...sometimes the post becomes a chat where we continue to share and can be redirected by us off the topic which is OK imo. That's what the chat is here for.
Someone said that smooth jazz is good for background music which is complete true. If I'm sitting in the cabaret and having dinner before the party hearing some smooth jazz --that's where I want to hear it -- not rock not classics... I never remember SJ musicians except David Benoit or George Benson.
As an expert on musical experiences I can say that the smooth jazz listeners can "jump" to listen to something more sophisticated later on. It's good that kids listen to the SJ. Maybe later on they'll be listening to Carla Bley or Ornette Coleman with their dads and/or moms.
For NY area 101.9 listeners I strongly recommend from time to time to switch off to 88.3 public jazz radio for REAL jazz. |
There was a time when jazz was America's popular music. It was THE music of young people. The tunes were straight forward, easy to listen to with hummable melodies and above all you could dance to them. Bebop essentially destroyed these popular elements of jazz. Less than a decade after bebop, Miles and Gil Evans even tried to take the swing out of jazz. Do I need to remind you of what Chuck Berry said about modern jazz? It's not surprising that right at that time young people starting to listen to rock n' roll. After all, you can dance to rock. I don't know the exact date, but real jazz died along time ago. That stuff played by Dizzy, Parker and Coltrane is okay and it probably sounds good in a concert hall or some other place where you sit down to listen to music, but real jazz was meant for dance halls. |
Thinking about this over the past couple of days, I believe one of the problems I have with the general SJ genre is the electric bass. I love electric bass in many contexts, but it's a distraction for me in SJ, particularly that slap-and-tickle style of playing that is so popular. Add to that the cheesy keyboard and synth sounds and, well, include me out.
That said, there are exceptions. Just can't think of any at the moment. |
|
Rupertdacat, I don't know what Chuck Berry said but I can tell you from personal experience that it is futile and sometimes dangerous to try to duck walk to Coltrane.
Sincerely, I remain |
Re Onhwy61; I'm no music historian, but in 1957, Chuck Berry said in his song "Rock and Roll Music":........."I have no kick against modern jazz unless they play it too darn fast and change the beauty of the melody and make it sound just like a symphony......."
He goes on ......."gotta be rock roll music if you wanna dance with me". Cheers. Craig |
Thanks for pulling that one out of the hat Garfish. It brings back memories:~) |
Onhwy61, makes some outstanding points that are undeniably true. (much as I hate to admit it). Melody lines are indeed what most people listen for, and remember, AND are attracted to.It also is true that the Count Basie variety of Jazz, that includes more melodious standards, and the like, as well as swing is mostly missing, in my preferred bebop genre. Yet, the imagination with bebop is limitless. You can listen to it and discover new perspectives as time goes by. Tunes without improvisational foundation, are also quite valuable, to our musical jazz heritage, but somewhat less interesting at a introspective level. My opinion only...........Frank |
Boy, people are putting some good thought into this....good subject..and, mostly, thoughtful responses.
Something I noticed, that my Jazz trumpet playing son and I
discussed, is the over-use of reverb in current Jazz and Smooth-Jazz recordings. For Christmas he gave me an excellent CD by Terrence Blanchard with several lady singers..Diana Krall, Cassandra Wilson..etc,. and after listening to it several times I was trying to understand why it is a good an not great CD. The answer...such a great trumpet player..with a world-class Monet trumpet..with state-of-the-current-art singers..and they have put so much reverb onto his trumpet playing as to mock it!
In listening to a local smooth Jazz station..it seems that almost all of the music is so over-processed and over-reverbed that it takes away from the skills/talent of the artists.
Any thoughts from the rest of you? |
Once Chuck Berry asked Keith Richards when they were together in the studio for a joint project:
-- Men, you've got a hell of a skill -- why don't you play jazz?
