I often hear smooth jazz artists like Fattburger on the
PA as I shop for my daily bread. What happened to the credibility of the genre?

Happy jazzin'

GS: I know what you mean. You can only imagine my distain when I heard Peter White's "Autumn Day" in a grocery store the other day! Oh well, I cruised down the pasta aisle, dreaming of the wine country and his music coming up in August!

I'd have to say I'm not sure there was ever much credibility attached to the genre by those who could. We as true lovers of the genre don't very often relegate ourselves to the radio mix we get there, but are more discriminating in our musical selections. I for one never repeat "Midnight in Manhattan" or "Autumn Day" which are going strong on the waves right now for Peter. I'm sure you can identify with that.

It's a shame we hear our favorites subjected to this zoological display of their talents!

J.

Joan,

I can't WAIT!!! Wine and jazz...a heady combination!

Happy jazzin'

The fact is that smooth jazz and smooth jazz radio has always been considered hip dentist music and used for background. So when you say credibility of the genre who ever said it was credible?

On the real side will Fatburger be remembered 20 years from now? It is just pleasant adult music and great music to shop by. Arent you happy that they playing that is your mall than country music?

So as Fatburger would say "What's your beef?"

I guess you could say that music at the dentist, in elevators, malls, stores etc. has improved in recent years.

(Thanks Lois for directing me here.)
Gee i've heard Cream's "I feel Free" in my local grocery store. Does that ruin its credibility? Would you prefer 101 Strings? <:-)

Yes Chloe, I think that Fattburger will be remembered by those that enjoy them. As beauty is in the eye, so is this line of jazz in the ear. And No, I'm not happy they're playing this at the mall.

It deserves to be listened to, not just heard. That's my beef.

Hopefully Fattburger wil retire and get jobs. i enjoy that they have been regulated to malls and the weather channel.
Smooth Instrupop STILL has a foothold on FM commershill radio...and that's a lot better prospect than jazz....

Story...I was in a tie store ...and they were playing that stuff...I requested that they turn it down...They didn't
so I bought 20 ties...had them ring it up....and then I changed my mind. the customer's always right!

Credibility of the genre?

"Smooth jazz" is just another term for so-called "Contemporary Jazz" which replaced pop/jazz adding in aspects of "New Age." All of these phony terms. Much of it is instrumental pop music created in hopes of getting radio airplay. I don't blame people for listening to it since people used to listen to the Ray Coniff Singers. But calling it jazz leaves it open to obvious barbs from listeners who listen to music for danger, chancetaking and excitement rather than to get relaxed.

I've said this before (low moan).

While I don't make a habit of seeking out "Smooth Jazz" or "contemporary pop" or whatever you want to call the genre, I would much rather listen to Boney James or Peter White or Earl Klugh and people like that than Celine Dion or Smashing Pumpkins or the rest of the top 40 garbage thats put out on the airwaves ad nauseum.

For some reason my man Bruce Woods et al seem to actually get really upset over the fact that this type of music exists and is enjoyed. This is something that I do not comprehend.

I think that this type of music serves a very important purpose. It is "easy" to listen to as well as being a way for some people to become introduced to Jazz. There is no way that a neophyte can truly appreciate the things that Bruce and the rest of us appreciate until they have been "weaned" on what I call lightweight stuff. I don't mean this as a putdown. Most people have to be eased into "hardcore" Jazz.

What I'm really trying to say to Bruce and the rest of you "unbending dogmatists" ; ^ ) * is that Kenny G is doing us a favor by slowly grabbing the uninitiated who will eventually want to go beyond what he has to offer and then they will seek out what we like to call "the real stuff".

THEN, bang! We got another convert...............

I have met many that have been listening to *G* for 10 years
now,they still don't like the *real* stuff.
What is the real stuff they ask me ?
I tell them "I have no idea" for I know they will never have a clue.
There is no point in stuffing the real stuff down anyones throat,it has to be discovered on ones own.
AJ

I despise Smooth, but getting back to the original topic, I think it has been relegated to malls for the most part. In my mall for example, there is mostly smooth with your general Kenny G. clones, but then I also have heard some straight ahead, and some very credible tunes there too. I think if your mall or store plays something like Grover Washington, Jr. they have more guts, then your average muzak provider for a shopping center

Once I again I find myself agreeing with Bruce and Scott Y.

I think it would be very fitting if Instrumental Pop were relegated to the malls of the world. Where better to enjoy such a marketed, sterile, boring sound.

Last weekend they held a "Jazz Festival" in Newport Beach, CA. The LA Times reports that the place was packed for such great "jazz" artists as Koz, Ritenour ad nauseum. The crowd loved it and partied to the sounds. I doubt if many true jazz fans were in the crowd.

Now the hotel where they held the thing is a beach resort with one and two story buildings. I don't think they even have elevators ;).

