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

Grab/sit down at your instrument. Take any tune. Flat the Five (the So in do-re-mi-fa-so). Linger on the Seven (Ti) and Nine (Re, but up an octave). Find a DJ with a very deep voice to introduce you. Make sure you carry two IDs so you can cash those enormous checks.

@yuviarora:: 

"What if both are completely wrong?"

Can you offer an example of what "both being wrong" might look like?

I find it easier to see how each side could be both partially right and partially wrong than to envision both sides being completely wrong.  

"We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987"

"We are there."

Yup

Well, half the population believes in facts while the other half believes in "alternative facts". And each side will claim those on the other side are the ones who believe what’s false.

@stuartk what if both are completely wrong? ....Both sides blame each other, divided, manipulated, led around by the nose, scared, confused, demoralized. Unaware of the forces that guide them, shaping their thinking, all the while curating their world view.

To people complaining about the politicization of art and music, both have been used to disseminate propaganda since the start of Human Civilization.
Not all trash is Art, and Not all Noise is Music.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is universal and intrinsic. Beauty has standards, by definition.

@middlemass:

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987"

"We are there."

Yup.


Well, half the population believes in facts while the other half believes in "alternative facts". And each side will claim those on the other side are the ones who believe what's false. 

@facten:

We seem to not be communicating very well-- I apologize for whatever responsibility I bear for this.

As it happens, I'm very familiar with John McLaughlin-- I've been listening to him since 1972. 

However, I have never heard anything by him that resembles Smooth Jazz in any way or anything midway between Smooth Jazz and Fusion. 

In fact, I was hoping you would provide the titles of some of his records that would provide examples of such playing. I hope I have made things clearer!  

As a professional musician, these posts make me want to kill myself.

Best response by a country mile.

If the OP had left out his first three sentences, this could have been a discussion on what styles of jazz one likes and the occasional references to art.

Those first three sentences show more than a passing affinity to an authoritarian mindset as it meets a few criteria to be one. Normally, one would reference civilian and military needs and not "warfighter" as it’s not a recognized occupation but a romanticized notion one would take to embellish. That, or one is conflating soldiers with mercenaries, blurring obvious distinctions.

I would never begin a thread with such loaded implications, but then, that’s me. I only bring this up due to the silly comments on some forms of art being equated with politics that some posters like to vilify.

All the best,
Nonoise

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987"

"We are there."

Yup.

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. 

Gimme Mahler! Gimme the Ramones! Gimme Coltrane! Gimme Rodgers & Hammerstein! Gimme the Archies!  Gimme Hildegarde von Bingen! Gimme Penderecki! Gimme Sinatra!

If you don’t know that John McGlaughlin plays jazz fusion than read up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McLaughlin_(musician)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McLaughlin_(musician)#The_Mahavishnu_Orchestra

@facten;

Actually, no.

I'd appreciate some examples, if you don't mind. 

@stuartk

" @facten:
I’m curious: which John McLaughlin recordings qualify as Smooth Jazz????? "

Read my post closer I didn’t say he plays smoothjazz - I noted a few artists that I said fall "in between the two" , meaning between smooth and classic - jazz fusion. Clearer for you now ?????????????????????

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. ;-)

@marklings:

I'd go further and assert that what I've said about the nature of Jazz improv holds true for improv in any genre.

Aimless noodling doesn't tend to be very satisfying for players or listeners.

For example, the "theme and variation" approach can be recognized in the playing of Indian classical flautists, Bluegrass banjo pickers, and Chicago Blues harmonica blowers, to name but a few. They all attempt to create "order, structure, purpose and an overall sense of composition". 

They may not all succeed every time but this is an exceedingly challenging  activity we're talking about. 

So, it seems it might be more accurate to suggest you simply don't care for improvisation, period.

@marklings:

 I studied jazz piano 3 years and came to the conclusion that I just don't like it. I like order and structure and purpose and overall sense of a composition. I don't judge those who dig jazz and I understand those who dig it, I just don't.

I don't know where you studied but they seem to have managed to avoid conveying to you the whole point of Jazz improvisation, which is to SPONTANEOUSLY create something that does display "order and structure and purpose and an overall sense of composition" !  

Classical musicians do have lee-way in interpreting the pieces they play, but they are performing someone else's composition. Jazz masters operate on a whole 'nother level. 

I'm not saying what you "ought" to like or not like-- I'll leave such behavior to the resident music fascists who've posted on this thread.

But it seems a terrible shame that you've castigated Jazz for purportedly lacking what in fact lies at its very heart. 

