-
Originally Posted by destinytot
huh?
thought that sisters were doin' it for Christ. (or should I say, not doin' it?)
-
12-20-2015 08:03 PM
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
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.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
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.
-
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
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?
-
Jazz guitar is irrelevant to jazz.
However Charlie Christian (eventually) made jazz irrelevant to everyone else.Last edited by christianm77; 12-20-2015 at 08:59 PM.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
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.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
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.Last edited by henryrobinett; 12-21-2015 at 11:07 AM.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Arguable Metheny changed more in this sense, but that influence of melodicism and triadic poly chordal approached seemed more Jarrett than Metheny.Last edited by henryrobinett; 12-20-2015 at 09:22 PM.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
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.Last edited by christianm77; 12-20-2015 at 09:25 PM.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
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.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Originally Posted by 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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Originally Posted by Stevebol
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
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.
-
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.
-
Once again, as a guitar player who makes his living playing jazz, guitar in the history of jazz is negligible.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
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.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
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!Last edited by Cunamara; 12-21-2015 at 02:25 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Cunamara
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by PaulHintz
Last edited by Jabberwocky; 12-21-2015 at 07:27 AM.
Strings comparable to TI Bensons without the...
Today, 07:57 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos