Soul Stream Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 (edited) I was at my gig last night. The club has satellite jazz radio (it's really good!). Anyway, I've noticed as soon as Grant plays a note, I know who it is. One note (I know this is a cliche'). This seems almost impossible on an electric instrument. As personal as many others' players style are, with imitators, ect....sometimes it might take a few notes to tell. Not with Grant. Nobody can really imitate that singing guitar sound, so as soon as you hear it, you know it's Grant. (O.K...detractors may say it's the repeated licks that give him away ) By the way, the cut was from The Latin Bit on the satellite radio. MAN, it was killing. I've GOT to get that album. One of the few Grants I don't have. Although I know George Benson says it's his favorite. Edited August 6, 2003 by Soul Stream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 Yeah, it's interesting isn't it. I find that I can identify a few other guitarists that way, Jimi, B. B. . . . It's got to do with they way the set up their electrics but also just the way their fingers use the strings and fretboard identify them. Producing music is an amazing thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.D. Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 Charli Christian and WES... for two who have immediately identifiable styles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tapscott Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 If we can go beyond guitarists, then I would add Bill Evans. One chord and you know it's him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pryan Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 I seem to be able to identify Kenny Burrell's sound/"style" pretty quickly, and without knowing who it is beforehand. But still, there are a bunch of other guitarists who have that Burrell influenced thang going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted August 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 I seem to be able to identify Kenny Burrell's sound/"style" pretty quickly, and without knowing who it is beforehand. But still, there are a bunch of other guitarists who have that Burrell influenced thang going on. I think that mostly my point. To me, older Peter Bernstein stuff that I haven't heard before can fool me for a few bars into thinking it's later Burrell unknown to me. Many of people's imitators can fool you for at least a note. But, I've never been fooled by someone doing the "Grant Green." His touch and "singing" sound is just something imitators can't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 George Benson does a tune called "I Remember Wes" where he plays in a very Wes-like manner (perhaps using his thumb?). Grant Green--I can see how his sound would be recognizable. Likewise Joe Sample seems to have a signature sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 (edited) I've noticed as soon as Grant plays a note, I know who it is. One note (I know this is a cliche'). This seems almost impossible on an electric instrument. I feel like the guitar is unique among electric/electronic instruments because of the fact that it's a blend of electric and acoustic elements. So a player's personal touch has a noticable effect, which is not the case on a synth or an organ. With those instruments, it's the feel/timing/phrasing/vocabulary that sets players apart, but the effect of the hand touching the strings, which results in differing texture, tone, and dynamic response, is lost. Anyway, Grant is one of the ones, for sure, that I can usually recognize pretty quickly. Scofield is another - in fact, it's always instantaneous with him. Actually, I can recognize most any guitarist that I've become familiar with over the course of a couple of years, sometimes when they are just playing the head, even in unison with sax. It is an amazing phenomenon, as jazzbo said. Edited August 6, 2003 by Joe G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 I've found that I'm not particularly adept at identifying players on the basis of their sound. I would not do very well in a blindfold test. However, of the few I can readily ID, I would include among them Grant Green and Wes Montgomery. Green because he's strictly a single note picker and Montgomery because of those absolutely elegant, full-octave chords. In a non-guitar related context, the one guy I can identify almost as soon as I hear him is Paul Desmond. Chet Baker too. Up over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 It's interesting to me that almost all of the instantly identifiable players (at least to me) are from "earlier" generations. Doesn't matter if it's Ben, Hawk, Lester, Miles, Ornette, etc., etc.. Why don't as many of today's players have that quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Well, for contemporary players it's tough to miss Jason Moran or Brad Mildau. I don't like Mildau that much, but I certainly know him when I hear him. I think Osby is pretty easy to pick out, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted August 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 (edited) It's interesting to me that almost all of the instantly identifiable players (at least to me) are from "earlier" generations. Doesn't matter if it's Ben, Hawk, Lester, Miles, Ornette, etc., etc.. Why don't as many of today's players have that quality? I think all the above are considered legends...those who define a tradition by their sound. For those who have an identifiable sound today, look for those who are creating new traditions. For me, Larry Goldings had defined a totally identifiable sound and style. And has spawned a whole generation of imitators at this point. I can also pick out Bill Frissell pretty easily and think he has his own style that can and is copied. So, my point is that they are out there. Maybe not so much on Saxes or trumpets, maybe moreso on other instruments. Bela Fleck perhaps is another good example. Honestly, after Coltrane, Bird, Dizzy, Miles, Ornette, Ayler, ect....what's left to blow on a sax or trumpet that hasn't been done or at least touched upon already by one of the greats 30 years ago. If so, I haven't really heard anything drastically different in approach. I think electronic instruments have the most opportunity to have a pioneering personality now or in the new future. Say what you will, but not much has changed since Trane or Miles on the sax and trumpt. Edited August 7, 2003 by Soul Stream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 I don't quite buy that; for me there are artists out there with a unique sound that is not tied to starting new traditions, or being involved in a group of artists in newer forms. Case in point a trumpeter very easily identifiable by my ears: Wynton Marsalis. And there are quite a few others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Personally also I'm hoping that the future doesn't depend on electronic instruments as they are the least interesting to me in jazz. I imagine that after Louis in 1930 and Bird in 1950 people were saying "how much more can we do with the trumpet/sax" and yet look how much more was done! There is something about these instruments (and other reeds and brass) that are integral to jazz development from the gitgo and I think will be an important part of any development it has to come. Just the way it seems to me according to my personal divination and my personal definition of jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pryan Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 I'd add Woody Shaw to the list of "easily" identifiable trumpeters (for me, at least). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted August 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Personally also I'm hoping that the future doesn't depend on electronic instruments as they are the least interesting to me in jazz. I imagine that after Louis in 1930 and Bird in 1950 people were saying "how much more can we do with the trumpet/sax" and yet look how much more was done! There is something about these instruments (and other reeds and brass) that are integral to jazz development from the gitgo and I think will be an important part of any development it has to come. Just the way it seems to me according to my personal divination and my personal definition of jazz. Personally, I'm with you Lon. I'm not a big fan of electronics in jazz (guitar and organ aside.) But from an objective point of view, I just see electronics as an aspect of jazz that's not tapped out stylistically. There's been an evolution of sound from Louis and Hawk forward. However, I think the strides have been so incemental since Trane and Miles as to me negligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 (edited) Well, possibly so, but there are a lot of reasons for that which also don't mean that electronics will be the torch that lights the way. . . . I mean smooth jazz. . . Miles' 80s band could be seen as the harbinger for a lot of that, and there may be those who will say "see, this is a new direction for jazz, the evolutionary next step. . . " ---though I suspect that would not be you and me! Fusion itself was a new direction right? The whole recording industry has changed. . .new directions in jazz may have had no real chance to rise to the fore. It could be happening somewhere right now and never get watered and allowed to grow. . . I guess the above is a whole 'nother animal! Edited August 7, 2003 by jazzbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted August 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 I forget who said this. Some famous jazzman recently said something to the effect that..."The new style of jazz will be NO style." Meaning, that the next step forward is to combine all the sylistic elements that have come previously. I find that maybe the most facsinating and logical direction. All of that said, Evolution is a continuous process. We can't help but move forward. Maybe not in leaps and bounds like previous times, but always evolving. It's man's nature.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 OK may not in one or two notes, but I find Shirley Scott instantly recognizable. Something about her phrasing that I've come to know and love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robviti Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 i'd definately include arthur blythe on my list of easily identified contemporary players, along with jackie mclean, phil woods, and perhaps oliver lake too. hmm, all alto players. i wonder if that's in any way significant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.