Aspiring jazz guitarist...where should I start?

[mike walker]

Ted loved his Tele.
Google Ted, and it'll probs be the first Guitar ya see him with.

What a lovely sound he got too. Then again, he could have played a ukulele and cut a direct path to the heart.

[Jim Soloway]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Judging by the past few responses others aren't aware either. But hey, don't take my word for it, ask folks on a jazz guitar forum why they don't play jazz on a tele.

Granted, the 'gear page' isn't exactly known as a forum of jazz guitar playing, evidenced by the fact that 99.9% of the used guitars in its classifieds are rock guitars and not archtop's.

Enjoy the music!

Jazz forums have the same set of biases as any other. Some remarkable jazz has been played on planks, especially Teles. It doesn't have to look like the guitar in the photos from 1952 to be a good, or even great, jazz guitar. In fact, Lorne Lofsky has gotten some of the very best jazz tones I've ever heard on an Ibanez Roadstar.

EDIT: I should probably also add that as someone who specializes in solo finger style chord melody guitar, if my own guitars weren't available and I had to choose between a really great Tele and a really great archtop for an important gig, I'd take the Tele.

[FatJeff]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Judging by the past few responses others aren't aware either. But hey, don't take my word for it, ask folks on a jazz guitar forum why they don't play jazz on a tele.

Wow, that's a pretty snotty response, man. I don't know what your beef is - maybe you feel better when you put others down for whatever gear it is they choose - but perhaps you should go over to that jazz guitar forum you mentioned in a separate post in this thread, and tell everyone there who plays a telecaster that they aren't making REAL jazz on a REAL jazz box. In the meantime, I'll be making music.

[GovernorSilver]

Our own Ken Rosser is yet another great jazz player... and the Tele is one of his favorite axes.

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by FatJeff

Wow, that's a pretty snotty response, man. I don't know what your beef is - maybe you feel better when you put others down for whatever gear it is they choose - but perhaps you should go over to that jazz guitar forum you mentioned in a separate post in this thread, and tell everyone there who plays a telecaster that they aren't making REAL jazz on a REAL jazz box. In the meantime, I'll be making music.

Only the ego is easily offended.

No one has "put others down." This back and forth began by my offering a free lesson alternative and free advice and photographs of a low cost acoustic archtop alternative costing all of $400, that actually plays like a $3k jazz box. A few chimed in suggesting it was unnecessary for the inquirer to replace his tele.

No need to take offense, for in the end any individual will do what he/she chooses without any suggestion from me or anyone else. The type of music one elects to play and what instrument they choose to play it on is a matter of personal preference.

But, it is curious that not one 'tele' jazz advocate has answered the question where would all the jazz greats have been without the existence of tele's. Very curious indeed.

Enjoy the music!

[Jim Soloway]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

But, it is curious that not one 'tele' jazz advocate has answered the question where would all the jazz greats have been without the existence of tele's. Very curious indeed.

Enjoy the music!

All the jazz greats? Certainly, Ted Greene would have been unhappy but Ed Bickert would have been miserable.



Or if you'd prefer something a bit older from when he still had the single coil pickup.

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

All the jazz greats? Certainly, Ted Greene would have been unhappy but Ed Bickert would have been miserable.

Your website and you tube videos display some wonderful looking guitars. Have you ever designed an archtop, or is that just not your thing?

[Jim Soloway]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Your website and you tube videos display some wonderful looking guitars. Have you ever designed an archtop, or is that just not your thing?

I played archtops for about 30 years. Long enough to come to believe that there had to be a better way to make music on a guitar.

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

I played archtops for about 30 years. Long enough to come to believe that there had to be a better way to make music on a guitar.

Your name's been buggin' me, for I'd knew I've heard it somewhere. I knew it wasn't related to hardbody's for I don't own one.

Last year you laid down some very nice tracks on a used Heritage Sweet 16 you were selling over at the HOC. Archtops have a woody tone that aren't in the two video's you posted above. Each sounds very electric. Those Sweet 16 tones you posted on the HOC were very sweet indeed.

http://www.heritageownersclub.com/fo..._1#entry192552

[Jim Soloway]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Your name's been buggin' me, for I'd knew I've heard it somewhere. I knew it wasn't related to hardbody's for I don't own one.

