Is Jazz Guitar playing boring to non-guitarists?
Dick Onstenk
My favorite Jazz CD reference book is the the "Penguin Guide to Jazz CDs".
It is an important and fantastic guide to purchasing Jazz CDs with really
knowledgeable reviews of all current and classic Jazz Cds. You will find any
Jazz guitar player in it (well, most of 'm anyway). What strikes me is that
instances of 4 star reviews - the rating for important and challenging Jazz
albums - of Jazz guitar CDs are very, very rare. Maybe just a handful of
classic recordings. Usually the reviewers find the guitarist in question (be
it Martin Taylor, Jimmy Bruno, Peter Leitch or Bruce Forman) to be
ruminating material that has been done better by Django, Wes or Tal anyway.
It seems to me the whole guitar thing is depicted as a rather unimportant
branche in Jazz that is of marginal interest only. Modern players are
usually presented as "more of the same."
In addition, I encounter this attitude in my national Jazz Magazine all the
time. Jazz guitar is cool but hey, don't take them Wes clones too seriously.
Martin Taylor's latest album "Kiss and Tell" was reviewed as follows:
"However his playing is pure craftsmanship only. It is dull. His music is
like a nice meal in an utterly boring restaurant. It all makes sense ....
but it makes you yawn."
I find this quote very characteristic of a Jazz guitar album review.
Also in Jazz literature (which I read a lot) the guitar is usually depicted
as a side-instrument and a generally not-so- interesting development of
Jazz.
What's going on? Are my heroes all playing the same ole' shit all the time?
Is Mainstream Jazz guitar that repetitive, predictable and boring to
non-guitarists? Are we all just marginal side-men in the Jazz show?
Any views on this?
Greetings from Holland,
Dick
Tom Jaffe
where guitar is king, jazz has been dominated by horn players and pianists. Trumpet
players and sax players are the "lead guitarists" of jazz (to make an analogy). Pianists
are the accompanists of choice. Guitarists have tended to be an extra luxury in
traditional combos. (I wonder if this would have been so if Charlie Christian lived longer
and became a fixture in the bebop world). Jazz guitarists simply had not been the
innovators. I think things are different now, with electronics pushing the guitar to the
forefront of jazz in the fusion and post-fusion eras. As far as mainstream bop-oriented
guitar, I would agree that we tend to follow the jazz leaders and are less historically
important. My experience with non-guitarists who listen to jazz is that the guitar is not
very exciting to them. Quite honestly, I would have to agree that we have trouble
competing with the excitement level of other instruments. IMO, only Wes Montgomery could
come close to the excitement level of a Coltrane or Miles. And even he was following their
paths in regards to innovating jazz music.
Victor Magnani
Yeah, mostly it is.
If you assemble a list of "must-have" jazz albums for someone who knows nothing of the music,
you would get pretty far before you got to a guitarist. Louis, Duke, Bird, Miles, Trane,
Basie, Pres, Hawk, Wayne, Sonny, Clifford, Monk, Ornette, Art Tatum, Bill Evans... the list
would go on and on before you get to a guitar player. Certainly Django and Charlie belong on
that short list. And then Wes. After that???
Well, Jim Hall would certainly get my vote. And then maybe Metheny and Scofield. And
probably, that's about it. These are probably the only guitarists that non-guitarists pay
much attention to. They're the "head of the class" so to speak.
That said, jazz guitar has quite a glorious history all by itself. Burrell, Benson, Van Eps,
Smith, Wayne, Farlow, Raney right on up to Bruno, Wilkins, Alden, Stern, Krantz, and Hunter.
All of these guys play an important part in the development of the idiom. BUT, what they do
tends to be far more interesting and important to guitarists (or maybe simply people who
prefer the sound fo the guitar to other instruments - who, if they pick up an istrumetn, will
then turn into guitar players) than to the general jazz public, or to critics (who, generally,
should be ignored. After all, these are people with their own sets of preferences and
prejudices, just like anyone else. Very rarely do you find a good critic who doesn't bring
his/her own expectations to the table ((Virgil Thompson where have you gone??)) - but I
digress).
But really, this is the case with most instruments I would guess. How many saxophone players
can you name who have made a name for themselves in the 10 years or so? Let's see, I get
Lovano, Osby, Potter....
Hmm..., only 3 guys have been playing jazz saxophone over the last decade?? Well, no, but
these seem to be the guys making the biggest strides and commanding the most attention. How
about piano players after Bill Evans?? Chick, Herbie, Keith...
My point is, taking a broad view excludes lots of worthwhile music, unfairly for sure. The
music needs everyone - all of us guys working in the trenches contribute in some small way.
How often have you seen Canonball called a Bird imitator?? Damn, Canon was a monster, with
his own voice. But he gets glossed over when people take a broad look at the history of the
music. Similarly, most guitarists get short shrift. Is it fair to be compared to Wes?
Probably not, but that's what critics do. "This (old product) is what I know to be good, and
that (new product) diverges from that standard in the following ways : A,B, and C, therefore,
it is inferior to this (old product)". The problem is, the guidelines they use oftentimes do
not take a fair look at what the musician is trying to say, but simply hold it up to some
historical model.
Coloring inside the lines is often rewarded more these days in the critical press, than
stretching artistic boundaries. There are lots of reasons, for this (see Hal Galper or Bob
Brookmeyer's web sites).
I've gone pretty far afield, I apologize. I've kind of gone in two different directions.
Didn't mean to.
Anyway, jazz guitar playing seems pretty cool to me. ;-)
Peace
Victor
David Rastall
news:o3_A5.19861$Sb1.2...@nlnews00.chello.com...
> ...Usually the reviewers find the guitarist in question (be
> it Martin Taylor, Jimmy Bruno, Peter Leitch or Bruce Forman) to be
> ruminating material that has been done better by Django, Wes or Tal
anyway.
> It seems to me the whole guitar thing is depicted as a rather unimportant
> branche in Jazz that is of marginal interest only. Modern players are
> usually presented as "more of the same."
>
> In addition, I encounter this attitude in my national Jazz Magazine all
the
> time. Jazz guitar is cool but hey, don't take them Wes clones too
seriously.
> Martin Taylor's latest album "Kiss and Tell" was reviewed as follows:
>
> "However his playing is pure craftsmanship only. It is dull. His music is
> like a nice meal in an utterly boring restaurant. It all makes sense ....
> but it makes you yawn."
>
> I find this quote very characteristic of a Jazz guitar album review.
My attitude towards reviews and reviewers is to ignore them altogether.
Those who can't do it themselves love to stand in judgement over those who
can. Why should a reviewer's opinion be more valuable than yours? God
forbid that you should have the audacity to call into question anything one
of these assholes writes, but if you do he will tell you three things: 1.
he knows more, 2. his judging ability is more highly developed than yours
and 3. (this is the most stupid one of the three) he has been trained as a
writer. Those are bullshit, because your own opinions absolutely should not
be based on what someone else knows, or how well he can manipulate your
thoughts. It should be based on your own personal experience. That's your
flawless guide to what's worthwhile out there and what isn't. Forget the
reviewers: they're just jive-assed egoists who haven't got the balls to go
out there and do it themselves, so they stand in judgement upon those who
do. And the more erudite and educated the "critics" are, the more detached
they are from the actual music scene. These guys have a column to fill, and
they know that they will get more respect for badmouthing people than they
will for praising them.
> What's going on? Are my heroes all playing the same ole' shit all the
time?
No. If they played shit, they wouldn't be your heroes, right? There is a
certain sameness in what the bebop guys do, and a certain resistance to
change, but it certainly isn't shit.
> Is Mainstream Jazz guitar that repetitive, predictable and boring to
> non-guitarists?
Who knows what non-guitarists think about anything. Is it important?
> Are we all just marginal side-men in the Jazz show?
No, not at all. We get out of music what we want to get out of it.
Besides, I've got lots of recordings of jazz guitarists, and not one of them
is a recording of a marginal side-man.
My $0.02
David R
Sam Smiley
very hard to transcend the 'instrumental boundaries.' Of all of the
guitarists, the only ones who, IN MY OPINION, have, are Wes, Jim Hall,
Metheny, and Bill Frisell. These are the guys who non-guitarists seem to
talk about the most. Most instruments have similar situations though. In
other words there are a few people which EVERYONE checks out, regardless of
instrument. I'm checking out Bill Evans and Clifford Brown right now.
Personally I don't think I'd get much out of studying Lee Morgan, Hub, and a
lot of other trumpet players. I think I'm just trying to say what Victor
said, and that all instruments have the same story. It seems like there are
a lot more guitarists, but that's because there actually is a lot more
guitarists.
Randy Graves
who transcended the 'instrumental boundaries'.
Sam Smiley wrote:
>
> . . . The only thing I want to add is that it is
> very hard to transcend the 'instrumental boundaries.' Of all of the
> guitarists, the only ones who, IN MY OPINION, have, are Wes, Jim Hall,
> Metheny, and Bill Frisell. These are the guys who non-guitarists seem to
> talk about the most.
> . . .
Tom Walls
Mike Ellenberger
give or take a few guitarists... After all the guitar is kind
of a folk instrument...
Here are some meandering thoughts; I'm off topic but I think
it kind of fits.
Lately I've been thinking about why it seems more difficult to
get a broader harmonic palette on the guitar as opposed to a
piano. This is after hearing Joe Beck and finding out about
his alto guitar concept and our continuing saga of trying to
get new and interesting voicings. Of course guys can come up
with new sounding voicings that are playable with enough
hand stretching. But they seem out of character for the
instrument. I suppose there is some stretching on the
piano but at least you have two hands to do it with.
I don't think I've ever heard a guitarist comp as interestingly
as McCoy Tyner. Maybe this is an exception but I think you need
to work a lot harder on the guitar and the sound just isn't the
same even if you could play the same stuff. Maybe the fact
that the keyboard was the instrument of choice of some of the
great classic composers attests to its usefulness.
There seems to be a certain transparent-ness to the sound of an
acoustic piano that isn't there with the guitar which seems to
make the piano attractive as a comping instrument.
I'm actually starting to warm up to the idea of something like
an 8 string instrument with 4 strings for a lower octave and
4 for a higher octave. Use this as a comping instrument tuned
so you could create interesting chord voicings without killing
yourself!
Wasn't someone getting an 8 string?
Mike
--
Mike Ellenberger
Listen to some soundclips at
http://home.att.net/~grumpmeister/MikesJazzPage.html
skrohn
admire greatly.
There are those that have been listened to over and over as long as I have
owned them.
There are those that are gathering dust. I can't remember a tune or a
memorable moment on them.
This begs the question, "what do I admire so greatly ?".
As I continue to mature with the guitar, this irony becomes magnified.
The answer revolves around things "guitar" , that is, things that
non-guitarists
would have little interest in and non-players would have no interest in.
Scott.
Dick Onstenk wrote in message ...
>Hi gang,
>
>My favorite Jazz CD reference book is the the "Penguin Guide to Jazz CDs".
>It is an important and fantastic guide to purchasing Jazz CDs with really
>knowledgeable reviews of all current and classic Jazz Cds. You will find
any
>Jazz guitar player in it (well, most of 'm anyway). What strikes me is that
>instances of 4 star reviews - the rating for important and challenging
Jazz
>albums - of Jazz guitar CDs are very, very rare. Maybe just a handful of
>classic recordings. Usually the reviewers find the guitarist in question
(be
>it Martin Taylor, Jimmy Bruno, Peter Leitch or Bruce Forman) to be
>ruminating material that has been done better by Django, Wes or Tal anyway.
>It seems to me the whole guitar thing is depicted as a rather unimportant
>branche in Jazz that is of marginal interest only. Modern players are
>usually presented as "more of the same."
>
>In addition, I encounter this attitude in my national Jazz Magazine all the
>time. Jazz guitar is cool but hey, don't take them Wes clones too
seriously.
>Martin Taylor's latest album "Kiss and Tell" was reviewed as follows:
>
>"However his playing is pure craftsmanship only. It is dull. His music is
>like a nice meal in an utterly boring restaurant. It all makes sense ....
