Guitarist James Chirillo explains the role of the rhythm guitar in a big band. Find out how to get that unique rhythmic bounce and tonal punch that made Freddie Green a jazz legend!
Basically good rhythm guitar is like bay leaves, black pepper, or salt in cooking. If used right, you won't exactly know they're there, but if they're gone... you know.
This guy knows exactly what he is talking about. He's got experience, knowledge, wisdom, and facility on his instrument. I'd love to study with him one on one.
Thank you for posting this. This style of playing guitar has become a lost art. I was fortunate enough to have the great Al Viola in my band for several years. You got everything right ... a very important and "essential" video. Congratulations !
James, Your videos explain this style of guitar very well. Acoustic archtop rhythm guitar is almost a tuned drum--felt as much as hears. Two string and three string comps. HIGH action is a must.
I had breakfast with James many years ago in NY in a diner on 45th and 12th. He’s a very knowledgeable man and I thoroughly enjoyed his company without ever understanding a word he said. Lovely man.
This was really great, I always wondered how guitar could fit in so seamlessly in the rhythm sections of these bands. Thank you for sharing you expertise with us.
I like this guy. What he is teaching has no relation to the music I play, but it’s great to see someone who has such a clear understanding of his role, and the knowledge of how to do it. It’s hard for us who grew up in the latter half of the 20th century to see the guitar as a minor instrument, but for the most part, in popular music before that time, it was just as he says here.
Yet he uses some aberrant system to describe concepts that the standard systems of music theory have perfectly adequate (and powerful) tools to describe*. Systems such as he uses (the "drop" terminology) are fine in specialist application (in their respective musical ghettos) but are inferior when communicating to wider audiences. I suspect (but have no concrete evidence) that these systems were originally developed by musicians untrained in conventional theory. * his "drop 2" = a second inversion chord by standard convention his "drop 3" = a first inversion chord by standard convention
@@rjlchristie I just came across your comment. I'm certainly not using some "aberrant system" to describe this part of music theory. Arrangers and orchestrators have been using these terms for most of the 20th Century to the present. A Drop 2 is NOT a first inversion chord by standard convention. Inversion simply means which note of the chord - other than the root - is in the bass. Chords are built in thirds (in traditional harmony) from the root up. In a four-note seventh chord, after the root there are the 3rd, 5th and 7th. A first inversion chord is called so because the 3rd is the first note (after the root) of the chord which can be placed in the bass. A 5th in the bass is a second inversion and the 7th in the bass gives you the third inversion. If the root is in the bass, the chord is not inverted - the root is in the bass. Voicing-wise though, it could be any number of things. A voicing tells you how the notes in a chord are spread, and/or sometimes doubled. Drop 2 is a term which describes a particular voicing. A Drop 2 voicing is created by taking a close voicing - the notes of the chord in order underneath the melody note as close together as possible - and lowering the second note down from the top melody note one octave. If the root of a seventh chord is on the top of a close voicing, the second note down is the 7th, which, when making it a Drop 2 gives you a third inversion chord. If the 3rd of the close voicing is on the top, the second note down is the root, which, when making it a Drop 2 gives you the root in the bass, a non-inverted chord. Double the lead note an octave lower, and you've a Drop 2 double-lead. Applying the Drop idea further, there are also the Drop 3 and Drop 2+4 voicings. Some people like to determine a voicing from the bottom up. Hence, beginning with a close voicing, you simply raise the second note from the bottom up one octave to have a Raised 2 voicing. With the root in the bass, the 3rd will then be on the top. A Raised 2 turns out to have the same spread as a Drop 2, in this case the Raise 2 with the root in the bass is the exact same voicing as a Drop 2 with the 3rd on top. There is also the Raised 2+3 which turns out to have the exact same spread as a Drop 3. What to call them just depends on whether one prefers to go from the bottom up or the top down. I always tell my students it's best to know them both ways - from the bass and from the melody. I've gone into all this detail so people will understand what I'm speaking of when bringing up a Drop 2 and not be confused by your inaccurate comment.