Good one, then!

I wasn't sure, given some of the other posts on this thread.

@stuartk   Of course.  I love Jazz.

@serjio:

"In the Soviet Union, there was a joke-saying:
today you play jazz - and tomorrow you will sell your homeland (everything sounds in rhyme).
Surprisingly, years passed and it was these people who turned out to be traitors ...

Behind abstractionism and improvisation (most often) hides anti-art, chaos, mediocrity, dehumanization - it is easier to realize there for those who do not know how to create a masterpiece, but know how to sell themselves ... a fool - you need to convince that this is cool! - to play on his vanity and pride ... he is not like everyone else! - and for this you have to pay a lot of money))))

When people discuss works of such creativity (for example, Malevich's "black square") ... it seems as if art critics gathered around a puddle of urine in an elevator - and everyone fantasized what it was like, what an artist's inner world ... what he wanted us tell this ...

There are probably exceptions, but there are very few of them, and most likely - the melody turned out to be similar to the classical one"

What a load of reeking garbage you've served up, here. 

@facten:

I'm curious: which John McLaughlin recordings qualify as Smooth Jazz?????

@kijanki:

"Jazz is simply inferior to classical music. Jazz musicians don't know where the right notes are and "hunt" for them by trial and error, while classically trained musicians find them instantly. Just look at Jazz bassist or guitarist - they "walk" all over fretboard until they find right note. Sure, it looks like improvisation, but don't be fooled - it is lack of proper training".

I'm assuming this is a joke.

@estreams - At the end of the day whether or not others disdand smoothjazz doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t enjoy it, I sure do.

A partial list of groups/artists I enjoy: Rippingtons, Four Play, Roman Street, Lyndsey Webster, Gerald Albright, Quentin Gerard W. , Brian Simpson, Steve Oliver, Jeffrey Smith, Randy Scott, Chris "Big Dog ’ Davis, Marc Antonie, Tom Braxton , Braxton Brothers, Randall Clark, Tony Saunders, Darryl Williams, Nate White, Boney James, Marrion Meadows, Blake Aaron, Billy Ray Shepard, Norman Brown, Silk, Streetwise, Julian Vaughn, Acoustic Alchemy, Stanley Clarke, Blair Bryant, Special EFX, Smoothjazz Alley, Patrick Bradley, Four 80 East, Paul Brown , Roberto Vally, Jeff Lorber, etc. Likewise some "in-between" the two - Steve Khan, John McLaughlin, Alex Skolnick Trio, Simon Phiilips

Why don’t y’all just go to the next step and fit in with today’s America, stop arguing and start blaming… unbelievable comments on this thread.

No, but "burnt" is to "baccarat" as "icon" is to "teeter-totter."

@marklings, i was about to take umbrage to your ‘if its not impro than its not jazz” comment. But i first went to the Musical Dictionary and found this under the heading What is Jazz:
“Jazz also inspired the development of “smooth jazz,” which is a form of pop music that has some similarities with jazz. Smooth jazz uses many of the same instruments as jazz – saxophones, pianos, double basses, etc. – but musically it’s quite different. Smooth jazz has little or no improvisation and limited poylphony, which are the defining features of jazz. It also has much simpler rhythms. If you listen to the drums in a smooth jazz song, you’ll notice that the beat is very straightforward. Critics find this boring, while fans of smooth jazz find it easier to listen to. But they agree that smooth jazz is musically distinct from “real” jazz.”

i think there is room for both of us to enjoy the form of jazz that gets our toes tapping. 

Jazz is simply inferior to classical music. Jazz musicians don't know where the right notes are and "hunt" for them by trial and error, while classically trained musicians find them instantly. Just look at Jazz bassist or guitarist - they "walk" all over fretboard until they find right note. Sure, it looks like improvisation, but don't be fooled - it is lack of proper training.

I'll bite:

ROTFLMAO!

Jazz is improvisational, all jazz is improvisational.

If it is not impro than it's not jazz, maybe pop or lounge or you name it, whatever but not jazz.

In other words what I get from your post is "I don't like jazz". No objection there, personal opinion. I studied jazz piano 3 years and came to the conclusion that I just don't like it. I like order and structure and purpose and overall sense of a composition. I don't judge those who dig jazz and I understand those who dig it, I just don't.

If you like order as you say try Bach !!!

