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

[gggomez]

Good question and perhaps the answer is yes. Obviously some fantastic and great guitarists around but did they break new ground for jazz, as opposed to guitar, did they take jazz in a new direction?

However, great to se 2 jazz guitar albums in the 2015 Next Bop top 10 - Gilad Hekselmans and Rotem Sivan. I think these guys are taking jazz in a new direction, they are at the forefront of a 'new school'. It is super exciting to closely follow these guys and all the other musicians they are playing with.

[John A.]

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.

I did see your first post. I think that it is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of Ellington and Armstrong in the history of Jazz, but I think Burns somehow managed to do that. But again, I think to an extent the greatest problem with the series is that it was pitched as an encyclopedia of jazz by PBS (and to an extent by Burns, though he backed off that line eventually), but in fact it was much narrower in scope. Taken on less hyped terms, it's a great series. Taken as "THE STORY OF JAZZ" there are lots of things to take issue with.

As to the provincialism of guitarists - I agree that there are no guitarists ~1920-1960 who are as important as Armstrong-Ellington-Basie-Bird-Diz-Monk-Miles-Trane-Ornette (to oversimplify the history of jazz). But, Charlie Christian, Django, and Wes are major figures, and they deserved more discussion. They did in fact move the language of jazz and influence a lot of people on other instruments. And certainly post 1970, guitarists are as important as horns and pianos.

The series couldn't be be infinitely long, and not everyone/everything could be covered, but there was a lot of space devoted to Armstrong and Ellington in periods of time when they weren't very active, and when other people were more innovative. There was a also a lot of space given to Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch saying not much of anything. I think there was room in there for a few minutes on Wes. His life story is interesting and moving, there's some great footage of him that could have been used. There's also the enigma of his gigs with Trane. I would have gladly taken that over a few minutes less of Stanley Crouch.

None of this pisses me off. I have no stake, no axe to grind. I just think certain things in the series could have been done differently to good effect. You want me to be less provincial? Sure. More Ella, or more Bill Evans, or more Stan Getz, or more Weather Report, or more Oscar Peterson, or more Sun Ra, or more Sonny Rollins, and a bit less Marsalis, Crouch, Ellington, and Armstrong would also have made for a better series, too IMO.

John

[christianm77]

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.

Not sure if I understand. Was Michael Henderson not the right bas player?

Reportedly he told Henderson he'd fire him if 'he learned any of that old shit (i.e. jazz.)'

[christianm77]

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.

It means that jazz guitarists have an identity crisis. Julian Lage put it interestingly in a masterclass - guitar players are so obsessed with being like a piano or a horn, when are we like a guitar?

I'm more on the horn side of it myself perhaps (Charlie C started this ball rolling) but for the entire post war history of jazz, guitarists have been trying to adopt a foreign instrumental language on their instrument. The exceptions (Bill Frissell, for example) are interesting....

CC's language was very guitaristic, of course, while he was imitating a horn in many ways...

In any case, I perhaps did jazz guitar a little injustice when I said it had no influence at all on rock. Jimi Hendrix was heavily influenced by Wes, and adored Kenny Burrell's playing. That said Jimi's influence on rock guitar is far less than it would appear on the surface. But the octaves thing remains very popular in rock, and that comes from Django via Wes via Jimi...

[jazzguy100]

at the end of the day its about the music. no one gives a shit if its a guitar piano or horn as long as it grooves.

[Stevebol]

I'm sorry but 'provincial' cracked me up. I don't think it was like that till the 60's but that's a guess.
Provincial-

a : a person of local or restricted interests or outlook
b : a person lacking urban polish or refinement

[grahambop]

at the end of the day its about the music. no one gives a shit if its a guitar piano or horn as long as it grooves.

Absolutely, who cares what instrument it's on. I guess the vibes aren't exactly central to the development of jazz. Does that bother Joe Locke or Stefon Harris? I doubt it.

[henryrobinett]

I'm sorry but 'provincial' cracked me up. I don't think it was like that till the 60's but that's a guess.
Provincial-

a : a person of local or restricted interests or outlook
b : a person lacking urban polish or refinement

Seemed like the right word at the time!

[Stevebol]

Seemed like the right word at the time!

I think it's safe to say guitar players are either a or b, or both. I'm a.

[Cunamara]

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.

There were guitarists in the very early days of jazz, but they weren't loud enough to solo. Banjos were louder but not loud enough. Amplification came along 30 years in, so that's when guitarists started to be heard. Our absence in the source, wellspring, beginnings, foundation, yadda yadda yadda was nothing more than a technological problem.

Soloing is where bebop finds itself, not especially jazz. Of course most of jazz has followed the bebop structure of "head- interminable solos- head" with only a few short-lived efforts to find something different.

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

Eh. I like guitar. I would have liked to have had coverage of the instrument and the players. I was bummed it wasn't there. That's all.

