The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 136
  1. #26
    The faculty jazz guitarist and professor at the university in my city (a scary player) plays jazz on a nice, handmade classical guitar. Do you care to tell him that he has chosen the wrong guitar (bear in mind, he's an actual pro, not a self proclaimed semi-pro), or that there is a more suitable instrument for what he is doing? I'd be quick to point out that a nylon-string guitar wouldn't be my choice, but do I have the audacity to say I'm right and he's wrong? Haha, no way.

    I'm hesitant to put any credibility to the claims of someone who throws around his opinion as if it's fact, then tries to justify it by reminding me the 20+ years of experience he has on the subject. The best guitarists I've ever heard know the difference between opinion and fact, I think I'll take their word for it instead.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    There is a rapidly diminishing return on guitars past a rather low price point. I admit that I irrationally bought an expensive instrument, and I am happy with it. My life is filled with many things that I don't really need. Sometimes I also fool myself into believing I am using my time effectively by putting others down on internet forums. I like to think I am setting people straight, but really I am just trying to boost my own ego.

    Rationally, my time would be better spent practicing.
    Last edited by Jonzo; 07-04-2012 at 12:54 PM.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    I've got a couple of guitars with hand carved back and sides and another with a carved top. Comparing the acoustic tones of my hand carved guitars to that of my laminates is night and day. Of course, this is to be expected as most everyone who has written and/or spoken on the topic agrees that solid wood is the way to go for acoustic tone; however, acoustic tone is not necessarily what guitar players look to maximize. Most of the time, a pro's bread and butter will be a fine amplified sound.

    What I'm getting to is that you should try and get both a hand carved acoustic archtop for home use and recording, and a fine laminate for electric flavors.

    As to the topic of phrasing like a singer, I feel that it is easier to replicate the sound and feel of a horn player or singer through an amplified electric than an acoustic archtop. I would even hazard to say that a distorted amplified tone sounds more like a singing sax than the tradition clean dry tone favored by straight ahead players.

    Long live variations of tone. I wouldn't trade the stringy gypsy sound of Bireli Lagrene for the world, nor could I live without the smoky lines of Jim Hall.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    As I sit here playing my favorite sparkly blue plank and reading the odd post in this thread, all I can say is wow! This is really quite something.

    Happy 4th of July to everyone and I hope you all get to play some guitar today.

  6. #30
    I've owned handmade carved archtops, and some laminated factory jobs. Overall, I don't enjoy playing or listening to any of them as much as my flattop, and for an acoustic jazz setting, I'll pick that flattop every time (it has a tight, focused voice that works unusually well for small-ensemble acoustic jazz). But what do I know? I'm not a pro, self-proclaimed or otherwise. I just know what sounds good to me.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    I listen to Jim Hall a lot more than I listen to Django but I think Django makes the guitar 'sing' more powerfully than anyone. And that's a whole acoustic thing he's got going on there. The more the sound is 'amped' the 'flatter' it gets - the more tonally one-dimensional. With an acoustic guitar (whether flattop or archtop or classical) you get the world of difference between the stringy metalic-silver sound of the strings and the woody, rich, deep sound of the soundbox. Different types of fretting and plucking - different kinds of 'attack' - bring out these differences - and that all helps with musicality.

    Of course you play a heavily amplified guitar with a much lighter touch than you do a very lightly amplified acoustic instrument. Django wrenches the sound out of his acoustic instruments - he plays heavy and strong - where someone like Pat Methene plays much lighter.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    I may be in a minority here but my solution to the acoustic / amplified issue has been to play flat top acoustics unamplified and my Sadowsky plugged in. I have yet to play a strickly acoustic archtop that equaled a flat top in anywhere near it's price range sonically. It must be said perhaps I have not played the very best archtops, but I do feel the flat top design in general is superior when compared acoustically and both designs suffer from feedback to a similar degree. The hardest part for me is finding flat tops with the appropriate neck for jazz. Good luck.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    -As Bob Benedetto says in his book: "The right price is the price the market will bear"-

    my sense of right and wrong are not determined by something as petty as the market.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SOR
    I may be in a minority here but my solution to the acoustic / amplified issue has been to play flat top acoustics unamplified and my Sadowsky plugged in. I have yet to play a strickly acoustic archtop that equaled a flat top in anywhere near it's price range sonically. It must be said perhaps I have not played the very best archtops, but I do feel the flat top design in general is superior when compared acoustically and both designs suffer from feedback to a similar degree. The hardest part for me is finding flat tops with the appropriate neck for jazz. Good luck.

