Questions from the Ken Burns Jazz Series. Was Jazz Guitar truly that irrelevant?

[fumblefingers]

On the other hand, 'sisters are doing it for themselves' - by which I mean that guitarists' improvised chord solos can give the guitar a unique voice, and amplification allows the instrument to bloom all over again.

huh?


thought that sisters were doin' it for Christ. (or should I say, not doin' it?)

[henryrobinett]

"post swing", eh? well OK. and i said "broke bop ground" (not "built the bop skyscraper").

so this seems to be "arguing in the margins" to me. yes? no?


and up to Charlie's time there is no debate about development of "the language", as you say. but then, Charlie was amplified, to your point. but it/he was much, much more than that. it can be argued that he changed a lot about jazz music and ALL guitar music (barring classical). Benny Goodman stated that Charlie influenced him, and influenced everybody around him....

These days, now and then, you can hear virtually any/every solo instrument play a Christian riff, and done with pride and dare i say, joy.

I'm not backin' off this Christian thing, lol.

Well the test is how many people he influenced who did NOT play guitar? That's kind of a litmus test for how much of the language he developed. The test is how influential he was across the boards. Bird influenced every instrument. Coltrane every instrument. Prez every instrument. Louis. JAZZ would have sounded different without those pivotal musicians.

There were four or maybe five people who developed bebop: Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Monk, Bud and arguably Kenny Clarke. Those were the guys. They taught the younger players, especially Diz and Monk. Guys who were kind of advanced hanging out at Mintons were an also ran category. You could develop your jazz post bop language quite nicely and never have heard Christian.

CC was an advanced swing musician, at least up until he died. Too young to tell where he would have gone. Too soon to develop into that language. But you can only go by what is there, not what might have been.

[Doctor Jeff]

i also hate to state the obvious, but

who sold more LPs in their peak career years, Coleman Hawkins, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman,

or

Wes Montgomery, George Benson, John McLaughlin, and Pat Metheny?

"irrelevance" my foot.

Not to disagree, but Wes sold albums by playing smooth jazz, John and Pat by playing jazz-rock fusion, and George by playing RnB/jazz. NONE of them sold many straight-ahead albums at all.

On the other hand, who do they make movies about? Charlie Parker, Bix Beiderbecke, Chet Baker and Miles Davis. (That's mainly because they self-destructed, in addition to being extremely influential.) Sweet and Lowdown--based on a fictional character who idolizes Django--is the exception that proves the rule.

[fumblefingers]

Not to disagree, but Wes sold albums by playing smooth jazz, John and Pat by playing jazz-rock fusion, and George by playing RnB/jazz. NONE of them sold many straight-ahead albums at all.

On the other hand, who do they make movies about? Charlie Parker, Bix Beiderbecke, Chet Baker and Miles Davis. (That's mainly because they self-destructed, in addition to being extremely influential.) Sweet and Lowdown--based on a fictional character who idolizes Django--is the exception that proves the rule.

Wes "smooth"? i would say "pop" jazz.

anyway, it could be argued that it doesn't matter. in other words, if people don't buy it, how do we know its important?

[christianm77]

Jazz guitar is irrelevant to jazz.

However Charlie Christian (eventually) made jazz irrelevant to everyone else.

[fumblefingers]

Well the test is how many people he influenced who did NOT play guitar? That's kind of a litmus test for how much of the language he developed. The test is how influential he was across the boards. Bird influenced every instrument. Coltrane every instrument. Prez every instrument. Louis. JAZZ would have sounded different without those pivotal musicians.

agreed - but - it could be argued that after Charlie ALL jazz became more aggressive, virtuosic, and loud.

and it could be further argued that it was not only his personal energy and verve, but the sound and raw energy of his loud and slightly distorted electric guitar that got under other jazzer's skin. after they heard him, there was no going back to more polite, reserved playing. was there?

for a more modern example, just look at what Corea said about his direction, and how it was more influenced by Mahavishnu - and NOT Miles.

[henryrobinett]

i also hate to state the obvious, but

who sold more LPs in their peak career years, Coleman Hawkins, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman,

or

Wes Montgomery, George Benson, John McLaughlin, and Pat Metheny?

"irrelevance" my foot.

Well if you're talking sales, you got me. But I've never been about sales. All kinds of people buy records. That doesn't mean they influenced the direction of the music. The direction of the music I love and respect the MOST is not so beholden to the fickle tastes of the public who tends to love treacle and bombast. Glenn Miller outsold Duke Ellington. That means nothing to me except a musical historical sound track during WWII. Tommy Roe outsold Dylan. Van Gough sold two paintings in his entire life, both to his brother, who bought them to help ward off his despair and ruination.

