sure you are far more knowledgeable about EC and PG than I.

That said I do know this, those YouTube clips I posted certainly sound like a Les Paul through a Marshall. They definitely DO NOT have that out of phase tone. I don’t know if you listened to those clips but Tears, Worried Dream, etc., sound nothing like Jumping at Shadows or Fool no More where PG’s out of phase tone awash in reverb is unmistakable. Leads me to suspect you never listened to them. This would of course render our discussion here rather pointless because you are not referencing the same PG material that I am.


I prefer the post Hard Road Peter Green live Bluesbreaker stuff and, imo it is far above that album. Make no mistake, I am a big Greenie fan. I'm also a big Clapton fan and find I can like both and till be fairly objective about them and I'm old enough to remember the times and can separate and place things in perspective.

Do you really think it fair to compare live Clapton from 1965, well before Beano to post Beano, post Hard Road Green live material from 1967 and some later I suspect. The clip you posted clearly has that oof tone that happened after Fleetwood Mac.

There is a huge difference between 65 and 67. Much greater than 2 years as witnessed by the music produced. That short time period saw major changes and if you are too young to remember, research a little.
 

gmann

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
6,147
All those cats were great! But, Clapton was the first to really kick out the jams with that tone, volume and phrasing. Being the first sets him apart. Take that as you will.

It's become quite fashionable to knock Clapton these days. If not for him, there would probably be no Peter Green, at least not as we know him.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I don’t think posing a question about who was better in the Bluesbreakers Clapton or Green counts as knocking him. As far as fashionable, when has it ever been fashionable to knock the guitarist still regarded as “God” by many? I guess when you’re “God”, any comparison to mere mortals is a knock. So Without “him” there would be no Peter Green? Obviously, there would be no Jimmy Page, no Jeff Beck, probably no Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman either.


I can appreciate Clapton’s immense talent and the impact he had. However, this idea it all began with him is ridiculous. Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Robert Johnson, Chuck Berry, BB King, Freddy King, and every other American blues player that came before Eric plugged into a JTM45 together with Leo Fender’s amps, led to the inevitability of “English Blues”. You should probably throw in Buddy Holly and Elvis in there as well. And Don’t forget some of Clapton’s English contemporaries like Keith, Brian, George and John.






It's become quite fashionable to knock Clapton these days. If not for him, there would probably be no Peter Green, at least not as we know him.
 
Top