Clint

Be careful now, You're making a value statement based on what you consider jazz... I think almost everybody can agree that Kenny G is really pop instrument music. But Lee Ritenour or Grover are great jazz musicians who choose to intergrate other elements like synths, etc into their recording music outing. They happen to get played on Smooth Jazz stations. If David Murray or Joshua Redman decided to utilize some other instrumentation and record a cover of Isn't She Lovely that got played on smooth jazz stations would you categorize them as Smooth Jazz artists or just a jazz artist? If you don't like that sound that's a whole other story, but I get nervous when I read your or CJ comments without having listened to artists your mentioning.

On that note, Bruce or Scott did you ever listen to Fattburger? You have every right to dislike it, but I have a problem especially with jazz folk who make sweeping statements without investigating... such as I hate avant garde jazz, I hate free jazz, I hate contemporary jazz, I hate bebop. IMO, those are ignorant comments that serve nobody especially the genre called jazz and the musicians that make it.

Lois,

Personally, I must admit to not liking free/avant garde jazz myself. Having said that, I will tell you that I had to listen to it BEFORE I formulated my opinion. So, you are, indeed, correct in your assessment, IMHO.

I wish the Suits never coined the phrase "smooth jazz" because good stuff (and I being subjective here) like Weather Report, Yellow Jackets, Steve Khan, Ronny Jordan and Doc Powell get lumped in with the schlock like Kenny Whatshisname or Dave Koz.

I MUCH prefer the term "Fusion Jazz"...it's more to the point. Poncho Sanchez, Micheal Franks, Doug Robinson or Mike Stern are ANYTHING but smooth artists. Even guys like Boney James or Tom Scott would roll their eyes at the mere suggestion. Yet some of the artists I've mentioned in this post cross over into the so-called "smooth".

Would Diana Krall, Anita Baker or Diane Schurr fit this smooth category, too?

It is an unfortunate commercial lable that fits only a VERY limited category.

Goodspeak

Thanks for articulating so well, what I was trying to say...

Lois,

I give anything calling itself "jazz" a listen and I've listened to stuff by the aforementioned Ritenour and Koz and the others. To me it's boring and the dumbing down of jazz.

Grover can play great jazz - witness his solo in Monk on Monk - and if he can make a few bucks playing soul or smooth or otis more him.

My complaint is the same of many of the others here - to me it ain't jazz! I don't want to get into the tedious definition of jazz discussion. I just know what 50+ years of listening have trained my ears to hear as jazz.

I just thought it was ironic that an event like the Newport Beach thing would sell out with music aimed at a pretty low common denominator. But no one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

Actually Lois, I like Fattburger generally and have always liked the Yellowjacketss. I also think highly of Grover Washington Jr. and David Sanborn if not necessarily all of their records. On the other hand, the popularity of Lee Ritenour has always mystified me because I think of him as the perfect studio musician, one without a personality of his own. He's very good at sounding pretty anonymous and fitting into whatever situation he's hired for. His jazz work is derivative of Wes Montgomery, pleasing but unoriginal. And his pop stuff never sticks in my mind; it seems so nondescript. I can understand the popularity of Kenny G. who mostly plays pretty melodies, but Rit, Richard Elliott and Dave Koz seem to have such weak musical personalities while Boney James mostly copies Grover Washington Jr. I'll keep on listening to all of them as the records come in, but so far it's difficult to be too impressed. Calling it fusion jazz though is inaccurate since fusion is the mixture of rock rhythms with jazz improv, like Return to Forever, the Elektric Band, Weather Report, Tribal Tech, etc. Instrumental pop (I refuse to use the radio-term smooth jazz) is essentially jazzy pop music. Is it relegated strictly to malls? I wish it were, then maybe jazz radio could be decent again.

Clint,

Inasmuch as I am in complete awe (and I AM, too) of your years of dedication to jazz, unfortunately, INHO, all things must eventually evolve. I am huge bebop and straight ahead jazz fan but, even IT has evolved, as well. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily a bad thing.

Scott Yanow,

Wouldn't Fusion also be Latin, Funk or Soul rythms along with the jazz improv, too? I'm not trying to be critical but, I was always under the impression that Fusion is a mixture or a coming together of various styles of music with the only common feature being the jazz (improvisational) root.

Lois,

You darn me with faint praise :)

I live in an area fortunate enough not to have a "smooth" station(although they do play some smooth on the jazz station) but, I agree with everyone else, smooth needs to evolve past where it is. I think this could be done in the area of improv. While I know virtually nothing about theory, I think that in smooth the improvs. could be a little more intricate. I read in Downbeat, a few months back during their multi part series on BA, often times artists such as the Yellowjackets, and Pat Metheny flunked the test. why? b/c IMO, it is the very earthy improvs. in songs. I had the opportunity to listen to "Blue Hats" by the Yellowjackets, and they have veered of more into straight ahead/R&B inflected playing. While Metheny is viewed as "smooth" by some jazzers, his stuff is hardly smooth IMO. Smooth has become very much like mainstream R&B nowadays, it follows a set formula in which there is little to no variation. I would say you hear smooth on even Top 40. I say this b/c if you take away the vocals, you have smooth jazz. It'd be nice if Smooth got some new things going for it, like B-3 organ.