-- There is no money in there he..he... |
Marakanetz: Keith Richards is a great R&R rhythm player but he ain't Joe Pass and could not make it two measures into a typical jazz score (whole notes aside). All due respect to Chuck Berry. I think Chuck was trying to rub up a little. I once heard Richards say that he made more money off Muddy Waters than any man on earth and I tend to agree. More power to him.
Sincerely, I remain |
This issue definately opened some dialogue. Reading the responses has been a real eye opener on how some people feel strongly about being the winners of their point of view verse compromisers with the other's position on what makes good music (jazz). A wise person stated that it is far better and smarter to first understand the other person's POV before trying to be understood when faced with new or unknown situations.
My current musical interest evolved out of listening and getting hooked on artists like Santana, Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Charlie Byrd, Miles Davis, Freddie Hubbard, Donald Bryd, George Benson, Herbie Hancock and Herbert Laws during a summer vacation with my Uncle in 1970. This musical experience was a watershed event for me because it opened my mind to all types of music (especially jazz - contemporary, smooth, traditional, straight ahead, fusion, be-bop, post-bop, world, etc.) My dominant interset is in jazz and is still evolving and growing even though it appears that radio programers are moving away from most forms of jazz. (Smooth or contemporary jazz at least got people interested in exploring all sub-genres of jazz.) For those of you who are familiar with JazzTimes and JAZZIZ, it's nice that these magazines support different styles of jazz to satisfy ppeople's various taste in music.
Those of you that appear to be hardliners for or against either style of the music discussed here should recommend an Artist's work which will act as a bridge to the other's genre. Who knows maybe there will be winners on both sides.
Let me try this out; for you Smooth Jazzers listen to Joe Pass (whitesone) or Lew Soloff (hanalei bay), and for SA Jazzers try listening to Joe Fuentes (good cup of joe) or Jeff Lorger (kickin' it).
Regardless of your preferences, please support the Artist you enjoy by attending concerts and buying their music because in the long run we all will reap the rewards of new music.
"The difference between a mountain and a molehill is your perspective" |
Nice post Lngbruno. Best if we are slow to label good performers like some listed above (Frisell, Brecker, Metheny ect). Really hate to label Joe Pass other than as great. I second the idea to listen to Joe and suggest his "Virtuoso" album. Its a series - get the first Lp/Cd in the series.
Sincerely, I remain |
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. |
from my understanding jazz is basically the original era of king oliver and satchmo and the like. every era after this actually has name associated with it whether it is big band, bop, hard bop, fusion, smooth etc... |
12-23-10: Coltrane1
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. Maybe not in this forum but here is an excerpt from my PFO Product of the year award, as posted at Music Matters Jazz. I wrote that exactly... http://www.musicmattersjazz.com/critics.html#13 |
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! |
An interesting thread. I would suggest that saying jazz is considered America's only true art form makes one question the definition of 'art form'.
Among music, bluegrass and musicals are certainly also native to the United States. The problem with most other 'art forms' is that if you define them broadly enough, like 'painting', the USA is obviously too young a region. If one goes more detailed, there are plenty. |
The western movie genre is also a uniquely American art form. Sonny Rollins understood the connection to jazz. And John Wayne said "That'll be the day" before Buddy Holly. |
While I like jazz generally (especially 50's & 60's), to me "smooth jazz" is like wallpaper. |
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... |
Coltrane,
My only question is how many people strolling down 52nd Street in the 50's realised what they were listening to?
It was a moment in time.