>but it makes you yawn."
>
>I find this quote very characteristic of a Jazz guitar album review.
>
>Also in Jazz literature (which I read a lot) the guitar is usually depicted
>as a side-instrument and a generally not-so- interesting development of
>Jazz.
>
>What's going on? Are my heroes all playing the same ole' shit all the time?
>Is Mainstream Jazz guitar that repetitive, predictable and boring to
Randy Graves
> . . .
> Lately I've been thinking about why it seems more difficult to
> get a broader harmonic palette on the guitar as opposed to a
> piano. This is after hearing Joe Beck and finding out about
> his alto guitar concept and our continuing saga of trying to
> get new and interesting voicings.
I saw/heard Joe Beck & Ali Ryerson in LA this past Monday. They sounded
great! After speaking with Joe about his tuning, I came home and
restrung my six string short-scale travel bass as a Beck-style Alto
Guitar. Man, is that strange to play! (As if I could...)
Mike also wrote:
> I'm actually starting to warm up to the idea of something like
> an 8 string instrument with 4 strings for a lower octave and
> 4 for a higher octave. Use this as a comping instrument tuned
> so you could create interesting chord voicings without killing
> yourself!
>
> Wasn't someone getting an 8 string?
>
> Mike
>
Well, my custom 8-string is almost finished ( by California luthier Mike
Glick, who also makes some wonderful "normal" archtops -
http://www.rain.org/~glick/GlickGuitars.htm )
I have it tuned like a bass on strings 5 - 8, and a whole-tone-lower
guitar on strings 1 - 6. That is, from the bottom up, E A D G C F A D.
(I understand that Bob Conti tunes each of his 8 strings a whole step
higher than mine.)
Next project - try to figure how to play it! 8^}
Randy Graves
Tom Lippincott
>
>Mike
I've mentioned my much anticipated 8 string here several times but at the
moment it's still in the "much anticipated" stage. The guy building it for me
has been taking his time and I'm in no big hurry as I've had a lot of expenses
lately with my CD and some new studio gear I bought. Anyway, my 8 string
concept is no big revolutionary thing; it's just a "Lenny Breau" high A seven
string, and a "VanEps" low A seven string combined in one guitar, with a Novax
multiscaled fingerboard to accomodate the wide range of the strings. One of my
main goals with this instrument is indeed to "piano-ize" the guitar a little
bit more. I'm also using both magnetic and piezo pickups and a semi hollow
telecaster type body.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
joefi...@my-deja.com
"skrohn" <skr...@nassau.cv.net> wrote:
> Within my music collection I have many CD's by many guitar players who
I
> admire greatly.
> There are those that have been listened to over and over as long as I
have
> owned them.
> There are those that are gathering dust. I can't remember a tune or a
> memorable moment on them.
>
> This begs the question, "what do I admire so greatly ?".
> As I continue to mature with the guitar, this irony becomes magnified.
>
> The answer revolves around things "guitar" , that is, things that
> non-guitarists
> would have little interest in and non-players would have no interest
in.
>
> Scott.
>
To a lot of people music is something that comes out of a speaker only
and they may have had little exposure to the real deal. Now when it
comes to Jazz you are already talking about a niche market. Jazz guitar
is a small slice of that audience. Here in this newsgroup most people
are obviously keenly interested in the subject and several are
professionally involved with jazz guitar as part of their livelihood.
My bias is that it's very important, anything but boring and
compellingly attractive and interesting. I don't worry about critics one
way or the other. Nothing any of them say will have an effect on my
enthusiasm. It's nice to have the opportunity to come here and compare
notes with knowlegeable, passionate, like minded individuals who are
committed to jazz guitar. ....joe
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pete Kerezman
Persons who are interested in jazz don't seem to be limited to any
particular instrument in their interest, although they may be more
focused on a favorite or favorites. Even though this is a jazz guitar
forum there's plenty of talk of non-guitar jazz here. I think jazz
may be boring (or simply misunderstood) mainly to those who are not
interested in it period, and that the instrument that it is being
played on is irrelevant.
Texas Pete
Pete Kerezman (pete...@aol.com)
Cribcage
bruno, who are extremely gifted yet never seem to forget that they're playing a
guitar, may be of lesser interest to, say, trumpet players. however, guitarists
who are clearly musicians before guitarists, they have as much across-the-board
appeal as, say, pianist bill evans -- who played the flute, and said in
interviews that he sometimes imagined that his right hand was playing that
instrument.
an example: the album _seven & seven_, by george van eps and howard alden.
if you listen to that album, and find yourself unable to get past the fact that
the musicians are playing guitars and focus on the music...then i respectfully
suggest that the problem is with you, and not with the instrument.
crib
skrohn
Couldn't disagree more. To me RANEY is Jazz, Van Eps is Guitar.
I do not know the _seven & _seven album, but I have another with them -
great
guitarists but gathering dust !
Scott
Cribcage wrote in message <20000930160023...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
F.
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000930022147...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> >Wasn't someone getting an 8 string?
> >Mike
> I've mentioned my much anticipated 8 string here several times but at the
> moment it's still in the "much anticipated" stage. The guy building it
for me
> has been taking his time and I'm in no big hurry as I've had a lot of
expenses
> lately with my CD and some new studio gear I bought. Anyway, my 8 string
> concept is no big revolutionary thing; it's just a "Lenny Breau" high A
seven
> string, and a "VanEps" low A seven string combined in one guitar, with a
Novax
> multiscaled fingerboard to accomodate the wide range of the strings. One
of my
> main goals with this instrument is indeed to "piano-ize" the guitar a
little
> bit more. I'm also using both magnetic and piezo pickups and a semi
hollow
> telecaster type body.
yoiks. be sure to let us know how much it weighs! :)
cheers,
frank (what hump?)
Chris Smart
now that 7-string axes are popular with the so-called new metal crowd,
but is your luthier having to make his own pickups for the 8-string?
just curious.
F.
(mit...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: "Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
: news:20000930022147...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
: > >Wasn't someone getting an 8 string?
: > >Mike
: > I've mentioned my much anticipated 8 string here several times but at the
: > moment it's still in the "much anticipated" stage. The guy building it
: for me
: > has been taking his time and I'm in no big hurry as I've had a lot of
: expenses
: > lately with my CD and some new studio gear I bought. Anyway, my 8 string
: ...
: > concept is no big revolutionary thing; it's just a "Lenny Breau" high A
: seven
: > string, and a "VanEps" low A seven string combined in one guitar, with a
: Novax
: > multiscaled fingerboard to accomodate the wide range of the strings. One
: of my
: > main goals with this instrument is indeed to "piano-ize" the guitar a
: little
: > bit more. I'm also using both magnetic and piezo pickups and a semi
: hollow
: > telecaster type body.
: yoiks. be sure to let us know how much it weighs! :)
: cheers,
: frank (what hump?)
--
____________________________________________________________
http://www.braille.uwo.ca/~chriss
"Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played
upon itself"(Peter J. Carroll).
Randy Graves
my 8-string. It works fine.
Chris Smart wrote:
>
> What about pickups? There are after-market 7-string pickups, lots of 'em
> now that 7-string axes are popular with the so-called new metal crowd,
> but is your luthier having to make his own pickups for the 8-string?
>
> just curious.
>
> F.
> (mit...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> : "Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> : news:20000930022147...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> : > >Wasn't someone getting an 8 string?
> : > >Mike
> : > I've mentioned my much anticipated 8 string here several times but at the
> : > moment it's still in the "much anticipated" stage. The guy building it
> : for me
> : > has been taking his time and I'm in no big hurry as I've had a lot of
> : expenses
> : > lately with my CD and some new studio gear I bought. Anyway, my 8 string
> : ...
> : > concept is no big revolutionary thing; it's just a "Lenny Breau" high A
> : seven
> : > string, and a "VanEps" low A seven string combined in one guitar, with a
> : Novax
> : > multiscaled fingerboard to accomodate the wide range of the strings. One
> : of my
> : > main goals with this instrument is indeed to "piano-ize" the guitar a
> : little
> : > bit more. I'm also using both magnetic and piezo pickups and a semi
> : hollow
> : > telecaster type body.
>
Stan Gosnell
<39D79B1F...@sonatech.com>:
>I have a Benedetto B-7 (7 string) pickup, now made by Seymour Duncan, on
>my 8-string. It works fine.
>
>Chris Smart wrote:
>>
>> What about pickups? There are after-market 7-string pickups, lots of
>> 'em now that 7-string axes are popular with the so-called new metal
>> crowd, but is your luthier having to make his own pickups for the
>> 8-string?
Most blade-style pickups should work fine, as long as the string spacing
isn't wider than the pickup. A blade-style 7-string should work fine on an
8-string.
Eisenbeil
Is Mainstream Jazz guitar that repetitive, predictable and boring to
non-guitarists? Are we all just marginal side-men in the Jazz show?
Any views on this?
Greetings from Holland,
Dick>>>
Your questions are pointing you in a direction. It sounds like you are at a
crossroads and you know what man, that is an important step in the maturity of
your aesthetic.
All of the great guitarists of the past traveled this road. The road they
traveled was one that led them to the core and center of their own being where
they had to develop their own potential.
Most musicians don't make their choices from the POV of development of concept
level. They pick and chose aspects of a tried and true and thus commercially
more viable vocabulary. Nothing wrong with that, to each his own.
Work hard at developing your vocabulary; rhythm, melody and harmony . When
you become energized by the output of your artistic powers, it is inevitable
that it will affect others.
Peace,
Bruce
Eisenbeil
You state,
<<<Quite honestly, I would have to agree that we have trouble
competing with the excitement level of other instruments. IMO, only Wes
Montgomery could
come close to the excitement level of a Coltrane or Miles. And even he was
following their
paths in regards to innovating jazz music.>>>
Really? Wow man cause like a lot of cats come to mind. Immediately. Pat
Martino, John McLaughlin, Larry Coryell, Phillipe Catherine, Steve Khan, Allan
Holdsworth, Joe Diorio, George Benson, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Mike Stern .
. . . .
I know you don't want me to go on.
Peace,
Bruce
Eisenbeil
You state,
<<<These are probably the only guitarists that non-guitarists pay much
attention to. They're the "head of the class" so to speak.
That said, jazz guitar has quite a glorious history all by itself. Burrell,
Benson, Van Eps,
Smith, Wayne, Farlow, Raney right on up to Bruno, Wilkins, Alden, Stern,
Krantz, and Hunter.
All of these guys play an important part in the development of the idiom. BUT,
what they do tends to be far more interesting and important to guitarists >>>
Many of the best known guitarists are best known because they have been able to
finance a publicity campaign that keeps them in the public eye. Its one thing
to play well and its another thing to record and get a CD out and its yet
ANOTHER thing to get PR in Guitar Player magazine or any other guitar or jazz
mag. Everybody knows this and hey we take what we read in magazines and
ultimately whats reviewed in history with a grain of salt. Or do we? After
all we don't need the weatherman to tell us which way the wind blows. Maybe
some do.
Then you say,
<<< How many saxophone players
can you name who have made a name for themselves in the 10 years or so? Let's
see, I get Lovano, Osby, Potter....
Hmm..., only 3 guys have been playing jazz saxophone over the last decade??
Well, no, but these seem to be the guys making the biggest strides and
commanding the most attention.>>>
Come on man.
Commanding the most attention by whom? There again, because its in print? Who
writes the articles? Who employs those writers? Which labels are those
artists on? What is thier PR budget and how much do those respective labels
spend on advertising in the magazines that report on said artists? As far as
saxophonists go , there are so many good ones here in NYC that have emerged in
the past 10 years like Rob Brown, Danial Carter, Blaise Siwula, David S. Ware,
Ellery Eskelin, Tim Berne, John Zorn, Sabir Mateen. ALL of these musicians
have CD's out on reputable labels with international distribution.