Smooth music is very appropriate backdrop for shopping malls since they are both more about commerce than anything else. A smooth CD would not make David Murray a smooth musician. But David Murray playing smooth music still doesn't make the result jazz, either.

Preferring the texture of roughness over smoothness approximately 7 days a week,
Larry

I guess what irritates me is the "smooth" label. There's lots of real jazz that is smooth, real smooth i.e. Johnny Hodges, Charlie Byrd, Stephane Grapelli, Stanley Turrentine, etc., etc.

But I'm a cranky old fart. I look at jazz as an art which, to me, means that there's a challenge from it's substance. Is there any substance to Otis jazz?

Although It's not my cuppa, fusion has some meat to it and can hardly be called "smooth." Although some of it is.

I don't blame the players for trying to make a buck. Musicians aren't exactly at the top of the financial food chain. After all the 1812 is one of the most played concert pieces because it attracts the great unwashed masses. You know, the same doofuses who stand in line for nine days to watch "Episode 1."

Clint,

I gotcha backed up on this one...couldn't have said it any better :)

Happy jazzin'

PS There's a new Star Wars movie?

>>... I agree with everyone else, smooth needs to evolve past where it is ...<<

I wonder how many times the above has been suggested? It seems to me that only the larger metropolitan areas are able to sustain a so-called "smooth" audience. Most other areas cannot and smooth formatted stations are rapidly being converted to classic Rock or what-have-you as we speak.

What really concerns me most is how these artists, now relegated to the "elevator" category, can ever climb out of this abyss they've been stuffed in by writers/critics like Scott Yanow. While not a major fan of Lee Ritenour, is it really possible for a Lee Ritenour to succeed in having his All-Music Jazz Guide entry revised, ever? He's labeled as a "derivative studio" musician. Does anyone ever come along later in his career and say that they were wrong in their previous evaluation? This kind of writing still sticks in my throat as to its value. The seeming motivation is to direct people away from the artists' music.

I'm not interested in picking a fight here, but I've always felt that when we have the "power" at our fingertips to affect peoples' lives, it requires extreme care as to how we use that advantage.

Sorry guys, but this just never sits well.

Has smooth jazz been relegated to the malls?

I wish.

If nothing else, it sure beats the heck out of a Muszak version of Tie a Yellow Ribbon or In-A-Gadda-Vida, ya know?

I shudder to think...

<<listeners who listen to music for danger, chancetaking and excitement rather than to get relaxed.>>

That would be alienated geeks who are so presumptious that they think they can dictate what people should get out of music if they don't want to be ridiculed?

Listen, smooth nonsense notwithstanding, you ought to lighten up. I am very, very into music. And sometimes I definitely want what you've described. And sometimes I don't. There are times I want to relax or even zone out completely. For you to imply that I am not as serious a listener as you is ludicrous. I'd understand if you were 25, but really...we all enjoy music on our own terms, much to a critic's disdain.

It's insidious scope has expanded to include mallville, but if we are to give the world "relegated" it's due, the correct answer would have to be "No, unfortunately, it has not."

Geez, am I full of myself, or what?

OK, before anyone takes a stance in defense of smooth, remember that some of us are using "smooth jazz (sic) radio" for our basic reference point. This smooth jazz (sic) radio is the FM station that plays the cat who croons "smoooooth jaaaazzz..." like he's trying to seduce a drunk whore. There is no defense of this crap. It's the musical equivalent of canned laugh tracks; every major city has a station just like it, and the whole network is like a big syndication.

This musical programme was not born of something particularly interesting, just a marketing scheme that happened to rope in a reasonably large volume of listeners who happen to have big purchasing power. To pretend that it is in any way about the music is not right. For those of you lucky enough not to have experienced it, take my word for it: Nothing McDonald's could dream up stands a chance at being more about selling and less about the product itself than "smooth radio".

I am *not* faulting artists for being played on these stations. Anita Baker is always a staple of "smooth radio", and I think she's great. She is also adamantly *not* jazz in any regard, but it's not her fault that she gets lumped in with Fourplay. But for those of us who have to suffer through passing these stations on the dial, please keep in mind the painfulness of the experience. There is plenty to be angry about when it comes to this music, and a knee jerk defense of it should be weighed against what the industry has done to make a mockery out of the word "jazz".

