What is 'guitaristic language'?

[jazznylon]

I have pondered about this for a while now because this forum has brought it up time and time again without really going in depth with it. What does it really mean to have guitaristic language? I mean the guitar is very versatile... you can play with pick, fingers, thumb, hybrid etc. It can cross over to many styles of playing. Has many different tuning possibilities (although most only play in standard). It also has a long history...

I actually have a hard time believing that there is such a thing when you look at it from a larger picture. Piano and horn players sure its easier to see but thats because they have their own kinds of phrasings and limitations that is readily apparent. What is unique about guitar is that you can bend and slide chords, strum,.. even vibrato.. perhaps the ability to play unisons (or not!). But maybe thats not so unique.. I mean there are banjo players. Or maybe I'm looking at this in a wrong way, maybe there is language but it changes over time. Or perhaps 'Guitar Language' is actually a bunch of different languages and the one we call now Guitar Language just happens to be the one that is most commonly heard?

So it seems that if I play Jazz Guitar now with my fingers solely not only would I have less chances of playing guitaristic language but also that I would be depriving of its full potential (because I'm not playing guitaristic language?)? Does playing guitarist language mean that you are deriving full sonic potential from the instrument? Most jazz guitar players are pick players after all and there is a certain sound gained from using a pick..

Sorry I ask too many questions and I'm bored lol

[mr. beaumont]

Playing the guitar like a guitar.

For a while, it was uncool. The cool kids would say "I listen to horn players, maaaaan.

Thankfully, it's not anymore.

[docbop]

Electric guitar is the youngest of instruments and is just starting to close to being a 100 years old. That's why it doesn't have the pedagogy other instruments do.

Then I don't think guitar has a language, musical styles have languages and guitar is just one of many tools to speak with. I think what you are calling language is techniques of playing an instrument. Each instrument has a variety of techniques the player can use to speak with. Then the guitarist that most likely plays all the guitaristic language using your term would be a studio musician. Others guitars usually limit themselves to a few or even on guitaristic language. Guess you could say one is a generalist others are specialists.

[jazznylon]

For a while, it was uncool. The cool kids would say "I listen to horn players, maaaaan.

Thankfully, it's not anymore.

I used to be one of them haha

[jazznylon]

Electric guitar is the youngest of instruments and is just starting to close to being a 100 years old. That's why it doesn't have the pedagogy other instruments do.

Then I don't think guitar has a language, musical styles have languages and guitar is just one of many tools to speak with. I think what you are calling language is techniques of playing an instrument. Each instrument has a variety of techniques the player can use to speak with. Then the guitarist that most likely plays all the guitaristic language using your term would be a studio musician. Others guitars usually limit themselves to a few or even on guitaristic language. Guess you could say one is a generalist others are specialists.

Yeah ! I guess what I'm trying to talk to about is the general aspect of playing, with technique just being a part of it. I forgot to mention stuff like note choice and licks or even just notes that tend to come out naturally. Right now what guitar vocabulary in general sounds like to me is something I would hear in Rock Music (those popular riffs/licks everyone knows) but then again thats something I heard a lot back then.. I'm most likely just overthinking here lol

[dasein]

Every instrument has things that are easier to play on it than others.

Something like the Kreutzer Etudes are considered intermediate material on the violin, but are moderately difficult on guitar. The first few Hanon exercises are trivial on a piano, but tricky on the guitar.

It might be enlightening to take a look at the pedagogical materials for a wide variety of instruments (sax, piano, trumpet, clarinet, etc) to see what different instruments are expected to be able to play at various stages in their development.

Jazz guitar players I would consider guitaristic: Charlie Christian, Django, Wes, Benson, Pass. They play things that fit well on the instrument, and utilize it to its full capacity. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- they solved a lot of problems on the instrument, and it would benefit any guitarist to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and look at what they did.

Jazz guitarists I would consider un-guitaristic - Allan Holdsworth, Joe Diorio, Lenny Breau, Mick Goodrick, Bryan Baker, Chris Crocco, Ben Monder. Their stuff does not sit easily on the instrument, and they play ideas that other guitarists find difficult to replicate.

Not better or worse, just different approaches to the instrument.

[jazznylon]

Every instrument has things that are easier to play on it than others.

Something like the Kreutzer Etudes are considered intermediate material on the violin, but are moderately difficult on guitar. The first few Hanon exercises are trivial on a piano, but tricky on the guitar.