Unfortunately the labels that these guys are on do not have a large PR budget
so if you only read Downbeat or other primarily mainstream mags you won't know
about these men. Do a websearh on any of the above to get more info.
Are you familiar with Cadence magazine?
Talking about magazines, I wonder how many of the readers here who are from
the USA have ever read a jazz mag from a foreign country. My experiance is
that for the most part the magazines have a more balanced approach to covering
mainstream/straight ahead artists with the more progressive/cutting edge
artists.
Eisenbeil
<<<Lately I've been thinking about why it seems more difficult to
get a broader harmonic palette on the guitar as opposed to a
piano. This is after hearing Joe Beck and finding out about
his alto guitar concept and our continuing saga of trying to
get new and interesting voicings. Of course guys can come up
with new sounding voicings that are playable with enough
hand stretching. But they seem out of character for the
instrument. >>>
What does the music need? What are you trying to express? If you want to hear
what is new, as in vocabulary, as in concept development, as in evolution of
the jazz tradition, you gotta search.
I don't listen to much guitar music but if I did I would check out Derek Baily,
Fred Frith, Joe Morris, Neil Haverstick(Denver), Stefan Dill(Santa Fe), Ernesto
Diaz Infante(San Francisco). If you don't know these guys, what are you
waiting for?
Peace,
Bruce
Tom Lippincott
>now that 7-string axes are popular with the so-called new metal crowd,
>but is your luthier having to make his own pickups for the 8-string?
>
I have only looked into this a little bit so far, but I'm considering either a
"blade" type (Bartolini, EMG) like a couple of other people mentioned, or an 8
string lap steel pickup that Bill Lawrence makes.
RobinsonCHAZZ
guitar playing in our society. Years ago there was a club here that brought in
big name jazz players on a regular basis. Guitarists like Herb Ellis, Barney
Kessel, Tal Farlow, Kenny Burrell, and others consistantly played to packed
houses while many horn players and piano players equally as well known, died.
This was during a period when you couldn't walk across any area that had grass
growing without stumbling over 4-5 guys on blankets playing guitars, in the
other music world the guitar hero ruled. At present virtuosity on the guitar is
not seen as any big deal , rock heroes who were playing stadiums five years ago
have been relegated to dives on the outskirts of town. Shredders are in but no
including their fans takes them seriously. This general decline in interest in
guitar playing could be the reason why there is less interest in jazz guitar
playing, like it our not our fates are linked to those of the players over in
the other dimensions. CR
tom8...@my-deja.com
I know the book you are talking about: I think the two guys that write
it are not great fans of jazz guitar, which may affect their ratings of
albums.
There are some guitarists who are simply not interesting to many
non-musicians. Jim Hall and Barney Kessel fall into this category.
Others have instant appeal to a wider audience (Grant Green, Kenny
Burrell). I have no idea why this should be - perhaps Green and Burrell
have a more simple and digestible playing style for non-musicians.
The question has to be asked - what does the guitar do well?
As a 'comping instrument it suffers in comparison with the piano from
having only six (or eight!!) strings. It is SO much easier to comp on
the piano that we have to ask why we bother at all, I thiink it must be
due to the attractive percussive timbre that can be coaxed from a guitar
which can really get things swinging.
Personally, I think it's as a melody instrument that the guitar excells.
Perhaps some of us are a bit guilty of playing safe, scale-based licks
with the tone turned down too low? It's very easy to think in patterns
on the guitar - very hard to think in melodies.
Having said that I can think of stacks of horn players who sound boring
to me - so I would suggest that the reviewers have missed the point. I
can think of three albums which stand out as world-class that are
sitting on the HiFi table next to me
Grant Green - Idle Moments
Kenny Burrell - Midnight Blue
Wes - Smokin' at the half note
Whether they were " gound breaking " I don't know or care. They are
simply excellent, uplifting music which will be enjoyed for generations
to come. Whether or not Morton gave them three or four stars will not
be remembered.
Tom.
Willie K. Yee, MD
trumpeters or sax players that you know personally can name any of the
guitarist on your list?
--
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band
http://www.bigbluebigband.com
Remove "DONTSPAM" from return address to reply.
Eisenbeil
trumpeters or sax players that you know personally can name any of the
guitarist on your list?>>>
Most of the sax players I mentioned I have performed with. Spent a good amount
of time talking about some of these issues. The musicians I know here in NYC
are well informed. The prevously mentioned guitarists are well known. Several
other instrumentalists even know the kinds of guitars, amps, or effects a
specific guitarist may use and where he or she went to school.
I know that the above is true for the current scene in Chicago, Philadelphia
and San Francisco as well. At least for the people who are gigging out
playing creative improvised music.
You know man if a guitarist wants to participate with other instrumentalists,
it is essential to hang with other instrumentalists, hire them for gigs, and
learm about their perspective towards music, improvisation and what is a good
musical experience.
Peace,
Bruce
Victor Magnani
>
> I'm actually starting to warm up to the idea of something like
> an 8 string instrument with 4 strings for a lower octave and
> 4 for a higher octave. Use this as a comping instrument tuned
> so you could create interesting chord voicings without killing
> yourself!
>
> Wasn't someone getting an 8 string?
>
> Mike
Charlie Hunter plays an 8 string - more half-bass/half-guitar type
instrument, as opposed to an extension of traditional guitar (Breau, Van
Eps).
Victor
Mr.Will
world that its appeal is diluted to those various styles?
Guitar tends to be king in a few of those genres like rock, flamenco and all,
but perhaps the idea that anyone can play guitar is an influence on the "jazz =
clever music = piano = sax = anything but guitar" attitudes.
I don't know to be honest, I kind of like almost ALL music guitar or not, so I
can't speak for anyone who finds stuff boring.
Mr.Will
Planet Sound Community Arts
http://www.planetsound-arts.co.uk
Adam Gottschalk
wyeeN...@bestweb.net wrote on 10/2/00 06:50:
> But I think the point is, we all know Miles and Coltrane. But how many
> trumpeters or sax players that you know personally can name any of the
> guitarist on your list?
>
1) I wouldn't feel comfortable playing with a trumpeter or sax player who
couldn't name at least John McLaughlin, Pat Metheny, and John Scofield (I've
known and played with many who could, with enthusiasm no less). (God forbid
they couldn't name George Benson). Guitar has had an enormous influence on
the sounds of jazz through the years. Any player who ignores that does so at
their own loss. Just like I feel uncomfortable with jazz guitar players who
go along as if Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, or Stevie Ray Vaughn had never
walked the earth. The sounds folks are attuned to have always changed; one
of the sounds that has become central to everyone's understanding of modern
music is the electric guitar. In fact, my perspective is to have more
"sympathy" for the audience than the players, and I'm pretty sure that many
folks, whether jazz aficionados or not, find the sound of a guitar more
accesible than the sound of, say, a flugelhorn. And beyond that, I think the
sound of a Scofield is more accessible, today, year 2000, than the sound of
a Wes Montgomery.
2) As far as the "trouble competing with the excitement level" quote above,
I must contest. I have seen many guitar players blow the lid off the place.
One of the first things that comes to mind is this: I saw McLauglin,
DeFrancesco, and Dennis Chambers play in a relatively small theater in
Seattle about 6 or 7 years ago (on the heels of "After the Rain"). That show
literally changed my life, changed my idea of how deeply a person can
express his or herself without saying a word.
3) This gets into a thread that I have beem reluctant to participate in so
far on this list, the whole issue of traditionalist Marsalis, racism, etc. I
have heard black folks say flat out they didn't like Pat Metheny. Never once
have I been convinced that they said that for largely musical reasons. I
have come across some severe racism when it comes to jazz: one of the most
extreme incidents was a radical inter-disciplinary class I took in college
called Back to the Beat. In that class one day we had a black woman and 2
young so-called "hip-hop scholars" come in; they proceeded to make it clear
that in their eyes, only black folks had the "right" to play jazz, and any
white person doing it was guilty of appropriation. Needless to say I have
much I could go on an on about this idea (I won't here), but it is clear
that the guitar today is associated with white players more than black (I
would be intersted to know how many black players are participants on this
list), so the traditionalist view (i.e., jazz should sound like it did 40
years ago and should be played by black players) doesn't have much space for
us as "true" jazzers. Now we all know that if you look at the origins,
roots, and history of jazz, to call it purely a black art form is a complete
misreading of the facts. European diatonic framework, European
instrumentation, march rhythms, Broadway/Tin Pan Alley tunes turned into
jazz, etc., etc. White folks have been there all along the way, and any
jazzer worth his or her weight in salt knows it. Anyway, I'll stop before
the flames rise to high.
Adam
Mr.Will
seems to see ITSELF as a lesser instrument than all the others that contribute
to the jazz world?
I mean, the thing you constantly hear is "think like a pianist" in this
situation or "think like a horn player" when soloing, and nobody seems to ever
say "think like a guitarist". Its almost as if we as guitarists feel GUILTY for
the instrument we play in this style of music and try to imitate other
instruments to get through. Am I being a bit simple there?
What are the fundamentals that make "GOOD GUITAR"? More importantly, can we
bring those to the jazz genre? I mean we know what we like about piano, and we
know what we like about horns, but what do we like about GUITAR?
Does anyone else think this is worthy of thinking about, or should I go off and
learn my piano voicings to the standards?
RWS880
an 8 string instrument with 4 strings for a lower octave and
4 for a higher octave. Use this as a comping instrument tuned
so you could create interesting chord voicings without killing
yourself!>
I think Egberto Gismonti has done this with his eight and ten string guitars.
As good at piano as at guitar, Gismonti often plays impossible piano voicings
on his custom guitars. If you're already familiar with his stuff, you should
definetely check him out
Rob
Mike
rob
Cribcage
<< how many trumpeters or sax players that you know personally can name any of
the guitarist on your list? >>
the list in question, from bruce eisenbeil:
"Pat Martino, John McLaughlin, Larry Coryell, Phillipe Catherine, Steve Khan,
Allan Holdsworth, Joe Diorio, George Benson, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Mike
Stern ."
the answer: MANY. catherine, khan and diorio are the only three that are even
remotely obscure. if you're a trumpet player who cannot name pat metheny, pat
martino, john scofield or george benson as a "jazz guitarist" (and you did say
"any of"), then you're simply not very familiar with the jazz scene. we're
talking about guys with major reputations -- and recording contracts -- here.
pat metheny is to jazz guitar what michael brecker is to jazz saxophone: you
can debate the lasting influence of either one, but you cannot argue that both
are extremely significant presences in their respective instrumental fields.
now, if eisenbeil had gone off listing joe morris, or ben monder, or even peter
bernstein, maybe your hypothetical horn player would be able to argue SOME
credibility...
crib
Cribcage
<<the thing you constantly hear is "think like a pianist" in this situation or
"think like a horn player" when soloing, and nobody seems to ever say "think
like a guitarist". >>
i completely agree. i used to tell my students something very similar. i've
always thought that the advice to keep in mind a horn player's need to take
breaths when soloing is a terrible thing to apply to the guitar. the ability to
play 'through' breaths is an advantage of the guitar, not a disadvantage.
however, at the same time, i do think that it's valuable to learn to think like
another instrument. just about every jazz great i can think of has said that
s/he thinks of another instrument at times during the music. the most famous
example is probably pianist bill evans, who compared his right hand to a flute.
on another level, charlie hunter has said that his guitar tone is largely the
result of being influenced by larry young's organ.
i think it's good to be able to draw from other instruments to influence your
own playing. but don't take it to the point of seeing your own instrument as a
handicap. if you really want to play another instrument that badly, learn how.
crib
Mike Ellenberger
Eisenbeil wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> <<<Lately I've been thinking about why it seems more difficult to
> get a broader harmonic palette on the guitar as opposed to a
> piano. This is after hearing Joe Beck and finding out about
> his alto guitar concept and our continuing saga of trying to
> get new and interesting voicings. Of course guys can come up
> with new sounding voicings that are playable with enough
> hand stretching. But they seem out of character for the
> instrument. >>>
>
> What does the music need? What are you trying to express? If you want to hear
> what is new, as in vocabulary, as in concept development, as in evolution of
> the jazz tradition, you gotta search.