Jazz is simply inferior to classical music.  Jazz musicians don't know where the right notes are and "hunt" for them by trial and error, while classically trained musicians find them instantly.  Just look at Jazz bassist or guitarist - they "walk" all over fretboard until they find right note.  Sure, it looks like improvisation, but don't be fooled - it is lack of proper training.

We are there.

@serjio Couldn't have said it better myself. This Post Modernism view of things is the death of Objective Beauty, it is debauchery and is Anti Life. Up is down  

  We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

In the Soviet Union, there was a joke-saying:
today you play jazz - and tomorrow you will sell your homeland (everything sounds in rhyme).
Surprisingly, years passed and it was these people who turned out to be traitors ...

Behind abstractionism and improvisation (most often) hides anti-art, chaos, mediocrity, dehumanization - it is easier to realize there for those who do not know how to create a masterpiece, but know how to sell themselves ... a fool - you need to convince that this is cool! - to play on his vanity and pride ... he is not like everyone else! - and for this you have to pay a lot of money))))

When people discuss works of such creativity (for example, Malevich's "black square") ... it seems as if art critics gathered around a puddle of urine in an elevator - and everyone fantasized what it was like, what an artist's inner world ... what he wanted us tell this ...

There are probably exceptions, but there are very few of them, and most likely - the melody turned out to be similar to the classical one.

All jazz is improvisational, and there's no reason why "smooth jazz" couldn't be. It's sort of the definition of jazz. Are you perhaps confusing "improvisational" with "free jazz" or "harmolodics"? 

@edcyn, i love your observation “If the music speaks to me on an emotional level I'll listen to it no matter how noisy, crooked or straight it might be. For me it's the art not the science that counts.”  To me, that hits the nail on the head. 
@stuartk, you are a deep thinker, who tries to see things from an others perspective, which i love. Thank you for you insights.  

Just like any other genre, it breaks down at a certain point. You could go into funk, or fusion, traditional or period, and within period (much respect to the players I mentioned above-- the people that made these recordings in many cases were the real unsung heroes); you like what you like. 
As I mentioned, I got back into jazz in say the last 5 years largely because I was enjoying the music, both composition and performance (as well as the recording) of more offbeat stuff. My direction isn't yours or anyone else's. But it affords me with an entire body of material that I've found rewarding through further research and listening. As well as the acquisition of older copies of records or at least a preferred reissue if one exists. 

I don’t mind those who feel compelled to make fun of my enjoyment of the smooth jazz genre. We are each individuals who have been shaped by how our parents raised us and then by the life and environment we have lived in after we left the nest. If my musical enjoyment is considered “paint by numbers” by some then that’s their prerogative to judge me.  I do feel however that judging others based on our own personal experiences and norms is kind of selfish and a seems to be a source of some of the problems our society currently faces. Why cant we just get along? I wont judge you and you dont judge me; deal?
One last thought, and this may be the most important. My lovely wife of 41 years enjoys the smooth jazz artists I’ve discovered and will spend time with me in my mancave enjoying early morning coffee and smooth jazz. This is the only time she’ll come sit and listen to music with me. That is a treasure no critic can critique. 

... as smooth jazz is to paint by numbers.

Actually a misnomer. It's neither smooth nor jazz.
But I think the OP is on to something. The elevator in my building has a picture on the wall that would qualify as realism. And smooth jazz comes from the speaker next to it.

Smooth Jazz.  An oxymoron?  

I’ve been “around” a fair bit of visual art/discussion of visual art and I find the OP’s premise certainly rings true on a lot of levels although with a lot of room for alternative analogies…IMO the musical genre commonly known as Smooth Jazz strikes me sorta like Monet’s water lilies and a lot of Renoir’s figurative work.  Coltrane & Miles, evoke the visual art of, say, a Robert Motherwell or a Jean-Michel Basquiat to me.  It’s very subjective, of course, and who knows why one genre is one person’s cup of tea and another’s cue to turn off the sound system?  I find Smooth Jazz very likable and have recently discovered/rediscovered the rather sizable catalogue of Grover Washington Jr.’s music.  Certain moods have me listening to other subcategories of Jazz with less frequency but with equal enthusiasm.  Listened to two of Eric Dolphy’s earlier albums yesterday and plan to listen to more (Tidal) in the coming days whilst working on a fairly representational (realist) charcoal piece.

One more thing... I didn't actually attempt to answer the question you posed: "Is improvisational jazz to impressionism art as smooth jazz is to realism art?"

Realism is not monolithic. Nor is abstraction.

Compare a newspaper photo to a photo by Edward Weston. 

They are arguably equally "realistic" yet what they convey varies enormously. 

