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

Skipped

When I listen to great (Jazz) albums made in the 50s (and some in the 60s) I am more aware (and more critical) of the Electric Guitar tone, where applicable, than I am of the tone produced by the horn players.
Is that just because I am interested in guitars and guitar players? Or is it because the Trumpet and the Tenor Sax often sound as good as a well recorded album made in 2014? (Actually they sound better in many cases)

I am going to make it a rhetorical question because I don't know the answer.


Edit: Random thought: If the Jazz greats had had the luxury of playing  6 month old Elixir strings would they have sounded better or just different. 
:-S

Dave_Mc

ThePrettyDamned said:

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.

That always happens to me )

Catthan

 I think that as in any other set up, it's about the mix and most pros realise that imho. You dont really need a bassy sound as the hollowed gtr gives you that low end thump. Some probably interpret that as having to crank the bass but if the mix is a dense one you still need the upper mids to cut through. 

And if you notice Martino and Metheny who have a bassier tone you will realise the amount of attack and definition in their paying which compensates for the amount bass they have in their tone. 

Martino has said that he uses heavy strings 'cause he picks too hard. Benson has a huge picking attack too.

 Pass uses a brighter tone as he does a more polyphonic style, uses his fingers too achieve that and therefore must prevent bass flubbing out I assume. Hall's playing has loads of attack as well. 

And then modern jazzers like Sco, stern and Henderson use dirt and wacky effects so they really can't afford too much bass. 

plus there s a whole paedagogy of where to play chords and how given the ensemble. Walking bass lines if there's no bass, rootless 3-7 voicings when there is bass so that the gtr occupies a specific range in the mix etc. 

Yesterday I was sitting in with the house jam band and realised just that,  I need more high mids, less notes in my comping and not overlap with the bass. I think all guitarists get familiar with those concepts as they play more.

So same "rules" apply In jazz and in any other genre that involves amplified sound and dense mixes. 

And I believe that everyone goes through some development before they are able to comply with those rules and still manage to play how they want. 

siraxeman

Jazz toanz are deliberately dull...as its meant to be in keeping with the music.

Fusionista

mellowsun said:

Obviously I'm exaggerating to make a point, and modern players don't always use this tone. But the typical jazz standards players you hear in a Sunday cafe do. And I don't like it!

Zombie thread I know, but I just had to agree.  A soft, clear, middy tone is one thing, but a lot of what you hear in jazz clubs and bars can only be described as 'stifled'.  Saw a bloke called Andy Watson recently - incredible player: I could see what his fingers were doing and it was the best of the best 'classical' jazz playing, but the tone was 'thick' mud - could not hear how good it was at all. 

EdGrip

I suspect that this is a case of the echo-chamber of a particular "scene" amplifying certain aesthetic traits to a very distorted degree, so that eventually what the scene considers good seems objectively not-good to an unbiased outsider. Like when car nuts lower their ride til the wheels disappear into the wheel arches and to the outsider it just looks awful and like the suspension's broken. To the car-nut, it looks like sex and they assume that their viewpoint is a neutral rather than distorted one. Y'know?

Maybe once the jazz guitarist's ear gets calibrated to a neutral, good, clear, clean tone, they think "argh, it's a bit bright! I'll just roll the treble off a bit..." Then wait for ears to recalibrate, listen to some more treble-free old vinyl recordings from the golden era, and repeat.

Fusionista

Good point.  I like it bright but not trebly, but most especially I like harmonic richness.  Got my Peerless Sunset set up with Thomastik-Infeld 12's to sound like a piano with the potential for some extended sustain and subtle vibrato. Now I'm looking for an amp which enhances the harmonics for my 'signature sound' (need that 'cos my playing ain't much). Anyone got any suggestions, I am listening.

ArchtopDave

Fusionista said:

Good point.  I like it bright but not trebly, but most especially I like harmonic richness.  Got my Peerless Sunset set up with Thomastik-Infeld 12's to sound like a piano with the potential for some extended sustain and subtle vibrato. Now I'm looking for an amp which enhances the harmonics for my 'signature sound' (need that 'cos my playing ain't much). Anyone got any suggestions, I am listening.

My favourite amp for a number of months now has been a Rivera Jazz Suprema, which, as it's name suggests, is specifically designed to stay as clean as possible with a warmth to the overall tone. I also love the Reverb on it.