Regards, |
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. |
Calling Kenny G, The Rippingtons and most similar stuff contemporary jazz is kind of like calling cool whip and velveeta cheese modern cuisine. Contemporary players like Dave Holland, Tim Berne, Fred Frith, Gerry Hemingway and Ken Vandermark get a fair amount of respect, (but maybe not a whole lot of $$$). Going back a couple of posts, it could be argued that blues and a few of its evolutionary mutations have American origins. Instrumental surf rock per the Ventures, The Mermen, Los Straitjackets, Link Wray and Dick Dale for example. Sorry if this is getting a little too off topic, but another huge uniquely American figure (whose recent death has been puzzlingly overlooked on this site) is Don Van Vliet (Captain Beefheart). He put out records with percussive elements and phrasing that you can't pin on anyone else and he influenced a heck of a lot of other recording artists. |
Just my two cents worth but I believe the way in which we listen to music informs our tastes at any given time. Some may listen to music in an analytical way and "true" jazz may be what they do that with. Some may find the emotional message enough, and certainly either trad jazz or smooth jazz can accomplish that. Sometimes you just want to sit back and not require such a high level of analytical listening or emotional involvement and sonic wallpaper suits that moment. If you were seeking a relaxed, laid back mood and smooth jazz accomplished that for you, who is to naysay the worth of it? I have a large collection of traditional jazz on both LP and CD, and enjoy it immensely and yet there are times when smooth jazz is what the moment and mood requires. To use a cold war analogy, maybe peaceful coexistence is what's called for rather than mutually assured destruction. |
|
Coltrane1,
Don't get me wrong.I am not being dismissive of the time. I admire the jazz from the era.It was a moment in time that will never will be duplicated. It is that looking back I feel it is appreciated more than it was during the time it took place. Time was needed to see exactly how and why that era is so special.
Einstein's theory of relativity or stepping foot on another planet does not need time to see it alter the direction of life on the planet.To gauge it's it's impact however,time is needed.
Regards, |
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. |
Some truth to your comment, Coltrane1, but I think youre forgetting the impact the industry has on whether youre perceived as traditional or smooth jazz. Talent doesnt seem to count for as much as what the producers and marketing execs think your place in the scheme of things is. Are you saleable seems to count more, rightly or wrongly. A very talented musician who thinks he is striving to be perceived as a more "serious" jazz artist may be pigeonholed by the industry as "smooth" jazz. Does that make him less talented than the artists who are put by the industry into the "serious jazz" category? The artist will get airplay when and where the executives think he or she should, and that is a little bit (but not by much) different than it used to be. The thread was why doesnt contemprorary jazz get more respect, and I think at this point in time most acknowledge black musicians' contributions and struggles. I've been a musician for a long time, classically trained from when I was 7 as well as self taught on contemporary music, and I find the comment about "for those who know music" very elitist. Are you saying that those you consider "less knowledgeable" cannot make a determination about what type of jazz they prefer at any given time? |
Interesting thread. But the true question should be; Why Doesn't JAZZ Get Any Respect?! When was the last time you saw a Jazz segment on an awards show? Where are all the Jazz stations on radio? Why are Jazz clubs so hard to find? IMO Jazz can be compared to Classical in that it's barely being exposed to the youth and that results in a music that's fanbase continues to dwindle with each passing generation. I find that the majority of Jazz discussed here AND at jazz sites I hang at almost always are discussing music played decades ago. So on top of an uncaring general public, the people that DO enjoy the genre are usually digging music by artists that are dead. I'd never deny the greatness of classic Jazz, but the difficulty in being a successful musician playing Jazz was also one of the primary reasons "Smooth" flourished as it did. How else can you explain people like Herbie Mann, Michael Brecker, and Sonnie Fortune making records featuring electronic beatboxes? It's a sad state of affairs but I'm not concerned for myself, I know what I like and I'm not worried about 'scratching my itch' anytime during my lifetime. But my 12-yr old niece doesn't understand vinyl, certainly doesn't get large audio rigs, and can't name a single Jazz artist. What's it gonna be like 50 yrs from now?
And if, like me, you have a true passion for sub-genres like Latin Jazz or Fusion.....fuhgedaboudit!!! |
I'm not buying the racial component as the root of the jazz vs. smooth jazz debate.
Black/White race relations infuses virtually every aspect of American history and the evolution of jazz is a prime example. Jazz is not the only area where the general public has marveled that a white performer can competently do what any number of black performers excel at. And it's a fact that the level of difficulty and artistry involved in creating jazz is not fully appreciated. Witness that Wynton Marsalis has dedicated his professional life to trying to get that respect.
