Albert: Check out jount album Pat Metheny and Ornette Coleman to listen some "smoothe jazz".
I believe and probably you too that Pat isn't from that pop kitchen described on that tread. |
I'm on the contemporary jazz side too but not smooth -- sounds tooo sentimental and naive and share the thought with Bobalool. Miles Davis is one of my favorite jazz musicians came through several generations of jazz and his last albums don't sound traditional rather than contemporary. The smoothest jazz(or maybe it's not jazz at all) I can listen to is Pat Metheny which I collect every album and always wait for the next one to come. |
Pbb. No ECM stuff in a long time? What can you mean? Charles LLoyd, Dave Holland (and more)... challenging and loveable. Charles Lloyd brings tears to my eyes.
Sincerely, I remain |
It must be the lawyer in me, but can anyone define "contemporary jazz". I just thought any jazz recorded not long ago or as we speak was "contemporary jazz". I take the odd stab at recordings well received by Downbeat, depending on the comments made, not just the rating. Seldom do I buy newer stuff, however. Why? It just seems to me that jazz was more leading-edge in previous decades. I like the way the quality of performance and the quality of recording line bisected in the late fifties and in the sixties. The more recent stuff too often sounds like a hybrid to me. Yes more "product" than "music". When I want "rock", I go for rock, when I want "pop", I go for pop (thing is I never want pop, it seems)and how about "space music", is it jazz just because it sounds complex and phasy?. I have not listened to ECM stuff in a long while. Some I have enjoyed in the past Eberhard Weber, Kenny Wheeler, Jan Garbarek come to mind. I even listened to avant-garde stuff, and found it difficult to love (Art Ensemble of Chicago, Don Pullen). They get respect, as far as I know. Can anyone out there put names to those contemporary jazzers that have a Dangerfield complex? Are we dealing with fusion and other attempts at getting more people under the tent or at music that pushes the envelope without leaving emotional and spiritual content out? |
|
Krelldog, I can assure you that I am not a close minded idiot. You will note that in my previous post I did not insult anyone personally and I think in any meaningful discussion it is pointless to do so and is definately not a goo devate method.
As to your offer of burning me a cd of this smooth jazz, believe me I wouldn't have entered this discussion if I hadn't already been exposed to much of this dribble before.
I have spent my life studying, teaching and playing music. Mostly Jazz and the Saxophone. I come to this argument understing the history, structure andwonder of Jazz as an art form. When I was younger I heard some fusion-smooth bands, I had some albums like the Yellowjackets and Spyro Gyra etc... but they quickly fell by the wayside. Being a player and a teacher I am constantle exposed to a wide variety of music I'll hear things, Warren Hill, Dave Koz and more Kenny G than I think is healthy. I know this music and that is why my comments are so strong.
You enjoy this music and I don't have a problem with that. I am only hoping to show you that there is so much more and by liming your understanding of instrumental adn improvisational music to this genre of smooth that you are missing out.
Do I really sound closed minded to you?
This is not a debate over the merits of new Jazz and old Jazz, because smooth jazz does not in any way represent the evolution of Jazz in the modern era. Again our argument is one of classification and the disgust of real Jazz fans is this calling this instrumental pop music Jazz is incorrect and creates confusion as to what Jazz is.
As to your radio station playing a lot of smooth and not much Jazz. I would hate to think that we would judge the merits of music based on record sales and radio ratings. Commercial radio has never been a way to judge the merits of music as an art. Sure it's popular the radio station makes money selling commercials, McDonalds is unbelievably popular are we going to argue that they serve gourmet cuisine ? Smooth jazz and Big Macs are popular for the same reason, they are both bland, cheap and predictable.
I do not mean to insult you but rather I implore you to find the real depth in music. By putting this smooth instrumental pop on such a pedestal you are showing that you have not really gained an understanding of Jazz beyond the tip of your tongue. It's flavours are more complex, richer and different from what you are used to, some of it you may want spit right out.
Ultimately you will find real Jazz to have great depth and real feeling, not the cheap pulling of the heartstrings of a manipulative hollywood movie, but real soul that will slowly work it's way into you and enrich your life.
