Aspiring jazz guitarist...where should I start?

[Jim Soloway]

Originally Posted by comealongway

ok so why can al dimeola, mclaughlin, rabin, adam rogers, ritenour, bireli, may, etc etc all play all 3 kinds of guitars and make it work?

No one said it can't be done by anyone, rather that it can't be done by everyone. Those are two very different statements. Some techniques will transfer well, others not so much and some players invest heavily in refining their techniques on radically different instrument types, again other not so much. BTW, as for your approach to logic, I would recommend that you consider reading "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb. To suggest that "if some can all can" is a classic and common flaw in logic. It's akin to saying "these four black cars are very fast, therefore all black cars should be very fast".

[The bear]

Wonder how Segovia would have sounded on a Kramer with a Floyd-rose?

[scottl]

I have all three types and make it work....

But, I play differently depending on the axe and the axe type....

Originally Posted by comealongway

ok so why can al dimeola, mclaughlin, rabin, adam rogers, ritenour, bireli, may, etc etc all play all 3 kinds of guitars and make it work?

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by dewey decibel

Well that is a killer rig for sure. Definitely beats my meager Harman Kardon 330B and Technics turntable. But sounds more like the real thing? Isn't that subjective? Does that mean I can't enjoy listening to music through my rig as much as you can through yours? How about listening to my iPod playing MP3s through earbuds? Most people feel tubes color the sound, if so obviously it can't sound more like the real thing then.

Besides that, didn't you know that ALL jazz guys use solid state amps these days?

Thanks, and like most in audio ones rig is ever evolving. Receivers are economical, and great for the masses, or off axis non-critical listening. If a listener has been accustomed to listening to receivers they're in for a major change when switching from an all in 1 built device to separate components. That's a factual statement known to audiophiles.

As to tubes vs. solid state, that's been a debate among audiophiles since the 60's. Among 'philes it's an accepted fact that tubes project a warmth and realization not experienced listening to SS. And, it's a known fact that a SS amp, not receiver, will control a wider variety of low impedence loudspeakers, especially in the low frequency range, but where SS runs aground is in the midrange and upper frequency delivery. It requires a high watt tube amp to duplicate that same level on low impedance speaker loads. Check out http://www.audiogon.com forums anytime you'd like to learn more. Here's one such AG forum article from a user suggesting "SS" doesn't do it for him: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...sistors-Don-t-

Yes, some tubes are known for coloring the music. Many more aren't. That's the beauty of tubes, they're so plentiful and of various varieties one can sample different types until they create just the sound they desire. You've got your NOS (new old stock), your vintage tubes, Russian tubes, Chinese which also create 40% of the world tube market, Czech tubes, on and on. One can't access a never ending variety with a SS transistor built device for they aren't designed with user friendly modifications in mind. But even some SS components lend themselves to modification via secondary aftermarket upgrades performed by audio gurus such as Modwright in the Portland, Oregon area.

And as much as I love the convenience of my iPod away from home, I'd not dream of listening to the iPod at home through my system unless it's being run through my home system and up converted through Pure Music computer audio, an outboard dac (digital analog converter), which essentially does an upconversion of the signal to a 24/192kHz bit signal. Computer audio has come a long way the past 2 years. That's reserved when one wants to chill out. When you're ready to listen to serious audio there is no better music performance than to be had via VINYL playback. It doesn't require an ultra expensive $50k tt-stylus-tonearm combination to get you there, but be prepared to spend $1k on your tt alone. Vinyl yields far greater dynamic ranges than the best digital today. One doesn't have to test that theory for one can hear the difference with their own ears. Vinyl is so much more real and dynamic it's no contest.

No wrap against SS guitar amps, for I own a Hendriks Jazzamp myself. It's light, convenient to carry. But I prefer the warmth of my Heritage Kenny Burrell. Tubes, there's nothing like them for audio. Turn off the lights and that glow is oh so soothing...but in the end there's no way a receiver will drive my former Martin Logan CLS' electrostats that commonly dip down to a 1 ohm load.

<center>

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by russ6100

So what's motivating you to take the cheap shot at my nothing website?

Because I don't agree that ownership of the venerable arch-top isn't a prerequisite for playing real jazz?

Nice. Stay classy!

No ill minded intent. My apologies. I merely took the same sarcastic approach you did with 'just sayin'. I knew if you were a serious jazz artist you must have known bebop required a more in depth revelation than Pop's quote. Olive branch?

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

I had about five hours of driving into central Washington yesterday without a lot to do and I found myself thinking about this post. It occurred to me that you and I see guitar very differently and your reference to the digital keyboard may be the reason why.

I don't see the electric guitar and the electronic keyboard as being at all analogous. With the keyboard, the key is a switching device which activates circuitry which then creates the sound. With the electric guitar, it is still very much an acoustic instrument. The player creates the sound by striking the string which causes both the string and the guitar to vibrate. The pickups are essentially microphones, both coloring the sound and making it louder, but it is the player and the instrument that actually make the sound. That is true whether the body is fully hollow, partially hollow, or predominantly solid. Those construction methods will cause the instrument to vibrate in different ways, producing different tonal properties, but when I sit down and play an electric guitar, it is still about the interaction between the player and an acoustic instrument, regardless of what the construction method is.

I appreciate the thoughtful in depth description.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself as thoroughly as needed to be. I was referring to acoustic instruments, i.e., real vs. digital pianos that project completely different aural and tonal performances than solid state, i.e., synthetic instruments. Same note, different aural presentation to the ear.