With all that as backdrop at some point jazz evolved and became a non-exclusively black music style. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point in the last generation or so it became a toss up whether a really good and inventive jazz musician was black or white. To take the point even further, that musician may not even be American. Traditional jazz will always be a form of black music no matter what the race of the musicians, but some parts of jazz have moved beyond that border. And it's not as if the border is clearly demarcated. (It's easier for me to see it in rock music since rock is a simple music form. The Beatles playing "Long Tall Sally" are white musicians playing rock which is a black music form. The Beatles playing "A Day In the Life" are still playing rock, but it's not derived from black music, which is not to say it is completely divorced from.) At some point the concept of jazz became an international music form that while based in black music is not entirely anchored to it. People observed this as far back as the Miles Davis/Gil Evans collaborations.
In many ways smooth jazz is to jazz what early rock was to R&B. Just compare Chuck Berry's guitar work to T-Bone Walker's. In the end it's not so much about the ethnicity of the musicians as it is about the that of the audience they are appealing to, which in turn is about the color of money. |
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. |
Coltrane, you missed the point entirely. No one equated classical jazz with smooth jazz, the point made was both have their place and each deserves trheir own respect for what they are. And you seem to have answered your own r hetorical question-peace out. |
I agree that the race component is, if not entirely, mostly irrelevant to the debate about "contemporary" jazz. I say "mostly" irrelevant, because race has been a formidable force in the history of jazz; obviously. It is extremely difficult to discuss the subject in our politically-correct society.
Coltrane 1, I agree with much of what you say, but not all; and certainly not as concerns the relevance of race issues in the current music/jazz environment. I will try to express some thoughts/feelings in a way that, if they are to have any real significance at all, will surely rub some the wrong way. For my inability to express those thoughts in a way that is totally inoffensive to all, I apologize. But, I know where my heart lies. So, my apology only goes so far. Anyway, here goes:
The dirty little secret, and one that we white guys are too often unwilling to truly embrace, is that the greatest jazz artists have been black; end of story. There have been a few notable exceptions, but there is no question in my mind that the true innovators in jazz, and those that did the best job of expressing, through their music, the deepest depths of the human condition, were black artists. Not because blacks, as a group, have superior expressiveness ability, but because of the other part of the dirty little secret: the depth of the pain that blacks were submitted to by a predominantly white culture. Good art is always a reflection/expression of what is happening in a society, and we all know that there were some pretty terrible things going on in our society, leading up to the birth of jazz. But, and this is a big "but", that was then, and this is now.
Society evolves, race issues have evolved, and jazz has evolved. Contemporary (current) jazz, some of it clearly valid, simply doesn't have the relevance that music that expressed the social/racial turmoil at the turn of the 20th century, through the era of the civil-rights movement did. How could it? When we now live in a society which, in spite of all the cries of doom and gloom, is still one in which there is a tremendous amount of wealth, and the members in it's lowest economic strata are still able to have a lifestyle that is the envy of the vast majority of the rest of the world. We tend to lose perspective. Is it any wonder that much of the art expresses a kind of vapidness, and lack of true emotional complexity?
I don't buy that racism plays an adverse role in the success of black contemporary jazz artists. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true. I know several young white artists trying to establish themselves in the NYC jazz scene, who feel that black players get preferential treatment from producers/promoters. It wasn't long ago that Wynton Marsalis got some legal heat for trying to replace the white members of his band. Is racism dead? Of course not; probably never will be.
We are all racist. It is programmed into our genes. It is what we as individuals do with that fact that makes the difference. We strive to be more enlightened individuals by recognizing our flaws. But, losing perspective, and using race as justification for lack of self-reliance is as bad as active racism itself. We have a black president, and every ethnic color is well represented in every position of power in our society. I would prefer to celebrate that new reality, than keep looking back. And maybe then we can get to the point that we can freely state that we don't like a particular Obama policy, without fear of being called racist. Or that I prefer Tom Harrell's playing to Terrence Blanchard's without fear of the same.