Now my friend I can make you a CD of some of the most wonderful music in the world and if you manage not to spit it out you will find yourself understanding and appreciating the art of music. |
Smooth Jazz is to Jazz as Bubblegum is to Rock. Donny and Marie and the Rolling Stones can both be found in the Rock section but we all know who the real rockers are. Now there are real Jazz musicians creating comtemporary music who are legitimate jazz musicians i.e. Dave Douglas, Greg Osby-but they play sophisticated technically challenging music which is just the oppositie of what smooth jazz is. If you like smooth jazz however enjoy it and perhaps you will learn the difference and graduate to the real deal. |
Musicians aren't good or bad, they're sucessful and unsucessful.
Jazz improvisation is exotic. Its appreciation is an acquired taste.
Smooth jazz gets no respect because it is boring. |
I would like to retract my"old tired winey stale"comment.Music is all about the passion and emotional effect it has on us personally.I saw Warren Hill preform locally at a small intimate club.It was nothing short of a religous experience.Nobody can tell me that it was shallow,or non involving.so I certainly can't sit here in good conscious and crack on something that might be near and dear to someone elses heart.Music has a way of evolving into different styles.Example Rock and Roll,can anyone compare Elvis and Neil Young.So why do the hard core Jazz buffs feel so insulted if someone compares Miles Davis and Rick Braun for example.The smooth jazz fans aren't being critical of the classic older Jazz.So why are they so thinned skin when it comes to smooth jazz.One last point:I am talking about artists such as Bob James,Kirk Whalum,Peter White,David Sanborn,Warren Hill,Rick Braun etc.I am not making a blanket statement,and I don't consider the pop artists that get mixed in to be smooth jazz.Lighten up,if it bothers you that much don't listen.But don't criticize the millions of fans who enjoy it. |
Krelldog: your points are well taken, but let me elaborate on my previous comments. First, I think serious jazz buffs lack an enjoyment of "smooth jazz", rather than disrespecting the music as such. I do think that most long-term "serious" jazz listeners would disagree with your opinion that the top "smooth jazz" artists are among the "most talented musicians in the world". This may sound like hair-splitting, but I would posit that "smooth jazz" artists are highly competent instrumentalists rather than talented as jazz musicians. Most of the music played by "smooth jazz" artists tends to be quite formulaic, and lacking many of the fundamental characteristics that defines jazz. The truly great jazz improvisors are always striving to find unique ways to express themselves musically.
To use an analogy, let's think about cars. "Smooth jazz" artists are essentially the Ford Taurus's of jazz-flavored pop music, whereas world-caliber jazz artists are the Porsches or Ferraris. Jazz is, at its heart, about more than just technical competence -- it's about soul and passion, and about playing music in an intensely personal, improvised way that conveys something of yourself.
To be honest, there are a lot of "young lions" who are acknowledged as true jazz artists that still leave me totally cold -- Wynton Marsalis is perhaps the best example. Wynton knows more about the history of jazz than many experts, and he has superb mastery of his instrument and of jazz composition and its many forms. Wynton is, by any rational standard, an enormously talented jazz musician. Nevertheless, he is -- to me -- essentially a conservatory-trained musician who plays with very little "soul". Do I disrespect Wynton? No, I don't, but I have very little interest in listening to the vast majority of his recorded work.
We could start an entire new thread about the merits of various artists, and how they should be classified in terms of "school". For example, some of the newer vocalists being touted as "jazz singers" don't even belong in the same category as Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, Carmen McRae, Betty Carter, Sheila Jordan, and Ernestine Anderson. Singers such as Jane Monheit and Patricia Barber may be talented vocalists, but it's a real stretch to call them "jazz singers". Monheit, Barber, and company are -- to my mind -- more properly classified in the group which includes singers such as Rosemary Clooney, Peggy Lee, and many of the female crooners of the 1940's. Many were fine artists on their own terms, but they weren't jazz singers.
