Jazz Guitar

[Rudi]

I have been casting about for uk luthiers too. 

 

Here is an archtop for sale. The maker has only made one before (for Big Jim Sullivan) this is another of the same design.

 

http://www.alanarnoldguitars.co.uk/LegendPics.htm

http://www.alanarnoldguitars.co.uk/buy_guitars.php

 

He has good references/reviews from what I can see.

[TapperMike]

Wow, that Big Jim Sullivan is amazing. Beautiful grain.That Kent Armstrong floating pickup is to die for.

[Rudi]

Its pretty, but still too expensive.

I'm quite sure its worth it, but its too high to aim for realistically.

I have heard of Kent Armstrong pickups but dont know anything of them. I will check 'em out now.

[Rudi]

Novax slimline jazz model

I like the sound of this thing on this demo. It’s not affordable, nor it available to try (for me anyway).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Is_7LGCYU#t=46

[Rudi]

Now this is affordable, and I hope to find one on Monday. Monday is dedicated to the actual jazz guitar quest.

 

Both vids are reviews and I really like the sound in both of them. Its encouraging that the sound is pretty much the same in both too.

On the + side, the Hofner has a 25.5" scale and an ebony fingerboard. 

 

I love ebony fretboards. They can stand up to all the abuse I give them. Rosewood cant, and its better used on backs & sides. 

 

 

[Rudi]

The Jazz guitar quest was completed today.

 

and the above Hofner HTC-J17 got the gig.

 

Myself and bandmate Pete went to Farnham today and looked over a bunch of archtops. I played 4 fat-boxed guitars. a D'Angelico, two Peerless models and the Hofner. Only the cheaper of the Peerless was seriously considered. That was the New York model. Its was well over twice the price of the Hofner.

 

Those other guitars were a shorter scale. I like a longer scale. The D'Angelico was also altogether smaller in neck width. All the guitars were set up and had very low action. Too low in my view as all exhibited fret buzz in several places.

 

I was wrong about the Hofner having an ebony fingerboard though, its doesnt. It seems closer grained than most rosewood, but it could be rosewood. It seems very odd that Hofner would make both the tailpiece and the scratchplate from ebony but not the frets? Strange.

 

There was a major issue with the Hofner though. Intonation past the 12th fret was sharp. I asked the salesman if he had another, but he didnt. He took it to another staff member who repositioned the bridge. I didnt see him do this, but could tell by the imprint of the former position that he had shifted the bridge backwards towards the tailpiece by nearly half an inch. This solved the problem completely and I bought it there and then. They through in a set of flatwound strings too.

 

Back home again. After taking Pete home I played the Hofner from 4 -7pm and grew to like it more and more. I have measured the 'new' scale at 25.5". (Seems logical now.) I raised the action at the low end, though the low E is still a little bit buzzy, everywhere else is sweet and still just as playable. Tomorrow I will change the strings anyway for the flatwounds. I think these are a heavier gauge, so may fine tune a little more then.

 

The little PU sounds pretty good. I agree with Matt Raines (previous post YouTube reviewer) that even at lowest bass setting, its not muddy at all.

String volumes are even, and clean.

 

The wood (even inside through the f-holes) is evenly patterned maple. Build quality is better than I had expected. Not sure the tuners are that good, they were slipping when I played it in the shop, but the strings are new. After playing it at home, the strings more settled now. I'll keep an eye on the tuners.

 

I started off just wanting a jazz sound. I didnt care how I arrived at it, but having now played a large archtop, I find it very satisfying.

All I need to do now is learn some proper jazz. I thought I could until I heard that Matt Raines feller. He is so good.

[TapperMike]

Wow dig that. 

 

Ebony is graded like any wood Some cheaper grades are stained to look darker and have a looser grain pattern. That being said my strat has a rosewood fretboard that's painted black. It's got more then a few nicks from casual playing.