Fusionista

ArchtopDave said:

My favourite amp for a number of months now has been a Rivera Jazz Suprema, which, as it's name suggests, is specifically designed to stay as clean as possible with a warmth to the overall tone. I also love the Reverb on it.

"a number of months" - have a LOL

Fusionista

Actually tempted by a Mambo, but have to sell one of my other amps first.  Not so much 1-in-1-out as 20-in-1 out

Chalky

I thought it was to do with clashing harmonics on complex chords? Its also why jazz sax players rarely growl and jazz keyboard playes like jazz organ or electric piano sounds - they are all toned to take out some of the harmonics.

ArchtopDave

Fusionista said:

ArchtopDave said:

My favourite amp for a number of months now has been a Rivera Jazz Suprema, which, as it's name suggests, is specifically designed to stay as clean as possible with a warmth to the overall tone. I also love the Reverb on it.

"a number of months" - have a LOL

I only put this only because I had it for sometime, and cannot remember exactly how long - may well be over a year. 

 It's not "new toy in the house" syndrome.

Fusionista

ArchtopDave said:I only put this only because I had it for sometime, and cannot remember exactly how long - may well be over a year. 

 It's not "new toy in the house" syndrome.

Even funnier  A whole year!  You know I'm joshing, that's the way GAS is, for all of us.  I've just switched back to a Les Paul after YEARS of strats.

bingefeller

Elx said:

Because apparently that's proper jazz tone. Also, no vibrato and no string bending are allowed. Nerds...I've started studying it, just to see what all the fuss is about...Also, whatever you hit between hitting the target chord tones is OK. At least that's what Mike Stern says. Well if that is the case, I'm a great jazz guitarist already!

I wouldn't mind what Mike Stern says about tone - he has one of the worst tones I have ever heard.  

bingefeller

"Softer music, I've found, in doing research and listening, music like jazz, it's music based on fear.  The fear...what are they so scared of?  You can't hear it.  What are they playing so softly for?"

BigLicks67

I think it's the modern influence of Pat Metheny (very muddy) who got his sound in part from Jim Hall.

However, lots of the classics have a nice clean sound, Wes, Grant Green, Kenny Burrell on Midnight Blue

As the great Jimi Hendrix said " Kenny Burrell that's the tone I'm looking for"

.

Fusionista

Great playing, tone OK, bit frenetic. Among modern players not so well-known I like this chap

Phil_aka_Pip

Elx said:

Because apparently that's proper jazz tone. Also, no vibrato and no string bending are allowed.

This reminds me of when I was about to do a classical grade exam. I don't have a nylon-strung guitar (don't like them) and had practiced everything on my Maccaferri-style acoustic. It has steel strings but also a wider fingerboard - not quite as wide as a spanish guitar but wider than your average electric, and IMO wide enough to support classical technique, especially with my rather small hands.

I was told not to take that guitar to the exam, as I would be "marked down for tone". I was incredulous - can't these guys tell the difference between good and bad tone on either kind of string? Apparently not.

What the "establishment" wants, the "establishment" is entitled to, apparently.

EdGrip

Never really understood qualifications in arts. Either you're really good at the guitar or you're not. If it's just for keeping score so you know where you're at for your own interest, surely your tone is your tone and if they don't like it that merely serves to underscore the basic nonsense of the thing?

Fusionista

BigLicks67 said:

As the great Jimi Hendrix said " Kenny Burrell that's the tone I'm looking for"

.

If you listen to Jimi live before Band of Gypsies (as distinct from the very effected album recordings) he has quite a clean tone (as you'd expect in those days).  The irony of his Burrell aspirations is that he wiped the floor with dear old Kenny, going on to create some of the greatest electric guitar tones of all time: I'm thinking about the intro on 'Stone Free', the wah on 'Burning of the Midnight Lamp', and the sublime 'Star Spangled Banner' at Woodstock which for me is the acme of his innovation.  

Mind you, just thinking about those tones brings to mind so many others, Steppenwolf 'Born to be Wild' rhythm guitar, Clapton's wah solo (not to mention the overdubbed stacked single notes intro) on White Room, and countless others. So ultimately that is the beauty of the electric guitar:  you can do anything with it - and if it works, it works - think about the 'crashes' introducing the loud fuzz guitar on 'Creep', for instance - brilliant (and a bitch to time correctly!).

Shame then when you are a jazz guitarist to get bogged down in mud.