Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

is this smooth?http://www.soundliaison.com

I find the albums accessible but maybe there is a little too much depth to the music to be considered smooth jazz.
Carmen Gomes Inc;''Thousand Shades of Blue'' is a fantastic live in the studio album.4 instruments;voice,guitar,upright bass,and drums(cajon replacing the drums on the lovely title track).Everything is there great separation,stereo imaging,depth and balance.
The version of Bruce Springsteen's I'm on Fire is a musical and audiophile masterpiece,check out how the snare drum and the haunting guitar voicing complement but never cover up each other.
On the 2nd album,Poul Berner Band's lovely Elvis Presley tribute: Road to Memphis,
you've got tr.6 ''the Colonel''Michael Moore's sax enters oo.45 with just the sound of air,as if he is right there up close in front of you,so intimate.
Again only 4 instruments; guitar at 8 o'clock,sax at 11,bass at 1 o'clock and 2nd guitar at 4 o'clock.the sound stage is almost 3 dimensional.
On the 3rd album Torn,best described as a blues ballad album,you got everything an audiophile album should have (i.m.o.)placement, depth,separation,naturalness,the feeling of being there with the band visible in front you.And musically I find it a great album as well,a beautiful mix of covers and very well composed originals.

Chris Botti had been on the BLUE project that is a blend of progressive rock, jazz and acid.
Kenny G is just cool lookin' dude with soprano sax.

In recent years (since this thread was started more than 10 years ago!), I have become a big fan of Chris Botti. I have attended a number of his performances (at McCarter Theatre in Princeton as well as the Blue Note after Christmas), and I have the Blu-rays of his LA and Boston performances. I especially like his treatments of "The Look of Love," one of my favorite songs. (My favorite -- with Lisa Fisher, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0wvr9-o-I)

I acknowledge that purists may regard Kenny G and Chris Botti as more pop than jazz, but I do enjoy their performances. I know they are different from the bebop style, but to me this is just semantics.

Chazro, don't waste your time.

Kenny G is the first to admit his music is Not jazz. I would add that most smooth jazz is really just instrumental pop music and does not contain the harmonic elements of jazz. Some sounds alright, most I do not care for but I respect your right to enjoy it (or even rap!). I would not criticize someone who is successful and talented enough to sell records and fill auditoriums... Pat metheny a truly advanced jazz musician and composer once gave a scathing review and condemnation of Kenny G, especially his reworking of a Louis Armstrong tune . Google it, its pretty wild....

And i'm waiting for you to provide that short list of the new crop of jazz and blues greats. And answer all the questions I asked. I answered yours.

"Music is History. if you don't understand that, then we will never see eye to eye."

OK, against my better instincts, I'll play. You seem to refer to 'history' a lot in your posts. Music HAS history, music CAN be historic. To suggest music IS history suggests that it's over. Based on the opinions you've expressed here and elsewhere it may very well be possible that music IS over, for you. Understand that I'm not trying to see eye to eye with you, I know what I know. Each time you post it becomes more apparent that you're really not the musicologist you think you are.

I know that a large percentage of audiophiles are older guys that primarily listen to the music of their past, absolutely nothing wrong with that. My love of music pulls me in a different direction, a direction where music is ageless and youthful creativity and energy exists in abundance.

Waiting for that rapier-sharp wit of yours to manifest itself!;)

"Um, yeah it was. Your witty remarks suggest that you know all you're ever gonna know."

Please explain the logic of this statement.

"I could write a very, very long list of extraordinary Jazz but I doubt you'd pay any attention to it."

I didn't ask for a very very very long list, just a few would suffice. I answered your post, point for point. Why would you conclude I would not pay attention your list of greats?

"The fact that you don't seem to be aware of the wealth of Jazz currently being created tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject."

Thats why I asked for you to point me in the direction of this wealth of Jazz. If I knew about them. I would not have asked.

"A man that thinks he knows it all doesn't know very much at all.
-shakin' my head in wonder-"

What led you think That I think I know IT ALL? I never said that. I like the dramatic touch. Like from a script of a play.

"The social conditions that produced the Blues no longer exist." Spoken like a true caucasian! I bet there might be a few people of color that might disagree with you!

If they still exist, where are the blues players? How do you know I'm caucasion? I'm sure a few people of color would disagree. But if I am wrong, why would just a few people of color disagree, what about the rest of the country. They have eyes and brains also.