 

 

I like the Rich Severson Video more. He at least set up his amps eq properly.

 

While I'm fine with 25.5 scale length necks on solid bodies. I'm not as fond with jazz guitars. Mostly it's about "stretch chords" Chords that span 5 frets.

 

 

Rich Severson is one of the better jazz guitar teachers on youtube.

[Rudi]

Rich's evaluation is great. I was struck at how close the 2 vids were tonally.

 

I changed the strings this morning'

supplied were:                 New are:

E 046                                     E 052

A 036                                     A 042

D 026                                     D 032

G 017                                     G 024w

B 013                                      B 016

E 010                                      E 012

 

Quite a difference. I had to raise the action again to finally lose all the low E buzz. I had wondered if the nut height was correct. I mentioned it to the luthier I am using. I had to collect my Jackson today anyway so he said bring it over and lets see. He said the nut was fine as was the neck. So simple height adjustment was the correct solution.

 

Perhaps the fretboard really is ebony then?

 

My jazz chops are basic. You recommend Rich S. then Mike?

[TapperMike]

Rich Severson is great for theory in practice. Developing chord melody constructs jazz substitutions and more.

 

Frank Vignola is great for licks -

[Rudi]

I think 'chords' when playing jazz melody. Sometimes even modal stuff if I possibly can.

 

The Frank Vignola clip is superbly presented. The '2 hands view' is exactly whats needed.

 

Nice one Mike.

 

Guitar:

Getting used to that taut action. String height is still pretty low, but the tension is high with those fatter strings. Its amazing what you can adapt to when you try. At first my hands tired quickly, now I have discovered and accustomed to that 'just firm enough' pressure. I wont be attempting many string bends though!

 

So far as the scale things goes, I find the opposite problem to you. I cant scrunch up my fingers close enough at the upper positions.

My hands are not large. I know one player with massive hands who plays an SG. It looks like a toy in his hands, but he manages just fine. I cant. Strange eh?

 

Maybe you are using some shapes that I dont?

 

On that subject. My first book on jazz guitar was a Mickey Baker one.

I’m 98% sure this is the book. Written in 1955. I got hold of it in about 1973.

 

I never got further than the chords as I don’t sight read music.  But it was some of those chords that got me frustrated. Some shapes were hard to stretch to. I was using a strat then so its likely that it was a longer scale than what he used (Gibson probably), but at that time all I could reason is that he was ‘showing off’ by showing some finger busting shapes that ordinary mortals couldn’t do.

 

I ended up working out simpler shapes for the same chords, though I will have forgotten many of these by now.  I never found much use for some of them anyway. I thought it was a weird book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0825652804?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

 

This fellow thinks more of it than I did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHa35W8cP8

[TapperMike]

In traditional jazz we don't do much string bending.  Part of that is because of the tradition of a wound G string. The other part is.. It's really easy to knock the floating bridge out of alignment. While later jazz guitarists either glued down the floating bridge or opted for a fixed bridge the earlier ones simply rarely bent a note more then half a step. 

 

In regards to extended chord shapes... That's why I prefer 24.5 scale length most of jazz playing is before not after the 12th fret. It's a lot easier to stretch when you don't have to stretch that far.  Also try to choke up on the fret as close as possible. Your finger doesn't have to hit the fretboard for the note to ring out if the fretwork is sufficiently high enough. It also takes less force to and less stretching to greet the fret.

 

Regarding playability.  If you haven't yet pick yourself up some flatwounds.  I know they feel awkward at first but the really do help to reduce finger fatigue.

 

As for sight reading. I can read standard notation, learned later in life then many. I don't keep up with my sight reading.  If you are looking for jazz standards in tab (guitar pro etc) forget it.  While folk, rock, and a lot of other forms have transcriptions...jazz doesn't have a lot...and what's on the market isn't that accurate.

 

 

Here comes the plug that you've read from me for years now....

