What a difference a Set-Up makes

/

I've always been bullish on action. I mean, since I started playing acoustic archtops, I've believe that pretty high action was necessary to drive the top of the guitar, so that the maximum acoustic volume can be reached. I've had pretty high action for the last 10 years or so, as a result, and even put on extra heavy high E and B strings to try to make those strings even louder. I'd dealt with set up guys before, and many of them had been clueless the needs of an acoustic archtop - one particularly respected place in Los Angeles told me they did all of Lee Ritenour's guitars, and they could "put .011's on and make the action super low." Of course, it's not suprising to see guys with no appreciation or understanding for our style of playing and guitars.

Well, I had an epiphany the other day that really set me straight. I was at Westwood Music, here in Los Angeles, and picked up a 16" non-cutaway archtop made by a Nashville Luthier named Welker. While the guitar was pretty darn good, what really blew me away was how effortlessly it played and spoke. The intonation was spot on from nut to bridge and it required very little effort to make the guitar just sing. I asked the sales guy on the floor who set up the guitar, and he replied "I did." I of course asked if he would be able to set up my guitar if I brought it in, and he said he'd be happy to take a look, and that turn around time would be a couple of days tops. 

Well, this was right before Camp Hollywood, and our 6 night 10th Anniversary run, so I didn't take the guitar in until about the three weeks ago.

When I finally brought the guitar in, I saw the same guy who was stoked to see my Eastman 605. He took a look at it and formulated a perscription. But then he said, "lemme get Dave to take a look at it." My first reaction was "Who the hell is Dave? Screw Dave. You set up that Welker - do the same to my guitar." Of course I didn't say that out loud, but the guy explained that Dave was the guy that showed him everything he knows, so he wanted a second opinion. Dave was really nice, and he basically echoed the other guys perscription, though he would take it one notch further. They asked if I had a couple minutes and they could do it right then - of course I took them up on it. I figured they had that nice Welker still, so I could play while I waited.

When the guitar returned not 20 minutes later, I was stunned. The guitar with the beefy action that I'd been wrestling (and mostly winning) for almost 8 years now played like a dream. The intonation, which had always been a bit compromised with my hybrid guage string set, was now spot on. The action was signifcantly lowered, although it was still high enough to get plenty of volume out of the guitar and not buzz when I dug into the guitar.

But, to be fair it wasn't as loud. And that bummed me out for a second - but then I realized the truth. My previous action was past the point of diminishing returns. I was so high that sustain was compromised, and they led to guitar that was harder to play and less impactful, even if it was technically louder. With such high action, the strings would die the second I released the strings even slightly. So, the guys at Westwood Music found that sweet spot where volume/sustain/playability/intonation all meet perfectly. My guitar has been so inspirining to play because of the set up, that I've been playing more guitar lately than I have in 10 years. Having the intonation be so spot on has inspired me to work more on chord-melody and Allan Reuss-style solos. 

There were precursors to my epiphany, and I should've caught them then. Whenever I visit Old Towne Pickin' Parlor outside of Denver, Kit's archtops are always imacculately set up. He was very proud of his in-house luthier, but there was never time to have him work on my guitar while I was traveling for the gig. Also, last visit to Seattle, Dave Brown, our go-to bassist in town, lent me a reconditioned Epiphone Triumph that had been worked on a set up by www.archtop.com. That guitar was similarly inspiring to play, and I took the opportunity several times to play things on that guitar that I would have generally switched to my electric to play. Still, I didn't realize what I was missing until now. 

I would highly recommend both www.archtop.com and Old Towne Pickin' Parlor to set up your guitar like an acoustic archtop should be set up. And if you're in Los Angeles, you must go to Westwood Music and ask for "Dave" - he knows his stuff!

"Chicken a la Swing" ala Japanese

/
Here's a pretty impressive video I found of some Japanese dudes KILLING IT on a Dick McDonough/Carl Kress number, while appearently playing some beautiful Japanese-made archtops. Really clean work - too bad there's not much to find about the players or the guitars. Still, DAMN. Nice work, boys.

Reader Mail: The Four-Beat Ideal vs. Rhythmic Variation (Part 1)

/

[in the interests of actually putting content up more often, rather than being so precious about it, I've split this up into two articles, and I'm gonna have to add the example clips soon, rather than waiting for them to be ready before I post this.]

YoungWoo Joh, from Orlando, FL recently sent me an email asking me about the interaction of rhythm guitar and piano. Specifically, he was wondering how not having a piano would, could or should change what he does as a rhythm guitarist in his band (the instrumentation of which is clarinet/sax, trombone, guitar, bass, washboard and vocals). He writes: 

 "I had originally just been chunking through the changes (a la 4/4 rhythm guitar), but I've come to feel that lacking both a piano and third horn makes it feel like something is missing. In response to this, I've made my (guitar) playing a little more rhythmically creative, though always going back to the 4/4 as the basic rhythm. In addition to that, I've slowly been working up my chordal vocabulary (inversions and extensions) in order to imply movement and for the occasional fill.

The thing is that all of this is sort of being done experimentally, and I was hoping you could give me a little more insight on what else I could be doing on guitar to help fill out the sound." 

Let's see if any of this helps….

 

The Four-Beat Idea vs. Musical Reality

The four-beat pulse of Swing is an essential and defining characteristic, differentiating it from earlier and later forms of jazz. Rhythm guitar is one the three instruments in a band that is (generally) solely devoted to this pulse (along with the string bass, and and the bass drum). I've argued in the past that the firm foundation of that pulse, is what makes syncopation in swing music really POP and stand out. So serving that goal is the primary mission.
That being said, the reality is that no rhythm guitarist is without occasional rhythm variation. Whether added 8th note shuffles here and there, or more specific rhythmic figures (either in concert with figures in the band, or in contrast to them), these are all part of playing musically, rather than technically or mechanically. 
In the gypsy-jazz tradition, for example, the standard comping pattern, "le pompe" has 8th note shuffles by default ("a-short, LONG, a-short, LONG" or "a-one, TWO, a-three, FOUR"). Moreover, Django himself often played very distinctive rhythm counterpoint to what's going on in the band. [example "World is Waiting for the Sunrise" 1949]
In the American tradition, playing so boldly was much less common. But guitarists like Al Casey in Fats Waller's band can be heard playing accents and variations. [EXAMPLE]

Just because you can, does that mean you should?

If we take service to the four-beat pulse as our prime directive, then generally it is wise to concentrate on that pulse, and eschew additional accents. 
That said, I think rhythmic accents and variations in service of being musical are important and welcome, so long as they do not distract or detract from the beat. The problem comes when there is too much variation, or when variations and accents just aren't musical. The key factors are the number and kind of instruments in the band, and the rhythmic figures being played elsewhere. 
The more instruments there are in the band, the less room there is for rhythmic variation. For example, in the American Swing-Rhythm Guitar tradition, you find a consistent emphasis on the straight four beat rhythm than the gypsy-jazz tradition. Generally the american rhythm guitarists of note were found in bigger bands, not quartets and quintets. 
But even in smaller groups, american rhythm guitarists had much less rhythmic variation than in the gypsy jazz tradition. But of course, in the american tradition it was pretty uncommon to see more than one guitarist in the band. Django almost always had at least one, but often two rhythm guitar players in his bands beside himself. I would argue that Django was free to comp so wildly because the beat was being so firmly established by the other guitarist(s). 
So with more instruments in the band there is less room for rhythm variation, though in a small group, having multiple guitar players can free up one to add accents without the same fear of losing the beat. 

Coming up next...

So in part 2, I'll pick up with hitting musical accent figures with the band, and talk about interacting with YoungWoo's particular instrumentation in the next installment. 

 

Barney Kessel on "Jammin' the Blues" (1944)

/

"Jammin' the Blues" means a lot to me, personally. It brings together Lindy Hop and a unique focus on the musicians who create the music. It was one of the first selections picked to be in the Campus Five's repitoire, and it has closed almost every Campus Five for the last ten years. Some of my proudest and most special moments on stage have been while playing this song. Suffice it to say, I love this film and song.

Shot by famed Life Magazine Photographer Gjon Mili, "Jammin' the Blues" is notable for its inventive look and visual effects, and it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Short Subject. 

But of course, as pretty and striking as it is, "Jammin'" is about the music. It starts off with a jammed slow blues, and segues into a vocal on "On the Sunny Side of the Street." Both are beautiful. However, once the drum solo begins, it gets real. [Side note: Big Sid Catlett is shown playing the first part of the movie, and then he ever so smoothly trades the kit over to Jo Jones - but the audio was recorded seperately first, and so the audio is actually of Jo then trading to Sid] The heavyweights on the session are amazing: Lester Young, Illinois Jacquet (looking downright possessed!), Sweets Edison, Barney Kessel, and of course Jo and Sid. 

