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

[Jabberwocky]

...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.

As a beginning jazz guitarist, I was exhorted to listen to the horns and play horn-like lines. So, even guitarists don't think that guitarists are the best role models for a guitarist. And I did. I really want to play like the great great Dexter Gordon.

...A guitar player who gives Burns a pass for the omission is like a Muslim who supports Donald Trump.

Let's not go there. It is like throwing a bone to a bumbling dog

[destinytot]

For me, bridging the distance between banjo and guitar is a job for players (rather than the listening public). And, for me, the relevance of guitar is determined by the player's purpose and intention.

Regarding intention, the history behind the crude early forms of banjo is a noble one. On that basis alone, for socio-cultural reasons, I think the guitar's kinship to banjo - a unique role with subtle rhythmic and harmonic dimensions - is relevant to this music.

I find it interesting that both horns (wind/breath) and strings - I seem to remember reading about the wind-string distinction being important to the Greeks - can bend notes. (I think this is important because the 'blue' notes are more than b3 b5 b7 - the 'blue' colouring is richest at points outside the scope of frets or keys in semi-tone steps.)

The guitar may not have created the language, but many players' use of that language transcends the instrument as a voice.

[grahambop]

The great Dr. Johnson had an opinion on this matter:

"Sir, a guitarist playing jazz is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
from Boswell's Life of Johnson

[mrcee]

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.

when did Miles stop using Michael Henderson?

[destinytot]

The great Dr. Johnson had an opinion on this matter:

"Sir, a guitarist playing jazz is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
from Boswell's Life of Johnson

I think you'll find he was talking about jazz on a Strat (kidding of course - big fan of Cliffie).

[grahambop]

No one within the jazz fusion movement was much influenced by Miles electric stuff as far as I can tell.

I'm not so sure about that, I think there was one way in which Miles' electric period had an influence. Herbie Hancock was a bit of a jazz purist originally, and said he hated the sound and the idea of the electric piano until Miles forced him to play one. (I think something happened along the lines of Herbie turning up to a recording session to find that Miles had removed the acoustic piano and replaced it with a Fender Rhodes. It's mentioned in the various books.)

Of course once Herbie and Chick Corea had got the hang of the electric piano, there was no stopping them, all the way to Headhunters, Return to Forever and so on. And Joe Zawinul went on to use it in Weather Report.

So I always thought that sound came about largely because Miles forced these guys to use the electric piano, and they then forged an approach which sounded good on it. That keyboard sound and approach then became quite influential in the 70s.

[Groyniad]

i think henrirobinett has it exactly right

nice to hear it said so straight too

[Groyniad]

i suspect the enormous appeal of PLAYING jazz on guitar has to do with its being a portable polyphonic instrument - there isn't really another. so it allows you to be in the rhythm section as well as playing solos. but i strongly suspect that the piano (obviously) tends to handle the chordal dimension better and the horns (obviously) tend to handle the melodic dimension better.

the failure of jazz guitarists to keep the facts presented by HR here clearly in view must have to do with the crazy role that electric guitar plays in rock/pop etc. (i.e. constitutive role - the electric guitar more than any other instrument makes those genres what they are).

electric guitar makes rock/pop etc. music what it is - and to an extraordinary degree - rock/pop music makes modern culture what it is

[destinytot]

i suspect the enormous appeal of PLAYING jazz on guitar has to do with its being a portable polyphonic instrument - there isn't really another.

In the right hands...

[goldenwave77]

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.

Gotta go with Henry on this one. Scott Yanow in his book, devoted to jazz guitarists (about 500 of them, and some of them really obscure) says the music itself would hardly be different if no guitarist had ever played jazz.



Lest you think this is just personal, subjective, opinion, consider this "thought experiment":

Your are sentenced to exile on a desert island, and can only bring with you, music from either Curtain 1 or Curtain 2, below.

Behind Curtain 1, is a selection of the 100 greatest jazz albums (you can choose), that have no guitar on them. (Scott J., Jelly Roll Morton, Louis A, Earl H, Coleman H, Art T., Duke, Basie, Artie Shaw, Bird, Diz, Prez, Sonny R, Miles D, Mingus, Clifford B, Jazz Messengers, Coltrane, Stan Getz etc. are on MY list).

Behind Curtain 2, is a selection of the 100 greatest jazz albums that FEATURE jazz guitar, primarily.

You can only choose ONE of these Curtains. Who, in their right mind, chooses Curtain 2?!