Most audiophiles have a developed aural sense acquired from years of on axis listening to minute details played back through very decent equipment, and we listen quite differently than an average listener. The equipment may be electronic in nature, but the loudspeaker choice one uses to produce the tone (signal) is for the most part, acoustic. Such as this speaker, that has no crossover, and due to its 101dB efficiency level requires but 2 watts of tube amplification to fill any average sized room with more than adequate listening levels.



An acoustic piano note has natural harmonic overtones that are born of a spruce top and strings. I strive to colorize the natural source as least as possible, but requiring an amp for a guitar, in the same manner I require an amp for a loudspeaker, I desire to minimize the amp in order to hear the instrument (guitar or acoustic speaker) not the electronics.

That entire personal approach aside, one doesn't need a highly trained ear to hear the aural differences between an archtop and a hard top guitar. When I'm playing an archtop I'm hearing acoustic properties of the guitar not produced by a single hard top player I've heard. That I believe is because archtops are a different design from hardtops. Remove the spruce top, and it's an entirely different game. I'm not referring to diferences in guitar playing style, but instead wood characteristics.

The difference is not slight, aside from the natural brightness projected by hard tops vs. archtop's.

Archtop jazz guitars project natural woody harmonic overtones that are an integral part of the tone played back through an electronic source component (amp). Does that better clarify my earlier post?

[scottl]

At least you have Trane front and center!!

Oh, and for archtop buffs, I really dig Jesse Van Rullers tone and playing!!! Amazing.

[russ6100]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

No ill minded intent. My apologies. I merely took the same sarcastic approach you did with 'just sayin'. I knew if you were a serious jazz artist you must have known bebop required a more in depth revelation than Pop's quote. Olive branch?

Olive branch accepted. I had no sarcastic intent - just trying to show that there is no objective truth when it comes to this kind of stuff and that there are some folks that we hold up as legends in the jazz world that didn't like bebop at all.

[NeuroLogic]

Here is a tip, move your speakers approx. 2/3rds into the room, not close to the back wall. This will open up the audio sound stage. Also, install acoustic dampers on the ceiling-wall corners. Slightly miss-angle in the speakers, you will hear a whole new stereo. A room 20ft. wide is the best if possible, speakers approx. 15th ft. apart.

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by russ6100

Olive branch accepted. I had no sarcastic intent - just trying to show that there is no objective truth when it comes to this kind of stuff and that there are some folks that we hold up as legends in the jazz world that didn't like bebop at all.

Mighty big of you.

And if the prevailing jazz climate at that time was so 'bop crazed Diz and Bird may not have ventured to the west coast when they did, for the 'coast was doing its own thing at the time. Perhaps by that time 'bop had run its course in NY.

I've forgotten where it established in Diz' bio whether he ventured out to the 'coast in an attempt to spread 'bop, or out of financial necessity. My guess would be probably the latter.

[2bornot2bop]

I've often thought of dippin' a toe in the water by sampling a semi hollow. That didn't work out too well with a Heritage 555, but this D'Angelico semi hollow sounds and looks promising.

Anyone ever sampled one whose also a tele jazz believer?

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by NeuroLogic

Here is a tip, move your speakers approx. 2/3rds into the room, not close to the back wall. This will open up the audio sound stage. Also, install acoustic dampers on the ceiling-wall corners. Slightly miss-angle in the speakers, you will hear a whole new stereo. A room 20ft. wide is the best if possible, speakers approx. 15th ft. apart.

There are countless speaker placement measurements depending on the type of ones loudspeaker and room size. I'd wholeheartedly agree with room treatment acoustics. Here's an audio friends room covered in acoustic treatments done specifically to tame frontwall, ceiling, and sidewall reflections. These are electrostat's operated with individual subs per speaker. The subs (low frequency drivers) are 3' from the front wall to ensure tight musical bass.



2/3 into the room and the bass will lose any tautness and musicality. Experimentation is required depending upon speaker type and room size. I agree that soundstage depth, width, and musicality varies depending upon the distance between speaker width.

[guitarjazz]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

There are countless speaker placement measurements depending on the type of ones loudspeaker and room size. I'd wholeheartedly agree with room treatment acoustics. Here's an audio friends room covered in acoustic treatments done specifically to tame frontwall, ceiling, and sidewall reflections. These are electrostat's operated with individual subs per speaker. The subs (low frequency drivers) are 3' from the front wall to ensure tight musical bass.



2/3 into the room and the bass will lose any tautness and musicality. Experimentation is required depending upon speaker type and room size. I agree that soundstage depth, width, and musicality varies depending upon the distance between speaker width.

Oh, to wish club owners were as concerned about sound.

[Melodic Dreamer]

Originally Posted by dewey decibel

You're going to get a million responses for books and videos (which is cool), but I don't think that's necessarily telling you what you need to learn. It's actually pretty simple, you need 3 things; an understanding of music theory, a way to apply that understanding to your instrument, and a repertoire/vocabulary.

I think it's important to keep these things separate as you learn them. For instance many guitarists learn theory on the instrument. The learn a scale pattern and think, "ok, now I know this scale", but in reality they just know the pattern. Show them another pattern in a different position and they won't realize it's the same notes. Don't be one of those guys.

Learn some music theory and learn how the guitar works. Most people can sit down at a piano and make sense of it, you need to get to the same place with the guitar.

On top of all this is your vocabulary. How you work on this is simple, you do a lot of listening and a lot of playing. In the end what you're listening/playing should guide your learning of music theory and the instrument.

Like I said, it's simple. But that doesn't mean it's easy. Good luck!

One of the best post ever. Great advice right here!!!