what is "modern" guitar sound, anyway?

[markkl...@gmail.com]

Definition?

[jaz]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:34:13 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

something influenced by the popular sounds of today. By definition, probably not an archtop or a jimi hendrix sound...Though hendrix rhythmic devices are remarkably prevalent even in modern music.

[ott...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:34:13 UTC-7, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

In Jazz, I'd say Rosenwinkel and Scofield as well, and Metheny.
There are many

[TD]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:34:13 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

A guy who uses a few or lots of pedals and/or effects for sustaining notes ( long sustained notes are "modern" to some people),overly thrives on the melodic minor scale and creates lots of permutations there of (side slipping, etc), incorporates some overplayed fast flurried primitive blues licks ( as an insurance against the inevitably bored trying-to-dig-jazz people), utilizes lots of facial expressions and is sometimes in costume. Modern is a bullshit word.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

So, like modern art, modern architecture.......nothing to imply fresh or new.....been there done that.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-01 23:07:09 +0000, TD said:

> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:34:13 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Definition?
>
> A guy who uses a few or lots of pedals and/or effects for sustaining
> notes ( long sustained notes are "modern" to some people),

I'm not that guy, but that's what I mean when I use it.

> ...overly thrives on the melodic minor scale and creates lots of

> permutations there of (side slipping, etc), incorporates some
> overplayed fast flurried primitive blues licks ( as an insurance
> against the inevitably bored trying-to-dig-jazz people),

And that sometimes is what I actually do with or witout the sigproc: It
seems to work better with Shorter and Davis "modernity"

> ...utilizes lots of facial expressions and is sometimes in costume.

> Modern is a bullshit word.

I've found that makes rock and blues more modern than anything else. I
do weary of the grimaces that seem regulation, but when you compare it
to those faces that could be reading a newspaper for all their
expression, I suppose it adds some stagecraft.

I notice you didn't add, "lives at home with his parents" or "can't get
laid cause his pecker's too short" or "always seems to have foam accrue
in the corners of his mouth" when talks, so I guess you weren't giving
the complete definition of "modern guitar sound".
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden

[jaz]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:16:24 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> So, like modern art, modern architecture.......nothing to imply fresh or new.....been there done that.

can't agree with that or the previous statement. What made jazz special was the unique combination of artistic expression along with modern pop music. unfortunately, we're still playing over the pop music of the '40s 70 years later and wondering why there's no audience. Someday, jazz may have a lincoln center for the performing arts in every city but I doubt it because even the symphony orchestras are having a hard time.

Miles re-invented himself a 1/2 dozen times during the course of his career and always managed to be creative within the framework of the current popular music.

[TD]

Zero to do with my statement.

[jaz]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:53:11 PM UTC-4, TD wrote:
>
> Zero to do with my statement.

wasn't replying to you

[markkl...@gmail.com]

What does modern pop offer?

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-02 00:23:20 +0000, markkl...@gmail.com said:

> What does modern pop offer?

What has pop ever offered?

[jaz]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:23:20 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> What does modern pop offer?

marc broussard, john mayer, jonatha brooke, etc. There's lots of great stuff going on. Young people have a certain energy about them and it's why miles and countless other jazz artists surround themselves with young musicians.

The biggest mistake you can make is building a wall around yourself and thinking that only your own music matters.

[jaz]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:43:12 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-05-02 00:23:20 +0000, markkl...@gmail.com said:
>
>
>
> > What does modern pop offer?
>
>
>
> What has pop ever offered?

Ask Duke Ellington, Tommy Dorsey or Benny Goodman...

[Gerry]

They're dead. Is there someone living we can ask?

[jaz]

ask the guys I mentioned, along with justin timberlake, alicia keys, etc.

I sometimes laugh at the naivete of young people that think that just because something is "new" that it's more valid than what came before it. OTOH, I also laugh when I hear the opposite sentiment - that what is old is better than what's new. People say they know what they like but they really like what they know. (Howard Roberts told that anecdote to me and I've always remembered it)

[Gerry]

I totally agree. It's also one of the reasons that I spend a consistent
share of my energy listening to musics from the other parts of the
planet, both pop, traditional and other musics. There always seems to
be interesting pop stuff coming out of Brazil, Japan and India, for
instance.

[thomas]

So, what is "Why This Kolaveri D" about?

[Gerry]

Dunno. What's that mean?

[jaz]

agreed. World (Middle eastern, african, asian/indian) influences seem to hold the future of jazz. Do you like Fareed Haque ?

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-02 02:33:00 +0000, jaz said:

> agreed. World (Middle eastern, african, asian/indian) influences seem
> to hold the future of jazz. Do you like Fareed Haque ?

I've heard of him, but haven't heard him. I was speaking really more
of pop music. I have heard scant 3rd world influence in jazz or jazz
from the 3rd world that leveraged its own culture. To some extent the
whole of jazz is limited by a certain mindset that makes of it a series
of repertoire musics. Trad Jazz (Chicago/Dixeiland stuff) has a certain
rigidity of form, as do other approaches. The "great American songbook"
seems to be a newer cordoning off of approach. And then there are those
that stress fusion, the avant-garde, Latin and other pivots--far bet it
for me to set up the partitions.

Particularly in the musics of the middle-east (including North
African), Asia and India, some make liberal use of something other than
the even-temperament system and I wonder how long it will take to adapt
this to American jazz conceptions.

I've heard plenty of fascinating improv from Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon,
but "jazz", inexplicably, it isn't.

[John A.]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 9:08:51 PM UTC-4, jaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:23:20 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> The biggest mistake you can make is building a wall around yourself and thinking that only your own music matters.

No, the biggest mistake is starting a land war in Asia, or possibly going against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

John

[TD]

Excellent point.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:34:13 -0700, markkleinhaut wrote:

> Definition?