A little feisty on a Sunday night,
Larry

Ppjazz, I didn't put Lee Ritenour into any "abyss." Captain Fingers put himself there by recording over a dozen albums that mostly qualify as background music. I would not be intellectually honest if I wrote about him as if he were a major jazz improviser. He mostly plays jazz-influenced pop music. Will I or anyone else revise his AMG entry eventually? Yes, if he ever records anything significant to the jazz world! Am I being unfair? Listen to his records and get back to me. I have given some good reviews to his Wes Montgomery tributes in the past, but I've yet to hear any real individuality. As far as "smooth jazz" goes, I don't care if people listen to it to relax or if they think it's stimulating. My main fault with it is that it's called jazz. Some of it is, some of it (Anita Baker? Basia? Kenny G? Much of Rit?) isn't even close. The term just confuses listeners who think Richard Elliot is a major jazz saxophonist. Why not just call it instrumental pop and leave it at that? Then many of us would never comment on it, just like we ignore heavy metal and rap.

Some of today's contemporary music is like the artificially enlarged super-strawberries, full of fibre, a hidden empty cavity, with no flavor. Unless you have tasted a strawberry grown in the wild, or in a backyard garden, you haven't tasted the 'real thing'. But if all you see are those hybrid berries in the plastic coffins at the supermarket, you just don't know the difference. It's all a matter of taste....as well as knowledge and experience. I heard a group do a version of Mood Indigo, with repetetive vocal sampling, some kind of hip-hop rhythm and it was terrible! The name of the group escapes me.

What I've noticed is that malls are now palying Classical music!!! When I asked, I was told "The bums don't like it, and they leave." Interesting.

That stuff called "smooth jazz" (aka "pap") sounds just like Muzak to me, and malls and elevators are the best places for it!

I'm not dissing it, it just has no personality to me. I'd rather listen to water running.

>>... The term just confuses listeners who think Richard Elliot is a major jazz saxophonist. Why not just call it instrumental pop and leave it at that? ...<<

#31 Scott . . .

I think few "smooth" listeners have an awareness that the music they are listening is not "jazz." And fewer still even know there is a term called "instrumental pop." this kind of jargon only finds relevance in communities such as this place where the differences are discussed.

In talking to a number of my friends who prefer to listen to the music of Boney James, Brian Culbertson, Fourplay, and Kenny G, I've pointed out on many occasions that this music doesn't qualify as "jazz," and is better referred to as "instru-pop." First of all, they do not care enough about the designation for it to register on their senses. No matter how many times we talk, they still feel more comfortable using the term "smooth jazz." I find that the relevance of these terms have not and will not make any impression on them.

Aren't we beating a dead horse here since the people feeding the public this stuff are content to force-feed the term "smooth jazz?" Come to think of it, I can't remember ever hearing any of my friends refer to this music as "contemporary jazz."

Am I wrong here?

As long as they pronounce it properly, and take five times as long to say "smoooooooth" as they take to say "jazz," I don't have problem with it.

PPjazz - As long as they call it jazz (smooth or otherwise), it will be subject to criticism and dismissal by those of us who listen to creative music. Naturally your friends are more comfortable with the term smooth jazz because that's what the radio people and the advertisers call it. When people don't think for themselves, they follow the self-appointed leaders. I always thought the term "contemporary jazz," which was in vogue a few years ago and is still used today, was even more absurd since the instrumental pop of four or five years ago sounds quite dated today and is far from "contemporary." One can blame Billboard, since they were the ones who decided to have two jazz charts and divide the jazz world into "Traditional" and "Contemporary"; the promoters, publicists and radio program directors (most of whom seem to be sheep) quickly followed without protest. Are Cecil Taylor and Anthony Braxton "traditional" or "contemporary?" Is dixieland and the avant-garde, both classified by some as "traditional," the same type of music? Is Basia jazz, contemporary or otherwise? Are there really just two types of jazz: one using a walking 4/4 bass and the other utilizing funky rhythms? Is William Parker "traditional" and Chris Botti "contemporary?" Give me a break!

Scott . . .

>>... Naturally your friends are more comfortable with the term smooth jazz because that's what the radio people and the advertisers call it. When people don't think for themselves, they follow the self-appointed leaders. ...<<

You're not getting an argument from me here. But I contend that to them the issue is not a priority of any importance or relevance. We could coin the phrase that a certain music is " Classic Contemporary Traditional Jazz" and many would say "That's nice. Is that what Kenny G is playing these days?" I just don't think a those who listen to smooth radio are concerned about a technical understanding of music or being what one might call "politically correct" about what "is" or "is not" jazz. They probably really like the music for whatever reasons. And trashing them here for their lack of musical intelligence will not get very far beyond this forum, especially since they are not hanging out here or at other BBS. It's really a dead issue for the most part.

We should be more concerned about present trends in music with Rock music losing 30% of its audience in recent years, Jazz has dropped to a 1.9 market-share, while classical has seemingly found a way to increase its audience, improving from a 2.8 share to around a 3.4 share. And as we get so excited about so-called "smooth jazz" RIAA's research says that it has lost 49% of its audience in the last three years. It seems that only larger metropolitan areas can sustain these stations while in many areas smooth stations are switching to Classic Rock in droves as we speak.