It might be enlightening to take a look at the pedagogical materials for a wide variety of instruments (sax, piano, trumpet, clarinet, etc) to see what different instruments are expected to be able to play at various stages in their development.

Jazz guitar players I would consider guitaristic: Charlie Christian, Django, Wes, Benson, Pass. They play things that fit well on the instrument, and utilize it to its full capacity. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- they solved a lot of problems on the instrument, and it would benefit any guitarist to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and look at what they did.

Jazz guitarists I would consider un-guitaristic - Allan Holdsworth, Joe Diorio, Lenny Breau, Mick Goodrick, Bryan Baker, Chris Crocco, Ben Monder. Their stuff does not sit easily on the instrument, and they play ideas that other guitarists find difficult to replicate.

Not better or worse, just different approaches to the instrument.

Thats very interesting. I think it might be a very good idea to take a look at both of those approaches perhaps given enough time and eventually see what comes up. Might lead to something worthwhile !

[cosmic gumbo]

It's always smart to exploit the technical and sonic advantages of your particular instrument. Guitar is one of the most expressive instruments, but don't we already know that?

[paulkogut]

While it's important for an aspiring jazz guitarist to check out the innovators on piano, trumpet, sax, etc, it needn't come at the expense of treating the guitar like a guitar. But too often, there has been a 'vibe' of discouragement for such guitaristic playing.

I was one of those 'serious' jazzers 25 years ago, when I found myself on the bandstand with B3 giant Charles Earland for a handful of gigs. Charles always sounded great, but every now and again, he'd play a lick that was the next level of hip... It was a lydian sounding, asymmetrical rhythmic motif, that he seemed to only do on a blues in F. One gig, I had a good view of his keyboard, and saw he was just rolling all 5 fingers of his right hand up and down the white keys.....Since then, I've never felt any hesitation or shame in exploiting 'guitar stuff' (open strings, bends, harmonics) whenever possible.

PK

[MarkRhodes]

I have heard that guitar pedagogy lags behind that of other instruments.

I wonder at that.

First, stringed instruments have a long history. Centuries. The tenor sax, by comparison, is a late arrival on the scene. It came to be in the 1840s and wasn't taken seriously---it was thought of as a carnival instrument--until Coleman Hawkins. That wasn't so long ago.

Second, I think the guitar's versatility makes a single / universal pedagogy undesirable. One can be a great guitar player without being a finger picker, for example, or a great finger picker who has no feel for the electric guitar at all. One can be a great bluegrass player without knowing much about jazz and one can be a great jazz guitar player without being adept at funk or country music.

Third, if you want to play like a horn player, maybe you should play a horn. The horn---any horn---is a much more limited instrument than the guitar.

My two cents.

[docbop]

I have heard that guitar pedagogy lags behind that of other instruments.

I wonder at that.

First, stringed instruments have a long history. Centuries. The tenor sax, by comparison, is a late arrival on the scene. It came to be in the 1840s and wasn't taken seriously---it was thought of as a carnival instrument--until Coleman Hawkins. That wasn't so long ago.

Second, I think the guitar's versatility makes a single / universal pedagogy undesirable. One can be a great guitar player without being a finger picker, for example, or a great finger picker who has no feel for the electric guitar at all. One can be a great bluegrass player without knowing much about jazz and one can be a great jazz guitar player without being adept at funk or country music.

Third, if you want to play like a horn player, maybe you should play a horn. The horn---any horn---is a much more limited instrument than the guitar.

My two cents.

Electric guitar lags behind. Otherwise acoustic guitar family tree goes back to the Lyre.

[yaclaus]

none other than the world's greatest player told me I'm "not playing language" (Gilad). I asked him what to do? He answered "transcribe solos". Since I had already transcribed around a hundred guitar solos I started transcribing other instruments. At this point I almost transcribe other instruments exclusively.

[dasein]

Electric guitar lags behind. Otherwise acoustic guitar family tree goes back to the Lyre.

Yeah, the classical and flamenco guitar traditions are quite extensive, but they really do feel like a completely different animal than the electric guitar.

I've heard countless jazz guitarists talk about how they've worked through the Bach violin Sonatas and Partitas. Comparatively fewer talk about how they worked through the Sor or Villa-Lobos Etudes.