"So, according to you, there isn't anything noteworthy being created currently in either the Blues or Jazz Genres?! I'll say it a little more gently this time, seeing as how you've got your panties all in a bunch, you might want to do a little homework before making your blanket statements."

How do you know I wear panties? Has that damn Jackson been talking? The rest of this statement is nonsense and not an accurate quote of what I said. I assume you read, so go back and read it.

"I hate these cyber-pissing contests, I usually refrain from engaging but god forbid someone who doesn't know any better actually buys what your selling!"

I didn't know this was a pissing contest. I know I am not in one. And I am not selling anything.

Music is History. if you don't understand that, then we will never see eye to eye. If I have the time, I will state my views on this subject later, since I used up all the space undoing your distortions.

"Oh, come on now, It wasn't THAT naive."

Um, yeah it was. Your witty remarks suggest that you know all you're ever gonna know. I could write a very, very long list of extraordinary Jazz but I doubt you'd pay any attention to it. The fact that you don't seem to be aware of the wealth of Jazz currently being created tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject.

A man that thinks he knows it all doesn't know very much at all.
-shakin' my head in wonder-

Your opinion about Jazz pretty much jives with that other pearl of wisdom you dropped in the Muddy Waters thread; "The social conditions that produced the Blues no longer exist." Spoken like a true caucasian! I bet there might be a few people of color that might disagree with you!

So, according to you, there isn't anything noteworthy being created currently in either the Blues or Jazz Genres?! I'll say it a little more gently this time, seeing as how you've got your panties all in a bunch, you might want to do a little homework before making your blanket statements.

I hate these cyber-pissing contests, I usually refrain from engaging but god forbid someone who doesn't know any better actually buys what your selling!

"Brother, all I can say about this astoundingly naive statement "
Oh, come on now, It wasn't THAT naive.

"you're 150% wrong!"
What percent would I be wrong If I was completely wrong?

"While I'd agree that POPULAR Jazz, Gospel, R&B, and Country is practically unlistenable, as far as Jazz is concerned, there's such a wealth of great music being created here and abroad."

Well POPULAR jazz is the jazz that's dying. Are you saying that all this great stuff being created is the unpopular Jazz?. Name some of this great music being created around the world. What country? Artist? CD? Maybe you are being influenced by that hotbed of hard bop, Norway!

In any event, I hope you aren't one of those people that think any music that is improvised is JAZZ.

From your post, I feel that you are not well versed in the history of Jazz in this country. And I say that with all respect due or not due.

"There are just a few still worthy of the name Jazz player or bluesman. Once they pass on, that's it folks. We can all snooze then. And don't get me started on gospel, R&B or country."

Brother, all I can say about this astoundingly naive statement is; you're 150% wrong! It stands to reason that if you think a genre of music is dead/dying, you're probably not actively looking for new music within the genre. While I'd agree that POPULAR Jazz, Gospel, R&B, and Country is practically unlistenable, as far as Jazz is concerned, there's such a wealth of great music being created here and abroad. Sorry dude, yr proclamation simply sounds ignorant. And I say this with all due respect!;)

Comtemporary in a musical sense could be defined as 'an imitation of the original. All things go through natural trajectories. Right now technology and medicine etc... are going up at an amazing speed, while music, literature, social cohesion and many other things are heading downward at an even greater speed. Nothing stays great forever. If you are a musician and you play in a 'comtemporary' genre, that means you are just a pale imitation of the original. It would be more accurate, and perhaps kinder, just to 'retire' the genre at a certain point. There are just a few still worthy of the name Jazz player or bluesman. Once they pass on, that's it folks. We can all snooze then. And don't get me started on gospel, R&B or country.

I love Contemporary Jazz! I just don't like how much of it is recorded.

I tried to like it,but it just did not take.

"Almost all of the real jazz artist are long dead."
Rok2id

Spoken like a card carrying member of the Dead Poet's Society.

My listening room walls are laced with wall hangings of a few of the greats. Miles, Trane, Gillespie, Gordon, Parker, Peterson, Montgomery...I've run out of wall space and have a ton of wall hangings boxed in the garage.

It sets a certain mood while sitting amidst visual reminders of these 'dead poets'...each of them a poet in his/her own right.

