Wow, what a great post from 8 years back that avoided me until today.
I find it extremely interesting that not one contributor to the post mentions that Jazz, like it or not, IS considered America's only true art form.
Smooth Jazz as I recall evolved from the successful fusion groups of the late 70's and early 80's. Back when Kenny Goreleck was a featured player on a Jeff Lorber Fusion album. I believe smooth jazz to have been more of an entrepreneurial commercial brain child of record executives more so than a natural evolution of the music, or at least classic jazz.
Reading posts from those who by their own admission don't understand classic jazz I think there's a direct correlation between ones lack of understanding of music in general and their individual education. By education I'm not speaking in terms of formal education as much as what have you exposed your ears to musically speaking over the course of your life? Music programs have been completely eliminated in schools throughout the land for the past 15 years. We've seen a dumming down of our society as it pertains to the electoral process. I believe that same dumming down exists in our society where music is concerned. Smooth jazz appears to appeal to those who don't desire to educate themselves about the study of music, and to those who'd rather be entertained without having to do any serious thinking on their own. Culturally speaking, this is the dumming down of our society as a whole that has taken place especially so over the past 35 years.
Americans by and large are ignorant of jazz, an art form that was created in its own native land. How much race played into the development of musical ignorance is an important question to ask, for clearly so many of the jazz greats of yesteryear were black men living on the avantgarde of the music. These cats were geniuses, however I defy the average American to name a dozen of them.
The answer I believe to the question what separates classic jazz versus smooth jazz is easily addressed from a technical perspective. As a classic jazz musician you're playing far advanced harmony and rhythmical concepts that are not an element of smooth jazz. The dissonance created by some of this harmonic structure, scales, and rhythm is what makes classic jazz serious music from a musicians perspective. Also I've suspected this is also why I believe most smooth jazz enthusiasts find classic jazz less to their liking. The contrasting harmonies and rhythms of classic jazz simply do not appeal to the ear of the average uneducated listener, and therefore the smoother harmonies that make up smooth jazz, are more palatable to the unthinking listener, or rather the smooth jazz listener. Put simplistically, the society wants to be entertained without having to think about what's being presented. This is the dumming down of a culture, and why I believe true classic jazz is heralded overseas but not so much so in America. We live in a rock and roll money driven culture, and therefore what's popular becomes what some exec feels you should be packaged as good music.
I wholeheartedly agree, most smooth jazz artists can't hold a candle to the musicianship of a classical jazz artist, for they lack the repertoire of the classical jazz musician. That doesn't make the smooth jazz artist any less of a musician, for it can be entertaining. I watched in awe one night at Seattle's local jazz alley as smooth jazz artist Gerald Albright wowed the audience with his version of the old standard Georgia. Gerald played circles around anything Kenny G could be heard doing. This was the first smooth jazz artist I'd heard live that had actual jazz chops. I learned during a set break speaking to Gerald that his chops had been honed as an LA studio musician. That was no surprise, for it was evident though he was labeled a smooth jazz artist his development was far beyond what one normally hears from a smooth jazz player.
The point I'm trying to make is, one has to take the step to educate themselves musically speaking, and by doing so one learns better how to listen and how to better understand what they're hearing. However there is no doubt that classic jazz is here to stay, even if only played by those among us who respect and enjoy the music for what it is. A true art form. |
Well, I know it's a touchy subject, and perhaps too heavy to get into here, but one can't help but wonder what place jazz would hold amongst the American public if its legacy was laced with predominantly white artists as opposed to black artists. I'm not suggesting the best players are all black, for there have definitely been great contributions by white players as well. However, it's a valid question one has to ask themselves for the facts of history reflect these cats were discriminated against whilst creating this art form. Gillispie and Parker were known to title specific songs in protest of the racism of the times. Ornithology was one such example. |
Kudo's to you Albert. It's always refreshing to observe the truth in print. Hot system there too. Whewwwwww, doggie! |
T_bone and Onhwy61, very valid points.
Personally, I've always thought of art as being in the eye, or in this case the ear, of the beholder. I can't now recall how many decades ago it was I first read the phrase in print: Jazz is America's only true art form.
At the time I read it, it somehow seemed to fit. But you're absolutely correct, western films are held in high esteem throughout Europe.
Albert may likely be far more qualified than I to shed some light on how the phrase came into being. Okay, now you've got me very curious. Who was it that first coined the phrase, and in what social context was it first conveyed? Looks like I've got some serious researching to do. My intuition tells me it seems like a phrase that could have been used by either a jazz historian or black historian. If anyone has any actual knowledge of how this phrase came into being I hope they'll chime in.
Smooth jazz is okay in my book. Though I'm not a fan of the genre, any music that points new listener's in the direction of classic jazz I'm all for it. This music, classic jazz, has a beautiful and romantic history associated with it. And of course a fabulous cast of character's. I missed my calling. I'd have loved to have lived during jazz's heyday strolling down 52nd street amidst the sounds of genius filling the air on any given Friday night.
