51 Proteus 2 months ago I've always preferred Peter Green over Clapton when it comes to British blues players. Well yes. That's the essence of my latest essay up-thread. Clapton kinda isn't a blues player, as his career playing other music illustrates.BUT. While I couldn't be a bigger fan of Peter Green's early work - none of the other British blues-rockers channeled the real Delta-to-Chicago heart-n-soul like Green - I think much of what was interesting and compelling about Fleetwood Mac in those years came not from him but from the collaboration. And with the tragically under-recognized guitar of Danny Kirwan in particular.Whether PG would have remained vibrant and creative through a long later career is unanswerable. Had he sustained his tapped-into-the-main-vein blues voice through decades, that would have been a wonderful thing. But for how long can you play the blues, the real blues, and nothing but the blues and remain either interesting and/or a viable recording artist? And had he evolved - or contributed his singular tone, note choice, and phrasing to other musical contexts - what would that have sounded like? Might he have gone in a Clapton-esque pop direction, or found something more evolutionary like Beck and Fripp?Unanswerable questions. But in those Brit blues boys years, no one (for my money) did it better than Green. That's for sure!