Acoustic vs. Electric
John Brasher
Play what you want to play, dude, and play the shit out of it.. Jazz is nothing if
not experimental. Who says you can't bend or use chorus, or whatever? Playing
jazz, I love to get tones that are not standard flat wound Kenny Burrell jazz
sounds. Even Hendrix sounded jazzy to me sometimes, like on Rainy Day....
JohnnyB
Goofey11 wrote:
> okay...this is just about the most controversial thing that could be posted in
> this group...and it's really tough for me to say honestly...
>
> i'm having aprehensions about jazz guitar.
>
> let me explain...
>
> i'm a 19 year old guitarist...studied for 3 years with billy bauer, and a year
> at skidmore college in saratoga springs under Chuck D'Aloia and Chris
> Brubeck...
>
> i am taking a semester off now to practice and work and am applying for a
> spring transfer to either Berklee or Mannes....
>
> thing is this...recently i've been very confused about my enthusiasm of jazz
> guitar...when i listen to Coltrane, Miles, Eric Dolphy, Dave Liebman, Freddie
> Hubbar...i.e. horn players of various variety...they get such interesting and
> moving sounds from their instruments...much of the time of a non-musical
> variety...their playing seems to be just so intensely emotional and
> heartfelt...
>
> meanwhile there is only one electric jazz player who has ever moved me like
> these people have....Wes Montgomery...
>
> don't get me wrong...i am fascinated and awed by the work of players such as
> Joe Pass, Jim Hall, and Pat Methany, but their playing seems to be more heavier
> on music theory sometimes and lighter on emotion...
>
> one or two of my guitar teachers in the past have scolded me for playing a
> guitar like it was i guitar...i.e. bending, double stops, etc. and at the time
> i silently nodded and feigned comprehension...but now i wonder "why?". Why is a
> guitar player not supposed to play his instrument like it is built? A saxaphone
> player utilizes strange effects that are made available to him by the
> structural differences in his instrument...so why not a guitar player?
>
> This brings me to my current question...Is electric jazz guitar less emotional
> because of the electric part or the guitar part? If it's the guitar then i've
> got some serious thinking to do...but i'm beginning to think that maybe it's
> amplification...
>
> does amplification tame the sound of a jazz guitar? (almost the opposite of
> it's effect on guitars in rock)
>
> my personal evidence being this: many jazz guitar players do not convey emotion
> very well to me...the musical ideas they express are often times more advanced
> than other instrumentalists...but the tambre often seems very flat and
> repetitive...
>
> on the other hand...acoustic guitar never fails to captivate me...best examples
> being David Grisman Quintet and Django Rheinhart...
>
> DGQ has always been a favorite group of mine even before i began my serious
> studies of jazz...and since i have learned more about jazz theory and
> improvisation i have only grown to respect them more...and have also realized
> that they are possibly one of the most under rated groups in jazz today. There
> music has always conveyed a lot of intense emotion to me...and is also very
> well thought out theoretically. They perform well written, well performed, and
> very well rehearsed and arranged music...of several styles...usually rooted in
> jazz, bossa nova, klezmer and blue grass.
>
> Django Rheinhart...another controversial thing here...i really don't care much
> for this man's music...i find a lot of it sort of chinsy and lame...but his
> playing always astounds me...not as much for theory as for emotion...he always
> seemed to play the shit out of everything that he touched and that always stuck
> with me...
>
> so i think i'm wondering about whether or not i want to take my music in a more
> acoustic direction...therefore relying on nothing more than my own two hands to
> make sound instead of an amplifier, pickups, cables, pedals, etc...
>
> and this whole no bending thing i just see as silly...
>
> so i guess i'm just wondering what you all think of this...
>
> thanks in advance for any thoughts...
>
> james
Goofey11
BrettGV
.give 'em what they want, make 'e, happy, but keep all the guitaristic stuff.
You're looking to develop your own style. . .from the heart, and if it includes
bends, don't let ANYBODY take that away from you!
As to emotion on electric guitar, check out some of the blues players. Robben
Ford's "Talk To Your Daughter" is a good place to start. The trick is getting
a good tube amp with excellent "touch dynamics" that allow you to really vary
the sound with your pick and fingers.
In general, the acoustics just have less things coloring the tone, and are a
little bit more expressive dynamically, and have more tone color options.