All I say is don't call it Smooth Jazz. Maybe it's a losing battle (although a new name will certainly come up to replace it in two years) but one I'm willing to fight since I'm tired of jazz being falsely represented. The popularity of jazz is a different issue altogether. There's really no reason that jazz itself cannot be more popular (maybe a new thread will arise from this) and excuse me if I don't completely trust the figures. Then again, 1.9% of this country is still more than 2 million people.

I agree, "Smooth Jazz" is simply a radio term, from Gavin and the like. However here's the really interesting question- If smooth really is losing its audience, how will this effect the stuff most of us listen to? ($-wise that is)

Also I don't think the success, or even popularity of the music can be determined solely by market share. And also the methods by which these sales and marketshare figures are generated are inherently flawed themselves. (soundscan is it?) Jazz is alive, it could be better, but it's far from dead, even IF you believe that 1.9 percent number.

<<It's the musical equivalent of canned laugh tracks; every major city has a station just like it, and the whole network is like a big syndication.

>>

No argument. Scott, you were right in #31, I think it was.

>>... Maybe it's a losing battle ... but one I'm willing to fight since I'm tired of jazz being falsely represented ...<<

Your dedication is why I do not think it's a losing battle. But there seem to be so many other issues that come in to play as well.

A Philadelphia public radio station I have enjoyed over the years is Temple Radio WRTI that for a period was formatted as a 24-hour Jazz station. It switched about two years ago to classical music in daytime and jazz at night. It was the only legitimate jazz station that I know of and was accessible to a large portion of Pensylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. The problems of getting support for jazz is no hypothetical set of figures.

This station claimed to reach a listening audience of 250,000 (in an area of millions), yet on its fund drives needed to keep the format afloat, only a few thousand were willing to give financial suppost. When a local classical station was available they were acquired and the format changed. It's basically accepted that classical enthusiasts are willing to provide better support and money. I believe it proved true with this station.

Here we have a case of a legitimate station that jazz fans would not support with their money. A veritable shame if you ask me.

PPJ: I like the name "Instrumental Pop" just fine! That way there's no confusing the already confused people who think that stuff (Mr. G., Najee, etc.) is Jazz. {Or -- it could be called "Instrumental PAP" -- pun intended -- snicker)

It would be ok if they were all as smooth as Charles Brown

Ya KNOW, the biggest kick I get out of folks resigned to pigeon holing smooth into some box labled, "Not Jazz", is that these SAME people DO see the several distinctions in styles of "Real" jazz. Am I missing something here or do we sometimes have our jazz "blinders" on?

My point is this: if, indeed, we can name the various types of "Real" jazz, doesn't it naturally follow that there are differant styles of non-"Real" jazz? To perfectly frank, I think many here have fallen into the easy trap of blithely castigating a HUGE panorama of jazz into a neat, convenient box. Is there Fusion jazz? How about Latin and Afro-Cuban jazz? World music? Ya see (dig)?

It ain't all the same and it is CERTAINLY not smooth, either. I dare say that Jazzooo's music could NEVER be labled as smooth...not even on a dare :)

"Blithley castigating a huge panorama of jazz into a neat convenient box?" Don't know who you're talking about Goodspeak. I've never criticized fusion (which is jazz) for being fusion, or jazz itself for using elements of World Music. My only criticism is when pop music (ie: music recorded specificially for the radio and having very little spontaneity or improvisation) is called jazz, "smooth" or otherwise. Jazz musicians should always be encouraged to express and stretch themselves. Style names are only used for convenience sake and do not necessarily tell people what these artists will be doing in the future. It's up to the individual musicians and singers to decide whether they want to stay in the same genre where they've resided thus far (such as Thelonious Monk who did not change much after 1947) or explore other areas (such as Miles Davis). As long as it's creative, enthusiastic, well-played and honest, it interests me as a listener. As far as "pigeonholeing Smooth," that exercise doesn't interest me. Just keep that yuppie muzak away from me, please, and don't call it jazz. In return, I'll happily ignore its existence!

Scott,

No reference to you jazz knowledge and criticism, I assure you...just a general commentary regarding the narrowness of scope some jazzer's have relative to the genre.

For the record, most of the "repeat a phrase 'til ya run SCREEMING from the room" smooth ear pabulum with the loops and drum machines the Suits pass off as music, let alone jazz, makes me want to reach through the speakers and strangle a recording exec...er, sorry. Got a bit carried away. It's just that, if I can believe what I'm reading/hearing, we jazz fans must be open to ALL forms of the art, not just to the ones we like. AND I think jazzer's, especially the hardcores and the newbies, are reluctant to see beyond their OWN CD collections.

