I gotta be honest, this thread kinda bums me out. I've written several treatises in response, only to delete them because "who cares?" or "nobody wants to read my cranky ramblings". But here we are again...
I get that life is full of compromises, and even my purist attitudes are riddled with compromises (though ones I've deemed either worthwhile or insignificant), but the general attitude of acquiescence just bums me out.
For me, the sound and time-feel of "Freddie Green"-style, i.e. swing-era rhythm guitar, is almost inexorably linked to the natural timbre and decay of an acoustic archtop. And the insistence on that time-feel is literally the reason I started a band, and why I have a music career 20 years later.
I too had heard that "studio secret" that players would use a flattop on a big band recording session rather than their archtop, as though that was a "good" thing. I mean, to the extent that
most archtops in the word aren't built or set up to be even remotely "acoustic" guitars, of course a flattop acoustic guitar is actually a better choice than a plywood box with two heavy-ass humbuckers deadening the top, which is barely being being driven by relatively low action strings, which because they're flatwounds don't decay "properly" (which is to say, like an "acoustic guitar"). Now, I get that for most people out there, or in here, that for the "jazz" they think of when they think "jazz", such a plywood box is actually the ideal tool - but it just bums me out that such a "secret" owes that "jazz guitars" as so divorced from their acoustic heritage that it'd be easier to grab a flattop than own an acoustically viable archtop guitar.
And when I've heard that secret, it was presented as though a flattop is actually better - and that's just not the case. The natural EQ signature of a dreadnaught, for example, is actually a bad fit for the job - way too much bass and treble, plus they have more sustain so they require additional effort to keep the note durations under control. And the whole point is big band music and acoustic archtop guitars evolved together - and the projection and mid-range focus, with less sustain, makes an acoustic archtop the perfect tool for the job. So, it's not so much that the "secret" is false (because you are better off with a flattop acoustic over an archtop that isn't acoustically viable), but that it misses the point: you're ideally going for an acoustic
archtop sound, not merely an acoustic one.
And of course, it's not the gear, it's how one plays it. But, there's a way the gear informs and facilitates the playing, and how the original gear helped shape the style to begin with. If one doesn't know how it's supposed to feel or sound, it makes it soooooo much harder to do on the wrong gear. And without learning on something closer to the right gear/set up, it's similarly hard to ever do right.
But, there's another big dissonance that underlies so much of this discussion, and my bummed-ness about it.
The time-feel of acoustic four-to-the-bar rhythm guitar is somewhat anachronistic to the time-feel of jazz rhythm sections generally once bebop takes hold - and frankly, I think it's often at cross purposes to the rest of the rhythm section. On the rare instances I play with "regular" straight-ahead jazz musicians, the quarter note chunk of four-to-the-bar just seems to clash with the more ambiguous beat of legato walking bass and drums that are mostly ride-cymbal and back-beat hi-hat pedal click. There's a reason, historically, that big bands tended to shed their rhythm guitar players as the 40's became the 50's. Duke never replaced Fred Guy when he retired. I don't know how many of you know the story that Basie didn't hire Freddie Green for his small-group when he disbanded his big band, but that the following week of the small group run, Freddie just showed up and forced himself on the gig. Freddie's insistence is the exception that proves the rule. (
Freddie Green Quotes and Anecdotes )
Just like how "electric archtops" are so far removed from their role as acoustic rhythm guitars, bass and drum gear is similarly removed from that original job. And similarly, if they really knew how to play in that style, a bass player or drummer could make their electric uprights and bebop kits work, but it's way harder, and if they're making those gear choices, what are the odds they are able to do so or even interested in it?
So, to the OP's question/point... if the bass player is playing an electric upright, I would say, what's even the point of having four-to-the-bar rhythm guitar? I'd spend the entire gig clashing with the natural sound and time-feel of the bass, regardless of what guitar I brought. Frankly, I think the tradition of having four-to-the-bar rhythm guitar is often thoughtlessly adhered to by many guitar players and bandleaders, neither of whom actually understand what it's supposed to do.