Charlie Parker lives... |
Neil Armstrong setting foot upon the moon one July 1969-
Albert Einstein discovering the theory of relativity-
The Beatle's appearing on the Ed Sullivan show one 1964 Sunday evening-
All were but moments in time, that changed the direction of life on the planet.
Jazz on 52nd street was a laboratory of self discovery for musician's, and society - Both delving the depths of music unlike anything that had been done before.
To a larger degree than many recognize, this point in time too changed the face of music forever. To be dismissive of this period does not give the music or its creators the respect they deserve. These cats were geniuses living on the avantgarde cutting edge of change - Both musically and socially. |
This debate goes far beyond simply soothing ones "mood" or preference for music.
Peaceful coexistence is fabulous and the ideal. In an ideal world every individual would have a fair and equal opportunity to develop themselves and their art form.
A musician, like any other artist, lives to create and perfect their art.
It is in that spirit I suggest any actual true discussion of "smooth" vs. classic jazz cannot be fully discussed unless acknowledging the impact the component of race has had upon jazz since its inception.
The most direct way to both fully understand and examine the "smooth" vs. classic debate is to examine the component that truly fuels this debate for the working professional musician.
So often there are those among us, whatever their motives, who attempt to rewrite history. Granted, there were cultural issues afoot that weighed upon so called "classic" jazz during the period of its creation. Historically, from the turn of the century forward, jazz was labeled and degraded as the 'devils music'. A plethora of other well known negative labels not worth repeating were attached to it in an attempt to dismiss both its artistic merit, and the contribution of those who created it. Jazz has an established history of many writers attempting to derail jazz, and therefore the public's wide acceptance of the music.
70 years ago there was resentment among a vast majority of players and creators of jazz, so many of which at the time of the big band era who couldn't find regular work. It is felt by many of todays current music scene that same resentment is fueled today by writer's who promote new and less talented white players which many feel don't possess real talent, while obvious talented new black players struggle to make a living with their art for lack of equal exposure. This division does not end there. Some even go so far as to believe a music that was born of slavery, and the black american cultural experience, has been in effect, '"taken over" by a society that has now accepted the music as an art form without recognizing the contribution of those who created the art form.
Ironically enough, it may come as a surprise to some that jazz preceded baseball by almost a decade by breaking the color barrier. Black players were integrating white bands years before Jackie Robinson put on a Dodgers uniform. I repeat, it was jazz music, that went against an established cultural norm when it wasn't socially acceptable to have a black player in an all white band.
Bebop didn't just result from talented players like Parker, Gillespie, etc., as a natural course of evolution of the music. Many believe bebop was a result of struggling artists attempting to take jazz to a higher level of technical expertise in order to distinguish themselves from less talented and working players. In other words, if you could play bop you were distinguished from those that were working yet less talented. There was a resentment among the talented players of yesteryear. This same resentment is alive today in the "smooth" vs. classical debate.
Many believe the racial dynamics that were an undercurrent of jazz 70 years ago are alive and well today in the "smooth" vs. classical debate. And there is a resentment of those who play this music at the level of an art form, for they are the true keepers of the flame that will keep this music alive.
But for those that know music, from a technical perspective, there is no debate for there exists no true comparison between both genres. |
MrMitch, it's a given that white record exec's have always called the shots concerning talent, promotion, production. I eluded to that in earlier comments regarding 'packaged goods' being bought and sold in the dumming down of a society. Profit trumps art, but generally only always. This is America after all.
I've addressed very specific and detailed reasons why 'smooth' does not gain the respect of an educated classic jazz listener. I've offered cultural, social, and political components that I feel all contribute to why smooth has not nor will it ever reach the level of an art form. It's canned "jazz" targeted for the masses. Exec's do the same thing with pop.
I agree to disagree with you regarding education and listening. There's nothing "elitist" about it. Either one has some idea of what they've just heard or they're clueless. I don't see how suggesting educating oneself about rudimentary elements of music makes one an elitist.
For example, let's examine your acknowledged specialty, classical music.
One is better equipped to appreciate a Bach or Beethoven fugue if they've some idea what a fugue is. That's all I'm suggesting. Rudimentary education of musical elements better equips the listener of processing and understanding the classical music they're listening to. Without it, it's blind listening. Of course one could really go all out and take a classical music appreciation course at most community colleges and learn a lot about classical music they're not going to discover on their own by flipping 33's.
I'm not suggesting one has to have a degree in jazz theory to understand jazz. But a basic education of musical elements empowers the listener with a greater insight into what they're hearing.
I'm saying the less knowledgeable can choose to remain less knowledgeable, or not. Education is always an invitation. Either one has the calling or not.
Only a fool would suggest what someone "should" or "should not" be listening to. People listen to what they enjoy. But until one makes the choice to understand that a diminished 5th is simply an enharmonic spelling of an augmented 4th, which is the same as a tritone, then they're clueless when a jazz artist is talking about tritone substitutions. This is about as basic a jazz terminology as jazz gets, and it's commonplace knowledge among listeners who've not studied music to any great degree.