    Cool!

    I played a small bodied mahogany Martin for years in gigs (with a magnetic fisman pickup added) because it behaved much better (feedback wise) than the early sixties 175 I was meant to be using. I might add that I loved the Sadowsky to bits for public performance - it worked so, so, so much better than any gibson I had used. And this is a simple matter of efficiency (feedback resistance) not an esoteric matter (sound etc.).

    The thing you don't like about archtops played acoustically is precisely what I like about them. There's too much sound with a flattop - not enough clarity and focus. The tone is too rich in overtones etc. so it doesn't get itself across so neatly. (This is all an attempt to capture very esoteric phenomena.) This is apparent both in single note playing and in chordal accompaniment and soloing. The archtop is about punch, focus and clarity not so much about resonance and bell like ringing. Its crucial that you can get warmth with an archtop as well as focus - 'cause if you've got clarity and focus but not warmth you ain't got much. There are lot of forbidding archtops out there that are loud and clear but harsh.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    "Louis Armstrong played like he sung - he didn't sing like he played. Jazz guitarists have to work very hard to achieve the lyricism in phrasing that comes quite easily on a sax or a trumpet. Jim Hall is incredibly good at doing this (and talks about it explicitly every chance he gets - phrasing like a horn player). When I play be-bop type music on the guitar I am in constant danger of sounding like a typewriter - Cannonball Aderly is not in this sort of danger."

    I really never got this line of argument... if you like horns so much you're playing the wrong instrument. There are plenty of clichés sax / trumpet players that don't have no singable / originalm quality in their playing. There are plenty of guitar players with deep original voices and that can play kick ass playing fast and hard bebop tunes (or coltrane changes or what you want). It's not the instrument's fault, is the player's fault.

    "It is important to appreciate how hard a guitarist has to work to introduce lyricism into his playing (people are going to go nuts accusing me of dogmatism here because of this appeal to the notion of 'lyricism'). Ben Webster or Lester Young blows a note and the room swoons - a guitarist plucks a note and it doesn't have the same effect. I love the guitar - I've put a stupid amount of my time into it - but a good deal of that time has been spent trying to learn how to avoid sounding choppy and twangy etc. etc. I haven't managed it very well yet. Still trying."

    Yeah Lester or Ben didn't worked at all, they were born with a sax on their mouth already playing lyrical melodies.

    It's indeed hard not sound choppy and twangy on the guitar and that's your work; most guitar players don't work on sound 10% what most horns do. And in the end you will never sound like a horn because, guess what, you don't play one...

    If you still sound choppy and twangy how can someone take your advice of avoiding laminates and going for expensive full carved seriously?

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    - its just a way of saying I think this particular type of guitar (built to produce as full an acoustic sound as possible) is fabulous (way better than I used to think - and perhaps better than most people seem to think too.)
    Yes, maybe - but for what? A guitar which is "better" for one thing may not be "better" for other things.

    For amplified playing (magnetic pickup), my Painter plywood archtop with reduced body depth gives me the tone I like the best. It's a lousy acoustic guitar, though it can be heard so I can practice without an amp.

    For acoustic playing at lower volume levels, chord melody soloing etc., my Benedetto Fratello is excellent. However for amplified playing, I have never come to like the sound of it's floatng PU. I even find my Warmoth solid body partscaster better sounding to my ears when amplified. Also the Benedetto doesn't take hard strumming well, and heavy strings seem to choke this lightly built instrument. 12's work best.