@@jameschirillo2364 Thank you for the explanation. I think it serves to reinforce that this descriptive system is indeed a non-standard approach to describing harmony. You assert that it is used by arrangers and orchestrators. I don't wish to doubt you in that it has its adherents, but I'm confident in my understanding that it is nowhere near as widely used, taught and accepted internationally as are the standard systems of harmonic analysis found in the overwhelming majority of texts and treatises, developed over the past four hundred years since pioneers of its codification such as Fux, Rameau etc. and now taught in universities, music schools, conservatoriums, music examination boards etc etc. That system describes harmony and harmonic movement from the bass upward (built on a fundamental pitch(s)). The salient point is, in forums such as this, if you are going to use a specialist system to disseminate information, you must appreciate that most of your audience will 'be expecting it delivered in a more standard system, so unless you initially spend some time explaining the system, it would be better, imo, to use a system that is understood by the greatest number of viewers. Thank you for the time you spent on the explanation, I'll file it for future possible use if I should ever run into this system again.
@@rjlchristie Fux and Gradus ad Parnassum, I know his species counterpoint well from before I was a composition major at NTSU. Given you do not specifically address any of the inaccurate terms in your statement re: Drop 2 and inversions, and the fact you use the term "musical ghettos" shows how limited, insular and compartmentalized your musical training is. As I said before, particularly in jazz, this Drop voicing terminology is, and has been in wide use in musical schools and colleges for well over 70 years. At this point in our musical development it is not a "non-standard approach to describing harmony." Berklee, Indiana Univ, NTSU and all the major music schools with any kind of jazz program (together with their classical theory) all use it. Having taught at Juilliard for the past 7 years I can attest to this. I don't want people to be led astray by your comment which betrays your prejudice and, some might argue, ignorance.
My late father was a jazz guitarist and rhythm was his love. Seeing this brought back great memories. I love rhythm and played drums in jazz combos with dad on guitar. Thank you for sharing this.
Much wisdom is shared here in knowing your lane and staying in it as an ensemble player. Also, just like in Funk Rhythm, those muted string percussion sounds add much power to that single note or double-stop.Thank you, sir, for confirming some suspicions and for the inspiration. What a great post.
i just listened to Count Basie's One o'clock Jump and the guitar is just as you described. I never paid attention to this kind of thing before. Thanks.
According to an article I read Freddy Green usually muted most of the strings to create percussion and just let the 3rd or 7th cut through to indicate major/minor and what kind of 7th. Part of the idea is that other instruments were filling in the chord so his role was mostly rhythmic. I think that's consistent with what Chirillo says.
Ah yes, Buck Corel. A great arranger in the '30s.. and he really had a great feel for jazz rhythm comping for the guitar. There was nobody like ol' Buck!
Brilliant approach.. I started using some of these techniques and liked the sound, I never really knew what to call them, now I know… Thanks for the great video
Very clear and to the point. Does anyone know if James has any other lessons up on YT, teaching a jazz tune, or the basic progressions used in jazz standards?
Do you have any music sheets of Buck Corel's(?) ? That could be iteresting too. Great video. Wish to have it few yers ago. That would easyfy my life in the beginning of Big Band guitar playing. Cheers!
I wonder if this accent we do on 2 and 4 nowadays is not really what they used to to. I'm going to do more research, but when I watch Freddie and listen, he's hitting all four beats equally. The 2 and 4 jump out because the bass is in 2. Anybody else have thoughts on this? or recommended vids to check? I like the 2 & 4 slap, but it may be a modern affectation. Thoughts? EDIT: I just watched Bucky Pizzarrelli and he does the 2 and 4 accent. So, there's one source. EDIT 2: Oscar Moore with Nat King Cole Trio too.
You are absolutely correct re: your initial sentences. To clarify your edit: first, Bucky was a master at playing rhythm. He liked taking charge of 2 and 4. I wouldn't call it an accent as much as taking charge of 2+4 even when the bass walks in 4. It depends on what kind of feeling and groove you prefer to give the band. Even when playing in '2', Freddie (and Bucky) still hit 1+3 though shorter than what they did on 2+4. It depended on the tune, the tempo, and his conception whether Freddie played an even 4 or in 2. Every tune is going to be a little different.