I think it would be better to create it.
>
> I don't listen to much guitar music but if I did I would check out Derek Baily,
> Fred Frith, Joe Morris, Neil Haverstick(Denver), Stefan Dill(Santa Fe), Ernesto
> Diaz Infante(San Francisco). If you don't know these guys, what are you
> waiting for?
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll be on the lookout for Ernesto
since I'm
close to SF. As far as the other guys go, what would one expect to
hear?
Mike
--
Mike Ellenberger
Listen to some soundclips at
http://home.att.net/~grumpmeister/MikesJazzPage.html
Paul Craig Sanwald
:
: I don't think I've ever heard a guitarist comp as interestingly
: as McCoy Tyner. Maybe this is an exception but I think you need
: to work a lot harder on the guitar and the sound just isn't the
: same even if you could play the same stuff. Maybe the fact
: that the keyboard was the instrument of choice of some of the
: great classic composers attests to its usefulness.
:
Well, I see what you're saying, and agree that most comping I hear on
guitar really doesn't do it for me. But the guitar is really under
utilized as a comping instrument. I studied with a piano player for
years and now study with another one, and the way they practice chords and
comping and think about voicings is much different and more expansive than
most guitarists I've talked to. try this:
take a voicing (say 3 6 2 5, very tynerish). Take this voicing through all
the scales (major, harm min and mel minor) and all the keys. If you wanna
be really on point you can take it through the maj and min 6 dimished scales
as well.
next you've gotta realize that every time you see a Cmaj, you can use this
whole chord scale over the chord (of course you'll probably wanna land on the
1st, 3rd or 6th degrees of the chord scale). use the other chords to connect
these. you can also use chromatic and dimished chords to connect everything
together.
Over dominant chords you generally use a mel minor a 5th or a 1/2 step away
(or both!). So, If you know the chord/scales for 5 different voicings,
that's a huge amount of material you can play.
--paul
Eisenbeil
hear
> what is new, as in vocabulary, as in concept development, as in evolution of
> the jazz tradition, you gotta search.
###I think it would be better to create it.###
Yeah I agree. That is always the best way. And that is what I was implying.
The search takes you deep into yourself.
Eisenbeil
<<<"GOOD GUITAR"? More importantly, can we
bring those to the jazz genre? I mean we know what we like about piano, and we
know what we like about horns, but what do we like about GUITAR?
Does anyone else think this is worthy of thinking about, or should I go off and
learn my piano voicings to the standards?
>>>
Use everything you've got man. Use what you NEED to use and make it sound
great.
Peace,
Bruce
jcl...@mediaone.net
> What are the fundamentals that make "GOOD GUITAR"? More importantly, can we
> bring those to the jazz genre? I mean we know what we like about piano, and we
> know what we like about horns, but what do we like about GUITAR?
What I like about guitar is RHYTHM. I don't mean chords, I mean body movement.
John C.
Jos Groot
>
> Hi gang,
>
> My favorite Jazz CD reference book is the the "Penguin Guide to Jazz CDs".
> It is an important and fantastic guide to purchasing Jazz CDs with really
> knowledgeable reviews of all current and classic Jazz Cds. You will find any
> Jazz guitar player in it (well, most of 'm anyway). What strikes me is that
> instances of 4 star reviews - the rating for important and challenging Jazz
> albums - of Jazz guitar CDs are very, very rare. Maybe just a handful of
> classic recordings.
[...]
Some by Sonny Sharrock have 4 stars. Maybe you looked at the wrong guitarists
(or in the wrong edition - I have the first one):
* Philip Catherine
album I Remember You: "... and again it's the guitarist who lifts
the performance a notch, using his pedals imaginatively. A beautiful album."
* John McLaughlin
Extrapolation: "Extrapolation is one of the finest jazz records
ever made in Europe."
* Pat Metheny
Song X: "Either way, on many of the more raving epsodes here, both
men [Metheny and Ornette Coleman) sound exultant with the possibilities.
Highly recommended."
* Paul Hock
Fresh Fruit: "A name worth watching."
* Emily Remler
East To Wes: "The best available set, though, is the impeccable Montgomery
tribute, East To Wes. [...] 'Daahoud' and 'Hot House' are unbeatable
updates of each tune."
* John Scofield
Tine On My Hands and Meant To Be: "Both are very highly recommended."
Jos Groot
Victor Magnani
Cribcage wrote:
> willie k. yee writes:
>
> << how many trumpeters or sax players that you know personally can name any of
> the guitarist on your list? >>
>
> the list in question, from bruce eisenbeil:
> "Pat Martino, John McLaughlin, Larry Coryell, Phillipe Catherine, Steve Khan,
> Allan Holdsworth, Joe Diorio, George Benson, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Mike
> Stern ."
>
> the answer: MANY. catherine, khan and diorio are the only three that are even
> remotely obscure. if you're a trumpet player who cannot name pat metheny, pat
> martino, john scofield or george benson as a "jazz guitarist" (and you did say
> "any of"), then you're simply not very familiar with the jazz scene.
Hey gang,
But my original point (way back when) was how many non-guitarists would have
records by the more obscure folks. How many non-guitarists have a record by George
Van Eps? How many non-trumpeters have a record by Clifford Brown? See what I
mean?
Victor
JALSRV
one of those musicians that crosses over nstrumental barriers. Someon like
John Faddis, or Maynard Ferguson, I would think non-trumpet players would e
into. But hanging out with other musicians exposes people to new musicians. I
have heard alot of things I have never heard of from friends, and Ive
introduced Van Eps to almost every single person I meet. come on!! Clifford
Brown? pick someone more obscure than that!
Jonathan
joefi...@my-deja.com
In article <20001002022711...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
RobinsonCHAZZ
Guitarists like Herb Ellis, Barney Kessel, Kenny Burrell, Charlie Byrd, Tal
Farlow, etc. consistantly played to packed houses while players of equal
stature on other instruments often died. People often said "If you are going
there you had better leave early there 's a guitar player this week". CR
Victor Magnani
That was my whole point!! That Clifford Brown is "essential" to everyone
interested in jazz, while Van Eps is more a guitarist-only type artist.
Non-guitarists may well appreciate him, but it's unlikely that a non-guitarist will
go out of his way to get Van Eps records in the way that a guitarist will. But I
thought that everyone into jazz (playing, studying) would have some Clifford in
their collection. Not everyone into jazz will have Van Eps. (I picked Clifford
rather than Miles because Miles was too obvious a choice.)
The whole discussion started about Martin Taylor. He's a guy who's music is for
the most part more interesting to guitarists than to non-guitarists. The very
first post asked why jazz guitar was dissed by critics as imitative, dertivative,
etc. My point was there are lots of guys who are very important to the development
of their instrument, while still occupying a smaller historical place in the
overall evolution of jazz. Critics who may take a broad view often do a
dis-service to those guys who bang it out everyday, and help mvoe the music along
bit by bit - at the expense of those guys who are revolutionary. Is it fair to
compare every electric bassist to Jaco? Is it fair to compare every guitar player
to Wes?
I fear I'm not making my point well. Maybe back track and check my initial
response. It seems I got pretty close then.
Victor
Victor Magnani
I just re-read my first response, and you know what? Clifford was one of those people
I listed as essential. So there!!
;-)
Victor
Tom Walls
guitar has a "niche" audience. Guitarists often become obsessed with certain
aspects of performance which reinforces the art as a more specialized field.
All IMHO, of course.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
jpo...@my-deja.com
Classical guitar players took many decades to get their instrument
taken seriously. Segovia used to stalk composers to get them to write
for it. Jazz I guess is the same
For me, the joy of the guitar is in the playing, not so much in the
listening. The way you hold a guitar transmits the reverberations right
through you, in a way many instruments don't. Non-players can never
understand this, So I'm happy to enjoy my as-yet primitive jazz guitar
playing knowing that the instrument is neglected by the listeners.
It is the most *personal* instrument.
just my 0.02
John
OASYSCO
>guitar has a "niche" audience. Guitarists often become obsessed with certain
>
>aspects of performance which reinforces the art as a more specialized field.
I have to agree wholeheartedly here.
Even back in the 70's when George Benson became an "overnight sensation", folks
did not go to his concerts to hear him play unaccompanied jazz solos. Sure,
they liked to see him burn on a single note solos, but they expected to hear
him sing and play in the context of a full band, playing decidedly pop tunes.
Just how many non-guitarists even know who Jimmy Bruno is? Many may have heard
of Joe Pass, but how many actually own some of his recordings?
The "niche" things fits to a tee. It seems that to garner commercial success
and recognition, you have to be willing to play stuff like "smooth jazz", pop,
etc that puts jazz guitar in a context more familiar to the masses.
Greg
Victor Magnani
Tom Walls wrote:
> FWIW I think you made your point well,
Thanks, Tom.
Gilbert
>I actual;ly have Clifford Brown records. I would think athat Clifford might be
>one of those musicians that crosses over nstrumental barriers. Someon like
>John Faddis, or Maynard Ferguson, I would think non-trumpet players would e
>into. But hanging out with other musicians exposes people to new musicians. I
>have heard alot of things I have never heard of from friends, and Ive
>introduced Van Eps to almost every single person I meet. come on!! Clifford
>Brown? pick someone more obscure than that!
>Jonathan
I think you missed his point Jonathan, of course we all have Clifford
Brown records, not just trumpet players. but not many non-guitarists
have Van Eps records.
Cribcage
<< But my original point (way back when) was how many non-guitarists would have
records by the more obscure folks. How many non-guitarists have a record by
George Van Eps? How many non-trumpeters have a record by Clifford Brown? >>
you're working with a catch-22 here, though, victor. george van eps isn't as
well known as clifford brown because he hasn't had the same commercial success
as brown; yet, in a sense, it's that very "commercial success" that you're
asking about.
to highlight the flaw in the van eps v. brown comparison, beyond the
instrumental difference, let's look at two other factors: composition and
company. clifford brown earned a bit of fame simply for having composed "joy
spring," a tune which almost immediately became adopted into the standard
repertoire. none of van eps's compositions have had this success. (this is not
due to "anti-guitarism," as wes montgomery -- for one -- contributed a number
of tunes to the repertoire that are now played by all manner of instruments.)
second, there is the company they kept. van eps wasn't playing in any spotlit
circles. brown...well, i'm not even going to try to list all of the people he
played with who were at the center of the jazz scene in their day.
i'll give you another example: saxophonist/clarinetist john laporta. in terms
of musicianship, there's a man who's in van eps's league. yet how many
non-saxophonists have heard of him? compositionally-speaking, he hasn't been a
major contributor. but as far as the company he kept, he's no slouch -- he even
recorded with mingus a few times.
in short, i think there are two factors which endeavor to answer your question.
first, the relatively low commercial success of a guy like george van eps, or
lenny breau, or mick goodrick, et cetera, results in these people remaining
unknown except to those who search for them. who searches for guitar players?
guitarists, naturally. same goes for any instrument.
second, i would contend that, especially with respect to recommending players
and albums, guitarists tend to communicate more with each other than do other
instrumentalists. this newsgroup, in fact, is one example. there are a few
other instrument-specific groups; but there are few, and this seems to be the
most active. as guitarists, we seem to see our instrument more as a common bond
than do other instrumentalists.
and if you agree with that, here's a question: why?
crib
Victor Magnani
> victor magnani asks:
>
> << But my original point (way back when) was how many non-guitarists would have
> records by the more obscure folks. How many non-guitarists have a record by
> George Van Eps? How many non-trumpeters have a record by Clifford Brown? >>
>
> you're working with a catch-22 here, though, victor. george van eps isn't as
> well known as clifford brown because he hasn't had the same commercial success
> as brown; yet, in a sense, it's that very "commercial success" that you're
> asking about.