    For acoustic Freddie Green like rhythm strumming, my 19" Triggs Master 400 is much superior to the Benedetto. It's heavier built and works well with heavier strings and high action and can take everything a strong man can put into it. It's not well suited to delicate finger picking. I don't know how it sounds amplified as there has never been a PU on it.

    When I bought the Benedetto 15 years ago, I wanted to get an "all in one" guitar from one of the most respected makers. The quality of the guitar can't be disputed, but it was a mistake as far as "all in one" goes. I now have separate guitars for separate purposes. The three guitars mentioned above are quite different from each other, but each of them is "better" than the other two - for the specific use they are built and set up for.

    Disclaimer: Just my humble personal opinion, of course, based on my personal ignorance.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    I find the assumption that the acoustic guitar should be a reed fascinating.
    I always viewed it more as a drum and bow deal.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Loads of interesting stuff there oldane. I totally dig what you're saying about the smaller bodied laminate when amplified. The Sadowsky is similar and its amplified sound was incredible. I went with the 'its loud enough for practice' approach for a very long time - and with overbuilt 90s super 400s as well as es 175s and es 150s and Jim Hall Sadowsky's etc. Its really because I'm questioning that attitude now that I'm interested in these topics.

    Two things have changed for me. 1. I've discovered that there's this unadorned acoustic sound an archtop can make that I think is about the perfect sound (for soloing, four in the bar, chord melody playing - the lot). 2. I've discovered that an acoustic archtop (16 x 3) with a floating pickup (or a 17 x 3 3/8 with a built in pickup) can function adequately in small scale performances. Interestingly I might even say that it doesn't function quite as well as the Sadowsky did - but I still prefer it. So not because it sounds better (at least not in public) but because it feels better (and, of course, its hard to spell out exactly what I mean by 'feels better').

    I'm fascinated to hear what you have to say about that Benedetto. I've never had one in my hands so I don't know about them except by rep. I might very tentatively recommend you substitute the Benedetto pickup for a new Kent Armstrong from archtop.com or django books (the bigger the better I think). That guitar should sound great (glorious even) at moderate volumes. I think the KA pickup is a bit softer - warmer than the Benedetto B6 (I've tried both).

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammertone
    I find the assumption that the acoustic guitar should be a reed fascinating.
    I always viewed it more as a drum and bow deal.
    "I think of my guitar as a snare drum in Bb or a hihat in Db." (Freddie Green)

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    I suppose I think of musical instruments as ways of singing that are important because 1) they help you hit the right notes - i.e. help you be in tune - and 2) they help you to sound nice (you don't want to hear me singing). (Polyphony is irrelevant here - chordal passages are just as 'sung' - its just that the piano/guitar makes it so you can 'sing' lots of notes at once.)

    I think its crucial for example that an improviser can sing (however badly) what they play - either in playing it, or just after playing it (and maybe just before playing it too). Even a violinist playing a Mozart violin concerto should (on this way of thinking) be singing the line that they're playing. Maybe its better to say that when one plays a melodic line on an instrument one is singing that line in playing it (using the instrument to sing it, so to speak). That way you phrase musically.

    I used a Herb Ellis video very heavily when I was starting out. you can still get it on amazon - what a fabulous treat it is to hear him playing in this setting. Anyway - he stresses in this video that you must be singing when you play (even if quietly to yourself). He hedges his bets on the fascinating question of whether one is meant to be playing what one is singing or singing what one is playing (he says it both ways round). He says something like this: 'all the guys do it - all the horn players too - but you can't hear them do it cause they got the horn in their mouth (I really don't know if he's joking at that point - I suspect not). Oscar always did it, Bud Powell did it etc. etc.' Its the one thing he wants to get across in this video (he says that at least once).