Re the success of the likes of Kenny G, Chris Botti, etc. In the scheme of things, does it really matter? |
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. |
For some supid reason it takes too much time for anyone to get the respect they deserve when playing jazz or blues. It also took time for the old standby's to get any respect in the day and we still have not heard from all of the greats never mind the contemporary artists. IMHO. |
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm probably the only full time professional jazz musician (yes, they do exist :-) reading this thread. Here is our perspective on "Smooth" jazz in a step by step explanation. The short answer is, we are protective of the word jazz- it's that simple. Most of us think that a whole lot of smooth jazz is just a boring commercial gimmick that has nothing to do with what we define as jazz music. I'm not saying it's good or bad music, I'm saying that most of it should be called smooth rock, or better yet, smooth R & B. Combine that idea with the fact that all it takes is one hack to get a ton of credit and press, and all of a sudden the whole category looks bad. It seems that a lot (not all) of what is called smooth jazz combines the weakest grooves from hip hop or R & B, with some pretty mediocre improvising. If were just called light rock (like it used to be), then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the improvising topic would be a non-issue for the genre, and it wouldn't have to prove itself as an art form. It would just be another form of entertainment/music. Now, here is why Jazz musicians in particular get prickly about the use of the word "JAZZ" in smooth jazz, which I feel is the only problem with the genre. Really. Stylistically, it's as valid as anything, but associating it with jazz probably hurts it more then helps it. First, here's a disclaimer. I've played my fair share of smooth gigs as an electric bassist (I also play a ton of acoustic bass. Actually, I just made a record using Scott LaFaro's bass, if you're interested in such things). Personally, I feel that the style is a lot more fun to play than it is to listen to, but I have heard the style done at a high level and really thought it was great. Musicians are quirky in what they hear in music sometimes. Yes, most of us think smooth jazz is silly, but not from a stuck up place in our hearts. You see, most of us spend our lives developing our improvisational skills to a very high level (for little reward, I might add). It becomes a language that is VERY complex on so many levels. It's an art form that has complexity and also spirit. To do that, we basically forsake a normal life of stability and finances, from a traditional standpoint. Many of my neighbors and non-musician friends have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. They can't relate at all. Then I tell them that I'm also an audiophile and they look at me like I have the plague, but that's another thread (and support group). I'm not crying poverty, mind you. I'm just saying that we don't go into it for the money. Because we don't go into it for the money, some of us get very protective of the word jazz. Like I said before, to say that you are jazz musician is to also say that you are striving to be a complete master of your instrument. I don't necessarily hear that coming out of a lot of smooth horns. You, as a non-jazz musician, might not be able to hear that distinction as easily as a professional jazz musician. Not's not a slam or a dis, it's just one small explanation why we musicians sometimes might not appreciate another player. Anyway, the true masters can improvise in a way that would appeal to your average non-jazz listener as well as make us (jazz musicians) stare in wonder at the way they can weave through complicated chord changes. Look at Stan Getz and Pat Metheny, for example. They've had commercial success and appealed to millions, but they're also highly respected by the people who can hear into the mysterious world of improvisation. Heck, you can even say that Getz was the original smooth jazz artist. Mass appeal with a pop sensibility, but man, he could also improvise! And what a sound! I'm not going to name names- I'm to focused on working on my own weaknesses to worry about other cats, but I've heard a lot of what I guess are commercially successful smooth jazz artists and thought that their improvising and command of their instruments were lacking. That's a big reason why some smooth cats don't get respect from straight ahead players. We can hear what they need to be working on, while some non-musicians might just hear a good back beat that makes them want to dance, so they think its great. There are a lot of people combining jazz with back beats and groove, creating what I guess is called smooth jazz, at a very high level. Check out any Herbie Hancock, late Stan Getz, almost any Pat Metheny, Chick Corea Electrik Band... Heck, how about Groover Washington? There's a cat who could play circles around Kenny G AND still keep his music easily defined as smooth jazz! A friend of mine who plays with Wynton was just talking about how he was into Groover when he was coming up (we were teaching a master class). Then he played a blues, one chorus as Charlie Parker, then he switch to Groover. It was awesome! But I digress. These are a few of the people that are respected my jazz musicians, if that even matters to you. When we use a blanket statement like "smooth jazz isn't real jazz", now you know why we say it. To say that you're a jazz musician is to say that you have a certain level of mastery over your horn, and we can hear when you don't. Personally, I try not to use blanket statements like that, but a lot of my brethren aren't like that. Ultimately though, just like audio equipment, what ever you're happy with is what's best for you :-) -Phil www.philpalombi.com |
