Why do guitarists in jazz trios play with a muddy tone?

Van_Hayden

@Meggi
You've exposed my unrational hatred for all things Polytone! Preferred Evans. I just find them a bit flat.

Other than that I agree!

Always like Pat's tone, especially with Don Patterson on Boppin and Burnin.

Jalapeno

frankus said:

Might it just be that with the treble rolled off all the instruments occupy different frequency ranges.

This.

All depends what you are trying to achieve. Being different from a busy piano player, or horn section for example versus being in a trio where you are the main harmonic instrument (ie. no piano) calls for different tones IMHO.

GuyBoden

mellowsun said:

GuyBoden said:

mellowsun said:

The sax player seemed to be better at improvising a cool melody, whereas the guitarist seem to be more interested in creating harmonic interest.

Yes, creating good improvised "melody" in Jazz is very difficult, mainly due to the complexity of Jazz harmony, with lots of key and chord changes.

Not all jazz is like that though. And why do jazz guitarists tend to noodle more than sax or piano players, who tend to create more interesting, flowing lines?

Have you tried playing Jazz Standards?

Loobs

@ICBM I always thought Rosenwinkel had one of the darker tones.

Jim Hall, Kenny Burrell, Montgomery and Barney Kessel IMO had the best tones.

ESchap

The Blue Note recordings of the mid 50's - 60's, which perhaps set the tone (sorry) for good Jazz tone??  By most accounts apparently using the house (Rudy van Gelder's) Tweed Deluxe.  Though there were some late 50's Ampeg's and a Twin or two for good measure.

Those recordings, many made with P90's, are far from dark or dull. 

ICBM

Loobs said:

@ICBM I always thought Rosenwinkel had one of the darker tones.

Jim Hall, Kenny Burrell, Montgomery and Barney Kessel IMO had the best tones.

Of the ones posted above it's on the bright side! Which is exactly why I think the others are too muddy. It is definitely softer than Wes Montgomery's.

What puzzles me a bit is that most of them are so muffled, you can't actually hear the nuances of what they're playing properly - just the note itself - which seems to me a bit self-defeating if you want to listen to a good jazz guitarist. I certainly think the tone should be warm and woody, but you can overdo it.

EricTheWeary

57Deluxe said:

...is not Muddy it is all the treble rolled off... Reason is, is  that the electrified Jazz Guitar emanates from the era of the 'Big Band' when the guitar was used for providing nothing more than 'wallpaper' to the main tune - expansive but unobtrusive.

I have a George Benson album somewhere the tone is quite shockingly wooly, although he cleared up in later years. But googling this a lot of people give the origins in big band rivvum sections as the origin of the muddy sound. Given that T Bone Walker and then rockabilly guitarists were producing much brighter sounds with essentially the same gear in the 40's and 50's it certainly isn't an equipment issue.

frankus

ICBM said:

frankus said:

guys it's really simple - early guitars only used the neck as it was louder, the sound of the amps was too harsh because they were driven to keep up with the rest of the band (in the days of no master volume amps) to tame that they'd roll off the tone on the guitar (unless the amp had eq).

As for bemoaning the sound - you like the sound of Les Pauls through Marshalls - it's 40 years old!!! Someone likes a sound that's 80 years old SO WHAT?

Just because something was necessary 80 years ago to get around a technical problem in a particular context doesn't mean you should use it today in a different context.

I love the sound of a Les Paul through a Marshall from 40 years ago, yes - but it's a balanced sound which sounds good both in a mix and in isolation.

I also love the sound of a harsh punky fuzz-tone *in a band mix* with a lot of other stuff going on, but not as a solo sound because it's usually just irritating.

It's really hard to put this in context without talking to the band ... it might be he didn't like taking a jazz box to the gig and was trying to get in the ballpark with a less bulky, valuable, fragile instrument.

It winds me up that the default attitude is that the actions someone takes are due to misguidance... the norm (for me) seems to be, people generally have a good reason for doing something... ignorance is a good reason but not the go to.

xSkarloey

@Megii I like that Pat Martino tone. 

Since I posted recently asking for people's recommendations for jazz guitar albums and tracks to listen to, I've been working my way through a lot of stuff. 

I have to say that on balance I haven't heard much that I'd call 'muddy'. 

My favourite tones of those I've been listening to so far have been Grant Green's and Jim Hall's. Rounded is an adjective I'd apply to how they sound, but they don't seem to lack top. You can hear the top end especially when they dig in. 

Jalapeno

Don't confuse "muddy" with soft - Wes played with the fleshy part of his thumb - never going to get glass shattering sparkly attack that way !

ICBM

frankus said:

It's really hard to put this in context without talking to the band ... it might be he didn't like taking a jazz box to the gig and was trying to get in the ballpark with a less bulky, valuable, fragile instrument.