Importantly, I try not to use "Freddie Green"-style as a term, because while Freddie was thought by many to be the best, his personal style, especially as it evolved during the "New Testament"-era of the Basie band, is idiosyncratic and thus distinct from the general style of playing such the term is supposed to be referencing.
So are there ways to play the style "right" on electrified archtop? Sure - Charlie Christian was doing that in 1939...
Here's Charlie from a jam session in 1939 before the BG Sextet had even waxed it's first studio recordings:
And yes, I'd concur with omphalopsychos about the microphonic character of an ES-150 from that era, but I'd also add that I find the guitar body itself to be more acoustically resonant than most electrified archtops as well. I'd also concur that using something like a GE-7 is a good, modern solution, so that you can tailor an electric sound to the mid-heavy, lower volume tone that would be better for rhythm, and then turn it off for your normal electric tone.
However, I think it's telling that as late as 1942, guitarists in big bands were still playing their acoustic archtops, and separately had an electric guitar if they were lucky enough to be featured for a solo. There's so few examples of this kind of thing, because guitar was so rarely featured in big bands, but I found two:
1. 1942 - Dave Barbour with Benny Goodman from the movie "The Powers Girl", playing "One O'Clock Jump".
Dave is shown playing his 1940 blonde L-5, with it's original white pearl pickguard before he removed it, but then there's an overt pause, as he switches to a pickguard-less ES-150 for his short solo. I mean, they're MIMING and not actually playing here, so why bother, unless that's literally how it went.
2. Here's a 1944 or 1945 Barney Kessel with Artie Shaw's band, where he was a part of the Grammercy Five small group, and recorded a couple guitar solos with the big band. This photo was uploaded in a comment in the Barney Kessel facebook group, so I assume it's ok to put up here. Barney is playing the slanted pickup ES-300 he's playing the film "Jammin' the Blues", but there's an acoustic L-5 on a stand next to him.
So, I always bring two guitars to a big band gig if I'm expected to take a single-note electric guitar solo on top of playing rhythm.
To the OP's question upthread... about the bandleader who doesn't really give time to switch. Well, you have to tell them to give you warning. Most bandleaders know not to write charts where a sax player doesn't have time to switch to clarinet, or a brass player doesn't have time to put in or take out a mute. You just need to inform them of the issue.
Lastly, I'm not opposed to reasonably amplifying acoustic rhythm guitar with a mic. Perhaps someone would see this as a contradiction to my ethos, but like I said, life is full of compromises. The main distinction here, is that preserving the timbre and decay of the instrument are key. And while there are a variety of threads on here where christianmiller77 and I go back and forth about transducers and mics - I don't like transducers, and he can't abide the kind of clip-on lav mics I advocated - either is still so much more preferable to me than magnetic pickup electric guitar.
Circling back, there is a truth to the whole "it's not the gear, it's how you play it" thing, but again, one that while true, sort of misses the more important lesson. You actually have to know how to play it - i.e. what it's supposed to sound and feel like - when you try to render it on the "wrong" gear. And I think there's a lot of jumping past that - and I mean that in the real world, I'm not calling out anyone here. Which reminds me of this video - where a Rockabilly guitarist makes some great points about the value of "authentic" gear versus the value of actually knowing the style and vocabulary. I won't spoil it, but it's worth a watch:
And to this end... everything I've said sort of style assumes one is already playing the kind of traditionally streamlined rhythm guitar voicings. While some of the great original rhythm guitarsists, people like John Truehart (with Chick Webb), or Laurence Lucie (with Fletcher Henderson), were likely playing fuller voicings early on (more akin to the 5- and 6-note voicings many jazz manouche players use), I think the style evolved and coalesced around those streamlined 3-note (or 4 or 2...) voicings because they better concentrated the important harmonic information in the narrow frequency range that allows a rhythm guitar to pop out of a dense big band, especially as the 10-piece bands of the early 30's grew to 14/15 pieces in the late 30's, to the 17/18 or more of the early/mid 1940's and beyond.
Anyway, perhaps someone will find something in this useful or interesting....
KA PAF info please
Today, 11:52 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos