On Friday, September 29, 2000 at 9:00:00 AM UTC+2, Dick Onstenk wrote:

Hi gang,
My favorite Jazz CD reference book is the the "Penguin Guide to Jazz CDs".
It is an important and fantastic guide to purchasing Jazz CDs with really knowledgeable reviews of all current and classic Jazz Cds. You will find any Jazz guitar player in it (well, most of 'm anyway). What strikes me is that instances of 4 star reviews - the rating for important and challenging Jazz albums - of Jazz guitar CDs are very, very rare. Maybe just a handful of classic recordings. Usually the reviewers find the guitarist in question (be it Martin Taylor, Jimmy Bruno, Peter Leitch or Bruce Forman) to be
ruminating material that has been done better by Django, Wes or Tal anyway. It seems to me the whole guitar thing is depicted as a rather unimportant branche in Jazz that is of marginal interest only. Modern players are
usually presented as "more of the same."
In addition, I encounter this attitude in my national Jazz Magazine all the time. Jazz guitar is cool but hey, don't take them Wes clones too seriously. Martin Taylor's latest album "Kiss and Tell" was reviewed as follows: "However his playing is pure craftsmanship only. It is dull. His music is like a nice meal in an utterly boring restaurant. It all makes sense ....
but it makes you yawn."
I find this quote very characteristic of a Jazz guitar album review.
Also in Jazz literature (which I read a lot) the guitar is usually depicted as a side-instrument and a generally not-so- interesting development of
Jazz.
What's going on? Are my heroes all playing the same ole' shit all the time? Is Mainstream Jazz guitar that repetitive, predictable and boring to non-guitarists? Are we all just marginal side-men in the Jazz show?
Any views on this?
Greetings from Holland,
Dick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar players compared to
keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz. This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the technical aspects of cliched pattern playing. It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100 years. I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder what is the motivation to
be a "jazz guitar" player. There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxter9944@gmail.com>
wrote:

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz.

I disagree; I think it is well suited to harmonic innovation, particularly since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for example.

I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.

This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.

Share by all other jazz musicians, who are no more or less "creative" with every breath.

It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100 years.

You think they should use non-standard tunes to illustrate various concepts? I can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.

I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.

What's the motivation to be a clarinet player?

There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long time.

Apparently there are the ears of others to consider, and they have made other choices--who could have imagined?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-8, gtr wrote:

On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxte...@xyzDOTxyz> wrote:

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar
players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz.

I disagree; I think it is well suited to harmonic innovation, particularly since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for example.

I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.

This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.

Share by all other jazz musicians, who are no more or less "creative" with every breath.

It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100 years.

You think they should use non-standard tunes to illustrate various concepts? I
can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.

I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.

What's the motivation to be a clarinet player?

There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems
more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long time.

Apparently there are the ears of others to consider, and they have made other
choices--who could have imagined?

There is a tendency and history of guitarists looking at harmony as "chunks" of sound rather than independent voices, due in part to the geography of the fretboard and the guitar's transposable nature, not to mention the guitar's "outsider" status, where
guitarists learn and develope in a seemingly parallel universe, blissfully unaware of the instruments potential.
This doesn't mean that the guitar isn't capable of being used to play beautiful voice-leading and contrapuntal ideas, open and spread voicings, etc.

Off topic - this place looks to have calmed down a little. Hope it's not my imagination.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sep 9, 2023 at 3:27:12 PM PDT, "Russ L" <russ.bkitchen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-8, gtr wrote:

On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxte...@xyzDOTxyz>
wrote:

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself >>> particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar
players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz.

I disagree; I think it is well suited to harmonic innovation, particularly >> since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for
example.

I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar >> players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.

This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the >>> technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.

Share by all other jazz musicians, who are no more or less "creative" with >> every breath.

It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been >>> recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100 >>> years.

You think they should use non-standard tunes to illustrate various concepts? I
can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.

I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder >>> what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.

What's the motivation to be a clarinet player?

There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems
more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long >>> time.

Apparently there are the ears of others to consider, and they have made other
choices--who could have imagined?

There is a tendency and history of guitarists looking at harmony as "chunks" of sound rather than independent voices, due in part to the geography of the fretboard and the guitar's transposable nature, not to mention the guitar's "outsider" status, where guitarists learn and develope in a seemingly parallel
universe, blissfully unaware of the instruments potential.