Band in a box.  I'm sure the last thing you want to do is spend money right now.

 

Even if you get the cheapest version on the market.  I'll usually have biab running in the background when I'm learning licks on youtube.  I'll find a style, mute everything but the drums and loop them.  Then I'll build my speed up slowly.. 

[Rudi]

Hi Mike,

 

Flatwound: Yes, the flatwounds mentioned in #26 are whats on the Hofner now. I have used them before too.

 

String bends: I was not being serious. Just making the point that string tension is high.

 

Also try to choke up on the fret as close as possible

 

not sure what this means Mike.

 

Scale: I have no problem stretching to make chord shapes (I might do if I revisited the Mikey Baker ones). No I have the opposite problem as I said.

 

biab: This an accompaniment program, right? I practice unaccompanied. Its worked well for the last 45 years. I can imagine any accompaniments easily enough. If it has other uses I'm not aware of maybe Ive missed your point here. (BTW, and I don't use a computer for recording either. I use a siab).

 

As far as learning goes generally, I said that my Jazz chop are basic, but they're not that basic. I'm not looking to emulate anybody. I just want to broaden & enhance what I already do. Most of what Ive done has been not mainstream but more influenced by Sam Rivers or Dave Holland.

 

Its true that I am now looking backward to mainstream again (when you say 'traditional jazz' I take you to mean mainstream' not dixieland), but I want to learn to inform my own tunes, not become a sideman and spend my remaining years learning the real book.

 

I do like the videos that you have shown though. I would much prefer to learn stuff this way.

[TapperMike]

Traditional jazz can be contemporary as well...Postmodern jukebox does recent covers in a variety of styles..

 

I never got into Miles Davis though I know a lot of cats who worship him or Alan Holdsworth or Pat Martino. They are so consumed with going off the rails that they leave nothing behind.

 

Holdsworth's stuff sounds like an interlude or bridge in a Steely Dan song.  Which...while I love steely dan they bring things back together and serve up memorable melodies. 

 

The niceties about BIAB.  it's not like one of those cheesy auto accompaniment sections of a cheap keyboard. The parts are more ..Human for lack of a better term. Especially with the Real Styles of the current releases as they are real parts recorded by real musicians.

[Rudi]

Do you also use biab for recording? 

If so, is that a legal maze?

[TapperMike]

I have (sort of) and it's not.

 

Another program included in the suite with BIAB is RealBand. RealBand is a conventional full featured daw like Studio One or Sonar even though it has a simplified environment.  I'll import my BIAB file into real band and then add my audio tracks. along with my melodies and solo's I'll also replace the existing tracks like basslines or the keyboard stuff.  That is basically how I write music these days.

 

Here is something important to remember,,,,Melodies can be copyrighted but chord progressions can't.

 

 

Band in a box has been around for a very very long time now.  In the earlier years people would transcribe songs in BIAB complete with melody and solo sections.  There were a vast amount of sites not affiliated with pgmusic (the makers of band in a box) where people would post these songs. Publishers started cracking down on midi and biab sites where they hosted biab songs with melodies.  As a result most closed down out of fear.  In the wake of that some sites remained open having biab cover songs without the melody.  Thus not being a copyright / publishing right infringement.

 

I've known Bob Norton forever and that is what he does... He creates BIAB style files that he sells separately and.... He offers up free biab accompaniment songs without the melody.  http://www.nortonmusic.com/  That's the legal way of handling things.

 

 

As far as BIAB covers with melodies even though most of the sites have gone I still have ...about 10,000 songs with melodies in my collection. I don't release them on the web.  Many I have in standard legal print format owing to my vast collection of fake books I've collected over the years.

 

Because of the way Band in a box operates it's the preferred tool for jazz guys. It's used in universities around the world for jazz studies. When I was teaching jazz guitar at a local music store I'd often use it as a study guide.  I'd score a quick song w/o melody and export it to midi or wav format for my students to take home with them.