This particular debate may continue for many more years. So let me close by reiterating the point in my first post: music is about what pleases you, not other people. If that weren't true, how else could one explain rap -- which isn't even music? |
A lot of the practitioners of so called "smooth jazz" rely heavily on a narrow range of cliches and are making sure that the Pat Boone/Michael Bolton syndrome stays alive in contemporary instrumental music. Fluff peddlers who have taken the easy path and succumbed to a movie sequal mentality are not the only musicians who have had a hard time earning respect. If Kenny G, Spyro Gyra and the Yellowjackets spin your propeller that's great, but there's a huge amount of non threatening stuff with a much lower velveeta content that you'd probably like way more. |
Oh and by the way, I like the old stale crap that Chelillingworth likes, provided we are talking about JJ Johnson, Red Garland, Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson and Billie Holliday. |
Discovering ( from this post ) that Pat Metheny is smooth jazz, I heartily join the smooth jazz group.
Are Oregon, Steve Tibbets, and other artists on ECM also considered smooth Jazz? If so, I have a large library of this style music. |
Chelillingworth-First of all I don't think anyone considers Mariah Carey or Celine Dion smooth Jazz artists.The radio stations that play "smooth jazz" mix in light pop for a bigger audience.Thats not our fault.Second,in my area(northeastern Ohio)there is one smooth jazz station.They don't play Miles Davis,Coltrane etc.If there was a demand to hear it you can bet they would play it.You can't find classic Jazz anywhere on the dial.The reason,because there is no demand.To label all smooth jazz as uninvolving,shallow and lacking emotional depth pretty much shows us that your a close minded idiot.Face the facts,smooth jazz has alot more fans,sells alot more CD's,packs alot more concert halls,and is on alot more radio dials than that old,winey,tired,and stale crap you listen too.Send me your address,I'll burn you a CD that will knock your socks off,and make you a believer. JM |
What Sdcampbell and others have said about smooth jazz is what I was saying about classical Pops concerts. While it may be played by a symphony orchestra in a symphony concert venue, it is not classical music. The name sais it all, it is pop music. Same here. To the traditional jazz listener, it may be called smooth jazz, but is isn't jazz. There is no improvisation to speak of. This does not make it bad music; its success is proof enough that is is good music to those who like it. |
I'd like to go slightly off topic for a moment if I may. I picked up a movie the other night on DVD called *For love of country* The Arturo Sandoval story. I would think all jazz music lovers will enjoy this movie. Andy Garcia does a bang up job playing the part of Arturo. Check it out at your local Blockbusters the music is fantastic! |
Why are some Blue Note LP's bringing upwards to $3200.00? (Chad Kassem told me at 1995 Winter CES sold an original "Candy" for that figure). Certainly they are rare, certainly there were few made. They sold new for less than $10.00. Supply and demand?
I'm not looking for a fight. But does anyone see any Smooth Jazz CD or record selling for that much in the future, even without taking devaluation of the Dollar into account? This is an honest question.
|
First of all the statement that smooth jazz musicians are some of the best musician in the world is completely false and is an insult to those musicans who dedicate their lives to the art.
The word Jazz in smooth jazz is completely misused. It is in fact instrumental pop. It is popular because, surprise it is pop music. It is shallow and lacks any real emotional depth, it has nothing to say. It's only goal is to offend no-one and thus it is played in elevators everywhere.
It does offend me as commercial garbage masquerading as music, pretending to be some form of Jazz (an art form)and that is why you find such harsh critisism. Like saying that celine Dion or Mariah Carey is a great jazz singer, that is the level of absurdity we are talking about.
I can not tell you how sad it makes me to know that people mistake this "smooth jazz" for Jazz or even to label it as music at all. To do that is to miss the incredible depth of expression that real music has to offer. Find music that shows you something, that tells a story, that is made with passion, joy or pain and revel in it.
Leave the smooth jazz for the elevators and let som real music into your life. |
It's the old music-as-art vs. music-as-product argument.
For me the "irritating" nature of true jazz (and all artistic music!) is communication direct from the hearts and souls of the musicians, as opposed to the drab dullness of most smooth jazz sonic wallpaper.
Good musicianship is not enough. It takes passion to transcend music to the level of art.