In that case simply listening to the tone and the other instruments should have made it obvious that it was oddly muddy. Just rolling off the tone control or the treble on the amp less would have made it better.

frankus said:

It winds me up that the default attitude is that the actions someone takes are due to misguidance... the norm (for me) seems to be, people generally have a good reason for doing something... ignorance is a good reason but not the go to.

Maybe it's my default position as well, but I always tend to find guitarists generally don't listen properly to their tone in a mix... too obsessed with the sound itself or playing the notes. Admittedly I'm possibly more of a sound engineer who plays guitar than a guitarist.

To be fair, it's usually the other way round - guitarists being too shrill or strident. Possibly the 'jazz tone' is a reaction to that.

Jalapeno said:

Don't confuse "muddy" with soft - Wes played with the fleshy part of his thumb - never going to get glass shattering sparkly attack that way !

Exactly, and his tone is fine.

mellowsun

GuyBoden said:

Have you tried playing Jazz Standards?

I'm not saying it's easy, I'm asking why, if you take guitarist and a sax player and a pianist, of similar competence in jazz, the guitarist's solos will be generally be less interesting than the other two. I wonder if it's to do with jazz guitar idioms that differ from those of the other two instruments.  Is it to do with the particular difficulties of playing jazz on a guitar as opposed to a sax or a piano?

It's not about the number of notes - some of the best solos don't use that many notes.

My feeling is that the tone is partly to blame. Going for a woolly, staccato tone with little sustain means that the opportunity to play sparse, melodic lines that hang in the air is more limited, so the guitarist noodles instead.

beed84

mellowsun said:

GuyBoden said:

Have you tried playing Jazz Standards?

I'm not saying it's easy, I'm asking why, if you take guitarist and a sax player and a pianist, of similar competence in jazz, the guitarist's solos will be generally be less interesting than the other two. I wonder if it's to do with jazz guitar idioms that differ from those of the other two instruments.  Is it to do with the particular difficulties of playing jazz on a guitar as opposed to a sax or a piano?

Perhaps it's more to do with the idiosyncrasy of an instrument and less to do with the solo being interesting or not.  If a pianist, saxophonist, and guitarist were all given the same lick, jazz run or whatever to play the feel of each would be completely different so I suppose jazz wise, it's what you prefer the sound of.  Personally I admire Oscar Peterson for what he can do on a piano, I like the sound of a great sax solo, and I think jazz guitarists do some of the best lead breaks.  Also, if you're looking for interesting jazz guitar lines, listen to Joe Pass.

mellowsun

In the end, it's probably more to do with the fact that the main jazz guitarists I listen to are Metheny, Scofield, Frisell, McLaughlin, and Martin Taylor. So when I hear someone playing in the more trad style with that muddy sound, I tend to think it's sounds a bit old fashioned.

robkay

xxxxx

ToneControl

There's a lot about fashion in this

My Jamaican mate finds it very hard to listen to any music with a lot of treble: rock especially. To him, brought up with reduced high-frequency content, most rock stuff sounds harsh to him. I assume that some like to follow the fashions of the past in this.

Personally, I run my hollow bodies into a nice bright DC30, roll down the tone a little and keep them crisp but warm. I want to hear the subtleties when I just skin or pick, etc

GuyBoden

ToneControl said:

There's a lot about fashion in this

My Jamaican mate finds it very hard to listen to any music with a lot of treble: rock especially. To him, brought up with reduced high-frequency content, most rock stuff sounds harsh to him. I assume that some like to follow the fashions of the past in this.

Personally, I run my hollow bodies into a nice bright DC30, roll down the tone a little and keep them crisp but warm. I want to hear the subtleties when I just skin or pick, etc

I agree, this is similar to years of  listening to your fav music,  you develop a tone in your head and then try to reproduce this tone.

frankus

If you read this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Your-Brain-Music-Understanding/dp/1843547163

it'll explain that a hell of a lot of what we love about music is the tinbre and not the notes

Some of those timbres leave indelible marks on our brain and we seek to recreate them, not the notes

ThePrettyDamned

That doesn't surprise me. Also, if I change tone it sounds shite for a bit, then it sounds good and when I go back to the other, it sounds shite again, so there is a bit of ear conditioning too.

There is a song by ride that opens with this horribly, horribly bright guitar line and even in the mix it's really shrill. After a minute, it sounds fine but the next song sounds a bit dull!

ICBM

I agree with all that, but what puzzles me is that a lot of those muddy guitar tones are being played in exactly the same context as natural acoustic instrument sounds which have a lot more treble in them, and that's why they sound so oddly wrong - I could understand it more if everything was muted in the same way. To me it's simply bad 'mixing' because it sounds unbalanced. I would say that in many ways, if you *notice* the tone then by definition it isn't right. A good mix just sounds 'right' without you having to think about it.