 

Here's the thing about "traditional" jazz and BIAB.  Traditional jazz operates on improvisation. You aren't there to cover a song exactly like everyone else does.  If you go back to the video's I posted  Many of them are playing the same song...Misty.  It's a jazz standard. Yet they aren't playing it exactly the same way. Different harmonies different solo arrangements and different embellishments on the melody. The tradition of traditional jazz is that you don't play it exactly like someone else.  The audience accepts it and you are allowed to be creative (within boundaries).  Much contemporary smooth jazz covers are so exacting it may as well be a rock or country cover.  They (contemporary jazz acts) don't take any liberties with the arrangement.   Band in a box is not like a midi song or backing track. The instruments actually embellish as the song progresses.

[Rudi]

Curious.

 

I had often wondered about chord patterns and reasoned it would impossible to police as so many are common to so many songs. I explained this on the development of 'It Doesnt Matter What I Sing', when my head was swimming with other songs that shared the same chords. I still changed a few chords, but it now seems that I needn't have been so fussy.

[Rudi]

On the subject of the aforementioned song. I was very disapointed in the faster alternate picking sound in the main solo. I reasoned that it was down to sound modeling latency of the Boss 1600cd (which uses GT-6 modeling). 

 

However, I find that playing the Hofner the same way produces a similar undesirable sound. There is no latency here as the playing is entirely acoustic.

 

Its hard to describe, but its as if the full sound of the note needs space to unfold, but cant. The technique I am talking about if what the metal fraternity call 'speed picking'. Sound fine with a nylon string acoustic and with a compressed electric sound.

 

It just doesn't work well with this sort of animal. In itself it doesnt bother me massively. I have no problem moderating speed on the Hofner, but I am puzzled and bothered about what is really going on here .

[TapperMike]

Regarding Trad Jazz. Everything after dixieland and before fusion. with the exception of Miles Davis.  Most of which are covers that my jazz guitar hero's have covered countless times.  Kenny Burrell, Barney Kessel, Joe Pass, Ed Bickert, Tal Farlow, Johnny Smith,Ted Greene, Wes Montgomery. Pretty much anyone who was good at chord melody. That's the last great horizon for me.  Anyone can pull of a decent melody line or strum chords well. Putting them together in a complete package is what separates good jazz guitarists from great ones imho.

 

 

Regarding undesirable tone. Archtop guitars utilize old style tail pieces like ours have a delayed sound. microseconds of delay mind you. That delayed sound is basically less attack then a conventional guitar. It' is somewhat like a compressor set to extremes that swashes the tone at first. 

[Rudi]

Regarding undesirable tone. Archtop guitars utilize old style tail pieces like ours have a delayed sound. microseconds of delay mind you. That delayed sound is basically less attack then a conventional guitar. It' is somewhat like a compressor set to extremes that swashes the tone at first.

 

 

Well that would certainly explain a lot.

And very compressed sound also?

 

I would like to go a bit deeper with this. If it can help me design better sound modeling tone/patches.

I know enough to amend 'attack' directly, but if there are other factors such as compression to consider, I need to understand this.

 

I'm very glad you have pointed this out Mike. It has been bugging me. Thanks

[TapperMike]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to replace the floating bridge and the standard tail piece just yet. Archtops full hollow bodies aren't designed for that type of pressure on the top of the guitar. Just enjoy it for what it's designed for.

 

 

You've opened a can of worms for me. It will take me quite a while to give the subject the full treatment it deserves.  Compressors operate as levelers moderating the levels like a limiter in the process of gain control they also sort of work like ADS(but not R) after the fact. ADSR stands for Attack Decay Sustain and Release.  Different guitars have different ADSR values inherent within them. They are only parts of the greater picture of how a sound is constructed acoustically or virtually. Extreme compression causes Ducking. Ducking affects primarily the attack value of a sound.

 

This is going to take me awhile to properly explain it all