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, |
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
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, |
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... |
While I like jazz generally (especially 50's & 60's), to me "smooth jazz" is like wallpaper. |
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. |
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. |
Kudo's to you Albert. It's always refreshing to observe the truth in print. Hot system there too. Whewwwwww, doggie! |
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. |
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 |
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... |
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. |
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 |
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" |
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 |
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... |
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? |
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 |
Thanks for pulling that one out of the hat Garfish. It brings back memories:~) |
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 |
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 |
|
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. |
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. |
...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. |
Clueless, you are right of course, to me you make excellent sense. Tis nothing but the lament of an old man. Cheers, |
Clueless, I'd go for "required reading". The post expresses straightforward opinion, on subject, and offers arguments in support. So, one can agree or disagree, and refute or uphold the arguments... or use different arguments and personal experience.
Further, one person's not choosing to like the musical preferences of another person does not mean the latter's personality, raison d'etre, existence, etc, is on the line!
I don't like smooth jazz -- what LITTLE I know of it. That doesn't mean I won't speak to someone that does, and does NOT listen to classical. Rather, why not share differing experience between us? Cheers! |
ya Detlof those times are gone and they were short too! You mention Monk, Coltrane, Armstrong, Davis, Ellington, Bley, Hodges, Bechet and Parker. Where are the likes of those now? If you take Bley out of the list they were all born within a generation (Bechet is a bit early at 1897 and Coltrane and Davis bring an end to it in 1926). Like watching a flower bloom or some other miracle. But doesn't this happen all the time? One generation plows the field and several others spend their time weeding and seeding there until well... it's fallow.
That being said I admit I listen to some of the weeders with some real respect. After all .. not everyone can be an Einstein, Edison , or Freud...right.
Maybe we can use your comment as a new thread. Was it "mindless bickering" or "required reading"? (we've had both responses).
But lets all be careful,
"Once you ignorance is gone you can never get it back"
Carla Bley
Sincerely, I remain |
Someone here mentioned that Smooth Jazz as elevator music. I agree. It's okay as background music, but it's nothing I'd rush out to buy. Smooth Jazz CD sales represent 2 % of the market in the U.S. I think that any correlation between smooth and classic jazz sales is dirctly proportional to education of the form and exposure. Most people that I've had over to the house have never been exposed to jazz from the 1950's or 1960's, except for what they hear in movie soundtracks. Once exposed, I've found many that have asked me who it was, what label, where to find a copy. At another post, someone had mentioned that Smooth Jazz is available at Columbia House and that Classic Jazz wasn't. I'd include most stores in that also. Possibly it's the lack of exposure. |
Thanks Frank for your kind words! Cheers, Detlof |
Bravo Onhwy61; It couldn't be said better, IMO. "Brother Ray" is certainly one of my long time favorites, but I also enjoy Shirly Horn, Diana Krall, Buddy Guy, Emmylou Harris.......... so much music, so little time. Cheers. Craig |
I believe Ray Charles said the following:
"It's all folk music 'cause donkeys don't make music."
Those are wise words from Brother Ray, an accomplished jazz singer -- well actually he was an R&B singer, except for when he sang those C&W songs, but that's when he wasn't being a soul singer, or pop singer...and let's not forget his gospel work.
Don't get so hung up on labels. Good music is good music. |
As a P.S. to my above...I bought a nice "mini" system for my youngest son for his bedroom on his birthday in late November.(like I had for my oldest son when he was 7..now a Jazz trumpet player is 3 bands). As an addition to his musical birthday he was able to use the money from his Grandma in anyway he wanted. One of those "ways" was to buy the Dave Koz Christmas CD.
We fell asleep several nights with the sounds of the Dave Koz, Charlie Brown and other "Jazz" Christmas cd's.
My point?,...music is a good experience..be it Jackson Browne solo, the Planets played in NYC or Chicago..or our local "Jazz" people live here in Madison, Wi. In wanting to be a good parent and understand my children...I must remember they have understood my music....and I want to understand theirs. |
Actually, Krelldog, we DO have a jazz station in Spokane, Washington (KEWU) that DOES play " old, tired, whiney(?)" Classic Jazz. It is quite enjoyable.
Also, I'd like to mention that it is damn tough getting tickets at the "... Jazz Alley" in Seattle whenever a tired old guy comes to play several shows. I remember Horace Silver playing 4 nights, all which were standing room only.
I understand you have a passion for smooth stuff, some of us prefer our old Jazz. Like others have mentioned here, it has more soul, more meaning to us. |
Perhaps there is a difference between late-night FM "Smooth" Jazz and Contemporary Jazz? My oldest son grew up listining to Miles, Baker, Desmond...and Johnny Hartman. Now, he helps me to enjoy Kevin Mahogany, Terence Blanchard and more.
For my son and I, it is not a contest between older Jazz and current Jazz..we feel that this is an on-going evolution. With us it is more of a difference between Jazz and late-night FM...mall music. |
Detlof, too bad the rating system isn't around. That post should be required reading.
$3500. for Lee Morgan's Candy???? Nice record, but really.