Barney Kessel was one of the first to pick up on Charlie Christian's revolutionary approach to electric guitar. His early 40's playing is fantastic, though his bop-influenced stuff later on is what everyone else seems to focus on. Kessel has a couple good solos recorded during his stint with Artie Shaw's big band and small group, the Grammercy Five. "Hop Skip and Jump" and "Bedford Drive" are two Shaw tunes with Kessel solos. 

For a white kid from Oklahoma, it's notable that Barney was included among the all-stars in "Jammin'", especially considering they were all-black. Given the backwards-ass racial climate of the times, Barney was only shown in shadow, and apparently his hands were stained with grape juice for the shoot, so he'd look darker. 

I've been half-heartedly trying to learn Barney's "Jammin'" solo for more than 10 years now. I say "half-heartedly" because I just never sat down to do it right - meaning with something to slow down the audio, and something to notate what I figure out. Well, 10 years got shortened to about 60 minutes tonight, and I finally got it. Since notating the solo was part of what helped me transcribe it (and hear it played back so I could check my work), I figure I could just as easily share it here. 

Barney Kessel's solo on "Jammin' the Blues" (1944) - PDF

Here's the tab version:

Barney Kessel's solo on "Jammin' the Blues" (1944) - TAB - PDF

Here's the video - the solo starts at 1:17:

Rhythm Guitar Book Review

/
Here are some reviews from my perspective on the books currently available on Swing Rhythm Guitar, aka Freddie Green-style. 
Swing and Big Band Guitar: Four-To-The Bar Comping in the Style of Freddie Green by Charlton Johnson (1998) ($19.99)
For now, this is the best book on the subject. Johnson does a fantastic job of organizing the book, beginning first with a short chart of basic chords and exercises with those chords. A rhythm player could easily stick with those basic chords and be a fully functional rhythm player. The rest of the book deals with inversions and voice leading. Much of it deals with drop 2 and drop 3 chords, which are related but not needed for Swing Rhythm Guitar. This is the book that I learned my chords from, and it does a wonderful job a teaching 3-note, Freddie Green-style chords. 
Time-feel, however, gets short shrift. The book only spends two sparse pages on the rhythmic aspect of rhythm guitar, and when it does cover rhythm it does so in a distinctly modern way. It urges playing a “boom-chick-boom-chick” pattern, and mimicking the “chick” of high hats on beats 2 and 4. The sound samples included are of a straight-ahead rhythm section, with legato walking bass and bass drum-less, ride cymbal-based drumming. As an added touch, the electric Super 400 shown on the cover is an unintentional (I hope) harbinger of the book’s overtly post-bop point of view.
Still, until there is something better, this is easily the instructional book on the subject. 
Mel Bay Basic Jazz Rhythm Guitar: Comping in the Freddie Green Style by Corey Christiansen (2002) ($9.95)
It took me a while to get my head around this “book.” Really, it’s just 3 page pamphlet with a DVD.  I was pretty annoyed when I started watching because it really has little to do with Swing Rhythm Guitar, and only uses Rhythm guitar as an example to teach harmony and comping ideas. It’s laughably modern, and electric guitar is used throughout. 
That being said, I think it’s very basic level approach to voice leading and theory may be helpful to some. The way Christiansen walks through how chords are built, and the way inversions lay out. This video is strictly for someone just starting out, and who may be unfamiliar with chord construction or theory.
Rhythm Guitar the Ranger Doug Way by Ranger Doug (May 1, 2006) ($19.95)
Ranger Doug is the real deal, no question. Rather than being a “method book”, Doug simply presents a bunch of tunes and just shows you how he would play them. Several of the tunes are shown with several levels of complexity, so you can start simply, but also see how to make things more interesting. But, because there is no textual explanation of voice leading or substitutions, you can only learn by example. For some this will be sufficient, but if you are like me, you might find it helpful to have some of the reasoning explained. 
 
On the rhythm and time-feel part of the equation, Doug is brief but right on. He talks mostly about right hand technique, and describes the feel properly. I was shocked to read the phrase “chunk-chunk-chunk-chunk” on the page, because I swear I came up with that before I got his book in 2010. He also explains a bit about how and why three note chords are used. Doug describes himself rather humbly, and that humbleness explains the brevity of the time-feel sections, as well as the lack of explanation about the harmonies and substitutions. But, at least what he does say and show is right on.