I have probably 300 jazz albums or CD's. I think I have half a dozen "jazz guitar" CD's. Even Jimmy Raney said, "Look...don't get me wrong....the guitar is a nice instrument...but it was always about the music..." (the sense of this quote is correct---I may have missed a few words...it is in his youtube masterclass at Louisville Univ., I think it is.)


Having said that, guitar is convenient and offers polyphonic capability. Still, to me it's a bit of a compromise...knowing what I know now, I would choose piano or trumpet if I had to start all over (or both, like Dizzy G.)

But in life, we have to make choices of convenience....now back to working on chord inversions on an unamplified semi-hollow gtr. late at night so as not to bother the apt neighbors. (The kid on the floor beneath me is showing signs of musical growth---he puts on rap for about ten minutes at a stretch, and then turns it off, as even he can't stand to listen to it for any longer...there IS hope for the next generation.)

[mrcee]

For me, bridging the distance between banjo and guitar is a job for players (rather than the listening public). And, for me, the relevance of guitar is determined by the player's purpose and intention.

Regarding intention, the history behind the crude early forms of banjo is a noble one. On that basis alone, for socio-cultural reasons, I think the guitar's kinship to banjo - a unique role with subtle rhythmic and harmonic dimensions - is relevant to this music.

I find it interesting that both horns (wind/breath) and strings - I seem to remember reading about the wind-string distinction being important to the Greeks - can bend notes. (I think this is important because the 'blue' notes are more than b3 b5 b7 - the 'blue' colouring is richest at points outside the scope of frets or keys in semi-tone steps.)

The guitar may not have created the language, but many players' use of that language transcends the instrument as a voice.

Interesting about the kinship to the banjo. The banjo is just a frame drum with a neck and strings so the percussive aspect is right there. Similar to a snare and hits on 2 and 4. I still stand with the opinion that the guitar can create more rhythmic drive than any other instrument. And has strong percussive capabilities.

[grahambop]

Having said that, guitar is convenient and offers polyphonic capability. Still, to me it's a bit of a compromise...knowing what I know now, I would choose piano or trumpet if I had to start all over (or both, like Dizzy G.)

But in life, we have to make choices of convenience....now back to working on chord inversions on an unamplified semi-hollow gtr. late at night so as not to bother the apt neighbors.

That is one great advantage of the guitar - the ability to practise quietly. For a few years I had the urge to learn the saxophone, I even tried it for a few years but I couldn't really get anywhere, so I went back to the guitar. With hindsight that was the best thing I could have done. For years I have been able to practise quietly late at night, not disturbing the kids etc., until I eventually managed to get some reasonable jazz chops on the guitar. That would have been utterly impossible on the sax.

[mrcee]

That is one great advantage of the guitar - the ability to practise quietly. For a few years I had the urge to learn the saxophone, I even tried it for a few years but I couldn't really get anywhere, so I went back to the guitar. With hindsight that was the best thing I could have done. For years I have been able to practise quietly late at night, not disturbing the kids etc., until I eventually managed to get some reasonable jazz chops on the guitar. That would have been utterly impossible on the sax.

I played the sax for 15 years and trying to find a place to practice could be tough. I've spent many hours outside in some park or whatever with a music stand.

[destinytot]

Gotta go with Henry on this one. Scott Yanow in his book, devoted to jazz guitarists (about 500 of them, and some of them really obscure) says the music itself would hardly be different if no guitarist had ever played jazz.



Lest you think this is just personal, subjective, opinion, consider this "thought experiment":

Your are sentenced to exile on a desert island, and can only bring with you, music from either Curtain 1 or Curtain 2, below.

Behind Curtain 1, is a selection of the 100 greatest jazz albums (you can choose), that have no guitar on them. (Scott J., Jelly Roll Morton, Louis A, Earl H, Coleman H, Art T., Duke, Basie, Artie Shaw, Bird, Diz, Prez, Sonny R, Miles D, Mingus, Clifford B, Jazz Messengers, Coltrane, Stan Getz etc. are on MY list).

Behind Curtain 2, is a selection of the 100 greatest jazz albums that FEATURE jazz guitar, primarily.

You can only choose ONE of these Curtains. Who, in their right mind, chooses Curtain 2?!

I have probably 300 jazz albums or CD's. I think I have half a dozen "jazz guitar" CD's. Even Jimmy Raney said, "Look...don't get me wrong....the guitar is a nice instrument...but it was always about the music..." (the sense of this quote is correct---I may have missed a few words...it is in his youtube masterclass at Louisville Univ., I think it is.)


Having said that, guitar is convenient and offers polyphonic capability. Still, to me it's a bit of a compromise...knowing what I know now, I would choose piano or trumpet if I had to start all over (or both, like Dizzy G.)