Dude, I think you missed my point entirely. And how much "commercial success"
($$$) do you think Clifford Brown had?? I'm not talking about commercial success
at all - if anything I'm talking about a players position in the overall history of
jazz as opposed to his position in the history of one particular instrument in
jazz. Clifford Brown was a major voice in jazz history - George Van Eps was a
major voice in jazz GUITAR history, but barely a blip on the radar of "jazz
history" as written by critics who tend to take a broad view of the music and it's
developments. Survey your average undergraduate jazz history course - Brownie may
or may not get mentioned, but Van Eps certainly won't (unless the course is traught
by a guitar player, and then all bets are off).
> to highlight the flaw in the van eps v. brown comparison, beyond the
> instrumental difference, let's look at two other factors: composition and
> company. clifford brown earned a bit of fame simply for having composed "joy
> spring," a tune which almost immediately became adopted into the standard
> repertoire. none of van eps's compositions have had this success. (this is not
> due to "anti-guitarism," as wes montgomery -- for one -- contributed a number
> of tunes to the repertoire that are now played by all manner of instruments.)
Brownie would have been a legend even if he had never written Joy Spring or any
other tune. His improvising is what mattered the most. The amazing structure,
beautiful lines, amazing tone are the primary components of his legacy. And what
Wes tunes exactly are you thinking of that non-guitarists play? Actually, how many
Wes tunes do guitarists even play(except for the occasional tribute albums)? I
like to play "4 on 6", but what else? Yeah, he wrote some nice tunes, but they're
hardly "standards". Not to be argumentative, but your argument is flawed.
> second, there is the company they kept. van eps wasn't playing in any spotlit
> circles. brown...well, i'm not even going to try to list all of the people he
> played with who were at the center of the jazz scene in their day.
Do you know much about Brownie? He died at (I think) 23. He kept that company
because his genius earned him that company. Van Eps has also even said himself
that his approach was more arranging tunes rather than improvising on tunes.
Brownie was in the groups he was in (primarily the Brown/Roach quint) becasue of
his improvisational skills. George's bag was different. I wouldn't really compare
their approaches, it's not a good comaprison. I used them becasue as a guitarist,
you kind of need to know (be aware of at least) GVE. As a jazz musician on any
instrument you need to know Clifford. That's highlights the difference.
> i'll give you another example: saxophonist/clarinetist john laporta. in terms
> of musicianship, there's a man who's in van eps's league. yet how many
> non-saxophonists have heard of him? compositionally-speaking, he hasn't been a
> major contributor. but as far as the company he kept, he's no slouch -- he even
> recorded with mingus a few times.
I'm not sure I get your point here.
> in short, i think there are two factors which endeavor to answer your question.
> first, the relatively low commercial success of a guy like george van eps, or
> lenny breau, or mick goodrick, et cetera, results in these people remaining
> unknown except to those who search for them. who searches for guitar players?
> guitarists, naturally. same goes for any instrument.
Talk about catch 22 and circular arguments.
> second, i would contend that, especially with respect to recommending players
> and albums, guitarists tend to communicate more with each other than do other
> instrumentalists. this newsgroup, in fact, is one example. there are a few
> other instrument-specific groups; but there are few, and this seems to be the
> most active. as guitarists, we seem to see our instrument more as a common bond
> than do other instrumentalists.
I'll try one last time, and then I've spent WAY too much time here. The heirarchy
of "essential jazz artists" contains very few guitarists. BUT, there are a great
many guitarists who contribute to the evolution of the instrument. their
contributions tend to be more important to guitarists than non-guitarists. Very
few guitarists hold a place in the history of the music held by Miles, Trane, Bird,
Duke or Clifford to use my example. (My original list of essential guitarists was
Django, Charlie, and Wes, but I'd have to add Freddie Green to that list upon
reflection). That doesn't make light of their accomplishments. I'm simply trying
to explain the situation as I see it.
> and if you agree with that, here's a question: why?
>
Not sure I agree but...
Becasue guitarists are guitar obsessed, perhaps more so than saxophone players are
saxophone obsessed or piano players are piano obsessed, etc, etc. this may not be
healthy, mind you.
> crib
Gotta go now, way to much...
Victor
Dick Onstenk
Thanks for your wonderful comments. You never cease to amaze me. From what I
read I can only conclude that Jazz players ARE intelligent people after all.
Really, I'm not flattering you. try www.guitar.com and you'll know what I
mean. ("Metallica rules and $#@* you if you don't" sorta conversations).
Dick
Randy Graves
has West Coast Blues, and Road Song, as well as Four on Six.
Victor Magnani wrote:
> Cribcage wrote:
> > . . . clifford brown earned a bit of fame simply for having composed "joy
Thomas F Brown
Adam Gottschalk <ad...@adamgottschalk.net> wrote:
>extreme incidents was a radical inter-disciplinary class I took in college
>called Back to the Beat. In that class one day we had a black woman and 2
>young so-called "hip-hop scholars" come in; they proceeded to make it clear
>that in their eyes, only black folks had the "right" to play jazz, and any
>white person doing it was guilty of appropriation. Needless to say I have
>much I could go on an on about this idea (I won't here), but it is clear
>that the guitar today is associated with white players more than black (I
>would be intersted to know how many black players are participants on this
>list), so the traditionalist view (i.e., jazz should sound like it did 40
>years ago and should be played by black players) doesn't have much space for
>us as "true" jazzers. Now we all know that if you look at the origins,
>roots, and history of jazz, to call it purely a black art form is a complete
>misreading of the facts. European diatonic framework, European
>instrumentation, march rhythms, Broadway/Tin Pan Alley tunes turned into
>jazz, etc., etc. White folks have been there all along the way, and any
>jazzer worth his or her weight in salt knows it. Anyway, I'll stop before
>the flames rise to high.
The early jazz guitar tradition is largely a creation of white
musicians. Eddie Lang is the daddy of them all, then Dick
McDonough, Carl Kress, George Van Eps, George Barnes. It's not
until the 1930s, with Teddy Bunn and Charlie Christian, that we
hear a black guitarist playing with anywhere near the same level
of chops and harmonic sophistication.
I'm not forgetting Lonnie Johnson. He was a great blues
player, but he had a limited facility with jazz harmony
in those early years.
jwco...@tcainternet.com
Sudhalter for great biographical details of these guys (McDonough, Lang,
Kress, Van Eps, Barnes). He quotes Louis Armstrong about listening and
jamming with "cats of any color".
I also like Swinging The Dream: Big Band and the Rebirth of American Culture
by Lewis Erenberg. He's got a great discussion of the political history of
race relations/politics and jazz. He cites an essay by John Hammond accusing
Duke Ellington of "hiring un-negroid musicians" and because of his lack of
protesting the racial abuses faced by him and his peoples his music had
become "vapid and gutless"!! Ellington responded that Hammonds fervent
political beliefs had warped his musical understanding. The French writers
were even worse, but this attitude is fairly d!ated.
joefi...@my-deja.com
tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu wrote:
> FWIW I think you made your point well, Victor. Relatively speaking,
jazz
> guitar has a "niche" audience. Guitarists often become obsessed with
certain
> aspects of performance which reinforces the art as a more specialized
field.
Well, O.K. we may be a niche audience; but it's a niche you can't
scratch. ....joe
robert hoeche
Paul Craig Sanwald
:
: Just how many non-guitarists even know who Jimmy Bruno is? Many may have heard
: of Joe Pass, but how many actually own some of his recordings?
All instruments are like this, though. I mean, I know a lot of sax players
that just love steve grossman, but I had never even heard of him until
recently.
--paul
Robby
remember:
1)Charlie Christian played it w/ Charlie Parker
2)Guitar's role in the blues going back to Africa
3)Django
4)Flamenco
5)Brazilian guitar
Cribcage
<< Very few guitarists hold a place in the history of the music held by Miles,
Trane, Bird, Duke or Clifford to use my example. (My original list of
essential guitarists was Django, Charlie, and Wes, but I'd have to add Freddie
Green to that list upon reflection). >>
you've got four impossible examples to match there -- plus clifford brown,
whose overall musical impact you and i apparently disagree about. (i say that
while proudly counting myself among the many who appreciate his music; and
"yes," to answer your assertion, i am quite familiar with his biographical
details.)
so...what's your contention? that "very few guitarists hold a place in the
history of the music held by miles, trane, bird, duke..."? well, if i may stoop
for a response, here: "duh." very few musicians hold comparable places in music
history. as a matter of fact, if you want to list everyone who holds a
historical candle to those four, i'd wager that you'll have trouble reaching
double digits with any instrument other than alto or tenor saxophone and the
piano.
heck...i wouldn't even put all four of those guitarists up on that level.
montgomery, i'll grant you. (and if you're not familiar with his contributions
to the standard repertoire, i don't really know what to tell you, aside from
offering the advice that you might want to pick up a real book at some point --
even sher's new versions include several montgomery tunes.) christian, also,
i'll grant you -- although an argument could be made that his primary "impact
on the music" was nothing more than bringing the guitar up onto the stage in
the first place (which would seem to disqualify him from your argument).
freddie green impacted the music...how? sure, he's absolutely one of the top
three or five historical influences on jazz guitar -- but on just "jazz"? same
goes for django...an amazing player, whose music i appreciate; but impact-wise,
i wouldn't even put him on the same level as green -- who i don't think comes
NEAR miles, trane, bird or duke "in the history of the music."
in my opinion, you're projecting your own perspective on guitar onto the jazz
world at large. every instrument has their george van eps's, musicians who
drastically altered the way one instrument was played but directly effected
little change upon "the music," and the language. and if you think it's much
easier to find ten bassists who sit on duke's level than it is ten guitarists,
then perhaps you should post your examples.
finally, i also dispute your assessment of george van eps. you state: "as a
guitarist, you kind of need to know [george van eps]." i've met plenty of jazz
guitarists who've greeted my conversational mention of van eps with a puzzled,
"who?" it's always a disappointing reaction to see, but it doesn't impede their
musicianship. a few that i can think of offhand are quite talented. they don't
own any george van eps records, and that's too bad; but they drew influence
from elsewhere, and got along just as well for it.
crib
Thomas F Brown
>It helps me feel that guitar is in jazz's roots & essence when I
>remember:
>1)Charlie Christian played it w/ Charlie Parker
Really? When did this happen?
Thomas F Brown
Cribcage <crib...@aol.com> wrote:
>christian, also,
>i'll grant you -- although an argument could be made that his primary "impact
>on the music" was nothing more than bringing the guitar up onto the stage in
>the first place (which would seem to disqualify him from your argument).
Guitars were well-established in jazz bands long before CC arrived
on the scene.
>every instrument has their george van eps's, musicians who
>drastically altered the way one instrument was played
Van Eps didn't drastically effect the instrument. He comes out
of an already well-established school of chordal guitar playing,
following Eddie Lang, Carl Kress, Dick McDonough. George took it
to another level technically, and introduced the low A string
to jazz, but these are not drastic impacts.
Tom Walls
>
>Well, O.K. we may be a niche audience; but it's a niche you can't
>scratch. ....joe
>
By the way Joe, although I'm of the opposite opinion as you regarding Wynton
Marsalis, I was impressed by the way that you stuck to your guns with dignity
and civility. Kudos!
Victor Magnani
> victor magnani states:
>
> << Very few guitarists hold a place in the history of the music held by Miles,
> Trane, Bird, Duke or Clifford to use my example. (My original list of
> essential guitarists was Django, Charlie, and Wes, but I'd have to add Freddie
> Green to that list upon reflection). >>
>
> you've got four impossible examples to match there -- plus clifford brown,
> whose overall musical impact you and i apparently disagree about. (i say that
> while proudly counting myself among the many who appreciate his music; and
> "yes," to answer your assertion, i am quite familiar with his biographical
> details.)
One of us is missing the others point, I think. I put Clifford way up on the list,
you don't?