Last year you laid down some very nice tracks on a used Heritage Sweet 16 you were selling over at the HOC. Archtops have a woody tone that aren't in the two video's you posted above. Each sounds very electric. Those Sweet 16 tones you posted on the HOC were very sweet indeed.

http://www.heritageownersclub.com/fo..._1#entry192552

I had a Golden Eagle too. And they both had a lot of acoustic content in their sound (which, I believe is really what you mean when you say "woody tone"). and I agree that the recordings with my own guitars sound decidedly more "electric". Those, I believe are facts. Whether that's a good or bad thing however, is a matter of taste, which is opinion. You're certainly entitled to yours. Mine is different. I think the archtop sound is a nice nod towards tradition but in my mind, that's almost all of what it is.

It should also be noted that those two Heritages were enormously impractical guitars. They both had bodies that were carved solid woods with floating pickups and pickguard mounted controls. So of course, they had a lot of acoustic content. They were both essentially amplified acoustic guitars. Unfortunately, that also meant that they were subject to horrible feedback at anything above a conversational volume level and like most acoustic guitars, they lacked sustain and clarity. In the reality of my daily musical life I much prefer the clarity and sustain of an electric instrument. (It should probably also be noted that those Heritages were both several thousand dollars when new. So perhaps they are not really relevant to the discussion for an aspiring jazz player).

BTW, I'm just finishing up an album of solo guitar and I did use one of Ken Parker's fabulous archtops for four of the tunes. So I am not entirely opposed to arch tone.

[FatJeff]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

[polsab]

http://jazzadvice.com has some really good articles on learning jazz improv.

[comealongway]

there is no such thing as a "jazz" guitar. There are just varieties of guitar designs. it's so funny that the jazz world, which should by definition be the most open-minded group of people, end up very often being the most retro-minded, incestuous idiots around.

[FatJeff]

Originally Posted by comealongway

there is no such thing as a "jazz" guitar. There are just varieties of guitar designs. it's so funny that the jazz world, which should by definition be the most open-minded group of people, end up very often being the most retro-minded, incestuous idiots around.

Please don't extrapolate one person's opinions to the rest of "the jazz world."

[dewey decibel]

You know, I do get 2bornot2bop's point. What he's saying is if you're learning a new style of music, your technique (and along those lines, your instrument) should fit that style.

I agree for the most part, if you're trying to cop an authentic traditional jazz guitar sound it's best to use authentic traditional equipment. Makes sense, right? I guess the argument is whether your learning process or technique will suffer if you don't use such equipment. I personally don't think so.

I learned to play jazz on a Les Paul. There are certainly differences between playing a Les Paul and an L-5, but are those differences going to inhibit you as a player? When I had the Les Paul I thought they did, until I got an ES-175. Granted, getting that trad jazz sound was easier with the 175 but you still have to play it, you still have to do the work. I realized all that time with the Les Paul taught me how to sound "jazzy" on just about any guitar.

Changing your technique when going from a soldibody to a hollowbody is often more about the issues Jim mentioned, like controlling feedback. If you already have your solidbody setup with heavier strings there won't be much more difference than that.

Archtops do have a sharper attack and less sustain, basically a stronger fundamental with less upper harmonics. Archtops are more about snap and 'lectrics more about bloom. I personally like archtops because of that, but there is a reason guys like Jim actually prefer other designs. I know that if I were a solo player like Ted Greene I think I'd prefer having more harmonic overtones, and hearing them cascade into each other with the kinds of arrangements he did. For single note lines I prefer a thick, woody "thud", but that's my bag.

That said, I've played a bunch of budget archtops (Ibanez, Turser, etc) and for the most part they feel and sound like solidbodies to me. I did like those Dearmonds and thought they were pretty decent, and if you've got money to burn, why not? Especially if getting a new axe gets you stoked to spend hours upon hours in the woodshed. But it's definitely NOT a prerequisite.