Brett
N0rman Stewart
was not acoustic. (and when I did get a 1963 custom Gibson SG, he wouldn't
let me play it in the house -- so I sold it)
point 1 -- my father certainly agrees with your assessment of acoustic
guitar being lifeless more often than not.
point 2 -- playing acoustic-only for the first twenty years of my guitar
playing really definitately affected my style (for instance my fingers are
at least twenty times weaker now that I've been playing mostly electric)
point 3 -- emotion was harder to emote from the acoustic -- took longer to
sound impressive -- but it did build my fingers and technical repertoire to
not be depending (as I do more now) on such more electric techniques as
bends. NO matter how much I try to fight against it, when the playing
gets to the point where my conscious brain is mostly audience rather than
player, I find I'm watching my body and fingers falling back on bends and
easier techniques to express the emotion of the moment.
points point -- there is a difference between what you do as a student (even
after fourty years of playing) and what you do as a performer. The more
proficient you become as a performer, the more that difference. (That's why
it has been so hard for some of my older students to break out of their
familiar patterns and go into the uncomfortable area of the completely
unfamiliar. )
The acoustic classical guitar made my style what it is.-- Dad was right.
(He still hasn't heard me perform electric (not live at least) acoustic is
still all he wishes to listen to) --
So, when you're being a student, don't bend. I assume that your teacher
found you to be depending too much on bending(and such) to be expressive
(like I said, way way easy to do).
When you're being a performer -- do what it takes to kick their asses
With anyone of your sensibilities, I would recommend learning some acoustic
stuff -- I even have seen benefits arrived at from the playing of really
cheap and poorly set-up guitars. Yeah, baby, give me a nylon string guitar
with strings two inches off the twelvth fret. I'd give you some emotion.
Goofey11 <goof...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990901004606...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
Bill Duke
that:
: ...when i listen to Coltrane, Miles, Eric Dolphy, Dave Liebman, Freddie
: Hubbar...i.e. horn players of various variety...they get such interesting and
: moving sounds from their instruments...
Yep. We guitar players are at a disadvantage here. Jazz being such an
"earthy" musical form (relying on improvisation, emotion, interplay),
it's hard for someone playing an electronic instrument to instill it
with the sort of "human," gestural touches that someone breathing
through a reed instrument can do much more easily.
: ...much of the time of a non-musical variety...their playing seems
: to be just so intensely emotional and heartfelt...
As it so often is. Though I'm not sure what "of a non-musical variety"
means. It all sounds pretty musical to me, even if what they're playing
doesn't conform to a particular harmonic system, or can't be captured in
standard musical notation.
: don't get me wrong...i am fascinated and awed by the work of players such as
: Joe Pass, Jim Hall, and Pat Methany, but their playing seems to be more heavier
: on music theory sometimes and lighter on emotion...
I know what you mean. Pat Martino (say) is a daunting guitar player. You
can hear whole worlds of melodic possibility woven through everything he
plays. But I'd never want to play like that. Or rather, I'd never
consciously work to sound the way he sounds. I get more out of a Lee
Morgan solo, or a Cannonball Adderley solo, or a Curtis Fuller solo.
('Course, this could just be a deficiency on my part.)
: Why is a guitar player not supposed to play his instrument like it is built?
: A saxaphone player utilizes strange effects that are made available to him
: by the structural differences in his instrument...so why not a guitar player?
He should. It's his musical responsibility (as it were) to utilize the
instrument to its fullest capabilities, as he sees them. Every other
jazz instrumentalist does this.
: This brings me to my current question...Is electric jazz guitar less emotional
: because of the electric part or the guitar part?
Neither. You can get powerfully "emotional" qualities from an electric
guitar, using its own, singular possibilities.
As for bending notes, this seems almost mandatory for playing jazz on a
fretted instrument. A lot of jazz players avert their eyes when it comes
to bending notes (for reasons of "purity" or something), even as they
use slurred notes right and left. This makes no sense to me. With the
proper discipline, bent notes can provide a fluidity and subtlety that
slurred notes never could.
: but i'm beginning to think that maybe it's
: amplification...does amplification tame the sound of a jazz guitar?
: (almost the opposite of it's effect on guitars in rock)
Nope. It can (and should) broaden and intensify the sound of a jazz
guitar. Again, use the tools at your disposal to get at the most
"jazz"-like qualities available. (The definition is up to you.) Listen
to some of Holdsworth's stuff from the mid '70s. While not a jazz
guitarist in the traditional sense, he gets some wonderful, and moving,
emotional qualities using just a generic electric guitar and lots and
lots of amplification -- plus gobs of technique.
