One guitar, or three?

Excellent nomination @valinar! In fact, five guitarists, but only one (Harrison) a lead player (Orbison, Dylan, Petty and---I think---Lynne rhythm only players). Acoustic guitars sound huge when double-tracked in recordings (an old trick); can you imagine four of them?!

@bdp24 

I'm really curious about what you meant when you said you find Jazz is "too urban".

Care to elaborate further?

Yeah @stuartk, I thought using the term Urban might raise some eyebrows ;-) .

Though now commonly used as a synonym for black, I used the term more literally: city music, irrespective of the ethnicity of the people making the music. The sound of a bunch of horns squawking away---very common in Jazz music---reminds me of car horns blaring in a traffic jam. The sound of a piano playing chords with dissonant notes (also common in Jazz) evokes in me the sense of tension and danger I felt while living in New York City. I saw some sick, twisted people there, lots of them. Couldn’t wait to get out.

I like stringed instruments, more common in what I call "Rural" music. And harmony singing, very, very rare in Urban music. Bluegrass, Hillbilly, Hard Country, Rockabilly, Gospel (see, it’s not about ethnicity ;-), Blues (ditto), etc.

On the other hand, I love 50’s and 60’s Soul music, which many consider Urban. Not necessarily. Motown (which I also don’t care for) sounds Urban to me, but Stax and Atlantic (which I love) don’t. Motown was recorded in Detroit, Stax and Atlantic in Tennessee and Alabama. Urban vs. Rural.

And I think of the music from my youth---the Garage Bands of San Jose, CA---what Rock ’n’ Roll historian Greg Shaw called Ground Zero for that genre---as Suburban ;-) .

@bdp24 

OK. . . but the sound of horns is not restricted to "squawking". There are folk singers whose off-key singing can be plenty dissonant. If you are asserting that Jazz is inherently dissonant or hectic, I can't agree, unless you're talking about Free Jazz, which is indeed, too "squawky" , "hectic" and dissonant for my taste. We all like what we like and I'd never suggest to anyone that their taste is "wrong". At the same time, your characterization of Jazz does seem inaccurate to me, based upon what I've heard over some 40 years of listening to it.

@stuartk: My original statement reads: "Most Jazz doesn’t speak to me". That was of course a generalization. Jazz music tends to not give me what I’m looking for musically, not as much as do other genres.

I listen for for and respond to first form: great chord progressions. melodies, harmonies, etc. The Jazz I don’t relate to is focused on other musical elements, predominantly the improvisational skills of the musicians. Yes, Bluegrass does too, but that is in addition to the other things I crave musically. Plus, as I said, Bluegrass instruments are more pleasing to me in terms of timbre than is most Jazz. Plus there are those vocal harmonies! A lot of Jazz lacks vocals; in a lot of my favorite music the instruments' primary contribution to the music is that of support for the vocals. Three is a lot of Jazz for which that is not the case.

Now, there is Jazz I like, names you would expect: Count Basie (man did his band swing!), Ellington, Mose Allison, Ray Charles, early Big Joe Turner, Cab Calloway. Composers including Irving Berlin, Bernstein, Gershwin, etc.

Early in The Stones career, Mick Jagger sang "It’s the singer, not the song". I very much disagree. Dylan once responded to a reporter’s demand that he define himself by facetiously characterizing himself as "A song and dance man". I’m not interested in dance, but am a song fanatic. Too much of Jazz treats the musical form as a mere excuse for the playing of instruments. Again, a broad generalization. The Jazz of which that is not true I like; that which is I don’t. I hope I succeeded in being more clear this time ;-) .