I love it when Duane goes off like that! (Mostly 'cause I've never heard of more than half the people he mentions...)
The above responses cover most of the available territory (except I don't think anyone said Jim Hall), so I'll just toss in an iconoclastic statement for the hell of it: I'm a guitar player, though I'm nowhere near good enough to really play jazz. But, with a few exceptions that might 'prove the rule' as they say (Django, Wes), IMO the guitar is essentially an inferior solo instrument for jazz in most respects. I mean this as compared to horns and piano.
Don't get me wrong - I like and listen to plenty of jazz guitar, being a guitar player myself and a jazz lover generally. But I don't think that the guitar is as expressive or unlimited a single-note solo instrument as are horns, nor is it as versatile or complete a chordal-solo instrument as is the piano. I also think the guitar is compromised by its shortcomings as an acoustic instrument (sustain, volume) in the context of trap sets and horns, where its inability to compete has meant a practical resort to electrification which doesn't always suit the pre-fusion music I like best.
I find even the most enjoyable and virturostic jazz guitarists not to be as emotionally expressive soloists - not to *say* as much - within the traditional swing and bop contexts compared to horns or piano, and I'm not a big fan of the post-rock electric jazz to which the electric guitar is naturally better suited (that means I don't prefer electric bass or keys either). I don't mind the acoustic guitar as a rhythm section instrument, its traditional role, and one it still fills fairly well in electrified form but for its incongruousness within an otherwise all-acoustic group setting. And I do like the sound of the standard electric hollowbody archtop through a small amp that graced so many recordings of the 50's and 60's (as long as it's not excessively compressed), but only infrequently do I find the music played through this setup rises to the level of artistic profundity horns and piano are more often capable of evincing. (I could also say the same about most Hammond organ jazz, the format a lot of electric jazz guitar has been featured in.)
Electric guitar is of course wonderfully well-suited to playing city blues and rock and roll. In straight-ahead jazz, if one wants to avoid cliches, mere mechanical virtuosity, or simply sticking close by blues roots, one of the most productive approaches seems to be downplaying the instrument's shortcomings in sustain, volume, and flexibility of single-note line, by turning them into strengths rooted its Spanish and fingerpicked heritage as a polyphonic supporting instrument capable of subtleties of touch, tone, pitch, and percussive effect different from what can be accomplished on the piano.
The above responses cover most of the available territory (except I don't think anyone said Jim Hall), so I'll just toss in an iconoclastic statement for the hell of it: I'm a guitar player, though I'm nowhere near good enough to really play jazz. But, with a few exceptions that might 'prove the rule' as they say (Django, Wes), IMO the guitar is essentially an inferior solo instrument for jazz in most respects. I mean this as compared to horns and piano.
Don't get me wrong - I like and listen to plenty of jazz guitar, being a guitar player myself and a jazz lover generally. But I don't think that the guitar is as expressive or unlimited a single-note solo instrument as are horns, nor is it as versatile or complete a chordal-solo instrument as is the piano. I also think the guitar is compromised by its shortcomings as an acoustic instrument (sustain, volume) in the context of trap sets and horns, where its inability to compete has meant a practical resort to electrification which doesn't always suit the pre-fusion music I like best.
I find even the most enjoyable and virturostic jazz guitarists not to be as emotionally expressive soloists - not to *say* as much - within the traditional swing and bop contexts compared to horns or piano, and I'm not a big fan of the post-rock electric jazz to which the electric guitar is naturally better suited (that means I don't prefer electric bass or keys either). I don't mind the acoustic guitar as a rhythm section instrument, its traditional role, and one it still fills fairly well in electrified form but for its incongruousness within an otherwise all-acoustic group setting. And I do like the sound of the standard electric hollowbody archtop through a small amp that graced so many recordings of the 50's and 60's (as long as it's not excessively compressed), but only infrequently do I find the music played through this setup rises to the level of artistic profundity horns and piano are more often capable of evincing. (I could also say the same about most Hammond organ jazz, the format a lot of electric jazz guitar has been featured in.)
Electric guitar is of course wonderfully well-suited to playing city blues and rock and roll. In straight-ahead jazz, if one wants to avoid cliches, mere mechanical virtuosity, or simply sticking close by blues roots, one of the most productive approaches seems to be downplaying the instrument's shortcomings in sustain, volume, and flexibility of single-note line, by turning them into strengths rooted its Spanish and fingerpicked heritage as a polyphonic supporting instrument capable of subtleties of touch, tone, pitch, and percussive effect different from what can be accomplished on the piano.