Saxophone does have a small, but dedicated group of classical practitioners -- you can find plenty of sax players talk rapturously about Marcel Mule's tone, and Coltrane worked religiously out of the old Sigurd Rascher books. And while it's a different instrument, it has enough in common with other woodwinds like clarinet that it could draw from those traditions.

[MarkRhodes]

Electric guitar lags behind. Otherwise acoustic guitar family tree goes back to the Lyre.

Let me put this out there: there are more great electric guitarists than great sax players, and more distinctive ones who may not be great guitarists per se (say, Willie Nelson, Carlos Santana, Neil Young, Jack White, The Edge). Also, the guitar is at home in many more styles than the sax (or trumpet). Not to mention that one can perform solo. (Yes, Sonny Rollins did a solo horn concert back in the '80s but solo horn concerts definitely did not catch on.)

Guitar doesn't need a standard pedagogy like the saxophone does because the guitar is a far more versatile instrument. There are too many different things to do with it for a student to be instructed to address them all. (Among them, singing and playing at the same time, chords, bending strings, playing with fingers, playing with a pick, playing with pick and fingers, accompanying soloists, not to mention all the guitar-friendly genres: funk, R&B, bluegrass, folk, country, jazz, rock, singer/songwriter stuff, rockabilly, metal, et al. And of course, the classical guitar has its own pedagogy. (And that could be seen as a warning sign of the dangers of a pedagogy...)

In this sense, I don't think the guitar lags behind at all. The saxophone and trumpet are such limited instruments that there is a narrow range in which to define excellence. (This may be why so many horn players seem to think 'getting better' means 'playing more notes, a lot more notes, faster and faster.' This is one reason so few people listen to it anymore. I think Miles was right to see that as a musical dead end.)

[docbop]

Let me put this out there: there are more great electric guitarists than great sax players, and more distinctive ones who may not be great guitarists per se (say, Willie Nelson, Carlos Santana, Neil Young, Jack White, The Edge). Also, the guitar is at home in many more styles than the sax (or trumpet). Not to mention that one can perform solo. (Yes, Sonny Rollins did a solo horn concert back in the '80s but solo horn concerts definitely did not catch on.)

Guitar doesn't need a standard pedagogy like the saxophone does because the guitar is a far more versatile instrument. There are too many different things to do with it for a student to be instructed to address them all. (Among them, singing and playing at the same time, chords, bending strings, playing with fingers, playing with a pick, playing with pick and fingers, accompanying soloists, not to mention all the guitar-friendly genres: funk, R&B, bluegrass, folk, country, jazz, rock, singer/songwriter stuff, rockabilly, metal, et al. And of course, the classical guitar has its own pedagogy. (And that could be seen as a warning sign of the dangers of a pedagogy...)

In this sense, I don't think the guitar lags behind at all. The saxophone and trumpet are such limited instruments that there is a narrow range in which to define excellence. (This may be why so many horn players seem to think 'getting better' means 'playing more notes, a lot more notes, faster and faster.' This is one reason so few people listen to it anymore. I think Miles was right to see that as a musical dead end.)

I'll just be polite and say I disagree with everything you just said and leave it at that.

[medblues]

While it's important for an aspiring jazz guitarist to check out the innovators on piano, trumpet, sax, etc, it needn't come at the expense of treating the guitar like a guitar. But too often, there has been a 'vibe' of discouragement for such guitaristic playing.

I was one of those 'serious' jazzers 25 years ago, when I found myself on the bandstand with B3 giant Charles Earland for a handful of gigs. Charles always sounded great, but every now and again, he'd play a lick that was the next level of hip... It was a lydian sounding, asymmetrical rhythmic motif, that he seemed to only do on a blues in F. One gig, I had a good view of his keyboard, and saw he was just rolling all 5 fingers of his right hand up and down the white keys.....Since then, I've never felt any hesitation or shame in exploiting 'guitar stuff' (open strings, bends, harmonics) whenever possible.

PK

We are the natural masters of quartal harmony

[Pat Clare]

In many cases the Guitar sound is too dependent on pedals which dilutes the impact of what is played.
There's an infatuation with all of the possibilities that the various pedals offer which limit the value and
impact that the guitar can have

[christianm77]

I have pondered about this for a while now because this forum has brought it up time and time again without really going in depth with it. What does it really mean to have guitaristic language? I mean the guitar is very versatile... you can play with pick, fingers, thumb, hybrid etc. It can cross over to many styles of playing. Has many different tuning possibilities (although most only play in standard). It also has a long history...