Unfortunately I am not moved by most horn (i.e., sax specifically) players on a gut level. Trumpets and related instruments, yes; I love Art Farmer Freddie Hubbard and Tom Harrell. Clarinet, yes, my goodness the sound of clarinet is sublime- one of my favorite instruments to hear. And pianists, they can break my heart with a couple of well chosen notes. But it's guitars that really get me. Classical, steel string flattops, archtops, solid bodies, semi-hollow. Wow.

But many if not most saxophone players just don't move me and even those who do, don't do it all the time. Wayne Shorter and Paul Desmond are the ones who move me the most; theirs are the only records by sax players I have made a point of buying more than one of. Really can't stand jazz flute for some reason- I think it's when it's played with a breathy sound that it bugs me.

So... I like guitar and that's why I play one. I am not a "musician who happens to play guitar." I'm a guitarist.

[henryrobinett]

Good for you. That's great. But that's your personal taste and bias. I don't feel the same. For me it's more the player than the instrument. I can grok the players ideas and emotional depth regardless the instrument.

I've had disagreements with a few students who were like that and I never quite understood. A student told me he couldn't stand the sax. I just don't really understand that. I think of instruments being a tool of a musician. So, FOR MYSELF, I hear the spirit in ideas of the player. That's why I can get so much enjoyment from all of these other players and be influenced by them. Guitar never particularly moved me. I mean of course I love guitar. But it's music that moves me. I have spent a lot of time listening to classical music, violin, cello, opera, Hubbard, Brown, Evans, Oscar, Miles. It's not the instrument, it's the man or woman playing it.

The history of jazz is about the people playing the music, not the instrument playing it. That's the way I've always looked at it.

[henryrobinett]

Also, and I'm sorry to say this, but guitar players until very recently just weren't up to the task. We weren't trained to be on par with the top players of the day prior to the 50s. Even a lot after that.

[dasein]

Henry, has there ever been a thread on here about your time with Mingus?

if not, I would love to hear stories/pick your brain, if that's something you'd be up for

[Cunamara]

Also, and I'm sorry to say this, but guitar players until very recently just weren't up to the task. We weren't trained to be on par with the top players of the day prior to the 50s. Even a lot after that.

To a great extent that is true. Not helped perhaps by there being few instruments more difficult to play on at a high level.

[henryrobinett]

To a great extent that is true. Not helped perhaps by there being few instruments more difficult to play on at a high level.

True, but there weren't the people there to teach it or who played it at that level. For the most part guitar payers were country pickers. Unschooled. They could not compete with the good jazz soloists of the day. Not until CC, Kessel, Ellis, etc.. Trumpet is also a very hard instrument to play at a high level. It's just a hard instrument. Its not an excuse.

[henryrobinett]

Henry, has there ever been a thread on here about your time with Mingus?

if not, I would love to hear stories/pick your brain, if that's something you'd be up for

I told a story here and there. Sure. Not too much to say.

[destinytot]

I told a story here and there. Sure. Not too much to say.

(Respect.)

[destinytot]

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.

I'm reminded of Jim Hall's appreciation of my hero Ritchie Havens.

And I love how those percussive capabilities can also be refined to exquisitely subtle sweetness on electric archtop. Like Chick Corea's piano playing on Getz's Sweet Rain, the guitar playing here - although it doesn't protagonize (it comes in around the bridge) - seems just perfect to me:

[John A.]

I don't agree that without the guitar jazz would be the same (and I've been binge-watching "Fringe" episodes, so I'm open to the possibility of alternate history …). It's not just about the note choices, harmony, and rhythmic approaches that were advanced mainly by pianists and horns/reeds. The language of jazz also includes arrangement, ensemble concepts, and instrumental texture. Without the guitar, for instance, there are no Sonny Rollins quartets, no bossa nova, European jazz, no organ trios, etc. You can't just delete that stuff from music history and say jazz would be the same without it. Just by introducing the possibility of something other than piano being the main harmony instrument, guitar established new ways to make small-group jazz. Ditto for vibes. Milt Jackson may not be as significant as Bud Powell, but MJQ is pretty darn significant. My point is not to "defend" the guitar, but to point out that there's more to the language of jazz than scales and arps.

John

[henryrobinett]

I don't agree that without the guitar jazz would be the same (and I've been binge-watching "Fringe" episodes, so I'm open to the possibility of alternate history …). It's not just about the note choices, harmony, and rhythmic approaches that were advanced mainly by pianists and horns/reeds. The language of jazz also includes arrangement, ensemble concepts, and instrumental texture. Without the guitar, for instance, there are no Sonny Rollins quartets, no bossa nova, European jazz, no organ trios, etc. You can't just delete that stuff from music history and say jazz would be the same without it. Just by introducing the possibility of something other than piano being the main harmony instrument, guitar established new ways to make small-group jazz. Ditto for vibes. Milt Jackson may not be as significant as Bud Powell, but MJQ is pretty darn significant. My point is not to "defend" the guitar, but to point out that there's more to the language of jazz than scales and arps.

John

OK, but without The Bridge or other albums with guitar orientation the MUSIC would not have changed. We would not have some great albums but the essence of the music would not have changed. Bossa? Yeah, that woukld have been something. But iano and percussion can still pull it off.

