I wasn't trying to actually compare Peter to Eric as guitar players. I was pointing out the difference in the way they are today relative to their past.
Clapton has been through many changes over the years, but not too far from what he's always been - a blues player. And he's still humble about the whole "guitar hero" thing. He still points to the great bluemen of yesteryear as the reason he does what he does, and where he gets the playing from.
I think Peter seemed to have that feeling even deeper than Eric. Especially when EC got into Cream. I love that story about the psycadelic Eric telling the bluejeaned Peter backstage that he'll never be "big" dressed like he was.
I was just asking weather Peter's "growth" as a musician was because he simply evolved as he got older - or as a result of the demons and issues he has been through.
I'm still not as well versed in Greeny's story as many of you. I'm still a bit of a rookie. I have that Splinter concert DVD and although Peter is great to watch, and plays some fine guitar, there is no trace of that awesome
fire that he displayed back in time. That's not meant as a put-down at all. As I watch that DVD I find it wonderful to see him making music and feeling the positive feedback from the audience. I can't tell though if he is really, REALLY having fun. I hope so.
I could never really understand why it becomes a burden for a performer to give the people what they want. Clapton for instance is a lead guitarist first and foremost. And people love to see him play that Strat. Fortunately, he loves to play the Strat. So it's a very happy marriage. I can see a certain song becoming a bit worn out. But to not give the fans at least a "taste" of what they bought your music for, and what they are fans of you for, then that doesn't seem right alltogether.
Can you imagine Fleetwood Mac doing a tour tomorrow and not doing anything off of "Rumors".
BTW - I thought that the Cream reunion was fantastic.