    So my reasoning is going like this

    to play any instrument is to use the instrument to sing (this is most obviously true for playing melodies - but it can be stretched even to cover accompaniment) (If it helps - I'm just putting this forward for discussion not presenting it as an obvious truth).

    when the sound you're making comes out of a box some feet away from you - when it is produced by an amplifier as well as by your fingers/pick - it is harder - not easier - to use the guitar to sing with.

    this encourages me to get into, for example, learning how to play more dynamically (with lots of variety between louder and quieter passages) without reliance on turning a volume knob up or down - and exploiting the different textures I can get out of the instrument with different use of my hands on it rather than by changing eq settings etc. Then the idea is to find a way to make all this a bit louder so that other people can hear it, on occasion.

    I find myself more and more drawn to the view that the amplifier etc. makes it harder to learn how to play this instrument really well, not easier. Other instrumentalists don't have to deal with anything like it - and I think that is a good thing for them.

    All just offered in the name of a frank and open exchange of views...

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    I've discovered that an acoustic archtop (16 x 3) with a floating pickup (or a 17 x 3 3/8 with a built in pickup) can function adequately in small scale performances. Interestingly I might even say that it doesn't function quite as well as the Sadowsky did - but I still prefer it. So not because it sounds better (at least not in public) but because it feels better (and, of course, its hard to spell out exactly what I mean by 'feels better').
    Through my 45 years with guitars, the "feel" or playing comfort has meant less and less to me and the sound has become more and more important. When I was young, I was obsessed with low action and ease of playing. Now, I will not let some physical work get between me and the best tone. I know I have a deliberately high action on my Triggs, but friends also tell me that the action on my other guitars is high. Maybe so, I am used to it and just don't want the strings to slap and buzz. Freddie Green is an extreme example of a non-compromize attitude. He went for his monstrously high action deliberately so he could play in his very unique style with those half muted tones (his "one note chords" were often "1½ note chords") and that loud volume. When other guitarists commented on his action, he used to say that "it took a while getting used to it" - but obviously he got used to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    I'm fascinated to hear what you have to say about that Benedetto. I've never had one in my hands so I don't know about them except by rep. I might very tentatively recommend you substitute the Benedetto pickup for a new Kent Armstrong from archtop.com or django books (the bigger the better I think). That guitar should sound great (glorious even) at moderate volumes. I think the KA pickup is a bit softer - warmer than the Benedetto B6 (I've tried both).
    Actually Benedettos PUs were made by Kent Armstrong back in the 1990s. On a less costly guitar, I would have considered a PU swap, but I have other guitars which work very well amplified for me, so I'll have to think of the resale value of the Benedetto. I think a PU swap would reduce it's value significantly. That said, I don't think my disliking of the amplifeid sound of the Benedetto is due to the PU alone. I think the concept of the floating PU plays a role too. But then, I bet I don't want the same tone through the amp as you do. Many people - likely you too - will like the amplified sound of the Benedetto and its floater because it's closer to an acoustic tone than a guitar with a built in PU. I lean more in the direction af Jim Hall, Jimmy Raney and Tal Farlow in the 1950s - and for this the Painter set up with heavy flatwounds is perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    I used a Herb Ellis video very heavily when I was starting out. you can still get it on amazon - what a fabulous treat it is to hear him playing in this setting. Anyway - he stresses in this video that you must be singing when you play (even if quietly to yourself). He hedges his bets on the fascinating question of whether one is meant to be playing what one is singing or singing what one is playing (he says it both ways round). He says something like this: 'all the guys do it - all the horn players too - but you can't hear them do it cause they got the horn in their mouth (I really don't know if he's joking at that point - I suspect not). Oscar always did it, Bud Powell did it etc. etc.' Its the one thing he wants to get across in this video (he says that at least once).
    ... Errol Garner did it, Count Basie did it. And it's interesting to listen to the great scat singers who were also instrumentalists - say, Louis Armstrong, Roy Eldridge, Dizzy Gillespie. They sang just like they played (or vice versa).
    Last edited by oldane; 07-04-2012 at 04:52 PM.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    In suggesting that there's a great deal of musical value in typically hand made solid wood archtop guitars I am one of these instrument gear freaks who is messing everything up and obsessing over irrelevant trifles when there is important musical work to be done.

    There's so many things to say to this I don't know where to start.