I include myself among those numbers. The ONLY jazz station in MY one horse radio town is a Smooth station...be force, sorta, I have to listen to it or enjoy oldies, endure alternative or laugh/swear at the country (Hooo, she left MEEEEE! She flushed me down the toilet of her heaRRRT!!) crap I'm left with.

It has been a struggle to listen at times, but I HAVE discovered some pretty nifty jazz nuggets hidden amongst the garbage.

Happy jazzin'

The labeling of smooth music as jazz does pose a problem with tracing roots. Lots of jazz fans came into the music via fusion. I'm one of them, in a way. Listening to Chick Corea can lead someone back to Return To Forever, which can lead him back to Miles Davis' electric period, which might lead back to the 2nd 5tet, which could lead back to Miles with 'Bird, which could... and so on and so on. I think more young listeners work their way through jazz evolution *backwards* than forwards. The more recent music is easier to relate to, but the artists always trump the cats who influenced them, and it piques the listener's curiosity to check out the influences.

Well, for someone who digs Boney James, there *is* no continuity with jazz, so it's a dead end and the person who thinks it is jazz will not have an opportunity to learn about the broad spectrum of jazz. The smooth musicians don't profess to be jazz players themselves, and they don't pretend to have listened to or studied jazz music.

Yes, there are a lot of distinctions that get lumped together. Even within the recent "contemporary" jazz category, there are some CD's that are smooth muzak while others have some jazz elements and don't deserve to be lumped in with the rest. Reid once made a comment about this problem, that people won't check out an "electric" jazz recording because of an unfair smooth association. I think his remark was to the effect that I wouldn't like it if someone based all of jazz on a Kenny G recording.

Of course, my contention would be that's like judging an orange by your experience with a bad apple. They're not even in the same category. :-)

Rambling on without demonstrating that he has a point to make,
Larry

just as on the thread at JOL, if some dude thinks Najee puts out good recordings, there is no chance for this same person to listen to David Murray and hear the difference. They are playing two different forms of music, as different as The Spice Girls and Captain Beefheart. There is no relation from a musical perspective, the only realtion being the marketing guy who at some point in the past decided to call that music contemporary of smooth "jazz".

Steve,
You could say my jazz journey began with Kenny G, and yet I now appreciate many of the musicians you like. So much for your theory. And if you thik it's me, you're dead wrong. If you hung out at the jcs smooth board, you'd know that there are a lot more people like me. Btw, I enjoy listening to the Spice Girls. Yah, they're not great art or anything, but who says if you like Andrew Hill you can't like the Spice Girls.

Larry,

The value of smooth jazz you might be missing is that it can get people to have a positive perception to instrumental music. Not many people, especially young people, like instrumental music period. If there's no human voice, forget about it; they won't be open to it. Smooth often helps open up people to instrumental music. That's how it worked for me.

Btw, I think the example I used was bashing jazz solely on Glenn Miller. It's still very similar to bashing every type of fusion by citing Kenny G.

I have to concur with much of what Reid is saying here.

I was taking my grandson home not too long ago and had the Pat Metheny Group playing on the cd-player. He couldn't fathom how a composer can give a song a title without there being lyrics. That little conversation underscores what Reid is saying about many today needing the presence of "words" in identifying with music.

Because of what has been fed the general music public, there is generally a lack of enjoying instrumental music. But I believe this is where we can play an important part in exposing others to good music.

Reid,

You really need to become more narrow minded. I am having a very difficult time pigeon holing you with simple labels and it's becoming very frustrating. The time has come for you to denounce all acoustic jazz so we can have some *real* arguments. ;-)

With tongue planted firmly in cheek,
Larry

Scott writes "Just keep that yuppie muzak away from me, please, and don't call it jazz."

I'll take that one step further. You can even call it jazz as long as you really do keep to away from me.

Scott Y.,

I wholeheartedly agree with your point regarding the use of the term jazz. I object to the use of the term "smooth jazz". It should be called "smooth listening music", "smooth contemporary music" or something else. The term "jazz" is used to loosely.


X

Ya KNOW, if we allow ourselves the luxury of NOT listening to other types of jazz/music, this LIMITS our ability to discover. Isn't that what jazz is to begin with?

By way of a personal example, I am a bebop/straight ahead fanatic BUT, I do understand and appreciate Boney James, Pat Metheney, Doc Powell, etc. It isn't the kind of music I would (necessarily) wait in line for BUT, it DOES have some redemable features.

I teach Speech and English. AND if I were to constantly hammer away at the Classics or Shakespeare, I would (like) totally lose my young "audience" (like), ya know? SO, I throw some high interest reading material at them just to ease the intensity level.

The same is true of jazz fans. Sometimes I just want to listen but, NOT be challenged.