I actually have a hard time believing that there is such a thing when you look at it from a larger picture. Piano and horn players sure its easier to see but thats because they have their own kinds of phrasings and limitations that is readily apparent. What is unique about guitar is that you can bend and slide chords, strum,.. even vibrato.. perhaps the ability to play unisons (or not!). But maybe thats not so unique.. I mean there are banjo players. Or maybe I'm looking at this in a wrong way, maybe there is language but it changes over time. Or perhaps 'Guitar Language' is actually a bunch of different languages and the one we call now Guitar Language just happens to be the one that is most commonly heard?

So it seems that if I play Jazz Guitar now with my fingers solely not only would I have less chances of playing guitaristic language but also that I would be depriving of its full potential (because I'm not playing guitaristic language?)? Does playing guitarist language mean that you are deriving full sonic potential from the instrument? Most jazz guitar players are pick players after all and there is a certain sound gained from using a pick..

Sorry I ask too many questions and I'm bored lol

I think it’s a good question.

It really boils down to who you listen to most. If guitarists are your inspiration you tend to develop a style that’s more based around cool guitar stuff.

Things that are usually thought natural to the instrument include arpeggio/chord based soloing, blues licks, cool technical things you can do etc

If on the other hand you are into Sax player, you encounter more scales and stepwise stuff IME, and a slightly different conception of music. A more limited range to soloing, too.

On thing that comes up is most horn players have mastered bop, while I think it’s fair to say there are many jazz guitarists that haven’t. When working through this material I am aware that a lot of it really isn’t guitar friendly, and the fun for me lies in a way of making it sit on the guitar.

Piano - depending on the pianist presents either similar or very different challenges.

I think most people are in the middle. I think I am. I have no idea to be able pastiche great jazz guitar players, but I appropriate ideas that appeal to me and I feel there are many resources unique to the guitar that it’s a waste to ignore. I mean why be a bad imitation Sax player or pianist?

[christianm77]

I actually think of Holdsworth as extremely guitaristic in his own very weird way. It’s not like he’s playing horn lines.

For instance that 3 nps stretch string skipped thing he did a lot - the position is inaccessible for many players, but quite a few of his lines originate from that type of thing....

[Stevebol]

Guitar is the most melodious of percussion instruments but still the Rodney Dangerfield of instruments in some circles.

[MarkRhodes]

I'll just be polite and say I disagree with everything you just said and leave it at that.

Thank you.

[MarkRhodes]

Guitar is the most melodious of percussion instruments but still the Rodney Dangerfield of instruments in some circles.

Isn't the piano a percussion instrument too? (It's either a percussion instrument or a stringed instrument, but if the guitar counts as a percussion instrument, then the piano would too, right?)

[Stevebol]

Isn't the piano a percussion instrument too? (It's either a percussion instrument or a stringed instrument, but if the guitar counts as a percussion instrument, then the piano would too, right?)

Piano is percussion too. Guitar used to be called a lap piano probably because it's fretted.

[MarkRhodes]

In many cases the Guitar sound is too dependent on pedals which dilutes the impact of what is played.
There's an infatuation with all of the possibilities that the various pedals offer which limit the value and
impact that the guitar can have

I agree with this. I would not have as a kid, when I played a solid body electric and had lots of pedals. But I care little for that sound anymore. I play an archtop and rarely plug it into an amp.

I realize other people do fine things with amps and pedals. I'm not knocking that. But for me, I would be happy to play nothing but a good acoustic archtop for the remainder of my days. If only I could afford one...

Here's a clip I recently posted elsewhere about Peter Rogine's L5. I love the sound he gets out of that.

[John A.]

In many cases the Guitar sound is too dependent on pedals which dilutes the impact of what is played.
There's an infatuation with all of the possibilities that the various pedals offer which limit the value and
impact that the guitar can have

That strikes me as like criticizing vibes for not being a marimba, or basically any instrument for not being a voice or a handclap. The electric guitar is what it is, pedals and all. What matters is the music that a player extracts from it. If the impact of player's music is "diluted" (whatever that means) by mis-use of effects, the effects aren't the problem; the player is.


John