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm probably the only full time professional jazz musician (yes, they do exist :-) reading this thread. Here is our perspective on "Smooth" jazz in a step by step explanation. The short answer is, we are protective of the word jazz- it's that simple. Most of us think that a whole lot of smooth jazz is just a boring commercial gimmick that has nothing to do with what we define as jazz music. I'm not saying it's good or bad music, I'm saying that most of it should be called smooth rock, or better yet, smooth R & B. Combine that idea with the fact that all it takes is one hack to get a ton of credit and press, and all of a sudden the whole category looks bad. It seems that a lot (not all) of what is called smooth jazz combines the weakest grooves from hip hop or R & B, with some pretty mediocre improvising. If were just called light rock (like it used to be), then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the improvising topic would be a non-issue for the genre, and it wouldn't have to prove itself as an art form. It would just be another form of entertainment/music. Now, here is why Jazz musicians in particular get prickly about the use of the word "JAZZ" in smooth jazz, which I feel is the only problem with the genre. Really. Stylistically, it's as valid as anything, but associating it with jazz probably hurts it more then helps it. First, here's a disclaimer. I've played my fair share of smooth gigs as an electric bassist (I also play a ton of acoustic bass. Actually, I just made a record using Scott LaFaro's bass, if you're interested in such things). Personally, I feel that the style is a lot more fun to play than it is to listen to, but I have heard the style done at a high level and really thought it was great. Musicians are quirky in what they hear in music sometimes. Yes, most of us think smooth jazz is silly, but not from a stuck up place in our hearts. You see, most of us spend our lives developing our improvisational skills to a very high level (for little reward, I might add). It becomes a language that is VERY complex on so many levels. It's an art form that has complexity and also spirit. To do that, we basically forsake a normal life of stability and finances, from a traditional standpoint. Many of my neighbors and non-musician friends have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. They can't relate at all. Then I tell them that I'm also an audiophile and they look at me like I have the plague, but that's another thread (and support group). I'm not crying poverty, mind you. I'm just saying that we don't go into it for the money. Because we don't go into it for the money, some of us get very protective of the word jazz. Like I said before, to say that you are jazz musician is to also say that you are striving to be a complete master of your instrument. I don't necessarily hear that coming out of a lot of smooth horns. You, as a non-jazz musician, might not be able to hear that distinction as easily as a professional jazz musician. Not's not a slam or a dis, it's just one small explanation why we musicians sometimes might not appreciate another player. Anyway, the true masters can improvise in a way that would appeal to your average non-jazz listener as well as make us (jazz musicians) stare in wonder at the way they can weave through complicated chord changes. Look at Stan Getz and Pat Metheny, for example. They've had commercial success and appealed to millions, but they're also highly respected by the people who can hear into the mysterious world of improvisation. Heck, you can even say that Getz was the original smooth jazz artist. Mass appeal with a pop sensibility, but man, he could also improvise! And what a sound! I'm not going to name names- I'm to focused on working on my own weaknesses to worry about other cats, but I've heard a lot of what I guess are commercially successful smooth jazz artists and thought that their improvising and command of their instruments were lacking. That's a big reason why some smooth cats don't get respect from straight ahead players. We can hear what they need to be working on, while some non-musicians might just hear a good back beat that makes them want to dance, so they think its great. There are a lot of people combining jazz with back beats and groove, creating what I guess is called smooth jazz, at a very high level. Check out any Herbie Hancock, late Stan Getz, almost any Pat Metheny, Chick Corea Electrik Band... Heck, how about Groover Washington? There's a cat who could play circles around Kenny G AND still keep his music easily defined as smooth jazz! A friend of mine who plays with Wynton was just talking about how he was into Groover when he was coming up (we were teaching a master class). Then he played a blues, one chorus as Charlie Parker, then he switch to Groover. It was awesome! But I digress. These are a few of the people that are respected my jazz musicians, if that even matters to you. When we use a blanket statement like "smooth jazz isn't real jazz", now you know why we say it. To say that you're a jazz musician is to say that you have a certain level of mastery over your horn, and we can hear when you don't. Personally, I try not to use blanket statements like that, but a lot of my brethren aren't like that. Ultimately though, just like audio equipment, what ever you're happy with is what's best for you :-) -Phil www.philpalombi.com |
Phil ..
