Page 4 of 5

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:54 pm
by Bob the Builder
CafeSavoy wrote: Ia it true that Freddie Green thought that former banjo players made the best rhythmic guitar players?
The Banjo in my local jazz band keeps my feet a lot happier then when he switches to guitar. Then againn I like the way a guitar softens a double bass.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:38 am
by Campus Five
CafeSavoy wrote:
Campus Five wrote:CC didn't play pure rhythm guitar. And when he did play rhythm guitar he rolled off the volume. Plus, it was in the small groups and he is barely audible in the studio. He certainly wouldn't be audible live w/o turning up.
Ia it true that Freddie Green thought that former banjo players made the best rhythm guitar players?
I've never heard that. You can check www.freddiegreen.org for a library of his quotes and quotes about him.

Most guitar players started on banjo before the move to guitar at the beginning of the swing era, and doubled on it when necessary.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:31 am
by Albert System
If you are just playing rhythm, using guitar or banjo to play 4 to the bar would not make much difference- except of course that banjo has a brighter tone.

If you are playing solos, it would sound a lot different. You can hear 4 to the bar banjo playing in a lot of early recordings by famous swing bands including Ellington, Moten, Russell etc.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:47 am
by Campus Five
Albert System wrote:If you are just playing rhythm, using guitar or banjo to play 4 to the bar would not make much difference- except of course that banjo has a brighter tone.

If you are playing solos, it would sound a lot different. You can hear 4 to the bar banjo playing in a lot of early recordings by famous swing bands including Ellington, Moten, Russell etc.
I would disagree and say there is a difference. Banjo players often played 4 to the bar even in 2/4 tunes. When you get more into banjo and tuba land, you start going into hot jazz territory. The early artists you mention would not fall in my personal definition of "Swing" and but rather into my earlier categorization of "hot jazz" or "pre-swing." Bear in mind I may well draw the boundaries differently. My definition of "Swing" is rather narrow.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:49 pm
by julius
Interesting reading for guitar nuts:

http://www.freddiegreen.org/instruments/guitars.html

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:22 am
by Albert System
To quote Harvey Korman in "High Anxiety": "You're so strict!"

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:13 pm
by Campus Five
Albert System wrote:To quote Harvey Korman in "High Anxiety": "You're so strict!"
Yes. Yes, I am. For me it helps me understanding things more clearly, when make the seperations more distinct. Especially when most jazz musicians haven't a clue about pre-bop jazz, or think that all pre-bop jazz is dixieland (striped suits and straw hats).

When I hire guys, I want a drummer that plays like Gene Krupa or Jo Jones or Dave Tough, or Sid Catlett or Nick Fatool, etc in the late 30's/ early 40's. NOT like Ben Pollack or George Wettling or Ray Baduc or Kaiser Marshall or Walter Johnson in the late 20's / early 30's. One might all call them all swing, but if I were to do that my band would sound like Dean Mora. I wouldn't want to step on his toes, or any other band in that style. Specificity is important when you want a particular result.

Whatever anyone else wants to call it is their business.

And by the way, you'll notice that I don't use the term "dixieland" interchangably with "hot jazz" or "chicago jazz."

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:49 pm
by Albert System
I know, and I agree with you on all that. I was just trying to kid you there guy!

I understand that you are going for a certain sound, and that you want things to be done in very strict terms. That's fine and your perogative, and also very instructive for teaching people, including other musicians, how to define different genres.

I just find that things tend to overlap in many situations, and I don't think are as easy to put into boxes i.e. strict terms, as maybe you do.

But we are really splitting hairs at this point......... who thought a picture of an acoustic guitar could spark such a deep discussion?

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:35 pm
by Campus Five
Spliting hairs? Probably.

Was this threat about some band originally...? Has anybody heard them yet?

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:37 pm
by julius
Johnny's only 18; as he gets older, his eyes will adjust and he'll begin to be able to see shades of gray like the rest of us old timers.

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:39 am
by Campus Five
That's funny, I thought I was 24. Guess I should check my driver's license to see how old I really am.

I would say that I make things black and white. I'm simplifying to 16 shades of gray.

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:21 pm
by julius
18, 24, it's all the same to old geezers like me.

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:04 pm
by CafeSavoy
julius wrote:18, 24, it's all the same to old geezers like me.
exactly. although now you can buy him drinks.

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:46 pm
by Campus Five
CafeSavoy wrote:
julius wrote:18, 24, it's all the same to old geezers like me.
exactly. although now you can buy him drinks.
And that is all the difference in the world. I'll take a Tanqueray and Tonic by the way. Chop, chop.

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:35 am
by mousethief
julius wrote:18, 24, it's all the same to old geezers like me.
some guy like 'em young and tender, he likes his ten and under.

kalman