Django and Charlie Christian

Kevin Furniss

Dennis wrote

. Listen to ou es tu mon amour, his soloing is sooo laid back, making it a nightmare to notate... stochelo rosenberg plays a cover of that solo note-for-note but he did not recreate the laid back feel, instead he quantized it to fit with the rhythm section.

Thanks Dennis, detailed discussions about music and players , above and beyond "do you like it" are pretty new to me and reading threads like this are helping me understand what im hearing, I know if I really like something but not usually why, its interesting to know why

Ta

Jazzaferri

The Americentric view of the world at work

Bones

Roger that Jazza!

Terra, do a lot of transcribing (start with Django or your other favs) if you have not already and you will get a lot of understanding of what you are hearing. And it's fun to figure out those phrases that catch your ear.

Jazzaferri

I just saw an excellent interview with Hal Galper. He studied at Berklee and is a contemporary of Herbie Hancock. He much prefers the oral tradition. Learn to sing the solo first, then go play it on your instrument.

The other thing he says is just learn what appeals to you, what speaks to you, which I have been advocating here for years. Kinda cool To have someone of his stature in the same place.

Jeff Moore

Dennis's fairly deconstruction of Django's artistry is the first (ala terrasier) that I've seen in such detail and not just anecdotal impressions.
For me that kind of homework puts a nuts and bolts asterisk on the appeal of Django.
Why exactly would I and others go back and listen again and again throughout the decades? Maybe your "homework" describes why - it's complex enough (to me anyway) that once I've "got" one aspect of him under control, I've lost one also as the years have rolled by, and there are several more that I haven't even considered in any useful way because I'm usually just stoned by the sound of him and not inclined to think that much anyway.

My own description hasn't moved passed thinking he's really an impressionist painter at heart who happened to spend his life translating his visual sensibilities onto guitar? Like I'm not even gonna try to deconstruct!
Maybe poetic, but not as workman like or immediately useful as Dennis's deconstruction. But then, Dennis's description is one of so many possibilities and capabilities, it might be easier to learn to swing from the trees like a chimpanzee than to learn to play guitar in public improvisationally with so that many variables.

dennis

VeedonFleece wrote: »

Dennis, that's a really interesting point. But I wonder if your ability to predict the melodic shape of CC's solos has something to do with the fact that CC's influence has spread so strongly through bop, hard bop, and then even post-bop jazz guitar players that his stylistic vocabulary is quite deep within you already? Maybe, it is precisely because the very wide mix of classical, 'guitaristic', and even folk, elements in Django's style have not been absorbed into the tradition of US-based mainstream jazz guitar that Django's lines seem all the more unpredictable, surprising, idiosyncratic (to us all). Your ability to predict CC's solos just become a function of his legacy's success. Perhaps they would not have been nearly so predictable to an attentive listener sat in the front row of a Goodman gig?

Chris

this is a bit of a big topic... not that i have transcribed/analyzed many solos of the musicians that CC influenced, by CC had a distinct personal style. For instance, he heavily influenced barney kessel, he even has a tribute song for CC but in his playing, he plays like an evolved form of CC. In that he takes some of CC's concepts but went further with them.

I've had extensive conversations with a few musicians specializing in prewar jazz, and one of them is james chirillo (benny goodman's last guitarist), i explained some of my theories to him and he agreed with them, so i think i'm somewhat on the right path..

one thing that's important to understand is the context in which these musicians were evolving. No internet, no guitar world magazine (at least i dont think so), jazz music was still new and no one was teaching it in conservatories yet. People learned by hanging out with eachother, trading information, if people learned theory, it's probably basic. some biographical accounts do mention CC learning some basic theory (whatever that means). Luckily, CC grew up in an area with a thriving musical scene, and he also listened to the radio.. I don't know how much access he had to records back in the day...

We know that CC was infatuated with Lester Young as early as 1929 when Lester played in Oklahoma. Biographies mention that CC spent a lot of time trying to copy Lester. However, Lester did not record until 1936 or so, and even then we don't know how easily CC could access those records. So far in my research, i have not been able to determine how often Lester Young's music was broadcast on the radio where CC lived... All this to say that Lester would stop by CC's town every now and then ... some bios of CC mention him seeing CC in 1929, then in 1931/1932, where he actually had the chance to talk and jam a bit with Lester.