It's enjoyable to revisit this thread on an annual basis. Happy New Year 2 All!

Low exposure ? After 6 or 7 tunes, smooth jazz is predictable. Have you heard the Riita Paakki Trio from Finland ;Christoph Spendel Trio, Germany; Gregg Karukas, USA;
Incognito, UK -- the MP3 only combo on Tupelo Records.

PTMconsulting is totally right ... I gave up on SACD several years ago because of the 45 or so that I owned, fewer than 10 were worth playing. I'm quite convinced that we're asking components to make up for the failure of the recording industry, and all who record to CD/SACD, to offer recordings that are truly concerned primarily with sound (in all aspects) QUALITY. That isn't happening.n No one should have to spend $1000's of dollars just to be amazed by (the sound of) the music being played.

"But these times are gone, what we have now is the attitude, but neither the pain, nor the cojones.”

Detlof, your point is very well made. That’s why, now-a-days, the best jazz is coming out of Eastern Europe, IMO.

This is what I said almost ten years ago- in anger and disapointment probably- I don't remember. I wonder if it still holds good...for me it does. Things haven't got better as far as I'm concerned.
"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."

Music is a reflection of the times; these are some lousy times.

It's not punk or hip-hop.

Because 'smooth jazz' is not jazz. Almost all of the real jazz artist are long dead.

Are you kidding? Some of the best bop era jazz was released on the Contemporary Jazz label. :)

The funny thing is that if you ever go to see any of these "contemporary" jazz musicians live you are probably goin gto be treated to some good playing. There are always exceptions, of course.

The bad thing is, as good and as full of fun and life and chops in a live setting, sometimes the albums just sound dull and lifeless and over produced. Mindi Abair comes to mind - what a great player live, but her ablums make me sleepy.

Rick Braun's early albums had planty of life and live he is a blast to see, but the later stuff sounded stunted by comparison.

Jazz-Lovers Take Heed!! A few weeks ago NARAS decided to cut/get rid of quite a few categories from the Grammy awards. One of the genres chopped was my favorite music; Latin Jazz! I realize there aren't many fans here but cutting Latin Jazz further marginalizes ALL Jazz within the context of the Grammys. A knee-jerk reaction would be to think; "who cares about the Grammys, they're irrelevant!", and you'd largely be right. While this decision doesn't affect MY listening or buying habits, I can't help but think by further limiting the already tiny amount of exposure Jazz (ANY kind) gets doesn't bode well for the future of the music. Doesn't affect US NOW, but how about our grandchildren?

The Grammys have decided MY Jazz is irrelevant, how long before they come after YOURS!?

To me, the modern smooth jazz souds as if it is being performed by musicians on Paxil. There seems to be no real tension, creativity or nuance. The accent seems to be on flow and a relaxed groove. It puts me to sleep.

Though I find a lot of contemporary Jazz interesting and beautifully recorded, nothing pulls at my heart strings like a good swing pulse. Seemed more transparent to me as well.

Phil - I started reading this thread out of morbid curiosity (the subject was a frequent topic with my high school friends growing up).  I was pleasantly surprised by the different perspectives and mostly lack of flaming.

But Phil, I could not agree any more strongly with your points.  The title of the thread reads why doesn't contemporary jazz get any respect...  It does by fans of the idiom.  It may or may not get respect from those with real knowledge of the jazz tradition (be they players or listeners), but it is an entirely illogical premise in that smooth jazz is a completely separate category of music.  Yes, great jazz musicians have performed in the idiom, some quite well, but jazz musicians can do that in most styles of music (Ala Brecker playing his ass off on a James Taylor album, Herbie Hancock recording a Ravel piano concerto, even the guy trying to sound like Freddie on the Us3 cataloop).  The moniker of Smooth Jazz was absolutely a term devised by a marketing exec to piggy back off the prestige and image of the Jazz art form.  Today, it is so bastardized that people who see jazz being advertised in a local club really have no idea what they are going to find if they go (jazz, smooth r&b, show tunes, funk, etc...).   No wonder audiences are confused and sometimes give up... 

And Phil, while I will probably never get to hit with Elliot Zigmund or some of the other cats you play with, you are not the only full time jazz musician on the thread!  We exist...

Greg
Piano
Washington DC

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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 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.

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!

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

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,

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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?

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.