Rhythm guitars job is to hold down the groove of the song. It plays the basic chord structure so that everybody else can do their job. Basically he is the guy strumming the chords laying down a pulse and a harmonic foundation for the band. Does that help a little?
Hi James! Great to see you. Beautiful guitar BTW. and HUGE! I say the guitar in the BASIE style is the lead of the rhythm section. Let the piano guy stay out of YOUR way! HAHA. You know Basie played very little during a song anyway.
Jeff, Thanks for the kind words. Carlo Greco made that guitar for me in 1986. As far as staying out of anybody's way, I always looked at it as 'who writes the checks'? I'll stay out of his or her way. One way or the other, we play the pulse.
At 5.02 this gentleman plays the second drop 2 ( the first being D on fifth fret, fifth string, G fifth fret fourth string, B third fret, third string, and F sixth fret, second string ) I would expect the second drop 2 starting with D on the lower chord but I figure out a different chord, can someone could give what chord he ear ?
I ear G tenth fret 5th string, B ninth fret, 4th string, D seventh fret four string, and 4 eighth fret, second string, but I don't understand the relation (if this chord is exact )as a second drop 2, if someone could help me ? I would really appreciate.
@@guillaumefloatin91 It's a G7th with the 7th (F) on the bottom so it goes like this (top to bottom) G 2nd string 8th fret D 3rd string 7th fret B 4th string 9th fret F 5th string 8th fret Not the easiest chord to play but quite useful at times. Sorry this took five years.
Most don't acknowledge that people were dancing and THEY controlled the rhythms... If you ARE a musician and NOT LISTENING or WATCHING the dancers and Fab of the say, YOU don't WORK.. We can talk Mind Fuck Theology ALL DAY but the RWAL is the audience and how they advanced the music, NOT just some musician who FELT like doin this or that.. Jus'Sayin
It seems to me that Freddy Green's comping style is effective only when it is deeply integrated into the rhythm section of a 40's style big band musical scenario and outside of that, frankly, I don't see how you can expect to get much mileage out of it.
Not true... It's an exciting and effective sound even in small group jazz. To illustrate my point, listen to current recordings by John Pizzarelli and Diana Krall (Russell Malone on guitar)...For classic examples, listen to any of the Count Basie small groups from any decade (with Freddie Greene, of course!).. Good jazz rhythm guitar is becoming a lost art, but when done right, it adds a wonderful dimension to any size jazz ensemble.
There's still plenty of mileage to get out of it. The thing is, you have to read the chart and listen to the rest of the band and see if that's what the tune calls for. Some charts will even say "Freddie Green Rhythm" at the top. What's really going on is, there's been a lot of evolution in the jazz style since the big bands were in their prime and that's making its way into the charts. Arrangers have gotten really hip to all the different things that the guitar can do in a jazz setting and it's reflected in how they write for it.
I agree. On the Count Basie recording you can only hear Freddie on the quiet passages. The old big band music is the most boring gig for an advanced jazz guitar player. If your only goal is to play like Freddie Green then you then you have very low goals. I used to play a lot of big band gigs that played all the really old stuff. It got to a point I hated it. I never got to solo. I could never hear myself and the gigs didn't pay a lot. I eventually gave it up and I have never regretted it.
"stay out of the way of the bass player, stay out of the way of the piano player, everybody's happy" sort of depressing to hear as a guitar player, but I think you are correct.
If you listen to the Basie Band, Basie himself played extremely little during an arrangement. The guitar plays 4 to the bar throughout the whole chart. So he's not staying "out-of the-way" the guitar IS THE WAY in a Basie chart. That should have been mentioned, you're not an accessory in the Basie style, you ARE the lead in the rhythm section. And while you may only "hear" that one note stick out, he's playing chords. How do I know? Let's just say I've been where this guys been too.