Let the flames begin! |
I agree with you krelldog.I love smooth jazz it has a warm soothing feeling.IT is not in your face.I spend my off days shopping for this type of music and only find specialty discs comprised of numerous artists.No Reference Recordings. |
Drubin- Zero emotional content? That is ironic because I have tried and tried to listen to Miles Davis,John Coltrane,and Dave Brubeck and its the most irritating sound I have ever heard.While I know its great music,I can't listen for more than 5 minutes.I guess thats the beauty of music,it comes in all different flavors.I have a vast collection of music,and I can honestly say some of my best "smooth jazz" is the most emotionally involving music I own.I guess I get a little defensive when something near and dear to me is being picked on. Peace- JM |
I dislike most of the smooth jazz I have heard because it has zero emotional content. Great chops, perhaps, but no feeling. Thus, in my mind, it is indeed elevator music. Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
I am in no way degrading classic jazz.I just don't understand why there is such a negative attitude towards "smooth jazz" In my humble opinion some of the "smooth jazz" artists that are popular are amongst the most talented musicians in the world."Smooth jazz is a totally different sound.It is certainly not elevator music. |
Sdcampbell- You could be onto something, I know smooth jazz NEVER gets my foot tapping. Perhaps we could start classification for jazz as jazz that gets the foot going, smooth jazz(fusion) is everything else. Improvisation, good point, I don't think I could find many modern popular artists that do that, on purpose any how. I must admit I heard something that bothered me the other day and it was a cover of Dave Brubeck Quartet's classic "Take Five" with smooth over tones, I nearly lost my lunch. |
In the so-called jazz/fusion area if you sell a lot of records like most of the artists you mentioned than the critics do not like that - if they can bring someone obscure into the limelight they like that than when they sell they go for the kill and critize them for sappy music. Older jazz artist - they respect those because if they don't than they die as a reviewer. I mean who would critize Miles Davis and Duke ellington. |
I don't think I was one of the guys in a white mask replete with flaming cross that Tim referred to, but I'll venture an opinion anyway: most serious jazz buffs don't consider smooth jazz to be jazz. It may share a few elements of music structure such as harmony, melody, tempo, etc., and have a sound which contains stylistic components drawn from swing, bop, hard bop, cool, etc., but in most cases "smooth jazz" lacks two of the most essential characteristics of "real" jazz: genuine improvisation, and swing in the jazz sense (characterized by a preponderance of syncopated rhythmic figures).
I don't mean by these comments to suggest that "smooth jazz" is an inferior form of music. The whole purpose of music is to create an emotional response in the listener, and any music that achieves that affect is certainly a legitemate form of musical expression. That doesn't mean, however, that "smooth jazz" actually meets the full definition of jazz in the commonly understood sense of the term.
This debate about the merits of "smooth jazz" vs. "real" jazz is mostly an elitist one, anyway. Listen to what you enjoy, and don't worry whether other people like it. |
For the same reason you'll never see the hardcore classical music crowd at a Pops concert. In the end though, to each person it is best to remember what Duke Ellington said; "If it sounds good, it is good." |
Well interesting hearing this from another member, I was met by a bunch of guys in white masks carrying flaming crosses, in another recent thread attempting to defend smooth jazz. Ironic that all of this controversy happens close to the time of the smooth jazz awards in San Diego. I will admit that there are some good smooth jazz musicians out there, and it is great for setting the mood for a special lady and myself. Its hard to classify some musicians Bill Frissel, Pat Metheny, Diana Krall, Lee Ritenour, David Benoit, Chuck Loeb to name a few could be thought of as either-smooth jazz, or jazz- who’s the judge? I don’t care as long is it entertains me. On the other hand there are some very obvious musicians that are as smooth as smooth jazz gets, Boney James, Rick Braun, Spyro Gyra which I enjoy some of their music sometimes as well. Every time we get involved in this topic it reminds me of the rap speaker thread, to label anyone’s music as wrong, is very true to the high-end-audio-snob myth which no one wants to be labeled with . This thread may get hostile.
Tim |
