The Mickey Baker books are probably my favorites - I was introduced to them in about 1974, and I return to them often.
 
Other books to consider include the previously mentioned Ted Greene Chord Chemistry and Joe Pass's Guitar Method, both of which are still available on Amazon. Speaking of which, and I hate to sound like a jerk, but downloading from Scribd is, in this case, pirating, since the Mickey Baker books are also still available on Amazon. (and none of them are expensive!)

Now this is out of print, but I also have to recommend Dennis Sandole's "Guitar Lore" - this is an amazing text because of the approach, which separates the fundamentals out brilliantly - well, it worked for me anyway<G>. The problem is that I'm not sure how well this one would work for someone teaching themselves... I was fortunate to study with a teacher who studied with Sandole, and in some ways even expanded on Sandole's ideas.

If I had a student who wanted to learn about jazz guitar I'd probably start them with Baker - I think it is the most accessible...

Well I don't feel too bad about using it because when I find something useful like that I recommend it to others who might end up buying it so instead of no money from me (because I don't have any) he'll get potential sales in the future. Also if I do end up with extra scratch I may end up buying a hard copy just to have it and look at his other books.
 
It is looking however that I am going to have to rewrite it to make it easier for me to digest the way I think and clean up some of the naming conventions. This is why I hate having to study fancy chords especially when it's based on abbreviations. They can be looked at in so many different ways and nobody sticks to the same naming conventions. Fortunately he shows neck diagrams so I can scour my chord books for different variations on the names as well as create tablature for the exercises because there is no way I'm going to remember all those names any time soon and I just want to get on with it so I can absorb it into my own theory.
 
Good news is I'm already starting to get quicker at making the chord changes and I've only been at it for a couple hours.

Oh and it looks like if I wanted to download it I gotta pay for a membership so I'm assuming the site tosses some money at the publishers. I'd have to do PrintScreen to actually steal it.
 

Beepster
Well I don't feel too bad about using it because when I find something useful like that I recommend it to others who might end up buying it so instead of no money from me (because I don't have any) he'll get potential sales in the future. Also if I do end up with extra scratch I may end up buying a hard copy just to have it and look at his other books.

 
I think that is a remarkably weak rationalization, but I've learned not to waste time arguing with folks that think stealing is ok.
 

Beepster<snip>This is why I hate having to study fancy chords especially when it's based on abbreviations. They can be looked at in so many different ways and nobody sticks to the same naming conventions. <snip>

 
You might want to re-think this...
 
you are quite correct that there are many ways to name a chord, and when you limit yourself to six notes it becomes even more complex. The thing is, and you'll probably figure it out for yourself eventually, chords are named for the notes they contain AND the context in which they are used.
 
For example, if I asked you to play "A", "C", "E", and "G" you would play those notes anyway you could find. But what would you call it? It is both CMaj6 and Amin7, if one assumes that the root is part of the chord - never a safe assumption on guitar! If I were writing standard notation (or even tablature) I would not have to worry about the name, but if I am writing chord names I have a problem. I will name it according to how I am using it... is it the "I" or "vi" chord in the key of C? And where am I using it in the song, is it a resolution or a passing chord?

So it is important to learn how to play chords, but it is also important to learn how and why they are used.
 
The Mickey Baker book does go into considerable detail on this, and thus makes an excellent text. There are others, but truthfully, I'm wary of making recommendations... which is sad.
 

Beepster
Oh and it looks like if I wanted to download it I gotta pay for a membership so I'm assuming the site tosses some money at the publishers. I'd have to do PrintScreen to actually steal it.

I hope you aren't looking for sympathy<G>...
 
From what I've learned about Scribd they do not reimburse the copyright holders. I hope that isn't true, but that's the current thinking on the service. There is probably some irony here, but it escapes me!

Uh... okay then. I'm a terrible person. Thanks for your input.

That Gma7/Gma6 change at the start of the Mickey Baker book is a killer when you're just starting out, i imagine your hands are in pretty good shape dexterity-wise from the stuff I've heard you play though Beeps. I remember having trouble with that change when I first started out, then I read an article in a guitar mag about finger exercises in which the author mentioned the MB book and that change in particular as the motivation behind coming up with the exercises as he too was having trouble with it.

Another great area to look into is 3 note comping. It's a highly rhythmic style of playing which is especially common in big band scenarios, and involves playing 3 note voicings of chords, mainly on the low E, D and G strings (muting the A). So for instance you'd take that basic Gma7 shape in the Mickey Baker book and just miss out the B string. You learn all of the inversions of each chord on those strings. A great exercise is to take each chord type and go through the cycle of fifths, playing all inversions of each chord in succession without looking at the neck. As you play each inversion, call out the bass note. It's great for both learning the fretboard "blind" and for getting to know the names of each chord tone in all keys. It's also a fantastic sounding style which lends itself to playing those fantastic chord solos you hear. I learned those voicings years ago and use them extensively, no matter what style I'm playing.

Ah, good. A sane/on topic person. Yes, sharke it is indeed all getting much easier after a few hours so I can see things starting to flow once I get past the initial shock of making my hands twist in new and unusual ways. With all the conditioning I've done I guess I expect things to be effortless (at least physically) but jazz is definitely a very different monster than what I'm accustomed to. I think that's what attracts me to it so much. I intend to spend a good year really getting my head wrapped around it all and then start moving onto classical territory. I would have started on all this many years ago but as a gigging musician who kept a day job it was next to impossible to put in the time.
 
I'm actually already starting to absorb these chords into chord studies I've already done. Just different fingerings/inversions than I've used in the past but they sound great and I like where this is heading.
 
Thanks again, man. I owe you one.

.

No probs! Good call on the classical too, I took that route 10 years or so go and it did wonders for my general musicianship. I started out with a book of John Renbourne fingerstyle pieces that I really wanted to learn but they were in standard notation. I couldn't read at the time. So I picked out the notes one by one and painstakingly worked out the fingerings and by the time I got through the book I felt like I was beginning to understand sight reading. So I thought what the hell, let's get a book of classical pieces and try and work them out too. By the end of that book I was playing a nylon string, had grown my fingernails, had my guitar up on the left knee and my foot on a stool and I was sight reading Bach fugues. It's amazing how quickly it comes if you already have musical experience under your belt.

By the way I wouldn't feel guilty about reading the Mickey Baker book online - it's not much different to getting it out of the library when you think about it. And who knows, you might end up buying it. I've done that with library books before.