    The question is whether - if we're playing acoustic jazz on a guitar in a mainstream sort of way - we are playing an essentially acoustic instrument or an essentially amplified instrument.

    I think there are good reasons to think that we're playing an essentially acoustic instrument. If that is right, it makes the difference between acoustic archtops and electric archtops quite significant. Do I have to have electricity and a speaker etc. to make the sound I make with my instrument? That's not a small techie gearie question at all dude.

    Of course I agree that obsessing endlessly over gear is weird and bad (but - you do know what forum you're posting on right?) This is the first time I've ever got into a thread type discussion thing (honest!) - on any internet forum.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    I saw Anthony Wilson playing a John Monteleone archtop last week at a Diana Krall gig.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
    I saw Anthony Wilson playing a John Monteleone archtop last week at a Diana Krall gig.
    Funny, I like his Birdland tone more - he sounds great with the Monteleone but his Birdland / Twin Reverb sound on Diana Krall's Live in Paris is excellent (and probably the only reason to watch the DVD). I also like Bernstein's 175 tone better than his Zeilder tone - I guess that puts me on the laminate elctric side of things.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    "Notice how one of the greatest players of all time isnt really concerned about were the guitar was made, nore what it was made of. He was very impressed with the knobs though and the pickup!!"

    I think his lack of concern for gear is clearly reflected on his far from good tone. But I agree it's wiser to focus on music than on endless gear "revelations".

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
    "Notice how one of the greatest players of all time isnt really concerned about were the guitar was made, nore what it was made of. He was very impressed with the knobs though and the pickup!!"

    I think his lack of concern for gear is clearly reflected on his far from good tone. But I agree it's wiser to focus on music than on endless gear "revelations".
    I think the tone on this is just fine.


  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    I played saxophone for quite awhile. For me it was always easier to engage people on saxophone than guitar. Phrasing does come more naturally. The way saxophone (and voice for that matter) works facilitates this. Bouncing around a lot of large intervals is difficult so you tend to be fluid. You also have more options on what to do with a single note. Still, on guitar, I have heard many players that have wonderful phrasing. There are different options available on guitar that make it interesting. The instruments are quite different but having a line through what you're playing still matters.

    I have no idea what this has to do with high end customs, solid vs laminate, or solid state vs tubes. However, yes, phrasing matters and for me it's easier on saxophone.

    That being said, my efforts at singer/songwriter on saxophone have not gone well.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    I think of his tone as being what I would call "foundational". He's part of that small group of players who came along immediately after Charlie Christian. They were also also immediately after the advent of the guitar amplifier and the built in pickup. They were dealing with very small amps, noisy pickups, and no real history on which to base anything. They, in turn, became the history upon which the genre is based. Like all pioneers, his legacy is much larger when seen in context than out but still, I think this is a pretty cool sound.


  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    I am pretty aware of his historic importance and I agree with most things you said. Just to help my point 1) I love Jim Hall's tone on Jazz Guitar (1957) or Wes tone on FIngerpickin (1959); these records are from the same era of the first Kessel records and they had to deal with most things you mentioned I guess; 2) Kessel's tone showed very little improvement over time and gear improved a lot; I guess it was his choice to focus on music rather than improving his sound.

    My main point his he had a nice sound (or cool as you said) but nothing to rave about. I think this is was mainly his personal choice but I might be wrong.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
    Sorry I wasn't more clear, I am pretty aware of his historic importance and I agree with most things you said. Just to help my point 1) I love Jim Hall's tone on Jazz Guitar (1957) or Wes tone on FIngerpickin (1959); these records are from the same era of the first Kessel records and they had to deal with most things you mentioned I guess; 2) Kessel's tone showed very little improvement over time and gear improved a lot; I guess it was his choice to focus on music rather than improving his sound.

    My main point his he had a nice sound (or cool as you said) but nothing to rave about. I think this is was mainly his personal choice but I might be wrong.
    You're probably right and I'm just prejudiced because Kessel played a much larger role in my own playing history than either Hall or Montgomery.