I'd suggest that what's most helpful in the end is what Louis Armstrong said: "There is two kinds of music; the good and the bad". 

If we remember this, it can help us avoid getting too hung up on what's most naturally appealing to us and keep us focused instead upon what's  being communicated and the skill/invention that's on display, whatever the style.

Needless to say, this is often difficult! 

 

Sorry for the typo... the second Paul Klee quote should read: "Art should be like a holiday-- something to give a man the opportunity to see things differently and to change his point of view". 

@estreams:

" Impressionistic art requires a lot of mental work to make sense of. I just don't see it or get it, appreciate it or like it. I also find, as hard as i may try to enjoy improvisational jazz, that i don't get it, appreciate it, or like it. Instead, I love Realism art and instrumental smooth jazz!!"

Nothing wrong with that-- each to his/her own.

I am confused by your choice of Impressionism as "difficult", however. Most Impressionist works are very pretty with easily recognizable subject matter.  No doubt these are some of the rerasons why it's probably the most popular style, world-wide. Think Monet, for example. 

Perhaps what you mean is Expressionist Art -- especially Abstract Expressionist. Art, such as Pollock, De Kooning, Gorky, etc. ?
Scrawly, chaotic, messy stuff-- the "my kid could do that with fingerpaints" stuff. 

As a right-brained person who's made quite a bit of art and who enjoys both abstract and representational approaches, I'd suggest to you that abstract art cannot be "made sense of"-- it's simply not designed to fulfill that function. It is designed to communicate but not in a literal manner. It's not a puzzle to be figured out, logically. If you approach it in this way, it's understandable that it feels like "hard work". Abstract art implies rather than replicates. There is a fampous quote about this by Paul Klee-- "Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible".  What does it make visible? That which is otherwise hidden. Here is another of his quotes: "Art should be like a holiday; something to change his point of view". 

Please understand that I'm not saying "This is the truth"-- I'm only attempting to convey to you the spirit of abstraction. 

I very much hope this does not sound patronizing or elitist to you because it's not about "High Art" or "Low Art".    

We could think of art as a spectrum, with photography that has no aim but to represent optical reality perfectly, at one end and the most abstract painting at the other end. 

On the photography end of the spectrum, think of a newspaper photgraph. All you notice is the subject-- let's stick with a bridge across a canyon. There's no mistaking what the subject is and the medium used to convey this information is entirely transparent. It's like an audio system that's so perfectly resolving that it adds no coloration to the music. You see a bridge crossing a canyon and you give little thought to the quality of the medium communicating this image. What you see is what you get. 
This is your "black and white" world. 

Now, as we move across the sprectrum, we come to a Photorealist artist, such as Chuck Close, known for enormous and enormously life-like, portraits. In fact, you might at first assume they're photographs. At the same time, once you learn they're not photographs, youbegin to pay more attention to the medium or mark-making. You may marvel at the artist's technique, for example. You're no longer wholly focusing upon the subject; you're beginning to also focus upon how the image is being delivered to you and perhaps, how that shapes your expereience of the subject. 

Next, moving just a bit futher along our spectrum, we might encounter a drawing of a bridge across a canyon, executed by someone with incredible draughtsmanship. You still recognize the subject -- bridge across a canyon-- with no difficulty but you do notice certain aspects of how the image is presented. You may marvel at aspects of the technique-- a masterful use of shading, perspective or varying line weights, for example. Because it's arguably more difficult to create a "photographic" quality with pencil, you may marvel at how the mark-making creates such a convincingly representational image and thus, you pay more attention to the "how" as opposed to solely focusing upon the ""what". This doesn't detract from you capacity for comprehending the subject -- bridge across a canyon-- but the medium (pencil drawing) and the qualities of mark-making it employs are beginning to take on more weight in your process of perceiving what you are looking at. they are being to exert more of an influence upon your experience of the art-work. 

In the middle of the spectrum, we find art in which the subject-- bridge across a canyon-- and awareness of the marks that convey the subject take on equal weight in the experience of perception. You notice the brush-strokes as much as you notice what they're conveying or constructing-- an image of a bridge across a canyon. Furthermore, the mark-making aspect begins to convey more than purely optical information. It begins to provide information on other levels. For example, you may get the sense that the artist has a very comfortable association with the bridge- Maybe he crossed it many times as a child on his way to see his favorite uncle. Or, perhaps the mark-making gives you the sense of danger and foreboding-- it's a bridge you might easily be swept off by the wind toward a rendevous with death on the jagged rocks below. 