What is a "modern" guitar sound?

It is whatever most players are doing now. That's easy, but most
people seem to have read your question as "What is 'modern jazz'
from a guitarist's viewpoint?"

Modern jazz is that which sounds like the MJQ. Similarly,
bluegrass is that which sounds like Bill Monroe and his
Bluegrass Boys. These are really models rather than definitions,
but who wants to put boundaries on these subjects, and what
would be the point of doing so?

Regards, daveA

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-02 15:51:53 +0000, David Raleigh Arnold said:

> On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:34:13 -0700, markkleinhaut wrote:
>
>> Definition?
>
> What is a "modern" guitar sound?
>
> It is whatever most players are doing now.

Ah--it's a populist democratic thing, rather than a stylistic thing.

> That's easy, but most people seem to have read your question as "What
> is 'modern jazz'
> from a guitarist's viewpoint?"

"What is modern jazz from a jazz guitarist's viepoint", might be more
useful, as upstream Mark mentioned that a father/son team had never
heard of either Pass or enson.

> Modern jazz is that which sounds like the MJQ.

Because "modern jazz" is part of their name? So what would Miles Davis'
activities of the 60's be? Post-modern?

> Similarly, bluegrass is that which sounds like Bill Monroe and his
> Bluegrass Boys. These are really models rather than definitions,
> but who wants to put boundaries on these subjects, and what
> would be the point of doing so?

Understanding is the logical intent, not that it leads to this.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-01 22:34:13 +0000, markkl...@gmail.com said:

> Definition?

I'm not sure if this question was queued by my use of the phrase
"modern" when I said I use a GT3 when I "want to get a more modern
sound". For my use, significant sigproc is the definition of a "modern
guitar sound", with or without the "jazz" added. For me a "modern
sound" is typified by what guitarists like Metheny, Scofiled and
Frisell produce, which means the overuse of chorus and frequently the
use of compression, delay and perhaps distortion (natural or otherwise).

These were not requisite in the sound profiles of Pass, Kessel,
Bickert, Hall, Raney, and guitarists of that generation.

Perhaps "modern", always a problematic word, was inappropriately
selected. I suppose I should have said "contemporary" or "current
vogue of signal processing", but I didn't think it necessary.

[TD]

In the web broad sense, it will have to be necessary, if there is to be any sort of coalition. Modern means different things to many different minds. For me, modern is playing from the self and no 24/7 and many years into into it is going to remain archaic in approaching jazz improvisation. Idioms, themselves, can be classified as traditional, modern, contemporary et al, but any sense of "modern" comes from within and not with out ( meaning, we don't need effects to produce modern. Although, others can assume that we do), concerning an approach to any idiom. I have done just about all of it, and for me, I like to maintain, in continuity and form, the original premise: the melody, unless we are intentionally off on separate adventure. Yet, still, my statement is my view; one of several.

[deaconm...@gmail.com]

I took my 1971 Barker out on the patio last night. Played through Lullaby of Birdland, that is the Modern Sound........sound waves happening today.

You cannot really answer the question without going into a box.

Deacon Mark

[thomas]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:19:50 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>
> >> share of my energy listening to musics from the other parts of the
> >> planet, both pop, traditional and other musics. There always seems to
> >> be interesting pop stuff coming out of Brazil, Japan and India, for
> >> instance.
>

> > So, what is "Why This Kolaveri D" about?
>
> Dunno. What's that mean?

It was a huge pop hit in India and the rest of Asia a year or two ago. It's a catchy tune and I always wondered what the lyrics were about.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

To my ear a clean unprocessed tone can sound more modern than a signal processing laden tone, which often sounds dated. Its probably idle speculation to even talk about sound apart from the context of the music, though in either case there is little under the sun that's truly new. That said, take a guy like Lionel Loueke to come up with a new sound, and no signal processing. I also think guys like Kreisberg and Hekselman sound very fresh using predominantly clean tone.

[Gerry]

I'll keep my ears open for iot. But the pop hits do fly by at an
incredible speed from India...

[Gerry]

Yeah, I think what I really meant to say that any sound is modern and
all sounds are traditional. It's all about love, depth of soul and the
weather. Oh--and pastry.

[jaz]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:06:48 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> To my ear a clean unprocessed tone can sound more modern than a signal processing laden tone, which often sounds dated. Its probably idle speculation to even talk about sound apart from the context of the music, though in either case there is little under the sun that's truly new. That said, take a guy like Lionel Loueke to come up with a new sound, and no signal processing. I also think guys like Kreisberg and Hekselman sound very fresh using predominantly clean tone.

as i said before, modern doesn't mean playing the same thing through a signal processor. To me, the modern aspects of jazz incorporate elements of popular music and world music i.e. middle or far eastern rhythms as well as african, etc.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

I'm with you on world music, but pop music not so much. Especially for guitar fodder, i barely even hear guitar when i flip through radio channels, its all slamming sub woofers and auto tune vocals. By the way, I've played with more 20 somethings since i moved here than ever, and you know what they're all silly and excited about? Real book sessions! But they also havegreat chops, write tunes and play in rock band. I agree with your comment that its great to bee around their energy....

[Gerry]

We've had discussions of music and musicians as "art" and "artists",
and run into problems communicating when everyone has very different
meanings for the words. I remember this one in particular because one
guy said "I'm not that good": In this he implied that art was
inherently about stature. Another said, "I'm not willing to phony up
my music to make it artsy", which implied that "artistic" was some kind
of pose or stylistic pretense. Interesting.

You've implied a connection between modernity and world music. Much of
what I get out of world music is the traditional and folkloric aspects.
I'm not talking about JPop or Bollywood stuff now, but my interests in
older Brazilian samba cancao, for instance, or klezmer or asian folk
musics.

Now it's certainly NEW to me, and to whatever extent I occasionally try
to incorporate it into something that isn't traditional. So I suppose
the integration/merging can be seen as a "modern" process of synthesis.
Perhaps that what you mean when you refer to incorporation; that's the
pivot between modern and "not modern".

Words sure are funny people.

[TD]

The very act of trying to define the word spews forth miles and miles of tangent.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

you only now beginning to realize that what is old is really new?

[markkl...@gmail.com]

Just trying to liven the place up. What would you rather talk about? I mean, we'd all rather be playing right now but for various and sundry reasons we're not, and find ourselves killing a little time here with our friends (hopefully many and most will think of the group this way, and if not bugger off)....at least with a common shared interest, passion or obsession.

[TD]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 4:05:47 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just trying to liven the place up. What would you rather talk about? I mean, we'd all rather be playing right now but for various and sundry reasons we're not, and find ourselves killing a little time here with our friends (hopefully many and most will think of the group this way, and if not bugger off)....at least with a common shared interest, passion or obsession.

Oh, I'm playing guitar right here at my puter. I don't mind. Just not possible to constantly maintain meaningful and unbiased talk when the inevitability that exists within all walks of life meets at the same joint. Is the sole reason I avoid the brain surgeon rooms.

[Jazzer]

On May 1, 6:34 pm, markkleinh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?


"what is "modern" guitar sound, anyway? "

This post has gone in two different directions.

When you started the post were you thinking
'modern' guitar sound as in:

1. Effects/pedals etc. or
2. The actual musical content (note selection/melody/harmony/rhythm
etc.)

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-02 19:54:26 +0000, TD said:

> The very act of trying to define the word spews forth miles and miles
> of tangent.

What do you mean by "define"?

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-02 21:32:40 +0000, Jazzer said:

> On May 1, 6:34�pm, markkleinh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Definition?
>
>
> "what is "modern" guitar sound, anyway? "
>
> This post has gone in two different directions.

Those two places are called rmmgj. Are not. Is to. Are not.

[TD]

An Italian ending, of course.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

This is nowhere near over. We just got to part where we are about reexamine the intent of the original question, which if course is rooted in another thread entirely.

[thomas]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:05:32 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>
> > It was a huge pop hit in India and the rest of Asia a year or two ago.
> > It's a catchy tune and I always wondered what the lyrics were about.
>
> I'll keep my ears open for iot. But the pop hits do fly by at an
> incredible speed from India...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DK-ZWyxZ8k

[David J. Littleboy]

There's a wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_This_Kolaveri_Di

"A downtempo gaana song, "Why This Kolaveri Di" has been built around an
ancient south Indian folk rhythm using ancient folk instruments. He used the
nadaswaram, shehnai, saxophone and other instruments such as the urumee and
thavil drums, acoustic guitar, keyboards mixed with electronic synths and
scratches.[6] The vocals utilize the singing style of Tamil folk culture.
The composer wanted the song's instrumentation to become more layered as the
song progressed, ending in a crescendo."

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[thomas]

Interesting article. The lyrics are in "Tanglish"! The music combines folk music with global pop elements (including the ubiquitous pitch correcter--I hate that thing).

[Gerry]

Well this flies by about as rapidly as the others. Nice enough groove.
David's analysis, curiously, didn't add any more zazz to it. I think I
have all those traditional instruments in my sampler...

I was really following stuff for a number of years there, they were
making signinficant inroads to harmony. I like it, I must admit, but I
hate to see their music mucked with to make it more "commercially
successful", even if that is, to some extent what draw me in!

Here we have somewhat of the "All Along the Watch Tower" or "Hit the
Road Jack" thing going on. No complaint per se; I guess it's
progression. Literally.

[ic]

<markkl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a1f69b2-1e61-4166...@googlegroups.com...

I'm playing more keyboards ATM but I like the way you can design your own
sounds like on electric piano you can set which velocity point you want it
to 'bark' on. I've also got a sound with an acoustic piano start, the
'bloom' of electric piano stereo vibrato end and finally strings, if the
note's held long enough. With those sounds you play less because there's so
much texture happening as the notes progress. So it sounds AP only on fast
passages, AP+EP on medium speed passages and AP+EP+strings on slower parts.
I'd like to transfer more of that idea to my guitar sound.

https://soundcloud.com/nobutsithee/classical

https://soundcloud.com/nobutsithee/apepstr
--

icarusi

[Gerry]

Very intresting stuff. I do the same with the GR30 and midi guitar.
And I can mix in both the regular signal as well as the synth, but it's
not quite the same thing, it doesn't have the complete guitaristic
translate the way a simple keyboard does.

[van]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:18:33 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm with you on world music, but pop music not so much. Especially for guitar fodder, i barely even hear guitar when i flip through radio channels, its all slamming sub woofers and auto tune vocals. By the way, I've played with more 20 somethings since i moved here than ever, and you know what they're all silly and excited about? Real book sessions! But they also havegreat chops, write tunes and play in rock band. I agree with your comment that its great to bee around their energy....

I was getting together with some younger cats for some sessions, and we started out playing just Real Book things and it went great.
Then we started bringing in our originals, and Tom Harrell tunes, and it stopped swinging. The drummer, whose house we were playing over got so bugged, he dropped out of it, and now we have to find a new house/drummer.
i don't understand what this stigma is over "Real Book sessions"?

[TD]

They get paranoid about unfamiliar territory is all. They can't lean on what has been learned via copying and mimicking. Force them to let go and tell them you will introduce them to hookers on your dime, providing they stay the course.

[Gerry]

I'd ask the drummer. I think you're saying thes folks *don't* want to
try new musics, right?

[Tim]

On May 1, 5:34 pm, markkleinh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

Something like "vintage tone" only different...