Movements in art, I think, are driven by the need to create and express visions often to the exclusion and exception of societal and remunerative means. If those visions are motivated by dollar signs, the art is weakened, as far as I'm concerned. Then you have those terrible, doe eyed waifs, paintings they used to sell in drug stores. Or bull fighters on black velvet instead of De Kooning, Braques or Monet. And that's fine. But it's not really what I call art.

[henryrobinett]

agreed - but - it could be argued that after Charlie ALL jazz became more aggressive, virtuosic, and loud.

and it could be further argued that it was not only his personal energy and verve, but the sound and raw energy of his loud and slightly distorted electric guitar that got under other jazzer's skin. after they heard him, there was no going back to more polite, reserved playing. was there?

for a more modern example, just look at what Corea said about his direction, and how it was more influenced by Mahavishnu - and NOT Miles.

That's why I said up until fusion guitar didn't have a big influence. AND I'd still argue the influence guitar had was NOT musical, but rather in the bombast and speed. Loud, aggressive, as you say. But the LINES and comping styles, the voicings, sophistication of the phrasing, still was not a contribution.

Arguable Metheny changed more in this sense, but that influence of melodicism and triadic poly chordal approached seemed more Jarrett than Metheny.

[christianm77]

agreed - but - it could be argued that after Charlie ALL jazz became more aggressive, virtuosic, and loud.

and it could be further argued that it was not only his personal energy and verve, but the sound and raw energy of his loud and slightly distorted electric guitar that got under other jazzer's skin. after they heard him, there was no going back to more polite, reserved playing. was there?

for a more modern example, just look at what Corea said about his direction, and how it was more influenced by Mahavishnu - and NOT Miles.

Well that's manifest. No one within the jazz fusion movement was much influenced by Miles electric stuff as far as I can tell. Rock musicians, for sure.

As far as CC goes - well, his lasting influence is really rock and roll. Jazz guitar became very much a curiosity through the removal of its central role as a rhythm instrument in modern jazz (bebop), but of course was still very central in that other important successor of swing music - rhythm and blues music. Also, one guy with a guitar could be as loud as a horn section. So that was a bit cheaper.

It took the influence of rock to bring it back again in a big way, but rock had more of an influence at this stage of jazz than vice versa. Alright, maybe at the height of the prog era. And I suppose we have jazz fusion to thank for the '80s shred movement to some extent. But that's pretty marginal.

In any case - reserved, polite? Have you listened to any pre-war jazz much? If anything bebop tidied things up - the raw, bluesy, vocal sounds of the pre-war era stayed in popular music (T-bone and charlie showed us that the electric guitar was a perfect conduit for this sound), while modern jazz defined its new, modernist, art music aesthetic.

BTW I think of Bird as a really blusey, raw player... Almost the last of the great Kansas City hornmen, as much as the first bebopper.

[henryrobinett]

for a more modern example, just look at what Corea said about his direction, and how it was more influenced by Mahavishnu - and NOT Miles.

Well yeah, BUT I'd also say that Chick played with Miles for several years. His influence on Chick cannot be over estimated. And for all McLaughlin playing with Miles, he actually only ever played ONE gig with him: Live-Evil. It was recorded. One gig.

So sure Mahavishnu was an amazing force and vision that couldn't be ignored. Their first album blew my mind. I had never heard anything remotely like it. And although he did very well it wasn't money, I'd wager, that motivated that vision. Miles had an idea but couldn't or didn't fully realize it. He often, in those drug hazy days, I'd guess, open the doors for his sidemen to finish. He relied on McLaughlin's guitar orientation. He KNEW guitar had a power. It was what was getting people. If only he could find that guitarist who had a vision and power to cross the lines to rock, funk from jazz. Ornette told me EXACTLY that same thing.

[fumblefingers]

Well if you're talking sales, you got me. But I've never been about sales. All kinds of people buy records. That doesn't mean they influenced the direction of the music. The direction of the music I love and respect the is not so beholden to the fickle tastes of the public who tends to love treacle and bombast. Glenn Miller outsold Duke Ellington. That means nothing to me except a musical historical sound track during WWII. Tommy Roe outsold Dylan. Van Gough sold two paintings in his entire life, both to his brother, who bought them to help ward off his despair and ruination.

Movements in art, I think, are driven by the need to create and express visions often to the exclusion and exception of societal and remunerative means. If those visions are motivated by dollar signs, the art is weakened, as far as I'm concerned. Then you have those terrible, doe eyed waifs, paintings they used to sell in drug stores. Or bull fighters on black velvet instead of De Kooning, Braques or Monet. And that's fine. But it's not really what I call art.

no problem, i feel the same way.