But in life, we have to make choices of convenience....now back to working on chord inversions on an unamplified semi-hollow gtr. late at night so as not to bother the apt neighbors. (The kid on the floor beneath me is showing signs of musical growth---he puts on rap for about ten minutes at a stretch, and then turns it off, as even he can't stand to listen to it for any longer...there IS hope for the next generation.)

Of course Henry's right about the language.

But when I peek behind those curtains, I know I'm looking for what I want to see - so I go with 'subjective'.

Setting aside - just for present purposes - the roles of Jimmy Raney behind Stan Getz, Jim Hall and Ed Bickert behind Paul Desmond, and looking further back, I'm drawn past surface similarities and straight to the heart of the periphery: rhythm. What I find in the clips below is a common source to the rhythmic pulse within which 'swing'-movement arises.

[Groyniad]

yes with rock and pop if there's no electric guitar the music vanishes

but with jazz - if the guitar vanishes the music stays almost unchanged

-----

what does that mean for jazz guitarists?

i think it means that e.g. jim hall and others are broadly right in trying to make the guitar sound as much like a horn as is possible

talk about being happy to sound 'like a guitar' is odd in a jazz context because its not at all clear what sounding like a guitar in jazz is. sounding like a banjo would perhaps be the closest thing - and that is not what is normally meant. if it means sounding like blues-guitar or like rock-guitar then that raises different problems.

2 points about that:

guitar retains its own voice inevitably and that has a certain appeal (even when - like jim hall - the guitarist has a lot of success trying to sound like a horn). jh brings this style to a climax with bill evans (i think) - wouldn't it be musically odd to wish those records had been recorded with a sensitive horn player instead of a sensitive guitarist? the guitar has an engaging voice which is different from horns but great (as long as its tendency to machine-gun like phrasing is tamed)

every instrumentalist including the horns should be aiming to sound as voice-like as possible because its the voice that carries the most musical nuance and dynamism (is the most musically expressive). so we don't have to feel down that we all need to copy horn phrasing (fluid, long, graceful etc.) because the horn players and everyone else have to copy the human voice.

[dasein]

The Ken Burns series covered Charlie Christian pretty thoroughly, so I'm not sure why people are acting as if he was omitted.

For me, the biggest issues with that series was:

- Branford talking shit about Cecil Taylor. Really uncalled for
- The idea that "jazz kind of just died out -- nobody really played it anymore" until Dexter Gordon came back from Paris. Utterly ridiculous, even counting for the narrow definition of jazz from Wynton/Stanley Crouch/Albert Murray.

We can talk all day about who was omitted, who didn't get enough time, etc. But there was always one glaring omission that stuck out to me, particularly since that series was the Marsalis' baby: Woody Shaw.

[henryrobinett]

Yes. Freddie Hubbard? Was there much about him? He and Clifford were the greatest, IMHO.

[John A.]

I agree that the language of jazz was established mainly by horn players and pianists, and guitarists had a relatively small role in that. Nevertheless, Charlie Christian was a big influence on the major figures in bop and an important figure in the development of small-group jazz. He may not have been bop, but he was a key figure in the transition to bop. Arguably, so was Django. I say this, because of what people at the time said, not because you can necessarily analyze their playing and call them bop.

Wes was also major influence on what followed him. Also, he was the embodiment of the tension between high art and popularization that's a huge part of the story of jazz. All three of these guys also had compelling life stories. Burns gave them only passing attention, which I think is a real deficiency in the film. I say this not as a disgruntled guitarist, but as a reasonably well-informed jazz listener. He gave short shrift to lots of other interesting and important figures in Jazz, as well (e.g., Rollins, Shorter, Bill Evans; writers like Van Heusen/Burke/Mercer), understated the importance of Miles and Trane, and completely dismissed nearly all recent jazz. It's as if he made a film called "Classical Music" and only talked about Haydn and Mozart, and ignored Beethoven.

Burns did this mainly because the story he was trying to tell is basically "jazz=Ellington + Armstrong." It's not a bad or wrong story, but it's an incomplete one. By keeping them as the central figures throughout the time span he covered, he was forced to edit out people and movements that were more important to later developments of jazz. That to me is the second biggest flaw of the series. The biggest flaw is his calling it "Jazz" in the first place -- that implies that it was intended to be definitive and comprehensive. It's neither. It's jazz history from a certain perspective (i.e., Wynton Marsalis), emphasizing certain compelling people. I think if it had been presented a bit more humbly as "here's the way some people see the history of jazz," rather than "This is Jazz," I don't think it would have sparked as much criticism among aficionados. The hardest part of watching the series for me was stopping myself from saying "but, but, what about ...?" every 10 minutes and accepting it for the really good, but imperfect thing it is.