[Garvin Yee]

On 5/1/2013 4:49 PM, jaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:16:24 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So, like modern art, modern architecture.......nothing to imply fresh or new.....been there done that.
>
> can't agree with that or the previous statement. What made jazz special was the unique combination of artistic expression along with modern pop music. unfortunately, we're still playing over the pop music of the '40s 70 years later and wondering why there's no audience. Someday, jazz may have a lincoln center for the performing arts in every city but I doubt it because even the symphony orchestras are having a hard time.
>
> Miles re-invented himself a 1/2 dozen times during the course of his career and always managed to be creative within the framework of the current popular music.
>


"A Lion Does Not Worry About The Opinion Of Sheep"

Miles was a Lion.


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/show/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/garvin-yee.html

[van]

No, I'm mainly wondering what is wrong with playing tunes from the Real Book?
It was fun hearing my tunes played by sax and trumpet; many of these schooled younger players can sightread much better than i can, but they had a lot of trouble blowing on the tunes. I didn't do that great on their tunes, either.
The drummer didn't have a good time, but it could also be related to the fact that he hates the sax player, who was a student of a well-known modal player who was a Miles Davis sideman, and he swings like a rusty gate...
Anyway, I've been reading comments on this and other music forums putting down what they call, "Real Book gigs or sessions", and I don't understand that attitude. It sounds like the old, "fetish with creativity" thing...

[TD]

The longer we live, the cornier it gets.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

Not a thing wrong with real book sessions. I was trying to make a point that lots of younger people are really psyched about doing it, that tunes like Stella still challenge and excite. Of course the best real book sessions are when there are no books or stands even in sight.

[Dom Minasi]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:34:13 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

I always thought a modern jazz guitar sound was how you approached playing on changes alla John Abercrombie or Julian Lage or Jonathan Kriesburg not electronics.

[Docbop]

HUGE +1 to that!

[Gerry]

Honestly, do the aural qualites that distinguish Abercrombie and
Metheny, for example and Hall and Raney on the other hand just not
register? Certainly they are making different melodic and harmonic
approaches in style. But regarding another aspect of the sound that is
compression, distortion and the ever-present chorus: No distinctions to
be considered there regarding modernity and "sound"?

That part is all just a curious irrelevance?

[TD]

Again, 'personal' takes on what constitutes "modern." And why make it all so polarized? Why irrelevant? If a person thinks modern is effects, that's fine. Free country. If another person considers it more as concept in actual music being played, that's fine too. Let's maybe look at it from another angle and possibly one of several angles found on a cube. Does a player lose "modern-ness" if his toys are taken away? And what if he does suddenly sound like Eddie Condon if his toys are taken away? Do we call him a part time modern?

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-04 17:14:16 +0000, TD said:

>>>> I always thought a modern jazz guitar sound was how you approached
>>>> playing on changes alla John Abercrombie or Julian Lage or Jonathan
>>>> Kriesburg not electronics.
>>

>> Honestly, do the aural qualites that distinguish Abercrombie and
>> Metheny, for example and Hall and Raney on the other hand just not
>> register? Certainly they are making different melodic and harmonic
>> approaches in style. But regarding another aspect of the sound that is
>> compression, distortion and the ever-present chorus: No distinctions to
>> be considered there regarding modernity and "sound"?
>>
>> That part is all just a curious irrelevance?

> Again, 'personal' takes on what constitutes "modern." And why make it
> all so polarized?

I didn't. I'm trying to find out why others rule sigproc out as a
marker of any value for "a modern guitar sound".

> Why irrelevant?

That's what I asked. Peace, love and understanding seem to shuttle it
to the back of the queue with face-grimaces and tight pants. But I
consider sigproc a significant component in the sound. That's the main
reason I don't use them very much. As with many such technological
considerations, it continues to change over the past 40 years or so.

> If a person thinks modern is effects, that's fine. Free country. If
> another person considers it more as concept in actual music being
> played, that's fine too.

To ensure my thinking isn't completely torqued from its housing, I
don't think "modern is effects".

I do think that sound-modification is a factor that typifies players of
a certain period, beginning generallly in the late 60's. During this
period an entire generation of players stopped playing standards and
started using sigproc. Much of the previous generation did not. I think
that's notable.

Within this same generation though, there were many players who
continued to play archtops on Satin Doll with no sigproc and still do.
I think of them as "traditional". Cerrtainly if they were playing
nothing but outside chromatic and quartal stuff in that environment I
wouldn't be calling that "traditional"; I'd be calling that "modern and
stylistically inappopriate for the style". This, even though I might
enjoy it.

> Does a player lose "modern-ness" if his toys are taken away?

If you take his toys away does his "guitar sound" not change?

So it still depends on your limitations regarding the word "modern". I
made a good faith effort to describe what I think of as a "modern
guitar sound", and by that I meant the *aural qualities*, and not, as
I've now said several times, the construction of line, use of harmony
and related factors. Others seem eager to disregard my qualifications
and speak only of line and harmony and such. That's fine, we continue
to talk of two different things as if they were the same.

That's why using words that mean the same thing can be helpful.

So in response: Which player, what toys? I certainly play differently
when I have a distortion or compression, as an example. Maybe I'm the
only one. Though it doesn't limit the definition of style, the use of
compressed and chorused sound is clearly not a marker associated with
"traditional" guitarists.

> And what if he does suddenly sound like Eddie Condon if his toys are
> taken away? Do we call him a part time modern?

Playing abstract "what-if" games doesn't really help to define how we
actually perceive modernity. I don't select words to define a player
vis-a-vs modernity everytime he hits a stomp box. I play long
sustain-dominant l lines on modal tunes and play Condonesque on trad
jazz. What's that called. It's not called anything.

I see the word "modern" here is like "metronome" or "professional" or
"art" or "smooth jazz" or any of another half-dozen words: They are
some kind of highly personal dialect used for very specific personal
use, not for general communication.

