Seeking old-school swing guitarists WORLDWIDE

swingmatism

Hello everyone. My name is Solomon Douglas, and I lead an eight-piece or ten-piece orchestra known as the Solomon Douglas Swingtet. We specialize in the great swinging big-band music of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. When we tour, we often pick up local players to fill the ranks of the band, and as you can imagine, the hardest player to find is always the guitarist. The last thing I want is a modern jazz guitarist who thinks that Freddie Green style rhythm playing is "easy" but has never dedicated any time to studying it.

Basically, I'm looking for a Freddie Green specialist, someone who has a big fat acoustic archtop guitar with a really high action, and prefers to play without amplification. Someone who relishes the task of playing four-to-the-bar rhythm all night long and never wants a solo. And someone who's an ace sight-reader when it comes to reading chord changes (though I'll never put an actual melody line in front of them... it's just slashes all night long.)

I don't exactly want a GJ player, so in a sense I'm posting in the wrong website, but the reason I'm posting here is that Freddie Green players don't seem to be part of a worldwide community the way Django players are. And most Django players have a much better idea of what I'm looking for than most mainstream jazz guitarists too. It's a small step from Django's pompe to Freddie's chunk-chunk.

Some of the players who have done this gig with me are Ted Gottsegen (NYC), Jesse Barksdale (Toronto), Greg Ruby (Seattle), Dennis Chang (Montreal), Robert Bell (Twin Cities), Jonathan Dichter (Philly), Jonathan Stout (LA), Gus Friedlander (Chicago), Mark Allen (Utah), Martin Loomer (Toronto), Dave Onderdonk (Chicago), Richard Olivarez (Virginia), Lee Bush (Cleveland), Barry Warhoftig (Philly), Paul Cheatley (Ottawa), Katie Cavera (LA), and Tom Mitchell (Baltimore).

I'm writing right now because I want to add some more names to my phone book. If you (or someone you know) would be the ideal player for this gig, can you please e-mail me your (or their) name and contact information, and what city you (or they) live in?

My e-mail address is <!-- e --><a href="mailto:srcd@alum.mit.edu">srcd@alum.mit.edu</a><!-- e -->.

If you'd like to hear some audio clips of the Solomon Douglas Swingtet, please check out http://solomondouglas.com/audio_clips.html.

Thanks!

Solomon

klaatu

If you're ever in Halifax, look me up. Sending you an e-mail.

Frank Wekenmann

Solomon,

I looked up your page and really liked what I was hearing! If you ever come to Germany, give me a call.
However, IMHO, it is unfair to demand of the guitar player to play authentically unplugged while the rest of the band doesn't. If the rest of the rhythm section plays amplified, the drummer uses a modern set and plays the rhythm on a loud ride cymbal, it is useless to play unamplified rhythm guitar!
I tried to play unamplified guitar in a Big Band, because I love the sound, and I even borrowed some great prewar Super 400s and L-5s from a friend, but with all other players in a band playing on modern instruments, it didn't matter how high my action was or how hard I played, I was just not audible (yes, I know about "the guitar has to be felt more than heard" but there are limits.)
On all of the video clips I saw from your band, it seems as if you play electric piano. Are there instances where your band plays totally unplugged?

