earlier writeups claimed Gilmour is a master at tone and vibrato, and less accurately,
that he is better than Clapton or Hendrix.

David Gilmour is for a good chunk of the 70’s and 80's one of the best at solid-body guitar tone and phrasing around. He took the blues to the heart of the Sun.

"...just slightly above Clapton and Hendrix" is too arguable to let pass. Both those guys had (deserved) solo stardom that Gilmour had only as part of Pink Floyd. In fretboard virtuosity as well as sound, Gilmour would be the first to laugh at a comparison to Hendrix. Jimi ran rings around *everybody*. Now, Gilmour often has sweet, sonorous, deft phrasing. He knows when not to play; he has taste. But Jimi's firepower? No way. Jimi didn’t have a choice about it: the demons just took hold.

As for Clapton, just because he has now gotten lazy doesn't mean that he wasn't once the hardest rock rolling. Props always to Mitch and Noel, but Jimi did not have Jack Bruce or Ginger Baker to contend with. I think half the time Clapton was fighting to keep up, trying not to be upstaged, while Gilmour and the whole Floyd were always more stoned, laid back.

Along with his Pink Floyd work, Gilmour has released two very fine solo albums - David Gilmour (1978) and About Face (1984). The latter contained a song called Murder about the death of John Lennon, which got some airplay at the time. In my humble opinion, these two albums are far superior to Gilmour's post-Roger Waters Pink Floyd work, simply because he was being himself. About Face came out at roughly the same time as Waters' The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking, but wasn't as popular - which may explain why Gilmour reformed Floyd.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.