[van]

I was surprised to hear Bill Frisell without all his "toys"; he sounded like a beginning jazz guitar player. They reviewed a concert he did on acoustic in the NY Times. The reviewer couldn't believe how inept he was as a guitarist. He said Frisell sounded like a beginner.
OTOH, I heard his idol, Jim Hall on an acoustic on one of the early bossa nova LPs. I couldn't believe it- he sounded like some master acoustic player.
Some players lose more than their modernness when you take away their toys.
I know we've had this argument before, but I still don't hear the "there" there.
Maybe in other idioms like "Americana" or whatever, but jazz?

[TD]

Sorry Gerry, that statement sounds ridiculously contradicting. If it is inappropriate, it ain't modern, it's contrived horseshit. It seems that you would enjoy it, yes. I have no problem with that.

"Playing abstract "what-if" games doesn't really help to define how we
actually perceive modernity".

Sorry you have to feel this and say this. I am not being abstract at all and it ain't no "game", especially in the face of one who is the king of abstractness and rhetoric. But, we love you anyhow.

My statement was right on the logical money. And in fact, I have no idea how you perceive what is "modern." The very idea of "modern" is a falsehood, because modern needs a team to dub it as "modern." As soon as it is dubbed "modern" it's old already, because it is now the norm of what is called modern.

.

"I play long
sustain-dominant l lines on modal tunes and play Condonesque on trad
jazz. What's that called. It's not called anything."

Do you do all that? Well, I'd love to hear it. Either of 'em. Just out of curiosity as serving this discourse. I feel that would be an important added dimension for , at least myself, to understand what you deem as modern or not modern.

"I see the word "modern" here is like "metronome" or "professional" or
"art" or "smooth jazz" or any of another half-dozen words: They are
some kind of highly personal dialect used for very specific personal
use, not for general communication."

Smartest thing you've written ( but we won't go to your loathing of "professionals" or the absolute disregard for what it took and takes to be one), at least here. Although, it seems contradictory to your aforesaid epistle. But this might be my poor perception, which can go hand in hand with my poor perception of what is modern to you. I thought modern meant playing jazz with effects to you. Was I the only one? If so, I am in the wrong thread.

[Gerry]

This topic started elsewhere with an idle statement: I play a pretty
antique solo style these days, but when playing with others, if I need
a more "modern" sound I use a GT3 for all the requisite sigproc:
chorus, compression, delay, etc.

Obviously this use of "modern" does not correlate in anyway to the
distinctions in approach between say, Benny Carter and Dewey Redman.
Those would be stylistic distinctions in modernity and have no
relationship to the equipment I use for contemporary musics. Now I'm
sure "contemporary" is worthy of a few thousand words of digression.
I'll pass on that one. :-)

 ---===---

On 2013-05-04 22:06:45 +0000, TD said:

[ I've clipped out most of your direct insults below. ]

>> [Among an earlier generation] there were many players who continued to

>> play archtops on Satin Doll with no sigproc and still do. I think of

>> them as "traditional". Certainly if they were playing nothing but

>> outside chromatic and quartal stuff in that environment I wouldn't be
>> calling that "traditional"; I'd be calling that "modern and
>> stylistically inappopriate for the style".
>

> Sorry Gerry, that statement sounds ridiculously contradicting. If it is
> inappropriate, it ain't modern, it's contrived horseshit.

Now the concept of appropriateness is hard-wired to the concept of
modernity? No matter where I go your unstated definition of modernity
shifts again, I can't keep up. I gave an example that was strictly
related to styles, not to aural profile, so suddenly context become the
decisive factor in which something was modern or not. I'm assuming now
there is at least three categories: modern, traditional and contextual
horseshit.

>>> And what if he does suddenly sound like Eddie Condon if his toys are
>>> taken away? Do we call him a part time modern?
>>
>> Playing abstract "what-if" games doesn't really help to define how we
>> actually perceive modernity.
>

> I am not being abstract at all and it ain't no "game"...

Yes, your hypothetical above is an abstraction and a "what if", or we
can add "abstraction" and "what-if" to the new lexicon of
personally-defined words.

> The very idea of "modern" is a falsehood...

I don't know why we're discussing it then. I'm finished with that word
for this month.

>> I play long sustain-dominant l lines on modal tunes and play
>> Condonesque on trad jazz. What's that called. It's not called anything.
>
> Do you do all that?

Yes, I can play long lines with sustain, and I can play old school
comping. It's not an insurmountable and Herculean task, as you well
know.

> Well, I'd love to hear it. Either of 'em. Just out of curiosity as
> serving this discourse.

Your feigned curiosity is just provocation. I'll forego proving to your
satisfaction that I can do two wholly mundane tasks on the guitar.

> I feel that would be an important added dimension for, at least myself,

> to understand what you deem as modern or not modern.

That's nice. Neither have anything whatever to do with my definition of
modern; They had to do with your hypothetical: What would we call
someone if they sounded like Condon without "toys": which I already
answered once: I don't call them anything.

>> I see the word "modern" here is like "metronome" or "professional" or
>> "art" or "smooth jazz" or any of another half-dozen words: They are
>> some kind of highly personal dialect used for very specific personal
>> use, not for general communication.
>

> Smartest thing you've written....

Really? Sounds like there's an insult in the offing...

> (but we won't go to your loathing of "professionals" or the absolute

> disregard for what it took and takes to be one),

Yikes! Your projections of my thinking are completely wrong, totally
nuts, and you're obviously careening again into your bi-annual "respect
my professional status" meltdown.

You may continue this on your own: I don't do straight lines.

[John A.]

>
> I was surprised to hear Bill Frisell without all his "toys"; he sounded like a beginning jazz guitar player. They reviewed a concert he did on acoustic in the NY Times. The reviewer couldn't believe how inept he was as a guitarist. He said Frisell sounded like a beginner.