My point was that holding up anybody to those levels, they're likely to fall
short. But that shouldn't undermine their accomplishments. My point was also that
comparisons like the Van Eps vs. Clifford one I've somehow gotten myself into are
foolish to start with. But this is the kind of bar critics ofen hold players up
to, unfairly. This does a disservice to what those players are trying to
accomplish and what they are saying. Remember - this started off with someone
asking about Martin Williams getting bad press, and asking if jazz guitar playing
was only interesting to guitarists. Someone like a Williams or Van Eps is doing
stuff that will be of more interest to guitarists than non-guitarists, and their
accomplishments will be more apparent to guitarists than non-guitarists. A
non-guitarists may greet stuff that a guitarists gets all hot and bothered about
with a big "ho-hum". Anybody should be evaluated sort of on a basis of "What are
they trying to accomplish? And, are they successful in trying to accomplish
that?". Comparisons of player A vs. player B are useless, and I've tried to
explain this, but it seems the more I talk (write) the less sense I'm making.
> freddie green impacted the music...how? sure, he's absolutely one of the top
> three or five historical influences on jazz guitar -- but on just "jazz"?
Freddie Green has a whole style of guitar playing named after him. Sure, it was
there before him, but it's become known as "Freddy Green comping". Take a jazz
arranging course and the only prominent mention of guitar comes up in a discussion
of rhythm section work. I'd say that warrants him a seat at the table.
> and if you think it's much
> easier to find ten bassists who sit on duke's level than it is ten guitarists,
> then perhaps you should post your examples.
Where the hell did you get that from? I never made any assertion remotely like
that.
>>(and if you're not familiar with his contributions
>>to the standard repertoire, i don't really know what to tell you, aside from
>>offering the advice that you might want to pick up a real book at some point --
>>even sher's new versions include several montgomery tunes.)
Name a couple for me. I really don't know many Wes tunes that entered the standard
repertoire. I mentioned "4 on 6" (hardly a standard), and last night thought about
"Road Song". Please, name another Wes tune that's a standard. I've been playing
jazz for lots of years, and can remember NO times when I had someone call a Wes
tune at a session or gig. Certainly, no times when a non-guitar player suggested
one. Educate me, please. This is actually a good question, lets open the floor to
everyone. What Wes' tunes does the gang here think are "standards"? Horace Silver
wrote a lot of tunes that became "standards" (covered by other people, jam session
fodder). What Wes tunes are in that category?
> finally, i also dispute your assessment of george van eps. you state: "as a
> guitarist, you kind of need to know [george van eps]." i've met plenty of jazz
> guitarists who've greeted my conversational mention of van eps with a puzzled,
> "who?" it's always a disappointing reaction to see, but it doesn't impede their
> musicianship. a few that i can think of offhand are quite talented. they don't
> own any george van eps records, and that's too bad; but they drew influence
> from elsewhere, and got along just as well for it.
>
> crib
Sure, but to be a student of the instrument you need to study it's history. I
don't think you NEED to know Van Eps, hell you don't NEED to know Bird, really.
You'd get by, but I don't think you'd be taking your responsibility to the music
very seriously if you didn't investigate him at leaast a little. Same for guitar
and Van Eps. I olny heard him for the first time recently, but it wasn't for want
of trying. For lots of years (until he started making records w/Alden for Concord)
it was pretty much impossible to find Van Eps stuff in print. But I still knew
about him, about his approach, I'd seen his books (Harmonic Mech). A serious
student of the instrument should want to expose him/herself to as much as they can,
I think. You should at least have a grasp of how the guitar got to where it is.
Victor
(please, make it stop)
((just kidding, it's fun - sort of))
;-)
Adam Gottschalk
vmagn...@netscape.net wrote on 10/4/00 09:34:
> I mentioned "4 on 6" (hardly a standard)
???!!!
"4 on 6" is clearly a standard. I mean, the same band that plays A-train
probably wouldn't play the tunes back to back, but really.
Victor Magnani
> > guitarist, you kind of need to know [george van eps]." i've met plenty of jazz
> > guitarists who've greeted my conversational mention of van eps with a puzzled,
> > "who?" it's always a disappointing reaction to see, but it doesn't impede their
> > musicianship. a few that i can think of offhand are quite talented. they don't
> > own any george van eps records, and that's too bad; but they drew influence
> > from elsewhere, and got along just as well for it.
> >
> > crib
>
> Sure, but to be a student of the instrument you need to study it's history. I
> don't think you NEED to know Van Eps, hell you don't NEED to know Bird, really.
> You'd get by, but I don't think you'd be taking your responsibility to the music
> very seriously if you didn't investigate him at leaast a little. Same for guitar
> and Van Eps. I olny heard him for the first time recently, but it wasn't for want
> of trying. For lots of years (until he started making records w/Alden for Concord)
> it was pretty much impossible to find Van Eps stuff in print. But I still knew
> about him, about his approach, I'd seen his books (Harmonic Mech). A serious
> student of the instrument should want to expose him/herself to as much as they can,
> I think. You should at least have a grasp of how the guitar got to where it is.
>
Maybe I can say this better. They don't "NEED" to know Van Eps to be a serious student
of jazz guitar. But it is a person who is a serious student of jazz guitar who would
be more inclined to be interested in Van Eps rather than a non-guitarists. Hence, my
original answer to the original question - YES, jazz guitar is boring to
non-guitarists.
Whew...
Victor
Victor Magnani
Adam Gottschalk wrote:
Who else has recorded it? I don't mean to sound confrontational on this,
I'm really curious. Are there recordings of Wes tunes out there by other
artists, in particular non-guitarists, that I'm oblivious too?? I'm really
really curious. I thought about starting a new thread. Are there tunes by
Wes that are played by other people regularly??
I'd really appreciate the info.
Victor
Mike Ellenberger
beyond just playing the notes that McCoy plays. Playing stacked 4ths
on the guitar just doesn't seem to have the same impact as it does
on the piano. The timbre of the instruments is so different and I
assume on keyboard you could spread these notes out more. Easy to
do on piano. The sound is different.
Since guitar players work mostly with "shapes" instead of notes, seeing
voice leading on the fretboard is more of a leap. Your suggestion is
excellent as far as putting more substitutions on the palette!
I don't quite know how to say this but there is a point at which
what guys play go from being technically correct to "cool".
By this I mean "sounds cool" not technically brilliant or difficult.
I think this is where everyone, even on other instruments, likes
the sound so much they want to play it on their instrument.
I think it's important, is specific to an instrument, and something
you hear in all the best players. As far as guitar goes I associate this
more with rock Johnny Smith and George Van Epps pop into my mind as
guys that used some "cool" harmonies.
I'm still baffled somewhat the more I think about this. I guess I
think it's easier to do interesting stuff on the piano just because
of the nature of the instrument. That's why I got thinking that
some adaptions to the traditional guitar (more strings, different
tuning) might make for an interesting comping instrument. I think
Joe Beck is one example of this.
Ok, I've rambled on enough.
Mike
Paul Craig Sanwald wrote:
>
> Mike Ellenberger (mike_ell...@amdahl.com) wrote:
> :
> : I don't think I've ever heard a guitarist comp as interestingly
> : as McCoy Tyner. Maybe this is an exception but I think you need
> : to work a lot harder on the guitar and the sound just isn't the
> : same even if you could play the same stuff. Maybe the fact
> : that the keyboard was the instrument of choice of some of the
> : great classic composers attests to its usefulness.
> :
>
> Well, I see what you're saying, and agree that most comping I hear on
> guitar really doesn't do it for me. But the guitar is really under
> utilized as a comping instrument. I studied with a piano player for
> years and now study with another one, and the way they practice chords and
> comping and think about voicings is much different and more expansive than
> most guitarists I've talked to. try this:
>
> take a voicing (say 3 6 2 5, very tynerish). Take this voicing through all
> the scales (major, harm min and mel minor) and all the keys. If you wanna
> be really on point you can take it through the maj and min 6 dimished scales
> as well.
>
> next you've gotta realize that every time you see a Cmaj, you can use this
> whole chord scale over the chord (of course you'll probably wanna land on the
> 1st, 3rd or 6th degrees of the chord scale). use the other chords to connect
> these. you can also use chromatic and dimished chords to connect everything
> together.
>
> Over dominant chords you generally use a mel minor a 5th or a 1/2 step away
> (or both!). So, If you know the chord/scales for 5 different voicings,
> that's a huge amount of material you can play.
>
> --paul
--
Mike Ellenberger
Listen to some soundclips at
http://home.att.net/~grumpmeister/MikesJazzPage.html
Adam Gottschalk
vmagn...@netscape.net wrote on 10/4/00 11:15:
> But it is a person who is a serious student of jazz guitar who would
> be more inclined to be interested in Van Eps rather than a non-guitarists.
> Hence, my
> original answer to the original question - YES, jazz guitar is boring to
> non-guitarists.
This is sort of a red herring, I think, Victor. You seem to hold an
impossible position. Now I haven't been watching every little interaction in
this thread, but I will restate what I hinted at earlier:
Look at it this way: _maybe_ the average jazz aficionado wants to hear wind
instruments or piano more than guitar (_maybe), but what of non jazz
aficionados and non jazz players. I am absolutely certain that many, many
people find guitar improvisation (i.e., not just jazz) anything but boring.
Think of all the pop/rock bands that feature guitar improv as a primary part
of their music (everyone from Led Zeppelin to Jimi Hendrix to the Grateful
Dead to Van Halen, to the latest "jam" bands like Widespread Panic). Folks
eat it up.
So here's an idea: I might agree that old-school/traditional sounding jazz
guitar is boring to nearly everyone (including contemporary jazz guitar
players). That's why all the "cutting edge" players, players who are willing
to incorporate familiar sounds, approaches, melodies, tunes from the more
mainstream world, are so vitally important to the continuation of jazz in
general. I have any number of friends who, if I put on, say, Milestones,
would just sort of think, "Oh, here's some of that old school jazz that my
ears can't make any sense of;" with those same folks, though, if I put on
say, So Near So Far (Henderson/Scofield) they would likely find it a whole
lot easier to get into in no small part due to the sound of an f/x-ed guitar
that was quite accessible to them.
I think a) continuing the tradition of incorporating pop tunes into the jazz
repertoire is vitally important to keep jazz relevant and making it relevant
to more people (I think of my friend/teacher Christopher Woitach who would
play a great standard and then turn around and do his version of the Theme
from Mash or Frank Mills from Hair or something...or, say, that Herbie
Hancock "New Standards" album (okay, so maybe that wasn't the biggest
hit...)), and b) contemporary sounding jazz guitar (i.e., guitar that
doesn't sound like Barney Kessel) is essential to maintaining and expanding
the relevance/audience of the genre. Implicit here is that I think there is
enough value in jazz, that all of us recognize, that we have an obligation
of sorts to make sure our jazz world is not hermetically sealed and does
remain accessible and enjoyable to as many people as possible. Also implicit
is the notion that any good artist should have the _audience_ in mind, and
their impact on the audience, no less prominently than their own enjoyment
of creating their art.
Adam
p.s.: I think every single jazz guitar teacher I've had assumed I was
familiar with Van Eps and his approach.
Mark Kleinhaut
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kleinhaut
Follow URL's for info and soundclips about:
my debut album "Amphora"
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
my newest album "Secrets of Three"
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Finn
Adam Gottschalk wrote:
> in article 39DB49AD...@netscape.net, Victor Magnani at
> vmagn...@netscape.net wrote on 10/4/00 11:15:
>
> > But it is a person who is a serious student of jazz guitar who would
> > be more inclined to be interested in Van Eps rather than a non-guitarists.
> > Hence, my
> > original answer to the original question - YES, jazz guitar is boring to
> > non-guitarists.
>
> This is sort of a red herring, I think, Victor. You seem to hold an
> impossible position. Now I haven't been watching every little interaction in
> this thread, but I will restate what I hinted at earlier:
>
> Look at it this way: _maybe_ the average jazz aficionado wants to hear wind
> instruments or piano more than guitar (_maybe), but what of non jazz
> aficionados and non jazz players. I am absolutely certain that many, many
> people find guitar improvisation (i.e., not just jazz) anything but boring.