[fumblefingers]

That's why I said up until fusion guitar didn't have a big influence. AND I'd still argue the influence guitar had was NOT musical, but rather in the bombast and speed. Loud, aggressive, as you say. But the LINES and comping styles, the voicings, sophistication of the phrasing, still was not a contribution.

Arguable Metheny changed more in this sense, but that influence of melodicism and triadic poly chordal approached seemed more Jarrett than Metheny.

well you brought up the importance of "the language", and i'd agree its primary.

however, with regards to influence it's not solely about the language (i.e. the notes played, the rhythms used, the harmonic practices).

overall sound and style are big players too, and not just in jazz.

[Stevebol]

Miles should have been looking for the right bass player not the right guitar player after 69'. It was all about that bass till Hip Hop.

[henryrobinett]

well you brought up the importance of "the language", and i'd agree its primary.

however, with regards to influence it's not solely about the language (i.e. the notes played, the rhythms used, the harmonic practices).

overall sound and style are big players too, and not just in jazz.

True! And I know very little of that, to my own chagrin. I've never been much into the sound. And THAT seems to be what is the motivating factor to most young guitarists. TONE is what I always hear from guitar players. But I could never relate much to that, even as cool as guitar tones were. For me it was always the NOTES. And there I could relate to Coltrane, Oscar, Herbie, Miles, Bird, Bud, Rollins, Brownie, Jarrett, Corea. Those were MY influences.

[henryrobinett]

Miles should have been looking for the right bass player not the right guitar player after 69'. It was all about that bass till Hip Hop.

True. Well he had Michael Henderson who was Stevie's bass player, right? He just didn't have the LANGUAGE of jazz together. But he wasn't looking for Holland.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Here's what I think gets overlooked with Burns documentaries. He has a method. He looks at history through the eyes of specific people. He follows those lives. Any subject, like the civil war or prohibition or WWII, The Dust Bowel, The Roosevelts, are too huge to tackle as a subject alone. He rather seems to do it through the eyes and ears, letters and books of characters of specific people he follows. So he chose important figures in jazz: Jelly Roll, Louis Armstrong, Bechet, Duke, Europe . . . and couldn't make everyone happy. He couldn't follow everyone or even all styles, even if they were important. That's why he kept coming back to Armstrong and Duke. He was following their story and letting that line tell the history of its overall subject.

This is almost exactly what I'd have said myself. He purposefully did the same with the War, and I thought that was a beautiful film about a subject which has been completely overdone in documentaries. There are enough of the other kinds of documentary film out there. Different genre here, and refreshing I think.

[Stringswinger]

There is no question that guitarists have been "in the back of the bus" in jazz through much of the history of the music. The Beatles made the guitar go from a fairly obscure musical instrument, to the worlds most popular musical instrument. Many jazz guitarists (myself included) started in the world of rock music and gravitated to jazz.

While Wes Montgomery and George Benson (and to a lesser degree John McLaughlin) helped the guitar advance in the jazz world, we are still second class citizens. Most horn players and singers would rather have a piano than a guitar (though our smaller footprint in a crowded bandstand sometimes helps). If we are teamed up with a piano player, it is expected that we will stay out of the piano players way. The big heroes in Jazz are the horn players and piano players (and a few vocalists).

Seeing as the music buying public is guitar oriented, the lack of guitar prominence may be one of the factors that has contributed to Jazz losing it's market viability.

In Gypsy jazz and fusion, the guitar is king.

All of that said, the history of jazz is not complete without including Django, Charlie, Wes and Joe in detail, so I would give Ken Burns a C grade for his effort. A guitar player who gives Burns a pass for the omission is like a Muslim who supports Donald Trump.

[Stevebol]

I thought the Burns doc was excellent. It didn't have to be enlightening for musicians. Naturally it couldn't please everyone. Charlie Christian was my direct path to R&B. I know that's odd but that's what I decided in the late 70's and then I started gigging in the early 80's.
CC set the standard IMO for what was to come that wouldn't be considered jazz but was still AA tradition. He was always active. A master of dance music.

[henryrobinett]

Once again, as a guitar player who makes his living playing jazz, guitar in the history of jazz is negligible.

[Stevebol]

Once again, as a guitar player who makes his living playing jazz, guitar in the history of jazz is negligible.

It really is and I'm surprised some people don't get that. In the grand scheme of things some instruments dominate at certain times. Obviously jazz has always been about horns. In earlier times the piano was big. With bop the bass drove the music. everyone changed roles except for the horns who were out front. Then it was time for the guitar with R&R. After that the bass dominated a lot of music. Now it's drums.
Fumble does make some points about CC giving people a kick in the ass. Who plays 20 choruses for an audition? Benny probably said OK OK you got the job. Enough already.
Jazz or no jazz CC was a legend. We need our heroes.