Really? I've heard him in many contexts, and I've never had that response. I recently heard something where he was playing standards on an archtop, and the thing that struck me most about it was how clear the Jim Hall influence is, yet how distinct his musical personality is.

>
> OTOH, I heard his idol, Jim Hall on an acoustic on one of the early bossa nova LPs. I couldn't believe it- he sounded like some master acoustic player.

He is one, so why shouldn't he sound like one?

> Some players lose more than their modernness when you take away their toys.

Frisell is one player for whom I think the exact opposite is true. I can't speak to whether his "modernness" persists without toys, but certainly his Frisell-ness does. As an example, how about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO-1Euq2RBk

I don't hear a lot of toys here (a little reverb and delay, no Rat pedal, no looper, no guitar synth). I do hear the same aesthetic as when the toys are there.

John

[TD]

Paranoid reply.

"I don't do straight lines. "

Ahh...Now we are getting some where.

I told you it's OK, that we love you anyway.

[Joe Finn]

"Dom Minasi" wrote

>I always thought a modern jazz guitar sound was how you approached playing
>on changes alla John Abercrombie or Julian Lage or Jonathan Kriesburg not
> >electronics.

Yup. This is the same thing that makes Chris Potter sound , for the lack of
a better term, more "modern" than Sidney Bechet.
Not greater. Not better. Just "different" and obviously in keeping with
the influence of the intervening years. .....joe

[van]

You don't hear any toys? What about the loop for a few minutes on "Nowhere Man"?
what about the synth sound holding a high pedal A on "Strawberry Fields"?
I don't understand what's so special about what he does. He's basically playing triads throughout, no special harmonic thing going on like Ted Greene.
I would expect to hear something like that in a Starbucks to entertain the baby boomers.
But, hey, it's good old eccentric genius Frisell playin' a Fender, so it's got to be great.
I can appreciate that he does very creative things with the texture when he's accompanying people, but did that really impress you?

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-05 03:51:28 +0000, van said:

> You don't hear any toys? What about the loop for a few minutes on
> "Nowhere Man"?

I'd never heard much Frisell. Somebody laid like 8 or 10 albums on me.
I listened all day long. I don't think I noticed hime every turning
off the chorus. Frankly it was one (of a number) of rationales I used
for avoiding it.

> what about the synth sound holding a high pedal A on "Strawberry Fields"?
> I don't understand what's so special about what he does. He's basically
> playing triads throughout, no special harmonic thing going on like Ted
> Greene.

I've never been moved by his music, but that's not a slam. There have
been a number of guitarists I didn't get until I got them, and then I
was enthralled. Everybody love Frisell so much I'll undoubtedly take
another pass at him. But that chorus, regardless of the many players
using it, really wears on my nerves.

> I would expect to hear something like that in a Starbucks to entertain
> the baby boomers.
> But, hey, it's good old eccentric genius Frisell playin' a Fender, so
> it's got to be great.
> I can appreciate that he does very creative things with the texture
> when he's accompanying people, but did that really impress you?

[Jazzer]

On May 4, 8:21 pm, "John A." <ja...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO-1Euq2RBk
>
> I don't hear a lot of toys here (a little reverb and delay, no Rat pedal, no looper, no guitar synth).  I do hear the same aesthetic as when the toys are there.

Sorry, listen again John.
He starts the first segment with a drone that lasts for the entire
first segment.

Then near the begining of the second segment he starts a loop and
plays over it.
I stopped listening at 2:38.

If you don't consider those toys, then we aren't speaking the same
language. :)

No toys means no toys. Nada. Zip. Maybe a touch of reverb, but that's
all.

[Jazzer]

On May 1, 6:34 pm, markkleinh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

"what is "modern" guitar sound, anyway? "

I just happened to come across this by coincidence.

Everything you always wanted to know about the 'Modern Jazz guitar
sound' but were afraid to ask: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_38jZd5OTQ

[Jazzer]

On May 4, 5:38 pm, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I was surprised to hear Bill Frisell without all his "toys"; he sounded like a beginning jazz guitar player. They reviewed a concert he did on acoustic in the NY Times. The reviewer couldn't believe how inept he was as a guitarist. He said Frisell sounded like a beginner.

The first and only time I heard Frisell live was about 7 or 8 years
ago locally.
He came to an informal 'group seminar' with other musicians each
taking their turn for the most part, and then all playing together at
the end.

This was also the first time I had heard any of his music.

Frisell played an archtop electric with no effects at all.
His guitar was out of tune and he made no attempt to correct it the
whole time.
He was playing open chords most of the time. He played virtually no
extended chords.

I said to myself, "This is Bill Frisell?"

I later heard much more of his music (laden with effects of course)
and understood what the 'Frisell sound' was all about.
I do like a lot of stuff that he does, but he is not on my list when
asked about favourite jazz guitarists.

[Gerry]

Well Tom sure has a lot to say. Very interesting.

[TD]

Without the need or intention to give human examples, I believe my cube example holds up quite well. We are not able to see all the sides of a cube simultaneously in our mind's eye. We must turn it around and turn it over and under in order to gain closer inspection. What happens when we delete and then add back again and vice versa? There is nothing esoteric about what is modern, if we choose yet another angle from the cube: the ear. All notions of modern come from the ear along with imagination and invention, making up elements within the final frontier. Others may choose another angle of choice and that is modern as 'vogue' (a current state of acceptance and use).