: Django Rheinhart...i really don't care much for this man's music...but his
: playing always astounds me...not as much for theory as for emotion...he always
: seemed to play the shit out of everything that he touched and that always stuck
: with me...
That's it. Jazz is (more than any other musical form I can think of) not
what you play, but how you play it. You can take "Someday My Prince Will
Come" and turn it into an orchestral tone-poem. You can take "My
Favorite Things" and turn it into avant-garde improvisation on an epic
scale. Though these things were not obvious at the time.
Bill
N0rman Stewart
N0rman Stewart <N0r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uh9z3.2530$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com...
> My father is an old school maniac. He didn't allow me to buy anything
that
> was not acoustic. (and when I did get a 1963 custom Gibson SG, he wouldn't
> let me play it in the house -- so I sold it)
>
ELECTRIC
Bob Valentine
Goofey11 <goof...@aol.com> wrote:
>okay...this is just about the most controversial thing that could be posted in
>this group...and it's really tough for me to say honestly...
>
Great topic, thanks for posting it. As someone who has been on a 'sound search'
for the past couple years, I'm very familiar with the questions ou are raising.
>
>thing is this...recently i've been very confused about my enthusiasm of jazz
>guitar...when i listen to Coltrane, Miles, Eric Dolphy, Dave Liebman, Freddie
>Hubbar...i.e. horn players of various variety...they get such interesting and
>moving sounds from their instruments...much of the time of a non-musical
>variety...their playing seems to be just so intensely emotional and
>heartfelt...
Yes, some of those players have a lot of passion in their playing, and
the reed instrumentalists in particular have so much voice in their sound,
that sometimes any other instrument seems like playing mashed potatoes.
>
>meanwhile there is only one electric jazz player who has ever moved me like
>these people have....Wes Montgomery...
>
>don't get me wrong...i am fascinated and awed by the work of players such as
>Joe Pass, Jim Hall, and Pat Methany, but their playing seems to be more heavier
>on music theory sometimes and lighter on emotion...
>
I'm not that much of a Wes fan, but I am a big Kenny Burrel fan, and these
players have a certain earthiness in their playing that is different from the
others you mentioned. If you haven't listened to much blues guitar (and I
could use Albert Collins, Buddy Guy, etc recomendations myself), then a lot
of them get the dirty/funky sound that DOES have a lot of human and earthy
qualities to it.
On the other hand, which pianists do you listen to? There can be very
passionate piano playing (Cecil Taylor? McCoy Tyner, etc), somewhat
intellectual playing (Bill Evans) and playing that is somewhat obliquely
between (Keith Jarrett standards playing). But the piano has even less
'earth/vocal/ qualities than the guitar.
My approach the past couple of years has been to buy a lot of different guitar
approaches, from 50's 'jazz guitar' jazz, to modern players (Bill Frisell,
Wayne Krantz, Ben Monder, Joe Morris) and recently more countrified playing
(Danny Gatton, Hellecasters, someone mentioned Robben Ford and he's on
my list somewhere). The country players let the electric guitar sound much
more electric (playing Fender-ish solidbodys).
I do bend strings, and use all the tones available on the guitar, (neck pickup,
some screaching with the bridge pickup, on my three-pickup guitar using all
the snarky tones) but for the most part, I'm finding that I'm heading (I think)
in a certain direction that is somewhat introspective, like, for instance
John Scofields playing on Joe Hendersons So Near, So Far. (And there are lots
of CDs like this with modern-ish guitarists in a small group taking
the piano-chair).
>one or two of my guitar teachers in the past have scolded me for playing a
>guitar like it was i guitar...i.e. bending, double stops, etc. and at the time
jerks, but lets face it, there is a lot of "jazz guitar" jazz where these effects
are not in character. It doesn't have to be YOURs though. I went to school
with Dave Tronzo who plays bottleneck, he can play bebop this way, but he's
met with dissaproval with the trad comunity at the time, despite outplaying them.
>This brings me to my current question...Is electric jazz guitar less emotional
>because of the electric part or the guitar part? If it's the guitar then i've
>got some serious thinking to do...but i'm beginning to think that maybe it's
>amplification...
I think its the opposite. An amplifier with a little bit of grit to it can make
the harmonics start to pop off the strings and give the guitar some of the life
that a pianist can never get. Roy Buchanon, Jeff Beck? Jimi Hendrix Band of Gypseys?
>
>my personal evidence being this: many jazz guitar players do not convey emotion
>very well to me...the musical ideas they express are often times more advanced
>than other instrumentalists...but the tambre often seems very flat and
>repetitive...