Tito Puente said to me last summer(as he was celebrating his 50th year as a bandleader)that 'Latin Jazz',now referred to as 'salsa'has undergone many name changes.In an interview he did with me he calls salsa "a condiment of food".
He remembers 'cha-cha','mambo',and many others.My point here,is that we get so-o-o-o-o-o-o- hung up on what the promoters and record execs call something that we lose sight or maybe sound.
Someone else said that although his only available radio station was called smooth,that there were some gems in the trash pile.
When one is an avid music lover as we have in this community,we know what it is no matter what it is called...MS

I think that the smooth label is applied too much to jazz tunes, that have pretty melodies and contemporary rhythms. I remember an argument on JCS about Metheny being a smoothie. I haven't heard to many records of his, but I have heard some like "We Live Here" and on tracks like "Here To Stay" it's unfair to label it "Smooth" b/c there is real substance there. Another person, "Smooth" is labeled to is Stanley Jordan. While some of his things have been in that category(Flying Home) tracks like "The Lady in My Life" on "Live in New York" clearly demonstrate that it isn't always smooth. The improv. keeps it out of that territory, and it's just an electric group playing a funk type groove. I agree w/ Scott, in that things that are slightly contemporary sounding get labeled as smooth, when in reality they aren't "smooth"

I think Song X will safely put aside any notions that Pat Metheny is "smooth".

One thing worth mentioning: Playing some smooth music does not necessarily a smooth musician make. You can dabble in many different sounds like Metheny and not deserve to be stamped as a particular "type" of musician.

Larry

I've always felt that the PMG website (www.patmethenygroup.com) was an excellent place to go to get some insite into the effect of the whole "smooth," "airplay," on musicians. Mr. Metheny has been pretty forthcoming in his observations and the effect on his music and audiences.

One example I remember had to do with PMG's wonderful "Imaginary Day" release and tour. One tune on the release, "Follow Me," was included for "airplay." Seeing the Imaginary Day tour, the band did not include this arrangement as part of the program. On the website "Question & Answer" forum Pat commented how this one tune has affected his audiences. When "Follow Me" is played on "smooth" stations, it has resulted in many coming to PMG concerts expecting to hear a whole evening of this type arrangements. When it doesn't happen he says that he's gotten a lot of negative feedback from these people. So it seems that any sacrifice these guys make can hurt them one way or another.

I have to reiterate that I believe that playing jazz has become a problem of survival for a large contingency of artists. I wonder why more do not come forth and express themselves here on the subject. There's little doubt that many are bowing to pressure from their label execs and many are holding their ground. It just seems like an extremely difficult circumstance for these guys.

Pat Metheny says that under the circumstances he often wishes they wouldn't play his music at all. He could do better writing jingles for McDonald's if achieving commercial success was the driving factor behind his goals.

Some very insightful reading if you have time.

Phil

Scott Yanow, right on, brother! My only difference with your opinions is that I won't keep listening to all of them as the records come out, because I just don't have the time or patience to check out every smooth... er, instrumental pop artist that comes out with a CD. Your version of Fusion Jazz is right on, except there is music that is very difficult to label. I kind of would rather not label it at all, if at all possible. Where does Sanborn fit in those labels, or better yet Metheny or the new Like Minds disc?

Mike S.

If I'd never been exposed to jazz and smooth music was all that was available, then I might be listening to a smooth music station. However, under the present circumstances, I wouldn't be inclined to listen to a smooth station even if it there were no other stations.

X

X...I was referring to the poster who said that where he lives there is ONLY a 'smooth' station to listen to and that it's not ALL BAD.

Believe me,being blessed to have lived primarily where there has been good jazz radio,I rarely cross the path of a jazz-lite station(I think they actualy do a straight ahead show on Sunday nites).
As HL says,peace and all that...MS

I wade into these waters ever so gingerly,for fear of being misunderstood! I don't give a damn about any foolish labels folks might want to apply to me,but," . . .please don't let me be misunderstood!" Those were NOT jazz lyrics,either!

I detest the "watering down" of jazz radio and the definition of "jazz" as an art form in America,period! I don't care if you DO or DON'T like "smooth jazz" radio,it's vastly different,usually, than anything else described as "jazz" since it's inception,and I'll defy ANYONE to refute that!

I'm as much obliged as anyone to ANYTHING which brings more "ears" to jazz,however,I will NOT abide by "C-minus" funk and boring,repetitive,non-musical pop/garbage to be the solution!

"Jazz,accept no substitutes"tm!

Ron

Jazzlovers,
Please read my post under 'Definition of Jazz'thread post#68
Peace and all that.

Seeing as I love to add my two cents, so I will to this thread. Here me out before flaming me:
I do not like smooth jazz. Kenny G. is not anyone I'd consider a remarkable musician by any means. The fact that it is regulated to malls and the like is a generalization. The malls around here rarely play anything, let alone jazz. When they do, it's purely instrumental smooth jazz, and gets a lot of people cringing. Call me crazy, but I think that if they were to play big band swing in the malls, you'd have a lot more converts than from the smooth jazz, which in some cases is downright stupid. If you listen to commercials now, you're more likely to find swing than any other type of jazz. Trust me as a gal who has nothing better to do with her summer vacation than practice and watch tv.