If twelve of ones favorite players (they turn out to be mostly fusion players, which I state not as a pejorative)all do their respective 'things' lightly or heavily laden with effects, this can be construed by some as 'modern' jazz guitar playing. Yet, for me it is merely the vogue mostly (not all)of a certain genre. Effects produce an enhancement in sound for some players. There is nothing wrong or sacrilegious in utilizing them. Hiding behind them (of course I state this as a hypothetical) and presenting a notion that utilizing them represents modernness is merely another angle of the cube.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-04-13 11:51 PM, van wrote:
>
> You don't hear any toys? What about the loop for a few minutes on "Nowhere Man"?
> what about the synth sound holding a high pedal A on "Strawberry Fields"?
> I don't understand what's so special about what he does. He's basically playing triads throughout, no special harmonic thing going on like Ted Greene.
> I would expect to hear something like that in a Starbucks to entertain the baby boomers.
> But, hey, it's good old eccentric genius Frisell playin' a Fender, so it's got to be great.
> I can appreciate that he does very creative things with the texture when he's accompanying people, but did that really impress you?
>

I think that what Mr. Frisell lacks as a guitarist is made up for
ten-fold in his abilities to play *music* on the guitar.
He has accomplished something that most people who play the guitar way
better than him have not accomplished in that he has a voice that is
easily recognized after playing only one or two notes.
My favourite musicians always express that as being their highest goal,
not tons of chops.
Liberace had tones of chops.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-01-13 6:34 PM, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?
>

Assuming we're talking about a modern *jazz* guitar sound then there are
at least two components of this:
1. the tone the player chooses to use
2. the style of music the player plays

Regarding #1, for me, it's relative to the times the player is/was
living in and it's simply a matter of using technology that was not
available when your predecessors invented the tradition that you are a
part of.
E.g. Charlie Christian, using his newly invented electric guitar, had a
more modern 'sound' compared to his predecessors.
John McLaughlin, with his Marshall stacks raging in Mahavishnu
Orchestra, had a more modern sound than his predecessors.
Pat Metheny, with his W/D/W stereo chorus rig, had a more modern sound
than his predecessors.
Etc., etc.
This says nothing of the musical success or failure of using said
technology of course.

Regarding #2, for me, it seems to be about the degree to which
techniques first utilized in 20th Century music from the classical
tradition has found its way into the player's jazz playing.
This includes asymmetrical rhythms and grooves other than swing,
non-traditional tonal centres and unusual harmonies.

And of course, although nobody tends to do it, it's entirely possible to
play traditionally with a modern sound just as it's possible to play a
modern style with a traditional sound.

At least that's my take.

[Gerry]

Well said. I can agree with all that. Particularly playing
traditionally with a modern sound or modern style with a traditional
sound. Seems I may have heard Van Ruller do both.

What does "W/D/W" refer to?

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-05-13 12:35 PM, Gerry wrote:
>
> What does "W/D/W" refer to?

A wet/dry/wet mix using 3 speakers/audio channels.
Dry only in the middle with FX totally wet on the L & R.

[TD]

Sexy.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-05 17:28:35 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> On 05-05-13 12:35 PM, Gerry wrote:
>>
>> What does "W/D/W" refer to?
>
> A wet/dry/wet mix using 3 speakers/audio channels.
> Dry only in the middle with FX totally wet on the L & R.

Interesting. News to me.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:57:37 -0700, Gerry wrote:

> "What is modern jazz from a jazz guitarist's viepoint", might be
more > useful, as upstream Mark mentioned that a father/son team
had never > heard of either Pass or enson.

Fair enough. I just did not consider that a guitarist
who didn't play any jazz would have a viewpoint. :-)

Regards, daveA

--
For All Guitar Beginners: Very Easy Original Solos.
For All Guitarists: Solos, Duets, and "Dynamic Guitar
Technique" which has the best scale set, triads, and
essential extended arpeggios. http://www.openguitar.com

[John A.]

OK, not zero toys, but less in the way of toys than he used to be known for. But that's not really the point. I'm just saying that the idea that Frisell sounds like a beginner without his toys strikes me as way off. Here's another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn6mRTFdcyA

I've heard him live with very simple set-ups where he's using minimal effects; the musical voice comes through very distinctly, and it's got a lot of nuance that doesn't sound anything like a beginner to me (and if there's one thing I know, it's what a beginner sounds like).

In any event, I don't quite know how we got off on this tangent. I know exactly how to define the modern jazz guitar sound ...

John

[TD]

We are in the tangent business here.

[Jazzer]

+1

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-05 18:57:19 +0000, John A. said:

> OK, not zero toys, but less in the way of toys than he used to be known
> for. But that's not really the point. I'm just saying that the idea
> that Frisell sounds like a beginner without his toys strikes me as way
> off.

I think that "beginner" reference was from an in-print critic, and
we've all read exaggerations that-a-way. But even so, we all have off
nights. One upstream reference had him playing the whole set out of
tune. I find that hard to believe. But then I'm reminded of a night a
generation ago, before having tuners was de rigueur, when I had a cold
and my eustacian tubes were thoroughly gimped. After listening to me
for a minute the other guitarist took pity and tuned it for me.

> I've heard him live with very simple set-ups where he's using minimal
> effects; the musical voice comes through very distinctly, and it's got
> a lot of nuance that doesn't sound anything like a beginner to me (and
> if there's one thing I know, it's what a beginner sounds like).
> In any event, I don't quite know how we got off on this tangent. I
> know exactly how to define the modern jazz guitar sound ...

Among many attempts to clarify the "tangent", Joey's post above cites
two significant components in considering "modern jazz guitar":

1. the tone the player chooses to use

2. the style of t music the player plays

Frisell was cited as someone who makes liberal use of sigproc in his
playing (1). The difference between how a player sounds with without
his preferred sigproc was then indicated by reference to Frisell. So
this tangent seemingly occupies the center point of the discussion.

I have never found Frisell particularly interesting; and only part of
that is due to overuse of chorus. But too many guitarists love him for
me to disregard him: What would you cite as exemplary of his simple
setup and distinct musical voice, if a representative recording
reflects this?