>
And thats how I got to listenning to country players, blues players, fusion
players and (well, not quite) even rock players.
I certainly haven't found the middle ground that works for me, vocalish line
playing but enough control so introspective stuff (like crunchy chord work)
comes through...
My personal take is that heading in an acoustic direction will be more
introspection and less passion. Moving further from the horn player sound.
>
>james
>
Listen a lot. Sax is different from trumpet, is different from piano, is
different from drums is different from guitar. I listened to organists and
vibes recently, since in some ways they have as limited a timbre as guitar.
In fact, vibes is much more limited. All the instruments CAN make music that
is very human and passionate. SOme cry easier than others (sax), some
can make amazingly complex polyphony that can easily be a band in itself
(piano). The guitar is at a very interesting ground in the middle, where
it can sing, and it can think, and it can be rhythmic, but probably not as
much as some of the other instruments. Therein is the challenge and the
magic.
I'm 43 and I'm asking the same questions you are.
Bob Valentine
Steve Armil
use chords to support the horn?
Does Tronzo appear on jazz recordings?
TomLippinc
>>my personal evidence being this: many jazz guitar players do not convey
>emotion
>>very well to me...the musical ideas they express are often times more
>advanced
>>than other instrumentalists...but the tambre often seems very flat and
>>repetitive...
>>
>
If I may jump in here and make one comment; contrary to your assertion, I'd say
that in a lot of cases, the "typical" jazz guitar player is a lot less advanced
in a "music theory" sense than a lot of horn (particularly sax) players and
piano players. Some of the sax players you mention like Coltrane, Liebman,
ect., have delved pretty deeply into the theory stuff, particularly 20th
century classical harmony. I hear what you're saying about jazz guitar seeming
less "emotionally expressive" than some of these other instruments, and agree
to some extent, but I don't think it's that the horn players are playing more
simplistic ideas. If you want emotionally expressive jazz guitar playing ala
Liebman/Trane, try checking out (just off the top of my head) Pat Metheny's
solo on "You Don't Know What Love Is" from Gary Thomas' "Til We Have Faces", or
Bill Frisell's solo on "Samurai Hee Haw" from Marc Johnson's "Bass Desires".
Tom Lippincott
Cybernalt
fell and don't worry about it ...."
This one puzzles me "We guitar players are at a disadvantage here ... it's hard
for someone playing an electronic instrument to instill it with the sort of
"human," gestural touches that someone breathing
through a reed instrument can do much more easily."
If I lay recorded accoustic through one set of audio speakers vs. another -
does this mean that is sounds more "human" through electrostatic speakers vs.
ported cabinet klipsh? Of it is more "human" through the klipsh?
With all due respect -- electric emotion can be just as wrenching as acoustic
emotion - it's just different.
My advice to the original posted would be to continue to play both.
Here's a quick story - One of my best buddys was a music major - his
"instrument" was sax'phone. Every day, after learning and applying theory and
practicing and nailing it on the sax - he would come home and apply those
learnings to his guitar - his electric guitar.
Bill Duke
noted that:
: While I generally agree with most of these responses, e.g., "... play what you
: fell and don't worry about it ...."
:
: This one puzzles me "We guitar players are at a disadvantage here ... it's hard
: for someone playing an electronic instrument to instill it with the sort of
: "human," gestural touches that someone breathing
: through a reed instrument can do much more easily."
:
: If I lay recorded accoustic through one set of audio speakers vs. another -
: does this mean that is sounds more "human" through electrostatic speakers vs.
: ported cabinet klipsh? Of it is more "human" through the klipsh?
I'm not sure I follow you.
The means by which you reproduce a recorded sound has no bearing on the
performance itself, on the thing that was being recorded. (Though I
admit that "human" is a clumsy way of describing the qualities which
give a performance a kind of emotional conviction -- which is also a
clumsy way of describing it.)
Here's my theory (okay,...opinion): The human voice is the source of
music, or at least the original musical instrument. The further you
drift from that source (through layers of electronic amplification, or
technical embellishment or whatever), the trickier it is to recreate the
sort of emotional immediacy or implicit connection that the voice does.
An electric guitar being further away than (say) a tenor horn, it's
harder to make that instinctive, emotional connection.
: With all due respect -- electric emotion can be just as wrenching as acoustic
: emotion - it's just different.
I agree completely. As an electric guitarist, I sometimes envy those who
play by blowing into a reed instrument, while I move my hands across
steel strings piped into an electronic amplifier. That doesn't mean I
can't (on a good day) play with as much emotional conviction as they do.