Mrmitch, I've a question you're perfectly qualified to answer.
You're a classically trained musician whose dedicated years to the study of classical music. So if a listener believes all classical music sounds alike how would you go about educating them that no, all classical music is not alike? Of course you'd assuredly point out the many different periods of classical that are distinctly different from one another throughout time, i.e., baroque, classical, romantic, eras etc. Perhaps you'd be offended if someone equated a commonplace easy listening elevator music to a Brahms concerto. But what's the difference, all I hear are violins in both pieces? The point is, the better equipped one is to define what they're hearing, the better equipped are they to determine what their true preference is. As I mentioned before, I've nothing against smooth for it's responsible for attracting a certain percentage of the more curious to classical jazz. But to equate smooth with classic jazz sounds foolish for it's not on the same level harmonically or technically. Anyone suggesting smooth and classical jazz differences aren't worthy of distinction does not understand jazz or music.
But I've an open mind and welcome hearing why I'm completely wrong. |
Onhwy61, as a contributor to the original thread 8 years ago, welcome back!
You don't see the connection, fair enough.
Contrary to what you wrote 8 years ago many believe jazz evolved because of Bebop, not in spite of it.
As an example I offer a common question that's asked:
"When did Jazz musicians start to take themselves seriously as artists?"
A typical response to that is it may have begun when folks began noticing members of the Basie or Ellington bands were playing really well and they stopped dancing and started listening.
Hmmm, that's about as plausible an explanation as I've heard.
No doubt, jazz at one point was the pop "dance" music of the day.
Contrary to your suggestion years ago I offer that Bebop is as responsible for elevating jazz to an art form as any other musical aspect of the historical jazz pot. This is creole music. Literally. It's like a gumbo, with a lil' of this and a bit of that. You can't have jazz without the blues, and you can't have the harmonic and rhythmic complexities of jazz without the subtleties of Bebop.
Furthermore, remove Dizzy Gillespie, a serious Bebop player. and a foremost ambassador and educator of jazz responsible for taking the music to all corners of the globe and what do you have? One couldn't imagine removing Stan Getz and the Brazilian influence that impacted jazz during the very early 60's. Bebop's had an even greater influence upon jazz. I couldn't imagine jazz without Dexter Gordon. Dext' never stopped being a 'bop player, nor did countless others throughout the course of their careers. |
Frogman, brave post. I applaud you for going there.
It's no secret that blacks excel at most anything rhythmically. That's obvious on the dance floor, the basketball court, or when it comes to creating jazz.
Wynton Marsalis holds a minority position. The playing field isn't established from his position in NYC, but rather from the board room. 99.9% of those calling promotional shots are of course white. Wynton's experienced great criticism for he's perceived by many as having made decisions that attempted to level the playing field.
Race is still a true issue today as it was 70 years ago. It's believed by many that white writers, which are by far the majority, tend to promote less talented white talent.
Yes we have a racially half black president who is also half white, and whose childhood experience was not one born of the black community. That's been well documented. The experience of most blacks in our society don't reflect the life Obama experienced. Most were not sheltered from racism, and know first hand about racism. But in America, if you're 25% black and 75% white you're still a black man if your skin pigmentation reveals anything other than white characteristics.
I strongly disagree we're all genetically wired to be racist. Most blacks aren't raised to hate or distrust whites. But being black in America is something blacks have to come to terms with very early in life. Still today. That doesn't make blacks a victim it's simply the reality of being black in this society. One merely has to attempt to hail a cab in NYC to see how far this society has come in terms of if it's acceptable to be black in America.
Having said all that, there have been many a ground breaking white artist that have produced major impacts on jazz. Bill Evans, Stan Getz, Jim Hall, the list is endless. But as you say it's obvious if one began a stat' sheet and started tallying the number of sax players, piano players, trumpet players, guitar players, blacks have been highly successful as being some of the more prominent players throughout history, in spite of the obvious racial issues they've had to overcome.
I'd think for most the music trumps the race of the individual who created it. I repeatedly return to listen to Jim Hall's Concierto De Aranjuez not because he's a white player but because it's a superb recording. Same goes for Miles' Kind of Blue.
Jazz music knows no color. It's the industry seeking the 'next great white hope' from the board room with the belief that a hot white player would yield greater returns than a hot black player that creates issues for new artists being judged based upon their skin color rather than their talent. |
"Almost all of the real jazz artist are long dead."
Rok2id
Spoken like a card carrying member of the Dead Poet's Society.
My listening room walls are laced with wall hangings of a few of the greats. Miles, Trane, Gillespie, Gordon, Parker, Peterson, Montgomery...I've run out of wall space and have a ton of wall hangings boxed in the garage.
It sets a certain mood while sitting amidst visual reminders of these 'dead poets'...each of them a poet in his/her own right.
It's enjoyable to revisit this thread on an annual basis. Happy New Year 2 All! |
