Is improvisational jazz to impressionism art as smooth jazz is to realism art?

Bob Dylan: "It's not left or right, it's up or down."

Sitting next to each other on a shelf are my ABBA, AC/DC, Roy Acuff, Arthur Alexander, Mose Allison, Al Anderson, and Alpha band (T Bone Burnett, David Mansfield, and Stephen Soles) LP's. 

Cl;assical and Jazz are viewed as the most "advanced" of all musics. It takes years of study, training, and practice to become proficient enough on an instrument (or voice) to perform it well.

I find those two musics very different in major ways. As others have noted, Classical is for the most part (excluding lots of 20th Century compositions) written, the performers "merely" providing their interpretation of the notes in the score. In Jazz, the composition is often just a basic outline, the players taking the song structure and doing with it as they wish. It is what the musicians add to the basic song that Jazz fans are listening for, often more so than the song itself. It seems to me.

At the far left on the dial of my car radio are two stations, one Jazz the other Classical. I’ve been listening to them as I drive a lot, and switching between them has made the differences between the two musics stark. A Jazz song can have a complex chordal structure and progression, or just a single chord played for an extended period of time, the musicians improvising "over" that one chord. Being first and foremost a song lover, I don’t find that interesting.

Though Rock ’n Roll, Blues, and Country & Western/Hillbilly/Bluegrass are viewed as "primitive" musics, some songs in those genres are fairly sophisticated in terms of composition/chordal and harmonic structures and development, more so that many Jazz songs. Listen to Brian Wilson’s "God Only Knows" (found on The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds album) for a prime example. Very sophisticated chord structure, harmonic development, and use of counterpoint. Paul McCartney has characterized it as the "best" song he has ever heard.

I find well-written "Pop" (non-Classical and Jazz) songs to have more in common with "traditional" Classical compositions than do many Jazz "songs". Heresy? ;-) On the other hand, what a superior Jazz musician plays on his instrument can transcend the notion of "the song", taking music to a different, higher plane.  Such music is often of the abstract variety, asking much of the listener. One must "let go" of the objective, rational view of consciousness, letting the music take you where it wants. The Shape Of Jazz To Come by Ornette Coleman is such an album; hearing it was a transformational experience. It made Jimi Hendrix sound downright pedestrian. ;-)

Song title on the debut album (entitled Gorilla) of The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band:

"Jazz, Delicious Hot, Disgusting Cold".

More facts about Jazz: The music requires the most technique of all non-Classical musics to be able to perform well. Lots of music requires no more than average in that regard, but lots of Jazz is not only difficult to listen to, but also to play. That is---I contend---part of it’s snob appeal.

Jeff Hamilton (Diana Krall’s drummer) gave a talk at a late-90’s Los Angeles Custom & Vintage Drum Show, and talked about he and his Dad watching The Beatles’ first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, and laughing at the playing of Ringo Starr. There’s some of that Jazz attitude: Technical ability alone defines the quality of a musician’s playing, and the combined technical abilities of a musical ensemble the quality of the music they make.

Would the music of The Beatles have been "better" if Hamilton rather than Ringo was their drummer? Or could it instead have been less good?

@estreams: Your view of the different strains of Jazz can lead one to this fact: amongst some musicians, the more "difficult" a music is, the more artistic it is. It’s a form of snobery, one I clearly hear in the music of, for instance, Frank Zappa. The term "abstract" is, I believe, a better one than impressionism for what you are talking about.

The snobery comes from the belief that more complex and/or difficult (atonal, lack of melody and/or traditional song chord progressions/structure) music expects and asks more of the listener, requiring a knowledge of music theory, if only to discard it in practice.

If I may suggest a (non-Jazz) music which is very formally structured, melodic, and "inviting" (unlike the off-putting "difficult" strains of Jazz), give J.S. Bach a try. His music is all of the above, but in Baroque music the musician is often free to add his own improvisation embellishment to the written score. In fact, in the 17th and 18th centuries that ability was expected. It’s almost like a musician taking a solo in a song, though to a lesser degree.