What this means to me, is that until CC could get his hands on records in as early as 1936, CC would not have had the opportunity to accurately copy Lester Young. If he get anything from Lester between 1929 and 1936, it would be conceptual and based on things that he could hear and remember. I definitely hear that in his playing. I am also in the process of transcribign Lester Young from that era (1929-1939), I have not done a lot yet, but i can already hear some basic ideas that CC got..There, until my research proves otherwise, CC s actual vocabulary did not come from Lester Young.

I hear more similar vocabulary in Eddie Durham's playing than in Lester Young's. Again, i want to point out that i'm still in the early stages of researching his influences, so as time goes, i might change my stance... Eddie was known to have had some contact with CC, i think i read a few conflicting biographical accounts so i won't go there. But it's established that they met and had discussions about guitar playing..

Listen to this solo of Eddie Durham:



It's very close to what CC was doing, and even have strong hints of Django Reinhardt!!!

Bios indicate that CC didn't learn too much from Django if at all, however Mary Osborne says she's seen him play a note for note Django solo on St-Louis Blues, and he definitely uses some of the concepts and shapes that Django used. Or maybe django took those shapes from CC !! i have to look back in my analyses of Django, because before 1940 or so Django did not appear to use a lot of those long Dominant 9 shapes that he is known for today (CC started recording in 1939)

I've also been investigating George Barnes, who apparently influenced CC (even though George Barnes was much younger, he was the bireli of the time). George is interesting because he began his career as a teenager playing blues (mostly pentatonic style playing). In investigating early recordings of George, all his playing is blues based until about 1939. Suddently in 1941 he releases two jazz tracks (I'm forever blowing bubbles and I can't believe that you're in love with me), that shows a totally different side of his playing. A level of musical/guitaristic sophistication that was even beyond CC.. again I m not saying that BArnes' music was better, but there was no doubt, he was doing a lot more stuff. Barnes has downplayed Django's influence saying that Django 's music was too foreign for him, i wonder if he might have been lying, since there's a lot of djangoesque elements in these two tracks!!! So here we have Goerge Barnes who was a contemporary of CC's (actually his recording career started earlier than CC) who played with a level of sophistication that was a little a bit ahead of CC's and who apparently also influneced CC... but CC is the big star in guitar history today... it all goes back to waht i talked about in an earlier post: talent certainly has a role in achieving fame, but it is NOT the only factor... it's about where you live and who you know... George ended up haing a great career, but in the history books, it's all about CC. Anyway , the questions that the 1941 jazz recordings raise for me are : Did George have that vocabulary all along while he was playing those simple blues licks??! that just came out of nowhere if we look at his recorded output.. Otherwise, did George learn all that jazz in the span of two years (which is certainly not impossible)? If so who was he listening to ? Despite what he says, he definitely listened to Django!!!

I've also been investigating Lonnie Johnson who was a huge influence on T-Bone Walker who grew up with CC. Well i've been investigating a lot of musicians from before 1939, and also musicians that CC may have listened to...

All this to say, that CC's style ressembles Eddie Durham's closest. Even then CC's style is very appealing to me, because it is ultimate proof that one does not need to learn extensive chord-scale theory in order to improvise. Basically CC had a number of shapes that he really really really loved, and he would use them all the time whether they theoretically fit or not... For instance on dominant chords, he has 3 dominant shapes that he likes. Two of them are based on dominant 9th shapes, another one is based on 13 shape. Yet he would play these shapes in somewhat predictable ways all the time... whether the dominant chord went to minor or major... If the dom chord went to minor, these notes that he played would be theoretically incorrect, and that is what made them sound so surprising and fresh. It makes you wonder: did he just play those shapes because it was the sahpes that he knew? or was he purposely going for those outside colors? we may never know, but we know that he loved playing them, and that was good enough for him... In every solo that he plays that i've transcribed so far (well over a dozen now - aiming for 30-40), he plays variations of these licks, so after a few solos, i was easily able to guess where certain licks were going...

alright, enough ranting...

i'm looking forward to officially presenting my research.. it will definitely have to be a multiple volume project... i think volume 1 will be dedicated to CC's influences/predecessors/contemporaries... So i will include transcriptions of durham/young/johnson/lang/barnes etc...

dennis

one last thing listen to these solos of the same songs , Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt. With regards to DR, these were recorded when Django was of a similar age as CC when he recorded his versions a few years later. I have transcribed all four solos and analyzed them

Django Sheik Of Araby



CC Sheik Of Araby



Django Rose Room



CC Rose Room



again , for me , this is NOT a comparison of who's more musical than who... I love both solos, and sometimes i'm more in the mood for CC than I am for DR. However this comparison is important to understand what was going on in those days, and to look at things from that perspective... like i said, from the get go, Django's musical ambitions and visions were extremely deep!!!