Regarding Wynton, People should listen to Standard Time Vol. 1, and then decide. No he isnt Trane, but Trane isnt Wynton either. Just my opinion.......Frank |
Clueless, That "sincerely I remain" thing cracks me up every time I read it. Is that an original or some old vaudeville shtick? |
I thought this was going to get pretty out of hand, I am not going to get involved with this any more. Enjoy the mindless bickering.
~Tim |
Contemporary Jazz is an attitude, played by epigones and mostly, to someone who is intimately familiar with the "old stuff", its just plain stale and boring. Technical excellence is usually high, but an essential part is missing, probably disolved by political correctness, masss culture and the creative brains (usually black), going different ways these days. With Monk the anger was REAL and it gave his music a presence and a rawness which you could feel. The loneliness of Coltrane could be heard not only in his lonely woman theme, Miles'aloofness, his despair was in his music, Ellington, a musical genius, was driven by a social message, who swings like Basie these days or is funny like Carla Bley? Where is the velvet of Hodges, the clear smoothness of Bechet? Where is that deeply engrained musicality of Satchmo's...even his farts were music....etc.etc. No, Jazz was never really smooth, except when it became commercially bastardised. Was Parker smooth?
But these times are gone, what we have now is the attitude, but neither the pain, nor the cojones. Just MO. |
Frogman, very well said indeed.
Krelldog, you seem to have a strong dislike for classic Jazz. The point I take with you is that because of your tastes, howerever educated they may be? you seem to judge smooth music to be superior to Jazz. You use it's popularity to make you case, if you continue with this logic than you will find country music to be the supreme art form.. ( I'll take country over smooth anyday )
I have been very impressed with the insightful posts in this thread and find it very refreshing to be talknig about music and not gear.
Smooth jazz is like those sappy romance novels, and Jazz is literature. |
Historically significant albums to contrast classical (bebop) jazz with contemporary (smooth) jazz. Bebop: Time Out by Dave Brubeck, Blue Trane by John Coltrane, Kind of Blue by Miles Davis, Sunday at the Vanguard by Bill Evans, and Straight, No Chaser by Thelonius Monk. Smooth jazz: Breezin by George Benson, Duotones by Kenny G, The In Crowd by Ramsey Lewis, A Day in the Life by Wes Montgomery, and Mister Magic by Grover Washington, Jr. |
Sc53, I fear that you are only one Lp short of neurosis. No one is going to come to a conclusion anytime soon. Personally, I think if you are on a journey down the ECM road that is very good indeed. Remember that the journey is where it is at and the conclusion is .... well... the end of the road.
Sincerely, I remain |
I've been reading this thread for several days now and i still have no idea what "smooth jazz" is or is supposed to be. If it's Kenny G, I don't like him. If it includes ECM artists, Pat Metheny, Bill Frisell, Mike Scofield, I do like them all very much and thought they were contemporary jazz. In fact, I have been proud of myself that I've expanded my love of jazz from just the classic jazz of the 50's and 60's that I began with and now am familiar with and excited by the music of some contemporary artists. Now I fear that they may be labelled "smooth jazz," which has a negative connotation. Like liking disco. Please, someone, summarize the posts recorded here and give me a conclusion: what is smooth jazz, and who is playing it?
Thank you.
ps I went to a local jazz club not too long ago and heard/saw Patricia Barber and her band, and they certainly seemed to me to be playing jazz. her voice wasn't a typical jazz singer's, like Ella or Sarah, but her delivery, syncopation, dynamic range, and emotion were certainly in line w/her very talented musicians. Wasn't this contemporary jazz? i could never call it pop. |
Clueless: Pat to me sounds smooth(that's how I feel listening to him) I can continue my list with Chick Corea, John Scoffield, Mike Stern etc... That's the jazz musicians that certainly have a jazz level of sophistication but on the other hand I do not need to concentrate my attention as deep as I did before when I first started to listen to them.
Believe it or not I can listen to Ornette Coleman to relax myself knowing all his colours and thoughts comming through his sax.
I can also listen to CD101.9 "SMOOTH JAZZ" NY radio station but there will be no trace in my memory of any piece played -- just simply not interesting. |
Marakantz (how's the poetry coming): the Methany - Charlie Haden effort, under the Missouri Sky ,is listenable too, but somehow I do not like to think of it as "smooth jazz." Call me an elitist - Maybe I need a shrink. Where is Detlof when you need him.
What the hell is the Methany/Haden cd anyway? Marian McPartland has an advertisement for her show where she has 3 or 4 tunes play, all completely different, and she simply asks "is this jazz" after each tune. Very effective and makes a point. Me thinks we are not going to solve the issue here.