John

[Stevebol]

Charlie Christian was R&B to me. Swing and funk are really close.
IDK. I decided to play bass and guitar and I got work. Jumping in and out of solos can be tricky.
I played a cassette of the minton's CC for a musicologist who gave me a low grade in jazz theory along time ago. My paper did suck but it was about CC.
He said geez I didn't know he was that good. I thought well, now you know.
I owe everything to CC. I learn the guitar and bass to all the songs I do and listen real close to the kick drum.
I was too dumb for college at the time when I took jazz theory and the rest is history.

[henryrobinett]

John A - I don't know whether you saw my first post in this thread, whether you just disagree with it on its premise or not. I don't believe he made a film that Jazz = Ellington + Armstrong. The SUBJECT is too vast. He picked some of the most important figures and followed them throughout their history and along the way he picked up the history of the music. That's the way he makes documentaries. I don't think he has ever tried to do documentaries that are definitive statements of the subjects history. He follows characters and tells their stories.

In this way he will always piss some people off. Its just the nature of the beast. I hate to think what jazz accordion players, or violinists, let alone drummers, bass players might feel. Guitarists are far too provincial. How many pianists were left out? Barely mention of Ray Brown.

[dasein]

Yes. Freddie Hubbard? Was there much about him? He and Clifford were the greatest, IMHO.

I don't remember much about Freddie, no.

I guess my issue with omitting Shaw is that you have a documentary saying that "nobody really played jazz in the 70's" until Wyton came in on a white horse to save it.

really? there wasn't any other trumpet virtuoso at NYC at the time, a former Jazz Messenger, with a record deal with Columbia? a guy that featured a lot of those Young Lions in his working groups? a guy who came up with a bunch of "hip" stuff to play over changes that jazz school kids have been playing ever since?

[matt.guitarteacher]

John A - I don't know whether you saw my first post in this thread, whether you just disagree with it on its premise or not. I don't believe he made a film that Jazz = Ellington + Armstrong. The SUBJECT is too vast. He picked some of the most important figures and followed them throughout their history and along the way he picked up the history of the music. That's the way he makes documentaries. I don't think he has ever tried to do documentaries that are definitive statements of the subjects history. He follows characters and tells their stories.

In this way he will always piss some people off. Its just the nature of the beast. I hate to think what jazz accordion players, or violinists, let alone drummers, bass players might feel. Guitarists are far too provincial. How many pianists were left out? Barely mention of Ray Brown.

So, can we all agree that the problem is more that the series was only 10 episodes long? ;-)

I could have done with more Ella vs. Sara Vaughn, but it's nitpicking. There wasn't so much time for any singers. You have to have a story focus or it's just a history "documentary". Burns' films have never really been cold-blooded, "just the facts" historical reckonings. His war docs pick people to "tell the story" from in the same way. His national parks film is told from that basis as well.

All those letters from "nobodies" going to the parks, fighting in wars, or going to integrated dance halls in these films had zero to do with real history. But honestly, they're the best things about these films; the absolutely best moments, and they are what sets them apart. If you don't like it, or find it too sentimental etc., I'll give you that, but I don't see them as tarnishing history or misrepresenting anything.

I don't think Bix Beiderbecke is more important than everyone in the film who received less screen time, but his story is just very compelling, representing more than just facts - a generation of listeners and musicians who were so moved by this music, beyond culture or even their own prejudices, that they were compelled to join in. His story does what a lot of the "nameless" stories do in Burns' films: They provide an actual cultural context larger than just cold facts. The housewife's and sister's perspectives in The War or The Civil War are my favorite parts, and I certainly wouldn't have them be sacrificed for time or cramming in more facts.

Though, as a nerd, I enjoy the occasional moldy, stiff documentary as well, I love Ken Burns' documentaries for the artistic expression that I think they represent.

[Stevebol]

My niece asked me if I saw Django Unchained. I said I love Django Reinhardt movies! Sweet and Lowdown was awesome!
She said, huh?
I said, forget it. Nevermind.

[Boston Joe]

According to Wynton, there was no jazz at all in the 70s, and almost none at all in the 80s until the emergence of... wait for it... Wynton.

I learned a lot from the series, but I don't for a minute kid myself that it's the whole story.

[cosmic gumbo]

Back to the OP, I think you could eliminate all the jazz guitarists from the jazz continuum, and we'd still have the same jazz as we have now. In my book, that is not a very influential jazz instrument in the big picture.