Harmony is chunks of sound. Regarding the conceptualization of voice leading,
I don't think pianists, accordionaists, or harpists are any less inclined to consider chords as static items in a series. In general I don't think they think of each finger like a differen horn in a section.

This doesn't mean that the guitar isn't capable of being used to play beautiful voice-leading and contrapuntal ideas, open and spread voicings, etc.

Off topic - this place looks to have calmed down a little. Hope it's not my imagination.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 09/09/2023 um 22:27 schrieb Russ L:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-8, gtr wrote:

On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxte...@xyzDOTxyz>
wrote:

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself >>> particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar
players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz.

I disagree; I think it is well suited to harmonic innovation, particularly >> since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for
example.

I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar >> players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.

This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the >>> technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.

Share by all other jazz musicians, who are no more or less "creative" with >> every breath.

It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been >>> recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100 >>> years.

You think they should use non-standard tunes to illustrate various concepts? I
can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.

I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder >>> what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.

What's the motivation to be a clarinet player?

There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems
more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long >>> time.

Apparently there are the ears of others to consider, and they have made other
choices--who could have imagined?

There is a tendency and history of guitarists looking at harmony as "chunks" of sound rather than independent voices, due in part to the geography of the fretboard and the guitar's transposable nature, not to mention the guitar's "outsider" status,

where guitarists learn and develope in a seemingly parallel universe, blissfully unaware of the instruments potential.

This doesn't mean that the guitar isn't capable of being used to play beautiful voice-leading and contrapuntal ideas, open and spread voicings, etc.

Off topic - this place looks to have calmed down a little. Hope it's not my imagination.

My 2 pence on this. I recently subscribed to this NG so I might have
missed chunks of this thread.

But I agree with the title " Is Jazz Guitar playing boring to
non-guitarists?".

I used to be a mediocre jazz guitarist and I boy I loved it, but now, in
my mid 50s, I find it extremely boring and full of unnecessary
virtuosism (I blame the Django revival for this).

This has led me to start afresh with the tenor guitar. Having only 4
strings and being tuned in 5ths, it makes you think at focussing on the essentials (melody, harmony or both).

The world needs a 5-string guitar tuned in 5ths. The original Italian
guitar was indeed only 5 strings.

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sep 11, 2023 at 2:35:07 AM PDT, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 09/09/2023 um 22:27 schrieb Russ L:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-8, gtr wrote:

On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxte...@xyzDOTxyz>
wrote:

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself >>>> particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar
players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz. >>> I disagree; I think it is well suited to harmonic innovation, particularly >>> since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for

example.

I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar >>> players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.

This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the >>>> technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.

Share by all other jazz musicians, who are no more or less "creative" with >>> every breath.

It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been >>>> recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100 >>>> years.

You think they should use non-standard tunes to illustrate various concepts? I
can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.

I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder >>>> what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.

What's the motivation to be a clarinet player?

There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems
more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long >>>> time.

Apparently there are the ears of others to consider, and they have made other
choices--who could have imagined?

There is a tendency and history of guitarists looking at harmony as "chunks" >> of sound rather than independent voices, due in part to the geography of the >> fretboard and the guitar's transposable nature, not to mention the guitar's >> "outsider" status, where guitarists learn and develope in a seemingly
parallel universe, blissfully unaware of the instruments potential.
This doesn't mean that the guitar isn't capable of being used to play
beautiful voice-leading and contrapuntal ideas, open and spread voicings,
etc.

Off topic - this place looks to have calmed down a little. Hope it's not my >> imagination.

My 2 pence on this. I recently subscribed to this NG so I might have
missed chunks of this thread.

Nope, it's all here in this thread.

But I agree with the title " Is Jazz Guitar playing boring to non-guitarists?".

I used to be a mediocre jazz guitarist and I boy I loved it, but now, in
my mid 50s, I find it extremely boring and full of unnecessary
virtuosism (I blame the Django revival for this).

This has led me to start afresh with the tenor guitar. Having only 4
strings and being tuned in 5ths, it makes you think at focussing on the essentials (melody, harmony or both).

The world needs a 5-string guitar tuned in 5ths. The original Italian
guitar was indeed only 5 strings.

There were many predecessors and "originals", including the lute and oud. I
use to play the Puerto Rican Cuatro (curiously five courses for a total of 5 strings). All these instruments have their positive qualities, and virtuoso proponents.