Sincerely, I remain |
The problem here is the insistence of some on calling this genre of music, Jazz; not the inherent value of the music. The great irony is that the PLAYERS of this music themselves would be the first to admit that this music is not Jazz. Call it fusion, instrumental pop, even pop-jazz; whatever!. But Jazz it ain't, and that's ok. Remember, the title "smooth-jazz" was not coined by the players ot even the listeners; it was coined by the radio stations who wanted to capitalize on the respect, credibility, and glamour that the term Jazz conjures up. This is a genre with it's own easthetic and for some to insist that it is something that it is not is kinda silly and does the genre a disservice, even if it does a pretty good job by itself. There is plenty of music in this genre that is played with sincerity, soul, and sometimes even virtuosity; unfortunately there is plenty that is pure zacharine. In fairness, we also know that there are plenty of "real" Jazz projects that leave a lot to be desired, and speaking for myself, I would rather listen to Dave Sanborn milk a melody, or to Michael Brecker astound with his incredible virtuosity, than to some of the real Jazz artists who can sometimes put out less than memorable work. At the same time there are many truly great Jazz artists who would sound out of place and just plain wrong trying to play in the "smooth-jazz" style. Just because it IS Jazz, does not make it good.
Now, if some insist on comparing the two genres and attaching relative value to each, in general terms; there's no contest folks. Excluding the work of artists such as Chick Corea, John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Brecker, and others who play what can legitimately be called electric-Jazz, the level of sophistication and craft in simply good, never mind great, Jazz is so far above that of most "smooth-jazz" that it almost feels ludicrous to bother with a comparison. And while I think that a group like The Yellowjackets can be very exciting and many of the tunes (especially since Bob Mintzer joined the group)are interesting and well crafted, there is nothing in this genre that compositionally, and to me for sheer beauty, comes close to a tune like "Lush Life" and countless others. As far as the craft goes, I assure the skeptics that if they could be a "fly on the wall" at the recording sessions of say, Kirk Whalum and Joe Lovano, they would be astounded. At the Lovano session you will hear performances, beginning to end, and maybe even some "first takes" of brilliant instrumental interplay and improvisation. As for the Whalum session, well you have to decide which day and which player you want to hear on any given day. Do you want to go on Tuesday morning and hear the drummer and bass player "lay down tracks", or Wednesday afternoon to hear the piano player rerecord the twenty-third bar of the tune for the tenth time; because in that spot the bass player dragged a tiny bit, and since it is already on tape, he has to adjust (play badly) his playing to make the music work? Or do you want to go on Friday to hear the star of the show play seven different versions of his tenor solo on "Groove Me"? Or lastly, do you want to go the following Monday and listen in the control booth while Whalum and the producers decide which piece of which solo they will patch to which piece of a different solo; and then plug it in over the existing rhythm tracks. Inspired music making happening here. Not! |
The problem here is the insistence of some on calling this genre of music, Jazz; not the inherent value of the music. The great irony is that the PLAYERS of this music themselves would be the first to admit that this music is not Jazz. Call it fusion, instrumental pop, even pop-jazz; whatever!. But Jazz it ain't, and that's ok. Remember, the title "smooth-jazz" was not coined by the players ot even the listeners; it was coined by the radio stations who wanted to capitalize on the respect, credibility, and glamour that the term Jazz conjures up. This is a genre with it's own easthetic and for some to insist that it is something that it is not is kinda silly and does the genre a disservice, even if it does a pretty good job by itself. There is plenty of music in this genre that is played with sincerity, soul, and sometimes even virtuosity; unfortunately there is plenty that is pure zacharine. In fairness, we also know that there are plenty of "real" Jazz projects that leave a lot to be desired, and speaking for myself, I would rather listen to Dave Sanborn milk a melody, or to Michael Brecker astound with his incredible virtuosity, than to some of the real Jazz artists who can sometimes put out less than memorable work. At the same time there are many truly great Jazz artists who would sound out of place and just plain wrong trying to play in the "smooth-jazz" style. Just because it IS Jazz, does not make it good.
Now, if some insist on comparing the two genres and attaching relative value to each, in general terms; there's no contest folks. Excluding the work of artists such as Chick Corea, John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Brecker, and others who play what can legitimately be called electric-Jazz, the level of sophistication and craft in simply good, never mind great, Jazz is so far above that of most "smooth-jazz" that it almost feels ludicrous to bother with a comparison. And while I think that a group like The Yellowjackets can be very exciting and many of the tunes (especially since Bob Mintzer joined the group)are interesting and well crafted, there is nothing in this genre that compositionally, and to me for sheer beauty, comes close to a tune like "Lush Life" and countless others. As far as the craft goes, I assure the skeptics that if they could be a "fly on the wall" at the recording sessions of say, Kirk Whalum and Joe Lovano, they would be astounded. At the Lovano session you will hear performances, beginning to end, and maybe even some "first takes" of brilliant instrumental interplay and improvisation. As for the Whalum session, well you have to decide which day and which player you want to hear on any given day. Do you want to go on Tuesday morning and hear the drummer and bass player "lay down tracks", or Wednesday afternoon to hear the piano player rerecord the twenty-third bar of the tune for the tenth time; because in that spot the bass player dragged a tiny bit, and since it is already on tape, he has to adjust (play badly) his playing to make the music work? Or do you want to go on Friday to hear the star of the show play seven different versions of his tenor solo on "Groove Me"? Or lastly, do you want to go the following Monday and listen in the control booth while Whalum and the producers decide which piece of which solo they will patch to which piece of a different solo; and then plug it in over the existing rhythm tracks. Inspired music making happening here. Not! |