 

3 note chords - another justifcation

/

I'm very skeptical when I see youtube videos of people purporting to be lessons on swing rhythm guitar. Most of them are complete crap, and you can usually tell by the pick ups on their guitars - I mean because they have pick ups. 

Anyway, I found this clip which gave another reasoning behind the use of three note chords: smooth voice leading. Judging from that 30's-40's Epiphone Emperor, I'm guessing he might have a some idea of what's going on that most of the youtube lessons out there. 

Mr. Clark correctly begins by passing much of the credit for the three-note chord system, usually called Freddie Green-style, to George Van Eps. Allan Reuss studied with George before taking George's spot in the Goodman band, and it was Allan Reuss who gave Freddie Green lessons. But his main point is that 6-string barre chords don't really resolve well from one to the next. The fact that there are a bunch of repeated notes makes for odd leaps and unresolved tensions. 

While I still feel that the main justification for the three note chord tradition is that the timbre of the three note chord cuts through the band better, sonically, it is clear that you can much more effectively voice lead with the three note chords. Here's the video:

Lester Young - Boogie Woogie (1936)

/

A couple months back I posted about the "Do the Math" Blog run by the Bad Plus' Ethan Iverson, who transcribed 18 different pre-1941 Lester Young solos. I've been very slowly working through some of the transcriptions, and I wanted to share some of my progress.

Here is my guitar version of Ethan's "Boogie Woogie" transcription:

Lester Young - Boogie Woogie 1936 (pdf)

This version dates to the November 9, 1936 session of of "Jones-Smith, Inc." which was the same as Lester's famous "Lady Be Good" and "Shoe Shine Boy" solos. Not bad for a day's work, right?

Here is a soundclip of the solo excepted:

And here is the solo in context:

I think two hard parts about transferring Lester to guitar are the bends and the vibrato. With a little practice it sounds pretty good. Good luck and happy woodshedding.

Just watch Freddie for a bit

/

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a 30fps video must worth 30,000 words a second.

With that in mind, just watch Freddie Green for a bit. This the Count Basie Octet from a 1950 Television transcription playing "Basie Boogie." The horn line up a pretty modern sounding one (just listen to how laid-back they are), but the rhythm section keeps things solidly thumping away. Here's the line up: Count Basie, piano; Wardell Gray, tenor sax; Buddy DeFranco, clarinet; Clark Terry, trumpet; Freddie Green, guitar; Jimmy Lewis, bass; Gus Johnson, drums.

This video is probably one of the best for watching Freddie Green's hands working, at least in the "Old Testament" era of the Basie band. Freddie's position just behind Basie means that he's in the frame for much of the clip.

Notice how Freddie is using the "back and forth" strumming method, hitting closer to the bridge on the back-beats, except that he's pretty much staying right in the area around the end of the fretboard. Most people who use the "back and forth" method, have a much greater distinction between the two. Listen the Bass solo especially, because you can clearly hear Freddie seperate from the Bass, and you'll hear four even beats to the bar.

Rhythm Guitar Posture: Yes, it makes a difference.

/

Playing acoustic rhythm guitar can be challenging acoustically. Getting the most acoustic potential out of your guitar is one way to make playing a lot easier. Playing an acoustic guitar helps, as does avoiding things like floating pickups that touch and weigh down the top. Suffice it to say that allowing your guitar to resonate as freely as possible is key.

Aside from spending money a nicer guitar, or removing things that dampen the top, or getting better amplification, there is one very simple thing you can do to improve the resonance and projection of your instrument: change your posture.

If you look at photos of Allan Reuss and Freddie Green, both of them have a similar playing position, and that should tell you something! Both cross their left leg over right, and sit the guitar on their left leg, with the guitar angled back, so that the back of the guitar doesn't touch anything. The neck is angled up a bit, too. This position accomplishes a couple things. 1) Such posture allows the top and back of the guitar to resonate freely. 2) Tilting the guitar up helps the player to hear better as well as project a bit further. And 3), the neck position is a bit more comfortable for playing the chords as well. I've looked at many pictures of Freddie, and his legs might have been different depending on the situation and also I think the size of the guitar, but the angle was always there. In his later years, the angle became more and more extreme, until the guitar was almost parallel to the ground.

Here's some photographic evidence:

Freddie Green has the guitar angled out so that the back doesn't touch his body. Charlie has his guitar in a more conventional position, but still angled a bit.