As a response to the "boredom" of virtousitiy (there's a contradiction!), I'm reminded that everybody brings their own version of "boredom" with them. I blame nothing on Django and love most of his work, but I weary of the narrow dynamic and melodic range of his many imitators as I do the sometimes purely athletic skills of all instrumentalists when that's all they pursue: dazzling the audience with acrobatics.

With each passing year I have more admiration for music of the 20s through the 40s, most of which others find "boring" for any number of reasons. I love old songs done well, and the old material still lives for very good reasons, while the "repertoire" of modern jazz musicians seems to vanish almost immediately. Go figure.

Nevertheless I support your highly individual goal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-7, gtr wrote:

On Sep 11, 2023 at 2:35:07 AM PDT, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavREDACTED...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 09/09/2023 um 22:27 schrieb Russ L:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-8, gtr wrote:

On Jan 24, 2023 at 8:25:56 AM PST, "Marc St-Jean" <baxte...@xyzDOTxyz> >>> wrote:

Pretty much spot on assessment, I would say. Guitar does not lend itself
particularly well to harmonic innovation partly because of the way it is often
learned and the well documented short falls in general musicianship of guitar
players compared to keyboard players, for example, particularly in jazz.

I disagree; I think it is well suited to harmonic innovation, particularly
since it is capable of harmonic innovation unlike wind instruments, for >>> example.

I know of no "well documented" shortfalls in general musicianship of guitar
players that doesn't apply to any other instrument.

This leads to a lot of muscle memory playing and imitation stressing the
technical aspects of cliched pattern playing.

Share by all other jazz musicians, who are no more or less "creative" with
every breath.

It is mind boggling to see how many utube videos are dedicated to jazz guitar
playing and instruction based on "jazz standards" that have already been
recorded and performed by brilliant, innovative artists for close to 100
years.

You think they should use non-standard tunes to illustrate various concepts? I
can't imagine that would make ideas easier to learn.

I can't imagine many non-guitar players have any interest in it and wonder
what is the motivation to be a "jazz guitar" player.

What's the motivation to be a clarinet player?

There's lots of other music, inherent to the instrument's history that seems
more pleasant to my ears, even though I have played guitar for a very long
time.

Apparently there are the ears of others to consider, and they have made other
choices--who could have imagined?

There is a tendency and history of guitarists looking at harmony as "chunks"
of sound rather than independent voices, due in part to the geography of the
fretboard and the guitar's transposable nature, not to mention the guitar's
"outsider" status, where guitarists learn and develope in a seemingly
parallel universe, blissfully unaware of the instruments potential.
This doesn't mean that the guitar isn't capable of being used to play
beautiful voice-leading and contrapuntal ideas, open and spread voicings, >> etc.

Off topic - this place looks to have calmed down a little. Hope it's not my
imagination.

My 2 pence on this. I recently subscribed to this NG so I might have missed chunks of this thread.

Nope, it's all here in this thread.

But I agree with the title " Is Jazz Guitar playing boring to non-guitarists?".

I used to be a mediocre jazz guitarist and I boy I loved it, but now, in my mid 50s, I find it extremely boring and full of unnecessary
virtuosism (I blame the Django revival for this).

This has led me to start afresh with the tenor guitar. Having only 4 strings and being tuned in 5ths, it makes you think at focussing on the essentials (melody, harmony or both).

The world needs a 5-string guitar tuned in 5ths. The original Italian guitar was indeed only 5 strings.

There were many predecessors and "originals", including the lute and oud. I use to play the Puerto Rican Cuatro (curiously five courses for a total of 5 strings). All these instruments have their positive qualities, and virtuoso proponents.

As a response to the "boredom" of virtousitiy (there's a contradiction!), I'm
reminded that everybody brings their own version of "boredom" with them. I blame nothing on Django and love most of his work, but I weary of the narrow dynamic and melodic range of his many imitators as I do the sometimes purely athletic skills of all instrumentalists when that's all they pursue: dazzling
the audience with acrobatics.

With each passing year I have more admiration for music of the 20s through the
40s, most of which others find "boring" for any number of reasons. I love old
songs done well, and the old material still lives for very good reasons, while
the "repertoire" of modern jazz musicians seems to vanish almost immediately.
Go figure.

Nevertheless I support your highly individual goal.

I think this is the oldest thread I've ever posted to - by a lot.
Hunanity had just gotten over the Y2K hysteria when this thread started.
This has got to be the oldest thread I've ever posted to.
Humanity was just getting over the Y2K hysteria when this baby started.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)