Ron, that line actually is a jazz lyric. Nina Simeone did that tune long before the Animals did.

Front page of the entertainment section of local paper (owned by the NYT): "SILKY SOUNDS Where easy-listening meets smooth protopop jazz over over a Zima, you'll find David Sanborn..." (and gives the details of tomorrow night's concert.)

"Smooth *protopop* jazz" -- definitely an improvement over simply "smooth jazz", a move in the right direction. But
it's gonna take more than a Zima to get me to listen.

Mike S. said it best. In my one horse radio town, we're "stuck" with the smooth stuff but, at the risk of seeming redundant: It ain't ALL bad, guys.

I really think that it is unfortunate that so many folks limit themselves by refusing to even acknowledge another type of music.

EXAMPLE ALERT!!! Read on at your own intellectual risk...

Steve Reynolds just sent me an avant-garde CD called BOUNCE by John Lindberg Ensemble. I'll be dead honest with you guys and tell you straight up that I was more than a little bit sceptical...in fact, I wasn't expecting much. Out of the seven cuts, I could pass four as palatable. One was a bass solo, one was a ballad and the other two were kinda like hard bop. Had I not listened at all, I NEVER WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED MUSIC BEYOND MY OWN COMFORT ZONE. I still don't consider this music I'd prefer to listen to BUT, I got an education AND can see some redemable features to this jazz style. As for the three other tracks, well, to appreciate them I'd need to be heavily sedated...scales, squeaks and drum rolls just don't appeal to me.

Smooth jazz affects me the same way some times but, ya KNOW the ARE some very good musicians being showcased here and I wouldn't want to miss out.

[Carlton (alljazzalltime) sends me a KLON care package once in a while to help me stay sane]

Happy jazzin'

GS-don't you realize who that drummer is?

Ed Thigpen...and?

you know who he grew up in jazz playing with.

Goodspeak,

The thing about that example is that the reverse happens every day. There is no way one can escape the grasp of smooth. Its everywhere! So, even if this was the only exposure to this music, that's enough for me to say that I don't like it. Maybe there might be one out of a thousand smooth musicians who makes something that I might possibly like (hasn't happened yet, though), but why would I spend my time looking for that when there's so much avant-garde, bop, post-bop, etc. that I still haven't heard?

-Omar
ps: seems like we were talking about this on JOL. Freaky.

GS-don't you see the irony about what you said about "drum rolls" and guy who played them?

Omar,

I understand. You made a choice about what you want to spend your listening time on. Cool. What I'M taliking about is the individual who REFUSES to listen to anything else. In my case, there IS nothing else, jazz radio wise, that I can listen to...so, I try to make the best of it.

Steve R.,

So...are you saying Ed Thigpen can't or doesn't play drum rolls? I'm confused.

It's obvious that you are confused.


Does anyone else see the irony?

...apparently not.

So give, already...

the *last* person most anyone would think would be the drummer on a John Lindberg date might have been thought to be Ed Thigpen-save for the fact he plays on 3 of his recordings.

Point is that Ed Thigpen would *not* play on a free-jazz date-as he is the farthest thing from a free-jazz drummer.

...and your point, good Sir?

that 'Bounce' is not free jazz

Smooth jazz has not been relegated to the malls. It can also be found in the crematoriums.

Steve R,

Call tracks one, six and seven what you will...I prefer to calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Lex,

It's a good thing, too. The free jazz could plant some of the visitors...LOL!

Steve,

Your reasoning is totally weak. Let me get this straight: Ed Thigpen is not a free jazz drummer; Ed Thigpen plays on Bounce; Therefore, Bounce is not free jazz? Is that the logic at work here. With that kind of logic that Ornette Coleman a straight-ahead player when Shelly Manne played with him or how the Rolling Stones would become jazz when Rollins played with them. Yah, right.

I have Bounce btw, and I like what I've heard especially Douglas' playing. I don't have a strong opinion on what it should be called but if someone where to label this Free jazz or avant-garde I wouldn't argue with them. It's not as out there as those labels connote, but it's not far from accurate either. And finally, just be thankful that you have someone to argue with that actually gave the album a shot. Man, that's a lot more you can say about GS than I can about you.

Thanks Reid. I kinda wondered where Steve R was going with this one...now it makes (some) sense.

Smooth "jazz" in the malls. Can this be a sign of its imminent demise? Like the Ray Contiff Singers and Mantovani? My fingers are crossed.

I agree 100% with Scott's 5-17-00 post. He hit it right on the head. Call it what you want but DON'T call it jazz, please.