> Think of all the pop/rock bands that feature guitar improv as a primary part
> of their music (everyone from Led Zeppelin to Jimi Hendrix to the Grateful
> Dead to Van Halen, to the latest "jam" bands like Widespread Panic). Folks
> eat it up.
I have had this experience as an instructor of guitar. A young 13 year old kid
with a rock orientation will come to me thinking somebody like Clapton is where
it's at. I think in general this is because they have not yet heard the jazz
possibilities that the instrument holds. Once they do hear Wes, et. al. it's as
if the sun just broke through the clouds. This has happened many, many times
over the years. In my area there is [thank goodness] a strong stage band
presence in the local schools. Once I get a young guy groomed for this sort of
thing they are sold. The experience of playing in such a band beats the hell out
of playing in your average garage band. I taught four kids in the last year that
went on to join stage bands playing Ellington, Basie, Horace Silver, etc. To me
this is a very rewarding thing.
I don't think music is boring to non musicians. Its more like a matter of
awareness. Lots of people are oblivious to music. They don't dig it because they
don't know what it is. Music transports the listener who is open to the
experience to places you can't get to in any other way. When people are exposed
to music they gradually develop an appreciation for it's beauty. ....joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Victor Magnani
> in article 39DB49AD...@netscape.net, Victor Magnani at
> vmagn...@netscape.net wrote on 10/4/00 11:15:
>
> > But it is a person who is a serious student of jazz guitar who would
> > be more inclined to be interested in Van Eps rather than a non-guitarists.
> > Hence, my
> > original answer to the original question - YES, jazz guitar is boring to
> > non-guitarists.
>
> This is sort of a red herring, I think, Victor. You seem to hold an
> impossible position. Now I haven't been watching every little interaction in
> this thread, but I will restate what I hinted at earlier:
>
> Look at it this way: _maybe_ the average jazz aficionado wants to hear wind
> instruments or piano more than guitar (_maybe), but what of non jazz
> aficionados and non jazz players. I am absolutely certain that many, many
> people find guitar improvisation (i.e., not just jazz) anything but boring.
> Think of all the pop/rock bands that feature guitar improv as a primary part
> of their music (everyone from Led Zeppelin to Jimi Hendrix to the Grateful
> Dead to Van Halen, to the latest "jam" bands like Widespread Panic). Folks
> eat it up.
Adam,
You're making a much deeper point than I'm trying to. And you make it well.
And I don't really mean to imply that ALL jazz guitar is boring to
non-guitarists. My answer was sort of flippant, toungue in cheek almost.
My point is that the average jazz afficianado will get some Miles, Trane, Bird,
Duke, Louis. As they move out from there they wouldn't neccesarily get to a lot
of guitarists unless they were REALLY into the guitar, per se.
And I must say, the situation is certainly different over the last 15-20 years.
I think that Metheny and Scofield are two of the most important voices in jazz
on any instrument. Thereby making guitar much more of a front line instrument.
My first response was also aimed at narrow minded critics who dismissed jazz
guitar (more traditional I guess) as derivative and hackneyed and boring.
> So here's an idea: I might agree that old-school/traditional sounding jazz
> guitar is boring to nearly everyone (including contemporary jazz guitar
> players).
Most older styles of jazz are, I find, an acquired taste.
Everything else you said made great sense, I certainly agree that it is the
forward looking players who are in the vanguard of development, but that
shouldn't make more traditional players take a back seat becasue of their
traditional bent. I tend to respect forward thinkers more than guys who imitate
tradition (Scott Hamilton, for one), but people can play very mainstream,
straight ahead jazz guitar and still make very valid music that is forward
looking in it's own way. Playing inside tradition is different than imitating
tradition. Just because someone is a more traditional player is no reason to
ignore his playing, or dismiss it as boring, derivative, imatative, etc.
And like I said the first time, it ain't boring to me!
Victor
Mike Ellenberger
only horns. It's great to hear them hack their way through
the descending chromatic chord changes;}
Mike
Cribcage
not we understand one another's points, sir; i would suggest that we probably
do, we just probably disagree.
you answer "yes" to the thread question; i would answer "no."
you ask me if i would put clifford brown "way up on the list"; in terms of a
historical-impact-on-the-music list, as we're discussing, no. he'd be on it.
but the top spots would be occupied by louis armstrong, duke ellington, charlie
parker, miles davis, john coltrane, et cetera; i don't think brown's historical
place is in that league.
you and i agree, i think, about freddie green's impact on jazz guitar; but you
think "that warrants him a seat at the table," whereas i'd say that he, too,
doesn't belong near the top of this list.
you suggest that green's name might come up in a jazz arranging course, and
that this earns him a place -- presumably, among the others you mentioned:
miles, 'trane, duke and bird. in my experience, you are correct: i do recall
green's name "coming up" in such courses -- in passing. in contrast, i recall
spending several weeks on the music of stan kenton in one such course. i
wouldn't place kenton alongside the four you listed, either.
you ask me to "name another wes tune that's a standard" (after you mention
"four on six," and "road song"). i would answer: "west coast blues." it was
included in the original real book, and sher put it in volume one of the new
series (p.401). i've heard it played by bands that included guitarists, as well
as those that didn't -- led with horn lines, and even at least one piano trio.
finally, i reiterate: i think we can agree on how wonderful van eps's music is,
but i think we disagree on how much impact he's had, historically, on
guitarists. really, i think his reputation has exploded in the last decade,
thanks to guys like howard alden and fred fried -- and, of course, the
wonderful _just jazz guitar_ (which can be limited in its coverage, but covers
what it does very well).
personally, i think that more guitarists in jazz were influenced harmonically
by mccoy tyner and bill evans than by george van eps. as i said, familiarity
with van eps's music seems to be growing, and in another twenty years this may
no longer be true. but even today, i know a lot more guitarists who are
familiar with the harmonic devices employed by tyner or evans than i do
guitarists who own any of van eps's books or music.
so, again: i think that we're understanding each other, but that we disagree on
quite a few points. we can probably agree, though, that this has turned out to
be an engaging and interesting thread. thanks for starting it.
crib
Thomas F Brown
Victor Magnani <vmagn...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>even sher's new versions include several montgomery tunes.)
>
>Name a couple for me. I really don't know many Wes tunes that entered
>the standard
>repertoire. I mentioned "4 on 6" (hardly a standard), and last night
>thought about
>"Road Song". Please, name another Wes tune that's a standard.
West Coast Blues and Naptown Blues are sometimes played. They're
more popular in Naptown than anywhere else I've been.
Paul Craig Sanwald
I don't get this whole 'classic' jazz thing. What exactly are you talking
about? People were using this term to describe martin taylor in another
thread.
--paul
icarusi
news:MdpC5.37418$Sb1.6...@nlnews00.chello.com...
> Guys,
>
> Thanks for your wonderful comments. You never cease to amaze me.
From what I
> read I can only conclude that Jazz players ARE intelligent people
after all.
Nah! Just good at faking it!
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Tom Lippincott
>I'm still baffled somewhat the more I think about this. I guess I
>think it's easier to do interesting stuff on the piano just because
>of the nature of the instrument. That's why I got thinking that
>some adaptions to the traditional guitar (more strings, different
>tuning) might make for an interesting comping instrument. I think
>Joe Beck is one example of this.
>
>Ok, I've rambled on enough.
>
>Mike
I think that this line of thinking (that guitar is just inherently somehow
"inferior" to piano as a comping instrument) is part of what has put guitarists
"behind in the game" though. Obviously, there is a difference in tone between
the two instruments, and a 6 string guitar has a limitation of polyphony and
range compared to a piano, but a piano can't bend notes, use vibrato, play
harmonics, ect. I also think there is an awful lot of harmonic and
contrapuntal possibility on the guitar that relatively few guitarists have even
scratched the surface of. In general if you look at what instrumentation is
being used on records today I think you'll find that more and more the guitar
is indeed being used as the sole comping instrument. I don't think the guitar
will ever "replace" the piano but to me, they are just two different sounds,
neither one (in capable hands) "better" than the other. One thing I WOULD say
is that in general I think that guitarists who think as musicians first and
guitarists second are the ones who tend to have the most impact on the
"non-guitar" jazz community (I think someone else mentioned idea this earlier
on this thread).
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Cribcage
<< I don't get this whole 'classic' jazz thing. What exactly are you talking
about? >>
i don't care for such "classifications" (pun intended) of jazz, myself. i agree
with brad mehldau, who has been quite vocal about this, as well as many others,
that "jazz" is more appropriately used as a verb than as a noun.
i would agree that the guitar is not "the classic jazz instrument." that does
not mean, however, that i would agree with a contention that the piano, or the
tenor saxophone, IS "the classic jazz instrument."
firstly, i would argue with such a characterization on the grounds that jazz is
too young to have a classic instrument. second, i would argue that jazz -- as
classical -- is too broad to have "a classic instrument."
third, and finally, i think that even if we could find the grounds to make such
a charaterization, we should not, because it would be done to the detrimental
limitation of the music. not only does jazz not need such limitations imposed
upon it, but i believe that the nature of the music opposes just such things.
michael rabinowitz, a jazz bassoonist...mark taylor, a jazz french horn
player...ella lou weiler, a jazz violist (if that's the correct term)...many
listeners see their instruments up on the stage, or hear their timbre on
recording, and quickly become focused upon the instrument rather than the
music. that's an obstacle we need to lessen, not increase, in my opinion.
crib
Victor Magnani
> victor magnani and i seem to be going back and forth. you question whether or
> not we understand one another's points, sir; i would suggest that we probably
> do, we just probably disagree.
>
> you answer "yes" to the thread question; i would answer "no."
I don't think it's inherently boring. I answered the question that way b'cause...
It's easier for specialists (guitarists in this case) to understand what is being
accomplished by the Martin Taylor's and George Van Eps' and how it differs from,
and is a valid (important) addition to those accomplishments of Joe Pass and Lenny
Breau. To a non-specialist (non-guitarist) these guys might all sound kind of
alike (solo guitar in a very mainstream tradition. Well, except for when Lenny was
doing his Indian raga or country stuff, but I digress). Your typical critic
(really way too nice a term for 'em, record reviewer is more appropriate - I don't
think there's very much good music criticism being written today) doesn't have the
background to assess what these guys are doing.. And in many instances other
instrumentalists won't either. It takes a specialists knowledge to understand
what's going on. Lack of exposure (education) leads to lack of understanding.
I never meant to imply that even your average jazz listener zones out once a
guitarist starts playing, finding it somehow inferior to what everyone else in the
band is doing.
Here's one last shot at an example. Next time you're at a friends house who's a
trumpeter or saxophone player or piano player, look through his record collection.
I bet he (she) would have fewer record by guitarists than you do by trumpeters, or
sax players, or piano players.
> you ask me if i would put clifford brown "way up on the list"; in terms of a
> historical-impact-on-the-music list, as we're discussing, no. he'd be on it.
> but the top spots would be occupied by louis armstrong, duke ellington, charlie
> parker, miles davis, john coltrane, et cetera; i don't think brown's historical
> place is in that league.
While not the innovator of stature as are those folks, Brownie is one of the more
important voices in the music, IMHO. He should be on any essential listening list
that goes beyond the absolute basics. Certainly up there with guys like Ben
Webster, Wayne Shorter, Art Tatum even. I picked him becasue I thought he was
"essential" yet not overly obvious (like Miles would have been).
> you and i agree, i think, about freddie green's impact on jazz guitar; but you
> think "that warrants him a seat at the table," whereas i'd say that he, too,
> doesn't belong near the top of this list.
He was an important part (perhaps THE most important part) in what many people feel
to be the ideal rhythm section. To paraphrase Jim Hall "If you pruned the tree of
jazz guitar, at the end you'd be left with Freddie Green strumming his wonderful
chords". I think his impact went beyond simply guitar playing. But I'll certainly
be happy to agree to disagree about that.