You get the point, I hope. When we eventually reach the complete other side of the spectrum, there's very little representational reference to a bridge crossing a canyon. The marks simply do not provide any easily recognizable clues to anything we recognize. On that  side of the spectrum, we expereince the very opposite of what we saw in the newspaper photograph-- the medium or mark-making utterly dominates and the subject seems to have competely left the building. . . er canvas. 

This is where the most Abstract visual art and most abstract music lives.
What you get is what you see/perceive. But the method of perceiving what is being conveyed by the artist is very different from the method that worked on the opposite end of the spectrum. There is black and white but ther are also many shades of gray... and they're not neatly arranged-- they're all jumbled up, together.

The rational mind is of little use, here. It is instead about sensing or "feeling into" what's on the canvas. And I'd argue that such sensing is pretty much impossible if you are, at the same time, trying to "figure it out". You cannot simultaneously engage the left and right sides of the brain!  The need to "drive the entropic world we live in towards black and white as much as possible" and "...put order to chaos" falters here. In fact, it is only by surrendering the above drives that one can "get" the art on this end of the spectrum. 

Some people prefer hanging out on the "black and white" side of the spectrum; others favor the middle while some prefer the chaos of the other side. 

It's a very human drive to praise what pleases us and reject what does not. This extends to embracing those who share our inclinations and demonizing those who do not. 

If you feel entirely satisfied by Smooth Jazz and representational art, enjoy your preferences!  Don't listen to those who tell you are wrong.

At the same time, we can all feel somewhat dissatisfied at times by exclusively focusing upon that to which we're most naturally attracted. 
At such times, it can be enlivening to reach out beyond our habitual
comfort zones and explore something a bit different. But when someone tells us we should be listening to something more sophisticated, hip or whatever, that's not much of an incentive. 

I hope this is helpful in some way. 

Well…..lemme see….as a person who quite enjoys classical, jazz, and various forms of ‘rock’….and also studied art through my youth and fine arts in college….

I would equate (if that is possible) improvisational jazz to ‘abstract expressionism’. Think DeKooning, Pollock, Gorky, etc.

’smooth jazz’? probably horrid ‘black velvet’ paintings you used to see being sold on the street corner. Certainly not ‘realism’.

That is all 😛

Ive played with good technical players who's playing left me cold. It lacked life. It was sterile, w/o emotion. What good is music if it doesn't connect with the people. And most of them are going to judge the music on emotions...how it makes them feel. Simple music is what most understand the best.

@bdp24  Yeah, there are more than a few out there who listen to difficult, non-straightforward music simply to demonstrate how "intelligent" they are. I have to say, too, that my first exposure to atonal, polytonal, rhythmically complicated music (using the word "complex" would be too snobby) did hurt my sensibilities. 

I was still close to the single digits in age when my dad gave me LPs of Stravinsky's Petroushka and a "Divertimento for Orchestra" by Nicolai Lopatnikoff.  I put 'em on and hated them. I think my dad hated 'em, too, which is why he pawned them off on me. The thing is, it wasn't long before I was enjoying the heck out of them. They expanded my mind. I'd drive my friends crazy by putting them on the record player. Long story short --  If the music speaks to me on an emotional level I'll listen to it no matter how noisy, crooked or straight it might be. For me it's the art not the science that counts.  But still -- Live and Let Listen!

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?

As a professional musician, these posts make me want to kill myself.

Endless scope for inexact analogies.

Like: Kenny G. is to Andy Warhol as Charlie Parker is to......................

tablejockey ...

I have the same feelings about Kenny G. as you do. However, I saw him one night as a guest on the old Arsenio Hall show. Kenny G. played his soprano sax without all of the electronics backing him up. It was just Kenny G. playing straight-ahead jazz. Believe it or not, the man kicked butt. Why he didn't cut recordings like that is beyond me.

Frank

"One last thought, going back to my “cacophony” complaint; i know i need better resolving speakers than what i have today. I have a feeling that hearing a better separation of instruments and notes could help open the aperture to broader jazz & genre enjoyment."

Try avoiding the "genre specific" speaker mindset that some appear to have. Your "perfect "speaker will sound good for everything.

"Smooth Jazz" can be broken into categories. Just keep the drum machine, synthy, processed Kenny G. stuff out of my collection. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-mjt1ypiF8

Are you familiar with Jeff Golub? He was Rod Stewart's touring guitarist during Rod's corny years in the late 80's
Another good "Smooth Jazz"  artist.