Spot on and I'm in full agreement , i felt the same way when in years past, People would mention Kenny -G and jazz in the same sentence. :)
My father was a trumpet player in his earlier years and growing up we were surrounded by Jazz, Ernie watts, Oscar Peterson, of course Getz, Brubeck, et al ..
I must admit i could never get into Miles and i do purchase/listen to "smooth Jazz" ......
Regards,
|
Phil ,
You should do your next album in the house, the sound, natural ambiance and the humanity of it all could be felt thru that utube clip, pleasant surprise indeed.
+10 |
I love Contemporary/Smooth Jazz. I listen to Oli Silk, Najee, Boney James,Everette Harp, Euge Groove, and a host of others. My problem is that more often than not the recordings suck! |
I think there is also an issue with tone and recording techniques. I find today's jazz to "clean." Take John McLaughin, one of my favorites. His tone on his new record has no balls and no sole. It's very "new age" which is terrible.
Gone is the Gibson hollow body and tubed Fender Classic Reverbe. |
While I'd NEVER put John McLaughlin And Smooth Jazz in the same sentence (although I just did!;), I'd agree about the sound of his guitar in his last few recordings being entirely too processed and sterile. John's most smokin' recording was done with the instantly recognizable sound of a Gibson Les Paul, 'Inner Mounting Flame'! I'd love to hear him (and all the others who've abandoned it) get back to their roots!! |
I have EVERY pre-80's McLaughlin album and love his tone! Les Paul's, ES-335's, ETC...always awesome.His new sound is weak.
At least Santana's tone is still good, although I can't stand the music. |
Santana always manages to keep that great tone, whether its his early recordings done with a Gibson SG Standard, or the more contemporary stuff using a Paul Reed Smith. ANd of course the choice of amps and pedals affects tone as well.--Mrmitch |
"The short answer is, we are protective of the word jazz- it's that simple.
And that makes perfect sense. When a word" defining a specific level of excellence broadens to encompass other levels, less excellent, those who do credit to the original standard are diminished. |
jazz (jaz) noun 1.)foolishness; nonsense. 2.) wildly exciting or energetic.
Would that make smooth jazz: 1.)kinda foolish 2.)mildly exciting or lethargic?
Doesn't matter to me. I still like it. I don't think rap gets much respect, either. But I respect it for what it is. I don't care for it, but I have ninety 12 inch singles I play from time to time just because it's different. I'd bet the hardcore jazz fans would have a fit if rap was called something like urban jazz, just because of the word association. |
Some rap shows a lot of vocal agility, comes from a real place / displays some originality ... and delivers impressively tight, complex clusters of syllables. I don't have much of an appetite for the stuff, but I respect it way more than most of the swill that's tagged as smooth jazz. As stated earlier there's a lot of music out there that functions very well as wallpaper without carrying around a load of stale corny cliches. |