Things to listen for (for both players:

1) the ornaments used / not used, slides, bends, vibrato (django's famous chromatic slide effect)
2) the range used (notice django used the full range of the guitar, CC remains faithful to his chord shapes discussed in the previous post... mainly on the top 4 strings, although he has the augmented licks on the A string)
3) the timing. in these cases, they're both tight with the rhythm section
4) the rhythms: CC is a bit mathematical : it sounds like the triplet lick on F7 - Bb7 was worked out, as it fits so perfectly mathematically) Django on the other hand used all sorts of rhythms, going in unpredictable directions...
5) phrasing... as you listen to the solos, count 1 2 3 4. and pay attention where each artist start and end their phrases. If you go back to point number 4, there's almost a mathematical logic in the way CC would start and end his phrases... He certainly does voice lead and he certainly does do some anticipation, and his solos certainly swing, but there's a very strong logic to the way he does things but then u go to django and it's another world of variety, and the way he connects the chords shows how aware django was of voice leading one chord to the next in an almost bach like fashion. CC used his familar shapes, and django certainly did too ,but they were branching out in all sorts of directions, it's like django was not a slave to the shapes, the shapes he used served a specific musical purpose... i know it sounds like i'm criticizing CC but i'm not.. when CC played his shapes, it was more like Bb7 chord, play Bb13 shape here, OK next chord is Eb7 so need to play my Eb9 shape that is close to the Bb13 shape. OK now it's Ab, play lester young blues lick...

I really really really love CC's playing, and i appreciate the simplicity behind the thought process, like i said, it is proof that jazz is not as hard as many people make it to be.. C was certainly musically aware, and had excellent musicianship...

Django , on the other hand, was just on another planet... i think there's that anecdote where some interviewer asks django if he knows music, and django replies: no but, music knows me!... Extremely cocky statement, but so true...

i repeat myself one final time, as i'm sure i've pissed off some people but these comparisons are important to understand history and the evolution of guitar and jazz music. I ultimately LOVE both players equally from a musical point of view. Despite being an active member on a django forum, i am not a django fan boy either, there is a reason why i love django it's because i studied his style so much and keep learning so much, he's an endless source of musical resources!!

Jazzaferri

Wow........words fail me..........Dennis, your remarks demonstrate a real gift for this sort of analysis.

For me, I find more to hold my (...hmmmm........interest...maybe...not quite the right word but.............). ..in Django's more adventurous style......I find myself drawn to more of Django's stuff than CC's. Not to say I don't like CC's music ......I really do.

Hal Galper has a theory that music that really speaks to one as a musician means there is something In that music that One needs to learn about oneself musically. To paraphrase, Django music is telling me something about my musical sense (or lack thereof) something that I need to understand.

Galper tells his story of hearing Bill Evans last two recordings in 2000 just before Evans passed and he felt that "Bill was trying to tell me something". After a lot of intense study, talking about Evans with all their common acquaintances he came to the conclusion that Evans music was telling him "Hal....your chord voicings aren't cool" ...and he finally arrived at the understanding .that good harmony is really counterpoint, which wasn't taught at Berklee. He has spent the last 14 years working on his voicings.

While Django wasn't versed in theory, as you noted, music knew him. I rather suspect that as the decades pass, Acknowledgement of Django will continue to grow as more people realize how truly far out he was.

Jeff Moore

Dennis, I don't think anyone's pissed off about anything you said.
My comment on comparisons was a cautionary note about what we say in public and what we think in private. No big deal, and not we anything don't all do. Just suggesting some edits.

Your detailed research is amazing and revealing. I don't want my small concern about ranking or comparison to make you concerned or even change what you wrote. If it helps fine, if not, that's fine too.
My former partner was a writer. She taught me many things and her ideas about writing pop up in me even when its not terribly important.

Al Watsky

I think DR had been exposed to a wider variety of music than CC , which in some ways accounts for differences in approach. Not attempting to quantify levels of talent , or to analyze the note choices.
Clearly one is more Eurocentric then the other and seems to have had a broader experience musically .
American Jazz guitarists built on CC's work or creative impulse.
Barnes and Kessel built on the work , but included the influence of other esthetics and streams of thought and later developments. I believe both had heard DR but were working in a different genera . The work of the HCOF was made in the Jazz era but its really a distinct development .
You can't really improve upon or qualify genius.
Speaking of which on the Rose room example I'm rooting for SG ! >-