[Cunamara]

Christian was never a bop guitarist. He was post swing, at best. Even though he was one of the first to hang at Mintons, but so was Ben Webster and Coleman Hawkins.

Well, Dizzy Gillespie said to Tony DeCaprio that Charlie was one of the founding bop musicians. He didn't live long enough to be associated with it like Diz, Bird, etc., but he was there and was playing the music at its inception. And allegedly was an influence on Charlie Parker (who was also a big fan of Johnny Smith) although I think it more likely that they shared influences. Diz's word is good enough for me.

That being said, it is true that guitarists did not have much to do with the development of jazz until the mid 50s. Of course a lot of people think that the pinnacle of jazz was bebop and it's all been downhill from there. The parts of jazz in which guitarists played a role mostly came after the mid 50s. Jim Hall was involved in a lot of those groups like the Jimmy Guiffre 3, etc., that brought new approaches to jazz. Did he shape the direction of jazz? He pops up on so many important recordings from the late 50s on that I think he did. He was one of the few who transcended the instrument even though he didn't seem to try to transcend the instrument.

Who pushed jazz around into new shapes? Sure there were the musicians already mentioned. How about Orrin Keepnews, Rudy Van Gelder, what's-his-name from ECM? Those guys also shaped the music and had an impact. How about Gil Evans and his arranging for Miles? There are a lot of angles to look from and we'll never see them all. Hence the problem for Ken Burns et al- they had to tell the story as best they could without having to cover thousands of musicians in detail. I was bugged by the focus on horn players but hey, Wynton was the main source for the history and that's going to be his predilection. They picked a narrative thread and followed it, exposing PBS viewers to a history of a music that they may have just ignored otherwise. Good!

[henryrobinett]

Well, Dizzy Gillespie said to Tony DeCaprio that Charlie was one of the founding bop musicians. He didn't live long enough to be associated with it like Diz, Bird, etc., but he was there and was playing the music at its inception. And allegedly was an influence on Charlie Parker (who was also a big fan of Johnny Smith) although I think it more likely that they shared influences. Diz's word is good enough for me.

That being said, it is true that guitarists did not have much to do with the development of jazz until the mid 50s. Of course a lot of people think that the pinnacle of jazz was bebop and it's all been downhill from there. The parts of jazz in which guitarists played a role mostly came after the mid 50s.

Who pushed jazz around into new shapes? Sure there were the musicians already mentioned. How about Orrin Keepnews, Rudy Van Gelder, what's-his-name from ECM? Those guys also shaped the music and had an impact. How about Gil Evans and his arranging for Miles? There are a lot of angles to look from and we'll never see them all. Hence the problem for Ken Burns et al- they had to tell the story as best they could without having to cover thousands of musicians in detail. I was bugged by the focus on horn players but hey, Wynton was the main source for the history and that's going to be his predilection. They picked a narrative thread and followed it, exposing PBS viewers to a history of a music that they may have just ignored otherwise. Good!

Hm. Bugged by the focus on horn players? It was and to a large degree remains a horn players art. Just is. From Buddy Bolden to Keppard to King Oliver to Satchmo. All trumpet players at the inception. The lead instrument. Not trombone, not tuba, not even sax except for Betchet. Exception being pianists Jelly Roll and before that the rag timers like Joplin and then the stride guys like James P Johnson and Willie The Lion Smith, then Fats. But then the sax men like Hawkins and Young and Berry. Come on man, where were the guitar players in the formative years? The source. That's what's important. The source. The wellspring. The beginnings. The foundation. Almost no guitar. Banjo. But no soloists to speak of. Soloing is where the music finds itself.

CC but by then the music had defined itself. Benny Goodman and Teddy Wilson, as well as Hampton were already on it.

It is what it is. No reason to be bugged about it.

[jazzguy100]

jazz guitar wasn't relevant til the 70s. there werent as many as piano players and there weren't as many good ones as piano players. plus it was a much younger instrument.

[Stevebol]

Guitarists are way too hung up on the 'jazz' label. I never thought guitar was a big deal in jazz. It's a novelty. Horn players typically have to be ensemble players. Guitarists have certain advantages. It's a portable lap piano. You can sing and play.
Let the horns have their genre.

[Jabberwocky]

...It's got some nice pics and quotes but it's mostly a monument to Wynton Marsalis's version of jazz history.

Some wag labelled the movement associated with Wynton Marsalis Armani Jazz.