Frank

Frank Wekenmann

Hi Ted,
let me start with saying again that I really enjoyed the music and also (if it was you) your playing on the tracks I listened to! You wrote that you play with a mic and that is absolutely o.k. with me. I definitely prefer that to playing with a pickup. However, in my definition, if you play with a mic, then it is no longer unamplified. Solomon wrote that he was looking for unamplified guitar and this is where I have a problem.
I really think that the beauty of Basie's rhythm section lies in the very subtle dynamics and this dynamic is destroyed if one of the instruments is amplified, let alone electric (as the piano is in the videos). My point is that if you have to go with the times -- and that means everything is getting louder-- you also have to allow the guitar to be "helped" by some kind of amplification (mic is o.k. Btw which mic do you use?) As I said, there are grades of "being felt rather than heard" that are o.k. with me and others that aren't. I no longer want to bang my chords unplugged against a band where everything else is amplyfied because everybody tells me that is the way Freddie Green played! OTOH I definitely hate rhythm guitar that is too loud!
On the question if instruments grew louder over the last 70 years I think that there can be no doubt that they did indeed became louder and stronger, except for newer archtops! The gut strings of the bass had a quicker decay and thus covered less sonic ground, the drums had calf-skins and were tuned differently, less punchy, the cymbals had different frequencies, the saxophones had different mouthpieces that were not as glaring. Also the players were not raised on decades of earsplitting rock music and surely "loud" meant something different to them, so their sound concept was also different, allowing for more space.
I would love to play in a real authentic Big Band (for me that means 30s style) where everybody plays with period-correct equipment, but I have yet to find musicians that are willing to experiment with their instruments as much as I am. On the other hand it is quite possible that modern audiences wouldn't like a band with a much softer sound because it wouldn't have the sound they became to expect and audiences probably have become louder, too.

Regards,
Frank

klaatu

Frank W wrote:

You wrote that you play with a mic and that is absolutely o.k. with me. I definitely prefer that to playing with a pickup. However, in my definition, if you play with a mic, then it is no longer unamplified. Solomon wrote that he was looking for unamplified guitar and this is where I have a problem.

Frank,

I had a conversation with Solomon about this by e-mail, and he said that he really had no problem with miking an acoustic guitar. When he said "unamplified," he actually specifically meant not using a pickup.

The problem with a pickup (IMHO) is that it alters the sound entirely, as well as the player's attack. The sound of an acoustic archtop is a major element of the Freddie style. When played forcefully, it has a percussive quality that is not found with an amplified guitar (i.e., one with electric pickup). The electric guitar also tends to muddy the overall rhythm section sound quite a bit. The emphasis on the midrange in an acoustic archtop keeps it in the middle ground between the bass and the piano's upper register. Of course, you also have to watch your chord voicings so that you're not intruding into one of those instruments' turf.

Everything everyone says about the evolution of the instruments is very true. Even the loudest archtop may need a little help to compete with electric piano and bass and modern drum kits, not to mention the overall tendency to play loud, as Frank mentioned. I've had very good luck with an Audio-Technica Pro 35 clip-on condenser, clipped to the pickguard of my '46 Epiphone Triumph and pointed towards the fingerboard. It's run into the XLR input on an acoustic guitar amp (have used both Roland AC60 and Schertler David). It captures the acoustic sound nicely and gives just enough boost that the guitar can be felt (as Ted says) with more presence, without cutting through the whole orchestra, as I have heard some electric guitarists do.

Most big band guitarists I have seen use electrified guitars and play more like they are in a small jazz combo, rather than in the Freddie style. They actually try to play all those extended chords you see in the charts, whereas Freddie would have simplified those all down to basics, 6s & 7s, with three-note fingerings. Freddie would generally damp one or more strings so that one came through with more emphasis. Some people claim that he used "one-note" chords, but I think my description is more accurate.

Those extended chords you see in the scores are really just the sum total of all the notes that the orchestra is playing at the moment. Someone in the orchestra is providing those extended notes, so the guitar does not need to. The guitarist's job is to find a simplified chord to substitute (instead of playing C7♯5b9, you play C7 with a three-note fingering on the 6, 4, and 3 strings). It's the difference between thinking of the big band guitar as a rhythm instrument, as opposed to a harmony instrument.

Frank Wekenmann

Ben,

I can suscribe to everything you wrote!

Maybe it was my fault to split hairs with the term "unamplified". I just wanted to utter my frustration because, while I love to play unamplified (and by that I mean really unamplified -- no mic), I have yet to find a Big Band (and I have played with quite a few, with excellent musicians) that will go all he way and play like they did in the 30s. I believe this would also produce a different kind of swing. Did you or Ted ever play in such a band?

klaatu

I'm with you, Frank, I'd love to play totally acoustic. Unfortunately, the band I play with tends to go for LOUD, hence the need for a little boost from the mike. At least the band leader appreciates what I'm trying to do.

I wish more bands were aware of what Count Basie (I think it was Basie) told his people: if you can't hear the guitar, you're playing too loud!