It just means I have to be more imaginative (technically), since what I
play goes through more layers of translation.
Bill
Bob Valentine
Bill Duke <bd...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Here's my theory (okay,...opinion): The human voice is the source of
>music, or at least the original musical instrument. The further you
>drift from that source (through layers of electronic amplification, or
>technical embellishment or whatever), the trickier it is to recreate the
>sort of emotional immediacy or implicit connection that the voice does.
And not just yours. Instruments are 'rated' in Indian music according
to how close they are to the expression of a human voice. So the sarod,
being a fretless bowed instrument, comes out somewhere near the top.
Personally, I think that the electric guitar can have more vocal-like
qualities than the acoustic. The fact that you can get sustain, bending,
some random overtone action (that can be heard rather than quieter than
cats breath), and can get tones which are very vocal like (snarky tones
on a strat, various pickup combinations that go for that broken wah-wah
sound, let alone a wah-wah...)
Point is reed instruments, sax in particular, have a certain magic
affinity with jazz music. But there is an awful lot of great, human
playing on other instruments, and an awful lot of contemplative
polyphony on pianos and guitar. And drummers have a very different
language that most people on other instruments just don't quite have.
Bob Valentine
Willie K. Yee, MD
Bill Duke wrote:
>
> Here's my theory (okay,...opinion): The human voice is the source of
> music, or at least the original musical instrument.
Unless the paleoethnomusicological research has resolved the question,
one might argue that the drum, not the voice was the first musical
instrument. The inspiration may have been the hearing of the pulse
while in utero. It is _conceivable_ at least, that some simian forebear
got interested when she/he banged two objects together a few times in
sucession. OTOH, may be singing and druming co-evolved, as that is what
the earliest music we have is (and interestingly, the most primitivistic
modern music - rap).
> The further you
> drift from that source, the trickier it is to recreate the
> sort of emotional immediacy or implicit connection that the voice does.
By this argument the viola should be the most emotive instrument.
--
Willie Kai Yee, M.D.
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
wy...@mhv.net
http://www1.mhv.net/~wyee/index.html
21 Tricor Ave.
New Paltz, NY 12561
(914) 255-0660
"We are the Universe trying to understand itself."
-- Minbari saying --
Cybernalt
resolved the question, one might argue that the drum, not the voice was the
first musical instrument."
Of course he is correct. Without question - the first note was expressed by
the BIG BANG, some 5 plus billion years ago.
If current astro-theory holds, then Strings were the first instrument. As
support for my contention, you are all invited to
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/strings/ for a discussion of superstring
theory, which is the leading candidate for the theory of all fundamental
interactions in the universe.
I rest my case!
Jim
Bob Valentine
>How's the Henderson recording? Does Scofield really fill "the piano chair", ie, does he
>use chords to support the horn?
The Henderson recording is a must have, just a great 'pleasure listen'
as well as great musicians playing great music together. A great jazz
CD that my wife will look for to put on.
Some have referred to Sco's comping as 'Scomping'. His chording and
accompaniement are just great on this record. In terms of 'filling the
piano chair', with "chords to support the horn" I say yes unnequivically.
Since buying this recording, I've gone back and listened to Jim Hall
playing with Sonny Rollins (the Bridge) and Mick Goodricks recordings
with Gerry Bergonzi and Steve Swallow. Also a bit of Bill Frisell in
Paul Motians group.
One of Jim Halls innovations, which all these players are evolving as well,
is the use of the guitar in the rhythm section. You won't hear block chords,
or chung-chung-ka-chung strumming. You hear punches, little counter-melodies,
contrpuntal dyad playing, etc... Sort of what a pianist would play given the
following situation :
"heres the piano but its a little bit broken"
"where are the keys?"
"well yeah, thats the first thing. There aren't any".
"so how should I play it, like a harp?"
"well kinda, but theres another problem:.
"I only see six strings"
"yeah, so what I did, is I put these metal things under the
strings so you can get the rest of the notes. Good luck!
Moments Notice! 1 2 1-2-3-4"
>
>Does Tronzo appear on jazz recordings?
I have heard Tronzo on two recordings. One is Tronzo Trio, which has
a lot of free bluesy sorts of New Yorkish things. I like it, but its
more of a roots thing. There was a soundsheet in Guitar Player which
had an article on him a few (10, 15?) years ago. He played this
monstrous freebop-fusion piece which really showcased how much he can
'play the impossible". I believe he's had some sideman work as well,
on Knitting Factory recordings.
Bob Valentine