[rpjazzguitar]

Poorly posed question, I think.

First, modern compared to when?

Then, there are issues of tone, harmonic devices, rhythmic devices, melodic devices, composition, picking, overall chops, way of fitting into an ensemble ... I don't know where that list ends.

I'll just comment on the aspect of tone.

The advent of the electric and Charlie Christian popularizing a way of playing it was a leap.

Charlie's tone had a raw edge, which may have been due partly to the pickup and his touch, but, I suspect had a lot to do with overdriving his amp a bit.

In the 50s, the guitar tones seemed to calm down. I'm far from an encyclopedia on 50's guitarists but I can't think of any widespread advancement in guitar tones among our jazz heroes (Les Paul was not one of those).

Then there's Wes. I think many still think of his tone as The Guitar Sound, but so much of it was his touch that it's hard to imitate.

After Wes comes the impact of effects. I think Metheny may have been the next major advancement in tone.

And then there were players using some overdrive, like Sco, who I think are still influential.

Smooth jazz has its own guitar sound, I think. Often sounds like Mark Knopfler playing light funk to me -- which is a compliment. The tone is more trebly, single coil like, as I hear it.

I think similar lines could be developed for a lot of issues. Chops, for example. Charlie was downstrokes in eighth notes. Then there were the bop guys who started playing sixteenths. Then there were guys who developed 4 string chords and could solo in them (like Chuck Wayne). Later, there were players like Ritenaur (and I'm certain I'm skipping over some) and Martino and DiMeola who brought burning chops (not that I'm a personal fan of all that stuff). Etc Etc.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-05-13 2:12 PM, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-05-05 17:28:35 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:
>
>> On 05-05-13 12:35 PM, Gerry wrote:
>>>
>>> What does "W/D/W" refer to?
>>
>> A wet/dry/wet mix using 3 speakers/audio channels.
>> Dry only in the middle with FX totally wet on the L & R.
>
> Interesting. News to me.

It's the way Metheny used to do his big wide chorusing thing back in the
80s and 90s.
He always claimed it was impossible to get that sound with just two
speakers (with both wet and dry mixed in both).
Lot of rock guys on the Fractal forum seem to go this way as well.
I've never done it myself though.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-05 19:56:31 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> First, modern compared to when?

Fill in the blanks. Clearly we all have different opinions. What's
yours. How do *you* think of modern.

> Then, there are issues of tone, harmonic devices, rhythmic devices,
> melodic devices, composition, picking, overall chops, way of fitting
> into an ensemble ... I don't know where that list ends.
> I'll just comment on the aspect of tone.
> The advent of the electric and Charlie Christian popularizing a way of
> playing it was a leap.
> Charlie's tone had a raw edge, which may have been due partly to the
> pickup and his touch, but, I suspect had a lot to do with overdriving
> his amp a bit.
> In the 50s, the guitar tones seemed to calm down. I'm far from an
> encyclopedia on 50's guitarists but I can't think of any widespread
> advancement in guitar tones among our jazz heroes (Les Paul was not one
> of those).

I was thinking of Barnes' in there.

> Then there's Wes. I think many still think of his tone as The Guitar
> Sound, but so much of it was his touch that it's hard to imitate.
> After Wes comes the impact of effects. I think Metheny may have been
> the next major advancement in tone.

I thought Larry Coryell (like him or hate him) and Joe Beck and some of
those guys that absorbed the early rock tradtion might be placed there.
I also heard Bill Connors with RTF before I heard Metheny. Scofield
also appeared about the same time that Metheny did.

> And then there were players using some overdrive, like Sco, who I think
> are still influential.
> Smooth jazz has its own guitar sound, I think. Often sounds like Mark
> Knopfler playing light funk to me -- which is a compliment. The tone
> is more trebly, single coil like, as I hear it.

That leaves the door open for a lot of earlier session players like
Eric Gale and Cornell DuPree if not folks like Curtis Mayfield. And if
stand-alone rock like Knopfler is included, then it only makes sense to
consider where much of the sonic profile came from: Hendrix, Clapton,
Beck, and others.

> I think similar lines could be developed for a lot of issues. Chops,
> for example. Charlie was downstrokes in eighth notes. Then there were
> the bop guys who started playing sixteenths. Then there were guys who
> developed 4 string chords and could solo in them (like Chuck Wayne).
> Later, there were players like Ritenaur (and I'm certain I'm skipping
> over some) and Martino and DiMeola who brought burning chops (not that
> I'm a personal fan of all that stuff). Etc Etc.

Etc is right.

[rpjazzguitar]

Gerry all good comments. I haven't listened much to some of the people you mentioned -- no disrespect intended to all the influential players I omitted.

As far as my definition of modern, I don't have a date. I think it's a word that only has meaning in context.

Half joking: it's all the stuff that was developed after my style ossified.

[rpjazzguitar]

If I remember Coryell correctly, back in the 60's he struck me as "modern" because of the style of music, not as much for guitar tone. I seem to recall him using some rock influenced tone, but playing more advanced harmonic material. My earlier post was about tone only. I'm not sure I could do even a mediocre job tracing harmonic developments through guitarists over time. In fact, it may be that the major harmonic developments weren't largely based on guitar anyway.

[Gerry]

Generally true. I think he was even playing an archtop, which was on
the low-yield end of "modernizing". When he was coming up he was
certainly getting a lot biting edge and tube distortion, but his
stylistic "modernisms" were really what caught my attention.

[TD]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:34:13 PM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Definition?

In retrospect, it is the "anyway" as the last word in your question that seems to have cast many of us at sea.

[markkl...@gmail.com]

We're all sailors....

[TD]

On Monday, May 6, 2013 8:11:47 AM UTC-4, markkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> We're all sailors....

Yea, on different ships.