> you suggest that green's name might come up in a jazz arranging course, and
> that this earns him a place -- presumably, among the others you mentioned:
> miles, 'trane, duke and bird. in my experience, you are correct: i do recall
> green's name "coming up" in such courses -- in passing. in contrast, i recall
> spending several weeks on the music of stan kenton in one such course. i
> wouldn't place kenton alongside the four you listed, either.
Actually, aside from Duke I wouldn't imagine you'd hear much about the other three
in terms of arranging (I'm thinking more big band - or at least large ensemble,
nonet etc., as opposed to combo arranging). I think FG style is a far more
ubiquitous(sp?) aspect of the music than Kenton's stuff. But, point well made.
Gil Evans, George Russel, Oliver Nelson on the other hand... ;-)
> you ask me to "name another wes tune that's a standard" (after you mention
> "four on six," and "road song"). i would answer: "west coast blues." it was
> included in the original real book, and sher put it in volume one of the new
> series (p.401). i've heard it played by bands that included guitarists, as well
> as those that didn't -- led with horn lines, and even at least one piano trio.
I must confess, I've never heard either "4 on 6" or "WCB" by anyone other than
Wes. And "Road Song" only by other guitarists. I wouldn't use inclusion in fake
books as a yardstick for whether or not a tune is a standard. "Son of Mr. Green
Jeans" and "Peaches En Regalia" by Frank Zappa were both in the original RB, but
neither is a standard. Same goes for lots of tunes by Carla Bley, Steve Swallow,
Wayne Shorter and Pat Metheny. Lots of Wayne's tunes I would think are
"standards", some are not. "Falling Grace" by Swallow might be a standard, but
"Hotel Hello" or whatever it's called (I forgot) probably not. As a basic test I'd
say if it's on two or more of my records (I've probably got over a thousand), by
different people, it has some claim to being called a standard. (Or even if I've
heard it in different versions on the radio, of course) This is totally arbitrary,
and PLEASE, non-binding. I think it's just a kind of generalization as to whether
or not a tune is in the jazz currency or not. But I'm only too happy to grant that
Wes' tunes could be considered standards (though I'd still like someone to name a
few folks who've recorded them).
> finally, i reiterate: i think we can agree on how wonderful van eps's music is,
> but i think we disagree on how much impact he's had, historically, on
> guitarists. really, i think his reputation has exploded in the last decade,
> thanks to guys like howard alden and fred fried -- and, of course, the
> wonderful _just jazz guitar_ (which can be limited in its coverage, but covers
> what it does very well).
I think Van Eps stock has risen and fallen and risen again over the decades. Back
in the 80's it was practically impossible to find anything by him on record.
That's why I'd never heard him until recently. But he was very important to an
older generation of guitarists. My first "serious" teacher Allen Hanlon was
greatly influenced by GVE, and I think even played the same Gretsch 7-string as
him. So I would maintain that his influence reaches much farther back, though
there was certainly a lapse in there.
> personally, i think that more guitarists in jazz were influenced harmonically
> by mccoy tyner and bill evans than by george van eps. as i said, familiarity
> with van eps's music seems to be growing, and in another twenty years this may
> no longer be true. but even today, i know a lot more guitarists who are
> familiar with the harmonic devices employed by tyner or evans than i do
> guitarists who own any of van eps's books or music.
I'd certainly agree with you here. But don't you (even just a little) think that
you're helping me make my point? Maybe? If piano players are more important
(interesting, you migth say?) to guitarists wouldn't they also be more important
(interesting) to non-guitarists? Don't mean to stretch your point too far, just
couldn't resist.
> so, again: i think that we're understanding each other, but that we disagree on
> quite a few points. we can probably agree, though, that this has turned out to
> be an engaging and interesting thread. thanks for starting it.
>
> crib
I'm quite content to agree to disagree. And thank you as well for the lively
exchange. But I can't really take credit for starting it, it wasn't my thread. I
just fanned the flames, I guess.
Thanks much, it's certainly livened up the last few days for me, and got the old
grey matter churning.
Victor
Mike Ellenberger
up trombone :{
Mike
--
Mark Kleinhaut
Mike Ellenberger <mike_ell...@amdahl.com> wrote:
> That's the spirit Tom! Too bad ole Kleinhaut sounds like he's taking
> up trombone :{
Hey, who you calling ole? I know you're just trying to drag me into
this thread but I hope I already made my point (which I think Tom just
agreed with), that the instrument is irrelevent...we are musicians
first.
Clay Moore
>OASYSCO (oas...@aol.com) wrote:
>:
>: Just how many non-guitarists even know who Jimmy Bruno is? Many may have
> heard
>: of Joe Pass, but how many actually own some of his recordings?
I missed this post, but I can tell you that lots of non-guitarists were hip to
Pass and his music. A saxophone player friend of mine studies lines out of
Joe's book, and this is a guy who primarily plays by ear. He *loved* Pass's
playing. Jimmy I would say is still mostly known among guitarists, but I think
Joe became known early because of his work with Gerald Wilson, and then later
with Oscar Peterson. Also, it didn't hurt that Norm Grantz was teaming him up
for recording sessions with musicians like Dizzy, Zoot Sims, J. J. Johnson,
Ella, and so on.
Clay Moore --
jazz guitarist
cl...@claymoore.com
http://www.claymoore.com/
To find out where I'm performing each week, sign up on my mailing list. Send a blank e-mail to cmgigs-s...@topica.com
HvincentM
Two weeks ago I went into one of the CD stores that I frequent. The manager
and I often discuss music, but for some reason we had never discussed the fact
that each of us played an instrument. Our discussions were always about this CD
or that one, have you heard this kind of thing.
When discussing a new CD, I ventured that I played guitar as a hobbie and on
occasion in public. At this point, he revealed that he played the saxophone.
I told him how cool I thought it was that he played the sax and how I was
always trying to figure out horn lines to broaden my guitar playing.
He then told me that the guitar was by far the coolest instrument and he only
turned to sax because for whatever reason, when he tried to play guitar, it
just didn't click for him. But, he still loves listening to guitar players.
I marveled at this encounter because I never imagined that a sax player would
harbor envy for us.
As my 79 year old mother says all too frequently, "Just goes to show you!"
Vince
Pat Smith
I always go work the phones at the KCSM Jazz radio pledge drive, and
there was a lady there that said she was a jazz singer. I said Oh I play
music too..She said really what instrument in an interested happy way. I
said I play guitar. Well... her smile droped and she looked thoughtful
and said well...the Guitar isn't very important in Jazz is it?... i
laughed and said It is to me.
By the way, I love Martin Taylor, but didn't care for the smooooooth
Jazz bend of the Kiss and Tell CD... I know he's gotta make money...I
just don't care for it.
best
Pat
Dick Onstenk wrote:
>
> Hi gang,
>
> My favorite Jazz CD reference book is the the "Penguin Guide to Jazz CDs".
> It is an important and fantastic guide to purchasing Jazz CDs with really
> knowledgeable reviews of all current and classic Jazz Cds. You will find any
> Jazz guitar player in it (well, most of 'm anyway). What strikes me is that
> instances of 4 star reviews - the rating for important and challenging Jazz
> albums - of Jazz guitar CDs are very, very rare. Maybe just a handful of
> classic recordings. Usually the reviewers find the guitarist in question (be
> it Martin Taylor, Jimmy Bruno, Peter Leitch or Bruce Forman) to be
> ruminating material that has been done better by Django, Wes or Tal anyway.
> It seems to me the whole guitar thing is depicted as a rather unimportant
> branche in Jazz that is of marginal interest only. Modern players are
> usually presented as "more of the same."
>
> In addition, I encounter this attitude in my national Jazz Magazine all the
> time. Jazz guitar is cool but hey, don't take them Wes clones too seriously.
> Martin Taylor's latest album "Kiss and Tell" was reviewed as follows:
>
> "However his playing is pure craftsmanship only. It is dull. His music is
> like a nice meal in an utterly boring restaurant. It all makes sense ....
> but it makes you yawn."
>
> I find this quote very characteristic of a Jazz guitar album review.
>
> Also in Jazz literature (which I read a lot) the guitar is usually depicted
> as a side-instrument and a generally not-so- interesting development of
> Jazz.
>
> What's going on? Are my heroes all playing the same ole' shit all the time?
> Is Mainstream Jazz guitar that repetitive, predictable and boring to
> non-guitarists? Are we all just marginal side-men in the Jazz show?
>
> Any views on this?
>
> Greetings from Holland,
>
> Dick
Tom Lippincott
>this thread but I hope I already made my point (which I think Tom just
>agreed with), that the instrument is irrelevent...we are musicians
>first.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Kleinhaut
Yeah, what ole Mark said.
RobinsonCHAZZ
>>
The long gone Village Lounge, it was a Disney Club located at Lake Buena Vista,
Fl. (By the way I sent another post that is similar to the one that you quoted
[I didn't think that it had gone through] please excuse the redundancy. CR
RobinsonCHAZZ
folks
did not go to his concerts to hear him play unaccompanied jazz solos.
<< Greg >>
I met Benson during the period right before that when he was on the road with
his jazz group ( they were playing at a club called the Birdcage in Atlanta).
Business was so bad that he let me play his last set for him and after the gig
we went up to his room and jammed. He told me at that time that he had just
recorded with Miles and that Miles wanted him to join his group. He had
declined the offer because he felt that he could do better on his own. I was in
total shock, anyone who would turn down Miles had to be crazy. It turns out
that he was right. I've since read that he has said that he didn't want his
life to parallel that of Wes Montgomery who often had to play for empty houses
and was just starting to earn better money when he died. CR
Keith Ganz
assessments except that I would give less credit than they do for the
music being 'well-turned' as they say.
Keith Ganz
_____________________________________________________
Sound clips and info at http://www.mindspring.com/~mushmouth
Marc St-Jean
gtr
wrote:
> Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself
> particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
> learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar
> players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz.
since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for
example.
I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar
players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.
> This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the
> technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.
every breath.
> It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
> playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been
> recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100
> years.
can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.
> I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder
> what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.
> There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems
> more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long
> time.
choices--who could have imagined?
Russ L
> On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxte...@xyzDOTxyz>
This doesn't mean that the guitar isn't capable of being used to play beautiful voice-leading and contrapuntal ideas, open and spread voicings, etc.
Off topic - this place looks to have calmed down a little. Hope it's not my imagination.
gtr
I don't think pianists, accordionaists, or harpists are any less inclined to
consider chords as static items in a series. In general I don't think they
think of each finger like a differen horn in a section.
gtr
<ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> missed chunks of this thread.
Nope, it's all here in this thread.
> But I agree with the title " Is Jazz Guitar playing boring to
> non-guitarists?".
>
> I used to be a mediocre jazz guitarist and I boy I loved it, but now, in
> my mid 50s, I find it extremely boring and full of unnecessary
> virtuosism (I blame the Django revival for this).
>
> This has led me to start afresh with the tenor guitar. Having only 4
> strings and being tuned in 5ths, it makes you think at focussing on the
> essentials (melody, harmony or both).
>
> The world needs a 5-string guitar tuned in 5ths. The original Italian
> guitar was indeed only 5 strings.
There were many predecessors and "originals", including the lute and oud. I
use to play the Puerto Rican Cuatro (curiously five courses for a total of 5
strings). All these instruments have their positive qualities, and virtuoso
proponents.
As a response to the "boredom" of virtousitiy (there's a contradiction!), I'm
reminded that everybody brings their own version of "boredom" with them. I
blame nothing on Django and love most of his work, but I weary of the narrow
dynamic and melodic range of his many imitators as I do the sometimes purely
athletic skills of all instrumentalists when that's all they pursue: dazzling
the audience with acrobatics.
With each passing year I have more admiration for music of the 20s through the
40s, most of which others find "boring" for any number of reasons. I love old
songs done well, and the old material still lives for very good reasons, while
the "repertoire" of modern jazz musicians seems to vanish almost immediately.
Go figure.
Nevertheless I support your highly individual goal.