Arrangements? I'm all about arrangements, production and composition. The greatest arrangers and composers were not guitar players.

[Robertkoa]

As an "Outsider" learning about Jazz to use in my music I can tell you that Jazz with rare exceptions not kept up with current or evolving
"Dance Music" Trends .

Maybe Latin Jazz would be an exception ?

Because if people can go to a Venue and Dance to it- different " relevance" right?

And Jazz was once the Dance Music of an
" Era " right ?

So it is evolving and is relevant to Jazz Fans and Historians but some of it is like
50's doo wop or 60's British Invasion or
80's Arena Rock.

Of course a Great Song is a Great Song from any Era..but music gets " recycled".

I think Donald Fagen and Becker once in an Interview said ...once you get to Coltrane ..I am paraphrasing here- Music can' t go further or it deconstructs - I did not understand what they meant...should get the exact quote and add it here if I can.

But you can say 60's Music is not Relevant or Bach is no longer Relevant..lol.

To some people it is !
Want to make it more relevant?
Marketing/ New Context
Bach with an 808 Kick drum on the "1" ?
Hip Hop lol.

Hip Hop to my ears could use some Melodies/ Harmonic Progression Vocals instead of Rap BUT it is basically an extreme form of R&B....and Film Scores , regular R&B , Pop and Dance Music have much much deeper bass content largely due to the Influence of Hip Hop starting in
late 80s.

Fusion never "fused" the better parts of Jazz with Rock or R&B IMO that was by Stevie Wonder and Steely Dan...

May take more Geniuses to fully make Jazz "mainstream" again.
Also the Players and Writers maybe don't care...they may want to be underground kind of...who knows.

I imagine with the Internet there may be
Younger People on 7 strings who latch onto Jazz and also sing and write and we will see real FUSION ...over next 10 to 20 years..

If I use some ii - V - i ' s they will probably be more rhythmic ( harmonic Rhythm) than in " swing" Music...I grew up on Rock and R&B and the smoothness of Jazz is cool but the Grooves are subtle often..
Not" Night Train: or "Watermelon Man" etc .
there are exceptions...

[Dave70]

Even though the guitar was a side note in Ken Burns' Jazz series, I enjoyed watching it.

Now, Ken has the chance to redeem himself by making a new series "GUITAR". Mr. Burns are you reading this?

[christianm77]

As an "Outsider" learning about Jazz to use in my music I can tell you that Jazz with rare exceptions not kept up with current or evolving
"Dance Music" Trends .

Maybe Latin Jazz would be an exception ?

Because if people can go to a Venue and Dance to it- different " relevance" right?

And Jazz was once the Dance Music of an
" Era " right ?

So it is evolving and is relevant to Jazz Fans and Historians but some of it is like
50's doo wop or 60's British Invasion or
80's Arena Rock.

Of course a Great Song is a Great Song from any Era..but music gets " recycled".

I think Donald Fagen and Becker once in an Interview said ...once you get to Coltrane ..I am paraphrasing here- Music can' t go further or it deconstructs - I did not understand what they meant...should get the exact quote and add it here if I can.

But you can say 60's Music is not Relevant or Bach is no longer Relevant..lol.

To some people it is !
Want to make it more relevant?
Marketing/ New Context
Bach with an 808 Kick drum on the "1" ?
Hip Hop lol.

Hip Hop to my ears could use some Melodies/ Harmonic Progression Vocals instead of Rap BUT it is basically an extreme form of R&B....and Film Scores , regular R&B , Pop and Dance Music have much much deeper bass content largely due to the Influence of Hip Hop starting in
late 80s.

Fusion never "fused" the better parts of Jazz with Rock or R&B IMO that was by Stevie Wonder and Steely Dan...

May take more Geniuses to fully make Jazz "mainstream" again.
Also the Players and Writers maybe don't care...they may want to be underground kind of...who knows.

I imagine with the Internet there may be
Younger People on 7 strings who latch onto Jazz and also sing and write and we will see real FUSION ...over next 10 to 20 years..

If I use some ii - V - i ' s they will probably be more rhythmic ( harmonic Rhythm) than in " swing" Music...I grew up on Rock and R&B and the smoothness of Jazz is cool but the Grooves are subtle often..
Not" Night Train: or "Watermelon Man" etc .
there are exceptions...

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

Jazz has assimilated different dance forms from the early days. Continues to this day - contemporary jazz drummers have to know about J Dilla.

I think it's a bit pointless to build a fence around 'jazz' and then accuse musicians of not being part of the mainstream or getting involved with current musical trends. See also Robert Glasper etc...

But current (African American) music gets by fine with guitar buried in the mix somewhere if present at all. Vocal music tends to be popular, instrumental music less so...

I don't really know what jazz is meant to mean now beyond obvious stuff like historical styles. I really don't think it's important. In terms of instrumental improvisation - well that's something that's a hard sell for most casual listeners.... So it gets lumped into jazz.

The electric guitar is an instrument that is played widely and badly, and this is likely to remain the case. Specialists who learn to play the instrument well will perhaps always seem a bit odd and irrelevant...